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.
As a straight woman heading into my 7th decade, one truism I've accepted is that most gay-bashing comes from men repressing their homosexual tendencies.
And here we see what your REAL problem is ... you're a conspiracy theorist, probably hunkered down somewhere, preparing for Armageddon to be wrought by Obama's black helicopters. Sad. You're beyond reach of reasoned intellectual discourse.
Gay marriage does not promote the expansion of government powers.
The government is not using gay people, or anyone, to "expand its power and control".
Gay marriage does not embrace authoritarianism; that's the most idiotic thing you've written, which is saying something.
The legal effort for gay marriage isn't trying to ban anything, except for stupidity, bigotry, and hatred.
And oh yeah, it's "over the top" to assert one's constitutional rights.
I hope you have a ton of Spam in your bunker ... you're gonna be there for a longggg time.
Of course gay marriage expands government power. Marriage is regulated by the state. The more people are married, the more peoples' lives are subject to state regulations. It's literally impossible for gay marriage to not expand government power and control. You tell the person you're responding to that he's beyond reach of reasoned intellectual discourse but you appear to be not really thinking things through yourself. Most of the regulations are actually beneficial. However, they are regulations and having gay partnerships sanctioned as marriage will cause an expansion of the scope of those regulations.
Now when you say government is not using gay people to expand its power, you're probably correct there. But the basic effect will indeed be that the marriage laws will end up affecting more people than they previously did which will give government control over that aspect of more peoples' lives than it previously had. That's not say it is a bad thing because once again marriage is generally beneficial for people, but it is a truthful statement.
As for it being authoritarian, well that's a debatable point as regards marriage itself, and it applies to gay or straight partnerships. There is a point of view that it's authoritarian in principle for government to be involved in marriage in the first place. But that's not a sexual orientation issue. It's a general question of whether or not the government should be involved in the personal relationships people have. An argument can be made that it is none of the government's business and that all marriages should be strictly private affairs.
I don't believe gays are born gay in most cases. Something happened to them as a child to make them be that way whether it be sexual abuse, emotional abuse, physical abuse, etc.
I'm the mother of identical twin sons, one gay, one straight. Both unimaginably precious, cherished, and loved equally from birth. Both now the grandest adults, beyond anything you can ever imagine.
edit to add: let me correct that and apologize: I should have said ~ both the grandest adults you could ever hope to imagine. I'm certain, beyond any doubt, that if you ever encountered them, both you and they would feel blessed. Any thoughts/emotions you might harbor about your or their sexuality would dissolve.
Last edited by biscuitmom; 02-20-2013 at 11:59 PM..
As a straight woman heading into my 7th decade, one truism I've accepted is that most gay-bashing comes from men repressing their homosexual tendencies.
I'm the mother of identical twin sons, one gay, one straight. Both unimaginably precious, cherished, and loved equally from birth. Both now the grandest adults, beyond anything you can ever imagine.
Congrats, mom ! You sound like a wonderful mother.
As a gay man I say bravo! You're a great mom! No doubt because of how you are helped to shape them into who and what they are
Quote:
Originally Posted by biscuitmom
I'm the mother of identical twin sons, one gay, one straight. Both unimaginably precious, cherished, and loved equally from birth. Both now the grandest adults, beyond anything you can ever imagine.
As a gay man I say bravo! You're a great mom! No doubt because of how you are helped to shape them into who and what they are
If only. The fact of the matter, entirely, is they - in their 'straightness' and 'gayness', for whatever it was worth, always continue to shape, me. And everyone else they meet.
Bravo, backatcha.
You're short sighted and naive attitude prevents you from understanding the simple point that when your "gay marriage" crusade promotes the expansion of government powers to interfere in matters government has no business imposing itself, it ABSOLUTELY DOES AFFECT EVERYONE ... IN MANY WAYS, SAHPES AND FORMS. And that is exactly why IT IS MY BUSINESS. That you're just not wise enough to see that is your problem, not mine.
Government doesn't care about you or your gay marriage rights ... government uses you and your naivete to advance it's own agenda, which is to expand it's power and control. Useful idiots is what you leftists-Statist-Authoritarians are to government. That's it. Nothing more.
I personally do not give a crap about who marries whom ... my problem rests entirely in ALL of your ill conceived, naive causes that embrace such authoritarianism in DEMANDING a government that rules over us, rather than serve us, as they should. The rest of your post is just similar manure.
But you're wrong about "Most of America" .... most of America is getting sick and tired of the whining and moaning and the idiocy of your leftist ideological insanity that is destroying the nation. Your constant efforts to ban this, and ban that ... and the extreme hypocrisy of you citing your constitutional rights is over the top, when everything you do shows your complete contempt for it.
So don't tell me what my "points" are, because you're not even qualified to discuss your own points .. primarily because you have none.
Then please, let's vote to give up heterosexual marriage. Annul it and eliminate all of the benefits that it brings. Go ahead - I'll wait.
I find lines of reasoning such as yours extremely hateful because it amounts to "I got mine, and no, you can't have it!" Using your line of reasoning, desegregation should not have occurred because it expanded government power. White should have had the power to choose whether or not they allowed blacks into their spaces, right? Right?
Because that's what Amurika is all about.
Gay marriage is coming, and your folk are dying off. Enjoy the ride, bud!
Well, to paraphrase YOU a few posts back, "wrong opinions are wrong because they're not based in fact". People don't want to go to all the trouble you're talking about NOT because they've been spoiled by their parents, but because (and I'll only speak for myself here), they're working 2 jobs, commuting, grocery shopping, shuttling their kids around, etc. It's not because they're SPOILED that they don't want the extra work you're suggesting, it's because they're so busy they barely have time to think much less take on extra work.
You have confused excuses with reasons, but they are not reasons at all. What you've just offered is a lot of excuses for people who choose not to make time for taking charge of the important aspects of life, while getting bogged down in the minutia. Though I do get this whole "hectic scheduling" thing .. do you think my life hasn't been hectic? That I don't know what it's like to have 26 hours of things to get done, with only 24 hours available? How presumptuous of you!
I could explain to you that this whole scenario is the intended outcome of a system designed for that purpose, but it would take much to much time, and you'd reject it anyway ... so what's the point in that. But I will illustrate some of the misperceptions you're operating under, and maybe that might encourage you to make a stronger effort in becoming more aware, and less reactionary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violett
I like the security the marriage contract provides both for the partners and the children involved.
The marriage contract offers you no security .. that's a fallacy. It's the marriage that offers the security, however fleeting the entire illusion of "security" may be. Unfortunately, the actual rates of marriage have steadily declined over the past half century, and the rates of divorce skyrocketed. What does that say about this notion of security? Do you know that upwards of 50% of births today occur out of wedlock? What say you about that rather insecure reality? It would never occur to you that you've never been less secure than you are this instant. NEVER. That too is a topic that is too broad for the space here ... but it is the new reality that we all have to contend with at the moment. Due to my hectic schedule, I don't have time to bring you up to speed on everything that has occurred during your lifetime.
Now, when I was born in the 1950's, the economy was still geared toward single income families, and that was a benefit to my mother, since at age 33, she found herself a widow with an 11 year old and 7 year old to care for alone. My father passed away at the ripe old age of 35. Now if my mom were still alive, she would laugh at your notion of a marriage contract offering security. Her security came in her ability to work and support two kids ... something that is increasingly impossible for a single mother today, because of that rather massive shift to a two income economic structure. Of course, that shift was a victory for feminism, as the burn your bra, have a career, and don't rely on those no good bums for your security movement just began to take hold in the 1960's and 70's. That it was funded by the monied interests, and promoted by paid CIA assets like Gloria Steinem, and the CIA-Rockefeller Foundation funded Ms. Magazine was for the express purpose of facilitating that shift. Of course that's all a conspiracy theory, even though Gloria herself admitted her CIA connections in her own book. (She must be a conspiracy theorist too ) This, by the way, is analogous to the previous suggestion that the entire "gay marriage" movement has it's hidden agendas that have nothing whatsoever to do with government caring about gay people. If they actually did, they wouldn't have infected thousands in San Francisco with HIV, via vaccines. Of course, that's just another conspiracy theory. Ask any credentialed Doctor or Epidemiologist, and they'll confirm that is pure conspiracy theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violett
If YOU don't like marriage because it's dictated by the state, then don't get married. It's as simple as that. There's no need to want it to change for everyone else.
Marriage being legally binding is centuries old, I can't believe I'm even debating this. It's such a nonsense issue. lol
No, Violet ... that's really not true at all. For the better part of the history of marriage, government played no role whatsoever. In fact, for the majority of time, neither did the church. Marriage was matter handled between the families of the two prospective partners.
Even the early history of the United States, one would register marriages with government, but no license was required, and no contract between the State and the two married people was created to control them. This is a rather modern development in our transformation from a constitutional republic to a socialist authoritarian nightmare that we have today ... which you've mistaken for "security".
It's a very old game Violet ... the old carrot ploy. It's universal!! A little chunck of yellow cheese for the mouse trap .. a wiggly worm on the hook for the fishies ... and just promise the deluded American a benefit, and they'll follow you like a herd of farm animals straight off the "Fiscal Cliff".
Violet, it's not nice or wise to dismiss people who are trying to educate you. Of course, as Americans we all have the right to remain stupid, and in that particular area, that right seems very secure. All the rest of them .... not so much.
In parting words here to illustrate to you the possibility that what you think you know may not be the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth .. just take a look at the very universal perception that modern medicine has increased life expectancy. It sounds reasonable on the surface, and it really seems like the truth since we have been told this so many times and for so long ... but is it really true? Well, just look at those founding fathers of our nation .... we were all taught about them in school, weren't you? Well, why then, in the 1700's, and long before modern medicine saved the human race from virtual extinction, did these guys live into their 80's and 90's ? Today, the life expectancy of a male is 75, with all of the marvels of modern medicine ... while back then, they didn't even have indoor plumbing or penicillin?
Just something to think about, if you can spare the time.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 02-21-2013 at 01:12 AM..
In parting words here to illustrate to you the possibility that what you think you know may not be the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth .. just take a look at the very universal perception that modern medicine has increased life expectancy. It sounds reasonable on the surface, and it really seems like the truth since we have been told this so many times and for so long ... but is it really true? Well, just look at those founding fathers of our nation .... we were all taught about them in school, weren't you? Well, why then, in the 1700's, and long before modern medicine saved the human race from virtual extinction, did these guys live into their 80's and 90's ? Today, the life expectancy of a male is 75, with all of the marvels of modern medicine ... while back then, the didn't even have indoor plumbing or penicillin?
Just something to think about, if you can spare the time.
Quote:
For their era, the 1787 delegates (like the 1776 signers) were average in terms of life spans.[14] Their average age at death was about 67. The first to die was Houston in 1788; the last was Madison in 1836.
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.
) This, by the way, is analogous to the previous suggestion that the entire "gay marriage" movement has it's hidden agendas that have nothing whatsoever to do with government caring about gay people. If they actually did, they wouldn't have infected thousands in San Francisco with HIV, via vaccines. Of course, that's just another conspiracy theory. Ask any credentialed Doctor or Epidemiologist, and they'll confirm that is pure conspiracy theory.
