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

[Aztaz]

Christ on a Cracker!... I Addressed it Directly and with Substance...

Try again.

Your Pereception of an Evasion is Grossly Confused.



peace...

Speaking of evasion....

My question got skipped over again. You said marriage was reserved to heterosexuals for the continuity of the species aspect. I asked how that fits into your argument when monogomous marriage is not the optimum scenario based on human reproductive physiology.

So, once again, how does reserving marriage for heterosexual couples sanctify propogation of the species when monogomous marriage is counterproductive to propogation of the species?

 

[Political Junky]

Obviously, Mark Sanford's marriage is floundering because of same sex marriages.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As long as we have to have govt. in the marriage business, gays should have the LIBERTY, notice I said LIBERTY, not "right," to marry.

Sorry if that ruffles your feathers, but that's the way it's becoming until the libertarian ideal of the benefits of marriage becoming "domestic partnerships" while marriage is applied as a sacrament of the church.

They have the liberty to marry. They don't have the PRIVILEGE of having other people think of their "marriage" the same way they do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Marriage is obsolete anyway ... so meh. If they want to **** up their lives with it, let them. Straight folk have already made marriage nothing but one big joke.

Also, gay is not about sex, homosexuality is.

I'm assuming that you had a bad experience with marriage or simply don't agree with the concept. Not everybody is cut out for it. But just because you think it's a mistake, doesn't make it so for others.

I would like to ask you to further explain what you mean when you say marriage is obsolete. Not sure I understand your premis.

50% of marraiges end in divorce.

Yeah, obviously marriage is a rock-solid institution.

/sarcasm

This is actually a falsehood, based on improper interpretation of statistics.

According to the CDCP, the marriage rate in the US is 7.5 per 1,000 total population. The divorce rate is 3.6 per 1,000 total population. Hey, that's roughly half the first number, so that must mean that half of all marriages end in divorce!

Just because the number of divorces in a given year equals half the number of marriages in that same year does not mean that half of all marriages end in divorce. Self-evidently, the two statistics are mostly not talking about the same marriages (I suppose there are some people who get married and divorced inside the same calendar year).

If you calculate the number of people who have ever married and subsequently divorced, the method preferred by social scientists, the rate has never exceeded 41%, and is currently dropping. "At this point, unless there's some kind of turnaround, I wouldn't expect any cohort to reach 50 percent, since none already has," said Dr. Rose M.
Kreider of the Fertility and Family Statistics Branch of the Census Bureau.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Republicans are for small gov't unless your talking about Abortion, Gay Marriage, Tax cuts for the wealthy, oh, and anything else they like

Yeah, Republicans are for small government, except in cases that are actually the government's business, like laws about killing people and collecting taxes. Democrats, on the other hand, are for big government in EVERY aspect of life, so it's just a bit hypocritical to be castigating the Republicans for THEIR "big government" ideas. When Republicans start coming out with laws trying to regulate whether and where people smoke, what they eat, what they drink, what kind of car they drive, how far and where they drive it, what sort of bags they use for their groceries, when and where they can exercise their free speech, how they can raise and educate their children, etc., we can talk about how they're not "small government" enough. Until then, you're just pointing out the splinter in your neighbor's eye while ignoring the beam in your own.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't get how Homosexuality threads last so long.

Gay people are and will always be a part of man-kind.
Straight people (less some freak biological science-project gone wrong) will always out-number gay people.
Gay people have always been. They're everywhere throughout history.
There are gay animals, too, but that's not totally relevant except to say: gay happens, and it happens without sentient thought (naturally). If you disagree, try "telling" yourself (if you're straight) to get a boner from a man. If it were a choice, you should be able to get your stiffy on. I cannot, and to me, that's proof enough that it's not a "choice."

Yes, because "choice" automatically means "conscious choice".

By the way, what does "have always been" have to do with anything?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

I have to assume they're attracted to humans, since they **** humans, so them ******* 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.

God save us from people who want to tell us about complex psychological problems based on what THEY figure "must be".

This is really more legitimization than your peurile nonsense deserves, but read and learn:

In all cases, there is undoubtedly sexual preference for a corpse rather than a living woman. When no other act of cruelty - cutting into pieces etc., - is practiced on the corpse, it is probable that the lifeless condition itself, forms the stimulus for the perverse individual. It is possible that the corpse - a human form absolutely without will - satisfies an abnormal desire, in that the object of desire is seen to be capable of absolute subjugation, without possibility of resistance. (Kraft-Ebing, 1886) - quoted from Necrophilia

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.

Marriage is legally recognized BECAUSE it most often results in procreation, as well as for other benefits it provides society as a whole. I agree that marriages don't have to produce children, and relationships don't have to be legally recognized for the participants to consider them marriages, do they? But legal sanction isn't about the desires of the individuals involved, so show me some indication that there's a societal benefit to recognizing your relationship, or go away and do your own thing in private. No one's stopping you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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...

It has practically been changed before.

"Historical" Definition of Marriage: Not 1 Man, 1 Woman. - Community

Same-sex marriages existed in ancient Rome, medieval Europe, China, Japan, Africa and other places. Polygamy is mentioned in the Bible multiple times, and has been practiced for centuries in many tribal societies, Islamic countries, and lest you forget, the United States. In India, it is currently possible to be ritually married to an animal or a god. Native American tribes recognized various forms of marriage including polygamy and same-sex unions.

You don't honestly think anyone's going to take THAT link's word for the historical existence of sanctioned homosexual "marriages" in ancient Rome, medieval Europe, etc., do you? Polygamy, sure. We all know that there have been times in history when primitive cultures had a shortage of men compared to women. But I could swear that the homosexual "marriage" advocates keep insisting that what they want has nothing to do with polygamy or any of the other cans of worms their opponents keep insisting will be opened, so why are we now using polygamy to argue IN FAVOR of homosexual "marriage"? Can we get some consistency here?

 

[mattskramer]

Marriage is legally recognized BECAUSE it most often results in procreation, as well as for other benefits it provides society as a whole. I agree that marriages don't have to produce children, and relationships don't have to be legally recognized for the participants to consider them marriages, do they? But legal sanction isn't about the desires of the individuals involved, so show me some indication that there's a societal benefit to recognizing your relationship, or go away and do your own thing in private. No one's stopping you.

So, your argument is that things are government sanctioned because they benefit society – not necessarily that they benefit the individuals involved that want it sanctioned. If that were the case then why is alcohol consumption and cigarettes smoking still allowed? By the way, unmarried couples often produce babies too. Also, homosexual couples allowed marriage might provide a more stable environment for children that they care for, adopt, raise, etc.

For ideas on how gay marriage might benefit society at large, read the following:

Gay marriage benefits society - Opinion

 

[mattskramer]

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...

It has practically been changed before.

"Historical" Definition of Marriage: Not 1 Man, 1 Woman. - Community

Same-sex marriages existed in ancient Rome, medieval Europe, China, Japan, Africa and other places. Polygamy is mentioned in the Bible multiple times, and has been practiced for centuries in many tribal societies, Islamic countries, and lest you forget, the United States. In India, it is currently possible to be ritually married to an animal or a god. Native American tribes recognized various forms of marriage including polygamy and same-sex unions.

You don't honestly think anyone's going to take THAT link's word for the historical existence of sanctioned homosexual "marriages" in ancient Rome, medieval Europe, etc., do you? Polygamy, sure. We all know that there have been times in history when primitive cultures had a shortage of men compared to women. But I could swear that the homosexual "marriage" advocates keep insisting that what they want has nothing to do with polygamy or any of the other cans of worms their opponents keep insisting will be opened, so why are we now using polygamy to argue IN FAVOR of homosexual "marriage"? Can we get some consistency here?

I keep forgetting that I have to keep things simple and connect the dots for you – even when I bold the comment to which I am replying. One of the arguments being waged against homosexual marriage is that the definition of marriage has remained the same and limited to the union of one man to one woman. I included the comment on polygamous marriage as an example to indicate that the definition of marriage – as allegedly defined as union of one man to one woman – has not always been static. There have been practically all sorts of definitions of marriage that allow for different types of unions – polygamy being one of them. In addition to correcting the erroneous comment that the definition of marriage has always been the same, I could also counter by saying that such is an irrelevant argument. Just because something had always been a certain way does not in and of itself mean that it should not be changed. Something having a tradition merely means that something has a tradition – nothing more and nothing less.

Next, please.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Marriage is legally recognized BECAUSE it most often results in procreation, as well as for other benefits it provides society as a whole. I agree that marriages don't have to produce children, and relationships don't have to be legally recognized for the participants to consider them marriages, do they? But legal sanction isn't about the desires of the individuals involved, so show me some indication that there's a societal benefit to recognizing your relationship, or go away and do your own thing in private. No one's stopping you.

So, your argument is that things are government sanctioned because they benefit society – not necessarily that they benefit the individuals involved that want it sanctioned. If that were the case then why is alcohol consumption and cigarettes smoking still allowed? By the way, unmarried couples often produce babies too. Also, homosexual couples allowed marriage might provide a more stable environment for children that they care for, adopt, raise, etc.

For ideas on how gay marriage might benefit society at large, read the following:

Gay marriage benefits society - Opinion

Alcohol and cigarettes are legal but restricted today because they became integral parts of the social fabric before anyone realized how potentially harmful they were. Tobacco was actually believed to be beneficial at first, and alcohol really WAS beneficial back in the days that water supplies were too polluted to drink easily. It would be nearly impossible to put that genie back into the bottle at this point. And if you think the tax revenues generated by both (societal benefit there) aren't a huge factor in why they aren't more restricted than they are, you're crazy.

As for your cute little unsupported opinion "this is what I'm sure would happen" piece, show me some proof other than a biased guy bloviating on the Internet, and we'll talk.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It has practically been changed before.

"Historical" Definition of Marriage: Not 1 Man, 1 Woman. - Community

Same-sex marriages existed in ancient Rome, medieval Europe, China, Japan, Africa and other places. Polygamy is mentioned in the Bible multiple times, and has been practiced for centuries in many tribal societies, Islamic countries, and lest you forget, the United States. In India, it is currently possible to be ritually married to an animal or a god. Native American tribes recognized various forms of marriage including polygamy and same-sex unions.

You don't honestly think anyone's going to take THAT link's word for the historical existence of sanctioned homosexual "marriages" in ancient Rome, medieval Europe, etc., do you? Polygamy, sure. We all know that there have been times in history when primitive cultures had a shortage of men compared to women. But I could swear that the homosexual "marriage" advocates keep insisting that what they want has nothing to do with polygamy or any of the other cans of worms their opponents keep insisting will be opened, so why are we now using polygamy to argue IN FAVOR of homosexual "marriage"? Can we get some consistency here?

I keep forgetting that I have to keep things simple and connect the dots for you – even when I bold the comment to which I am replying. One of the arguments being waged against homosexual marriage is that the definition of marriage has remained the same and limited to the union of one man to one woman. I included the comment on polygamous marriage as an example to indicate that the definition of marriage – as allegedly defined as union of one man to one woman – has not always been static. There have been practically all sorts of definitions of marriage that allow for different types of unions – polygamy being one of them. In addition to correcting the erroneous comment that the definition of marriage has always been the same, I could also counter by saying that such is an irrelevant argument. Just because something had always been a certain way does not in and of itself mean that it should not be changed. Something having a tradition merely means that something has a tradition – nothing more and nothing less.

Next, please.

Sorry, but you haven't finished this one yet, so it's a little early to be calling for a "next" argument for you to bungle.

In terms of Western civilization, the definition HAS been one man, one woman, for what I believe has been most if not all of recorded history. Has anyone ever denied that other, primitive cultures have had polygamy? No. Do we subscribe to anything like those cultures? No. While it is irrelevant to bring up cultures we don't relate to or wish to relate to, it's completely relevant to say that OUR culture and the cultures of which it is a direct descendant have subscribed to one man, one woman.

And for the record, just because something has always been a certain way ALSO does not in and of itself mean that it needs to be changed.

Try again.

 

[KittenKoder]

Marriage is legally recognized BECAUSE it most often results in procreation, as well as for other benefits it provides society as a whole. I agree that marriages don't have to produce children, and relationships don't have to be legally recognized for the participants to consider them marriages, do they? But legal sanction isn't about the desires of the individuals involved, so show me some indication that there's a societal benefit to recognizing your relationship, or go away and do your own thing in private. No one's stopping you.

So, your argument is that things are government sanctioned because they benefit society – not necessarily that they benefit the individuals involved that want it sanctioned. If that were the case then why is alcohol consumption and cigarettes smoking still allowed? By the way, unmarried couples often produce babies too. Also, homosexual couples allowed marriage might provide a more stable environment for children that they care for, adopt, raise, etc.

For ideas on how gay marriage might benefit society at large, read the following:

Gay marriage benefits society - Opinion

Alcohol and cigarettes are legal but restricted today because they became integral parts of the social fabric before anyone realized how potentially harmful they were. Tobacco was actually believed to be beneficial at first, and alcohol really WAS beneficial back in the days that water supplies were too polluted to drink easily. It would be nearly impossible to put that genie back into the bottle at this point. And if you think the tax revenues generated by both (societal benefit there) aren't a huge factor in why they aren't more restricted than they are, you're crazy.

As for your cute little unsupported opinion "this is what I'm sure would happen" piece, show me some proof other than a biased guy bloviating on the Internet, and we'll talk.

Remember prohibition? They tried to make alcohol illegal.

Homosexuality use to be illegal to, but after violence kept growing they made the smart choice to butt out of people's lives ... now they are trying it again, with smokers specifically, yeah, that will go well. Point is, the government has no business getting involved in personal lives, if you can't make a decision without the government telling you what is right, wrong, healthy, or not then you don't deserve to be an American, period.

 

[Aztaz]

God save us from people who want to tell us about complex psychological problems based on what THEY figure "must be".

That one sentence pretty much sums up everyone of your posts I've read in this thread.

Thank you for coming down from on high and deigning to converse with us. We are richer for it.

 

[mattskramer]

You don't honestly think anyone's going to take THAT link's word for the historical existence of sanctioned homosexual "marriages" in ancient Rome, medieval Europe, etc., do you? Polygamy, sure. We all know that there have been times in history when primitive cultures had a shortage of men compared to women. But I could swear that the homosexual "marriage" advocates keep insisting that what they want has nothing to do with polygamy or any of the other cans of worms their opponents keep insisting will be opened, so why are we now using polygamy to argue IN FAVOR of homosexual "marriage"? Can we get some consistency here?

I keep forgetting that I have to keep things simple and connect the dots for you – even when I bold the comment to which I am replying. One of the arguments being waged against homosexual marriage is that the definition of marriage has remained the same and limited to the union of one man to one woman. I included the comment on polygamous marriage as an example to indicate that the definition of marriage – as allegedly defined as union of one man to one woman – has not always been static. There have been practically all sorts of definitions of marriage that allow for different types of unions – polygamy being one of them. In addition to correcting the erroneous comment that the definition of marriage has always been the same, I could also counter by saying that such is an irrelevant argument. Just because something had always been a certain way does not in and of itself mean that it should not be changed. Something having a tradition merely means that something has a tradition – nothing more and nothing less.

Next, please.

Sorry, but you haven't finished this one yet, so it's a little early to be calling for a "next" argument for you to bungle.

In terms of Western civilization, the definition HAS been one man, one woman, for what I believe has been most if not all of recorded history. Has anyone ever denied that other, primitive cultures have had polygamy? No. Do we subscribe to anything like those cultures? No. While it is irrelevant to bring up cultures we don't relate to or wish to relate to, it's completely relevant to say that OUR culture and the cultures of which it is a direct descendant have subscribed to one man, one woman.

And for the record, just because something has always been a certain way ALSO does not in and of itself mean that it needs to be changed.

Try again.

Awww, but I like sushi.

 

[mattskramer]

You don't honestly think anyone's going to take THAT link's word for the historical existence of sanctioned homosexual "marriages" in ancient Rome, medieval Europe, etc., do you? Polygamy, sure. We all know that there have been times in history when primitive cultures had a shortage of men compared to women. But I could swear that the homosexual "marriage" advocates keep insisting that what they want has nothing to do with polygamy or any of the other cans of worms their opponents keep insisting will be opened, so why are we now using polygamy to argue IN FAVOR of homosexual "marriage"? Can we get some consistency here?

I keep forgetting that I have to keep things simple and connect the dots for you – even when I bold the comment to which I am replying. One of the arguments being waged against homosexual marriage is that the definition of marriage has remained the same and limited to the union of one man to one woman. I included the comment on polygamous marriage as an example to indicate that the definition of marriage – as allegedly defined as union of one man to one woman – has not always been static. There have been practically all sorts of definitions of marriage that allow for different types of unions – polygamy being one of them. In addition to correcting the erroneous comment that the definition of marriage has always been the same, I could also counter by saying that such is an irrelevant argument. Just because something had always been a certain way does not in and of itself mean that it should not be changed. Something having a tradition merely means that something has a tradition – nothing more and nothing less.

Next, please.

Sorry, but you haven't finished this one yet, so it's a little early to be calling for a "next" argument for you to bungle.

In terms of Western civilization, the definition HAS been one man, one woman, for what I believe has been most if not all of recorded history. Has anyone ever denied that other, primitive cultures have had polygamy? No. Do we subscribe to anything like those cultures? No. While it is irrelevant to bring up cultures we don't relate to or wish to relate to, it's completely relevant to say that OUR culture and the cultures of which it is a direct descendant have subscribed to one man, one woman.

And for the record, just because something has always been a certain way ALSO does not in and of itself mean that it needs to be changed.

Try again.

Wow. So it is your contention that we have not picked up anything of any benefit from Egypt, India, or Saudi Arabia. Such nations have not donated anything positive to society at all. Nope. You are wrong. We do get some contributions from such “primitive” cultures.

And for the record, I never suggested that just because something has been a certain way, it needs to be changed. Yet, it has been suggested by others that traditions, for the sake of tradition, should not be changed. I had countered that silly notion.

Finally, it is interesting that you call for proof that something would benefit our society before you would consider America trying. Wow. If such were the case, we would not have progressed far as a nation. So, in summary, according to you, we are not pick up on things from other “primitive” cultures AND we are not to try things unless there is absolute proof that there would be a societal benefit. LOL. We would be at a standstill as a nation. Thankfully we did experiment with new ideas – having America become a unique democratic republic for one things. Also, we do consider things brought forth from other cultures. Have you ever heard of America being one big melting pot. Some of the ingredients in our pot come for many diverse cultures – including cultures that you would consider to be primitive.

Look. Give it up son.

 

[mal]

Is the Idiotic Claim that (2) Women or (2) Men can ProCreate Naturally still being Fronted?...

I Know someone was at least Insinuating that Idiocy, but I don't have the Interest to Search for it...



peace...

 

[AnCo]

I'm a Homo

::fun::

 

[mattskramer]

Is the Idiotic Claim that (2) Women or (2) Men can ProCreate Naturally still being Fronted?...

I Know someone was at least Insinuating that Idiocy, but I don't have the Interest to Search for it...



peace...

Nope. That erroneous and irrelevant claim is not being circulated to my knowledge. There was a magazine article with an erroneous title saying that a pregnant man gave birth. The truth of the matter was that it is not a man but a woman who wants to be a man and who is changing his appearance.

 

[mal]

Is the Idiotic Claim that (2) Women or (2) Men can ProCreate Naturally still being Fronted?...

I Know someone was at least Insinuating that Idiocy, but I don't have the Interest to Search for it...



peace...

Nope. That erroneous and irrelevant claim is not being circulated to my knowledge. There was a magazine article with an erroneous title saying that a pregnant man gave birth. The truth of the matter was that it is not a man but a woman who wants to be a man and who is changing his appearance.

Someone on these Forums was Attempting to Claim that a Man is not Needed in the Natural Process of ProCreation Amongst Humans...

Now I am going to have to Search for the Idiocy.



peace...