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.
That is exactly what I am talking about. No one has a right to make another person agree with their lifestyle. What is normal to me evidently is not normal to her. There was no reason that it should have even been a consideration on our job. She was prejudiced against family values.
So you worked for a d-bag. What on earth does that have to do with ANYTHING? If you're fired for not going to a party, what does that have to do with marriage and family values?
I'm waiting for you to cite a country that was destroyed by SSM.
The majority of this country has already moved on to believing that gay marriage should be a right. So, it is not "we" who you profess to speak on behalf of anymore.....but rather it is only YOU and your ever-shrinking minority on this issue.
That's a load of crap ... the majority are against the normalization of abnormal behavior. This truth is exemplified by your side's need of one Supreme Court intervention after another to circumvent the will of the majority of people who are opposed to, and understand this incrementally implemented agenda. You, your cause and supporters are nothing more than useful idiots, having no clue that the powers that be care not one iota about you, and are just playing you like a violin. The ultimate agenda, which has nothing to do with caring about homosexuals or their rights, is to destroy this country by destroying the traditional family which has always been the mainstay and the core of our society, and reducing population. What better way to reduce population than to promote deviate same sex sex? It's amazingly easy to steer a mass of people ... just play to their selfish interests and they'll follow you off a cliff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
Next, modern marriage is NOT ABOUT CHILDREN. It IS about the adults. If it were about children, it would be very, very easy to limit marriage only to men and women of child-bearing age. Some states also require(d) blood tests, so a fertility test would not be that hard to order as well. But we don't do this, because children, or the ability or potential to have children together, IS NOT AND HAS NOT BEEN REQUISITE for marriage for as long as anyone alive today has been around.
Such self delusion is amazing. The ONLY reason for marriage and the associated "benefits" was always about the interests and security of the children. Are you so grossly naive as to think that "government" really cares about you as an individual? Can you not reach the elementary conclusion that "government" finds you useful for it;s purpose, which has nothing to do with your desires and interests?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
Society - if it has any interest whatsoever - has an interest in stable households. Regardless of the composition of those households.
Nonsense. Society has an interest only in what contributes to the well being of society. That contribution has always centered around the creation of new members. What exactly do homosexuals offer society? Exactly nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
Not to mention, OICU812 (who I am sure does not have children, and is likely not married).... a full 30% of same sex households in this country ARE raising children. This number is very similar to the rates of opposite-sex households raising children.
Which is one of the primary reasons why people object to the incremental agenda of normalization of abnormal homosexuality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
So, even if we were to believe marriage was "about the children," - which it is not - where these same sex households EXIST and are raising children at rates similar to heterosexuals, then marriage must be extended to those couples FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN.
Nothing at all "similar". First, the volume of homosexuals raising children is miniscule compared to heterosexual couples raising children. Secondly ... there should be no extension because there should be no legitimizing of homosexuals raising children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
Right. Because people who are "not the norm" or are "not common" do not deserve equal treatment under the law.
What ROCK did you grow up under?
No one was ever promised equality, because such a thing does not exist in reality. Life is inherently unequal, because none of us are equal. No two people are "equal", let alone a broader group.
Liberalism is a philosophy that requires mental illness in order to embrace it's ideology.
Your entire way of looking at this subject, and the process you used to justify your arguments are all skewed.
The selfish view, is that marriage is no longer about children, it's only about pleasing the adults. The gay marriage debate has skewed marriage, so too many people now think it's only about making the adults happy, so they get special tax breaks, and special property and entitlement protections etc... People in bad relationships is not the problem. People making babies and walking away from them is. Marriage is important, only because of the children.
If babies were hatched in test tubes and raised by the state, then marriage would not even exist.
We do realize that many people really suck at maintaining long term personal relationships. Which is why we offer so many incentives and go out of our way to encourage men and women to enter into successful, long term marriages. Do people enter into successful loving marriages all the time? No, and this is precisely why we as a people put so much effort in promoting marriage.
We do worry that thousands of men and women might engage in sexual relationships and make babies out of wedlock, because this would be detrimental to our country's future. So we need these men and women to enter into a long term marriages. We do not worry that thousands of gay men will make babies, so we do not give a crap is they ever marry.
Your continued citing of rare cases with sterile couples, or couples who refuse to have children are irrelevant, because they are not the norm, and they are a waste of breath to argue about.
Well, we give a crap, those rights, benefits and protections protect our assets, our property from undue taxes, it gives us rights to visit in the hospital and to make medical decisions. All of those 1049 rights, protections and benefits are granted to all married couples no matter if they ever have kids or are sterile or are too old. None are minused for not having kids. You fail again and again, yet like a broken record, continue to repeat the same droll message. And again, you are so typical, you only mention gay men. What bugs you so much about two men loving each other and making a committment, how does it affect you? Fix your divorce rate of over 55%, that is your problem with marriage, not gays marrying which does not affect it one iota.
People in general have never been denied the right to marry...Two people who ever they are can simply move in together and live out their lives together. The legal title of marriage is sought after in earnest because it is a social status symbol with benefits..Typical gay culture are all into status no matter how superficial. To want a TITLE...or seek status is something generated by ego and insecurity. This is a lot to do about nothing...The fact is gays and lesbians have the dysfunction or phobia - that prevents them from having intimate relationships with the opposite sex. They suffer from heterophobia. This condition is now being politically reinforced to the point of - If a gay or lesbian falls in love with the opposite sex...it will be frowned upon and restricted by supposed gay culture and their supporters.
Really really stupid and ignorant post you made. You know nothing about being gay and we are not afraid of straight people, we just are not attracted sexually to them. And if those rights are special and are granted to those seeking an ego boost, did you not just describe straights who want to have marriage only for themselves? You are fighting a losing battle with an empty cannon. Make up any reason to hate and discriminate against us, it just makes you look like a bigot.
I'm not gay, but my best friend is. I was happy to attend her wedding during the brief time that she was able to marry in CA. I'm involved in a hobby that has a large percentage of gays that participate. I know some are for ssm, some against it, and some don't care as long as the union brings the same privileges and rights as marriage. I know that most of the gay community is not extreme.
But my gay friends, and you, can't deny that many in the movement are NOT in it for the right reasons, but are fighting to push forward and agenda, and to punish their enemy - religious people. And just because you agree with the gay agenda, doesn't mean it is less extreme than the church's agenda.
And many straight people get married for the rights, not for love, not for kids and like a Brittany Spears wedding, for the wrong reasons. I have no intent of punishing anyone, that is something someone made up and they did the same with saying there is a gay agenda. I do not think there is a gay agenda and do believe there is a religious agenda to defame gay people, to make us look evil, wicked, sick, demented, anything but just plain ole people who happen to be gay. I got married to my partner of 34 years for the protections that cannot be bought, for the rights that cannot be bought, for the tax breaks and protections that cannot be bought, for the 1049 federally granted rights, protections and benefits.. If the religious people could just be happy having their religion, everything would be okay, but no, they have to try and force their bible and their beliefs upon every single person, regardless of their religion. They can have their church weddings all they want, I did not want a church wedding, we got married in the courthouse and paid for it above the cost of the license, no church, no god, just the government that is supposed to treat me as an equal US citizen, not as second class because of someones god and beliefs.
99% of us never have one thought in a month about gay issues. Most of us just go about our business. Gay issues don't ever make our thoughts until we get on CD and read all of these silly gay issue threads.
Of which most are started by anti gay people. And I mean most, like 8 out of 10 gay issue threads are started by anti gays.
When that person is doing everything they can to get everybody at work that has a normal marriage fired, it becomes a problem. If they are more than their sexual orientation they need to concentrate on the job and stop abusing others. This person would give parties and anyone that didn't show up would be questioned as to why they were not there the next week. It was not a company party either. She wanted to control every aspect of each employees life.
I had a boss like that too, she was a lesbian and she hated any couple, gay or straight and tried to create conflict with those relationships. It had nothing to do with her being homosexual, it was her own emotional problem. I did not go on to believe that all lesbians would be like her, nor all women, it was just her.
Within the context of religion and holy matrimony? I suppose they shouldn't be allowed to...
Would you be content with barring hetero couples who cannot conceive? That would be consistent then wouldn't it?
And understanding these circumstances doesn't change the fact that their is a distinct, inherent difference between a heterosexually defined couple and a homosexual one.
I don't agree with homosexuality...but not to the point I am going to stick a dog in the fight. My issues with the "struggle" stems from propagandist and myopic focus from the demographic.
What inherent difference other than in one couple they are opposite sex and the other they are the same sex. There is still love, committment, struggle, daily life, walking the dog, shopping, TV, etc. But my partner and I do not live a different life than that of our straight neighbors, we do all the same things for the most part. Do not mention procreation, because that does not happen with every couple gay or straigth, forget about anal sex, because many gays and lesbians do not ever practice it and many straight couples do practice it. Not every relationship/marriage is alike, gay or straight.
To want a TITLE...or seek status is something generated by ego and insecurity.
Then tell that to all the heterosexuals who have ever gotten married. This has nothing to do with homosexuals. They simply want to do the same thing. So there is no more ego or insecurity here than there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg Bach
The fact is gays and lesbians have the dysfunction or phobia - that prevents them from having intimate relationships with the opposite sex.
Is this an opinion you pulled out of your rear or do you have any consensus from the literature to cite to support it? Homosexuals do not have relationships of this type with the opposite sex because they are not sexually attracted to them. Simple as. It has nothing to do with phobia or insecurity. Stop making things up to support your otherwise empty agenda.
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.
