Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Onion)   "'Yeah, of course gay men and women can get married. Who gives a shiat?' said Chief Justice John Roberts, 'Why are we even seriously discussing this?'"   (theonion.com ) divider line 183
    More: Satire, Chief Justice John Roberts, supreme courts, gays, Mr. Cooper, dockets  
•       •       •

10018 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2013 at 1:39 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-26 02:13:15 PM  

js34603: Farce-Side: If only this were true.  I could really give two shiats if any of you wanna gay marry each other or abort your babies or fark a chicken or whatever.  Just don't try to gay marry me, don't abort my babies, and don't fark my chicken and we'll be ok.

Maybe your chicken shouldn't dress like such a slut.


Nice.
 
2013-03-26 02:13:21 PM  

pedrop357: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

I feel the same way about assholes like you.


That's nice. I really don't care.
 
2013-03-26 02:14:39 PM  

havocmike: doubled99: They're sexual deviants who will most certainly be going to hell for eternity.
As long as that's understood, I don't see why they can't marry each other.

Sadly, in the South, this thought would pass for "progress" on the issue.


Not really bro.  Plenty of the cities in the south have gay pride parades and a healthy, thriving gay population.  Sounds like you're the bigot here.
 
2013-03-26 02:15:03 PM  

MilesTeg: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

So the state of California is conservative. Hmm would not have guessed that.


Same with Hawaii.  If only they could get those damned conservatives out of the way...
 
2013-03-26 02:15:16 PM  

SpdrJay: Well I'm bisexual....

When do I get to marry a man AND a woman?

Because that's the only way I would ever consider getting married.


Marry a man with mommy issues. You'll get him and his mother as a bundled package.
 
2013-03-26 02:15:23 PM  
Since there's no thread for it, I just wanted to drop in and say, Kagan and Sotomayor are demolishing the defendants' arguments. Kennedy seems to be siding with them too, albeit tentatively.
 
2013-03-26 02:16:32 PM  

queezyweezel: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

I think you mean the Christian Right.  I know plenty of great conservatives.  Hell, I'm way to the right when if comes to the economy, and government powers.


Nope!  He had it right.  The world would be a much nicer place if conservatives didn't exist.

blessthe40oz.com
 
2013-03-26 02:18:23 PM  

NobleHam: Since there's no thread for it, I just wanted to drop in and say, Kagan and Sotomayor are demolishing the defendants' arguments. Kennedy seems to be siding with them too, albeit tentatively.


And Scalia is being a dick and making the defendants' arguments for them.

/24:00 into oral arguments.
 
2013-03-26 02:18:56 PM  

SpdrJay: Well I'm bisexual....

When do I get to marry a man AND a woman?

Because that's the only way I would ever consider getting married.


NEVER, because bisexuality isn't the issue you would be advocating for.
If you were serious about wanting that (and not just speaking as a tongue in cheek conservative/religious troll) you would be wanting to legalize  POLYGAMY.

So don't try to intentionally confuse the issue.
Bi-sexual isn't wanting to marry BOTH, it's being ATTRACTED to both.
If you're attracted to both AND want to marry multiple partners, you're both bi-sexual, polyamorous while striving to be a polygamist.

Polygamy, though will likely never be federally legal as long as TAX BENEFITS are tied to marriage (screwing us single tax-payers).
 
2013-03-26 02:19:21 PM  

havocmike: doubled99: They're sexual deviants who will most certainly be going to hell for eternity.
As long as that's understood, I don't see why they can't marry each other.

Sadly, in the South, this thought would pass for "progress" on the issue.


What is sad about it, and why are this theoretical Southerner's progressive chops in question? Are you just being anal annihilated about religion? Stop that.
 
2013-03-26 02:19:36 PM  

unlikely: I wish this was real


If this actually happened as written, I would seriously regain my faith in humanity as a whole, damn near instantly.
 
2013-03-26 02:21:09 PM  

Cyberluddite: doubled99: They're sexual deviants who will most certainly be going to hell for eternity.
As long as that's understood, I don't see why they can't marry each other.

I figured you had to be trolling and didn't really believe that, then I checked your profile and saw that you're from Redlands, CA (an appropriate name for a town if ever they was one).  So given that, it's quite possible that your post was 100% serious.


That's the least trollish thing I've read from DD99, and also the most relevant.  The primary argument against gay marriage rights is religious.  The best argument for gay marriage is that we can't be basing our laws on denying rights based on religious grounds.
 
2013-03-26 02:21:42 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com

To reiterate: WOW
 
2013-03-26 02:22:52 PM  

The Southern Dandy: Nope!  He had it right.  The world would be a much nicer place if conservatives didn't exist.


Obviously I meant "social conservatives" in this context. Fiscal conservatives, ecological conservatives, resource conservatives serve a necessary function in our society. Social conservatives only serve to be a bunch of small-minded jackasses.
 
2013-03-26 02:23:00 PM  
Which is is the defendant? For or against same-sex marriage?
 
2013-03-26 02:23:09 PM  
They're sexual deviants who will most certainly be going to hell for eternity.
As long as that's understood, I don't see why they can't marry each other.

I figured you had to be trolling and didn't really believe that, then I checked your profile and saw that you're from Redlands, CA (an appropriate name for a town if ever they was one).  So given that, it's quite possible that your post was 100% serious.


Actually, I'm an atheist so I don't believe in any of that hell stuff.
I just think it's a mental illness. Still, they should have all the same rights as everyone else
 
2013-03-26 02:24:30 PM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Following a link in today's Rude Pundit blog post, I was reading the affront to grammar, logical thought, and rationality that passes for human shiat-bag and redundantly named idiot Erick Erickson's  blog: http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/26/gay-marriage-and-religious-freedom - are-not-compatible/.

You should, needless to say, not read this. It is terrible and boils down to "WHAAAAAAAHHHHHH! JEEBUS SAID NOT TO!!!!! IF'N THE GAYS GET MARRIED THE SKY WIZARD WILL BE UNHAPPY!!!!! WHHAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!! CHANGE MY DIAPER!!!!!!" It adds nothing to the current discourse, and you will only feel stupider for having read it.

No, the reason I bring it up is that it introduced me to a new stupid concept of which I was until this very moment entirely unaware: "the democracy of the dead." It is the democracy of the dead, Erick2 asserts, that has already decided gay marriage is wrong. I had no idea what this was, and clicked on the lmgtfy link he so helpfully provided, whereupon I was treated with this little turd: "Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father."

HOLY SHIATSNACKS, IS THIS WHAT CONSERVATIVES ACTUALLY BELIEVE??? I mean, damn, how farking stupid do you have to be that this makes any kind of sense to you?


So all conservatives enjoy zombie movies now, as it shows them ways of trolling for the zombie vote?
 
2013-03-26 02:27:46 PM  

Lando Lincoln: The Southern Dandy: Nope!  He had it right.  The world would be a much nicer place if conservatives didn't exist.

Obviously I meant "social conservatives" in this context. Fiscal conservatives, ecological conservatives, resource conservatives serve a necessary function in our society. Social conservatives only serve to be a bunch of small-minded jackasses.


On the face of those labels I agree, but unfortunately, people that self-identify as Conservative are no where near being Fiscally conservative, Ecologically conservative, or Resource conservative.
 
2013-03-26 02:28:20 PM  
waiting for the day I can marry about 6 people at the same time.  After all, it would be a consensual choice and no "societal" pressures should prohibit me from doing so legally.
 
2013-03-26 02:29:49 PM  

doubled99: I just think it's a mental illness.


A genetically-predisposed 'mental illness' that has no cure. Sure, whatever you want to call it.

People wanting to get married are suffering from a form of mental illness as well, but nobody ever said that we were a perfect species.
 
2013-03-26 02:30:28 PM  

Inigo: [24.media.tumblr.com image 379x292]

To reiterate: WOW


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
Ah good, our first catch of the day.
 
2013-03-26 02:32:34 PM  

queezyweezel: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

I think you mean the Christian Right.  I know plenty of great conservatives.  Hell, I'm way to the right when if comes to the economy, and government powers.


I think you mean the Nutcase Right.  Those people aren't Christians.  I know plenty of great Christians.  The so-called Christian Right is the reincarnation of the Pharisees, and they'd gladly hang Christ up on the cross again if they could add a few trees full of gay and brown fellows to bleed out next to him.
 
2013-03-26 02:33:52 PM  

ElMNoPee: waiting for the day I can marry about 6 people at the same time.  After all, it would be a consensual choice and no "societal" pressures should prohibit me from doing so legally.


No you're not.
 
2013-03-26 02:34:26 PM  

doubled99: They're sexual deviants who will most certainly be going to hell for eternity.
As long as that's understood, I don't see why they can't marry each other.


Stop talking about Congress that way! They can't help they're perverts
 
2013-03-26 02:36:08 PM  

Colour_out_of_Space: ElMNoPee: waiting for the day I can marry about 6 people at the same time.  After all, it would be a consensual choice and no "societal" pressures should prohibit me from doing so legally.

No you're not.




Sure I am. I could be a slug and a sex machine at the same time. All 6 of us would declare each other as dependents on insurance and taxes.

waiting
 
2013-03-26 02:40:52 PM  

ElMNoPee: Colour_out_of_Space: ElMNoPee: waiting for the day I can marry about 6 people at the same time.  After all, it would be a consensual choice and no "societal" pressures should prohibit me from doing so legally.

No you're not.

Sure I am. I could be a slug and a sex machine at the same time. All 6 of us would declare each other as dependents on insurance and taxes.

waiting


30 years tops.
 
2013-03-26 02:41:14 PM  
Prank Call of Cthulhu:
HOLY SHIATSNACKS, IS THIS WHAT CONSERVATIVES ACTUALLY BELIEVE??? I mean, damn, how farking stupid do you have to be that this makes any kind of sense to you?

Funny how that opinion always comes with the certainty(whether justified or not) that God/your ancestors believes exactly the same thing you believe.
 
2013-03-26 02:46:59 PM  

pedrop357: MilesTeg: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

So the state of California is conservative. Hmm would not have guessed that.

Same with Hawaii.  If only they could get those damned conservatives out of the way...


Actually, in California, the Conservative/Liberal mix is not that "out of whack" and it's pretty dependent on where you live. If you are in a rural environment you are probably in a conservative environment. The further down south in the state you get, the more conservative they tend to be. This is in part (or so I've heard theorized a time or ten) because of the large Hispanic population in SoCal and they tend to be Catholic and conservative. The further up North you get, and the more urban the area, the less conservative, with a few exceptions.

Los Angeles and San Diego are kinda tricky. They've been viewed as pretty conservative with strong liberal populations, so you have to be extra careful there and be very center-focused if you're a politician. As the daughter of immigrants myself, I can tell you those that paid farktons of money to be legally allowed to dwell and work here are none too fond of those who did not. However, even the legal sorts of immigrants are very likely to still have family members back in their home countries, so the more anti-immigrant you are perceived to be, the less likely they'll like you. San Diego also has a problem with trying NOT to plow their Beamers into people making a break across their very busy freeways to get deep into the US, which tends to upset everyone involved.

Now you need to factor in the little fact that our fearless leaders, elected by us, the perpetually confused about everything other than questionable fashion choices and recreational possibilities, had the great wisdom to name the Proposition currently cluttering SCOTUS' hallowed chambers to be named in such a way that apparently a large portion of old hippies suffering drug induced self lobotomies or simple lack of reading comprehension would think they were voting FOR gay marriage to remain legal here, when in fact they were doing the opposite, coupled with rampaging Mormons being bused in from Utah to meddle in our affairs when they have their own damn state to worry about. This is how you get the now ongoing, historic Shiatstorm of 2008-sometime in June of this year, most likely.

On behalf of the Great State of California, I can only say "you're welcome" and "bring money when you visit - we're broke".

/this lesson on "why California can't get squat done in a timely fashion and without causing a problem for everyone else and/or ending up in court" thoughtfully provided by the Los Angeles public school system and a lifetime of exposure to surf spray and smog
 
2013-03-26 02:48:30 PM  

Ned Stark: SpdrJay: Well I'm bisexual....

When do I get to marry a man AND a woman?

Because that's the only way I would ever consider getting married.

You're next, don't worry.


If you love the marrage bit; divorce is gonna kill ya.
 
2013-03-26 02:49:28 PM  

Lando Lincoln: This text is now purple: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

For some reason, when progressives are left unchecked, there seems to be a lot of purges and mass murders of dissenters.

Which progressives are you referring to?


Pretty much any of the progressive political movements from 1910 onward. Be it the American progressive movement with their ethnic cleansing pushes, the various communist purges in eastern Europe and Russia from the 1910s through the 1950s, the waves of reprisal killings and ethnic cleansings in communist China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. Hell, even the Italian and German fascists (themselves a progressive movement away from the monarchies), couldn't resist just openly murdering whomever came into their sights. Cripes, even the Irish reactionaries were more violent than their predecessors.

About the only place that seemed to manage it without getting all murder-y was Britain, who was already pretty progressive.
 
2013-03-26 02:52:55 PM  

Ned Stark: For some reason, when progressives are left unchecked, there seems to be a lot of purges and mass murders of dissenters.

Was that wrong? Should they not have done that?

It would be one thing is they were satisfied after one round. But permanent revolution tends to constantly create new targets.

Its the capitalists final defense. Being so deeply and wildly vile that anyone our group who carries out executions in the numbers that are deserved will lose soul and their empathy and won't be able to stop.


Capitalism, for all of its flaws, is fundamentally a pragmatic system. And murdering your work force and your custom base is bad for business.

Idealists don't have the restraint of pragmatism. Sometimes capitalism really is the lesser evil.
 
2013-03-26 02:54:11 PM  

ComicBookGuy: I think SCOTUS will rule in favor of gay marriage, 7-2.

I think we all know who the 2 odd men out would be.


Scalia might well say it's none of big government's business.  The only issue I'd take with that is I'd possibly pee my pants from the lulz.

/SERIOUSLY AMERICA GET YOUR shiat TOGETHER.
 
2013-03-26 02:57:57 PM  

ElMNoPee: waiting for the day I can marry about 6 people at the same time.  After all, it would be a consensual choice and no "societal" pressures should prohibit me from doing so legally.


The primary civil (or governmental) purpose of marriage to promote order and predictability in personal legal affairs, such as having one person who can make health decisions for you if you become incapacitated, one person who inherits your property if you die without a will, one person who is equally responsible for your debts and assets as community property, etc., etc., all by operation of law--without the government having to take the time (judicial resources and otherwise) to resolve competing claims for these very important rights.  This is why marriage has a civil component and has become a government-sponsored (and government-regulated) institution.  The entire purpose is frustrated when there are competing claims to these rights arising from multiple spouses--instead of promoting order, it would promote chaos (two or more spouses arguing about whether the doctor should pull the plug, fighting over the rights to inheret property after the plug is pulled, etc.), all of which would have to be resolved by the courts and other government resources.  The central governmental interest in marriage is to provide a method of avoiding this.

How is this in any way comparable to the issue whether same-sex couple should be allowed to marry?
 
2013-03-26 02:58:04 PM  

Cyberluddite: Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was "perfectly fine" and that the court could "care less who marries whom."

Damn, I hate this--it's bad enough when people say this in casual conversation, but it should never appear in print.  Yes, in reality rather than in satire, it appears that the members of the Supreme Court could actually care a helluva lot less about who marries whom.  The Onion needs to do a little better on editing its writing.


It's quoted, so the people abusing the language here is fictional quoted Supreme Court. That they speak colloquially is part of the satire, so their misuse of "care less" is entirely appropriate. But sure, do think that in 30 seconds, you can spot an error in the sublimely edited Onion. (You might argue that the word "could" should be part of the quote, which is perfectly valid, but the satirical journalist wouldn't be incorrect or irresponsible in splicing the quote that way.)
 
2013-03-26 03:02:20 PM  

Cyberluddite: ElMNoPee: waiting for the day I can marry about 6 people at the same time.  After all, it would be a consensual choice and no "societal" pressures should prohibit me from doing so legally.

The primary civil (or governmental) purpose of marriage to promote order and predictability in personal legal affairs, such as having one person who can make health decisions for you if you become incapacitated, one person who inherits your property if you die without a will, one person who is equally responsible for your debts and assets as community property, etc., etc., all by operation of law--without the government having to take the time (judicial resources and otherwise) to resolve competing claims for these very important rights.  This is why marriage has a civil component and has become a government-sponsored (and government-regulated) institution.  The entire purpose is frustrated when there are competing claims to these rights arising from multiple spouses--instead of promoting order, it would promote chaos (two or more spouses arguing about whether the doctor should pull the plug, fighting over the rights to inheret property after the plug is pulled, etc.), all of which would have to be resolved by the courts and other government resources.  The central governmental interest in marriage is to provide a method of avoiding this.

How is this in any way comparable to the issue whether same-sex couple should be allowed to marry?


In the only way that matters at all. People will want polygamous marriages and they can't be shown to harm anyone else. These arguments you are positing about marriages "purpose" will be just as mocked as the ones made now about marriage's purpose being to have kids.

You'll get over it.
 
2013-03-26 03:07:49 PM  
i'm worried legalizing gay marriage will make kids think it is ok to be gay. just kidding. seriously though, does this mean I have to marry a man?
 
2013-03-26 03:09:09 PM  

howdoibegin: It's quoted, so the people abusing the language here is fictional quoted Supreme Court. That they speak colloquially is part of the satire, so their misuse of "care less" is entirely appropriate. But sure, do think that in 30 seconds, you can spot an error in the sublimely edited Onion. (You might argue that the word "could" should be part of the quote, which is perfectly valid, but the satirical journalist wouldn't be incorrect or irresponsible in splicing the quote that way.)


Yes, as you said at the end, the "care less" is (fictionally) quoted, but the "could" isn't and is part of the (satirical) writer's words:

Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was "perfectly fine" and that the court could "care less who marries whom."

So it's actually The Onion's language, not part of the fictional quote.  And even if it was part of the quote, I don't think that's a grammatical error that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is likely to make, and it wouldn't add anything to the story to make it appear that he had.  It's just sloppy work by the writer.

/Have now thought about this way too much
 
2013-03-26 03:10:10 PM  

ElMNoPee: waiting for the day I can marry about 6 people at the same time.  After all, it would be a consensual choice and no "societal" pressures should prohibit me from doing so legally.


Why don't you just marry one straw man instead?
 
2013-03-26 03:11:41 PM  

devilEther: i'm worried legalizing gay marriage will make kids think it is ok to be gay. just kidding. seriously though, does this mean I have to marry a man?


You will find out when they let you out of FEMA camp
 
2013-03-26 03:12:59 PM  

The Southern Dandy: Which is is the defendant? For or against same-sex marriage?


The "against" crowd is the defendant at his point. The deali-o is this - Gavin Newsom, when he was Supremely Fabulous of San Francisco (mayor) told the county "screw it, let 'em get married" and directed county clerks to issue the appropriate licenses. A bunch of dudes and dudettes went and gay married each other and all was quiet and peaceful for the exact amount of time it took the anti-marriage for teh ebil gheys crowd to file paperwork to put a stop to it until it could be decided by a statewide vote.

It hit the state ballot as Prop 8 aka the strangely named "protection of marriage act" (or something similar, too lazy to google it right now) and since a lot of folks seemed to think that gay marriage was obviously legal or we'd not have so many married gays suddenly running amok planning honeymoons and updating their state tax BS, they were preserving the legality of the marriage and many questionable shenanigans ensued. Prop 8 passed, the existing marriages were left intact, but no new gay marryin' anyone, you pervs.

Enter the California Supreme court, after many more shenanigans involving lower courts, who ruled the new law against gay marriage unconstitutional, even on the federal level. This upheld the rulings of the lower courts but because a federal judge somewhere in the list was also gay, it didn't count. So now two of the gay couples who got hitched and who started the whole "you can't tell us we can't marry cuz the 14th amendment, biatches" are now facing off against the "you're going to hell, sodomites! (pssst...call me)" crowd, much to no one's surprise at all.

A great time was had by none except in small spurts after a few court rulings that have generally sided with the "gay marriage is a-ok" crowd. When this is all over, we'll all head down to see the pot doc, complain of menstrual cramping to get a medical marijuana card and then just chill the fark out with some baked vegetable chips, tofu dip and a low fat, non-dairy wheat grass smoothie spiked with Napa Valley wine. I promise. coontil we find some other way to poke someone else in the eye with a sharp pointy stick or get really bored)
 
2013-03-26 03:14:53 PM  
Finally some common sense! Oh. It's the onion. :(
 
2013-03-26 03:14:54 PM  

Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.


Since more than twice as many Senate Democrats voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act than those who voted against it, you might want to rethink that.

Put another way, only 14 Senate Democrats were willing to vote against a law stripping equal rights from a certain class of Americans.

Senator Wyden, my total Senate man crush, was awesome even back then.
 
2013-03-26 03:16:05 PM  

This text is now purple: Lando Lincoln: This text is now purple: Lando Lincoln: If conservatives didn't exist, the world would be a much nicer place.

For some reason, when progressives are left unchecked, there seems to be a lot of purges and mass murders of dissenters.

Which progressives are you referring to?

Pretty much any of the progressive political movements from 1910 onward. Be it the American progressive movement with their ethnic cleansing pushes, the various communist purges in eastern Europe and Russia from the 1910s through the 1950s, the waves of reprisal killings and ethnic cleansings in communist China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. Hell, even the Italian and German fascists (themselves a progressive movement away from the monarchies), couldn't resist just openly murdering whomever came into their sights. Cripes, even the Irish reactionaries were more violent than their predecessors.

About the only place that seemed to manage it without getting all murder-y was Britain, who was already pretty progressive.


Communism and fascism aren't progressivism, no matter how many times Glenn Beck tries to tell you otherwise.

You can lay down eugenics at the feet of progressives, but that's about it.
 
2013-03-26 03:17:37 PM  
This text is now purple:
Pretty much any of the progressive political movements from 1910 onward.

Would like a word with you...
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=607

www.mrnussbaum.com

.
 
2013-03-26 03:18:10 PM  
 
2013-03-26 03:18:14 PM  

Ned Stark: In the only way that matters at all. People will want polygamous marriages and they can't be shown to harm anyone else. These arguments you are positing about marriages "purpose" will be just as mocked as the ones made now about marriage's purpose being to have kids.

You'll get over it.


There most certainly is a government "purpose" in marriage--otherwise it wouldn't be a government institution at all, now would it?  I pointed out how plural marriages frustrate the primary governmental interest in providing a system of civil marriages, that of providing stability and order in financial/family relationships.  Same-sex marriage, however, does not in any way frustrate that system--if anything, it promotes it.  So the government has a rational basis for prohibiting one (polygamous marriage), and has no rational basis for prohibiting the other (same-sex marriage).

Do I need to do the same thing for you with respect to the other "slippery slope" arguments about being able to marry your turtle or your sister or your car, or can you just accept that same-sex marriage isn't like the others and that allowing it has no bearing on whether the government needs to allow the others?
 
2013-03-26 03:18:22 PM  

BullBearMS: Since more than twice as many Senate Democrats voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act than those who voted against it, you might want to rethink that.


hurr durr democrats equals liberals herpa derp

Stop being so goddamn dense.
 
2013-03-26 03:25:06 PM  

The Southern Dandy: Lando Lincoln: The Southern Dandy: Nope!  He had it right.  The world would be a much nicer place if conservatives didn't exist.

Obviously I meant "social conservatives" in this context. Fiscal conservatives, ecological conservatives, resource conservatives serve a necessary function in our society. Social conservatives only serve to be a bunch of small-minded jackasses.

On the face of those labels I agree, but unfortunately, people that self-identify as Conservative are no where near being Fiscally conservative, Ecologically conservative, or Resource conservative.


And unfortunately, people who self-identify as liberal enjoy having sex with children. They will all deny it, but I know what they are like better than they do.
 
2013-03-26 03:25:33 PM  

ElMNoPee: waiting for the day I can marry about 6 people at the same time.  After all, it would be a consensual choice and no "societal" pressures should prohibit me from doing so legally.


While the thought of more than one wife fills me with dread (ouch! Honey! I just meant I already had THE ONE! Stop smacking the back of my head!).  Ahem.  While I am not personally in the market for additional wives (or co-husbands), I don't have any issues about others going in for that sort of thing.  As long as everyone is happy and the children are brought up in a loving non-abusive environment (which should also apply to binary marriage), I'm ok with this.
 
2013-03-26 03:27:28 PM  
as a progressive, i am in favor of mass murder.
 
Displayed 50 of 183 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report