Does it work? - #87958550 added by Krystoking at Against Gay Marriage

Back to the content 'Against Gay Marriage'

Refresh

Options

asd

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

#399 to #40 - anon id: 74f1ea59

Reply0

(03/28/2013)[-]

You're fabulous, Benotter...

And I would never hurt you unless you wanted me to

#396 to #40 - anon id: ee9457f2

Reply0

(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

Reply0

(03/28/2013)[-]

Its never actually separate but equal, although it could be if people actually cared.

#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

Reply0

(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.

#346 to #40 - awesomanium

Reply0

(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

Reply0

(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

Reply0

(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

Reply0

(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

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

#313 to #40 - anon id: 87aa13d5

Reply0

(03/28/2013)[-]

oh look , suddenly everyone is gay

#413 to #313 - benotter

Reply0

(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.

#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

Reply0

(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 - anon id: 0536b876

Reply0

(03/28/2013)[-]

I support gayrriage

#416 to #286 - benotter

Reply0

(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 - anon id: 67101126

Reply0

(03/28/2013)[-]

butt-budies. Well call them butt-budies.

#417 to #281 - benotter

Reply0

(03/28/2013)[-]

There is always one. Your that one.

#274 to #40 - cazabrow

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

Reply0

(03/28/2013)[-]

It would fail, what religions newer then 200 years old have survived on a non-scam-esque scale?

#262 to #40 - anon id: c6f5b02e

Reply0

(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

Reply0

(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.

#164 to #40 - Krystoking

Reply0

(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 - anon id: a0a41033

Reply0

(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

Reply0

(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

Reply0

(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

Reply0

(03/28/2013)[-]

*highFive*

#118 to #40 - anon id: 4fc18543

Reply0

(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

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.

#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

Reply0

(03/28/2013)[-]

Look up presshearttocontinue of youtube, fap to your hearts content

#150 to #116 - ilovehitler

Reply0

(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 - anon id: 4aa7d339

Reply0

(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

Reply0

(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.

#99 to #40 - anon id: fc096dfb

Reply0

(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

Reply0

(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

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.

#77 to #40 - anon id: 67f52490

Reply0

(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.

#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

#371 to #56 - anon id: a9d40c60

Reply0

(03/28/2013)[-]

hahahaha. People equal...that's a good one.

#347 to #56 - greensky

Reply0

(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

Reply0

(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 id: eec3490c

Reply0

(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 id: 098ed09d

Reply0

(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

Reply0

(03/28/2013)[-]

This

#283 to #56 - anon id: 4d3f7833

Reply0

(03/28/2013)[-]

that would entail rights for *******

#175 to #56 - anon id: 67b2a9d7

Reply0

(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

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

Reply0

(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.

#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".

#403 to #103 - Seventeen

Reply0

(03/28/2013)[-]

that's what we have in england.

#414 to #403 - Krystoking

Reply0

(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

Reply0

(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

#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.

#424 to #290 - benotter

Reply0

(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

Reply0

(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.

#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

Reply0

(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.

#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?

#59 to #56 - benotter

Reply0

(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

Reply0

(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

#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.

#41 to #40 - sabat**User deleted account**

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**

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.

Back to the content 'Against Gay Marriage'