This would be a good way to keep the population growth rate down. Malthus never thought of that variable. But hedonistic hetros like me are more than willing to fuck woman until the growth rate goes back up. The more gays there are the better and leave the girls to me. The gays will always be with us and so will the hetros. Natural selection will balance the ratio and the human race will survive.
Gay Rights?
- Thread starter SoliOdi
- Start date
This would be a good way to keep the population growth rate down. Malthus never thought of that variable. But hedonistic hetros like me are more than willing to fuck woman until the growth rate goes back up. The more gays there are the better and leave the girls to me. The gays will always be with us and so will the hetros. Natural selection will balance the ratio and the human race will survive.
And it's the one big reason The Little Woman (my wife) and I haven't gotten "married". We don't have a "marriage license".
Like I need a beureucratic flunky of the State to "officially" make us married.
Fuck 'em and fuck the State. :thefinger
In our hearts and by Common Law - we are married.
The State is so concerned about marriage that it doesn't seem to give a monkey's ass about the near 50% heterosexual divorce rate ... but two guys or two girls want to get hitched and the world is about to end? Here's an interesting concept - if you don't like gay marriage... well, don't have one!
I'd rather kids be born or brought up in stable homosexual couples than in abusive heterosexual ones.
I'd rather kids have loving parents rather than none at all - no matter what the gender.
I don't believe it's anybody's business - much less the coercive power of the State - to stick it's long nose where it don't belong and tell two consenting adults how to live their lives. I don't tell you which girl to get married to - what gives you the right to tell some guy which guy he can spend the rest of his life with?
I believe that love between two human beings is a wonderful thing - the gender involved is only incidental. This "family values" argument is BS - what family values are important than teaching a child to love someone, stay faithful and honor vows and commitment?
Oh sorry - only heterosexuals can be loving, caring and commited. Please!
Wake up and smell the hypocrisy...
cheers,
Legzman
what the fuck you lookin at?
and plenty of men who want to fuck those women!:love-smi:
everybody should have equal rights, nomatter who they're shagging.
toast_king
Banned
Yeah, except I doubt gays are quite appreciated in third world countries, where the population is increasing the most. People in developed nations should not be too concerned with overpopulation, because birth rates are worryingly low in some countries, such as Japan.
As long as they stay the hell away from me,i dont care what rights they get.
The first part of your argument is true enough. People won't all turn gay if gay marriages are legalized. That's stupid. Who would do that?
If the word means so little to you, then why do you care if a new one is used to include everyone? Besides that, your argument is one of semantics. The point is; I don't want to piss off the overly religious types, and it isn't that I care about the word marriage. If you could convince all of them that the definition of the word marriage doesn't matter, then I wouldn't care about it either.
toast_king
Banned
Disorders are 100% natural. There's certainly nothing unnatural or supernatural about them.
I think it's pretty clear that you're suffering from a pretty bad case of paranoia (there's not much to be argued there), not to mention extreme confusion. Where have I ever argued solely about your paranoia for argument's sake, and to the exclusion of everything else? Also, you're the one who brought up the nonsense about me being some former friend of yours, so don't try to pin it on me.
If it is a disorder (I don't know if it is, and it's beside the point), then it should be called one. Political correctness should not have anything to do with it.
By the thinking that something is a disorder if it has no useful purpose you could claim almost all emotional thought is a disorder. Claiming homosexuality is a disorder is a pretty big assumption, especially with little proof to back it up.
I do agree with the people that say that marriage should have remained a religious concept that the government should have always stayed out of it. The government should have recognized all unions of adults that wanted one with marriage just being included in them. The definition of marriage would be whatever the people married thought about it, because even religious concepts are different depending on the persons' beliefs. Could that change the dictionary definition of marriage, yes, but then again who gives a damn? The definition of things changes all the time throughout history to reflect the people and culture of the day.
As far as raising children goes, the idea that two people of the same sex would hurt the people they raise is probably garbage. If anything people are probably more worried that the children might grow up with the values the gay couple wants instead of what they want. That's just too damn bad for them, it’s the parent’s job and right to instill in them the values they want. I know if I had children and somebody else told my how to raise them I would be pissed off. I also don't tell other people how to raise their children even if I don't like them or the way they are. Plenty of people have also grown up in single parent household and have not been psychologically hurt because of it. If anything more of the problem is the fact that it harder to raise children economically with one parent in that situation than it is to give them support in their growth. What would be next? Would you take children away from everybody that divorces or becomes a widow because you think the child will be irreparably harmed for all time because they don't have a mother/father?
People should all be given equal rights. Bad things happen in society when you start picking and choosing whom to favor based on you own idealism and what you think makes a perfect world.
The "word" issue is important,in a way.Not for practical reasons, but at least for "semantics".
The gay community rightfully asks for "equal rights".Well "equal rights" means having the same right as any other couple,like to get married for instance.If the State does not allow them to get married,but comes up with a different "word-institution" for that type of recognized union,then you don't exactly have "equal" rights,you have "different" rights.And the State is saying that "gay union is ok,but of a different kind".
Personaly i'm ok with that,but then again,i'm not gay,so i don't know how it feels to asks for equality and end up with "something like that,but not quiet".I can't talk on other people's behalf.
What I would like to say though,after I've made my position clear on the issue, is something else.
The pro-gay marriage is based on the argument that two consenting adults have the right to live as they please.No objection on that one,not from my part.My question is:How far can this go?
For instance:Are two brothers going to have the right to get married? Adults, consenting, then why not? They won't have kids,so it's not a problem.This way,incest could be legalized.
And if two gay brothers have the right to get married, why not a brother and a sister?Consenting adults...
And what about polygamy? If three persons want to live together and legalize their union,why shouldn't they be allowed to? And I'm not talking about some guy having two wives that ignore the existance of the other one,that's cheating.I'm talking of a three-way marriage,where all three sign the papers,and they are all married to each other.
And this could go on and on.
I don't have an answer to that question,where exactly the State draws the line and says "stop".But if gay marriage is made legal (and I think it should be), then how could the State say "no" to something else,when it's based on the "two (or more) consenting adults choosing their own lifestyle" argument?
Any thoughts?
The gay community rightfully asks for "equal rights".Well "equal rights" means having the same right as any other couple,like to get married for instance.If the State does not allow them to get married,but comes up with a different "word-institution" for that type of recognized union,then you don't exactly have "equal" rights,you have "different" rights.And the State is saying that "gay union is ok,but of a different kind".
Personaly i'm ok with that,but then again,i'm not gay,so i don't know how it feels to asks for equality and end up with "something like that,but not quiet".I can't talk on other people's behalf.
What I would like to say though,after I've made my position clear on the issue, is something else.
The pro-gay marriage is based on the argument that two consenting adults have the right to live as they please.No objection on that one,not from my part.My question is:How far can this go?
For instance:Are two brothers going to have the right to get married? Adults, consenting, then why not? They won't have kids,so it's not a problem.This way,incest could be legalized.
And if two gay brothers have the right to get married, why not a brother and a sister?Consenting adults...
And what about polygamy? If three persons want to live together and legalize their union,why shouldn't they be allowed to? And I'm not talking about some guy having two wives that ignore the existance of the other one,that's cheating.I'm talking of a three-way marriage,where all three sign the papers,and they are all married to each other.
And this could go on and on.
I don't have an answer to that question,where exactly the State draws the line and says "stop".But if gay marriage is made legal (and I think it should be), then how could the State say "no" to something else,when it's based on the "two (or more) consenting adults choosing their own lifestyle" argument?
Any thoughts?
toast_king
Banned
Emotions are not a disorder.
member006
Closed Account
Asking me this question is like asking if I think someone with Green Eyes should have rights. Everyone should be treated fairly and as a equal no matter what. Plain and simple.
Equal rights for gays, of course.
Why isn't there a "straight folks" parade ?
Why isn't there a "straight folks" parade ?
member006
Closed Account
I find that point a good one. Nobody should feel so isolated that they feel the need to separate themselves before others do. Like a overweight person that makes the fat joke first because they feel somebody will anyway. Also I think being known as a minority is OK, they are a minority. However taking rights because of that fact is just plain wrong.
LL
Yes.
My life long best friend is gay and very happy in his current situation.
I love him to death and think that he should have every right since he is a human being and citizen of the USA.
How would you like it if someone else took a right away from you?
If you're against gay marriage then how would it feel if a gay person was allowed to take something away from you?
Maybe the right to free speech?
If you love your rights then you shouldn't have a problem with allowing everyone to enjoy those same rights.
My life long best friend is gay and very happy in his current situation.
I love him to death and think that he should have every right since he is a human being and citizen of the USA.
How would you like it if someone else took a right away from you?
If you're against gay marriage then how would it feel if a gay person was allowed to take something away from you?
Maybe the right to free speech?
If you love your rights then you shouldn't have a problem with allowing everyone to enjoy those same rights.
dave_rhino
Closed Account
I also have a gay friend. I've known this guy since school and hes a really great friend, I've always known he was gay but he only came out about 3 years ago.
Odd thing is he shares exactly the same beliefs i do on gays adopting children, infact even stronger, he thinks its disgusting
Odd thing is he shares exactly the same beliefs i do on gays adopting children, infact even stronger, he thinks its disgusting
I don't have a problem with any of those things that you just mentioned.
Is it practical or sensible? No, don't think so.
Do I think it's "correct"? Nope.
But I won't stop two adults from living as they choose and see fit. So long as they know what's happening and understand the consequences and since they aren't infringing on the rights of others - I don't care.
The State has no business nor right getting involved in the private lives of people. And it includes the private lives of people whose lifestlyes I may not agree with. Liberty and freedom don't just apply to people with whom you agree - but also to people you don't agree with.
As I like to put it: Individuals have a right to do anything (that doesn't violate the rights of others) - even if what they do is not right.
Pure and simple.
The day being "straight" is a social stigma is the day we will see "straight parades".
cheers,
