Their lifestyle is a perversion. It doesn't build families. It destroys them. So two people are fighting to destroy their blood lines. Go ahead. It's sexual perversion for the sheer purpose of getting one's rocks off. Now I understand the purpose of removing the clitoris and circumcision. It is to try to keep people from spending too much of their life and time playing with their genitals.
Putting aside the fact that there are some number of gay unions that also are families that include children, you miss the point completely. In effect you are seeing an overlap of types of marriage, or more accurately specific conditions or situations of married couples, as not an overlao, but instead a situation where the differnces amont to a distinction that in turn requires a changed definition of the term. that is not the correct way to understand what is going on. Let me explain... Marriage is usually a state that precedes the birth of children, and then the raising of those children. Of course this means that some marry and never have children. And even those who do eventually have children will usually not have children at first. But society imo has the right to say the government will FIRST recognize the social condition or state into which children are most optimally born and then raised, with the practical recognition that many who do so will then have children. Society identifies this state as marriage. It should be clear that the fact that some percentage of married people do not have children is largely irrelevant to this analysis. Marriage is instead the preferred social arrangement into which children should be born. In fact one could easily say were this not the case (for whatever social or biological reason) that marriage as a preferred form of social arrangement would not exist. It should also be clear that society does not force people to have children. What it instead does, really has pretty much done for countless centuries, is say if you want to have children you will be encouraged through a number of incentives to be married when you do so. These incentives are not enough, obviously, to encourage all who have children to be married when they do, but that is another discussion. The goal, the objective, is rather straightforward, actually. And it should be clear this is a rational social objective. The related notion that marriage should be between a man and a woman is in fact supported by the notion that children will benefit in the long run by being around people of both sexes. This seems rather common sensical to me, and in fact there are social studies that compare rates of various pathologies among children of single mothers versus the standard nuclear marriage, indicating the latter is the better arrangement. Of course it is. Those who for polemical reasons argue the contrary should have the burden of proof, since they are the ones seeking to change human history.
You are out of your element. The civil union thing is not the issue. That's the whole point. The gay agenda is NOT primarily about those things. It is about forcing society to say gay marriage is worthy of veneration on the level of straight marriage.
So would you say the same about masturbation? I'm a married guy and all I wanna do is get my rocks off 24 hours a day 7 days a week.
Gunther - obviously you are pretty passionate about your position, but your approach to the argument is terrible and its somewhat disrespectful if any poster here is homosexual. Although I somewhat disagree with BB and Hobbes, they make respectful and thoughtful arguments and I am certainly open my minded enough and avoid being ignorant about their positions and thinking my opinion and argument is the right way and only way. Calling that lifestyle a perversion falls back to a previous point of view. If you like to collect classic cars is that a perversion because you can be doing something better with your money like adopting a crack baby or helping a senior citizens building? No - its a choice. Or maybe its something that you have in your genes that drive you to do something. Some people are driven to own their own business, some people are driven to climb the corporate ladder, some people are driven to be serial killers. Others are driven to be attracted by the same sex. Am I a perversion because I no longer exercise and like to eat snacks in front of the TV as opposed to Alio who is the next Joe Weider or JoahnnyD who is training for the Olympics? Its a lifestyle choice - its not a perversion. I'm not sure what middle eastern or African country you hail from, but we don't recommend removing the clitoris in America. However, if your religion calls for that, I certainly have sympathy for the females in your society. As for the circumcision, I already jack off way too much as it is - no circumcision stops a hard on. That practice is usually reserved for one of two reasons or both: religion tradition/practice, and hygiene. Unless you are getting circumcised by a friend in the garage with a dremel or tin snips, I highly doubt that practice - usually done at birth - will change the frequency rate of a hard on. Lastly - the destroying families part is way over the top. Please don't even bring that argument to the table when the divorce rate is over 50% in America. When the divorce rate drops back below 10%, then you have a very valid argument. There are more kids growing up in broken homes that do WAY MORE damage than same sex homes. The younger children - age 10 through 16 - are way more impressionable by their single parents living a care free lifestyle than a same sex home. Its certainly better to have 2 same sex stable adults in the home than one parent who is still more concerned about their personal life. My wife sees this all the time in middle to upper class suburban neighborhood students who come from broken homes - many of which are well to do. And if a divorcee has a lifestyle change and gets with a same sex partner long after thier children are born, whose to stay that 2nd adult in the home is worse than no 2nd adult.
I second the motion... 3 Hotties just walked by my cube - what I could do to them in the datacenter with some cat5 cable and an empty server rack. *tent pitched*
False. Marriage was created as a business deal between two families. It had little to nothing to do with children other than to establish heirs.
You got a link for that? Besides that you are speaking of historical marriages, the incentives provided by the US government could very well have been in the vein of new citizens, thereby destroying any equality argument one may present.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Marriage#History For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200505/marriage-history Antiquity-Renaissance What's love got to do with it? In early history, politics and money trumped emotions. * Ancient Greece: Love is a many-splendored (manly) thing. Love is honored—especially between men. In marriage, inheritance is more important than feelings: A woman whose father dies without male heirs can be forced to marry her nearest male relative—even if she has to divorce her husband first. * Rome: Wife-swapping as a career move—Statesman Marcus Porcius Cato divorces his wife and marries her off to his ally Hortensius in order to strengthen family bonds; after Hortensius dies, Cato remarries her. * 6th-century Europe: Political polygamy—The Germanic warlord Clothar, despite being a baptized Christian, eventually acquires four wives for strategic reasons, including his dead brother's wife, her sister and the daughter of a captured foreign king. * 12th-century Europe: Marriage is good for loving...someone else—Upper-class marriages are often arranged before the couple has met. Aristocrats believe love is incompatible with marriage and can flourish only in adultery. * 14th-century Europe: It takes a village—Ordinary people can't choose whom to marry either. The lord of one Black Forest manor decrees in 1344 that all his unmarried tenants—including widows and widowers—marry spouses of his choosing. Elsewhere, peasants wishing to pick a partner must pay a fee.
Hardly. You'll need to go back about 5000 years, to get around that. The Jewish people go back 5000 plus years, regardless of what some Social Sciences Prof told you.
So what you're saying is that in different cultures, under different principles, some of which may be religious, marriage means different things?
that's dishonest, because you can simply look at how it was practiced to see it wasn't gender neutral at all. it didn't need to be defined specifically to grasp what it meant by simply examining how it was executed.
I wish they were listening to you. This is becoming worse than a discussion in the political thread. In this day and age, marriage is a legal contract recognized by the state. Thankfully, we have seperation of church and state in this country. As soon as marriage became a state recognized legal term (i.e. married filing jointly), religion and tradition need to go out the window. It is a LEGAL term now. Religious whackjobs can fight over taking the word back. I honestly could care less what we call it. From the states point of view, everyone joined in a legal union should be called the same thing. Argue about the legality of same sex unions, but you cannot have it both ways. If you are for same sex unions, with the same rights as non same sex unions, they should be called the same thing under the law.
I'm guilty of many sins, so I'm pointing no fingers, but I guess over time with reading and years, I see some things a little bit differently. I do see same sex relationships as perversions. The word perversion simply means to alter from it's original course; to distort what was first intended. That is a fact. Same sex marriage is a distortion from it's original course. As far as heterosexual couples doing far more damage, this is true, but only because they have had a longer time at it. I would give the gay couples some more time, but I don't think their lifestyle would create an ongoing continuum. I'm from the good OL USA, but I do think a lot. Unless you have been to those countries, you don't know the purpose or the reasoning behind it. To you it sounds sick and gross to have the female genitalia cut off. I know a little something about it to know that it has nothing to do with anything gross. The story is too long to get into, but it deals with the power of sex. Something that I'm beginning to believe we have taken far too lightly. Marriage in this country is bad, but same sex marriage will not be the savior. Only when we are able to ask ourselves, What The Fuck is Going On Around Here? And Can I Get Off This Train? will we be able to start at least looking at how we got to this point.
I masturbate plenty my damn self, but I'm starting to think that all this constant attention we spend playing with our genitals is not good. The problem is we spend so much of our time trying to get off that we don't really have much of a need to really connect with our partners. We have become so use to getting our own selves off that it becomes more difficult for somebody else to do it.
I can tell you're a few bong hits into this thought process, but once our brains developed cognitive thought, we were no longer a species of eat, mate, shit, sleep, repeat. Every other species on the planet pretty much boils down to that. And not for nothing, homosexuality appears in most species on earth. We have self awareness. We have a concious choice (or even a genetic predisposition) of which sex we prefer. I am a man that is attracted to women. Who am I (or anybody for that matter) to judge another person for what they find attractive. Some guys like fat girls, foreign girls, different color girls. There is something in our brain that stimulates us. For some dudes, it's other dudes. Whatever. I find it laughable that the same nutjobs who oppose guy rights follow a religion that has sanctioned homosexuality and rape for centuries, behind closed doors of course, but have called it perversion from behind the pulpit.
If it feels the same, then you're doing it wrong. Take a few days off and you'll be right back to zero...:up:
I would find it laughable too if not for their power and influence that they have over the people. But at some point we have to take some accountability for what we fall for.
Fuck religion. I think the real argument is whether or not the benefits provided to married couples by the government are meant to grow the population or not. Given that married couples without children reap the benefits, I would have to say in practice, that they are not. Additional benefits are given for children, but that is an whole other debate. Homo couples with kids should be eligible for equal assistance AFA child-rearing though.
