Anonymous comments allowed.
#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.
User avatar #333 to #170 - godofcorndog ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
People have owned slaves for thousands of years. Why should we free them on a whim and political fad? People just can't face the damn truth every once in a while because the truth has clearly not dawned on any of you.
#312 to #170 - rodneyabc (03/28/2013) [-]
Nah most of us are just generally clever enough to make the logical leap that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone so it shouldn't be banned.

Writing a lot of words and over thinking **** doesn't make you clever. It just shifts you sideways from down syndrome retarded to autistic retarded.
User avatar #210 to #170 - noblexfenrir (03/28/2013) [-]
You are so foolish it's hilarious. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with proliferation of the species, especially considering marriage is an entirely human construct that holds no basis on reproduction.
User avatar #335 to #210 - matuemco (03/28/2013) [-]
and btw love how #170 is talking about speaking "damn truth" thinking his opinion is the truth
#221 to #210 - anon (03/28/2013) [-]
You are such a pretentious douche it's pathetic.
#250 to #221 - anon (03/28/2013) [-]
Why don't you add to the debate rather then being a pretentious douche.
#255 to #250 - anon (03/28/2013) [-]
Because there's no debating with this faggot.
User avatar #229 to #221 - noblexfenrir (03/28/2013) [-]
Yup, doesn't mean I'm wrong though.
#234 to #229 - anon (03/28/2013) [-]
Actually it does, since no one wants to listen to a faggot 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.
User avatar #316 to #234 - hurricanesam (03/28/2013) [-]
I dunno man, youre kind of being a douche right now.
User avatar #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 class citizen for no good reason.

#254 to #248 - anon (03/28/2013) [-]
You're the kind of faggot that goes on the internet just to try and argue with people and feel smart because you're dumb as **** in real life.


You're pathetic.

And really? You're gonna try and devalue my argument by saying "LOL U MAD, BRO?"

Kill yourself.
#328 to #254 - rodneyabc (03/28/2013) [-]
Considering the dude hasn't once mentioned atheism and you just brought it up, im going to go ahead and assume he mentioned it somewhere else and you decided to ******* stalk the guy from another part of the site and hound him about it here.

You are ******* creepy.
User avatar #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.
#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.
#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?
#240 to #231 - mrmamric (03/28/2013) [-]
"Exactly. I mean, they're dead. So it's not like they could have taught us anything important anyway, right?"

~The average FJ user
User avatar #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.
#216 to #212 - mrmamric (03/28/2013) [-]
I don't really see how the evolution of marriage fits into us evolving into better creatures, but I'm just going to assume you're right.
User avatar #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.
#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.
#309 to #258 - theseustheminotaur (03/28/2013) [-]
Do you know nothing about the sumerians at all?
User avatar #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?
#232 to #224 - mrmamric (03/28/2013) [-]
At any rate, why has there been such a sudden boom of gay stuff all over the internet lately? Is there some gay, worldwide vote that I'm missing here or something?
User avatar #251 to #232 - noblexfenrir (03/28/2013) [-]
Well in the US the supreme court is hearing testimony on repealing prop 8 (The law passed 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.
#263 to #251 - mrmamric (03/28/2013) [-]
Oh. So that's why that guy had a Prop 8 bumpersticker on... I thought he was just stuck in the past. XD
User avatar #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.
#249 to #232 - theseustheminotaur (03/28/2013) [-]
I think it's because of the supreme court looking at prop 8, possibly overturning it.
#264 to #249 - mrmamric (03/28/2013) [-]
That explains a lot. Thank you!
#265 to #264 - theseustheminotaur (03/28/2013) [-]
User avatar #188 to #170 - Dropkicksxxx (03/28/2013) [-]
So everyone who gets married has children? What does a it honestly hurt anyone, and speaking of children, many straight couples have children and don't even want them but if a gay couple has children they have to try, be it adopted or surrogate they have to spendthat time and money to do so, because they truly want to raise a child. I'm sure the kid sitting in an orphanage doesn't mind having two moms or two dads. And look now they have a heir, and a child who would have grown up without parents otherwise now has a loving family. Your argument is flawed, why should we continue to follow laws made two thousand years ago? Just because we've been conditioned to them? What honestly could follow gay marriage that would be so horrific that we can't allow it?
User avatar #178 to #170 - richardastley (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.
#180 to #178 - solinvictus (03/28/2013) [-]
Kill, kill, kill. Is that your answer to everything you ******* retard? As for evolution, lets look at it this way. When species evolve and survive, it is because what they evolved into works and is useful.
User avatar #182 to #180 - richardastley (03/28/2013) [-]
Exactly. Having a romantic life partner, even if you're gay, works and is useful.

Evolution doesn't always work in the species' favour, but in this case, it does!
#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.
#204 to #185 - anon (03/28/2013) [-]
It has also been hypothesized that gays are a sort of biological population control.
User avatar #190 to #185 - richardastley (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!
#195 to #190 - solinvictus (03/28/2013) [-]
Only a man and a woman can raise a child right. As I said in a comment before, a man cannot be a mother to a child, nor can a woman be a father, and a child needs both in order to understand its gender role in society.
User avatar #207 to #195 - richardastley (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.
#181 to #180 - solinvictus (03/28/2013) [-]
accidentally hit enter or something. where was I? Marriage has remained fundamentally the same for so many millenia because it works and doesn't need to be altered.
#176 to #170 - necroshiz **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #220 to #176 - Dropkicksxxx (03/28/2013) [-]
Exactly, this kid is arguing that we should still live by laws created 2000 years ago. If we always did that we would never advance as a race, just kick our legs and flail around in one spot.
#225 to #220 - necroshiz **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #244 to #225 - Dropkicksxxx (03/28/2013) [-]
A wanna be what? I'm sorry I must have a brain fart brewing haha
#253 to #244 - necroshiz **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #260 to #253 - Dropkicksxxx (03/28/2013) [-]
Ahh I see good sir, I've been here forever and should have known that, like since it was bright green haha. I didn't make a user name till '10 I believe though. Thanks for clearing that up for me, I must peel myself away from here for work though. G-night
#271 to #260 - necroshiz **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#184 to #176 - solinvictus (03/28/2013) [-]
Morality is the distinction between right and wrong. What is fundamentally right and what is wrong does not change from one society to the next. Nihilism will get you no where with me.
#191 to #184 - necroshiz **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#174 to #170 - anon (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 - anon (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 ONLINE (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.
User avatar #215 to #187 - Dropkicksxxx (03/28/2013) [-]
Dude, your logic is is flawed to the point where I don't even know how to argue, you'll have some rhetorical open ended answer that has no basis other than your own opinion. Do gays not have family to unite? Can they not have a surrogate or a donor to have children? Why can't they raise a child, because you say so? I happen to know a few people raised by same sex couples, you would never be able to tell, they get their gender identity from T.V and from interactions at school. Also, most cultures that do not accept gays do not because of religion. I really don't want a reply unless you have something intelligent, not this crap you learned from watching FOX news for an hour or two. The only thing it would change about marriage is who could do it.
#194 to #187 - jamintomusic ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
i only grew up with a working full time mother and i turned out just fine. and no i am not gay.
#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.
User avatar #242 to #200 - cheeselol (03/28/2013) [-]
you're two arguments against it are pretty much 'its tradition' and 'it is bad for children'

do the ******* math.

whats no parents

a single parent

a single gay parent

a gay couple?

as for 'its a tradition. **** off.
#261 to #242 - solinvictus (03/28/2013) [-]
If you would like to lead a traditionless life, that is fine, its your business. But that doesn't give you the right to fundamentally alter mine and a large majority of Americans just because you disagree.
User avatar #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.
 Friends (0)