Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #388 - disiprine (01/21/2013) [-]
The reality of this situation is that the gays aren`t marrying for `love` they are marrying for financial benefits such as lower expenses per person and cross-employer health plans, not that they don`t deserve this, but marriage is not a right to have for everyone, it is a privilege, a privilege subjugated by christian and catholic law which BLATANTLY STATES that marriage is between man and woman only. If there is a religion that marries gays then go right the **** for it.
#474 to #388 - instalation (01/21/2013) [-]
Please just shut up. You're giving the rest of us religious a bad name. ;~;

we're not all close minded assholes..
User avatar #446 to #388 - Keleth (01/21/2013) [-]
if marriage was only recognized by the religious bodies, then i would agree its a little silly...but no...government sees marriage and they see civil partnerships as less. much less rights
#445 to #388 - rotinaj has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #458 to #445 - disiprine (01/21/2013) [-]
>atheist religions
son what the actual **** .
User avatar #433 to #388 - lazaman (01/21/2013) [-]

Because us gays are TOTALLY incapable of love, and we TOTALLY would never want to marry each other.

Mhm, thank you for enlightening me on MY feelings, thanks buddy!
User avatar #503 to #433 - shfreaksixninesix (01/31/2013) [-]
please don't attack me, this is an honest question. (I'm pro gay rights)
Why do you want to be_ married_? I understand that two people have the right to be together as a couple and be recognized as such, but why choose to go through an expensive ceremony, and vows that are trivial to think make a couple more couple-y when all that matters is that you love each other? not to side with #388, but you have to understand where hes coming from (albeit a very poorly put together point with loads of assumption) it kinda looks like the reaping of financial benefits. i guess what im saying is that, and this also applies to straight couples as well, why isn't the pure joy of love with another enough to be content instead of labeling oneself through an antiquated and, frankly redundant, ritual?
please no rage, it's only a question and i will gladly accept your answer, angry or not.
#473 to #433 - frohling (01/21/2013) [-]
hey lazaman we support your rights and everything, and I am not hating on you. but seriously bro don't be a fag :P
User avatar #437 to #433 - disiprine (01/21/2013) [-]
Perhaps I was a bit general with my words, *most gays *most marriages are under catholic law
#408 to #388 - anon (01/21/2013) [-]
>implying straight people arent doing that.

I think you'll find there are gays marrying for love just as much as there are straights abusing the system.
User avatar #414 to #408 - disiprine (01/21/2013) [-]
Read the whole paragraph please.
#422 to #414 - anon (01/21/2013) [-]
I did. Your religion comment is ******** . You dont need religion to get married retard.
#396 to #388 - anon (01/21/2013) [-]
Yes and in American law constitution reigns supreme over any other word
User avatar #398 to #396 - disiprine (01/21/2013) [-]
When did I say that? I'm in canada ******** .
#391 to #388 - anon (01/21/2013) [-]
Marriage existed before the bible. Its not purely christian so they dont own the rights to it. Plus religious law and governmental law SHOULD NOT apply to each other. Religion has no place in politics.
User avatar #394 to #391 - disiprine (01/21/2013) [-]
Implying marriage is politics, implying marriage before religion.
#406 to #394 - anon (01/21/2013) [-]
There were religions and marriages before Christianity dumbass. I'm talking about its up to the government to pass same sex laws i.e. POLITICS so religion has no right to say it shouldnt be passed. If marriage is only Christian how the **** did the ancient Egyptians and non-Christian countries marry for many years before the bible?
User avatar #413 to #406 - disiprine (01/21/2013) [-]
Ancient Egypt and non-christian countries married under theeir own religion, obviously. Marriage is all under religious affairs, I thought I made that clear.
User avatar #410 to #406 - disiprine (01/21/2013) [-]
Holy **** it`s like talking to Bill O`Reilly faggot version, first of all, get an account, second of all, please read, third, I never said there weren`t religions before christianity, fourth I said if there was a religion where gays can marry they should, please read before rebutting to refrain from looking like an ass.
#416 to #410 - anon (01/21/2013) [-]
1) Dont rage because Im anon just because you cant form a legit argument
2) Im not gay Im just not an arrogant **** like you. I'm throwing legit arguments at you and you have no reputable come backs.
3) You said " implying marriage before religion" saying that marriages cant have existed before it. Which it did. So.. yeah you are a hypocrite and clearly dont read before you post.
Why should there be a religion where they should marry? Why not atheism WHICH I DID MENTION! There are Christians who accept gay marriage, atheists which accept it, muslims, jews etc. Just because YOU dont doesnt mean others dont.
Religion has no place in this. So dont ******* mention it. Its up to the government NOT religion. So it has no legit place in this argument.
Me read? Yeh... I just proved what an idiot you are. I had to repeat all my points here because you clearly are too stupid to have seen them.
User avatar #430 to #416 - disiprine (01/21/2013) [-]
Also I don't see you providing back-up for saying that marriage existed before religion, which it didn't, atheists can't be reverends who marry, and religon has everything to do with marriage, you saying it being under the state/government implies that there were forms of government before religious beliefs, I see history isn't your major.
#444 to #430 - anon (01/21/2013) [-]
You dont need a reverend to marry. You sign a sheet idiot in an office.
"forms of government" can include tribes of cavemen where we didnt have idols we just hunted like animals. So yes, there were.
Just look it up. If you cant grasp my point that religion doesnt have place in deciding same sex laws your just a ******* idiot. One simple point just cant be grasped by that ignorant singular brain cell.
User avatar #450 to #444 - disiprine (01/21/2013) [-]
Ignorant of the fact of....?
User avatar #423 to #416 - disiprine (01/21/2013) [-]
"If there is a religion that marries gays then go right the **** for it." I'm pretty sure I said that.
User avatar #449 to #423 - Keleth (01/21/2013) [-]
problem with that is, ITS ******* ILLEGAL!!!! thats the entire ******* problem!!!! MAKE IT LEGAL and then the churches that agree with it can do the ceremony!!
#435 to #423 - anon (01/21/2013) [-]
"Religion has n0 place in this argument" AND religion doesnt decide whether same sex marriage is passed.
Pretty sure I said that about 4 times now. Religion has no place in deciding who marries who. THUS... this might be TOO hard for you to grasp... your entire argument is void. Every religion has people who accepts it anyway.
User avatar #443 to #435 - disiprine (01/21/2013) [-]
My argument is that gays shouldn't marry under religions that disallow it, how is it void? it makes perfect sense.
#448 to #443 - anon (01/21/2013) [-]
You said gay marriage is wrong because marriage is under Christian law. Which it ISNT.
My point is you're bringing religion into government. THEY decide the bill not some catholic loons so stop bringing them into it. They have no place. End of. NO religion in politics. Dont back up gay marriage as bad because of some pathetic Christian laws. They shouldnt mix.
User avatar #456 to #448 - disiprine (01/21/2013) [-]
Sorry I meant to say most marriages in america, I suppose that was the hole, too late to patch it up now. I never said gay marriage it bad, not did i state I was against it, I was being sensible toward the people against it and why, being an anti-theist I really don't see myself in another situation backing up the relgious people.
 Friends (0)