I don't think it's that big of a dissonance in my opinion. You can have both the opinion that homosexual couples should have the same protection and perks that straight couples do but still think that the concept of marriage and how it's implemented in our society is stupid.

i think that most of the motivation for gay marriage is truly about equality, not with how your partnership is viewed but the real benefits. why is it that since i love a woman i get tax cuts, and why is she immune from testifying against me? and what reason on earth would these specific protections not be given to same sex couples, since they're already unfair to single people. the simple fact that i pay less taxes for the same income earned as a single person is silly, and the idea that there's a person who can't testify against me is equally silly. we've put a value on love, and it's unconstitutional. marriage benefits should be eliminated entirely, but as a married man im cool if they're not.

I agree, and there is clearly a way to solve this issue. Make legal partnerships possible, between any sort of couple, straight or gay.

Marriage is a largley religious term that has been adopted for a more wide application because most of the population was religious for a very long time.

This post was edited by ChrisKz on Nov 27 2018 05:08pm

while i agree that religion is used far too often to justify marriage, marriage itself predates religion as far as we can tell. early humans were still very likely monogamous. and love, which is largely a result of shared safety and convenience mixed with endorphins released during orgasms, has always been a protected thing for humans. jealousy on an instinct level is a good indicator of this, look to apes that have polygamous societies and jealousy isn't really a thing. even in societies of humans that have branched into polygamy, especially matrilinneal ones, and you'll see no jealousy. religion imo co-opted marriage as it's own, as they did with many concepts. the abrahamic religions didnt invent respecting one's parents, parent's discipline over millions of years did.

And yet it's an important part considering radfems don't want idiots as partners and butch lesbians don't want men at all.

Another example of avoiding the male gaze with clothes can be seen with some women who have been raped. Gaining weight, wearing sweaters and other baggy clothes, foregoing makeup. Sometimes it's subconcious due to depression affected eating habits and grooming skills, but other times it is a concious strategy to deter men from being interested.

oh 100% important to consider for sure. just as a male gazer i didn't think of it.

It's okay bruh, you can't know what you don't know and all. Understanding others without experience is kinda hard for anyone. It's why twitter empathy is nonexistent.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1067623816921272325
trump is... unironically shitposting
Not just trolling or being snide or his usual abrasive self, he's gone full blown retard shitposter for the lel factor

This post was edited by Goomshill on Nov 27 2018 09:45pm

An analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis found that 84 farm operations in the upper Midwest filed for Chapter 12 bankruptcy from June 2017 to June 2018.

Why it matters: The number of bankruptcies filed by these farm operations is double the total from 2014 and even surpassed the mark hit in 2010 at the peak of the Great Recession. Current price levels and trends suggest the number will continue to rise, according to the report.

Show less
Details: The report examines filings from North Dakota, South Dakota, Minneapolis, Montana and Wisconsin.

Most of the farm bankruptcies were filed in Wisconsin at 50 total. Minnesota had 20 and South Dakota had 12. Both Montana and North Dakota each had one bankruptcy.

Act like a fool to own the libs.