|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay marraige and the end of the world | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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 OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma (AP) -- A pastor who has spoken out against homosexuality was arrested after propositioning a male undercover police officer outside a hotel, authorities said.
As the Rev. Lonnie Latham, 59, left jail Wednesday, he said "I was set up. I was in the area pastoring to police." Latham, a member of the Southern Baptist Convention's executive committee, was arrested Tuesday and charged with offering to engage in an act of lewdness, Capt. Jeffrey Becker said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Who are these "gay liberals" who "want to abolish religion from our culture"? Also, how have they read the constitution incorrectly?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: WHAT??!! There was gay sex going on less than ONE MILE FROM YOUR HOUSE??!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: True. However, Riverrat, this is what you said:
quote: 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: 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 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: I am insulted because you blatantly told me that my marriage isn't worthy or even "real". Apologize.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
So according to you, any marriage that does not fit the above description is not "representative of humanity". quote: Here's how:
quote: 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.
A family that has no children doesn't have the proper "goal" according to you, and it isn't really a true family, correct? quote: This is what you wrote:
quote: 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: Oh yes you absolutely did!
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Agreed. Apologies to all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
YOU brought humanity into the discussion, and which marriages, according to you, are worthy of representing "who and what we are as humans". quote: So what? Without opposable thumbs and upright locomotion, we would have never become Homo Sapiens Sapiens
quote: You mean it should be protected because it is better, more important, and more special than other marriages, is that correct?
quote: Yes, you did:
quote: 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? 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: Of course it is.
quote: 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: 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.
You are calling my marriage a sham, a fake, inauthentic. quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Rat, did you "decide" to be straight?
Or did you just always like girls?
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Rat, did you "decide" to be straight? quote: Sorry, what I read in your last post in no way describes "choosing" to be straight.
Since when has this been the norm in any society? quote: 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.
Men had multiple wives for much of that time as well. quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024