Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#42 - fuckyosixtyminutes (11/09/2012) [-]
What the **** does government have to do with falling in love "mattering"??

It's so retarded how people rely on government to validate their personal lives. I get that the inequality is wrong, but that's no reason to be dependent on government for emotional validation. If government didn't have a hand in marriage at all, period, you could be with whoever the **** you wanted.

In fact you already can. If I wanted to get up in front of people with my boyfriend and say we're in love and will be together forever, the government wouldn't stop me. All I'd be missing is some stupid, obsolete legal classification.

To be clear I"m not saying it's okay for the government to deny gays the right to a legal marriage. I"m saying the idea of a "legal" marriage is ludicrous.
User avatar #64 to #42 - TwistedBamboozler (11/09/2012) [-]
Dude, you know there are rights and benefits for being married, right? Two guys can love each other all they want and live together, but they don't get to claim things on taxes and what not like john and mary do next door.
#247 to #64 - fuckyosixtyminutes (11/09/2012) [-]
If you read the numerous comments I've made RIGHT BELOW this, then you would already have your answer to this.
#54 to #42 - fuckyosixtyminutes (11/09/2012) [-]
Replying to myself here, because I don't wnat to get too far away from the point the OC inspired in me, so let me add a closing:

Is whether or not the relationship between a gay couple "matters" dependent on government? Not how much it matters, but WHETHER OR NOT (yes or no) it matters.
#49 to #42 - noghri (11/09/2012) [-]
That "stupid, obsolete legal classification." is what entitles you to get certain legal benefits from said government as well as insurance companies, hospitals, and various other organizations.

Also, replace gay with black or Jewish and you should hopefully see the problem. Or this fun little tidbit: http: //gawker . com /5953357/ missouri-pastors-fiery-speech-against-equal-rights-for-homosexuals-has-stunning- twist-ending

Leaving that loophole open or flat out voting to make it illegal (as in North Carolina) is the quick path towards a society where we treat people who are abnormal(read of a different sex, creed, ethnicity, religion, etc) as second class citizens and as a result end up with things like the ethnic cleansings of Darfur or Germany.

It may not happen in our generation or the next seven generations but simply leaving the legacy of it is immoral and frankly something that shouldn't be allowed to stand.
#52 to #49 - fuckyosixtyminutes (11/09/2012) [-]
See my posts below for the first bit, but the rest of it: get government out of marriage and you don't have a problem. If government is out of the way, no one is denied rights.

And if you think a legal "permission to marry" someone of the same sex will change the attitudes of individual citizens who have a problem with gays, your heart's in the right place but you're wrong nonetheless.
#58 to #52 - noghri (11/09/2012) [-]
I'm getting the impression that your thought is with less government that the situation will regulate itself and everything will come out peachy. Unfortunately, the fact that people can be bigoted and refuse to accept people with alternative lifestyles flies in the face of that.

Example: Civil Rights for African Americans between 1863 and 1960. No great strides in relations between African Americans and Caucasian Americans between the Emancipation of the slaves and 1950. They are granted legal rights by Constitutional Amendments and the fact that slavery is made illegal. However, you have groups that spring up such as the KKK who despite the fact that African Americans are now theoretically on par with other Americans are founded to keep them "in their place" or subservient to proper Americans. The government is hands off on the issue. Does it work itself out? No. It takes the government, with the integration of the military, the integration of public schools, and the passing of several Civil Rights Acts, as well as increased enforcement against those who commit hate crimes(considered more severe in the judicial system than a non hate crime of the same scale, ie a murder that is racially motivated is worse than one that is monetarily motivated) and an increase in the disruption of groups such as the KKK to get us to where we are today.

I don't think a legal permission to marry is the end all be all that will end the intolerance of those with alternative lifestyles. But it is a step down the correct path away from the continued bigotry.
User avatar #48 to #42 - nucularwar (11/09/2012) [-]
You'd also be missing the legal rights to visit your boyfriend in the hospital, but I guess that's an obsolete privilege
#51 to #48 - fuckyosixtyminutes (11/09/2012) [-]
It's a privilege that has no business being tied to marriage in the first place. If I have someone I care about that wants to see me when I'm hospitalized, they should be able to regardless of what the government thinks. It wouldn't be that hard to implement some kind of system whereby people have pre-set legal arrangements for visitation. It would be like having a power of attorney.

As I said below, the fact that rights/privileges are tied to a legal marriage is a problem, not a solution.
User avatar #46 to #42 - The Old Hotness (11/09/2012) [-]
I can see where you're coming from. The problem is that in the US legal rights come with marriage that don't come with domestic partnership. Really they aren't asking for legal marriage, they are asking for the rights that come with marriage.
#50 to #46 - fuckyosixtyminutes (11/09/2012) [-]
The fact that legal rights are tied to government marriage is a problem though, not a solution. The government rights need to either be applied to any "household" or be erased.

And if I may speak pre-emptively: Benefits given by private entities, such as insurance companies, can be re-negotiated in the private market between seller and consumer. In fact some insurance companies already offer marriage benefits to non-married domestic partnerships of any gender combo regardless of whether they can marry in that state.
#45 to #42 - aliksander (11/09/2012) [-]
My sentiments exactly.
 Friends (0)