• Leave A Comment

    Notify of
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments

    OOOOoooohhhh snap.


    That’s what I always say. Nobody has a problem with divorce being legal.

    And yea wtf, I would have sprayed it on their cars.


    Damn straight.


    Fucking dicks.

    Here’s how it should work:

    Governments define civil unions.

    People in said unions call it whatever they fuck want.


    Why do some people think that it’s their right to give or take permission away from another person? I don’t understand why I’m being asked to give permission (or take away)the right for someone, anyone else, to get married (in a legal sense). Why do they need my opinion, let alone my permission? That’s a seriously fucked up way to think. No one needs my permission to live their life.


    nyokki: Hey, i was kinda thinkin about gettin married to my girlfriend… that alright with you?


    wartoaster: Well, since you asked so nicely…I’ll allow it. That’ll be $500.


    What I want to know is at what point marriage became a legal thing.
    Yeah baby, our love is so perfect, I think we need to get some lawyers in on this shit.

    tiki god

    that’s the fundamental misunderstanding that many have. marriage is a civil, legal agreement that is only regulated by our government. Religion has nothing to do with it, and nor should it.

    I’d prefer that people ask permission for somethings certainly. Goats for example, have no place in modern marriage. The reason I’m against goat marriage is that having sexual intercourse with a goat is unclean, spreads disease, and is just plain icky to me.

    That’s sadly how many of the prop 8 people feel about teh gheys.



    I’ve always thought the same myself. i’ve never “approved”, so to say of gay marriage, which is funny because i’m cool with lesbians, bisexuals and homos. Hell i even think transgenders are cool. Chicks with dicks, how can that not be fun? I have a penis and it is fucking awesome. It’s not my fucking place to tell these people who they can love, marry or date.


    tiki god: One could argue that marriage between separate species is anathema, but between two legally entitled human adults? That is arrogance at it’s absolute worst and hopefully a stale leftover of medieval morals.

    tiki god

    from what I understand Marriage has always been a legal construct. It certainly isn’t a religious one anymore, as you’re not required to ask imaginary sky people for permission.


    RSIxidor: I think that would make a whole lot more sense…

    nyokki: I agree. The legal aspects of a marriage/civil union should have nothing to do with anyone apart from those engaged in the union in question.

    I have never understood why it bothers people so much. Especially when it has absolutely *nothing* to do with them. And then people start talking about the degradation of societal morals, as if the greed, corruption and cannibalistic nature of our society today has anything to do with a persons sexual preference…


    tiki god: That’s funny, Tiki. The way my Swiss girlfriend tells it, marriage is strictly a church thing in Europe now. You don’t get married in a church, then it’s just a civil union, which basically carries all the same benefits. So, gays can’t get married in Europe, but they can get civil unions.

    I had all this told to me when I explained that I would never get married in a church. Thankfully, she understood, though we did have to argue over the definition of ‘marriage.’ :-/

    Smart women. They’re better in every way, but they keep you on your toes.


    You know, my boyfriend and I could totally get married, but we’re just all like what’s the point? Because it seems like most people do it for religion, to be together forever blah blah blah.. but we don’t have a religion… and I just don’t understand why else people would do it besides just to have more money. No wonder 66% of new marriages will end in divorce.



    Uh that’s not true. I live in Austria and since 2008 gay marriage is completely legal in the entire country.

    And my parents got married in Romania, not in a church, yet they’re legally married just like any other couple who got married in a church.

    I’m not 100% sure about other European countries, but I’m certain what you said isn’t the case in all of them.


    Why does anybody get married?? it is just the biggest waste of time. Women are there to be loved, then rooted, then kicked to the curb! Also they can do the dishes be4 they leave.


    vutterfly: That’s pretty awesome.

    I think I would want to get married because even though I don’t like to admit it, I’m a hopeless romantic.
    Or maybe, I would just want to have a big party with everyone wearing pretty clothes etc, except for the church part. Aw yea that would be sweet.
    And yeah wow about the thing with the money, I never thought about it like that. I guess it’s true. Though I think there are also people who get married because their families and friends expect them to. It’s to show that they aren’t just fooling around, I think.


    tiki god:

    that’s the fundamental misunderstanding that many have. marriage is a civil, legal agreement that is only regulated by our government. Religion has nothing to do with it, and nor should it.

    I am sorry Tiki but you could not be any more wrong. Marriage has always been just as religious as it has been a matter of legal recognition. Christianity, judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and islam have all had marriage ceremonies and protocols long before people even knew the american continents or even democracies and republics. In theocratic societies that was how official unions between men and women were officially recognized.

    In modern times marriage is actually considered a social, religious, spiritual,and legal union of individuals. Believe it or not there are Sects of Reform Judaism, AND YES EVEN CHRISTIANITY that allow gay/lesbian marriages.

    To say marriage has never been religious is kinda myopic.


    vutterfly: Marriage/civil union is also about the sharing of assets (as you say money) and the benefits that one gets being a family. Medical insurance, tax returns, property and the ability to have the one speak for the other legally. It’s about being recognized legally as a family and getting all the benefits that come w/ that. For some it’s also about their religious belief or they’re truly in love and want the permanence that is associated w/ marriage (no matter how misplaced that belief, in permanence, may be). If that’s not what you need, no one will force you. But what if it is what you want? Does anyone have the right to deny it to you?


    thelotuseater725: I think you may have misunderstood what tiki wrote. One of us did. :<) He’s saying it isn’t necessarily a religious practice now, if you don’t want it to be. Just get a judge/justice of the peace/whatever and you need never enter a church. The legal construct was generally more about controlling family interests and the concern of those w/ money and property. So, the wife comes w/ a dowry that is agreed upon by the family’s leader (usually the family patriarch).


    dieAntagonista: I wouldn’t know, that’s why I added the disclaimer from my girlfriend’s point of view. I’ve lived in Europe/visit there, but that doesn’t mean I know everything about it. Even then, who can keep track of what every single country is doing there.

    Still, thanks for the heads up.



    Yeah you are right there.


    thelotuseater725: Marriage can also simply be seen as a public recognition of pair mating that is common in the animal kingdom.

    What is of note, from an anthropological point of view, is that that larger the discrepancy in body mass between the male & female of those in the monkey/ape kingdom the larger the harem usually kept by the males.

    In fact, if you look at tribal life, especially in Sub-Sahara Africa prior to colonization, the males of a tribe often had multiple wives.

    Not that I’d ever want to go through that. Keeping one woman happy is hard enough as it is. Though that’s more of a question of evolutionary adaptability and risk/cost ratios of single unit families in the modern era.



    Haha, man I totally thought you lived here also and you got your information only from your girlfriend. Or something. This is pretty funny, I don’t know why I thought that.

    Yeah it’s odd, that they made this happen in Austria. For the most part they’re just as close minded about it as in the States. Our president is pretty amazing though. He’s an agnostic.


    This is developing into a fascinating conversation. Marriage is both a religious and legal thing. In the case of gay marriage, I think they should be able to marry legally, but churches shouldn’t be forced to marry same-sex couples if it goes against the beliefs of that church or denomination. If a gay couple can find a pastor or reverend who will willingly marry them ‘under God’, then the law shouldn’t restrict that.
    @tiki god, you make a good argument about the goat thing, and it is understandable that so many traditional Christians fear the change that same-sex marriage would/could bring.

    If same-sex marriage was legalized, I’m sure the Mormons would jump on the polygamy argument and try to bring that back. I believe same-sex marriages should be legal, but it could be a ‘gateway’ case for those crazies who like to do animals and weird shit like that.



    Haha, about that last part with the animals – you’re being sarcastic right?
    Other than that, I agree with you.

    Just This Guy, You Know?

    I think ol’ Thomas Jefferson might have had something to say that might be relevant to this whole Prop 8 debacle. Lemme check… hang on a sec… Ah. Here it is. Two somethings, that actually apply. Here’s the first:

    “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it.”

    Makes sense to me. I would think limiting marriage based on orientation could be considered “too small a degree” of liberty.

    Here’s the bonus quote, since I think most of the opposition came from certain evangelical quarters, if I recall correctly:

    “Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.”

    That last one may be up for interpretation and/or debate, so I think I’ll just step away from the hornets nest I just hit with a rock.

    Further, as pointed out by Jefferson, again, are we not endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among those being the pursuit of happiness? How does denying the right to marriage allow someone that very same pursuit? We hold these truths to be self-evident, indeed.


    Theo11: I hope it’s only the weak-minded (e.g. Boehner, et al) that cannot make a distinction between allowing 2 humans to marry each other and human/beast relations.

    I have no problem w/ polygamy among consenting adults. Again not my place to give or w/hold permission. Hell if 1st cousins and even brother/sister want to marry, I’m not gonna try to stop them. It may be stupid (and gross, to me), but hardly worth getting all worked up against.


    Record Store Tough Guy: Nice find and I agree w/ both you and (of course) Jefferson.


    @nyokki: I think the cousin/brother/sister thing is more about inherant incest taboos more than anything and you know not having mentally ill children or what have you. I read an article about a father daughter couple who kept getting into trouble because they kept reproducing. SO, I would say that is a better the gene pool type of thing. I also do not understand why some people do not get “CONSENTING ADULTS”. I have no clue how you could squeeze children and animals into that.


    mndlssequation: ‘Zactly. It’d be stupid to breed too many times w/in too small of a gene pool. Aristocracy had to learn that the hard way…several different times. But making it illegal? Since when is plain stupidity immoral and illegal?



    Sorry paul that was aimed at nyokki. Anyways, don’t get me wrong I’m not arguing what marriage is or isn’t nor am i arguing against polyamory. Personally i find polyamory kind of stupid but i don’t think it doesn’t exist either, hell i’m pretty sure i have found myself in at least one polyamorous situation at least once. If you think about it, it would make sense to be ployamorous because it would help root out shitty genetics(providing i understood my biology classes properly).


    See thelotuseater725: only instead of paul’s username put yours the


    tldr; however, I’d like to point out that the difference between someone marrying a goat, and someone marrying someone of the same sex, is that the goat has no wish to get married.


    : Well, you never know, I do not speak goat personally.


    Reading through these posts raised some interesting questions.

    Assuming that we disregard the idea of “marriage” and consider only civil unions with the expectation of sex, here are a few hypothetical questions that came to mind:

    1. If you had a mentally handicapped person who was fairly functional, could walk, talk, learn new things, perform basic tasks, show and feel affection/love for another, etc. but you could not know whether they would comprehended the idea of sexual consent, would you push for legislation to disallow such a person to engage in a civil union?

    2. If aliens were to land on earth, but were a species physiologically very different from us, but not biologically dangerous or entirely incompatible, but were somehow clearly able to provide consent, barring socio-political or cultural stigma, would there be any good reasons to make it illegal for a human to enter into a civil union with one?

    3. A previous post about girls being wedded to goats got me thinking, barring diseases and/or any social or cultural stigmas, and where it was easy to tell when the other species would be consenting (eg a dog humping your leg) what, if any, reasons would there be to disallow a civil union between dissimilar species?

    4. Finally, what, if any, would you consider the most salient differences between the three scenarios posited above?


    Had I lived in California, I would have voted NO on Prop 8, early and often.

    So I agree with the driveway graffiti, and not just in the context of the words. I mean, you can always wash or scrape it out.

    But spray painting someone’s windshield?? That’s not coming off so easy without serious damage to the car’s body.

    What is that guy going to think when he’s paying hundreds of dollars to get it cleaned: A) “Gosh, those kids were right, I should rethink my views” or B) “FUCK THOSE PUNKS”?

    All that did was make an ignorant man feel more entitled to his discriminatory views. And now he can tell a very persuasive anecdote about how pro-gay marriage people “really are” the next time he gets into an argument on the subject…


    @mndl : So, since you dont speak goat, and noone else do either, lets not allow goat marriage, since consent is in question.

    We all speak human, altho it might not seem so at times.

    @Phyre :
    1. If they could walk talk learn new things etc, i think they could comprehend the idea, or atleast learn to comprehend the idea of sexual consent. I would say a union between someone with a mental handicap and someone without seems fairly shady, and the state should use resources to investigate before allowing such!
    Basically, the probability that something shady is going on is so high, that these people will have to tolerate a slight liberty adjustment. Guardians should have something to say about this.

    2. I’d totally do it with a “not biologically dangerous or entirely incompatible” alien. So, no.

    3. The definition used in the alien scenario “clearly able to provide consent” is here specified as “humpin ma leg”. I’d say some form of advanced communication is neccesary to clearly provide consent, like ..eh.. speech?

    In the first scenario, the problem is danger of abuse from one party, and partly a consent problem depending on how mentally handicapped a person is.

    In the second scenario, its mostly the yuck factor isnt it

    In the third, its the problem of clear consent.



    Why do the religious feel it is there place to dictate terms.

    This nation was formed on a strict separation of government and religion.

    Yet everyday I see more and more of this shit. The religious definition of marriage has no place is this argument.



    Because one of the basis of (most) religions is superiority over other individuals.

    There may be some background for marriage based on religion, but it doesn’t make sense to force that on everyone who may or may not follow your religion.

    I stand by my original idea. Government definition = Civil Union. Personal definition = WHATEVER you want to call it, call it globbudukcosforth for all I care.


    1. If there is no way to determine understanding, then we have to go w/ what the mentally handicapped person says he/she wants.
    2. Consenting adults equivalent. Good to go.
    3. If they are mentally incapable of signing the paperwork, then no.
    4. The mental ability to clearly give consent and, lacking that, the ability to clearly say yes.


    Ah, the ever present “yuck” factor. As Tiki pointed out, some people feel about gay people the same way that they feel about bestiality. And, as a real life example of the inverse also being true, I have heard more than one lesbian describe a mans schlong as “disgusting”.

    Both reactions, and most others like them are, imho, purely subjective, and not founded in any practical logical basis, so I consider the “Yuck” factor a highly subjective sociocultural stigma, not a valid logical reason to decide whether or not something can be considered acceptable human behavior.

    Your response about consent did raise another question. Do you believe the ability to communicate verbally must be a requirement for consent? How about literacy? How about for deaf/dumb people, people with language disabilities or who speak different languages?

    Hmm… I like your solutions… One question though… When you say “mentally incapable of signing the paper work” Do you mean “mentally incapable of comprehending the nature of contract they are entering into”? Or are you referring to basic literacy?


    Phyreblade: Mentally capable of understanding the contract. One should have the mental comprehension of say a 14-16 year old. When it comes to people who are below that level it should be a case by case situation. Our understanding of animals (as of now) show that they are incapable of giving the kind of consent we require.


    I’m generally much more permissive than society on this issue. I think 14 year olds’ are quite capable of consent even if they don’t 100% understand the consequences. By treating them like kids while their body is telling them they’re an adult has had some pretty bad consequences on its own. If they had grown up understanding the nature of the adult world they’d be much better prepared to make these kinds of decisions.


    i thought it meant throw a rock through the suv’s window, like another one oh those ex-wife-revenge things. thatd be alot cooler.


    LOL OK Soooo at the risk of sounding like a perv, why would a dog humping your leg not be considered an appropriate form of consent? (no comments from the peanut gallery please, it’s just the most common example I can think of…)

    I’m not a proponent of animal love, because it think most of the people who engage in it are hedonists who care only about themselves and not about the animal, which makes the act one of abuse, which I disagree with.

    However my position only makes sense if it makes the exception for the animal that actually expresses the desire to mate with a human. And I am unable to come up with an objective perspective that would interpret that as taking advantage of the animal, or any logical reasons why that might be abusive or damaging to either party in that scenario.

    However I’m with you on the teenage thing. I do agree 14 year olds are quite capable of consent, and I would even go so far as to say some of them are much more prepared for the long term consequences of sexual activity than teens have traditionally been in the past.

    The problem, as I see it, has less to do with actual age, and more to do with education and awareness. Kids do not suddenly mature that one millisecond before midnight on the night before they turn 18. I’ve known younger kids who were tough, disciplined, and just as mature, if not more so, than some adults I know…


    Phyreblade: Yeah I’m sorta working through this too. Offhand, I’d say that sex w/ marriage is a concept unknown to animals (no matter how much they’re humping your leg). Marriage is a much more complicated concept than sex. Is it even the same thing if a female person allows a dog access and a male person penetrating that same dog? For the most part, I could care less if someone want to have sex w/ an animal but it certainly does raise my ick meter. I’m not sure I’d waste legislative time on the issue. All I can think of on this subject is South Park’s PETA episode.


    I don’t recall anyone getting all riled up about Atheists calling themselves “married”.

    The pretty much belies the “marriage is about religion” argument and reveals what this is really about.


    From an oped in the Washington Post:

    C.S. Lewis, the British essayist, author and cleric, died 41 years ago, so he wasn’t writing about same-sex marriage in America. No, his subject in his book “Mere Christianity” was divorce. Still, his observations might shed some light on our own “values” controversy today.
    “I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused,” he wrote. “The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question – how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws.

    “There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.”

    Religious marriage, he was saying, is a sacrament, and the state has no more business involving itself in the rules that govern it than it has in such questions as the efficacy of infant baptism, the validity of kosher certification or the number of virgins a (male) martyr might reasonably anticipate as his reward.

    But marriage isn’t only sacrament. It is also the basis on which we decide who may inherit in the absence of a will, who may make life-and-death decisions for loved ones, or who is eligible for the advantages of joint tax returns. And because it has these secular implications, the state has a legitimate role in determining who is married and who isn’t.

    The church has no interest in joint filings, and the state no interest in declarations of love or religious affiliation. To the one, marriage is a sacred rite; to the other, it is the sanctioning of a contractual relationship. The church may care whether he is a philanderer or she a gold-digger, or whether there’s too great a gap in their ages. The state’s interests run to the validity of the contract.


    Also… lulz at fuckin’ bigots who have spray paint on car and driveway. Idiots.


    I have not heard one concrete reason anyone should be concerned about anyone else getting married, honestly. People need to stop worrying about other people’s lives, honestly. My mom said once that she wouldn’t know how to react if I was a lesbian. My response: “What difference would that make to you? Why do you care who I sleep with, Mom?”


    nyokki: Yeah, i don’t really care either who wants to do what with whatever, except for my objection to engaging in anything that might be harmful to one party or another.

    I think, your earlier definition is sound, wrt to the idea that any individual unable to to comprehend the idea of a contract cannot be held to one. And yes, marriage is more complicated than just sex, though I think it could be argued that there are other animals who’s mating habits do approximate humans.

    I think the more compelling questions are actually the non-legal ethical questions of sexual consent from an individual who could easily be taken advantage of.

    Annarchy: While I agree with your position in theory, I find that in life things are never really so easily separated, especially when it comes to friends and family. I’ve always found it interesting how the whole idea of a relationship, love, etc. is based on how one human makes another feel, and vice versa.

    I’ve never really considered love a logical condition. It often has little to do with common sense, reason, or rationality, just feeling. Your mother’s negative feelings towards the possibility of your being a lesbian might be unjustified, but she cannot consciously decide not to care about it, because she loves you…

    The same would hold true for anyone else who cared about your well being. But I suppose that is where the saying “if you love them you’ll let them go…” came from. I guess I’ve learned that the events of peoples live always affects those of the ones that love them.

    Asking what difference who you are with makes to a family member who loves you is no different from asking why whoever you are with loves you. Logic rarely has has anything to do with it. How a parent or close friend reacts is often simply a matter of how well they can handle their own emotions…

    Of course there is irrationality, and then there’s the total abandonment of logic. Like why someone who doesn’t know you from eve/adam would care about who you were marrying so much that they’d want to pass a law to restrict whom you could marry…


    Phyreblade: Sounds about right. Logic may not really come into it, but when deciding on laws regarding it, logic must be part of reasoning. We cannot accept “It’s wrong for you because it feels wrong to me.” is no way to pass laws. I realize that this is not what you’re saying. I just thought it important to make the distinction between the way we feel about an issue and what we do about it.


    nyokki: I understand and agree wholeheartedly. In fact from my perspective, logic has to be not only part of the reasoning behind a law, but rather of primary concern in lawmaking.

    Today, there are a bazillion highly illogical, emotional/social morality driven, knee jerk reaction laws on the books that make absolutely no sense to me. It is rather irritating, especially when I think how most of them often do more needless harm than good.


    Phyreblade: ‘Zactly.

    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Architecture Art Awesome Things Batman Bikinis Black and White Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Donald Trump Drugs Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Military Motorcycles Movie Posters Movie Reviews Movies Music Music Videos Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Science! Sexy Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF

    480 x 360 500 x 281 500 x 375 500 x 500 500 x 750 600 x 450 600 x 600 600 x 750 600 x 800 600 x 900 640 x 480 640 x 640 640 x 800 640 x 853 640 x 960 720 x 720 720 x 960 750 x 600 800 x 600 800 x 800 960 x 720 960 x 960 1024 x 683 1024 x 768 1080 x 1080 1080 x 1350 1200 x 630 1200 x 800 1200 x 900 1280 x 720 1280 x 800 1280 x 960 1280 x 1024 1440 x 900 1600 x 900 1600 x 1200 1680 x 1050 1920 x 1080 1920 x 1200 2048 x 1536 2560 x 1440 2560 x 1600 3024 x 4032 3840 x 2160 x

    ABoringDystopia Amoledbackgrounds AnimalsBeingDerps ATBGE awfuleverything Celebhub Celebs CityPorn comicbookart conceptart cosplaygirls Cyberpunk EarthPorn Eyebleach Faces FreckledGirls funny General Uploads gentlemanboners hmmmm Images Sub Space ImaginaryStarships ImaginaryTechnology InfowarriorRides interestingasfuck MarchAgainstNazis marvelstudios MCS Plus memes MilitaryPorn nocontextpics OldSchoolCool pictures PoliticalHumor PrequelMemes PropagandaPosters RetroFuturism sbubby StarshipPorn startrekmemes Storminator Super News Thanks I Hate It UrbanHell wallpaper

  • here's some related content from the store: