Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
hide menu
Latest users (1): khayman, anonymous(13).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #15262 - robopuppy (12/04/2012) [-]
Is it just me or is it kind of pathetic that not a single bill regarding same sex marriage was even introduced by the latest congress?
User avatar #15310 to #15262 - KiraLives (12/05/2012) [-]
Not everything should be handled by the federal government.
Actually, not much should be handled by the federal government.
Congress already dictates to us far too often. Allow the states to handle it, and they already are, steadily.
User avatar #15311 to #15310 - robopuppy (12/05/2012) [-]
But not even one was even introduced. It doesn't matter if the Federal government handles it or not, not a single person even brought it up.
User avatar #15313 to #15311 - KiraLives (12/05/2012) [-]
It's not high on the agenda for anyone right now. The election is over so the Dems don't have to pander to their base anymore. I'm not offended by it, I wish they'd take the federalist approach more often. Personally, I don't think marriage should be defined by the government at all.
User avatar #15302 to #15262 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
Im more upset about the fact that Marijuana (or just drugs in general) are illegal. gay marriage seems almost like a trifling issue in the scope of the problems we face today.
User avatar #15304 to #15302 - robopuppy (12/05/2012) [-]
I don't mean to be rude but how is making some people second class citizens less important than weed? Don't get me wrong, I love weed. But if I were to choose between losing weed or being less than everyone else I would lose weed.
User avatar #15305 to #15304 - mexicoman (12/05/2012) [-]
Its a matter of priorities. If I were mayor of some town and I found there were landmines around that killed people, imprisoned people, and made them needlessly unemployable, I would hesitate to then deal with the fact that the local diners aren't serving people with blue eyes first.

That is a very shitty but accurate analogy of these two issues in context. I am a full blown egalitarian but I think it is wrong to place this issue so high on the to-do list.
User avatar #15405 to #15305 - robopuppy (12/07/2012) [-]
I see your argument but it is a bit of a straw man. Weed is great, I love it, but when push comes to shove I can stop using it if needed. I can't stop liking the same sex. Weed is a privileged while equality is a right. Not just that but the fact that "local diners aren't serving people with blue eyes first" also leads to public opinion against the people that are discriminated and leads to tons of hate crimes, including murders. I agree that drug legalization is a huge issue but in context I think gay rights are higher.
#15432 to #15405 - mexicoman (12/07/2012) [-]
I don't think so at all. Its not about just having the right to smoke weed, it is the fact that people are dying as a result of the drug 'war', its all the people crammed into prison for inhumane periods of time only to be thrust into an unwelcoming job climate that will only force them into the black market again, and the gradual chipping away it makes at the poor. That is so much more important than gay marriage. It is true that the hate crimes are a result of the fight for marital equality, but black people alone are more victim to hate crimes than gay people. They are seen as corruption of youth causing gangsters (though the culture of gangster rap does not help them) and I don't think it unreasonable to assume that hate crimes against racial minorities dwarfs their effects on the homosexual community.    
   
GIF very loosely related.
I don't think so at all. Its not about just having the right to smoke weed, it is the fact that people are dying as a result of the drug 'war', its all the people crammed into prison for inhumane periods of time only to be thrust into an unwelcoming job climate that will only force them into the black market again, and the gradual chipping away it makes at the poor. That is so much more important than gay marriage. It is true that the hate crimes are a result of the fight for marital equality, but black people alone are more victim to hate crimes than gay people. They are seen as corruption of youth causing gangsters (though the culture of gangster rap does not help them) and I don't think it unreasonable to assume that hate crimes against racial minorities dwarfs their effects on the homosexual community.

GIF very loosely related.
User avatar #15327 to #15305 - noblexfenrir (12/05/2012) [-]
You didn't really answer the question...how is someone being treated differently for no objective reason less important than legalization of marijuana...?
User avatar #15331 to #15327 - Ruspanic (12/05/2012) [-]
The best argument I've seen against gay civil marriage/unions - and perhaps the only one that has any intellectual appeal, though it may still be rather weak - is that government recognition of marriage is a matter of public policy that should serve the public good. The reason marriage has any sort of special legal status in the first place is that the government wants to a) encourage reproduction and b) help ensure that children are raised in a stable environment. Since gay couples cannot naturally reproduce, giving their relationships special legal status (and therefore tax credits and other benefits) would serve no purpose. gay couples are already free to have long-term relationships and live together.

Although this argument doesn't convince me to oppose gay civil marriage, it is an "objective reason" to treat gay couples differently under the law.
User avatar #15301 to #15262 - Yardie (12/05/2012) [-]
Instead of focusing on gay marriage why don't we focus on separation of Church and Sate?

Marriage is a religious affair. If you want a union that's fine, but marriage is meant to be biblical.
-1
#15307 to #15301 - apatheticdemon **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #15308 to #15307 - Yardie (12/05/2012) [-]
Marriage is defined as matrimony between a man and a woman. The definition has been shat on, yes, but I feel that if there were an actual separation of church and state, defining a legal unionship as a separate affair from marriage, it would be a lot more sacred. You're talking about a unionship, I'm talking about a priest declaring two people husband and wife.

Marriage is a religious term that has been used politically.
User avatar #15328 to #15308 - noblexfenrir (12/05/2012) [-]
Ancient Sumerians didn't condemn gay marriage, and actually supported homosexual acts if someone so chose to join in them. Since Sumerians came well before christians and they had marriage in their communities with their religion, then they must own marriage right? Thus we must follow their restrictions.

Marriage is a simple word used to define a partnership, nowhere besides the abrahamic religions in modern day society does it say marriage is defined as "between a male and woman" and anyone saying so is ignorant of the beliefs that came well before theirs and the evolving beliefs of today's current populace.

If you are talking about a priest declaring two people husband and wife, then you are talking about marriage where a priest declaring two people husband and wife. Just like it's "marriage" if a priest who does support gay marriage declares two people husband and husband/wife and wife. It doesn't even need to be a priest doing it.

The fact is you can have 3 reasons to be against gay marriage:

>You don't like it. To bad this gives no basis on telling someone else they can't do something.

>You don't like it and you don't want priests forced to marry gay couples. GOOD NEWS~! They don't have to, even today a church can turn away someone if they don't want them going through a marriage ceremony, so even if gay marriage was legalized, NOTHING WOULD CHANGE.

>It's against your religion. Too bad.

User avatar #15342 to #15328 - Yardie (12/05/2012) [-]
Ancient Sumerians didn't practice Christianity. It's a different religion. And if there were practitioners of their form of marriage, they shouldn't get benefits from the government, and neither should Christian marriages.

I'm talking about biblical marriage. It's why Christians are so butthurt over gay marriage. If we took marriage out of the government there would be no butthurt. How hard is that to understand?

I have no reasons to be against gay partnerships, because I am all for it. But Christians are butthurt because marriage has become a legal thing. It shouldn't be. Marriage should be a PRIVATE MATTER.

If marriage were private, religious people would have no way to illegalize gay marriage. It's simple.

I never said gays can't get married. I simply said they shouldn't get married in the traditional Christian way because it goes against Christian beliefs.

What if your religion required no marriage? Then too bad, you can't receive legal benefits? That's retarded. There's a reason there's supposed to be a separation of Church and State.

You can get as butthurt as you want about religion, but that doesn't make you any more better or virtuous than butthurt Christians.

If gay people actually wanted rights to marriage, they would push for a separation of Church and State. What it seems to me is that they simply want to piss Christians off in the process. How is that progressive or tolerant at all?
User avatar #15373 to #15342 - noblexfenrir (12/06/2012) [-]
1.) Wow you really missed the point I was trying to make. Marriage extends farther back than christianity, so unless they plan on following sumerian marriage conditions, then they can't claim anyone has immediate control over the word "marriage".

2.) Again, they don't own the word marriage, making the reason they are butthurt misplaced.

3.) There is absolutely nothing saying marriage should be a private matter. Again, They do not own marriage.

4.) They have no reason to now, it's something they do not own and they are telling another group of people they cannot do something because they feel entitled to have it purely for themselves.

5.) What if they are christian and a pastor/church has accepted gay marriage and wants to give them the ceremony?

6.) Then we do have legal unions, I'm not saying these are bad, just that christians down have specific rights to marriage.

7.) "Butthurt over religion" yes because disagreeing with a group because what they are doing is wrong is totally being butthurt. I never said it made me better but it sure as hell does make me right when their only standing is their "religion says so" and mine is "That doesn't matter."

8.) Progressive and tolerant? You mean like telling telling another group they cannot get married because "we own marriage and it says in our religion being gay is a sin so nope we don't want it". Don't be ridiculous, there are christian gay couples and even if they aren't someone should not be forced to go another route because a group doesn't like them.

Your outlook seems to be to just give them what they want and not piss off the church, which is laughably ignorant and beyond idiotic.
User avatar #15410 to #15373 - Yardie (12/07/2012) [-]
No my argument is to give no marital benefits at all. I'll set aside most of those points because I find them irrelevant, but my whole argument is that in order to have true equality, the government needs to get the fuck out of marriage. That way you can do whatever you want, and nobody gets legally discriminated against, and there's a lot less hate.

I feel like most of my argument got straw-manned.

And I never said Christians are tolerant or progressive. I said that the gay rights movement claims to be tolerant and progressive when it doesn't take into consideration another group's feelings on it (even if it is opposing), which is the opposite of tolerant.

If the government got rid of all marriage laws, we'd be a lot better off. Why does marriage even have to be legally recognized? It doesn't do anything but add a shitload of legal fees to relationships. I think the only reason it was made a legal thing in the first place was because Christians wanted marriage to be a permanent thing, and wanted benefits from it to try and keep it that way, and also deter divorce through legal fees, and since we are mostly a Christian nation, it was made so.

And let me point something out to you. There's different ways to morally view things. "disagreeing with a group because what they are doing is wrong" is being butthurt. What they are doing isn't wrong in their eyes, while what gays are doing is wrong in their eyes. You can't say somebody is "wrong" about that opinion. You have no facts to back that statement up. Saying that they are "wrong" about something that they believe in is being just as intolerant. It's just the same as saying "gays are wrong about their opinions because the bible says so."

Now if you want to say they're being intolerant, that they are over reacting, and being plain retarded, that is your opinion, and I can agree with that mostly.
User avatar #15363 to #15342 - Ruspanic (12/06/2012) [-]
Marriage has been a legal thing since the early 20th century, when the government began issuing marriage licenses. I have never seen any modern Christian conservative object to these- the only people who seem to oppose them are Libertarians, who do not do so on religious grounds.

Religious marriage really isn't that entangled with legal civil marriage. Two atheists can get married in a court and sign a contract, and their marriage is recognized by law. Conversely, two Christians can get married by a priest, in a church and with a formal religious ceremony, but if they don't sign the marriage contract they receive no legal benefits.
Otherwise put, the law doesn't recognize marriages under God, and God (or the church) doesn't recognize marriages under the law.

The only apparent "entanglement" is the word "marriage", which some social conservatives claim is a purely religious term. If that was ever the case, it no longer is.

As for the issue of "legal benefits" - the best, and perhaps only appealing argument against same-sex marriage I've heard is that the legal institution of marriage is a matter of public policy: that is, marriage has special legal status because the government wants to encourage reproduction and ensure that children are raised in a stable environment. Since same-sex couples cannot naturally reproduce, their unions serve no public benefit and therefore deserve no special legal status.

Not an entirely convincing argument, but it illustrates that people aren't entitled to the legal benefits associated with marriage. gay people, or anyone else can already "marry" privately - according to terms set by a church or by themselves. The "gay agenda" is pushing for legal recognition of same-sex unions.

User avatar #15411 to #15363 - Yardie (12/07/2012) [-]
The government wants to ensure that children are raised in a stable environment? How the hell do marriage laws help that? If anything it causes more fighting between parents because of all the legal issues before they can actually get divorced.

But that's beside the point. There's lots of other legal benefits to marriage rather than just "being recognized as married." You get tax breaks, shared income, all sorts of little things that help in small ways, there's a lot to marriage. That is the main argument for the "gay agenda." And I think it's silly, because they think they are asking for marriage equality when instead they are asking for legal benefits that in my opinion shouldn't be there in the first place.
User avatar #15414 to #15411 - Ruspanic (12/07/2012) [-]
Marriage by law binds the parents in a legal union, a contract, that helps ensure they stay together for the sake of their children. Unfortunately, the normalization of divorce has somewhat undermined this goal. Social taboos were a greater obstacle to divorce than money and paperwork.

I'm aware of the tax benefits and such related to marriage. Those all come with legal recognition of marriage - i.e. they are not granted to people who only have church marriages. Regardless of whether you agree with the benefits accorded to married couples, right now most states give these benefits only to straight couples. So it is in that sense a matter of equality - if straight married couples get legal recognition and tax benefits and so on, so should gay married couples.

Also "marriage" in modern times has come to mean legal marriage. Most people will not consider you "truly" married unless you have a marriage license and have signed a marriage contract with your spouse. Otherwise, you are seen either as a religious fundamentalist or merely a pretender, and any children you might have may be considered to have been born out of wedlock. Such social perceptions are very hard to change intentionally. Marriage laws serve to establish marriage as a secular institution that nevertheless has a concrete definition. Without a legal institution of marriage, the definition would either be purely religious - in which case it wouldn't be open to non-religious people - or it would be whatever any individual couple says it is, in which case the concept would simply lose meaning. This could create problems with how married couples are treated in society.

I believe that although marriage is a private matter, the legal institution of marriage is necessary for pragmatic reasons to help resolve matters of inheritence, parental custody, hospital visitation rights, and so on.
User avatar #15428 to #15414 - Yardie (12/07/2012) [-]
I'm saying they don't need those benefits. It's not a duty of the taxpayer to give married straight people benefits. It's not the duty of the taxpayer to give married gay people benefits. Without a legal institution of marriage, there would be a lot less confusion. The definition would end up being whatever any individual couple says it is, in which the concept would retain the religious meaning to the work while weeding out the useless definitions of people who just want to have a long term partner. How would this create any problems? It becomes a private matter where nobody cares unless they are religious, and in that case who cares? They can't legally discriminate against you at that point.

Inheritance is easy through a will, something like that should be set up in a contract at time of marriage. A spouse shouldn't have legal obligation to their partner's stuff. Parental custody would be better handled without the institution of marriage. You don't need legal marriage for custody battles, or visitation rights for that matter.

It's not necessary. Does it help? Maybe, I can't disprove that. I don't think it does, but even so is it actually worth the legal fees and cost of legislation as well as the moral hazards created by legal marriage?
User avatar #15295 to #15262 - paintbucket (12/04/2012) [-]
because the majority of americans don't want it.
it's failed in california multiple times.
User avatar #15299 to #15295 - robopuppy (12/05/2012) [-]
The majority of Americans actually do and we all know why prop 8 passed. The Mormon Church funded a huge multimillion dollar campaign against it.
0
#15278 to #15262 - tweetyftw **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)