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.
Sorry, I just don't buy into the feminist agenda. I stand behind my husband and think the most important role of a wife is to make sure my family is taken care of. Women DID own property, women WERE allowed to vote in many places, women were LOVED and RESPECTED by their husbands. There are always the bad-egg men...and bad-egg women.
The rights women enjoy today were fought for and won by the feminists you despise, and the rights that are and will be granted to gays are being fought for by people who want a better life. I am in total support of them.
The rights women enjoy today were fought for and won by the feminists you despise, and the rights that are and will be granted to gays are being fought for by people who want a better life. I am in total support of them.
Good lord. I hope you enjoyed using this much bandwidth to say so little.
My reasoning? Two different names is reminiscent of a "separate but equal" philosophy. I think it should be all or nothing for gay couples. But one has to wonder why, if the only relevance it has to you is the something highly abstract like you outlined in your post, then why not support it? Or at least condone it?
My guess is that you don't understand because you've failed to put yourself in their shoes. You're being ethnocentric, just as Yeledaf is when he describes the superiority of heterosexual unions. Then you claim to favor reason and wonder why so much of the rest of the world is incapable of using it while yours is faulty at best. One definition of marriage, one of many that has existed over time, should be upheld, regardless of the practicality or usefulness of it, you're arguing. That doesn't sound reasonable to me at all.
(oh goody, lets use relativistic discussion foundations then shall we? Since you have already started, I will now respond in kind)
How ethnocentric of you to claim that I don't understand. Is my subjective view not as valid as yours? Apparently, it isn't, apparently the meanings of the words I create are not as accepted as yours? Don't you think it rather mean of you to disagree with me? When I say mean, it is defined in my special place as silly, Also note that disagree is also defined in my special world as hate. So why do you hate me? When I mean hate, In my interpetation of it, I actually means dislike, but then that "to me" also means "misunderstand". So why can you not understand what I am saying? Understand as in, attack in my special place of meaning. You keep attacking me?
Apparently, what you are doing is hating (disagreeing) me.
I love relativism arguments. I can say anything and be just as valid as what anyone else says simply because "relativism" states "There are no absolutes" and guess what? If your thinking that this statement is contradictory in itself, never mind that because in relativism, anything goes, everything is just peachy!
Personally, if 3 people want to set up some sort of marital contract of their own free will and it hurts no one else, so what? I doubt there would be many takers though. It seems like the only ones into polygamy are born into the cults of southern Utah. You don't have a sizeable segment of the population asking for recognition of multiple partner marriages, so it's really not an issue outside of the odd little cults.
Women couldn't even vote until what, less than a hundred years ago?
You CHOSE? When did you sit down and decide to sign on with the heteros? When did you decide which sex you were attracted to and which sex you would be able to fall in love with? And then how did you force your biology to go along with your CHOICE? Wow. I'm very curious to hear this answer.
I don't see a sizeable portion of America demanding gay marriage either, just a very loud minority. In the 2000 census 0.7% were gay men, there is a larger percentage of Native Americans than of gay men...homosexuals made up only 1.02% of the population.
Yes, you choose your sexual behavior. I didn't know there was a membership form I had to sign to be a part of "the heteros". It's a behavior, saying that someone is born that way is as ridiculous as stating that someone is born to be a liar, a thief, a drug addict, a workoholic, a philanthropist, a priest, or a President. We all have choices in life, sexual behavior is just one of many that we make.
The rights women enjoy today were fought for and won by the feminists you despise, and the rights that are and will be granted to gays are being fought for by people who want a better life. I am in total support of them.
That's right, before feminists I wasn't allowed to work, I was second-class, my husband would have beat me and left me nothing in his will...I would have been destitute. Thank goodness for Gloria Steinem.
YOU define gay people by their sexual practices. I certainly don't define straight people by what the do in bed. Yuk! I don't even want to think about what 99.999999% of the population does, sexually speaking. If I defined everyone by their sexual practices, I'd be insane!
The reason we want legal protection for our relationships is because they're the same as heteros. Why should I be subjected to more taxes, not get my partner's retirement if he passes away before me, or not be able to make decisions for each other if hospitalized? We've been together 12 years with full intent to go 'til death. We love each other, support each other and will soon have kids together. Yet if one of us drops dead suddenly, the other one is completely screwed due to all the tax implications and being treated as two strangers by the law, not two people who shared thier lives and loved each other.
Honestly, I don't know why I even respond to you. You've made up your mind, so why are you posting on this subject? Just to stick it to gay people?
But you just defined me by my sexual preference...as straight. Homosexuals are called that because of their sexual preference...nothing more. It's not because they like musicals more than the general population (and I don't even think most gays like musicals as much as is stereotyped).
Before you started on your defensive tirade I stated that marriage in the state is nothing more than a legal contract. If you want your state to grant you the same legal rights as "heteros" petition the legislature. I have no problem with gays wanting to be able to make medical decisions or inherit property. I was pointing out that if you take away the "one man one woman" piece than anyone should be able to have that right. There is a separation of what marriage means before God, and what marriage means to the government. I don't see how that's "sticking it" to gays.
I disagree with the "equal rights" argument because the civil rights movement was about infringing on basic human liberties...such as riding a bus or using the bathroom or same schools. I don't see gay students being placed in their own schools or anything of the sort.
But you just defined me by my sexual preference...as straight. Homosexuals are called that because of their sexual preference...nothing more. It's not because they like musicals more than the general population (and I don't even think most gays like musicals as much as is stereotyped).
Before you started on your defensive tirade I stated that marriage in the state is nothing more than a legal contract. If you want your state to grant you the same legal rights as "heteros" petition the legislature. I have no problem with gays wanting to be able to make medical decisions or inherit property. I was pointing out that if you take away the "one man one woman" piece than anyone should be able to have that right. There is a separation of what marriage means before God, and what marriage means to the government. I don't see how that's "sticking it" to gays.
I disagree with the "equal rights" argument because the civil rights movement was about infringing on basic human liberties...such as riding a bus or using the bathroom or same schools. I don't see gay students being placed in their own schools or anything of the sort.
I hope people are beginning to see the insanity of relativistic communication. The last few posts that you were responding to are strictly an issue with denverian's misuse of definitions of those words. Because "subjective" interpetation of their meaning is used rather than their actual definitions, the discussion is thrown in to the realms of the absurd.
That's right, before feminists I wasn't allowed to work, I was second-class, my husband would have beat me and left me nothing in his will...I would have been destitute. Thank goodness for Gloria Steinem.
No - you could have worked in some menial job, making less than a man who does the same job. Of course the latter part still applies today. Women STILL make less money than a man for doing the same job. How odd.
You would have had no say in government, no vote and very little freedom. If you were unfortunate enough to have a husband who beat you, there would have been little you could have done about it. You would probably have inherited his money though so I guess the rest is all ok with you.
Quick question; Do you vote? Or do you leave such important things in the hands of your husband?
I don't see a sizeable portion of America demanding gay marriage either, just a very loud minority. In the 2000 census 0.7% were gay men, there is a larger percentage of Native Americans than of gay men...homosexuals made up only 1.02% of the population.
Yes, you choose your sexual behavior. I didn't know there was a membership form I had to sign to be a part of "the heteros". It's a behavior, saying that someone is born that way is as ridiculous as stating that someone is born to be a liar, a thief, a drug addict, a workoholic, a philanthropist, a priest, or a President. We all have choices in life, sexual behavior is just one of many that we make.
Mamabee - people do not just suddenly decide to start finding people of the same sex attractive. Could you make that decision? My guess is not - I certainly couldn't. I am straight, but do not fool myself that being gay is a 'behavior' or a choice. What a very odd thing for you to think.
I am pro gay marriage for loving commited couples. Any consenting adult couple who wishes to show their love in the eyes of God or the government should be allowed to do so.
So all people who are pro gay marriage, don't necessarily have to be gay - thereby making your stats meaningless.
Sorry, I just don't buy into the feminist agenda. I stand behind my husband and think the most important role of a wife is to make sure my family is taken care of.
For you that may be fine. I prefer to stand along side my husband as an equal. I think the most important role of a wife is to be an equal, supportive partner to her husband and expect the same in return. No matter if you are looking after kids, or working.
A man is just as capable of making sure a family is taken care of as a woman.
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.
