Oleg Bach Posted November 19, 2008 Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 The on going and quietly resentful same sex marriage debate is on going in America and still raging here in the undercurrent that real conservative values - Here is what I believe and have learned - from a natural - religious and secular point of vew regarding the institution of marriage. Two people cohabiting are not married - Two people of the same sex in co-habition are also not married - Those that are granted a licence buy the state to breed and co-habitiat are also not married - Those that are of a religious union are not married either - The key word in the definition of marriage is Matrimony! Matrimony must take place before a marriage is consumpated - and I don't mean recreational sex is a consumation that fully legalizes a union between a man and woman who are state or church sponsored. When teenagers of the opposite sex move in to gether they are not married - When two teenagers are formally married they are still not married - as with childless couples - they are not in a state of Matrimony - a marriage does not take place biologically or socially untill the woman is with child and enteres Matrimony - or MOTHER HOOD - Before motherhood and fatherhood takes place a 35 year old childless supposedly married couple are still teenagers - and self serving and not child serving - so they are partners but their is no matrimony hence no real marriage. I never had a bond with any of my partners as a young man untill - I had a partner that bore a child from my body - at that point - I was married and in the bond of Matrimony with what was now a true wife - prior to the first child I was not in a creational relationship with the woman but a re-creational relationship - As for same sex marriage - I truely believe that if the man can generate a child into the other man and he goes into a state of matrimony - then same sex marriage is marriage - Until a woman can generate a child into the body of her lesbian partner - she is not married because the opposite female - is NOT in a state of matrimoney - The sperm doner in these situaltion is the father - and the one who recieves the sperm and bares a child is the mother because she is now in a state of matrimoney - or motherhood - The term biological mother or father is an afront and attack against the rightful parents - there is no such thing as a non-biological mother or father - Marriage is biology and will aways be so - it is not religious - nor is it political or social...It was originated in order to propogate - and any love involved is a bonus - If you want children - have your own - and if you want them bad enough you will breed - gay or straight - If you as a gay female or male can not bring yourself to breed then you do not deserve to propogate - so all gay marriage does is steal offspring from disadvantaged poor persons...and that is just plain nasty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted November 19, 2008 Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 Do we really need another thread on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted November 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 Ummmmm? NO! It's clear to all that what is politically correct if for the common stupified masses and I don't see the dirty unwashed hanging out here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted November 19, 2008 Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 (edited) Do we really need another thread on this? Ah, look at it as another thread to put forth inanities, half baked truths, lies, proselytize against the gay person, you know, just like the others threads. Edited November 19, 2008 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted November 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 Ah, look at it as another thread to put force inanities, half baked truths, lies, proselytize against the gay person, you know, just like the others threads. If you are born gay - then I love and support you - if you are just some jerk playing the useless politically correct game - then to hell with you - my point was marriage is breeding - it was not meant to be offensive - if it was an attack against the institution it was directed at gay and straight - so shut up - and use common sense - don't be re-actionary - things may get worse for all of us soon - we need mutual co-operation and love - not some debate on who wants social status granted by the state or church - that is called marriage - YES there is no need for more talk - just be kind and stop pushing the straight community around - I do not have a problem with gay...as long as they are good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted November 19, 2008 Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 For me, I don't care if they want to marry and they perhaps should receive the same benefits as traditional marriages. Times change and this is a reality and some changes may be warranted. The thing I have a problem with is forcing religious institutions to marry them and to disagree with gays being married is hate speech. By all means get married and enjoy the benefits of such just don't tell me that I have to agree with your lifestyle and have my church marry you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted November 19, 2008 Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 If you are born gay - then I love and support you - if you are just some jerk playing the useless politically correct game - then to hell with you - my point was marriage is breeding - Except for those men and women who cant have babies right? And I know there are soooo many people who are gay because they are a jerk playing the useless politically correct game, I mean there must be millions.....glug glug hiccup. - YES there is no need for more talk - just be kind and stop pushing the straight community around - I do not have a problem with gay...as long as they are good. Ah yes, the poor straight community has it so hard. Brutalized I tells ya. Why they might be outnumbered in mere days.....oh the horror. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted November 19, 2008 Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 Ah, look at it as another thread to put forth inanities, half baked truths, lies, proselytize against the gay person, you know, just like the others threads. This is a pro-Conservative message board, so isn't that basically just what all you guys do, too? Yup! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted November 19, 2008 Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 For me, I don't care if they want to marry and they perhaps should receive the same benefits as traditional marriages. Times change and this is a reality and some changes may be warranted. The thing I have a problem with is forcing religious institutions to marry them and to disagree with gays being married is hate speech. By all means get married and enjoy the benefits of such just don't tell me that I have to agree with your lifestyle and have my church marry you. Oh the old "times change" argument... so basically all that you value and cherish is all relative, too... You neighbourhood fills up with people who have customs you don't agree with, start forcing you and your family to accept their lifestyle as "normal" and let's see how open to change you really are... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 ... You neighbourhood fills up with people who have customs you don't agree with, start forcing you and your family to accept their lifestyle as "normal" and let's see how open to change you really are... What? Like Yom Kippor ? Have their been many people forcing you to observe Yom Kippor? Do they have cameras in your house watching you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 (edited) What? Like Yom Kippor ? Have their been many people forcing you to observe Yom Kippor? Do they have cameras in your house watching you? Yes ! But I am not complaining, except for the gefilte fish. The Motzah was wonderful, the Maneschevitz not so good. (I spelled that wine wrong didnt I?) Edited November 20, 2008 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 Oh the old "times change" argument... so basically all that you value and cherish is all relative, too... You neighbourhood fills up with people who have customs you don't agree with, start forcing you and your family to accept their lifestyle as "normal" and let's see how open to change you really are... Let's see, we've gone from cave-dwellers to domesticated farmers, to civilised urbanites. We've stopped sacrificing humans, we've abolished slavery, we've abolished segregation. And at every step of the way, there was some group of social conservatives who fought tooth and nail against that change citing nonsense such as "tradition" as their excuse to trample on other people's rights. My only question to those who dislike change.... what makes you so arrogant to believe this is the point in history where we should stop changing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 What? Like Yom Kippor ? Have their been many people forcing you to observe Yom Kippor? Do they have cameras in your house watching you? In KG we were forced to learn that dreidel song and consume some cardboard-like socalled "bread"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 Let's see, we've gone from cave-dwellers to domesticated farmers, to civilised urbanites. We've stopped sacrificing humans, we've abolished slavery, we've abolished segregation. And at every step of the way, there was some group of social conservatives who fought tooth and nail against that change citing nonsense such as "tradition" as their excuse to trample on other people's rights.My only question to those who dislike change.... what makes you so arrogant to believe this is the point in history where we should stop changing? Let's not forget that is was the Democrats who championed slavery and seccession, and that slavery was brought about by wealthy elites who wanted to turn the South's agricultural economy into something much more profitable. They were the one's who were bringing about radical change... So change can go either way, and I'd say that we had a society that had reached a good level of advancement, but that it is now beginning to regress again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 I'd say that we had a society that had reached a good level of advancement, but that it is now beginning to regress again... That's my point... don't you think those who didn't want to abolish slavery, those who didn't want to give women the right to vote, those who didn't want to separate Church and State, those who didn't want blacks in their schools - don't you think they all had their idea of society being 'just right' as it was then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 Oh the old "times change" argument... so basically all that you value and cherish is all relative, too... You neighbourhood fills up with people who have customs you don't agree with, start forcing you and your family to accept their lifestyle as "normal" and let's see how open to change you really are... Gays are really a tiny minority and I wouldn't live downtown Toronto or in any major university city where gays are going to live, they just happen to lobby very well. What percent of Canadians are gay? 1%? If that. C'mon. People like me are in the majority across the country plain and simple. If gay marriage can't pass in California, arguably the most liberal of all the states what chance does it have here if we had a similar vote on it? If it was added to the federal vote it wouldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mortui Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 Gays do not 'force' themselves on people any more than straight people do. Probably less actually. To say that marriage is only valid when you have a child is ridiculous. A marriage is between two people that make a commitment to each other. To say that gays shouldn't be allowed to be married is prejudiced. There is no valid argument that can be made that would justify such intolerance. It is a matter of time until gays receive their rights as citizens of the United States. By the way, a church can't be forced to marry anyone? The pastor has a choice to marry the couple or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 That's my point... don't you think those who didn't want to abolish slavery, those who didn't want to give women the right to vote, those who didn't want to separate Church and State, those who didn't want blacks in their schools - don't you think they all had their idea of society being 'just right' as it was then? Agreed, Harper chucked this issue under the bus where it will never come up again. Gays can get married, who cares? I don't. Churches can tell them to fly a kite if they want. Everybody's happy, next issue please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted November 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 I repeat - gay and lesbianism along with the feminist eccentric mindset is for the unwashed masses. People in power don't do gay - but they do encourage it. Why not? Once you weaken and debase a society to the point where they don't know how to breed or create little personal empires through the union of a good man and woman - they are ever so easy to control....no-sex marriage is just fine - and that is what same sex marriage is - there is a redefinition of sex and a re-visionistic approach to the concept of marriage. Wait till they redefine poverty and force you to except the concept that it is really prosperity - that is coming - or death - and tell you it is eternal life - oh - sorry that's been done already.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 That's my point... don't you think those who didn't want to abolish slavery, those who didn't want to give women the right to vote, those who didn't want to separate Church and State, those who didn't want blacks in their schools - don't you think they all had their idea of society being 'just right' as it was then? True. But, on the other hand, we need not pursue change for the sake of change itself. Nor should change be done erratically and on the fly, to satisfy what makes us feel good now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted November 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 True. But, on the other hand, we need not pursue change for the sake of change itself. Nor should change be done erratically and on the fly, to satisfy what makes us feel good now. Those who appose the alteration of the word and concept of marriage are always branded as haters. Instead I believe they are realists. Male and female have existed since the begining of humanity. Propogation and the generation of life through the mating of male and female is also the very bases of life and has been around since the start. To take this very foundation of human existance and in less than one life time - revise it is astounding - You have ten billion people over a period of thousands of years mating via natural process and suddenly - boom - some idealist that wants to conquer nature itself comes along and decides we should ALL agree suddenly and without warning that we are no longer male and female - that their is suddenly a third sex that is neither. This is to abrupt a change. Myself and others included do not want change..and we are have the right to discriminate what we believe to be the best for mankind FROM what we know is not in the best interest of society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 Those who appose the alteration of the word and concept of marriage are always branded as haters. Instead I believe they are realists. Male and female have existed since the begining of humanity. Propogation and the generation of life through the mating of male and female is also the very bases of life and has been around since the start. To take this very foundation of human existance and in less than one life time - revise it is astounding - You have ten billion people over a period of thousands of years mating via natural process and suddenly - boom - some idealist that wants to conquer nature itself comes along and decides we should ALL agree suddenly and without warning that we are no longer male and female - that their is suddenly a third sex that is neither. This is to abrupt a change. Myself and others included do not want change..and we are have the right to discriminate what we believe to be the best for mankind FROM what we know is not in the best interest of society. You seem to assume, though, that breeding cannot take place without marriage, and vice versa. Of course that is not the case. Marriage is institutional, and though reproduction is usually expected of a union, it is also about religion, money, property, and inheritance, all of which are purely human concepts. Propagation of the species, on the other hand, exists separately to those issues, and has been around long, long before marriage ever existed. That's not to say, however, that because marriage is only an institution it is necessarily fair game for quick alteration or elimination; it's been around us for so many millennia that it's been long ingrained into the very fabric of our societies and civilisations. Hence, I'm fairly ambivalent to the idea of same-sex marriage in itself, leaning towards dismissing it, but not completely convinced against it. What it is that makes me suspicious about the whole thing is the speed with which it apparently needs to be implemented, and the weak arguments used to justify this quick change. That, to me, smacks more of promoting personal agendas than decisions made for the common, and long term, good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted November 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 You seem to assume, though, that breeding cannot take place without marriage, and vice versa. Of course that is not the case. Marriage is institutional, and though reproduction is usually expected of a union, it is also about religion, money, property, and inheritance, all of which are purely human concepts. Propagation of the species, on the other hand, exists separately to those issues, and has been around long, long before marriage ever existed.That's not to say, however, that because marriage is only an institution it is necessarily fair game for quick alteration or elimination; it's been around us for so many millennia that it's been long ingrained into the very fabric of our societies and civilisations. Hence, I'm fairly ambivalent to the idea of same-sex marriage in itself, leaning towards dismissing it, but not completely convinced against it. What it is that makes me suspicious about the whole thing is the speed with which it apparently needs to be implemented, and the weak arguments used to justify this quick change. That, to me, smacks more of promoting personal agendas than decisions made for the common, and long term, good. Myself - I have raised four children outside of the civil and relgious realm of marriage - I do believe two partners should be together because they love and honour each other...IF I had formally married I would be in a far worse state than I am today. There would have been lawyers involved - there would have been the abuse of the federal taxing system - used as a weapon in the corrupt and abusive family law system - My children love me and I them - my wife of 25 years lives apart from me and insists that we marry - to hell with that idea! She was not loyal or loving...what I believe about the gay sect is that once they enter into formal legal marriage they will lose their freedom - and they are naive - Personal agendas abound within the lawless Family Service Act - Marriage has now become a detriment to the family - I suggest that the stupid gays and lesbians avoid it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 True. But, on the other hand, we need not pursue change for the sake of change itself. Nor should change be done erratically and on the fly, to satisfy what makes us feel good now. As all the other examples I cited, I believe SSM to be a human rights issue and definitely not change simply 'for the sake of change'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted November 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 As all the other examples I cited, I believe SSM to be a human rights issue and definitely not change simply 'for the sake of change'. Marriage in the legal sense is based on social animal husbandry and a means of controlling the breeding of the live stock that is in eccence the population. THAT is the only reason marriage exists - a licence to breed and that licence gives the state property rights over the couple and that offspring - or new the new born calf in the herd. Marriage in the contrary does not ensure human and civil rights - it actually deminished human and civil rights - the coupling of human beings to breed or as in the case of gay and lesbian - to simply be together and be respected is an illusion. Marriage is a control mechanism. So why bother reliquishing your true human rights to church or state? That is my whole point - The coupling of human beings in any form is totally of the private sphere and not the buisness of the state or the church....even Jesus Christ said - "They will not be given or taken in marriage for they will be like the angels" - He did not believe in the institution either - he believed in freedom - to be as free as angels...excuse what may be percieved as religious - It is not - it is pragmatic and a statement of real and true human rights to total freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.