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.

(National Review)   Almost there: nationalizing gay marriage. Then, the next step will be churches have to perform homosexual marriage or they will lose their tax-exempt status   (nationalreview.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, Justice Kennedy, Charles Krauthammer, abortion law, supreme court ruling, same-sex marriages, majority opinion, DOMA, special reports  
•       •       •

1916 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jun 2013 at 11:43 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-06-27 12:00:12 PM  

Pincy: CPennypacker: Yesterday was my second anniversary, but because of this decision, our traditional marriage was destroyed. We were forcibly auto-divorced and now I'm living in sin with a donkey. Thanks a lot SCOTUS.

I can't decide who has it worse, you or the donkey?


Definitely the donkey
 
2013-06-27 12:00:31 PM  

coeyagi: BunkoSquad: This thread should be conducted in caveman-speak

COK RAW SPUNK POOT ALL NITE, NEED MARRIAGE. JIZZ WINDOW GROK AFTER NUPTIAL, LIMO NEED SQUEEGIE, RIBBONS OF SHAME.  AND SPOOGE.


Go on......
 
2013-06-27 12:01:09 PM  
Then, the next step will be churches have to perform homosexual marriage or they will lose their tax-exempt status

I honestly wish this would happen, just to see the look on people's faces.
 
2013-06-27 12:01:33 PM  

abb3w: In exactly the same manner that churches have been able to lose their tax exempt status for refusing to perform mixed-race marriages, ever since Virginia v Loving was handed down.


Came to point this out. Churches have never been required to wed people they don't support the marriage of... however county clerks are. Those poor brave souls who want to be able to abuse their sliver of power to discriminate against couples they don't support will be stripped of that power: why isn't anyone thinking of them in all this?
 
2013-06-27 12:01:44 PM  
I am happy.

Brilliant headline submitter.... I will have to climb a mountain in the Himalayas to study troll-fu at your feet.

I am also happy that TV Vinnie's attempts to resurrect that insufferable caveman protomeme seem to be failing.
 
2013-06-27 12:02:09 PM  

lockers: James!: WI241TH: Oh my god! Mike Huckabee is part of this insidious plot!

Huh, I fully agree with Mike's advice.

I disagree. No group should be tax exempt. period.


You don't think a legitimate, non-profit charity should be tax exempt? Like say a secular foundation for AIDS research?
 
2013-06-27 12:02:23 PM  

James!: Are Christian churches currently required to perform Jewish weddings?  No? Then shut your farking face.


Are churches--as opposed to church-owned businesses--exempt from all anti-discrimination laws?  I know some churches won't do interracial weddings (they were in the news last year); are they at any risk of losing their tax-exempt status because of it?

But yeah, since churches are currently allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion (duh), gender (women can't be Catholic priests), ethnicity (you can't become a one of the kohanim, you have to be descended from them), and marital status, I can't see them being held accountable for other types of discrimination.
 
2013-06-27 12:02:45 PM  
suck it homophobes. I hope one day the govt forces you to share your home with a gay couple.
 
2013-06-27 12:03:13 PM  

lemurs: The point of a separate of Church and State is that it works both ways, which is something fundies on the Church side should keep in mind every time they think there shouldn't be one.


You expect them to think that far ahead? Doesn't happen. It's a consistent practice-they think  all about how  those laws are curtailing  their Juh-Hee-Suh-Hus-given  Freedom!™s, without for a femtosecond thinking about how those laws also protect them from those  other peoples' freedoms. And they never do until they get those laws abolished and it's rubbed in their faces.

When that finally does happen, they claim that they need some sort of  law in place to protect them. And preferably  just them.
 
2013-06-27 12:03:59 PM  
While the article about how the middle ages catholic church blessed and celebrated same-sex unions wasn't easy to find again, here's a substitute
 
2013-06-27 12:04:14 PM  

GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.


You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.
 
2013-06-27 12:04:18 PM  

GhostFish: Unlike the shiat shows you straights put on.
It's all part of our master plan to demoralize you and make you wish that you had chosen to be gay.


What happens when everything becomes so diffuse that bisexuality becomes the norm and strict "homo/hetero" categories are seen as obsolete?
 
2013-06-27 12:04:32 PM  

mgshamster: Jackson Herring: God Is My Co-Pirate: There was a great story a while back about a couple who got married overseas in...Mauritius? Madagascar?  And the local minister hated tourist weddings, and just smiled while swearing at them the whole time in his native tongue, calling the bride a whore, etc.

haha that's got to be one of the most shiat that didn't happen things i've ever heard

Well, there is this: http://storyful.com/stories/605


a story that is literally 100% perfect for the daily mail, entirely predicated on someone's translation of a youtube video in a local dialect that I have sure as fark never heard of

I mean sometimes shiat that did not happen actually did happen, but I'm pretty skeptical of this one
 
2013-06-27 12:04:54 PM  
There is a unique case in New Jersey where a church received a tax break under New Jersey's "Green Acres" program. A lesbian couple wanted to host a commitment ceremony there and the church said no. The church was sued for violation of New Jersey's non-discrimination in places of public accommodations law and also lost the tax exemption on the pavilion.
 
2013-06-27 12:05:31 PM  

youncasqua: lockers: James!: WI241TH: Oh my god! Mike Huckabee is part of this insidious plot!

Huh, I fully agree with Mike's advice.

I disagree. No group should be tax exempt. period.

You don't think a legitimate, non-profit charity should be tax exempt? Like say a secular foundation for AIDS research?


Nope, It is way to easy to abuse that status. Instead of the costly policing, we are better served in getting rid of the privilege.
 
2013-06-27 12:05:40 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: GhostFish: Unlike the shiat shows you straights put on.
It's all part of our master plan to demoralize you and make you wish that you had chosen to be gay.

What happens when everything becomes so diffuse that bisexuality becomes the norm and strict "homo/hetero" categories are seen as obsolete?


Then human happiness will be freed from one arbitrary restriction.
 
2013-06-27 12:06:21 PM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: Sgt Otter: "So where do you want to have our wedding, honey?"
"Well, we could do it at the church that we actually attend, with our minister whom we've known for years..."
"Or?"
"Let's do it at a place we've never been to, that openly despises us, conducted by a guy who is going to be scowling and pissed off during the entire ceremony!"
"It will be such a magical day!"

There was a great story a while back about a couple who got married overseas in...Mauritius? Madagascar?  And the local minister hated tourist weddings, and just smiled while swearing at them the whole time in his native tongue, calling the bride a whore, etc.


Oooo, so close.  The Maldives.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/paradise-wedding-that-w as -lost-in-translation-2119536.html

hillbillypharmacist: WI241TH: Basically? They organized an entire event last year recording church leaders advocating for candidates and mailed them to the IRS, daring them to revoke tax-exempt status, and nothing happened.

Didn't hear about that, but I don't doubt it.  You have a link?


It was called "Pulpit Freedom Sunday".  Looks like it's an annual event.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/08/us-usa-tax-pulpit-idUSBRE8 97 00E20121008

The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued the IRS over its inaction.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/freedom-from-religion-found at ion-lawsuit_n_2138457.html
 
2013-06-27 12:06:49 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: GhostFish: Unlike the shiat shows you straights put on.
It's all part of our master plan to demoralize you and make you wish that you had chosen to be gay.

What happens when everything becomes so diffuse that bisexuality becomes the norm and strict "homo/hetero" categories are seen as obsolete?


some us ugly guys actually get to have some fun??

//I don't understand the question, but it sounds good to me?
 
2013-06-27 12:07:35 PM  
Look, nobody's going to take away churches' tax-exempt status.  I honestly wish they would, it makes no sense, but with the kind of politicking that goes on every day from the pulpit, if churches aren't losing their tax-exempt status en masse now, it ain't going to happen.
 
2013-06-27 12:07:48 PM  

abb3w: In exactly the same manner that churches have been able to lose their tax exempt status for refusing to perform mixed-race marriages, ever since Virginia v Loving was handed down.


NAILED IT!

This argument is so full of holes that I can't believe anyone with an IQ over 70 would even advance it. The Loving v Virginia case is a great analog that clearly establishes that Churches, Synagogues, Temples, etc. have NEVER been forced by the government, or punished in any manner, to marry anyone outside those they choose.  The government's granting a license and legally recognizing a gay couple as being "married" imposes NO DUTY upon any religious or private social organization to recognize them as being married.
 
2013-06-27 12:08:04 PM  

Diogenes: monoski: James!: Are Christian churches currently required to perform Jewish weddings?  No? Then shut your farking face.

You cannot even be a non-greek guest if it is a orthodox greek wedding

Hey now!  I went to one.

Though it makes me wonder if Uncle Joey had to convert.  It was a long time ago.

I like how everything in the ceremony was in threes, and liked the symbolism of the head ring thingies tied together.


As with most church related items there are exceptions but under true orthodox practices, non non-greek guests permitted.
 
2013-06-27 12:09:34 PM  

lawboy87: This argument is so full of holes that I can't believe anyone with an IQ over 70 would even advance it.


I THINK I SEE THE PROBLEM HERE SIR.
 
2013-06-27 12:09:45 PM  

James!: Are Christian churches currently required to perform Jewish weddings?  No? Then shut your farking face.



i'm gonna Jewjack your church and sneak in and get gay Jew-married just because I DON'T WANNA SHUT MY farkING FACE.

and make no mistake, we will sing Hava Negilah with gusto, bucko.
 
2013-06-27 12:09:51 PM  

Misch: There is a unique case in New Jersey where a church received a tax break under New Jersey's "Green Acres" program. A lesbian couple wanted to host a commitment ceremony there and the church said no. The church was sued for violation of New Jersey's non-discrimination in places of public accommodations law and also lost the tax exemption on the pavilion.


The purpose of the Green Acres Program:  To achieve, in partnership with others, a system of interconnected open spaces, whose protection will preserve and enhance New Jersey's natural environment and its historic, scenic, and recreational resources for public use and enjoyment.

They didn't ask for the church to perform the service, they just wanted to use the pavilion, which is supposed to be available as a public space as part of the Green Acres program.
 
2013-06-27 12:10:19 PM  

d23: The_Gallant_Gallstone: GhostFish: Unlike the shiat shows you straights put on.
It's all part of our master plan to demoralize you and make you wish that you had chosen to be gay.

What happens when everything becomes so diffuse that bisexuality becomes the norm and strict "homo/hetero" categories are seen as obsolete?

some us ugly guys actually get to have some fun??

//I don't understand the question, but it sounds good to me?


Nope, it will just breed a new race of bisexual super men who can perform all sexual acts at once and will render us normal folk obsolete.
 
2013-06-27 12:10:32 PM  

rickythepenguin: James!: Are Christian churches currently required to perform Jewish weddings?  No? Then shut your farking face.


i'm gonna Jewjack your church and sneak in and get gay Jew-married just because I DON'T WANNA SHUT MY farkING FACE.

and make no mistake, we will sing Hava Negilah with gusto, bucko.


Can I stomp on the glass?
 
2013-06-27 12:10:34 PM  

DarnoKonrad: utah dude: what about polygamy ?

as long as it's primarily practiced by men who want a harem, you can make a pretty rational argument against it being bad for society.


There is no illegality in living together as a harem.  The problem comes in if it's a legal arrangement.  That is definitely unfair.  However, the real argument and problem here is when a TWO people want to legally have all the advantages of a marriage.  When you call it different things then all of a sudden you have the two categories being treated differently.

Actually with as lax as the corporate laws are if you could figure out a way file a corporate charter for your harem then you probably have more advantages than with marriage anyway!
 
2013-06-27 12:11:10 PM  

PonceAlyosha: d23: The_Gallant_Gallstone: GhostFish: Unlike the shiat shows you straights put on.
It's all part of our master plan to demoralize you and make you wish that you had chosen to be gay.

What happens when everything becomes so diffuse that bisexuality becomes the norm and strict "homo/hetero" categories are seen as obsolete?

some us ugly guys actually get to have some fun??

//I don't understand the question, but it sounds good to me?

Nope, it will just breed a new race of bisexual super men who can perform all sexual acts at once and will render us normal folk obsolete.


darn
 
2013-06-27 12:11:39 PM  

lockers: GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.

You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-27 12:11:40 PM  
Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is an explanation of the real consequences that result from it.

Some advocates of gay marriage claim that no harm is caused by it. They are correct, but what they do not tell you is that the lack of harm is the real danger of legalizing it. Gay marriage is opposed because the Bible warns against homosexuality, meaning that opposing it is an attempt to maintain God's law. But did you know that God's law, the Bible, also bans many other things, like murder, theft, boiling a goat in its mother's milk and adultery? It's true.

So when we legalize sodomy and gay marriage, and nothing bad happens, people will look at the result -- or the lack of result -- and say "Hey, disobeying God's law hasn't caused any problem yet, let's disobey more of it!". And then they will start legalizing other things that the Bible forbids, things that do cause harm when studied in the long-term, and the next thing that you know all kinds of anti-Biblical actions are legal, like murder, and rape, and genocide, and slavery.

That is what gay marriage will lead to. And the fact that gay marriage is not itself harmful makes it all the more dangerous. At least if we legalized murder, some people who used to support it might realize "Hey, my brother was murdered." or "Gee, I wish my father hadn't been murdered" and reconsider their position, and the path to an unBiblical society could be reversed early while the doorknob to the closet has been turned but the door hasn't been quite pulled open yet, but with gay marriage they will think "Hey, my sister married another woman and nothing bad happened", and then when murder and fabric mixing are made legal it will be too late because gay marriage was the turning of the doorknob and the other things were the opening of the closet, and you didn't realise that the closet was filled with potatoes, and now they are spilling out like an avalanche.
 
2013-06-27 12:11:43 PM  

Tomahawk513: Can I stomp on the glass?


sure!  L'chaim!  Mazeltov!
 
2013-06-27 12:11:53 PM  
The Goverment should get out of the "marriage" business.

Stop issue Marriage licenses.  Everyone who wants to enter into a legally  binding relationship with another gets a Cival Union certificate. This protects the two people in the union in front of the law (Healthcare, Pensions, Estate and survivorship, divorce, etc). It's a legally binding document. Courst and legal affiars should only recognize the union certificate.

If you then want God to santifiy you union, go get married in a church, temple, outdoor wican circle, the church of lesiab presbitarians...good for you, what ever. That's between you and your god.  The goverment doens't get involved.
 
2013-06-27 12:14:24 PM  

Dimensio: Missing from the discussion of same-sex marriage is an explanation of the real consequences that result from it.

Some advocates of gay marriage claim that no harm is caused by it. They are correct, but what they do not tell you is that the lack of harm is the real danger of legalizing it. Gay marriage is opposed because the Bible warns against homosexuality, meaning that opposing it is an attempt to maintain God's law. But did you know that God's law, the Bible, also bans many other things, like murder, theft, boiling a goat in its mother's milk and adultery? It's true.

So when we legalize sodomy and gay marriage, and nothing bad happens, people will look at the result -- or the lack of result -- and say "Hey, disobeying God's law hasn't caused any problem yet, let's disobey more of it!". And then they will start legalizing other things that the Bible forbids, things that do cause harm when studied in the long-term, and the next thing that you know all kinds of anti-Biblical actions are legal, like murder, and rape, and genocide, and slavery.

That is what gay marriage will lead to. And the fact that gay marriage is not itself harmful makes it all the more dangerous. At least if we legalized murder, some people who used to support it might realize "Hey, my brother was murdered." or "Gee, I wish my father hadn't been murdered" and reconsider their position, and the path to an unBiblical society could be reversed early while the doorknob to the closet has been turned but the door hasn't been quite pulled open yet, but with gay marriage they will think "Hey, my sister married another woman and nothing bad happened", and then when murder and fabric mixing are made legal it will be too late because gay marriage was the turning of the doorknob and the other things were the opening of the closet, and you didn't realise that the closet was filled with potatoes, and now they are spilling out like an avalanche.


When you invoke "God's law" your case for constitutionality should END THERE.  You lose automatically.

It's not the government's job to enforce God's law.  I know some idiots out there think it is, but if you go back and read the Federalist Papers, treaties, and what have you it's plainly not what was intended.
 
2013-06-27 12:14:45 PM  

2 grams: The Goverment should get out of the "marriage" business.

Stop issue Marriage licenses.  Everyone who wants to enter into a legally  binding relationship with another gets a Cival Union certificate. This protects the two people in the union in front of the law (Healthcare, Pensions, Estate and survivorship, divorce, etc). It's a legally binding document. Courst and legal affiars should only recognize the union certificate.

If you then want God to santifiy you union, go get married in a church, temple, outdoor wican circle, the church of lesiab presbitarians...good for you, what ever. That's between you and your god.  The goverment doens't get involved.


We already have this.  All marriages in the US are basically "civil unions" because they are civil contracts under the law.
 
2013-06-27 12:15:03 PM  

2 grams: The Goverment should get out of the "marriage" business.

Stop issue Marriage licenses.  Everyone who wants to enter into a legally  binding relationship with another gets a Cival Union certificate


So... A marriage license under a different name. Why? Bigoted shiats already demonstrated that whining about the word "marriage" is a complete red herring, given that they oppose civil unions, too, they're just against equal rights.
 
2013-06-27 12:15:08 PM  

2 grams: The Goverment should get out of the "marriage" business.

Stop issue Marriage licenses.  Everyone who wants to enter into a legally  binding relationship with another gets a Cival Union certificate. This protects the two people in the union in front of the law (Healthcare, Pensions, Estate and survivorship, divorce, etc). It's a legally binding document. Courst and legal affiars should only recognize the union certificate.

If you then want God to santifiy you union, go get married in a church, temple, outdoor wican circle, the church of lesiab presbitarians...good for you, what ever. That's between you and your god.  The goverment doens't get involved.


So you want a name change? Whats the point? No current church invented the word "marriage" so why do they get exclusive use of it?
 
2013-06-27 12:15:09 PM  
memedepot.com

THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY
 
2013-06-27 12:15:28 PM  

2 grams: The Goverment should get out of the "marriage" business.

Stop issue Marriage licenses.  Everyone who wants to enter into a legally  binding relationship with another gets a Cival Union certificate. This protects the two people in the union in front of the law (Healthcare, Pensions, Estate and survivorship, divorce, etc). It's a legally binding document. Courst and legal affiars should only recognize the union certificate.

If you then want God to santifiy you union, go get married in a church, temple, outdoor wican circle, the church of lesiab presbitarians...good for you, what ever. That's between you and your god.  The goverment doens't get involved.


What a nice, paper-thin, vapid way of fixing this "problem." Play with names until people are mindlessly placated. Guess what? That solution changes absofarkinglutely nothing. More importantly, with laws being as they are now, they create the sexual version of "separate but equal," where "civil unions" sound great but the aspect of marriage being a fundamental aspect of family law. People are offended over society changing, so to answer it you want to play with names to make those people who are offended happy. In doing so, you would produce just another Plessy vs. Ferguson debacle that has the added benefit of farking up hundreds of years of family law instead of JUST LETTING GAYS MARRY.
 
2013-06-27 12:16:27 PM  
Tax-exempt churches, tax-exempt political groups and rich people like Mitt Romney going through alternate sources to avoid taxes... and you wonder why this country is in so much debt when taxes are a big revenue generator...
 
2013-06-27 12:16:52 PM  
Honey, the Supreme Court is at the door with a man named Albert.  They say our marriage is invalid and I'm married to Albert now.
 
2013-06-27 12:17:42 PM  
I truly cannot understand this argument. Why the fark would a gay couple even WANT to get married in a community that despises them by forcing them to?

This makes about as much sense as gay marriage leads to animal marriage.

Farking Neanderthals.
 
2013-06-27 12:18:02 PM  

lawboy87: abb3w: In exactly the same manner that churches have been able to lose their tax exempt status for refusing to perform mixed-race marriages, ever since Virginia v Loving was handed down.

NAILED IT!

This argument is so full of holes that I can't believe anyone with an IQ over 70 would even advance it. The Loving v Virginia case is a great analog that clearly establishes that Churches, Synagogues, Temples, etc. have NEVER been forced by the government, or punished in any manner, to marry anyone outside those they choose.  The government's granting a license and legally recognizing a gay couple as being "married" imposes NO DUTY upon any religious or private social organization to recognize them as being married.


Republicans know that. It's like medical insurance, money, property, voting rights, etc... They only want these things for themselves. It's every Republican's dream to have a magnificent castle on a mountaintop with the entire world suffering below for their viewing pleasure.
 
2013-06-27 12:18:04 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.

You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.

[i.imgur.com image 264x373]


So you support using pejoratives against people who aren't like you? Good to know.
 
2013-06-27 12:18:39 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: WI241TH: Basically? They organized an entire event last year recording church leaders advocating for candidates and mailed them to the IRS, daring them to revoke tax-exempt status, and nothing happened.

Didn't hear about that, but I don't doubt it.  You have a link?


Just google "pulpit freedom Sunday" there are tons of stories, apparently there was another one 3 weeks ago:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/06/09/today-is-pulp i t-freedom-sunday-when-christian-pastors-dare-the-irs-to-revoke-their-t ax-exemption/
 
2013-06-27 12:18:54 PM  
The sooner they give up their tax-exempt status the better. Churches should be calling out Obama and the other neoliberal fascists every Sunday.
 
2013-06-27 12:20:27 PM  

d23: DarnoKonrad: utah dude: what about polygamy ?

as long as it's primarily practiced by men who want a harem, you can make a pretty rational argument against it being bad for society.

There is no illegality in living together as a harem.  The problem comes in if it's a legal arrangement.  That is definitely unfair.  However, the real argument and problem here is when a TWO people want to legally have all the advantages of a marriage.  When you call it different things then all of a sudden you have the two categories being treated differently.

Actually with as lax as the corporate laws are if you could figure out a way file a corporate charter for your harem then you probably have more advantages than with marriage anyway!



Yea, there's nothing illegal about informally sleeping/living with multiple people.  The problem is that when it's formalized, it's often just a tool to oppress women and children -- at least this is what the expert witnesses to Canada's trial on the subject testified.  As long as that's true, there's a good reason to keep it illegal -- at least under a common law system like our own and Canada's where you can argue such points.
 
2013-06-27 12:20:56 PM  

James!: Are Christian churches currently required to perform Jewish weddings?  No? Then shut your farking face.


There also haven't been forced to allow women priests/ministers. The Idiot Brigade seems to forget this.
 
2013-06-27 12:21:07 PM  

James!: WI241TH: Oh my god! Mike Huckabee is part of this insidious plot!

Huh, I fully agree with Mike's advice.


I think it's a terrible idea. The only thing stopping megachurches and evangelists from openly running political parties is their greed for their tax-exempt status.

As much as I'd love to tax churches into oblivion, take that away and you open the flood gates to Theocracy.
 
2013-06-27 12:21:12 PM  

GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can. We have special powers of persuasion.
We just haven't used them until now because we like getting strung up, dragged behind cars, and kicked in the teeth.

But a decade or so ago, Satan called up the leaders of the Gay Agenda and told us we had to start using our mind-control powers for things other than seducing the occasional drunk fratboy.
So now we're dead set on forcing everyone to engage in our weddings, where the food and music will actually be good. Unlike the shiat shows you straights put on.
It's all part of our master plan to demoralize you and make you wish that you had chosen to be gay.


Sigh...I wish I were gay.
 
2013-06-27 12:21:44 PM  

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: GhostFish: Okay, I'll admit it.

Breeders might not be able to make any church perform their marriages, but we gays can.

You are the worst sort of person. Leave it to the fringe to make people feel justified in their bigotry.

[i.imgur.com image 264x373]

So you support using pejoratives against people who aren't like you? Good to know.


I support making fun of people who would seriously state, "Whaa! You were slightly mean to me! That totally justifies decades of institutionalized oppression!"
 
Displayed 50 of 265 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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