# 37 Republicans voted against Respect for Marriage Act in the Senate



## Nothereed (Nov 30, 2022)

The majority of Senate Republicans voted against the Respect for Marriage Act, which was recently passed within the senate with only 12 Republicans voting yes on the bill. The Respect for Marriage Act protects interracial marriages and same sex marriages.

It Repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as purely between man and women and nothing else. The Supreme court in 2015, ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges already rendering that bill as null.

Source:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...respect-for-marriage-act-these-37-republicans


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 2, 2022)

Typical, but at least it passed. Within like 20 years, majority of Americans, including Republicans, now support it. Pretty amazing.


----------



## EldritchPenumbra (Dec 2, 2022)

KingVamp said:


> Typical, but at least it passed. Within like 20 years, majority of Americans, including Republicans, now support it. Pretty amazing.


Most Republican Americans are already OK with it, just like they have became used to the Federal Reserve, Mandated Schooling with included Corporate Curriculum, just as they surrendered their privacy, just as they accepted the birth certificate and social security card, and well just allowed the government and expand into their personal lives with no limits.
In the old days if you wanted to be gay, you just had to go to a bedroom, just like straight people. If you wanted to get married, you just had to find a pastor to marry you. The thing is though that gay marriage wasn't a talking point back in the day when life wasn't so automated and easy. When a civilization becomes wealthy and comfortable, the people start to focus on the trivial rather than the practical. And often times they empower the government to force others to accept what they are not content keeping to them selves. It's all pretty gay if you ask me. Besides the Supreme Court already mandated gay "marriage" years ago. I'm not sure what all this is for?
Speaking of which, ever notice how there are hate crimes for offending people with tan or darker skin, and for offending homosexuals, but not the religious? Crazy hugh?


----------



## wartutor (Dec 2, 2022)

Who gives a shit it is just a piece of paper and quite frankly i find it disturbing that people still practice this barbaric act as it is.



EldritchPenumbra said:


> Most Republican Americans are already OK with it, just like they have became used to the Federal Reserve, Mandated Schooling with included Corporate Curriculum, just as they surrendered their privacy, just as they accepted the birth certificate and social security card, and well just allowed the government and expand into their personal lives with no limits.
> In the old days if you wanted to be gay, you just had to go to a bedroom, just like straight people. If you wanted to get married, you just had to find a pastor to marry you. The thing is though that gay marriage wasn't a talking point back in the day when life wasn't so automated and easy. When a civilization becomes wealthy and comfortable, the people start to focus on the trivial rather than the practical. And often times they empower the government to force others to accept what they are not content keeping to them selves. It's all pretty gay if you ask me. Besides the Supreme Court already mandated gay "marriage" years ago. I'm not sure what all this is for?
> Speaking of which, ever notice how their are hate crime for offending people with tan or darker skin, and for offending homosexuals, but not the religious? Crazy hugh?



They are afraid the supreme court will overturn it like they did abortion rights.
And as for the hate crime shit. Its just some bull shit way of saying this crime is worse because u did it to this group. It should be abolished also. All crimes against someone else should be treated equal no matter the race, color, or sexual preference. I mean isnt that what everyone wants equality?


----------



## x65943 (Dec 2, 2022)

Honestly I am shocked any voted for it - supporting things like this is not typical for Republicans 

The bill is more symbolic than anything, if the supreme court changed their earlier ruling - it's unlikely they would allow the federal government to legislate a right into existence

The constitution doesn't vest supreme power in the hands of the federal legislature, and any such additional powers would need to be given to the federal government by a constitutional amendment


----------



## Taleweaver (Dec 3, 2022)

wartutor said:


> Who gives a shit it is just a piece of paper and quite frankly i find it disturbing that people still practice this barbaric act as it is.


Ever heard of this thing called empathy? I don't support a marriage either, but I'm not pissing off anyone wanting to have one. And i know plenty who don't call it a'barbaric act'. 

... Why are you even in this thread if you don't care about it?


----------



## mrmagicm (Dec 3, 2022)

Marriage is in it's "original" state definition for 3 thousands years of history, so only a man and a woman in a religious way in order to be able to create a family by themselves, you cannot use the word marriage for a woman and a cat or a man with a robot, it's not because many younger people have been influenced by media or mentalities have changed or some people have been brainwashed that it was a good thing to change definition. You cannot influenced people and brainwash younger people to change the definition of a cat for a dog or any other word that is totalitarism and against the liberty of all, that will always be illogical, you cannot change logic and the next day, say 0 is a 1 because it's nice for people, even in 10 000 years. You cannot say Elon Musk is the Devil because you don't like him, he will always be human.  You cannot say that for example network is not called network anymore but "bezacock" because some people like the word, samely illogical. It's nothing to do with good or evil, it's just pure logic. Of course, you can use another word for other type of association. For example, you could call the association of love between a man with a robot a manobot or a gay pact.
This way of thinking is typically from USA I guess, thinking they can change a word for the entire world and have the last word.
I am not russian, but let's suppose Russia would want to change your word "computer" and say that it includes electronics and make the word electronic dissapear....Would you americans like it?? You don't have empathy for persons which do not think like you I guess and seems to force it in you country by law. Also, here, it's a gaming site, and should not be a place of political propaganda.


----------



## wartutor (Dec 3, 2022)

Taleweaver said:


> Ever heard of this thing called empathy? I don't support a marriage either, but I'm not pissing off anyone wanting to have one. And i know plenty who don't call it a'barbaric act'.
> 
> ... Why are you even in this thread if you don't care about it?



Marriage by defination is the union of man and woman under god. Why the fuck would anyone want that when they are gay/bi/trans/lgbtq/wtf by defination what they do is a sin to god. Now i dont believe any of that crap or in marriage for that matter does it mean im not allowed to talk about it and have a civil discussion about the topic. (edit before someone takes this wrong i mean crap as in the god stuff not lgbtq+ i have nothing against what anyone does in their own time.) Now im all for letting people do what they want and all should be free to marry whom ever they want but to try and condemn someone for sticking to their beliefs and voting against something is also not right (again people should be able to freely think and do what they want...within reason and as long as it dont hurt anyone else...) now the real question is why did you go off topic to bash my response that was on topic when you contributed jack to the conversation in doing so.



mrmagicm said:


> Marriage is in it's "original" state definition for 3 thousands years of history, so only a man and a woman in a religious way in order to be able to create a family by themselves, you cannot use the word marriage for a woman and a cat or a man with a robot, it's not because many younger people have been influenced by media or mentalities have changed or some people have been brainwashed that it was a good thing to change definition. You cannot influenced people and brainwash younger people to change the definition of a cat for a dog or any other word that is totalitarism and against the liberty of all, that will always be illogical, you cannot change logic and the next day, say 0 is a 1 because it's nice for people, even in 10 000 years. You cannot say Elon Musk is the Devil because you don't like him, he will always be human.  You cannot say that for example network is not called network anymore but "bezacock" because some people like the word, samely illogical. It's nothing to do with good or evil, it's just pure logic. Of course, you can use another word for other type of association. For example, you could call the association of love between a man with a robot a manobot or a gay pact.
> This way of thinking is typically from USA I guess, thinking they can change a word for the entire world and have the last word.
> I am not russian, but let's suppose Russia would want to change your word "computer" and say that it includes electronics and make the word electronic dissapear....Would you americans like it?? You don't have empathy for persons which do not think like you I guess and seems to force it in you country by law. Also, here, it's a gaming site, and should not be a place of political propaganda.



I get what you are saying but people want the same rights and treatment as everyone else and they should get it. Marriage is after all just a word and a piece of paper that can be marked null and void by getting a divorce. Which about 50% end up this way in america. Times are not how they use to be. (For the better i might add.)


----------



## LainaGabranth (Dec 3, 2022)

Republicans haven't had the interests of anything but their pockets in mind since the party was formed. This shouldn't even be shocking for anyone anymore. They hate the USA lol.


----------



## Nothereed (Dec 3, 2022)

wartutor said:


> Marriage by defination is the union of man and woman under god. Why the fuck would anyone want that when they are gay/bi/trans/lgbtq/wtf by defination what they do is a sin to god.


because the system only up to this point recognized your definition of marriage. It intentionally carved out people who don't match that definition. And as a result, laws designed around that archaic way of viewing things. Intentionally harmed non conforming couples.

Said couples want to marry, they want to have their wedding day and have it recognized by the state, but previously couldn't.
Marrying is not exclusive to Christianity, sorry to tell you that.


Additionally, straight couples would have a unfair advantage against gay ones, due to laws up until 2015, and this new law.

https://www.investopedia.com/financ...vs.-common-law-what-it-means-financially.aspx

Eligibility to receive Social Security benefits as long as they can prove the number of years they lived together in a common-law state2324


Qualifying for employer benefits through their spouse, such as health insurance
Exemption from the gift tax for gifts to each other
Unlimited marital exemptions for their estate up to the federal estate tax limit
Claiming deductions for mortgage interest (if they co-own a house) and children (if applicable)
Inheritance of their spouse’s property as long as there is a valid will (but if a spouse dies without a will, their children and other family members assume the inheritance rights, leaving the surviving common-law spouse with none)
Use of a medical power of attorney (POA) designating their common-law spouse as the person (rather than another family member) to make medical decisions when they are incapable.

Being unable to file together, unable to gift each other without possibly taxing each other, unable to do deductions together, they all add up. The IRS wil not  allow you to file jointly either if you're not legally married.


wartutor said:


> Why the fuck would anyone want that when they are gay/bi/trans/lgbtq/wtf by defination what they do is a sin to god.


Is loving another person that isn't the opposite sex truly sinful?
I love my partner as much as they love me. As much as your significant other, loves you.

The only difference we have, is that I will respect your love to your loved one, but you won't respect mine, to the person I love, purely because of aesthetics.
 You don't care about my(or people like me) devotion to our loved one(s)
You don't care how true we keep to each other, honesty, love, compassion, trust, none of that matters.

You'll use the that one difference, as ammunition to call us undeserving. And use religion as your shield for when people call out on your hatred.


I was taught several religious and spiritual concepts as a kid. From Christianity, for the brief time my mom exposed it to me, altruism, caring for others, doing what you can to help others was what I pulled from it. From Buddhism, the concept of inner-balance in oneself. And from wiccan, concepts of balance with life, and effectively the concept of karma.

I don't have a religion or spiritual belief, you can call me an atheist.  If god, in the christian sense, created me in his image, then people, like me, are a part of that image.

Your just using your devotion to your religion, to the dogma you and others have, as an excuse to cover hatred.
To wield the title of Christian, and say "I'm not a terrible person, I'm Christian" while going against christian beliefs in your actions.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 3, 2022)

Sounds like the problem is of taxation.


----------



## wartutor (Dec 3, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> because the system only up to this point recognized your definition of marriage. It intentionally carved out people who don't match that definition. And as a result, laws designed around that archaic way of viewing things. Intentionally harmed non conforming couples.
> 
> Said couples want to marry, they want to have their wedding day and have it recognized by the state, but previously couldn't.
> Marrying is not exclusive to Christianity, sorry to tell you that.
> ...



I agree they should be able to marry and do what they want and no as stated that god and sin crap is just that crap...another way some controlling relic from the past manipulates the masses to do their will. Just like all governments if people could be decent and treat others with respect we wouldnt need them to tell us how to live. But all of them go beyond just protecting and serving the people to the point the world would be better off without them.


----------



## mrmagicm (Dec 4, 2022)

> wartutor Additionally, straight couples would have a unfair advantage against gay ones​


Sorry, but marriage is historical through something bigger than me or you, through human history and logic through time, our lifetime span is nothing compared to what has been of the one of humanity before us, and because of this, in order to not alterate past that has lead to today, it's not been "unfair" like you just think in your mind, this was a word granted to original couple, THAT'S ALL.....Religion in time  is not a shield, it's a fact, like the existence of the dictionnary.
If you are talking "fair", just accept give another word to the union and grant rights depending of necessity as you wish, that's all! Don't STEAL a word from another population of people.
Also, it would be more "precise" like the word manobot I told you (union of a robot and a man), now everyone knows what it concerns, I am just making your woked brain realize the fact that you cannot modify a word as you wish just because it is you and your interest.  I'm not devoted to anything except logic and respect for past likeand  you try to link me to a religion and that is fun, completly woke reaction... I'm not even close to it or to a party.
Why does a freaking person always thinks his timeline is so more important than the one that was before him? soon you are going to call soon a marriage between a cyborg and a human or an animal with a human, and that is a total illogical disaster.
It's like stealing a something from a population and giving it to another population....No, you don't do that, for respect, you give a new something same to the new population, maybe there as been a big decrease of marriages because of that, did your empathy managed to discover the numbers of marriage had fallen? Well it mathematically did. Maybe also because the anti-republican people spoiled and rot the word at the point of not meaning anything anymore for many people...Reality I guess.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

Nothereed said:


> The majority of Senate Republicans voted against the Respect for Marriage Act, which was recently passed within the senate with only 12 Republicans voting yes on the bill. The Respect for Marriage Act protects interracial marriages and same sex marriages.
> 
> It Repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as purely between man and women and nothing else. The Supreme court in 2015, ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges already rendering that bill as null.
> 
> Source:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...respect-for-marriage-act-these-37-republicans



and yet it passed, guess the blue hairs got what they wanted.


----------



## impeeza (Dec 4, 2022)

I am American but nothing to do with that law, I live on South America, is part of the America continent. not should be United States of America???


----------



## mrmagicm (Dec 4, 2022)

Yep Impezaa, they didn't realize they're north americans, not just americans....They should speak of USA laws, not american laws
Also, from an external point of view (Europe), I think democrats haven't realize that if their country is still "fine", it's more because of Republicans more than them 
They should work together, and not one against the other


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

impeeza said:


> I am American but nothing to do with that law, I live on South America, is part of the America continent. not should be United States of America???



nope, we already have stretched ourselves way to thin due to Brandon's politics, that's the last thing we need.


----------



## wartutor (Dec 4, 2022)

mrmagicm said:


> Sorry, but marriage is historical through something bigger than me or you, through human history and logic through time, our lifetime span is nothing compared to what has been of the one of humanity before us, and because of this, in order to not alterate past that has lead to today, it's not been "unfair" like you just think in your mind, this was a word granted to original couple, THAT'S ALL.....Religion in time  is not a shield, it's a fact, like the existence of the dictionnary.
> If you are talking "fair", just accept give another word to the union and grant rights depending of necessity as you wish, that's all! Don't STEAL a word from another population of people.
> Also, it would be more "precise" like the word manobot I told you (union of a robot and a man), now everyone knows what it concerns, I am just making your woked brain realize the fact that you cannot modify a word as you wish just because it is you and your interest.  I'm not devoted to anything except logic and respect for past likeand  you try to link me to a religion and that is fun, completly woke reaction... I'm not even close to it or to a party.
> Why does a freaking person always thinks his timeline is so more important than the one that was before him? soon you are going to call soon a marriage between a cyborg and a human or an animal with a human, and that is a total illogical disaster.
> It's like stealing a something from a population and giving it to another population....No, you don't do that, for respect, you give a new something same to the new population, maybe there as been a big decrease of marriages because of that, did your empathy managed to discover the numbers of marriage had fallen? Well it mathematically did. Maybe also because the anti-republican people spoiled and rot the word at the point of not meaning anything anymore for many people...Reality I guess.


I never said it was unfair #nothereed did in this post. 

https://gbatemp.net/threads/37-repu...riage-act-in-the-senate.622521/#post-10015108

And im not woke dumb ass actually im about middle of the isle. It appears to me either you dont speak English as a first language and are loosing stuff in translation or just to damn stupid or drunk to follow the conversation.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

wartutor said:


> I never said it was unfair #nothereed did in this post.
> 
> https://gbatemp.net/threads/37-repu...riage-act-in-the-senate.622521/#post-10015108
> 
> And im not woke dumb ass actually im about middle of the isle. It appears to me either you dont speak English as a first language and are loosing stuff in translation or just to damn stupid or drunk to follow the conversation.



you cant take reed seriously, he has a reason.


----------



## Korozin (Dec 4, 2022)

I still honestly don't understand why the government, whether it be Federal or State needs to concern themselves with marriage in the first place. Allow people to marry whoever they want - end of story. But no, make it complicated ig.


----------



## pustal (Dec 4, 2022)

wartutor said:


> Marriage by defination is the union of man and woman under god.



No, marriage is by definition the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship. It's older and broader than Christianity or any modern religion.

Also same sex marriages are nothing new. Emperor Nero was wedded twice to other men. Besides ancient Rome, there historical knowledge of such marriages in ancient Greece and other parts of Europe, ancient Mesopotamia, and in some regions of China.

Modern religions defined sex and marriage to themselves as only means of procreation and enforced such ideas throughout the middle ages but that's all they did and thankfully in modern ages we went back to separate church and state and civil marriage has nothing to do with a god or a religion but rather recognition by the state and society of a union partnership and the family basis.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

Korozin said:


> I still honestly don't understand why the government, whether it be Federal or State needs to concern themselves with marriage in the first place. Allow people to marry whoever they want - end of story. But no, make it complicated ig.



what part dont you understand? are you 10? there are some people in the government who like religion, they dont realize the book was written by people and was altered to fit the times and so they have misconstrued beliefs, how hard is that to understand? pick up a book.

	Post automatically merged: Dec 4, 2022



lolcatzuru said:


> what part dont you understand? are you 10? there are some people in the government who like religion, they dont realize the book was written by people and was altered to fit the times and so they have misconstrued beliefs, how hard is that to understand? pick up a book.



the real problem is that they dont mention if the bear or the twink pays alimony or not.


----------



## Korozin (Dec 4, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> what part dont you understand? are you 10? there are some people in the government who like religion, they dont realize the book was written by people and was altered to fit the times and so they have misconstrued beliefs, how hard is that to understand? pick up a book.



No I understand why they do it perfectly, the part I don't understand is why they feel the need to in the first place. What I'm getting at is I see no need for the government to stick it's nose into personal matters such as marriage. It simply shouldn't be their concern, unless that is, they're trying to use it as a political talking point to gain backing and / or votes to their parties. Like I said, simply let people marry who they want. End of story.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

Korozin said:


> No I understand why they do it perfectly, the part I don't understand is why they feel the need to in the first place. What I'm getting at is I see no need for the government to stick it's nose into personal matters such as marriage. It simply shouldn't be their concern, unless that is, they're trying to use it as a political talking point to gain backing and / or votes to their parties. Like I said, simply let people marry who they want. End of story.



its because of the word "precedent" see, biden and the gang are under HUGE pressure to convert to a communist society ( see world economic forum for more details) so the goal is to have as much power as possible


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 4, 2022)

this thread is full of americans.  i can tell.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

Political ideology is a cult that seeks to be the prevalent religion.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> this thread is full of americans.  i can tell.



this thread is about  a topic in america


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 4, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> this thread is about  a topic in america


being talked about by americans.  and it's funny.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> being talked about by americans.  and it's funny.



i dont get it


----------



## SG854 (Dec 4, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> being talked about by americans.  and it's funny.


What's the punch line?


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 4, 2022)

SG854 said:


> What's the punch line?


there is no serious discussion an american can partake in where they can sound informed, calm, rational, and educated.


----------



## Taleweaver (Dec 4, 2022)

wartutor said:


> Marriage by defination is the union of man and woman under god. Why the fuck would anyone want that when they are gay/bi/trans/lgbtq/wtf by defination what they do is a sin to god. Now i dont believe any of that crap or in marriage for that matter does it mean im not allowed to talk about it and have a civil discussion about the topic. (edit before someone takes this wrong i mean crap as in the god stuff not lgbtq+ i have nothing against what anyone does in their own time.) Now im all for letting people do what they want and all should be free to marry whom ever they want but to try and condemn someone for sticking to their beliefs and voting against something is also not right (again people should be able to freely think and do what they want...within reason and as long as it dont hurt anyone else...) now the real question is why did you go off topic to bash my response that was on topic when you contributed jack to the conversation in doing so.


Ah so you do care. Gotcha. 

But you're right: i could've contributed to the op but didn't. So here goes...

I'm actually glad not all Republicans voted the same way. As a foreigner, it sometimes sounds as if the party is just a conglomerate blob or cult that consistently (1) votes against my beliefs and vice versa. Glad to hear they're actually individuals who have an opinion on things.  


(1): @Nothereed are a thread with their bulletin points. It's almost comical how i disagree with them on EVERYTHING


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 4, 2022)

Taleweaver said:


> Ah so you do care. Gotcha.
> 
> But you're right: i could've contributed to the op but didn't. So here goes...
> 
> ...



republicans don't have a brain and do not humanize them under any circumstance.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> there is no serious discussion an american can partake in where they can sound informed, calm, rational, and educated.



how does that work though? because that describes you to a T and you apparently arent an american.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 4, 2022)

lolcatzuru said:


> how does that work though? because that describes you to a T and you apparently arent an american.


"no you'd" by an american.  proof is in the pudding.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> "no you'd" by an american.  proof is in the pudding.



i dont understand that, must be a foreign thing.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> there is no serious discussion an american can partake in where they can sound informed, calm, rational, and educated.



You are an American, will you fill us in with what it means to be you?


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> You are an American, will you fill us in with what it means to be you?


not american and wouldn't want to be associated with such filth


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> not american and wouldn't want to be associated with such filth


Well, you are.  Why is your flag USA?


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Well, you are.  Why is your flag USA?



either way with the way he talks, he's not an american.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

A slave then?


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 4, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Well, you are.  Why is your flag USA?


because someone has to pity the mentally retarded


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> because someone has to pity the mentally retarded



I know that sounded commandercool in your head, but what it looks like is that you wear the banner of "mentally retarded" and want to be edgy about it.

If you pay taxes to America, you're American.


----------



## mrmagicm (Dec 4, 2022)

> And im not woke dumb ass actually im about middle of the isle. It appears to me either you dont speak English as a first language


Indeed, i'm not american/english but manage in multiple languages, and I'm not drunk, still you offend people not speaking your language, is this the american way? .....When woke people don't know what to reply and are in front of the wall, they just insult or try sueing ^^


----------



## wartutor (Dec 4, 2022)

mrmagicm said:


> Indeed, i'm not american/english but manage in multiple languages, and I'm not drunk, still you offend people not speaking your language, is this the american way? .....When woke people don't know what to reply and are in front of the wall, they just insult or try sueing ^^


Dude you are the one that misquoted me and started calling me woke. Apparently you're english needs fucking work because again i am not woke. I never offended you for not speaking english just figured out you dont know enough to keep with the conversation. And this proved me right. And next time you quote me how about actually quoting my name so i get notified instead of just trying to sneak it in the thread as to not get noticed. Too much more stupid shit like this from you and you may end up being the first person ever put on my ignore list on this sight. I hate doing that because i may lose a bit of the conversation doing it but im starting to realize you dont add anything significant to it anyway.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 4, 2022)

i'm bored.

can we go back to asking about the shitting habits of mitch mcconnell?


----------



## tabzer (Dec 4, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> i'm bored.
> 
> can we go back to asking about the shitting habits of mitch mcconnell?



Pay your taxes and help your government fight the world for its freedom, American.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Pay your taxes and help your government fight the world for its freedom, American.


by far the most scathing insult that i have ever been given on these forums.


----------



## mikefor20 (Dec 5, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> this thread is full of americans.  i can tell.



And full of self absorbed foreign turds who think their opinions matter.  You don't!  



CommanderCool said:


> there is no serious discussion an american can partake in where they can sound informed, calm, rational, and educated.



Bigoted and asinine.  You are talking about your own shortcomings as if it's someone else! How cool.  



CommanderCool said:


> republicans don't have a brain and do not humanize them under any circumstance.



Oh they have brains, just no hearts. 



CommanderCool said:


> "no you'd" by an american.  proof is in the pudding.



You're ESL, proof is in the posting. You need to work on your comprehension. 



CommanderCool said:


> not american and wouldn't want to be associated with such filth



Why come to this thread then?  To harass.and force your ideas down others throats! Sounds like a republican. Definately the American way.



lolcatzuru said:


> either way with the way he talks, he's not an american.



But he's stupid and bigoted. Very American!



CommanderCool said:


> because someone has to pity the mentally retarded



What are you complaining about? Empathy tward the mentally deficient is obviously how how you've managed to live so long. 



tabzer said:


> I know that sounded commandercool in your head, but what it looks like is that you wear the banner of "mentally retarded" and want to be edgy about it.
> 
> If you pay taxes to America, you're American.



You are an antagonistic egotist. Why are you always in American politics threads? You are  disrespectful bigoted troll.  I feel like i can speak for all Americans when I say that I am proud you are not one of us. Go back to your communist manifesto and leave the thinking individuals to discuss real issues.



mrmagicm said:


> Indeed, i'm not american/english but manage in multiple languages, and I'm not drunk, still you offend people not speaking your language, is this the american way? .....When woke people don't know what to reply and are in front of the wall, they just insult or try sueing ^^



It's obvious you're ESL. That guy is definitely not "woke".


----------



## sombrerosonic (Dec 5, 2022)

SG854 said:


> What's the punch line?


The punch line is there sufirc acid in your coffee!!

	Post automatically merged: Dec 5, 2022



mikefor20 said:


> And full of self absorbed foreign turds who think their opinions matter.  You don't!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dont mind @CommanderCool He's just a dick trying to bait people


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2022)

mikefor20 said:


> You are a antagonistic egotist. Why are you always in American politics threads? You are disrespectful bigoted troll



Mikefor20 is back.  Hi, Mikefor20.  I'm in American politics threads because America is the #1 issue affecting the world.  Thanks for your inquiry and welcoming presence.  Keep the caricature alive!


----------



## mikefor20 (Dec 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Mikefor20 is back.  Hi, Mikefor20.  I'm in American politics threads because America is the #1 issue affecting the world.  Thanks for your inquiry and welcoming presence.  Keep the caricature alive!



Remember Comrade, you are nothing.  Your presence does nothing except prove that Darwin is dead and Idiocracy is in full effect. You are mook fool.

You're in this board because political discussions garner huge emotional responses. Perfect for your TINY troll...mind.


sombrerosonic said:


> Dont mind @CommanderCool He's just a dick trying to bait people



These people amaze me. Nothing  vested. No real thought. Regurgitation of some idea they know nothing of.  Telling people how to live while they themselves are the biggest issue.



tabzer said:


> Mikefor20 is back.  Hi, Mikefor20.  I'm in American politics threads because America is the #1 issue affecting the world.  Thanks for your inquiry and welcoming presence.  Keep the caricature alive!



Troll extraordinaire!  You deserve a medal for keeping it real. Real dumb.


----------



## sombrerosonic (Dec 5, 2022)

mikefor20 said:


> These people amaze me. Nothing vested. No real thought. Regurgitation of some idea they know nothing of. Telling people how to live while they themselves are the biggest issue.


I cant tell if your insulting me..... Even thought i told you to just ignore him and move on. He's a 12 year old who found a way to get on GBAtemp


----------



## mikefor20 (Dec 5, 2022)

sombrerosonic said:


> I cant tell if your insulting me..... Even thought i told you to just ignore him and move on. He's a 12 year old who found a way to get on GBAtemp



Not insulting you. The trolls.  And for the record , you don't TELL me to do anything. I DGAF what you want me to do.

Also the American way.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 5, 2022)

mikefor20 said:


> whining about bigotry then claiming anyone who speaks english as a second language is somehow inferior and not allowed into the public discourse


neat.


----------



## mikefor20 (Dec 5, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> neat.



What a maroon. Let me get this straight, I don't care about race. Color doesn't dictate much. Sexual orientation either. Who cares? However, I can't stand some cultures. Too many morons in one place causing issues. There are plenty of great  people of every color. But as a general rule,  most cultures suck. Including Americans. But since you suck soooo much America is still #1!

And being ESL doesn't make people inferior. It DOES increase the chance of misunderstandings. My earlier comment was acknowledging that. Giving the benefit of the doubt. Not claiming superiority. Or at least giving them an out to claim the stupid shit they said was a mistranslation.

And the global opinion is moot. Everyone bitches about America. What's it to you? Too much of people bitching about things that don't concern them.

80 year old Men making laws about young uteruses (uteri?)

People complaing that they need representation in every facet of media although they don't even represent 5% of the population. 

People who don't vote complaining about the system.

And people from other countries bitching about the mess in America instead of fixing their own mess.

All crap. All the same "I exist, be like me" crap.

Trolls can all suck it.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2022)

mikefor20 said:


> You are an antagonistic egotist. Why are you always in American politics threads? You are disrespectful bigoted troll. I feel like i can speak for all Americans when I say that I am proud you are not one of us. Go back to your communist manifesto and leave the thinking individuals to discuss real issues.





mikefor20 said:


> Remember Comrade, you are nothing. Your presence does nothing except prove that Darwin is dead and Idiocracy is in full effect. You are mook fool.
> 
> You're in this board because political discussions garner huge emotional responses. Perfect for your TINY troll...mind.





mikefor20 said:


> Troll extraordinaire! You deserve a medal for keeping it real. Real dumb.



He says I'm nothing, but the volumes of endearment he offers are almost too much for this little heart of mine to take!

Remember folks, if you aren't mikefor20, you are a bigot.


----------



## mikefor20 (Dec 5, 2022)

Communist troll. You obviously don't fully grasp the conversation.  Seems your mind and junk have alot in common.



And I know you. You're a huge bigot. I may be an asshole but I'd rather be an asshole than a bigot any day.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2022)

mikefor20 said:


> Communist troll. You obviously don't fully grasp the conversation.  Seems your mind and junk have alot in common.
> 
> 
> 
> And I know you. You're a huge bigot. I may be an asshole but I'd rather be an asshole than a bigot any day.



What have I said that makes you think I'm a communist, Mikefor20?  Are you in the doghouse again?  Tell the missus I said,"hi."


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 5, 2022)

mikefor20 said:


> white exceptionalism


----------



## mikefor20 (Dec 5, 2022)

So cool how you alter people's quotes! Another Rebublican/Nazi move. Not even Tabzer does that! Are you calling me out for being white? Oh no! I the big bad white american guy. The Man!! Sound the alarms! I totally agree I am exceptional (lol). 

You're still not qualified for actual thought considering your intrarectalcrainialitis. Your opinion doesn't matter.

On that note, I'm out before I get a ban hammer. You trolls are never louder than when you cry to Admin. Please stop speaking. Your ignorance breeds more ignorance.  And please,dont reproduce.


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2022)

mikefor20 said:


> Not even Tabzer does that!


I have done so and for similar reasons:

Paraphrasing off-hinged rants and mocking ridiculous takes.  Though I don't believe I have done so to misrepresent or deceive people, it is against the rules.

So technically, I don't do that in the active sense, but personally don't see the damage as long as the message and the origins are clear.

Your gatekeeping of the conversation based on your list of qualifiers is exactly bigotry.  I know you know.  I'm saying it out loud for the people who don't understand or appreciate your self-depreciating sense of irony.


----------



## mikefor20 (Dec 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> Blah blah blah  I support racisim,homophobia, catholicism and capitalism!  Yada yada yada.



My mistake. You, in fact, do alter facts and quotes to fit your rhetoric!  No surprise. Or was it fake news? Should just alter and burn everything,right comrade.? Are you claiming my refusal to take your moronic babble as bigotry? Lol I'm bigoted tward bigots!

You're one of the "what about pedophile's rights?" guys aren't you.  I guess stupid people need representation too.


You should go to Texas.

No more flame bait.  Enjoy your thinly veiled hate speech circle jerk.

Im out


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2022)

mikefor20 said:


> You, in fact, do alter facts and quotes to fit your rhetoric!



Thanks for providing another example of how to misrepresent people by using this example.  People need exercises like this to increase literacy.  It's a bit of a pandemic.  Of course, we know that there is a difference between altering material facts and utilization of caricature (rhetoric) to demonstrate points.  People who scan a prose for buzz words and potential personal attacks miss the nuance of things like information or perspective.



mikefor20 said:


> Are you claiming my refusal to take your moronic babble as bigotry?



Don't be silly.  Who would claim that?



mikefor20 said:


> You're one of the "what about pedophile's rights?" guys aren't you.



No.  What gave you that impression?  I don't advocate special protections for pedophiles.

I'm still waiting to hear why you think I am a communist.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 5, 2022)

tabzer said:


> I'm still waiting to hear why you think I am a communist.


Comrade, did you not tell him about the secret order?


----------



## tabzer (Dec 5, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> Comrade, did you not tell him about the secret order?


I think he just misinterpreted something I said, like that everyone should have access to fresh air.  I don't know what his mom tells him.

She's a loose end.

I jest.  Can't help it.  Bless his mom.


----------



## lolcatzuru (Dec 5, 2022)

mikefor20 said:


> And full of self absorbed foreign turds who think their opinions matter.  You don't!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



im not sure i understand? how does stupid and bigoted correlate to american?


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 5, 2022)

CommanderCool said:


> Comrade, did you not tell him about the secret order?


Order 66?


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 6, 2022)

KingVamp said:


> Order 66?


nah.

ORDER 69 LMFAO


----------



## Mythrandir (Dec 6, 2022)

Is it accurate to describe the bill as the Respect for Marriage Act when it undefines marriage? It doesn't stipulate age, species, nor consent. It merely mentions the broad term, "individual." If this bill was truly necessary, then can each state be trusted to preserve such clauses? Should every state be compelled to recognize another state's marriage even including ridiculous examples such as the following?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle...so-it-cant-be-evicted-by-landlords/ar-AAWzOQY

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/woman-married-rag-doll-claims-142812225.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/28/health/rise-of-digisexuals-intl/index.html

Below is the text with the broad language as well as a link to the full text of the bill:


> *“§ 7. Marriage*
> 
> “(a) _For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is between 2 individuals and is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is between 2 individuals and is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State._
> 
> ...



Full text: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text

I do recognize that our culture celebrates polyamory (a euphemism for whoring one's self out to whomever one capriciously fancies without regard for consequence; inherent selfishness derived from enslavement to sensual pleasure), hence the anti-marriage sentiment expressed by some in this very thread. If this is the prevailing popular sentiment in our culture, if the contemporary cultural trend is insistent upon affirming the outrageous, and if marriage divorces, broken families, child custody battles, and complicated mixed family dynamics are indeed common, then I fail to see how this bill achieves its title. It seems to be ineffectual in addressing such issues caused by the disrespect for marriage. It even serves to further affirm the current dysfunction. I think it would be better that this bill was not drafted, even with the lip service payed toward those raising concerns regarding religious conscience added in by the Senate's amendment to the bill.


----------



## mrmagicm (Dec 7, 2022)

Marriage will always be a women and a man, original definition from it's original state from prehistoric age, all the rest is rubbish....Nero Tried and made everyone laugh around him, he even told people around him he had wed his pet. Whatever they say, they can call something else union or whatever. A cat will always be a cat, not a dog, it's only logic state.....Whatever a law from unreasonable people try to change that, anyway almost no more people cares now, so why not make people happy? Make happy the north americans where it comes from, they want to rule the world, but they are weak at world soccer.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 8, 2022)

It has now passed the House.


----------



## Mythrandir (Dec 8, 2022)

KingVamp said:


> It has now passed the House.


It passed the House on 07/19/2022. It passed the Senate on 11/29/2022 and is pending the President's signature before it becomes law. Please see the link below:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text

There is a neat box toward the top of the page that very conveniently includes a legislative progress tracker. You can also click/tap on the "Actions" tab to view legislative action regarding the bill. This is where a person can view the actions taken by both congressional bodies.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 8, 2022)

Mythrandir said:


> It passed the House on 07/19/2022. It passed the Senate on 11/29/2022 and is pending the President's signature before it becomes law. Please see the link below:
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text
> 
> There is a neat box toward the top of the page that very conveniently includes a legislative progress tracker. You can also click/tap on the "Actions" tab to view legislative action regarding the bill. This is where a person can view the actions taken by both congressional bodies.


It had to go through the House again.


----------



## Nothereed (Dec 8, 2022)

Mythrandir said:


> It passed the House on 07/19/2022. It passed the Senate on 11/29/2022 and is pending the President's signature before it becomes law. Please see the link below:
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text
> 
> There is a neat box toward the top of the page that very conveniently includes a legislative progress tracker. You can also click/tap on the "Actions" tab to view legislative action regarding the bill. This is where a person can view the actions taken by both congressional bodies.


They made changes when it reached the senate, so it had to go back through the house for additional approval. Both bodies have to agree on the same bill.


----------



## Mythrandir (Dec 8, 2022)

KingVamp said:


> It had to go through the House again.





Nothereed said:


> They made changes when it reached the senate, so it had to go back through the house for additional approval. Both bodies have to agree on the same bill.


Ah, you're both right. I apologize. I forgot about the bill bouncing back to the House if the Senate amends it.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 13, 2022)

Looks like he going to sign it today.


----------



## mammastuffing (Dec 13, 2022)

Those republicans sure do know how to be terrible people.


----------



## Jayro (Dec 13, 2022)

mrmagicm said:


> Marriage will always be a women and a man


You apparently like to keep your head in the sand, and that's fine. The world will continue to change and evolve without you. Nothing stays the same forever, and I wish more people would realize that. Letting any two people in love get married is called progress. People like you that keep thinking that old barbaric way will always be seen as an enemy of the rest of us, because we just want everyone to have the same basic human rights.

Don't like gay marriage? Then don't get one. But don't dictate the lives of others based on _your _personal beliefs.


----------



## JaapDaniels (Dec 13, 2022)

Jayro said:


> You apparently like to keep your head in the sand, and that's fine. The world will continue to change and evolve without you. Nothing stays the same forever, and I wish more people would realize that. Letting any two people in love get married is called progress. People like you that keep thinking that old barbaric way will always be seen as an enemy of the rest of us, because we just want everyone to have the same basic human rights.
> 
> Don't like gay marriage? Then don't get one. But don't dictate the lives of others based on _your _personal beliefs.


Religious base for love only being for a man and womon has already taken a friend of me, for he couldn't choose between religion and love he took his own live.
The only real thing showed in such religions is god can't understand love..
For those not accepting another human as he or she is, it sickens me.


----------



## Jayro (Dec 13, 2022)

JaapDaniels said:


> Religious base for love only being for a man and womon has already taken a friend of me, for he couldn't choose between religion and love he took his own live.
> The only real thing showed in such religions is god can't understand love..
> For those not accepting another human as he or she is, it sickens me.


That's really sad to hear man, I'm so sorry.


----------



## sombrerosonic (Dec 13, 2022)

Jayro said:


> That's really sad to hear man, I'm so sorry.


Im wondering why you aren't calling him the usual "Rightwing fuckhead"


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 13, 2022)

About to sign.
​

	Post automatically merged: Dec 13, 2022

It is now law.


----------



## Jayro (Dec 14, 2022)

sombrerosonic said:


> Im wondering why you aren't calling him the usual "Rightwing fuckhead"


I've also lost a friend to suicide. So I can empathize.


----------



## sombrerosonic (Dec 14, 2022)

Jayro said:


> I've also lost a friend to suicide. So I can empathize.


Same here...... oh well, we can all cope with loss


----------



## mrmagicm (Dec 14, 2022)

> Jayro Don't like gay marriage? Then don't get one. But don't dictate the lives of others based on _your _personal beliefs.​


I don't accept the word change....If the world changes and accepts the word marriage for a human and a dog like the evolution you "like", the world cannot change by calling a dog a cat, call it something else, that's so easy to do! Don't force people call something for another, that is true respect!


----------



## Jayro (Dec 14, 2022)

mrmagicm said:


> I don't accept the word change....If the world changes and accepts the word marriage for a human and a dog like the evolution you "like", the world cannot change by calling a dog a cat, call it something else, that's so easy to do! Don't force people call something for another, that is true respect!


So you're just hung up on semantics, got it. Opening up "marriage" to include everyone is a _good thing_. But calling it something different when it isn't different... that's just needless. Two people in love getting married is marriage, no matter how you look at it. YOU are still free to think it's between a man and a woman, and that's fine. But keep that antiquated 1950's thinking out of other people's lives, because we're tired of hearing the same useless rhetoric from simple-minded people.


----------



## Shajk00 (Dec 14, 2022)

EldritchPenumbra said:


> Most Republican Americans are already OK with it, just like they have became used to the Federal Reserve, Mandated Schooling with included Corporate Curriculum, just as they surrendered their privacy, just as they accepted the birth certificate and social security card, and well just allowed the government and expand into their personal lives with no limits.
> In the old days if you wanted to be gay, you just had to go to a bedroom, just like straight people. If you wanted to get married, you just had to find a pastor to marry you. The thing is though that gay marriage wasn't a talking point back in the day when life wasn't so automated and easy. When a civilization becomes wealthy and comfortable, the people start to focus on the trivial rather than the practical. And often times they empower the government to force others to accept what they are not content keeping to them selves. It's all pretty gay if you ask me. Besides the Supreme Court already mandated gay "marriage" years ago. I'm not sure what all this is for?
> Speaking of which, ever notice how there are hate crimes for offending people with tan or darker skin, and for offending homosexuals, but not the religious? Crazy hugh?


That's simply not true. Hate crimes of any kind are considered by the law, religious as well. You say that in the past gay people only had to find a pastor to marry, wtf, in the past and I'm talking only 50-60 years ago gay people were prosecuted and executed for being who they were, not only they couldn't marry, they couldn't express in any form their sexuality both publicly and privately (this one maybe constantly hiding which converts it more in a clandestine activity rather than private). Is it that crazy that religious, and I'm referring mostly to catholics or christians in general, that live under the privilege of being a majority in occidental society, don't feel the need of saying out loud that their right to be who they are must be protected? Maybe they don't feel this need because there is no need. Now think about islam and muslims in general living in occidental society, they are religious right? Would you still say they must be protected in their right of professing their religion or you would't give a f? By the way you think it would be the second I suppose.


----------



## mrmagicm (Dec 14, 2022)

> Jayro "So you're just hung up on semantics, got it"​


It's not thinking about the 1950, it's thinking about the world....
And we're tired of hearing your same useless trying to change laws to change the world from simple-minded people as the world isn't "theirs", "yours" or "mine". When you think making a good change, you create a disturbance without knowing, juste like a programmer thinking to improve a program but making a secondary problem on a Os system. In order not to make a disturbance, you must listen and understand semantics, like a programmer in an os because else it won't work "properly".
Anyway beware, it's just in your country, if you go to some other country thinking your law is standardized (because it's not) , you'll get jailed or worst. If you say the world "marriage" talking about a gays relation in some countries (around half of the world), you might get punched it the face or people will laugh and stare at you, and won't understand why, and that's the reason why it makes you so stupid, so it was just to help you


----------



## Jayro (Dec 14, 2022)

mrmagicm said:


> It's not thinking about the 1950, it's thinking about the world....
> And we're tired of hearing your same useless trying to change laws to change the world from simple-minded people as the world isn't "theirs", "yours" or "mine". When you think making a good change, you create a disturbance without knowing, juste like a programmer thinking to improve a program but making a secondary problem on a Os system. In order not to make a disturbance, you must listen and understand semantics, like a programmer in an os because else it won't work "properly".
> Anyway beware, it's just in your country, if you go to some other country thinking your law is standardized (because it's not) , you'll get jailed or worst. If you say the world marriage talking about a gays relation in some countries (around half of the world), you might get punched it the face, and won't understand why, and that's the reason why it makes you so stupid, so it was just to help you


Find me the 'disturbance' where someone getting married hurts you. I'll wait. Any country worth-a-damn to live in, supports it. And the countries that don't support it aren't worthy of my time.


----------



## mrmagicm (Dec 14, 2022)

> Find me the 'disturbance' where someone getting married hurts you. I'll wait. Any country worth-a-damn to live in, supports it. And the countries that don't support it aren't worthy of my time.


Indeed, stay in "your" world 
You cannot go to Singapore, Skri lanka, Tunisia or Morocco,China, Qatar where many  tourists go.... (Even if in Qatar if at the moment they are more tolerant because of the world cup of the sport you don't follow but that is important for 95% of other countries). So funny...North americans, because of this, you look arrogant, you claim the cause of a small percentage of a group that represents max 6 Millions, but don't respect the semantic of half of the world


----------



## Mythrandir (Dec 14, 2022)

Jayro said:


> So you're just hung up on semantics, got it. Opening up "marriage" to include everyone is a _good thing_. But calling it something different when it isn't different... that's just needless. Two people in love getting married is marriage, no matter how you look at it. YOU are still free to think it's between a man and a woman, and that's fine. But keep that antiquated 1950's thinking out of other people's lives, because we're tired of hearing the same useless rhetoric from simple-minded people.


Semantics is not trivial. I would argue that semantics is the very root of every disagreement. This is why I am very much opposed to this law. The term individual used in the final draft is a very broad term that does not specify age, consent, nor species. I argue that if states could not be trusted to recognize the legal contract of exclusive intimate partnership between two consenting adult human beings, regardless of sex, then they also oughtn't be trusted to preserve a definition for the term "individual" that would not allow for the mockery of the legal marriage contract. My point, however, is likely already rendered moot due to the relatively common practice of divorce, which nullifies the legal marriage contract. This then weakens the commitment of marriage to a mere gesture of capricious fancy, rendering it no different than any extramarital affair. Overall, this law only achieves affirmation of the cultural habit and practice of disrespecting marriage rather than affirming respect for marriage, contrary to the law's title.

The sentiment in favor of absolute definitions and meaning is much older than 1950's era thinking. In fact, the sentiment opposed to absolute definitions and meaning, including opposition toward epistemological certainty, also known as postmodernism, began gaining traction during the 1950's. Also, you're committing what is called chronological snobbery by implying that contemporary thought is inherently better than past thought by virtue of whether such thought agrees with current cultural, social, and political trends. This is a very poor objective measure to evaluate the correctness of any idea or concept as it is susceptible to the fluidity of popular trends.


----------



## JaapDaniels (Dec 14, 2022)

Marriage in history was not meant to be about love but as legal a contract.
person 1 legally stated to provides in funding and other needs till death do one of both part in exchange for the exclusive right of DNA donor to person 2.
But since the marriage.
Since no one is using marriage that way today, why the fuck is this discussion going about changing the meaning of this word?
the meaning of this word isn't a mere contract to exclusive rights, nor is it a lifetime gaurantee to money if the excusive rights are valid.
We use it today to set a mark, to state to the rest of the world we love each other! we use it today for our love that we see a future and can't beleve it ever stops.
It's a promise, not a contract.
and yes it still costs money to part before life ends one, but the payment is far below the original idea (for one should not suffer the rest of it's life for one small failure he could't foresee).
maybe if you preserved it in about 4000BC i'd beleve it was for preservation of the meaning of the word, but preserving it now doesn't make sence for it isn't a word that has a solid history.
The only reason to preserve this word now is because you are afraid, possibly because you don't know if you would've said yes to the other gender if you had the rights to say yes to one of your own gender.


----------



## Jayro (Dec 15, 2022)

People don't believe things can change over time, and that's just sad.


----------



## sombrerosonic (Dec 15, 2022)

Jayro said:


> People don't believe things can change over time, and that's just sad.


Last time someone said that to me in 5th grade he went to jail for weed


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 19, 2022)

mrmagicm said:


> Marriage will always be a women and a man, original definition from it's original state from prehistoric age, all the rest is rubbish....Nero Tried and made everyone laugh around him, he even told people around him he had wed his pet. Whatever they say, they can call something else union or whatever. A cat will always be a cat, not a dog, it's only logic state.....Whatever a law from unreasonable people try to change that, anyway almost no more people cares now, so why not make people happy? Make happy the north americans where it comes from, they want to rule the world, but they are weak at world soccer.


Same-sex marriage long predates the current issues. Equally, marriage has gone through countless changes over the course of human history. Marriage has been political, when those marrying are more of a figure head for their kingdoms. Marriage has been used a bartering tool. Marriage has been a means of keeping slaves. Marriage has been a means of keeping a family lineage, including brothers marrying their bother’s widow(s.) Same-sex marriage has a long history, including Native Americans that used to recognize same-sex marriages long before settlers arrived. Some religious organizations used to preform “unofficial” marriages that were recognized by their religion but not by the states. There’s also the massive list of different marriages in the Bible and other religious texts. Marriage has never just been 1 man and 1 woman, that’s just the most common persecution in recent history. That being said, your opinion on the matter doesn’t change the fact that same-sex marriages are going to happen and going to keep getting recognized.


----------



## Mythrandir (Dec 20, 2022)

The Catboy said:


> There’s also the massive list of different marriages in the Bible


I think it would be studious to qualify the context of each form mentioned in the Bible. One may easily infer that you mean that Scripture affirms rather than condemns acts such as αρσενοκοίτης which is a compound found in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1Tim. 1:10 formed from ἄρσενος κοίτην found in Lev. 20:13 of the Septuagint.


----------



## mrmagicm (Dec 22, 2022)

> Catboy: That being said, your opinion on the matter doesn’t change the fact that same-sex marriages are going to happen and going to keep getting recognized.


Same thing to you: Didn't say the unions would not happen, said the word for this would never be recognized. Been recognized in your country and the world, again, is not the same. I'm in reality, your opinion on the matter doesn’t change the fact that same-sex marriages are never going to be recognized for real by more than half of humanity, it will be only in your mind, that's the problem, without even counting those in your country that makes you think they think like you, just making you realize like it was gravity.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 23, 2022)

mrmagicm said:


> Same thing to you: Didn't say the unions would not happen, said the word for this would never be recognized. Been recognized in your country and the world, again, is not the same. I'm in reality, your opinion on the matter doesn’t change the fact that same-sex marriages are never going to be recognized for real by more than half of humanity, it will be only in your mind, that's the problem, without even counting those in your country that makes you think they think like you, just making you realize like it was gravity.


Homophobia is just another hate trend that will lose popularity over time. Just because some backwater countries want to cling to their bullshit, doesn’t mean it will always be respected. Sorry not sorry but same-sex marriage is here and only going to continue to become more respected as time goes on. Your shit will die with time.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 23, 2022)

mrmagicm said:


> I don't accept the word change....If the world changes and accepts the word marriage for a human and a dog like the evolution you "like", the world cannot change by calling a dog a cat, call it something else, that's so easy to do! Don't force people call something for another, that is true respect!



so you believe a fictional series of books rather than in people's right to congregate under a unity recognizing their love.

dude i hope nobody introduces you to harry potter.


----------



## mrmagicm (Dec 24, 2022)

> so you believe a fictional series of books


Sorry, I never said I believed in Harry Potter or in Superman...and their should be different words to decipher the "unities" you are talking about depending of the unities in question, as I just said, and a unity between a man/woman and a man/man or woman/woman are each not the same, just like a unity between a robot/man, animal/man are not the same so not the same word should be used.


----------



## Lumstar (Dec 24, 2022)

I take pride in strict, uncompromising atheism. I really couldn't give a **** how religions want to define words, or tell people who shouldn't love each other.


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 24, 2022)

mrmagicm said:


> Sorry, I never said I believed in Harry Potter or in Superman...and their should be different words to decipher the "unities" you are talking about depending of the unities in question, as I just said, and a unity between a man/woman and a man/man or woman/woman are each not the same, just like a unity between a robot/man, animal/man are not the same so not the same word should be used.


but you believe in a fictional series of books and wish to distinguish love because of those fictional series of books.  you differentiate the love of human to human because it doesn't befit a set of definitions as put together by a fictional series of books.  you even go as far to compare said loves in between human to human to human and animal, dehumanizing people in the process for their forms of love which do not befit your extremely fucked-up definitions interpreted by said fictional series of books.

as lumstar put it: who gives a fuck what your fiction has to say about other people's love?


----------



## mrmagicm (Dec 25, 2022)

Lumstar *I don't really care about religions, but unlike you, I respect the religion of all country, I care more about science, you can love a dog if you want, you wont be able to procreate naturally in a gay/lesbian and call it whatever you steal from others, it wont be the DNA of both...you can't help it....It's science, sorry, you can adopt but trully...It's just stealing someone else's kid like a cuckoo bird. The word "Wedding" involves possible true procreation.*​*CommanderCool *i've never talked about books of science fiction...As usual, it's in your head ^^
Be careful for a punch in your face from someone of another belief of your own your don't respect when you go in their country, luckily, the world don't belong to you, you cannot impose your vision thinking everyone "can do what they want" to the entire world and I can't either.
Ps: Begining to think that Americans deserve "the Day After Tomorrow" they are facing, being the biggest polluter of the world, same thing for laws....


----------



## CommanderCool (Dec 27, 2022)

mrmagicm said:


> Lumstar *I don't really care about religions, but unlike you, I respect the religion of all country, I care more about science, you can love a dog if you want, you wont be able to procreate naturally in a gay/lesbian and call it whatever you steal from others, it wont be the DNA of both...you can't help it....It's science, sorry, you can adopt but trully...It's just stealing someone else's kid like a cuckoo bird. The word "Wedding" involves possible true procreation.*​*CommanderCool *i've never talked about books of science fiction...As usual, it's in your head ^^
> Be careful for a punch in your face from someone of another belief of your own your don't respect when you go in their country, luckily, the world don't belong to you, you cannot impose your vision thinking everyone "can do what they want" to the entire world and I can't either.
> Ps: Begining to think that Americans deserve "the Day After Tomorrow" they are facing, being the biggest polluter of the world, same thing for laws....


so i have to be as bigoted as you to survive a punch to the face.  spoken by a true believer in the texts of fiction!  im saved!  i believe in santa claus, god, allah, the easter bunny, and trickle down capitalism!


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 30, 2022)

mrmagicm said:


> Lumstar *I don't really care about religions, but unlike you, I respect the religion of all country, I care more about science, you can love a dog if you want, you wont be able to procreate naturally in a gay/lesbian and call it whatever you steal from others, it wont be the DNA of both...you can't help it....It's science, sorry, you can adopt but trully...It's just stealing someone else's kid like a cuckoo bird. The word "Wedding" involves possible true procreation.*​


Your rant includes all infertile and straight people that can't or don't want to do "true procreation".  As for "DNA of both", in-vitro gametogenesis is already being researched.


----------



## mrmagicm (Dec 30, 2022)

KingVamp...."in-vitro gametogenesis is already being researched"...you can also create a Frankenstein or  a homonculus, this is those persons trying to destroy the world with Ogm biological humans, like labs creating Covids, no one wants this, those person creating other humans to cure them or satisfy them, like on "the island", those people wanting to do that deserve death....They just don't have the right to go against nature, they bring shit to the world ​


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 31, 2022)

mrmagicm said:


> They just don't have the rights to go against nature, they bring shit to the world [/HEADING]


You typing this, is going against nature. The internet doesn't happen naturally. Do you not take any medicine? Are you going to deny surgery? What's exactly do you mean by "going against nature"?


----------

