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.

(AsiaOne)   Yet another politician just doesn't get it until it's way too late that you should never equate gay marriage to bestiality or polygamy   (asiaone.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, Australian Senator, Malcolm Turnbull, Leader of the Opposition, Labor Party, Thomas More, Australians, same-sex marriages  
•       •       •

11789 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Sep 2012 at 4:47 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-09-19 12:22:17 PM  

Theaetetus: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Theaetetus: there's no constitutional requirement to rewrite the rules for polygamy the way there is with gay marriage,

There is no such requirement for gay marriage. It's an entirely bullshiat claim.

Multiple state courts and federal courts beg to differ. But if you've got some actual argument as to why banning gay marriage doesn't violate the 5th and 14th amendments, please feel free to state it. However, simply stating a conclusion - "it's bullshiat" - will fail to be persuasive over the reasoning in In re Marriage Cases, Goodridge, Perry, etc.


Replace all your arguments for gay marriage with arguments for why heroine users should enjoy the same rights to partake of their drug as an alcohol consumer. Both come down to personal preference, and preferences aren't valid legal defenses.
 
2012-09-19 12:23:25 PM  

Big Ramifications: It offends me! It's against God! We must make it illegal.

They are the only arguments I see for making it illegal, plus a few more I named in a comment above.


So, either you didn't bother to read this thread, or you're a liar. That's good to know.
 
2012-09-19 12:29:23 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Theaetetus: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Theaetetus: there's no constitutional requirement to rewrite the rules for polygamy the way there is with gay marriage,

There is no such requirement for gay marriage. It's an entirely bullshiat claim.

Multiple state courts and federal courts beg to differ. But if you've got some actual argument as to why banning gay marriage doesn't violate the 5th and 14th amendments, please feel free to state it. However, simply stating a conclusion - "it's bullshiat" - will fail to be persuasive over the reasoning in In re Marriage Cases, Goodridge, Perry, etc.

Replace all your arguments for gay marriage with arguments for why heroine users should enjoy the same rights to partake of their drug as an alcohol consumer. Both come down to personal preference, and preferences aren't valid legal defenses.


1. "Bob, a man, has the right to marry Jane, a woman. Roberta, a woman, does not have the same right to marry Jane, merely because of her gender. Gender is quasi-suspect, so the government needs to have an important reason for denying Jane that right. They do not, and therefore, it is unconstitutional."
2. "Bob, a man, drinks alcohol. Roberta, a woman, wants to use heroin. The state won't let her, merely because of her gender...?"

Nope, doesn't work. You can't replace that argument, since the state denies everyone the right to use heroin. Accordingly, gender is not an issue in heroin-legality.
If it was, I'd agree... But it's not, hence you're wrong.
 
2012-09-19 12:31:28 PM  
Look, the guy is an idiot...but let's tone down the butthurt a little, OK? "What's next" is NOT the same thing as "equating"
 
2012-09-19 12:32:07 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Replace all your arguments for gay marriage with arguments for why heroine users should enjoy the same rights to partake of their drug as an alcohol consumer. Both come down to personal preference, and preferences aren't valid legal defenses.


You are trollin', right? You have got to be trolling.

Why do people trying to prove a point always pull out an argument so completely ridiculous that all you can do is dismiss them entirely for sheer stupidity. That is what happened to the senator and you clearly learned nothing from his mistake.
 
2012-09-19 12:51:10 PM  
BraveNewCheneyWorld: Because accepting the functional use brought into existence by evolution is comically stupid? How can you be so deluded as to think reason is on your side? You have literally nothing logical to back your position.

Z-clipped: You crack me up. Shine on, you crazy diamond.


BraveNewCheneyWorld has been in these threads before. He's been shown links, books, quotes, all the evidence any rational person would need. This isn't ignorance, this is outright flat-out lying. Which is really a shame, because up until this thread, he's been, for all his wrongheadedness and vituperation, reasonably honest. The worst I've seen BraveNewCheneyWorld do before today is rely a bit heavily on strawman arguments to do his heavy lifting for him. I'm usually willing to excuse that one, especially since you don't always know that a person using a strawman KNOWS that that's what they're doing.

But this, this is different. He's seen the evidence, he knows it exist, and now he's brazenly trying to pretend it doesn't.

But, you know, for the terminally lazy and intellectually flaccid out there, here you go, one more time.


BraveNewCheneyWorld: How do you explain "one religion's" ability to make cultures across the world define marriage as between a man and a woman, before that religion was created?

 

Oh, yeah. Here's another one. We're both veterans of these homosexuality threads, BraveNewCheneyWorld and I (as are several other people here in this thread). I'm pretty sure I've debunked some of the more noxious claims he's made. And I know he's been in previous threads were examples of society that had forms of marriage other than simply one man and one woman. He knows this. Even if it hadn't been linked to in most of these homosexuality threads before, one glance at Wikipedia tells you all you'd need to know. He couldn't not know it and still have the mental capacity to post on Fark.

So I really wonder, what has changed? What event has gotten BraveNewCheneyWorld so rattled that he's just started flat-out lying today of all days?
 
2012-09-19 01:00:37 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Also, why bother raising up some new huge superstructure over us to replace marriage? We got through much of western history without all that much involvement from the government. You can figure out who you love without a stamp of approval can't ya?


There are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. 

Legally speaking that "stamp of approval" carries a huge amount of weight. There are many stories of gay couples who suffered (financially, emotionally, otherwise, or all of the above) because they were not allowed to be married. Just to name one, not being allowed to visit one's partner in the hospital.
 
2012-09-19 01:00:42 PM  
In a world of 7 billion+ people I have to look favorably on any non reproducing relationships.
 
2012-09-19 01:14:26 PM  

kim jong-un: Consent as a term applied to animals is nonsense.


are humans animals?
 
2012-09-19 01:14:51 PM  

doubled99: It's funny how upset people get when their own arguments are thrown back in their face


The anti-gay marriage arguments of a lot of religious types are very amusing, and very poorly constructed.

A few months ago on Facebook, I made some post supporting marriage equality. A "friend" of mine (an acquaintance from the small town I grew up in) chimed in to say they couldn't believe I could say something like that since "clearly" marriage was only between one man, and one woman, and that's the only way it could ever be and the only way God wants it.

Well, I cited every scriptural passage about multiple wives, and about concubines, and Levirate marriage, and asked why we don't let people have multiple wives now, or mandate the practice of Levirate marriage, and asked if she would approve of her husband taking a concubine on the side in addition to her, like so many great men did in the Scriptures.

Well, she changed the subject real quick, saying that none of those were about a man marrying a man, and that would clearly never work. I mentioned how many countries, and US states, now allow gay marriage, and how those countries aren't having complete societal collapse like she was saying would immediately happen.

Basically, we went round and round, with her unable to provide any backing to her argument that marriage is only one man and one woman, other than essentially saying that anything else is icky and weirds her out and feels blasphemous to her (despite a lack of actual scripture saying that).
 
2012-09-19 01:32:52 PM  

I drunk what: Joe Blowme: u sound racist

did you just disagree with me?? your racist


NO YOU!
 
2012-09-19 01:34:33 PM  

Silverstaff: A few months ago on Facebook, I made some post supporting marriage equality. A "friend" of mine (an acquaintance from the small town I grew up in) chimed in to say they couldn't believe I could say something like that since "clearly" marriage was only between one man, and one woman, and that's the only way it could ever be and the only way God wants it.


Christians frequently point to Genesis to say that God is opposed to gay marriage, but this requires ignoring what Genesis actually says. See, in Genesis, God creates a bunch of stuff - light, the land, the animals, etc. - and after each, he says that it is good. Until God creates man and sees that man is alone: the one thing that God says is "not good" is that man is alone, without a companion. So, God makes Eve, who is a proper companion for Adam, and he is no longer alone.
So, the message isn't that everyone should have an Eve (and what would that mean for lesbians?), but that everyone should have a companion, because it is "not good" to be alone.

Now, consider, what is it that Christians say that gay folks should do? The whole "hate the sin, love the sinner" thing? They say that while sexual preference may be in-born and natural, but it is one's choice to act upon it and have homosexual sex. Thus, they say that gay people should choose to be celibate (or, presumably, have sex with someone they don't love... which would run afoul of all sorts of other Biblical quotes).

In other words, they want gay people to voluntarily be alone. The one thing that God explicitly says is "not good".

/not their fault... most Christians don't read their Bibles
 
2012-09-19 01:36:51 PM  
Credit for the above argument to here.
 
2012-09-19 01:37:38 PM  

ciberido: Holocaust Agnostic: Also, why bother raising up some new huge superstructure over us to replace marriage? We got through much of western history without all that much involvement from the government. You can figure out who you love without a stamp of approval can't ya?

There are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. 

Legally speaking that "stamp of approval" carries a huge amount of weight. There are many stories of gay couples who suffered (financially, emotionally, otherwise, or all of the above) because they were not allowed to be married. Just to name one, not being allowed to visit one's partner in the hospital.


"its weird that we tie up all these rights into a convoluted government bureaucracy"

"But without the bureaucracy we can't have those rights!"
 
2012-09-19 01:42:03 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: ciberido: Holocaust Agnostic: Also, why bother raising up some new huge superstructure over us to replace marriage? We got through much of western history without all that much involvement from the government. You can figure out who you love without a stamp of approval can't ya?

There are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. 

Legally speaking that "stamp of approval" carries a huge amount of weight. There are many stories of gay couples who suffered (financially, emotionally, otherwise, or all of the above) because they were not allowed to be married. Just to name one, not being allowed to visit one's partner in the hospital.

"its weird that we tie up all these rights into a convoluted government bureaucracy"


No, it's not weird at all.

"But without the bureaucracy we can't have those rights!"

That's completely true.

You're pretending that there's some contradiction here, but that's simply because you have no idea what you're talking about. There's nothing weird about government being involved property rights, or medical care rights, or taxation, or any of the hundreds of areas in which marital status is a factor.
 
2012-09-19 01:48:16 PM  

Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: Oh OK, you think they are equal, you just can't count higher than two. I'm so sorry.

Oh, I see! You think that things that are different have inherently different worth! Like, if an apple is different than an orange, that an apple must be "worth less" or an orange is "worth more"!
My god... how do you get through life with that type of semantic structure? Ever time you take a step with one foot vs. the other, you're making a value judgement. You must be the most neurotic person in the world.

equate: to regard as equal.

equal like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; 

Theateteussure, if you can't count past two(re: whether gays and polygamists could be equated)

What exactly am I missing here?

That three people in a polygamous relationship are not equal in quantity to two people in a monogamous relationship?


But they are doing it for parental rights so why not marrage?
Link
 
2012-09-19 01:49:06 PM  

Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: ciberido: Holocaust Agnostic: Also, why bother raising up some new huge superstructure over us to replace marriage? We got through much of western history without all that much involvement from the government. You can figure out who you love without a stamp of approval can't ya?

There are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. 

Legally speaking that "stamp of approval" carries a huge amount of weight. There are many stories of gay couples who suffered (financially, emotionally, otherwise, or all of the above) because they were not allowed to be married. Just to name one, not being allowed to visit one's partner in the hospital.

"its weird that we tie up all these rights into a convoluted government bureaucracy"

No, it's not weird at all.

"But without the bureaucracy we can't have those rights!"

That's completely true.

You're pretending that there's some contradiction here, but that's simply because you have no idea what you're talking about. There's nothing weird about government being involved property rights, or medical care rights, or taxation, or any of the hundreds of areas in which marital status is a factor.


Who said it was? You're really dumb.
 
2012-09-19 01:50:16 PM  

BoxOfBees: Man expresses well-formulated opinion in a logical manner.

Result: Get angry at him and make sure he loses his post over the outrage.

Really? And people accuse conservatives of derp.


There was a well-formulated opinion in this?

/Slippery Slopes are also known as the Slippery Slope Fallacy, and for good reason.
 
2012-09-19 01:55:41 PM  
Equallity is an illusion. Take afirmative action, some legal discrimination is more legal than others.
 
2012-09-19 01:57:34 PM  

Joe Blowme: That three people in a polygamous relationship are not equal in quantity to two people in a monogamous relationship?

But they are doing it for parental rights so why not marrage?
Link


Why do you think their intent changes "three" to "two"?
 
2012-09-19 01:58:28 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: ciberido: Holocaust Agnostic: Also, why bother raising up some new huge superstructure over us to replace marriage? We got through much of western history without all that much involvement from the government. You can figure out who you love without a stamp of approval can't ya?

There are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. 

Legally speaking that "stamp of approval" carries a huge amount of weight. There are many stories of gay couples who suffered (financially, emotionally, otherwise, or all of the above) because they were not allowed to be married. Just to name one, not being allowed to visit one's partner in the hospital.

"its weird that we tie up all these rights into a convoluted government bureaucracy"

No, it's not weird at all.

"But without the bureaucracy we can't have those rights!"

That's completely true.

You're pretending that there's some contradiction here, but that's simply because you have no idea what you're talking about. There's nothing weird about government being involved property rights, or medical care rights, or taxation, or any of the hundreds of areas in which marital status is a factor.

Who said it was?


Holocaust Agnostic: "its weird that we tie up all these rights into a convoluted government bureaucracy"

You're really dumb.


Yes, you are.
 
2012-09-19 02:01:27 PM  

Theaetetus: Joe Blowme: That three people in a polygamous relationship are not equal in quantity to two people in a monogamous relationship?

But they are doing it for parental rights so why not marrage?
Link

Why do you think their intent changes "three" to "two"?


Also, no, they aren't... Your link has nothing to do with marriage. That's about parental rights. This may come as a revelation to you, but it's possible for people to be married but not have children, and it's also possible for people to have children and (gasp) not be married!
If you need to sit for a moment and catch your breath, I understand.
 
2012-09-19 02:07:41 PM  

Theaetetus: Theaetetus: Joe Blowme: That three people in a polygamous relationship are not equal in quantity to two people in a monogamous relationship?

But they are doing it for parental rights so why not marrage?
Link

Why do you think their intent changes "three" to "two"?????

Also, no, they aren't... Your link has nothing to do with marriage. That's about parental rights. This may come as a revelation to you, but it's possible for people to be married but not have children, and it's also possible for people to have children and (gasp) not be married!
If you need to sit for a moment and catch your breath, I understand.


WTF? I said it was about parental rights. It relates as to how much say each person gets in a multi (more than 2) parent situation. Like what rights each individual can have in a poly- situation. Just stating it can be done. Not sure why you are hyperventilating, maybe a nap will do you good.
 
2012-09-19 02:09:29 PM  

Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: ciberido: Holocaust Agnostic: Also, why bother raising up some new huge superstructure over us to replace marriage? We got through much of western history without all that much involvement from the government. You can figure out who you love without a stamp of approval can't ya?

There are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. 

Legally speaking that "stamp of approval" carries a huge amount of weight. There are many stories of gay couples who suffered (financially, emotionally, otherwise, or all of the above) because they were not allowed to be married. Just to name one, not being allowed to visit one's partner in the hospital.

"its weird that we tie up all these rights into a convoluted government bureaucracy"

No, it's not weird at all.

"But without the bureaucracy we can't have those rights!"

That's completely true.

You're pretending that there's some contradiction here, but that's simply because you have no idea what you're talking about. There's nothing weird about government being involved property rights, or medical care rights, or taxation, or any of the hundreds of areas in which marital status is a factor.

Who said it was?

Holocaust Agnostic: "its weird that we tie up all these rights into a convoluted government bureaucracy"

You're really dumb.

Yes, you are.


So thinking we dont need a great twisted knot of rights and social expectations that come as an inexplicable package deal being doled out by the government to whom it sees fit and denied to whom it sees fit, is exactly the same as saying that the government has no buisiness enforcing property rights, regulating healthcare, or levying taxes?

You seem to have a lot of trouble grasping which things are simillar to each other and which things aren't.
 
2012-09-19 02:17:39 PM  

Joe Blowme: Theaetetus: Theaetetus: Joe Blowme: That three people in a polygamous relationship are not equal in quantity to two people in a monogamous relationship?

But they are doing it for parental rights so why not marrage?
Link

Why do you think their intent changes "three" to "two"?????

Also, no, they aren't... Your link has nothing to do with marriage. That's about parental rights. This may come as a revelation to you, but it's possible for people to be married but not have children, and it's also possible for people to have children and (gasp) not be married!
If you need to sit for a moment and catch your breath, I understand.

WTF? I said it was about parental rights.


"But they are doing it for parental rights so why not marrage?"

Marriage and parental rights have no relationship. Your question is equivalent to "but they are doing it for parental rights, so why not a spaceship?" I was assuming, perhaps in error, that you weren't a total idiot but were actually implying some connection between the two. Was I wrong?

It relates as to how much say each person gets in a multi (more than 2) parent situation. Like what rights each individual can have in a poly- situation. Just stating it can be done.

And how is it being done? Is it by a legislative act? The way I've been saying that polygamy would have to be legalized?
Great. Thanks for proving my point.

Not sure why you are hyperventilating, maybe a nap will do you good.

You know, the old "I'm rubber, you're glue" thing wasn't even funny when we were six years old. Now, it's just pitiful.
 
2012-09-19 02:19:11 PM  

Big Ramifications: Hmmm, let me see. Goat f*ucking:

· It is offensive

· It is AGAINST GOD

· It isn't man and woman

· It isn't natural

· Think of the diseases!

Haven't I already seen those arguments previously shot down in flames?


You forgot "It's not consensual". Now don't you feel like the idiot you are?
 
2012-09-19 02:21:36 PM  

Theaetetus: Nope, doesn't work. You can't replace that argument, since the state denies everyone the right to use heroin. Accordingly, gender is not an issue in heroin-legality.
If it was, I'd agree... But it's not, hence you're wrong.


Not all chemicals are illegal, certain chemical forms are illegal. The argument is valid.

ciberido: But this, this is different. He's seen the evidence, he knows it exist, and now he's brazenly trying to pretend it doesn't.


You sound especially angry today.. and your links are irrelevant.
 
2012-09-19 02:22:32 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: So thinking we dont need a great twisted knot of rights and social expectations that come as an inexplicable package deal being doled out by the government to whom it sees fit and denied to whom it sees fit...


So, you are saying "its weird that we tie up all these rights into a convoluted government bureaucracy"? A second ago, you were saying it wasn't you. Make up your mind. Or is this an alt and you're getting confused?
 
2012-09-19 02:24:02 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Theaetetus: Nope, doesn't work. You can't replace that argument, since the state denies everyone the right to use heroin. Accordingly, gender is not an issue in heroin-legality.
If it was, I'd agree... But it's not, hence you're wrong.

Not all chemicals are illegal, certain chemical forms are illegal. The argument is valid.


"Chemical composition", unlike "gender," is not a quasi-suspect class. The argument is invalid.

/not to mention that chemicals don't have rights.
 
2012-09-19 02:25:11 PM  

Joe Blowme: I drunk what: Joe Blowme: u sound racist

did you just disagree with me?? your racist

NO YOU!


that's it! first i'm going to boycott some chicken, after that i'm going to torch an embassy
 
2012-09-19 02:27:16 PM  
TheaetetusYou know, the old "I'm rubber, you're glue" thing wasn't even funny when we were six years old. Now, it's just pitiful.

Theaetetus Yes, you are.

Lol
 
2012-09-19 02:27:38 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: You forgot "It's not consensual".


are animals capable of consent?
 
2012-09-19 02:32:37 PM  

Theaetetus: "Chemical composition", unlike "gender," is not a quasi-suspect class. The argument is invalid.

/not to mention that chemicals don't have rights.


Marriage doesn't have rights either....
 
2012-09-19 02:37:38 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Theaetetus: "Chemical composition", unlike "gender," is not a quasi-suspect class. The argument is invalid.

/not to mention that chemicals don't have rights.

Marriage doesn't have rights either....


If you respond to the point in the post, rather than the snarky slash comment pointing out your grammatical error, you might actually address the issue.
 
2012-09-19 02:38:53 PM  

Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: So thinking we dont need a great twisted knot of rights and social expectations that come as an inexplicable package deal being doled out by the government to whom it sees fit and denied to whom it sees fit...

So, you are saying "its weird that we tie up all these rights into a convoluted government bureaucracy"? A second ago, you were saying it wasn't you. Make up your mind. Or is this an alt and you're getting confused?


Yes I am, that just has nothing to do with some sort of babble about weather or not the government ought to enforce property rights that spilled out of your mouth between the drool bubbles.
 
2012-09-19 02:44:24 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Theaetetus: Holocaust Agnostic: So thinking we dont need a great twisted knot of rights and social expectations that come as an inexplicable package deal being doled out by the government to whom it sees fit and denied to whom it sees fit...

So, you are saying "its weird that we tie up all these rights into a convoluted government bureaucracy"? A second ago, you were saying it wasn't you. Make up your mind. Or is this an alt and you're getting confused?

Yes I am


If you had admitted that originally, we could have avoided three posts of back and forth.

that just has nothing to do with some sort of babble about weather or not the government ought to enforce property rights that spilled out of your mouth between the drool bubbles.

Property rights are the primary purpose of marriage. Welcome to several hundred years ago.
 
2012-09-19 02:44:53 PM  

Theaetetus: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Theaetetus: "Chemical composition", unlike "gender," is not a quasi-suspect class. The argument is invalid.

/not to mention that chemicals don't have rights.

Marriage doesn't have rights either....

If you respond to the point in the post, rather than the snarky slash comment pointing out your grammatical error, you might actually address the issue.


Are you having a stroke? You seem to have less and less of an idea what people are talking about the longer the thread gets, and your replies demonstrate that fact.
 
2012-09-19 02:48:34 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Theaetetus: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Theaetetus: "Chemical composition", unlike "gender," is not a quasi-suspect class. The argument is invalid.

/not to mention that chemicals don't have rights.

Marriage doesn't have rights either....

If you respond to the point in the post, rather than the snarky slash comment pointing out your grammatical error, you might actually address the issue.

Are you having a stroke? You seem to have less and less of an idea what people are talking about the longer the thread gets, and your replies demonstrate that fact.


Ready?
Argument: "Chemical composition", unlike "gender," is not a quasi-suspect class. The argument is invalid.
Good. Now your turn:
Rebuttal: _____________
 
2012-09-19 02:50:20 PM  
ciberido: Legally speaking that "stamp of approval" carries a huge amount of weight. There are many stories of gay couples who suffered (financially, emotionally, otherwise, or all of the above) because they were not allowed to be married. Just to name one, not being allowed to visit one's partner in the hospital.

Holocaust Agnostic: "its weird that we tie up all these rights into a convoluted government bureaucracy"

"But without the bureaucracy we can't have those rights!"

 

Ok, fine, just to make things simple we'll stick with a single issue to start with. What's your solution to the issue of hospital visitation rights, and how exactly is it simpler than marriage (which requires $25, a form, and a three-day waiting period).

If you have a better solution for that, we can move on to the 1,137 OTHER issues.
 
2012-09-19 02:52:09 PM  

Theaetetus: Joe Blowme: Theaetetus: Theaetetus: Joe Blowme: That three people in a polygamous relationship are not equal in quantity to two people in a monogamous relationship?

But they are doing it for parental rights so why not marrage?
Link

Why do you think their intent changes "three" to "two"?????

Also, no, they aren't... Your link has nothing to do with marriage. That's about parental rights. This may come as a revelation to you, but it's possible for people to be married but not have children, and it's also possible for people to have children and (gasp) not be married!
If you need to sit for a moment and catch your breath, I understand.

WTF? I said it was about parental rights.

"But they are doing it for parental rights so why not marrage?"

Marriage and parental rights have no relationship. Your question is equivalent to "but they are doing it for parental rights, so why not a spaceship?" I was assuming, perhaps in error, that you weren't a total idiot but were actually implying some connection between the two. Was I wrong?

It relates as to how much say each person gets in a multi (more than 2) parent situation. Like what rights each individual can have in a poly- situation. Just stating it can be done.

And how is it being done? Is it by a legislative act? The way I've been saying that polygamy would have to be legalized?
Great. Thanks for proving my point.

Not sure why you are hyperventilating, maybe a nap will do you good.

You know, the old "I'm rubber, you're glue" thing wasn't even funny when we were six years old. Now, it's just pitiful.


1. if you really believe "Marriage and parental rights have no relationship" you are dumb
2. You fired the first 6 year old comment so its precious you call me on it.
3. You had a point? I though you were just ranting
 
2012-09-19 02:52:48 PM  
ciberido: But this, this is different. He's seen the evidence, he knows it exist, and now he's brazenly trying to pretend it doesn't.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: You sound especially angry today.. and your links are irrelevant.


i0.kym-cdn.com

Seriously, get help. You're slipping.
 
2012-09-19 02:53:29 PM  

I drunk what: Joe Blowme: I drunk what: Joe Blowme: u sound racist

did you just disagree with me?? your racist

NO YOU!

that's it! first i'm going to boycott some chicken, after that i'm going to torch an embassy


What the hell did the chicken do to earn your ire? Do you klnow what they do to those chickens? Neither do i but its delicious
 
2012-09-19 02:54:59 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: And groups of people who love each other are worth less (or more...?) than pairs of people who love each other because?


because it's icky, now stop talking about them and pay attention to me!
 
2012-09-19 02:55:57 PM  

ciberido: ciberido: Legally speaking that "stamp of approval" carries a huge amount of weight. There are many stories of gay couples who suffered (financially, emotionally, otherwise, or all of the above) because they were not allowed to be married. Just to name one, not being allowed to visit one's partner in the hospital.

Holocaust Agnostic: "its weird that we tie up all these rights into a convoluted government bureaucracy"

"But without the bureaucracy we can't have those rights!" 

Ok, fine, just to make things simple we'll stick with a single issue to start with. What's your solution to the issue of hospital visitation rights, and how exactly is it simpler than marriage (which requires $25, a form, and a three-day waiting period).

If you have a better solution for that, we can move on to the 1,137 OTHER issues.


"Hey doc, let that guy in"
 
2012-09-19 02:57:42 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: ciberido: ciberido: Legally speaking that "stamp of approval" carries a huge amount of weight. There are many stories of gay couples who suffered (financially, emotionally, otherwise, or all of the above) because they were not allowed to be married. Just to name one, not being allowed to visit one's partner in the hospital.

Holocaust Agnostic: "its weird that we tie up all these rights into a convoluted government bureaucracy"

"But without the bureaucracy we can't have those rights!" 

Ok, fine, just to make things simple we'll stick with a single issue to start with. What's your solution to the issue of hospital visitation rights, and how exactly is it simpler than marriage (which requires $25, a form, and a three-day waiting period).

If you have a better solution for that, we can move on to the 1,137 OTHER issues.

"Hey doc, let that guy in"


You can say that if you're in a coma? If you're on the operating table undergoing open-heart surgery?
 
2012-09-19 02:59:45 PM  

Joe Blowme: I drunk what: Joe Blowme: I drunk what: Joe Blowme: u sound racist

did you just disagree with me?? your racist

NO YOU!

that's it! first i'm going to boycott some chicken, after that i'm going to torch an embassy

What the hell did the chicken do to earn your ire? Do you klnow what they do to those chickens? Neither do i but its delicious


it's the principle, not the chicken, chicken chefs disagreed with me therefore they are racists and deserve to be boycotted

besides if people actually knew how tasty chicken, that has been farked repeatedly-endlessly for eons now, is? it would probably cause business to increase!
 
2012-09-19 03:01:19 PM  

gerbilpox: BronyMedic: miss diminutive: Totally. Like when women got the right to vote, the next step was that sheep got the vote. Followed by dogs, flying squirrels, snails, and so on.

You're right!

If only more people would realize that women need to be kept chained up in the back yard kitchen or bedroom, and occasionally fed and watered, the world would be a better place.

FTFY

[fc08.deviantart.net image 153x205]

Now beg, Dog.

That's supposed to be a dog? Looks more like a pussy to me.

/catsuits are hawt
//only need the hides of about a dozen to make one


No, it is not supposed to be a dog. It is supposed to a catting who is telling the dog to beg.
 
2012-09-19 03:02:06 PM  
catting? What in all of Hades were my fingers doing? It was supposed to just say, "cat."
 
2012-09-19 03:13:52 PM  

Silverstaff: The anti-gay marriage arguments of a lot of religious types are very amusing, and very poorly constructed


i'm your huckleberry

would you like to begin with this thread in general or just your post for starters?
 
2012-09-19 03:15:50 PM  

I drunk what: Joe Blowme: I drunk what: Joe Blowme: I drunk what: Joe Blowme: u sound racist

did you just disagree with me?? your racist

NO YOU!

that's it! first i'm going to boycott some chicken, after that i'm going to torch an embassy

What the hell did the chicken do to earn your ire? Do you klnow what they do to those chickens? Neither do i but its delicious

it's the principle, not the chicken, chicken chefs disagreed with me therefore they are racists and deserve to be boycotted

besides if people actually knew how tasty chicken, that has been farked repeatedly-endlessly for eons now, is? it would probably cause business to increase!


Frankenstein never scared me
 
Displayed 50 of 290 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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