Anonymous comments allowed.
#31 - ballerfifteen (09/30/2013) [-]
no i am pretty sure the reason its illegal is more than just people think its disgusting
User avatar #51 to #31 - noblexfenrir (09/30/2013) [-]
Give one, legitimate reason.

Reasons that don't count:
>Personal opinion.
>Religious beliefs.
#156 to #51 - dsrtpnk (09/30/2013) [-]
I just disagree with the movement.
We all know that it's not just gay marriage but what follows it, like re-education, shame and annoying empowerment stories shoved in our faces regardless if we disagreed with gay marriage or not. Trust me, I work for the government and we have self shame classes every 2 months.
I'm hispanic/latino/Mexican/Chicano/whatever and hate Latino Heritage Month and the La Raza movement. I don't need to need to scream and start fights with (white) people to satisfy and validate myself because last century they were mean to us.

It's kind of unfair to request a legit reason when you also restrict reasons and automatically dismiss them. When is it ok to place restrictions on only ONE side of the debate? Isn't that controlling? That's not very democratic, is it?
Honestly, I think gay marriage gets too much media coverage. Just legalize it or put DOMA in place, I don't care.
User avatar #165 to #156 - noblexfenrir (09/30/2013) [-]
Well the movement is only as exuberant as it is due to the heavy opposition its going against. Either way though, not wanting to deal with an after effect of giving a group civil rights isn't really a reason to in turn deny those rights. Its a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And I excluded subjective reasons that mean nothing when applied to the whole. There is no facts behind "I don't like it" or "my holy book is against it". Hence any such provided are pointless. I simply excluded them because they have been proven useless time and time again.
#103 to #51 - franklinclinton (09/30/2013) [-]

please don't shove red thumbs up my ass I'm actually bisexual
User avatar #110 to #103 - noblexfenrir (09/30/2013) [-]
Explain? I however did say in comment 52 that ">Faulty reasoning based on basic biology." is not allowed. So reasons based on reproduction means absolutely nothing concerning a human ritual that does not hinder or aid sexual reproduction.
User avatar #167 to #110 - franklinclinton (09/30/2013) [-]
I know I know and I agree. Just ..

Voicing your opinion on the internet is a dangerous thing to do
User avatar #174 to #167 - noblexfenrir (09/30/2013) [-]
Well having an opinion is perfectly fine, I have no problem with people not liking homosexuals, however, telling someone they can and can't do something purely because of your opinion and nothing else is ridiculous.
User avatar #72 to #51 - ihatem (09/30/2013) [-]
Comment #27 seemed legit, and I know you're a good debater noble, so what say you on:

"It's not that people dislike gay marriage, it's that it was a founded rule that was ordered by the surpreme court already. While they can repeal it, bigamy and polygamy were based on almost a copy of the ruling on gay marriage, so unless they make that legal too, it'll be considered an "errorous misuse of the court's time", and "force all constitutional laws frowned upon simply due to being against the common sense of a Christian nation to be reconsidered".

Civil rights laws that may seem unconstitutional simply for being against the common sense of a christian and civil nation (how this country was founded according to the surpreme court) envelopes 86 different laws, all which would have to be discussed and looked over again. Otherwise, they'll get case after case on these laws (probably from people against gay marriage) simply out of spite, and once you get a case so many times you kind of have to take it (surpreme court rule of the majority, if the majority of cases ask for a certain law to be looked over again, they must go with the majority of requests, as the people have the power to say what the surpreme court looks at).

This is a long process they're already in, and has to be done between actual surpreme court cases."
User avatar #109 to #72 - noblexfenrir (09/30/2013) [-]
Well it's not so much a case against gay marriage, but more the process by which one can go about having it legalized. By which, I agree the process is slow and insufficient concerning such things.

However, gay marriage, bigamy, and polygamy, have nothing inherently wrong with them. Most cases like this don't. ("But what about pedophilia!?" The reasoning pedo relationships are outlawed is because of the underdeveloped mental state of the child, which is a far better case than simply "I don't like it.")

However, I would have to say the majority of the reasoning people are using is they simply don't like it. As a result, they contribute to this long process by making it longer and more complex by constantly trying to add to the legislation already in place.

So to sum it up, what does it say about the current state of the US when one of the major reasons a specific civil rights case doesn't get the attention is because it's spending time trying to address OTHER civil rights cases?
User avatar #114 to #109 - ballerfifteen (09/30/2013) [-]
so what about the mental state of a child that is being bought into a gay relationship for adoption??? I know this is a another can of worms but what your stance on that? and the mental state of a animal that is in a bestiality relationship shouldn't they be allowed to get married as well or should that be illegal?
User avatar #116 to #114 - noblexfenrir (09/30/2013) [-]
" mental state of a child that is being bought into a gay relationship for adoption"
We already have a system set in place for helping and removing children from homes that are detrimental to their physical and mental well being. This applies to not only gay couples but to straight ones and single parents, and even orphanages. There is nothing correlating gay couples directly to a negative mental health in an adoptive child.
(I believe there was a pseudo test done a few years back, can't remember the orchestrators, but they were found to have manipulated data by testing the current mental health of adopted kids to straight parents well over a year of being with them, while for gay couples they picked out children who had a much older average age and were with their new families for only a few months. Transition is hard on kids, especially older ones who can understand the situation better, as a result the findings were found useless.)

and bestiality is a somewhat difficult topic, legally animals are usually considered "property". Their mental ability wouldn't allow for them to give consent that would be admissible to the standards we currently allow in court.

I would have to say with bestiality, that if we as a society consider animals completely property and as such can do with them as we please, it would be acceptable. However, we don't view animals as such and have laws against causing them pain or maltreatment. So then we would have to apply the same consent law I stated above.
User avatar #117 to #116 - ballerfifteen (09/30/2013) [-]
with the mental state of the child don't you feel that there has to be a mother and father present for there to be a healthy mental development as well as growth? i know there has been test done where both sexes are needed for a child to fully develop also with the marriage between a man and a beast why has there not been protest from that minority? why as a democratic nation do we have to bend the laws for the minority when we elect someone by the majority?
User avatar #124 to #117 - noblexfenrir (09/30/2013) [-]
"with the mental state of the child don't you feel that there has to be a mother and father present for there to be a healthy mental development as well as growth?"
Any evidence that shows there does? There's evidence that shows benefits of a strong male and female role model, but that doesn't mean it has to be a parent. Most of the time it usually isn't the parent.

" i know there has been test done where both sexes are needed for a child to fully develop"
Yes but again, there is nothing that shows this requirement has to be supplied purely by the parents. Male and female role models can stem from society and community as well.

"marriage between a man and a beast why has there not been protest from that minority?"
Don't know, doesn't concern me. As I've already said, if we don't consider animals purely property then they don't meet the requirements to engage in social contracts or sexual engagements with humans.

"why as a democratic nation do we have to bend the laws for the minority when we elect someone by the majority?"
You are aware what being "democratic" means right? It's a system designed so the minority has a voice against the majority.
Also, why do we have to "bend" the laws? We aren't bending anything, we are extending a civil right we give to every straight couple, to other couples who are excluded because of nothing more than gender and the only reason that is the way it is, is due to some outdated idea that homosexuality is wrong.

I could care less about this "majority" "minority" crap, each individual person has every right to do as they please as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. To deny them this, is to deny the very principles this country was founded on. I don't care what the majority has to say about it, the second a single person is forced to do something they don't want to, or denied their desires when noone else's rights are hurt in the process, we are no longer a democracy.We haven't been on for awhile.
User avatar #175 to #124 - ballerfifteen (10/01/2013) [-]
fair enough thank you for the discussion, was very insightful
User avatar #52 to #51 - noblexfenrir (09/30/2013) [-]
>Faulty reasoning based on basic biology.
User avatar #54 to #52 - AnomynousUser ONLINE (09/30/2013) [-]
I hope that he wasn't agreeing with the people in that it's disgusting, and I use that hope to doubt that he was. I think he was saying that other people find it disgusting.
User avatar #55 to #54 - noblexfenrir (09/30/2013) [-]
Well he brought up the point that he's sure there are other reasons than just someone not liking it, I'm curious what just one reason could be that's all.
User avatar #60 to #55 - AnomynousUser ONLINE (09/30/2013) [-]
Nope. As far as I know, those three points are the main (if not only) reasons why homosexual marriage is illegal.
User avatar #39 to #31 - AnomynousUser ONLINE (09/30/2013) [-]
Yeah, it's because people like to paraphrase a book written 2,000 years ago that says more about eating shrimp being a sin than homosexuality, and their justification for that is that it shouldn't be taken literally except for when it should be taken literally, nor should its message change until it is seen fit to change.
User avatar #50 to #39 - ihatem (09/30/2013) [-]
It says an alright deal about marriage and homosexuals, and the book is rather 1700 years old, and not the only book against it.
User avatar #53 to #50 - AnomynousUser ONLINE (09/30/2013) [-]
Frankly, I don't care enough to go through the book to find all the places it says something about it because I believe it's all ******** . Not just the book, but the fact that homophobic assholes and god-fearing assholes are keeping people from being happy because a ******* book or for "keeping marriage sacred" (I use quotes because everyone divorcing 5 people through their lives and marrying for money already killed anything close to sacred that was ever there). I don't know where you're from or the relevance of this to you is, but in America, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all unalienable rights, but the pursuit of happiness in living with the one you love through marriage is being infringed, and that's ******** .
User avatar #61 to #53 - ihatem (09/30/2013) [-]
A church can marry whoever they want, the only thing is the occasional legal benefit, which I doubt is keeping anyone depressed. They're going to be demonized by the religious and anti-gay whether it's legally recognized or not.
 Friends (0)