Current Events

TOPICS:

12/2/08

NEWS: Asshole Fuckface Roundup #74 [3]

12/1/08

The Equality Scourge and How To Prevent It From Happening to Your Town!

12/1/08

Swiss legalize heroin but not marijuana

12/1/08

Long delay for parts deals blow to wind-energy projects

12/1/08

Time for some waterboarding, I think [5]

11/30/08

NEWS: Bail The Shit Out Of Detroit [15]

11/30/08

NEWS: What The Fuck, Black People? [16]

11/29/08

NEWS: Time To Be Thankful [2]

11/29/08

Rumsfeld: we can attack Al Qaeda anywhere, with or without permission. [3]

11/29/08

Kentucky: Jesus is Jack Bauer!

11/28/08

NEWS: Shut Up You Fucking Babies [2]

11/27/08

Sorry, Mr. President. Please surrender your BlackBerry.

11/26/08

Ok, I'm done being a sore loser. [9]

11/26/08

NEWS: Asshole Fuckface Roundup #73 [3]

11/25/08

SAG taking strike authorization vote from membership [3]

11/25/08

NEWS: With Friends Like These, Who Needs Friends? [3]

11/24/08

NEWS: Faith, Angst and Hate The American Credo?

fountainofdreams

11/24/08

Should We Really Bail Out $73.20 Per Hour Labor?

11/24/08

Stand up qaomedy show cancelled

11/24/08

NEWS: Recession or Depression? [3]

11/23/08

NEWS: How Harmless Becomes Monstrous: African Child Witches and Superstition

11/23/08

JFK 05.29.17 - 11.22.63

11/22/08

chevrolet volt question

11/22/08

Flashback 2006: Financial Meltdown

11/22/08

Hilary Clinton. Secy. of State? [6]

11/22/08

NEWS: The 100-Mile Per Gallon Car Is Here. Sort Of. [6]

11/22/08

Al-Qaeda Second-In -Command Calls Obama "House Negro" [3]

11/21/08

Dad has booked a trip to Nebraska for us this weekend! [2]

11/21/08

Change comes to Congress

11/21/08

Federal Judge Orders 5 Gitmo Detainees Freed "Forthwith"

fountainofdreams

11/21/08

Cheney & Gonzales Indicted [2]

11/20/08

Someone fell for it? $400k fell for it! [2]

11/20/08

NEWS: Real Love: How True Families Are Affected by the Hate of Prop 8 [3]

11/19/08

The Freedom of Choice Act

11/19/08

NEWS: Why is the Hubble Telescope So Hard to Fix? [2]

11/19/08

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens defeated for re-election

11/18/08

NEWS: Lieberman Dodges Bullet [2]

11/18/08

Alaska's Dropout Rate Double National Average

11/18/08

NEWS: Ted Stevens Facing Ejection Vote

11/18/08

PAGE:

1 ...

47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51

... 487

retweet

NEWS: What The Fuck, Black People?

PAGE:

1 ...

14 | 15 | 16

wildswan

I'm lost

June 2006

NOV 22, 2008 07:33 PM

TheFuckOffKid said:

martinj_b52 said:
The short version (okay, so it isnt that short-I lied, sue me), for those of you that are now confused (and I am not totally certain that I didnt just give myself a headache explaining that above) is that an attempt is being made by a segment of the gay and pro-gay community (also called activists, as they are ACTIVELY pushing an agenda-some gays are NOT activists *unbelievable, isnt it?*-they have jobs, and lives, and are not overly consumed with changing the world to their liking) are consumed with pushing the limits, blurring the lines, and mainstreaming gay activity and persons with non-gay persons.

I think I've got it.

Gay people -- well, gay activists -- want to segregate themselves off from mainstream society by referring to themselves as gay in order to highlight social and legal disparities that exist between mainstream (non-gay) society (or wait, do I mean, non-gay-activist society? Unsure).

And these activists push their agenda onto mainstream society, which they can only do by referring to themselves as gay. Which is to say not in the mainstream.

And then ...*thinks* ...the problem is if they get the same rights as mainstream people, like, say, the right to marry, they won't be ... gay, any more?

Did I get that right? Because it sure is confusing!

Best worst heterocentric Polonius ever!

martinj_b52

I'm lost

December 2006

NOV 22, 2008 07:36 PM

Bill_the_Cat said:

martinj_b52 said:

Bill_the_Cat said:

TheFuckOffKid said:

martinj_b52 said:
The short version (okay, so it isnt that short-I lied, sue me), for those of you that are now confused (and I am not totally certain that I didnt just give myself a headache explaining that above) is that an attempt is being made by a segment of the gay and pro-gay community (also called activists, as they are ACTIVELY pushing an agenda-some gays are NOT activists *unbelievable, isnt it?*-they have jobs, and lives, and are not overly consumed with changing the world to their liking) are consumed with pushing the limits, blurring the lines, and mainstreaming gay activity and persons with non-gay persons.

I think I've got it.

Gay people -- well, gay activists -- want to segregate themselves off from mainstream society by referring to themselves as gay in order to highlight social and legal disparities that exist between mainstream (non-gay) society (or wait, do I mean, non-gay-activist society? Unsure).

And these activists push their agenda onto mainstream society, which they can only do by referring to themselves as gay. Which is to say not in the mainstream.

And then ...*thinks* ...the problem is if they get the same rights as mainstream people, like, say, the right to marry, they won't be ... gay, any more?

Did I get that right? Because it sure is confusing!

Right. In short, if gay people stopped being gay they wouldn't be gay anymore.

How about, "if gay people stopped CALLING themselves gay, there would be no issue to pursue and donors would stop sending money to support the cause"?

So if they stopped calling themselves gay they wouldn't care if they were allowed to marry or not?

If there were no defined line between gay and non-gay, who would even know if a couple WERE gay? (as far as the paperwork was concerned). Hard to draw attention to something if no one knows that it even exists.

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

NOV 22, 2008 07:38 PM

Bill_the_Cat said:

martinj_b52 said:

Bill_the_Cat said:

TheFuckOffKid said:

martinj_b52 said:
The short version (okay, so it isnt that short-I lied, sue me), for those of you that are now confused (and I am not totally certain that I didnt just give myself a headache explaining that above) is that an attempt is being made by a segment of the gay and pro-gay community (also called activists, as they are ACTIVELY pushing an agenda-some gays are NOT activists *unbelievable, isnt it?*-they have jobs, and lives, and are not overly consumed with changing the world to their liking) are consumed with pushing the limits, blurring the lines, and mainstreaming gay activity and persons with non-gay persons.

I think I've got it.

Gay people -- well, gay activists -- want to segregate themselves off from mainstream society by referring to themselves as gay in order to highlight social and legal disparities that exist between mainstream (non-gay) society (or wait, do I mean, non-gay-activist society? Unsure).

And these activists push their agenda onto mainstream society, which they can only do by referring to themselves as gay. Which is to say not in the mainstream.

And then ...*thinks* ...the problem is if they get the same rights as mainstream people, like, say, the right to marry, they won't be ... gay, any more?

Did I get that right? Because it sure is confusing!

Right. In short, if gay people stopped being gay they wouldn't be gay anymore.

How about, "if gay people stopped CALLING themselves gay, there would be no issue to pursue and donors would stop sending money to support the cause"?

So if they stopped calling themselves gay they wouldn't care if they were allowed to marry or not?

No, silly.

If they stop calling themselves gay, then men could marry men and women could marry women. It wouldn't be gay marriage because they wouldn't be gay anymore! They'd just be people. Like other people.

Don't you get it? It's so simple, it's brilliant!

Coyotemike

USA

May 2006

NOV 22, 2008 07:41 PM

martinj_b52 said:
If there were no defined line between gay and non-gay, who would even know if a couple WERE gay? (as far as the paperwork was concerned). Hard to draw attention to something if no one knows that it even exists.

Because, genius, the laws that stand now in many (if not most) states specifically lay out that only one male and one female can enter into the legal contract of marriage. Thus keeping out any two people who are officially identified (driver's licence, birth certificate, DNA, whatever) as having the same gender from entering into that legal contract.

Bill_the_Cat

Vanier, ON

May 2005

NOV 22, 2008 07:42 PM

martinj_b52 said:

Bill_the_Cat said:

martinj_b52 said:

Bill_the_Cat said:

TheFuckOffKid said:

martinj_b52 said:
The short version (okay, so it isnt that short-I lied, sue me), for those of you that are now confused (and I am not totally certain that I didnt just give myself a headache explaining that above) is that an attempt is being made by a segment of the gay and pro-gay community (also called activists, as they are ACTIVELY pushing an agenda-some gays are NOT activists *unbelievable, isnt it?*-they have jobs, and lives, and are not overly consumed with changing the world to their liking) are consumed with pushing the limits, blurring the lines, and mainstreaming gay activity and persons with non-gay persons.

I think I've got it.

Gay people -- well, gay activists -- want to segregate themselves off from mainstream society by referring to themselves as gay in order to highlight social and legal disparities that exist between mainstream (non-gay) society (or wait, do I mean, non-gay-activist society? Unsure).

And these activists push their agenda onto mainstream society, which they can only do by referring to themselves as gay. Which is to say not in the mainstream.

And then ...*thinks* ...the problem is if they get the same rights as mainstream people, like, say, the right to marry, they won't be ... gay, any more?

Did I get that right? Because it sure is confusing!

Right. In short, if gay people stopped being gay they wouldn't be gay anymore.

How about, "if gay people stopped CALLING themselves gay, there would be no issue to pursue and donors would stop sending money to support the cause"?

So if they stopped calling themselves gay they wouldn't care if they were allowed to marry or not?

If there were no defined line between gay and non-gay, who would even know if a couple WERE gay? (as far as the paperwork was concerned). Hard to draw attention to something if no one knows that it even exists.

So if Bill and Jim apply for a marriage license nobody's going to know that they're both men and aren't legally permitted to marry?

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

NOV 22, 2008 07:44 PM

Coyotemike said:

martinj_b52 said:
If there were no defined line between gay and non-gay, who would even know if a couple WERE gay? (as far as the paperwork was concerned). Hard to draw attention to something if no one knows that it even exists.

Because, genius, the laws that stand now in many (if not most) states specifically lay out that only one male and one female can enter into the legal contract of marriage. Thus keeping out any two people who are officially identified (driver's licence, birth certificate, DNA, whatever) as having the same gender from entering into that legal contract.

Psssht.

1. Don't call yourself gay.
2. One of you wear a dress, and one of you wear pants.
3. Fake ID.

Sorted.

Sid

SUICIDEGIRL

Colorado, USA

NOV 22, 2008 08:09 PM

martin, I'm going out on a limb here, and I'm going to assume you aren't married. If you are, I feel sorry for your wife, and any children you may have (and I hope God has pity on them and allows them to not fall under your spell of ignorance so they may be well-educated some day).

Anyhow, as a married straight woman, I fail to see how two people in love, no matter their genders, "muddy" my marriage by getting married themselves. People are people and deserve the same rights whether gay, straight, black, purple, or green. It's completely backwards to say otherwise. This country was founded on freedom, yet it's so tragic how only certain people are allowed to live a free life while others don't, and still even some of those people on either side feel they must pretend to be something they're not in order to get some of the freedoms that all people are supposed to be entitled to.

Gays are not a minority at all. You'd be surprised how many people are gay and either don't flaunt it or don't tell anyone. This list is quite extensive, and even includes Billie Joe of Green Day, who is in one of your favorite bands.

After seeing that compiled list, and then thinking about how many are not on it, and then how many non-famous persons are gay, how could you call them a minority still?

I'm still failing to see how gays marrying each other make my union to my husband or anyone else's any different?

I work for a company that embraces differences, and offers health insurance and other benefits to those who are gay's partners. I feel so lucky to work in an environment which supports everyone's lifestyles. Maybe that's why my company is still doing very well despite the recession? Because they care so much for their employees (and their families, traditional or not) and give them equal rights, thus enabling us to want to work hard?

Accuser

Scottsdale, AZ

October 2006

NOV 22, 2008 08:45 PM

martinj_b52 said:
If there were no defined line between gay and non-gay, who would even know if a couple WERE gay? (as far as the paperwork was concerned). Hard to draw attention to something if no one knows that it even exists.

Boys have penises and girls have vaginas.

Seriously. Sexuality is pretty clearly defined by nature. When two boys want to get married, we call them "gay". When two girls want to get married, we call them "lesbians". When a boy and a girl want to get married, we call them "straight".

This is part of an ongoing effort by the human race to assign names to things that exist or happen or can be conceived. I hope you enjoy your stay here on Earth. Watch out, not everything is part of the homosexual agenda even if it looks that way at first glance.

douglasmartin

Seattle, WA

June 2005

NOV 23, 2008 11:18 AM

X_Racer_X said:
I'm going to agree with Colinism here and say that a large portion of the black community IS very religious and finds the idea of homosexuality morally reprehensible , more so the idea of gay people people getting married.

exactly. being a straight black male that supports gay rights, i've long realized this to be true, but still upsetting.

Otoki

SUICIDEGIRL

Minnesota, USA

NOV 23, 2008 11:24 AM

Otoki said:
For future reference, brokenbeatnik, if you don't believe that Prop 8 will make gay churches marry, perhaps you should start your post differently, because I had the same reaction as VarukaSalt.

I am a friend so I knew what his views are, however if you just read the entire post his point is quite clear.

I'm only pointing this out because this topic is very emotional to many and it's easy to look for reasons to jump all over someone who has a different slant on it.

Wow, sorry, I just saw this. To clarify, I read his post and understood what he was saying, but when I read his first paragraph I was appalled because of the direction in which he was headed (obviously, he quickly detoured).

martinj_b52

I'm lost

December 2006

NOV 23, 2008 08:55 PM

Coyotemike said:

martinj_b52 said:
If there were no defined line between gay and non-gay, who would even know if a couple WERE gay? (as far as the paperwork was concerned). Hard to draw attention to something if no one knows that it even exists.

Because, genius, the laws that stand now in many (if not most) states specifically lay out that only one male and one female can enter into the legal contract of marriage. Thus keeping out any two people who are officially identified (driver's licence, birth certificate, DNA, whatever) as having the same gender from entering into that legal contract.

Bummer. Screws up my plan for a harem...oh well.......

martinj_b52

I'm lost

December 2006

NOV 23, 2008 08:56 PM

Bill_the_Cat said:

martinj_b52 said:

Bill_the_Cat said:

martinj_b52 said:

Bill_the_Cat said:

TheFuckOffKid said:
martinj_b52 said:
The short version (okay, so it isnt that short-I lied, sue me), for those of you that are now confused (and I am not totally certain that I didnt just give myself a headache explaining that above) is that an attempt is being made by a segment of the gay and pro-gay community (also called activists, as they are ACTIVELY pushing an agenda-some gays are NOT activists *unbelievable, isnt it?*-they have jobs, and lives, and are not overly consumed with changing the world to their liking) are consumed with pushing the limits, blurring the lines, and mainstreaming gay activity and persons with non-gay persons.

I think I've got it.

Gay people -- well, gay activists -- want to segregate themselves off from mainstream society by referring to themselves as gay in order to highlight social and legal disparities that exist between mainstream (non-gay) society (or wait, do I mean, non-gay-activist society? Unsure).

And these activists push their agenda onto mainstream society, which they can only do by referring to themselves as gay. Which is to say not in the mainstream.

And then ...*thinks* ...the problem is if they get the same rights as mainstream people, like, say, the right to marry, they won't be ... gay, any more?

Did I get that right? Because it sure is confusing!

Right. In short, if gay people stopped being gay they wouldn't be gay anymore.

How about, "if gay people stopped CALLING themselves gay, there would be no issue to pursue and donors would stop sending money to support the cause"?

So if they stopped calling themselves gay they wouldn't care if they were allowed to marry or not?

If there were no defined line between gay and non-gay, who would even know if a couple WERE gay? (as far as the paperwork was concerned). Hard to draw attention to something if no one knows that it even exists.

So if Bill and Jim apply for a marriage license nobody's going to know that they're both men and aren't legally permitted to marry?

Most local civil servants wouldnt look up from the paperwork long enough to even notice.

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

NOV 23, 2008 09:26 PM

martinj_b52 said:
Most local civil servants wouldnt look up from the paperwork long enough to even notice.

And really, why would the celebrant give the slightest shit that they're about to break the law by marrying Bill and Jim, eh?

Except, y'know, like I said above:

TheFuckOffKid said:
Psssht.

1. Don't call yourself gay.
2. One of you wear a dress, and one of you wear pants.
3. Fake ID.

Sorted.

Bill_the_Cat

Vanier, ON

May 2005

NOV 23, 2008 09:27 PM

martinj_b52 said:
Most local civil servants wouldnt look up from the paperwork long enough to even notice.

They wouldn't have to.

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA

April 2005

NOV 23, 2008 10:32 PM

martinj_b52 said:

Bill_the_Cat said:
So if Bill and Jim apply for a marriage license nobody's going to know that they're both men and aren't legally permitted to marry?

Most local civil servants wouldnt look up from the paperwork long enough to even notice.

COMEDY!

joydiv

San Diego, CA

April 2004

NOV 24, 2008 12:23 PM

Reminds me of the androgynous SNL character and movie "It's Pat". Pat could have married a man or woman and the civil servants would have been none the wiser.

Accuser

Scottsdale, AZ

October 2006

NOV 24, 2008 12:42 PM

joydiv said:
Reminds me of the androgynous SNL character and movie "It's Pat". Pat could have married a man or woman and the civil servants would have been none the wiser.

If SNL wanted to be smart, they should ask Julia Sweeney back on to do a guest sketch.

Toku666

Columbus, OH

May 2004

NOV 24, 2008 03:08 PM

joydiv said:
Reminds me of the androgynous SNL character and movie "It's Pat". Pat could have married a man or woman and the civil servants would have been none the wiser.

If SNL wanted to be smart, they should ask Julia Sweeney back on to do a guest sketch.

Are you sure about that?

On other notes, one would have to be awfully dense and not have much followed the news on the "Marriage Amendments" of the past six years to suggest the sorts of "solutions" that we have seen from some of the people posting here.

smithers_jones

I'm lost

November 2003

NOV 24, 2008 03:15 PM

martinj_b52 said:

TheFuckOffKid said:

martinj_b52 said:
The short version (okay, so it isnt that short-I lied, sue me), for those of you that are now confused (and I am not totally certain that I didnt just give myself a headache explaining that above) is that an attempt is being made by a segment of the gay and pro-gay community (also called activists, as they are ACTIVELY pushing an agenda-some gays are NOT activists *unbelievable, isnt it?*-they have jobs, and lives, and are not overly consumed with changing the world to their liking) are consumed with pushing the limits, blurring the lines, and mainstreaming gay activity and persons with non-gay persons.

I think I've got it.

Gay people -- well, gay activists -- want to segregate themselves off from mainstream society by referring to themselves as gay in order to highlight social and legal disparities that exist between mainstream (non-gay) society (or wait, do I mean, non-gay-activist society? Unsure).

And these activists push their agenda onto mainstream society, which they can only do by referring to themselves as gay. Which is to say not in the mainstream.

And then ...*thinks* ...the problem is if they get the same rights as mainstream people, like, say, the right to marry, they won't be ... gay, any more?

Did I get that right? Because it sure is confusing!

close. You forgot the financial element. Gay activism, like any other cause, requires money to pursue. If you obliterate the word "gay" from the debate, the money vanishes. Just like the environment will NEVER be clean enough, because if it could be, or someone could prove that it was, several organizations that receive their income from donations would lose their income stream and start laying off or firing people due to lack of funds.

If only we had heeded Dwight D. Eisenhower's warning about the Gay-Industrial Complex.....

brokenbeatnik

Atlanta, GA

May 2005

NOV 30, 2008 06:59 AM

smithers_jones said:
If only we had heeded Dwight D. Eisenhower's warning about the Gay-Industrial Complex.....

Ha! I didn't know The Iron Triangle was _that_ kind of triangle. . .

PAGE:

1 ...

14 | 15 | 16