George Takei vs gay marriage opposers. .. I want George Takei to be my gay grandpa. George Takei vs gay marriage opposers I want to be my grandpa
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (346)
[ 346 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
100 comments displayed.
#1 - smittywrbmnjnsn
Reply +72
(08/16/2013) [-]
Is he gay?
I didn't know he was gay.
#136 to #1 - tastynipples
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
didnt he jack gaben off on camera once?
#230 to #1 - anon
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
He has ascended beyond the mortal plane of gayness and unto the ethereal realm of pure fabulousness. Plus he's a pretty cool guy.
#207 to #1 - jjanddrew
Reply +1
(08/16/2013) [-]
I'm pretty sure he is married

to his husband
#121 to #1 - knowstoomuch
Reply +2
(08/16/2013) [-]
He is the gayest of living gays to have gayed the gayness with gay people.
#32 to #1 - organiclead
Reply +5
(08/16/2013) [-]
No, he's Takei.
George Takei vs. Tennessee's "Don't Say Gay" Bill
#9 to #1 - disturbedmaster
Reply +6
(08/16/2013) [-]
dude he's gayer than freddy mercury . no offence intended
#10 to #1 - dedaluminus
Reply +12
(08/16/2013) [-]
Oh my god. You are smitty werbenjagermanjensen. And you're number 1.
#2 to #1 - thesimonved
Reply +22
(08/16/2013) [-]
Not only is he gay, he is awesome, and very fabulous ;)
#5 to #1 - nooneofinterest [OP]
Reply +238
(08/16/2013) [-]
It's a well known fact
#91 to #5 - trollzoll
Reply +8
(08/16/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#169 to #5 - nicoquitemad
Reply +7
(08/16/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#3 - randomwanker
Reply +61
(08/16/2013) [-]
what the **** is with their **** spelling and horrible grammar
#11 to #3 - anon
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
I believe it is a ploy to make them look "innocent". I think it just makes them look more stupid, though.
#294 to #3 - ridicurous
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
It's just ridicurous, isn't it?
#73 to #3 - pappysmurf
Reply +2
(08/16/2013) [-]
I tried reading some of the long ones, but i just couldnt do it.
#4 to #3 - nooneofinterest [OP]
Reply +159
(08/16/2013) [-]
They're uneducated.
#45 to #4 - wrocky ONLINE
Reply +9
(08/16/2013) [-]
no wonder they're easily influenced to be in those types of rallies
#190 to #4 - smellmyfaceforswag
Reply +2
(08/16/2013) [-]
fixed
#299 to #4 - cabbagemayhem
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
I have the solution!
#270 to #4 - TodayIAmMe
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
they probably just learned from the wrong textbook
#300 to #270 - cabbagemayhem
Reply +1
(08/16/2013) [-]
#6 to #4 - anon
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
Stupid *****.
#16 - CommonJoo
Reply +12
(08/16/2013) [-]
is someone automatically a douche if they do not support gay marriage?
#18 to #16 - poopmanz
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
Yeah, hating anyone for what they can't change is being a douche. Racist, homophobs, etc.
#84 to #18 - odonnell
Reply +3
(08/16/2013) [-]
He never said he didn't like gays, he said he never liked gay marriage.
They can already get a civil partnership, which doesn't give a great legal standing, but in that case why do they insist on protesting to a church with millennium long traditions, instead of making court-cases to insurance companies etc for them to accept civil partnerships.
Last week there was a Gay Pride March in my city, I didn't bother to protest it, i had better things to do with my time. However, Gay Marriage has already been legalized in my country, meaning they were only doing it because they could. Last time I checked straight people don't go around having straight pride parades, thats the kind of actions that are regarded as discrimination. Double standards and all that ****.

Tl;Dr, They could have went about it differently, other than taking the feminist route.
#168 to #84 - spetsnaztm
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#236 to #16 - scotlandman
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
I dont agree with it but they can do it all they want for all i care
#248 to #16 - optimussum
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
What if I'm not for nor against it?

What if I just don't care?
#258 to #248 - CommonJoo
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
that's exactly what i want to know lol. If i dont give a **** am i an asshole?
#265 to #16 - WitchKingTroll
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
No authority forces you to support it. To openly detest it is what makes you a douche.
#19 to #16 - flemsdfer ONLINE
Reply +131
(08/16/2013) [-]
Short answer is yes. Protesting something that affects oneself in no way other than one's own personal feelings and denies happiness from others is a douche move.

Gay marriage isn't going to harm anyone. Most people dislike it for religious reasons and expect everyone to have to follow their beliefs.
#21 to #19 - spetsnaztm
Reply +2
(08/16/2013) [-]
What if you're against gay marriage, but you aren't planning to protest against it (no point), and you mostly keep your opinions to yourself, are you still a douche?

Legitimate question (and if you want, you can replace every "you" I used with "I")
#34 to #21 - owlbear
Reply +12
(08/16/2013) [-]
Then you're free not to get into a gay marriage.
#28 to #21 - theseustheminotaur
Reply +12
(08/16/2013) [-]
Nah man, being against something and not showing it doesn't make you a douche. It is mainly how you treat people or talk about people that defines your douchey qualities, at least in the dictionary that I have
#23 to #21 - flemsdfer ONLINE
Reply +4
(08/16/2013) [-]
If you hate gay people and aren't trying to get rights denied from them, but just generally dislike them. I would disagree with you and that's about it. I wouldn't say you're a douche, just different thinking than I.
#60 to #23 - sketchE
Reply -12
(08/16/2013) [-]
im agnostic and i dont believe gasy should have the right to be married. simply because since its creation homosexuality is a religious practice. while i support giving gays the rights and privilages marriage has i think they shouldnt force a religious practice to bend to their will
#61 to #60 - flemsdfer ONLINE
Reply +3
(08/16/2013) [-]
But homosexuality isn't a religious practice.......
#63 to #61 - sketchE
Reply +5
(08/16/2013) [-]
thank you for correcting me. i meant marriage.
#66 to #63 - flemsdfer ONLINE
Reply +6
(08/16/2013) [-]
Ah, that makes much more sense now.

I can see that sort of view, but it is often that marriage isn't a religious thing anymore. You may get married at a courthouse instead of a church and a judge marry you instead of a pastor. It gives people legal standing these days with how we are taxed as people and insurance and other legal documents.

If a church wishes to deny marrying those that are gay I can understand their view like that, but I think gay people should have options. Getting married at the courthouse isn't shameful and it doesn't force anyone's religion to conform in ways it does not wish to.
#69 to #66 - sketchE
Reply +4
(08/16/2013) [-]
thats what im saying take marriage out of the legal realm. make a way to be legaly bound with all the benefits of "marriage" so that no one can deny them using a religious excuse.

the actual marriage ceremony can be done wherever the two people decide. the actual legal part is done in the court house. i saw it done once and it wasnt anything on par to an actual ceremony
#72 to #69 - flemsdfer ONLINE
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
Well I think anyone can get married at a courthouse and just make their own ceremony wherever the **** they want, or if they belong to a church and the church is accepting then they can do it there. I'm sure if two people wanted to be married badly enough they'd take just a legal, courthouse marriage in place of a religious church married.
#74 to #72 - sketchE
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
but that doesnt eleviate the issue with marriage being a religious practice. honestly the issue is almost purely in the name. stop calling legal unions marriage all together and this all goes away
#75 to #74 - flemsdfer ONLINE
Reply +2
(08/16/2013) [-]
but what does the name marriage really mean? We have marriages now that aren't done with religion nor tied to them in any way. My parents were married that way. Stood in line at a courthouse, signed a paper, some person behind the counter stamped it and *boom* married. I'd say let them be actually married as it's not a strict religious practice these days anymore. Just the churches get an option to deny doing it so it doesn't interfere with them.
#166 to #75 - spetsnaztm
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
My parents had basically the same thing Soviet Union times, ftw. (But afterwards, they had an unofficial wedding ceremony at a church lol)
#171 to #166 - flemsdfer ONLINE
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
Now I just don't see any problem with that whatsoever, only just don't have a ceremony at a church afterwards. Gay people get married, the church is in no way included in it. Neither have nothing to do with the other, and therefore have no reason to collide.

It just makes perfect sense to me.

But does not matter in Soviet Union. Everyone is bears on unicycle
#182 to #171 - spetsnaztm
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
I lied actually. Just asked, they said the Soviet Union had a specific place for marriage (it was like a court, but reserved for marriage cases). No wedding ceremony at church afterwards. Excuse my misinformation, please.
#184 to #182 - flemsdfer ONLINE
Reply +1
(08/16/2013) [-]
How dare you......... It's okay, I don't really care.
How dare you......... It's okay, I don't really care.
#76 to #75 - sketchE
Reply -2
(08/16/2013) [-]
simply because religious people will cling to the word with their lives. take the word out of the books and let the people decide what they want to call it. most people are ok with civil unions. but many of them are against marriage. call all legal bindings civil unions and religious ones marriage. this appeases both parties
#78 to #76 - flemsdfer ONLINE
Reply +4
(08/16/2013) [-]
Well in that situation I'd say **** the religious people. They don't own the word and haven't for awhile. They should practise not getting so upset at somebody doing what everyone else has the right to do without them. If my parents can have a legal, non religious, marriage and they be okay with it, then anyone should be able to have a legal, non religious, marriage.

We don't want the churches to have to conform and marry gay people against their will, so why must the gay community conform to the churches and have to get something other than a "marriage" done in a way that has nothing to do with religion because they find it too similar to what they do?

Two people getting married at the courthouse has nothing to do with any church whatsoever so I think the church can be fine with it. We can and should all be fine with things that don't affect us, and make others happy.
#83 to #78 - sketchE
Reply -2
(08/16/2013) [-]
your not getting my point. marriage has been a religious practice since the sumerians. the US is the grandaddy of things being grandfathered in. you cant just take something away from people because someone else doesnt like it. everyone has a non religious marriage. it only becomes religious at the ceremony which has nothing to do with the legal union.

my point is why get anal about the word explicitly linked with the religious act when what people should be fighting over is the right to a legal union
#87 to #83 - flemsdfer ONLINE
Reply +2
(08/16/2013) [-]
Well there has to be some give and take here. We can't just outright cater to the religious people on this issue.

I may also point out why take this right of marriage we have away from homosexuals because the religious people simply do not like it?

Everyone does have a non religious marriage.....except the gays. So why should they not be included in this "non religious marriage" we all can have. I mean religious people can have no problem with that now, it's not religious. As you say it only becomes so at the ceremony and I'm saying churches do not need to do that. Don't hold a ceremony if you don't want to, or do depending on that churches views, or just hold your own ceremony. Put the rings on each other and kiss and drink champagne and all that in your backyard or something with family, not in the lord's house.

I think it is very fair to let gay people marry outside of a church like many others do, and let the churches politely decline letting them have a ceremony there. as you've said we all have non religious marriages. Why can't they have that? Why should they have to change what they call their specific marriages to appease some people that aren't even involved in this matter, as it is a legal one and not a religious one in a courthouse.
#134 to #87 - sketchE
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
this is the thing. to do that you have to ask the religious people to change what their defenition of marriage is. and the first amendment defends those rights.

were talking on the same thing here. i dont care if gay people marry. im saying take the religious act of marriage out of the books entirely. the government should have no say in holy matrimony. im saying make it completely fair. we arent taking anything from anyone except a word in the legal books. you can still be joined under the government.

you seem to think i dont want gays to be united under the law with the same rights and privelages of those who get married. that isnt at all what im saying. im saying to take the word entirely out of the equation because marriage is holy matrimony a religious belief that can not be tampered with
#145 to #134 - flemsdfer ONLINE
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
You don't have to ask religious people to do anything other than shut up and get their nose out of other people's business. All of their rights are protected since they do not own marriage. It has nothing to do with them. My parents were married, it was not a holy matrimony, yet it was still a marriage. Religion doesn't have to change in anyway to allow gay people to be married, and gay people shouldn't have to do anything different than what two heterosexual adults would have to do. We could change everyone's marriage around and classify it as not an actual marriage, but a civil union; unless they are religious of course then they can keep it as a marriage, or we just allow gay people to be married. Now since religion isn't the decider of marriage (if they were my parents would not have been able to be married) we could easily allow gay people to be wed.

You keep making the point of how they shouldn't be forced to change anything, but there seems to be no consideration for the other side. I don't see why gay people should have to change how things go for them in the same process that a non religious male/female couple would go through JUST because religion disagrees with it.

They had no part in my parents' marriage so I don't see why a gay couple couldn't be wed in the same fashion and still keep the term "marriage"
#150 to #145 - sketchE
Reply +1
(08/16/2013) [-]
again your not reading my comments. gays sacrifice nothing, nothing at all. they get all of the benefits for a legal binding as people currently do for marriage. just as you said and ive been saying this entire ******* time. make everyones marriage classified as a civil union. marriage is a religious construct and it has been since the first civilization. religious people are losing their control over something that should be controlled by the government by taking the religious construct completely out of the picture.

i dont care what people ******* call themselves afterwords just take it off the goddamn books so religious people will have to shut the **** up because their construct isnt in the laws any more
#165 to #150 - flemsdfer ONLINE
Reply +1
(08/16/2013) [-]
I have been reading your comments. If I hadn't you wouldn't get replies that are even nearly relevant. I'm just replying with how I interpret what you say. I even mentioned that we could change everyone's marriage, but that would require much more work, time, and resources just to not offend some people than to just change marriage itself a little, and since religion does not own marriage we could easily do that without infringing them. They are all about belief anyway. They should not be able to define anything in our society due to separation of church and state. Since marriage became a legal standing with the government they practically gave that up. Government handles marriages now. I think it's a little too late to blow the whistle on them handling it.

Plain and simple I think they just need to get the **** over it like we all must do with many things in life because at the end of the day they are fighting against people's undeniable right to pursue happiness over their own personal beliefs and that's just evil in it's own right.
#315 to #165 - sketchE
0
(08/17/2013) [-]
your asking them to change their standing on what is to them a religious matter. its simply not that easy
#210 to #60 - anon
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
Its not religious practise at all. It existed before religion as just simple bonds/agreement between partners, then some religions made it into their laws.
#316 to #210 - sketchE
Reply 0
(08/17/2013) [-]
its been a religious thing since the sumerians
#92 to #21 - wlflvr ONLINE
Reply +1
(08/16/2013) [-]
I'm actually not going to thumb you down. While I personally disagree with your beliefs, it takes a lot of heart to post an unpopular opinion like that. However, I find Gay marriage incredibly similar to the civil rights movement of the 1960's. It is a right to get married to whom you please, regardless of their sex, much as it is a right to have protection from segregated amenities and drinking fountains.
#176 to #19 - crazehtoast
Reply -1
(08/16/2013) [-]
It isn't a douche move to believe something is wrong and to speak out against it.
It's unfair to say it's a douche move because there are people who simply don't support gay marriage in the way you do. Sure, it's a douche move to do horrible things to gay people, but having an opinion and speaking it aloud isn't a dick move.
#177 to #176 - flemsdfer ONLINE
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
It's fighting against somebody's undeniable right to pursue happiness over something that harms nobody, but benefits those who use it. I'd say it's a douche move.
#178 to #177 - crazehtoast
Reply -1
(08/16/2013) [-]
Is it wrong to have your own beliefs and want to speak for them?
#180 to #178 - flemsdfer ONLINE
Reply +1
(08/16/2013) [-]
It is wrong to take rights away from others based on your own beliefs.
Think whatever you want, think it vile, think it wrong, unholy, but that still does not give anyone the right to take it away from people that are not like yourself. I've seen no real reason against it other than plain disliking of it. Now everyone would be livid if suddenly christianity was banned. They'd cry that it was unconstitutional, unjust, wrong for it to be taken from them just because others did not like it.
#183 to #180 - crazehtoast
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
I can't even think of a logical counter-argument for that.
I personally support gay marriage, I'm bi and even in a same-sex relationship. Every time I try to think for the other side, try and understand their logic, I always get stumped at countering the other person.
I hope this wasn't seen as a waste of your time, I just wanted to see if I could remotely prove the point for the "other side".
#237 to #19 - twofreegerbils
Reply -2
(08/16/2013) [-]
I don't like wearing seatbelts. Not wearing a seatbelt is what makes me happy in life. I'm not going to hurt anyone but myself by not wearing a seatbelt. So why do I have to wear a seatbelt?
#302 to #237 - flemsdfer ONLINE
Reply -1
(08/16/2013) [-]
I don't really care for seat belt laws either, but in a case of a crash, your body becomes a heavy, high speed, projectile if not held down. That can injure someone else which is why seat belt laws are likely to stay, though it is a bit silly comparing seatbelts and gay marriage. I shouldn't have to explain why.
#8 - batwill **User deleted account**
Reply +80
(08/16/2013) [-]
I want George Takei to be my gay grandpa.
#40 to #8 - MasterMario
Reply +1
(08/16/2013) [-]

>the lowest common denominator of butthurt
#70 to #8 - cheesymondo
Reply +4
(08/16/2013) [-]
I want Stephen Fry to be mine. Would have enjoyed those bedtime stories.
#7 - Lambda
Reply +71
(08/16/2013) [-]
#13 to #7 - agentdoubleohio
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
Dammit Takei
#109 - carlfroch
Reply +56
(08/16/2013) [-]
I thought people against gay marriage were only old frustrated dumbasses pretending they know everything about the bible. Seeing these kids acting like ignorant tools makes me so sad... so very sad
I thought people against gay marriage were only old frustrated dumbasses pretending they know everything about the bible. Seeing these kids acting like ignorant tools makes me so sad... so very sad
#247 to #109 - headhunternl
Reply +1
(08/16/2013) [-]
It scares me actually
It scares me actually
#118 to #109 - tiredofannon
Reply +12
(08/16/2013) [-]
They're ignorant tools because of the old frustrated dumbasses pretending to know everything about the bible.
#119 to #118 - carlfroch
Reply +12
(08/16/2013) [-]
A.K.A. their parents, that makes sense
#88 - shoxx
Reply +41
(08/16/2013) [-]
one of the pictures is fake!, here is the real image.
#153 to #88 - anon
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
You spelled 'butt' with one 't.' You're just as poor with grammar as the kids in the content. How old are you? 12?
#172 to #153 - willindor
Reply +1
(08/16/2013) [-]
You seem like quite the expert on butts.
#298 to #88 - randomwanker
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
#114 to #88 - Brouwera
Reply +2
(08/16/2013) [-]
But what?
#115 to #88 - shoxx
Reply +3
(08/16/2013) [-]
*butt
#196 to #88 - adu
Reply +5
(08/16/2013) [-]
#15 - thesoulless
Reply +31
(08/16/2013) [-]
#133 - herpaderderp
Reply +21
(08/16/2013) [-]
One day someone will roll this
#30 - ohthreeeleven
Reply -17
(08/16/2013) [-]
You pretty much cant support traditional marriage without the gay rights crowd labeling you a homophobe and a bigot for disagreeing with their opinions.
Kind of a double standard.
Be tolerant of everyone, unless of course you disagree with pop culture icons then by no means should your opinions be respected.
#287 to #30 - anon
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
by traditional marriage what are you referring to if your talking about one man one woman thats fairly new in terms of human life and is definitely not described in the bible
#67 to #30 - Loppytaffy
Reply +3
(08/16/2013) [-]
Marriage is a private thing between two people that doesn't affect the rights or lifstyle of others. It shouldn't need protesting at all.
#36 to #30 - owlbear
Reply +20
(08/16/2013) [-]
You know, by definition "traditional marriage" means you don't respect gay people's desire to have the same rights as straight people, so it's kind of a double standard to demand they respect your opinions when you won't respect their rights.
#42 to #36 - Katzie
Reply +4
(08/16/2013) [-]
The main issue is that the church sees marriage as their thing, but the transition from religious law to other forms has caused a blend between law and religion in terms of marriage. If there are any rights attributed to marriage, homosexuals have a right to it. If the system was changed so that marriage was a religious custom and there was another system replacing the marriage rights, then I think the church would have every right to choose who can be married.
As a side note, gay marriage is legal in my country on monday.
#46 to #42 - owlbear
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
I can agree there. If marriage was a purely religious entity like baptism or something, I'd be for freedom of speech. But the fact it's both a religious and legal entity really makes it difficult to say only some people can choose it. I mean, there's always the "civil union" card, but that's still a bit of an asshole move since it has a lot of "separate but equal" feeling to it.
#48 to #46 - elyiia
Reply +3
(08/16/2013) [-]
The solution is pretty simple though, if you take all rights from marriage and give them to civil unions (and make same sex civil unions recognised everywhere in the country) then marriage becomes simply a religious institution and civil union becomes the legal one. There's no seperate but equal issues going on either.
#54 to #48 - sketchE
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
i like the way you think
#53 to #48 - owlbear
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
Which would be nice if fundies would actually go for it without considering it a new attack on traditional marriage.
#55 to #53 - elyiia
Reply +1
(08/16/2013) [-]
It wouldn't really be an attack on traditional marriage though, unless they consider the laws of man to be above the laws of their God. It would still be a union between a couple in the eyes of the church, it would just get all the legal rights via a civil union.
#59 to #55 - sparkyoneonetwo
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
I think that's a fantastic Idea i've said pretty much the same myself but, pisses both sides off. one cuz it's gays being together and the other cuz its not equal
#58 to #55 - owlbear
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
That implies a majority of hardcore fundies. the type who oppose gay marriage, actually think logically. A lot of them consider the fact we don't say prayer in school a sign that we're becoming more and more corrupt as a society and think that combining religion and law is a good thing. It could easily be justified as being said that you remove the important of marriage when you remove the legal benefits.
#90 to #58 - darshian
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
I find it hilarious that fundies want THEIR law combined with state/federal law but heaven forbid if a Muslim wants to do the same with their laws.
#86 to #36 - odonnell
Reply +1
(08/16/2013) [-]
You've just twisted his words.
He probably does respect gay peoples desire to have equal rights, he just things they could have went about it without disturbing millennium long traditions.
Its already legal for Civil Partnerships, However they don't offer the same legal standing. In that case it would have made more sense (In my opinion) to open a court-case (Instead of protesting through the streets) and ask for Insurance Companies, Tax offices etc to give equal standing for Civil Partnership as Marriage offers.

PS. Im not against gay marriage, I just respect the churches position in this as well. It doesn't seem fair that everyone turned on the church immediately instead of looking over other options.
#105 to #86 - owlbear
Reply 0
(08/16/2013) [-]
I don't feel any guilt over turning against the Church given the fact they've made something that should be a personal choice, something that should be the choice of the individual church and the people involved, into a law.

And no, I'm not okay with the civil union stuff because it feels too close to the old state of separate but equal. Either we divorce legal marriage from religious marriage completely and have everything a civil union or we let everyone have the benefits of legal marriage. No half and half solution.