Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Talking Points Memo)   North Carolina to gays: Equal rights - not yours   (2012.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 1189
    More: Asinine, North Carolina, same-sex marriages, domestic partnerships, cohabitations, LGBT rights, civil unions  
•       •       •

11113 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 May 2012 at 10:59 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1189 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-09 08:44:23 AM  
Hey, cool, a thread where all the retards decided to concentrate themselves.

We've got the "it is tradition, and shouldn't be changed" nonsense that completely misses the idea of a legal definition of marriage as compared to the religious idea of marriage. We've got the "oh no, the voting public is deciding" nonsense that completely misses the idea that a majority should not be able to vote on the rights of a minority. We've got people that bring up tradition and public sentiment while missing the idea that slavery used to be tradition and publicly accepted since that doesn't make it right. We've got "gay" doesn't count since it is a choice or not as important as race (this one is impressive since the Constitution gives us the power to determine rights). We've got Obama bashing. We've got nitwits explaining away equal protection since, as a straight male, they can't marry a guy either (this one is especially idiotic and takes point missing to a whole new level).

And, we even have the old stand-by "you are intolerant for not accepting my intolerance". Outstanding.

Good show by all the retards.
 
2012-05-09 08:45:03 AM  
Allowing the government to dictate the validity of a personal relationship is stupid. Gays are stupid for wanting to give themselves up to more government intrusion and straights are dumbasses for going along with it.

Ban civil marriage.


/Happily divorced? Why yes, yes I am :)
 
2012-05-09 08:45:27 AM  

Loaded Six String: I know I'm a bit late in this thread to really get my point across, but it took me a while to remember my password (longtime lurker: enjoy reading the debates, never really felt like joining in until recently).
At any rate, since the opposition to gay marriage keeps saying they only want to protect the sanctity of marriage rather than confirm other equally stupid but more vile motivations, why not just take the marriage out of the equation? My proposal is this, the government substitutes the word "marriage" with the term "civil union" or "recognized union" or whatever else they could come up with. Any ceremonial marriage then means nothing to the government without having a justice of the peace or what have you officialize it. Any previous marriages would be grandfathered in of course. To top it off, "civil unions" can be between any two legal adults as defined by being 18 years of age or older. If a church doesn't want to wed two men or two women, fine. It wouldn't be an official union without the justice of the peace anyways. By taking it out of the church's hands and no longer recognizing marriages as valid legal bindings, the sanctity of their ceremony is intact.
It seems like such an easy fix to such a stupid issue.
/Hi by the way


Great idea. Exactly what the people that came up with Amendment one want to prevent, though.
 
2012-05-09 08:46:28 AM  

Soup4Bonnie: Backwards ass hicks.


Didn't the backwards ass hicks of California do the same thing a couple of years ago?
 
2012-05-09 08:46:47 AM  

Loaded Six String: I know I'm a bit late in this thread to really get my point across, but it took me a while to remember my password (longtime lurker: enjoy reading the debates, never really felt like joining in until recently).
At any rate, since the opposition to gay marriage keeps saying they only want to protect the sanctity of marriage rather than confirm other equally stupid but more vile motivations, why not just take the marriage out of the equation? My proposal is this, the government substitutes the word "marriage" with the term "civil union" or "recognized union" or whatever else they could come up with. Any ceremonial marriage then means nothing to the government without having a justice of the peace or what have you officialize it. Any previous marriages would be grandfathered in of course. To top it off, "civil unions" can be between any two legal adults as defined by being 18 years of age or older. If a church doesn't want to wed two men or two women, fine. It wouldn't be an official union without the justice of the peace anyways. By taking it out of the church's hands and no longer recognizing marriages as valid legal bindings, the sanctity of their ceremony is intact.
It seems like such an easy fix to such a stupid issue.
/Hi by the way


Read the text of the North Carolina amendment. It was very clearly written to prevent "Civil Unions" or any other form of domestic partnership. Changing the wording isn't a fix. Some people are just adamantly opposed to equal rights for all.
 
2012-05-09 08:47:46 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Read the text of the North Carolina amendment. It was very clearly written to prevent "Civil Unions" or any other form of domestic partnership. Changing the wording isn't a fix. Some people are just adamantly opposed to equal rights for all.


I've spoken with more than one person that thought the garbage about private contracts made it all honky-dory for civilish unions.

/They were wrong, as we will all see soon enough.
 
2012-05-09 08:49:16 AM  

Loaded Six String: It seems like such an easy fix to such a stupid issue.
/Hi by the way


The NC Amendment specifically tries to ban that, too.

It isn't about the idea that everyone may get a marriage and we can't have that because I like the word. It is specifically designed to deny rights and privileges to a group of people.
 
2012-05-09 08:49:27 AM  

ph0rk: Loaded Six String: I know I'm a bit late in this thread to really get my point across, but it took me a while to remember my password (longtime lurker: enjoy reading the debates, never really felt like joining in until recently).
At any rate, since the opposition to gay marriage keeps saying they only want to protect the sanctity of marriage rather than confirm other equally stupid but more vile motivations, why not just take the marriage out of the equation? My proposal is this, the government substitutes the word "marriage" with the term "civil union" or "recognized union" or whatever else they could come up with. Any ceremonial marriage then means nothing to the government without having a justice of the peace or what have you officialize it. Any previous marriages would be grandfathered in of course. To top it off, "civil unions" can be between any two legal adults as defined by being 18 years of age or older. If a church doesn't want to wed two men or two women, fine. It wouldn't be an official union without the justice of the peace anyways. By taking it out of the church's hands and no longer recognizing marriages as valid legal bindings, the sanctity of their ceremony is intact.
It seems like such an easy fix to such a stupid issue.
/Hi by the way

Great idea. Exactly what the people that came up with Amendment one want to prevent, though.


How is it a great idea? Only two adults? Why should multiple partners be discriminated against? 18 isn't the age of consent in most states already, so this would restrict marriages that are currently legal.

Marriage is dumb. If you want to say vows in a church, do it. Just avoid the whole government permission thing.
 
2012-05-09 08:49:28 AM  
Government shouldn't be involved in marriage in any way. I think that should be left to churches to do whatever they want--whether hetero or homo. Marriage is, and can still be, a religious institution. Marriage is not something to be recognized by any law.

Government should manage civil unions and should apply equally to any consenting adults. The social contract between two consenting adults supports our society and, generally, should be considered a good thing.

If we allow laws that give any rights to one couple or reduce tax burdens, ease transition of property upon death, allow adoptions or whatever, then those rights and privileges should apply equally to all civil partnerships. If not, then those rules should be revoked equally, e.g. no federal tax status allowed for "married, filing jointly" or federal protections for "innocent spouse" or rights of inheritance.
 
2012-05-09 08:49:33 AM  

Little.Alex: The Feds won't allow whites to bid on small business set aside contracts


img.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-09 08:49:59 AM  
So sad for me to live in North Carolina and this passed.

Sorry folks, I did what I could.
 
2012-05-09 08:51:00 AM  

NotSubby: How is it a great idea? Only two adults? Why should multiple partners be discriminated against? 18 isn't the age of consent in most states already, so this would restrict marriages that are currently legal.


I'd modify it in parts, I don't care how many want in, and whatever the legal age of majority is.

Those points are irrelevant - civil unions are off the table entirely in NC at the moment.
 
2012-05-09 08:51:00 AM  

TheEdibleSnuggie: eldritch2k4: The_Sponge: rynthetyn: Pro tip: Barack Obama was officially opposed to Amendment One. And Prop 8 in California, and every other bigoted law banning marriage equality.


And yet he still claims that he personally believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. So either:

1) You guys think he's a bigot.

2) He's bullshiatting the public regarding his stance as a means of protecting his poll numbers.

So which is it?

Or perhaps the third option: He personally believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but knows that some churches/groups/people believe otherwise and it is not the government's job to decide for them? That other people being allowed to get married is in no way going to invalidate his marriage?

Yeah, I tried using that logic with my gay friends and got branded a bigot for doing so.


Well to be fair I don't think that anybody who forms an opinion on anything based on religious natterings is entirely sane or intelligent. It's nice that Obama doesn't want t the government messing with peoples rights to get married and all but his personal views are wrong. Just because everyone is entitled to an opinion doesn't mean everyone is correct.


/I'm anti-marriage anyways

Yeah really if they want to be as miserable as the rest of us who are we to stop them?
 
2012-05-09 08:51:12 AM  

Mock26: The_Sponge: rynthetyn: Pro tip: Barack Obama was officially opposed to Amendment One. And Prop 8 in California, and every other bigoted law banning marriage equality.


And yet he still claims that he personally believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. So either:

1) You guys think he's a bigot.

2) He's bullshiatting the public regarding his stance as a means of protecting his poll numbers.

So which is it?

Or maybe he just thinks that the government should have nothing to do with marriage, that maybe marriage should be a religious ceremony and that the government should only regulate civil unions.


Or maybe it's an election year and the subject isn't a winner in a lot of the states he needs to win so he's putting politics before principle...
 
2012-05-09 08:51:36 AM  

dr_blasto: Government shouldn't be involved in marriage in any way.


Then we should all file single on our taxes. No one gets credit for kids and no filing jointly.
 
2012-05-09 08:51:37 AM  

Cythraul: SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: For shame, NC. You should be embarrassed of yourselves. There's no reason to deny other human beings basic rights. Something is farked up in America.

Don't blame me! I voted against it.


Same here... and I voted early.
 
2012-05-09 08:53:25 AM  

cc_rider: Here's one thing I don't get. There's a certain type of American, who loves to blovitate on the idea that the US is "not a democracy, it's a republic, hurrr!" which is not entirely correct either (it's both, as well as a federation of states). Anyway, the point being that the republic is designed to protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority". This idea has been promoted in well-known essays by John Stuart Mill: Introduction to On Liberty and Alexis de Tocqueville: Democracy in America (warning, link goes to FR, just for the irony). Both men make it absolutely clear that this tyranny does not just come from the federal government, but from the individual states and from the people themselves.

So why then, are these "freedom-loving, gub'mint-hating patriots" so blind as not to see how they are inflicting tyranny on people for who they are, and because they disagree with who they are? Why do they love their republic when it's convenient to them, yet they will fall all over themselves to embrace direct democracy which they claim to hate, whenever it serves their political agenda and as a means of controlling their perceived "enemies"? If we didn't know already why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not put to vote in each state....

More egregious examples of conservative hypocrisy:

Tyranny of the majority

America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy!

This one takes the biscuit.

Democracy = Tyranny of the majority

Now watch the same teabagger rationalize the very thing she speaks out against: What a stupid twunt.

Link

Link

Link

Even though this crappy amendment does not directly affect me, it still affects my friends and loved ones, and it does affect me, in that I strongly believe that when one person or group is being treated unequally, we all become less free as a society. Also, tyranny is bad, no matter who's doing it.


If, as the morons repeat ad nauseum, the founding fathers were so dead set against democracy then why did they allow for majority rule in various aspects of the Constitution? I often ask that to the "We are not a democracy! We are a republic!" herp-a-derpers. None of them have ever been able to give a good answer.

Also, when you ask them to define a republic and explain how a republican government works they usually then start calling me a communist or some other such nonsense.
 
2012-05-09 08:53:43 AM  
abcnews.go.com

Marriage is a hermaphroditic deity?

Sounds kinky.
 
2012-05-09 08:54:03 AM  

ph0rk: NotSubby: How is it a great idea? Only two adults? Why should multiple partners be discriminated against? 18 isn't the age of consent in most states already, so this would restrict marriages that are currently legal.

I'd modify it in parts, I don't care how many want in, and whatever the legal age of majority is.

Those points are irrelevant - civil unions are off the table entirely in NC at the moment.


I have an even better idea. Why don't we get our government to stop caring what relationships people are in period? We should a married couple get a tax break over an unmarried one? Marriage shouldn't be a tax issue.
 
2012-05-09 08:54:08 AM  
This is a sad sad result.
Shame on you, NC.
 
2012-05-09 08:54:56 AM  

ph0rk: Those points are irrelevant - civil unions are off the table entirely in NC at the moment.


My actual point is that asking Uncle Sam for permission to fark someone forever and ever amen is stupid. Yes, I know about how many laws apply to marriages but that's the problem. By elevating marriage, you diminish legally the people who remain single. My doing so, you're telling them to choose between subjugation or a marriage contract.

Make the laws apply to all individuals equally and dismantle the government marriage protection racket.
 
2012-05-09 08:55:41 AM  
I'm all for removing the priveliges afforded married couples as they are now as well, seeing as the dogmatic right has gone overboard with trying to restrict the rights and priveliges of others. Don't want other people to get tax exemptions and be allowed to adopt? Fine, you can't either. The only problem with that would be the influx of unwanted or abandoned kids made automatic wards of the state for an indefinite period of time. Dogma's bad for everyone
 
2012-05-09 08:56:14 AM  

EWreckedSean: ph0rk: NotSubby: How is it a great idea? Only two adults? Why should multiple partners be discriminated against? 18 isn't the age of consent in most states already, so this would restrict marriages that are currently legal.

I'd modify it in parts, I don't care how many want in, and whatever the legal age of majority is.

Those points are irrelevant - civil unions are off the table entirely in NC at the moment.

I have an even better idea. Why don't we get our government to stop caring what relationships people are in period? We should a married couple get a tax break over an unmarried one? Marriage shouldn't be a tax issue.


I agree.
 
2012-05-09 08:56:38 AM  

ph0rk: TheEdibleSnuggie: Yeah, I tried using that logic with my gay friends and got branded a bigot for doing so.

I've come to find you're either FOR or AGAINST them in this stupid farking argument. Which only makes me not give a damn even more.

/I'm anti-marriage anyways

The problem with the amendment isn't removing same-sex marriage, that is already illegal in NC. It likely removes all civil unions and domestic partnerships, too.


Now only if they extended that same courtesy to straight couples.

Term-renewable civil unions for all!
 
2012-05-09 08:57:03 AM  

KiplingKat872: ph0rk: Why is letting you marry a horse and/or your cousin a problem?

Well, the horse can't legally consent.


Is that because all he can say is Nay?
 
2012-05-09 08:57:10 AM  

Loaded Six String: the influx of unwanted or abandoned kids made automatic wards of the state for an indefinite period of time. Dogma's bad for everyone


Why the hell would the GOP or religious right care about that?

As long as the kids get born, that's good enough. Whatever happens after birth doesn't matter.
 
2012-05-09 08:57:47 AM  

wedding vegetables: Hey, to be fair, it's probably not his fault he's here. Some liberal probably forced him to click on the thread and then gloat about his team's "win".


Point taken. Thing I can't figure out is how the ebil libs are doing it. They can't be holding a gun to his head because I'm well infrommed enough to know that all liberals are allergic to guns and don't own any.

Tis a puzzlement.

/just doin' my part

Appreciated. Already have you faved for referring to Victoria Jackson as "Stay Puft Barbie".

That shiat cracked me the fark up. ^__^
 
2012-05-09 08:58:15 AM  

BravadoGT: Person: Once Obama is reelected he will come out in support of gay marriage. He'd be stupid to do so beforehand, because he'd lose the black church vote.

How principled of him. Good thing he's put the cynical politics of the past behind him.


Why shouldn't he play the cynical politics? This country is as stupid as a box of rocks and anything he says will be twisted by the "news" so might as well say nothing.

/You farking stupid troll
 
2012-05-09 08:58:33 AM  

monoski: KiplingKat872: ph0rk: Why is letting you marry a horse and/or your cousin a problem?

Well, the horse can't legally consent.

Is that because all he can say is Nay?


Oo, Bad pun, naughty pun! No biscuit!
 
2012-05-09 08:58:53 AM  

EWreckedSean: I have an even better idea. Why don't we get our government to stop caring what relationships people are in period? We should a married couple get a tax break over an unmarried one? Marriage shouldn't be a tax issue.


Fine with me, but baby steps.

NotSubby: My actual point is that asking Uncle Sam for permission to fark someone forever and ever amen is stupid. Yes, I know about how many laws apply to marriages but that's the problem. By elevating marriage, you diminish legally the people who remain single. My doing so, you're telling them to choose between subjugation or a marriage contract.

Make the laws apply to all individuals equally and dismantle the government marriage protection racket.


See above.

In my world(tm) unions would be for 2 years, renewable for 5, then renewable for 5 thereafter. Adding a person to a union would start a new contract or only finish out the current one (their choice). Any number of infractions would dissolve a union (domestic violence chief among them).

No tax benefits, other than the usual pooling of income/sharing of deductible.

There's good data that multi-parent families (of whatever genders) are better for kids' outcomes, and I think the above is enough in that direction. No need for a tax deductible, we have enough people.
 
2012-05-09 08:59:19 AM  
Way to be on the wrong side of history, good sense, and common decency, NC.
 
2012-05-09 08:59:20 AM  
I voted against it. I have never been more disgusted in my life. To actually have a vote where you can choose to tell a whole group of people that they are lesser human beings is beyond my comprehension.

I had one person actually argue that a marriage is between and man and a woman and thats how its been for years and years and it shouldnt change. My reply was I'm glad he wasnt around when slavery was acceptable.

Unfortunately people cant separate religion from politics around here. Once you bring in Jesus they lose all common sense. One might even call it fanatical.
 
2012-05-09 08:59:39 AM  
What a gang of gays might look like
images.wikia.com
 
2012-05-09 08:59:45 AM  

rcantley: [abcnews.go.com image 512x339]

Marriage is a hermaphroditic deity?

Sounds kinky.


If you ever want to have some fun ask a devout, anti-gay christian whom hermaphrodites are allowed to have sex with.
 
2012-05-09 08:59:53 AM  
Hardly a shocker that the South has decided to be on the wrong side of history on yet another issue.
 
2012-05-09 09:00:38 AM  
You suck North Carolina.

/that's all
 
2012-05-09 09:00:43 AM  

ph0rk: wedding vegetables: Because then I'm gonna have to get married to my cousin and a horse. I don't want to have waterhead horse babies. Who's looking out for MY rights??

Why is letting you marry a horse and/or your cousin a problem?


I think the correct response was 'what is this I don't even'.

I actually got into an argument with some moron earlier who said that legalizing same-sex marriage would set the precedent for humans to marry animals and their relatives. Apparently this dude was so dumb he didn't realize that you can already marry your relatives in some states.

I was trying to be funny and failed. My apologies. :)

NotSubby: How is it a great idea? Only two adults? Why should multiple partners be discriminated against?


It's not discrimination. It's a contract designed to work for two people. For example, it's the difference between "your wife gets to make your medical decisions" and "your medical decisions will be made by popular vote, or you can delegate a primary and backup decision maker, and this contract will need to be amended if someone else joins the union."
 
2012-05-09 09:01:01 AM  

DrD'isInfotainment: What a gang of gays might look like
[images.wikia.com image 383x511]


Funny how they advertise "30 men" yet it looks like Chyna is in there!
 
2012-05-09 09:01:37 AM  

JusticeandIndependence: dr_blasto: Government shouldn't be involved in marriage in any way.

Then we should all file single on our taxes. No one gets credit for kids and no filing jointly.


Marriage and a civil partnership are two separate things.

Either every civil partnership is treated equally under the law or get rid of the institution. Let parents fight over which one claims any offspring as dependents.
 
2012-05-09 09:02:47 AM  

Omahawg: [sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 500x375]


http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=facts

From a website promoting marriage between cousins;

26 states allow first cousin marriages; most people can marry their cousin in the US.

US prohibitions against cousin marriages predate modern genetics.

No European country prohibits marriage between first cousins. It is also legal throughout Canada and Mexico to marry your cousin. The U.S. is the only western country with cousin marriage restrictions.

Children of non-related couples have a 2-3% risk of birth defects, as opposed to first cousins having a 4-6% risk. Genetic counseling is available for those couples that may be at a special risk for birth defects (e.g. You have a defect that runs in your family) In plain terms first cousins have at a 94 percent + chance of having healthy children. Check the links section for more information on genetic counselors. The National Society of Genetic Counselors estimated the increased risk for first cousins is between 1.7 to 2.8 percent, or about the same a any woman over 40 years of age. Source: external link

-----------------------------

I did a few hours or research on cousin's having children at my University Library back in 2003, law library was the only one with any research on the matter, and found the chance of birth defects when compared to the general population was 6% instead of 2-3%. To put things in perspective this is similar in increase in birth defects as it would be to have kids after after 40. If marrying cousin's should be illegal for this reason, so should people having babies after age 40.

In closing, I'd just like to say I never have nor never would have sex or marry a cousin, however if you don't like people telling gay people not to marry, maybe you should take a look at your values regarding cousins marrying.
 
2012-05-09 09:03:58 AM  
NotSubby: My actual point is that asking Uncle Sam for permission to fark someone forever and ever amen is stupid. Yes, I know about how many laws apply to marriages but that's the problem. By elevating marriage, you diminish legally the people who remain single. My doing so, you're telling them to choose between subjugation or a marriage contract.

Make the laws apply to all individuals equally and dismantle the government marriage protection racket.

See above.

In my world(tm) unions would be for 2 years, renewable for 5, then renewable for 5 thereafter. Adding a person to a union would start a new contract or only finish out the current one (their choice). Any number of infractions would dissolve a union (domestic violence chief among them).

No tax benefits, other than the usual pooling of income/sharing of deductible.

There's good data that multi-parent families (of whatever genders) are better for kids' outcomes, and I think the above is enough in that direction. No need for a tax deductible, we have enough people.

I find myself in complete agreement. Hopefully in a few decades after we've got all this nonsense settled the next thing to be reworked would be alimony. It doesn't seem right to me that a man can be taken to the cleaners by his wife just because he had a penis going into the marriage.
 
2012-05-09 09:04:03 AM  

ph0rk: EWreckedSean: I have an even better idea. Why don't we get our government to stop caring what relationships people are in period? We should a married couple get a tax break over an unmarried one? Marriage shouldn't be a tax issue.

Fine with me, but baby steps.

NotSubby: My actual point is that asking Uncle Sam for permission to fark someone forever and ever amen is stupid. Yes, I know about how many laws apply to marriages but that's the problem. By elevating marriage, you diminish legally the people who remain single. My doing so, you're telling them to choose between subjugation or a marriage contract.

Make the laws apply to all individuals equally and dismantle the government marriage protection racket.

See above.

In my world(tm) unions would be for 2 years, renewable for 5, then renewable for 5 thereafter. Adding a person to a union would start a new contract or only finish out the current one (their choice). Any number of infractions would dissolve a union (domestic violence chief among them).

No tax benefits, other than the usual pooling of income/sharing of deductible.

There's good data that multi-parent families (of whatever genders) are better for kids' outcomes, and I think the above is enough in that direction. No need for a tax deductible, we have enough people.


Why? No troll but seriously why?

Term limited contracts are still subject to government regulation, can be used as a way to buy votes (make no mistake about why pols push marriage), and would most likely result in evem more frequent divorce fights.

If you knew you had a renewal coming up and were unsure if you wanted to stay, you'd likely leave so you can avoid the problem of waiting the next term (believe me, I'm ex Navy. I know how this works on your mind).

If you're not married at any point and you run into a problem, you're not going to feel a time sensitive pressure to pull the trigger. You'll have more luxury to think before acting.
 
2012-05-09 09:04:24 AM  

topcon: Soup4Bonnie: Backwards ass hicks.

Didn't the backwards ass hicks of California do the same thing a couple of years ago?


Actually it was a majority of black voters that voted against gays getting married in CA. If I remember right, they made the difference there.

A religious black co-worker and friend of mine voted yesterday and I asked him if he voted for or against the amendment . He didn't say much and quietly joked that we shouldn't talk about politics. He knows how I stood on this. I just got married myself and I was in my honeymoon last week. I told him that why should we deny others the experience that I just had the last couple of weeks. He did not say much about that either.

Anyway, I find it a little disturbing that many blacks in CA and I'm guessing here in NC discriminated against gay people, when they themselves were discriminated against not too long ago for simply being black.
 
2012-05-09 09:05:59 AM  
The entire modern concept of "marriage" should be nullified. If you want to spend your life with someone, go do it. There is no need for the law to be involved. There should be no benefits given that singles don't have.
 
2012-05-09 09:07:19 AM  
I think morality needs to get out of the marriage business all together. Straight, gay, polygamist, cousin, brother/sister, or what have you I don't farking care. They should all be allowed to be married. As long as they are two consenting human adults who are 18 or older then why the fark should I give a damn? Sanctity of marriage is a bullshiat religious excuse. Take religion completely out of the equation and there is no reason to deny these people marriage. As far as marriage being religiously inspired, fark that. Half of all marriages end in divorce. If you want to protect the holy sanctity that is two people farking each other in a socially acceptable means, then outlaw divorce. It is completely hypocritical to go on about marriage sanctity and still allow divorce to be socially acceptable. Fark you North Carolina. I hope everyone that voted for Amendment 1 dies slowly of the most painful cancer that is out there.

/Rant over
 
2012-05-09 09:08:17 AM  

quatchi: wedding vegetables: Hey, to be fair, it's probably not his fault he's here. Some liberal probably forced him to click on the thread and then gloat about his team's "win".

Point taken. Thing I can't figure out is how the ebil libs are doing it. They can't be holding a gun to his head because I'm well infrommed enough to know that all liberals are allergic to guns and don't own any.

Tis a puzzlement.

/just doin' my part

Appreciated. Already have you faved for referring to Victoria Jackson as "Stay Puft Barbie".

That shiat cracked me the fark up. ^__^


I've been reading too much Freep. Everything's the libs' fault. (Any is too much. Gaw, what a wretched hive.)

And thanks! It's always nice to know you made someone smile.
 
2012-05-09 09:09:53 AM  

wedding vegetables:

It's not discrimination. It's a contract designed to work for two people. For example, it's the difference between "your wife gets to make your medical decisions" and "your medical decisions will be made by popular vote, or you can delegate a primary and backup decision maker, and this contract will need to be amended if someone else joins the union."


Yes it is. Your argument about medical decisions is also weak. I already have the power to set up guidelines that cover my medical decisions. You apparently don't want more than two people to have the same benefits you want for yourself and another... which is discriminatory no matter how you try to couch your reasoning.

Loaded Six String: I find myself in complete agreement. Hopefully in a few decades after we've got all this nonsense settled the next thing to be reworked would be alimony. It doesn't seem right to me that a man can be taken to the cleaners by his wife just because he had a penis going into the marriage.


Agreed.

I'm the one who got the house and custody but I inexplicably have to pay her alimony for two years. This after she was arrested for giving drugs to two teenage friends of my son (who thankfully refused the offer himself).
 
2012-05-09 09:11:18 AM  

x1v16: In closing, I'd just like to say I never have nor never would have sex or marry a cousin, however if you don't like people telling gay people not to marry, maybe you should take a look at your values regarding cousins marrying.


*takes a look*

Don't care. Think it's kinda icky, but far be it from me to deny rights to others because "eeeeeew, gross."

That was easy. Off to bed.
 
2012-05-09 09:14:32 AM  
Maybe they should take all their gay money and go someplace else with it.
 
2012-05-09 09:16:20 AM  

DrD'isInfotainment: What a gang of gays might look like
[images.wikia.com image 383x511]


I wish the one in the middle was gay. I'd chase after Stone Cold Steve Austin like there was no tomorrow. Not that I'd have a chance.
 
Displayed 50 of 1189 comments

First | « | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report