PebHmong Discussion Forum
General Category => Debate Central => Topic started by: bulbasaur on January 19, 2014, 09:27:05 PM
-
A list of dumb anti-gay arguments...
1. The Children. Anti-gay supporters often point to the inability to have children to be a reason not to support gay marriage. However, if that were the case, then infertile individuals should also be denied. Moreover, elderly couples who can no longer produce children should have their marriage voided too. It doesn't make sense.
2. The Children:Part 2. Anti-gay supporters often point out that gays do not make good parents. If that were the case, then any unfit parent or potential parent should be denied marriage. Moreover, the studies are actually the opposite. Children of gay parents are often privy to a higher standard of living and opportunities. It doesn't make sense.
3. The Constitution. Anti-gay supporters often point out the language of the Constitution; it states one "man" and "woman." This is true. However, the Constitution also considers a black person 3/5 of a person. The Constitution has been amended 27 times. Many of those amendments relate directly to individuals' rights, such as Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9. 13, 14, 15, 19, 24, and 26. It is clear that individual rights supersedes the wording of the Constitution.
4. Bestiality and Other Weird Marriages. Anti-gay supporters often point out these possibilities. However, a dog, cat, chair, etc. are not people.
5. Polygamy. Anti-gays supporters like to point this out. So what? The current limit for a civil union is 2, but if people want to raise that number, go ahead...as long as everyone has equal rights.
6. Natural Law. Anti-Gay supporters like to say that homosexuality is not natural, and so, gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. However, homosexuality is not illegal. Moreover, homosexuality exists in other species as well...so there goes that argument.
7. Gay is a Choice. Anti-gays supporters like to point this out. However, they themselves never made the decision to be straight. Moreover, why would any kid choose to be gay knowing that it means being bullied and different? Kids want nothing more than to just fit in. It just doesn't make any sense.
8. Gays are Imposing their Beliefs onto Me! We hear that one a lot. However, it is actually the anti-gay supporters imposing their beliefs. No one is saying that straight people have to be gay to have their rights.
9. The Religion Argument. All I have to say is...Freedom of Religion. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want to believe, but the law should be equal to everyone.
-
I heard both sides before. Both sides have their stupid argument.
List of some Gay arguments. Most of them tends to be appeal of novelty.
1. Homosexuality occurs in Nature. Whether it occurs or not, like Heterosexualit y, or sexual reproduction. It is still is appealing to nature.
2. Gays have been misrepresent, oppress, and kill. Many people throughout in history were mistreated, and torture regardless of your sexuality.
3. If you don't support Gay, then your a bigot. How does one doesn't support sexual orientation describes one zealous belief? Whether this person is a theist or not.
4. If you don't support Gay, then your a homophobic. How does one doesn't support sexual orientation describes one characteristic?
5. If you don't support Gay, you will be like those racist in the 60s. These two events are irrelevant.
6. If you don't support Gay, you will be on the wrong side of history. This is an absurd statement; appeal to novelty.
7. This is the 21st Century, surely we can all accepts Gay. Regardless which century we are in, cultures clashes and changes, or remain the same. It is unpredictable of the men mind.
8. Marriage isn't one man and woman. Therefore gay-marriage is okay. Regardless of the definition. There are no distinct evidence defining the state of marriage of a straight couple nor a same-sex couple. So gay-marriage is as moot as any other marriage.
9. Equality argument. Perhaps everyone should be treated fair and equal. However, there should be no special protection regardless of your sexuality.
-
The MOST stupidest of ALL is the attempt to redefine MARRIAGE when in reality we could've avoided all this demonizing (done by the LEFT) by changing the definition of CIVIL UNIONS. Just give CIVIL UNIONS more benefits - problem solved. This will include all types of relationship arrangements that isn't a marriage. Co-habitating couples (parents) could greatly benefit from this change. Those couples need rights too even if they don't want to enter a marriage.
Gays make it seem like they're the only group that needs MORE benefits. ::) When in reality, heterosexual couples who aren't married but living together and having children together ALSO NEED laws to accommodate their arrangement. It's what I like to call CIVIL UNIONS.
I'm sure the PH rhetorics in here have never bothered to look at the difference between marriage and civil union. If they did, they'd realize that marriage can stand as it is and all the government needs to do is revamp civil unions. ::)
-
I'll rebut some of those...
The majority of what you wrote only describes staunch anti-gay supporters. People actually have the right to be anti-gay; they don't have the right to deny rights to gays.
The similarities to the 60's is that this is about equal rights. Some people are trying to deny these rights, and some people are trying to attain these rights.
You wrote, "...there should be no special protection regardless of your sexuality." If that were true, then why do straight couples have special protection and rights based on their sexuality? It's not equal, and that is the argument.
I heard both sides before. Both sides have their stupid argument.
List of some Gay arguments. Most of them tends to be appeal of novelty.
1. Homosexuality occurs in Nature. Whether it occurs or not, like Heterosexualit y, or sexual reproduction. It is still is appealing to nature.
2. Gays have been misrepresent, oppress, and kill. Many people throughout in history were mistreated, and torture regardless of your sexuality.
3. If you don't support Gay, then your a bigot. How does one doesn't support sexual orientation describes one zealous belief? Whether this person is a theist or not.
4. If you don't support Gay, then your a homophobic. How does one doesn't support sexual orientation describes one characteristic?
5. If you don't support Gay, you will be like those racist in the 60s. These two events are irrelevant.
6. If you don't support Gay, you will be on the wrong side of history. This is an absurd statement; appeal to novelty.
7. This is the 21st Century, surely we can all accepts Gay. Regardless which century we are in, cultures clashes and changes, or remain the same. It is unpredictable of the men mind.
8. Marriage isn't one man and woman. Therefore gay-marriage is okay. Regardless of the definition. There are no distinct evidence defining the state of marriage of a straight couple nor a same-sex couple. So gay-marriage is as moot as any other marriage.
9. Equality argument. Perhaps everyone should be treated fair and equal. However, there should be no special protection regardless of your sexuality.
-
Refer to #3.
The MOST stupidest of ALL is the attempt to redefine MARRIAGE when in reality we could've avoided all this demonizing (done by the LEFT) by changing the definition of CIVIL UNIONS. Just give CIVIL UNIONS more benefits - problem solved. This will include all types of relationship arrangements that isn't a marriage. Co-habitating couples (parents) could greatly benefit from this change. Those couples need rights too even if they don't want to enter a marriage.
Gays make it seem like they're the only group that needs MORE benefits. ::) When in reality, heterosexual couples who aren't married but living together and having children together ALSO NEED laws to accommodate their arrangement. It's what I like to call CIVIL UNIONS.
I'm sure the PH rhetorics in here have never bothered to look at the difference between marriage and civil union. If they did, they'd realize that marriage can stand as it is and all the government needs to do is revamp civil unions. ::)
-
I'll rebut some of those...
The majority of what you wrote only describes staunch anti-gay supporters. People actually have the right to be anti-gay; they don't have the right to deny rights to gays.
The similarities to the 60's is that this is about equal rights. Some people are trying to deny these rights, and some people are trying to attain these rights.
You wrote, "...there should be no special protection regardless of your sexuality." If that were true, then why do straight couples have special protection and rights based on their sexuality? It's not equal, and that is the argument.
I laugh when people try to make excuse compare the f*cking 60s. Civil rights were just leftovers and turds ideals after great wars like WW1, WW2. 1950s and 1960s allow America to spread economically, it just f*cking happen that White American were dominate. And really it was mostly about Economic Opportunity. No surprise, nor care. As for denial, many people that glorify Civil Rights will not admit that it also started caused the collapse of the American f*cking economy. It was great, blacks lives improve dramatically. However, as more diversity spreads major city, wealthy folks left to suburban, thus caused major high bills to pay. Also you know the 1970s where America were in sh*thole like the 1973 Oil Crisis? Why do you think cities like Detroit are in sh*tholes? I know this is off-tangent, but in the Egalitarian means sh*t if it doesn't benefit economically.
And honestly, I could careless whether you conclude that anti-gay use the rebuttal on my post because all of yours and mines example argument circular reasoning to begin with. Secondly, I could careless about those who support or against gays right. In the end only those who are butthurt are the Egalitarian, Liberals, Conservative and others bigot Zealots.
In the end it's nothing but a show of America vs Russia. Hint* Russia is winning.
-
Whew. You got issues. I'm not gonna bother to point out how absurdly unrelated most of it is. :idiot2:
I laugh when people try to make excuse compare the f*cking 60s. Civil rights were just leftovers and turds ideals after great wars like WW1, WW2. 1950s and 1960s allow America to spread economically, it just f*cking happen that White American were dominate. And really it was mostly about Economic Opportunity. No surprise, nor care. As for denial, many people that glorify Civil Rights will not admit that it also started caused the collapse of the American f*cking economy. It was great, blacks lives improve dramatically. However, as more diversity spreads major city, wealthy folks left to suburban, thus caused major high bills to pay. Also you know the 1970s where America were in sh*thole like the 1973 Oil Crisis? Why do you think cities like Detroit are in sh*tholes? I know this is off-tangent, but in the Egalitarian means sh*t if it doesn't benefit economically.
And honestly, I could careless whether you conclude that anti-gay use the rebuttal on my post because all of yours and mines example argument circular reasoning to begin with. Secondly, I could careless about those who support or against gays right. In the end only those who are butthurt are the Egalitarian, Liberals, Conservative and others bigot Zealots.
In the end it's nothing but a show of America vs Russia. Hint* Russia is winning.
-
Whew. You got issues. I'm not gonna bother to point out how absurdly unrelated most of it is. :idiot2:
Don't worry you don't have to. People tends to pay more attention about the absurdity of unrelated Economic points I made over your correlated rant of your egalitarian any day. So yeah, not much further us to discuss in this thread then.....
Have a nice day bulbasaur.
-
Whew. You got issues. I'm not gonna bother to point out how absurdly unrelated most of it is. :idiot2:
You do realized you just debated with a mentally challenged person right? Dude just uses big words he doesn't understand in hopes that people will not see how dumb he is. Like.. Oh I egalitarian this thread.
Lol. I just ignore his postings.
-
You do realized you just debated with a mentally challenged person right? Dude just uses big words he doesn't understand in hopes that people will not see how dumb he is. Like.. Oh I egalitarian this thread.
Lol. I just ignore his postings.
No, I don't recalled using big word santi. I am confident that I am not mentally challenged either. However, I am confident that you assure others only if they share the same opinion as you. I've seen some of your post and topics before. There really isn't much to discuss, other than blowing hot air of how stupid humanity is in the Debate Section. Which is true to a certain extent.
And for the record, Egalitarian is not a big word. Basically, egalitarian are just people tends that concern with Equality over everything else. And it just so happens not every human support egalitarian.
And really I don't mind being called upon as fool. There is much to learn than squabbling about ones vocabulary skills.
-
A list of dumb anti-gay arguments...
7. Gay is a Choice. Anti-gays supporters like to point this out. However, they themselves never made the decision to be straight. Moreover, why would any kid choose to be gay knowing that it means being bullied and different? Kids want nothing more than to just fit in. It just doesn't make any sense.
Homosexual demographics suggests that the majority of gay people are overwhelmingly within the category of white, wealthy, and urban. Are there poor gays and Asian and black gays? Of course there are. But when an overwhelming majority of gays are usually white, urban, from a background that offers choice, personal liberty, freedom to explore because of wealth, you have to acknowledge that it is inconclusive that homosexuality is thoroughly biological and innate (genetic).
Because if that were the case, that homosexuality simply "just happens" and it's not a choice, there would be equal participation. ..er, let's just call it numbers...acro ss the board spanning beyond social class, age, income, cultural, and racial lines.
-
Homosexual demographics suggests that the majority of gay people are overwhelmingly within the category of white, wealthy, and urban. Are there poor gays and Asian and black gays? Of course there are. But when an overwhelming majority of gays are usually white, urban, from a background that offers choice, personal liberty, freedom to explore because of wealth, you have to acknowledge that it is inconclusive that homosexuality is thoroughly biological and innate (genetic).
Because if that were the case, that homosexuality simply "just happens" and it's not a choice, there would be equal participation. ..er, let's just call it numbers...acro ss the board spanning beyond social class, age, income, cultural, and racial lines.
That logic would hold true assuming that data collected from Asian/Blacks were more complete. Have you considered that the data is skewed because most of these urban wealthy white people come from backgrounds where being gay is not oppressed or considered a taboo, thus encouraging more of them to be open about their sexuality versus cultures like Asians/Blacks which irrefutably oppress and discourage those who are gay? Also for those whites who come from less progressive backgrounds (i.e. Catholics/Christians/Islam), being rich as they are, they have the luxury of being able to break away regardless of the social consequences inflicted upon them by their peers. The fact that there even exist poor non-urban gay Asians/blacks affirms genetics. If no such groups existed, then “choice” would be a more plausible explanation, assuming you ignore environmental factors such as cultural conditioning.
I'm sure if you include the 'closet cases"...the data would suggest that "gayness" is more wide spread then it seems.
-
The MOST stupidest of ALL is the attempt to redefine MARRIAGE when in reality we could've avoided all this demonizing (done by the LEFT) by changing the definition of CIVIL UNIONS. Just give CIVIL UNIONS more benefits - problem solved. This will include all types of relationship arrangements that isn't a marriage. Co-habitating couples (parents) could greatly benefit from this change. Those couples need rights too even if they don't want to enter a marriage.
Gays make it seem like they're the only group that needs MORE benefits. ::) When in reality, heterosexual couples who aren't married but living together and having children together ALSO NEED laws to accommodate their arrangement. It's what I like to call CIVIL UNIONS.
I'm sure the PH rhetorics in here have never bothered to look at the difference between marriage and civil union. If they did, they'd realize that marriage can stand as it is and all the government needs to do is revamp civil unions. ::)
I AGREE 100% with this.
-
That's a flawed logic.
First, being openly gay and being gay are not the same thing. Your demographic only shows who is openly gay.
Second, if it is a choice...Refer to #7.
Third, whether it is a choice or not, it is a side argument that doesn't justify denying rights to individuals.
Homosexual demographics suggests that the majority of gay people are overwhelmingly within the category of white, wealthy, and urban. Are there poor gays and Asian and black gays? Of course there are. But when an overwhelming majority of gays are usually white, urban, from a background that offers choice, personal liberty, freedom to explore because of wealth, you have to acknowledge that it is inconclusive that homosexuality is thoroughly biological and innate (genetic).
Because if that were the case, that homosexuality simply "just happens" and it's not a choice, there would be equal participation. ..er, let's just call it numbers...acro ss the board spanning beyond social class, age, income, cultural, and racial lines.
-
You are agreeing to a falsehood. No one is asking to have more benefits; they are asking for equal benefits.
I AGREE 100% with this.
-
You are agreeing to a falsehood. No one is asking to have more benefits; they are asking for equal benefits.
yes but equal benefits were almost never extended to straight domestic partners.
-
What are you talking about? I don't think you understand the issue.
A short list...
1. Medical. Often times, a spouse can make medical decisions if a person is incapable of doing so.
2. Inheritance. With an absence of a will, the spouse often receives it.
3. Taxes.
The list can go on. You can argue that any two people can legally do these things without getting married, but that is similar to Jim Crow. These are civil benefits, and thus, should be allowed to all civilians. This is the reason why some make the argument that the term "marriage" be changed to "civil unions."
yes but equal benefits were almost never extended to straight domestic partners.
-
You are agreeing to a falsehood. No one is asking to have more benefits; they are asking for equal benefits.
Well they shouldn't have to "conform" to a heterosexual practice to get those same rights. During the Civil Rights, Black people weren't trying to be white nor did they wish to practice white traditions in order to get the same rights. Gays should be proud of who they are and not have to buy into the "marriage" institution just to get the same benefits. Marriage laws were put in place to uphold the traditional definition and principles of marriage. When you start changing the definition and principles than those laws no longer apply.
You often bring up slavery and the time when a black person was only considered 2/3 a person. Well that was implemented to protect "slavery". Since "slavery" was abolished, the rules no longer apply.
The government should do away with giving special privileges to "married" people because it's not blatant discrimination against gays (as some of you believe), but it's actually discrimination against any "non-married" people. The culture has significantly changed since the days when women needed to get married in order to be taken care of. People don't have to get married to have children and raise a family. If a couple want to pledge their love and "marry", they can say their nuptials in the church or whichever culture that administers that. But the government needn't get involved by granting benefits of any sort. A marriage is in the heart, we don't need the government to recognize our nuptials as legitimate or not. The only reason the government did that was to qualify people for benefits, which should've never existed in the first place.
-
Talk about being oblivious. :idiot2:
Well they shouldn't have to "conform" to a heterosexual practice to get those same rights. During the Civil Rights, Black people weren't trying to be white nor did they wish to practice white traditions in order to get the same rights. Gays should be proud of who they are and not have to buy into the "marriage" institution just to get the same benefits. Marriage laws were put in place to uphold the traditional definition and principles of marriage. When you start changing the definition and principles than those laws no longer apply.
You often bring up slavery and the time when a black person was only considered 2/3 a person. Well that was implemented to protect "slavery". Since "slavery" was abolished, the rules no longer apply.
The government should do away with giving special privileges to "married" people because it's not blatant discrimination against gays (as some of you believe), but it's actually discrimination against any "non-married" people. The culture has significantly changed since the days when women needed to get married in order to be taken care of. People don't have to get married to have children and raise a family. If a couple want to pledge their love and "marry", they can say their nuptials in the church or whichever culture that administers that. But the government needn't get involved by granting benefits of any sort. A marriage is in the heart, we don't need the government to recognize our nuptials as legitimate or not. The only reason the government did that was to qualify people for benefits, which should've never existed in the first place.
-
Talk about being oblivious. :idiot2:
You're oblivious because you know nothing about the principles of marriage and why back then the government felt there was a need to step in and give that group of people privileges. It wasn't meant to discriminate homosexuals, if that's what you believe.
Obviously, you're on that wave of let's just give everybody "Rights" otherwise it's discrimination . Help a man get pregnant, he should have a right to have a full-working uterus or it's inequality! :idiot2:
The Gay Movement for Gay Marriage is not even about their right to get "married" but a principle move. They want to stick it to heterosexuals (no pun intended). Gays know that a gay marriage is different from a heterosexual marriage. Why do they have to "mimic" a heterosexual partnership in order to feel equal? That's what they're saying by pushing for this.
I ask, "why piss off a big group of people over semantics when gays can get the same benefits without marriage?" Many other relationship arrangements want and deserve the same privilege, too.
It's the same thing with the neo-Feminists. This isn't about the equal right to vote, education, employment anymore. It's about, "I won't feel equal until I, too, have a penis!" ::)
-
I am just trying to be nice. Enough people have already schooled you. If you really want, I can make you look silly...
1. You wrote, "Black people weren't trying to be white nor did they wish to practice white traditions in order to get the same rights." Gays aren't trying to be straight either. They simply want their civil rights. :idiot2:
2. You wrote, "You often bring up slavery and the time when a black person was only considered 2/3 a person." It was the 3/5 Compromise, not 2/3. You overpaid for your education...if you even got one.
3. You wrote, "Since "slavery" was abolished, the rules no longer apply." Yes, antiquated rules should be abolished. :idiot2:
4. You wrote, "The government should do away with giving special privileges to "married" people because it's not blatant discrimination against gays (as some of you believe)..." Sure. Equal is equal. Unfortunately for you, you don't understand practical and realistic.
5. No one cares about your personal feelings of marriage. This is about equal rights, not whether your feelings were hurt.
It is becoming clear why you don't understand. You are simply uneducated on the issue. You are uneducated on the history. You are uneducated on the laws. You are uneducated on the people involved. Add also that you are misinformed, it makes you oblivious.
I don't want to belittle you, but you are the one who keeps coming back asking for a whipping. You can't even get your facts straight. 2/3? Really? :idiot2:
You're oblivious because you know nothing about the principles of marriage and why back then the government felt there was a need to step in and give that group of people privileges. It wasn't meant to discriminate homosexuals, if that's what you believe.
Obviously, you're on that wave of let's just give everybody "Rights" otherwise it's discrimination . Help a man get pregnant, he should have a right to have a full-working uterus or it's inequality! :idiot2:
The Gay Movement for Gay Marriage is not even about their right to get "married" but a principle move. They want to stick it to heterosexuals (no pun intended). Gays know that a gay marriage is different from a heterosexual marriage. Why do they have to "mimic" a heterosexual partnership in order to feel equal? That's what they're saying by pushing for this.
I ask, "why piss off a big group of people over semantics when gays can get the same benefits without marriage?" Many other relationship arrangements want and deserve the same privilege, too.
It's the same thing with the neo-Feminists. This isn't about the equal right to vote, education, employment anymore. It's about, "I won't feel equal until I, too, have a penis!" ::)
-
I pretty much skipped over everything you wrote because YOU STILL DON'T GET IT. You keep saying it's about fighting for equal rights but clearly it's not. It's a war over SEMANTICS AND REDEFINING MARRIAGE in order to be included in the INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE. There are common law marriages all over the country that have opted out of being a part of the institution.
Let's go all the way back to why marriage even existed and the purpose of marriage.
Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. Through marriage, a woman gained status and developed identity since she couldn't get that on her own. These are the core principles of marriage. Nowhere in that does it talk about "love". And because of that definition, society implemented rules and laws to protect "marriage".
Now in some cases where there was a shortage of men due to war, whichever body governed that society decided to impose more laws giving special privileges to married people. This encouraged men (whether single or married) to acquire a wife (targeting widowers with children) for the obvious reason of giving children a father figure as well as providing financial assistance to single mothers. This is how the government started sticking its nose into "marriage". This is how and why all those special privileges emerged for "married" people.
This is why "marriage" has always been defined as between a man and a woman. Now whether husband and wife choose to have children or can't reproduce does not take away the principle and definition of marriage - which has always surrounded "procreation". A uterus is a uterus whether it can conceive or not. It doesn't take away the principle of a uterus just because it's sterile.
I use the example of a transgender who has undergone surgery. A man that gets a sex change has the right to identify himself as a woman, but that doesn't change the definition "woman" to include men who have had a sex change.
So homosexuals can have a "marriage" if that's how they want to identify their union, but that doesn't mean "marriage" is the union of homosexuals. There is nothing unequal about that. Both relationships have equal value. The problem is that they're not being treated equal and that's what we ought to be fighting for.
-
I am not surprised you skipped it. Facts. You think this is a debate between you and me. However, this is a debate between you and the facts, and the facts are making you look silly. :idiot2:
I pretty much skipped over everything you wrote because YOU STILL DON'T GET IT. You keep saying it's about fighting for equal rights but clearly it's not. It's a war over SEMANTICS AND REDEFINING MARRIAGE in order to be included in the INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE. There are common law marriages all over the country that have opted out of being a part of the institution.
Let's go all the way back to why marriage even existed and the purpose of marriage.
Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. Through marriage, a woman gained status and developed identity since she couldn't get that on her own. These are the core principles of marriage. Nowhere in that does it talk about "love". And because of that definition, society implemented rules and laws to protect "marriage".
Now in some cases where there was a shortage of men due to war, whichever body governed that society decided to impose more laws giving special privileges to married people. This encouraged men (whether single or married) to acquire a wife (targeting widowers with children) for the obvious reason of giving children a father figure as well as providing financial assistance to single mothers. This is how the government started sticking its nose into "marriage". This is how and why all those special privileges emerged for "married" people.
This is why "marriage" has always been defined as between a man and a woman. Now whether husband and wife choose to have children or can't reproduce does not take away the principle and definition of marriage - which has always surrounded "procreation". A uterus is a uterus whether it can conceive or not. It doesn't take away the principle of a uterus just because it's sterile.
I use the example of a transgender who has undergone surgery. A man that gets a sex change has the right to identify himself as a woman, but that doesn't change the definition "woman" to include men who have had a sex change.
So homosexuals can have a "marriage" if that's how they want to identify their union, but that doesn't mean "marriage" is the union of homosexuals. There is nothing unequal about that. Both relationships have equal value. The problem is that they're not being treated equal and that's what we ought to be fighting for.
-
Good listen, especially starting at 23:00. Also, the part about China on gay-marriage. Anyways, he makes great points about marriage and the purpose for it in heterosexual couples. It is true that part of marriage is a proclamation to remain monogamous - mainly for the benefit of the husband because he needs to ensure the children are his. Homosexual couples aren't at risk of having a child that isn't theirs unless someone is bi-sexual.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebw3hEeU5KE# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebw3hEeU5KE#)
-
I am not surprised you skipped it. Facts. You think this is a debate between you and me. However, this is a debate between you and the facts, and the facts are making you look silly. :idiot2:
FACTS? Of what? That marriage was and has always been defined as between a man and woman? Existing laws exist to protect that kind of union. Changing the definition means those laws (benefits) might as well cease to exist. Like I said, either change policies on Civil Unions or get rid of the Marriage Institution altogether.
-
Believe_N_Me writes, "You often bring up slavery and the time when a black person was only considered 2/3 a person."
This debate is over. There is no need to talk to someone who clearly doesn't know the situation.
FACTS? Of what? That marriage was and has always been defined as between a man and woman? Existing laws exist to protect that kind of union. Changing the definition means those laws (benefits) might as well cease to exist. Like I said, either change policies on Civil Unions or get rid of the Marriage Institution altogether.
-
Here's a great snippet from that panel. Reminder, the panelists are gays and lesbians speaking on marriage. I totally agree with Masha. Redefining marriage is going to change the institution. Homosexuals should be upfront about that. It's not going to be identical to current heterosexual marriages. In fact, heterosexual marriages do not reflect the reality of homosexual marriages at all is what she's saying and I agree. Homosexuals are either going to have to conform to the heterosexual marriage laws or the institution will inevitably have to change - which then DOES make marriage laws meaningless.
Nuptials can be made without asking the government (institution) to validate them. Example: Hmongs get married every year under their cultural practices but some don't bother to proceed to the court house to get their marriage license. Doesn't make their marriage mean any less. Homosexuals can marry under their own set of nuptials and skip the courthouse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqL64TRib40# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqL64TRib40#)
-
It's rather absurd if we all sit down and think about it. In our modern-day society we have no problem developing new words that describe our current culture. We can easily come up with "tweeting" and "twerking" but there's no word for a homosexual union that is on the same level as marriage. We're fighting over the definition of a word that has existed in our vocabulary since long before any of us were born just so some members of our society can feel "equal". That's not equality at all. Surely there isn't a shortage in human vocabulary to describe what a man might call his male lifelong companion.
I'm reminded of Catholic missionaries into Laos. While introducing and converting the Hmong people over to Catholicism, the church was very adamant that they weren't just changing the definition of Shamanistic terms. After all, at that time the Hmong already believed in a creator whom they referred to as "saub". However, the term "saub" was clearly not used in the same light as the Catholic teachings of the Judeo-Christian God. A new term was needed.
-
It's rather absurd if we all sit down and think about it. In our modern-day society we have no problem developing new words that describe our current culture. We can easily come up with "tweeting" and "twerking" but there's no word for a homosexual union that is on the same level as marriage. We're fighting over the definition of a word that has existed in our vocabulary since long before any of us were born just so some members of our society can feel "equal". That's not equality at all. Surely there isn't a shortage in human vocabulary to describe what a man might call his male lifelong companion.
I'm reminded of Catholic missionaries into Laos. While introducing and converting the Hmong people over to Catholicism, the church was very adamant that they weren't just changing the definition of Shamanistic terms. After all, at that time the Hmong already believed in a creator whom they referred to as "saub". However, the term "saub" was clearly not used in the same light as the Catholic teachings of the Judeo-Christian God. A new term was needed.
So you are saying gays can't marry. Hence, they can't have a marriage.
-
So you are saying gays can't marry. Hence, they can't have a marriage.
They can legitimize their relationship and call it whatever they want. However, why they want to call it a "marriage" or be a part of the "marriage institution" in order to feel equal doesn't make much sense.
You're a straight guy, right? If you knew ahead of time that a woman used to be a man, would you really consider her as a female and pursue romantic interest? Some heterosexual males might be able to, but I have no doubt they would be in the minority.
This is about semantics. If gays didn't offend those who want to uphold their traditional views about marriage then it wouldn't be such a big issue.
-
It is also absurd when people think 2/3 is 3/5. It's obvious that these people are misinformed on the facts. Yet, they still believe that they are correct on the facts. :idiot2:
It's rather absurd if we all sit down and think about it. In our modern-day society we have no problem developing new words that describe our current culture. We can easily come up with "tweeting" and "twerking" but there's no word for a homosexual union that is on the same level as marriage. We're fighting over the definition of a word that has existed in our vocabulary since long before any of us were born just so some members of our society can feel "equal". That's not equality at all. Surely there isn't a shortage in human vocabulary to describe what a man might call his male lifelong companion.
I'm reminded of Catholic missionaries into Laos. While introducing and converting the Hmong people over to Catholicism, the church was very adamant that they weren't just changing the definition of Shamanistic terms. After all, at that time the Hmong already believed in a creator whom they referred to as "saub". However, the term "saub" was clearly not used in the same light as the Catholic teachings of the Judeo-Christian God. A new term was needed.
-
They can legitimize their relationship and call it whatever they want. However, why they want to call it a "marriage" or be a part of the "marriage institution" in order to feel equal doesn't make much sense.
Well not allowing them to be called a married couple is basically saying they are not equals.
This is about semantics. If gays didn't offend those who want to uphold their traditional views about marriage then it wouldn't be such a big issue.
So basically it all comes down to equality. Some people see homosexual couples as unequal to heterosexual couples and think they are unfit to get married. So gays are trying to have others see them as equals, hence the marriage conflict.
-
So you're saying that a person has to be called "married" in order to be an equal? :idiot2:
"Marriage" is a heterosexual practice just like men have urine stalls for them to pee standing up. Should women have those stalls as well in order to feel "equal"? Women can pee standing up too, after all - and men can pee sitting down so why even bother with the different urinals?
Y'all act like the institution of marriage was created with the intentions of keeping out homosexuals. :2funny:
-
So you're saying that a person has to be called "married" in order to be an equal? :idiot2:
Yes. It's like calling someone with an Irish ancestry, an American. Then calling someone else with an Asian ancestry, an Asian-American.
"Marriage" is a heterosexual practice just like men have urine stalls for them to pee standing up. Should women have those stalls as well in order to feel "equal"? Women can pee standing up too, after all - and men can pee sitting down so why even bother with the different urinals?
I just checked, my bathroom only has one toilet. I heard more and more women's public restrooms have urinals now.
Y'all act like the institution of marriage was created with the intentions of keeping out homosexuals. :2funny:
Some people in here thinks that's how it is.
-
Looks like some people in here are giving their own dumb anti-gay arguments.
-
Yes. It's like calling someone with an Irish ancestry, an American. Then calling someone else with an Asian ancestry, an Asian-American.
I just checked, my bathroom only has one toilet. I heard more and more women's public restrooms have urinals now.
Some people in here thinks that's how it is.
Based on this response, clearly you have NO CLUE what marriage is. You also don't know what equality is. BTW, Asian-Americans choose to identify themselves that way.
Please only respond when you know why marriage was instated in the first place and why it has always been a heterosexual practice.
-
Let's go all the way back to why marriage even existed and the purpose of marriage.
Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. Through marriage, a woman gained status and developed identity since she couldn't get that on her own. These are the core principles of marriage. Nowhere in that does it talk about "love". And because of that definition, society implemented rules and laws to protect "marriage".
That is only the "effect" of marriage, not the "reason". Marriage like many other rules is about control and maintaining order. Humans are like any other animal and we like to f*ck as much as possible, so in order to ensure we don't all kill each other over mates, marriage was develop to maintain order which in "EFFECT" ensures that property (if that is how you define women) are not infringed upon by other males...not because of procreation ore lineage. You can procreate without marriage. And people were smart enough to know that marriage does not "guarantee" your heirs are yours if your wife likes to sleep around because you were busy f*cking the maid.
Look at the hmongs as an example, why do you think we do not marry within the same clans? its to maintain order and move family members around so clans don't end up killing one another over disputes. Its the same thing as how marriage was developed.
You are over thinking something that is relatively simple to understand and has a rational explanation.
-
Marriage back in the days didn't include homosexuality since i'm sure anybody found of such behavior were killed or persecuted...
Also in the less enlighten days, minority rights weren't a concern to the majority.
-
Marriage back in the days didn't include homosexuality since i'm sure anybody found of such behavior were killed or persecuted...
So marriage and (adopted) children were always the natural progression that homosexuality would move towards from the start?
:2funny:
This is just as absurd as the people who claim that it is natural progression that all cultures and societies become this Western-American-modern society.
-
Dogmai still have not answered my question? Scientifically speaking not a social construct. Being "Gay" Male/Male, Female/Female is against Darwinian Evolution. Period. The argument for it scientifically is just laughable. Now social construct wise, being "Gay" does not equate to "Marriage" why do majority of society have to adjust what has been the norm since the beginning of time to now change for few minority?
-
So marriage and (adopted) children were always the natural progression that homosexuality would move towards from the start?
:2funny:
This is just as absurd as the people who claim that it is natural progression that all cultures and societies become this Western-American-modern society.
You again...ugh...
Gays might not have a progression towards marriage, but as human beings its normal to want progression towards equal treatment.
-
Umm.. These days the "gay agenda" is pushing their point of view down our Throats. Nothing wrong with equal rights, but don't show me some Gay Pride parade with butt nekkid dudes riding on a Big Dildo and call it Normal.
-
Dogmai still have not answered my question? Scientifically speaking not a social construct. Being "Gay" Male/Male, Female/Female is against Darwinian Evolution. Period. The argument for it scientifically is just laughable.
Ok, you guys, if you are going to use "science" to explain things, make sure you UNDERSTAND THAT SCIENCE thoroughly enough so people can't poke holes in your argument. But let’s try it your way…but with how should I put it…BETTER SCIENCE.
Assume gay is genetic (since you are referring to it from a scientific perspective), then YES you are correct in that gays would be eliminated because evolution tells us that genes can only be carried on through procreation and well..gays don't procreate...at least with each other. But is that the end of the story? NO, because like a lot of people who don't know what they are talking about, you understand SIMPLE biology/science only. Have you ever considered that the gene(s) for being gay are probably carried by the STRAIGHT parents and are expressed as recessive genes?...because you know it’s the Straights who give birth to the Gays...not the other way around.
Let’s go back to BASIC high school biology...do you remember the Punnett Square? It gives us the possibilities of combination of how a child will receive it's gene from its parents. Let’s say Straight is A and Gay is B, but in this case B is the recessive gene. We can conclude this because the population representation of gays is somewhat small compared to straights. So here is an example of two STRAIGHT parents who carry heterozygote genes, expressed as AB, and AB. We know they are straight because A is dominant. So when these two get their groove on, the chances of their kids receiving their genes are
AA - Straight
AB - Straight
BA - Straight
BB - You guess it..GAY.
In this case, their kids have a 25% chance of receiving the BB genes which will express itself if there is no dominant gene.
I realize that this is a simple explanation and that genetics is a lot more complicated then you or I understand, but see how things make more sense when you put in more effort to UNDERSTAND them?
-
Dogmai...you can thank me later.
-
It's the same thing with the neo-Feminists. This isn't about the equal right to vote, education, employment anymore. It's about, "I won't feel equal until I, too, have a penis!" ::)
I find this statement ignorant. Keep telling yourself that because you dont know squat about feminism.
-
Cancel marriage
TEd talk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTf8jKMGsGE#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTf8jKMGsGE#ws)
-
Don't have time to go through all the ramblings, but from the first couple of pages, I'm getting :
1. Bulbasaur is gay.
2. BNMe and Miles are advocating "separate but equal".
Bout sums it up?
-
Don't have time to go through all the ramblings, but from the first couple of pages, I'm getting :
1. Bulbasaur is gay.
...
Careful now! He/she is going to take your head off! Don't you know that these people, they only support gays? Never would they want to be gay themselves or have family members that become gay. They are only liberal to show how cool they are but when shit hits the fans at home, they don't want it there.
These kinds of people, they say anyone can have tattoos, even full body tattoos, but they wouldn't get it themselves nor would they want their children to get it. These people, they say they don't care if people interracial date and marriage, so long as their own Hmong daughter does not come home with a black guy. These people, they support gays, but they would never want their children to be gay.
It's like "Hey, I wouldn't eat shit myself! But if you want to eat shit, why should we say anything? Personal liberty and freedom of choice OHHH YEAH BABY!!!!! But if my children are going to eat shit, I'm gonna kick their ass!"
THIS....this is called a hypocrite. Plain and simple.
-
Dogmai still have not answered my question? Scientifically speaking not a social construct. Being "Gay" Male/Male, Female/Female is against Darwinian Evolution. Period. The argument for it scientifically is just laughable. Now social construct wise, being "Gay" does not equate to "Marriage" why do majority of society have to adjust what has been the norm since the beginning of time to now change for few minority?
Scientifically, evil k man explained it. As far as your last question, according to you we shouldn't even be discussing this topic here. We shouldn't have these equal rights. Since the "white" people was the majority back then, "black" shouldn't have fought for equal rights? :idiot2:
-
Based on this response, clearly you have NO CLUE what marriage is. You also don't know what equality is. BTW, Asian-Americans choose to identify themselves that way.
Based on your response, clearly you have NO CLUE what marriage is. Just look at history. You also don't know what equality is. BTW, gay couples choose to identify themselves as a married couple.
-
Since the "white" people was the majority back then, "black" shouldn't have fought for equal rights? :idiot2:
Racial discrimination and segregation was the unequal treatment of a people based on how they simply looked like because that's just how they look like. Someone is born black because they are black. You don't need a biologist of geneticist to explain why someone is black because you can see with the eyes. A black person cannot change this fact. It was wrong to exempt black people from certain things just based on how they look like.
With gays...uhhhhh, do we have to go over this again? No one is born gay. An infant isn't born and people say "Look ma! You got a gay one!" Like I said, what if I can't help myself and just start walking backwards? Who are you to say that I don't have the "walk backwards" gene? You normal walking people should have to put up rear-view mirrors at every street corner to accommodate me! Who are you to say that this isn't how I was born?!!!
(and instantly, dogmai imagines himself beating my ass for the idiocy of "walking backwards" gene)
BTW, gay couples choose to identify themselves as a married couple.
And marriage is possible through the creation of its institution in which society says what marriage is, what the symbol of marriage is, how marriage affects property rights, children rights, etc. Take away human society and culture, and there is no marriage. What you have are a species of homo sapien sapien just fukking each other and producing offspring.
So what makes gays so special that they can redefine and revamp the institution of marriage? If it's hospital and prison visitation rights, fight for that. If it's right to property and assets if a gay partner dies, fight for that. If it's the right to power of attorney, fight for that. What is it with marriage that gays want?
You and I are Hmong and you know damn well that there are a shit ton of Hmong people that are married in the culture, essentially a civil union, and don't have legal marriage license. So why aren't you fighting for Hmong marriages to have the same rights as a state-acknowledged legal marriage? Somalian weddings are essentially the same as Hmong weddings. Why aren't you fighting for the state to recognize Somalian weddings so that they can visit their wives in hospitals and have the right to their property should the spouse die?
Oh I know why. BECAUSE IT'S NOT HIP, COOL, AND NEW-AGE TO FIGHT FOR RECOGNITION OF HMONG AND SOMALIAN WEDDINGS. BUT OH, IT'S FUKKEN HIP, COOL, AND NEW-AGE TO BE IN SUPPORT OF GAYS AND FIGHT FOR GAY MARRIAGE. This has nothing to do with equality because if it was, you wouldn't leave Hmong, Somalian, and Burmese (Karenni) marriages in the dust and just focus on gays. Because where it stands, many Hmong persons, if their spouse ends up in the hospital brain dead and the in-laws hate their guts, they would have NO RIGHTS to visit their spouse or retain ownership of property and assets. We've seen this happen sometimes with Hmong women and they get to retain shit that their husband owned. If you were about equality, why aren't you fighting for Hmong marriages?
-
Racial discrimination and segregation was the unequal treatment of a people based on how they simply looked like because that's just how they look like. Someone is born black because they are black. You don't need a biologist of geneticist to explain why someone is black because you can see with the eyes. A black person cannot change this fact. It was wrong to exempt black people from certain things just based on how they look like.
With gays...uhhhhh, do we have to go over this again? No one is born gay. An infant isn't born and people say "Look ma! You got a gay one!" Like I said, what if I can't help myself and just start walking backwards? Who are you to say that I don't have the "walk backwards" gene? You normal walking people should have to put up rear-view mirrors at every street corner to accommodate me! Who are you to say that this isn't how I was born?!!!
(and instantly, dogmai imagines himself beating my ass for the idiocy of "walking backwards" gene)
And marriage is possible through the creation of its institution in which society says what marriage is, what the symbol of marriage is, how marriage affects property rights, children rights, etc. Take away human society and culture, and there is no marriage. What you have are a species of homo sapien sapien just fukking each other and producing offspring.
So what makes gays so special that they can redefine and revamp the institution of marriage? If it's hospital and prison visitation rights, fight for that. If it's right to property and assets if a gay partner dies, fight for that. If it's the right to power of attorney, fight for that. What is it with marriage that gays want?
You and I are Hmong and you know damn well that there are a shit ton of Hmong people that are married in the culture, essentially a civil union, and don't have legal marriage license. So why aren't you fighting for Hmong marriages to have the same rights as a state-acknowledged legal marriage? Somalian weddings are essentially the same as Hmong weddings. Why aren't you fighting for the state to recognize Somalian weddings so that they can visit their wives in hospitals and have the right to their property should the spouse die?
Oh I know why. BECAUSE IT'S NOT HIP, COOL, AND NEW-AGE TO FIGHT FOR RECOGNITION OF HMONG AND SOMALIAN WEDDINGS. BUT OH, IT'S FUKKEN HIP, COOL, AND NEW-AGE TO BE IN SUPPORT OF GAYS AND FIGHT FOR GAY MARRIAGE. This has nothing to do with equality because if it was, you wouldn't leave Hmong, Somalian, and Burmese (Karenni) marriages in the dust and just focus on gays. Because where it stands, many Hmong persons, if their spouse ends up in the hospital brain dead and the in-laws hate their guts, they would have NO RIGHTS to visit their spouse or retain ownership of property and assets. We've seen this happen sometimes with Hmong women and they get to retain shit that their husband owned. If you were about equality, why aren't you fighting for Hmong marriages?
Another failed response. When getting a legal marriage license, they do ask if you had a ceremonial wedding, not whether you had a "traditional American" wedding.
-
Another failed response. When getting a legal marriage license, they do ask if you had a ceremonial wedding, not whether you had a "traditional American" wedding.
You're missing the point. Most Hmong refuse to or choose not to have a legal marriage license. Stop trying to act like you aren't a part of the Hmong community and don't know what's going on. Obviously, I expected that kind of BS rhetoric from someone like you. Gay marriage is now legal in Minnesota. So is the fight done? Because if you were all about inequality, then you would fight for Hmong marriages to be recognized by the state.
-
If gays can revamp marriage to include gays, then Hmong can revamp marriage to include Hmong marriages without the need for a present judge, clerk, or registered clergy person. But this will never happen because Hmong don't have special rights like gays do.
dogmai, do you even know the process of obtaining a marriage license in your state?
-
Most Hmong refuse to or choose not to have a legal marriage license.
That's why they are not "legally" married. :idiot2:
Your arguments fits well with the title of this topic. The harder you try the more it fits the title.
In the words of Joe Pesci, "and I'm done this."
-
That's why they are not "legally" married. :idiot2:
And that's why under the institution of mainstream marriage, Hmong marriages are not defined as such.
So therefore, why should gays get to redefine the institution to fit their selfish desires?
:idiot2: Reading comprehension fail on your part.
-
And that's why under the institution of mainstream marriage, Hmong marriages are not defined as such.
So therefore, why should gays get to redefine the institution to fit their selfish desires?
:idiot2: Reading comprehension fail on your part.
:idiot2: :idiot2:
Another fail.
Like I said, the harder you try the more you fit the title. A "traditional American," hmong, Chinese or any other ceremonial weddings doesn't make you "legally" married. You need a marriage license.
-
Careful now! He/she is going to take your head off! Don't you know that these people, they only support gays? Never would they want to be gay themselves or have family members that become gay. They are only liberal to show how cool they are but when shit hits the fans at home, they don't want it there.
These kinds of people, they say anyone can have tattoos, even full body tattoos, but they wouldn't get it themselves nor would they want their children to get it. These people, they say they don't care if people interracial date and marriage, so long as their own Hmong daughter does not come home with a black guy. These people, they support gays, but they would never want their children to be gay.
It's like "Hey, I wouldn't eat shit myself! But if you want to eat shit, why should we say anything? Personal liberty and freedom of choice OHHH YEAH BABY!!!!! But if my children are going to eat shit, I'm gonna kick their ass!"
THIS....this is called a hypocrite. Plain and simple.
So in essence, before someone can help a gay person out, they have to be gay first?
-
So in essence, before someone can help a gay person out, they have to be gay first?
So in essence, you're putting words in my mouth.
If you support gays, you should be okay with your family becoming gays. But as we all know, this isn't the case. Just like how most people are all in support of interracial dating and marriage but then if their Hmong daughter comes home with a black guy, it would be World War 3.
It's easy to sit behind your PC monitor and claim that you would be 200% okay with your teenage son being gay and your daughter bringing home a black boyfriend. But when it happens, I bet you won't be acting like your talking on this forum.
And this is my point: when shit hit the fans in your house, you'll turn into the person you hate the most. Because I know that deep inside, 99% of your gay and gay marriage supporters are praying to the heavens your children do not become gay. But if you're sooooooooooooo ooooo in support of gays and gay marriage, what's the problem? :2funny: Hence, HYPOCRITES, all of you.
I know one day, 10, 20, 30 years from now, you'll think back at this and remember "Hung Tu Lo" and think "Damn, that fool was right. I DON'T want my children to be gay."
-
So in essence, you're putting words in my mouth.
If you support gays, you should be okay with your family becoming gays. But as we all know, this isn't the case. Just like how most people are all in support of interracial dating and marriage but then if their Hmong daughter comes home with a black guy, it would be World War 3.
It's easy to sit behind your PC monitor and claim that you would be 200% okay with your teenage son being gay and your daughter bringing home a black boyfriend. But when it happens, I bet you won't be acting like your talking on this forum.
And this is my point: when shit hit the fans in your house, you'll turn into the person you hate the most. Because I know that deep inside, 99% of your gay and gay marriage supporters are praying to the heavens your children do not become gay. But if you're sooooooooooooo ooooo in support of gays and gay marriage, what's the problem? :2funny: Hence, HYPOCRITES, all of you.
I know one day, 10, 20, 30 years from now, you'll think back at this and remember "Hung Tu Lo" and think "Damn, that fool was right. I DON'T want my children to be gay."
You are saying that only people who knows gay people can defend their rights?
-
So in essence, you're putting words in my mouth.
If you support gays, you should be okay with your family becoming gays. But as we all know, this isn't the case. Just like how most people are all in support of interracial dating and marriage but then if their Hmong daughter comes home with a black guy, it would be World War 3.
It's easy to sit behind your PC monitor and claim that you would be 200% okay with your teenage son being gay and your daughter bringing home a black boyfriend. But when it happens, I bet you won't be acting like your talking on this forum.
And this is my point: when shit hit the fans in your house, you'll turn into the person you hate the most. Because I know that deep inside, 99% of your gay and gay marriage supporters are praying to the heavens your children do not become gay. But if you're sooooooooooooo ooooo in support of gays and gay marriage, what's the problem? :2funny: Hence, HYPOCRITES, all of you.
I know one day, 10, 20, 30 years from now, you'll think back at this and remember "Hung Tu Lo" and think "Damn, that fool was right. I DON'T want my children to be gay."
you know for a fact? 99%? Really? You think you know everyone more than they know themselves and, of course, in your world, if you think something is right, it must be right, no matter how delusional it is.
Here's a fact that's going to be hard for you to swallow: Your assumptions are really gay. Yet you won't support gay rights. Wouldn't that make you...wrong? Lol.
-
Here's a fact that's going to be hard for you to swallow: Your assumptions are really gay.
:2funny:
I have to ignore people who use the phrase "That's gay."
You are saying that only people who knows gay people can defend their rights?
I'm saying that if you support something, like honestly and with all of your heart, you should have zero problems with it when it comes to your family. In fact, you should welcome and wish for it to come into your family. But if you just support it but you would never want it in your family, well, you're a fukking hypocrite.
If you're in support of interracial dating and marriage, you should encourage your children to date anyone or any race. If you're in support of homosexuality and gay marriage, you should encourage this on your children. Because if you don't, you're doing it for the wrong reasons. You're doing it to be politically correct, to look presentable to others, to be hip, cool, and new-age.
I know it and you know it that at night before you tuck yourself into bed and you look in the mirror and truly think about how you want your children to be, you know that deep in your heart you are going to do your best to give them subtle clues to be heterosexual as best you can. No one ever fukking goes "HOLY SHIT I can't wait until my children are gay! Because we support gays and gay marriage in this family!" That's absurd because deep inside when you're all alone and there's no social pressure to be political correct or be hip and new-age, you know that there's something not fitting about homosexuality.
You know it and I know it that my last sentence bolded caught you slipping. That as you read it, you know that the id, the part of your mind untainted by politics, social commentary, and emotions, awoke and said "YOU DAMN FUKKEN RIGHT, HUNG TU LO!"
-
:2funny:
I have to ignore people who use the phrase "That's gay."
I'm saying that if you support something, like honestly and with all of your heart, you should have zero problems with it when it comes to your family. In fact, you should welcome and wish for it to come into your family. But if you just support it but you would never want it in your family, well, you're a fukking hypocrite.
If you're in support of interracial dating and marriage, you should encourage your children to date anyone or any race. If you're in support of homosexuality and gay marriage, you should encourage this on your children. Because if you don't, you're doing it for the wrong reasons. You're doing it to be politically correct, to look presentable to others, to be hip, cool, and new-age.
I know it and you know it that at night before you tuck yourself into bed and you look in the mirror and truly think about how you want your children to be, you know that deep in your heart you are going to do your best to give them subtle clues to be heterosexual as best you can. No one ever fukking goes "HOLY SHIT I can't wait until my children are gay! Because we support gays and gay marriage in this family!" That's absurd because deep inside when you're all alone and there's no social pressure to be political correct or be hip and new-age, you know that there's something not fitting about homosexuality.
You know it and I know it that my last sentence bolded caught you slipping. That as you read it, you know that the id, the part of your mind untainted by politics, social commentary, and emotions, awoke and said "YOU DAMN FUKKEN RIGHT, HUNG TU LO!"
So a white person in the past doesn't have the right to fight for equal rights for blacks right? The person will never be black. :idiot2:
Like I said, DUMB AND DUMBER.
-
Um...allowing gays to get married and receive civil rights does not mean that you or your children have to be gay. :idiot2:
-
My sexual orientation doesn't change the argument.
I also support equal pay for women.
3. Bulbasaur is a woman.
I am against pedophilia.
4. Bulbasaur is a 12 years old.
I support helping underprivilege d children.
5. Bulbasaur is an underprivilege d child.
I support the welfare program(even though it's flawed).
6. Bulbasaur is on welfare.
I support racial equality.
7. Bulbasaur is a mix of races.
Believe or not, many white people supported racial equality simply because of principle. Empathy.
As for "Separate but Equal," supporters should refer to Brown vs. Board of Education.
Don't have time to go through all the ramblings, but from the first couple of pages, I'm getting :
1. Bulbasaur is gay.
2. BNMe and Miles are advocating "separate but equal".
Bout sums it up?
-
That is only the "effect" of marriage, not the "reason". Marriage like many other rules is about control and maintaining order. Humans are like any other animal and we like to f*ck as much as possible, so in order to ensure we don't all kill each other over mates, marriage was develop to maintain order which in "EFFECT" ensures that property (if that is how you define women) are not infringed upon by other males...not because of procreation ore lineage. You can procreate without marriage. And people were smart enough to know that marriage does not "guarantee" your heirs are yours if your wife likes to sleep around because you were busy f*cking the maid.
Look at the hmongs as an example, why do you think we do not marry within the same clans? its to maintain order and move family members around so clans don't end up killing one another over disputes. Its the same thing as how marriage was developed.
You are over thinking something that is relatively simple to understand and has a rational explanation.
Marriage was instated solely for the purpose of heterosexual arrangements. It was for the good of BOTH men and women because heterosexual relationships yield dire consequences. Now does it guarantee that BOTH will get what they want out of the marriage? No. Nobody said that. You always have the exceptions where one person is abusing their role and rights in their own marriage. This discussion is not about the quality of a heterosexual marriage.
Now if you had asked me whether or not I think homosexuals should have a right to partner up? That is a different type of question. "Yes," EVERYBODY should have a right to have someone in their life. They have a "right" to legitimize that relationship. However, is it a "marriage?" That is something else. Of course, that's because I actually understand what marriage is whereas you don't.
What some of you won't admit to are the legal consequences of gay marriages and how it imposes on many others. You think it's all easy-peasy, two people in love, why not? Sure - if it stays within the secular arena. But what happens if and when a religious institution won't marry a gay couple? Or say a business (like a bakery) refuses to service a gay wedding? Will you cry discrimination then?
I don't over complicate, I look at the REALITY of things whereas you're definitely naive.
-
Umm.. These days the "gay agenda" is pushing their point of view down our Throats. Nothing wrong with equal rights, but don't show me some Gay Pride parade with butt nekkid dudes riding on a Big Dildo and call it Normal.
This is when I stopped supporting their cause because it became very clear they don't just want equal rights. They want to become the dominant lifestyle. Otherwise, why else do they want to educate children as young as kindergartners about homosexuality? Sex education is about reproductive organs, NOT sexual orientation. For every couple on television there isn't an Asian couple represented. Should I cry out discrimination then?
This is also why I stopped supporting the Women's Movement and many Civil Rights Activists.
Trust me, IT AIN'T ABOUT WANTING EQUAL RIGHTS ANYMORE. IT'S ABOUT PEOPLE WITH VERY LOW SELF-ESTEEM WHO WANT TO PLACE BLAME ON SOMEONE AND VENGEANCE.
-
I don't over complicate, I look at the REALITY of things whereas you're definitely naive.
Clearly you don't understand the definition of complexity, given your long winded statement on marriage.
Let me breakdown our arguments
Me: Marriage = a form of control
You: Marriage = only for heterosexuals for the purpose of ensuring heirs and reproduction, blah blah blah...think about all the repercussions of redefining marriage blah blah blah...
Listen yourself...you can't even articulate your position well, without going into all the fine details about what YOUR definition of marriage is. I may be naïve, but at least I can see when I’m contradicting my own position.
-
Clearly you don't understand the definition of complexity, given your long winded statement on marriage.
Let me breakdown our arguments
Me: Marriage = a form of control
You: Marriage = only for heterosexuals for the purpose of ensuring heirs and reproduction, blah blah blah...think about all the repercussions of redefining marriage blah blah blah...
Listen yourself...you can't even articulate your position well, without going into all the fine details about what YOUR definition of marriage is. I may be naïve, but at least I can see when I’m contradicting my own position.
A form of control over what? Certainly homosexual unions aren't yielding consequences that may gravely affect society or even themselves that they need to enter into a marriage agreement?
The lamest argument for gay marriage is "so they can fit in". ::)
I give "fine" details of marriage because you oversimplify it. Obviously, you DON'T KNOW WHAT MARRIAGE IS.
-
A form of control over what? Certainly homosexual unions aren't yielding consequences that may gravely affect society or even themselves that they need to enter into a marriage agreement?
The lamest argument for gay marriage is "so they can fit in". ::)
I give "fine" details of marriage because you oversimplify it. Obviously, you DON'T KNOW WHAT MARRIAGE IS.
Lol...social control...that s basically what marriage is, across all countries and all cultures, it exist for one singular purpose...and that is control.
Gays don't care if you call their union a marriage or not, they just want the rights afforded to them as what a "marriage" would recieve...most of them aren't religious people so they don't care about the word "marriage"...it only becomes a problem when the government uses the word "marriage" to create laws.
Like I say, keep it simple. This would all be solved if the government stayed away from religious institutions.
-
Lol...social control...that s basically what marriage is, across all countries and all cultures, it exist for one singular purpose...and that is control.
Gays don't care if you call their union a marriage or not, they just want the rights afforded to them as what a "marriage" would recieve...most of them aren't religious people so they don't care about the word "marriage"...it only becomes a problem when the government uses the word "marriage" to create laws.
Like I say, keep it simple. This would all be solved if the government stayed away from religious institutions.
If only that were true then there would be none of this. :2funny: But you are WRONG. Gays are trying to redefine "marriage" to include their unions so they can receive the same benefits. However, they shouldn't have to mimic heterosexual marriages to get them is what I've been saying all along but it's actually YOU and GAY SUPPORTERS that DON'T GET IT. You WANT TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. :idiot2:
And I have always stated that the government has no business in a traditionally, religious institution BUT I also gave examples of how and why the government was compelled to get involved. The ABSURDITY of it all is that YOU and THOSE THINKING LIKE YOU are under the impression that marriage was created to INTENTIONALLY exclude homosexuals. :2funny: That's why you're trying to turn it into an Equal Rights issue when it isn't. If it is an EQUAL RIGHTS issue then it's actually DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NON-MARRIED PEOPLE. ::)
-
If only that were true then there would be none of this. :2funny: But you are WRONG. Gays are trying to redefine "marriage" to include their unions so they can receive the same benefits. However, they shouldn't have to mimic heterosexual marriages to get them is what I've been saying all along but it's actually YOU and GAY SUPPORTERS that DON'T GET IT. You WANT TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. :idiot2:
And I have always stated that the government has no business in a traditionally, religious institution BUT I also gave examples of how and why the government was compelled to get involved. The ABSURDITY of it all is that YOU and THOSE THINKING LIKE YOU are under the impression that marriage was created to INTENTIONALLY exclude homosexuals. :2funny: That's why you're trying to turn it into an Equal Rights issue when it isn't. If it is an EQUAL RIGHTS issue then it's actually DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NON-MARRIED PEOPLE. ::)
Ughh...I get a headache repeating myself to people like. Gays SIMPLY want the same rights as their neighbors. If the government defines these rights (which they do) under the umbrella of marriage (a religious institution), then of course the government needs to redefine it to encompass ALL, especially since many rights under law are constructed around marriage. (read up on why "Judicial Review" exist)
A simple solution would be to remove anything that references marriage and replace it with "civil unions" basically an agreement amongst consenting adults to form a union in which they transfer certain powers to others (be it tax, legal, property etc...).
But NOOO...it has to be called "marriage" and because christian religion (I'm not hating on christianity, just that our government chose one singular definition of marriage) defines it as between ONE man and ONE woman (FYI, if you've forgotton your hmong roots, its defined as ONE man and ONE OR MORE wives), rights are only extended to people who fit this equation.
It perplexes me how many people like you have the power to vote, yet they understand almost nothing about the founding princple of our laws.
Its quite sad...and scary.
-
what it comes down to is...
1. Should a marriage have a husband and a wife or a husband and a husband/ wife and wife. Can you still call that marriage?
2. If you going to call it husband and wife, then is it a requirement that the wife be female and husband be male or are you going to redefine those terms to be unisex?
-
Ughh...I get a headache repeating myself to people like. Gays SIMPLY want the same rights as their neighbors. If the government defines these rights (which they do) under the umbrella of marriage (a religious institution), then of course the government needs to redefine it to encompass ALL, especially since many rights under law are constructed around marriage. (read up on why "Judicial Review" exist)
A simple solution would be to remove anything that references marriage and replace it with "civil unions" basically an agreement amongst consenting adults to form a union in which they transfer certain powers to others (be it tax, legal, property etc...).
But NOOO...it has to be called "marriage" and because christian religion (I'm not hating on christianity, just that our government chose one singular definition of marriage) defines it as between ONE man and ONE woman (FYI, if you've forgotton your hmong roots, its defined as ONE man and ONE OR MORE wives), rights are only extended to people who fit this equation.
It perplexes me how many people like you have the power to vote, yet they understand almost nothing about the founding princple of our laws.
Its quite sad...and scary.
I've already explained why the government was compelled to get involved in making laws for "marriage". I've actually said that it would've been better for the government to stay out of it. However, obviously, there was a great need since the government saw "marriage" as a pillar in our communities.
Marriage does NOT need to be redefined. Civil unions should be revised to include more benefits for relationship arrangements that fall outside of marriage. But homosexuals DON'T want that because they're vindictive and want to encroach upon a territory which they've felt excluded from. It's like women who want to join the Men's Elk Lodge Club when all they really have to do is start their own Women's Elk Lodge Club. :idiot2:
-
I've already explained why the government was compelled to get involved in making laws for "marriage". I've actually said that it would've been better for the government to stay out of it. However, obviously, there was a great need since the government saw "marriage" as a pillar in our communities.
Marriage does NOT need to be redefined. Civil unions should be revised to include more benefits for relationship arrangements that fall outside of marriage. But homosexuals DON'T want that because they're vindictive and want to encroach upon a territory which they've felt excluded from. It's like women who want to join the Men's Elk Lodge Club when all they really have to do is start their own Women's Elk Lodge Club. :idiot2:
I highly doubt marriage is the "pillar" of our community given the ability exit gracefully (or not) via a divorce.
You can define marriage which ever way you want, if your religion or culture defines it as one man, one woman, than so be it. NO ONE is out to redefine the "christian" definition of marriage, but when the government creates laws that are bias off the views of one group, that is where we have a problem. Look around you, 17 states (includuing DC) now recognize same sex marriage with other states recognizing them so long as they are performed in those states, DOMA is unconstitution al...see what happens when you build your laws around the disposition of one group and expect everybody to follow it?
I swear of all the PHers in here, was I the only one who took highschool government classes? I mean I took the AP version, but the regular classes couldn't have been that bad?
-
Why do people always make this a religious debate. The truth is it is about money. GLBT want tax breaks. Uncle Sam wants tax revenue. Obviously, there is a conflict between GLBT and Uncle Sam as they are on opposing side. GLBT wants to overhaul with some unclear definition called civil union. Uncle Sam is afraid civil union will be taken advantage. Uncle Sam can expect that marriage as an institution will support Uncle Sam in legal battle that certain marriages do not fit the construct of society as defined by traditions and so anyone trying to cheat Uncle Sam, you can't. Since Uncle Sam is faced with unknown consequences with no benefit, Uncle Sam correct decision is to do nothing. This is pure economics and decision science.
I disagree with your statement. Joint couples can end up paying more taxes on average than singles once their AGI hits a certain threshold compared to filing single or seperately (known as the "marriage penalty"), so although it is a valid argument, it doesn't hold much weight compared to other points as Uncle Sam would win out versus the gay couples.
This isn't a debate about economics, its a debate about equal rights. Religion is only involved because the government has involved itself with it by using marriage (a religious institution) to create its laws.
I know a lot of gay couples (since I live and work in SF now) and never have any of them talked about tax being a factor, they simply want to have the other 1000 legal rights that come with what a marriage has.
-
Oh please. Gay people have been around for longer than you and I. They weren't going broke because of some tax penalty much like some people who choose to be single and/or childless or never married their whole life. What a crock!
How many gay people you know are being evicted out of cock-roach/mice infested, unkempt, broken down, high crime, gangsters, and drug neighborhoods, can't make the rent, can't find baby's daddy? The majority of gay people are from educated, middle-class, wealthy, privileged background! Please don't give me shit about how gay people are going broke because of the tax system. That's a slap in the face to real poor folks (who already get most of their taxes back anyway!?!?!?!?!! :2funny: :idiot2:). It's already enough shit you people compare the plight of gays with African-American slave history and Civil Rights movement. Stop before my ears bleed.
-
Sure those couples may, but they are in the negligible 1%, the majority they want the economic advantage that comes with marriage...the tax breaks, the health benefits, the access to social security, the access to retirement and etc... It's ECONOMICS...An ybody says it's about equality as if it's some ideal...is misunderstandi ng because equality is about economics...ec onomic classes respect economic classes...and they look down on other classes...if a wealthy black-looking Czar came to America during the slavery era, they would respect him because he's no black slave, he's the Czar...he has wealth and power.
I'm saying don't make this into a religious debate about how God didn't make Adam and Steve...nobody cares about that old argument...wha t Adam and Steve wants is retirement access.
8v10, I think you are trying to rationalize this as a behavior that is driven by motitivation other than the need/want for equal rights. I doubt you know many gay couples (if any) and if you listen to their stories, you'll understand that they simply want to be treated equal. Most of them will tell you that they want the right to take medical leave to care for a love one (like their partners) or be able to make decisions at their deathbeds, not once has anybody (not sure where you got the 1% but I'm assuming thats made up) have told me that they are doing this simply for money?
I don't agree with your statement above and feel that is quite an unfair assumption to make. But if what you said was true, most gays would simply marry a person of the opposite sex to get all the tax benefit while doing their "gay" thing on the side), but none of that is happening, because ECONOMICS is not the objective. Gays aren't out to cheat the government, in fact on average they make more money than most middle income Americans. They don't need money, because they are well off already.
-
Oh and I always loved hearing about the Adam and Steve story in church. I use to laugh about it until I started learning about biology in school. One day I heard the story and asked the sunday school teacher, if God made Eve out of Adam without the introduction of new genetics, wouldn't Eve technically be Steve since she would just be a clone of Adam?
The sunday school teacher was a bit baffled, but told me that I should not ask those type of questions and simply accept what she says. I did...until now.
-
Oh please. Gay people have been around for longer than you and I. They weren't going broke because of some tax penalty much like some people who choose to be single and/or childless or never married their whole life. What a crock!
How many gay people you know are being evicted out of cock-roach/mice infested, unkempt, broken down, high crime, gangsters, and drug neighborhoods, can't make the rent, can't find baby's daddy? The majority of gay people are from educated, middle-class, wealthy, privileged background! Please don't give me shit about how gay people are going broke because of the tax system. That's a slap in the face to real poor folks (who already get most of their taxes back anyway!?!?!?!?!! :2funny: :idiot2:). It's already enough shit you people compare the plight of gays with African-American slave history and Civil Rights movement. Stop before my ears bleed.
Uhhhh....okay. ...I'm not sure if you are refuting 8v10 with the first part of your response about economics or whether you are refuting my positon with the last part? but whatever....ok ay, sure....
-
Medical decisions for the incapacitated. It's not all about economics. You wrong...as usual.
In many states, the spouse has the first right to make medical decisions for incapacitated (for adults). Gay couples are not afforded this right because their union is not recognized by the state. You can argue that they can make a legal advance directive, but that simply shows the inequality. Jim Crow Laws are illegal.
You wrote, "Do I want them to have same benefits? Why not. Should marriage be changed? No." Hyprocisy? Yes.
BTW, you are being insensitive. Even if what you say is true, which it is not, it is insensitive.
EKM, I'm not being insensitive. I acknowledge their lifestyle as a valid lifestyle in a free society. I love my family members who are gay just the same before I knew and I would never ever think they are invalid. Having gay family member has really soften my heart to be honest and really given me new perspective. Do I want them to have same benefits? Why not. Should marriage be changed? No. At the end of the day it still economics and I don't care what anybody say because equality is measured in dollars in plenty of reports I've read. Until it's not measured in dollar or a proxy of dollars (education), then I'll stop saying so.
To think about...what facet of life is not measured in dollar or a proxy of it? I don't know...maybe love? Even intelligence is measured in access to knowledge which requires access to resource (a proxy to dollars hence economics).
-
Medical decisions for the incapacitated. It's not all about economics. You wrong...as usual.
In many states, the spouse has the first right to make medical decisions for incapacitated (for adults). Gay couples are not afforded this right because their union is not recognized by the state. You can argue that they can make a legal advance directive, but that simply shows the inequality. Jim Crow Laws are illegal.
You wrote, "Do I want them to have same benefits? Why not. Should marriage be changed? No." Hyprocisy? Yes.
BTW, you are being insensitive. Even if what you say is true, which it is not, it is insensitive.
Even siblings don't get the rights under FLCA so chill out. ::) Marriage excludes ANYBODY who isn't married and "yes" this includes couples who only cohabitate.
Marriage doesn't need to be redefined. Everybody else seems to understand and what they do is get Power of Attorney. There are different ones. Google it up. You're good at reading so I'm sure it won't be difficult for you to understand. However, you somehow can't or don't want to understand "marriage". :idiot2:
-
You wrote, "You're good at reading so I'm sure it won't be difficult for you to understand." Unfortunately, you are not good at reading, and it is difficult for you to understand. Tell me again, was it 2/3 or 3/5? If you can't get the facts correct, what makes you think that your views are correct? :idiot2:
Even siblings don't get the rights under FLCA so chill out. ::) Marriage excludes ANYBODY who isn't married and "yes" this includes couples who only cohabitate.
Marriage doesn't need to be redefined. Everybody else seems to understand and what they do is get Power of Attorney. There are different ones. Google it up. You're good at reading so I'm sure it won't be difficult for you to understand. However, you somehow can't or don't want to understand "marriage". :idiot2:
-
For those who keep whining that this isn't about civil rights....See Arizona.
-
Critical thinking really does matter.
You wrote, "Inequality is not Jim Crow." Let's stop here. Are you saying that Jim Crow laws didn't create inequality? :2funny: :2funny: :2funny:
This is about as absurd as you claiming that 17th century people thought the world was flat. Add one more to the dumb argument.... :2funny:
Critical thinking matters when you dissect complex issue.
Inequality is not Jim Crow. Inequality is not discrimination . There is no such thing as equality...it's like infinity. It's a concept that is real in our mind, but never achievable.
Reason why reform has not been made in this because it is economics. There is no economic advantage for Uncle Sam to spend billions for a small group of people when there are alternatives to resolve the same issue. They have bigger things to deal with like immigration reform.
-
In the word's of Uganda's President....
THEY'RE DISGUSTING!
It's a choice, and if they learned it, they can unlearn it...
Uganda's scientists have proven with science that gays are not inborn genetically gay.
In other recent news the Egyptian Army has found a cure for AIDs. 8)
-
For those who keep whining that this isn't about civil rights....See Arizona.
You're not qualified to discuss Arizona because you don't even understand the marriage process. You think having your marriage officiated by a monkey means it's legit and legally binding by the state. :idiot2:
Most of the time, you clearly DON'T UNDERSTAND the argument and underlying causes.
I highly doubt marriage is the "pillar" of our community given the ability exit gracefully (or not) via a divorce.
You can define marriage which ever way you want, if your religion or culture defines it as one man, one woman, than so be it. NO ONE is out to redefine the "christian" definition of marriage, but when the government creates laws that are bias off the views of one group, that is where we have a problem. Look around you, 17 states (includuing DC) now recognize same sex marriage with other states recognizing them so long as they are performed in those states, DOMA is unconstitution al...see what happens when you build your laws around the disposition of one group and expect everybody to follow it?
I swear of all the PHers in here, was I the only one who took highschool government classes? I mean I took the AP version, but the regular classes couldn't have been that bad?
Newsflash, it's not a Christian religious issue at all. The Hmong define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
And btw, marriage is a "pillar" of many societies and has been for centuries. That's why the government always has a way of sticking its nose into the business of marriage because it recognizes how it affects society. And people like you ARE OUT TO REDEFINE THE DEFINITION which is the REAL REASON why there's all this controversy.
-
And, you aren't qualified because you think 2/3 equals 3/5. :2funny:
I'll concede that your outrageous argument is correct, if you can explain this 2/3 Compromise you wrote about earlier.
If you can't get your facts right, what makes you believe that your conclusions are correct?
You're not qualified to discuss Arizona because you don't even understand the marriage process. You think having your marriage officiated by a monkey means it's legit and legally binding by the state. :idiot2:
Most of the time, you clearly DON'T UNDERSTAND the argument and underlying causes.
Newsflash, it's not a Christian religious issue at all. The Hmong define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
And btw, marriage is a "pillar" of many societies and has been for centuries. That's why the government always has a way of sticking its nose into the business of marriage because it recognizes how it affects society. And people like you ARE OUT TO REDEFINE THE DEFINITION which is the REAL REASON why there's all this controversy.
-
How about let's just return to common sense.
I don't know of any wildlife conservation organization that keeps two males for the purpose of saving an endangered species. Let me know when the last two female polar bears on earth can propagate their species and prevent total extinction.
Let's put it this way. If there ever comes a day when earth is going to be annihilated by an asteroid and human beings have one capsule to lodge into outer space to save our species, nobody is going to send two males or two females in that capsule. They are going to send one male and one female.
-
Newsflash, it's not a Christian religious issue at all. The Hmong define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
And btw, marriage is a "pillar" of many societies and has been for centuries. That's why the government always has a way of sticking its nose into the business of marriage because it recognizes how it affects society. And people like you ARE OUT TO REDEFINE THE DEFINITION which is the REAL REASON why there's all this controversy.
Are you even Hmong? Its defined as a union between one man and MULTIPLE women....(i.e. polygamy)... ::) the majority of hmongs (westernized) may not practice it, but its still recognized...l ook at General Vang Pao and the many wives he had.
-
Are you even Hmong? Its defined as a union between one man and MULTIPLE women....(i.e. polygamy)... ::) the majority of hmongs (westernized) may not practice it, but its still recognized...l ook at General Vang Pao and the many wives he had.
Now let's look at why married men are ordered to marry their mistress(es) in our culture.
MARRIAGE - the consummation of a man and a woman. Again, I shouldn't have to explain to you basic biology. The result of that consummation may or may not result in a baby 9 months later, however, if heterosexual partners aren't going to give up their physical actions, a child resulting from that DESERVES A MOTHER AND FATHER.
The Hmong do not encourage polygamy unless under certain circumstances. But they do recognize that a married man who can't control his sexual desires and remain monogamous to his wife ought to marry his mistress(es) for the reasons I have already stated above.
-
Seriously guys? This is your answer? This is how you rationalize polygamy in our culture simply by calling the second wives/subsequent ones mistresses? I'm sorry, but that is purely your own opinions. They are not mistresses, they are treated like wives, they recieve traditionaly marriages/doweries like wives. The reasons may vary as to why some men want more than one wives, but the fact of the matter is that is accepted as part of our culture. Westernized hmongs many not agree with this practice anymore, but it doesn't invalidate it.
-
The Hmong do not encourage polygamy unless under certain circumstances.
Dude, stop contradicting yourself....ei ther it is or it isn't and in this case, you stated it yourself...IT IS.
-
Let's add this to the list.....
http://www.pebhmong.com/forum/index.php/topic,350535.new.html#new (http://www.pebhmong.com/forum/index.php/topic,350535.new.html#new)
:2funny:
-
How about let's just return to common sense.
I don't know of any wildlife conservation organization that keeps two males for the purpose of saving an endangered species. Let me know when the last two female polar bears on earth can propagate their species and prevent total extinction.
Let's put it this way. If there ever comes a day when earth is going to be annihilated by an asteroid and human beings have one capsule to lodge into outer space to save our species, nobody is going to send two males or two females in that capsule. They are going to send one male and one female.
Although this may be true, it is irrelevant. The male and female doesn't have to be married. In which this will draw in new arguments.
-
So, here is one more to add to the dumb anti-gay arguments. :2funny:
"I'm so tired of trying to teach you logic. You talk about MP for premise/conclusion trying to make you sound good. I've only written about premise/conclusion on this website for the past several years so you are recalling what I taught you. Now, I've also written on set theory as well. I recall ripping someone just like you up on set theory because they didn't understand the basic operation of it. So here I go again teaching my brothers and sisters on PH set theory. I'm cool with that. I want you all to be well verse so when you are in a management meeting and they talk about permutation and combination you actually know what it means...versus, going huh? Anyways, that's another topic.
Let A = the set of all man on Earth living today.
Let B = the set of all black man on Earth living today.
By definition, A is the superset of B. Meaning the set of B exists in A as a subset. So when we think about supernatural vs. natural, it's the same thing. Supernatural includes natural because supernatural is the superset of natural. Hence, God can move from this infinite space (if there is such a thing) to our 4D space.
This is so basic. I don't understand why you can't comprehend this. It's like you have a mindblock because you are so into winning a silly debate online versus growing in proper knowledge. Winning and losing on PH is nonsense. You don't even get a cookie for it. I'm not sure why you are so bent on it.
Here's the litmus test if you think what you propose natural. Let's say you are right that being homosexual is natural and that it is supported by evolution. IF all man an woman on earth stops coupling with the opposite sex, in at most 4 generations, humanity will be extinct. That to me speaks more volume than what you all propose. For being so evolutionist and hell bent on proving it, some of you don't even live by the standards. In fact, I've concluded that people in this segment of society seeks arguments that supports their lifestyle.
I hate rules and God made rules he must be bad...Let me find something to suggest...OH there is evolution.
I want to be non-heterosexual and I think it is right so let me find the answer...it's natural and people like you completely ignore the prior rules for the sake of justifying your own existence.
Fawking sad."
-
Dude, stop contradicting yourself....ei ther it is or it isn't and in this case, you stated it yourself...IT IS.
What are you talking about? Polygamy is damage control when a married man can't keep his penis between his legs. In some cases, polygamy benefits the woman especially if she's an older widow with children. I highly suggest you learn the Hmong culture and how things came to be due to their environmental circumstances before voicing your ignorant western perceptions.
Although this may be true, it is irrelevant. The male and female doesn't have to be married. In which this will draw in new arguments.
No, men and women don't have to be married to conceive a baby, which is EXACTLY why the Marriage Institution came into place. It is the only social institution that legally binds a man to a woman so that a child is expected to be raised by BOTH its parents. This benefits the society because then society doesn't have to raise that baby.
Perhaps some of you are unfamiliar with the downfall in Black communities where too many babies are not being raised in a two-parent household because baby momma is not married to baby daddy. We all know the outcome of such babies.
-
.
No, men and women don't have to be married to conceive a baby, which is EXACTLY why the Marriage Institution came into place. It is the only social institution that legally binds a man to a woman so that a child is expected to be raised by BOTH its parents. This benefits the society because then society doesn't have to raise that baby.
Perhaps some of you are unfamiliar with the downfall in Black communities where too many babies are not being raised in a two-parent household because baby momma is not married to baby daddy. We all know the outcome of such babies.
So it all comes back down to only those who have children or capable of having children. That means sterile people can't get marry.
-
So it all comes back down to only those who have children or capable of having children. That means sterile people can't get marry.
Sterile people getting married still benefits society. Since marriage is a social contract where the parties involved enter a monogamous relationship, there is expectation that neither will become destructive to other marriages by having adulterous relationships - especially if the other marriages do have children. Now I know you're already going to say BUT some married people cheat anyways. Yes, some married people do but that doesn't mean the expectations and laws of marriage shouldn't exist. It's like saying we should do away with laws that state stealing is a criminal offense because people are bound to steal anyways. ::)
Also, heterosexuals, even if sterile, provide the ideal environment to raise children even if through adoption or foster care. This isn't to say that homosexuals aren't good parents. It's saying that heterosexual couples are the ideal. Example: it's the ideal that a black kid is raised by a black couple rather than a white couple. We know that this is an ideal match though circumstances might otherwise warrant alternatives.
******************************
On another note, the title of this thread is nonsense. To be ANTI-GAY is to cause direct and intentional harm to gays, which none of the arguments have. We are not talking about the Matthew Shepherd case and violent acts where gays are being lynched in the public square. Gays enjoy the same freedom as we do and in fact, many have excelled further than the likes of you and me!
Suze Orman, Rosie O'Donnell, and Ellen Degeneres do not need your sympathy as they are capable lesbians that have reached levels of success you and I will never see in our lifetime. So for any gays and supporters to make outlandish claims that we live like it's the 1800s is ludicrous. If that was true, these lesbians wouldn't have Emmy-award winning shows that rake in billions of dollars. In fact, for some of them it is their "gayness" that has catapulted their careers. Gays have enjoyed freedom and the freedom to marry and live with whomever they want for years before any of this disastrous political b.s. To say their movement is an echo of the Black Civil Movement is offensive.
-
Gays have enjoyed freedom and the freedom to marry and live with whomever they want for years
There you go.
-
8v10,
I know that a mistress is not legal, because a mistress is NOT a wife. She is not recognized as one nor does she go through the formal processes of becoming one. Mistress exist for one sole purpose, which is to provide pleasure for the man she is serving. She is not there to provide him with children or protect his lineage (although with poor planning kids eventually happen unexpectedly). In our culture, the other wives are NOT mistress because they provide much more than just pleasure. They are there to help provide for the family along with giving the husband more children…essentially they serve the purpose of a WIFE. Thus they are given titles of first, second, third. Of the hmong men who I know that have more than one wife (which is very few), they do not consider their other wives as mistresses nor does anybody within the community I grew up in. They were invited to every function and treated like a wife.
Polygamy is a very simple concept to understand, and there is no need to complicate it. Its sole purpose is reproduction. Whether it’s to ensure a lineage survives (since the probably of children surviving to adulthood back in those days were very low and sometimes producing male offsprings could be a challenge), tend to farmland, or whatever you want, it’s simply exist to create a larger family and ensure lineage.
But that’s not to say that today’s current hmong men (especially the westernized ones who visit Laos/Thailand/other hmong inhabited countries) take wives whom serve them as mistresses. But it’s simply a way of having his cake and getting to eat it without losing face to the hmong community.
Again, this still doesn’t invalidate polygamy as a definition to marriage in the hmong community.
-
So because of this, you want to deny gays equal rights?....Refer back to the title of the thread. :2funny:
When push come to shove, I know what I say is the truth. Why? My grandfather married to wives. My FiL married two wives. Let me tell the community, they both did not bring both wives over legitimately and the other wife was heartbroken she had to be left out in the cold. So while you talk that there existed such a system, we are in America now and that system is dead. Every time a horn-dog Hmong old man goes to Laos and marries a young girl home, he starts by divorcing his first wife legally. Do tell me that system that you keep trying to talk about? I don't see it. I live and breath this so-call 2nd wives bullshit you keep telling me but the reality is the MAN never confesses he has TWO wives. He has 1 wife and 1 girlfriend (aka mistress). That's the damn truth. So while you sugarcoat it, I don't. Let me restate: THERE EXISTS NO POLYGAMY IN HMONG CULTURE. Until the community confesses and go to jail for each offense then I'll believe it, but no Hmong Man is man enough to go to jail for his love of two women. :2funny: :2funny: :2funny:
I suppose if you name me one, I might start believing because when I peer into my other grandmother and other MiL eyes, there are times I can pierce through their eyes and gaze into their soul and there's a deep scar and sadness because they know it's not real because the papers are not there. Don't matter what he says because he may profess to his inside community she's real but outwardly to the world that matters, he won't, and he's afraid to proclaim it. So do tell me what polygamy is in Hmong culture? It's dead.
In a polygamy society, the husbands brings a new wife and the eldest wife accepts, care for this new wife and etc... Together, the two wives and the husband makes a new life together, live together, sleeps in the same bed together. You don't see shit like that in modern Hmong culture as a common theme. Heck, I've only seen this ONCE and I can assure you that this man too did not proclaim the 2nd wife as a wife...it too was girlfriend...b ut unlike the most, it was a loving relationship. Most so call polygamy is toleration of each other because of lost of face...there is no support. In the end, the husband ends up all jacked up because he made all the wrong moves. If he does this shit later in his life, he alienates his children and they leave him hanging. I just came home from a great uncle funeral, and he did some stupid shit...divorce 1st wife, marries 2nd wife, whoops...less than 2 years later he dies. If I was his kid, I'll say good riddance dip shit because I'm very mean to those who violate people I love such as my mother. I told my dad straight up that if I was in their shoe (the kids), I will not be funding a funeral unless my mother commands me to. Nobody breaks my family up and does not make penance for it...even my father...Then I also told my father, I'm 10x more mean than he is. ;D
-
And again....
So because of this, you want to deny gays equal rights?....Refer back to the title of the thread. :2funny:
Ah yes...polygamy was a way for EKM to establish some grounds for why marriage should be redefined. I had to remind him that polygamy does not exists in Hmong society...it's a load of crap...as I've yet to hear about a Hmong guy go to jail confessing he is a polygamist. Until a Hmong polygamist utter such strong opinion openly in court then it is suffice to say polygamy does not exists. Talk is cheap until you place your hand on the Bible and state it to a judge and due time for it...anyone know of a hmong polygamist?
-
Who's denying you that? Did someone say that your church can't hold those beliefs? :2funny:
Deny them of rights? How about deny me of my right to a proper marriage definition stood by historical time.
-
So, who is denying you marriage? Are you making stuff up again? You are just adding to the title of this thread. :2funny:
17th century scholars still didn't believe the Earth was flat.
certain group is going to make a run for it but it will never happen...so while you cry foul, I suggest you work on the legislative part to add and civil union after marriage. Nobody is denying you equality too...you just too lazy to work for it.
-
Ah yes...polygamy was a way for EKM to establish some grounds for why marriage should be redefined. I had to remind him that polygamy does not exists in Hmong society...it's a load of crap...as I've yet to hear about a Hmong guy go to jail confessing he is a polygamist. Until a Hmong polygamist utter such strong opinion openly in court then it is suffice to say polygamy does not exists. Talk is cheap until you place your hand on the Bible and state it to a judge and due time for it...anyone know of a hmong polygamist?
I'll explain why your reasoning here is flawed. Just because someone doesn't admit to something, doesn't mean that they never did it. A murderer still committed murder even if he/she doesn't admit to it. A rapist committed rape even though he/she doesn't admit to it.
I'll use a belief you've mentioned before. Since you believe that everyone is born sinned, even if you don't admit it, you're still a sinner.
-
So while you talk that there existed such a system, we are in America now and that system is dead.
Just because it is dead HERE in the USA, doesn't invalidate the fact that polygamy was/is a practice accepted by hmong people (already confirmed by you via your knowledge of your grandfather/FiL's experience). True that the vast majority of "westernized" hmongs do not practice it NOW and may even look down upon it, but it doesn't invalidate polygamy as part of the hmong's definition of marriage.
Again, my SIMPLE point here is that the definition of marriage is defined differently by other cultures and is not always a ONE man ONE woman policy, so why should certain people have to follow it. Polygamy existed way before the idea of ONE man ONE woman was introduced by doctrines like religion or law.
Again, you're trying to rationalize something that doesn't need to be.
-
My point is that the definition of marriage varies by groups, both culturally and religiously. The US definition of marriage was highly influence by judeo-christian religion from Europe. Before the colonization of America, the first Americans practiced polygamy openly here. To force them to follow the christian definition of marriage amounts to violating their religious beliefs just as how other "religious" Americans find that gay marriage violates their religious beliefs.
The laws here are designed to apply to all, so its not fair for those who do not follow the Christian faith to have to put up with Christian ideologies becoming law, but fortunately due to the robustness of our legal system, we are able to correct such mistakes (i.e. ignorance).
-
Let's not forget Hmong culture OKs rape too... Again, the norm here is America.
amongst many other things...but that is still our culture.
-
I'll say this again, stop changing the definition.
I'm just going to summarize this simply for you. The fight for marriage equality is NOT to change the "religious" definition of marriage, its a fight to change the "legal" definition of it.
If Governments were smart, they would remove all references to marriage and replace it with Civil Unions, this way if you want to call your civil union a marriage, no one could care less.
-
Your murder example is so flawed.
Let's review this. Here's what I wrote.
I'll explain why your reasoning here is flawed. Just because someone doesn't admit to something, doesn't mean that they never did it. A murderer still committed murder even if he/she doesn't admit to it. A rapist committed rape even though he/she doesn't admit to it.
I'll use a belief you've mentioned before. Since you believe that everyone is born sinned, even if you don't admit it, you're still a sinner.
And you wrote earlier.
Let me restate: THERE EXISTS NO POLYGAMY IN HMONG CULTURE. Until the community confesses and go to jail for each offense then I'll believe it, but no Hmong Man is man enough to go to jail for his love of two women.
I'll say it again, just because someone didn't admit to doing something, doesn't mean that they never did it.
-
That's not good enough for him. He simply dislike gays, and he feels the need to segregate them. He is not looking for a solution. Re-read all his posts on the subject. He is not looking for a solution. He is looking to justify himself. He can't even admit that it is an issue. He can't even recognize that the current situation isn't fair to every citizen. He is so deluded by his religious beliefs, that he has convinced himself that 17th century scholars thought the Earth was flat. He has convinced himself that this is not about equal rights. Or look at his latest argument. He is trying to redefine polygamy. So it's okay to redefine polygamy, but not marriage? Even hypocrisy won't change his mind.
I'm just going to summarize this simply for you. The fight for marriage equality is NOT to change the "religious" definition of marriage, its a fight to change the "legal" definition of it.
If Governments were smart, they would remove all references to marriage and replace it with Civil Unions, this way if you want to call your civil union a marriage, no one could care less.
-
So why do you care so much about it? HYPOCRISY! :2funny:
Like I said, 8v10un30sun doesn't care about a solution. There is no point in trying to reason with him.
Don't care so much about important people around you think about you. One day you will be old and your life is almost gone and then and there will you say, why did I care what they think? Just live your life like you want to. It's OK to be gay. Just don't try to change the marriage definition to fit your needs and we can be best buds as usual. ;)
-
don't know why the definition of marriage is bothering some people? does it change how you live your life if the definition is changed? That's the question. If I change the definition of eating to include oral sex, is v8 going to jump around and say we can't do that?
-
You are still wrong...Marria ge requires agreement of two people. If the man does not agree, don't matter what the woman wants...or vice versa. In your murder case, there has to be a body, and official document. if no body, no murder...they call those missing people. You need to understand how our government work. if you don't this is not going anywhere fast.
All you said earlier was, you needed someone to admit to polygamy. Looks like now you're trying to cover up your mistake. Don't tell me bulbasur is right about you.
-
All you said earlier was, you needed someone to admit to polygamy. Looks like now you're trying to cover up your mistake. Don't tell me bulbasur is right about you.
It's OK. When Adam and Eve's children married one another, that was too called marriage.
-
Again, the norm here is America.
if that is your logic and you claim to know so much about it (which is funny case your post says otherwise) then you would know that the norm in America now is that gays are okay to marry O0
-
You just describe a subversion game strategy. Isn't that what a lot of group have been saying. It's not about marriage, it's about subverting the American culture by a minority group.
Like I said earlier, our system is design to correct ignorance. American culture has never been one to remain static.
-
That's not good enough for him. He simply dislike gays, and he feels the need to segregate them. He is not looking for a solution. Re-read all his posts on the subject. He is not looking for a solution. He is looking to justify himself. He can't even admit that it is an issue. He can't even recognize that the current situation isn't fair to every citizen. He is so deluded by his religious beliefs, that he has convinced himself that 17th century scholars thought the Earth was flat. He has convinced himself that this is not about equal rights. Or look at his latest argument. He is trying to redefine polygamy. So it's okay to redefine polygamy, but not marriage? Even hypocrisy won't change his mind.
Its a debate, and all views should not be discounted, until reasonably refuted.
-
Sometimes I wonder why I put my two cents into these trolling threads created by the so called "Liberals" with a chip on their shoulder. I'm writing to say, go ahead...live your life as you please...we live in America, you can do this...I'm not judging you...I will drink beer, eat burgers and watch the NCAA tournament with you and we can be merry...You don't have coodies...I don't have coodies...we are all people...just don't try to do more than that...you know...You want equality...I want you to have "equality" too (although I do not believe such exists in reality)...I want you to have the same legal rights too...I'm fine with that...just don't do it by imposing your definition on me when there is civil union already...wher e marriage is at, you should get the lawyers to add "and civil unions too."
That's it folks...that's my two cents. All this discussion on technicality and definition doesn't help your cause and only excite more misunderstandi ng...You know what you need to do, just do it.
I'm done with these thread by the folks with a chip on their shoulder. Have a great day.
u speak like a racist. like its okay for gays to take the bus but the rule say they have to sit in the back :idiot2:
come back when u educate yourself ;)
-
Sometimes I wonder why I put my two cents into these trolling threads created by the so called "Liberals" with a chip on their shoulder. I'm writing to say, go ahead...live your life as you please...we live in America, you can do this...I'm not judging you...I will drink beer, eat burgers and watch the NCAA tournament with you and we can be merry...You don't have coodies...I don't have coodies...we are all people...just don't try to do more than that...you know...You want equality...I want you to have "equality" too (although I do not believe such exists in reality)...I want you to have the same legal rights too...I'm fine with that...just don't do it by imposing your definition on me when there is civil union already...wher e marriage is at, you should get the lawyers to add "and civil unions too."
That's it folks...that's my two cents. All this discussion on technicality and definition doesn't help your cause and only excite more misunderstandi ng...You know what you need to do, just do it.
I'm done with these thread by the folks with a chip on their shoulder. Have a great day.
What are crying and running away? The reason why you are doing that is below.
Talk is cheap
That's all you can do. You say that you can admit when your wrong, but when the time comes, you cry and run away.
-
You do know we are ALL TALKING right. Since you are for GAY RIGHTS, go carry a sign in the next demonstration so you are not talking too. I'm not crying one bit. I support your gay rights as long as it doesn't violate the definition of marriage. I draw the line there. We should work to make sure the world can be relevant to all the good people. Btw, when I use good, I mean good to the law of man...
So you're running away again. You still won't accept that you were wrong.
Here you are talking about supporting gay rights but your actions don't want them to have rights. :idiot2:
That's what you call ALL TALK.
Since you're just ALL TALK and never done any action, you don't know what it is. It's not just about carrying a sign. I support gay rights and have help the gay people I know.
-
Since you are for GAY RIGHTS, go carry a sign in the next demonstration so you are not talking too.
So you're the type of person who wants people to recognize you for your good deeds. All about talks and show here.
-
Look this whole topic is about changing the definition of marriage. I am clear I do not support the change in the definition of marriage. I am clear I support adding civil union where marriage is defined so gay people can have equal rights. In this way nobody feels like a loser except the tax payers who have to change a lot of law. This way we all are happy. Now do I need to take action? Absolutely not. It's not my fight against the US government. It's the gay community's fight. You want me to sign a petition that I support adding civil union where marriage is at...I do...just don't use it to say I support the redefining of marriage...tha t's not what I support.
Simmer down now ok. For the record, the debate forum is ALL TALK if you don't know it by definition.
I think your ALL TALK stems from the fact that some of you atheists in here talk science, but don't do science. Some of you atheists talk logic, but don't know logic. Go ahead...let the frustration out. I'm cool with it. Keep it up. Not sure what value that gives you. ;D
u talk logic but dont know logic. u talk numbers but get owned and proven wrong. u talk facts but they r wrong :2funny:
didnt u say u were leaving? still here huh?
-
Since we are on logic and numbers, let's test the hypothesis that I don't know logic and by the deduction, you know logic. Construct the proof for the real number system...this is 1st semester...fre shman in school mathematics do this...walk circles on this topic...like who cannot do this from the school of mathematics? Show me or shut up.
After today...I won't be posting with you alts no more...gosh... March 20...already talking smack...really? Historically they wait a month to get into that grove...
u said u r leaving and now u say u wont leave? ;D
u want numbers and logic go make a thread about it and stop sideswiping this topic. u already were proven wrong 3 or 4 times and yet u still here trying to save face.
-
Look this whole topic is about changing the definition of marriage. I am clear I do not support the change in the definition of marriage. I am clear I support adding civil union where marriage is defined so gay people can have equal rights. In this way nobody feels like a loser except the tax payers who have to change a lot of law. This way we all are happy. Now do I need to take action? Absolutely not. It's not my fight against the US government. It's the gay community's fight. You want me to sign a petition that I support adding civil union where marriage is at...I do...just don't use it to say I support the redefining of marriage...tha t's not what I support.
Simmer down now ok. For the record, the debate forum is ALL TALK if you don't know it by definition.
I think your ALL TALK stems from the fact that some of you atheists in here talk science, but don't do science. Some of you atheists talk logic, but don't know logic. Go ahead...let the frustration out. I'm cool with it. Keep it up. Not sure what value that gives you. ;D
Who's talking about atheists here? You're running away and now throwing your frustrations at atheists.
-
Go ahead...let the frustration out.(http://I'm cool with it). Keep it up.
Not according to this. :2funny: :2funny:
I'm done with these thread by the folks with a chip on their shoulder. Have a great day.
-
:2funny: :2funny:
Changing topic now?
:2funny: :2funny:
-
It's too bad some of you talk logic and cannot do it. Here's the natural number proof. It's taught to all freshman in mathematics. This is the easiest proof you'll get in class. It's a gimme and if you cannot recall it...I doubt you know anything about logic. Since you don't know jack-shit, how do you know if I'm lying or not lying? That's how bad you are that you cannot discriminate if I'm a liar or not...
To define N - natural number.
Let 1 be the first natural number.
Let a be a natural number.
Let f(a) = a+1 be the next number.
Given a set F, if 1 exists in F, and a exists in F, then f(a) exists in F, then F is the list of all natural number. (Note: this implies a+1 to where 'a' iterates (succeed) towards infinity, in case you guys missed it.)
I bet this proves that gay shouldn't marry?
-
Refer back to the title of the thread. :2funny:
It's too bad some of you talk logic and cannot do it. Here's the natural number proof. It's taught to all freshman in mathematics. This is the easiest proof you'll get in class. It's a gimme and if you cannot recall it...I doubt you know anything about logic. Since you don't know jack-shit, how do you know if I'm lying or not lying? That's how bad you are that you cannot discriminate if I'm a liar or not...
To define N - natural number.
Let 1 be the first natural number.
Let a be a natural number.
Let f(a) = a+1 be the next number.
Given a set F, if 1 exists in F, and a exists in F, then f(a) exists in F, then F is the list of all natural number. (Note: this implies a+1 to where 'a' iterates (succeed) towards infinity, in case you guys missed it.)
-
Another dumb argument is...
Gays wants to redefine marriage.
Why would they want to do that? When by definition,
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry
I guess maybe they would want to if the definition of marriage doesn't include gays.
-
You do know we are ALL TALKING right. Since you are for GAY RIGHTS, go carry a sign in the next demonstration so you are not talking too. I'm not crying one bit. I support your gay rights as long as it doesn't violate the definition of marriage. I draw the line there. We should work to make sure the world can be relevant to all the good people. Btw, when I use good, I mean good to the law of man...
Ok then what's your definition of marriage? In the Bible which you revere King David has thousands of concubines and wives...is that your traditional marriage?
Let's not pretend that marriage has ever been defined until modern times as one man + one woman. Marriage was/is: business agreement between families, way for men to control women, way for men to procreate and make more descendants.
So tell me how a gay person getting married at all affects your marriage? Your stupid arguments are the same stupid ones made by those racists who were against interracial marriage when that issue came up decades ago. I am sick of religious idiots using their religion to hate on others.
You profess you be a follower of Jesus yet what did he have to say about gay marriage? I know your ONLY real argument is biblical, it's a religious reason, at least be honest about that. The only prohibition of gay love is in the Leviticus. Eat any lobster lately? Wear any mixed cloth garments? You just broke as much biblical law as gay sex. Why don't I see you hypocrite Christians railing against eating shellfish, pork, working on the sabbath and wearing mixed cloth garments? Why don't I see you working to help the poor? Shouldn't that be your main goal? Since it did seem to be Jesus' main goal. Didn't he say to give all your possessions to the poor and follow him?
Bunch of hypocrites you all are. Can't live by the biblical laws yourselves but expect others who don't believe in those fairy tales to follow your stupid laws. How are you any different than those fundie Muslims who impose Sharia Law? Christians in this country want to impose their own version of Sharia Law.
Damn, lost every shred of respect for you right now. I always thought you were the "reasonable" Christian on here, one of the few. Now I find out you're just a run of the mill bigot.
-
Damn, lost every shred of respect for you right now. I always thought you were the "reasonable" Christian on here, one of the few. Now I find out you're just a run of the mill bigot.
Took the words right out of my mouth. The whole time I thought I was the only one.
-
Someone needs to refer to 1, 2, 7, and 8. :2funny:
-
oh no, this again.. :2funny:
So you are implying that being gay is a natural thing and not a choice eh? So what did your science say about the gay gene? No conclusion with the gay gene and the studies that you are probably watching were done on gay twins and men. Where is the love for gay twin women?
So is there a straight gene then? Well straight gene is by natural for the survival of such species so you do not have to look for it. If it is not genetically related or you were born gay that way then what else can it be? A choice? :2funny:
This is how I see this. A big bio mass of bacteria growing in a petri dish. You got so many in there that most will propagate as society's norm and then we have homo in the corner trying to propagate but nothing happens. The ones that are able to propagate will carry their genes to the next generations. The misfits that can't will die off but does that mean that the gay genes will die off since the forefathers of the gay genes can not propagate?
Science and logic, it makes you think and it can make you stupid. :2funny:
-
Is that what you really want to argue? When I prove you wrong, we all know what you are going to do; you're going to pick at straws and argue something else.
oh no, this again.. :2funny:
So you are implying that being gay is a natural thing and not a choice eh? So what did your science say about the gay gene? No conclusion with the gay gene and the studies that you are probably watching were done on gay twins and men. Where is the love for gay twin women?
So is there a straight gene then? Well straight gene is by natural for the survival of such species so you do not have to look for it. If it is not genetically related or you were born gay that way then what else can it be? A choice? :2funny:
This is how I see this. A big bio mass of bacteria growing in a petri dish. You got so many in there that most will propagate as society's norm and then we have homo in the corner trying to propagate but nothing happens. The ones that are able to propagate will carry their genes to the next generations. The misfits that can't will die off but does that mean that the gay genes will die off since the forefathers of the gay genes can not propagate?
Science and logic, it makes you think and it can make you stupid. :2funny:
-
Is that what you really want to argue? When I prove you wrong, we all know what you are going to do; you're going to pick at straws and argue something else.
I don't argue. I just flow with the flow but with backup substances. :2funny:
-
I can tell this is already going to be like the title of the thread....
1. "Argue" in the sense of a debate. It's silly that you didn't understand that.
2. Refer to #6.
3. You have no substance, just assumptions.
I don't argue. I just flow with the flow but with backup substances. :2funny:
-
I can tell this is already going to be like the title of the thread....
1. "Argue" in the sense of a debate. It's silly that you didn't understand that.
2. Refer to #6.
3. You have no substance, just assumptions.
Your opinion smells fruity like my opinions too. :2funny:
-
Refer to #9.
Your opinion smells fruity like my opinions too. :2funny:
-
Refer to #9.
post #1 is still your opinion ha :2funny:
refer to that as well O0
-
Refer to #9.
post #1 is still your opinion ha :2funny:
refer to that as well O0
-
Refer to #9.
good. see you and your opinionated thread in another year.
Keep bumping old dead skin cells up for a good laughing matter :2funny:
-
Refer to #9.
good. see you and your opinionated thread in another year.
Keep bumping old dead skin cells up for a good laughing matter :2funny:
-
Let's add one more to the list. Are we at 10? I forget, I'll list it at 10 instead of reading through the pages...
10. Do you wish your kid to be gay?