Marriage "Equality". If you believe that people of the same sex have the right to get married but also believe that inbreeding is "gross" then you're  Marriage unpopular opinio
Upload
Login or register

Marriage "Equality"

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
 
Marriage "Equality". If you believe that people of the same sex have the right to get married but also believe that inbreeding is "gross" then you're

If you believe that people of the same sex have the right to get married

but also believe that inbreeding is "gross"

then you're no better than homophobes who want to make gay marriage illegal because they also think it's "gross"

So stop being a hypocrite and be fair

PEOPLE SAY “III HAVE THE ' I "
mm “III III‘ SEX
MI] 'I' HEH tairais, FIBER
...
+301
Views: 18083 Submitted: 04/07/2014
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (195)
[ 195 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #1 - zependium
Reply +89 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
The problem is that inbreeding will cause the offspring to often become mentally damaged.

Same sex marriage doesn't have the same side effects since they can't produce an offspring.
User avatar #2 to #1 - definitelynotarab [OP]
Reply -9 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Mental damage > HPV

I'm totally fine with gay marriage but absoloutely not gay sex

Men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men - CDC
User avatar #3 to #2 - lotengo
Reply +16 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
totally worth it
#5 to #2 - demonictoasters
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
So? Why do you care, that isn't your problem. One of the dumbest things I have read today. Straight sex causes cervical cancer in women if they get HPV and it is quite common.
User avatar #6 to #5 - definitelynotarab [OP]
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
and no straight sex causes extinction


Your choice.
User avatar #15 to #6 - goldenfairy
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Gays will become extinct, not straight people. Isn't that what you want anyways?
User avatar #17 to #15 - definitelynotarab [OP]
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
No, I don't want them dead, i just want them to stop killing themselves.

Also i was replying to his comment where he said straight sex is a bad thing so i just informed him that straight sex is the reason he exists
User avatar #19 to #17 - goldenfairy
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Alright. That's reasonable. But does that mean you want to ban tobacco too?
User avatar #26 to #19 - definitelynotarab [OP]
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
To be honest i wouldn't mind banning Tobacco

I mean Heroin and Cocaine are banned and they're on par with tobacco, it's all about the money, but that's another story
#48 to #6 - anon id: 886e5c33
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
That's kinda retarded. Indeed, what you said makes sense. If no-one had straight sex then indeed, we'd become extinct. However; that is not to say that if gay people start having gay sex, we'll become extinct. There is no difference in population if gay people have gay sex, or if gay people abstain from sex. Since a gay person wouldn't want to have sex with someone of the opposite gender, they wouldn't alter the population anyway.
User avatar #7 to #6 - demonictoasters
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
i am sorry what? Plenty of animals have relations with same sex and they aren't becoming extinct. You are ******* retarded. Plus the bit of how 70% of humans are straight.
User avatar #8 to #7 - definitelynotarab [OP]
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Plenty of animals have relations with same sex and they aren't becoming extinct.
Plenty of animals aren't becoming extinct.
aren't becoming extinct.

You wat bro

first of all we're not talking about same gender sex, we're talking about you trying to say that straight sex is a bad thing.
When straight sex is the reason you exist

straight sex is the reason we all exist.

also, you're telling me that the chances of a person catching disease from straight sex is the same chances as someone who handles E.coli submerging their penis completely? I doubt it.

Also, if people would stop sleeping around maybe there wouldn't be so many diseases

just because you can do it and it's legal to do something doesn't mean you should do it

User avatar #24 to #8 - Crusader
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Yes, gay people are more likely to have anal sex. But they are actually less likely to have unprotected sex when not with a dedicated partner, thereby reducing the spread of disease when compared to straight people.
#10 to #8 - demonictoasters
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Also, straight people have anal sex quite a bit as well, but ofc you attack gay sex. You are a bigoted moron.
Also, straight people have anal sex quite a bit as well, but ofc you attack gay sex. You are a bigoted moron.
#49 to #8 - anon id: 1fdd712b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
>Comparing gay sex to E coli.
>falling for that one again.
#11 to #8 - demonictoasters
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
You need to do this by the way. Might help your pent up frustration.
You need to do this by the way. Might help your pent up frustration.
#12 to #11 - anon id: 65d406d4
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
i'm not the frustrated one though

You're the one swearing and cursing all around because it makes you feel a little bit better about yourself
User avatar #9 to #8 - demonictoasters
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
I did not say it was a bad thing you moron. i said it had the same issues as well. Omg you are retarded. Straight sex is also why we are severely overpopulated and why there are so many kids needing parents. In fact it's a good thing there are gays who can't reproduce for that reason. So gfy.
User avatar #32 to #9 - Crusader
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
"we are so severely overpopulated"

No, we aren't.

Overpopulation is characterized by having to many people for resources to care for, but we are far under that threshold. We can feed, clothe and house everyone in the world, it's the resource management that's garbage, since the wealthy countries overproduce, but keep it internally for the most part, they are forced to overconsume.
User avatar #57 to #2 - icameheretotroll
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
thats like comparing smoking to abortion
User avatar #14 to #2 - Crusader
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Anyone who has anal sex are more likely to develop rectal cancer.
User avatar #18 to #14 - definitelynotarab [OP]
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
and male couples are more likely to have anal sex
User avatar #89 to #1 - bothemastaofall
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Actually you can bone your cousin and not have damaged children.
It probably helps that both my cousin's are dudes.
#143 to #1 - dorklordrises
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
A problem with that is the underlying principle is to restrict who can breed with who depending upon the health of their offspring. So any carriers of disease of an equal or greater chance of birth defects or disease in their children compared to relatives married should also be illegal if one follows the principle
#146 to #1 - flyslasher
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Your argument is tangent to the topic at hand and is a logical fallacy; red herring.
User avatar #36 to #1 - serotonin
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
actually it was shown that 3rd ...how ever you call it in english...cousins give birth to healthiest children. Anything closer then that and you have potentional problem on your hand.
User avatar #4 to #1 - thelaks
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
And then again, the reason cousins can marry, is because the risk of damaged children is increased by so little that it is nearly negligible. Not like the risk from siblings getting children.

You are still right though, just clarifying some things
#54 to #4 - anon id: 594a32b5
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
it all depends
User avatar #16 - Crusader
Reply +35 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Incestuous relationships that have the possibility of producing offspring increase the chances of mental defects roughly 2% with each generation of cousin based marriages.

Gay Marriage is taboo because it is against certain religious and cultural ideals because it doesn't produce children.
Incestuous Marriage is taboo because it can result in birth defects.
User avatar #20 to #16 - definitelynotarab [OP]
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Gay marriage is taboo because the only way male couples can have sex is through anal (and maybe oral)

So a higher chance of having anal means a higher chance of handling E. Coli

and that in turn spreads diseases

moral of the story: Gay marriage is absoloutely fine, gay sex however has it's risks. And it just takes one male person carrying an SIV to have sex with a woman and start a chain of disease spreading
User avatar #21 to #20 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Wait, are you saying that gay sex is the cause of SIVs?

SIVs are prevalent in both heterosexual and homosexual communities.

You know what else increases the transfer of SIVs, more than anal sex? Non-protected sex, it is exponentially more responsible for the transfer of disease than gay sex.
User avatar #23 to #21 - definitelynotarab [OP]
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
oh no don't misunderstand me when it comes to that, although it's probably my fault because i didn't make it clear.

I'm not saying gay sex is the cause of SIVs

im just saying the chances of getting an SIV is more likely during anal than regular, sexual intercourse

and the chances of a gay couple having anal sex is more likely than a straight couple, mainly because straight couples have various ways of having sex when gay couples (men) are restricted to anal and oral.

So one thing leads to another and the likelihood of catching an SIV during gay sex is more likely than straight sex, but im not saying straight sex is immunity from SIVs and im not saying gays are the reason SIVs exist

User avatar #25 to #23 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
"likelihood of catching an SIV during gay sex is more likely than straight sex"

That's just straight up wrong.

Gays are more likely to use protection (and therefore reduce the spread of disease) when not with a dedicated partner, when compared to straight people.

Not to mention straight sex has more chances to infect someone with and SIV because it can result in a child being born with a disease, whereas gay sex is only between two people.
User avatar #27 to #25 - definitelynotarab [OP]
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
But i never said straight couples don't use protection

Also where I live there's almost no SIV cases because it is culturally immoral for people to sleep together before marriage, so issues such as transmission of SIVs arent a big deal where i live in Dubai because women don't recieive the whopper until they're married,

whereas sleeping around is much more popular in western culture, hence SIVs are more popular.
#141 to #27 - anon id: 56f3f7bf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
imo straight couples are less likely to use protection, i mean why use a condom everyday when you can just pull out
User avatar #28 to #27 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
You're missing the point.

What I've been trying to show you is that gay sex does not increase the number of SIVs, unprotected sex does. And therefore, your stance against gay sex is unfounded
User avatar #29 to #28 - definitelynotarab [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexually_transmitted_disease

The chances of a man catching HIV during Vaginal sex : 0.05%, Woman 0.1%

The chances of an insertive to catch HIV during anal sex: 0.62%
Receptive: 1.7%

That's what i was trying to say
Straight couples have anal sex, I realise that
but Male gay couples also do have anal sex, but more than straight couples

If both couples used protection at an equal rate the chances of catching HIV is still higher in male gay couples

however if two men or two women love each other let them be together and be happy
but they should be aware of the risks

occasionally having unprotected sex in straight couples is totally fine, and is actually necessary for for generations to come

Forgetting or not wearing protection during gay sex can have harsh consequences though

I'm not trying to attack gays. vaginal and anal spreads SIVs, but Anal spreads it on a more vast scale

i was just pointing out that gays are more likely to have Anal sex and therefore more likely to be infected
#129 to #16 - anon id: 5fa4c028
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
If that is the only reason, should people be stopped having kids over a certain age?
or should we stop people with bad genes having kids? I'm not thinking of marrying my cousin btw, just putting it out there
User avatar #135 to #16 - niggernazi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
pretty sure ******* your own cousins is a common practice in under developed countrie where you dont want to spoil your family blood
User avatar #183 to #135 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Yes, and we have seen how well that has worked out.

The British Royal family, and all Royal families have a drastically increased risk of haemophilia because they married cousins "to keep the blood pure".
User avatar #188 to #183 - niggernazi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
i am pretty sure the somalis do that too because they all look very ''special''
#131 to #16 - shadowgandalf
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
What if i where to marry my cousin, but we agreed not to have children? Then how would you justify us not having the right to marriage?

Also, with your initial logic of mentally defect children, how can you allow mentally defect people to procreate?

User avatar #182 to #131 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Defects such as severe retardation, downs syndrome, and other syndromes making it incapable for the child to live on it's own most of the time also cause problems procreating.

When they don't cause such problems with procreation, most of the time they are not bad enough to require constant aid.

As for if you are your cousin decide not to have children, that's fine, but at the same time, there should be punishments if you break that agreement. Both situations you described are outliers, and laws aren't made for outliers, they are made for the general.
#184 to #182 - shadowgandalf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
But why should people who want to marry their cousins/other relatives have to obey the law, when mentally challenged people, or people with severe sickness they can pass on to their children are able to marry?

Seems extremely hypocritical to me.
User avatar #185 to #184 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
1 - It is rare for a mentally challenged person to get married, and when they are, their current state is usually caused by environmental factors. ie lead paint, severe trauma as a child, being a breach birth and not breathing for the first few minutes, etc. And if they get married, they normally aren't that mentally challenged, maybe minor retardation, but minor retardation still allows you to have a fairly normal life.

2 - People with severe sickness. Yes, there are severe genetic predispositions to cancer and diabetes, but most of the time, if it's going to get passed down, it's something like Huntington's. Huntington's is a genetic disorder that not only becomes apparent after most people with have children, but also can be bred out (though it's kind of a coin flip).

And then there are infections, such as AIDS that I'm assuming you are also referring to. As of the beginning of April 2014, a half dozen new born children born with HIV have been cured of it, and trials are now moving to a much broader test group and onto older and older patients, meaning Family's Guy "Cold, Flu and AIDS" pills aren't that far off.

All in all, it's the fact that, yes it does slightly raise the chance for birth defects, but at the same time, it's a major social taboo. A cousin marrying another cousin once in a while doesn't do much damage. But when it becomes a social norm, there are many problems. For instance the Royal Families of Europe, most of them were cousins, they married each other and hence have a form of haemophilia named after them, as it became so prevalent due to the incestuous marriages.
#186 to #185 - shadowgandalf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
That still does not answer my comment, atleast not how i interprent your comment.

My question was, why only 1 out of 3 groups(relatives, mentally challenged and people who can pass on diseases) have a law prohibiting them to marry, when the reasons for said law, is to protect the children from traits of all three groups.
User avatar #187 to #186 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Because they are the largest group.

Mentally challenged people who get married are extremely minute. Therefore it would be pointless to try and pass a law that would affect them. It's like passing a law that people with Tourette's can't be preachers.
People with severe diseases usually procreate before they know they have said diseases, or there are treatments to cure said treatments. Therefore people would unknowingly be breaking the law. It's like passing a law saying you can't speed, but you don't know if your speeding until long after you break the law in most cases.
User avatar #51 - vampyrate
Reply +27 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Is this all because you think your cousin is hot?
#95 - shredmaster
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Yep, let's let family members reproduce with each other and give birth to mentally and physically ****** up kids. Goddamn you're an idiot.
User avatar #84 - Lilstow
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
the difference is that it will ACTUALLY **** up your kids.

kill yourself OP
User avatar #70 - pfccross
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
because homosexuals dont have genetically deformed children because of inbreeding. they adopt orphans and help make the community a little better that way.
User avatar #81 - thephoenix
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Because it causes mental and physical defects, it's literally teabagging evolution to do that! not to mention absolutely gross.
Maybe distant cousins at best but never sister/brother. what even
#40 - therealslimdavey
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
i still think its weird as **** to marry a family member.   
   
and don't pull none of that "we're second cousins so its okay!" ********.   
   
i know inmarriage used to be pretty popular, but we moved out of the dark ages a couple centuries ago. stop hooking up at family reunions please.
i still think its weird as **** to marry a family member.

and don't pull none of that "we're second cousins so its okay!" ********.

i know inmarriage used to be pretty popular, but we moved out of the dark ages a couple centuries ago. stop hooking up at family reunions please.
#90 to #40 - anon id: cc251abb
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
but that is the only time I see other girls
#86 - strooz
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
The logic.
The logic.
User avatar #43 - biomedic
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
There's a difference between loving someone you can't procreate with and marrying someone you have the chance of spawning an abomination with.
#44 to #43 - anon id: 983d2118
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/07/2014) [-]
Thats a common misconception. Research suggests that incest isn't as detrimental as once thought. You will only get children with mental or physical deformations after countless generations of imbreeding. Two cousins marrying each other and having a child wouldn't do ****.
User avatar #45 to #44 - biomedic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Yes, but my point is, by making such marriage legal it opens the possibility of having inbred populations analogous of some European royal families. And then you just end up with porphyria or some **** polluting their gene pool.
User avatar #50 to #45 - godtherapist
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
Firstly, everyone is a cousin of everyone else. Period. There is no getting around that. Every human on the planet shares common ancestors. The maximum you can get is 9th cousin.

Secondly, inbreeding is only detrimental if the people breeding already have a genetic problem that would be compounded by breeding with someone with the same genetic problem.

Thirdly, because there is no genetic testing for diseases before marriage it is actually possible to meet a random person off the street that is actually a worse match for you with way more possible complications than, your sister, for example.
#62 to #50 - anon id: c9b231da
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/08/2014) [-]
They were obviously talking about immediate cousins, everyone knows most of us are related in a way. Think about your second point, or research it a little more. There's less chance of finding someone worse for you than your sister than the 100 percent in being with your sister (assuming that's true anyway).