[Galnuc69]

(05-14-2013 10:33 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 10:25 PM)Dexter Morgan Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 09:53 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

in that case, marriage is still not aboit children, its STILL an economic transaction for "free" labor, and if that is the case then traditional marriage is simply a means to increase household wealth, which follows to deadbeat parenys having more kids for more welfare is on par with traditional marriage

Then it is about the children - the need for their labor. Are you trying to say its not about the LOVE of children? Who cares. Grow up. The world isn't made of unicorn farts.

i agree wirh you. that was directed at what the general comments were talking about before in that two women or two men cant raise a kid because of "fathers give them x and women y"

They can't raise a child, two men or two women cannot procreate.

[jackson.henley]

I don't know what direction Brazil will go in terms of political leaning, but there are signs that the global leftist strong hold is coming to an end (as it usually does when the economy breaks down).

The UKIP just picked a few points from the major parties in the UK (they now have 18% and their leader Nigel is coming out ahead of Cameron in polls). We are talking far right here. Le Pen is picking up steam in France as Holland's numbers drop.

This thing can flip so fast it can make your head spin. It has before.

[clever alias]

(05-15-2013 12:15 AM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 10:33 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 10:25 PM)Dexter Morgan Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 09:53 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

in that case, marriage is still not aboit children, its STILL an economic transaction for "free" labor, and if that is the case then traditional marriage is simply a means to increase household wealth, which follows to deadbeat parenys having more kids for more welfare is on par with traditional marriage

Then it is about the children - the need for their labor. Are you trying to say its not about the LOVE of children? Who cares. Grow up. The world isn't made of unicorn farts.

i agree wirh you. that was directed at what the general comments were talking about before in that two women or two men cant raise a kid because of "fathers give them x and women y"

They can't raise a child, two men or two women cannot procreate.

then you cant raise a dog because you cant.give.birth ti one. you cant be.a.gardner because you dont have seeds.
if your argument is based on someones ability to care for another living thing is dictated by genitals, there arent enough facepalms images in the world worthy of a response.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I'm only dismayed about these measures passing in the context that they are a harbinger of other retarded legislation, like laws mandating separate toilers for trannies, increased enforcement of alimony, laws mandating that husbands do 50% housework, etc etc. That makes them sad. But gays being able to marry or adopt kids is not bad or a threat by itself. I always point out that heterosexual couples (driven by women, of course) have been devastating the family and children for half a century now, and no one has even blinked.

[Galnuc69]

(05-15-2013 12:58 AM)clever alias Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 12:15 AM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 10:33 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 10:25 PM)Dexter Morgan Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 09:53 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

in that case, marriage is still not aboit children, its STILL an economic transaction for "free" labor, and if that is the case then traditional marriage is simply a means to increase household wealth, which follows to deadbeat parenys having more kids for more welfare is on par with traditional marriage

Then it is about the children - the need for their labor. Are you trying to say its not about the LOVE of children? Who cares. Grow up. The world isn't made of unicorn farts.

i agree wirh you. that was directed at what the general comments were talking about before in that two women or two men cant raise a kid because of "fathers give them x and women y"

They can't raise a child, two men or two women cannot procreate.

then you cant raise a dog because you cant.give.birth ti one. you cant be.a.gardner because you dont have seeds.
if your argument is based on someones ability to care for another living thing is dictated by genitals, there arent enough facepalms images in the world worthy of a response.

Dogs were domesticated by humans, humans harvest seeds. But I don't see how you could compare raising an animal or growing a garden to raising a human being, entirely different situation. Do you realize how absurd your argument sounds?

[clever alias]

im just logically following your claim of "if you cant give birth to it you cant raise it"

[Galnuc69]

(05-15-2013 02:40 AM)clever alias Wrote:  

im just logically following your claim of "if you cant give birth to it you cant raise it"

I didn't say that.

I fully support heterosexual couples adopting unwanted children as well.

[sheesh]

(05-14-2013 08:44 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

The end goal is a state of androgyny and total freedom of polymorphous perversity. Gay marriage is an important part of that process.

I have yet to see proof that so called traditional gender roles will be eroded by gay marriage ( but interestingly not by gay partnerships ?), the assumption is very paranoid.

Gay artists, musicians, politicians...what about them ? They might have an even bigger influence on society in one way or another...do we need to fight back their presence in society as well ?

[sheesh]

(05-15-2013 03:45 AM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 02:40 AM)clever alias Wrote:  

im just logically following your claim of "if you cant give birth to it you cant raise it"

I didn't say that.

I fully support heterosexual couples adopting unwanted children as well.

Then I guess we have realised that the argument that marriage is there to raise kids doesn't hold much water.

[bojangles]

Marriage has become a sham anyway, gay people are welcome to get involved in the sham if they want, it's not like it's sacred anymore, so yeah get married all you want.

[NY Digital]

The Christians I speak to about this subject have no problem with them getting a "civil union". But are completely against it being called marriage.

I think that's a valid point.

[Galnuc69]

(05-15-2013 06:34 AM)sheesh Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 08:44 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

The end goal is a state of androgyny and total freedom of polymorphous perversity. Gay marriage is an important part of that process.

Gay artists, musicians, politicians...what about them ? They might have an even bigger influence on society in one way or another...do we need to fight back their presence in society as well ?

Yes

[Galnuc69]

(05-15-2013 06:44 AM)sheesh Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 03:45 AM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 02:40 AM)clever alias Wrote:  

im just logically following your claim of "if you cant give birth to it you cant raise it"

I didn't say that.

I fully support heterosexual couples adopting unwanted children as well.

Then I guess we have realised that the argument that marriage is there to raise kids doesn't hold much water.

No, that is the primary purpose of marriage, to build a family. That doesn't mean their are exceptions, like infertile couples or hetero couples adopting, but the primary purpose is procreation.


The state promotes heterosexual marriage because the husband and wife are the basis of the nuclear family. This unit is the most stable and beneficial to society for procreation. Even if a man and woman don't have children in marriage, they potentially can have children and still are the foundation of the nuclear family.

[sheesh]

(05-15-2013 11:50 AM)NY Digital Wrote:  

The Christians I speak to about this subject have no problem with them getting a "civil union". But are completely against it being called marriage.

I think that's a valid point.

I'm Christian, coming from and living in the the motherland of Protestantism ( i.e. Germany) and I have no problem with gay marriage.

[sheesh]

(05-15-2013 12:55 PM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 06:44 AM)sheesh Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 03:45 AM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 02:40 AM)clever alias Wrote:  

im just logically following your claim of "if you cant give birth to it you cant raise it"

I didn't say that.

I fully support heterosexual couples adopting unwanted children as well.

Then I guess we have realised that the argument that marriage is there to raise kids doesn't hold much water.

No, that is the primary purpose of marriage, to build a family. That doesn't mean their are exceptions, like infertile couples or hetero couples adopting, but the primary purpose is procreation.


The state promotes heterosexual marriage because the husband and wife are the basis of the nuclear family. This unit is the most stable and beneficial to society for procreation. Even if a man and woman don't have children in marriage, they potentially can have children and still are the foundation of the nuclear family.

Of course husband and wife are part of the nuclear family. What makes you think supporters of gay marriage are against it. Those 99% of heterosexuals should build families and raise children. So leave the other 1% of society alone and grant them the right to marry, it will that hurt no one.

[Galnuc69]

(05-15-2013 01:29 PM)sheesh Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 12:55 PM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 06:44 AM)sheesh Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 03:45 AM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 02:40 AM)clever alias Wrote:  

im just logically following your claim of "if you cant give birth to it you cant raise it"

I didn't say that.

I fully support heterosexual couples adopting unwanted children as well.

Then I guess we have realised that the argument that marriage is there to raise kids doesn't hold much water.

No, that is the primary purpose of marriage, to build a family. That doesn't mean their are exceptions, like infertile couples or hetero couples adopting, but the primary purpose is procreation.


The state promotes heterosexual marriage because the husband and wife are the basis of the nuclear family. This unit is the most stable and beneficial to society for procreation. Even if a man and woman don't have children in marriage, they potentially can have children and still are the foundation of the nuclear family.

Of course husband and wife are part of the nuclear family. What makes you think supporters of gay marriage are against it. Those 99% of heterosexuals should build families and raise children. So leave the other 1% of society alone and grant them the right to marry, it will that hurt no one.

I do support leaving them alone, the state promoting their lifestyle through law is not leaving them alone, it is normalizing and elevating it.

I think creating androgynous gender roles and confusing gender identity harms society.

[eradicator]

(05-14-2013 07:46 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  

Why should gays have the right to marry? What the hell do they gain from it? Other than free shit.

+It would make it easier to adopt.
+Inheritance(If you are married, and you die, your spouse gets everything, if you are not married and die and have no will, the state gets everything)
+easier for your spouse to get citizenship if they're from another country.

the negatives
Leviticus says it's wrong in the bible so we are all going to hell.
Or something.



I will admit the whiny queers on my facebook got carried away posting shit about gay marriage last month.

[eradicator]

(05-15-2013 01:45 PM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 01:29 PM)sheesh Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 12:55 PM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 06:44 AM)sheesh Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 03:45 AM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

I didn't say that.

I fully support heterosexual couples adopting unwanted children as well.

Then I guess we have realised that the argument that marriage is there to raise kids doesn't hold much water.

No, that is the primary purpose of marriage, to build a family. That doesn't mean their are exceptions, like infertile couples or hetero couples adopting, but the primary purpose is procreation.


The state promotes heterosexual marriage because the husband and wife are the basis of the nuclear family. This unit is the most stable and beneficial to society for procreation. Even if a man and woman don't have children in marriage, they potentially can have children and still are the foundation of the nuclear family.

Of course husband and wife are part of the nuclear family. What makes you think supporters of gay marriage are against it. Those 99% of heterosexuals should build families and raise children. So leave the other 1% of society alone and grant them the right to marry, it will that hurt no one.

I do support leaving them alone, the state promoting their lifestyle through law is not leaving them alone, it is normalizing and elevating it.

I think creating androgynous gender roles and confusing gender identity harms society.

How exactly does whether or not gay people can get married even have any effect on the rest of society at all? The only things that would change would be that those gays that get married will get a few more basic rights.

If anything, since we would be seeing more adoptions and fewer children raised in orphanages, that would be better for society. More children will be growing up in good homes and go on to have good lives instead of in an orphanage and having shit lives(including crime). I would think that less crime=society is better, no?

[NY Digital]

(05-15-2013 01:18 PM)sheesh Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 11:50 AM)NY Digital Wrote:  

The Christians I speak to about this subject have no problem with them getting a "civil union". But are completely against it being called marriage.

I think that's a valid point.

I'm Christian, coming from and living in the the motherland of Protestantism ( i.e. Germany) and I have no problem with gay marriage.

good for you.

[Wutang]

(05-14-2013 10:08 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 08:06 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

It is a slippery slope and we shouldn't change the basis of our entire society to accommodate the desires of the 1-2% of people who happen to be born that way.

Keep in mind the number may even be far lower than that considering that there are large numbers of gays have no intention of getting married. It may only be .5% of the entire population that enters a gay marriage. And for that we are redefining the entire institution. I think it has more to do with forcing people to accept them. If you look up that thread I made "some gays are redpill", there was one astute blog I found by a gay man who basically said gay marriage is a bunch of bullshit. I was surprised to look at the comments and see other gays agreeing with him. Not all gays are radical, and you never see gays like that being given any air-time in the media.

I remember reading an article once about how at one point the whole idea of homosexual marriage was actually pretty controversial within the gay community itself. A lot of gays actually were AGAINST gays marrying because they thought it was promoting "hetero-normative" culture. They didn't want to feel like they had to conform to the all-American image of the couple with 2 kids and a dog living in the white picket fence home. Funny thing is that a big reason that gay marriage has gotten so much legitimacy now is based on them promoting the idea that gay relationships are no different then heteorsexual ones besides the fact it is between two people of the same gender.

[Dexter Morgan]

Gay marriage is a matter of fairness. Because right now, gays have a right the rest of DON'T have: The right to not get married! How cool would it be if you could say to your girlfriend "Oh, yeah, honey, I'd LOVE to get married - but we can't! It's against the law!" No straight guy has that option. Why should gays get off this easy??

I'm for gay marriage because gays should have to experience the same misery the rest of us did!

[clever alias]

(05-15-2013 12:47 PM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 06:34 AM)sheesh Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 08:44 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

The end goal is a state of androgyny and total freedom of polymorphous perversity. Gay marriage is an important part of that process.

Gay artists, musicians, politicians...what about them ? They might have an even bigger influence on society in one way or another...do we need to fight back their presence in society as well ?

Yes

so we should marginalize gays?

[Galnuc69]

(05-15-2013 09:33 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 12:47 PM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 06:34 AM)sheesh Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 08:44 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

The end goal is a state of androgyny and total freedom of polymorphous perversity. Gay marriage is an important part of that process.

Gay artists, musicians, politicians...what about them ? They might have an even bigger influence on society in one way or another...do we need to fight back their presence in society as well ?

Yes

so we should marginalize gays?

Yes

[clever alias]

(05-15-2013 09:46 PM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 09:33 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 12:47 PM)Galnuc69 Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 06:34 AM)sheesh Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 08:44 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

The end goal is a state of androgyny and total freedom of polymorphous perversity. Gay marriage is an important part of that process.

Gay artists, musicians, politicians...what about them ? They might have an even bigger influence on society in one way or another...do we need to fight back their presence in society as well ?

Yes

so we should marginalize gays?

Yes

jeez you should jave just said that at the beginning and saved us both a bunch of time

[Timoteo]

HBO orders gay-themed series starring 'Glee' actor Jonathan Groff

May 15, 2013, 10:35 AM EST
By Tim Kenneally
TheWrap
HBO has placed an order for a dramedy starring Jonathan Groff ("Glee") that centers on a group of gay men living in San Francisco.

The as-yet-untitled series, which has received an eight-episode order, has the following premise, according to the logline: "Three friends in San Francisco explore the fun and sometimes overwhelming options available to a new generation of gay men."

...and now all of these newly wedded couples will have a cool HBO show to sit down and watch together! So romantic! I'm kind of curious as to what these "overwhelming options" they're referring to are...HA HA!