[quote]Yogi wrote:
this should clear up any confusion[/quote]
Alas, this is not quite true…
I could marry a man now…
Granted, it would be as sexless marriage with a lot of cheating going on, which would hardly be unusual…
Throw in a surrogate mother and we would be golden…
Gay marriage has zero impact on my life. That being said, I’m against it. The bigger issue we have is there is a progressive war on the freedom of religion and speech in this country. You can’t think what you want, and can’t express what you believe if you don’t agree wit certain agendas.
And on Independence Day, this is something that should be considered.
In regard to Chris’ article, he has a right to his opinion and I have no problem with that.
[quote]stoicwarrior wrote:
killerDIRK
The Bible states in Gen 5:4 that adam and eve had sons and daughters. From what i can research, God allowed sex between siblings just for the purpose to populate the earth. Later in Leviticus 18:6-18 He imposed new laws against sex between family members.
I thought i explained why someone would choose or fall into being attracted to the same sex. Because of your depraved and sinful heart. You dont have to answer, but are you saved. If not you dont see your lifestyle as sinful. But if you ever feel convicted or open your heart up to the Lord, you will see how sinful it is. Dont think im attacking you. I treat all people the same. Im no bette then you as we are all sinners like i said. Sorry to get all preachy. [/quote]
You and I are good Brother. Nothing preachy about it. Only difference between you and I, is that 1. I consider myself Queer for lack of a better term, and I hate to be pigeonholed in definition 2. I dont believe in religion at all. 3 I do not separate myself from the rest of the universe the way that religious people “IN GENERAL” do and 4, I am God. I am part of the greater whole and have an effect on all that there is. Similar to the Butterfly Effect (google it).
Where as most Religions ( I grew up chicago conservative jew) Separate themselves from “god”, I take more of the Taoist philisophical side (yes, there is a Taoist religious side). That I am part of it all, and effect it all.
How I effect it depends on the observers point of view (theory of relativity). I believe that more harm has been caused and perpetrated upon humanity by distancing themselves from the natural world.
The native peoples of the americas, the aboriginals of australia and new zealand all tried to live their best respecting and nuturing mother nature and themselves, without have a “true savior” that they needed to placate. Yes, offerings where given. Yes, there was a cacophony of gods in the parthenon. But they still had respect for themselves, nature and others.
Religion uses Fear (if you dont believe this, you are going to Hell for eternity), and ignorance to keep away from questioning their superiors.
This Question is for all: How much different would the world be if we Started shoving Science and Mathmatics down kids throats at the age of 3-5 the way we shove relgion down their throats now ?
Think how impressionable that age is, and the fact that they want to make mom and dad happy and proud of their accomplishments.
So what say ye ?
[quote]debraD wrote:
the constant list of LGBT issues with fucking wedding cakes and whatever stupid bullshit gets everyone’s knickers in a twist.[/quote]
These “issues” are all brought up and caused by lgbt’s. It’s not going to stop now that they have legal marriage, because there will always be something they find offensive. Maybe after Christianity gets eradicated…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
…As long as the financial means is there to support that type of marital structure and the ensuing children…
[/quote]
So, are you willing to advocate for that same stricture in a male/female or male/male or female/female marriage? If not, why bring it up?
[/quote]
kpsnap can defend herself, but I would probably say something similar in casual conversation. I support heterosexual married couples having children as long as they have the financial means to do so; otherwise it is an irresponsible choice that is unlikely to work out well for the couple. That isn’t a statement of legality, it’s a statement about what is best. In the same way, in many cases I wouldn’t have a problem with polygamy, but only if the family unit were reasonably self-sufficient. But again, I don’t mean that as a legal requirement.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
the constant list of LGBT issues with fucking wedding cakes and whatever stupid bullshit gets everyone’s knickers in a twist.[/quote]
These “issues” are all brought up and caused by lgbt’s. It’s not going to stop now that they have legal marriage, because there will always be something they find offensive. Maybe after Christianity gets eradicated… [/quote]
There’s something to the idea that minorities turn offense to psychological and political use. Nietzsche called it ressentiment; the feeling of jealous inferiority that forms the basis of the so-called “slave-morality,” which holds up weakness as a good and strength as an evil.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m waiting for the gamblers to show up.[/quote]
500 EUR that polygamy is legal in less than 10 years in the US.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
…As long as the financial means is there to support that type of marital structure and the ensuing children…
[/quote]
So, are you willing to advocate for that same stricture in a male/female or male/male or female/female marriage? If not, why bring it up?[/quote]
Valid point. If polygamists can support their family unit without government assistance, I have no issue. Historically, that has been a problem for FLDS families, where one man tries to support multiple wives and their many children. And, hence, why I brought up the point. I don’t think any family unit (straight, gay, polygamous) should reproduce without the financial means to support the ensuing result. Basic personal responsibility.
I fully understand that not all people marry for love. Some marry for money. Some marry for sex. Some marry for companionship. It matters not to me. It’s not my business or my concern. Love seems like a fairly good reason to me and has served me well.
Are you married, Push? Are you a good example of the institution you’re lobbying to protect?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
1995: We only want civil unions, not marriage.
[/quote]
Should have stopped here. Separate but equal is a perfect compromise. But look where we are now…
Further in the future…
2025: Straight marriage outlawed
2125: US population suffering for exclusively gay polygamist marriages
2125: US repopulated by Mexican rapists (some of who I assume are good people)
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m waiting for the gamblers to show up.[/quote]
500 EUR that polygamy is legal in less than 10 years in the US.[/quote]
LOL Push wants the bet where he can perpetually say “just wait”. I’m pretty sure Push would want to be on the same side of your bet anyway.
[quote]TrollSimmons wrote:
P.S. I check youtube for gay animal vids pretty much daily. Highly recommended.
A lot of good points in this thread. I never realized supporting gay people was logically equivalent to supporting pedos.
[/quote]
I’ve had a number of dogs. As a child, during a game of “spin around until you fall on your ass, the last person standing wins”, we found that if you fell to the ground, the dog would unfortunately mount you and try have his way.
Another of my dogs was fine until you patted a female dog, it would then try to mount that hand.
I’ve since found that many animals use humping to display dominance. Others just jump on the back of anything that smells the right way.
Does that make them homosexual? That’s too hard a question for us to answer IMO.
The article would have been better without that bit in it. I don’t get what he was trying to say.
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
To me, serial philanderers and people who repeatedly marry and divorce are a much greater blasphemy of the marital institution than a loving gay couple.
I just don’t understand all the opposition and fear. And I’m glad that I don’t.
And I’ll step up and say I could care less if polygamy (between consenting adults) became legal. As long as the financial means is there to support that type of marital structure and the ensuing children.
Whether gays and polygamists and serial divorcees are allowed to marry has no affect on my commitment to or relationship with my husband. [/quote]
The argument, as I understand it - and I could be well off, is marriage is a social construct for the purpose of raising children and particularly bonding men to families. What no one is willing to say - lest they be smote by a wave of angry tweets - is gay relationships (particularly male ones) are likely to have an element of seeking interests outside of the relationship.
You allow gay marriage, you legitimise that element in all marriage. The end result is that is what is accepted as normal relationship that will carry over to hetrosexual marriages.
Carry that back to the first sentence and by watering down the responsibilities which come with marriage, you hurt the construct used to raise children. Which impacts the environment children are brought up in.
With all that said, marriage fits in a greater framework - most of which has been broken to pieces now anyway - coupled with most marriages splitting, so I’m not sure that this thinking is valid anymore.
Gay marriage does now at least open up the door for us to rethink the benefits that come with marriage. Rather than a bunch of benefits streaming off getting married (yes, I’m happy you found committed love and you should share your assets but should tax payers foot any of that?), they should be based upon the the marriage and the presence of a child (conceived, adopted, otherwise).
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m waiting for the gamblers to show up.[/quote]
I only ever gamble with either my life or internet money.
So, I’m willing to bet you a million internet dollars that polygamy will become legal in the U.S. within my lifetime.
And I’m willing to bet you my life that pedophilia will not become legal in the U.S. within my lifetime.
[quote]tsantos wrote:
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
To me, serial philanderers and people who repeatedly marry and divorce are a much greater blasphemy of the marital institution than a loving gay couple.
I just don’t understand all the opposition and fear. And I’m glad that I don’t.
And I’ll step up and say I could care less if polygamy (between consenting adults) became legal. As long as the financial means is there to support that type of marital structure and the ensuing children.
Whether gays and polygamists and serial divorcees are allowed to marry has no affect on my commitment to or relationship with my husband. [/quote]
The argument, as I understand it - and I could be well off, is marriage is a social construct for the purpose of raising children and particularly bonding men to families. What no one is willing to say - lest they be smote by a wave of angry tweets - is gay relationships (particularly male ones) are likely to have an element of seeking interests outside of the relationship.
You allow gay marriage, you legitimise that element in all marriage. The end result is that is what is accepted as normal relationship that will carry over to hetrosexual marriages.
Carry that back to the first sentence and by watering down the responsibilities which come with marriage, you hurt the construct used to raise children. Which impacts the environment children are brought up in.
With all that said, marriage fits in a greater framework - most of which has been broken to pieces now anyway - coupled with most marriages splitting, so I’m not sure that this thinking is valid anymore.
Gay marriage does now at least open up the door for us to rethink the benefits that come with marriage. Rather than a bunch of benefits streaming off getting married (yes, I’m happy you found committed love and you should share your assets but should tax payers foot any of that?), they should be based upon the the marriage and the presence of a child (conceived, adopted, otherwise).
[/quote]
Tsantos,
Your argument would make more sense if marriage actually had a universally accepted behavioral definition. Marriage isn’t necessarily what you define it to be, neither is “normally accepted” homosexual behavior. You are approaching this with your own preconceived notions of behaviors and expectations and THEN expecting that the interpersonal relationships of OTHER people will have some sort of impact on you.
I have been married for 20 years, I hardly think that two dudes getting married will have any impact on how my wife would view me “stepping out”. The fundamental issue is that you live your own life, you create your own marriage and impart your own values to your kids (if you have any), what another couple does or doesn’t do should have zero impact on you, if it does maybe the problem isn’t them.