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.

(Some Guy)   Finally an argument that makes sense: marriage is a scheme for women to enslave men. Marriage between two women, that is   (marriagepolicy.org) divider line 79
    More: Dumbass, National Organization for Women, same-sex marriages, long campaign, sex discriminations  
•       •       •

1746 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Mar 2013 at 8:23 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-28 06:29:34 PM  
Will this slavery involve whips, chains and leather?
 
2013-03-28 06:34:23 PM  

manwithplanx: Will this slavery involve whips, chains and leather?


That costs extra.
 
2013-03-28 06:35:53 PM  
I could not get through a full page of that derp; it reads like a fourth-grader's first essay.
 
2013-03-28 06:36:25 PM  
 
2013-03-28 06:44:58 PM  

RedPhoenix122: manwithplanx: Will this slavery involve whips, chains and leather?

That costs extra.


Man, this is the worst slavery ever
 
2013-03-28 06:53:09 PM  

manwithplanx: RedPhoenix122: manwithplanx: Will this slavery involve whips, chains and leather?

That costs extra.

Man, this is the worst slavery ever


Let's mutiny.
 
2013-03-28 07:00:19 PM  
What planet does this guy live on?
 
2013-03-28 07:04:17 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: What planet does this guy live on?


Bullshiat Mountain is now planet-sized.
 
2013-03-28 07:14:34 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: What planet does this guy live on?


Venus, where the women are from,
 
2013-03-28 07:17:10 PM  
Wow, the twists of logic in that article were too much for my poor brain. Will go back to my facebook argument where somebody claims the term marriage was first used in the Bible, thus only should pertain to 'religious marriages'.
 
2013-03-28 07:20:24 PM  

Riche: What about the dinosaur riding nazis?



  with British accents..Excuse me. Biblical accents.
 
2013-03-28 07:26:41 PM  
His argument seems to be that the more lesbians around, the lower men's productivity.  Huh.
 
2013-03-28 07:29:25 PM  
www.troll.me
 
2013-03-28 07:58:50 PM  
It's worth noting that this is more or less the argument made to the Supreme Court by defenders of both DOMA and Prop 8.
 
2013-03-28 08:28:05 PM  
I don't understand why the dudes in homosexual marriages would be boning lesbians on the side. Wtf is the author of this article on?

/and where can I get some?
 
2013-03-28 08:31:22 PM  
Male-Male marriages: ...In most cases, these men will become unconsenting "fathers."

I'm not sure he quite grasps the concept of homosexuality.
 
Ant
2013-03-28 08:32:15 PM  
That's a whole lot of crazy. The world must be an extremely scary place for those people.
 
2013-03-28 08:32:37 PM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: His argument seems to be that the more lesbian porn around, the lower men's productivity.  Huh.


Fixed for accuracy.
 
2013-03-28 08:33:06 PM  
OKAYIMGOINGTOSMOKEWEEDNOWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
 
2013-03-28 08:33:32 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Three Crooked Squirrels: What planet does this guy live on?

Bullshiat Mountain is now planet-sized.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8je6MTIUZH4
King of Bullshiat Mountain
- Dallas Moore
 
2013-03-28 08:36:10 PM  

Whistling Kitty Chaser: Male-Male marriages: ...In most cases, these men will become unconsenting "fathers."

I'm not sure he quite grasps the concept of homosexuality.


I was halfway through a post trying to explain what this loon is on about, and then I had an aneurysm, so...

Yeah, I dunno either.
 
2013-03-28 08:38:24 PM  
If I understand the author's argument: same-sex marriage will result in female-female marriage couplings to draw welfare. Additionally, male-male marriages will be considered lesser for some reason. This condition will somehow violate the Fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution.


The author's reasoning does appear sound, provided that the author's completely unsubstantiated assertions are accepted without question and provided that a reader lack any fundamental reasoning capability.
 
2013-03-28 08:40:56 PM  
Was this guy educated stupid, by any chance?
 
2013-03-28 08:45:19 PM  

Phoenix87ta: Whistling Kitty Chaser: Male-Male marriages: ...In most cases, these men will become unconsenting "fathers."

I'm not sure he quite grasps the concept of homosexuality.

I was halfway through a post trying to explain what this loon is on about, and

then I had an aneurysm, so...

Yeah, I dunno either.



Lucky you!
 
2013-03-28 08:46:18 PM  
More contortions in that article than a dozen games of Twister.
 
2013-03-28 08:46:46 PM  

Dimensio: If I understand the author's argument: same-sex marriage will result in female-female marriage couplings to draw welfare. Additionally, male-male marriages will be considered lesser for some reason. This condition will somehow violate the Fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution.


The author's reasoning does appear sound, provided that the author's completely unsubstantiated assertions are accepted without question and provided that a reader lack any fundamental reasoning capability.


Sure.  I mean, Lord knows that lesbians are never gainfully employed.
 
2013-03-28 08:48:52 PM  

www.renewamerica.com



"I'm a fancy boy!"
 
2013-03-28 08:49:41 PM  
Upon re-examining the article, I am somewhat surprised that the author did not also attempt to argue that same-sex marriage inherently violates amendment potato.
 
2013-03-28 08:51:12 PM  
I actually read the whole article.  It was like watching a car wreck:  It was horrible, but I just couldn't look away.

After reading it, I think the author is either stupid or on drugs... or both.

gay men becoming "consenting fathers"?  Lesbian roommates getting pregnant by random dudes for the child support, but not worried about a custody battle?  The 3 way marriage between two lesbians and the government?

It's like a whole parade of stupid!
 
2013-03-28 08:51:15 PM  
Feminist marriage will be far more attractive to women than heterosexual marriage. Sexual orientation does not matter when two women marry and become "married room-mates." They can still have as many boyfriends as they want and capture the richest ones for baby-daddies by "forgetting" to use their invisible forms of birth control. On average, a feminist marriage will have at least four income sources, two of them tax-free, plus backup welfare entitlements.

www.troll.me
 
2013-03-28 08:55:51 PM  
And so it came to pass. Manhattan became the Isle of Lesbos and the Upper East Side a community of like minded women in pairs or triads.  By day they drop their children off at city approved day care centers run by gay men an limited to locations above leather shops or bath houses.  They eat naught but Pinkberry laced with birth control pills and by night traveled to Harlem where the multiethnic orgy clubs were run by illegal Haitian immigrants.

Wall Street became a militarized compound of men where only the most successful and whitest hedge fund managers are given day passes once a month. During their allotted time, they are transported in Priuses to The Standard, where they are locked in a hotel room and forced to impregnate multiple women against the window so that the children in the plaza below can be forced to watch their frenzied copulation by their gay male scoutmasters
 
2013-03-28 08:57:12 PM  
That combination of weapons-grade derp and sheer stupidity should be criminal.
 
2013-03-28 08:57:54 PM  
fine get married.  leave me alone

what you gonna do.  biatches.
 
2013-03-28 08:59:43 PM  
I suspect that same-sex marriage opponents will cite an inability to refute the author's argument as vindication of their position. The reality, however, is that the argument is so divorced from reality that it is not even wrong; it cannot be refuted rationally, because it is not constructed rationally.
 
2013-03-28 09:04:36 PM  
Someone needs to tell this guy that "Housewives at Play" is a twisted graphic serial, not reality.
 
2013-03-28 09:06:12 PM  
www.culture-games.com
 
2013-03-28 09:06:44 PM  

Riche: What about the dinosaur riding nazis?


Not nearly as frightening as Nazi Dinosaurs!!

/yes yours is actually relevant.
//I just can't resist any opportunity to post that.
 
2013-03-28 09:23:56 PM  
Let's see if I've got the general argument here:

Feminists will use female-female marriages to gain the tax benefits of marriage, then have sex with unsuspecting men and have children out of wedlock, which they will then use to collect child support payments from the men and tax benefits from the government, and possibly even welfare. Bonus of financially screwing over the men. Regular marriages will exist, for a time, because love or something, but then women will notice the feminist marriage-children deal are more financially (and possibly emotionally/socially) beneficial to them and eventually the trend will swing to mostly female-female marriages. Men will marry men because...uh, to support each other financially because of the feminists who screw them over. Both regular and male marriages (and single people) will be paying for the welfare and child support for men who otherwise can't. Basically paying feminists to be all feministy.

This is unconstitutional because it leads to a discrimnation of the sexes, because it eventually leads to a sexual underclass (men) who have to financially support women. And in case you haven't figured it out, this leads to a world where men have to financially support women who don't have to work and just raise children all day. Yes, the best this misogynistic idiot can come up with is some farked up version of the olden days except now women are sexually empowered.
 
2013-03-28 09:35:06 PM  

hawcian: Let's see if I've got the general argument here:

Feminists will use female-female marriages to gain the tax benefits of marriage, then have sex with unsuspecting men and have children out of wedlock, which they will then use to collect child support payments from the men and tax benefits from the government, and possibly even welfare. Bonus of financially screwing over the men. Regular marriages will exist, for a time, because love or something, but then women will notice the feminist marriage-children deal are more financially (and possibly emotionally/socially) beneficial to them and eventually the trend will swing to mostly female-female marriages. Men will marry men because...uh, to support each other financially because of the feminists who screw them over. Both regular and male marriages (and single people) will be paying for the welfare and child support for men who otherwise can't. Basically paying feminists to be all feministy.

This is unconstitutional because it leads to a discrimnation of the sexes, because it eventually leads to a sexual underclass (men) who have to financially support women. And in case you haven't figured it out, this leads to a world where men have to financially support women who don't have to work and just raise children all day. Yes, the best this misogynistic idiot can come up with is some farked up version of the olden days except now women are sexually empowered.


The author also evidently forgot to include references to data showing that exactly what he predicts has already occurred in nations such as Canada and in the Netherlands. Do you believe that he should be contacted regarding his error, or do you believe that he will notice his error in the very near future and quickly remedy the lack of citations?
 
2013-03-28 09:36:13 PM  
All the rest of the derp aside, the whole underlying theme of "Lesbians will have secret unsafe sex to get pregnant, then force the fathers(Apparently all gay men in male-male marriages) to pay them buckets of money." is possibly the most head-hurting thing I've read all month. They don't really understand that ACTUAL lesbians(Especially the kind who would marry) aren't really into sex with men, while ACTUAL Gay men(Once again, especially the kind who would marry) aren't going to be diddling any lesbians. Sure, there will be some bisexuals in the mix, but for the most part, the ones who care enough to get married are either going to stay faithful to their partners, or not stray any farther than more like minded homosexuals...

Seriously, this may be the WHOLE problem right here, these morons don't understand how homosexuality works, they really, REALLY think that someone can "turn" them straight, and lesbians are just looking for a good cock to set 'em straight, while Gay men really just want to meet a good Suzi Homemaker.

Or something like that.
 
2013-03-28 09:42:13 PM  
So... Why do the ladies need to be married in order to trap a man  with a baby and use the government to extort his bootstrappy-earned money? And can't a man thwart their sinister lesbian schemes by, you know, wrapping it up, or at least aiming somewhere else?
 
2013-03-28 09:47:41 PM  

Dimensio: The author also evidently forgot to include references to data showing that exactly what he predicts has already occurred in nations such as Canada and in the Netherlands. Do you believe that he should be contacted regarding his error, or do you believe that he will notice his error in the very near future and quickly remedy the lack of citations?


Oh, we should definitely get a bunch of Farkers to "contact" him about his "errors," certainly.

Mikey1969: Seriously, this may be the WHOLE problem right here, these morons don't understand how homosexuality works, they really, REALLY think that someone can "turn" them straight, and lesbians are just looking for a good cock to set 'em straight, while Gay men really just want to meet a good Suzi Homemaker.

Or something like that.


I'd actually wager a guess that the guy downplays homosexuality in his mind; he probably thinks it's extremely rare and that feminists are just using homosexuals to enact this marriage power-scheme.I don't think the article even mentions homosexual people.
 
2013-03-28 09:51:49 PM  
fta Sexual orientation does not matter when two women marry and become "married room-mates." They can still have as many boyfriends as they want and capture the richest ones for baby-daddies by "forgetting" to use their invisible forms of birth control.

I'd like to sign up as an orgy slave, thank you.
 
2013-03-28 09:59:54 PM  

hawcian: Let's see if I've got the general argument here:

Feminists will use female-female marriages to gain the tax benefits of marriage, then have sex with unsuspecting men and have children out of wedlock, which they will then use to collect child support payments from the men and tax benefits from the government, and possibly even welfare. Bonus of financially screwing over the men. Regular marriages will exist, for a time, because love or something, but then women will notice the feminist marriage-children deal are more financially (and possibly emotionally/socially) beneficial to them and eventually the trend will swing to mostly female-female marriages. Men will marry men because...uh, to support each other financially because of the feminists who screw them over. Both regular and male marriages (and single people) will be paying for the welfare and child support for men who otherwise can't. Basically paying feminists to be all feministy.

This is unconstitutional because it leads to a discrimnation of the sexes, because it eventually leads to a sexual underclass (men) who have to financially support women. And in case you haven't figured it out, this leads to a world where men have to financially support women who don't have to work and just raise children all day. Yes, the best this misogynistic idiot can come up with is some farked up version of the olden days except now women are sexually empowered.


It's,  it's    BRILLIANT!
 
2013-03-28 10:00:55 PM  

Whistling Kitty Chaser: Male-Male marriages: ...In most cases, these men will become unconsenting "fathers."

I'm not sure he quite grasps the concept of homosexuality.


Lesbian witches will sneak into their bedrooms to steal their precious bodily fluids.
 
2013-03-28 10:02:25 PM  

Xetal: I actually read the whole article.  It was like watching a car wreck:  It was horrible, but I just couldn't look away.

After reading it, I think the author is either stupid or on drugs... or both.

gay men becoming "consenting fathers"?  Lesbian roommates getting pregnant by random dudes for the child support, but not worried about a custody battle?  The 3 way marriage between two lesbians and the government?

It's like a whole parade of stupid!

It is indeed a whole parade of stupid- as far as some chick boning a random guy because she wants teh babbyz and then taking him to court for child support even though she poked a hole in his condom? yeah, that could never happen.
 
2013-03-28 10:02:38 PM  

poorjon: So... Why do the ladies need to be married in order to trap a man  with a baby and use the government to extort his bootstrappy-earned money? And can't a man thwart their sinister lesbian schemes by, you know, wrapping it up, or at least aiming somewhere else?


i45.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-28 10:09:25 PM  

veive: Xetal: I actually read the whole article.  It was like watching a car wreck:  It was horrible, but I just couldn't look away.

After reading it, I think the author is either stupid or on drugs... or both.

gay men becoming "consenting fathers"?  Lesbian roommates getting pregnant by random dudes for the child support, but not worried about a custody battle?  The 3 way marriage between two lesbians and the government?

It's like a whole parade of stupid!
It is indeed a whole parade of stupid- as far as some chick boning a random guy because she wants teh babbyz and then taking him to court for child support even though she poked a hole in his condom? yeah, that could never happen.


I really hope you actually read your link, and you're making some sort of sarcastic point. Otherwise, after reading that crap from David R Usher, my brain may just have a potato.
 
2013-03-28 10:23:32 PM  
basically the crux of the argument in TFA is not that gay marriage is unconstitutional- it's that legalizing gay marriage would make affirmative action and most child support laws unconstitutional.

Basically he's saying that things would evolve from the stereotypical low income woman with no job but 5 kids from 5 different fathers (think octomom) who is somehow able to own her own home and drive a new car to having those same stereotypical low income women marry each other, still live on child support and government assistance and get the tax benefits from filing a joint return.

Personally I think the solution isn't

-ban gay marriage.

I think it's

-fix child support; If a woman has a right to choose not to have a child then a man should have a right to choose not to pay for that child.

There's a few other things that could do with some fixing, but if you fix that the whole argument falls apart.
 
2013-03-28 10:24:24 PM  
This is satire, right?

Right?!
 
Displayed 50 of 79 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | 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