| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > If You Want To Know What Stupidity Is |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 15 2004, 01:02 PM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Rants & Replies > If You Want To Know What Stupidity Is Posted by: Cerise May 26 2004, 05:37 PM http://christianviewpoints.com/message-board-forum/about765.html I can't believe I'm wasting my time with these morons. They actually seem to believe that allowing homosexuals to marry will lead to men marrying firehydrants and ferrets. Posted by: Fweethawt May 26 2004, 06:07 PM I almost finished reading the first post after clicking on your link Cerise. That was all I could stand. Posted by: Tocis May 26 2004, 08:15 PM QUOTE (Cerise @ May 26 2004, 05:37 PM) I can't believe I'm wasting my time with these morons. They actually seem to believe that allowing homosexuals to marry will lead to men marrying firehydrants and ferrets. To make their idol (seemingly) speak the truth, they have to think up such ludicrous stories. They try (as usual) to twist reality to fit their delusions... and failing that, like they always do, they invent sick fairy tales they say are real. Posted by: Luck Mermaid May 26 2004, 09:24 PM And what exactly is SO wrong about me wanting to marry a fire hydrant, huh? Posted by: Fweethawt May 26 2004, 09:38 PM QUOTE (Luck Mermaid @ May 27 2004, 01:24 AM) And what exactly is SO wrong about me wanting to marry a fire hydrant, huh? It would never work out LM. Please! Find yourself someone with a bit more flesh, OK? They're much warmer, and of course, pleasantly wet. Posted by: Luck Mermaid May 26 2004, 10:16 PM QUOTE Please! Find yourself someone with a bit more flesh, OK? LOL. Now that's funny. I guess you do have a point - but then again, my hydrant will never become flabby with age. Posted by: ineedtranquilitynow May 27 2004, 06:47 AM Marriage is a joke, and a sad pathetic one at that. It is obvious to anyone with a brain that the only reason homosexuals want to get joined in matrimony is because of the money they will save being able file a joint income tax return. Posted by: Madame M May 27 2004, 06:54 AM No, I think that homosexuals also want marriage because of the other rights that come with it. Shared property, ability to co-adopt, ability to cover your partner with health insurance, partner gets to make medical decisions on your behalf..etc. You know, all the same benefits that married couples enjoy. Tax breaks is just one of many things. .................................................................... About the other thread. My father sent me that awhile back in a forward. I wrote him back and said, "Heterosexuals have already made a mockery of marriage, with such a high divorce rate." Which shut him up because he has been married 4 times. I also pointed out, why should two irresponsible hetero 18 year olds be able to go to Vegas and get drunk and get married on the fly and then turn around and divorce a week later... while two responsible homosexuals who are in their 30's, careers, investments and have been partners for 10 years and are raising two kids together, can not get legally married to protect their family and assets? He had no answer. Posted by: Madame M May 27 2004, 06:55 AM QUOTE (Luck Mermaid @ May 27 2004, 12:24 AM) And what exactly is SO wrong about me wanting to marry a fire hydrant, huh? Oh Luck, I'm so happy *sniffle*, have you finally met the firehydrant of your dreams? Posted by: BlueGiant May 27 2004, 09:30 AM Just me or is this so-called argument, which is actually just a slipery slope falacy, even worth responding to. To any reasonable person, it would seem, this is, on its face, patently absurd. The only part to which I feel a counter argument should be posed is that of "multi-way" marriages. My reason for drawing a line at two people in a relationship is that relationships between humans are inherently binary, there are no "delocalized" bonds of friendship, kinship or aquaintance. There is no three-way bond, just a set of two-way bonds that emulate it in a less stable fashion. The larger a group is, the less stable it gets. As we have all seen, the stability between two people is not all that great. Add another person in the mix, and I think I can guess what will happen divorce-rate-wise. Does this make sense to anyone else here? Posted by: REBOOT May 27 2004, 09:54 AM Hmmm... it's not a joke, its all about getting the same rights. Homosexuals have observed that married couples have advantages that they should have. Any couple under the same roof should have the same rights regardless of association type. Maybe we should remove these special fiscal or legal rights in order to avoid injustices. Hey here's a quick way to resolve the deficit The Pope condemns gay marriages as an abomination... well... what is the gay community waiting for to create its own church with its own gay Pope and then lets have them put their fists up in a WWF restling match Welcome to the brave new world (Aldous Huxley) Posted by: humanwill May 27 2004, 11:36 AM QUOTE They actually seem to believe that allowing homosexuals to marry will lead to men marrying firehydrants and ferrets. typical.... i hate the way people try to make homosexuals into these horrible villians that seek to destroy everything on the face of the earth.... or that they're "super perverse" so you better be careful and stay at least 30 feet away from them... etc.... people can come up with the most lame shit.... Posted by: stardog May 27 2004, 12:15 PM QUOTE (REBOOT @ May 27 2004, 09:54 AM) Hmmm... it's not a joke, its all about getting the same rights. Homosexuals have observed that married couples have advantages that they should have. Any couple under the same roof should have the same rights regardless of association type. Maybe we should remove these special fiscal or legal rights in order to avoid injustices. Hey here's a quick way to resolve the deficit The Pope condemns gay marriages as an abomination... well... what is the gay community waiting for to create its own church with its own gay Pope and then lets have them put their fists up in a WWF restling match Welcome to the brave new world (Aldous Huxley) I would pay cold hard cash to watch such a wrestling match. I'll even bring the pizza and beer. Posted by: sexkitten May 27 2004, 12:29 PM QUOTE (REBOOT @ May 27 2004, 09:54 AM) The Pope condemns gay marriages as an abomination... well... what is the gay community waiting for to create its own church with its own gay Pope and then lets have them put their fists up in a WWF restling match Welcome to the brave new world (Aldous Huxley) It wouldn't be a fair fight! I mean, seriously, considering the current health of the Pope, even the most stereotypically limp-wristed, sports-phobic, theatre queen would win. Posted by: Luck Mermaid May 27 2004, 12:35 PM QUOTE Oh Luck, I'm so happy *sniffle*, have you finally met the firehydrant of your dreams? Well, we were planning to get 'unnofficially' married in September, but now Fwee has raised some doubts in my mind - what if I'm old one day, and this fire hydrant of mine finds some other young thing that doesn't age and will paint it new and funky colors - that's MY job! Shit, that's depressing... What if he wants our children to be raised as fire hydrants - I'd always imagined them having legs. I don't know - this whole thing si really confusing right now. I know you meant to help Fwee, but now I'm really confused. I can't tell my hyde about it because he's sensitiv, and when he starts tocry, you'd better believe you don't want to get too close at full power. Posted by: Ender May 27 2004, 03:23 PM I've been married to my right hand since I was 14. I wonder what they would think about that? ...on top of that I've had a hard time staying faithful... bwam chica bwam bwam Posted by: TruthWarrior May 27 2004, 05:59 PM QUOTE (Ender @ May 27 2004, 07:23 PM) I've been married to my right hand since I was 14. I wonder what they would think about that? ...on top of that I've had a hard time staying faithful... bwam chica bwam bwam Do you have wedding rings? Posted by: TruthWarrior May 27 2004, 06:02 PM QUOTE (BlueGiant @ May 27 2004, 01:30 PM) Just me or is this so-called argument, which is actually just a slipery slope falacy, even worth responding to. To any reasonable person, it would seem, this is, on its face, patently absurd. Most all religion and politics issues are slippery slopes. Posted by: Ender May 27 2004, 07:10 PM QUOTE (TruthWarrior @ May 27 2004, 05:59 PM) Do you have wedding rings? Just one big one, it snaps on! Posted by: Tocis May 27 2004, 10:11 PM I wrote this before if memory serves, in some other thread... ...for a government, I see one valid reason for promoting heterosexual partnerships - a nation has the right to be interested in its continued existence, i. e. children. So one could argue that homosexual marriage doesn't pay off as well as heterosexual marriage, from a government's point of view. But this does not take into account, of course, the possibility of in vitro fertilization or adoption - which would change the perspective to a "If they provide a stable environment in which children can be raised, they deserve equal rights". In the end it's all about how the partners act... not about what kinds of sex they have. Posted by: Kaiser Soze May 28 2004, 01:20 AM Personally I believe marriage is a joke anyway, particularly in terms of the biblical connotation. An out-dated and out-moded patriarchal system of social structure designed to reinforce applied gender roles rather than allowing people to act freely in and of themselves. that said, if people want to get married regardless of their sexuality/gender than what the fuck is the problem? I know that this might be hard to accept for those still clinging to God's robes afraid that they might not like the reality that lurks beyond, but marriage is a system that has thankfully broken free of its religious foundations to become something that may be enjoyed by anyone regardless of who or what they are. On a side note, the notion of the state interfering in people's personal lives in such a manner I find abhorrent. What right does the government of any country have to categorically deny a recognised and legitimate social sub group (such as us homsexuals/bi-sexuals) the rights it affords and upholds for other human beings? Just appalling. Posted by: Madame M May 28 2004, 05:31 AM QUOTE which would change the perspective to a "If they provide a stable environment in which children can be raised, they deserve equal rights". Unfortunately, there are alot of hetero's who are not providing a stable environment for children. I think invitro, surrogacy and adoption open up parenting possibilities for gay couples that they didn't have before. I think though, in alot of states, gay couples are still not allowed to co-adopt, so the adopted child belongs only to the parent on the adoption certificate. When I ibelonged to a parenting debate forum, there were a coople of women on there who were in lesbian relationships and parenting with their parenters. Their primary concerns were not getting tax breaks, but that they were in the same situation as many hetero couples. One parent was a stay at home, and the working parent couldn't get medical coverage for her partner and in both cases the child, because the child was not considered hers. They just wanted their families provided for, that was it. I think there are alot of things wrong with marriage. Espcially the way one person can get really screwed in a divorce. Butt marriage is also about security, and that is being denied to homosexual couples. Posted by: Fweethawt May 28 2004, 05:57 PM QUOTE (Luck Mermaid @ May 27 2004, 02:16 AM) QUOTE Please! Find yourself someone with a bit more flesh, OK? LOL. Now that's funny. I guess you do have a point - but then again, my hydrant will never become flabby with age. You're right. It'll just get rusty! Posted by: chrome May 28 2004, 08:21 PM QUOTE (humanwill @ May 27 2004, 12:36 PM) QUOTE They actually seem to believe that allowing homosexuals to marry will lead to men marrying firehydrants and ferrets. typical.... i hate the way people try to make homosexuals into these horrible villians that seek to destroy everything on the face of the earth.... or that they're "super perverse" so you better be careful and stay at least 30 feet away from them... etc.... people can come up with the most lame shit.... WHAT??? You mean to say I'm NOT a SuperVillan? DAMN! I was going to take over the world on this long weekend. Does that mean I have to give back the cape? Posted by: Kaiser Soze Jun 1 2004, 01:46 AM *Emerges from the shadows in his "Spawn" outfit* I like the chains..... Posted by: Doug2 Jun 1 2004, 03:18 AM Well look what universal suffrage has done! Now dogs, cats, and snails can vote! Posted by: MalaInSe Jun 1 2004, 02:34 PM QUOTE (BlueGiant @ May 27 2004, 09:30 AM) Just me or is this so-called argument, which is actually just a slipery slope falacy, even worth responding to. To any reasonable person, it would seem, this is, on its face, patently absurd. The only part to which I feel a counter argument should be posed is that of "multi-way" marriages. My reason for drawing a line at two people in a relationship is that relationships between humans are inherently binary, there are no "delocalized" bonds of friendship, kinship or aquaintance. There is no three-way bond, just a set of two-way bonds that emulate it in a less stable fashion. The larger a group is, the less stable it gets. As we have all seen, the stability between two people is not all that great. Add another person in the mix, and I think I can guess what will happen divorce-rate-wise. Does this make sense to anyone else here? It does to me. I also think that the state has a legitimate interest in limiting marriage to two people because I think that it challenges a state's resources to go any higher. Divorce for two people taxes the system; can't imagine what it would be for three or four. Then the state needs to figure out how it's going to handle taxes or public services. I think it's just too much at this point to have official marriages between more than two people. Posted by: MalaInSe Jun 1 2004, 02:39 PM QUOTE (Tocis @ May 27 2004, 10:11 PM) I wrote this before if memory serves, in some other thread... ...for a government, I see one valid reason for promoting heterosexual partnerships - a nation has the right to be interested in its continued existence, i. e. children. So one could argue that homosexual marriage doesn't pay off as well as heterosexual marriage, from a government's point of view. But this does not take into account, of course, the possibility of in vitro fertilization or adoption - which would change the perspective to a "If they provide a stable environment in which children can be raised, they deserve equal rights". In the end it's all about how the partners act... not about what kinds of sex they have. It doesn't take into account the couples that choose not to have children, or those that are incapable of having children. Do we start requiring couples to take fertility tests before marriage? It is the argument originally used by the US Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick. Relationships between gays were not to be accorded the same privacy rights as those between hets because the state had an interest in promoting marriage that resulted in children. It's an argument that doesn't make sense, because we don't just have sex for procreation anymore, and many couples simply don't or can't have children. The bottom line is that the state should not be determining whether a relationship has enough merit to be a marriage beyond determining that it's between two consenting adults. Posted by: Lokmer Jun 1 2004, 02:41 PM I've said it before and I'll say it again - The state ought to get out of the marriage business, and instead simply enforce private contracts. -Lokmer Posted by: sexkitten Jun 1 2004, 02:43 PM QUOTE (Doug2 @ Jun 1 2004, 03:18 AM) Well look what universal suffrage has done! Now dogs, cats, and snails can vote! Yes, but only in Chicago. Posted by: Cerise Jun 1 2004, 03:06 PM QUOTE I am one of those people who would rather just give up and let marriage's state decrease rather than starting somewhere and fighting against it getting worse. Yet, I do not really believe that way any longer. I am completely ready to protect the sanctity of marriage from homosexuality, yet I will not stop with that, it must be completely cleansed...yet that is my opinion, you must not agree with me. Okay, now it's getting scary. Cleansed? Is it just me, or does this guy sound like the next Hitler? Posted by: Erik the Awful Jun 1 2004, 11:12 PM The Problem with marriage in the United States is that the Conservatives have started relying upon the State to supply "santification" of marriage. Dumb Fucks. A State Sanctified Marriage isn't worth the paper it's written on. The PARTIES sanctify the marriage, namly the husband and wife and their church if they are both into that kind of thing. The State can make a marriage LEGAL or ILLEGAL. The Conservatives think that means the same thing. Dumb Fucks. Still, if those who promote State Sanctified marriage are successful, they get Exactly what they deserve. Nothing More, Nothing less. Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com) © Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com) |