Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
Anonymous commenting is allowed
#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
#399 to #40 - devout feminist (03/28/2013) [-]
You're fabulous, Benotter...

And I would never hurt you unless you wanted me to
#396 to #40 - devout feminist (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.

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.
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?
#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
#313 to #40 - devout feminist (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 #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!
#286 to #40 - devout feminist (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.
#281 to #40 - devout feminist (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 #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?
#262 to #40 - devout feminist (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.
User avatar #164 to #40 - Krystoking (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.
#136 to #40 - devout feminist (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 #427 to #136 - benotter (03/28/2013) [-]
Then remove the benefits of marriage and make it love based, not money based.
User avatar #148 to #136 - ilovehitler (03/28/2013) [-]
Then give it the same benefits, but don't call it marriage.
User avatar #128 to #40 - icytime ONLINE (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*
#118 to #40 - devout feminist (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.
#116 to #40 - DJstar ONLINE (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 **** .
#107 to #40 - devout feminist (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.

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



#99 to #40 - devout feminist (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.
#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.
#77 to #40 - devout feminist (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.
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
#371 to #56 - devout feminist (03/28/2013) [-]
hahahaha. People equal...that's a good one.
#347 to #56 - greensky (03/28/2013) [-]
********** should also have equal rights?
That's what germans are recently fighting about
equal rights for **********
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 ****** .
#297 to #56 - devout feminist (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 - devout feminist (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
#283 to #56 - devout feminist (03/28/2013) [-]
that would entail rights for *******
#175 to #56 - devout feminist (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.

#119 to #56 - jiltist (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 (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 #403 to #103 - Seventeen (03/28/2013) [-]
that's what we have in england.
User avatar #414 to #403 - Krystoking (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 (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
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 (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 (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 (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 #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.
User avatar #294 to #290 - Krystoking (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 (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.
-6
#109 to #103 - honeybadgercares has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #115 to #109 - Krystoking (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 #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
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.
+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.
 Friends (0)