LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+104 105 1
Published 3 years ago with 33 Comments
 

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
Conversation 16 comments by 9 users
  • a7h13f
    +27

    I really don't understand the opposition to same-sex marriage. How does it devalue "traditional" marriage anymore than Donald Trump's divorces? Or Britney Spears' 24 hour marriage?

    Even if you believe that homosexuality is a sin, that's completely irrelevant to the discussion, unless you're proposing that no sinner can be married. If that's the case, then according to Christian theology the only person in history who would be allowed to be married was Jesus, and I guess he'd have to marry himself...

    • Teska (edited 3 years ago)
      +15

      I saw a comment by Xeno where they're not only opposed to same-sex relationships in general, but that marriage is no longer a burden to bear, no longer the "ball and chain" of old, and instead of being centered on love, compassion, understanding, and ideals that never fully surrounded "traditional" marriage. I can see where that would completely shake up some people's beliefs and even their emotional lives. But this should be seen as a positive thing, not a negative.

      Spaceghoti found the comment I am referencing. - http://snapzu.com/spaceghoti/more-conservativ...e-isnt-supposed-to-be-about-love-or-happiness

      • a7h13f
        +14

        That's a very interesting train of thought, and I think we can see it elsewhere, specifically relating to Millennials. This article in Forbes discusses how Millennials redefine work, how we aren't satisfied with 9-5 Corporate jobs. Often, that mentality is misunderstood by outsiders as laziness or shirking some burden, but I see it as people finding better ways to live.

        Maybe opposition to same sex marriage is rooted in this unyielding opposition to change and progress. Time marches on.

        • Teska (edited 3 years ago)
          +4

          See, I should've just looked you up. Thanks for the link. =) I'll edit above to credit Xeno for the thought/opinion.

      • Xeno
        +5

        I'm not sure if there is a credit misunderstanding here. Spaceghoti posted the article, I posted a comment on it. Still glad you remember seeing me around though. :)

    • jmcs
      +12

      Some of them it's because they are afraid of everything that is "different", others it's because it forces them to look at themselves and see they are "different". The first group it's the biggest the second one the noisiest.

      I see it as the other way around, saying that marriage is for procreation diminishes my marriage as an heterosexual man. I didn't marry my wife for procreation I did it because I love her and I want to build a life together with her. For me marriage is about love and happiness and every human being has the right to love, be loved and be happy.

      • a7h13f
        +8

        Regarding the second group, I can't for the life of me remember where I read it but I'll try to summarize as best I remember:

        The idea was that (some) people who claim that homosexuality is a choice feel that way because they've chosen to live their lives as heterosexuals, even though they feel same-sex attraction. They were just taught it was "evil", and forced themselves to remain closeted and try to live "normally".

      • redalastor
        +6

        I see it as the other way around, saying that marriage is for procreation diminishes my marriage as an heterosexual man.

        I've yet to get an answer for people with that opinion when asked if they want to prevent people who aren't fertile from marrying.

        I keep asking someone expresses that opinion though.

        • jmcs
          +5

          Oh I got one. There was a priest that told me that with heterosexuals couples there can always be a miracle if God wants. The guy seemed very proud of his argument.

          • redalastor
            +6

            Oh wow. And I guess people who don't want kids can always have an accident.

            God seems a bit weaksauce on that one though. Miracles by definition transcend natural laws so he could miracle a baby to a gay couple if he wanted.

          • Kalysta
            +3

            Perhaps that priest needs to be told of parthenogenesis. Throw that into the mix and at least lesbian couples could "miraculously" procreate.

            Also, thanks to the "miracle" of modern science, we can now create babies from 3 people (theoretically 2 women, 1 man). What's to stop a gay couple from going to a fertility clinic and undergoing this with a surrogate? Are they now not technically fertile? Also, you wouldn't even need a third person to splice genes between two lesbians, unless they wanted a boy.

            It's an ingenious argument 50 years ago. But with modern genetic knowledge and fertility science, it doesn't really hold water.

    • Xeno (edited 3 years ago)
      +5

      So... I have a lot of points of view as to why fundamentalists are opposed to gay marriage, but I always come down to this: don't they have anything better to do? They waste so much time and taxpayer dollars on unimportant nonsense that they are not going to win. And it doesn't stop at gay marriage issues.

    • uSansSnoo
      +5

      Why does any form of exclusivity appeal to people? It makes them feel better about themselves. Some people really do have to take from or demean others in order to feel secure in themselves.

      • Xeno
        +3

        This is so true. People like this are so unhappy that they see happy people and have to shit all over them. "If I can't do it, you can't do it."

    • CuppaMatt
      +3

      My "WTF guys" aspect of it is that this seems to somehow be Christianity claiming "ownership" of the institution of marriage. As if only they can say what should and should not be allowed to be considered "marriage".

      The institution of marriage pre-dates Christianity by a LONG LONG time. They have no more claim over it than anyone else.

      Plus, there doesn't seem to be any great move to ban marriages from other religions being valid, they break one of the big 10 commandments of Christianity (no god other than me) which presumably should come WAY before random passages from random books of the bible that also ban tattoos and mixed cloth fabrics. If you're going to go for it be consistent please.

  • sushmonster
    +14

    I can't believe people are STILL trying to contest gay marriage. It's over, marriage equality won in the U.S., it's not up to debate anymore (never really should have been in the first place). Now let's focus on other challenges faced by queer folk in existing society and begin to think about how we might be able to overcome them!

    • picklefingers
      +7

      I think the fight will very quickly die out. Right now, everybody is reacting to the recent decision. But in a year? Two years? Nobody is going to talk about it. It will just be part of society.

      • Nautilus
        +5

        I hope you're right, but abortion had a similar Supreme Court decision in 1973 and continues to be hindered by new state legislation.

        • picklefingers (edited 3 years ago)
          +4

          I think that is because it is a choice that almost everybody makes or is directly affected by. When you are pregnant, you have to make the choice between abortion or not. Gay marriage on the other hand doesn't directly affect the vast majority of the world, and the worst that most people suffer from it is getting an unwanted wedding invitation.

          • spaceghoti
            +2

            Haven't you heard? Their god will judge America for "killing babies" but gay marriage will destroy us just like the Greeks and Romans. My mother says so quite vociferously.

  • Holymanta
    +10

    They need to let this gay marriage thing go. They lost already.

  • jmcs
    +10

    So this is what they had in mind when they said letting gays marry would kill marriage, no one was expect them to kill it themselves, that's a twist worth of Shyamalan's best movies right there.

  • NerfYoda
    +8

    You know what they say. When you outlaw marriage then only outlaws get married.

  • TheEnglishMajor
    +7

    marriage... shall not be abridged through the state prescribing or recognizing any law that implicitly or explicitly defines a marriage in opposition or agreement with any particular religious belief

    Language used recklessly can end civilization, folks!

    • frohawk
      +4

      Or love lives in general.

  • shadow1515
    +6

    It would be hilarious if it passed and started a trend of actually banning marriage on purpose. A perfect conclusion to the shitstorm imo.

    • frohawk
      +6

      That would be interesting, having a state that doesn't allow anyone to get married on their lands.

      I can just imaging nightclubs using that in advertising: "You can get shitfaced all you want over here, 'cuz at least you won't wake up married!"

    • KingAztek
      +3

      Some libertarians have actually called for the privatization of marriage. It's an interesting concept. Such a policy would allow for polygamous, polyamorous, and incestuous unions, as any ban on them would create limitations on what could be called a marriage/civil union.

  • Teska
    +6

    "If I can't have, no one can!" I don't understand this attitude. Simply because I don't like something or even don't believe in something, doesn't mean you take it away from everyone who does like it or believe in it.

    Moreover, it's nearly impossible to explain to someone with opinion-blinders that their completely and utterly bonkers.

  • ReverendEntity
    +4

    I think that if we're going to get all bent out of shape about this, maybe we SHOULD ban marriage. Completely and utterly. While we're at it, let's also make sex illegal. All sex. Even for procreation. Would-be parents would have to undergo a rigorous screening process to insure stability and capability. Insemination would be artificial.

    Then...we make all forms of religion illegal. Who's with me? You're all looking at me funny.

  • idlethreat
    +3

    This is as effective as signing online petitions, thinking it's going to change someone's mind.

  • wolfeater
    +3

    I will never fully understand the politics of Colorado, even after years of living there. Sometimes it seems so enlightened an other times people pull stupid shit like this.

    However, this initiative is a joke. Putting up a anti-SSM amendment during a presidential election year at a time when it enjoys massive majority support in the state is idiotic. Even though CO has been trending more right again lately, there is no way this passes and is of no real concern in my mind.

Here are some other snaps you may like...