Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What's there to be happy about? The economy is in shambles. Kids can't find a job. Government is printing money we can't repay to keep the house of cards from collapsing. Gas prices on the rise. Honestly, I'm surprised even 3.5% are happy.
What's there to be happy about? The economy is in shambles. Kids can't find a job. Government is printing money we can't repay to keep the house of cards from collapsing. Gas prices on the rise. Honestly, I'm surprised even 3.5% are happy.
So you don't care if gays are allowed to marry but we shouldn't bother the government and burden them to make it legal?? The act of being able to marry now is purely a binding contract between two people that makes it easier for couples to take advantage of tax credits and allows them to combine their finances for future expenses.
That would also rail against everything I believe in, including special benefits such as tax credits. Why the hell should there be any additional privileges available only to married people, which single people are not entitled, yet have to pay for too?
This is just one of the many examples of the incoherent "logic" of the left. Always whining about "fairness" and "equal treatment", yet promote that which is totally unfair and unequal. It's quite schizophrenic, if truth be told. I get the whole "we want the benefits of marriage" thing ... that's really the goal, because of course, all of those "benefits" were a creation of the socialist change agents that use these "perks" as a means of social control. One step leads to another, but when you're traveling down the wrong path, each one of those steps takes you further in the wrong direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Unless you are saying the government shouldn't be allowed to have any control on any marriage and you want to live in some hippie world where people just do what feels right. Yeah, I am okay with having a legal binding contract between my fiancee and I when we get married and I think gays and lesbians should have the same right.
Isn't that clearly what I said? I mean .. we are speaking the same language, are we not? Let me highlight what I said .... " .... because the moment government is kicked out of these private matters, then you wouldn't need to fight for any permission from government to get married, as that would be a totally private decision, where the government would have no say, either way". Is there something confusing about that? Tell me, why do you think government should "Control" such totally private matters? Government is supposed to SERVE the people, not CONTROL them.
And it is not some "hippie world" .... just a world where adults are free to conduct their private matters and make their private decisions without having to ask permission from government bureaucrats who really are not our parents. Children need such parental control, but adults do not.
But maybe you leftists really do need government to play the role of parent ... you all do certainly act like children most of the time. But I have a better idea. Just grow up, and be adults instead?
While all of your points have merrit, I don't think that was the correct answer to the question posed: And why do the anti-gays constantly harp about man-on-man sex, when at least half of all gay people are lesbians?
A more reasonable explanation comes from the simple base nature and differences between males and females .. though culture does play a role, generally speaking, heterosexual women tend to be more non-sexually intimate with each other, than men are. They will share clothing ... assist each other with grooming tasks ... and many other things that are altogether natural for women to do, that you'll never see heterosexual men do with each other. So, that spontaneous intimacy shared between women just seems more natural, even when it extends to the sexual. On the other hand, with men, no such intimacy is natural between them, and therefore it is a much greater contrast between that natural non-intimacy and the more abnormal sexual intimacy. And this is not discrimination or "homophobia", but a natural baseline expression of the masculine.
Of course, the answer to some of your other points may also best be explained by defining the 20th century as the "century of the lie". We've become a society that embraces dishonesty like a ravenous starving beast who's insatiable hunger for lies is only eclipsed by our collective loathing of the truth. That we value political correctness above all else, is the only evidence needed to defend that claim. We don't want to hear the truth when the lie sounds so much better, which it so often does. Politicians will swear that they do not want to raise taxes, because that is what we want to hear ... so they say it, and then just proceed to raise taxes anyway. And we seem not to notice or really care about that, so long as they just tell us what we want to hear.
Diversity is good ... though don't actually ask anyone why it's so good, unless you like blank stares or insults, because no one can really explain rationally, why it's so good, or the wonderful benefits of it. Whatever you do, don't tell the truth and say that diversity is a con job, that simply pits competing factions against each other in a never ending war, with each group striving to gain the upper hand over the others, because that is truth that no one wants to hear. Yet, that too is altogether natural. Christians want to dominate their environment, just as much as any other religious group will naturally try to do. Racial groups tend to gravitate toward their group interests because it's only natural to do that. People generally seek out the company of those they have the most in common with ... regardless of what that happens to be. A large group of musicians might collect in groups of guitar players at one side of the room, and brass instrument players in another group. Does that mean that the Trumpet or Sax player has some nefarious dislike of guitarists? Of course not .. such an idea is ridiculous. But if white people gather on one side, and black people gather on another, all based on their own choices and desires, we have what people want to call racial segregation, and that's very bad .... when in reality it's just people naturally drawn to those whom they have the most in common with, and their is nothing at all wrong with people behaving naturally. The problems come into the picture when you insist that people behave in a manner that is unnatural. This eventually results in resentment.
Everything is a lie these days ... government cares about your health and well being ... Doctors want you to be healthy and well .... the news media wants to inform you ... the schools want to educate you ... the banker wants to help you ... the list goes on and on and on. But when your world is built upon a foundation of lies, nothing good can come as a result, and that is another truth no one wants to hear ... so they simply reject the notion outright, because the lie sounds so much better than the truth.
I think more folks would read your post if they were not so long. Just saying...
That would also rail against everything I believe in, including special benefits such as tax credits. Why the hell should there be any additional privileges available only to married people, which single people are not entitled, yet have to pay for too?
This is just one of the many examples of the incoherent "logic" of the left. Always whining about "fairness" and "equal treatment", yet promote that which is totally unfair and unequal. It's quite schizophrenic, if truth be told. I get the whole "we want the benefits of marriage" thing ... that's really the goal, because of course, all of those "benefits" were a creation of the socialist change agents that use these "perks" as a means of social control. One step leads to another, but when you're traveling down the wrong path, each one of those steps takes you further in the wrong direction.
Actually the benefits of being married isn't a left or right issue seeing people from both sides support this idea in the sense that it is often a progression for each of us to want to get married and start a family, though not a life choice for everyone. You can pretend this is all the lefts' doing all you want, but the statement is fundamentally untrue.
Quote:
Isn't that clearly what I said? I mean .. we are speaking the same language, are we not? Let me highlight what I said .... " .... because the moment government is kicked out of these private matters, then you wouldn't need to fight for any permission from government to get married, as that would be a totally private decision, where the government would have no say, either way". Is there something confusing about that? Tell me, why do you think government should "Control" such totally private matters? Government is supposed to SERVE the people, not CONTROL them.
And it is not some "hippie world" .... just a world where adults are free to conduct their private matters and make their private decisions without having to ask permission from government bureaucrats who really are not our parents. Children need such parental control, but adults do not.
How is the government controlling anyone by allowing them to get a legally binding contract between two people? If I die I would like to know my spouse has a legal document that says what is mine is hers. And currently I do not have to ask the government permission to be married, I had to ask my wife permission for her to marry me. Everything that the government will be involved with will be the legal documents of our marriage. So basically the government is SERVING my needs to be legally married to my wife, they are not CONTROLLING us by forcing us or telling us we can or can't be married.
I always thought they exaggerate their numbers. So 96.5% are not.
Last year my sister, who was one class under me, and my old girlfriend, who was one class over me, were looking through an old year book. We started talking about who was gay in our class.
We come from a small town in rural Oklahoma of about 3,000 people. There were 76 in my class and we were able to find 7 that we knew of that are gay. My sister and my old girlfriend found about the same percentage as I found in my class. We came up with a number at about 9%. Of course that was just a small sample but it ma ybe a close representation of rest of the population.
If they do they do. Why push it on 96.5% of the American population?
Because core human rights apply to all people, regardless of what percent of the population they are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The act of being able to marry now is purely a binding contract between two people that makes it easier for couples to take advantage of tax credits and allows them to combine their finances for future expenses.
Just 3.5% of the US population are gay
