Jump to content

bush


Recommended Posts

It doesn't matter what you don't like, it matters what hurts society. Homosexual marriage does not hurt society, but inbreeding does.

 

I believe homosexual marriages (and in the process, homosexual couples adopting) hurts society. Explain further. Pretty broad statement...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what you don't like, it matters what hurts society. Homosexual marriage does not hurt society, but inbreeding does.

 

I believe homosexual marriages (and in the process, homosexual couples adopting) hurts society. No, it doesn't. Inbreeding ruins the gene pool, homosexuality doesn't do that. The only society homosexuality destroys is your stupid gay-free religious interpretation and you are afraid enough people will come to their senses and stop discriminating against homosexuals when they see they are equal and like everyone else besides their sexual orientation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Marriage -- The definition of marriage varies considerably from age to age and culture to culture. To assume that male-female, monogamous, exogamous (extra-family) marriage is the only variant reflects a very poor understanding of human history. Polygamy, bigamy, monogamy, etc. have variously existed.

 

As summed by Lewis Henry Morgan's Ancient Society, these marriage forms can be anthropologically confirmed:

 

Consanguine family: Intermarriage of brothers and sisters

 

Punaluan family: Intermarriage of several sisters with each others' husbands or several brothers with each others' wives.

 

Syndasmian family: Marriage between single pairs without exclusive cohabitation.

 

Patriarchal family: One man with several wives

 

Monogamian Family: One man with one wife based on exclusive cohabitation.

 

Again, for anyone to refer to a form of marriage as more natural reflects very poor understanding, especially since monogamian marriage is generally recognized as the historically most recent variant of these different types.

 

As for homosexuality, many cultures accommodate the practice in socially-recognized institutions: "In most of North America there exists the institution of the berdache, as the French called them. These men-women were men who at puberty or thereafter took the dress and the occupations of women. Sometimes they married other men and lived with them. " (Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture, p. 243). So-called men-women are found amongst the Zuni (of Africa), the Cheyenne and Dakota (of North America), and amongst the native peoples of Siberia, to name a few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a dude can marry a dude.... do you think it's cool if I marry 8 chicks? :mischief2

 

That would work a lot better anyway. Don't deny me the right to marry 8 chicks. :p

Exactamundo......

 

Talk about a slippery slope. What keeps a polygamist or any other wack-job from then initiating litigation, arguing that they should receive equal rights in the eyes of the law?

 

"Hi, I'm the floodgates. Please open me. Thanks!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a dude can marry a dude.... do you think it's cool if I marry 8 chicks?? :mischief2

 

That would work a lot better anyway.? Don't deny me the right to marry 8 chicks.? :p

Wouldn't bother me.

 

 

If somebody wants to marry 3 people, why shouldn't they be allowed to? If someone gets married to a rock or a dog who are you to say its wrong? You don;t like it when people say guns are wrong and should be eliminated, so why would you want to regulate what people can get married to?

 

Note this also the same tired argument conservatives have used for hundreds of years on a broad range of issues from interracial marriage, desegragation, freeing of the slaves, etc, etc. And honestly, are you any worse off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a dude can marry a dude.... do you think it's cool if I marry 8 chicks? :mischief2

 

That would work a lot better anyway. Don't deny me the right to marry 8 chicks. :p

Wouldn't bother me. I like you Shamrock. Whether or not you're wrong/right in your stance is my personal opinion, but the fact is you don't flop around. :thumbup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a dude can marry a dude.... do you think it's cool if I marry 8 chicks? :mischief2

 

That would work a lot better anyway. Don't deny me the right to marry 8 chicks. :p

Exactamundo......

 

Talk about a slippery slope. What keeps a polygamist or any other wack-job from then initiating litigation, arguing that they should receive equal rights in the eyes of the law?

 

"Hi, I'm the floodgates. Please open me. Thanks!" Yep, who the hell needs to draw a line anyway? :mischief2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is marriage anyways? Hasn't marriage always been a religious ceremony??? I might be wrong. I'm not sure.

 

Here's the deal. Gays want to marry so they can have the benefits of marriage such as life insurance, hospital visitations, etc.

 

Why not just reform those things instead of changing something that has been around for as long as human civilization has been here??? I makes no sense. I could live with the roommate I have now, take showers with him, sleep in the same bed, (I'm not going to go any farther), and that will be the same thing as getting "married". It's a RELIGIOUS symbolic thing to get married, it's been like that forever, why change it so that a man can get another man's life insurance policy when he dies?

 

Gays marrying doesn't hurt society. Gays don't hurt society. Them trying to get married is totally boneheaded on their part and anybody who agrees that they should be. This is the history of the modern world we're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I know that marriage is conducted by the state. There are also common law marriages, blah blah blah. The point is is that marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman, and has ALWAYS been a religious ceremony, no matter what religion. Am I wrong on this? Why are we changing the history of basically the world because two men or women want to say they're "married". They could be together forever without putting rings on their finger. Cops aren't going to break into their house and throw them in jail or anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I know that marriage is conducted by the state. There are also common law marriages, blah blah blah. The point is is that marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman, and has ALWAYS been a religious ceremony, no matter what religion. Am I wrong on this? Why are we changing the history of basically the world because two men or women want to say they're "married". They could be together forever without putting rings on their finger. Cops aren't going to break into their house and throw them in jail or anything.

lol. You say "changing the history of the world" like homos are going to ruin society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm not.? We're changing the history of marriage.? Marriage as been a certain way for the history of the modern world.? Why change it now...

Why change anything? There have been people like you all throughout history always holding back progress and advancment. What if the American colonists decided that government shouldn't be different? What if, what if, what if, what if.

 

 

 

And I think Dancin' Homer clearly outlined the history of marriage to prove you wrong.

 

 

NOTE: craig I'll have a response for you soon, but I need to dwell on it for awhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm not. We're changing the history of marriage. Marriage as been a certain way for the history of the modern world. Why change it now...

Why change anything?

 

 

 

And I think Dancin' Homer clearly outlined the history of marriage to prove you wrong. Well, gay marriage is outlawed in almost every state, so I guess you would have to change that now wouldn't you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is is that marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman, and has ALWAYS been a religious ceremony, no matter what religion. Am I wrong on this?

Yes you are wrong. It was NOT always between only a man and a woman, it could be a man and WOMEN, and man and a man, and so on. Marriage was not always religious, look at las vegas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm not.? We're changing the history of marriage.? Marriage as been a certain way for the history of the modern world.? Why change it now...

Why change anything?

 

 

 

And I think Dancin' Homer clearly outlined the history of marriage to prove you wrong. Well, gay marriage is outlawed in almost every state, so I guess you would have to change that now wouldn't you. Ya, and it was also illegal for blacks to participate in society and that was changed as will this. Its only a matter of time...aint progress sweet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...