DOMA Struck Down

[AUChizad]

[AUChizad]

[WiregrassTiger]

It's basically a political cartoon by the New Yorker. Sesame street has not endorsed this in any way, and even declined to comment when pressed on it.

They have said many times that they're just roommates.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/bert-ernie-not-gay-sesame-street-says-statement-184052325.html

In other words, it's a joke. Lighten up.

You lighten up Francis. Nobody is gonna get away with insinuating Ernie likes boys around me Buster. I'll stick my rubber ducky in an uncomfortable place...or, maybe do something mean to you.

[Saniflush]

I'll stick my rubber ducky in an uncomfortable place..

You mean like in the back of a Volkswagon?

[AUJarhead]

Wait, what's whoopee?

[CCTAU]

CA has the gays
TX has the guns.

We can call it even.

Seriously I don't care who's gay and who's not, My wife's nephew is gay. Simply because I choose to not support a life style does not me homophobe or racist or whatever I am.

This.

And why should people who choose that lifestyle get special treatment and not people who choose to love animal sex and pedophilia?

You people who like to call this equal rights always leave out those lifestyles that you deem wrong or immoral, yet you call the rest of us homophobes.

In your world, equal should be equal for everyone, right?

[Tiger Wench]

You lighten up, Francis.  I realize that it was a joke by the New Yorker - I understand satire.  My point is that people have been making this "joke" for years about B&E when there are plenty of other examples they can use that aren't .  I hate it when people twist classic children's characters for their own agenda, because it is more "shocking" or "controversial".  I could give two fucks about that normally, but you aren't the one who has to try and explain satire to your kids and why people are calling Bert & Ernie fags.

I got equally pissed when JK Rowling felt compelled to mention that Dumbledore was gay.  There was nothing in those books that even HINTED that the character was gay, nothing implied, nothing that needed further explaining.  What purpose did that serve other than to create controversy and buy some free publicity that she did not need?  That's about as necessary as Lucas stating that Darth Vader likes to cross dress under his robe. 

[AUChizad]

And why should people who choose that lifestyle get special treatment and not people who choose to love animal sex and pedophilia?

You people who like to call this equal rights always leave out those lifestyles that you deem wrong or immoral, yet you call the rest of us homophobes.

In your world, equal should be equal for everyone, right?

Dumb argument is dumb.

Those things have nothing to do with me deeming them immoral. If that was all that was at play with bestiality or pedophilia, then I wouldn't give a fuck because it would in no way affect me.

Those particular issues are about protection of people and things that cannot consent to sexual activity, and in that way are forms of rape.

It's not rocket science.

The only slippery slope argument with the tiniest hint of validity would be polygamy. But if you ask me? I could give a fuck less if three women want to marry one dude. Doesn't affect me. Doesn't affect anyone but that particular group of people, whom it makes happy, so it is beyond me how it bothers anyone else enough to have a negative opinion on it.

It takes a certain kind of hate that I fail to understand to so adamantly oppose granting a group of people happiness for no reason that affects you whatsoever besides your opinion that it is "immoral" in your estimation.

[AUTailgatingRules]

Dumb argument is dumb.

Those things have nothing to do with me deeming them immoral. If that was all that was at play with bestiality or pedophilia, then I wouldn't give a fuck because it would in no way affect me.

Those particular issues are about protection of people and things that cannot consent to sexual activity, and in that way are forms of rape.

It's not rocket science.

The only slippery slope argument with the tiniest hint of validity would be polygamy. But if you ask me? I could give a fuck less if three women want to marry one dude. Doesn't affect me. Doesn't affect anyone but that particular group of people, whom it makes happy, so it is beyond me how it bothers anyone else enough to have a negative opinion on it.

It takes a certain kind of hate that I fail to understand to so adamantly oppose granting a group of people happiness for no reason that affects you whatsoever besides your opinion that it is "immoral" in your estimation.

You do realize that Marriage in and of itself is a RELIGIOUS institution.  Gays can have the same "rights" and treatment as married people by simply forming a civil union.  Why do they have to highjack the religious basis for "marriage"?

[AUChizad]

You do realize that Marriage in and of itself is a RELIGIOUS institution.  Gays can have the same "rights" and treatment as married people by simply forming a civil union.  Why do they have to highjack the religious basis for "marriage"?

Right...Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, etc. can't legally get married? News to me.

[GH2001]

Right...Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, etc. can't legally get married? News to me.

I think he means the origins of it going back to early Israel with Abraham and Sara.

And believe it or not, many biblical figures were actually practicers of polygamy. Yes. Its true.

[AUChizad]

I think he means the origins of it going back to early Israel with Abraham and Sara.

And believe it or not, many biblical figures were actually practicers of polygamy. Yes. Its true.

I am aware.

King Solomon, whom Louie Gohmert ironically quoted ("there was nothing new under the sun") to bemoan the falling of DOMA, had 300 wives and 700 concubines.

Wilt Chamberlain is jealous of the thousand pussies he crushed.

#Sanctity

[Vandy Vol]

Wait, what's whoopee?