|
On July 08 2012 20:16 Kahuna. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 20:10 noddy wrote:On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote:
Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two. How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman. Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
What's so legal about discrimination? Oh that's right, the arguments against gay marriage are based on the bible. Wait, marriage is (in alot of places) law based upon religion. Wait, doesn't the bible say to not mix the two? :s
Why would the law give rights to horses and rhinos? Like if you marry your Rhino, would it be covered by your health insurance? Or, if you married your cat, would she inherit your posessions when you pass away? I don't see the need for such a law. And how do you propose a rhino consents to marriage? Why are we arguing about the rights of rhinos again?
|
On July 08 2012 20:18 DonKey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 20:11 KwarK wrote:On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote:
Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two. Marriage between a black man and a white woman is called marriage. Marriage between an older man and a younger woman is called marriage. If it is self evident to people that discrimination based upon age and race are unnecessary then why the sticking point over orientation. No two people are the same and therefore no two marriages will ever be the same. Deciding you need to describe these marriages in detail, but not those, is absurd. That's a good point you raise actualy, I think if wasn't a logistics problem it would be a good idea to go back and define all marriages more clearly. How does it hurt anyone when all the same rules apply to all different instances of marriage, but we actualy describe them as what they are?
It gives the unnessecary implication that some marriages are better than others. Its the same reason the "seperate but equal" ruling was overtuned in the supreme court(for the US). They said it does not have to be unfair it merely has to be percieved as such for it to be discrimination.
|
Norway28555 Posts
On July 08 2012 20:16 Kahuna. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 20:10 noddy wrote:On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote:
Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two. How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman. Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
I'm sorry, are you some sort of moron? In what way does an agreement between two consenting adults in any way resemble "man and donkey"?
|
On July 08 2012 18:29 Azera wrote:
As a Singaporean I think I'm going to enjoy this. It would be hilarious to watch how my government responds to this, given how religious harmony is of utmost importance here. If the government loses the backing of religions, it's going to be a fiasco for them.
Personally, I think this is a good step forward for humanity if everything works out well.
Fellow Singaporean here! I honestly don't think that the government will even respond to this. I have this feeling that like many other social issues, the media is just not going to report it. I think both Mediacorp and SPH will not mention it, seeing that they have not made any mention of it.
|
On July 08 2012 20:16 Kahuna. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 20:10 noddy wrote:On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote:
Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two. How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman. Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
Hey, you big dummy, donkeys and horses are actually not humans and as such cannot read or enter a legal contract.
|
On July 08 2012 20:19 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 20:16 Kahuna. wrote:On July 08 2012 20:10 noddy wrote:On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote:
Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two. How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman. Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts. The answer to your comment is fairly simple, the examples you provided lack the understanding to even comprehend the union they are forming. As long as both parties are fully able to understand what they are doing than they have the right to marry and live as they see fit (so long as how they live doesnt intrude on someone else's rights but that isnt case here).
You're making an assumption. Until you're able to experience the cognitive and emotional capabilities of an animal you don't know whether they can and/or can't comprehend anything.
Nevertheless, this is a good business decision by Google. It's a corporation, and like any other and will do anything to increase its stock price. In the long-run this is a good move, especially with the increases we've been seeing in the homo population over the last couple of decades - in particular the movement towards the tolerance of homosexuality.
On July 08 2012 20:24 Crushinator wrote:
Hey, you big dummy, donkeys and horses are actually not humans and as such cannot read or enter a legal contract.
Well, I find that upsetting and wrong. Donkeys and horses should be given the right to enter legal contracts. Why should humans have that right and not animals?
That's essentially the same argument the gay population has been making, right? A "why them, but not us?" argument...
|
United States41965 Posts
On July 08 2012 20:18 DonKey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 20:11 KwarK wrote:On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote:
Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two. Marriage between a black man and a white woman is called marriage. Marriage between an older man and a younger woman is called marriage. If it is self evident to people that discrimination based upon age and race are unnecessary then why the sticking point over orientation. No two people are the same and therefore no two marriages will ever be the same. Deciding you need to describe these marriages in detail, but not those, is absurd. That's a good point you raise actualy, I think if wasn't a logistics problem it would be a good idea to go back and define all marriages more clearly. How does it hurt anyone when all the same rules apply to all different instances of marriage, but we actualy describe them as what they are?
It'll inevitably lead to gay marriage being seen as a second class marriage. You're not going to convince society to start calling marriages interracial marriage or intergenerational marriage or intersocioeconomicclass marriage. Marriage is a catch all term for the infinite spectrum of potential marriages which gives them all the same rights and assumptions. Making an issue of describing just one subgroup of marriages distinguishes it from the rest of them and makes it appear a separate group, leaving it vulnerable to attack. It makes it confusing about whether it's a different type of marriage or just describing the people who are married. The only way to give it equal treatment is to treat it equally.
Linguistics matters.
|
On July 08 2012 20:17 lisward wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 18:29 Azera wrote:![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BlU5V5BaMjY/SGlIEcCEhrI/AAAAAAAACiU/HZ44buYaI1k/s400/GoogleGayFan1.jpg) Click the picture for the article on Huffington Post Google has announced a global campaign in support of equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. The Internet giant announced its Legalize Love campaign at the Global LGBT Workplace Summit 2012, which took place in London. The campaign launches Saturday, July 7 in Poland and Singapore. Organizers plan to expand the campaign to every country where Google has an office, focusing on countries where anti-gay sentiment runs high. “We want our employees who are gay or lesbian or transgender to have the same experience outside the office as they do in the office,” Google's Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe is quoted by dot429.com as saying at the summit. “It is obviously a very ambitious piece of work.” “Singapore wants to be a global financial center and world leader and we can push them on the fact that being a global center and a world leader means you have to treat all people the same, irrespective of their sexual orientation,” Palmer-Edgecumbe said of the decision to include Singapore in the campaign's initial phase. Bob Amnnibale, an openly gay executive at Citi, applauded the effort: “The fact that Google is so virtual and its appeal is very wide and young demographically means it can help spread messaging very, very quickly.” - On Top MagazineAs a Singaporean I think I'm going to enjoy this. It would be hilarious to watch how my government responds to this, given how religious harmony is of utmost importance here. If the government loses the backing of religions, it's going to be a fiasco for them. Personally, I think this is a good step forward for humanity if everything works out well. Honestly speaking I doubt that this will cause much discord in Singapore at all, Singapore has a very large and flourishing gay community.
Never noticed o.o
|
On July 08 2012 20:24 Kahuna. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 20:19 Adreme wrote:On July 08 2012 20:16 Kahuna. wrote:On July 08 2012 20:10 noddy wrote:On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote:
Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two. How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman. Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts. The answer to your comment is fairly simple, the examples you provided lack the understanding to even comprehend the union they are forming. As long as both parties are fully able to understand what they are doing than they have the right to marry and live as they see fit (so long as how they live doesnt intrude on someone else's rights but that isnt case here). You're making an assumption. Until you're able to experience the cognitive and emotional capabilities of an animal you don't know whether they can and/or can't comprehend anything. Nevertheless, this is a good business decision by Google. It's a corporation, and like any other and will do anything to increase its stock price. In the long-run this is a good move, especially with the increases we've been seeing in the homo population over the last couple of decades - in particular the movement towards the tolerance of homosexuality.
If aliens were to visit us tomorrow. If people eventually formed relationships with those aliens. Would, or Should, their marriage be recognized by the law?
Why is the assumption that cats don't understand the implication of marriage and can't consent to it and be bound by legal contract, possibly an erroneous one? Pls explain. Does your cat handle her own traveling documents perhaps?
|
United States41965 Posts
On July 08 2012 20:24 Kahuna. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 20:19 Adreme wrote:On July 08 2012 20:16 Kahuna. wrote:On July 08 2012 20:10 noddy wrote:On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote:
Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two. How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman. Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts. The answer to your comment is fairly simple, the examples you provided lack the understanding to even comprehend the union they are forming. As long as both parties are fully able to understand what they are doing than they have the right to marry and live as they see fit (so long as how they live doesnt intrude on someone else's rights but that isnt case here). You're making an assumption. Until you're able to experience the cognitive and emotional capabilities of an animal you don't know whether they can and/or can't comprehend anything. Nevertheless, this is a good business decision by Google. It's a corporation, and like any other and will do anything to increase its stock price. In the long-run this is a good move, especially with the increases we've been seeing in the homo population over the last couple of decades - in particular the movement towards the tolerance of homosexuality. Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 20:24 Crushinator wrote:
Hey, you big dummy, donkeys and horses are actually not humans and as such cannot read or enter a legal contract. Well, I find that upsetting and wrong. Donkeys and horses should be given the right to enter legal contracts. Why should humans have that right and not animals? That's essentially the same argument the gay population has been making, right? A "why them, but not us?" argument...
Gays have the mental faculties to understand what a contract is and consent to it. Consent is built upon understanding, donkeys cannot consent. If you really don't understand this perhaps you should be denied marriage.
|
Norway28555 Posts
On July 08 2012 20:18 DonKey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 20:11 KwarK wrote:On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote:
Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two. Marriage between a black man and a white woman is called marriage. Marriage between an older man and a younger woman is called marriage. If it is self evident to people that discrimination based upon age and race are unnecessary then why the sticking point over orientation. No two people are the same and therefore no two marriages will ever be the same. Deciding you need to describe these marriages in detail, but not those, is absurd. That's a good point you raise actualy, I think if wasn't a logistics problem it would be a good idea to go back and define all marriages more clearly. How does it hurt anyone when all the same rules apply to all different instances of marriage, but we actualy describe them as what they are?
Why is "gay" an attribute that has to be specified? Why not "stupid marriage" (in the event of two really dumb people marrying)? Or "into pissing on eachother-marriage" (something I personally feel is more deviant than homosexuality!)
Why this incredible petty behavior towards homosexuals? There's no reason why gay marriage has to be specifically defined in this way, there's no societal benefit through tagging a red badge of gayness on every gay man.
|
On July 08 2012 20:22 Canx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 18:29 Azera wrote:
As a Singaporean I think I'm going to enjoy this. It would be hilarious to watch how my government responds to this, given how religious harmony is of utmost importance here. If the government loses the backing of religions, it's going to be a fiasco for them.
Personally, I think this is a good step forward for humanity if everything works out well.
Fellow Singaporean here! I honestly don't think that the government will even respond to this. I have this feeling that like many other social issues, the media is just not going to report it. I think both Mediacorp and SPH will not mention it, seeing that they have not made any mention of it.
I'll give them time. It's only been announced a few hours ago 
|
On July 08 2012 20:24 Kahuna. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 20:19 Adreme wrote:On July 08 2012 20:16 Kahuna. wrote:On July 08 2012 20:10 noddy wrote:On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote:
Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two. How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman. Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts. The answer to your comment is fairly simple, the examples you provided lack the understanding to even comprehend the union they are forming. As long as both parties are fully able to understand what they are doing than they have the right to marry and live as they see fit (so long as how they live doesnt intrude on someone else's rights but that isnt case here). You're making an assumption. Until you're able to experience the cognitive and emotional capabilities of an animal you don't know whether they can and/or can't comprehend anything. Nevertheless, this is a good business decision by Google. It's a corporation, and like any other and will do anything to increase its stock price. In the long-run this is a good move, especially with the increases we've been seeing in the homo population over the last couple of decades - in particular the movement towards the tolerance of homosexuality. Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 20:24 Crushinator wrote:
Hey, you big dummy, donkeys and horses are actually not humans and as such cannot read or enter a legal contract. Well, I find that upsetting and wrong. Donkeys and horses should be given the right to enter legal contracts. Why should humans have that right and not animals? That's essentially the same argument the gay population has been making, right? A "why them, but not us?" argument...
The day donkeys can articulate such an argument is the day we will consider it.
|
On July 08 2012 20:20 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 20:18 DonKey_ wrote:On July 08 2012 20:11 KwarK wrote:On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote:
Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two. Marriage between a black man and a white woman is called marriage. Marriage between an older man and a younger woman is called marriage. If it is self evident to people that discrimination based upon age and race are unnecessary then why the sticking point over orientation. No two people are the same and therefore no two marriages will ever be the same. Deciding you need to describe these marriages in detail, but not those, is absurd. That's a good point you raise actualy, I think if wasn't a logistics problem it would be a good idea to go back and define all marriages more clearly. How does it hurt anyone when all the same rules apply to all different instances of marriage, but we actualy describe them as what they are? It gives the unnessecary implication that some marriages are better than others. Its the same reason the "seperate but equal" ruling was overtuned in the supreme court. They said it does not have to be unfair it merely has to be percieved as such for it to be discrimination.
See thats the thing, I don't think that the kind of discrimination that existed in the 1900s for African Americans is any where near the same as the kind of discrimination that exists for Gay marriage currently.
If you are gay you are not going to be forced out of a restraunt or forced to use different restrooms. Our society today with innovations such as the Internet and mass media media will not allow for such discrimination to exist. In fact look at the groups who discriminate, (westboro) they are made out as pariahs.
More information on legal classifications will only help matters in the long run.
Edit: I can't understand why pertinent information would be censored for a presumed sense that it will make marriage of any type more legitimate. If our laws say it is a marriage then it is a marriage.
|
On July 08 2012 20:30 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 20:24 Kahuna. wrote:On July 08 2012 20:19 Adreme wrote:On July 08 2012 20:16 Kahuna. wrote:On July 08 2012 20:10 noddy wrote:On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote:
Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two. How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman. Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts. The answer to your comment is fairly simple, the examples you provided lack the understanding to even comprehend the union they are forming. As long as both parties are fully able to understand what they are doing than they have the right to marry and live as they see fit (so long as how they live doesnt intrude on someone else's rights but that isnt case here). You're making an assumption. Until you're able to experience the cognitive and emotional capabilities of an animal you don't know whether they can and/or can't comprehend anything. Nevertheless, this is a good business decision by Google. It's a corporation, and like any other and will do anything to increase its stock price. In the long-run this is a good move, especially with the increases we've been seeing in the homo population over the last couple of decades - in particular the movement towards the tolerance of homosexuality. On July 08 2012 20:24 Crushinator wrote:
Hey, you big dummy, donkeys and horses are actually not humans and as such cannot read or enter a legal contract. Well, I find that upsetting and wrong. Donkeys and horses should be given the right to enter legal contracts. Why should humans have that right and not animals? That's essentially the same argument the gay population has been making, right? A "why them, but not us?" argument... The day donkeys can articulate such an argument is the day we will consider it.
Ok maybe we should stop bashing this guy. What we're saying, basically is
"LOLLLL I LAUGH'D SO HARD AT UR 60 IQ COMMENT PLEASE KILL URSELF STONE AGE NOOB."
|
On July 08 2012 20:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm sorry, are you some sort of moron? In what way does an agreement between two consenting adults in any way resemble "man and donkey"?
No, I'm not a moron. I'm using the argument to try and show how I perceive the argument for same-sex marriage to look like. The concept of two individuals of the same sex to marry was (until recently, because of initiatives like this) so foreign a concept that it was almost the equivalent of my current proposition of allowing two animals to marry.
That's just how see it. I'm not enforcing the view upon anyone. Just trying to show how I see it by way of a stupid example... because I think the concept being supported is equally stupid. And I'm not even religious... Lol.
|
On July 08 2012 20:24 Kahuna. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 20:19 Adreme wrote:On July 08 2012 20:16 Kahuna. wrote:On July 08 2012 20:10 noddy wrote:On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote:
Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two. How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman. Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts. The answer to your comment is fairly simple, the examples you provided lack the understanding to even comprehend the union they are forming. As long as both parties are fully able to understand what they are doing than they have the right to marry and live as they see fit (so long as how they live doesnt intrude on someone else's rights but that isnt case here). Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 20:24 Crushinator wrote:
Hey, you big dummy, donkeys and horses are actually not humans and as such cannot read or enter a legal contract. Well, I find that upsetting and wrong. Donkeys and horses should be given the right to enter legal contracts. Why should humans have that right and not animals? That's essentially the same argument the gay population has been making, right? A "why them, but not us?" argument...
Right. Just like every other human has been arguing for their rights, if they weren't born with them, within a democracy. Explain why you would rather fight for equal rights for animals, than for human beings. And if animals want to be legally recognized by democracy, should they not atleast express the want to, first? And again: Why are we discussing animal rights? I doubt they would even want to vote or anything of the sort, so you should not waste your time and energy thinking about this... Really. It's not rational and, maybe you're high but, you might wanna get your brain scanned. I'm getting abit concerned.
Or did I misunderstand and you're actually equating gays with animals?
|
On July 08 2012 20:16 Kahuna. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 20:10 noddy wrote:On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote:
Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two. How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman. Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
Wow that slope sure does look slippery. I'm afraid of slippery slopes, I once broke my spine on one 
Personally, if a Koala and a Rhino walked into a courthouse and demanded that they be allowed to be married, I think we should let them. But since they are incapable of performing such tasks, lets restrict our stupidity to the realm of reality, shall we?
|
On July 08 2012 20:33 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 20:30 Crushinator wrote:On July 08 2012 20:24 Kahuna. wrote:On July 08 2012 20:19 Adreme wrote:On July 08 2012 20:16 Kahuna. wrote:On July 08 2012 20:10 noddy wrote:On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote:
Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two. How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman. Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts. The answer to your comment is fairly simple, the examples you provided lack the understanding to even comprehend the union they are forming. As long as both parties are fully able to understand what they are doing than they have the right to marry and live as they see fit (so long as how they live doesnt intrude on someone else's rights but that isnt case here). You're making an assumption. Until you're able to experience the cognitive and emotional capabilities of an animal you don't know whether they can and/or can't comprehend anything. Nevertheless, this is a good business decision by Google. It's a corporation, and like any other and will do anything to increase its stock price. In the long-run this is a good move, especially with the increases we've been seeing in the homo population over the last couple of decades - in particular the movement towards the tolerance of homosexuality. On July 08 2012 20:24 Crushinator wrote:
Hey, you big dummy, donkeys and horses are actually not humans and as such cannot read or enter a legal contract. Well, I find that upsetting and wrong. Donkeys and horses should be given the right to enter legal contracts. Why should humans have that right and not animals? That's essentially the same argument the gay population has been making, right? A "why them, but not us?" argument... The day donkeys can articulate such an argument is the day we will consider it. Ok maybe we should stop bashing this guy. What we're saying, basically is "LOLLLL I LAUGH'D SO HARD AT UR 60 IQ COMMENT PLEASE KILL URSELF STONE AGE NOOB."
I would do that but I've found that being slightly subtle about it is less likely to get you banned.
|
Hmm, can't really decide do I like it or not.
The cause is ofc good and stuff but I don't like that big companies get into politics that much tbh.
Maybe a little +.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
