Same sex marriage

[soulcougher73]

I love these threads. Its always like

 

[Matt1970]

Who cares?? Is two same sex people being married hurting your way of life some how?

I say let them be as miserable as the rest of married people....

LOL, it's not that I am against gay or interracial marriage, I am against all marriage

 

[SlickSnake]

Rejecting gay marriage has nothing to do with whether you like 'gayness' or not.

Society is fine the way it is. Dont rock the boat.

Isn't that the official motto of the KKK?

So by your illogic, you also accept SISL and Islam because society is fine the way it is, but yet gay marriage isn't fine? Is your pointy dunce cap fitting a little tighter than usual?

 

[FelixDeCat]

In case anyone hadn't noticed, the OP left the thread over one hundred posts ago. Well done Felix, well done.

That's why I said he should be banned. There is no question this was his motive and I wouldn't be surprised if he has started many other threads about the exact same topic.

Dank, you are an asshole. I can bring up any reasonable topic I desire, if you do not want to participate go back in your closet and stfu.

So? The topic is out there to be discussed. That is all that matters. Obviously people enjoy it as its like 7 pages long already. You want to restrict freedoms too? Asshole

Exactly.

 

[SlickSnake]

There is no correlation be race and sex.

You mean be-tween?

So, every time your pea brain has a giant brain fart, you feel the need to quickly try to type it out and share what stinky flavour it is with the rest of us?

Kind of like the resident demented toaster lover does who can't even make a consistent coherent argument that makes any sense what so ever?

 

[wangotango]

Who cares. I hope all the men in this world except me turn gay. That way, there will be no more evil people in this world. We are socially extinct.

 

[SlickSnake]

My needs are fine. Im not married.

Good thing, too, or your dirty hand would be out on the streets trying to make an honest living for your wife and family, besides trolling the boat here about a subject you readily admit don't even really concern you.

 

[FelixDeCat]

As for my wife, I already know she'll sleep with a man who has had anal sex, her husband.

Gee...that explains alot. Thanks MrPickins.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Isn't that the official motto of the KKK?

So by your illogic, you also accept SISL and Islam because society is fine the way it is, but yet gay marriage isn't fine? Is your pointy dunce cap fitting a little tighter than usual?

I would not know the motto of the KKK no more than you would know the motto of (take your pick of some racially charged group).

And who is "SISL"? Some group of terrorists that accept gay marriage?

 

[BudAshes]

I would not know the motto of the KKK no more than you would know the motto of (take your pick of some racially charged group).

And who is "SISL"? Some group of terrorists that accept gay marriage?

Somebody call the NSA. Terrorists are anti-gay marriage. Felix is anti-gay marriage. Is Felix a terrorist? I don't know, but he definitely could be. There is a pattern here.

 

[MrPickins]

Gee...that explains alot. Thanks MrPickins.

Hur hur

'cause anal secks = gay, amirite?

 

[MrPickins]

Dank, you are an asshole. I can bring up any reasonable topic I desire, if you do not want to participate go back in your closet and stfu.



Exactly.

Troll on, loser.

 

[alzan]

Umm..because we have no way of knowing if people actually use protection.

Secondly, either people either aren't using it or it isn't workin or that 64 percent number I shared wouldn't be nearly as high.

No we don't but providing better sex education and having honest talks with our children along with society as a whole can greatly increase the amount of people using protection or abstaining from sex until marriage; that goes for hetero and homo.

My point as well as some others in this thread is when you're in stable monogamous relationships like marriage, and both partners have been found free of STD's you're not going to contract HIV by screwing your partner anally; SSM promotes stable monogamous relationships.

 

[Retro Rob]

No we don't but providing better sex education and having honest talks with our children along with society as a whole can greatly increase the amount of people using protection or abstaining from sex until marriage; that goes for hetero and homo.

I agree with this, but still, there is NO WAY OF KNOWING if people are putting this education to good use.

Erring on the side of caution, especially when it comes to your long-term personal health, is the best option. Choosing a sex partner isn't like buying a new TV -- you can easily return a bad one, but its not so easy if you become infected with an STD.

I think it would be irresponsible to assume that a person has used/uses protection before choosing that person as a sex partner...no matter how well-education one may think the public is.

My point as well as some others in this thread is when you're in stable monogamous relationships like marriage, and both partners have been found free of STD's you're not going to contract HIV by screwing your partner anally; SSM promotes stable monogamous relationships.

Agree again, but marriage isn't required to have a long-term, monogamous relationship.

What marriage provides is security, and committment at least initially -- it doesn't at all, in and of itself, guarantee monogamy.

 

[SlitheryDee]

I agree with this, but still, there is NO WAY OF KNOWING if people are putting this education to good use.

Erring on the side of caution, especially when it comes to your long-term personal health, is the best option. Choosing a sex partner isn't like buying a new TV -- you can easily return a bad one, but its not so easy if you become infected with an STD.

I think it would be irresponsible to assume that a person has used/uses protection before choosing that person as a sex partner...no matter how well-education one may think the public is.

Generally speaking, erring on the side of caution would be getting tested with every new sex partner before engaging in sexual activities. Somewhat below that would be using a condom, which is still something like 98% effective in preventing STDs. That's definitely within the realms of acceptable risk.

Agree again, but marriage isn't required to have a long-term, monogamous relationship.

What marriage provides is security, and committment at least initially -- it doesn't at all, in and of itself, guarantee monogamy.

The 50% divorce rate has already been mentioned, but I find that to be a poor argument against marriage promoting monogamy. If fully half of the people who get married remain married, those are still far better numbers than that of unmarried relationships, which are overwhelmingly short and unstable while still seeming to produce the same or larger numbers of children to grow up in those conditions. Realistically, we want as many people getting married and staying that way as we can manage. That definitely includes homosexuals. As I said before, if humans were of the temperament to engage in long-term monogamous relationships without the added incentive of marriage THEN you could say that it is superfluous to the point being made here. As things are, it is clearly not.

 

[Retro Rob]

Generally speaking, erring on the side of caution would be getting tested with every new sex partner before engaging in sexual activities. Somewhat below that would be using a condom, which is still something like 98% effective in preventing STDs. That's definitely within the realms of acceptable risk.

Agree.

The 50% divorce rate has already been mentioned, but I find that to be a poor argument against marriage promoting monogamy.

Well, it shows that people think marriage somehow "changes" them if they're permiscuous. Committment starts well-before the wedding date, and if you're not monogamous before the wedding, you're likely not going to be so afterwards.

Monogamy primarily lies with the people involved, being "married" cannot change that if you don't first change.

 

[alzan]

I agree with this, but still, there is NO WAY OF KNOWING if people are putting this education to good use.

Erring on the side of caution, especially when it comes to your long-term personal health, is the best option. Choosing a sex partner isn't like buying a new TV -- you can easily return a bad one, but its not so easy if you become infected with an STD.

I think it would be irresponsible to assume that a person has used/uses protection before choosing that person as a sex partner...no matter how well-education one may think the public is.

Agree again, but marriage isn't required to have a long-term, monogamous relationship.

What marriage provides is security, and commitment at least initially -- it doesn't at all, in and of itself, guarantee monogamy.

Depends on how well and often it's enforced and iterated. Example: I was taught sex education in sixth through ninth grade, the same information each and every year; I didn't have sex until 11th grade but those lessons were there and stay with me to this day, never contracted an STD. Obviously others mileage may vary but that was my point about comprehensive sex education, you lower the risk by educating and rinse/repeat and you'll lower the spread of STD's.

Also, only my personal experience but I had several partners before I married; I knew from my parents and brothers what I needed to change about myself in order to have a successful marriage. And that information doesn't really need to come from family members or friends, it can come from other sources. People need to avail themselves to the resources available. As well they can learn from others' mistakes, especially with a 50% divorce rate.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Cannot believe when there is a 50% divorce rate and 50% of the population is single, an anti gay marriage rant. What is this idiot of an OP defending? Take that back, not defending, just attacking.

 

[werepossum]

Generally speaking, erring on the side of caution would be getting tested with every new sex partner before engaging in sexual activities. Somewhat below that would be using a condom, which is still something like 98% effective in preventing STDs. That's definitely within the realms of acceptable risk.

The 50% divorce rate has already been mentioned, but I find that to be a poor argument against marriage promoting monogamy. If fully half of the people who get married remain married, those are still far better numbers than that of unmarried relationships, which are overwhelmingly short and unstable while still seeming to produce the same or larger numbers of children to grow up in those conditions. Realistically, we want as many people getting married and staying that way as we can manage. That definitely includes homosexuals. As I said before, if humans were of the temperament to engage in long-term monogamous relationships without the added incentive of marriage THEN you could say that it is superfluous to the point being made here. As things are, it is clearly not.

Agree.


Well, it shows that people think marriage somehow "changes" them if they're permiscuous. Committment starts well-before the wedding date, and if you're not monogamous before the wedding, you're likely not going to be so afterwards.

Monogamy primarily lies with the people involved, being "married" cannot change that if you don't first change.

Very well said by both of you.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Because you are demanding the government recognize your marriage.

Nothing keeps you from holding a marriage ceremony between you an any person/place/thing you desire. Just don't expect the government, or anyone else, to recognize it.

Don't want the government involved in your personal life. Then don't go down to a government office and demand they become involved in it.

That's actually a very interesting point. I wonder if two people could simulate a marriage via legal contract...covering things like medical visitation, medical decisions when the other is unable to make them, "divorce" agreements on who gets what and stipulating child support and pal/alimony, inheritance, and any other benefits/abilities that a legal marriage confer. What other abilities/benefits am I missing?

If it were not possible to accomplish the above, then it would seem that I'm not demanding that government become involved in my life. Instead it would seem that government monopolizes my ability to have a true union with a spouse and then demands that I involve them in it.