If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Komo)   Seattle woman attempts to marry 107 year old building. Says despite their differences, the marriage will have a solid foundation   (komonews.com) divider line 94
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

5204 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jan 2012 at 8:46 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



94 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-01-28 08:48:13 PM  
We were told this would happen if gay marriage became legal.

THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT SHEEPLE!
 
2012-01-28 08:49:20 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: We were told this would happen if gay marriage became legal.

THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT SHEEPLE!


done in one
 
2012-01-28 08:50:12 PM  
JasonOfOrillia: We were told this would happen if gay marriage became legal.

THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT SHEEPLE!


Leaving satisfied...
 
2012-01-28 08:50:24 PM  
maybe she should just marry a dildo
 
2012-01-28 08:51:09 PM  
I may attend.
 
2012-01-28 08:52:09 PM  
The building can't say NO.
 
2012-01-28 08:53:14 PM  
She does realize it's been over 100 years since her hubby-to-be had an erection, right?
 
2012-01-28 08:53:35 PM  
img806.imageshack.us
 
2012-01-28 08:53:36 PM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-01-28 08:55:06 PM  
Subby: "Seattle woman attempts to marry 107 year old building. Says despite their differences, the marriage will have a solid foundation is an attention whore"

FTFY
 
2012-01-28 08:55:11 PM  
Someone call Eric Cartman.
 
2012-01-28 08:57:05 PM  
FTA - "'If corporations can have the rights as people, so can buildings' said Aivaz, referencing a Supreme Court decision on political advertising."

i3.photobucket.com

STARE DECISIS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

/GOOD NIGHT!
 
2012-01-28 08:58:27 PM  

Herb Utsmelz: She does realize it's been over 100 years since her hubby-to-be had an erection, right?


Well played, well played indeed.

/I snrked.
 
2012-01-28 08:59:43 PM  
Now we move on to people and aliens can marry, living and non-living can marry and one day we may even allow robots and people marry.

/the mormons would be interested in marrying dead people, being they believe in celestial marriage
 
2012-01-28 09:03:35 PM  
Is it built like a brick house? Is she? Is anyone?
 
2012-01-28 09:04:14 PM  
or maybe "she's a brick ... house"

chick a dow dow
 
2012-01-28 09:06:09 PM  
In spite of Thursday events, Aivaz remained spirited about her planned wedding. She described the event as a community potluck, and asked attendees to "BRING FOOOOOOOOD~."

img337.imageshack.us

LULZ
 
2012-01-28 09:07:35 PM  
But does the BUILDING want to marry her, is the next question. If the building can knowingly and voluntarily consent, then I have no problem with this.
 
2012-01-28 09:10:09 PM  
HOTY candidate in the pun section.
 
2012-01-28 09:13:31 PM  
I'd like to hear the husband's side of the story.
/he must be floored
 
2012-01-28 09:13:39 PM  
so..... if she marries the building and uses a dildo, is she cheating on the building?
 
2012-01-28 09:14:40 PM  
That woman doesn't know my name, my address, or even of my existence. I like that a lot.
 
2012-01-28 09:16:43 PM  
So when does the turtle farking start?
 
2012-01-28 09:16:50 PM  
Proto-robosexual?
 
2012-01-28 09:17:20 PM  

suthrnrunt: so..... if she marries the building and uses a dildo, is she cheating on the building?


So if I enter that building and rub one out, would the building be cheating on her? If so i have a marriage to ruin.
 
2012-01-28 09:18:09 PM  

Hokum: suthrnrunt: so..... if she marries the building and uses a dildo, is she cheating on the building?

So if I enter that building and rub one out, would the building be cheating on her? If so i have a marriage to ruin.


I think that would be raping the building :)
 
2012-01-28 09:20:00 PM  

suthrnrunt: Hokum: suthrnrunt: so..... if she marries the building and uses a dildo, is she cheating on the building?

So if I enter that building and rub one out, would the building be cheating on her? If so i have a marriage to ruin.

I think that would be raping the building :)


Hey it was asking for it... well it didn't say no... and it was erect at the time.
 
2012-01-28 09:20:51 PM  
She was previously married to an elevator. That marriage didn't last because it had too many ups and downs.
 
2012-01-28 09:22:56 PM  
Ugly Fat White Women Atttention Whore Problems.
 
2012-01-28 09:23:31 PM  
"If corporations can have the rights as people, so can buildings,"

What she said is either completely insane, or THE MOST SENSE ANYBODY HAS EVER MADE!!!

This decision makes more sense than the Supreme Court case.

/Next is she going to marry the company Trojan?
 
2012-01-28 09:26:24 PM  

Hokum: suthrnrunt: Hokum: suthrnrunt: so..... if she marries the building and uses a dildo, is she cheating on the building?

So if I enter that building and rub one out, would the building be cheating on her? If so i have a marriage to ruin.

I think that would be raping the building :)

Hey it was asking for it... well it didn't say no... and it was erect at the time.


I think they might not go for that cause last time i checked you couldn't rub one out on an invalid no matter how much dirty adult diapers turn you on.
 
2012-01-28 09:26:47 PM  

GreenSun: The building can't say NO.


Who are you to say who she can and can't marry?

Arranged marriages have taken place for thousands of years. Consent is immaterial.
 
2012-01-28 09:26:55 PM  

butt-nuggets: maybe she should just marry a dildo


That would be a shaky marriage.

And same for the building, if Seattle gets a big one.

/giggidy.
 
2012-01-28 09:29:43 PM  

Hagenhatesyouall: GreenSun: The building can't say NO.

Who are you to say who she can and can't marry?

Arranged marriages have taken place for thousands of years. Consent is immaterial.


i think you are missing a key point in your own argument. Arranged marriages have two parties involved, so there is someone speaking for both members of the marriage. Where is the 2nd party that speaks for the building?

to dumb it down for you, if the owner of the building doesn't consent to the fat one marrying their building, she can not marry the building.
 
2012-01-28 09:29:56 PM  
This one married the Berlin Wall, and wrote about it.

Eija-Riitta Berliner-Mauer-A Berlin Wall Love Story (new window)
 
2012-01-28 09:30:43 PM  
There's another woman who goes on talk shows talking about how she's in love with the Eiffel Tower and the Berlin Wall. This one's an amateur. Not impressed.
 
2012-01-28 09:31:58 PM  
Maybe a building is the only thing that would put up with her.....

She does seem like the type that when growing up had to have a pork chop tied around her neck so the dog would play with her.
 
2012-01-28 09:35:29 PM  
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/6908524/74620973#c74620973" target="_blank">gweilo8888</a>:</b> <i><b>Subby:</b> "Seattle woman <strike>attempts to marry 107 year old building. Says despite their differences, the marriage will have a solid foundation</strike> is <strike><b>an attention whore</b></strike> <b>bat-shiat crazy</b>."</i>

FTFY
 
2012-01-28 09:36:47 PM  
Let's try that again...

gweilo8888: Subby: "Seattle woman attempts to marry 107 year old building. Says despite their differences, the marriage will have a solid foundation is an attention whore bat-shiat crazy"

 
2012-01-28 09:37:45 PM  

suthrnrunt: Hagenhatesyouall: GreenSun: The building can't say NO.

Who are you to say who she can and can't marry?

Arranged marriages have taken place for thousands of years. Consent is immaterial.

i think you are missing a key point in your own argument. Arranged marriages have two parties involved, so there is someone speaking for both members of the marriage. Where is the 2nd party that speaks for the building?

to dumb it down for you, if the owner of the building doesn't consent to the fat one marrying their building, she can not marry the building.


And if consent IS granted by said owner?

Well, then, of COURSE we should honor the "marriage"!
 
2012-01-28 09:40:02 PM  

trillium13: This one married the Berlin Wall, and wrote about it.

Eija-Riitta Berliner-Mauer-A Berlin Wall Love Story (new window)


I found that story comforting. It is comforting to know that the US and Great Britain don't have a monopoly on all the world's non AK-47 armed whack jobs, and comforting to know she is a long way away.
 
2012-01-28 09:41:14 PM  

Hagenhatesyouall: suthrnrunt: Hagenhatesyouall: GreenSun: The building can't say NO.

Who are you to say who she can and can't marry?

Arranged marriages have taken place for thousands of years. Consent is immaterial.

i think you are missing a key point in your own argument. Arranged marriages have two parties involved, so there is someone speaking for both members of the marriage. Where is the 2nd party that speaks for the building?

to dumb it down for you, if the owner of the building doesn't consent to the fat one marrying their building, she can not marry the building.

And if consent IS granted by said owner?

Well, then, of COURSE we should honor the "marriage"!


yes, if for no other reason than for the owner of the building to have the building divorce her the moment she uses a spin cycle for pleasure.
 
2012-01-28 09:41:20 PM  
Oh man. I saw that building with some hussy from Code Enforcement. Should I speak now, or forever hold my peace?
 
2012-01-28 09:43:07 PM  
As long as the building is a male, what's the problem?

ONE MAN, ONE WOMEN.
 
2012-01-28 09:43:59 PM  
For Pete sakes, that woman should let the century old building die with dignity.I highly doubt that the building would like to get 'laid in public' a second time.
 
2012-01-28 09:46:39 PM  

trillium13: This one married the Berlin Wall, and wrote about it.

Eija-Riitta Berliner-Mauer-A Berlin Wall Love Story (new window)


I almost forgot, I have a piece of Eija's true love. Nephew brought it for me from Germany when he was visiting there. He thought it would be a cool gift. I thought so too. So far it hasn't done anything particularly strange, or loveable for that matter.
 
2012-01-28 09:55:10 PM  

404 page not found: As long as the building is a male, what's the problem?

ONE MAN, ONE WOMEN.


Women are plural.

Guess our children don't be learning.
 
2012-01-28 10:16:43 PM  
This is not a good thing.

I give it six months, tops. She will be disillusioned by the huge age difference, and the fact that her husband is, let's face it, not exactly structurally secure for the types of relations she's going to expect.

Eventually she'll turn to the doors of some young, glass and steel behemoth for comfort. It won't mean anything, since the recession the young'un is all flash and no cash. He'll be empty inside.

Still, she'll leave her well-intentioned but woefully mismatched and solid husband for the shiny new toy.

Only to realize she means less than nothing to him once that brand new lease gets signed by a hot young company with burgeoning assets amply displayed.

She'll end up flitting from meaningless relationships with convenience stores, Wal-marts, and warehouses, lamenting the elderly security she once had.

Finally she'll shack up with a taco hut and spawn a new generation of needy Quonset huts.

Mark my words.
 
2012-01-28 10:18:54 PM  

404 page not found: As long as the building is a male, what's the problem?

ONE MAN, ONE WOMEN.


Farking mormons.
 
2012-01-28 10:27:01 PM  

Hagenhatesyouall: GreenSun: The building can't say NO.

Who are you to say who she can and can't marry?

Arranged marriages have taken place for thousands of years. Consent is immaterial.


In fact, Republicans should be pushing for arranged marriages, seeing as they were the "traditional" way of doing them, right?
 
2012-01-28 10:30:26 PM  
Gold digger ...
 
2012-01-28 10:30:31 PM  
I was arrested along with one of the brides in the warehouse. I shared a similar (if not marital) affection for the space. The SPD didn't. They sent a SWAT team in.

Props to the Oakland Commune today for looking to elope. Mass arrests going on right now.
 
2012-01-28 10:33:08 PM  

four95: Let's try that again...

gweilo8888: Subby: "Seattle woman attempts to marry 107 year old building. Says despite their differences, the marriage will have a solid foundation is an attention whore bat-shiat crazy a bat-shiat crazy attention whore"


Middle ground is good ground.
 
2012-01-28 10:40:40 PM  

gweilo8888: four95: Let's try that again...

gweilo8888: Subby: "Seattle woman attempts to marry 107 year old building. Says despite their differences, the marriage will have a solid foundation is an attention whore bat-shiat crazy a bat-shiat crazy attention whore"

Middle ground is good ground.


And ya know, god bless 'em. The attention whores.
 
2012-01-28 10:41:29 PM  
Damn it, 9 months later that "woman" will be spitting out cement bricks out of her vagina.
 
2012-01-28 10:44:26 PM  
TFA says it's about to be bulldozed. Does that make her some sort of trophy wife out for the insurance money?

This relationship would never work anyway. She'd hope for support from the community, but all she'd ever get is stairs.
 
2012-01-28 10:45:51 PM  

Gyrfalcon: 404 page not found: As long as the building is a male, what's the problem?

ONE MAN, ONE WOMEN.

Women are plural.

Guess our children don't be learning.


It's a art.
 
2012-01-28 10:56:12 PM  

bigbadideasinaction: Hagenhatesyouall: GreenSun: The building can't say NO.

Who are you to say who she can and can't marry?

Arranged marriages have taken place for thousands of years. Consent is immaterial.

In fact, Republicans should be pushing for arranged marriages, seeing as they were the "traditional" way of doing them, right?


300bps.org
 
2012-01-28 11:04:46 PM  
That biatch needs eharmony like nobody I've ever heard of....
 
2012-01-28 11:19:53 PM  

Aar1012: FTA - "'If corporations can have the rights as people, so can buildings' said Aivaz, referencing a Supreme Court decision on political advertising."

[i3.photobucket.com image 320x240]

STARE DECISIS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

/GOOD NIGHT!


Really? If one inanimate object can be classed as a "person", why not another?

The fact is that the USSC chose not to follow well-established precedent with Citizens' United decision.. If a tool intended to do a particular job - which is to reduce individual financial risk & to maximize profit - can be considered a "person", then so can other tools. A hammer; a dining room table; a building. There's no real distinction between them.
 
2012-01-28 11:29:10 PM  
A corporation is, fundamentally, a group of people. The concept of a corporate person -a centuries-old legal understanding, if not necessarily the common understanding- is to enable that group of people to act with the same rights as any of its constituent members. Undoing this doctrine requires a major rewrite of pretty much all corporate law.

A building is not a group of people. That's the fundamental difference, and it makes all the difference.
 
2012-01-28 11:55:46 PM  
imgc.allpostersimages.com
I want you inside me...
 
2012-01-29 12:01:37 AM  

404 page not found: Gyrfalcon: 404 page not found: As long as the building is a male, what's the problem?

ONE MAN, ONE WOMEN.

Women are plural.

Guess our children don't be learning.

It's a art.


I thunk you mean 'an art'
 
2012-01-29 12:05:18 AM  

GreenSun: Damn it, 9 months later that "woman" will be spitting out cement bricks out of her vagina.


Looks like she may already shiat them.
 
2012-01-29 12:06:57 AM  
www.slantmagazine.com

Yeah, but is her husband bigger on the inside, like the doctor's wife?
 
2012-01-29 12:07:00 AM  
I would totally marry my building

/3000 block of Swiss ave
//come at me bro
 
2012-01-29 12:13:40 AM  
Capitol Hill

Ah, that explains it. Yeah, Capitol Hill; you'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy in Seattle.
 
2012-01-29 12:16:39 AM  
www.hogwild.net

Not old enough!
 
2012-01-29 12:19:11 AM  

Millennium: A corporation is, fundamentally, a group of people. The concept of a corporate person -a centuries-old legal understanding, if not necessarily the common understanding- is to enable that group of people to act with the same rights as any of its constituent members. Undoing this doctrine requires a major rewrite of pretty much all corporate law.

A building is not a group of people. That's the fundamental difference, and it makes all the difference.


This. The point of the decision was that the government has no business limiting political speech, which is to say speech about the government, no matter what collecive or other entity is doing the speaking. I would go even further and say that there is clear conflict of interest inherent in any attempt by the government to limit speech about itself.
 
2012-01-29 12:25:43 AM  
I think I hate everything about this story.
 
2012-01-29 01:14:11 AM  

herrDrFarkenstein: 404 page not found: Gyrfalcon: 404 page not found: As long as the building is a male, what's the problem?

ONE MAN, ONE WOMEN.

Women are plural.

Guess our children don't be learning.

It's a art.

I thunk you mean 'an art'


i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-01-29 01:56:13 AM  
Solid foundation? Not in Seattle.
 
2012-01-29 01:56:21 AM  
She'll have to redecorate. The windows will look better with a nice floral tattoo on the meat curtains.
 
2012-01-29 02:29:26 AM  
i laughed at the headline
 
2012-01-29 07:25:50 AM  
Since this is a homo wedding, that makes it totally normal.
 
2012-01-29 07:28:57 AM  
Wait a second... if corporations are people (my friend), then isn't it wrong for the government to stop them from getting married (a merger if you will)? I mean, unless they're the same gender. Then it'd clearly be morally wrong, right? But corporations don't really have different genders, so if mergers are legal then they're a kind of a civil union of sorts and other people (like the kind with flesh and blood) should have those rights too which in turn means that same sex couples can now get mergers unless the government intercedes.

Wait another second, corporations can be bought, sold, and owned. That's slavery. Free the slaves! Corporations should be freed by their owners and allowed to live as they please!
 
2012-01-29 07:34:13 AM  
Do you, crazy lady, take this building to be your lawfully wedded structure? To have and abode, forsaking all others, 'til demolition do you part?

I do.

Do you, building, take this crazy lady to be your lawfully wedded wife, to house and to hold, forsaking all others, 'til demolition do you part?

...

/akward
 
2012-01-29 07:35:53 AM  

geek_mars: Do you, crazy lady, take this building to be your lawfully wedded structure? To have and abode, forsaking all others, 'til demolition do you part?

I do.

Do you, building, take this crazy lady to be your lawfully wedded wife, to house and to hold, forsaking all others, 'til demolition do you part?

...

/akward


*awkward, even
/FTFM
 
2012-01-29 09:08:44 AM  

Millennium: A corporation is, fundamentally, a group of people. The concept of a corporate person -a centuries-old legal understanding, if not necessarily the common understanding- is to enable that group of people to act with the same rights as any of its constituent members. Undoing this doctrine requires a major rewrite of pretty much all corporate law.

A building is not a group of people. That's the fundamental difference, and it makes all the difference.


So, each shareholder of BP should be charged with 11 counts of murder for the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and have all their assets confiscated to pay for the cleanup & restitution for the businesses effected. If they want all the rights of people they should have all the responsibilities, too.

Right?

But, that won't happen. As you well know, corporations are created specifically to prevent such from happening. Corporations are not people. They are tools. Period.
 
2012-01-29 10:21:15 AM  
Farkin' hipsters.
 
2012-01-29 11:25:39 AM  
she should sneak in the building while they're demolishing it and then everyone can blame the jews
 
2012-01-29 11:50:19 AM  

proteus_b: jews


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-01-29 11:53:30 AM  
If it's love, makes no difference. Don't let Barney Frank in the neighborhood, though.
 
2012-01-29 11:55:42 AM  
They've been doing this for years in Portland.

Typically, Seattle is so behind the times.

/porlandia reference
 
2012-01-29 12:32:35 PM  
So, each shareholder of BP should be charged with 11 counts of murder for the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and have all their assets confiscated to pay for the cleanup & restitution for the businesses effected.

Wasn't $20-30 billion (whatever it was) enough, or at least a good start?

I would say it's negligence, not murder. I don't think anyone specifically set out to blow up a rig and kill a bunch of workers, since that's really bad for business. Even evil CEOs in top hats and monocles don't want to hurt business.

If they want all the rights of people they should have all the responsibilities, too.

Well, if we tax corporations, they should have representation. You don't tax tools.

Or if we ban every other group from having any influence, such as unions, clubs, etc.
 
2012-01-29 01:36:35 PM  
"Batshiat crazy/Attention whore"
Bad combination.
 
2012-01-29 02:39:14 PM  

stuffy: "Batshiat crazy/Attention whore"
Bad combination.


Add in fugly for the perfect trifecta....
 
Ehh
2012-01-29 03:29:41 PM  
So, when the building doesn't buy her anything for her birthday, will she tell it, "You have the emotional sensitivity of a brick wall!"?
 
2012-01-29 07:43:16 PM  

leonel: Capitol Hill

Ah, that explains it. Yeah, Capitol Hill; you'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy in Seattle.


Die.
 
2012-01-29 07:46:12 PM  

404 page not found: As long as the building is a male, what's the problem?

ONE MAN, ONE WOMEN.


FTFA: "She has been planning to enter into what she described as "a gay marriage" with the building."

So you can conclude that it's a female warehouse...... This is not:

www.blogcdn.com
 
2012-01-29 07:58:56 PM  

rhaver: 404 page not found: As long as the building is a male, what's the problem?

ONE MAN, ONE WOMEN.

FTFA: "She has been planning to enter into what she described as "a gay marriage" with the building."

So you can conclude that it's a female warehouse...... This is not:

[www.blogcdn.com image 500x222]


Well, there's my problem right there.
 
2012-01-29 08:18:19 PM  

Zavulon: Millennium: A corporation is, fundamentally, a group of people. The concept of a corporate person -a centuries-old legal understanding, if not necessarily the common understanding- is to enable that group of people to act with the same rights as any of its constituent members. Undoing this doctrine requires a major rewrite of pretty much all corporate law.

A building is not a group of people. That's the fundamental difference, and it makes all the difference.

This. The point of the decision was that the government has no business limiting political speech, which is to say speech about the government, no matter what collecive or other entity is doing the speaking. I would go even further and say that there is clear conflict of interest inherent in any attempt by the government to limit speech about itself.


Wow, someone was awake during class.

I was hopeing the Court would rule otherwise. Had an ambulance jockey lined up to sue SEIU, AFL-CIO, and the other numerous alphabet groups, just so I don't have to listen to them come elections time. I could have made good money, to go away.
 
2012-01-30 02:22:52 AM  

leonel: Capitol Hill

Ah, that explains it. Yeah, Capitol Hill; you'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy in Seattle.


Ohhhh! So you're from Bellevue. Can you please tell your farking vapid fratboy cokehead douchebag loser trustafarians to stop using my neighborhood as their weekend getaway? Btw, It is not "ironic" to play Journey on the jukebox in every bar you walk in to, it's just sad.

Or maybe you're just from Queen Anne.
 
2012-01-30 02:27:14 AM  

leonel: Capitol Hill

Ah, that explains it. Yeah, Capitol Hill; you'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy in Seattle.


Oh wait. You're from Everett. And you speak of scum and villainy? I must be in the twilight zone.

Do not f*ck with Capitol Hill. (Even if some hippy wants to marry a building.)
 
Displayed 94 of 94 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report