43 thoughts on “Deadpan the Reaper

  1. Do we know anybody who wants a snake?

    Since that we found the last missing one yesterday, we now have three of the silly things, which is too many.

  2. Maybe Cheyenne can create a version with a banner with that image and a trail of deadpans in front of you. Or even a bunch of live pans rebelling against their overlord. ;)

  3. Ok, in an effort to up the comments (and avoid work), I’m going to try to do the ABC’s of animal puns.

    A – Ant

    An anthill developed a foul smell so they brought in a deodor-ant.

  4. B – Bat
    Batman’s crime fighting-partner could not swim, but he could float. He was known as Robin the Buoy Wonder.

    (ok, so not really, but I thought it was funny when it was told to me)

  5. D – Dog

    I once owned a black and white spotted dog I named Stains. I could never understand why the neighbours all looked at me strange whenever I called him, “come, Stains!”

  6. Ok, that was dumb, try this

    E – Eel

    The snakelike fish was well read on a wide variety of subjects. He was an eclectic eel.

  7. F – Fish

    When fish are in schools they sometimes take debate.

    Or

    Even though food was plentiful, the whale was depressed and wanted to end it all. He said, “Goodbye, krill world.” Okay, okay, I admit that I am prawn to bad puns.

  8. G – Goat

    My pet Billy Goat is very tame. I named him Parkay because he is not a butter. Just kidding. Don’t get gruff with me.

  9. That’s too bad about CA. I don’t want gay men in committed monogamous marriages. I want them out there with as many partners as possible! That way there’ll be less competition for straight women! Well, I’m in a monogamous relationship myself, but think about my son’s future!

  10. Hell no! You know how much a California wedding would cost?!! And with the bride’s father typically footing the cost of the wedding, I thought I would dodge that bullet with my son, but with two grooms I’m sure I’d have to go halves at least.

  11. hmmmm
    Okay – here’s an idea.

    I think that there are two separate ideas working here that have become mingled (mangled?) over the years.

    There is a government acknowledged union which is a mater of bookkeeping. The government needs to know how to classify a household for tax and benefit purposes (and now for regulated insurance purposes). The Chromosomes should be irrelevant for this discussion. If 2 people are signing a public contract to take care of one another … that eases the burden on society and is a good thing.

    Then there is a social, religious backed “marriage”. This is a public statement made by two individuals in the eyes of their church (whatever denomination or sect that may be) that they are committed to take care of one another for the rest of their lives in accordance to their religious beliefs.
    The government should have absolutely no say in what any religious group decides is a “marriage” in their belief although the religious belief.
    To go along with this though, the government should not have to recognize ANY religious based contract as having any legal standing. So if your religion says you can marry a tree, well fine … but you can’t declare the tree on your taxes. Also if your religion says you can marry a 4 year old … well fine. If you get caught having sex with the child though you will be prosecuted for breaking a law.

    So, I believe you have a personal, religious based “marriage” and then you have a government, licensed based “partnership” or contract.

    While the two ideas may have some intersecting goals they really have separate masters and therefor, the two should keep their hands off one another.

    Thoughts?

  12. Seems like we talked about this a few years ago. My take: there is supposed to be separation of church and state and marriage has both legal and religious aspects. In my mind, the government shouldn’t issue anything with the word “marriage” on it for anyone, straight or gay. As far as the state is concerned they should issue “articles of partnership” etc. that lay-out the tax, child rearing etc. ramifications. If you want a marriage license, you then go to the religious institution of your choice and receive one, but that license would have no legal status what-so-ever. Then we could get around ticked off religious people saying the state was redefining their faith and people wanting to have a marraige wouldn’t be provented from having one based on the law.

  13. maybe “provented” SHOULD be a word. :)

    My thinking is that besides the benifits that Rhet just stated … perhaps it would provide economic insentives for the young to take care of the elderly.

    What if a 20 something, just out of college (good income single) wanted to have her elderly aunt come and live with her. WOuldn’t it be in societies best interest to foster this sort of relationship? Talk about your “traditional family value”!
    So why not allow the two to have the same financial benifits that are given to a “married” couple? In the idea that has been mentioned by myself and Rhet … the yuppie and her aunt could be given “partnership status” which would be to everyone’s benifit … as long as the Aunt was really cool and didn’t smell like “old people”.

  14. Dude! You married your Aunt? LOL

    Actually I agree completely, there are a lot of non traditional families that could bennefit by a legally protected status of some sort.

  15. Great pic Cheyenne!!!

    Re Marriage, I agree with you j0e. “Marriage” is a religious based institution and it should be separate from the government acknowledged and sanctioned union. Separation of church and state is an idea we need to revisit as a whole in this country.

    I also think a religion can decide its rules if only man and woman means marriage, then fine, its your religion, keep it in your religion. The government on the other hand should not be tainted by religion (separation of church and state) and should allow all unions. Religion is a choice, the religion chooses its rules, and you choose to live under those rules, but the government is supposed to provide for ALL its citizens (and in the case of illegal immigrants it provides for people who are not citizens too) Gay people are citizens of the united states. end of argument, they should be able to have a government sanctioned union.

    Hugh and I were never marred in a church, we don’t recognize our union as a religious sacrament. I would be more than happy to call us a united couple or a joined couple instead of a married couple. I have no desire to deman I be considered married. Marruage is a religious sacrament and religion had nothing to do with our union.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *