Gay marraige and the end of the world

i'd have to agree. it's really apparent the kind of separation that exists in this society. we don't really think about it, but view it this way. i go to work and i tell them about how i went home with a headache last night and my boyfriend put me in a hot bath and lit some candles and rubbed my shoulders and rubbed my head and made me tea and then snuggled me all night until i felt better. everyone responds to how sweet that is. what is i was dating a chick? ok bad example. cause lesbians are acceptable (as long as both chicks are hot lol). imagine if i was a guy. i wouldn't even be able to talk about what my boyfriend did for me. i understood this kind of superficially until last year. then one of my friends moved in with me. he had pink hair. he's adorable. anyways. his boyfriend came to visit him for a while (out of state). i was telling a friend of mine about it at work (where i worked at the time) and it was all cool but one of my managers overheard and was like "how can you live in a house where that is going on?" he didn't really have any issue with the idea of someone being gay but actual evidence and confrontation with gay sex was simply too much for his brain.there's a whole segment of people who simply can't share their lives with those around them because of the misunderstanding, fear, and outright hate. imagine it this way. men love watching porn. men even like softcore skinemax crap. they'll even go to a regular movie cause there might be some sex in it. oh god and if there's two chicks... but how many guys have you known in the last month volunteer to go see brokeback mountain without batting an eye. they're just two people who love each other. they're not special, they're not different, they're not weird or gross or crazy. they're just people. and they just want to not be different or weird or gross or crazy. or killed.

precisely. marriage liscensure is about the long history of trading women with dowries. you marry a woman, you get the land her father says is 'hers'. marriage was never about children. plenty of so-called illegitimate children got plenty of titles in history (oh god if you ask me to demonstrate this, i'll scream). fatherhood is not proveable outside of modern medicine. therefore, marriage as a proof of legitimacy is a sham. in the states, marriage was about property too. not so much land always, as just the woman herself or monied dowries. this idea of marriage as a bastian of children is a new-fangled fundie one. marriage contracts exist to create a paper-trail and prevent abandonment of the spouse. note, child support is a separate legal matter from alimony. alimony is money you pay to your former spouse who used to depend on you for a certain living standard and no longer has that luxury. you have to maintain that standard of living because you have broken contract which was supposed to be enduring. alimony is a fee for breaking contract. the marriage contract is made between spouses not their children. child support payments are separate from alimony and can be demanded outside of the existence of a marriage. thus, marriage legally has NOTHING to do with children.biblically, if marriage was about making legitimate babies, then why do almost all the big guys have multiple wives and concubines? it's about possessing women and the land they come with. how do you think solomon expanded his kingdom?if you chose to decide that you don't desire children outside of wedlock, and that you think that wedlock is made for children, you are free to continue in your delusions, but i suggest that you seek professional help prior to suffrage. but then that's just my personal opinion and means nothing.

it really depends on what you mean by founded. that i don't know. but probably for more cultures than marriage is one man and one woman. there are cultures where two men will mary the same woman because they can't each afford a woman. (women are bought property in those). when of if they can each afford a wife, they don't either divorce the first. but are we really going to base our society's legal contracts on any of these old traditions? really. outside of religious conviction, there is NO REASON to restrict marriage of any sort. there isn't a reason people can't be married (or beholden) to more than one person. and there isn't a reason people can't marry someone of any sex. we proclaim minors protected from these unions but it really isn't that we're protecting them. it's that they are not suffraged and not recognized by our legal system as having the right to make contracts. that's nice. but that isn't what we should be basing our laws on. we give children in adoption to those who are willing and able to care for them. funny thing, those in childless marriages tend to be more able to care for children than those who do not control their procreative activities. but willingness is the major key. in fact, many who are neither willing nor able to care for children have them. so you're suggesting that these irresponsible people have more right to marriage than those who know that they are unwilling or unable to care for children because you've decided that marriages must produce offspring?some people want nothing to do with their natural parents because their natural parents are irresponsible or crazy or sick or abusive. are you suggesting that we should force these relationships because you liked your parents? it only takes a quick fuck to make a parent. it takes a lot more to build a relationship. i find it insulting that you would make marriage into this. show me a quote where jesus says this. jesus, not paul, not the old testament.further, one man, one woman. this says nothing of children which you keep pressing. good for you. but this has no bearing on our laws. would you dare to suggest that a gay man can't love his children enough to break his neck to provide for them? i dare say that science is probably close enough to making an ovum out of an ordinary cell. i can't imagine it being that difficult. what if two men were able to conceive their own child? (two women is easy. it's half a step from the cloning they're doing. you just use the dna from the other woman's cell to fill the ovum.) then would you say after such hard work that they would love him any less or work any less hard than you to support, raise, and love him? #1 because he does. it's not your place to force a woman and children on him just because you think it's right.#2 i imagine her dad boned her mom. that's the way it generally works. but that doesn't mean she has to repeat the act. the earth has a population of 6 billion plus. there is no danger of humanity going extinct (aside from iran being shit nuts). your desire to force her womb is wrong and frankly offensive. i have no desire to marry or have children. would you do the same to me? just because you exist doesn't demand that you pass on your genes. maybe she has a recessive defect or something that she doesn't want to risk passing on and is doing the noble thing and refraining. you have no idea and yet you proclaim that she isn't really married cause she hasn't squirted anything loud out. just because you don't yell at them or tie them to fences doesn't mean you're being tolerant and loving. except for marriage. he's all about judging marriage. especially if you don't want to have kids. *swoons*

of course it's a whole lifestyle. because our society has decided and demanded that gay people have to be different. and because of jokes like the one you just shared. it's not funny. it's not funny at all. movies don't mean much but they can be a reflection of our culture. many movies and television (an episode of the l word last week said something about it) suggest teams. if you screw up and become attracted to the wrong person, then suddenly you're batting for the other team. we're so set on defining and labeling people that we can't just let people love whom they desire without making them suddenly gay or suddenly straight. the joke you stated... it works the other way to some. you can suck a thousand dicks, but if you are with a woman once, then suddenly you're straight and out of the movement and you've betrayed everything that everyone has worked for. our society is so completely polarized about sex that it's become a war. why can't sex just be a way for people to connect? why can't marriage be a way for people to spend the rest of their lives caring for each other alone and not some massive social statement about the correctness of some sexual act or another? why? because people like you have forced the issue. and they respond in kind. what would you do if they won and breeder marriages were outlawed? what if the only legal children were contract children made to supply a happy, loving, right gay marriage instead of a desecrating breeder marriage which isn't about love but only about breeding? what if it all turned around? what would you be saying? what if the religion of the day had a leader 2000 years ago who said that breeders were desecrating love and that marriage should only be between members of the same sex because they can better understand each other. what if jesus had said one man, one man; one woman, one woman because men cannot properly love women because they cannot understand them just like women cannot properly attend to a man's needs?

you're full of it.children sufferring has NOTHING to do with gay marriage. why do you keep trying to find ways to make less people gay? don't you get that that makes you intolerant? i mean. maybe there's some gay person out there who doesn't want to be gay, but the ones i've met are content. sure. have parenting licences. i've been supporting that for years. but it's difficult to enforce outside of fines. but what i was responding to was your claims of schraf's marriage being "not a marriage" because she didn't have or want kids. but it's still not there. i'd think if it was so important, he'd have said it. but no. he only spoke about lust. and if jesus didn't say it, then jesus didn't say it. so you shouldn't say "jesus says one man, one woman" because he didn't. children do have a right to be raised by their biological parents if those parents are willing and able. however. children do not have the right to be brought into this world. no couple has the responsibility to bone just so some unthought of kid can get a chance to come into this messed up world. says you. except that you keep contradicting yourself. i'm sure i'll come across a few examples in this post. but that's your problem. i don't care if you're consistent. i just care that you're wrong. in ancient china (especially the fujian province), ancient sparta, the island of thera, 2nd century rome, and i've heard rumors of secret but legal marriages in the middle ages. the cheyenne and souix indians (namely Yellow Head who became the third wife of chief Wagetote). and naturally, in sibera, they do it too. allegedly, emperors nero and diocletian married men not to mention trajan and hadrian. the guy with the wall. i bet it was a secret gay love palace with those amazing pict men in scotland <3. even the romans fell for men in kilts. it is possible that richard # the second was married to two men. at least in a civil sense. in the united states in the nineteenth century, there was the "boston marriage" in which two women pledged their lives to each other. whether sex had anything to do with this is naturally questionable and i'm sure no one then thought about it. the Azande of the congo region marry men. and in egypt's fifth dynasty, Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum. and there's always the mayans. they also got drunk and high by using funnels to put substances into their anuses rather than drinking it. it's faster that way. that's hot. totally doing that at my next party. samurai had boyfriends, so did alexander the great. in the movie they called him his cousin i think. no wait. that was in troy. cause yeah. that guy had a boyfriend too. even some muslims dudes had boyfriends. Hafiz i-Shirazi and Abu Nuwas wrote about seducing boys they found attractive.wow. that's a lot. even a few right here in "god's country". amazing.
(sources Androphile and Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia i know i rail about wiki but i don't really take this argument seriously. especially with this much evidence.) don't believe me? google history gay marriage and see what comes up. (turn on the adult filter if you like or you might not like what comes up {heh.}). that's nice. so your very heart taught you to hate people who are different and religion just made you not feel guilty about it. there's a first, religion making someone NOT feel guilty. don't be upset with yourself. just find out if you're wrong or not. hey. if you're right then great. i like boys. i've only dated them. i'll deal. i'll keep my immoral thoughts about jessica alba in check. yes. i think it's an important point that marriage is not the thing that makes children possible. and did you know that single people can adopt children? um no. you said you said you wanted your biological parents and that you'd settle for a loving and responsible parent if you really had to. (not to say that yours were not. that's your place not mine.) oh wait. you're saying loving and responsible biological parents. i see. and children they choose to have. so it's ok to choose not to have children by being loving and responsible and preventing them? well that knocks out how many pages of argument with schraf? and by using that word choose, you do realize that you have to accept abortion. it is a choice to not have a child you cannot care for (willing or able. either one.).thus it follows... yes. but one man plus one woman plus one condom (or three depending on the night <3) equals one man, one woman, no babies, and a cigarette.but of course. sometimes it takes one man and two women to make a child since the first cannot provide a viable womb but has a viable egg or the other way round. sometimes it takes one man, one woman, and loads of creepy doctors to make a baby. sometimes it taks one man, one woman, and some other unknown guy's sperm to make a baby. freaks. all of them. it's speculation, but not unfounded. what should we base our morals on? we can't base it on religion because it's never proven and it isn't guaranteed to stay here. we can't base our morals on tradition since it isn't proven and it obviously hasn't stayed here. how about founding our morals on something good and solid like the constitution or the declaration of independence? i mean. they're philosophical tradition so i guess they're out too. maybe we should just let W tell us what to do with out bodies. yeah. that's a great idea. http://www.silverlininginfertilitysupport.co.uk/...ndex.html
ask them
it appears to be the same stuff that people who naturally miscarry go through. that's tough. but i guess if two loving and responsible parents really want to make a baby, then who am i to stand in their way just because i'm self-righteous in my perfectly functioning baby bag? well. that's a lie. my baby bag has serious issues. but you think that gay people shouldn't be gay. and if he wants to marry he should marry a woman. and naturally he's a man so he should combine with one woman to make at least one baby because if it can happen it should. cause m+w=b so therefore all m and all w should make b. but what about and 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. oh sure our technology has allowed us to make more food than the earth would otherwise support but you just said

no i meant ultimate worst case world population scenario. i'm totally on with that. maybe we shouldn't abort 'special' babies, but we shouldn't go out of our way to make them. right on. see. that's being responsible. not having kids just cause that's what your body is capable of.

i'm just very confused as to why people are so full of rancor. if you want to see me angry, you should see what i said to golfer. and that was pretty wimpy. i don't get angry much. there are very few things in this world that make me angry: hate, censorship, human rights violations, and lies. i am in the process of dedicating my life to eradicating these. the best way is through compassion, understanding, and education. you don't really seem to understand what these people are asking for. so i'm trying to show you what they feel like. sure, as a movement they may be about upsetting everything you believe. but that's only because as a movement you or at least people from your larger group are set on murdering them. as individuals, these people want the same things you do. they want a safe home they can share with someone they love. they want the right to a recognized relationship and the right to raise children or just live together alone. they want to live happily and successfully with the person they love. you are the people so intent on looking in their pants and making sure they fit your ideals.and yes, my parents were straight. and happily married for 16 years until my father died.

children have nothing to do with the legitimacy of a marriage. children do have something to do with some people's life desires. you telling schraf that she isn't really married cause she doesn't have kids is wrong. letting gay people adopt kids in or out of a legal marriage is right. i desire a safe home with enough food to eat and a warm dry place to sleep with people who love me. i only had a father for 9 years. i'm really not the person to ask. but if you want my honest opinion... i'd rather have two fathers. mothers are evil. guys are less prone to guilt-tripping. except of course my boyfriend.but then i didn't want to hear about what my parents did in their bedroom and i don't imagine it would be much different if i had same-sex parents.

i had a best girl friend. she dumped me for her church. or something. we were just friends. but we lived together in college. she was my whole entire world. half of my vocabulary is made up of weird quirky things she did or said. my favourite nickname is one she gave me. she filled me with life. i would have married her in a heartbeat.i don't consider myself gay. i don't really consider myself straight though. i date who i choose. it's never been a girl though. and i've only kissed a girl once (not my friend). and i was very drunk and very naked in a pool at a very drunk college party. it was. unsatisfying. i like to think i'd feel free to love whomever i decided. though i have a mild aversion to dating a girl because i don't really want to get the comments i'd get from guys. they're disgusting and i really don't like being a sex-object.but yes. i didn't think about her that way at the time but she was cute. and i'm reasonably attracted to women. i'd slip her the goldfish. (it's from a movie.)
of course now she just really makes me angry and empty. (we have mutual friends.) but i'd have squished the whole entire world into a golden goblet to give it to her. and being away from her tears me apart inside and out.maybe you can't imagine a woman wanting to be with a woman or a man wanting to be with a man. but it's really just like a woman wanting to be with a man... minus (or plus) the penis thing. you know what else was commonplace at the time? or was that too early for trepanning? no. i'm professing that you leave schraf and her marriage alone. ...
oh please someone else do this. i got shit to do. i can't be repeating myself like this. i mean. if nothing else the technology thing. just tell me you don't watch reality tv. cause i'm sure jesus doesn't like voyeurism. oh yeah. worldwide gay conspiracy. just like the jews. have you read song of solomon? it's not about squeezing out kids. having a vasectomy after you have 5 kids (you said 5 earlier. even if they aren't yours, you seem to support them) is RESPONSIBLE PARENTING. it's hard enough providing for one child in this country. two is crazy. 5 is right out. you were respectful to your wife that she's not a factory and to your children by not creating more mouths than could be provided for. you're not being selfish at all.i have a book you should read. it's a dangerous atheist book *boogey boogey* jared diamond - the third chimpanzee. i know i push it on everyone, but it's a great book. it talks about how human sexuality is more effective at creating emotional bonds than at creating offspring. and if you've had sex (which you clearly have) i'm sure you know what emotional bonds he's talking about. W has to do with me being funny.my moral base. well. i really don't know. it's kind of a hodgepodge but a lot has to do with locke and some crazy guys in philly and a few other stuffy old thinky-types. my moral code is based on what i desire and the understanding that i bet other people want things pretty similar to me. namely any freedom that doesn't directly infringe on another person's freedom. hammurabi and all that crap. no killing, no lying, no stealing. stuff like that. of course i'm kind of a hippie so i'm not so big on private property. but that doesn't mean i go taking people's stuff. just means i don't keep crap i don't need lying around.but since i live in the dear old states, i think it's pretty reasonable to base my morals on the documents that conceived our nation. the bible is not one of those. however. jesus was a nifty dude. and i'm awful fond of the beatitudes. the ten commandments are pretty good. once you get past that crazy god stuff that infringes on other peoples' right to their god or not god. i don't like paul, though. i think he was hateful and disgusting. and since i don't believe in biblical inerrancy, i don't have to like him. i like buddhism a bit. but i've not gotten much into it. i intend to amend this. but i've got about 400 books i already have to read in the next 7 years. i's busy. well. clearly since emotions are emotional and love is classified as an emotion. it's about how we connect to people and who we feel safe connecting to and who we want to connect to and who we best connect with.i don't understand it either, but i understand it more than i understand straight people. i mean. we're all supposed to have best friends of the same sex right? what is your spouse supposed to be but your very best friend? don't have much faith in the providence of god over the will of man do you? and the only solution to world hunger outside of technology (which you've already said you don't trust) is controlled population. yes but what about the moral of endless expansion? that is fed be technology. there's no more land. there's no new world. this is all we've got and we're squandering it. and you defend continued overpopulation because we have the possibility to feed them all? i am all about feeding starving children. but i'm also for controlling birthrates in tandem with efforts to feed what already is. and no i don't think we should only control birthrates in underdeveloped, underprovided areas. hence i'm proud that you quit your reproduction when you did. biblical standards of endless numbers of children were from a time when infant mortality rates were much higher and the world's population wasn't near a dangerous climax. we hit a peak once before. because of the way we were living and our technology of the time, the black plague in the middle ages was a symptom of population dynamics. too many people were living too closely in too bad of conditions. what's next and does it have to hit before people will get it that we can't all have 3-14 kids? what if it's this crazy bird flu? two children will maintain the current population and more than break your wallet. one child will allow a drop in population and allow you to devote even more love and resources to it. maybe if we can get everyone in the world to just have two kids then we'll be okay. but so many people are convinced that not having as many kids as possible is some kind of mortal sin. i just don't get it.

evidence that you don't pay very close attention to anything.google the word brenna
and the word kimi
yes it's a pen name. but still.
oh and if you have a minute. look left. yeah.

please tell me you're kidding.

i didn't really think that one counted. it's like 'smile pretty for the camera'.
cause if it really counted i kiss girls all the time in greeting and leaving. but not for real.

i think he thinks you meant Old Testament when you said Off Topic. but he seems to be a very confused boy today.

that's absolutely horrible.

i already explained it to you. you didn't listen.