Don we now our gay apparel…
Who is that in the picture? Tell us in the Comments
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: rindawg
-
-
Copy & paste this:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Honey? Honey, you forgot your sunglasses… | Poor little Suzie would need years of therapy… Next »
Don we now our gay apparel…
» 282 comments
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
Bob the eternally un… on Undercover Loss Gutt on 90s Jokes Wyt on 90s Jokes Doveswing on Seems Legit Whatever on And Then There Was One Byt on Aww, Nicknames! Whatever on Undercover Loss Whatever on Undercover Loss Geary on Undercover Loss Whatever on Undercover Loss 
Cheezburger Company BlogPrint on Demand
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
Every Minute of Every Day
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
Itz way past
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
Goggie GIF: Snack time? Or nap time?
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
Ever Thought About Going into Medicine?
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Take That, Schrodinger
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
And Here We Have the Wild Barfing Rainbow Monkeys of Borneo
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Pile of Otters
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
Paul Revere Approves
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Happy Cat is in Pizza Heaven
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
Gives New Meaning to 'Going Commando'
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz
Nicolas Cage is Watching You Read
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Gai-sensei Totally Looks Like Jim Croce
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Switcheroo Animal Pocket Knife
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Oh The Insectanity
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
Bambi Stool
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
First? :p
Gays FAIL
BWEEP BWEEP Troll alert!!!!
Anyhow, happy holidays to all!
Happy holidays, Min!
not with yer girlfriend I didn’t
>
be nice ‘second’.
In ur lolpolitics, laffin at my peeple
Seconds FAIL
You are just jealous because no one replied to your comment even if you got the first post. You FAIL. XD
LoL, and of course I am jealous of you! Who wouldn’t be?
But not with cooking, hair styling and stuff.
…and with hanging out with women that any breathing male would give his left nut to sleep with, or talk to, or breathe the same air as. And when’s the last time a straight guy wearing makeup got invited to a sleepover with the Victoria’s Secret angels? Hmmm
Okay, ‘recognizing most rockers as straight men who wear makeup, getting invited to hang out with supermodels’ FAIL
Had a blonde moment. *takes foot out of mouth-even though it doesn’t taste so bad*
Why did you feel the need to throw in the bit about wearing makeup? Just curious… but it doesn’t seem to matter if he is wearing makeup or not.
because, obviously, we’re talking about ‘stereotypical’ gay guys. I’m part of the GLBT community, I know full well that many gay guys are more masculine than the straight ones who get thier hair and nails done.
Of course you are part of the GLBT community, we all know you’re part of everything that there ever was and ever will be. As well as know everything that ever was and ever will be about everything. It’s simply amazing, you must be some kind of superior being that is beyond human.
no,you FAIL
Troll the ancient failed fat jello
*Clap Clap* very funny, very clever. Captain Weiner, funny as well.
And to start conversations
If we make civil unions have equal rights or even more rights then marriage, that will be good enough to solve the problem of gays couples not having the same amount of rights as straights.
Merry Christmas by the way!
Than… the word is than.
as to the rest… is that Poe’s law or do you really think that?
Thanks for teaching me a new phrase today!
The entire thing is serious, although I did write it the latter to start debate.
Ooh, and next, we’ll make sure the blacks and latinos all get their own schools and such; we could call them “Separate But Equal” schools.
Next, we’ll start in on the gun owners…
I really think Racism is totally different. There won’t be separate lines for straights and gays, their won’t be schools for gays and straights (and sir, their are gay specific schools coming out there, don’t blab about separate but equal when individuals are establishing separate schools, you should go take care of that problem since many democratic individuals are actually starting that trend)
and their won’t be separate “gay marriage coordinators” unless the market calls for something like that.
This isn’t like racism. It has maybe handful in incidents that happened to blacks as well such as school beatings (which, excuse me everyone thinks are wrong and if they don’t then we both agree they are loony), but their are laws out there against discriminating against someones sexual orientation, that didn’t exist during the times of civil rights and if they did they weren’t enforced like they are now.
I think it’s offensive you associate the progression of the gay movement with race civil rights. It’s not true and I’ve proved that as so.
Also, Marriage is a religious institution. It always has been. People get ‘married’ in churches for a very long time. Their may have been things similar to marriage in the past but they can’t be defined exactly as marriage, just variations. Based off what I’m saying, church and state have mixed. Marriage is now considered a state as well as church institution which is a violation of the constitution.
Being that, it is to many peoples benefit to get married considering the rights you get when married. I wouldn’t reverse this violation because of how it is now an important part of the tax system as well as other parts of our government.
It wouldn’t be horrible to me if something passed that made marriage in churches that endorsed gay marriage. I probably wouldn’t go to that church but I also don’t anyone that would go there, nor do I hate gay people. I can’t endorse gay marriage based off of Biblical teaching (if you want to get into accuracy of the Bible exchange emails with me otherwise stick to the topic of gay marriage). Lets say that churches were FORCED to marry gays. THAT is a violation of church and state. You can’t force a religion to start practicing something that is going against it. I hope that this doesn’t happen and I’m pretty sure those that endorse Gay marriage don’t endorse forcing churches to marry them. But if it does that is a violation and if you don’t consider that important then that is being hypocritical (and lets avoid mudslinging, I don’t think you are being hypocritical cause so far you haven’t fit the criteria)
That all being said, I have gay friends, they are nice, I like them, I’m totally for civil unions, you can even call yourselves married if you want.
No, racism and homophobia are not different. And no “wall of text” will change that.
This is getting like a Doctor Who episode… It’s like a different incarnation of me…
No, I AM you, just looped back in time. It will all make sense in a month or two, when you find yourself typing this very post.
*enthralled with several concurrent thoughts*
So, what possessed me to change names?
You didn’t change names. You’re only seeing the name as different to prevent yourself imploding.
It is only after you realize that it is not the name that changed, it is yourself who changed. Then you can realize the underlying truth. There is no name…
Welcome… to the real world…
*WHACK WHACK WHACK*
Still think there’s no spoon?
Why are you spooning Fester? O_o…
There is no Fester…
Only Zuul?
Spooning leads to forking, as wiser minds than mine have noted…
That’s only after the dish runs away with the spoon…
Racism and homophia do not make the victims exactly the same. That is a logical fallacy.
No, we used to hang people *legally* for being gay. Then it was just hard labour Then it was just hard time. More or less the same time frames as miscegenation and civil rights laws (although I’m told Mississippi didn’t clean all the salvery alws up until 1995) There is still no parity on age of consent, and gay marriage… well, other than ‘The bible tells me so’ I’ve not seen a good reason for people objecting to that… But then, using ‘God’s little instruction book’ for much other than tinder or toilet paper is, in my experience, a good indicator of some form of insanity.
Come on man that’s dismissive and you know it. I sited that they’ve been persecuted in similar ways and I don’t down play that, but that doesn’t make them a race.
No, it does make then a persecuted minority…
And they’re slowly becoming a persecuted majoity.
Um, gays don’t breed… And they represent a pretty stable and small percentage of the population. So how are they becoming majority? Is there a Gay Beam in space we need to know about?
Just because the two things aren’t exactly the same, it doesn’t mean they’re not both civil rights issues and that there aren’t parallels.
It isn’t an equation to be measured out to reach the same conclusion. It is people being oppressed by a majority. The logical fallacy is believing that we have to measure out suffering before we actually grant equal protection.
We aren’t waiting for Bigotry + Majority = Victim of same measure as Racism because it is the same difference. We don’t need the work the math out because it is obvious. A bigotous majority is denying equal protection of a minority. In this instance, it is marriage. Besides your book which has no place in governmental law, what logic are you actually using? Churches aren’t being forced to do anything. If anything, we are trying to ALLOW churches to marry whichever consenting adults they please.
Your church isn’t a victim. Stop hamming up the part. You aren’t being forced, they aren’t being forced. There isn’t even a THEY since all churches are not united in the first place. I am being aggressive with my language because you keep bringing up a Non-issue so hopefully we can move on.
Marriage has not “always” been a religious thing, just like the US is *not* a Christian nation. Religions (especially Christianity) have a habit of just hijacking existing institutions and calling them its own. Please see past the propaganda of a bunch of people who are just trying to preserve their power-base.
Anyway, this is, was, and always will be an issue with the civil and legal definition and rights of marriage. No-one is threatening your superstitious ritualised marriage ceremonies.
The fact that some gays want to stay within the religions that scorned them, instead of giving those institutions the finger, as they deserve, is a separate issue.
BTW: Nothing in your screed actually says *why* you insist on separate terms. If they really are equal in stature, why the **** are you so insistent that they be kept separate?
Finally: I know your chosen religion believes itself to be the be-all and end-all of life, death, law, civil society and even your thoughts. (Most religions do.) But it’s not. Deal with it.
I have been civil so far so I will continue and ask you to do the same. I haven’t insulted anyone, only disagreed with them. Stop using your emotions to argue.
Secondly, please define what why youa re looking for. I said because Biblically a sexual relationship between same sex wrong. It’s what God intended but since I don’t know your religious believes I really can’t convince you in anyways using a being that, in all honesty, has proven Himself to me to be real. I would share it with you, and if you were snubbed by a religion I would love to hear your story and mourn with you. Get that through your head, I’m not your enemy.
Again to your why, the state endorsed marriage, ie civil unions, is exactly like marriage. If they have equal rights, equal opportunity, they aren’t separate in anything but title, Please explain (civil please cause I want to listen to you not hear you insult me) what you see now could be a problem. Their won’t be some civil right, black white school thing going on (again the democratic side is making gay only schools, stop them first before you act like something is going to happen from the conservatives)
Lastly, NO WHERE did I claim America was a Christian nation. In fact I state Thomas Jefferson as a reason the founders were not. Look up The Philosophy of Jesus, which is Thomas jeffersons version of the Bible.
Because Marriage (to me) is God ordained and should not be given to anyone, EVEN SOME STRAIGHT COUPLES SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE MARRIED. But that isn’t our constitution or country, and again I don’t think you care much for what God has to say so I can’t use Bible to convince you why because you seem hostile towards it.
There, good enough? All with out ****’s.
I’ll get back to marriage as an insitution over the many years, I’ll have to do some research but I do have some interesting facts.
Anyways Merry Christmas. I do hope you and yours are well and safe today.
I’m glad you have your presuppositions about Christianity. Congrats. It’s funny that I am SO willing to learn about gay and lesbian culture, get to know gays, and act like they are regular people and you are so willing to jump on me like you have when I disagree with you. You call for tolerance but you don’t act it.
Supersitutious? What ever man. But yes you are right this really is a civil issue and according to the constitution yes, gay marriage should be allowed.
Ah, teh Babble (sic) that makes it all SO much more reasonable…
PLEASE for the love of intelligence, get your facts straight once and for all people – CIVIL UNIONS DO NOT CONFER THE SAME RIGHTS UPON A COUPLE AS MARRIAGE. In 1997 the US General Accounting Office released a list of over 1’000 state and federal benefits and protections that are available to heterosexual MARRIED couples which are not extended to gay civil unions. Click my name for the full document. The LGBT community is fighting for the same LEGAL rights in a union, it doesn’t matter what you want to call it. And if the religious institutions don’t want to be involved then it’s up to them, as long as they don’t interfere with legislation and people’s rights. If you’re willing to learn about the LGBT community at the very least TRY to figure out what they are actually fighting for, not what you believe it to be. I mean for crying out loud, I’m not even from the US and I know this. Unless you wear a sign next to your lips that says ‘Insert Foot Here’ I suggest you do a little more research next time.
Ah, but God says it’s not on in the instruction manual these idiots need to take a dump… you’re pissing in the wind, I’m afraid. Teh Ghey makes baby Jesus cry and send people to hell…
Like I said I can’t argue the Bible to someone who doesn’t care to believe in it. And again if we are going to get in on a debate on the validity of the Bible you can ask for me email and I’ll be totally willing to DISCUSS it with you.
Also cause I’m a nice guy and definitely willing to hear your side which i’m sure has some great points to bring up!
I’d sooner remove my own eyes with a chilled teaspoon than exchange e-mails with someone who takes that crap seriously, but thanks for the offer.
So, try peddling ‘crazy’ somewhere else than me, I’m all stocked up untill 2012
Alright. Can we still be friends?
Erm… let me think…
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
No.
“I’d sooner remove my own eyes with a chilled teaspoon”
`
Fester is actually Martha Stewart???
Martha would use a chilled melon baller.
You do know that only one section of the bible says anything remotely (Very remotely) negative about homosexuality? Only six or seven of the Bible’s one million verses have any reference to same-sex behavior in any way. Out of these, none of them verses refer to homosexual orientation as it’s understood today.
Besides, the section that does include any reference to gay’s also includes much more exact rulings on behavior, no of which are followed today anyhow. (Have you ever cut your hair? Then your screwed according to Leviticus 19.27. And you can just forget about divorce and/or remarrying, according to Mark 10:1-12)
Fact is, none of the original bible refer to gay’s being in any way damned. Not the Old Testament, nor any of the original teachings of jesus. In fact, they were added later by an executive decision by the pope during the Middle Ages. Many of the so-called “Rulings” of the bible were nothing more than medieval politics.
What’s sad is that people who claim to believe in this text are largely ignorant about the truth behind it. It’s time to wake up people!
I will never understand why this particular argument always gets ignored in these types of debates. It is a huge deal but the Christians never want to acknowledge it.
And I blame Jesus and Firefox if this looks weird because of Firefox.
The Prop H8ers do like to dodge it, but we repeat it so often we need a shorthand, as I said to BlueGal.
I’d say Onlooker’s particular comes under Black’s Paradigm as well.
True that. I just have a peeve for a good point being ignored because it completely unravels a person’s stance, wide or otherwise.
It’s the disjoint of faith… more or less indistinguishable from mental illness.
If you want to use a religious text as an argument for what the government should do then move to a religious theocracy.
Knock knock I said that we should have them be exactly like marriage. I KNOW THEY AREN’T THE SAME!!! I ALSO WILL SAY NOW that I would vote to make civl unions exactly the same rights wise.
Learn to READ man. I said I’m for civil unions having the exact same rights as marriage.
Don’t call me out for something that you didn’t even check that I did or not.
TC, do you believe in separation of church and state? If so, why call something that is a marriage a “civil union?”
My point is that, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. Interracial marriage was legalized years ago, without a need for the creation of a different term.
Do you think of the term “civil union” as some form of a compromise between those who feel they own the term “marriage” and those who feel the other group doesn’t?
I said it already, you do have a good point rhorho. I don’t think gay marriaged should endorsed by any church. That is the key difference.
You clarified below, so I’m content. On an earlier LOL using this same photo, the term “civil union” was discussed.
During that discussion, someone pointed out the fact that there is an underlying disparity in using a different term for the same thing. IIRC, the example given was letting women vote, but calling it “political choosing” if a female did it, but calling it “voting” if a male did it. That example struck a chord with me.
Makes sense. Still marriage conveys that the church endorses it and I don’t think it should.
THE Church? There are several religious institutions in my
phone book, and they’re not all Christian. Which one is
THE Church, pray tell?
And anyway, “marriage” does not mean the church endorses it. If it did, straight couples couldn’t get married in civil ceremonies by justices of the peace or captains of ships at sea.
I’ve lost track of how many times these same arguments have been made and not answered adequately. Are we going to have to settle with the conclusion that you’re simply impervious to logic?
If you don’t want your church to perform the sacrament of marriage for gay people that’s fine. But I do want our government to recognize the legal contract of marriage between gay people. There is no reason not to.
Christianity does not own the term “marriage” – as others have said above, people who get married by justices of the peace, pagan priestesses like me or ship’s captains at sea are just as legally married as the people who stands up in a Catholic church.
The difference is pretty clear to me.
The one they attend…
Good. I can now quote passages from my Holy Text of
Sleeping In on Weekends.
Is that the one you keep mixing up with the Kama Sutra?
Nah, she just sleeps in after using the Kama Sutra with the available partner.
Actually, you’re both right…sort-of.
Holy Text of Sleeping In on Weekends contains two sections, much like the biblical old and new testaments. Both sections are to be treated with separate but equal respect and devotion.
(Unfortunately, most people just skip to the norty pictures.)
Publisher’s details would be welcomed… and any Australian distribution…
It will be a while, but I’ll send you a copy in English when it’s ready. Currently, HTSIW is mainly written in Hebrew. I’m having it translated into Greek soon, and I’ve got some people in Africa writing a strikingly similar version, with some notable departures. My publisher says the ensuing arguments over the various translations will be good for sales.
*swoons dangerously* Oh my GOD I’m in love! With a young woman no less. I thought I had a thing for Fester, but baby you just blew him outta the water with this brilliance. I’m yours, yours, yours, KISS ME YOU FOOL!!!
*MMMMWWWWHHHHAAAAAAAA!!!*
I like you, ghost, but don’t think it would work out with us. As far as ghosts go, I love Casper the most.
I’m afraid you aren’t used to being ethereal, as you’re still swooning dangerously, which, due to your smoky ghost nature, would defy physics. (I don’t remember you being such a klutz in life…)
I think your chances are better with Unc. He likes boobies, and likely wouldn’t pass up a chance with a pair of otherworldly, albeit smoky, ones.
If gay marriage is conducted in my church and not yours, how the hell is that your problem?
I’m stating Romans 1:26-27 as my reasoning, I will look into it more exactly what it says. Not just “this verse that verse” I’m talking Hebrew words, context, culture. Most people don’t even know their were verses in the Bible until (guestamation here) past 1000 A.D. Their for it is very easy to some out of context. Meanwhile this is my last post on this because I’m not going to repeat myself numerous times answering the same question. It came to a logical end that was quite civil.
In the mean time, People like you musicmom870 need to calm down and discuss and not argue. Seriously I stop reading half way through some stuff because most of it is insulting my intelligence. I have no reason to prove myself to most of you and I already show that not only am I competent but I openly admit when I’m wrong or someone makes a good point. I’m not going to sit around prove myself to someone who only decides to read one line of what I’ve said and comment on it, looking like a copy past job off of someone elses comment included with whatever biting remark your anger feeds you.
In the mean time, Uncle Fester I still want to be friends, rhorho you made some great points thanks so much for being civil. And Slan Agat I really appreciate your input. If I missed anyone sorry!
And Musicmom870, their are plenty of verses on unity in the Bible. Not agreeing about everything that isn’t what “be of same mind” means. So it is my problem because despite what you think, people see one church and assume the others are the same. I sure you would agree and if you don’t well then that’s kind of sad.
Again last post, post what ever you want, insulting as it may be I’m gonna careless about it and move on.
Just FYI, if you’re looking at the Hebrew you’re already looking at a translation. The original Aramaic is hard to find and harder to understand. :^)
Mental competance=imaginary friends and taking Deutero-Paul’s delusion as ‘fact’.
I tend not to take advice from people who see and hear things nor take ‘magic’ as face value…
@Slan
There are no ‘autographs’, and certainly no extant Aramaic texts, just a bunch of texts copied,mostly by illiterate amateurs, or people wanting to make it read as they wanted it to read, until Nicea. So, 400 odd years of transcription errors and special interest groups interpolations is ‘the unvarnished truth of God’s love’
My entire, lilly white, English arse…
To take it as ‘gospel’ is less an act of faith and more checking your intelligence and critical thinking at the door. At least no one has overtly played the ‘Christianity isn’t a “religion”, it’s a relationship’ card…
In bed…
Ugh, please, don’t say that too loud – I’m just waiting for the “argument” based on “personal enlightenment” with my 5-GWatt troll-tracking laser.
And I know full well the Babble is a compendium of tales handed down through centuries of oral tradition. I made that point to froo the last time the issue came up. But if one’s going to make a claim about the “original text” one ought to address the closest thing there actually is to one.
@Unc: Your description brings to mind a fun novel
I need to find again: A Canticle for Leibowitz.
@Slan – then we’re looking at the EO bible, the former Alexandrian bible, that took the Greek texts and cast them back to Coptic.
By the way, Slan, I meant to go back and answer something you said last time we had this argument
) (this has nothing to do with the current argument, but it’s been bothering me). We were talking about Baptists believing in personal revelations from the Bible versus just believing something taught to them by ‘rote’, I was using that word in the sense that it’s something being mindlessly repeated without being understood, not in the sense that it was something being handed down to be remembered as they did by storytelling before there was written language. I believe that the Epic of Gilgamesh is the earliest known written story, and before it was written down it was repeated by storytellers around the fire. That’s not the rote I’m referring to. It irritates the crap out of me when I go to church and hear (as I did last Sunday) people saying things about being a Christian or the Bible that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are believing that they’ve been TOLD to believe instead of something they actually understand or have gone to the trouble of researching themselves. A lot of Christians use the Bible as its own context, and you can’t do that. THAT’S the rote I was referring to 
)
Distinction without a difference. All you’re saying now is that YOUR storytelling is superior to THEIR storytelling, without explaining why.
Are you making the claim that Baptists are the Christian answer to Talmudic scholars, constantly re-examining, debating and applying reason and fasts about the state of the current world to your interpretations of scripture? Because fi that’s where you’re headed, you had better have some really thick flame shields. (I’ll just stand back and watch, thanks.)
grrrr, stupid truncated window. /fasts//facts, /fi//if
(grrrr, stupid truncated window. fasts->facts, fi->if)
I’m just saying that you can’t use the Bible as its own context. I don’t like it when people can’t explain why they believe what they believe, be they Christian or Wiccan or anything else. In this particular argument, I’m not trying to place one religious belief above another, instead I am saying that if you are Jewish (which you have said before that you are), if you are only Jewish (religion) because your parents were and THAT’S IT, then there is a problem there. THe same way that if you are Christian, Buddist, Wiccan, or athiest simply because that is the way you were raised is silly.
-
I’m a Christian because I want to be, not because I was forced to be. Or because I was raised that way. I’m certainly not the same cut of Christian as my parents. They are pretty much convinced right now that I’m not assured of my salvation because of my views on several other issues that we’ve discussed here.
-
And I’m not making any claim about Baptists being the answer to anyone. Personally, Baptists and their world policing can kiss my ass. I like the fact that they subscribe to personal revelation of the Scripture and allow you to actually read the Bible on your own and make your own decision. A lot of religions keep their congregations in the dark about what things actually say, and try to keep them from doing their own research on the matter, a la Scientology.
So what is the path that brought you to the interesting position where you find yourself now? Faith, reason, something of both?
Approaching this argument, I thought I was dealing with the classic peanut butter in the transmission fluid problem. But having popped the casing, the drivetrain appears connected to the love child of a stand-mixer and MechaGodzilla. Before I can address the dysfunction, I have to figure out how this is supposed to function.
MechaGodzilla reference earned you 50,000 cool points. Spend them well.
Let me get to work so I have more time to explain. I’m in the process of getting dressed right now, not ignoring the issue
I’m not even sure if I CAN explain it, but I will try.
And yet, some churches disagree with you. Will you allow them the freedom to endorse any married couples they wish?
The thing i find strangest in this whole deal, if we granted that gays should have civil unions that are completely the same but not religious, then what is stopping the major religon of the culture to claim that other religions are screwing with the sanctity of their marraige. Would a buddhist, Hindu, whatever wedding be okay to you despite the fact they have different views from your own? what if these religions, or whatever religion doesn’t have anything against gay marraige? Would they then be entitled to marraige status? does that mean that agnostics, athiests, and so one would only get civil unions?
The inherent problem is that they aren’t considering other religions, just their own like it is the only one that matters. Which it doesn’t. When the law catches up, perhaps they will realize that.
Maybe, but oh how history repeats itself.
Sadly, you’re right.
At least, we can slowly work our way away from it. We did manage to establish that everything in the world is not in fact the direct result of gods. perhaps in3000 years time when the new major world ideal has taken over, we will be closer to civil rights for all and not simply those the believe the right thing
Makes me want to conquer a small country and run it with my own version of laws.
First law: Don’t be a dick.
Second law: It isn’t a crime to take a dick, get over it.
Third law: (insert something clever here)
Fourth law: and so on and so forth.
I’d actually be interested to see a truly secular state, but if that happened anytime soon the religious types would shout “help help I’m being oppressed” . I’m sorry for sounding so anti-religion. I can see some people’s needs to have something more, or a set of guidelines for how to live, but in the case of government a religious ruling is just far too stiff to be effective. especially in a rapidly changing globalizing world
With a penis…
curse you, that one made me crack up and I got weird looks. s’not like you can explain that one easily
Mission Accomplished…
are you standing in a flight suit with a big banner behind you?
No…
Penguin suit with a sombrero and a billboard behind me.
ah, tsk, you could have at least managed a panda suit
I wanted to demonstrate more dignity than Bush had at the time.
Alright I’m taking back what I said, in this paragraph I was wrong. In the one before it I did say they don’t have the same rights. When I spoke there I was speaking from the idea that if they do have the same rights their isn’t much of a difference.
There is the clarification. I apologize for my error.
It’s pretty simple, really. If gays are allowed civil unions with all the rights of marriage, what reason is there not to call it marriage?
I said you can call it marriage, I just don’t think it should be endorsed by the church.
TBH, who’d want to be ‘endorsed’ by an organisation that thinks they’re an ‘abomination’? It’s mostly about visiting rights, living wills, property disposition, and the like… the stuff that ‘marriage’ makes a whole parcel more straight forward. Least ways, that’s what the bulk of my LGBT friends would like.
This is where you fall of the boat. No legislation is calling for churches to endorse gay marriage. You’re bringing in an issue that doesn’t exist.
Let me clarify, I don’t think ANY church should endorse it, but their are. I don’t think they are following biblical law.
I’m AFRAID of someone forcing churches to marry people. You are right this issue isn’t on the table which is why I don’t talk about it that much.
Thanks for clearing up that part of it.
They’re not following your interpretation of biblical “law.” You don’t need to be as viciously cynical as Fester, however, to see that the bible is not internally consistent, much less consistent with how the world really is, and has been open to such a range of interpretations throughout history that the idea of a single absolute “biblical law” is piss-your-pants laughable.
(Really, and c’mon, you’re not going to make me go through the whole shellfish, mixed fiber cloth and shaving argument, are you?)
*slaps head*
I’m half doing that because I hope I haven’t made that mistake, half because I would never go there. Numbers, Deuteronomy, all are laws that aren’t asked to be followed anymore. Maybe Biblical Law is the right term….I’ll have to find something else.
Thanks for pointing that out.
I appreciate your graciousness about it.
I also appreciate that what you seem to be driving at is a lot closer to what gays and sympathetic straights have been asking for than most people here realize – the same civil rights as straight couples, regardless of whether individual churches like it or not, but civil law not telling the churches what to sanctify and what not to. Have I got that about right?
If I have, then what’s left is a semantic point, viz., the word “marriage.” But the thing is, words do matter. If words didn’t matter, we wouldn’t have this pissing match in the first place. We can say as much as we want that “civil union” means the same thing as “marriage” everywhere except in church, but in the minds of the population at large there will not be the same connotation. “Civil union” will always feel less than fully legitimate because it’s the word for that thing the minority have rather than that other thing the majority have. Legislating equality works only as far as it nudges along a shift in popular attitudes – and that, by the way, definitely does work, albeit slowly, as race relations have shown. But in making that progress possible, semantics are important. It is important to use the same term for both gay and straight legal unions in mainstream civil society.
I think if it were explained like that, more people would get behind it instead of picketing and rioting in the streets like we have now. From both sides. I think that both the pro- and the anti-gay marriage crowds have behaved deplorably and should be ashamed of themselves.
-
On the note you were on, Slan, trying to ‘add’ something to the meaning of the word marriage would be like adding something to what Christmas stands for. Sure, it was a hijacked holiday, but it has stood the test of recent history in its current form, and changing it now due to legislation would cause rioting in the streets. I think a lot of people are viewing gay marriage as taking away Christmas.
That said, I’m in complete agreement with TC about forcing churches to accept something that is against what they stand for. That may not be the goal, but it seems like it is sometimes.
TC just made the opposite point, though. He understands that church decisions are not the issue.
Froo, that’s almost as asinine as your support for torture.
The word “marriage” stands for a (theoretically) lifetime commitment between two people, recognized by the government as conferring a certain set of rights and responsibilities with respect to each other and jointly with respect to the government. This commitment may or may not be under the sanction of some religious organization, but it is always under the sanction of civil law. That’s what I’m saying about marriage.
What I am saying to TC is simply this: Whenever you encounter two things, A and B, one may ask what the difference is between A and B. If the answer is “There is no difference,” then the usual reaction is: “Well, why not just call them all A?” If you don’t call them all A, then there’s an implicit difference between A and B, and you can talk until you’re blue in the face but you’ll never convince people they’re exactly equal. That’s what I’m saying about semantics, and why claiming you want to make “civil union” just as good as “marriage” is intellectually dishonest at best.
I’m not trying to ‘add’ anything on to anything. Try reading what I wrote and not what you assume is there.
“Stealing Christmas.” Hmm. I think you’re right that many people do see it that way. I’ll tell you this, though, when Prop 8 passed, it sure felt like someone was “Stealing Christmas” from us.
And they didn’t just invite new people to the party. They completely took it away.
You have the sympathy of many, including a straight Texan. I’m truly sorry that the measure wasn’t presented another way, and that the outcome was not what rational people wanted.
two straight texans. i think it should have passed. and to eliminate the risk of pissing off slan further, i will take leave of this conversation. i respect him too much to alienate with my views.
Now, wait. You sympathize with Drone, but agree with the passage of Prop 8?
*head asplodes*
i think maybe she meant she didn’t want it to pass? she did say she agreed with you, rhorho, or at least that’s how i understood it.
I agree that it SEEMS to be like people are trying to force stuff on religion, that’s all I’m agreeing with. Keeping people from their Constitution-given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is WRONG no matter who is doing it.
And I disagree with Prop 8. I don’t think gay people should be denied the right to marry, or civilly union, or whatever. (that’s disagreeing with Prop 8, right? *confuzed*)
Yeah that one got me too Froo frou
Also I saw a band called Frou Frou and smiled.
“i think it [Prop 8] should have passed.”
Okay, so that was just confuzzlement. YAY!
Thank you, srab, froo and TC!
-
To be clear, Amendment I of the US Constitution reads in part “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” I haven’t been keeping up with right-wing alarmist DJs lately, so I don’t know who deserves the credit for this latest “They’re going to make your preacher do gay weddings” rumor.
Just ain’t true. Our forebears saw fit to protect your church from being forced
to conduct fabulous weddings, so cancel your banner order and walk away.
I honestly get flabbergasted when I see people making the force churches argument… Who the hell wants to force a church to do anything? Out of all honestly, I just want them out of my life as they seem to want to force stuff on me all the time.
Nobody is going to force The church or Any church to do anything. It is a ridiculous straw man in an argument. There is plenty of topic to stay on, so let’s stay there.
And I don’t usually use the word flabbergasted so I hope you guys are happy with yourselves… O_o
@ Rho: I also think it’s wrong when a preacher (or priest) goes against what his spiritual superior (used to mean boss) has told him to do and performs gay marriages inside a church. If the leader is cool with it, ok, but you have several stories of priests (Episcopal and Catholic, and some Methodist preachers) performing marriages that are not condoned by either their own teachings or by the leader of that particular denomination. If you want to do perform the marriages, you might as well go perform them, just do it outside of your church and make sure that you’re not associating yourself with it just to make a point.
-
But that’s a separate issue than the gay marriage in general. /opinion
-
@DWN: I said it SEEMS like. That’s all.
Not ‘spiritually superior’, just a higher ranking jerk… I see…
I’m not making a moral judgement when I say that. I don’t think you should wear jeans on a Monday if your boss wants you to wear slacks until Friday, either. If you’re somewhere that doesn’t condone what you want to do, especially in religious matters, why are you still there? There are other ways of getting a point across.
How does it seem like we are forcing churches to do anything? They don’t own the word marriage. We are just asking them to bugger off and let the laws be applied equally without a separation nonsense.
If they don’t like gay marriage, they don’t need to have one. I do believe the gays can just take their business elsewhere as the saying goes.
I guess it’s more what I said a couple of posts up. The pastors and priests who are going against what their religions and higher-ranking priests are saying are the problem, not gay marriage as a whole.
@froo: Dissent is healthy within a church, period. It’s how religion stays timely, and deals with cultural changes. Otherwise, the collection plates would gather dust. I’m talking evolution, so I don’t expect many to agree.
Dissent is fine. But do you really think it’s healthy to air dirty laundry where everyone can see it? I don’t have a problem with people disagreeing with the leaders of the church. The problem I have is the WAY in which it is done.
You want, perhaps, all these disagreements to happen in back rooms, in the pastor’s study, so that when the congregation comes in on Sunday the church is a unified front? That’s making rho’s “evolve or die” point for her. Because I guarantee you, if a junior pastor somewhere is having doubts or questions about a point of doctrine, there’s a significant fraction of the congregation thinking about it too. It de-legitimizes the leadership further to imply the discussion isn’t going on, rather than openly addressing the questions, having the reasons pro and con thoroughly examined, and coming to a conclusion in an open way. Otherwise, it looks like the leadership never thought about the matter, which easily leads to the conclusion that the leadership never thinks, full stop.
That’s why the debates of the Talmudic scholars were generally published. :^)
TBH, the sooner that the whole sorry mess of the Abrahamic cults are washed from the face of this earth, the better… if that involves taking the species with it, I really don’t care :¬)
Being the architects of our own demise has a poetry, of sorts…
Like I said, dissent is fine if done the right way. Setting yourself on fire is a bad way to get the point across, as is breaking the law to change it (IMO, before you get out the flamethrowers). You might accomplish your goal and get the law changed while becoming a martyr, I’m just not sure that there isn’t a better way.
-
And no, I don’t think that all of this stuff should go on in the pastor’s study and never come before the church. I just don’t think it should happen on national television and in the context that the junior member of the church is opening ridiculing his leader, as it were. What’s wrong with leaving the church first? Or figuring out a way to do it a little less idiotically than bombing an abortion clinic? (different topic I know, but the end result (making the churches look foolish) is the same)
@frou: The trouble is that we are each alone responsible for our conscience. A supposedly disobedient priest/whathaveyou who is following the dictates of conscience should do no less. No one can allow another to say what is/is not right before God – which is why I had to leave my last church. To friggin Miltonian for my ease. You can’t expect to stand before any judgement at all and say, “I was only following orders”.
I agree. So what is wrong with the disobedient priest leaving first? Or finding a better way? That’s all I’m saying.
Besides, I have no patience for a person who cannot handle their faith being questioned. Did not God say there would be tests and trials? Is that not his way to teach proper faith and to guide? Perhaps God is telling people something and they prefer not to challenge themselves to listen.
God changed over the eons in the eyes of man from a damn malevolent spectre to a being who would subject their own child to torture and death for a species who doesn’t seem to get it in the first place to a being who now apparently represents everything that is good but can condemn and hate people for things he instilled within them.
How about we go with God is Love and let people have equal protection already? Trying to dig beyond that just clouds the issue without getting us anywhere. If you want to say that God is a all loving and caring being then don’t fret what your neighbor is doing in bed or with a marriage license. If you want to believe that God is going to smite everything and everyone for being godless heathens and somehow you will be spared, have fun with that and go froth about it in a corner somewhere. We have real problems to address and would like to get this marriage issue off our table and dealt with.
My statement being a broad statement and not directed at anybody in particular. *headdesk*
OT, but what became of pdq? Is there a service?
I prefer to think of God as a parent, but I don’t speak for religion as a whole. A parent, if they are a good one, will love for the good and spank (metaphorically speaking) for the bad, will allow dissent but prefer it to not happen in the grocery store aisle. A good parent won’t smite everything, nor will they love everything that their kids are doing.
)
-
Personal opinion, mind you. If I don’t put that as a disclaimer, God help me
Least you get a spanking, amirite?
That’s an entirely different type of spanking, and is a theme for tonight *evil laugh* I still haven’t told you what happened the other day.
Services were held last night; various ghosts of Xmas made brief appearances. Too many celebrity shades to count. Donations to the pdq memorial fund may be made by PayPal. Be generous; I have children to support, an aging mother, and a bereft husband. *sobs piteously, peering over the edge of the hankie to see who’s biting*
Frou, it’s always an option to leave – unless your heirarchy has a pitcher of Kool-Aid waiting at their elbows. Some prickles of conscience demand public action especially on thorny unclear topics. Thank heavens for the will of these people to shout out! St. Francis was a sterling example of the breed.
*checks back door of church* Hmmm……no kool-aid here. I can’t think of a single mainstream religion besides Scientology that doesn’t allow you to leave
)
Ooooh that’s right. I need to get informed of your wicked deeds, dearest Frooella.
I agree with the Trainwreck. A church wedding should be for those who believe in the church, and for those whom the church believes in, as the church merely consists of men wearing robes. Believing in God (or any other entity) is a very personal thing and should not be institutionalized.
)
(OMG: thinking in Dutch and wrining in English is hard in cases like these
A legal partnership for gays, straights and all other kinds should be available, if only for some legal rights, testaments etc.
*writing
The gay marriage issue isn’t about churches. Marriage licenses (and he rights and benefits they bring) are granted by the government. Priests are allowed to act on behalf of the government and grant marriage licenses, but certain government officials can also grant marriage licenses (my parents were married by a judge, for instance).
Additionally, clergy will not be forced by the government to grant marriage licenses to gay couples if it goes against their religious beliefs. However, the government also should not be allowed to prevent churches that do support gay unions from following THEIR religious beliefs and granting marriage licenses to gay couples.
You are in your rights, TC, to believe that churches should not recognize same sex marriages. However, if the government is forcing churches to align to that belief, it is in clear violation of the separation of church and state. Since the reason for your belief is based on religious interpretation, it should be debated in the church, not the government. Unless there are nonreligious arguments against same sex marriage, the government must respect all its citizens equally.
Again, if the government is granting same sex couples civil contracts with the exact same protections and benefits as the contracts it grants to opposite sex couples, there is no reason to divide them into separate institutions. Let the churches decide whether or not they will recognize those unions on their own.
I can’t argue past what you just said. Pretty much the point it gets to.
Thanks adding that, I appreciate it.
Excellent analysis! Thank you for getting to the heart of the matter, a talent that few on PK possess, self included.
I am a little confused with your description of licensure. Is it true in all states that a clergy member can grant marriage licenses on behalf of the government? I have been going under the assumption that licensure was a separate act, regardless of the ceremony location.
I just looked it up to be sure. In the U.S. the license must be obtained prior to the ceremony, and then a clergy member or a government official acting on behalf of the government must officiate the union.
Clergy members can act on behalf of the government for this purpose in all states.
Thank you for going to the trouble.
The fact that clergy do not grant licenses furthers the point that clergy’s role will not change *when* gay marriage is instituted, finally. I don’t know which hate spewers have been using this scare tactic, but there is certainly no shortage of Chicken Littles out there who have fallen for that line of BS.
Clergy must be licensed to perform marriages in a given state and a valid marriage license must be in hand before the ceremony.
I learned the latter the hard way.
Drone is correct; we act as officers of the state when we perform wedding ceremonies. We also act as agents of the *brand* church when we recite Scripture and say prayers, etc. The state could care less about the latter but is very interested in the former. Gotta be legal!!!
I would be honored to marry some gay friends of mine but they don’t want to be “poster boys” for a movement. I predict marriage will be fully open to all withing ten years.
Drone and I were agreeing. Did you think we weren’t?
We were discussing the marriage license needed by the couple, not the license needed by the clergy. He had earlier stated that clergy granted marriage licenses to couples, but researched it and clarified that the state, not the clergy, provides the marriage license.
I hope your friends change their minds and agree to have you marry them in a non-poster-boys way.
I think there needs to be some clarification here of information that is either unknown, or simply ignored. It is only within the three Abrahamic Traditions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) that Same Sex relations and Marriage is frowned upon. In at least two of those branches, Judaism and Christianity (I cannot speak for Islam), there are no references explicitly prohibiting either same sex relations or the marriages. Also, of those three traditions, not one of the three branches exceeds Nine thousand years in age.
On the other hand, nearly all of the several thousand individual Natural Religions that have existed over the tens of millennia of human existence have accepted same sex marriage. I know this because I am a minister in the faith of Druidism, and have studied several other nature based faiths. I also have run a natural religions based religious tolerance organization which has allowed me the privilege of conversing with individuals who follow faiths outside of my range of personal study on subjects like this.
Also on the point of Marriage itself: there are two components to the concept. One is the actual rite of passage as sanctioned by a religious body. This element is and always has been dictated by the faith that the individual belongs to and the governing body of that faith has every right to dictate the terms under which they will perform said rite. Having said this, this component is merely a public ceremonial declaration of an already existent internal state of being in a couple that allows the community and families to celebrate that state of being in a formal event. The other element which is being contested here and also in the legislature and courts is the Legal union in which both partners become responsible for the pre-existing and any future financial and legal obligations and decisions that they individually bring to the relationship.
As a Gay male, I agree the issue of Gay Rights has nothing to do with race, what we are dealing with is more akin to the Women’s Suffrage and Women’s Lib. Movements even though there are many parallels to the race equality movement of the African Americans and the rights they were seeking. We do not want “special treatment,” We merely want to have the same opportunities to screw up in life that everyone else takes for granted and have to be held accountable for our screw ups and to celebrate our successes just like everyone else does.
FYI – technically, in the Hebrew Bible, there is one verse that prohibits anal sex between men, calling it an abomination (no explicit law against two women). HOWEVER – this law ONLY applies to the Jewish people, and the Hebrew word for abomination used in this verse is the EXACT SAME as in the verse regarding eating shellfish.
Also, two of the 4 major catagories of Judaism have given an OK to perform gay unions, with many Rabbis in the Conservative Judaism movement only holding off pending further evidence that there is a biological element to homosexuality, which, if one’s biology and genetic makeup make it impossible to not be gay, then it is a physical and G-d given hinderance to following the laws of Torah, and, so long as you follow the rest, you are not required to follow that one (the same leeway is given to people who are blind and cannot read Torah, or who are deaf and cannot hear the Sh’ma).
and rabbits…
But then, as Rev Lovejoy says ‘technically, we can’t use a toilet…’
But cute little fluffy bunnies are tasty!
This is true.
So is Bambi. And dude, Pumbaa? Drool, da-rool. (Timon’s a bit stringy though, I’ll pass on him.)
Are you THE BlueGal, or just an admirer?
What gives our government the right to restrict sexual
relationships?
Jesus, Mary, Joseph and Gladly, the cross eyed bear… I am undone!
Truly, the WIN is strong with this one…
“I said because Biblically a sexual relationship between same sex wrong.”
`
The problem with this argument is that there are a whole lot of religions, and not all of them use the Bible as their sacred text. Offhand, I can think of two sacred texts (the Torah and the Quran) that prohibit eating pork. However, the Jewish/Muslim guy isn’t coming over your house telling you not to eat that delicious bacon burger, and nobody is trying to get the government to prohibit marriage between pork-eaters (sounds a lot dirtier than it actually is, huh?) because it happens to be a practice forbidden by their holy book (or scroll, or whatever). It’s one thing to say you can’t be a member in good standing of our congregation if you break this religious rule, and something altogether different to say the secular government should deny you equal rights if you break this religious rule.
Tessie, If you haven’t already, click Slan’s name above and prepare to giggle.
TC – I’m glad you can “act” like they are regular people. It’s better to act and pretend than to have real relationships and feelings. It’s really a *GOOD* thing to go through the motions of tolerance, instead of just getting over their sexual orientation and treat them like a human being.
*SARCASM*
Good for you; if more of us pretended to be nice people instead of making an effort to be humanist and kind, the world would be even more screwed than it is now.
TC-
Their: possessive form of they
They’re: contraction of “they are”
There: a place, as opposed to here
-
Learn it, live it, love it. Especially if you are going to write a wall o’ text and want to be taken seriously. Because, to be honest, I stopped reading after the third mistake. And I noticed it in your other responses as well.
-
And is “I have gay friends,” the new “I have black friends”?
Aaahhh… it’s like being able to get THAT spot on your back scratched.
On the second point – in some church circles, yes it is. In some other circles, you’d still be VERY bold to even say it. Blessedly, there are a few who just have friends. And that’s not a bad thing.
I got bored with the rest of the arguments. I was waiting for some of the grammar nazi’s on this board to call him out on the improper use of “their”.
I may not be the biggest grammar nut of all, infact I use the improper comma often, but I definitly know the difference in they’re, their, and THERE….
see there’s that comma, not completely incorrect, just not quite right.
and again, and again and again
Oh god, the circular logic, it hurts …
and his stupidity burns…
and his spelling stings…
Don’t hide your ignorance behind a wall of words! If you hate us gays just say so–and next time you get a divorce only to remarry again, we will be there throwing insults.
Civil unions don’t cover federal rights. It works in smaller countries or countries that universally recognize same sex marriage. It’s harder in the states, especially thanks to DOMA. So that leaves loved ones of our fighting men and women out of luck, no equal immigration, no social security death benefits.
Still not equal.
not with yer girlfriend I didn’t
>
be nice second. we are everywhere
In ur lolpolitics, laffin at my people
Your people have so little taste?
Aztec helmet, gold codpiece with adorned with ghastly bit’s of green paper that passes for money in the colony, and roller blades, with lime green chiffon!
Ye gad’s!
It’s the crest of flowers on the helmet that makes the whole ensemble work.
If you say so…
This I believe is part of a gay pride event that coincides with Carnival (Mardi Gras for the American public) Normally most gays have much better fashion sense… though I’m sure there are a few out there who are just as fashion incompetent as the worst offenders in the straight population, just as there are some straight guys out there who can make the average gay guy look like a fashion slob… metrosexuals any one?
Obviously inspired by the famous Roman soldier, Biggus Dickus.
“I’ll have one of those, and one of those, and…Oooh!”
yep, the boys do, (have little tase) but only for special occasions. Usually they’re perfect. Hey, at least no lesbian I know wears flannel and mullets anymore.
Aw I’m just jealous, I want to be the worldest smallest drag queen.
Yeah, AFAIK*, Gay Pride marches is all about being as outrageous as possible. Normal life is about being FAABULOUS, which is completely different.
*) Being straight, that is, I may be completely wrong. And you know I’m straight, ‘cos I’m grumpy. If I was gay, I’d be happy.
” I want to be the worldest smallest drag queen.”
`
*pictures teensy-weensy li’l drag queen dressing up in Barbie clothes*
Mhm, and you obviously have so little understanding.
Gay pride parades are completely about PRIDE. It’s a day where you can be completely yourself within an organized group. People sneer at you and laugh and protest, but you don’t feel as hurt because you’re with a lot of people like you. Naturally, people dress up for it. It’s a very special ocassion, and one that gets a lot of attention. So why NOT dress like a complete idiot? It’s about fun and pride.
And by the way, most people who are gay don’t look like this daily. I’m a lesbian, and the way I dress has nothing to do with my orientation. My amazing, beautiful girlfriend also dresses in a way that has NOTHING to do with her orientation. Being gay doesn’t automatically make you have bad taste, just like being straight doesn’t automatically make you have good taste.
Ah, a loud retard. Welcome, you’ll fit right in.
But since you ARE clearly that stupid, I’ll explain this once… Yes, I get the joke. clearly you don’t since you’re an idiot of the first water, or madder than a weasel, I’ll let you choose which, although I’ve implied my opinion of you, and the fact you don’t recognise ‘sarcasm’, even when painted with a broad brush… silly, silly dykling.
I can recognize sarcasm, sweetie. It’s not so clear when written-especially when I’ve met plenty of people who would be serious when saying that. I’m bound to say something when you speak in a way that can be very easily taken as offensive. Bear in mind this is the INTERNET. No one can pick up on your tones or way the words are spoken.
Have a merry Christmas.
And your ‘offence’ is pretty much on the ‘rat’s ass’ level of importance to me, especially as it was clear to someone with slightly better than grade school English and not on the autistic spectrum that I was being sarcastic…
Merry Xmas back at ya…
There is a lot of love in this thread.
Of course there is… I’m here!
Of course you are, sweetheart.
You still want me…
Not especially but whatever warms you in the evening.
Leaves me as cold as a necrophiliac’s bed partner…
Very glad I am not there then.
*snorks hard & almost materializes*
♥ ♥ ♥
“Your people have so little taste?
Aztec helmet, gold codpiece with adorned with ghastly bit’s of green paper that passes for money in the colony, and roller blades, with lime green chiffon!”
`
Seriously! I mean the chiffon should OB-viously be fuschia!
Also, our money nowadays actually is bits of green paper.
Still bugs me to no end that his rollerblades have blue highlights.
Apostrophe fail on my part
Passes for money, Fester? The pound is trading at $1.459 today!
Just in time for me to go on holiday in the UK next week, too. :^)
where is the report as offensive button? gay was supposed to be ‘happy’ when the song was written.
Bah! humbug!
Your comment ruins the entire joke. Cheer up!!
Ignore the idiot. Merry Xmas, Min!
Merry Xmas Fester. I’m off to the festivities. See everybody later!!
i believe it’s a play on words. those are supposed to be funny nowadays.
Click my name
Thanks for the ass bandits!
I C WUT U DID THAR.
Icy butt, you did hair?
I think I preferred the first lol with this picture, but this one’s cool too.
Seattle Gay Pride Parade this summer.. I watched it with some friends from Kansas.. who were in absolute culture shock.
He was probably one of the most popular participants *party pants?!* there. Although the guys dressed as Frankenfurter were too much too handle. Even as a bisexual, there were many times during that parade when I thought, “Wow, that’s the gayest thing I’ve ever seen.” They were, for the most part, well-behaved and good-natured, and it was a shock to the city workers that thought it was going to be an activists’ riot. Thank you to all of the participants who made this day FABULOUS lol
Merry Christmas everyone!
Merry Xmas, Mark…
Merry Christmas Mark!
Merry Christmas mark!!
MC, PM!
Ha, I agree.
i think there needs to be less skin showing for it to count as apparel. ;o)
Not with green chiffon…
Chiffon is a great material for veil work, but silk is really the best if you practice a little bit to compensate for its lighter weight.
I suppose… but with ROLLERBLADES?
Ice skates would have been silly…
True… as would running spikes…
I’m thinking pogo stick here…
Bowling shoes. Definitely bowling shoes. Or maybe go-go boots.
Fa la la, la la la la la la!
I am sad that the roller skates do not match the rest of the outfit. That seems distinctly unfabulous.
I am sad that no one else thought of the fa la la part until waaaaay down here… Kudos to you!
Ha, thanks. I did actually start singing it out loud. It’s just so catchy.
I can’t help but notice he’s not wearing knee-pads; it’s the mom in me.
ohhh, that loincloth won’t do much good either…I’m just imagining the trail of body parts and skin…*gets Band-Aids and mystical all-healing momma kisses ready*
You can lose less skin by scraping before you die than by burning…
when I lived in Amsterdam, I saw a lot of tourists make a REAL mess of the pavement…
Before or after their visit to the Bulldog?
LOL… I was thinking about places on Zeedijk, or maybe the It…
And this is why gay people will face an uphill battle to be accepted in society. Dude, TONE IT DOWN.
And yet another Xmas retard, sent by Santa… IT’S A PARADE! HELLO! FRIVOLITY AN FOLL DE ROLL… I bet you’re a HOOT at marching bands ‘YO! BROCADE AND FAT KIDS! NO!!!!’
I need a rolleyes smiley and another drink…
*makes you 875685705 hot cocoas with Bailey’s Frech Vanilla Caramel*
*gets all flirty and obnoxious*
I prefer my ‘special’ eggnog of Straight Jamesons’ thx
Oooh, yom. But it’s so heavy! It’s almost like a meal in itself! I need room for my venison rosemary roast, dammit!
Yes, and straight guys NEVER make raving fools out of themselves in public displays of masculinity. You’ve never seen America’s Funniest Videos, have you?
It’s humans in general. No other animal would make that much of a jackass of himself…
But…but what about…..jackasses?
Stubborn, dumb, foul smelling, and just enough intelligence to be malign.
A great role model…
I thought we were talking about people and thier relation in stupidity to animals here, but now you’ve gone and insulted my mother in law….lol
” just enough intelligence to be malign.”
`
Did this make anyone besides me immediately think of b*sh?
Feeling your pain over here, Sistah!
Heh. Come to think of it, what about Jackass, as in the tv show/movie?
A brilliant example of why the last words of so many young men are “Hey, watch this!”
In the South, the last words of many young men are, “Hey Bubba, hold
my beer. Watch this…”
And I bet fewer gays actually got hurt parading than straights got hurt (intentionally or unintentionally) in order to appear on those AFV shots.
I say “fewer” rather than “none” because now that it’s been pointed out to me, I worry about that guy if he does fall off…
I bet fewer gays actually get hurt parading than get hurt by straights just for being who they are and dressing NORMALLY 364 days a year.
Sad, true.
Dude, on Monday morning, this guy will be in ur bank corner office, with his grey Brooks Brothers suit, approving ur mortgages.
You don’t know teh gay boys. Haven’t you heard? Having gay friends is the newest ‘having black friends’!
mamajinx- proud token dyke at work, AND in the PTO
Yeah, I work with the hottest guy in the world, smart, funny, classy, and gayer than a flaming $3 bill. All the women are always all over him, and I’m like, uhhh his boyfriend is hotter than yours lol
*Sets gay-gun to stun*
*while Yeee is distracted, moves gay-gun dial to mega-stun*
If anyone is interested, the last LOL using this picture is now the third one down
on page 15.
hmm, i think i like this one better. the author not knowing which “too” to use on the other one made me cringe a bit.
The comments on the other one are interesting.
I’m gonna take a guess that this guy is a “bottom…” The clues are very subtle, but if you look carefully you might be able to pick them out.
And well ass for some previous comments, racism and homophobia are not the same thing. But they are both forms of prejudice and thus related.
Hmmmmmmm, you didn’t just use a stereotype, did you???? Hmmmm????????? I know that you didnt, seeing as how a lot of ‘bottoms’ don’t act that way, and a lot of ‘tops’ do.
I’m still all cracked-up about “as well ass for some previous comments…” Kinda added emphasis to his first point. But it could also be my own exhaustion and lame humour…
…as well ass your good natured ass?
total lolz fail on this one. boo.
All I can ever think every time I see this picture is how much it’s gonna hurt to peel that sticker off his stomach (if he hasn’t already had it waxed, heehee).
i love you.
Pfft too much politics here. That dude is HOTT.