SL Letter of the Day: Suggested Reading

Comments

1
Gay people can already get married. What they want to do is redefine marriage, a tradition they did not create. This isn't an "equality" issue. It's an issue of fairness toward those who want the traditional American family unit to remain intact. I will never vote for gay marriage as long as there are liars like Dan Savage trying to attack people for defending what is rightfully theirs.
2
Regardless of what name you're using this week, you're always a douche. From your first sentence which is wrong, to your second which is knowingly incorrect, to the third where you -as usual- go all fucking psycho. Counting down to your next meltdown, Steed.

However: it occurs to me that the state entering into marriages at all is probably a violation of the Establishment Clause, and probably all legal unions should be civil unions. Marriage is largely a religious thing, though that's changing too.
3
Oh good, I was hoping he'd still have an opinion about this sort of thing.
4
This seems like it's uncontroversial, but here we go again: Religions can do what they want to do, but the government can't pick favorites unless it has at least a rational basis to do so.

Since there is no rational basis to privilege hetero couples over other types of couples, the government shouldn't get to discriminate. Either give every married couple privileges, or don't privilege any married couple over any other. Why is that so hard?

Steed's dickbag church is left free to do whatever the fuck it feels like, and the rest of us are equal in the eyes of our government.
5
I don't attend church but even a blind man can see that this is an attack on religious traditions. That is why people get married in churches. I know that there are all sorts of bastardized religions and I know why gay people are doing this. They do this to attack the religious people, which is definitely persecution all on its own, because religious people have demonized gay people over the centuries. I get it. But it doesn't give gay people and supporters of this nonsense the right to attack people over it. Look at all of you. You think you're any better than the religious zealots out there? You're not. The supporters above are only showing their true colors. Demonize me all you want and I will continue to vote against gay marriage because of people like you above. You're not any better than the idiots of Westboro Baptist Church. Extremism is extremism. You don't like my opinion? I can deal with that. But don't go thinking anyone of you is right to support an attack on religion and their traditions. I won't ever support it. I will never support anyone who tries to bully me into believing something wrong. I will support civil unions but if this keeps up I will even start voting against that, too.
6
Not everybody gets married in churches. I and my partner's marriage is certainly not a religious institution; we did it for the tax break, and to show our commitment to our friends and family. The federal government recognizes our marriage for a variety of reasons, none of which are religious.

Everyone should have the right to marry the person of their choosing. Slowly but surely this is going to be happen -- the road is clear -- and people like stjohnsrules will be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the future.
7
It's that simple. You did it for selfish, greedy reasons, C&B. It doesn't make it right. And I will not accept your version of the future when it means continually attacking religion for your own benefit. Just like I will never support the Westboro Baptist Church for demonizing gay people. There is a middle ground here but when both major ideologies in our society are purists then you get extremism on both sides. I can support civil unions but that is all I'm willing to support. Marriage is between a man and a woman historically and I have not one time seen any compelling reason to change my opinion about it. What I see from the "equality" supporters is lies and innuendo that has further divided my country. It's no better than what WBC is attempting to do. Extremism is wrong no matter what either side here is saying. There are many Americans who happen to be religious and who don't demonize (yet) gay people for their desire to declare their love for their partners. What they want is their traditions to remain intact and without having to constantly defend themselves against the tyranny of a jealous, mean-spirited lot that only has their own best interests at heart. These people have a right to their opinion without having to endure being called "homophobic" or "bigoted" because they want their traditions to remain as they have for centuries in this country. You have the freedom to disagree with me all you want but I will also do all I can to make sure that the traditionalists are fairly represented even in this bastion of liberal gluttony and innuendo.
8
"...this bastion of liberal gluttony and innuendo"

The Mercury's been looking for a new tag line, and this is it! Yay!

(Don't expect us to pay you.)
9
Sorry Humpy, I'm really not trying to take over this thread. I just think this particular subject is horribly divisive and I truly mean no disrespect to your community of the Merc. I see this issue from my own angle and in my heart of hearts I want proper discourse to come to some sort of compromise here. I'm calling out those with whom I most passionately disagree to engage them in a proper debate free of "homophobic" and "bigot" slurs against those who merely object to gay marriage for, in my own humble opinion, the traditional marriage. I mean no offense. Also, keep in mind, I have been a fervent supporter of the Merc for many reasons even before y'all went all, like, internetty and stuff. Thanks for allowing this debate to continue. I will not challenge anyone to cannonball in a big pool of over-sized dildos (dildoes) (doh).
10
I think most women and minorities in this country are pretty fucking glad that many beloved "traditions" have NOT remained as they have for centuries in this country. Also, saying that something is "historical" is not a valid reason for withholding a civil right.
11
I am totally religious and see no threat to my tradition from gay people who would prefer to not be treated like crap. I don't think Jesus was in favor of treating people poorly. Come on in gay people!
12
And the "bastion of liberal gluttony and innuendo" comment wasn't toward the Merc although I do see it is well represented by the libby persuasion. Also my comments aren't trademarked by the St. John's Coalition For Telling People What The Fuck To Believe or SJCFTPWTFTB.
13
iriley, answer me this. When were gay people EVER enslaved? And gay people, unlike women during last few centuries, are allowed to vote. This isn't a simple black and white (pardon the terminology here) civil rights issue. This is a war between ideologies that has too often victimized those in the middle who see absolutely no reason to change a long-standing tradition in this country. The dishonesty from the left has only further divided our country and tied up the courts and for what? Tax breaks? Or maybe to teach the religious right a lesson? I can support civil unions. Marriage is between a man and a woman no matter what color you are. I feel the same way about Atheists who want to shut religion down. We can all disagree but there is a solution here that doesn't involve hijacking marriage for greedy, selfish interests. Civil Unions are a reasonable compromise and that should be the end of it. I won't support anything else. Not while the left is being so blatantly dishonest about it.
14
I'd imagine that if homosexuality came with a physical manifestation (besides better than average taste - think breasts or skin color), "mos" still wouldn't be allowed to vote. So I call bullshit on that one.

Second, you need to do a little research on your hallowed religious history of marriage. I know this may come as a surprise/controversial point to you, but there are other cultures than yours, and other religions. In some of those, they have [forever] practiced different manifestations of marriage, including one culture that practices group marriages! Go fucking figure!

Even if the bible is the ONE TRUTH as you seem to assume, you only have to go back to Martin Luther, who handed the practice of marriage over to the state because it was a "worldly" institution.

If you insist that it is "selfish and greedy" for someone to have differing reasons than you to get married, I'd say that you are, by definition, a bigot. Take your narrow worldview and shove it.
15
@Geez: First, let me address your second statement above. I don't "need" to do anything.

Second, I'm not addressing what happens in Syria or Uganda here. If you actually read any of my statements above, you'd clearly understand I was being specific about our country. This is what I mean about innuendo. Thanks for proving my point.

Third, the selfish and greedy comment came from replying to another poster above who specifically expressed they want to marry for the tax breaks. I didn't make that person greedy.

As far as your bigot comment goes? It holds no weight. You are so blinded by your ideology that you cannot see past the end of your own self-important nose. People can oppose gay marriage and not be a bigot and I will continue to call out people like you who think you're going to win any points doing that. Keep in mind that not everyone who lurks around the Merc thinks like a sheep. I don't need your approval to tell me what to believe. I'm here to bring balance to the issue, not deflect retarded and absurd comments from people like you who can't think for themselves.
16
And to your first statement, Geez, I imagine if gay marriage support came with a physical manifestation it would say "Preccccccious".
17
What the hell is this douchebag-dragging-a-lovely-neighborhood's-name-through-the-manure doing on Blogtown? Go to the Oregon Live website where you belong, bigot!
18
You can't debate me, ERN? Naw, you'd rather dumb it waaaaaay down because you are lazy and need people to tell you what to think. Thank Christ I'm nothing like you.
19
I went back through the archive, but I still can't stick it: what was it you were calling yourself before "The Bad Steed?" I mean, whoever you actually are, you always make the same points, and they're just weird enough that I have to assume it's the same guy.
20
I went by "Humpy's Dump" (how's THAT for a new Merc tagline, Wm?), Snookie's Cookie Monster, and Dung Like Honkey. I'm thinking my next name will be Talk Into My Magic Mike since every chick I know seems to want to see the movie. In 3D IMAX.
21
Also, also, also, in lieu of cash or gifts, CHFLAD can ask wedding guests to donate to a nice Marriage Equality organization. That would be a nice touch.