Inglorious Bastards

Via Dan Savage, the Chicago Sun-Times’ Neil Steinberg has a modest proposal of his own, suggesting that if traditionalists object to the use of the word “marriage” to describe same-sex civil unions, shouldn’t the same rigid defense of language be applied to the children of same-sex couples?

How much longer will they allow gays to press their agenda by claiming their children are “born” when of course, by entering the world as part of these lesser civil unions, they could easily be relegated to a similarly lesser state?

Perhaps mainstream America would be happier if couples that can form unions but not marry would have children that are “birthed,” or “whelped” or “emerge.” Instead of a “birth certificate” the couples could be issued a “document of existence.”

Sure, we naysayers might point out that doing so would cause discomfort for the affected children, who, when asked where they were born, would have to answer, “Well, I wasn’t technically ‘born,’ but I ‘came into existence’ in Evanston.” But since opposition to gay marriage considers neither the feelings of children nor the concerns of their gay parents, it’s a little late to start caring about them now.

Of course, there already is a common English word to describe children born of unmarried parents; we call them bastards, with all the negative connotation that word intentionally implies.

If—while arguing that the institution is the “gold standard” for raising children—opponents of gay “marriage” insist on defending the traditional use of the word, they should at least acknowledge the traditional meaning associated with its absence.  Steinberg only satirically suggests that the product of “these lesser civil unions” could easily be relegated to a lesser status themselves, but by the inner semantic logic of the traditionalists, that is indeed the inevitable and intentional outcome of codifying this semantic distinction in law. For once the political battle over same-sex marriage is reduced to an argument over the definition of a single word, a linguistically consistent defense of traditional marriage would inherently imply that Dan’s son is a bastard, while my traditionally legitimate daughter is not.

Yes, I know… there are some who might argue that as mores and circumstances have changed over the past half-century or so, the literal meaning of the word “bastard” has become archaic.  English is a vibrant, living language that constantly evolves.

And that is exactly my point.

Comments

  1. 2

    Partnered with Bastard Child spews:

    “Partnered with Bastard Child” cause I can’t be “Married with Children” yet.

    Don’t give them any ideas.
    I still fear that social conservatives dearly wish to nullify adoptions by gay parents if they ever got into power.
    The conservatives who post here sure don’t have a track record indicating they would fight it.

  2. 3

    ROTCODDAM spews:

    Justice Madsen and her cohorts in Olympia might have had just such a modest proposal in mind when she authored the opinion in Anderson.

    “…the legislature was entitled to believe that providing that only opposite-sex
    couples may marry will encourage procreation and child-rearing in a “traditional”
    nuclear family where children tend to thrive.”

    “We conclude that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State’s interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both.”

    Translation:
    Screw the little bastards.
    We should perhaps consider ourselves blessed that Justices Madsen, Alexander, and Johnson did not recommend that the children of same sex couples be “stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled”.

  3. 4

    dutch spews:

    But wouldn’t the children of same sex couples (married or not, civil union or not) still be “bastard” children if we’d follow your logic ?
    As a married same sex couple can’t have children the traditional way, they would have to resort to a partner they are not married to (whether it’s sperm donor, egg donor, surrogate mother, you name it). None of those would be part of the marriage, making the child a bastard child following your logic.

  4. 5

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    From the beginning of recorded human history, and long before then according to my species’ oral traditions passed down through countless generations of rabbits, you humans have been stuck in your tribal mental box.

    Humans have always been snooty bastards who perpetually strive to differentiate among their own kind on a “my tribe is better than your tribe” basis.

    Exactly how does one tribe of humans get to be “better” than another tribe of humans? Why do some people end up as poobahs, and others as serfs and untouchables?

    It all boiled down to who had the strongest sword arm. There was no innate superiority of moral or intellectual leadership involved, simply brute force, nothing more or less.

    Needless to say, we rabbits consider you humans a stupid, brutish, inferior species; and we can’t wait until the world is rid of you.

  5. 8

    spews:

    Would God look kindly on aborting foeti that would only be bastards anyway?

    What does that make Jesus? Was Jesus the bastard child of Jehovah and Joseph the cuckold father?

    I think the Roberts Court has the sort of men who can wrestle with these important questions and come to decisions that will damage and harm all interested parties.

  6. 10

    manoftruth spews:

    and the thing that fucking kills me, he’s trying to argue here its somehow natural for two of the same gender to have offspring. they argue right in the face of nature. and we’re supposed to believe anything these faggot kikes say

  7. 11

    Partnered with Bastard Child spews:

    @3
    “We conclude that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State’s interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both.”

    I would assume then that Justices Madsen, Alexander, and Johnson should also go after all step parents and nullify their marriages also, for the good of the State?

  8. 14

    YLB spews:

    Moron @ 10

    In the light of your shitheaded comments here, I’m really going to enjoy Tarantino’s new flick.

    See comment 1 for the trailer.

  9. 15

    manoftruth spews:

    ylb, i looked at 1, but when i saw the link included the jew scum weinstein, i’m not gonna watch it

  10. 16

    GBS spews:

    @ 12:

    That depends; was his mother married to his father?

    If not, then Jesus was by definition a bastard child.

  11. 17

    Partnered with Bastard Child spews:

    So it doesn’t matter how many men the wife sleeps with, all the kids are legitimately the husband’s in the eyes of the law?

  12. 19

    Richard Pope spews:

    What about the fact the same-sex couples usually have to ADOPT (or in certain cases, consent to artificial insemination) in order to have children? This is a simple biological fact, regardless of what legal relationship status is allowed in a given state, or the name which is given to that legal relationship status. This isn’t a political question, it is a biological fact.

    If both partners happen to be male, then neither one of them is biologically capable of carrying an unborn child or giving birth to a child. Only a female is capable of doing this. In order to have a child of their own, they have to adopt a child who is born of a female.

    If both partners happened to be female, then of course, one partner is biologically capable of giving birth to a child. Normally, traditional sexual intercourse will not be used for this purpose. If it is used, the male engaging in the act will legally be considered to be the child’s father, regardless of whether the impregnated female happens to be married to another female. IF this is used, the natural father would have to give up his parental rights, and the other female partner would have to do a legal adoption.

    If biological processes are used with a female same sex couple, it would normally be artificial insemination. The male sperm donor will usually not be legally considered the father, especially under updated state laws, although there is some risk of this happening under the older laws of some states. In states that recognize same sex marriage, the other female partner may possibly be legally recognized as the parent of the child, assuming the other partner signed a consent to the artificial insemination. In other states, the other female partner would be required to go through a legal adoption process.

    So the formal adoption process would be legally required for all same sex male couples to have a child. Female same sex couples would also require adoption in order for both partners to be parents, unless the state has more progressive laws and artificial insemination of one partner is conducted with the legal consent of the other partner.

    Given all of this, Neil Steinberg’s column is patently ridiculous. If the necessary legal steps are taken, a legal recognized child of a same sex relationship will have a formal birth certificate with both same sex parents listed on it. If the necessary legal steps are not taken, then the child will have different parents listed on the birth certificate — perhaps just one of the same sex partners with no other parent, or one of the same sex partners with the other biological parent.

    Ever since birth certificates have been issued by state governments (for approximately the last century), children born out of wedlock have been issued certificates pretty much the same as children born from legal marriages. The mother is always listed, and the father is listed if he is legally recognized (i.e. married to mother, sign paternity affidavit, or court paternity judgment). When a child is adopted, then the birth certificate lists the adoptive parents. In some states, the birth certificate indicates whether the parents are married to each other, but not in some “scarlet letter” fashion.

  13. 21

    Richard Pope spews:

    Partnered 17, GBS 18, BigGlen 20

    That is very true. The husband is the presumed father of the wife’s child. State laws make it difficult for anyone to interfere with that legal relationship. If a man knocks up another man’s wife (to use the vernacular, appropriate for cheating bastards), and the couple reconcile and decide to stay together and raise the child, courts often will not interfere. The biological father (as in the adulterous SOB) is frequently not successful if he wishes to establish paternal rights, and the husband will often prevail as being the legal father, assuming the couple wishes to stay together under such circumstances and raise the child.

    If the husband is not happy with being the legal father of someone else’s child that his wife is bearing, then the law requires the husband to act fairly quickly. Washington law allows only a short period, two years at the most, after the child is born. There is an exception in the case where the husband and wife are separated at the time of conception, with absolutely no relations or cohabitation, in which case the two year limit might not apply.

    The law favors the stability of family and parental relationships — most especially the parent and child relationship. If a man signs a paternity affidavit for a child born out of wedlock, for example, it is very difficult to rescind and very strict time limits (as little as 60 days!) can apply. The time limits to rescind paternity by a husband for his wife’s child are slightly longer, but require very prompt action.

  14. 22

    ROTCODDAM spews:

    The law favors the stability of family and parental relationships — most especially the parent and child relationship.

    So Richard?
    Would you suggest then that the legal marriage of Ch.Just. Alexander and his wife be nullified? There is no “parent and child” relationship there to be favored. And literally no possibility of one being formed at any time.

  15. 23

    spews:

    I learned something new today.

    Two men can not create a baby unless a female is involved.

    That means the child of such a union is non-existent and has no legal rights — unless those rights are adopted — in which case the biological fathers’ names are forever erased.

  16. 24

    manoftruth spews:

    only in this fucking country do people think carsen kressley is someone we think kids should look up to…fucking fag

  17. 26

    spews:

    re 24: Many native Americans consider gay people to be very spiritual and in touch with the ‘gods’, as it were. Oftentimes, such people are healers.

    Some healing ceremonies that the Navahos perform last nine full days and are completely memorized.

    How do you know who Carson Kressley is unless you watched the Fab Five yourself?

  18. 27

    WatchmanOnTheWall spews:

    Without artificial insemination, and adoption gay couples would not be able to have children in the firt place. The point is nature says that male and female only can produce the right chemical reaction in the female body to procreate a human being.As far as children having two mommies or two daddies,i wonder how two men could even imagine understanding female hormones and growth,or two women being able to understand male hormones and growth.And then you have Fatherless on one hand and motherless on the other hand.
    Just saying.

  19. 29

    Richard Pope spews:

    Stan @ 23

    There are some same sex male couples with a legally adopted child which is the biological child of one of the male partners. In some cases, the male partner had a marriage or other relationship with a female in the past, which resulted in a child, and the male partner ended up with custody, and the child’s mother gave up her parental rights for the other male partner to adopt. In other cases, there is a surrogate mother involved, who is artificially inseminated (perhaps from one of the male partners — natural insemination by one of the male partners is also possible, but logically less common), then legally gives her rights up after the child is born.

    But a legal adoption is required in all events. Certainly, the rights of the biological mother have to be forever terminated in such an arrangement.

  20. 30

    Richard Pope spews:

    ROTCODDAM @ 22

    I made no such suggestion. I was talking about parent-child relationships, and not about whether two people should or should not be allowed to marry. If a parent-child relationship is legally formed when both legal parents are of the same gender, it should be afforded exactly the same legal protections as a parent-child relationship with parents of opposite genders. Biology, of course, makes forming children easier in many cases for opposite gender couples. Adoption is an alternative option available to opposite gender couples, and the only option available to same gender couples (other than legally prescribed artificial insemination for same gender female couples).

  21. 32

    ROTCODDAM spews:

    @28
    the commercials

    That, and the life sized personally autographed poster of Kressley on manonallfours’ bedroom ceiling.

  22. 35

    manoftruth spews:

    @33
    you’re right stan, i’m trying to cover up that fact i’m a flaming faggot who loves that homosexual mutant

  23. 36

    manoftruth spews:

    by the way, that nyt reporter, i think his name was zeleny, who asked obama in tonites news conference what “enchanted” him, is obviuosly a fucking faggot. that goes to show you what shit they have at the nyt, and they cant fold too soon. the jewish, kiike , inbred, faggots

  24. 37

    YLB spews:

    Goldy – we got another JCH on our hands.

    This fooloflies’ knee-jerk antisemitism and homophobia is getting so freaking tiresome.

    A banning is in order.. Please…

  25. 39

    manoftruth spews:

    but, let people stay who criticize christians, pro lifers and conservatives. come on goldstein, show your stripes, start the banning.

  26. 40

    spews:

    Can you ban someone because they are a Jew-baiting closet case?

    This guy is further eveidence that Republicans are dysfunctional.

  27. 41

    Steve spews:

    @40 If someone isn’t banned for spewing a constant stream of hate, then nobody will likely ever be banned. It’s Goldy’s blog and his call. That said, what I find interesting about manoftruth’s posts is that nobody on the right takes issue with him. Hell, Puddy goes as far as to show him some love. I tell you what. That’s really fucking revealing.

  28. 42

    SJ spews:

    On “Marriage”

    This has gotten so PC as to escape sarcasm.

    In most of Europe and Canada, the problem has been EASILY solved by creating some sort of law that covers all forms of pairing. In other words any two people can make the same legal commitment to each other as is now called “marriage” here.

    From my POV, is see no reason to restrict pairing at all. You want to pair with your daughter, your son, your cousin … just make all pairings equal. If mutually infertile genders (same sex) can pair then what earthly reason is there NOT to allow a brother and a sister to pair as long as they do not intend to copulate? Is “marriage” a synonym for commitment PLUS copulations? Is “marriage” a licence to fuck?

    This issue, BTW is very real for many older people who want to live together and commit to one another for financial and companionship reasons. Do these elderly couples need to fuck each other too? It seems easier just to recognize the legitimate desire of any two people to commit to each other without redefining marriage?

    I have a funny story in this regard. Sometime ago I had a fellow from Quebec. She and her husband were paired rather than married. His fellowship ended so they asked for support for his health care. Under Seattle law, since they were not gay, the insurance company refused him coverage! … I did suggest they claim to be a heterosexual gay couple but that did not help either. Apparently, under the law, is you are fucking each other you need to be gay OR married?
    So it seems pretty clear that having a pairing law would solve all the legal issues.

    Would a pairing law, one that allowed all forms of pairing, satisfy the “gay marriage” crowd? I do not think so. These folks, both gays and straights, want the shadow lifted from gay couples. In Jewish terms, the advocates of gay marriage want to spread the canopy of marriage wide enough to include those of the same gender. Isn’t marriage far more of a social and religous issue than a government issue?.

    If the government were to redefine marriage, a new problem would arise because we would still need laws or social mores to deal with biology. Men and women are as different as … men and women. Male -female pairings have implications other pairings do not have ranging from the need of each gender to accept the biologic needs of the other (eg leaving the toilet seat in the correct position) to the differences in potential for physical violence. Pretending that these differences do not exist is as foolish as pretending that rape is just assault.

    If we dispose of the term marriage, do we get to invent a new term for male/female couples?

  29. 43

    YLB spews:

    If someone isn’t banned for spewing a constant stream of hate,

    You know this idiot wouldn’t last a day at (un)SP. I can’t believe I’m actually saying something positive about the banning policy over there.

    I mean we’ve had our fun with him just like we had with JCH and it’s gotten really old. This FOOL has NOTHING to offer but his reflexive, ignorant anti-semitism and homophobia. NOTHING…

    Ban him..

  30. 45

    manoftruth spews:

    hey ylb, if i was anti christian i’d get a life long membership,,,,,you ignorant fools

  31. 46

    YLB spews:

    45 – Doesn’t matter in the least idiot. We have left-leaning Christians here. They’re more than welcome.

    Fools of all stripes aren’t.

  32. 47

    Marvin Stamn spews:

    40. Stan spews:
    Can you ban someone because they are a Jew-baiting closet case?

     
    Headless, you haven’t been banned for your hate of blacks. Goldy is obviously okay with it.

  33. 48

    Steve spews:

    Headless not wanting to be around blacks 23 hours a day hardly amounts to hate. He might well be trying to tell us that he likes being around blacks 22 hours a day. Hell, I wouldn’t want to be around you at all. Doesn’t mean that I hate you. Maybe I just don’t appreciate the odor coming from those who fuck goats. You, on the other hand, like to post a list of cities with black mayors. Post it again and we’ll discuss what undercurrents of racism and hate are to be found in your motivation to post such a list.

  34. 49

    Marvin Stamn spews:

    48. Steve spews:
    Headless not wanting to be around blacks 23 hours a day hardly amounts to hate. He might well be trying to tell us that he likes being around blacks 22 hours a day.

    For someone that wants all us trolls to denounce manoshit, you sure are comfy with giving headless lucy props. Why the double standard? Why do you hold republicans to a higher standard than you hold yourself.
      

    Hell, I wouldn’t want to be around you at all. Doesn’t mean that I hate you. Maybe I just don’t appreciate the odor coming from those who fuck goats.

    So you think headless doesn’t want to be around blacks because he feels they smell? Ouch.
      

    You, on the other hand, like to post a list of cities with black mayors.

    Funny you pointed out they were all black. I was making the point they were all democrats. But then, you work in an all white environment so when there is black man around he does stand out to you. Kinda like joe biden commenting that he found a clean articulate black man. Some people are surprised by the most obvious of things.
      

    Post it again and we’ll discuss what undercurrents of racism and hate are to be found in your motivation to post such a list.

    Like I said, I posted a list of democrat mayors. You projected they were all black. If you thought about it, you could have easily figured out that the democrat mayor of los angeles wasn’t black.
    My motivation was to point out the lower living standards for blacks living in cities under democrat control.
     
    If you are sincere about discussing this issue, please feel free to give your opinion why the top ten cities with the highest poverty rates are under democrat control.

  35. 50

    spews:

    YOU SICK LITTLE KIKE FAGGOTS NEED TO LEARN HOW TO HAVE BUTT BABIES! EXCEPT YOU AIN’T GONNA BE AROUND MUCH LONGER ANYWAY. DEATH TO ISRAEL AND DEATH TO ALL JEWS. GO FUCK YOURSELVES IN THE ASS.

    -KIKE KILLER

  36. 51

    spews:

    AND NIGGERS BEING WORTHLESS PIECES OF SHIT AND WERE SICKED ON US BY THE JEWS, IT’S ONLY FAIR WE SHIP THE NIGGERS OUT WITH THE JEW SCUM.

    NIGGERS ARE FAR TOO FUCKING STUPID TO KNOW THEY ARE TOTALLY CONTROLLED BY THE FUCKING JEWS. THEY ARE JUST RAPING, MURDERING MUH-DIK SUCKING PIECES OF SHIT. WE ARE GOING TO CLEAN THIS PLACE UP OF ALL JEWS, NIGGERS, WETBACKS, CHINKS, FAGGOTS, AND DOT HEADS, THEN WE CLOSE THE FUCKING BORDERS THAT THE KIKE SCUM OPENED UP LET THIS SHIT IN.

    -KIKE KILLER

  37. 52

    Steve spews:

    @49 “you sure are comfy with giving headless lucy props. Why the double standard”

    I don’t give him props. The double standard would start if I were to Headless or anybody else crossing over into overt racism and bogotry.

    “Funny you pointed out they were all black. I was making the point they were all democrats.”

    You’re so full of shit. You made the point that they were black mayors. Why? Post the original list again and we’ll discuss your motivations.

    “So you think headless doesn’t want to be around blacks because he feels they smell? Ouch.”

    I never said any such thing. Now you’re resorting to making shit up. Fuck off.

    “But then, you work in an all white environment so when there is black man around he does stand out to you.”

    More made up bullshit.

    “Like I said, I posted a list of democrat mayors.”

    You posted a list of black mayors, you lying piece of shit.

    “If you are sincere about discussing this issue”

    What, with someone who fucks goats? Go to hell and take your friend @50 and 51 with you.

  38. 53

    Steve spews:

    @50 and 51 “KIKE KILLER”

    Take that shit to Stormfront, asswipe. And take that racist, goatfucking piece of shit Marvin with you.

  39. 54

    Marvin Stamn spews:

    52. Steve spews:
    You posted a list of black mayors, you lying piece of shit.

     
    If it was true you would have posted the link and rubbed it in my face.
     
    Notice how I post the link about you using the “faggot” word?
     

    “But then, you work in an all white environment so when there is black man around he does stand out to you.”
    More made up bullshit.

     
    Do you want me to find YOUR words about there not being any blacks in your field in puget sound? Do you really want me to rub your words in your face like one would rub a dogs nose in his own shit to teach him not to shit in the house?
     

    Go to hell and take your friend @50 and 51 with you.

     
    Not my friend. I have no idea who he is. More made up bullshit

  40. 55

    Marvin Stamn spews:

    53. Steve spews:
    Take that shit to Stormfront, asswipe. And take that racist, goatfucking piece of shit Marvin with you.

     
    Where did the “faggot” insults go steve? Did you realize how fucked up that made you look?

  41. 56

    Steve spews:

    @54 “Do you want me to find YOUR words about there not being any blacks in your field in puget sound?”

    Please do, asswipe. Put it into context, you miserable shit. The blacks that were in my engineering field were my friends, one the best friend I’ve ever had – both now dead. I lost my job standing against the bullshit pulled on my best friend. Since their passing, I’ve started an education program at Garfield and Franklin high schools, engineers going to those schools to tutor students, and I have made my concerns about hiring practices known to every firm in the area. Things will change – but not because you fuck goats, asswipe.

    “If it was true you would have posted the link and rubbed it in my face.”

    You’re not worth the trouble of a search. Everybody’s seen those lists. That you’d now lie about posting lists of black mayors is your problem, not mine. Mr. Klynical posted the same list. That asswipe would probably lie as well. Tell me this, goatfucker, why didn’t Puddy, the reknown HA searcher, repost those lists of black mayors when I rubbed his face in it?

    @55 “Where did the “faggot” insults go steve?”

    You took that statement out of context because that’s all you have left – making shit up. Stuff it up your ass, goatfucker.

    You know, I’m starting to dislike you, Marvin. Of course, I never did cotton to you goatfucking pieces of shit.

  42. 57

    Marvin Stamn spews:

    56. Steve spews:
    @54 “Do you want me to find YOUR words about there not being any blacks in your field in puget sound?”
    Please do, asswipe.

     
    Sorry, you’re not worth the trouble of a search.
      

    The blacks that were in my engineering field were my friends

     
    blah blah blah.
    Isn’t your reply exactly the same kind of a reply a racist would say… “I have black friends.”
      

    “If it was true you would have posted the link and rubbed it in my face.”
    You’re not worth the trouble of a search.

     
    Of course. You know the truth, that’s why you won’t post it. There is nothing you would like to do more than rub my face in it if you could. Just like I’m enjoying rubbing your face in your “faggot” comment.
      

    Mr. Klynical posted the same list

     
    We were talking about you making shit up about my list. I don’t blame you for changing the subject.
     

    Tell me this,

     
    As soon as you tell me why you have issues with “faggots.”
      

    why didn’t Puddy, the reknown HA searcher, repost those lists of black mayors when I rubbed his face in it?

     
    See, you do like to rub peoples face in it. So your refusal to quote my “black mayor” list proves my point.

    @55 “Where did the “faggot” insults go steve?”
    You took that statement out of context

     
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    I’ve been posting the link. Let me quote your words again…
     
    61. Steve spews:
    That faggot Marvin is such a cunt!
    05/03/2009 AT 9:49 AM
    http://horsesass.org/?p=15688#comment-915697

     
    Follow the link. Word for word, nothing out of context.
      

    You know, I’m starting to dislike you, Marvin

     
    Starting to?? So you call people you like goatfucker and “faggot?”
     
    I know why you are “starting” to dislike me… You hate your name and your insulting use of “faggot” being posted by me. You know you fucked up, and you hate that I know it and I’m abusing you with it.
     
    Thanks for playing along and giving me a couple more chances to document your use of the word “faggot.”

  43. 58

    Marvin Stamn spews:

    56. Steve spews:
    @54 “Do you want me to find YOUR words about there not being any blacks in your field in puget sound?”
    Please do, asswipe.

    Sorry, you’re not worth the trouble of a search.

    The blacks that were in my engineering field were my friends

    blah blah blah.
    Isn’t your reply exactly the same kind of a reply a racist would say… “I have black friends.”

    “If it was true you would have posted the link and rubbed it in my face.”
    You’re not worth the trouble of a search.

    Of course. You know the truth, that’s why you won’t post it. There is nothing you would like to do more than rub my face in it if you could. Just like I’m enjoying rubbing your face in your “faggot” comment.

    Mr. Klynical posted the same list

    We were talking about you making shit up about my list. I don’t blame you for changing the subject.

    Tell me this,

    As soon as you tell me why you have issues with “faggots.”

    why didn’t Puddy, the reknown HA searcher, repost those lists of black mayors when I rubbed his face in it?

    See, you do like to rub peoples face in it. So your refusal to quote my “black mayor” list proves my point.

    @55 “Where did the “faggot” insults go steve?”
    You took that statement out of context

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    I’ve been posting the link. Let me quote your words again…

    61. Steve spews:
    That faggot Marvin is such a cunt!
    05/03/2009 AT 9:49 AM
    http://horsesass.org/?p=15688#comment-915697

    Follow the link. Word for word, nothing out of context. You used the “faggot” word as an insult.

    You know, I’m starting to dislike you, Marvin

    Starting to?? So you call people you like goatfucker and “faggot?”

    I know why you are “starting” to dislike me… You hate your name and your insulting use of “faggot” being posted by me. You know you fucked up, and you hate that I know it and I’m abusing you with it.

    Thanks for playing along and giving me a couple more chances to document your use of the word “faggot.”

  44. 59

    Marvin Stamn spews:

    56. Steve spews:
    @54 “Do you want me to find YOUR words about there not being any blacks in your field in puget sound?”
    Please do, asswipe.

    Sorry, you’re not worth the trouble of a search.

    The blacks that were in my engineering field were my friends

    blah blah blah.
    Isn’t your reply exactly the same kind of a reply a racist would say… “I have black friends.”

    “If it was true you would have posted the link and rubbed it in my face.”
    You’re not worth the trouble of a search.

    Of course. You know the truth, that’s why you won’t post it. There is nothing you would like to do more than rub my face in it if you could. Just like I’m enjoying rubbing your face in your “faggot” comment.

    Mr. Klynical posted the same list

    We were talking about you making shit up about my list. I don’t blame you for changing the subject.

    Tell me this,

    As soon as you tell me why you have issues with “faggots.”

    why didn’t Puddy, the reknown HA searcher, repost those lists of black mayors when I rubbed his face in it?

    See, you do like to rub peoples face in it. So your refusal to quote my “black mayor” list proves my point.

    @55 “Where did the “faggot” insults go steve?”
    You took that statement out of context

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    I’ve been posting the link. Let me quote your words again…

    61. Steve spews:
    That faggot Marvin is such a cunt!
    05/03/2009 AT 9:49 AM
    http://horsesass.org/?p=15688#comment-915697

    Follow the link. Word for word, nothing out of context. You used the “faggot” word as an insult.

    You know, I’m starting to dislike you, Marvin

    Starting to?? So you call people you like goatfucker and “faggot?”

    I know why you are “starting” to dislike me… You hate your name and your insulting use of “faggot” being posted by me. You know you fucked up, and you hate that I know it and I’m abusing you with it.

    Thanks for playing along and giving me a couple more chances to document your use of the word “faggot.”