Post: #1

I think the gay community has this view that, getting the "right to marry" is going to somehow gain them respect. Yeah, they want federal benefits, but that's not their main goal. The main goal is to make up for the years of feeling excluded.

But I'm not sure it's going to any difference.

Here's a story:

-------------

Once upon a time, there was a monkey who hated being laughed at. He wanted respect.

So he demanded the right to wear a business suit. He figures, men wear suits and command respect.

So finally the monkey is given the right to wear a suit. He puts it on, strolls proudly down the street. Then a family sees him. The children laugh and point at him and yell "HEY MOM, LOOK, IT'S A MONKEY IN A SUIT!!" A crowd gathers and they all point and laugh.

Moral of the story: Ok gay people, you can get married. Truthfully I don't care that much one way or the other.

At the end of the day, I'm not sure it's going to be worth much.

Post: #2

Gay's already marry and no one cares.

What they are asking for are the benefits (taxes, inheritance, insurance, credit, etc.) that the government provides to traditional marriage.

Post: #3

FFS, don't we have enough gay-related threads already?

Post: #4

Others feel that gay marriage is attempting to impose the gay community's Open Marriage standards onto heterosexual relationships, and in the process give homosexuals the right to redefine what has always been an heterosexual-only institution.

One only has to look at the first gay marriage in San Francisco. They didn't share the same bed. They didn't live in the same home. After their $50 marriage form at city hall, they went back to their separate ways, and went years without seeing each other, living in different parts of the city, still drifting from sexual partner to sexual partner. This is what gay marriage is. A contract. It has no commitment, no love, no fidelity, is barren, and without children.

But hey, are you scamming the system with a mental disability check from the government? Now that you're married status, it's even bigger!



As if beta providers don't have it bad enough, if gay marriage standards become the new accepted legal threshold, their broke-back wives will quickly return post-honeymoon to fucking around on them, and they'll be unable to sue for divorce for infidelity. Because gay marriage will redefine fidelity requirements to be equal to the gay standard, thanks to the gay "marriage equality" movement.

How will married households with children be any different from divorced households where both parents are dating other sexual partners? Under gay marriage, it won't.

Post: #5

This is why the government should have absolutely nothing to do with marriage whatsoever. No incentives. No tax breaks. Nada.

If you think about it... Being married gives you all these things and being single you get none. It's not fair. It's like punishment for not being married.

Post: #6

Are they 80 or have really bad skin? What gender is that?

So essentially if gay marriage pass we will have marriage 3.0 which will be even worse for guys?!? How can it get worse?

Post: #7

My avatar is not like gay marriage!

Post: #8

I can't excited about gay marriage one way or the other. They are a tiny fraction of the population whose concerns are vastly over represented. Also, being gay is incredibly uninteresting, and I often wish it would just become hum drum and boring. Ironically, that would upset many gays because if it's all accepted and boring, why do you need a pride parade?

Can anyone think of a way to bootstrap from the gay rights movement into destroying feminism? That's where the potential benefit comes from. Pushing for amendment of family law so that it would be friendly to gays (i.e. men)? Doubt that will happen until they run afoul of the family court system.

Post: #9

I don't think I've gone a single day over the last 2-3 years without having to hear about homos. I don't care if they want to get married, it has no impact on me one way or another. I just don't understand why much of America is bending over backwards to appease 3.5% of the population.

(03-30-2013 11:40 AM)Dulceácido Wrote:  If you think about it... Being married gives you all these things and being single you get none. It's not fair. It's like punishment for not being married.

It is a punishment so to speak. It's the modern day equialent to Ancient Rome's bachelor tax, where you are basically punished financially for choosing to remain single.

Even so, none of the financial benefits the government hands out will ever make me want to get married in this country. The risks are just to ridiculously high.

Post: #10

Really I would think everyone here would be for gay marriage. How will a divorce court be biased if there is no woman to favor in a male male marriage or who will they be biased toward in a woman woman marriage? It is inevitable that a lesbian marriage with one breadwinner and a child will break up. So who will get the child? The implications could then apply to "should the main financial supporter always get the child"? All in all I think this has the potential for a strong upside. Not saying it will happen, but it probably can't make anything worse.

Post: #11

One thing I don't think people realize is that most gays(men in particular) have no interest in marriage. It's only a minority of gays that actually plan to marry. Gays seems to like the ideal that they could get married more than actually marrying. What they covet is the societal badge of approval.

There was a gay marriage discussion in this forum a while back and one user, can't remember his name made a brilliant point that stuck with me: That marriage exists on two levels, the legal level which applies to benefits, taxes, rights. And then at the cultural level, which long pre-dates any form of government. Even when humans lived in small tribes there was marriage and if all governments collapsed tomorrow and marriage licenses were no longer being handed out, people would still get married. It's a human cultural/religious institution that exists outside of any legal framework and in every culture on the planet that ever existed, it's always been man and woman. So changing the legal definition of marriage doesn't change many people's sense of what marriage is about on the cultural level which evolved through tens of thousands of years of human social development. Gays want access to the cultural definition of marriage first and foremost and they are trying to do it by changing the legal definition. It's something of a bait and switch tactic. Keep in mind, marriage in the purely legal sense is already available to them through civil unions. But they don't want this, they want the cultural meaning of marriage because this comes with the official badge of approval of the homosexual way of life from society. That is what the movement is really about when you scratch the surface. I wish they would just come out and say that and be honest in their intentions, rather than making these false claims that they are being "denied the right to love", which is something no government prohibits in the first place.

If you don't understand the dual nature that marriage exist upon, it's hard to understand where the other side of the argument is coming from.

Post: #12

"It's a human cultural/religious institution that exists outside of any legal framework and in every culture on the planet that ever existed, it's always been man and woman."

Yep. Even in societies where homosexual acts were more accepted like with Ancient Greece or Rome there was never any sort of massive movement for the recognition of gay marriage. I do remember Nero marrying his slave but there certainly was not a large group of people clamoring for the right to marry their same sex partners.

Post: #13

2/10. Would not bang.

(03-30-2013 11:33 AM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

Post: #14

Ok. I really didn't need to see that picture. I'll spend the rest of the day looking at Hentai just to recover.

Post: #15

(03-31-2013 10:23 AM)ColSpanker Wrote:  Ok. I really didn't need to see that picture. I'll spend the rest of the day looking at Hentai just to recover.

Sounds like you are aptly named!

Post: #16

I don't see any problem with gay marriage. It's not going to affect heterosexual marriages. No one get's hurt so why deny a tiny group the right to marry ?

Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon. Just because I personally find it weird doesn't give me the right to discriminate against gays.

Post: #17

(03-31-2013 04:59 PM)sheesh Wrote:  I don't see any problem with gay marriage. It's not going to affect heterosexual marriages. No one get's hurt so why deny a tiny group the right to marry ?

Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon. Just because I personally find it weird doesn't give me the right to discriminate against gays.

Homosexuality is an unnatural phenomenon- fixed.

Post: #18

While gays tend to be more easily fooled in to believing in feminist BS (to wit, the only people in my circle of friends who support Adria Richards--the bitch who got a man fired for saying a harmless dirty joke--are either gay who never get laid), the issue of gay marriage is a human rights issue.

Post: #19

(03-31-2013 05:09 PM)Kingsley Davis Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 04:59 PM)sheesh Wrote:  I don't see any problem with gay marriage. It's not going to affect heterosexual marriages. No one get's hurt so why deny a tiny group the right to marry ?

Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon. Just because I personally find it weird doesn't give me the right to discriminate against gays.

Homosexuality is an unnatural phenomenon- fixed.

Homosexuality simply exists - it's not a sexual orientation one choses voluntarily. And it exists among various animal species as well.

Post: #20

While everyone was arguing about gay marriage Obama passed a law allowing Monsanto complete immunity from any health issues that arise from their GM crops.

Gay marriage is a distraction from the real issues.

Post: #21

(03-31-2013 07:45 PM)sheesh Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 05:09 PM)Kingsley Davis Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 04:59 PM)sheesh Wrote:  I don't see any problem with gay marriage. It's not going to affect heterosexual marriages. No one get's hurt so why deny a tiny group the right to marry ?

Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon. Just because I personally find it weird doesn't give me the right to discriminate against gays.

Homosexuality is an unnatural phenomenon- fixed.

Homosexuality simply exists - it's not a sexual orientation one choses voluntarily. And it exists among various animal species as well.

Science hasn't determined the cause of homosexuality with absolutely certitude but it's most likely not genetic, because identical twins should always be either both straight or both gay, but when one is gay, the other is gay only half of the time. Plus from an evolutionary perspective, gays should have died out eons ago since they never passed on their genes in any great numbers.

I think the prenatal hormone theory is the best explanation we have of why people end up gay and it would explain the identical twin conundrum as well as the birth order mystery(gays are more likely to have older brothers). I'm almost certain that this will be found to be the reason for homosexuality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_ho...rientation

Post: #22