Tim Gunn, you so silly. No hay descripcion.. against same sex marriage say it will tear the menial fabric an moiety. De you really think gay peeple wouid we any
x
Click to expand

Comments(167):

[ 167 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#2 - anbieter ONLINE (02/06/2013) [-]
100% not shopped.
User avatar #92 to #2 - captainrattrap ONLINE (02/07/2013) [-]
You mean her face is actually like that?

poor girl...
0
#141 to #123 - kokanium **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#125 to #2 - tredbear (02/07/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #66 to #2 - runtz (02/06/2013) [-]
Instogrom
#3 - Xplode ONLINE (02/06/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #120 to #3 - gingerfuntime (02/07/2013) [-]
Jensen Ackles is gay? Huh, the more you know.
User avatar #150 to #120 - chiktikkavaspaus (02/07/2013) [-]
"After dating actress, model, and gymnast Danneel Harris for three years, and becoming engaged in November 2009,[8] they married in Dallas, Texas on May 15, 2010.......On January 7, 2013, Ackles' representative confirmed that the couple is expecting their first child."

Taken from Wikipedia. Not the bet source for information, but not the worst either.
User avatar #153 to #150 - gingerfuntime (02/07/2013) [-]
Oh. Welp, nevermind. That's what I get for assuming.
#10 - Cleavland Steamer (02/06/2013) [-]
The people in America who are against gay marriage are usually the same people who have sex with their relatives.

The social fabric has already been torn to shreds and lit on fire, ladies in gentlemen.
#106 to #10 - slendermansgooch (02/07/2013) [-]
lovin ur name
#121 to #10 - blackmanrollipolli (02/07/2013) [-]
yessir... that's how we do it in alabama...

no pun intended...
#158 to #10 - hudspud (02/07/2013) [-]
Sounds legit to me
User avatar #16 to #10 - secretdestroyers (02/06/2013) [-]
Welcome to Alabama: Where you can marry your cousin or your horse....as long as their of the opposite gender!
User avatar #119 to #16 - heartlessrobot (02/07/2013) [-]
Yeah, it's total ******** , I should be able to marry a stallion. Just because I'm a guy I can't.
#70 to #10 - pixmantle (02/06/2013) [-]
Ha haaaa, ladies IN gentlemen!
#55 - felixjarl (02/06/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Well we are rater found of tearing the clothes of each other!
#5 - shiteonastick (02/06/2013) [-]
Yes.
#8 to #5 - grilledcheeze (02/06/2013) [-]
Was waiting for it, thank you.
User avatar #82 - LocoJoe (02/06/2013) [-]
He should have a kid and name him Tommy.
User avatar #88 - severepwner (02/07/2013) [-]
This isn't shopped at all.
#65 - karouin (02/06/2013) [-]
Anyone who judges anyone based on anything other than their character is a prick.

User avatar #127 - redjohn (02/07/2013) [-]
thislooksshopped.jpg
#1 - khayman (02/06/2013) [-]
Ive seen some bad outfits,,,, so maybe
User avatar #68 - Onemanretardpack (02/06/2013) [-]
This is possibly the greatest shoop in existence..
User avatar #101 - MrPadre (02/07/2013) [-]
It's funny cuz the paper bends and the words don't
#76 - anon (02/06/2013) [-]
There was the same argument 100 years ago when women wanted the right to vote, so what is really the differance?
#109 to #76 - byposted (02/07/2013) [-]
Women tend to be the most uneducated voters. They vote based on petty issues and are swayed by the general mobocracy.

Importantly, feminism as an ideology has drastically changed societal "fabric," if you will. Women now have an unsustainable amount of children (for the US) and men no longer seek families. The family unit is dead, all thanks to feminism. Homosexual marriage is an offshoot of that.
#111 to #109 - Wumbologist (02/07/2013) [-]
Feminism and same-sex marriage are just movements that about equality. While I agree that some women take it too far, feminism, at its core, posits that women are equal to men. They are. Same-sex marriage posits that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals. They are. Frankly, you associating porn with feminism is a gross misunderstanding of the term. Feminists seek real empowerment for women, not objectification. And if anyone's to blame for the fall in popularity of families, don't blame feminism, blame our casual-sex-obsessed culture   
   
^Completely unrelated gif so that you read my comment
Feminism and same-sex marriage are just movements that about equality. While I agree that some women take it too far, feminism, at its core, posits that women are equal to men. They are. Same-sex marriage posits that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals. They are. Frankly, you associating porn with feminism is a gross misunderstanding of the term. Feminists seek real empowerment for women, not objectification. And if anyone's to blame for the fall in popularity of families, don't blame feminism, blame our casual-sex-obsessed culture

^Completely unrelated gif so that you read my comment
User avatar #114 to #111 - byposted (02/07/2013) [-]
While I agree that some women take it too far, feminism, at its core, posits that women are equal to men.
So let's force women to be drafted into the military and end affirmative action because they're just as equal as men. Oh wait, they aren't equal. Forcing a group to become equal is an artificial construct, right?

Same-sex marriage posits that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals. They are.
Can homosexuals produce children? Do they have any economic benefits to give to society? Homosexuality is defined mostly by promiscuity. There are many studies which show the average homosexual not even being interested in the family unit, just a sex unit which doesn't last very long.

And if anyone's to blame for the fall in popularity of families, don't blame feminism, blame our casual-sex-obsessed culture
Feminism lies at the root of what became our degenerate culture. Early Feminism, which you are describing, fought for an intellectual cause. Modern Feminism is a different story.
User avatar #117 to #114 - Wumbologist (02/07/2013) [-]
-I never agreed with the draft in the first place. Equality goes both ways, being equal under the law means they can defend it just like everybody else. Biologically they're different, but the notion that they can't be useful in the military is preposterous.

-Your comments on homosexuality are beyond archaic. Homosexuals are human beings just like you and I. No, they cannot produce children, what they can do is adopt children from an overstrained system of adoption and foster care and give loving homes to children who need them. They have several economic benefits to give to society, just as many as you and I could give. For example, they're disproportionately important in the fashion industry. Homosexuality is not definied by promiscuity; that's a ******** construction. If you think it's definied by "promiscuity" and "not being interested in the family unit," then why do so many people (myself included), rally and protest in favor of same-sex marriage? Homosexuals are clearly interested in starting a family, but society isn't letting them. You're basically telling them, "you're promiscuous, and I won't let you not fit my definition of promiscuous."

-Feminism enlivened culture, and cast away age-old constructs that allowed rape to only be defined as such if she fought off with all intensity and allowed men to beat their wives with zero repercussions. If you're only interested in returning America to the 1950s, you need to get your head out of your ass because the times are a'changing and there's NOTHING you can do about it except grumble that women belong in the kitchen. Women are tired of being second based on gender. Think of writers like Zora Neale Hurston--women who empowered themselves to do great things. Can you imagine a society that stifles potential based on gender? Oh yeah, we have that, it's called the Middle East. You know--that place that we hate for some reason. If you think Women's Rights aren't an issue right now, go to Saudi Arabia.
#129 to #117 - byposted (02/07/2013) [-]
Equality goes both ways, being equal under the law means they can defend it just like everybody else. Biologically they're different, but the notion that they can't be useful in the military is preposterous.
The women are only useful in non-combat positions in the military.

what they can do is adopt children from an overstrained system of adoption and foster care and give loving homes to children who need them
That concerns me.

If you think it's definied by "promiscuity" and "not being interested in the family unit," then why do so many people (myself included), rally and protest in favor of same-sex marriage?
Because you're another sheep in the herd.

Homosexuals are clearly interested in starting a family, but society isn't letting them.
lel, homosexuals already adopt children and have "families," whatever that means to them. Like I said, studies showed the typical homosexual has well over 1,000 partners in his lifetime.

For example, they're disproportionately important in the fashion industry.
You mean they're the fabulous designers who craft thongs for six year old girls?

Oh yeah, we have that, it's called the Middle East. You know--that place that we hate for some reason. If you think Women's Rights aren't an issue right now, go to Saudi Arabia.
Comparing Saudi Arabia in terms of women's rights =/= America. Women were always free in America and the Western World. The notion that women deserve to be equal to men will serve to unbalance society and lead to its collapse. We are already seeing it in Japan, where the native population is going extinct.

#131 to #129 - Wumbologist (02/07/2013) [-]
I didn't realize this until now, but the Communist flag and "studies showed the typical homosexual has well over 1,000 partners in his lifetime" point to you being an obvious troll. I am ashamed of myself for being an idiot and wasting my time and I'm ashamed of you for being a time-wasting idiot.
I didn't realize this until now, but the Communist flag and "studies showed the typical homosexual has well over 1,000 partners in his lifetime" point to you being an obvious troll. I am ashamed of myself for being an idiot and wasting my time and I'm ashamed of you for being a time-wasting idiot.
User avatar #135 to #131 - byposted (02/07/2013) [-]
28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308."

79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: "The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309."

Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: "In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354."
User avatar #170 to #135 - multimedia (02/26/2013) [-]
That is such utter ********* .
User avatar #140 to #135 - Wumbologist (02/07/2013) [-]
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?112432-Anti-gay-myth-1-Homosexuals-are -Promiscuous

Get your ass out of the 1950s.
User avatar #143 to #140 - byposted (02/07/2013) [-]
That only debunked the first study. The second and especially the third were done on a strict foundation.
User avatar #144 to #143 - Wumbologist (02/07/2013) [-]
I'm leaving now.
User avatar #145 to #144 - byposted (02/07/2013) [-]
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?112432-Anti-gay-myth-1-Homosexuals-are -Promiscuous&p=3277975&mode=linear#post3277975

lel, read the entire thread
User avatar #147 to #145 - Wumbologist (02/07/2013) [-]
Site all the ******** studies you want—there will always be promiscuous homosexuals and heterosexuals. Some people want sex; some people want love. This is a fact entirely independent of sexuality, and if you don't believe me you can take it up with an entire community of LGBT people who think you're full of ********* .
User avatar #149 to #147 - byposted (02/07/2013) [-]
I've been near an LGBT, (AKA: LGBTQWXYZ) community-rally. Not very pretty.
#128 to #111 - stallwallwriter (02/07/2013) [-]
Thank you, my learnèd colleague.
User avatar #133 to #128 - Wumbologist (02/07/2013) [-]
No, thank you for backing me up.
I saw your post above, are you a Katawa Shoujo fan?
User avatar #137 to #133 - stallwallwriter (02/07/2013) [-]
I haven't played it, but I've seen enough about it on FJ to know that our friend byposted here seems to be channelling a slightly more homophobic Kenji.
Looking forward to the days when our kids read threads like this with the same kind of incredulity we have towards old pamphlets about keeping "degenerate races" like Irishmen and Italians from entering the country.
User avatar #138 to #137 - byposted (02/07/2013) [-]
100 Years In The Future:

"oh can you believe that these dumb old reactionaries are trying to stop me from having sexual orgies in the streets? that's like how people used to say that having sex with animals was immoral, lol. those dumb dead old white men. sex is normal, found in every species. they don't hide it, why should we?"
User avatar #146 to #138 - stallwallwriter (02/07/2013) [-]
Check out my other comment about consent when it comes to animals.
And as for orgies in the streets - well, y'know what? All I'm worried about is them blocking traffic.

To quote the great John Lennon - "why don't we do it in the road?"
User avatar #151 to #146 - byposted (02/07/2013) [-]
"consent for animals"

psst...look at this tard. Do animals consent to get butchered an turned into processed food?
#148 to #146 - byposted (02/07/2013) [-]
Thus it is established that homosexuality is a gate to other promiscuous activities.

inb4 pedophiles are seen as victims and the legal sex-age is lowered to nothing.
#154 to #148 - stallwallwriter (02/07/2013) [-]
No, animals don't consent to be eaten. They don't have to. We already know that's an exploitive relationship, no-one's pretending the animal is cool with that. To get them into a legal partnership, however, would require consent.

Same with children - they can't enter into a legal partnerships, say marriage with a pedophile, because they aren't old enough to consent.

Grown men and women can consent to marriages with people of the other gender. Why not their own?
Just tell me why.
User avatar #157 to #154 - byposted (02/07/2013) [-]
To get them into a legal partnership, however, would require consent.
Strawman. Who are you to say that? That's like saying gays are bad because it goes against religious dogma. You need to get over your speciest dogma.

Same with children - they can't enter into a legal partnerships, say marriage with a pedophile, because they aren't old enough to consent.
Like I said, as we "progress" down the moral toilet, age-restrictions will loosen. Really, take a time machine 200 years into the future. Read books like the Forever War.

Grown men and women can consent to marriages with people of the other gender. Why not their own?
I would argue that homosexuals don't deserve tax-benefits since they have no children. The measly amount of children homosexuals adopt, fine. I would like studies though into how they turn out.

#159 to #157 - stallwallwriter (02/07/2013) [-]
- At this point you aren't even really refuting me any more, just saying ridiculous things about animals and saying it's a slippery slope even though it clearly isn't for reasons I've already mentioned. Because you read it in a book doesn't make it a real thing.   
- A lot of straight, childless couples still get those tax breaks    
- Studies have been done about gay people and kids, all favourable. And even if they weren't, why would that affect their right to marry as opposed to adopt?   
I sincerely hope you never find out someone close to you is gay. Not for your sake, but because they don't need to put up with your hate.
- At this point you aren't even really refuting me any more, just saying ridiculous things about animals and saying it's a slippery slope even though it clearly isn't for reasons I've already mentioned. Because you read it in a book doesn't make it a real thing.
- A lot of straight, childless couples still get those tax breaks
- Studies have been done about gay people and kids, all favourable. And even if they weren't, why would that affect their right to marry as opposed to adopt?
I sincerely hope you never find out someone close to you is gay. Not for your sake, but because they don't need to put up with your hate.
User avatar #160 to #159 - byposted (02/07/2013) [-]
- A lot of straight, childless couples still get those tax breaks

Indeed, it is meant to encourage child-bearing.

- Studies have been done about gay people and kids, all favourable. And even if they weren't, why would that affect their right to marry as opposed to adopt?

Really? I can link you to a few which are unfavorable. There hasn't been a good study, however. I want a good study.


User avatar #161 to #160 - stallwallwriter (02/07/2013) [-]
I'm pretty sure the point of the tax breaks is to help families that have children to care for them, not to encourage having children, although I don't know if that differs from country to country.
#126 to #109 - stallwallwriter (02/07/2013) [-]
1. "uneducated mobocracy" - At many universities, the number of female students is equal to or higher than the number of male students, and this is an increasing trend.
2. "unsustainable numbers of children" - considering the difficulty we have caring for the world population as it is, do we really need to worry about underpopulation? Given life expectancy in the west, we don't need to breed like rabbits anymore.
3. The "family unit" (father-knows-best providing income for dependant wife and kids) is a product of the 19th century - somehow we managed to exist before it and will manage to exist without it.
4. Who the **** is harmed if gays marry? If anything, they only strengthen those vaunted family units by entering what would otherwise have been single men into legal relationships.
I don't know if you're just stupid or a troll, either way it's pretty unpleasant.
User avatar #130 to #126 - byposted (02/07/2013) [-]
At many universities, the number of female students is equal to or higher than the number of male students, and this is an increasing trend.
The result of an educational system which has long had a bias for teaching boys. Especially now, with the tactics of "group coherence" in public education, is teaching becoming more female-centered.

considering the difficulty we have caring for the world population as it is, do we really need to worry about underpopulation? Given life expectancy in the west, we don't need to breed like rabbits anymore.
Why do you morons always insist on mumbling this gibberish. The plurality, no, entirety, of the world's overpopulation problem stems from the uncivilized nations of the word. (See: Africa, Asia.)

The "family unit" (father-knows-best providing income for dependant wife and kids) is a product of the 19th century - somehow we managed to exist before it and will manage to exist without it.
How do you think families survived during the Ice-Age? The Ice-Age brought about the family-unit, actually. The father provided food and necessities for the family while the mother cared for the children, and was dependent on the man.

Who the **** is harmed if gays marry? If anything, they only strengthen those vaunted family units by entering what would otherwise have been single men into legal relationships.
Who would be harmed if people were allowed to marry dead bodies or animals? Who would be harmed if people could legally duel in the streets and have sexual orgies?
User avatar #132 to #130 - stallwallwriter (02/07/2013) [-]
Do you honestly believe two men marrying is the same as a person marrying an animal? Which guy is the animal?
User avatar #136 to #132 - byposted (02/07/2013) [-]
Animals are slaughtered and turned into meat patties everyday so who is being harmed in the scenario?

You're just a bigot. Why can't I partake in zoo-love? I WAS BORN THIS WAY!
User avatar #142 to #136 - stallwallwriter (02/07/2013) [-]
Yeeeah, see the thing is other species aren't of the same intelligence, so we can't expect them to enter legal relationships. Animals can't give consent. Meanwhile, gay people talk, think, dream, and yes, fall in love just like the rest of us.
Why would gay people be capable of consent in every legal aspect of their lives except when it comes of the genitalia of the person they love?
User avatar #152 to #142 - byposted (02/07/2013) [-]
omg i cant believe how big of a bigot you are. you are such a SPECIEST

Do ants consent do get stepped on while crawling their way down the sidewalk?
User avatar #155 to #152 - stallwallwriter (02/07/2013) [-]
That's a false analogy and you know it, you cyst.
#156 to #152 - anon (02/07/2013) [-]
gays are doing us a favor of giving homless kids a home
User avatar #107 - lamarsmithgot (02/07/2013) [-]
they'll take the fabric of society, and make it into a fierce evening gown.

i am okay with this
User avatar #75 - KayRed (02/06/2013) [-]
The gays always have the coolest names.
0
#100 to #75 - neonnurse has deleted their comment [-]
#95 to #75 - bloodysita (02/07/2013) [-]
My name - Michael Marvel

Pretty cool if i do say so myself :3
User avatar #96 to #95 - KayRed (02/07/2013) [-]
Exactly, plus it has alliteration.
User avatar #99 to #96 - bloodysita (02/07/2013) [-]
Alliteration is the best in names.
#134 to #95 - arstya (02/07/2013) [-]
Marvel you say?
Marvel you say?
#162 to #134 - bloodysita (02/07/2013) [-]
Marvel indeed :3
Marvel indeed :3
[ 167 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)