Henry Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Honestly, the only thing I learned from this thread is that dumbsheet DESERVES to be infertile because any offspring of his is likely to be a scourge on mankind. I thought that was already established when we learned he was a Cowboy fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I thought that was already established when we learned he was a Cowboy fan. :laugh: And it just gets worse! How did I miss that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Speaking of breakfast foods, whatever happened to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoudMouth12thMan Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 This has to be one of the all time worst posts I've ever seen on this board. And whether sarcastic or not I had the pleasure of experiencing it. I could've pounded a six pack and killed just as many brain cells. Gays, Blacks, and Cowboy fans are all going to hell :doh:...well that last part wasn't sarcasm :paranoid: :dallasuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I think, just to make things absolutely certain, you should require the woman to be knocked up before she can marry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMK9973 Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I found this thread ammusing. It's obvioulsy tounge in Cheak and written to point out how poorly the arguement against allowing Gays to married really is. Because they can't have kids has been a main arguement for not allowing gays to marry. I laughed.... I also think it's a very good thing Jonathan Swift was not a Redskin Fan who wrote here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CandaceM23 Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I'm sure if you dig deep enough into the private lives of most infertile people, you will find something bad they did that probably is the reason they are the way they are, so they shouldn't get too much sympathy anyways, but I don't want to generalize too much here. Ignorant. Ignorant. Ignorant. Infertility can be caused by so many things ... and I'm sure that every infertile woman did something so horrible in her life to deserve that punishment. :bsflag: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Count me in as thoroughly amused by this thread. I think, just to make things absolutely certain, you should require the woman to be knocked up before she can marry. Here, here! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joeythetapeworm Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 from wikipedia: "Because satire often combines anger and humour it can be profoundly disturbing - because it is essentially ironic or sarcastic, it is often misunderstood. Common uncomprehending responses to satire include revulsion (accusations of poor taste, or that it's "just not funny" for instance), to the idea that the satirist actually does support the ideas, policies, or people he is attacking. For instance, at the time of its publication, many people misunderstood Swift’s purpose in "A Modest Proposal" – assuming it to be a serious recommendation of economically-motivated cannibalism." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joeythetapeworm Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I also think it's a very good thing Jonathan Swift was not a Redskin Fan who wrote here. imagine that for a second... "BABY EATER!" "DUDE, there are so many better ways to handle the hunger problem!" "What if we only institute it for children of cowboy fans?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOOG Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 BTW..I prefer Krispy Kremes:D WINNER!!!!:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoudMouth12thMan Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 So you're telling me because a woman uses a pine cone instead of a cucumber she deserves to suffer through the pain of being infertile not only physically, but mentally? For all we know she may have forgotten to stop by produce when she went to the grocery the day before. Sure, she made a mistake and didn't realize the damage a simple pine cone could do, but to make general statements about her and people that have made poor decisions with regard to sexual (chocalate!) activity doesn't mean she shouldn't be able to wed. How insensitive can you get, honestly? :twitch: simple nature. Penis - vagina not penis - anus Everything else is meant for those that want to morally equate something unnatural with something natural. Penis-penis is just two guys without lightsabers and I can't find anything wrong with that :paranoid: Krispy Kremes made me fat. Well, the problem with that is that donuts have holes, so the urge for sexual mischief/misbehavior only complicates things. I think bagels and donuts are out. Danish is the way to go. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 simple nature. Penis - vagina not penis - anus Everything else is meant for those that want to morally equate something unnatural with something natural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Before making a response on any message board, people should always stop and ask themselves: "Do I understand what the Original Poster is trying to say here?" I can't believe how many of you broke that rule. The Original Poster is trying to point out that the inability to have children is a weak argument against permitting two people to marry. He is undercutting an often-used argument by those that want to ban gay marriage. It is shocking to me how many of you thought he was being literal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Krispy Kremes made me fat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMK9973 Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 IHOP all the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Pablo Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Hmm, it's high time these "infertiles" got a friggin' name to describe how ugly their souls are... How about Infi's? Damn Infi's... I'll tell you what, those people are all dirty, covetous, thief-like, and when you're not looking, they pee on your socks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 simple nature. Penis - vagina not penis - anus Everything else is meant for those that want to morally equate something unnatural with something natural. Is it immoral when it's- penis-vagina-vagina-vagina-ass-vagina-vagina-ass-vagina? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Krispy Kremes made me fat. You shouldn't be allowed to marry either.the fat is contagious. :paranoid: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Nations Team Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Gods plan for the dude who thought of all this is to never get laid:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Is it immoral when it's- penis-vagina-vagina-vagina-ass-vagina-vagina-ass-vagina? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 The Original Poster is trying to point out that the inability to have children is a weak argument against permitting two people to marry. He is undercutting an often-used argument by those that want to ban gay marriage.It is shocking to me how many of you thought he was being literal. I was mistaken (but hadn't replied) until I read your post and decided to re-read the original. I agree, Predicto. Good eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Before making a response on any message board, people should always stop and ask themselves: "Do I understand what the Original Poster is trying to say here?" I can't believe how many of you broke that rule. The Original Poster is trying to point out that the inability to have children is a weak argument against permitting two people to marry. He is undercutting an often-used argument by those that want to ban gay marriage. It is shocking to me how many of you thought he was being literal. No kidding? I was not aware that childbearing was a major argument. I thought deviant behavior by societies standards was...learned something new. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 No kidding? I was not aware that childbearing was a major argument. I thought deviant behavior by societies standards was...learned something new. :cool: And that has to do with gay marriage how...??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 And that has to do with gay marriage how...??? I would guess because society has deemed it deviant. Seems simple enough. btw...Waffles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.