Bill B., New York Times

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

Quote# 91312

I can only pray that the justices are not arrogant enough to override God's definition of marriage, the one that has been accepted by virtually every society in recorded history, to appease a minute minority. a minority that is NOT just seeking equal rights (which I have absolutely no problem with), but to identify themselves as the same as hetrosexual people. The two groups are not the same so why should their union be called the same? Just as monogamy is not polygamy, neither is the union (marriage) between a man and a woman the same as the union (civil?) between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Bill B., New York Times 36 Comments [12/12/2012 4:25:24 AM]
Fundie Index: 33
Submitted By: Zagen30

WTF?! || meh

Username:
Comment:

Check here

1 2

#1481696

LAchlan

"a minority that is NOT just seeking equal rights (which I have absolutely no problem with), but to identify themselves as the same as hetrosexual people"
Ummmm, you might want to rethink that sentence.

12/12/2012 5:22:25 AM

#1481701

Leighton Buzzard

Again, I call for god's definition of marriage. Chapter and verse, please.

12/12/2012 5:27:22 AM

#1481706

OhJohnNo

Well, at least I can see where this one's coming from. I imagine he'd be open to debate.

See, the problem is that historically, "separate but equal" hasn't worked too well.

12/12/2012 5:35:38 AM

#1481726

Table Rock

God's definition of marriage

God doesn't give one. See bible.

the one that has been accepted by virtually every society in recorded history,

You are referring to polygamy. Monogamy is fairly new with regards of being the main kind of marriage.

a minority that is NOT just seeking equal rights (which I have absolutely no problem with), but to identify themselves as the same as hetrosexual people.

How can you say you agree with equal rights and then say you want them to be identified (therefore treated) differently than other people?

The two groups are not the same so why should their union be called the same? Just as monogamy is not polygamy, neither is the union (marriage) between a man and a woman the same as the union (civil?) between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

A union between a couple of different two races or two different ancestries
or two different religions or two different languages are also different types of unions... yet you call all of these marriages. Why is gender not allowed on the list of accepted differences?

Don't say god (see above)

12/12/2012 6:29:22 AM

#1481737

Mister Spak

"I can only pray that the justices are not arrogant enough to override God's definition of marriage, the one that has been accepted by virtually every society in recorded history, "

You're talking about the Koran definition where a man has 4 wives, right? Because Allah is the real god and islam is the real religion.

12/12/2012 6:37:38 AM

#1481738

Reckoner

If you go into the Supreme Court and your best argument is "because God said so!" then you are going to be laughed at by all of the justices not named Scalia.

12/12/2012 6:38:11 AM

#1481748

UHM

"I can only pray that the justices are not arrogant enough to override God's definition of marriage"
I'm guessing it will either go 5-4 or possibly even 6-3, but I doubt both will be held up as constitutional. Question there, if Prop 8 is struck down, would that mean that same-sex marriage was legal in all 50 states? (because than our government over here has to hurry the fuck up)

"the one that has been accepted by virtually every society in recorded history"
Either you are ignorant as fuck or stupid as fuck, either way you are similiar to fuck.

"to appease a minute minority."
...and the majority that supports the minority.

"The two groups are not the same so why should their union be called the same? Just as monogamy is not polygamy, neither is the union (marriage) between a man and a woman the same as the union (civil?) between a man and a man or a woman and a woman."
Yeah, erm, if they should get the same rights, why not just call it the same?

12/12/2012 6:48:38 AM

#1481760

Hasan Prishtina

"God's definition of marriage"

The one where Abraham has two wives? Or how about Solomon's wives?

"the one that has been accepted by virtually every society in recorded history"

Er, no. Just no.

"a minority that is NOT just seeking equal rights (which I have absolutely no problem with), but to identify themselves as the same as hetrosexual people."

Equal rights are usually about some people being able to do the same things and use the same institutions as everyone else.

12/12/2012 7:04:05 AM

#1481773

Doubting Thomas

I can only pray that the justices are not arrogant enough to override God's definition of marriage

Which one would that be? One man and one woman; one man, one woman, and the woman's slaves; one man, 300 women, and 700 concubines; one soldier and a virgin from the tribe he conquers; or a woman and her rapist?

12/12/2012 7:19:23 AM

#1481787

WWWWolf

> I can only pray that the justices are not arrogant enough to override God's definition of marriage, the one that has been accepted by virtually every society in recorded history, to appease a minute minority.

Yeah, this nonsense about monogamous marriage has gone long enough and it's time to embrace polyamorous marriages again. Just like what the Bible says and just like what virtually every society in recorded history has allowed, as you said.

But try not to bring forth those Biblical bits about marrying slave women. Slavery isn't cool, you know.

12/12/2012 7:36:52 AM

#1481791

dionysus

the one that has been accepted by virtually every society in recorded history

It's not even accepted by every country NOW, let alone throughout all of history. The Greeks famously had few problems with homosexuality and even had armies full of gays. Oh, and if you want to talk about marriage specifically, that hasn't had the same definition for MOST of recorded history. It used to be used as a form of political alliance and before then it was polygamous. Even the damn Bible specifies that Solomon (a great hero in the Bible, which made a huge deal about his wisdom) had multiple wives, concubines, and maidservants.

12/12/2012 7:39:20 AM

#1481809

Titania

According to a recent HuffPo/YouGov poll, 46% of Americans are in favor of same sex marriage while on 42% oppose and 12% are not sure. The mjority of Americans that support same sex marriage. That is not minute.

12/12/2012 8:08:07 AM

#1481818

Grouchy misanthropic heathen atheist

"NOT just seeking equal rights (which I have absolutely no problem with), but to identify themselves as the same as hetrosexual (sic) people"

That's what equal rights are, which by your own admission, you don't have a problem with.

12/12/2012 8:16:51 AM

#1481829

Papabear

What difference should it make to you if Charlie Dimwit marries his elm tree or his car or (gasp) another man? It doesn't effect your marriage. Your Church isn't required to perform any marriages it doesn't want to.

You claim to support equal rights but then deny homosexual's and heterosexual's sameness in your agrument to deny homosexuals equal rights. That's like saying blacks and whites aren't the same, therefore, blacks are not entitled to get married.

12/12/2012 8:27:27 AM

#1481844

Thinking Allowed

I can only pray that the justices are not arrogant enough to override God's definition of marriage, the one that has been accepted by virtually every society in recorded history,

Historical and cultural fail.

12/12/2012 8:56:59 AM

#1481858

Flah

All people are created equal. It's just that some are more equal than others.

Is that what you're trying to say, Bill?

12/12/2012 9:42:15 AM

#1481861

By saying their union isn't the same as a heterosexual union, you just proved that you've never known a gay person.

12/12/2012 9:47:11 AM

#1481887

Zagen30

@UHM: "Question there, if Prop 8 is struck down, would that mean that same-sex marriage was legal in all 50 states?"

I believe it depends on the details of the ruling. From what I've read, they could take a narrow view on it and rule that marriage equality is a state issue; in this case, they'd say that Prop 8 violated the CA constitution but not the US Constitution, and so gay marriage would be permitted again in CA but every other state's laws would be unaffected and there'd be no federal right to marry someone of the same sex. The better outcome would be if they ruled that marriage equality is a federal right, in which case the state bans on it would be overridden and we'd have nationwide gay marriage. I don't know how much middle ground there is between those two, but they could potentially rule something else with different results.

12/12/2012 10:51:32 AM

#1481893

nazani14

Sadly, I expect that at lest one Justice will deliver an opinion that essentially says the same thing, albeit in better prose.

12/12/2012 11:02:44 AM

#1481909

Mattiedef

For the zillionth time, America was founded on secular principles and arguments using the bible should have zero clot.

Please, just stop.

12/12/2012 11:29:34 AM

#1481911

JohnTheAtheist

If god wants to define marriage please have him make himself evident, until then STFU Bill. What you believe is god's will has no bearing on the law.

12/12/2012 11:31:55 AM

#1481930

Antonin Scalia? is that you?

12/12/2012 12:45:33 PM

#1481934

Thinking Allowed

12/12/2012 1:01:41 PM

#1481936

Saringuy

crap, posted the same chart as the guy above me. :P

12/12/2012 1:06:10 PM

#1481944

Frostythesnowman

Yet again I have to ask why the lives of two people who are unconnected to you, and do not influence you in any way, is any of your fucking business?

12/12/2012 1:29:09 PM

1 2