Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous And somewhere in California | Momma always said there’s a lot Next »
FREEDOM
Because in the self-proclaimed greatest nation on earth, marrying the love of your life should NEVER be wrong.
Who is that in the picture? Tell us in the Comments
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: dunno
 | wicket_arse on SCIENCE |
 | defaultscreenname on SCIENCE |
| wicket_arse on SCIENCE |
| defaultscreenname on TIANANMEN SQUARE |
 | bitter charro Suprem… on SCIENCE |
 | PortlandMark on SCIENCE |
| bitter charro Suprem… on SCIENCE |
 | b-caff on TIANANMEN SQUARE |
| defaultscreenname on SCIENCE |
| wicket_arse on SCIENCE |
Cheezburger Network Blog
You will now be arrested for failure to titillate.
Well, now, men have nipples, too.
Yes, the trend of being overladen with SIGNIFICANCE lol continues… Darn, I thought the Hilary and Putin lols were putting an end to it.
Tom of Finland images makes men’s nipples look scary…
YES!!! Yes they do! Scary scary nipples!
More like freedom to destroy the family unit!
Ha! You homophobic neocons make me raugh! Oh look! Ack! Two guys hugging!
How horrible! Avert my eyes! They frighten me! How does gay marriage destroy the family unit? puzzling… alcoholism, drug abuse, having to work two jobs, expensive child care, expensive health care, those things pose more of a threat to the family unit than gay marriage.
Dude, I’m a married man, and I loves the pu$$y as much as you do,
if not more. Not much really makes me worry about my family’s strength.
Certainly not letting same-sex marriages. In fact, to be honest, the only thing that threatens my marriage are how neocons want to construct the Society as they think it should be.
I really don’t know what about them scares the bejebus out of you, but I think
it’s funny!
Let me guess: you’re all for the Occupation of Iraq, so you’re obviously not
a scaredy cat. So what about gay marriage scares you?
doesn’t make sense.
A woman I don’t know the name of: “I am not worried about gay marriage breaking up my marriage. I am worried about all those straight women who are trying to sleep with my husband breaking up my marriage.”
Disclaimer: This was paraphrased and thus not as clever as originally said.
finally, someone with a lick of sense re hetero (single or not so)
(wo)men and the threat they pose to marriage – there are some folk
who have gay affairs, but chances are they also have closet issues,
but it seems that the majority of people who cheat do so with the
same gender as their spouse.
why should the government have anything to do at all with relationships between individuals? make it so that the government recognizes NO marriages, be they hetero or homo.
legal contract (marriage certificate equivalent)
signed in front of a justice of the peace or judge or
other legal entity and if a wedding ceremony is
wanted that can be a secondary thing either in
a neutral location or in a church just like people
do now. but legal registration of coupledom
is needed for various reasons
What struck me most is how crude he was about when talking about women. According to “Tolerant Het”, the name for woman is Pu$$y. I get the sneaking feeling he fears he will be called un-manly if he doesn’t talk like a chauvinist.
I…don’t think he was referring to women as a whole, but rather to a particular part of a woman. If I say that I’m a woman and I love dick, does that make me sexist in some way? Same thing. Are you shocked because he raised the issue of enjoying sex with women at ALL, or is it because he didn’t phrase it delicately enough for your sensibilities, as in “I greatly enjoy that aspect most secret of a woman; the tender flower of her womanhood….” or just “I appreciate the fact that the females of our species are well-equipped for vaginal intercourse!” Shall I pass you the smelling salts?
“I loves the pu$$y as much as you do” means pretty much that-
I’m as straight as they come, yet I fully recognize that there
are plenty of people who aren’t. I was also attempting to (as you
say, crudely) establish that I am not gay, but have zero problem
with gay marriage.
Note I didn’t say “women = pu$$y.” or some facsimile.
Now THAT would be chauvenistic, no doubt, and entirely 180 degrees from how I see women. That ’sneaky feeling’ you have? It’s entirely that, some
misplaced feeling that bears no correlation to reality. But thank you
for sharing your opinion, and giving me more opportunity to
state mine.
I’m going to (*gasp*) come to his defense here, as I’m almost entirely positive StabbingPen was using sarcasm…
There’s so much more to be angry about later on in the thread. If you use up all your anger so early you won’t have the stamina to make it through to the end.
…she said to another in a long line of dead lovers.
Why isn’t tolerant Het tolerant? Why doesn’t he tolerate my beliefs
I know. Cause Tolerant Het ISN”T tolerant. He’s biased and well..yeah.
Gays don’t marry. Marriage = between man and woman. Thats my belief.
Are you going to tolerate that? Or are you going to spew some nasty,
moraless drivel about how I’m not allowed to believe something?
Oh, you arlready did. Woops. How does it feel to be an intolerant hypocrite?
Just because you “believe” that marriage is between a man and a woman doesn’t mean you get to create legislation forcing others to live by YOUR beliefs. “Tolerating your beliefs” means not persecuting you for holding them, or forcing you to abandon them. No one is suggesting that you must marry someone of the same gender; you are free to believe what you want. But you don’t get to take equal civil rights from a group of Americans because you don’t “believe” that group shouldn’t share the same rights as you. If you don’t see the glaring parallels to racism then you’re ignorant, but I think you’ve already established that.
The common-sense civil rights issues aside, this notion that allowing gay Americans to marry is somehow immoral and offensive to the “sanctity of marriage” would be laughable if it weren’t actually damaging to so many people. Heterosexual couples commit all sorts of atrocities within their marriages, and certainly just because a couple is heterosexual doesn’t mean they believe or pretend that there is sanctity in their marriages. Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker, was married in prison after being convicted of raping and murdering 13 little old ladies. Is his marriage holy because he married a woman? Why is he allowed to get married but Ellen DeGeneres can’t? Are all of Jennifer Lopez’s marriages holy? (Surely not the one to Chris Judd!) How about when a man and a woman get married in Vegas after knowing each other for 3 hours and fucking in a bathroom stall at Circus Circus? The idea that because you’re straight means you’re “doing it right” is absurd. And there’s nothing immoral about two people loving each other, even if they both have cocks. Or titties.
I say good day!
Amen to this.
The win of this post blew my hair back.
(Either that, or I have the fan set too high…)
Gross, circus circus?
Well played, suicide_blonde.
I love you…that’s all I can say to that comment.
You are allowed to believe that, but it is an asshat belief.
You can certainly believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman, and you are certainly welcome to marry someone of the opposite sex. No one here is trying to prevent you from holding those beliefs.
But just because YOU believe that, doesn’t give you the right to make it ILLEGAL for others to believe differently. You cannot legislate YOUR morals upon other people. This is a free country, and people are supposed to be free to believe what they want. Just because your religion and morality dictates that marriage is between a man and a woman, doesn’t mean that it is the only correct belief.
You are the intolerant hypocrite here, whether you can see it or not through your narrow little view of the world.
But dosn’t you telling everyone else that they have to tolerate gay
marriages trying to impose your morals on everyone else? You say
he has a narrow view of the world, in that case everyone with religion
does. Thats alot of people. I have nothing against gay people,
biologically they won’t be able to do as much as straight people but
so what? I am sick of people like you who can’t effectively argue a
point I agree with. These people love each other and people are going
to have to fight hard and well to get them their rights. You do that
by making sure not even you could tear down your arguments. One
group will ultimately decide the morals of this country, its illegal to kill
but what if someones morals say differently? By your logic they should
be allowed to kill because its their own moral truth. Someones morals
will win out, its our job to make sure they are the just ones.
Yes. Everything somewhere boils down to moral rules – but there are priorities between them. The most basic rules tend to be all about not hurting others. Not killing people is the pinnacle of the not-hurting ones, but there are quite a few cases of killing being allowed.
However. Yes, saying that “your personal faith should not be allowed to infringe on other people’s life as long as what they do isn’t hurting someone else” is a form of moral rule.
No. Nobody is trying to impose their morals on you. No one is forcing you to marry a man.
-
Freedom and equal rights go hand in hand. Any expression of freedom requires that you do not impose upon the freedom of others. Murder causes harm to the victim. The freedom to murder is invalid, because it does not respect the rights of the victim to be safe.
-
Freedom for two men to marry does not impose on the freedoms of anyone else. No one is trying to legislate Gay Marriage ONLY. If they were lobbying to take away your right to marry a woman, that would be unacceptable, because it infringes upon your freedom.
In a way yes you are. If you tell a fundamental christian that because gay marriage is now legal, he can’t spew what would then be called hate speech but is for some reason an opinion right now, then he would have to apply your morals over what his opinion is. I think its fine if he says those things but in the end i’d rather live under my morals then his.
There is a difference between protesting, and hate. If gay marriage is legalized, feel free to protest all you want, as long as you do so legally. Using slanderous words like Faggot is the same as using the N-word in reference to a black man. It’s hate speech, nothing more. The words serve no productive purpose to further the meaning of the protest, they are just words of hate to shock the audience. It’s hate speech now, and it will still be hate speech when gays earn equal rights (and they eventually will, just like women, blacks, and all others we tried to segregate).
No. In NO WAY does gay marriage impose upon the freedoms of ANYONE.
Prove me wrong, or GTFO.
It isn’t even the hate speech that’s the problem.
You have no right to wield the force of law to privilege your religiously driven sensibilities over anyone else’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Just as no one else has the right to wield the force of law to abridge yours.
You can wield your voice all you want, subject of course to the rights of others to disagree with you (and make you a social pariah if you’re unduly offensive about it). But you have no calling to dictate another’s beliefs and actions if they are doing you no tangible harm.
I have never understood this line of logic. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean you have to tolerate it or like it. There are plenty of people who think interracial marriage is wrong. There are plenty of people who think that people of two different religions shouldn’t be married. Plenty of people hate skate boarders, yuppies, or whatever other group anyone wants to hate or dislike.
Legal doesn’t mean acceptable by the population. Hell, taxes are legal, plenty of people disagree with those.
The problem is that our concept of law and morality as separate is a relatively new one. Throughout history people have lived in homogeneous cultures. People have used law to keep their cultures homogeneous. Somehow, the founding fathers of the United States of America managed to create a legal system that was supposed to protect individuals from homogeneous culture, rather than the other way around, despite the culture of the early settlers being relatively homogeneous compared to our current population.
Then again, maybe they had no clue what they were creating. It’s really irrelevant now. Our legal structure should reflect what the human race has learned since then. We shouldn’t be criminalizing actions or denying rights to people who cause no harm to others. The legal system should stand as a means to counterbalance what’s wrong with the majority opinion, otherwise it serves no purpose.
You’re partly right. I don’t tolerate INTOLERANCE. Now I feel like I’ve fallen
into some Stephen Hawking wormhole.
Should I be tolerant of the KKK? I’m not implying you are a member of
that group… but that’s the logic you’re using.
The answer is no, I ain’t tolerant of the KKK.
Yep. Pretty soon straight men everywhere will be divorcing their wives for the chance to marry another man!
Idiot.
How does homosexual marriage destroy the ‘family unit’?
I’m still going with “He’s. Being. Sarcastic.” Although clearly a sarcasm fail as apparently a lot of us didn’t get it.
Poe’s law…
That was my vibe as well, based in his/her posting history. I will be the first to admit that I could be wrong.
I actually bothered to read some of StabbingPen’s blog and they apparently
thought Prop 8 was stupid, in particular the ads about “they’re going
to teach your KIDS about Teh Ghey in SCHOOL!”, which leads me
to believe, unless he’s undergone a significant viewpoint shift since
October, that he’s kidding.
Prop 8 was the worst case of hate and fear-mongering I have ever seen from the “religious right”. When they realized they were losing, they LIED, and when they continued to lose, THEY LIED ABOUT THREATS TO CHILDREN. I put up for their shit for years, because I thought they were harmless. I was wrong, they are powerful and they are growing. To me they are fascists and no better than the early nazi party.
Deadpan Win?
Quite possibly!
I’m going with Unc’s Poe’s Law for this one.
Here here!
There, there.
Old MacDonald had a farm…
E-I-E-I-O
OH! I am a cider drinker…. [link]
Holy Jeebus… That is easily the most obscure video I’ve seen today.
And it made me want a pint of Scrumpy. Feck.
horrible
Yes. Yes, you are.
GTFO
Linky-link just for you…
I remember them! Didn’t Gary Cherone wind up with Van Halen for about 12 minutes?
He did, But I think it was 11 minutes. As a child of the 80’s, I did enjoy that band then. Nuno Bettancourt was one of my guitar heroes. (wonders how much I should now blush)
I know I may get crucified for this, but I preferred “Van Hagar” to Van Halen. I never could stand David Lee Roth.
I’m with you on this. I saw Van Hagar 3 times
According to my old guitarist friend, nothing to blush over, he’s very good, whether you liked Extreme or not…
Well this is right and all but it’s not even close to being funny.
Yeah. Um, anybody know WTF’s up with the basket, though?
Yeah, what’s up with that? Shouldn’t it be green and yellow?
Tisket and tasket!
Perhaps it’s the basket we are all going to hell in?
I’m bringing cheese and wine for the trip. Want some?
I’ll bring the flame-repellant suits…
and a copy of the bible !
*gets smacked by mothergoose
oh right …srry
They just borrowed it from Dorothy. I understand they’re friends of hers.
It’s possible I’m getting old.
That, sir, is an obscure gay reference WIN!
It’s far from obscure…
Don’t worry, I’m a young’un and it made me giggle!
Easter wedding?
Free chocolate eggs? I’d go!
yes, accurate caption win, but still lol fail…
Is Satire always funny?
Nope, but slapstick is always good for a laugh.
Indeed…
Awwww
Like it. It doesn’t always have to be funny or witty. After all this site is about politics, so there may well be political statements, too.
Also add that this site is quite biased when it comes to politics.
The site isn’t biased. There’s simply a majority of people to the left of center here. Learn the difference, okay?
You’re stupid. The SITE picks which captions are featured. 90% of them are kissing Obama’s ass so hard they leave hickies. The other 9% are bashing some form of conservative people or views, and the last 1% are actually neutral and entertaining.
Wow, you’re an ignorant little goatfncking troll, aren’t you?
The lols are chosen by VOTE. Anyone who has a profile here can vote on submitted lols, and the ones with the most positive votes land on the front page. Majority public opinion – you wingers used to like that, when it went your way.
If you don’t like being on the wrong side of history, you’ll have to work that sh!t out for yourself.
*golf clap*
I guess you missed the voting page. At least you spelled “you’re” right.
Exactly, the WEBSITE picks the captions.
Oh cool, the WEBSITE is a sentient being, just like HAL in 2001! That’s awesome, go technology.
Good Morning, SB.
Good morning!
CLOSE THE POD BAY DOORS!!!
I’m sorry, MG, I’m afraid I can’t do that.
Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer doooooooo-*
I know I’ve made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal.
So, can someone tell me how to change the patchwork quilt avatar thing to something else? I’m not much of a quilter.
Go to gravatar.com and follow the directions.
It’s times like these when I wish I wasn’t technologically retarded.
Never mind, turns out I’m technologically gifted!
I gotta say, I like your avatar!!
I do too! I am also a Techie Tard, you seem to have picked it up quicker than me.
Thanks peeps!
SB, I like your user name…that was a pretty great INXS song…
shank you, shank you very much!
Cool Avatar…
I like you more and more each time you post!
*swoons*
@Evenfire – No, the VIEWERS of the website choose which captions will be featured on the front page.
Conservatives aren’t a majority on the internet, get used to it.
Of course conservatives aren’t. When you want the world to return to the 50s–fewer women’s rights, no interracial marriage, segregation, gay people getting thrown in jail–it’s hard to embrace new technology.
For what it’s worth, “conservative” does not necessarily = “Strom Thurmond”. Just sayin’….
It seems to be fairly common to be “socially liberal” but
“financially conservative”. I don’t know where I read
those terms but they seem very useful.
That, and they’re too closed minded to embrace that which is the heart and soul of the internet…porn!
Actually it’s red states that are the largest consumers of online porn. So while they’re knocking it from the pulpits, they’re secretly having a wank at home, probably to kiddie porn or bestiality.
I mean, who were the biggest hypocrites last year? David “Diapers” Vitter, Larry Craig, maybe?
Again, I would say you’re overgeneralizing, Steve.
True diss. I wish there was a better word than conservatives, because I know not all conservatives are social conservatives.
I’m in a broad brush sort of mood though, and too lazy at the moment to find a less general statement that still gets my point across. Sorry to any porn loving, open minded conservatives that may have been slighted.
That’d be me, but I gladly accept your apology!
Actually, it’s interesting to me that anti-porn sentiment seems to be concentrated at the opposite ends of the political spectrum — you have the “It’s Wrong And Sinful!” group to one side and the “It’s Wrong And Exploitative And Perpetuates Stereotypes” grou[ on the other, and it may be the only thing they agree on! (Aaaaand, I think they’r eboth full of it and need to lighten the eff up…)
I’m fairly conservative on a lot of issues but I definitely think sex is a good thing and that in general, us Americans tend to be too repressed about it.
…also in favor of full civil rights for everyone — which in my mind is constitutionally conservative, as opposed to “narrowminded and regressive” which a lot of people seem to use “conservative” as shorthand for.
…”and it may be the only thing they agree on!”
But, since they are human beings, they are probably still willing to kill each other over why it is wrong.
Danbala, I think you may be onto an answer there. The only question is: How do we get them to do it without taking out others?
Not to mention the desired to legislate people’s morals…
@ Fester: Which is really not conservative at all…and, I would add, hardly an impulse limited to the right. Usually directed at different areas of life, but you can bet that for every Bible-thumper who thinks we should bring back the stocks for promiscuity there’s a greenie way over to the left who thinks the government should penalize people who drive gas-guzzlers.
@Steve-O-Rama:
I’m glad you qualified your comment, otherwise we would have to let the ‘Other Steve’ have his way with you!
@Eddie: Should we do a high-five or a fist-bump on that? I missed the memo on which was acceptable this week.
Well, if we do both and toss in a hip bump, we could be accused of trying to bring back “Good Times”.. is Jimmy Walker still around?!?!
Dynomite!
diss – maybe you and eddie could do the NFL style chest bump? (probably more fun for eddie than diss, but fun for all watching!)
@all – Again, sorry bout that ‘conservative’ bashing. I’ll remember the term “narrow-minded and regressive” because those are the people that the majority of my loathing will be directed upon!
@The Steve: Oh, you just want to watch me yell “Ow!” and grab my boobs afterwards.
No, that would be me as you and I are chest bumping. The Steve only gets to watch..
@Eddie: Oh, ok, then…
*runs and rummages through the closed for daughter’s old hockey pads*
Be ready for that chest bump in just a sec, ok?
@ diss – Was I that obvious? If you like I would be happy to rub them all better for you….
*pushes Steve out of the way*
-
It’s my party, back off biatch!
Ok, got the hockey pads on!
*runs and chestbumps eddie*
*turns around and runs and chestbumps steve*
Ooop — sorry. Didn’t mean to knock you over, there.
Dyn-O-Mite!!
@dissimilitude:
The only question is: How do we get them to do it without taking out others?
Aaah! This might be the most interesting question so far this year.
.
I have not had time to ponder the question much. It is of course easy to pit them against each other, but as you point out, collateral damage is not desirable.
.
This requires thinking.
Republicans are not conservatives anymore, they’re their own group of political ideology centered around fear-tactics, moral imposition, and party politics. The modern republican party’s policies and ideology border on fascism thanks to the “religious right.”
Thanks The Steve!
You’re welcome. You can call me Steve. I added ‘The’ to distinguish myself from other random “Steves” that float around here.
Well if you insist, but I think The Steve sounds more distinguished.
So, the contest is over? Did you consider any runners-up? I really liked nothingupmysteve but maybe that has unsettling undertones of perversity?
I did consider the alternatives. I really liked Steve-O-Rama.
The consensus seems to be that “The Steve” works out well.
Sorry The Steve, you will always be Steve-O-Rama.. can’t let it go, Rob Schnieder is my hero for putting that in my head.
How about TS for short, or just go with Eliot?
Eliot!
Then he can be a pot-bellied dragon with a tuft of pink hair. Only…where’s Pete?
Or he can be potbelliedsteve, because he warms up every room he enters.
1. You’re wrong.
2. Even if you were right (which if you’d read #1 you’d see that we established that you are not) who freaking cares. It’s the internet, sites can have whatever political leanings they want. No one forces you to come here. Either deal with it or go cry in the corner somewhere so we don’t have to listen to you’re whining.
*your* whining. Stupid Firefox.
blame the poor little fox again *sigh*
LoL Jane!
Any retort that starts with “You’re wrong” is a winner in my book!
Prove it or STFU, and go to 4Chan with your butthurt self.
So now you’ve graduated to *willful* ignorance. Your parents will be
so proud! Tell them to point the camera the other way this time, ok?
I think you need to rethink your math.
Mrph? I thought captions were picked via a voting process. Pretty sure “the site” are just webmasters. Very talented webmasters mind you.
It seems some people (not saying anybody in particular) are upset that
due to the site being run by voting, the pictures they like don’t show up,
but at the same time agree that it’s voting that should determine if a
minority gets civil rights or not.
Prop 8 passes on a majority vote, well, too bad for gays, the majority
has spoken.
Most main-page captions on PK have a liberal slant, due to a majority
vote, OMG this site is biased!
Interesting.
I already spoke of prop-8 above. It was only passed on the lies of the so called “moral standards” of the “religious right.” They are fascists, end of discussion.
And the site tends to promote those viewpoints that come from the left of
center people over other viewpoints.
Other than Eddie, and sometimes Frou, the ‘right’ of the aisle seems to mostly speak in cliché…
Why is that?
I think it’s a new language called ParrotSpeak..
*is offended at the qualifier in front of her name*
*smothers froo’s qualifier in The People’s Breasts ™ * Better, dear?
At least you get SOME credit….
Actually, I would be pretty excited Frou. I’m pretty sure Uncle Fester almost said something nice about you….almost. I don’t think I’ve ever heard him say anything nice about anyone!
@Frou: Sorry about the qualifier, but you sometimes fall of the wagon…
I’m considering putting together a 12-step plan, but even then people do falll…
I’m gonna guess that the largely leftist LOLs (which I agree, there are) of the site could be attributed to the simple fact that the majority of LOLers who cast the votes on which captions are published lean to the left.
The site isn’t biased to the left of center. The majority of the site’s members/voters are left of center.
Don’t like it? Sign up to vote!
As a corollary, that same reason being that much of the NATION’s mood is left of center to some extent thanks to the major f%ck up over the last 8 years.
This site is extremely biased. It really should stop posting non-humorous images that make political messages.
Why? Seriously, I want to know why you think that.
Because this is supposed to be a humor site.
This isnt an example of humor.
Make sense?
Not really… it’s satire, and you’re a fool…
This is a very poor example of satire then.
Good satire is clever. But then people like you wouldn’t understand it.
Right, and your “I know you are, but what am I,” sort of defense is clever, all right.
What, exactly, are you talking about?
That you’re an idiot, but it was a little *too* subtle… it was why I’d dumbed my comment down for you too…
What do you have against politics in Pundit Kitchen? Is the irony of the word
“Freedom” here lost on you? It’s not PK’s fault that people vote one way or
the other on LOLs. This one was popular. So be it.
I WOULD have voted for this one, (not epic or anything, but it’s okay) but I never saw it when I was trying to vote. Seriously, I log in and get about four choices and then it tells me there’s nothing left. I even made one myself, it wasn’t great but was mostly a way to get the picture here (of the “mother of suicide bombers”) for others to improve, and submitted it, and it never came up for me to vote on. What am I doing wrong? Or are the whingers right and it’s all rigged?
Just so long as you can promise me you didn’t caption it “$5 Footlong!”….
I think there’s something screwy with the voting system; it’s apparently (from what they said a while back) programmed to take them down after so many negative votes over a specified period of time but I think it’s messed up. In other words, we ALL have the same experience you do.
I would never!
Though the caption was “Mother Love, yer blowin’ it… up” which may have got it burned instantaneously (I had spent a lot of time next door and absentmindedly lapsed into lolspeak).
Glad it’s not just me.
That’s pretty much what this site is about: political messages. People gripe all the time about “bleeh it wasn’t funny beh” but come on. Macros needn’t always be funny to be macros.
You are correct. But once, not so very long ago, they were funny. Or at least, it seemed like they were funny. I dunno, being an artifact, I may be confusing the lol with another age altogether.
*sits next to LG on the porch in her rocking chair* I remember those days too, these young whippersnappers don’t know from good lols!
It’s not the site. The admins don’t choose what pictures make it; the voting users do – that is, public opinion.
If you have a problem being on the wrong side of history, you’ll have to work it out for yourself.
And regarding the voting process — I think we need an extra button after “fail” marked “$5 Footlong Caption” that just makes it disappear instantly and sends somebody from PK over to smack the captioner in the head with a large, dead fish.
Set the fish afire first…then hit them in the head until the flame dies out…Call it “The Flaming Fish of Death” button…
Yes! Exactly!
I am SO sick of seeing those…
Ok Diss, you get the Carp, I’ll bring the napalm…
Mothergoose, good call using Carp! They’re a non-native species, so even environmentalists won’t be upset about it.
Those retards over at PITA still protest bow-fishing for carp, even though the data shows that leaving them in the rivers and lakes causes native species to die horrible deaths from starvation… Bow fishermen buy a fishing license, funding the DNR, and then are willing to help eradicate these invasive species FREE OF CHARGE, for fun! Yeah, how horrible of them.
Oh, but Steve, they’re sea kittens! You wouldn’t hurt a cute, cuddly, scaly little sea kitten, would you?
[link]
Ahhhhhahahahahahah!
*gasping for breath*
Oh my! Thank you diss. I can barely contain myself, that is hysterical! You just made my day. My boss is a bow-fisherman, he almost fell out of his chair.
it’s those sky nachoes I’m worried about
The steve, could you explain to a non english speaker what blow-fishing is? I’m interested in the topic. Thank you
could you please explain bow-fishing to a not very well english speaker?
I’m interested in the topic. Thank you
sorry, didn’t get that commenting stuff right…
I’m not that repetitive usually
Bow fishing is the use of a bow and arrows (with line attached) to shoot fish. Only invasive species are open for bow hunting. Usually the fishermen hunt at night, using bright lights to allow them to see through the water. It’s just like spear fishing, but with a bow.
after realising that I confused myself with blow-fishing
(interpretation: dinamyte-fishing… i couldn’t see the
benefit for native species) and bow-fishing I figured.
But thanks a lot for the explanation
I specialise in $5 foot longs… why would you want me to hurt the admins?
“the wrong side of history”
Study your history.
No, I think you should study your history. There is a trend quite visible, from repudiation of divine right of kings down through abolition of slavery, progress toward universal suffrage, the gradual banishment of racism and sexism from the realm of acceptable conduct. Attempting to deny equal rights to any segment of the population is resistance to an inexorable trend that has powered the history of American society from settlement forward.
You’re on the wrong side of it. Stand fast, and it may take a generation, but you will be ploughed under.
Bravo sir! Or madam.
I’m glad you recovered from your spontaneous combustion!
Well said.
Do not compare same gender attraction to racial equality. You may say I am on the wrong side of history, but your speech shows that you lack in the history department.
Same gender attraction is oppression. Wait and see.
As I expected. No facts whatsoever in response.
Put up or shut up: What are the FACTS supporting your claim that “same gender attraction is oppression”?
There were no facts in your first statement. Only assertions of opinions.
While you are educating yourself on history, pick up[ a logic text.
So we’re going with the tried and true, “I know you are, but what am I?” defense?
Some of us already have, and we’re still here. Really, hanging around and not taking to much notice of which way things lean is a requirement if those of us on the right want to get along and play nice.
There’s the rub — what do you do when you play nice, but the other side doesn’t?
It’s called respect.. I don’t have to agree with the others here, but as long as I respect their opinion without tossing out flame inspiring comments (like calling them a douchenozzle first), then the level of respect will remain constant. If the ‘other side’ decides to take that path, it only makes them look like an ass. If my side chooses to go that way, it makes all of us look bad because we are in fact the minority.
-
The bottom line is, you can have a worthwhile debate, but the moment you stop respecting the fact that other people have a different point of view, you will lose credibility.
*hugs Eds* This douchenozzle loves you, you ‘ol crotchwaffle!
Awwwww.. thanks for that! At least I got past being a wankstain..
*libtard hugs*
You’re my favorite (wangable word) scratcher!
Pissing in the wind with the guy who called you a RINO there Eds
Dhoti is the sort who gives the right a bad name…
Yeah, I know.. but sometimes, in the wee hours of the morning when all is silent, maybe, just maybe my words will creep into the cranium and make someone, not necessarily Dhoti, but maybe a lurker, realize it’s ok to have a different opinion from the masses on the ‘right’.
Good Luck on that…
It’s happened.. I remember a situation back in ‘73.. oh wait, that was something else..
If you remember ‘73, you weren’t doing it right.
Just sayin’.
You’re right, but Canada wasn’t an option for me. *sigh*
It was you in the basement of the Watergate building with Woodward and Bernstein, wasn’t it? not some Spook who took the credit…
One more point.. when I first started out here I came in with guns blazing using the Scorched Earth philosophy. It got me nowhere and only pissed people off. It took awhile before my opinions were actually respected, even though most disagreed.
Once again, conservatives are NOT a majority on the internet. You’re a minority here, get used to it.
But Rush said everyone thinks like this and the white house is all misguided with what everybody wants!!!
Wow, same old, same old round here I guess.
this caption needs to have: “unless your true love happens to be a horse or six different women…”
Or a nine-year-old boy.
Just saying, NAMBLA creeps me right the f*ck out.
Yeah, well NAMBLA creeps us homos out too. Just cos there’s a few wackos out there doesn’t mean that there’s some huge epidemic of gay guys wanting to do children.
The caption’s great. When I became a US citizen the judge went on and on and on about how America is so wonderfully free. Being Canadian, I didn’t really feel like I suddenly was more free, and thanks to the good people of California and Prop 8, oh and DOMA and DADT, I’m a lot less free.
Don’t worry, I wasn’t generalizing against gay folk.
NAMGLA creeps me right the f*ck out, too: the girls AND the goats
What have you got against the North American Marlon Brando Lookalike Association?
That’s what I’m talking about! For years Marlon Brando lookalikes suffered in their loneliness, thinking they had nothing in common with their fellow man. Now there is an organization where they can belong, but it seems some people will still deny them that.
Jane St Clair if I went that way I might have to marry you.
Thanks!
Thanks, Jane! I needed a South Park reference. NEW EPISODE TONIGHT!
Thank Czernobog, he started it an I ran with it.
Okay I was lurking just to make sure that someone pointed this out. I’m all for gay marriage but I’m NOT okay with NAMBLA or people marrying animals or any such craziness. Thanks!
You’re welcome! The overwhelming majority of GLBTQLMNOP folk are right there with you.
I was wondering that just the other day: Why don’t we hear more about polygamist women who have multiple husbands? With all of the severe kinks going on these days, surely there is some nutty broad out there with more than one husband, right?
Oh but that’s not sanctioned by Jeeeeeeeeeeeeezus.
Slan, get down from that statue… People are staring.
That’s because he’s naked…
*wolf whistles at Slan* Show us what you got, baby!
Yes, but you can’t see much, the way he’s, uh, *turned.*
Have you seen “Watchmen”? Penises (penisi?) everywhere.
So I hear!
And they’re blue, IIRC
Peni?
i think it’s penees. but yes, i’ve seen it, tis true. pretty funny too.
Peonies?
Weenies?
Ouija?
Squeegee?
BeeGees?
Heebie Geebies?
Helter Skelter?
Hither, thither and yon?
Easy Squeezy Lemon Peasy?
Georgie Porgie pudding and pie?
Polyandry…and I don’t entirely know why. There probably is.
how could a woman live with having to clean up after more than one husband?
Arguably no worse than having a bunch of kids. And also similar in that both would probably occasionally involve burping contests….
It would more be the issue that you’d NEVER get the remote control that would bug me.
Diss, shhhhh…you didn’t get the memo, did you…we need to keep this multiple husband thing very hush-hush…afterall, how’re we going to collect the life insurance after we kill them of one-by-one if they figure it out?!
*kill them off
Razin-frazin fingers…:-(
jeez!sush!
dont tell them
this is supposed 2 b a secret!
Who says she does the cleaning?
fester, stop trying to pick fights with me. your two comments here are completely ridiculous.
“who says she does the cleaning” is referring to current stereotypes in our culture in a funny/innocuous way. if i meant to be degrading i would’ve said something much more inflammatory.
so… in short: piss off.
While it’s possible that he did mean it as a jab at you, I read it as more of an attempt (reasonably successful!) at humor.
Of course if you two just want to fight, I’ll sit over here and watch. Will it be shirtless and sweaty?
*grabs lawnchair, cooler of beer, and jalapeno potato chips*
*Puts down another lawnchair, Dark Russet Potato Chips, Captain morgan’s and Coke*
Diss, is this gonna be the whole “Two men enter…one man leave”…kinda thing?
alright you two… that’s enough watching fester and i duek it out without paying the admission price…
I should have known it would be pay-per-view….
Absolutely, I think it should be a UFC style throwdown.
*gets milk crate to set between chairs for a table*
Sunscreen?
I’m thinking WWE, steel-cage-barbarian-strap match…
What’s this about barbarian strap-ons?
That’s how I read it too…
*Walks up to collect admission for the bout.*
Ladies, I’m going to need to see tickets…*notices diss with bottle of sunscreen about to apply it* Errr…as I was saying, tickets won’t be necessary…enjoy the fight ladies!
*sets up lawn chair facing diss and MG, careful not to obstruct their view*
In an almost completely unrelated factoid, I found out that a band the UFC uses music from has a dude I went to high school with as the drummer.
Random, useless facts done for now.
We need a name, otherwise I can’t use it on Jeopardy!
Stemm –linked
Or maybe this’ll actually be like Fight Club?
*sunscreen, Capri Sun, twizzlers*
Shhh, death by kewt! You know the number one rule…
Oops! LOL!
Announcement: What Fight Club?????
We don’t need no stinking Fight Club …
…And for God’s sake…don’t ask how we make the soap!!!
(Well, we were going to start calling it Project Mayhem soon anyway…)
*Goes on a credit-card shopping spree*
*joins MG*
Might as well go shopping; doesn’t look like the guys are going to provide much entertainment anyway.
Bummer. I was hoping for an entertaining diversion from Botany.
*crumples empty Capri Sun pouch*
*too poor to afford shopping so hits books instead*
*hugs*
C’mon…we’ll shoplift something stupid.
@death by kewt: Keep studying that Botany
text. I have plans for you, dear…
Again, you suckler at the foetid teat of Mammon, if I’d wanted to pick a bloody fight, I’d have come out with an insult… In a polyandry situation, you’d be looking at some form of matriarchal set up, logically, thus, the multiple husbands probably have the whole ’sissy maid’ vibe…
Not so much in Tibetan polyandry, as far as my limited research goes.
apologies for mistaking your intent, but this comment added to the one below reminds me of several conversations we have had before where you have purposefully missed the point in order to spark an argument with me… i tire of such discussions because they lead nowhere.
“you suckler at the foetid teat of Mammon”
*golf clap*
Yes, I must remember that one for the next time I have an argument wiht my bank.
Good point. That will certainly come in handy next time I get a “courtesy call” about why I haven’t had money direct deposited in a while. Oh, I don’t know, maybe because NO ONE HAS CALLED ME TO WORK.
Who would voluntarily invite that much trouble into her life?
Actually, all the people I personally know in poly relationships are women with two men!
(All of two triads, of course, but yes.)
Mmm, Jules et Jim …
Is that badly phrased or are you equating Gay marriage to bestiality and poligamy?
neither. simply stating that bestiality and polygamy are still illegal. and imo should remain illegal. but way to try to pick a fight…
If I’d wanted to pick a fight, you moon faced desk jockey, you’d have know about it… as it was, I wanted to make sure what you meant.
-
Now, who is suggesting polygamy and bestiality should be legalised, and who are you introducing the topic into the subject of gay marriage
“if i wanted to pick a fight i’d…” blah blah blah…
this lol was not lol and i thought that the inclusion of said line about beastiality and polygamy would’ve been a great punch line. notice how i did not say anything about how either topic relates to gay marriage or how gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry. actually i was reinforcing that bestiality and polygamy are not socially acceptable while gay marriage is and should be.
.
you consider me a right wing “cretin” which is why you are projecting your stereotypes of what right wingers think on me. in short: piss off. again.
.
get a clue, get a life, get something that will get you over yourself.
TBH, you’re the one with the whole ‘Brokeback Mountain’ relationship with yourself, you narcissist…
now there’s the pot calling the kettle black…
*sigh*
and you wonder why I think you’re an idiot…
*yawn*
and you wonder why i find your comments tedious and dull…
No, that’s because you’re an idiot… it’s not a wonder to me at all…
So is this it? Every time Unc points out an error in your prose you plan to
accuse him of picking a fight?
*sigh*
Go ahead: This is where you accuse me of sticking up for him.
You know you want to…
are you two serious?
it was a comment meant to be funny, but if you want to take it as a negative then have at it…
.
sense of humor double fail.
You may have meant it to be funny, but it didn’t work.
Just because you lay an egg once in a while doesn’t mean that
people who can’t read your mind are lacking a sense of humor.
C’mon–Even the pros don’t knock ‘em all out of the park.
Oh, and, since you’re madly in love with failing people, here’s
one for you: Acuity fail.
and your point was what? you didn’t find it funny therefore it’s offensive to gay people who want to get married? get off your high horse…
I’m going to be kind and assume you’re pretending to be
obtuse.
Two consenting adults do not equate to animals or marrying multiple consenting adults.
Apples and Oranges.
By the by… Marrying a person with intent to SkullFu(k them with a soldering iron until they expire is illegal too while we are bringing up unrelated topics.
Just putting that out there…
haha nice dwn.
It is okay, while I took the comment at face value, I decided to add some silly to go with your lack of seriousness.
What about cows marrying goats? Is cow polygamy/polyandry unacceptable?
under the current laws a cow can only marry one goat at a time but sheep do not support their rights to marry at all.
I disagree. I fully believe that polygamy will be the next ‘gay marriage’ debate. While marrying an animal still leaves out the ‘consenting adult’ clause, polygamy is among consenting adults and should be legally recognized as any other type of adult relationship should be recognized.
-
If we’re going to legalize all forms of adult marriage, then let’s DO IT, dammit!
I think the big issue is the web of legality that would come with poly marriages. I don’t see it happening due to all the issues with stated web.
I think, for that very reason, that it will take quite some time, at least, yes.
.
But – the legalities involved with all child-generating marriages with divorces, new spouses, new children, new divorces seems to be possible to manage for the legal rights of all those half-siblings, so it’s probably not impossible. Just trickier.
I would agree, legalize all forms of adult marriage, but it would be difficult with polygamy since a lot of polygamists seem to be into marrying little girls and relatives. It seems that the women/girls in polygamist groups are often extremely, shall we say, disadvantaged. It would be difficult to determine genuine consent on the part of the woman in a lot of those situations, I think.
The problem there is that it’s not really a group marriage. It’s one guy
with several wives. And you are absolutely right about the problems
with figuring out how to legalize that.
It would be much easier (though not easy, by any means) to legalize
a true group marriage, though, where everyone was married to
everybody else. John is married to Jane and Sue. Jane is married to
John and Sue. Sue is married to John and Jane. That type of a thing.
John, Jane, and Sue are truly a unit, with equal roles in the marriage
for each of them. That would be easier and while I don’t think I would
ever want to do a thing like that, I would have no problem if it were
somehow legal.
I was going to keep my nose out of this discussion, however I
find myself having to disagree. Of all the people I know who
practice polyandry (or would practice if they could), none of
them are interested in little girls or their own relatives.
lol … gay ppl
lol … morons
lol … minions
*weeps*….onions.
I’m not crying, it’s just been raining, on my face.
*wipes* … wet ones.
Oooooh, that reminds me – I badly need to rewatch the christmas gift my brother gave me. (Flight of the Conchords dvd.)
Sorry, but that’s a stupid caption. NAMBLA pushes that pedo-love is ok, should they be able to marry? And what about beastiality, should it be ok for Farmer Joe to mary his sheep now too?
Oh give me a break. If allowing gay marriage means men can marry boys, shouldn’t we ban straight marriage to keep men from marrying girls or women from marrying boys? The two aren’t connected.
Clearly, but the caption, as it stands, allows for it.
Okay taking things WAAAAYY too literally.
Look at the original post again, what is HUH complaining about? Gay marriage? Polygamy? Pedophilia? No, they’re complaining about the caption.
Huh mentioned NAMBLA, which isn’t in the caption. So I don’t she how s/he is only complaining about lack of clarity in the caption.
Czernobog,I’d suggest that you’re either being immensely dense, or disingenuous… if it’s the former, I’d suggest you only post on captions you’re sure you understand, and if the latter then just STFU.
-
HUH is just a troll or a Socially Conservative Twit who just hates everything… more or less the same…
Technically, you are correct, but it doesn’t just stand as is, it stands together with an image; one that makes it rather more obviously a statement about gay marriage. So, HUH’s comment dragging it into the trusted old slippery-slope argument (whether it meant it as such or not) comes across as far more stupid than it thinks the caption is, imo.
.
Unless it’s surfing with pine or something, and only getting the text of the caption, then it comes across as marginally less stupid than otherwise. :p
I see no slippery slope argument, only a legitimate complaint about a lack of clarity and failure to indicate that the notion applies only to consenting adults. Yeah, there’s a gay couple in the photo, that doesn’t make the caption any less all-inclusive.
I guess our perceptions of the caption in its context are very, very divergent.
(And this reminds me of Olaf Quimby II)
Quoting Wikipedia who are loosely quoting Terry Pratchett:
“A past Patrician of Ankh-Morpork referred to in The Light Fantastic, Olaf Quimby was noted for his interest in honest and accurate descriptions as well as proper standards for everything, particularly metaphor. As Patrician, he used his power to enforce laws against creative exaggeration in writing. For example, no bard was allowed to say of a hero that “all men spoke of his prowess” on pain of death; he should instead add that some people spoke ill of the hero and that still others did not know of him at all. Similarly, the phrase “her face launched a thousand ships” could only be used to describe a beautiful woman if relevant shipyard records were produced or, failing that, evidence that the woman’s face resembled a champagne bottle.
…
Quimby’s reign ended when he was killed by a disgruntled poet during an experiment to test the truth of the saying “The pen is mightier than the sword”. In his memory, it was amended to read: “The pen is mightier than the sword only if the sword is very small and the pen is very sharp”.”
I think this is another win for all of Sweden. Represent!
Thanks! I am currently re-reading a lot of Pratchett, and am mostly worried because I get an urge to quote him in response to just about everything I read. ;p
.
Good thing it’s sometimes enjoyable to others. I’ll try not to overdo it, despite that.
terry pratchett is great.
Some times, too great!
The picture gives the context… that’s it… end of story… God’s death! SSparem e from idiots…
THANK you, sir. I was alarmed that no one had yet explained that.
*cracks knuckles*
HUH:
Since when are 6-year-olds and sheep of legal age and sound mind?
I love when willful ignorance rears it’s head. I’m going to teach you a few new words. Repeat after me:
CONSENTING
ADULTS
Now you try!
Wow–Failure to achieve Slippery Slope fallacy…
Double fail?
Wouldn’t it also apply as a straw man? My recollection of fallacy definitions is a little shaky.
Oh, my, yes. Good catch!
Wow, where’s my head?!?! When I first read that I saw fellatio.. Although, now that I think about it, Slippery Slope Fellatio does have a nice ring to it.
I dunno…I think Slippery Slope Phallussy would make a good porno…
*makes a note*
-
Damn, it would!!
*gets camera*
Somebody call me?
We did! We have a great title for a movie, but damn if the script doesn’t need some help.
I will get to work spinning words into gold. *gets to it*
Again, guys, this person is complaining about the wording of the caption. There’s no slippery slope argument here.
But where is NAMBLA mentioned in teh caption? HUH brought it up him/herself. I’d say that is the definition of a slippery slope argument.
No kidding. It’s such a dumb argument, anyway–really, apart from the occasional freak, who on earth wants to marry their dog? And anyway, as I said above, if letting two men get married opens the door to a man marrying a boy, why on earth doesn’t allowing a man and a woman to get married automatically mean a woman can marry a boy?
They always told us in law school that those making slippery slope arguments don’t have any better arguments to make.
Can you read? Do you have any thumbs? Nowhere has anyone argued that letting two men get married opens the door to a man marrying a boy. Not here, at any rate.
The caption reads: “Marrying the love of your life should NEVER be wrong.” That statement is all-inclusive. It does not apply strictly o consenting adults, that’s all that was said, there was no slippery slope argument anywhere outside your own heads.
“Marrying the love of your life” implies that both parties are consenting adults. It would be difficult for a goat, for example, to prove its love and commitment to a human. That’s why it will never work between me and Billy.
That…and the troll that lives under the bridge that separates the two of you.
I feel your pain, SB…
*looks longingly at Key Lime Pie*
Mmmm, KLP.. almost as good as PBJ’s!
Blasphemer!!!
(Don’t listen to the bad man, KLP. He doesn’t under-
stand our love.)
I fully recognize your love, and will allow you to embrace it. However, given the choice between KLP and PBJ, I’m sorry to say KLP will have to take a backseat.
Well, considering you’re not hurting anyone, I
shouldn’t judge…
KLP, you b*tch! You told me I was the only one!
What a tart!
Tangy, even.
It’s not too late, Jane. We can share…
*offers Jane a piece of KLP*
Mmmmmm, threeway. *noms some KLP*
*dollops whipped cream*
But we can still film the consummation in Europe… Soooooo, when do you want the filming?
Jaysus, I’m still tired from yesterday!
Hmmm, some recoup time of a couple days, take something for bruising and then sleep on the flight to Europe.
I think the thing is that “marrying children and animals” so often has come up as a slipper slope argument against one-gender marriage, it’s very hard to avoid thinking it is that here, too. Especially if you take the caption in context to be about that. If I’d never, ever heard the “People will marry their GOAT!”-thing before, I wouldn’t have reacted to it as the slippery slope argument that it frequently is.
.
I’m still not saying that this is clearly what HUH means, just that it very much comes across as such if you live in the current discourse I live in, at least.
.
I just thought of something, only somewhat related. If the picture had been of a grown man chasing a sheep wearing a bra, this same caption would suddenly have meant something completely different.
*subtly tries to slip a photo under some papers* What?
Haha.
” must suffice.)
.
(Sometimes I wish I could respond more cleverly, but it’s now been I don’t know how many hours, and I just have to accept that I am just not funny enough to come up with any good followup. So: “Haha.
(And I, at least, would have perceived that version as anti-single-gender-marriages.)
*tries to visualize this*
Wait, which one’s wearing the bra?
Grammatically, the sheep.
That was, indeed, my intention.
The slippery slope argument, even if valid (which it isn’t) is a baseless argument.
Why does it matter if Billy-Bob wants to marry his favorite goat?
I don’t care. It doesn’t impact me in any way. And before everyone jumps on me about the benefits of marriage for health insurance/taxes/etc, I’m pretty sure that goats don’t have Social Security numbers.
i think in the case of beastiality it’s a matter of both taxes and such, as well as spreading disease.
“as well as spreading disease.”
Those goats are such sluts….
Also, goats can’t like getting it up the ass, and if we don’t stand up for goats’ asses, who will?
how would you know that they don’t like it? have you asked a goat how he feels on the subject?
It said “mehhh.” I’m not sure how to take that but it sounds indifferent.
ha ha awesome
Well, it’s a space ratio issue, really.
Goats in Space?
GOATS….IN…..SPAAAAAAACE…..
I <3 the Muppet Show.
But if you get married, you can claim them on your taxes.
LoL. I’m not saying that it isn’t sick and wrong, I’m just saying we probably shouldn’t lock a guy up for fscking a sheep, although we should probably confiscate the sheep for it’s own protection. We should save the prison space for actual criminals…
Is beastiality legal or not in the US? Or is that a state-legislation thing?
OK, let’s try this… TRY IMPROVING YOUR ENGLISH COMPREHENSION, PIGFACE!
*golf claps*
Pigface the band? I think “Fuck it up Pigface, fuck it up”; while redundant, is easily comprehended.
The caption was not intended to stand alone, period. It was placed onto the
photo. Get it?
Perhaps HUH was commenting on the caption as a stand-alone statement.
Assuming he was, he was wrong, because the caption was not presented
that way, full stop.
All the people bitching about the bias probably wouldn’t give a shit if this were a Republican site. Poor Republicans, can’t handle opposite viewpoints. Don’t like it, don’t come here.
Yep. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the Pundit Kitchen.
oh snap son!
As a left leaning guy who has become pretty sick of this site, I can tell you it has nothing to do with the “bias” but rather the lack of any kind of humor. This post is a perfect example. There is nothing funny about it. It’s just a random social viewpoint, and a very unfunny and obvious use of the failtastic motivational poster format. If people are going to only post one side of the spectrum, they could at least make sure it’s a little bit funny. I’ve said this many times before: The problem with this site is that people vote for what they agree with, not for whats funny.
Aw, c’mon nathan, it’s poignant. There’s room for that here. Ease up a little, kay?
Well, imagine if over on the lolcat site, someone just posted a picture of a cat with a caption that said. “Catz ar kewl”. True enough, but not funny, creative or otherwise worthy of the front page. You don’t see that there because with cats its all about the funny, there are no ulterior motives for voting up a “lol” like there is here. Why should I give an “Obama is cool” lol a high rating if there is no humor? I dunno. I think theres a place for this kind of stuff but I don’t feel it should be here and I think the site would be a lot better off if people would start voting with their funny bone and not with their party.
Strawman fallacy. Your example wouldn’t be poignant to me. This LOL wasn’t poignant to you, apparently, which is fine. I’m saying that if something is seen as genuinely touching, for whatever reason, and not just stupid or schmaltzy, then it might have a place here. I don’t see this as an “Obama r kool” post at all. It’s a strong political statement, controversial, and, I think, important.
Well, there’s plenty of LOLcats that are more along the lines of two kittens curled up in a basket with a caption saying ‘Friendship’ or similar. The heartfelt LOLs appear in about equal quantity on both sites.
Although I suspect that if you’d realized that, you would have converted your argument to ‘just because they do it on icanhascheezeburger, doesn’t mean that should do it here’.
That’s actually a point…I’ve started to vote “win” on something that I just agreed with or thought was nice (example, many of the captions of the guy with the military dog visiting the memorial for the other dogs) and then thought “But is it FUNNY?” If the answer’s no, I generally hit “skip” instead.
I’ve voted “Win” on a couple in the past just because I thought/hoped it would start great dialogue even if they weren’t funny.
Same here. Many humorous ones don’t lead to good conversation.
A few attempt poignancy and do well. There’s no rule that they all
have to be funny, especially if they lead to good discussion.
Anything with good discussion get’s Uncle Fester’d anyway.
That’s so true, and unfortunately he tends to scare the living shite out of people to the point they’d rather just post and run. Kind of sad, really, IMHO.
I lurk, mostly, and will re-lurk after this. Just wanted to let you know there are a few others out here who, while we have the courage of our convictions, prefer not to be called names for attempting to post them.
I don’t even see a lot of my old “sparring partners” from last year around here anymore. I used to get into it a bit with people like Jane, Seth, DWN, etc. Always good fun because on social issues I’m a true liberal who believe “If no one else is getting hurt, do whatever you want”. Pro choice, pro gun, pro legalization of most drugs, etc. But when it comes to administration of the government, taxes and so forth, I very much align with the right. I do wish there was a place that was good for both humor and lively debate, like this site was last year.
It is a whole different crew, but there were trolls back then too. Megabob comes to mind.
If your convictions are stupid and you don’t like them being called stupid, then you really don’t have the courage of them, just some half arsed belief you don’t like being challenged and can’t communicate suth that you don’t sound a mental cripple…
God, you people WHINE!
In all fairness, I still manage to laugh and have some decent debate. Fester has yet to actually stop me from that. Then again, it would take more than sexual innuendo and/or being called an idiot to stop me from being a pervert and/or idiot.
Then again, I actually appreciate the commentary Darwinism that occurs from a hostile element like Fester. If I say something that isn’t refined or just doesn’t word out right, I know that I will have to defend it or at least reword. Even being called an apologist is simply cause to retort by defending the idea that concepts evolve and stagnation of beliefs is the inevitable downfall of said beliefs.
However, I am a sentimental fool like that.
I need to punt myself for using Then again twice there… *punts self*
Ow…
*unpunts DWN*
Good job explaining the difference between
having the courage of your convictions as
opposed to running off at the first challenge.
What people don’t seem to understand is that
the best blades have been melted and folded
many times over.
Thank you. While I admit to whining when certain ideas get challenged, I still find it worthwhile to at least try to explain my intentions and defend what is said.
Besides, I don’t see how people would equate courage with… Running away because they Might get called a… *gasp* a bad word or mocking name.
I can see General Washington or (insert your favorite general here) shivering in the tent before battle. “General! The enemy approaches! Orders?”
*pauses and shivers a bit before answering*
“Fire a shot over their heads and sound the retreat, they might use Foul Language!!!”
Yea… No, that isn’t courage. That is that opposite thing. What is it called? Oh yes, Cowardice. Intellectual Cowardice is almost more unforgivable than Cowardice in battle. At least cowardice in battle means you are avoiding death. Intellectual cowardice means you can’t handle anything that might require you to think beyond your original statement.
Crispy crap, my writing skills are subpar today… Apologies to the thread…
Good point about cowardice, but there’s also
an element of laziness and/or stubbornness,
imo. There’s another element I’m trying to
use here, but I’m drawing a blank. It’s akin
to the fallacy of tradition. Anyway, it’s that
element within that justifies an opinion,
based only on the fact that it has been ones
opinion for a long time, right or wrong.
Well my guess would be Fallacy of Tradition since it seems to cover that too. So I have the same blank.
Well, there’s proof to me that you and I are
simply too *gorgeous* to be intellectuals.
*dodges lightning bolt*
You wouldn’t have had to dodge that lightning bolt if you had said just you were too gorgeous. It became a blasphemous lie when you tried to say I was too gorgeous. Now you know to be more careful.
*runs; tackles DWN as lightning bolt strikes*
Now quit saying stuff like that!
…and give me back my wallet.
Oh… Um, what wallet?
I don’t believe you have the courage of your convictions, or
else you wouldn’t post and run.
Perhaps you should spend some time examining why you
feel the need to “run” after posting.
Just sayin’.
Oh honestly, he’s not the Balrog of PK. What’s he gonna do, come out the screen at you? He and I have had arguments before and all my limbs are intact.
I now see a man wielding a cardboard tube in front of his computer, waving it at Fester’s posts. “You WILL NOT PASS!!!”
Hehe
unfortunately he tends to scare the living shite out of people to the point they’d rather just post and run
People that get scared like probably shouldn’t have internet access.
.
But – learn to post your convictions in a way that don’t result in name-calling, if name-calling is damaging to you.
won’t*
Based on many of your posts, I’d not say you’d know ‘good discussion’ if it bit your creampuff, whiny arse…
Does anyone else see Lolnathan without an avatar?
Whoa! Never mind: I can see it now. Funny, but there wasn’t even a
place marker for it earlier.
*puts mushrooms back in the cabinet*
*stealthily removes mushrooms and consumes them*
*grins at Lolnathan, then vanishes, leaving only the grin*
The Cheshire Rhorho?
Man… if you’re going to make a bullshit forced ideology, at least have the lameness cut out
I didn’t even realize it HAD a leg injury. That makes me sad.
And what is Gnifewrench’s problem with amputees anyway? Surely they have the right to post lols here too.
Where’s the lol?
You mean like miscegenation laws that limited the definition of marriage in the early 1900s? You could only marry someone of the same ethnicty and able bodied… and that crap was the ‘Land of the Free’, not some depression ridden hell left by a world war…
Ok gaiz, I get it, AND I supportz it, but Where Do I Laugh??
*facepalm*
Have patience, some time something fun will come along again. (And as a friendly given advice: lolspeak and its likes are not very popular on PK. Not at all.)
Plus, IIRC, I’ve gotten narri a chuckle out of your posts recently …
Your pat-ronizing is a pitty.
Hm, yes, that would be rhong of me.
But you shouldn’t let your resentments Fester either.
Oh no, we’re so close there isn’t even room to slanagat.
Maybe you shouldn’t diss people so much.
Like you’re some kind of saint, Clair.
Yeah, okay. Cute.
Difference is, my posts don’t make mainstream because not enough people, case in point, find them amusing. So how the heck does stuff like this slip through the cracks?
Gonna have to stick to playing with the cats. Nearly every visit here is just an epic bummer.
Leftie preaching again. Funny.
Yeah, civil rights are so left-wing! Damn lefties. Soon we’ll all have to drink out of the same water fountains.
WHAT???? No way am I drinking out of the same water fountain as a gay man! What if the demon that possesses them and makes them homosexual hides in the fountain and attacks me?? I might catch the gay!
I believe the disease is “Teh Ghey” actually.
Either way, I don’t wanna catch it! Imagine the horror of going to bed one night dreaming of boobies and waking up thinking ‘you know what I like? men!’
You don’t have to give up the dreams of boobies! There are some manboobs out there that could easily give the females’ mammary glands a run for the win in the “Heavenly Orbs 2009″-pageant.
Imagine waking up gay, then trying to dress yourself from your
own (previously straight) wardrobe!
Speaking of wardrobe, this is petty as hell, but those guys in the picture are clearly striking out against the “gay men have great fashion sense” stereotype. Those belts are tragic!
I hadn’t even thought of that! I’d have to buy a whole new wardrobe!
OMG!!! It’s all so clear now!! I can’t believe I didn’t see it before. This is all an evil plot to stimulate the economy! Think about it, you let gays use drinking fountains and they’ll infect lots of straight people with gay! Then all those new gays will go out and buy new clothes. Not only would that create employment in the fashion industry, it would require increased transportation to cope with all the demand, people would have to buy new vehicles to increase their fleets, they’d have to hire more staff. All those new employees would then go out shopping and there’d be more money floating around. And that doesn’t even take into account the increased spending on skincare products!
But it gets more insidious! Think about it folks, we’d soon end up in a position where the entire world economy would be dependent on gay money! They’d have so much power we’d have to give in to their evil demands, you know, immoral stuff like two people who love each other marrying and that sort of abomination!
Before we know it, straight folks would be put in prison camps to be used as nothing but breeding stock to pump out babies who’d then be taken away and indoctrinated into being gay!
Oh the humanity!
I’m going to email David Axelrod immediately! The ends
justify the means, and our economy is suffering.
How much do you think it would cost to put drinking
fountains on every corner? For all we know, Teh Ghay
may wear off, so this is an investment in our future…
Don’t they make a cream that clears that up right away?
Been Gay.
Duh. You been gay, but you ain’t gay no more!
I hear it stings a bit, though.
Smells like menthol, too.
Aren’t there homeopathic (not “homo”pathic, so stop it. I said STOP
IT!) remedies available? If I catch Teh Ghay I am NOT putting
Ben Gay on my Little Ivan!
Hey, I saw Milk last night on DVD. Pretty damned good movie!
It really bugs me that this is even up for a vote, you know? Since when do we take “majority rule” on whether a minority has civil rights?
hug 4 u!
Not as funny as all the right wingers crying like spoiled children not getting their own way.
Waaaaah!! The site’s biased! News flash for the muppets out there, they’re allowed to be biased. If you don’t like it, leave and make your own site.
Again with the insulting muppets? What did Gonzo do to deserve this?
He touched me in an inappropriate way.
Since everyone else is getting butthurt about this, I might as well join in. While I wholeheartedly support the sentiment behind it, it really isn’t funny and doesn’t appear to even be an attempt at humour…
unless you’re a pedophile
…or a crocodile
…marching single file
into a big pile
carrying a file
all the while
with a strong sense of style
and a smile that looks vile from a mile
Other than the overtly pro same gender attraction message in the picture, you can easily tell that this “LOL” was made by a socialist.
Using “self-procalimed greatest nation” instead of “the greatest nation” is a dead giveaway.
PS – read Lawrence v Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) and see what the Supreme Court said about homosexual marriage.
So, just by pointing out that it was Americans that made the statement that this is “the greatest nation” you can tell that this person would like to see government operated care available for the people? Astounding!
Are you psychic or just stupid?
You need to re-read my comment. You fail to understand the depth of the LOL.
”
Other than the overtly pro same gender attraction message in the picture, you can easily tell that this “LOL” was made by a socialist.
Using “self-procalimed greatest nation” instead of “the greatest nation” is a dead giveaway.
PS – read Lawrence v Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) and see what the Supreme Court said about homosexual marriage.”
Obvious troll is obvious.
Krezip was a Dutch band from Tilburg, formed in 1997. It is notable for the band members’ young ages during their original breakthrough. Since then, the band has had several successful albums and singles in the Benelux. The origin of their name remains unclear, though a popular explanation is that the name is an anagram of “perzik”, the Dutch word for “peach”.
Okay. So you start by calling me names, “troll”. Then you go off on some discussion of a band. Hmmmm.
It’s ironic that this picture is about freedom, when the righties are not free to put their lols on this site. This is all due to the lefties being a majority and having an attitude of “who cares what this site is for, we need to push our agenda at all costs.” Unfortunately this attitude is part of national politics too, with the lefties being in control of Congress, the Presidency, half of the Supreme Court, the unions, the educational system, etc. The thinking there is “who cares about the constitution, the economy, or if children are not getting an education, etc… we need to push our agenda at all costs.”
No matter your politics, this is not a good thing for this site or this country.
Is anyone stopping you from making a lol? no
Is anyone deleting said lol from the site? no
Is anyone preventing you from getting some friends to vote? no
How exactly are you not free to put up a lol? Just because you have the freedom to do something doesn’t mean you will be successful at it. Do you whine in school about bias when you don’t get an A on that paper? Do you start crying that you’ve lost your freedoms because no one voted for you in the class election?
Here’s a clue. NO ONE is stopping you from making lols on this site, especially not the government, that means you’re free to do it. If you don’t understand what a freedom is, withold commentary about the terrible state of the country, because generally it’s people like you that screw it up for the rest of us.
Butt hurt idiot is butt hurt…
…and an idiot
UH-OH!! They’re catching onto the whole left-wing conspiracy against right-wing posts!!
—
“The thinking there is ‘ who cares about the constitution, the economy…”
…Yeah, and Bush was sooooo concerned about the Constitution and the Economy…do i need to mention “No Child Left Behind?”
LAWL.
Punditkitchen is un-American!!!1!1!
That’s ‘cos some of us non-Americans are subtly infiltrating it.
sushhhh!!!!!!!
Holy crap, I never noticed that before!
-
Jaysus, Mary, and Joseph, what fecking difference does it make? I’ve had my whinge about that ages ago, but you know what? Nothing changed. So, you either learn to deal with it, or don’t let the door hit you in the ass as you exit the building.
-
For the record, people on the ‘left’ have been bitching aboud Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly, yet they’re still around, right? Do you see them capitulating and giving in to the left?
What besides constitutional rights, improving the economy, and educating children, do lefties care about? What is this agenda you speak of? Your post has me concerned that i missed a crucial aspect of lefty culture.
Isn’t it funny how freedom and democracy don’t always seem to get along? Voting suggests that everyone’s opinion matters, but in the end only the majority opinion matters, and no concessions are made for any other viewpoint. People are divided into winners and losers, and the winners feel even more justified in trampling upon the losers because they won “fair and square”, through a democratic process.
That’s why there have to be mechanisms in place to protect everyone’s viewpoints, balanced with intelligent and compassionate people, in order to create a world in which everyone feels treated fairly. Intolerance and winner-takes-all politics will never create such a world, and neither will the reliance on the cold, mindless, number-counting nature of machines and strict laws.
Good grief, if we required consensus to post a lol there’d be, what, two?
… Per American presidential mandate period, or so.
It’s ironic that this picture is about freedom, when the righties are not free to put their lols on this site.
Oh, this was the funniest thing I have read in quite a while. You’re good at this humour stuff.
Your lot had the last 8 years, quit being butt hurt just because the rest of the country got sick of the screw ups you lot put in office.
What if the love of my life is a 10 year old girl? What if the love of my life is a drug addict who will lead me down the path of destruction? Plenty of times when marrying the love of your life is very very wrong, regardless of your orientation!
I would suggest a very long engagement, especially as they lack wedding registries at the Disney Store.
but she really really wants that cinderella dress for her wedding dress… (see link)
Actually Disney is now marketing itself for weddings. Complete with costuming if you want. Scary! (link)
oh…. that’s revolting. any man who lets his wife-to-be bully him into one of these cheese-fest weddings ought to just go to the doctor and ask for his balls to be removed and stored in a small jar for her.
And the wife-to-be needs a brain implant, because obviously hers has been subverted by Disney incorporated marketing!
You win.
Lolnathan, you’re just an idiot. You’ve always been an idiot, and every time you post, you prove it to a new set of people… You know the context by the picture… now, if in your twisted mind either of those slightly portly, late middle aged gentlemen appears to be a 10 year old girl, then you really should just seek medical help. If your personal fantasy IS a 10 year old girl (an I think it might, based on the fact it’s your mind that brought it up) then again, you should seek help…
I’d rather be an idiot than the most obvious troll on this site.
Yes, obvious troll is very obvious
*soaks Mantouthe with lemon oil and polishes furniture with him*
Who’s a troll? I just see wall to wall loud idiocy and called you on it… I’m not the one making suggestions about marrying children…
I’m not the only one that thinks you’re a troll.
I think he is a troll but I also think that unlike a typical troll, he typically has a point and if anything is an intellitroll, thus provoking thought by Demanding that you back up your statements.
So you think he is a troll all you want. I’m sure it helps you feel better to give somebody a label just as it helps that I label you naive.
Never see him backing up anything. He just yells and waves his arms and calls people foul names.
Only in the movies, and that’s totally ad lib with no script.
-
Otherwise, I have seen Fester on more than one occasion site his material and back it up. I have also seen him ask for citations/proof, and the other person not provide squat.
Hang out a while longer and you’ll see Unc make lots of
points. He answers like with like, which is what you’ve
seen him do so far.
I’ve learned a lot from Unc, and others have, too.
Allow me to turn your slippery slope upside down!
You just suggested that the government should be able to deny a man and woman from being married if one of them is a drug addict who might ruin the life of the other. When does it stop? Maybe next the government wouldn’t allow doctors to marry dentists, or carpenters to marry secretaries. Maybe blacks shouldn’t marry whites, or asians shouldn’t marry hispanics?
Where does your slippery slope stop?
at the ground…
*facepalm
Unless you dig a hole under it.
*facepalm
Allow me to summarize your failure at logic:
If it is illegal to marry a 10 year old girl, you cannot do so.
If a ten year old girl you wish to marry is the love of your life, you still cannot do so.
Therefore, it is illegal to marry the love of your life.
For this to be logically sound, the following would have to be true:
-If someone is the love of your life, they are a 10 year old girl.
-If someone is NOT the love of your life, they are NOT a ten year old girl.
-If someone is a ten-year old girl, they are the love of your life.
But none of those are, it isn’t, and you fail.
Although; aren’t conservatives focused on having a less intrusive government? One that leaves people alone? Because it would seem to me that a government that interferes in people’s marriages is a large government and not a small one. Funny how those contradictions spring up, isn’t it.
One that allows the majority to vote on people’s rights with a view to limiting them by law is essentially flawed…
Don’t embarrass yourself. Only a complete moron would try to compare 2 consenting adults wanting to marry with some freak wanting to marry a 10 year old child incapable of giving informed consent.
But, just to play along with your little bit of nonsense. If that were the case, all you’d have to do is wait for a few years until they were old enough to marry and then you would have the legal right to do so. Same sex relationships don’t have that luxury, they’re simply told they’re not marrying ever.
This is very true. No “Wait 8 years and you can marry” for the gays..
If the love of your life is a 10 year girl, stay the hell away from my possible future daughter. Would you like water slide with that slippery slope fallacy?
“What if the love of my life is a drug addict who will lead me down the path of destruction?”
What in the HELL do you mean by this you lackwit? Are you saying that drug addicts should NOT be allowed to marry because they are addicts? If you marry a drug addict that’s still your choice to be led down that path or to be strong and actually SUPPORT your spouse in a journey to get well.
Addiction is a disease you fuck. Should other diseases be excluded too? You have HIV you can’t get married? Oh my god you had chlamydia you’re not allowed to ever marry? Cancer patients are no longer allowed to marry? Schizophrenics? Where does it end?
Pull your head out of your ass.
If I read what he posted correctly, I think it’s more to the effect of “well, yeah, sometimes marrying the love of your life is, sadly, the wrong thing to do” rather than any actual opinion on gay marriage et al….more of a comment on the phrasing of the caption. I would say the divorce rate confirms that comment; as sometimes a person you love dearly turns out to be tragically bad for you.
Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be allowed to marry them.
Absolutely, but I’m not sure that was the intent of what he was saying; I think it wasn’t stated very clearly though.
I agree; clarity would have been helpful. But even so, marrying a drug addict will not always turn out to go horribly wrong.. Whereas marrying a ten year old always will because of that legality thing.
In this society anyway.
You are so right. I just think there’s a good possibility that he’s being raked over the coals for being comprehended as saying something other than what he intended; that’s the only reason I said anything about it.
Well, either way he intended it, it’s BS. Because like I stated, marrying a drug addict doesn’t always go horribly wrong. The implication is doubly false, from my point of view, because he is saying that they shouldn’t be allowed to marry; and that when they do it will go horribly wrong.
The comparison of 10 year old and drug addict is completely retarded, and unfair.
I’ll get off the soapbox now.
What if the love of my life is a drug addict who will lead me down the path of destruction? Plenty of times when marrying the love of your life is very very wrong, regardless of your orientation!
As far as I know (I can probably find sources, at least in Swedish) it is very bad for women to be married to men. So yeah, marriage is wrong, I’ll agree with that.
I’d like to see these sources. Not that I don’t believe you, I just want to see them.
Oh, damnit, I hate getting called on my blatant lies. ;p … Nah, I didn’t lie, but I did knowingly exaggerate.
.
But seriously, one English related sources at least:
Strained marriages ‘harm women’ (BBC News)
.
I was also thinking of the crime/abuse/rape-situations within marriages, and the amount of women killed by their significant other. I could try to find crime statistics, but my lunch time is limited. :/
… killed by their male significant other, I meant to say.
Hmm. I did find the Swedish research I was thinking of. Re-reading it, it mostly talks about economy. For good financial future, it is better for women to be single, better for men to be married (or in a marriage-like state).
SACO (in Swedish, alas)
.
Health-wise, it generally seems better for all genders to be married than to be single.
I always thought the “love of your life” thing was intended to be mutual.
Like, in this case, Man A thinks Man B is the love of his life, and at the same time, Man B thinks Man A is the love of his life.
A ten year old is not considered old enough to know who is the love of his/her life and make legal decisions based on such an opinion.
So, you might think someone is the love of your life, but if that person does not feel the same way or is not considered legally able to make that determination (such as by being underage, or by being a sheep), then you don’t get to marry that someone.
Otherwise it would be legal for stalkers to put guns to the head of stalkees and force them to the altar. It just doesn’t work that way.
Why the frig do people want to tie themselves to any rediculous religion of which none promote true equality between the sexes and the races?
What if we took away the tax benefits of marriage for everyone and make a religious ceremony simply a religious ceremony?
Probably makes too much sense to work. You know, separating church and motherflupping state, motherfluppers. :p
Technically, the religious ceremony IS just a religious ceremony. Try it without the actual license from the state and I don’t care if your wedding is 3 hours long and performed by the pope, you aren’t legally married.
…depending on your state’s definition of Common Law marriage, that is.
Oooh, true, rho; I tend to overlook that because I don’t practice in one of the 11 states that recognizes it. (Also I avoid domestic law like the plague….)
I think it tends to be more of an issue out west, which is probably why it came to Rho’s mind. Or maybe just ’cause she’s smart like that.
Yeah, she is. Also, I think Texas is one of the 11.
It is, and IIRC, common-law marriage went from being a 7-year cohabitation as man and wife down to 2 years. Correct me if I’m wrong. I also think that the only thing you have to do in those 2 years is portray yourself as a married couple, in bills, mail, or the like.
I haven’t checked lately, but it’s not two years in Texas.
Long story, but an acquaintance had to get a divorce
because his fiancee changed her mind before the wedding,
but had changed her driver’s license to his surname, and
he had lied about their status to get her covered under his
insurance policy at work.
IIRC, the time needed without claiming to be married on
paper is six months, with cohabitation and witnesses to
verify that the couple claimed to be married.
Just checked: There is NO time limit:
Your two-year time frame may have to do with a
common law marriage being considered dissolved. If I
understand it correctly, a common-law (called “Informal
Marriage” in Texas) marriage is considered null once
the couple has not lived together for two years and no
suit has been brought between them over the matter.
Aww! Now you see why Key Lime Pie and I love you so much! ♥
Wow! I didn’t know that it was down to so few. Common Law is one
of the many reasons you are smart to avoid domestic law.
But we already knew you were smart: Incredi-telligent, even.
Oh, and while digging around, I found that only 9 states now
allow for common law marriages, although 5 states still recognize
their “grandfathered” common law marriages.
I really appreciate your wisdom in avoiding domestic law. The
heartache alone would be a tough thing to face on a daily basis,
even before dealing with child custody issues.
Texas is a non-alimony state, but alimony arrangements can be
instituted if both parties agree. Wouldn’t such negotiations make
for a fun afternoon? /trivial musings
Yeah, it’s a decision I made while I was in law school after noticing that when anyone I know (and I include myself here) got divorced they turned into either 1) a raging, paranoid a$$hole or 2) a whiny, needy neurotic for a period of approximately a year. Given my somewhat misanthropic nature in general, I could see myself ending up locking a couple in a room, smacking them both in the face repeatedly, and yelling “It’s just stuff! If you idiots are going to spend $200 an hour to fight over who gets the mismatched Tupperware lids, so help me I will beat the crap out of you until you get it settled!”
That is a pretty good point, to some extent. I agree that we’d probably be better off if legal code and such didn’t recognize marriage, and it was a purely ceremonial situation. It wont happen any time soon, but removing all references to marriage from our legal system would be great. Marriage doesn’t work anymore anyway. The divorce rate will only continue to climb as people realize marriage isn’t really a good idea anymore. People change, grow apart, and become incompatible. They shouldn’t feel obligated to stay together, for any reason.
Legal marriage does provide a framework for such matters as inheritance, property rights, and so forth; so I don’t know that it’s outlived it’s usefulness completely.
True, but all that could be handled by means of a generic legal contract. But yeah, because marriage is so ingrained in our legal system, it probably wont change any time soon.
It is technically a generic legal contract; there’s (varying from state to state) a very specific group of rights, privileges and obligations that each party is agreeing to with the other party. You can add to those by contracting separately if you wish (i.e. prenups) but from the state’s point of view, that’s what marriage is.
If what you’re saying is that the state (or individuals) could do so without calling it marriage, you’re absolutely right. However, if we left it to individuals I can tell you there’d be a lot more variation and a lot more legal headaches.
That generic legal contract business didn’t work out for my friend.
His partner died of AIDS. His partner’s children, who had nothing to
do with him after he came out, suddenly appeared, demanding
inheritance from his part of what he and my friend had built up
together. The contract and the will were tossed to the side.
To say it was a nightmare is an insult to nightmares.
Same with friends of mine too… only this time it was the sister who wanted her pound of flesh from the deal…
Absolutely right.
And it improves a couple’s fights immensely when they know it’s gonna take more than a slammed door to separate them. There’s a great freedom you unmarried folks will never know to being able to really tell each other off, in full knowledge you’ll have a “later” to take it back in. Yes, you grow apart, and together, and apart, and together (watch that heavy breathing, UF!) and over the years you may be more or less compatible. But the default mode is “together,” so you have time to reconnect.
And if your spouse is suddenly in the ICU for three months, it is vital (as in lifesaving, for both of you) for you to have the right to be there and speak up for their needs. Today’s the one-year anniversary of the homecoming, BTW. Whew!
And if one of them goes into the ICU and never comes home again, and there’s no one in her family sane enough to handle her affairs, make reasonable decisions and settle issues, isn’t it better that her wife have the legal authority to do what needs done?
Superficially reasonable, but even a slight reading shows a lack of the comprehension of the issues that is positively frightening…
you heard it here folks, you can now marry any love of your life: your dog, your fish, yourself, your first car, that 10ft. sub sandwich you can barely fit in the fridge, your cell phone, starbucks coffee, your computer, your cardboard cutout of a superhero, and, of course, that .jpeg of a hentai girl.
caption fail. just say you want gays to marry and get off your high horse about love. if you really do find the “love of your life” you really shouldn’t care about getting a permission slip. lots of people in the history of the world have been discriminated against, and no one is stopping homosexual love. build a bridge and get over it.
Reading previous posts fail.
Dullard win, though, you must admit…
ok then…
last time i checked the constitution does not back up the right to ignorance right
right guys?right?
*smacks except very hard into a tree which then falls in love with except.except falls in love with tree and they live happily ever after til the tree finds this thread and divorces except leaving him cold and alone
Now to set myself up to get flamed at least once.
In my limited experience, I have noticed a higher supply of submissive female personalities than submissive male personalities. At least as far as I know in the Western world here. I am not talking about anything fetish, just personality types.
This reflects into the BDSM community as I have only met two female dominants. One is a lesbian with her female slave and the other has a male and has recently taken on a female sub as well. I have met a fair number of female switches, though they tend to be bottom heavy as opposed to top heavy. Bottom heavy meaning they submit more than they dominate and Top heavy meaning they dominate more than they submit. I actually know one Bottom Heavy gal who has been stuck dominating because she can’t find anybody she wants to sub under long term. Luckily my mentor is somebody she can sub under so she gets some attention from time to time.
So my experience suggest that a poly relationship would most likely be male at the helm though I wouldn’t be surprised if there was at least one or two women with a number of menfolk under their name.
So long story short, I agree with Rhorho, there is at least one woman with a stable of menfolk.
/babbling
Aw, c’mon, DWN, posting all this good stuff without a video link?!?
I have a minor sadistic side, perhaps? I am a bit of a tease.
I wonder how much of that is cultural. I think that long ago we switched to a patriarchal viewpoint, at least those of us that come from european traditions. So culturally women may be a bit more submissive. Then again it may also be an evolutionary thing. Human women are smaller than human men in their physical build. So when the question of a fight comes up the man might outright fight, but the woman may have an easier time backing down instead of an outright fight.
Human bahavior is a curious thing.
Now i don’t think it’s bad women have a tendency to be more submissive. It’s annoying when they are EXPECTED to be submissive.
Submissive on the surface, just to keep the peace. I’ve never seen a woman who didn’t hold a grudge after a confrontation. Also, women are ’stronger’ than men for handling social situations and for verbal sparring, which nowadays keeps them in control of most families and relationships more than physical strength.
Oh yes, but luckily the dominant and submissive scene isn’t about actual confrontation though confrontation might be part of a scene. In social circles, women do have an advantage though.
Oddly enough, Dommes (female dominants) come down with Tops Disease more than Doms (male dominants) which is something we in the community believe to be very much cultural since dominant women feel more challenged or that they have something more to prove.
For the uninitiated: Tops Disease is a mental condition in which the dominant feels they are dominant because they are owed it instead of earning it. They have a dangerous tendency to become insensitive to the needs of their subs, since they feel they know best. There’s more but that is the summary.
I think this Tops Disease may be closely related to what happens to people when we elect them to political office.
You might have something there. Those with TD tend to think they can dominate anybody and Make them submit, very anathema to the community since consent is the foundation of everything.
So yes, you could easily compare it to the meglomania that world leaders can and often get.
this tops disease sounds like several straight x-ian men i know…
they are dominant because they are men and they wear the pants
and their mommies told them they are supposed to be in charge…
Same difference, so yes. If they were in the BDSM community, they would be referred to as @ssholes in Leather, not masters or dominants.
@ssholes in leather sounds just about perfect since their
thumped bibles are usually leather (hide) bound. but the one
i usually refer to as the ex sh!t for brains and his father is
minister sh!t for brains…..
Then by all means, use the term with my blessing.
Yes… Who is really in charge – the dom or the sub? I’d never heard the term tops disease, we tend to refer to that sort of dom as an asshole or less pleasant things, but I always wonder if it is people who should really have the sort of control they have as subs instead. (That they just haven’t analysed, for themselves, how things really work.)
Realistically a sub has all the power. That power is based on that they can’t legally be held against their will thus they can just tell the dominant to bugger themselves and leave. A dominant without a sub is a hand without fingers. That’s the real power there…
However, it is the illusion of power that dominants hold that is so important to the submissives that sometimes they stick with a dom with Top’s Disease. Luckily, smart communities try to keep an eye on this behavior and help any subs that feel stuck.
But yes, we tend to abhor those with Top’s Disease since they are so dangerous to the community, especially if they don’t try to regrasp reality. Unfortunately the mainstay of Goreans are men with Top’s Disease but I have had the fortune of meeting a Gorean couple who actually are sane. Master Darius is very respected and very good to his gillian. They are an exception trying to become the rule, which is refreshing since that subset is very destructive to the image of BDSM and to their submissives.
I’ve not got much insight into the BDSM community, but I will point out that I know an awful lot of guys who are very aggressive in business or whatever but certainly seem to let their wives run the family/relationship; you hear a lot of “…have to check with ‘the boss’ on that…”, “…she found out I sent the kids to school with cheetos and pepsi for lunch, and BOY was I in for it!”, “…If she’s not happy, nobody’s happy…” kinda stuff. For whatever that’s worth.
I’m more inclined to an egalitarian type of thing myself. Not really into bossing or being bossed.
“I’m more inclined to an egalitarian type of thing myself. Not really into bossing or being bossed.”
I’m the same way. Too bad we don’t get fun costumes, huh?
Yeah…that’s a drawback.
Which is why we can really cut loose on Halloween!
You mean that night I have to turn off the lights and hide upstairs
because I forgot to buy candy?
A lot of that scenario boils down to release. You see, there are lot more submissive males than society likes to accept. These men being culturally driven to be manly and aggressive end up finding a way to be submissive. However, this ends up being a quirky idea because I found that a lot of women were mad that they had to take control when they wanted to give it up. Hence the henpecked husband scenario.
I grew up with the woman being in charge of the money so that is how things boiled down. Of course, at face value, this would gall Lynn to no end because she wants to submit to me. We work that out by having her in control of the budget but I have to approve what she comes up with. We both have control and a measure of comfort.
Oddly enough Lynn is technically a switch but has no desire to dominate men which is good because while I am a Service Dominant, I would not tolerate being actively controlled. My issue with budgeting is that I know that I am compulsive and her math skills are better, that and I grew up with that precident.
Wow, more babbling. Sorry about that but hopefully it gave you some information.
Ugh Revision time:
It is a cultural issue that puts women in charge of the money not that all men who have women in control of money are secretly submissive. Misstatement on my part.
I was supposed to state that culture drives men to be alpha males while inhibiting those with submissive urges. THIS is what leads certain men in power to be caught being Mistress (insert name)’s little toad and footstool.
Hopefully that revision cleared up some of my logical fail in the previous post.
Makes sense as a theory, I guess.
Well to the Dommes who get paid bucks to humiliate and smack around powerful men, it is more than a theory. At the very least, to them. Men are socially encouraged to be alphas and women are socially encouraged to be submissives. Had to be some kind of reaction eventually.
Speaking of Dommes, I haven’t chatted with Mistress Lithia in a while. I should see how her new girl is getting along with her Rafael. /random
Well, I know a lot of women who use boobies for nefarious purposes. If the wife isn’t happy, they don’t get any. There are few things us men enjoy more in life than boobies, so sacrificing a few things here and there to keep the wife happy seems a small price to pay.
Correction: I know a FEW, not a lot.
Right! As I like to say, “Happy wife, happy life!”
*muses on this topic for a minute*
You know, I always hear that, but I’ve never understood how that works. If she’s withholding sex from him because she’s pissed, isn’t she also withholding it from herself? (Unless she’s cheating, too, I guess). To put it in simpler terms: Why would I punish ME if I’m pissed off at YOU?
It is based on the idea that men are sexual monsters and women only have sex with them to placate them, like virgins fed to a volcano god. Then again, most women don’t want sex when they are angry. Least not the ones I know.
Then there is the possible cheating on the side so the woman isn’t punished but that always makes me wonder who is actually justified…
Personally I find it difficult to stay mad when I get sexually aroused….actually, a pretty good way to get me over being pissed off!
That’s the issue, when you have the angry Loraina Bobbit look on your face, how many men do you expect to try and turn you on? Tis the Catch 22.
Luckily, I learned to either be brave or foolish or simply take a moment to calm her down and talk things out. Then have my revenge making her my saucy wench though I don’t think it is the revenge my brain is telling me at the time.
The one exception to that rule occured to me later – on the occasions where I’ve gotten to the point in a relationship that I don’t even LIKE the guy anymore, all bets are off and I’m probably not going to want to have sex with him at all at that point. But the rule still applies to normal arguments and even pms.
Or she has a vibrator. Although if I’m pissed I just want to sit and be pissed and it wouldn’t be a withholding thing so much as a if you’re in the room I’m gonna yell at you thing, but I can only maintain that for a couple hours before I get bored.
Yea anger isn’t really conducive to sex for me either. When I’m angry at my spouse, until I’m done being angry, I want nothing to do with him. And that’s not really something I can control, we’d both rather I want nothing to do with him than unleash all that anger. And I mean unleash. I can only talk about it after I’m done being mad.
That’s the problem with being Borderline. Thank god for drugs.
Ahhh agry sex, so rare, but so good!
angry.
*headdesk*
Or agri-sex….on a tractor. Yow.
not funny at all
not even slightly humorous
i dont care if the gays get married, but this is the wrong venue to sputter out your opinions
FAIL
Show me where the rules say this is the “wrong venue.” Besides, you don’t seem to have a problem when it comes to sputtering out your own opinions.
Yes. An public forum on the internet is a horrible place for a person’s opinion.
It’s a good thing tendo got us all sorted out, or we may have voiced opinions
on Pundit Kitchen!
*recoils in the horror of the narrowly avoided calamity*
this is the wrong venue to sputter out your opinions
That’s your opinion, huh? Good job, this comment wins “Daftest Comment of March 11th, 2009″.
.
PS: My opinion can beat up your opinion any day.
Conservatives think gay marriage is absurd, like marrying a tree.
They’ve got millions of years of male-female mating to back them up, along with marriage between men and women being the norm since the beginning of history… in all cultures, atheist, religious, ancient, and modern.
There we go with that broad brush again. Not ALL conservatives think that gay marriage is absurd. Only the narrow-minded extreme right thinks it’s wrong. As a Conservative, I have absolutely no problem with gay marriage. I wish to God people would quit using conservative like it’s a form of leprosy.
Yeah…what he said…
At least present your statement correctly, allenhyundai. If what you mean is that, in your experience, many people who define themselves as conservative have made statements to that effect, then SAY so. If what you mean is that you consider yourself to be an exemplar of conservatism and that’s how YOU feel, then SAY so. But don’t make blanket statements that lump us all together.
Well…I think it’s absurd to compare marrying a person to marrying a tree, so there.
Also, the definition of marriage has evolved many, many times over the centuries. Only a few decades ago it was illegal for a white person to marry a black person. Just because there’s a precedent for something doesn’t make it right.
Anyway, your ideas make me uncomfortable but I’m not out trying to write a bill to discriminate against you. You should be free to think what you want, but you shouldn’t be able to legislate against others for not agreeing with you.
Right, because marriage is all about mating and reproduction. This is why we don’t allow infertile people to get married, or people who are too old to have children to get married. (Conversely, this is also why unmarried people never have sex and never have children.)
Also, consider that many conservatives doesn’t actually have millions of years of data on anything, as many conservatives believe the world to be only some 6,000 years old.
Finally, never say “in all cultures.” Because someone will find an exception and then you’ll look even more ignorant.
The exceptions throughout history, like the Egyptian pharaohs marrying their siblings, or the Two-Spirit men in some Native American cultures, etc. don’t invalidate the simple fact that men and women marrying seems to be built into the human animal… from the footprints found in million-year-old volcanic ash of a male hominid followed by a female with a child, to Neanderthal males and females buried together, to the Soviet Union’s marriage laws, to Pygmy tribal marriage customs, to Babylonian marriage laws. These ridiculously different cultures with the same marriage ideas show that the “conservative” feelings on this subject aren’t something recently made up by people keen on Jaysus, or that they are like segregation laws made up in early American history.
“These ridiculously different cultures with the same marriage ideas show that the “conservative” feelings on this subject aren’t … like segregation laws made up in early American history.”
How? There is no logical connection between your premise and your conclusion. You are possibly right on the Jesus bit, but this part of your argument isn’t logical.
“The exceptions throughout history, like the Egyptian pharaohs marrying their siblings, or the Two-Spirit men in some Native American cultures, etc. don’t invalidate the simple fact that men and women marrying seems to be built into the human animal”
Key word being “seems”. From your statements you appear to dislike gay marriage (could be wrong), which would lead you to disregard these (and other) exceptions. I, as a pro gay marriage person, believe they provide historical precedents (not that they are needed) to a state with gay marriage included. Honest questions, you haven’t shown any signs of bigotry, I just wonder how you come to your thoughts.
You say “built into the human animal” as if it has to be the same for
everybody. There are variations within the human species, you know. It is
true that for the majority of people, what is “built in” is for a man and a
woman to marry. This is why we call homosexuals a “minority”. The lack of being like the majority, however, does not make the way they are wrong or invalid
or not human. It means they are different. And different in a way that
does not hurt the majority in any way whatsoever.
I’d like to point out that many of you liberals also believe the “Young Earth Theory.”
You also seem to think that you can just pull out of a war-torn country like it’s a cheap whore, but that’s another story…
You conservatives think you can impose your values on a country like it’s a 20cent N!gg3r… so I’d say we’re now fair and balanced…
ok then…
last time i checked the constitution does not back up the right to ignorance right
right guys?right?
*smacks allenhyundai very hard into a tree which then falls in love with allenhyundai.allenhyundai falls in love with tree and they live happily ever after til the tree finds this thread and divorces allenhyundai leaving him cold and alone
my bad
my computer is all wonky and this page showed up as a txt file
for some reason i saw your name over excepts post
srry
*hugs allenhyundai
Actually, you can’t really substitute ignorance for stupidity. Ignorance is just a misunderstanding of the facts. Stupidity, is well just stupid. I would never give someone grief for being ignorant, because they can be taught.
Do I have it backwards? I’m thinking that “stupidity” is something that
can’t be helped, and “ignorance” means that the individual ignores facts,
etc., that conflict with his/her belief set.
Doesn’t ignorance mean that you don’t know the facts? That’s how I’ve always perceived it.
Okay, then, I did have them backwards. Thank you!
ignorance n. The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.
stupidity n. A poor ability to understand or to profit from experience.
I’ve thought of “ignorance” as “the state of ignoring,” which would
be consistent with the definition of stupidity.
…and who says the interwebs is only good for pr0n?
Yes. I used to think of it that way too (before I somehow became less ignorant
) – that “ignorance” was something that came from “ignore” – that ignorance was the state of being someone who ignores, whereas it rather is the other way around – that to ignore is to actively/willingly place yourself in a state of ignorance. Ramble, ramble, ramble. Just for fun, I looked ‘em up on the online etymology dictionary:
ignorant
c.1374, from O.Fr. ignorant, from L. ignorantia, from ignorantem, prp. of ignorare from in- “not” + Old L. gnarus “aware, acquainted with,” from Porot-L. suffixed form *gno-ro-, related to gnoscere “to know” (see know). Form influenced by ignotus “unknown.” Cf. also see uncouth. Colloquial sense of “ill-mannered” first attested 1886. Ignorance is attested c.1225, from O.Fr. ignorance, from L. ignorantia.
ignore
1611, “not to know, to be ignorant of,” from Fr. ignorer, from L. ignorare “not to know, disregard,” from ignarus “not knowing, unaware” (see ignorant). Sense of “pay no attention to” first recorded 1801 and not common until c.1850.
Go have a discussion with ancient Greece.
this is SO wrong!
so is being a dag..
Wow, eds! Thank you for a new word:
dag n. A faeces-caked lump of wool that hangs from a sheep’s bottom.
*bows to The Maestro*
Wow is right! I’m going to use it in a sentence today!
Can someone hand me a worm, because a can of them was just opened.
Smithers, I think I’m in looove!
*gasp!*
With this sculpture!
The whole gay marriage issue is trifling by now. Just be happy with the civil union already. And, this lol is maudlin and annoying.
Just be happy at the back of the bus, hm? Be lucky you’re allowed to ride?
Bigot. Hate-filled bigot.
Grow up, no one is at the back of the bus. Get your civil rights and then be happy about something for crying out loud.
Bigot.
Also, idiot.
I dislike calling people names but this frustrated me beyond restraint.
I’m not in favor of gay marriage, that doesn’t make me a bigot. You can call me an idiot all you want I’m allowed to my opinion. It’s a stupid thing for gays to fight for. You can have rights without marriage.
Bigot: Person who discriminates against another based off something that can’t be helped.
Yes, it fits. Especially with your Separate but Equal nonsense I smell gearing up to be posted.
Yes, you have the right to an opinion and we have the right to think your opinion is stupid.
No one is being discriminated against, except the people who want marriage to keep it’s historical definition. There are other ways for gays to get what
they want without walking all over what others view as sacred.
Ok then, let’s take all the legal stuff out of your sacred rite and make the playing field level. If it’s sacred, then fine. It won’t be legal. If it’s legal, then you’re a discriminating bigot if you won’t let everyone participate.
-
The historical definition of marriage varies by historical period. I dunno about you, but I’d really rather not marry my brother in order to keep the line pure.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about, why can’t both be legal institutions with the same legal rights? One is for men and women, called marriage and one for either same sex or opposite sex called civil union. Marriage would be sanctioned by the church, civil union would not. Or, something to that effect…
There was never a historical definition of marriage that said to marry your brother, that was a perversion of the definition.
The only way to ‘make it fair’ is to take the legal definition out of marriage and turn it into a completely religious ceremony. Otherwise, we’re all just gonna have to get used to having gay marriage.
-
The legal rights follow a marriage, not so much a civil union. I believe in another LOL someone posted a link to over 1000 differences in the two mostly having to do with civil unions not having the same number of rights as marriages.
-
Cite your ‘perversion of the definition’ and I’ll point you to every royal family that has ever existed since the beginning of time.
Was this it, froo? [link]
That would be the link, my dear Jane
The legal differences can be dealt with, whatever legal perks there are in marriage can be granted to a civil union maybe they need to be done on a case by case basis. They are different anyway, there will always be a difference between a marriage and a same sex marriage, as different as a man is from a woman, why not just call it a civil union?
It doesn’t matter if Royal families did it or not, it is a perversion of the formal definition, marriage has always been between a man and a woman.
Cite ‘always’. Try not to use the Bible.
You have something against the Bible? Anyway, the fact that the human race has come as far as it has, population-wise, tells you that it’s been men and women hooking up, not same sex partners. It’s the way things were designed.
*laughs at the statement that I have something against the Bible* Of course not. But it’s not a valid cite when you’re talking about legal matters.
Homosexuality has also existed peacefully alongside your “traditional” views of sexuality in many cultures throughout history. Take ancient Greece as a western example.
Oh yes. The human race should give itself a great pat on the back for it’s population success. Been to India lately? Or China?
“But it’s not a valid cite when you’re talking about legal matters.”
Why is that? It’s what many of our current laws are based on, and it’s a pretty good thing in my opinion.
“Homosexuality has also existed peacefully alongside your “traditional” views of sexuality in many cultures throughout history”
And it still could…
My laws are based on the Code of Hammurabi.
Our current system of law has as much to do with Greek democracy and roman codification of law as it does the bible. Open your brain and learn a little history.
I think asking whatnext to open his/her brain would be like tring to get a preschooler to recite the periodic table.
Nice…
Can anyone show me any instance where
the “Separate but Equal” doctrine has worked?
At the end of women’s suffrage, women were
allowed to “vote,” not “politically decide.”
Yes, women are different than men, but
their votes became equal and were
essentially the same. A marriage is a union
between two adults who have decided to
become partners. The only difference is in
plumbing parts.
If it walks like a duck, etc., it’s a duck.
If all things are equal, let’s call straight
unions “civil unions,” and gay unions
“marriage.” See what I did there?
Marriage was created in this country for men and women and all the perks that go with it are designed to make the relationship between men and women easier so they can co create the next generation, which is important to the
country. That was the intention. Things are not going to change
overnight, same sex marriage will never ever be like an opposite sex marriage even if they get all the special perks that go along with it.
You just got through claiming that marriage has been the same for centuries, now you’re saying that marriage was created in this country. I think that you need to go back and either reread your own arguments, or try to figure out what you’re actually arguing for.
-
Also, as has been said before, if marriage is only there to make it easier to procreate, why is it not illegal for my 90 year old grandmother to marry her 60 year old boyfriend?
“If all things are equal, let’s call straight
unions “civil unions,” and gay unions
“marriage.” See what I did there?”
Because of the tradition that goes along with the term
marriage is important to many people. Especially religious
people. Why piss all over them like that?
Then make it purely a religious thing, and leave the legalities out of it.
Well, there was an institution created in this country based
on the centuries of tradition but sanctioned by our government.
Your grandmother is a woman and her boyfriend is a man.
There is a story in the Bible, but…. I won’t go there since
you don’t like it.
“Then make it purely a religious thing, and leave the legalities out of it.”
Can you explain this please? I still don’t know what you mean.
Why does one particular group of “religious people” get to decide for everybody else what institutions get called by what name? Unless I missed some new change, the bill of rights protects all beliefs systems or lack thereof. One particular group doesn’t get to call the shots, then act all persecuted as soon as someone reminds them that they are only a part of the whole.
I think we had a vote recently…
Yeah, a vote that was pretty much unconstitutional. Not to mention questionable validity since the mormons and catholics played such a propaganda game with it.
You’re being deliberately obtuse. If marriage is for procreation, as you’ve said, and the reason that gays should not be allowed to marry is because it ‘wasn’t set up that way’, then my 90 year old grandmother should not be allowed to marry since she’s obviously not going to be able to procreate.
-
You’re deliberately throwing up fallacious arguments. First you argue historical tradition, then when someone points out that historical tradition sanctions marrying your own brother, then you say that it’s created in this country. Then when the fallacy of that is pointed out, you went back to centuries of tradition. You need to make up your mind.
-
If you’re dead set against teh ghays being able to marry, then marriage should be ONLY a religious institution and have no legal protection. If it has legal protection, then all consenting adults, regardless of their norty bits, should be allowed to participate. Otherwise, you’re excluding, discrimination, and illegally keeping people from exercising their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Very succinct froo, good job. Though I feel it will probably continue to make no impression.
I’m sure you’re right. It’s as Fester says, pissing in the wind.
-
*sigh*
-
These kind of people make my side look bad. And I can say that, because I used to be one
What side? Your on another side?
I’ll leave that to those who know me to answer. You’re obviously too new here to get a clue.
Froo is Republican, if not entirely a drooling neo-con (lol
) and a self-proclaimed christian.
And don’t forget hard right-wing Conservative, hehe.
-
Drooling neo-con indeed
Well, you now, we must differentiate those that have a brain from the dittoheads. i.e. “drooling neo-con”
*you know
*facepalm*
*sheepishly puts away her ‘Club Gitmo’ tee shirt and hat*
*turns radio down so Minerva can’t hear what’s on*
Er, of course I don’t listen to Rush. Er, he’s a gasbag. Er, I’d never do that!
-
-
Let’s just say I use all sides to form an opinion and leave it at that
heehee You are more open-minded than most, as made obvious in this pointless debate with this troll.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that we need to keep marriage the way it’s always been historically and then when you’re called on it say, oh except for that, that’s a perversion. Why do YOU get to decide? And please tell me ONE way allowing same-sex marriages infringes on your rights. You feel you’re being “discriminated” against then tell me how if my cousin gets to marry his boyfriend it will affect your life. Just ONE way. I dare you.
It’s not both ways, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Marrying your brother or sister is unhealthy genetically if there are children, that’s why I say it’s a perversion. Because I believe marriage is one man one woman and having to accept it as something else and possibly having my children taught that is an infringement. Why can’t your cousin have a civil union with his boyfriend?
Cite ‘always been between a man and a woman’. Your claim of ‘infrigement’ is invalid, unless you want your children to be raised in a paper bag.
You have still not given a single reason as to how gay marriage infringes on your rights. Your children being taught about it does not take away theirs or your rights. How will gay marriage affect you. One way. As to civil unions I believe I already posted a link to an extremely long list that shows the rights denied to them. As far as marriage to your sibling, that was common practice for CENTURIES. We see it as a perversion now because we’ve made advancements in science. We’ve progressed to the point where we realize that although it has a strong basis in history, that doesn’t mean we should still do it. Just like straight marriage being the only historically accepted marriage. Most of the rest of us have made the progress you haven’t.
How does gays NOT marrying infringe on their rights?
I already told you the legalities can be changed.
@ Jane — That person probably also thinks it’s a good idea to burn witches and/or beat wives, as there’s a historical precedent that makes it acceptable, historically speaking.
Also, still not answering your question and turning it back around. “I know you are, but what am I?”
But the legalities AREN’T being changed. The simple fact remains that you have one set of rules that applies to some people but not others. That IS discrimination. They are being denied rights NOW and you have yet to give a single way granting them said rights affects your life.
You go first.
“But the legalities AREN’T being changed. ”
Give it a chance…
@Minerva: There is also a historical precedence for slavery yet funny thing, we finally figured out that denying people rights based on “well it’s always been that way” wasn’t really fair.
Not allowing gay people to marry infringes on their rights in this one huge way: Have you ever tried to go see a loved one in the hospital, only to be rebuffed at the door because you ‘weren’t family’? Ever tried to inherit from a loved one without a will because you weren’t considered next of kin, even though you had spent 25 years with that person in a monogamous relationship? Have you ever tried to get insurance, life insurance, or health insurance on someone who wasn’t related to you, simply because it wasn’t legal?
-
THAT’S how it’s unfair, and that’s how you’re a bigot. When you don’t let grown people play because it might offend you, then you’re a bigot.
No, I DON’T go first. I asked you first, that means you’re simply avoiding it because you DON’T HAVE AN ANSWER. I have already showed you where they are being denied rights and your solution is to pat them on their head and say, well maybe someday we’ll let you have some of our rights. Kind of like we freed the blacks but they had to wait 100 years before they even STARTED to gain some equality, and racism still is strong today. This is ridiculous. There is no point discussion anything with you because you have consistently refused to answer a very simple question and I have to get up early tomorrow and pack for my trip.
I told you THAT CAN BE CHANGED!!
The point remains, “separate but equal” is not true equality. DUH
You mean like when we became separate but equal back in the day? Changed like that? Where are teh ghay water fountains?
We are talking about rights, not water fountains, DUH.
Yes, it IS the same as separate water fountains. Separate but equal is not EQUAL. Otherwise, there’d be no reason to differentiate at all. And again, how does married gays affect your life/rights at all??? Still no answer?
Oh wow, I think I actually just lost a couple of IQ points just reading your post, it’s that dumb.
-
Please, go read some history. Go read about suffrage. Go read about segregation. Go try to understand why your view of things is making it difficult for some members of the human race to be happy, as they were intended to be.
-
And, answer my statement about how your view is bigoted and wrong, because obviously you think it’s fine to deny legal rights to those you don’t agree with.
(the above was obviously at whatsnext, not at you, Minerva
)
If I’m married and I can visit my spouse in the hospital
and a gay person is in a civil union and he/she is allowed
to visit his so in the hospital,how is that NOT equal? How
is that a “separate but equal” right?
“Oh wow, I think I actually just lost a couple of IQ points just reading your post, it’s that dumb.”
Please stop with the insults, you learned from Fester, didn’t you?
Ah, the good ol’ Fallacy of Tradition rears its
ugly head. What we have here is bigotry
clinging to guns, Bibles, and/or hollow
justifications that don’t bear up well under
the light of day.
Whatnext, unless you want to be laughed
out of here, explain exactly how “The
Children!!” would be harmed in any way to
learn that people who love each other can
be married, no matter what their gonads
look like, as long as they of age and
capable mentally to commit to such an
arrangement.
Since you have no interest in citing your own arguments, I’ll cite mine: Under my name is a link to just a few of the rights that are not afforded to civil unions that ARE given to marriages. Take a minute, read them, you might learn something.
Did any of you read what I asked above?
Yes, and you’ve been asked in return, that if you are willing to extend all the same rights, then why get caught up on the title and just allow true equality.
Have you answered any of our questions yet?
Here’s one: Describe potential child damage.
Include cite, please.
If I’m married and I can visit my spouse in the hospital
and a gay person is in a civil union and he/she is allowed
to visit his so in the hospital,how is that NOT equal? How
is that a “separate but equal” right? —
HOW IS THIS HURTING ANYONE?
@Whatnext: I’ll answer your question.
Hospital visitation laws can be easily
changed, as can most of the hundreds of
others. This ability to change the laws does
not, however, make the point that we’re
dealing with the same issue: That of the
tried-and-failed “Separate but Equal”
doctrine. Should university degrees be
called different things because of the gender,
nationality, race or religion of the person
earning the degree? No, because that would
be unfair. Same story with marriage.
It is what it is. When people of different
races were given the right to marry, it was
immediately called marriage. Wanna guess
why?
BECAUSE, for the LAST TIME: Civil unions DO NOT have the same rights as MARRIAGE. They never have, and they never will, until you take either the legalities OUT OF MARRIAGE, or make it all the same thing! What part of this are you not getting????? If you want to hang on to marriage because of your religion, FINE! Great!!! No one is telling you otherwise! But you’re trying to have your cake and eat it to by saying ‘my religious ceremony is better than y ours because we have legal stuffs too’. You can’t have it both ways! Either everyone gets to play, or no one does!
Because it was between a man and a woman, which is the definition of marriage.
Who’s definition? Yours?
In your opinion only, which is, in fact, not set in stone. It might mean something else to other people and they find their definition just as valid as you find youts. Again, One religious group cannot hold sway over a homogenous society. That is what is the travesty here.
The travesty will be when all definitions are considered valid.
Were you born this dumb, or did you have to work really hard at it? I mean, honestly, you’re going to deny rights to those adults who consent, have jobs, have kids (some of whom never would have had a home), pay taxes, and live in the greatest nation on earth, protected by the Constitution? Honestly? Because if you are, I suggest you move to an island somewhere and create your own set of laws where you can freely oppress who you choose.
Sorry, not only christian viewpoints are protected by the law. Theocracy is ALWAYS a bad idea. Just because you believe yours is the only “right” definition doesn’t make it so. That’s why it’s a “belief.” It’s not a fact set in stone, sorry to burst your bubble. If you don’t like it, fine, don’t marry someone of your same gender. But who the heck do you think you are passing judgement on others, eh? Unless you can prove your divinity, I’d lay off the absolutes. It makes you look even more like a stone-headed, brainwashed idiot.
Also, still no answers to ANY of our questions. HMMMM.
“Were you born this dumb — I’m a faux conservative who just wants to fit in — !!!?????? And now I’m mad to (o) [sic] and it’s who (’s) [sic] definition and you can tell you’re bad by all my eleventies!”
Shut up, ridiculous poser.
The people who get to play are those in power. All the multiple exclamation points and question marks your furious little fugly fat faker fingers can type won’t change that fact. When someone in power makes the decision, fine. Otherwise, no one gives a good goddam about your poser indignation and your tired citations.
Umm, read the archives before attacking people eh? Makes your little frothing anger a little more legitimate if they’re based on actual knowledge of people’s posts here. BTW, Even on this thread, froo has been citing her arguments and making actual points instead of just frothing, unlike yourself.
There is no God given right to homosexual marriage. The Declaration of Independence talks about some of these rights and it is assumed they are God given. It was also assumed a God fearing citizen would follow the basics of self-determination and responsibility in their actions. What you’ve essentially done is made up a right that never existed in the first place. If you can make up a right to homosexual marriage then you can make up one that justifies anything you want. Good luck explaining that to God when you die. Also, being black is not conduct. Choosing to be with the same sex is. We are not animals. We choose what we do. Show some restraint in your behavior. How would homosexual marriage affect me? Let’s count the ways: Forcing children to accept the behavior in schools against a parent’s wishes. This means the government would override my responsibility as a parent. New laws would force priests to marry homosexuals. New laws making the public disagreement over sexual orientation a crime. New laws trying to change the definition of marriage that has existed for thousands of years…naw lets tinker it to include whatever we want! I want hamburger to mean hotdog now! And the stupid notion that discrimination is wrong. We discriminate every day. It’s ok not to discriminate against homosexuals, but it fine against Christians? Nice try. Homosexuality will always be wrong no matter what court says it is and no matter how hip the times are. I don’t hate gays at all. I want them to make it to Heaven like everyone else. We need them up there for some flair man! Some of the funniest people I know are gay, but you’re they’re going to party upstairs with the Big Kahuna if they keep doing what they’re doing. I’ll be lucky if I’M there. Show some responsibility for your behavior like the rest of us. Try to quit following every desire like some animal. THAT is what makes US human.
I bet some of your best friends are black, too.
By the way, my feet are a size 8. I’d like to choose that they be a size 5. Can you help me to figure out how I do that, since you have the knowledge of how you change an inborn trait?
You know, I’ve thought before that if so much of the issue is the semantics behind issue and the religious basis of marriage, why not do this:
Take the government out of marriage. Take the SAME bundle of rights, privileges and obligations that we currently apply to marriage, call it whatever else, civil union or whateverthehell, and apply that to everyone, either man/woman, same sex, TG, whatever two consenting non-directly related adults choose to bind themselves legally; grandfather in all the people who are already legally married; and then that’s what we have. If you want to also be married in the eyes of your church, then go deal with them and whatever you do there is effective for your religious beliefs, but just like now the actual church ceremony is without legal effect. (Ok, there’s a minor legal effect in that in most states you are required to verbalize consent in adition to signing the license, but that’s minimal). God, wouldn’t that solve a LOT of problems? It’s already damn close to being a separate thing (the civil end of the marriage contract); why not just make it separate and let the churches handle what they consider “marriage”? Ok, ending rant. Need to sleep.
Actually, there’s this little thing called the First Amendment. That means the government really doesn’t get to step in and tell churches what to do. News flash: just like now, if your church doesn’t approve of a marriage for some reason, whether it’s the gender of the partners or that one person isn’t of that religion, or even if it’s a racial thing, they DON’T HAVE TO perform the ceremony. A lot of churches won’t perform weddings for non-members. Ame. Effing. Thing.
Slavery was ok under that same system, like we’ve been over. Times change. I’m not even going to begin a debate over homosexuality not being a choice. Christianity doesn’t own the concrete facts on life, the universe and everything. Nor does our constitution only protect christianity as a religion. it protects all religions, all viewpoints. Allowing all citizens equal civil rights is just an extension of that.
Discrimination against christians? Please. A certain type of christian in this country tends to try to boss the entire nation around, insisting that ONLY their views get protected, then ACTS all persecuted when they are reminded that ALL views and religions are equal under the law and that they thereforre don’t get special rights, like sole proprietorship over what constitutes marriege, family values, etc. and that they can’t force everyone to have a christian prayer in a diverse public school.
Read the other comments. Marriage laws have NOT existed for thousands of years. The church in recent years has been trying on a plethora of topics to rewrite history. Check the facts.
Blah blah so I’m frothing. Want some?
And the cited emotional verbiage wasn’t frothy?
Point stands. No one gives a flaming crap about your opinions. All the furiously typed eleventies in the world won’t change anyone’s viewpoint. The ones in power define the playing field; you voted them there, so quit posing and whinging, for the love of all that’s holy. If you want queers to marry, fine. Mobilize and vote it in. Otherwise quite whinging about how unfair it is they can’t. OHHHH poor USSSS, pooorrrr them, weeee’re alllll suppposed to beeeee eeeequal.
Ridiculous pathetic Americans, victims of their own government.
That should read ’same’. I really am tired…
Priests already have the right to refuse to marry a couple, i’m sure they could have the right to refuse a gay couple. the point is for gay partners to have legal rights. as stated before church marriage is not a legal marriage,
that is why you need a license so the state will accept it.
Public disagreement will never be a crime if you are only disagreeing, that is actually why we have freedom of speech. If you speak out against the gays you won’t be arrested, however that is only for a peaceful protest. If you decide you want to be physical and attack people and riot, then it is illegal, it’s illegal in any form of disagreement of beliefs gay marriage changed nothing.
How exactly does it force people to accept things in school. I was unaware that schools sit small kids down and tell them about gay marriage. even without gay marriage, the nuclear family so no longer the only kind of family. if you aren’t happy with your children learning that it’s not always a mommy and a daddy, then maybe spousal death, being raised by grandparents, divorce,, and any gay parent should be made illegal.
Or if you don’t want to change all of society, you could homeschool your kid to keep them from being aware of the world around them.
Help, help, I’m being repressed!
-
Geez, dude, get some new material. I love that you’ve fixated on me for your little froth session. Feel better?
Actually Mike, a public forum like this IS what our founding fathers had in mind. We’re supposed to share ideas and information. They imagined it in print, particularly newsprint, letters to the editors, etc, but it’s the same thing. We are founded on a “free exchange of ideas.” That is what is going on here. The sad part is how closed minded many are to the point of, in effect, sticking fingers in our ears and going “La, la, la.” That part is what the founders did NOT have in mind.
We are supposed to exchange ideas and find compromised solutions to problems like Henry Clay or the men at the first continental congress and constitutional convention who drew the whole blasted thing up to begin with. the switch to media like radio and TV with limited access points stifled this process. The internet is bringing it back.
In case you hadn’t noticed this past election cycle, people ARE becoming more activist. I, for one, email my representatives semi-regularly. I donated to a campaign for the first time in my life and I’m close to 35. Open your eyes; I’m not alone. This “whining” as you call it, is good for the country. it gets citizens interested in civics again. I think it’s great!!
@Diss- but then you’re infringing on their God-Given rights! Don’t ask me, I don’t write the rules. In fairness froo is being (perhaps) needlessly personally aggressive, but what you say is the only sane solution in my opinion. Have legal unions between any two legally consenting individuals, and then leave the rituals to the church for those who want to be “married.” That or just let the people write at the top of their union certificate what they want it to be called, that way I can get Halksjdafhnisdered (or something) to the woman I love, and your Abrahamic people can get “married.” I don’t want a marriage certificate specifically because of the carried baggage, so this is about straight people’s rights too. The state recognizing Abrahamic marriage is an absolute travesty anyway
@Christopher:
Forcing white children to respect black people used to be considered a frightful notion, too.
Speculation fail. Priests are not currently forced to marry atheists, so you don’t have a point.
Another speculation fail. To date, public disagreement is a protected Freedom of Speech.
Fallacy of Tradition fail. Slavery was abolished, though it went on for thousands of years.
“Discrimination” can take on legal and illegal forms. We’re not talking about private discrimination, which would be better defined as “personal preference.” Christians don’t “lose” if gay people get to be married. You have every right to maintain your belief that gay people are wrong. You may also believe that interracial couples are wrong, but they are allowed to be married. You aren’t being discriminated against in either case.
You have a right to your opinion, and I have a right to mine. My opinion is that “always be wrong” and “I don’t hate” are strange things to put together, and I suspect your “I don’t hate” statement is more in line with your religion’s teachings, and less likely to reflect your true feelings. It smells like hypocrisy to me.
I take it that you’re in a marriage that is inconsistent with your inner feelings. You’ve had to suck it up and marry the opposite gender, and you’re currently living a big lie that, if exposed, would alienate you from your family and disappoint your friends and community. If that’s the case, you are very brave to endure such a marriage.
If that’s not the case, your marriage is consistent with your predominant sexual feelings, and you’re lucky that your sexual preference is in the majority. You lack empathy for those who were not born with your preferences, and wish to keep them down with a straighter-than-thou attitude.
The point you are missing is that our founding fathers created separation of church and state for a wonderful reason. If you don’t understand why, you might want to look it up.
“Show some responsibility for your behavior like the rest
of us. Try to quit following every desire like some animal.
THAT is what makes US human.”
So, you are saying sex with someone of the same sex is
irresponsible and ‘animal’, but sex with someone of the
opposite sex is not? If you are straight, you can follow your
“every desire” because it is more “human”, but if you are
gay, you cannot? Even if the gay person *wants* to get
married and be faithful and otherwise observe traditions of
a heterosexual marriage?
That makes no sense at all, especially when combined with
your “I don’t hate gays” statement. To me, it sounds like you
do. What else can you call it when what you consider normal
and “human” in straight people is considered
irresponsible and “animal” in gay people?
(And yes, I know you’re quoting somebody else, rhorho.
This isn’t directed at you-I just couldn’t comment directly
because of the nesting thing. I think you are right on.)
You are really hung up on the word “marriage”, aren’t you?
As far as I’m concerned, the government should get out of the
“marriage” business and call what they offer “civil unions” no
matter who it is for, with the tax benifits and such. Then if
people want a “marriage”, they can go find a church that will
give them one.
But it seems to me like you’re all in favor of offering gay
couples all the benefits of marriage without calling it marriage.
That seems contradictory to me. Either you want to allow equal
rights for gay couples or you don’t. If you do, why do you care
what they call the ceremony? And if you don’t, all your
proposed legal finagaling won’t hide that fact.
Maybe we should find the actual word Jesus used for “marriage”
and use it for religious unions for heterosexual couples.
Is the original language of the bible Aramaic or Hebrew?
I forget. But if you want to find the actual “sacred” word for
the religious vows of a man and a woman becoming a couple,
I propose we find the word actually spoken by Jesus.
As someone who has been denied the right to marry the love of her life for the five years in which we’ve been engaged… this one made me tear up a bit.
Rock on!
Well once the economy is broken beyond all repair (in the works – it’s called stimulus and massive spending/power grabs piling up daily) gay marriage is going to be the ONLY freedom left. Some comfort that will be during the bread line riots.
Do you even TRY to make sense?
Stirring up the flames per usual, fahrenheit451?
Not even a blind stab with a short stick…
So, when it comes to pass that the economy stabilizes, you will admit that
you’re full of fail? (Don’t bother answering: I know the real answer, anyway.)
quote: “Because in the self-proclaimed greatest nation on earth, marrying the love of your life should NEVER be wrong.”
…Unless that person is…
a. too genetically similar to you (“related” for all you people whose parents ignored this one)
b. underage
c. already married
d. an animal
e. and, although this one certainly belongs ABOVE “animal”, it ends up here for dramatic effect: your same gender
So my love for Key Lime pie can never be legalized because of the underage problem. I has a sad.
You’d be more fine with people marrying animals than marrying someone of the same gender?
Damn right, considering that nation is Canada.
If by “Canada” you mean “Australia” then I entirely agree with you.
If by Australia you mean New Zealand I agree with you both.
As long as we all admit it’s “self-proclaimed”, we all win. LOL
Is it time for the world cup already? My, how time does fly.
Never mind the sentiments behind that photo. Does anyone know where exactly it was taken (as in the building name and what not)? I’m just curious because it looks vaguely familar.
And in the greatest nation on the planet, some people need to get acquainted with the fact that they are not ENTITLED to win the vote, and the rest of us have the right to our beliefs.
Countless Americans have given their lives defending our freedom, and stupid people are voting against it *shakes head*
When some nut goes on a killing spree
A robbing spree
When a man starts becoming a pedophile and raping children
When a person kills their family members and says God told them to do it
Or when a faith thinks it right to kill the infidels
And suicide bomb
And destroy the towers
We believed they were wrong
But when something God never sanctioned
Like gay marriage comes around
We’re ready to embrace the glory of it
Because it makes someone feel good
But I’m sure everything that occurred before
Made those people happy too
Go on and love your abomination
At one time many loved to think the earth was flat
Atoms were indivisible
And that we could not fly like the birds
And many loved to hate a different color because of their faith
Aren’t they justified like the gays?
My, my, my.
You see no difference between that list of crimes with victims, and gay marriage?
You love to hate gays because they’re gay.
How is that different than hating blacks because they’re black.
You’ve hoisted yourself by your own petard.
And what of the Nazis?
They believed their cause not of faith
But of some obscene logic
DWN?
despite calling on the wang, you realize it was the strict refusal to accept the information given by the facts that caused the problem. They had a hypothesis and looked at the data, the data disproved the hypothesis and yet they continued with the hypothesis. that is not logic, that’s closer to faith, a faith that bastardizes logic. I believe this, i don’t care what the facts say, this is right, it makes me feel better.
if you’re going to insight godwin’s law, try to at least know something of the nazi mythology
FAG
Oh, yes, please, I’m all out…
*lights it & takes a nice long drag*
Raining and all, didn’t want to run down to the store to get a pack. Thanks!
I did need those sticks thanks, i was getting chilly
I’m trying to cut down a bit, but sure, thanks.
Wrrr, Make logical points and try turning the majority in your favor, but don’t come to me and demand to have marriage. Man + man does not = children. There needs to be some give. I could care less about your orientation… but when you force your ideas on other people, the people become the proverbial donkey!
Besides… many larger issues right now. I would rather see Americans employed and illegals sent packing right now.
*can of maggots opened*
may the (insert strange word here) begin!
Infertile people, women past their menopause, etc, should not be allowed marriage either?
Says the person trying to force THEIR ideas on others…
Well, perhaps not man+man, but man+man+adoption certainly does = children. You know, that same option available to all male/female couples that can’t have children naturally.
And this is another area where Civil Contracts fall down compared to marriage. In a civil contract, or at least in Australian civil contracts, if the couple adopt a child, only one adult is allowed to adopt, as a homosexual couple cannot adopt a child. Method of getting around this? Have only one person in the couple adopt the child! Of course, this then gets messy if the couple later splits, as the non-guardian cannot have a court give them part-guardiancy of the child (custody, for all you Americans). A hetero couple can go before the Family Court, and receive ‘custody’ of the child, but a homosexual couple cannot.
And just to point out, it’s not just if the couple splits.
If the partner who has actually adopted dies, it’s complicated also.
So messy and for no reason.
Yes, the “when one parent dies”-argument was the main reason our laws changed to make adoption by homosexual couples legal.
How sensible.
Too bad we can’t do that here.
And YAY and HOORAY! Our parliament voted for same gender marriage today, s from May 1st marriage is gender neutral here.
.
*dances a happy dance*
.
*returns to normal self*
.
… Now, I just wonder why it had to take so long. :p
Why does it have to equal children?
It has never been a requirement for marriage that both parties be fertile, you know. In some cases, the couple must “try for children” according to their religious beliefs about what marriage is, but there is no test beforehand as to if this is actually possible. And no one, even within those religious circles, insists that an infertile couple divorce. (At least as far as I know…)
I don’t understand the arguement that gay marriage is wrong because the couple cannot have children with each other. I don’t understand why it is even relevant. If you think being gay is a sin, well, I disagree with you, but that’s your religion so whatever. But…what does the biological infertility have to do with it?
Gay marriage is wrong because there was already a vote on it in the wonderfully crappy state. Majority says that marriage is man + woman… and minorities try ignoring that.
I still don’t care. As long as they go the legal way, and don’t have supreme court handjobs force it through, I will be fine with gay marriage…
Besides, I am not forcing my ideas on anyone. But the truth seems to cause offense.
Think the ‘people’ would have dismantled slavery without it being forced?
That’s what I always wonder.
How many times would the bill have had to go through the southern state
governments before they “voted out” slavery? It had to be abolished at
the federal level, “by force” if you must.
I do not understand why the rights of gay people are even up for a vote.
They are full human beings who deserve all the rights and resposibilites of
being citizens of a given country. We don’t need to vote on that.
But some people think we do, and that the results of such a vote are
somehow valid. To me, this is a bit surreal.
I’m told that Mississippi took the slavery owning stuff off the books finally in 1995…
I can only assume that they thought (hoped) they may need them again…
Oh, and for the record, this is what I would like to see happen. I would like
an amendment to the US constitution that states:
The right of citizens of the United States to marry shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of gender or sex.
The right of citizens of the United States to marry shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of gender, race, or physical disability.
Even better! I am behind it.
Why restrict it to the right to marry?
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Oh wait, we already have that. READ IT, YOU FOOLS.
*giggle*
Dislike the country so much? GTFO and go live in one of those Socialist countries you libs love so much. I hear they treat you really well there.
“God mend thine every flaw. Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law.”
“May God thy gold refine, till all success be nobleness, and every gain divine.”
Why being so sarcastic in the caption?
I think the point is that we in America go so far out of our way to say we are
so great, that we are all about freedom for everyone and diversity is embraced
and respected. But then we deny civil rights to a certain minority. It really
makes us look like hypocrites when we do both at the same time. Let’s put our
money where our mouth is and actually try to become “the greatest country
in the world” by practicing what we preach. We ARE a great country and we
have a lot of potential. But we have to develop it!
no, I meant why writing that marying the love of your life should never be wrong, and then showing a photo which demonstrates the exact opposite?
The greatness of a country stays in how close its principles are to reality, and well, both the USA and Europe are drifting so far away from common sense….
Define your “reality”? If your reality says that gay marriage should be wrong, it’s a reality of the past.
When I meant “the point”, I meant the point of the person making the caption,
actually, which I don’t think was you. I was commenting on why that person
put “self-proclaimed” in front of “greatest nation”.
But you raise an interesting point. This photo “demonstrates the exact
opposite”? How? It’s just two happy guys in love and one is holding a weird
basket. It’s not like it shows a guy and a dog, or a guy and a four year old
girl. It’s two grown people-who in this case are both men.
How does that demonstrate the exact opposite of why marrying the love of
your life should never be wrong?
“FREEDOM
Because in the self-proclaimed greatest nation on earth, marrying the love of your life should NEVER be wrong.”
…unless it’s a sin…
Good thing it’s not a sin then.
Pfff
This is exactly the type of statement that drove me away from structured Christianity.
I don’t understand how someone who claims to worship a God that loves all his children could possibly believe that “God Hates Fags” or any such nonsense.
Besides. Not everyone believes in God, why should they have to follow the rules of your religion? You can’t even follow the rules of your religion!
hug 4 u 2 !
FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
tl;dr
Pffftt… Typical Liberal hogshit.
I love that optical illusion – where the twists to the right makes everything look decidedly twisted to the left.
What about siblings?…
No constituency is neutral. That’s one of the first things you learn at university, in hte process of analysing discourses, stated or understated.
From personal past discussions with gays and bisexuals, they believe that everyone is bisexual. That is a political statement. Why? It implies that bisexuality and homosexuality are natural.
LGBT people having been granted mainstream status (UK), they have been using their position of power to impose themselves in pretty much every sphere. Any dissenting voice is crushed. In the same way that questioning questioning the prioritising of non-caucasian migrants is systematically attacked as being racist.
LGBT people in tribal societies are extremely rare. The raw necessity of day-to-day survival does not, it seems, lend itself very well to such activities as crossdressing, panto and gay parades…
Widespread homosexuality, it can be argued, occurs in complex, sedentary societies, in which the division of labour has become sufficiently developed for tribal coming of age rituals to have been abandoned. Because human beings develop more on the basis of post-natal social condition as against atavism as in less evoluated animals, young humans who are not offered a strong cultural tradition of rites of passage to assuming the trappings of their gender, are left at the mercy of alternative influences.
Thus, it is my contention that the normalisation of homosexuality is a product of the advent of complex societies. A concept closely associated with this problem is ‘anomie’, coined by French sociologist Emile Durkheim, and which refers to a society where norms have been eroded.
It is essential to stress that the setting of LGBT ideology is capitalist society, one that is anything but normal. That society has, for the last 250 years, coerced hundreds of millions of people to migrate to cities through mechanisation. That same society is also responsible for the near breakdown of the very life systems of which we are part, the biosphere.
The imposition of LGBT ideology in all spheres of public life – work, church, politics, education etc. – has been creating an environment in which the young person is presented with LGBT so-called ‘lifestyles’ sold as perfectly natural options.
Clearly, something is amiss.
With the breakdown of capitalism in the face of climate change, developed societies are set to revert to more family- and community-centred social structures. I believe that LGBT ideology will suffer a huge weakening in the process, with numbers of LGBT people dropping back to pre-industrial levels.
It is because we are still very much embedded in anomic, capitalist societies that we are intellectually powerless at refuting LGBT ideology. This is very sad, as countless people are made to suffer in silence before what amounts to a form of hegemony, not to say totalitarianim.
You, sir, are full of shit.
The ancient Greeks considered homosexuality as normal. How does that fit in with your theory? OK, so there was no same-sex marriage, but they definitely made allowances for human nature..