Insane Troll Logic Award
Also known as raping logic.
Gay marriage is impossible. Congress and the courts and the president can not change this any more than they can change gravity.
76 comments
If same-sex marriages are "impossible", then why don't you just let the government "try" to recognize them already and STFU?
What's the point in worrying about or trying to stop the impossible?
Why put your self into a position where you can so easily fail like that?
Oh yeah, you dont like people questioning your authority..just like all the other freepers. Do as I say, not as I do, and dont ask questions or suffer my wrath.
Well ... the governments of The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Sweden and Norway somehow managed to allow it.
It was much easier than one might think. And these countries still work very fine. No instant breakdown of society there, no "Sodom and Gomorrha". Actually, there was nearly no change in daily life, except that: Homosexual people now can and do marry.
Sorry, you're wrong. But thanks for playing.
Marriage is not purely the province of religion, let alone purely the province of Christianity. Marriage can simply be a legal document. Ceremonies to recognise a joining of two people existed long before Christianity was invented as did homosexuality.
While a Christian gay marriage may be argued to be impossible (assuming one is willing to take the word of some dudes who, a couple of thousand years ago, said and wrote a bunch of stuff they claimed was inspired by a god), a gay marriage is not impossible in and of itself.
And who's to say that this god hasn't changed its mind? The Christian god clearly changed its mind about a bunch of things between the old and new testament. Plenty of things have changed in Catholicism over the years, things that apparently came down from their god by way of the Pope. But there are also things that supposedly came from that god that the Catholic church doesn't want people to know, choosing to reveal only some of the documents for construction of the Bible for instance. Perhaps the Christian god has changed its mind about homosexuality, but everyone to whom the message has been passed is simply bigoted and so just isn't passing it on?
If it is impossible, then how did my country, and many other, manage to allow it?
We're still here, heterosexuals are still marrying, no fire and brimstone from the skies.
The president can change fewer things than you realize, little unlearner. He's far from omnipotent.
Seems pretty possible, since it's already happening in Iowa and Massachusetts as well as in some other countries.
I swear, do these people live in a freakin' bubble or something?
For Free Republic, this really isn't so fundy as it is stupid.
I just wish he'd qualify what he means by impossible.
The marriage itself is, of course, not impossible at all.
If you refer to the act of procreation as part of marriage, then you must be willing to negate any marriages of people who are unable to bear children. You can't have it both ways, dickhead.
Miscegenation is impossible. Lincoln and the nigger lovers can not change this any more than they can change gravity.*
... Oh, wait.
* Sorry, I woke up thinking it was 1860 for some reason.
Yanno, the same things were said about marriages between different ethnic groups, and they were wrong then, and wrong now.
@Anon : True, our societies aren't that much different since our government allowed same-sex marriage. I just miss our good old gravity sometimes though, this whole new "equal attraction between bodies without regard to mass or density" just isn't my thing...
"Gay marriage is impossible. Congress and the courts and the president can not change this any more than they can change gravity."
Meanwhile in the UK, Civil Partnerships go on - as they have done for years. Parliament and the courts here made homosexuality legal in 1967.
Reuters (London): Body of Sir Isaac Newton reported to be floating above the premises of the Royal Society. Scientists are analysing this new phenomenon, to the end of discovering antigravity.
X3
"Gay marriage is impossible"
Argentina, Norway, Belgium, Portugal, Canada, South Africa, Iceland, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Connecticut, DC, Iowa, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire must be figments of our imagination.
That's funny I thought it was happening (as of this writing) in Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, among the Coquille tribe and that's just the United States alone. In the rest of the world the following (as of this writing) perform them: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden and the federal district of Mexico.
Yea, impossible my ass.
It's jam every other day, so it's jam tomorrow and jam yesterday, but never jam today!
And oh yes, I almost forgot. Off with his head!
Let me guess, because of your arbitrary definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, gay marriage is impossible, right? Well here's something you should try to learn, unlearner: you don't get to make those definitions stick in law. The Constitution says so. So suck it.
@breakerslion
"It's jam every other day, so it's jam tomorrow and jam yesterday, but never jam today!"
As I've seen in many a pub (including my local boozer):
image
"Argentina, Norway, Belgium, Portugal, Canada, South Africa, Iceland, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Connecticut, DC, Iowa, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire must be figments of our imagination."
Oh come on, everyone knows gravity stopped working there when they enacted gay marriage.
As I type this, I am sitting in a jurisdiction where same-sex marriage is legal, and yet -- Holy cow, why is my pen floating off into space like that?
Yes, because human social proscriptions and the features of matter are completely analogous.
We'll be outlawing the color green next, then where will we be? ANTIPHOTOSYNTHESIS!
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
You can't say that something IS impossible by nature and then invest any energy in stopping the impossible thing from happening. It already isn't happening, because it's impossible. If you actually BELIEVE it's impossible, then leave the issue alone because it's never gonna happen anyway. It's like banning people from riding dragons.
Unlearner? Neverlearning, more like.
point 1, America is only a tiny portion of the globe. It's laws are generally of no consequence elsewhere.
Point 2. Yes. Just like there is a Santa Claus, there is gay marriage in plenty of places outside the US, and even within it.
Point 3. People who have such an unhealthy focus on the sex life of others are sick in the head. Get help! Urgently.
I live in Canada, where same-sex marriage (stop calling it gay marriage, you think only gay people do same-sex marriage? Oh wait you don't acknowledge bisexuals, nevermind) has exactly the same legal status and validity as your "traditional" marriage. No change in gravity was noted. In fact, I didn't even know it had happened or that is was really an issue (this was five years ago when I was 13) until I saw two Canadian guys get married on one of those wedding shows (similar to A Wedding Story type thing).
Oh, and, kiss my parents' two married friends' asses. Nicer and more entertaining gals you couldn't find. Funny how almost all the gay people I know are also like the nicest and most laidback people I know.
And sorry, you oppose equal rights for them on...what grounds again? Oh right, none. They're not hurting anybody. In fact they might be making the world a better place (a particular Canadian study can't be arsed to find it right now, so use your Googley eyes shows that same-sex couples might possibly be marginally BETTER at parenting than "normal" couples). So what the fuck is your problem?
(Sorry to everybody else, I know this is pretty mild as far as bigotry goes, but I'm pissed off and I'm just venting it all on this person cuz they're never gonna read it. XD)
I really don't like saying so on this forum, but the point is sound, if debatable. In the UK we have "civil partnerships" which give gay couples the same rights in law as husbands and wives, and hardly anyone bats an eyelid. They are sometimes referred to as "marriages" but that is not the official term.
A marriage is a partnership between a man and a woman. A gay relationship is always going to be something else, and I have heard gay couples say that they don't WANT to be thought of as "married", because they see marriage as an exploitative institution. Others would disagree, but the argument here is at least partly semantic (although I realise that when you are dealing with screwballs like Free Republic ideology comes into it as well). Marriage is a heterosexual arrangement by definition. Of course gay couples should have equal rights, but the fact that they can't be married - because of what the word means - is one of the things that identifies them AS gay and some of them at least are proud of it.
@#1245775
I agree with Professor M. You're giving marriage an arbitrary definition. There's nothing about marriage which suggests that it is or should only be between a man and a woman. And whether or not gay people want to be married, or how they view the institution of marriage, has nothing to do with how marriage should be defined.
"Marriage is a heterosexual arrangement by definition."
Uh, no. That contingency may be present in some definitions (it's in the main definition in my Apple Dictionary but in secondary definitions it ALSO mentions same-sex unions), but it is not at the core of what marriage is. Plus you're starting to sound like the homophobes, although I can tell you're "on our side".
But yeah, seriously, your whole "by definition" thing fails.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.