Any Dudes Wanna Get Married?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
583

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Personally I would be okay with any arrangement of couples, triples or quadruples and call that marriage and be smugly amused.[/quote]

Yeah, and I’m okay with any sort of combination of people. Large groups of say more than 100 not so sure as it would look more like a militia and a little less like a marriage. Um, and people with animals (if they own them out right). And people with inanimate objects like say garden equipment, household appliances and things of that nature. Incestual couples? Sure why not? Why don’t those people have a shot at romance sanctioned by the state? Come on let’s not be “incestuphobic”.

We now live in bizzaro land and two homosexuals can call themselves “married” in a few states. So I’m sure the other stuff won’t be many years behind. It’s now just a matter of those groups organizing and calling anyone who disagrees with them names (polygphobic, bestaphobic, incestuphobic, you get the idea. The model has already been created by homosexuals). You can say what you want about homosexuals but they really know how to silence their critics with this nonsense. And of course if the other perverse groups get Hollywood behind them, well that will certainly help their cause.[/quote]

:slight_smile: Well, Zeb, I have actually more faith in the human being than you seem to have. I wouldn’t be surprised if traditional marriage with traditional family values would have an upswing because of all this. But a gay military company as my former countryman Tom of Finland, rest in peace, would depict them, that I simply would love to see :). Not because it arouses me sexually, mind you. The majority of people are what thay are and wont change being heterosexuals. Taking family business seriously, that’s what seems to be the problem.

E: It really blows my mind how people can differentiate themselves from their own flesh and blood.

584

[quote]ZEB wrote:<<< incestuphobic, >>>[/quote]Here’s a thought. What if 2 (or 3 for that matter) BROTHERS or SISTERS want to marry each other. OHHHHH Lord God almighty!!! Now we have GAY siblings demanding cover by these fabulous new “marriage” laws. What in the name of all that’s tolerant, fair, progressive hip n groovy do we do with that now?!?!?!?!?

585

I would be against incest marriages because of the potential for an increase in retarded children.

I just looked up incest laws in Canada, and you can get 14 years for shagging your siblings. Surprised to see such a steep penalty.

586

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:<<< incestuphobic, >>>[/quote]Here’s a thought. What if 2 (or 3 for that matter) BROTHERS or SISTERS want to marry each other. OHHHHH Lord God almighty!!! Now we have GAY siblings demanding cover by these fabulous new “marriage” laws. What in the name of all that’s tolerant, fair, progressive hip n groovy do we do with that now?!?!?!?!?
[/quote]

Well they are siblings, that’s pretty straightforward. You are an idealist tirib, you are comcerned with the afterlife, I’m concerned with this life. God tells you what you should know, don’t be concerned with minutiae, its all devils work anyway. Now go and repent. :wink:

587

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:<<< Incestuous pairs, well, there are good medical reasons not to sanction them to produce offspring.[/quote]Wait a minute. Did you just say that marriage sanctions people to produce children?
[/quote]

Well, that’s the only way society has to regulate it? You can’t directly hinder siblings from having sex, especially when there is always some kind of isolation and hiding involved. I would guess that at least here, in the wellfareland, authorities would confiscate :slight_smile: such a child. I don’t know, but I would be amazed if they wouldn’t.
[/quote]

I think you missed the point. And, as a mountain billy I have seen my fair share of family babies. Unless someone is underage, the baby isn’t going anywhere.[/quote]

I can’t comment on that, I take your word, I like hillybilly music, though.

588

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:<<< I like hillybilly music, though.[/quote]Rednex - Cotton Eye Joe - YouTube

589

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I would be against incest marriages because of the potential for an increase in retarded children.

I just looked up incest laws in Canada, and you can get 14 years for shagging your siblings. Surprised to see such a steep penalty.[/quote]

Well, as far as this goes, brothers (or sisters) couldn’t have children. It truly would be, by every possible angle, on of 'dem dere consenting adults consenting adults example. A sudden reversal on that…ahem…standard, would betray a moral judgment. Just saying.

590
591

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:<<< I like hillybilly music, though.[/quote]Rednex - Cotton Eye Joe - YouTube
[/quote]

Oh man you are cruel, swedes? Okay, not really, I’m born in sweden and like it as my second home. but that song sucks anyway, like most of swedish music. but not all…

592

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[/quote]

I’m not up to chopping this thing, i’m tired. you are thinking like a bureaucrat, don’t do that, it’s dangerous. The american ideal has it right, I’m certain north Korea has a law and an own camp for that too. Otherwise it doesn’t really matter, they don’t reproduce.

I just talked with jesus yesterday when my godson got confirmated, I always talk with jesus when i’m in a church. Of course, I have no means of discerning if I’m just talking to myself, but I always enjoy it. I took the wine and bread too, what is it called? I’m tired, anyway, I always take it.

593

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Traditional marriage: mama can give birth to little Juniors and Princesses[/quote]

Except when mama and papa are either infertile.[/quote]

Except mama and papa are still OPEN TO LIFE. If their infertility were to change, they could still have kids.

And, if someone doesn’t want kids, why in the world get married?[/quote]

Infertility can be permanent, and people get married despite NOT WANTING CHILDREN AND NEVER END UP HAVING KIDS.

594

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And, as I asked her, why would the state discriminate between friendship and romance? And this IS condoning state discrimination between human relationships, by the way. Further, oddly enough, this form of discrimination doesn’t even justify itself as heterosexual marriage does. For example, thier’s is a friendship, while yours is a romance…and? What does the state have to do with discriminating between the two? Oh, and in the him/her, you forgot “/them.”[/quote]

Because friendship and romance are different. Stop trying to equate them.

I’m sorry your view of romance is so barren that it’s just a friendship with “benefits”, but it’s not like that for normal people.

And people don’t view polygamous relationships as serious because (surprise surprise) people get jealous.

595

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Incestuous pairs, well, there are good medical reasons not to sanction them to produce offspring.[/quote]

I was just told (re-told, and then yelled at through PM) that marriage is to show one’s love for another to society. And, it is not an inherently procreative bond. So, why in the world would we discriminate against incestuous pairs if it is not a procreative bond? If it is just a unitive bond?

If gays can enter marriage, then obviously it is not procreative, because they cannot procreate without going outside the marriage. So, we should not worry about brother and sister marrying – that is according to the ssm argument.

I argue that marriage is not only a unitive bond, but the only procreative bond acceptable for the betterment of children. Because homosexuals are not able to enter a reproductive bond because of form, which is not the same as particular difficulties, in a ssm then it is not even a marriage, but a farse of one.

[/quote]

For clarity, I haven’t sent you any PM’s, the only PM’s I have ever sent here have been to Orion, Varqanir, Lixy and Katzenjammer, and not one has been related to on-going debates. I’m vain, you know.
In essense I agree with you, but that’s idealism and the world looks wery different. I’m very much more interested in the functional. and I see that as wasted energy to fuss about fringes. Undoubtedly marrage would be for many gsys just a party among others, but not for all, it’s just a party for many heteros as well. What can I say, I have made my point and I’m sure everyone understands it, even though they do not necessarily agree.[/quote]

Ftr, neither I nor Greeny pm’d BC.

Edit: I meant to quote BC. My apologies. [/quote]

Did anyone PM him or was he trying to gain sympathy by claiming he was “yelled at”?

596

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Personally I would be okay with any arrangement of couples, triples or quadruples and call that marriage and be smugly amused.[/quote]

Yeah, and I’m okay with any sort of combination of people. Large groups of say more than 100 not so sure as it would look more like a militia and a little less like a marriage. Um, and people with animals (if they own them out right). And people with inanimate objects like say garden equipment, household appliances and things of that nature. Incestual couples? Sure why not? Why don’t those people have a shot at romance sanctioned by the state? Come on let’s not be “incestuphobic”.

We now live in bizzaro land and two homosexuals can call themselves “married” in a few states. So I’m sure the other stuff won’t be many years behind. It’s now just a matter of those groups organizing and calling anyone who disagrees with them names (polygphobic, bestaphobic, incestuphobic, you get the idea. The model has already been created by homosexuals). You can say what you want about homosexuals but they really know how to silence their critics with this nonsense. And of course if the other perverse groups get Hollywood behind them, well that will certainly help their cause.[/quote]

:slight_smile: Well, Zeb, I have actually more faith in the human being than you seem to have. I wouldn’t be surprised if traditional marriage with traditional family values would have an upswing because of all this. But a gay military company as my former countryman Tom of Finland, rest in peace, would depict them, that I simply would love to see :). Not because it arouses me sexually, mind you. The majority of people are what thay are and wont change being heterosexuals. Taking family business seriously, that’s what seems to be the problem.[/quote]

I’m not concerned with adult heterosexuals turning into homosexuals. But keep in mind that no one is still yet sure how someone becomes a homosexual since it has not been proven one way or the other. Homosexuals want it to be genetic but alas they cannot prove that it is. What I don’t necessarily like is that it bleeds into the culture. And children are influenced most certainly.

And as far as homosexuals adopting children, I think that seems to fly in the face of everything that is good and normal. But then again I am not fully into living in bazzaro land yet.

597

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:<<< incestuphobic, >>>[/quote]Here’s a thought. What if 2 (or 3 for that matter) BROTHERS or SISTERS want to marry each other. OHHHHH Lord God almighty!!! Now we have GAY siblings demanding cover by these fabulous new “marriage” laws. What in the name of all that’s tolerant, fair, progressive hip n groovy do we do with that now?!?!?!?!?
[/quote]

YOU BIGOT! Who are you to stand in the way of true happiness for these gay incestuous people.

(shaking head)

598

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I would be against incest marriages because of the potential for an increase in retarded children.

I just looked up incest laws in Canada, and you can get 14 years for shagging your siblings. Surprised to see such a steep penalty.[/quote]

That means nothing. In the 1970’s it was a crime to be a homosexual. And look at the “progress” that we’ve made. Just think of the freak shows that we’ll be treated to in 15-20 years. Gay marriage opens the door to the entire gamut of sordid relationships getting state sanctioned. Perversity will be the norm, and then the politically correct liberals will be happy. At least for a short time.

599

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:<<< incestuphobic, >>>[/quote]Here’s a thought. What if 2 (or 3 for that matter) BROTHERS or SISTERS want to marry each other. OHHHHH Lord God almighty!!! Now we have GAY siblings demanding cover by these fabulous new “marriage” laws. What in the name of all that’s tolerant, fair, progressive hip n groovy do we do with that now?!?!?!?!?
[/quote]

Well they are siblings, that’s pretty straightforward. You are an idealist tirib, you are comcerned with the afterlife, I’m concerned with this life. God tells you what you should know, don’t be concerned with minutiae, its all devils work anyway. Now go and repent. ;)[/quote]

Nice way to mock his faith, you’re soooo very cool. Now I wonder how cool it would be to mock homosexuals? It didn’t used to be cool to mock someones religion, but it is now. But nooooo there’s no slippery slope NAW!

600

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Maybe I was just being overly defensive. I agree with Tiribulus that you’re one of the more polite and constructive posters here. >>>[/quote]And you have also usually been fairly agreeable to me as well considering the nature of our differences. Please know that I have never lied to you. I do not hate you. I don’t even dislike you. You don’t disgust me, you don’t skeeve me and I DO NOT see myself as in any way better than you are. You are no worse than I am without Jesus.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< It’s an issue that affects me in a very personal way, so I’m probably MORE subject to confirmatory bias than anyone else here. >>>[/quote]In other words your mind is made up ahead of time no matter what anybody says. How well I understand. Don’t I? [quote]forlife wrote:<<< I need to do a better job of staying clear of these discussions, or at least better taking them in stride.[/quote]You need to stay clear of your own deadly self will operating in bondage to your corrupt nature inherited from Adam. How well I know that too. No chance apart from the risen Christ living His resurrection life in you and through you. Oh how gratefully well I do so positively know that as well.

601

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

Going with the heart analogy, ever hear of a heart transplant? Replacing someone’s original nonworking heart with another person’s? Works just fine, doesn’t it, given the donor is a close match? You can equate gay marriage with a heart transplant. I’m pretty sure, given time, that it too will work just fine.
[/quote]

Haha! I love it. Yes, your analogy works perfectly. I completely agree with you. I really do!

So, answer me this question: Let’s say they are giving away free heart transplants down at the Mayo clinic. Absolutely everything you could possibly need, from pre-op care to post-op follow-up and any related care is covered, and the operation will be performed by the best surgeon in the country along with his hand picked team. They’ll even take you to and from the hospital in a limousine. Sounds like a pretty good deal, right? You gonna sign up? Would you sign up anyone in your family?
[/quote]

Now, when something sounds too good to be true, it probably IS. I’m pretty sure there’s a catch in there…like maybe that surgeon likes to start his day with a double on the rocks of Johnny Walker and likes to operate slightly non-sober as he feels this gives him an edge during surgery. Or that maybe the heart that is going in my body wasn’t as vetted as it should have been and was procured on the black market from a Colombian drug lord that the anesthesiologist owes money to for his last batch of cocaine. Would be pretty stupid of me to go blindly into something like that without researching it, right? [/quote]

No no. No need to second guess me. This is simple and logical. There are no catches.

Just think about this as if it honestly happened in your life. If somebody came to you today and told you you could have a heart transplant, free of charge, absolutely no strings attached,would you take them up on it?

You will, of course, have to exchange your present heart. But this is the modern world, heart surgery techniques and artificial heart technology are now state of the art. Trust us. Leave everything to us. What could go wrong?

Do I need to continue?
[/quote]

I would still need to do research and think on it. And if my heart is perfectly fine now, why would I want to exchange it?

If you are using this as a corollary to marriage…marriage isn’t perfectly fine right now. It sucks. Half of the marriages taking place today end in divorce, with the kids used as bargaining chips. Please explain what this has to do with allowing gay marriage.

602

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Traditional marriage: mama can give birth to little Juniors and Princesses[/quote]

Except when mama and papa are either infertile.[/quote]

Except mama and papa are still OPEN TO LIFE. If their infertility were to change, they could still have kids.

And, if someone doesn’t want kids, why in the world get married?[/quote]

See my wifes’ post for the main reason, BC.

“To publicly declare to your family, friends, and society that you love someone so much you want to commit to him/her for the rest of your lives. The End.”

[/quote]

I saw it, and it’s been proven to be lacking. The fruit of marriage is children. And marriage is not just about declaring to people that you love someone. Marriage is a bond between a man and woman, where they are open to new life, and do so in that bond for the betterment of the children and the spouses.

I can only think of one reason why someone would think different: moral decay. Moral decay has led to the systematic separation of the procreative aspect from the marital and unitive aspects of the conjugal act. No longer do people recognize the conjugal act as a procreative act, as well. Now, people don’t even recognize it as a marital act, it has become just a unitive act to show one’s love for another.[/quote]

Did I/we say that marriage was JUST about declaring to people that you love someone? I do agree with marriage being a bond between a man and woman… But, the child part is optional, in my opinion.

“Moral decay” is the reason for those who don’t marry for primarily child rearing purposes? Really? That’s pretty sad, BC.

Love is the prime reason most people get married in the first place, then children are created from that love… If they choose or even can, for that matter.