Waiting for right to multiple spouses + right to marry pets + right to marry siblings + right to marry technology.

Do you have something against marriage equality?

Lugia319 wrote:

Do you have something against marriage equality?

Lol, no. I have something against people being facetious. This is a wonderful day, no need for you to drag it down.

now homosexuals have the right to marry and take half of everything their lovers own... i guess thats a + ?

Southend_boi wrote:

now homosexuals have the right to marry and take half of everything their lovers own... i guess thats a + ?

++

OOH, I love this topic. I have several qualms that I would like to hear everyone's responses to. I'll start with what Lugia suggested, particularly the sibling issue.

Marrying Siblings: As far as I can tell, the only main arguments I've seen against, for example, a brother banging the crap out of his sister is that:

- It'll cause mental/emotional problems if one sibling is like, 25 and the other is 14 or something, which is understandable.

- It'll produce deformed babies, which is also understandable.

However, where exactly are the legitimate arguments against two siblings who are consenting adults and use condoms or birth control? The answer is there are none! But our society, including homosexuals, still shun any and all forms of intrafamilial sex even when said sex isn't harming anyone. The argument for years in favor of gay marriage has been "if two adults love each other, then they should be allowed to be together", but apparently there's some fine print somewhere that states that rule doesn't apply to 2 cousins, an uncle and his niece, a Mom and her son, or a brother and his sister.

Please provide me with reasons as to why two consenting adults who are related should not be allowed to be together when they avoid procreation. If you cannot do so, but still choose to condemn them anyway, you must admit that you are no different than the "Bible thumping bigots" you so adamantly hate.

Transexuals: Another great example of hypocrisy I see from our society is this is acceptable:


while this isn't

You go into any transexual conversation nowadays, and the comments are "leave them alone, they have a right to be who they feel they are". You click on a plastic surgery transformation with people who wanted to look like Barbie and Ken dolls, or Superman, or Justin Bieber, or even just another race, and it's "they're crazy", "obsessed", "not a good role model", "waste of money". Really? Why the double standard, bros?

Why is it that a man can chop his dick off and that instantly makes him a "woman", but if someone gets plastic surgery to resemble a famous person, character, or another race, they're "fake"? Why is mutilating your body in an attempt to become something you were not born as only acceptable when it has something to do with the almighty LGBT community, but no other community in existence? I mean, nowadays, it's more taboo for a girl to go get implants so she isn't flat chested than for a chick to shave all her hair off and get hormones injected into her so she can grow a beard and develop muscles. Look at how many people bash Nicki Minaj for having a "fake ass", but "Caitlyn Jenner's" brand new tits perfectly acceptable, amirite?

Once again, provide me with reasons as to why I should be looked upon as a maniac if I go under the knife in an attempt to look like a Japanese person because I "feel like I'm a Japanese person born in a black kids body" but I'm a brave hero if I cut my nuts off and wear fake eyelashes.

Age of Consent: This is another important topic in regards to transexuals, because I simply cannot wrap my head around the logic that a child, at the age of 18 months can declare they're the wrong gender, and then consent to having surgeries as early 8 years old - BUT they cannot consent to actual sex. Seriously, what is this? You're going to tell me that an 8 year old is mature enough to know that he wants his penis removed for the rest of his live, but a 16 year old isn't mentally prepared to determine whether or not he wants a blowjob from his English teacher? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

People change a lot over the course of being a kid and becoming an adult. I have a notebook in my attic that I've kept since I was in Kindergarten. Do you know what I wrote in my notebook? "I want to be a police officer when I grow up." Fast-forward to today: if you were to ask me if I wanted to be a police officer, I would tell you "not in a million years". Now let's switch up the scenario. Let's say instead of "I want to be a police officer", I wrote "I want to be a girl", and I had my penis removed at the age of 8. There's a possibility I'd be 22 years old now hating my parents for allowing me to make such a vital decision at an insanely young age, and would be scrambling to get an artificial dick sewn back onto my crotch.

Basically what I'm trying to say here is, sexual decisions are sexual decisions. I mean, we complain about high school students banging their teachers, but we acknowledge the fact that a kid who hasn't even experienced puberty yet knows exactly who and what he is sexually and will encourage said child to transform themselves entirely. It's one of the most baffling things I've ever seen in my life. If your 8 year old is mature enough to know they want a vagina, why are they also not mature enough to consent to intercourse? "You can decide if you want a new reproductive organ, but you can't decide for yourself who you want to share that reproductive organ with until you're 18, hurr durrr".

Banging Animals: This one we can keep concise, because it's very simple. There are animals intelligent enough to where they can, unlike sheep, consent to sex. In other words, if you're banging it, that means the animal literally wants to have sex with you. I can understand the ban on sheep since sheep pretty much just let you go to town whether they want it or not, but every animal is not a sheep. Other animals can clearly show compassion toward select people, and the exact opposite others. Once again, it's laughable that we assume that an 18 month child understands his or her sexuality well enough to know they want to undergo transgender surgery, but also assert that an adult dolphin, which is regarded as one of the most intelligent animals in existence right now, is too stupid to know if it wants it's clitoris stimulated by a human. Malcom Brenner is generally viewed as a psychopath and animal abuser along with every other person in history who has ever done anything remotely sexual with an animal regardless of said animal's confirmed intelligence.

Bestiality should be judged on a case-by-case basis. If we can prove certain animals are retarded and will let just about anything bang them, then fine, ban sex with that certain animal. If we have evidence that certain animals are capable of consenting to sex through obvious things, like courting behaviors, there should be no ban. In fact, let them get married, because remember kids: all that matters is "adult" and "consent".

With that being said, I look forward to marrying my pet frog.

Kozuma3 wrote:

EmpirezTeam wrote:

WALLLL OF TEXTTTTTT

tl;dr - Empirez is into homo-erotic beastility

and incest.

But no, I'm not arguing for these things because I take part in them. I'd never bang my cousin, I'd never get surgery to look like Goku, and I don't want to have sexual relations with a German Shepherd. My entire point is, if action A is virtually no different than action B, there's no reason why A should be acceptable and B should be blasphemy. If we're going to legalize gay marriage and keep a ban on 2 consenting adult cousins wearing protection, there's a problem. You need to either let the latter couple get married as well ( and quit talking shit about them ) or reinstate the ban on homosexual marriage, because saying one is okay and the other isn't with pretty much zero logic behind it is unacceptable.

If I were to go to work tomorrow dressed as a woman, I'd be praised. If I were to go to work tomorrow and tongue kiss my 19 year old cousin, WHO IS CONSENTING TO THE KISS BTW, none of my co-workers would ever speak to me again. In fact, I'd probably get fired, because it's legal here to fire people and not give them a reason. If they never have to give a reason, I'd imagine it becomes difficult to prove that I was fired because of "who I chose to love".

I gots nothing wrong with what you just said. Doesn't effect me none, if people want to have sex with animals and sibling and the like; it's on them. As long as they take proper steps to protect themselves from the harmful effects of the actions and don't spread those effects(not exactly sure of STD/Is you can catch from bangin' a goat), I don't care. If it doesn't effect me or you, why should either of us stop them?

Hail Jesus.

The funniest part is that gay marriage happened just as marriage was becoming irrelevant to our society.

Even so, I support everyone's right to be just as miserable as everyone else. That includes allowing people to be miserable as either a man or a woman, with a man or a woman, or any combination thereof. Their choice.

However, it should be noted that not all races are created equal. Horses are vastly superior to all others.