cruising for burgers Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 actually, in a not so far away reality from now, with the scientific advances and aberrations we're facing, it will be possible for MEN to have children... what about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Adjective Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 I'd prefer the government not acknowledge, reward, or validate any kind of marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ruiagnelo Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 also, i'd like to claim that i'm also against celebrities adopting poor starving kids!!! i am against celebrities in the first place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YO303 Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 What I'm most interested in is this, is where do people who need a "cause" go from here? I mean the right to gay marriage is pretty wimpy cause when compared to civil rights, vietnam war, etc. this!!! also, i'd like to claim that i'm also against celebrities adopting poor starving kids!!! YEAH!! let the kids starve, feed the flies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RadarJammer Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 I'd prefer the government not acknowledge, reward, or validate any kind of marriage. Yeah they should stop that, and also the government should start a war on jealousy. The jealousy epidemic is a leading cause of death, almost as bad as crack cocaine and zinc deficiency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Adjective Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 I'd prefer the government not acknowledge, reward, or validate any kind of marriage. Yeah they should stop that, and also the government should start a war on jealousy. The jealousy epidemic is a leading cause of death, almost as bad as crack cocaine and zinc deficiency. jealousy like, the idea of infidelity as it relates to marriage? or is that about me as an unmarried hater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RadarJammer Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 I'd prefer the government not acknowledge, reward, or validate any kind of marriage. Yeah they should stop that, and also the government should start a war on jealousy. The jealousy epidemic is a leading cause of death, almost as bad as crack cocaine and zinc deficiency. jealousy like, the idea of infidelity as it relates to marriage? or is that about me as an unmarried hater I am right with you on hating marriage and I think that If the government was to legally sponsor the union of two people then maybe now that science is getting pretty good they should all be screened for genetic compatibility and mental health like predispositions to infidelity and jealous rage and anger management issues etc. There is nothing wrong with people playing sappy romance love games but family unit games need to be taken more seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 ILL BE ON THE FIRST QUEERBOAT TO MOGER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Mass culture perpetuates a perspective of humanity/society that is so abundant individuals like Kanakori are incapable of accepting any other form or alteration. Applying words like "natural" as their defense, they must surely forget human history and how we all enjoy our current technological luxuries. Our entire existence came about through chaos, sex and destruction. I really don't think two men or women adopting a baby is the end of the world or relevant. Refusing to acknowledge the purpose of equality and refusing to accept major problems and flaws within our current "natural" state is kind of ridiculous but then again propaganda and film got the Germans to kill millions of innocent people. Not surprising to see irrational perspectives when you think about whats on TV all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruising for burgers Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 YEAH!! let the kids starve, feed the flies. lol there's so many other ways they could help, you know what i mean... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 I'd prefer the government not acknowledge, reward, or validate any kind of marriage. I agree actually. I think the libertarian position highlights that as the core issue, but that said most would also assert that in lieu of ending those laws, marriage needs to be equal. People try to frame the debate as an intrusive gay agenda, i.e. "why can't they just have civil unions" or "that it goes against church rights," etc. That's not the issue. It never has been. It's the same logic that people use to say delusional nonsense like "Christianity is under attack" because things like mandated school prayer has been outlawed. The issue is state governments are singling out same-sex couples and treating them as lesser citizens. Clearly it's not on the same magnitude as something like the 60s civil rights movement, but it's still government endorsed discrimination and there should be vocal, aggressive criticism against it. There has been a lot of progress in recognizing same-sex domestic partnerships in other regards (custody of children, shared employee benefits, etc) even in the more conservative states. It's the "marriage" debate that conveniently opens the floodgates for all the delusional rhetoric about religious morality and social standards. I feel if the federal government simply mandates that civil unions must be recognized and allowed in courtroom ceremonies, the ammunition that the opposition keeps using would be depleted greatly. Then the states and local governments could sort out all the semantics and legal implications to existing law in a far more subdued and rational manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcofribas Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 sound post right there ^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Adjective Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 I'd prefer the government not acknowledge, reward, or validate any kind of marriage. I agree actually. I think the libertarian position highlights that as the core issue, but that said most would also assert that in lieu of ending those laws, marriage needs to be equal. People try to frame the debate as an intrusive gay agenda, i.e. "why can't they just have civil unions" or "that it goes against church rights," etc. That's not the issue. It never has been. It's the same logic that people use to say delusional nonsense like "Christianity is under attack" because things like mandated school prayer has been outlawed. The issue is state governments are singling out same-sex couples and treating them as lesser citizens. Clearly it's not on the same magnitude as something like the 60s civil rights movement, but it's still government endorsed discrimination and there should be vocal, aggressive criticism against it. There has been a lot of progress in recognizing same-sex domestic partnerships in other regards (custody of children, shared employee benefits, etc) even in the more conservative states. It's the "marriage" debate that conveniently opens the floodgates for all the delusional rhetoric about religious morality and social standards. I feel if the federal government simply mandates that civil unions must be recognized and allowed in courtroom ceremonies, the ammunition that the opposition keeps using would be depleted greatly. Then the states and local governments could sort out all the semantics and legal implications to existing law in a far more subdued and rational manner. I guess my issue is the government giving preferrential treatment to married folk through benefits and rights. As a non-married person, I don't see why I should be viewed less worthy of assistance, and it's just unsettling that marriage would be incentivized so. I hope someday they call legal marriages "CoupleCorps" instead, and let unFed marriage be a separate private practice. People could have their own CoupleCorp logo, with slogans like "The Segals are Legal!" or "Coupling the Wright Way." I don't know I'm sure they're cleverer in the future. Anyway, I agree that it's yet another way the US is persecuting marginalized groups. It just feels like it's the government trying to keep you out of a club that really sucks. A club with promises turned to contract, and exit comes with penalty. Equal rights victories just don't have the same zazz they used to. And to be honest, even the news of the DADT repeal felt very: The Military Industrial Complex Welcomes You (ominous tuba solo) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murve33 Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Friend just posted this on the facebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murve33 Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 It is a humorous coincidence, at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azatoth Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Is that saying that people with higher education are for same-sex marriage or vice versa? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest abusivegeorge Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Way to come out on the right side of history, Obama. Hope this doesn't cost you the election or your life! fix'd that for you All of the Americans I have come accross, on an intimate level before, that have been opposed and disgusted by homosexuality have also been racist, so I'm pretty sure they didn't vote him in, in the first place, and they certainly haven't murdered him yet. Go BO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Can someone create some nyancat image with obama instead of the cat? he's soooo nyan cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Al Hounos Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Is that saying that people with higher education are for same-sex marriage or vice versa? "no" means against the gay marriage ban. usagi, i disagree. more educated people are more tolerant people. they also tend to be less religious, and religion is far and away the biggest reason people are against gay marriage. pretty simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanakori Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Mass culture perpetuates a perspective of humanity/society that is so abundant individuals like Kanakori are incapable of accepting any other form or alteration. Applying words like "natural" as their defense, they must surely forget human history and how we all enjoy our current technological luxuries. Our entire existence came about through chaos, sex and destruction. I really don't think two men or women adopting a baby is the end of the world or relevant. Refusing to acknowledge the purpose of equality and refusing to accept major problems and flaws within our current "natural" state is kind of ridiculous but then again propaganda and film got the Germans to kill millions of innocent people. Not surprising to see irrational perspectives when you think about whats on TV all the time. lololololo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanakori Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Just because I have a diferent opinion I'm limited. I think it's you that can see past yourself. I'm for gay marriage. I'm not for gay adoption because I'm not sure it's healthy for the child. Gay adoption is a deviation and the kid didn't choose to live in it like the couple did.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 I'm all for forced gay conversion of children, it's the only way we'll be able to conquer Middle Earth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spratters Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Equality isn't about treating everyone the same way. It's about treating what is diferent, diferently. Still wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Member Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Just because I have a diferent opinion I'm limited. I think it's you that can see past yourself. I'm for gay marriage. I'm not for gay adoption because I'm not sure it's healthy for the child. Gay adoption is a deviation and the kid didn't choose to live in it like the couple did.. Why would it be any less healthy for the kid than growing up with a hetero couple, or a single mother / father that it didn't choose? Because guys / girls kissing is gross? I don't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 because gay matrix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.