What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#254 - russianbro has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #265 to #254 - pokemonstheshiz (07/01/2012) [-]
I'm pretty sure no one is actually serious about black stereotypes, stereotypes in general are used for humor on the internet. The people opposing gay rights are actually intolerant.
#277 to #265 - ishotthedeputy (07/01/2012) [-]
It's not all pure ignorance. My opinion is based off my religion. I think that gays are born that way, and because of that, they are asked to bear the cross of not being able to marry someone just as a diabetic is asked to not eat sugar (I realize their different). If they choose not to, that's fine. I don't care, I just don't want the government to make us change our definition. That's just silly
User avatar #281 to #277 - pokemonstheshiz (07/01/2012) [-]
I didn't say ignorance, I said intolerance. No one would be asking you to change your definition (whatever that means), they are asking the government to recognize legal unions between partners of the same sex (civil unions don't give the same rights that marriages do). They can't force your church to marry two gay men, but if a church marries them, the government should have to accept it. There are two possibilities here, either marriage is a religious institution (it's been around much longer than Christianity, but it's been government mandated since the Council of Trent) or it is not religious. If it is religious, the government can not recognize it as a legal union and at the same time not recognize other forms (civil unions). If it is not religious (it is now since a preacher conducts the ceremony) then it should be available to all citizens.
#283 to #281 - ishotthedeputy (07/01/2012) [-]
That's why I almost am thinking that you keep marriage as purely a religious ceremony, and everything else is a legal union (all unions would have the same benefits). /but then again, there's probably something I greatly overlooked. Honestly, I'm not too opinionated on it, I've been kind of flip-flopping around views trying to see which is right, because we do have to acknowledge that's it's different. It's unnatural for 2 men or 2 women to be together in a sexual partnership, my source being biology. But then again, it's pretty common and it doesn't hurt, so why worry? I don't know.
User avatar #286 to #283 - pokemonstheshiz (07/01/2012) [-]
That's exactly what I'm saying, the government can't force church to do anything, this is purely a debate on how the government views marriage and civil unions legally. It's actually not that unnatural for homosexuality, it occurs quite a lot in nature, even among some apes.
#289 to #286 - ishotthedeputy (07/01/2012) [-]
I didn't mean for humans. I'm just saying, sex makes babies, that's the original purpose for sex (in my opinion. If not; agree to disagree), and you can't make a baby with gay sex
User avatar #291 to #289 - pokemonstheshiz (07/01/2012) [-]
A few animals have sex for pleasure actually (dolphins and humans are the only ones I can think of right now), but that is the biological function of it yes. Homosexuality is just part of natural selection I think, but it doesn't hurt anyone. They can't make a baby, but they can adopt one and give it a much better home than an orphanage (right now it's much harder because they look at your financial status and relationship status as a sign of how well you can take care of the child. If you're not married your partners income isn't factored in so it looks like you make less)
#292 to #291 - ishotthedeputy (07/01/2012) [-]
Well then it doesn't seem like the psychological state of the child wouldn't be that good (I have no stats or anything, just a theory). It just seems like if you're a kid with 2 gay dads, that wouldn't seem to fit right with the child's head. But then again, it's probably better than an orphanage. See this is the whole back-and-forth thought process that I have
User avatar #294 to #292 - pokemonstheshiz (07/01/2012) [-]
It would be much better than an orphanage, and it wouldn't really have much of an effect on the child. According to that argument, single parents and divorced then remarried parents shouldn't have kids since it deviates from the social norm. The child would still be exposed to society, so it's not like it would think of gay as the norm and straight as different. Really the worse that could happen is the child turns out to be gay, but even then who cares?
#295 to #294 - ishotthedeputy (07/01/2012) [-]
You're a good man and your logic is sound, not like most people here who throw out the word ignorant like a soda can, but can't back up their own argument when another opinion comes in
User avatar #296 to #295 - pokemonstheshiz (07/01/2012) [-]
*shrugs modestly* I try. There's no point in having an opinion if it's arbitrary, I try to think my thoughts through before I voice them.
#263 to #254 - myllamaispurple Comment deleted by ireallyneedtofap [-]
#258 to #254 - tankwipe Comment deleted by ireallyneedtofap [-]
#282 to #258 - anon (07/01/2012) [-]
while i agree to this accusation, there have been many time on here when ive gottan thumbed down to butt **** and back because i mentioned that i was black.

and by funnyjunks definition, i'm not even a " ****** "

thats just me though...

-going anon just in case retards happen-
#262 to #258 - russianbro has deleted their comment [-]
#273 to #262 - tankwipe Comment deleted by ireallyneedtofap [-]
#255 to #254 - russianbro has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)