Yup 100% ive got no problems with gay marriage whatsoever its doing no harm to anyone and they should have the same rights as everyone else.
Poll: Do you support gay marriage?
- Thread starter Jaeke
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I absolutely support it. As for the religious aspect, I myself am Catholic and at a recent marriage equality rally I saw in my city there were many priests in attendance and multiple local churches sponsoring the event, so times are a-changin' in that aspect.
Besides, wouldn't it be unfair if a member of a long-term, loving, same-sex relationship died and all their posessions went to distant family due to the whole blood-thicker-than-water chestnut (like that Stief Larsson guy)?
Besides, wouldn't it be unfair if a member of a long-term, loving, same-sex relationship died and all their posessions went to distant family due to the whole blood-thicker-than-water chestnut (like that Stief Larsson guy)?
Pfsh. You know, to negate something slavic languages you have to negate every word! Having 4 or more negatives in one sentence can happen without actually trying to be deliberately confusing! We don't say "I never did do anything to anyone, anywhere", we say "I never didn't do nothing to noone, nowhere."Grey Day for Elcia said:
Also, let gays marry each other, seriously.
And to all slippery slope arguments how that will lead to people marrying dogs, I say I have just as much credibility when I say banning gay marriage will lead to banning heterosexual marriage.
I have no idea what you just said. And now I have a headache.Vegosiux said:
OT: you know, this whole equality argument, and "gay people should be allowed to marry" thing, is kind of pissing me off. Why? Because gay people are already allowed to get married in, like, every country. Just not to someone of the same sex. Heterosexual people have that exact same rule. So... gay people and straight people do have the same rights.
I get what you mean, but you're saying the whole thing wrong.
The "we want the right to marry the people we love" argument is equally as dumb. I seriously don't want that defense to be rewarded and I'll tell you why: what if I love children? Can I now marry a child? Oh, I can't because they're a child? But I want the equal right to marry the person I love. See what I did there?
People should be allowed to marry any adult they want, regardless of gender, sex, creed or race. But some of these arguments are going at it the entirely wrong direction.
I find your 'tache very arousing. Will you marry me?
SHIT!Elementary - Dear Watson said:I couldn't give a damn either way, as long as they don't try and marry me...
Those quotation marks were pretty damn inflamatory.
Of course I'm in favour, it doesn't affect me in the slightest.
Of course I'm in favour, it doesn't affect me in the slightest.
I support it in theory.
I'd prefer the entire marriage system be overhauled, at least in the eyes of the government. Something like all "marriage" like traditions, independent of culture, falling under the same overall banner of "Civil Unions" and each gets the same financial benefits and tax breaks.
...I admit, I'm not familiar with every culture's take on marriage and it'd naturally be limited to non-violent/non-bestial/non-fuckedup sorts, but it seems like it'd be a good bit fairer than the current exclusionary (I'm aware of the apparent hypocrisy of that statement) system.
At least that way they'd be able to legally call it whatever they'd want without some archaic nonsense preventing them from collecting tax benefits or handling their loved one's affairs in the event of said loved one's death.
I'd prefer the entire marriage system be overhauled, at least in the eyes of the government. Something like all "marriage" like traditions, independent of culture, falling under the same overall banner of "Civil Unions" and each gets the same financial benefits and tax breaks.
...I admit, I'm not familiar with every culture's take on marriage and it'd naturally be limited to non-violent/non-bestial/non-fuckedup sorts, but it seems like it'd be a good bit fairer than the current exclusionary (I'm aware of the apparent hypocrisy of that statement) system.
At least that way they'd be able to legally call it whatever they'd want without some archaic nonsense preventing them from collecting tax benefits or handling their loved one's affairs in the event of said loved one's death.
The bible is 2000 year old. I admit that the 10 commandments are good rules to live by, but I can not consider everything written there absolute.
In this particular part of Europe, gay marriage has been allowed for more then 10 years, and I can assure you the churches are still running empty and there are still a lot of people getting divorced. Nothing changes at all.
In this particular part of Europe, gay marriage has been allowed for more then 10 years, and I can assure you the churches are still running empty and there are still a lot of people getting divorced. Nothing changes at all.
Actually, it was when a man purchased a wife from her current owner. A man could purchase many wives and they had no say in it. Fork over the cow, the money or the land (now a ring) and she's all yours to do with as you please--rape her, force her into slavery or sell her to an axe-murderer.Jaeke said:
Want to try and tell us how that's relevant?
Oh snap. I dun tore your argument down.
Supporter. Why should the term not be changed? The only argument I've really heard against it is because it'd (somehow) ruin the 'sanctity of marriage'. News flash: we live in a society where people can get married and be divorced within 72 hours. Marriage lost its sanctity a loooong time ago.
Thing is, if you are heterosexual- it doesn't matter to you. It literally only matters to the people who do wish to marry a member of the same sex, and if you're not that person why do you care if they're getting married or not? It's not your business is it? Nobody can convince me that their anti-gay marriage is nothing but homophobia. If you aren't homosexual, and you're whinging about gay marriage, then you're going out of your way to be upset by something that would have absolutely no impact on your life whatsoever if you otherwise paid no attention to it.
Oh, and as for the "lets not change the definition of a word" thing... Remember how the word 'gay' used to mean happy?
Thing is, if you are heterosexual- it doesn't matter to you. It literally only matters to the people who do wish to marry a member of the same sex, and if you're not that person why do you care if they're getting married or not? It's not your business is it? Nobody can convince me that their anti-gay marriage is nothing but homophobia. If you aren't homosexual, and you're whinging about gay marriage, then you're going out of your way to be upset by something that would have absolutely no impact on your life whatsoever if you otherwise paid no attention to it.
Oh, and as for the "lets not change the definition of a word" thing... Remember how the word 'gay' used to mean happy?
Haha! That would be the most hilarious grounds for a marriage ever!Grey Day for Elcia said:I find your 'tache very arousing. Will you marry me?
SHIT!Elementary - Dear Watson said:I couldn't give a damn either way, as long as they don't try and marry me...
It would also be a hilarious divorce document; "Reason for severing marriage: he shaved his 'stache."Elementary - Dear Watson said:Haha! That would be the most hilarious grounds for a marriage ever!Grey Day for Elcia said:I find your 'tache very arousing. Will you marry me?
SHIT!Elementary - Dear Watson said:I couldn't give a damn either way, as long as they don't try and marry me...
I support it since if two gay couple can find genuine love for each other as oppose to some of the loveless marriage between a man and a woman (that Family Guy sum it up better than I can).
Wow. This was freakin' awesome.hazabaza1 said:
But even before watching this video.
Let the gay peaople have their marriage, what right do YOU dipshits have to ban it?
oh - and to the tradition bla-di-blah.
traditions change and get lost eventually. And this is a good thing, because quite a lot of them are brutal and unnecessary.
Look at our islamic friends.
How often do you see news about them executing some poor sob in a VERY brutal way?
In an islamic country, which one slipped my mind, there were 15 (FIFTEEN!!!) TEENAGERS stoned to death, because they dressed "too western" (specifically: EMO-style-ish)
Guess what. THIS also is a (religious) tradition, you know, like your marriage blabla.
And I seriously hope, that you find this wrong too.