Jesus's middle name is Hume! Caution: Some NSFW images within!

[Mixolydian]

I wouldn't ever risk running over my absolute favorite thing in the entire world.

At first I thought that was a chick...

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Wait, now i cant tell if that's an effeminate male or just an ugly woman.

damn.

burn it in fire...

 

[TurtleCrusher]

fuck, see... I reconsidered after seeing it again...

 

[Imp]

Wait, now i cant tell if that's an effeminate male or just an ugly woman.

damn.

burn it in fire...

At first I thought that was a chick...

Screw you... You just ruined it for me. I think I can breasticles on the one who got hit in the "balls".

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Screw you... You just ruined it for me. I think I can breasticles on the one who got hit in the "balls".

I think so too. Those my be manbreasticles...

 

[CZroe]

Makes no sense. Firstly, they CAN get married whether the government recognizes it or not. Marriage is a cultural/religious thing. The government isn't supposed to dictate culture or religion. You are free to take any vow or practice any cultural ceremony you wish that doesn't violate someone else's human rights so a (wo)man can promise to commit to another (wo)man if (s)he wishes. The government has no right to say you can or can't and it's none of their business.

Legally recognized marriage is something else entirely and it DOES have an effect on the lives of others. It grants a special tax status intended to promote an ever increasing population (required for the pyramid scheme that is "Social Security") which must now be made up for by the rest of the tax-paying public. It also helps in deciding legal matters that involve property and medical rights.

I would argue that the government needs to stop tax breaks for marriages and give a greater tax deduction for minor dependents of any tax-payer except that, well, the current system is designed to encourage stable self-supporting families to have kids and the alternative would not. There would be even more incentive for people to intentionally have children they can't support specifically for the government hand-outs (I've seen it happen in the current system too). There still must be a recognized "Civil Union" of some kind. That, I can get behind, especially because it can be treated equivalently across different types of couples and also solves the property and medical rights issue as well as getting the government out of chiefly religious ceremonies ("Separation of Church and State," remember?). Adoption would yield the same tax benefit to a same-sex union as a natural-born child to a man and woman and neither group would get a tax break without kids beyond the typical tax break the single-income earner would get claiming the dependent.

My point is: It wasn't funny because it's wrong. Oh wait. He said "fuck." I guess it is funny.

Don't want politics? Don't post political jokes.

 

[holden megroin]

I'll be in my bunk.

 

[Newbian]

 

[deanx0r]

Don't want politics? Don't post political jokes.

George Bush was visiting the queen of England.

He asked her "I must say, you run a real tight ship over here, would you mind telling me some of your secrets or advice?".

The queen said "sure, its quite simple, I surround myself with smart people, for example, watch this". She then calls upon Tony Blair. "Tony, I have a simple question, if you mother has a child and your father has a child, and it's not your brother or sister, then who is it?"

Tony Blair thinks for a moment and responds "Well it would be me"

"Correct. Thank you very much Tony" says the queen.

Bush says "Ahh, you know, that's real clever, I might have to try that on some of my cabinet members. Thank you very much"

Bush is now back home in the U.S and calls Donald Rumsfeld to his office.

"Donald, I have a question for you. If your mother has a child and your father has a child and it's not your brother or sister, who is it?"

Donald thinks long and hard and says "You know George, I'm not sure, but I'll give you an answer by tomorrow"

Bush agrees and lets Donald go.

Donald then gathers up the cabinet and asks them the question. Nobody knows the answer, and after many failed attempts somone speaks up and says "I know! lets ask Colin Powell! He's a smart man, he should know". So they call up Colin Powell.

They ask him, "Colin, we have an important question for you... if your mother has a child and your father has a child and it's not your brother or sister, who is it?"

"You bunch of morons, it would be myself!" says Colin Powell.

"Ahhh!! We get it now!" says the members of the cabinet.

The next day Donald Rumsfeld approaches the president.

"Sir, I believe I have the answer to that question you asked me the other day." says Donald.

"Well ok, Donald, what is the answer?"

"Colin Powell!" says Rumsfeld

Bush looks at him for a second and gets up and yells "No you god damn idiot, it's Tony Blair!"

 

[BudAshes]

Makes no sense. Firstly, they CAN get married whether the government recognizes it or not. Marriage is a cultural/religious thing. The government isn't supposed to dictate culture or religion. You are free to take any vow or practice any cultural ceremony you wish that doesn't violate someone else's human rights so a (wo)man can promise to commit to another (wo)man if (s)he wishes. The government has no right to say you can or can't and it's none of their business.

Legally recognized marriage is something else entirely and it DOES have an effect on the lives of others. It grants a special tax status intended to promote an ever increasing population (required for the pyramid scheme that is "Social Security") which must now be made up for by the rest of the tax-paying public. It also helps in deciding legal matters that involve property and medical rights.

I would argue that the government needs to stop tax breaks for marriages and give a greater tax deduction for minor dependents of any tax-payer except that, well, the current system is designed to encourage stable self-supporting families to have kids and the alternative would not. There would be even more incentive for people to intentionally have children they can't support specifically for the government hand-outs (I've seen it happen in the current system too). There still must be a recognized "Civil Union" of some kind. That, I can get behind, especially because it can be treated equivalently across different types of couples and also solves the property and medical rights issue as well as getting the government out of chiefly religious ceremonies ("Separation of Church and State," remember?). Adoption would yield the same tax benefit to a same-sex union as a natural-born child to a man and woman and neither group would get a tax break without kids beyond the typical tax break the single-income earner would get claiming the dependent.

My point is: It wasn't funny because it's wrong. Oh wait. He said "fuck." I guess it is funny.

Don't want politics? Don't post political jokes.

Great job on that retarded rant :thumbsup:

 

[halik]

Enough of these chick gifs, none of them are funny. If you wanna fap to some random bitches talking about inane nonsense, I'm pretty sure that's what they invented you tube for.

 

[SSSnail]

Makes no sense.

Makes total sense, if you're not an idiot.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

All I see is Charlie Korsmo, the kid from Hook (1991). Try unseeing that.

 

[CZroe]

Makes total sense, if you're not an idiot.

Nope. Only makes sense if you are too stupid to divorce the ideas of government-recognized marriage for legal reasons from a private religious/cultural marriage for symbolic reasons.

Great job on that retarded rant :thumbsup:

Need me to put a picture of a known funny guy and pepper it with "fuck fuckin' fuck" to get a pavlovian response like the other ignorant one-sided political statement masquerading as a "joke?"

 

[Howard]

Nope. Only makes sense if you are too stupid to divorce the ideas of government-recognized marriage for legal reasons from a private religious/cultural marriage for symbolic reasons.



Need me to put a picture of a known funny guy and pepper it with "fuck fuckin' fuck" to get a pavlovian response like the other ignorant one-sided political statement masquerading as a "joke?"

I suppose you dislike George Carlin as well?

 

[phucheneh]

Makes no sense. Firstly, they CAN get married whether the government recognizes it or not.

And your rant falls apart on sentence one, since the 'recognized by the government as a legal union' thing is the whole crux of the issue.

Congrats on being retarded, though.

 

[CZroe]

I suppose you dislike George Carlin as well?

Love Carlin. Hate his politics. I planned to use his face if BudAshes said yes.

And your rant falls apart on sentence one, since the 'recognized by the government as a legal union' thing is the whole crux of the issue.

Congrats on being retarded, though.

Tell that to the person holding the "I didn't ask him to 'civil union' me" sign.

No, the crux of the issue is equality, which I addressed.

People want the same government-recognized "marriage" for gay couples. I question the government's involvement in a religious institution in the first place and say we should have no government recognized marriages for anyone. Instead, only civil unions for all couples (gay or straight). Your vows are your vows and you can vow whatever you want to whoever you want right now, so nothing has ever stopped people from getting married without government recognition.

 

[tcG]

I say, no government recognized marriages for ANYONE and ONLY civil unions, gay or straight.

I agree with this.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Makes no sense. Firstly, they CAN get married whether the government recognizes it or not. Marriage is a cultural/religious thing. The government isn't supposed to dictate culture or religion. You are free to take any vow or practice any cultural ceremony you wish that doesn't violate someone else's human rights so a (wo)man can promise to commit to another (wo)man if (s)he wishes. The government has no right to say you can or can't and it's none of their business.

Legally recognized marriage is something else entirely and it DOES have an effect on the lives of others. It grants a special tax status intended to promote an ever increasing population (required for the pyramid scheme that is "Social Security") which must now be made up for by the rest of the tax-paying public. It also helps in deciding legal matters that involve property and medical rights.

I would argue that the government needs to stop tax breaks for marriages and give a greater tax deduction for minor dependents of any tax-payer except that, well, the current system is designed to encourage stable self-supporting families to have kids and the alternative would not. There would be even more incentive for people to intentionally have children they can't support specifically for the government hand-outs (I've seen it happen in the current system too). There still must be a recognized "Civil Union" of some kind. That, I can get behind, especially because it can be treated equivalently across different types of couples and also solves the property and medical rights issue as well as getting the government out of chiefly religious ceremonies ("Separation of Church and State," remember?). Adoption would yield the same tax benefit to a same-sex union as a natural-born child to a man and woman and neither group would get a tax break without kids beyond the typical tax break the single-income earner would get claiming the dependent.

My point is: It wasn't funny because it's wrong. Oh wait. He said "fuck." I guess it is funny.

Don't want politics? Don't post political jokes.

You do realize that committed homosexual partners quite often adopt kids, taking the burden off of the government, don't you? They deserve every bit of legal rights of marriage that you and I are allowed to enjoy. Any argument against it is a thinly veiled way of saying "I don't like their lifestyle." I was once one of them, and I realized that it was my own homophobic ideas that contributed to it. We're still getting a massive influx of youth in this country from immigrants, despite what the media and government numbers tell you. Attempting to establish a link between the need for ever-rising population and gay marriage is ridiculous. There's going to be the same ratio of heterosexuals to homosexuals as before. Nothing is going to change in that regard.

To your first paragraph, true that it's a cultural commitment. But those people still deserve legal and social rights just as heterosexual couples do.

If your position is really because you think it'll put strain on social services, get out of here. If a 3-5% increase of people receiving benefits (at most, mind you) would cripple the system, it's going to cripple regardless. Married people typically earn more than singles, which also contributes more into social security.

 

[Eos]

backstory behind this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyFwUY5ecOI

And drunk idiots ruining everything. Again.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

So damn true...

 

[Ruptga]

So damn true...

This is like those infomercials where they contrast the amazing slap-chop with a black-and-white shot of a guy slicing his finger off with a carving knife.

Show two pictures with the same levels of retouching, special lighting, makeup, posing, etc... then we can talk.

 

[CZroe]

You do realize that committed homosexual partners quite often adopt kids, taking the burden off of the government, don't you?

Yes. That's why I said we need to equate both heterosexual and gay couple with kids by removing government recognized marriages and replacing with civil unions regardless of orientation. The main difference is no longer getting tax breaks without kids but civil unions WITH kids get more of a break than marriages with kids before. This will encourage people to form child-supporting unions regardless of sexual orientation and reduce the number of people defeating the purpose by trying to have kids "out of wedlock" just for the increased government benefits.

They deserve every bit of legal rights of marriage that you and I are allowed to enjoy. Any argument against it is a thinly veiled way of saying "I don't like their lifestyle."

I'm glad we agree. I'm saying that the government doesn't have any business in any marriage. Their concern is supporting their own pyramid scheme with an ever-growing population and managing legal issues, which can be dealt with equally as I described.

was once one of them, and I realized that it was my own homophobic ideas that contributed to it. We're still getting a massive influx of youth in this country from immigrants, despite what the media and government numbers tell you.

Government numbers? Huh? Who ever said/thought the population was decreasing or slowing?

Attempting to establish a link between the need for ever-rising population and gay marriage is ridiculous.

That's right. I did just the opposite. I linked the government's involvement in heterosexual marriage to population increase and legal matters (estate, medical, etc). I'm saying that they have no other reason to be involved in a religious/cultural ceremony, so there is no reason to call it "marriage." The tax incentive absolutely is to promote self-sufficient population growth and, thus, it would need the changes I suggest to be equally applied to all civil unions, gay and straight. Both goals are served equally well for both types if they are BOTH recognized as simply "civil unions" with the extra tax incentive given to civil unions with children (adopted, surrogate, natural-born, etc).

I simply pointed out why the government was involved in marriage in the first place. If they simply gave larger tax breaks to anyone with kids, it would promote more government-dependent population increases with single-parent families that could not support themselves. If they gave it to marriages with an additional tax break for kids, then they encourage self-sufficient population increase.

There's going to be the same ratio of heterosexuals to homosexuals as before. Nothing is going to change in that regard.

Did you forget about the tax breaks to same-sex unions? How is that not a change?

To your first paragraph, true that it's a cultural commitment. But those people still deserve legal and social rights just as heterosexual couples do.

Yes, and they've ALWAYS had those rights. Anyone can get married. They always could and forever can take their vows. A government-recognized marriage is something different even though it has the same name. It shouldn't have the same name because actual marriage is none of the government's business in the first place. The civil union name clarifies that the government only references the ramifications of a union that the they do have business with (property/medical rights). People are only hung up on it and equating it because of the name and no one is stepping back and asking themselves why the government has any business recognizing "marriages" in the first place.

If your position is really because you think it'll put strain on social services, get out of here. If a 3-5% increase of people receiving benefits (at most, mind you) would cripple the system, it's going to cripple regardless.

Exactly. I'm not saying that the 3-5% will cripple it, I'm saying that it's fundamentally broken already and needs to be completely reformed. I guess I wasn't clear enough: Ditch the current incarnation and focus on the intended purpose. Forget marriage. Throw it out. There's no longer any such thing recognized in government. Give tax breaks only to gay and straight couples ("civil unions") with kids. Eliminate tax breaks for childless couples with vasectomies or tied tubes or barren with no intention to adopt. Give a greater tax break for those who do have kids, gay or straight. Get it?

Married people typically earn more than singles, which also contributes more into social security.

Until you cancel that out when you give them a tax break on the promise/hope that their potential children will multiply that effect. You're right, and that's exactly why the reform I suggest is needed.

 

[SSSnail]

Well, good luck with your civil unions when your rights and benefits as a couple aren't recognized by the GOVERNMENT.

Fucking idiots.

 

[CZroe]

Well, good luck with your civil unions when your rights and benefits as a couple aren't recognized by the GOVERNMENT.

Fucking idiots.

Uh, that's what the civil union is for, genius. It's the marriage that isn't recognized. The civil union lets you claim your share of an estate when your partner dies. Your civil union lets you make medical decisions when your partner is unconscious. You ignored EVERYTHING and got hung up on rights = "marriage." No. Marriage is a cultural/religious CEREMONY that grants no rights. I could marry my floor mat right now, but the government wouldn't recognize it. A civil union would recognize ANY civil union between any two people for legal rights while leaving people free to marry with or without vows and a religious ceremony.