Only when you want to legally redefine marriage to make others agree with you, rather then allowing tradition to continue, is what bothers people. In time, I think gay marriage acceptance will simply just happen as one hard headed generation passes away and another more open and understanding generation is raised up. No one opinion though, on whether this will improve mankind or make it worse. As the facts are all so biased on both sides, that nothing seems to be trustworthy.
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Is Wrong
by chuckie77 99 Replies latest members adult
-
-
Twitch
If two people love each other, how is that wrong?
Who is to say what is right or wrong for another?
Much like the issue of dub, freedom is lost when it infringes upon anothers'. This is as applicable to religion as it is to sexual orientation. I used to live with people who were into the local gay/BDSM scene and I had no problem with it or them. It opened my eyes to a world I didn't know before, one that was forbidden previously of course but one I was curious to see, for that reason alone. Mind you, I had/have no desire to experience it firsthand but it was interesting. Just people doing what is right for them. Nothing new. And most often, they were the most tolerant people I've met on a lot of fronts. As well, I did meet some hardcore types, those who needed to wave their flag in my face with something to prove. "Hmmm, not much different from your average dub" said self. Prejudice works both ways unfortunately.
I think gay marriage acceptance will simply just happen as one hard headed generation passes away and another more open and understanding generation is raised up.
Agreed. And so on, and so on, and so on,.... -
Apollyon
misspeaches You might think it exterme although these types of books are showing up In schools 1st grade through 12th Here is a web site that only publishes children books aimed at the homosexual agenda.
Book titles like Heather has two mommies you will find this one in the childerns section of our libraries. Daddy Papa & me,King & King,It's ok to be different, Holly's secret Faerie wars ect.
-
katiekitten
I understand why you wouldnt want your kids to read those books. But I honestly think you have got nothing to worry about. Its not like they are Eng Lit texts and everyone has to read them.
The average school kid would rather eat shit than read a 'queeah book'.
BUT - for a minority of kids those books might be really important. In my class last year I had a boy whose mum was a lesbian living with her lover. Now this poor kid has problems. His dad left just when he needed a dad (aged 11) then mums lover moved in. "Its OK to be different" might be just the book to make this poor kid feel that hes not alone. Those books might just be the right thing to make him see hes not a freak and its not his fault and he doesnt deserve to be picked on all day at school.
Because he deserves to be understood too.
-
G Money
Gays are great! more girls for me!!!
-
Rabbit
Apollyon:Oh good now we are into transgendered fantasy land.
What do you mean by "fantasy land"? Do you have 'fantasies' about transgendered people ? Or, do you believe trans-gender is a "fantasy"?
I should have been more specific about the agenda I was talking about.Dont care If adults want to bend each other over and drive them selves around thats on them.
Are you fibbing a little ?I do have a real problem when there agenda Is foisted on our youth, hope this helps to clear up what I ment.
A very wise saying: "You can lead a horse to water, but, you can't make him drink." Do you really think heterosexuals (please...use yourself as an example) can be forced to go against their nature, because, they hear or read about homosexuals and their opinions ? Could YOU be forced or influenced away from your nature ? I'll guess the answer is a resounding, " )^)###%)%@* No way in Hell !!" And...you know very well that "gay" books of any kind are not used or taught in any grade school. Please feel free to correct me. Serious question: How do you know you aren't homosexual ? Really, give me reasons...I'm trying to understand something.You can now get on with your heterosexual bashing
Please... go read my profile. I'm allergic to bashing myself.
You speak like many in using the word 'agenda' like a dirty word. I thought I'd help you a little...
a·gen·da (?-jen'd?)
n., pl. -das .- A list or program of things to be done or considered: “They share with them an agenda beyond the immediate goal of democratization of the electoral process” (Daniel Sneider).
- A plural of agendum.
[Latin, pl. of agendum, agendum. See agendum.]
See...? You have an agenda, too. You have "A list or program of things to be done or considered". You want your opinion to be read, considered & shared by possibly thousands of people on the world wide web, right ?
So they have opinions, too. Why should that be a problem ?
Sincerely, Rabbit
-
Rabbit
FunkyDerek, thanks for getting my joke.
Anti-foisting Rabbit
-
Apollyon
What do you mean by "fantasy land"? Do you have 'fantasies' about transgendered people ? Or, do you believe trans-gender is a "fantasy"?
Tansgendered people was part of your last thread they must be your 'fantasies'Are you fibbing a little ?
fibbing ? nope if you want to be the HEAD clown at the rump ranger redeo and baloney ponies are your thing thats on you.
A very wise saying: "You can lead a horse to water, but, you can't make him drink." Do you really think heterosexuals (please...use yourself as an example) can be forced to go against their nature, because, they hear or read about homosexuals and their opinions ? Could YOU be forced or influenced away from your nature ?
Adults no..... children yes
I'll guess the answer is a resounding, " )^)&####%)%@* No way in Hell !!
Was this an answer to your own question ???
And...you know very well that "gay" books of any kind are not used or taught in any grade school. Please feel free to correct me.
How much proof would you like ? Law suits ? gay web sites that state that is there "agenda" for lack of a better word.
You speak like many in using the word 'agenda' like a dirty word. I thought I'd help you a little...
a·gen·da (?-jen'd?)
, pl. ; -das .- A list or program of things to be done or considered: “They share with them an agenda beyond the immediate goal of democratization of the electoral process” (Daniel Sneider).
- A plural of agendum.
[Latin, pl. of agendum, agendum. See agendum.]
;
Nice to see you can use your thesaurus....
See...? You have an agenda, too. You have "A list or program of things to be done or considered". You want your opinion to be read, considered & shared by possibly thousands of people on the world wide web, right ?
So they have opinions, too. Why should that be a problem ?
See...? You have an agenda, too. You have "A list or program of things to be done or considered". You want your opinion to be read, considered & shared by possibly thousands of people on the world wide web, right ?
So they have opinions, too. Why should that be a problem ?
Yep my agenda is to let everyone who wants to know even you.
Your new best friend Apollyon
-
Qcmbr
Why should gay partners get rights over pensions etc above family members? In my mind a gay relationship isnot legitemate legally since there is nothing actually binding the two individuals together from a family point of view and while that statement alone will have popped a few veins in foreheads across teh board let me clarify a bit further.
What is marriage?
1/ In a biblical sense it was the point at which a man and a woman agreed to be one , to leave the protection of the family unit and raise their own family (multiply and replenish). It was not simply a romantic affair (arranged marriages were the norm and still are in many religious societies) but a uniting of two families and the creation of a third - a uniting that creates a larger family with lineage and cultural permenance.
2/ Historically it was the point at which a woman would no longer be provided for by her father and would be handed over both financially and legally to her husband. The man was required to provide financially for the family and in times of attack to defend them. There were good reasons to draw up a legal framework around this relationship in the event of the death of the man for the provision of assets for the children (women were theroetically protected by the dowry.)
3/ Socially the family unit is proven beyond doubt as the best environment for the raising of children and thus it was in societies interest to maintain civilisation by legally supporting the institution of marriage and to make it legally undesirable to commit adultery and thus potentially break up the family and at the worst create a child who must be cared for by a father who is not the blood relative. The lot of bastard children has not historically been a secure one.
Now we, in our enlightened wisdom, have dismantled the social, legal and religious framework of marriage to the point at which various statements such as 'its just a bit of paper' and the issue of 'same rights' become foremost arguments in the debate about what marriage is. Only now when we(society) treat marriage as we treat most commodities - as a throw away item once it has been used up - do gay couples have the ammunition to claim a framework for families as their own. The seeds of this have been sown in the common law framework set up to recognise unmarried couples living together, once this was accepted it became absolutely a matter of rights and nothing else. On the matter of rights there is nothing to stop two people of the same sex having marriage for let's be honest marriage is only 'a piece of paper' now for there is nothing to define it other than a few pension rights and hospital decisions.
Our society has encouraged through legal laws and a dependency culture the single parent, the co-habitee, the absent father, the divorcee and the exploded family with multiple fathers with only a passing commitment (I'm not talking intent here but if your children live in another home with another father your influence on that family has waned - I know I'm a child of a divorce.) The gay family unit is actually just another mess of the family as we experiment with deconstruction of historical norms.
The next stage is that it is now absolutely unfair to deny polygamy, bigamy or inter-family relationships as this is all about rights and no longer about religion or family units.
In this debate few if any consider marriage as a family unit but they think first and foremost of marriage as a romantic engagement between two consenting adults - children are increasngly being delayed as women's careers are seen as far more important, in fact many relationships don't even consider children and don't want them. This is an almost unheard of social phenomenon - getting together with the express purpose of not creating a family. This is the gay basic premise (there are those who want children but clearly they can't have their own - they will take responsibility for someone else's child which is a nightmare for a start and yes if you are wondering I am against sperm donars!)
The question I have is why do gay couples seek an institution that the straight and religious society once held inviolate and sacred and have since discarded? Love is not marriage in any form and it is not enough to say that because two people love each other they should be married - you don't need marriage to love.
Though most will see this as a bash on gay people it is more a statement that some relationships cannot claim marriage because of what I define marriage to be and not because I wish to deny rights to people - some rights are not societies to give. -
chuckie77
Hey qcmbr, that was a really rational and well put together post although the overtones were generally in my opinion, a little dated.
As society grows, developes and changes, trends also have to change to keep up with those unavoidable developments. Religious values have changed as people have learnt and developed more. They used to burn women at the stake for believing they were witches, imagine religion hadnt changed its views on that and we were still following those old customs. It used to be common in society to treat people of different races and colours as lesser beings where it was illegal for blacks to marry whites. Just because that used to be the custom, does it make it right, or should we be developing and changing?
Sure, marriage and its values are not the same as they were in bible times or even 50 years ago, when my parents were married. People that wed together stayed together through thick and thin. Does that though make it the right thing to do? If 50 years ago, a husband was bashing his wife, she was expected to live with it and deal with it. If a father is abusive to his kids are they still better off in a "traditional family" upbringing?
Surely the most important thing in any family regardless of its make up is togetherness and love, whether that comes from 2 dads; 1 mums; or the traditional nuclear family.
Whether you see progression in this form as being right or wrong, it is unavoidable, the family unit is changing and society has to get used to those changes, the sooner we see acceptance of everyone regardless of sexual orientation, the better.
