No one cares. That is, of course, one of the points of the thread, which mocks the loonies who talk about the homosexuals destroying the sanctity of marriage but who give clear evidence that they, like everyone else, don't care.
Not that I give a damn about Kim Cardassian, but the premise of the thread is akin to blowing up a T-Bird, then pointing and saying, "See?! Fords are junk!" EDIT: To add, Yes, that means I think people who give a damn about "the sanctity of marriage" are idiots. Marriage had already been eroded long before anybody felt like they had the green light to redefine it. Horse already done left the barn.
These people are disgusting. It amazes me that there's people willing to prop up an industry that peddles these fake ass stories from these fake ass "celebrities".
No, more like the T-Bird was on fire when Mike got there, and he merely pointed out what hypocritical slobs T-bird owners are.
This has nothing to do with gay marriage. Anybody that says otherwise is just conducting partisan douchebaggery spin.
You are right, it doesn't. but it has everything to do with the intellectual consistency of those who fight it on the premise that it will "destroy traditional marriage" Either they need to be crusading just as hard against easy divorce, or, alternately, they need to take note that "traditional marriage" of the sort they think will be destroyed is already a term not applicable to a great many heterosexual marriages. Which is to say - ship. sailed.
Did you read the title of the thread? If you think someone can play on the phrase "sanctity of marriage" without invoking the gay marriage debate then you're illiterate.
But you are going to try your best to make it so, aren't you? LOL. Uh huh. So you have to argue against divorce if you are against gay marriage? No, you really don't. That's a vacuous intellectual construct. Any more than you have to say that the man has the right to beat the woman to death if she strays, or that a dowry must be paid. Personally I'm of the belief that the government should be out of the marriage business and in the civil union business, and marriage should be something other than a legal construct. But that doesn't mean I have to apply lazy and specious reasoning to justify that construct. Traditional marriage was one man, one woman, at its core, and that was not violated here.
And thinking someone can broach a subject and try to conflate two unrelated issues and that everyone else has to follow those definitions means you are stupid.
When I heard about this yesterday, I wondered just how long The Fabulous Heeb would be able to resist posting it here. Probably wore out your F5 key refreshing all your favorite celebrity gossip sites hoping for more 'news', didn't you?
Really? You sit there in RL and wonder what people are posting on a message board? I don't know which is more sad.
Yes. That's it, Ten. For the past 30 hours, my every thought has been focused like a laser beam on when Mikey would finally unleash his pansy-assed celebrity gossip whore ways here in the Red Room.
They're different aspects of the same issue. And why haven't the Yes on 8 folks issued a statement decrying this flagrant abuse of the institution of marriage? Not a peep from the Mormons, not a peep from Focus on the Family, not a peep from the Roman Catholic Church, not a peep from Rick Warren. Marriage is in shambles!!
I prefer her sister. I don't know her name, but she's the cutest one of the bunch. Anyway, why were these women famous in the first place? Do they sing, dance, or play a musical instrument? (keep it clean kids!) Back in the day celebrities had to...you know....do something, like act, tell jokes, athletics, something normal people deem fascinating or important.
No one said 30 hours. I just regurgitated what you told us, and found it pretty funny that you'd chide someone for browsing gossip sites when you're thinking what that person is posting on a message board. Six of one half...
Because they'd be attacked for doing so by the liberal elements of society, and that's an argument they lost quite some time ago. You know this, you just are using it as an excuse.
Enjoy that one, it's the only one you get. Maybe I'll give you one more, but you have to finish all your sprouts.
Hey hey hey, now, we're in actormike country here, pronounce it properly. It's thooper in actormike country.
you seem to have overlooked a word. Albeit, now that you mention it..."traditional" marriage did used to involve things like the wife having very little legal recourse, or the right to own property, and so forth....also known as "the good ol' days" Not so very long ago, "traditional" marriage was one man and one woman of the same race. Agreed. there was also the pretty heavily emphasized bit about "'til death do us part" which, while acknowledging there are circumstance for divorce, still can't be reconciled with "'til some time next week"
Actually, to be fair, Focus and AFA and that crowd usually DOES go apeshit over things like this - they did with Brittney. But there's a difference in "look at what the degenerate celebrities are doing NOW!" and actively campaigning against easy divorce. and yes, there is a minor movement on the right to tighten divorce laws - look up the idea of "Covenant marriage" which is already on the books in Louisiana. But it doesn't get much traction because far too many of the anti-gay crowd sees that one hitting uncomfortably close to home.
