Michael Ramirez by Michael Ramirez

Michael Ramirez

Comments (45) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. mrs1wing

    mrs1wing GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    …and, so it begins…

  2. acellist

    acellist GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    And why can’t a bird fly with only one wing… it’s only a matter of a pinion!

  3. Jeff H

    Jeff H said, over 1 year ago

    Where’s the goat?

  4. Newenglandah

    Newenglandah said, over 1 year ago

    @Jeff H

    No one is going to marry their goat, their dog, or any other animal. Animals cannot give consent. Is that really too hard for the religious far-right to understand?

  5. TheHook

    TheHook said, over 1 year ago

    @mrs1wing

    I think it’s more like….and so it ends.

  6. snarky39

    snarky39 said, over 1 year ago

    @Newenglandah

    Give it time Newenglandah. 50 years ago, anyone suggesting marriage between people of the same sex would have been waved off as a nutjob.

  7. Rx71Wm29

    Rx71Wm29 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Can “legalized” polygamy be far off? If “marriage” is just a legalism, then ALL forms of “marriage” can, in principle, be lagalized.

  8. Kevin Robinson

    Kevin Robinson said, over 1 year ago

    @Newenglandah

    I suggest you Google “man marries dog” and do some research.

  9. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 1 year ago

    Marriage customs — like a lot of culture — are heavily influenced by material conditions. If the material conditions are such that polygamy makes sense, then there will be polygamy. Ancient Hebrew society was polygamous, and God seemed to think that was okay for them. I guess God is a moral relativist.

  10. Griff

    Griff GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Asinine and stupid.

  11. The Wolf In Your Midst

    The Wolf In Your Midst said, over 1 year ago

    The same argument that was given against interracial marriage. You bigots were wrong then and you bigots are wrong now.
    It’s obvious you won’t change your minds no matter how wrong you are, so can you just shut up and go away?

  12. Kevin Robinson

    Kevin Robinson said, over 1 year ago

    @Nantucket19

    My aren’t we sensitize. I was merely showing you that you were wrong about people marring animals. I did not try to get into the legal or moral implications. But if you insist on going there I DO BELIEVE IT IS WRONG TO CALL IT A MARRIAGE. Historically marriage is between a man and a woman. They should just strive to have laws that recognize and legitimize benefits and rights equal to heterosexual couples. Hetero couples do not have to be married to get the same benefits as married couples.

  13. jack75287

    jack75287 said, over 1 year ago

    @Dycel

    The question deserves to be asked, what’s next? It is already being asked.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_marriage

    By CNN:
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/20/opinion/george-gay-marriage

    By phycology;
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-without-limits/201203/group-marriage-and-the-future-the-family

    And the General public:
    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Group-marriage/110613338967719

  14. d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release

    d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release said, over 1 year ago

    Only Republicans equate homosexual marriage to marrying inanimate objects. And isn’t marrying your sister a red neck thing?

  15. Newenglandah

    Newenglandah said, over 1 year ago

    1)Kevin: I suggest you do some research on what constitutes consent.
    2)Snarky, fifty years ago anyone who suggested that a black woman and a white man should be allowed to marry in Texas would have been waved off as a nut job. One hundred years ago in many parts of the world anyone who suggested that a young girl should be allowed to marry the young man she was in love with rather than someone her father chose for her without her input would have been waved off as a nut job. What is your point? No one of any consequence is suggesting that anyone should be able to marry their dog; marriage of necessity implies consent.
    3) The claim that marriage has been always defined in one way since the beginning of civilization is bunk. Throughout history marriage has variously been a form of slavery, a business contract, and a formalization of business alliances between two families. Ever see “Fiddler on the Roof” where young women had no say over who their fathers chose for their husbands? The book of Genesis indicates that Jacob had as many as four wives. Marriage as right-wing Christians are trying to define it is a relatively recent invention

  16. Load the rest of the comments (30).