One Thread for Homosexuality, Marriage, etc., etc... My Take, for the Record

[mal]

I think humans fuck their dead out of desperation. That desperation comes from social taboo; meaning, the person is so ugly, foul, socially awkward, etc. that they cannot find a woman or man to have sex with them. If society didn't place any emphasis on looks, so much, perhaps this desperation would not exist. Because what is a dead body? It's still a human, and it's naturally to be attracted to humans. The deviation there occurs when society interjects its taboo thus creating the desperation. This is not analogous to homosexuality, whatsoever.

How do you Know what Necorphiliacs look like?...

As for Taboos...

There are Plenty of Leftist Psychologists and Professors trying to Break down the Barrier of Age as we Speak...

"Adult/Child Sex"...

Are Taboos good or bad?... Not Sure where you were going with that.

As for Marriage and Sex and ProCreation...

Marriage doesn't Need ProCreation and Homosexuals don't Need Marriage.

They are Demanding it in a Continuing Attempt to Force Society to Embrace them as Equal to something they Factually are NOT.



peace...

 

[G.T.]

How do you Know what Necorphiliacs look like?......

I have to assume they're attracted to humans, since they fuck humans, so them fucking the dead ones must be desperation. I don't think lack of a pulse has anything to do with it. Maybe it does, but it's hard to imagine.

As for Taboos...

There are Plenty of Leftist Psychologists and Professors trying to Break down the Barrier of Age as we Speak...

"Adult/Child Sex"...

Are Taboos good or bad?... Not Sure where you were going with that....

And I'd have to smack those psychologists in the mouth if I ever met them. Taboos can be good and bad, it's a pretty complex world dude.

As for Marriage and Sex and ProCreation...

Marriage doesn't Need ProCreation and Homosexuals don't Need Marriage.

They are Demanding it in a Continuing Attempt to Force Society to Embrace them as Equal to something they Factually are NOT.



peace...

Not equal does not mean less always, it just means different. I don't think they're "less" and I agree that marriages don't need to produce offspring and so let gays marry, so long as marriage is legally recognized. If it's only a Church recognition, sure, ban away.

 

[mal]

How do you Know what Necorphiliacs look like?......

I have to assume they're attracted to humans, since they fuck humans, so them fucking the dead ones must be desperation. I don't think lack of a pulse has anything to do with it. Maybe it does, but it's hard to imagine.

As for Taboos...

There are Plenty of Leftist Psychologists and Professors trying to Break down the Barrier of Age as we Speak...

"Adult/Child Sex"...

Are Taboos good or bad?... Not Sure where you were going with that....

And I'd have to smack those psychologists in the mouth if I ever met them. Taboos can be good and bad, it's a pretty complex world dude.

As for Marriage and Sex and ProCreation...

Marriage doesn't Need ProCreation and Homosexuals don't Need Marriage.

They are Demanding it in a Continuing Attempt to Force Society to Embrace them as Equal to something they Factually are NOT.



peace...

Not equal does not mean less always, it just means different. I don't think they're "less" and I agree that marriages don't need to produce offspring and so let gays marry, so long as marriage is legally recognized. If it's only a Church recognition, sure, ban away.

Not Equal in Marriage or our Existence... As Humans Basically, yes...

As for your "Complex" Evasion...

Yeah, Life is Complex, and I am not about Entertaining some Sexual Deviants in Marriage to Exclusion of any Number of Combinations of Humans who would also "Benefit" from Marriage...

And in that, I am NOT for Expanding it beyond the Reflection of our Natural Existence that it has been in this REPUBLIC since the Founding.

Homosexuals Marrying is NOT "Fundamental to your Very Existence"... As the SCOTUS put it when Slapping Down Laws that Denied Based on Color...

A True Injustice considering the Fact that a Black Man and a White Woman CAN and have the Possibility of Illustrating "Marriage" as it's Reflected in our Society.

Homosexuals can Marry, they just can't Redefine Marriage... Not Honestly anyway.

But then again the SCOTUS called Blacks Property and not Deserving of Rights once, so we Know that Honesty and the Court are always not Hand in Hand.



peace...

 

[G.T.]

Not Equal in Marriage or our Existence... As Humans Basically, yes......

Yea, that's where we differ. I disagree they're not equal in our existence. That's petty, to me. We don't all need to reproduce for our species to survive. I find their difference to straight persons irrelevant. Irrelevant to me, my life, and also my society as I view it. We simply disagree, there's no rationale beyond that that people disagreeing on this subject will accept.

As for your "Complex" Evasion......

I guess if stating an obvious truth is an evasion. I said the truth to a question you asked, "are taboos good or bad" ...that can't be answered as a "whole" because there's different taboos to be judged, on different merits, etc. I answered truthfully, and to call the truth an evasion is sort of being a baby because maybe I didn't say what you wanted me to say? Because I didn't see the world as simply as to even be ABLE to answer such a non-sense question? I don't get calling this an evasion, really.

Yeah, Life is Complex, and I am not about Entertaining some Sexual Deviants in Marriage to Exclusion of any Number of Combinations of Humans who would also "Benefit" from Marriage...

And in that, I am NOT for Expanding it beyond the Reflection of our Natural Existence that it has been in this REPUBLIC since the Founding...

To me, it doesn't currently reflect our Natural existence. So, it needs to reflect that. I think Gay is a natural occurence, perhaps as I said before because EVERY human need-not reproduce for the survival of our species, perhaps it's a "Natural" population control. I don't know why some people are born gay, but it seems pretty natural to me and not just a "fad" in its longevity.

Homosexuals Marrying is NOT "Fundamental to your Very Existence"... As the SCOTUS put it when Slapping Down Laws that Denied Based on Color....

Yea, and in my opinion neither is marriage. Marriage is not fundamental to our very existence in that people can fuck and have babies without it.

A True Injustice considering the Fact that a Black Man and a White Woman CAN and have the Possibility of Illustrating "Marriage" as it's Reflected in our Society.

Homosexuals can Marry, they just can't Redefine Marriage... Not Honestly anyway.

This whole geekiness over a "word" is something corny to me, as I stated earlier. It seems so frivolous, inane, immature, etc. I don't care how people use a fucking word, because it's a fucking word. Many words have been redefined to the detriment of noone. The "redefinition" of this word doesn't need to effect you if you don't let it. Therein lies your own ability or inability to govern your OWN life, regardless of what society defines. At all. Grow a pair.

 

[rdking647]

why should the state give a damn whether 2 people that are willing to put up with each other enough to call themself "married" and are willing to form a family unit are gay,straight,bi or whatever. Its none of the governments damn business.
The government has no more right saying 2 men or 2 women can get married than it does saying a black cant marry a white or a republican cant marry a democrat (although that might be over the line of decency)

A Black and a White can ProCreate... The Possibility ONLY Exists with Opposite Sex Coupling...



peace...

So only couple that can procreate can marry. Bummer for the elderly or those who cant have kids.

Im sick of the intolerance of those on the right who are trying to inject their religious beliefs onto others. Ant when you get right down to brass tacks it all about 2 things

Gays cant marry because its against MY religion
Gays cant marry because I find it "icky"

End of story

 

[Gurdari]

I would like to ask you to further explain what you mean when you say marriage is obsolete.

Marriage is only obsolete if you feel it is. Of course, it has no necessary function, you can live with your partner and have kids, etc. without a piece of paper proving the government approves. or without a bunch of people witnessing you 'promise' to love each other - the real things that make relationships work don't come from outside the couple, or from the lawyers, etc.

So, while marriage is not needed, or necessary - it is not obsolete if you use it and like it. Some people really love marriage, some couldn't care less.

Sort of like alcohol. Or TV.

 

[xotoxi]

Here's my take:

Marriage should not be a government santioned status. Marriage should be left entirely to religions.

States should develop "Civil Unions", by which two (and only two) consenting adults could join into a legal contract which would give them all the rights and privileges that current marriage does.

These "Civil Unions" could be used by a man and women, two men, two women, a brother and a sister, a mother and a son, etc....whatever works for the two individuals.

A "Civil Union" would have no implicit or explicit connotations about sexual activity, since the state should not be issuing licenses or certificates for people to have sex. Therefore, an elderly mother and a middle-aged son might enter into a "Civil Union" for inheritance or tax implications. In no way would the state assume, imply, or condone these two individuals having sex.

A "Civil Union" could be applied for (just like a marriage license) when a man and a woman get married in church. If they want to get married, but not apply for Civil Union, then they would be married in the eyes of the Church, but would be single from the eyes of the state.

Civil unions from one state would be recognized in all other states reciprocally.

That's the way I see it.

 

[Gurdari]

interesting... and why not?

Not everyone fits into the same mold when it comes to partnering in life, or has the same reasons for doing so. That could accomodate a lot of people.

Polygamy should still be allowed for the same reasons that the gov has no right to legislate consenting relationships bewtween adults...

 

[mal]

This whole geekiness over a "word" is something corny to me, as I stated earlier. It seems so frivolous, inane, immature, etc. I don't care how people use a fucking word, because it's a fucking word. Many words have been redefined to the detriment of noone. The "redefinition" of this word doesn't need to effect you if you don't let it. Therein lies your own ability or inability to govern your OWN life, regardless of what society defines. At all. Grow a pair.

It's not about a Word... It's about a Foundation of a Society...

Homosexuals are NOT Man and Wife... Mom and Dad...

They are People who Deviate from our Natural Existence, and Molesting Law to say they are something they are NOT, just to give them a False sense of Validation, a Validation they have Failed to Gain on their own since Stonewall, is Wrong EVERY level.

If they are Given Marriage in Law as Equal to what Creates us, then my Tax Dollars will have to be Spent Teaching Deviancy as Normal.

It's NOT.

Consenting Adults should keep their Fucking Perversion in the Fucking Bedroom...

They should Stop Trying to get Kindergarteners to Sign Pledge Cards for Transexuals and the rest...

Stay away from Marriage and Children, and I don't have a Problem...

And by that, I Obviously don't Mean that Homosexuals should be Denied Access to Children, they just Shouldn't be given "Marriage" as Equal to what Creates us, and they need to Stop trying to Indoctrinate each Generation that what they do is anything other than a Chosen Deviation or and Abnormality.



peace...

 

[G.T.]

This is now a mundane conversation. I disagree it's deviant, and so the rest of the points are moot.

We disagree. So be it.

 

[mal]

Here's my take:

Marriage should not be a government santioned status. Marriage should be left entirely to religions.

States should develop "Civil Unions", by which two (and only two) consenting adults could join into a legal contract which would give them all the rights and privileges that current marriage does.

These "Civil Unions" could be used by a man and women, two men, two women, a brother and a sister, a mother and a son, etc....whatever works for the two individuals.

A "Civil Union" would have no implicit or explicit connotations about sexual activity, since the state should not be issuing licenses or certificates for people to have sex. Therefore, an elderly mother and a middle-aged son might enter into a "Civil Union" for inheritance or tax implications. In no way would the state assume, imply, or condone these two individuals having sex.

A "Civil Union" could be applied for (just like a marriage license) when a man and a woman get married in church. If they want to get married, but not apply for Civil Union, then they would be married in the eyes of the Church, but would be single from the eyes of the state.

Civil unions from one state would be recognized in all other states reciprocally.

That's the way I see it.

I am not in Agreement with you Entirely, but that is a Thoughtful and Coherent take...

I am for Civil Unions for everything except One Man and One Woman Entering in a Union of Marriage.

Civil Unions, Homosexuals aside, are LONG Overdue.



peace...

 

[mal]

This is now a mundane conversation. I disagree it's deviant, and so the rest of the points are moot.

We disagree. So be it.

It's Deviant by Definition, but I Respect your Opinion and Wish to Discontinue the Circle we are Obviously going to Continue in.



peace...

 

[Aztaz]

Do you Think Most non-Western Muslim Agree?....

Serious Question.

It's weird you should ask that. I saw the strangest documentary I've seen in awhile this past weekend. It was about transgendered people in iran. Homosexuality is outlawed, but sex changes are not only allowed, but paid for by the state. Islamic scholars can't find anything against it in the koran (probably becasue it wasn't that much of an issue a couple thousand years ago.), so it's considered legal.

Alot of the people going through the procedure admitted that they wouldn't have a sex change if homosexuality was legal. So to answer your question, no, but they seem to have no problem with sexual re-assignment. To further answer your question, I think it's a good example of how extreme society can become when people try forcing their morals on society as a whole. I'm not going to appoint myself as head moralizer, suffice to say that I think the golden rule should cover most bases.

It's not about whether or not I will Combust, Die, Society Crumbles... Whatever. It's about Molesting the Language... Marriage is a Relfection of what Creates us... Not a Requirement, but a Reflection... Marriage can ONLY happen in the Natural Sense with 1 Man and 1 Woman... Ever.

And NO Consenting Adult is being Denied what you are Calling a "Right" to Marry... They are being Denied the Abilit to Redifine it in Law.

Distinctions.

Human beings procreated for a longtime before the concept of marriage came about. Even old testament marriage is different from today's version. Marriage evolves. Changes to it are not an attack, but rather a natural evolution. No static system exists forever.

As far as redefinition, it's a word. Semantics. That's all it is. To spin it a different way, let me ask you a question. You are for civil unions, but against gay marriage. Aside form the substition of a noun, what is the real difference? How do you define "civil union" vs "marriage"? What does one entail that the other does not?

No Kids has (2) Mommies or (2) Daddies...

They have a Source that is (1) Man and (1) Women... Regardless.

(2) Aunties can make Great "Parents" for Children in a Family who have Lost their Biological Parents...

Should they Marry?... Since, as Kitten is Insisting, "Marriage", and even "Gay", isn't about Sex?

Biology does not make a parent. The system is full of kids who prove that. A child does not come out of a union of same sex couples, but that doesn't mean that a same sex couple can't be parents. To try to hide the reality of that does nothing but make the kid raised by same sex parents feel that there is something wrong with him/her, as well as providing ammunition for bullies. They're going to get bullied anyway. Why worsen the situation by creating an educational systme that shuns they're home life to the point of banning it's discussion?

Yes... Because when I am Accused of Hating Homosexuals, want to Deny them Basic Rights, etc., etc., I will Link this Thread...

That is what was Meant by ONE Thread...

Not that it will be the ONLY Thread ever... This is an Ongoing Political Battle, and will be for a Long Time.



peace...

It's part of the dance mal, you know that. Tom and jerry, itchy and scratchy, roadrunner and coyote, sylvester and tweetie....mal's gay threads and the ensuing flame war.

We all play our parts for the god's of internet entertainment because something would feel a little off if we didn't. Don't take it personally.

 

[xotoxi]

Here's my take:

Marriage should not be a government santioned status. Marriage should be left entirely to religions.

States should develop "Civil Unions", by which two (and only two) consenting adults could join into a legal contract which would give them all the rights and privileges that current marriage does.

These "Civil Unions" could be used by a man and women, two men, two women, a brother and a sister, a mother and a son, etc....whatever works for the two individuals.

A "Civil Union" would have no implicit or explicit connotations about sexual activity, since the state should not be issuing licenses or certificates for people to have sex. Therefore, an elderly mother and a middle-aged son might enter into a "Civil Union" for inheritance or tax implications. In no way would the state assume, imply, or condone these two individuals having sex.

A "Civil Union" could be applied for (just like a marriage license) when a man and a woman get married in church. If they want to get married, but not apply for Civil Union, then they would be married in the eyes of the Church, but would be single from the eyes of the state.

Civil unions from one state would be recognized in all other states reciprocally.

That's the way I see it.

I am not in Agreement with you Entirely, but that is a Thoughtful and Coherent take...

I am for Civil Unions for everything except One Man and One Woman Entering in a Union of Marriage.

Civil Unions, Homosexuals aside, are LONG Overdue.



peace...

But why should the state recognize "marriage"? Its a religious entity and should remain as such.

When you are married, most people get married in the eye of God and are married because of love.

I don't really think that the state should be giving out state issued legal licenses to people so they can profess their love for each other, or have sex with each other.

The state should be dealing only with legal transactions between two entities. Think of it as a corporate merger. Two individual adults coming together in a legal contract. Profession of love to each other is not required or expected.

Marriage would still exist...in the church where it should be. And there wouldn't be the state mucking around in a couple's marriage (which is not "legal" unless a marriage license is obtained). Think about that - your marriage to your wife is not legal unless the state says it is. It doesn't matter what the church says.

Just some thoughts...

 

[KittenKoder]

I think humans fuck their dead out of desperation. That desperation comes from social taboo; meaning, the person is so ugly, foul, socially awkward, etc. that they cannot find a woman or man to have sex with them. If society didn't place any emphasis on looks, so much, perhaps this desperation would not exist. Because what is a dead body? It's still a human, and it's naturally to be attracted to humans. The deviation there occurs when society interjects its taboo thus creating the desperation. This is not analogous to homosexuality, whatsoever.

How do you Know what Necorphiliacs look like?...

As for Taboos...

There are Plenty of Leftist Psychologists and Professors trying to Break down the Barrier of Age as we Speak...

"Adult/Child Sex"...

Are Taboos good or bad?... Not Sure where you were going with that.

As for Marriage and Sex and ProCreation...

Marriage doesn't Need ProCreation and Homosexuals don't Need Marriage.

They are Demanding it in a Continuing Attempt to Force Society to Embrace them as Equal to something they Factually are NOT.



peace...

That one part, you lose all credibility as a partisan hack.

 

[DiveCon]

Here's my take:

Marriage should not be a government santioned status. Marriage should be left entirely to religions.

States should develop "Civil Unions", by which two (and only two) consenting adults could join into a legal contract which would give them all the rights and privileges that current marriage does.

These "Civil Unions" could be used by a man and women, two men, two women, a brother and a sister, a mother and a son, etc....whatever works for the two individuals.

A "Civil Union" would have no implicit or explicit connotations about sexual activity, since the state should not be issuing licenses or certificates for people to have sex. Therefore, an elderly mother and a middle-aged son might enter into a "Civil Union" for inheritance or tax implications. In no way would the state assume, imply, or condone these two individuals having sex.

A "Civil Union" could be applied for (just like a marriage license) when a man and a woman get married in church. If they want to get married, but not apply for Civil Union, then they would be married in the eyes of the Church, but would be single from the eyes of the state.

Civil unions from one state would be recognized in all other states reciprocally.

That's the way I see it.

I am not in Agreement with you Entirely, but that is a Thoughtful and Coherent take...

I am for Civil Unions for everything except One Man and One Woman Entering in a Union of Marriage.

Civil Unions, Homosexuals aside, are LONG Overdue.



peace...

But why should the state recognize "marriage"? Its a religious entity and should remain as such.

When you are married, most people get married in the eye of God and are married because of love.

I don't really think that the state should be giving out state issued legal licenses to people so they can profess their love for each other, or have sex with each other.

The state should be dealing only with legal transactions between two entities. Think of it as a corporate merger. Two individual adults coming together in a legal contract. Profession of love to each other is not required or expected.

Marriage would still exist...in the church where it should be. And there wouldn't be the state mucking around in a couple's marriage (which is not "legal" unless a marriage license is obtained). Think about that - your marriage to your wife is not legal unless the state says it is. It doesn't matter what the church says.

Just some thoughts...

more and more people are coming around to my way of thinking on this topic

 

[KittenKoder]

I am not in Agreement with you Entirely, but that is a Thoughtful and Coherent take...

I am for Civil Unions for everything except One Man and One Woman Entering in a Union of Marriage.

Civil Unions, Homosexuals aside, are LONG Overdue.



peace...

But why should the state recognize "marriage"? Its a religious entity and should remain as such.

When you are married, most people get married in the eye of God and are married because of love.

I don't really think that the state should be giving out state issued legal licenses to people so they can profess their love for each other, or have sex with each other.

The state should be dealing only with legal transactions between two entities. Think of it as a corporate merger. Two individual adults coming together in a legal contract. Profession of love to each other is not required or expected.

Marriage would still exist...in the church where it should be. And there wouldn't be the state mucking around in a couple's marriage (which is not "legal" unless a marriage license is obtained). Think about that - your marriage to your wife is not legal unless the state says it is. It doesn't matter what the church says.

Just some thoughts...

more and more people are coming around to my way of thinking on this topic

Perhaps they all think that way deep down, and seeing us few stand up and yell it out has inspired them to finally agree to the "third" option ...

 

[G.T.]

It's Deviant by Definition, but I Respect your Opinion and Wish to Discontinue the Circle we are Obviously going to Continue in.



peace...

True that, ninja! It was a lively discussion though.

 

[Toro]

I tell ya, the existence of this nation, nay, Western civilization, in fact, the entire planet, rests upon denying 3% of the population the same rights as everyone else has.

 

[mal]

I tell ya, the existence of this nation, nay, Western civilization, in fact, the entire planet, rests upon denying 3% of the population the same rights as everyone else has.

They have the "Same Rights"... Assuming Marriage is a Right.

They simply Refuse to Acknowledge their Natural Design, either by Choice or Defect, and Society doesn't have to Cater to that and Change the Inherent Definition of Marriage for it.

They can Self Worth and Validation elsewhere.



peace...