Iowa and Vermont say ok to gay marriage

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:52 pm

Fuckin' The Jon...

Literally.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:05 pm

Sweet. More cocks for me to eye.

Sin,

Irie Gazeos

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:09 pm

When will there be a legal challenge to polygamy? Seems like the exact same arguement can be made by them.

Personally, I could give two shits if you are stupid enough to want two wives or 1 with a cahk, go for it, dumbass.

I wonder how long it will be before prostitution laws are struck as well? IMO, these laws are a far greater violation of constitutional rights.

ChargerMike · Post by **ChargerMike** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:35 pm

...and once again the Left trumps society.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:48 pm

What's next, legalizing bestiality?

I know that would make Maces' day, but where do you draw the line?

Seriously, this is getting waaay too close to home. Iowa sheep fuckers nominate Obama, and now this.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:56 pm

War Wagon wrote:What's next, legalizing bestiality?

Believe it or not, there's a few states where it has always been legal. I wouldn't be surprised if your state was one of them.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:12 am

War Wagon wrote:What's next, legalizing bestiality?

I know that would make Maces' day, but where do you draw the line?

Seriously, this is getting waaay too close to home. Iowa sheep fuckers nominate Obama, and now this.

Unless you can get an animal to testify in court that it is capable of giving consent I'd stop advertising your stupidity.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:43 am

Diego in Seattle wrote:
War Wagon wrote:What's next, legalizing bestiality?

I know that would make Maces' day, but where do you draw the line?

Seriously, this is getting waaay too close to home. Iowa sheep fuckers nominate Obama, and now this.
Unless you can get an animal to testify in court that it is capable of giving consent I'd stop advertising your stupidity.

Why do you keep putting your head in this noose?

Seriously, after a while, you'd think you would have learned by now...but, no...

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:41 am

It's my view that the state has no business being in the business of marriage.

That said, they are in that business and it's simply not going to ever change.

Since they are in the business, they have a responsibility to set the standard for what marriage IS.

When one looks at homosexual behavior -- a man's dick plungering in and out of another man's @sshole -- they recognize that it is very strange, and the fact that two men can ... do it ... doesn't mean that the parties dick-plungering each other's hairy @ssholes ought to be called marriage partners.

... if they are in their right mind.

There are a LOT of things that people can do, and the fact that they can DO them doesn't mean that the two people who DO such things (whatever that may be) are to be called marriage partners.

A man's dick plungering in and out of another man's @sshole elicits giggles ... hand-over-mouth style -- OMG!! OMG!! -- laughter.

... if someone is in their right mind.

Simply put, a whole lot of folks are not in their right mind.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:52 am

poptart wrote: ...in their right mind.

I can't remember. Is that the rational side or the creative side?

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:15 am

but marriage is a social contract with legal ramifications - which vary, depending on the country you live in. I'm just trying to get my head around privatised marriage.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:33 am

What's your best reason for the government needing to be involved in marriage?

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:37 am

well you yourself just called it a business - and so it is. when money changes hands, it requires regulation and authority. again there are legal factors to consider - divorce, settlements, etc. etc.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:44 am

If one wants "protection" whe entering a marriage, a prenuptual agreement serves the purpose.

A lawyer may be needed, but the state is not needed.

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:55 am

but regarding marriage, the lawyer is interpreting the laws of the state. remember comrade poptart, marriage leads a double life.

it's a time honoured tradition with various interpretations - it has a value and a use value. It becomes not just a tradition, but a commodity, which requires state recognition in the form of currency. therefore the state has every right to be involved.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:34 am

Phibes, if a couple makes a prenup' agreement and one party violates (in the opinion of the other party) that agreement, the state becomes involved only in the sense that a binding legal agreement has (maybe) been broken.

This is a FAR cry from the state actually sanctioning and regulating marriage.

Btw, N. Korea is ready to launch.

You dig it?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:42 am

Dr_Phibes wrote:but regarding marriage, the lawyer is interpreting the laws of the state. remember comrade poptart, marriage leads a double life.

it's a time honoured tradition with various interpretations - it has a value and a use value. It becomes not just a tradition, but a commodity, which requires state recognition in the form of currency. therefore the state has every right to be involved.

What a bunch of horseshit, Feebs. Nice job of saying absolutely nothing but gobbledygook.

Tell me how you really feel with a dick stuck up your ass.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:48 am

Jsc810 wrote:Props to Iowa, hopefully the rest of the states will soon do the same sooner rather than later. Just a matter of time though ...

Hopefully, you die a slow, painful, cowards death... sooner rather than later.

Wait, you're already doing that. Just a matter of time.

.m2 · Post by **.m2** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:59 am

poptart wrote:

When one looks at homosexual behavior -- a man's dick plungering in and out of another man's @sshole --

Pssst.... "straight" married couples play the same games.

Do "cornholes" perform different roles in each gender ?

Should married women that like to take it in the ass and man that likes to give it to her... have their "marriage" contract revoked because she gets off better when she takes it in the ass ?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:14 am

.m2 wrote: Should married women that like to take it in the ass and man that likes to give it to her... have their "marriage" contract revoked because she gets off better when she takes it in the ass ?

Go enjoy your porn fantasy elsewhere, idiot.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:20 am

Men and women might play a lot of sexual games together.
But whatever they do will always be heterosexual play.

Dick in male @ss -- dick in male face -- dick in male ear -- dick in male nostril -- is homosexual play.

It is indisputable that the male and female, by virtue of their respective body parts, were made for each other, and this is what a society ought to reasonably recognize.

You can't say the same about male-male, female-female.

Therefore if a society is going to set a standard of marriage, it is the height of absurdity to lower the standard to such an ridiculous degree so as to include those who pervert what is blatantly obvious before our eyes.

.m2 · Post by **.m2** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:23 am

War Wagon wrote:
.m2 wrote: Should married women that like to take it in the ass and man that likes to give it to her... have their "marriage" contract revoked because she gets off better when she takes it in the ass ?
Go enjoy your porn fantasy elsewhere, idiot.

Maybe if you gave your wife what she wanted (in the ass)... you wouldn't have a dike daughter.

You can't make a queer... without a load.

Just a thought.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:15 pm

Out of Touch Lawyers wrote:Lawyers for Lambda Legal, a gay rights group that financed the court battle and represented the couples, had hoped to use a court victory to demonstrate acceptance of same-sex marriage in heartland America.

Just because left leaning courts incorrectly use their positions to make laws, doesn't mean acceptance. In fact the opposite is largely true and gets the opposition fired up to get a constitutional amendment to prohibit exactly what you just got.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:52 pm

poptart wrote:
Dick in male @ss -- dick in male face -- dick in male ear -- dick in male nostril -- is homosexual play.

From the voice of experience and one who would know about such variations in deviant sexual activity.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:55 pm

.m2 wrote: I take it in the ass and the man
gets me off better when I take it in the ass .

FTFY

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:17 pm

Just stopping by to point out, once again, Duhhron posting in a thread dealing with cocks in male asses. The gift that keeps on giving.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:45 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:Just stopping by to point out, once again, Duhhron posting in a thread dealing with cocks in male asses. The gift that keeps on giving.

Says the pole smoker who was second to post in the thread.

Screwed by every fag in Michigan
m2
poptart

I rest my case..

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:20 pm

California is about to overturn the noxious Prop 8, and by doing so will prevent the brain drain that would have ensued if 100,000 or so married same-sex couples moved from the state in protest. This issue of course isn't about homosexuality or the perverted Christers who are so twisted by this fact of nature. Rather it is and has always been about basic civil rights--and the intolerant puritanical lunatics who attempt to control them. I mean...just look at who is opposing same -sex marriage: totally ignorant and uneducated blacks, for starters. Truly demented and asinine Christers, of course--but not all, just the weird ones who can't dance or actually exhibit any signs of "soul" or genuine life. And the Islamic Fundamentalists. Throw in a racist Nazi piece of shit like babs, and you've got a real assembly!

Arch Angel · Post by **Arch Angel** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:14 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:California is about to overturn the noxious Prop 8, and by doing so will prevent the brain drain that would have ensued if 100,000 or so married same-sex couples moved from the state in protest. This issue of course isn't about homosexuality or the perverted Christers who are so twisted by this fact of nature. Rather it is and has always been about basic civil rights--and the intolerant puritanical lunatics who attempt to control them. I mean...just look at who is opposing same -sex marriage: totally ignorant and uneducated blacks, for starters. Truly demented and asinine Christers, of course--but not all, just the weird ones who can't dance or actually exhibit any signs of "soul" or genuine life. And the Islamic Fundamentalists. Throw in a racist Nazi piece of shit like babs, and you've got a real assembly!

In other words, you like to receive cock in your ass, right?

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:24 am

thanks for the cliff notes, arch.

Arch Angel · Post by **Arch Angel** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:37 am

smackaholic wrote:thanks for the cliff notes, arch.

you're welcome

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 1:02 am

Northwest wisconsin, huh?

Damn you must stand out up there. When I think of northwest wisconsin, I think really, really, really white place. Well, that and fat chicks and funny accents. Actually, I've never really thought much about northwest wisconsin, or pretty much any other part of the cheesehead land. Do have a bit of experience with south east wisconsin. Used to venture up to (not so) lovely kenosha when I was stationed at great mistakes, naval training center. I woulkd be willing to bet that the end of the state you're in is a bit nicer.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:12 am

War Wagon wrote:What's next, legalizing bestiality?

Wow - PLEASE! I need laid and BAD!!

--Mrs. Rick Santorum

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:41 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:California is about to overturn the noxious Prop 8, and by doing so will prevent the brain drain that would have ensued if 100,000 or so married same-sex couples moved from the state in protest.

100,000? That's a lot of fags doubling down. You sure about that number?

And where are they going to move to, Iowa?

Arch Angel · Post by **Arch Angel** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:15 pm

smackaholic wrote:Northwest wisconsin, huh?

Damn you must stand out up there. When I think of northwest wisconsin, I think really, really, really white place. Well, that and fat chicks and funny accents. Actually, I've never really thought much about northwest wisconsin, or pretty much any other part of the cheesehead land. Do have a bit of experience with south east wisconsin. Used to venture up to (not so) lovely kenosha when I was stationed at great mistakes, naval training center. I woulkd be willing to bet that the end of the state you're in is a bit nicer.

After leaving Rockwell Collins in Cedar Rapids, IA, I got married to a Wisconsinite and moved up here. It was tough at first, but I secured a programming job and now set. Now the wife is thinking of quitting as an accountant and be a stay at home mom.

I know the southeast quite well. I lived in Racine briefly when I was a toddler some 40 years ago. Currently our in-laws and family live in the Milwaukee to Manitowoc area or better known as the eastern seaboard of Wisconsin.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:04 pm

mvscal wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:California is about to overturn the noxious Prop 8,
No it isn't.

STFU you Racist tard.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:05 am

Mace, the silver lining will be when outraged citizens like yourself take up a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages.

As much as I like to bag on my northern neighbor, there is NO FUCKING WAY the majority of corn fed Iowans support this decision.

And btw, we'll be in Lamoni in two weeks for Evangels semi-annual trip to bitchslap Graceland. Hope to see you there.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:38 am

mvscal wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:California is about to overturn the noxious Prop 8,
No it isn't.

I mean...just look at who is opposing same -sex marriage: totally ignorant and uneducated blacks, for starters. Truly demented and asinine Christers, of course--but not all, just the weird ones who can't dance or actually exhibit any signs of "soul" or genuine life. And the Islamic Fundamentalists. Throw in a racist Nazi piece of shit like babs, and you've got a real assembly!

Perhaps your hamster attention span missed this part of the equation. Now let's see...are you an ignorant negro? Well, you are ignorant, and your ethnicity is obviously an issue which poisons your sensibilities. Are you a moronic Christer? Probably not, but you vote with them. A Muslim? No, but you are an insane racist piece of shit. Hmmm...what does that leave? Oh, that's right. You're absolutely on line and in step with this ZioNazi Russian mafia creep

Your every vile utterance is--and has for several years--been in lock step with this hysterical hyena gangster. Wow!

So this is the real babs. Denying the very existence of the Palestinians, while defending churlish criminals like Cheney and the neocons.

You are such a loser.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:55 pm

Mace wrote:Also, they'll learn what it means to pay alimony when their marriage fails.

We have a winner.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:03 pm

mvscal wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:I mean...just look at who is opposing same -sex

Well over half of the state's population...on two separate occassions. What part of that are you struggling to comprehend?

Wong, as usual. First of all, the voter turnout was typically low the first time. And the second recent Prop 8, as I pointed out, was carried by the blacks suddenly turning out for 'Bama. And the whole noxious proposition was funded and organized by the freakin' Mormons. Dispute this? Of course not.

As for your consistently mirroring Avigdor's position, well...WELCOME TO YOUR NEW NIC:

The racist twerp known as "babs" (aka "mscval") is hereby known as "Avigdor"

or "avi" for short :wink:

And that's official!