Upload
Login or register

Krystoking

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:1/04/2010
Location:Krystonia
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#31682
Highest Content Rank:#67
Highest Comment Rank:#465
Content Thumbs: 64548 total,  71871 ,  7323
Comment Thumbs: 5540 total,  6756 ,  1216
Content Level Progress: 37.2% (372/1000)
Level 264 Content: Pure Win → Level 265 Content: Pure Win
Comment Level Progress: 36% (36/100)
Level 254 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 255 Comments: Contaminated Win
Subscribers:237
Content Views:279241
Times Content Favorited:4319 times
Total Comments Made:2187
FJ Points:69839
Favorite Tags: epic (68) | win (66) | The Game (65) | comic (57) | fuck (3) | funny (3) | my (2)
Add me if you want, I respond to every message :D
I'm also on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001761102045

latest user's comments

#169 - Politics change, defintions rarely do. And yes, the definitio… 03/28/2013 on Against Gay Marriage -1
#164 - It's not weird, it makes perfect sense. They already have sta… 03/28/2013 on Against Gay Marriage 0
#159 - There is nothing wrong with a culture that would define same s…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/28/2013 on Against Gay Marriage -1
User avatar
#163 - jiltist (03/28/2013) [-]
And with that, your argument became very weak.

"On the political level, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman."
Politics change all the time.

As for the toast argument, there is something wrong with it. I'd have to think harder to point it out in detail, but a comparison should suffice. In America, "Man" used to mean Caucasians. Now it is an umbrella term for all who are physically male, and sometimes even women.
User avatar
#169 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Politics change, defintions rarely do. And yes, the definition of "Man" was changed, because it was discriminatory in the sense that blacks for example were not considered of the same species, although they are. Marriage, however, is a concept. It is not discriminatory, it simply is what it is. Its been defined in the US as bonding between man and woman, and it doesn't have to be changed. Bonding between two of the same sexes is different from bonding between two of the opposite sex. Marriage has been defined as one of those, why not make a concept to define the other?
#689 - Marriage is defined the way it is defined. There is really no… 03/28/2013 on on my newsfeed today -1
#676 - Thats why I'm saying that they can install federal level civil…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/28/2013 on on my newsfeed today -1
User avatar
#680 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
I don't see why it really matters so much and people are SO hung up on the idea that there MUST be one vagina and one penis in a marriage
You probably wouldn't know how it feels, but to the LGBT community it is discriminatory, offensive, and unfair to have to be set aside as this whole different group of humans that cannot play the game like everyone else can. We just have to be this whole different group.
That's what unequality is. Thats what people are fighting for. The red picture with the = sign. EQUALITY
User avatar
#689 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Marriage is defined the way it is defined. There is really no reason to find it discriminatory, offensive or unfair. Its like the jewish community started feeling discriminated that everyone else eats pork and they dont, and they started pushing towards changing the definition of pork from "meat from a pig" to "meat", JUST so they can say that they too, like everyone else, eat pork. Same thing happening here, changing the definition of marriage JUST to say that they are married. Its pointless and unnecessary.
#665 - I'm not saying anything will happen, but I can ask you the sam…  [+] (5 new replies) 03/28/2013 on on my newsfeed today -2
User avatar
#669 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
Because i may just want to marry a girl someday and have the same beneficial benefits as everyone else?
Prick.
User avatar
#670 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
Lol i meant Financial benefits
User avatar
#676 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Thats why I'm saying that they can install federal level civil unions. State level ones already exist, and the state financial benefits are equal to those of a married couple. If they were to install a federal level one, the financial benefits of a civil union would be the same as those of a marriage, without changing the definition of marriage.
User avatar
#680 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
I don't see why it really matters so much and people are SO hung up on the idea that there MUST be one vagina and one penis in a marriage
You probably wouldn't know how it feels, but to the LGBT community it is discriminatory, offensive, and unfair to have to be set aside as this whole different group of humans that cannot play the game like everyone else can. We just have to be this whole different group.
That's what unequality is. Thats what people are fighting for. The red picture with the = sign. EQUALITY
User avatar
#689 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Marriage is defined the way it is defined. There is really no reason to find it discriminatory, offensive or unfair. Its like the jewish community started feeling discriminated that everyone else eats pork and they dont, and they started pushing towards changing the definition of pork from "meat from a pig" to "meat", JUST so they can say that they too, like everyone else, eat pork. Same thing happening here, changing the definition of marriage JUST to say that they are married. Its pointless and unnecessary.
#663 - There are certain things that make a marriage unique on the fe… 03/28/2013 on on my newsfeed today 0
#22 - I remember those days... Dsend, mundo, bingthedinosaur, good times....  [+] (9 new replies) 03/28/2013 on Made me smile +3
User avatar
#56 - phoenix grinder (03/29/2013) [-]
bingthedinosaur was the shit
#33 - tittylovin has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#38 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Some still make comics, but most just sort of stopped posting, mostly due to lack of ideas. I used to post many comics myself, but I stopped when they started becoming stale.
#47 - tittylovin has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#53 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Yep, it all just faded away.... I'm glad actually, the less drama the better
User avatar
#36 - aerosol (03/28/2013) [-]
I think most of them got sick of their status as a "celebrity". Well, the bad side of it at least.
#32 - aerosol (03/28/2013) [-]
indeed they were
User avatar
#35 - kyrill (03/28/2013) [-]
i hated those so much.. none of the comics had any funny jokes in my opinion. They just tried real hard to draw well, and tried to post as often as possible instead of high quality but rarely. Shit hasen't gone down since albinoblacksheep left us in the days of green.
#37 - aerosol (03/28/2013) [-]
I don't know. Kody's stuff wasn't half bad.
Anyhow, I think the central reason that I liked it was because they weren't just any old comics. They were our comics. At least it felt like that sometimes. Just my opinion I guess.
#660 - Again, and i CAN'T stress this enough, its not about "leg…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/28/2013 on on my newsfeed today -1
User avatar
#661 - hydraetis (03/28/2013) [-]
The thing is technically nowadays marriage is nothing but a contract.
User avatar
#663 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
There are certain things that make a marriage unique on the federal level still, i don't know the details, but for example i kno9w taxes are different. All I'm saying is that the traditional definition of marriage does not need to be changed
#658 - I'm not against gay marriage, I'm saying " gay marriag…  [+] (7 new replies) 03/28/2013 on on my newsfeed today 0
User avatar
#662 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
but why do you care?
if some random gay guy got married what would you do about it?
you dont like it, okay, but what are you gonna do, just sit there and whine about it?
nothing will happen to you if gay people marry each other
nothing
User avatar
#665 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
I'm not saying anything will happen, but I can ask you the same, why do you care? Why do gay people NEED the definition of marriage to be changed? Why do they care? Nothing will trully happen whether the definition is changed or not. All I'm saying is I believe in tradition, and traditionally in the US, marriage is defined between a man and a woman. It doesn't need to be changed, so why change it.
User avatar
#669 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
Because i may just want to marry a girl someday and have the same beneficial benefits as everyone else?
Prick.
User avatar
#670 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
Lol i meant Financial benefits
User avatar
#676 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Thats why I'm saying that they can install federal level civil unions. State level ones already exist, and the state financial benefits are equal to those of a married couple. If they were to install a federal level one, the financial benefits of a civil union would be the same as those of a marriage, without changing the definition of marriage.
User avatar
#680 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
I don't see why it really matters so much and people are SO hung up on the idea that there MUST be one vagina and one penis in a marriage
You probably wouldn't know how it feels, but to the LGBT community it is discriminatory, offensive, and unfair to have to be set aside as this whole different group of humans that cannot play the game like everyone else can. We just have to be this whole different group.
That's what unequality is. Thats what people are fighting for. The red picture with the = sign. EQUALITY
User avatar
#689 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Marriage is defined the way it is defined. There is really no reason to find it discriminatory, offensive or unfair. Its like the jewish community started feeling discriminated that everyone else eats pork and they dont, and they started pushing towards changing the definition of pork from "meat from a pig" to "meat", JUST so they can say that they too, like everyone else, eat pork. Same thing happening here, changing the definition of marriage JUST to say that they are married. Its pointless and unnecessary.