June 27, 2015
People all over the world, join hands, get on the love train...
Better get on the love train, people, before it's too late! The White House is going with #LoveWins, and the train is leaving the station!
You can stand there on the platform and stomp your feet as it leaves without you, but now would be a good time to get on board and show some love. Come on, Scott Walker. Get on board. We're leaving....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
115 comments:
Shouldn't Obama send Scott Walker some subsidies? To help him... get on the train?
I thought they'd let a decent interval pass before herding the unconverted onto boxcars.
We all get off the train at different stops.
I got off the train as soon as I was supposed to believe that opposition to same-sex marriage is for any reasonable person a "deeply held religious belief."
Agnosticism is a bitch.
Umm, I'll walk, thanks. My asshole is only an outie, never an innie.
Outie and proudie!
Conformity with Government dressed up in happy talk.
Even homophobes can get on the love train. We'll let you sit in the caboose where you'll feel safe.
You people who instinctively go to an anal sex place are really sad. You're detention homework is to draw a Venn Diagram with the following circle: 1. People who like anal sex, 2. Gay people, 3. People who are interested in your ass.
The Love Train approaches a tunnel. Slowly it enters, just the tip, and it feels so GOOD to the Love Train.
The Love Train then slides backward from the tunnel, teasingly, before re-entering the tunnel: more forceful this time, thick with intent, pistons are pumping, pumping, pumping.
Then: rolling back slowly, but only part-way, before lustily rolling forward again into the awaiting tunnel: the Love Train loves this, and the tunnel feels so welcoming, like it was meant to be this way, forever.
This is what happens when the Engineer of the Love Train masturbates on the job.
I am Laslo.
"...if you miss it I feel sorry, sorry for you..."
Better get on the love train, people, before it's too late! The White House is going with #LoveWins, and the train is leaving the station!
Or what? The subtext is "the Inquisition will review anyone not on board".
Cheer on.
"You people who instinctively go to an anal sex place are really sad..."
To be clear: my 8:57 comment on the Love Train had a non-specific gender-and-orifice tunnel.
Whatever tunnel works for you.
I am Laslo.
"You people who instinctively go to an anal sex place are really sad. "
I'm willing to admit oral sex is also important to them. However, I've sewn up enough anuses after "fist fucking" to know how important it is to them, not me.
It is irrational to believe that people like Kennedy and Obama know more about love than other people. The law? Possibly. Political power? Certainly. But love? No. Obama and Althouse and Kennedy together can't tell me (or anyone else) what love is and what it means.
I'm taking my dogs to the beach today (dog beach in Chicago). May I wear my shorts?
Kennedy's political opinion and the whole gay rights activism has nothing to do with love. Real Marriage laws don't restrain people from loving one another. Fucking sophists.
No thanks! I'ma gonna keep ridin the yin and yang train. As Tina said, "Whats luv got to do with it..."?
I thought they'd let a decent interval pass before herding the unconverted onto boxcars.
Danny Thomas coffee spit on that one. LOL.
You people who instinctively go to an anal sex place are really sad.
I'd recommend you brush up on evolutionary psychology, if you want to feel less sad about the instinctive aversion, sunlight being the best of anal disinfectants and all.
There's probably also a good explanation for instinctive scorn.
The explanations never seem to stray too far away from the effects of scarcity on survival and reproduction.
"The explanations never seem to stray too far away from the effects of scarcity on survival and reproduction."
With the exception of lawyers. I wonder if you've heard about the woman who asked her gynecologist if you could get pregnant from anal sex. He said, "Of course you can ! Where do you think lawyers come from ?"
It should take only a month or so for the love train to include polygamous and polyamorous groupings. First suits are already being readied.
As my wise uncle used to say, "you can't legislate acceptance". (Or in this case, rule it from the high court.) I hope people aren't disappointed when this doesn't change attitudes.
A know a girl who pulled the 'Love Train'.
I want to know how you are going to teach this decision, Althouse. Are gays a suspect classification? What level of scrutiny is applied to 14th Amendment questions concerning homosexual activities? How do you square Kennedy's Equal Protection/Due Process pronouncements in Lawrence, and Obergefell? How does one reconcile the result in Windsor and Obergefell?
I don't know that there really is any good 14th Amendment law anymore. The only legal writing that made any sense for a good law student were the dissents.
Ann Althouse said...
You people who instinctively go to an anal sex place are really sad. You're detention homework is to draw a Venn Diagram with the following circle: 1. People who like anal sex, 2. Gay people, 3. People who are interested in your ass.
1. Most gay men and a very confused girl I knew my senior year of college. Oh. And porn actresses. They make more if they take it in the poop shute.
2.Gay people
3.Gay men. Straight women. The IRS
Michael K said...
"You people who instinctively go to an anal sex place are really sad. "
I'm willing to admit oral sex is also important to them. However, I've sewn up enough anuses after "fist fucking" to know how important it is to them, not me.
Ewwww!
See. This is why I don't really want to know what folks sexual prefrences are.
"This is why I don't really want to know what folks sexual prefrences are."
Why do you think it is never mentioned or shown in films ?
Seriously? Scott Walker hates trains.
Obama just wants people to love one another the way his father loved his mother and his mother loved him.
Jesus this is turning into stupid planet.
Walker is loyal to his supporters. He is not abandoning the. But the measure he urges has zero support in the days we live ve in.
The sea change from seeing homosexual love as a self esteem killer to a so what, who cares what others do ha been past a tipping point for three years.
The evangelicals need to preach the Good News and see if that works for self esteem by faith or not. Scapegoating gays is not that smart because they are usually good people.
Who is "scapegoating gays", trad guy?
You people who instinctively go to an anal sex place are really sad.
Yet if I print that sentence on a sign and stand outside a gay bar, suddenly I'm the bad guy.
I'm going to get on the train when a I get to marry my three wives. Until then you all are nothing but haters.
"Scapegoating gays is not that smart because they are usually good people."
I keep hearing that people who are against SSM hate gay people. You would think that, oh, about a microsecond of self-reflection would show that this is a stupid idea. Obama was against Gay marriage until three years ago. Did he hate gay people? Bill Clinton signed DOMA. Did he hate gay people?
But by painting opponents of of SSM as "haters" (as Althouse does), you cannot only dismiss any argument they make, you can also do anything you like to them. Evangelicals are not dehumanizing gays, but gays are dehumanizing evangelicals.
What's love got to do got to do with it?
what's love but a second hand emotion.
Yes, we all supposedly hate guy people. When Althouse voted for Obama he hated gay people too. And she voted for him.
Althouse, hates polygamists by the way. It's not that she thinks polygamy isn't marriage or wouldn't work. And she hates polygamists.
As does the entire Supreme Court and so do all the pols who haven't yet declare polygamy a right.
YOU ARE HATERS. Shame on you.
What a STUPID argument the proponents of gay marriage are making about LOVE determining that gay marriage should be legalized. (Even though it's a foregone conclusion). Althouse is a smart lady, but she has a dumb female brain, prone to emotion and not logic.
I'm sorry to sound so sexist, but how else could a smart person be so otherwise hoodwinked.
Leave aside whether gay marriage should be legalized, why would you use love as the determinant as to whether it should be allowed.I can't think of any relationship that doesn't involve love. Anyone who wants to marry a 12 year old is probably experiencing love,. As are all bigamists, polygamists, incrstual couples, incrstual trios. Hell, if you want to marry your dog, you probably love your dog.
And if you have a family with those people and can't get married your kids are impacted. If you are the son of a polygamist you might have three sister wives you call mommy. So then, under kennedys argument if we don't legalize polygamy then you are impacted negatively. How does that not apply to EVERY MARRIAGE THAT IS ILLEGAL?
The argument applies to any law. If you the law says you can't do something then those who do it are impacted negatively by the law. Do we look at those negative consequences and say we have to change the law because people are negatively impacted?
Divid French has a good column in NRO.
"Justice Kennedy’s opinion was nine parts romantic poetry and one part legal analysis (if that)."
Exactly.
Characterizing disagreement as foot stomping?
"Justice Kennedy’s opinion was nine parts romantic poetry and one part legal analysis (if that)."
Pretty good.
Of course, Scalia's opinion was nine parts "get off my lawn" and one part law.
Roberts was pretty good here: "The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history [me: not true] can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition."
And: "It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s “better informed understanding” as bigoted."
I support changing the laws but I think this ruling was wrong. I guess I'm half a bigot?
I'm coming in late to these conversations, so if anyone already covered this, I apologize. ISIS likes the the hashtag too.
It has been suggested that the Islamic extremists flung four men from a rooftop before allowing them to plunge to their deaths to 'celebrate' the occasion.
Many ISIS extremists online were seen to ironically use the hashtag #LoveWins – a rallying tweet for gay rights campaigners across the globe.
You mean, jr565, that if I, a middle-aged man, fall in love with a girl of thirteen, and she falls in love with me, that . . . our love is WRONG?
I only Hope Justice Kennedy finds out about this. Why, if I knock her up (probably inevitable), that means our child may feel that our family is somehow "lesser". Kennedy won't stand for that, he's made that clear. All we're asking for some of Kennedy's "equal dignity"!
"Hell, if you want to marry your dog, you probably love your dog."
I did cut my dog's balls off. I'm thinking of changing his name to Caitlin.
He is pretty cute.
"Scalia's opinion was nine parts "get off my lawn" and one part law."
Scalia's dissent had 26 references, mostly to the constitution or to precedents.
Scalia essentially made the same argument as Roberts: Something like a major change in the definition of marriage should be left to the democratic, political process and not the courts. This was, in fact, what was happening. The system was working. And the courts are not very good at setting public policy.
How soon before the Love Train becomes the train to the gulag, the re-education center, and the concentration camp? Because that's the history of leftists like Althouse- Peace and Love unless you dissent, then it's up against the wall. The cheering had not even subsided yesterday when the calls for "going after" Christian churches tax status began. You hear that, Scott Walker? You're in the crosshairs now. Submit or be destroyed! Get on the train! Rauss! Schnell!
Scalia essentially made the same argument as Roberts
Scalia's opinion was, for me, too angry and sarcastic; Roberts had none of that in it.
Yes, that's Scalia's style when he's in dissent; but it wasn't needed on this occasion. The anger overrode the logic.
For me.
"Justice Kennedy’s opinion was nine parts romantic poetry and one part legal analysis (if that)."
That's why Althouse liked it so much. It all becomes clear once you realize that the Sally Kellerman character in Back to School was based on Althouse.
I kid... I kid
I think I see the problem with middle-aged men marrying thirteen year old girls (or boys, for that matter).
You see, the whole "age of consent" thing was decided democratically. We know that can result in outcomes based on ignorance and bigotry. Democracy has failed love!
We need judges to decide age of consent. Maybe an adolescent girl girl who watched her elderly "husband" die, and now she can't be listed as surviving spouse on his death certificate. That would make for good optics. Good ol' Kennedy will tear right up during her testimony.
And if your wondering how an adolescent girl could fall in love with a duffer like me, wonder no longer. The third world is full of winsome lasses who'd love a well-to-do American husband. Don't judge me. Thank of the love! The dignity that we are denied! How can love be WRONG?
We are at the apartment of the Neo-Nazi Girlfriend who Is Not My Girlfriend engaging in anal sex on her futon when she asks me:
"When we have anal sex do you sometimes imagine that I am a man, or maybe a small boy?"
"No, no I don't" I say sternly.
"Blacker" she replies. When we have sex she prefers me to Talk Black; I have explained this before.
"Bitch, No. I keep my Fuck for my Wimmen!"
"Because if you were imaging a man or boy I'm wondering what they would look like."
"Bitch, don't make me slap dat azz!"
With this she wiggles her rear a bit, so: I slap dat azz.
"Harder! Harder, Black Man!"
So: I slap harder. Kinda liked it.
"I've been having anal sex since I was fourteen and no man will admit to picturing another man. Or small boy."
"Maybe that's because we don't, Ho." Perhaps I am pounding her ass a bit harder as this conversation progresses, or maybe I am just thinking that I am. I try to reassert my attention to my penis.
"Wouldn't it be funny if you were fucking me in the ass but thinking of Opie from the 'Andy Griffith' Show? That you were giving Opie a good hard pounding in the ass?"
"Bitch, That's Sick Shit!" I say as she whistles the "Andy Griffith" theme.
"OK. Maybe you are picturing a little girl that LOOKS like Opie. Is that better?"
"I am fucking YOU in the ass: not Opie, not a little girl that looks like Opie: You."
"It's funny: the guy who first fucked me in the ass at fourteen -- HE kinda did look like Opie, a little bit."
"Shit, girl..."
"C'mon, baby: Mama says fuck Opie a little harder."
So I fucked Opie a little harder.
And tried to stop picturing his face. His sweet, innocent freckled face: I am ashamed for an orgasm that hasn't even happened yet.
I am Laslo.
Laslo, it's anatomically impossible to whistle while receiving anal sex. Not if you are doing it right.
""The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history"
THis is exactly right. The equal protection argument simply does not work. It means that you are equal if all the restrictions of marriage are the same for everyone, not that all marriages msut be equal to other marriages. So in the case of gays, they already had equal protection under the law in that they could marry like everyone else. That doesn't then entitle them to gay marriage under equal protection claims.
Similarly, an incestual couple doesn't get marriage either since NO ONE can marry into incest, not just them.
And of course the proponents who are not honest will then fall back on the real interpretation of equality under law for the other banned marriages, and say "Of course polygamimst don't have an equal protection right to marriage. Polygamy is illegal.
From the passage of the 14th through interacial marriage being made legal till now when did gays have this magical right to marriage? Why wasn't it applied when blacks had the rights to marry whites? Still, marriage was one man one woman.
So, inherent to my opposition is how people argued for it. And called those saying "No, that's not how its supposed to be interpreted" as homophobic haters. No, ALl the dissenters on the SC, know the law, and they know that the majority didn't apply it and were just giving a sop to the public absent nearly ANY constitutional reasoning. Its purely ends justifying means. They want it, they don't want to wait for it to work itself out democratically. They impose it.
That's the court system liberals want?
My 11:18 comment would've made a great guest-blog post, if Althouse had taken me up on my earlier offer in the Instapundit post.
Yep.
I am Laslo.
Deep thoughts, by Anthony Kenndy:
J"“Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there”.
Is Kennedy serious with this tripe? Polygamists can be lonely too, you know. and because of society denying polygamy - THERE"s NO ONE THERE.
Ben Domenech had this to say:
The problem with gay marriage is not gay marriage. People of the same sex getting married will not destroy America. But it will impact America in serious ways that have ramifications for people well outside the scope of these unions – and not just the baker, photographer, florist or gazebo owner who have been highlighted to this point as the victims of overly litigious bureaucrats seeking bigots to destroy. The consequences of this decision will most rapidly be felt by religious schools and non-profits, as those who once fought for civil liberties for all will turn on those whose liberties they find to be inconvenient. Already the ACLU has announced they will no longer defend federal religious freedom laws they once fought for vociferously, because they now believe the freedom to practice one’s religion amounts to nothing more than a freedom to discriminate.
Exactly right. The fight wasn't really even about gay marriage, but how to achieve it. And what happens after. Religious freedom is enshrined in the constitution. Gay marriage is not. Yet, we know that society and the SJW will now go after religious freedom and demand acqueiescences or face retribution. That is simply what the left does.
Walker is sinking fast.
Just 9 percent in Fox's national poll released this week (down from 15), and he now has been passed by Bush, Trump, and Carson.
Scotty is looking like the Michelle Bachmann of this election cycle.
"Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there”.
And you need polygamy for a backup in case the one spouse has run off or something.
The Kennedy logic is unassailable because it defies logic.
Robbery responds to the universal fear of poverty.
Speeding responds to the universal fear of being late.
Impersonating a Supreme Court judge responds to the universal fear of being given too much respect.
the train arrives at the supermarket
Enshrining marriage as a fundamental right does make the Chinese culpable for more human rights violations.
@sunsong Exactly!
jr565: "What a STUPID argument the proponents of gay marriage are making about LOVE determining that gay marriage should be legalized. (Even though it's a foregone conclusion). Althouse is a smart lady, but she has a dumb female brain, prone to emotion and not logic."
A. Taking into account the totality of the picture - yes, professor, including the buggery - the only arguments for gay marriage are stupid, emotional or duplicitous.
B. Since the liberal wing of the SCOTUS appear to be oblivious to, or contemptuous of, the Constitution as a governing document outside the scope of their personal predilections, it follows that they are fit only to be arbiters of gay love.
C. Sexist or not, Althouse deserves the criticism. Her "cruel neutrality" has given way to giggling, syrupy sentimentality and whining about her treatment at Instapundit. "Love train?" Really?
I just hope the hospitals will be able to deal with the increased numbers of visitors..because..you know..that was an inhumanity that require intervention.
With all the "Black lives matter" memes and disenfranchised voter concerns we've seen, how are the black communities feeling about this love train?
Roberts wrote:
Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
How can anyone argue this? Althouse is leaving her support of rule of law at the door to put on her love pants.
I have a litmus test about people - if they are for ends justifying means then they shouldn't be in law, or teaching about it. If they talk about love trains and not the merits of the law and whether it was constitutional maybe they werent' that serious.
If its a lawyer on the left, and in particular on the supreme court I know the standard is living constitution which means "Whatever I can argue to get the result I want".
The feel good vibe will pass quickly and then the honeymoon is over.
Marriage has become an institution of the elite. Good for gays to be able to join the country club in every state.
But most can't afford to join the country club. And about t half the kids parents don't join the club and fewer every day join.
Good day for the elite. Unfortunately most people, including most gays, aren't elite.
Terry: "Who is "scapegoating gays", trad guy?"
I think he's a Presbyterian, or something. You know, one of those guys who says, "I'm not a fundamentalist! I'm not a fundamentalist! I'm with you guys about them, whoever they are." (Whatever the hell a fundamentalist is.)
In any event, I have not heard Evangelicals "scapegoating" gays.
Jr565,
Who said Althouse or anyone believed in the rule of law? It's a slogan, like be all you can be.
John Roberts doesn't believe in the rule of law. He believes in John Roberts and what's important to him. Gay marriage is important to him.
Whenever someone starts talking about the rule of law, your bow it detector should go off. It's propanganda.
Roberts really is so right on this it's sad that he was so wrong yesterday. But here he totally dismantles the love argument and reveals how it undermines bans on polygamy or any restricted marriages. Which may be what Althouse and her cronies want:
It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships? See Bennett, Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution? Newsweek, July 28, 2009 (estimating 500,000 polyamorous families in the United States); Li, Married Lesbian “Throuple” Expecting First Child, N. Y. Post, Apr. 23, 2014; Otter, Three May Not Be a Crowd: The Case for a Constitutional Right to Plural Marriage, 64 Emory L. J. 1977 (2015). I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any. When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 2, p. 6. But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either."
Maybe a good result. But bad for the rule of law. and that's more important than acheiveing the good result. THe good result would have come anyone, given time. But, no, the liberals in their zeal had to shit on the rule of law to do it.
Althouse: "@sunsong Exactly!"
Surely all those folks singing that Christian children's song at the supermarket are supporters of gay marriage. Oh wait, no. Those are the Christian folks the loving gay activists and their consorts disparage in the vilest of terms.
Exactly, sunsong!
Increasing income inequality means nothing to some people. I just hope those people lose all pretense of caring about their countrymen and embrace their capatalistic nature, which, at odds with reality, sees persons as commodity-wise entities to exploit and humiliate.
Get on the freedom train folks, because Satan demands it derail every minute of every day. Only one generation Raygun Reagan warned from freedom to slavery.
Those other trains are mixtures of good and bad, but Jesus.
Jr565,
Roberts authored the two Obamacare decisions upholding the law. He's a joke. His views are a joke. Your looking for meaning in a Mott the Hoople song.
Watch what people do. Don't listen to what they say. Or if you listen to what people say, assume the exact opposite is true.
Credit goes to me and those younger than me, as we shouted "Stop!" to your racist, sexist, hate-filled rulings of the past.
No more shall we bitch nor moan about the youngins: They (we) are better than you.
Remember, the sooner you die the less debt you put us in.
We remember, as long as Google allows us.
Gee..when O was turning that "eulogy" at the church political, he should have handed out some rainbow flags to the attendees. "And since we're all here together..."
Oh..it just seems a lot easier to point fingers at white Christians than Black.
http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2015/06/black_pastors_vow_acts_of_civil_disobedience_if_supreme_court_approves_same.html
Yeah a lot of the "youngins" seem to like "Oh yeah? Well...you're going to die anyways" when their logic holds no water.
McCullough wrote:
Roberts authored the two Obamacare decisions upholding the law. He's a joke. His views are a joke. Your looking for meaning in a Mott the Hoople song.
Watch what people do. Don't listen to what they say. Or if you listen to what people say, assume the exact opposite is true.
Yes he did, and that was a ridiculous resolution. Doesn't mean he isn't right here.
" you probably love your dog."
Titus and I love our respective dogs "more than life itself."
Hater.
I am sure the Supreme curt (save Justice Thomas) has the science of "love" understood fully, otherwise the gall to lecture science-deniers predilects toward Might Makes Right.
We know our betters are way, way beyond that standard provincial tribalism.
They told us!
"Surely all those folks singing that Christian children's song at the supermarket are supporters of gay marriage. Oh wait, no. Those are the Christian folks the loving gay activists and their consorts disparage in the vilest of terms."
Yup, that's gospel. or as libs like to say BIGOT music.
Oh shit..free love and hippies coming back?
Didn't you guys fuck up the country enough last time?
I hold water for myself to drink after the beer runs out.
You keep holding on.
Bringing in new age "arguments hold water" mysticism helps... But it doesn't help you or I.
It helps them.
My dog is common Aussie.
He is better than any other dog for reasons specified and un.
My singular reasoning has multitudes you merely can't understand. Bless, by God, your heart.
Rasputin Jeritt is as high as our gracious host can be!
Federal employees, as lib as they are, don't matter because division.
Even creating division is racist or Obama.
Inciting riots is bad or Obama.
....
Hillary will ride that certain special wave OR OBAMA.
I've won gold in Badger State Games.
What have you ever done?
Money money money is our problem in life and politics.
But Obama.
Sure sure money got him to where he is, but let us logically think of the argument "money sucks" and consider Obama, for once.
It's okay to criticize, your obvious racism isn't verboten no mo.
Courage.
Courage and Rathet.
Gays* feeling good (in leftist minds alone) is such a stupid concept the fallacies literally jump off the page.
Oops... They in yo mind now yo!
*oh you didn't call it gay marriage? Cause iffin you didn't call it that you gots you some proof of bigotry.
Of course, if you did call it "Gay" marriage and now stand with an attitude that That term is homophobic then we both know you are the homophobe.
And you......
Why didn't the Coen's choose featuring gays in The Hudsucker Proxy?
They did it openly in Miller's Crossing and included incredibly gay subtext in Barton Fink, so why did the hater Coen's ditch the gay in Hudsucker?
Bigots.
and once the train you want us to get on arrives at its destination who will be deciding who goes to the left and who goes to the right.
The Love Wins hashtag has really got me thinking.
Is marriage really about love? There are countless divorced couples who firmly believed they were in love and yet their marriage failed (assuming marriage continuity is a mark of success). There are many couples that are "in love" but have decided not to get married.
Is this really about love? What beyond love motivates couples to marry? What beyond love allows couples to stay married?
"assuming marriage continuity is a mark of success"
Then you should also assume marriage continuity — without love — is a mark of failure, right?
"Is this really about love?" No, that's just a catchy hashtag. What it really means is "#hate loses. They're learning not to offend.
"What beyond love motivates couples to marry?" Church... parents... shotguns... wealth and property dynasty protection...
"What beyond love allows couples to stay married?" Too much trouble to get a divorce... dog hasn't died yet... health insurance...
If we are going to ride trains from the 70s, I prefer the Peace Train - I feel safer with conductor Yusuf Islam (fka Cat Stevens)
#hate loses
the use of "hate" and "hater" is overworked and the use of those terms do nothing more then shut down discussion. what it tells me is that the person who uses them does not want to have a discussion or to hear what I or others may have to say.
it is intellectually dishonest, demeaning and juvenile
'I feel safer with conductor Yusuf Islam" and hopefully his co-religionists won't be driving that train
do check out the controversy over what Yusuf Islam had to say about Salman Rushdie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Stevens%27_comments_about_Salman_Rushdie
"Your on ten baby I'm on eleven."
Sum.
You lie with turd gurls, you wake turdly.
Now in fairness, the beautification of The Four Tops keeps haunting me: the melody.
I ain't gotta hear it true: but it don't break me up none to hear it neither.
Yo.
Unturdlike, compare Tip "fourth branch o the government" and Obama.
Perhaps the single most effective executive in history, I claim Obama is both Commander in Chief and head of limp-dick crying white bitch Boehner's congress.
We all knew the courts were fuck-raped decades ago; their turn on us should only inspire encouragement.
All of you racists don't remember Allen West, his ethos, nor his party.
I acknowledge your idiocy second to second and succumb at times myself.
You never will know me or understand. Your self-aggrandizing attempts to pad your ego actually do work against you, like only you can.
Ha ha ha ha I just projected myself!!!!!!!
Ha ha ha ha aha .
Meade,
Glib responses. Any positive motivations beyond love that encourage marriage or encourage perseverance in a marriage.
PS This is not a trick question (though I fully appreciate this blog is better at generating strong emotion or snark as opposed to open dialogue.)
The greatest of all time American song is Mark's Walk of Life.
Mozart approved in spades, God has indeed blessed all of us.
Dire Straights is homophobic and for that we must BAN IT. BAN IT ALl.
Althouse sounds like outhouse reminding me of shit.
Ban that damn shit name!
How dare He promulgate.
Shut up: tort.
I told you shut the fuck up or tort, tortly becoming.
You think that tiny untort brain of yours can outtort me?
ME?
You wanna un/out tort me?
How low is sinking in the universe you inhabit?
I'll tort you blind.
Mitch McCuntall lost any humanness decades ago, with the assumption he indeed had humanity within him at the start.
Gibberish lay
Gibberish lay
Gibberish elm
Gibberish ou
Gibberishly.
After nearly 20 trillion I owe all the debtors can claim is "racism!"
Fair enough.
All we will claim is those useless racist lives of your generation, but poorer than you.
So feel exultant.
I demand you do it: feel exultant.
Okay then.
No Other has raped their children of twenty trillion.
Your generation indeed is specially unique: no others ever raped that hard in history.
Hope you enjoy(ed) it.
Hope you took every last ounce of decency from that corpse of America.
We will do as you taught harder and longer than our founding fathers imagined in all their racist homophobic hatred.
I could not imagine a better teacher than our gracious host.
The idea Outhouse ought be influencing policy indeed frightens me.
Teachers teach because they don't innovate. If this be slander gimme the needle.
Sorry, but I can't climb aboard the train that celebrates nonsensical Supreme Court decisions.
I guess it's not possible to mount a principled opposition to anything anymore. I guess opposition now by definition is either bigoted, homophobic, misogynist, nativist, racist or Islamophobic. Oh well. These truly are progressive times.
If we acknowledge Arty Doyle's dog not barking then Althouse we won't too.
This concept of decency may yet die with me: Be it unso or decently.
Post a Comment