Reading Love and Lifesense

Sep 18, 2009 17:19 # 46498

zen *** throws in his two cents...

Gay Marriage -- Procreating

94% | 3

A marriage is between one man and one woman. Ok, if we assume the only reason for marriage is to procreate, and multiply. But where does THAT assumption come from? Marriage is the manifestation of love between two people, but expressly for the purpose of reproduction? If those assumptions be the case, then logically it must follow that if a couple doesn't produce offspring, their marriage must be made null-and-void.

If we assume that marriage's most important reason is for procreation, then the length of one should be based on how long it takes to procreate. If in, say 3 years, you haven't produced offspring, your marriage should be, automatically on that next day, made null-n-void. At that point, you'd have to re-register to have the marriage re-instated. You'd have another 6 months to try, but by that point, if you hadn't produced kids, there's something wrong with one of you and you both need to find other partners, so it would seem.
I think now with all the starvation and overcrowding, and massive drain of Earth's dwindling resources, that marriages be limited to, like 2 kids. I mean that's only fair. We live much longer lives now, medicine and modern living keeps people alive much longer. Elsewhere people are dying of aids, cholera, wars, famine, drought, fires, whatever, but in the Western world, ie in this country, we're let to believe we live longer. If that's true, then this further negates the need for a big family. True there was a time when mankind needed to be "fruitful and multiply", but that time is no more. Everyone stuck on the freeway in "rush" hour gridlock of Interstate-95 knows the same thing: there's too many people on this planet

If the reason why gay marriage is "unnatural" is because two of the same sex can't produce offspring, therefore shouldn't be, terethen marriage stands as guardian of the future of our species. Marriage logically becomes the front-line, defining the terms of that expansion. By determining that marriage is one man/one woman, it has now, rightly become embroiled in contrevorsy, and combat. Through "defending" it, you are helping to destroy it.
Specifically it must weed-out all the unproductive citizens. If the intention of marriage is facilitate, legitimize the expansion of the species, then it does, truly have a unique place in our society. By branding it an "institution that needs defending", you are forcing it to take shots that it never should, if it is going to survive as a valid, vital "institution".
In defending the status quo you are using it to discriminate against all other forms of coupling. It is a good thing that it should be used to discriminate against certain types of people. If the object is to raise happy, healthy, safe children/families in a sane, desirable environment, then along with marriage, there should be included a mandatory child-raising training. If you fail that, you should not have children. Couples could still marry, but no kids till you pass the training.
It's only fair. Bringing life into the world is a huge responsibility. Shouldn't marriage be concerned about the lives it brings into the world, rather than just allowing people randomly to get married? Is marriage only concerned about the physical plumbing of squeezing a few more puppies into the world? Doesn't marriage have a responsibility to the children it's produced? It boils down to this: just because two people can produce offspring, doesn't mean they should. My examples for this are any Jerry Springer/Steve Wilkos Show, Divorce Court, Maury, and in fact, pretty much all daytime television.
In fact, from both my own personal experiences, and those of watching all those daytime "reality" shows, I've come to realize that marriage is a pretty f*ed-up, messy, yuckified affair. Marriage in it's current state is shabby, and defiled. It is this state that creeps like Brian S. Brown, Executive Director of National Organization for Marriage, are actively defending.
People don't need to get married. It's not like eating, or breathing, or a roof over your head. You can live, got to work, die just the same without ever getting marriage. But the female has been institutionalized, conditioned into believing that her only worth is that of attracting a husband-and-starting-a-family. This medaeval hanger-on, cling-on to our supposed modern, enlightened thinking isn't easily shaken.

Clearly marriage is indiscriminate, inanimate, passe, often irrelevant to real concerns of our world, our society. Marriage as it is is careless, and caused alot of damage in people's lives. The model of marriage as it stands is imploding.
Here's my reasoning on why that is. As a bi-guy, I've been with a number of married guys, more than all the gay men and women put together. To me that proves bi guys are attracted to other bi guys, but that's another discussion. The fact is these guys get to enjoy the both of "both worlds" as it were. Most wives will never find out about their husbands' extra-curricular activities. When he comes home, doesn't smell like errant kitty, he's good-to-go having passed the test...for that day. The reason I'm able to be with him is that, honestly, I'm easier to deal with me, another bi guy. It's also likely from the fact that I'm doing things with/to him that he can't/won't ask wifey to do to him. Sometimes it's the way that I'll rough him up, slapping him around like a true bottom-sissiboi. Obviously this is not something his wife can, or should know about. Me treating his as the true bottom, which we both know he is, is at once a very natural thing that we guys do to each other--rank each other in that relative Alpha male manner. Yes, he's cheating. But no, he's not cheating. It's only cheating if you're getting the same thing outside the relationship, that you're getting inside. The fact of the matter is that what I do with your man, you could, but more likely won't do with him. A woman can't substitute for a man, for a long period of time. If he's one of the 60%, then he's going to see me. If he's the other 40%, he's going to look for a female. Chances are that other female is going to do what the wife can't or won't do.

Marriage is caprecious: people fall in love, and people fall out of love. Once married, your real self comes out, and one can't escape what she or he has caught. Marriage without automatic, immediate deference to divorce is an anachronism. Statistics that I read have both marriage and divorce statistics side-by-side. Statistics can be used however, but the most interesting statistic is that people are getting divorced at about same rate they're getting married. (See: http://www.biblenews1.com/marriage/marriags.htm#Total%20Divorces).
There's also that great statistic entitled: Men take separation/divorce harder than women. An online stalker of mine was having a discussion with me about his recent divorce. His married experiences were helping him realize that he wasn't straight. His marriage soured him on women. One day he starts the discussion this way: "[Marriage] is so unfair for the guy." My immediate response was: "Marriage is unfair in general. It's a protected state for certain people." Apparently that's no less true in divorce: protected status for certain people.

All of this says nothing about those people who can't have children. Let's call these people by the name "transgendered". Maybe that's not a fair statement. Trannies are one of the subgroup under that rubric. Then there's people who've had operations/medical procedures, or ailments, or what have you that have rendered them sterile. Then there's the people too old to have kids. Then there's the people who have proven to themselves (and others) that they should never spawn again. Some of those people may have already produced offspring. If the couple is M/F, they're still allowed to marry.
And what about people who've been divorced 3, 4, 5, or more times. Shouldn't it have dawned on them that it's not working?

To summarize quickly: If marriage is anything, it's arbitrary, and caprecious as it is. Marriage is destroying itself. Don't blame that on gays looking to be as miserable as those of you who have chosen a lifestyle riddled with problems.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

This post was edited by zen on Sep 18, 2009.

Sep 22, 2009 10:12 # 46504

andromacha *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 2

Well, being Italian and probably also quite "narrow-minded", I will tell you what I think... I think that marriage, just like it is stated in the constitution (at least in ours, and in every other state of right - not sure if state of right is the correct translation in English btw) is intended as the union of a man and a woman. A man and a woman; not two men, not two women. The Christian/Catholic conception wants marriage as a union to procreate, and in fact in the religious ceremony there is a part where the priest/minister will say that you shall be willing to accept all the children that God wants to bless you with. This is of course not stated in the civil ceremony; in a civil ceremony they simply read the laws according to the civil code, which summing up remind you that you have to provide the assistance to your partner - moral and economic - you have to educate your children according to their own inclinations and so forth.

Marriage for me is intended between a man and a woman only. This is not to say that two guys or two girls cannot fall in love and live together. However, I am deeply against pacs. It might be selfish of me to say this, considering that I am straight and married. But I cannot accept that two guys for example adopt a kid and raise this kid, just like I cannot accept two girls doing the same thing. Unfortunately two girls don't need to adopt, because they only need to get laid with a perfect stranger to achieve what they want (and I've heard of girls who actually did something like that just to get pregnant). A family is made up of a man and a woman, and of course their kids if they have any.

Again it might be quite a narrow minded idea... I have nothing against gays or lesbians, however I dislike the way they like to have the attention all focused on them with stupid manifestations like the gay pride for example. Heck, I am straight... all of us straight people should do a straight pride for a change? I think that whatever you do in bed is your own business and there is no need to shout out to the world whether you like to take it in the ass or what. For this reason I deeply dislike gay people who claim that they have a right to have a family. Yes, they do have a right to have a family, but this has to be intended as them together with their male partner, possibly with certain rights recognized by the states. But I think that a certain discrimination should still be placed: they should have the right of staying at the hospital with their partner, they should see their rights recognized as far as all the monetary issues are concerned, but in no way can they be allowed to adopt children. And so yes, they would be different than a real family, than a real hetero couple.

Pacs for me might be fine in only certain circumstances:
1) two gays or two lesbians want to see their rights recognized: ok, this is fine for me, but no you cannot get married as marriage can be only between a guy and a girl. But you should still have certain rights recognized... call it a B series marriage.
2) two gays or two lesbians cannot adopt kids. Why? Well because men cannot give birth (seems obvious that they cannot have therefore kids). Unfortunately this can be seen as something not right, because girls just need to get laid to have a child.
3) pacs between two people of different sex should NEVER be allowed. At that point if you want to have the rights that a regular marriage will grant you... hell get married!

Btw. about what you said about a biguy who is married and goes with another biguy... well hell that is cheating on his wife. Other than being totally disgusted with this behavior, because I cannot conceive cheating at all, I can even tell you that being cheated on with a girl is one thing... you can accept it or not, you can forgive or not, but... being cheated on with a guy... well there are no words. That guy would be out of my house in one split second. And yes he is cheating... it's not that if he does with you something that he cannot ask his wife to do he's not cheating on her. He is. And let me also state that this is a very bastard behavior. You simply don't cheat on people generally speaking. And if this guy is cheating with another guy on his poor wife... well it is clear to me that he hasn't been sincere with her from the very beginning.

Italy no longer accepts illegal immigrants. Mr. B sink their boats!!!!!!!

Sep 22, 2009 22:44 # 46505

ginsterbusch *** shakes his head...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

65% | 3

So patch-work families like mine are no real families in your terms? The current wife of my father is neither physically nor legally related with me, but her children are at least the first one to me (aka they are both my half-sisters).

And what about single parents? Also, there are a lot of very dysfunctional "families" in which the father not only beats his wife but also his children ..

I personally don't give a fuck about if someone wants to marry a person of the same gender as him/herself. Also I dont see any problem when it comes to parents of the same gender - a lot of folks were raised by their uncles or aunts because their mother was in no state to be one.

If we'd live in a perfect world where there was only a mother-father-children-family - well ...
.. I'd go and shoot out my brains with a sewn pump gun. Others may proceed living in this dream world, I prefer living in the real - painful - one ;)
But this "real" also includes all of the scenarios mentioned above. Bad for the beaten children, good for the patch-work families. Usually the first version turns into the latter one, exclusive the wife-beater (who hopefully gets beaten to the chains).

BTW: I'm "straight". But I've got brains enough to use 'em right. Also, I was educated well - ie. in democratics like in "everyone and everything is equal and has a right to life his, her or its way".

If "marriage" it's just a word you don't want to see "trodden on" - let's exclude those non-christianjudeans, shall we ;-> - invent another, that won't declassify "the other", "B class marriage" as such, but equalize both sides (the "straight" and the "straighter" class marriage).

Got one yet?

cu, w0lf.

beards are cool. every villain has one!

This post was edited by ginsterbusch on Sep 22, 2009.

Sep 23, 2009 12:09 # 46513

zen *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

91% | 2

just like it is stated in the constitution (at least in ours, and in every other state of right - not sure if state of right is the correct translation in English btw)

I did not realize that there were any countries that had put that in their constitution. I realize that the one man/one woman concept of the Roman Catholic/Judeo-Christian marriage pervades much of so-called civilized society, i.e. "our modern world."
The need to specify that in the very constitution of the "state" means that the issue of homosexual love is a long-standing issue. If that fact of life didn't exist, then there wouldn't be a need to add it into the constitution.
One Man/One Woman is a creed that the state is sanctioning in a ceremonial, and actual way. By defining that the most important reason for marrying is to produce offspring, then the State can not get away from this thorny issue: if the marriage doesn't produce children, is it still a valid marriage?
I would say, logically, that a marriage that doesn't produce offspring is invalid.
Unless, of course, half of the importance of a marriage is the "union," the joining of 2 loving individuals as one.

This is not to say that two guys or two girls cannot fall in love and live together.

Two of the same sex can give as much love to each other, and I'll add, for a longer period of time, as the hetro couple.
If you're not willing to accept that a childless marriage should be automatically annulled, then you need to accept that a marriage can be comprised of two of the same sex.

Unfortunately two girls don't need to adopt, because they only need to get laid with a perfect stranger to achieve what they want (and I've heard of girls who actually did something like that just to get pregnant)...

Funny thing about that is it's not just lesbian couples doing that. It's also married women who do that exact same thing as well. As well as single women, and women with a steady guy. Why do women do that?

However, I am deeply against pacs.

I'm not familiar with "pacs." It would seem to be some form of civil-union. Sounds like something I'd be deeply for.

1) two gays or two lesbians want to see their rights recognized: ok, this is fine for me, but no you cannot get married as marriage can be only between a guy and a girl. But you should still have certain rights recognized... call it a B series marriage.

Sure, one guy/one gal. The rest of you are separate but equal.
One guy/one gal, sure, because we all know the most important thing about marriage is whether or not you can physically produce offspring--it doesn't matter what kind of life the kid has, or whether or not the breeders are actually physically/ mentally/ emotionally able to care for the kid is irrelevant... it's that one guy/one gal must somehow automatically, magically make then better at raising a family.
To support my claim that biologically producing a child doesn't automatically make you a fit parent, I bring you "reality television": Jerry Springer, Rikki Lake, Montel, Maury, Steve Wilkos show, divorce court, the list is seemingly endless.

2) two gays or two lesbians cannot adopt kids. Why? Well because men cannot give birth (seems obvious that they cannot have therefore kids). Unfortunately this can be seen as something not right, because girls just need to get laid to have a child.

It's a funny point where only half of the applicable cases fit into your argument hahahahahahahahaha
...and that "girls just need to get laid" statement....that's a good one too; a regular hoot and a hollar.
Seriously though, your argument is lame, because there can be a hetro couple, where, in the case of someone I know, where the woman isn't able to give birth. He can, she can't: therefore no kids...but they can still get married.

3) pacs between two people of different sex should NEVER be allowed. At that point if you want to have the rights that a regular marriage will grant you... hell get married!

Why? Why should they have to get married? Isn't that, oh yes, it is, forcing them to get married. What a truly aweful thing to do to someone.

all of us straight people should do a straight pride for a change?

Excuse me, what world do you live in? Did you not just tell us:

...just like it is stated in the constitution...

? That's no-brainer. Your alleged non-existant "pride" is written right into the law of your land.
You don't have to call that pride, however: I won't. I chose to call that discrimination.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

This post was edited by zen on Sep 23, 2009.

Sep 23, 2009 07:10 # 46510

null throws in his two cents...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

92% | 3

Wow, that's one huge bastard of a post. I wouldn't want to even try to reply to everything.

Just a few thoughts to the topic of gay marriage:

I'm gonna state something slightly troll-ish here, but let me explain it:
In order to be a christian today, you need to be a hypocrite to a certain degree.
That's because it's impossible to follow the bible in today's society. Do you enjoy sex? Do you plant different crops on the same field? Do you wear underwear made out of at least two different materials? Did you ever curse and use a blasphemous word? Then you've broken God's law, and in most of the cases mentioned should be put to death.
In fact, the Old Testament is an amazing source of ridiculous stuff. (I wanted to link to a few Martin the Satanic Racoon comics where God tells you to kill babies, gives you hemmorrhoids and smears shit in your face, but sadly the website appears to have died.)

There are those who claim that the Old Testament is irrelevant today because it has been 'fulfilled' when Jesus died for our sins... yet still, few of those people actually to do away with the OT altogether. (Especially when it comes to topics such as gay marriage.)

The truth is, most christians (save for some truly fucked-up weirdos such as Jack T. Chick) interpret the Good Book very liberally. Which, considered the mind-boggling amounts of ridiculous stuff in there, is a very good thing.

I don't really mind that so far; live and let live, right? As long as you don't ring my doorbell at 7:30 on a Sunday morning to tell me about the Lord our saviour,

Yet what bugs me is that there are enough people who think they should force their own hypocritical ideals on other people. Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a good example. I bet she opposes gay marriage, too.


The funny thing is that it could be so simple:

Imagine, for a moment, that gay marriage was legal in your country. (You may not have to imagine, as many countries already allow it.)

No priest of any religion can be forced to marry gay couples if his religion forbids it.
When, on the other hand, a gay couple registers their partnership at the civil registry office, that's not a christian marriage according to the bible.
Thus, as I'm sure we all agree that the separation of state and church is a good thing (ahahah), the gays are married in the mind of an atheist (who doesn't mind), but they're not married in the eyes of a believer (who would mind). In short, win-win!
The only thing everybody needs to agree on is that "marriage" can mean different things to different people, and that shouldn't be too hard.

In other words, being against gay marriage in general is just intolerance towards people who are different, probably combined with fear (and thus refusal) of the unknown. The only reasons against gay marriage I keep hearing are "the bible says that ...", which is just trying to force one's own ideals on other people, and a slightly desperate "...but it's unnatural!", which is bullshit (homosexuality among animals is well documented).
When one gay puts his peepee into another (consenting) gay's bum, or one lesbian licks another lesbian's snatch in the privacy of their bedroom, that's just none of anybody else's fscking business. And so far anybody opposing gay marriage has miserably failed to provide me with just one example of how society could be hurt if gay couples were allowed to register their partnership just as straight couples have done it for centuries.

Which brings us back to this question.

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

This post was edited by null on Sep 23, 2009.

Sep 23, 2009 12:40 # 46515

zen *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

I knew this would be a great topic.

I wouldn't want to even try to reply to everything

Well, the great thing about my post is that I'm not looking at this from the general. I kept it to a specific topic: simply procreation, the ability to create off spring. This is the central, most important issue in the whole debate on gay marriage.

The following statement goes toward illustrating the point I was making:

No priest of any religion can be forced to marry gay couples if his religion forbids it.
When, on the other hand, a gay couple registers their partnership at the civil registry office, that's not a christian marriage according to the bible.
Thus, as I'm sure we all agree that the separation of state and church is a good thing (ahahah), the gays are married in the mind of an atheist (who doesn't mind), but they're not married in the eyes of a believer (who would mind). In short, win-win!
The only thing everybody needs to agree on is that "marriage" can mean different things to different people, and that shouldn't be too hard.

There is supposed to be a separation of Church and State. The Marriage is the religious ceremony. How does a religious ceremony get written into countries' constitutions?
As a fact, currently, marriage means different things to different people, it's like there's also the mental definition people have.
Without going into too much detail, I mentioned about biguys in a marriage, but there's also "open marriages" lots of other habits that people have that are now very-much a part of the landscape of married life.
Beyond a doubt, men and women both have different definitions of what marriage means.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

Sep 23, 2009 13:44 # 46516

null rants...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 1

There is supposed to be a separation of Church and State. The Marriage is the religious ceremony. How does a religious ceremony get written into countries' constitutions?

Well, what can I say. Most constitutions were written in more religious times by God-fearing people. No wonder lots of stuff from the bible has made it into these.
(Check out the Swiss constitution, which was completely rewritten from scratch less than ten years ago - there was a huge debate about that, and it still starts with "In the name of God, the almighty". So much about the separation of state and church in practice. Luckily, the religious zealots didn't manage to smuggle in much else.)

simply procreation, the ability to create off spring. This is the central, most important issue in the whole debate on gay marriage.

You may be right, but it's also a stupid point, as you've so impressively demonstrated.
But I'd still say the real problem is that a bunch of bigots are trying to force their prejudices and fears upon the rest of us, and every excuse, no matter how far-fetched or flimsy, will happily be abused to further their agenda of intolerance. "The bible says it's a sin", "marriage is to procreate" or "homosexuality is unnatural" are just the excuses du jour, but if we've ever gotten rid of them I'll bet the bigots come up with new ones.

Or maybe it's really just the concept of butt-fucking that bothers some people.

Still, the state doesn't require you to produce offspring when you want to legally marry. From the state's point of view, marriage is just a state-regulated contract signed by two people who (ideally, usually) love each other. There really is no non-bigot reason why two men or two women should be less entitled to signing this contract than a man and a woman.

Marriage as defined by numerous religions, on the other hand, is different. If a catholic priest doesn't want to marry gays only because they can't produce offspring, that's okay according to his religion and should be respected. But then he'd have to also refuse to marry straight couples who use contraceptives, because they offend his religion's concept of marriage just as well.
Everything else would be hypocritical. However, while it's not exactly the best of all character traits, being a bigot and a hypocrite falls under the human right of freedom of opinion and is thus perfectly legal.

Hence, unless the reasonable people learn to keep the many different concepts of "marriage" separate and ignore the bigots (because those will never shut up), the debate about gay marriage will continue for many many years to come... whether it's (seemingly) about holy books, producing offspring or just plain homophobia doesn't really matter. A true bigot will always find a socially acceptable 'reason' to justify their bigotry.

Beyond a doubt, men and women both have different definitions of what marriage means.

Ahahah, religious zealots and atheists even more so. :-D

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

This post was edited by null on Sep 23, 2009.

Sep 23, 2009 14:59 # 46519

andromacha *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

90% | 3

Hey, I stated that I am narrow-minded, didn't I? It is not that I am not tolerant towards gays or lesbians... like I said, they can do whatever they want in the privacy of their home. A straight couple who kiss in an appropriate way in public bother me just as much as a couple of gays or lesbians. I suppose I am old-fashioned.

And yes, to reply to ginster... I do consider a family only a union between a man and a woman, plus of course their kids if they have any. I am sorry, but in my conception a single mother, a single father, or a couple of the same sex are not considered a standard family. This is not due to religion at all; I was even trying to make a point talking about this under a civil point of view.

Pacs is the Latin word for pacts; it implies some kind of agreement between people. In other words, that would be like a B series union; I think I am deeply against pacs mainly as far as hetero couples are concerned. I mean... the message that they want to pass is this "if we do live together but we're not married, we should still have the same rights of two married people"; well this really pisses me off. I still believe in marriage, as I see it as a commitment to the other person... a commitment that you cannot just trash in a matter of two seconds... at least here marriage is not just a piece of paper. If you're not married, one day you could just decide to kick out your partner... nice commitment huh? Marriage is a serious commitment between two people, and it is only right and fair that married people acquire certain rights. I don't think that these same rights should be reserved to people who aren't married.

I guess that my problem is that I cannot really relate, and so I cannot understand certain things. I only know that my cousin went to live together with his girlfriend, and they have no intention to get married (at least yet); I can think of a million things that according to me aren't right in their relationship, and honestly I don't even know exactly how they handle it. First of all, my cousin was the one who put almost all the money for their apartment furniture, even though she was the one picking out the stuff; I do wonder who pays the bills, or who pays for the groceries... and what would happen if they broke up (God forbids it!) Who would get what? If people already fight and fuss when they divorce, and the splitting there is regulated somehow, can you imagine what could happen if two people who aren't even legally bonded split up? There is nothing out there to discriminate things among them. Of course it is their choice, and I love her, she is wonderful and am very happy they are together, and of course I do respect their decision. However, I do wonder what kind of commitment they have to each other if they don't even have the balls to go and sign a "piece of toilet paper" (as it was gracefully described by her); heck if it is really a piece of toilet paper, you shouldn't have a problem in signing it... for you it doesn't make a difference.

Maybe, or no, not maybe, I am sure I make a mistake when I am so critical of people who deliberately choose not to get married... I honestly don't even understand why. I mean... if you're in love with a person and want to spend the rest of your life with that person... then why you don't want to marry him/her? The fact that unmarried couples now expect the same rights of married couples worries me... it worries me because I still believe in marriage, and it bothers me that it is getting more and more depreciated.

As far as gay marriage is concerned... like I said... my problem is only about the "term". Call it union, and give these couple certain rights, but not all of the rights of straight couples. I am sorry... I do believe that gay or lesbian parents would not be good parents. Not that they are bad people, and maybe they would be great parents if straight... but think about the kid for a second... an adopted kid who sees daddy and daddy going to sleep together in the same room... same kid then goes to a party with his friends and sees moms and dads there. How can you explain this kid that there is a special relationship that involves only people of the same sex? I mean, come on... straight relationships are still the norm and the majority... it is obvious that kids would question something different. Another example... take a young female kid raised by two guys... who is going to tell this girl about periods and feminine stuff? How awkward would that be? And I can find many more examples of instances that would show that two parents of the same sex would not be good parents... again, not because they are bad people... I am sure that they would love their kids and so forth... but love is not enough I don't think.

Now, Ginster you made the example of fathers who abuse kids and/or wives. Well it's more than obvious that these individuals would be bad parents, more than obvious. And I would consider them bad parents and people I wouldn't want to give a child up for adoption to, just like I wouldn't allow gays or lesbians to adopt a child, but for different reasons.

PS. Interesting post btw. Also I wanted you to know that all of this has nothing personal with you guys. This is only how I feel, and I am sorry if you will feel like you need to insult me or my intelligence. Maybe I am stupid, I don't know... maybe I am narrow-minded (most likely), and most likely I am old fashioned. I still like men opening doors for me, paying the bill at the restaurant and things like that.

Italy no longer accepts illegal immigrants. Mr. B sink their boats!!!!!!!

Sep 23, 2009 21:36 # 46521

ginsterbusch *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 1

PS. Interesting post btw. Also I wanted you to know that all of this has nothing personal with you guys. This is only how I feel, and I am sorry if you will feel like you need to insult me or my intelligence. Maybe I am stupid, I don't know... maybe I am narrow-minded (most likely), and most likely I am old fashioned. I still like men opening doors for me, paying the bill at the restaurant and things like that.

You are narrow-minded. My personal "narrow-mindedness" does exclude narrow-minded people including fanatics of any kind (whether politically or religiously - I consider this to be of the same source).

BTW: "Old fashioned"-ness as you describe it has nothing to do with narrow-mindedness or plain being prejudiced. I mostly try to behave gentleman-alike, althou my jokes are not. I also believe prejudices can be given up - because there are former neo-nazis. There are even former Jehovah's Witnesses I personally know (of).

cu, w0lf.

beards are cool. every villain has one!

Sep 24, 2009 06:29 # 46522

null replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 1

:-) I for one wasn't attacking you personally. You have a right to your own opinion just as anybody else. What bothers me is those people who try to force their opinions on other people.

"I think butt-fucking is disgusting."
vs.
"I think butt-fucking is disgusting. Let's make it illegal!"

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

Sep 24, 2009 07:57 # 46523

andromacha *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 2

Well my only problem is on the word "marriage" and the meaning that is associated to it. Marriage is between two partners of different sex, according to me. But I don't exclude that there can be union of people who share the same sex, and this doesn't even bother me as long as you don't call it a marriage, because in fact it is just a matter of terms. Probably having the Vatican right outside my door (metaphorically, because thank God I am about 700 kilometers away from Rome) biases me just like most Italians.

I totally understand where you all are coming from, and I do share in part your views. I believe that we are all equal and have the same rights... so yes, why shouldn't we allow people of the same sex to get married? Well because marriage as an institution is still between a man and a woman. But that is marriage the institution, something I still believe in. Honestly there is one thing I don't understand exactly about what gays and lesbians want:
1) do they want to be able to get married just to say that they are in fact married?
2) do they want to get married in order to achieve the same rights that straight married people have?
Both instances are equally important, but I was interested in understanding the priority. If the priority is the 2nd one, then I think that they should be able to sign the famous piece of paper that will not be a marriage certificate (that would be going against what the term marriage is), but a something that will determine their rights... What should these rights be? Well, according to me the right to visit your dear one at the hospital just like as if you were a relative (which btw. here in Italy has always been possible, however wives or husbands were also allowed to stay for the whole night in particularly dangerous circumstances); then the right to get the retirement check of the dear one when he/she dies; sharing the same money is already a possibility because you simply need to open a bank account with two signatures; heck according to me they can have all the same rights of married people minus that of adopting a child. So give them these rights but don't call it a marriage please... call it a contract; marriage is a contract afterall.
If the priority is the 1st tho... well then it seems that all they want is just to be able to say that they are married... why? I don't know... I don't know because I am married but I don't feel the necessity to shout aloud to the world that yes, in fact, I am married.

@Ginster... you can call me narrow-minded just as much as you like, but at least as far as the possibility of adoption of a child by two parents of the same sex I know I am more than right. You won't find any judge who allows this, because psychologically is just bad for the child. A child who is up for adoption, unless he's a newborn, will likely be a kid with problems... problems in relating to the adults, a kid that might have been abused, an abandoned kid who doesn't even know why he was abandoned... a problematic child needs a family that doesn't cause even more problems in his head. And this is precisely the reason why you won't find any judge who allows a couple of gays or lesbians to adopt a child like I said before.

Finally, I do think that we all have the same rights and we are equal... however laws need to be made in order to regulat our behaviors... otherwise I can just get a gun and shoot all the people in the street. Laws on marriage were made centuries ago when there wasn't this mass coming out and so there wasn't the need of a law that would defend the rights of these individuals. Just like there wasn't the need of a law that would defend the right of unmarried couples, because back then you wouldn't just go and live with a guy without being married. It is now more than evident that straight people don't like to see their rights that are consacrated by a marriage being depreciated by allowing gay people to be married. I am sorry, but this is the reality. Modern society in general still believes that straight is the norm, and gay is not normal. I don't believe this, because I myself know that even in Greece the most important philosophers practiced "love" with guys, and then were married and banged women in order to reproduce. I am not even saying that I am better than others and I should have rights that others shouldn't have because they're not married. My problem is only this: marriage is the consacration of love between a man and a woman, whether you want to see this under the religious or the civil standpoint. I still believe that marriage should be for life... certainly I didn't marry Neil thinking that oh well tomorrow I can always divorce. That is not how you should approach marriage. Then I know that things can go wrong and so forth and so on. But the central point for me is that if you allow everybody to get married then you depreciate the value of the word. At that point, how about we allow people to get married with their dog or their cat?

Summing up:
1) yes to gay "marriage" as long as you find another way to describe this civil contract between two people of the same sex, because I don't like the word marriage to be used in that instance. Call it a gay union, and pass a law on it - fine by me.
2) no to gay adoption of a child
3) yes to every other right that is given to a straight couple who gets married.

I don't think I am so narrow-minded afterall.

Italy no longer accepts illegal immigrants. Mr. B sink their boats!!!!!!!

Sep 24, 2009 15:00 # 46525

Bunk *** throws in his two cents...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

94% | 4

I like how we're seeing a lot of different perspectives at play in the assessment of marriage.

One thing that must be noted about Zen's post is that he isn't exactly defending gay marriage per se. In fact he harshly criticises ALL forms of marriage, gay or not. So really he's doing two things: criticising marriage as an institution, and countering arguments like "gays shouldn't be married because they can't have children."

I think his criticisms are quite successful. I don't think it can be proven that any arrangement of parentage is categorically and universally better for the raising of children (man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, one man, one woman, etc.). For that reason, I disagree with you andromacha, saying that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children. Why not? If they are psychologically, emotionally, and monetarily prepared to raise children, why shouldn't they be allowed?

That said, I also like your romantic defense of marriage. Although you haven't stated it per se, it seems that you believe in marriage as an affirmation of life long love and commitment. Zen seems to dismiss that idea, and he has good reasons to, but I like it. I think there's an emotional appeal to spending a lifetime with a partner, of growing old with the memories of an exclusively shared life. (PS. Zen, sex on the side, gay or not, IS cheating, and those men you slept with are dishonest cowardly assholes - I hope you realize that :P)

The question is, why does it have to be an institution? What is the logical basis for the government to provide benefits to married people? What makes them special? Essentially, the government is paying for two people to want to share a life together. But why? That kind of incentive can and does lead to abuse (marriages for money, messy financial and custody battles in the case of divorce, etc).

Here are some prospective reasons why marriage should be an institution:

1. Marriage is for having children (in which case it is nice of the government to provide benefits, since people who have kids face obvious economic challenges).

If this is the case, the institution already has serious flaws (as Zen pointed out, you don't have to be good parents, or even parents at all in order to be married) and requires major reform and should be open to non-conventional parental arrangements (unless these can be PROVEN to be inferior to one man, one woman).

2. Marriage is religiously sacred.

Like null said, separation of church and state! If anyone cares to debate that, this is going to get fun. :)

3. Marriage is an affirmation of the love beween a man and a woman.

Very sweet, but why should the government pay people to be in love? And why only heterosexuals?

Why? Because...

4. Marriage, in the form of lifelong pairings of one man and one woman, is a fundamental arrangement that is a cornerstone of the organization of our society. Thus, the maintenance of that institution is necessary to the maintenance of our society.

To me, this is by far the most compelling and interesting reason. After all, why else do government exist, if not to organize and maintain society? And if that arrangement is still fundamental, why shouldn't the government maintain it?

The answer is that that arrangement is showing its age, big time.

This builds on some of Zen's criticisms, interestingly, by flipping them on their head. He says marriage excludes gays for no good reason - I say, homophobia exists because homosexuality doesn't fit within the fundamental institution of marriage. Because that institution was fundamental to society, homophobia existed.

As the value/necessity of that institution fades, so does homophobia.

I do not intend to belittle religious beliefs, but one could, following the same logic, argue that marriage is said by Christianity to be sacred simply because marriage was a necessary and beneficial social institution. I personally think that if there are ways in which God wants us to live, us being married must be pretty low on the priority list.

Incidentally, I have some ideas on how to back up my claim that marriage was/is a fundamental institution, and a lot of reasons to consider it in the process of becoming obsolete. However, since I'm at work, I think I'll leave this post where it's at for now.

"History is more or less bunk." - Henry Ford

This post was edited by Bunk on Sep 24, 2009.

Sep 25, 2009 20:05 # 46534

zen *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 1

In fact he harshly criticises ALL forms of marriage, gay or not. So really he's doing two things: criticising marriage as an institution, and countering arguments like "gays shouldn't be married because they can't have children."

That's a pretty fair assessment of my view. Gay or straight, I'm saying it's unnecessary, and a passe, quaint fashion.
Marriage is life style. It's a choice that two people make, because they care for and love each other first.
Yes I am critical of the institution for reasons mentioned, and others. But most importantly I am making the point that because gays can't reproduce from the union, its no less a valid marriage--and also, let us not forget that I'm also sayingthat if a marriage doesn't produce kids it should be automatically annulled--if the procreation issue has any meaning or substance to it.

Although you haven't stated it per se, it seems that you believe in marriage as an affirmation of life long love and commitment. Zen seems to dismiss that idea, and he has good reasons to, but I like it.

It's unfair to say I'm dismissing that. I'm trying to limit my discussion to just one core issue: procreation. I believe that in it's grandest ideals it is life long love, or a life long committment. It's more a case that I'm a realist, or at least I have a more jaded view that love doesn't last that long. Sometimes it does, yes. But that seems not to be so much the case in my time.
Perhaps I have jaded myself, and my views taint the pool. I know my view is skewed from my own proclivities and predilictions. I can be viewed as oh, I dunno, the devil on your other shoulder whispering terrible things.

On the issue of cheating husbands, well, anyone who cheats is as you describe: a coward. That has to apply to both, regardless of the sex of the other person involved. Cheating is cheating, ok. But it's still not the same. We'll call it worse. So if we assume, for this argument, that if I hadn't been there they wouldn't have cheated...with me. That desire is still there. It's only gotten worse because he's not been able to scratch it. I'll admit I'm an assh*le, or whatever, for helping these guys cheat. Subsequently one might be able to understand my distain for the institution of marriage.

Imagine, instead of these guys cheating. They tell the wives they would like to have a guy in the bedroom. She will freek. If she told her before they got married that he likes guys, in some small way, they'd never have gotten married. In fact if you want to be with a female, don't ever tell her that you've been with another guy. Maybe if it wasn't looked at as such an important thing to "prove" one's sexuality, there would be less marriages that would lead to divorce over the lying. Heck, if people were honest from the beginning, 99% of all marriages wouldn't have taken place, but that's just an opinion.
The moral of the story is this: if you want to do away with cheating, do away with marriage...or at least have a built-in time limit. There would be more happy marriages that way.

This builds on some of Zen's criticisms, interestingly, by flipping them on their head. He says marriage excludes gays for no good reason - I say, homophobia exists because homosexuality doesn't fit within the fundamental institution of marriage. Because that institution was fundamental to society, homophobia existed.

I don't agree with that, because I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I mean, I don't believe homophobia is a new thing, and I think it developed separate from the issue of marriage.
As I've said before, marriage was, has for a long time been, about property rights. It's only in our recent, "modern," Westernized world that "love" and attraction is the base for who gets married. In our modern society, where husbands no longer "own" the wife, and the wife has a legal standing, the issue of love, attraction, choice is extremely important. The ideal of "being fruitful and multiplying" has been exchanged for happiness and contentment.
Marriage and homosexuality haven't always been mutually exclusive. I love the examples of the ancient Greeks. As earlier post have stated, the men would "bang their wives," but then would go out later and have fun with the guys. This was not cheating. This was the natural order. It's only been a recent thing, since the Judeo-Christian invasion that these kinds of activites have been shunned; for the explicit reason that "spilling your seed" in that fashion is idolatry, therefore a waste because it doesn't produce offspring.

Incidentally, I have some ideas on how to back up my claim that marriage was/is a fundamental institution, and a lot of reasons to consider it in the process of becoming obsolete.

I don't think that anyone would disagree that marriage is a fundamental institution the world over--I'll concede that point easily. What I am saying is that marriage is different the world over. The fact that there are so many different marriage ceremonies only proves that it is important. Two of the same gender is simply one more, different form of marriage.

As the value/necessity of that institution fades, so does homophobia.

I agree with that statement, but ultimately know its more than that. Part of the homophobic agenda is that we choose to be this way, that it's a life "style", that we can just pretend to be "normal" and we'll be that way. I think it takes a shift in paradigm of the governing thought/mindset/philosophy behind said institution.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

Sep 25, 2009 21:16 # 46539

null shakes his head...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 2

Gay or straight, I'm saying it's unnecessary, and a passe, quaint fashion.

I wouldn't say that. And I've been married once for love and it didn't work out, so I'm a burnt child to some degree, I guess. :-)

However, even though I'm not too keen on getting married again, and my girlfriend says she never wants to marry at all, there's one case where I'd insist on it. And that's when she's pregnant.
Not because I think it's romantic or intensifies our relationship. I don't need to be married for that. But there are a few compelling practical reasons:

  1. It's easier to raise a child when you're married, in terms of dealing with authorities and stuff as simple as attending a parent-teacher conference. Less red tape, so to speak.

  2. If something bad happens to me, at least my insurance will make sure that my wife and children are financially secure. An unmarried, unregistered girlfriend would get next to nothing.

  3. If something bad happens to any of us, we'll be allowed to visit each other at the hospital when nobody else is allowed to, and make decisions that the other one may not be able to make at that moment.

So to me, a marriage is a safety net for my family and the easiest way to raise a child.

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

This post was edited by null on Sep 25, 2009.

Sep 25, 2009 21:36 # 46541

ginsterbusch *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 1

So strictly speaking, a union by law (whether it'll be called marriage or something else) between two people should basically be something like what you mentioned, shouldnt it?

cu, w0lf.

beards are cool. every villain has one!

Sep 26, 2009 12:38 # 46545

Bunk *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 1

So to me, a marriage is a safety net for my family and the easiest way to raise a child.

That makes a lot of sense. In fact, I'd say the conclusion that this whole thread has brought me to is that marriage, as a legal contract with government benefits and whatnot, should be redefined exclusively for couples who are or intend to become parents.

Whether or not to allow gay couples to partake (through adoption or artificial insemination) is a tough call. I'd be inclined to say they should be allowed to adopt, simply because there are a lot of children out there who are orphaned or unwanted, and if a gay couple wants to offer them a safe and loving household we should let them.

Artificial insemination is a tougher call, because it gives the whole "that's not what nature intended" argument more fuel. However, I think that kind of criticism is dubious. Nature doesn't intend anything. Nature evolves and redefines its own rules - hence why we have cars, spaceships, nukes, etc. We don't evolve along the lines of most life forms, so we have to evolve consciously - mentally, culturally, technologically. If we don't evolve, we're dead.

And anyway: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8096453.stm.

"History is more or less bunk." - Henry Ford

Sep 26, 2009 15:20 # 46546

Bunk *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 2

Maybe if it wasn't looked at as such an important thing to "prove" one's sexuality, there would be less marriages that would lead to divorce over the lying. Heck, if people were honest from the beginning, 99% of all marriages wouldn't have taken place, but that's just an opinion.

That's a good point, and a good reason to re-think the nature and role of marriage in society. I certainly don't think any social institution such as marriage should be considered sacred by the law. If it causes problems without providing enough benefits in return, it should (and will, eventually) be changed. Resisting that is senseless.

I don't agree with that, because I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I mean, I don't believe homophobia is a new thing, and I think it developed separate from the issue of marriage.

You have a point. I guess I can't blame homophobia strictly on marriage, but as you said it does relate to how our society manages reproduction, and marriage is a key way in which our society does that.

As I've said before, marriage was, has for a long time been, about property rights.

True, but obviously it has snowballed into more than that. As you mentioned, it includes love, attraction, and commitment.

Here's my theory as to how marriage came to be (with credit to sociology Prof. John Baker at the University of Ottawa).

--- Warning: this is long. Very long. I go on forever, but I think it's pretty easy to read. If not, let me know and I'll force myself to be more concise. ---

I guess I'll be using the Western example, because that's the one I'm most familiar with. Other areas of the world certainly do, as you pointed out, have different ideas regarding marriage.

I'll start with this: grizzly bears don't have marriage.

When bears produce offspring, they mate and then the father kicks off. The cubs and mother live together until the mother goes into heat again (which only happens after a suitable raising period for the offspring) and gives the cubs the boot.

Given that perfectly functional way of living, bears have no need for any notion such as marriage, and the resulting/related ideas such as fidelity or infidelity, pre-marital sex, divorce, or (obviously) legal benefits or property rights.

(yes, I am going somewhere with this)

I can only speculate as to how mankind lived before civilization. Maybe we mated for life, but I doubt it. Sex likely happened whenever we felt like it, with whoever we could get. The resulting children needed help just like the bear cubs, and got it from their parent(s) in some way.

Once we started living in sedentary societies, and possessing property, this whole gig got problematic. If you live in a society dependent on agriculture, you need property to survive. So if I go knock up someone, I can't just get lost after. The mother will need more property in order to provide for the young, and since I'm halfway responsible it makes sense that I should be obligated to share and provide my property to the woman and child.

With this obligation, if I go around knocking up all kinds of different people, that either spreads my property pretty thin or I neglect my obligation, pissing off the women who are knocked up (this still happens). So it makes sense that I should be limited to one mate. That way I at least have to wait a while before I create more spawn.

Jealousy is a factor here, too. If we're permanently settled, we're all stuck in one place and interact a lot more than usual. Jealousy doesn't just result in a skirmish, it becomes a major social problem. And if I, the male, am stuck in this property obligation, then the female is stuck too. If she sleeps around while I provide her and our offspring property, that pisses me right off. So now we see sensible reasons to have fidelity as a rule.

Please note that I'm not being sexist here. I'm not saying that a man's natural role is to be a provider. I'm saying that that role evolved logically, and in the early stages men and women probably still performed a lot of the same duties, and I certainly don't think there was any notion of one sex being inherently better than the other. But I digress.

Since fidelity and legal property obligations make sense in this context, rules enforcing them came about. As andromacha said, why else does our government exist if not to make rules about this sort of thing? And we can see why marriage came to have religious undertones. I will go so far as to propose that if something makes sense/has great value, but nobody fully understands why (the logical argument I'm laying out may not have been comprehended or known fully), it becomes considered sacred or divine. Hence why Christianity enshrines this useful way of organizing things.

And it explains why sex outside of marriage is a sin. And why I said marriage helps make homosexuality a problem - for marriage to fully work, without having all kinds of messy jealousy, you need fidelity. The Greeks were rare progressives in this sense I guess, but it didn't last. If gay marriage had also come about as an accepted alternative (unfortunately meaning no kids for you) that would have been nice, but it didn't (probably for reasons you've mentioned - it came to be seen as unnatural).

---

In Western society, marriage evolved as society evolved. In the 20th century, we have seen a real crisis for the institution, possibly marking the beginning of the end of marriage. Here's a couple reasons why:

1. Literacy & standardized education including sex ed., and cheap birth control. Having sex all over the place can cause jealousy, but it only causes OMFG problems if children result. If people use birth control, that removes one logical reason for fidelity.

2. Gender equality. The unfortunate spectre of sexism came to be prevalent in Western society, leading to all kinds of notions such as "a woman's place is in the home" and "a woman can't do the job of a man" (and vise versa, but the man's role was given much more value). This was intensified during urbanization: the man left the home to go perform labour, as opposed to living and working in the same place (like on a farm), which furthered the division between the gender roles.

This created a kind of a self-fulfilling social prophecy: women were denied the education that men got, and thus weren't as smart; as well, the types of jobs that involve physical labour are more suitable to men. Thus the idea came about that men are stronger, smarter, thus better, and women are natural homemakers, good for little else.

The 20th century is changing all this stuff. Standardized and universal education is allowing women to compete with men intellectually. As well, technological and social changes are transforming our jobs such that physical strength isn't a huge factor in most of them. This means that the earning power of an independent woman is nearing equality with that of a man, negating somewhat the need for a provider/homemaker relationship.

Obviously homes still need to be kept up, particularly if there are children involved, but even that is getting a lot easier due to technology such as canned food, vacuum cleaners, microwaves, etc. And since a woman's earning power can be equal to that of a man, it no longer has to be the woman that is the homemaker.

With this earning power equality it makes less and less sense for the government or companies to provide a whole lot of benefits where children aren't involved. Remove them, justifiably, at which point the only reason for an intentionally childless couple to get married would be for love.

Having said that, it still makes sense for the government to recognize marriages, so that a few niceties can be offered - the legal right to time off from work in the case of a spouse's injury or death, the right to inheritance, a free name change if desired, that sort of thing.

But if that is the way it evolves, there remains no logical obstacle for allowing gay marriage. And if living an unmarried life is what people want, that shouldn't be punished or discouraged in any way.

"History is more or less bunk." - Henry Ford

This post was edited by Bunk on Sep 26, 2009.

Sep 25, 2009 15:24 # 46529

zen *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

You won't find any judge who allows this, because psychologically is just bad for the child. A child who is up for adoption, unless he's a newborn, will likely be a kid with problems... problems in relating to the adults, a kid that might have been abused, an abandoned kid who doesn't even know why he was abandoned... a problematic child needs a family that doesn't cause even more problems in his head. And this is precisely the reason why you won't find any judge who allows a couple of gays or lesbians to adopt a child like I said before.

So this view is that only hetro couples can provide a loving, stable relationship?
Honestly, I wouldn't put too much stock in what "the judges" do. Fact of the matter is that the judges usually side with females, as far as kids go. They won't give adoptions to a gay couple, but they will give custody to a drug-addict mother, regardless how stable the father is living. Don't kid yourself, the courts are biased. The courts will grant custody to an abusive mother because somehow she magically, automaically is supposed to know what's best for the child, even if she's proven she doesn't. That's called "jurisprudence," it's an old-standing tradition in family law...there's not any noble thoughts involved, like you seem to think there is.
You really do believe this rhetoric you're spouting....here's a news flash for you: hetro couples have produces mass-murders, rapists, arsonists, bombists, other problemed individuals. Somehow gays will do WORSE than this? You have got to be joking.
Hetro couples also produce more gays, but that's another discussion.
Finding a decent home is NOT the reason why judges don't grant adoptions to gay couples. The reason for that is called DISCRIMINATION.

One man/one woman; keeps going back to that. If they can't conceive, they can't be parents: that is your only real argument against gay marriage.
After all your rhetoric, that's still the jist of it...if you can't reproduce, you're can't have the same rights as the other people in love who want to marry for whatever the reason.

1) do they want to be able to get married just to say that they are in fact married?
2) do they want to get married in order to achieve the same rights that straight married people have?

Gays want to be married for both of those reasons. It's the same as anyone else who thinks that marriage is somehow important in life.
Does it matter to you that hetro females want to get married for the above-stated reason 1? Does it matter that hetro females get married because their "biological clock" is ticking? Does that make the marriage any less valid?

I do think that we all have the same rights and we are equal... however laws need to be made in order to regulat our behaviors... otherwise I can just get a gun and shoot all the people in the street.

Wow, that's a stretch...equating gay marriage with lawlessness.

I myself know that even in Greece the most important philosophers practiced "love" with guys, and then were married and banged women in order to reproduce.

Yes, and those women were treated as chattel, with the men being civilized in the mens' company.

I am not even saying that I am better than others and I should have rights that others shouldn't have because they're not married. My problem is only this: marriage is the consacration of love between a man and a woman, whether you want to see this under the religious or the civil standpoint. I

Yes, because men and women can have kids....the rest of you can go pound sand. It can only be love if it's between different sexes, I hear you say loud and clear.

Laws on marriage were made centuries ago when there wasn't this mass coming out and so there wasn't the need of a law that would defend the rights of these individuals.

You really should learn something about history before making a statement like that.
Marriage laws are based entirely on property rights. It's only been recently that the female has been allowed a legal standing. I'm sure you've hear of a "dowery". According to Wikipedia (one of my favorite sites for references), it says:

Originally, the purpose of a dowry was to help a husband to feed and protect his family, and to give the wife and children some support if he were to die.[citation needed] Even in the oldest available records, such as the Code of Hammurabi, the dowry is described as an already-existing custom. Regulations surrounding the custom include: the wife being entitled to her dowry at her husband's death as part of her dower, her dowry being inheritable only by her own children, not by her husband's children by other women, and a woman not being entitled to a (subsequent) inheritance if her father had provided her dowry in marriage.[citation needed] If a woman died without sons, her husband had to refund the dowry but could deduct the value of the bride price; the dowry would normally have been the larger of the sums.
One of the basic functions of a dowry has been to serve as a form of protection for the wife against the possibility of ill treatment by her husband and his family.[citation needed] In other words, the dowry provides an incentive to the husband not to harm his wife.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowery

And also "bride Price:

Bride price, also known as bride wealth, is an amount of money or property or wealth paid by the groom or his family to the parents of a woman upon the marriage of their daughter to the groom. (Compare dowry, which is paid to the groom, or used by the bride to help establish the new household, and dower, which is property settled on the bride herself by the groom at the time of marriage.) In the anthropological literature, bride price has often been explained in market terms, as payment made in exchange for the bride's family's loss of her labor and fertility within her kin group. Compare this affinal practice with brideservice, which does not rely on a compensatory exchange idiom for ethnological interpretation.
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_price

Let us also not forget arranged marriages:

Arranged marriage (also called prearranged marriage) is a marriage arranged by someone other than the couple getting wedded, curtailing or avoiding the process of courtship. Such marriages had deep roots in royal and aristocratic families around the world, including Europe. Today, arranged marriage is still practiced in South Asia, and the Middle East to some extent. Other groups that practice this custom include the Unification Movement. It should not be confused with the phenomenon of forced marriage. Arranged marriages are usually seen in Indian and African cultures, and are usually decided by the parents or an older family member.
The match could be selected by parents, a matchmaking agent, matrimonial site, or a trusted third party. In many communities, priests or religious leaders as well as relatives or family friends play a major role in matchmaking.
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage

This is another reason why marriage, as in institution, sucks. It was always about property rights, and the woman becoming the property of her husband, and his family, by extension. The woman was simply a vassel for her husband's pleasure.
Contrary to your belief, men have always been as attracted to other men, same as it is now. It was simply that years ago a man could have a "mistress" (which would've included a man, were he inclined that way), and that wouldn't have been a cause for a divorce.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

Sep 25, 2009 16:26 # 46530

andromacha *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 2

2 things:

So this view is that only hetro couples can provide a loving, stable relationship?

I never said that. I never stated that only hetero couples can proved a loving, stable relationship. I never excluded the fact that two guys or two girls can fall in love and be togher forever in a loving relationship. But that would simply not be an environment in which a kid should grow. Why? Because it would create this kid several psychological damages; he would continuously make comparisons between his situation and the situation of his friends who have a father and a mother, and not two parents of the same sex. This is not called discrimination; it's just that men and women are different, and they contribute to raising a child in different ways that are unique. I am in fact also saying that even raising a child as a single mother or single father is not great, but it is more accepted. In this instance in fact singles and gay/lesbian couples are the same: they won't be able to adopt a child. Now, I don't know if things are like that in America, but here if you are single your forms for adoption will be automatically rejected.

Yes, because men and women can have kids....the rest of you can go pound sand. It can only be love if it's between different sexes, I hear you say loud and clear.

Again, I never said something like this. Never said that love can be only between two people of different sex. And I stated it even in the previous post, and I just said it even above here. I am not discussing the fact that two people who aren't straight cannot produce a stable, loving relationship. All I try to think about is the welfare of the kids. Kids would be in an awful situation if they were put in a household where there is no love, or where the father is abusing them or any other number of bad things. But kids would probably have even more problems if they were raised by two people of the same sex: they would be teased in school - and don't kid yourself, you know that they would, and kids are quite mean to each other - they would see their friends with parents of different sexes, and they would automatically feel that they are different, because they don't have what normal kids have. I am not even considering the point of having a loving family or not having it. Your parents can love you to death, but if you are in constant discomfort because you see yourself not fitting the modern society, well there is nothing they can do about it. And what do you think that they would do to approach the situation? Sit down the 8 year-old kid and explain him that daddy and daddy love each other? Come on...
Again this is not discrimination, it is only common sense. Put a child that was abused or abandoned in a family made of two gays and/or two lesbians, and then we'll see how that child will react.

Another thing I considered is the following: if we were all made to have kids, then both females and males would be able to generate a child. But Mother Nature made us different, made us perfectly matched so that only the union of a man and a woman can generate a child; and this is precisely the reason why I cannot accept anything different than this.

I respect gays and their feelings, but really there are certain things that I cannot accept, and which need to be regulated by laws. This is not discrimination. I mean, heck accept it: there are things that man and woman can do together that will not be able to be reproduced by man and man or woman and woman; and it would be not right nor natural to change such things by for example letting them adopt a child.

Italy no longer accepts illegal immigrants. Mr. B sink their boats!!!!!!!

This post was edited by andromacha on Sep 25, 2009.

Sep 25, 2009 18:05 # 46532

ginsterbusch *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 1

I respect gays and their feelings, but really there are certain things that I cannot accept, and which need to be regulated by laws. This is not discrimination. I mean, heck accept it: there are things that man and woman can do together that will not be able to be reproduced by man and man or woman and woman; and it would be not right nor natural to change such things by for example letting them adopt a child.

Well, accept it: What you are saying actually IS discrimination. First you tell a fact: Males are not able to reproduce with each other. Next on, there's the part that doesnt fit:

not right nor natural to change such things by for example letting them adopt a child.

Are you kind of ... blind? No, just prejudiced I guess.
Why is it not right for them to adopt a child? This is a thesis but without a reason. And why is it NOT natural? I do not understand your reasoning as these are no reasons, just statements without justification.

Give me a (scientific or at least logical) explanation - else, you're just .. well .. not a racist, but you have something in common with them. Being prejudiced and not wanting to listen to reason.

If I really were prejudiced about Italy and its people, I'd say your reasoning is born out of the long catholic tradition of convicting and extinctioning those who do not believe or are in their cause. Also Italy is the fatherland of the facism. So you're probably just standing to your traditional principles.

But I am not, just because some of my best friends are of Italian descent, who have already proven to me that not only you can overcome your traditional education but are also completely free of this and, as a bonus, stay open-minded for anything that might come to you.

cu, w0lf.

beards are cool. every villain has one!

This post was edited by ginsterbusch on Sep 25, 2009.

Sep 26, 2009 08:05 # 46542

andromacha *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 2

Well, what can I tell you Ginster? My personal convictions are that an environment with two people of the same sex is not good for child raising, and I did explain why. The reason is related to the contribution of the mother and the father can give to the child; a contribution that cannot be given in the same way by parents of the same sex, because we are by nature different. I am not talking about love and feelings, because like I said I think that there is more to it than just that. Then Zen talked about abusive parents... well a gay/lesbian couple can be abusive as well, or am I wrong? Every person on this planet could be a badass; it's not that all hetero couples are abusive. The best environment for a child to be raised in is made by a man and a woman who are NOT abusive. This is what I am talking about... I am not even considering abusive parents, because such people shouldn't have kids either. And yes, I said that it is just as bad for a child to be raised by a single parent or by divorced parents. I stated that before.

Ginster, if Italy was the land of fascism, Germany was the land of nazism, which is even WORSE. So don't even get into this. At least our Mussolini guy did something good for my country, before being corrupted by that crazy Austrian guy.
Catholicism... good point. I am Catholic, but was never raised Catholic. I decided to be baptized out of my own will when I was 8 years old, but I didn't do anything else more than that. Sure I have gone to a Catholic school for 13 years, because it was the best school in town, and they did probably try to brainwash me, but they failed miserably. I don't set foot in a church unless I am obliged to, and generally speaking I hate religion and I hate the church.

But let's not turn this into a political post, shall us? Otherwise you might realize that I am wearing black pants and black shirt today ;)

In short: considering that I live in a democratic country and nation (if we do consider Europe as a whole finally once and for all), I will agree to whatever is decided by the majority of the people. This means that if I am called to vote on whether gays should have the right to adopt a child I will likely vote no, unless something happens that makes me see the other side. But if yes wins, then peace out and let it be. I am not likely to fight for gay rights, simply because it's something that I don't understand... I am sorry, but I just don't get it... I might even consider the gay cause if then I didn't see clear examples of well I don't even know exactly what it is during the gay pride: men wearing women dresses and talking in falsetto voice just to be noticed. Sorry... I don't think it is a matter of gay or non gay, but this is just not right. In other words: I am not going to fight for their rights, but this doesn't exclude the possibility of them having the same exact rights; if this happened... well peace out, I am not going to be the one saying no you can't have that.

And all of you who are so liberal and non discriminatory... have you manifested for the rights of gays? If yes, then kudos to you. Otherwise I really don't think you should call me names like racist or other things like that, because you're just as equal to me. We're all good in words... give me facts.

Italy no longer accepts illegal immigrants. Mr. B sink their boats!!!!!!!

Sep 28, 2009 00:53 # 46550

zen *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 1

We're all good in words... give me facts.

This is a very funny, ironic statement to hear coming from you. The fact is, you have yet to provide any "facts." You have introduced a whole bunch of rhetoric into this discussion. You've introduced a lot of wishful-thinking and belief into this topic. All those things you've tried to pass-off as fact, are, in fact, devoid of fact.
I think we all can concede that I know more gay people, and gay couples than you do. I've had much more experience in this topic than you do. I have personal stories and actual events which dispel the blithe propaganda you consider truth. I've been consistently giving facts in my replies.

well a gay/lesbian couple can be abusive as well, or am I wrong? Every person on this planet could be a badass

Yes you are wrong. My experience shows that as an un-true statement. I mean if "badass" means a guy who beats his wife and kids, on the face of that, that's not a true statement. Statistically speaking, that's not true. Actually, in real life speaking, that's not true either. I suppose in a survival setting, anyone might chose to kill instead of be killed, but that's not a normal "everyday" thing, is it?
If you want to talk facts, try this: all the abusive family situations I've ever seen, or heard of, were hetro. I'm sure the only examples of abusives relationships/family situations are hetro. I'm willing to wager you don't know of any abusive gay couple(s).
A conservative estimate puts my acquaintence with gay couples at 20. Of those 20 or so couples, I didn't see any signs that they would be bad parents, not the bad that I'm familiar with. This also brings up a parallel issue. Not all those 20 couples would want to adopt. I'll put it at about 30 percent of those gay couples would want to raise the traditional family. 20% would be lesbian, and 10% would be the guys. This is just my reading of the group, I haven't asked all of them their thoughts on kids, so much as a "gay" opinion on kids. Maybe up to 40% of lesbian couples would want to have kids, or adopt.
There are "badass" gay men and women. They usually fall into one, or a few of these camps: (1)drag queens (usually), (2)lesbians (in general), (3)the addict/alcoholic (of course), (4)Dom Top/Masters (sometimes). Except for lesbians, as previously mentioned, these groups aren't the familying, having kids types.
There's also another issue altogether, the scientific reality. I'm a huge fan of biology, anatomy, learning about the body. One of the things we learn in gender studies is that this magic substance that all men have, testosterone, does some interesting things. Of the things it promotes: aggression and sex drive are the most important to our discussion. Straight men have a higher degree of testosterone than do homosexual men. It's an over abundence of the hormone, coupled with ignorance that leads to abuse. While gays aren't immune from ignorance, generally that lack of testosterone keeps them pretty mellow.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

Sep 25, 2009 20:38 # 46535

zen *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating vs. adopting

?% | 1

Why? Because it would create this kid several psychological damages; he would continuously make comparisons between his situation and the situation of his friends who have a father and a mother, and not two parents of the same sex

Don't forget about making comparisions with the kids who've been divorced, as well as comparing his family with the rich kids, and with the poor kids.

This is not called discrimination; it's just that men and women are different, and they contribute to raising a child in different ways that are unique.

Right. And due to what you were saying, some "fathers" are none better than sperm donors taking little interest in the development of the child. Such is my case: my folks were "married" for a long time, but in name only. Th love, magic, spark, whatever you call it had long since evaporated. Living with them was really hell. He was gone for long periods of time, and when he was there was an absolute drunken, violent, abusive prick. Mom had mental issues. I don't recall any significant time together which did not result in all sorts of stuff flying across the room.
Neither of them were fit parents, yet somehow that is better than two men or two women raising me and my sisters? If a hetro relationship is automatically better (as you suggest), then how come my sister said nothing at my mother's funeral? She said she couldn't think of anything nice to say about her at her service. That is the alleged "better life" you advocate.

But kids would probably have even more problems if they were raised by two people of the same sex: they would be teased in school - and don't kid yourself, you know that they would, and kids are quite mean to each other - they would see their friends with parents of different sexes, and they would automatically feel that they are different, because they don't have what normal kids have.

More of that straw argument. Sure kids are teased for being different. That's no different form my work, or hanging out with my friends. I was raised in a hetro environment, and I got teased, so what. All you can hope to do is keep the kids from beating each other up, regardless of their perceived differences.

Again this is not discrimination, it is only common sense.

If common sense really was, then everyone would have it. What's obvious to you only comes across as discrimination to me.

Put a child that was abused or abandoned in a family made of two gays and/or two lesbians, and then we'll see how that child will react.

Funny you should mention that. That exact thing happened to my friend/ex-partner. He managed to divest himself, at 15, from his abusive hetro- family life. He managed to find a homosexual couple to take him in. Wouldn't you know, there was nothing but love, warmth. Sure his benefactor could be a little verbally mean, overall he'll tell you it was an marked imporavement He only wishes that he'd have come across that earlier in his life. As a result, my ex- is very well adjusted, and holds a regular job, etc.
I, on the other hand, who had quite a horrid, abusive upbringing, with no gay couple intervention, eventually turned into a criminal.
My real life, actual experiences belie what you assume.

I think I can safely assume that you don't have any actual, real life facts, or personal anecdotes to back up any of these adoption theories you spout.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

This post was edited by zen on Sep 25, 2009.

Sep 28, 2009 22:33 # 46553

jael *** has a suggestion...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating vs. adopting

65% | 3

(maybe in interjecting a bit too late and if it's already said, disregard this comment)

You guys were talking about hetero vs homo couples in terms of giving the full care and influences with both male and female parties.

Now it doesn't apply to all couples but 'most' gay couples I've met distinctly have more butch and one feminine one, even if it is to a slight degree. (In both gays and lesbians) so technically if you look at it in terms of raising a child, he/she is getting a both masculine and feminine traits. (Not that it really matters, I was raised by my mother who has a very feminine environment and turned out a tom-boy)

Right.. i just contradicted myself... well my point simply was.

If you have a loving a caring partnership, anyone can be raised an nurtured regardless of sex/gender.

Besides, you marry who you want to, live with who makes you happy. In the end that's what counts. Not politics.. love does.

I sound sooo cheesy, no?

*insert something profound/witty/humorous here*

Sep 28, 2009 23:08 # 46554

zen *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Parental traits

93% | 3

Spot on. You hit the nail on the head.
When my mom was alone, she had to be both parents. She had a varying degree of success in being both "sides."

I read what you said, and I think about my classes in childhood development. We all start out as an indeterminate blob of goo untill our dna starts kicking in, and a gender gets "assigned", but essentially the amino acid building blocks are asexual, and any person could be either sex. Some people are intersexed, but that's a different, but related discussion.
Within any given adult is both sides of the coin. That's why I, as a grown male, have nipples. Granted they don't function, but I still have some natural estrogen in my system, etc., etc.
Heck, who says that a man couldn't be nurturing, compassionate, supportive, all those traits a woman could be, but also teach the kid to play ball, or defend himself, whatever?
I personally know a few hetro- fathers who are, well, wusses, but they still provide a nice family for the wife and kid. So what the father can't play ball or do physical things, hiking, hunting, or other stereotypical masculine things.

Doesn't this whole issue revolve around our stereotypes, around pre-judging of what makes a true "man" and a true "woman": gender roles, as it were? It is true, that when it comes to raising kids that men and woman can't do the same things for a kid: Nursing/lactating is the only thing that comes to my mind.
It is true that not every male can give the support and other stuff that a woman will bring, but then you don't get that naturally from every woman, do you? As I've already shown, one doesn't.

So then the pendulum of our polemics swings the other way, and we'll get a question like this: Oh, well, if it's a man who's substituting for a woman, being supportive, listening, reaffirming of the kids emotions, etc. (i.e., the traditional "mom" role) then that will push him into being effeminate, or "turn" the kid (assumedly a male) gay?
To which I say: it's you breeders who are producing gay people. Don't blame that on us who were born this way.

Besides, you marry who you want to, live with who makes you happy. In the end that's what counts. Not politics.. love does.

I sound sooo cheesy, no?

Yes, you do. That's a very sweet thing to say. I mean, that's what it's all about.
In the end analysis, all that ever may be important about our lives is that we loved, loved very deeply another.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

This post was edited by zen on Sep 28, 2009.

Sep 24, 2009 14:27 # 46524

ginsterbusch *** mindlessly drivels...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 1

"I think butt-fucking is disgusting. Let's make it illegal!"

"I think butt-fucking is fun. That can't be legal! Let's make it illegal!"

*SCNR*

cu, w0lf.

beards are cool. every villain has one!

Sep 26, 2009 09:34 # 46543

Hawkeye *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

85% | 5

Society has pushed marriage for a long time. It's like getting baptised almost. Imagine a time before baptism was common. You hear through the grapevine that your best friend, Joe, got baptised, which was a particular thing and truly showed dedication to God. Well *you* go to church too, don't you? *You* are dedicated to God as well and you've done *many* more things for the church than Joe has, so why should Joe be seen as superior in the eyes of God and me not? Therefore, what do you do? You get baptised too. Before you know it, baptism becomes something you have to do if you're not a heretic or at the least want to be shunned by the village.

Marriage is the same way in my opinion. It initially had such value as a true commitment to your partner because it was something you would do to show that in the eyes of God, you were going to do everything it took to make it work. Today, if you don't get married, then pretty soon your mother starts calling you asking when her first grandkids are going to pop out. It's not considered normal to not get married. And as such, I'm almost convinced that most people nowadays who get married do so due to the pressures of society rather than their true commitment to one another. It's almost like the ultimate gesture or ultimate gift of love for how it's viewed. Opening doors is nice, and receiving chocolates is nice too, though what I'd really like is a gold ring on my finger and my fiance to propose on one knee...

zen, essentially everything you said is true in practice, though the fact that a man and woman can reproduce is not the only reason for this conviction that it can only be a man and a woman, but for the religious aspect as well. Though I have to disagree on your point of not being considered cheating if a husband goes with another man. Being true and loyal to your partner whether it be the opposite sex or the same sex is the definition of marriage in my opinion, and being with someone who isn't your partner is not being loyal.

I believe same-sex marriage should be on the same level as a traditional marriage as far as rights go, including alimony or whatever situations which may arise from a divorce from such a marriage. If I could change one thing, however, it'd be that it not be called "marriage" by the government because of its religious implications. Call it "spousal partnership"; whatever you want, just don't call it marriage.

Those who reject the idea of a spousal partnership can join the skinheads and the klu klux klan for white supremecy for as much logic as you can derive in an argument with them about why they feel as they do. I may not personally like the idea, but if I have no reasons to say to the contrary, it'd just be me forcing baseless ideas on the masses. My beliefs cannot be driven by emotion but by logic.

If the world should blow itself up,the last audible voice would be an expert saying it can't be done

This post was edited by Hawkeye on Sep 26, 2009.

Sep 26, 2009 15:55 # 46548

ginsterbusch *** wants to note...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

Dammit. I wanted to give your post a "EXCELLENT" rating, but slipped on the damn mouse wheel, so it went to "nice" :-(

Someone please correct this by rating his post "EXCELLENT".
Or @ Null: Change it (if you're able to).

thanks in advance,
cu, w0lf.

beards are cool. every villain has one!

This post was edited by ginsterbusch on Sep 26, 2009.

Nov 23, 2009 12:41 # 46622

Ameli1162 * replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

68% | 4

Andro....

You use a lot of "I believe" and "I think" and "It's just not right" in your responses. Did it ever occur to you that what you do not understand and what does not correlate with your religious beliefs is not necessarily wrong? Instead of what is "right" for you, why not step outside of yourself and allow other people to do what is "right" for them? You do seem like a bit of a meddler. And I say this with all due respect, but I think you would do well to take some time focusing on the "plank in your own eye," the same plank that is blinding you to your hypocrisy and ignorance.

:)

Nov 30, 2009 21:24 # 46628

andromacha *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 2

Ameli... are you out of it?! Do you at least know what meddler means? Because it doesn't seem exactly appropriate.
Secondly, I am not a hypocrite at all; if anything I am quite coherent in my behaviors in respect to what I think.
Yes, my posts are full of I think or I believe, because here we were discussing something also based on what we think. I don't have the presumption to know the universal truth. Thanks to your insight on my humble self though; I will probably print out your post and use it to clean my ass!

Italy no longer accepts illegal immigrants. Mr. B sink their boats!!!!!!!

Oct 31, 2009 14:37 # 46570

harold_maude *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

78% | 4

This is a great hot touchy subject...where are my oven mitts?
I read the whole thing, all the debate and reasonings.
So I'm going to throw my thoughts into the mix.

If all marriage means is having babies, then every time two people of the opposite gender have sex and it results in pregency which is procreation, then alot of people have been married for at least a few hours while they were making that baby.
And if you really want to get techical, than any woman who has gotten pregnant by using donor sperm from a sperm bank has married herself to a test tube.

If marriage is about pair bonding for life irregardless of procreation, then marriage has nothing to do with a pairing of two opposite genders, but rather it's about emotional attachment and an agreement to be in an exclusive primary relationship with the intent to remain as a pair for life.

I think the reason that gay marriage is such a hot issue is that it threatens an exclusive hetros only club. Much in the same way that any gender exclusive club gets upset when a memeber of the opposite gender wants to join. The difference is that unlike other clubs, the hetro only club says that right to have sex is theirs exclusively, and that the only good sex that is moral is in a marriage between a man and a woman.
This goes even further in the hetros only club: the only kind of good sex is that which results in procreation.

Any other sex outside of that, even in a hetro relationship, is bad, it's breaking the rules of the hetros only club.
Which is completely hypocritical at best. But just because it's hypocritical doesn't mean that the rules to allow others into the hetros only club will go down easliy. There's too much tradition tied up in it.

This post was edited by harold_maude on Oct 31, 2009.

Feb 25, 2011 17:58 # 47026

Wekobo ** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 2

I hope i dont mess this one up and step on peoples toes here,

Homosexual marriages should be morally accepted, after all, they can all feel pain and love with our without a mental illness and some may point out that homosexuality is in fact a mental illness. Is it? Geez i dont know, why not ask a homosexual, im sure he or she will come up with a good response haha.

Anyhow, here is my opinion on the matter, homosexuality is obviously not very accepted by society, and this is something that we have to realize and hold on to, because if you are going to be openly gay, you have to face it that not everyone is going to accept this or is going to tolerate it. Something you just cant beat the majority or make it realize that they are hard headed. So i say just keep it to your self and your partner, being married does not mean that it will make you relationship more valuable, or make you guys love each other more. Live and let live, who cares about that the majority has to say, it will not affect your daily life or will affect you significant other, its a personal choice, so keep it personal.

I guess that would be my opinion on the subject, is it wrong and unfair to think this way? Yeah it is, but as harsh as it might be its reality, who cares if people accept you or not, just be you and who cares.

Now about families being different simply because its a single mother or father, who cares, its still a family, there is love among the family and respect, also union than its a family. NO matter how many members its still a family. Even if its just you are your dog its a family.

About gays adopting. Like i said before, live your life, don't get your self in trouble because the truth is that not everyone accepts adoption by gays, people see it as a spawn pool. "OH if his parents are gay than he/she is fay!" That is how sadly people see it. is it ok? no its not but that's how they see it. But like i said before, if there is love and union among the members than its a family. A family is a family to the eyes of the members, it will not make any difference what other think.

Well sorry for making this post a little long, its just that i only get to post like 3 times a day here (which sucks) so i had to take advantage of this one post haha.

My regards,

Joey

You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep

Mar 15, 2011 02:40 # 47031

zen *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 1

Thanks for your input, and opinions. I think that the only time on this site where one "steps on another's toes" is when that opinion is given respectfully. I think you did that.
I'm glad you poted because it keeps this topic alive. It's no less relevant now than it was when I originally posted it back when.

love with our without a mental illness and some may point out that homosexuality is in fact a mental illness. Is it?

Well, it's a good thing there's no test for sanity, or else alot of people wouldn't be allowed to marriage. Personally I think there should be a sanity test for those who are looking to procreate. In my humble opinion, it would make the world a better place.
Is homosexuality a mental pathology, abbheration, or mental illness? No. It does, however, take a sick mind to judge others, and say they aren't mentally well.

Something you just cant beat the majority or make it realize that they are hard headed. So i say just keep it to your self and your partner, being married does not mean that it will make you relationship more valuable, or make you guys love each other more. Live and let live, who cares about that the majority has to say, it will not affect your daily life or will affect you significant other, its a personal choice, so keep it personal.

I can see your viewpoint, but then I also point-out that all marriage in this society (i.e. America) is by personal choice. we don't have fixed marriages, bridal prices, dowrys, and anything of the sort anymore. The main point I make is that if the hetros get to freely choose who they will, based on little more that "love", then that equation only makes sense when extended to gays.
In fact the intent of my original post was talking specifically about procreating, and producing offspring, but that's almost a mute point in this whole topic.
The promise of the Constitution is to grant rights and freedoms to all people. While it doesn't specify marriage as either a right, or a guarentee, it is accepted that it falls within the "pursuit of happiness" doctrine. True, people might not be for gay marriage, so what. You don't have to be invited. Turn away. What business is it of yours? (I'm not saying this specifically to you, Wekobo, except in the metaphorical sense.)

About gays adopting. Like i said before, live your life, don't get your self in trouble because the truth is that not everyone accepts adoption by gays, people see it as a spawn pool. "OH if his parents are gay than he/she is fay!" That is how sadly people see it. is it ok? no its not but that's how they see it. But like i said before, if there is love and union among the members than its a family. A family is a family to the eyes of the members, it will not make any difference what other think.

Not everyone accepts...so what. Not everyone accepted slavery--so we should just go along with it and keep our slaves hidden? Not everyone accepts a woman, or person-other-than-white as a president, so we should just forget about it, stick with the status quo?
If me and my dog were accepted as a family, under the eyes of the law, and protected as such, sure it wouldn't matter what our legal status, but then that isn't happening.
The point I made, and anyone has still to competently contradict it, is that a homosexual couple make as as good, if not better set of parents than does a hetro couple.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag


Small text Large text

Netalive Amp (Skin for Winamp)