Gay Rights, why is it even an issue?

[GostHacked]

You're looking at it all wrong..

I agree that the terrible fecundity of the world (especially the fecundity of the lower elements of society) is a very big problem... the answer lies not in "adoption rights" but in population control. Perhaps we could have a program of sterilization for on perpetual welfare... maybe we should use more potent birth control "pills".

Or just allow gays to marry. They cannot produce, and you solve another problem of adoption by getting these kids into environments that will allow them to grow in all aspects. There is no guarantee that a heterosexual couple will provide the quality care that is needed, or the proper environment in which they can grow. Loving caring people are that no matter if they are gay or hetero, their intentions and actions are genuine.

The hideous fecundity of the unfit, the criminal and the imbecile elements of our already overcrowded planet must be curved, that however has nothing to do with adoption.

It does not have anything to do with the gays as well. Why is this even mentioned? It does not help your argument.

And children will seek to have male and female presence... for a boy to become a man, he must at some point detach from his mother and identify with his father, who shows him what mature masculinity looks like and teaches him how to channel and control his aggressiveness and his sexual impulses. A father's strength and presence command a kind of respect a boy needs to learn self-restraint. It's no secret that boys without fathers are much more likely to become delinquent and wind up afoul of the law.

Patently false. I know some fathers that are absolute girls. I also know some mothers that are very strong.

Girls need a father to protect them and to affirm their femininity. Girls without fathers tend toward promiscuity to satisfy their inborn hunger for male validation ("daddy issue girls"... and we've all seen those!) to name a few but it goes much deeper then that.

No mention of mothers for girls? Like your boy to become a man analogy?

Most of us already think lesbians are awesome and hot, but yet have a problem when there is some testicular touching.

[lictor616]

Or just allow gays to marry. They cannot produce, and you solve another problem of adoption by getting these kids into environments that will allow them to grow in all aspects. There is no guarantee that a heterosexual couple will provide the quality care that is needed, or the proper environment in which they can grow. Loving caring people are that no matter if they are gay or hetero, their intentions and actions are genuine.

It does not have anything to do with the gays as well. Why is this even mentioned? It does not help your argument.

Patently false. I know some fathers that are absolute girls. I also know some mothers that are very strong.

No mention of mothers for girls? Like your boy to become a man analogy?

Most of us already think lesbians are awesome and hot, but yet have a problem when there is some testicular touching.

I don,t know how you can twist your mind around the simplicity of this truism. MARRIAGE IS A PRIVILEGE which encourages child rearing in NORMAL couples or to put it more bluntly: hetero couples.

You're the one who started talking about the disposal of orphans... which has nothing to do with the topic.

Homosexuals are not denied a "RIGHT" when their "marriage is not fully recognized... they are denied an UNDUE PRIVILEGE.

Really, marriage won't change anything for a gay couple either way... its just a label... and homo's shouldn't care for those. Having the states give you minor tax deductions and special property rights doesn't INCREASE the capacity for them to love eachother...

this whole gay marriage business has nothig to do with rights and everything to do with the richest per capita minority (homosexuals) filching more money that doesn't belong to them. its as simple as that.

Edited August 26, 2009 by lictor616

[Guest TrueMetis]

I don,t know how you can twist your mind around the simplicity of this truism. MARRIAGE IS A PRIVILEGE which encourages child rearing in NORMAL couples or to put it more bluntly: hetero couples.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that before marriage there was nothing to encourage having children? Unless I'm wrong marrigage is a very recent human construct and monogamy is even more recent. Then there are all the married people who choose not to have kids and the unmarried people who have kids anyway.

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged by a variety of ways, depending on the culture or demographic.

Wikipedia

Doesn't say anywhere in there that they have to be different sexes.

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm just curious, we're in the 21st century, so why is this even an issue? I have dual-citizenship so I do spend the majority of my time debating in the US (we're a lot more accepting in Canada) but I still can't, to this day fathom how issues like gay marriage or gay adoption can be "hot" topics.

A lot of people are stupid, ignorant, close-minded, and bigoted. What can i say, welcome to planet earth.

[Moonlight Graham]

Really, marriage won't change anything for a gay couple either way... its just a label... and homo's shouldn't care for those.

If marriage is just a label then let's just allow them all to have it.

this whole gay marriage business has nothig to do with rights and everything to do with the richest per capita minority (homosexuals) filching more money that doesn't belong to them. its as simple as that.

Maybe if you were raised by 2 gay people you wouldn't be such a close-minded poo-poo head.

[lictor616]

If marriage is just a label then let's just allow them all to have it.

we do let them have it... its called "CIVIL UNION".

If anything we could also call it civil marriage for all its worth...

Edited August 27, 2009 by lictor616

[Oleg Bach]

You have a right in Canada to be a liar - to be dishonourable - and to behave in a non-manly manner...go head - do what you will but don't attempt to spread this social engineering any further than your own home and closet..No I am not a hater...as far as "gay rights" - they are protected...that's all they get and that is all they deserve..no one is special - and no group should attempt to dominate the other. Frankly I have met very few gays who are good for their word or who actually care about people - most care for themselves and their own selfish needs and desires..they don't seem to like rule of law..so they attempt to create a new set of laws that benefit themselves but are at the detriment of the majority. They should shut up and be happy that we tolerate and care for them....let the gays be grateful and not pushy..

[Moonlight Graham]

we do let them have it... its called "CIVIL UNION".

If anything we could also call it civil marriage for all its worth...

Or we could just call it "marriage" and be done with it.

[Moonlight Graham]

Frankly I have met very few gays who are good for their word or who actually care about people - most care for themselves and their own selfish needs and desires..they don't seem to like rule of law..so they attempt to create a new set of laws that benefit themselves but are at the detriment of the majority. They should shut up and be happy that we tolerate and care for them....let the gays be grateful and not pushy..

This is one of the silliest thing i've ever heard. You need to meet more gay people.

[Moonlight Graham]

Frankly I have met very few gays who are good for their word or who actually care about people - most care for themselves and their own selfish needs and desires..they don't seem to like rule of law..so they attempt to create a new set of laws that benefit themselves but are at the detriment of the majority. They should shut up and be happy that we tolerate and care for them....let the gays be grateful and not pushy..

I just have to further mention that thoughts like this going through a person's brain makes me embarrassed to be of the same species as you. Seriously, can you be more stereotypical?

[zinc]

That,s why Gays are allowed to self segregate into "villages", are able to build employment committees to favor THEIR OWN KIND ABOVE others, that's why they set all these countless organizations to promote THEIR own interests (often at the expense of everyone else)... gay rights is not at all about equality: its about PRIVILEGE... Is seeing as how gays are the richest per capita minority group in Canada, its hard sometimes to see what more we should do to for their comfort.

That's kind of a silly, rather stupid argument....it actually works both ways, many (say Christian) employees would probably often base their hiring standards on religious beliefs, so seeing an openly gay male would be enough for the religious employer to not hire them (despite being illegal to judge on sexual orientation, I doubt it's difficult to find a hole and work with it). Gay rights implies equality, nothing special, until you could name me one benefit than gays receive that no other minority receives then your point is flawed and inherently nonsensical.

Marriage "everywhere around the world and at all times" can only involve the two genders of humanity, male and female. The child rearing aspect is central in any anthropological definition of marriage. The word marriage itself means "blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture."

The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners"

According to Confucius, "Marriage is the union (of the representatives) of two different surnames, in friendship and in love, in order to continue the posterity of the former sages, and to furnish those who shall preside at the sacrifices to heaven and earth, at those in the ancestral temple, and at those at the altars to the spirits of the land and grain."

Oh I get it, you went to wikipedia and selected varying definitions that fit whatever dogma you're preaching. I know this because I was one of the founding editors of that page and recognized many of the definitions instantly, it'd be nice if you were a little less, biased? Try reading up on the history of marriage, what it mean in terms of dowry, bride price, etc etc...it's not all roses bloom

Also, where did you get your definition from proclaiming marriage as a form of child rearing and/or varying (differentiating) elements? I don't see that definition anywhere, you can even break it down to what is varying...to me, two people are different, but that's not the point. I could just as easily say that two Christians are "the same" just as you say two gay men "are the same" - to me, and other intelligent people we see it as the union of individuals. This even by definition violates polygamous marriages (man + 3 women for example) and reiterates lax AoC laws, as in 50 year old man and 12 year old child...but let me guess, you'd make selective exceptions there, right? Oh but cmon, they're different!

there's no other way of looking at it... Homosexuals should of course be free to do what they want, but to get the state privileges given to couples for CHILDREARING is not warranted (since gays cannot reproduce normally). end of debate.

Then by your pseudo-anthropological definitions there can be no such thing as infertile woman + man marriages....and as someone who's studied anthropology I'm comically amused by your assertion with trying to associate man/woman marriages as the definite cause for marriage, where is your source for this?

Frankly I have met very few gays who are good for their word or who actually care about people - most care for themselves and their own selfish needs and desires..they don't seem to like rule of law..so they attempt to create a new set of laws that benefit themselves but are at the detriment of the majority. They should shut up and be happy that we tolerate and care for them....let the gays be grateful and not pushy..

Well, at least you're not generalizi...oh wait

Oleg, whenever you happen to get out of your parent's (God bless them) basement you'll inevitably run into the esoteric gay man! You'll probably be surprised to learn that we're not all androgynous & effeminate men who enjoy shopping and hate football...that we're your pastor, your teacher, your son, or your daughter...your neighbor, your doctor, and that best friend who you'd never have guessed.

I know it's hard to understand, and for people that aren't that smart I can see why....but experience is everything, give it a try. Heck if you even have questions for me I'll try to answer them for you...I'll be just as nice as the Reverend Wade Watts was to Johnny Lee Clary

[Pliny]

Still keeping this a hot topic, ay Zinc!

[Oleg Bach]

Saw a tall masculine gay kissing his little friend this morning. It reminded my of tricksterism in the animal world> I am getting tired of these creatures that are fake females. All I can say is human beings are capable of a lot of wierd animalistic crap - yes it existists in nature..and yes we must rise above being common animals - and yes I don't like social engineering that weakens the people...and no....they have enough rights - if they want more - no!

[lictor616]

Or we could just call it "marriage" and be done with it.

Or we could call it "Marriage*"

(note: * different from actual marriage)

there we are problem solved... the gays get their label (as if they really cared about what other people think anyway!) and we can finally put the issue at rest... until they ask for a gay history month, or call for a new legislation that makes "homophobes" subject to the death penalty if they insifficiently venerate gays... or something else to further their hegemony

[zinc]

Still keeping this a hot topic, ay Zinc!

Nah, I only respond when it's bumped, if you check the times posted I'm not the one bumping them

Saw a tall masculine gay kissing his little friend this morning. It reminded my of tricksterism in the animal world> I am getting tired of these creatures that are fake females. All I can say is human beings are capable of a lot of wierd animalistic crap - yes it existists in nature..and yes we must rise above being common animals - and yes I don't like social engineering that weakens the people...and no....they have enough rights - if they want more - no!

I've actually come to the realization that you're just an idiot, nothing but a troll seeking his evanescent time of infamy on an internet forum. Where are you guys when I'm debating the religious nuts in real life? The only time I ever witness your kind is through a Q&A, but after a quick response & a few exchanges they crawl back into fetal position...most likely going back to being the notorious e-thugs they are on internet forums.

Wish you had more balls than the gay men you accuse of lacking

Or we could call it "Marriage*"

(note: * different from actual marriage)

there we are problem solved... the gays get their label (as if they really cared about what other people think anyway!) and we can finally put the issue at rest... until they ask for a gay history month, or call for a new legislation that makes "homophobes" subject to the death penalty if they insifficiently venerate gays... or something else to further their hegemony

Gays calling for the death penalty against those who hate them for who they are? LOL...yes yes, we're the one carrying signs with "God hates ____" and "All Christians go to hell!" aren't we

OK but seriously, to answer your post of epic stupidity I think the problem can easily be solved using your method. How about this proposition; those who have a problem sharing the word 'marriage' with gay people can call their marriages something else....good idea, yes?

Because...after reading your post I don't know if you're simply uneducated or simply ignorant (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former) but your idea of 'actual marriage' (whatever that means) is nothing more than a neologism created to cultivate the status quo. Marriage has changed thousands of times, so unless you're for keeping the tradition of child slaves, dowry perquisites, wife swapping, and polygamous unions then you're simply a hypocrite.

And by the way, I don't mean to sound so harsh but after reading some of the posts here I realize that some people (fortunately not most) need a serious reality check, especially when it comes to anthropological and sociological history...

[lictor616]

Nah, I only respond when it's bumped, if you check the times posted I'm not the one bumping them

I've actually come to the realization that you're just an idiot, nothing but a troll seeking his evanescent time of infamy on an internet forum. Where are you guys when I'm debating the religious nuts in real life? The only time I ever witness your kind is through a Q&A, but after a quick response & a few exchanges they crawl back into fetal position...most likely going back to being the notorious e-thugs they are on internet forums.

Wish you had more balls than the gay men you accuse of lacking

Gays calling for the death penalty against those who hate them for who they are? LOL...yes yes, we're the one carrying signs with "God hates ____" and "All Christians go to hell!" aren't we

OK but seriously, to answer your post of epic stupidity I think the problem can easily be solved using your method. How about this proposition; those who have a problem sharing the word 'marriage' with gay people can call their marriages something else....good idea, yes?

Because...after reading your post I don't know if you're simply uneducated or simply ignorant (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former) but your idea of 'actual marriage' (whatever that means) is nothing more than a neologism created to cultivate the status quo. Marriage has changed thousands of times, so unless you're for keeping the tradition of child slaves, dowry perquisites, wife swapping, and polygamous unions then you're simply a hypocrite.

And by the way, I don't mean to sound so harsh but after reading some of the posts here I realize that some people (fortunately not most) need a serious reality check, especially when it comes to anthropological and sociological history...

"Religious nuts"...

you actually called moi religious...

typical gay advocate prejudice... assume that anybody against gay marriage is some sort of defective, welfare toothless evangelical... I'm an atheist, and probably have a lower opinion of the religious rabble then you do. At one time or another I've refereed to christiniaity as a spiritual syphilis, I've said about the bible that although that bag of grotesque supertitious nonsense has endowed English with many phrases, aphorisms, and the like, that it has very little literary quality. The bible does not have neither dignity nor the charm of Classical mythology. As a historical document, it is virtually worthless. And for what is called 'human interest' it cannot vie with Thackeray, Thomas Mann or Dickens or Christie.

And just so we're clear, I hold equally damnable opinions on Judaism and Islam. All three desert dogmas are revolts against reason and even reality.

Now lets look at portions of your comment which do not address the topic at hand and merely spout ad hominem knavery as some sort of substitute for "reasoned argument"

quoting Zinc:

"I've actually come to the realization that you're just an idiot, nothing but a troll seeking his evanescent time of infamy on an internet forum. Where are you guys when I'm debating the religious nuts in real life? The only time I ever witness your kind is through a Q&A, but after a quick response & a few exchanges they crawl back into fetal position...most likely going back to being the notorious e-thugs they are on internet forums.

Wish you had more balls than the gay men you accuse of lacking

Gays calling for the death penalty against those who hate them for who they are? LOL...yes yes, we're the one carrying signs with "God hates ____" and "All Christians go to hell!" aren't we

OK but seriously, to answer your post of epic stupidity I think the problem can easily be solved using your method.

Because...after reading your post I don't know if you're simply uneducated or simply ignorant (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former)

And by the way, I don't mean to sound so harsh but after reading some of the posts here I realize that some people (fortunately not most) need a serious reality check, especially when it comes to anthropological and sociological history..."

pretty much 90% of what you said had no purpose other then insulting the people you were talking to, and as for "anthropological, sociological history" you merely stated the completely false statement (unbacked of course) that "Marriage has changed thousands of times"... Now, anybody with rudimentary knowledge of a universal knowledge of marriage throughout the world and history (if we pretend that non-western concepts of marriage are meaningful in this debate) will notice only 3 types of marriage: Polygamy, monogamy, and polyandry...

and I defy the most progressive overheated brain to invent a fourth.

There are alternatives to be sure, complete celibacy and polymorphous promiscuity... but neither are marriage... both are the NEGATION of it.

As far as marriage is concerned therefore, mankind HAS accosted the maximum possibilities. My statement quoted on birth right as being the prime motivator of marriage EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD, is utterly accurate, and has not been shown the lie. Your comment on dowry has NOTHING to do with marriage... .dowry is a lot, money or tradeable goods that one party (usually a woman) gives to another when entering into marriage... it has no relationship with gender/party/marriage configuration... and like German "Aussteuerschrank" its purely economical and material.

now please be sufficiently cogent to cease referring to me as a "religious"... I consider such accusations slanderous and they are deeply untrue in my case.

Edited September 6, 2009 by lictor616

[zinc]

I'll just preface this by saying that I'll ignore your whines and cries about being deeply hurt by my terrible, terrible comments towards you...I understand being called religious is very offensive! Anyways, to get back on topic...

anybody with rudimentary knowledge of a universal knowledge of marriage throughout the world and history (if we pretend that non-western concepts of marriage are meaningful in this debate) will notice only 3 types of marriage: Polygamy, monogamy, and polyandry...and I defy the most progressive overheated brain to invent a fourth.

First off, the correct terms to use were "polygamous and monogamous" relationships. Polyandry is nothing more than a specific form of polygamy. If you're going to use polyandry in the future, then replace polygamy with polygyny.

Next, no one said "inventing a new term" - same-sex unions have existed throughout history...the idea of gay people wanting relationships is nothing new, to say so is simply ignorant.

As far as marriage is concerned therefore, mankind HAS accosted the maximum possibilities. My statement quoted on birth right as being the prime motivator of marriage EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD, is utterly accurate, and has not been shown the lie.

The burden of proof is on you to prove this, not on me to disprove it. Now show me (and the rest of the forum) laws or dictations specifically REQUIRING all couples of every recorded culture with marriage a requisite to propagate...I'd also like to know how this implied to infertile couples.

Take your time on this, I understand that admitting you made a deliberately misleading statement may hurt your pride...

Your comment on dowry has NOTHING to do with marriage... .dowry is a lot, money or tradeable goods that one party (usually a woman) gives to another when entering into marriage... it has no relationship with gender/party/marriage configuration... and like German "Aussteuerschrank" its purely economical and material.

It has everything to do with it...because restrictions were made based on the above. For instance, men and women of all cultures were not freely able to marry, even in the United States you'll remember the concept of miscegenation, the idea of allow interracial marriages did not effect the typical heterosexual marriages you see. The case is same with gender restrictions, same sort of fear mongering proposed just in a different light. You seem to have this unusual phobia of allowing homosexuals to marry and provide nothing but untruthful statements, I can't figure out why but I stopped trying a couple years ago...

[Pliny]

Nah, I only respond when it's bumped, if you check the times posted I'm not the one bumping them

You started the thread and you keep it alive.

The whole subject isn't complicated.

Gays want the right to marry. There are two basic reasons.

(1) The political-economic advantages.

Government has granted certain benefits to married couples, such as inheritance rights, which if gays were not recognized as married could not benefit from.

This is a legitimate complaint of a discriminatory practice by government who should be treating it's citizens equally. Heterosexaul couples that do not desire to be officially "married" had been excluded from these benefits as well. The government has agreed to recognize common law marriages as bonafide.

Common law "marriage" is basically what ate away at the definition of the word. there was no rite, ritual, ceremony, wedlock or civil service that officially recognized it. That took away some of the meaning of the word and if the legal consideration for it could be changed then other parts of the word could change as well such as "union of a man and woman as husband and wife".

I expect, because definitions of words change, that the word marriage will also change but a differation between a "gay marriage" and a traditional marriage will necessarily evolve. The State may view all marriages as equal but society will never admit them being the same, whihc is what equal means. Government has a confused idea about equality because it discriminates itself. It treats the poor differently than the rich, it grants favour to some companies over others, it grants favor to some cultures over others. It favors one gender over others. It used to favour men and now it favours women. Soon it will favour men again. It favours the rights of minoities over the majority. It grants privilege to special interests such as Unions.

It should not and should thus not be granting any rights to "Married couples" or "families" under any definition above the rights of others.

All in all government is very divisive because it does this which brings us to our second reason

(2) Inclusion:

The gay community wants to be included in the term "normal". As human beings they could be normal but as sexual identities they don't fit the term. It is a very sad thing for them that others consider their sexual proclivities perverted. Well, they do miss out on the prime purpose of sex entirely - procreation.

So, simply put, it's an issue because the government opened the door for it to be one by initially granting privilege to married couples and families. They were just engineering society and encouraging people to have new little workers and taxpayers to grow the economy for the purposes of maintaining the growth of the State.

An argument could be forwarded that government now sees a threat of global overpopulation and encourages social engineering policies that would reduce population growth such as "gay marriage".

All "rights" at this time are an issue and a lot of people are demanding "entitlement and privilege" from government thinking they are demanding "rights". Gays are demanding favour from government because government will grant favour to whoever fits their current objectives.

A lot of socio-economic policies that governments adopt are formulated by the UN, the IMF and the World bank who feel they are governing the global economy and for there to exist any cohesive order certain trends are initiated by them and certain trends are discouraged.

I do not ascribe to any conspiracy theories. If one wishes to see what the global objectives are he need only go to the official UN website.

[Pliny]

I've actually come to the realization that you're just an idiot, nothing but a troll seeking his evanescent time of infamy on an internet forum. Where are you guys when I'm debating the religious nuts in real life? The only time I ever witness your kind is through a Q&A, but after a quick response & a few exchanges they crawl back into fetal position...most likely going back to being the notorious e-thugs they are on internet forums.

Wish you had more balls than the gay men you accuse of lacking

What's an e-thug? Would they be ones that call other people names or are they the ones that can debate other people into the ground or are they just people with different views than yourself?

I find a lot of people have views but don't know why. Maybe their parents ingrained a few ideas in their heads, or maybe their teachers or maybe their peers but wherever they got their ideas somehow they thought those ideas were pretty good and they agreed with them. It is difficult to argue a point that just seems right without any further reasoning than that or someone they liked said it.

Oleg to me isn't an idiot he is just too open and honest.

I have in my previous post given you a couple of reasons why this is an issue in society. It is particularly an issue with you personally because there is no current explanation for your behavior so something must be responsible. Genes? Chemicals? Hormones? Basically, something that makes you think the way you do. But if your genes changed or your hormones or chemicals would your perceptions change? Would your mind change? Would you then have feelings for the opposite sex? Probably not because that is impossible, right? You can't change.

Until you understand it or until you are apathetic about it, it will always be an issue.

[lictor616]

The burden of proof is on you to prove this, not on me to disprove it. Now show me (and the rest of the forum) laws or dictations specifically REQUIRING all couples of every recorded culture with marriage a requisite to propagate...I'd also like to know how this implied to infertile couples.

um, excuse me... but, YOU WERE THE ONE WHO SAID MARRIAGE CHANGED 1000's of times... I asked you to show me how this was so... the onus therefore IS ON YOU. you are the one proposing to introduce a new conception of marriage (based on love not on the bedrock economic principle of familycraft) therefore the onus IS ON YOU to show through A and B how such a conception is legitimate and rational. Burden of proof doesn't fall on the status quo people... its up to the "changers" to give evidence and arguments TO the status quo people.

Infertile couples should be of no concern... state benefits of marriage should only kick in when a couple or union produces NATURAL offspring, and we should definitely cut infertile couples out of the loop if they are defecting on the "social marriage contract" of child rearing. Its an obscene loophole that you're playing on.

[zinc]

I have in my previous post given you a couple of reasons why this is an issue in society. It is particularly an issue with you personally because there is no current explanation for your behavior so something must be responsible. Genes? Chemicals? Hormones? Basically, something that makes you think the way you do.

I'm sorry? It is an issue with me because there's no explanation for my behavior? What exactly is that suppose to mean?

That's equivalent to me looking at a black male and telling him that the only reason he wants equal rights is because there is nothing explaining his preference for females with long red hair....so I'm afraid I don't see your point.

But if your genes changed or your hormones or chemicals would your perceptions change? Would your mind change? Would you then have feelings for the opposite sex? Probably not because that is impossible, right? You can't change.

About as possible as changing someone's heterosexuality to homosexuality, show me the evidence and I'll shake your hand and concede to defeat.

Good luck with that

um, excuse me... but, YOU WERE THE ONE WHO SAID MARRIAGE CHANGED 1000's of times... I asked you to show me how this was so... the onus therefore IS ON YOU. you are the one proposing to introduce a new conception of marriage (based on love not on the bedrock economic principle of familycraft) therefore the onus IS ON YOU to show through A and B how such a conception is legitimate and rational. Burden of proof doesn't fall on the status quo people... its up to the "changers" to give evidence and arguments TO the status quo people.

I can see you've gotten a little confused...

Let's back up the bus and look at the argument. I told you that the concept of marriage has changed, this is true...where would you like me to start, age of consent? Dowry prerequisites? Polygamous unions? Endogamy laws? Now hold on...don't confuse yourself any further, because marriage did not have a "one man - one woman" origin, if you are defending the idea of the status quo and your refusal to update definitions in our society then would it be fair for me to assume that you'd like to implement marraige restrictions dating back to the Mesopotamian era?

Infertile couples should be of no concern... state benefits of marriage should only kick in when a couple or union produces NATURAL offspring, and we should definitely cut infertile couples out of the loop if they are defecting on the "social marriage contract" of child rearing. Its an obscene loophole that you're playing on.

What you see as a loophole I see as logic, you made a very specific claim:

My statement quoted on birth right as being the prime motivator of marriage EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD, is utterly accurate, and has not been shown the lie.

I'll break down what you said:

i) Birth right is the PRIME motivator of ALL cultures

ii) The above is true (or has been true) EVERYWHERE in the world

All I'm asking is to see evidence of the above, how every single place and every single culture has created marriage for the prime purpose of propagation...and I'd like to know how such was implemented.

[Oleg Bach]

Gay should not be an issue - nor should womans rights! What is done is done and it's over. Gay mafia should be an issue and the chain of "gayness" where those in entertainment - politics etc..do each other quiet favours because they have had some quiet favours..kind of put's straight people at a disadvantage...where we don't want to blow our way to the top. I guess people like Madonna blew their way to the top originally - as does the Torontonian gaysters...who operate like a mafia - unless you are the bottom guy and pillow biter. Those that want more gay rights at this point are just ambitious sodomists...I believe they are called the top dogs.

[g_bambino]

About as possible as changing someone's heterosexuality to homosexuality, show me the evidence and I'll shake your hand and concede to defeat.

And yet, those who move from under the heterosexual banner to the homosexual one are openly welcomed by those who carry the latter. Why does it only go one way?

[Oleg Bach]

You condition a person long enough - and he might start to consider fake females.. Human being are driven by base urges of survival - hunger and reproduction - SEX - Confuse the creature and he or she might just cross the floor to where pleasure is available - Pleasure that leads to failure and slavery. This buisness about people being born gay is bullshit - some are born sexless - and are passive and hetrosexual hedonist sodomizers..take advantage of these poor creatures and call the whole thing gay! I have spoken to so called gays - who secretly can and are able to engage a female - but for reasons of power and domination - go after the asexual creaturea - it's not about love - It's about control...I have never met a gay that had honour...or honesty.

[zinc]

Gay should not be an issue - nor should womans rights! What is done is done and it's over. Gay mafia should be an issue and the chain of "gayness" where those in entertainment - politics etc..do each other quiet favours because they have had some quiet favours..kind of put's straight people at a disadvantage...where we don't want to blow our way to the top. I guess people like Madonna blew their way to the top originally - as does the Torontonian gaysters...who operate like a mafia - unless you are the bottom guy and pillow biter. Those that want more gay rights at this point are just ambitious sodomists...I believe they are called the top dogs.

awwww :,(

Those evil sodomists, how dare they try to help eachother! I'm afraid I don't understand the harsh, HARSH world of living as a straight, white male...God bless your courage!

And yet, those who move from under the heterosexual banner to the homosexual one are openly welcomed by those who carry the latter. Why does it only go one way?

haha, good point

You condition a person long enough - and he might start to consider fake females.. Human being are driven by base urges of survival - hunger and reproduction - SEX - Confuse the creature and he or she might just cross the floor to where pleasure is available - Pleasure that leads to failure and slavery. This buisness about people being born gay is bullshit - some are born sexless - and are passive and hetrosexual hedonist sodomizers..take advantage of these poor creatures and call the whole thing gay! I have spoken to so called gays - who secretly can and are able to engage a female - but for reasons of power and domination - go after the asexual creaturea - it's not about love - It's about control...I have never met a gay that had honour...or honesty.

dude, that is awesome...I'm so glad you've done your research in the area of confused heterosexual hedonist sodomizers!

It's a shame that anti-gay is becoming more & more synonymous with pro-stupidity