Tumblr. You guys like Tumblr, right? I screenshot this all by myself.. ati son y Dbl SC U it: I am really bothered by the tact that basically the only reason wh
x
Click to expand

Tumblr

Tumblr. You guys like Tumblr, right? I screenshot this all by myself.. ati son y Dbl SC U it: I am really bothered by the tact that basically the only reason wh

You guys like Tumblr, right? I screenshot this all by myself.

ati son y Dbl SC U it:
I am really bothered by the tact that basically the only
reason why gay marriage is illegal is because some
people think it' s disgusting- You know, I think peas are
disgusting but were MIT MAKING THAT ILLEGAL ARE
what' s wrong with you peas are delicious
gay people are delicious too
no dessert tor you until you eat all your gays
huh at the **** just happened here
Source:
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+2130
Views: 56906
Favorited: 206
Submitted: 02/11/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to itsmepapaone submit to reddit

Comments(304):

[ 304 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #185 to #90 - davidavidson (02/12/2013) [-]
Yeah bro.. we got the joke -_-

I promise.
User avatar #177 to #2 - kratosalza (02/12/2013) [-]
Wheres the original comic from?
User avatar #224 to #177 - optimistchime (02/12/2013) [-]
The internet
#47 - goll (02/12/2013) [-]
#57 to #47 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
Rule 25
User avatar #142 to #97 - byposted (02/12/2013) [-]
Around 75% of divorces are filed by women.

We gave women rights and see what happened? What makes you think giving fags rights will be beneficial?
User avatar #154 to #142 - setittowumbo (02/12/2013) [-]
Okay it's one thing to joke bro...
User avatar #156 to #154 - byposted (02/12/2013) [-]
I'm not joking, I'm serious. Feminism has destroyed marriage, as can be seen with divorce and divorce courts.

User avatar #163 to #156 - setittowumbo (02/12/2013) [-]
Dude, what's wrong with women filing divorces? And not every woman is like that okay? Have you been friendzoned to many times or are you a homosexual sexist? And who cares if someone gets a divorce? That's their business and not only that. If a woman doesn't want to be with someone then she doesn't have to be with that person anymore just like a man doesn't have to.
#164 to #163 - byposted (02/12/2013) [-]
Marriage used to be a binding which lasted a lifetime. Today it amounts to a gold-digging bitch who ends up stealing the man's children and taking 2/4th of his paycheck.
#173 to #164 - larukuai (02/12/2013) [-]
Ouch

someones bitter
User avatar #182 to #164 - setittowumbo (02/12/2013) [-]
Sorry for the big ass comment. I got kind of heated. I shouldn't get so butt hurt over a comment. So I'm sorry. I'm also sorry if your mother was a gold digging whore that left your father.
User avatar #180 to #164 - setittowumbo (02/12/2013) [-]
Um...is that what happened between YOUR parents? Because that didn't happen between mine. Nor my grandparents. Nor my friends. Yes there are gold digging bitches out there but that doesn't mean every single ******* woman is like that. I'm not and neither is my mother.

Oh hell no, my mother married a very poor guy, not like dirt or poverty poor, but on the borderline. My mom is richer than him. She works 10 hours a day for six sometimes even seven days a week. She gets paid $17.89 and hour and works hard for her money in a ****** as public place in the Stater Bros bakery.

Guess what my dads job is? He's on disability because he has FTD. She hasn't left him. She sure felt like it a couple of times but she stuck with him because she loves him. I know it's probably the disease but he's a totally ******* moron. I have no idea how she puts up with it. I know I couldn't handle taking care of someone with that disease. My grandfather couldn't take care of my grandmother with the disease properly.

And the disability they send us for him sucks ******* **** . It's 150 a month. So not every woman is out there for money. My cousin isn't marrying her boyfriend for his money. He gets paid minimum ******* wage.
User avatar #183 to #180 - paintplayer (02/12/2013) [-]
I wasn't nearly as mad that you were a sexist as I was that you didn't reduce your fraction.
#187 to #183 - setittowumbo (02/12/2013) [-]
Wait...I'm sorry waht?
User avatar #188 to #187 - paintplayer (02/12/2013) [-]
He said 2/4 instead of 1/2
User avatar #189 to #188 - setittowumbo (02/12/2013) [-]
But how am I sexist? I have read your comment over and over and I don't know what you're trying to say. I'll read it over again I guess...It's really late...I'm not exactly sober right now.
User avatar #191 to #189 - paintplayer (02/12/2013) [-]
This:

"Marriage used to be a binding which lasted a lifetime. Today it amounts to a gold-digging bitch who ends up stealing the man's children and taking 2/4th of his paycheck."

Not you.
#193 to #191 - marriage (02/12/2013) [-]
Oh God, make the alerts stop.
#202 to #193 - critique (02/12/2013) [-]
I'm so sorry man... here, have a hug on me.
I'm so sorry man... here, have a hug on me.
User avatar #192 to #191 - setittowumbo (02/12/2013) [-]
Oh. You replied to me though. That's why I was confused. Sorry.
User avatar #196 to #164 - Faz (02/12/2013) [-]
A life time back in the good old days meant until someone got sick, people weren't living till like 70+ years old back then thus not having enough time to get bored of each other, you cannot compare things like marriage and how it used to be. Plus the amount of "gold digger" marriages are tiny yet you only think they are huge because the media actually cover them. Saying gold diggers are the reason marriage fails is like saying a grenade won world war 2.
#200 to #196 - byposted (02/12/2013) [-]
Saying gold diggers are the reason marriage fails is like saying a grenade won world war 2.
Marriage stability has declined into Rock Bottom since the woman's liberation movement. Certainly, it is much more than just a grenade on Marne.
User avatar #210 to #200 - Faz (02/12/2013) [-]
Actually thats a leap from 1%-2% (according to the graph), im not sure where you got the graph but i think its incredibly wrong.
User avatar #208 to #200 - Faz (02/12/2013) [-]
First off that graph uses a tiny scale to make the change look larger than it is, 10% to 20% really isn't that great of a leap, secondly how does giving women rights correlate to gold digging? When a woman and a man are together for a long time and that woman has been forced into being a house wife thus having no job/no skills to get a job its only fair that half the wealth goes to the woman just so she can have her **** sorted.
User avatar #249 to #164 - zombifier (02/12/2013) [-]
dude, most of this site are fag loving, liberal retards

you're wasting your time trying to explain good values to people that want to reject what nature intended
#246 to #164 - greenthegunstar (02/12/2013) [-]
Did something...happen to you in the past?
#48 - tehcypher (02/12/2013) [-]
this should come in handy
#217 to #198 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
I'M AN IDIOT!
#243 to #206 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
Asians can actually read minds
#247 to #243 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
we have a winrar
#157 - LuigiBandicoot (02/12/2013) [-]
IF YE DON'T EAT YER gayS, YE CAN'T HAVE ANY PEAS! HOW CAN YE HAVE ANY PEAS IF YE DON'T EAT YER gayS?!
User avatar #312 to #157 - itsmepapaone (02/15/2013) [-]
What is that a reference to?
#169 to #157 - tyuru (02/12/2013) [-]
ARE THERE ANY QUEERS IN THE THEATER TONIGHT?
#184 to #169 - brothergrimm ONLINE (02/12/2013) [-]
"if i had my way, I'D HAVE ALL OF YA SHOT!!!"

mfw kids these days
#171 - personone (02/12/2013) [-]
**personone rolled a random image posted in comment #316 at everyone agrees **
**personone rolled a random image posted in comment #316 at everyone agrees **
#234 - codeboy (02/12/2013) [-]
**codeboy rolled a random image posted in comment #2 at Sol's Son ** Eat them. Eat them all.
User avatar #145 - biggrand (02/12/2013) [-]
"How can you have any peas when you havent eaten' your gays?"
User avatar #71 - Laddie (02/12/2013) [-]
Why do people on Tumblr feel the need to capitaLIZE THEIR LETTERS HALFWAY THROUGH THE SENTENCE.
#73 to #71 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
i was just abouT TO ******* SAY THAT
User avatar #190 - flamingwombat (02/12/2013) [-]
It's not illegal because it's disgusting. It's illegal because a book says that it's wrong. As Patton Oswalt said, "If the gay-bashers just came out and said that they don't like gay people because it's disgusting and it kills my boner....then that would be a valid argument!"

Anybody who isn't gay would think that being gay is gross, but not a crime, and we wouldn't care anyway. It's the over-religious assholes that make it illegal.
#203 to #190 - byposted (02/12/2013) [-]
"If the anti-White liberals just came out and said that they don't like White people because they love the BBC...then that would be a valid argument!"
#241 to #190 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
Fun-fact: The Bible never says anything about gay marriage being wrong.
User avatar #264 to #241 - flamingwombat (02/12/2013) [-]
Well, I couldn't care less because I've never read the bible, I'm just saying it as if I were also a christian. THEY say that the bible says its wrong.
+2
#38 - epilepticelephant **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #88 - sausageparty (02/12/2013) [-]
Pretty much the same reason why prostitution is illegal in some countries. People might give some other stupid argument, but at the end of the day it comes down to them personally being disgusted by it.
User avatar #96 to #88 - dreamcast (02/12/2013) [-]
Well it cannot be taxed so that leaves a very good reason for the government to make it illegal. I mean its not like weed where the government can allow companys to produce better product than whats on the street.
User avatar #98 to #96 - sausageparty (02/12/2013) [-]
What are you talking about. Of course it can be taxed. It's being taxed all over the world.
User avatar #100 to #98 - dreamcast (02/12/2013) [-]
Well what are the restrictions on prostitution around the world? Is it just legal in general or do you have to get certifications and set it up as a business? I mean if it was as business than yes it would make sense for it to be taxed.
User avatar #103 to #100 - awesomenessdefined (02/12/2013) [-]
It is a business.
In a lot of countries.
User avatar #107 to #103 - dreamcast (02/12/2013) [-]
I see. Well it makes sense that it could be taxed in that case. In America it would have to be set up that way or else the government would make no money since people could pay less money to have sex with some from the street. Although in this case it is not full legalization.
User avatar #110 to #107 - awesomenessdefined (02/12/2013) [-]
Even a 50% tax would still be cheaper than a boy or girlfriend.
User avatar #113 to #110 - dreamcast (02/12/2013) [-]
Cheaper yes but the point for a boyfriend or girlfriend is for emotional value. If you want sex get a **** buddy and do it for free lol.
User avatar #153 to #113 - sausageparty (02/12/2013) [-]
Yes. Prostitution is not about replacing love or relationships. It's just a question of satisfying the physical need for sex. Street prostitution is illegal in most European countries while tax paying escort agencies and brothels are legal as long as the client pays the sex worker directly and not through a pimp or company. Often either the client will pay an additional magical fairy princessistrative charge to the agency or the prostitute will pay a monthly charge to be listed by the agency or to be allowed to use the brothels premises. If the client pays the company and the company then gives the girl a monthly salary it is illegal.
User avatar #155 to #153 - sausageparty (02/12/2013) [-]
Lol at adm1n1stative being turned into magical fairy princessistrative
User avatar #36 - PubLandlord (02/12/2013) [-]
Isn't marriage a religious ceremony so it's supposed to be up to the Church, a civil partnership gives all the same legal and tax advantages of a marriage.

I am in favor of gay marriage. But if there was a vote on it and 75% of the population voted against it, it would be more important for it to be "illegal" for democracy's sake which is more important
User avatar #176 to #36 - richardsimonsgot (02/12/2013) [-]
You know, just because something is impopular doesn´t mean it is wrong, and we should not consider those opinions, wich are mostly uneducated or religiously biased.
There is Democracy and there is Law; Democracy allows you to choose the people who will represent you, and you are forced to trust them because it is impractical and impossible to have a large number of people speaking theirselves. The Law issues are to provide citizens equality, fairness, and justice. The USA is a republic: you elect representatives to study and vote on the issues for you. The constitution should prevent tyrannical majorities taking away the rights of minorities.
It is supposed the congress and the supreme court are maneged by smart and educated people. Popular and migoted opinions should not have a place there, but they have, and that´s why we complain.
User avatar #39 to #36 - pseudobob **User deleted account** (02/12/2013) [-]
It's really a tough balancing act between political stability and personal freedoms, which I think are equally important but require compromises sometimes.
#49 to #36 - bergvall (02/12/2013) [-]
Civil partnerships are basically considered marriage, they are only allowed in a few states. I believe one of the main reasons is because of the benefits of being married
#226 to #36 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
It's a misconception that marriage is a religious ceremony. Marriage was there a long time before organised religion got a hold of it. And only in the last 200-300 years did marriage become all about love as it is known to us today...
“Marriage originated as a social construct that allowed family patriarchs to facilitate the transfer of chattel property, such as livestock or daughters, through lawful contracts"
#59 - rjgnal ONLINE (02/12/2013) [-]
Tumblr in one picture
User avatar #60 to #59 - drhoffable (02/12/2013) [-]
not quite.
#69 to #60 - matzic (02/12/2013) [-]
those purple lines hurt my brain
User avatar #70 to #69 - drhoffable (02/12/2013) [-]
good
#77 to #70 - matzic (02/12/2013) [-]
What the **** is this witchcraft?
User avatar #289 to #77 - drhoffable (02/13/2013) [-]
nuthin much
#290 to #289 - matzic (02/13/2013) [-]
tell me nao
User avatar #299 to #290 - drhoffable (02/13/2013) [-]
stop bullying me
#306 to #299 - matzic (02/13/2013) [-]
LISTEN YOU LITTLE ****
YOU ARE GONNA TELL ME RIGHT NOW OR I'M GONNA TAKE YOUR LUNCH MONEY
User avatar #11 - coloredfolks (02/11/2013) [-]
byposted please come and save the day
#6 - anon (02/11/2013) [-]
Isn't part of the defnition of marriage that it's between two people of the opposite gender? This is why gay people who want to get married make as much sense to me as non-christians who celebrate christmas. Make up your own emotional/religious/legal bond/holiday and stop using ours incorrectly. I don't see what they're doing as disgusting. I just think they should stop calling it something that it's not.
User avatar #307 to #6 - metalmind (02/14/2013) [-]
Just that you know: the church didn't invent marriage, nor was it ever said in the bible that the only acceptaple type was between 1 man and 1 woman. The church doesn't own marriage.
User avatar #53 to #6 - mexicandudeinsd ONLINE (02/12/2013) [-]
i think marriage was a church thing and if the church doesnt allow it deal with it. about social relationships.......im still not sure
User avatar #82 to #53 - coolcalx (02/12/2013) [-]
marriage is a legal contract that carries with it legal benefits and rights

holy matrimony is a religious covenant between a man, a woman, and God.

the reason gay marriage is a big deal is because of the 1,138 legal rights and benefits associated with marriage, as determined by the Government Accounting Office (see the link)

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

the 14th amendment to the US constitution gives all US citizens equal rights.
the Defense of Marriage act defines marriage as a contract between a man and a woman.
the DOMA is unconstitutional because it directly refuses certain (over 1,000) legal rights to homosexuals, which is a violation of the 14th amendment to the US constitution.

there's no opposing LEGAL case against this. In fact, the DOMA has been found unconstitutional by 8 separate federal courts (no federal court has upheld the DOMA).

User avatar #95 to #82 - awesomenessdefined (02/12/2013) [-]
Your logic is so flawed I can't even.
I don't usually join these things, but c'mon.
So marriage is between a man and a woman.
Therefor any man can marry any woman and have a 'marriage'.
A man marrying a man is not by definition 'marriage'
Since it's not 'marriage' you don't get any of the benefits.
User avatar #122 to #95 - coolcalx (02/12/2013) [-]
are you really that dense?

"A man marrying a man is not by definition 'marriage'"
that's the ******* point dude. that's what we're trying to fix. the Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as a contract between a man and a woman.

the 14th amendment makes that act unconstitutional.

8 federal courts have found the DOMA unconstitutional.

User avatar #126 to #122 - awesomenessdefined (02/12/2013) [-]
Because marriage is a contract between a man and a woman.
User avatar #134 to #126 - coolcalx (02/12/2013) [-]
you're using circular logic.

the act that defined marriage between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.
User avatar #166 to #134 - awesomenessdefined (02/12/2013) [-]
You have the right to get married. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
A man can't marry a man. How is that Unconstitutional.
User avatar #181 to #166 - coolcalx (02/12/2013) [-]
because the 14th amendment to the US constitution gives ALL US citizens EQUAL RIGHTS.

a marriage (which is a legal contract) has 1,138 legal rights and benefits that go along with it, and since the DOMA says only male-female marriages are legal, it DIRECTLY prohibits homosexuals from these 1,138 rights and benefits. that is a violation of the 14th amendment, because it's denying a large portion of US citizens equal rights

there is literally no way I can make this clearer to you.
User avatar #238 to #181 - awesomenessdefined (02/12/2013) [-]
WHAT RIGHT AREN'T THEY GETTING?

I'll start over. MARRIAGE is a right. MARRIAGE is marrying someone of the opposite sex. Marrying someone of the same sex is not MARRIAGE. Therefor, it is not eligible for the rights you get with MARRIAGE.

If you marry someone of the same sex, it is not technically MARRIAGE.

It isn't a right to marry whatever or whoever you want, it's a right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and all homosexual people are free to do that.
User avatar #255 to #238 - coolcalx (02/12/2013) [-]
holy **** dude.

what right aren't they getting?
this is the list of the 1,138 rights that they aren't getting
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
these are all legal rights and benefits that are being denied to homosexuals

again, more circular logic abut the definition of marriage.
I'm beginning to think you're trolling. if not, you may very well be retarded.
User avatar #279 to #255 - awesomenessdefined (02/12/2013) [-]
YOU GET THOSE RIGHTS WHEN YOU MARRY SOMEONE OF THE OPPOSITE SEX.
THEY AREN'T BEING DENIED ANYTHING.

Imagine if a teacher gives the class an assignment to make a model of a car. And says who ever makes the poster gets a peach. Then a kid goes and makes a drawing instead, and expects to get the peach, then complains that he didn't get one.

That's what this sounds like.
#284 to #279 - coolcalx (02/13/2013) [-]
more circular logic, I see.

very well then. this conversation is over.
User avatar #285 to #284 - awesomenessdefined (02/13/2013) [-]
Except for the fact that it's not circular.

God, you really need to just think about it.
User avatar #286 to #285 - coolcalx (02/13/2013) [-]
"YOU GET THOSE RIGHTS WHEN YOU MARRY SOMEONE OF THE OPPOSITE SEX."

that's what the argument is about, you ********** . that's like writing 2+2=5, and when I say you're wrong, you go "nuh uh, it says so right here!"

that's circular logic. We are done here.
User avatar #287 to #286 - awesomenessdefined (02/13/2013) [-]
This is circular logic you *********
I don't have a job because I need experience and I don't have experience because I don't have a job.

Get it right moron.
User avatar #8 to #6 - Kairyuka (02/11/2013) [-]
Marriage is a contract between people who love each other and wants to stay with each other forever. I don't see why gender should rule that contract out.
User avatar #93 to #8 - awesomenessdefined (02/12/2013) [-]
mar·riage
/ˈmarij/
Noun
The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

Are you going to argue with Webster?

Well are you?
User avatar #254 to #93 - Kairyuka (02/12/2013) [-]
I don't care one bit about the vocal definition of marriage, but I know what it symbolizes. And I wouldn't remove that right from any loving consenting couple. Are you really saying that because two of the same gender love each other, they're not allowed to because they were born of the same gender? That's like saying that a Caucasian male is not allowed to marry an Asian female.
User avatar #259 to #254 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
it is a sexual deviation.

inter racial sex or couples is not a deviation or a fetish. homosexulality is.

homos do not "love" each other. their relationship is based on sex. it has been proven
User avatar #261 to #259 - Kairyuka (02/12/2013) [-]
So you say that they've proven a subjective matter? That's quite impressive. Tell me again about exactly how you know who others love and don't love.
User avatar #265 to #261 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
the study found that homosexuality is based on sex. that is not subjective. that is factual
User avatar #266 to #265 - Kairyuka (02/12/2013) [-]
Have fun with that.
User avatar #267 to #266 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
good rebuttal. cant challenge facts LOL

A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners. (openly gay are most deviant)
User avatar #10 to #8 - coloredfolks (02/11/2013) [-]
because homosexuality is based solely on sex. and you know what, i think that sex with a dude is wierd but you know it happens. BUT. they should not get economic benfits from a sexual fetish or get to call themselves "married".
User avatar #12 to #10 - Kairyuka (02/11/2013) [-]
A fetish? Is that what you think love is? A fetish? I feel sorry for you.
User avatar #13 to #12 - coloredfolks (02/11/2013) [-]
A fetish? Is that what you think love is? A fetish? I feel sorry for you.

homosexuality is a fetish. it is based on sex, i love a few of my very best friends and i am attracted to their intellect and personality BUT the reason why i am not gay is becasue i dont have sex with them. bottom line. sex defines homosexuality.
User avatar #18 to #13 - Kairyuka (02/12/2013) [-]
You don't understand it then. And because you don't understand it, doesn't make it false or wrong. It just makes you narrow-minded.
User avatar #21 to #18 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
You don't understand it then.

LOL is that the best you can do LOL. i understand it perfectly. it is a sexual deviancy. which, you are correct, is wrong in my eyes and many others. but so is obesity. BUT obese people dont get economic benfits because they are fat.
User avatar #23 to #21 - Kairyuka (02/12/2013) [-]
It's been a long time since I've spoken to such a narrow-minded person. You've already made up your mind, and you're obviously not willing to debate this like an intelligent person. So I won't bother. Just know that the world isn't only what you perceive it to be.
User avatar #26 to #23 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
It's been a long time since I've spoken to such a narrow-minded person. You've already made up your mind, and you're obviously not willing to debate this like an intelligent person.

incorrect. i am debating you like an intelligent person (you just have no answers lol)

Just know that the world isn't only what you perceive it to be.

no my friend, you are just another sheep, swept up in the mass media and gay, liberal agenda. you are the one taking the world as everybody tells you to take it.
#35 to #26 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
Two people want to spend the rest of their lives together, they want it official, because everyone likes things official. Who are you to tell them they aren't allowed?

I read sexual deviancy earlier, do you have your wife/girlfriend (if you even have one) give you handjobs or other oral pleasures? Do you do those things in return? Do you engage in foreplay? Well i think all of that is atrocious then. You want to do more than just the needed engagement in order to create a child. You want pleasure, and so you seek it out in other forms of sexual activity. So therefore, i don't think you should be allowed to marry your girlfriend, and if you have a wife, i think your marriage should be null and void.
User avatar #43 to #35 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
Who are you to tell them they aren't allowed?

i just dont want deviants getting the same economic benefits as me and other loving couples

You want to do more than just the needed engagement in order to create a child. You want pleasure, and so you seek it out in other forms of sexual activity

good argument, BUT again you are forgeting that me and my wife can produce a child and make a good family home. if we choose to partake in "sexual deviancy" LOL then that is fine, BUT it's the defining thing that enables us to get married and enjoy the economic benefits.
User avatar #46 to #43 - Ruspanic (02/12/2013) [-]
Why should anyone give a **** if they're deviants? All that means is that you think homosexuality goes against societal norms. Okay, you're allowed to think so.
But why should perceptions of normalcy prevent mutually consenting adults from forming long-term contractual commitments?
User avatar #66 to #46 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
i agree, i wouldnt give two ***** if they werent petioning for marriage. but they are and mass media and the liberals ahve gotten behind it.
and its economically wrong. its the problem with the world and our government today. giving benefits to people who dont need them. go have gay sex. im just not ging to pay for it.
User avatar #78 to #66 - Ruspanic (02/12/2013) [-]
You're not paying for it. Economic benefits come in the form of tax breaks, not entitlements. People paying lower taxes is a good thing, right?

Plus, what makes you think they don't need these benefits as much as straight married couples? If they're already cohabitating and remaining monogamous for years or decades even (which does happen, whatever you may think), why shouldn't they able to have joint property ownership, or hospital visitation rights, or the ability to make decisions for the other if he/she is incapacitated or dies?
And gay people are capable of raising children, as well. Isn't it better for the parents/guardians of children to be married than not? Legal marriage provides additional stability to the family.
User avatar #81 to #78 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
You're not paying for it. Economic benefits come in the form of tax breaks, not entitlements. People paying lower taxes is a good thing, right?

yes lower taxes are good, but sexual deviants should not be afforded ANY advantages simply for their sexual prefences.

remaining monogamous for years or decades even (which does happen, whatever you may think

did you even read my last comment? where are you getting all this "proof" from? i have posted 2 legitamate sources (and i have more) and you have nothing but unsupported claims

why shouldn't they able to have joint property ownership, or hospital visitation rights, or the ability to make decisions for the other if he/she is incapacitated or dies?

becasue they are sexual deviants

And gay people are capable of raising children, as well. Isn't it better for the parents/guardians of children to be married than not? Legal marriage provides additional stability to the family.

there are 3 quotes i would like you to read. i cant post them on this comment (they are a bit too long) but i posted them earlier on comment #40
please read them
User avatar #94 to #81 - Ruspanic (02/12/2013) [-]
becasue they are sexual deviants
That's your opinion, and it's not a valid reason for anything. Why does it matter that they're "sexual deviants"? How does that in any way concern you?

They're not getting benefits for their sexual preferences. Single gay people aren't getting tax breaks. They'd be getting benefits for the same reason straight married couples currently get benefits. And it doesn't cost you anything either way.

Statistics are also irrelevant here. There are monogamous gay couples. Even if they're a minority (I don't know), they exist. There are also straight couples that are unfaithful to each other, but they aren't denied marriage licenses on those grounds.
User avatar #109 to #94 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
That's your opinion, and it's not a valid reason for anything

not my opinion, fact based studies are not opinions

They're not getting benefits for their sexual preferences. Single gay people aren't getting tax breaks.

gay marriage would give those deviants those rights

Statistics are also irrelevant here. There are monogamous gay couples. Even if they're a minority (I don't know), they exist.

well you are apparently ignoring all logic, because stats, studies and quotes dont make a dent on your "OPINIONS"
User avatar #119 to #109 - Ruspanic (02/12/2013) [-]
"Deviant" is inherently an opinion. Like "bad" or "tasty". It's not an objective word, it's a judgment people make.

gay marriage would give those deviants those rights
To gay couples who are willing to commit. Not all gay people. I consider this a good thing, so that's not much of a rebuttal.

"well you are apparently ignoring all logic, because stats, studies and quotes dont make a dent on your "OPINIONS""
www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/01/same-sex-marriage-maryland/1801917/
"James Scales, 68, was married to William Tasker, 60, on Tuesday shortly after midnight by Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake inside City Hall.
"It's just so hard to believe it's happening," Scales said shortly before marrying his partner of 35 years."

"Clayton Zook, 28, and Wayne McKenzie, 30, married by the waters of the Chesapeake Bay at the Black Walnut Point Inn on Tilghman Island.

'We've been together for six and a half years'"


Do you seriously believe that there are no committed gay couples?
User avatar #260 to #119 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
deviant is an opinion based on scientific studies that i have read.

you cant give rights to people with relationships based on sexual acts.

again, i will restate the words of HOMOSEXUAL MEN:

In The Male Couple (a book on how to be gay), authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that in a study of a hundred-fifty-six males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years, only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.
User avatar #270 to #260 - Ruspanic (02/12/2013) [-]
It's still an opinion. It has no weight in policymaking. No scientific studies will ever be able to come to such a conclusion, because "deviant" is not an objective term. People with green eyes are statistically rare, but would you call them deviants? What about straight people with foot fetishes? Why is "deviant" a bad thing, anyway?

Again: I can't speak for all homosexual couples, but long-term relationships in general are not based purely on sex. Sex-based relationships typically don't last, neither with homosexual nor heterosexual couples. I don't see why such people would want to get married.
The gay couples who typically do want to marry are the ones who have already committed to each other and may already be cohabitating for an extended period of time, like the ones you always read about when some state legalizes gay marriage. The article I quoted gives multiple examples.

I have several rebuttals for the infidelity thing.
First of all, if gay men have so many sex partners and their relationships are centered around sex, why would they have long-term relationships at all? Clearly the guy they've been with for 5 or 15 or 37 years isn't the only person they can have sex with, yet they choose to stick with him for that long. If it's a purely sexual bond, why would they bother to form long-term pair bonds?

Secondly, there are plenty of straight couples that are unfaithful. We don't deny them the ability to marry for that reason. Why should we hold gay couples to stricter standards?

Thirdly, a group's statistical tendencies should not affect the rights of individuals in the group, which may or may not conform to the tendency. There are statistically very few Asian professional basketball players, but does that mean we should bar Asians from the NBA?
#311 to #270 - coloredfolks (02/14/2013) [-]
yes, i get to use this
#281 to #270 - affect (02/13/2013) [-]
Dear Ruspanic,
You have used my name correctly. Congratulations! Here is your complimentary pinkie.
Signed,
HEIL SPELLCHECK!
-affect
User avatar #272 to #270 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
we need to condense these two comment threads lol

on your point about the infidelity thing, they want long term relationships becasue it would mean the acceptance of their fetish into mainstream which is what they all want. and they stick with the same guy becasue they like him but they still enjoy sex with others without baggage. you are true to say that infidelity occurs in heteros but the difference is that the bond between a man and a woman can support a child. im not saying that all heteros are good and all homos are evil. i know there are bad and good people in this world regardless of anything. but i really do disagree with the acceptance of homosexuality into mainstream culture simply becasue they "deserve equal rights". i mean im all for rights for people of all races and genders becasue you cant help that. but you cant give civil rights to an idea. that is my position.
User avatar #274 to #260 - Ruspanic (02/12/2013) [-]
Replying to this comment because we've reached the reply limit.

"on your point about the infidelity thing, they want long term relationships becasue it would mean the acceptance of their fetish into mainstream"
What's wrong with that? It's harmless. Let people live how they want. If they're not violating anyone's rights or otherwise harming society, there's no reason they should be disdained.
And no, that's not why they want long-term relationships. They usually want long-term relationships for the same reason that you or I might want them, and that's because they love someone enough to commit to them.

"and they stick with the same guy becasue they like him but they still enjoy sex with others without baggage."
To the point of living with that person for 37 years, and sharing your life with him or her? Unless you got an arranged marriage or something, that's not merely "liking" someone.
It doesn't really matter. The point is they're making a long-term commitment to another person.

"the difference is that the bond between a man and a woman can support a child"
So can a same-sex couple. You don't have to both be the biological parents of a child in order to raise it properly. You don't even have to be capable of having biological children.

"i really do disagree with the acceptance of homosexuality into mainstream culture"
But why? What reason is there not to accept it into the mainstream?
I understand why pedophilia isn't accepted - acting on it obviously harms children. But why not homosexuality?

"im all for rights for people of all races and genders becasue you cant help that"
You can't help being gay, either. Just try to change your orientation: can you make yourself want to have sex with other guys, while finding women unappealing?
Homosexuality is a characteristic, not merely a preference or a kink.
User avatar #292 to #274 - coloredfolks (02/13/2013) [-]
ok well i have already made my point on all of your other response. but the bottom one, the whole, "i cant help that im gay" argument. i never bought it. i mean i havent really looked up any studies but i know from personal experience that you are a product of your environment. and i believe that homosexuality is a product of insecurity and attention-deficiets.
#116 to #81 - deathsixgrim (02/12/2013) [-]
we don't give them tax break because they are gay. we give them tax break because they are marriage couple.

let me ask you, how you define what is marriage?
not for children because there is increase on single-parent family. (
not for sex because people has done it before marriage.
only reason for couple, let it to be gay, or straight, to get married is that they want to be together and marriage allow them to have legal right that allow them to help their lover when they are in need.
#80 to #66 - thefoxyfox (02/12/2013) [-]
people this ignorant exist?   
i thought they were just from made up stories that parents told their children to scare them into studying hard
people this ignorant exist?
i thought they were just from made up stories that parents told their children to scare them into studying hard
User avatar #83 to #80 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
good argument
#58 to #43 - hillbillypowpow (02/12/2013) [-]
you don't have to restate the previous comment, yours are the only ones we can't see because of the negative thumbs.
User avatar #15 to #13 - multimedia (02/12/2013) [-]
Yeah, nah, you're a cunt.
User avatar #17 to #15 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
Yeah, nah, you're a cunt.

see comment #16 LOL
User avatar #37 to #13 - Ruspanic (02/12/2013) [-]
If you are a man romantically attracted to other men, but do not have sex with them, are you not homosexual?
User avatar #42 to #37 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
no, I am not interested in having sex with them. therefore I am not gay with them. I am friends with them.
User avatar #45 to #42 - Ruspanic (02/12/2013) [-]
You're telling me you're romantically (not platonically) attracted to your friends of the same gender?
#50 to #45 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
I'd say that's pretty gay

-AnonMan out.
User avatar #51 to #50 - Ruspanic (02/12/2013) [-]
I'd agree with you.
#52 to #51 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
Indeed. I mean, this guy seems pretty homo, but he can't admit it.

-AnonMan out.
User avatar #65 to #45 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
i never said that. i simply said that i am attracted to things in my friends thats why they are my friends

if you stop and think, you are too.

but neither of us has sex with our same sex friends SO WE ARE NOT gay
#20 to #13 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
Homosexuality is as much a fetish as Heterosexuality. Marriage has been around a lot longer than Christianity, not to mention all Countries who have no affiliation with Christianity have marriage. Marriage is simply a contract between two people, and if you want to get nitty gritty with Christian Marriage, I don't know if you've read the bible, but the original Christian "Marriage" was between one man and many wives (some of which he may have raped and forced to marry him due to that) and that the daughter who was to be married was sold to the highest bidder. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. But don't stop two people who actually love each other from pledging their lives together and getting the same benefits that straight couples get.
User avatar #24 to #20 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
Homosexuality is as much a fetish as Heterosexuality

incorrect. it is a biological process. NOT a fetish LOL.

But don't stop two people who actually love each other from pledging their lives together and getting the same benefits that straight couples get.

that is exactly what is wrong, you are just another sheep in the herd. quit listening to the gay agenda. homosexuality is about sex. there is no denying that. reread my comment that you replied to, and then the ones below. come up with a different argument, one that actually works.
#28 to #24 - anon (02/12/2013) [-]
You were the one to call it a fetish in the first place, just because I made valid arguments does not mean you get to change what you said. As well as it's wrong and "sheeple" to think that people deserve the right to be happy and given the rights that others are given? Who sounds like the sheeple here sir? You are carrying out the "right" wing Christian agenda. I do believe it's the pot calling the kettle black.
User avatar #31 to #28 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
You were the one to call it a fetish in the first place, just because I made valid arguments does not mean you get to change what you said.

you have yet to make a valid argument, dont flatter yourself. also let me clarify myself because you seem to have trouble following conversations: heterosexuality is NOT a fetish, it is a biological process, which homosexuality is not.

You are carrying out the "right" wing Christian agenda

which has become demonized by mainstream media. so obviously im not the sheep LOL.

please present a reasonable argument void of any emotion (gay=loooooove)
#14 to #10 - benttoyourwill (02/11/2013) [-]
I think you are really retarded but you know, it happens. BUT. You should not be allowed internet access if all that you can type is hate speech from an uneducated brain. Your ass must be truly jealous of all the **** that comes out of your mouth.

Basicly what i'm saying is I hope you get herpes.
User avatar #16 to #14 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
Your ass must be truly jealous of all the **** that comes out of your mouth.
Basicly what i'm saying is I hope you get herpes.


great emotional rebuttal of my argument lol
#19 to #16 - benttoyourwill (02/12/2013) [-]
You must love drowning in red thumbs and faggotry.
User avatar #27 to #19 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
You must love drowning in red thumbs and faggotry.

faggotry is what I avoid, and yes, perhaps I am masochistic for coming on such a liberal mindnumbed website such as this and spreading the actual evils of homosexuality.

but you still dont have an argument against me LOL
#30 to #27 - benttoyourwill (02/12/2013) [-]
Everyone, everyone. He's just a troll. Spit on him and keep walking. No need to panic.
User avatar #32 to #30 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
where is your argument?

for real. stop saying/doing what mainstream media wants you to say/do.
User avatar #56 to #32 - vicsix (02/12/2013) [-]
You're more of a faggot than any gay person on earth.
User avatar #64 to #56 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
good argument
User avatar #72 to #64 - vicsix (02/12/2013) [-]
I'm not going to argue with someone who is going to outright choose to be a stupid bigot.
User avatar #79 to #72 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
great, so just call me names. still doesnt change the fact that i am right. all these people can do is thumb me down and call me "bigots" for having a logical and objective stance on gay marriage.

you need to stop being emotional, get a fact based rebuttal and come back and see me.

oh and turn off cnn and the ellen show you sheep
User avatar #33 to #10 - Ruspanic (02/12/2013) [-]
"because homosexuality is based solely on sex"
No it isn't. Homosexuality is the sexual and romantic attraction to people of the same sex. Heterosexuality is a sexual and romantic attraction to people of the opposite sex. The only difference besides that is that homosexual partners cannot reproduce.

Plus they can have sex anyway. They don't need marriage for that. If a gay couple is willing to make a long-term commitment rather than just being **** buddies, why not let them? That way they can have joint property ownership and hospital visitation rights and all those other benefits accorded to married people, and the stability that marriage adds will benefit any kids they may decide to have or adopt.
User avatar #40 to #33 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
Homosexuality is sexual and romantic attraction ... The only difference is that homosexual partners cannot reproduce.

yes that difference is absolutely key. it changes a sexual fetish into a biological process.

Plus they can have sex anyway. They don't need marriage for that

indeed you are correct.

That way they can have ... all those other benefits accorded to married people,

I will not allow the rights of marriage to be applied to sexual deviants. they have the right to have homosexual sex but those rights do not extend to anything else. it is just that: a sexual deviancy

the stability that marriage adds will benefit any kids they may decide to have or adopt.

>"The rights of children trump the right to children. As a society we should not be encouraging this. It’s not biologically natural.” Jean-Marc, a homosexual mayor
>"In France, marriage is not designed to protect the love between two people. Marriage is specifically designed to provide children with families. The most serious study done so far demonstrates quite clearly that a child has trouble being raised by gay parents.” said X. Bongibault, an atheist homosexual.
>"I was raised by two women, suffered from the lack of a father, a daily presence, a character and a properly masculine example, some counterweight to the relationship of my mother to her lover. I was aware of it at a very early age. I lived that absence of a father, experienced it, as an amputation. As soon as I learned that the government was going to officialize marriage between two people of the same sex, I was thrown into disarray. It would be institutionalizing a situation that had scarred me considerably. In that there is an injustice that I can in no way allow. I would've jumped into the fray and would have brought a complaint before the French state and before the European Court of Human Rights, for the violation of my right to a mom and a dad."
Jean-Dominique Bunel, specialist in humanitarian law
User avatar #54 to #40 - randumbgamer (02/12/2013) [-]
Do you honestly think gay people are only in a relationship to have sex with each other? Is that really what you're saying right now? There are still people who actually believe gay people are sexual deviants? Seriously?
User avatar #62 to #54 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
yes. i am here. and many others would believe this if not for modern mass media pushing the gay agenda
User avatar #104 to #62 - randumbgamer (02/12/2013) [-]
......well i hope you're a troll then cause thats just really awful
User avatar #112 to #104 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
good argument
User avatar #115 to #112 - randumbgamer (02/12/2013) [-]
Im not going to argue with someone who is very obviously a close minded person that is very set in their ways and isnt going to change their mind even if a plausable and good point was made, which it has been several times by other people. Seems like a pretty pointless fight to me.
User avatar #121 to #115 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
none of any of the other people has anything valid to say. they are all just like you, emotional and sheep
User avatar #123 to #121 - randumbgamer (02/12/2013) [-]
I have no emotional attachment to this arguement and really your just as much a sheep as all the other racist biggots out there. Personally i dont care what you think and i hope you have a fun hate filled life.
#258 to #123 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
obviously you do have an emotional attachment to this issue LOL   
   
you havent stated any objective facts but instead called me names like an emotional child.  "bigot"  "racist" (LOL)   
   
you have no real arguments, so stay out of this
obviously you do have an emotional attachment to this issue LOL

you havent stated any objective facts but instead called me names like an emotional child. "bigot" "racist" (LOL)

you have no real arguments, so stay out of this
User avatar #276 to #258 - randumbgamer (02/12/2013) [-]
I didnt call you a child and my only arguement is that homosexuals desearve to be able to state their love , which is just like any others, without fear of persecution from people like you. You disagree. End of argument. The fact that you think its all based around sex or some sort of disorder doesnt make their love any less real so the arguement is pointless


And please tell me how im so emotionally attached to this arguement, i didnt even come out fighting you i just wanted to see if a person like you is real and not just a troll.
User avatar #277 to #276 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
their "love" is based on sex. there are many studies that prove it.

i dont care if they have gay sex. (i think it is wrong) but they cant not have the rights afforded to married people just becasue they have a homosexual fetish
User avatar #278 to #277 - randumbgamer (02/12/2013) [-]
.....my point exactly. Sex and love are two different things, just because you have a fetish doesnt mean you want to get married to whoever satisfied that fetish or even enjoy their company. Obviously a person who's willing commit their entire life and belongings to someone else has a deeper connection then just sex, but once again you may think what you like. It doesnt change the reality of things.
User avatar #291 to #278 - coloredfolks (02/13/2013) [-]
i agree with you man. but i think that the whole social situation has an affect (LOL come tell me i used it wrong again). i mean for gays it is more than just getting marriage rights, for them it is the acceptance of their lifestyle into mainstream america. and i personally am not going to let two people who have a sexual fetish be defined the same way as a married couple.

In The Male Couple (a book on how to be gay), authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that in a study of a hundred-fifty-six males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years, only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.
User avatar #294 to #291 - randumbgamer (02/13/2013) [-]
Alot of straight people do that too. Its called polygamy and open marriages, which have been around for a very long time
User avatar #300 to #294 - byposted (02/13/2013) [-]
Polygamy is very rare and has been illegal for a long time.
User avatar #305 to #300 - randumbgamer (02/13/2013) [-]
I cant reply to your comment #303 for some reason but based off of experience plenty of heterosexual people in a relationship have sought out a third party to try to spice things up in the bedroom. The threesome itself is purely about sex but it doesnt change that 2 of 3 people involved love each other, and most of the time the third party is replaced with a different person because they're not in the relationship, they dont have an emotional connection, and they are easily replacable because they essentially do not matter to the actual relationship.

User avatar #304 to #300 - randumbgamer (02/13/2013) [-]
and the fact that you're comparing homosexual love, something between two willing parties who want to devote their lives to eache other, to people who **** animals and children, which are innocent and cant even voice their objections due to a lack of comprehenshion of the situation or what the other party is doing, shows how biased you are on this topic
User avatar #302 to #300 - randumbgamer (02/13/2013) [-]
It is illegal in alot of places yes but its not that rare. And the study he was talking about counted any activity from an outside party. So that would include things like threesomes, something many people in heterosexual relationships have taken part in.
User avatar #303 to #302 - byposted (02/13/2013) [-]
Usually those heterosexuals who classify themselves as part of a relationship only have sex with each other.

Relationships =/= orgies
User avatar #296 to #294 - coloredfolks (02/13/2013) [-]
yeah and it is also wrong and a deviation. but those people cant get married in america and get the economic benefits that are afforded to true two heterosexual parents

byposted
User avatar #297 to #296 - randumbgamer (02/13/2013) [-]
Oh i forgot americas opinion is the only one that matters. Regardless it doesnt change the fact that its your opinion so im not gunna rage over it. Besides gay marriage will probably be legal in a few years anyways so it doesnt really matter.
User avatar #298 to #297 - coloredfolks (02/13/2013) [-]
i agree with that my man. i hate it but i also hate all the government programs and the handouts and alot of other things. but im just a peon.
#301 to #297 - byposted (02/13/2013) [-]
Give it another few for polygamy, then zoo-love, then pedo-love.
User avatar #55 to #10 - sandnigglets (02/12/2013) [-]
yeah because straight sex is never just for sex right? any type of sex that isn't reproducing is abnormal, we have developed sex into pleasure moreso than reproduction, wether its straight or gay if it's not for making a baby then it is based solely on sex.
on another note, lots of people who are married don't love eachother, lots of people who arn't married love eachother, some have sex some don't and everything inbetween
User avatar #63 to #55 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
read the rest of my discussion please
User avatar #25 to #10 - lolzordz (02/12/2013) [-]
i agree with u and all these people thumbing you down cant handle the truth...

being gay is purely sexual. the difference between loving a bro 'no homo' and 'yes homo' is the sex part.
User avatar #34 to #25 - Ruspanic (02/12/2013) [-]
And the romantic love part. Are your relationships all purely sexual?
User avatar #41 to #34 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
huh? no. because im not gay. sex does play a part in every serious relationship. but it does not define them.

only in homosexuality does sex define the relationship.
User avatar #44 to #41 - Ruspanic (02/12/2013) [-]
That's simply not true. Where did you get that idea?
User avatar #61 to #44 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners. (which just means that the openly gay are most deviant)
User avatar #67 to #61 - Ruspanic (02/12/2013) [-]
1. That study was conducted 40 years ago.

2. The same people who conducted the study wrote this in their book:
"given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator will ever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals."

3. Even if the stat is true, it's largely irrelevant. Marriage is a long-term commitment. If a mutually consenting adult couple wants to make that commitment, it doesn't matter how many sex partners they've had previously or how many sex partners gay people in general tend to have statistically.

4. Why should deviance from social norms have any impact on how you are treated under the law? That's a personal matter, and the government doesn't exist to enforce social norms.
User avatar #75 to #67 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
1. That study was conducted 40 years ago.

ok? what does that prove?

2. The same people who conducted the study wrote this in their book:
"given the variety of circumstances which discourage homosexuals from participating in research studies, it is unlikely that any investigator will ever be in a position to say that this or that is true of a given percentage of all homosexuals."


read my comment again buddy. again, this just means that the openly gay are the most deviant (and dont all gays hope to one day be open with it? hmmmmmm)

3. Even if the stat is true, it's largely irrelevant. Marriage is a long-term commitment. If a mutually consenting adult couple wants to make that commitment, it doesn't matter how many sex partners they've had previously or how many sex partners gay people in general tend to have statistically.

In The Male Couple (a book on how to be gay), authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that in a study of a hundred-fifty-six males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years, only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.

4. Why should deviance from social norms have any impact on how you are treated under the law? That's a personal matter, and the government doesn't exist to enforce social norms.

i agree, except marriage is enforced by the gov. so we can have some sexual deviants running around with the same rights as married people.
User avatar #86 to #75 - Ruspanic (02/12/2013) [-]
Again, it's completely irrelevant that you consider them sexual deviants. That has no significance or importance at all.

We can have some sexual deviants running around with the same rights as married people.
I don't see how that's a bad thing. And they would be married under the law. It's two adults who have agreed to reinforce their commitment to each other through marriage, and who may already be living with each other for an extended period of time and who are able to raise children.
The only difference is that they can't reproduce with each other, but then some straight couples can't either.

What's wrong with being openly gay? You're openly straight, aren't you?
User avatar #91 to #86 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
here are the quotes becasue you obviously didnt take the time to read them

1.The rights of children trump the right to children. As a society we should not be encouraging this. It’s not biologically natural.” Jean-Marc, a homosexual French mayor.
2. “In France, marriage is not designed to protect the love between two people. Marriage is specifically designed to provide children with families. The most serious study done so far demonstrates quite clearly that a child has trouble being raised by gay parents.” said Xavier Bongibault, an atheist homosexual.
3. "I was raised by two women, suffered from the lack of a father, a daily presence, a character and a properly masculine example, some counterweight to the relationship of my mother to her lover. I was aware of it at a very early age. I lived that absence of a father, experienced it, as an amputation. As soon as I learned that the government was going to officialize marriage between two people of the same sex, I was thrown into disarray. It would be institutionalizing a situation that had scarred me considerably. In that there is an injustice that I can in no way allow. I would've jumped into the fray and would have brought a complaint before the French state and before the European Court of Human Rights, for the violation of my right to a mom and a dad."
Jean-Dominique Bunel, a specialist in humanitarian law

they are deviants, THERE ARE SCIENTIFIC STUDIES THAT BACK THAT UP

there is nothing wrong with being openly gay but they can not be allowed the same marriage rights because homosexuality is not love, it is not biologically correct, it is not a good situation for the child AND it is a sexual deviancy

BOTTOM LINE
User avatar #124 to #91 - lonelyinkyy (02/12/2013) [-]
You are a close-minded ignorant person, i can see that, i would argue with you, but i can see you're as stubborn as a 5-year old wanting a piece of candy that hollers inside of a candy shop, until he has it his way.
User avatar #111 to #91 - Ruspanic (02/12/2013) [-]
1. It is true that the rights of children are more important than the right to children (if you're adopting), but it's better to be adopted and raised by a homosexual couple than to not be adopted at all. Anyway, being raised by a gay couple is not a violation of a child's rights.
"Unnatural" is a meaningless word that has no relevance to law. Nature determines only what is possible, not what is acceptable.

2. There are no credible studies suggesting that homosexual couples are worse parents than straight couples.

3. And there are plenty of straight children raised by gay parents who were not emotionally scarred. Like this guy: www.youtube.com/watch?v=01DcBxsOyIw

(Is there any particular reason all three of these guys are French?)

Scientific studies cannot prove that anyone is a deviant, because the term "deviant" is simply an opinion. It implies a) deviation from the norm, which is b) generally frowned upon for whatever reason. Deviations from the norm are not inherently bad or good, and societal opinion does not determine people's rights.

homosexuality is not love
Neither is heterosexuality. Love is love. Love is a particularly strong positive emotional attachment to another person, which can exist between relatives or friends or romantic partners. Homosexuality is the characteristic of being romantically and sexually attracted to the same sex, as opposed to the opposite sex. Heterosexuality is the same thing, except the attraction is toward people of the opposite sex. You think gay men can't fall in love with men, or gay women with other women? That's just untrue.


it is not biologically correct
What does that mean? Why does it matter? Nature doesn't make any such judgments, you do.

it is not a good situation for the child
Why not? And don't try to tell me that gay people will somehow pervert their kids.

AND it is a sexual deviancy
That's just your opinion, and an irrelevant one at that.
User avatar #221 to #111 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
it's better to be adopted and raised by a homosexual couple than to not be adopted at all

then lets let dogs adopt the orphans, lets let homeless "couples" adopt the orphan. where do we draw the line? what would then be considered a poor home? youre an idiot for pushing this so far

There are no credible studies suggesting that homosexual couples are worse parents than straight couples.

you heard it straight from the mouth of someone who was raised in a deviant home. im sure he is not alone

and yeah i guess you are right abou the love part. its not love. its lust, pure and simply carnal desire. sorry i used love.
User avatar #230 to #221 - Ruspanic (02/12/2013) [-]
You're being silly. Homosexuality has no impact on the ability to raise and support a child. Nor does it have any impact on the ability to function normally and autonomously, or to be a productive member of society.
(And I don't know why you put "couples" in quotation marks for homeless people - are homeless couples somehow not really couples? They can get married, anyway.)

I gave you a clear counterexample to your quote. Did you know that there are also straight parents who leave their children emotionally scarred as a result of neglect or abuse? We don't prevent straight people from marrying for that reason.

Love is romantic or affectionate, lust is sexual. Homosexual and heterosexual couples can and usually do experience both.
You're pulling this stuff out of your ass. Have you talked to a gay couple, or even met a gay person?
User avatar #257 to #230 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
yes i have talked to many gay people and they are poeple too, some very nice. it doesnt change the fact that they are sexual deviants. crack addicts can be nice people too, but that doesnt change the fact that they are addicted to a bad drug.

see you missed my point about the "love" of a homo. i love my friends, i am attracted to thier personality and intellect. but i dont want to have sex with them. that is what separates homos from normal poeple.

and you can say what you want but growing up in a fmaily without someone of your own sex has its consequences. homosexuality has a VERY direct affect on the ability to raise a child. yes some homos may be able to raise a child well just as some heteros may not be able to do that. it is about the situation you are putting the child in.
#282 to #257 - affect (02/13/2013) [-]
Dear ******* coloredfolks,
You have used my name correctly. Congratulations! Here is your complimentary pinkie.
Signed,
HEIL SPELLCHECK!
-affect
User avatar #269 to #257 - Ruspanic (02/12/2013) [-]
First of all, I don't see how "sexual deviancy" is a bad thing, even remotely comparable to drug addiction. It doesn't impact daily functioning and it doesn't affect other people. It doesn't even negatively affect the people involved.

Secondly, your love for your friends is (probably) not romantic love, and has nothing to do with your sexuality. gay people experience the same thing with their friends too. A better comparison would be your love for your girlfriend or wife, which includes both romantic affection and sexual lust. Obviously you don't feel that for all women, just as gay men don't feel that for all men, or lesbians for all women.

Heterosexuals sometimes do have friends (of the opposite gender) who they'd like to have sex with. They just may not act on that desire. Do you not have female friends you find attractive?

The idea that you need parents of each gender in the family in order to grow up normally is not supported by any credible evidence. There have been studies showing that two parents are better than one (or none, obviously).
I'm aware of only one study showing that straight parents are better than gay ones for raising children, and that study had extremely biased and unreliable methods, was never able to be replicated, and was retracted by the journal it was published in.
I stand by what I said - it's better to be raised by two gay parents than by one or no parents.
User avatar #271 to #269 - coloredfolks (02/12/2013) [-]
In a historic study of children raised by homosexual parents, sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin has overturned the conventional academic wisdom that such children suffer no disadvantages when compared to children raised by their married mother and father. Just published in the journal Social Science Research,[1] the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue found numerous and significant differences between these groups--with the outcomes for children of homosexuals rated "suboptimal" (Regnerus' word) in almost every category.

also in regards to your "studies", a number of critiques of such studies on homosexual parents. For example, such studies usually have relied on samples that are small and not representative of the population, and they frequently have been conducted by openly homosexual researchers who have an ideological bias on the question being studied. In addition, these studies also usually make comparisons with children raised by divorced or single parents--rather than with children raised by their married, biological mother and father.

sexual deviancy is a bad thing in my opinion, but like you said, it is only my opinion. BUT there is no way that people with a homosexual fetish should be afforded the same rights as married couples.
User avatar #273 to #271 - Ruspanic (02/12/2013) [-]
The Regnerus study is precisely the one I was referring to.
articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/13/opinion/la-oe-frank-same-sex-regnerus-family-20120613

"While Regnerus critiques "same-sex couples" raising kids, his study does not actually compare children raised by same-sex couples with those raised by different-sex couples. The criterion it uses is whether a parent "ever ha[d] a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex." In fact, only a small proportion of its sample spent more than a few years living in a household headed by a same-sex couple. Indeed, the study acknowledges that what it's really comparing with heterosexual families is not families headed by a same-sex couple but households in which parents broke up. "

chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/controversial-gay-parenting-study-is-severely-flawed-journals-audit-finds/30255

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what homosexuality is.
It is NOT a fetish. People with fetishes - say, a foot fetish - are not only attracted to feet. They still find people of the opposite gender (if they're straight) attractive.
gay people literally are not sexually or romantically attracted to the other gender. gay men do not develop crushes on women, nor find them sexually appealing. Instead, the targets of their affection are other men (some other men, not all of them). Same with lesbians, except for women.

You also don't understand the point of civil marriage. Although the reasons for seeking marriage vary, civil marriage is primarily a legal contract. It grants the two consenting parties the right to joint property ownership, to shared income, to make decisions for each other, and so on. If people are making these long-term commitments to each other, these legal rights make perfect sense.
User avatar #295 to #273 - coloredfolks (02/13/2013) [-]
he used that word choice for a reason, because homosexuals were not out and he did not want to classify the parents to the children. listent o his own words (not the words of some pro-anal-sex website:

I didn’t ask them whether they thought their mom was a lesbian or if their dad was gay. Because, in part, self-identity is a different kind of thing than behavior, and lot of people weren’t “out” in that era. I think we can all think of moms and dads when we were growing up that we either knew or suspected were gay or lesbian, but never “came out of the closet,” so to speak. So, I didn’t want to make the assumption that these young adults would identify their parents as gay or lesbian, so I kept the focus on relationship behavior.

If people are making these long-term commitments to each other, these legal rights make perfect sense.

if civil marriage is only about that then why dont we see more "marriages" between roommates who are long term?
User avatar #310 to #295 - Ruspanic (02/14/2013) [-]
Cont'd

Ran out of room on comment #309.

I want to add that the question of whether homosexuality is a choice is a matter of science. It shouldn't be relevant to public policy in a free society.

Even if they did somehow choose to be gay, what of it? People choose who to marry all the time, and we allow them to make those decisions, even if we disapprove of their choices.
The commitment a gay man makes to his partner, or a lesbian to hers, when getting married is identical to the commitment made by straight couples. The specific nature of their relationship, provided they are both willing to enter this contractual agreement, is not a matter of public concern.

Suppose they don't really love each other. What of it? The commitment doesn't change, and the benefits of marriage still make sense.
Hindu Americans are allowed to have arranged marriages to partners who they do not (yet) love, provided they both consent.
User avatar #309 to #295 - Ruspanic (02/14/2013) [-]
Responding to your other comment here:
"the whole, "i cant help that im gay" argument. i never bought it. i mean i havent really looked up any studies but i know from personal experience that you are a product of your environment."
Few things.

First of all, being a product of your environment is not the same as choice. It's true that various experiences can affect your sexual preferences, but I'm pretty sure they won't make you stop being attracted to women and start being attracted to men (reverse for lesbians) - romantic and sexual attraction, I mean. Unless it's something incredibly traumatic and mind-altering, which rarely if ever happens.

Secondly, nearly all gay kids are raised by straight parents, and most of them in "normal" family environments. What sort of environmental conditions do you think they grow up in?
Look up John Money's (disastrously unethical) study on gender identity. The subject was a boy who lost his penis as an infant, and was intentionally raised as a girl until he was a teenager. They even used estrogen to make him more feminine, and taught him about sex from the female perspective. Not only did he not act like a girl, he didn't start being attracted to boys, either. Eventually he had surgery and a name change to make him fully male, and he married a woman as an adult.

Contrast this with gay kids, who are often raised in normal, heterosexual environments but upon hitting puberty find themselves liking boys rather than girls. They may also (though not always) show varying degrees of effeminacy. (Again, reverse all this for lesbians.)

"i believe that homosexuality is a product of insecurity and attention-deficiets."
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "insecurity", but this idea is pretty silly. I'd suggest doing a bit of research before forming theories.

Although no definite cause for homosexuality has been isolated, common theories involve genetics or hormonal conditions in the womb (I think the latter is more likely).
User avatar #308 to #295 - Ruspanic (02/14/2013) [-]
Your quote is of Regnerus defending himself, but in doing so he's basically admitting that his study was unreliable. If you don't actually make sure that the parents you're studying are homosexual, then how can you make any credible conclusions about gay parents?
Also, if the parents he called gay were "in the closet" and merely suspected to be gay (i.e. they were married to opposite-sex partners), then the kids did have one parent of each gender. So this study doesn't support your hypothesis.

The reason roommates don't marry is because marriage is a more long-term commitment than roommate-ship, and because marriage isn't simply about the house you live in. Mere roommates are probably not going to live together for decades, and if one of them moves the other probably won't follow. And they certainly wouldn't raise children together.
What use do mere roommates have for special hospital visitation rights, and why should your roommate have the ability to make funeral arrangements for you if you die unexpectedly?

As a side note, you're not against anal sex as well, are you? The **** ? That's not even considered deviant anymore.
User avatar #9 to #6 - RamzaBeoulve (02/11/2013) [-]
'Christmas' was a Pagan holiday that had Jesus inserted everywhere in it. Get your own holiday and stop using ours incorrectly.
User avatar #68 to #9 - sagedivinity (02/12/2013) [-]
Now it's about Santa. "Bow down before the power of Santa"
#7 to #6 - anon (02/11/2013) [-]
I also love the new name for anons. Most of them really deserve it. I'm just too lazy to make an account.
#205 - iktpq (02/12/2013) [-]
getting real tired of seeing posts about gay marriage.
even if it is like this one
who gives a ****
User avatar #220 to #205 - setittowumbo (02/12/2013) [-]
I'm getting tired of the rape posts...that's not ending anytime soon.
#207 to #205 - marriage (02/12/2013) [-]
Can everyone stop calling me gay for a few days?
#209 to #207 - iktpq (02/12/2013) [-]
Ha, good one.
User avatar #240 to #209 - watermelonmcnigger (02/12/2013) [-]
His arms look like a string moustache
#211 to #209 - marriage (02/12/2013) [-]
Im serious i had just about 700 alerts untill i replied to your comment. I made this account 2 days ago.
User avatar #213 to #211 - iktpq (02/12/2013) [-]
Well that's what you get when you make your username marriage.
#215 to #213 - marriage (02/12/2013) [-]
I DIDN'T KNOW I REGRET IT SO MUCH
User avatar #219 to #215 - iktpq (02/12/2013) [-]
I imagine it would be like having a birthday on facebook everyday (assuming you're popular on facebook)
0
#223 to #219 - marriage has deleted their comment [-]
#222 to #219 - marriage (02/12/2013) [-]
It's so much worse you don't even know.
User avatar #231 to #222 - iktpq (02/12/2013) [-]
Maybe make a new account?
#275 to #207 - europe (02/12/2013) [-]
you'll never know my pain.
#229 - ungcc (02/12/2013) [-]
I've heard they're FABULOUS
[ 304 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)