Possible Concequences of Gays Getting Married
But what a fabulous president Lady GaGa would make (via ROFLRazzi)
Submitted via Graph Jam Builder
-
-
Copy & paste this:
« Previous Reasons For Not Sleeping in Your Bed Tonight | In Memoriam Next »
Possible Concequences of Gays Getting Married
» 248 TPS Reports
Leave a Reply
-
Latest Comments
Max on Would You Look at This Ra… Plesiosaur on Know Your Nerds Dr.V on They’re Getting Loose Wi… zomby on It’s Not Hard dashvader on News With Jokes vs. News That… zomby on They’re Getting Loose Wi… zomby on Know Your Nerds dashvader on Now if Only I Could Fly to… bhangbhangduc on Oh Man, How Am I Still Al… BlueToaster on Know Your Nerds Rumor on Know Your Nerds dashvader on A Graph, This Is fdsdfa on We’re Number One! dashvader on But That Means I Was… Ew… Alima on Top 10 Read Books 
Cheezburger Company Blog
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
Come on, this is recycled. OC only, please.
Can’t spell consequences.
that’s because the consequences will never be the same
consequences or likeliness- either way this makes no sence, how can something be a consequences unto itself?
exactly the point, i think.
and it’s spelled ‘sense’.
“what would happen if i hit you?”
“well i guess i would get hit…?”
thats not a consequence
a consequence of hitting would be an assault charge or swollen fist. a consequence of a smart a remark might be gitting hit. but your illustration and the graph does not dipict a consequence.
“Ramifications” is the word they’re looking for.
Is it bean ramification food??
Maybe the “consequence unto itself” means the writer will have to attend even more friend weddings. Ah the inconvenience!
Needs to be 100% red.
Like it was the last time someone made this graph.
I’d LOVE to see the orange one happen.
OMG me 2! GO LADY GAGA
The blue slice needs to take most of the graph.
Stupid stock market, crashing more than Tiger Woods.
no, that wouldn’t be a consequence of gays getting married~
just people being… people~
Nowadays they’ll blame stock market problems on anything. One newscaster even asked Jim Kramer if the Jets losing a football game might have had an effect.
Tiger Woods? that comment was hardly even clever.
This is incorrect…there’s a better one of this out there where the whole thing is 100% red. That one is good :]
Yeah, I’ve seen that one. Not only is this a rip-off, it’s a badly done rip-off.
I’m missing the “Nazis will ride on dinosaurs.” slice of that graph.
damn you! that was my line
This really needs a colour for ‘heterosexual marriages become invalid’ with 0 in the chart.
Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. When gays try to get married, they are destroying the foundation of the institution of marriage.
“they are destroying the foundation of the institution of marriage” Isn’t that what they said a few decades back when whites and blacks wanted to get married :/
There is no fundamental difference between people of different races except the color of their skin. There are, however, fundamental differences between men and women. It’s really not comparable at all.
Wait, you just dug your own retorical grave. So, if there are no big differences between people of different races, it’s ok for them to marry (ofc), however there are fundamental differences between men and women (Amen, brother). So you state that people from different races can get married because they are basically the same, however people from the same gender – with even less difference, therefore – can’t. Don’t contradict yourself – and don’t contradict me saying you contradicted yourself =)
did you mean- Can?
And you are now officially on my “you disgust me” list. And there’s quite some on there…
There’s difference between men and women. So they can get married.
There isn’t any difference between people of different races. So they can get married. I’m not following.
I really don’t want to follow.
And, destroying the foundation of the institution of marriage? So, would e-mail destroy the foundation of letters and newspapers? I don’t get you.
Seriously, how much could possibly happen to you if us gay people got married. I don’t think it would kill you. We’re not touching you with a single friggin finger.
So what
I’m still a rock star
I got my rock moves
And I don’t need you
Beat that.
Nice one! *hi5′s xforever1313*
And how EXACTLY does said “desctruction” affect the unions between men and women? Please, do elaborate!
First of all, it’s “destruction.” And to answer your question, because gay marriage violates the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, it is destroying what marriage was intended to be by making it what it was not intended to be. Do you understand now?
So, just to play along, if I were suddenly to define a broccoli as a fruit, would that make oranges taste like vegetables? I’m not quite sure I follow your point…
Seriously, thank you. I was exactly going for an example like that.
A fruit is an edible part of a plant that contains seeds whereas vegetables are simply edible parts of plants. If a broccoli, which does not contain seeds, were to be defined as a fruit, the definition of a fruit as “an edible part of a plant that contains seeds” would no longer apply. Labeling broccoli as a fruit would destroy the whole definition of a fruit.
Yeah, but marriage isn’t like that. It’s definition CAN be changed to fit homosexuality in.
Yes, exactly. My point was that letting gays marry changes the definition of marriage as it was intended to be.
“Yes, exactly. My point was that letting gays marry changes the definition of marriage as it was intended to be.”
And that matters because…?
Dude, you’re on your own here. Stop ruining a somewhat normal site with your bigotry, and go on ranting in hell, because “He who is without sin cast the first stone”
Bicycles started out as something to walk with, and now people sit on it to go faster. Not what it was “intended to be”.
Things change, get used to it. Women used to have no rights, that changed, you seem to be okay with that, now don’t try to take ours.
This. And don’t say that women been giving rights was okay. The Bible says otherwise.
And you wondered what posts of yours I thought were stupid…
I’m not sure what you mean by “definition” but, to me, the point of marriage is not its definition, rather than its purpose.
The institution of marriage is intended for couples who are willing to share their lives, and each aspect of living with that significant other person is conditioned by their agreement in staying together fro a very looong time and sharing everything (with exceptions) they have with them.
It’s true, however, that the couple is supposed to be composed by a male and a female.
There is no point, though, in defending whole-heartedly two words, which not only make you look ridicously
Uhg, I knew some dolt would start being an anti-gay troll. Good job adding hate to a previously hate free comment section. You, sir, are an idiot.
No. Because you’re not making any sense.
Marriage was originally intended to be between one man and several women. Did we destroy it when we introducted monogamy?
THANK YOU.
And yes, marriage was originally intended to be between men and women. Also, a phone was originally intended for people to talk via audio communication. When cameras were added to phones, did they suddenly lose their “Sanctity of phonage”?
No, because you can extend a definition of something without altogether changing it. Mobile phones as a general rule now contain cameras, simply as given. They don’t contain puppies or taekwondo experts or vegetarian hamburgers. They simply now can perform other tasks, without having lost what made them phones in the first place.
Likewise, you could modify the definition of marriage to be between simply “Two adults”. Can straight people still get married? Yes. Can gay people get married? Yes. It’s a win-win situation, right?
Not that I expect this to change your mind. It’s pretty obvious that the whole “Sanctity of marriage” argument is just a cover for blatant religous bigotry. But oh well.
Wonderful example
Psh, you must have an old model. My phone definitely has a taekwondo expert. ;D
wow… I am blinded by your bright and sparkly win…
hehe… sparkly.
Actually, originally marriage was created because women were thought of as just property to be traded around. Women had to have a man around to take care of them, either a male family member such as their father or brother or an uncle or something, but because people needed to reproduce marriage was created. Back then a woman didn’t choose who she was married, the man with the most money (or stuff) gave her parents money to basically buy her so they could marry her. =/ Marriage was just created because a woman was not allowed to be on her own in the past.
Now marriage is used to allow two people to be together and gain the benefits of being in a unified, legal relationship.
And there is no definition for marriage that says it is only between a man and a woman. So why don’t you kindly shut the fuck up?
Two people of the same sex getting married isn’t going to destroy anything. You realize that in most places of the world marriage means many different things and are done in different ways. And you can’t say it’s between a man and a woman either because in the past young girls that were not yet fully developed women, usually between 12-18 were married off to far older men.
Marriage was only created so that way people would be paired off in a way to create children. Marriage was just for reproduction, but in most places is considered the ‘legal’ or ‘official’ union between two people who love each other and are ready to commit.
Because marriage is now just as a way to express and ‘legalize’ or ‘make official’ two people’s love for one another, it doesn’t matter if it’s between a man and a woman or two men or two women. As long as there is love, it doesn’t matter. And it shouldn’t matter. Especially with all the men and women who get don’t get married because of love (and then soon or eventually get divorced) it’s pretty safe to say that marriage has already been ruined, so allowing two people of the same sex to do so is not going to hurt anything.
but in most places is now considered the *
*Who* defines marriage like that? I had dinner last night that was a marriage of bacon and scallops. I am pretty sure scallops are asexual. Your “definition” is MEANINGLESS.
Dude, bacon doesn’t get married. Bacon is way cooler than marriage, it just gets laid everynight with a different sidedish.
“foundation of the institution of marriage” = women are property of wealthy men, purchased from their families for the purposes of procreation and to form inter-tribal alliances.
If gay marriage destroys that, then all the better.
Marriage was not always “defined” the way has been in your lifetime, so why shouldn’t it’s “definition” continue to evolve?
Man, people on the interwebs never get smarter.
“But that’s what they said about interracial marriage!!!” Check.
“Look at me, I’m using the word marriage of describe nonhuman entities!!!” Check.
“Who defines marriage? Who, I wonder, who? Who defines anything? Who?” Check.
“Marriage is an invention of the patriarchy and demeans women, and therefore should be destroyed!!!” Check.
“Marriage hasn’t always been defined like this!!!” Check.
All recycled arguments, just like this poor graph, all rebutted countless times and/or answered. Try again
answered maybe…but not definitively if they are still being asked. maybe a better answer? a good one? or at least one that isnt complete crap?
“We need a better answer” Check.
Yet somehow you failed to answer any of them here. If these questions have really been answered countless times, then how about you tell us what some of those answers were? Because I certainly haven’t seen any (or at least, not any that didn’t end up devolving into “because I/my religion says so.”)
Well, I assumed this wasn’t the forum to hold such a discussion, but okay.
1) Comparisons with interracial marriage don’t hold because there is no difference, genetic or otherwise, between the races (well, some genetic differences, but those are tiny and negligible). To say a black man and a white woman, or vice-versa, shouldn’t marry is wrong because there is no difference between a white man and a black man. There are innumerable differences between the genders. To say two men shouldn’t marry is not analogous; there is much difference between a woman and a man.
2) Can we all agree we’re talking about marriage between human beings here?
3) As for who defines marriage, well, I guess we all define it for ourselves. According to some, a union between 4 women and 1 man is a marriage, and that is perfectly acceptable to everybody. Maybe some believe 2 men or 2 women or 5 women or whatever is a marriage. Fine. But legal marriage is a different matter altogether, and is defined by the government. We can argue forever about whether the government should have this power, but as long as the gov’t mandates at what age I can have sex, or when I can drive, or where I can build my house, or any of the thousands of things the gov’t regulates, the discussion will go nowhere. And as long as the state retains this power, it’s in the state’s interest to keep defining marriage as between a man and woman.
4) As for the foundation of marriage being a misogynistic tool of the patriarchy…well, maybe it was. Who knows? Who cares? The way we practice marriage, or view it, especially in the West, has of course changed over the centuries. The uses of it, the purpose behind it, everything has changed, as most things do. The very definition of the institution itself hasn’t, though, in the way it would if gay marriage were legalized. It is still a man and woman, joined together, to produce legitimate children. (Please don’t ask inane things like “Well, should infertile couples not be allowed to marry?” The purpose of the institution of marriage is to produce children whose roots can be traced. Whether that purpose is fulfilled is irrelevant).
First of all, thank you for answering, and in a civil manner. I frankly haven’t seen a lot of that in these kinds of discussions, and it’s appreciated. Okay, well, here are my rebuttals:
1. Well, I guess it depends on what the purpose of disallowing a particular type of marriage is. The entire point of not allowing interracial marriage was keeping “different” races separate; that isn’t the idea with not allowing same-sex marriage, so arguing based on the difference between the sexes doesn’t make sense (really, in that context, it would make more sense to use that argument to say that *only* same-sex marriages should be allowed, and I’m sure that’s not what you’re saying.
)
2. Okay, I’m willing to admit that one’s stupid. It’s not one that I’ve seen that much, though, and I think it’s more about making fun of the argument than actually making a point.
3. First, thank you again for not saying everybody *must* have the same definition of marrige. I know I personally have no issue with polygamy, as long as it’s entirely consensual, but I understand why it might cause issues if it were recognized legally (although *not* recognizing it legally can cause issues as well). Anyway, yes, the government has the power to define legal marriage. It also has the power to change that definition, which I believe is what this whole argument is about.
How, exactly, is it in the state’s best interest to only recognize marriages between men and women? There are several countries and states that recognize same-sex marriage, and if there have been any problems from it I haven’t heard about them.
4. I’m willing to accept that that was one of the original purposes, but I don’t believe it’s as much of an issue now. Ask most people what the purpose of marriage is, and they’re much more likely to say something about commitment to someone you love than providing legitimate children. And anyway, however you feel about children born out of wedlock, they’re fairly common now. Add in blended families, adoption, and IVF and there are a *lot* of children whose roots can’t be traced simply by following who was married to whom. If straight couples who have children through those means (or don’t have children at all) aren’t destroying the foundation of marriage, then how would allowing same-sex marriage destroy it?
WIN for bionelly
I don’t really care about all of the other arguments. It seems that some portion of the people wish to keep gay marriage illegal for religious reasons. Although I hold that same religious belief, I don’t find it to be a good reason for policy. The only reason I do find valid would be if acceptance would influence youth. Some people say that you’re born gay or straight. Others that we’re all born straight and go one way or another. I haven’t spent the time to go look for studies that provide some kind of basis for the atypical behavior.
My simple fear is that I won’t have grandchildren. I want grandchildren. I want them in a stable family (both parents love and care for them). That’s it.
Please don’t respond with dumb retorts. I really do want to see some kind of research into the matter to either put my fears to rest or validate them. Be objective. Or not.
For each response that trys to convince me one way or the other using mere logic or reason without citations to research earns -10,000,000 internets!!!
that’s supposed to be NEGATIVE 10,000,000 internets. And now I earn my negatives.
I’m sorry, I can’t provide you with a link now because I don’t remember where it was, but I read somewhere that studies HAVE been carried out about whether children who have grown up with gay couples were more likely to be gay than the normal population, and the result was no. The percentages were about the same. That means that you are either born straight or gay, and it’s not a consequence of your environment (but if you ARE gay, it will be easier for you to accept it openly if you are raised in a tolerant environment).
Allowing gay marriage, then, doesn’t diminish your chances of having grandchildren. If anything, I would say it enhances them slightly, because, if you happen to have gay children, in the future they might be able to adopt (as they are in some European countries), and raise them as their own children.
Some idiot moderator deleted my last comment which had a freaking link. Since I can’t be arsed to find it again, I’ll sum up my post.
A) Adopt.
B) Go to Wikipedia and use the search bar to search for “Template:Sexual orientation”. The articles listed under research were very good and very well-sourced last time I looked at them.
What el Monty said.
legalizing gay marriage will not make your son or daughter be any more or less gay than they already are.
I think that touches on a common fear held by opponents of same sex marriage. They fear that legitimizing homosexuality will, I don’t know, cause all homosexuals to go on a recruiting drive and ‘turn’ poor little hetero Jimmy and Jane gay, or something like that.
I would say that it would probably make a lot of homosexual men and women happier if it were more accepted and they could come out of the closet, get married and carry on with life as normal tax-paying citizens. You know, like the rest of us.
” I haven’t spent the time to go look for studies that provide some kind of basis for the atypical behavior”.
Then spend the time. There’s tons of research. That question was pretty much settled a long time ago.
You have a good point there. Unless you think the mere existence of same-sex marriage will somehow make people gay who would otherwise be straight, there’s no way it would have any impact on whether or not you have grandchildren (“you” being sillyboy, not neuroindec.)
For that matter he could end up with two kids like my sister and me; she chooses not to have any and I married 2 girls who’d already had them. (So they “adopted” my stepdaughter’s daughter, grin)
News flash: gay people can and do have and adopt children. Or would an adopted grandchild not count?
What does your desire for grandchildren (and your demand for a certain type of living arrangment for what is, after all, not your child) have to do with public policy? What does it have to do with anything other people do?
For one thing, you are not entitled to grandchildren. You may have lovely straight, married kids who don’t want to parent.
Go ahead and tell your kids that they’d better be straight, married, and ready to pump out grandkids for your amusement. Because they owe to you to undertake that serious, lifelong obligation.
I think your professed ignorance of the overwhelming evidence that sexual orientation is a born trait, not a learned one is disingenuous. Have you REALLY never read about the science? Like for example homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual back in the 70s? (IE shrinks declared it to not be a mental illness). Did you really miss the story a few weeks ago about the best ajusted kids being those raised by lesbian couples? Should be easy to Google.
So your arguments basically boil down to ‘because I don’t like it and refuse to accept it’, and because there’s still enough of you that just plain don’t like it, the politicians – in the self serving way of politicians – have, for the most part, kept same sex marriages illegal.
There is no legitimate reason to not legalize same-sex marriages. None.
‘Because the bible says it’s wrong’ is not a legal argument. The bible says that a lot of things are right, that we now know are wrong. The bible also was written by people with a social agenda. Want more people in your church? throw a snippet in there about marriage only being between men and women and then to go forth and multiply. Because every pair of sheep will beget more and more tithing, church-going sheep.
Because it’s the wrong kind of love is not a legal argument. That’s your opinion and not in any way based on fact. A 40 yo ‘in love’ with a 10 yo is illegal because of the huge difference in mental development, life experience and the obvious potential for it to be an abusive relationship. Same sex love between consenting adults is considered wrong by you only because you don’t like it.
The only reason behind a legally recognized civil marriage that is still valid is property rights and stabilization of the tax base. Legitimization of children as an argument has clearly flown out the window since illegitimate children face no legal restrictions in modern society.
Now, if your church wants to oppose same-sex marriages, that’s one thing. But to block legal, civil marriages simply because you don’t like it is simply prejudice and bigotry.
“way we practice marriage, or view it, especially in the West, has of course changed over the centuries.”
Bingo.
And now we’re changing it again. For the better.
3) You have still managed to say a rather large paragraph of something without actually addressing what I asked. If government defines marriage as a union of two people, as it currently does, in spite of repeated efforts to define it as “one man and one woman” then er, what the hell exactly is anyone arguing about then? The argument here would then probably veer to “it’s a sin in the eyes of God” to which the response would be “what exactly has God got to do with a state-defined contract between two people?”
In other words, the one continuous purpose of marriage has been to (attempt to) ensure that men are working to support only their own genetic spawn and not someone else’s. Woman = uterus = property.
How noble. Such a holy purpose must be preserved at all costs! We’d better not change it!
Fortunately, however, we can now trace lineage without mandating ceremonies, living arrangements, and the curtailment of women’s freedom for the sake of men’s convenience.
Isn’t that great?
Recycled, yes, rebutted, no.
Your criticism is not a response. You listed everyone’s objections, all of which are valid, but you did not respond to any of them in any way.
just because your marrige is failing theres no need to take it out on people who KNOW how to please their partner…..
I’m not married, so your attempt to blindly insult me instead of actually giving a counterargument failed.
You’re not married? Gee I wonder why…..
Do us a favour, don’t reproduce.
Or if you have done so already, please don’t pass your ignorant prejudices on to the next generation.
I’m not married because I’m only 18. Try pointlessly attacking my character some other way.
Pity. One of my generation and still such an ignorant idiot about sexuality…
Being an ignorant idiot and having values and sticking to them are not the same thing.
Your values are all based on your religion and not proven facts. Therefore, ignorant. I’m religious, but if something is proven, I take that over it.
That’s where we disagree. I will have complete faith in my religion unless it is disproven, which it has not been.
Oh really. But where is god when people randomly get hit by cars and such? Hm?
The most religious people seem to die in pain. Its odd that huh?
Would’nt got protect people from muggers? Nah. He does’nt. Because he isn’t there.
Actually, the minor stuff could be explained by a bit of annoyance over Genesis. But wars, especially in his name, should be stopped by him. Hence the wavering faith.
wow. im 13!
and considerably more open minded and intellegent!
and dont insult my spelling im in a hurry.
okay
gay marriage doesnt stop people from having childrenor from bieng straight as this has already been covered in previous comments
it does not stop people from having happy marraiges…
so what on earth is your argument man?
This
Right, because if they get married, that totally affects your marriage. Well it would, if you were a homosexual.
It was a dark and stormy night in the medieval time that your comment actually had any validation itwasadarkandstory night. I’m married, to a man, and yes I’m a woman. And if a man marries a man because he loves him, I can hardly see how that has anything to do with my marriage. Love is love and we cannot control who we fall in love with. We should be allowed to marry that person. Marriage should be between two PEOPLE who love each other. Wow, I really thought homophobia was on its way out with hating ‘blacks, jews and women’ but then a comment like this makes its way into the world and I just get blown away.
“Medieval time”? No. There are still plenty of people today who realize that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That’s why gay marriage is still illegal in many places. And no, it’s not just a matter of “love is love.” Some kinds of love are not right. If a 40-year-old claimed to love a 10-year-old, then would you still say that “love is love and we cannot control who we fall in love with”? I have the feeling you wouldn’t.
Sooo… It’s okay for a man to marry a woman he doesn’t love, but oops, she’ve gotten pregnant, so they had to get married and then beat her to shit every evening, but if a man would want to marry another man he truly loves and cares for, it’s wrong?
Please tell me, which of these 2 is a healthy marriage?
You cannot compare the worst of one situation with the best of another; that is an invalid debate tactic and doesn’t work.
Complete bull. That was correct. Read again. It’s saying that why should a heterosexual marriage like that be better than a homosexual marriage between people who love each other.
Normally I don’t get into these things, but I just have to say, there is a huge difference between love between two consenting adults (of any orientation) and protecting a child from a possible pedopheliac…
Quite honestly, I was under the impression that we have child-marriage laws in place. And as for the conception that homosexuality is linked with paedophilia, I can assure you that’s about as statistically significant as the claim that XYY males are more likely to become hardened criminals: in other words, none. And finally, I don’t see how a man wanting to marry another man would correlate with the sexual abuse of a child. If you are so worried about paedophilia, you should probably take a closer look at the Church scandals, and see how abuse of power, whether religious or secular, can harm a child’s life, not the choice to marry whoever you love.
I personally think that the reason these church scandals are happening is due to the catholic church refusing to accept that homosexuality can properly exist.
Sexual urges can completely overwhelm otherwise reasonable, complacent people. If that person is a priest, instead of seeking a healthy relationship with another man or woman (Which, in both cases, they would view as impossible and evil), they have to take it out on those children. The amount of control over doing it is next to none.
If the catholic church decided that priests could get married, and to both sexes, the child molestation rate would definitely drop. There is nothing inherently different about priests, only the position they occupy.
Hmm… that’s something I never considered (though I have previously thought that Catholic priests being unable to get married is very strange). Thanks for the thoughts.
But everyone knows they get it on with the nuns anyway
It’s interesting how you denote marriage as a union between a man and woman as a “fact,” when in fact the definition of marriage has changed throughout centuries and throughout cultures. In some cultures, marriage is a highly private affair that isn’t to be discussed with anyone. In other cultures, marriages are held, but intense friendships with the same sex are also held in high favor. Would you consider these friendships, often closer than the actual marriages, as a marriage, or simply as an expression of something different? A closer examination of other cultures, and even our own, will reveal differences even across different modern cultures on the ideals of marriage. You mentioned that some men marry five women and consider that a marriage. Is that particularly wrong if all six individuals are happy with the marriage?
The same argument has been made a million times, yes, but it’s a point that needs to be driven through. I think marriage and unions in general should be private affairs – as long as the individuals involved are happy and are not abused or coerced in any manner, should it seriously matter to the rest of the public how they live? I just wonder why sometimes people are so adamant against the idea of gay marriage – it honestly will not affect them unless they decide to be affected by it.
Paedophilia is wrong because a child has no concept of what sex entails. However, two fully-grown men/women do.
Gay marriage, straight marriage, white marriage, black marriage… who the hell cares? WHO defined marriage as between a man and a woman? Was it religion? Religions have so many factions that it’s stupid to base any kind of definition off of them because that that would create dozens of conflicting laws on the same thing based on the different factions beliefs. Was it the government? Laws change all the time, this one should be no different.
All of this will fade as generations get more used to homosexuality being percieved as normal. And people who opposed it will be washed away in the tomes of history as ignorant plebs, scared of what they don’t understand.
Eh, false. Children not only have sexual feelings, but also understand the concept of sex and “what it entails” as early as 8 or 9. You can argue children are ready for sex, even emotionally, as soon as puberty hits. For the sake of argument, let’s not even talk about children below 10, although some of them fall under the above criteria. What about young teenagers, or a 12-year-old? We see them as children, but if they consent and understand what sex is, why would it be wrong to marry them? Not to sound like NAMBLA, but logically, that’s where the argument eventually heads.
Also, can you try being a little less hostile and offensive? You’re not going to change anyone’s opinion on an anonymous Graphjam comment thread, especially not by calling them “ignorant plebs” who are cowardly to boot. Kthnxbye
It does not matter if children can understand sex. They are not emotionally or intellectually mature enough yet to enter into a lifetime contract. The law reflects this in every area, not just sex; even if a child understands money and commerce, they cannot legally enter into contracts until they reach adulthood, and presumably maturity.
What? Currently US law says a person reaches “adulthood” and “maturity” the minute they turn 18, and people sometimes have to be older to enter lifetime contracts like insurance policies. This is bullsh*t. Again, we know many children and young teens DO have the emotional and intellectual capacity to understand and enter such contracts. History tells us of so many legally-defined-as-children people who entered apprenticeships–a contract–or began working in commerce or other trades at incredibly young ages; sure, many were forced, but many others did so with their own understanding.
Even if you don’t believe the above, emotional and intellectual maturity is not at all a requirement to get married, or enter contracts related to money or commerce. Countless legal “adults” lack said maturity and are yet allowed to enter contracts–you could claim adults too “are not emotionally or intellectually matured enough to enter a lifetime contract.”
But they ARE ignorant plebs. “Gayness infects our children.” “Gay marriage will turn my children gay!” I’ve heard this nonsense from a LOT of people. They’re ignorant plebs, scared of what they don’t understand. And geminithescorpio’s comment answered the other part of your post nicely.
thats called pedophelia.
its rather different youi will find
Right. And a certain celeb’s 55 hour STRAIGHT marriage is a perfect example of the SACREDNESS of hetero marriage
BS…that’s a talking point not backup up with facts.
Fact is that what marriages have been has changed throughout the years quite a lot…
I now pronounce you man and property!
Wow. You, my good sir, are a bigot. Have you bothered to opened a dictionary to look at the ACTUAL definition of the word “marriage”? According to American Heritage Dictionary, marriage is defined as “A close union”.
Well at least im not catholic :/
WTF?! My BFF is GAY! A$$ H@%E!!!
I think gay marriage will cause man on man made global warming.
i agree. man on man is pretty hot.
Agreed very hot
Agreed :3
It was much better done first time. Try something original.
with correct spelling
They forgot “ruin the definition of marriage as it was intended to be.”
*sliver of pie far, far too small to see
So small, it’s not even on the key. XD
Intended by whom?
Marriage is a human-made construct and humans can *gasp* edit what they create. It’s called progress. Thanks to that you have a computer and Internet to use to spew your bigotry.
Charles Babbage intended his difference engine to operate automated looms! Using it to post funny pictures on the internet destroys the definition of computer!
I thought he wanted to help with the census.
Intended by who? God? Would this be the same god that endorsed arranged marriage, polygamy, abduction of “wives”, and concubinage in the Old Testament? That god?
Are we talking about the same God who deemed slavery perfectly ethical?
Are we talking about the same god that flies and is made of spaghetti?
Oh wait…
Are we talking about that same God gave his son up for people who don’t even care about him?
And the one who told someone to sacrifice their only child? that one??
Dont forget the greatest example of all: Lots two daughters getting their father drunk and then having sex with him in order to get pregnant.
Who cares what it was intended to be? We’re not bound by the opinions of people who lived centuries ago.
Lots of people think marriage should be about two adults who love each other, and want to redefine it that way. I’m all for that.
wait… if gays get married pigs might fly????????? gays, get married, QUICK!!
They might, but then again, Lady Gaga might become president. Can we really take that risk‽‽ (Also, if you think bird poop on your car is annoying…)
I agree. I can’t TELL you how many good things are going to happen to me “when pigs fly.”
I’m guessing you own a car wash…
No. Seemingly unrelated things apparently depend on pigs flying. Like getting a raise.
I ***fully*** support Lady Gaga becoming President. She couldn’t POSSIBLY be more of an ineffectual assclown than any of the last five or six. Or so.
word
ahh noo bill clinton was a great president
try again
Sorry, but BJs in the White House don’t make someone great
you spelled do wrong
He was def. a good president; regardless of how BJs he got from women who weren’t named Hillary. America was the greatest she’s ever economically, socially, or politically been during his presidency :]
Land of the free and home of the brave has some issues..no pretty much panics because of some BJ’s?
C’mon, he’s not a Catholic priest..
I wish people would get the frick off this crap, it’s OLD and TIRED.
Good, yes; great, uh-uh. For one thing he promised health care reform. For another he gave us the Newt Gingrich Congress. I couldn’t possibly care less about blow jobs, a President **NOT** engaging in something that would shock a percentage of the populace is what’s out of the ordinary. Besides I’d far rather have a President screwing an intern than screwing the entire nation, har de fricking har har. But Reagan/Bush/Cheney did far, far worse things for/to/in the name of this nation IN THEIR FRICKING SLEEP than Clinton will ever dream.
Grouping Bush and co. with Reagan = fail. Reagan was a great president and nowhere near the same level of incompetency and stupidity as Bush.
Red slice should be labeled “world becomes 1000% more fabulous”
This comment made my day. Straight up.
…shouldn’t that be Queer Up?
+1
That comment was SO fierce!
YES.
Gays can get married in Canada, for 5 years or so. I don’t think the fabric of society has torn yet. Nor has God smote anyone. In fact, many gay Americans are legally married in Canada even if their own nation does not recognize the fact. What defines marriage, anyways?
There was a stock market crash, perhaps, but that was years after the fact and the connection is dubious at best. Lady Gaga is similarly dubiously connected, and though scientific studies on flying pigs continues unabated, it remains biology’s cold fusion.
Wait! You have to take half of the red slice for gay divorces.
Bit pessimistic.
Totally realistic. 50% of all marriages in U.S. end in divorce. And the whole point is that gay marriages aren’t any different than straight ones, right?
That’s… sad, really. I wish people would try a bit harder in marriage (or stop marrying so quickly) before reaching for the divorce button.
What I’ve wondered is: how many of those are first marriages? I mean, assuming I could afford the legal fees, I could skew those numbers by devoting my life to piling up divorces.
Actually, not only marriage is open for gays on Sweden, but even the Swedish Church accepts it. Really, there’s NO sense on saying that gay marriage would destroy hetero marriage or religions.
I’m a [conservative] Republican, and I see nothing wrong with gay marriage. Then again, I’m atheist, so I have nothing to hate about it.
I’ve spoken with some people, and they said it might make health care more difficult. There’s a price per family, and something about 2 men or 2 women [married] might mess it up. I don’t get it, but whatever.
asswhole! that’s just uncalled for. they’re in love and they can do what they want! so shove it1
Who are you talking to?
Asswhole? I hope everybody has their whole ass! Oops, on this thread of homosexuality, I opened it up to a whole bunch of ass jokes…
yeah, im thinkin’ someone needs to come outta the closet…..
grow up you little punk…
You missed ‘getting divorced’.
You’re all missing the point… prevention of even a SLIGHT increase in the odds of Lady GaGa becoming president justifies not legalizing it. I’m sure that once our gay friends realize that there is even a 1/100th of an increase in the likelihood of this they will willing drop the issue.
Willingly… I know
(I’d written it out “will be willing to”, went back and edited it… missed it… damn)
I was going to say the exact same thing…. sorry gay people. You gotta go XD
Frankly I think RuPaul should be President. Then we’d have our first Black/Gay/Man/Woman president all at once.
The original of this (all red) is one of my favourites in Graphjam. One has to wonder if the person(s) responsible for choosing what gets on the homepage have actually bothered to look through the website.
This graph is bad and you should feel bad!
I already get preached at enough on Roflrazzi and Pundit Kitchen, can we keep the preaching off of Graph Jam?
inb4 people think I’m a gay hater just because I don’t find this graph clever and/or funny.
Why does being anti-gay marriage automatically mean you are evil, hateful, and homophobic? (That’s just the impression I’m getting here…) As a Catholic I am called to be compassionate regardless of circumstances. Can I not disagree yet still hold their lives as sacred as any other?
I think the issue is being made far more complex than it needs to be. In my mind it’s as simple as procreation. I simply believe a homosexual relationship removes the blessed gift and choice of new life. Does that mean I hate gays? God no!!! I simply believe a homosexual relationship should not be called a marriage when clearly it’s different; clearly they need something that addresses their needs. Can’t we do that?
I like you. You can stay.
So, by that point of view, a straight, but infertile couple can’t marry (or can, but can’t be called married)? Infertility isn’t a choice (unless you work at a nuclear reactor or something) any more than orientation is.
But I get what you’re saying.
My marriage isn’t “clearly different”. House, car, pets, kid (yup, tried a guy, he didn’t “meet my needs”), boooooooooring. Unless you’re talking about what goes on in my bedroom, and that’s none of your darn business, the way it’s none of MY darn business to be nosy about what goes on in YOUR bedroom. Also, by that definition, there are an awful lot of heterosexual marriages that are also “clearly different”.
And just because something is different doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
Your attitude provides people who DO “hate” gays with an excuse to hate them. You might not be shooting gay guys, but there are people who use the reasons you’ve just mentioned as an excuse to commit murder.
And then there’s the old “infertile couples” chestnut, of course. AND the fact that marriages used to be purely a matter of business, PLUS the fact that gay marriage was legal until the 13th/14th century (wasn’t it Constantine who put a stop to it?).
To me, NO ONE would get married. We’d all get civilly unionized. Churches would take back the word marriage, and marriages would have no effect on your governmental status. I’m “sealed” to my wife. It’s not different from a marriage, except in they eyes of my church. Ideally, I’d be in a civil union with my wife, then for my church, I’d be married and sealed. The beauty of this, you could get married, but the government would still see you as single, because the church is separate from the government. And the churches could be separate from the government, since you wouldn’t be able to sue a church or something like that for not performing a marriage.
Churches shouldn’t be able to take “back” something that wasn’t there’s in the first place. Marriage was a civil contract long before religion got involved.
You’re exactly right! And civil contracts would be what they’d become again. Churches would have their own special terms, but we’d call it what it really is! You say you “contracted” with construction workers to build your house. You would contract with your partner to build a family!
Why does being against racially mixed marriage make me a racist? Can I not hold their lives as sacred as any other, and still think that the races shouldn’t be mixed?
Oh yeah, I am infertile. Am I allowed to get married? It would be “removing the blessed gift of new life”! Oh Noes! I guess my relationship shouldn’t be called a marriage, because it is clearly something different: I am not able to pop out kids (like with 7 billion people we need more, but I digress).
“Why does being anti-gay marriage automatically mean you are evil, hateful, and homophobic?”
Because there’s no other reason to be against gay marriage.
Your church is already allowed to decline to perform marriages it doesn’t approve of, just like every other church.
Ah, so if I’m sterile, I should be forbidden to marry since I can’t procreate? Thanks for that =^p
Whether married or not people can still have children so it should not be used as the definition of marriage. I know it is often cited as the stable way to bring up kids and even british politicians have blamed non married couples for the breakdown of society but thats not really fair. From my standpoint I do not view marriage as anything sacred or special and therefore feel that if someone wants to get married, regardless of gender of both people, then they should be able to. But what about the right of the church to hold its beliefs, no matter how much we may disagree. If we are talking about marriage in the Christian sense then in a way they should be able to hold onto the ideals of marriage as they see fit. And then we are back to persecuting people again. Its a vicious circle.
What I am trying to say is when we are trying to get rights for one group of people we may hurt another group that, for whatever reason, believes the way it believes. Confrontation is a way of life unfortunatly.
You’re sensible but calling it something else opens up that stupid “separate but equal” thing where nothing is actually equal and the “separate” thing for the “others” actually sucks.
What about stimulating the economy with all the additional marriage ceremonies and receptions (and yes, on the other side of the coin, divorce proceedings)? Or an increase in adoptions? Or this nation actually living by one of its founding edicts “all men are created equal”? Just sayin’…
I think the stock market might have crashed just after my (lesbian) marriage …
But don’t let that put you off :>
I disagree. It’s NOT a good thing because it’s against the way things are supposed to be. The only real marriage is ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN. People need to stop trying to ignore and change what God has ordained…it doesn’t make it any less sinful or any more right. And it’s God’s truth that WILL win in the end.
And whether people think it or not, there WILL be more problems because other groups will use it as a legal leg to try and justify their behavior. It is indeed a slippery slope.
Did Jesus not say that the 2 main rules in life are “Love thy neighbour as thyself” and “Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy strength and with all thy mind”? I have a very hard time seeing how two people loving each other and promising to remain together forever is breaking either of those rules. It doesn’t break the 10 commandments either.
If you would like to give quotes from the Bible that condemn homosexuality, I will say that yes, people back then thought it wrong but I would like to remind you that people back then had a goal to populate the world and spread the seed of their people. Today’s world is over populated and the last thing it needs is more seed spreading when millions all over the world are dying of hunger and others have no family to love them. I can also tell you that the same chapters and people that said anti-homosexual rules contained many other rules that today’s society has dismissed as being ‘of that time’ (allowing the selling of one’s daughter into slavery is one example). Marriage used to be a contract between fathers and a promise for babies. I think we can agree that it is no longer that way (e.g. I am infertile because of cancer treatments, does that mean I can’t get married?).
I am not saying Christianity is bad. I am Christian and believe that Jesus taught loving words of peace. I hope you can feel God’s love and understand that He made these people the way they are (and countless studies have shown that they are born that way, it isn’t by choice. Also that if they adopted and gave a lonely child a loving home, it would not make their child gay). And I believe He does not want you to condemn their love.
according to whom, is marriage ONE man and ONE woman? God? Yeah…no. Because I’m pretty sure there are passages in the bible that promote polygamy. If you’re going to use God to defend YOUR ignorant, intolerant views, make sure you’re not putting words in His mouth
Wait… they mention divorce in the Bible…? I knew the rape thing but… divorce? Then what was all that crap with King Henry VIII?
That’s why Henry VIII separated the Church of England from Catholicism.
Yeah, but if divorce is specifically mentioned in the Bible as NOT being an option in this scenario, that means it IS an option any other time. In which case, Catholics should have allowed divorce. So either someone’s an idiot (likely) or that quote was partially wrong (also likely, though I like the “idiot” theory
).
Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
Look it up.
Don’t have my bible on hand, so I’ll take your word that it was accurate. In which case, I am happy, for my idiot theory stands up.
“I don’t have my Bible on hand” DURR YES YOU DO IT’S CALLED FRICKING GOOGLE IT Don’t you think there are about 100,000 different web sites where you can look up Bible verses? Holy moley dude.
I don’t care. The Bible’s had enough typos put into it already. I don’t want to search for it in the internet, where typos go accepted.
Heh, believe me when I say places like BibleGateway.com are very very very very veeerrryyyyy careful about how they transcribe.
Very well. I’ll try to remember that site. Thank you.
If I remember correctly, the bible says you’re allowed to get divorced, but if you get remarried it’s considered adultery. Sorry, I don’t know which specific verse that’s from, though. :/
But anyway, Henry VIII wanted to get married again after he was divorced, so that was what that whole thing was about.
Ah, thank you.
Actually it was technically an annulment he got — and he was never divorced per se. Catherine of Aragon had been married to Henry’s elder brother (Henry being destined — brace yourselves — for the church). When Arthur died they got a dispensation from the Pope proclaiming that Henry could marry Catherine because her marriage to Arthur had not been consumated. (In those days you could not marry your sister-in-law for some reason.) So 19 years and 0 sons later, Henry ask the (different) Pope to reverse the earlier dispensation, to invalidate the marriage so he could remarry while Catherine was still alive. Pope says Nope. Henry breaks from Rome, gets himself named head of the church in England, and obtains an annulment from Catherine. Marries Anne Boelyn who “only” produces Elizabeth… her penalty is to get beheaded AND annuled. Jane Seymour has legit son but dies. The most interesting is Anne of Cleves, who doesn’t turn him on and wisely agrees to yet another annulment on grounds of non-consumation and gets declared “the King’s sister.” Wife No. 5: beheaded for adultery. Wife No 6: outlives Henry but dies in childbirth on her 4th marriage.
So legal precedents about marriage and divorce have a long and colorful tradition.
Yay for bible knowledge!
.
.
.
such a late poster am i
It really is amazing how God loves everyone equally, believes in fairness and is accepting, but can still hate so many people and also make people do horrible things to each other.
How exactly does that work?
Because humans are idiots. Topic, end of.
You won’t turn a gay person straight by hoarding the definition of marriage. Gay couples share the same things as straight couples… the bills, the chores, the kids. Taking care of each other’s parents as they age. Stupid pot luck dinners and wedding showers. Because even the worst things in life are better when they’re shared.
The only difference between hetero-and homosexual couples is sex. I understand that people are uncomfortable with certain sexual behavior. I shudder when I see a hetero couple making out. I try not to even THINK about straight people having sex. Seriously. I can’t help it.
Does it make you shudder to think of homosexual acts? Is that why you don’t want us to get married? Then stop doing it. It’s kinda gay.
If there is even a .01% chance that Lady Gaga may become president as a result, the action is too dangerous to proceed.
This is exactly why I don’t think they should fire the Large Hadron collider.
C’mon, it wouldn’t be any more of a joke than the last four or five presidents. Or six. Or seven.
do.
not.
feed.
the.
troll.
i believe Lois Griffin put it best;
“Wait a minute. Are you saying that two straight people who absolutely hate each other have more of a right to be married than gay people who love each other?!”
I saw a funny comic a while ago which brought up a funny point. If gays are allowed to marry, they won’t have any kids which prevents any chance of ‘gayness’ being passed along (without getting into adoption, etc) compared to society ‘forcing’ gays into ‘standard’ marriage. Thus it’s a win-win for everyone!
What’s more amusing than the fundies who are somehow afraid of their man/woman marriages being sabotaged by gay marriage… is that many of them have to justify their irrational anger by posting long, dawdling messages saying absolutely nothing other than “buuuut it’s wrroooonnnggg.”
I have yet to hear anyone give actual proof of gay marriage causing… anything bad at all. What exactly are people afraid of?
“What exactly are people afraid of?”
That their narrowminded viewpoints are wrong and they might have to admit it.
AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA THIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSS
Not everything illegal has to “cause anything bad.” Plenty of things are illegal simply because the majority or the lawmakers or the courts or whoever…made it illegal, for whatever reason. Prostitution is the first thing to come to mind; sure there are cons, as there are to everything, but otherwise it’s a perfectly legit career. Why not legalize it? I’m not saying we should or shouldn’t legalize_______, just that there are reasonable and legal reasons for everything; if you haven’t heard any against gay marriage, get off the Internet and go find lawyers who can offer you legit reasons.
This is irrelevant anyway, because traditional marriage is the current law of the land, thanks to Clinton, and as always, those who wish to change something should first offer actual reasons for wanting to change it or demonstrate how the status quo is harmful to society as a whole. Personally, I haven’t heard a single non-emotional, rational, legal argument for gay marriage, just people shouting about fake Constitutional rights and likening themselves and their struggle to that of slaves and African-Americans in the Jim Crow South…it’s a pity, because as a non-Christian and definitely not a “fundie,” I’d be open to supporting gay marriage if I heard any compelling reasons for it.
I haven’t heard a non-emotional, rational, legal argument against gay marriage either.
Then let’s drop the issue.
Surely when we are talking about depriving a group of people of the ability to do something that everyone else can, there should be a compelling reason for that. There needs to be no compelling reason FOR gay marriages; there must be compelling reason AGAINST them. And I do like how you consider the constitutional rights to be “fake”, or are they only fake when it comes to gay marriage?
You want a compelling reason? Two adults who are capable of consenting should be able to enter into a marriage contract, barring some very good reason why they should not. To do otherwise is to effectively shunt them away from simple pleasures that other people enjoy on a daily basis.
We are not depriving a group of people the ability to do what everyone else does. Any man can marry any woman. Any man can be with any man, or any woman with any woman, in a civil union. No one is denying anything other than the title of “marriage.” It’s like throwing a fit because the Boy Scouts won’t let a girl join, or a sorority won’t admit a male member, or a women’s college refuses to admit a male student. These are not examples of depriving anyone their rights.
I never said constitutional rights are fake, only that there is no Constitutional basis for changing the definition of marriage, as it isn’t a civil right.
No, there needs to be compelling reasons FOR gay marriage, otherwise, why change it?
Civil unions are also not available in every state, and many states have them but do not allow same-sex civil unions. If civil unions were available in every state, open to same-sex couples in every state, and had the exact same legal status as marriages, some people might still object to the name, but I don’t think many would (most would probably just refer to it as whatever they liked, regardless of the actual legal title.)
Then it seems more reasonable and logical to fight to make civil unions available in every state and equal to the rights married people enjoy. Force your Congressmen to pass that kind of legislature. Why fight to change the word “marriage” for the benefit of a tiny percent of the general population?
Legislation, sorry.
I would suppose because it seems easier to try to get people to allow same-sex marriage than to get them to allow same-sex civil unions while also changing the legal status of civil unions to be equal to marrige (especially since many of the same people who don’t want to allow same-sex marriages also don’t want to allow same-sex civil unions, even without them having all of the same rights, etc. as marriages.) Also, they *have* been fighting for same-sex civil unions (even though it’s not the same, it’s better than nothing). There has been some success, but it’s an uphill battle even then, and most people still refer to it as fighting for same-sex marriage because I guess it seems simpler to lump it all together.
Making civil unions available in every state would mean that those in a civil union would still be missing out on a 1000 or so rights and benefits that come from the federal government.
50 states establishing civil unions for all is not the answer, federal marriage equality is…one that my God has no issue with marriage equality as He/She never ordained it…
Against gay marriage? Then don’t phucking have one.
Um, name the 1000 or so rights please. Hyperbole adds nothing to a discussion.
And if I didn’t make it clear earlier, I suggested that those who fight for “marriage equality” instead fight for the availability of civil unions and making them equal to the rights afforded by marriage.
Still, that would involve changing laws in each state that currently does not have civil unions to have them, changing the laws in states that have them but do not allow them for same-sex couples to allow them, and changing all of the laws to grant the same rights to civilly-unionized couples as to married ones. All of that probably would run into the thousands (or at least hundreds) when you consider the number of individual laws in each state and in the federal law that would have to be changed.
If your argument is basically not to change a law unless you have to, then doesn’t it make more sense to change the minimum number of laws necessary to give the desired result (namely, equal rights for same-sex couples)? Because it would take a lot less law-changing to change the legal definition of marriage to allow same-sex couples.
Gay couples share the same things as straight couples… the bills, the chores, the kids. Taking care of each other’s parents as they age… Life and death and everything in between. Because it’s better when it’s shared.
This is been made already.
Consequences*
*This has been made already.
If you’re going to correct something, do it right.
http://graphjam.com/2008/11/19/song-chart-memes-consequences-of-gay-marriage/
The world from my Grandpa’s point of view.
People who don’t understand this… google the word Tautology… it will explain everything.
this is not cool! my best friend is gay and he’s probably the coolest nicest person any of you would be lucky to know.
way to be a homophobe
The graph isn’t homophobic…
dont like gay marriage?
dont get one and move on
I’m sorry but this graph is stupid. The world will not end if Gays get married. They are people and they should have the same rights as any other person. And lady gaga is not gay you idiot!
This must be the greatest comprehension failure of all time.
Man, you’re dumb…
IT’S CALLED SARCASM.
And nobody said Lady Gaga being gay or not has anything to do with her becoming president “when gays get married”.
Yeah, she just wants your love (love, love, love, she wants your love).
And by the way, Lady Gaga is bisexual which, by some definitions, is classed under “gay.”
Can’t we just not marry at all anymore? How much easier would that be…
Nah, I like marriage. It does symbolise commitment to SOME nowadays.
Well, gays did get married, and the stock market did crash…. o god! Lady ga ga is gonna be president!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My mother is gay (or a lesbian if you want to be technical. Whatever). So, I’m most likely biased on this point, but really?
I support gay marriage. If pigs fly, so be it. I mean, I’ll get a pet flying pig, which has got to be the best thing EVER.
If Lady Gaga became president, well . . . It couldn’t be worse than some of the presidents we’ve had, as long as she picks a good VP. That way, we can kill her and leave the country in somewhat good hands.
And since I’m not invested in the stock market, I can be self-centered here and say that I really don’t care.
For me, marriage should be a union between two or more people who love each other. Why should gender make a difference? Love is love.
WOO HOO! U GO Knight!!! !’m with u 80%(exept about lady gaga)… U rule.
Hyphenated surnames…
Non-gays have hypenated surnames.
It’s just a joke, Xenon… (and a good one, Minkeylicker
A joke has to be funny.
Ya know, they always say personal attacks are a sign of weakness when arguing… But in this case its not:
If you are against gay marriage, you are an idiot.
Every argument AGAINST gay marriage on here is laughable, at best.
If you do not think that 2 adults who truly love each-other are worthy of marriage, you should be shot. Not in the head or an artery, but somewhere you’ll survive, but still suffer.
kthxbai!
I’d vote for Lady Gaga if she ran for president.
you misspelled “consequences “
–noun
1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards . a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete . the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.