What will be the next Great Progressive Cause™ now that same-sex marriage is common?

[s0me0nesmind1]

Morality is an ever dropping factor. Next in line is what was consider immoral yester-years: Poligomy and Beastiality.

Why it is all of a sudden-accepting for same-sex couples but beastiality is immoral, damning, and disgusting is beyond me. The nation just likes to implant these false moralities into your mind - and you abide by them daily. As they slowly change by social standards (Gay marriage) - everyone else follows. It's like a non-stop cult following starring yours truly: The average retarded US Citizen.

To be frank - regardless of the fact that same-sex marriage/relations were never meant via evolution standards of the inability to reproduce, I could still give 2 shits less if 2 guys or 2 gals want to rub their feet together in a religious based event called "marriage". It's rather hilarious how they always want to get into the parties of what they weren't invited to (Boyscouts and marriage) - but nevertheless I don't care considering my lack of religion.

I just find it funny how gay marriage is associated with liberals, yet liberals have had the most flip-floppers on the topic, heh.

 

[lotus503]

Morality is an ever dropping factor. Next in line is what was consider immoral yester-years: Poligomy and Beastiality.

Why it is all of a sudden-accepting for same-sex couples but beastiality is immoral, damning, and disgusting is beyond me. The nation just likes to implant these false moralities into your mind - and you abide by them daily. As they slowly change by social standards (Gay marriage) - everyone else follows. It's like a non-stop cult following starring yours truly: The average retarded US Citizen.

To be frank - regardless of the fact that same-sex marriage/relations were never meant via evolution standards of the inability to reproduce, I could still give 2 shits less if 2 guys or 2 gals want to rub their feet together in a religious based event called "marriage". It's rather hilarious how they always want to get into the parties of what they weren't invited to (Boyscouts and marriage) - but nevertheless I don't care considering my lack of religion.

I just find it funny how gay marriage is associated with liberals, yet liberals have had the most flip-floppers on the topic, heh.

You're free to start a bestiality campaign to have it recognized as equal.

Best of luck

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

You're free to start a bestiality camping to have it recognized as equal.

Best of luck

Considering I have no relation to the subject - once again I could careless. My laughs come from the sideline as these morals are passed down from our society as if they are completely unlawful and the only acceptable way to function - yet to a normal functioning human brain from outside society would ask "Why not? What the fuck is wrong with you to say butt-fucking another male is ok - but not another species male?"

It's sickening how much our culture tries to define morals, yet changes them and the country follows in a unison circle jerk of racial groups, gay groups, and gender groups - always guaranteed to make us completely divided :awe:

Perfect example: Finishing off your soup by sipping on the broth directly to the mouth. Do it here? Everyone judges you as rude and un-civilized thanks to the retarded morality we have here. Take a step into Asia and you would be the rude one not to.

 

[jackstar7]

For the purposes of our discussion here, marriage is the joining of a committed male and committed female to a lifelong union.

Seems like a lot of details are left out of that, and it's not how I would define it, but I'm glad we've established what you're talking about finally.

Still waiting on those links from you...

Chuck

http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/marriage

Marriage is the process by which two people who love each other make their relationship public, official, and permanent. It is the joining of two people in a bond that putatively lasts until death...

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

Marriage establishes a legal kinship between you and your spouse. It is a relationship that is recognized across cultures, countries and religions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws.[1] The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged.

Dictionary.com

the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.

UrbanDictionary

What straight couples have legally and commonly don't want, and what gay couples don't have legally and commonly want.

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html

Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom.

I'll absolutely grant that several resources plainly state man and woman or people of opposite sex, but they are not universal or timeless.

 

[lotus503]

Considering I have no relation to the subject - once again I could careless. My laughs come from the sideline as these morals are passed down from our society as if they are completely unlawful and the only acceptable way to function - yet to a normal functioning human brain from outside society would ask "Why not? What the fuck is wrong with you to say butt-fucking another male is ok - but not another species male?"

It's sickening how much our culture tries to define morals, yet changes them and the country follows in a unison circle jerk of racial groups, gay groups, and gender groups - always guaranteed to make us completely divided :awe:

Perfect example: Finishing off your soup by sipping on the broth directly to the mouth. Do it here? Everyone judges you as rude and un-civilized thanks to the retarded morality we have here. Take a step into Asia and you would be the rude one not to.

yeah society is funny like that, I would never smash a monkey in the head and eat its brains, in some societies thats a fun Friday night at dinner.

 

[michal1980]

It's not of issue of arguing sameness.
It's an issue of choosing to treat differences unequal.

Gay couples are different than traditional couples in what sex they are attracted to. Two males cannot conceive a child naturally etc.

I choose to not treat those differences unequal in a marriage as a social construct.

Others choose to treat them unequal.

Those differences are important. The rights given to married hetro couples stem directly form governments, and societies need to continue. IE have family units, make new people, provide a basic. To deny that is to deny basic biology.

SS couples in a marco sense provide none of that for society. There love for each other is immaterial to weather or not they should be granted special privileges.

 

[jackstar7]

Those differences are important. The rights given to married hetro couples stem directly form governments, and societies need to continue. IE have family units, make new people, provide a basic. To deny that is to deny basic biology.

SS couples in a marco sense provide none of that for society. There love for each other is immaterial to weather or not they should be granted special privileges.

Once again, no.

The benefit is not reproduction. The benefit is stability and order.

What the government wants is order and stability. The species wants rampant fucking of all people all the time.

 

[lotus503]

Those differences are important. The rights given to married hetro couples stem directly form governments, and societies need to continue. IE have family units, make new people, provide a basic. To deny that is to deny basic biology.

SS couples in a marco sense provide none of that for society. There love for each other is immaterial to weather or not they should be granted special privileges.

the differences are important enough to you to treat them unequal.
The differences are unimportant to me as a matter of equality.

The outcome is simply a majority opinion of those two positions, of which SS marriage will be treated equal because the majority of people in our society agree with my position.

 

[michal1980]

Once again, no.

The benefit is not reproduction. The benefit is stability and order.

What the government wants is order and stability. The species wants rampant fucking of all people all the time.

Its all.

you can dismiss reproduction, but only by maintaining a state of idiocy.

 

[lotus503]

Its all.

you can dismiss reproduction, but only by maintaining a state of idiocy.

I don't need to dismiss reproduction, I just need to dismiss it as some qualifier for marriage, Which society has already done.

I think you have to be an idiot not to comprehend that.

 

[michal1980]

I don't need to dismiss reproduction, I just need to dismiss it as some qualifier for marriage, Which society has already done.

I think you have to be an idiot not to comprehend that.

some of society has done (dismissed that).

Giving into society is mob rule. Its turning off your brain.


Furthermore, form a legal/government stand point its important.



Why does/should government grant special privileges to married people?

Its to promote a stable growing society.

If government has no interest or rights in defining marriage, then lets abandoned any benefit's of it.

If government does have a interest it marriage, then it has a right to define who gets married.

 

[michal1980]

the differences are important enough to you to treat them unequal.
The differences are unimportant to me as a matter of equality.

The outcome is simply a majority opinion of those two positions, of which SS marriage will be treated equal because the majority of people in our society agree with my position.

you are trying to make unequal things equal.

And yet you have a problem with people objecting to that?

 

[jackstar7]

If government does have a interest it marriage, then it has a right to define who gets married.

And so they do, and it's going to include homosexual couples.

 

[lotus503]

you are trying to make unequal things equal.

And yet you have a problem with people objecting to that?

I am choosing to view different things as equal and have no problem with you objecting to that.

I just don't find your objection particularly compelling and from the looks of it Majority of society doesn't either.

 

[michal1980]

I am choosing to view different things as equal and have no problem with you objecting to that.

I just don't find your objection particularly compelling and from the looks of it Majority of society doesn't either.

the majority is fickle. And I do not tend to base my opinions on mob mentality.

 

[michal1980]

And so they do, and it's going to include homosexual couples.

but why?

what benefit to society is there to grant gays the same privileges?

 

[Carfax83]

I'll absolutely grant that several resources plainly state man and woman or people of opposite sex, but they are not universal or timeless.

The original purpose of marriage was for the establishment and continuation of bloodlines and for determining inheritance..

Notice that this is different from mere reproduction, where the father may not necessarily be known. With bloodlines, recognition is very important hence the ceremonies and contracts that accompanied most marriages.

The union of the male and female couple was recognized by their Society, and their offspring were recognized as their children AND inheritors.

It's for this reason, why gay marriage is all but unknown throughout History. Why should gay marriage exist, when homosexuals cannot establish bloodlines?

Your link suggesting there were instances of gay marriage in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt is incorrect and inconclusive. While there were certainly gay relationships, there weren't any gay marriages in the sense that gay couples could not become "married" under the actual laws.

This mirrors Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome as well..

 

[jackstar7]

but why?

what benefit to society is there to grant gays the same privileges?

Stable family units for communities. Exactly what I said before. Order is the primary benefit of marriages to society and government.

 

[jackstar7]

The original purpose of marriage was for the establishment and continuation of bloodlines and for determining inheritance..

Notice that this is different from mere reproduction, where the father may not necessarily be known. With bloodlines, recognition is very important hence the ceremonies and contracts that accompanied most marriages.

The union of the male and female couple was recognized by their Society, and their offspring were recognized as their children AND inheritors.

It's for this reason, why gay marriage is all but unknown throughout History. Why should gay marriage exist, when homosexuals cannot establish bloodlines?

Your link suggesting there were instances of gay marriage in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt is incorrect and inconclusive. While there were certainly gay relationships, there weren't any gay marriages in the sense that gay couples could not become "married" under the actual laws.

This mirrors Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome as well..

But again, we come back to adoption, surrogacy, and artificial insemination which provide gay couples the chance to have family units that include children.

 

[lotus503]

the majority is fickle. And I do not tend to base my opinions on mob mentality.

Sorta fickle, I mean we haven't gone back and removed interracial marriage, civil rights or really anything related to equality.

I don't base my opinion on Mob mentality either, but its nice to have the majority of society agree with my position on gay marriage.

 

[Carfax83]

But again, we come back to adoption, surrogacy, and artificial insemination which provide gay couples the chance to have family units that include children.

I wasn't referring to modern times when I wrote that segment.

I was just saying that the original intention or purpose of marriage inherently conflicts with the notion of gay marriage.

Although they exist, legitimate instances of gay marriage are extremely rare throughout human history..

Many of them involve the elite and the powerful who could ignore the law and do whatever they wished.

Emperor Nero is one such example, when he married at least two males if I recall..

Either way, regardless of artificial insemination or surrogacy, gay couples still cannot create bloodlines with each other. You still need an opposite sex donor.

 

[jackstar7]

Either way, regardless of artificial insemination or surrogacy, gay couples still cannot create bloodlines with each other. You still need an opposite sex donor.

Sure. But the science doesn't seem to be letting that limitation stand.

 

[Retro Rob]

Sure. But the science doesn't seem to be letting that limitation stand.

How, exactly?

 

[jackstar7]

How, exactly?

Fertilizing eggs that have been genetically deactivated with multiple sperm, or vice versa with genetic material from multiple eggs and deactivated sperm.

This is where things were a few years ago:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/24/scientists-embryos-women-man/1654853/


I don't imagine we'll see this inside the next couple years, but I'd say within my lifetime seems possible.

 

[michal1980]

Stable family units for communities. Exactly what I said before. Order is the primary benefit of marriages to society and government.

all components are part of the deal on a marco level.

reproduction is fundamental to marriage in general.

You have to deny that to justify your beliefs'.