Home› All Encompassing Trip

Fat people should be banned from marriage too.

over bendsover bends Posts: 1,568
edited November 2008 in All Encompassing Trip
Since gay marriage is banned, it only makes sense that fat people shouldn't marry either.

Argument 1:

Fat sex is just as gross as gay sex.

Argument 2:

Fat people will have fat children. It will ruin society.

Argument 3:

It will work out in the long run since it will motivate them to lose weight.

Argument 4:

Being fat isn't natural.

Please note if you didn't get it, that I do not feel this way but rather this is a satire on the ridiculousness of banning gay marriage.
Yield!

3 Decibels Doubles the Volume

2006
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134

Comments

  • Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    *nods*
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • the wolfthe wolf Posts: 7,027
    funny stuff here. :)
    Peace, Love.

    "To question your government is not unpatriotic --
    to not question your government is unpatriotic."
    -- Sen. Chuck Hagel
  • RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    It all hinges on whether you think gay is a genetic thing, or learned behavior.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    It all hinges on whether you think gay is a genetic thing, or learned behavior.
    Why does it matter?
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • mca47mca47 Posts: 13,300
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    Why does it matter?

    Religious nut-bags think being gay is learned and you can "unlearn" it. They don't consider the fact that it could just be a genetic thing, something gay people have no control over. Then again, you start mentioning genetics or science and that argument is over right there. There is no place for fancy science in god's world!
  • PJamGrunge10PJamGrunge10 California Posts: 596
    Even though this is just a joke, the only thing that makes sense here is #4
    Stone Gossard...riffmeister extraordinaire!

    I am a man, I am advanced.....I am the first man to borrow Stone's leather pants!
  • Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    mca47 wrote:
    Religious nut-bags think being gay is learned and you can "unlearn" it. They don't consider the fact that it could just be a genetic thing, something gay people have no control over. Then again, you start mentioning genetics or science and that argument is over right there. There is no place for fancy science in god's world!
    Yeah but why does it matter whether a person learned to be gay or not? Why shouldn't they be able to get married, regardless of whether or not it is a choice?

    I'm really interested to know who exactly it is hurting. There are NO intelligent arguments against gay marriage.
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • walkunafraidwalkunafraid Posts: 2,613
    Anybody who thinks homosexuality is "learned" is a complete moron.

    It's no more learned than skin color, physical or mental disabilities, etc.

    Why on earth would anyone "choose" to be gay when doing so subjects one to such hatred, isolation, and discrimination in society?

    I remember watching a special once about a prince in India (where gay sex is against the law). He had everything -- money, friends, fame, family -- but he was gay, and chose not to hide it any longer. As a result, he was disowned by his parents, was stripped of being heir, and was ostracized by his community.

    Now, this dude lived in a bubble. He was sheltered and pampered all his life, and was certainly not "exposed" to behavior that would cause him to "learn" homosexuality.

    And yet some would still argue that being gay was his choice and that he could choose to not be gay if he wanted to.

    Utterly ridiculous.
    Everything has chains...Absolutely nothing's changed. - PJ

    “The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.” - Albert Camus
  • RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    Yeah but why does it matter whether a person learned to be gay or not? Why shouldn't they be able to get married, regardless of whether or not it is a choice?

    I'm really interested to know who exactly it is hurting. There are NO intelligent arguments against gay marriage.


    If it's merely a choice, then why it it so incredibly important to get married in the first place? The choice made is clearly a deviation from the normal route, and so the choice is made to be different...that's the chosen path...be different.

    If it's genetic, it's more a feeling of not understanding who you are, and just wanting to be "normal"....whatever that is.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • elmerelmer Posts: 1,683
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    There are NO intelligent arguments against gay marriage.
    Rampant homosexuality was a major contibutor to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. :)
  • RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    walkunafraid wrote:
    Anybody who thinks homosexuality is "learned" is a complete moron.

    It's no more learned than skin color, physical or mental disabilities, etc.

    Why on earth would anyone "choose" to be gay when doing so subjects one to such hatred, isolation, and discrimination in society?

    I remember watching a special once about a prince in India (where gay sex is against the law). He had everything -- money, friends, fame, family -- but he was gay, and chose not to hide it any longer. As a result, he was disowned by his parents, was stripped of being heir, and was ostracized by his community.

    Now, this dude lived in a bubble. He was sheltered and pampered all his life, and was certainly not "exposed" to behavior that would cause him to "learn" homosexuality.

    And yet some would still argue that being gay was his choice and that he could choose to not be gay if he wanted to.

    Utterly ridiculous.


    Produce the science that isolates the experience, and you will have undeniably earned the right to call people moron's based on your hypothesis of how the human mind works.

    You can try to explain this to straight folks all you want but they can never fully understand the circumstance....it's a physical impossibility.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    If it's merely a choice, then why it it so incredibly important to get married in the first place? The choice made is clearly a deviation from the normal route, and so the choice is made to be different...that's the chosen path...be different.

    If it's genetic, it's more a feeling of not understanding who you are, and just wanting to be "normal"....whatever that is.
    Why because a person might choose to deviate in their sexuality (and I really don't think it's a choice) must we assume that they wish to deviate in all aspects of their lives? Once a person takes a step away from the norm are they immediately disallowed from expecting the same rights as anyone else? Choice or not. That's like saying that if homosexuality was a choice, it should be ok to stone gay people to death because they chose to be, they didn't need to and they could live a happy, stone free life if they so choose.
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    Why because a person might choose to deviate in their sexuality (and I really don't think it's a choice) must we assume that they wish to deviate in all aspects of their lives? Once a person takes a step away from the norm are they immediately disallowed from expecting the same rights as anyone else? Choice or not. That's like saying that if homosexuality was a choice, it should be ok to stone gay people to death because they chose to be, they didn't need to and they could live a happy, stone free life if they so choose.


    Yes, but nobody is stoning anyone to death, merely preserving the sacrament and institution that was originally set forth to be carried out between man and woman. They got there first so to speak, so they should have some rights as to what the institution of actually is and represents. i.e. if marriage means this...then how can it also mean that as well?

    I think God also said this at one point in a big ol thick book, so you can see how deeply ingrained the definition of marriage has become.

    I think Porsche and Ferrari should manufacture pink polka dotted cars, and they are personally discriminating against me by not doing it for me, or I could just deal with it, perhaps go insane, and get a custom paint job at some point. I dunno, maybe I should petition them endlessly, so I can feel at rest within myself. No easy answers there.

    Not saying what is right or wrong...jus saying.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • over bendsover bends Posts: 1,568
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Yes, but nobody is stoning anyone to death, merely preserving the sacrament and institution that was originally set forth to be carried out between man and woman. They got there first so to speak, so they should have some rights as to what the institution of actually is and represents. i.e. if marriage means this...then how can it also mean that as well?

    I think God also said this at one point in a big ol thick book, so you can see how deeply ingrained the definition of marriage has become.

    I think Porsche and Ferrari should manufacture pink polka dotted cars, and they are personally discriminating against me by not doing it for me, or I could just deal with it, perhaps go insane, and get a custom paint job at some point. I dunno, maybe I should petition them endlessly, so I can feel at rest within myself. No easy answers there.

    Not saying what is right or wrong...jus saying.

    No one is arguing that the Christian church should allow gay marriage. It's perfectly fine. Freedom of religion. Our government though allegedly has a separation of church and state and so marriage as a religious sacrament doesn't really hold any water for arguing why the state should not recognize the institution of gay marriage.
    Yield!

    3 Decibels Doubles the Volume

    2006
  • Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Yes, but nobody is stoning anyone to death, merely preserving the sacrament and institution that was originally set forth to be carried out between man and woman. They got there first so to speak, so they should have some rights as to what the institution of actually is and represents. i.e. if marriage means this...then how can it also mean that as well?

    I think God also said this at one point in a big ol thick book, so you can see how deeply ingrained the definition of marriage has become.

    I think Porsche and Ferrari should manufacture pink polka dotted cars, and they are personally discriminating against me by not doing it for me, or I could just deal with it, perhaps go insane, and get a custom paint job at some point. I dunno, maybe I should petition them endlessly, so I can feel at rest within myself. No easy answers there.

    Not saying what is right or wrong...jus saying.
    What people have to realise is that TIMES CHANGE.

    These wonderful sacred marriages which we have to preserve the sanctity of are failing 50% of the time. The sanctity of marriage means fuck all to half of the people getting them. Why shouldn't everyone get an equal shot? This is all I'm saying. I just cannot understand how anyone can presume to exclude a person from undertaking the same declaration of love out of what appears to be nothing more than a spiteful sense of misguided superiority - "I'm a good christian so I get to use the M word. You can just have a little civil partnership because you're a fag". It's sickening.
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    over_bends wrote:
    No one is arguing that the Christian church should allow gay marriage. It's perfectly fine. Freedom of religion. Our government though allegedly has a separation of church and state and so marriage as a religious sacrament doesn't really hold any water for arguing why the state should not recognize the institution of gay marriage.
    Exactly. My parents were married in a secular ceremony in a registry office. Is that not a marriage? How is the same action undertaken by a gay couple any less of a marriage? It is not. Why then is the distinction made?
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 40,461
    UMMMM is TMT full? Did what started out a very smart, satirical look at the farce that this "thing" is, have to become this kinda thread on here?
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    What people have to realise is that TIMES CHANGE.

    These wonderful sacred marriages which we have to preserve the sanctity of are failing 50% of the time. The sanctity of marriage means fuck all to half of the people getting them. Why shouldn't everyone get an equal shot? This is all I'm saying. I just cannot understand how anyone can presume to exclude a person from undertaking the same declaration of love out of what appears to be nothing more than a spiteful sense of misguided superiority - "I'm a good christian so I get to use the M word. You can just have a little civil partnership because you're a fag". It's sickening.

    Call it marriage 2 and start a new trend.

    Why is it so important to be like straight people if you're gay? Is it considered a disease or something?
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    mickeyrat wrote:
    UMMMM is TMT full? Did what started out a very smart, satirical look at the farce that this "thing" is, have to become this kinda thread on here?


    I know...I know ...thinking hurts...


    look away...ease your suffering..
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 40,461
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    I know...I know ...thinking hurts...


    look away...ease your suffering..
    you are correct ,seeing this on AET does make my head hurt. As far as your comment on thinking goes ....well, I'll just keep what I'm thinking to myself.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Call it marriage 2 and start a new trend.

    Why is it so important to be like straight people if you're gay? Is it considered a disease or something?
    In respect of mickeyrat's point that this was supposed to be light-hearted, I'll refrain from elaborating but I really can't get my head around this post. Suffice to say that I don't think two gay people wishing to declare their love for each other in a legally recognised manner is ANYTHING to do with conceding a little of themselves to the heterosexual norm.
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    In respect of mickeyrat's point that this was supposed to be light-hearted, I'll refrain from elaborating but I really can't get my head around this post. Suffice to say that I don't think two gay people wishing to declare their love for each other in a legally recognised manner is ANYTHING to do with conceding a little of themselves to the heterosexual norm.


    It's all based on a technicality written on a piece of paper. Out of respect to straight people that are married, and regards preserving the sacrament itself as a holy union between man and woman, should straight people not have the right to preserve their concepts of?

    I say create another term for it, apply framework for all the same legal rights, and be done with it.

    As for having a lighthearted discussion on this topic, it's really only possible unless one agrees with the OP.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • RolandTD20KdrummerRolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    mickeyrat wrote:
    you are correct ,seeing this on AET does make my head hurt. As far as your comment on thinking goes ....well, I'll just keep what I'm thinking to myself.

    I like the TV remote concept...

    I could write the TV station and complain about the 90% of TV content that is unbearable to me....or I could just change the channel, or go to the gym, read a book, etc...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSunLikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    really fat sex is pretty gross, average fat sex is funny, and slightly fat sex is hot.

    interesting.
  • angryyoungmanangryyoungman Medford, NY Posts: 1,028
    its scaring me but i actually agree with roland on just about everything on this one. . .marriage whether you want to believe it or not is a religious ceremony, i realize that alot of straight people make a mockery of it as evidenced by the divorce rate but thats what it is suppossed to be. . .
    i have wished for so long, how i wish for you today
    JEFFREY ROSS ROGERS 1975-2002

    9.10.98 NYC / 8.23.00 JONES BEACH /4.30.03 UNIONDALE / 7.9.03 NYC /5.12.06 ALBANY/ 6.1.06 E.RUTHEFORD/ 6.3.06 E. RUTHEFORD/ CAMDEN 6.19.08/ NYC 6.24.08/ NYC 6.25.08/ HARTFORD 6.27.08/ CHICAGO 8.24.09/ PHILLY 10.31.09/ HARTFORD 5.15.10/ NEWARK 5.18.10/ NYC 5.20.10/ CHICAGO 7.19.13/ BROOKLYN 10.18.13/ BROOKLYN 10.19.13/ HARTFORD 10.25.13/ NYC 9.26.15/ 4.8.16 FT. LAUDERDALE/ 4.9.16 MIAMI / 5.1.16 NYC/ 5.2.16 NYC / 8.5.16 BOSTON / 8.7.16 BOSTON/ 8.20.18 CHICAGO/ 9.2.18 BOSTON/ 9.4.18 BOSTON/ 9.18.21 ASBURY PARK

    finally, FUCK TICKETMASTER
  • angryyoungmanangryyoungman Medford, NY Posts: 1,028
    MrSmith wrote:
    really fat sex is pretty gross, average fat sex is funny, and slightly fat sex is hot.

    interesting.
    what about fat, gay sex?
    i have wished for so long, how i wish for you today
    JEFFREY ROSS ROGERS 1975-2002

    9.10.98 NYC / 8.23.00 JONES BEACH /4.30.03 UNIONDALE / 7.9.03 NYC /5.12.06 ALBANY/ 6.1.06 E.RUTHEFORD/ 6.3.06 E. RUTHEFORD/ CAMDEN 6.19.08/ NYC 6.24.08/ NYC 6.25.08/ HARTFORD 6.27.08/ CHICAGO 8.24.09/ PHILLY 10.31.09/ HARTFORD 5.15.10/ NEWARK 5.18.10/ NYC 5.20.10/ CHICAGO 7.19.13/ BROOKLYN 10.18.13/ BROOKLYN 10.19.13/ HARTFORD 10.25.13/ NYC 9.26.15/ 4.8.16 FT. LAUDERDALE/ 4.9.16 MIAMI / 5.1.16 NYC/ 5.2.16 NYC / 8.5.16 BOSTON / 8.7.16 BOSTON/ 8.20.18 CHICAGO/ 9.2.18 BOSTON/ 9.4.18 BOSTON/ 9.18.21 ASBURY PARK

    finally, FUCK TICKETMASTER
  • Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    angryyoungman wrote:
    its scaring me but i actually agree with roland on just about everything on this one. . .marriage whether you want to believe it or not is a religious ceremony, i realize that alot of straight people make a mockery of it as evidenced by the divorce rate but thats what it is suppossed to be. . .
    What about non-religious marriages? As I said before, my parents were married (yes, married) in a registry office. The only thing separating their communion from a gay civil partnership is the name.
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • angryyoungmanangryyoungman Medford, NY Posts: 1,028
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    What about non-religious marriages? As I said before, my parents were married (yes, married) in a registrary office. The only thing separating their communion from a gay civil partnership is the name.
    i've never heard of a non-religious marriage. . .isn't that called a civil union or something?. . .as roland mentioned, i don't get why gay people would want to get married, for a tax break?
    i have wished for so long, how i wish for you today
    JEFFREY ROSS ROGERS 1975-2002

    9.10.98 NYC / 8.23.00 JONES BEACH /4.30.03 UNIONDALE / 7.9.03 NYC /5.12.06 ALBANY/ 6.1.06 E.RUTHEFORD/ 6.3.06 E. RUTHEFORD/ CAMDEN 6.19.08/ NYC 6.24.08/ NYC 6.25.08/ HARTFORD 6.27.08/ CHICAGO 8.24.09/ PHILLY 10.31.09/ HARTFORD 5.15.10/ NEWARK 5.18.10/ NYC 5.20.10/ CHICAGO 7.19.13/ BROOKLYN 10.18.13/ BROOKLYN 10.19.13/ HARTFORD 10.25.13/ NYC 9.26.15/ 4.8.16 FT. LAUDERDALE/ 4.9.16 MIAMI / 5.1.16 NYC/ 5.2.16 NYC / 8.5.16 BOSTON / 8.7.16 BOSTON/ 8.20.18 CHICAGO/ 9.2.18 BOSTON/ 9.4.18 BOSTON/ 9.18.21 ASBURY PARK

    finally, FUCK TICKETMASTER
  • Fighting HellfishFighting Hellfish Posts: 3,170
    It's my theory that the religous freaks are so against gay marriage just because they'll be embarrssed when comparing divorce rates. hetero couple have about a 50% divorce rate. Homo couples will probably have a 20% divorce rate, or lower

    Oh, and who the fuck are the mormons to be up in arms about this? The 1 man 5 wives crowd is now outraged over the difinition of marriage being altered?
  • angryyoungmanangryyoungman Medford, NY Posts: 1,028
    then again i don't get why some straight people get married either
    i have wished for so long, how i wish for you today
    JEFFREY ROSS ROGERS 1975-2002

    9.10.98 NYC / 8.23.00 JONES BEACH /4.30.03 UNIONDALE / 7.9.03 NYC /5.12.06 ALBANY/ 6.1.06 E.RUTHEFORD/ 6.3.06 E. RUTHEFORD/ CAMDEN 6.19.08/ NYC 6.24.08/ NYC 6.25.08/ HARTFORD 6.27.08/ CHICAGO 8.24.09/ PHILLY 10.31.09/ HARTFORD 5.15.10/ NEWARK 5.18.10/ NYC 5.20.10/ CHICAGO 7.19.13/ BROOKLYN 10.18.13/ BROOKLYN 10.19.13/ HARTFORD 10.25.13/ NYC 9.26.15/ 4.8.16 FT. LAUDERDALE/ 4.9.16 MIAMI / 5.1.16 NYC/ 5.2.16 NYC / 8.5.16 BOSTON / 8.7.16 BOSTON/ 8.20.18 CHICAGO/ 9.2.18 BOSTON/ 9.4.18 BOSTON/ 9.18.21 ASBURY PARK

    finally, FUCK TICKETMASTER
Sign In or Register to comment.