ARC: Association of Retarded Citizens
Who is that in the picture? Tell us in the Comments
picture: Photo by Matthew Keys, KTXL FOX40 News. lol caption: violynn
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT! | “They call it the oval office ’cause it’s ovular.” Next »
ARC:
» 609 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
MrsQ Of Philly on Famous Alumni viking gal on Famous Alumni Tommycat on Today on Maury Geary on What About the Underdog? Geary on The Final Word Bob the eternally un… on What About the Underdog? Bob the eternally un… on What About the Underdog? Geary on What About the Underdog? Geary on Today on Maury Geary on Today on Maury 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
Happy Birthday, Maru!
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
Hooman thought I shed too much...
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
Goggie GIF: Jail Break
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
Well, Ain't This Just Ducky
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Rhino Meets Triceratops
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Illusions, Shadows on the Wall
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Squee Spree: Cup of Loris
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
Oh Bobby, You Cad!
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Ron Swanson Cake
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
And by That Do You Just Mean the KGB?
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
I'm Hot... And You're Not!
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Vanessa Moser Totally Looks Like Kreayshawn
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Epicute: Pinata Cupcake
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Angel on My Shoulder
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
Oh So THAT'S How it Works!
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
This is not funny.
What are you talking about? This is very funny.
nope, still not funny.
Its actually what it really stands for
that doesnt mean its funny. its pretty revolting actually.
Actually its hysterical.
You people are retarded… how dare you deny rights to people of a different point of view.
This caption made me rofl. xD
so…you are entitled to your opinion but we aren’t? as long as they agree with your point of view it is all good then? i thought that in a democracy the MAJORITY was the deciding factor….so they said what?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But when opinion becomes action, things start to change. For example, the KKK can beg for slavery all they want, but they can’t pass a law to allow slavery.
The problem with Prop 8 is that it removes rights of a minority, which is unconstitutional. People like to use religion as a reason for this, which would only work only if U.S. marriage was a purely religious ceremony.
I agree with your statement. If they’re trying to ban homosexual marriages because it’s “unChristian” they might as well ban other nonChristian marriages from the US, including inter-religious marriages (i.e. a Christian marrying a Jew). Other than that, what is wrong with gay marriages? NOTHING.
Totally agree. I think people have a right to love whoever they want and should therefore be granted all the legal rights pertaining to it.
Well, you know, a Wookie might marry an Ewok and then, where wou;d we be? UnHOLY union!!1! Short furry creatures should NEVER marry Tall furry creatures.. It goes against any rational process!
then nazi rideing dinosaurs!
It would seem that you do not understand how Christianity works.
Homosexuality is listed as a sin and an abomination. Inter-religious marriage is not, although it is advised against (“Be ye not unequally yoked…” -2 Cor. 6:14-16).
Other than that? There is no other. God outlined the parameters for marriage; who are we to redefine them?
Were the people who have to live with those parameters.
Were the people who don’t all believe in god.
Were the people who have the right to live our life the way
we see it as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.
If you believe homosexuality is wrong, fine. That doesn’t give
you the right to tell others how to live their lives. If they
actualy are wrong, and the marriage is a mistake its their
mistake to make, and you have no right to force them to live
their lives diffrently.
Dude. Can you calm down with the enter pressing?
Nullo, I commend you for following the teachings of your religion. That is as it should be. But your religion is not mine, and your god is not mine, any more than your parents are mine or my children are yours. My religion does not define marriage the way yours does; my religion *does* say that a person should be faithful to her/his spouse.
I don’t have any need to understand how Christianity works. Nor Zoroastrianism, nor Hinduism, nor Vodun. Nor Baha’i, Islam, Santeria, Judaism, Wicca, Animism. They are all equally valid as agents for good (or evil), and each of them can help their people live moral lives.
I have no problem with Christians centering their lives around their god and following all the rules they believe that particular god gave them. I do have a problem with Christians trying to get *me* to center *my* life around their god, and legislating that I should behave according to their religious code. Say what you will about Mormons, they’ve not tried to pass laws to ban the sale of coffee and Dr. Pepper just because caffeine is proscribed by their religion. Nor have Jews and Muslims tried to ban the sale of pork and shellfish, nor forced the practice of circumcision on all American males.
Most religions, at their core, teach a “Live and let live’ philosophy, one of co-existence and respect for others, and acceptance of the customs and practices of others, as long as nobody else is harmed by them. That is what makes Prop 8 so immoral: it criminalizes a practice which is harmless to others, and is allowed for all other members of our society. It is a shameful license to discriminate.
That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh snap!
Catdiva is my new hero! Well said…thank you!
and who are you to try and interpret the parameters set by god?
there is no god, thus no parameters.
And which of the ten commandments says homosexuality is a sin? OH WAIT, NONE OF THEM.
ALL other rules are made by humans.
“People like to use religion as a reason for this, which would only work only if U.S. marriage was a purely religious ceremony.”
It should be. Everything else between consenting adults should be handled identically under the civil code. In other words, anyone married in a church or under any other religious institution, is not joined in a legal union under secular law, until they sign that civil contract.
Problem solved. All it takes is replacing the word “marriage” and “married” with “domestic partnership” in the civil code.
“In other words, anyone married in a church or under any other religious institution, is not joined in a legal union under secular law, until they sign that civil contract.”
Isn’t that already the case? From what I can remember, marriage is a civil ceremony that has the option of having a religious ceremony attached to it. You aren’t married under the state’s eye ’til you sign the papers that Elvis gives you.
LOL @ the turn of phrase.
The fact as I understand it. is that the secular institution borrowed/usurped/whatever, the religious one, not the other way around.
We really could solve this entire problem, like I said, but completely separating the two. Anyone of any persuasion can get married in a church (so long as the marriage meets the church’s definition), but when it comes to the secular/legal side, you have entered a “domestic partnership”.
The reason is, in the eyes of most churches, there is no divorce. Marriage is *forever* (even when it’s not, in practice), so when you get married, it’s actually a far deeper commitment than a simple civil agreement between consenting adults — that can be broken at any time by the mutual consent of the two parties (aka divorce).
I don’t believe you’d find anyone arguing this true separation of church and state on this issue.
Basically one of the worst abuses of democracy to deny a minority the rights already granted to the majority.
If it were as simple as a difference of opinion, there wouldn’t be a problem. See http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=323704
No, my *son* is retarded. And he deserves respect and support, not your asinine mockery of people with cognitive disabilities.
Agreed. The use of the term “retarded” to refer to bigots is a FAIL! Or even using it to disparage those you disagree with. People choose to be religious fanatics or gay rights activists, but people don’t choose developmental disabilities.
Why yes, it’s one of the 194 DIFFERENT THINGS that ARC can stand for, according to AcronymFinder. I’m sure there’s even more. Moron.
Actually, ARC stands for American River College.
I go there and I don’t support Prop 8.
I find this offensive especially for everyone else who doesn’t support
prop 8 and goes to this school.
I thought it was American River College, but like David said, it can stand for so many things. Was this sign at the school?
Wow. I go to ARC too. I remember hearing that the mock election
passed 8, and getting that first hint of doubt. Guess those
Whackos who try to preach to you about Jesus on campus aren’t
alone. :’(
Hey now! I’m an adult athiest (and queer), but was raised fundie. While some may suck (and I doubt thier “Christian” behavior), not all Christians are bad. I live in FL, and we just passed Prop 2, but there were some Christians, one them a friend of mine, who organized a campaign against it. Some of them think there is nothing wrong with the gay, some them think it is a sin but feel that as Americans, we have the same rights they do and they don’t discriminate or treat us any differently. Please, don’t lump them all into the same space, they don’t deserve it.
Thank you. It is incredibly gratifying to hear someone ask us not to lump everyone together… I agree.
“”Now its famous for a student council that supports hate”
Wow. So a difference of opinion is now “hate”? Funny, I don’t see that definition in Webster’s…
that’s because it’s not a “difference of opinion”. it’s one group intentionally marginalizing another, and trying to downplay that injustice by calling it a simple “difference of opinion”.
you can have your opinion all you want. you don’t think gay people should marry each other. but when you go out and encourage the government to pass a law that specifically targets one group and not others, now that’s what’s called “hate”.
Actually really and for true?
Because of the narrowed definition of the diagnosis of mental retardation (and its newer, more PC categorization of developmental cognitive delay), the ARC is no longer truly an acronym.
And it is still not funny.
Mental Retardation Symptoms and DSM-IV Diagnosis
A. Significantly subaverage intellectual functioning: an IQ of approximately 70 or below on an individually administered IQ test (for infants, a clinical judgment of significantly subaverage intellectual functioning).
B. Concurrent deficits or impairments in present adaptive functioning (i.e.. the person’s effectiveness in meeting the standards expected for his or her age by his or her cultural group) in at least two of the following areas: communication. self-care, home living, social/interpersonal skills, use of community resources, self-direction, functional academic skills, work, leisure, health, and safety.
C. The onset is before age 18 years
sounds like it fits to me!
Gee, that’s so funny to those of us with loved ones who meet that definition…. NOt!
It clearly shows some ant Pop 8 nuggets being all they can be.
Idiot/pre-grads with no intention of ever interacting with evolved humans with alternative realities. HURRAY! There are still Stallwarts in this society that think there are others ( most every body ) who are unfortunate in life enough to vote against the “moral majority”.
My research indicates that it stands for American Rivers College. See: http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1297006.html
It is funny.
My favorite is the gay vest the guy on the right has. Overcompensate much?
No, don’t you get it?? That’s his Han Solo vest. Duh!
And the just under the lip gotee (sp?) on the other one. I’m sure they’re a very happy couple.
Sasha – I agree. This is NOT funny.
1. Retarded has always been negatively associated with children/adults with learning disabilities. It shows your stupidity when you use it this way.
2. If you oppose Prop 8 – lets take away your civil rights to you hetro marriage and see what insurance coverage and health benefits YOU receive.
Um… I don’t think gay marriage takes away the rights of straight marriage…
damn!
You’re saying that if Prop 8 didn’t pass I wouldn’t have to divorce my wife & get gay-married!?
.
.
Crap, I was kind of looking forward to that……
ummm, I think you have opposing and supporting prop 8 mixed up. Supporting proposition 8 means your against gay marriage.
actually to retard something would mean that you are holding it back, keeping it from progressing, slowing it down.(Ex. His progress was retarded by the tough terrain he had to cross) the term retarded was and is used to describe people with learning disabilities because their learning has been retarded by some disability.
~
Using the denotative meaning (that something slows) instead of the connotative (mental disabilities) this caption is rather fitting. The people here are literally retarding themselves by slowing their own acceptance of others, as well as retarding our culture by helping to put in place laws with no factual basis.
~
English is a twisted mutant of a language, but good gods I love it
I love English majors!
That’s how I read retarded…
Wow, you made the first intelligent comment on here. huzzah for you!
Actually Mental Retardation is different than the generalized term learning disability.
To be classified as mentally retarded, you have to have significant subaverage general intellectual functioning(an IQ less than 70), that is accompanied by significant limitations in adaptive functioning in atleast two of the following skill areas: Communication, self- care, home living, social/interpersonal skills, use of community resources, self-direction, functional academic skills, work, leisure, health, and safety. The on set also must occur before the age of 18 years.
A learning disability is diagnosed when the individual’s achievement on individually administered, standardized tests in reading, mathematics, or written expression is substantially below that expected for age, schooling, and level of intelligence. The Learning problems significantly interfere with academic achievement or activities of daily living that require reading, mathematical, or writing skills. One method of figuring this out is if the scores on these standardized tests is 1-2 standard deviations below the score of their IQ test.
But yes retard in other scientific meanings include to slow down…like a fire retardant blanket…meaning that the fire doesnt burn through the blanket with same speed as it normally would with fabric.
in anycase, the term retarded is the scientific term, “slow” is not the proper term…stop allowing people to tell you what is wrong to say because they feel it might be harsh to people.
Stop allowing people to tell you what is wrong to say because they feel it might be hars to people? Why not just start with a string of racial epithets then. Don’t let people tell you it’s wrong to say that, since it might be harsh to people!
This was by far the most brilliant response I have ever seen on any website’s comments page. I am in love with you for it. This is a very cerebral reaction to it and I guess some people need to have everything pointed out to them so literally, but really people just need to lighten up. This caption was funny as hell.
Yes. I think you do need to have everything pointed out to you. The term is offensive. Because it mocks those who have cognitive disabilities. There may be a time when it is no longer offensive, but that time is not now. People who really are MR face a whole hell of a lot of bullying and physical abuse in school. They face marginalization an being ignored and abused as adults. They are considered non persons by a large swath of society. I don’t think it’s the least bit unfair to ask someone to have a bit of respect.
I don’t think it’s funny to call someone “gay” as an insult, and I don’t think it’s funny to call them retarded either. It’s just plain not funny, and until you’ve walked in my shoes a bit, I think you really don’t have room to dismissively declare my feelings to be overly sensitive. Sometimes I hide in the bathroom and cry after someone tells me how well their child is doing in school. Sometimes I wonder if my son will every u use the bathroom on his own or if I’ll be changing his diapers as an adult. I always wonder how I will pay for his therapy and if it is doing any good. HAHAHA wow, that’s so funny. Lighten up!
And by the same token, I really doubt anyone took it that way. I imagine the typical reader took it to describe someone with a cognitive delay.
Uhm… Prop. 8 passing meant that homosexuals COULDN’T marry. You’ve got it backwards. Hope you straightened it out BEFORE you voted.
Haha… straightened… *makes a sad face*
Ummm… Opposing Prop. 8 means you’re FOR gay marriage. The yes on 8 people are AGAINST gay marriage.
Actually, your angry outburst in #2 would make better sense if it read “If you are FOR prop 8, lets take away your civil rights to you hetro marriage and see what insurance coverage and health benefits YOU receive.”
You’ve been working for the very people you thought you were against!!
Uh, she said “children/adults with learning disabilities” not necessarily any other type of disability. she’s not saying someone in a wheelchair or with an artificial limb is retarded. learn how to read things before you comment on them. also, proposal 8 is something that shouldn’t be supported. if a straight couple was not allowed to marry and gay couples were, a man and woman would protest for the same rights a gay couple is trying for now. this is supposed to be the land of the free…why are we trying to restrict people’s lives?
Re: #2 — In California there is no difference between “domestic partnership” and “marriage” in those terms. Educate yourself next time.
Actually, it is pretty damn funny.
ARC = American River College in Carmichael, CA (near Sacramento). The student counsel decided that they were going to have ARC’s student body officially support Prop 8. Some people were pissed off about this and tried to get a recall of the student counsel pushed through and failed.
The student body of ARC is really “conservative”, and so is the community it is set in. Having a “No on 8″ sticker on your car or sign on your lawn is opening yourself up to some serious vandalism. It sucks, but it is the way it is in this neighborhood.
Let’s use the other definition of “retarded”, which is more applicable to the sign and situation:
v.
To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede.
v. intr.
To be delayed.
n.
1. A slowing down or hindering of progress; a delay.
2. Music A slackening of tempo.
The “Christians” have a large presence on this campus. They accost people
in the hallways with their pamphlets and propaganda; these kids argue with
those of us who are “non-believers” with a vehemence born of youth and idealism. Maybe they’ll grow out of it maybe they won’t. I think it is unlikely
given the overall attitude of the town in which they live.
Or, you know, let’s use a different R word and avoid having to backpedal and find alternate definitions for a word that was intentionally used to call someone cognitively disabled.
“Having a “No on 8″ sticker on your car or sign on your lawn is opening yourself up to some serious vandalism. It sucks, but it is the way it is in this neighborhood.”
don’t tell Xavier that… he claims it never happened…
More than this, the ARC student council is largely made up of Russian Evangelical Christians, and their particular church was spewing some of the most hateful anti-gay rhetoric imaginable. Like spreading the idea that even tolerating homosexuality would result in the Sacramento Municipal area would be destroyed in fire & brimstone a la Sodom and Gomorrah — if not the entire contiguous U.S. It was unfair of the student council to pass this resolution, because roughly half of ARC students disagreed with Prop 8, and the resolution made the claim that the entire student body was behind it.
Just goes to show that apathy in elections — even in student council elections — can be dangerous.
ARC? I played soccer for Sierra a few years ago and remember ARC being serious rivals.
Anyway, that pic really is hilarious. Prop 8 is so lame. Who cares if gay people get married? CA is not going to fall into the sea for allowing people their civil rights. As far as the whole religious thing goes, people really don’t have a right to judge others because the Bible says this is “right or wrong.” God or whatever is up there is the only one who will be doing the judging so while people can, they might as well do unto others as they would want others to do unto them. you can’t put a label on love
This is very funny.
are you just a bot who claims this picture is funny? regardless of your views on proposition 8, this really isn’t that funny… why is it even on here? who voted it to be on the main page? and what is up with the dudes vest?
anyways, this picture is not funny at all… at least i don’t think so.
Well then, I guess if you don’t find it funny is should be taken down then. Note to PK staffers: No need for a complicated voting system, just forward all future lols to someonewhofails for his/her judgement. Thank God we have someone to tell us what we think is funny, I was getting so confused!
ZING
LOL!!
-
Love it, Jane..
I agree, this is not funny. And you are a mean and sad individual if you think it is.
You rang?
And you are a one legged bunyip if you think it isn’t
what are the pros to anti- gay marriage??
Well, if we ban gay marriage then this horrible cloud of curses will be lifted from our land, and God will send blessings returning the US to the glorious 1950s, when men cut their hair short, women didn’t share their opinions, and black folks knew how to be respectful domestic help. And men wouldn’t have to change diapers anymore, which along with women wearing pants, has caused a sky-high divorce rate. And that is how banning gay marriage will save marriage for the rest of us.
Aaah! Finally a good explanation of how that works! I have now been converted from my silly equality views, and agree fully that this atrocity which those weirdoes call “love” must be stopped, asap!
This is win!
and you are douchebag.
Your so right, and you know what is more funny? The liberals are okaying the use of retard here, because normally it’s a BAD BAD word, but when they want to use it to insult someone, well it is okay.
how very true… such a horrible double-standard. I’m GLAD Prop. 8 passed. About damned time SOMETHING good happens in Cali.
and why are you glad?
yeah why are you glad? why is prop 8 a *good thing*?explain to me why this is good for *ME*? How does that improve my life or yours for that matter? . . . other than propagate hatred towards gays or lesbians.
i’m hetero and i dont give a bloomin’ arse if you go home to a lampshade or fire hydrant! as long as no innocents get hurt, WHAT’S IT TO YOU? who are you to judge? ARE YOU CALLING YOURSELF GOD?….yeah, i think you are.
i’m pretty sure if i followed you (prop 8 supporter) around I’d find more God-condemning things about you than any gay or lesbian.
i propose prop 9 “eliminate close-minded jerks’ freedom of speech”
THIS IS A TOTAL WIN!
okay, got a little carried away. i know constitution trumps calif. law. but we should shun close-minded jerks not vice versa!
p.s. the guy holding the sign and leather vest gay both look gay? what straight man, outside of texas, wears a leather vest?
and I’m dubious of the whole ‘but it’s straight in TX’ thing…
p.s. the guy holding the sign and leather vest gay both look gay? what straight man, outside of texas, wears a leather vest?
My ex-boyfriend, but that might have been a biker thing. That guy in the photo – definitely not a biker.
If I thought “retarded” was being used in the “to slow or hinder the advance of progress” definition, I’d be totally on board with its use. But I doubt that was the intent of the captioner. However, the people in the photo do appear to be rather idiotic, but I think that of anyone who supports tearing away already established civil rights and telling others that they are second class citizens.
Why is it calling yourself God to support marriage the way it should be?
Maybe it’s something to do with,”Judge not, lest ye be judged.” Or don’t you think this applies to you?
Who are YOU to say what marriage “should be?”
Well who are you to judge the “proper” way of marriage?
Cripes, it’s annoying when people get offended by every little thing.
And why are you glad prop. 8 passed? Can you give me a good reason not to allow gay marriage? Because I’ve never heard one.
Mosaic Law and the Writings of Paul seem to be the reasoning…
Maybe they should go and start a ‘Paulian’ church, so we stop confusing them with Christians.
and for the 30% or so Americans who aren’t Christian? Can you give THEM a good reason?
It’s the wearing away of morals: another step down the slippery slope towards complete anarchy.
Just think, today it is allowing the union of male with male, female with female, tomorrow it may be the union of human with animal.
“But what’s wrong with that?” you will argue “It’s just more love coming into the world!” or “It’s not my problem what they do!”
And then we take another step, and another.
Without morals, we have nothing to define our humanity: there is nothing that separates us from the animals around us.
Homosexual relationships are below heterosexual ones?
That’s exactly what I’m saying
My what a nasty, cramped, vicious, supremacist world you live in….
“All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
Are you implying that I’m not worth as much as you?
This is such a flimsy argument.
There is so much more to a person than their sexuality. Homosexual does not= being deviant or criminal and isn’t leading toward anarchy.
You mean, homosexuality is no longer considered being a deviant or criminal. There was a time when it was, and since then moral values have slipped, which, a condition that people here seem to call ‘modern or progressive thought’.
And by the way, taking away people’s constitutional rights does not lead to anarchy, it leads to complete rigidity, slavery and lockdown: an Orwellian world. While this, of course, is not a good outcome, it is an example of complete law. On the other hand, a world in which people do whatever they want to (giving people too many rights) is anarchy and chaos.
Whose morals and when?
So, giving me the same rights as you will lead to
anarchy and chaos??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Well, if giving people rights leads to chaos, maybe
we should take away YOUR right to marry and
take us one step away
It’s just that dear old Blarg needs an underclass to feel superior to, and his God tells him it’s gays…
Other than his moral absolutism preventing HIM from going on a raping and killing spree, I don’t see his god bringing much to the party… but hthen what can one expect when one tries to rebrand a Hittite God of War in to the Prince of Love?
Whoop not sure if we’re on the same side.
Oi!!! TC what have we talked about generalizations?! *smacks TC’s knuckles with a ruler* That’s enough out of you, naughty boy!
OOOWWW!
I forgot to put the asterisks……. (rubbing knuckles)
Wow, you’re brutal.. remind me not to “generalize”, ok?
Sorry, I wasted my entire prep period have a conference with the dean about a student who cussed me out and then had to call said student’s parent. I had papers to grade! Now I have to do it on Saturday with my planning, so much for a relaxing weekend. It makes me a little harsh.
Oh, well that’s entirely different then! I can understand the reaction.
Instead I would have said revolting, but either way. . . .
Revolting would have been a much better word.
Not sure what ARC really means, but I certainly don’t agree with anyone who thinks that homosexual people shouldn’t have the same rights as heterosexual people, for example to marry the person you love.
I hear their right to reproduce is severely limited. And not by any form of government, either.
It’s limited to non-barren women and virile men. Funny, homosexuality doesn’t reduce ability to reproduce, just the tendency to.
And the tendency and ability to reproduce have nothing to do with the right to reproduce. The right to reproduce has nothing to do with the right to marry.
Yet the fact that gays can’t reproduce has been used in an argument against gay marriage.
Click my name for a list of “Why Gay Marriage is Wrong” (arguments used to support banning gay marriage) See number 6
The ability of the people in the picture to reproduce is also severely limited by a powerful form of contraception called their personality. Should they be banned from marrying as well?
I will agree with you just this once.
They’re assholes. But so is every other person on this website.
I am not excluded from that generalization.
I am.
Yeah, I’m not an asshole, either. Others might disagree, however.
I know I’m an arse hole… I embrace it!
I happen to be a wiseass, dumbass, and generally just an ass. I am not limited to just being a hole. I has cheeks, dammit.
I’m pretty sure I’m a b*tch. Last time I checked anyway.
Speaking of which, I plan to make Lynn my saucy little b*tch tonight. As a matter of fact, I promised her. Mmm, tasty b*tch……
If true, you sure hide it well. I don’t think I’ve ever seen you be mean to anyone.
Awww, thanks Seth! This is what my students think, at least as evidenced by the group I passed in the hall and I heard someone mutter, “there goes Mrs. B*tch”. I would have stopped and pointed out to them that since I’m not married it would be Miss B*tch, but it was MY lunchtime as well and I was hungry. I was also called prissy and stuck up by a student today, which is really weird because I’m not sure how asking you to actually stop talking and do your work constitutes prissiness, but whatevs.
It is okay, I hate most teenagers on principle that I was one and I remember what a little bastard I could be. And I consider myself one of the nicer ones. Still thought I knew everything. It is only now that I realize how little I really know and the number of things I am actually confident about gets smaller as I grow older.
Then again, I am turning 27 tomorrow so that might explain my odd or otherwise dour mood.
Yeah, I’m 28. I know I’ve been out of high school for ten years, but damn it, I remember what it was like! I would never have dreamed of saying some of the stuff these kids say, but then I knew my mom would go batsh*t crazy if I was ever so disrespectful. Then again, if a teacher was out of line my mom would trust that I’d be honest about it, not lie about what the teacher did or said like a lot of kids unfortunately do. I’m not cut out for high school. I’m an elementary ed person and I took this job out of desperation for ANY job, just as long as it pays.
this happens to be an epic WIN. Can I conclude that I find myself in the aforementioned group?
+1
Since when is a biological function a right?
yo moms a right.
Clever and original, did you come up with that all by yourself?
I think there was a committee involved
Perhaps a proposition…
NO URINATION FOR YOU!
Haha, micturation WIN!
“rights” are ideas created by humans that have nothing to do with what is possible or impossible, rather they have to do with what is acceptable by your peers, much like human law, religion, and our economy. none of these exist outside the mind, and therefore are only are real as we believe they are. if someones rights are violated and no one is around to witness it, is it a crime?;p
To go deeper into the abstract, if someone chooses not to exercise a right, do they even have such a right?
Tree falls in forest, etc.
For somebody’s rights to be violated, they would have to be a witness. Either the victim or the perpetrator. Sorry, your attempt at philosophy hit a logic fail.
Doh… There not they.
doh! and yeah, the last part was a koan. not a good one mind you, actually supprised you didnt know, your comments are win!
He’s right about rights, though. Rights are created through contractual agreement between individuals. Without that contract, it is more accurate to speak of power. All the flowery rhetoric of ‘natural’ or ‘God given’ rights are simply an appeal to authority, an attempt to get you to buy into the contract. ChimneyChango’s last sentence there is a kind of a joke, but an interesting philosophical question when you look at what he’s really asking. Obviously, if the person is a member of a community with agreed upon rights, then yes. Their rights have been violated, even if they were alone except for the perpetrator. But what if they were really alone? No perpetrator. Say, a falling tree deprives them of their right to life. Nope. No rights violated, pointing out the imaginary nature of rights. Falling trees are simply incapable of caring about your rights. In the final case, suppose neither the perpetrator nor the victim were a member of a society that upholds rights. In that case as well, nobodies rights were violated. Someone did something and someone else didn’t have the power to stop them. Does a wolf infringing a bunny’s right to life?
Well what about the idea that a person needs to have made a choice that leads to the violation of a right. For instance the tree made no choice in whether or not to fall down because one can assume that it had no choice in the failure of its own structure and the effect gravity has on it. If you make the choice to shoot me in the face you have violated my right to life. If you drink and drive and run me over you again violated my rights because of the choice you made. Now as for the Wolf and bunny thing, the bunny has no right to life, so far as I know, there is no social contract for said bunny to have its rights protected. When a wolf attacks a human then I believe yes, it has violated a right, because when animals become “maneaters” we have a tendency to find them and stop them from violating our rights. So apparently all violated rights seem to be how the insider is effected. If the victim is an outsider, such as if we kill a bunny, then it was not subject to our rights to begin with.
Choice is an illusion. Every choice is a part of an unbroken chain of cause and effect. With the right technology, one could look at every single factor that went into a choice being made one way as opposed to another. With the technology we have now, we’ve shown that ‘choice’ happens before an individuals is aware of it, and that the individual then makes up a story explaining their choice, a story that matches their idea of who they are
–
However, choice is a useful illusion. It is a theory. It’s like gravity. We know Newton’s theory of gravity is incorrect, yet we still use it far more than we use Einstein’s theory of gravity, because it works in most situations and it is simpler. We need a theory of choice, because we all understand what it is like to have choices taken from us. We know when we have a lot of choices, and when we have only one, and we prefer the former. One does not absolutely need a theory of free will to come up with the idea of punishment (read B.F. Skinner) but it does help to explain things.
Sorry, but by that logic, rape would not be a crime unless there was a witness.
in the case of rape, the victim counts as the witness to the event.
in some places rape is acceptable as punishment, and is not considered a violation of rights. every social group as its own understanding of rights.in the west women and minorities have near equal rights this was not true 100 years ago in the united states. nothing in the natural world changed, only human perception. My real point is that rights are relative to where and when you are, and even who is around. rights are completely relative, as their concept and practice are a product of the mind. this being the case, none of us actually “have rights”our rights are given to us by lawmakers, religion, and circumstance.
Conversely, there are plenty of people who CAN reproduce, but shouldn’t (or shouldn’t have).
Like the parents of those students in the picture.
ARC literally means “Association of Retarded Citizens.” Literally. My brother is a retarded citizen, and is a member of ARC. This is just stating that fact. So, not exactly a lol.
The ARC here is really American River College, but that isn’t LOL worthy. And those students are douchebags.
interesting how gay marriage supporters can get extremely mad when people insult them and claim discrimination, yet you freely call anyone who supports proposition 8 a douchebag. you may be insulting them for misrepresenting the school, but still… double standard much?
and don’t just insult them, accept that they have different views than you on some things.
Proposition 8 makes the world a substantially worse place for a non-trivial segment of the population. It does not make the world a better place for anyone.
Therefore, people who support proposition 8 are, in fact, douchebags.
That pretty much just solidified someonewhofails point
Ah, crawled out from under your rock today, have you Matthew?
Ever heard of the principle of the self-fulfilling prophesy? You expect me to have something ridiculous to say, so you begin by attacking me (apparently I live under a rock) so you can get the reaction you expect, and desire, from me.
It would only solidify his point if I claimed that you couldn’t also insult supporters of gay rights who also want to make the world a worse place. Since I didn’t say that, I’m not advocating a double standard. His point is not solidified.
I can accept that someone has differing views until THEIR views get passed into a law that has no legal basis for existing.
what are the positives to anti-gay marriage?
And does that branch of ARC still USE “Assoc of Retarded Citizens”? Because ours changed nigh on a decade ago to “Advocate, Respite, Community”
And it’s far from stating a fact. I doubt, if it were the same ARC you’re referencing, that it would say ARC “students”.
A captioner took the opportunity to make an offensive post USING the ARC you mean, when clearly it’s not consistent with the photo (ie not stating a fact)
Or perhaps it’s because people with cognitive disabilities can use the word in a clinical sense to describe themselves, while you’re using it as an insult to people not a member of that group. Hmmm?
People with cognitive disabilities so severe as to earn the MR classification are human beings with family, friends, loves, hopes, fears, and dreams. Jokes about “retards” and “short buses” are very hurtful, especially coming from people trying to protest what they see as discriminatory attitudes.
*That* is a double standard in a nutshell.
ARC is the acronym for American River College
Is this some sort of institution of higher learning where one might enroll to be educated on the tributaries and estuaries of large flows of water throughout the Western Hemisphere, or more specifically the continents of the Americas?
ARC = American River College. *points up*
damnit. i can read.
agreed not funny and should be pulled from the site
Yes… How dare they be so offensive. We should definitely take away their rights to mock the people who attempt to take away rights!
Damn right. Only the people who agree with liberals should have the right to free speech!
Criticizing you is not the same as taking away your right to free speech. Free speech means I have the right to call you a moron when you act like one.
Quit being an idiot. The first amendment states that the Government can’t take away your right to free speech. Nowhere does it say that your fellow citizens can’t disagree with you, or find your ideas stupid, or just outright deplorable.
Actually you commonly find that suppression of free speech, commonly by force, is a Right Wing past time…
I don’t agree with you, but I can concede that you make a good point. and are pretty funny =)
Just wondering, can someone tell me when marriage became a “right” and in what legal document or similar guarantee’s the right of marriage.
Also before anyone jumps down my throat this is an honest question, personally I think that someone can marry a tree for all I care, its not an institution I particularly admire.
It’s not so much the right of marriage as the right to equality. If consenting heterosexual adults are allowed to marry, and that marriage be recognised by the state, you cannot deny consenting homosexual adults the same privilege because that would be unconstitutional. Hence why there’s the push to amend the constitution from those who want everyone to live under the law of their God rather than the laws of the United States.
Now that is understandable, thank you ceefax. I just wish people would stop saying “right of marriage” but people claiming to have rights that dont exist such as above are a pet peeve of mine.
Absolutely funny. This is what PK is all about. If anything, there should be more posts like this one.
ARC stands for American River College, a community college in the Sacramento, CA region. The student association decided to support [yes on] Prop 8 in October 2008. Many students felt that the association did not represent them on the issue. Protests/rallys on both sides were assembled.
link:
http://www.sacbee.com/293/story/1327118.html
Don’t the two guys in the picture kind of give off a gay vibe? Maybe they are kind of like the former mayor of Spokane, WA who was in the closet and publicly denounced homosexuality.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/223201_west06.html
and lets not forget that incident of taking a wide stance in 07…
This is hilarious. Let’s see a mjority of people voted down an initiative to allow marriage instead of civil union or domestic partnership. Why do homesexuals have to have marriage instead of these? I don’t understand why we need to define marriage in a law to allow them to have the benefits of civil unions or domestic partnership but call it marriage instead. This picture BIG WIN and much less offensive than the normal blather of insults against Sarah Palin and George Bush.
“Why do homesexuals have to have marriage instead of these”
Why not? I don’t see why religious groups aren’t furious as Prop 8 passing, seeing as it’s the state interfering in religion and deciding which “marriages” are the correct ones. Some churches (including Christian churches) think homosexuals should be allowed to marry. The government is essentially saying that their religion, or interpretation of their religion is wrong. If religious types weren’t so intensely obsessed with bum-sex I’d imagine they’d be rather worried by this precedent.
The best thing the government could do is refuse to acknowledge any marriages, heterosexual or homosexual, then it wouldn’t be in this damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.
Honest question: why do homosexuals want marriage instead of civil unions? Marriage is generally seen as a Christian institution in the US, and in my (limited) experience, gay Christians are an extreme minority. Give them what they want and what the people who want them out of their institution want?
It’s like a club that no one wants the new kids in on. The new kids just want in on the benefits.
From a pragmatic point of view, most civil unions do NOT grant the partners the same rights, benefits, & privleges that a real marriage does. For example, my boyfriend is a foreigner, but I couldn’t get him a green card even if we had a civil union.
.
From a more emotional point of view, even if civil unions did grant all the same rights, marriage puts same-sex couples on the same level with everyone else (where we deserve to be). The general populace still thinks of civil unions as worthless.
You raise an interesting point here, Ceefax. Many marriages have two components — religious and civil — but only the civil one is recognized by the letter of the law. Two atheists (or non-atheists, for that matter) can get married in City Hall with NO religious accompaniment whatsoever, and that’s recognized as a valid contract, but two people can get married by the Church of Whatever Church it is They Go to, and there’s no guarantee that their marriage will be legally recognized as such. So, is marriage a religious union, or a civil union, or both, or neither, or sometimes it’s one and sometimes it’s the other?
Since I seem to be on a language kick I’d have to say both, but they are two different things i should thing. If marraige is defined as a union then in the letter of the law the union would be of two people acting as one taxable unit. In the eyes of god it would be the union of two souls.
~
So both are technically a marraige but one involves the soul, the other a body.
Why do homosexuals have to have marriage instead of civil unions or domestic partnerships? Gee, I dunno. Why did black people need the right to sit anywhere on the bus they wanted, instead of only in the back? They were still allowed to RIDE the bus, right? Why couldn’t they just be content with that?
Ooooooooh touche! Excellent point…..
Applause…
This post is full of WIN.
You sir win an internet.
Well said!
Epic comment is epic win!
I say make the homos sit in the back of the bus ! And keep them off of my lawn !
Heck ! Let them get married ! THAT will stop them from having sex ! Ask any married couple !
Groucho: Why don’t you two get married?
Pierre: Ah, marriage is impossible
Groucho: Only after you get married
.
LOL!
“…but who wants to live in an institution?”
Is that you, GOM?
Black people were content in Africa!!! Why did white people feel the need to drag us to America and then rape Africa for everything that made it great? Ponder that then get back to me on what you think is civil rights!!
I hate the oppresive factors of colonialism as much as the next guy. But your comment doesn’t sync with what actually happened. Please, read some current scholarship on the subjects of African Slavery and the Atlantic World. Also, just a couple questions to consider…
Are people responsible for the actions of their ancestors?
Is it valid to lump immigrants from say… Eastern Europe who never owned slaves and didn’t immigrate to the US until the twentieth century under the label of White Colonial Oppressor?
Does whining about the past really help if you aren’t doing something about it?
You weren’t alive back then, therefore, I don’t think you can be lumped in with the “us” category.
FTW
THANK YOU! With so many heterosexual retards ‘blaspheming’ the sacred covenant of marriage with their serial marriage ways, why shouldn’t anyone who happens to be born attracted to the same sex not have the right to make the same mistakes? ;P Seriously, though, this is a subject that gets my claws out and my fur raised. I hate people like this, and think that they desperately need to get a life, before I take theirs. Grr..
I’m not sure what the sexual orientation of my cognitively delayed son is, but I’ve never seen him espousing an opinion on marriage. I have, however, seen a total idiot with the user name Kismet ranting over at Pundit Kitchen. I don’t care that he/she/it and I agree that Prop 8 is BS, Kismet is still an offensive idiot for using insensitive language while claiming to stand up for the rights of minority groups.
You have it backwards, ignoranceisbliss – why do you find it acceptable to offer to same-sex couples a legal union you claim to be the equal to marriage, and yet refuse to call it that? If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and swims like a duck…
The answer is, I suspect, that opponents of gay marriage (and advocates of it, come to that) don’t consider it to be all that equal. If it were, the word wouldn’t matter so much to either side.
“We don’t have to treat them like a real family. After all, they’re not *really* married…” (not that even validation under law could really eliminate that sort of response, but it at least it provides better footing).
*raises hand*
ooh ooh I know the answer to this one
It’s a DUCK!
*looks proud of himself*
your cute.
or a platypus
maybe both.
I’ve never heard a platypus, so I wouldn’t know if it talks like a duck, but it definitely doesn’t walk like a duck.
Well, it would if ducks had 4 feet… or it had 2 take yer pick…
It provides LEGAL footing. That’s the distinction. *quack!*
I’m completely centrist on the issue of gay rights – homosexual couples should have exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples in terms of marriage, adoption, fertility treatment, how much affection is allowed to be shown in public and in the media (factual or fictional), everything – no more, no less. I don’t see how that’s considered to be an extreme position or even a left wing or liberal position.
Get a life, weenie boy.
Did you just call him”weenie boy”? That makes me want to sing the Oscar Meyer weener song.
*proceeds to sing horribly off key*
I wish i were an Oscar Meyer wiener
that is what i’d really like to be…
ok i should really stop now and spare you all the torture and myself the
embarrassment of knowing that whole song.
Answering the “duck” question correctly AND singing the Oscar Mayer weiner song?
Give that man a bonbon!!
cause if i were an oscar meyer weiner, every one would be in love with meeeeeeeee. *ending with flourish!*
Imagine if you were gay and were in a car wreck hit from behind by the Oscar Myer Weinermobile—- ” I been rear ended by a giant weiner !”
What a douche. There’s no reason for you to be a dick.
That’s megabob/miner. That’s kind of what he does here. Be a d*ck that is.
Apparently you have an obsession with Megabob- I had to look way back to see who you are taling about. No mystery why you’re not married, is there?
Apparently your role here is to be MegaBit*ch.
I’m married and I still think Bob/magnum is a childish moron, who isn’t treated like an adult here because he can’t learn to act like one. Like we believe you looked anywhere to find out who megabob is. Thanks for your glorious insight oh MegaBob/Miner/Magnum/Thor/fxquant/whatever sock you’ve decided to wear this week. I see that it’s still a yellow one.
Bull- that wasn’t me. Wow- you folks have severe paranoia- see a shrink !
Um, we were talking about magnum, but if you want to claim this persona as well, that’s fine with us.
I think Magnum had a critical bigot roll success…
RPG dork win!
Some of us played Dungeons and Dragons… non of that ‘Advanced’ johnny come lately nonsense… back when errand boys whistled and you could get properly seasoned timber, not that green rubbish that keeps oozing sap for 20 years…
He has a 20 sided die that has all 20′s on it for those type of rolls. he never misses!
He also saves every time vs. logic, so even when confronted with facts from worthy news sources, he doesn’t have to believe it and can keep ranting wituot fail.
That is rather centre, but it is further left than US politics.
Wait, if that’s center, then what is the far left? I know far right is BAN IT ALL, but the left? Just curious.
please do not lump “far right” with “religious republicans”. If these religious neo-cons hadn’t hijacked our party, this wouldn’t even be an issue. Conservativism encourages less government regulation. IOW, the government shouldn’t even be involved in marriage to begin with so it shouldn’t matter who gets married to who..
Right and left shouldn’t even be valid classifications. We do have more than one party even if the majority doesn’t recognize them. As far as the mainstream is concerned, “far right” now equals religious republicans. You call yourself “libertarian” and yet you identify yourself as part of the republican party. Methinks you’re as confused as the rest of us.
“Right” and “Left” distinctions evolved from needing an easy way to describe a political affiliation to people who don’t understand sociology. If you tell someone “I’m a slightly upper middle slghtly right of the center on the graph meaning I have some authoritarian and conservative views and fewer Libertarian and no liberal views” then you’re going to confuse a lot of people.
It’s all a big circle anyway…
A circle something, that’s for sure.
Circle of life? Elton John? Gay lol? Ah…. I see, everything IS connected!
A ‘circle-megabob’, perhaps?
I think more a ‘cluster’ something…
Religious neoncons? What are you smoking? Neocons stem from a left-of-center / libertarian tradition, but have in general evolved to be all-purpose jackasses.
BTW, a libertarian can under no circumstances be far right. While right tend to stress economic freedoms (unless they are just greedy bastards like Joe the Plubmer – see his video on welfare and how it is good for him but bad for other people on FOX) they generally have issues with individual liberty based on their concept of morality. The left usually has it the other way ’round. Therefore being libertarian is not even on the scale from left to right.
Phaelin:
As such there is no genuine left position on homosexuality or gay marriage. It is not really an issue concerned with ‘social justice’. I am pretty sure there was a lot of gay persecution in the various socialist or communist dictatorships, but given that nowadays most people to the left of the center are social libertarians, they coincide with the centrist positon.
We social anarchists prefer the term… social anarchist. We only go by ‘libertarian’ outside the US, where the term has not been hopelessly conflated with ‘anti tax free market strong private property rights individualist anarchist.’ Inside the US, libertarian is not a general synonym for anarchist, as it is in the rest of the world.
Meh. It’s only extreme if you have the opposite notion. Me, I’m for everybody having civil rights. As someone mentioned above, if it’s got all the perks of marriage, why not call it marriage? Gotta wonder if anyone’s looked in a dictionary lately at the definition of the word… I use a technique in metalsmithing called ‘married metals’, and most of those babies are not only not the same color or gender*, they’re obnoxiously difficult to match in other ways. And yet, it produces a lovely effect and lasts darn rear forever if I did the right joining.
.
*very, very small joke, jewelers, for the use of.
That’s a cool analogy! Do you have any other information about it or a site for perusal?
I googled “married metals” and it gave me some results. One had some lovely images of examples too. Dunno if that helps at all though.
Click my name.
This is lovely!! I thought it was stone.
Thanks, jules!
That is lovely! I like the heart shaped one on the page linked in my name
Oooooooooooo!!! I wants!!!
The same technique in stone os a lapidary method known as intarsia – it’s mind-bogglingly gorgeous!
Google is good, I don’t have any of my own work up at the moment… There’s some FANTASTIC married metals work being done right now by an artist in Mexico whose name, shamefully, I cannot bring to the fore. You might like mokume work, too, it has some similarities in concept with far different results.
I love Metales Casados! I collect old Mexican jewelry, that’s an old technique that was used by the old masters like Los Castillos.
Did I say old 3 times just there… geez.
Unusually, the repetition worked well as a meter…
I meant to do that… yeah, that’s right…
Los Castillos, gorgeous! Nice collection to have!
Unless maybe everyone is upset that the will of the majority of the people is being carried out….. I guess I could understand that, especially since our country was formed under the idea of a majority viote makes decisions…..except when its not what liberals want
I don’t remember there being a vote on if white-only bus seats should be abolished, all they did was look at the constitution and see if it went against it. And when they discovered it did, they didn’t try and change the constitution to make an exception just because a lot of vocal people were p*ssed about it.
Where in the Constitution of the United States of America is marriage guaranteed as a right? I still don’t see why you have to fight over the deffinition of a word. Maybe the obsessive desire to rub it in the faces of everyone who doesn’t agree with you.
My kid does that. He spends a lot of time standing in the corner for it too.
Where does it guarantee people’s right to sit where they like on a bus? Its the same but different.
Actually it’s not. Go home and figure out how the American legal system works. There was a law on the books that segregated African Americans. It was overturned by the supreme court because it violated the Constitution of the United States of America.
There was no law in California prohibiting gay marriage. All proposition 8 has managed to do is give people the right to make a claim to a higher court.
In the end, people are pitching a hissy fit over the deffinition of a word. Marriage, Civil Union, what does it matter if it’s all about the person you love? Oh wait… It’s not about that. It’s about throwing your rattle out of your pram to get some attention.
Grow up already.
Whoever you are, you won all kinds of respect from me and you deserve to join the Logic League as far as I’m concerned.
*rubs hands together a la evil overlords like Max* We shall watch this one closely in the lols ahead. Perhaps one day we shall… extend him an invitation. Mwahahahahahahahahaha!
The people throwing their rattle out the pram are those wanting bans and constitutional amendments to ban it. If it doesn’t matter, why do they care if someone else marries someone of the same sex? What the hell is it to them?
It’s the religious people that are pitching a hissy fit over gay marriage. Perhaps they should grow up.
its true, seperate but equal is totally fine! the whole brown vs. the board of education was all just liberal nonsene!
and if its not such a big deal why can’t homosexuals just be allowed to be married? why is it such a big deal to you that they cant be called *that*?
also, you should probably be familiar with the legal system of the united states, so I will fill you in a little bit: Prop 8 was a constitutional ammendment to the california constitution because the law that was passed a few years back was taken through the appeals process and was deemed unconstitutional, so prop 8 was adopted so prohibiting gay marriage could no longer be found unconstitutional (unless they repeal the ammendment). If they took it to a higher court to “get attention” they would have to go through federal district courts up the the supreme court, but if you had any familiarity with the federal court system you would know that certain topics like gay marriage will not be touched because they are too hot button of an issue.
so just keep living in your magical world of plessy v. ferguson
It’s all a part of the process. As stated, it’ll be a Federal issue soon. We’ll see how it goes in the Supreme Court.
Considering Obama is President Elect and in charge of appointing new justices, this will be interesting.
You’re right, gay couples want the same benefits as straight couples so they can get some attention.
Oh, so you wouldn’t mind if the term “marriage” was taken away from heterosexual couples? I’m pretty sure you would be throwing a fit right now if Prop. 8 was against heterosexual couples. And if it’s just about a term, then why even have the proposition at all? If it’s all the same, then there would be no issue at all. So, no, it’s not just about the definition of a word. It’s about the suppression of the civil rights of our fellow citizens based on skewed religious views.
Eff You, shift.
You don’t get out much do you?
I’m pretty sure I get out a lot more often than you since I don’t walk around with my self righteous head up my own ass. How DO you manage it?
Thanks for proving that you’re an ignorant jackass that’s part of the butthurt minority that didn’t get their way. You sound exactly like a Palin supporter.
LOL, epic assumption fail.
Hah!
Huh? Are you saying that DW supports Prop 8? Because it’s kinda’ apparent that he/she doesn’t based on other posts in this topic.
Oh wait… You thought I thought he/she was GAY! No… In this case that’s almost as relevant as your assumption as to my possition on the matter.
You’re still failing.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
If the constitution doesn’t justify gay marriage, why are opponents of gay marriage wanting to change it?
The point. You’ve made it.
Thank you Ceefax, I hadn’t had dig that fact up yet.
Cheers!
If memory serves me correctly, I think it was “Brown vs. Board of Education” (a Supreme Court Case) that overturned the “separate but equal” doctrine in 1954. Plenty of people were p*ssed about the decision (see news footage of armed National Guardsmen escorting CHILDREN into GRADE SCHOOLS), however much you or I may deplore such a sentiment.
The difference between the two, I believe, is that Prop 8 was actually put to a vote. Had abolishing segregation been put to a vote, there would probably still be states that hadn’t gotten around to it.
Your absolutely right… we should treat each other with disrespect and make sure that there are second class citizens. We should form schools that are “separate but equal” so that heterosexuals and homosexuals dont have to share the same drinking fountains… that way none of the heterosexuals catch “the gay” Excellent idea… That is exactly what our nation is about… oh wait… thats right its not. ALL MEN OUR EQUAL, under our supposed constitution… i guess we’ve lost enough rights in the past 8 years… what is one more.
How is gay marriage hurting your life… how does it undermine your marriage? Get over yourself, start seeing the beauty in everyone.
If we don’t have a hierarchical society that means I can’t assert my will over other people though! I don’t understand how common sense morality is always put into the super pinko extremist column.
*gasp!* Would you then demand that I sit and EAT with these people? Fie, I say – they belong busing & waiting the tables!
You already said it, doll: it takes away the ability to lord it over others. Gods, to have to deal with peers really bites some people, dunnit? Bites hell out of my boss, I know, when I deal with the old ladies and their faux jewelry in the same fashion as her customers with their Rolexes. Why? Got me, I just thought it was good customer service…
Good for you. *applauds*
*bows* Heaven knows I’ll be one of them there lil’ ol’ ladeez meself in a few short years, I want to pave the way for the next generation of polite young things!
Besides, those ladies are usually nicer. The ones with rolexes are b*tches that look at you like you’re mud on their shoes.
Nah- that’s just you.
@Ed
I think you’ll find it’s spelled ‘teh GAY!!!!111′
Sometime it’s spelled “teh Ghey!!11!!1! The extra ‘h’ makes it lol’ey
Indeed… there are several variants, but all have the same etymology…
Actually, that simply isn’t true – peruse the Federalist #10 by James Madison if you think I am incorrect in this matter. Our country is a republic, not a staight democracy and one fo the key differences is all about what Madison termed “tyranny of the majority”. Tyranny of the majority is allowing all decisions to be made by a straight majority vote, which is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to AVOID. this is why we have three branches of government, why you need 60 senators to be a fillibuster-proof majority, why both the House and Senate and the President have to approve laws (this has been somewhat amended under the current outgoing administration). This is also why two-thirds of the states have to agree to ratify the constitution and why we have things like checks and balances. The idea that a very slim majority can amend a state constitution is reprehensible and actually goes against our founding principles, thank you very much.
Basic point here: the rights of minorities should NEVER be put to a vote.
But certainly ARC will experience a moral dilemma when the guy in the leather vest finally comes out.
I was thinking the same thing!
Ahaha, me three. I was confused at first, I had to read the sign a few times. Every time I looked at him and it my brain rejected the logic.
Forgive me for not knowing everything, but what, exactly is ARC?
ARC really is the Association for Retarded Citizens. Its a “nonprofit charity whose mission is to improve the quality of life for persons with developmental disabilities.” There are ARC groups all over the country – google it to find out more.
Click my name for the story. To be fair, lots of ARC students protested against Prop 8 as well.
So than ARC is an acronym that is hilariously shared by two vastly different groups of people, but when used in this contexts provides hours of entertainment? That is just BEAUTIFUL!
The one in the checkered shirt is BLATANTLY gay.
ah but it’s not fun if it’s not dirty for him…
I wonder what his safe word is…
You guys are hilarious, this is NOT a civil rights issue, stop comparing it to the civil rights movement of the 60′s. This was not a vote on whether they could sit in the front or back of the bus or a vote on separate schools, this was a vote on changing the constitution of the state to allow that men and women are only married and homosexuals are allowed civil unions and domestic partnerships, the EXACT same thing as marriage without saying marriage!!!!!! This is about left wing agenda trying to demolish American family values, and guess what, the African-AMericans protected by civil rights legislation are pretty well in agreement that they don’t want to allow homosexuals to take away marriage, let them have a domestic partnership or civil union its the SAME THING AS MARRIAGE!!!!!!
“the EXACT same thing as marriage without saying marriage!!!!!!”
-
Except that it’s not at all exactly the same thing and, as you yourself point out, is not called the same thing either?
-
(Oh, and very rarely does anything appear to be a better argument because it has a multitude of exclamation marks. I’ll go out on a limb and say it never works, really.)
Ok… if it is the same thing as marriage than why dont you go have a “domestic partnership” or “Civil Union” instead of a marriage. While your at it have your head checked out, i think it may be stuck in a very unpleasant place.
Religious and Political banter aside, still not funny. So, the ARC is supporting gay rights… what’s funny about that? Really?
Basically is it, what, saying that homosexuals are retarded? Visa-verse? And that there is something wrong with people with disabilities?
HAHAHAA that is HILARIOUS!!! Um.. no.
There is stuff on here that doesn’t always reflect my personal views, but I can still laugh at it. This, however, still not funny.
I think the humour here is supposed to be in the “ARC” on the sign being “American River College”, and the coincidence of “the ARC” also being what the poster subtext says.
-
(Click Ceefax’ name in a post a bit higher up to read the story.)
Agreed = making fun of disabilities is equally offensive as denying people marriage.
Dark humor is quite funny. See Richard Prior, Dave Chappelle, Mitch Hedeberg.
Of course, i am sure you probably think “Dark” is making fun of people of color. So i will appologize in advance.
Say ‘noir’. Aside from avoiding the sccusaory amonst us, it’s just fun to say.
Yeah, not a fan of the use of ‘retarded’, regardless of the issue attached.
How about ‘spaz’, which seems to be popular in the Colony, yet to us in the Old Country, it’s a derogatory term for someone with severe motor Cerebral Palsy.
Really? That’s interesting. I’ve never heard that.
what about in the denotative sense. as in, to retard something is to impede or slow it’s progress.
~
bit like the use of the word ass for donkey
They support prop 8 which means they are against gay rights. The captioner is saying one must be handicapped to not want to give all people the same rights.
AH, thank you! I missed that in between reading all the heated posts. Still not a fan of “retarded” being used in such a manner.
Thank you for explaining since I obviously am not awake enough right now to have interpreted it properly. Still don’t find it very funny… but whatever. To poor grammar kittehs I go.
You’re right! Let’s put a prop 9 on the ballot next year to make the use of that word illegal. Retard.
Actually, the Tom of Finland fans in the picture are not supporting Gay rights… so it’s actually saying that only people who are developmentally challenged (for instance ‘sociopaths’) would make a stand to amend a constitution to enshrine an explicit removal of equality rights…
Ack!!! Someone knows what Tom of Finland is!!! We have this series in our bookstore. It is supposed to be wrapped (so the kiddies don’t get disturbed looking at it, I guess) and we’re constantly getting people who unwrap it and leave it lying around. Then we find it and have to schlep it to the back to be rewrapped and we start all over again. The nipples on those guys are scary enough and they’re on the cover!
I lived in Amsterdam for a while… There were action figures as well as the Taschenbuch…
Yup. Demolishing American family values, so homosexuals can have the same high divorce rate, commit spousal and child abuse, obtain Vegas marriage that last a couple hours, and abandon their children at hospitals using Nebraska’s ‘Safe Haven’ law.
And because GLBTQI individuals getting married definitely takes away the marriages of heterosexual people. In fact, God kills a masturbating kitten every time a gay couple gets married.
AMEN Yeee…….but the truth hurts, so the powers that be are reluctant to cave for the religious right.
The right doesn’t wanna gays to marry because they will probably lower the overall divorce rate. Hell even in my life both my brothers have been divorced once, my parents had me on their second marriage… statistically my first marriage won’t last. But nope it’s the gays messing everything up.
I think you should highlight the IGNORANCE in your name.
Less Igoranceisbliss, more Ignorantbigot
It is indeed a civil rights issue, and it’s absolutely inevitable that homosexuals will have the right to marriage (which will be called marriage and have exactly the same standing as heterosexual marriage). The bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional and have zero chance of standing long-term. The current apartheid in the US is doomed.
You are so right! This is exactly like the civil rights movement or South African apartheid. Actually it’s more like PETA comparing chicken farms to the Holocaust.
I.E, not the same at all.
People using despicable acts that happened in the past to cover themselves with a blanket of victim-hood and justify everything they do is wrong. Getting called names on the playground is not comparable to slavery. Getting beat up in school is not comparable to getting freaking lynched.
A bit like you using despicable acts in an absolutely p*ss-weak argument of “It’s not as bad as slavery” That’s completely irrelevant, it’s still a civil rights issue.
Assuming that the right is there to take away, of course. Much of this “civil rights” argument is based on that unstable foundation.
two words:
Matthew Shepard
compare that to getting freaking lynched
Indeed… there again, if you murder a Goth in Amarillo you get probation…
Amazing what you can finagle if you’re a jock…
The FBI reported 1460 sexual orientation motivated hate crimes in the US in 2007 alone.
In January 2007, a United Nations report described the increased persecution, torture and extrajudicial killing of Iraqi lesbians and gay men by the Shia death squads of the Badr and Sadr militias (the armed wings of the two main Shia parties that control the government of Iraq). In 2005, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani issued a fatwa on his website calling for the execution of gays in the “worst, most severe way.”
There are at least 7 countries where homosexuality is punishable by death.
The link attached to my name shares a partial list of violence acted against gays.
Thanks for failing, try again.
Most of your argument applies to the world outside the United States. The failure is yours alone.
How is it a failure? I am simply pointing out the atmosphere of the world in which we live. The United States is not excluded from the rest of the world, considering something like 13 states continue to have anti-sodomy laws (some applying only to homosexuals, not to sodomy practiced by heterosexuals).
Or perhaps you didn’t realize the comment I was replying to was Jiminy’s – “Getting beat up in school is not comparable to getting freaking lynched.” My point was that this runs far deeper getting beaten up at school. It is violence and hatred, and it is not acceptable.
How can constitutional amendments be unconstitutional? The only way something that is codified into law via constitutional amendment, is by repealing that amendment.
FYI, the federal government has shown zero interest in addressing this no-win issue; it has left it entirely to the states, who for the most part have decided to amend their constitutions to prevent it.
Now, if you don’t like that, I suggest you get cracking with forming ballot measures to repeal these amendments…
amended: “The only way something that is…amendment” to read “The only way something that is codified into law via constitutional amendment, can be non-constitutional”
If you think marriage isn’t a civil right issue please look up the supreme court case of Love vs. Virginia, after that browse down to my comment below, read that, and when you’re all set please get back to me.
“the African-AMericans protected by civil rights legislation are pretty well in agreement that they don’t want to allow homosexuals to take away marriage”
I would also like to ask how homosexuals would be taking away marriage and what gives you the right to speak for a whole group of people?
Hernandez v. Robles is also a good case to research if you want to know exactly why the Loving v. Virginia case CANNOT be used to justify gay marriage!
I’m not using it to justify gay marriage, I’m using it to illustrate that marriage is a civil rights issue.
The arguement I am going against is that marriage is not a matter of civil rights.
Simply because someone tries to make it one, doesn’t make it one. I can try to make just about anything I want into a civil rights issue — doesn’t mean that it is.
Why is this NOT a civil rights issue?
I apologize for my typo:
Loving v. Virginia
I have included a link.
In before someone blathers on about an “agenda”…oh nm.
Wait, are we talking about the gay agenda?
*Passes it out on pink and purple paper with rainbow bullet points*
Gay agenda, liberuuul agenda, left wing agenda, secular agenda, atheist agenda, Satanist agenda, EVIL SCIENTIST GLOBAL WARMING AGENDA.
So many to choose from, so little time.
Robot agenda. Definitely the robots behind this, it REEKS of logic to give gays the right to marry.
Heh. Dalek agenda.
“CIVIL UNIONATE!!!”
*snork* LURVE the Dahleks! Dr. Who FTW!1!
you win the internet
Why is it not a civil rights issue? Oh, I know! Because if it were a civil rights issue, you’d be no different from the racists who blasted peaceful protesters with fire hoses, and more importantly, you’d be destined to lose! Is that it?
Because there’s no such thing as a gay black person?
Just one on the Downlow…
“they don’t want to allow homosexuals to take away marriage”
What are you even saying anymore?
I think it must be like The Grinch…
Umm…have you ever heard the phrase “separate but equal”? That should tell you this is indeed a civil rights issue.
Ignorance is bliss only for you…
aww. don’t insult the mentally retarded that way
i posted info about ARC earlier but PK eated it
*breathing in deeply* ahh the sweet smell of Democracy…
Smells more like the tyranny of the majority to me, which is why we live in a Constitutional Republic rather than a democracy. The majority can kiss my constitution.
Protesting because the will of the people has been upheld and we few disagree… So much better than throwing a temper tantrum like a 4 year old who’s been denied a sucker.
Pundit Kitchen, ok to post attacks on the right, but don’t you dare post attacks on the left…. that’s a civil rights issue.
Exclamation points and CAPS LOCK MAKE ME FEEL BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stop whining and pretending you’re being oppressed, no-one’s stopping you from making attacks on the left, your posts are all still there. What do you want, the right to post things without people disagreeing with them?
Help, help, he’s bein’ oppressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!
I like you. You’s funny.
Yes. He also wouldn’t say no to someone stroking his ego. Especially if said stroking had a “happy ending”.
So long as it wasn’t followed by a marriage proposal.
When the will of the people runs counter to the Constitution, the Constitution wins. So saith the Supreme Court. Just ask Orval Faubus.
Why do so many people not understand this concept? If the majority of people voted to restart slavery it would still be denied under the constitution. If the majority of people voted that mixed race marriage should be outlawed that ban wouldn’t stand under the constitution.
I’m with you, I don’t understand how people can be so close minded. I know they are, I see it, I hear it, I just don’t get it. I understand Japanese a wee bit better than I understand that.
Strawman (and basic civics) fail.
If 2/3 of the Congress and 3/5 of the states (or a Constitutional Convention) voted to repeal the 13th Amendment, it would be entirely constutional.
ARC = American River College, one of our community colleges here in Sacramento. ANd for the record the group in the picture represents (apparently) a portion of their student council.
Stop saying that marriage is not a civil right when it has been declared such time and again by the Supreme Court (both state and federal). Seriously, open a book.
hi mouse /waves
I suddenly feel like I must know you in real life. Whatevs. *waves back*
/is loved
you has a bitter!
/gasp! I do know you! Gimme a hint?
“when it has been declared such time and again by the Supreme Court (both state and federal)”
Care to provide backup for that?
Just off the top of my head:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
This case has been cited in other same-sex marriage cases, as noted in the article, although justices seem divided it being applicable in that context (I would argue that it is on the grounds that child rearing is more important than reproduction and that reproduction is not limited to hetero relationships in modern society).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp
This would be, ironically, California preceding the same decision as above by a good number of years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases
And indeed, in the very same Cal. Supreme Court case that Prop 8 overturned, marriage was referred to as a fundamental right.
This research paper linked in my name has some great footnotes on other Supreme Court (mostly state) that assert the same. I believe CT and VT justices also used the term fundamental or civil right.
There is nothing wrong with gay people, there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, there is nothing wrong with gay sex. Yeah I know this isn’t really a constructive argument but it’s getting to the point. You homophobes make me sick to my ass.
I just have to say that I love the phrase “sick to my ass”. Never heard it before, but I’m going to be using it often. Thanks for the lol
It’s a quote from Mom from the Futurama. I think it was that episode where it was Moms birthday.
Oh god how did I miss that? I was untruthful then, I have heard it before. Still love it though
Yes! And one of her sons said something typically sappy/dumb, and she smacked him one and said, “Jam a bastard in it, you crap!!” Her swearing made absolutely no sense, but was brilliant nonetheless.
It’s like the marvelous nonsense Lewis Carrol wrote; the words themselves seem random or made-up, but the sense is there better than if it were a tried-and-true phrase
Gads, there’s more than a few around here that sound like Hompty Dumpty sometimes…
nope…not funny…get over the fact that the NO on Prop 8 lost fair and square….
There’s no need for people to get over it, prop 8 is unconstitutional and goes against everything the US was founded on. As soon as it’s tested, it’ll crumble.
agreed! this should have never been up to the voters to decide in the first place. we have an appointed set of people that determine weather things like this are constitutional or not: its called the court system. california is part of a democratic republic and, contrary to current popular belief, we are not a theocracy, sorry. religion may have contributed to ‘marriage’ in the form we see it today, but it by all means is not a religious institution anymore. when you go to the JP they do not require any religious affiliation, nor do they care. they want you to sign a contract that states ‘we want to have a joint-union to this person for the rest of our lives’ and the gov’t is happy to collect your taxes and give you benefits of having that union. is my marriage considered a domestic partnership? no, it’s a marriage, and who am i to deny the SAME title to those who were married at the JP when i was there. all i saw were happy couples, both gay and straight, that did not need validation of their love, but just wanted the love to be recognized by the gov’t and were doing so by filling out gov’t contracts for the gov’t. gov’t = no religious affiliation no mater how you slice it. emotions should never get in the way of the constitutional rights, thats why we have checks and balances. i remember something about tyranny…oh yeah, the constitutions make sure that no one suffers from it, including religious tyranny. correct me if i am wrong, but wasn’t that what the Calvinists who first came to the US that sought to escape from?
idk, this all seems like a big waste of time, effort and resources from the minute it started, on both sides. again, the voters should have been more concerned about the elections and the MONETARY propositions(remember those? where you have a chance to determine where some your tax dollars go?) than this purely emotional issue. i regret that some communities are being torn apart b/c of this and i wish i could have voted: ‘let the courts decide.’
ugh, rant.
but meh, im here for the lulz
Civics fail (don’t feel bad, you’re hardly the only one in these comments without a clue about how the world actually works):
“this should have never been up to the voters to decide in the first place. we have an appointed set of people that determine weather things like this are constitutional or not: its called the court system.”
Except, that it’s the court’s job to interpret existing law (including the Constitution), not to make law. When the people decide they want to change law, they can have their elected officials do it for them, or do it themselves by changing the constitution.
Here’s your civics lesson for the day:
The people of California decided once that they preferred to prevent same-sex couples from marrying. That was a simple law. The court system found nothing in the California constitution at the time to uphold such a law, and struck it down. Then the anti-gay-marriage people decided to put something in the Constitution to prevent the court from doing that again, and it passed this past Nov 4th by a 52-48 margin.
Now, that said, it *is* entirely over the top to take this to a constitutional level. But it is a very emotionally-charged issue, and apparently many people feel very strongly about it (on both sides).
I should add something I’ve said in other threads: the fact that it takes a 2/3 majority to approve spending measures in this state, and a simple majority to amend the constitution, is what actually is retarded…
Except, who is going to test it? It’s in the California Constitution, there is no legal standing for a state court at any level, to do anything about it.
And the federal government has adopted a very hands-off position on this issue.
So the only way it’s going to be “tested” is via another ballot measure seeking to overturn it. Given that the pro-gay-marriage side has failed twice to muster up the votes needed to defeat, first a simple state law and then a constitutional amendment, I think your chances are pretty slim in the near term.
I agree that this isn’t funny as I agree that (according to the limits and rules that were the deciding factors) all was ‘fair and square’.
But it still is a civil rights issue, one that discriminates and eliminates the rights of a group of people, and a cause that is still worth fighting for.
I totally thought this was a gay couple at first. Oops, my gaydar must need to be recalibrated..
No….. I don’t think so.
I don’t think anyone is going to give up soon. If people gave up on civil rights that easily, you wouldn’t have a black president today.
Don’t you have a sink to unclog somewhere, Joe?
No, he isn’t licensed. LOL
oh good god…don’t u people have something else to do?
…no?
I disagree with this comment. The people in the image aren’t retarded, they’re willfully ignorant. How many literally-retarded people even understand concepts like “gay” and “hate” anyway?
If you’re just using it the way Carlos Mencia does, however, then I get it.
They have some social developmental problem, since to feel ‘good’ they have to make sure that there second class citizenry enforced by law…
there are varying levels of course, i know many “retarded people” that understand the concepts of being gay, and the certainly know what hatred is.
also…i do not consider myself a homophobe. in fact i have a couple of gay friends…and they understand me on this issue…i wouldn’t have a problem on this issue of prop 8, if they were going to come up with their own “marraige” term. other than that…i have no problem with them, for lack of term, getting “married”
Could you explain why it is so important that it has a different name? I am honestly curious.
Same here.
It’s not to me. But apparently it is to many, many religious citizens. It’s a term with very specific conventional and traditional meaning to a lot of people (apparently, to 52% of those who voted in California on Nov 4th).
It’s an unfortunate fact of history that our forbears decided simply to secularize a religious institution for legal means. Of course, 220 years ago, no one even thought that there would be a need legally to define what “marriage” is.
As I’ve said numerous times previously, if you take away the term “marriage” and replace it, legally, with a different term (with a type of legal bonding that that all consenting adults live under, equally), then there is no problem. That 52% of the voting public would probably have voted 95% against Prop 8 if it simply didn’t have the word (or permutation thereof) “marriage” in it.
Yes, it’s semantics, but for some, very politically and emotionally charged semantics.
I do agree if it just comes down to semantics, so long as those contracts gave the same benefits and were identical in nature.
But WHY? (see my post above.)
Only so that the insecure people who get their feathers ruffled about the semantic difference can shut up. I would really like for all people to be able to use the word ‘marriage’ because it sounds SO much more fabulous than ‘union’, but if this means I can have visitation rights, that’s something I’m willing to compromise on.
Ah okay – you meant you’d be willing to settle for the compromise? When I read your comment, I got the impression that you shared “Joe”‘s view that it’d be okay but only if it was absolutely NOT called marriage.
-
I get easily confused sometimes. That’s why us women should not really have voting rights, but something that’s just like it, only with another name.
-
Sorry, couldn’t help myself. :/
“I get easily confused sometimes. That’s why us women should not really have voting rights, but something that’s just like it, only with another name.”
Or no voting rights at all! With a brain half the size of a man’s we cannot possibly make informed decisions about anything.
It could be very neatly solved with just making it so that men have voting rights, and us others have “voting” rights. See, not even a need for another name.
I like you.
Oooer. See, that could be an indication that you should not be allowed to “vote”.
I have a vagoo, I shouldn’t. I don’t know why they even let me near the computer machine.
get off that fancy calculator and get back in the kitchen! and gimme those shoes! why aren’t you pregnant and nursing! damn woman, doing stuff & things…
ZOMG. I just realised, from what you write – you are actually ALONE at the computer? I assumed you were allowed to play with it now and then under male supervision of course. Anything but that is INSANITY!
I am inherently sinful and dull in nature, I cant help but disobey.
I should get back to cleaning.
Men get a vote, women get “civil choosing”.
CK WIN.
Excellent. It has that wonderfully bland, almost porridgy, stickiness as the civil union. Beautiful.
(Sorry about my grammar failings there. Should be “It has that SAME wonderfully…” of course.)
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
*wheeze*
hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha
/tears up
Finally someone that shares my struggle.
lol
Of course, this could be remedied by the compulsory removal of half of every man’s brain.
I couldn’t help myself either.
Oh no, you’re fine, and in retrospect, it did look like the way you described it. Don’t worry, I get easily confused as well – thanks for asking for clarification
Unless things are very, very clear, I tend to assume that things that don’t make sense to me are being misunderstood by me in some way. It really makes life easier some times.
I’m partial to the word “covenant” but realize that has serious religious overtones and is a stumbling point for those who do not believe in God.
YET – a covenant is a promise of fidelity and eternal relationship. I still like it and it doesn’t depend on orientation or gender. ANYONE can make (and work hard at keeping) a life long promise.
Marriage & covenant both have that failing… but they’re just words, dammit! I utterly resent anyone hijacking my dictionary.
Our dictionaries are hijacked all the time, unfortunately. *sigh*
I apologize if I hijacked yours.
Nah, there’s connotation AND denotation, I knows that. I even knows what they means ;>
But words ARE malleable, and we have to swing with it.
life would be far less funny without connotation and denotation…it would also be less confusing
I’m gonna disagree here because if you’re defining covenant as a promise of fidelity and eternal relation ship, it doesn’t fit. Why? Because there are married people that have “open relationships”, and some are swingers. Some have no problem with the fact that their spouse cheats. And marriages aren’t eternal. They end by one of two ways, death or divorce. Different religious groups have different definitions of what a marriage is so it’s not like it’s a christian thing. I know it’s kinda off topic and I’m beginning to ramble, but call it what it is, a marriage.
Because heterosexuals see the insistence of homosexuals to be “married” as something of a slap in the face or mocking the heterosexual way of life. And yes people are afraid that homosexuals will will adopt children and abuse them. It is an irrational fear, but it exists all the same. The way to deal with frightened people is not to get in their face and call them Nazis and bigots but to live your life in a way that will disprove their fears and show your inner decency.
Actually, I would argue that most people don’t think about the issue at all. It simply isn’t up there in terms of importance with paying the mortgage, feeding the kids, and so on.
However, if someone brings up the issue, say, as a measure on a ballot, then what happens is now someone has to consider it, and believe it or not, the scare ads don’t enter into it. Call it willful ignorance if you like, but most of the people who voted for prop 8, voted for it based on long-term conventional understanding of what “marriage” means.
Here’s the entire text of the prop:
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf
Most often, someone who has not given it much thought, is going to read that in the booth and say, “that sounds about right to me”.
I’m sorry this just reminds me of the surgery scene in Harold and Kumar go to White Castle. It’s the same sort of utter incomprehension (and I agree with it).
-
“We need to properly sedate the patient, what we should probably use is marijuana.”
“Marijuana? But WHY?”
Ah, the language of the concern troll. “But, but, but I have a gay/ black/ jewish friend which proves I’m not a homophobe/ bigot/ anti semite.” Yeah, sure you’re not.
Let me see if I understand what happened here. There was a court case in which a judge (a non-elected public official) interpreted a portion of the California state constitution to allow for marriages to be exist between any two consenting adults regardless of their gender. I would assume that came under some kind of equal treatment or equal protection clause which makes sense. Sometime after that, an initiative was raised to change the definition of the legal term “marriage” such that it would applicable only to heterosexual couples. The initiative was placed on the ballot and any eligible voter in the state was allowed to vote for or against it. When they added up the votes more people preferred the definition of marriage as being a union between a heterosexual couple than preferred an alternative. It sounds like this might have been a direct legislative action by the people of the state of California. It sounds like a case of democracy in action. And the reaction to it sounds a great deal like people suddenly realizing that in a democracy, you don’t always get what you want. Sometimes you don’t get it even if you think it is right that you should. I suggest you arm yourselves, overthrow the government and establish your own state where your rights are better protected. Or, if you’re not willing to go to that extreme, perhaps you should mount an initiative to call the issue to vote again at the next election.
As to the picture above; okay so the point was to insult these people for supporting a proposition that the poster opposed (or whose premise the poster opposed). Sorry, not funny.
Ah hah! A coherent arguement!
Yes essentially that is what happened (with one or two details missing).
I would guess that most of the ridicule is not aimed at the fact that democracy in action produced an effect that some people disagree with but is rather aimed at how a large group of people could pour so much pasion into denying another group of people civil rights.
If the majority of people voted to have prop 8 passed, good for them. But it doesn’t mean the losing side is going to sit back and shut up. It is still a worthy cause to fight for.
(and I disagree with calling them retarded, even though it played in well, ignorant is more like it)
This sounds suspiciously like argumentum ad populum. What is popular is not always right, what is right is not always popular.
We have rarely in this country voted to remove the rights of citizens. We have. The people who did deserve to be mocked for not understanding the very concept of the “tyranny of the majority” (which by the way, is why we aren’t a democracy).
Nice comment!
I am a firm believer that the only people who oppose same sex marriage are either nosey or insecure in their own relationship. Seriously, if a civil union is “exactly the same” as a marriage, why do you care what it’s called? Does being “married” instead of “civilly unionized” with your wife / husband give your relationship some special magical powers that you don’t want to share with homosexuals?
As a final point, the divorce rate is ridiculous. Even among supports of prop 8 marriage clearly doesn’t have the “sanctity” that it used to. If you’ve been divorced you really have no ground to stand on when opposing someone else’s right to give it a shot. Is it fear that homosexuals will do it better? Look at how long most of those couples have been together and tell me they don’t deserve to be married.
Protesting: It’s not just for homosexuals anymore.
The 60′s are back and more twisted than ever BABY!
Wait a minute, heterosexuals are allowed to protest also?
I had no idea. But now the bigger question: what about the bisexuals????
Bisexuals are only allowed to protest to half of it.
*the left side protests, the right side just lusts* gah!
no seriously, bisexuals are prolly the most informative on the subject as they hjave had feelings for both those of the same sex and “(finger movements included) normal(end finger movements)” feelings.
they understand that its not a choice but a mental hardwiring.
I agree completely. And not only that, they get as much shit thrown at them for being bisexual. The ignorant often cast them aside, saying they’re just “confused,” or they’re “whores.” It’s awful.
But which half? My poor estrogen laced brain is confused…
Do not worry, dumb female-who-belongs-in-the-kitchen! I will shed some light upon the situation, for I have a penis!
The bisexuals are only allowed to protest to the half they pick out of a random drawing. Or, it could be bisexuals can only protest half-heartedly! Yes, that would make more sense, wouldn’t it?
Yes, I changed my story. You wanna fight about it?
I wish I could ask people like this a single question w/ them quoting the bible.
Can someone please explane the argument against me marrying my partner w/ using the bible. Is the fact that I want to marry the person I love so evil that the moment I do, the entire civilized world as we know it will implode? I mean ,seriosly, is there any argument against gay marrige that isn’t self surving in some aspect?
There has been the odd attempt to fudge a rational and secular reason for opposing it, but they’ve all failed miserably. At least Mike Huckabee is honest about the aim of the anti-gary marriage mob.
“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do – to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.”
What? Modern day America actually has had a man who says something like this running to become a candidate for the presidency?
-
Flabbergasted. That’s me.
(And when I say America I mean the US. Sorry.)
Yes. We really near to get the Christian Right out of politics. It will only harm the country.
correction:: we need to get RELIGION out of politics. Regardless of religious opinion or law, one should not, as a politician, impose their religious believes on the people. They can believe whatever they wish, but they should keep it out of the law books.
Oh, yes. Christianity is of course not the only religion that is best separated from state.
Yep, that seems an unsuitable path to go skipping down…
No, I DO want all religion out of politics. I only singled them out because they are the ones who have most forcefully inserted themselves into politics, including trying to rewrite history about this being founded as a christian nation. It wasn’t.
Ah yes, that makes perfect sense to me.
-
Interesting that some people seem hell-bent on trying to make the USA into something like what people once upon a time ran away from to start a new, free, country to live in (eventually called the USA). Hm.
That wasn’t the half of it. Did you see the Republican candidates’ debate? The mod asked who believed in creationism – and Huckabee wasn’t the only one who raised his hand.
*shudder*
-
No, most of that stuff was, if aired at all, aired in the middle of the night. The Obama-Clinton fight seemed to get more coverage here.
I’ve always found that the best responses to religious fanatics quoting the bible tend to be to quote the bible back to them in a way that makes you sound correct. It greatly pisses them off. After all, if they can choose which parts they like, why can’t we?
Honestly, if we are sticking with the seperation of church and state, the semantics shouldn’t make a difference. A church (or any other religious institution) has the right to marry any two people it wants. It’s freedom of religion. You don’t have to agree with it. Because if you start allowing the state to mandate who it can ‘marry,’ you start on a slippery slope of letting the government have control of the church.
Seperation of church and state is NOT just to keep the church of the state, but to keep the state out of the church!
But. You can get married without any involvement of the church today too, as long as you’re one man and one woman, right?
True. But the state should not be allowed to deny rights to a couple married in the church no matter who. Therefore to be equal, they should not be allowed to deny rights to anyone not married within the church either.
Umm. I have read this a few times now and am still not sure I understand “should not be allowed to deny rights to a couple married in the church no matter who”. Which rights do you mean here?
-
I’m sorry I first responded to you in two separate posts here, it seems like we are discussing the same issue, but I can’t really get my head around what you mean now. :/
I mean granting legal rights. IMO if you can being married can involve to seperate aspects, legal and religious. To deny the right for any couple to have either is discrimination, either against the church or against the indvidual as the case may be.
Now I am off to put everyone down for quiet time. Then maybe I can for a coherant thought. But don’t hold your breath.
Yes. As a minister, I cannot marry anyone without first having IN MY HAND a valid marriage license. I did that – only once – and got my ass chewed by the judge in whose district the church was located. He didn’t fine or jail me because I was new to the ministry gig and ignorant of the law. I got very lucky. After that, I required all couples I was marrying to have their signed license at the rehearsal or I would not do the wedding.
I have also performed weddings for couples who are already legally married – they simply wanted a “church” wedding because they are so pretty. I got to the point where I preferred to do funerals because my professional services were actually needed as opposed to a bit part in the script.
(And to add to my too quickly posted comment:)
-
Personally, I think churches should have the right to reject anyone they want to, but then they should not have the right to marry people in regards to the legal matters that constitute so much of a marriage. In a church, you should then only get a “married before god” and still need to get the state to actually give you the marriage that has an impact on things state-related.
-
I apologise for my limited vocabulary here, I am trying to translate my thoughts to English, and find myself sadly lacking both some words and the time to look them up.
I agree. But I think that you can’t give one couple legal rights who are married by a church, and not another. Just as anyone who is not religious (also a freedom of religion) should be allowed the same legal rights granted to those married by a church.
So if two couples are married in the eyes of God (or who/whatever) then they should both be granted the same legal rights otherwise it would be discrimination.
I’m not sure my thoughts are flowing properly. No shower yet, a lack of coffee, and four kids under the age of four all trying to get my attention at the same time seem to be messing with my head this morning.
I think I may be closer to understanding what you mean now, yeah.
I agree with most of what you write – marriage has more than one side. What I am thinking is that one solution to the problem might be that churches simply never have anything to do with the legal aspects of the marriage; they handle the marriage in the eyes of their god (and when I say church I am a bit sloppy, I mean any form of congregation in any religious form). Then churches could keep their right to refuse people a ceremony with them for whatever religious reason they have, because they would no longer perform a legally binding “mundane” contract-setting-up beside the religious ceremony.
-
I can has rambling too?
Marriage is a contract between two people that confers certain rights (inheritance, shared property, insurance coverage, adoption, etc) to the couple. This contract is unusual in that it has religious aspects. Most Western religions prohibit homosexual activity. Historically, these religions also wielded substantial authority in the civil sphere. Many laws and judgements made by civil authorities mirrored the laws of the Catholic, Anglican, or Lutheran churches.
English common law, which was heavily informed by canon law, forms a common basis for most state constitutions. Specific prohibitions against homosexuality were not written into state or federal constitutions because common law already prohibited homosexuality. Thing is, constitutions trump common law. If there’s nothing in the constitution specifically prohibiting gay marriage, then laws prohibiting gay marriage cannot stand unless the constitution is amended. (Hang tight, I’m getting to the point.)
The objections to gay marriage ultimately trace back to religious prohibitions. Two men or two women getting married ultimately defies divine law, even though the couple in question does not get married in a religious ceremony. The state recognizing such a union is one more thing driving regard for divine law out of the public sphere. It’s more palatable to call it a ‘civil union’ and separate it from the religious overtones granted by the term ‘marriage’.
Personally, I think marriage should be a term reserved only for religious covenants. The state should issue civil unions only, and grant the same rights and privileges formerly reserved for marriages. If you want to get married, go to a church and get the full deal. The church, of course, will have every right to deny you the marriage if you don’t fit the criteria. But hey, that’s just me.
I agree that the distinction between the religious ceremony known as marriage and the secular contract is a big hang up in the progression of this issue and would be more easily resolved.
Still, I don’t think a lot of heterosexual couples will be happy calling it civil unions – they will still call it marriage, and may even fight to keep the term that way. Or, they may feel disenfranchised and blame it on GLBTQI individuals, which could get ugly.
I still somewhat believe that one of the problem lies with heterosexual people who feel that their marriage would be ‘cheapened’ by gay marriages, or would refuse to have a civil union – because it just doesn’t sound as good. It’s a superiority complex.
It’s also a symptom of having a head lodged in the anus.
i don’t look forward to having to use the phrase “a civil union of the minds”
Well stated Ignatz, it’s what I’ve been trying to say (without the historical overview) for days on this topic.
Actually ARC is Association FOR Retarded Citizens, but they don’t call it that any more, they just call it ARC.
ARC is American River College
You’re both right!
Wow, best flame war EVER! good job PK, this kind of thing is what you’re here for
For my part I really wish people on both sides would quit asking STATE officials to tell the CHURCH who they will and will not marry. Aren’t those supposed to be separate? Government has the power to give legal contracts and rights, and yes, that would be a civil union. Look it up please. As for the churches any who want to give people marriages: go ahead and give them. Any who don’t: go ahead and say no. ‘Tis your institution after all. Then again I have little regard for the institution itself, so maybe it’s important enough to people to ask for things government can’t give and not all churches want.
so would we then call any man-woman relationshp a civil union unless it was agreed upon by ther christian church, what branch of the church, are people who have jewish weddings, or handfastings not married, would that also be a civil union?
This has been my point all along.
“We” (being the secular, legal side of societal institution) would call it “civil union” (or whatever).
I mean really, is there a legal definition of the term “Bris”? Of course there is, it’s a circumcision. However, we do not demand that it be called a “Bris” on the books. We leave that to the Jewish faith, and continue to use the conventional secular term.
As Ignatz stated earlier, to many, the semantics *do* matter. Deeply. I understand that the same-sex side of the debate cares about semantics as well, but if, as I have been hearing, it’s really just about the civil rights granted by the current secular institution of “marriage”, then what’s the difference if we call it, say, “Happytime” for *everyone* (homo- or hetero-sexual) and leave “marriage” for the religious institutions that want to use it? That way everyone gets what they want — same-sex couples have the identical legal relationship with their partner as opposite-sex, and no one is “smearing” the institution of marriage.
By that same argument, every church that just voted to ban same sex marriage in secular law has violated the First Amendment rights of churches that would define marriage in such a way as to allow for same sex marriages.
The State is not telling churches who they can and cannot marry, just who the State will recognize as married. As far as I’m concerned the Government should be allowing said marriages and the churches can do what they want on the matter. I fully support the rights of churches to be bigots if they feel so inclined. It’s where it enters into legalities I have a problem.
Isn’t it just marvelous? I am a long time lurker but this flame war was too good not to jump into.
I just don’t understand the push for marraige, why would you want to get married anyway? It’s no cake walk… Work towards getting the rights you want as a couple and forget about having it called “marraige” and everyone will be happy. We all have to live together so why not a compromise so we can all have peace and get along?
these are humans, peace is anti human apparently.
everyone will be happy? nope.
But they’re fighting over a name. Even if there was gay marraige it would still be referred to as same sex marraige as opposed to opposite sex marraige, so still a different name…
that is a good point, however, if you think about it the same was applied to interracial marriages, and now the shock value of seeing a couple of distinctly different races is lessened, (on the whole some places its still taboo) these days you are just married even if you are a white white couple or black and white or any other combination of races.
i feel if we take baby steps eventually people will come to accept it as much as Caucasians accept those of other races, there will be radical groups but on the whole it will become a desensitized issue.
Ok, so when you put it that way I understand it a bit better. It’s basically a push for societal acceptance rather than couple rights…
in my personal opinion i want the rights, the semantics can wait for a more accepting time, but thats what the protests are about, social acceptance the homsexual right to be recognized as a legitimate couple.
It’s the rights that come with the ‘name’ marriage. Lookit my reaalllly reallly long reply up there. I’m the one that talks waay too much. Maybe you’ll get it then.
And if “societal acceptance” is the *real* goal (which I think we all understand it is), then it’s not going to happen in the lifetime of anyone typing these comments. “Queer Eye” was not a popular show because of some form of societal acceptance — it was popular because most saw it as a freakshow, and the fad (as they always do) soon passed.
Face it, homosexuals are in a very small minority in the population of the world. Their very homosexuality prevents them from making more homosexuals, while heterosexuals are free to make as many copies of themselves as they want. The best that the homosexual community can hope for in terms of numbers is to stay constant in percentage, but to think that homosexuality will ever be more than tolerated by society at large, is a pipe dream.
Make a compromise, give the gays the word marriage and reclassify heterosexual marriage as marraige.
XD
Rats…
Or, considering the divorce rate, rclassify hetero union as mirage :>
Would it? At least everyone who themselves has gotten married can comfortably say that they are married, and call their partner their wife/husband instead of having to explain why that is almost what they are but not quite, really. Having to do that must become a real pain in the proverbial posterior.
Oh, ema.
It’s a civil right issue in almost the exact same way that the interracial marriage was a civil rights issue.
*nods*
That is what I am saying. You cannot deny that it encompasses civil rights but to compare it to the African American civil rights movement is a bit off-base.
I go to this school, ARC stands for American River College. It might as well stand for Association of Retarded Citizens. At the very least the Student Government is.
Big drama-o-rama. They supported the ban on gay marriage, sparking a huge outcry from the student population for supporting something that so many students do not agree with, and that had absolutely nothing to do with academia.
The ARC student government does not support the students. The members have their own personal agendas that they use the student government for.
Word up BS. I’m a Sacramentan too and I’ve been following the travesty you’re Student Council has become for some time now. You have my sympathies.
Yup. Most were impeached over it.
no, actually, they weren’t. the school had a recall vote and not a single member of the student council was impeached.
This is why I find Student Politics pathetic. It was pathetic when I was was a student, it’s pathetic now… and mostly the people doing it are trying to spring board themselves into some ‘party’ job… scum to a man
My college had something similar happen – the student council tried to remove funding for groups that “didn’t serve the larger community” – so the Women’s Center, the LGBTA, various ethnic groups, and (my personal favorite) the Veteran’s Center. That went over well. -_-
Amen, brother! (How’s that for brief?)
Brief has never been my strong point ;D and this one gets me more upset than most topics. ^_^
Sometime ‘brief’ doesn’t cut it…
you are my hero *worshipful eyes* you put it so well, yet people will just ignore you because you can slap someone in the face with a fish but they will call it a mouse if that’s what they want to think
Everyone keeps saying that Civil Unions and Marriages are the same thing with different names. I’m not so sure that’s true.
There are 1,138 rights, privileges and benefits guaranteed to married couples that are not all guaranteed to couples who have civil unions.
A few of these are right to visit an ailing or dying partner in the hospital. Right to, in the event of a partner’s death, all sorts of a arrangements usually made beforehand, such as wills, power of attorney may go to next of kin or an unintended family member instead of the widowed partner. If a GLBTQ individual found their partner outside of the country, they would have much more trouble than a straight couple coming back into the US.
Civil Unions and Marriages are NOT the same thing. Not yet at least.
They’re separate, and not even equal.
Found Several
of These Here
>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_benefits_of_marriage_in_the_United_States
I DON’T LIKE HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE. I DON’T THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED; IT’S DISGUSTING IN MY EYES AND SHOULD DEFINITELY BE OUTLAWED BECAUSE I DON’T AGREE WITH YOUR LIFESTYLE.
Sounds kind of stupid, doesn’t it?
if you don’t like gay marriage…… AVOID MARRYING SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX. That’s the extent of how much say you should have in the matter. Case closed.
But, but, but! If THEY get the right to marry, then THEY can force me to marry one of THEM, right? Right? That just HAS to be the way it works, right!?
-
…some times I get the feeling some same-sex-marriage-opponents fear something like that, anyway. Fortunately, most has a slightly saner view on it.
-
Sorry for being flippant, it just felt like the bottom part of this discussion needed some silliness, for balance.
But… But… If THE GEIGH are allowed to get married, they won’t stop there! They’ll… They’ll make us all fabulous! They’ll break into our houses and redecorate!! LOOK OUT!! THEY’VE GOT DOILIES!!
rofl….. Where are you from, Tess? It’s an unusual name, and I had a best friend I lost contact with, so I just gotta know….
I’m Heather from Florida.
I’m originally from New Jersey, have lived in different parts of the U.S., but have never been to Florida. Tessie is a variation of my name, one that I don’t usually use IRL.
Damn, you’re not her. oh, well! Thanks anyway ^_^
You forgot !!111eleventy!
This is pretty much the solution to this entire thing. If you don’t like the idea, DON’T DO IT! This isn’t rocket science.
I don’t see you post much, but when you do, it’s brilliant. Thank you!
What gets me about this picture is just how flamingly gay these two dudes look. I mean, seriously, that right there is enough irony to set off metal detectors within a 500 mile radius
funny…. i was thinking they had gayface too. my gaydometer is usually never off…. And they are registering a 10.9 on my gaichter scale, lol… Mebe they are afraid of their latent homosexuality, and if they legalize it, GASP! they might be tempted to follow their heart… haha…
I think it’s funny. Call me a douchebag. I laughed.
Oh, trust me. You’re not a douchebag. It is funny ^_^ If you can’t laugh at something/some people that are clearly insane, they’ll get the best of you. Everything can be funny, given the right standpoint.
ARC Students ARE NOT FOR Prop 8, the douche student council run the the Campus Crusaders For Christ (Which is not longer a group because all of their support left them…) Are for Prop 8. They stole money from students and other clubs to force their politics on the rest of us. I hate being associated with them…
Let’s hope wonder grandma gets her cross shoved up her poo poo today~ Stupid old hag~ Love to see her get her hair pulled by a big nelly queen! That would be be a true LOLZ~
You posted this elsewhere, and it was loud, stupid and unfunny there…
This kind of joke infuriates me. Just because a group of collage students took an upopular stance on an issue it gives people the right to ostracize them for their beliefs? It absolutely sickens me when we give people free speech and the right to say things people don’t want to hear, and everyone else thows a big fit and demands they stop just because they’re offended. Prop. 8 got passed, that’s how democracy works and that’s how this country works so if you don’t like it sitting around insulting people isn’t going to do one thing about it so you might as well just shut up and let the rest of us get back to our lives.
But you don’t actually have a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic.
Politics failure…
and we’re not ostracising them, we’re mocking them…
So, you dullard offspring, ditch born of a poxed drab, suck it up!
I can’t stop giggling…. yer rad. i like you. ^_^
they’re being ostracized for ostracizing others. See the catch 22 there? Can’t complain about something you’re doing. You has hypocrisy.
Maybe their republicans? lol
Well, we’ll see if that’s how our governmetn works when the courts decide if the amendment is even constitutional. Checks and balances, whut?
“Just because a group of collage students took an upopular stance on an issue”
-
I for one am not disliking this stance because it’s unpopular, but for other reasons, as I think most who do, do.
-
“the right to ostracize them” … “everyone else thows a big fit /…/ just because they’re offended”
-
So you think using the offensive word “retarded” here is ostracism, whereas others are “just” offended by an opinion on an issue? Something here is a bit lopsided. When A is stupid and B is stupid back, that does not mean that B has automatically infringed on A’s “rights”. Of course, sooner or later in A being stupid, B being stupid, (rinse and repeat) A or B will suddenly decided that they don’t have the right to free speech anymore. This is nonsense.
-
No one has demanded anyone stop anything here. No one has ostracized anyone (not any more than every normal person does on an everyday basis). So don’t be too infuriated, it’s probably not healthy.
-
Hmm. So much text and I haven’t even mention the actual topic. Hooray.
I must apologise for all grammar and spelling errors there, I couldn’t see all of my text as I was typing it, and it’s 3 am so my fingers can’t feel if it turns out wrong, either. *mutters*
You know why these neocons don’t want gay marriage don’t you?
Because they don’t want the gays to over shadow their 4th failed marriage~ Gays might stay married and that wouldn’t look good if the neocon are divorcing left and right!
one week after canada legalised gay marriage, canada had its first gay divorce.
your argument fails.
Yay divorce!
Shock and awe. Someone getting a divorce. I think our lovely hetero Britney holds the record at something pathetic like 12 hours or some such loserness. Oh, but golly GEE! We’ve gotta protect her sacred right to do that! I think maybe we should re-institute the ban on divorce, at the penalty of death. Since it’s so sacred and all.
Oh, and of course, one couple definitely represents ALLLLL the gays. Yer like, so totally right…. Makes total sense.
what makes you think any given gay relationship is perfect? the point is, gay marriage isn’t somehow protected from all relationship nasties. they’d be no less likely to divorce than any other couple.
and quite frankly, sometimes i think divorce should be illegal.
apparently the words “until death do us part” don’t mean anything. *blergh*
So, you don’t think raising kids in a dysfunctional war zone of a marriage is a bad thing? niiiiice
where did you pull that from? don’t you dare put words in my mouth, jackass.
you have this notion that straight marriages have some fundamental flaw that doesn’t exist in gay relationships. which is flat out wrong.
Actually there is a GREAT organization called The Arc that positively reaches out to men and women who are mentally, emotionally and physically disabled. It is a national non-profit and, before the term “retarded” became so viciously used, that is what it stood for. Now, it’s just called The Arc and the term “retarded” should not be used to make fun of people.
Thank you. I’ve done work with the Arc. They’re also associated with the autism society I’m a member of.
Yep, it totally makes us look awesome if we call the people who disagree with us names. It makes our cause look that much better. -_-
From some reports of the Pro Prop 8 crowd, they had the low ground when it comes to loud name calling, even compared to this place.
You resorted to name calling! It makes our attempt to treat you like an animal look justified! Score!
Particularly if you choose names associated with a disability. Let’s call them gimps and cripples, too! Hey, we haven’t gone with spaz or Mongoloid, either. I’m sure people can figure out a way to work that one in.
Legislation/judicial decisions not go your way? Pitch a fit, throw a temper tantrum, protest, riot, mock, threaten and harass everyone around you until YOU get what YOU want. It’s the California way.
All in the name of tolerance, of course.
Yeah, those black folk sure were intolerant jerks for NOT accepting Jim Crow laws. Legislation was against them, and they were totally shite-heads for not just getting over it and accepting that the majority had decided that minority rights weren’t protected. Equal protection under the Constitution? Whine less, hater, the people already have spoken! Get over your need for “equal rights” you babies. You’re second class citizens, by popular vote.
You, however, preaching against the spirit of the Constitution, and treating your fellow humans as animals, you’re a bastion of tolerance.
Yup. Because when someone wants equal protection under the Constitution and they have their rights taken away by popular vote, it’s totally whining and intolerance to protest until your inalienable rights are finally recognized. Just like those black folks were totally whiny bigots for demanding an end to Jim Crow.
If the people vote against your basic humanity, you’re just supposed to suck it up.
It’s not the message — it’s the methods. Anybody has the right to get their message across, but trying to scare the majority into doing it your way is not right, no matter how justified you feel.
Is that how you feel, scared?
If I lived in California, I would find the kind of behavior that has been going on there since the election frightening, yes. People have been frightened.
Here is one of the least threatening quotes I’ve read: “If you’re planning a heterosexual wedding in California … be prepared for picketers. Designate someone to watch the parking lot … You’re going to have lots of unexpected expenses. Add $500 to your budget for security. … Be prepared for the flowers not lasting to the reception or the tuxedos showing up two sizes too small or the music at the reception being a way too loud or the cake tasting a little funny,” stated another threat. “Be afraid. Be very afraid. We are everywhere.”
People like this make America a great and free country.
It’s happening whether you like it or not… as said by the Mayor of San Fran… we got it shoved down our throats… so grab your fork and eat up!
Hate Speech
::bitter and uneducated comeback that makes little sense::
If one more person likens gayness to blackness I think I’m gonna have to check myself into a mental ward. Is this what this country has come to? Stop trying to jump on our bandwagon…first you want us to pretend segregation didn’t happen and wasn’t all that bad and now you want to use our tactics as your own…be creative fight your own. if you haven’t noticed no one has much sympathy for black people anymore… they tell us stop pulling the race card so stop pulling the gay card! its getting old, it’s over we voted.. go to Maryland and get married.
I love all people gay or straight but dang…. maybe if you stop defining yourself by your choice then no one will really care or pay attention. It seems like a gay person can’t live with out proclaiming it… we know!!!
We’ll stop likening bigotry to bigotry as soon as the gay people stop getting treated as less than people by the system and society.
It’s not a choice, any more than lefthandedness, or, say, race. If it were a choice, do you really thing people would choose it? Gays die earlier than straights because of the stress and the violence they get visited upon them.
You want segregation to be recognized as a real and hurtful thing, but you’re fine when someone else gets hit with “Separate but equal”? Nice hypocrisy. Nice you feel so comfortable with your status in society now, that you’re eager to have your own gay “n**gers* to oppress.
How would you have felt if “It’s getting old, it’s over, we voted, get over it” was all you got in the 60s when 16 states prohibited interracial marriage? We didn’t get over it, and that’s why you GET to enjoy the equality we’re all supposed to have. But when the fight comes to the next group, you turn into a Tom and laugh at the oppressed. Nice job, you smug bigot.
Actually, I agree very much with what you’re saying. It’s really not much different. It’s telling two people who they can and cannot be in love with, and marry. It was completely retarded to outlaw interracial marriage, and just as retarded as banning gay marriage. What the hell is the difference? It’s basically the nation telling one group of people (of sex, religion, race, beliefs) that they are not okay because they don’t act, look, think, or live like what the majority wants them to be like.
And who’s pretending like segregation didn’t happen or wasn’t all that bad? I sure as hell ain’t, and I looked over everything that you said, and didn’t see any mention of denial. It WAS the most disgusting, despicable thing to happen in this country, (aside from the American Indians… That was just as bad, if you look into history far and deep enough.) And we’ve come a long way. But we have a ways to go. Intolerance is intolerable, and any example of treating citizens of this country as lesser citizens is comparable.
My great grandmother was Cherokee, and in 1929 it was illegal for her to marry my great grandfather, who was german. they lived their whole lives in ‘sin’, and could never legalize their marriage because the state told them it was not okay to love one another. They lived their whole lives as outcasts in our home town because of ignorant retards, which, unfortunately, have echoed through their retarded children down the hallways of time.
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me–
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
Crap, I think I got the year they got together wrong. Whatever. It was illegal.
Oh, wait!! I think I just did a Godwin’s Law fail…. or was that a win? WOO HOO! I was the first to resort to comparison to Nazi’s! In a sideways sort of way anyway…
s’ok, K, we all have 1929 in mind these days.
on a lighter note, looks like you might be in for some wangitude.
They have mental wards in the yellow pages just saying~
Man, gays have it soooo hard. They should write books about how badly they’re treated. What do they have? Foxes Book of Homosexual Martyrs?
Who cares. Just live together and stop whining all the time about how oppressed you are.
Yeah, because Separate But Equal is totally fair, and is legal. Which is why we still have special schools for coloreds and Jim Crow laws are still all on the books.
I’ve known gays who were put in the hospital from beatings for being gay. And I know one who was killed for it. This is in San Francisco, the most gay-tolerant city on Earth. They suffer plenty, they live in fear, and they have shorter life expectancies, from the violence and the stress.
If you weren’t allowed to marry because you’re straight, you’d howl at the injustice, but when it happens to a different group, you’re sick of hearing about it and think those queer folk are uppity. Nice double standard.
The American people spoke. Get over it, they don’t want it in their state. If they want to get married that badly, move to Mass. or Conn. or whatever NE state is allowing it.
People like this make America so great~ Do you burn crosses in your yard by chance?
You’re such a ham.
Yeah, because getting tied to a fence and getting beaten to death is SOOOOO bad. Pshht. You’re so right. Like, my best friend getting carts slammed into his car at the grocery store for the tiny gay flag he has in the window is totally acceptable. Why he got jumped in the parking lot when all he was doing was driving his boyfriend home who drank too much….. YEAH… You’re SO eff’n right. Why teenagers have to be afraid to let anyone know who they are, or they might get beaten up all the time.
Don’t ever speak about a subject unless/until you’ve lived it. You don’t know shit, so don’t talk.
Man, what an awkward first date that must have been for those two.
Ham,
My next comment is probably going to damage your rep beyond repair…
but DAMN! You do some bloody fine posts!
DUDE IS THAT TIM HEIDECKER WEARING A LEATHER VEST!!!???
Too bad for the gayness. More people don’t like it than does.
“IT IS FEAR THAT SPREADS HATE.”
It’s in all caps so it must be true.
How is it hate? How is a difference of opinion on the definition of a legal term, hate?
Or is it just “hate” because it disagrees with your worldview? Sounds to me like an awfully casual use of a heavily charged word.
Marriage as a civil right (just a few):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases
http://www.liftingtheveil.org/supreme-court.htm (most are specific to parenting related issues but many mention marriage regardless).
Excellent!
You shouldn’t decide how other people should live thier lives. Just cause you don’t support them, Jamie, doesn’t mean it should be allowed. Imagine if this was happening to you and other people said “you can’t love this person beacause of this” or “you can’t do that because I dont’ like it” Think about that Jamie.
>:P
oops… I meant to say “shouldn’t be allowed” guess I should proof read next time, huh. lol
let gay marriges continue on. love is love.
Wow, American River College? Up in Sacramento? Heh, I went there for a semester. Actually, the fact that there were a number of people there who turned out in support of Prop 8 doesn’t really surprise me considering the demographics of some of the people who attend that campus. T_T
“They spew some of the meanest, most hateful speech imaginable, and then when people get mad they turn on their cameras and act like the poor pure Christian martyr who’s being discriminated against.”
Omg, I HATE that. >:o They don’t just do it with the gays, either. Certain Christians will whine about being “persecuted” simply because “Happy Holidays” is also used as a greeting alongside “Merry Christmas” at Christmas time. Man, they always want to play the “martyr” card.
Oh, so having an opinion makes you, “retarded?”
People with cognitive disabilities are just a hoot to make fun of, don’t you know?
Anyone like the jackasses associated with this sign can go die in a hole somewhere because obviously they were raised in one. Anyone who was raised properly would be open to all kinds of marriage.
Liberal fail.
Gay people who decide they want to spend their lives together deserve the same breaks in taxes and all the government associated benefits that come with marriage.
I’m a christian and although the foundation of my beliefs pits homosexuality as “wrong” and “hellbound” i dont make decisions for other people and force my beliefs on other people..nor should the government. this country was established on the idea that we wouldnt be ostracized for beliefs….
THINGS THIS COUNTRY WAS ESTABLISHED ON FAIL
*sigh*
Apparently there is no such thing as equality. Even if everyone disagrees with these two guys, they still have a right to believe what they want to believe.
Not funny on so many levels. Kind of sad, really.
i don’t get is why its a issue… if it goes against their religion, then they are entitled to believe that but that doesn’t mean it should impact another persons life. Its America, as long as its not hurting anyone or going against the law then i don’t see why its such a problem. I mean if 2 people of the same gender marry who does it affect? them selfs and their families, and if your family is backing you up then your fine, if not then tell them you understand their beliefs but you are entitled to be happy and if your happy with someone of the same gender, so be it.
I completely agree. If they aren’t forcing their views on you, don’t force your views on them.
*looks @ pic, reads caption*
So?
This was unfortunately taken at my school, American River College in Sacramento, CA. The student association decided to support Prop 8 and represented the entire student body as being pro-Prop 8. This caused a huge uproar that divided the school and was covered by the media. Quite ironic that Sacramento was voted the “Most Diverse City” by Time magazine in 2002.
QuiteAccurate is quite INaccurate. This photo was shot by me for FOX40 News at the corner of Greenback and Sunrise in Citrus Heights, NOT on the campus of American River College.
I find it sad that many people consider all Christians to be like these ignorant, hateful, fire and brimstone “You’re going to hell for not believing EXACTLY as I do and for being different!” spewing yahoos. We’re not, I promise. I have never pushed my religion on anyone, nor have I ever looked down upon someone who believes differently than I do. I figure, hey, it’s the same God, just with a different name. Even if it is a different one, who am I, a mere mortal, to judge? Just wanted to give a shout out that not all Christians are twits, there ARE some good ones… unfortunately, we get a lot of crap from the guys who take the Bible literally (which shouldn’t be done, after all, we have no idea what the men who wrote those words were thinking, we can’t get in their heads) and condemn EVERYONE who doesn’t fall in line and join their side. They hate… in my opinion, because they fear. They despise anything that shatters their comfy cozy view of the world, and retaliate with hate to hide the fear (which they would NEVER admit is really the reason behind it and their biggest weakness) because it makes them feel strong and tough to spew out random excerpts from the Bible and twist the meanings to fit their needs. It’s repulsive, but I digress, this is a pretty long post, after all. Hopefully, I didn’t make this into a redundant chunk of text. Thanks for reading this
This is true, but the Christians that do act like @$$3$ get publicity. They’re the ones people SEE. I think that the media should also show SANE Christians.
“QuiteAccurate” is actually quite inaccurate. The photo was NOT taken at American River College; it was taken at the corner of Greenback and Sunrise in Citrus Heights, California. I’m the photographer who shot the photo for http://www.fox40.com
If they aren’t bothering you, WHAT DOES IT MATTER?? What they do in private should not concern you. If they are doing things that other couples do not usuay do in public in public, you should ask them to stop nicely, and if they don’t, IGNORE THEM. Seriously, people. If they aren’t bothering you. don’t bother them.
pahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. this made me laugh so hard. oh, and to all you homophobes, i will make sure to make passionate love on your lawn after i marry my husband. and laura. you are my new love
The dark haired on is Luke Otterstadt. He is an amazing guy.
AMERICAN RIVER COLLEGE IN SACRAMENTO.
AND YES THEY ARE RETARDED.
NOH8!
oh thats the local community college in our area American River College
currently the entire student government has been taken over by a bunch of religious hate-mongering individuals. But many of the students that i now who go there actually were completely against prop 8 and the few students that were stating those opinions.