Straight Man, Neutered Dog to Wed in Mass

[dmp]

http://www.brokennewz.com/displaystory.asp_Q_storyid_E_970manweddog

Natick, Mass - The concept of marriage is once again being redefined in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Daniel R. Murphy, 36, a heterosexual independent insurance agent of Natick, Massachusetts and his life partner Rex, 3, a professional security guard employed by K-9 Patrols of Swampscott, have applied for a marriage license and are planning a June 2005 wedding.

The case has attracted a great deal of attention from both political and religious leaders because, in addition to Daniel and Rex being of different species, Rex has been neutered as well. The confusion surrounding the case is such that gay and animal rights organizations are refusing to get involved.

“Mr. Murphy claims to be attracted to women of his own species, so we don’t think that we have an issue involved in this case,” said Jerry Holmes, Chairman of the Massachusetts Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered Alliance. Frank Smith, legal counsel for People for the Ethical treatment of Animals concurred. “Yes, it’s a strange case,” said Mr. Smith. “But since Rex attained his majority at the age of one he has been free to marry and enter into legal contracts. You’ll forgive my pun, but we just don’t have a dog in this fight.”

According to family friends, Daniel and Rex intend to adopt either a Romanian orphan or a litter from a pound in China. One friend, who wishes to remain anonymous, told Broken Newz that “Daniel and Rex are going to have a lot of problems, more than most newlyweds, especially given Rex’s disability. But they are a loving and committed couple and we all should give them some space, or a long leash to run on.”

Wrong forum?

haha

 

[Avatar4321]

 

[insein]

Told ya. How can you tell him no when marriage is not clearly defined in Mass.

 

[OCA]

Whats the difference between this and two fags getting hitched? Lol this country is going down the shitter.

 

[dmp]

just for the record - that's 'fake news'...akin to 'The Onion'.

 

[OCA]

I figured that, but really what is the difference between that and two fags getting hitched?

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by OCA
I figured that, but really what is the difference between that and two fags getting hitched?

hehe - I agree...Cept Homo-supporters would argue the dog can't give concent. Frankly, it's clear to me who can and can't concent when a dog tries humping my leg.


- dmp

 

[OCA]

Holy crap I must be slow! I just figured out who you were D! Glad to see you back here

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by OCA
Holy crap I must be slow! I just figured out who you were D! Glad to see you back here

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by -=d=-
just for the record - that's 'fake news'...akin to 'The Onion'.

gotta get up pretty early in the morning to get one over on you don't we

I have never seen this site before - I am still laughing my ass off. I have some friends I can have fun with with this stuff.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

just for the record - that's 'fake news'...akin to 'The Onion'.

How many of these sites are there now. That used to be the only one I knew of.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by tim_duncan2000
How many of these sites are there now. That used to be the only one I knew of.

Well you have CNN, MSNBC, NYT.com, Guardian. A whoel bunch of them. :

 

[mattskramer]

Oh please. I've already gone over this. Do you remember the term "Informed consent"? Animals do not have the intellectual capacity to understand the concept of marriage. Two gay adults can freely choose to engage in sex together (and get married (if and when it is legal to do so)) or not as they see fit. That's totally different from bestiality, where one person is in total power and the other party is a helpless and ignorant victim.

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Oh please. I've already gone over this. Do you remember the term "Informed consent"? Animals do not have the intellectual capacity to understand the concept of marriage. Two gay adults can freely choose to engage in sex together (and get married (if and when it is legal to do so)) or not as they see fit. That's totally different from bestiality, where one person is in total power and the other party is a helpless and ignorant victim.

psst...it's a joke.

Funny though - Homos and homosupporters use "Animals commit homosexual acts" as a way to justify their behaviour, yet now Animals are SOO FAR Beneath us.

 

[OCA]

Animals also don't have the capacity to know between right and wrong like we do, so continuing to engage in a act of something like homosexuality that is as perverted as drinking piss and which is looked down upon by all but the most scewed up of our society says something about these people and their reasononing abilities, don't it Matts? These individuals know what they are doing is wrong(well you don't think its wrong but hey, you're mental situation is a whole other thread) and yet they continue to forge ahead. Seems to me a clear case of a sick mind or no self control, wouldn't ya say so Matts?

Matts do you like being known as a person who thinks its cool for individuals to walk around with stool hanging from their peckers? Don't give me the crap about heteros and anal too, i've been with many women in my life and tried with every single one to get the dookie and I can tell you i'm batting about .001, not to many heteros into that but homos thats all they do, difference being its TWO GUYS WHICH IS BLASPHEMOUS, SICK AND ABNORMAL no matter how you slice it.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by OCA
Animals also don't have the capacity to know between right and wrong like we do,

True. They do what seems natural for them.

... so continuing to engage in an act of something like homosexuality that is as perverted as drinking piss and which is looked down upon by all but the most scewed up of our society says something about these people and their reasononing abilities, don't it Matts?

What a run-on sentence. Animals do what seems natural for them. Humans, for the most part, are able to reason. They can think of a planned behavior and consider in conjunction with reason, logic, and ethics.

The rest is just an assumption on your part. One can't answer a question logically if there are un-agreed to assumptions within the question.

These individuals know what they are doing is wrong (well you don't think its wrong but hey, you're mental situation is a whole other thread) and yet they continue to forge ahead. Seems to me a clear case of a sick mind or no self control, wouldn't ya say so Matts?

That is a nice bit of mind-reading you attempted. No. I don't think that they have sick minds or a lack of control any more than does one who likes to stand on his hands or prefer chocolate ice-cream over vanilla have a lack of control or a sick mind.

Matts do you like being known as a person who thinks its cool for individuals to walk around with stool hanging from their peckers?

That reminds me of the old question: "Have you quit beating your wife". If you say "Yes," then it is logical to conclude that you had beaten your wife previously. If you say "No" it is logical to conclude that you beat your wife.

As an attorney would say "Your question assumes facts not in evidence". I don't think that its cool for individuals to walk around with stool hanging from their peckers IN PUBLIC. Nor do I think that it is proper to engage in heterosexual sex in public.

Don't give me the crap about heteros and anal too, i've been with many women in my life and tried with every single one to get the dookie and I can tell you i'm batting about .001, not to many heteros into that but homos thats all they do, difference being its TWO GUYS WHICH IS BLASPHEMOUS, SICK AND ABNORMAL no matter how you slice it.

I've been with women who like anal sex. I've tried it. I find that I prefer oral sex or vaginal sex. BLASPHEMOUS suggests a belief in God and a desire to obey God. Atheists exist. Homosexual behavior being SICK is a subjective opinion since the APA has removed it as a sickness. ABNORMAL is irrelevant since there are many abnormal behaviors that should not necessarily be outlawed.

 

[OCA]

Well Matts I give up since you obviously have problems deciphering between handstands and two guys banging each other. But lets leave it at this, its not an assumption on anything when the majority, and this is so much more than a simple majority, over the course of history have deemed 1 behavior(homosexuality) to be so offensive and downright disgusting and wrong.

Like I say lets put this to either a state by state vote or a national vote and let the chips fall where they may. It'll never happen because homos know that they are wrong and that everybody else knows they are wrong and that they would lose badly. This is why they force their will upon the majority through a few select judges. Lets remember that it wasn't the legislature of Massachusets that wanted gay marriage it was a group ofv judges that ordered them to pass something, otherwise there would be no queer marriages in Queerachusets right now.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by OCA
Like I say lets put this to either a state by state vote or a national vote and let the chips fall where they may.

Please be specific. What would the state policy or national policy say?

How intellectually honest and consistent are you regarding popular vote? Should any and all policies be put to popular vote? If so, why not put an end to the court system? What to a small group of judges know that the vast majority of the public does not know?

It'll never happen because homos know that they are wrong and that everybody else knows they are wrong and that they would lose badly.

Note: Just because most people think that something is wrong (or right) does not, in and of itself, make something wrong (or right). The majority have been wrong in issues before.

This is why they force their will upon the majority through a few select judges. Lets remember that it wasn't the legislature of Massachusetts that wanted gay marriage it was a group of judges that ordered them to pass something, otherwise there would be no queer marriages in Queerachusets right now.

Yeah yeah yeah. In politics every group tries to get passed what it wants passed. If it doesn't think that the public will support it, the group will go to the legislature. If it doesn't think that the legislature will support it, it goes to the courts. If it doesn't think that the courts will support it, it goes to the people.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by OCA
Well Matts I give up since you obviously have problems deciphering between handstands and two guys banging each other. But lets leave it at this, its not an assumption on anything when the majority, and this is so much more than a simple majority, over the course of history have deemed 1 behavior(homosexuality) to be so offensive and downright disgusting and wrong.

Like I say lets put this to either a state by state vote or a national vote and let the chips fall where they may. It'll never happen because homos know that they are wrong and that everybody else knows they are wrong and that they would lose badly. This is why they force their will upon the majority through a few select judges. Lets remember that it wasn't the legislature of Massachusets that wanted gay marriage it was a group ofv judges that ordered them to pass something, otherwise there would be no queer marriages in Queerachusets right now.

What is you fascination with homosexuality? Are you concerned about your own? The though of two men having sex you find revolting (<i>so you say</i>), but you're more than ready to watch two women do the juicy. Double standard...Isn't it about time to drag your poor closeted self out into the daylight?

 

[OCA]

Lets do it! The measure will say something to the effect of should there be a federal or statewide ban on gay marriage and basically will ask if you are for or against.

Hey glad to hear that you are for a tyrranical court system thwarting the will of the citizens, at least you admit it. I guess Democracy and the will of the people has no meaning , he? Your way of thinking is why this country is so screwed up.