 robosnitz
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 2752 Posts
|
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:18:28 PM
Yeah, that race mixing thing worked out well. |
|
 TheiaRenown
Female, 18-29, Southern US
390 Posts
|
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:36:22 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 |
|
 HiEv
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
384 Posts
|
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 6:33:14 AM
@eddy666: A) I didn't see that one. B) How exactly does "butt-buddies" work for lesbians? C) It's "rnarriage". ;-P |
|
 eddy666
Male, 30-39, Southern US
522 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 7:58:08 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. |
|
 markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
3783 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 7:55:22 PM
"Meh... still not into race mixing."
Sweetie, I think you're thinking of laundry. |
|
 lawndartsftw
Male, 40-49, Canada
1815 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 7:39:31 PM
Ahhh, a troll feature. *checks watch* Right on time.... |
|
HiEv
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
384 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 7:08:09 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! |
|
 mykunter
Male, 40-49, Southern US
1580 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 5:59:31 PM
Meh... still not into race mixing. |
|
 Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9537 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 5:00:48 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. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9537 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 4:55:36 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. |
|
uatme
Male, 18-29, Canada
790 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 3:57:15 PM
the people in the bottom picture still don't think they look stupid so why would the top people? |
|
eddy666
Male, 30-39, Southern US
522 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 3:24:19 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. |
|
eddy666
Male, 30-39, Southern US
522 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 3:23:38 PM
@markust123 I'm proud of you. |
|
eddy666
Male, 30-39, Southern US
522 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 3:21:40 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. |
|
 MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
2324 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 2:30:16 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. |
|
 jtrebowski
Male, 40-49, Southern US
3057 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 1:58:17 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. |
|
 patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
5252 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 1:05:08 PM
@Gerry: So you had a similar reaction?
 |
|
 Gerry1of1
Male, 50-59, Western US
25589 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 1:02:15 PM
@ patchgrabber - you're really creeping me out with that nightmare gif!
ha! |
|
 HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
2902 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:55:31 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. |
|
Gerry1of1
Male, 50-59, Western US
25589 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:52:19 PM
 |
|
patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
5252 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:51:53 PM
@Gerry: There he is!
 |
|
HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
2902 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:50:46 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. |
|
Gerry1of1
Male, 50-59, Western US
25589 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:49:52 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. |
|
HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
2902 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:45:53 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
|
|
onoffonoffon
Male, 30-39, Western US
1244 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:43:53 PM
Southern issue compared to a national issue? |
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}