Against Gay Marriage. .. What's with all of the gay-marriage-related content lately? Against Gay Marriage What's with all of the gay-marriage-related content lately?
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (439)
[ 439 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
154 comments displayed.
#12 - diespitris
Reply +112
(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?
#291 to #12 - rjgnal
Reply -1
(03/28/2013) [-]
its funnyjunk, we want our rights!
its funnyjunk, we want our rights!
#131 to #12 - anon
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
Op's a fag.
#199 to #12 - anon
Reply 0
(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.
#270 to #12 - burningsmurfs
Reply 0
(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.
#303 to #12 - anon
Reply 0
(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.
#381 to #12 - anon
Reply 0
(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.
#161 to #12 - sloths
Reply +1
(03/28/2013) [-]
that gif should be saying it aint gonna suck it self now is it
#13 to #12 - acemanioo
Reply +43
(03/28/2013) [-]
It is currently being debated in the Supreme Court
#14 to #13 - diespitris
Reply +25
(03/28/2013) [-]

Ah, okay. Thank you for enlightening me.
#142 to #13 - shoryuken
Reply +8
(03/28/2013) [-]
just to be clear here, the US supreme court? there's more than one supreme court in the world
#168 to #142 - jacobroan
Reply +7
(03/28/2013) [-]
Yes, the US Supreme Court.
#359 to #142 - anon
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
Yeah, but we like to use our own languages to declare it
#315 to #142 - anon
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
Are there any more countries in the world? The more you know...
#5 - wawaskittletits
Reply +61
(03/27/2013) [-]
#275 to #5 - ningyoaijin ONLINE
Reply +4
(03/28/2013) [-]
Why are these images so funny?
#308 to #275 - anon
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
i dunno lol
#55 to #5 - bigbaddrag
Reply +9
(03/28/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#40 - benotter
Reply +24
(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
#164 to #40 - Krystoking
Reply 0
(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.
#262 to #40 - anon
Reply 0
(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.
#419 to #262 - benotter
Reply 0
(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.
#281 to #40 - anon
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
butt-budies. Well call them butt-budies.
#417 to #281 - benotter
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
There is always one. Your that one.
#93 to #40 - ondaysthatendiny
Reply +2
(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.
#382 to #40 - capslockrage
Reply -1
(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.
#411 to #382 - benotter
Reply 0
(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.
#443 to #411 - capslockrage
Reply -1
(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.
#99 to #40 - anon
Reply 0
(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.
#429 to #99 - benotter
Reply 0
(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.
#118 to #40 - anon
Reply 0
(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.
#399 to #40 - anon
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
You're fabulous, Benotter...

And I would never hurt you unless you wanted me to
#44 to #40 - elyiia
Reply +1
(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.
#49 to #44 - benotter
Reply +1
(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.
#274 to #40 - cazabrow ONLINE
Reply +1
(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.
#418 to #274 - benotter
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
It would fail, what religions newer then 200 years old have survived on a non-scam-esque scale?
#292 to #40 - paintplayer
Reply +1
(03/28/2013) [-]
I'm straight and I tried to explain that concept to some people and they called me a bigot.
#415 to #292 - benotter
Reply 0
(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!
#321 to #40 - comicsguy
Reply +1
(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
#41 to #40 - sabat **User deleted account**
+2
has deleted their comment [-]
#50 to #41 - benotter
Reply -3
(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.
#54 to #50 - sabat **User deleted account**
+3
has deleted their comment [-]
#57 to #54 - benotter
Reply -2
(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.
#136 to #40 - anon
Reply 0
(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.
#427 to #136 - benotter
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
Then remove the benefits of marriage and make it love based, not money based.
#148 to #136 - ilovehitler
Reply -1
(03/28/2013) [-]
Then give it the same benefits, but don't call it marriage.
#128 to #40 - icytime
Reply 0
(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!
#156 to #128 - benotter
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
*highFive*
#396 to #40 - anon
Reply 0
(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.
#426 to #396 - benotter
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
Its never actually separate but equal, although it could be if people actually cared.

#107 to #40 - anon
Reply 0
(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?
#428 to #107 - benotter
Reply 0
(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.



#346 to #40 - awesomanium
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
Well, you're not really against it then, you're just opposed to the attention it's been getting.
#412 to #346 - benotter
Reply 0
(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.
#420 to #412 - awesomanium
Reply 0
(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.
#425 to #420 - benotter
Reply 0
(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?
#77 to #40 - anon
Reply 0
(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.
#313 to #40 - anon
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
oh look , suddenly everyone is gay
#413 to #313 - benotter
Reply 0
(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.
#116 to #40 - DJstar
Reply -2
(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.
#306 to #116 - cheftimusprime
Reply +1
(03/28/2013) [-]
Completely unrelated, I would try to have sex with the woman in your gif...
#397 to #306 - eddymolly
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
Look up presshearttocontinue of youtube, fap to your hearts content
#150 to #116 - ilovehitler
Reply 0
(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 ****.
#286 to #40 - anon
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
I support gayrriage
#416 to #286 - benotter
Reply 0
(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.
#56 to #40 - thegirlyoudespise
Reply +49
(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
#103 to #56 - Krystoking
Reply +5
(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".
#259 to #103 - defensive
Reply +1
(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.
#272 to #259 - Krystoking
Reply +2
(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
#277 to #272 - defensive
Reply -3
(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.
#279 to #277 - Krystoking
Reply +3
(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.
#280 to #279 - defensive
Reply -2
(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.
#282 to #280 - Krystoking
Reply +1
(03/28/2013) [-]
But its not the same thing. One is a bond between same sex, the other between opposite sex.
#290 to #282 - defensive
Reply -1
(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.
#294 to #290 - Krystoking
Reply +1
(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
#302 to #294 - defensive
Reply -2
(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?
#410 to #302 - Krystoking
Reply 0
(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.
#424 to #290 - benotter
Reply 0
(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.
#440 to #424 - defensive
Reply 0
(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.
#403 to #103 - Seventeen
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
that's what we have in england.
#414 to #403 - Krystoking
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
Does it work?
#422 to #414 - Seventeen
Reply +1
(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.
#432 to #422 - Krystoking
Reply 0
(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
#109 to #103 - honeybadgercares
-6
has deleted their comment [-]
#115 to #109 - Krystoking
Reply +1
(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
Reply -1
(03/28/2013) [-]
So would you be against the marriage of two men by a pastor that approves gay marriage?
#159 to #153 - Krystoking
Reply -1
(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
Reply +1
(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.
#169 to #163 - Krystoking
Reply -1
(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?
#119 to #56 - jiltist
Reply +3
(03/28/2013) [-]
Transgenders, too. The LGB community is getting their rights, but T's are still heavily persecuted.
#423 to #119 - benotter
Reply 0
(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.
#371 to #56 - anon
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
hahahaha. People equal...that's a good one.
#347 to #56 - greensky
Reply 0
(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 ...
#304 to #56 - cheftimusprime
Reply 0
(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 ******.
#297 to #56 - anon
Reply 0
(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 - anon
Reply 0
(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?
#430 to #288 - benotter
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
This
#283 to #56 - anon
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
that would entail rights for *******
#175 to #56 - anon
Reply 0
(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.

#59 to #56 - benotter
Reply 0
(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.
#60 to #59 - thegirlyoudespise
Reply +1
(03/28/2013) [-]
I just think that if two gay people want to be married, they should be allowed to
#66 to #60 - benotter
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
I think that marriage is a corrupt institution.
Thank god we can both have opinions, right?
#67 to #66 - thegirlyoudespise
Reply +1
(03/28/2013) [-]
yea
Just some people want to get married is all
#31 - jtdoggs **User deleted account**
+28
has deleted their comment [-]
#144 to #31 - shoryuken
Reply -3
(03/28/2013) [-]
pretty much, i don't care for it though. reminds me of kony 2012.
#183 to #144 - cadencee
Reply +1
(03/28/2013) [-]
Except that Kony was never a real issue whereas this is.
#189 to #183 - shoryuken
Reply -2
(03/28/2013) [-]
there are more important ones than this one, so many more.
#197 to #189 - cadencee
Reply +1
(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.
#208 to #197 - shoryuken
Reply -2
(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.
#213 to #208 - cadencee
Reply 0
(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.
#227 to #213 - shoryuken
Reply -2
(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
#236 to #227 - cadencee
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
Im not talking about bandwagons on funnyjunk really just the issue in general.
#319 to #31 - anon
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
Is calling something a majority agree a bandwagon the new FJ bandwagon?
#320 to #31 - gavinchase
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
Yes and no.
More like an internet bandwagon.
#20 - thedarkestrogue
Reply +1
(03/28/2013) [-]
MFW everything involving gay marriage.   
   
Honestly.    
WHO THE HELL CARES IF THEY GET MARRIED!
MFW everything involving gay marriage.

Honestly.
WHO THE HELL CARES IF THEY GET MARRIED!
#25 to #20 - sirbrentcoe
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
the people who can't have a civil union do   
   
and so do Christians   
   
and politicians   
   
and pretty much everyone who doesn't ever want to get married to someone of the same sex.    
   
(kinda stupid, right?)
the people who can't have a civil union do

and so do Christians

and politicians

and pretty much everyone who doesn't ever want to get married to someone of the same sex.

(kinda stupid, right?)
#97 to #20 - anon
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
by this logic, remove the legal age of consent laws. It won't affect anyone but those involved, so... let toddlers decide if they want to play mommy daddy games.
#33 to #20 - defacedcreeper
Reply +2
(03/28/2013) [-]
Stupid people care
#23 to #20 - hanabro
Reply +28
(03/28/2013) [-]
The people being denied their rights.
#65 to #23 - Ruspanic
Reply +1
(03/28/2013) [-]
I support legalizing gay marriage because I think it makes sense to grant to committed same-sex couples the privileges associated with state recognition of marriage: hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, joint property ownership, eligibility for adopting children, etc. As far as policy is concerned, there is effectively no difference between straight couples and gay couples (age and consent remaining constant), because marriage is no longer simply about natural reproduction and child-rearing.

However, I don't think anyone is being denied natural rights.

"Marriage" as defined in the context of the gay marriage debate is purely a legal construct. It wouldn't exist without government and it is whatever the law defines it to be. It is not merely an agreement between two individuals (and sometimes their church). It's state-sanctioned marriage, and in order for the state to sanction a private interpersonal relationship it should have reason to do so. This is a public policy matter, not a matter of rights.

The problem is that the state has become so entangled with the institution of marriage that people no longer recognize as valid marriages that are not explicitly state-sanctioned. That's why gay people think they don't have a right to marry. They claim that marriage derives its sanctity from love, but they already can and do love each other. No, the marriage they care about derives its sanctity from government, and we need government approval to feel that our commitment is truly valid. That has integrated itself into the cultural norm.
#89 to #23 - anon
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
gay's have no rights
#27 to #23 - anon
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
How is it a right? Marriage has never been considered as between two people of the same gender until recent history. Why do they even care? It's obviously not for religious reasons. Regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong, the majority of main religions that see marriage as a sacred bond see gay relationships as wrong, so they're already breaking the rules. The only other reasons are legal ones, mostly involving money. If you're going to deviate from the norm, you should be ready to deal with some extra grief. Say I want to drive on the left side of the road. Should I be allowed to? Maybe the government should build a second road on top of the first one for me. Does that sound reasonable to you?
#28 to #27 - hanabro
Reply +3
(03/28/2013) [-]
The major difference is that driving on the left side of the street is dangerous to other people and likely to cause either pain or death, whereas gay marriage simply allows two people to express their love for each other and literally does not affect anyone else in any way.

Also, the whole concept of "Civil Unions" seems no different to me than drinking fountains for colored people. The majority doesn't want their thing being polluted by the icky different people using it. In the end, it doesn't affect anyone to have gays be allowed to marry. Little sub rant for you.
#39 to #23 - devilsquirrel
Reply -1
(03/28/2013) [-]
They think they are so right deprived, all the gays should ask all the blacks that grow up before they got their rights, and so see how bad they got it. besides we lose our rights everyday. they can quit whining
#47 to #39 - asschwitz ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
Implying there aren't gay black people. Bad comparison.
#48 - redclover ONLINE
Reply +17
(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
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
Not at all
#68 to #48 - peeta
Reply +1
(03/28/2013) [-]
as a business student i agree with property rights

i have nothing against gay marriage
#71 to #48 - urbemarmis
Reply +1
(03/28/2013) [-]
idk why people thumb you down man this is legit. its apples and oranges
#72 to #71 - redclover ONLINE
Reply +4
(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
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
true
#172 to #48 - necroshiz **User deleted account**
+1
has deleted their comment [-]
#239 - jellymadofficer
Reply +14
(03/28/2013) [-]
South Park offers a solution to not &quot;ruining the sanctity of marriage&quot;.   
   
 &quot;You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but, instead of referring to you as &quot;married&quot;, you can be... butt buddies.   
Instead of being &quot;man and wife&quot;, you'll be... butt buddies. You won't be &quot;betrothed&quot;, you'll be...   
 ...butt buddies. Get it? Instead of a &quot;bride and groom&quot;, you'd be...   
...butt buddies.&quot;
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 ONLINE
Reply +4
(03/28/2013) [-]
This image has expired
beaver buddies?
pussy pals?
cunt confidants?
cave chums?
choot cohorts?
minge mates?
#434 to #329 - jellymadofficer
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
I'm glad you've brought that up.   
In fact, when a Concerned Woman asks &quot;Well, what about lesbians?&quot;, the   
Governor responds with &quot;Well, like anyone cares about f**kin' dykes!&quot;   
   
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.
#79 - anon
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
I could see marriage priveledges get abused very quickly.

Could it possibly happen that 2 friends pretend they are "gay" and get married for lowered taxes, insurance, etc? And considering if one dies, the other friend can get all his ****. Plus you could date any girl you want and not have to worry about being divorced and having all your **** gone.

Anyways, its a more fragile subject in court, as it would bring a lot of new problems they'd have to deal with. Considering anyone can abuse the system.
#138 to #79 - colmcorbec
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
&quot;you could date any girl you want and not have to worry about being divorced&quot;   
   
You mean like every teen on the planet? Wooa, that would be balls :D&quot;   
   
I also heard the economy of canada has collapsed because of all the fraud.   
You know, like in Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Israel, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and every other country that legalized same sex marriage.
"you could date any girl you want and not have to worry about being divorced"

You mean like every teen on the planet? Wooa, that would be balls :D"

I also heard the economy of canada has collapsed because of all the fraud.
You know, like in Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Israel, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and every other country that legalized same sex marriage.
#87 to #79 - coolcalx
Reply +6
(03/28/2013) [-]
you're implying that straight people can't do this?
#80 to #79 - habanaro
Reply +7
(03/28/2013) [-]
Can't men and women already pretend to be married to get benefits? Why is this a sudden new problem with gay marriage?
#82 to #80 - anon
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
because its going against gender roles.

the court: Alright so whos the husband?

the gay couple: we both are.

the court: ****. how do i deal with this?
#86 to #82 - paradoxpoetic
Reply +6
(03/28/2013) [-]
How is that a problem? Why do they need to know who the husband is? Does the husband get specific rights?
#98 to #86 - zonicoi ONLINE
Reply +1
(03/28/2013) [-]
Because, As i'm assuming from what i've heard from other people, in like cases with children, the mother almost always gets the children unless the father has some serious **** on her.
or so i'm told.
#100 to #98 - paradoxpoetic
Reply +3
(03/28/2013) [-]
The way something like that works, is the primary caregiver keeps sole custody except for extreme cases. Usually this is the mother, because the mother breastfeeds, or stays home to raise the child. In the case of a homosexual partnership, if they were to divorce then the parent that acted as a primary caregiver to the child, the one that stayed home and didn't work in a single-income household, for example, would receive the child.
#101 to #100 - zonicoi ONLINE
Reply +2
(03/28/2013) [-]
See no i just look like an idiot.
god dammit paradox y u so smrt
#102 to #101 - paradoxpoetic
Reply +1
(03/28/2013) [-]
Thumbed you up because reasons.
#104 to #101 - killerostars
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
While what he said is true if the children are old enough, like 13 or so, they can have a huge influence on a court case. Like if they didn't want to go with the mother.
#106 to #104 - zonicoi ONLINE
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
you're right, but a little over on the age.
atleast in Iowa it's 9.
#113 to #100 - sweetjessierose
Reply +1
(03/28/2013) [-]
Right, because there are no dual-income straight marriages....
#114 to #113 - paradoxpoetic
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
I was answering his question in the context of homosexual relationships. In dual-income straight marriages, the child usually goes with the mother because the mother is usually the primary caregiver, unless the parents agree otherwise or there are extenuating circumstances.
#84 to #82 - habanaro
Reply +1
(03/28/2013) [-]
Except there's places where gay marriage is already legal and there's been all of no news made of problems like this.
#83 to #79 - Kingsteveooo
Reply +12
(03/28/2013) [-]
Yeah, because marriage is so sacred now with the divorce rate being 50% and all
#110 - lastofthedovakhiin
Reply +11
(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 - anon
Reply 0
(03/28/2013) [-]
You shouldn't want to
#96 - Weekendman
Reply +9
(03/28/2013) [-]
The whole situation is a big bundle of butthurt.








Literally.