1) Being gay is not natural. Real people always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in the world.
9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans...
A friend posted this on facebook, I thought it would be right at home here at the HP Forums.
*Squak* May I take your order?
Yeah I'll have the number 7, super-sized with a Dr. Pepper. A McFlurry with nuts. I'll take Jolene to be my wife. And that should be about.....oh wait I have this Monopoly game piece for free fries with my marriage.
*Squak* That'll be $7.27 please pull up the 2nd window.
Damn right man. Hallelujah, finally some gosh darned common sense in this den of political correctness. Maybe this country has a chance after all with bright young stars like your own straight self leading the way. I'm so happy I could.... Wait, you mean you were kidding? Aw hell.
i support the theme, if anyone believes in god then you should not have a problem accepting that gay marriages are wrong, since God created a male and a female, not a male and a male.
No matter how people try to make it seem right, it is not right and even the natural instics can not accept it. I mean most gays are just not normal.
sorry to anyone who may feel offended but there are some things which are just not right, no matter what,lets call a spade, a spade and not a big spoon.
serisously, best article EVER! Love the sarcasn! OK I better go or I might catch gayness and start thinking crazy thoughts like "people should marry for love" and " it's OK to be yourself"... dangerous thoughts like that!
lolol all true huh? This musta come direct from a newspaper - a long time ago. Funny, sarcastic - but I wonder if anyone's gonna get it wrong
Nice one. See my write up on who do gays and lesbians exist. http:/hubpages.com/hub/philipo
I saw the title and thought "What is this person doing posting this silly platform here? And did Mrs. California write it?"
Kudos, good facetious post.
Absolutely silly lololo prehistoric facts lololo and guess what some have gotten it wrong.
Excellent! I was getting ready to rant but instead I had a good laugh.
I LOVE this! Thanks for sharing. Too bad logic doesn't work on hateful folks.
That is profoundly simple!
I think you've nailed it.
here's a little shameless self promotion of a hub I recently created.
You Rock Darkside!
Those who grew up in the 50's and 60's - were sent to church every sunday if for nothing more than getting out of the house. Religion drilled in their heads that only "one man"- one woman" relationships were correct.
The new generation has not been forced to go to church and have not had religion crammed down their throats- therefore they have not learned the doctrine taught by commercial churches.
While this is a nice little sarcastic piece:-
Some people really still think like that.
I have a friend (very Straight),
She wonders why the Homo's and the Lesbo"s (her words), didn't just get together with each other, and create straight marriages, withm I guess abit of role play, Women being masculine and vise versa.
Number 1 remind me so much of a comedy sketch by Russell Howard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFZ_eg8w … re=related
Only 1 Error: Those who support the "gay agenda" actually 'think' that ALL people who stand for Truth and Common Sense believe that way (as described in the 10 statements).
These 10 statements create a false "paradigm shift" (to denote a change in how a given society goes about organizing and understanding reality) where the false thinking of some people therefore justifies that something that is obviously abnormal is now normal. The actual homosexual issue is never addressed. Ah, The Plan!
The Bible declares, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" The "Gay Agenda" has indoctrinated our children in school (many are young adults now) into the Political Correctness - that "gay"/homosexual is normal. Next on the agenda, is for the normal to be abnormal. And they follow the "Rules for Radicals" (5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.") to accomplish their agenda - like how they ridiculed Ms California USA.
Same-sex Marriage is an Oxymoron! Marriage is between a man and a woman. We must have true meanings in the words we use - and must NEVER change the definition of words just because some special interest group demands.
Imagine trying to plug a lamp 'into' another plug - there will be darkness. Imagine two lesbians trying to have a baby with a strap-on. Imagine the horror of a boy who accidentally sees his two daddies 'doing it' - instead of driving the child into homosexuality, he could become a mental-eunuch (abnormal is abnormal).
Those who stand for Truth and Common Sense view homosexuality as abnormal. We do not engage in "gay bashing". We do not discriminate against the "gay"/homosexuals. I believe there can be something "more" behind the Nature/Nurture debate. But that involves the Reality of God (not religion, not man-made Church), and many who hub here are devout atheists or progressives, so this must be addressed in a different form.
This is one of the silliest posts I have ever read, and is indicative of a rather strange narrow-mindedness. Straight people don't have sex?
Well, I caught my straight parents "doing it," when I was a kid. I have never fully recovered.
Actually, I think it is silly when people cannot deal with the content of what was said/written. Being able to dialog is a mature thing, not for those with silly comments.
erm -- you're proving my point, you do realize?
Yes, it's for serious comments like, "duh". Eloquent indeed.
Sorry, I did not say, "duh". My full statement was, "Duh? Please 'rethink' and 'rewrite'." Because the comment by Paper Moon didn't make sense. Taking things out of context doesn't help with meaningful dialog. I'm sure that must be one of the Rules for Radicals, where the radical's ends/agenda justify the means.
Well, I find it funny--just a little--that you were addressing an English professor concerning her "silly comments." lol...sorry!
Wow!! "duh" used in the full context of your sentence really is a serious use of the language that helps mature people to dialog....NOT!! I suppose you'll say something bad about someone's mother next? Maybe a pithy label like doody head?
Mostly I see the progressives/liberals or the "Gay Agenda" people or the anti-God, Anti-Religion people doing most of the ridiculing. My attempts to deal with the issue and dialog with those capable of dialoging has failed. It was like I was talking to a brick wall, but strangely the wall echoed back insults and ridicule. But I didn't have high expectations...
A. I believe in God or (g)od and was brought up Catholic (associate now as a tradition). Believe it or not! There are lefto Catholics--even some with radical progressive agendas.
B. I don't believe in a "Gay Agenda." That's Christianist myth talk.
C. Your arguments were not that strong, and were not delivered very strongly, in my opinion. I'm sorry.
D. The ridiculing came from the disbelief that you were actually presenting your case in this way... I happens sometimes amongst bright people who are tired of the same old stuff being hurled in the same old way.
C. I actually read a hub where the author had a well stated argument against gay marriage (well, well-stated as he could make it, as it is mainly a human rights issue). I will look for the link and post it.
Oddly enough all of the lesbians I know are well aware of basic biology and wouldn't be daft enough to even entertain such a moronic notion, and last time I checked straight couples have sex too (and often "kinky" sex)a child walking in on their "straight" parents would be no less "horrifying." Who the hell wants to think about their parents having sex let alone seeing it, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Yeah, and like sex = procreation 9 times out of 10, and that it is on most people's minds at the time, or heck, most species' 'minds'--if you want to go naturalist on it.
Sorry but the original Design was not procreation "9 out of 10 times" for humans. It doesn't work that way. Hmm, maybe dogs in heat have a better success rate. Obviously, SEX is on people's minds much more than having babies.
Sorry you missed the point. We get babies with heterosexual relations. Procreation is important. Things in life have a function, a purpose - ah, a Design. If we have two electrical plugs, we have lost all function. If we have two electrical sockets, we have lost all function. These violate the design behind their creation.
I hate to break it to you, but "procreation" is NOT the only reason for marriage. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who can't have children, or have no desire to have children and it has no bearing on whether or not their marriage is legal or valid, so your arguement has no merit.
No one said that procreation is the ONLY reason for marriage. That is your idea - so why don't you start a forum on the reasons for marriage.
Your lack of logic could be stated: It's OK to kill a person, because someday they will die anyway. THUS, since a marriage may not involve a baby or two, then it is "OK" to have any definition of marriage (man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, man/woman/woman, etc.) since those 'marriages' that violate the design (which includes the purpose of procreation) will not have a baby.
So your logic, or lack thereof, has no merit.
Nice try, dear, but it is you, not I, who has been harping on the notion that same-sex marriages should not be legal because they cannot procreate.
You claim that the design and function of sex is procreation; for this view to have any merit in regard to marriage, no marriage that wasn't going to produce children would be legal. That's not the case, so your argument has absolutely no merit.
There is actually no justification for preventing homosexual couples from having a legal marriage, but keep trying to come up with one; it's entertaining.
WOW, can you twist my words and conclusions.
Put the "Rules for Radicals" book down. Embrace common sense and logic.
As I already stated, "same-sex marriage is an Oxymoron". No such thing exists. States that have made laws called "same-sex marriage" have confused the definition of "marriage" to allow homosexuals to desecrate marriage, which is between a man and a woman.
I didn't say, "should not be legal because they cannot procreate." Procreation is one reason in which the function/design/purpose of marriage is violated. There could be other reasons too.
Your statement, "You claim that the design and function of sex is procreation;" is YOUR STATEMENT, not mine. My claim is that the design and function of marriage includes procreation through sex. That would not be the only reason for sex - sex can be fun.
Your twisting of my words is not entertaining - it's sad that people try to function in this world by intentionally twisting someone's words.
You are making some awfully big assumptions here.
Function? Perhaps the function of homosexuality is just hidden from your minuscule understanding of the (assumed and impossible to prove) creator's magnificence and it will be revealed in good time.......
David wrote in the Bible: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." Either that statement is correct or not. But only those with a True and Honest Heart towards God (of the Bible) will know. Being against man-made Christianity is not enough. It's like taking off a dirty garment, and then celebrating that you no longer have such a filthy garment on. But what a fool - because you stand there naked. NOW, you must seek the clean garment. But the cost is high - you must be willing to give up your own god-hood, the almighty I, Me, My, Mine, Myself. Few are willing to do that - even amongst the many who call themselves Christian.
My local hardware store actually sells lamps that you may consider to be immoral. They have both a plug and a socket so you can hook them up in series just like Christmas lights. I'm sure there's some wacky verse in Leviticus or Deuteronomy (almost rhymes with sodomy) that prohibits their sale, but I live in a free democratic society not a theocracy,so although these lamps are not my personal preference, others who choose to use them are free to do so because their choice is none of my or anyone else's damn business.
By the way, I'm no expert but I don't think gay male sex involves inserting one "plug" into another. I'm pretty sure an orifice is involved in some way.
Two lesbians using a strap-on could actually produce a pregnancy
(picture a turkey baster); but the real falacy of your argument is that you assume sex to be strictly a procreational act, which of course it's not.
Thanks for your post. Rush Limbaugh is not broadcasting today, but you have provided the necessary humor to lighten my day.
Thank you! Why is it that straight people (against the gay lifestyle) are being ridiculed? Just because I believe that God created man to be with woman doesn't mean that I am out there bashing gays. I don't agree with the lifestyle but it's not for me to judge. In turn, I don't want to be judged for being straight. That doesn't make me narrow minded, it is my firm belief. God felt so strongly, he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. I have no idea what it is like to be gay and can't imagine choosing that lifestyle, with the shame that comes with it (admitted or not). I think maybe that's why there is so much strong voice against those against the lifestyle.
You don't understand do you? We (open minded tolerant people) love the sinner, (that would be you), but hate the sin (basing your judgement of people on a work of fiction that most people don't believe in). You even go so far as to insist there is shame in being gay even if the gay person doesn't acknowledge it.
Dear oh dear. Yet another one who knows not what she says........
Gotta love the passive/aggressive "god says" approach. "Not that I have an opinion or anything, but god says,"xxxx
I'm mostly gonna leave you to Darkside, but I can't help pointing this out on the language front, just because, well, I can't help it. I hate to tell you this, Websense, but you are doing exactly what you used giant capital letters to say not to do. You're using the word "gay" to mean homosexual, when really "gay" has always meant happy or cheerful. "The gay" has changed a word right out from under ya and ya didn't even see it!!! I hate to tell you this, but them gays is already gettin' inta yer head. Next thing ya know, I reckon them gay fellers is gonna be gettin' inta sumthin' else. They's a commin' fer ya.
I wonder what the next word they'll try to change is. Probably try to invent a new way to say "dumbass" or something. Hard to say.
I agree with this statement. As for the word "gay" - that is the current vernacular to denote homosexuality and the term preferred by homosexuals. It still means happy and cheerful. Websense is making a very important point.
Have you noticed, Shadesbreath, that you are using the "Rules for Radicals" (5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.") in exactly the way they want you to? Or do you agree with the whole communist/socialist agenda that gives freedom only to the few at the top?
Oh, yeah, and one more thing. In this form of government that you are so blithely supporting, after the tyrants gain the power that they live for, they kill all the homosexuals. But don't take my word for it. Go read some history.
You see what you 'want' to see - not what I actually wrote.
Actually, I used the word "homosexual" where I could. But certain terms like "gay agenda" and "gay bashing" are used in the news a lot. I don't think I heard the phrase, "homosexual agenda" or "homosexual bashing" - have you? Also, I used the phrase, "same-sex marriage" when talking about the obvious oxymoron.
Also, the American Heritage Dictionary says, "Usage Note: The word gay is now standard in its use to refer to people whose orientation is to the same sex, in large part because it is the term that most gay people prefer in referring to themselves. Gay is distinguished from homosexual primarily by the emphasis it places on the cultural and social aspects of homosexuality as opposed to sexual practice.". That change of meaning was done a long time ago, and now includes, "cultural and social aspects of homosexuality". But I will continue to use "homosexual" in most cases.
Keep working those "Rules for Radicals": "Next thing ya know, I reckon them gay fellers is gonna be gettin' inta sumthin' else." Obviously you cannot deal with the "content" of what I said, and must resort to a crude comment - like you agree it is a perversion. So we agree...!
So what you are saying is that if the news and that awesome choice of dictionary you quoted (I confess I shuddered right there) refer to two gay guys getting married as "marriage" you'll accept the term, but until that time, you're going to have a cow about changing the words? That is a truly mesmirizing piece of reasoning there, I have to tell you. Do you ever think about the stuff you say in context with other stuff you say?
I agree that we agree that you have whole body cringes and sphincter puckering to degrees that likely measure on the Richter scale at the notion of one o' them thar gays commin' ter git ya. I agree to that. Your buttons are easier to push than a Playskool telephone. But then, the core of hatred burning in you glows from within, limning the cracks in your hard, judgmental outter shell making such buttons easy to see.
I am feeling more gay already just from reading this thread.
Teresa, want to get married?
Sad to say my next door neighbor will probably "copy and paste" that for next Sunday church bulletin. Makes me determined to continue with writing "herbal use and erectile dysfunction"....LOL
A) Way to miss the point.
B) Nobody uses "gay" as cheerful anymore, unless you're still watching Flinstone re-runes. Consider joining the last half century.
C) Regarding "man's most potent weapon"... another one of man's most potent weapons is to twist religion to suit his needs. I'd call invoking divine authority more powerful a weapon than simple snickering at someone's ridiculous, narrow-minded opinions.
D) Dude, nice total non-sequitur with the commie/socialist thing. You get props for the most enormous leap of fallacious WTF-ness of all time. If there was a galactic cupie doll for carnival nonsense of that stupendousness, I would give it to you. (Oh crap, I am doing my Rules for Radicals thing again. DOH! I hope the inquisitor doesn't show up and get me.)
E) Um, you should consider reading some history outside of your holy book and those satelite "histories" written by or interpreted by people promoting that holy book's agenda. Just a thought.
This seems to solve the problem. We will just have to let Websense use the term “Same-sex Marriage”
Thus leaving Marriage for a loving union.
Gay marriage is great - yet another excuse for a great party and getting gloriously drunk. Happy Days
I totally support any excuse for getting gloriously drunk! Probably only proves that we are heathens though.
I have started looking into the possibility of becoming a Dionysos worshipper.
Mind you, the Greek Orthodox church is not too bad. You go to church and then go to the taverna for food, cigarettes, wine and dancing. Happy Days
Personally, I skip the church bit and go straight to the taverna. God must be busy trying to stop gays taking over the world, so I figured that we should cut out the middleman and save valuable time.
It is what his Time and Motion Angel (Steve) would want
I think Shades needs to come back and talk about swinging pendulums... I would, but! I officially have a couple days off, so...
I personally think the argument was not all THAT, Websense, so some were not taking it that seriously... Um, oh yeah, procreation is very, very important, what with over population and all--but I forget! You guys don't usually believe in that, do you?
Yes, it's sarcasm, plus 'more'. Those who support same-sex marriage live in a reality of their own choosing - and the funny 'reasons' play into their delusion. Therefore, they can laugh, and continue to wallow in their upside-down world - and fell Justified!
How is it possible to "fell" justified? Is that something that only happens in upside-down worlds?
We all live in a reality of our own choosing, that's what brains were made to do (see? we're back to the whole design thing). Some people choose to define their reality very narrowly; it's easier for them, not much thinking involved. Other people like to contemplate the mysteries of our existence and grow in the process. It takes more time and energy; it gets a little scary sometimes, but each of us has this capability.
I will continue "laughing and wallowing", it's more fun than ranting and scowling.
"Dude, nice total non-sequitur with the commie/socialist thing. You get props for the most enormous leap of fallacious WTF-ness of all time. If there was a galactic cupie doll for carnival nonsense of that stupendousness, I would give it to you. (Oh crap, I am doing my Rules for Radicals thing again. DOH! I hope the inquisitor doesn't show up and get me.)"
LOL! Shades you are the master.
I would recognize your ridicule anywhere and bow down to it. It's not a tool for the Inquisitor--It's art.
If we didnt have a conscience
Would this lifestyle choice even be questioned I wonder.
I'm sorry that my comments brought up so much fear, but to win the fight you're fighting you've got to look these bastards square in the eye.
Hitler killed 12 million, Pol Pot killed 2 million, Stalin killed 23 million, and Mao killed 78 million - all within the 20th century. Homosexuals were high up on the list of those to be "eliminated' to "purify society". This isn't "religious reading or history". This is Communist/Socialist history.
Do you want to fight the good fight? Or do you just want to dump your fear in the form of childish sniping?
You may think it's the religious right you're fighting but it isn't. Yeah, they don't like or accept you, and they don't have to. This is a free country. And by the same token you don't have to like or accept them.
But what is very clear is that the redefinition of words is an enormous weapon. If you and I are negotiating and a word means one thing to me and another to you, then we haven't negotiated anything and we're both wasting our time. A perfect example of this is the word marriage. To the Christians it means one thing and to gays it means another. But neither is accurate. The only reason for anyone to want their "marriage" to be accepted by the "state" is for the IRS.
But again, don't take my word for it. The IRS recognizes a married taxpayer in a different way than a single taxpayer. If you're married your taxes are lower.
If you just want a union because you love each other, so what? No one can tell you what to do - so go do it.
The REAL battle is with the government. You're trying to fight a tax status battle with established religions. Because there are two forms of marriage in our country. There is the marriage you make because you love each other. Anyone can do that without the state's approval. Then there is the marriage that is recognized by the state, with marriage license, recorded in the Hall of Records, etc. And WHY would anyone go through that process? Tax status. Otherwise the state will not "recognize" you as married, and therefore not qualify you for a married person taxpayer status.
However, there is a way around the whole issue. Common Law. Common law has stated that, if two people have lived together for at least seven years (and can prove it, i.e. same address on their drivers' license or other official document) then they are married and the state must recognize that. It is precedent.
And I doubt you'll take my word for it but I'll say it anyway. A main goal of Communism is to redefine Common Law over time to eliminate individual sovereignty. And, as I'm sure you know, individual sovereignty is the foundation of our Bill of Rights. It is the Bill of Rights that enables you to pursue happiness in any form you see fit (provided it doesn't harm others) and gay marriage doesn't harm anyone.
So, you want to fight this fight? Then understand what you're up against. The religious right is not the enemy, for all their outspokeness and hatred. The real enemy are those who seek to "redefine" our laws away from the Common Law base. That redefinition takes place by the redefinition of words from what we all "thought" they meant.
We live in a Republic, which means your representative should be petitioning Congress to change the tax law as unfair to those the state recognizes as "single" versus "married", and therefore get out of the so-called marriage business altogether. The unions anyone chooses to make are private, and to define in anyway they want.
You can snipe and laugh at me all you want, but you'll just be wasting your energy, which is what your enemies want anyway, while the real fight is lost on the actual front.
So, what about those who are not ruled by your government? You seem to be assuming that we are all American. Not going to be fascists here any time soon
Yes, I am speaking to Americans. Americans are not ruled by their government. Americans rule their government. I don't know what actions are required in other countries.
Great - so that means that your argument is completely irrelevant to me. Saves a lot of time.
You mean Citibank, the Federal Reserve and AIG rule your government surely. You are not still under the delusion that you have some influence are you?
Amen to that.
Is Citi against gay marriage?
I'm thinking no. Lots of potential debt there--flowers, cake, tuxedos, honeymoons... for everything else, there's Master Card!
Yes, I guess I'm still delusional. If we have no influence, why fight for legal recognition of gay marriage?
Hitler's party may have been called the National Socialists but it was in no way a socialist party. Hitler hated all things left wing/communist (as shown by the aftermath of the Reichstag Fire of 1933).
Sorry, but you are mistaken. Hitler may have hated communists, but Nazi Germany practiced all of the tenets of Socialism. In any case, that's hardly the point.
Nazi Germany practiced far right-wing Fascism. And as far as reading about 'the deaths' of so many people, again non sequitur. Do you rightists deal in anything other than obfuscation? Or maybe I didn't express myself clearly. YOUR preamble (sarcastically) saying, and the way it was written, was very funny to me to read. Because I cannot actually believe such thoughts are possible, especially alongside such 'learned' seeming prose.
No, you are mistaken. Hitler, and Nazi Germany, were as far left a you can get. The only form of government that is further left is communism. The deaths of so many people is not a non sequitur. It is precisely to the point. In any left-wing form of government, gays are one of the first targets. You are fighting for your rights. My points are to help you to do so. If you are unclear about the ideologies of certain forms of government, I suggest you do some serious reading on the subject - from both sides. Because it is the only way to get the whole picture. As for "obfuscation" - please point out, specifically, what is not clear.
I believe that you "cannot actually believe such thoughts are possible" because you are running on spoon-fed talking points, not facts. I would be delighted to have a serious conversation with you, but I can't if you just repeat what you've been told to repeat.
Common law marriages are only recognized in 15 states and in DC. None of them allow for common law in regard to homosexual marriages.
Very interesting. I didn't know that. Can you give me your source?
Still, 15 states - it's a good starting point.
Note that in 5 of those states the common law marriage is a "grandfathered" ruling meaning that a Common law marriage cannot be established today, so, in actuality only nine states and DC recognize common law marriages.
On the above site-
Many states have abolished common-law marriage by statute, because common-law marriage was seen as encouraging fraud and condoning vice, debasing conventional marriage, and as no longer necessary with increased access to clergy and justices of the peace. (For example: Cal. Civ. Code § 4100; N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 11 ; Furth v. Furth, 133 S.W. 1037, 1038-39 (Ark. 1911); Owens v. Bentley, 14 A.2d 391, 393 (Del. Super. 1940); Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48 (1910)).
This is precisely the point. The elimination of Common Law by statute in order for the state to determine how one may live, or what unions one may form. The only stake the government has in the marriage business is one of control. To seek legalization of gay marriage is approaching the issue from the wrong side. The government has no grounds to define marriage AT ALL. The bigger the government, the more control. Communist and socialist governments are NOT governments by the people, for the people. To think otherwise is to go against your own interests.
I take it then that you are suggesting that we should abolish legal marriage altogether...good luck with that.
Personally, I think every couple (homosexual and heterosexual) should be given a "Civil Union License" that confers upon them the same rights and privileges a "marriage license" does now.
Then if they want to later have a "marriage ceremoney" in whatever faith they believe in they can, but in legal terms everyone would have a "civil union."
That is a great suggestion.
I live with a man in a lifetime commitment. For reasons that are nobody's business but our own, we choose not to marry. So we miss out on some benefits associated with that.
When I worked for a big insurance company, they changed their policies while I was there to accommodate gay unions with discounts and so forth normally only given to married people, but they stressed that longtime hetero co-habitors could not have the same benefits because of the way the laws were written, and that, to make it even more convoluted, we could not ASK men if they were in a committed gay relationship so as to get them the discounts--they had to ask us.
What a mess.
Then, lots of their own workers (who were in hetero nonmarried committed relationships) got pissed at them, and why not?
I like your idea.
Yes, it's a long shot. Your idea for a "civil union" is probably the best that could happen. At least until we can kick the government into their rightful submissive place.
LOL. No, no, Madame X... It's just that I believe most of the 'liberals' here already know all this. You know, this gets weird with politics...what with all these interests mixing in together...and what with people being human and having certain proclivities and being involved in government, too.
The Communist/Socialist pre-amble was GREAT fun to read, tho, I must say!
Man, this thread has taken more turns than a cat in heat...LOL
That is not the one I ate is it? I wouldn't like to think I ate a gay pussy.
At least - unknowingly..............
I have been personally responsible for at least three conversions.
I personally drove three women into becoming lesbian
Must be my charm....
Are you serious? This forum has been growing all day. If it is the topic one does not like, then simply don't open it up. I find it good to read what people think on variety of subjects. Like, I would disagree in having forum patrol unless it was extremely offensive.
In New Zealand (4 yrs ago now) they passed a law allowing Gays to marry but its actually called a 'Civil Union' since Marriage is of God and the Church, therefore they got around the moral issue and well whether people agreed or not it was considered a democratic decision.
Homosexuals protested for years of being discrimated against ,particularly within the law.
(when a relationship ends for example ,who gets the house ,the business, custody of children bought into the relationship ) so that was also part of their lobbying.
Oh, one other concern. If we are all plugged in to the forums rooms, who is reading our Hubs.......oppps!
My point about the 'liberals' here exactly. And they didn't have to read a pre-ambled document previous to this to come to the conclusion, either.
No thank you, I'll pass. I don't particularly cotton to the older generation talking nonsense to those they perceive as younger or whatever it is (again, non sequitur--appeal to tradition/experts and ad hominem) about spoon-fed knowledge/talking points. That is assuredly NOT inviting serious debate and shows a non serious interlocutor.
I'd point out my premise about the liberals you were speaking to was correct, for starters. Funny, how one so non studied as myself could come up with such a conclusion (for your ease--that was sarcasm).
Your post did manage to p*ss me off though, thank you... Think I'll go bone up up on my political ideologies. I'm sure it will convince me to turn right.
Can't blame her really can you? I mean - you don't get any further right than Hitler's Christian Nationalist party do you? Yet here you are suggesting it was left wing liberalism.
Last time I checked, the "gays" were a target of the right wingers.
I like the way you avoided my points as well - very nicely done. Are you a catholic?
Madame X, I am curious, have you read Mein Kampf and how, exactly, are you defining "left wing"?
BTW, you are quite mistaken, Hitler was a right-wing fascist, as was the Nazi party as a whole.
'Tis all in a name.
In the UK, we had a political movement called the Monster Raving Looney Party. They were not monsters, were not really looney, and only did some minor raving.
Thatcher, on the other hand...........the name was made for her
here here.... this thread is going on for a long time isn't it
That's how it works - people rant at each other for a few hours, until they run out of things to say. Then, Misha, Mark and I chill, and talk about alcohol for a while.
Give it a couple of hours, and the next shift will start the shouting match again!
No. Every one of you is wrong. Dead wrong.
Crack a history book ok. Liberalism, collectivism, the left, is defined by "the group" - group ownership, group think. What the group wants OVER individual rights.
1. (politics) of a liberal, radical, socialist or communist faction of a party, etc.
Fascism is defined as - "a political regime, usually totalitarian, ideologically based on centralized government, government control of business, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights."
Sounds like Nazi Germany to me.
Socialism is defined as- "a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."
This is what Hitler did to Germany in the 30's. He nationalized all production and industry, all finance. Kind of like what Obama is doing now.
Communism is is defined as - "A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people."
All those dead people, you know, that "preamble" in my earlier post? They believed exactly as you do - black is white, hot is cold, fascism is right-wing.
But hey, I'm just a heterosexual, right-wing extremist, ("catholic" did someone say?) older generation woman who you "Could not miss the opportunity for a cheap dig at."
On a last note though, the first people Stalin and Hitler arrested were right-wing businessmen. Good thing they didn't get carried away after that.
er.....I didn't have a cheap dig at you.....not unless you are actually Margaret Thatcher.
There is something rather amusing about someone who admonishes others to "open a history book" who then turns around and cites "wiki" as a source.
Yeah, wiki's usually skewed. But in this case it is acurate. If you were really interested in these definitions, that is, more than you're interested in discrediting me, then you would actually, "gasp!!!" look these things up yourself.
But since holding on to your mistaken, and quite stupid, ideas is more important to you then I guess we're at a standstill.
Are you going to take back your unfair accusation?
I don't see it as unfair Sufi I would not go that far as to say "quite stupid", but I do believe you guys are missing an important point of extremely close relations between fascism and socialism...
Misha - She accused me of "Having a dig at her." The dig was, quite clearly, at Margaret Thatcher. I was hoping that Madame X would apologise for the false accusation, but maybe not.
For the record, I do understand the fine distinction, as we have discussed before - I also believe that both extremes lead to the same place.
LOL Then I just did not understand
In fact I did not understand your original post either, until clarified a few posts down the road
You were not missing much - it was a pretty lame, British joke - Sadly, I am never going to make a living as a comedian
Lita: I don't know what I did, but glad to help
Looking forward to that Hub - should be interesting.
LOL I can hardly grasp American jokes, let alone British ones
Excuse me for thinking that someone who wanted to have an actual dialogue would do more than quote "wiki" and call other people's points "stupid."
You are just as mistaken now as you were when you began this conversation, and no amout of quoting "Wiki's" abridged definitions of the various political parties/ideologies to somehow prove your logic, will change that.
First, I notice that you neglected to answer my question; have you read Mein Kampf?
Moving on- unless one happens to be a fan of Jonah Goldberg, there is no mistaking Nazi fascism for "left-wing" politics.
The term "left-wing" began during the French Revolution where those who were for reform (change) and were considered radical (who eventually supported the revolution) sat to the left in the National Assembly and those who were pro-aristocracy sat to the right.
Those basic concepts: Left being the idea that all people should be equal in terms of political power, wealth and social advantages and right being that "the few" should control the political power, wealth and social advantages, are how we classify political ideologies.
Hitler's Nazi Germany was extreme right wing fascism. Hitler not only believed that all things should be controlled by the government (his dictatorship)without question or criticism, but that there was an order to the "worthiness" of human lives; with the Aryan "master race" being at the top of the "food chain" just as the "right wingers" perceived the aristocracy to be during the French Revolution.
BTW, prior to the Kristallnacht, Hitler first went after his potential political enemies; other leaders in both the the Nazi party itself and millitary leaders, not "right-wing bankers."
As for Stalin, he too, first targeted those he deemed his political enemies. Last time I checked Mikhail Tukhachevsky wasn't a "right-wing" banker.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your VERY thinly veiled agenda.
Before I forget, Someone mentioned that socialism (left) and fascism(right) are similar, and that holds true to some extent for fascism under Mussolini who was, himself, a socialist, but that cannot be said of Hitler's Germany.
Ummm, Mark, I think Madame is not that far from the truth. Far right is very close to far left by its methods and rhetoric, even though they are on the very opposite ends of a spectrum. Sorta opposites converge, you know. If I remember correctly, homosexuality was a criminal offense in the USSR, punishable by several years in prison
LOL Sufi, we already said to one another all what we could on the -isms topic, let's talk to fresh people, would we?
As if by magic......
I am sure that you can hear somebody opening a bottle of beer across the other side of the world.
Okay, round of Jim Beam on the house. Maybe two for me....
A man after my own heart - why stick at one when you can have two?
Rum cocktails sound good, too. For me, an Ouzo
Sounds delightful and thirst quenching. I refused to give in to the traditional family gathering and picnic BBQ, instead I have a crock full of stuffed cabbage which will go well with any drink....
I miss Killian's sometimes.
Not much else though.
Rum Runners it is, and I am a big fan of stuffed cabbage. I like mezedes with drinks, a small selection of delicious savouries
Dang that sounds good........ Now I am hungry and need to eat...Later...
With great happiness I am drinking cheap American beer. "tsssst"
Nothing wrong with cheap American beer..whenever we're in Maryland we pick up a 12-pack of Natty Boh (National Bohemian)..had some yesterday while working on the boat.
Enjoy - a little peace and quiet here, with no shouty people.
Why does anyone ask Why Gay Marriage Is Wrong?
That would imply that its possible it is?(wrong) wouldnt it?
by Elizabeth 3 years ago
How does legalized gay marriage "ruin" or affect a heterosexual one?One of the most common arguments against gay marriage is that legalizing gay marriage will somehow minimize or ruin heterosexual marriages. Admittedly, this is one of the stupidest arguments out there, but it is one...
by spellbinderdk 7 years ago
If gays and lesbians started their own church, then they could get married.And nobody could stop them, because they would be protected by the first amendment, the freedom of religions act.And of course they would also be able to save a lot of money, because most religion do not pay taxes.
by CarolAnnHeadrick 5 years ago
Gay-marriage subjects children to having never known who their mother or father is.For those people who are pro-gay marriage, which parent would you have rather never known – your mom or your dad?
by Dale Hyde 8 years ago
I am amazed that the passage of legalized gay marriage in Maryland is heavily contested by the "churches". What does gay marriage have to do with "faith"? And... why do they care or even want to move forward to stumble this milestone?Equality is guaranteed....by that piece...
by David Zephaniah 7 years ago
Democrats and media claim that most of the people in America support gay marriage. I believe that it is the other way around, and most of the people do not agree with that, including me.I believe that this insults the marriage institution, which is only between man and woman. Do you agree or...
by Brian 8 years ago
There is a lot of talk about allowing gay couples to get married, and, of course we all know the whole because god created man and woman BS. But, here is a what if question for you.Let's say that the tables were turned, and there was a law that was passed that banned all marriages all together....
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|