|
|
I must admit, I have become convinced that there IS a threat to marriage.
After seeing this ad.... 
put out by National Organization For Marriage and seeing the group's founder Maggie Gallagher all over t.v......  .....I am here to ask for your support in a new movement I hope to spearhead. I want to defend and protect the holy institute of marriage from...... FAT PEOPLE. That's right, after seeing the rotund Maggie chirping all over television a HORRIBLE image entered my brain. Fat fuck Maggie having sex with her fat-fuck husband. And that, my fellow Americans, is just plain gross. Seriously, allow your mind to actually picture that fugly twat in the thumbnail above having sex with some hairy fat guy. Sweating and weezing, folds of fat flopping about, the bed springs squeeking and straining, the sounds it would make. I shudder. Just seems unnatural now, doesn't it? Disgusting? Wrong? And think about it. She's fat and ugly. Her husband is fat and ugly. Were they BORN that way? No. They CHOSE to be fat. God didn't make them fat. And we ALL know that the Bible specifically states that it is a SIN to partake in gluttony. In fact, it's one of the seven deadly sins. The Bible also sites MANY other examples of fat lazy people as sinners, but being a good Christian, I'm not actually THAT aware of what it says in the Bible. But I DO know one thing. Fatshit Maggie is a sinner. Now, being a good Christian, I am not JUDGING Maggie. I don't HATE her. I just hate her sins, as any good Christian would. And there is no way that in America, God's homeland, that we should allow the permeation of this sinful gluttonous lifestyle. I will NOT allow my children to be taught in school that it is acceptable to be a fat ugly woman like Maggie. Speaking of the children, there is no way we can allow oinkers like Maggie and her husband to have children, through adoption or "naturally". Just consider the eating habits they would teach their child. That child would never have a fair chance at life, as it would be raised in a sinner's house of mayonaise and bacon grease and whatever other disgusting things tubbies put in their mouths. Ewwwww. And how DARE anyone try to infringe on MY RIGHT to insult, discriminate against, and otherwise ridicule fat people. I'm an American, damn it. Our founding fathers were very clear that I have a right to be an asshole to my fellow Americans, especially ugly fat bitches like Maggie Gallagher. Look at this.....  ...and tell me that it doesn't scare the bejeezus out of you, just thinking about your children being shown that in school. That's what the secret agenda of heffers like Maggie is actually trying to accomplish. To make our children watch fat pron in school. I got an e-mail telling me so, thereby it IS true. So I ask you, my fellow God-fearing Americans, to join me and speak out against the disgusting storm that is gathering. A storm that will try to change all of us into fat ugly cows like Maggie Gallagher, and not just change us, but tell us that being a fat ugly cow is "acceptable". People like Maggie can have their gross, sinful, un-American fat sex in their OWN homes, but don't expect me to condone, tolerate, or in any way ALLOW it to exist in OUR country. So please, help me spread the word of the gathering storm of piggy-sex that Maggie Gallagher is hoping will bring down our glorious christ-land of America, before it's too late. Or else this....  ...is the future we will all share. So please, contact the National Organization For Marriage (N.O.M.) here... contact@nationformarriage.org and tell them that YOU want to protect marriage from fatties like Maggie. Thank you, Dr. Payne ============================================== (p.s. Obviously the above is nothing but satire, and not meant to insult fat people at all. It is simply meant to offend Mrs. Gallagher and her family. If Mrs. Gallgher weren't a fat ugly woman, I would be ridiculing whatever she was, but since she IS a fat, stupid, hateful, ugly woman, that unfortunately is the group that bears the brunt of the ridicule.)
in that ad they said they were forming a "rainbow coalition" to protect marriage. seriously? rainbow? that's like saying "We're forming a 'Star of David' coalition to protect the rights of Nazis."
but of course, it was made by people who believe that an astrological allegory actually walked the earth after being born of a virgin...
Once people get married, especially after they have children, they stop having anywhere near as much sex as before anyway.
Actually, if some fundamentalists want a decline in homosexuality, they should thus demand homosexual marriage and homosexual child-raising rights. How ironic is that?
I think this is a great piece
Am I weird if I think bbw porn is hawt
Dr Payne your logic is rock solid. I stand with you, sir.
That's cool. More big booty bitches for me.
It ultimately depends upon what your view of marriage is, and the state's role in it.
If you believe the state shouldn't be telling homosexuals they can't have marriage, then you need to seriously readdress such things as polygamy or any other "unconventional" setup. If you believe the state should in any way be enforcing morality of one form or another (as liberals do), then it just becomes a matter of which pet projects you do or don't want the state to be involved in, and I'm not entirely sure it's logical for them to have their fingers in some pies, but not others. Fine, if you don't want the government interefering in your left wing causes, that's great. Just don't then turn around and expect them to fund those, or other, left wing causes through taxation or support them in other ways. As to the role of marriage, many who believe in the traditional, hetero-sexual nuclear family would say that the state should be encouraging two things in marriage. The first is the production of children. The second is the establishment of situations that are more likely to make such children into stable, law abiding, productive citizens, and are therefore for the "greater good". Again, as I said above, everyone wants to push his own pet project about what's right for the "greater good". I don't entirely agree with where those ideas are coming from, but I can see some merit in the ideas. Personally, instead of going after homosexuals (who can adopt and who are also generally higher income earners, better educated, etc.), if I had to get the state going after people, I'd much prefer them to go after the unmarried trash who either don't know they have kids or who don't know who their kids' fathers are, who pop their little horrors out with abandon and then foist them upon the more productive members of society either through the education system or the world at large. We don't have that problem here in Taiwan because there's no welfare (though we do have socialised medicine). There are many things I dislike about this country, but their anti-trash culture and government outlook are like music to my ears. Works well. End of story.
"If you believe the state shouldn't be telling homosexuals they can't have marriage, then you need to seriously readdress such things as polygamy or any other "unconventional" setup."-Shorbe
No we don't. No "slippery slope" here. No one is advocating multi-spouse weddings, beastiality, or any other kinky unions. That's just the boogey-strawman in the minds of the conservatives. The ONLY thing people are advocating is the same legal rights and protections for TWO people of the same sex as for TWO people of opposite sex. Nothing more, nothing less. "If you believe the state should in any way be enforcing morality of one form or another (as liberals do), then it just becomes a matter of which pet projects you do or don't want the state to be involved in, and I'm not entirely sure it's logical for them to have their fingers in some pies, but not others. "-Shorbe While I think this point may apply in some other cases, I think you've got it backwards in this case. As I said above, liberals aren't looking for anything other than EQUAL RIGHTS for homosexuals. I don't believe a government acting in a manner that treats all of it's citizens equally is "enforcing morality". It's the "conservatives" that are trying to enforce "morality". They are the ones that want to amend the Constitution to define marriage based upon their christian morals. THEY are the ones enforcing their "morality" upon the rest of us. It's a misguided morality, and aside the juvenile crap I wrote up top, the serious fact is that the same arguements people like Maggie use against the "threat of the gays" getting married is the same garbage that the bigots spouted off about inter-racial marriage a few decades ago. If you want to go further, and even argue the strawmen that commercial constructed about forcing "conservatives" to have their children be taught that....GASP....a gay man or woman has just as much worth as a straight man or woman. Or that a christian doctor would be "forced" to perform their oath and job to help a ....GASP...gay person. Or that a church run orphanage was told it would lose it's tax-emept status (or the tax dollars it received) if it continued to refuse to adopt children to....GASP.... gay couples. I'll gladly take that "morality" arguement. I'll gladly put up my belief in equality and fairness gleened from our Constitution and empathy... against a belief in a "God given right" to discriminate and judge that was gleened from various intrepretations of an old book. Incorrect interpretations, in my opinion.
For the record I am for all citizens getting equal treatment from the state. I liked the analogy though.
I agree with shorbe about morality. Is there really a greater good since the greater good is always the majority vote. The public is not a thinking feeling being. It's an illusion and anything done for the publics greater good is really the majority imposing their will on the minority. I think we spend to much time protecting the public rather than protecting the real individuals rights.
liberals....conservatives..... blame game and faulty viewpoint since
no gain we cannot have freedom and equality unless we all get it.... somewhere in the middle is the best place to look
Dr.Payne: If not equal rights for homosexuals, then why not equal rights for polygamists? Notice I didn't put bestiality or paedophilia in this argument precisely because they're not between two consenting adult humans.
I'm not arguing against homosexual marriage in this point, I'm simply saying that if you're going to be fair to one group that doesn't hurt anyone else, then you need to be fair to another group that doesn't hurt anyone else. The difference is often this in many liberal minds: Gays = okay, not weird. Polygamists = some weird religious sect. (You know that I'm pretty rabidly anti-religious, but I just find it interesting that the "weird religious sect" card gets played so hard and so often in society.) As for everything else, I think you need to distinguish between equality and fairness, because they're not the same thing, though there is a considerable overlap. I would agree that in this case, the equality and fairness pretty well lap almost 100% (though not if people who don't want to have anything to do with gays are forced to send their children to such schools, or fund such schools via taxes even if they send their kids to private schools or homeschool them). This is the problem though: people falsely believe there's a 100% overlap between equality and fairness. Then, they believe the state is justified in enforcing that particular morality. Sometimes, how this comes back on other people is directly through (higher) taxation, or indirectly through the breakdown of a civil, functioning society. Examples (upon which there is plenty of sociological research) might include the breakdown of the nuclear family leading to a greater likelihood of children in such families turning to crime, behaving and performing worse in school (and affecting good students in school), etc. These things may indeed come back to haunt other people. To imply that any programme or top-down enforced social change will not have unintended consequences (for better or worse, but especially worse) is naive. I am suspicious of conservative attempts to apply their top-down enforced morality, but I'm also suspicious of anyone else to do the same.
Maybe this is another cultural difference thing, but when I said allowing a union between TWO consenting individuals, that kinda excludes polygamy, as it is between MORE THAN TWO individuals.
Personally, if someone wants to be a polygamist, I really don't give a fuck. However, once you start extending the benfits/rights that a civil union grants a couple, I would think the logistics of now involving five, six, ten people would create nightmares to work out legally in the event of a divorce/death/tax issue. In fact, the other night a group of us were out drinking talking about how Maine just legalized gay civil unions (Go Maine!) and sitting at the table most of my libertarian friends came up with the proposition that any two adults should be able to have a civil union, with the same ties/benefits as a hetero/gay couple. For example, I have two straight male friends that have lived together for ten years. They've split the rent, bills, and everything else a couple would go through. They just happen to date women (as opposed to each other), but neither looks for a long term relationship. What if nothing changes, and they both grow old as room mates, but not lovers? Should they not be granted the same rights of a gay couple, or a hetero couple when things like visitation in the hospital come up towards the end of one's life? I'm still not on board completely with going that far, but I do think there is some merit to the basic concept that a "civil union" is nothing more than a legally recognized (by the state) union/joint venture between two individuals with all of the benefits and detriments that come with it. As for the rest of your last post, I'm not arguing between equality and fairness. I'm argueing the difference you had in your original post about morality and equality. Right wingers are trying to enforce their concept of morality on the rest of us by denying basic rights granted to themselves by the state, to people they believe are morally sinners. Liberals are trying to grant EVERYONE the same rights. Equality. Once again, polygamy does NOT count, as it is, by definition, between more than two people. And lastly, as I say to any douchebag in a bar that brings this topic up, if you don't want a gay marriage, don't have a gay marriage. If I have the time to write it in the future, I have a "True Story" about an..... entertaining discussion I had at a bar a few months ago with a full fledged die hard Republican and his two buddies. Our long and at times "intense" (to put it mildly) exchange actually got discussed by people that worked at the bar and drank there for weeks after it occured. It basically proves I'm actually even more stubborn, self-righteous and rude to people in person than online. It just helps being 6' and 225 lbs with long hair, long goatee, and lotsa tats. 
I have no tats or long hair or a goatee or anything cool and I still have a valid right to my opinions and my opinion is fat people and gays are still equal to those without those problems. I said problems because no one in their right mind would choose to suffer and the same could be said of drug users. Suffer is the word I chose because anyone with any of those is suffering being less equal than those that are free of those problems. No one chooses to be fat or gay or a drug user. I can hear this being torn apart and thats fine it doesn't mean I am wrong .
Who in their right mind wants to be a junkie or a fat person or gay. I bet their is a fat gay junkie out there somewhere agreeing with me . haha
Dr. Payne: I'm completely down with the idea of those two roomies having some sort of civil (non-sexual) union. I do think that marriage is a contract, after all.
Polygamy doesn't have to be between more than two people at a time. I know that sounds odd, but compare it to a businessman who has contracts with several different clients. The clients don't necessarily need to know each other, or even that other clients exist. The businessman simply needs to make sure that he honours his contract with each. This would mean that he would have to define what a polygamist would bring to each relationship, and leave in the advent of separation or death. The problem, of course, is that lawyers always try to distort any contract. It is indeed tricky. I get your point about right-wingers enforcing their morality, but I've already countered that left-wingers are trying to enforce their morality. It doesn't have to be one or the other. How about they all stay the hell out of my life?! If people want homosexuality to be integrated in society, then they should do it via the private sector. Likewise with people and their religions. I object to the concept of anyone's world view being forced upon my children (well, I don't have children yet, but I will still think this way when I do) via the education system, or still being forced upon me via taxation. I could opt out of public education, either via private education or via homeschooling, and I'd still have to foot the bill for your morality. Flip Doubt: I don't know about being gay (as in, is there any conclusive scientific evidence about the causes of homosexuality), but people certainly do choose to be fat or choose to be junkies. There are plenty of activities I choose to engage or not to engage in. In some cases, I'm simply not interested in them. That's pretty easy. In others, I have to discipline myself to do something or not to do something. There are areas where I fall down, but I have to blame myself. For example, my apartment is messy right now. That's no one's fault but my own. On the issue of obesity, I avoid it by 1) not buying bad food -- if I don't buy it, I can't eat it; 2) engaging in at least a moderate amount of exercise -- for instance, I ride a bicycle to work, which is the bare minimum exercise I get every day. As for being a junkie, I would say that when I was younger, I used to drink to excess (perhaps it wasn't that abnormal, I don't know). I got to the point where I realised I actually didn't like it that much and it was really bad for me (and expensive). Now, perhaps I could drink moderately now, perhaps I couldn't. I don't know. For me, it's been much more effective to simply not drink at all for the past ten and a half years (and it's saved me a ton of money). I can't understand people letting any substance (be it food or drugs) rule their lives.
I'm laughing too hard to post anything coherent.
Luv them fatties! Somebodys' gotta luv'em!
Last night fat-ass Maggie was on Larry King Live discussing the persecution of Ms California (which is just plain stupid. Who cares what she beleives/said?) , and this is the last thing Maggie actually said before Larry had to end and go to commercial....
"No, I agree with you that homosexuals are being unfairly persecuted in this country much worse than Christians." "Thanks ladies, we'll be right back", says Larry with no attempt to point out one HUGE thing with that statement. YOU'RE THE BITCH PERSECUTING THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! That's like having a klansman say, "Yeah, I think it's horrible how blacks are treated in our country." How the hell does Larry not follow up on that? ![[eek]](./emoticons/eek.gif "[eek]") ![[mad]](./emoticons/mad.gif "[mad]") ![[confused]](./emoticons/confused.gif "[confused]") Flip- I agree with what you say, that's kinda my point (which you may be agreeing with anyways). I don't think people "choose" to be gay, nor choose to be fat. You can FIGHT to not be either of the above, but whether genetics or upbringing, some people are predisposed at an early age to be either of the above. As I've said before, I have a natural attraction to red heads. Was I born that way, or was it something from my childhood? Either way, I never "chose" to have a thing for gingers. I've always liked the retort to anyone that claims gays "chose" to be that way. Anyone that says that, ask them at what age they "chose" to be hetero.  p.s. Flip, the goatee/long hair thing wasn't about a more valid opinion, it (as will be illustrated when I actually write the story) has allowed me to say things to people in bars that most likely would have lead to a fist fight, if I didn't LOOK like I love to bar fight, which I actually abhor, since I am a pacifist.
This debate is really about what constitutes a family. More and more we are recognizing that non-traditional family arrangements can function just as well as the traditional man + woman = children formula. This is probably, I would guess, a result of feminism and the breakdown of traditional families in especially the African American community. If a single woman can raise children all by herself, why can't 2 women raise that same family? If a single man can raise his children, why not 2 men? Given that the basis for a family is love, if 2 people love each other, that should be enough, whether they are straight, gay, or flamingly obese.
Freemark: Can a single woman raise children all by herself?
Sociologists have shown that single-parent/single-income families tend to have worse outcomes for children in things like educational achievement and tendency towards criminal behaviour in adult. Socio-economic status is a massive predictor of future outcomes for children, and being in almost any single-income family puts someone immediately behind the eight ball in that respect, not to mention that a lot of the time there quite possibly won't be anyone around to keep an eye on the kid(s). There's a lot more to raising a child successfully to adulthood than love. Being poor is also a very good predictor for being obese (and all of the associated health risks). I'd hardly base any of this on African American communities. Sure, there are African American communities and there are African American communities, but the ones you're talking about (the breakdown in traditional families) have appalling outcomes for educational attainment, likelihood of incarceration, likelihood of being killed in a violent manner, debt, general self-destructive and anti-social behaviour, obesity, etc. If anything, I'd hold these kind of communities up as something very wrong with this particular feminist agenda and near, if not complete, failure. The reality of a breakdown in traditional families is not some feminist academic who earns a decent amount of money and has the full weight of an institution that actively supports her lifestyle choice behind her and allows her to successfully juggle her professional and private life. Nor is it two highly paid gay professionals who are able to afford for one to stop working to look after kids or for both of them to work and afford the best daycare. For every such family (in either case), there are dozens of non-traditional families faring really, really badly. All of this would be fine, except that all of these social ills spill over to affect other people either directly (through crime) or indirectly (through a host of things, including, but not limited to: taxation for social programmes, a greater burden upon the health system and a greater burden upon the educational system).
shorbe, certainly a single-parent household has the deck stacked against them, but what are you prepared to do about it, outlaw divorce? If we are capable of accepting the fallout from single parent households, why would it be so bad to add another parent (of either gender) to the situation, to add stability, guidance, and resources? While we are at it, let's agree that having a child raised by gay parents is infinitely better than having that child raised in a state orphanage until it's kicked out at age 18.
Shouldn't a gay couple that makes the commitment to each other, and to a child by adopting it, have the right to enjoy the ritualistic satisfaction of marriage, with all the duties and privileges that go with it? A society that can accept single parent homes is a society that will accept gay parent homes. It's really just a matter of time.
Freemark: Of course, I agree. I haven't re-read all my comments above, but I believe I'm being consistent in saying that the horse has already bolted and the nuclear family has gone the way of the dinosaur, which is why I said above that I'd prefer to go after other groups than gay couples, though it's probably too late.
I was merely pointing out that a tiny minority of people with high incomes and very flexible employment options have extrapolated from their abilities to make their lifestyle choices work to the wider community, and it's had disastrous results, especially when coupled with welfare. One thing I definitely think Taiwan has all over the West is that although divorce is legal and common (and its results are often fucked up in opposite ways to the West), it's not encouraged, and there's a downright enormous social stigma to having children out of wedlock here. Taiwan lacks a social welfare system (though it does have a very good, cheap, easily-accessible public health system), and I'd argued that's a large part of why it has far, far fewer social ills than the West.
1st Amendment free speech - FTW!
Quote: Freemark #17 @Tue, 05-12-09, 04:02PM This debate is really about what constitutes a family. More and more we are recognizing that non-traditional family arrangements can function just as well as the traditional man + woman = children formula. This is probably, I would guess, a result of feminism and the breakdown of traditional families in especially the African American community. If a single woman can raise children all by herself, why can't 2 women raise that same family? If a single man can raise his children, why not 2 men? Given that the basis for a family is love, if 2 people love each other, that should be enough, whether they are straight, gay, or flamingly obese. flamingly obese parents have a bad habit of not going out to play with their kids anywhere near enough, otherwise I'm with ya
"traditional marriage". Every time I catch an uptight person trying to push their beliefs on an entire country through this phrase my eye starts to twitch. Historically, one woman one man marriage has NOT been the prevalent tradition; polygamy has. I think swearing that strong of an oath to "god" and society is such an intensely personal decision, it can only be properly made by the people taking the oath. Society needs to maintain the age restrictions to assure that the people making said oath have a realistic concept of "till death do us part", and the details of which people are ready to make that oath should be left as a personal decision.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Charter
|
Legal
|
Privacy
|
Contribute
|
A Tribute
|
Free Porn
|
Clear Cookies
|
Back to Top
|
RSS
All works © 2001-2010 by their respective authors and Think Attack.com; All Rights Reserved.
Disgruntled Veteran