Totally agree, but why stop there? There's a rather long list of stoning offenses, and you're really singling out marriage if you only support those stonings. You could stone your neighbour to death for failing to observe the sabbath, for eating at Red Lobster, or for wearing truly heinous poly-blend *leisure* shirts. Personally, while I find the idea of stoning my husband for having an affair quite satisfying (not to death, just to really bruise him) I'd prefer to be able to stone people for the "mixed fiber" offense, because that's what's causing the true downfall of society; people just have no dress sense anymore.
Or we could just stone everybody who disagrees with us about anything . . . except then there would be nobody left to post on Slog.
5280 C'mon, if your name is Ross Douchehat and you wear poly-blends, you are pretty much asking to be stoned...the anti-gay marriage bile is just gravy. And I wouldn't stone someone who disagreed with me about anything, like, you could disagree with me about a book or a restaurant, and I would just throw some really pointy sticks at you.
I wish I were stoned.
Let's face facts. There are many people the world over that are stuck in the distant past. It wasn't that long ago that women were not allowed the vote in this country. Is stoning people to death for any reason acceptable? No! But culturally it still is in some places. Don't go there. Don't spend money there. Give women who seek to escape a pathway to do so. Bring pressure to bear in the United Nations.

Limbo dan, how low can 'he' go.

The burden of proof is not on those who observe and enter into relationships that have been the core of humanity for millennia. Everybody knows the societal good they produce, all of us are living proof of that. Can the same be said about those that want to partake in the same institution while disregarding the basic requirement that has been observed since the dawn of humanity ? The answer is no.
@6 Ew. She's back.
@7: Seconded. I'm all for the voice of opposition to check those of us who are prone to foaming at the mouth, but...her? Ew.
@7 In grade 2, we got "cootie shots" to protect ourselves from people like her....want one??
I think we'd have a much easier time upholding the sanctity of opposite sex marriage if those sinful women would stop educating themselves and wearing clothes that reveal their lovely gams.

I mean, really. I have such a hard time keeping and honoring my wife when so many tramps walk around with their ankles showing.

@6 -- Here's some troll food for you: Name any time during the millennia of which you speak when men were truly punished for breaking their monogamy vows.
@9 -- Please stay away from my cootie.
Let me add, when it comes to people stuck in the distant past, the Catholic Church is a fine example. We still find it acceptable to let them teach children cannibalism. Talk about sick shit.
Awww. Loveschild is back. I've missed her(him?) so.

LC, dear, I've got news for you. Gays have been around since the dawn of humanity too. The only thing that changes over the centuries is how much gays are accepted or demonized in different times and different cultures.

Good to know we can count on you to vote for demonizing.
Any REAL marriage protection initiative needs to say that marriage is between one man who's never been divorced and one woman who's never been divorced. Plus it needs a rider criminalizing adultery.

Anything less is not "protecting" marriage. It's just hating fags.
There's an attempt at the moment to get an initiative prohibitiing divorce on the fall ballot in California. I don't hear anything from the protect marriage folks about supporting that. I think it would be really, really wonderful if we could go back to the days when getting married meant being stuck for life with the same bedmate. (snark, folks, just snark) Of course, the good people of Nevada ought to chip in some money to help that campaign along, too, since the quickie Reno divorce before California got no-fault was a major economic engine for them. Sigh.
@6: The amount of harm alleged to have occured doesn't shift the burden of proof. It isn't the case, for example, that burglars have to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but there's a lesser burden of proof for serial killers.

Therefore who has the burden of proof, those who want to ban gay marriage or those who want to legalise it, doesn't depend on what you think of gay marriage.

Instead it depends on what you think of the government's role in regulating sexual behaviour, and the harm of too much or too little government regulation.

For example the concept of 'presumed innocence' is because criminals getting away is considered to cause less harm than the innocent being convicted.

Thus, anyone who opposes gay marriage believes, or acts like they believe, that the evils of too little government inteference in sexual behaviour are less than the evils of too much. In other words, they are acting as if the basic problem with the sex lives of modern Americans is too much freedom.
@6 Are we the ones making the Divorce Rate 50%? Are we the ones molesting/abusing/abandoning kids into an overtaxed foster care system? No. That's y'all.

However, LC brings up the whole "Have a kid" requirement for marriage. Does that mean my parrents aren't married anymore? Cause they ain't having any more kids.

Just cause you heteros suck at Marriage, don't go projecting your failures onto us.
Hey, didn't LC supposedly have "her" "children" out-of-wedlock? Hm, I'm sure Leviticus or Deuteronomy has something to say about THAT abomination.

Give me two rounds, two flats, and, um, a packet of gravel...
Maybe someone should ask LC why it was okay for Jesus to have two daddies.
Ugh! Just ignore the bitch.

She went away once before, for lack of people caring what she posted. She's likely to go away again, once we all ignore her again.
@6: I'm sorry, marriage has not been between one man and one woman "since the dawn of humanity". Look in the Torah (you know, the part of your bible that you only read when you want to criticize Teh Ghey). Plenty of polygamy there. Are you suggesting that familial structure should never change? If that's the case, I should probably marry multiple women, and possibly sleep with my servant girls too.
Pull your head out of your ass, you moronic cuntwhorebitch.

@18: Actually, premarital sex is not considered a serious thing in the Old Testament. A few passages from the Song of Songs can be construed as frowning on it (especially if it results in pregnancy), but the Old Testament is quite sensible in this case; it recommends, but does not require, that the two involved get hitched (assuming it's consensual, and not rape). Adultery is a major sexual sin, but premarital sex is only a stoning offense if it's with a woman who's engaged to marry someone else. (Specifically, the man is condemned either way, but if it wasn't consensual, the woman is not punished.)
The demonizing of premarital sex in Christianity is really due to stuff that happened after the time of Jesus.
if LC didn't post, Slog would need to invent her. ZZZZZZZZZZ.

I find Lovechild's complete lack of knowledge, and sense of history quite entertaining. I hope the poor thing posts for a long time to come. Like Sarah Palin, LC is the gift that keeps on giving.
I'm cutting in line to get stoned before you, Dan, 'cause of them tattoos, my awsome poly-cotton yoga pants, and the whole girraffe French kissing affair...
"If American social conservatives wanna get serious about preserving the "sexual ideal" of traditional marriage...[then] they're going to have for laws that would punish straight people who fail to live up to that ideal."

Have to? Huh. They. have. to.

If we are going to make up shit people that "have to" do in order to hold their political views, how about anyone supporting higher taxes HAS TO give all their money to the poor, right now. All of it. IRA money too.

If anyone supports, oh...marijuana legalization, they have to support laws permitting it to be vended, along with heroin! Yeah, heroin!

If anyone wants to reduce carbon fuel use, they have to support killing all children whose parents drive SUVs!


Seriously, Savage, don't write stoopid shit like this. The boringly liberal amen chorus here at the Stranger site will fellate you for it, but you look like a stooge to anyone outside that small town dinner theater troupe.
LC also believes that the earth is 6000 years old.
@24 What? Now tattoos are bad? Bestiality is always wrong, Kim, especially with giraffes, but I'm thinkin' the apostles probably had "Jesus Rocks!" on their triceps.
I am shocked, shocked, that you've been French-kissing giraffes, Kimmie. Although they do have one hell of a tongue. . . .
And more examples of People Who Should Be Thinned from the Herd:

@6: "Loveschild" (what an inappropriate name!) and

@24: "Open mouth, insert coffee, try again, Dan"

One retarded fundamentalist Christianist, one retarded right-wing conservative.

Like Mother Teresa said upon visiting the Vatican: "If assholes could fly, this place would look like a fucking airport!!"
Yes, Canuck tattooing is frowned upon. The Bible warns us against tattoos in Leviticus 19:28 (Amplified) which says, " Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the …

And, I did feed the tiger too, I just didn't offer its snack to it with my lips.
@ Fifty-Two-Eighty,

I take great pride in shocking you, as I know you appreciate it greatly.
I do indeed, but you need to try harder. You haven't managed to shock me yet. (This one might have if I hadn't remembered the post from last week, though.)
Stick around, sugar.
No worries, I'm in for the duration.
I love that about you, friend.

I'm not sure if your comment was in silent approval of that unmitigated act of cruelty against those two "adulterers", or just accidentally so. Either way you're a sick fuck.

@21: Actually there is biblical condemnation of premarital sex -- and this gives me an excuse to share one of my current favorite images:…
@37: That's not a condemnation of premarital sex; that's a condemnation of claiming to be a virgin as part of the terms of a marriage contract. It's the deception, not the nookie itself.
Judaism permits divorce and remarriage (though the Cohanim were not supposed to get married to divorced women). Since a marriage that ends in divorce is typically consummated somewhere along the way, second marriages would almost always involve a non-virginal bride. How, then, is this to apply to second marriages?
TL;DR version: it's not about being "that kind of girl", it's about pretending to NOT be "that kind of girl".
@38: Hmm, I dunno, I don't actually see anything in the passage referenced that supports your first para. But yes, it obviously could only have applied to previously unmarried women, not widows or divorcees.

Anyhoo, I just like having something like this to quote to fundamentalists. Something that is presented as unequivocal moral law in the Bible (not the ritual shellfish/fabric stuff they can dismiss), that targets straight marriage/ conduct and that is totally batshit insane in a modern context. And I love the heading "Look, we can quote the Bible too!"
Kim@30: Thank you for reminding me of my all-time favorite Lenny Bruce joke. He'd gotten a tattoo and his aunt was upset because she said he couldn't be buried in a Jewish cemetery with a tattoo. He told her, "Don't worry, when I die they'll just cut it off and bury it in a Gentile cemetery." So apparently your tattoo is okay.

And congratulations on having the nerve to get close enough to a tiger to feed it.

at least they stoned them both- it really pisses me off when muslim countries only punish women for sexual inproprieties, or punish her much more severely. so they still suck on the batshit conservative aspect, but surprisingly neither hipocritical or mysogynistic...

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.