Some Things Never Change [Pic]

Submitted by: patchgrabber 4 years ago

Luckily though, some things do.
There are 102 comments:
Male 2,737
Yeah, that race mixing thing worked out well.
0
Reply
Female 426
@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
0
Reply
Male 621
@eddy666: A) I didn`t see that one. B) How exactly does "butt-buddies" work for lesbians? C) It`s "rnarriage". ;-P
0
Reply
Male 523
@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.
0
Reply
Male 4,298
"Meh... still not into race mixing."

Sweetie, I think you`re thinking of laundry.
0
Reply
Male 1,810
Ahhh, a troll feature. *checks watch* Right on time....
0
Reply
Male 621
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!
0
Reply
Male 2,436
Meh... still not into race mixing.
0
Reply
Male 12,365

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.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]"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.[/quote]

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.
0
Reply
Male 1,083
the people in the bottom picture still don`t think they look stupid so why would the top people?
0
Reply
Male 523
@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.
0
Reply
Male 523
@markust123 I`m proud of you.
0
Reply
Male 523
@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.
0
Reply
Male 7,359
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.
0
Reply
Male 3,364
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.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@Gerry: So you had a similar reaction?


0
Reply
Male 37,910

@ patchgrabber - you`re really creeping me out with that nightmare gif!
ha!
0
Reply
Male 7,926
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.
0
Reply
Male 37,910
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@Gerry: There he is!

0
Reply
Male 7,926
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.
0
Reply
Male 37,910

[quote]"CrakrJak is not here yet," [/quote]
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.
0
Reply
Male 7,926
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


0
Reply
Male 4,298
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.
0
Reply
Male 16
"More homosexual propaganda... how many queers work for IAB anyway?"

All of them :)
0
Reply
Male 275
@patchgrabber
CrakrJak is not here yet, there is yet hope for liberty and justice for all.
0
Reply
Male 37,910

johnkelley [quote]"you can`t simply change the definition of things, to make yourself happy or benefit" [/quote]
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!
0
Reply
Male 60
More homosexual propaganda... how many queers work for IAB anyway?
0
Reply
Male 37,910

paperduck [quote]"people didn`t stop marrying multiple wives because the government said marriage now means you can`t do that." [/quote]
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.
0
Reply
Male 37,910

@ MeGrendel - LOL good call! I score your comment 4+.
And yes, `Little Gerry` is pretty stupid.
0
Reply
Male 523
@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.
0
Reply
Male 523
This is old, really old. All I-A-B is doing is flame-baiting, and it`s working pretty well.
0
Reply
Male 523
@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.
0
Reply
Female 7,838
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.....
0
Reply
Male 7,123
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.
0
Reply
Male 4,298
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.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Please don`t think when anyone says `you have to change the definition` they are automatically saying that`s a bad thing.[/quote]
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?
0
Reply
Male 7,359
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?
0
Reply
Male 4,298
“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.
0
Reply
Male 7,359
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.
0
Reply
Male 5,413
AMUUUUUUUURICA!
0
Reply
Male 7,359
Gerry1of1-"wearing this shirt."

Kinda wonder what statement your making with THIS particular arrow:

0
Reply
Male 4,298
"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.
0
Reply
Male 646
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.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman,[/quote]


0
Reply
Male 1,008
"Marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman"

and there is the untruest statement of the day
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]People stopped marrying multiple wives first, then marriage took on that new meaning. I`m fine with that. [/quote]
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?
0
Reply
Male 59
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.
0
Reply
Male 1,745
Gerry1of1, (sigh) that`s not what I said. I thought you may have seen my point, but I guess not.
0
Reply
Male 1,745
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.
0
Reply
Male 1,008
"Civil rights should never be up for a public vote."

truest statement of the day.
0
Reply
Male 1,008
oh rizzo, such a..... oh wait, please tell me how you came to this conclusion? Is it because all Americans belong to westboro church?
0
Reply
Male 4,298
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.
0
Reply
Male 425
The homophobia in America is topped only by the Arab countries.
0
Reply
Male 37,910

paperduck, [quote]"bust open the dictionary" [/quote]
I took your advice. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary:
[quote]"(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" [/quote]
0
Reply
Male 4,298
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?
0
Reply
Male 4,298
"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.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Damn right. History remembers.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@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?
0
Reply
Male 1,745
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?
0
Reply
Male 7,585
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?
0
Reply
Male 37,910

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.
0
Reply
Male 4,298
"This is for a political purpose which is NOT how language works"

It for love and equal rights.
0
Reply
Male 18
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
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@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.
0
Reply
Male 4,298
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"
0
Reply
Male 7,585
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
0
Reply
Male 275
@Patchgrabber
Very well good sir, agreed.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@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.
0
Reply
Male 1,745
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.
0
Reply
Male 7,585
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
0
Reply
Male 275
@patchgrabber
Are you sure? people have always believed in flying spagetti monsters, trees and whatnot
0
Reply
Male 4,298
"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.
0
Reply
Male 18
sorry, religious/cultural
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]marriage is a religious act in which the government should have no part.[/quote]
That is insane on the face of it. Marriage pre-dates religion.
0
Reply
Male 4,298
"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.
0
Reply
Male 275
@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.
0
Reply
Male 18
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?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@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.
0
Reply
Male 4,298
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.
0
Reply
Male 1,745
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.
0
Reply
Male 18
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
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@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!
0
Reply
Male 37,910

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.
0
Reply
Male 37,910

@ 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.

0
Reply
Male 37,910

[quote]" legitimizing and redefining a term between two individuals, traditionally between a man and woman." [/quote]
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.
0
Reply
Male 1,745
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.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@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.
0
Reply
Male 37,910

paperduck, [quote]"The bottom one is denying an individual their rights - protected by the constitution." [/quote]
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.
0
Reply
Male 4,298
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.
0
Reply
Male 1,745
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.
0
Reply
Male 3,364
Actually, they`re still doing it. conservative Republican Steve King.

What a drooling moron.
0
Reply
Male 3,364
drips: "Too bad communism isn`t the cultural boogeyman it once was..."

Talk to a Fox "News" watcher, and you might feel differently.
0
Reply
Male 201
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"
0
Reply
Male 904
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.
0
Reply
Male 37,910

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

0
Reply
Male 7,585
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.
0
Reply
Male 642
those are the same people, I don`t think they care and I don`t think they think that they look stupid
0
Reply
Female 220
I know right
0
Reply
Male 3,364
In 40 years? They look stupid now.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Link: Some Things Never Change [Pic] [Rate Link] - Luckily though, some things do.
0
Reply