Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 90365

In Minnesota, as elsewhere, the libs have framed it as: "Vote NO. Don't take away the right to marry." Which of course is an utter lie. The right to marry already exists and will not be changed whatsoever by refusing to extend it to homos. So it's not about "taking away" ANYTHING. It's about expanding the definition of "marriage" to the point that it's meaningless, and forcing a secular definition of that institution upon a religious community that refuses to accept it.
The counter to this rhetoric should be "Vote YES. Protect the family and the cornerstone of our culture."

Homo marriage is fascism at its best.

IronJack, Free Republic 45 Comments [10/28/2012 3:53:22 PM]
Fundie Index: 65
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
Leighton Buzzard

The right to marry already exists and will not be changed whatsoever by refusing to extend it to homos.

Absolutely. So what are you afraid of?

10/28/2012 4:00:39 PM

Filin De Blanc

The right to marry won't be changed at all by extending it to gays, but extending it to gays will make it completely meaningless? Do those things not seem at all contradictory to you?

10/28/2012 4:05:14 PM

LAchlan

How is this even a fucking issue? Two people love each other? Let them get married already!

10/28/2012 4:37:46 PM

The Crimson Ghost

I fail to see how letting gay folk marry makes marriage meaningless. I also fail to see how fascism enters the picture.

You sir, are an idiot.

10/28/2012 5:03:51 PM

Mr. Bigglesworth

It would still be marriage, but the recipients of it's legal benefits would include same sex couples, that is all. It would not take anything away from "traditional" marriages. Nobody is going to force your religion to recognize same sex marriage; your church can continue to refuse to marry same sex couples. People will know you for the bigots that you and your church are, but I'm sure they already do so... nothing will change.

Gay marriage will become more and more accepted as time goes on, so get over your big bad self, and deal with it.

10/28/2012 5:10:01 PM

Zagen30

The right to marry already exists and will not be changed whatsoever by refusing to extend it to homos.

Well, I guess you're technically correct that it'd preserve the current state definition of marriage. The issue is that an ever-growing number of people believe that those definitions are discriminatory and wrong.

It's about expanding the definition of "marriage" to the point that it's meaningless, and forcing a secular definition of that institution upon a religious community that refuses to accept it.

Wrong. The definition changes 'from two people, one of each sex, being joined as a family unit' to 'two people, of whatever sex, being joined as a family unit.' That's still pretty clearly defined. Most slippery slope arguments that would be thrown at this are just that, slippery slopes, and thus fallacious.

Plus, as you all so conveniently forget, state marriage laws are, in fact, completely secular affairs. An orthodox Jew's belief that an interfaith couple's marriage is invalid means nothing to any state laws, and if he or she were in charge of processing marriage licenses, they would have no right to object to that marriage because it was interfaith. The state cannot force an orthodox community to recognize that marriage as valid in their synagogue, but likewise that community cannot declare that that couple isn't married in the eyes of the state.

10/28/2012 5:17:18 PM

Zagen30

The counter to this rhetoric should be "Vote YES. Protect the family and the cornerstone of our culture."

Oy vey, this again. No existing heterosexual marriages will be invalidated. If anything, allowing same-sex marriage will increase the total familial strength of the nation since it will recognize gay families as being completely legitimate and will in all likelihood encourage more gay couples to commit to a family. If you think that your marriage to your wife is somehow lessened because a couple of guys in Minneapolis whom you've never met have the same rights as you, you're the problem here.

Homo marriage is fascism at its best.

Please go look up and understand the definition of fascism before you start throwing it around willy-nilly.

10/28/2012 5:18:24 PM

NonProphet

"How many lies & contradictions can I fit into one post?" thought IronJack.

10/28/2012 5:48:32 PM

John

The right to marry already exists and will not be changed whatsoever by refusing to extend it to homos.

The same argument was made against eliminating miscegenation laws that forbade blacks and whites to marry each other.

Protect the family and the cornerstone of our culture

Howe does gay marriage affect you, your marriage or your family?

10/28/2012 6:12:01 PM

Arctic Knight

Allowing two people of the same sex to marry is NOT the same as forcing you to marry someone of the same sex. You marriage will not be affected at all. Fascism is when you either force someone to do something or force them not to do something, not when you allow someone the freedom to choose to do something. The only thing that will change with same sex marriage is your fascism of forcing people to not get married.

10/28/2012 6:44:18 PM

Tina

Fundies sure are obsessed with words. One little word and its definition is more important than a group of people having rights I guess. We're voting on gay marriage in Washington state, too, and the ads for it are overwhelmingly in favor. But the couple anti ads... they literally make me laugh out loud, they're so ridiculous, and a wad of lies. But they basically boil down to "Don't change the definition!" One of the ads actually featured a dictionary page with the definition of marriage displayed, and "one man and one woman" are crossed out and "two people" are written in its place. As if... that's such a horrible thing...

10/28/2012 7:10:32 PM

Doubting Thomas

On the flip side, the right of heterosexuals to marry won't change one bit if the same right is extended to gay people.

I really don't understand how banning gay marriage is "protecting the family."

And again, for the umpteenth time, keeping gay people from getting married is not going to keep gay people from living together anyway, so you might as well let them get married.

10/28/2012 7:11:13 PM

Felix Wilde

Yep, another Freeper Fascist throwing about the epithet with no regard for what it means.

protip: Aggressively persecuting gays = something fascists do.

Also, your reponse to pro-equality rhetoric is as persuasive as a child saying robbers drew on the walls.

@Zagen30: Brilliant analogy. Religious laws do not affect state laws, though you are free to practice them in your own community.

10/28/2012 8:04:23 PM

JSS

In Minnesota, as elsewhere, social conservatives have fought to take away the rights and dignity of gays by adopting such slogans like: "Vote yes to protect traditional marriage!" which is merely deception. 'Traditional marriage' is and always will be allowed and protected. It is not under attack, merely, it in the legal sense (and exclusively the legal sense) will be extended to committed same sex couples. Such conservatives seek to promote their strict views to the point that they want to infringe upon the personal lives and freedoms of gay people.

The counter to this rhetoric should be: "Vote no to the denial of dignity and pursuit of happiness to gays". Being called fascist by freepers is like being called hairy by a band of orangutans.

10/28/2012 8:38:36 PM

TGRwulf

Sorry, but the government crawled up that corner of God's asshole long ago.

10/28/2012 8:46:23 PM

Esquilax

What I love about these kinds of asshole is that they're super into rigid definitions of words when it suits their agenda, but in supporting that same agenda they'll completely ignore the definition of words like "fascist."

Then again, expecting otherwise would be demanding some form of intellectual consistency from a fundie...

10/28/2012 9:35:48 PM

michael3ov

"It's about expanding the definition of "marriage" to the point that it's meaningless"

If two other people who are in love getting married affects your marriage, or anyone else, than your marriage never meant anything to begin with.

I don't see you complaining about reality television, such as The Bachelor and The Bachelorette, where wives and marriages are won elimination style. Or how about the exceptionally high divorce rates in America?

I hate to break it to you but beyond the two people involved,marriage already is meaningless.

10/29/2012 12:04:23 AM

Feral Dog

@ Tina:

Did you see the one that tried to backpedal at the end- something along the lines of "being for traditional marriage doesn't make you anti-gay"? I managed to keep it together until that 'gem'.

10/29/2012 12:43:33 AM

John_in_Oz

After we've forced you to marry a gay guy, we'll force you to marry two women at a time!

Oh wait.

10/29/2012 1:54:47 AM

Tempus

No, it's about expanding the legal right to marry one's partner to all consenting adults.

Check your privilege.

10/29/2012 4:02:00 AM

UHM

There's just one problem: in any democracy any kind of specific religious/theocratic values are irrelevant - because the state, the only authority that can code it into law - is secular, if any state claims to be democratic but not secular, that is impossible. As any state that is not secular dictates it's citizens a religion and therefor takes away one of their rights, any state that is not secular is by definition a fascist state.

10/29/2012 4:02:43 AM

Mister Spak

"Homo marriage is fascism at its best."

Hitler didn't allow homos to marry either. He put them all in prison.

10/29/2012 5:25:28 AM

Table Rock

Marriage is secular you dipshit. Anything religious about your marriage, you bring with you as bonus material.

When I got married, it took $80, a piece of paper, and a magistrate. Then we told everyone we got married and took a cruise.

Please point to the religion in my marriage. Am I attacking the "religious community"? And I'm willing to bet that you don't have a problem with my marriage.

10/29/2012 5:35:33 AM

dionysus

It's about expanding the definition of "marriage" to the point that it's meaningless

I've always thought this was a stupid argument. If gays get married then they are considered a couple (with all of the benefits that come with it) and straight couples are STILL considered a couple (with all of the benefits that come with it). Being married is still a special distinction that is different from being single.

and forcing a secular definition of that institution upon a religious community that refuses to accept it

You don't have to accept it. The government, being a secular institution, does.

10/29/2012 5:55:29 AM

KittyKaboom

Fascism?


10/29/2012 6:07:02 AM
1 2