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 #142 to #10 - twofreegerbils (07/13/2013) [-]
I always appreciate the infallible logic that this list exemplifies.
#112 to #10 - buttholee (07/13/2013) [-]
While funny and clever, there are a couple things on that list that don't make much sense.

In my opinion, 2, 5, and 10 are just biased or don't make much sense.
#124 to #112 - CIS White Male (07/13/2013) [-]
well it just a joke so it really doesnt amtter this what oyu get for anylzing ever little detail some times a joke is a joke and i love you is i love you
User avatar #55 to #10 - indigobob (07/13/2013) [-]
I am fine with gay marriage in general but the only thing I am concerned about is the part regarded adopting kids.
I simply don't think it's alright to force anything upon kids, and ( while I don't know ,I am not a biologist nor a psychologist ) I am afraid that if a kid grows up in a gay marriage it would seem likely that the kid can subconsciously make it his sexuality simply because his parents did it too. Can anyone tell me whether this is possible or not?

Also, the kid would be teased in school and all that jazz, you got to think about that too

But other than that, gay marriage is fine
#93 to #55 - CIS White Male (07/13/2013) [-]
Are you stupid? All gay kids come from straight families. Your argument is invalid.
User avatar #95 to #93 - indigobob (07/13/2013) [-]
Did I ever say that they don't?
User avatar #63 to #55 - princeofbrokensoul (07/13/2013) [-]
hey may be teased in school but allot of people are. and im sure that the kid would not just make it subconsciously his sexuality just cause is adopted parents are.
User avatar #64 to #63 - indigobob (07/13/2013) [-]
also, not to mention that people will presume the guy/girl as homosexual because they lived with gay parents
User avatar #65 to #64 - princeofbrokensoul (07/13/2013) [-]
maybe or maybe not it really depends on how they react towards him/her
User avatar #67 to #65 - indigobob (07/13/2013) [-]
true, true. I just don't think that burdening children deliberately, be it gay marriage or anything else, is something that is wrong. Hope you understand
User avatar #84 to #67 - timmywankenobi (07/13/2013) [-]
do you extend this belief to the illegal non medical genital mutilation of 90% 2 day old boys in the US and the selling of the amputated tissue to pharmasucital companies and private labs by the doctor for 1,600-4000 dollars wich go straight into his pocket ?
User avatar #85 to #84 - indigobob (07/13/2013) [-]
you know exactly in what way I meant it. Don't make me look ridiculous
User avatar #87 to #85 - timmywankenobi (07/13/2013) [-]
I take that as a yes then.
User avatar #88 to #87 - indigobob (07/13/2013) [-]
do what you will
User avatar #89 to #88 - timmywankenobi (07/13/2013) [-]
I'm just saying the equal protection act say's it is illegal to mutilate any genitals of any gender but Americans ignore the law and Doctors lie and say it is the parents choice (when they have a boy) beause the foreskins sell for 300,0000 a year.
User avatar #90 to #89 - indigobob (07/13/2013) [-]
oh.
I don't believe you should have the right to influence the gender of the baby, if that is what you are talking about.
User avatar #97 to #90 - timmywankenobi (07/13/2013) [-]
kinda they lie and say it is okay to mutialte boy's but not girls even though they can preform equlivant mutialtion procedures on both genders ? what is it that makes vaginas so valuable they need to be protected from and touching of prodding but you van do what ever the **** you want to you kids penis even if it is extremely painful and has a 7-9% mortality rate.and a 30-33% complication rate and serves no medical benifits to a child at all.
Americans lack of morality or ethics or addhearence to the law because they want to keep making money sickens me.
one day the parents and doctors will have to answer for their crimes and they will likely burn in the pits of tartarus.
User avatar #127 to #97 - roflsaucer (07/13/2013) [-]
Are you.... are you saying we should circumcise girls, since we do it to boys?

It kind of DOES depend on the choice of the parent. If the parent says no to the circumcision the doctor CANNOT possibly perform it without losing his medical license. The reason it doesn't happen with girls isn't because of some gender-preference nonsense, it's because there is literally NO benefit to the child if you do it. At least in America, it is generally considered "unclean", however unfounded it may be, to have that extra foreskin, but how does this AT ALL apply to girls?
There is literally no medical or social reason for girls to undergo such a procedure, so why would they do it?

I don't see why you blame the Doctors and pharmaceutical companies, when while they make money off of it, they are NOT the reason such procedures happen. Not to mention the very idea of a girl having something akin to circumcision done at birth is preposterous. You completely missed the heart of the issue.
User avatar #131 to #127 - timmywankenobi (07/13/2013) [-]
in other countries they preform clitorectomy's (removal of extra skin of the clitoral hood) for the same purosed false reasons the US preforms Cricumcisions. thier is no medical benifit hence is is called a cosmetic body modifaction not a medical procedure. and the law says parents have no right to make and body modifactions to thier childeren and the equal protection act say male and female genitals must recieve equal protection. the doctor making millions off it is a major reason it happens as well as social conditioning and a study found many doctors lie or mislead parents to get them to agree to the procedure and again legally the doctors can not sell the foreskins since they belong to the child but they do. since the US completely protects female genitals and not male genitals all the doctor are guilty of many counts of medical malpractice and grevious violent sexual assults and they violated all their codes of medical ethics.
User avatar #132 to #131 - roflsaucer (07/13/2013) [-]
I wasn't aware such a thing existed, but I'm not quite sure it's the same thing. I mean, I myself am circumcised and I have no complaints about it, so I can't rightly demand change in the whole system.
Not to mention, I think that the whole "Doctors selling foreskin" thing is a bit of a "One bad apple spoils the bunch."-type deal. I mean, think about it, first off the Doctor would have to be able to assist with childbirth, so he would need the corresponding degrees and licenses. In total, according the U.S. 2012 Census there are roughly 900,000 licensed physicians. Now, let's say around 50% can actually perform childbirth, we're left with 450,000 physicians. And now you said that Doctors have been caught lying about the procedure to get parents to have it done, and lets say about 100 were caught doing that. And now lets say for every one caught, there are 10 that aren't. Or, heck, even another 100. That leaves with only a .02% chance that your Doctor will lie to you about your child needing to be circumcised. Now, in 2010 there were about 4 million childbirths, and let's say half were boys. The amount of these boys being circumcised and having their foreskins sold by their Doctor would be around 40,000.

The whole point of me doing this math is to show, while you're certainly right Doctors doing this is an issue, it is not NEARLY as large of an issue as you are making it out to be. Not only that, but you're also not considering how many of these boys being circumcised are actually unhappy with it. Sure, having their foreskins sold is a bit freaky and uncomfortable, but the chances they're actually unhappy with the state of their own penis isn't very large.
User avatar #137 to #132 - timmywankenobi (07/13/2013) [-]
also a study found only like 5-10% of the circumcisers have any degree in the studies of male genitals they only know how to cut forekins off nothing more.
User avatar #144 to #137 - roflsaucer (07/13/2013) [-]
No, I'm well aware of what was removed from my body, as well as the amount of nerve endings removed, and I could honestly care less.

Not to mention 90% of all boys in the U.S. is a bit of a stretch for the amount of people that don't know the functions, but let's go with that. And let's think for a second on the whole "Sue your parents and the Doctor" bit. Why in GOD'S name would you sue your own goddamn parents who were doing nothing but thinking about your own welfare, assuming that the Doctor did in fact lie to them in order to sell the foreskin.

And let's also consider the immense timeframe you put out for your data, "80 years". The amount of deaths due to the procedure would be 1250/yr, but the thing is however these Doctors have literally no way of avoiding some kind of repercussion, because the child had died due to the procedure they performed. And if they did not tell the parents of the risks, along with the chances of these risks happening, would only further complicate the issue. In the end, these Doctors would, without a doubt, lose their license for medical malpractice and maybe even face jail time.

Not to mention the "maiming" data you provided is also a bit of stretch in accordance with the whole "90%" you gave, since I find it HIGHLY unlikely that they couldn't figure out whether or not their genitals have been maimed by the procedure.

And then there's the whole "Wouldn't know what sex was supposed to feel like." Sex is just as emotional as it is physical, and while it may certainly feel different due to the circumcision, this does not mean that it feels "bad". Whether someone truly things that they're missing out is HIGHLY subjective. I know there are guys with an issue of being unable to reach climax, but this isn't an issue of foreskin or no foreskin, but of their own personal bodies.
User avatar #145 to #144 - timmywankenobi (07/13/2013) [-]
their is no question if you remove 70% or if the dr makes a mistake up to 90% of the nerves sex is worse and studies have also found circumcised men have a 500% higher chance of developing erectile dysfunction or premature ejaculation in thier lives also studies found that 100% of women found sex with intact men to be at least 50% better because the foreskin rubbed places that didn't get rubbed othertherwise. also thier is no proen medical benifit to the procedure so the only reason for doctors to continue doing it is to make money.
User avatar #136 to #132 - timmywankenobi (07/13/2013) [-]
it is a huge issue 90% of boy in the us are circumcised and the parent don't know they have been mislead or lied to and even fewer know they can sue the doctor ,in fact most circumcised men don't even know the functions of the organ taken from them or that any man who was circumcised as a child can sue the doctor and their parents for a lot of money. nor do doctor tell everyone that they have killed at least 100,000 baby boy's in the US and Canada with the procedure in the last 80 years and horrible maimed at least 1.5 million others or that the fore skin contains 70% of the pleause sensors in the male body. if the boy's knew what they lost they would be very angry thats one of the main reasons they take them from defensless babies. no different then if you clitorectomized a little girl she would never know who sex was suposed to feel like.
User avatar #99 to #97 - indigobob (07/13/2013) [-]
wow, I don't know if what you are saying is the truth ( because I don't live in America ) But if it is then I hope that it stops really soon because it is simply horrible
User avatar #100 to #99 - timmywankenobi (07/13/2013) [-]
yes it is but the women in charge of gender and human rights affairs threw out the petition that was sent in last year after reciving a large sum of money from the jewish womens foundation.
User avatar #102 to #100 - indigobob (07/13/2013) [-]
hope it gets taken down, sincerely.
User avatar #103 to #102 - timmywankenobi (07/13/2013) [-]
as do I but I fear that to much money is being made to stop now, and I guess if you're going to sell your soul you may as well go all in.
User avatar #69 to #67 - princeofbrokensoul (07/13/2013) [-]
its all up to you man i believe they should get a chance to raise kids for themselves.
User avatar #70 to #69 - indigobob (07/13/2013) [-]
In any case I think the psychological influences should be researched thoroughly, be it allowed or not
User avatar #74 to #70 - princeofbrokensoul (07/13/2013) [-]
i think they did something on this already not sure the results though but go ahead and look it up on google but i dont think they really affect there children.
User avatar #77 to #74 - indigobob (07/13/2013) [-]
Well my point of view is that of vegetarians. Some vegetarian parents don't feed their children meat because they believe it is horrible and bad. Therefore, a kid, without a choice, grows up as a vegetarian because their stomach is unable to take meat later on.
In the same way, I am just saying it'd be a great shame if it could affect sexuality since I don't think that'd be right at all.

But I still think that there are definitely gay couples who could raise children better than a bog-standard hetero married couple
User avatar #106 to #77 - Kadzait (07/13/2013) [-]
Exactly like gay parents make their kids eat cock so they can't go without it later on right?
User avatar #79 to #77 - princeofbrokensoul (07/13/2013) [-]
well it would only work like that if the parent wouldnt allow them to date girls and just guys or if its a girl just date girls so yeah depends on the parents actions and points of view.
#31 to #10 - CIS White Male (07/13/2013) [-]
Why do these always have to do with america. There are a bunch of European and Asian countries that do not have homosexual rights as well. Not to mention in Africa and the middle east gays are still killed for what they are. I have never seen a group of people fight so hard for the right to be taxed.

Whats wrong with you people? You should change your damn country before you go criticizing other nations for the same point. That would be like the States criticizing Europe's hardon for ethnic cleansing and killing tribals.
#34 to #31 - ohnotwoone (07/13/2013) [-]
I mean i think this was written by an American who was pissed at opposition to gay marriage in his own country.
User avatar #33 to #31 - comandante (07/13/2013) [-]
This was most likely written for Americans, but im sure taking the time, similar arguments can be made for other countries, however I do see your point.
0
#42 to #33 - adolfsama **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #44 to #42 - comandante (07/13/2013) [-]
i know. i was commenting on how some people might be bothered by the fact that some examples used here are aimed towards Americans specifically.
User avatar #20 to #10 - imnotmanbearpig (07/13/2013) [-]
Go ahead, ban gay marriage. We'll just marry your girlfriends. Gay Men Will Marry Your Girlfriends
User avatar #17 to #10 - redstag (07/13/2013) [-]
Oh the IronKnee
User avatar #13 to #10 - icameisawilostit (07/13/2013) [-]
But just think about how fabulous everyone would look...
 Friends (0)