Post: #26

(05-14-2013 08:24 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 08:15 PM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 08:07 PM)sheesh Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 07:46 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  Why should gays have the right to marry? What the hell do they gain from it? Other than free shit.

A man and woman get married to have kids and raise a family.

2 men getting married is absolutely retarded. same with 2 women.

Flawed reasoning. People can marry without getting children and do so every day. Some choose to stay without children willingly, other couples can't get children.

Are you going to deny a man or woman the right to marriage if infertility is known beforehand ?

Marriage is much more than rasing children. If gay people want to make the legal commitment to care for each other, then that is a good thing in my eyes.

The primary purpose of marriage is family building(ie. procreation).

Even if a man and woman don't have children in marriage, they potentially can have children and still are the foundation of the nuclear family.

man has vasectomy. wife is barren from ovarian cancer. then what?
there are far more reasons to get married. inheritance, end of life decisions, somewhat important

Yes but children are a important aspect of this and should be the bedrock of any decision to enter into marriage/union.

Gays and Lesbos don't want to define their role in this. Nobody with a strait face can say have two mommy's or daddy's is ideal. The meme of money is short sighted, as a good upbringing involves parents whom adhere to their natural roles too which is just as if not more important then simply just having money. Your father has to be a strong provider and strong role model with wisdom -- while your mother has to be a proper nurturing and caring women with strong values to pass on. Gays and Lesbos can try to fake it to make it but its not the same.

What will Gays/Lesbos propose as far as benefits goes when its buried in stats that Gay couples are more prone to divorce, domestic violence, and early death. There is swath of stats that this interest group does not want to get out.

Post: #27

so there are actually people here who think homosexuality is a choice?

Post: #28

(05-14-2013 08:41 PM)clever alias Wrote:  so there are actually people here who think homosexuality is a choice?

It doesn't matter.

But like any human behavior, I would imagine it is partially effected by genetics and partially effected by environment.

Post: #29

(05-14-2013 08:16 PM)sheesh Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 07:58 PM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  Gay marriage promotes androgynous gender roles, thus confusing gender identity, and straining gender dynamics. This results in lower marriage rates, lower birthrates, and higher out of wedlock births.

It is one thing for their behavior to be legal, free consenting adults should be able to associate as they wish. It is a whole other thing for the state to legally promote their relationships on par with heterosexual married couples. The state promotes heterosexual marriage because the husband and wife are the basis of the nuclear family. This unit is the most stable and beneficial to society for procreation.

So because of say 2 % gay marriages the rest of society will collapse and people will not be sure about their gender roles any more ? ?

Your thought process is so compartmentalized and backwards that you apparently believe a society just arrives at gay marriage in a vacuum. In your mind it is 1900 and gays are blacks and they just don't have rights. No, in order to even begin to accept gay marriage as a legitimate "legal right" a societies sexual roles must be eroded. Gay marriage isn't the genesis of that process, but the culmination. The genesis was the Frankfurt school and the cultural revolution of the 1960's. Sigmund Freud wrote of infant sexual development, because to Freud everything was about sex, and labeled it's primary distinctive characteristic as polymorphous perversity, where an infant is willing to experience any kind of sexual pleasure in any way without restraint. According to Freud civilization only comes after society places constraint upon this sexuality through psychological repression, which he ultimately came to view as necessary for the procreation of the human race. Herbert Marcuse, the preeminent member of the Frankfurt school, revisited Freud's ideas in the book Eros and Civilization and combined them with those of Karl Marx to develop the theory of sexual liberation. A sexual revolution against any societal restraint upon sex. The end goal is a state of androgyny and total freedom of polymorphous perversity. Gay marriage is an important part of that process.

Post: #30

(05-14-2013 08:37 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 08:31 PM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 08:24 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 08:15 PM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 08:07 PM)sheesh Wrote:  Flawed reasoning. People can marry without getting children and do so every day. Some choose to stay without children willingly, other couples can't get children.

Are you going to deny a man or woman the right to marriage if infertility is known beforehand ?

Marriage is much more than rasing children. If gay people want to make the legal commitment to care for each other, then that is a good thing in my eyes.

The primary purpose of marriage is family building(ie. procreation).

Even if a man and woman don't have children in marriage, they potentially can have children and still are the foundation of the nuclear family.

man has vasectomy. wife is barren from ovarian cancer. then what?
there are far more reasons to get married. inheritance, end of life decisions, somewhat important

Man and wife are the foundation of the nuclear family, so this would be acceptable. But this is nitpicking a very extreme example. One exception doesn't break the general rule.

You talk about inheritance, this ties directly in with procreation, I don't possibly understand how you could separate the two. When the couple dies, the property is passed along to the children.

and if there are no children?

Then there are no children.

Post: #31

(05-14-2013 08:37 PM)kosko Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 08:24 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 08:15 PM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 08:07 PM)sheesh Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 07:46 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  Why should gays have the right to marry? What the hell do they gain from it? Other than free shit.

A man and woman get married to have kids and raise a family.

2 men getting married is absolutely retarded. same with 2 women.

Flawed reasoning. People can marry without getting children and do so every day. Some choose to stay without children willingly, other couples can't get children.

Are you going to deny a man or woman the right to marriage if infertility is known beforehand ?

Marriage is much more than rasing children. If gay people want to make the legal commitment to care for each other, then that is a good thing in my eyes.

The primary purpose of marriage is family building(ie. procreation).

Even if a man and woman don't have children in marriage, they potentially can have children and still are the foundation of the nuclear family.

man has vasectomy. wife is barren from ovarian cancer. then what?
there are far more reasons to get married. inheritance, end of life decisions, somewhat important

Yes but children are a important aspect of this and should be the bedrock of any decision to enter into marriage/union.

Gays and Lesbos don't want to define their role in this. Nobody with a strait face can say have two mommy's or daddy's is ideal. The meme of money is short sighted, as a good upbringing involves parents whom adhere to their natural roles too which is just as if not more important then simply just having money. Your father has to be a strong provider and strong role model with wisdom -- while your mother has to be a proper nurturing and caring women with strong values to pass on. Gays and Lesbos can try to fake it to make it but its not the same.

What will Gays/Lesbos propose as far as benefits goes when its buried in stats that Gay couples are more prone to divorce, domestic violence, and early death. There is swath of stats that this interest group does not want to get out.

holy fuck, wall of text. sorry, formatting on the phone is difficult
i get what youre saying completely. but MOST straight parents arent the ideal youre talking about. most parents are super shitty in general. what aboit all the fathers that have no wisdom, that cant support a kid, that are so unmasculine and pussywhipped they barely have a scrotum. all the moms who would rather go out and get their nails done than change their kid. NOTHING IS STOPPING THESE PAINFULLY INCOMPETENT STRAIGHT PARENTS. but the gays are the problem?

Post: #32

I can't even make fun of it,tiny Uruguay legalized it first,so did Argentina,maybe Chile is next?



Girl in black seems bangable

That was in Montevideo when the (huge majority) of the lower chamber passed the law.

One of the legal secretaries i work with here once told me they did not totally legalized gay unions here because it goes against the constitutional text which says marriage is the union between a man and a woman ,so a few states still could refuse to celebrate it.

Post: #33

(05-14-2013 08:51 PM)clever alias Wrote:  holy fuck, wall of text. sorry, formatting on the phone is difficult
i get what youre saying completely. but MOST straight parents arent the ideal youre talking about. most parents are super shitty in general. what aboit all the fathers that have no wisdom, that cant support a kid, that are so unmasculine and pussywhipped they barely have a scrotum. all the moms who would rather go out and get their nails done than change their kid. NOTHING IS STOPPING THESE PAINFULLY INCOMPETENT STRAIGHT PARENTS. but the gays are the problem?

This is a familiar strategy of gay marriage proponents. In order to bolster the legitimacy and raise the public image of homosexual couples, they often find it also necessary to denigrate and lower the image of straight married couples.

Honestly, your rhetorical strategy is only reinforcing the point Kosko and others are making. In defending gay marriage, you find yourself willy nilly belittling and trivializing traditional marriage.

Post: #34

(05-14-2013 08:41 PM)clever alias Wrote:  so there are actually people here who think homosexuality is a choice?

In some part, yes. Otherwise, if homosexuality were not impacted by culture, it would stay absolutely constant as a % of the population. The exact percent is debatable - some say 1-2%, some say 5%, the gays themselves say 10% (but then they would )

Yet we know that many societies (ancient Greeks, Romans, Ottoman turks, some tribes in modern-day Afganistan) had a near-total tendency towards homesexuality, and in particular, home-pedophilia. If you were a successful man in ancient Greece, this is just what you DID. You took a boy lover or you were regarded as outside the norm.

Now, obviously our society isn't this extreme. But when Hollywood glorifies homo behavior, I expect that we do get SOME people experimenting with it because it is "cool". How else to explain all the college chicks experimenting with being lesbian the last 10-15 years, whereas there were very few when I was in college. Chicks, like lemmings, are FAR more likely to be lead by the current zeitgeist.

Don't get me wrong, I expect that MOST gays are born that way. But there is likely a minority who are that way because popular culture tells them it's OK.

Either way, I don't care. I've got no issues with people practicing whatever they want in the bedroom. But marriage? Come on. Marriage is (well, WAS) the bedrock of our society - of all societies, really. That's why the vast, vast majority of cultures throughout history shunned faggotry. We should offer it no special benefit, either.

Post: #35

(05-14-2013 08:55 PM)Therapsid Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 08:51 PM)clever alias Wrote:  holy fuck, wall of text. sorry, formatting on the phone is difficult
i get what youre saying completely. but MOST straight parents arent the ideal youre talking about. most parents are super shitty in general. what aboit all the fathers that have no wisdom, that cant support a kid, that are so unmasculine and pussywhipped they barely have a scrotum. all the moms who would rather go out and get their nails done than change their kid. NOTHING IS STOPPING THESE PAINFULLY INCOMPETENT STRAIGHT PARENTS. but the gays are the problem?

This is a familiar strategy of gay marriage proponents. In order to bolster the legitimacy and raise the public image of homosexual couples, they often find it also necessary to denigrate and lower the image of straight married couples.

Honestly, your rhetorical strategy is only reinforcing the point Kosko and others are making. In defending gay marriage, you find yourself willy nilly belittling and trivializing traditional marriage.

this forum posts news articles of moms who refuse to go to their kids school events because theyd rather work or moms thaf admit to not loving their kids or threads of pathetic, beta males or threads about how much divorce rape occurs. one of the main tenants of this forum is how awful american women are (and.i.agree) but now to step up ans defend "divorce rape marriage" because its "traditional" is somewhat ridiculous. if im belittling traditional marriage, what is everyone else here doing?
traditional marriage is dead. it ended when 35 year olds couldnt marry a new 15 year old every 3.years.

Post: #36

Clever - I'm not a fan of what traditional marriage in the U.S. has become. But I don't think that because traditional marriage is broken, that means we should just allow faggot marriage for the hell of it. Hey I've got an idea - maybe we just fix traditional marriage! We can do that by putting some teeth back in marriage vows and ending this "no fault" nonsense. It doesn't work in car insurance, and it doesn't work in divorce. It just means the lower earning spouse gets a windfall!

Post: #37

(05-14-2013 09:25 PM)Dexter Morgan Wrote:  Clever - I'm not a fan of what traditional marriage in the U.S. has become. But I don't think that because traditional marriage is broken, that means we should just allow faggot marriage for the hell of it. Hey I've got an idea - maybe we just fix traditional marriage! We can do that by putting some teeth back in marriage vows and ending this "no fault" nonsense. It doesn't work in car insurance, and it doesn't work in divorce. It just means the lower earning spouse gets a windfall!

what even.is traditional marriage? as late as the late 1800s it was marrying your cousin to make sure money stayed in the family. marriage has almost never been "about the children" until gay marriage came up. marriage has, for 99% of human history been a largely economic transaction.

Post: #38

(05-14-2013 09:30 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 09:25 PM)Dexter Morgan Wrote:  Clever - I'm not a fan of what traditional marriage in the U.S. has become. But I don't think that because traditional marriage is broken, that means we should just allow faggot marriage for the hell of it. Hey I've got an idea - maybe we just fix traditional marriage! We can do that by putting some teeth back in marriage vows and ending this "no fault" nonsense. It doesn't work in car insurance, and it doesn't work in divorce. It just means the lower earning spouse gets a windfall!

what even.is traditional marriage? as late as the late 1800s it was marrying your cousin to make sure money stayed in the family. marriage has almost never been "about the children" until gay marriage came up. marriage has, for 99% of human history been a largely economic transaction.

I don't understand how you could possibly separate the two. The rich had children to pass on their land and title. The poor had children to work that land or they would starve. Marriage has always been about procreation.

Post: #39

(05-14-2013 09:33 PM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 09:30 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 09:25 PM)Dexter Morgan Wrote:  Clever - I'm not a fan of what traditional marriage in the U.S. has become. But I don't think that because traditional marriage is broken, that means we should just allow faggot marriage for the hell of it. Hey I've got an idea - maybe we just fix traditional marriage! We can do that by putting some teeth back in marriage vows and ending this "no fault" nonsense. It doesn't work in car insurance, and it doesn't work in divorce. It just means the lower earning spouse gets a windfall!

what even.is traditional marriage? as late as the late 1800s it was marrying your cousin to make sure money stayed in the family. marriage has almost never been "about the children" until gay marriage came up. marriage has, for 99% of human history been a largely economic transaction.

I don't understand how you could possibly separate the two. The rich had children to pass on their land and title. The poor had children to work that land or they would starve. Marriage has always been about procreation.

no, but procreation rarely, if ever, happened outside of procreation. correlation does not equal causation.
every child has married parents =\= every marriage is about children.

Post: #40

(05-14-2013 09:30 PM)clever alias Wrote:  what even.is traditional marriage? as late as the late 1800s it was marrying your cousin to make sure money stayed in the family.

In the arab world, it still is that way. BTW, I have a couple of smokin' hot cousins so i'm good with it!

(05-14-2013 09:30 PM)clever alias Wrote:  marriage has almost never been "about the children" until gay marriage came up. marriage has, for 99% of human history been a largely economic transaction.

That was true for the aristocracy in most cultures until the 20th century. But it was never true for hoi polloi. I.e., the 99%. For them, marriage was about children b/c you needed children to work the farm.

Look I've got no issues with gays, I just think that society has established rituals for certain reasons, and gays have no right to bust the door down and force their way into EVERY tradition. In much the same way we had men's and women's toilets for many centuries, until some of the more mentally-unbalanced homos decided they would call themselves "trans-gender" and the equally whacko liberal fringe pretended that because you FEEL you should be a woman, you can use the woman's rest room. Sorry. If you weren't born with the parts, you ain't a lady.

Post: #41

(05-14-2013 09:43 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 09:33 PM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 09:30 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 09:25 PM)Dexter Morgan Wrote:  Clever - I'm not a fan of what traditional marriage in the U.S. has become. But I don't think that because traditional marriage is broken, that means we should just allow faggot marriage for the hell of it. Hey I've got an idea - maybe we just fix traditional marriage! We can do that by putting some teeth back in marriage vows and ending this "no fault" nonsense. It doesn't work in car insurance, and it doesn't work in divorce. It just means the lower earning spouse gets a windfall!

what even.is traditional marriage? as late as the late 1800s it was marrying your cousin to make sure money stayed in the family. marriage has almost never been "about the children" until gay marriage came up. marriage has, for 99% of human history been a largely economic transaction.

I don't understand how you could possibly separate the two. The rich had children to pass on their land and title. The poor had children to work that land or they would starve. Marriage has always been about procreation.

no, but procreation rarely, if ever, happened outside of procreation. correlation does not equal causation.
every child has married parents =\= every marriage is about children.

Procreation rarely happened outside of procreation? What does that mean?

No one said every married couple has children, but the primary purpose of marriage is procreation. Exceptions do not change the rule.

Post: #42

in that case, marriage is still not aboit children, its STILL an economic transaction for "free" labor, and if that is the case then traditional marriage is simply a means to increase household wealth, which follows to deadbeat parenys having more kids for more welfare is on par with traditional marriage

Post: #43

I think it makes sense as a general rule to be skeptical about the government singling out certain relationships for special recognition and privileges. At least in the case of hetero marriage, you have a few thousand years of tradition and arguably society has a significant interest in regulating how men and women come together to breed and raise kids. I'm still not clear why I'm supposed to care about gay relationships and why they need to be treated differently from any of the million other non-marriage relationships. They should of course be free to live however they want and they already are.

If there are some individual contractual problems, those should be easy enough to fix. This just seems like the usual dynamic of an interest group looking for a new demand to make now that they already have equal rights. If they wanted to do away with the legal recognition of marriage and keep the state out of relationships completely, leave everything to contract, I think they'd have a better argument (or at least an argument better than "LOVE!!!")

Post: #44

(05-14-2013 09:47 PM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 09:43 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 09:33 PM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 09:30 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 09:25 PM)Dexter Morgan Wrote:  Clever - I'm not a fan of what traditional marriage in the U.S. has become. But I don't think that because traditional marriage is broken, that means we should just allow faggot marriage for the hell of it. Hey I've got an idea - maybe we just fix traditional marriage! We can do that by putting some teeth back in marriage vows and ending this "no fault" nonsense. It doesn't work in car insurance, and it doesn't work in divorce. It just means the lower earning spouse gets a windfall!

what even.is traditional marriage? as late as the late 1800s it was marrying your cousin to make sure money stayed in the family. marriage has almost never been "about the children" until gay marriage came up. marriage has, for 99% of human history been a largely economic transaction.

I don't understand how you could possibly separate the two. The rich had children to pass on their land and title. The poor had children to work that land or they would starve. Marriage has always been about procreation.

no, but procreation rarely, if ever, happened outside of procreation. correlation does not equal causation.
every child has married parents =\= every marriage is about children.

Procreation rarely happened outside of procreation? What does that mean

No one said every married couple has children, but the primary purpose of marriage is procreation. Exceptions do not change the rule.

oops, typo procreation rarely happened outside of MARRIAGE

Post: #45

(05-14-2013 08:06 PM)durangotang Wrote:  It is a slippery slope and we shouldn't change the basis of our entire society to accommodate the desires of the 1-2% of people who happen to be born that way.

Keep in mind the number may even be far lower than that considering that there are large numbers of gays have no intention of getting married. It may only be .5% of the entire population that enters a gay marriage. And for that we are redefining the entire institution. I think it has more to do with forcing people to accept them. If you look up that thread I made "some gays are redpill", there was one astute blog I found by a gay man who basically said gay marriage is a bunch of bullshit. I was surprised to look at the comments and see other gays agreeing with him. Not all gays are radical, and you never see gays like that being given any air-time in the media.

Post: #46

(05-14-2013 09:30 PM)clever alias Wrote:  what even.is traditional marriage? as late as the late 1800s it was marrying your cousin to make sure money stayed in the family. marriage has almost never been "about the children" until gay marriage came up. marriage has, for 99% of human history been a largely economic transaction.

I hear this thrown around a lot but does anyone have any actual evidence? To me it seems most people married because that's what we're raised from birth to do as ordained by religion and culture. Up until recently, if a woman didn't have kids by 30, she was either a nun, sterile or a social pariah. Just because there were dowries and such that accompanied marriage doesn't mean that was the main purpose of it. My belief is that before casual sex for women was de-stigmatized, men married because it was the only way to get regular sex and it was hard for a man to be respected in his community if he didn't have a wife. It was like a rite of passage. For women it was to have kids and someone to take care of her once she left her family's home. Women's liberation and the casual sex culture has turned all that over on its head destroying the institution of marriage and the natural exchange of each sex's needs. Men no long need marriage for sex, women no longer need men for financial stability. Now people marry not out of necessity but because of some fickle notion of being in love. And now that that's the only criteria, gays feel entitled to it too now. That's why this gay marriage thing is always being framed as being denied "the right to love" who they want.

Post: #47

(05-14-2013 09:53 PM)clever alias Wrote:  in that case, marriage is still not aboit children, its STILL an economic transaction for "free" labor, and if that is the case then traditional marriage is simply a means to increase household wealth, which follows to deadbeat parenys having more kids for more welfare is on par with traditional marriage

Then it is about the children - the need for their labor. Are you trying to say its not about the LOVE of children? Who cares. Grow up. The world isn't made of unicorn farts.

Post: #48

(05-14-2013 09:55 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  This just seems like the usual dynamic of an interest group looking for a new demand to make now that they already have equal rights.

Like modern-day women's issues, that's EXACTLY what gay issues are all about.

Post: #49

(05-14-2013 10:25 PM)Dexter Morgan Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 09:53 PM)clever alias Wrote:  in that case, marriage is still not aboit children, its STILL an economic transaction for "free" labor, and if that is the case then traditional marriage is simply a means to increase household wealth, which follows to deadbeat parenys having more kids for more welfare is on par with traditional marriage

Then it is about the children - the need for their labor. Are you trying to say its not about the LOVE of children? Who cares. Grow up. The world isn't made of unicorn farts.

i agree wirh you. that was directed at what the general comments were talking about before in that two women or two men cant raise a kid because of "fathers give them x and women y"

Post: #50

(05-14-2013 10:18 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 09:30 PM)clever alias Wrote:  what even.is traditional marriage? as late as the late 1800s it was marrying your cousin to make sure money stayed in the family. marriage has almost never been "about the children" until gay marriage came up. marriage has, for 99% of human history been a largely economic transaction.

I hear this thrown around a lot but does anyone have any actual evidence? To me it seems most people married because that's what we're raised from birth to do as ordained by religion and culture. Up until recently, if a woman didn't have kids by 30, she was either a nun, sterile or a social pariah. Just because there were dowries and such that accompanied marriage doesn't mean that was the main purpose of it. My belief is that before casual sex for women was de-stigmatized, men married because it was the only way to get regular sex and it was hard for a man to be respected in his community if he didn't have a wife. It was like a rite of passage. For women it was to have kids and someone to take care of her once she left her family's home. Women's liberation and the casual sex culture has turned all that over on its head destroying the institution of marriage and the natural exchange of each sex's needs. Men no long need marriage for sex, women no longer need men for financial stability. Now people marry not out of necessity but because of some fickle notion of being in love. And now that that's the only criteria, gays feel entitled to it too now. That's why this gay marriage thing is always being framed as being denied "the right to love" who they want.

a dowry, by definition is to offset the cost being burdened by the groom. your daughter cant work in the fields and your.wife does the.housework. therefore your daughter is a noncontributor who uses resources. i dont have a wife, so you give me your daughter and a donkey NOW so that for the rest of her life i near the cost and get sex.
also, given that we have considerable more female.than male ancestors (roissy posted this somewhere i think) we can conclide that most men either 1) did not/could not afford to marry or 2) their kids did not live long whereas the.super rich married multiple women. so traditional marriage then.is more akin to brad pitt with 100 wives and 99 bachelors getting nothing as.that was the usual practice.