Print
Email Friend
Add to Favorites
del.icio.us
Digg It!
Slashdot It!
I'm going to tell you a story about a couple guys that I know. There names are uh... Bill and Butch. They are a great couple of guys, they met one night at a strip joint watching some blonde bimbo sliding up and down a pole. They started talking about sports, munchies, power tools and womanly conquests. They had so much in common that they had to exchange numbers so that they could go prowling around together.
So Bill and Butch got together and went out to a sports bar. They ran into a pack of hotties, and Butch told them a story of how they were traveling the country because they got out right before the dot com bust. Bill went along with the story, and they started buying them drinks and before you know it, Bill and Butch had the whole pack of ladies in hotel room at the Hilton.
Without going into gruesome details, their escapade continued for months when finally they decided they should move in with each other. The packed up all their s*** and bought a loft in the downtown area, because chicks dig lofts. Anyway, they moved in, bought too refrigerators (one for beer and the other for food). They pooled their cash and bought a kick ass home entertainment system with a 60 inch flat screen. They had the ultimate bachelor pad.
It was a perfect union, they hired a maid to come by twice a week to clean up the pad before and after the weekend. They watched football, basketball and an endless array of action movies to kill their time. For years they never fought, not once. They Never argued about stupid s***, Never nagged each other for leaving the toilette seat up, and laughed at every single fart blown. It was heaven.
So it hit them, they came to the conclusion that they never wanted to part ways. They wanted to live with each other for the rest of their lives. They vowed to each other that they would be roommates till death did them part. They decided they were going to chase tail until they got old, then when they got too old and retired, they were going to sit around and watch ball games all day. They figure if they needed some action, they could just go down the street and pick up a hooker at that point in their lives. And it was done, it was official, and it was etched in stone. They were going to be life long partners and they were going to chase tail, blow farts, and eat cheesy puffs while they drank beer by the gallon.
Should their unique situation not be recognized as a legal civil union. Are they hurting anyones family values by truckin' in shnapper by the boatload? No, they are living their lives the way they want to live it, and I think their situation should be recognized as a legal civil union.
The Civil Union
|
Posted By: Normalized Vector Posted on: Jun. 19, 2006 at 10:46 AM  24 Comments
|
3.1 / 5
Based on 15 ratings.
|
*This article was filtered, login or change your preferences to remove language filter.
Comments:
|
Jun. 19, 2006 at 12:26:58 PM
|
|
| Then a man and a woman who hit it off as friends, but are gay, want to have a civil union to chase each other's hotties. Then a man and woman, who are heterosexual but not sexually desirable to each other, but get along great, could share living expenses and chase each other's hotties. Then a woman and woman who are heterosexual and want to do the same thing for convenience to chase their men and to share living expenses could have a civil union. Then a man and his dog for companionship cause the dog can guard the place while the man chases his "tail" could be a civil union. |
||
|
Jun. 19, 2006 at 12:53:37 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Well, I only think the "man on dog" thing would work if the dog had a career and was able to pull his own weight. If not, I don't think it would work. Also, I think the other entity should be a close match as far as dna is concerned. So if that were the case, the closest to "man on dog" that someone would be able to achieve is "man on chimp". Which by the way, I was reading an article that we only split off as a completely separate species from chimps only 400,000 years ago! Which is obvious, because every once in a while you see a hairy chimp walkin through the grocery stores in the snack food isle. Anyway, your point is weak and has no merit, just like the guy that originally said it, I think his name is Rick "man on dog" Santorum or something. But I agree that women should not be exempt from the rule either. They should be able to go slut it up if they want to and get benefits from a life long roomate partnership. Or any two people for that matter. Just to reiterate, I am not for "man on child", "woman on child", man on (dog, cat, donky, horse, .... animal name here) except for man on chimp. I think if a man or woman wants to be with a chimp, you should probably let them. |
||
|
|
Jun. 19, 2006 at 01:00:54 PM
|
|
| I didn't know Rick "man on dog" Santorum said anything about man on dog. I made it up. Or so I thought. Didn't mean to steal someone's original line. Your last line is neat about man or woman on chimp although somewhat extrater-bestial |
||
|
Jun. 19, 2006 at 01:12:30 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| I think the debate up to now has been about whether a commited monogamous marriage between same-sex individuals is equally meritorious to society as a commited heterosexual relationship, and that their personal union should be afforded the same societal benefits. The issue is debatable. It is a stretch, to say the least, that enabling and promoting two middle-aged horn dogs to randomly screw chicks and pick up whores is either good for society or a cherished personal right. Don't get me wrong. What two consenting adults want to do is none of my business, but backing legislation to help these lounge lizards to get laid and spread disease is not my idea of good government. Anyway, good luck getting Rick Santorum to back this legislation. |
||
|
|
Jun. 19, 2006 at 03:10:02 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Come on moron, why you always have to disagree with me. I come up with these grand ideas that no one ever thinks about, and I can't ever get any support. If anyone on this site thinks outside the box, it's me. Everyone else always has the same ideas, and the same arguments (depending on which side of the political teeter-totter they sit on). I on the other hand, give you new, refreshing and inovative ideas that NO ONE ELSE has ever even thought of. At least give me that much. |
||
|
|
Jun. 19, 2006 at 03:14:04 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Well, it is creative thinking. But I think you're thinking too much ABOUT the box, and not enough outside it.
|
||
|
|
Jun. 19, 2006 at 04:07:12 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| lmao, Well, what can I say, I like boxes. Point is, in this hypathetical scenario, 2 people agree to a union (not necessarily a mariage). The gay people want the same thing (not necessarily a marriage). If you allow gay people to have their unions, you have to let Bill and Butch have theirs as well. ... Which by the way, I don't have a problem with. It takes two (or more) to tango. Remember, if you don't peak in the box, someone else will. |
||
|
Jun. 19, 2006 at 05:43:02 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| "It is a stretch, to say the least, that enabling and promoting two middle-aged horn dogs to randomly screw chicks and pick up whores is either good for society or a cherished personal right." Why not moron... Give me the good for society that gay marriage affords. And what cherrished personal right is being being gay? You can't have it both ways. Either Normalized situation is just as valid as the homo marriage or both are wrong. Which is it??? |
||
|
|
Jun. 19, 2006 at 06:47:46 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| "Give me the good for society that gay marriage affords. And what cherrished personal right is being being gay?" Very well, AA. 1. Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, tend to be more promiscuous outside of committed monogamous relationships. Let us disregard the fact that extramarital affairs happen far too often. At least the bond of marriage tends to throw water on the carefree womanizing or manizing of our youths. The less promiscuous sex with multiple partners going on, the less the spread of STDs. This is particularly important in the male gay community, which in this country, along with IV drug users, remains most at risk in contracting HIV. I would say that when fewer HIV cases are contracted, that is good for society. Or would you argue that gay marriage will somehow increase the amount of promiscuous sex, and by what mechanism pray tell? 2. I would rather see a homosexual couple in a loving and committed relationship adopt a child than a heterosexual couple in the midst of unfaithfulness or the throes of divorce. 3. Being gay is a genetic trait affecting 11% of the species homo sapiens. We have had this discussion in another thread, I discussed the scientific evidence, and you have remained silent. If you disagree, you better cite your reasons now. If you accept that being gay is not a random perversion but a natural feature of the human race, then to treat them any differently than heterosexuals is no different than racism towards a black person or discrimination based on eye color. It is bigotry and a violation of civil rights. Think twice before your high-minded political philosophy is used to justify such a hateful position. Your worldview has to be better than that, isn't it? BTW, good luck on the Mike Newcomb Show tomorrow. I doubt very much if I would get an hour on a local conservative talk station. Do you still hate AAR-Phoenix? |
||
Oh, wait a minute:
"they decided they should move in with each other. They packed up all their s*** "
Nevermind.
Report Abuse