Oh good, it was getting a bit stale just mocking magellan.
I understand all the words in the reply, but not how they fit together in a way that has anything whatsoever to do with the post CR is presumably responding to. Maybe he’s genuinely a bot?
Oh, I can see how they fit together. It’s a stupid way but it’s there. You have to assume that A) there’s a finite amount of mocking we can do, B) mentioning two different topics in the same post means you consider them equivalent in urgency and C) be dumb as a post.
Someone really should say something nice about Mags. Really, somebody should. I would, but the dog is out of beer again…
Magellan, who gives a shit if you are bothered that us gay-loving liberals are changing the definition of “your” word? Gay used to mean happy, now it just means REALLY happy 
And “pedophile” didn’t use to apply to those men who married 14 year olds. In fact, here’s a list of words that have had their meanings changed over time. And here’s another list. And another.
Nobody should give a flying fuck about how words change. Maybe by this time next year “assfuck” will mean “tolerant”. Up will be down, black will be white, and dumb ass bigots like you will be called Keiths because its the ugliest male name in the English language.
Besides, you are one to talk. You take the name Magellan, a great explorer who risked his life to circumnavigate the globe, and you build walls around yourself so that you don’t have to listen or accept anything that frightens you and cocoon yourself in a tiny little world. Maybe I’m offended you are besmirching his name, maybe you should use your real name: Alfred E. Tightass.
Your arguments are crap, your bigotry is offensive, and your fears are insane. Most people would be able to get a clue when they go 0 for 3 but not you, right? But you people are wrong and society will move on without you whether you like it or not. Your ONLY choice in this matter isn’t to accept gay marriage or not, but whether you want to be known as an assfucker or not.
No, cretin. I was responding to this line from Archaic Entity–you know, the line I quoted:
Your opinion wouldn’t be more acceptable; rather, it would not have an objectively right or wrong answer. It’s the “factual” claims you use to back up your stupid opinions that are objectively wrong and that render Archaic Entity’s judgment of you wrong.
Yes, professor, I know that. If you want to teach me about whether sushi makes you constipated, or what kind of underwear you wear, or what movies make you cry, please don’t, because I don’t care–but at least on those subjects you know more than I do. When you try to teach me about stuff where you range from ignorant to laughably incompetent, it’s just embarrassing for all parties.
New Zealand this week!
Not so sure that’s what we got here. There seem to be *two *main reasons for supporting bigotry: Leviticus and Eww! I’ve seen nothing to suggest he’s a Biblethumper, but he doesn’t have to be to be a bigot.
And every day that passes, we can get justifiably smugger.
It’s a good feeling.
I googled “ssm new zealand” for details, the first ten hits were mostly about safe ship management. For some reason, this amuses me.
For further amusement, New Zealand Member of Parliament for Pakuranga Maurice Williamson’s speech on the subject.
Reasons to oppose SSM:
-
Jesus would have been against it, if he had ever said anything about it, and anyone had ever wrote it down. Because I know what Jesus thought.
-
Ick. I don’t like to hear about this. So stop talking about it.
-
The word “marriage” must, unlike all other words, remain exactly as I personally define it, and this definition must be frozen in time forever. Change makes me personally uncomfortable, therefore society must never be allowed to change.
-
If gays marry, then the population will plummet, because then every man will have the uncontrollable impulse to marry another man and have that sweet, sweet cock forever. (usually said by severely closeted men, who think that ALL men crave cock, and the only thing stopping them is strict rules)
Marriage has already been irreparably harmed. Receive any dowries lately? No more arranged marriages. And the final nail was when feminists and the Hallmark Card company conspired to invent the concept of romantic love back in 1920s. So yeah, if the gays want it, be my guest. You’re getting the burnt bread crumbs of Western civilization.
MAGELLAN TOLD STATUS:
NOT TOLD
TOLD
FUCKING TOLD
NO COUNTRY FOR TOLD MEN
Marriage as we knew it was destroyed when No-Fault Divorce became the norm. No more “Til Death,” it’s all now “For as Long as We Feel Like It.” No sanctity in that, no commitment backed by The Wrath of God. Marriage is now nothing more than a contract with an easy escape clause. Feh.
Yeah, at this point, it probaly has less sanctity than a cell phone contract.
In Magellan World, two women who have been committed life partners for 50 years or more are always going to be merely icky, but Britney Spears’ drunken Vegas weekend hookup stunts deserve full sanctity and recognition.
Or we could try this;
Mindlessly hating gays is so yesterday. Today, we are mindlessly hating Muslims.
I’ve never had much respect for people who are intolerable of change. There is never, ever any logic to be found in: “We must continue to do it this way because we’ve always done it this way.” Didn’t you ever read Shirley Jackson’s short story “The Lottery”?
It’s not as if SSM will usurp your right to be “married.” It’s not going to change the essence of “marriage.” Why do you want to be so stingy about access to that word?
Why can’t you just be joyful for couples in love instead of quaking at the thought that the same term might apply to their relationship as yours? If being “married” is that important to opposite sex couples, why can’t you understand that it’s important to same sex couples? Are you afraid in time that some people will think you are gay because you are “married”?
As an English teacher, part of my job was to teach the rules of language. That didn’t mean at all that the rules shouldn’t change! They change naturally!
In light of all I’ve said, do you really wish to continue to be a pompous, miserly, unempathetic, ignorant ass?
Well, no, I guess I don’t. But abandoned by wolves, raised by Texans, what chance did I have?
Well, either he’s stupid, he’s hateful, or he’s very old. (Old people actually begin to lose their ability to accept change even when it is logical and harmless to do so, and so sometimes they cannot fairly be accused of stupidity or hatred in the same way a normal person can.)
It’s one of the three, or a combination thereof. Why even ask? It’s ALWAYS that.
In 1952, magellan01 would have been screaming out against desegregation. In 1916 he would have been really upset about giving women the vote. In 1853 he would have been pro-slavery. magellan01s are always the same, in part because it’s always the same pathology.