Support NeoGAF

[Incognito]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150672,00.html

A word about gay marriage: As you might have heard, a judge in San Francisco has ruled that it is unconstitutional for the state of California to ban gay marriage (search). That means all those same sex couples who were married by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom can go back to thinking they are married.

Now, just to be clear on this, those same sex couples are something, but I am quite sure it is not married.

Why? Because marriage is something men and women do. They don't always do it well — you only have to look at the divorce rate, or the number of pregnant women killed by their spouse to realize that. But, nonetheless, for all its imperfections, for all the gory fun of divorce court, it is something that men and women do.

Why is it just men and women? Because since history has been recorded, chipped in stone, inked onto papyrus, scribed into great books or printed on your ink jet, the basic idea behind marriage has been to set up a system for the raising of kids.

The first knuckle-dragging people recognized they didn't want to raise their kids like the monkeys, so they set up another system.

Gays can't have kids — other than going to the abandoned kids store and getting one or two, or borrowing sperm from someone with more sperm than brains — so by definition they're out of the marriage game.

In theory, so would couples who get married in their eighties. Chances are good that no kids come out of that holy union. But it is at least theoretically possible. Not so with gays.

Now, gay couples should have certain rights of marriage — inheritance, insurance, visitation — all that lawyerly stuff.

But they should take the advice of a friend of mine who said he'd defend gays against any form of discrimination, but they had to pick a new word — marriage is taken.

Now what about this ruling that gay marriage is legal from the judge in San Francisco?

Well what about it? He's a judge in San Francisco — of course he says gay marriage is constitutional. You think he could live there if he said otherwise?

As they say in Jersey: "Fuhgedaboutit!"

That's My Word.

:lol :lol :lol

U gotta laugh at Foxnews...

 

[ge-man]

I wish I can be paid for making up shit like this.

 

[Fifty]

:lol :lol :lol

Oh god. I'm not sure if it helps or not, but he looks like a cross between Bugs Bunny and Satan. What a fucked up article.

 

[xsarien]

Why is it just men and women? Because since history has been recorded, chipped in stone, inked onto papyrus, scribed into great books or printed on your ink jet, the basic idea behind marriage has been to set up a system for the raising of kids.

I'm pretty sure there are a lot of childless - by choice - couples out there who disagree with this sentiment. Likewise, there are a lot of single parents who would also argue that the marriage was only damaging their kids' development.

Also: Irony that a commentator on Fox News is talking about how others are knuckle-draggers.

 

[Chesapeake Silt]

Well what about it? He's a judge in San Francisco — of course he says gay marriage is constitutional. You think he could live there if he said otherwise?

As they say in Jersey: "Fuhgedaboutit!"

He's right.... if he had decided otherwise, the gay mafia would have had him whacked.

 

[DarienA]

I wish I can be paid for making up shit like this.

Me too... wtf....

 

[videogamer]

or borrowing sperm from someone with more sperm than brains —

He might want to do more research into sperm banks.

 

[demon]

He might want to do more research into sperm banks.

He might want to do some research on my many brains guys typically have vs how many sperm.

 

[Ecrofirt]

I hate homophobes.

 

[videogamer]

He might want to do some research on my many brains guys typically have vs how many sperm.

Eh I didn't take his statement to be literal. I thought he meant that the donors aren't particularly intelligent.

 

[cloudwalking]

Because since history has been recorded, chipped in stone, inked onto papyrus, scribed into great books or printed on your ink jet, the basic idea behind marriage has been to set up a system for the raising of kids.

hmm, i would have to disagree there. i always thought the two basic ideas behind marriage were 1) being in love and 2) the legal aspect of it. marriage doesn't necessarily equal kids.

edit: pretty much beaten by xsarien

 

[dog$]

I thought the Basic Idea of Marriage was Exclusive Fucking Rights.

 

[WedgeX]

Now, gay couples should have certain rights of marriage — inheritance, insurance, visitation — all that lawyerly stuff.

But they should take the advice of a friend of mine who said he'd defend gays against any form of discrimination, but they had to pick a new word — marriage is taken.

Seperate but equal??

Poor gay people, many people barely notice that the same rhetoric that was being used against blacks is being used against them.

 

[DarienA]

I see their website contains articles that are fair and balanced... just like their newscasts!

 

[explodet]

So if the basic idea of marriage is kids and not any that stuff called love or junk, it's the kids' fault that the divorce rate is so high, right?

"Mommy and daddy don't live together anymore and it's all your fault, little Billy!"

 

[The Faceless Master]

As they say in Jersey: "Fuhgedaboutit!"

That's My Word.

wow, i'm almost convicned from that great closing.

:lol :lol :lol
























... not really

 

[Drinky Crow]

Marriages were created, historically, to support child rearing?

No.

They were created to unite families politically and to spawn socially legitimate heirs. Their purpose is dynastic in origin, even back in more egalitarian (tribal) times. They were rarely about love, and only slightly moreso about child-rearing. In the far-flung past, a woman might have children by multiple fathers, with the children raised by the village women.

The nuclear family is a recent invention. We've substantially changed the definition of "marriage" in the first world already.

 

[Truelize]

I hate homophobes.

But isn't that just as bad as someone hating homosexuals????

 

[DarienA]

Marriages were created, historically, to support child rearing?

No.

They were created to unite families politically and to spawn socially legitimate heirs. Their purpose is dynastic in origin, even back in more egalitarian (tribal) times. They were rarely about love, and only slightly moreso abouot child-rearing. In the far-flung past, a woman might have children by multiple fathers, with the children raised by the village women.

The nuclear family is a recent invention.

Falls asleep during Doug's monologue...

Doug that's all well and good... but can you <does hand motion> spice it up?

But isn't that just as bad as someone hating homosexuals????

Good question... let me ask you first, are there homosexuals who spent a lot of time railing against heterosexuals for no good reason?

 

[Drinky Crow]

Liberals and the Fox News style don't mix. Look at ol' Alan Colmes -- got his liberal card revoked on account of being 100% milquetoast.

 

[videogamer]

Marriages were created, historically, to support child rearing?

No.

They were created to unite families politically and to spawn socially legitimate heirs. Their purpose is dynastic in origin, even back in more egalitarian (tribal) times. They were rarely about love, and only slightly moreso about child-rearing. In the far-flung past, a woman might have children by multiple fathers, with the children raised by the village women.

The nuclear family is a recent invention. We've substantially changed the definition of "marriage" in the first world already.

No No ;-)

Introduced to me by a classmate:
Back during the days of primitive man, guys with the most resources would get the most women. Women were the consumers who chose the best mates. It was better to be a third wife of a rich man than a wife of a poor dude. There was an oligopoly over wives, and the paupers were left out. Then came the idea of marriage: one man per woman (talking about culture here). Thus, the men had formed a cartel, and the free market ceased to exist. So when religions that promoted monogamy appeared, the poor dudes were attracted to the prospect of having a woman available as their wife.

 

[human5892]

Well frankly, I'm shocked that someone from Fox News would write something like this.

 

[FoneBone]

But isn't that just as bad as someone hating homosexuals????

Intolerance of intolerance isn't intolerance in the usual sense. Yes, I realize how goofy that looks, but it's true.

 

[Flynn]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150672,00.html

:lol :lol :lol

U gotta laugh at Foxnews...

For some reason, I'd love to see this guy with a dick in his mouth.

 

[SteveMeister]

Personally, I think that if the states and federal government called the LEGAL union of two people something other than marriage, (i.e. civil union), and the word "marriage" was reserved for a spiritual, church-sanctioned ceremony that layered on top of the civil union part, this whole thing would be a non-issue.

Rights of hospital visitation, inheritance, credit, power of attorney, tax breaks, etc. would all come under civil union, which two people any gender mix could enter, and said rights would be recognized by all states.

Marriage would INCLUDE a civil union between a man and a woman, but would also be recognized and sanctioned by churches.

The only people who would have a problem with this are homophobes.

 

[Drinky Crow]

Hammy, that's very true as well. The point remains: across cultures, marriage has rarely been about child-rearing foremost, if at all.

 

[McLesterolBeast]

To be fair, the elderly are also infertile... and im all for a policy that will discourage wrinkly-sex.

 

[Mandark]

I hate homophobes.

Then why do you caucus with them?

 

[Killkernal]

Gays can't have kids — other than going to the abandoned kids store and getting one or two..

What a well informed, witty and intelligent way to say adoption. Cock-splice.

 

[maharg]

What a well informed, witty and intelligent way to say adoption. Cock-splice.

Not to mention, he said they can't have kids -- but they can. If they can, those children deserve the same protection, so this argument is as much a bankrupt dead end as any other.

I still think gay rights activists in this area are letting the conservatives control the debate too much. Every time this comes up, thousands of reasons for why marriage isn't about children, or why homosexuality is not a choice pop up when they are completely irrelevant dead end arguments to begin with. By fighting against points that are not reasonable even in what they claim to achieve, let alone the 'facts' that support them, you look foolish. It's like fighting ghosts.

 

[snaildog]

Yeah, he seems to laugh off adoption as being something absurd and out of the question. He's a fucking arsehole.

 

[explodet]

He should have just gone the whole way and said "dog pound" when referring to adoption.

 

[teh_pwn]

I'm really hating the Republican party lately. Seems to be too many homophobes and religious fanatics coated with bad economic policy. And I'm not extremely happy with Iraq.

Four years ago I considered myself a moderate Republican, now I'm a conservative Democrat. I mean I'm all for an economic policy that conserves money and less government control over spending.

This shit is just stupid.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

For some reason, I'd love to see this guy with a dick in his mouth.

:lol :lol :lol

I'm a Republican/Independent but I hate John Gibson. He just screams "I'm a bitter asshat."

 

[WordAssassin]

What a douchebag asshole way of referring to adoption. I'm twenty, and I want kids when I'm older...be it through marrige or not. I just want to be a dad. If I never find a wife, I still wanna be a dad. So I've thought about adoption before, but I've never thought of it as going to an "abandoned kid store." That's just mean, sick, and rude. Jesus.

/Is a Rpublican but this guy's a dipshit.