x
Click to expand

bigmanblue

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 20
Date Signed Up:10/28/2010
Last Login:6/30/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#2164
Highest Content Rank:#9668
Highest Comment Rank:#1558
Content Thumbs: 8 total,  110 ,  118
Comment Thumbs: 9265 total,  14442 ,  5177
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/1)
Level -3 Content: Sort of disliked → Level -1 Content: Sort of disliked
Comment Level Progress: 18% (18/100)
Level 281 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor → Level 282 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Subscribers:0
Content Views:2798
Total Comments Made:4164
FJ Points:8384

Funny Text/Links

Funny Pictures

  • Views: 2098
    Thumbs Up 9 Thumbs Down 24 Total: -15
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 03/30/11
    Forever Ozone Forever Ozone

YouTube Videos

  • Views: 215
    Thumbs Up 5 Thumbs Down 20 Total: -15
    Comments: 16
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 02/04/11
    why so serious why so serious

latest user's comments

#1 - rainbows aint ******* gay, they are natural *******…  [+] (9 new replies) 8 hours ago on WATER CAN'T MELT GAY BEAMS +84
#42 - capslockftw (1 hour ago) [-]
Gays assimilate the essense of the bows of rain in order to increase their homosexual spirit energy.
#41 - derpinstock (1 hour ago) [-]
You want to fuck gays?
Dont forget to bring a rainbow
User avatar #17 - donekilledyou (5 hours ago) [-]
Yeah, fuck the gays, that'll show 'em
User avatar #13 - gotohemp (5 hours ago) [-]
what's wrong with that? the symbolism that can be taken from rainbows is a pretty strong representation of what they're striving for

any other symbolism taken and I bet you still would have complained
#44 - magjoeic (48 minutes ago) [-]
The symbolism of one entity separated into different segments depending on its orientation? That sounds a bit non coherent.
#7 - dangerouslycheesy (7 hours ago) [-]
They aren't. People use rainbow as a color scheme on flags and pictures to represent equality between sexual orientation. Each color in the rainbow is equally distributed hence the reason why it's used.
User avatar #14 - xtremehivoltage (5 hours ago) [-]
Which color is straight on the rainbow flag then?
#39 - dangerouslycheesy (3 hours ago) [-]
No specific color is listed for a sexual orientation. Each color has it's own meaning; hot pink: sexuality, red: life, orange: healing, yellow: sunlight, green: nature, turquoise: magic/art, indigo/blue: serenity/harmony, and violet: spirit (Don't ask me how this makes sense because it simply doesn't, it just looks pretty) . That being said the flag is meant for all sexual orientations, but the colors are also divided to represent sexualitys.
User avatar #19 - JonathanNowFuckYou (5 hours ago) [-]
The pure white that you get once you combine them all i.e the masterrace.
#237 - you realise thats how it works, churches can still refuse on r… 06/28/2015 on something to think about. 0
#9 - they are potato waffles, so basicaly shapped chips 06/28/2015 on Wifey Material/ Food Gore 2/2 +1
#4 - well they didnt actualy donate anything she donated 20gra…  [+] (2 new replies) 06/28/2015 on Good Girl Lisa +58
#34 - herbolifee (06/28/2015) [-]
> a lier
User avatar #7 - punnyjunky (06/28/2015) [-]
That's like powering up saruman by fucking with an uruk hai.
An organization that represents what the westboro hate would be receiving hefty donations
#11 - at least the otherside is for letting people love who they lov… 06/27/2015 on #equality 0
#14 - you should NOT fear the police, that goes against the very pur… 06/27/2015 on The Kekkiest Police Force. 0
#30 - what about the legal side of mariage then? you cant seperate m…  [+] (7 new replies) 06/27/2015 on something to think about. 0
User avatar #36 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
You make good points, but those matters could be decided on a case by case basis that would involve people actually thinking about what they are doing.

Why should I be able to talk to my wife about a crime and have it be considered privileged? Why do people not have wills? Why cant people have a list of people they want to make decisions about them if they are hospitalized?

I don’t think there should be legal benefits from marriage.
User avatar #50 - testaburger (06/27/2015) [-]
I think it's simply because it's practical.

"Unless otherwise specified, this is how we're gonna do things, and this person gets to make decisions about the deceased"
Stuff like that.
User avatar #51 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
There are other ways to do that, like a power of attorney or a will, both are about as easy to get as a will
User avatar #52 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
*As easy to get as a marriage
#57 - testaburger (06/27/2015) [-]
Maybe it's a case of "it is what it is, and it's too much of a hassle to change it at this point"

Same with QWERTY keyboards
User avatar #62 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
Ugh, I dont know how shit is so messed up, interracial marriage is still a crime where I live because it would take years and over a million dollars to change it, while just not enforcing it is free.
User avatar #63 - testaburger (06/27/2015) [-]
It's just more practical that way.
#20 - people celebrate it because it means they can now be married i…  [+] (9 new replies) 06/27/2015 on something to think about. 0
User avatar #23 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
In this specific matter I disagree, fortunately some states are already taking actions to set things right. Alabama is actually voting on a bill that would take control of marriage away from the state
#30 - bigmanblue (06/27/2015) [-]
what about the legal side of mariage then? you cant seperate mariage from state sadly, i mean you can live with a person and call them your wife/husband and take their name and all that jazz, but unless the state is involved and agrees upon the legality of your "marriage" you cant benifit from the legal side to be clear the legal side of marriage basicaly includes anything which may involve public things such as a death with no written will, a spouse going to jail, medical care and many other things, unless the state agrees upon the legality of the mariage(and therefore has at least some part in it) the couple will have far far fewer privilages and rights in these respects compared to others
User avatar #36 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
You make good points, but those matters could be decided on a case by case basis that would involve people actually thinking about what they are doing.

Why should I be able to talk to my wife about a crime and have it be considered privileged? Why do people not have wills? Why cant people have a list of people they want to make decisions about them if they are hospitalized?

I don’t think there should be legal benefits from marriage.
User avatar #50 - testaburger (06/27/2015) [-]
I think it's simply because it's practical.

"Unless otherwise specified, this is how we're gonna do things, and this person gets to make decisions about the deceased"
Stuff like that.
User avatar #51 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
There are other ways to do that, like a power of attorney or a will, both are about as easy to get as a will
User avatar #52 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
*As easy to get as a marriage
#57 - testaburger (06/27/2015) [-]
Maybe it's a case of "it is what it is, and it's too much of a hassle to change it at this point"

Same with QWERTY keyboards
User avatar #62 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
Ugh, I dont know how shit is so messed up, interracial marriage is still a crime where I live because it would take years and over a million dollars to change it, while just not enforcing it is free.
User avatar #63 - testaburger (06/27/2015) [-]
It's just more practical that way.
#19 - yeah thats not right, as in incorect, being a pastor is not a … 06/27/2015 on something to think about. 0
#16 - shouldnt you be supportive of it then because the act of legal…  [+] (46 new replies) 06/27/2015 on something to think about. 0
User avatar #18 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
My problem is that look to the government to decide. The fact that people celebrate/bemoan the government reaching a decision about their/other’s personal lives sickens me.
User avatar #25 - testaburger (06/27/2015) [-]
It's a legal contract, and you get certain benefits (from the state) by being married.
That's why the state is involved.

You wanna be fake-married to someone? Go right ahead. Nobody's stopping you.
But if you want state benefits, you'll need to get permission from the state.

Only reasonable.
User avatar #31 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
And that's my issue, why is there benefits for it? Do you really think gay marriage would even be an issue if there were no benefits? No, because nobody would care, like it should be.
#218 - unclewalrus (06/28/2015) [-]
The stipulation, creation and implementation of contracts between parties is overseen by the state.
Marriage is a form of contract.

Nigga, did you graduate highschool?
User avatar #241 - usarmyexplain (06/28/2015) [-]
I went to school in California, and they dont teach shit like that in high school. Yes, overseen by the judicial branch but not regulated or controlled by the legislative or executive branches.
#242 - unclewalrus (06/28/2015) [-]
>US education
I think I see your problem; regardless...
Supreme courts everywhere but in autocratic regimes are the judicial branch. Which... you're criticizing... for overseeing judicial matters. Wat.

Hell, Ms. Megan Garbage from The Atlantic even creticized (sic) the Supreme Court for making a judicial ruling, thereby apparently substituting itself to the legislative...
User avatar #243 - usarmyexplain (06/28/2015) [-]
I’m criticizing them because the decision they made about a law that should not exist.
#245 - unclewalrus (06/28/2015) [-]
wat.

So, a law existed.
It was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because that's what they do.

You don't like that they're doing their job, basically?
User avatar #246 - usarmyexplain (06/28/2015) [-]
I dont like that the law exists that gives the government control of a private practice between two people.

I don’t like that the government has a say over my private romantic life.
#247 - unclewalrus (06/28/2015) [-]
...
But it's not a say about your private romantic life.
It's a legal co-ownership contract between you and your spouse.
It's the contract itself that stipulates that you can't be sticking your dick into other people for the duration of marriage.

Fuck, there are NO civilized states that still have adultery as a criminal offense.

I assume, then, by that statement, that you don't have a problem with sex slavers, pedophiles and rapists, since that's also the state intruding on your private romantic life?
User avatar #33 - testaburger (06/27/2015) [-]
Nigga I dunno.
Maybe the state wants to encourage people starting families.
Ask your government.

The point is, nobody's stopping you from inventing a new form of marriage. One that doesn't require a state permit. It won't be recognized by the state, but if it's just between you and your spouse (or husband), then there's no problem.
User avatar #37 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
Actually, the law does, because it defines marriage, if you start telling people you are married when you aren’t that's fraud
#154 - CommonJoo (06/28/2015) [-]
This is untrue. You can tell anyone you want that you are married, but you cannot tell the government because it is not recognized. Testaburger is correct, the government does want to encourage families, and uses tax benefits as an incentive. Although I will admit that this system skews in favor of marriages, it is not control.

Like testaburger said, you can say you are married if that will satisfy you, but it will not be recognized by the government. If you do not care for the benefits that come with registering with the government, then by all means do what you want. You are not being controlled. What gay people currently are fighting for is equality, meaning access to these government-provided benefits. If one is gay and do not care about such benefits, then this law will not affect them.
User avatar #40 - testaburger (06/27/2015) [-]
Then make up a new word.

If you wanna have a ceremony, and be ritually "chained together", then you're allowed to do so.
User avatar #35 - testaburger (06/27/2015) [-]
Wait, is the word "spouse" gender-neutral?
User avatar #38 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
Yes, it just means partner
#41 - testaburger (06/27/2015) [-]
Not a native English speaker.
#24 - smudgiemuffins (06/27/2015) [-]
I'm quite confused by this. They didn't legalize gay relationships or sex, those are already not regulated by the government. Nor did they force religious institutions to give gay people marriages. The aspect they legalized was not personal. What was legalized is the legal respect of these relationships. Tax breaks, disability benefits, deaths benefits, etc. Those are not personal issues, those are legal ones. They are things the government is inherently involved in and things the government inherently must make decisions on.
User avatar #148 - IamSofaKingdom (06/28/2015) [-]
Actually, one of the things in discussion is making legal ramifications for refusing to ordain a wedding. That could then result in Pastors/priests being forced to marry someone against their beliefs and will. I have a friend (who loves politics and happens to be gay, thus invested in the topic) who said that, that was one of the things that bothered him about this whole thing.
User avatar #27 - testaburger (06/27/2015) [-]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This
User avatar #26 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
But why is the government inherently involved in it?
#39 - smudgiemuffins (06/27/2015) [-]
That question I can't get behind. I dunno. I say give tax breaks and better health plans for having children, not for marriage. You're not a benefit to society because you decided you loved someone, why the hell would they deserve those? I think children, adopted or otherwise, is a much better justification for those things.
#155 - CommonJoo (06/28/2015) [-]
I think the thought process is that functional families with 2 parents locked into a contract so to speak (marriage) can better raise a child, so the government encourages this by giving tax benefits and what not. Also you already get tax breaks for having children.
User avatar #43 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
Indeed, I never thought of that, but that would be a good deciding factor. It would really allow parents to put more focus on their children.
User avatar #42 - testaburger (06/27/2015) [-]
Maybe it's because, historically, people who were married are much more likely to produce children and/or be in a stable relationship than those who weren't?
User avatar #29 - testaburger (06/27/2015) [-]
>taxes
>various benefits

All things the state manages.
That's why.
#44 - smudgiemuffins (06/27/2015) [-]
States are subject to the constitution and this was a supreme court ruling. The interpretation is that the sections outlining discriminatory laws should apply to gay couples. It's the same reason states aren't allowed to forbid blacks and whites from marrying.
User avatar #46 - testaburger (06/27/2015) [-]
Okay....
I don't see how that's relevant?
#47 - smudgiemuffins (06/27/2015) [-]
I don't see how you don't see that it's relevant.

One of the supreme court's jobs is to interpret the constitution. It ruled it unconstitutional to deny these marriage benefits to gays. States are subject to the constitution. This simply wasn't a state question. States don't get to decide these things, that's not their job. The implication that the government was incorrect in doing this is silly because that is the supreme court's job.

You can disagree ethically with gay marriage for whatever reason. But the government did not do anything here you should be surprised it's able to do.
User avatar #48 - testaburger (06/27/2015) [-]
I'm not an american, and your justice system is somewhat foreign to me. That's why I didn't get why it was relevant.

Ah, I see.
But why are you telling me?
#53 - smudgiemuffins (06/27/2015) [-]
I apologize, I feel I have have misinterpreted the point of your original comment. The implication I got was that you were saying the problem with this ruling is that taxes and various benefits are things the state, rather than the government, manages and that the government should not have been able to make this ruling. Am I wrong?
User avatar #56 - testaburger (06/27/2015) [-]
Yes.

Are government and state two different things?


My point was simply that the state/government/whatever handles marriage benefits, and that's why you need permission from them.
#65 - smudgiemuffins (06/27/2015) [-]
Oh, right, that would be the confusion. Since you're not american, I don't know how much you know and I'm sorry if I over-explain.

The 50 states that make up America were each individually voting on this gay marriage issue. Then the supreme court ruled then the constitution, which holds power over all states, implies that gay marriage is a constitutional right. A lot of people are saying their problem with this is that the government should not have made this decision for the remaining states who had not yet voted for themselves on this decision. I feel this is silly, as that is one of the reasons why the supreme court exists.

I had thought you were making this same argument. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
User avatar #68 - testaburger (06/27/2015) [-]
I know very little about your whole political system, so it's fine.

I see. Somewhat similar to the EU making rules that all the member countries have to follow, aside from the fact that the US is one country.
Yeah, it does seem a bit silly.

No problem. Learned something new
User avatar #32 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
But why are there benefits?
User avatar #34 - testaburger (06/27/2015) [-]
>>#33
#20 - bigmanblue (06/27/2015) [-]
people celebrate it because it means they can now be married in the legal sense which is a big fucking deal, they dont look to the government to say its ok but purely for the legal sense
and people bemoan it because they are authoritarian assholes who believe their subjective opinion is the one objective truth and therefore the government MUST do what they say or the world is going wrong
TLDR: no1 looks to the government to decide their life, but the government does decide what upon the law and so when a law rightfully imo in your favour of course you will be happy
User avatar #23 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
In this specific matter I disagree, fortunately some states are already taking actions to set things right. Alabama is actually voting on a bill that would take control of marriage away from the state
#30 - bigmanblue (06/27/2015) [-]
what about the legal side of mariage then? you cant seperate mariage from state sadly, i mean you can live with a person and call them your wife/husband and take their name and all that jazz, but unless the state is involved and agrees upon the legality of your "marriage" you cant benifit from the legal side to be clear the legal side of marriage basicaly includes anything which may involve public things such as a death with no written will, a spouse going to jail, medical care and many other things, unless the state agrees upon the legality of the mariage(and therefore has at least some part in it) the couple will have far far fewer privilages and rights in these respects compared to others
User avatar #36 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
You make good points, but those matters could be decided on a case by case basis that would involve people actually thinking about what they are doing.

Why should I be able to talk to my wife about a crime and have it be considered privileged? Why do people not have wills? Why cant people have a list of people they want to make decisions about them if they are hospitalized?

I don’t think there should be legal benefits from marriage.
User avatar #50 - testaburger (06/27/2015) [-]
I think it's simply because it's practical.

"Unless otherwise specified, this is how we're gonna do things, and this person gets to make decisions about the deceased"
Stuff like that.
User avatar #51 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
There are other ways to do that, like a power of attorney or a will, both are about as easy to get as a will
User avatar #52 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
*As easy to get as a marriage
#57 - testaburger (06/27/2015) [-]
Maybe it's a case of "it is what it is, and it's too much of a hassle to change it at this point"

Same with QWERTY keyboards
User avatar #62 - usarmyexplain (06/27/2015) [-]
Ugh, I dont know how shit is so messed up, interracial marriage is still a crime where I live because it would take years and over a million dollars to change it, while just not enforcing it is free.
User avatar #63 - testaburger (06/27/2015) [-]
It's just more practical that way.

items

Total unique items point value: 720 / Total items point value: 2291
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #2 - Falkor (05/25/2015) [-]
#3 to #2 - bigmanblue (05/25/2015) [-]
whats that for?
User avatar #1 - Falkor (11/01/2014) [-]
 Friends (0)