Or I was trying to start an intellectual discussion on a topic that has bearing on current political events. And rather than start with 'OMG U GUYZ SEE DA NEWZ? GAYZ WANNA MARRY!!!11', I figured I would present an idea (yes an idea that's been discussed before I'm sure, but an idea regardless) that could encourage people to discuss the issue.
Thank you for teaming up with MonxDoT to infect it with your worthless opinion.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Solving the gay marriage issue
Solving the gay marriage issueFollow
So you admit to being unoriginal.
Good. We're agreed then.
Good. We're agreed then.
As long as you admit to being a worthless ***** then yup, we're pretty much in agreement.
Don't you go messing with Ambrya, I will cut you.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
bodhi wrote:
Don't you go messing with Ambrya, I will cut you.
Happy birthday bodhi.
Ambrya wrote:
So you admit to being unoriginal.
Good. We're agreed then.
Good. We're agreed then.
Coming from someone with an avatard like yours? Oh yeah real original. /bandwagon
MentalFrog wrote:
Coming from someone with an avatard like yours? Oh yeah real original. /bandwagon
Avatar or no, I'm still more original than the OP.
allenjj wrote:
The subject of gay marriage is obviously an issue that raises strong feelings on both sides of the issue. On the right, you have a group that states marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman, and anything else is pure evil.
Look up the word "strawman" in the dictionary. Might help you.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Look up the word "strawman" in the dictionary. Might help you.
Even so, they still got their butts whooped...>.>
Quote:
Had I claimed that they were unique, you might have had a point
No, had you been able to enumerate a single right marriage grants, you might have had a point. Obviously, any rights are a priori to "marriage". By definition of no new unique rights being granted by marriage, no rights whatsoever are granted by marriage.
No, had you been able to enumerate a single right marriage grants, you might have had a point. Obviously, any rights are a priori to "marriage". By definition of no new unique rights being granted by marriage, no rights whatsoever are granted by marriage.
This pwnage instant reply brought to you for the sake of entertainment.
Edited, Jun 10th 2006 at 12:07am EST by MonxDoT
I have some breaking news on gay marriage
Tom, I'm standing outside the Governor's office, where in just two days, the Governor can either sign or veto the new bill allowing gay marriage. Same-sex couples from all over the state have shown up in support, [Mr. Slave and Big Gay Al are there] while dissenters have also converged. The governor is about to give a statement.
Governor: I believe that I might have come up with a compromise to this whole problem that will make everyone happy! People in the gay community want the same rights as married couples, but dissenters don't want the word "marriage" corrupted. So how about we let gay people get married, but call it something else? [everyone listens quietly] You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but instead of refering to you as "maarriied," you can be... butt buddies. [long silence] Instead of being "man and wife," you'll be... butt buddies. You won't be "betrothed," you'll be... butt buuuddies. Get it? Instead of a "bride and groom," you'd be... butt buddies.
Mr. Slave: We wanna be treated equally!
Governor: Y-you are equal. It's just that instead of getting "engaged," you would be... butt buuuddies. And everyone is happy!
Woman: Well what about lesbians?!
Governor: Well like anyone cares about ******' dykes. [the crowd goes into an uproar] Oh, God, I was sure that would work.
Tom, I'm standing outside the Governor's office, where in just two days, the Governor can either sign or veto the new bill allowing gay marriage. Same-sex couples from all over the state have shown up in support, [Mr. Slave and Big Gay Al are there] while dissenters have also converged. The governor is about to give a statement.
Governor: I believe that I might have come up with a compromise to this whole problem that will make everyone happy! People in the gay community want the same rights as married couples, but dissenters don't want the word "marriage" corrupted. So how about we let gay people get married, but call it something else? [everyone listens quietly] You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but instead of refering to you as "maarriied," you can be... butt buddies. [long silence] Instead of being "man and wife," you'll be... butt buddies. You won't be "betrothed," you'll be... butt buuuddies. Get it? Instead of a "bride and groom," you'd be... butt buddies.
Mr. Slave: We wanna be treated equally!
Governor: Y-you are equal. It's just that instead of getting "engaged," you would be... butt buuuddies. And everyone is happy!
Woman: Well what about lesbians?!
Governor: Well like anyone cares about ******' dykes. [the crowd goes into an uproar] Oh, God, I was sure that would work.
Australia is having the same debate at the moment about the whole civil union vs marriage business.
It has pretty much been decided by the government that by allowing gays to have civil unions, which is basically just marriage under another name, will detract from the sanctity of marriage. So yeah, all you gays can take your un-natural and disgusting love elsewhere.
Still being a ***** huh Ambyra? What's the matter? Haven't passed those kidney stones yet you overweight mess?
Edited, Jun 10th 2006 at 12:18am EST by Mikkle
It has pretty much been decided by the government that by allowing gays to have civil unions, which is basically just marriage under another name, will detract from the sanctity of marriage. So yeah, all you gays can take your un-natural and disgusting love elsewhere.
Still being a ***** huh Ambyra? What's the matter? Haven't passed those kidney stones yet you overweight mess?
Edited, Jun 10th 2006 at 12:18am EST by Mikkle
Quote:
Governor: I believe that I might have come up with a compromise to this whole problem that will make everyone happy! People in the gay community want the same rights as married couples, but dissenters don't want the word "marriage" corrupted. So how about we let gay people get married, but call it something else? [everyone listens quietly] You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but instead of refering to you as "maarriied," you can be... butt buddies. [long silence] Instead of being "man and wife," you'll be... butt buddies. You won't be "betrothed," you'll be... butt buuuddies. Get it? Instead of a "bride and groom," you'd be... butt buddies.
One of the all time greatest Simpson's quote:
[McBain]: You look like a homosexual.
[Audience]: Booooooo!
[McBain /points at the Audience]: Maybe all you are a bunch of homosexuals."
Quote:
the sanctity
...which has absolutely nothing to do with ceremony, recognition, or status...
/sarcasm off
Way to miss the point.
Quote:
Or I was trying to start an intellectual discussion on a topic that has bearing on current political events.
That, in a nutshell, is the official Republican talking points spin for wasting time and money on the gay murriage amendment. <Muerte--I still like the way it rolls off at the end off the tip of the tongue> Every poster can +1 vote for itself (Q.E.D.), before putting the lotion in the basket.
Edited, Jun 10th 2006 at 12:27am EST by MonxDoT
Quote:
butt buddies
whoa, dude, that was almost as funny as the time Andrew Dice Clay taped back together the picture of the Pope Sinead O'Connor tore up the week before
/spam "Provoke" <Asylum>
<you cannot currently use that ability>
.
.
.
.
Edited, Jun 10th 2006 at 12:31am EST by MonxDoT
Quote:
murriage amendment. <Muerte--I still like the way it rolls off at the end off the tip of the tongue
they couldn't call it murriage cause thats how we in the south pronoucn marriage.
Mikkle wrote:
Still being a ***** huh Ambyra? What's the matter? Haven't passed those kidney stones yet you overweight mess?
Edited, Jun 10th 2006 at 12:18am EST by Mikkle
...and apparently, I'm also more original than Mikkle, who desperately needs new material.
Quote:
...and apparently, I'm also more original than Mikkle, who desperately needs new material.
Tru dat.
P.S. Will you marry me?
Jesus Fu[/Aliceblue]cking Christ. Hasn't this been beaten to a bloody pulp yet?
Look, the easy solution is this: Quit talking about "marriage." Leave that concept for the churches. The issue at hand is same-sex couples getting the legal benefits they feel they deserve. Ya know, things like shared guardianship, tax breaks, insurance coverage, etc.
Leave it up to the churches whether or not they'll allow a ceremony. Who gives a fu[Antiquewhite]ck? Forcing friends and family to sit through a boring *** ceremony, and crappy *** reception does not signify marriage. That piece of paper the two of you signed at the courthouse (or wherever, depending) is the only thing that proves you're married. That or filing a joint tax return.
I knew a couple who had been living together for a while who had no plans for marriage decided one year to file joint returns in order to get some more money back. However, that plan backfired when they had to get an actual divorce to file separate. Come to think of it, wouldn't lack of a marriage liscense been proof enough?
Look, the easy solution is this: Quit talking about "marriage." Leave that concept for the churches. The issue at hand is same-sex couples getting the legal benefits they feel they deserve. Ya know, things like shared guardianship, tax breaks, insurance coverage, etc.
Leave it up to the churches whether or not they'll allow a ceremony. Who gives a fu[Antiquewhite]ck? Forcing friends and family to sit through a boring *** ceremony, and crappy *** reception does not signify marriage. That piece of paper the two of you signed at the courthouse (or wherever, depending) is the only thing that proves you're married. That or filing a joint tax return.
I knew a couple who had been living together for a while who had no plans for marriage decided one year to file joint returns in order to get some more money back. However, that plan backfired when they had to get an actual divorce to file separate. Come to think of it, wouldn't lack of a marriage liscense been proof enough?
Quote:
Jesus ******* Christ. Hasn't this been beaten to a bloody pulp yet?
Look, the easy solution is this: Quit talking about "marriage." Leave that concept for the churches. The issue at hand is same-sex couples getting the legal benefits they feel they deserve. Ya know, things like shared guardianship, tax breaks, insurance coverage, etc.
Leave it up to the churches whether or not they'll allow a ceremony. Who gives a ****? Forcing friends and family to sit through a boring *** ceremony, and crappy *** reception does not signify marriage. That piece of paper the two of you signed at the courthouse (or wherever, depending) is the only thing that proves you're married. That or filing a joint tax return.
I knew a couple who had been living together for a while who had no plans for marriage decided one year to file joint returns in order to get some more money back. However, that plan backfired when they had to get an actual divorce to file separate. Come to think of it, wouldn't lack of a marriage liscense been proof enough?
Look, the easy solution is this: Quit talking about "marriage." Leave that concept for the churches. The issue at hand is same-sex couples getting the legal benefits they feel they deserve. Ya know, things like shared guardianship, tax breaks, insurance coverage, etc.
Leave it up to the churches whether or not they'll allow a ceremony. Who gives a ****? Forcing friends and family to sit through a boring *** ceremony, and crappy *** reception does not signify marriage. That piece of paper the two of you signed at the courthouse (or wherever, depending) is the only thing that proves you're married. That or filing a joint tax return.
I knew a couple who had been living together for a while who had no plans for marriage decided one year to file joint returns in order to get some more money back. However, that plan backfired when they had to get an actual divorce to file separate. Come to think of it, wouldn't lack of a marriage liscense been proof enough?
I find your lack of FAITH as FACT, disturbing.
Someone who obviously isn't important enough to remember wrote:
I find your lack of FAITH as FACT, disturbing.
My faith, lack thereof, or in whatever I believe has nothing to do with this. Gay marriage has nothing to do with faith or the church. Marriage is NOT the ceremony. Fu[Crimson][/Crimson]ck the ceremony. All the issues here are legal issues. Unfortunately, the best way to blur any topic of debate is to throw in the religion monkey wrench.
PsychoJester, that's pretty much exactly what my OP suggests.
Quote:
Unfortunately, the best way to blur any topic of debate is to throw in the religion monkey wrench.
And we should take that conclusion on the basis of faith?
allenjj wrote:
PsychoJester, that's pretty much exactly what my OP suggests.
You gotta problem with me agreeing with you then?
Huh? Do ya?
'Cuz we can take this outside.
Recent Visitors: 320
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (320)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Solving the gay marriage issue
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC