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.

(Washington Post)   Opposition to gay marriage so successful that now only 58% of Americans support equal rights for gay people   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 148
    More: Cool, Americans, same-sex marriages, loyal opposition  
•       •       •

1299 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Mar 2013 at 6:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-18 06:56:08 PM  
I have still yet to hear a single even hypothetical example of how I, or anyone else, would be negatively affected by two men getting married.
 
2013-03-18 06:57:21 PM  

George Walker Bush: Q: Do you think LGBT Human Rights should be infringed?
A: No

Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes

Q: Why would we take a step away from that?


THANK YOU!

This is a perfect example of the fallacious "Begging the Question".  A true sign that someone is not interested in an honest discussion.  Now everyone will be able to see the difference between this and "raising a question".

Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion.
 
2013-03-18 07:00:07 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Lionel Mandrake: I see the party of freedom and personal responsibility still opposes it.

Everyone should be free to worship Jesus the way the GOP tells them too.

Right.  And gay people do have the right to marry.  A gay man can marry a woman any time he want!  See?  There's no difference!  They just want special rights!

/actually heard this used as a serious argument
//many times



The proper response the next time someone pulls that shiat on you:
"Gays don't want special rights all for themselves.  Sure, they want to sodomize each other within the bondage of holy matrimony - but they want YOU to be able to marry a butt-pirate TOO.  'Cause you kinda give off that vibe.  NTTAWWT."
 
2013-03-18 07:00:48 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: ///anyone who thinks I'm unnatural can fark right off


You're totally natural.  We've observed homosexual behavior in over 1,500 species of animals now.  We've observed hermaphrodites, transgenderism and homosexuality.  There is only one sexual orientation that is not represented in the animal kingdom.  Only one that is so deviant, so unnatural, that it only occurs in humans: chastity.
 
2013-03-18 07:03:06 PM  

Cletus C.: Why should heterosexuals be the only miserable people?


Because Jesus said so.  It's written in the GOP Jobs Plan.
 
2013-03-18 07:03:29 PM  

George Walker Bush: Q: Do you think LGBT Human Rights should be infringed?
A: No

Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes

Q: Why would we take a step away from that?


I was unaware that every gay marriage came with a child stolen from it's biological parents.  Is that included in the standard benefits given to married couples or do they have to register at Belks for one?

Yes, I realize that it's either a troll and/or completely stupid, but some things deserve ridicule and scorn.
 
2013-03-18 07:05:05 PM  

sabreWulf07: Benevolent Misanthrope: ///anyone who thinks I'm unnatural can fark right off

You're totally natural.  We've observed homosexual behavior in over 1,500 species of animals now.  We've observed hermaphrodites, transgenderism and homosexuality.  There is only one sexual orientation that is not represented in the animal kingdom.  Only one that is so deviant, so unnatural, that it only occurs in humans: chastity.



Anyone who believes that homosexuality is not normal has never owned a male dog.  I've had dogs whose nuts I've had taken off and they STILL try to hump each other.
 
2013-03-18 07:05:12 PM  

George Walker Bush: Q: Do you think LGBT Human Rights should be infringed?
A: No

Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes

Q: Why would we take a step away from that?


Why do you assume these are mutually exclusive?
 
2013-03-18 07:08:36 PM  

Karac: I have still yet to hear a single even hypothetical example of how I, or anyone else, would be negatively affected by two men getting married.


Hetero conservative women will be skeeved out by assless dresses at the bridal shop.
 
2013-03-18 07:09:07 PM  

MrHappyRotter: fark prejudice against gays.  That issue is so over with.

What makes me madder than hell is the unrelenting hatred and ignorance these liberal media outlets have for color blind people.


Actually, these two issues are related.  There was an incident in Denver a while ago where a bakery refused to make a red and teal wedding cake for a gay couple.  One of the drawbacks of letting men marry each other is that you will now sometimes have weddings being planned by couples who are both color blind.
 
2013-03-18 07:10:21 PM  

Karac: sabreWulf07: Benevolent Misanthrope: ///anyone who thinks I'm unnatural can fark right off

You're totally natural.  We've observed homosexual behavior in over 1,500 species of animals now.  We've observed hermaphrodites, transgenderism and homosexuality.  There is only one sexual orientation that is not represented in the animal kingdom.  Only one that is so deviant, so unnatural, that it only occurs in humans: chastity.


Anyone who believes that homosexuality is not normal has never owned a male dog.  I've had dogs whose nuts I've had taken off and they STILL try to hump each other.


I have a spayed dog who humps anything. She's pretty funny, actually.
 
2013-03-18 07:10:35 PM  

coeyagi: Karac: I have still yet to hear a single even hypothetical example of how I, or anyone else, would be negatively affected by two men getting married.

Hetero conservative women will be skeeved out by assless dresses at the bridal shop.


You know, now that you've put that idea in my head - it doesn't sound all that bad.  I can think of a few women I'd like to see in an assless wedding dress, no gay marriage required.
 
2013-03-18 07:13:57 PM  

Prof. Ann Marion: George Walker Bush: Q: Do you think LGBT Human Rights should be infringed?
A: No

Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes

Q: Why would we take a step away from that?

THANK YOU!

This is a perfect example of the fallacious "Begging the Question".  A true sign that someone is not interested in an honest discussion.  Now everyone will be able to see the difference between this and "raising a question".

Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion.


I think it's intended as a ha-ha. You know, both biological parents always stay together and raise the kids. Gay marriage would be the first step away from that. True fact, that.
 
2013-03-18 07:17:26 PM  
Hey, America, how's that "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal" thing going for you?
 
2013-03-18 07:17:59 PM  

George Walker Bush: Q: Do you think LGBT Human Rights should be infringed?
A: No

Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes

Q: Why would we take a step away from that?


For #2: So you're saying the best opportunity would be a stable household of a woman, and her rapist, if they have a child?  Biological parents right?
 
2013-03-18 07:23:12 PM  
All Marriages should be turned into Civil Unions. They should function exactly as marriage does now.
You go to the state for you Civil Union contract.

You go to the church of your choice for your "Marriage".

The Church's Marriage has no legal standing, as this is handled by the state, in terms of visitation, inheritance, property, divorce and so forth via the civil union contract.

The State can not force a church to perform a marriage.

Problem solved?
 
2013-03-18 07:25:01 PM  

Raharu: All Marriages should be turned into Civil Unions. They should function exactly as marriage does now.
You go to the state for you Civil Union contract.

You go to the church of your choice for your "Marriage".

The Church's Marriage has no legal standing, as this is handled by the state, in terms of visitation, inheritance, property, divorce and so forth via the civil union contract.

The State can not force a church to perform a marriage.

Problem solved?


Why should the church get to co-opt the civil matter of marriage?
 
2013-03-18 07:25:38 PM  

Karac: coeyagi: Karac: I have still yet to hear a single even hypothetical example of how I, or anyone else, would be negatively affected by two men getting married.

Hetero conservative women will be skeeved out by assless dresses at the bridal shop.

You know, now that you've put that idea in my head - it doesn't sound all that bad.  I can think of a few women I'd like to see in an assless wedding dress, no gay marriage required.


I can get behind that idea.

And, well, you know.
 
2013-03-18 07:26:34 PM  

Raharu: All Marriages should be turned into Civil Unions. They should function exactly as marriage does now.
You go to the state for you Civil Union contract.

You go to the church of your choice for your "Marriage".

The Church's Marriage has no legal standing, as this is handled by the state, in terms of visitation, inheritance, property, divorce and so forth via the civil union contract.

The State can not force a church to perform a marriage.

Problem solved?


Not for those who still support the 20 state amendments that banned gay marriage AND civil unions.
 
2013-03-18 07:27:22 PM  

Raharu: All Marriages should be turned into Civil Unions. They should function exactly as marriage does now.
You go to the state for you Civil Union contract.

You go to the church of your choice for your "Marriage".

The Church's Marriage has no legal standing, as this is handled by the state, in terms of visitation, inheritance, property, divorce and so forth via the civil union contract.

The State can not force a church to perform a marriage.

Problem solved?


A lot of straight folks will be angry if you tell them they can't get married, either, you know.
 
2013-03-18 07:28:08 PM  

Cletus C.: Prof. Ann Marion: George Walker Bush: Q: Do you think LGBT Human Rights should be infringed?
A: No

Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes

Q: Why would we take a step away from that?

THANK YOU!

This is a perfect example of the fallacious "Begging the Question".  A true sign that someone is not interested in an honest discussion.  Now everyone will be able to see the difference between this and "raising a question".

Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion.

I think it's intended as a ha-ha. You know, both biological parents always stay together and raise the kids. Gay marriage would be the first step away from that. True fact, that.


It's not funny. Because that's the primary argument against gay marriage. That a child should be raised in a stable home with a male father and a female mother and therefore ANYTHING ELSE is wrong and anti-child.

Oh, and btw, gay marriage isn't, in fact, the first step away from that. Allowing kids to stay with their widowed mothers was, and we took that step a long time ago.
 
2013-03-18 07:29:02 PM  

HighOnCraic: maxalt: HighOnCraic: maxalt: Personally I think that the government has no business deciding who can marry who. I am straight but if you love someone what the duck does the government have any business sticking their nose in your affairs. Let the people be happy and give couples all the same rights no matter what.

Why do you hate marriages performed by justices of the peace?

I think as a matter of love and companionship that the government needs to keep their collective noses to themselves. One more thing I can not think of very many things I hate other than like child molesters and such.

So what about people who don't want to get married in a church? Are they stuck with relying on ship captains?


 How about a contract like Legal Zoom or some such, because in reality marriage is a social and legal contract. I just know every time the government gets involved in something it gets more costly, complicated and layered with nonsense. How about if two people got together with a couple of friends both said I will marry you, signed a paper to that effect and Viola they are mated. As long as they are both of age and no force is used they are a couple. Until one or the other becomes a vampire and their partner tries to drive a stake, oh wait forget that last sentence.
 
2013-03-18 07:38:10 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Cletus C.: Prof. Ann Marion: George Walker Bush: Q: Do you think LGBT Human Rights should be infringed?
A: No

Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes

Q: Why would we take a step away from that?

THANK YOU!

This is a perfect example of the fallacious "Begging the Question".  A true sign that someone is not interested in an honest discussion.  Now everyone will be able to see the difference between this and "raising a question".

Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion.

I think it's intended as a ha-ha. You know, both biological parents always stay together and raise the kids. Gay marriage would be the first step away from that. True fact, that.

It's not funny. Because that's the primary argument against gay marriage. That a child should be raised in a stable home with a male father and a female mother and therefore ANYTHING ELSE is wrong and anti-child.

Oh, and btw, gay marriage isn't, in fact, the first step away from that. Allowing kids to stay with their widowed mothers was, and we took that step a long time ago.


Yeah, sort of my point. Probably half or more kids these days are from "broken homes." And it's hardly new. The biological parents staying together is becoming more of the exception. The idea being sold is that gay marriage threatens something that doesn't exist all that much anymore. And that is laughable. Even if you don't laugh.
 
2013-03-18 07:39:33 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Lionel Mandrake: I see the party of freedom and personal responsibility still opposes it.

Everyone should be free to worship Jesus the way the GOP tells them too.

Right.  And gay people do have the right to marry.  A gay man can marry a woman any time he want!  See?  There's no difference!  They just want special rights!

/actually heard this used as a serious argument
//many times


Same.
Some people are farking retarded.

No offense to the retarded, I just lump more people into that group.
 
2013-03-18 07:41:30 PM  

Cletus C.: Yeah, sort of my point. Probably half or more kids these days are from "broken homes." And it's hardly new. The biological parents staying together is becoming more of the exception. The idea being sold is that gay marriage threatens something that doesn't exist all that much anymore. And that is laughable. Even if you don't laugh.


And not too long ago, the grim reaper played a prominent role in breaking up families, and still plays a small role in that regard.
 
2013-03-18 07:44:08 PM  
I still contend changing lgbt to gblt would increase the favorability by at least three points.

People like BLTs and it would prime them so feel better to read it that way.

/bacon
 
2013-03-18 07:46:17 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: Raharu: All Marriages should be turned into Civil Unions. They should function exactly as marriage does now.
You go to the state for you Civil Union contract.

You go to the church of your choice for your "Marriage".

The Church's Marriage has no legal standing, as this is handled by the state, in terms of visitation, inheritance, property, divorce and so forth via the civil union contract.

The State can not force a church to perform a marriage.

Problem solved?

A lot of straight folks will be angry if you tell them they can't get married, either, you know.


They can call their Civil Union a marriage if they want, but it could upset the churches.
 
2013-03-18 07:46:40 PM  

12349876: Cletus C.: Yeah, sort of my point. Probably half or more kids these days are from "broken homes." And it's hardly new. The biological parents staying together is becoming more of the exception. The idea being sold is that gay marriage threatens something that doesn't exist all that much anymore. And that is laughable. Even if you don't laugh.

And not too long ago, the grim reaper played a prominent role in breaking up families, and still plays a small role in that regard.


I'll bet the hot divorcée moving into the neighborhood did more damage than the grim reaper.
 
2013-03-18 07:47:43 PM  

Raharu: All Marriages should be turned into Civil Unions. They should function exactly as marriage does now.
You go to the state for you Civil Union contract.

You go to the church of your choice for your "Marriage".

The Church's Marriage has no legal standing, as this is handled by the state, in terms of visitation, inheritance, property, divorce and so forth via the civil union contract.

The State can not force a church to perform a marriage.

Problem solved?


Not even close to problem solved. But you aren't new to fark so I assume you've seen the mountain of counterpoints to your concept that changing letters but not meaning won't unify the population..
 
2013-03-18 07:48:46 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Raharu: All Marriages should be turned into Civil Unions. They should function exactly as marriage does now.
You go to the state for you Civil Union contract.

You go to the church of your choice for your "Marriage".

The Church's Marriage has no legal standing, as this is handled by the state, in terms of visitation, inheritance, property, divorce and so forth via the civil union contract.

The State can not force a church to perform a marriage.

Problem solved?

Why should the church get to co-opt the civil matter of marriage?


Doesnt matter since church marriages mean nothing legally. You want tax benefits with the state? Go file for a civil union at the local court house.
 
2013-03-18 07:49:36 PM  

Cletus C.: 12349876: Cletus C.: Yeah, sort of my point. Probably half or more kids these days are from "broken homes." And it's hardly new. The biological parents staying together is becoming more of the exception. The idea being sold is that gay marriage threatens something that doesn't exist all that much anymore. And that is laughable. Even if you don't laugh.

And not too long ago, the grim reaper played a prominent role in breaking up families, and still plays a small role in that regard.

I'll bet the hot divorcée moving into the neighborhood did more damage than the grim reaper.


In 2010 yes, in 1310 no
 
2013-03-18 07:51:41 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Cletus C.: Prof. Ann Marion: George Walker Bush: Q: Do you think LGBT Human Rights should be infringed?
A: No

Q: Do you think a child's best opportunity is being raised in a stable household with both biological parents?
A: Yes

Q: Why would we take a step away from that?

THANK YOU!

This is a perfect example of the fallacious "Begging the Question".  A true sign that someone is not interested in an honest discussion.  Now everyone will be able to see the difference between this and "raising a question".

Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion.

I think it's intended as a ha-ha. You know, both biological parents always stay together and raise the kids. Gay marriage would be the first step away from that. True fact, that.

It's not funny. Because that's the primary argument against gay marriage. That a child should be raised in a stable home with a male father and a female mother and therefore ANYTHING ELSE is wrong and anti-child.

Oh, and btw, gay marriage isn't, in fact, the first step away from that. Allowing kids to stay with their widowed mothers was, and we took that step a long time ago.


Or allowed children to be adopted by folks who weren't even related to them at all. I mean, what sort of monsters would look to place children into homes with folks who aren't related to them? Even the same nationality? What kind of monsters?
 
2013-03-18 08:06:37 PM  
yay equal rights for gay couples.  boo equal rights for everybody else.
 
2013-03-18 08:11:57 PM  

Raharu: Doesnt matter since church marriages mean nothing legally. You want tax benefits with the state? Go file for a civil union at the local court house.


Your marriage in a church or a court house means nothing legally.  It only becomes legal when you file the paperwork.

/still don't understand how some people think we should give in to a few extreme religious groups over the word 'marriage'
 
2013-03-18 08:18:44 PM  

gingerjet: Raharu: Doesnt matter since church marriages mean nothing legally. You want tax benefits with the state? Go file for a civil union at the local court house.

Your marriage in a church or a court house means nothing legally.  It only becomes legal when you file the paperwork.

/still don't understand how some people think we should give in to a few extreme religious groups over the word 'marriage'


Or why their hatred of gays would go away with a name change.

Heck maybe they just want the word 'gay' back and if we call gays 'zurbs' they would have no more issues with male on male buttsex?

/doubts it
 
2013-03-18 08:25:42 PM  

sabreWulf07: Benevolent Misanthrope: ///anyone who thinks I'm unnatural can fark right off

You're totally natural.  We've observed homosexual behavior in over 1,500 species of animals now.  We've observed hermaphrodites, transgenderism and homosexuality.  There is only one sexual orientation that is not represented in the animal kingdom.  Only one that is so deviant, so unnatural, that it only occurs in humans: chastity.


Indeed.

i28.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-18 08:32:51 PM  
What I keep going back to is that as much as the right blusters about marriage equality and as hateful as some people are, it is now less controversial for me to date/marry a woman today than it would have been to date/marry a black guy when I was a teenager. It wasn't until the mid-90s when support for interracial marriage among white people crossed the 50% threshold, even though it was over 30 years since Loving. It's an exciting time to be alive as we're watching society change so rapidly in favor of equality.
 
2013-03-18 08:36:58 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Lionel Mandrake: I see the party of freedom and personal responsibility still opposes it.

Everyone should be free to worship Jesus the way the GOP tells them too.

Right.  And gay people do have the right to marry.  A gay man can marry a woman any time he want!  See?  There's no difference!  They just want special rights!

/actually heard this used as a serious argument
//many times


I've accidentally trolled more than one thread by making that argument sarcastically and having people agree with me.
 
2013-03-18 08:37:09 PM  

Raharu: I May Be Crazy But...: Raharu: All Marriages should be turned into Civil Unions. They should function exactly as marriage does now.
You go to the state for you Civil Union contract.

You go to the church of your choice for your "Marriage".

The Church's Marriage has no legal standing, as this is handled by the state, in terms of visitation, inheritance, property, divorce and so forth via the civil union contract.

The State can not force a church to perform a marriage.

Problem solved?

A lot of straight folks will be angry if you tell them they can't get married, either, you know.

They can call their Civil Union a marriage if they want, but it could upset the churches.


I don't want to get unioned, I want to get married. If it doesn't say "marriage license" at the top of the form, they can all shove it up their ass. If a church wants to also say "We call them married, also!", then they're free to do so, but the state will call me and my wife MARRIED.

The choice as I see it is between letting people in love express their commitment by getting married or not. If you start changing the name, you cheapen it for all of us.
 
2013-03-18 08:42:10 PM  

serial_crusher: yay equal rights for gay couples.  boo equal rights for everybody else.


wut ?
 
2013-03-18 08:48:51 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: MrHappyRotter: Complete and utter disdain and bigotry against the color blind.

Color blindness is a choice!

Pray the gray away!

Heathen


I just sprayed tea out my nose.

Welcome to my favorites list.
 
2013-03-18 09:15:44 PM  

serial_crusher: boo equal rights for everybody else.


Please list the rights that you feel are being denied to everybody else..

I'll wait.
 
2013-03-18 09:23:07 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: serial_crusher: boo equal rights for everybody else.

Please list the rights that you feel are being denied to everybody else..

I'll wait.


various tax exemptions (i.e. estate tax) mainly
 
2013-03-18 09:34:18 PM  

sabreWulf07: Benevolent Misanthrope: ///anyone who thinks I'm unnatural can fark right off

You're totally natural.  We've observed homosexual behavior in over 1,500 species of animals now.  We've observed hermaphrodites, transgenderism and homosexuality.  There is only one sexual orientation that is not represented in the animal kingdom.  Only one that is so deviant, so unnatural, that it only occurs in humans: chastity.


If any fundies show up, I can sum up their rebuttal, if they acknowledge you. *Ahem*.

"Well, animals also *horrific/gross act animals perform*, does that make it OK?!"
 
2013-03-18 09:36:00 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Yeah, but it's still only just a bit over half the population, so let's not go start sucking each other's dicks just yet.


58% is "just a bit over half"?? Say what? 58-42 would be a trouncing in sports. Start sucking.
 
2013-03-18 10:37:47 PM  

serial_crusher: Doktor_Zhivago: serial_crusher: boo equal rights for everybody else.

Please list the rights that you feel are being denied to everybody else..

I'll wait.

various tax exemptions (i.e. estate tax) mainly


No one's stopping you from getting married.
 
2013-03-18 10:48:36 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Yeah, but it's still only just a bit over half the population, so let's not go start sucking each other's dicks just yet.


25.media.tumblr.com

As said, in sports this would be a trounce by any definition really. So, would you like some wine before we start?

I made it in the turlet.
 
2013-03-18 10:51:12 PM  

hubiestubert: Lionel Mandrake: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Lionel Mandrake: I see the party of freedom and personal responsibility still opposes it.

Everyone should be free to worship Jesus the way the GOP tells them too.

Right.  And gay people do have the right to marry.  A gay man can marry a woman any time he want!  See?  There's no difference!  They just want special rights!

/actually heard this used as a serious argument
//many times

Hey, it's worked for the Bachmanns, hasn't it?


I'm not sure. Which one is the wife?
 
2013-03-18 10:56:31 PM  

rynthetyn: Lionel Mandrake: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Lionel Mandrake: I see the party of freedom and personal responsibility still opposes it.

Everyone should be free to worship Jesus the way the GOP tells them too.

Right.  And gay people do have the right to marry.  A gay man can marry a woman any time he want!  See?  There's no difference!  They just want special rights!

/actually heard this used as a serious argument
//many times

I've accidentally trolled more than one thread by making that argument sarcastically and having people agree with me.


What's funny--or not so funny--is that's the same argument that was used to justify the law that went before the court in Loving v. Virginia: we're not just stopping blacks from marrying white people! We're stopping whites from marrying blacks, too! See, the law works both ways! It's equal! So how can you say we're discriminating? And it was true. But just because a law is equally discriminatory doesn't mean it's fair.
 
2013-03-18 11:04:02 PM  

abb3w: Net favoring legal over illegal now +22; support disproportionate among Democrats, Liberals, Women, the young, the more heavily educated, the rich, the Northeast, and the religiously unaffiliated,

A more surprising finding is (technical) majority support in the South.


So support by democrats, liberals, and various groups of liberals democrats.
 
Displayed 50 of 148 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report