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

[Total: 25    Average: 4.1/5]
43 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 7001
Rating: 4.1
Category:
Date: 04/01/14 12:46 PM

43 Responses to When Marriage = A Doughnut [Pic]

  1. Profile photo of SweepOfDeath
    SweepOfDeath Male 18-29
    938 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 11:48 am
    Link: When Marriage = A Doughnut - Apples/oranges/marriage/doughnuts.
  2. Profile photo of Agent00Smith
    Agent00Smith Male 18-29
    2581 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 12:50 pm
    Nooooooooooo.

    Claiming that someone else`s marriage is against your religion is like STATING A FACT.

    Straight people aren`t jealous of gay sex, and we don`t need to "diet" to get over how much gay sex we aren`t having.
  3. Profile photo of chicagojay
    chicagojay Male 40-49
    2018 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 1:27 pm
    1) I support gay marriage.
    2) Specious
    A better analogy would be to say "A law against gay marriage is as silly as a law telling me how large a soda I may purchase, or what drugs I choose to ingest"
  4. Profile photo of wolfguy423
    wolfguy423 Male 18-29
    172 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 1:31 pm
    Why care who Marries who and does what with their private parts. Really, why care?
  5. Profile photo of spanerbulb
    spanerbulb Male 30-39
    1244 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 1:33 pm
    If two people are in a consensual relationship then folks really should just keep there long twisted noses out and let live.
  6. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 1:52 pm
    If it`s against your religion, good for you, no one else remotely cares.

    agent the folks obsessed with sex are like the folks obsessed with food, you don`t get that way unless you`re having either too much or too little of it. So you fundies really ought to go out and buy some good gay mags, vids, toys or whatever and indulge yourselves already. Erotic repression isn`t healthy for anyone...
  7. Profile photo of Rodin
    Rodin Male 30-39
    771 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 1:55 pm
    What if the person on the diet was married to the man that was eating the doughnut -- and that doughnut was around my penis?
  8. Profile photo of slut_etta
    slut_etta Female 50-59
    3883 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 2:41 pm
    if you can find someone truly willing to put up with your sh*t and you are equally willing to do the same, grab them, hold on tight, and make it legal if you so desire. it shouldn`t matter which gender you are.
  9. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 3:04 pm
    @QueenZira: Funny how you lump the "conservatives" and "liberals" into the same, um, lump!
    It`s (mostly) "conservatives" who oppose gay marriage. And Black Democrats...
    And it`s mostly "liberals" who support "food control", eh?

    Actually? Most people don`t oppose gays getting married (civil unions = exact same thing!) they oppose changing the laws surrounding Church Marriages.

    Sure, there`s hard-core believers on both sides, but equating "foodies" and "gayies" is "teh funnies" :-)

    @Rodin: Wouldn`t that be adultery? Gay or otherwise?
  10. Profile photo of drawman61
    drawman61 Male 50-59
    7751 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 3:51 pm
    I have to agree with her.
  11. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36866 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 5:06 pm

    So you say gay marriages undermines marriage and families?
    My response is "How?"

    No one has yet been able to answer that question.
  12. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 5:21 pm
    @Gerry1: "Gay Marriage" doesn`t undermine traditional marriage. Anyone who thinks that hasn`t really thought about things much.
    Changing the legal definition of "marriage" is another matter. Once Pandora`s box is open? You cannot get it shut again.

    Governments should have 1 area they legislate in: Civil Unions. Period!
    Church "marriages" aren`t legal anyhow unless they fill out the government paperwork, right?
    So what`s the big deal?
    Just say: Persons X,Y or Z can have Civil Unions & WHO CARES who marries whom? No legislation is required for a Church Wedding, it doesn`t stand up as "legal" anyhow.
    Or are things drastically different in countries other than Canada?

    Here? You can live with someone for 2 years, leave and unilaterally declare "common-law marriage" without their consent! Then take half their stuff...
  13. Profile photo of Rodin
    Rodin Male 30-39
    771 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 6:53 pm
    @5cats :

    "Here? You can live with someone for 2 years, leave and unilaterally declare "common-law marriage" without their consent! Then take half their stuff..."

    That is not true.
  14. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 7:02 pm
    @ 5Cats: What do you have in mind when you say "once the Pandora`s box is open"? What are you worried that might follow?

    Miscegenation, or marriage between races, used to be illegal. I`m sure a lot of people who opposed doing away with the miscegenation laws used a similar Pandora`s box argument back then: "If a colored or a Chinaman can marry my daughter, what`s to stop a donkey or a pig? There will be no end to it!"

    Of course, I`m sure you have concerns more reasonable than those. That said, I`m curious what they are.
  15. Profile photo of robthelurker
    robthelurker Male 18-29
    2873 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 7:06 pm
    no. you have a right to be pissed off at everyone else for eating doughnuts when youre on a diet. no one can blame you for that. claiming that someone elses marriage is against your religion just makes your religion seem stupid.
  16. Profile photo of RytWing
    RytWing Male 30-39
    316 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 8:52 pm

    Polygamy will have to be next. Hope my wife doesn`t mind if I find myself a doctor. As long as he`s rich. Amirite?
  17. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36866 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 8:57 pm

    5Cats, as long as marriage is tied to finances and property ownership rights the guvment will always be the final authority. And I`m not going to the back of the bus with a "civil union" just to make some superstitious backward bigots feel better about their prejudices.
  18. Profile photo of carmium
    carmium Female 50-59
    6381 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 9:06 pm
    In other news, former "Roseanne" daughter (Darlene) Sara Gilbert has married one Linda Perry, music writer and producer. So get over it folks.
  19. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3909 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 9:10 pm

  20. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 9:16 pm
    @Rodin: Since I know people it`s happened to? I`d say...
    Yes, it is true! I didn`t know it was 3 years in Ontario, but there it is.

    @Squrlz4: Polygamy. Also if the definition of "adult" (Age of Concent) gets changed? Bingo! Also: close relatives. There`s not as many of those "pushing for rights" but the argument is exactly the same as "gay rights".

    Saskatchewan already recognizes "common-law" marriage where a 3rd party is sexually involved. See above.

    @Gerry1: I`m saying: Make "Civil Union" the LEGAL definition of "marriage" and those other things 2ndary to that. Get "religion" out of the equation altogether!
    Like I said: if you don`t file papers with the government? Does it even count?
  21. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 9:25 pm
    @WhoDat: Ooo! Very punny!

    I prefer thinking of girls & scissors...



    Senjogahara from Bakemonogatari! Her favorite weapon is a stapler... but any school supplies are lethal in her hands! Not a lesbian...



    Gasi Yuno from Future Diary. Not a lesbian...
  22. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14654 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 9:39 pm
    Why people would want to disallow gay marriage - and how they can live with themselves for being so biggoted - is totally beyond me. /smh
  23. Profile photo of Naitsirhc88
    Naitsirhc88 Male 18-29
    392 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 9:55 pm
    Ok, yeah some one else eating a donut doesn`t hurt me. But when I keep saying I`m on a diet and they keep offering donuts it gets annoying. Just like when I keep getting hit on by gay guys.
  24. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 11:05 pm
    As I`ve said before, If marriage can`t be defined as 1 man and 1 woman anymore then it will never be definable again. Pandora`s box has been opened, good luck trying to close the lid later.

    Now every service company, church and venue has a sword above them, if they refuse service based on their religious beliefs the ACLU will sue them into oblivion.

    The marriage weirdness has just begun, people will be marrying their pets, trees, children and everything else.

    By the way, I want to know what gay people would think of two non-gay same sex people getting married now? Or three or four people possibly in mixed arrangements?

    Marriage was special now it`s a joke, all because gays wanted to hijack the word marriage and force straight religious people to accept them or else.
  25. Profile photo of Zeegrr60
    Zeegrr60 Male 40-49
    2106 posts
    April 1, 2014 at 11:11 pm
    "Our love is so special, I can`t wait till the government gets involved..." said no two people in love....ever...
  26. Profile photo of QueenZira
    QueenZira Female 18-29
    2228 posts
    April 2, 2014 at 12:01 am
    Crakr and 5cats argument summed up by their venerated intellectual forbear. (With much thanks to Jon Hughes).

    Yep, it`s gonna be turrible I tells ya. Frogs, locusts, rivers urv blurd! Dogs and cats living together. I`m so glad they`ve decided to selflessly sacrifice themselves as spokesmen for all us straight religious folk, to advocate what all of us, without nuance or question believe. And to fight for our common, undifferentiated, totally bland olde tyme religion, Aphrodite`s proud of you boys, go get `em for Her, tigers! Rawwr!

  27. Profile photo of Umbobo
    Umbobo Male 40-49
    64 posts
    April 2, 2014 at 12:34 am
    It always pisses me off when someone has a donut and I do not. It is bullpoo. Should be a law against eating a donut if you`re not going to give me one. Or two.
  28. Profile photo of som-tam
    som-tam Male 18-29
    714 posts
    April 2, 2014 at 2:03 am
    what a moronic argument for gay marriage. how does this sound? `Claiming someone else`s religious views are homophobic because of your political beliefs are like... blah, blah, blah` I don`t really care if gays get married or not - that`s their lookout - what i do hope is that forcing people to say how wonderful it is on threat of imprisonment.
  29. Profile photo of som-tam
    som-tam Male 18-29
    714 posts
    April 2, 2014 at 2:04 am
    -cont. does not become the accepted protocol of the police force.
  30. Profile photo of Sleepyhallow
    Sleepyhallow Male 50-59
    1983 posts
    April 2, 2014 at 2:37 am
    How come intolerant religious/conservative morons are incapable of being able to tell the difference between a "Wedding Ceremony" and a "Marriage License".

    A "Ceremony" is what is conducted under the guidelines of whatever traditions you abide by and NO ONE is trying to change that.
    A "License" is a piece of government paperwork maintained by a specified agency for legal and record keeping purses.

    *YOU* have no right to be telling my what I can and cannot do within the traditions of my own belief system just like I have no Right to tell you can or cannot do inside the doors of your closed-minded little hate groups

    So where do you get off thinking that you have the right to tell other what to do but no one can tell you what to do?
    Where is that disconnect in your diseased brains that allows you to be hypocrites without realizing you are hypocrites?
  31. Profile photo of FredSpudman
    FredSpudman Male 18-29
    653 posts
    April 2, 2014 at 3:47 am
    @CrakrJak Two people entering a civil contract together, ostensibly because they love each other. Seems like a definition to me... as for "pets, trees, children and everything else", I rather think the law will not extend to those (apart from in Japan?). Tree lovers and paedophiles don`t exactly hold much sway in the electorate.
  32. Profile photo of FredSpudman
    FredSpudman Male 18-29
    653 posts
    April 2, 2014 at 3:50 am
    @QueenZira We should also remember this oddity...
  33. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    April 2, 2014 at 4:00 am
    @SleepyHallow: You do know you`ve supported MY position? Yes?
    And opposed @QueenZira and @Gerry1`s positions, correct?

    Yet you call them "intolerant religious/conservative morons are incapable of being able to tell the difference between a "Wedding Ceremony" and a "Marriage License"."??

    That`s not very nice! @Zira and @Gerry are going to be mad at you... :-P
  34. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    April 2, 2014 at 4:06 am
    A "Ceremony" is what is conducted under the guidelines of whatever traditions you abide by and NO ONE is trying to change that.

    @SleepyHallow: This is 100% untrue.

    My friend was a "marriage commissioner" here in Canada when the "gay law" passed. She and ALL MCs were told, in no uncertain terms, that if they refused to marry a gay couple: their commission would be revoked. PERIOD. No if`s ands or religious beliefs involved.

    She was a "civil worker" performing the ceremony and helping expedite the paperwork, not just a "rubber stamping" bureaucrat. But that`s how it was: do or be fired.
  35. Profile photo of Kalimata
    Kalimata Male 30-39
    661 posts
    April 2, 2014 at 6:43 am
    Crakr, you have said some wild stuff in the past, some I`ve not disagreed with, but seriously...

    "...The marriage weirdness has just begun, people will be marrying their pets, trees, children and everything else..."

    Do you truly believe this? Like on a grand scale, not a one off thing?

    "...By the way, I want to know what gay people would think of two non-gay same sex people getting married now? Or three or four people possibly in mixed arrangements?"

    Just as with all people, probably a wide and varied bunch of opinions. Generally I believe they wouldn`t care at all.

    "...Marriage was special now it`s a joke, all because gays wanted to hijack the word marriage and force straight religious people to accept them or else..."

    Or, did they want equality?
  36. Profile photo of xavroche
    xavroche Male 30-39
    819 posts
    April 2, 2014 at 8:02 am
    @5Cats: Since your friend is government appointed, and is paid to perform a civil marriage, I find it completed logical that she would face termination of her appointment should she not want to perform a marriage that is allowed by Canadian law. Since she chose to perform civil and therefore nondenominational marriages, her personal religious beliefs need to be put aside.

    I would expect similar termination of a police officer or a judge who refuses to apply a new law for personal beliefs.
  37. Profile photo of Johanvb
    Johanvb Male 40-49
    513 posts
    April 2, 2014 at 8:23 am
    In the Netherlands gay marriage is accepted for a longer time now.
    And though i couldn`t care less who married what, when and where (unless they are underaged and/or forced marriages or marriage solely to get a legal status), i have a small problem with the gay community.

    Gay activists have arragend by law that if you are a marriage commissioner and you do not want to marry a gay couple (for instance because you are a Christian) you may not work as one.

    So although a town has several marriage commissioners or could get one from a nearby town and thus could still perform a gay marriage a refusing-officer (`weigerambtenaar`, we have a special word for that ;) ) may not work as a marriage commissioner.

    So gays who fought against discrimination are now discriminating others.
    If they would had arranged that a town must have a person available that could marry them it would have been fine. But they had to make it so that specific people would have to pay.
  38. Profile photo of papajon0s1
    papajon0s1 Male 40-49
    579 posts
    April 2, 2014 at 8:31 am
    Love how some of the libs on here lump all conservatives and religious into one hate-filled rant and then say they are the intolerant ones. I think the analogy of the sign is poor at best. From a Christian standpoint he argument speaks to the sanctity of life. That said, it should not be about hate and anger and endless bickering! Pope Francis himself called for an end to that being replaced with compassion and love for fellow human beings. That said, I don`t see major issue with 5cats idea of "Union" being the parent term all of us are subject to under the government and "marriage" would be a term for religious purposes. And then just drop all the hatin`!
  39. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    April 2, 2014 at 9:02 am
    @ Papajonon: "Love how *some* of the libs on here..." (my emphasis).

    I`m really encouraged to see this qualification. Thanks for that, Papajon0s. For the most part, you guys have stayed away from broad brushes and ad-hominem attacks, which I appreciate.
  40. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    7068 posts
    April 2, 2014 at 9:25 am
    `The marriage weirdness has just begun, people will be marrying their pets, trees, children and everything else.`

    Just as soon as trees and pets can give informed consent.

  41. Profile photo of BostonKaiser
    BostonKaiser Male 40-49
    1185 posts
    April 2, 2014 at 11:28 am
    "...Marriage was special now it`s a joke, all because gays wanted to hijack the word marriage and force straight religious people to accept them or else..."

    Tell me again, what are the divorce rates for straight people? Then try telling me again how "special" marriage is. It`s been a joke for a long time and the "gays" had nothing to do with it.
  42. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    April 2, 2014 at 12:06 pm
    @xavroche: My point was not is it right or wrong, but that it happens in reality; which @SleepyHallow denied. The marriage ceremony and the paperwork are two different things, and this rule applied to the former. Again, I`m not saying it`s wrong, but it does preclude "choice" eh?

    @Johanvb: So it`s not just Canada, eh? Interesting.

    I don`t see major issue with 5cats idea of "Union" being the parent term all of us...
    Thanks @papajon0s1! There was a golden opportunity in Canada to clarify all that stuff, but the Gov`t didn`t do anything positive.

    @Squrlz4: It`s my observation that ONE side (liberals) frequently knee-jerks on EVERY issue imaginable.

    Point in fact: Who`s talking about "marriage to a tree" on the conservative side? It`s yet another strawman...
  43. Profile photo of Johanvb
    Johanvb Male 40-49
    513 posts
    April 2, 2014 at 1:26 pm
    @xavroche
    And that is where i think you are wrong. If a gay couple can marry, why would it be a problem for a `anti gays marriage person` to be a marriage commissioner?
    As long as gay couples aren`t refused the right to get married (or have to pay extra etc.)there is no problem.
    Let gays be gays and anti gays marriage people be anti gay marriage people. As long as they respect the rules: No biting, hair-pulling or punching with closed fist.

Leave a Reply