Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Vladurday: So, it’s settled then | What a relief you’re here. Next »
HYPOCRISY
Being John Ensign, a right wing GOP Senator and promoter of the Defense of Marriage Act, and banging your best friend’s wife on the side.
(John Ensign)
Picture by: Nevada Sen. John Ensign. Caption by: fastfood via Poster Builder
 | keithybabes on TIANANMEN SQUARE |
 | pittypat on TIANANMEN SQUARE |
| keithybabes on SCIENCE |
 | Rando the Awesome Su… on TIANANMEN SQUARE |
 | viking gal on Urge to join Army… |
| Rando the Awesome Su… on TIANANMEN SQUARE |
 | bitter troll on TIANANMEN SQUARE |
| viking gal on You’re wrong about … |
| pittypat on You’re wrong about … |
 | Susk on I can’t say anything… |
Cheezburger Network Blog
Morals are for the little people
is this surprising?
They prefer the term Midgits.
Alright…
Midgits are for the little people.
WIN!
Does anyone else thing he looks like an older arnold schwartzeneggar
(did i get the name right?)
Schwarzenegger. (So: close, but no cigar.)
And no, I can’t see that at all.
What does the act against gay marriage have to do with being faithful to your spouse? I could see the hypocrisy if he was cheating on his wife with a guy or something…
Or is this a “It’s been 10 mins… we have to bash republicans some how… who cares if it makes sense” post?
Because he’s claiming that something which is completely irrelevant to his marriage is a threat to it and should be banned to “defend marriage”, whilst simultaniously acting in a way which shows no respect for the sanctity of two marriages and poses an actual threat to his marriage?
Well put.
At least his wife wasn’t dying from cancer……
Edwards is an ass also. That doesn’t make Ensign any less of an ass.
Edwards, Ensign. Tomato/To-mah-to. They’re both scum. Scumminess isn’t a political party trait.
Scumminess seems to be a general trait among politicians unfortunately
.
And teenage boys named Tyler. And/or Igor.
Or Ty-gore right? lol
Only to Eddie, Squiggly.
And only scummish in the sense that every troll on this site hates me and I spy on Jane and Max in their Fortress of Doom during Private Hour.
Of course the trolls hate you, they hate everyone.
And the spying… well that’s… I suppose curiosity is natural so you shouldn’t be faulted for it.
Well, let’s just say I’ve spent so very much time bashing them that they hate me just that littlleee bit extra.
You’re right. Newt Gingrich really was a dick for doing that. Guess you should have said “At least he didn’t sent the divorce papers to the hospital bed”
We’re all also forgetting John McCain, who divorced his wife because she got fat and ugly while he was in a prison camp and married a hot young beer heiress. Asshole? You bet!
It’s hypocritical because he fights against gay marriage on the grounds that it is disrespect to marriage.
However, he himself disrespects marriage by cheating on his wife with a married woman.
Don’t you SEE? Gay people getting married would seriously impact on the sanctity of both his marriage and his extra-marital affair. Britany Spears getting married and divorced in the space of a day would have cheapened marriage as well, but that was to a guy so it was fine.
WIN.
you can sleep with anyone you want. as long as your married when you do it.
Your – belong to you
You’re – contraction of “you are”
That irks me too.
Oh boy, cant wait to see the drama THIS one starts.
And so it begins…..
And the worst part is, it’s not even funny.
Sadly, irony rarely ever is.
Ironically, sadness never is.
Ironically Humour is never sad.
There is one thing I don’t understand about religious people being against civil gay marriage (i.e. non-religious marriage)
They believe god must bless a marriage. Therefore they believe non-religious marriage is a sin.
So why do they care if gay people get married outside of the Church? According to their religion it’s a sin even for straight people.
I can understand those who, after reading the bible, sincerely think their god thinks gay marriage is wrong, but why would they take it on non-religious marriage? What is the logic? (Please don’t answer “There’s no logic!” Captain Obvious…)
(Note: this is just another reason why I think if there is any god, no religion on this planet has a clue who or what he is, and what he expects from us).
It is not a sin to get a “non-religious” marriage! Hahahaha! That’s the goofiest thing I’ve ever heard! Marriage is religious, whether it’s done in a church or not.
Well technically speaking, two atheists in a court room with a judge is a civil and legal action. The whole “non-religious marriage is a sin” thing is highly situational depending upon your denomination.
I once attended a church who ran on the logic that being gay is a sin, and living a gay lifestyle is admitting and accepting a sinful lifestyle, therefore there is no such thing as a gay christian. I’m not saying its true, but its what these folks believe.
In this day an age the “sanctity of marriage” argument is dead. If it were OJ in court, it’d have gotten the chair.
day and age*
Caffeine goddammit! Where’s my caffeine?!
I have always wondered why is being gay the one sin that many christians are willing to kick people out of their church for? Is that the only one that can’t be forgiven or something?
Technically the only unforgivable sin is suicide because if your dead you cant repent. If you’re gay you can repent and go to a brainwashing camp where they teach you to be straight and thus you’re forgiven. Though the number of people who go to those and later commit suicide is rather disturbing….
Marriage pre-dates religion.
It predates monotheistic religion, at any rate.
@Shannon – Marriage in this country is a civil legal action as much as it is a religious ceremony – if not more so.
marriage predates what religion?ill need to see some references . if you mean marriage predates the christian religion thats okay , its a johnny come lately religion .
It’s a legal matter, baby!
Marriage is a civil/legal arrangement, actually. It’s just that until recently (historically speaking), the State and the Church have often been one and the same.
I didn’t get married in a church, and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a religious ceremony since a judge performed the ceremony, not a minister.
Marriage isn’t a religious act unless the parties getting married are religious. Civil marriage is performed by a government official rather than by a clergyman.
Pundit Kitchen
Where picking on Republicans does not require you to be clever or funny. In fact, the clunkier and more tortured the wording, the better.
Pundit Kitchen:
Where being a Republican requires you to have no sense of humor or the ability to laugh at hypocrisy within your own party. In fact, the more offended and personally angry you get, the better.
ZING!
Nah. Most of the regular PK Republicans have a sense of humor and also of irony.
ooo that was a succinct appraisal , thank you.
I would just like to point out that I am more right than left (by a long shot) though I wouldn’t call myself a Republican and I found this very funny. I also don’t believe in banning gay marriage and I agree that infidelity is as much, if not more, destructive of marriage than two gays getting married. I think many of you, though are taking things only at the surface. Think of the difference (on paper) of being married and not being married. For instance, a man and a woman get married and have children and one of them wants to be a homemaker. Well, the other can get their spouse insured from their employer. So, is it about being able to say “We’re married” or is it something more? I mean, you can say whatever you want whether or not other people like it, but no gay couple can have one person be a homemaker (if that is what they want) and have their partner insured. That, to me, is the underlying issue. As far as the sanctity of the TERM ‘marriage’? It’s just a word.
(Sorry so long)
I had this discussion with my father a couple years ago (he was 82 at the time), and he balked at the word ‘marriage’ for gays, but agreed that the legal rights had to be made more available. He suggested that we allow consenting adults to declare ‘family’ for legal purposes, whether or not they were sharing a bed. If a man born in the 1920’s could progress that far from what he knew growing up, how about the rest of us?!
Well put Viking. It’s good to know that not all old people are stuck in the mindset of the 1940’s or earlier. Of course, you’re inherently awesome too for being a Viking.
Another ideological zerobrain who thinks because I criticized an anti-GOP entry, I absolutely *MUST* be a Republican. Oops FAIL!!!! I don’t like either Party, but keep living in that monochrome fantasy universe. It’s working so well, isn’t it?
Look, dumbass, the poster type entries are based on the old inspirational posters. They are supposed to be short and sweet and even elegant if possible. This thing was tortured and clunky.
Have a nice day, vacuumhead.
“I don’t like either party” = humorless rightwinger. Invariably. Bar none. Every time.
“I don’t like anyone” = Teens or men in mid-life crisis. Bar none. Every time.
Wrong. Teens and men in mid-life like everyone. With tits.
Old fu(kers don’t like anyone. On their lawn.
We don’t like them, Deep, just want to nail them.
*ahem*
WE would know both ages. OTOH, you don’t yet.
“Yet”?
I DUN WANNA GROW UP! -Pouts-
Don’t worry Igor, turns out growing up is entirely optional. *Returns to playing XBox*
Wrong. I don’t like either party, and I think you’re a point and laugh hilarious moron.
You are talking of two Parties, so technically that would be a duochrome fantasy universe.
Vacuumhead
4567
Where picking an actual name is too much for their tiny brain to handle.
Pundit Kitchen
Where responding to a picture does not require you to be clever or funny.
That also applies for the making of lols. Geez Louise, I could predict what was going to be said just by seeing the picture. How about something lol worthy, folks?
Yeah, I know. Make my own…..
Wasn’t trying to be funny, shithead. The poster type LOLs should be short and sweet, not two lines of “Duh, the Republicans (or Democrats or whatever) are not nice and eat babies and are really stoopid! Heh heh!”
Gods, you people are so wrapped up in the Rep versus Dem you are completely disassociated with the rest of the world that laughs at your tiny, tiny minds squealing in their impotence. You all really need to die off so the country can start to recover from the past 50 years of this partisan bullshit.
You really needn’t whine, it’s done frequently enough.
I agree, but your posts come across as pretentious, and it’s not that Eric disagrees with you, I’ve seen him say that we need more funny and less brainless republi-bash, but the way you generalize every post and generally whine about the site just comes across as asinine.
Oh, and Eric didn’t give a party affiliation in that post. Nor did he say his views. He just stated that your post was, in essence, necessary, because if you read the last 10 LOLs bashing republicans, just about everybody here agrees party-bashing crap needs to stop going through. So no need to state it again- the blog owners probably don’t even read these comments.
Oh, and I think this LOL is more bashing Ensign directly and his stance on marriage- and the fact that he tore his own apart while crusading for the “defense” of marriages.
He banged his BEST FRIEND’S wife? Man. to heck with this guy. Thats not right under ANY circumstances.
Depends on how hot she is.
Obviously, you dont know the meaning of the phrase Best friend. If you’d do that to someone you consider your best friend, well that’s just wrong.
…alternatively, you could a) learn to take a joke, and b) redefine your idea of “what makes a good marriage” to avoid strict monogamy or any other archaic notions about sex. Obviously there’s going to be plenty of extra-marital sex going on anyway; why are we condemning it?
I dunno.. obviously there’s going to be murders and rape, why should we condemn it? We could always just redefine our idea of what Murder in the first is. Or Sexual assault.
He made a promise to a woman to stay faithful, he broke it. He made a promise to his friend to be… well a friend, and sleeping with his wife is not what friends do, unless asked… while drunk….. at a swingers party.
I agree. Infidelity is the betrayal of trust. If both people enter into a monogamist relationship then man up and keep it in your pants or use your hand (not you, Max, I’m talking to random numbers up there). It’s not cheating if all parties are informed and comfortable with it. My understanding is that’s not the case with this guy. I read this article in Time about marriage just yesterday (while I was stuck at the register at my bookstore job). [link]
So… what you’re saying is dear… you’re open to…. possibilities?
Not me, of course. I’m a jealous b*tch! Unless you have a hot male friend you’d like to invite…
Have you met my evil twin brother?
Darling, I thought you were the evil twin brother!
Well, he’s my clone, but its a lot more socially awkward to just say “My twin brother” rather than clone.
a lot less*
Good lord, the caffeine hasn’t helped.
That’s okay, I knew what you meant. Incidentally, if I sleep with your clone am I really cheating on you?
Hmmm good question…
And does it threaten your masculinity if you’re both there at the same time?
I think that double it right? That’s how math works isn’t it?
Sure, let’s go with that!
We’re going to need stock up on twice the whipped cream…
We can make up the difference in chocolate sauce.
I think we should retire this to private quarters dear… Tyler might be watching.
ahhhh maaahhhn… it’s just getting good….
If the Fortress of Doom is a rockin’ don’t come a knockin’…
-Throws down binoculars and pouts unhappily-
Damnit! Max! Can’t it be in public just ONCE?!
I saw them in public last week. The caramel sauce was a nice touch.
And on that note kids, remember, Always brush your teeth, because without good dental hygiene, we’re no better than Communists!
I’m gone for a few weeks and I am no longer even considered for the spit roasting of Jane. I’m hurt…
Uh, because murder and rape involve serious violations of civil rights and infidelity is a broken promise? The ultimate violation in the case of murder. In your mind they equate?
A you a complete, absolute idiot? Where do people like you come from? Are there hospitals that regularly drop babies on their heads? Braindead morons like you are what’s truly destroying this world. Holy crap, kill yourself. Please! For the world! You are a complete negative while alive.
F*ck you, you trolling, sock-wearing, jackass. You need to grow up- Maxwell was using an example of “horrid things”.
One may be a broken promise, but cheating on someone is serious, even if not equitable with murder.
You need to learn to stop trolling and actually input something into the conversation.
Using strong language to make a point does not automatically make you a troll, Igor. True that points can be made without insulting one another, but, honestly, a cheating partner is inconvenient, potentially painful and embarrassing for most, but it’s not the end of the world.
I agree with the you and your ideas here. I also think Maxwell Silverhammer ‘using an example of “horrid things”’ did so to far too absurd a level. (Then again, we have such strong imagery of the eternal coupleship and romantic notions about love being the strongest rforce and things like that – some people say they’d rather die than be cheated on, and with the extra hangups around sex, I have discussed with parents who very seriously would rather see their children murdered than raped, etc.)’
However, Troika99’s second paragraph is so over the top it makes the first paragraph fade away totally. Very unclever move to go so frothy if s/he was trying to get a point across at all…
I must chime in that I find Igor’s above comment highly offensive. As someone who wears socks, I do not want to be compared to people like Troika.
My point was more that the idea of marriage needs to be retooled completely, as each marriage is unique, and the point is to maintain happiness between two people for an extended period of time. Human beings aren’t by nature monogamous; we fantasize constantly… we do not under normal circumstances, act on impulses to kill one another.
Really I want to know why sex has been defined as a criminal act in any circumstances, especially if you’re comparing it to murder at any point.
I’ve been thinking about this, Max, and the difference really lies in the fact that society cannot exist if everyone is killing and raping one another. Society can exist and even flourish with more lenient ideas about sex and marriage, say if everyone decided to have extramarital sex.
Adultery only hurts us because we’re been trained to think that it’s harmful. Remember, it used to be a widely held belief that masturbation was physically harmful, but in reality masturbation is actually a healthy expression of sexuality. It’s only a matter of time before our currently held views of sex in society change for the better.
“…avoid strict monogamy or any other archaic notions about sex.”
You mean, like, “being gay is wrong”? You’re right, John Ensign SHOULD redefine how he views “a good marriage”.
Obviously you can’t tell when someone if joking, and you take your limp impotent self far too seriously.
Your sock is showing, sir whiny brat.
You need to chill out. Maxwell is teh awesome, even if he doesn’t like jokes about sexing one’s best friend’s significant other.
….why are you taking the time to call everyone out who insults someone else on the internet? isn’t that exhausting?
Just bashin’ the trolls, man. Cause it may be exhausting, but they need to be bashed!
Chillax. Let people defend themselves if they deem it necessary.
But he’s not defending himself, Deep, he’s asking why I bash the trolls.
I dunno, after you’ve deemed anything that could remotely be an an insult “trolling” and commented on 250 of them, who’s name becomes lodged in people’s minds as obnoxious?
Hypocrisy:
When a leftist official cheats, we should support him in his hour of need and pray for his family. When a conservative cheats, he should be humiliated then drawn and quartered.
They should all be humiliated for getting caught, then ignored. People act like cheating is this unthinkable, new offense that’s never been done before. If politicians are supposed to be representative of the population as a whole.. cheaters are doing a pretty good job, regardless of party.
Its not like bringing up John Edwards around here sparks pleasant conversation either, ya know.
I believe I called him out for being the worst sort of douchebag last summer. His wife had cancer, what a d*ck!
Nobody likes John Edwards or his stupid haircut. Shannon, why don’t you get a hobby other than being a dumbass.
The reason people get pissed when conservatives cheat is that most run on platforms of family values. They criticize others for having affairs or premarital sex and say bullshit about how America’s about family. Then they get caught having an affair. See the irony?
I cant agree more Igloo! DOWN WITH JOHN EDWARDS’ RUG!
Yeah, you’d think for that much money it’d actually look good.
The same can be said about Donald Trump, but when you are that rich, I don’t think hairstyle is so much of a priority.
When was the last anyone was supportive of a democrat who cheated?
Clinton.
Well…he did get impeached and all.
No, they tried to impeach him. He didn’t actually get impeached.
I wouldn’t say anyone supported him, because cheating is an @sshole thing to do, but it doesn’t mean you aren’t good at your job. (not to say I liked him, but his affair has no bearing on his political career)
Unfortunately as a republican who runs on a platform of family values and claims to be defending the sanctity of marriage, it brings out the hate of hypocrisy in all of us.
Yes he was impeached. An impeachment of a president is the same as getting a grand jury to give an indictment. All the impeachment means is that he is going to stand trial in front of the senate. Clinton was impeached, but was not convicted when he was tried in the senate.
False. He actually got impeached. The House of Representatives (led by Newt Gingrich) impeached Bill Clinton in December 1998. Clinton was then acquitted by the Senate in Feb 1999.
Linkies.
I stand corrected.
I’m glad to see there are people out there who can dislike a politician, but still be objective towards that politicians actions and their bearing on the politicians ability to do their job.
I only support Clinton’s innate ability to receive BJ’s because I wish I had his power, otherwise he’s a douche.
No, we supported him because the Republicans who had been attacking and investigating him as soon as they won the Congress couldn’t make any headway on a real estate scandal so turned to attack his sex life so they could score political points.
If memory serves me correctly, mainstream media didn’t want to pick up on the Edwards story. Doesn’t mean us plebians weren’t having our own lynching party about the scumminess of what Edwards did. There’s a REASON his political career is more or less toast… he was rejected by his own party.
“Leftist,” eh? That’s crap in itself; you right-wingers don’t even know what socialism really is. When Democrats begin telling other people whom to marry and what consenting adults can do in their bedrooms they’ll be fair game just like the moralistic asses of the religious right are when they do meth and dudes, or jet off to Argentina to poke the mistress, or nail their best friend’s wives. Anyway, who ever said that crap about “supporting him in his hour of need?”
??? Actually in the real world, when a Democrat gets caught doing something he shouldn’t, his life is over; when a Conservative/Republican does something, he finds a lectern that’s in front of some cameras and invokes Jayzizz and everything’s AOK and in fact he’s better ‘cuz he admitted he’s only human and asked Gawwwd for forgiveness. What world is it that YOU live in?
False. Tricky Dick.
*One.*
See, here’s the problem with your statement: I doubt too many “leftists” (BTW, what do you mean by leftists? Sandinistas?) are upset that Ensign or Mark Sanford or John Edwards or Larry Craig or whoever is cheating. Frankly, that’s between each of them and their respective wives/mistresses/girlfriends/prostitutes/congressional pages. The issue here is the hypocrisy of running on a platform of “traditional marriage” or “family values” and then cheating. It doesn’t get much worse than a powerful statesman wagging his finger at us “regular people” for doing something that he himself does. Nice spin, though.
There was a Tom Clancy book about a 747 taking out the entire Congress, Senate, President and majority of the high level Washington Bureaucrats. Since that isn’t going to happen, how about we all vote anti incumbent for the next 10 years. Term limits for all.
You must be a Republican, because that’s who usually says this crap, but only when they aren’t in control of Washington.
You must be wrong. I’m neither republican nor democrat. And seemingly unable to read. Did you miss the anti incumbent part?
The funniest hypocrisy is that all of these people who like to attack the Republicans when one of theirs does something wrong are the first to stand up for the Democrats when they do the same thing.
Go Clinton! Killed anybody lately Teddy Kennedy or has his nephew raped anyone lately??? Keep on harrassing Daniel Inouye. Fondled anyone lately Gus Savage? Seen any male prostitutes lately Barney Frank? Raped anyone lately Brock Adams? Solicit sex from any more sixteen year old’s Fred Richmond? Still have staffers you are hitting on John Young? Hired any good secretaries Wayne Hays? Had any more sexual relationships with underage male pages Gerry Studds? Assaulted any sixteen year olds lately Mel Reynolds?
Oh, sorry…forgot that we should just attack Republicans and let the Democrats get off scott-free. Bad Republicans!!!
And the same people who crucified Clinton are strangely absent from the criticism of adulterous Republicans. But then I’m sure, not being a hypocrite, you posted the polar opposite of this post in LOLs about Clinton’s infidelity.
And the same people who crucified Clinton are adulterous Republicans.
Fixed that for you.
Both sides need to be condemned for actions such as these, and if you were a regular here, you’d know we vilify both sides, because we love a good roast here.
Mmmmm…roast….
I laugh at people who point out infidelity in Democrats whenever someone accuses a Republican of the same. It’s a horribly pitiful attempt at distracting attention from the actual issue.
That’s Right! Badum is right! The REAL problem, the issue, the THREAT we face… are those damn squirrels stealing our nuts!
They’re OUR nuts! Not those squirrels! So I say we go out there, and TAKE BACK OUR NUTS!! WHO’S WITH ME!?
And on a slightly less serious note, Cheating on your wife is a douche move… don’t do it.
To kill, you must know your enemy, and in this case my enemy is a varmint. And a varmint will never quit – ever. They’re like the Viet Cong – Varmint Cong. So you have to fall back on superior intelligence and superior firepower. And that’s all she wrote.
You want me to shoot the golfers?
Max, I don’t believe they stole your. I begin to suspect you are in fact Nuts. Therefore your nuts are always with you so stop scapegoating innocent squirrels!
How is Ted Kennedy responsible for his nephew’s actions?
You notice that no one calls guys like Elliot Spitzer or Bill Clinton hypocrites because of their extramarital sex? Could it be because they have no morals about which to be hypocritical?
Maybe it’s because they weren’t running around in a with-hunters uniform screaming that if gay couples want to have the same rights in terms of monogomous relationships that they’re attacking the very foundations of marriage.
The defence of marriage act itself is a grand hypocracy, it’s not defending marriage, it’s destroying marriages. It’s the ebil libruls defending marriage on this issue.
Yeah, it wasnt like Spitzer became popular partly because of his extensive prosecution of prostitutes, and prostitution organizations… Why did he resign again? Its not like Democrats dont flaunt their own “family values” and then many turn out as philanderers also (didnt John Edwards boast on how great his marraige was?). Both parties are stupidly hypocritical.
But honestly I care not what party or what “family values” they flaunt to get people to vote for them. If any elected or appointed official breaks any trust invested in them (either public trust from their constituents or relationship trust) then I find no reason they should be continueing on in a position of leadership, government policy, or invested responsibility.
As I recall, Spitzer also got shot down on PK, along with Edwards. I know that I’ve raked both over the coals, when talking with my friends. And I’m a liberal. Personally, I don’t understand why both of those men were not ‘Bobbitized’ by their wives.
I also recall that the biggest part of the news stories on Spitzer was that he was a big ‘ol hypocrite.
At least Spitzer resigned – the moralizers of the religious right just blame Satan for their mistakes and then steam right ahead with their attacks on those with whom they committed sodomy the week before.
I disagree with your statement. The Republicans tend to eat their own worse than any other party. Look at Palin, Jindal, Ensign, Sanford…..the list goes on and on of Republicans with small or large smears on their character thrown under busses of all shapes and sizes in order that the Republican Party can maintain it’s “dignity”. Which is why we have the shambles of the party that we have today.
How many people are going to say the exact fvcking thing? It wasn’t true when the first couple people said it either.
Uh, yeah, it *could* be because they never used their political office as a pulpit to preach excluding an entire sector of the population from having an innate civil right to something. NAAAAHHH that’s not it. You’re a moron, yeah, that’s it.
Elliot Spitzer was a huge hypocrite. He cheated on his wife with a prostitute despite spending most of his time as governer attempting to stamp out prostitution.
Clinton wasn’t a hypocrite because he didn’t devote large amounts of time to protecting the sanctity of marriage or preventing blow jobs from interns. He was just a ass.
Wich I think is rather unfortunate because he was otherwise a good president (in my opinion).
You know, this makes me sad. I don’t think this sort of thing is right underany circumstance. If you’re married, stick to it or actually get a divorce. If you can’t help but mess around DON”T GET MARRIED.
It’s also pretty bad for those who supported that act, I mean, before we ban people from getting legal marriages, let’s fix what’s wrong with them.
Maybe we should just strike the term marriage from all legal documents, and give everybody civil unions as far as the government is concerned. Leave the term marriage to religion (although any church can perform a marriage for anyone they choose) I don’t really see what anyone could complain about that
Apparently because if homosexuals get married everyone starts buttf*cking? Thats just my take on it.
I just heard “Everybody was buttfvcking” to the tune of “Everybody was Kung-fu fighting”. Stretch out buttfvcking and you’ll get that gem stuck in your head like I did.
…. Janie, I don’t think I can ever forgive you for ruining a classic.
It’s stuck in your head now, isn’t it?
…..
-Buries face in pillow and heads to therapy-
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Did you bite said pillow?
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
If you hadn’t said it fuge, I would have.
…stretch out buttfvcking. *giggle*
Well said. And I agree with you on that get the government out of the marriage business. From a religious man, I don’t think that government has any benefit to us by regulating it. Leave marriage to the churches.
Oh garbage. Whiney ass people and their “leave marriage to churches” crap. Atheists and non-christians have been getting married for centuries… hell marriage wasn’t invented by religion, just bastardized by it. Get over yourselves and allow two consensual, loving individuals to get married in the eyes of the government.
Oh garbage yourself. Can you even read? Go eat some cheese with your own whine.
Religion has been around as long as humans, even if you don’t believe that. And you are too stupid to understand what I said. Get the government out of a religious ceremony. Let the non religious do as they wish.
The only bastard here is your line of thinking. Condemn everyone that doesn’t agree with you. *Gasp* Just like organized religion.
Get over your own holier than thou attitude. J
why would we need to “Get the government out of a religious ceremony”? the government has absolutely nothing to do with religious ceremonies now. of course, your religious wedding means nothing in the eyes of the law, the only LEGAL marriage is a contract set up by the state. that’s why you won’t find anyone who gets married in any church without going to the courthouse to get that piece of paper, but you can find hundreds of folks who go to the courthouse to get married who never have a church ceremony. bottom line is, your religious ceremony is for personal satisfaction, it is in no way a legal marriage.
no one is asking churches to let gays have a ceremony, they are asking the government to let them have the same rights to a legal contract of marriage as straight people. it’s nothing to do with religion, nothing to do with your personal marriage.
It was a religious ceremony long before it became a legal one. The first government involvement was just keeping track of who married who, and birth records. Then it became something you had to get government permission to do. .
Let gays have a civil contract, do whatsoever they want. But marriage is a religious ceremony. But a large part of the issue has to do with gays who do not want religious people to equate gays as less moral. So they want it forced as accepted public standard as gay relationships as equal to religious marriage.
And sorry to bust your bubble, but many gays are screaming to have the same ceremony. And if you agree with it or not, deciding if it’s moral or not is a personal decision. Just as you decide those against gay marriage are immoral.
There have been non-religious marriages before religious ones too.
I don’t see that. The first marriage was by God pronouncing Adam and Eve as husband and wife. But if you don’t believe in creation, then you think Ugg hit Bunga Bunga on the head with a club and drug her home.
Please tell me more about what I believe.
Read. I said “if.”
Okay. Sure. I don’t believe in Christian creation. Please tell me more about what I think. Sheesh.
Your point is mute. Why don’t you tell us from your pedestal!
You follow up my comment about non-religious marriage prior to religious ones with a comment saying if I don’t believe in creation, I think Ugg hit Bunga Bunga on the head, and I am the one on a pedestal?
All your mute points are deaf! And blind!!
If Danbala’s point IS mute, but it doesn’t really have to make a sound if it’s words on a screen does it?
Dood, the point is mute because Danbela, while coot, put her fute in her mouth and so she can’t tute her own horn.
So you believe in neither Creation or Evolution? And yes, you got on a pedestal with the “please tell me more of what I believe” comment.
Sorry, but God never pronounced Adam and Eve as husband and wife. He said be fruitful and multiply. Not the same thing.
Eve wasn’t even made when he said multiply. Gen 1:22 You are technically correct that God didn’t say the words “man and wife.” God brought Eve to Adam in Gen 2:22, and Adam said she was flesh of his flesh. Then they she pronounced as his wife in :24 by Moses, writing the book, per what God told him.
“per what God told him.”
Prove it.
Better yet, God told subtlefuge that He wanted Justacarolinian to send subtlefuge all of Justacarolinian’s paychecks in entirety for the rest of Justacarolinian’s life. Furthermore, God said unto subtlefuge that it would please Him immensely if Justacarolinian would wash and fold subtlefuge’s laundry and do the dishes at subtlefuge’s place fortnightly. Also, God told subtlefuge that He would be very much pleased if Justacarolinian cleaned subtlefuge’s cat’s litter box on a semi-daily basis. That’s per what God told subtlefuge. You wouldn’t want to ignore God, right?
Prove that the first marriage was between Adam and Eve.
Prove that life evolved from some protoplasym.
Asking me to prove a different argument does not validate your own.
Neither does your argument prove that it wasn’t. And that was the point. But you knew that. You can’t prove 1000 things you believe.
So if millions of people don’t believe what you believe, why should they be forced live their lives by it?
So should I be forced to live by what you believe? We could go an this way for the rest of our lives. I all honesty, if you read enough of what I have said, I am all for individual rights, and keeping the real power in the states. Do whatsoever you want, so long as it doesn’t interfere with the rights of others.
Ah therein lies the problem. Marriage isn’t a religious right, it is a social contract. And gays deserve the same rights that atheists and agnostics have: to marry one another. So, it does not infringe upon your rights at all, since you have the same rights as atheists and agnostics. You still have the right to BELIEVE whatever you will, but not the right to deny marriage to one group based on religious scruples.
Cohabiting with a civil contract would solve the issues gays want. Plain and simple. Calling cohabitation marriage is what upsets the religious. It has been a religious right for 1000’s of years.
Your same line of thinking could be applied to prostitution or consensual sex with minors. It doesn’t interfere with my rights. And the standard on that differs in many parts of the world. You are passing moral judgment when you condemn it. How is that different than the religious passing moral judgment on homosexuality?
I am passing a moral judgment? On what?
For one, on people who have religious beliefs. Unless they agree with you, they are wrong. But from my last post, would you not consider consensual sex with minors wrong? What about prostitution?
If neither of those, where do you draw the line? And if someone else draws it farther than you, are they wrong? Some parts of the world beastuality is taboo, but not wrong. Where do you stand? What about Polygamy? It’s consenting adults, so what do you care?
PS. We are quickly running out of thread room.
Haha that’s a great distraction, but you can’t put words in my mouth. I said you have the right to believe whatever you will. That includes the right to believe that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry. But it doesn’t give you the right to deny marriage based on your religious scruples. Things like sex with children or bestiality don’t come into play because animals and children cannot give informed consent. Informed consent isn’t a religious belief. Gays CAN give informed consent, so long as they are over 18.
MY beliefs have nothing to do with your assertion that gays shouldn’t be allowed to be married. Stop trying to distract with shiny objects.
I agree with Charro here, Carolinian- your arguments are a bit distracting, insulting, and not really viable examples, because gays aren’t having sex for money, nor can they not give informed consent, while an animal or child can’t.
Charro…very well said.
As long as you are not infringing upon the rights of others, this is a FREE COUNTRY. Freedom and equal rights go hand in hand.
The point is that gays being married does not infringe on the right of straight Christians to believe that gay marriage is a sin.
Christians demanding that gay marriage be banned IS infringing upon the right of the gays to be married in the eyes of the state.
For what it is worth, I have linked analysis from a cynic with regards to abiotic synthesis (life from non-living sources) who has become less so, and is a practicing immunologist. But I suspect you won’t care…
Actually I do care. And from my point of view, (yours may differ) I don’t care how God did it, he did it.
I respect you, and can have an honest conversation, but seems if I offer my opinion, I get attacked.
“An scientist died, and facing God at the pearly gates was calling him a fraud, as he could create life from dirt too. God said, Ok, show me. And as the scientist started to scoop up the dirt he needed, God shook his head and said Nope. You got to get your own dirt.”
You can argue all day about life on earth, but where did the universe come from? That original matter for the big bang had to come from something. To me, that is Elohim. Hebrew for “The self existing one.”
Then where did God come from?
That’s just adding one more step to the equation.
Learn to spell “protoplasm” before commenting on science. Let’s also agree that I won’t tell you what your religious texts mean, since I’m not familiar with them, and you won’t tell me what science is about, since you’re obviously an ignoramus in that field.
And YOU have never had a spelling error. Shocking, nor really! And I love how you know my educational history! Thank you kindly!
It’s not shiny objects. And you under your thinking, that still leaves out Polygamy. They are old enough to give consent.
And bringing them up was not shiny distractions, but rather the fact that you would pass judgment against them, and you did. Some parts of the world say that they are old enough to give informed consent at 12. A line that differs from yours.
When did I pass judgment on them? You can’t even make a coherent argument, all you are doing is putting words in my mouth. I can’t say I am surprised though.
Uh-oh. Now you are trying to make my place on the PEDESTAL.
take*
IT’S MY PEDESTAL!!! LMAO
Wow, divert and insult. You are quite good at that. You know some of those things are something you would consider wrong, and even said that a child could not give informed consent. There are those who disagree with you. And yes, you speak out of both sides of your mouth by avoiding actually calling them wrong. But you ignore the ones you know are wrong, so you cant get called to the carpet on them.
And you are passing judgment on me with your insult. But that’s ok to the great book of Charro. All hail Charro, the great moral guide of the universe.
Carolinian, you put words in her mouth.
She didn’t divert, you did when you made leaps and assumptions about her she didn’t state.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA *wipes tears* Did you know in Beligum, the Netherlands and Spain that gay marriage is legal? That makes it ok, right? Because in other parts of the world people do it? Just like in other parts of the world people believe that sex with children is ok?
My word but you are dense. I’ll say it again. MY beliefs have nothing to do with your assertion that gays should not be married.
Let’s narrow our focus and talk about the United States of America, where I live and where I believe you live. In the U.S. children and animals cannot give informed consent, so it doesn’t come into play. Gays CAN give informed consent if they are over the age of 18. They deserve the same marriage rights that atheists and agnostics enjoy.
(And Norway and Sweden!)
Keep wiping. You want to take a world view when it’s convenient to you, but American when it’s not.
And you just *proved* my point. You stated that prostution was sex for money, in the context that it was wrong. Some people view it as not that different than buying dinner and a movie. Consent was given, by 2 adults. Why is it your business? (for all that matters, how many marriages are that same arangement?)
Give gays social contracts. Just like the atheist at the justice of the peace. And I stated earlier that it’s wrong for government to be in the marriage business all together.
When did I take a world view? You took the world view when you said in other countries they believe informed consent is at 12. I made the distinction that we are talking about the U.S. since it is where you live and where you want to deny gays the marriage right. And in the U.S. animals and children under 18 cannot give informed consent.
Hahaha keep putting words in my mouth, Justa, I’ll keep calling you on it.
And I didn’t make the “sex for money” argument, Igor did.
Justa, I made the sex for money argument because I was pointing out that your example isn’t applicable because the MOTIVATIONS are different. Not because it’s morally wrong, I’m not judging there, but they are not having sex for the same reason, therefore you cannot equate the two.
Igor, I didn’t put words in her mouth. I put out things that would be considered wrong in today’s common society. And She refused to condemn them, knowing that I would reply with “that is where you draw the line.” She didn’t answer the questions, knowing that.
My point is plain. We all make moral judgments, just in different places. Don’t condemn me because mine is different than yours.
“And She refused to condemn them, knowing that I would reply with “that is where you draw the line.” She didn’t answer the questions, knowing that.”
That’s called “putting words in my mouth”.
No, sorry. It’s not. It’s pointing out that you avoided the answer, knowing you would pass judgment there. A fine line, but different.
You do speak about things being wrong, and you have moral judgments. Just different than mine, and we both think each other is wrong.
I told you that you could believe whatever you wanted. You seem to be intentionally missing that point. I said that doesn’t mean you can deny a group of people rights, based on religious scruples.
And when did you become psychic? “Knowing” why I didn’t answer a question that, again, has NOTHING TO DO with your assertion that gays should not be allowed to be married.
Great arguments Justa. Supposition and ESP. Call it what you think makes you look smart and all knowing, but you are putting words in my mouth.
No, it’s called inferring the truth and saying you know her thought processes and that you know her motivations for not responding, which is essentially putting words in her mouth, Justa.
Think about it. You didn’t point it out, you SAID YOU KNEW WHY SHE DID IT.
Think about it.
I don’t have to be psychic to know that you would condemn something at some point, and that was what I was saying. And you are simply trying to divert from that. And it’s not putting words in your mouth. Still.
Condemnation is different than denying someone a right. I never said you’re not allowed to condemn. You want to withhold rights based on religious scruples, which is different than condemning.
Keep calling me on it. Because you know you can’t answer the question. Your context is the answer. And you and I have sparred on other questions, and you take the world view where you want, and the US view when you want. You are not consistent.
And I may have mistaken you for Igor, ok. It’s getting late.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You think that pretending to know what I am thinking is going to goad me into answering something? MY beliefs have nothing to do with your assertion that gays should not be allowed to marry. You still can’t make a coherent argument. All you can do is pretend to know what I am thinking, and pretend that somehow makes you better. Well you DON’T know what I am thinking and you DON’T know what I believe. Stop pretending, it’s as pathetic as your inability to argue your anachronistic beliefs.
Keep laughing. You still wont admit you make moral judgments. Nuff said.
If that isn’t coherent, then you need help.
Moral judgments are different than denying people rights based on religious scruples. HAHAHAHA you are so dense you don’t even get the foundation of my points here. Make all the judgments you wants Justa! I don’t care what you believe! Judge until you are blue in the face! You have my permission, as the Great Moral Guide of the Universe.
It’s the WITHHOLDING of rights based on those judgments that I am arguing against.
So, her refusal to admit something clearly proves she’s wrong?
That must mean that I’m secretly in love with Palin, while being homosexual, and once bashed myself in the face with a guitar.
Just because you won’t admit to something that someone accuses you of doesn’t make you wrong.
You are so dense that you don’t see that I can see through your phony argument.
It’s not a right, nor is it withheld from anyone. Civil contracts and even wills and hospital arrangements can be made now.
You say you don’t care what I believe, but it seems not, as you are so busy denouncing me.
Oh the old “I know you are but what am I” argument. Bravo! You are a true intellectual Justa. Bravo!! Great coherent arguments defending your beliefs! I applaud thee!
When did I denounce your beliefs? Challengin you to defend them is denouncing them? It seems your incoherent sputterings and distraction techniques say more about your beliefs than anything.
MY phony argument? The argument that withholding marriage rights based on religious scruples is fallacious? That argument? Well then, prove me wrong, oh great Justa. Prove me wrong.
Only, try to do so without putting words in my mouth. If you can.
Justacarolinian, you don’t seem to realize that 972 benefits that are given to heterosexual married couples aren’t given to people in civil unions/contracts, whatever you may call it, because it’s not recognized as marriage by most states.
You don’t own the damn word. Give it up already, you’re not being forced to marry homosexuals, and if it’s a federal institution, just because it was your idea doesn’t mean you get to control how the state uses it. Because someone legislating based on their beliefs would be a little rude and oppressive, wouldn’t it?
I never put words in your mouth, and you know that. But you cry that because you can’t answer that with out admitting you pass moral judgments.
Challenging me to defend them is stating that they are wrong. And you have made it plain that you think bad of me. More moral judgment. You have scrupples, just different, and you condemn me for that.
Oh, I’m crying so hard Justa. Boo hoo. Still can’t stop putting words in my mouth. That’s such a weak position to take.
Are you blind? I said you can make all the moral judgments you want. Believe as you will.
Your refusal to defend and falling back on putting words in my mouth makes me suspect that you have nothing to defend.
No, Justa, challenging someone’s beliefs doesn’t mean you’re stating that they are wrong. It means you’re displaying a healthy amount of skepticism and caution. Just hearing and accepting something blindly without thinking or asking questions would be an idiotic and sheep-ish thing to do, no? So why is it, then, whenever she asks questions and wants you to back up your argument, you fall back on “YOU DO IT TOO! I KKNOWWWW YOU DO IT TOO!”?
Igor, wow. You do it too is not at all what I said. Now you are putting words in MY mouth.
Pointing out that we all have moral standards, just different points of views is not “you do it too.”
Good night, rant and rave all you want. This thread has got to the point it’s over run. I can’t even keep up with everywhere all yours and Charro’s responses are. Maybe that is a Firefox issue. And I have watched the last 3 of my responses just disappear.
No, Justa, I’m not putting words in your mouth because I’m not pretending to know what motivates you or read your mind, I’m saying that’s essentially the argument you were making. Just because she draws moral lines, doesn’t mean that you’re right.
Oh, and Charro keeps her morals to herself.
She’s not legislating based on them.
And the reason you can’t keep up is because you can’t keep up an argument of circular logic forever and not feel like an idiot.
God, Adam, and Eve were all about 5500 years ago. Humans existed before that. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Clubbing and drugging? OMG the first date rape.
And actually there are christian churches that accept darwinism over creationism.
Um, no.
Pick your head out of your bible and into a text book. Long before the Babylonian captivity, there has been marriage. And if you need to know what the Babylonian captivity was, then you need to read some history. Religion took it, made it a form of control, and then told people they created it.
Nobody’s going to force your petty religion to marry anyone. It’s a government issue and has nothing to do with you or your “I’m religious when I feel like it” conviction. Marriage is a public domain word, it is not owned by religion.
I’ve read many texts books. And they can’t even agree with one another.
Ironically, you are historically wrong. And just plain stupid if you think a Bible reader would not know about the Babylonian captivity. It’s where one of the greatest Prophets did his thing. It also is not the start of Marriage in the Bible or history. Nor have I ever claimed it to be. In fact, I mentioned the garden of Eden. I guess you can’t read.
No body is going to accept your petty attitude either. Nor am I “religious when I feel like it.” You know nothing about me. Or history, as so it would seem. Marriage has been a religious right for 1000’s of years. Precedent.
Because Greece, Rome, and several times in Europe have allowed same-sex “marriage”. Dude, marriage isn’t a word owned by your or anyone else’s religion, especially when those who are married are given benefits by the state. You can still say it doesn’t count unless your church does it, but you can’t say it belongs SPECIFICALLY to your religion or any other and still be correct. The idea of a monogamous couple being recognized by the governing state has been around for a long time, and if the state is involved, it doesn’t belong to the religion anymore.
Nor can you “own” how a word is used.
Just sayin’.
Just saying, Precedent. before Greece and Rome existed. Because the government claims it, don’t make it theirs.
Where, exactly, can you prove where the idea of marriage originated? Cause I’d call that precedent, but not the “Our religion is older than the state so the state is wrong!” argument. And just because any religion claims it or comes up with the base concept, doesn’t make the word or the rights pertain only only to the followers of it.
I didn’t say the state was wrong, but rather that the state has no business involved in marriage.
Using your logic, we can all just run down the streets proclaiming anything to be what ever we wish it to be.
We can, Justa. We can run down the streets and SAY something means whatever we want it to mean. So, by your logic, the language should never change and a word should never be used for an idea that the place it originated from disagrees with?
So, just because the French don’t want people to use the word “facade” for what we use it for anymore, does that mean we should all have to change how we use the word? No, because it’s part of the English language, and French and English isn’t the same thing. So you can say marriage, extra-special marriage, but you cannot define our language for us. Just because you don’t like the way a word is used doesn’t mean you should be able to change the definition or disallow an addition to the definition. There is no single person or thing that can or should be able to control the meaning and use of words in the English language.
By the way, don’t quote The Bible as having recorded the precedent for marriage.
Using your religion to prove that something is religious is just asinine circular logic.
Yeah, precedent. That is the point. That word has been used for some certain thing for 1000s of years.
I don’t have to quote the Bible, I did so for someone falsely quoting it.
And assanine? Wow. As opposed to your beliefs? You are right that this has become circular. You know history itself refers to marriage long before Greece and Rome. And that not all cohabitation has been referred to as marriage. And that is what I am saying too. Marriage, as the word and deed, are a religious idea, predating any society we know of. Handed down since before recorded history.
You have to prove a religious reason for marriage if you want it to be a religious precedent. Oh, and just because it’s religious, doesn’t mean that a single religion should control it.
The fact that you say “The first marriage was by God pronouncing Adam and Eve as husband and wife.”
Means you are referencing your religious text for proof that your religion is correct in producing the conviction it has, and therefore quoting a religion’s texts to prove it correct is circular logic. The proof need come from somewhere outside the religion to validate the opinion.
Anyway, if Adam and Eve were the first to complete sex as an action and made up the word “sex” does that mean they should regulate forever what all sexual activity should and shouldn’t be, and what the definition of it is? No. The fact that you think because a ceremony is religious in origin and that you can’t share a word you claim to have “invented”, even though it denies other people who love each other rights, just proves to demonstrate how asinine the whole argument is.
“Marriage, as the word and deed, are a religious idea, predating any society we know of. Handed down since before recorded history.”
I’m gonna have to ask for a cite here. If you already have and I glazed over it, my apologies. But that seems to require some backing up. It just logically doesn’t make sense to me.
You didn’t miss a cite, Eric.
He doesn’t need them, although, he did cite Adam and Eve as the first marriage, if that helps.
“Marriage, as the word and deed, are a religious idea, predating any society we know of.”
I’m calling BS on this. How can you have marriage, or recognize it if there is no society? Penguins, geese, and many other animals are monogamous once choosing a mate, some even mate for life and never reproduce again once their mate dies. The thing is, those animals all live in some form of society. You can’t have marriage without a society to recognize it.
I recognize penguin marriages.. does that count?
I assume that penguin weddings are always formal affairs–white tie and tails?
That’s just what they WANT you to think, VG.
There are churches that sanctify gay marriage so you and the government need to mind your damned business and let them do so, as the Constitution says.
it doesn’t matter weather it started as a religious thing or not, the bottom line is that no marriage is legal unless it is government sanctioned, so your 1st paragraph is MOOT (see, it’s moot, not mute.)
as for the 2nd paragraph, homosexuals know that fundies already consider them to be “less moral” and most of them don’t really care. the point isn’t to force idiots to see them as moral or as equal, the point is to force the government and other institutions to allow homosexuals the same legal rights as hetero married couples.
your last point is hilarious. you do realize that even straight couples can’t force a church to conduct a wedding for them, right? it’s entirely up to the individual church who gets to marry there. asking the government to allow and recognize homosexual marriage has nothing to do with churches. if a church somewhere decides to marry a homosexual couple, it’s their decision, and affects you and your church in no way at all. in fact, some churches have already done so, but the government still refuses to give such marriages legal standing.
lastly, i’d like to ask you where did i say that i think those against homosexual marriage are immoral? i didn’t even imply such a thing.
“i’d like to ask you where did i say that i think those against homosexual marriage are immoral?”
In case Justacarolinian doesn’t come back to read this, I can sort that one out for you: He can read minds. It’s quite awesome…
We need to get government out of it because there are gay people who believe in God and churches that sanctify their unions, so the government does have something to do with religious ceremonies. Perhaps you disagree becuse you believe that any such church is no church at all.
The state has no business involved in what is a social contract in the first place. If not for licensing, tax implications, estate issues, etc. (all three part of the “money train”, as it were), all this turns into wailing and gnashing of teeth about personal/religious beliefs…
ok, so apparently this got misunderstood. I’m not saying its wrong for gays to marry (cause then I couldn’t) I’m saying if its the stupid word that everyone nitpicks over, DROP THE WORD FROM LAW.
I don’t care what a particular church believes, they are entitled to it so long as they don’t shove it on others. Believe in love not hate. The government has no place telling a church what it is allowed to say (side effect of free speech and separation of church and state)
If you remove the word marriage from legal documents ENTIRELY, and make everyone – gay straight bi or otherwise – have a civil union, that’s all that matters, complete legal equality.
Government and law is not there to force one’s beliefs on another, its there to allow everyone to have their own beliefs but still the same rights. If you choose to use those rights or not is your own choice, no one can force you to do so.
There will always be those who think gay marriage is wrong, but if they truely believe their own religion, they will have faith, and leave it up to their own god. Government cannot take the side of a particular religion, because that lessens the rights of others.
Personally, I don’t care about the term marriage, I care about being a second class citizen. If the word marriage is removed from law, it becomes irrelevant, so leave the precious word to religions (any and every, no matter what they think about gays) because as far as the government is concerned, a religious marriage shouldn’t mean anything, a legal civil union is all that should matter to a government.
I hope to God that politicians don’t combine their personal lives and jobs, like all of you are claiming. As long as he cheated on his own time, it doesn’t matter what party he’s from.
Hypocrites can at least be objective.
It DOES matter when he, as a politician, is claiming to be defending marriage whilst he is destroying his own. When this person is making policy decisions that effect other people yet somehow thinks that the very rules he claims to support don’t apply to him, thats messed up.
Marriage = One Church + One State
There are thousands of perks for legally recognized marriages, such as lower taxes and the ability to put your spouse on your health insurance, that heterosexual couples get automatically, but are either difficult to obtain or completely unavailable to gay and lesbian couples. That’s why it’s a civil rights issue. Why not just call gay marriage civil unions? Well, separate but equal worked so well in the 50s…
Those perks also include the right to visit your partner in the hospital (especially the intensive care unit), the right to make medical decisions, ease of inheritance…
The ONLY reason why civil unions of homosexuals will be fought to the bitter end are for insurance companies, the IRS, and businesses not wanting to provide more benefits for the legal couples later.
I know it’s an incredibly cynical way of looking at things, but here in the states, someone will go out on a limb and claim religious issues with everything and anything to save a dollar later. It really is sad when companies and religious beliefs can legally keep people from living their individual lives the way they wish.
Actually, marriage is to define the parents of the children of the union. Which guys butt is the child going to hatch from? Which womans tongue will impregnate the other? Homosexual unions CANNOT produce children, therefore any “civil contract” union between gays can only be that, and no more.
Just give it up.
Hhhmmm what about a marriage between a man and a woman in which one is infertile or otherwise unable to have children? Is that going to be no longer counted as a marriage but only a “civil contract union”?
Or if a couple gets married past the age where they are able to have children? Should that not be counted as a marriage either?
How about couples who are married and have decided NOT to have any children?
So a heterosexual couple one of whom is sterile (either by birth or elective surgery) can not get married either in your little World.
Also, if you’ve been keeping up with medical science, you might have heard of Artificial Insemination by Donor, by means of which a guy can fertilise an ovum without having sechs with a woman, or the latest stem cell research, which may be able to produce viable sperm without a guy being involved at all.
There’s this thing, it’s called “adoption” and it’s when people who aren’t the biological parents of a child legally become that child’s parents.
Also, you are a fvcktard!
The Obama administration claims the power to indefinately detain people regardless of a trials results but yeah, this is what defines hypocrisy…
What are you even talking about?
What the hell are you talking about?
And yet you don’t have the sense to be happy he agreed with the former Republican president I’m sure you defend at every turn. No all you can do is be angry, because now you really care about those poor innocent detained brown people right???
I swear, if Obama said he was against abortion, half of conservatives would suddenly be for it.
Oh look….ANOTHER LOL bashing republicans and what they believe in….I’m SO shocked.
I’m offended because it’s not funny and poorly formatted.
And there was a LOL extremely similar to this a few days ago….
Oh yeah, I forgot redundant. Bleh.
There’s a really funny one in upcoming… Guess Who?
I ROFLd.
There was a news story a bit ago about Obama checking out someone in Italy… I laughed hardcore cause the only thing I could think was “BUSTED!”
*link*
I mean seriously, who *wouldn’t* double take? It’s a nice ass.
I think he’s looking in horror at her dreadful shoes.
The look on Sarkozy’s face: Ah ha! He fell right into my trap!
Ha. Yes, that is definitely what his expression says.
And his expression also says:
Oh Mary why go with the chartreuse slingbacks when a deep purple peep toe would have been divine.
I’m a straight gal and even I’d have to take a look! Too bad the actual film footage shows a completely different story… tho Sarkozy is still saying “Hehe… papi like!”
I’m a teenage boy, I might accidentally take a stare. Bad?
I saw that film footage, and it’s in no way clear exactly what Obama is doing. Personally, if he’s a smart guy and a general “checker outer of female assets”, the looking toward the floor bit was to camoflauge what he was actually doing. I thought it was hilarious, and very normal for a guy. I also thought it was pretty clear he was checking her out.
Normal indeed. He’s just a man…our primary instincts are to eat and mate…what do you expect?
The day I can’t even look is the day I donate my man-parts to science.
If all he does is look, he’s ok in my book. My hubby and I have a very clear cut “look don’t touch” policy that includes being ok when he or I point out a tasty morsel to the other. If you can’t trust your partner, what do you have? Besides, any man or woman who thinks that their partner ISN’T looking is delusional.
Yep…if Megan Fox walked by me in the mall my head would probably spin around exorcist style and I’d end up tripping over myself…I know a couple guys who’s wives would slap them for it.
The odd part is neither one of these guys would hesitate to trample over Megan Fox as they carried their wives out of a burning building if it was the only way to save them….girl brains work funny sometimes.
Agreed. Look plenty, but don’t touch.
I’ve been known to point out sexy gals to the BF–straight doesn’t mean I’m not looking, myself! And a healthy fantasy life has bennies in the bedroom…
Just because I’m on a diet doesn’t mean I can’t look look at the menu….
‘cuz MAN OH MAN do I loves to bring home a hearty appetite for some good ole fashioned home cookin’!!!
Hey, he’s a guy. I ain’t gonna fault him for it.
agree with his policies or not that man ALWAYS takes a good photo!
i hope that one makes it. Full of win.
LOL.
but I bet Michelle COULD
There is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides (they are politicians, remember) but this kind of irony is too good to pass up. If it was a democrat, I and many others would react the same way. What a hypocritical jerkoff.
This LOL doesn’t exactly bash traditional republican beliefs. I wouldn’t say most republican think cheating on your wife, leaving the state and neglecting your responsibilities as a politician, and giving your girlfriend thousands of your parents’ dollars is a-okay.
Republicans believe in extra-marital affairs? I had no idea…
it’s in the fine print when you sign up. Most aren’t even aware that they do in fact believe in it.
And Dems believe in intra-marital affairs….
An affair with your own spouse? No, I don’t think that’s a platform per say…
I think they call that “role-playing”
Yeah, Max, I was watching that time when you took Jane to the fountain and pretended she was me.
Sicko.
If this guy had to defend my marriage I’d have to call a defense attorney AND an exorcist.
Right republicans just depend for their sense of self on where they fit into a nominal heirarchy with gays at the bottom.
You can’t be a conservative without visualising those who are above and (especially) below you.
there’s so much innuendo here, I can’t stand it.
Silver spoon republican moron has daddy warbucks pay his hush money. What a loser.
Err…shouldn’t the headline here simply have read ‘politician’?
So the solution you guys propose is legitimatizing sodomy as marriage? Adultery – whether done by a GOP or a liberal Dem – is ALWAYS sin, just as sodomy is ALWAYS sin. No sex outside marriage between one man and one woman, no matter what your political party is. You’re not a wild animal. God gave you brains. So use them and don’t cave in to the passion of the moment just because it feels good. Gay sex is SIN. Hetero sex outside marriage is SIN. And no relationship between two gay men or two gay women can ever be defined as marriage. It’s an abomination before the Lord. Anyone’s opinion to the contrary is irrelevant.
No, no. It is the notion of gods that is irrelevant.
So, if I like to take it in the backdoor, it makes Baby Jesus cry?
*crying with laughter*
-Crying hopefully and winking at SB-
That would make a good t-shirt think: Buttsecks makes Baby Jesus Cry. *more rolling on the floor*
Maybe, but it makes all the other guys cheer!
Just because you came up with the concept of the word doesn’t mean you get to define the word forever and control how other people, like our damn state, use it.
Oh, and I think that if every single bit of The Bible is true, it probably gets exponentially harder to get into heaven every single time you tell someone they’re going to hell or tell them they’re sinning because what you believe says so, and therefore keep them from doing what they want to do using “God’s will” as your prerogative will just get you sent you to hell for oppressing people based on what you think an omniscient being would want, and act like he told you directly that this is his opinion and he wants it enforced.
Oh, and just because you believe that it is an abomination in the eyes of something you believe doesn’t give you the right to control other people based on what you want. It’s called the separation of church and state, dipshit.
so why did god make gay people? Just to torture them? About 10% of population is gay, approx the same as left handed people – who were once persecuted by .. wait for it …the church.
Wait, so by the church’s (admittedly, very very long past church) definition I am the only innocent one among my nearest 20 family members?
Sweet.
this was supposed to reply to Yanni above…oops
GMC, by the way- I don’t know if that was a mis-nest, but I’m trying to convey the same message you are here.
I’m a spaz…need coffee…should go to work…
I’m ADD, haven’t taken my pills, and have summer off.
Friends?
*offers cookies all around*
Peanut butter, or chocolate chip?
If you want to live in a theocracy I suggest you move to the middle east. I hear they have some nice ones over there. Until then, I believe one of the other posters on this board said it best when they stated:
Your hell, you burn in it.
-Giggles and buries face in blanket-
Jane, don’t BASH the troll, debunk it!
That way I can see it get enraged and study the idiocy!
This one’s not ever coming back Tyler. It has the hallmarks of being a hit and run troll. They already stated that all other opinions are irrelevant. Which by using the term “other opinions” our troll implies that his/her post is also an opinion, which means his/her assertions of “sin” is not fact and they have thereby debunked themselves. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
Shhhhh… I’ll check back on this post one day, and they’ll have been ranting for years. I’m sure they’ll check back EVENTUALLY, just probably not this month.
OMG that was very entertaining. I swear, the troll rants are way more interesting than the caption.
I prefer the troll bashing. Eric does some incredibly creative insults, and I prefer to debunk, disarm, and b*tch slap.
I’m trying to be positive and find it entertaining instead of weeping with fear at people’s horrifying stupidity.
God called. He said you’re a fvcktard.
Did he say anything about my ‘bating addiction?
Yes. He said to work on your stroke, and use more lube.
*Eric books train to hell* Ticket for one, please!
so why did god make gay people? Just to torture them? About 10% of population is gay, approx the same as left handed people – who were once persecuted by .. wait for it …the church.
Hey, God made malaria, cancer, eye-burrowing parasitic worms that blind children and swine flu, it’s not too much of a stretch that he made gays even if gays are teh ebil.
Meh. Swine flu only has like a .8 % mortality rate, tops.
Anyway, doesn’t that make gays WIIIIIITCHHESSSSS And means that they turned me into a newt… But that I got better? And that all gays’ noses are fake?
And they weigh the same as a duck!
If they drown, they’re not a witch! If they live, they’re a witch!
So, we throw them off the cliff, and if she lives, she’s a witch, right? And if she dies, she’s just a *bad* witch, right?
Right!
Same thing if we burn her.
BUUUUUUUUUURN ‘ER ANYWAY!
So shuld we be banning bum-sex between heterosexuals and sex outside marriage as well as gay marriage? I mean, God’s so weak and powerless that we have to do his banning and punishing for him here on earth after all.
Ceefax, I like you, but this troll is never coming back so I’m going to fill in the circular logic gap they’ve left- The usual refute to that, I believe, is something about God not wanting to interfere in human will, or not wanting to control us, letting us decide for ourselves, blah de blah.
I’m not doing a very good job at this, am I? Not very used to it, sorry.
‘So shuld we be banning bum-sex between heterosexuals’
Well Sh|t.
Hahah…that’s a riot.
If you’re so sure, why don’t you let the gays marry and allow God to judge them at the gates?
I believe it’s called Spiritual Warfare, where Satan is always trying to bugger you into going to hell. Those Christian soldiers are trying to pave the road to Heaven in good intentions, I think… and I wonder how that’s going for them.
Has anyone actually defended this guy’s position on gay marriage yet, or has it all just been “But Clintonnnnnn…”?
Meh, Justacarolinian and Charro and I were arguing about teh mawwiage bit around 10pm East Coast Time.
Takes up a decent portion of the thread, if you look up. Hopefully not too hard to find :/
(Justacarolinian certainly is selling itself short with that user name. It was quite obvious that Justacarolinian was so much more than just that.)
Only, Justacarolinian weren’t actually arguing the issua at hand much, being far too busy imagining what was happening in other peoples’ minds.
Justa wasn’t imagining, Danbala. Weren’t you paying attention?! JUSTA KNOWS.
Oh damn. There I went doing the pedestal thing again!
For shame. For shame.
Kings and prophets in the bible were rapists, had multiple wives and concubines and had sex with children.
So… I’m not sure how the bible is a good model…
And homosexuality is ‘natural’ if anything can be so described.
Sexual attraction to males or females is natural, why would it become unnatural when the ‘wrong person’ has it? Men and women are not seperate species, the genes for being male are in every woman and the genes for being female are in every man (how else do you think we manage to reproduce?).
Please, Sqwirk, let’s not start this one up again..
Besides, we might summon a mouth-foamer, and I’m not sure I can take one down on my lonesome tonight.
Not foaming just one question to Sqwirk (predication: people know my support of the gay community on here). How is it natural? If you were to take all the Gay Men and put them on an island together and all the Gay Women on a separate island together, how many generations would that colony survive? 0. What is the true meaning of life per nature; to survive and procreate, or else your species fails. So homsexuality is not ‘natural’ in the terms of nature.
There are gay penguins. No seriously, there are…
But whether it’s natural or not doesn’t matter. If they are human beings and citizens of the United States, they deserve the same rights that straight people have, including getting married as long as they both are consenting adults.
Gay penguins? Are they the ones who wear their tux to inappropriate places and think things are fabulous?
No, they live in a German zoo and back in June they hatched an egg that had been abandoned. Bremerhaven Zoo, I think it was.
Actually, they might think things are fabulous. I don’t speak penguin, so I wouldn’t know.
Also happened in a new york zoo. They wrote a kids book about it ‘tango makes three’ good book.
I never said they don’t deserve rights, why’d you have to go there. I was responding to Sqwirk’s comment that it was natural.
I never said you said they didn’t. I was just sort of on a ramble there.
The whole post couldn’t have been about penguins, that would have been silly XD.
Sure it could. Penguins ROCK!!! Watching them waddle, sort of like the Politicians going into the chambers for the State of the Union.
…you just brought it back to politics yourself.
Not really. I think they’re all kinda mindless sex crazed animals bent on self preservation. Now talking about the penguins, they are really cute.
I was thinking “…the Queen’s Speech”, but isn’t that sort of the same thing; the Government setting out their planned legislative programme for the next year?
What makes ‘natural’ mean ‘procreation’?
Froo aren’t they always wearing a tux?
Oooh. Men in a tux. Even male penguins!
*drools, mildly*
I thought you preffered men in Uniform (or was it out of Uniform?!?!?) I think you’re favorite was Garbage Man’s uniform….
Tux is just another form of uniform. Of course it could be that the appeal of a man in uniform is partly the effort put into grooming?
As for out of uniform, well… Depends on whether he is in shape.
Round is a shape!!!!
I’m afraid I prefer stringbean to teddy-bear!
But I have heard that teddy-bears give the best hug-ses…
And keep you warm in winter.
WIN!
That was kind of the point, ILPB
I guess my Sarcasometer was broken today.
Sorry…. since I’ve become my daughters Certa mattress lots of less sleep, not picking up on sarcasm….. **you can spank me now**
I would like to challenge you on whether homosexuality is natural or not. I say it is.
I believe that homosexuality is a genetic reaction to overpopulation. There have been studies that the more male children a woman has, the chances of homosexuality increases in the younger males. The purpose of this is probably to reduce the rate of creating more generations. We all know that men can continue to have children their entire life (although with difficulty in later ages), so the fewer men there are to procreate, the rate of population is slowed. Women can only have children every 9 months, and their fertility is limited further by menopause, so homosexuality is not as effective a limiter when it comes to women, although the desire to bear children themselves may be increased. I believe that in homosexuality the instinct to have sex with the opposite gender is suppressed or reversed, making them to be more attracted to their own gender. That being said, the desire to raise children is not affected either way, as we know they are willing to adopt.
As noted in the [link], there are a number of species that have shown to have homosexual behavior.
Either way, since heterosexual people greatly outnumber homosexuals, I don’t see what the big deal is if they can get legally married. People who believe marriage is religious STILL have to acquire a legal document of marriage from the state when they marry, so there lies in the problem; gay people in many states cannot acquire the legal contract, which is unfortunate. The other stigma against gay marriage is their ability to adopt children. It is a common misconception that gay people are child molestors, where in most instances of molesters are of older men and young girls.
In the end, religious beliefs interfering in government matters is not only immoral because it denies people to live in happiness, it is unconstitutional.
That’s a terrible example, and you probably know it. If 100% of the population decided that they wanted to be exclusively homosexual, then we would have a problem on our hands. A small portion of the population being exclusively homosexual (a phenomenon NOT limited to human beings, or penguins), and a slightly larger portion of the population embracing the fact that sexuality is always a spectrum – that’s an entirely different story.
Even heterosexual sex hasn’t been solely about survival in hundreds if not thousands of years. Considering how explosive our world population has been recently (i.e., several centuries at least), I can’t blame anyone who decides not to procreate, at which point it’s their own damned business whether they sleep with someone of their own gender or even marry them, especially since, legally, marriage isn’t about procreating anyway.
If you’re going to play devil’s advocate, at least do some research and thought before you post.
All right I was going to try and keep quiet, but the fact you had to bait me “That’s a terrible example, and you probably know it.” First of all, would I have put that example forward if I thought it was terrible example, NO. And for the record it’s aperfectly acceptable answer, just one that you didn’t want to hear. Both 142978 and Smartz went right into the “Rights” of homosexuals, which I didn’t touch at all. At least Squiggly had the decency to admit I didn’t say anything about rights. I didn’t even bring religion into it. People want scientific thought in it, and I put it out there. I was talking about nature. And the premise of Homosexuality is AGAINST the most primal of intincts within nature, and that is to survive and procreate. It doesn’t matter if we have sex for fun, or animals turn to homosexuality in nature (which actually they don’t it’s all been cases within Zoos where the female populaiton is usually set away from male populations). At least Smartz threw out a hypothesis of Homosexuality, and why it could be natural, you jut made absolutely no point what so ever.
Oh and for the record for both you and Smartz, I am pro-gay Civil Union (and marriage but more reluctantly since marriage is more of a religious conotation, ie Sacrament.) And since we can’t show pictures of Mohamed to offend the Muslims, possibly we can allow Gays the same rights as married couples per law, but call it Civil Union. (What a compromise, we can’t do THAT, we must have it our way and fvck the Christians). And yawl wonder why the Christians circle the wagons all the time.
Your point was that, if it were natural behavior, homosexuality would seek to advance our species in some way. My answer was
that not all natural sexual behaviors seek to advance a species, that I disagree with your statement that the “meaning of life” is to procreate. “Life will find a way,” to quote Crichton, but that doesn’t mean it’s the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything.
I then went one step farther in saying that it doesn’t matter whether it’s a remotely natural behavior or not, we still all deserve our rights, because that is the issue at hand.
I merely wanted to offer a counterargument to one that I thought needed some perspective… because, if you really do feel that way, some stranger on the internet telling you that your opinion is stupid probably won’t change the way you feel about it. I was not trying to insult you, or imply that you’re anti-gay in any way. I did read somewhere up there that you were pro-gay rights on some level, which is why I said, “If you’re going to play devil’s advocate.”
My point was it’s against Primal Instinctive Behavior. Which it is. The #1 Primal instinct is to suvive. #2 is to procreate. Animals, specifically in captivity (where most of the homosexual cases are measured) have a tendacy to ignore instincts (taking them away from their natural environment). I’ve researched somewhat of those “homosexual” tendancies in the wild, and found quite of few of those cases are that of Dominance humping. It’s not homsexuality it’s about dominating. In it’s worse it’s an animal raping another.
Well, uh, human beings aren’t in their natural environment, and haven’t been for a very, very long time; we’ve placed ourselves in captivity by building apartment complexes and subdivisions and office high rises.
But you make an excellent point. We can’t observe animal behaviors without affecting them. Just by being there, we’re changing things. (Ethnography, anyone?) So it’s nearly impossible to say what’s actually natural for any species – especially our own. We haven’t been “in the wild” in eons, and so we can’t begin to observe our own species as “natural” the way you’re using the word.
I think you’re agreeing with me on the instinctual aspect. Humans have long ago managed to pretty much ignore or tame their instincts. However I must disagree with you on “natural”. To me and many other psycologists out there, nothing is more natural than instincts. By ignoring instincts we are ignoring nature, and therefore being unnatural.
Why is a behavior in captivity “unnatural?” It’s an instinctive response to an environmental change.
No it’s a learned response to an enviromental change.
learned from whom, exactly?
the implication of your argument has just shifted to blaming homosexuality on some “root” psychological trauma… I seriously hope that’s not the case.
Clickie
During his studies, Calhoun coined the term “behavioral sink” to describe aberrant behaviors in overcrowded population density situations and “beautiful ones” to describe passive individuals who withdrew from all social interaction.
that link doesn’t do anything?
I think it is also possible that for the <i<species, there’s a point with having individuals who do not breed themselves. For strict lone animals, the individual breeding is doubtlessly the only sensible goal, survival-wise, while herd animals probably have big benefits from having herd members without spawn of their own.
And the fact that homosexuality appears amongst most animals (for source, I’d say you could probably do a search for homosexuality, animals and norwegian – some Norwegian scientist had an article about that during the last years, and I believe there were others too) makes it natural. It happens plenty in nature, so it’s natural.
Poor sloppy tag. I was intending to make “species” italicised. :p
And I also meant “… there’s a point in having …”, didn’t I? Sometimes I direct translate prepositions and stuff turns out weird. :p
To your point, Danbala, a meerkat community will have an alpha male and female. Usually, the alpha pair reserves the right to mate and normally kills any young not its own, to ensure that its offspring has the best chance of survival. The dominant couple may also evict, or kick out the mothers of the offending offspring.
What this shows is that “natural” sexual behaviors vary by species.
Let me define what I believe to be “natural”. That is simply following your instincts, is the natural course of things. Once we deviate from our instincts we are being unnatural. Yes learning is unnatural. What caviate we need to get away from is the stigmata that unnatural = bad/ evil.
You’re going to need to provide a better definition of what “natural” is beyond what you simply believe…there are many scientists and sociologists who argue that human beings have no “instincts” if instincts are defined as a “complex pattern of behavior present in every specimen of a particular species, that is innate, and that cannot be overridden.” For example, one’s “instinct” to reproduce may be overridden (I know many heterosexual couples who have no desire/impulse to reproduce).
(Also, I think stigma is the word you’re looking for, rather than stigmata – though I get your point and agree with you that “unnatural” does not equate with bad/evil).
Well sorry don’t have all the cites in a row. I should caviat, based on my what I’ve been taught and read about I believe natural to be following one’s instincts. I’d also disagree that humans do have instincts. Explain how when we’re born we know to nuzzle mom’s chest to get to the nipple? Explain how we’re born with the sucking reflex. Or better yet how about a mother’s instinct to protect a child. Yes they can be overcome/ ignored b/c our brians have evolved to point that allows us to ignore them. But you I bet you take 10 people in a room and set of a starter pistol off at least 9 will jump for cover without thinking about it. Is that Instinct to survive, or something else. What about our fight or flight reflexes? Etc Etc etc… I love to hear some scientists try adn find that “great new” discovery that just can’t quite explain everything. Part of the reason science has lost quite a bit of credability to me over the last 10 years (I used to be a science NUT, now more into history).
Well, again, not all babies are born with the “instinct” to nuzzle/suck the breast (as a good friend of mine recently discovered with her new baby). Also, some mothers don’t feel compelled to protect their children. Per the previous definition provided, if an urge (let’s call it) can be overridden, it is not an instinct (I trust that there are other definitions of instinct available).
Additionally, it’s important to discern between reflex and instinct (your example of a pistol shot startling people would be better classified as a reflex).
Apparently, most scientific journals consider the term “instinct,” when applied to humans, outdated, and have since 1910…speaking of history.
I read that in Wikki too!!!!
Gotta love the wiki
The magic internet never lies nor decieves!!!!
Well, for something as basic as that statement (about 1910) it’s safe to cite wiki, especially since it corresponds with school learnin’ on the subject.
The internet is a fantastic resource if you know how to qualify your sources.
My school (very liberal too) taught me more about instinct.
Oh. Then homosexuality certainly is “natural” by your definition. If one’s sexuality isn’t about following one’s instincts, then I don’t know what it is.
I would disagree, especially when humanity is involved. I believe most adult humans don’t really follow their instincts, and have supressed them to the point of almost non-exsitance. Now is a new born where to start humping someone of the same sex, then sure that’s instinctual, but unfortunately I don’t see that happening. Danbala, why is it so bad to be unatural?
I’ve never said it is bad to be unnatural.
Then why fight so hard to call something that is against the natural instinct, natural. You have yet to prove my point that if you were to take all the Gay Men and put them on an island, and all the Gay Women on an island, there populations would die within one generation. That is against the instinct for suvival of the species.
Well, “natural” is a friggin’ useless word to use for humanity to start with, but I find the concepts of what is fittest for survival to be intriguing. I find the point of putting all homosexual people on islands rather pointless – I still think there might be more to a herd’s survival than simply maximizing procreation per individual.
And seriously, I am really not fighting hard for anything here, I am just discussing rather vaguely around some intriguing concepts.
Well stop yelling at me!!! **Covers ears** Sorry us conservatives have to be defensive about race, homosexuality, etc b/c of the stigma (or stigmata) we carry thanks to you liberals. Believe it or not there are a lot of conservatives who believe in freedoms, rather than big government, but somehow the religious nut bags like Belie have highjacked our voice. I’m trying to take it back.
If they’re on the same island, I expect at least some of them would manage to overcome their distaste so they could reproduce.
No worries. I just had to read through my own posts several times to see if I had been aggressively fighting anything at any time. (I might have had a PUI* the other night and whatnot.)
I am actually really anti most ideas about “natural” vs “unnatural” since civilisation has turned most of that upside down or irrelevant for most imaginable discussion topics. But. If I do come across one of those who want to explain why homosexuals should be oppressed with the argument “it ain’t no natural, it ain’t”, I’d begin with probably about 50 posts back and forth on what the usable definitions of “natural” would be.
And yes, I recognised you as not being any of that sort of nutjob, so yeah – I’m just interested in the ideas of who/what is most useful for our species survival, and also the other sidetrack you and SB were discussing – what are instincts today, and when do they get rendered null, void and moot. (Or “mute”, as it were.)
Diss: But they ain’t!!! That’s the point I’m making. If “nature” had intended us to be homosexual, nature would have made a way for two men doing the horizontal hokey pokey or two women doing the wheelbarrow or would somehow create a baby. That’s the only point I’m trying to make.
Danbala: We’ve so FUBAR’d nature it’s ok. We truely are the Jehovah’s Witnesses of the Universe (well not just in space but everywhere)
OW OW OW OW!!
Anyone who wants a headache should attempt to read the arguments above… otherwise steer clear of them >_<
Hey, at least he was straight!
I’ve got one for ya, you America Hating Commie Fuckers.
How about this for hypocrisy, running for president saying you’ll cut taxes for 95% of Americans, then promoting Cap and Trade to send the economy back to the 19th century.
THANKS FUHRER OBAMA!!
Attempted hijacking of thread:
FAILED
Wow, some of the other captions for this picture are really vicious…
Spelling fial.
How grand the libs are!
“I’m not a hypocrite, cause I have no morals!”
You are PATHETIC! You are like the guy who criticizes Tiger Woods when he has a bad shot, EVEN THOUGH YOU”VE NEVER PLAYED GOLF YOURSELF!
So the guy has morals and fails. It is called being human.
You don’t have morals so you never fail.
IT IS CALLED BEING A SPINELESS WIMP.
YOU ARE PATHETIC!
Or, maybe liberals have morals, but they don’t expect everyone else to live by them?
Also, you are a douche.
Calling someone a hypocrite implies that YOU expect him to live by your moral – to practice what you preach. RIGHT BACK AT YOU!
So, suicide girl. Have you never failed at your morals?
Calling someone a hypocrite implies that you expect them to practice what they preach (not what you preach).
Yes, I have indeed failed to behave in accordance with my own ideas of what is right and wrong, on occassion.
“Calling someone a hypocrite implies that you expect them to practice what they preach (not what you preach).”
Thank you: You make make my point for me: “YOU expect Them”
You failed. So you concede that you too are a hypocrite?
HEY EVERYBODY! SUICIDE CHICK IS A HYPOCRITE! LETS CRUCIFY HER!
Definition of a hypocrite: someone who pretends to live by a set of values, but in fact does not.
By this definition, Ensign is a hypocrite.
I may have failed to live up to my own conceptions of what is right or wrong at times, but I did not profess otherwise, and so I am not a hypocrite in this instance. Additionally, I have not attempted to turn my morals into legislation which others must abide by, whereas Ensign has done just that, despite the fact that he failed to abide by his own morals.
If it would help you to understand, I can try using smaller words.
Can you like, um, like, make the words small and the letters like, you know, really big, ’cause I think that helps us get what you, like, um, is saying, you know?
LIKE THIS.
“I have not attempted to turn my morals into legislation which others must abide by”
O but you have, dear wrist slashing friend. YOU EXPECT HIM to practice what he preaches. It may not be a federal law, but he broke YOUR law of “practice what you preach”, and therefore YOU have the right to stick the scarlet letter on him and parade him through the streets!
So, have you publicly confessed EVERY TIME you failed at one of your morals? If you did not, you also lived a lie!
HYPOCRITE!
Come on girl! Time to fess up to all your failures, or hold your tongue about other people’s failures.
Now here is something you may not understand about Christians. If you say you are a Christian you say you are a sinner. You say that you fail miserably on a daily basis to live up to the standard or morals you embrace. That is why you need Grace!
If you do not fail, you do not need Grace, and you do not need to be a Christian.
“but I did not profess otherwise”
No one can “profess otherwise” and still be a Christian.
Look up hypocrisy again. No one needs any other people’s expectations in any shape or form to be a hypocrite.
Umm Bielie: The guy was a hypocrite. If you don’t practice what your preach you’re a hypocrite. I’m aconservative and I know the guys a hypocrite. EVERYONE is a hypocrite. Yes even perfect lil ole me!!!! And unfortunately I have to agree with SB here, you are a douche… or better yet dick seepage (my new favorite word). Shut-up, sit down and let the more talented non-preachy conservatives argue their points, that way we might not all come across as religious FREAKS!!!
Onto SB saying that liberals don’t push morals onto other people, I disagree. I know we had this arguement before. I think the liberals forcing Religions to accept that the definiton of Marriage is between consenting adults. The constant push to outlaw “Hate Speech” all the while pushing for paintings made of the Virgin Mary out of cow dung is “Free Speech”. Or perhaps Obama forcing me to pay for a health care plan I will get no benefit from, or the push to outlaw certain foods (trans fats anyone), or the cigarette taxes or fuel taxes, or other taxes the liberals impose to help curb my behavior (ie setting up morals). Both sides do it. It’s ridiculous, and the catch 22 is you can’t really have a set of morals without somehow pushing someone else’s morals away. It’s the glory of free will.
PB, most of the issues that you’ve just brought up in your second paragraph aren’t moral issues at all (trans fats, taxes, etc.)
Sure it is.
a) I believe it was Biden who said it was rich Americans moral obligation to pay more in taxes. Really?!?
b) Saying Trans fats are bad for you, and outlawing them is pushing your morals of what is believed to be “bad for me” onto me. It’s pushing your beliefs (morals) onto me.
c) People believe smoking is immoral, so let’s tax it to help curve that activity. Why don’t we tax porn more often, since other believe that to be an immoral industry. Or how about we tax Anti-War protests, since some Americans (not necesarily me) believe them to be amoral.
A lot of liberal people I know follow that belief. I’m not pushing any of my morals onto people. Really “Fur is murder”. “Meat is murder!” “Be Green!!” etc etc etc…. It’s the old hippy addage, “Don’t judge me man!!! You baby killing soldier!!”
- Okay I’ll give you partial credit for the taxes one, because of the Biden comment, but taxes can’t be reduced to a moral issue only, as they are a fiscal and economic issue regardless of one’s moral stand.
- Health issues aren’t inherently moral issues. The unhealthiness of trans fats isn’t a matter of “belief” – trans fats are not healthy, and obesity puts a tremendous strain on our country’s resources from a health care perspective.
- Same goes for smoking. Who thinks smoking is immoral? I have never heard even the most staunch opponent of smoking approach the topic from a moral perspective.
The rest of your post is a bit of a rant, not sure where you’re going with it.
Perhaps things like trans-fats and smoking are not thought of as moral issues, but it is a system that I don’t adhere to being forced on me. I happen to enjoy trans-fats because they make my food tasty. If I choose to get fat and die because of it, why should anyone else be worried about it? Especially since we have privatized health care right now that I’m paying for? I choose not to smoke, but not for any health reasons. I just dont’ like the smell. But, were I to choose to smoke, why should I be forced to stand out in the rain as opposed to having my own section (with alternate ventilation) in a restaurant?
-
The trans-fat thing bothers me worse than the rest of it. That is a purely personal decision that affects no one else but me. Why is it being banned again? And if you’re going down the road of “well it’s more expensive to treat you when y ou get sick”, I can throw out statistics showing how the homosexual lifestyle has greater occurances of every known STD out there, and how expensive that is. It’s a decision forced down my throat not to eat trans-fats, and it’s on par with other moral issues. It’s just coming from the other side of teh fence. “Because we know how to take care of you better than you do” is the same thing that gays are being told by the religious right, just in a different tone of voice.
The main reason that trans fats are so widely used in processed foods is not because they make foods taste better, but because they increase shelf-life. The federal government did not decide that you can’t eat trans fats, but they did impose regulations on food manufacturers that require the trans fat content to be listed on the label. Even this measure is less aggressive than the policies of most other developed countries, because the US allows trans fats levels of less than 0.5 grams per serving to be listed as 0. So, as far as the Fed is concerned, you still have the right to eat as many coronary-inducing foods as you like. Some individual cities and states have decided to ban trans fats from being used in restaurants, so your intake of this type of hydrogenated oil could be limited if you live in one of these cities or states.
With regard to privatized group health care, the cost you pay is based on the morbidity/mortality of the total insured group, not just your personal use, so the health trends of all of an insurance provider’s members affect everyone’s rates.
With regard to smoking, I believe that indoor smoking bans were, for the most part, created to protect workers in those environments, who had to spend a full work day in a smoky environment whether or not it was their personal choice to smoke.
I think it’s funny that you’re so bothered by the trans fat ban – of all the things you could be worried about, you’re upset that states want to reduce heart disease? Good grief!
It’s the “nanny state” thing that bothers me worst of all. The attitude of “you don’t know how to take care of yourselves, so I guess the government will have to do it for you.” I have a really good quote by C.S. Lewis if you’ll indulge me:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. “
And by your logic (sorry for the scatter post, I’m having to do this in between seeing people at work), we need to ban homosexual and extra-marital sex because the occurance of STDs and AIDS in those communities is so much higher than in the married community, making healthcare costs go up. Also, what about the cost of unwanted children who go into the system to be paid for by the taxpayer? So I guess the churches had it right when they preach about sex outside of marriage and homosexuality being wrong.
-
It’s all a nanny state, and I don’t like it.
Well, where do you draw the line on when the government should intervene? Should they stay out of it when children’s toys are found to have traces of lead, or when salmonella contaminates the food chain? Should they not worry about toxic chemicals from our electronic goods seeping into the groundwater? Should Red Dye No 5 still be on the shelves? I don’t consider attempting to reduce heart disease among the population equivalent to tormenting any group, and I doubt trans fats were on C.S. Lewis’ mind when he wrote that quote.
I’m off to school, I’ll have to get back to you on that last bit.
SB I have to disagree. There are people out there who believe that being fat is immoral. The Government hid behind “health care” costs to outlaw something that it felt was wrong for the public. Pushing thier version of “good” unto society, ie dictating societies morals. Same goes with smoking. B/C it’s what you might believe is the correct thing to do, and hence you could be blind to calling it a morality. Just like Christians can’t understand how people can’t believe homosexuality is a “moral” question. To Homosexuals it’s their life, not a moral dilema. It’s all in the eye of the beholder what is a moral, or morality. And the rest of my post wasn’t a rant, it’s about the fact that many liberals don’t believe they are pushing morality, I was just quoting some liberals pushing their morality on folks. PETA’s morality eating meat is murder. PETA’s morality wearing Fur or animal hides is murder. The Tree Huggers yelling for everyone to “Be green”. Yes you can say that a decent environment is better for all man kind, but that is your moral judgement, NOT everyones. That’s the point I’m making, just b/c you don’t think it’s a moral, or deemed a morality issue, doesn’t make it so.
PS, How was school?
@Froo – with regard to: “by your logic…” – I gave some information on how health care premiums are calculated, but I didn’t intend that to be the sole answer to why states are banning trans fats. It was just a counterpoint to your argument that your healthcare costs are yours alone.
Think about this: prior to the ban, were you ever asked if you would like your food cooked with or without trans fats? Of course, the answer is no. Prior to bans, where was the choice for those who understand how badly trans fats rape you in the ass and want to avoid them? Banning trans fats is good for everyone, except that it will drive down profit margins for businesses who think it’s okay to save money by feeding their customers poison. Trans fats are not food, they’re toxic compounds that resemble fats.
Anyway, no one is taking trans fat away from anyone. Americans are still free to sit in their double-wides and cram it down their throats all day long if they like. And I’m sure that’s what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote all them fancy words about freedom.
@PB – refer to my question to Froo: when do you think the government should intervene for the public’s best interest? Should the government stop treating drinking water? After all, shouldn’t it be my choice to ingest dangerous bacteria in my water if I want too? Are you in favor of legalizing all drugs? Should we stop pasteurizing milk and setting speed limits?
With regard to your argument that these are moral issues, I concede that maybe there are those who feel the need to try to make them moral issues, but there are plenty of good reasons that these measures exist that have nothing to do with morality. Cite me some legislation on smoking or trans fat that makes reference to morality, otherwise we’re arguing about what “some people think,” and really, who cares.
School was great actually, it’s a fabulous class: The World of the Short Story. We read some Sherman Alexie, some Louise Erdrich, and some Salinger.
SB: I believe Froo had a good point about the Trans Fat and smoking when she compared to STDs and health care for that. How about the companies against Gay Marriage for the benefit purposes. It’ll cost them more, therefore less money to employ people. Anything that’s a “moral” will always have another fiscal side (money makes the world go around). You sort of get my point about morality, but to some people besides their morality they feel they have good points as well. Once again different spectrums different thoughts. Just b/c you think something is beneficial doesn’t mean EVERYONE things that way.
To answer your question: The point the government stops is when the person knows the choice they can make. Also Trans fat is out lawed in countless cities and states, so yes someone took my trans fat. AND yes I can taste a difference in my Oreos!!! GOD DAMN IT!!! As I said before I’m all for less laws. I think Speed Limits are ridiculous, people don’t follow them anyway, especially on the highway. In neighborhoods and around schools yes protect the children, but on the highway, WTF? Drugs, meh if some fvcktard wants to rot his brain and body on drugs let him, just don’t come asking me for a handout. Psteurizing milk actually would be done anyhows as it allows the milk to be shelved longer, meaning less waste and more milk to be sold.
Both gay and straight people, and married people, get STDs. Also, there would be no way to actually enforce a ban on premarital sex in our culture, so it’s a moot point. A mute point, even.
Gay marriage. You really have a tendency to jump around between issues, but I’ll give this a go. Gay marriage is an equal rights issue. Not allowing gays to get married is discrimination against law abiding Americans. We have a variety of anti-discrimination in employment measures on the books for this reason. Additionally, employers do not have to contribute towards the cost of dependent coverage as it is; contributions toward dependent coverage are voluntary, at the discretion of the employer. I work in group employee benefits so I know this for sure.
Going back to trans fats (I still can’t believe you guys are upset about this). Like I said in a previous post, prior to the ban, I didn’t have a choice to avoid trans fats, since manufacturers weren’t required to disclose them on the nutritional information panel on packaged foods, and restaurants weren’t required to tell you what kind of fat they cook with. Where is the choice in that?
Cite where trans fats are completely banned in all foods so that you can’t consume them. With regard to your positions on speed limits and drugs, well, I just don’t agree. Except for pot, pot should definitely be legalized
Honestly, sometimes it seems like people just want something to complain about.
1) holding an opinion is not the same as attempting to create legislation to enforce that opinion. “Practice what you preach” is not my “law,” in fact I’m not really sure where you’re going with that train of thought (if thought is what you want to call it). Ensign is a hypocrite because, as another poster put it, he “fights against gay marriage on the grounds that it is disrespect to marriage. However, he himself disrespects marriage by cheating on his wife with a married woman.” It’s really not as complicated as you’re making it out to be. Ensign set himself up for criticism by publicly proclaiming that Americans should live by his set of beliefs about marriage, which he can’t live by himself. No one is responsible for his humiliation but himself; he is not a victim.
2) by not publicly professing my own morals, it is unneccessary to publicly “confess” my “sins.” I feel it’s safe to assume that most people aren’t particularly interested in my own personal morals, provided I don’t expect others to abide by them.
I didn’t say that I “fail miserably on a daily basis to live up to the standard or morals that I embrace.” I said that from time to time, I’ve failed to make choices which conform to my own concept of what is right or wrong (which primarily have to do with how my actions positively or negatively affect others around me).
I’m not a christian, and I’m not a sinner, I’m merely a human being trying my best to live a positive, fulfilling life. And if “Grace” is what you have, I’ll take a pass on that, thanks.
‘Now here is something you may not understand about Christians. If you say you are a Christian you say you are a sinner. You say that you fail miserably on a daily basis to live up to the standard or morals you embrace. That is why you need Grace!’
Hehe – I always thought that was a wonderful cop-out for xgens. They get to be as ’sinful’ as they like and it doesn’t mater, cause ‘God will forgive them’.
“Calling someone a hypocrite implies that YOU expect him to live by your moral”
No.
Enough of this political crap either way. It’s lame because the jokes are so slanted, it’s just not funny to either side.
Uhhh… just passing through. Wanted to comment on what an AWESOME poster that is. I did not know Ensign was involved with the Defence of Marriage Act. Makes it all the funnier to me. Gas bag hypocrite Republicans.
maybe the religious right should figure out how to save straight marriages first; otherwise, they don’t have much of a pedestal on which to stand.
How is that hypocrisy? It would have been if he’d banged his best friends HUSBAND.
Well, that’d just be GROSS.
Everyone is on the wrong side on this issue. The gov has no authority to say who I can an can not marry. They do not have the right to issue a marriage license. A license is only needed when you wish to engage in an activity that would otherwise be illegal. If you dont think gay marriage is right then you should require them to get a license… But since the gov doesnt have this authority all marriage licenses need to be nullified and we should go back to normal marriages.