Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-08-2012, 09:35 PM
 
Location: California
37,121 posts, read 42,189,292 times
Reputation: 34997

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 0marvin0 View Post
I hate to break it to you but there have been same sex couples for as long as there have been people so your not natural argument is defeated by nature. How ironic
Some people don't know a darned thing about human history. At least nothing since 1950's America as portrayed on TV.

 
Old 08-08-2012, 09:37 PM
 
Location: Washingtonville
2,505 posts, read 2,325,365 times
Reputation: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12 View Post
same-sex couple are unnatural and against a few thousand years old tradition.
PROVE IT!!

Prove that homosexuality is unnatural? Prove that it does not occur in nature and is entirely man made.

Prove that it goes against any tradition. Prove that there is a "traditional" concept of marriage.

I want empirical evidence, not your biased uneducated opinion.
 
Old 08-08-2012, 09:45 PM
 
2,920 posts, read 2,796,043 times
Reputation: 624
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda
marriage reflects nature's work - ie: the production of children.

this is why we have it.

marriage helps the natural family unit stay together.

so in the case of the s.s scenario, it is not necessary.
How does marriage reflect the production of children. You don't have to be married to have a child. A marriage does not ensure a family staying together, or have you not heard of divorce. What does divorce reflect? If marriage reflects natures work, then divorce must do so as well.

The purpose of marriage was to bind women to men, to guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. That is all, it wasn't to fulfill some divine family unit or natures calling.
That must be the gay perspective... marriage does not guarantee that the offspring is yours, unless you never heard of infidelity, but it does provide some guarantees for the women that the man will provide for her and her offspring. Even secular divorce has provisions like alimony that ensure support for the women even after the divorce.
It's not that that women was bound to a man through marriage but rather man committed to lifetime support of the women and her offspring.
 
Old 08-08-2012, 09:48 PM
 
2,920 posts, read 2,796,043 times
Reputation: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre View Post
PROVE IT!!

Prove that homosexuality is unnatural? Prove that it does not occur in nature and is entirely man made.

Prove that it goes against any tradition. Prove that there is a "traditional" concept of marriage.

I want empirical evidence, not your biased uneducated opinion.
Every living organism on this planet works towards ensuring the survivial of the species. This is the primal prerogative.
Homosexuality does not help in this effort, it's counterproductive, neither does gay marriage. That's what makes homosexuality unnatural.
 
Old 08-08-2012, 09:56 PM
 
5,190 posts, read 4,836,753 times
Reputation: 1115
maintenance payments in gay marriages - how would it work?

now here is something to ponder over.

In the case of two men getting married, and then divorced - what happens with maintenance payments?

Would the chief earner have to make a weekly payment to the other man, in order to support them?

A man living for free in this way would be lame IMO.

this would go against the idea of being a man and supporting yourself, not to mention causing a dent in the economy and functioning of society.

another reason to ban this silly idea of s.s marriage.
 
Old 08-08-2012, 09:57 PM
 
5,190 posts, read 4,836,753 times
Reputation: 1115
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0marvin0 View Post
So you think love and commitment is nothing?
not nothing, but it's just idealism compared to the real deal , ie: that of bringing up your own children.
 
Old 08-08-2012, 09:59 PM
 
1,805 posts, read 1,466,155 times
Reputation: 1895
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12 View Post
That must be the gay perspective... marriage does not guarantee that the offspring is yours but it does provide some guarantees for the women that once she has offspring the man will provide for it.
It's not that the women was bound to a man but rather man committed to lifetime support of women and her offspring.
The term deadbeat dad comes to mind. Another ridiculous argument shot down. Look around a bit more I'm sure there are some straws left you can grasp.
 
Old 08-08-2012, 10:00 PM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,095,708 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12 View Post
Every living organism on this planet works towards ensuring the survivial of the species. This is the primal prerogative.
Homosexuality does not help in this effort, it's counterproductive, neither does gay marriage. That's what makes homosexuality unnatural.
The vast, vast, vast majority of female bees don't reproduce. What unnatural, immoral lifestyles most female bees choose to live.
 
Old 08-08-2012, 10:02 PM
 
5,190 posts, read 4,836,753 times
Reputation: 1115
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre View Post
The purpose of marriage was to bind women to men, to guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. That is all, it wasn't to fulfill some divine family unit or natures calling.
that's one way of looking at it I suppose, though putting a very gay rights spin on it.

as usual, you are dwelling on some of the negative aspects to one of the facets of the historical hetero (ie:normal) situation, and somehow extrapolating that to make a case for allowing s.s. marriage - it's a clear non sequitir though, as usual.
 
Old 08-08-2012, 10:04 PM
 
1,805 posts, read 1,466,155 times
Reputation: 1895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda View Post
not nothing, but it's just idealism compared to the real deal , ie: that of bringing up your own children.
Well speaking as an adopted child the people I called my parents were the ones that adopted me, not my biological parents who I never met. It seems to me your "real deal" is actually the idealism here.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top