Gay marraige and the end of the world

quote:

---

If right wing fundie conservatives are not worried about hurting our enviroment, because they say that God doesn't care, and the end of the world is near anyway, then why do they care if people are gay or not?

​

Why do they care about gay marraige?

---

They stand to profit hugely from plundering the environment, while gay marriage doesn't particularly benefit them financially.Also, when it comes to fundamentalists and sex, they go pretty crazy.They are obsessed with it because they are so repressed and immature in their attitudes, and therefore are over-interested in controlling everyone else's sexuality.But it always seems to come back to bite them is the ass. Here's onl the latest incident of this type. They happen all the time: link

quote:

---

just like gay liberals who want to abolish religion from our culture, and read the constitution wrong.

---

Who are these "gay liberals" who "want to abolish religion from our culture"?Also, how have they read the constitution incorrectly?

quote:

---

So I get this customer, a gay couple. They call me up and tell me to come over so I can get paid, and lo and behold they are having some kind of gay party with like 30 men in speedos, listening to 70's disco, doing drugs, and hanging all over each other. And here I thought they were a nice couple, just to themselves, having respect for straight people who may possibly get offended by there sexual preference less than 1 mile from my house.

---

WHAT??!!There was gay sex going on less than ONE MILE FROM YOUR HOUSE??!!

quote:

---

The funny thing is in NYC there really isn't much gay-bashing, at least not in Manhattan, but there is an awful lot of Christian-bashing. I was painting in a studio in New York, and someone that didn't know me had come by and asked what I was working on, and I mentioned something about Christ, and he laughed, and I asked him what was up, and then he was literally very surprised.

​

He assumed I was joking, and then said he had never met a Christian artist in NYC. This guy was an artist and taught as well at a university there. I do think maybe he was referring only to artists in my vein though since I am sure some other styles must have some Christians representing them, or maybe he was exagerrating.

​

Now, I didn't take offense. My art is good enough (due to God's grace alone) that no matter how outrageous my stance seems to be, in being a Christian, that I obtained respect. But at the same time, I would say homosexuals have had more dominant position in the art world, and I have heard some artists complain they felt they were slighted for not being gay (but who knows if that was the real reason?).

---

I really didn't get the part where Christianity was "bashed" in your story.But in any case, if you want to know why New Yorkers are mistrustful of Christianity, all you have to do is go to one of many fundie websites that spount incredible amounts of hate and fear towards NYC. Those websites say that NYC should be blown up because of all of the "sin" there (like acceptance of homosexuals and the like), and many even said that the "liberals" in NYC deserved the attack on the World Trade Center.

quote:

---

To me, a family is all about trying to make one, having one, and then caring for one. There is something special about a child that lives in a happy home, that has his/her natural mother and father.

​

This may or may not be fantasy land I'm talking about, and statistics will say that this is not the norm, but it should be the goal, and it should represent who and what we are as a race of beings.

---

My husband and I are childless by choice.You have just told both of us that we do not have a "real" family, that our marriage isn't "special" because we don't have children, and that we "should" have the "goal" of having and raising children if we want to be considered by you to "represent humanity".Could you be any more insulting, riverrat?

quote:

---

So, to tell you the truth, just how many couples out there get themselves altered right off the bat, and say we are never having kids?

​

That is not too common. Plus, I also don't really agree with it, in the sense of calling it a marraige. I think it is a bit on the selfish side to take control of your own body, cut your organs and say no more.

---

Selfish?There are millions of starving people already here on the planet.The United States consumes a hugely disproportionate portion of the world's resources.You think it's selfish to bring even more people, particularly Americans, into the world to use up more resources when the environment is already straining to the breaking point to support human population growth?We reproduce too much already; it is the height of selfishness to be in the richest country in the world and have a bunch of natural children instead of adopting unwanted children who are already here and in need of parents.AbE: Are you really saying that a marriage shouldn't be called a marriage if people decide to not ever have children?Since when is a marriage defined by the existence or not of children?I thought a marriage was between two people who are in a committed relationship?Again, you thoughtlessly insult every person who chooses to remain childless.How dare you?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-14-2006 05:30 PM

quote:

---

Really schraf, the fact that you may feel insulted doesn't make it a fact that I insulted you.

---

True.However, Riverrat, this is what you said:

quote:

---

To me, a family is all about trying to make one, having one, and then caring for one. There is something special about a child that lives in a happy home, that has his/her natural mother and father.

​

This may or may not be fantasy land I'm talking about, and statistics will say that this is not the norm, but it should be the goal, and it should represent who and what we are as a race of beings.

---

So according to you, any marriage that does not fit the above description is not "representative of humanity".A family that has no children doesn't have the proper "goal" according to you, and it isn't really a true family, correct?Yes, riverrat, you were very insulting to me and to Zhimbo, and to every other "childless by choice" couple in the world.

quote:

---

The fact is that your marriage IS different from one who chooses to have children.

---

Of course it's different, genious.What it isn't is LESS-THAN or INFERIOR to any other marriage.How dare you say that it is?Just who do you think you are?

quote:

---

You do not wish to care for children, only yourselves.

---

You only wish to breed like rats in your arrogance and pathetic need to have your fragile ego petted.You are populating the planet with more people that it cannot support, sucking more resources away from the starving people who are already here.

quote:

---

That is the fact by your own admission, and not an insult. If you are insulted, maybe it is because you feel you are doing something wrong?

---

I am insulted because you blatantly told me that my marriage isn't worthy or even "real".Apologize.

quote:

---

How does humanity all of a sudden come into play here?
When did I ever mention the word humanity. You can retract that statement.

---

Here's how:

quote:

---

This may or may not be fantasy land I'm talking about, and statistics will say that this is not the norm, but it should be the goal, and it should represent who and what we are as a race of beings.

---

According to you, all marriages "should" have children, otherwise they do not "represent who and what we are as a race of beings"."What we are as a race of beings" = "humans/humanity".We are humans. The human race. What we are as a race of beings.YOU brought humanity into the discussion, and which marriages, according to you, are worthy of representing "who and what we are as humans".According to you, my marriage doesn't qualify. That is insulting.

quote:

---

again, putting words in my mouth, I explained myself quite clearly.

---

This is what you wrote:

quote:

---

This may or may not be fantasy land I'm talking about, and statistics will say that this is not the norm, but it should be the goal, and it should represent who and what we are as a race of beings.

---

You said it "should" be "the goal" of a family to have children.Says who? You? Since when is it your place to decide these things?

quote:

---

I never said it was inferior,

---

Oh yes you absolutely did!

quote:

---

So, to tell you the truth, just how many couples out there get themselves altered right off the bat, and say we are never having kids?

​

That is not too common. Plus, I also don't really agree with it, in the sense of calling it a marraige.

---

So, a marriage that is childless by choice shouldn't even be called a marriage at all, according to you.You are calling my marriage a sham, a fake, inauthentic.It isn't a "real" marriage according to you because procreation isn't the be all and end all goal.How dare you? Who do you think you are?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-14-2006 07:29 PM

quote:

---

Right now I don't see that the emotion you're exhibiting is contributing to the discussion. Let's cool it and focus on what's being said and explaining how you're making the deductions that you're making.

---

Agreed.Apologies to all.

quote:

---

Yes, what we are as humans includes reproduction. Without it we wouldn't be here.

---

So what? Without opposable thumbs and upright locomotion, we would have never become Homo Sapiens Sapiens

quote:

---

I believe marriage that leads to a family should be protected, and it is different than all other marriages.

---

You mean it should be protected because it is better, more important, and more special than other marriages, is that correct?

quote:

---

I never said it doesn't qualify,

---

Yes, you did:

quote:

---

This may or may not be fantasy land I'm talking about, and statistics will say that this is not the norm, but it should be the goal, and it should represent who and what we are as a race of beings.

---

According to you, all marriages "should" have children, otherwise they do not "represent who and what we are as a race of beings".So, are you now changing your qualifications for marriages that may, according to you, "represent who and what we are as a race of beings" to include childless marriages?You said it "should" be "the goal" of a family to have children.
Says who? You? Since when is it your place to decide these things?

quote:

---

It is my place to decide these things for myself.

---

Of course it is.

quote:

---

I am not deciding it for others.

---

But you are making broad proclamations about marriage as an institution and what you deem to be a valid purpose or goal of a marriage in general.Just as you have the right to your opinion, I have the right to mine, and your opinion on these matters are highly insulting and offensive to me.Remember, this is within a thread which discusses the fact that gay people do not share the right to marry that heteros do, which has now spawned this discussion of your opinion of the validity of "childless by choice" marriages.

quote:

---

I am allowed to believe what I want to believe, and feel right about it. What sense would it be for me to feel wrong about it?

---

And I am allowed to take insult and offense at what I deem your insulting and offensive statements about the kind of marriage and life I choose to have.So, a marriage that is childless by choice shouldn't even be called a marriage at all, according to you.

quote:

---

OMG schraf. I am not calling it those things, I am just not calling it a marriage.

---

What would you call it, then, if you deny that my marriage is a "real" one?An "unmarriage"? A "non-marriage"? A "minimarriage"? A "lesser marriage"?I am simply astounded that you cannot see how insulting you are being right now.How dare you declare that my marriage isn't "real"?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-14-2006 10:21 PM

Rat, did you "decide" to be straight?Or did you just always like girls?

quote:

---

That child should have a right to be raised by just that, a biological mother, and a biological father, who have given themselves in marriage and commited their lives to raising the children the so responsibly decided to have.

​

That is the ideal situation, and deviating from that, to me, just doesn't make sense.

---

Since when has this been the norm in any society?It wasn't the norm in Biblical times. People lived in big, extended families; it was a tribal, clan-based culture, right? Men had multiple wives for much of that time as well.

quote:

---

schraf is choosing not to have children because she is either unwilling or unable to care for them. i'd even venture that she is refraining from reproducing because she believes (like people in european countries) that the earth cannot support the number of people it has and that they feel they are being responsible to the children they might have in preventing them from starving to death in an overpopulated world. just because you don't take overpopulation as fact doesn't mean it isn't. and yet you call her selfish because she doesn't want to squeeze out a squalling brat that will die of starvation someday.

---

That's pretty much true, although I would not let my own child starve.The idea is that if I do not bring even more mouths into the world to be overfed by the embarassing amount of food we consume in this country, there will be that much more food, water, clean air, etc., for some other people. If more people stopped having so many children, we wouldn't have so much pollution, environmental degradation, war, famine, disease, etc.Overpopulation is what will kill us and the Earth, ultimately.It is also true that there are some funky genetics in both my and zhimbo's side of the family and while no doctor has ever told us that we should definitely not have kids, it was definitely a factor in the choice to remain childless.I have always, from the age of 10 or so, known and taken seriously the notion that that getting pregnant and raising a child will drastically, irreversably change my entire life forever. If I were to descide to bring another life into this world, it would be because I really wanted to do it. While both Zhimbo and I enjoy kids, neither one of us have had the burning desire to have and raise a child ourselves. Never once. So, we have been careful and always used birth control of some sort or another, although if I was to become pregnant by accident, I would probably raise it.The point is, rat, that you have insulted me by calling me selfish for not having children.You have insulted me for saying that my marriage shouldn't even be called a marriage because I don't have children.You apparently do not have the ability to comprehend why such statements could be taken as insulting, and instead hide behind "I have a right to my opinion."Your "opinions" regarding my marriage are bigoted, small-minded and extremely insulting.

quote:

---

What did you desire as a child? To have a mother and father that both treat you with love?

​

Or would it be ok for you to have same sex parents?

---

I would have given anything for my parents to have been competent, loving parents, regardless of their genders.My two straight parents screwed me up so I had to spend years and years trying to fix myself.

quote:

---

But I am not convinced that people getting insulted is a result of what I am saying, more that it is a result of people having their own personal problems.

---

You think the reason I am insulted is because I have a "personal problem", and not because you said to my face that you don't think my marriage should even be called a marriage because I have no children?That is truly mind boggling.

quote:

---

So the only people I have been treated bad from sexually was gay people. It may be the reason I don't think it is right, or at least part of it.

---

And yet, the only people who have treated me badly in a sexual way were straight males, and I don't think that heterosexual men should have their rights taken away.

quote:

---

Yes, I did.
Read my last post.

---

Sorry, what I read in your last post in no way describes "choosing" to be straight.

quote:

---

Since a sperm and an egg got together to make your ass.

---

Oh? One woman and one man raising their children together has always been "the norm"?Care to provide some historical support for that claim? Because I seem to recall being fairly certain that the notion of the so-called "nuclear family" being the "normal" or most common family form over the centuries as purely mythical.

quote:

---

Men sure screwd that one up. They had 500 wives, and then felt the need to go a take his brothers wives as well.

​

Was that love, or a matter of survival? You can't use that as an example if it wasn't love. Because gay people are asying they want to marry because of love. So you can drop that comparason.

---

Men "screwed that up? I thought that God wanted them to have multiple wives.Love? Love as a consideration in marriage is a very recent phenomena. Remember, rat, for most of the history of marriage, including in the Bible, women were chattel. They were owned as property.Even later, when women were considered people (albeit inferior people), since they had no property rights, the idea of marrying for love was rare. Marriages were to secure one's financial future, or to form bonds between important families. If love came after, then good for you, that's a bonus.It has only been in very, very recent times that marriage had anything at all to do with romantic love rather than being a business or social arrangement.The main and overriding reason people get married these days is because they love each other, and not for any of the historical reasons marriages have taken place.