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.

(Think Progress)   Third Republican senator comes out   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 85
    More: Hero, Republican senators, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican, Matthew Shepard, senator, Mark Kirk  
•       •       •

5424 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Jun 2013 at 2:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-19 03:36:07 PM
Opportunism.
 
2013-06-19 03:36:44 PM

abb3w: Tick-tick-tick-tick-....

[img.fark.net image 850x575]
[img.fark.net image 449x533]


Thanks for posting the updated GSS chart.

Also, thanks to Senator Murkowski for supporting the freedom to marry.
 
2013-06-19 03:45:56 PM

salvador.hardin: The Religious right's first great enemy was communism. It was a natural villain for both its economic values (the religious right has always been ultra capitalist) and the prevalence of atheism in communist states. After McCarthyism imploded, the leaders of the religious right needed a more credible boogie man. The horrors of Jim Crow were not palatable on the national level, so blacks were out. Homosexuals were unorganized, presumptively corrupt, and largely anonymous. The religious right began a relentless campaign to personify the resentment of national post-war social changes into religiously sanctioned fear and hatred of homosexuals. Before the 50s homosexuality was presumed to be unacceptable, but homosexuals were not looked at as a threat.


The answer is much simpler. It's not some arbitrary need for a "boogieman", where any candidate will do. The religious right sees homosexuality as immoral and corrupt, because, well, according to the tenants of all of the Judeo-Christian faith, it is.

However, two trends have begun to intersect: The first is that from the 50s forward, strict adherence to religious orthodoxy among the mainstream has been waning with even "religious" people choosing to simply ignore certain aspects of their religion from birth control, to pre-marital sex, to abortion, to marriage, to divorce, to homosexuality. The supplemental trend of more and more mainstream Americans simply foregoing churchgoing at all meant that social mores and society standards are very different today than they were even 50 years ago.

The second trend is that there has been a significant societal shift toward sexual liberation in all aspects and an emerging acceptance among the mainstream for previously "deviant" behavior whether it be homosexuality, bisexuality, multiple partners, general promiscuity or even just "being adventurous". The conservative religious right has attempted and failed to stop this progression at every stage, from Elvis' gyrating hips to bikinis to pornography to Will & Grace. And each time, the general public has re-enforced an acceptance of loosened mores. This acceptance has emboldened gays and other members of the broader LGBT community to be more open and "come out of the closet".

So at the same time that the religious right is becoming more of a minority view, and fewer and fewer young people are joining their view, they are seeing the continuing trend as more and more unacceptable, making them more and more strident and hard-line.

No one was "looking" for a boogie-man. From their perspective, the boogie-man has become unavoidable. No longer relegated to the fringe and the shadows, homosexuals have taken the spotlight and "operate in plain sight". If you earnestly believe, as many do, that homosexuality is a corrupting, sinful thing, then they have a duty to try to stop it.

/not arguing that their viewpoint is right, only that the objection stems from a genuine difference in worldview, and not some disingenuous desire to screw people over or fabricate some "enemy".
 
2013-06-19 03:57:00 PM
Progress marches on.
 
2013-06-19 04:02:13 PM

BojanglesPaladin: salvador.hardin: The Religious right's first great enemy was communism. It was a natural villain for both its economic values (the religious right has always been ultra capitalist) and the prevalence of atheism in communist states. After McCarthyism imploded, the leaders of the religious right needed a more credible boogie man. The horrors of Jim Crow were not palatable on the national level, so blacks were out. Homosexuals were unorganized, presumptively corrupt, and largely anonymous. The religious right began a relentless campaign to personify the resentment of national post-war social changes into religiously sanctioned fear and hatred of homosexuals. Before the 50s homosexuality was presumed to be unacceptable, but homosexuals were not looked at as a threat.


The answer is much simpler. It's not some arbitrary need for a "boogieman", where any candidate will do. The religious right sees homosexuality as immoral and corrupt, because, well, according to the tenants of all of the Judeo-Christian faith, it is.

However, two trends have begun to intersect: The first is that from the 50s forward, strict adherence to religious orthodoxy among the mainstream has been waning with even "religious" people choosing to simply ignore certain aspects of their religion from birth control, to pre-marital sex, to abortion, to marriage, to divorce, to homosexuality. The supplemental trend of more and more mainstream Americans simply foregoing churchgoing at all meant that social mores and society standards are very different today than they were even 50 years ago.

The second trend is that there has been a significant societal shift toward sexual liberation in all aspects and an emerging acceptance among the mainstream for previously "deviant" behavior whether it be homosexuality, bisexuality, multiple partners, general promiscuity or even just "being adventurous". The conservative religious right has attempted and failed to stop this progression at every stage, from Elvis' gyrating hips to bikinis to pornography to Will & Grace. And each time, the general public has re-enforced an acceptance of loosened mores. This acceptance has emboldened gays and other members of the broader LGBT community to be more open and "come out of the closet".

So at the same time that the religious right is becoming more of a minority view, and fewer and fewer young people are joining their view, they are seeing the continuing trend as more and more unacceptable, making them more and more strident and hard-line.

No one was "looking" for a boogie-man. From their perspective, the boogie-man has become unavoidable. No longer relegated to the fringe and the shadows, homosexuals have taken the spotlight and "operate in plain sight". If you earnestly believe, as many do, that homosexuality is a corrupting, sinful thing, then they have a duty to try to stop it.

/not arguing that their viewpoint is right, only that the objection stems from a genuine difference in worldview, and not some disingenuous desire to screw people over or fabricate some "enemy".


1) This is not necessarily true. A lot of Christian churches and sects do not view homosexuality as sinful, and the less orthodox branches of Judaism similarly see homosexuality the same way. There's a pretty large faith-based movement towards legalizing marriages between same-sex couples.

2) I'd fully agree that sexual mores are changing, but we are not a society where anything goes. I think the big change is that consent has turned into the lynchpin of what is sexually acceptable and what isn't. In a lot of ways, accepting consent as the benchmark is a sexual liberation. But consent does have some clear limits. Carrying out a sexual act on an animal that cannot provide consent is unacceptable. Having sex with a child is unacceptable. Cheating on a significant other is  unacceptable (9 out of 10 Americans polled by Gallup think so, more than anything else they asked about).
 
2013-06-19 04:14:28 PM
"Third Republican Senator Comes Out"

Of a coma?
 
2013-06-19 04:17:15 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: And yes, I'm sorry about voting for Bush II the first time. I was wrong. I'm sorry.


that part i can certainly relate to. as for my co-workers i talk politics with those i agree with and ignore the others. our conversation there tend to devolve into "you dumb shiat" on both sides.
 
2013-06-19 04:21:08 PM
www.cartoonmovement.com

at least the smart ones are starting to head that way....
 
2013-06-19 04:21:30 PM

bullwrinkle: So she needs to be on the right side of history for the right reasons./nice


I said (and implied) no such thing. I merely said that it generally seems to me to be the case that Republicans switch to supporting marriage equality because it personally affects them, when they were okay denying it when it didn't, and that I am glad that Murkowski made the decision on the merits that people deserve to be treated equally, as opposed to because it personally affected her life.
 
2013-06-19 04:26:13 PM
This morning I took a dump and had the decency to wipe my ass.  Can I have a "Hero" tag, too?
 
2013-06-19 04:27:53 PM

Serious Black: A lot of Christian churches and sects do not view homosexuality as sinful,


Remember we are talking about the religious right here, not the religious left.

While not every Christian church goes for "abomination before the Lord", and many go with "Love the Sinner, hate the sin", the overwhelming Christian stance is that homosexuality is a sin, because it is a sin of lust and fornication, same as adultery. Some may put it in the same bucket of sin as masturbating, and some may put it in the same bucket as adultery. And I suppose some just don't consider it a sin at all, but that means ignoring part of the doctrines, which I know happens.

I guess we could ALSO say there has been a trend in "new" Christian Churches and non-denominational which allow for a much broader spectrum of "pick and choose" doctrine. Or maybe I should have specified that I meant major denomination churches.

Anywho, in 1945 you would have a very hard time finding any Church in America advocating that homosexuality is not a sin. Today, the Episcopalians are ordaining openly gay priests. And I doubt many of the religious right are still going to mass with an openly gay priest. In fact, I know they are not because the Episcopal Church is facing schism over this very issue.

Serious Black: 2) I'd fully agree that sexual mores are changing, but we are not a society where anything goes.


Nor did I suggest that we were. I'm not really sure where you are going with the "but we still don't like pedophilia or bestiality!" line....
 
2013-06-19 04:38:12 PM

make me some tea: Let's see how long it takes for her to flip to Democrat now.


Or at least leaving the GOP. I don't necessarily rate as being a Democrat as being "pro gay" but anyone who does not see being a Republican as being anti-gay is fooling themselves.
 
2013-06-19 04:47:49 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Remember we are talking about the religious right here, not the religious left.


Yes, but you can't say "The religious right sees homosexuality as immoral and corrupt, because, well, according to the tenants tenets of all of the Judeo-Christian faith, it is." and then ignore the fact that many, many Christian churches do NOT see homosexuality as immoral and corrupt, and certainly not The Worst Sin Evar the way the religious right plays it. I know many, many Christians who support marriage equality. I even know a few Catholics who support it. So you simply cannot say that all of the Judeo-Christian tenets believe homosexuality is immoral and corrupt.
 
2013-06-19 04:49:17 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: A lot of Christian churches and sects do not view homosexuality as sinful,

Remember we are talking about the religious right here, not the religious left.

While not every Christian church goes for "abomination before the Lord", and many go with "Love the Sinner, hate the sin", the overwhelming Christian stance is that homosexuality is a sin, because it is a sin of lust and fornication, same as adultery. Some may put it in the same bucket of sin as masturbating, and some may put it in the same bucket as adultery. And I suppose some just don't consider it a sin at all, but that means ignoring part of the doctrines, which I know happens.

I guess we could ALSO say there has been a trend in "new" Christian Churches and non-denominational which allow for a much broader spectrum of "pick and choose" doctrine. Or maybe I should have specified that I meant major denomination churches.

Anywho, in 1945 you would have a very hard time finding any Church in America advocating that homosexuality is not a sin. Today, the Episcopalians are ordaining openly gay priests. And I doubt many of the religious right are still going to mass with an openly gay priest. In fact, I know they are not because the Episcopal Church is facing schism over this very issue.


Sure, acceptance of homosexuality is a pretty novel concept. Of course, homosexuality itself is a pretty novel concept historically given that the word homosexuality was not coined until the late 19th century. And every sect of Judaism and Christianity engages in some level of picking and choosing today. As an example, there were a number of religious leaders who openly advocated for slavery being just and referenced parts of the Bible to defend owning people. I believe it was something along the lines of civilizing the heathen. But I very rarely, if ever, hear Jews or Christians defend slavery as an acceptable practice today, let alone a good one.

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: 2) I'd fully agree that sexual mores are changing, but we are not a society where anything goes.

Nor did I suggest that we were. I'm not really sure where you are going with the "but we still don't like pedophilia or bestiality!" line....


You just said "Remember we are talking about the religious right here." Pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and polygamy are among the many things that the religious right say will have to be legally recognized if the government legally recognizes marriages between same-sex couples. Yet none of the people who are currently advocating for letting same-sex couples get married are advocating for morally or legally accepting any of the other practices I mentioned.
 
2013-06-19 04:52:21 PM
Mike Chewbacca:Judeo-Christian tenets believe homosexuality is immoral and corrupt.
 
2013-06-19 04:55:39 PM

Serious Black: Cheating on a significant other is  unacceptable (9 out of 10 Americans polled by Gallup think so, more than anything else they asked about).


and those 1 out of 10 who think it's acceptable are the ones cheating.
 
2013-06-19 05:00:48 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Yes, but you can't say "The religious right sees homosexuality as immoral and corrupt, because, well, according to the tenants tenets of all of the Judeo-Christian faith, it is." and then ignore the fact that many, many Christian churches do NOT see homosexuality as immoral and corrupt, and certainly not The Worst Sin Evar the way the religious right plays it. I know many, many Christians who support marriage equality. I even know a few Catholics who support it. So you simply cannot say that all of the Judeo-Christian tenets believe homosexuality is immoral and corrupt.


What I CAN say is that while in the last few decades some Christian churches have opted to de-emphasize or ignore completely the exhortations in Christian scripture against homosexuality, that is a recent development, and for about a thousand years there was perfect unanimity in the Christian Church that homosexuality (like all "sins of the flesh") is a sin.

This is not something that the religious right took it upon themselves to add, or something where they took a weird interpretation in order to create a "boogeyman" as was implied above.

And since homosexuality is specifically addressed and identified as being sinful, both as a sin of fornication (along with everything from masturbation to adultery) and male homosexuality is explicitly forbidden in Christian scripture, it is absurd to argue that it is NOT a tenant of Christianity. (Of course, as with so many things, different denominations pick and choose).

/again, I am not advocating the Christian viewpoint, but I am comfortable identifying it for what it is, not what we might wish it was.
 
2013-06-19 05:16:49 PM

The Name: This morning I took a dump and had the decency to wipe my ass.  Can I have a "Hero" tag, too?


Dr. Hawking, is that you?
 
2013-06-19 05:20:56 PM

Serious Black: And every sect of Judaism and Christianity engages in some level of picking and choosing today.


Yeah. Not an argument I am making. I am not interested in going down the well-worn path about who us "right" in their interpretation of scripture, only observing that the religious right clings to an interpretation that has been universal for a millennium. Lots of things that were universally accepted for a long time are not any longer. Doesn't change that they do.

Serious Black: Of course, homosexuality itself is a pretty novel concept historically given that the word homosexuality was not coined until the late 19th century.


Tomato, tomahto. Catamites, Sodomites, Pederasts, Queers, Fairies, fudge pirates, etc. No one was confused about what homosexual was. Speaking of Christian Scripture and Sodomites... where does that word come from? Ah yes. When God himself destroyed a whole city for having all the buttsecks and fornication and whatnot. Again, some churches can choose to ignore it, but you can't pretend that the scriptural stance on teh ghey is ambiguous. At least man on man. The scriptures allow more wiggle room for polygamy and adultery than they do for man-love.

Serious Black: Pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and polygamy are among the many things that the religious right say will have to be legally recognized if the government legally recognizes marriages between same-sex couples. Yet none of the people who are currently advocating for letting same-sex couples get married are advocating for morally or legally accepting any of the other practices I mentioned.


Ah. So that's where you were going. I get your point, but I don't know that the same people who insisted that unless it was stopped, Rock-n-Roll would lead to a sexual revolution, or that Will and Grace would lead to rampant and open homosexuality are likely to be convinced that the slippery slope of damnation is going to stop at same-sex marriage.

And even if you COULD convince them, for many people that already takes the country to the level of Sodom and Gamhorra, and for them, the Bible is pretty clear about what god thinks of all the orgies and buttsecks.
 
2013-06-19 05:35:06 PM
I'm sure her decision in no way was to try and get on the right side of history since the DOMA and Prop 8 decisions will be coming out either tomorrow or on Monday.

/Call me a cynic
 
2013-06-19 05:42:05 PM

strapp3r: don't make me talk about quitting this gig to un-seat you!...
....squirrel...


...Jesus Spice wept.
 
2013-06-19 05:43:54 PM

abb3w: Tick-tick-tick-tick-....

[img.fark.net image 850x575]
[img.fark.net image 449x533]


That graph should give me hope, but it a way it depresses me - less than half of people born between 1990 and 1994 "strongly support" equal marriage? What the hell? I would've imagined essentially everyone in that age group strongly supported it...
 
2013-06-19 06:10:12 PM

Lord Dimwit: That graph should give me hope, but it a way it depresses me


What is the provenance of that graph? I find it hard to believe that there was any widespread surveying of the general public regarding same-sex couples in 1920.

/tee-hee.
 
2013-06-19 06:30:08 PM
This isn't going over well in Crazy Base Land (Alaska), I can tell you...
 
2013-06-19 06:36:43 PM

Corvus: But they still vote against repealing things like DOMA and DADT like Scott Brown did. They say it for votes but when they have to vote they vote with the most conservative members still.


FWIW, Brown voted to repeal DADT.
 
2013-06-19 08:03:25 PM

MFAWG: Lost Thought 00: This is the lady that was primaried out of the party and had to run a write-in campaign. And won. Yet for some reason she still calls herself a Republican

Alaskians have a very, very strong 'mind your own business' streak.

Even La Sarah was forced to sign a domestic partner benefits law.


I'm so gonna mention that next time some teabagger talks about how she's the greatest thing because she sticks it to the RINOs.

/She capitulated to teh liebruls?!?!??!??111!!??  RINO!!!!!!
 
2013-06-19 08:43:55 PM
In an interview with KTUU, the Anchorage NBC affiliate, Murkowski said she experienced a change of heart after spending time with a same-sex couple raising four adopted children.

I know, yay for finally being on the non-stupid side of history briefly, good for her, but... if you're so lacking in basic empathy and analytical thought that you can't conceive of two or more people raising children without being a man/woman pair in a sexual relationship without actually meeting them first, you're not really someone I want making major decisions about where shared national resources will be used.  You don't get points for this, in fact I think you lose extra points for being on the right side for a reason so stupid it almost makes it the wrong side by association.

//When we get a GOPer that says "I carefully reviewed the studies on this subject, and, on the overwhelming consensus of credible experts in the relevant fields, I am now changing my opinion to better reflect reality" or even a GOPer that admits that they're against the idea personally but don't want to fight the electorate on this, then they can have the Hero tag, maybe.
 
2013-06-19 09:07:11 PM
Guessed Lindsey Graham finally came out of the closet.
/meh
 
2013-06-19 09:23:46 PM

Jim_Callahan: In an interview with KTUU, the Anchorage NBC affiliate, Murkowski said she experienced a change of heart after spending time with a same-sex couple raising four adopted children.

I know, yay for finally being on the non-stupid side of history briefly, good for her, but... if you're so lacking in basic empathy and analytical thought that you can't conceive of two or more people raising children without being a man/woman pair in a sexual relationship without actually meeting them first, you're not really someone I want making major decisions about where shared national resources will be used.  You don't get points for this, in fact I think you lose extra points for being on the right side for a reason so stupid it almost makes it the wrong side by association.

//When we get a GOPer that says "I carefully reviewed the studies on this subject, and, on the overwhelming consensus of credible experts in the relevant fields, I am now changing my opinion to better reflect reality" or even a GOPer that admits that they're against the idea personally but don't want to fight the electorate on this, then they can have the Hero tag, maybe.


TBT, conservatives were against anti- gay discrimination long before Democrats.
It was the influx of the religious right (Southern Democrats) who ruined it for everyone.
/google "Goldwater gay rights"
 
2013-06-19 10:48:22 PM

valar_morghulis: She doesn't deserve the "Hero" tag for doing what any decent, moral human being should.


This is one of my biggest gripes around here.  Every time a republican does something that's not off-the-rails insane, they get a hero tag.
 
2013-06-20 09:26:44 AM

BojanglesPaladin: Lord Dimwit: That graph should give me hope, but it a way it depresses me

What is the provenance of that graph? I find it hard to believe that there was any widespread surveying of the general public regarding same-sex couples in 1920.

/tee-hee.


The years along the bottom represent birth year cohorts rather than when people were questioned about it.
 
2013-06-20 11:03:54 AM

Serious Black: The years along the bottom represent birth year cohorts rather than when people were questioned about it.


I know. (Note the "tee-hee")
 
2013-06-20 03:33:25 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: And every sect of Judaism and Christianity engages in some level of picking and choosing today.

Yeah. Not an argument I am making. I am not interested in going down the well-worn path about who us "right" in their interpretation of scripture, only observing that the religious right clings to an interpretation that has been universal for a millennium. Lots of things that were universally accepted for a long time are not any longer. Doesn't change that they do.

Serious Black: Of course, homosexuality itself is a pretty novel concept historically given that the word homosexuality was not coined until the late 19th century.

Tomato, tomahto. Catamites, Sodomites, Pederasts, Queers, Fairies, fudge pirates, etc. No one was confused about what homosexual was. Speaking of Christian Scripture and Sodomites... where does that word come from? Ah yes. When God himself destroyed a whole city for having all the buttsecks and fornication and whatnot. Again, some churches can choose to ignore it, but you can't pretend that the scriptural stance on teh ghey is ambiguous. At least man on man. The scriptures allow more wiggle room for polygamy and adultery than they do for man-love.

Serious Black: Pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and polygamy are among the many things that the religious right say will have to be legally recognized if the government legally recognizes marriages between same-sex couples. Yet none of the people who are currently advocating for letting same-sex couples get married are advocating for morally or legally accepting any of the other practices I mentioned.

Ah. So that's where you were going. I get your point, but I don't know that the same people who insisted that unless it was stopped, Rock-n-Roll would lead to a sexual revolution, or that Will and Grace would lead to rampant and open homosexuality are likely to be convinced that the slippery slope of damnation is going to stop at same-sex marriage.

And even if you COULD convince them, for many people that already takes the country to the level of Sodom and Gamhorra, and for them, the Bible is pretty clear about what god thinks of all the orgies and buttsecks.


My reading of the Sodom story actually doesn't necessarily condemn homosexuality. As a thought experiment, consider if the angels had been female (or at least appeared female, I think angels are supposed to be sexless). The crowd's actions are still horrible, because they're still rapists.

Also, I think that whoever upthread said that the word homosexual didn't exist until the late 19th century was more saying that before then, gays were just guys who had sex with guys, there was no idea that some people might be mentally hardwired to prefer that to sex with women. Gays have existed for millennia, the new part is realizing that some folks are like that naturally.
 
2013-06-20 06:06:01 PM

DoctorWorm21045: As a thought experiment, consider if the angels had been female (or at least appeared female, I think angels are supposed to be sexless). The crowd's actions are still horrible, because they're still rapists.


Your reading of the story may be omitting the part that the Angels were going there, to deliver God's already determined judgement, having already wrangled with Abraham about whether he could find 10 good men and all. The incident of attempted angel rape (and the weird "here, rape my virgin daughters instead" bit) just reinforced that they were beyond redemption.

Considering that the City gave the name to the practice of anal penetration thousands of years ago, I think it's safe to say that the town was known for teh ghey buttsechs, and all sorts of "giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh". Even if you were to argue that the sins of Sodom isn't explicitly or exclusively homosexual, it was explicit that God's wrath fell on them for general fornication and lasciviousness and unspecified sins of the flesh, of which homosexuality is a subset (in the minds of Judeo-Christain theologians for the last two-thousand years or more).

(I always think it's odd that some people insist that religious opposition to homosexuality is irrelevant, while also arguing that there isn't a "real" opposition in religion anyway. There clearly is. Either you discard the bit you don't like from your faith, or you discard the faith.)

DoctorWorm21045: Gays have existed for millennia, the new part is realizing that some folks are like that naturally.


Actually, THAT idea is very recent, probably gaining real acceptance only in this century. In the 19th and most of the 20th century, homosexuality was codified in law as being a moral crime, and was often seen as indicative of a mental infirmity. Keep in mind that prior to the mid-1970s, all psychological and medical organizations classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, and the World Health Organization had it classified as a mental disorder until 1990.

Even today, while it widely accepted by conventional wisdom that people are "born gay", there has been little scientific evidence identifying a biological origin of homosexuality, and there remains a great deal of dispute as to whether homosexuality is ultimately biological or enviornmental in origin. (Please do not confuse this with the argument about whether people "choose" to be gay). Theories include in utero hormonal levels, early childhood imprinting, or even simple childhood gender non-conformity. And that's just on the biological origin side. There are a number of scientific studies suggesting environmental origin as well. The jury is out on the "nature v. nurture" debate.

CSB: I am reasonably good friends with a long term gay couple, each of which takes the opposite viewpoint. One says he's just "born that way" and has no choice, and the other furiously denies that he has not made a choice, saying that he is "PROUD of his choice to be gay, and how dare anyone suggest that homosexuality is some sort of genetic aberration that can be corrected or cured "!!. It's funny as hell after a few beers, because they are both strong on the swishy side and get real biatchy with each other about it. It's like watching a Baptist and a Catholic couple argue about which is the "real" religion.
 
2013-06-20 11:33:10 PM

alizeran: Ok republicans are coming out.


It would be amusing if every single Republican member of Congress turned out to be gay.
 
Displayed 35 of 85 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 »






Report