Should homosexuals have the right to marry?

[YDKJMF]

Someone asked a question and I answered it.

[Vojvodina-Nihon]

Families are built from traditional gender roles: a father, who works outside the home, serves as the "protector" of the family, is head of the household, can't understand women, enjoys masculine activities like sports, cars, and warfare, dresses in earthy and unfashionable clothing, and is the performer of sex; and a mother, who stays at home, raises the children, can cook and clean, is more intuitive and emotive than her husband, enjoys feminine activities like shopping, knitting, and backstabbing, wears pretty dresses and skirts, and is the recipient of sex. And any number of children. There are numerous other "complementary opposites" here: for instance, fathers read the business section of the newspaper while mothers read the arts & entertainment section; fathers are good drivers while mothers are ... well, everyone knows what women drivers are like; et cetera.

Homosexual relationships, of course, make a mockery of this time-tested dynamic, and therefore cannot be expected to provide an environment in which well-balanced children can be raised. And since the only purpose of marriage is to create families, there's no reason they should be allowed to marry.

Of course, homosexuality is far from the only thing threatening gender roles (and by extension the family itself). Many things will have to change before we can ensure that our families are protected. For instance, we will have to reverse the damage done by the unfortunately misguided "women's lib" movement. It'll take a while and be quite expensive, and some people would be unhappy, but the obvious decline in society (note the gangs running around cities robbing banks and raping women and spray-painting graffiti on walls; nobody takes the Second Amendment seriously anymore, resulting in very few well-regulated militias still existing; immigrants are appropriating and tainting our culture with their heathenish foreign ways and delicious food; and with the Soviet Union gone, we've forgotten all about our pledge to stamp out Communism in all the foreign countries it's spread to, like Canada) indicates that action must be taken now before it's too late.

[Scarsaw]

Would you rather eat food that fell on the stove, or food that fell on the toilet seat? Would your answer change if I told you that there are fewer -- and less dangerous -- germs on toilet seats than stoves? Probably not. Wouldn't for most poeple. 'disgusting' is cultural.

And way to dodge the question.

But there is different/more germs, as I said before, it's not disgusting but unsanitary; I can find a few more places that says that, and *cough*....I kinda have first hand experience with it....kinda got a horrible kidney infection.

So a better analogy is "would you eat food that fell on a pile of shit or would you rather eat food that fell in a pile of dirt?" Both have quite a few microorganisms; however, shit has certain ones that are more likely to make you ill. Has nothing to do with what you think or feel, just what it is.

[Whole Conviction]

Families are built from traditional gender roles*snip*

That's one way of organising a family. It isn't the only way. It isn't even the historical way -- 'how things have always been done' tends to be more myth than reality.

Also, thanks for showing the link between anti-gay-marriage and sexism. You rock.

[Parthenon]

A gay man has the right to marry a woman, just as a lesbian has the right to marry a man.

A beautiful false choice.

Let's say something odd happened at some point in history. IVF was developed 1000 years back, allowing for procreation without sex. Some other fuddling happened in the timestream, and everything went a bit Greek. As a result, same-sex marriage is the ONLY legal marriage, and children are handled without any disgusting heterosexual sex. Ew.

Are you happy? Would you say that you have the right to marry a woman if you want, despite being free to marry any man you choose? Or would that be an unjust restriction on your personal freedoms?

Are you honestly suggesting that anal sex is cleaner than vaginal intercourse?

Would you rather eat food that fell on the stove, or food that fell on the toilet seat? Would your answer change if I told you that there are fewer -- and less dangerous -- germs on toilet seats than stoves? Probably not. Wouldn't for most poeple. 'disgusting' is cultural.

And way to dodge the question.

You obviously haven't seen my toilet seat...

[Whole Conviction]

Would you rather eat food that fell on the stove, or food that fell on the toilet seat? Would your answer change if I told you that there are fewer -- and less dangerous -- germs on toilet seats than stoves? Probably not. Wouldn't for most poeple. 'disgusting' is cultural.

And way to dodge the question.

You obviously haven't seen my toilet seat...

So, you don't have an answer to the question?

[Farnhamia]

If you're over the age of 65 you should be put to death. If you have a disease that makes you a liability, you should be put to death.

Just trying to get a measure of your churlishness, and now I know.

[Phenia]

Families are built from traditional gender roles: a father, who works outside the home, serves as the "protector" of the family, is head of the household, can't understand women, enjoys masculine activities like sports, cars, and warfare, dresses in earthy and unfashionable clothing, and is the performer of sex; and a mother, who stays at home, raises the children, can cook and clean, is more intuitive and emotive than her husband, enjoys feminine activities like shopping, knitting, and backstabbing, wears pretty dresses and skirts, and is the recipient of sex.

Someone pinch me. I fear I have tripped and fallen into the 19th century.

And any number of children. There are numerous other "complementary opposites" here: for instance, fathers read the business section of the newspaper while mothers read the arts & entertainment section; fathers are good drivers while mothers are ... well, everyone knows what women drivers are like; et cetera.

Ah ha ha ! Misognyistic stereotypes sure are hilarious. And compelling, too!

Homosexual relationships, of course, make a mockery of this time-tested dynamic, and therefore cannot be expected to provide an environment in which well-balanced children can be raised.

Of course, we will ignore the fact that you have not presented a single shred of data to support this grandiose conclusion! Because, of course, I'm right in that homosexuals can be just as good parents as heterosexuals.

And since the only purpose of marriage is to create families, there's no reason they should be allowed to marry.

There is no law that supports your unique definition of the 'purpose of marriage,' and thus no reason not to dismiss your argument for the bigoted, irrational nonsense it is.

Of course, homosexuality is far from the only thing threatening gender roles (and by extension the family itself). Many things will have to change before we can ensure that our families are protected. For instance, we will have to reverse the damage done by the unfortunately misguided "women's lib" movement.

"Women's lib" is quoted because... it happened long before you were born and is an irrevocable part of society? Or because the terms "women" and "liberty" are so alien to you.

It'll take a while and be quite expensive, and some people would be unhappy, but the obvious decline in society (note the gangs running around cities robbing banks and raping women and spray-painting graffiti on walls; nobody takes the Second Amendment seriously anymore, resulting in very few well-regulated militias still existing; immigrants are appropriating and tainting our culture with their heathenish foreign ways and delicious food; and with the Soviet Union gone, we've forgotten all about our pledge to stamp out Communism in all the foreign countries it's spread to, like Canada) indicates that action must be taken now before it's too late.

You seem to imply you care about women being raped. Why? You want to reverse women's lib. If women can't vote or own property or have any of the other rights women's lib has granted in modern society, why the fuss about them being raped?

Is it just because you believe it's mostly minority ethnicity gangs raping the women, and thus an affront whereas otherwise it wouldn't be?

I'm just trying to understand your position, to see if it makes sense.

[UberWeegeeia]

Yes, if gays want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us, I say yes!

[Phenia]

You obviously haven't seen my toilet seat...

And believe me, we all count ourselves unfortunate for that lack.

[Parthenon]

Would you rather eat food that fell on the stove, or food that fell on the toilet seat? Would your answer change if I told you that there are fewer -- and less dangerous -- germs on toilet seats than stoves? Probably not. Wouldn't for most poeple. 'disgusting' is cultural.

And way to dodge the question.

You obviously haven't seen my toilet seat...

So, you don't have an answer to the question?

Your hypothetical situation isn't worthy of discussing. IVF is certainly possible for humans with today's technology, however, there are a million other organisms out there that practice male-female copulation for reproductive purposes making the notion that IVF being discovered earlier could possibly lead to homosexual sex appearing as the norm would be rendered null and void as humans learn from their surroundings.

[Flameswroth]

I, for one say yes.
And no, I am not gay.
What's your opinion?

Naw, brah. That's just groady.

[Vojvodina-Nihon]

Families are built from traditional gender roles*snip*

That's one way of organising a family. It isn't the only way. It isn't even the historical way -- 'how things have always been done' tends to be more myth than reality.

But it is the best way, though.

I mean, look at it closely. The symmetry is so beautiful! One gender has careers, the other one has children. One gender can cook, the other one can barbeque. (Incidentally, please bear in mind that male vegetarianism is just as much a perversion of traditional values as homosexuality.) One gender enjoys sex, the other one doesn't. And of course there's the whole penis/vagina thing and how well they fit together... well, most of the time anyway.... okay, so not really, but sometimes you get a couple where it fits really well and you don't have to use any, um, "aids", which is more than can be said for buttsex or... um, whatever lesbians do. (And don't tell me, because seriously, that's disgusting and I don't want to know. Ewww!)

Also, thanks for showing the link between anti-gay-marriage and sexism. You rock.

Spare me your PC buzzwords. It's not "sexism", it's "the natural, normal relationship between the sexes as it has always been ever since that became the natural, normal relationship between the sexes." Besides, some of my best friends are women, and I respect them for that, even if they will never be able to drive as well as me.

[Ifreann]

Families are built from traditional gender roles*snip*

That's one way of organising a family. It isn't the only way. It isn't even the historical way -- 'how things have always been done' tends to be more myth than reality.

But it is the best way, though.

I mean, look at it closely. The symmetry is so beautiful! One gender has careers, the other one has children. One gender can cook, the other one can barbeque. (Incidentally, please bear in mind that male vegetarianism is just as much a perversion of traditional values as homosexuality.) One gender enjoys sex, the other one doesn't. And of course there's the whole penis/vagina thing and how well they fit together... well, most of the time anyway.... okay, so not really, but sometimes you get a couple where it fits really well and you don't have to use any, um, "aids", which is more than can be said for buttsex or... um, whatever lesbians do. (And don't tell me, because seriously, that's disgusting and I don't want to know. Ewww!)

Also, thanks for showing the link between anti-gay-marriage and sexism. You rock.

Spare me your PC buzzwords. It's not "sexism", it's "the natural, normal relationship between the sexes as it has always been ever since that became the natural, normal relationship between the sexes." Besides, some of my best friends are women, and I respect them for that, even if they will never be able to drive as well as me.

Can't tell if serious.

[Phenia]

Can't tell if serious.

I'm betting on no.

There's too much self-awareness there.

Plus, women really do drive better.
At least they park better.

[Nobel Hobos]

IF homosexual intercourse was the norm, there would be many homosexuals who considered the major alternative "disgusting". Would they be right ?

What do you mean if? There already are many homosexuals who consider the major alternative disgusting.

Personally disgusting, something they don't want to do themselves because it disgusts them ... fine. I don't intend to dictate how people should feel about anything.

It's when they (straights now, or gays in the hypothetical) mistake their personal reaction for an objective fact, and make laws as if the alternative was a threat to public health, or otherwise affected them personally ... just because they don't like to even think about it ... that there is a problem.

But neither gays now, nor straights in the hypothetical, CAN make laws to restrict the majority. They're a minority!

I will admit that there may be some gays who so strictly limit their circle of acquaintances and their consumption of media that they would genuinely believe that most people are gay. They could make the assumption that how they feel about hetero-sex is the only correct way to feel about it, and that anyone who feels otherwise should have their rights to do it restricted, because that distant minority are so defective in thought and feeling as to be sub-human.

Given the human capacity for self-delusion, it's rather wonderful just how few straights in developed nations do actually take that attitude.

And rather than blaming that attitude on "religion" I will suggest instead: both the retention of religion, and homophobia (or heterophobia, in those rarer cases) have a common cause. Inability to empathise, or to apply the Golden Rule, or to apply the same standard to others as they are accustomed to for themselves. In short: Moral weakness.

[Alquerque]

Should homosexuals have the right to marry?

Yes, of course!

Sad times we live in... Would anyone question any of these?

Should blacks have the right to marry?

Should Jews have the right to marry?

The modern right-winger fears any change to established social order. Interracial and Inter-religious marriages weren't considered a threat solely because because the participants were of different races or of different religions, but because right-wingers thought that they could never replicate the relationship in a more traditional marriage, which hilariously enough if true would be partially caused by lack of public acceptance of that marriage. when these couples exhibited that they were perfectly capable of simulating a traditional marriage excluding the fact that they were interracial or inter-religious, resistance to them decreased greatly. you have to understand that not everybody who supported those restrictions at the time were assholes, they were just ignorant, and the homosexual community can deal with this problem in similar ways: by publicizing homosexual public officials who otherwise are conservative in their viewpoints, and coming out of the closet more often. As I'm pretty sure I've heard in the film MILK, "they only need to know they know one of us".

[Ifreann]

Can't tell if serious.

I'm betting on no.

There's too much self-awareness there.

Plus, women really do drive better.
At least they park better.

If insurance companies are to be believed, young men are far, far worse drivers than their female counterparts.

[Tekania]

Someone pinch me. I fear I have tripped and fallen into the 19th century.

Obviously it's satirical if you look at the full context of it, either that or the poster is bat-shit insane (I know, hard to tell on the internetz); either way, arguing with it seems a pointless objective.

[Phenia]

Can't tell if serious.

I'm betting on no.

There's too much self-awareness there.

Plus, women really do drive better.
At least they park better.

If insurance companies are to be believed, young men are far, far worse drivers than their female counterparts.

Whoa whoa whoa no one said anything about young men. That skews the entire statistical sample!

[Ifreann]

Can't tell if serious.

I'm betting on no.

There's too much self-awareness there.

Plus, women really do drive better.
At least they park better.

If insurance companies are to be believed, young men are far, far worse drivers than their female counterparts.

Whoa whoa whoa no one said anything about young men. That skews the entire statistical sample!

I'm sure the liberal media is feminising young men and fucking the whole thing up.

[Farnhamia]

Families are built from traditional gender roles*snip*

That's one way of organising a family. It isn't the only way. It isn't even the historical way -- 'how things have always been done' tends to be more myth than reality.

But it is the best way, though.

I mean, look at it closely. The symmetry is so beautiful! One gender has careers, the other one has children. One gender can cook, the other one can barbeque. (Incidentally, please bear in mind that male vegetarianism is just as much a perversion of traditional values as homosexuality.) One gender enjoys sex, the other one doesn't. And of course there's the whole penis/vagina thing and how well they fit together... well, most of the time anyway.... okay, so not really, but sometimes you get a couple where it fits really well and you don't have to use any, um, "aids", which is more than can be said for buttsex or... um, whatever lesbians do. (And don't tell me, because seriously, that's disgusting and I don't want to know. Ewww!)

Also, thanks for showing the link between anti-gay-marriage and sexism. You rock.

Spare me your PC buzzwords. It's not "sexism", it's "the natural, normal relationship between the sexes as it has always been ever since that became the natural, normal relationship between the sexes." Besides, some of my best friends are women, and I respect them for that, even if they will never be able to drive as well as me.

Can't tell if serious.

I'm leaning toward a Hammurab-wannabe, myself.

[Central Slavia]

Can't tell if serious.

I'm betting on no.

There's too much self-awareness there.

Plus, women really do drive better.
At least they park better.

If insurance companies are to be believed, young men are far, far worse drivers than their female counterparts.

Of course but while in women it comes from an innate lack of ability (the whole standard distribution is set left) and gets worse with age, in men it is caused by lack of discipline and excess agression, and after the critical age, improves

[Vojvodina-Nihon]

Families are built from traditional gender roles: a father, who works outside the home, serves as the "protector" of the family, is head of the household, can't understand women, enjoys masculine activities like sports, cars, and warfare, dresses in earthy and unfashionable clothing, and is the performer of sex; and a mother, who stays at home, raises the children, can cook and clean, is more intuitive and emotive than her husband, enjoys feminine activities like shopping, knitting, and backstabbing, wears pretty dresses and skirts, and is the recipient of sex.

Someone pinch me. I fear I have tripped and fallen into the 19th century.

There would be some downsides to living in the 19th century, like more disease, and less electricity, and more war, and less cleanliness, .... but it's hard to deny that their ideas about sex were far more accurate than ours today. Okay, so it's easy to deny, but hard to justify.

And any number of children. There are numerous other "complementary opposites" here: for instance, fathers read the business section of the newspaper while mothers read the arts & entertainment section; fathers are good drivers while mothers are ... well, everyone knows what women drivers are like; et cetera.

Ah ha ha ! Misognyistic stereotypes sure are hilarious. And compelling, too!

That's just, like, my opinion. Why don't you respect my opinion? I respect yours, even if it's wrong.

Homosexual relationships, of course, make a mockery of this time-tested dynamic, and therefore cannot be expected to provide an environment in which well-balanced children can be raised.

Of course, we will ignore the fact that you have not presented a single shred of data to support this grandiose conclusion! Because, of course, I'm right in that homosexuals can be just as good parents as heterosexuals.

I can't prove a negative, so how about you show me some sources for your assertion?

And since the only purpose of marriage is to create families, there's no reason they should be allowed to marry.

There is no law that supports your unique definition of the 'purpose of marriage,' and thus no reason not to dismiss your argument for the bigoted, irrational nonsense it is.

:( Well, what is the purpose of marriage then? It doesn't have anything to do with love, as a glance at its history will show, and the days of political marriages have passed.

Of course, homosexuality is far from the only thing threatening gender roles (and by extension the family itself). Many things will have to change before we can ensure that our families are protected. For instance, we will have to reverse the damage done by the unfortunately misguided "women's lib" movement.

"Women's lib" is quoted because... it happened long before you were born and is an irrevocable part of society? Or because the terms "women" and "liberty" are so alien to you.

No, quoted because they had the mistaken impression that "women's liberation" was a good thing, when in fact it was tried out and has resulted in the degeneration of society as I have shown. (Why, just the other day in a supermarket checkout I saw a magazine whose cover had a picture of a woman displaying a scandalous amount of skin! This so-called "liberation" actually resulted in the degradation of women's bodies in this way, since no such thing would have been allowed back in the 1890s.)

It'll take a while and be quite expensive, and some people would be unhappy, but the obvious decline in society (note the gangs running around cities robbing banks and raping women and spray-painting graffiti on walls; nobody takes the Second Amendment seriously anymore, resulting in very few well-regulated militias still existing; immigrants are appropriating and tainting our culture with their heathenish foreign ways and delicious food; and with the Soviet Union gone, we've forgotten all about our pledge to stamp out Communism in all the foreign countries it's spread to, like Canada) indicates that action must be taken now before it's too late.

You seem to imply you care about women being raped. Why? You want to reverse women's lib. If women can't vote or own property or have any of the other rights women's lib has granted in modern society, why the fuss about them being raped?

Is it just because you believe it's mostly minority ethnicity gangs raping the women, and thus an affront whereas otherwise it wouldn't be?

I'm just trying to understand your position, to see if it makes sense.

Rape is yet another perversion of the natural sex act which is done for the good and beautiful purpose of creating new life without physical pleasure on the part of the woman. Unless the guy sticks around to support the woman and any child that may result from the misbegotten union, of course. Then it's probably okay.

[Helertia]

Would you rather eat food that fell on the stove, or food that fell on the toilet seat? Would your answer change if I told you that there are fewer -- and less dangerous -- germs on toilet seats than stoves? Probably not. Wouldn't for most poeple. 'disgusting' is cultural.

And way to dodge the question.

You obviously haven't seen my toilet seat...

So, you don't have an answer to the question?

Your hypothetical situation isn't worthy of discussing. IVF is certainly possible for humans with today's technology, however, there are a million other organisms out there that practice male-female copulation for reproductive purposes making the notion that IVF being discovered earlier could possibly lead to homosexual sex appearing as the norm would be rendered null and void as humans learn from their surroundings.

So you don't have an answer to the question. A simple yes would suffice.