The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 49    Average: 3.5/5]
103 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 12321
Rating: 3.5
Category:
Date: 06/12/12 06:46 AM

103 Responses to Some Things Never Change [Pic]

  1. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 6:48 am
    Link: Some Things Never Change - Luckily though, some things do.
  2. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3359 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 6:55 am
    In 40 years? They look stupid now.
  3. Profile photo of ilurk
    ilurk Female 18-29
    220 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 6:56 am
    I know right
  4. Profile photo of Corydoras87
    Corydoras87 Male 18-29
    642 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 6:56 am
    those are the same people, I don`t think they care and I don`t think they think that they look stupid
  5. Profile photo of cobrakiller
    cobrakiller Male 18-29
    7473 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 7:02 am
    Sadly, the people in the bottom picture probably still have the same views of the world. Just like those in the top probably never change.
  6. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36829 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 7:06 am

    I was there. Can you see me? I`m right in the middle wearing this shirt.

  7. Profile photo of drips
    drips Male 30-39
    904 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 7:06 am
    Too bad communism isn`t the cultural boogeyman it once was because "Gay Marriage is Communism" would make a good sign. Just about as strong an argument as anything.
  8. Profile photo of OddNumber
    OddNumber Male 18-29
    201 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 7:17 am
    It would be kinda funny if the top ones were the kids of the bottom

    "back in my day, we had to stand up against the blacks, the gays, they knew their place, now, you must stand where we once did and protect the sanctity of marriage once more"
  9. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3359 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 7:28 am
    drips: "Too bad communism isn`t the cultural boogeyman it once was..."

    Talk to a Fox "News" watcher, and you might feel differently.
  10. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3359 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 7:33 am
    Actually, they`re still doing it. conservative Republican Steve King.

    What a drooling moron.
  11. Profile photo of paperduck
    paperduck Male 18-29
    1745 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 7:38 am
    This is an incorrect comparison, a fallacy. The bottom one is denying an individual their rights - protected by the constitution. The top one is about legitimizing and redefining a term between two individuals, traditionally between a man and woman. The second one is akin to redefining a term as far as relationships are concerned, how a relationship between adult and child is considered reprehensible today.
  12. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3917 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 7:41 am
    Even the NAACP supports gay marriage and understands that it is a civil rights issue. We are getting very close to the point where it will no longer be socially acceptable to verbally attack gay people.
  13. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36829 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 7:43 am

    paperduck, "The bottom one is denying an individual their rights - protected by the constitution."
    Nothing in the constitution denies gays the right to marry. Nothing in the constitution says rights are only for herterosexualists. There is no constitutional basis to deny mixed race couples to marry, nor to deny same sex couples to marry. So it is the same thing.
  14. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 7:45 am
    @paperduck: It is a valid comparison. Both are "redefining" marriage if you like to call it that. Marriage is mentioned nowhere in your constitution, and this is a good example of discrimination on multiple levels.
  15. Profile photo of paperduck
    paperduck Male 18-29
    1745 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 7:51 am
    Gerry1of1 - Ok, what in the constitution denies an adult from marrying a child, but it`s considered unacceptable. I`m talking about redefining the term `marriage`, a term that has a specific meaning, denying that is being ingenuous. Is it acceptable to you to redefine term marriage so that it is acceptable between 1 consenting adult and not the other? No. I`m talking about terms and their meanings, not rights of homosexuals.
  16. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36829 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 7:56 am

    " legitimizing and redefining a term between two individuals, traditionally between a man and woman."
    Really? Are you sure? Don`t you mean a man and many women?

    I love how hetersexualists redefine marriage to suit themselves, but don`t want anyone else to. Polygomy is just one example. Another is "Child Brides". Back in the day a bride of 12 or 13 was not uncommon but today we consider enslaving young girls like that to be reprehensable, comparable to rape. That`s one kind of "traditional marriage" we don`t mind changing.

    Another "traditional marriage" we don`t mind dumping by the wayside is the Dowry System where the woman is just chatel, her fate settled by a man and her father. The arrangement settled for a reasonable cash or property transaction.

    Yeah, we should definately stick with "traditional" marriages.
  17. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36829 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 7:59 am

    @ paperduck - You are using a smoke screen. No one is asking for Child Marriage. To bring it up is just a way to distract from an indefensible position. You can`t legally justify limiting marriage to only the genders you approve of.

  18. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36829 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:02 am

    paperduck - also the legal meaning of marriage is based on the religious views not held by many people. You cannot force other people to live by your standards, nor can you deny them their civil rights because you don`t like it.

    If you could show that same sex marriage would in someway harm society, damage people then you might have a case. But just cause you think it`s icky isn`t enough.
  19. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:09 am
    @Gerry: Unfortunately, since gay marriage became legal here all hell has broken loose. Up is black, green is down, and the government is forcing me into a polygamous marriage between myself, my cat, my SUV and my brother. STOP BEFORE IT`S TOO LATE USA!
  20. Profile photo of tedbomb
    tedbomb Male 18-29
    18 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:12 am
    well children dont have the same rights as adults for one and cant sign legal contracts except in certain states where parents can consent to their 16 year old marrying a person of any creepy age
  21. Profile photo of paperduck
    paperduck Male 18-29
    1745 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:14 am
    Let me try to be clear here so what I`m saying isn`t misunderstood: My opinion is that homosexual individuals have the same rights as heterosexual individuals, homosexual couples have same rights as heterosexual couples (wills, hospital visitations, etc.) What is disingenuous is redefining the term marriage to mean homosexual couples as well, let`s be honest, that isn`t what marriage means. It`s like trying to redefine terms `impregnation` or `procreate` so that homosexuals can now use those terms so that they get the rights mentioned about. You can`t do that. Ask for the rights, sure. But redefining terms like that is quite underhanded.
  22. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3917 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:14 am
    What is up with people who, when talking about gay marriage, immediately jump to marrying children or animals? What a bunch of sickos. Seriously why does their brain immediately go there? What kind of weird fantasies are these people having? It would be hilarious to see their internet history.
  23. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:17 am
    @paperduck: So your beef is with the "redefining" of a term? Sorry, but unless it`s latin languages change and evolve to mean different things. I`m sure Shakespeare would consider our english deplorable and the way we`ve changed words over the years to be wrong. Marriage is a word, and the concept has been around since before recorded history. Saying that it`s not right to change a word only implies that you don`t like what it`s being changed to.
  24. Profile photo of tedbomb
    tedbomb Male 18-29
    18 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:18 am
    i think the most important point is marriage is a religious act in which the government should have no part. on the otherside, why do a man and woman get to share health insurance and legal rights that 2 straight men cant share?
  25. Profile photo of Essersmith
    Essersmith Male 18-29
    275 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:20 am
    @Paperduck
    Marriage with children is not in the constitution but it is prohibited by law, because it is not ethically allowed. Just like many other things.
    Protecting the term "marriage" would also prohibit non church weddings?
    I read someplace, and im sorry for not citing, that a man married a dog in russia. Why is there no uproar there? he is/was just deemed strange but otherwise allwed.
  26. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3917 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:21 am
    "What is disingenuous is redefining the term marriage to mean homosexual couples as well, let`s be honest, that isn`t what marriage means."

    Maybe to you. I was in a gay relationship for twelve years - the last six were spent being married. Just because you don`t believe in it doesn`t make it so. Tides are changing and your side is loosing. Love and tolerance is winning. And notice I did not say acceptance. Just tolerance. That is all we are asking for.
  27. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:22 am
    marriage is a religious act in which the government should have no part.
    That is insane on the face of it. Marriage pre-dates religion.
  28. Profile photo of tedbomb
    tedbomb Male 18-29
    18 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:24 am
    sorry, religious/cultural
  29. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3917 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:25 am
    "i think the most important point is marriage is a religious act in which the government should have no part."

    For you maybe but for others religion plays no part in their marriage and is a civil act. We do not live in a theocracy. If that is what you want move to Egypt.
  30. Profile photo of Essersmith
    Essersmith Male 18-29
    275 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:25 am
    @patchgrabber
    Are you sure? people have always believed in flying spagetti monsters, trees and whatnot
  31. Profile photo of cobrakiller
    cobrakiller Male 18-29
    7473 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:26 am
    paperduck, the words already been redefined. Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
    Marriage: a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
  32. Profile photo of paperduck
    paperduck Male 18-29
    1745 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:29 am
    patchgrabber, language, words, definitions naturally evolve and change. This is not an instance of that. This is for a political purpose which is NOT how language works (you get silly things like defining corporations as `people` to get them specific rights). If we need to make laws and grant rights, they should be on the merits of the idea. Not by shifty redefinitions.
  33. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:29 am
    @Essersmith: True, perhaps it does not pre-date ALL religion, but that we`ll never know. At the very least it pre-dates all modern religions.
  34. Profile photo of Essersmith
    Essersmith Male 18-29
    275 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:31 am
    @Patchgrabber
    Very well good sir, agreed.
  35. Profile photo of cobrakiller
    cobrakiller Male 18-29
    7473 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:31 am
    and heres the one from Dictionary.com:
    Marriage: 1.
    a.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
    b.a similar institution involving partners of the same gender
  36. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3917 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:32 am
    One day that Merriam-Webster definition will have only one line which will read, "Marriage: the state of two consenting adults being united in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law"
  37. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:34 am
    @paperduck: Perhaps this is simply a case where the actual usage has already changed and now your government must change to keep with the times and the modern intention of the word. The US doesn`t own the word. It`s not like once you guys come around the rest of the world can be all "Phew, now we can finally change that word."

    The word has already changed meaning and it`s fallacious to argue that marriage is a sacred word or a tradition.
  38. Profile photo of tedbomb
    tedbomb Male 18-29
    18 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:35 am
    a couple of people misunderstood my point. have a party and "marry" your wife/husband/cat/suv. good luck to you. i dont feel it`s fair that a man and woman should get special rights together that two men or two women cant get whether they are married or law partners or best friends. the us government shouldnt give special rights to anyone. equal rights for all
  39. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3917 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:36 am
    "This is for a political purpose which is NOT how language works"

    It for love and equal rights.
  40. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36829 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:37 am

    Paperduck - you are suffering from a delusion that many people fall for, the idea that the way things are is the way they have always been. Your idea of traditional marriage is very differant from what it has been in the past.

    If marriage was never redefined, you would have many wives and have to pay their fathers quite a large number of goats to buy them.
  41. Profile photo of cobrakiller
    cobrakiller Male 18-29
    7473 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:38 am
    In fact, the only definition I have found so far that did not include same sex marriage is the Oxford dictionary. But, that is from those dirty, socialist, homosexual-loving Europeans so it means nothing to us Americans right?
  42. Profile photo of paperduck
    paperduck Male 18-29
    1745 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:40 am
    patchgrabber, what I`m saying isn`t limited to the US. Other countries who are redefining marriage to mean between homosexual couples already made that mistake. I guess in the future if a group/organization wants to fight for a certain right, the way to go about it is bust open the dictionary?
  43. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:42 am
    @paperduck: I`m not seeing your point here. As Gerry pointed out the word has already been redefined many times as societies evolve, how is this different?
  44. Profile photo of Buiadh
    Buiadh Male 30-39
    6739 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:43 am
    Damn right. History remembers.
  45. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3917 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:44 am
    "If marriage was never redefined, you would have many wives and have to pay their fathers quite a large number of goats to buy them."

    And with that I will admit that I was wrong in my comments in another post a couple of days ago when I said marriage itself was not being redefined, that it was just being expanded to include gays. I was wrong, marriage is being redefined. The same as it was redefined to include interracial couples. You may want to mark this day down. It is not very often people admit they were wrong on here.
  46. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3917 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:55 am
    I am not religious. Why should I have religious views imposed on me by the government? If that is going to happen which religion are we going to pick to set these rules? Christianity, Hindu, Judaism, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhas, Jehovah Witness, Wicca, Mormon, scientology, Universal Life Church, Flying Spaghetti Monster...? And for the religion we pick are we only going to listen to the denomination that preaches hate or will the denomination that preaches love and tolerance get a say?
  47. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36829 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:56 am

    paperduck, "bust open the dictionary"
    I took your advice. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary:
    "(1) the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage"
  48. Profile photo of Rizzo71
    Rizzo71 Male 40-49
    427 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 8:57 am
    The homophobia in America is topped only by the Arab countries.
  49. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3917 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 9:01 am
    The reason Prop 8 keeps losing is because none of the religious arguments hold up in court. Civil rights should never be up for a public vote.
  50. Profile photo of yusuksomuch
    yusuksomuch Male 40-49
    1008 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 9:02 am
    oh rizzo, such a..... oh wait, please tell me how you came to this conclusion? Is it because all Americans belong to westboro church?
  51. Profile photo of yusuksomuch
    yusuksomuch Male 40-49
    1008 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 9:05 am
    "Civil rights should never be up for a public vote."

    truest statement of the day.
  52. Profile photo of paperduck
    paperduck Male 18-29
    1745 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 9:07 am
    patchgrabber, the difference is society evolves first, words naturally take on new meanings.

    Gerry1of1, people didn`t stop marrying multiple wives because the government said marriage now means you can`t do that. People stopped marrying multiple wives first, then marriage took on that new meaning. I`m fine with that.

    I guess I just have beef with the modern political methods which isn`t just in this issue. Instead of arguing for rights by their MERITS (which is admirable), we seek to bypass all that and redefine a word that has all those rights - That`s disingenuous. Hence we have corporations being defined as "persons". Let`s not rationally make our point, let`s bypass all reason and just redefine language.

    I don`t like THAT political process because it detracts from the real issues. It`s becoming a trend. We end up talking about apples and oranges.
  53. Profile photo of paperduck
    paperduck Male 18-29
    1745 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 9:12 am
    Gerry1of1, (sigh) that`s not what I said. I thought you may have seen my point, but I guess not.
  54. Profile photo of johnkelley
    johnkelley Male 18-29
    59 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 9:20 am
    gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. Gays have the right to be Gay and do what they want, there is not hatred and judgement of them by a large group of public or the government and police officials like there were for blacks. This is a retarded stretch of imagination to make this issue something it is not. Marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman, if gays want a civil union contract, then fine, but you can`t simply change the definition of things, to make yourself happy or benefit.
  55. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 9:24 am
    People stopped marrying multiple wives first, then marriage took on that new meaning. I`m fine with that.
    The reason people stopped is because religion told them to. Also, how is a gay person supposed to `stop` marrying straight people? Gay people have been living together *as if* married already, now when marriage is trying to take on that new meaning, you call shenanigans. You`re ok with one redefinition, but not ok with another?
  56. Profile photo of yusuksomuch
    yusuksomuch Male 40-49
    1008 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 9:24 am
    "Marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman"

    and there is the untruest statement of the day
  57. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 9:25 am
    Marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman,


  58. Profile photo of mcboozerilla
    mcboozerilla Male 30-39
    646 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 9:41 am
    When a large group of citizens is denied equal protection under the law, including access to the same benefits and privileges others enjoy, that is a civil rights problem.
  59. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3917 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 9:59 am
    "Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. Gays have the right to be Gay and do what they want, there is not hatred and judgement of them by a large group of public or the government and police officials like there were for blacks."

    The NAACP made a declaration recently that it is a civil rights issue. If the leading group for black rights thinks it is a civil rights issue you can be pretty sure it is.

    Tell your statement to Matthew Shepard`s parents and all the parents of the thousands of gays who have been brutally beaten or murdered all because they were gay. Or the parents of gay teens who have killed themselves because they couldn`t handle the relentless hatred towards them that they received from their community.
  60. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6235 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 10:00 am
    Gerry1of1-"wearing this shirt."

    Kinda wonder what statement your making with THIS particular arrow:

  61. Profile photo of 8BitHero
    8BitHero Male 18-29
    5414 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 10:00 am
    AMUUUUUUUURICA!
  62. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6235 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 10:00 am
    patchgrabber-"unless it`s latin languages change and evolve"

    Yes, they do. But in order for this particular word to change, you have to change the LEGAL definition of it.

    You can also say that the definition of `RED` can change, it can include `Crimson`, `Auburn`, `Rosewood`, etc. BUT, the Government defines EXACTLY what red is (currently it is Pantone Color 186U or C:0, M:100, Y: 81, K:4).

    You`re FREE to call Crimson `Red`, but the Government will only accept ITS Red, within certain tolerances.

    Please don`t think when anyone says `you have to change the definition` they are automatically saying that`s a bad thing.
  63. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3917 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 10:01 am
    “Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law. The NAACP’s support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people.” Benjamin Todd Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP.
  64. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6235 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 10:06 am
    markust123-"The NAACP made a declaration recently that it is a civil rights issue."

    And the NAACP is, of course, the FINAL word on ANYTHING!!

    mcboozerilla-"When a large group of citizens is denied equal protection under the law"

    Again, what equal protection are they not getting?
  65. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 10:06 am
    Please don`t think when anyone says `you have to change the definition` they are automatically saying that`s a bad thing.
    If I gave that impression it was not what I intended. All I`m saying is that gay people have done everything within the scope of the present laws to be married and the word itself has already changed. I just don`t understand the problem...we`ve had gay marriage for years here and what`s changed? Nothing. Not one thing other than those people can marry. Why stick to an archaic definition of a word when it discriminates against a large group in a society?
  66. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3917 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 10:14 am
    MeGrendel has joined the post. I`m going to jump off before he turns an intelligent discussion into an endless hate filled rant. Oh look, too late. He`s already ramping up. If you are going to stay remember that MeGrendel does not represent most normal conservatives. Don`t turn this into a partisan attack just because one person is a bigot. There are a lot of loving and accepting conservatives out there. My parents are a great example.
  67. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    7046 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 10:29 am
    paperduck,

    Dictionaries are descriptive of current usage, not prescriptive.

    BTW, in the UK the CofE is arguing that if current legislation regarding gay marriage is passed it could spell the end of the churches position of state religion. That would be terrible.
  68. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7596 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 10:38 am
    There is no logical reason whatsoever a gay couple should not be able to marry. If a church disagrees then they do not have to do it- just as even now some churches refuse to marry divorced couples. The Catholic church does not allow divorve ( or never used to) but the law did.....
  69. Profile photo of eddy666
    eddy666 Male 30-39
    523 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 11:16 am
    @markust123
    Markust if you hate political arguments as much as you claim then why do you even come here? It`s the internet. Get over yourself, jesus.
  70. Profile photo of eddy666
    eddy666 Male 30-39
    523 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 11:16 am
    This is old, really old. All I-A-B is doing is flame-baiting, and it`s working pretty well.
  71. Profile photo of eddy666
    eddy666 Male 30-39
    523 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 11:22 am
    @markust123 Also, I don`t see how anything he has said in this post is hateful. If I remember from another post, he actually isn`t opposed to gay marriage. Stop getting your panties in a wad. No one on this site is against gay marriage.
  72. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36829 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 11:27 am

    @ MeGrendel - LOL good call! I score your comment 4+.
    And yes, `Little Gerry` is pretty stupid.
  73. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36829 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 11:30 am

    paperduck "people didn`t stop marrying multiple wives because the government said marriage now means you can`t do that."
    Au contraire mon frere.
    Remember those polygamists that founded the state of Utah? They were not permitted entrance in the Union unless they put a clause in their state constitution that defined marriage as 1 man 1 woman. They changed their traditional definition of marriage because the law told them to. It was unjust to force others personal/religious standards on them, but it did happen.
  74. Profile photo of UDUMASS
    UDUMASS Male 30-39
    60 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 11:34 am
    More homosexual propaganda... how many queers work for IAB anyway?
  75. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36829 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 11:35 am

    johnkelley "you can`t simply change the definition of things, to make yourself happy or benefit"
    Yes you can. The law does it all the time. For example in Texas {and many other states} the Sodomy Laws that were on the books included same sex kissing. By what streatch of the imagination does Sodomy {anal sex} include kissing on the lips? But they changed the definition of the word to suit them and keep civil rights away from gays. Much like limiting marriage to only gender oposite couples does.

    Fortunately, those laws have been found unconstitutional and straight people may now enjoy anal sex along with their gay brothers and sisters. When civil rights are recognized Everybody Benefits! YEAH!
  76. Profile photo of Essersmith
    Essersmith Male 18-29
    275 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 11:39 am
    @patchgrabber
    CrakrJak is not here yet, there is yet hope for liberty and justice for all.
  77. Profile photo of Harlekk
    Harlekk Male 18-29
    16 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 12:12 pm
    "More homosexual propaganda... how many queers work for IAB anyway?"

    All of them :)
  78. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3917 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 12:25 pm
    I`m sorry I called you a bigot MeGrendel. I got you confused with someone else. After having an `Oh crap moment` while working I went back and looked at some of your past comments. You have never said anything that I could find that would suggest you are against gay marriage in a bigoted way, or even against gay marriage. Again I apologize for openly misjudging you. Love your comeback to Gerry`s T-shirt.
  79. Profile photo of onoffonoffon
    onoffonoffon Male 30-39
    2375 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 12:43 pm
    Southern issue compared to a national issue?
  80. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6894 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 12:45 pm
    johnkelley

    "Marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman"

    Jesus Imaginary Christ. ALWAYS defined by whom? The comment section of IAB posts lets me know one thing, never ever under any circumstances visit the "Southern US"

    I`m sure the only book you own is the bible, but as defined by the dictionary (which is a different kind of book):

    Marriage
    noun

    the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities


  81. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36829 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    "CrakrJak is not here yet,"
    He`s here. He`s just lurking in the shadows.
    I think he`s coming around to the right way of thinking
    after having been beaten down by so, so many threads
    in the past on this topic. There`s hope for him yet.
  82. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6894 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 12:50 pm
    Gerry1of1

    "Sodomy {anal sex}"

    Not true sir. Sodomy is simply defined as "unnatural sex". So depending on how loosely that is interpreted, anything outside of male/female genital intercourse is sodomy. That means oral, anal, or anything else.
  83. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 12:51 pm
    @Gerry: There he is!

  84. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36829 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 12:52 pm
  85. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6894 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 12:55 pm
    eddy666

    "No one on this site is against gay marriage."

    Pretty wrong about that. You don`t get 4+ pages of comments when people agree. I can think of several prominent IABers who consistently say they are against gay marriage along with the other random collections of f.ucktards like the ones in here now.
  86. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36829 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    @ patchgrabber - you`re really creeping me out with that nightmare gif!
    ha!
  87. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 1:05 pm
    @Gerry: So you had a similar reaction?


  88. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3359 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 1:58 pm
    Megrendel: "what equal protection are they not getting? "
    These, for a start. let `em get married. it`s not a big deal because it doesn`t affect us.
  89. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6235 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 2:30 pm
    Gerry1of1-"And yes, `Little Gerry` is pretty stupid."

    Ain`t they all?

    jtrebowski-"These, for a start."

    Nor do they apply to couples not married, or to individuals who don`t WANT to get married. Nor do they apply to a guy and his goldfish.

    But, they are applied accross the board, to every American. Those that can, and do, legally marry get them, those that can`t, or won`t, don`t.

    Again, the definition of marriage is the problem. Change that.
  90. Profile photo of eddy666
    eddy666 Male 30-39
    523 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 3:21 pm
    @Gerry1of1 Ha! That`s an awesome picture. If you actually think about it like that, our country is protecting gay folks` right to happiness. Banning homosexuals from getting married is kind of like making people wear seatbelts. I kid. I kid.
  91. Profile photo of eddy666
    eddy666 Male 30-39
    523 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 3:23 pm
    @markust123 I`m proud of you.
  92. Profile photo of eddy666
    eddy666 Male 30-39
    523 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 3:24 pm
    @HolyGod Who? All I see on here is 4 pages of people agreeing. I`m not doubting you, I just really can`t remember any respectable person on this site being oppposed to it.
  93. Profile photo of uatme
    uatme Male 18-29
    1074 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 3:57 pm
    the people in the bottom picture still don`t think they look stupid so why would the top people?
  94. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 4:55 pm
    "marriage is a religious act in which the government should have no part."

    That is insane on the face of it. Marriage pre-dates religion.

    Both marriage and religion predate recorded history, so how can you make that statement?

    Archaeology can provide evidence of prehistoric religion but not prehistoric marriage since that wouldn`t leave enduring artefacts that could be dug up today. So we have no idea which came first and no way of finding out.

    Their statement is obviously wrong because marriage has a legal status (and therefore inherently involves the government), but your reply is unfounded.

    Marriage does predate Christianity though, so clearly Christian ideas aren`t fundamental to marriage.
  95. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    The word `marriage`, which is what the argument is claimed to be about by the people arguing, has its roots in pagan Rome. So if any religion is inherent to marriage, it`s the ancient Roman state religion.

    So, anyone want to continue arguing that religion is inherent to marriage? If so, are you going to convert to the appropriate religion and start worshipping Jupiter Optimus Maximus and all the rest of them?

    Go on, put your money where your mouth is.


    On top of that, marriage in ancient Rome (which, remember, is the origin of the supposedly all-important word `marriage`) wasn`t based in religion anyway. Apart from one very rare form of marriage that was only ever used by the nobility and not very often even by that tiny minority, Roman marriage was areligious. Religious stuff could be added to the creation of the marriage if you wanted, but it was not an inherent part of it. It was a legal thing, not a religious thing.
  96. Profile photo of mykunter
    mykunter Male 40-49
    2424 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 5:59 pm
    Meh... still not into race mixing.
  97. Profile photo of HiEv
    HiEv Male 40-49
    621 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 7:08 pm
    I know many people are terribly, terribly upset about redefining a word. So, I have come up with an ingenious solution that solves all problems for both sides!

    We will now call the equivalent of marriage between two people of the same sex "rnarriage", and they will have all of the same rights as a married couple. Yes, "rnarriage" may look a bit like it starts with an "m", but that`s actually an "r" and an "n". The "r" is silent, so it`s pronounced "narriage".

    This way same sex couples can get rnarried and you homophobes won`t have to worry about sullying your little "m" word.

    You`re welcome!
  98. Profile photo of lawndartsftw
    lawndartsftw Male 40-49
    1811 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 7:39 pm
    Ahhh, a troll feature. *checks watch* Right on time....
  99. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3917 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 7:55 pm
    "Meh... still not into race mixing."

    Sweetie, I think you`re thinking of laundry.
  100. Profile photo of eddy666
    eddy666 Male 30-39
    523 posts
    June 12, 2012 at 7:58 pm
    @HiEv That`s a joke from South Park except instead of narriage it was called "Butt-buddies". I think the South Park version was funnier.
  101. Profile photo of HiEv
    HiEv Male 40-49
    621 posts
    June 13, 2012 at 6:33 am
    @eddy666: A) I didn`t see that one. B) How exactly does "butt-buddies" work for lesbians? C) It`s "rnarriage". ;-P
  102. Profile photo of TheiaRenown
    TheiaRenown Female 18-29
    426 posts
    June 13, 2012 at 7:36 am
    @HiEv

    "B) How exactly does "butt-buddies" work for lesbians?"

    To quote south park on that same question: "As if anyone cares about f*cking dykes."

    Great episode....greeeeat episode - thanks for reminding me eddy666
  103. Profile photo of robosnitz
    robosnitz Male 40-49
    2737 posts
    June 13, 2012 at 7:18 pm
    Yeah, that race mixing thing worked out well.

Leave a Reply