Freedom of Marriage

Adjust content blockingContent Blocking

csectioncomics Rank: #314

next random

Comment

For more cartoons visit WWW.CSECTIONCOMICS.COM

Tags: csectioncomics | gay marriage | polygamy | cultural differe

THE:
E ARE My THE’ If,
we MY
Ardith flv DIFFERENT dwt.
eaa! erll) g ALL is"? WWW.

...

+2262

Views: 73497 Submitted: 05/09/2013

Block User's Content

More from csectioncomics:

What color is it?

2425

Stupid alien [C-Section Comics]

1494

This is how envy works

1159

The key to success

581

So it a duck or a rabbit?

428

You've never had a friend like him

417

Dieting is hard

111

When life gives you lemons...

Are you there Margaret? It's me, God

Just like us

Resolutions

Hide Comments

Add Comment Refresh (443)

First 2 3 4 5 Last Next

[ 443 comments ]

Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest

Live Updates: On

Options

asd

#127 - thedarkestrogue

Reply+242

(05/10/2013)[-]

This is how that country really works.

#138 to #127 - yunnie

Reply+13

(05/10/2013)[-]

#468 to #127 - vatra

Reply+2

(05/11/2013)[-]

#405 to #127 - rockamekishiko

Reply+1

(05/10/2013)[-]

which country???

#357 to #127 - anon id: 5cebde89

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

which country, asstard? it's an entire region, where they dress like that. lemme guess, you're american...

#372 to #357 - dummerbaztard

Reply+7

(05/10/2013)[-]

Let me guess, you're a butthurt arabfag?

#1 - mikelan

Reply+149

(05/09/2013)[-]

#192 to #1 - MasterManiac

Reply+15

(05/10/2013)[-]

According to most religions all three of those would be frowned upon, as they all destroy the sanctity of marriage. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's "right".

#321 to #1 - saladtongsofdeath

Reply+2

(05/10/2013)[-]

committed relationship my ass.... jim, we all know you married that land whale back in vegas, that bald head wont fool anyone

#467 to #1 - anon id: fa4ce07f

Reply0

(05/11/2013)[-]

Don't stereotype asshole.

#447 to #1 - drsmall

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

I'm all for gay marriage, but I've always thought this was a terrible argument. Just because they're gay doesn't mean that they'll never divorce , marry prematurely, or remarry multiple times.
Pic somewhat related.

#449 to #447 - mikelan

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

That's not the point it's trying to bring across.
It's hypothesizing a situation where there is a gay couple who would commit to their relationship. But they can't because laws

#221 to #1 - anon id: cdcd17b7

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

Not trying to kick start the whole anti-gay church marriage argument again but The Catholic church doesn't accept relationships that don't have a foreseeable future, and take the vows seriously. The most I've ever heard of is a third marriage in a church, and thats because the woman was widowed after the second marriage, the first was just a **** up.

Although there are gay marriages with a forseeable future and never been divorced/ married before. It's the government you should be bitching to, not the church (Well maybe westbro, they're all cunts). The marriages shown in that picture are the kind that happen in a office, which gays can do, except its called a civil partnership instead of marriage.

#114 to #1 - anon id: aa82ab87

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

"We've been in a commited relationship derp derp...
Also, we are dudes and enjoy sodomizing and jacking off each other."

#29 to #1 - anon id: f3d67a7d

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

You can't just use the worst straight people and the best gay people as examples.

#34 to #29 - blewws

Reply+56

(05/10/2013)[-]

Well it's not saying that that ALL straight people are terrible or ALL gay people are great. But respectable, committed people who happen to be gay can't get married while idiots who happen to be straight can.

#68 to #29 - Crusader

Reply+30

(05/10/2013)[-]

Of course not, but you see the point.
It's saying that the best gay person is still below the worst straight person in terms of marriage.

#75 to #29 - coolcalx

Reply+21

(05/10/2013)[-]

missing the point? check.

#185 to #29 - admiralen

Reply+9

(05/10/2013)[-]

hes saying that the worst and most retarded straight marriages is ok, but not even the best most great gay couples cant get married

#119 to #29 - anon id: 84173d8b

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

beating a dead horse.

#197 - iamjohngalt

Reply+113

(05/10/2013)[-]

#61 - Crusader

Reply+109

(05/10/2013)[-]

Just going to point this out
Polygamy, as allowed in Islam isn't as simple as "I want another wife"
There are some restrictions
- The woman getting married has to consent
- All previous wives have to consent
- You must give each wife the same amount of time, love and money as the others
- There is a limit of 4

The reason it is allowed at all is because at the time when Muhammad (or Ali depending on your sect) recorded the Qu'Ran, there was a lot of war, and therefore a lot of widows, a widowed woman couldn't go out and get married normally and was forced to beg in the streets, which ended badly for any kids, so it was recorded that if your brother, or cousin, or friend died you were allowed to take care of his wife, but again only if the previously listed criteria are met.

#181 to #61 - gharshi

Reply+39

(05/10/2013)[-]

except Muhammed had at least 22 wives and one of them (Aisha) was only 9 years old when he married her and another one of them (Zainab) was her daughter in law. he fell in love with her and made her have a divorce to marry him.

inb4 *********

#277 to #181 - anon id: 8c6f1cf7

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

I heard he married Aisha when she was 6 and ****** her when she was 9 but I doubt the reliability of my source

#292 to #181 - grocer

Reply-4

(05/10/2013)[-]

He also ****** her when she was 9, he was around 50 at the time.

#310 to #292 - envinite

Reply+2

(05/10/2013)[-]

Negative. He wait Aisha until she reach the 'mature' age, older than 16-17yo. There are some reliable source about that (hadist or some Islamic history thing). The 'fake' story one about him ******* a 9yo kids is a load of ******** and make a big controversy in Islam.

#311 to #310 - grocer

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

From Bukhari vol. 7, #65:
"Narrated Aisha that the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her
when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine
years old. Hisham said: "I have been informed that Aisha remained with the
prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).""

#326 to #311 - envinite

Reply+2

(05/10/2013)[-]

I'm not really aware with the subject but here is what I found :
- The Arabs don't really count their age (since Arabs have a different calendar, and Muslims didn't celebrate birthday), the '6 or 9 years' could be counted not since birth (http://forums.understanding-islam.com/showthread.php?1405-Aisha- s-marriage-to-the-Prophet&s=d1888128afffacd0e8f285a754b24d17)
- Aisha is 17-20 years old when Muhammad marries him, according to Shia histrory books. She was 9 years old according to Bukhari hadist
- Or some math **** that was TL;DR, but comes up with her age at 17-18 when Muhammad marries her. (www.danielpipes.org/comments/191392)[greenish-gray]
- And some source that says Aisha is 9yo, but I really doubt it's legitimacy because it has something like this : (http://www.faithfreedom.org/testimonials.htm)[greenish-gray]

I'm a muslim, but I'm not really interested in history. I just come for its good lesson.

#353 to #326 - grocer

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

I've done a fair amount of research on the Islamic religion. The Islamic calendar is shorter than the Gregorian calendar most widely used today. This means that although Sahih Bukhari states that Aisha was 9 year old, it is possible that she could have been 8 at the consumnation of the marriage.

Please use direct quotes from the Hadith or the Qur'an if you wish to debate Islam. Conspiracy theorist websites are unreliable.

#367 to #353 - envinite

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

I remember when I was in private middle school, my religion teacher says that Muhammad DID married Aisha when she was still 'underage' (note that this could be from 9-17 years old), but he DID NOT had sex with her until she become 'mature'.

Also note that marriage =/= sex. He might be married with Aisha when she was still underage, but he DID NOT had sex with her until she reach the 'legal' age. The reason why I discuss this with you is because you stated first that they had sex when Aisha still 9, which is false.

#450 to #367 - grocer

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

As I said before "Narrated Aisha that the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her
when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine
years old" Sahih Bukhari 7:65

Consumnation = The action of making a marriage or relationship complete by having sexual intercourse.

I think Sahih Bukhari (the main hadith that muslims are required to follow), is a more reputable source than your middle school teacher.

Also the Islamic definition of mature basically means the start of puberty (first period). So yes, in Islamic terms, Aisha would have been mature, and would have started puberty. Yes she started younger than the average girl, but she was still 8 or 9 years old.

#190 to #181 - recio**User deleted account**

-8

has deleted their comment [-]

#195 to #190 - gharshi

Reply+8

(05/10/2013)[-]

sexual intercourse or not, he broke his own rule. having wives =/= having sex.
also, Zainab divorced BECAUSE he fell in love with her. he fell in love with his sons wife and married her when she got a divorce.

oh and here is the name of 13 of his wives who are famous. it is assumed that he had more, but it is not counted as 'fact' because of lack of evidence.

Khadija bint Khuwaylid
Sawda bint Zamʿa
Aisha bint Abi Bakr
Hafsa bint Umar
Zaynab bint Khuzayma
Hind bint Abi Umayya
Zaynab bint Jahsh
Juwayriyya bint al-Harith
Rayhana bint Zayd
Safiyya bint Huyayy
Ramla bint Abi Sufyan
Maria al-Qibtiyya
Maymuna bint al-Harith

oh and by the way, he had a sexual relationship with one of his slaves named Mariyah. he was not married to her.

#213 to #195 - recio**User deleted account**

has deleted their comment [-]

#234 to #213 - gharshi

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

> he kept his wives because non of them wanted a divorce.
so what you are saying is that it is okay to break the 4 wives rule just because the women are okay with it?

oh and I like how you chose to ignore the whole sex slave Mariyah thing...

#219 to #195 - Crusader

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

Well, actually, yes by Islamic law, you have to have sex with all or none.
Not to mention you have to consummate the marriage.

#115 to #61 - kierz

Reply+9

(05/10/2013)[-]

He also liked to marry children, so that kinda helped.

#189 to #115 - recio**User deleted account**

-1

has deleted their comment [-]

#236 to #189 - gharshi

Reply+4

(05/10/2013)[-]

>her father offered the marriage
yeah, nah he planned it.

>they married after she reached puberty
which was when she was 9 years old.

I like how you write it all in a way to make it sound totally sacred and innocent

#303 to #236 - recio**User deleted account**

has deleted their comment [-]

#269 to #236 - anon id: 806dbbe5

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

They got engaged when she was 9. She only got to live with him when she reached puberty.

#275 to #269 - gharshi

Reply+1

(05/10/2013)[-]

when do you think girls hit puberty?

#304 to #275 - recio**User deleted account**

has deleted their comment [-]

#132 to #61 - digitroll

Reply+4

(05/10/2013)[-]

seeking more insight here, so apart from those four criteria must you also only take a widow of your brother, cousin, friend, etc?

#157 to #132 - Crusader

Reply-2

(05/10/2013)[-]

In theory, because that's what it is supposed to be, but at the same time there were marriages of convenience and political marriages and business marriages much like you have in the western world

#178 to #61 - lolzordz

Reply+1

(05/10/2013)[-]

"consent" lol

#421 to #61 - anon id: a549d21b

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

"a widowed woman couldn't go out and get married normally and was forced to beg in the streets"

Maybe you could just not marginalize widows, polygamy seems a pretty far fetched solution...

#451 to #421 - Crusader

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

Widows are marginalized in every culture, just not to the same degree, it's because in most cultures, up until recently, a woman couldn't work, she could work in a shop with her husband, but it was extremely rare for a woman to run a business, or even work in one.
You would find the same at the time in Europe, in fact, the middle east in places like Jerusalem was more accepting of working females than Europe, and allowed some widows to work, but it was more that they couldn't work and raise the kids.

#452 to #451 - europe#200 on commentsRank#200

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

#402 to #61 - nigeltheoutlaw

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

>there is a limit of 4
It's like when the store is offering a 2 for one deal but limits you to four total in one purchase. What a rip off.

#365 to #61 - anon id: 7b1e2d31

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

Except in Islam women are treated horribly, especially in the Middle East. If a man rapes a woman it's her fault for "provoking" him to do so. If a woman takes the man to court she can end up being stoned or going to prison for "adultery" when the man's charges usually aren't that severe.

#448 to #365 - Crusader

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

That is culture overruling religion.
Notice how that doesn't happen with muslims in places like the USA, Canada, UK or any other western nation?

#354 to #61 - redtooth#326 on commentsRank#326

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

Bit ironic your name is Crusader, then, isn't it?

#251 to #61 - daentraya

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

Muhammad was a fairly chill person for his time. Trying to make a religion to unite the chaos of religions, caring about knowledge and stuff. Compared to so many other people, he is not terrible

#204 to #61 - benedicto

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

is good. very good.

#183 to #61 - thatlonewolf

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

thanks for the heads up, i had no idea of all that, pretty helpful

#81 to #61 - kieranbaker

Reply-2

(05/10/2013)[-]

2 replies hidden: Please view thread directly to view.

#101 to #61 - awesomenessdefined

Reply-3

(05/10/2013)[-]

There isn't a limit of 4, 4 is the recommended maximum if you're doing really well and can support multiple wives. Mughal kings had many more.

#191 to #101 - recio**User deleted account**

has deleted their comment [-]

#462 to #191 - awesomenessdefined

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

4 is not the limit.

#86 to #61 - facepalmftw

Reply-9

(05/10/2013)[-]

2 replies hidden: Please view thread directly to view.

#98 to #86 - lamarisagoodname

Reply+12

(05/10/2013)[-]

people get butchered in the name of everything, it should slander the people that follow that religion, not the religion itself. When Saladin liberated the holy lands, he asked the Church to pay the ransom for their prisoners of war (as was the ethics of war back then) at which point the pastors packed up their gold and fled. Muslims, being economical powerhouses as a cause of the muslim trade laws (Malaysia actually declared their Islamic belief because of how well the muslim traders treated them) paid out of their own pockets to bring the christians back to their homeland (at which point many entered Islam because their religion practically abandoned them)

If you take nothing from this story in case you dispute it etc look up the proper rules of Jihad and Jizya and you'll get a better perspective on the issue.

I will admit, it's certainly getting a lot harder to put up a good image for Islam because of the actions of other sects but all proper muslims I've seen are really friendly, hard working and patient people and it's a very small minority (pic related) that western media focuses on so much.

#147 to #98 - jakefenris

Reply+1

(05/10/2013)[-]

I've met and interacted with two for an extended period of time. Both were dead set that they had the correct answer for absolutely everything, and nothing could persuade them otherwise. One of them, told me that without his religion he'd go on a killing spree of all the people who had wronged him. I can't say how hard one of them worked, but besides wasting an hour on saturdays, the other worked pretty hard. Though he always took his sweet time getting to where we needed to be.

#99 to #98 - facepalmftw

Reply+1

(05/10/2013)[-]

I'm not saying Muslims are evil or anything, I'm pointing out that every community has members who abuse or misinterpret the rules.

#102 to #99 - lamarisagoodname

Reply+4

(05/10/2013)[-]

My argument is that Islam is actually very accepting of those practicing other religions, just look up the Jizya law, seriously.

#318 to #102 - facepalmftw

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

I'm not saying it isn't. Did you actually read my last comment?

#97 to #86 - swiftykidd**User deleted account**

has deleted their comment [-]

#163 to #97 - Crusader

Reply+2

(05/10/2013)[-]

To be completely honest, they are like that little bullied kid that was never strong enough to do anything.
Then he hits 8th grade gets a foot and a half growth spurt and gains 40 pounds and starts becoming a bully because he wants revenge.

#360 to #97 - anon id: 7b1e2d31

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

Islamic Nations does worse to the planet than what Israel does to them.

#363 to #360 - swiftykidd**User deleted account**

has deleted their comment [-]

#154 to #97 - anon id: 3c4d8865

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

it wasn't like that in the past, but today's situation changed

#105 to #86 - anon id: 9dd315b2

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

***** are you ******* retarded?

#160 to #86 - Crusader

Reply-1

(05/10/2013)[-]

Catholics claimed that Muslims and Jews were their brothers, and then slaughtered them in the Crusades, in the name of God and for the profit of the Pope.

Germans said that the Russians were there friends and then went to war with them.

There will always be a few nutcases that go crazy, the problem is, those are the only ones you hear about because they are rare, and since you only hear about them, you think they are common.

#320 to #160 - facepalmftw

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

Hey skip, check out comment #99

#333 to #320 - Crusader

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

Hey Skip, you shouldn't make blanket accusations then.

#466 to #333 - facepalmftw

Reply0

(05/11/2013)[-]

I made no such comment. Quite the opposite in fact.

#94 to #61 - swifterly

Reply-14

(05/10/2013)[-]

2 replies hidden: Please view thread directly to view.

#193 to #94 - recio**User deleted account**

has deleted their comment [-]

#158 to #94 - Crusader

Reply-5

(05/10/2013)[-]

It is.
If you are talking about the requirement of additional clothing in the form of a burqa, niqab, hijab, etc.
That is done for the woman, it was so her beauty didn't make her a target, it made it so any attraction to her would be for her personality.
They kept the rule, but culture are superseded religion in that aspect.

#88 - therealsuperderpy#127 on contentRank#127

Reply+78

(05/10/2013)[-]

#171 to #88 - niggernazi

Reply+18

(05/10/2013)[-]

dont forget that she loves islam too

#347 to #171 - pulluspardus

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

who the heck is that?

#397 to #347 - anonymouspusy**User deleted account**

has deleted their comment [-]

#196 to #171 - recio**User deleted account**

has deleted their comment [-]

#218 to #196 - niggernazi

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

some femenists do that

#91 - infinitereaper

Reply+57

(05/10/2013)[-]

Every man dreams of that elusive 3 way relationship.

me?

I would be happy if cat's would just stop running away from me....

#112 to #91 - emptysuperman

Reply+9

(05/10/2013)[-]

I've made out with two girls at once and had a threesome with a guy and a girl, but never had a threesome with two girls.

Ugh, why couldn't I have had a threesome with two girls and made out with once guys and two threesome girls? ....wait...

#136 to #112 - anon id: 866a42c6

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

That second part is quite gay.

#470 to #136 - anon id: 0f777f89

Reply0

(05/11/2013)[-]

All your parts are completely gay.

#140 to #91 - jakefenris

Reply+6

(05/10/2013)[-]

Have a cat

#134 to #91 - europe#200 on commentsRank#200

Reply+2

(05/10/2013)[-]

Sorry, not today

#329 to #134 - rihardololz

Reply+1

(05/10/2013)[-]

#306 to #134 - drmedic

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

If you manage to find a wallpaper version of this i'll give you...hum....
I don't know.

#368 to #306 - anon id: 4a32831a

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

It seems big enough to be a wallpaper for my screen..

#401 to #368 - drmedic

Reply+1

(05/10/2013)[-]

BIGGER I TELL YOU

#139 to #91 - jakefenris

Reply+1

(05/10/2013)[-]

I'm good with one person in my love life.

#419 to #91 - bummerdrummer

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

maybe you should stop trying to **** your cats then

#302 to #91 - irishhappyposter

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

i once had a dream of a 4 way marraige. me, a male bisexual and two female bisexuals. that would be great.

#182 to #91 - anon id: fb3d4e74

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

I don't remember seeing that episode, what ep and season is that??

#398 to #182 - bookyle

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

probably from the ova

#92 to #91 - warofdawn

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

any one know source of gif i would really love to get into its "Plot"

#93 to #92 - infinitereaper

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

I believe Kiss X Sis
Meh. I'm never going to watch it.

there not even related

#152 to #92 - thatnerdyguy

Reply-1

(05/10/2013)[-]

Like infinitereaper said, Kiss X Sis.
One of my favorite Ecchi anime.

#2 - grandtheftkoala**User deleted account**

Reply+46

(05/09/2013)[-]

This

#76 to #2 - rainbowkindness

Reply+28

(05/10/2013)[-]

Can't enlarge =(

#135 to #2 - grandtheftkoala**User deleted account**

Reply+14

(05/10/2013)[-]

"We're just protectin' the sanctity of marriage"
"What he said"

#243 to #2 - lightelmo

Reply+13

(05/10/2013)[-]

Pic very related.

#339 to #2 - unikornking

Reply+4

(05/10/2013)[-]

#124 to #2 - lordhasta

Reply+1

(05/10/2013)[-]

#117 to #2 - anon id: e0cf9389

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

Actually, the fear back then was that since black couples tended to give birth to brown children, they were afraid that America would become brown and that white power would die off. TOTALLY DIFFERENT. (not supporting it, just saying that the point is wrong)

#256 to #117 - fargone

Reply+3

(05/10/2013)[-]

That same fear is still pretty common. One of the arguments that I've seen a lot is that gay couples would raise gay children. It's not exactly the same, but the idea is pretty similar, and equally idiotic.

#279 to #256 - Fgner

Reply+2

(05/10/2013)[-]

Of course, tests have concluded that there is absolutely no correlation between the sexual orientation of the parents and sexual orientation of the child. So one could hardly even call it a "fear", simply ignorance.

Also, who cares. gays tend to adopt. I'd rather have a larger gay population than I would crime-prone orphans kicked out of the foster care system.

#383 to #279 - anon id: fc1f2d86

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

That is interesting because gays claim that it is a genetic factor as in they are "Born" that way. So doesn't there have to be a correlation if a parent has the gene you are more likely to inherit it. Also cite you sources I've seen studies where children of gay couples are themselves homosexual in 63% of instances while in the general population less than 5% of people are gay

#247 - fourtwentt

Reply+33

(05/10/2013)[-]

**fourtwentt rolls 47**

#249 to #247 - fourtwentt

Reply+44

(05/10/2013)[-]

#265 to #249 - neoexdeath

Reply-7

(05/10/2013)[-]

**neoexdeath rolls 82** Sees people getting oppressed

Drops liberating dubs on their country.

#454 to #247 - anon id: f61cfd54

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

**anonymous rolls 38** Because **** you carpet muncher

#327 to #247 - Mesmus

Reply-1

(05/10/2013)[-]

**Mesmus rolls 63** dat arm

#286 to #247 - chriscrossed

Reply-2

(05/10/2013)[-]

**chriscrossed rolls 92**

#278 to #247 - spasticpuppet

Reply-2

(05/10/2013)[-]

**spasticpuppet rolls 62** Gimme de dubs.

#103 - thecharliesheen

Reply+42

(05/10/2013)[-]

Utah fag here, and in a part of Utah we used to live in, there are a ******** of polygamist families. Perhaps I can shed some light on why it's so looked down upon.

A lot of the women are abused, and forced into the marriages at very young ages. They have "different days" they get 'the husband', often resulting in violent fights between the wives. Many of them live on compounds in rural areas far away from decent police stations, so these fights go pretty unnoticed, as does the abuse. The children are forced to work most of the day, and despite the sweltering heat or freezing cold, are forced to dress in long, cotton dresses (think pioneer) with jeans underneath. All in all, it's a pretty big cluster ****.
I lived right next door to one for a while, and all I'm going to say is that some pretty ****** up **** went on over there.

#188 to #103 - CrashingSea

Reply+16

(05/10/2013)[-]

That sounds more like culture than polygamy. All polygamy states is that one person is married to two. No more, no less. What you're describing has nothing to do with polygamy, just a ****** ****** culture.

#443 to #188 - thecharliesheen

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

You could definitely be right. However, in my personal experience, I have NEVER met a polygamist who hasn't done it for religious reasons or the reasons I listed. I've never met an honest-to-god normal family that just had 2 wives. It's always the overly dominant husband with 5 wives that look like they're straight outta Plymouth with kids that look like they haven't eaten in 3 years.
I guess you definitely could be right, I was just describing my experience.

#176 to #103 - infamoustrapper

Reply+5

(05/10/2013)[-]

That has nothing to do with polygamy though...that's just a bad family. If polygamy was legal, people wouldn't be FORCED into it. It's just marriage with more than 1 person...why should it be associated with violence?

#444 to #176 - thecharliesheen

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

Like I said, that's what we have here. If you read the reply above this one, I stated that this is just my personal experience. I'm not saying all polygamy is bad, I was just trying to state why there's such a negative stigma attached to it here.
I never said "Polygamy is bad", I just said "well, this is why people don't like it". When people here picture polygamy, that's what they picture.

#133 to #103 - europe#200 on commentsRank#200

Reply+5

(05/10/2013)[-]

Did you ever report the abuse to the police?

#445 to #133 - thecharliesheen

Reply+1

(05/10/2013)[-]

Of course we did, especially when we saw it. Unfortunately, the police here are quite incompetent and took several days to respond, and by then, the husband had coerced the wives into denying everything, and the kids stayed quiet out of fear. We were never allowed onto their compound, but we did try to stop it.

#241 to #133 - anon id: 9049ecd5

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

As rule 34 is here/ protection also caught him. Yes reported.bruises. Cleveland man/ acted nice ..was before gf/ she sent 2 before to jail.. Her cereal box TRIX ARE FOR KIDS- SHE MADE SURE SHE HAD THEM @ 15

#309 to #103 - harlequinlove

Reply+3

(05/10/2013)[-]

I.. I love you.

For being from Utah. Home state right there.
Then I moved to this ******** called Mississippi. ._.

#441 to #309 - thecharliesheen

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

I've really grown to love downtown since I moved out of the undeveloped parts. Nothing beats walking downtown late at night (I like the lights).

#437 to #103 - anon id: 62061f15

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

I'm from Utah and I can honestly say that I've never seen this. What part of Utah has this?

#440 to #437 - thecharliesheen

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

I lived in the undeveloped part of West Jordan a couple years ago, where there's still fields and open areas instead of buildings. They lived in this giant barn type thing, that looked like an oversized greenhouse.

#240 to #103 - anon id: 9049ecd5

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

Yes that was on the daily planet keep posting, watchers love it. Have it all. Fights WERE INDUCED BY THE WHORES / brony ****. U DEW THAT? I CANT TAKE THIS, MADEBUP ****$$$ THE BEST, TRYING TO HURT ME BY SUDDENLY SLAMMING THE BRAKES IN CAR/ HURT ALL ON WATCHER VIDEO ALSO. CUM @ US ************ THIS YEAR BEE $$ DEE..CRUISE, MOHEGAN SUN U IN D HONDA, 10 BLOW YEARS BUTT U MADE GRANDS LIE/ SEE YA/ EVIL. I DONT WANT MAN IN LOVE VE WITH 2 BUTT TRUTH IS CUMMING OUT- QUIETLY / ON BEDROOM / HOUSE TV VIA WATCHERS ROUTING ???? NOT MY DIAMOND RULESTHEIR AFRAID.. IM DUNN.FRIENDS ALL ON

#3 - jdmanisdaman

Reply-93

(05/09/2013)[-]

You have the right to be homosexual, But there is NO such thing as gay-marrige. Marrige is between a man and a women, there is no other definition. Marrige, outside its religious means absolutly NOTHING. Why do homosexuals care about about marrige, no one is stopping them from being together, and marrige is just a title outside of religion. If all they really care about is being together why do they demand to change the definition of a word?

#4 to #3 - cirquededc

Reply+41

(05/09/2013)[-]

You spelled "MARRIAGE" wrong every single time you wrote it. You also wrote *Absolutely wrong, but that was only once and therefore forgivable. Also I honestly don't agree with your opinion there so I'm going to thumb you down, feel free to reciprocate.

#7 to #4 - jdmanisdaman

Reply-20

(05/09/2013)[-]

Sorry, spelling isn't my strong point ;)

#17 to #7 - nucularwar

Reply+4

(05/10/2013)[-]

neither is grammar

#5 to #3 - liffian

Reply+6

(05/09/2013)[-]

Though I'm not religious in the slightest I'm kinda with this guy. sort of.

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman and is a completely religious statement. A civil partnership has all the benefits of marriage and shows the same unity just without the title 'marriage'.

I don't think it was fair for a law to be passed that forced a religion to change. Everyone deserves the right to be happy but I feel like this was just a law passed for a title that doesn't come with any benefits to it.

#11 to #5 - omnipotentsoap

Reply+2

(05/09/2013)[-]

#67 to #5 - Crusader

Reply+1

(05/10/2013)[-]

It doesn't force a religion to change.
What about atheist marriages, done without god.
Those are still considered marriages by law, why shouldn't two gay people have that same ability?
Marriage religiously is a man and a woman, but there are many religions, such as buddhism, that allow homosexuality. So how come there can't be a secular definition of marriage that is simply "Two people making a legal bond"

Yes there are civil unions, but it is still "separate but equal", it's like with black people, they had their own fountains, so why should we let them use ours?
See how ridiculous that sounds?

#69 to #5 - anon id: f3b38b2a

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

Except that civil unions aren't allowed in all states either.

#14 to #5 - eiaisqzbsesb

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

How would you feel about a law that made it possible for a legitimate priest to chose weather they want to wed two of the same sex or not?

Like, not forcing, just giving the oppurtunity? Because there are a lot of religious gays out there, and there are also quite a number of priests willing to wed them.

#20 to #14 - liffian

Reply+2

(05/10/2013)[-]

I've actually given this a bit more though and I'll give you my thoughts if you like. Not just now though, it's 2am and I need some sleep.

#22 to #20 - eiaisqzbsesb

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

Allright.

#16 to #14 - liffian

Reply+1

(05/10/2013)[-]

Ahh I couldn't really give you an opinion here. Again I'm not religious so it's not my place to say. My only disagreement was with the government bullying into something that isn't down to them to choose.

#85 to #14 - Ruspanic

Reply-1

(05/10/2013)[-]

Churches and ministers can do whatever they want with regards to performing marriages, but only the government decides which marriages get legal recognition and benefits.
Ministers can deny service to interracial couples if they want to. Hell, if you become a minister you can demand all your marrying couples hang upside down during the ceremony.
You also don't need a minister or a ceremony to get legally married and receive benefits.

There are some forms of marriage (between consenting adults) that are actually illegal, besides not being legally recognized - like polygamy. Which I think is ********. The government (state governments in this case) doesn't have to give legal privileges to every couple or group that claims to be committed, but it should at least allow them to live together and stuff.

#48 to #5 - kanade**User deleted account**

-1

has deleted their comment [-]

#47 to #3 - kanade**User deleted account**

has deleted their comment [-]

#6 to #3 - darwinw

Reply+2

(05/09/2013)[-]

I don't know why you're being thumbed down, you make an excellent amd very widespread believed point. Redefining marriage seems to be a way of creating a suedo equality, a gay couple in a civil partnership have all of the rights of a married couple. The change is just to try and start a ********** against religion, very odd, especially in countries supposedly under God (US, UK)

#58 to #6 - anon id: c084e56f

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

I dont know about UK but its not true in US. Civil unions aren't recognized in every state as marriages are. Federal govt doesnt give tax benefits to unions and laws are murky when it comes to healthcare, next-of-kin, adoptions, wills, etc. Even if they were equal, it's still inherently discriminatory because you refuse to label it as the same the thing. Its similar to "separate but equal".

#21 to #6 - DJstar

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

noooooo it's a stupid arguement!!!

there are soooo much more to being married than just the unity of love being solidified. If i get health benefits from work, my partner gets jack squat if he/she gets shanked in the parking lot! but with marriage, you can use your health benefits for your partner! there's way more benefits that aren't coming to mind.

#484 to #21 - darwinw

Reply0

(05/12/2013)[-]

Then why not just change the benefits you get from having a civil partnership? No-one would complain about that, it could be done without even being picked up by the media and wouldn't affect the already established marriage definition.

#19 to #3 - Jewssassin

Reply+1

(05/10/2013)[-]

Im not going to take the time to read everyone elses responses.
There are legal benefits to being married. Like sharing health care/dental. If your significant other dies with no will, you get all their ****. Some other **** also.

#9 to #3 - vegardwd

Reply+1

(05/09/2013)[-]

How does it hurt ''Marriage'' and God if two dudes decide to put matching rings on their fingers and ram eachother in the butt?

#83 to #3 - Ruspanic

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

Churches can define marriage however they want. They can even refuse to marry interracial couples, for ****** sake. But that's none of the government's concern.

Government should have little or no interest in tradition. It has a duty to create public policy for the benefit of its citizens (generally speaking), and insofar as legal marriage benefits make people happy or give them more freedoms or help ensure stable families without cost to other important priorities, it makes sense to grant those benefits to committed and mutually consenting adults. Not just tax benefits, but things like joint property ownership and hospital visitation rights and adoption eligibility and the right to make decisions for each other in case one is incapacitated or dies or something.

You're right, gay couples can be with each other regardless of how the law defines marriage, and indeed marriage itself can exist and has existed independently of government. But it's not about the ability to love each other or to be together, it's about receiving the same legal benefits as straight couples, because as far as the government is concerned, there's no practical difference between a same-sex couple and a heterosexual couple, all other things constant.

#65 to #3 - Crusader

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

Let's see
1 - Tax benefits
2 - Healthcare benefits
3 - Social benefits (being married carries a whole different meaning than being together)

Not to mention that yes, marriage does exist outside religion. Considering no religion has the exact same meaning of marriage as the next, not to mention there are many cultures that accept gay marriage. Not to mention there are secular marriages, atheist marriages, that means marriages that have NO RELIGIOUS MEANING.
Yes, there is a spiritual meaning behind it, that you are dedicating the rest of your to your partner to each other.

To say that marriage doesn't exist outside of religion is like saying faith doesn't exist outside religion, sacrifice doesn't exist outside religion, and so on.

#59 to #3 - zorororonoa

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

But there are benefits to marriage that I'm sure a lot of homos would like to have also.

#43 to #3 - anon id: 34ee1310

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

dude, you just went full retard. You NEVER go full retard.

#38 to #3 - rhetoricalfunny

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

Marriage was a legal contract between two families to allow the sharing of owned items between them.

#32 to #3 - miscarriage

has deleted their comment [-]

#57 to #32 - anon id: 476116d3

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

I disagree with the guy above, but when you have nothing to do but insult someone's grammar and spelling, you've already lost.

#60 to #57 - miscarriage

Reply+1

(05/10/2013)[-]

ksorry

#26 to #3 - anon id: 4e75421c

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

The argument works both ways. If marriage is just a title, why should only religious straight people get it?
Besides that, there ARE legal benefits to being married. Do you know already how many homosexual people have lost their lifetime partner because they couldn't share health insurance? It's REALLY depressing. Watching your loved one slowly suffer just because some religious coot who is mislead in life thinks that you're gonna cause the end of the world by marrying..

#15 to #3 - nucularwar

Reply0

(05/10/2013)[-]

We're not changing the definition of a word but you're changing the spelling of it.

#10 to #3 - tabarzins

has deleted their comment [-]

#8 to #3 - nibxi

Reply0

(05/09/2013)[-]

I agree but I also strongly disagree. You have a point but really nobody does marriage for the sake of religion in the first place, so about 90% of straight marriages are more or less meaning "NOTHING" as you had stated. Sure people go get married at a church and all but thats for the sake of tradition, not out of the religious need to do so.

So where is "NOTHING" drawn as a line for marriage? When two people of the same sex want to be 'married' or when two people of different sex, be they any religion or lack-there-of, want to be married for that sole sake of being with each other and not for religious recognition?