Marriage is an institution created to facilitate the raising of children and to assure a more equal distribution of women in society.
Give me one *good* reason why gay marriage should be illegal
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
if only you held so much contempt to actual kid fuckers
ones still pushing it actively in this thread
their push for new degenerate levels of shit isn't working
the world is pushing back now that Pandora's box of sjw pc has been exposed
so now they are throwing out the GAYS aren't people
and women are going to have to have COAT HANGER abortions again
yeah.........that isn't happening
we are just saying you can't fuck kids still
and for AMADEUS types that might as well be like living in the DARK AGES again
this might as well be a CHRISTIAN TOTALITARIAN THEOCRACY
the world is pushing back now that Pandora's box of sjw pc has been exposed
so now they are throwing out the GAYS aren't people
and women are going to have to have COAT HANGER abortions again
yeah.........that isn't happening
we are just saying you can't fuck kids still
and for AMADEUS types that might as well be like living in the DARK AGES again
this might as well be a CHRISTIAN TOTALITARIAN THEOCRACY
Last edited:
SkittleBrew
Veteran XV
It reinforces the idea that homosexuality is anything but a mental disorder.
Marriage isn't bad. It all depends on the woman you pick and how you look at the marriage.
Says the guy with the hot sister.
ArakAtak
Veteran XX
It's funny b/c that is all it is.
It entitles married people to certain legal & taxation rights that un-married ppl do not have.
The mentally ill want to have those things as well.
Ridiculously simple: it dramatically opens up the doorway for adopting kids.Just one argument that:
- is logically valid and sound
- cannot also apply to straight marriage
- isn't based on unsubstantiated beliefs (e.g. religious dogma)
- isn't based on your personal disgust
Ok go!
I should say that I'm not against gay marriage because I don't give a shit, but they shouldn't be able to adopt. Ever.
Agreed.
StapleMammal1
Contributor
>equal
>women
pick one
Gay Marriage is just another commie jew trick designed to weaken civilization.
Just one argument that:
- is logically valid and sound
- cannot also apply to straight marriage
- isn't based on unsubstantiated beliefs (e.g. religious dogma)
- isn't based on your personal disgust
as if TW rages against gay marriage on any routine basis
there should be nothing legal or illegal about marriage, the government should have nothing to do with it. legally recognized unions are fine, whatever. there is hardly any reason financially to marry any more anyway as women are working full time too nowadays so combining taxes is meaningless, and men usually are put at greater financial risk
the problem that comes along with legalizing gay marriage is that giving an inch means a mile will be sought. "progressives" are moving awfully fast towards forcing acceptance of all sorts of shit and anyone who wants to slow the process down a little is a bigot. society is jumping headfirst into acceptance of previously considered degenerate behavior at a faster and faster rate without having any idea what the consequences will be down the line
if you think there will be no consequences, well I've got a bridge to sell you
I was previously and still am pro-gay marriage for what little that means, but the slope has gotten icy as fuck
StapleMammal1
Contributor
Yeah back in August. Got rid of him in mid September. Wanted to see if I could out jew a jew. Turns out I can. With ease.
EDIT: Kept the engagement ring too.
Last edited:
The Pumpkin King
Veteran XX
I don't think it should be illegal. No more than it should be illegal to marry your house to a camel. It also should not be illegal to throw potatoes against your wall. There is no reason for the government to be involved.
That being said the term gay marriage is in itself oxymoronic.
What if I told you that I'm a carnivorous vegetarian?
A round square cannot exist.
Marriage is the union between a man and woman.
Homosexuals are welcome to develop their own unions. I will fully support them.
But to redefine a word to have a new meaning, we have to be able to do the same thing to everything.
Dinner can now be eaten in the morning, trees are now animals, and the ocean is now a desert.
I understand anyone's desire to be accepted by society. I believe homosexuals deserve just as much love and respect as other humans, and should be treated as well as any other person. That is why they should be allowed to form their own legal unions with one another.
Calling the bond between two same-sex partners "marriage" is a destruction of human culture and history. It is redefining a word that has been held to have a specific meaning for thousands of years.
If heterosexuals would turn and say, "Ok, the word homosexual means "someone who enjoys eating cereal in the morning" they would be quite unhappy and would revolt against it. We would not be allowed to redefine such a word.
However, if we deny their attempt to redefine a word in our culture that we cherish and hold to be beautiful and precious, they become very upset and declare us to be horrible people.
For me, redefining the definitions of words does not equal acceptance. Acceptance equals acceptance.
They should be accepted for who and what they are...
Cliffs: Why can't we all just accept each other and be happy?
That being said the term gay marriage is in itself oxymoronic.
What if I told you that I'm a carnivorous vegetarian?
A round square cannot exist.
Marriage is the union between a man and woman.
Homosexuals are welcome to develop their own unions. I will fully support them.
But to redefine a word to have a new meaning, we have to be able to do the same thing to everything.
Dinner can now be eaten in the morning, trees are now animals, and the ocean is now a desert.
I understand anyone's desire to be accepted by society. I believe homosexuals deserve just as much love and respect as other humans, and should be treated as well as any other person. That is why they should be allowed to form their own legal unions with one another.
Calling the bond between two same-sex partners "marriage" is a destruction of human culture and history. It is redefining a word that has been held to have a specific meaning for thousands of years.
If heterosexuals would turn and say, "Ok, the word homosexual means "someone who enjoys eating cereal in the morning" they would be quite unhappy and would revolt against it. We would not be allowed to redefine such a word.
However, if we deny their attempt to redefine a word in our culture that we cherish and hold to be beautiful and precious, they become very upset and declare us to be horrible people.
For me, redefining the definitions of words does not equal acceptance. Acceptance equals acceptance.
They should be accepted for who and what they are...
Cliffs: Why can't we all just accept each other and be happy?
This is not really an attempt to defend Merriam&Webster. This is an attempt to tell two people, "You are not allowed to feel in your heart what I feel in my heart when I use the word marriage."
What a curious thing to want to try and do.
There are enough exclusive clubs in the world. I just don't see how its possible to control the membership in this one, except via brute force.
Is the benefit of this exclusivity a defensible use of brute force? I mean, there's not even a clubhouse, for Christsakes.
As in, how about I join you for a beer at the "institution of marriage" clubhouse? We can stand around and check out the membership, make sure no riff-raff have snuck in the door.
I don't get that part. When I check out my marriage, the only other member I see is my spouse. It's a tiny clubhouse, and by and large, as long as we don't holler too much, we pretty much make up our own clubhouse rules.
I grew up on a little grimy industrial area of about 100,000 or so. It was across the river from a brewery and downriver a little bit from a steel fab plant, where my father worked for 40 years, and I worked for a couple of summers. Anyway, this little place, in the middle of this blue collar town, was this little haven of live and let live.
This was one place where two adult males could be 'roomates' and nobody gave a rats ass. Two guys living together. There were also alot of families with kids on the island. Clearly, in a little corner place like this, everybody knew everything about everybody.
These weren't folks who were shacking up together. They lived together, long term, for years and years and years. These were middle aged folks, well into their relationships.
One year, one of these middle aged adult men gets sick. I think it was renal failure. He's just wasting away, dieing, slowly, limping around. His partner, meanwhile, is watching all this happen, agonized, helpless to stop it. I was maybe 12, I dont remember the exact year, but I precisely remember the anguish that this adult male 'partner' went through. There was no mistaking that he was grieving over more than just a roomate. He was the devasted picture of somebody grieving for someone they loved deeply, that was a clear lesson, no mistaking it for anything else, clear as a bell.
Looking back on that, in my mind, I couldn't for the life of me imagine how or why I would ever look at that man that I knew and say, "You there, you're not allowed to feel that way about that other human being. Use a different word/feel a different feeling."
Which gives me pause when considering how I could ever say that to men or women I don't know.
What a curious thing to want to try and do.
There are enough exclusive clubs in the world. I just don't see how its possible to control the membership in this one, except via brute force.
Is the benefit of this exclusivity a defensible use of brute force? I mean, there's not even a clubhouse, for Christsakes.
As in, how about I join you for a beer at the "institution of marriage" clubhouse? We can stand around and check out the membership, make sure no riff-raff have snuck in the door.
I don't get that part. When I check out my marriage, the only other member I see is my spouse. It's a tiny clubhouse, and by and large, as long as we don't holler too much, we pretty much make up our own clubhouse rules.
I grew up on a little grimy industrial area of about 100,000 or so. It was across the river from a brewery and downriver a little bit from a steel fab plant, where my father worked for 40 years, and I worked for a couple of summers. Anyway, this little place, in the middle of this blue collar town, was this little haven of live and let live.
This was one place where two adult males could be 'roomates' and nobody gave a rats ass. Two guys living together. There were also alot of families with kids on the island. Clearly, in a little corner place like this, everybody knew everything about everybody.
These weren't folks who were shacking up together. They lived together, long term, for years and years and years. These were middle aged folks, well into their relationships.
One year, one of these middle aged adult men gets sick. I think it was renal failure. He's just wasting away, dieing, slowly, limping around. His partner, meanwhile, is watching all this happen, agonized, helpless to stop it. I was maybe 12, I dont remember the exact year, but I precisely remember the anguish that this adult male 'partner' went through. There was no mistaking that he was grieving over more than just a roomate. He was the devasted picture of somebody grieving for someone they loved deeply, that was a clear lesson, no mistaking it for anything else, clear as a bell.
Looking back on that, in my mind, I couldn't for the life of me imagine how or why I would ever look at that man that I knew and say, "You there, you're not allowed to feel that way about that other human being. Use a different word/feel a different feeling."
Which gives me pause when considering how I could ever say that to men or women I don't know.