| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Channels |
| User Rankings |
#170
-
solinvictus (03/28/2013) [-]
There is seriously a fundamental misunderstanding about what marriage is. It is not about love, it is not about lust. To put it simply it is about the proliferation of the species.
Historically, I cannot think of any Western culture who instituted gay marriage. Sure, there were many who have been accepting of homosexuality, such as the ancient Greeks (and not all of them for that fact, such as the Spartans). For many centuries, love was not even a precept of marriage, it was a union between a man and a woman and their families for the purpose of producing heirs. Why do you think married couples get tax incentives? To make it easier on them financially to have and raise children. Of course, now-a-days we prefer to love the person we marry, I would prefer it myself.
So many people are clamoring for gay marriage, and apparently no one has any idea what marriage is meant for. If we go to change thousands upon thousands of years of cultural and legal precedence on a whim, a political fad that has only risen in popularity in the last couple of years, where will it end? What is even the point of being married if it is no longer about having children? Just to have the state recognize that you are in love? I'm sure I'll get a lot of red thumbs for this, but someone has to stand up and speak the damn truth every once in a while because the truth has clearly not dawned on any of you.
Historically, I cannot think of any Western culture who instituted gay marriage. Sure, there were many who have been accepting of homosexuality, such as the ancient Greeks (and not all of them for that fact, such as the Spartans). For many centuries, love was not even a precept of marriage, it was a union between a man and a woman and their families for the purpose of producing heirs. Why do you think married couples get tax incentives? To make it easier on them financially to have and raise children. Of course, now-a-days we prefer to love the person we marry, I would prefer it myself.
So many people are clamoring for gay marriage, and apparently no one has any idea what marriage is meant for. If we go to change thousands upon thousands of years of cultural and legal precedence on a whim, a political fad that has only risen in popularity in the last couple of years, where will it end? What is even the point of being married if it is no longer about having children? Just to have the state recognize that you are in love? I'm sure I'll get a lot of red thumbs for this, but someone has to stand up and speak the damn truth every once in a while because the truth has clearly not dawned on any of you.
#234 to #229
-
2scared2login (03/28/2013) [-]
Actually it does, since no one wants to listen to a ****** like you.
Doesn't matter how "Right" you think you are if everyone thinks you're a huge douche.
But of course, you're not going to listen and still think you're right, and continue being a douche, and think people actually respect your opinions.
Go **** yourself. You are the reason people hate atheists.
Doesn't matter how "Right" you think you are if everyone thinks you're a huge douche.
But of course, you're not going to listen and still think you're right, and continue being a douche, and think people actually respect your opinions.
Go **** yourself. You are the reason people hate atheists.
#248 to #234
-
noblexfenrir (03/28/2013) [-] You're so angry, should probably get help for that.
Why would it matter if someone thinks I'm a douche? There are many that don't, I hardly see any reason in trying to get the endearment of someone who ignorantly believes in the opposite of me on this specific issue.
Because unfortunately, I'm not wrong, and the only way you can honestly say I am is if you support making a specific sect of person a second ***** citizen for no good reason.
Why would it matter if someone thinks I'm a douche? There are many that don't, I hardly see any reason in trying to get the endearment of someone who ignorantly believes in the opposite of me on this specific issue.
Because unfortunately, I'm not wrong, and the only way you can honestly say I am is if you support making a specific sect of person a second ***** citizen for no good reason.
#254 to #248
-
2scared2login (03/28/2013) [-]
You're the kind of ****** that goes on the internet just to try and argue with people and feel smart because you're dumb as **** in real life.
"LOL IM AN ATHEIST IM RIGHT ALL THE TIME U CAN'T ARGUE WITH ME I HAVE TWO PEOPLE THAT AGREE THAT MAKES ME RIGHT DEAL WITH IT."
You're pathetic.
And really? You're gonna try and devalue my argument by saying "LOL U MAD, BRO?"
Kill yourself.
"LOL IM AN ATHEIST IM RIGHT ALL THE TIME U CAN'T ARGUE WITH ME I HAVE TWO PEOPLE THAT AGREE THAT MAKES ME RIGHT DEAL WITH IT."
You're pathetic.
And really? You're gonna try and devalue my argument by saying "LOL U MAD, BRO?"
Kill yourself.
#257 to #254
-
noblexfenrir (03/28/2013) [-] Hardly, simply pointing out the fact you're taking this pretty harshly for no reason.
Strange how I literally haven't said anything like that yet you keep writing it as if I have. Everything I've written is pretty explained and non-pretentious.
Strange how I literally haven't said anything like that yet you keep writing it as if I have. Everything I've written is pretty explained and non-pretentious.
#206 to #170
-
mrmamric (03/28/2013) [-]
The message of marriage died back about in the sixties and seventies. That was when free love exploded and people were ******* like rabbits. People nowadays don't realize what life was like before then and our entire culture was changed. Now, since marriage doesn't mean what it used to, people have to abberate what marriage stands for.
It's really interesting how our society has changed. What's more interesting is how I'm likely going to get red thumbs from this comment even though this is just a lesson on history.
It's really interesting how our society has changed. What's more interesting is how I'm likely going to get red thumbs from this comment even though this is just a lesson on history.
#231 to #206
-
solinvictus (03/28/2013) [-]
Your absolutely right, and of course those cultures back then are mocked today as being unenlightened and chauvinistic. So people, especially from our generation, are not learning family values, unless their parents teach them, and our schools are hard at work to undermine that.
As for history, the morons on this site have clearly stated that history means nothing. Its just a bunch of dead guys, what could we possibly learn from them, right?
As for history, the morons on this site have clearly stated that history means nothing. Its just a bunch of dead guys, what could we possibly learn from them, right?
#212 to #206
-
noblexfenrir (03/28/2013) [-] Peoples views and opinions change with time, this isn't inherently a bad thing. Sixties and seventies also were times of heavy discrimination and sexual repression, we evolve and try to better ourselves, this is a case of such an event.
#224 to #216
-
noblexfenrir (03/28/2013) [-] It's not evolution of marriage, marriage can't really evolve since it's a construct purely derived from societies views on the current acceptance. Ancient sumerians had group marriages/gay marriages/man-woman marriages, etc. Ancient greeks and romans really didn't put so much "ceremonial" basis on marriage and instead married for families (to have children and what not) but would commonly take part in homosexual acts in bath houses and such. Native americans viewed groupings of opposite sex and same sex individuals to be equal because they put more importance on the spirit than the body.
It's more just our societal opinion that's evolving. That's what makes us better creatures.
It's more just our societal opinion that's evolving. That's what makes us better creatures.
#258 to #224
-
solinvictus (03/28/2013) [-]
Your wrong about the Greeks and Romans, they put a GREAT deal of ceremony into marriage, but it was between and man and a woman. Furthermore, what lasting effect have the Sumarians had on Western society, as opposed to the Greeks and Romans. Very little.
#267 to #258
-
noblexfenrir (03/28/2013) [-] During paganistic times and outside of more abrahamic controlled areas? I think not, they purely put emphasis on family, marriages otherwise were not held in very high regard minus possibly royal groupings.
Oh and you're totally right, the sumerians had no lasting impact whatsoever....minus the heavy contributions to math, architecture, monetary systems, lunar calenders, etc, etc...but I mean who cares about those right?
Oh and you're totally right, the sumerians had no lasting impact whatsoever....minus the heavy contributions to math, architecture, monetary systems, lunar calenders, etc, etc...but I mean who cares about those right?
#251 to #232
-
noblexfenrir (03/28/2013) [-] Well in the US the supreme court is hearing testimony on repealing prop 8 (The law ****** in california that banned gay marriage) and the DOMA (Defense of marriage act, that basically calls marriage "between 1 man and 1 woman" and tries to set that as the countries standard which many don't agree with).
So yeah right now it's a pretty hot topic.
So yeah right now it's a pretty hot topic.
#268 to #263
-
noblexfenrir (03/28/2013) [-] Yeah it's going to be a pretty heated issue for a bit longer, even though nothing will get done anytime soon. They have to go through countless appeals and testimonies and then they still have to account for the time to make an actual decision. It's aggravatingly slow.
#178 to #170
-
richardastley ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-] But that's the problem with your argument. Marriage isn't just about healthy functioning of the species. You know what else would be good for the species? If we just killed all the rich people and had our governments redistribute that wealth. Another thing we could do is end the suffering caused by poverty by killing everyone living in poverty. Or even if we randomly kill a certain percentage of the people on Earth, eventually absolute poverty won't even be an issue.
Marriage has evolved, at least in most societies, to be a monogamous romantic relationship between two people who love each other. There is even the individual benefits for each couple that come with a partner's ability to make decisions for medical emergencies or to raise children. The purpose of gay marriage legalization is for the right to have a life partner to make those decisions or help raise those children. The purpose of marriage has evolved into more than just human function because it is a human rights issue.
Marriage has evolved, at least in most societies, to be a monogamous romantic relationship between two people who love each other. There is even the individual benefits for each couple that come with a partner's ability to make decisions for medical emergencies or to raise children. The purpose of gay marriage legalization is for the right to have a life partner to make those decisions or help raise those children. The purpose of marriage has evolved into more than just human function because it is a human rights issue.
#185 to #182
-
solinvictus (03/28/2013) [-]
How does it work? It serves no purpose for society or for children. If the only reason for gays to get married is so they can deal with medical decisions then make a law that deals with that issue by itself, not fundamentally change the meaning of thousands of years of tradition just for that insignificant little purpose.
#190 to #185
-
richardastley ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-] Many gay couples adopt. That helps children. Generally speaking, orphanages prefer two parents to adopt over a single person because the research suggests that two parents are better than one. The research also suggests that kids raised by gay couples are just as well off as kids raised by heterosexual couples. So there's a huge hole in your argument!
#207 to #195
-
richardastley ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-] I strongly recommend you look up "Comparing the Impact of Homosexual and Heterosexual Parents on Children" in the Journal of Homosexuality by Allen and Burrell. A TON of evidence is just piled up in that article arguing against your statement "Only a man and a woman can raise a child right." It's a meta-analysis looking into research over the years. The DOI number is 10.1300/J082v32n02_02
Happy reading.
Happy reading.
#174 to #170
-
2scared2login (03/28/2013) [-]
I do not want to get married because i want to have children or get tax decreases. I want to spend the rest of my life with some one and truly share it with them. Why would Romans have any relevance at all? That was a long time ago and shouldnt be a basis for marriage in the US.
#179 to #174
-
solinvictus (03/28/2013) [-]
You don't need to get married to spend the rest of your life with someone. As for your comment on history, you truly have no idea how much you are affected by it. A great deal of western law is based on ancient laws, many established by the Romans. Our very constitution was inspired by the Roman Republic, Anglo-Saxon law, and Jewish law from the old testament. Historical precedence means a great deal. Take for instance private property, a right that has been established for centuries. Take that right away and one only need look at the old Soviet Union to see the result of it.
#193 to #179
-
2scared2login (03/28/2013) [-]
This is true, we do hold onto some customs and laws from the past, but we are a lot more civilized now. Things shouldn't be kept the same because old values were based on it. Laws and values need to be more flexible (to an extent) to work and mold into an ever growing modern society. If we still kept old traditions and faiths women and blacks could still be treated as second rate citizens or slaves. If our laws and values don't grow with us, our society will never go anywhere.
#171 to #170
-
jamintomusic (03/28/2013) [-]
so what about infertile people? they shouldn't get married? And its also about the benefits of getting married. such as tax cuts. and welfare when your spouse dies. which gay couples do not receive in many states. like they do in Canada for one.
#187 to #171
-
solinvictus (03/28/2013) [-]
Marriage is not about the welfare of husband and wife, it is, has always been, and should always remain about the welfare of the children. As for infertile people, they can still raise children in an ideal household, can they not? Now I have nothing against gays in particular, but they cannot act as parents. Children must have a father and mother figure in their lives in order to understand their gender role in society. A man cannot be a mother to a child anymore than a woman can be a father. They are not biologically programmed to do so.
#200 to #194
-
solinvictus (03/28/2013) [-]
I'm certainly not saying a single parent can't raise a child right, but generally speaking, as studies have shown, children do much better in a household with a mother and a father. You can tell me your personal story all you want, but that doesn't change anything.
#269 to #261
-
cheeselol (03/28/2013) [-] its fine to be against gay marriage if you have a solid reason.
its a tradition is not a solid reason, its retarded.
the KKK dont follow the tradition of lynching black people publicly any more, does that mean they should start against because 'its tradition'?
again with the post, two people who you will never know getting married will not affect you in the ******* slightest.
its a tradition is not a solid reason, its retarded.
the KKK dont follow the tradition of lynching black people publicly any more, does that mean they should start against because 'its tradition'?
again with the post, two people who you will never know getting married will not affect you in the ******* slightest.
