| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
#388
-
disiprine (01/21/2013) [-] The reality of this situation is that the gays aren`t marrying for `love` they are marrying for financial benefits such as lower expenses per person and cross-employer health plans, not that they don`t deserve this, but marriage is not a right to have for everyone, it is a privilege, a privilege subjugated by christian and catholic law which BLATANTLY STATES that marriage is between man and woman only. If there is a religion that marries gays then go right the fuck for it.
#474 to #388
-
instalation ONLINE (01/21/2013) [-] Please just shut up. You're giving the rest of us religious a bad name. ;~;
we're not all close minded assholes..
we're not all close minded assholes..
#503 to #433
-
shfreaksixninesix (01/31/2013) [-] please don't attack me, this is an honest question. (I'm pro gay rights)
Why do you want to be_ married_? I understand that two people have the right to be together as a couple and be recognized as such, but why choose to go through an expensive ceremony, and vows that are trivial to think make a couple more couple-y when all that matters is that you love each other? not to side with #388, but you have to understand where hes coming from (albeit a very poorly put together point with loads of assumption) it kinda looks like the reaping of financial benefits. i guess what im saying is that, and this also applies to straight couples as well, why isn't the pure joy of love with another enough to be content instead of labeling oneself through an antiquated and, frankly redundant, ritual?
please no rage, it's only a question and i will gladly accept your answer, angry or not.
Why do you want to be_ married_? I understand that two people have the right to be together as a couple and be recognized as such, but why choose to go through an expensive ceremony, and vows that are trivial to think make a couple more couple-y when all that matters is that you love each other? not to side with #388, but you have to understand where hes coming from (albeit a very poorly put together point with loads of assumption) it kinda looks like the reaping of financial benefits. i guess what im saying is that, and this also applies to straight couples as well, why isn't the pure joy of love with another enough to be content instead of labeling oneself through an antiquated and, frankly redundant, ritual?
please no rage, it's only a question and i will gladly accept your answer, angry or not.
#462 to #457
-
omnomnnom (01/21/2013) [-] So what the fuck is your point? gays cant do it but straights can? And you know them all then, huh? Even so you cant generalise, you are only assuming. The most loving couples I know are gay and they want to marry because they want to be bound to each other. Dont throw shit around when you know nothing for certain.
You have no argument. You're just an idiot.
You have no argument. You're just an idiot.
#466 to #464
-
omnomnnom (01/21/2013) [-] Its the points you've bought up thats the problem. You phrased it badly. You've implied Christian law should mingle with how the government passes the law and that 'most' gay dont love their partner. Which is all bullshit. Maybe you meant something else but your initial comment was riddled with fallacies.
#406 to #394
-
N. Korean citizen (01/21/2013) [-]
There were religions and marriages before Christianity dumbass. I'm talking about its up to the government to pass same sex laws i.e. POLITICS so religion has no right to say it shouldnt be passed. If marriage is only Christian how the fuck did the ancient Egyptians and non-Christian countries marry for many years before the bible?
#410 to #406
-
disiprine (01/21/2013) [-] Holy shit it`s like talking to Bill O`Reilly faggot version, first of all, get an account, second of all, please read, third, I never said there weren`t religions before christianity, fourth I said if there was a religion where gays can marry they should, please read before rebutting to refrain from looking like an ass.
#416 to #410
-
N. Korean citizen (01/21/2013) [-]
1) Dont rage because Im anon just because you cant form a legit argument
2) Im not gay Im just not an arrogant shit like you. I'm throwing legit arguments at you and you have no reputable come backs.
3) You said " implying marriage before religion" saying that marriages cant have existed before it. Which it did. So.. yeah you are a hypocrite and clearly dont read before you post.
Why should there be a religion where they should marry? Why not atheism WHICH I DID MENTION! There are Christians who accept gay marriage, atheists which accept it, muslims, jews etc. Just because YOU dont doesnt mean others dont.
Religion has no place in this. So dont fucking mention it. Its up to the government NOT religion. So it has no legit place in this argument.
Me read? Yeh... I just proved what an idiot you are. I had to repeat all my points here because you clearly are too stupid to have seen them.
2) Im not gay Im just not an arrogant shit like you. I'm throwing legit arguments at you and you have no reputable come backs.
3) You said " implying marriage before religion" saying that marriages cant have existed before it. Which it did. So.. yeah you are a hypocrite and clearly dont read before you post.
Why should there be a religion where they should marry? Why not atheism WHICH I DID MENTION! There are Christians who accept gay marriage, atheists which accept it, muslims, jews etc. Just because YOU dont doesnt mean others dont.
Religion has no place in this. So dont fucking mention it. Its up to the government NOT religion. So it has no legit place in this argument.
Me read? Yeh... I just proved what an idiot you are. I had to repeat all my points here because you clearly are too stupid to have seen them.
#430 to #416
-
disiprine (01/21/2013) [-] Also I don't see you providing back-up for saying that marriage existed before religion, which it didn't, atheists can't be reverends who marry, and religon has everything to do with marriage, you saying it being under the state/government implies that there were forms of government before religious beliefs, I see history isn't your major.
#444 to #430
-
N. Korean citizen (01/21/2013) [-]
You dont need a reverend to marry. You sign a sheet idiot in an office.
"forms of government" can include tribes of cavemen where we didnt have idols we just hunted like animals. So yes, there were.
Just look it up. If you cant grasp my point that religion doesnt have place in deciding same sex laws your just a fucking idiot. One simple point just cant be grasped by that ignorant singular brain cell.
"forms of government" can include tribes of cavemen where we didnt have idols we just hunted like animals. So yes, there were.
Just look it up. If you cant grasp my point that religion doesnt have place in deciding same sex laws your just a fucking idiot. One simple point just cant be grasped by that ignorant singular brain cell.
#435 to #423
-
N. Korean citizen (01/21/2013) [-]
"Religion has n0 place in this argument" AND religion doesnt decide whether same sex marriage is passed.
Pretty sure I said that about 4 times now. Religion has no place in deciding who marries who. THUS... this might be TOO hard for you to grasp... your entire argument is void. Every religion has people who accepts it anyway.
Pretty sure I said that about 4 times now. Religion has no place in deciding who marries who. THUS... this might be TOO hard for you to grasp... your entire argument is void. Every religion has people who accepts it anyway.
#448 to #443
-
N. Korean citizen (01/21/2013) [-]
You said gay marriage is wrong because marriage is under Christian law. Which it ISNT.
My point is you're bringing religion into government. THEY decide the bill not some catholic loons so stop bringing them into it. They have no place. End of. NO religion in politics. Dont back up gay marriage as bad because of some pathetic Christian laws. They shouldnt mix.
My point is you're bringing religion into government. THEY decide the bill not some catholic loons so stop bringing them into it. They have no place. End of. NO religion in politics. Dont back up gay marriage as bad because of some pathetic Christian laws. They shouldnt mix.
#456 to #448
-
disiprine (01/21/2013) [-] Sorry I meant to say most marriages in america, I suppose that was the hole, too late to patch it up now. I never said gay marriage it bad, not did i state I was against it, I was being sensible toward the people against it and why, being an anti-theist I really don't see myself in another situation backing up the relgious people.
