Originally posted by Rbrikos
looks like some people took this too seriously..... it's sarcasm!
you know what's funny. EVERYONE keeps saying that people are taking this serious....but i think like 2 people have taken it seriously.
And the past 3 pages have been nothing but babble from people about "everyone taking it to seriously"
You're not quick....quit mentioning the obvious satire here...
Originally posted by Linkalicious
gay anal sex = wrongstraight anal sex = fetish
🙄
These responses are more as a joke...i don't HONESTLY feel this way.
😆
Thanks for clarifying. 😉
I don't see what the big deal is--for them, I mean. Most of the gay men I know are wildly promiscuous by nature--and I think marriage is very, very difficult under the best of circumstances.
The view shared by most in society is to pretend that it doesn't exist--but if you factor in the higher risk for contracting an std through illicit contact via an affair, and you could be talking a serious medical threat to all parties involved. Sure, the education is better than it has been about homosexual contact, but most of the gay men I know will still take their partner's word, only to find out later that they were lied to. Your health is something you should never compromise to get a piece of *ss.
For me, I think that basically marriage is like a contractual obligation between two parties, and in the end, it really is just a piece of paper. If you truly want to committ to someone, and they to you, it should be good enough to just share your lives together, without having to tell every living soul that you encounter that the other person now belongs to you and you alone. Live together. Wear a ring. But I don't think it's fair to reward people of the same sex with the same benefits of marriage--sometimes at the cost of taxpayers--unless they can create a viable human being as a heterosexual couple can. When they can make an active contribution to society through their contribution of offspring to the human race without the extensive scientific and laboratory involvement, then I'd be more receptive to the idea.
Originally posted by badsymbiote
When they can make an active contribution to society through their contribution of offspring to the human race without the extensive scientific and laboratory involvement, then I'd be more receptive to the idea. [/B]
If i told you what i thought of you and the demographic you represent they would ban me here for life. They would ban me and my entire family for 4 generations.
Here is a trick I learned from Tex. On-Topic Generalisation!
Homophobia is one of the last socially acceptable forms of hate paranoia left to this society. People of limited intellect who are often unsure of their place in the world and don't have the courage or intelligence to look at themselves objectively often resort to blind, knee-jerk responses to anything "other" as a method of distraction from there own shallow and confusing lives.
It's a form of security, when people don't quite like the way the world feels to them - rather than blaming themselves or wondering if perhaps they might be wrong to feel afraid they cast around for others to objectify and hate. It comes in many guises: from the seemingly innocuous hatred for the opposing football team, or people with "weird" haircuts - to the blatant judgement based on skin-tone or religious persuasion.
ANY call to arms to deny or oppress another group on the grounds that they differ from your chosen demographic is a reflection of the person making the statement. I should pity them as I pity any one who lives in fear. It's a mental illness of a sort, yet for some reason my understanding dries up like piss on a hot road when faced with morons like this. I don't feel pity or tolerance - I just long for the day that all the idiots are dead.
If you were gay, and I'm not implying that you are, would you insist on being married to demonstrate that you are committed to someone? Or should it not matter as long as you're happy? My gay friends do not hold my traditional belief system against me--and I do not hold their choice of sexual orientation against them--we LIKE each other--and that seems to be enough. But most of my friends also don't believe that just being in love with someone and wanting to spend the rest of their lives with them entitles them to the same benefits (or problems) associated with your typical heterosexual marriage.
I don't think it matters--and that too often marriage is used as a status symbol, like having children.
If our forefathers thought it was ok, we may not even be here, right? Thanks to the miracles of modern science, it is now possible to implant a fetus into someone, but, nature still prefers the human female as it's source for human life. It's a difficult job--but someone with ovaries has got to do it. In the future, we can clone children and then reroduction will no longer factor into this discussion--but until that is allowed to happen, we'll have to do it the old-fashioned way.
I don't fear your opinion of me, and don't want 4 generations of your family to suffer for my scathing and unflinching opinion. I know I'm old-fashioned. And, sometimes, that's a good thing.
I speak of marriage AND motherhood from experience--NOT heresy. If one of my sons turns out to be gay, I will feel the same way, but I will support him. He just doesn't have to get married. You can live your life quite well without having someone stick a ring on your finger to validate your existence.
Originally posted by Mr ZeroIt's a form of security, when people don't quite like the way the world feels to them - rather than blaming themselves or wondering if perhaps they might be wrong to feel afraid they cast around for others to objectify and hate. It comes in many guises: from the seemingly innocuous hatred for the opposing football team, or people with "weird" haircuts - to the blatant judgement based on skin-tone or religious persuasion.
ANY call to arms to deny or oppress another group on the grounds that they differ from your chosen demographic is a reflection of the person making the statement. I should pity them as I pity any one who lives in fear. It's a mental illness of a sort, yet for some reason my understanding dries up like piss on a hot road when faced with morons like this. I don't feel pity or tolerance - I just long for the day that all the idiots are dead.
Tolerance and acceptance of a person's ethnicity or origin, race, religion or disability is not the same thing as a ridiculing a person's haircut. Marriage is also another beast entirely. If you can live with someone in a common law relationship, if that person is named as your primary beneficiary in your will, what is the point of having society recognize the relationship. You are dodging this point, which I have thrown out several times--trying to turn this into a witch hunt. I am not a homophobe, but nature is nature, and two men cannot reproduce.
Throughout the history of man, the purpose of a union through marriage has been to ensure the survival of the species. Survival is the ultimate ideology.
Now, since we have plenty of people on Earth, we can just ignore the biological consequences of Natural Selection to please a minority whose contribution is limited to half of the process of reproduction?!?
Originally posted by badsymbiote
what is the point of having society recognize the relationship. You are dodging this point, which I have thrown out several times--trying to turn this into a witch hunt. I am not a homophobe, but nature is nature, and two men cannot reproduce.
I understand in your life marriage is about reproduction and tax-breaks. Some of us freaks and weirdos still see it as an expression of love.
Since we have plenty of people on Earth, we can just ignore the biological consequences of Natural Selection to please a minority whose contribution is limited to half of the process of reproduction?!? [/B]
You would allow gay marriage between lesbians as long as they want to have children then? Or between gay men who want to adopt?
And sterile men and women should be banned from marrying? Or even from being in a relationship - as it "uses up" the good breeding stock of rare straight people that would be better off with a fertile partner.
"Survival is the ultimate ideology"? Your views disgust me almost as much as hearing you say you are not a homophobe.
Be happy in your brave new world -
Originally posted by Mr ZeroAnd sterile men and women should be banned from marrying? Or even from being in a relationship - as it "uses up" the good breeding stock of rare straight people that would be better off with a fertile partner.
"Survival is the ultimate ideology"? Your views disgust me almost as much as hearing you say you are not a homophobe.
Be happy in your brave new world - [/B]
Mr. Zero I see ur point. But ur arrogance makes me wanna rip ur head off........
..........Nah, just kidding. Well said.
Originally posted by Mr Zero
I understand in your life marriage is about reproduction and tax-breaks. Some of us freaks and weirdos still see it as an expression of love.You would allow gay marriage between lesbians as long as they want to have children then? Or between gay men who want to adopt?
And sterile men and women should be banned from marrying? Or even from being in a relationship - as it "uses up" the good breeding stock of rare straight people that would be better off with a fertile partner.
"Survival is the ultimate ideology"? Your views disgust me almost as much as hearing you say you are not a homophobe.
Be happy in your brave new world -
Oh, you have got to be kidding me. Yeah, I saw it as an expression of love, like any one, but the longer you remain with one person, the more the focus shifts from "you" as an entity to "we".
And I grew out of the stage where my childish whims and personal and individual selfishness publicly cried out for acknowledgment among the masses--this USUALLY happens by the time you're 30 or so--when, just like I, you no longer require positive feedback from others, and are confident enough to be able to assert an opinion that you know won't be the general consensus of the people. Look at the way I got your feathers ruffled. It's easy to label people, as you demonstrated by regressing to the level of a 4-year-old skewing my words and implying my ignorance and bigotry.
Obviously, you're not married, and I'm fairly certain you don't have kids, so I can't expect you to understand my point of view. And also, it's pretty clear by your intitial statements where you undoubtedly think you really burned me, that you're also no CPA. I do my own taxes, and this is the first year in the ten years we've been filing together that we've never been PENALIZED for being a married couple filing jointly.
Your arguements are naive and sentimental drivel.
Originally posted by badsymbiote
Yeah, I saw it as an expression of love, like any one, but the longer you remain with one person, the more the focus shifts from "you" as an entity to "we". And I grew out of the stage where my childish whims and personal and individual selfishness publicly cried out for acknowledgment among the masses
You have said (here in black and white) that you consider marriage a contractual obligation & compared marrying for love to a childish whims and personal individual selfishness. I'm sorry that your marriage has turned out like that but to me that doesn't excuse your attitude.
I'm sorry again if you think I'm twisting your words - they seemed self evidently repulsive to me and needed no twisting: but lets be sure about what we are talking about.
"I don't think it's fair to reward people of the same sex with the same benefits of marriage--sometimes at the cost of taxpayers--unless they can create a viable human being as a heterosexual couple can."
Nothing I can say is going to make us see ye to eye, I find that statement makes my skin crawl. The best we can hope for is to at least answer each others questions and perhaps get a little more understanding as to how the other thinks.
You will at least do me the favour of noting that I addressed the specific point you accused me of "dodging": Rather than spending time writing 4 paragraphs defending yourself to me (despite your protestation that you were unaffected by my argument) or backing up your arguments by assuming that I'm not married, don't have kids and dismissing the questions as naive you could address the points I raised - y'know…The ones you dodged?
[list]
[*]Lesbians who want to have a child (no hi tech labs required here, a turkey baster costs a few dollars, it wont affect your taxes)
[*]Gay men who want to adopt (again - one less state dependant child - good for your taxes.)
[*]Sterile people who want to rob the planet of good breeding stock by getting married - thoughtless deserts one and all, but should they be allowed to marry?
[/list]
And finally - I'm assuming you wont object when all gay people don’t have to pay taxes that go towards schooling your kids. Should be a big tax rebate coming for all those slutty fags, I imagine they will spend it getting laid.
Dodge that.