How can people argue against ghey marriage? (1175 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 1.05 on 42 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Berty (View user info) at 2005-06-29 11:42:58 EDT
I don't see how any one could disagree. What are you going to say?
Homosexual marriage goes against everything marriage stands for, most notably the children as it's well documented that only a man and a woman can have offspring. They managed it with a single sheep one time but what does that mean? Two men and a sheep or goat to create a child? I cannot imagine a more degenerate spectacle. Certainly not the kind of environment to bring up a kid (ha ha).
It is a well known fact that men and women are like magnets. They attract one another, but what happens when you force two identical magentic poles together? Weird shit, that's what! Electric storms, northern lights, trains moving with no material means of support, the list goes on. What kind of child would be raised from such an environment (assuming we aloud the two man + goat/sheep thing)? A freak that's what, and not a good freak that can shoot lasers out of it's eye's with an adamantium skeleton and a degree in biochemical engineering. No, a bad freak with cancer and no sense of hearing.
This is the begining of the end for our once great nation. This erosion of the most basic foundations of our society, the family, will lead to the downfall of us all. Schools will be confusing places. Little Johnny will be lusting after Jenny from 11b, rendered impotent by his fear of rejection and social ostrasization, weighed down by his lack of experience and self worth. There he will be sat, head in his hands, filled with the self-doubt and uncertainty that the laydeees find so unappealing, when suddenly up walks Peter from 12a who walks up and takes Johnny's hand! He will sit with Johnny and tell him not to be so sad, that he really is beautiful and even if Jenny can't see that, it doesn't mean that he's not full of wonderfull potential, that he can love and truly feel love and that that is sometimes more important than anything else in the world. Next thing you know Johnny, innocent of the knowledge that whilst women find vulnaribility repulsive, men feel an overpowering urge to protect and heal, will be inviting Peter round his house. They'll talk about feelings and lonliness, they'll talk about not knowing what to say to girls and before you know it BAM! You walk in on little Johnny sucking Peter off as Peter run's his fingers through the once-so-pure blonde hair of your youngest son.
Not only then will your son be a pussy, he'll be a fag as well. I think you can all see how such a thing can bring a country to it's knees.
User Reviews
Submitted by Dane1901 (user info) at 2006-03-03 09:50:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Loki, here's the incest comment:
What if someone wanted to marry their brother/sister/grandmother, for whatever reason, let's say health insurance privileges? Every argument people use to support gay marriage, ie consent, equal protection, mind your own business etc, is applicable to this scenario as well. Are you for incestuous marriage, or is that too extreme? Somehow people are revolted by incest, but can't understand how others are revolted by homosexuality. No one complains about the lack of rights for people who practice incest.
How do you advocate one and not the other? Don't say anything about children with genetic abnormalities, because the issue of marriage is irrespective of children (another problem with most arguments against gay marriage). I want to hear a logical response why one group should be allowed to wed and the other not.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2006-03-03 09:30:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
crescendo of singing, Tornado's streaming blue, red and white smoke ark through sky, Lord Paddy Ashdown lifts decapitated head of the hated Turk in the air, small children wave small flags, Prince Harry in Hitler costume and arseless leather chaps, animatronic corpse of John Lennon walks again, Terry Gilliam carried on the shoulders of Ghurkas, Fish and Chips all round and a pint of finest Indian Pale Ale.
-----------------------------
That was a brilliant paragraph. Still, just read the Turtle soup post and it's great. I should have a column in a newspaper.
I need to post more, I'm awesome.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-03-03 09:20:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
It's your national anthem one. It made me laugh.
This one is more like Starscream. Sure it's canny enough - and it transforms into a jet with kick ass powers etc - but it doesn't quite have leadership quality - even though it aspires to it.
I'm gonna start rating posts based on Transformers.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2006-03-03 09:14:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The 'True story about Rape' post? That was shit.
I just read 'Tonight I dine on turtle soup' again and it is, with no joke of a lie, a masterpiece.
Not as funny as this though. This is my Magnum Opus. My Optimus Prime. The Pulminary artery suppling life giving blood to my throbbing creativity*.
(*-or possibly ego. It's getting difficult to tell.)
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-03-03 09:05:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2006-03-03 08:20:18 (#)
Ranking: 2
once you open the door for changing the definition of marriage, through equal protection this opens the door to polygamy, marriage to animals, you name it. The arguement would simply be: "well you changed the definition of marriage for THEM, why not us?!" and that arguement would work.
-----------
I don't see the problem. If somebody wants to marry their toaster I say let them, it's a free world and it's not like it's going to hurt anybody.
Seriously though (and moddesty asside), this is the funniest post I have ever done. Probably my peak actually.
---
Wrong
http://www.ubersite.com/m/82920
or possibly that one where you shagged that lass
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2006-03-03 08:20:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
once you open the door for changing the definition of marriage, through equal protection this opens the door to polygamy, marriage to animals, you name it. The arguement would simply be: "well you changed the definition of marriage for THEM, why not us?!" and that arguement would work.
-----------
I don't see the problem. If somebody wants to marry their toaster I say let them, it's a free world and it's not like it's going to hurt anybody.
Seriously though (and moddesty asside), this is the funniest post I have ever done. Probably my peak actually.
Submitted by Lisa (user info) at 2006-03-03 08:04:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2005-06-29 11:56:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
well one arguement would be this:
once you open the door for changing the definition of marriage, through equal protection this opens the door to polygamy, marriage to animals, you name it. The arguement would simply be: "well you changed the definition of marriage for THEM, why not us?!" and that arguement would work.
No offense, but WHAT?? Only the most extreme, backwards conservative would attempt to argue that gay marriage could open the doors to the social acceptance of bestiality. The people who argue that probably still own slaves, for god's sake. We're talking about two HUMAN BEINGS. Same sex or not, it's a far cry from animal husbandry, and I think even the majority of homophobic, God-fearing Christians would agree. But that's just me. I've never heard that argument before. Then again, I'm not surrounded by hillbilly Indianian crackpots.
Submitted by Stagger_Lee (user info) at 2006-03-03 07:27:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by miss_tila (user info) at 2005-08-09 15:25:37 (#)
Ranking: -2
This is void of any logic. I don't think a counrty or it's moral focus can be destroyed by ass fucking. If so, they should have sent me to Iraq.
--------------------------------------------
Jesus toad fucking Christ, are you aware of the definition of satire? Or are you just a filthy alter?
Submitted by coley (user info) at 2006-01-16 04:45:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
OMGWTFLOLIknow!!1! check this out
http://www.ubersite.com/m/50791
Submitted by ozzy (user info) at 2005-11-11 09:19:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
OH NOES!! Gays getting married will mean teh ghey AIDS will be rampant!!
Somebody get me a full body condom, quick!
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-10-27 08:07:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This is hilarious. Perhaps the funniest thing ever. More people should read this so that the world becomes a happier, more mirthful, place.
Submitted by Fabit (user info) at 2005-09-22 04:45:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Very cool. Cery funny.
Submitted by Confuzitron (user info) at 2005-08-15 12:16:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-08-10 09:54:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by miss_tila (user info) at 2005-08-09 15:25:37 (#)
Ranking: -2
This is void of any logic. I don't think a counrty or it's moral focus can be destroyed by ass fucking. If so, they should have sent me to Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's fucking satire! you utter fuckwit! AAHHHH! You people are so blind, I cannot believe this it's a fucking outrage. your all crap. CRAP! FUCK! AHHHHH!
AAAAHHHHHHH!
*pounds head against wall*
Submitted by miss_tila (user info) at 2005-08-09 15:25:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
This is void of any logic. I don't think a counrty or it's moral focus can be destroyed by ass fucking. If so, they should have sent me to Iraq.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-08-09 06:44:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
ubmitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-06-30 07:41:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2005-06-29 15:57:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't care what Southerners do, but I don't think we ought to change the definition of "equal" to make one particular group happy.
Let's face it, if we hadn't made the niggers equal, none of this discrimination shit would have started....
-----------------------------------
Submitted by TheEvilleprechaun (user info) at 2005-06-29 16:04:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
what the fuck? why not if it DOES make them happy? there simply is no compelling reason why there is some inherent value in the defition of marriage as it stands today, so why not alter it if it does make someone happy, and it doesnt hurt the rest of us?
------------------------------
To a lot of people there is inherent value in the definition of marriage. Plus I don't believe society and laws (in the US at least) should be changing the definitions of basic institutions just to make groups happy. I don't give a fuck if people are gay, I don't give a fuck if they want parades, I really don't give a fuck what they do as long as they are not trying to suck the pants off me. But it bothers me when a group tells me to change my legal definition of marriage. That goes beyond equal rights.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
OUR legal definition of marriage.
The gheys are citizens too.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-06-30 07:41:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2005-06-29 15:57:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't care what Southerners do, but I don't think we ought to change the definition of "equal" to make one particular group happy.
Let's face it, if we hadn't made the niggers equal, none of this discrimination shit would have started....
-----------------------------------
Submitted by TheEvilleprechaun (user info) at 2005-06-29 16:04:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
what the fuck? why not if it DOES make them happy? there simply is no compelling reason why there is some inherent value in the defition of marriage as it stands today, so why not alter it if it does make someone happy, and it doesnt hurt the rest of us?
------------------------------
To a lot of people there is inherent value in the definition of marriage. Plus I don't believe society and laws (in the US at least) should be changing the definitions of basic institutions just to make groups happy. I don't give a fuck if people are gay, I don't give a fuck if they want parades, I really don't give a fuck what they do as long as they are not trying to suck the pants off me. But it bothers me when a group tells me to change my legal definition of marriage. That goes beyond equal rights.
Submitted by sparkle_pink (user info) at 2005-06-30 05:24:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
My Dad is extreme against ghey marriage, because he believes that people get married for the sole purpose of having children (he or my family are not Catholic or religious sorts). His other arguments are that people got married back in the day because you know, you had to, otherwise it was viewed as a horrible and atrocious event to live with a honey lover while not being married.
He was all 'I JUST DON'T WANT TO KNOW THEY CAN KEEP IT TO THEMSELVES AND THEY CAN LIVE TOGETHER BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO LET EVERYONE KNOW THAT THEY ARE GAY'
There are many faults with his arguments, yes, and I really do disagree with him. Just thought I'd point out what some people think. Although I'm sure you'll get plenty of people letting you know how people can argue against ghey marriage.
Submitted by Soley_Trinity (user info) at 2005-06-30 05:02:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm definatly going to do this sort of thing again.
============
So you should - Funny!
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-06-30 04:49:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm proper confused, this post was a little light hearted fun. There is no debate about ghey marriage. If adults want to spelunk the chocolate caves with total legal cover, then no-one can really say 'nein!' can they? They aren't doing any harm.
Anyway, I thought this was bloody hilarious, I'm definatly going to do this sort of thing again.
Submitted by TheEvilleprechaun (user info) at 2005-06-29 16:04:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i cant tell if this its a joke or not. if so, funny. if not, go to hell.
in any case, here's some bullshit:
"I don't give a rats ass about the relationship between consenting adults, but I don't think we should change the definition of Marriage to make a particular group happy."
what the fuck? why not if it DOES make them happy? there simply is no compelling reason why there is some inherent value in the defition of marriage as it stands today, so why not alter it if it does make someone happy, and it doesnt hurt the rest of us?
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2005-06-29 15:57:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-06-29 15:15:50 (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't give a rats ass about the relationship between consenting adults, but I don't think we should change the definition of Marriage to make a particular group happy.
------------------
I don't care what Southerners do, but I don't think we ought to change the definition of "equal" to make one particular group happy.
Let's face it, if we hadn't made the niggers equal, none of this discrimination shit would have started....
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2005-06-29 15:39:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm probably the wrong person to ask, seeing as how I'm strongly against marriage of any kind.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-06-29 15:15:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-06-29 14:09:41 (#)
Ranking: 2
The problem with polygamy is, by and large, not that it is between consenting adults. The problem is that girls as young as 12 are forced into marriage - neither consenting nor adult. If there is a polygamous relationship between persons who are both adults and consenting then it is none of my business.
see how easy it is not to stick your nose into other people's business?
----------------------------------------
I don't give a rats ass about the relationship between consenting adults, but I don't think we should change the definition of Marriage to make a particular group happy.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-06-29 14:09:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The problem with polygamy is, by and large, not that it is between consenting adults. The problem is that girls as young as 12 are forced into marriage - neither consenting nor adult. If there is a polygamous relationship between persons who are both adults and consenting then it is none of my business.
see how easy it is not to stick your nose into other people's business?
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2005-06-29 12:37:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2005-06-29 11:56:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
well one arguement would be this:
once you open the door for changing the definition of marriage, through equal protection this opens the door to polygamy, marriage to animals, you name it. The arguement would simply be: "well you changed the definition of marriage for THEM, why not us?!" and that arguement would work.
______________
Noe. Noe ite woulden't. Ite's ae stupide arguement, thate woulde onley woerk oen stupide peopele.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-06-29 12:32:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I get it, but I think you made it a little too funny for people to really get your point. But I tried to pull this off once too, with mixed results. The only consolation I got was that the people who didn't get it REALLY didn't get it, and made asses out of themselves.
I'm not going to linkwhore, but if you search for "I'm Against Gay Marriage" you should find it.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2005-06-29 12:28:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
ghey
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-06-29 12:27:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-06-29 12:23:38 (#)
Ranking: 2
14 minutes
I think that is the record for someone mentioning bestiality and polygamy on a post about ghey marriage. Usually it takes under 5 minutes.
extra bonus points if the word "incest" had been in there
Just no getting around the "consenting adult" issue is there.
-----------------------------------------
Polygamy is between consenting adults, should that be legal?
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-06-29 12:23:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
14 minutes
I think that is the record for someone mentioning bestiality and polygamy on a post about ghey marriage. Usually it takes under 5 minutes.
extra bonus points if the word "incest" had been in there
Just no getting around the "consenting adult" issue is there.
Maybe if the goat is of legal age?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-06-29 12:21:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I got your humor on this one.
I laughed but I do disagree. I don't think refusing to change the definition of marrige is discrimination, and I don't think we should change the definition of it for one small group.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-06-29 12:05:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This is the most tragicly misunderstood post I have yet written. I'm going to go buy some wine, some death sticks and some acid then go watch the lightening.
Submitted by BillsSBChamps (user info) at 2005-06-29 12:01:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I used to be as homophobic as they come then I realized it doesn't matter.
Let the fags do as they please unless they want to fuck in public, I'm totally against that.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-06-29 12:00:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2005-06-29 11:56:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
well one arguement would be this:
once you open the door for changing the definition of marriage, through equal protection this opens the door to polygamy, marriage to animals, you name it. The arguement would simply be: "well you changed the definition of marriage for THEM, why not us?!" and that arguement would work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*cries*
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-06-29 11:59:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by fluff (user info) at 2005-06-29 11:57:43 (#)
Ranking: 0
You mean irony? Because if that is the case I was being an idiot for not having realized it...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More satire than irony, but yes I was taking the piss.
Submitted by Dead_0hi0_Sky (user info) at 2005-06-29 11:59:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
i just beat Neo Contra on ps2. the final boss was this ninja-polar bear with a robotic set of arms.
i know that has nothing to do with this ghey post.
Submitted by fluff (user info) at 2005-06-29 11:57:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You mean irony? Because if that is the case I was being an idiot for not having realized it...
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2005-06-29 11:56:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
well one arguement would be this:
once you open the door for changing the definition of marriage, through equal protection this opens the door to polygamy, marriage to animals, you name it. The arguement would simply be: "well you changed the definition of marriage for THEM, why not us?!" and that arguement would work.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-06-29 11:51:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2005-06-29 11:49:45 (#)
Ranking: 2
Dude... What in the sweet jesus-buggering hell was that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A little satire to end the day on.
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2005-06-29 11:50:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
If two people love each other I think thats all that matters.
Simple as that. I'm not ghey but I think love is love in any shape or form.
Unless its with goats... then thats not so cool...
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2005-06-29 11:49:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Dude... What in the sweet jesus-buggering hell was that?
Submitted by fluff (user info) at 2005-06-29 11:49:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
What the hell?