The real gay agenda?

So if you don't see the need for government involvement in marraige, what do you care what the legislation is?
 
Which is very much a point, why the hell is the religious right getting all revied up when the marriages are not going to be recongized by God. The church isn't going to marry these individuals. If anything the state is going to do what it's supposed to do. To safeguard that the individual will do what he or she likes to do with a consenting other. Homosexuals are born gay, the church basis things on natural events. Homosexuals are natural, and marriage is not. ;)
 
Personally, I see nothing wrong with legalizing gay marriage.

Less sex for procreation. More sex for pleasure. Birth rates *might* go down.

More love, less kids. In this overcrowded world, I don't think we need population growth or much procreation.

But I do think the number of persons in a marriage should be restricted to two. So what's wrong with "Till Death Do Us Part"? Why can't it be applicable to gays? And why on earth would gays want less restriction on the number of people in a marriage?
 
Precisely. Anything involving (hopefully) attractive men and sodomy can't be all bad. The world can always use more of both.
 
Originally posted by Xev
Precisely. Anything involving (hopefully) attractive men and sodomy can't be all bad. The world can always use more of both.
Click to expand...

Xev your words ring as true today as they did in your own time. She is talking in a language I think we all speak.
 
Originally posted by Zero
Personally, I see nothing wrong with legalizing gay marriage.

Less sex for procreation. More sex for pleasure. Birth rates *might* go down.

More love, less kids. In this overcrowded world, I don't think we need population growth or much procreation.

But I do think the number of persons in a marriage should be restricted to two. So what's wrong with "Till Death Do Us Part"? Why can't it be applicable to gays? And why on earth would gays want less restriction on the number of people in a marriage?
Click to expand...

Well I guess your sentiment is in the right place, but how is allowing homosexual marriage going to increase the amount of homosexual sex, or decrease birthrates? It's not as if we are proposing the creation of more homosexuals or anything, there are still going to be the same numbers, and it is those numbers which largely govern the amount of homosexual sex and decreased birthrate.
 
Promote sex for pleasure rather than for procreation, perhaps?

And make homosexuality appear a bit more legitimate and 'natural' in the eyes of the public? There are certainly some closeted gays who are too afraid to be gay, and who just end up marrying women and having kids.

Something along that vein ...
 
Originally posted by Zero
Promote sex for pleasure rather than for procreation, perhaps?
Click to expand...

I don't see that it really does this, and we've got plenty of that influence in pop culture as it is. Is one more factor going to have any real impact on that?

Originally posted by Zero
And make homosexuality appear a bit more legitimate and 'natural' in the eyes of the public? There are certainly some closeted gays who are too afraid to be gay, and who just end up marrying women and having kids.
Click to expand...

I really doubt that these numbers would have any effect on the birth rate. I'd have to call into question the feasibility of such an arrangement to begin with, I've got serious doubts that situations like this occur in any noticeable numbers. But then, if they did, who really cares, right?

I can't quite remember what any of this has to do with allowing homosexual marriages. If birthrate goes up it goes up if it goes down it goes down, in either situation it's not very likely to be any sort of boon or problem worthy of note.
 
Well, increased government support for sex for pleasure would help.

It would certainly have a significant effect. And anyway, if it makes no difference each way, "the smaller government is the good government". Reduce needless gov't intervention and allow gay marriages.

I still advocate monogamy, however. I don't see why that should change.
 
"Well, increased government support for sex for pleasure would help."

Somehow I think that is redundant. The im[pression I get is that people merely need better sex education, and theyll get on with it themselves. Raise their expectations and theyll respond.
 
Promote sex for pleasure rather than for procreation, perhaps?

And make homosexuality appear a bit more legitimate and 'natural' in the eyes of the public? There are certainly some closeted gays who are too afraid to be gay, and who just end up marrying women and having kids.
Click to expand...
I doubt this. Infact I'm sure it will cause a backlash in the more conservative christian communities. If, however, what you say is true, then I do have a valid reason for not supporting it. Now if this kind of stuft goes into the public school textbooks, most parents will want to discourage this behavior themselves. But there's a fine line between bigotry and discouragement that I don't think kids are capable of seeing. Thus there will be more discrimination of gays.

Do you also agree that marriage in itself should not be a basis for benefits, as both homo and hetero relationships would benefit the same?
Click to expand...
Yes, in an absolutely fair world, benefits would only go to couples who are planing or have children. Of course this is infeasable. Imagine goverment knocking on your door asking when the kids are up.... So a small amount of money will go to couples without children. I suspect that the entire system of benefits for married couples goes back to a by gone era where the women worked at home and needed the property and health insurance rights. People are basically demanding rights from a system that are propped up by traditional views of marriage while also rejecting the traditional aspect. If you are for it, it's probably better to rebel against the entire system. At least we know then what your motives are.
 
okinrus:
I doubt this. Infact I'm sure it will cause a backlash in the more conservative christian communities.
Click to expand...

All the more reason to mock them wilst having passionate anal sex. :)

People are basically demanding rights from a system that are propped up by traditional views of marriage while also rejecting the traditional aspect. If you are for it, it's probably better to rebel against the entire system.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside the creative grammer, I think this is most sensible indeed.

At least we know then what your motives are.
Click to expand...

Wanting one's partner to have the benefits of insurence and suchlike is hardly an act of rebellion. It is simply an act of - dare I say it? - love.
 
Oki, I’m sure you have another one of your zany harebrained explanations for why, if marriage benefits are only for people with children, the government doesn’t only give them to families with children instead of giving them to everyone who gets married. I’m sure someone who’s spouse dies has absolutely no reason to desire to be designated as next of kin, lazy bastards should just get a job if they aren’t tied down by a kid right?. I’m sure being included on a spouse’s health insurance is just a frivolity as long as there is no kid in the family, right? Yes it seems to me that only people with children need to be officially recognized as married.

Oh dear, someone fetch me a towel I seem to be dripping in sarcasm. In fact I think I’ll take Xev’s suggestion and maybe drip with something else as I mock the right wing conservatives…
 
Wanting one's partner to have the benefits of insurence and suchlike is hardly an act of rebellion. It is simply an act of - dare I say it? - love.
Click to expand...
Yes, so is stealing ships. If someone is really just giving money away to people who have agreed to sign a small piece of paper for no reason then why should they or anyone get these benefits? Now what about your "dream" of making polygamy legal. Can a man marry 10 wives and let them get insurence benefits? Rejecting of another alternative lifestyle... bigotry!
 
okinrus:
If someone is really just giving money away to people who have agreed to sign a small piece of paper for no reason then why should they or anyone get these benefits?
Click to expand...

Thanks, you've done a better job on the idea of marriage then I have energy to.

But nobody is "just giving money away". Companies establish partner benefits in order to retain employees. Government should simply stop recognizing the archaic and barbaric institution of marriage, and that would just be that.

Why is this not simple? Why have so few of you examined your prejudices and realized what an awfully silly thing a marriage is?
 
Why is this not simple? Why have so few of you examined your prejudices and realized what an awfully silly thing a marriage is?
Click to expand...
Unless if someone is or has been married there's almost no way to examine anything. And considering that marriage is very old and exists in many different cultures, there should be good reasons for it?
 
okinrus:
Unless if someone is or has been married there's almost no way to examine anything.
Click to expand...

That's like saying that I can't say "sticking your hand into a pot of boiling water is stupid" because I've never stuck my hand into a pot of boiling water.

And considering that marriage is very old and exists in many different cultures, there should be good reasons for it?
Click to expand...

Slavery is very old and exists in many different cultures.
There are indeed very good reasons for it - it just happens that these reasons are questionable in a modern era.
 
Misogyny is very old and has existed in many different cultures, maybe Xev should have to argue with Oki through a male representative?

But really now, get rid of marrage? Lots of people ant to find somone else who they like enough to stay with all the time so they can have a stable supply of sex, and companionship. Not nessisarily in that order. Not to mention the sharing of domestic responcibilitys which are so mundaine. Two people working together can make eachothers lives a lot more efficient even without the whole love thing, and i think that the benifits they get from leagaly recognized marrage aught not be done away with. ... Um... i guess that makes me pro marrage. Dont worry im sure ill find other interesting ways i want to tear down the establishment and reign gay damnation down on the heads of god fearing concervative peoples.
 
That's like saying that I can't say "sticking your hand into a pot of boiling water is stupid" because I've never stuck my hand into a pot of boiling water.
Click to expand...
I know plenty of people who are happily married. Maybe you've been burned a few times but that's no reason to rule out marriage all together. I think any type of love requires a lasting commitment. If someone agreed to love someone for a year but after that they'd hate them it's not love to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top