The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community
Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF
Forum Rules
& FAQ

Username

Password


Create a New Account

  
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
10 Reasons to crusade against gay marriage: by SnArL 2009-04-14 10:14:20
1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in the world.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans
[ Reply ]
  *applauds* (n/t) by Snate2009-04-14 10:17:59
  Oh that was awesome thanks :P by jaqie2009-04-14 10:23:28
  *Bravo* \o/ by Hieraco2009-04-14 10:24:34
    What he ^^^ said ;oD (n/t) by Intrinsic2009-04-14 10:56:38
      What they ^^^^ said :D (n/t) by firehawk2009-04-14 11:39:14
  The implication being if you are not for it by vampire2009-04-14 10:24:45
    Just like the arguments against gay marriage? by Hieraco2009-04-14 10:28:07
      That's not necessarily the case. by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 10:31:14
        Correct and I think I've done a fair job of by vampire2009-04-14 10:36:52
          Oh and thanks MatthewDBA. :) (n/t) by vampire2009-04-14 10:37:27
          I have yet to see an argument against it by SnArL2009-04-14 10:40:04
            vampire's argument from 11 days ago by DesiredUsername2009-04-14 10:47:01
              I just spent 20 minnutes digging for that. TLP by vampire2009-04-14 10:53:24
              Yup, just as I thought by SnArL2009-04-14 11:08:21
                Again, by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 11:10:30
                  Very well... by SnArL2009-04-14 11:31:08
                    *I'm* not necessarily assuming that by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 11:34:47
                      The wording of my argument is meant to highlight by SnArL2009-04-14 11:43:53
                        What about the lower powers? ;-P (n/t) by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 11:44:57
                          They get refered to as 'Tech Support' by corwin172009-04-14 12:29:51
                            *geese* (n/t) by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:31:57
                        Even if there was evidence disproving it by Hieraco2009-04-14 13:23:22
              The very first sentence is opinion represented as by vdp2009-04-14 11:23:14
                Devil's advocate: by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 11:37:27
                  But marriage was a legal concept long before by Bellator2009-04-14 11:44:12
                    That's murkier than it might seem by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 11:46:42
                  In the US, religious marriage ceremonies are by corwin172009-04-14 12:36:45
                    Again, one could turn that in the other direction. by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:40:39
                      Many states wont recognise the church by joecrouse2009-04-14 12:52:36
                        "the minute your paperwork is signed" by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:56:28
                          the state doesnt recognise by joecrouse2009-04-14 13:22:09
                      And, as an atheist, I have no problem by corwin172009-04-14 12:53:08
                        (b) is correct. by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:55:43
                          Understood. by corwin172009-04-14 13:23:33
              let's see... by aprylmae2009-04-14 11:42:16
            That's assuming that by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 10:47:30
              It is also assuming that by DesertRat662009-04-14 10:58:00
                How do you know God is a He? (n/t) by joecrouse2009-04-14 11:05:38
                  Who do you think by DesertRat662009-04-14 11:07:41
                    Oh and I also know he is a civil engineer (n/t) by DesertRat662009-04-14 11:08:05
                      Indeed by UGuardian2009-04-14 11:23:01
                        MUST. NOT. COMMENT. by SnArL2009-04-14 11:24:53
                          What? you afraid you will get "pegged?" *runs* (n/t) by Classic_Jon2009-04-14 11:50:34
                Matthew 19 and Romans 1 say different. by Adiplomat2009-04-14 11:24:55
                  Matthew 19 only if taken out of context by DesertRat662009-04-14 11:42:53
                    Do you have support for that last statement by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 11:50:21
                      It's in the footnotes by DesertRat662009-04-14 11:57:06
                        I'd be interested in by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:04:38
                          Set mode /facepalm by DesertRat662009-04-14 12:08:28
                            Those *are* the footnotes at the bottom by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:09:54
                              So your facenotes cite by DesertRat662009-04-14 12:30:05
                                I'm not seeing a link by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:32:55
                                Never mind, I was misinterpreting something by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:34:47
                    Even in your citing, it does not say that by Adiplomat2009-04-14 11:53:19
                      Wait a minute by DesertRat662009-04-14 12:04:45
                        Not me, Sir. In this I am what is referred to as by Adiplomat2009-04-14 12:12:51
                          Only if you ignore history do by DesertRat662009-04-14 12:24:42
                            Find your cites on that one. by Adiplomat2009-04-14 12:36:56
                              Already linked above by DesertRat662009-04-14 14:25:47
                  What's wrong with sodomy? by Bellator2009-04-14 11:47:33
                    The same thing that is wrong with any of them. by Adiplomat2009-04-14 12:00:11
                      So you believe that oral sex should be banned? by SnArL2009-04-14 12:02:47
                        I don't think he said anything about banning. by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:06:09
                          Oral sex is sodomy... by Bellator2009-04-14 12:08:46
                            "Any sex without the intention of having kids" by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:13:33
                              That would be really mean. by Illiad2009-04-14 12:25:32
                                Even the Catholic Church by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:27:05
                                You mean Monty Python was WRONG!?! Never! by Adiplomat2009-04-14 12:53:22
                                You can never really know that. by toysbfun2009-04-14 15:24:02
                                If the story is literally true, yes. (n/t) by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 17:42:12
                                It's not *that* unbelievable. by toysbfun2009-04-14 18:42:10
                          It falls under the definition of sodomy by SnArL2009-04-14 12:10:49
                            Why not? by DesertRat662009-04-14 12:14:12
                              Try using that excuse when your SO walks in by SnArL2009-04-14 12:17:09
                                Don't date anthropologists by PeKaJe2009-04-14 12:22:23
                                Margaret Mead's last words: by Nashville2009-04-14 14:47:55
                                If you're studying antropology by DesertRat662009-04-14 12:27:45
                            That depends on the definition of "sodomy" by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:15:20
                              the trouble is english is a living language by jaqie2009-04-14 12:19:17
                            I'd like to see that one in the Bible. by Adiplomat2009-04-14 12:21:17
                            "Disapproval of Authority to Operate" by Sharku2009-04-14 12:21:29
                              And how do I know by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:23:33
                          The latter part there is correct. by Adiplomat2009-04-14 12:17:44
                            according to many dictionaries by aprylmae2009-04-14 12:20:29
                              And according to many by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:22:37
                      Where did god say by joecrouse2009-04-14 12:04:34
                        Awww! I *LOVE* RCG! by SnArL2009-04-14 12:12:21
                          Theres a whole list of wierd MD laws by joecrouse2009-04-14 12:21:04
                            Second story and up or is it okay from the third? (n/t) by Sharku2009-04-14 12:28:39
                              Doesnt specify. I suspect 2nd story and up. (n/t) by joecrouse2009-04-14 12:32:35
                            brothel laws state by joecrouse2009-04-14 12:30:41
                              That'd rule out convents as well, wouldn't it? (n/t) by Sharku2009-04-14 12:48:01
                                probaly not as the women there by joecrouse2009-04-14 12:53:53
                                There's only about 20. by Nashville2009-04-14 14:58:35
                                Hang on... by SnArL2009-04-14 13:05:43
                        It's YOU that's saying "sodomy" means that. by Adiplomat2009-04-14 12:58:25
                          The strictest legal definition i can find by joecrouse2009-04-14 13:24:26
                            Please cite it, and explain why that definition by Adiplomat2009-04-14 13:26:26
                      Ok, so you're against that because God says so by Bellator2009-04-14 12:06:33
                        No one's perfect, Bellator. Not even you. by Adiplomat2009-04-14 13:03:01
                          But allowing gay marriage doesn't FORCE you to do by SnArL2009-04-14 13:14:10
                            No, it does not. BUT, insisting that I vote by Adiplomat2009-04-14 13:24:27
                              But there's already a law in place by SnArL2009-04-14 13:42:44
                                Two things. First, an amendment is NOT a law. by Adiplomat2009-04-14 13:58:11
                                The same thing applies. by SnArL2009-04-14 14:25:49
                                No, placing God's Law above man's is precisely by Adiplomat2009-04-14 14:48:10
                                So, you're saying that the Jews should've enforced by SnArL2009-04-14 14:52:12
                                Actually, the Jews had exactly the right idea when by Bellator2009-04-14 15:07:29
                                Correct. But remember that these are also by Adiplomat2009-04-14 15:17:20
                                Yeah... by Bellator2009-04-14 15:20:03
                                Never would. That's what you (meaning most in this by Adiplomat2009-04-14 19:08:38
                                From each POV, that's what the other is doing by DesiredUsername2009-04-14 19:57:51
              Which is fine. You're allowed to believe that. by SnArL2009-04-14 11:10:37
                I wasn't intending to. by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 11:14:01
                  Hmmm...interesting... by SnArL2009-04-14 11:23:30
                    Amendments have equal force with all by Adiplomat2009-04-14 11:32:38
                      I think SnArL was responding there to by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 11:38:36
                    I thought I'd made a few. by vampire2009-04-14 11:50:46
                      But whos morals? by Bellator2009-04-14 11:53:23
                        Ed Guinn? by joecrouse2009-04-14 12:06:34
                          Paedophile priests? by SnArL2009-04-14 12:08:21
                            Naw Ed just ate people and made em into by joecrouse2009-04-14 12:14:49
                              Nono... by SnArL2009-04-14 12:15:43
                                The same morals, or by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:20:03
                                Hey, SnArL. I'll bet I can find a pedophile who by Adiplomat2009-04-14 13:06:39
                                *sigh* Allow me to explain: by SnArL2009-04-14 13:32:24
                                But your question said it differently. by Adiplomat2009-04-14 13:39:18
                                But who gets to decide which are the right ones by Bellator2009-04-14 14:13:25
                                BAD! by SnArL2009-04-14 14:47:01
                                God. And in your example, Catholic priests are by Adiplomat2009-04-14 14:51:47
                                Which god? by Bellator2009-04-14 15:03:03
                                The only one. Remember, you're asking me about me. by Adiplomat2009-04-14 15:19:32
                                What "The only one"? by Bellator2009-04-14 15:26:50
                                That is not what He said, and you know it. by Adiplomat2009-04-14 19:06:20
                                "I am the Lord thy god, and you shall have no by Bellator2009-04-14 21:40:16
                      And I refuted every one of them. by SnArL2009-04-14 12:01:10
                        Here's a possible compromise by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:08:52
                          No, because passing such legislation infringes on by SnArL2009-04-14 12:14:34
                            That's why I said by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:18:49
                              Ok, that's a bit more clear by SnArL2009-04-14 12:32:46
                                Good question. Hmm. by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:38:12
                                How can you help your friend remove the feather by jaqie2009-04-14 12:41:53
                                I don't follow (n/t) by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:42:36
                                I am saying by jaqie2009-04-14 12:47:00
                                It does show harm to them, in their belief by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:49:43
                                hence the quotes Im done here. by jaqie2009-04-14 12:52:10
                                I promise that if you post your views by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:54:21
                                Which says nothing about others here. by jaqie2009-04-14 12:57:53
                                It depends on the definition of 'harm'. by Peace_man2009-04-14 13:01:12
                                Yes, and I'd be remiss if I didn't say that while by Adiplomat2009-04-14 13:30:35
                                Me either. (n/t) by SnArL2009-04-14 12:55:47
                                Wow. by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:57:30
                                QUICK! Disagree with me! by SnArL2009-04-14 13:02:49
                                result: you don't know where to stop mowing. by jaqie2009-04-14 13:07:00
                                Was it good for you, too? **snicker** (n/t) by Adiplomat2009-04-14 13:33:34
                                O.o IDGI? by jaqie2009-04-14 13:38:01
                                "Big Bang"... (n/t) by Adiplomat2009-04-14 13:40:26
                                okay...................? (n/t) by jaqie2009-04-14 13:44:54
                                "Bang" being common slang for ... (n/t) by PeKaJe2009-04-14 14:28:18
                                Yes, but YOU YOURSELF aren't commiting the wrong by SnArL2009-04-14 13:01:19
                                exactly my point. (n/t) by jaqie2009-04-14 13:03:55
                                In our belief, yes; we are committing the wrong. by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 13:14:45
                                So, in other words: by SnArL2009-04-14 13:26:24
                                Exactly. feather and plank. no sin and stone. (n/t) by jaqie2009-04-14 13:32:28
                                Forcing us to cast a vote for something we believe by Adiplomat2009-04-14 13:46:06
                                Since when is there forced voting in the USA!?!? (n/t) by jaqie2009-04-14 13:50:05
                                The point is that SnArL appears to believe that by Adiplomat2009-04-14 14:12:23
                                Now I must ask YOU to show YOUR work by SnArL2009-04-14 14:04:20
                                As I'm sure you know, voting (other than Gideon's by Adiplomat2009-04-14 14:27:04
                                There is a fundamental difference by SnArL2009-04-14 14:42:32
                                No, it does not. Your lack of belief is your by Adiplomat2009-04-14 15:08:28
                                False dichotomy. by talon07202009-04-14 14:22:21
                                Nope. Other directed, remember? by Adiplomat2009-04-14 15:14:32
                              Voting against a law which allows... by Sharku2009-04-14 12:43:32
                                In the same sense that by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:48:19
                                Hmm... I was going to say "they could abstain"... by Sharku2009-04-14 13:06:11
                                *gives Sharku a Local Entropy Decreaser* by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 13:16:21
                                You're giving me a LED?!? AAAAARRRRGHHHH!!! by Sharku2009-04-14 13:41:03
          I thought the original post was by jaqie2009-04-14 10:47:41
            I got that impression too. by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 10:48:56
              Well I made a point of looking for anything to by vampire2009-04-14 11:06:18
                I think its been proven that I simply do not get by jaqie2009-04-14 11:13:40
                  Oh, I didn't miss the sarcasm. Believe me! by vampire2009-04-14 11:44:04
                    only because I haven't stated my opinion here (n/t) by jaqie2009-04-14 11:49:11
                Oh no, trust me... by SnArL2009-04-14 11:20:31
                so your point is by aprylmae2009-04-14 11:52:41
                  Sounds that way to me by SnArL2009-04-14 11:53:58
                    lol. me too. (n/t) by aprylmae2009-04-14 11:55:49
                So you want to be offended? by ProphetV2009-04-15 04:26:59
        I thought that was the point of the joke. by vetitice2009-04-14 10:43:21
  one could argue number 10. (n/t) by joecrouse2009-04-14 10:33:30
  Number 10 has some validity in that... by RetiQlum22009-04-14 10:43:22
    Seconded (n/t) by Classic_Jon2009-04-14 10:44:01
    I was talking about the living longer part by joecrouse2009-04-14 10:45:55
      No worries then. Two months is plenty of time by DesiredUsername2009-04-14 10:50:32
        Hmm.. by DesiredUsername2009-04-14 11:01:50
          I assume I am going to die every day by joecrouse2009-04-14 11:04:31
            Don't worry, you're not going to die by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 11:08:36
              the only warning most of us get is by jaqie2009-04-14 11:14:21
                I love that quote by PeKaJe2009-04-14 12:40:53
              call it a non zero potential by joecrouse2009-04-14 12:08:11
                Hmm. Hadn't thought of that. by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:20:39
                  *closes door to cloning closet* by firehawk2009-04-14 12:32:08
                    you know cloning me leads to the apocolyps right? (n/t) by joecrouse2009-04-14 12:34:20
                      How so? Critical mass of crabbiness? :D (n/t) by firehawk2009-04-14 20:35:14
                  I dont trust chordata. (n/t) by joecrouse2009-04-14 12:33:46
            I just had a nurse ask if I wanted a "living will" by jdelphiki2009-04-14 11:25:49
              I have a living will by joecrouse2009-04-14 12:10:30
              Surprisingly, complications can happen on the most by ripley82009-04-14 13:13:17
      Wait a minute. by firehawk2009-04-14 11:49:36
        Yep. We get mean and old fast in my family. by joecrouse2009-04-14 12:11:45
          I'm a couple years away from the 30 by PeKaJe2009-04-14 12:46:47
            Get off my lawn! *shakes cane* by firehawk2009-04-14 19:13:29
      heck, you're younger than me by aprylmae2009-04-14 12:14:47
        Oh jeez by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:21:28
          I used to tease a guy I knew by aprylmae2009-04-14 12:23:38
            I always tell my wife by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:28:15
    Hmmm .. How would that have worked in history? by corwin172009-04-14 11:47:31
      And that took almost a century. by RetiQlum22009-04-14 13:25:23
        And pressure. And the courage of the first person by corwin172009-04-14 13:51:10
          You also have to agree that timing IS a major by Classic_Jon2009-04-14 14:11:07
            Agreed. But I also think the time is ripe for by corwin172009-04-14 14:18:53
  There's much to be said for clarity. by Illiad2009-04-14 12:22:27
    That appears to be a reasonable summary. by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 12:25:43
    Thank you. I'll even go further. by Adiplomat2009-04-14 12:33:36
      XD by Illiad2009-04-14 12:36:03
        OWWW LUNGS CANT BREATH! (n/t) by joecrouse2009-04-14 12:40:03
        Hmm... by jdelphiki2009-04-14 12:40:41
        There already exist perfectly serviceable euphemisms for that, you know. by kelli2172009-04-14 13:05:33
        **Burns Illiad's car** Aren't heretics supposed by Adiplomat2009-04-14 13:13:22
          I thought most cars by MatthewDBA2009-04-14 13:17:06
            Some of these "Smart" cars, maybe not. by Adiplomat2009-04-14 14:07:15
    It depends who you're supporting it for. by subbywan2009-04-14 13:54:10
      I have to agree. (n/t) by SnArL2009-04-14 14:05:21
      I agree with this by AprylMae2009-04-14 20:34:59

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)