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

(Talking Points Memo)   [=] is spreading like the plague, a plague of fabulousness   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 169
    More: Cool, breast cancer awareness, Grumpy Cat, horizontal lines, same-sex marriages, University of Illinois at Chicago, Pinterest  
•       •       •

3318 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Mar 2013 at 9:32 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-28 08:20:09 AM
I heart this headline.
 
2013-03-28 09:02:20 AM
i522.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-28 09:09:18 AM
s3-ec.buzzfed.com
 
2013-03-28 09:19:45 AM
 
2013-03-28 09:21:56 AM
I refuse because it's stupid.

There's no reason two people of the same sex can't enter into a contract. QED gay marriage should be legal. There's no reason to plaster an ugly jpg around the internet for something that's almost tautological.

Anyone who opposes gay marriage? Just shoot 'em with they ol' mayonnaise gun until they relent.
 
2013-03-28 09:27:51 AM
what happened to the GOP symbol of a man farking a turtle?
 
2013-03-28 09:31:18 AM
socialnewsdaily.com
 
2013-03-28 09:34:47 AM

doglover: Anyone who opposes gay marriage? Just shoot 'em with they ol' mayonnaise gun until they relent.


I have to pay extra for that sort of action Cotton
 
2013-03-28 09:36:15 AM
Sotomayor asked, "If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" before referencing "polygamy and incest among adults," as reported by Matt Canham of the Salt Lake Tribune. The argument is an illustration of a broader issue about the culture of American society. To agree that gay marriage is indeed protected by the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution, wouldn't the same apply for all consenting adult relationships?

This is an excellent point made by Justice Sotomayor.  What limits are there?  Do I have a fundamental right to marry a goat or a dolphin if I wanted to?  Do I have a fundamental right to marry my iPhone?  What about if two men and three women all want to get married to each other as a single marriage?  What about consenting, related adults?  Where do we draw the line?
 
2013-03-28 09:39:06 AM

SlothB77: Where do we draw the line?


Somewhere other than underneath a bible passage would probably be a good start.

I'm not justifying your absurd comment any further, though, unless you retract your idiotic comparison of gay marriage to marrying animals and objects incapable of giving consent.

You didn't start off with an honest premise, so I'm just going to write off your comments as dishonest attempts to pick a fight over nothing as is the only fair route.
 
2013-03-28 09:40:40 AM
I rather enjoyed switching my profile photo yesterday- one of my old guildmates spams right wing derp almost every day onto my FB feed.  Halfway through yesterday he had to ask the teeming hordes what it meant, and was promptly horrified that he had to see it.

Sorry to pop a hole in your bubble dude.
 
2013-03-28 09:42:03 AM

SlothB77: [socialnewsdaily.com image 480x277]


That is funny, but in actuality politicians make decisions based on whether they think it will help them be reelected or not.  So public opinion does make a huge difference. I recognize that the Supreme Court is not composed of people up for election, but it is becoming obvious that they are not going to make an "end all" decision either way.

In the last year, a lot of politicians have switched to supporting equality. It is not because they suddenly became less bigoted.  It is because, looking at public opinion, opposing equality is moving from a political asset to a political liability.  So yes, I think it is important to make it clear that there are more of us who support equality than there are people who are against it ( who have no problem being loud and letting be known their bigoted views).
 
2013-03-28 09:42:49 AM

doglover: I refuse because it's stupid.

There's no reason two people of the same sex can't enter into a contract. QED gay marriage should be legal. There's no reason to plaster an ugly jpg around the internet for something that's almost tautological.

Anyone who opposes gay marriage? Just shoot 'em with they ol' mayonnaise gun until they relent.


I'm not so sure it's stupid, actually. It might, finally (or possibly for the first time) adverted the inequality bozos to how much support they don't have.
 
2013-03-28 09:43:05 AM

Glockenspiel Hero: Sorry to pop a hole in your bubble dude.


giggity
 
2013-03-28 09:44:21 AM

SlothB77: Sotomayor asked, "If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" before referencing "polygamy and incest among adults," as reported by Matt Canham of the Salt Lake Tribune. The argument is an illustration of a broader issue about the culture of American society. To agree that gay marriage is indeed protected by the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution, wouldn't the same apply for all consenting adult relationships?

This is an excellent point made by Justice Sotomayor.  What limits are there?  Do I have a fundamental right to marry a goat or a dolphin if I wanted to?  Do I have a fundamental right to marry my iPhone?  What about if two men and three women all want to get married to each other as a single marriage?  What about consenting, related adults?  Where do we draw the line?


The dolphin and the goat can't consent. Your iPhone can't consent with the current firmware.

Those other will all but certainly happen. Its not possible to draw a line anywhere.
 
2013-03-28 09:45:23 AM

SlothB77: Sotomayor asked, "If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" before referencing "polygamy and incest among adults," as reported by Matt Canham of the Salt Lake Tribune. The argument is an illustration of a broader issue about the culture of American society. To agree that gay marriage is indeed protected by the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution, wouldn't the same apply for all consenting adult relationships?

This is an excellent point made by Justice Sotomayor.  What limits are there?  Do I have a fundamental right to marry a goat or a dolphin if I wanted to?  Do I have a fundamental right to marry my iPhone?  What about if two men and three women all want to get married to each other as a single marriage?  What about consenting, related adults?  Where do we draw the line?


Dolphins and Iphones can't enter into a contract. 2 men and 3 women certainly can. It complicates things a lot from a legal standpoint but that's their problem, not yours. Consenting related adults can also enter into a contract. Whats the problem? Just because you find something "icky" or not something you would normally consider part of your culture doesn't mean you should ban it.
 
2013-03-28 09:45:40 AM

SlothB77: Sotomayor asked, "If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" before referencing "polygamy and incest among adults," as reported by Matt Canham of the Salt Lake Tribune. The argument is an illustration of a broader issue about the culture of American society. To agree that gay marriage is indeed protected by the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution, wouldn't the same apply for all consenting adult relationships?

This is an excellent point made by Justice Sotomayor.  What limits are there?  Do I have a fundamental right to marry a goat or a dolphin if I wanted to?  Do I have a fundamental right to marry my iPhone?  What about if two men and three women all want to get married to each other as a single marriage?  What about consenting, related adults?  Where do we draw the line?


A goat or dolphin can't consent and aren't human and it wasn't the point she was making you twat
 
2013-03-28 09:46:08 AM
It's interesting that the symbol itself is not actually that universally loved in the LBGT community.  The equality symbol is the brand of HRC, a gay rights lobbyist group that has had a few issues with marginalizing within its own community.  Mainly due to criticisms that it's more G, a little L, and pretty much ignoring the trans and bi communities.  Most of my friends in those communities still prefer the rainbow flag; it's not merchandising an individual organization.

Even knowing that, it's good to see so many showing some sort of support of the movement - even if it's a slacktivist virtual bumper sticker, it goes to show a vast increase in general support and that can't be ignored.
 
2013-03-28 09:46:28 AM

SlothB77: Sotomayor asked, "If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" before referencing "polygamy and incest among adults," as reported by Matt Canham of the Salt Lake Tribune. The argument is an illustration of a broader issue about the culture of American society. To agree that gay marriage is indeed protected by the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution, wouldn't the same apply for all consenting adult relationships?

This is an excellent point made by Justice Sotomayor.  What limits are there?  Do I have a fundamental right to marry a goat or a dolphin if I wanted to?  Do I have a fundamental right to marry my iPhone?  What about if two men and three women all want to get married to each other as a single marriage?  What about consenting, related adults?  Where do we draw the line?


Well if I'm not mistaken, unless both parties can come together and agree to something a contract cannot be made.  Animals and inanimate objects cannot give consent (lack of reasoning ability renders their ability to give consent pretty much non-existent) so the first two examples are scratched at the starting line.

The other ones are different fights IMO but I'll leave that to others to resolve.
 
2013-03-28 09:46:41 AM
The equal's sign has two distinct purposes:

1) when comparing two singular scalar objects, it can be used to denote equality of that scalar (or assignment in programming)
2) When comparing complex objects containing multiple attributes, it is used to say two given objects are identical in every single possible way.

People supporting marriage rights for all people really should be using the congruence sign (equal sign with a squiggly). Congruence means that two seperate objects are externally similar without regard to location or (if you'll excuse the pun) orientation. Since no two marriages are the same, and a modification to one doesn't directly modify other marriages, we should consider this a congruence relation, not an equal one.

Also, fark bigots.
 
2013-03-28 09:46:57 AM

skozlaw: SlothB77: Where do we draw the line?

Somewhere other than underneath a bible passage would probably be a good start.

I'm not justifying your absurd comment any further, though, unless you retract your idiotic comparison of gay marriage to marrying animals and objects incapable of giving consent.

You didn't start off with an honest premise, so I'm just going to write off your comments as dishonest attempts to pick a fight over nothing as is the only fair route.


And you just summed up 99.99% of his posts.
 
2013-03-28 09:49:27 AM

SlothB77: Sotomayor asked, "If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" before referencing "polygamy and incest among adults," as reported by Matt Canham of the Salt Lake Tribune. The argument is an illustration of a broader issue about the culture of American society. To agree that gay marriage is indeed protected by the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution, wouldn't the same apply for all consenting adult relationships?

This is an excellent point made by Justice Sotomayor.  What limits are there?  Do I have a fundamental right to marry a goat or a dolphin if I wanted to?  Do I have a fundamental right to marry my iPhone?  What about if two men and three women all want to get married to each other as a single marriage?  What about consenting, related adults?  Where do we draw the line?


Your admission that you are unable to present any rational argument against legal recognition of same-sex marriage is appreciated.
 
2013-03-28 09:49:27 AM

nekom:


Heavenly.
 
2013-03-28 09:51:51 AM
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net

Oh my....
 
2013-03-28 09:52:11 AM
Had to make my own. No end to the crap I've gotten for it down here in the bible belt.

i499.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-28 09:52:30 AM
Equality *and* fresh breath.
img547.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-28 09:52:50 AM

Public Call Box: The other ones are different fights IMO but I'll leave that to others to resolve.


What fight? We're talking about a  legal fiction that grants people specific rights based on their ability to enter into a binding contract. There is no harm caused to society by any of those other groups entering into such a contract and, therefore, society has no basis for telling them they can't.

The marriage argument is exclusively about a group of people who are upset that their religious doctrines were used over the last century or so to improperly shape the current status of marriage in this country and now a bunch of people have finally gotten around to saying that's wrong. They're mad that one of the few remaining religious tendrils they've managed to keep buried deep within governmental policy-making is slowly being chopped out.

The only valid resolution is for the government to cease recognizing any distinctions based on religious or cultural taboos and begin recognizing only valid contracts while religious organizations are cut out of the picture entirely so they can decide who they want to discriminate against in the privacy of their own churches as is their right.

There is literally no other acceptable path unless you think that limiting a person's rights because you think what they do is "gross" is acceptable.
 
2013-03-28 09:53:37 AM

SlothB77: What about if two men and three women all want to get married to each other as a single marriage?


That's called "incorporation" and apparently they count as people as well.
 
2013-03-28 09:55:50 AM
The -real- problem here is that we allowed the government to start legislating love and human relationships to begin with.

I'm for civil partnerships. For everyone. I don't think the government should be in the marriage game period. Any two consenting adults can enter into a civil partnership if they live together, combine finances, or take a joint role in caring for dependents. If you're a man and a woman and want to have a fancy church service and call it a "marriage", fine. If you're a man and another man and want to have a fancy church service and call it a "marriage", fine. If you knock some chick up and you decide to live together as roommates and raise your shared bag of DNA, you can hop down to the courthouse and get all partnered up for tax reasons. If two bros want to live together a'la Balkie and Cousin Larry from Perfect Strangers, they can get a little tax relief. No polygamy. No bestiality. No marrying your iPhone. Two adult human beings.

This way, dumbass fundie gay-hating Christians can say THEIR church performs the only REAL marriages and can continue their delusion that only straights should be allowed to get married, while normal, decent human beings can marry who they like, so long as they can find a church (or whatever) willing to do the deed.
 
2013-03-28 09:55:57 AM

Ned Stark: Your iPhone can't consent with the current firmware.


I asked, Siri only wanted to be friends
 
2013-03-28 09:58:22 AM

Ned Stark: The dolphin and the goat can't consent.


Public Call Box: Animals and inanimate objects cannot give consent


Moosecakes: A goat or dolphin can't consent


GBmanNC: Dolphins and Iphones can't enter into a contract.


http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01 /1 136050339590.html
 
2013-03-28 10:00:37 AM
Goddammit. I just done caught teh gheys. Now what the fark am I supposed to do?
 
2013-03-28 10:01:02 AM

SlothB77: [socialnewsdaily.com image 480x277]


Ralph Reed argued that the court shouldn't decide until society demands it.  Aside from the pro gay-marriage groups surrounding the SC and others who can't attend voicing their opinion on the matter, what do you suggest?
 
2013-03-28 10:01:06 AM

Pappas: No polygamy.


Why not? I'm not for it, but you need a reason other than just saying so. Bestiality and marrying objects can be argued against easily. Polygamy? Not so much. Also, you say the real problem is allowing the government to be involved at all. So why then go on to talk about tax breaks for marriage as well as any rules for it? All you're doing is restructuring the laws to fit what you'd like to see-- you're not abolishing anything.
 
2013-03-28 10:01:33 AM
I don't know if marriage equality will lead to polygamy legalization. Probably not in the near future.  But seriously, if it does it won't be the end of the world. Nearly every society in history has supported polygamy (including the precious Bronze Age societies that we are apparently supposed to base our laws upon) and they did just fine. I certainly is not something so terrible that the specter of it is worth discriminating over.
 
2013-03-28 10:01:40 AM

SlothB77: Ned Stark: The dolphin and the goat can't consent.

Public Call Box: Animals and inanimate objects cannot give consent

Moosecakes: A goat or dolphin can't consent

GBmanNC: Dolphins and Iphones can't enter into a contract.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01 /1 136050339590.html


FTFA: While she acknowledged the "wedding" had no legal bearing she did say it reflected her deep feelings toward the bottlenosed, 35-year-old object of her affection.
 
2013-03-28 10:01:52 AM

SlothB77: Ned Stark: The dolphin and the goat can't consent.

Public Call Box: Animals and inanimate objects cannot give consent

Moosecakes: A goat or dolphin can't consent

GBmanNC: Dolphins and Iphones can't enter into a contract.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01 /1 136050339590.html


A wedding involving a crazy person in another country, and 'with no legal bearing' (FTFA) is your example used against allowing gays to marry?

Bravo. Fabulous job. Fab-U-lous!
 
2013-03-28 10:05:18 AM

SlothB77: http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01 /1 136050339590.html


This paper contains facts. And this paper has the eighth highest circulation in the whole wide world. Right? Plenty of facts. "Pregnant man gives birth." That's a fact.
 
2013-03-28 10:06:41 AM

Pappas: The -real- problem here is that we allowed the government to start legislating love and human relationships to begin with.

I'm for civil partnerships. For everyone. I don't think the government should be in the marriage game period. Any two consenting adults can enter into a civil partnership if they live together, combine finances, or take a joint role in caring for dependents. If you're a man and a woman and want to have a fancy church service and call it a "marriage", fine. If you're a man and another man and want to have a fancy church service and call it a "marriage", fine. If you knock some chick up and you decide to live together as roommates and raise your shared bag of DNA, you can hop down to the courthouse and get all partnered up for tax reasons. If two bros want to live together a'la Balkie and Cousin Larry from Perfect Strangers, they can get a little tax relief. No polygamy. No bestiality. No marrying your iPhone. Two adult human beings.

This way, dumbass fundie gay-hating Christians can say THEIR church performs the only REAL marriages and can continue their delusion that only straights should be allowed to get married, while normal, decent human beings can marry who they like, so long as they can find a church (or whatever) willing to do the deed.


Sure, but so long as the government IS in the marriage game, it shouldn't discriminate on the basis of gender.
 
2013-03-28 10:07:24 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Ned Stark: Your iPhone can't consent with the current firmware.

I asked, Siri only wanted to be friends


Could she mean "...with benefits"?
 
2013-03-28 10:07:58 AM

SlothB77: http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01 /1 136050339590.html


Are you trying to make a joke about your prior comment or are you actually just being a huge dick and trying to shiat all over this comment thread? I seriously can't tell.
 
2013-03-28 10:09:44 AM

Deneb81: SlothB77: Ned Stark: The dolphin and the goat can't consent.

Public Call Box: Animals and inanimate objects cannot give consent

Moosecakes: A goat or dolphin can't consent

GBmanNC: Dolphins and Iphones can't enter into a contract.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01 /1 136050339590.html

A wedding involving a crazy person in another country, and 'with no legal bearing' (FTFA) is your example used against allowing gays to marry?

Bravo. Fabulous job. Fab-U-lous!


To provide fair consideration: requiring same-sex marriage opponents to rely upon logically valid arguments substantially limits their ability to advocate their position.
 
2013-03-28 10:09:52 AM

BunkoSquad: This paper contains facts. And this paper has the eighth highest circulation in the whole wide world. Right? Plenty of facts. "Pregnant man gives birth." That's a fact.


It doesn't even matter. It was a joke ceremony just for fun with no legal weight and it happened in Israel. No part of that story has anything to do with anything posted by anybody so far anywhere in this thread.

Which is why I made my prior post about not being sure if he's trying to kid around now or if he's actually just being a giant asshole.
 
2013-03-28 10:10:26 AM

Deneb81: A wedding involving a crazy person in another country, and 'with no legal bearing' (FTFA) is your example used against allowing gays to marry?


I am just saying we just set limits.  I am fine with the limit as a marriage can only consist of two consenting, unrelated, human adults.  No polygamy, no minors, no one who doesn't consent, no incest.  I am not against gay marriage.
 
2013-03-28 10:12:32 AM

WinoRhino: Pappas: No polygamy.

Why not? I'm not for it, but you need a reason other than just saying so. Bestiality and marrying objects can be argued against easily. Polygamy? Not so much. Also, you say the real problem is allowing the government to be involved at all. So why then go on to talk about tax breaks for marriage as well as any rules for it? All you're doing is restructuring the laws to fit what you'd like to see-- you're not abolishing anything.


I have addressed the subject of polygamy as it relates to argument regarding same-sex marriage in previous discussions:

Whether legal marriage should be altered to accommodate polygamous arrangements is a subject separate from whether legal marriage should not be restricted to opposite-gender couples.

Allowing same-sex marriage requires only eliminating the requirement that the two parties of a marriage contract be of the opposite gender. Because this requirement is not based upon any of the legal benefits provided to spouses, removing it does not in any way alter the legal structure of the marriage. The same benefits would be applied to same-sex spouses, and no new legislation would be required to accommodate any supposed differences in the union.

Current marriage laws are designed for two-party contracts; many benefits are specifically structured for a two-party system. Allowing polygamous marriage would necessarily require alteration of those benefits to accommodate third, fourth or fifth spouses. Divorce laws would require adjustment as well, as would custody arrangements. Such adjustment necessarily requires additional legislation and, before that legislation is authored, an assessment of whether any legitimate government interest exists to create that legislation.

Legal recognition of polygamous marriage may be justified, or it may not be. However, if justification exists, it exists on its own, separate from justification for same-sex marriage. Arguing for legal recognition of same-sex marriage does not obligate arguing for legal recognition of polygamous marriage; the two concepts are different arrangements with different implications and thus different arguments for each. Referencing polygamy when arguing against same-sex marriage is an attempt to change the subject of discussion and demonstrates only an inability to logically argue against legal recognition of same-sex marriage.


tl;dr: by asking about polygamous marriage, same-sex marriage opponents (such as SlothB77) are dishonestly changing the subject of discussion because they cannot actually logically argue against same-sex marriage.
 
2013-03-28 10:12:40 AM

skozlaw: BunkoSquad: This paper contains facts. And this paper has the eighth highest circulation in the whole wide world. Right? Plenty of facts. "Pregnant man gives birth." That's a fact.

It doesn't even matter. It was a joke ceremony just for fun with no legal weight and it happened in Israel. No part of that story has anything to do with anything posted by anybody so far anywhere in this thread.

Which is why I made my prior post about not being sure if he's trying to kid around now or if he's actually just being a giant asshole.


And mine was a quote from "So I Married an Axe Murderer" (about the main character's mom reading the Weekly World News, no less), which seems to be, unfortunately, a more obscure film than it deserves to be.
 
2013-03-28 10:15:24 AM

Jairzinho: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Ned Stark: Your iPhone can't consent with the current firmware.

I asked, Siri only wanted to be friends

Could she mean "...with benefits"?


I tried charging her off my laptop but she wasn't down with a threeway
 
2013-03-28 10:16:59 AM

skozlaw: Which is why I made my prior post about not being sure if he's trying to kid around now or if he's actually just being a giant asshole.


I am just seeing how far farkers are willing to bend the definition of marriage.  I am fine with gay marriage, but I don't want to open up a pandora's box where now anything goes.

Further on down the road, some may say 'hey monkeys are pretty smart.  science has allowed us to communicate with monkeys pretty well.  We think they have progressed far enough that they can legally consent to things like marriage.  Let's allow human-monkey marriages.'  I don't know.
 
2013-03-28 10:18:11 AM

BunkoSquad: unfortunately, a more obscure film than it deserves to be.


We should meet fortnightly to view it. Now turn on the Bay City Rollers.
 
2013-03-28 10:21:05 AM

SlothB77: I am just seeing how far farkers are willing to bend the definition of marriage. I am fine with gay marriage, but I don't want to open up a pandora's box where now anything goes.

Further on down the road, some may say 'hey monkeys are pretty smart. science has allowed us to communicate with monkeys pretty well. We think they have progressed far enough that they can legally consent to things like marriage. Let's allow human-monkey marriages.' I don't know.


Yeah...that's called "slippery slope" and it's not a great way to make a point.
 
Displayed 50 of 169 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report