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.

(CNN) NewsFlash Percentage of things coming out of Texas that are steers drops sharply   ( cnn.com) divider line
    More: NewsFlash, Texas, opponents of same-sex marriage, federal courts  
•       •       •

23118 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Feb 2014 at 3:38 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

478 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-26 03:40:26 PM  
Judge Orlando Garcia, based in San Antonio, stayed enforcement of his decision pending appeal, meaning homosexual couples in Texas for the time being cannot get married.

Doesn't exactly sound like a "Good ole boy" out of Texas...
 
2014-02-26 03:41:11 PM  
lets just get this to the SCOTUS and get it over with already.
 
2014-02-26 03:41:12 PM  
Smitings are imminent!
 
2014-02-26 03:41:18 PM  
__________//||||||||||||||

Add another one to the pile.
 
2014-02-26 03:41:23 PM  
Michigan next. It sucks that we'll have to follow TX on something.
 
2014-02-26 03:41:43 PM  
TFMR

 
2014-02-26 03:41:48 PM  
screeninsults.comView Full Size
 
2014-02-26 03:41:49 PM  
Soon... (I hope)


img.fark.netView Full Size

 
2014-02-26 03:41:49 PM  
i1.ytimg.comView Full Size


Well that's just FABULOUS!!
 
2014-02-26 03:42:12 PM  
Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.
 
2014-02-26 03:42:27 PM  
Hopefully Jan Brewer will look at this and think, "Well, okay, I guess I'll veto it."

Oh, who am I kidding? I used the words "Jan Brewer" and "think" in the same sentence.
 
2014-02-26 03:42:37 PM  
 ruling Wednesday it has no "rational relation to a legitimate government purpose."

Texans should love this, their government just got a little smaller.
 
2014-02-26 03:43:13 PM  
Rick Perry blows his stack in 3...2...1...
 
2014-02-26 03:43:19 PM  
I thought steers and queers was Oklahoma.
 
2014-02-26 03:43:23 PM  
However, number of queers coming in Texas skyrockets.

/Off I go to Freeper Land to watch the schadenfreude unfold in real time
 
2014-02-26 03:43:26 PM  
I was going to submit this as "Texas ban on same-sex marriage to become more powerful than you can possibly imagine" but I like this too.
 
2014-02-26 03:43:33 PM  
Well played, subby.  *toasts a Shiner Bock*
 
2014-02-26 03:43:36 PM  
Texas is probably too busy hooking up their next zombie turducken to notice.
 
2014-02-26 03:43:44 PM  
But what about my freedom to have more rights than gay people??
 
2014-02-26 03:43:45 PM  
Soon, you phony "libertarian" wankstains! Soon, Amendment One will be in the dustbin of history.

/it pissed me off to NO GODDAMN END how many so-called libertarians, independents, moderates, and "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" people bought into that bullshiat
//NC was supposed to be making real progress, too
 
2014-02-26 03:43:55 PM  

mayIFark: Michigan next. It sucks that we'll have to follow TX on something.





sports-kings.comView Full Size


U mad, bro?

 
2014-02-26 03:43:58 PM  

mercator_psi: Hopefully Jan Brewer will look at this and think, "Well, okay, I guess I'll veto it."

Oh, who am I kidding? I used the words "Jan Brewer" and "think" in the same sentence.


If anything, I expect an Arizona type law introduced by the end of the week, and quickly passed in Texas.  the conservatives here cannot stand gays for some reason, and love to use them as a scapegoat.
 
2014-02-26 03:43:59 PM  
This isn't going to last long, but it would be pretty awesome if the ruling stood up to appeal.

/not holding my breath
 
2014-02-26 03:44:07 PM  

mercator_psi: Hopefully Jan Brewer will look at this and think, "Well, okay, I guess I'll veto it."

Oh, who am I kidding? I used the words "Jan Brewer" and "think" in the same sentence.


She bucked her own party and gave the go-ahead for a Medicaid expansion for Arizona.  I think she's smart enough to see the foolishness in that obscene law.
 
2014-02-26 03:44:08 PM  
They'll let it slide - but fer Keeerist's sake, don't serve chili with beans at them same-sex weddings!
 
2014-02-26 03:44:28 PM  
Part of Garcia's ruling: "Equal treatment of all individuals under the law is not merely an aspiration it is a constitutional mandate."

Out-Farking-Standing, Judge! Sound off like you got a pair!
 
2014-02-26 03:44:29 PM  
Taking bets on the next state to overturn their bans.
Mine are Ohio and North Carolina
 
2014-02-26 03:44:53 PM  

Hobodeluxe: lets just get this to the SCOTUS and get it over with already.


No, thank you.
They just drove the final nail in Amendment IV's coffin.
 
2014-02-26 03:45:03 PM  
Yee-Haw!!!
 
2014-02-26 03:45:23 PM  
In related news, the court upheld a law that made it illegal to fark a person in the ass and not even have the common decency to give him a reach-around.
 
2014-02-26 03:45:24 PM  
It's pending appeal, so don't start sucking each others dicks yet.
 
2014-02-26 03:45:49 PM  
I eagerly await the flood of butthurt Facebook friends plotting their move to Australia, since they don't have gay marriage or national healthcare
 
2014-02-26 03:46:43 PM  
This is currently a victory in word only. He immediately added a stay until it passes through appeals. You can absolutely expect the Rs to appeal.

Unfortunately, this domino won't fall until the SC forces it to.
 
2014-02-26 03:47:01 PM  
Bravo subby, I went for the same joke and botched it more than Sin Cara botches an armbar (terribly written in a rush; newsflash ruined the tone). I wonder when appeals on all these states will finally go through, might want to buy stock in wedding service industry companies by end of the year.
 
2014-02-26 03:47:10 PM  

rockforever: Rick Perry blows his stack in 3...2...1...


He's gonna blow something.

pensitoreview.comView Full Size
 
2014-02-26 03:47:13 PM  
A bit of a stretch for that "joke," yet again.

But anyway. Hells yeah. We'll still have to fight the appeal, but this is a step that has to be taken.

i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2014-02-26 03:47:31 PM  

Bareefer Obonghit: However, number of queers coming in Texas skyrockets.

/Off I go to Freeper Land to watch the schadenfreude unfold in real time


My soul is refreshed by the tears of impotent fury of bigots and bullies.  Today is a 'good' day.
 
2014-02-26 03:47:40 PM  
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if silence  was suddenly drowned out by a million derp. I fear something fabulous has happened.
 
2014-02-26 03:48:03 PM  

Maud Dib: mayIFark: Michigan next. It sucks that we'll have to follow TX on something.

[sports-kings.com image 800x512]

U mad, bro?


Yes.

/Michigander
//why the fark can't we get our heads out of our asses faster?
 
2014-02-26 03:48:12 PM  

Sharksfan: Judge Orlando Garcia, based in San Antonio, stayed enforcement of his decision pending appeal, meaning homosexual couples in Texas for the time being cannot get married.

Doesn't exactly sound like a "Good ole boy" out of Texas...


I disagree, I bet he positively shouts "ole".
 
2014-02-26 03:48:21 PM  
Giddy up
mimg.ugo.comView Full Size
 
2014-02-26 03:48:33 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Soon, you phony "libertarian" wankstains! Soon, Amendment One will be in the dustbin of history.

/it pissed me off to NO GODDAMN END how many so-called libertarians, independents, moderates, and "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" people bought into that bullshiat
//NC was supposed to be making real progress, too


I liked the polling they did where they just asked whether people supported or opposed Amendment One, and people supported it by a decently large margin. Then they did the same poll, but explained all of what Amendment One actually did. The margin flipped, and there was a large majority against it.

Amendment One passed entirely because of ignorance. Well, bigotry too, but without the ignorance, it would have failed.
 
2014-02-26 03:48:40 PM  
I honestly thought we'd be 49th out of 50
 
2014-02-26 03:48:41 PM  
upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size
 
2014-02-26 03:48:57 PM  
Maybe you can come over later and fark my sister!
 
2014-02-26 03:49:13 PM  
I'm happy about the ruling, but I feel the headline is in poor taste and not up to FARK standards. Although a headline celebrating outlawing discrimination that refers to a derogatory epithet for said oppressed minority is pretty snarky.

I'm gonna give this one a pass.
 
2014-02-26 03:49:14 PM  
Man.

Live in Texas.  Derpers in my office are going to go all herp and derp when they find out about this.
 
2014-02-26 03:50:20 PM  

rockforever: Rick Perry blows his stack in 3...2...1...


Perry Peter Puffer
 
2014-02-26 03:51:35 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Well played, subby.  *toasts a Shiner Bock*


and digs out his old Buzzcocks (stangely appropriate) cassette tape


/don't mess with Texas
//Because Lord Knows it is plenty messed up as it is
 
2014-02-26 03:51:44 PM  
Separation of church and state is not only confusing to some, but offensive.
 
2014-02-26 03:51:44 PM  
When are these people going to learn that their religious hate is not constitutionally sound??
 
2014-02-26 03:51:45 PM  

Geoff Peterson: I'm happy about the ruling, but I feel the headline is in poor taste and not up to FARK standards. Although a headline celebrating outlawing discrimination that refers to a derogatory epithet for said oppressed minority is pretty snarky.

I'm gonna give this one a pass.


LGBTQ Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.
 
2014-02-26 03:52:03 PM  

Sharksfan: Judge Orlando Garcia, based in San Antonio, stayed enforcement of his decision pending appeal, meaning homosexual couples in Texas for the time being cannot get married.

Doesn't exactly sound like a "Good ole boy" out of Texas...


Garcias have probably been in Texas since they arrived with the Conquistadors. And he might even be a Jew, since they arrived with the Conquistadors too. Sephardic Jews that got out of the way of the century or so of tortured conversion to the Catholic church.

Besides, if he had been new blood, he would have had 5 names, 3 hyphens and an arriba.
 
2014-02-26 03:52:27 PM  

MacEnvy: Sharksfan: Judge Orlando Garcia, based in San Antonio, stayed enforcement of his decision pending appeal, meaning homosexual couples in Texas for the time being cannot get married.

Doesn't exactly sound like a "Good ole boy" out of Texas...

I disagree, I bet he positively shouts "ole".


Well played sir....well played.

/golf clap
 
2014-02-26 03:53:02 PM  

StrikitRich: [i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]

Well that's just FABULOUS!!


Came for the FMJ reference.
 
2014-02-26 03:53:24 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Man.

Live in Texas.  Derpers in my office are going to go all herp and derp when they find out about this.


Just give them a comforting pat on the butt.
 
2014-02-26 03:53:24 PM  
I have a dream that one day "Judge affirms basic civil right" will not be a Fark newsflash worthy headline.
 
2014-02-26 03:53:46 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Man.

Live in Texas.  Derpers in my office are going to go all herp and derp when they find out about this.


God I have hated living in offices with right wingers. The tea party type ones are always very vocal about their beliefs and freak out if you have a different opinion than yours.

I try not to talk politics at work but when some of them go on I feel I can't just keep silent.
 
2014-02-26 03:54:07 PM  
Among those defending the Texas ban is state Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is the leading Republican candidate for governor asshole in the state.

// we have a Blazing Saddles thing going in another thread
 
2014-02-26 03:54:16 PM  
'It is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens.' - Texas Gov. Rick Perry on same-sex marriage ruling

- Dan Linden (@DanLinden) February 26, 2014


quickmeme.comView Full Size
 
2014-02-26 03:54:20 PM  
cbswzlx2.files.wordpress.comView Full Size


Hold still maggot, while I knit you a sweater!
 
2014-02-26 03:54:24 PM  
Texas should secede if it intends to remain American. ~ Random Derper

Let that peculate for a while.
 
2014-02-26 03:54:41 PM  
5th Circuit is heavy on the Republicans too, so don't hold your breath. 2 Clinton and 2 Obama appointees out of 17 active judges. 2 Carter and 1 Clinton with senior status out of 8. So 7 out of 25 judges hearing cases on that appeals court are Democratic appointees, 18 are Republican appointees.

That's actually kind of stunning.
 
2014-02-26 03:54:55 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: I honestly thought we'd be 49th out of 50


What was 50, Louisiana?
 
2014-02-26 03:55:15 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: I have a dream that one day "Judge affirms basic civil right" will not be a Fark newsflash worthy headline.


Well said
 
2014-02-26 03:55:16 PM  

Geoff Peterson: I'm happy about the ruling, but I feel the headline is in poor taste and not up to FARK standards. Although a headline celebrating outlawing discrimination that refers to a derogatory epithet for said oppressed minority is pretty snarky.

I'm gonna give this one a pass.


I see we have the Studman69 of headlines here today.
 
2014-02-26 03:55:46 PM  

Texian: Part of Garcia's ruling: "Equal treatment of all individuals under the law is not merely an aspiration it is a constitutional mandate."

Out-Farking-Standing, Judge! Sound off like you got a pair!


I like you Judge Garcia, Hell I think I'll let you come home and fark my sister
 
2014-02-26 03:56:26 PM  

Geoff Peterson: I'm happy about the ruling, but I feel the headline is in poor taste and not up to FARK standards. Although a headline celebrating outlawing discrimination that refers to a derogatory epithet for said oppressed minority is pretty snarky.

I'm gonna give this one a pass.


Thank the Lord Almighty you are here to play Solomon Of The Acceptable Fark Headlines.
 
2014-02-26 03:56:51 PM  
STATES' RIGHTS!
 
2014-02-26 03:57:10 PM  

Last Man on Earth: HaywoodJablonski: I honestly thought we'd be 49th out of 50

What was 50, Louisiana?


Mississippi. Louisiana has NOLA, so I figured they'd go soooner
 
2014-02-26 03:57:21 PM  

BKITU: Geoff Peterson: I'm happy about the ruling, but I feel the headline is in poor taste and not up to FARK standards. Although a headline celebrating outlawing discrimination that refers to a derogatory epithet for said oppressed minority is pretty snarky.

I'm gonna give this one a pass.

I see we have the Studman69 of headlines here today.


Your sarcasm meter is broken.
 
2014-02-26 03:57:26 PM  

Tenga: It's pending appeal, so don't start sucking each others dicks yet.


Wait.
No: They can do that thanks to another Texass case.

This one is about marriage, which the Supreme Court has called a fundamental, basic civil right over and over.
 
2014-02-26 03:57:33 PM  

JerseyTim: 'It is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens.' - Texas Gov. Rick Perry on same-sex marriage ruling- Dan Linden (@DanLinden) February 26, 2014

[www.quickmeme.com image 625x468]


I would love to ask them does that mean he thinks state's should be able to once again make anti-inter-racial marriage laws.
 
2014-02-26 03:57:35 PM  

Bareefer Obonghit: However, number of queers coming in Texas skyrockets.

/Off I go to Freeper Land to watch the schadenfreude unfold in real time


I'm saving my one excursion into Freeper Land for when a TP darling is nominated as the Republican candidate for President and loses by at least 10 points in the election.
 
2014-02-26 03:58:20 PM  

rockforever: Rick Perry blows his stack in 3...2...1...


Stack waits in antici ...

...

... -pation.

hghhelp.comView Full Size
 
2014-02-26 03:58:43 PM  
+1 for the headline subster!
 
2014-02-26 03:58:48 PM  

Hobodeluxe: lets just get this to the SCOTUS and get it over with already.


Fark that, court cases take years.

Just get Congress to pass a law, and have anyone who opposes it have a permanent scar on their record.
 
2014-02-26 03:59:08 PM  
Something something thought this was 'Merica
 
2014-02-26 03:59:14 PM  
Geoff Peterson: I feel the headline is in poor taste and not up to FARK standards.

Are you new here?  What standards are those?
 
2014-02-26 03:59:15 PM  
Awesome! Awesome! Awesome! That's all I can say!
 
2014-02-26 03:59:29 PM  

Antimatter: mercator_psi: Hopefully Jan Brewer will look at this and think, "Well, okay, I guess I'll veto it."

Oh, who am I kidding? I used the words "Jan Brewer" and "think" in the same sentence.

If anything, I expect an Arizona type law introduced by the end of the week, and quickly passed in Texas.  the conservatives here cannot stand gays for some reason, and love to use them as a scapegoat.


...For what?

*sigh* I wish conservatives would explain this incredible power I apparently have to affect every aspect of everyones' life. I'd like to weild it.

/For the glory of my lord Satan, of course.
 
2014-02-26 03:59:32 PM  
"no rational relation" to legitimate government

Is that legalspeak for "Your law is bad and you should FEEL bad"?
 
2014-02-26 03:59:38 PM  
The cities in Texas are bluer than people think. The mayor of San Antonio, where this ruling happened to have been made, was the speaker at the DNC.  My company here has had same sex benefits for as long as I've worked here, six years.  No idea how long before that.

Lot of social liberal, fiscal conservative types.
 
2014-02-26 03:59:58 PM  

Magorn: I like you Judge Garcia, Hell I think I'll let you come home and fark my sister


Hey, no cutting in line.
 
2014-02-26 04:00:12 PM  
It's over reactionary conservatives.

You lost.

Again.
 
2014-02-26 04:00:14 PM  

BMFPitt: Hobodeluxe: lets just get this to the SCOTUS and get it over with already.

Fark that, court cases take years.

Just get Congress to pass a law, and have anyone who opposes it have a permanent scar on their record.


I don't really think congress could pass a law like that, unless it was an amendment.
 
2014-02-26 04:00:19 PM  
Well that's surprising.  I wonder if TX will turn into a blue state in my lifetime.
 
2014-02-26 04:00:26 PM  

JerseyTim: 'It is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens.' - Texas Gov. Rick Perry on same-sex marriage ruling- Dan Linden (@DanLinden) February 26, 2014

[www.quickmeme.com image 625x468]


Except when it comes to shiat you don't like that the citizenry backs right Governor Goodhair Knownothing?
 
2014-02-26 04:00:38 PM  

moeburn: What standards are those?


American Standards. I believe they make toilets.
 
2014-02-26 04:00:49 PM  
 
2014-02-26 04:01:06 PM  

Infernalist: Texas should secede if it intends to remain American. ~ Random Derper

Let that peculate for a while.


i.chzbgr.comView Full Size
 
2014-02-26 04:01:10 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Tenga: It's pending appeal, so don't start sucking each others dicks yet.

Wait.
No: They can do that thanks to another Texass case.

This one is about marriage, which the Supreme Court has called a fundamental, basic civil right over and over.


Didn't you just say to keep it out of the Supreme Court? Seems like you just presented a far more compelling case for why they should.
 
2014-02-26 04:01:13 PM  

KAVORKA: I thought steers and queers was Oklahoma.


1.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size


/ agrees
 
2014-02-26 04:01:16 PM  

QueenMamaBee: Geoff Peterson: I'm happy about the ruling, but I feel the headline is in poor taste and not up to FARK standards. Although a headline celebrating outlawing discrimination that refers to a derogatory epithet for said oppressed minority is pretty snarky.

I'm gonna give this one a pass.

LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.


I have no patience for people who take offence from somewhere it was not intended.  Just because you don't like it when I say "Wendy's new chicken burger is totally gay", doesn't mean I'm homophobic for saying it.  It just means I'm insensitive.
 
2014-02-26 04:02:12 PM  
i1.ytimg.comView Full Size


"Not like that numbnuts! I said put your wiener in my hand and let me choke it!"

OR

"Who the fark just said that?!? I will cornhole you until your assholes are shiatting buttermilk!"
 
2014-02-26 04:02:47 PM  

rockforever: Rick Perry blows his stack in 3...2...1...


Omit unnecessary words.
 
2014-02-26 04:02:59 PM  

Tenga: It's pending appeal, so don't start sucking each others dicks yet.


Bareefer Obonghit: However, number of queers coming in Texas skyrockets.

/Off I go to Freeper Land to watch the schadenfreude unfold in real time



Because I have a man crush on R. Lee Earmy

s1.ibtimes.comView Full Size


"I bet you're the kinda guy that would fark a person in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach around. I'll be watching you!"
 
2014-02-26 04:03:06 PM  

QueenMamaBee: Geoff Peterson: I'm happy about the ruling, but I feel the headline is in poor taste and not up to FARK standards. Although a headline celebrating outlawing discrimination that refers to a derogatory epithet for said oppressed minority is pretty snarky.

I'm gonna give this one a pass.

LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.


Lawd knows this is like trying to nail jello to a wall, but last time I heard the term try to be defined it was either people who have some sort of kink like BDSM  and so are heterosexual but not "straight" or just heterosexuals who really really hate they they are so normal and so invented a category just for them so they could be oppressed too.

/Down with the cause, just have little patience for labels and navel gazing
//insist I inquire what your "preferred gender pronoun is and I will  make it a point never to need to know because I will never speak to you
/// Tell me your PGP is "cis" or "hir" or god help me "Xi" and I will rip out your lungs and show  them to you before you die
 
2014-02-26 04:03:18 PM  
:-)
 
2014-02-26 04:03:24 PM  

Geoff Peterson: I'm happy about the ruling, but I feel the headline is in poor taste and not up to FARK standards. Although a headline celebrating outlawing discrimination that refers to a derogatory epithet for said oppressed minority is pretty snarky.

I'm gonna give this one a pass.


As a gay man who graduated from Texas A&M, I say it's perfect for today.
 
2014-02-26 04:03:36 PM  

CruJones: The cities in Texas are bluer than people think. The mayor of San Antonio, where this ruling happened to have been made, was the speaker at the DNC.  My company here has had same sex benefits for as long as I've worked here, six years.  No idea how long before that.

Lot of social liberal, fiscal conservative types.


Don't let the truth get into play here ... it is FARK
 
hej
2014-02-26 04:03:53 PM  

JerseyTim: 'It is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens.' - Texas Gov. Rick Perry on same-sex marriage ruling- Dan Linden (@DanLinden) February 26, 2014

[www.quickmeme.com image 625x468]


No, but it is the role of the judicial system to make sure laws are obeyed.
 
2014-02-26 04:03:53 PM  

ChipNASA: Tenga: It's pending appeal, so don't start sucking each others dicks yet.

Bareefer Obonghit: However, number of queers coming in Texas skyrockets.

/Off I go to Freeper Land to watch the schadenfreude unfold in real time


Because I have a man crush on R. Lee Earmy

[s1.ibtimes.com image 720x642]

"I bet you're the kinda guy that would fark a person in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach around. I'll be watching you!"


Ermey Got Damn it.
 
2014-02-26 04:04:14 PM  

ltdanman44: [upload.wikimedia.org image 704x857]


His uniform needs some cleaning and tailoring. But I'm not going to tell him that. No sir. I mean...ooops.
 
2014-02-26 04:04:30 PM  

CruJones: The cities in Texas are bluer than people think. The mayor of San Antonio, where this ruling happened to have been made, was the speaker at the DNC.  My company here has had same sex benefits for as long as I've worked here, six years.  No idea how long before that.

Lot of social liberal, fiscal conservative types.



And the mayor of Houston is a carpet muncher*

* that's what Council Member Micheal "Hit and Run Leaving a Gay Bar" Berry called her.
 
2014-02-26 04:04:47 PM  
My former boss, who was very flamboyantly gay, recently moved from West Hollywood to Dallas with his boyfriend.  I was as shocked as anyone about this.  Would it be appropriate to congratulate him on this?
 
2014-02-26 04:05:02 PM  
Activist judges trying to keep small government from condemning types of sexuality I don't understand... grrr

I just divided by derp.
 
2014-02-26 04:05:28 PM  
media1.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2014-02-26 04:05:50 PM  
This made me giggle a little while ago...  I'm pretty sure there is a typo in there... OR IS THERE?
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2014-02-26 04:06:35 PM  

Ostman: Antimatter: mercator_psi: Hopefully Jan Brewer will look at this and think, "Well, okay, I guess I'll veto it."

Oh, who am I kidding? I used the words "Jan Brewer" and "think" in the same sentence.

If anything, I expect an Arizona type law introduced by the end of the week, and quickly passed in Texas.  the conservatives here cannot stand gays for some reason, and love to use them as a scapegoat.

...For what?

*sigh* I wish conservatives would explain this incredible power I apparently have to affect every aspect of everyones' life. I'd like to weild it.

/For the glory of my lord Satan, of course.


Hold onto your britches, but I've had a conservative argue with me that the problem isn't what gays do, but that what they do becomes normalized, leading to more people indulging in their perversions, including perversions no one would defend.
 
2014-02-26 04:07:49 PM  

vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: Tenga: It's pending appeal, so don't start sucking each others dicks yet.

Wait.
No: They can do that thanks to another Texass case.

This one is about marriage, which the Supreme Court has called a fundamental, basic civil right over and over.

Didn't you just say to keep it out of the Supreme Court? Seems like you just presented a far more compelling case for why they should.


Didn't the Supreme Court just hang the skinned corpse of Amendment IV out to dry yesterday?
Yes, yes they did.
/Rusty chainsaw. Sideways.
 
2014-02-26 04:08:04 PM  

GreatGlavinsGhost: rockforever: Rick Perry blows his stack in 3...2...1...

Stack waits in antici ...

...

... -pation.

[www.hghhelp.com image 476x531]


Okay, can't stand the man, but if that's the kind of guy Rick Perry is into, then he's got good taste.
 
2014-02-26 04:09:04 PM  
Damnit Greg Abbott, stop throwing our money away on this. Let it go. We have other things to spend our money on than these stupid, and ultimately pointless, legal battles.
 
2014-02-26 04:09:10 PM  

sno man: This made me giggle a little while ago...  I'm pretty sure there is a typo in there... OR IS THERE?
[img.fark.net image 599x388]


0.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.comView Full Size
 
bow
2014-02-26 04:09:13 PM  
Come on Ohio, get in the game.
 
2014-02-26 04:09:25 PM  
Good.


And good headline.
 
2014-02-26 04:10:04 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: Tenga: It's pending appeal, so don't start sucking each others dicks yet.

Wait.
No: They can do that thanks to another Texass case.

This one is about marriage, which the Supreme Court has called a fundamental, basic civil right over and over.

Didn't you just say to keep it out of the Supreme Court? Seems like you just presented a far more compelling case for why they should.

Didn't the Supreme Court just hang the skinned corpse of Amendment IV out to dry yesterday?
Yes, yes they did.
/Rusty chainsaw. Sideways.


GOD DAMMIT SO MUCH
 
2014-02-26 04:10:22 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: Tenga: It's pending appeal, so don't start sucking each others dicks yet.

Wait.
No: They can do that thanks to another Texass case.

This one is about marriage, which the Supreme Court has called a fundamental, basic civil right over and over.

Didn't you just say to keep it out of the Supreme Court? Seems like you just presented a far more compelling case for why they should.

Didn't the Supreme Court just hang the skinned corpse of Amendment IV out to dry yesterday?
Yes, yes they did.
/Rusty chainsaw. Sideways.


I'm going to have to disagree with you. Sure, the liberals on the Court wanted a higher standard. But that's hardly gutting. If some guy gets arrested for BS reasons in order to execute the search, this ruling doesn't protect it.
 
2014-02-26 04:10:58 PM  

sno man: This made me giggle a little while ago...  I'm pretty sure there is a typo in there... OR IS THERE?
[img.fark.net image 599x388]


Okay, that was funny.
 
2014-02-26 04:11:06 PM  

QueenMamaBee: LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.


That's kind of odd that they can't explain it.

Gay is a sexual orientation.  Queer is a gender descriptor (as used nowadays).  A heterosexual man who bends gender lines (either through dress or habits) could be queer, though generally it's a label that is self-identified.  So, like, a transgender person is someone who identifies as a gender opposite that of their sex, and a queer person is someone who "blurs the lines" but doesn't necessarily identify as the opposite gender.
 
2014-02-26 04:11:44 PM  
I guess there will be another gay pride parade in Austin.

/about damn time
//suck it, bigots!
 
2014-02-26 04:12:04 PM  

QueenMamaBee: Geoff Peterson: I'm happy about the ruling, but I feel the headline is in poor taste and not up to FARK standards. Although a headline celebrating outlawing discrimination that refers to a derogatory epithet for said oppressed minority is pretty snarky.

I'm gonna give this one a pass.

LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.


Q = Questioning, not Queer.
 
2014-02-26 04:14:02 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2014-02-26 04:14:11 PM  

obenchainr: QueenMamaBee: LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.

That's kind of odd that they can't explain it.

Gay is a sexual orientation.  Queer is a gender descriptor (as used nowadays).  A heterosexual man who bends gender lines (either through dress or habits) could be queer, though generally it's a label that is self-identified.  So, like, a transgender person is someone who identifies as a gender opposite that of their sex, and a queer person is someone who "blurs the lines" but doesn't necessarily identify as the opposite gender.


So.
Two gay men together would technically be lesbian.
I see.
 
2014-02-26 04:14:18 PM  

NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.


In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.
 
2014-02-26 04:14:27 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Man.

Live in Texas.  Derpers in my office are going to go all herp and derp when they find out about this.


I live in the very-red suburbs of Houston. This will be fun to watch!
 
2014-02-26 04:14:55 PM  

vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: Tenga: It's pending appeal, so don't start sucking each others dicks yet.

Wait.
No: They can do that thanks to another Texass case.

This one is about marriage, which the Supreme Court has called a fundamental, basic civil right over and over.

Didn't you just say to keep it out of the Supreme Court? Seems like you just presented a far more compelling case for why they should.

Didn't the Supreme Court just hang the skinned corpse of Amendment IV out to dry yesterday?
Yes, yes they did.
/Rusty chainsaw. Sideways.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. Sure, the liberals on the Court wanted a higher standard. But that's hardly gutting. If some guy gets arrested for BS reasons in order to execute the search, this ruling doesn't protect it.


What was the exigent emergency that prevented them from getting a martherfarking warrant after being denied permission?
Was the nearest doughnut shop getting low on chocolate croissants?
/Lazy, lazy farkwits.
//If there were a hell, they'd be reserving a special place in it for Alito.
 
2014-02-26 04:15:18 PM  

nekom: "no rational relation" to legitimate government

Is that legalspeak for "Your law is bad and you should FEEL bad"?


Except for laws that discriminate against groups that have a long history of being subjected to discrimination (especially laws that discriminate on the basis of race or gender), which requires a higher showing by the government, the government is allowed to discriminate against a given group if the discriminatory law bears a "rational relation" to advancing any governmental interest.  For example, the government discriminates against blind people by refusing to give them driver's licenses, and discriminates against prison inmates by refusing to allow them to carry a Glock, but nobody would suggest that these rules aren't rationally related to a legitimate public interest.

So what the judge is saying--correctly--is that it isn't even necessary to decide whether discrimination against gays and lesbians should be subjected to higher scrutiny, as with laws that discriminate on the basis of gender or race, because even by the very permissible standards applied everyday discrimination by the government, discriminating against homosexuals in marriage rights is not rationally related to any legitimate government or public interest and is therefore unconstitutional as a violation of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection.  Which I completely agree with.
 
2014-02-26 04:16:09 PM  

nakago: QueenMamaBee: Geoff Peterson: I'm happy about the ruling, but I feel the headline is in poor taste and not up to FARK standards. Although a headline celebrating outlawing discrimination that refers to a derogatory epithet for said oppressed minority is pretty snarky.

I'm gonna give this one a pass.

LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.

Q = Questioning, not Queer.


Sometimes it's both.  But then too many people gloss their eyes over when you say LGBTQQ, LGBTQQIA, or (heaven forbid) LGBTQQIA2SAPH.
 
2014-02-26 04:16:15 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.


Which is why we don't allow the elderly or infertile to marry, just like Jesus said.
 
2014-02-26 04:16:39 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.


All men are instantly divorced when they get a vasectomy! They can't procreate, their marriage is invalid!
 
2014-02-26 04:16:55 PM  

sno man: This made me giggle a little while ago...  I'm pretty sure there is a typo in there... OR IS THERE?
[img.fark.net image 599x388]


 Unfortunately, he has corrected it about 3 times.

And just because you put "period" after something doesn't make it irrevocably true. "Authentic Conservative" my ass.
 
2014-02-26 04:17:05 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: obenchainr: QueenMamaBee: LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.

That's kind of odd that they can't explain it.

Gay is a sexual orientation.  Queer is a gender descriptor (as used nowadays).  A heterosexual man who bends gender lines (either through dress or habits) could be queer, though generally it's a label that is self-identified.  So, like, a transgender person is someone who identifies as a gender opposite that of their sex, and a queer person is someone who "blurs the lines" but doesn't necessarily identify as the opposite gender.

So.
Two gay men together would technically be lesbian.
I see.


Two outies don't make an innie.
 
2014-02-26 04:17:48 PM  

sno man: This made me giggle a little while ago...  I'm pretty sure there is a typo in there... OR IS THERE?


I like that he and others like him KNOW the silent majority is with them. They just know it! It's obvious! Just goes to show you how out of touch some people can be
 
2014-02-26 04:17:51 PM  
From behind the Ironside Curtain in Freeperville, my comments in bold:

Why does Texas have to listen to a Federal Judge?

Why do the rest of us have to listen to Texas piss and moan all the time? I'll tell you why: sometimes you put up with your mentally challenged Uncle Kermit, even though he keeps trying to touch Cindy, because he's family.


"A federal judge"
ie, a constitution-loathing Marxist judge.


You know how those damn communists just love homosexuality


Our constitution is being usurped each and every damn day! This president, and all the damn libs in San Antonio need to be arrested

You and your fancy 'law degree', 'years of experience', 'education' and 'general human deceny' found something unconstitutional? Must mean it is, in fact, so constitutional that you can't take it anymore!

Texas needs to secede. This is tyranny, top down. I will gladly come to Texas and join secessionist forces. We do not need to remain beholden to the Barack Stalin thugs.

"I will gladly come to Texas and lend my fighting expertise. Texas does have a handicap ramp and hoveround parking, correct?"

One gets the distinct impression that these people have set this up long ago and just waited for "their day"...Like Soviet sleeper cells... called to activation..Just sayin'.....Nah.... couldn't be - they're just good, "loyal opposition" democrats after all...

I'd say, "Don't worry, you'll be safe in your mom's basement," but I don't think most double wides have basements.

His was appointed by Clinton.  He supports gay marriage.And his name is Orlando.

His name was Robert Paulsen. His name was Robert Paulsen. His name was Robert Paulsen.
 
2014-02-26 04:17:52 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: I eagerly await the flood of butthurt Facebook friends plotting their move to Australia, since they don't have gay marriage or national healthcare


You'd better warn them off then. We definitely have national healthcare.
 
2014-02-26 04:18:07 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.


Unless they're lesbians, which means they can go to a sperm bank and both can have babies. Or they can adopt, if a male couple. Either way your argument falls completely flat.  I guess under your rules an infertile male-female couple shouldn't be allowed to marry, since they can't procreate.
 
2014-02-26 04:18:08 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.


My partner and I keep trying, but it's just not working!

/if at first you don't succeed...
 
2014-02-26 04:18:19 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.


Neither can sterile couples.  Adoption.  Next.
 
2014-02-26 04:18:21 PM  

vygramul: sno man: This made me giggle a little while ago...  I'm pretty sure there is a typo in there... OR IS THERE?
[img.fark.net image 599x388]

[0.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com image 600x358]


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2014-02-26 04:18:35 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.


By that "reasoning", you can forbid the elderly and infertile from marrying.
Now with bonus bannination of contraceptives!

Marriage is a civil contract, einstien, and it's mostly about property, inheritance, with a side of financial and legal responsibility for the care of children.
 
2014-02-26 04:19:08 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.


Say, I bet you protest divorce every chance you get!
 
2014-02-26 04:19:26 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2014-02-26 04:19:33 PM  

Magorn: QueenMamaBee: Geoff Peterson: I'm happy about the ruling, but I feel the headline is in poor taste and not up to FARK standards. Although a headline celebrating outlawing discrimination that refers to a derogatory epithet for said oppressed minority is pretty snarky.

I'm gonna give this one a pass.

LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.

Lawd knows this is like trying to nail jello to a wall, but last time I heard the term try to be defined it was either people who have some sort of kink like BDSM  and so are heterosexual but not "straight" or just heterosexuals who really really hate they they are so normal and so invented a category just for them so they could be oppressed too.

/Down with the cause, just have little patience for labels and navel gazing
//insist I inquire what your "preferred gender pronoun is and I will  make it a point never to need to know because I will never speak to you
/// Tell me your PGP is "cis" or "hir" or god help me "Xi" and I will rip out your lungs and show  them to you before you die


That's a lot nicer than I've heard it explained... the nicest way I've heard it was "Fark if I know... some kinda attention whoring."
 
2014-02-26 04:20:51 PM  

Sharksfan: Judge Orlando Garcia, based in San Antonio, stayed enforcement of his decision pending appeal, meaning homosexual couples in Texas for the time being cannot get married.

Doesn't exactly sound like a "Good ole boy" out of Texas...


Yeah?  Check back in about 30 years.
 
2014-02-26 04:21:22 PM  

scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: I eagerly await the flood of butthurt Facebook friends plotting their move to Australia, since they don't have gay marriage or national healthcare

You'd better warn them off then. We definitely have national healthcare.


That's the joke. I thought you'd have gay marriage by now too
 
2014-02-26 04:21:40 PM  
And from that wonderful source of unabated derp known as free republic -- Texas should secede if it intends to remain American.
 
2014-02-26 04:21:45 PM  

CruJones: The cities in Texas are bluer than people think. The mayor of San Antonio, where this ruling happened to have been made, was the speaker at the DNC.  My company here has had same sex benefits for as long as I've worked here, six years.  No idea how long before that.

Lot of social liberal, fiscal conservative types.


The mayor of Houston recently returned from a trip to California where she married her long-term partner.  And if I remember correctly when she was first elected she was the first openly gay mayor of such a large city.
 
2014-02-26 04:22:01 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.


It is next to impossible for my wife and I to procreate.  Our marriage is invalid also?
/sick of this
 
2014-02-26 04:22:01 PM  
Bareefer Obonghit: [Quoting bigots elsewhere]  His was appointed by Clinton.  He supports gay marriage.And his name is Orlando.

I'm not sure if this is racist or anti-Disney.

I know, I know...

i159.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2014-02-26 04:22:06 PM  

nakago: QueenMamaBee: Geoff Peterson: I'm happy about the ruling, but I feel the headline is in poor taste and not up to FARK standards. Although a headline celebrating outlawing discrimination that refers to a derogatory epithet for said oppressed minority is pretty snarky.

I'm gonna give this one a pass.

LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.

Q = Questioning, not Queer.


There is some dispute of what letters past "T" mean. Queer is valid, but so is questioning. A for asexual, though some think it's for allies, which really defies rational explanation. (NAACP isn't National Association of Allies and Colored People. Nor would it occur to anyone to ever consider including allies in that context.) Frankly, given the alphabet soup, I think Queer makes more sense.
 
2014-02-26 04:22:25 PM  
And the amount of golf balls coming out of garden hoses increases dramatically.
 
2014-02-26 04:22:46 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.

By that "reasoning", you can forbid the elderly and infertile from marrying.
Now with bonus bannination of contraceptives!

Marriage is a civil contract, einstien, and it's mostly about property, inheritance, with a side of financial and legal responsibility for the care of children.


Ask any doctor, there is no 100% reliable test for fertility.

Yes, marriage is a civil contract and is about the things you mention, but you would have none of those without procreation.
 
2014-02-26 04:22:49 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.

By that "reasoning", you can forbid the elderly and infertile from marrying.
Now with bonus bannination of contraceptives!

Marriage is a civil contract, einstien, and it's mostly about property, inheritance, with a side of financial and legal responsibility for the care of children.


And I procreated without marriage, so HA!

/yes, I know...I sound slutty
 
2014-02-26 04:22:53 PM  
So, that's seven dominoes in mid-topple for Virginia, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah, Kentucky, Nevada, and Texas, plus the 17 where it's outright legal already? Plus the case in Michigan that will probably behave similarly; almost to the halfway mark.
 
2014-02-26 04:22:55 PM  

Hobodeluxe: lets just get this to the SCOTUS and get it over with already.


No shiat. I'm Texan, conservative and straight and have no idea why it is such big deal to let same sex couples get married. It doesn't have any negative impact on anyone. You might as well be making abitrary laws about people who like cabbage can't get married to each other.

One a side note, i'd never enter the home of 2 people who eat a lot cabbage.
 
2014-02-26 04:23:20 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.


Is the hat on your head about two sizes too small?
 
2014-02-26 04:23:39 PM  

QueenMamaBee: Geoff Peterson: I'm happy about the ruling, but I feel the headline is in poor taste and not up to FARK standards. Although a headline celebrating outlawing discrimination that refers to a derogatory epithet for said oppressed minority is pretty snarky.

I'm gonna give this one a pass.

LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.


Genderqueer people generally fall more into the T category than any other: it's a catch-all term for those who are considered outside the gender binary, whether that be multiple genders, a mix of genders, gender fluid, or lacking gender.

I have a friend who considers hirself neutrois and prefers to be referred to as "ze" or "they." I can't say I completely understand it, but I try my best to be supportive.
 
2014-02-26 04:24:09 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.


Good troll, lots of bites.
 
2014-02-26 04:24:37 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: vygramul: demaL-demaL-yeH: Tenga: It's pending appeal, so don't start sucking each others dicks yet.

Wait.
No: They can do that thanks to another Texass case.

This one is about marriage, which the Supreme Court has called a fundamental, basic civil right over and over.

Didn't you just say to keep it out of the Supreme Court? Seems like you just presented a far more compelling case for why they should.

Didn't the Supreme Court just hang the skinned corpse of Amendment IV out to dry yesterday?
Yes, yes they did.
/Rusty chainsaw. Sideways.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. Sure, the liberals on the Court wanted a higher standard. But that's hardly gutting. If some guy gets arrested for BS reasons in order to execute the search, this ruling doesn't protect it.

What was the exigent emergency that prevented them from getting a martherfarking warrant after being denied permission?
Was the nearest doughnut shop getting low on chocolate croissants?
/Lazy, lazy farkwits.
//If there were a hell, they'd be reserving a special place in it for Alito.


That's beside the point. The issue is whether this qualifies as a "complete gutting." It doesn't. It moved the line to make life more difficult for people who don't even deny their own arrestability.
 
2014-02-26 04:24:46 PM  

obenchainr: QueenMamaBee: LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.

That's kind of odd that they can't explain it.

Gay is a sexual orientation.  Queer is a gender descriptor (as used nowadays).  A heterosexual man who bends gender lines (either through dress or habits) could be queer, though generally it's a label that is self-identified.  So, like, a transgender person is someone who identifies as a gender opposite that of their sex, and a queer person is someone who "blurs the lines" but doesn't necessarily identify as the opposite gender.


Flamboyantly  Androgynous  Gay ?
 
2014-02-26 04:26:09 PM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: obenchainr: QueenMamaBee: LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.

That's kind of odd that they can't explain it.

Gay is a sexual orientation.  Queer is a gender descriptor (as used nowadays).  A heterosexual man who bends gender lines (either through dress or habits) could be queer, though generally it's a label that is self-identified.  So, like, a transgender person is someone who identifies as a gender opposite that of their sex, and a queer person is someone who "blurs the lines" but doesn't necessarily identify as the opposite gender.

Flamboyantly  Androgynous  Gay ?


Film Actor's Guild
 
2014-02-26 04:26:46 PM  
It will happen sooner or later.
Even here, where the joke goes:
If cancer was mostly a gay only disease, It would of been cures years ago too.
 
2014-02-26 04:27:07 PM  
Oh, oh, Domino
Roll me over, Romeo, there you go
Lord have mercy, I said
Oh, oh, Domino
Roll me over, Romeo, there you go
Yeah alright, say it again
Oh, oh, Domino
I said oh, oh, Domino
 
2014-02-26 04:28:24 PM  
Suck it, cons.  Suck it long and suck it hard.
 
2014-02-26 04:28:36 PM  

Magorn: //insist I inquire what your "preferred gender pronoun is and I will make it a point never to need to know because I will never speak to you
/// Tell me your PGP is "cis" or "hir" or god help me "Xi" and I will rip out your lungs and show them to you before you die


Just out of curiosity, do you get all bent out of shape when "Daniel" prefers you call him "Dan" or "Danny"? Do you refuse to have any contact with "Katherine" if she insists you call her "Kate" or "Kathy"? And heaven forbid someone use their middle name as the name they go by.

// just curious how far your irrationality extends, or if it's only about gender
 
2014-02-26 04:28:42 PM  

moeburn: I have no patience for people who take offence from somewhere it was not intended.  Just because you don't like it when I say "Wendy's new chicken burger is totally gay", doesn't mean I'm homophobic for saying it.  It just means I'm insensitive


or accurate.

cltampa.comView Full Size
 
2014-02-26 04:29:03 PM  

Chakat: And from that wonderful source of unabated derp known as free republic -- Texas should secede if it intends to remain American.


i1222.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2014-02-26 04:29:48 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.


Tell that to my gay friend that fathered a child with a  woman (on purpose) and proceeded to raise his daughter with his gay partner over the last eighteen  years.

/Expanding your views is important.
 
2014-02-26 04:30:12 PM  

Carn: AugieDoggyDaddy: obenchainr: QueenMamaBee: LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.

That's kind of odd that they can't explain it.

Gay is a sexual orientation.  Queer is a gender descriptor (as used nowadays).  A heterosexual man who bends gender lines (either through dress or habits) could be queer, though generally it's a label that is self-identified.  So, like, a transgender person is someone who identifies as a gender opposite that of their sex, and a queer person is someone who "blurs the lines" but doesn't necessarily identify as the opposite gender.

Flamboyantly  Androgynous  Gay ?

Film Actor's Guild


What kind of films?  Never mind,  I'm scared of the answer.
 
2014-02-26 04:30:13 PM  
Dang, Smitty! I thought Rick Perry was finally leaving.
 
2014-02-26 04:30:56 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: I eagerly await the flood of butthurt Facebook friends plotting their move to Australia, since they don't have gay marriage or national healthcare

You'd better warn them off then. We definitely have national healthcare.

That's the joke. I thought you'd have gay marriage by now too


No! We have a conservative government & our leader is a rampant & vocal homophobe.
 
2014-02-26 04:33:31 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Magorn: //insist I inquire what your "preferred gender pronoun is and I will make it a point never to need to know because I will never speak to you
/// Tell me your PGP is "cis" or "hir" or god help me "Xi" and I will rip out your lungs and show them to you before you die

Just out of curiosity, do you get all bent out of shape when "Daniel" prefers you call him "Dan" or "Danny"? Do you refuse to have any contact with "Katherine" if she insists you call her "Kate" or "Kathy"? And heaven forbid someone use their middle name as the name they go by.

// just curious how far your irrationality extends, or if it's only about gender


When I posted on my Facebook account about their extending possible gender responses to be more inclusive, a friend criticized them and said that we shouldn't care what people say their gender is. The ironic thing? He lists his gender on his Facebook profile.
 
2014-02-26 04:33:56 PM  
QueenMamaBee:
LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.

It was discussed in a thread a while back and the only explanation I heard was that queer meant people who are gay but don't want to be labeled as gay because they feel they don't fit peoples' perceptions about gay people. So basically, queer is hipster gay.
 
2014-02-26 04:34:27 PM  

obenchainr: Gay is a sexual orientation.  Queer is a gender descriptor (as used nowadays).  A heterosexual man who bends gender lines (either through dress or habits) could be queer, though generally it's a label that is self-identified.  So, like, a transgender person is someone who identifies as a gender opposite that of their sex, and a queer person is someone who "blurs the lines" but doesn't necessarily identify as the opposite gender.


images.amcnetworks.comView Full Size

"Not funny ha-ha."

 
2014-02-26 04:34:29 PM  

Corvus: JerseyTim: 'It is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens.' - Texas Gov. Rick Perry on same-sex marriage ruling- Dan Linden (@DanLinden) February 26, 2014

[www.quickmeme.com image 625x468]

I would love to ask them does that mean he thinks state's should be able to once again make anti-inter-racial marriage laws.


No you wouldn't and no they don't.
 
2014-02-26 04:34:30 PM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: Carn: AugieDoggyDaddy: obenchainr: QueenMamaBee: LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.

That's kind of odd that they can't explain it.

Gay is a sexual orientation.  Queer is a gender descriptor (as used nowadays).  A heterosexual man who bends gender lines (either through dress or habits) could be queer, though generally it's a label that is self-identified.  So, like, a transgender person is someone who identifies as a gender opposite that of their sex, and a queer person is someone who "blurs the lines" but doesn't necessarily identify as the opposite gender.

Flamboyantly  Androgynous  Gay ?

Film Actor's Guild

What kind of films?  Never mind,  I'm scared of the answer.


Only one that I know of

i61.tinypic.comView Full Size


/Team America
//F*ck Yeah!
 
2014-02-26 04:35:03 PM  
I honestly did not believe this when I saw it. Good!
 
2014-02-26 04:35:54 PM  

riverwalk barfly: CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.

Tell that to my gay friend that fathered a child with a  woman (on purpose) and proceeded to raise his daughter with his gay partner over the last eighteen  years.

/Expanding your views is important.



Well, he wouldn't have to worry about her 'step dad' molesting her.
I'll be in the corner.........
 
2014-02-26 04:36:58 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: demaL-demaL-yeH: CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.

By that "reasoning", you can forbid the elderly and infertile from marrying.
Now with bonus bannination of contraceptives!

Marriage is a civil contract, einstien, and it's mostly about property, inheritance, with a side of financial and legal responsibility for the care of children.

Ask any doctor, there is no 100% reliable test for fertility.

Yes, marriage is a civil contract and is about the things you mention, but you would have none of those without procreation.


I assumed the first bit was tongue-in-cheek. Now it sounds like you're actually serious about the threat of zero procreation looming large. Don't worry, after the scary libs have forced all men to marry into a big gay santorum-leaking commune, all women will also be required to be unwed mothers of course.
 
2014-02-26 04:37:20 PM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: Carn: AugieDoggyDaddy: obenchainr: QueenMamaBee: LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.

That's kind of odd that they can't explain it.

Gay is a sexual orientation.  Queer is a gender descriptor (as used nowadays).  A heterosexual man who bends gender lines (either through dress or habits) could be queer, though generally it's a label that is self-identified.  So, like, a transgender person is someone who identifies as a gender opposite that of their sex, and a queer person is someone who "blurs the lines" but doesn't necessarily identify as the opposite gender.

Flamboyantly  Androgynous  Gay ?

Film Actor's Guild

What kind of films?  Never mind,  I'm scared of the answer.


The kind with long close ups of mustaches riding up and down glistening cocks.
 
2014-02-26 04:38:04 PM  

rockforever: Rick Perry blows his stack in 3...2...1...


i.imgur.comView Full Size


...blows something.
 
2014-02-26 04:38:12 PM  

BinderWoman: Satanic_Hamster: Man.

Live in Texas.  Derpers in my office are going to go all herp and derp when they find out about this.

I live in the very-red suburbs of Houston. This will be fun to watch!


Yeah, it's gonna be fun here. I'm just not gonna socialize at work for a bit.
 
2014-02-26 04:38:46 PM  
I want to end all gay marriages.  But that's only because I'm a divorce attorney and I think the potential  income and entertainment values could be epic.
 
2014-02-26 04:39:08 PM  

jaybeezey: No shiat. I'm Texan, conservative and straight and have no idea why it is such big deal to let same sex couples get married. It doesn't have any negative impact on anyone. You might as well be making abitrary laws about people who like cabbage can't get married to each other.

One a side note, i'd never enter the home of 2 people who eat a lot cabbage.


You got somethin' against Germans?
 
2014-02-26 04:41:00 PM  

rwhamann: BinderWoman: Satanic_Hamster: Man.

Live in Texas.  Derpers in my office are going to go all herp and derp when they find out about this.

I live in the very-red suburbs of Houston. This will be fun to watch!

Yeah, it's gonna be fun here. I'm just not gonna socialize at work for a bit.


Yeah, but it's gonna fun in Montrose, too.
 
2014-02-26 04:41:17 PM  
I wonder what effect this will have on the governor's race, since the AG (R candidate for gov) is going to defend the law.  I can see it swinging both ways (*ahem*), but I don't know of any recent polls of marriage equality in Texas.
 
2014-02-26 04:41:50 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Soon, you phony "libertarian" wankstains! Soon, Amendment One will be in the dustbin of history.

/it pissed me off to NO GODDAMN END how many so-called libertarians, independents, moderates, and "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" people bought into that bullshiat
//NC was supposed to be making real progress, too


North Carolina was the second-to-last state to seceed from the Union.  They'll probably be the second-to-last to yield marriage rights, too.  NC is bit... slow.
 
2014-02-26 04:42:15 PM  
Will someone -- ANYONE -- explain to me why marriage equality is such a bad thing that it causes such apoplexy?
 
2014-02-26 04:43:56 PM  

eraser8: Will someone -- ANYONE -- explain to me why marriage equality is such a bad thing that it causes such apoplexy?


Fear
 
2014-02-26 04:44:00 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Magorn: //insist I inquire what your "preferred gender pronoun is and I will make it a point never to need to know because I will never speak to you
/// Tell me your PGP is "cis" or "hir" or god help me "Xi" and I will rip out your lungs and show them to you before you die

Just out of curiosity, do you get all bent out of shape when "Daniel" prefers you call him "Dan" or "Danny"? Do you refuse to have any contact with "Katherine" if she insists you call her "Kate" or "Kathy"? And heaven forbid someone use their middle name as the name they go by.

// just curious how far your irrationality extends, or if it's only about gender


it's about putting words in the English language that do not exist, especially when they serve no point but to delineate how special a person perceives themselves to be .  The ironic thing is that in an attempt to defy fender steroeotyprs people that indulge in this sort of twaddle are actually REINFORCING them

You are a girl that likes to fix cars?  That doesn't make you a HIR that makes you a woman who fits nicely into the real spectrum of what woman are, despite cultural attempts to limit roles.

I;m 6'3 fat, balding hairy and straight, but I still admire Freddie Mercury and Dr. Frakenfurter as quasi role models- not because I am "strangely gendered" but just cause I like their swagger

We are ALL as Jung said, some mix of Animus and Anima, male and female essence, and the idea that if we are are anything put stereotypically male or female then we are a new "gender" needing its own pronoun is not merely ridiculous, but actually damaging
 
2014-02-26 04:44:32 PM  

scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: I eagerly await the flood of butthurt Facebook friends plotting their move to Australia, since they don't have gay marriage or national healthcare

You'd better warn them off then. We definitely have national healthcare.

That's the joke. I thought you'd have gay marriage by now too

No! We have a conservative government & our leader is a rampant & vocal homophobe.


Hmm. I'll modify the joke to say Canada or Germany next time. Thanks.
 
2014-02-26 04:44:57 PM  

Bareefer Obonghit: However, number of queers coming in Texas skyrockets.

/Off I go to Freeper Land to watch the schadenfreude unfold in real time


Be sure to use protection.  And log off after an hour, for your own safety.
 
2014-02-26 04:45:30 PM  
And yet the Republican nominee will still run on a platform of adding a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. And he will lose badly because of it
 
2014-02-26 04:45:46 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: I eagerly await the flood of butthurt Facebook friends plotting their move to Australia, since they don't have gay marriage or national healthcare

You'd better warn them off then. We definitely have national healthcare.

That's the joke. I thought you'd have gay marriage by now too

No! We have a conservative government & our leader is a rampant & vocal homophobe.

Hmm. I'll modify the joke to say Canada or Germany next time. Thanks.


Don't you go sending those people up here.
 
2014-02-26 04:46:16 PM  

browntimmy: QueenMamaBee:
LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.

It was discussed in a thread a while back and the only explanation I heard was that queer meant people who are gay but don't want to be labeled as gay because they feel they don't fit peoples' perceptions about gay people. So basically, queer is hipster gay.


That would explain one friend's irritation with them.
 
2014-02-26 04:46:47 PM  
11 years ago it was illegal to commit homosexual acts in Texas. Think about that. Only 15 years ago a Texas man wen to jail for sleeping in the same bed as the person he loved.

Lawrence v. Texas was decided only 11 years ago.

Now, homosexual relationships are not only legal, but will very soon (as soon as SCOTUS gets off its ass and hears one of these cases) be legally recognized by the state of Texas.

This is social change at a ridiculous pace, from you're-going-to-prison to here's-your-official-document-recognizing-your-love-and-commitment-and -acknowledging-your-legal-rights in barely a decade.

It's a pretty cool time to be alive.
 
2014-02-26 04:47:25 PM  

technicolor-misfit: rockforever: Rick Perry blows his stack in 3...2...1...

He's gonna blow something.

[www.pensitoreview.com image 375x333]


lulz

That just made my f*cking day.
 
2014-02-26 04:48:33 PM  

Anderson's Pooper: I want to end all gay marriages.  But that's only because I'm a divorce attorney and I think the potential  income and entertainment values could be epic.


1. Befriend a lot of lesbians.
2. Convince them marriage is the new U-Haul.
3. Wait three weeks.
4. Profit.

You're welcome.
 
2014-02-26 04:49:59 PM  
As a San Antonian who doesn't really care if gays marry, and is still gonna vote for Greg Abbot, I am getting a kick...
 
2014-02-26 04:50:25 PM  
2014-02-26 04:14:18 PM
NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.


Confused person is confused.  I don't see that in most state laws I am reading -  "Marital law is established for procreation"  - it seems to be all about rights of survivorship/visitation and division/combination of debts and assets.  Seems to be an agreement between two adults capable of entering legally into a contract, for the purpose of the above.  Why should it matter whether it's two men, two women, or a man and a woman?
 
2014-02-26 04:50:37 PM  

ariseatex: My partner and I keep trying, but it's just not working!

/if at first you don't succeed...


A FB acquaintance honestly thought that California's update of laws regarding fertility treatment coverage to get rid of certain language that was gender specific or might discriminate against gay people (Which is designed to cover only those that can't conceive naturally) would mean that women having lesbian sex could be construed as honest attempts to conceive naturally.
 
2014-02-26 04:50:49 PM  
goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives
 
2014-02-26 04:51:07 PM  

Maul555: As a San Antonian who doesn't really care if gays marry, and is still gonna vote for Greg Abbot, I am getting a kick...


Why?
 
2014-02-26 04:51:19 PM  

riverwalk barfly: CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.

Tell that to my gay friend that fathered a child with a  woman (on purpose) and proceeded to raise his daughter with his gay partner over the last eighteen  years.

/Expanding your views is important.


I think that's great your friend started a family.  Procreation, however, is the genetic material of both parties to the marriage, so this would not be procreation inside a marriage.

Some of the other posters misunderstand the meaning of procreation.  Every heterosexual married couple has the potential for procreation.  Yes, this ability is lost in some people due to age or pathology.  However, there is no reliable test for fertility, and it would be too invasive to make it a requirement for marriage.  There are also Constitutional protections for reproductive privacy, so we could not force people to procreate or proscribe contraception.

Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage, but it is not a testable requirement.  Since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, there is no purpose for them marrying.  All the other reasons for marrying like inheritance, etc., can be handled legally outside of marriage.

And, since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, or have the potential for procreation, they are not equal to heterosexuals in marriage.
 
2014-02-26 04:51:34 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: I eagerly await the flood of butthurt Facebook friends plotting their move to Australia, since they don't have gay marriage or national healthcare

You'd better warn them off then. We definitely have national healthcare.

That's the joke. I thought you'd have gay marriage by now too

No! We have a conservative government & our leader is a rampant & vocal homophobe.

Hmm. I'll modify the joke to say Canada or Germany next time. Thanks.


Yeah, well, at least the confusion's been sorted and your joke's been fixed to greater effect.

Glad to be of service.
 
2014-02-26 04:51:38 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2014-02-26 04:51:48 PM  

Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives


Are you a troll or are you just stupid?
 
2014-02-26 04:51:51 PM  

eraser8: Will someone -- ANYONE -- explain to me why marriage equality is such a bad thing that it causes such apoplexy?


Because then Republicans get off on breaking the rules, and if marriage equality is a thing, sneaking out on the wife to get a handie at a rest stop loses its allure.

And before the "not all Republicans are closet cases" armada arrives: when David Vitter was caught pooping himself to get off, the Republicans were incredulous that he was schtupping a woman; I have to assume they are actually aware of their own sexual preferences, and they were pretty unanimous that the woman part of the equation was the unbelievable element.
 
2014-02-26 04:52:02 PM  
Let's assume in a few years, all 50 states sanction gay marriage.  I wonder where the next manufactured outrage du jour will emerge?  Back to the abortion debate? The Black-on-Black violence in Africa? Immigration amnesty? The White minority in California demands restitution?

The effort and resources put into getting (re)elected is astonishing.
 
2014-02-26 04:52:56 PM  

Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives


Look if you don't want to provide services to people, WHY ARE YOU IN THAT SERVICE?

Do something else.
 
2014-02-26 04:53:13 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage


False.  The primary purpose of marriage has been the protection of property.
 
2014-02-26 04:53:32 PM  

scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: scamp-dun-emer: HaywoodJablonski: I eagerly await the flood of butthurt Facebook friends plotting their move to Australia, since they don't have gay marriage or national healthcare

You'd better warn them off then. We definitely have national healthcare.

That's the joke. I thought you'd have gay marriage by now too

No! We have a conservative government & our leader is a rampant & vocal homophobe.

Hmm. I'll modify the joke to say Canada or Germany next time. Thanks.

Yeah, well, at least the confusion's been sorted and your joke's been fixed to greater effect.

Glad to be of service.


Cheers!
 
2014-02-26 04:53:46 PM  

QueenMamaBee: Geoff Peterson: I'm happy about the ruling, but I feel the headline is in poor taste and not up to FARK standards. Although a headline celebrating outlawing discrimination that refers to a derogatory epithet for said oppressed minority is pretty snarky.

I'm gonna give this one a pass.

LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.


The "Q" can represent either "Queer" or "Questioning."

"Questioning" folks are people who think they might be gay (or some other variety of LBGT-what-have-you), but aren't sure.

"Queer" is a catch-all term that includes LBGT (so at first it seems redundant), but also includes a few more groups, such as the asexual folk (who don't want to have sex with anybody).

It really boils down to just trying to include anyone who wants to be included.
 
2014-02-26 04:53:48 PM  

rkiller1: Let's assume in a few years, all 50 states sanction gay marriage.  I wonder where the next manufactured outrage du jour will emerge?  Back to the abortion debate? The Black-on-Black violence in Africa? Immigration amnesty? The White minority in California demands restitution?

The effort and resources put into getting (re)elected is astonishing.


Yeah, it has nothing to do with equal rights. It's totally about elections.

/moron.
 
2014-02-26 04:54:00 PM  
Freepers are taking it well.

It's their way or the highway. Logic and common sense don't factor into the queers' equation.


Homosexuals must get what they want says the government and the judiciary.
What the heck does it matter what the people say?
What the heck does it matter what the Constitution says?
 
2014-02-26 04:54:12 PM  

Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives


Yes, how terrible that business owners might make money.
 
2014-02-26 04:54:17 PM  

eraser8: Maul555: As a San Antonian who doesn't really care if gays marry, and is still gonna vote for Greg Abbot, I am getting a kick...

Why?


I want to know this as well
 
2014-02-26 04:54:22 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: riverwalk barfly: CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.

Tell that to my gay friend that fathered a child with a  woman (on purpose) and proceeded to raise his daughter with his gay partner over the last eighteen  years.

/Expanding your views is important.

I think that's great your friend started a family.  Procreation, however, is the genetic material of both parties to the marriage, so this would not be procreation inside a marriage.

Some of the other posters misunderstand the meaning of procreation.  Every heterosexual married couple has the potential for procreation.  Yes, this ability is lost in some people due to age or pathology.  However, there is no reliable test for fertility, and it would be too invasive to make it a requirement for marriage.  There are also Constitutional protections for reproductive privacy, so we could not force people to procreate or proscribe contraception.

Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage, but it is not a testable requirement.  Since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, there is no purpose for them marrying.  All the other reasons for marrying like inheritance, etc., can be handled legally outside of marriage.

And, since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, or have the potential for procreation, they are not equal to heterosexuals in marriage.


thesupacoowackiestblogintheuniverse.files.wordpress.comView Full Size


All I can say is you're a goddamn moron. And now I have you farkied as such.

/Please tell me how two gays getting married will affect your life
 
2014-02-26 04:54:49 PM  

Maul555: As a San Antonian who doesn't really care if gays marry, and is still gonna vote for Greg Abbot, I am getting a kick...


As a Houstonian who wants to get gay-married, how bout ya don't...
 
2014-02-26 04:55:04 PM  

rkiller1: Let's assume in a few years, all 50 states sanction gay marriage.  I wonder where the next manufactured outrage du jour will emerge?  Back to the abortion debate? The Black-on-Black violence in Africa? Immigration amnesty? The White minority in California demands restitution?

The effort and resources put into getting (re)elected is astonishing.


Republicans are still actively fighting against desegregation and the voting rights act. No reason to think near unanimous oposition to their opinions would stop them on this issue either.
 
2014-02-26 04:55:36 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: However, there is no reliable test for fertility


I bet not having a uterus is dispositive of fertility. So let's ban marriage for women with hysterectomies, so they're not using up men with good, fissile sperms.
 
2014-02-26 04:55:43 PM  

rkiller1: The Black-on-Black violence in Africa?


Why is it that the same people who talk about the black-on-black violence in Africa never seem to notice the white-on-white violence in Europe?
 
2014-02-26 04:55:47 PM  
Welcome to the 21st Century, Texas.

I hope the bigots in your state don't drag you back to the 19th.
 
2014-02-26 04:56:07 PM  

Infernalist: Texas should secede if it intends to remain American. ~ Random Derper

Let that peculate for a while.


theelephantgun.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2014-02-26 04:56:15 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: I think that's great your friend started a family. Procreation, however, is the genetic material of both parties to the marriage


Life is easier if you can just make up bullshiat definitions in order to support your point, isn't it?
 
2014-02-26 04:56:26 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: I think that's great your friend started a family.  Procreation, however, is the genetic material of both parties to the marriage, so this would not be procreation inside a marriage.

Some of the other posters misunderstand the meaning of procreation.  Every heterosexual married couple has the potential for procreation.  Yes, this ability is lost in some people due to age or pathology.  However, there is no reliable test for fertility, and it would be too invasive to make it a requirement for marriage.  There are also Constitutional protections for reproductive privacy, so we could not force people to procreate or proscribe contraception.

Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage, but it is not a testable requirement.  Since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, there is no purpose for them marrying.  All the other reasons for marrying like inheritance, etc., can be handled legally outside of marriage.

And, since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, or have the potential for procreation, they are not equal to heterosexuals in marriage.


I'll give you credit for sticking to the troll, but your argument holds zero legitimacy.  If there can be no force to reproduce nor test to ensure that reproduction occurs within marriage then who gets married is entirely disconnected from reproduction.

Thus, no two consenting adult citizens can be restricted from filing paperwork with the state to seek a special legal status in regards to each other.  Any restriction on such paperwork filing is inevitably afoul of the 14th amendment, and won't last.
 
2014-02-26 04:57:43 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: riverwalk barfly: CountryClubRepublican: NkThrasher: Quelle surprise.  The 14th amendment exists.

In terms of marriage, homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals because it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, which is the main purpose of marriage.

Tell that to my gay friend that fathered a child with a  woman (on purpose) and proceeded to raise his daughter with his gay partner over the last eighteen  years.

/Expanding your views is important.

I think that's great your friend started a family.  Procreation, however, is the genetic material of both parties to the marriage, so this would not be procreation inside a marriage.

Some of the other posters misunderstand the meaning of procreation.  Every heterosexual married couple has the potential for procreation.  Yes, this ability is lost in some people due to age or pathology.  However, there is no reliable test for fertility, and it would be too invasive to make it a requirement for marriage.  There are also Constitutional protections for reproductive privacy, so we could not force people to procreate or proscribe contraception.

Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage, but it is not a testable requirement.  Since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, there is no purpose for them marrying.  All the other reasons for marrying like inheritance, etc., can be handled legally outside of marriage.

And, since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, or have the potential for procreation, they are not equal to heterosexuals in marriage.



So does that mean if my balls get torn off in a deli accident, I should not be allowed to marry?
Because getting your balls torn off and stuffed into a sausage casing would ensure 100% infertility, I would think.

Do the violently castrated have no rights in your world?
 
2014-02-26 04:57:54 PM  

Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives


Everyone who made something for our commitment ceremony in Aggieland TX knew exactly what they were getting themselves into, and did their jobs anyway.  Were any of them anti-gay?  Statistically speaking (for the area), probably.  Did any of them complain or refuse?  Nope.  Did all of them get extra business after we recommended their services to all our friends after the ceremony?  I hope so.
 
2014-02-26 04:57:57 PM  

Ostman: Antimatter: mercator_psi: Hopefully Jan Brewer will look at this and think, "Well, okay, I guess I'll veto it."

Oh, who am I kidding? I used the words "Jan Brewer" and "think" in the same sentence.

If anything, I expect an Arizona type law introduced by the end of the week, and quickly passed in Texas.  the conservatives here cannot stand gays for some reason, and love to use them as a scapegoat.

...For what?

*sigh* I wish conservatives would explain this incredible power I apparently have to affect every aspect of everyones' life. I'd like to weild it.

/For the glory of my lord Satan, of course.


Farked if I know... I am a Texan Libertarian Conservative, and I have never heard anyone blaming "x" on the gays with a straight face...
 
2014-02-26 04:58:03 PM  

Tenga: It's pending appeal, so don't start sucking each others dicks yet.


My car's in the parking lot.  I'll be careful on the way.
 
2014-02-26 04:58:21 PM  
Wait, this is not a repeat from 2003? For a people who claim to hate law suits so much these jackasses sure like suing people on issues that were settled over a decade ago.

I moved away from Texas 15 years ago precisely because I can't stand the bigotry and corruption these assholes practice on a daily basis. Yet it is good to hear it was Judge Garcia who handed down this ruling. As far as I'm concerned the only reason to vote for any presidential candidate is to make sure they nominate judges who will at least follow precedent. This is no guarantee, but it's the best we can hope for.
 
2014-02-26 04:58:31 PM  
I read subby's headline, didn't RTFA, and came to the thread, thinking it was just a snarky reference to the continuing decline in the Texas beef industry. This is not the thread I thought I was walking into.

So, uh, congrats, I guess. I would identify myself as a hetero Christian, but I remain baffled as to why the government needs to be involved in marriage legality in the first place. Let consenting adults do whatever they want with whoever they want.
 
2014-02-26 04:58:37 PM  
How progressive of you, TX.

 Now the tops from the neighboring states are gonna want to come to Texas and turn your crack in to a butter-boat.
 
2014-02-26 04:59:17 PM  
That steers and queers line, did the person who came up with it know that steers are castrated male cattle?  I hope he/she did, because it's a lot funnier that way.
 
2014-02-26 04:59:59 PM  

EdNortonsTwin: How progressive of you, TX.

 Now the tops from the neighboring states are gonna want to come to Texas and turn your crack in to a butter-boat.


White zinfandel for everybody! Cheers!
 
2014-02-26 05:00:22 PM  
Let me get this (ahem) straight.  Texas is ahead of Oregon in terms of LGBT equality?

/My wife and I may not be legally married at the moment; I legally changed my sex last month, and the under the Oregon constitution the State cannot recognize a same-sex marriage.  The state I live in, WA, will not recognize a marriage unless it is held valid in the state it was solemnized in.  Oregon's AG dept refuses to say "it's legal" or "it's not", saying I need to contact a lawyer.  I have no interest to push the matter, so as it stands right now it's entirely possible that if my wife dies I don't get a thing from her (or, more importantly, the reverse).
 
2014-02-26 05:00:30 PM  

Maul555: Ostman: Antimatter: mercator_psi: Hopefully Jan Brewer will look at this and think, "Well, okay, I guess I'll veto it."

Oh, who am I kidding? I used the words "Jan Brewer" and "think" in the same sentence.

If anything, I expect an Arizona type law introduced by the end of the week, and quickly passed in Texas.  the conservatives here cannot stand gays for some reason, and love to use them as a scapegoat.

...For what?

*sigh* I wish conservatives would explain this incredible power I apparently have to affect every aspect of everyones' life. I'd like to weild it.

/For the glory of my lord Satan, of course.

Farked if I know... I am a Texan Libertarian Conservative, and I have never heard anyone blaming "x" on the gays with a straight face...


Pat Robertson.
 
2014-02-26 05:01:07 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: All the other reasons for marrying like inheritance, etc., can be handled legally outside of marriage.


I hate this argument because all the rights that I got from a $30 marriage license, my gay friends have to spend thousand of dollars in legal fees.

/married for twenty years and no children by choice.  So.
 
2014-02-26 05:01:23 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: There are also Constitutional protections for reproductive privacy, so we could not force people to procreate or proscribe contraception.

Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage but it is not a testable requirement.  Since it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate, there is no purpose for them marrying.


Please cite the specific reference in our Constitution that affords people reproductive privacy.  I'd be interested in seeing that.  If such a clause exists then wouldn't we be breaching that constitutionally afforded right by assuming or claiming that it is impossible for homosexuals to procreate?

Do you smite unwed mothers if they procreated outside of wedlock?  What about the sperm donor for that same child?

Welcome to this century.  Please try to adjust.
 
2014-02-26 05:02:22 PM  

eraser8: Maul555: As a San Antonian who doesn't really care if gays marry, and is still gonna vote for Greg Abbot, I am getting a kick...

Why?


Because I am not a single issue voter, and Wendy Davis is a vapid and shallow...   Greg Abbot has been suing the shiat out of the federal government for Texas for years, and that is what I like.  He is pro Gun rights, Pro State Rights, and loves to push back against the Feds.  That is the most important thing, because you know that the feds wont ever stop pushing for more regulation over Texas, and as soon as a weak governor gets into power, we will have a hell of a time rolling back the shiat waiting to fall on us.
 
2014-02-26 05:02:45 PM  

Ostman: Antimatter: mercator_psi: Hopefully Jan Brewer will look at this and think, "Well, okay, I guess I'll veto it."

Oh, who am I kidding? I used the words "Jan Brewer" and "think" in the same sentence.

If anything, I expect an Arizona type law introduced by the end of the week, and quickly passed in Texas.  the conservatives here cannot stand gays for some reason, and love to use them as a scapegoat.

...For what?

*sigh* I wish conservatives would explain this incredible power I apparently have to affect every aspect of everyones' life. I'd like to weild it.


Don't lie.  We already know all about the Gay Bandidos.  (NSFW language)
 
2014-02-26 05:03:23 PM  

Maul555: Because I am not a single issue voter, and Wendy Davis is a vapid and shallow...


LOL

Yeah, pull the other one.
 
2014-02-26 05:04:03 PM  

drumhellar: ariseatex: My partner and I keep trying, but it's just not working!

/if at first you don't succeed...

A FB acquaintance honestly thought that California's update of laws regarding fertility treatment coverage to get rid of certain language that was gender specific or might discriminate against gay people (Which is designed to cover only those that can't conceive naturally) would mean that women having lesbian sex could be construed as honest attempts to conceive naturally.


Hey, this is America, land of innovation.  If two women can work out a way to get one of them pregnant from lesbian sex, more power to them.
 
2014-02-26 05:04:24 PM  

ariseatex: nakago: QueenMamaBee: Geoff Peterson: I'm happy about the ruling, but I feel the headline is in poor taste and not up to FARK standards. Although a headline celebrating outlawing discrimination that refers to a derogatory epithet for said oppressed minority is pretty snarky.

I'm gonna give this one a pass.

LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.

Q = Questioning, not Queer.

Sometimes it's both.  But then too many people gloss their eyes over when you say LGBTQQ, LGBTQQIA, or (heaven forbid) LGBTQQIA2SAPH.


Or FABGLITTER.

/one of my favorites, but friends tell me no one uses that one.
 
2014-02-26 05:04:31 PM  
Where you  Farkers been all your lives?  An orgy?  Been out listenin' to that Mick Jagger music and bad mouthin' your counrty, I'll bet.
/Stop eyeballin' me, boy
 
2014-02-26 05:04:35 PM  
I live in Texas and this gets about a  -1 on my give-a-shiat meter.  I think gays should have the same equal rights as the rest of us to be miserable if that is what they want. Your bedroom is your business.

/but please, do keep the stereotypes up, Drew loves the clicks.
 
2014-02-26 05:04:35 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Soon, you phony "libertarian" wankstains! Soon, Amendment One will be in the dustbin of history.

/it pissed me off to NO GODDAMN END how many so-called libertarians, independents, moderates, and "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" people bought into that bullshiat
//NC was supposed to be making real progress, too


Wait... I'm sorry- which side are you on?
*Looks up Amendment One*

Oh- so NOT the  Federal Constitutional Amendment- gotcha.
 
2014-02-26 05:04:49 PM  

Maul555: That is the most important thing, because you know that the feds wont ever stop pushing for more regulation over Texas,


I know, right? The federal government exercising control over its constituent members is just insane.
 
2014-02-26 05:04:58 PM  

Magorn: it's about putting words in the English language that do not exist, especially when they serve no point but to delineate how special a person perceives themselves to be . The ironic thing is that in an attempt to defy fender steroeotyprs people that indulge in this sort of twaddle are actually REINFORCING them


We add words all the time for things that have no point - blog, selfie, phablet, rocker (to mean "rock star"). Some of those piss me off as well (especially since I just got a Note 3 - I use it to make "phone calls", not "phablet calls"), but not enough to make a stink. Won't use one of those myself, but if xe wants to, why should I care?

Magorn: You are a girl that likes to fix cars? That doesn't make you a HIR that makes you a woman who fits nicely into the real spectrum of what woman are, despite cultural attempts to limit roles.

I;m 6'3 fat, balding hairy and straight, but I still admire Freddie Mercury and Dr. Frakenfurter as quasi role models- not because I am "strangely gendered" but just cause I like their swagger


We have a word for the former: "tomboy" (which, if you ask me, is gendered and rather unsuitable for the description). What makes a 'hir' is someone wanting to use that pronoun - could just as easily be a straight cismale as a presurgical queer trans* - that's it. I am also large, balding (more like "thinning", though I can hide it well for now), hairy, and straight, with a similar affection for Tim Curry and Mr Fahrenheit because I enjoy their works - who the fark cares?

You're (a person is) "strangely gendered" because they feel that way, not because some long-dead rocker wore eyeliner. Does some of it come from "traditional" or "societal" gender roles? Probably, but who's really to say what is "nature" and what is "nurture"?

Magorn: We are ALL as Jung said, some mix of Animus and Anima, male and female essence, and the idea that if we are are anything put stereotypically male or female then we are a new "gender" needing its own pronoun is not merely ridiculous, but actually damaging

.

How? Because it hews to "traditional gender roles" if only to explicitly violate them? I hear this argument from people all the time, actually.

The problem is that while "sex" is usually neat and clean (USUALLY; something like 90-95% of cases that don't involve previous surgery, your outsides match your insides), gender is not. We have a long history (and HERstory, amirite?) of treating the two as equivalent, and far be it from me to piss on someone else's subversion of that norm.

Someone else preferring "hir" or "they" or "xe" or even something else entirely, while it's not what I would do, really doesn't matter a fart in a windstorm to my happiness or our friendship.

// and "cis" is just the opposite of "trans", so doing away with that presents other problems
 
2014-02-26 05:05:15 PM  

meat0918: It's over reactionary conservatives.

You lost.

Again.


They lost Texas.  They won Uganda.  And Russia.  In terms of the West, we're making great progress, but on a global scale things are pretty grim.
 
2014-02-26 05:05:18 PM  

eraser8: Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives

Are you a troll or are you just stupid?


I thought I'd bookmarked it but apparently didn't
I forget which state it is but several gay couples sued to force a photographer and a caterer who didn't want to service them because of religious beliefs into having to take them as clients

you'd think that having been bullied for decades they'd be more sensitive to others beliefs
but that's not the case
forcing others to do your bidding outweighs all apparently
soon gays will think it's their birthright to have non-gays have sex with them
actors will have to take gay roles
and if you speak out against it you'll be charged with a hate crime
 
2014-02-26 05:05:41 PM  
PolyHatSnake: approves

hollywoodpsychicinsider.comView Full Size
 
2014-02-26 05:08:07 PM  

PolyHatSnake: I read subby's headline, didn't RTFA, and came to the thread, thinking it was just a snarky reference to the continuing decline in the Texas beef industry. This is not the thread I thought I was walking into.




Granted, the continuing killer drought (going on 5-6 years now) has a lot to do with the decline.
It's raining today, thank goodness.
 
2014-02-26 05:09:19 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: I live in Texas and this gets about a  -1 on my give-a-shiat meter.  I think gays should have the same equal rights as the rest of us to be miserable if that is what they want. Your bedroom is your business.

/but please, do keep the stereotypes up, Drew loves the clicks.


After reading this thread, I did NOT read "clicks" at first.
 
2014-02-26 05:09:41 PM  

kronicfeld: CountryClubRepublican: However, there is no reliable test for fertility

I bet not having a uterus is dispositive of fertility. So let's ban marriage for women with hysterectomies, so they're not using up men with good, fissile sperms.


Ectopic pregnancy.

// often fatal, so don't try it at home
 
2014-02-26 05:10:19 PM  

CountryClubRepublican: All the other reasons for marrying like inheritance, etc., can be handled legally outside of marriage


No, they cannot.  There are well over a thousand specific federal advantages to being married, i.e. being married gives you some leg up that is not available to those not married.  Those things cannot be extended by private contract, because you cannot force the feds to extend those benefits privately - except through a marriage.

And marriage has never been primarily about procreation. It is about defining property transfers.  Originally, this was the wife herself - indicating she was no longer owned by her father, but by her husband. Connected to that was transfer of wealth or patronage between families, through dowries and/or alliances.  Even inheritance matters are simply about insuring that the people receiving a family's wealth have ties to that wealth (so the dowry from Mr. Smith for Mr. Jones marrying his daughter doesn't go to Mr. Jones' mistress' son).  Kids are nice; kids means the family can continue.  But the marriage is about property transfer and protection.  Because note that until the very recent past, most people without significant wealth did not get married.  Dirt farmers just simply moved in together and started popping out babies; they were considered husband and wife just by those actions, because no one cared about who got a threadbare blanket and clay pisspot.  But the wealthy and powerful had elaborate rituals and negotiated deals in place, because who gained control of Aquitaine had serious socio-politico-economic ramifications.
 
2014-02-26 05:10:23 PM  

Maud Dib: PolyHatSnake: I read subby's headline, didn't RTFA, and came to the thread, thinking it was just a snarky reference to the continuing decline in the Texas beef industry. This is not the thread I thought I was walking into.
Granted, the continuing killer drought (going on 5-6 years now) has a lot to do with the decline.
It's raining today, thank goodness.


upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size
 
2014-02-26 05:10:35 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Yeah, it has nothing to do with equal rights. It's totally about elections.


Not what I said, Snowflake.  Deep breaths, how do they work?
 
2014-02-26 05:11:15 PM  

moeburn: QueenMamaBee: Geoff Peterson: I'm happy about the ruling, but I feel the headline is in poor taste and not up to FARK standards. Although a headline celebrating outlawing discrimination that refers to a derogatory epithet for said oppressed minority is pretty snarky.

I'm gonna give this one a pass.

LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.

I have no patience for people who take offence from somewhere it was not intended.  Just because you don't like it when I say "Wendy's new chicken burger is totally gay", doesn't mean I'm homophobic for saying it.  It just means I'm insensitive.


Jay Smooth's video is about racism, not homophobia, but I think it's applicable.
 
2014-02-26 05:11:17 PM  

Maul555: That is the most important thing, because you know that the feds wont ever stop pushing for more regulation over Texas


You mean regulations like keeping a fertilizer plant from killing a town?  Those kinds of regulations?

Are those the kinds of regulations you're talking about?  You want to see what lack of regulations looks like? Looks like this:

abcnews.go.comView Full Size


img.gawkerassets.comView Full Size


bradblog.comView Full Size


dallasnews.comView Full Size


But, if I'm mistaken and you're talking about something completely different, what are the regulations you're referring to?

And, explain, specifically, why the regulations are bad.

/full disclosure requires me to admit that I worked in the agency that oversees the Code of Federal Regulations and I understand how regulations actually work
 
2014-02-26 05:12:06 PM  

Polish Hussar: That steers and queers line, did the person who came up with it know that steers are castrated male cattle?  I hope he/she did, because it's a lot funnier that way.


I think that's probably why the screen writers of An Officer and a Gentleman had Louis Gossett Jr say it. Learn your cinema trivia, son.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lGs-tXWpR4
 
2014-02-26 05:12:15 PM  

Trik: eraser8: Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives

Are you a troll or are you just stupid?

I thought I'd bookmarked it but apparently didn't
I forget which state it is but several gay couples sued to force a photographer and a caterer who didn't want to service them because of religious beliefs into having to take them as clients

you'd think that having been bullied for decades they'd be more sensitive to others beliefs
but that's not the case
forcing others to do your bidding outweighs all apparently
soon gays will think it's their birthright to have non-gays have sex with them
actors will have to take gay roles
and if you speak out against it you'll be charged with a hate crime


Hey eraser, I am going with stupid.
 
2014-02-26 05:12:17 PM  

Infernalist: Texas should secede if it intends to remain American. ~ Random Derper

Let that peculate for a while.


I live in Houston. I recently saw a truck with exactly 2 bumper stickers. One old faded one that said "United We Stand" emblazoned with the American Flag. There was another apparently Newer bumper sticker that read "Secede" with the Lone Flag of Texas. So his viewpoint changed and he couldn't even be bothered to remove the contradictory sticker.

9/11 happens, God Bless Merca
Obama happens, secede.

I'm so embarrassed to live next door to people like this. (not literally, my next door neighbors are both well educated, liberal, and open minded.
 
2014-02-26 05:12:33 PM  

Maud Dib: PolyHatSnake: I read subby's headline, didn't RTFA, and came to the thread, thinking it was just a snarky reference to the continuing decline in the Texas beef industry. This is not the thread I thought I was walking into.

Granted, the continuing killer drought (going on 5-6 years now) has a lot to do with the decline.
It's raining today, thank goodness.


No kidding. This past summer I walked across Lake Travis. Didn't even get my knees wet.
 
2014-02-26 05:12:36 PM  

jaybeezey: Hobodeluxe: lets just get this to the SCOTUS and get it over with already.

No shiat. I'm Texan, conservative and straight and have no idea why it is such big deal to let same sex couples get married. It doesn't have any negative impact on anyone. You might as well be making abitrary laws about people who like cabbage can't get married to each other.

One a side note, i'd never enter the home of 2 people who eat a lot cabbage.


I notice in your list of things that you are, you did not mention your religion. I think that's the difference.
 
2014-02-26 05:14:12 PM  

Trik: eraser8: Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives

Are you a troll or are you just stupid?

I thought I'd bookmarked it but apparently didn't
I forget which state it is but several gay couples sued to force a photographer and a caterer who didn't want to service them because of religious beliefs into having to take them as clients

you'd think that having been bullied for decades they'd be more sensitive to others beliefs
but that's not the case
forcing others to do your bidding outweighs all apparently
soon gays will think it's their birthright to have non-gays have sex with them
actors will have to take gay roles
and if you speak out against it you'll be charged with a hate crime


I don't understand the point of suing them, unless the company signed a contract with one party, and then found out after down payment was made that the couple was gay, and refused to give back deposit and wouldn't provide them services.

If the above didn't happen, boycotting them, and telling all of your pro-gay buddies what they did, and how you'd like it if they did the same, and ending up driving them out of business should be enough.

But I suppose it has to do with all of those anti-discrimination laws that forced restaurants to have to serve other minorities, along with the preferred majority might have something to do with it.
 
2014-02-26 05:14:45 PM  
All for letting gays get married. About time they get to have the pleasure of losing half their stuff in a divorce. Why should straight people have all the fun?
 
2014-02-26 05:15:18 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: I live in Texas and this gets about a  -1 on my give-a-shiat meter.  I think gays should have the same equal rights as the rest of us to be miserable if that is what they want. Your bedroom is your business.

/but please, do keep the stereotypes up, Drew loves the clicks.


Stereotypes? You guys elected Louis Gohmert and Ted Cruz. Fark off.
 
2014-02-26 05:15:40 PM  

obenchainr: QueenMamaBee: LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.

That's kind of odd that they can't explain it.

Gay is a sexual orientation.  Queer is a gender descriptor (as used nowadays).  A heterosexual man who bends gender lines (either through dress or habits) could be queer, though generally it's a label that is self-identified.  So, like, a transgender person is someone who identifies as a gender opposite that of their sex, and a queer person is someone who "blurs the lines" but doesn't necessarily identify as the opposite gender.


No, you're confusing transgender with transseuxal.  And "queer" doesn't have a meaning that specific.  "Queer" is an umbrella term that can mean many different things.
 
2014-02-26 05:15:51 PM  

Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives


I can almost hear the slow, stupid drawl.
 
2014-02-26 05:16:21 PM  

nakago: QueenMamaBee: Geoff Peterson: I'm happy about the ruling, but I feel the headline is in poor taste and not up to FARK standards. Although a headline celebrating outlawing discrimination that refers to a derogatory epithet for said oppressed minority is pretty snarky.

I'm gonna give this one a pass.

LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.

Q = Questioning, not Queer.


Both.
 
2014-02-26 05:16:33 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: I live in Texas and this gets about a  -1 on my give-a-shiat meter.  I think gays should have the same equal rights as the rest of us to be miserable if that is what they want. Your bedroom is your business.

/but please, do keep the stereotypes up, Drew loves the clicks.


It's not a stereotype in a lot of parts of Texas, have you traveled much around the state? West Texas is full of little towns where there are more signs for Jesus than there are people. East Texas still has a bit of that Deep South sundown-town thing going on, not typically gay friendly. Hell, even here in Dallas, one of the most gay-friendly places in Texas, there are hordes of Southern Baptists who absolutely do not think gays should have the right to marriage.
 
2014-02-26 05:16:34 PM  

tylerdurden217: There was another apparently Newer bumper sticker that read "Secede" with the Lone Flag of Texas. So his viewpoint changed and he couldn't even be bothered to remove the contradictory sticker.


Ask 10 Texans about The Republic of Texas, and probably none of them will tell you that the Republic, during all 9 years of its tenure, was broke as a joke and CONSTANTLY begging the Feds to let them be a state.

And lo, once they shaved off the panhandle for Oklahoma (because we wants to keep our slaves, yessir we do), they got statehood, and never complained again.
 
2014-02-26 05:16:49 PM  

ciberido: "Queer" is an umbrella term that can mean many different things.


That's odd.
 
2014-02-26 05:18:52 PM  

Trik: eraser8: Trik: goody, another state where gays can bully people who don't want anything to do with them into catering, photographing, etc, etc their weddings and provide and service other aspects of their lives

Are you a troll or are you just stupid?

I thought I'd bookmarked it but apparently didn't
I forget which state it is but several gay couples sued to force a photographer and a caterer who didn't want to service them because of religious beliefs into having to take them as clients

you'd think that having been bullied for decades they'd be more sensitive to others beliefs
but that's not the case
forcing others to do your bidding outweighs all apparently
soon gays will think it's their birthright to have non-gays have sex with them
actors will have to take gay roles
and if you speak out against it you'll be charged with a hate crime


Exactly.  Shouldn't black people be sensitive to the feelings of racists?  After all, blacks have been bullied so much that they should naturally encourage and become allies to the people who want to deny them services.

You seem a bit dim, so I'm going to go ahead and explain that that was sarcasm.

If you don't want to serve the public, you can start a members-only club -- which will allow you to discriminate.  But, if you operate a business "open to the public," then you have to serve the public.  That includes blacks and gays and Jews and Muslims and Mormons and Greeks and the Irish.

One final point: speech alone never leads to a hate crime prosecution.  Never.
 
2014-02-26 05:19:39 PM  

Trik: I thought I'd bookmarked it but apparently didn't
I forget which state it is but several gay couples sued to force a photographer and a caterer who didn't want to service them because of religious beliefs into having to take them as clients


They sued them because the New Meixco constitution forbids discrimination of sexual orientation, the same reason a minority would sue you if you refused to serve them based on skin color.
 
2014-02-26 05:19:41 PM  

ariseatex: nakago: QueenMamaBee: Geoff Peterson: I'm happy about the ruling, but I feel the headline is in poor taste and not up to FARK standards. Although a headline celebrating outlawing discrimination that refers to a derogatory epithet for said oppressed minority is pretty snarky.

I'm gonna give this one a pass.

LGBTQ  Some of them like that label....although none of my gay friends can explain to me what's the difference between G and Q.

Q = Questioning, not Queer.

Sometimes it's both.  But then too many people gloss their eyes over when you say LGBTQQ, LGBTQQIA, or (heaven forbid) LGBTQQIA2SAPH.


Which is why I suggest "quiltbag," if "LBGTQ" seems insufficient.  If you're going to use more than five letters then you need an acronym you can pronounce.