SURPRISE

We don't really give anyone rights unless they go through their own civil rights cases. We don't do anything logical without the American super-system backing it up, otherwise we'd be fucking Commies!

>>2671511
If you aren't white, heterosexual, and male, you're really SOL when it comes to civil rights

The map is wrong on some counts; NH has civil unions with the same rights that married couples have.

I think the map may be out of date. Also, that legend sucks major cock, change it.

>>2671537
Legend?
What legend?

>>2671531
Wow, way to hyperbole.

Because no one wants you faggots shitting up our marriage rights

Now Europe is MUCH more friendlier about this.

>>2671544
Sorry I think I meant the map key (you know, what all the colors stand for).

I'm pretty tired at the moment, so my apologies for my lack of coherence.

>>2671560
Well, yes, actually.

Most of the red states are shitholes where no one lives anyway.

wut are u fucking dense as dog shit or sumthing?

Murka still hates fags and niggers. suprise surprise

come on now.....

>>2671574
...right.
Okay.
Uhm.
....
I'm not sure what you're saying so I'm just going to wish you a good day c:

>The Netherlands was the first modern nation to legalize same-sex marriage in 2001. Same-sex marriages are also legal in Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway and Nepal.

best countries in the world.
<3

>>2671619
A MAP LEGEND IS THE LIST OF DEFINITIONS THAT TELLS YOU WHAT THE COLOURS AND SYMBOLS THEREIN DENOTE

LEARN TO ENGLISH YOU FUCKING FEMALE

>>2671632
>Spain
>South Africa
>Nepal
>best countries

>>2671674
Spain ain't bad.

>>2671674
>:C
THEY'RE GOOD IF THEY ALLOW GAY MARRIAGES

somebody tell me the point of marriage , i dont get for what its is good for ?

Well, you see OP, it's obviously fine to deny gays the right to marriage as long as they have access to civil unions, which are functionally the same but make it so good, churchgoing people don't have to have their morals called into question via interaction with these hedonist homosexuals. Can't understand why gays would be so upset, I mean civil unions are just a way to keep them separate, but equal....

...sigh

If you didn't listen to him when he was campaigning, Obama said he DOES NOT SUPPORT SAME SEX MARRIAGES.

I don't know what all you fags/fag sympathizers are on about. Even the most liberal guy ever to run for president doesn't want fags to get married.

I oppose gay marriage because I love seeing fags and liberals cry. YOUR TEARS ONLY MAKE MY DICK HARDER!!!!

>>2671848

Obama is a hypocrite. I don't think he gives a flying fuck whether gays get married or not, he just had to go the safe route and say "yay civil unions, nay gay marriage" to ensure maximum vote haulage.

>>2671830

Yeah gay people are separate but equal but o wait they have to file separate taxes and they're not guaranteed hospital visits and they can't pass on estates to each other.

Yup definitely equal.

>>2671893
that can be fixed with something like a union or whatever with another name. why the name? why the rite?

>>2671881

You'd be crying to if there was a national discrimination against douchebags.

Unfortunately the US embraces them.

>>2671848
I'm not America.
So not like I had a say anyway.

Relax guys! Everything is going to sort itself out in the next decade. Gay marriage bans are slowly going the way of Segregation. As soon as the baby boomers die out, you're golden. Just hang in there! <3

Sincerely,

your friend Canada

>>2671791
Marriage gives many benefits including tax deductions and hospital visits.

For example: A married straight couple can see their SO if they're dying in hospital. As gay couples can't marry they don't have to right to visit... so they aren't allowed.

>>2671914

because it's still segregation dumbass

and "we're gonna be butt buddies" doesn't sound as nice on invitations.

It's funny because I'm a pretty hardcore republifag and I strongly support gay marriage. Don't see how it hurts anyone and I see it as the same as any other discrimination the US has ever committed and then later rectified.

Politicians don't do shit because they know they'll lose shitloads of votes from all the religious groups and just regular fag haters. That being said, you can't force churches to accept them so I'm not sure where'd they be getting married.

>>2671560

CZ has had same sex marriages for 2 years now

>>2671927

The baby boomers might be gone but they've already planted the seeds of hate into the next generation.

>>2671848
>the most liberal guy ever to run for president
He's still a conservative. You read the guy's books? Shit's less radical than some of our most avowed Christian social conservatives (eurofag). Y'all be fucked in the head, yo.

New Mexico looks a little lonely out there.

>>2671959
i'm not reading that garbage. but yes, i know he's a Muslim fundamentalist.

Canada would be all purple, fyi.

I'm gay and I don't support gay marriage.

Equal rights yes. Marriage no.

Think about what it would mean. Polygamy would need to be next. Then incestuous unions, etc... Moreover it would open the door for religous persecution by the courts etc...

The whole idea of marriage (a primarily religious notion) needs to be removed, and something else needs to take its place that addresses the myriad of civil rights issues surrounding partners of various sorts.

For instance, if my partner is in the hospital I should have the same rights as a person in a marriage right? What if it was my best and only friend? Should that be treated differently?

Think deeply about this issue and the truth announces itself. State sanctioned marriage is not a seperation of church and state. That's what is wrong and needs to be changed. Trying to alter the definition of marriage to make it open to many new types of relationships is inefficient, insulting to many religious folks, and is just backward silly. Marriage is the problem, not the solution.

cuz u a faget

mootbloxlolz

I can't believe nobody posted this map yet. I mean, they're practically the same map.

>>2672011
So?
So what if stuff like that is allowed?
OH GOD WE CAN'T LET PEOPLE BE HAPPY WITH EACH OTHERS THAT'S TOTALLY WRONG

>>2672006
>>2671927

Fuck yah civil rights!

>>2672011
So basically... Marriage should be replaced with something that isn't related to religion?

FFS ! what is marriage good for anywas ? can somebody tell me ?

i dont get why people fight over stuff like this (exept the fact that some people are afraid of changes) .

>>2672052 see >>2671929
READING THE THREAD WOULDN'T KILL YOU
(NEITHER WOULD GOOGLING IT)

>>2672038

There are all sorts of legal rights atached to marage like hospital visitation, next of kin laws, property rights (as in who gets what when your spouse dies), tax breaks, etc. etc.

>>2672061
>>2672068
ok , this is COMPLETE BULLSHIT . i dont get what this shit is still good for or what it was good for in the first place .

but still thnx for the info .

>>2672023
Nevada went democrat though

as did Indiana

lol chart

I mean at one point it was a lifelong union. Now the majority of marriages do not last, and this is a growing trend. The entire notion is antiquated, and the laws surrounding marriage and divorce are antiquated, and why try to keep patching a sinking ship.

Beyond the growing divorce rate, many people are just deciding not to marry anymore. Something needs to change and expanding marriage is not the answer.

I do think that the issue for gays is not so simple though. By gaining the right to gay marriage, they have earned not just social acceptance and approval, but have actually been rewarded by the state. It's a big deal to them for these reasons. It means that the years of social baggage about being perverts and degenerates is finally officially wiped away. I think of it in similar terms as reperations for blacks. It's an official mea culpa. An admission that society was indeed wrong. It makes a lot of sense that gays, an historically persecuted group, would want, even need this.

At the same time however, I don't think our legislative decisions should be guided solely by what feels good to some people.

>>2672107
> keep patching a sinking ship

It's like sticking your finger in the dyke.

>>2671848
>Obama
>Liberal in the American sense

TEE HEE

He'd be considered right of centre in almost every other western country

america's politics are so skewed to the right its painful

>>2672130

Which would be fine IMO if the far right wasn't such war mongering, social conservitive whackjobs.

>>2672175
I can see where fiscal conservatives come from. I'm a sociaist, personally, so I obviously don't agree. But, there is absolutely no justification for social conservatism anymore. Not a single gram.

>>2672188
I love how you state personal opinions as facts.

>>2672255
give me some reasons social consevatism is justified

why shouldn't everybody be guarenteed the same rights

>>2672011
I don't disagree you, and in fact I believe you make the correct point, but I often feel as if

1) Changing the state support of marriage isn't even on the table/is too ingrained in our society to be altered
2) For god's sake (pun? maybe?), someone needs to finally stand up to churches and make them do the morally righteous thing by accepting homosexuals, despite what one line says in the one book of the Bible that no one takes seriously anyways.

I think social change within the Church is just the faster route, as well as the more righteous one. Already many Protestant denominations are taking steps in the right direction. It's absolutely retarded that in the 21st century we let outright homophobia color so much of our public discourse, and then actually change our nation's policy to cater to bigots.

>>2672271

Change within the church is great. It should not be in any way related to public policy though.

If some churches, say episcopalian, want to allow gays to be ministers, I think that's awesome. It won't make me religious, but the more diversity of the religious product there is, the better it is for consumers.

It also helps break up the larger monolithic sects, which ideally means less power for any single diocese, and therefore for the general public more freedom from the control of religious institutions. For most thinking people this is a good thing.

But, as I said, don't make it the work of the state to break up or change these institutions. One of the defining characteristics of the American Ethos is tolerance to religious belief. Hell many of the original immigrants, the pilgrams, came here for that very reason.

If we want to pursue a religion neutral government then we need to get rid of the whole concept of marriage and replace it with something not inextricably tied to historically religious concepts.

Perhaps taking the in god we trust off our currency, making it illegal to force people to swear on the bible in court, getting rid of one nation under god in the pledge should be the focus. The focus should not be put on trying to change that contruct called marriage into something new and counter to the beliefs of the institutions which have historically propped it up.

>>2672011

Nice try heterofag.