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.

(WXYZ Detroit)   Michigan's first gay marriage happens today. On an Indian reservation. Under tribal law   (wxyz.com) divider line 119
    More: Interesting, Michigan, Petoskey, tribal law  
•       •       •

3787 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Mar 2013 at 3:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-15 02:10:07 PM
I thought tribes were sovereign states.

Why would Michigan laws apply?
 
2013-03-15 02:37:09 PM
Tim and Gene both served 18 years in the U.S. Navy and believe they fought for everyone else's rights and freedom and now they want the same rights.

Hear hear!
 
2013-03-15 02:48:07 PM
Two sailors, one of whom is an Indian? Where's the cop, construction worker, and cowboy?
 
2013-03-15 02:52:09 PM
Tribal law will keep their marriage safe from a 2004 Michigan constitutional amendment.

It's also safe from the federal Defense of Marriage Act which is in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.



Not so. DoMA, Clause 2, which  isn't in front of SCOTUS at the moment:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.


That clause of DoMA specifically means that their marriage may be ignored by other states, regardless of their tribal law.
 
2013-03-15 03:00:56 PM

Walker: Tim and Gene both served 18 years in the U.S. Navy and believe they fought for everyone else's rights and freedom and now they want the same rights.

Hear hear!


Somehow, this is the only comment I see in here, so at least that's worth agreeing with.
 
2013-03-15 03:27:05 PM

serial_crusher: I have generally held


And what governmental office do you hold that your opinion about this matters to anyone except you?
 
2013-03-15 03:31:46 PM

Theaetetus: serial_crusher: I have generally held

And what governmental office do you hold that your opinion about this matters to anyone except you?


sorry, I should have used the word "thought", not "held".  I'm not saying everybody should apply the same standards I do... I just thought there were actual standards, and that I would get in trouble for violating them.

I hadn't heard about the Elizabeth Warren controversy until this thread, but it has enlightened me that I'm entitled to check that box.
 
2013-03-15 03:44:14 PM

serial_crusher: I just thought there were actual standards, and that I would get in trouble for violating them.


You really thought you'd "get in trouble" for attending a school club if you didn't have enough of the proper ancestry? Like you'd go to the Chinese-American Student Dance and someone would arrest you?
 
2013-03-15 03:45:28 PM
no take backs
 
2013-03-15 03:46:51 PM
I just came by to say...congratulations.
i1222.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-15 03:47:13 PM
Wellp, time to get that emergency manager up there to take over Soaring Eagle...

/No, really, I'm pretty sure that Rick Snyder is thinking up ways to get his emergency manager into tribal lands.
 
2013-03-15 03:48:59 PM
How?
 
2013-03-15 03:49:39 PM

Theaetetus: That clause of DoMA specifically means that their marriage may be ignored by other states, regardless of their tribal law.


Well hell, then they need to move to another state and then sue because thats a clear violation of the 14th
 
2013-03-15 03:50:06 PM
upload.wikimedia.org


There is no shame in two spirts. They succeed as women hey do not fail as men.
 
2013-03-15 03:50:17 PM
They smoke'm peace pole.
 
2013-03-15 03:50:49 PM
FABULOUS wallpaper there boys.
 
2013-03-15 03:51:02 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Theaetetus: That clause of DoMA specifically means that their marriage may be ignored by other states, regardless of their tribal law.

Well hell, then they need to move to another state and then sue because thats a clear violation of the 14th


I'm pretty sure that one of the two reasons why it's in court right now.

/Can't wait to hear the arguments on that case
 
2013-03-15 03:52:15 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Theaetetus: That clause of DoMA specifically means that their marriage may be ignored by other states, regardless of their tribal law.

Well hell, then they need to move to another state and then sue because thats a clear violation of the 14th


Ive heard of people who simply want to live their llives rather than being test cases for lawsuits.


NTTAWWT
 
2013-03-15 03:53:17 PM
Everyone should send blankets.
 
2013-03-15 03:53:26 PM
Defraud the Pale Faces in 4 simple steps:

1) Advertise that you've "Legalized" gay marriage on your reservation
2) Do not inform the roundeyes that changing jurisdictions specifically for marriage purposes defeats marriages, or that DOMA makes the marriages a nullity
3) Charge exorbitant "Western Sky" type fees
4) Hi how are ya, Hi how are ya
 
2013-03-15 03:53:28 PM
"Do you, Pale Face, agree to let Tonto shoot his arrow up your ass twice a week?"

And for all the ladies out there who are pro-gay marriage: Do you let your boyfriend/husband shove it up your ass?  Probably not.  And why?  Because it hurts, it's disgusting, and it's not something you'd ever stoop to doing.  Well, that's pretty much the difference between regular marriage and gay marriage.  The love is the same, except there's a lot more butt farking.  Is that something you can really get behind?  A bunch of dirty, shiat sticking?

You probably haven't thought that far...
 
2013-03-15 03:53:56 PM

Theaetetus: Tribal law will keep their marriage safe from a 2004 Michigan constitutional amendment.

It's also safe from the federal Defense of Marriage Act which is in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.


Not so. DoMA, Clause 2, which  isn't in front of SCOTUS at the moment:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.


That clause of DoMA specifically means that their marriage may be ignored by other states, regardless of their tribal law.


While section 2 is not currently up for review by SCOTUS, assuming that the section that IS up for review is struck down, the next question that will likely arise will be the 'severability' of the law as a whole - i.e., can the other sections be rationally enforced when other portions of the law have been removed?
 
2013-03-15 03:54:57 PM

spentmiles: "Do you, Pale Face, agree to let Tonto shoot his arrow up your ass twice a week?"

And for all the ladies out there who are pro-gay marriage: Do you let your boyfriend/husband shove it up your ass?  Probably not.  And why?  Because it hurts, it's disgusting, and it's not something you'd ever stoop to doing.  Well, that's pretty much the difference between regular marriage and gay marriage.  The love is the same, except there's a lot more butt farking.  Is that something you can really get behind?  A bunch of dirty, shiat sticking?

You probably haven't thought that far...


Well, you've sure as hell spent a long time thinking about it.
 
2013-03-15 03:56:21 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-15 03:56:38 PM

spentmiles: "Do you, Pale Face, agree to let Tonto shoot his arrow up your ass twice a week?"

And for all the ladies out there who are pro-gay marriage: Do you let your boyfriend/husband shove it up your ass?  Probably not.  And why?  Because it hurts, it's disgusting, and it's not something you'd ever stoop to doing.  Well, that's pretty much the difference between regular marriage and gay marriage.  The love is the same, except there's a lot more butt farking.  Is that something you can really get behind?  A bunch of dirty, shiat sticking?

You probably haven't thought that far...


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-15 03:57:04 PM

spentmiles: And for all the ladies out there who are pro-gay marriage: Do you let your boyfriend/husband shove it up your ass?  Probably not.  And why?  Because it hurts, it's disgusting, and it's not something you'd ever stoop to doing.  Well, that's pretty much the difference between regular marriage and gay marriage.  The love is the same, except there's a lot more butt farking.  Is that something you can really get behind?  A bunch of dirty, shiat sticking?


I would think they'd have to stoop at least a little...
 
2013-03-15 03:58:06 PM

Theaetetus: serial_crusher: I just thought there were actual standards, and that I would get in trouble for violating them.

You really thought you'd "get in trouble" for attending a school club if you didn't have enough of the proper ancestry? Like you'd go to the Chinese-American Student Dance and someone would arrest you?


well if I marked it on my application forms and got accepted to school so I could fill a quota, that might have turned out badly for me if they found out I "lied".  Ever see the movie Soul Man?
 
2013-03-15 03:58:25 PM

spentmiles: "Do you, Pale Face, agree to let Tonto shoot his arrow up your ass twice a week?"

And for all the ladies out there who are pro-gay marriage: Do you let your boyfriend/husband shove it up your ass?  Probably not.  And why?  Because it hurts, it's disgusting, and it's not something you'd ever stoop to doing.  Well, that's pretty much the difference between regular marriage and gay marriage.  The love is the same, except there's a lot more butt farking.  Is that something you can really get behind?  A bunch of dirty, shiat sticking?

You probably haven't thought that far...


Then you should be all for it. Every one of my stright friends say they stopped haveing sex 2 weeks after the marriage
 
2013-03-15 04:02:26 PM
I wonder if straights made a pact with gays, this whole controversy would go away:

Gays promise to engage in and ONLY in oral sex (as hetero couples do)
Straight people and the church would probably be inclined to back off

/isn't butfarking the real issue people have with the gays?
 
2013-03-15 04:03:04 PM
Reception being held at the casino?
 
2013-03-15 04:04:12 PM

spentmiles: "Do you, Pale Face, agree to let Tonto shoot his arrow up your ass twice a week?"

And for all the ladies out there who are pro-gay marriage: Do you let your boyfriend/husband shove it up your ass?  Probably not.  And why?  Because it hurts, it's disgusting, and it's not something you'd ever stoop to doing.  Well, that's pretty much the difference between regular marriage and gay marriage.  The love is the same, except there's a lot more butt farking.  Is that something you can really get behind?  A bunch of dirty, shiat sticking?

You probably haven't thought that far...


i141.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-15 04:04:37 PM

xaratherus: While section 2 is not currently up for review by SCOTUS, assuming that the section that IS up for review is struck down, the next question that will likely arise will be the 'severability' of the law as a whole - i.e., can the other sections be rationally enforced when other portions of the law have been removed?


Highly unlikely that they will sever it if struck, but as I pointed out section 2 is clearly a violation and would in all likely hood kill the entire thing.

Reverend J: I'm pretty sure that one of the two reasons why it's in court right now.


For section 1 yes, not 2

mikaloyd: Ive heard of people who simply want to live their llives rather than being test cases for lawsuits.


Well whats the fun in that
 
2013-03-15 04:06:18 PM

another cultural observer: Defraud the Pale Faces in 4 simple steps:

1) Advertise that you've "Legalized" gay marriage on your reservation
2) Do not inform the roundeyes that changing jurisdictions specifically for marriage purposes defeats marriages, or that DOMA makes the marriages a nullity
3) Charge exorbitant "Western Sky" type fees
4) Hi how are ya, Hi how are ya


It sounds like for  gay Michiganders, getting married by an official of this tribe would be no more or less effective than getting married in Massachusetts--but a much shorter drive.

On the other hand, they may only be doing this for members of their tribe in the first place, in which case this will only apply to a very few people.
 
2013-03-15 04:06:27 PM

spentmiles: "Do you, Pale Face, agree to let Tonto shoot his arrow up your ass twice a week?"

And for all the ladies out there who are pro-gay marriage: Do you let your boyfriend/husband shove it up your ass?  Probably not.  And why?  Because it hurts, it's disgusting, and it's not something you'd ever stoop to doing.  Well, that's pretty much the difference between regular marriage and gay marriage.  The love is the same, except there's a lot more butt farking.  Is that something you can really get behind?  A bunch of dirty, shiat sticking?

You probably haven't thought that far...


Sounds like that is the way you were conceived.
 
2013-03-15 04:07:15 PM

Reverend J: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Theaetetus: That clause of DoMA specifically means that their marriage may be ignored by other states, regardless of their tribal law.

Well hell, then they need to move to another state and then sue because thats a clear violation of the 14th

I'm pretty sure that one of the two reasons why it's in court right now.

/Can't wait to hear the arguments on that case


Unfortunately, it's not a violation of the 14th, and is also not in court over that clause. That clause is specifically about the Full Faith & Credit clause, which explicitly gives Congress the power to dictate what effect acts have in other states... In DoMA, they said "no effect", which is arguably within their power.

xaratherus: While section 2 is not currently up for review by SCOTUS, assuming that the section that IS up for review is struck down, the next question that will likely arise will be the 'severability' of the law as a whole - i.e., can the other sections be rationally enforced when other portions of the law have been removed?


Interestingly (and somewhat shockingly, so much so that I had to double check different sources), there's no severability clause in DoMA. I'd be somewhat surprised if SCOTUS reads one in, but, honestly, not terribly surprised, since it would give them an easy halfway position.
 
2013-03-15 04:08:27 PM
Hmmmmm!  I think that Spentmiles and Santorum have more than just politics in common.
 
2013-03-15 04:08:59 PM
That didn't happen at Soaring Eagle.  That was Turtle Creek I would imagine.
 
2013-03-15 04:11:26 PM

spentmiles: "Do you, Pale Face, agree to let Tonto shoot his arrow up your ass twice a week?"

And for all the ladies out there who are pro-gay marriage: Do you let your boyfriend/husband shove it up your ass?  Probably not.  And why?  Because it hurts, it's disgusting, and it's not something you'd ever stoop to doing.  Well, that's pretty much the difference between regular marriage and gay marriage.  The love is the same, except there's a lot more butt farking.  Is that something you can really get behind?  A bunch of dirty, shiat sticking?

You probably haven't thought that far...


First, source:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

Excerpt: "...36% of women and 44% of men ever had anal sex with an opposite-sex partner "

Just to crunch the numbers: In 2008 (when the study was concluded) the United States' population was 305 million. As a high-end estimate, it's thought that roughly 3% of the population is homosexual, so that would be just over 9 million; figure that about 60% of those are male, that's 5 million gay men. Let's say that  all of them have anal sex (which is inaccurate; not all gay men like anal).

Now based on the CDC study, that would be 44% of heterosexual (or possibly bisexual) men having anal sex - or just over 1.3 billion.

This is why it's so mind-mindbogglingly stupid to refer to anal sex as "gay sex", because based solely on numbers, there are  far more heterosexuals having anal sex than there even  are gay people.
 
2013-03-15 04:11:37 PM

Theaetetus: Interestingly (and somewhat shockingly, so much so that I had to double check different sources), there's no severability clause in DoMA. I'd be somewhat surprised if SCOTUS reads one in, but, honestly, not terribly surprised, since it would give them an easy halfway position.


I was shocked by that as well, but like you also think there a small sliver of chance they could read one in.

On the non violation of 14th by section 2 however, despite having that power as part of the full faith and credit clause the door swings both ways at a state level. MI for instance should easily hold validity of marriage lisc in states that have legalized it. Hence forth, its a clear violation of the 14th no more than when states passed laws banning interracial marriage during the civil rights era.
 
2013-03-15 04:13:03 PM

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: I just thought there were actual standards, and that I would get in trouble for violating them.

You really thought you'd "get in trouble" for attending a school club if you didn't have enough of the proper ancestry? Like you'd go to the Chinese-American Student Dance and someone would arrest you?

well if I marked it on my application forms and got accepted to school so I could fill a quota, that might have turned out badly for me if they found out I "lied".


Do you have any evidence that either of those happened in Warren's case? Because, apparently she was recruited and didn't apply, and "Charles Fried, the head of the Harvard appointing committee that recommended Warren for her position in 1995, [said] that the Democratic candidate's heritage didn't come up during the course of her hiring. "It simply played no role in the appointments process," he said. "It was not mentioned and I didn't mention it to the faculty.""
 
2013-03-15 04:13:40 PM
 Remember way back when the first gay marriages happened? Remember how we were all told
that it was the end of us all?  Well...It has now been YEARS since then...The world is still turning..
the sun is still shining, and crazy is still crazy
 
2013-03-15 04:13:54 PM
What a gay Indian may look like:

media.tumblr.com

//Hell is hot.
///Like my links.
////Which is hot.
 
2013-03-15 04:16:22 PM
 
2013-03-15 04:18:23 PM

xaratherus: spentmiles: "Do you, Pale Face, agree to let Tonto shoot his arrow up your ass twice a week?"

And for all the ladies out there who are pro-gay marriage: Do you let your boyfriend/husband shove it up your ass?  Probably not.  And why?  Because it hurts, it's disgusting, and it's not something you'd ever stoop to doing.  Well, that's pretty much the difference between regular marriage and gay marriage.  The love is the same, except there's a lot more butt farking.  Is that something you can really get behind?  A bunch of dirty, shiat sticking?

You probably haven't thought that far...

First, source:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

Excerpt: "...36% of women and 44% of men ever had anal sex with an opposite-sex partner "

Just to crunch the numbers: In 2008 (when the study was concluded) the United States' population was 305 million. As a high-end estimate, it's thought that roughly 3% of the population is homosexual, so that would be just over 9 million; figure that about 60% of those are male, that's 5 million gay men. Let's say that  all of them have anal sex (which is inaccurate; not all gay men like anal).

Now based on the CDC study, that would be 44% of heterosexual (or possibly bisexual) men having anal sex - or just over 1.3 billion.

This is why it's so mind-mindbogglingly stupid to refer to anal sex as "gay sex", because based solely on numbers, there are  far more heterosexuals having anal sex than there even  are gay people.


I tried heroin once.  Does that make me a heroin user?

Any my ninth grade girlfriend let me put the tip in her shiat-puker once.  Does that make me an active diaper wiper?

Everyone is entitled to try something once, to make a mistake.  It becomes inexcusable when unsanitary behavior becomes compulsive to the point of redefining marriage so as to include the abhorrent in a beautiful custom.  It's akin to repealing the "Employees must wash hands after using the bathroom" laws.  You may like a healthy dose of shiat in your soup, but the majority of people aren't interested.  Take your deviance back underground.

Is it really all that natural if it requires a quart of lube?  Sounds more like a rape to me.
 
2013-03-15 04:20:09 PM

Theaetetus: serial_crusher: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: I just thought there were actual standards, and that I would get in trouble for violating them.

You really thought you'd "get in trouble" for attending a school club if you didn't have enough of the proper ancestry? Like you'd go to the Chinese-American Student Dance and someone would arrest you?

well if I marked it on my application forms and got accepted to school so I could fill a quota, that might have turned out badly for me if they found out I "lied".

Do you have any evidence that either of those happened in Warren's case? Because, apparently she was recruited and didn't apply, and "Charles Fried, the head of the Harvard appointing committee that recommended Warren for her position in 1995, [said] that the Democratic candidate's heritage didn't come up during the course of her hiring. "It simply played no role in the appointments process," he said. "It was not mentioned and I didn't mention it to the faculty.""


Well, I can't be sure every time I check a box, whether or not I'll benefit from it.  Either it's always ok for me and Warren to check the box or it's always wrong for us to check the box.  How other people use it is out of our control.
 
2013-03-15 04:21:01 PM

spentmiles: Sounds more like a rape to me.


Well since that occurs in the wild, rape is obviously a natural thing. I mean women have shiat that can shut things down too, so there that also.
 
2013-03-15 04:25:16 PM

serial_crusher: Well, I can't be sure every time I check a box, whether or not I'll benefit from it.  Either it's always ok for me and Warren to check the box or it's always wrong for us to check the box.


What box? She was recruited. She didn't fill out an application or check a box.
 
2013-03-15 04:25:51 PM
A'ight, back on topic. Sorry, mods.
 
2013-03-15 04:26:32 PM

spentmiles: xaratherus: spentmiles: "Do you, Pale Face, agree to let Tonto shoot his arrow up your ass twice a week?"

And for all the ladies out there who are pro-gay marriage: Do you let your boyfriend/husband shove it up your ass?  Probably not.  And why?  Because it hurts, it's disgusting, and it's not something you'd ever stoop to doing.  Well, that's pretty much the difference between regular marriage and gay marriage.  The love is the same, except there's a lot more butt farking.  Is that something you can really get behind?  A bunch of dirty, shiat sticking?

You probably haven't thought that far...

First, source:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

Excerpt: "...36% of women and 44% of men ever had anal sex with an opposite-sex partner "

Just to crunch the numbers: In 2008 (when the study was concluded) the United States' population was 305 million. As a high-end estimate, it's thought that roughly 3% of the population is homosexual, so that would be just over 9 million; figure that about 60% of those are male, that's 5 million gay men. Let's say that  all of them have anal sex (which is inaccurate; not all gay men like anal).

Now based on the CDC study, that would be 44% of heterosexual (or possibly bisexual) men having anal sex - or just over 1.3 billion.

This is why it's so mind-mindbogglingly stupid to refer to anal sex as "gay sex", because based solely on numbers, there are  far more heterosexuals having anal sex than there even  are gay people.

I tried heroin once.  Does that make me a heroin user?

Any my ninth grade girlfriend let me put the tip in her shiat-puker once.  Does that make me an active diaper wiper?

Everyone is entitled to try something once, to make a mistake.  It becomes inexcusable when unsanitary behavior becomes compulsive to the point of redefining marriage so as to include the abhorrent in a beautiful custom.  It's akin to repealing the "Employees must wash hands after using the bathroom" laws.  You may like a healthy dose ...


Feel free to read the source document. It goes on to state that somewhere around 10%+ of those heterosexual males engage in it on a 'regular basis'. Which is still more straight people having anal sex than there are even homosexuals that exist.

Anal sex - in fact, sex in general, since there's no legal requirement in the United States that a married couple even  have sex - has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage, but please, continue to pretend like it does. Your petulant cries of "waaaaaah hide your deviance" make me chuckle.

Like all (apparent) anti-gays, your vapid arguments of "yuck, I don't like it" are so easy to dismantle.
 
2013-03-15 04:27:55 PM

xaratherus: Feel free to read the source document. It goes on to state that somewhere around 10%+ of those heterosexual males engage in it on a 'regular basis'. Which is still more straight people having anal sex than there are even homosexuals that exist.


Given those statistics and population sizes, I wonder what the ratio of heterosexual men who engage in pegging to gay men is.
 
2013-03-15 04:29:42 PM

Theaetetus: Given those statistics and population sizes, I wonder what the ratio of heterosexual men who engage in pegging to gay men is.


Man I love Google Trends
 
2013-03-15 04:30:46 PM

Theaetetus: Two sailors, one of whom is an Indian? Where's the cop, construction worker, and cowboy?


At the Y....MCA.
 
2013-03-15 04:32:04 PM

Theaetetus: xaratherus: Feel free to read the source document. It goes on to state that somewhere around 10%+ of those heterosexual males engage in it on a 'regular basis'. Which is still more straight people having anal sex than there are even homosexuals that exist.

Given those statistics and population sizes, I wonder what the ratio of heterosexual men who engage in pegging to gay men is.


It would be an interesting study, I'm sure; given that there is a growing market of internal prostate stimulators directed at heterosexual men, the taboo against "the P-spot" is declining.

I find it humorous that people make such a huge deal about the cleanliness of anal sex. You prep for it - just like I know many heterosexual women who clean their va-JJs before engaging in sex because without proper maintenance, any orifice can get nasty.
 
2013-03-15 04:32:36 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Theaetetus: Given those statistics and population sizes, I wonder what the ratio of heterosexual men who engage in pegging to gay men is.

Man I love Google Trends


I'm not saying this is a bookmark. It's more like me bending a page over.
 
2013-03-15 04:34:49 PM

Dr._Michael_Hfuhruhurr: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Theaetetus: Given those statistics and population sizes, I wonder what the ratio of heterosexual men who engage in pegging to gay men is.

Man I love Google Trends

I'm not saying this is a bookmark. It's more like me bending a page over.


www.projectqatlanta.com
Hey-o!
 
2013-03-15 04:35:44 PM

xaratherus: This is why it's so mind-mindbogglingly stupid to refer to anal sex as "gay sex", because based solely on numbers, there are far more heterosexuals having anal sex than there even are gay people.


Anything in there about frequency7 of buttfu(king?


Your nmbers suggest that there is an equal amount of continued fudge packing between gay and straight butt fu(kers after the initial experience.This seems unlikely since there are fewer orifices (orifi?) for gay butt fu(kers to fu(k. Even if they dont care for taking the hershey highway that much there just is not a vaginal thoroughfare there for them to fu(k. Its butt fu(king or no fu(king, only blow jobs. I guess if their partner is ft they could try moob titty fu(king. But options are limited really.
 
2013-03-15 04:35:55 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Theaetetus: Given those statistics and population sizes, I wonder what the ratio of heterosexual men who engage in pegging to gay men is.

Man I love Google Trends


Lol... Pakistan is a surprising high entry.
 
2013-03-15 04:36:24 PM
But how stiff where their totem poles?

farm7.staticflickr.com
 
2013-03-15 04:36:49 PM
I think Mika needs a new keyboard.
 
2013-03-15 04:37:16 PM

Theaetetus: Lol... Pakistan is a surprising high entry.


Well, they are getting farked in the ass by the US on a constant basis..might as well enjoy it right?

Dr._Michael_Hfuhruhurr: I'm not saying this is a bookmark. It's more like me bending a page over.


*golf clap
 
2013-03-15 04:38:09 PM

ModernLuddite: What a gay Indian may look like:



//Hell is hot.
///Like my links.
////Which is hot.


Persian, actually.

/Bismillah!
 
2013-03-15 04:38:59 PM

trappedspirit: spentmiles: "Do you, Pale Face, agree to let Tonto shoot his arrow up your ass twice a week?"

And for all the ladies out there who are pro-gay marriage: Do you let your boyfriend/husband shove it up your ass?  Probably not.  And why?  Because it hurts, it's disgusting, and it's not something you'd ever stoop to doing.  Well, that's pretty much the difference between regular marriage and gay marriage.  The love is the same, except there's a lot more butt farking.  Is that something you can really get behind?  A bunch of dirty, shiat sticking?

You probably haven't thought that far...

[i141.photobucket.com image 440x356]


While you're downing Columbus, remember that Native American tribes engage in every single form of warfare and atrocity that the "round eyes" did, but to hear some people talk about it, every was just sunshine, unicorns, rainbows, and at night everyone laid around the camp fire together and thanked the land just for being itself up until 1492.

/also, if someone wants to play rump ranger in their spare time, I could care less so long as they aren't trying to play rump ranger with me
 
2013-03-15 04:39:23 PM

Theaetetus: serial_crusher: Well, I can't be sure every time I check a box, whether or not I'll benefit from it.  Either it's always ok for me and Warren to check the box or it's always wrong for us to check the box.

What box? She was recruited. She didn't fill out an application or check a box.


These are some crazy moving goalposts here.  I have no idea what's going on in this thread anymore.

/ As far as boxes that Elizabeth Warren may or may not have checked, aren't there IRS forms (particularly for EEOs like Harvard University) that ask whether or not you're a Native American?  IIRC you're not required to answer those though, so maybe she didn't.
 
2013-03-15 04:46:45 PM

Theaetetus: I think Mika needs a new keyboard.


I really do. This bastard almost needs hammer blows to type letters. Problem is its only a month old and I cant justify buying another new one yet. FARK YOU HEWLETT PACKARD KEYBOARD
 
2013-03-15 04:47:46 PM

Theaetetus: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Theaetetus: Given those statistics and population sizes, I wonder what the ratio of heterosexual men who engage in pegging to gay men is.

Man I love Google Trends

Lol... Pakistan is a surprising high entry.


this thread is awesome
 
2013-03-15 04:58:51 PM

xaratherus: Theaetetus: xaratherus: Feel free to read the source document. It goes on to state that somewhere around 10%+ of those heterosexual males engage in it on a 'regular basis'. Which is still more straight people having anal sex than there are even homosexuals that exist.

Given those statistics and population sizes, I wonder what the ratio of heterosexual men who engage in pegging to gay men is.

It would be an interesting study, I'm sure; given that there is a growing market of internal prostate stimulators directed at heterosexual men, the taboo against "the P-spot" is declining.

I find it humorous that people make such a huge deal about the cleanliness of anal sex. You prep for it - just like I know many heterosexual women who clean their va-JJs before engaging in sex because without proper maintenance, any orifice can get nasty.


I like buttsecks as much as the next queer, but won't besmirch vaginas to make a point.  A healthy vagina does not need douching.  Technically, if you're regular enough, your butt doesn't either.  But one orifice is regularly unclean and the other is not (OK, forgetting menstruation).

My point is, hetero dudes should learn to love the taste and smell of a natural, healthy vadge.
 
2013-03-15 04:59:48 PM
Wow, looks like spentmiles is getting a little action today...
 
2013-03-15 05:22:01 PM
Awww yissss, way to cleverly work around the state's absurd anti-gay marriage laws!

/gay
//lifelong Michigander
///the homophobes in this thread seem awfully obsessed with anal sex, methinks they doth protest too much
 
2013-03-15 05:26:45 PM
How kind of them to bring Democracy to America.

/We hate them for their freedom
 
2013-03-15 05:28:17 PM

Lumpmoose: xaratherus: Theaetetus: xaratherus: Feel free to read the source document. It goes on to state that somewhere around 10%+ of those heterosexual males engage in it on a 'regular basis'. Which is still more straight people having anal sex than there are even homosexuals that exist.

Given those statistics and population sizes, I wonder what the ratio of heterosexual men who engage in pegging to gay men is.

It would be an interesting study, I'm sure; given that there is a growing market of internal prostate stimulators directed at heterosexual men, the taboo against "the P-spot" is declining.

I find it humorous that people make such a huge deal about the cleanliness of anal sex. You prep for it - just like I know many heterosexual women who clean their va-JJs before engaging in sex because without proper maintenance, any orifice can get nasty.

I like buttsecks as much as the next queer, but won't besmirch vaginas to make a point.  A healthy vagina does not need douching.  Technically, if you're regular enough, your butt doesn't either.  But one orifice is regularly unclean and the other is not (OK, forgetting menstruation).

My point is, hetero dudes should learn to love the taste and smell of a natural, healthy vadge.


[Raises hand.]

Cunnilingus is one of my most favorite things to do on this planet.
 
2013-03-15 05:34:04 PM

cman: I thought tribes were sovereign states.

Why would Michigan laws apply?


Because you would only be married on Sovereign land and once you left the res it's void? Like fireworks being legal on a Res but as soon as you take it off cops bust ya.
 
2013-03-15 05:35:01 PM

Lumpmoose: xaratherus: Theaetetus: xaratherus: Feel free to read the source document. It goes on to state that somewhere around 10%+ of those heterosexual males engage in it on a 'regular basis'. Which is still more straight people having anal sex than there are even homosexuals that exist.

Given those statistics and population sizes, I wonder what the ratio of heterosexual men who engage in pegging to gay men is.

It would be an interesting study, I'm sure; given that there is a growing market of internal prostate stimulators directed at heterosexual men, the taboo against "the P-spot" is declining.

I find it humorous that people make such a huge deal about the cleanliness of anal sex. You prep for it - just like I know many heterosexual women who clean their va-JJs before engaging in sex because without proper maintenance, any orifice can get nasty.

I like buttsecks as much as the next queer, but won't besmirch vaginas to make a point.  A healthy vagina does not need douching.  Technically, if you're regular enough, your butt doesn't either.  But one orifice is regularly unclean and the other is not (OK, forgetting menstruation).

My point is, hetero dudes should learn to love the taste and smell of a natural, healthy vadge.


"If you'd lick a hole you'd suck a pole."
 
Skr
2013-03-15 05:39:33 PM
I wonder if they can avoid marriage taxes by getting married on a reservation. Works for Cigarettes.
 
2013-03-15 05:40:15 PM
I want to know their tribal Indian names for "He who pitches"and"He who catches".
 
2013-03-15 05:40:28 PM

CheekyMonkey: Wow, looks like spentmiles is getting a little action today...


Meh.  A dynamite fisherman - I don't respect him. I remember when sportsmanship (and trolling) meant something.
 
2013-03-15 05:41:34 PM

Lava_Backflips: I want to know their tribal Indian names for "He who pitches"and"He who catches".


Why do you ask your chief this question, Two Dogs F**king?
 
2013-03-15 05:45:32 PM

xaratherus: because without proper maintenance, any orifice can get nasty.


We see a lot of that on FARK.
 
2013-03-15 05:57:59 PM

spentmiles: "Do you, Pale Face, agree to let Tonto shoot his arrow up your ass twice a week?"

And for all the ladies out there who are pro-gay marriage: Do you let your boyfriend/husband shove it up your ass?  Probably not.  And why?  Because it hurts, it's disgusting, and it's not something you'd ever stoop to doing.  Well, that's pretty much the difference between regular marriage and gay marriage.  The love is the same, except there's a lot more butt farking.  Is that something you can really get behind?  A bunch of dirty, shiat sticking?

You probably haven't thought that far...


Nice. Not only was your statement racist as hell, it was also misogynist and homophobic, as well as being paranoid and adolescent. You should be proud of your ability to hit every negative marker in human behavior at once.
 
2013-03-15 05:59:36 PM

ReverendJynxed: cman: I thought tribes were sovereign states.

Why would Michigan laws apply?

Because you would only be married on Sovereign land and once you left the res it's void? Like fireworks being legal on a Res but as soon as you take it off cops bust ya.


We no longer have the fireworks ban.  That was lifted over a year ago.  Snyder decided that all MI folks can enjoy that little freedom.
 
2013-03-15 06:10:07 PM

lack of warmth: ReverendJynxed: cman: I thought tribes were sovereign states.

Why would Michigan laws apply?

Because you would only be married on Sovereign land and once you left the res it's void? Like fireworks being legal on a Res but as soon as you take it off cops bust ya.

We no longer have the fireworks ban.  That was lifted over a year ago.  Snyder decided that all MI folks can enjoy that little freedom.


Yeah. And the result was that last Independence Day, several buildings burned down across the state (including a church in western Michigan) and a lot more people ended up maimed. Wooo! We let unlicensed morons buy truckloads of explosive fire hazards, but we can't let people pay for sex, get high without a doctor's note, or have legal next of kin or tax marriage rights with a member of the same gender.

But yeah, by all means, let the stupid hicks have more explosives. That will make our state great.
 
2013-03-15 06:15:45 PM

ZeroCorpse: lack of warmth: ReverendJynxed: cman: I thought tribes were sovereign states.

Why would Michigan laws apply?

Because you would only be married on Sovereign land and once you left the res it's void? Like fireworks being legal on a Res but as soon as you take it off cops bust ya.

We no longer have the fireworks ban.  That was lifted over a year ago.  Snyder decided that all MI folks can enjoy that little freedom.

Yeah. And the result was that last Independence Day, several buildings burned down across the state (including a church in western Michigan) and a lot more people ended up maimed. Wooo! We let unlicensed morons buy truckloads of explosive fire hazards, but we can't let people pay for sex, get high without a doctor's note, or have legal next of kin or tax marriage rights with a member of the same gender.

But yeah, by all means, let the stupid hicks have more explosives. That will make our state great.


And now that little tirade happened.  Are you done, or do you need more time to cry and draw attention?

/done with fake outraging morans.
 
2013-03-15 06:16:04 PM
If there's one thing I wouldn't want more than to be gay-married, it's to be gay-married only on an Indian reservation.
 
2013-03-15 06:31:56 PM
spentmiles has certainly won troll of the day . well played.
 
2013-03-15 06:36:55 PM
Good for them.
 
2013-03-15 06:48:33 PM

Theaetetus: Tribal law will keep their marriage safe from a 2004 Michigan constitutional amendment.

It's also safe from the federal Defense of Marriage Act which is in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.


Not so. DoMA, Clause 2, which  isn't in front of SCOTUS at the moment:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.


That clause of DoMA specifically means that their marriage may be ignored by other states, regardless of their tribal law.


That doesn't mean shiat.  The DoMA does not apply to Indian Nations because there are preexisting treaties respecting the Tribes' ability to self-govern, and subsequent Tribal constitutions having been recognized by the DoI granting them powers in scope that include governance on Tribal land over people in their own homes.  The Federal government may pass a law, but a Tribal law within this scope can supersede it, with all disputes being first judged in Tribal courts.

And if you're thinking to yourself "lol we have tanks and screw you indinz;" violating the treaties is an invitation to war, and nobody wants to go there, for a number of reasons.  One of the largest reasons is that there are 3,000,000 Native Americans, and 22% of them over 18 (men and women) are military veterans.
 
2013-03-15 06:55:32 PM

MaliFinn: Theaetetus: Tribal law will keep their marriage safe from a 2004 Michigan constitutional amendment.

It's also safe from the federal Defense of Marriage Act which is in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.


Not so. DoMA, Clause 2, which  isn't in front of SCOTUS at the moment:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.


That clause of DoMA specifically means that their marriage may be ignored by other states, regardless of their tribal law.

That doesn't mean shiat.  The DoMA does not apply to Indian Nations because there are preexisting treaties respecting the Tribes' ability to self-govern, and subsequent Tribal constitutions having been recognized by the DoI granting them powers in scope that include governance on Tribal land over people in their own homes.  The Federal government may pass a law, but a Tribal law within this scope can supersede it, with all disputes being first judged in Tribal courts.

And if you're thinking to yourself "lol we have tanks and screw you indinz;" violating the treaties is an invitation to war, and nobody wants to go there, for a number of reasons.  One of the largest reasons is that there are 3,000,000 Native Americans, and 22% of them over 18 (men and women) are military veterans.


You saying the treaties would force the Feds to recognize the tribal gay marriage? Like, say allow them to file jointly on their federal income tax, extend benefits if one of them is a federal employee?

Sounds interesting. That's not how it works for marriages from other countries.
 
2013-03-15 07:07:53 PM
michigan is a hellhole that voted to ban gay marriage, ban civil unions, ban same sex partner benefits, all in a single law that was added to the michigan constitution, and the law those idiot voters voted on was unconstitutional, and the governor did nothing (Granholm).
I hope they sink into the earth and we get one really big great lake.
they hate us so much they want nothing  but for us to suffer. They deserve their failed economy, their loss of democracy with the EFMs, they deserve everything they voted to get.
 
2013-03-15 07:09:09 PM

MaliFinn: Theaetetus: Tribal law will keep their marriage safe from a 2004 Michigan constitutional amendment.

It's also safe from the federal Defense of Marriage Act which is in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.


Not so. DoMA, Clause 2, which  isn't in front of SCOTUS at the moment:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.


That clause of DoMA specifically means that their marriage may be ignored by other states, regardless of their tribal law.

That doesn't mean shiat.  The DoMA does not apply to Indian Nations because there are preexisting treaties respecting the Tribes' ability to self-govern, and subsequent Tribal constitutions having been recognized by the DoI granting them powers in scope that include governance on Tribal land over people in their own homes.  The Federal government may pass a law, but a Tribal law within this scope can supersede it, with all disputes being first judged in Tribal courts.


Respectfully, I believe you're misreading both DoMA and my earlier post. Allow me to try to be clearer:
1) DoMA says that no state is required to give effect to an act from an indian tribe regarding same sex marriage;
2) Therefore, "tribal law" doesn't keep their marriage safe from, for example, Michigan refusing to recognize it.

Your statement - that the tribes can  self-govern and that they have powers of governance  on Tribal landand can judge disputes  in Tribal courts - is true, but irrelevant to what  Michigan does with this couple's marriage. And Michigan doesn't have to let them file taxes jointly, for example.

Clearer now?
 
2013-03-15 07:12:08 PM

serial_crusher: You saying the treaties would force the Feds to recognize the tribal gay marriage? Like, say allow them to file jointly on their federal income tax, extend benefits if one of them is a federal employee?

Sounds interesting. That's not how it works for marriages from other countries.


No, I believe MaliFinn was saying that the treaties would prevent the Feds from invading the tribes' territory and physically separating gay couples, shredding documents relating to their marriages, interrupting ceremonies, etc. And he's right, but that's entirely irrelevant to DoMA, which controls what you say it does - federal recognition (under clause 3) and forcing states to recognize foreign marriages (clause 2).
 
2013-03-15 07:16:04 PM

Theaetetus: serial_crusher: You saying the treaties would force the Feds to recognize the tribal gay marriage? Like, say allow them to file jointly on their federal income tax, extend benefits if one of them is a federal employee?

Sounds interesting. That's not how it works for marriages from other countries.

No, I believe MaliFinn was saying that the treaties would prevent the Feds from invading the tribes' territory and physically separating gay couples, shredding documents relating to their marriages, interrupting ceremonies, etc. And he's right, but that's entirely irrelevant to DoMA, which controls what you say it does - federal recognition (under clause 3) and forcing states to recognize foreign marriages (clause 2).


Yeah I suspected that, but wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.  The gay marriage debate is full of people conflating the word "illegal" to mean crazier and crazier things.  They're not helping.
 
2013-03-15 07:28:12 PM
spentmiles delivers
 
2013-03-15 07:30:46 PM

alienated: spentmiles has certainly won troll of the day . well played.


This, though the outright disgust at the act is what lead me to believe it was a troll so not sure if well played or just gullible Farkers.

/whynotboth.jpg
 
2013-03-15 07:33:06 PM

Bane of Broone: alienated: spentmiles has certainly won troll of the day . well played.

This, though the outright disgust at the act is what lead me to believe it was a troll so not sure if well played or just gullible Farkers.

/whynotboth.jpg


At this point being trolled by spentmiles is like being trolled by MikeLowell.  His bites are well earned in spite of his notoriety.
 
2013-03-15 07:33:44 PM

MaliFinn: Theaetetus: Tribal law will keep their marriage safe from a 2004 Michigan constitutional amendment.

It's also safe from the federal Defense of Marriage Act which is in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.


Not so. DoMA, Clause 2, which  isn't in front of SCOTUS at the moment:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.


That clause of DoMA specifically means that their marriage may be ignored by other states, regardless of their tribal law.

That doesn't mean shiat.  The DoMA does not apply to Indian Nations because there are preexisting treaties respecting the Tribes' ability to self-govern, and subsequent Tribal constitutions having been recognized by the DoI granting them powers in scope that include governance on Tribal land over people in their own homes.  The Federal government may pass a law, but a Tribal law within this scope can supersede it, with all disputes being first judged in Tribal courts.

And if you're thinking to yourself "lol we have tanks and screw you indinz;" violating the treaties is an invitation to war, and nobody wants to go there, for a number of reasons.  One of the largest reasons is that there are 3,000,000 Native Americans, and 22% of them over 18 (men and women) are military veterans.


Their only defense is a lack of oil.
 
2013-03-15 07:41:16 PM

Summoner101: Bane of Broone: alienated: spentmiles has certainly won troll of the day . well played.

This, though the outright disgust at the act is what lead me to believe it was a troll so not sure if well played or just gullible Farkers.

/whynotboth.jpg

At this point being trolled by spentmiles is like being trolled by MikeLowell.  His bites are well earned in spite of his notoriety.


That's some lofty praise right there. I am always delighted to see Mike's posts.
 
2013-03-15 07:57:54 PM
Gay braves. I mean, is there anything left under the sun to hear about now?
 
2013-03-15 08:26:24 PM

spentmiles: xaratherus: spentmiles: "Do you, Pale Face, agree to let Tonto shoot his arrow up your ass twice a week?"


Wild, crazy question: why do you care?  Really, how does this affect you in any way?  I honestly don't get it.  I'm a boy, and I like girls in a fairly generic and perhaps boring (to some) way - but why should you care in the slightest whether I like plowing conventional fields, or drilling some guy's doodie hole, or screwing my grandpa in the nostril or his eye socket, or what have you?

I'm simply at a loss.  If these activities were happening in a more public way (for example, if I chose to ravish my wife on the table of the local McDonalds) - I could see people getting upset, and they would be right to be upset.  No one should be forced to witness our old, wrinkly flesh slapping between bad coffee and a chalky Egg McMuffin.

But seriously, what the hell do you care what happens in private, and between consenting adults?  If they choose to eat each others' snot, what is it to you?  Gross or hot, messy or clean, I...  I am just dumbfounded that anyone seriously gives two shiats about any of this.  In my book, anybody who loves someone else is way more awesome and lucky than someone who doesn't.  Awesome for loving someone.  Lucky for finding someone worth loving.  I'm sad for people that don't experience this, regardless of the genders, races, religions, or what have you.

Stop worrying about how other people do it, and love somebody.
 
2013-03-15 08:51:52 PM

Bane of Broone: Summoner101: Bane of Broone: alienated: spentmiles has certainly won troll of the day . well played.

This, though the outright disgust at the act is what lead me to believe it was a troll so not sure if well played or just gullible Farkers.

/whynotboth.jpg

At this point being trolled by spentmiles is like being trolled by MikeLowell.  His bites are well earned in spite of his notoriety.

That's some lofty praise right there. I am always delighted to see Mike's posts.


It's really the fact he's still getting bites after having been outed that's puts him in the same category. His shtick works, and, with being in on the joke, his shtick is pretty hilarious. Most trolls have one or the other, few do both.
 
2013-03-15 09:21:32 PM
Why does anyone have a reason to think that Warren isn't part native american besides her not looking like it?

Also, on a related note, people do realize that when a native american and a white person have children, the kids don't all come out looking native, right? It's not like when dark black people and white people have children and the african traits are apparent in the appearance of their descendants through several generations even if those descendants keep marrying more white people. Someone who is 1/4 native american and 3/4ths white can have blond hair and blue eyes and look totally white, and in the days of tanning being fashionable, even someone who is 1/2 may look white or european to people.
 
2013-03-15 09:50:32 PM

cman: I thought tribes were sovereign states.

Why would Michigan laws apply?


They don't.  That's kind of the point.
 
2013-03-15 09:55:32 PM

A Shambling Mound: Everyone should send blankets.


I'm actually ashamed for not knowing this, but hey, I didn't grow up on the rez... but when I finally did move to the rez, I shiat you not, I got 2 blankets for Christmas and 3 for my birthday.  This in addition to the ones I already owned...well, I could probably double-insulate my trailer with blankets at this point.
 
2013-03-15 09:59:33 PM

Mr. Shabooboo:  Remember way back when the first gay marriages happened? Remember how we were all told
that it was the end of us all?  Well...It has now been YEARS since then...The world is still turning..
the sun is still shining, and crazy is still crazy


...and last I heard some Multnomah County couple discovered that, in Oregon, divorce is between a man and a woman.
 
2013-03-15 10:00:15 PM

ModernLuddite: What a gay Indian may look like:


Am I missing a key point that makes this funny?
 
2013-03-15 10:08:22 PM

xaratherus: Just to crunch the numbers: In 2008 (when the study was concluded) the United States' population was 305 million. As a high-end estimate, it's thought that roughly 3% of the population is homosexual, so that would be just over 9 million; figure that about 60% of those are male, that's 5 million gay men. Let's say that  all of them have anal sex (which is inaccurate; not all gay men like anal).


You missed a 3.  Based on the people I know, regardless of location, the breakdown seems to be closer to equal distribution between gay, bi and straight.  And that's just if you break it down by three categories instead of viewing it as a spectrum (in which almost everyone is at least a little bit bi).

Everyone is entitled to try something once, to make a mistake.  It becomes inexcusable when unsanitary behavior becomes compulsive to the point of redefining marriage so as to include the abhorrent in a beautiful custom.

There's this new thing called condoms.  Maybe you've heard of them.  Also, when was the last time anyone traded three goats and a chicken for a wife?  Hey!  that's right, because we already redefined marriage because that practice was dehumanizing and stupid.
 
2013-03-15 10:10:18 PM

Theaetetus: xaratherus: Feel free to read the source document. It goes on to state that somewhere around 10%+ of those heterosexual males engage in it on a 'regular basis'. Which is still more straight people having anal sex than there are even homosexuals that exist.

Given those statistics and population sizes, I wonder what the ratio of heterosexual men who engage in pegging to gay men is.


Unrealistically conservative numbers aside (given the taboo, there's bound to be a lot more who are into it than will admit it to someone they're not engaging in it with), that's piqued my interest, too.  Having taken it from both genders now, I gotta say...the women do it better.  Go figure.
 
2013-03-15 10:21:38 PM

Lava_Backflips: I want to know their tribal Indian names for "He who pitches"and"He who catches".


Two spirit?
 
2013-03-15 10:30:56 PM

Baloo Uriza: Lava_Backflips: I want to know their tribal Indian names for "He who pitches"and"He who catches".

Two spirit?


Indian givers and Indian takers
 
2013-03-15 10:54:10 PM

hdhale: While you're downing Columbus, remember that Native American tribes engage in every single form of warfare and atrocity that the "round eyes" did, but to hear some people talk about it, every was just sunshine, unicorns, rainbows, and at night everyone laid around the camp fire together and thanked the land just for being itself up until 1492. a dental problem ended your life at age 32.


ftfy
 
2013-03-15 11:53:34 PM

serial_crusher: MaliFinn: Theaetetus: Tribal law will keep their marriage safe from a 2004 Michigan constitutional amendment.

It's also safe from the federal Defense of Marriage Act which is in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.


Not so. DoMA, Clause 2, which  isn't in front of SCOTUS at the moment:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.


That clause of DoMA specifically means that their marriage may be ignored by other states, regardless of their tribal law.

That doesn't mean shiat.  The DoMA does not apply to Indian Nations because there are preexisting treaties respecting the Tribes' ability to self-govern, and subsequent Tribal constitutions having been recognized by the DoI granting them powers in scope that include governance on Tribal land over people in their own homes.  The Federal government may pass a law, but a Tribal law within this scope can supersede it, with all disputes being first judged in Tribal courts.

And if you're thinking to yourself "lol we have tanks and screw you indinz;" violating the treaties is an invitation to war, and nobody wants to go there, for a number of reasons.  One of the largest reasons is that there are 3,000,000 Native Americans, and 22% of them over 18 (men and women) are military veterans.

You saying the treaties would force the Feds to recognize the tribal gay marriage? Like, say allow them to file jointly on their federal income tax, extend benefits if one of them is a federal employee?

Sounds interesting. That's not how it works for marriages from other countries.


Thinking of Tribes as foreign countries is correct, they are sovereign nations.  The difference is that their treaties allow for disputes about domestic issues - issue about activity and conditions on trust land - are settled in Tribal court first.  It's a big minefield, and it's hard for anyone to challenge and overturn tribal law without stomping all over the tribe's sovereignty.  You might as well piss on their doorstep and kick their dog, dismissing the validity of tribal sovereignty is fightin' words.
 
2013-03-16 12:05:06 AM

Theaetetus: MaliFinn: Theaetetus:


Respectfully, I believe you're misreading both DoMA and my earlier post. Allow me to try to be clearer:
1) DoMA says that no state is required to give effect to an act from an indian tribe regarding same sex marriage;
2) Therefore, "tribal law" doesn't keep their marriage safe from, for example, Michigan refusing to recognize it.

Your statement - that the tribes can  self-govern and that they have powers of governance  on Tribal land and can judge disputes  in Tribal courts - is true, but irrelevant to what  Michigan does with this couple's marriage. And Michigan doesn't have to let them file taxes jointly, for example.

Clearer now?


Actually, if you live and work on tribal land you can legally ignore state taxes altogether. 

States have jack shiat to say about Tribes.  That is, they have nothing legal to say about tribal activity on tribal land, provided you have the money to pay for the lawyers to defend your rights, and the people to roadblock the state patrol when they want to push you around.  Normally, activity that takes place on tribal land is regulated the same as state law unless the tribe has passed a tribal ordinance that more or less overrules it.

So they can honor NAC practices and legalize peyote, or legalize gambling and open a casino (the conditions of which are agreed to between the tribes and feds under IGRA), or, say, legalize gay marriage.
 
2013-03-16 12:10:42 AM

ReverendJynxed: MaliFinn: Theaetetus: Tribal law will keep their marriage safe from a 2004 Michigan constitutional amendment.

It's also safe from the federal Defense of Marriage Act which is in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.


Not so. DoMA, Clause 2, which  isn't in front of SCOTUS at the moment:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.


That clause of DoMA specifically means that their marriage may be ignored by other states, regardless of their tribal law.

That doesn't mean shiat.  The DoMA does not apply to Indian Nations because there are preexisting treaties respecting the Tribes' ability to self-govern, and subsequent Tribal constitutions having been recognized by the DoI granting them powers in scope that include governance on Tribal land over people in their own homes.  The Federal government may pass a law, but a Tribal law within this scope can supersede it, with all disputes being first judged in Tribal courts.

And if you're thinking to yourself "lol we have tanks and screw you indinz;" violating the treaties is an invitation to war, and nobody wants to go there, for a number of reasons.  One of the largest reasons is that there are 3,000,000 Native Americans, and 22% of them over 18 (men and women) are military veterans.

Their only defense is a lack of oil.


Funny.  Like all good humor, it's got a kernel of truth - you'd be surprised how heavily natives are recruited into the field of geological sciences.  Guess why?  The mining companies want to educate and hire indians to go back to their tribes and convince them to sell off the mining rights on reservation land.  They might not have oil, but in some cases they have rare metals like uranium.
 
2013-03-16 12:30:27 AM

Baloo Uriza: ModernLuddite: What a gay Indian may look like:

Am I missing a key point that makes this funny?


Freddie Mercury was ethnic Indian

.

ambercat: Why does anyone have a reason to think that Warren isn't part native american besides her not looking like it?

Also, on a related note, people do realize that when a native american and a white person have children, the kids don't all come out looking native, right? It's not like when dark black people and white people have children and the african traits are apparent in the appearance of their descendants through several generations even if those descendants keep marrying more white people. Someone who is 1/4 native american and 3/4ths white can have blond hair and blue eyes and look totally white, and in the days of tanning being fashionable, even someone who is 1/2 may look white or european to people.


One of my friends' youngest son is blond with blue eyes.  My three oldest kids (much farther removed from their Indian ancestors than my friend's kid) are as well.  My dad, who was 1/4 Indian, was often mistaken in this area for Mexican, and I still am sometimes, even though I'm really pale.  It's kinda dumb to go by looks in regards to ethnicity, especially given that most Americans have a rather stereotypical mental image of a "Native American", without any realization that a Cherokee, a Sioux, and a Dine don't really look that much alike.
 
2013-03-16 01:49:51 AM
Meanwhile, in Topeka, the Phelps clan is busy fabricating "God hates aboriginals" signs.
 
2013-03-16 03:40:49 AM

Grave_Girl: Baloo Uriza: ModernLuddite: What a gay Indian may look like:

Am I missing a key point that makes this funny?

Freddie Mercury was ethnic Indian

.ambercat: Why does anyone have a reason to think that Warren isn't part native american besides her not looking like it?

Also, on a related note, people do realize that when a native american and a white person have children, the kids don't all come out looking native, right? It's not like when dark black people and white people have children and the african traits are apparent in the appearance of their descendants through several generations even if those descendants keep marrying more white people. Someone who is 1/4 native american and 3/4ths white can have blond hair and blue eyes and look totally white, and in the days of tanning being fashionable, even someone who is 1/2 may look white or european to people.

One of my friends' youngest son is blond with blue eyes.  My three oldest kids (much farther removed from their Indian ancestors than my friend's kid) are as well.  My dad, who was 1/4 Indian, was often mistaken in this area for Mexican, and I still am sometimes, even though I'm really pale.  It's kinda dumb to go by looks in regards to ethnicity, especially given that most Americans have a rather stereotypical mental image of a "Native American", without any realization that a Cherokee, a Sioux, and a Dine don't really look that much alike.


Actually, now that I think about it, all of the native/part native people I know around here are pretty much always mistaken for either white or Mexican. Nobody ever looks at them and thinks 'aha! Native American!' But then, this is California, so none of them have distinctive accents like people in some other places do, aaaaand we have a bunch of Mexicans. So yeah, maybe that's why it seems dumb to me judge by looks. And also, to be fair, many of the Mexicans who immigrate here are Spanish + Native anyway, so yeah they actually do look pretty much like that.
 
2013-03-16 09:19:06 AM

cman: I thought tribes were sovereign states.

Why would Michigan laws apply?


They don't, and that's the beauty of it.  Stickin' it to the white man's government is still their favorite past time, only now they do it constructively.
 
2013-03-16 11:35:35 AM

MaliFinn: Theaetetus: MaliFinn: Theaetetus:

Respectfully, I believe you're misreading both DoMA and my earlier post. Allow me to try to be clearer:
1) DoMA says that no state is required to give effect to an act from an indian tribe regarding same sex marriage;
2) Therefore, "tribal law" doesn't keep their marriage safe from, for example, Michigan refusing to recognize it.

Your statement - that the tribes can  self-govern and that they have powers of governance  on Tribal land and can judge disputes  in Tribal courts - is true, but irrelevant to what  Michigan does with this couple's marriage. And Michigan doesn't have to let them file taxes jointly, for example.

Clearer now?

Actually, if you live and work on tribal land you can legally ignore state taxes altogether. 

States have jack shiat to say about Tribes. That is, they have nothing legal to say about tribal activity on tribal land, provided you have the money to pay for the lawyers to defend your rights, and the people to roadblock the state patrol when they want to push you around.  Normally, activity that takes place on tribal land is regulated the same as state law unless the tribe has passed a tribal ordinance that more or less overrules it.

So they can honor NAC practices and legalize peyote, or legalize gambling and open a casino (the conditions of which are agreed to between the tribes and feds under IGRA), or, say, legalize gay marriage.


OMG... Seriously, I feel like you look at the words I post and then just shrug and reply without actually reading them. I'm going to try once more, and I'm really not trying to be insulting by dumbing this down, I just think that otherwise, you're never going to understand.

1. Couple gets married in PLACE A.
2. Couple goes to STATE B.
3. Under DoMA, STATE B does not have to recognize same sex marriage from PLACE A.

Got it? PLACE A can be another state, like Massachusetts. STATE B, say, Mississippi, doesn't have to recognize Massachusetts' marriages.

With me?

Good. Now, and here's the part that you keep skipping over, PLACE A can be a tribal reservation. Mississippi does not have to recognize marriages performed there. It doesn't matter that the tribe is a sovereign state. Under DoMA, Mississippi does not have to recognize gay marriages from there any more than they have to recognize gay marriages performed in Massachusetts, or those performed in France.

All of your talk about treaties and gambling and casinos is IRRELEVANT to what a state like Mississippi has or doesn't have to do under DoMA.
 
2013-03-16 03:55:59 PM

MaliFinn: ReverendJynxed: MaliFinn: Theaetetus: Tribal law will keep their marriage safe from a 2004 Michigan constitutional amendment.

It's also safe from the federal Defense of Marriage Act which is in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.


Not so. DoMA, Clause 2, which  isn't in front of SCOTUS at the moment:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.


That clause of DoMA specifically means that their marriage may be ignored by other states, regardless of their tribal law.

That doesn't mean shiat.  The DoMA does not apply to Indian Nations because there are preexisting treaties respecting the Tribes' ability to self-govern, and subsequent Tribal constitutions having been recognized by the DoI granting them powers in scope that include governance on Tribal land over people in their own homes.  The Federal government may pass a law, but a Tribal law within this scope can supersede it, with all disputes being first judged in Tribal courts.

And if you're thinking to yourself "lol we have tanks and screw you indinz;" violating the treaties is an invitation to war, and nobody wants to go there, for a number of reasons.  One of the largest reasons is that there are 3,000,000 Native Americans, and 22% of them over 18 (men and women) are military veterans.

Their only defense is a lack of oil.

Funny.  Like all good humor, it's got a kernel of truth - you'd be surprised how heavily natives are recruited into the field of geological sciences.  Guess why?  The mining companies want to educate and hire indians to go back to their tribes and convince them to s ...


And if the tribe owns it's own industries, like mine does, that shiat goes to export at a serious premium compared to what in-tribe businesses get.
 
2013-03-16 04:02:54 PM

Grave_Girl: Baloo Uriza: ModernLuddite: What a gay Indian may look like:

Am I missing a key point that makes this funny?

Freddie Mercury was ethnic Indian


OK, so the dot-or-feather premise of that joke failed me.

One of my friends' youngest son is blond with blue eyes.  My three oldest kids (much farther removed from their Indian ancestors than my friend's kid) are as well.  My dad, who was 1/4 Indian, was often mistaken in this area for Mexican, and I still am sometimes, even though I'm really pale.  It's kinda dumb to go by looks in regards to ethnicity, especially given that most Americans have a rather stereotypical mental image of a "Native American", without any realization that a Cherokee, a Sioux, and a Dine don't really look that much alike.

Then there's folks like me...if I get a hair cut and stay someplace that doesn't get much sunlight, I start looking more Scottish than Cherokee after a few weeks.
 
2013-03-17 02:04:04 AM

biglot: Gay braves. I mean, is there anything left under the sun to hear about now?


What about gay braves eating pudding?
 
Displayed 119 of 119 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report