Dude, I know how you feel. Every time I insist to women on the street that they make me a sandwich I get the dirtiest looks. But nobody seems to care about my right to be masogynistic.Thingy said:
The threat of Gay marriage apparently.
- Thread starter Lord George
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I read an interesting article on this very subject just the other day. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find it online (yes, it was one of those old fashioned print 'magazines'). If they put it up, (which I believe they shall), I'll try to link it. Fascinating stuff.
As a California citizen, I've always called BS on the argument based on homosexual education in schools. I just took ninth grade health, and the subject was never brought up. If anything, the schools go out of their way to make homophobic students feel safe in their beliefs.
My thoughts on NOM and their stance?
If asked whether or not I support same-sex marriage, I'd tell you you're asking the wrong question, but if pressed, I'd have to side against it, but not for NOM's reasons. If they're concerned about their children learning that things like gay marriage are okay, where are these people decrying commercials for using hot ladies to advertise products? We call this softcore pornography, and it apparently doesn't bother them at all... and besides, even if it did, raising a child by keeping this sort of thing away from their eyes in perpetuity is the wrong way to do it. Teaching them that it's wrong is slightly better, teaching them to understand its repercussions is the master stroke that teaches them yet does not indoctrinate them.
As for why I don't support it, as I said earlier, it's my answer to the question asked, not my true opinion, which would restrict who can get married not based on their sexual orientation, but their reasons for marrying. Namely, as some communities have petitioned their same-sex-banning local governments, whether they plan to use this marriage to raise a family should be the defining question.
Why? Well, to start off, it's expensive in terms of time, money, and sanity to actually go through the procedure of getting married, even without a grandiose ceremony, and the people who marry out of love need a clue by four to each head involved that the things they want to spend their life doing do not need this little piece of paper. They can live together, they can share their lives until the day they die, it's not practical for them unless they're doing it simply to show off, and if so there are far better ways to do it.
"But there are health benefits! Businesses offer discounts to married couples! Etc, etc..." Yes, I know, and although it's a little more socialist than I like to admit, why should we give these benefits away needlessly to people who do so only to show off their love for each other, when there are couples who make perfectly good investments in the community's future who, most of the time, need them in order to make said investments? Living together as one is its own discount, raising a child is just the opposite, whether biological or adopted. These investors are doing a pretty dangerous duty in today's society, what with children suing their parents for groundings and all. They need the help far more than marriage activists.
Those who are paying attention will notice I didn't make any reference to gender in the above paragraph. That would be because, in a perfect world, there wouldn't be. Whether you're a lady raising a family with your husband through the natural methods, or a pair of ladies or a pair of men doing the job a child's biological parents couldn't or wouldn't, you're still doing that same job.
"But you voted against same-sex marriage!" Because we don't live in a perfect world, and right now, same-sex marriage is a buzzword. Sure, they can say they do it to adopt, but right now, we don't need more families willing to adopt. We're already sitting at, at the kindest numbers, FIFTEEN prospective adoptive homes per child, and some estimates raise that all the way to twenty-four per child.
Yes, long post, but that's what you get with difficult questions without easy answers.
TL
R version: I vote in favor of families and children.
(Edit: You might also notice a lack of any talk about moral or religious choices in there. That's because we've got enough practicalities to keep ourselves busy before we get there.)
If asked whether or not I support same-sex marriage, I'd tell you you're asking the wrong question, but if pressed, I'd have to side against it, but not for NOM's reasons. If they're concerned about their children learning that things like gay marriage are okay, where are these people decrying commercials for using hot ladies to advertise products? We call this softcore pornography, and it apparently doesn't bother them at all... and besides, even if it did, raising a child by keeping this sort of thing away from their eyes in perpetuity is the wrong way to do it. Teaching them that it's wrong is slightly better, teaching them to understand its repercussions is the master stroke that teaches them yet does not indoctrinate them.
As for why I don't support it, as I said earlier, it's my answer to the question asked, not my true opinion, which would restrict who can get married not based on their sexual orientation, but their reasons for marrying. Namely, as some communities have petitioned their same-sex-banning local governments, whether they plan to use this marriage to raise a family should be the defining question.
Why? Well, to start off, it's expensive in terms of time, money, and sanity to actually go through the procedure of getting married, even without a grandiose ceremony, and the people who marry out of love need a clue by four to each head involved that the things they want to spend their life doing do not need this little piece of paper. They can live together, they can share their lives until the day they die, it's not practical for them unless they're doing it simply to show off, and if so there are far better ways to do it.
"But there are health benefits! Businesses offer discounts to married couples! Etc, etc..." Yes, I know, and although it's a little more socialist than I like to admit, why should we give these benefits away needlessly to people who do so only to show off their love for each other, when there are couples who make perfectly good investments in the community's future who, most of the time, need them in order to make said investments? Living together as one is its own discount, raising a child is just the opposite, whether biological or adopted. These investors are doing a pretty dangerous duty in today's society, what with children suing their parents for groundings and all. They need the help far more than marriage activists.
Those who are paying attention will notice I didn't make any reference to gender in the above paragraph. That would be because, in a perfect world, there wouldn't be. Whether you're a lady raising a family with your husband through the natural methods, or a pair of ladies or a pair of men doing the job a child's biological parents couldn't or wouldn't, you're still doing that same job.
"But you voted against same-sex marriage!" Because we don't live in a perfect world, and right now, same-sex marriage is a buzzword. Sure, they can say they do it to adopt, but right now, we don't need more families willing to adopt. We're already sitting at, at the kindest numbers, FIFTEEN prospective adoptive homes per child, and some estimates raise that all the way to twenty-four per child.
Yes, long post, but that's what you get with difficult questions without easy answers.
TL
R version: I vote in favor of families and children.(Edit: You might also notice a lack of any talk about moral or religious choices in there. That's because we've got enough practicalities to keep ourselves busy before we get there.)
I just watched the following video, and I thought immediately of this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnui1JVTFGM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnui1JVTFGM
To put it in D&D terms, comedians have a high wisdom modifier, which is more pertinent to social issues than intelligence, which academics (AKA experts) use in their line of work.SenseOfTumour said:
My theory is that they're all together. The red and blue teams are united not by nationality but by love.Doug said:
Well, everyone knows that Gay is transmitted by sight. One look at them and bam you're gay too.
/lol
good god, people these days... I mean, they're perfectly entitled to not want to be in a same sex marriage themselves, but I really don't see how people can think that who others marry will affect them in any way or is any of their business.
/lol
good god, people these days... I mean, they're perfectly entitled to not want to be in a same sex marriage themselves, but I really don't see how people can think that who others marry will affect them in any way or is any of their business.
It was awhile ago, but it pisses me off that he got away with it until the whole 'phoning up Manwell' thing came up.ragestreet said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7508863.stm
Anyway, I don't think its funny, but I never 'got' Russell Brands 'humour'. I mean, not alot of comedy shows actually are funny these days, but you can at least see what the humour is meant to be about.
After all the OM NOM NOM images I've seen on the internet I'll never be able to take that group seriously.
EDIT: post timing lol
EDIT: post timing lol
The spy and the engineer are together. It's... complicated. If any of them are single it's gotta be the sniper man. Shifty loners.Doug said: