Against Gay Marriage. . Charlie The lady who owns the house 2 doors down from me does not we in the house. She hasn' t loved there in nearly 10 years, but still
x
Click to expand

Against Gay Marriage

Charlie
The lady who owns the house 2 doors down from me does not we
in the house. She hasn' t loved there in nearly 10 years, but still
owns the property. From time to time, she comes by the house
just to make sure no one is parking in front of it. When someone is
parked there, she writes a note on their an saying to "Never park
here again or your car will be towed!'' She has also put a NC)
PARKING sign on the tree in front of her house. Cars parked in
front of this house have absolutely no effect on her life in any
shape or form, yet she is obsessed with keeping people from doing
This is what Ithink people who are against gay marriage are like.
Unlike ' Cei: -mment . 13 minuites pgo ' is
You and IE others like this.
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+1518
Views: 52619
Favorited: 204
Submitted: 03/27/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to lempersy submit to reddit

Comments(439):

[ 439 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#275 to #5 - ningyoaijin (03/28/2013) [-]
Why are these images so funny?
#308 to #275 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
i dunno lol
#12 - diespitris (03/28/2013) [-]
What's with all of the gay-marriage-related content lately?

What's with all of the gay-marriage-related content lately?
User avatar #270 to #12 - burningsmurfs (03/28/2013) [-]
Yeah and also Hillary Clinton finally came out with her opinion on the subject and for some reason people care a lot about it.
#291 to #12 - rjgnal ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
its funnyjunk, we want our rights!
its funnyjunk, we want our rights!
#381 to #12 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
Almost all of funnyjunk are A grade faggots who love dick and anal, havent you noticed how many gay marriage posts there have been later and how many dragon dildo's get posted?

Put the word gay in a post, insta-front page, its like they think they had it harder than the jews in nazi times.
User avatar #161 to #12 - sloths (03/28/2013) [-]
that gif should be saying it aint gonna suck it self now is it
#131 to #12 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
Op's a fag.
#199 to #12 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
no big deal. Just a massive clause being voted on in the US congress that might determine the fate of gay marriage across all states for years to come.

no biggie.
#303 to #12 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
the U.S. Supreme Coourt is talking on legalazing it as of late, I haven't been keeping up, but everybody is making a big fuzz, mostly supporting from what I've seen.
User avatar #13 to #12 - acemanioo (03/28/2013) [-]
It is currently being debated in the Supreme Court
#14 to #13 - diespitris (03/28/2013) [-]

Ah, okay. Thank you for enlightening me.
User avatar #142 to #13 - shoryuken (03/28/2013) [-]
just to be clear here, the US supreme court? there's more than one supreme court in the world
User avatar #168 to #142 - jacobroan (03/28/2013) [-]
Yes, the US Supreme Court.
#315 to #142 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
Are there any more countries in the world? The more you know...
#359 to #142 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
Yeah, but we like to use our own languages to declare it
#38 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
Okay, fj likes gay people. I get it already.
Any funny left?
+28
#31 - jtdoggs **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #320 to #31 - gavinchase (03/28/2013) [-]
Yes and no.
More like an internet bandwagon.
User avatar #144 to #31 - shoryuken (03/28/2013) [-]
pretty much, i don't care for it though. reminds me of kony 2012.
User avatar #183 to #144 - cadencee (03/28/2013) [-]
Except that Kony was never a real issue whereas this is.
User avatar #189 to #183 - shoryuken (03/28/2013) [-]
there are more important ones than this one, so many more.
User avatar #197 to #189 - cadencee (03/28/2013) [-]
It's a humanitarian issue, let's say that homosexuals were unable to vote instead, would you still oppose it with the claim that there are so many more important issue?

Of course there are other issues but the fact of the matter is that pursuing this one won't hinder the process of the other issues in the slightest.
User avatar #208 to #197 - shoryuken (03/28/2013) [-]
Well homosexuals can vote so obviously not, so minuscule, such a strawman argument bruv. WHOOO HOOOO gays can marry in the US. Jog on.
User avatar #213 to #208 - cadencee (03/28/2013) [-]
Not a straw man argument, a comparison.

It was a simple hypothetical which could have been a very possible problem.

If homosexuals wish to get married then who are we to stop them? If it isn't a big issue then there shouldn't be much of a fight against it.

Yet there is, therefore people feel strongly about it therefore it is a big issue.
User avatar #227 to #213 - shoryuken (03/28/2013) [-]
Straw

Right but I don't care for hypothetical questions and already answered that. gays are allowed to vote and should be.....I understand what your saying,who wouldn't?

"who are we to stop them?" this is said so often it's practically a cliche, I'm not fighting against it, i'm saying people like you are sheep.

People feel strongly about more than gay marriage "therefore get off the bandwagon please"

look it's cool to show your support but most could care less
User avatar #236 to #227 - cadencee (03/28/2013) [-]
Im not talking about bandwagons on funnyjunk really just the issue in general.
#319 to #31 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
Is calling something a majority agree a bandwagon the new FJ bandwagon?
#370 - wantabeer (03/28/2013) [-]
I agree. I don't see the problem with gays marrying. I also come from a pretty religious family, and my parents haven't ever taught me to hate anyone. Even gays. My grandparents and aunts & uncles are a different story. The pastor of my church even gave a sermon on gays. He wasn't preaching against them though. He encouraged us to stop letting their sexual orientation inflict on our relationship with gay people. Church that day was pretty much concluded with him announcing "I just don't think being gay is a sin. In my studies I've met some good people who turned out to be gay, and I have a hard time believing that they're condemned". Lots of people disagreed with him and left the Church, but many people (like my family) were incredibly relieved. Christianity is a joke when you take it to such an extreme that it becomes a hateful following. I know many people are atheist or follow a different religion, and that's fine. That's what you believe. There's not much (if any at all) concrete evidence to support my religion. As a budding scientist this is something that even I struggle with. All I'm really getting at is that hate isn't something Christians need to practice. I thought that much was obvious, but when you're taught that way it just seems natural. That's not to say that I'm never rude or that I've never lost my nerve, but I don't harbor an empty hatred for anybody simply because a several thousand year old document written by *men* told me they're sinners. Everybody has something to be guilty of.

tl;dr - Arguments about gay marriage that are based around "God's Law" are empty arguments that hold no water, and I don't think it should have any impact of my fellow Americans' civil rights.
#96 - Weekendman (03/28/2013) [-]
The whole situation is a big bundle of butthurt.








Literally.
#239 - jellymadofficer (03/28/2013) [-]
South Park offers a solution to not "ruining the sanctity of marriage".   
   
 "You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but, instead of referring to you as "married", you can be... butt buddies.   
Instead of being "man and wife", you'll be... butt buddies. You won't be "betrothed", you'll be...   
 ...butt buddies. Get it? Instead of a "bride and groom", you'd be...   
...butt buddies."
South Park offers a solution to not "ruining the sanctity of marriage".

"You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but, instead of referring to you as "married", you can be... butt buddies.
Instead of being "man and wife", you'll be... butt buddies. You won't be "betrothed", you'll be...
...butt buddies. Get it? Instead of a "bride and groom", you'd be...
...butt buddies."
#329 to #239 - payseht (03/28/2013) [-]
This image has expired
beaver buddies?
pussy pals?
cunt confidants?
cave chums?
choot cohorts?
minge mates?
#434 to #329 - jellymadofficer (03/28/2013) [-]
I'm glad you've brought that up.   
In fact, when a Concerned Woman asks "Well, what about lesbians?", the   
Governor responds with "Well, like anyone cares about f**kin' dykes!"   
   
You have supplied a great selection of lesbian names, though.
I'm glad you've brought that up.
In fact, when a Concerned Woman asks "Well, what about lesbians?", the
Governor responds with "Well, like anyone cares about f**kin' dykes!"

You have supplied a great selection of lesbian names, though.
#110 - lastofthedovakhiin (03/28/2013) [-]
Do you HAVE to take a side? I really don't care about what the hell is going on. I'm sure everyone is tired of this 'war'. If people wanna be gay let them be gay, just don't bring me into it.
Do you HAVE to take a side? I really don't care about what the hell is going on. I'm sure everyone is tired of this 'war'. If people wanna be gay let them be gay, just don't bring me into it.
#120 to #110 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
You shouldn't want to
User avatar #48 - redclover (03/28/2013) [-]
She owns the property, therefore can do whatever she want's with it.

So this is a very bad metaphor for your support of gay marriage.
#62 to #48 - llamafinger (03/28/2013) [-]
Not at all
#71 to #48 - urbemarmis (03/28/2013) [-]
idk why people thumb you down man this is legit. its apples and oranges
User avatar #72 to #71 - redclover (03/28/2013) [-]
it's probably because they think my post means I'm against gay marriage
so they are misreading and bandwagoning
#74 to #72 - urbemarmis (03/28/2013) [-]
true
+1
#172 to #48 - necroshiz **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#68 to #48 - peeta (03/28/2013) [-]
as a business student i agree with property rights

i have nothing against gay marriage
User avatar #186 - fishratsas (03/28/2013) [-]
I have no problem with gays or gay marriage I do however dislike raging queens.

It's like ok you're gay we get it theres no need to be all up in everyone's face about it.
#192 to #186 - mrmamric (03/28/2013) [-]
It matters when you can't get married due to it. Because, at least in gold old 'Merica, married people get bonus rigths and tax cuts. gay people don't.
#202 to #192 - fishratsas (03/28/2013) [-]
I know they don't and if I lived in America I would vote in favour of gay marriage.    
   
Gif unrelated.
I know they don't and if I lived in America I would vote in favour of gay marriage.

Gif unrelated.
#211 to #202 - mrmamric (03/28/2013) [-]
I'm just saying that's why people get all up in a bunch. Bitches love their taxes and 			****		.   
   
Gif also unrelated.
I'm just saying that's why people get all up in a bunch. Bitches love their taxes and **** .

Gif also unrelated.
#214 to #211 - fishratsas (03/28/2013) [-]
True man, true.
True man, true.
#222 to #186 - theseustheminotaur (03/28/2013) [-]
I hate when people get in my face about pretty much anything, but I still think they should be able to get married.
User avatar #226 to #222 - fishratsas (03/28/2013) [-]
My point exactly.
#40 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
Is it weird that I'm gay, but against gay marriage?

Its not a moral issue, its a value vs time spent sort of things.

There are much bigger things that need to be worked out, like the social economic class separations, the debt crisis, education, etc.

Also, its a ******* religious thing.
Why not just create a NEW thing that's exclusive to gays? gayrriage or something fab like that.

That's just my 3 cents.

don't hurt me T>T
User avatar #44 to #40 - elyiia (03/28/2013) [-]
Just like they should have separate water fountains for blacks and whites?

They should just remove all rights from marriage and move them to civil unions then marriage actually is a religious thing and has no actual benefits behind it.
User avatar #49 to #44 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
Having two legal binding methods =/= Segregation based on race and genetics.

The only reason you would compare those two is either shock value, or the way you balance social issues against each other is way off.
#77 to #40 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
Is marriage that religious though? I mean atheists get marries. People of all different religions get married. Marriage is more about showing everyone that you and some one you love are tied together forever, and/or all the benefits you get from it.
#118 to #40 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
I think it should be illegal to attach real economic benefit to marriage. Marriage is a religious construct, and religion has -no- place in government.

Instead, make a seperate construct for it. Oh wait, we have one! Civil unions.

If straight people want to oppose gay marriage, fine! I don't give a **** about what your fake ass god says about me, I just don't want to have to pay 1000x insurance rates for my bf. Attach the benefits to civil unions, and require straight people who want those benefits to apply for one just like gay people. The seperation of legal construct from religious construct means their entire argument can go **** itself with a rusty spoon.
#136 to #40 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
Marriage itself has a lot of legal benefits that come with being married, so when they did try to make a side thing for gay couples, it had no legal backing to it at all really, they still couldn't enjoy the benefits of marriage.
User avatar #148 to #136 - ilovehitler (03/28/2013) [-]
Then give it the same benefits, but don't call it marriage.
User avatar #427 to #136 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
Then remove the benefits of marriage and make it love based, not money based.
#281 to #40 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
butt-budies. Well call them butt-budies.
User avatar #417 to #281 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
There is always one. Your that one.
User avatar #382 to #40 - capslockrage (03/28/2013) [-]
Your only points were marred by time consumption or religion.
I have two things.
1, if we could just settle it with one meeting of congress and allow gays to be as miserable as all straight folk by marrying, then that's all the time it would take.
2, There is a thing in the constitution about "separating church from state" meaning you can't make big decisions based on religion because not everybody believes in the same religion.
gays shouldn't have to create something new, and if they did that would take up even more time, ruining your point further, instead they should just be entitled to the same things as us straight people.
User avatar #411 to #382 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
The separation of church and state would include disbanding any and all relations to religion that weren't globally applied to institutions. This includes abandoning church born things, such as marriage, or at least removal of state and tax benefits.

If anything, removing the benefits would make it more valuable, as it would have less tax benefits, and more of a statement about love, and loss of freedom.

IMO, of course.
User avatar #443 to #411 - capslockrage (03/29/2013) [-]
But what you didn't understand is that I was talking about making decisions based on religion, and not separating religion entirely.
#116 to #40 - DJstar (03/28/2013) [-]
you are a ratarded gaytard then!!!   
   
not only does it show how how we only look at our constitution when it only benefits us (supposed to be separation of church and state) but how we supposed to be land of the free but we don't treat each other like equals!   
   
Plus im pretty sure homosexuals wouldn't have such a gigantic issue with gay marriage if it wasn't for the benefits that comes with marriage! For instance, if you ass got into a car accident and you became badly injured, and you have no health insurance, then you're 			******		!!! but if you two was married, his health care would apply to the family! Also with life insurance, tax returns, adoption, and other pressing issues that would be either available, or easy for homosexuals if they could get married.
you are a ratarded gaytard then!!!

not only does it show how how we only look at our constitution when it only benefits us (supposed to be separation of church and state) but how we supposed to be land of the free but we don't treat each other like equals!

Plus im pretty sure homosexuals wouldn't have such a gigantic issue with gay marriage if it wasn't for the benefits that comes with marriage! For instance, if you ass got into a car accident and you became badly injured, and you have no health insurance, then you're ****** !!! but if you two was married, his health care would apply to the family! Also with life insurance, tax returns, adoption, and other pressing issues that would be either available, or easy for homosexuals if they could get married.
User avatar #306 to #116 - cheftimusprime (03/28/2013) [-]
Completely unrelated, I would try to have sex with the woman in your gif...
User avatar #397 to #306 - eddymolly (03/28/2013) [-]
Look up presshearttocontinue of youtube, fap to your hearts content
User avatar #150 to #116 - ilovehitler (03/28/2013) [-]
How about they just make another ******* thing for gays and don't call it marriage, but give it the same benefits.
Because obviously trying to legalize gay marriage is just creating a huge ******* ********* that doesn't need to be there.

If we want religions to keep out of everything else, we should keep everything else out of religious **** .
#399 to #40 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
You're fabulous, Benotter...

And I would never hurt you unless you wanted me to
+2
#41 to #40 - sabat **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #50 to #41 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
It's more of, Let religion keep its religious stuff,

just make new things that don't interfere with it. so people who believe in angels don't get butthurt.

And, yanow, its MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in campaigning, and promoting, and bribing, and all that other jazz, to change the definition of a word.

Literally arguing over a word. Its dumb.
+3
#54 to #50 - sabat **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #57 to #54 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
Thats a depressive thought.

When it comes down to it, I would vote against it, simply because it denounces its importance,

In all honesty, marriage, and legal, or social, binding mechanisms should be evaporated. They make no sense, and are reminiscent of a time worse off then now.

Marriage is just another way to own a human.

tldr: Monogamy is bad, don't do it.
#93 to #40 - ondaysthatendiny (03/28/2013) [-]
Personally I have no strong feeling about the subject as it has no effect to me at all.

There is a logical reason for having a marriage license, as it does have more to do than just be there for religious reasons, between same sex couples. The main one being health care and insurance. There have been a lot of instances where a same sex couple has been denied the privilege to grant their partner as their power of attorney which has led to some questionable situations.

Although I understand what you are saying there are reasons to have same sex marriages legalized, but thank you for your 3 cents.
#262 to #40 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
It's not a strictly religious thing, though. Yes, ceremonies are carried out by pastors/rabbis/etc., but marriage represents a civil bond between two people. It affects their socioeconomic status. It isn't right to deny what is effectively a societal service and the governmental rights that accompany it to people on the basis of sexual orientation, race, etc.
User avatar #419 to #262 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
It shouldn't be a part of goverment at all, it should strictly be a social standard.

No government enforced benefits.

Otherwise its goverment and religion mixing.
#286 to #40 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
I support gayrriage
User avatar #416 to #286 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
I support the non beneficial union between to biological humans, as long as its on a social level, and provides no benefits.

Unfortunately, marriage is not on this level.
#107 to #40 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
Is it weird that you sound like an annoying middle schooler who thinks they are bi rather than a gay adult who is in love and wants a contract saying they are married to assure life insurance, legal issues, and child adoption?
User avatar #428 to #107 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
Its been 12 hours, and I still can't think of a response that shows what I wanna say.

Cuntmuffin is as close as I'm gonna get on this one.



User avatar #164 to #40 - Krystoking ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
It's not weird, it makes perfect sense. They already have state level unions that give a gay couple the same state level benefits as a married couple, they just need to push it to a federal level. Also, I'd just like to say that its not a religious thing necessarily, but also a tradition of how marriage has been defined.
User avatar #128 to #40 - icytime (03/28/2013) [-]
I share your opinion but I always get flamed for it, prob cause I'm not gay but w/e.

WOO FOR SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY SHARES THE SAME OPINION!
User avatar #156 to #128 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
*highFive*
#321 to #40 - comicsguy (03/28/2013) [-]
I've always thought the same! CREATE A NEW CEREMONY DEDICATED TO gay PEOPLE, IT WON'T HURT ANYONE AND MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY
#396 to #40 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
Because giving it a different name makes it unequal in dignity, even if all the formal rights are the same.

It's the separate but equal argument segregationists used.

Also, the notion that government has something better to do, is absurd. The current issue is the Supreme Courts evaluation of the constitutionality of DOMA; the Judiciary is meant to do this, it's their job, and they have nothing to do with fixing the economy.

Even if this were a legislative issue (at the moment), legislatures deal with far less important things on a daily basis, and nobody ever says they're wasting time.
User avatar #426 to #396 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
Its never actually separate but equal, although it could be if people actually cared.

#313 to #40 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
oh look , suddenly everyone is gay
User avatar #413 to #313 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
Everyone is a little gay, its just how much they choose to accept this about themselves. Same goes for flamers, deep down, there still a little strait.
User avatar #346 to #40 - awesomanium (03/28/2013) [-]
Well, you're not really against it then, you're just opposed to the attention it's been getting.
User avatar #412 to #346 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
Partially, you shouldn't have to attention whore to get it done.

But another is because, its taking something from someone else's thing, turning it into your thing, and saying its wrong to not make it also your thing, which is somewhat selfish. Why not just make your own damn thing, that's equal, or hell, even better?

It may take time and effort, but look how much is going into changing what we already have.
User avatar #420 to #412 - awesomanium (03/28/2013) [-]
Yeah, I posted the comment before I properly read the second part of your comment and I get what you're saying.
I see it as more of a symbolic thing - if they can be joined like straight people maybe they can be seen as more equal. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong.
User avatar #425 to #420 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
I could accept the symbolism, but when you think about it,

That's just dumb. We shouldn't care about the importance of a word or its weight. Its a ******* word, yanow?

But, to each his own, right?
User avatar #292 to #40 - paintplayer (03/28/2013) [-]
I'm straight and I tried to explain that concept to some people and they called me a bigot.
User avatar #415 to #292 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
That's called intolerance of opinion.
Unfortunately its part of what makes us human, so don't expect it to change.
Though, I do hope it bodes well for you in the future!
#99 to #40 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
it isnt religious. Unless you believe that only those who follow religions have morals (which is untrue) then it isnt. following the thought process of OP we should remove the legal age of concent. but although most would be unaffected, it is typically a bad thing in society.
User avatar #429 to #99 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
Well, yanow, I am totally religious in all aspects.
Ya, cause me and my bf go to church ever ******* Sunday, right?

But in all seriousness, there's a difference between biological age and decision making, and changing a social status that was adapted into a religion, then into society.

Of course, maybe you can't see that, and just get mad when someones opinion clashes with your own. Don't worry, everyone gets mad when this happens. Its only human.
User avatar #274 to #40 - cazabrow ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
What if gays make a religion were you're allowed to be gay, judging how retarded modern religious rabbles have been about it I wouldn't be surprised if it worked.
User avatar #418 to #274 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
It would fail, what religions newer then 200 years old have survived on a non-scam-esque scale?
User avatar #56 to #40 - thegirlyoudespise (03/28/2013) [-]
My opinion is i don't think we can call this nation equal until EVERYONE has EQUAL rights, regardless of race, sexual orientation, ect ect
#119 to #56 - jiltist ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
Transgenders, too. The LGB community is getting their rights, but T's are still heavily persecuted.
User avatar #423 to #119 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
Although I would never, ever, condone discrimination upon any group of people that stood in the moral noncriminal right,

Well, lets look at it this way, upon birth your given a set of cards, gays either have there cards set, or rearrange them, but they are always the same cards,

Where as trans attempt to change the cards with a black sharpie,
Although some can make it extremely convincing that its a different card, it never actually will be.

Its not wrong at all, that's not what I'm saying.
User avatar #103 to #56 - Krystoking ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
I said this before and I'll say it again. This is not a battle of rights, but instead a battle of whether to keep the definition of marriage traditional or not gays have the same rights as anyone. Its simply that two people of the same sex cant get married not because they dont have the right, only because of how marriage is defined.

In my personal opinion, the definition of marriage doesnt have to be changed, they can simply legalize a federal level of civil union. It would give a gay couple the same rights as a married couple, they simply wouldnt be called a "marriage".
User avatar #259 to #103 - defensive (03/28/2013) [-]
Why keep the definition of marriage the same if it doesn't accommodate the needs of everyone? People should be allowed to marry anyone who they choose, EQUAL RIGHTS ********** ! You keep saying that marriage would no longer be marriage but just a union. This makes no sense to me, there is no reason to change what it is called, just change who people can get married to. Unless you are gay yourself then gay marriage has nothing to do with your daily life, or any part of your life for that matter. So why try to stop it? 'Hur Dur, gay marriage is going to ruin marriage for everyone'. That is what you sound like.
User avatar #272 to #259 - Krystoking ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
Lmao no, I never said it would ruin everything, I'm asking why try to change the definition of marriage? Bonding between man and woman is defined as marriage, and such a bonding is different from a same sex bonding. Same sex bonding should have the same political status as marriage, but the definition of marriage doesn't need to be changed
User avatar #277 to #272 - defensive (03/28/2013) [-]
A bonding between a man and a woman is the christian definition of marriage. Why create a whole new system for gays to use that has the exact same principals of marriage, if you could just change what we already have. Why do you want to keep the definition so Christian, quite a lot of people aren't religious and would appreciate it if you stop trying to force your beliefs onto the rest of the world.
User avatar #279 to #277 - Krystoking ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
For your info, I'm an atheist. The Point is that us culture was structured around the christian religion, and therefore has always defined marriage as a bond between man and woman. I believe tradition is important, and since that is the traditional definition of marriage, and it doesn't hurt anybody, why change it? Its not creating a whole new system, its simply calling it something other than marriage.
User avatar #280 to #279 - defensive (03/28/2013) [-]
Because sticking to tradition is what helps the human race advance isn't it? If a tradition becomes redundant, then change it. I don't see the point in calling it something else, if it is going to be the same thing then just add it to what we already have.
User avatar #282 to #280 - Krystoking ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
But its not the same thing. One is a bond between same sex, the other between opposite sex.
User avatar #290 to #282 - defensive (03/28/2013) [-]
You keep talking about the Christian definition of marriage. Marriage is not a Christian born tradition. I don't see why you are so adamant to stick to a flawed system, if it doesn't accommodate modern ideals then change the bloody thing.
User avatar #294 to #290 - Krystoking ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
The debate is revolving around us politics, and the us culture is based of off the christian religion. If within another culture the definition of marriage accommadates same sex marriage, that's fine, but in the us it doesn't, so I ask again, why change it? I'm going to sleep now, so don't exect a rely till tomorrow
User avatar #302 to #294 - defensive (03/28/2013) [-]
Change it because it needs to be changed to account for modern times. But I'm sure you follow all christian traditions don't you?
User avatar #410 to #302 - Krystoking ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
How doesn't it account for modern times? Its the concept of a man bonding with a woman, does that no longer happen? And no, I don't follow christian traditions, because I'm not christian. Stop making this about bashing religion, because this is not what its about.
User avatar #424 to #290 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
It's not christian born, but in its modern state, its christian adapted. The origin of something is negated upon its acceptance into a new culture, as it becomes a new separate entity.

Marriage used to be the owning of a woman as property. That's where it started.

Want to go back to origins? Fight for that, see how far you get.
User avatar #440 to #424 - defensive (03/29/2013) [-]
I don't remember ever saying to go back to the origins. I remember saying to break traditions in order to advance our culture though.
-6
#109 to #103 - honeybadgercares has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #115 to #109 - Krystoking ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
You don't understand, marriage is defined between a man and a woman. Saying "gay marriage" doesnt make sense in the traditional definition of marriage. For example, lets take the word "toast". By definition, toast is heating up a piece of bread, therefore you cant say "I am toasting my soup", because that wouldnt make sense. Again, gays have the right to marry, but if its same sex, its not marriage by definition.
#153 to #115 - jiltist ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
So would you be against the marriage of two men by a pastor that approves gay marriage?
User avatar #159 to #153 - Krystoking ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
There is nothing wrong with a culture that would define same sex union as marriage as well, what I'm saying is that on the political level, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. The goverment can install a federal level civil union for same sex unions to give them the same benefits as a marriage gets, but theres no reason to change the political traditional definition of marriage. Using my previous "toast" example, you can say in regular conversation that something is "toasty" to replace warm, but it doesn't change the definition of toast in itself. Therefore, a gay couple married by a pastor can call themselves married, but dont have to change the federal definition of marriage, since they'll be politically recognised as a civil union, giving them the same status as a married couple without stating them as married.
#163 to #159 - jiltist ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
And with that, your argument became very weak.

"On the political level, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman."
Politics change all the time.

As for the toast argument, there is something wrong with it. I'd have to think harder to point it out in detail, but a comparison should suffice. In America, "Man" used to mean Caucasians. Now it is an umbrella term for all who are physically male, and sometimes even women.
User avatar #169 to #163 - Krystoking ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
Politics change, defintions rarely do. And yes, the definition of "Man" was changed, because it was discriminatory in the sense that blacks for example were not considered of the same species, although they are. Marriage, however, is a concept. It is not discriminatory, it simply is what it is. Its been defined in the US as bonding between man and woman, and it doesn't have to be changed. Bonding between two of the same sexes is different from bonding between two of the opposite sex. Marriage has been defined as one of those, why not make a concept to define the other?
User avatar #403 to #103 - Seventeen (03/28/2013) [-]
that's what we have in england.
User avatar #414 to #403 - Krystoking ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
Does it work?
User avatar #422 to #414 - Seventeen (03/28/2013) [-]
it allows gay couples who are in a 'civil union' the same rights as a hetrosexual married couple with regards to taxes and stuff. i think it works and most people seem to be happy with it but like anywhere and with anything, there will always be people who aren't happy. there are gay couples who want to be 'married' not be in a civil partnership purely based on the word 'marriage' since they have the same benefits. in the same breath, i read about one straight couple who wanted to be allowed to have a civil union. ****** crazy man. as far as i am concerned though, i'm glad that gay couples are afforded the same rights as straight couples but now that has been given to them, continuing to campaigne for 'marriage' just seems like splitting hairs.
User avatar #432 to #422 - Krystoking ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
That's why I think they should install this system in the US. It gives them the same rights, and doesn't change the definition of marriage. Just like you said, its just splitting hairs. Thank you for telling me
#371 to #56 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
hahahaha. People equal...that's a good one.
#297 to #56 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
nothing will ever be completely equal. It's against human nature. If we could get rid of racism then maybe.
#288 to #56 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
Is marriage really a right though? Like in any constitution or body of human rights is marriage actually on there as something humans should not be deprived of?
User avatar #430 to #288 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
This
User avatar #59 to #56 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
First, that's impossible. Its genetically imbedded into each and every human to be judgmental, to ignore and dispute this is dumb, and to call it evil and vile is equally idiotic.

Second, I think people should be equal, but instead of convoluting an already broken system, remove it entirely. Marriage stems from pre-religion as a way of holding ones property close to themselves when humans stopped being nomadic. Its ownership, always has been, always will be.

Third, in my -->OPINION<--, marriage is a completely unnatural, and unhealthy thing, that stockholms people into loving one another.
We were meant for groups, not couples. And before you bring up the "Uh-uh, Mammals go in pairs, not groups!"

Yes, some do, in fact, many stay together in couples.

But the more complex they get, the less this happens. Its no coincidence that the smarter a species, the more promiscuous they become.
User avatar #60 to #59 - thegirlyoudespise (03/28/2013) [-]
I just think that if two gay people want to be married, they should be allowed to
User avatar #66 to #60 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
I think that marriage is a corrupt institution.
Thank god we can both have opinions, right?
User avatar #67 to #66 - thegirlyoudespise (03/28/2013) [-]
yea
Just some people want to get married is all
#347 to #56 - greensky (03/28/2013) [-]
pedophiles should also have equal rights?
That's what germans are recently fighting about
equal rights for pedophiles
I mean they just like little girls
It's as unnatural as gays
opinions like yours make me sick
"equal rights"
ehh I'm so tired of this ...
User avatar #304 to #56 - cheftimusprime (03/28/2013) [-]
Oh darling, I'm so sorry that you have such unrealistic expectations. "Equality" can only exist in a socialist/communist government, which is the kind of government that U.S. citizens have been taught to be against. It's too bad, cause at least then we could all be equally ****** .
#283 to #56 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
that would entail rights for *******
#175 to #56 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
Everyone does have equal rights. Just cause you think they don't does not mean it is not equal. Its like ******* feminists for **** sake. Yeah equal rights pfft.

User avatar #91 - justadude (03/28/2013) [-]
And then there is me, who just doesn't give a **** either way and probably wont ever give one.
User avatar #361 - kolsinder (03/28/2013) [-]
Whilst I agree with the underlying message he has conveyed, I would like to mention that his example is appalling. The house at issue inalienably belongs to the woman, unlike marriage, which, aside from being intangible, doesn't belong to anyone. In short, she technically has the right, albeit a highly presumptuous one, to fend off anyone who tries to park their car on her property. As far as marriage is concerned, no one "owns" other people's relationships.
#372 to #361 - jduttonboom (03/28/2013) [-]
according to the source above, which clearly states &quot;make sure no one is parking in front of it&quot; refering to the property, the cars are parking in the zone which would most likely be the sidewalk area. this zone is not property of the homeowner otherwise every that walked passed could technically be done for tresspassing. jus saiyen x.
according to the source above, which clearly states "make sure no one is parking in front of it" refering to the property, the cars are parking in the zone which would most likely be the sidewalk area. this zone is not property of the homeowner otherwise every that walked passed could technically be done for tresspassing. jus saiyen x.
User avatar #386 to #372 - kolsinder (03/28/2013) [-]
You're right, I guess I slightly misinterpreted the picture. Still though, she could that argue that potentially, presuming she were to suddenly move back in and owns a car, the other parked cars could obstruct her own parking space and thus cause some inconvenience. As regards marriage, sanctioned homosexual relationships do not create private or public nuisances, which is where Charlie's example comes short. Then again, some deluded wankers argue that gay marriage implicitly harms children or something along those lines. In any event, it's a ludicrous stance to support.
#402 to #386 - jduttonboom (03/28/2013) [-]
i zippity zopp boop be doo agree with you
User avatar #299 - bumbie (03/28/2013) [-]
at first i thot content would be National Geographic related due to the censor...
i was wrong
User avatar #78 - limb (03/28/2013) [-]
Getting married is as simple as 2 people signing a paper why is this even going to the supreme court? I don't think its hurting other peoples rights. Getting married is just making it official that you're financially intimate.
#81 to #78 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
getting married is getting free care from the goverment.
there are a lot of privelages. its not just signing your name on paper so you can use your partners last name, its about living with twice less of worries.

this goes on medical, financial, and status reports. thus why married parents are able to support their kids while as single parents have a hard time providing for their kids.
#353 - swedishassassin (03/28/2013) [-]
Well, considering that marriage is originated from religious ceremony, I can see why.   
   
My issue is that marriage is government-involved. If it weren't, and people could legally become financially conjoined without having to marry, all problems would be solved.   
   
But no, that would be too non-conflicting for people.
Well, considering that marriage is originated from religious ceremony, I can see why.

My issue is that marriage is government-involved. If it weren't, and people could legally become financially conjoined without having to marry, all problems would be solved.

But no, that would be too non-conflicting for people.
User avatar #384 to #353 - capslockrage (03/28/2013) [-]
I think religion is stupid and is holding all of humanity back from social and economical progress.
Without religion we might be flying hovercrafts by now.
#437 to #384 - swedishassassin (03/28/2013) [-]
Religious monasteries maintained historical records and literature of Roman and Greek intellectuals during the Dark Ages. Religion saved a lot of mathematics and art that would have been destroyed by invading barbarians.

Without religion we might be still trying to figure out algebra by now.
Please don't comment about things I literally major in... incorrectly.
User avatar #442 to #437 - capslockrage (03/29/2013) [-]
I'm very sorry that you major in that, and still fail to realize that just because they happened because of religion, that it means that we couldn't have done it better without it.
I'm not preaching atheism you imbecile, I shared my opinion, hence the "I think"
It's shocking you major in anything at all given your intelligence level, though it is about religion, so I guess that kind of explains it.
What's next, strawman arguments?
User avatar #446 to #442 - swedishassassin (03/29/2013) [-]
Also congrats on never making OC that made it to the front page, and instead being a repost-bitch.
User avatar #448 to #446 - capslockrage (03/29/2013) [-]
I have many OC front pages on past accounts, I don't even care about thumbs, I just like to upload things I funny and if I happen to get front page that's fun too.
Also the ad hominem goes even further to suggest that you actually aren't as intelligent as you seem to think you are.
#445 to #442 - swedishassassin (03/29/2013) [-]
Uh, you're saying we would have been better off being atheists, so... yeah, you are preaching, you 'imbecile' (Nice attempt at trying to make yourself sound smarter with a fancy-ass insult word). I study history, and in perspective, death and destruciton and back-thinking comes from all sorts of reasons; yeah, sometimes religion, but other times anti-religion, greed, and the list goes on.   
   
And, let me be blunt; your comment is worded like a moron; you're trying to make the comment sound smarter, which only makes you look like  a dumbass who is seriously insecure.
Uh, you're saying we would have been better off being atheists, so... yeah, you are preaching, you 'imbecile' (Nice attempt at trying to make yourself sound smarter with a fancy-ass insult word). I study history, and in perspective, death and destruciton and back-thinking comes from all sorts of reasons; yeah, sometimes religion, but other times anti-religion, greed, and the list goes on.

And, let me be blunt; your comment is worded like a moron; you're trying to make the comment sound smarter, which only makes you look like a dumbass who is seriously insecure.
User avatar #447 to #445 - capslockrage (03/29/2013) [-]
Okay, I never said anyone would be better off atheist.
What I implied is that we would be better off if people believed in their religion and didn't try to broadcast it or make changes to society based on religion.

And about the whole "I'm just trying to sound smart" point, no.
I don't ever try to sound smart, did I try to make sure I didn't make any grammatical errors because I'm in an argument against wit? No.
Also nothing was wrong with my wording, and I happen to like the word imbecile.
You saying that I'm trying to sound intelligent only makes you seem insecure.

(Also, the down-thumbing is quite immature.)
User avatar #450 to #447 - swedishassassin (03/29/2013) [-]
And, HELLO!

"Without religion we might be flying hovercrafts by now." Yes you did say people would be better off being atheist, you retard-wagon.
User avatar #453 to #450 - capslockrage (03/29/2013) [-]
Again, I said "without religion" to imply that without theists forcing their beliefs on society. I never said "without religion ever existing" I also never said that people would be better off being atheists. When did I even say that we would be better off without hovercrafts?
Also I already know your next point, "Yeah but you meant it!"
Doesn't matter, it's still not what i said.
User avatar #449 to #447 - swedishassassin (03/29/2013) [-]
I ain't thumbing you down, kid. You like the word imbecile because it sounds smarter than 'retard' or 'dumbass'; insecurity and an attempt to look more elegant. And throwing back the accusation doesn't work in this case, since I never tried to claim myself smarter than you.

The fact that you had to throw your pointless opinion that religion is stupid proves your insecurity, and the beyond-dulled reasons lacking any justification to what you said proves you are retarded.

I'm also gonna guess your 12.
User avatar #451 to #449 - capslockrage (03/29/2013) [-]
> "your 12"
Yeah, I think I'm done here.

Although I must clear it up, I don't think religion is stupid, like I said I think it's stupid that some religious people try to force their religion on society.
And I'm not a kid, I'm 19. Am I a middle-aged adult?
Nah, but I'm not a kid.
Also I found that most people that say "kid" in an argument lack the vocabulary to use other words, which is why I use "fancy" or "elegant" words as you like to say.

Bottom of the line is that you're putting words in my mouth, using childish insults, and keep claiming that I'm of inferior intelligence to yourself whenever I use "fanceh wurdz"

Don't bother replying, I know you'll only repeat your past points so I won't waste my time viewing it.

Have a nice day, and may you grow up and learn your mistakes, and that not everybody that has a decent vocabulary is trying to be "fancy".
User avatar #454 to #451 - swedishassassin (03/29/2013) [-]
Your stupidity and back-pedaling makes me want to neuter you.
User avatar #456 to #454 - capslockrage (03/29/2013) [-]
I didn't back-pedal, look at my reply to explain your mistake.
Also, once again, intelligent people don't revert to ad hominem in an argument.
In case you don't know what that "fanceh wurd meenz" it's using insults in a regular argument, a common thing with children on Xbox.
User avatar #458 to #456 - swedishassassin (03/29/2013) [-]
I'm insulting you because you're retarded and you should feel stupid, so that you stop saying stupid things.
User avatar #452 to #451 - swedishassassin (03/29/2013) [-]
"I think religion is stupid and is holding all of humanity back from social and economical progress". Were you unconscious or something when you wrote that first comment?

And yeah, you're a kid. There is proper grammar, and then there's trying to use uncommon words to sound smarter.
User avatar #455 to #452 - capslockrage (03/29/2013) [-]
Ugh, I wish I would have just closed the tab, instead of replying, then seeing this comment.

I never used a word that I don't use in my regular vocabulary.
Do I think religion is stupid? sure, but I never said that I don't want people to have their religions.
User avatar #457 to #455 - swedishassassin (03/29/2013) [-]
I think you're stupid now since you've backpedaled completely from your first comment.

"I think religion is stupid and is holding all of humanity back from social and economical progress.
Without religion we might be flying hovercrafts by now."


This definately implies that you wish religion did not exist, believing we would be far ahead technologically. I proved you wrong, and you blubbered out:
"I fail to realize that just because they happened because of religion, that it means that we couldn't have done it better without it.". That's not even a proper sentence.
User avatar #459 to #457 - capslockrage (03/29/2013) [-]
It makes sense if you know how to read.
And like I said, nowhere does it say that I wish religion never existed.
I said to you, 3 times I believe, that if THEY DID NOT FORCE IT ON SOCIETY, THAT WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF.
I'M TRYING TO SAY THAT IF THEY DIDN'T EFFECT OTHER THINGS THAN THEIR PERSONAL LIVES WITH IT, THAT WE WOULD BE BETTER OFF.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE RELIGION, I'M SAYING THAT THEY SHOULD KEEP IT TO THEIR PERSONAL LIVES, AND NOT IN POLITICS AND SCIENCE.

You keep saying that I myself am saying stupid things, and yet everything I have said has made sense, you're just too illiterate to read it.

Please stop, you're just saying the same things, which in turn makes me say the same things back to you, but each time progressively getting more retard friendly.
User avatar #463 to #459 - swedishassassin (03/29/2013) [-]
...you ******* idiot. If you truly believe we would be better off without religion, then you would desire that it never existed, or else you'd be cynical in the fact that you would want people held back.

Ive been reading your **** , and you've back-peddled on nearly everything you first said. And now you're trying to cover it up by saying I'm illiterate, which is pathetic.

Come back when you're not a kid.
User avatar #464 to #463 - capslockrage (03/29/2013) [-]
You're the " ******* idiot"
I never said we would be better off without religion entirely, I never once said that, I said we would be better off without it being forced on society, I have explained this numerous times but it does not sink into your thick childish skull.
"kid"
#465 to #464 - swedishassassin (03/30/2013) [-]
"I think religion is stupid and is holding all of humanity back from social and economical progress.
Without religion we might be flying hovercrafts by now."


YES YOU DID, YOU CONTRADICTING GIT. "WITHOUT RELIGION". Not "WITHOUT BEING FORCED RELIGION"

You are a whole new level of stupid.
User avatar #466 to #465 - capslockrage (03/30/2013) [-]
Like I said, I implied it, and like I said again, it never said without religion entirely.
You're so stupid it hurts me. I am physically pained by how stupid you really are.
I'm actually under the impression that you're 13-14.
User avatar #467 to #466 - swedishassassin (03/30/2013) [-]
"Without religion we might be flying hovercrafts by now."

I don't know how else "Without relgion" be interpreted. For the sake of humanity I hope you're just trying to troll me at this point.

It's not like I'm getting my Masters in European History, and have a pretty hard grasp on how religion affected Europe in the Dark, Medieval and Renaissance Ages or anything to know what I'm talking about.
User avatar #468 to #467 - capslockrage (03/30/2013) [-]
Like I said, your whole argument is on one of my sentences, which you took literally, when it was just an example.
I already explained what I MEANT by saying that, you're just repeating yourself, showing a lack of intelligence.
Also a masters in history doesn't really mean much.
User avatar #469 to #468 - swedishassassin (03/31/2013) [-]
What the **** are you talking about, an example? I don't give a **** what you "meant". All it means is you know you said something completely uneducated and are trying to take it back instead of admitting it, like a bitch.

And sure, a 19 year old saying a Master's degree doesn't mean much really carries weight. Say that to my set-up research job that'll pay me about $45,000 starting salary. You can keep living off of your parents' income, child.
User avatar #475 to #469 - capslockrage (04/01/2013) [-]
Look at all your blind accusations.
I think we are done here.
User avatar #476 to #475 - swedishassassin (04/02/2013) [-]
Says the ******** who contradicted everything he said.
User avatar #472 to #469 - capslockrage (04/01/2013) [-]
Continuing on this, because there is too many replies.
Also, the 67.5k is NOT ******** , I do lucrative things online, it may not be a 100% consistent 67.5k, but I averaged my last 3 years profit.

And yes, I do know what literally means, and when I said it, I meant that you took what I said to be what I completely meant, from one sentence.
I'll just let you win this one then, "I'm sorry for making such a fool of myself in that one sentence, and I fully understand why you dissected that one point out of the entire comment and repeated it through many of your comments"

And I did not "wish" death on you, I just gave you a viable option to end your miserable existence.

Also, no opinion can be a "stupid ******* opinion" (real intelligent choice of words there pal) because an opinion is just that, an "opinion" It's not something I stated to be true or factual, it was just an opinion. If your next comment is about my income, that one part of that one comment, or something containing more petty insults then I'm not even going to bother replying.

User avatar #474 to #472 - swedishassassin (04/01/2013) [-]
>Lucrative Things online
>Trying to sound badass or some **** .
>I'm still calling ******** if you can't even say what you do

"In fact, you should hang yourself."
You literally said, I should hang myself. It's a suggestion of desire. You wished it.

And I'm using 'reel intelugant werds' to try and make it easier for you to understand, since you don't know what half the words you're trying to say means.
0
#473 to #472 - swedishassassin has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #470 to #469 - capslockrage (03/31/2013) [-]
Actually I make $67,500 a year working for myself, child.
And I was saying that your particular masters is worthless, not one that is in something practical.

And what I said was not uneducated, it was simply an opinion.
Leave it to someone as stupid as yourself to take something someone said literally and base their entire argument around it, ignoring everything else.

You're worthless.
In fact, you should hang yourself.
#471 to #470 - swedishassassin (03/31/2013) [-]
oh ok 19yo. I can feel the ******** of that $68k flowing through you.
There is something called an 'educated opinion', which by saying "And what I said was not uneducated, it was simply an opinion", you've shown you've never heard of it. I ain't surprised.

An educated opinion is also commonly known as an inference, which is a opinion that uses justification from proven facts, like when I described the early monks who saved much of Greek/Roman/Eastern mathematics and sciences, as well as architecture and art. You just made a stupid ******* opinion, that lacked any rhyme or reason.

Also, what the **** do you mean by taking it literally? Are you saying your first comment was sarcastic or something. I don't think you know what "literally" means.

And congrats on stooping down to wish death on someone when you have no argument to give. Real mature.
#373 to #353 - gaexi (03/28/2013) [-]
i think that apart from religious and legal purposes of marriage, it is also a social institution. we get married so that we can proclaim to society our bonds to our lover, and be proud of our love and commitment in the public eye, as well as the other things. I think that this needs to be recognized. if you tell people they're not allowed to marry the person they love like everyone else does, they feel targeted.
i think that apart from religious and legal purposes of marriage, it is also a social institution. we get married so that we can proclaim to society our bonds to our lover, and be proud of our love and commitment in the public eye, as well as the other things. I think that this needs to be recognized. if you tell people they're not allowed to marry the person they love like everyone else does, they feel targeted.
User avatar #438 to #373 - swedishassassin (03/28/2013) [-]
Look, I don't have anything against 'gay marriage'. The way I see it, marriage has already been destroyed by straight people who disregard 'till death do us part'. The issue I got is with the government giving no other option that could very easily diffuse this struggle, simply out of uncompromising spite. It's childish t this point.
#135 - jijimaonanzi (03/28/2013) [-]
Not even quite. I mean at least she owns the house. I suppose people against gay marriage don't OWN the society?
User avatar #92 - haseotakaeda (03/28/2013) [-]
I'd be pissed if people parked on my property, too
Even if I didn't live there,
I mean
it's still mine
0
#173 to #92 - necroshiz **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#352 to #173 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
Cameras. Lots and lots of cameras.
User avatar #351 to #173 - haseotakaeda (03/28/2013) [-]
Well yeah but if I come around every once in a while and people parked there, i'd still be at least a lil' pissed
#140 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
i don't like or support gay marriage. Why? because i can.

**** you

User avatar #252 to #140 - Mahazama (03/28/2013) [-]
2edgy4me
#285 - princessthymicorn (03/28/2013) [-]
Civil Partnership is basically the same thing, and nobody's stopping them from having a ceremony just like a wedding. There are far more important things to fix in the world and so much government time is wasted on this issue.
User avatar #293 to #285 - noblexfenrir (03/28/2013) [-]
Black only fountains are basically the same thing, and nobody is stopping them from drinking all they want from them.
#324 to #285 - Rascal (03/28/2013) [-]
not like the government is doing anything else
0
#337 to #285 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #296 to #285 - Crusader (03/28/2013) [-]
It's the principle of separate but equal.
There used to be services that were white only and colour only, they were the same, but segregated.
For a country like the USA that says it is on the forefront of equality, that is so proud that it abolished race-based segregation and claims that every man is equal, they spend a lot of time going "It's the same, but different"
User avatar #295 to #285 - voltkills ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
basically but not quite, marriage provides different legal rights to a civl partnership, one example is that it legally makes your spouse your next-of-kin while civil partnerships dont.
[ 439 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)