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  
•       •       •

11109 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 01:52:48 PM  

LabGrrl: The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I'm assuming they also banned second marriages too, right? I mean, marriage is between one man and one woman for eternity, right? Makes sense to not allow a man (or woman) to marry someone else when things didn't work out with the one and only person they chose to marry. Or, is this less about protecting the sanctity of marriage and more about hate?

I honestly think this is worded so poorly that someone could argue in court (maybe even successfully) that it outlaws second marriages and any marriage between people who already have kids.

It's amazingly dumb. Astonishingly dumb. That's why it's so different from referenda in California or Maine, it's not merely saying that they aren't going to recognize the marriages in other states, they are saying they refuse to recognize them unless they use their terms and their definition.


According to the spouse of the creator, it was made to "protect the Caucasian race".
 
2012-05-09 01:59:09 PM  
But Obama is evolving, This week Him and Biden will jerk each other off
Next week it's corn holing each other
The week after it is a full BJ with ass lickings
 
2012-05-09 02:01:56 PM  

WonderStuff: Cythraul: Well, it's late for me, and I usually only Fark during the morning / early afternoon.

I think I might go back to my Skyrim:

WHERE I CAN GET MARRIED AS A MAN, TO ANOTHER MAN!

High five. I gay married Balimund the Riften Blacksmith. We are very happy, and hes always giving me septims. Seriously, fark this law.


I always thought Balimund was kinda hot. Although, he does look like he could use a bath.
 
2012-05-09 02:04:08 PM  
Ahhh, I love people like bogatti

See, Like Aldo the Apachee, I like Nazis trolls in uniform. That way we can spot 'em just like that. So I'm gonna give you a little something you cant take off.

**Ignore**
 
2012-05-09 02:04:16 PM  

SirGeorgeBurkelwitzIII: Something is farked up in America.


Yeah, they're called "Americans."
 
2012-05-09 02:08:19 PM  

Theaetetus: LabGrrl: The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I'm assuming they also banned second marriages too, right? I mean, marriage is between one man and one woman for eternity, right? Makes sense to not allow a man (or woman) to marry someone else when things didn't work out with the one and only person they chose to marry. Or, is this less about protecting the sanctity of marriage and more about hate?

I honestly think this is worded so poorly that someone could argue in court (maybe even successfully) that it outlaws second marriages and any marriage between people who already have kids.

I don't see that at all:
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

There's nothing there that would outlaw second marriages or marriages with kids. Sorry, that reading just isn't supported.


The argument would go that a man with a legal relationship with another woman (i.e., child support, alimony, etc.) was not free to marry, or that a "domestic legal union" includes families (such as when the step-father is given legal powers over the kids) and thus includes more than one person.

I didn't say it would succeed, I just said I could see someone arguing it (out of sheer spite) maybe even successfully, since stupid wording is stupid.

Just like I could see the recognizing no other terms but marriage, while "outlawing" specific terms extended to not recognizing other words we use for marriage, like matrimony. (It would depend on if matrimony is stated as meaning marriage elsewhere in the law, AFAIK.)

Stupid law is stupid enough that if someone really wanted to just cause chaos with it, they probably could.
 
2012-05-09 02:14:01 PM  

LabGrrl: The argument would go that a man with a legal relationship with another woman (i.e., child support, alimony, etc.) was not free to marry, or that a "domestic legal union" includes families (such as when the step-father is given legal powers over the kids) and thus includes more than one person.

I didn't say it would succeed, I just said I could see someone arguing it (out of sheer spite) maybe even successfully, since stupid wording is stupid.


No, because:
(i) child support or alimony obligations are not legal unions, as required by the amendment; and
(ii) if they were, or if they gave rise to a legal union, it would not be recognized under the amendment.

I think your argument is backwards - basically, you're saying that all domestic relationships would be recognized as marriage, thus preventing an unmarried person in one of said relationships from marrying "again". That's the opposite of what the amendment does, however, which is recognize none.

Stupid law is stupid enough that if someone really wanted to just cause chaos with it, they probably could.

Sure, but I think that will come up in terms of criminal defendants on charges of domestic abuse arguing that they're innocent, because not being in a recognized domestic relationship, the prosecution can't prove every element of the charges.
 
2012-05-09 02:14:05 PM  
Democrats want to control everything you do outside your bedroom.

Republicans (and stupid people) want to control everything you do inside your bedroom.
 
2012-05-09 03:00:10 PM  

Velveeta_Poindexter: [fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net image 640x606]


That's interesting, albeit not surprising at all. Whats the source of those images, though?
 
2012-05-09 03:28:23 PM  

tony41454: You do not have a constitutional right to engage in abominations.


Then explain your posts.
 
2012-05-09 03:28:42 PM  
What's really funny is this is the fault of the blacks and married yankee transplants, both of whom are pretty bigoted in my experience. The rednecks were always gonna vote for this shiat.

But I'm actually glad this passed because it is so poorly worded and overreaching that it will be overturned and may even cause an opposite reaction that will improve rights for all people.
 
2012-05-09 04:23:53 PM  
Next thing you know, Ghosts are going to be able to marry horses..

//apropos Futurama was on....
 
2012-05-09 04:48:53 PM  

The_Sponge: WTF?!

(in reference to my belief that North Carolina women who voted for this travesty of an amendment deserve marriages in which they're subjected to domestic violence)

Amendment One explicitly defines marriage as "between a man and a woman", thus preventing homosexuals from marrying, denying the recognition of out-of-state homosexual marriages, and potential impacting domestic partnerships and benefits down the road, among other issues.

If a straight woman voted for that, it couldn't have impacted her.
- she's not homosexual. At least, not since college.
- Homosexuals being able to marry wouldn't prevent her from being to marry.
- Homosexuals being able to marry wouldn't even reduce the odds for her; gay men probably weren't beating a path to her door in the first place.
- Her own marriage (current or future) wouldn't be cheapened, reduced, diluted, or weakened in the slightest; at least, no more so than it would be if any other two random people chose to marry.

Thus, a woman voting for this amendment was expressing her belief that other people shouldn't have the same privileges as she. She wishes others to be disenfranchised. Maybe it's a faith issue - perhaps this theoretical woman adheres to a religion that institutionally disenfranchises homosexuals. She has a belief, and she's representing that belief, even though that belief impacts others. Her belief is that others shouldn't be as happy as she is.

Accordingly, I have a belief, and my belief impacts others. I believe if a woman in North Carolina went out and intentionally cast a vote to disenfranchise another group of people, to no greater gain beyond having kept them from doing something she could already do, then she has earned a future in which she is forever tied to a devoted man who beats her within an inch of her life every night. Preferably with a belt, similar to a notable scene from The Godfather.

Her belief takes a chance at happiness away from a group of people. My belief sees her chance at happiness likewise taken away, though through more violent means. In both cases we're expressing beliefs that strictly affect other people and do not apply to ourselves - in that, we're the same.

Her belief is now enshrined in law. Mine's just a happy fantasy that appeals to my notion of fairness. fark that pro-Amendment One biatch and all the biatches like her. I hope they die childless.

/Clarification offered from a long-time Farker who has one account, a strong opinion, and a lot of anger.
 
2012-05-09 05:07:35 PM  

Cythraul: WonderStuff: Cythraul: Well, it's late for me, and I usually only Fark during the morning / early afternoon.

I think I might go back to my Skyrim:

WHERE I CAN GET MARRIED AS A MAN, TO ANOTHER MAN!

High five. I gay married Balimund the Riften Blacksmith. We are very happy, and hes always giving me septims. Seriously, fark this law.

I always thought Balimund was kinda hot. Although, he does look like he could use a bath.


He does. I am more sad that i cannot slap some different clothes on him.
 
2012-05-09 08:51:45 PM  

untaken_name: LeoffDaGrate: don't use tactics that go against your religion (bearing false witness)

"Bearing false witness" means, specifically, "perjury". There's no specific biblical prohibition against deception, and, in fact, it is specifically condoned on more than one occasion. This is not meant to invalidate your entire post, just to clarify what "bearing false witness" actually means.


OK. Since they are so keen on using Leviticus to talk about the abomination that is gay marriage, how about we try these:

Leviticus 6:1-4, "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour...or hath deceived his neighbour...and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty,"


Leviticus 19:11, "Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another."
 
2012-05-09 09:56:54 PM  

cmunic8r99: untaken_name: LeoffDaGrate: don't use tactics that go against your religion (bearing false witness)

"Bearing false witness" means, specifically, "perjury". There's no specific biblical prohibition against deception, and, in fact, it is specifically condoned on more than one occasion. This is not meant to invalidate your entire post, just to clarify what "bearing false witness" actually means.

OK. Since they are so keen on using Leviticus to talk about the abomination that is gay marriage, how about we try these:

Leviticus 6:1-4, "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour...or hath deceived his neighbour...and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty,"


Leviticus 19:11, "Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another."


You forget that the Bible is a salad bar, and those passages are the pickled beets. No one likes those.

"Thou shalt not lie with a man" is the ranch dressing. And Southerners love the shiat out of their ranch dressing.

/"Love thy neighbor" is the chickpeas. Only hippie socialist libtards like chickpeas.
 
2012-05-10 12:37:01 AM  

wedding vegetables: those passages are the pickled beets. No one likes those.


I actually love pickled beets.

Also borscht.

Beets need more love.

That noted, fark all cauliflowers, turnips and brussel sprouts.

Nasty little things.

/Canadian of Ukrainian and Croatian descent.
//Perogies are the highest form of patriotic.
 
2012-05-10 12:47:21 AM  

Mearen: Why are there so few vocal libtards that assume marriage is a right? It's not, and the majority of Americans keep proving you wrong. Suck it and suck it hard.


Marriage is not a right, equal access to civil contracts -- which what a civil marriage is -- is a right protected by the 14th Amendment.

A church is not a requirement for marriage.
 
2012-05-10 01:18:34 AM  

cmunic8r99: untaken_name: LeoffDaGrate: don't use tactics that go against your religion (bearing false witness)

"Bearing false witness" means, specifically, "perjury". There's no specific biblical prohibition against deception, and, in fact, it is specifically condoned on more than one occasion. This is not meant to invalidate your entire post, just to clarify what "bearing false witness" actually means.

OK. Since they are so keen on using Leviticus to talk about the abomination that is gay marriage, how about we try these:

Leviticus 6:1-4, "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour...or hath deceived his neighbour...and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty,"


Leviticus 19:11, "Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another."


I'm guessing you don't know what "swearing falsely" means any more than "bearing false witness", but they're the same thing. See, it says if you deceive your neighbor and lie about it in court, you're in trouble. It doesn't actually say "if you ever lie to your neighbor at all". Now, in your second verse, who's being talked about in the "one to another" part? Because that's important to know in order to understand that, again, this is not a general prohibition on lying/deception. Now, do you know the story of Rahab? She lied and deceived and was handsomely rewarded for specifically that service.
 
2012-05-10 01:43:30 AM  
There is nothing in The Bible where either Jesus or God says anything negative about gays.

Unless we're worshipping Levitiucus now at a higher ranking than God, methinks perhaps there's been a slight misunderstanding in biblical translation over the past two thousand years. Just maybe?
 
2012-05-10 01:49:30 AM  

studebaker hoch: There is nothing in The Bible where either Jesus or God says anything negative about gays.

Unless we're worshipping Levitiucus now at a higher ranking than God, methinks perhaps there's been a slight misunderstanding in biblical translation over the past two thousand years. Just maybe?


In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 1:1

Christians have put the Law above God. Jesus himself taught this, didn't he? The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man made for the Sabbath. He turned a simple understanding of God into a complex, incomprehensible, and wholly malleable pile of donkey shiat.

Mohammed (PBUH) has brought, through the grace of God, a purer understanding of God and the Law. Islam restores the Law to its rightful place, and glorifies God in obeisance to it.
 
2012-05-10 02:16:10 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: studebaker hoch: There is nothing in The Bible where either Jesus or God says anything negative about gays.

Unless we're worshipping Levitiucus now at a higher ranking than God, methinks perhaps there's been a slight misunderstanding in biblical translation over the past two thousand years. Just maybe?

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 1:1

Christians have put the Law above God. Jesus himself taught this, didn't he? The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man made for the Sabbath. He turned a simple understanding of God into a complex, incomprehensible, and wholly malleable pile of donkey shiat.

Mohammed (PBUH) has brought, through the grace of God, a purer understanding of God and the Law. Islam restores the Law to its rightful place, and glorifies God in obeisance to it.


God was so incompetent that he couldn't keep track of what was going on in his own Garden, and his angels were apparently too busy or lazy to do any checking up. The result was he threw a tantrum so big that he cursed the entire universe to decay and doom because two humans ate some figs and became intelligent.

Sounds like a wonderful thing to make our laws and views of others from.
 
2012-05-10 02:19:21 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: studebaker hoch: There is nothing in The Bible where either Jesus or God says anything negative about gays.

Unless we're worshipping Levitiucus now at a higher ranking than God, methinks perhaps there's been a slight misunderstanding in biblical translation over the past two thousand years. Just maybe?

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 1:1

Christians have put the Law above God. Jesus himself taught this, didn't he? The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man made for the Sabbath. He turned a simple understanding of God into a complex, incomprehensible, and wholly malleable pile of donkey shiat.

Mohammed (PBUH) has brought, through the grace of God, a purer understanding of God and the Law. Islam restores the Law to its rightful place, and glorifies God in obeisance to it.

God was so incompetent that he couldn't keep track of what was going on in his own Garden, and his angels were apparently too busy or lazy to do any checking up. The result was he threw a tantrum so big that he cursed the entire universe to decay and doom because two humans ate some figs and became intelligent.

Sounds like a wonderful thing to make our laws and views of others from.


It's like picking your friends vs picking your family. It doesn't matter what you think, your dad's still your dad.
 
2012-05-10 03:16:16 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: studebaker hoch: There is nothing in The Bible where either Jesus or God says anything negative about gays.

Unless we're worshipping Levitiucus now at a higher ranking than God, methinks perhaps there's been a slight misunderstanding in biblical translation over the past two thousand years. Just maybe?

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 1:1

Christians have put the Law above God. Jesus himself taught this, didn't he? The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man made for the Sabbath. He turned a simple understanding of God into a complex, incomprehensible, and wholly malleable pile of donkey shiat.

Mohammed (PBUH) has brought, through the grace of God, a purer understanding of God and the Law. Islam restores the Law to its rightful place, and glorifies God in obeisance to it.

God was so incompetent that he couldn't keep track of what was going on in his own Garden, and his angels were apparently too busy or lazy to do any checking up. The result was he threw a tantrum so big that he cursed the entire universe to decay and doom because two humans ate some figs and became intelligent.

Sounds like a wonderful thing to make our laws and views of others from.

It's like picking your friends vs picking your family. It doesn't matter what you think, your dad's still your dad.


I have evidence my dad exists. Nothing for God. And I'll take my real and loving father over the imaginary and abusive God any day.
 
2012-05-10 03:18:36 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: studebaker hoch: There is nothing in The Bible where either Jesus or God says anything negative about gays.

Unless we're worshipping Levitiucus now at a higher ranking than God, methinks perhaps there's been a slight misunderstanding in biblical translation over the past two thousand years. Just maybe?

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 1:1

Christians have put the Law above God. Jesus himself taught this, didn't he? The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man made for the Sabbath. He turned a simple understanding of God into a complex, incomprehensible, and wholly malleable pile of donkey shiat.

Mohammed (PBUH) has brought, through the grace of God, a purer understanding of God and the Law. Islam restores the Law to its rightful place, and glorifies God in obeisance to it.

God was so incompetent that he couldn't keep track of what was going on in his own Garden, and his angels were apparently too busy or lazy to do any checking up. The result was he threw a tantrum so big that he cursed the entire universe to decay and doom because two humans ate some figs and became intelligent.

Sounds like a wonderful thing to make our laws and views of others from.

It's like picking your friends vs picking your family. It doesn't matter what you think, your dad's still your dad.

I have evidence my dad exists. Nothing for God. And I'll take my real and loving father over the imaginary and abusive God any day.


It's up to you. Free will and all that.

Just don't come blaming me when you're burning in hell for all eternity.
 
2012-05-10 03:21:21 AM  

quatchi: That noted, fark all cauliflowers, turnips and brussel sprouts.


When I make mashed potatoes, I substitute half of the spuds with cooked cauliflower or turnips.

Cook diced bacon until crisp. Remove from pan, then saute the chopped onion, crushed garlic, plus halved & trimmed brussel sprouts until the sprouts start browning on the edges. Mix the bacon back in and enjoy!
 
2012-05-10 03:42:31 AM  

Publikwerks: tony41454: You do not have a constitutional right to engage in abominations.

[filmcrithulk.files.wordpress.com image 550x335]
He needs love too.


Too bad he doesn't have the equipment for that.

/always wondered why most movie monsters are hung like Ken
 
2012-05-10 04:19:46 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: Keizer_Ghidorah: AverageAmericanGuy: studebaker hoch: There is nothing in The Bible where either Jesus or God says anything negative about gays.

Unless we're worshipping Levitiucus now at a higher ranking than God, methinks perhaps there's been a slight misunderstanding in biblical translation over the past two thousand years. Just maybe?

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 1:1

Christians have put the Law above God. Jesus himself taught this, didn't he? The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man made for the Sabbath. He turned a simple understanding of God into a complex, incomprehensible, and wholly malleable pile of donkey shiat.

Mohammed (PBUH) has brought, through the grace of God, a purer understanding of God and the Law. Islam restores the Law to its rightful place, and glorifies God in obeisance to it.

God was so incompetent that he couldn't keep track of what was going on in his own Garden, and his angels were apparently too busy or lazy to do any checking up. The result was he threw a tantrum so big that he cursed the entire universe to decay and doom because two humans ate some figs and became intelligent.

Sounds like a wonderful thing to make our laws and views of others from.

It's like picking your friends vs picking your family. It doesn't matter what you think, your dad's still your dad.

I have evidence my dad exists. Nothing for God. And I'll take my real and loving father over the imaginary and abusive God any day.

It's up to you. Free will and all that.

Just don't come blaming me when you're burning in hell for all eternity.


If God was truly as benevolent and loving as Christians say he is, he wouldn't use the threat of unforgiven, eternal, and indescribable punishment in order to frighten people into worshiping him. In every other story ever written, that's the modus operandi of the villain. I don't feel like paying alms to a villain.

The idea of Satan and Hell originated from the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages, when they were desperate to convert people. Once again taking elements from other cultures and religions, they crafted a boogieman that torments us and a location to frighten us in order to make people flock to them to be saved from the scary man and his scary home.

So, you'll forgive me for not buying into the delusion that humans are born with the stain of sin because of what the first two humans did, that the only way to be "saved" is to kowtow to a made-up being, and that if I don't said being will toss me into a scary hole in the ground where a goat-man pokes me with a pitchfork for eternity.
 
2012-05-10 04:45:33 AM  

untaken_name: cmunic8r99: untaken_name: LeoffDaGrate: don't use tactics that go against your religion (bearing false witness)

"Bearing false witness" means, specifically, "perjury". There's no specific biblical prohibition against deception, and, in fact, it is specifically condoned on more than one occasion. This is not meant to invalidate your entire post, just to clarify what "bearing false witness" actually means.

OK. Since they are so keen on using Leviticus to talk about the abomination that is gay marriage, how about we try these:

Leviticus 6:1-4, "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour...or hath deceived his neighbour...and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty,"


Leviticus 19:11, "Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another."

I'm guessing you don't know what "swearing falsely" means any more than "bearing false witness", but they're the same thing. See, it says if you deceive your neighbor and lie about it in court, you're in trouble. It doesn't actually say "if you ever lie to your neighbor at all". Now, in your second verse, who's being talked about in the "one to another" part? Because that's important to know in order to understand that, again, this is not a general prohibition on lying/deception. Now, do you know the story of Rahab? She lied and deceived and was handsomely rewarded for specifically that service.


What? You mean these passages have to be taken in context? That just can't be! I mean, I see peaceful, kind people quoting Psalms 109:8, expressing their desire for Obama to leave office, and they do it without the context on vengeance (and violence) that verses 1-7 and 9-31 provide.
 
2012-05-10 06:24:24 AM  

cmunic8r99: What? You mean these passages have to be taken in context? That just can't be! I mean, I see peaceful, kind people quoting Psalms 109:8, expressing their desire for Obama to leave office, and they do it without the context on vengeance (and violence) that verses 1-7 and 9-31 provide.


Yeah, I also find it strange that I am able to learn (not guess, but research and learn) the context, but most people who actually belong to the religions based off the Hebrew scriptures can't. It's weird. Maybe it's because I don't have the expectations they have, so I can actually accept uncomfortable passages with no qualms.
 
2012-05-10 07:30:46 AM  
fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net
 
2012-05-10 09:03:03 AM  
Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."


No problem... I lie with men totally different than when I lie with women... so I'm in the clear...
 
2012-05-10 11:14:36 AM  

stonicus: Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."


No problem... I lie with men totally different than when I lie with women... so I'm in the clear...


When he came out to his dad, a friend was once asked by him what it was that they did, sexually.

"You know all those things you want mom to do but she doesn't let you? We do those things."

His dad got a look of recognition and just nodded.
 
2012-05-10 09:42:16 PM  
Caught a minute of talk radio, think it was Lars Larson. He had a(n elderly, sounded that way anyways) female speaker on and they were talking about this. Lars started talking about how "society has the obligation to defend something we've held sacred for thousands of years" and then "if gays say they're doing this out of love, what about the fathers who want to marry their daughters out of love, to pass down property and goods without worrying about tax, and say a brother loves his sister so much he wants to give her his stuff without tax", and that's when I turned off the radio.

Seriously, is this the best the anti-side has got? You can't just accept the fact that two consenting adults who love each other want to have the same rights and freedoms as other consenting adults who love each other? You have to twist and distort your brains to the breaking point and beyond just to come up with reasons to be hateful, spiteful, evil sons of biatches? Is it that important to you to deny your fellow Americans and humans something you take for granted? If it is, fark you. Fark you and the horse you rode in on. If there is a God and a hell, I hope he has a special place in it for evil little toads like you.
 
2012-05-11 01:28:32 AM  
We need to bust out that Leviticus quote one more time.
 
2012-05-11 01:38:12 AM  

studebaker hoch: We need to bust out that Leviticus quote one more time.


Along with all the other ones that are happily ignored by "Christians"?
 
2012-05-11 04:16:20 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: studebaker hoch: We need to bust out that Leviticus quote one more time.

Along with all the other ones that are happily ignored by "Christians"?


You mean the entire bible?
 
2012-05-11 11:37:18 PM  

Surool: Keizer_Ghidorah: studebaker hoch: We need to bust out that Leviticus quote one more time.

Along with all the other ones that are happily ignored by "Christians"?

You mean the entire bible?


Pretty much. Funny how they ignore everything but one sentence that let's then justify being backwards hateful assholes.
 
2012-05-12 04:31:57 AM  
No wonder Jesus left this planet and never came back.
 
Displayed 39 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 »






Report