2014: the year Ellen Page made scores of neckbeards cry out in psychic anguish

[MisterE]

i mean we could get into the idea that brian is exaggerating when he says the custom/institution/definition has been 'destroyed' and you say it has only been 'amended'. fair enough. i'd say the word amended totally applies, maybe better than the word destroyed. because yeah destroyed implies a complete change. the basic premise of marriage is still there, in that it's a union between two people.

 

but the specific idea of marriage was historically to be a union, specifically between a man and woman, or in some cultures multiple women to a man or maybe multiple men to a woman rarely.

 

but i mean you knew exactly what he was saying. that the definition of marriage has been replaced by a new one. the institution/custom of marriage as being between a man and woman only, is now gone (and it's also fairly obvious that this conversation is talking about legally recognized marriages in the western world, so leaving out polygamous marriages where that's legal), and replaced by it being a union between two people of either sex. traditionally the idea of it was to encourage hetero couples to stay together and raise a family. he's expressing that that concept has been altered to something else now. and it has.

 

but instead of saying 'ok but here's why that might not be such a bad thing' which would be HONEST and respectable if you actually put out some good thoughts on it, you are all

 

"but youre wrong because men and women can still get married!"

 

 

but he never said they couldn't, or that their marriages were revoked, or anything like that. like seriously, has anyone heard of marriages between a man and woman anywhere being revoked to pave the way for the big homo marriage agenda which is just a'takin over? would anyone actually suggest that that was happening when there haven't been any cases of it happening? you are bringing this completely other, non-on-topic, imaginary, ridiculous, bullshit ass, fake argument, also known as a strawman, into this thing.

 

 

and it's not semantics! you are basically being an asshole here dude. you know god damn well what he was saying. he never said marriages between men and women were not allowed now, or were destroyed, or would be, and you fucking know that! but that doesn't stop you from saying it over and over to make what he actually is saying seem totally ridiculous. and this is why you fit right in here.

 

how about this- if you were as smart as you think you are, you could actually debate him on what he's saying and what he means by it. instead of making up shit that he never said to argue with instead.

[Candiru]

You can argue about this all day, but you're on the wrong side of history. Here in Massachusetts, we legalized gay marriage because as a highly educated clusterfuck state of prestigious universities we have to set an example for all of you uneducated toothless redneck cretins that still believe in supernatural shit and that marriage has anything to do with "tradition". Like "oh honey, what's your credit score? I must know before we begin this holy matrimony" LOL you simple little bitches. It's all about money and rights, and if you deny someone rights simply because they are gay, then I can do the math and every time you will add up as a piece of shit. Long story short, we legalized gay marriage we're on top of things and we're just fucking better than you. Now kiss my fucking boots.

[gmanyo]

!!!RELATED!!!

http://youtu.be/n7NfixtUjPM?t=17m12s

[brian trageskin]

If it were the end to an ancient custom that would mean the custom would no longer be performed. By claiming "an end" you claim that something is no longer.

 

but it is no longer performed:

 

marriage (for some reason) = man + woman ONLY

 

now, if marriage = man + woman

or = man + man

or = woman + woman

 

then,

marriage ≠ man + woman ONLY

 

therefore,

the ancient custom is no longer performed.

therfore, i win. deal with it yo.

[gmanyo]

i think that if we allow gay marriage then what if other things can get married like dogs and rocks and everything can get married and then everything will be married to everyone and nobody knows who to love and we all are just having sex with everyone and nobody knows how to pay taxes it wont even make else and well all die of stds

[Adieu]

 

It doesn't disappear you fucking retard. It's fucking amended. There is a difference. Say what you really think you fucking coward.

 

oh yes it disappears, but not in the sense that man+woman can't marry anymore.

it disappears in the sense that everybody until now agreed that only man+woman could marry. if those terms change, then you get something new, where man+woman can still marry, except it's not marriage, as it was always intented to be, anymore. it's something new. deal with it yo.

the tricky part for your brain is that the rights remain, the name remains, and the situation is exactly the same for heterosexuals. except it's not the same situation, because the former principle was violated. therefore, the former institution is no more.

btw, lol at the insults. love you bro

 

 

Actually, the only people that agreed were people who supported exclusionary marriage principles. I highly doubt all the gay people agreed that they shouldn't be allowed to get married. In fact, I bet there were numerous who wished they could have been married, but couldn't. Which is in fact why people want to amend the definition to begin with. Because they disagree with it. Seeing as how there are only so many gay people in the world I imagine there are quite a lot of straight people who agree as well. I understand that being a heterosexual makes you think that your worldview is the only significant one and that when you use the term everybody it means only heterosexuals. Because let's face it, gays aren't people after all. But there actually exists large amounts of people who don't agree with you.

 

"Until now" is quite fucking hilarious and short-sighted of you.

 

"as always intended to be" - meaning as all us straight people decide you gays are allowed to behave, and what rights you are allowed to have because we are better than you.

 

What you are saying is that straight people that hate homosexuals want marriage as a man and woman because it is so offensive to them that gays be allowed to marry that the entire institution loses credibility. Which is laughable because with the rate of divorce being what it is the institution, and the significance thereof is quite questionable.

 

Wasn't marriage also intended to be for life? "Until death do us part" If you want to talk intentions. Let's talk intentions.

 

How can you hold onto the idea that "everything stays the same for me and everyone in opposition, but it's just not the same" is a relevant argument at all.

[Candiru]

 

If it were the end to an ancient custom that would mean the custom would no longer be performed. By claiming "an end" you claim that something is no longer.

 

but it is no longer performed:

 

marriage (for some reason) = man + woman ONLY

 

now, if marriage = man + woman

or = man + man

or = woman + woman

 

then,

marriage ≠ man + woman ONLY

 

therefore,

the ancient custom is no longer performed.

therfore, i win. deal with it yo.

 

 

Gay marriage is legal in some states so you lost years ago, numbnuts.

[gmanyo]

MINDBLOW things arent the names that are the names for things???? like wow names =/= things, holy cow, names are names and things are things....wow....like ice cream actually isnt ice cream but its actually a thing which we call ice cream but the name 'ice cream' is 'ice cream'????

 

(actually related)

[Guest A/D]

 

If it were the end to an ancient custom that would mean the custom would no longer be performed. By claiming "an end" you claim that something is no longer.

 

but it is no longer performed:

 

marriage (for some reason) = man + woman ONLY

 

now, if marriage = man + woman

or = man + man

or = woman + woman

 

then,

marriage ≠ man + woman ONLY

 

therefore,

the ancient custom is no longer performed.

therfore, i win. deal with it yo.

 

So marriage is already over? It's already no longer performed?

 

Words aren't math . . logic isn't performed the way you are making it out to be. Words are rapidly changing fluid representations of the inner workings of millions of human beings.

[Adieu]

i mean we could get into the idea that brian is exaggerating when he says the custom/institution/definition has been 'destroyed' and you say it has only been 'amended'. fair enough. i'd say the word amended totally applies, maybe better than the word destroyed. because yeah destroyed implies a complete change. the basic premise of marriage is still there, in that it's a union between two people.

 

but the specific idea of marriage was historically to be a union, specifically between a man and woman, or in some cultures multiple women to a man or maybe multiple men to a woman rarely.

 

but i mean you knew exactly what he was saying. that the definition of marriage has been replaced by a new one. the institution/custom of marriage as being between a man and woman only, is now gone (and it's also fairly obvious that this conversation is talking about legally recognized marriages in the western world, so leaving out polygamous marriages where that's legal), and replaced by it being a union between two people of either sex. traditionally the idea of it was to encourage hetero couples to stay together and raise a family. he's expressing that that concept has been altered to something else now. and it has.

 

but instead of saying 'ok but here's why that might not be such a bad thing' which would be HONEST and respectable if you actually put out some good thoughts on it, you are all

 

"but youre wrong because men and women can still get married!"

 

 

but he never said they couldn't, or that their marriages were revoked, or anything like that. like seriously, has anyone heard of marriages between a man and woman anywhere being revoked to pave the way for the big homo marriage agenda which is just a'takin over? would anyone actually suggest that that was happening when there haven't been any cases of it happening? you are bringing this completely other, non-on-topic, imaginary, ridiculous, bullshit ass, fake argument, also known as a strawman, into this thing.

 

 

and it's not semantics! you are basically being an asshole here dude. you know god damn well what he was saying. he never said marriages between men and women were not allowed now, or were destroyed, or would be, and you fucking know that! but that doesn't stop you from saying it over and over to make what he actually is saying seem totally ridiculous. and this is why you fit right in here.

 

how about this- if you were as smart as you think you are, you could actually debate him on what he's saying and what he means by it. instead of making up shit that he never said to argue with instead.

 

The meaning of his language very obviously indicates the practical repercussions which I outlined as a means to discredit his opinion on the matter. He failed to concisely express his feelings.

 

The only thing that changes is the ONLY, and it is a far cry to declare that a minor change such as that is nullification, destruction, and/or eradication. Furthermore, changing that ONLY has zero practical effect on the heterosexuals;therefore, no change.

 

He implied it over and over again with his language Mr. E. And now you've given him a reason to believe that his idea is correct. It isn't.

 

I very clearly changed the subject to bring into question the realities of homosexuals and homosexual marriage, and to examine fears and possibilities. I realized this as a necessity when there was no progress using the angle you described. Had he answered any of my relevant questions we could have continued a discussion, but he refused.

 

What he is saying is that he hates homosexuals and he doesn't want to associate with them in any manner. He also despises them so much that he believes that he has more right to determine how they live than they do themselves. He also believes that his institution is too good for them and that allowing them to be apart of it would negate its significance for all of society.

 

Not a strawman.

[brian trageskin]

So marriage is already over? It's already no longer performed?

 

in some parts of the world, indeed. what's always been understood by "marriage" doesn't exist anymore in those places. a new kind of marriage replaced it.

[Candiru]

The institution of marriage itself is not fueled strictly by penis on vagina love. It's fueled by property rights, visitation rights, sharing insurance, etc. If you say two people can't have these rights because of what they do with their penis or vagina, then bend over motherfucker because I'm about to show you the same love.

[brian trageskin]

The only thing that changes is the ONLY, and it is a far cry to declare that a minor change such as that is nullification, destruction, and/or eradication. Furthermore, changing that ONLY has zero practical effect on the heterosexuals;therefore, no change.

 

oh no, it does change everything, since without that principle, the other terms are nullified. whether you accept this reality or not.

[Guest A/D]

 

The only thing that changes is the ONLY, and it is a far cry to declare that a minor change such as that is nullification, destruction, and/or eradication. Furthermore, changing that ONLY has zero practical effect on the heterosexuals;therefore, no change.

 

oh no, it does change everything, since without that principle, the other terms are nullified. whether you accept this reality or not.

 

This is the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard. Following this to its logical conclusions, all language is destroyed every time a word is added, the legal system is destroyed when a law is amended, humanity is destroyed when someone grows up, and the universe is destroyed every time a star goes supernova.

 

You are the one living in an alternate reality, where things are "destroyed" with no practical consequences.

 

I have the sneaking suspicion you won't change (destroy) your beliefs or be able to back them up . . if that is the case . . good day sir.

[Candiru]

 

The only thing that changes is the ONLY, and it is a far cry to declare that a minor change such as that is nullification, destruction, and/or eradication. Furthermore, changing that ONLY has zero practical effect on the heterosexuals;therefore, no change.

 

oh no, it does change everything, since without that principle, the other terms are nullified. whether you accept this reality or not.

 

 

So straight married couples can no longer share insurance if gay couples can do it too? I can understand why this would worry you so much if you were completely fucking retarded.

[Guest fiznuthian]

I can't even believe this thread is real.

[Guest A/D]

It's not, it was destroyed somewhere around page 5.

[Adieu]

 

 

 

 

But isn't that the opposite of what gay and lesbians would prefer, instead they seem to go for the argument that it's not social but inherent in their biology. Which to me has long been the most reasonable suggestion, and one now being supported by science. So given this, why would it be part of the gay agenda to sponsor gender theory?

 

what's supported by science? link plz!

 

btw...all of the major 'inherent' theories are proven to be frauds (or at least not scientifically proved).

!!! imagine university professors lying about something important like this. some of them even admitted latter but they didnt had to...it was clear as a days even to 1st grade medical students. all of their 'proves' past easily within non-medical profession communities tho.

 

 

There as been some research on birth order affecting the rate of homosexuality among males.

 

yeah it's pretty interesting. 7th son of a 7th son would be gay or a werewolf lol wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_son_of_a_seventh_son

 

so they knew if would be a super rare occurrence for the 7th son to have kids, especially 7. crazy what they knew back then.

 

 

You have not been here long enough to be so sarcastic. Read the rules.

 

 

In reference to this thread; Why the fuck is this conversation even happening? Seriously, wtf is wrong with you people?

 

 

 

 

haha, boredom? starfucking? homophobia? take your pick.

 

No, all the basement dwelling ignorant shit. not the celebrity shit. it makes me feel gross being here when these retarded conversations come up in 2014.

 

 

 

I can't even believe this thread is real.

 

I felt the same way, but then they started multiplying so I had to lose half a day repeating myself and frustrating myself. I'm a masochist though so it's all good.

[brian trageskin]

 

 

The only thing that changes is the ONLY, and it is a far cry to declare that a minor change such as that is nullification, destruction, and/or eradication. Furthermore, changing that ONLY has zero practical effect on the heterosexuals;therefore, no change.

 

oh no, it does change everything, since without that principle, the other terms are nullified. whether you accept this reality or not.

 

 

So straight married couples can no longer share insurance if gay couples can do it too? I can understand why this would worry you so much if you were completely fucking retarded.

 

 

it seems like you missed quite a few posts. i'm talking about traditional "rituals" here, not legislation. the legislation doesn't change for heterosexual couples, but the nature of the ritual does. so the former institution disappears, gets replaced by a new one, but the legal rights and duties stay the same for heteros.

[goDel]

Ehm, so this thread is turning out like a bad marriage.....

 

O fuck it. I just came in to see what this fuss is all about, and now I can only post something which signifies my dick being so much larger...even though i'm probably average like the rest of the white male world

[LimpyLoo]

This all just feels like code for...well, you know.

[Candiru]

 

 

 

The only thing that changes is the ONLY, and it is a far cry to declare that a minor change such as that is nullification, destruction, and/or eradication. Furthermore, changing that ONLY has zero practical effect on the heterosexuals;therefore, no change.

 

oh no, it does change everything, since without that principle, the other terms are nullified. whether you accept this reality or not.

 

 

So straight married couples can no longer share insurance if gay couples can do it too? I can understand why this would worry you so much if you were completely fucking retarded.

 

 

it seems like you missed quite a few posts. i'm talking about traditional "rituals" here, not legislation. the legislation doesn't change for heterosexual couples, but the nature of the ritual does. so the former institution disappears, gets replaced by a new one, but the legal rights and duties stay the same for heteros.

 

 

The ritual is the same. Families get together, there's a fucking ceremony, and people get drunk and dance. Trust me, I've been to straight weddings before and after gay marriage was legalized, and nothing fucking changed. You remind me of Lieutenant Dan, because you have no legs to stand on. Nah, dude I know you've been trollolololing this whole time.

[Adieu]

This all just feels like code for...well, you know.

 

yes?

[goDel]

Dicks. Huge dicks. Huge dicks clashing. Huge dicks clashing and occasionally docking. ...etc

 

 

Edit: docks into limpyloo

[sheatheman]

I'm having fun with this thread. Seeing mister E viewing the thread that first time was like watching Goku descend from Snakeway.

 

I have tons of gay/lesbian/gendervariant friends. Love 'em to pieces. To be fair, the comparison to women's rights is a fallacy. There is no concrete science that homosexuality is black and white biology, therefore the fear spoken of is based on behavior, not on genes.

 

The rush to biology is happening because the knee jerk is to blame someone else. If they can't help it then any in opposition are "on the wrong side of history." It's clever stuff. There is definitely something else behind it.

 

Fact is I would love you whether it was a choice or genetic predisposition.

 

Meanwhile I'm in an interracial and highly rewarding cis-marriage.