|Spastic Avenger - 2009-03-24 |
I never though the Boo Radleys would come out against same-sex marriage.
|HURF BLURF DUH - 2009-03-24 |
Wow it's almost as though cultures and languages change. Weird huh.
|nuzzles - 2009-03-24 |
This lamentable piece of verbose, stuck-in-the-caveman-era "reference book" still refuses to validate and recognize my marriage to the sea.
So yes, I'd like to send a flying fuck you to Webster and your goddamn unbearably cheeky premise that an adorably tiny little adopted black boy can bring joy to the lives of an ex-football player and his wife.
|IrishWhiskey - 2009-03-24 |
They actually changed the definition three years ago.
Alright, which one of you pinko book-readers told them what was in the dictionary!?! You know that only gets them riled up. And please, please don't tell them that the previous definition included underage children, but not black people or non-Christians. It'll only give them ideas.
|TeenerTot - 2009-03-24 |
5 for the intense eye-rolliness of it.
|delicatessen - 2009-03-24 |
They edited out the giant zooming-in SHEEPLE at the end.
|charmlessman - 2009-03-24 |
Wait, I don't get it. Is the message:
WAKE UP!! They're destroying the institution of marriage!
or is it:
WAKE UP!! Even Webster's Dictionary gets that gay marriage is inevitable!
|Rape Van Winkle - 2009-03-24 |
How dare those Dictionary cunts reflect actual usage?
The tym has come to end their tyranny.
|simon666 - 2009-03-24 |
Gay people are obviously less than human and therefore their inclusion in the "institution of marriage" would destroy it.
Heterosexuals = 1
1+1 = 2, and therefore marriage is of positive value under traditional definition. Add up the number "n" of straight people married, 2n.
Homofags = -1 (less than human)
-1 + -1 = -2, total homos married, -2n.
Current total of gays married added to straights married 2n + (-2n) < 2n.
See. SEE IT MAKES SENSE! NO GAYS!
|dead_cat - 2009-03-25 |
Yes! First the whack jobs turned their back on science and science textbooks, now they will turn their back on dictionaries and the actual usage of their own language.
They will speak a dialect which would be dead were it not for their fastidious maintenance of it. Soon, they will have divorced themselves so thoroughly from common culture that they will have to move into little communities of like-speaking individuals who spend their days aping a version of 1950s culture which never actually existed. Parents and teachers will drag their children to see how crazy people used to speak, and the tourist money will pour in. And then, their vicious turf wars with the Amish and the Living History Villages will begin!
|fluffy - 2010-11-10 |
And the dictionary used to say it was a PERMANENT union! DIVORCE DOESN'T EXIST!
WAKE UP SHEEPLE
| Register or login To Post a Comment|