NationStates Jolt Archive

(Inspired by http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/616jszlg.asp)

My problem with gay marriage is.. once you start, where do you draw the line? Look at the Netherlands.

FIRST, Dutch gay marriage advocates said that marriage would be limited to any two human beings (gay or not) who ask for it. Then, when priests began marrying harems, sweat not, they soothed: marriage will be limited to any group of people who ask for it. Then, when priests began marrying groups who were harems, but not people, not to worry, they told us: only groups of people whose desire to marry animals is "rational" will have their marriages facilitated. Then, when priests began marrying fruits and vegetables, such as tomatoes, bananas, and asparagi (that's the plural of asparagus), it's all under control, they crooned: marriage licenses will be limited to groups who would have asked for it if they were human beings or animals which had the appearance of some form of intelligence.

And now they want to marry body parts.

In the Netherlands, Groningen Church has decided its priests will marry kitchen appliances and sometimes plates of food, if priests believe their love is true or if they have a good enough reason. But what does that mean? In many cases, as occurs now with chimpanzees and ocassionally otters, it will become an excuse to gain more government benefits, as gay and\or non-human marriages may technically recieve tax kickbacks, even though they recieve no tax, whatsoever. As for those deemed "unmarriagable"--this term is merely a euphemism for people who think like Ann Coulter or look like Ayn Rand.

For anyone paying attention to the continuing collapse of marriage in the Netherlands, this isn't at all shocking. Dutch priests have been surreptitiously engaging in marriage of animals for years, although it technically is illegal, since animals can't consent to be married. Indeed, a disturbing 1997 study published in the Scottish medical journal, the Battleaxe, revealed how deeply bestial marriage has already <insert fancy word here> into Dutch neo whoopdeela bee da ba doo bah: According to the report, priests were marrying approximately 8 percent of all animals born each year in the Netherlands. That amounts to approximately 80-90 per year. Of these, one-third would have divorced in more than a month. At least 10-15 of these marriages involved deer who did not require liberal, environmentalist hippies in order to stay alive. The study found that a shocking 45 percent of priests and 31 percent of actors named Mel Gibson who responded to questionnaires had married animals.

Marriage is a thing of consent.

Animals can't consent to being married.

Nor can vegetables.

Case closed. Next?

simple solution: bann marriage

FIRST, Dutch gay marriage advocates said that marriage would be limited to any two human beings (gay or not) who ask for it. Then, when priests began marrying harems, sweat not, they soothed: marriage will be limited to any group of people who ask for it. Then, when priests began marrying groups who were harems, but not people, not to worry, they told us: only groups of people whose desire to marry animals is "rational" will have their marriages facilitated. Then, when priests began marrying fruits and vegetables, such as tomatoes, bananas, and asparagi (that's the plural of asparagus), it's all under control, they crooned: marriage licenses will be limited to groups who would have asked for it if they were human beings or animals which had the appearance of some form of intelligence.

And now they want to marry body parts.

In the Netherlands, Groningen Church has decided its priests will marry kitchen appliances and sometimes plates of food, if priests believe their love is true or if they have a good enough reason. But what does that mean? In many cases, as occurs now with chimpanzees and ocassionally otters, it will become an excuse to gain more government benefits, as gay and\or non-human marriages may technically recieve tax kickbacks, even though they recieve no tax, whatsoever. As for those deemed "unmarriagable"--this term is merely a euphemism for people who think like Ann Coulter or look like Ayn Rand.

For anyone paying attention to the continuing collapse of marriage in the Netherlands, this isn't at all shocking. Dutch priests have been surreptitiously engaging in marriage of animals for years, although it technically is illegal, since animals can't consent to be married. Indeed, a disturbing 1997 study published in the Scottish medical journal, the Battleaxe, revealed how deeply bestial marriage has already <insert fancy word here> into Dutch neo whoopdeela bee da ba doo bah: According to the report, priests were marrying approximately 8 percent of all animals born each year in the Netherlands. That amounts to approximately 80-90 per year. Of these, one-third would have divorced in more than a month. At least 10-15 of these marriages involved deer who did not require liberal, environmentalist hippies in order to stay alive. The study found that a shocking 45 percent of priests and 31 percent of actors named Mel Gibson who responded to questionnaires had married animals.

Haha, nice one! :p :D

snip

That just had me http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/grinser/grinning-smiley-009.gifwith laughter :D

So, I'm actually able to marry everything I'd like to marry around here?

Cool, I'm going to marry this game :fluffle: :D

ROFL!!!

Had me going there!

if you want to use the argument that marriage between homosexual couples is un-natural, then i will go further and say that marriage is un-natural full stop. i mean, at the core, we are just pretty much animals with instincts, one of them to have sex. while it might be argued that it is sex in order to reproduce, i say not necessaraly. it is also for pleasure, another instinct. the institution of marriage limits us to one partner, and we have seen many cases of infidelity. which brings up another point: the divorce rate. marriage in this day and age is pretty much treated as a joke. how many couples do u see marry and end in divorce? that being said, homosexual couples tend to last a hell of a lot longer hetrosexual couples

this was my reply in the UN forum on the trying to repeal the "gay rights" resolution. i will admit, one day i will marry my gf, and be faithful to her, because that is the way i am. (i am male, btw). but yeah, what is the point of marriage, when so many people these days dont take it seriously?

*patiently waits for this being broadcasted on Fox news*

My problem with straight marriage - once you allow that, where do you draw the line :D

Sidenote: The link leads to an article about the Dutch euthanizing children, not Gay Marriage...

LOL
For a second I thought "where in the hell did this lunatic come up with this info?"

Sidenote: The link leads to an article about the Dutch euthanizing children, not Gay Marriage...

Yes. It's based on a FoxNews column, and very, very comparable to the article in the first post as far as painting a realistic picture is concerned ;)

LOL
For a second I thought "where in the hell did this lunatic come up with this info?"
Yeah, I fell for it for a bit, but luckily didn't press reply! :p

about half way down (i usually read the post, then open up the article) i whipped out the popcorn, waiting for some massive argument. what a waste of popcorn.

it was, however, a wonderful laugh.

Yes. It's based on a FoxNews column, and very, very comparable to the article in the first post as far as painting a realistic picture is concerned ;)
Based on a FoxNews Column? As in, it isn't parody that would do BBSpot and the Onion proud?

Help! We're being criminalized!

Morals morals morals. How about you listen to what YOU want, instead of being told!

Based on a FoxNews Column? As in, it isn't parody that would do BBSpot and the Onion proud?

The post made here definately is, yes. But the FoxNews column on which the article he linked to was based, was presented and broadcasted as a serious report. This actually made Dutch news; and people were uncertain if they should shake their heads about the sad state of this piece of US journalism or fear it.

The post made here definately is, yes. But the FoxNews column on which the article he linked to was based, was presented and broadcasted as a serious report. This actually made Dutch news; and people were uncertain if they should shake their heads about the sad state of this piece of US journalism or fear it.
I was gonna call Fox News,
But then I got high.
I was gonna call and testify,
But then I got high.
Now Americans think Dutch people eat babies and I know why.
(Ja! Ja!)
Because I got high.
Because I got high.
Because I got high.

It's funny, but if that is supposed to be a serious argument against gay marriage, then it's the worst strawman I've seen this week. :p

...The study found that a shocking 45 percent of priests and 31 percent of actors named Mel Gibson who responded to questionnaires had married animals.

This was my favorite part. I wonder what parts of Mel Gibson married animals? :D

This was my favorite part. I wonder what parts of Mel Gibson married animals? :D
Do you really want to know? :p

This was my favorite part. I wonder what parts of Mel Gibson married animals? :D

little known fact, he is actually 31% morman, so one could assume that part married animals.

he is also alittle jewish, but its a very small minority.

he is also alittle jewish, but its a very small minority.

Especially since it's circumcized.

ba-ZING.

little known fact, he is actually 31% morman, so one could assume that part married animals.
As opposed to being 31% Morwoman, like Leonardo DiCaprio or the band, Hanson.

Especially since it's circumcized.

ba-ZING.

haaahahahah

As opposed to being 31% Morwoman, like Leonardo DiCaprio or the band, Hanson.

ah, what a typo. i think i'll leave it.

By the way, I don't see a wig or lipstick on either one of these emoticons.
:fluffle:

I AM OFFENDED.

By the way, I don't see a wig or lipstick on either one of these emoticons.
:fluffle:

I AM OFFENDED.

it's already been decided that they are both male, but the left one is.. like... bicurious or something.

it's already been decided that they are both male, but the left one is.. like... bicurious or something.
TO PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF EMOTICONS, THIS MUST BE CONSTITUTIONALLY BANNED.

LEST SOCIETY CRUMBLE.

TO PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF EMOTICONS, THIS MUST BE CONSTITUTIONALLY BANNED.

LEST SOCIETY CRUMBLE.

fine, fine.. the left one is a chick... dressed as a guy.

fine, fine.. the left one is a chick... dressed as a guy.
No, but that is not enough. We must prevent any future occurrences of this.

There must be a constitutional amendment to ban these "homoticons."

wow, an entire thread founded upon the slippery slope falacy. that's an impressive degree of WRONG to concentrate all in one place.

No, but that is not enough. We must prevent any future occurrences of this.

There must be a constitutional amendment to ban these "homoticons."

hahahaha... i want to come up with some amusing response to this, but i got nothing.

i just cant top the word "homoticons"

:fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:
Were here, were queer! Where here, were queer!

Fixed

Fix the link!

And bottle, its a joke... A sendup...

Fix the link!

i think its supposed to be like that... i like it.

Fix the link!

And bottle, its a joke... A sendup...
i know. sorry if my tone wasn't clear...i was impressed. i'm a little wuggy this morning.

oh, and "homoticons" is genius, by the way :).

i know. sorry if my tone wasn't clear...i was impressed. i'm a little wuggy this morning.

oh, and "homoticons" is genius, by the way :).
:p How ironic that I missed your joke!

I was thinking that there would be a major argument. I was thinking there would be flames, screams, and slappings.

Instead I found one of the best parodies I've encountered in a long time. Nice.

Oh, andThere must be a constitutional amendment to ban these "homoticons."
That is so gold.

Hello, i am dutch, and i think you guess are brainwashed by the media.

A gay or hetero marriage is normal here, but nobody is married with animals or vegeatables or stuff :P

Its a parody, thank god, so you can relax.

What, no part about it catching on in Belgium? Because like, we already have gay marriage and shit ...

Hello, i am dutch, and i think you guess are brainwashed by the media.

A gay or hetero marriage is normal here, but nobody is married with animals or vegeatables or stuff :P
noobz :rolleyes:

Hello, i am dutch, and i think you guess are brainwashed by the media.

A gay or hetero marriage is normal here, but nobody is married with animals or vegeatables or stuff :P
Most Dutch people are fruits and vegetables, and you do get married, correct?

Most Dutch people are fruits and vegetables, and you do get married, correct?

Yes. But not in church ;)

Don't know, I'm dutch and this seems like pure American/foreigner shit. You people think we kill all of our childeren, marry all the dutch men with other men and same for females. Let's say it like this: I'm Dutch, proud (sometimes) to be dutch, Gay marriage won't lead to priests marying plates and knifes (dude, ever saw a knife who said:"Hey, I think this plate is some h*rny thing, I'll marry it!". Actually I never saw a plate speak) and its ridicoulus that we'd...ARGH!!! I'm getting so f*cking pissed of us being compared to the f*cking Nazi's! Hey, you Americans do a good job killing both adults and childeren too!

Don't know, I'm dutch and this seems like pure American/foreigner shit.

Relax. This one is a joke.

Don't know, I'm dutch and this seems like pure American/foreigner shit. You people think we kill all of our childeren, marry all the dutch men with other men and same for females. Let's say it like this: I'm Dutch, proud (sometimes) to be dutch
Dude, lighten up, it was just a joke. Not even Americans are that stupid. :p

And... proud to be Dutch? Isn't that something true Dutch patriots are not supposed to be? Indeed our fair nation is founded on the complete an utter disgust for the government and everything it represents (and we all know that, in a Democracy, the government = the people = the whole country). To be proud to be Dutch is to betray our historical heritage!

(Inspired by http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/616jszlg.asp)

My problem with gay marriage is.. once you start, where do you draw the line? Look at the Netherlands.

FIRST, Dutch gay marriage advocates said that marriage would be limited to any two human beings (gay or not) who ask for it. Then, when priests began marrying harems, sweat not, they soothed: marriage will be limited to any group of people who ask for it. Then, when priests began marrying groups who were harems, but not people, not to worry, they told us: only groups of people whose desire to marry animals is "rational" will have their marriages facilitated. Then, when priests began marrying fruits and vegetables, such as tomatoes, bananas, and asparagi (that's the plural of asparagus), it's all under control, they crooned: marriage licenses will be limited to groups who would have asked for it if they were human beings or animals which had the appearance of some form of intelligence.

And now they want to marry body parts.

In the Netherlands, Groningen Church has decided its priests will marry kitchen appliances and sometimes plates of food, if priests believe their love is true or if they have a good enough reason. But what does that mean? In many cases, as occurs now with chimpanzees and ocassionally otters, it will become an excuse to gain more government benefits, as gay and\or non-human marriages may technically recieve tax kickbacks, even though they recieve no tax, whatsoever. As for those deemed "unmarriagable"--this term is merely a euphemism for people who think like Ann Coulter or look like Ayn Rand.

For anyone paying attention to the continuing collapse of marriage in the Netherlands, this isn't at all shocking. Dutch priests have been surreptitiously engaging in marriage of animals for years, although it technically is illegal, since animals can't consent to be married. Indeed, a disturbing 1997 study published in the Scottish medical journal, the Battleaxe, revealed how deeply bestial marriage has already <insert fancy word here> into Dutch neo whoopdeela bee da ba doo bah: According to the report, priests were marrying approximately 8 percent of all animals born each year in the Netherlands. That amounts to approximately 80-90 per year. Of these, one-third would have divorced in more than a month. At least 10-15 of these marriages involved deer who did not require liberal, environmentalist hippies in order to stay alive. The study found that a shocking 45 percent of priests and 31 percent of actors named Mel Gibson who responded to questionnaires had married animals.


http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm

(sorry had to point it out even for a joke :) )

Plutophobia, you need a fluffle... :fluffle:

Wow.

and the conclusion of this thread is ... most people only read the first and the last post of a thread before replying

*calls himself a plate, and asks the spoon for her kind hand in marriage... but that dastardly fork ran away with the spoon*

Curses! Foiled again!!

http://www.3bruces.com/mirror/petfoilhat/foilhat2.jpg

Don't know, I'm dutch and this seems like pure American/foreigner shit. You people think we kill all of our childeren, marry all the dutch men with other men and same for females. Let's say it like this: I'm Dutch, proud (sometimes) to be dutch, Gay marriage won't lead to priests marying plates and knifes (dude, ever saw a knife who said:"Hey, I think this plate is some h*rny thing, I'll marry it!". Actually I never saw a plate speak) and its ridicoulus that we'd...ARGH!!! I'm getting so f*cking pissed of us being compared to the f*cking Nazi's! Hey, you Americans do a good job killing both adults and childeren too!
That's not true. No one in America is comparing you to nazis... more like Satanic Socialists (aka "Canadians").

Besides, just be glad we're not confusing you with Germans or the Swiss, like most people in the world do......in America.

Plutophobia, you need a fluffle... :fluffle:
Sure. As long as it's a 'heteronormative' fluffle.

Dude, lighten up, it was just a joke. Not even Americans are that stupid. :p

And... proud to be Dutch? Isn't that something true Dutch patriots are not supposed to be? Indeed our fair nation is founded on the complete an utter disgust for the government and everything it represents (and we all know that, in a Democracy, the government = the people = the whole country). To be proud to be Dutch is to betray our historical heritage!
I also hate the government. Therefore, I am proud to be Dutch too!

lol. homocon


lol vegetables marrying




lol this thread


I first was here, wanted to see usual arguements as i am in want of familiarity right now, and i see a this


So funneeeeeeeeee


though, i've always found carrots cute

Gay people should not be shunned or shunted in the streets. Gay people have rights to be citizens of this world, and have the right not to be ashamed of who they are. But they should not be able to marry each other. Marriages is an institution for 'man and woman,' a sacred right that should not be trivialised. Why not just remain De Facto or something similar? And as for the adoption of children, it is well documented that the family is the key point for the manufacture of personal and social identites in an idividual. Would they just like the chance to raise a gay child? To me, it's like taking a child from a lion couple and giving it to a koala couple. The koala isnt meant to raise the child. You see a child needs influence from a male and female parent prefferably not male and male. Single parent family increases, lack of marriage commitment, disloyalty...all these things in regards to the breakdown of the family is always reflected in wider society. Where do you want to draw the line on this?

Equal societal rights, sure, go for it. Gay people and gay choices are fine with me. But marriage is too far. You cant take something that was for a male and female just because you want it. Same with adoption. Children need the best chances in life. You cant have your cake and eat it too. If you choose to be in a relationship where there is no possibility of the man falling pregnant (yes man), then you must accept the fact that you cannot have a child simple as that.

Gay people should not be shunned or shunted in the streets. Gay people have rights to be citizens of this world, and have the right not to be ashamed of who they are. But they should not be able to marry each other. Marriages is an institution for 'man and woman,' a sacred right that should not be trivialised. Why not just remain De Facto or something similar? And as for the adoption of children, it is well documented that the family is the key point for the manufacture of personal and social identites in an idividual. Would they just like the chance to raise a gay child? To me, it's like taking a child from a lion couple and giving it to a koala couple. The koala isnt meant to raise the child. You see a child needs influence from a male and female parent prefferably not male and male. Single parent family increases, lack of marriage commitment, disloyalty...all these things in regards to the breakdown of the family is always reflected in wider society. Where do you want to draw the line on this?

Equal societal rights, sure, go for it. Gay people and gay choices are fine with me. But marriage is too far. You cant take something that was for a male and female just because you want it. Same with adoption. Children need the best chances in life. You cant have your cake and eat it too. If you choose to be in a relationship where there is no possibility of the man falling pregnant (yes man), then you must accept the fact that you cannot have a child simple as that.
Way to go with strawmans and being all serious.
I am proud to say I married my omnisexual microwave!

you must be very proud. I went to marry my dog, but then I realised he was in love with a certain body part he kept licking. Hmmm if only we could all be so fortunate lol

you must be very proud. I went to marry my dog, but then I realised he was in love with a certain body part he kept licking. Hmmm if only we could all be so fortunate lol
Don't worry another one will come along. There are plenty of fish in the barrel.

yea, i gave up courting carrots, my dog ate them


so i will now marry the homoticon :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

oh, and sexuality is decided in the womb. Now that means that a child raised by gay parents wont turn out to be gay or hetero based on upbringing



and besides. gay and hetero are only different in their sexuality choice. Liuons and Koalas are different in species, genus', one climbs treeas and the other hunts! They are not a good comparison

Gay people should not be shunned or shunted in the streets. Gay people have rights to be citizens of this world, and have the right not to be ashamed of who they are. But they should not be able to marry each other. Marriages is an institution for 'man and woman,' a sacred right that should not be trivialised. Why not just remain De Facto or something similar? And as for the adoption of children, it is well documented that the family is the key point for the manufacture of personal and social identites in an idividual. Would they just like the chance to raise a gay child? To me, it's like taking a child from a lion couple and giving it to a koala couple. The koala isnt meant to raise the child. You see a child needs influence from a male and female parent prefferably not male and male. Single parent family increases, lack of marriage commitment, disloyalty...all these things in regards to the breakdown of the family is always reflected in wider society. Where do you want to draw the line on this?

Equal societal rights, sure, go for it. Gay people and gay choices are fine with me. But marriage is too far. You cant take something that was for a male and female just because you want it. Same with adoption. Children need the best chances in life. You cant have your cake and eat it too. If you choose to be in a relationship where there is no possibility of the man falling pregnant (yes man), then you must accept the fact that you cannot have a child simple as that.
I was about to say that comparing humans to koalas and lions is apples and oranges, but no, I think you're right!

Hold on a sec. I'll BRB. I need to go stone some sorcerers, some people who worked on Saturdays, as well as several people for saying Jehova. *ducks stone* WHO THREW THAT?! COME ON! Get to the back of the line.

But no, really. Homosexual marriage is bizarre, barbaric, and inhuman. Slicing off a baby's foreskin, though, because some guy said a burning bush told him to, well, that's a debate for another day. Shalom! :)

I was about to say that comparing humans to koalas and lions is apples and oranges, but no, I think you're right!

Hold on a sec. I'll BRB. I need to go stone some sorcerers, some people who worked on Saturdays, as well as several people for saying Jehova. *ducks stone* WHO THREW THAT?! COME ON! Get to the back of the line.

But no, really. Homosexual marriage is bizarre, barbaric, and inhuman. Slicing off a baby's foreskin, though, because some guy said a burning bush told him to, well, that's a debate for another day. Shalom! :)
You're hilarious!

Erhm, it's not lions to koalas.... it's hetero lions to homo lions. Nothing as distant as koalas involved.

Sexuality decided in the womb you say? I want some proof so i can show to my friends. they been buggin me, sayin its a choice.

But no, really. Homosexual marriage is bizarre, barbaric, and inhuman. Slicing off a baby's foreskin, though, because some guy said a burning bush told him to, well, that's a debate for another day. Shalom! :)
:rolleyes: Somehow I really doubt that you are unaware of the fact that circumcision has significant medical advantages and is widely performed for entirely non-religious reasons.
Further, Moses did not hear zilch from the burning bush about circumcision. That part came with the rest of the levitical law, which was given on top of Mt Sinai in a massive display of thunderous noise, fire, smoke, and lightning, which, if you look at the record, freaked the entire nation of Israel out to such a degree that they (1) refused to get close to it, ok, so that might have had a little to do with the fact that God said anybody but Moses who set foot on the mountain would die; (2) decided Moses himself must have died when he stayed up there longer than they expected. So it was not exactly Moses saying “Yall has ta take my word at it, ya haer?”

:rolleyes: Somehow I really doubt that you are unaware of the fact that circumcision has significant medical advantages and is widely performed for entirely non-religious reasons.
That's a disproven myth, supported for religious reasons. The decreased risk of infection (after it's healed) is only there if the person has poor hygiene. So, if you're out in the Vietnamese jungle, and completely unable to bathe, then yes, there's a benefit. But for the typical person, no. And there are a great deal of potential risks with getting a circumcision. I'd seen a list, once, and there's literally dozens of things that can go wrong. Cut too much off, don't cut enough off, gets infected, cuts an blood vessel, etc. Scary stuff. I'll see if I can find it again.

Further, Moses did not hear zilch from the burning bush about circumcision. That part came with the rest of the levitical law, which was given on top of Mt Sinai in a massive display of thunderous noise, fire, smoke, and lightning, which, if you look at the record, freaked the entire nation of Israel out to such a degree that they (1) refused to get close to it, ok, so that might have had a little to do with the fact that God said anybody but Moses who set foot on the mountain would die; (2) decided Moses himself must have died when he stayed up there longer than they expected. So it was not exactly Moses saying “Yall has ta take my word at it, ya haer?”
I know that. But I just liked the burning bush analogy, to poke fun at fundamentalists. Secular ethics are more rational than religious ones, because they're based on reason, rather than religious beliefs, which can often be hateful, cruel, and ignorant.

You cant have your cake and eat it too.

I fucking hate this expression ... what's the bloody point in having a cake if you can't even eat it? Let it get stale and hit someone over the head with it?

That's a disproven myth, supported for religious reasons. The decreased risk of infection (after it's healed) is only there if the person has poor hygiene. So, if you're out in the Vietnamese jungle, and completely unable to bathe, then yes, there's a benefit. But for the typical person, no. And there are a great deal of potential risks with getting a circumcision. I'd seen a list, once, and there's literally dozens of things that can go wrong. Cut too much off, don't cut enough off, gets infected, cuts an blood vessel, etc. Scary stuff. I'll see if I can find it again.


I've had my foreskin surgically removed when I was like 7 years old or younger (can't quite remember) because it was growing together. I don't live in Vietnam, or any other jungle. I do however have bad hygiene, because I am freaking lazy. :D

I fucking hate this expression ... what's the bloody point in having a cake if you can't even eat it? Let it get stale and hit someone over the head with it?

If you want to have your cake and eat it too, steal two cakes.

Yes. It's based on a FoxNews column, and very, very comparable to the article in the first post as far as painting a realistic picture is concerned ;)

I know that Fox never had much use for fact checking (except in the hockey sense), but you'd think that they'd learn to check the talking points. Bush signed a Texas law that allows for euthanasia based on a patient not being able to pay.

So that's the Republican stance? Can't euthanize the suffering, the sick, the suicidal, but you can euthanize the poor? How very neo-con. :rolleyes:

I've had my foreskin surgically removed when I was like 7 years old or younger (can't quite remember) because it was growing together. I don't live in Vietnam, or any other jungle. I do however have bad hygiene, because I am freaking lazy. :D

We may be going into the "too much information" realm here, but you don't actually have to remove it to solve that problem. It's skin, skin stretches. Just pull it back once in a while.

:rolleyes: Somehow I really doubt that you are unaware of the fact that circumcision has significant medical advantages and is widely performed for entirely non-religious reasons.
Further, Moses did not hear zilch from the burning bush about circumcision. That part came with the rest of the levitical law, which was given on top of Mt Sinai in a massive display of thunderous noise, fire, smoke, and lightning, which, if you look at the record, freaked the entire nation of Israel out to such a degree that they (1) refused to get close to it, ok, so that might have had a little to do with the fact that God said anybody but Moses who set foot on the mountain would die; (2) decided Moses himself must have died when he stayed up there longer than they expected. So it was not exactly Moses saying “Yall has ta take my word at it, ya haer?”

The so-called non-religous reason for circumcision outside of the Jewish faith in western societies comes from the Victorian belief that it would prevent masturbation. It didn't work.

When authorities try to make up stupid rules for no good reason and then the lousy reasons are proven to be false they'll make up new bullshit reasons.

When marijuana was proven NOT to drive people to incurable criminal insanity with one puff they started saying that it would drive you to crime through addiction. Then that it would drive you to give up on anything important in life, then permanent IQ loss, then cancer, now when all of those have been proven to be bullshit they're right back to "it makes you crazy." They keep changing the reason.

The same with circumcision. First "God said to... Oh, wait, the NT says you don't have to." Then "foreskins make it easier to masturbate, if we cut it off then they'll stop." Then "well it helps prevent infection... he should look like his father... all the kids are doing it... the chance of destroying his penis is actually very small... it looks better that way... I'll have to get a new job if I don't get to senslessly chop of parts of baby penises... dammit! Lost another circumsision to logic and reason."

it's already been decided that they are both male, but the left one is.. like... bicurious or something.

lmao!!!!!!

This thread scares me.

It's gone from Gay Marriage, to FOX, to Dutch "patriotism", to circumsion.

Of course, this thread will go down in history for one reason:


There must be a constitutional amendment to ban these "homoticons."

If this isn't put into the Archives, I am going to do something...evil...to the mods.

[QUOTE=DiggaDigga]yea, i gave up courting carrots, my dog ate them


so i will now marry the homoticon :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

oh, and sexuality is decided in the womb.

wheres your proof?

This thread scares me.

It's gone from Gay Marriage, to FOX, to Dutch "patriotism", to circumsion.

Of course, this thread will go down in history for one reason:



If this isn't put into the Archives, I am going to do something...evil...to the mods.

aye it was funny

You don't know the onion like I do! The onion consents that he wants to marry me because he loves me! How dare you take away the marriage of two consenting lovers from me!

Good topic. :D

Gay people should not be shunned or shunted in the streets. Gay people have rights to be citizens of this world, and have the right not to be ashamed of who they are. But they should not be able to marry each other. Marriages is an institution for 'man and woman,' a sacred right that should not be trivialised. Why not just remain De Facto or something similar? And as for the adoption of children, it is well documented that the family is the key point for the manufacture of personal and social identites in an idividual. Would they just like the chance to raise a gay child? To me, it's like taking a child from a lion couple and giving it to a koala couple. The koala isnt meant to raise the child. You see a child needs influence from a male and female parent prefferably not male and male. Single parent family increases, lack of marriage commitment, disloyalty...all these things in regards to the breakdown of the family is always reflected in wider society. Where do you want to draw the line on this?

Equal societal rights, sure, go for it. Gay people and gay choices are fine with me. But marriage is too far. You cant take something that was for a male and female just because you want it. Same with adoption. Children need the best chances in life. You cant have your cake and eat it too. If you choose to be in a relationship where there is no possibility of the man falling pregnant (yes man), then you must accept the fact that you cannot have a child simple as that.
Palmolive called, they want their soapbox back.

So why is straight marriage any less threatening?

So why is straight marriage any less threatening?
Um, because it has been the societal norm for thousands of years, at a guess...

Um, because it has been the societal norm for thousands of years, at a guess...
Ok, but if we accept that kind of marriage, what is to stop us from accepting others? Yet clearly we haven't gone down that path, and accepting gay marriages won't lead us to marry veggies either.

Um, because it has been the societal norm for thousands of years, at a guess...
and as we know everything that was the social norm was prefectly fine...
like slavery and witch hunts.... you know the good old days

and as we know everything that was the social norm was prefectly fine...
like slavery and witch hunts.... you know the good old days

*gasp*

A witch!

*enslaves Dezard then sits him/her on fire*

Ahhh, the good ole days...

and as we know everything that was the social norm was prefectly fine...
like slavery and witch hunts.... you know the good old days
Old days?

http://www.serenitysjournal.com/images/HPburning.gif
http://www.serenitysjournal.com/images/HPburning.gif

Ok, but if we accept that kind of marriage, what is to stop us from accepting others? Yet clearly we haven't gone down that path, and accepting gay marriages won't lead us to marry veggies either.

Of course not. But after much debate with religious people on here (and certainly all religious people do not fall into this category) I have found that many of them are either two stupid to understand the difference between civil and religious marriage, are too filled with hatred to care, are too self-righteous to understand that their beliefs aren't the only ones, or are too self-important to understand that they aren't the center of the world.

Granted, that's just a personal observation. I also happen to know some very wonderful Christians who aren't like that at all. And I do also happen to know some atheists who fit in that cateory (stupid, self-righteous, etc)--they just aren't the ones I'm usually found debating with on why religious marriage isn't the end-all, be-all of marriage in the US.

Old days?

http://www.serenitysjournal.com/images/HPburning.gif
http://www.serenitysjournal.com/images/HPburning.gif
I was being sarcastic Because i know that those days are not yet over,(though not as prevailent as in the past) neither are they "good" (good old days).
It's what I like to call a sarcastic expression, some thing said not to be taken literally, of course.....

We, the Gay People of the World could care less what you think about gay marriage, we don't want to know why you oppose it or what you think, it is irrelevant. Gay people don't need your consent to be in love, nor to consummate that love through legal unions. It's not special rights, it's EQUAL rights, and we don't care what you think, honestly. I'm not being harsh, I'm being honest.

Don't get me started, there are even more arguements against straight marriage than gay marriage.

PS - God's Chosen Israel. I agree, perhaps we shouldn't allow Jewish children to grow up in Israel so they don't have to face the fear of Palestinian attack, right? "The Best Chance"? Of course not, that's an offensive and ridiculous idea.

Your statement presupposes too many things to hold any water. First of all, by your logic a child is better off with two crackhead heterosexual parents who will socialize the child in many ways and expose him to much negligence and danger than he is with a Gay couple who cannot possibly have a say in what his sexual orientation will be (nor on the whole would choose to if they could) who have good morals, steady jobs and a loving home?

Go give your head a shake.

So much seriousness here... Maybe we need to put some sort of disclaimer on this thread:

"This is a spoof. This is only a spoof. Had this been an actual argument, you would have been advised to seek cover from the inevitable flame war."

:rolleyes: Somehow I really doubt that you are unaware of the fact that circumcision has significant medical advantages and is widely performed for entirely non-religious reasons.
Further, Moses did not hear zilch from the burning bush about circumcision. That part came with the rest of the levitical law, which was given on top of Mt Sinai in a massive display of thunderous noise, fire, smoke, and lightning, which, if you look at the record, freaked the entire nation of Israel out to such a degree that they (1) refused to get close to it, ok, so that might have had a little to do with the fact that God said anybody but Moses who set foot on the mountain would die; (2) decided Moses himself must have died when he stayed up there longer than they expected. So it was not exactly Moses saying “Yall has ta take my word at it, ya haer?”

You're wrong, get a medical textbook from the last ten years. Not only is their no medical advantage, but it dulls the nerves at the head of the penis reducing sexual gratification. It IS barbaric and ridiculous. Furthermore, Levitical law is generally considered to be racist, sexist, homophobic and just plain ridiculous.

Well I'm happy you have those opinions. Now how about I go around and ban YOU from marrying the person you love. How would you feel then? Just because both my partner and I are male doesn't mean our love isn't genuine. We may not be able to make children, but we can still love eachother. For that reason, I say we should allow two consenting (meaning they must be able to have intelligence [humans only]) adults to marry, no matter the gender.

But they should not be able to marry each other. Marriages is an institution for 'man and woman,' a sacred right that should not be trivialised. Why not just remain De Facto or something similar? And as for the adoption of children, it is well documented that the family is the key point for the manufacture of personal and social identites in an idividual.
Ahh yes Marriage ' a sacred right that should not be trivialised' because a 60% divorce rate doesn't trivialize marriage, neither do these celeberites that get married once every month, Or drive in wedding chapels, no way. two people that love each other but happen to have the same genitals would way trivialize marriage.

Would they just like the chance to raise a gay child? If you choose to be in a relationship where there is no possibility of the man falling pregnant (yes man), then you must accept the fact that you cannot have a child simple as thatExactly, we should get those kids they would adopt back to the orphanage where they feel most comfortable...... there are so many kids abandoned and put up for adoption that ANY good home is fine.

And as for That lions and koalas thing......... The thing about real life is that (a "Straight People" wouldn't eat its parents when it grows up) straight humans and gay humans are the same speicies. if a single parent can raise a kid fine why can't a couple of gay dudes?

But there you have it, folks. Marriage is between a man and a woman, because heterosexuals are lions and gays are koalas.

And while we're talking about animals and ridiculous religious nonsense, I have to ask: If masturbation is so evil, why can dolphins do it, but not me?

I want to know.... why do these thing always go straing to gay men??? :confused: (if you parden the pun) why would not two lesbiens not be good mothers.... even one of them could get pregnant!

Ahh yes Marriage ' a sacred right that should not be trivialised' because a 60% divorce rate doesn't trivialize marriage, neither do these celeberites that get married once every month, Or drive in wedding chapels, no way. two people that love each other but happen to have the same genitals would way trivialize marriage.

exactly. we must protect the sanctity of marriage by formally defining that hallowed institution as, "The life-time commitment of a man and woman to insert his penis into her vagina until offspring are produced." efforts to include concepts of love, honor, companionship, or other non-sacred elements will only dilute and degrade our most sacred tradition of matrimony.

Dammit, people! This is a joke thread! JOKE thread! Did j00 guys even read the first post?

Oh, and just to make it clear...

THIS IS A JOKE THREAD! IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, READ THE FRIGGEN FIRST POST!

heh they did read the first post ... and took it seriously :rolleyes:

Not only is their no medical advantage, but it dulls the nerves at the head of the penis reducing sexual gratification. It IS barbaric and ridiculous.
I have you to know that i was circumsized for medical reasons. Dont dismiss it entirely. And i do have a lot of "sexual gratification". Whats wrong with holding out a bit longer, eh? ;)

simple solution: bann marriage

finnaly someone who agrees with me!

finnaly someone who agrees with me!

I've found that people who propose banning marriage usually do not actually understand that rights associated with marriage.

Gay people should not be shunned or shunted in the streets. Gay people have rights to be citizens of this world, and have the right not to be ashamed of who they are. But they should not be able to marry each other. Marriages is an institution for 'man and woman,' a sacred right that should not be trivialised.
But where is it that it is defined as such?
Legally, a civil union is not equal to a marriage. Until then, marriage is a legal entity between two partners, giving them rights that can be rather important, rather than your sacred little religious institution, assuming it ever really was such, because the government is sure treating it as a legal entity.
You can't keep marriage for yourself unless civil unions are equal to a marriage.
And as for the adoption of children, it is well documented that the family is the key point for the manufacture of personal and social identites in an idividual. Would they just like the chance to raise a gay child?
Wait, where did gay children come in?
:confused:
To me, it's like taking a child from a lion couple and giving it to a koala couple. The koala isnt meant to raise the child.
...except that homosexuals and heterosexuals are both humans...
You see a child needs influence from a male and female parent prefferably not male and male.
Wrong (http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html).
Single parent family increases, lack of marriage commitment, disloyalty...all these things in regards to the breakdown of the family is always reflected in wider society.
It's a good thing none of those have anything to do with gay marriage.
Where do you want to draw the line on this?
I'll be happy when consenting adults can be joined in a legal union.
Equal societal rights, sure, go for it. Gay people and gay choices are fine with me. But marriage is too far. You cant take something that was for a male and female just because you want it.
I'd like to see proof that marriage is 'just for a male and female'. Everybody says they have it, but nobody's ever showed it to me.
Same with adoption. Children need the best chances in life. You cant have your cake and eat it too. If you choose to be in a relationship where there is no possibility of the man falling pregnant (yes man), then you must accept the fact that you cannot have a child simple as that.
Well then, if being unable to have children invalidates parenting ability, we'd better take away any children adopted by sterile parents quick. And what is this "have your cake and eat it too" you are referring to? I see no situation in which it applies here. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

I've found that people who propose banning marriage usually do not actually understand that rights associated with marriage.
That's OK, we'll ban having rights too so it won't matter either way.

:D