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.
User avatar #46 - aluminiumfoiled (03/27/2013) [-]
What happened to freedom of speech? If people support gay marriage, everyone embraces it. When somebody doesn't support it, everyone goes ******* !!! No, I don't support gay marriage, but that doesn't mean I hate gay people.
#707 to #46 - tehcookee (03/28/2013) [-]
democracy is a majority way of government, if most people want option A, then option A should occur. People get angry when most of them want option A, but the government doesn't appease them
#704 to #46 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
but that's the thing about freedom of speech, It doesn't entitle you to freedom from other people's rebuttals even if they are heavy handed or incredibly aggressive.
User avatar #678 to #46 - ilovehitler (03/28/2013) [-]
76 replies
just gonna nope my way out of here...
#664 to #46 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
its not about embracing it. its about letting others embrace it by practicing it.. marrying a person is a cultural symbol declaring your love. peoole rely on these rituals in cultures in order to feel accepted. if they dont feel accepted they feel discriminated against which increases incidences of depression which sucks! the government shouldnt decide who marries who. just let anyone marry anyone and if you don't agree with gay marriage THEN DONT ******* MARRY THE SAME SEX
User avatar #645 to #46 - theelderscrolls (03/28/2013) [-]
why dont you support gay marriage?
#619 to #46 - jamiemsm (03/28/2013) [-]
what i dont understand is gay people who wanna get married into christianity.
i mean thats just plain stupid when what they want is to get married and get the blessing for some god who doesn't want to bless them -_-'
User avatar #550 to #46 - meganinja (03/28/2013) [-]
people are free to say what they want. There's no government law that says we have to agree, or not think you're an asshole. People are free to be racist all they want, society may hate them, they can call them out on it (short of harrassment) but they can't impede them.

not saying you're racist, it's just how things work, an opinion can be looked down upon.
#509 to #46 - cycloneclone (03/28/2013) [-]
**cycloneclone rolled a random image posted in comment #880 at True Morbid ** **** YOU Becuase your opinion is different than mine, and I'm always right!
#501 to #46 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
There's a difference between not supporting gay marriage, and actively preventing a gay couple from getting married.
#500 to #46 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
You have the right to say it, but not the right to escape criticism for it
Speech works both ways dude, don't dish it out if you can't handle the social consequence
User avatar #483 to #46 - whalefister (03/28/2013) [-]
i guess that gives you the right to be a jerk
User avatar #402 to #46 - fpsnoob (03/28/2013) [-]
You're free to say whatever the hell you want, but so is everyone else. So if the majority of people you talk with have a different opinion from you, they're going to voice it whether you like it or not. That is of course unless you don't support freedom of speech either.
User avatar #394 to #46 - guymandude (03/28/2013) [-]
Freedom of speech means that you can say and believe whatever you want to. It also means that everyone who doesn't agree with you can call you a ******* retard for it. Kind of obvious, really.
User avatar #339 to #46 - eiad (03/28/2013) [-]
That has nothing to do with freedom of speech..
IF you don't support gay marriage. just don't get "gay married"
#336 to #46 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
For the government to say you can not marry someone based on gender is sexist and discriminatory. The government cannot deny any rights based on age, sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation in any other situation. Why should a marriage certificate be any different? Despite how you feel about it personally, it is a constitutional right that is being withheld. You should be kicking and screaming for gays to get married. If you wont fight for their rights why should anyone fight for yours? It does not affect you, your values, or your religion. The government also will not be able to force a church to marry gays, because religion is protected constitutionally.

TLDR: I find it hypocritical that people would use their constitutional right to protest another's constitutional right to marry
User avatar #247 to #46 - pokemonismyhigh (03/28/2013) [-]
It kind of does... It doesn't mean you hate them but it does mean you think they're lesser people than you.
User avatar #238 to #46 - mtndewisgreat (03/28/2013) [-]
What I don't understand is why did marriage turn into a government thing? Wasn't it supposed to be a religious thing? You know, together forever and all the christian beliefs. I think marriage should be something left up to the churches or mosques or whatever to decide their belief. The government should just have the civil union thing for everyone, no matter what.


I just don't understand why the government is in charge of religious traditions/beliefs...
#381 to #238 - fractalius (03/28/2013) [-]
Nowadays marriage is mainly for economic reasons. Sharing of wealth, insurance, married persons can't be made to say anything against their spouse in court, etc.
#357 to #238 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
Term of confusion: Marriage is a term used to describe a union between 2 people.
Within the church, it is technically the sacrament of holy matrimony. People are mostly just butthurt because they are easily offended ignorant fools.
User avatar #253 to #238 - nooneofinterest (03/28/2013) [-]
That's exactly what I was thinking. gay people only want to get married because heterosexual couples are allowed to, just like gay people should have the right to do if they want. In reality marriage is just a form to sign. Another 100 years marriage will be dying out, fast
#187 to #46 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
what are you? NAZI?
I instantly win this argument
#183 to #46 - jandersoninbbb (03/28/2013) [-]
opposing gay marriage is supporting gays' absence of freedom; therefore it's actually hypocritical
#318 to #183 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
Supporting gay marriage is opposing the freedom of people who oppose gay marriage.
User avatar #353 to #318 - McFuckUp (03/28/2013) [-]
How do gay people getting married affect anyone's freedom? You aren't less free because your gay neighbor got married. You're just an asshole.
#317 to #183 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
A LACK OF SUPPORT ISN'T OPPOSITION YOU DENSE MOTHER ****** ! Seriously, what a stupid ******* argument. I don't care if they get married but I would never support it or vote for it.
+1
#181 to #46 - awesomesea **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #163 to #46 - trollwoopnazi (03/28/2013) [-]
I think it's because people believe that through disagreeing with someone on their rights to marry someone of the same gender they are oppressing those peoples freedom to do so, and therefore it's justified to persecute them
User avatar #131 to #46 - MartinSeth (03/27/2013) [-]
If you're gonna defend freedom of speech, be advised that more rational people might bring up the freedom to marry whomever the **** you want because we are all born as equals, with the same rights as anyone else no matter what race, gender og sexuality we have. If you want to live by the Bible or whatever, feel free to do that too - but don't try and apply it to the real world, a lot of **** has happened over the years thanks to that idea.
User avatar #463 to #131 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Its not about the freedom of who to marry, its about the definition of marriage itself. Marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman. Its a traditional aspect. Its like scientology would come up with a new holiday, in (lets say) june, and call it Christmas. Its not about religion, its more about tradition.
User avatar #640 to #463 - hydraetis (03/28/2013) [-]
Problem: marriage is not a christian-only thing. There have been plenty of cultures throughout history where marriage between two people of the same gender was considered completely okay.
User avatar #650 to #640 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
That may be true, I don't know of such cultures but i won't deny it either. However, since this is revolving around US politics, thats what I'm basing it off of. The US was built on a christian culture, therefore its always defined marriage as between a man and a woman. If a culture exists today with same sex marriages, and its always defined marriage in such a way to make it possible, then they should by no means change it. Its simply that changing the definition of marriage in the US is changing a tradition of which the US was built upon, its pointless.
User avatar #652 to #650 - hydraetis (03/28/2013) [-]
Well the US was also built on the Constitution but we all know how important that thing is nowadays.
User avatar #653 to #652 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Kind of irrelevant, but ok
User avatar #656 to #653 - hydraetis (03/28/2013) [-]
The government is ignoring more and more crap that it was supposed to be built on so why not stick legalizing gay marriage into the pile of change.
User avatar #660 to #656 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Again, and i CAN'T stress this enough, its not about "legalizing gay marriage", its about changing the very definition of marriage. The government should install a federal level of civil union for same sex lovers which would give the union the same rights as a married couple, but by no means do we need call a same sex union a "marriage". That would just be breaking tradition that doesnt need to be broken.
User avatar #661 to #660 - hydraetis (03/28/2013) [-]
The thing is technically nowadays marriage is nothing but a contract.
User avatar #663 to #661 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
There are certain things that make a marriage unique on the federal level still, i don't know the details, but for example i kno9w taxes are different. All I'm saying is that the traditional definition of marriage does not need to be changed
User avatar #655 to #653 - hydraetis (03/28/2013) [-]
Not really. You say you're against gay marriage in the US because that was part of the value system it was built on, when the US government has already completely ignored an even bigger part of it's foundation (The Constitution).
User avatar #658 to #655 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
I'm not against gay marriage, I'm saying "gay marriage" doesnt make sense. The argument is irrelevant for two reasons: 1) Theres a difference between law and the constitution, and tradition and 2) just because the US is accused of ignoring its constitution, doesnt mean it should start ignoring other traditions of which it was built upon.
User avatar #662 to #658 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
but why do you care?
if some random gay guy got married what would you do about it?
you dont like it, okay, but what are you gonna do, just sit there and whine about it?
nothing will happen to you if gay people marry each other
nothing
User avatar #665 to #662 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
I'm not saying anything will happen, but I can ask you the same, why do you care? Why do gay people NEED the definition of marriage to be changed? Why do they care? Nothing will trully happen whether the definition is changed or not. All I'm saying is I believe in tradition, and traditionally in the US, marriage is defined between a man and a woman. It doesn't need to be changed, so why change it.
User avatar #669 to #665 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
Because i may just want to marry a girl someday and have the same beneficial benefits as everyone else?
Prick.
User avatar #670 to #669 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
Lol i meant Financial benefits
User avatar #676 to #670 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Thats why I'm saying that they can install federal level civil unions. State level ones already exist, and the state financial benefits are equal to those of a married couple. If they were to install a federal level one, the financial benefits of a civil union would be the same as those of a marriage, without changing the definition of marriage.
User avatar #680 to #676 - sonzai (03/28/2013) [-]
I don't see why it really matters so much and people are SO hung up on the idea that there MUST be one vagina and one penis in a marriage
You probably wouldn't know how it feels, but to the LGBT community it is discriminatory, offensive, and unfair to have to be set aside as this whole different group of humans that cannot play the game like everyone else can. We just have to be this whole different group.
That's what unequality is. Thats what people are fighting for. The red picture with the = sign. EQUALITY
User avatar #689 to #680 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Marriage is defined the way it is defined. There is really no reason to find it discriminatory, offensive or unfair. Its like the jewish community started feeling discriminated that everyone else eats pork and they dont, and they started pushing towards changing the definition of pork from "meat from a pig" to "meat", JUST so they can say that they too, like everyone else, eat pork. Same thing happening here, changing the definition of marriage JUST to say that they are married. Its pointless and unnecessary.
User avatar #510 to #463 - MartinSeth (03/28/2013) [-]
Progress in society is always made by breaking traditions. This one should have been broken a long, long time ago. What if we didn't break the tradition to only let men vote? Or that good ol' ''whites are superior to blacks'' thing? Or what if Darwin didn't ''feel right'' about expanding the understanding of how we all came to be?


I get that marriage is supposed to be some sacred thing, but why does it HAVE to be between a man and a woman? In the end it's all abut the love between two people, it shouldn't matter even if it has been like that for centuries. You are fighting for a battle that you are doomed to lose, I'm guessing within the next 20 years or so. You can either prepare yourself for the changes or stick to being close minded - I don't really care, it's your choice.

Oh and I respect your opinon, I just disagree with it. Don't take it too hard. Discussion is healthy, anyways.
User avatar #559 to #510 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Theres a difference between those kinds of traditions and the tradition of a definition. Why change the definition of marriage? Is it really hurting people to have a civil union instead of a marriage? Thats why I support making civil unions legal on a federal level (in the states, from what i know, its on the state level. I'm canadian) Marriage is a tradition that doesnt have to be broken, so I believe it shouldnt be. Im an atheist btw, so I have no religious bias, I just strongly believe in tradition.
User avatar #730 to #559 - finni (03/28/2013) [-]
It's good to see an Atheist defend tradition. Not that I'm against gay marriage, but I like that you defend tradition. I find that too many Atheist think too liberal, but that's perhaps because in America, the Conservative politicians are really close to the edge of totally religious interference.
User avatar #738 to #730 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
In america , the republican party has become the general represantation of the right wing, even though true conservatism has nothing to do with any religion.
User avatar #742 to #738 - finni (03/28/2013) [-]
Conservatism and religion are closely related. I wouldn't say that they aren't related at all, but conservatism is about preserving what's old and not just throw everything in the garbage, and in that section of "old" religion comes in when it comes to values and tradition, but there's nothing in The Bible that says you HAVE to keep these traditions that man have created (except for perhaps Eucharist), it's just that there are those who want to preserve the old religious traditions.

So I wouldn't say they are unrelated, but I'd say they are closely linked, even though you don't have to be Christian to be a conservative. But as an example, abortion. Conservatives don't like the idea of taking away a life that hasn't gotten a chance to do anything yet, that goes for the religious Christians as well.
I for example, feel badly about taking away an unborn life, but that's got nothing or little to do with my faith, it's just that I think it's wrong in general, but I don't think that I would have changed my mind on it if I was an Atheist.

TL;DR Religion and conservative philosophy are very related, but not bound in bond together.
User avatar #746 to #742 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
I mispoke, by true conservatism I meant true right wing. My political views are for an individual to have as many freedoms as possible, for example less taxes so that an individual has more freedom of choice of what haens with his money, but at the same time abortions should be available for certain cases. But I'm too tired at this point to discuss politics, its 4 am
User avatar #748 to #746 - finni (03/28/2013) [-]
Hehe I see. Yeah I agree, I am for personal freedom and more freedom for the individual to choose.

When it comes to abortion, I think that it should be allowed up to 12 month, but I want to do everything that doesn't conflict personal freedom, to make the woman not have an abortion or for her to have to take an abortion. Make condoms more available, especially for youth, and encourage giving the shield away for adoption and things like that, but let the choice be the woman's in the end.

Anyway, if you're tired you can either ignore or wait until your feeling well rested and reply then. The latter may be a problem if you're a werewolf though.
User avatar #580 to #559 - MartinSeth (03/28/2013) [-]
Why is there a difference? Please tell me cause I'm really finding it hard to believe that there is a rational, logical difference between these things. It's all about equal rights for individuals (well not the Darwin one), and it should be a right to get married to whoever you want - it's a principle more than anything, an acknowledgement of equality.

I honestly can't see why you don't get this, I really don't. Where I come from, gay marriage is and has been legal for quite a while. Guess what? Nothing horrifying happened. I'm an atheist myself too, but I have more faith in individuality than I have in tradition.
#737 to #580 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
Marriage is a religious institution.
Voting is a governmental institution.
If the government changes the government, that's progress.
If the government changes a religion, that's tyranny.
That's the difference.
User avatar #601 to #580 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
The difference is that gays have the same amount of rights as anyone. Its the definition of marriage thats being changed, not their rights. gay people are allowed to marry to the opposite sex, but marriage is defined between a man and a woman, therefore if a man loves a man, they cant marry by the traditional definition of marriage. As I said before, a civil union on a federal level would give them all the same benefits of marriage, it just simply wouldnt be marriage. Let me give you and example: when water heats up, it boils. When bread does, it toasts. But trying to change the definition of toast so that it applies to water too is pointless. Why say water toasts when you can already say it boils? I'm not saying anything horrifying would happen if the definition of marriage were changed, but why change it if instead we can push to having gays and lesbians legally form unions on the federal level.
#639 to #601 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
That's actually the best argument I've ever heard. Sadly, most of the gay marriage supporters will fail to understand it. Let's face it, most of them think that if you do not support gay marriage, you're a Nazi.
User avatar #651 to #639 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Its simply that people consider not believing in "gay marriage" equivalant to not believing in gay rights. They fail to realize its an argument of definition, not rights.
User avatar #610 to #601 - MartinSeth (03/28/2013) [-]
Because society is already divided into too many little pointless groups, we don't need any more of them. If you don't get it, you just don't get it. I'm going to sleep now, have a good one.


PS: I'm totes toasting my water from now on.
User avatar #621 to #610 - Krystoking (03/28/2013) [-]
Its not about a sociatal group, its about how the goverment recognizes their unions. I respect your views, I just think the traditional defintion of marriage doesnt need to be changed.

PS: I know, i regret using it as an example, toasting water sounds much better
#744 to #621 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
Hear, hear! Marriage is the change of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. Let's keep it this way forever.
#520 to #510 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
So, polygamy and incest would be progress?
User avatar #555 to #520 - MartinSeth (03/28/2013) [-]
That would be reverting back to old traditions, not the other way around. And gays can't make retarded babies, brothers and sisters can. Get some ******* perspecitive.
User avatar #560 to #555 - MartinSeth (03/28/2013) [-]
Come to think of it, retarded babies can happen either way but you get the point. Agh, who am I kidding you probably don't.
#160 to #131 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
If you're going to make an argument, be advised make sure that it is at least articulate and well thought out because we are not all cavemen. If you want to speak with poor grammatical and syntactical structure, feel free to live with the cavemen but don't apply you're oogabooga speech to the real world.
User avatar #266 to #160 - danniegurl ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
your*
If you're going to correct someone's grammar, at least do so correctly.
User avatar #581 to #266 - danniegurl ONLINE (03/28/2013) [-]
People, I was referring to " don't apply you're oogabooga speech to the real world" not the first "you're."

My correction was correct, I'm not being hypocritical.
User avatar #164 to #160 - MartinSeth (03/28/2013) [-]
Not only is your grammar less cohesive than mine, you are also contradiciting your own arguments by using poor arguments such as ''bad grammar'' and ''oogabooga speech''. What difference does it make if my sentence structure is worse than yours anyways, it doesn't make me wrong.


And ***** English isn't even my first language.
#298 to #164 - Visual (03/28/2013) [-]
I love you.
#194 to #164 - snoe (03/28/2013) [-]
you've earned my respect
#122 to #46 - anonymous (03/27/2013) [-]
Derp, Freedom of Speech only allows you to say you don't support gay marriage, it doesn't mean we can't call you an ass. Also, the reason why being vocal about not supporting gay marriage causes more anger is because you are supporting something that infringes on someone else's right. It doesn't work both ways, gay people getting married doesn't affect you (other then perhaps your moral sensibilities, something we probably shouldn't base politics on), but you voting (that's really the only thing that matters) that they can't get married affects them in many ways, mostly economically.
User avatar #115 to #46 - logicstrike (03/27/2013) [-]
why do you not support gay marriage?
I am genuinly curious
User avatar #331 to #115 - imnotkickthecat (03/28/2013) [-]
The same reason people don't all like the color green.
#364 to #331 - fractalius (03/28/2013) [-]
That is a horrible, horrible ******* reason.

"I don't like the color green, so I'm going to just tell people if they ask, and not wear green clothes. That's it"

"I don't like gays getting married, so I'm going to say that no, it's against the law for two people who love eachother and are of the same sex to get married."

We're not ******* outlawing green. If you don't like it, that's fine, but that doesn't mean it should be ******* illegal.

I've literally never heard a decent argument opposing gay marriage.
User avatar #426 to #364 - imnotkickthecat (03/28/2013) [-]
I have never heard a decent argument for gay marriage.

"oh my feeling are hurt cause we are trying to bond in a way that was written in a religious book that says marriage is man and a woman"
User avatar #750 to #426 - logicstrike (03/28/2013) [-]
what you said there is actually a miss understanding that a lot of people have in regards to the marriage debate, as people have already said in your replies marriage is also a government recognition which offers much benefits. My thoughts are yes government shouldn't interfere with religion on this one, as it should be decission for the heads of religion to make. But there should be a way in which homosexual couples can be legally recognised as married and get the tax and anyother benefits that come with it. That to me seems fair.
User avatar #490 to #426 - darman (03/28/2013) [-]
The concept of marriage isn't exclusively a religious idea, its been around for ages.
User avatar #770 to #490 - imnotkickthecat (03/28/2013) [-]
Lol if you say so, who am I to say that all of marriage has always been done with a religious background back to the earliest form of paganism in caves.
#461 to #426 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
they get screwed over financially and through other married-only benefits..
#539 to #461 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
People shouldn't get financial benefits for marriage in the first place. One ****** entitlement doesn't justify another.
User avatar #751 to #539 - logicstrike (03/28/2013) [-]
I kinda agree with what this anon says, though he should word his opinions more diplomaticly.
#325 to #115 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
For a lot of the middle grounders it is just a lack of caring. They don't care if it happens but wont vote to make it happens. Don't go and ******* shove your ideas down other people's throats. (inb4 it's not the same thing) YES IT REALLY IS.
#101 to #46 - xheavymetalx (03/27/2013) [-]
That's like saying

"What happened to freedom of speech? If people support abolishing slavery, everyone embraces it. When somebody doesn't support it, everyone goes ******* !"

See?
#722 to #101 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
YEEAHHHHH freedom of a color of race is comparable to gay people getting married. Dam where my whip i want to whip thoes gay people and force them to pick my cotton. They are comparable in the fact that society is trying to change something. In everything else HELL NO.

#780 to #722 - xheavymetalx (03/28/2013) [-]
They are comparable in that they are both forms of discrimination used against people who have no choice in how they are. They both also put restrictions on how much freedom one group of people has.
#134 to #101 - anonymous (03/27/2013) [-]
nope its actually not like that at all
nice slippery slope though bro i might use it on my next essay
#224 to #134 - anonymous (03/28/2013) [-]
Actually, it is like that...you just don't want to be compared.
User avatar #75 to #46 - brockyboi (03/27/2013) [-]
Uh, if being anti-gay was honestly so bad and people who think that are constantly yelled at for being ignorant or whatever, gay marriage would probably be legalized...
User avatar #55 to #46 - darman (03/27/2013) [-]
Freedom of speech doesn't equal freedom from judgement.
User avatar #56 to #55 - aluminiumfoiled (03/27/2013) [-]
But do people seriously have the right to be hypocrites?
User avatar #59 to #56 - darman (03/27/2013) [-]
Yes, unfortunately. Although it isn't hypocritical to accept those who agree with you and ostracize those that don't , that is just "in-groups and out-groups" psychology 101.
User avatar #58 to #56 - mcfunkdaddy (03/27/2013) [-]
im sure its not against the law.
 Friends (0)