IN RELATED NEWS.
To everyone who would see this as a just and fitting group:
What? You're saying that we have no right to advocate the reasons against gay marriage (I'm aiming at this specifically) despite the fact that you seemingly adjust yourselves with ALL the rights to position your views publicly? Wow, talk about injustice.
What? You're saying that we have no right to advocate the reasons against gay marriage (I'm aiming at this specifically) despite the fact that you seemingly adjust yourselves with ALL the rights to position your views publicly? Wow, talk about injustice.
Wow, really? So in making a Facebook group, you'd be completely alert to the fact that you're basically making hypocrites of yourselves? That for one, your groups purpose as described states two beings that you somehow linked even though they aren't actually supposed to be? That would be like making a group called "We like parrots! ... And other birds too...".
There's a difference between wanting everyone to stop discussing the aesthetics of 'gay marriage/abortion' and actually 'supporting gay marriage'.
There's a difference between wanting everyone to stop discussing the aesthetics of 'gay marriage/abortion' and actually 'supporting gay marriage'.
"Hey, Let's blame the injustices on people who believe in the system justified by and since Biblical times and has since for long gone with the supposed separation of the constitution and the state."
HOLD UP, now in the state of trying to blame conservatives, you'd be saying that 'marriage' is a justified act committed based on the belief of Christianity (or those sub-religions which are basically the same thing with different and funny names). Marriage is a state of being, or in literal sense, a legal binding as created and seen upon as a status of partnership entitling the other to be of some moral code as to see fit the beneficial harmonisation of their couplet.
IF THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE: This chick actually [poorly] shooped herself as a 'Pikachu' and expects us to take her seriously. She ends up blaming a system which has been [supposedly and should be if not] separated from the constitution - that being religion - and as she proposes an idea based on the belief of a false interpretation, she ends up annulling her own statement.
Did I forget to mention she thinks she's a Pikachu?
TL;DR:
Gay Marriage can go fuck itself, like, literally, because there are FAR MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES TO BE RAISED THAN THE LEGAL STATE TO INSERT COCKS INTO ARSES.
HOLD UP, now in the state of trying to blame conservatives, you'd be saying that 'marriage' is a justified act committed based on the belief of Christianity (or those sub-religions which are basically the same thing with different and funny names). Marriage is a state of being, or in literal sense, a legal binding as created and seen upon as a status of partnership entitling the other to be of some moral code as to see fit the beneficial harmonisation of their couplet.
IF THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE: This chick actually [poorly] shooped herself as a 'Pikachu' and expects us to take her seriously. She ends up blaming a system which has been [supposedly and should be if not] separated from the constitution - that being religion - and as she proposes an idea based on the belief of a false interpretation, she ends up annulling her own statement.
Did I forget to mention she thinks she's a Pikachu?
TL;DR:
Gay Marriage can go fuck itself, like, literally, because there are FAR MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES TO BE RAISED THAN THE LEGAL STATE TO INSERT COCKS INTO ARSES.
"Hey, lets completely deplete our time and resources into something that we are simply 'offended by' as opposed to actually bettering the worlds hunger crisis, or maybe even the extinction of animals. Let's waste our time wallowing in our self pride as to advocate beliefs only held by a handful of people who are generally based in leading fully developed countries and ignore the whelps and cries of the starving children in 3rd world countries. Let's literally stick out dicks into our ears and completely disregard the other implications of human being such as entire animal species like whales going extinct due to those faggot Japanese fucks. Let's assume that we are the dominate dickwads of the century and because we believe so, we are applicable to protest the fact that we're not 'satisfied' in our own right and presence, thus we constantly moan and complain about how incredibly lack lustre our own quality of life is when there are people and animals constantly dying every fucking day because we are such selfish CUNTS attending only to our own indecencies BECAUSE WE ARE FAGGOTS LIKE THAT."
FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCKSANFUICKF FUCK.
7 comments:
The 'U' is a horseshoe
Word verification: fetu
I know, that's why everyone should keep to themselves.
Quoc, that argument works - well, doesn't work - for any problem or issue you could mention.
"Gay people shouldn't get married because LOOK OVER THERE STARVING CHILDREN."
"Sure, we could build this hospital, or we can FIX THE HORRIBLE PLIGHT OF WHALES BEING STABBED TO DEATH BY JAPANESE PAEDOPHILES."
"I guess we could get hoodies for the Year 12 farewell, but SOMETHING SOMETHING STARVING CHILDREN NOW YOU ARE SUDDENLY WRONG."
See? It's a very versatile case.
I'm saying that people are prioritising the worlds problems in the wrong order.
What's a just world when the majority of it is in a economic/social rut?
Yeah, but we don't fix the world's problems in descending order of necessity and urgency; we fix the easy problems before moving on up. The gay marriage thing can be fixed by changing a few words in an existing law and signing a piece of paper. All the effort, time and resources are being spent convincing people that a solution is desired (by however small a section of society), easy and quick.
I get that people need perspective, but fixing AIDS, cancer, world poverty and whaling all cost ridonculous amounts of money and resources. They are urgent, yes, but they are also incredibly difficult, and don't affect rich peoples lives in a significant way. People - whether you like it or not - are a million times more likely to support a cause that directly affects them rather than a cause that affects millions of poor, black strangers.
So don't grudge these people for supporting a simple, easy cause that affects their lives rather than a grandiose, expensive, time-consuming cause that doesn't. You can disagree with it, sure. But disagreeing with a cause and saying that a cause shouldn't exist because there are better causes out there are two different things.
But I find their 'want' for a state of being illogical. It's like saying my want of killing people should be legalised, BECAUSE I WANT IT.
*Doesn't make sense*
That, everyone on this planet is living on lies founded by themselves and no other, whose right is it to say that a couple is married. Fundamentally, the foundations of marriage is based on the persons involved to uphold their responsibilities/vows. The only thing the government can do is make this 'legal' in the eyes of a fabrication of a government system, and invite them on in a range of legal benefits.
*Doesn't make sense*
Nobody is dying over this issue, so I find it illogical that they want to push and shove to the front of a line -- which the government has already said it would not agree to. Yet the constantly bicker and banter over such claims as to suggest equal rights to a marriage of a female+male. Though, you'd say that the prominent benefit the government receives as from a 'traditional' marriage would be the creation of new life, or in the stern cold glare of the government, a new unit of labour. The problem economically would be that in a world where gay marriage is 'accepted as normality' children susceptible to this type of belief would end up possibly more to be gay *for the sake of the media's imposition on the sanity of the youth.
Despite the fact that I actually want most of the population to die for the sake of bettering the Earths ecological systems, this would end up introverting the current and stable state of growing numbers and thus a larger pool of people of which can technologically advance us as a race.
OH HEY, I JUST BROUGHT BACK A SOUVENIR FROM BULLLLLLLSHIT LAND.
AGREED WITH QUOC
As I have come to realise in playing rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots, ONE citizen is 50 food. Early on in the game, when rushing is paramount to gaining an economic advantage over the opponent and thus ensuring numerous other advantages, it is essential that a majority of the resources used are used to raise a rushing squad consisting of 5 heavy infantry, backed up by 3 light infantry. These cost food to produce; however, the irony is that food must be expended in the forms of citizens to increase the production of food.
This may be overcome by the Koreans' national power of have 3 free units upon the construction of a new City.
Arguably, without this national power, the Koreans take a backseat to the Chinese, who create citizens, merchants and caravans INSTANTLY. It gives the Chinese a MASSIVE advantage for economic growth.
Similarly aiding them in economic growth, the Greeks have the national power of Philosophy. This allows them, in the ancient age, to build universities and scholars, and accumulate a vast amount of knowledge. This is a decisive advantage over other nations, as it allows them to reach newer ages much more quickly.
All in all, gay marriage doesn't affect anything on a major scale and thus is worthless.
Post a Comment