Thread: I don't understand why gays want to marry

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

First of all, I think marriage should be removed from the government entirely and privatized as a contractual matter. Thus, anyone could enter into a private contract that they could call a marriage or anything, man, woman, one person, two people, whatever. I think this is appropriate and good way to satisfy everyone.

But regardless, I don't understand why same-sex couples want to get married in the first place. The whole point of marriage is not to be symbol for twoo wuv or anything of the sort, despite what Disney says about it. It has a legal role to regulate the bearing and raising of children, in regards to issues such as paternity, custody disputes, etc. Since a homosexual couple cannot bear children together, what's the point? It seems like it's more about a desire to assimilate than anything else, the idea that if gays are married, the soccer mom contingent will be more likely to accept them. Other than that, it's a mere symbol of romantic infatuation that could just as easily be expressed with Valentine's Day candy. Their free to enter into a contract and call it what they want--I wouldn't stop them. I just don't see the point.

The same goes, by the way, for heterosexual couples that do not want to have children. I don't see the point of marriage for them either.

You bring up some good points.
It probably depends on the person, whether its a religious matter or not, but mostly, perhaps a show of commitment.

Originally Posted by Perriquine

You can't proclaim two things are equal while simultaneously making them unequal by forcing one group to use a different term that doesn't have the weight of history behind it, influencing how people understand and regard that union, and thereby marking them as targets for discrimination.

Yalls stickin yer willies up each other bums hasnt had the weight of history behind it, not because the gays have been the "targets for discrimination", but instead because only when a man sticks his willy in a woman, might a baby come out.

The importance of a stable home hasnt had the weight of history behind it because man thrives when he has a stable household where he can stick his willy in his spouse, but instead because children thive when they have a stable home with their parents together in that home and tend not to thrive as well when only their mother to nurse from, to provide and care for them. Fathers of children when paternity is never esablished, most frequently spend none of their income providing and caring for their children. Fathers on average spend more of their income providing for their children in their home than they do for their children when they dont live in the home. Rubbing genitals has no relevance to two people joining together to form a stable household, or the benefit to be derrived from a stable household.

You want to take an instituiion that has the weight of history behind it because of the importance of humans responsibility for providing and caring for the children THEY have created, and turn it into an instituion that has the faux weight of history history behind it because of the importance of having a stable home to provide a comfortable marital bed to rub genitals. Because judicial or legislative fiat says it is so.

Rubbing genitals just has no relevance to the need for stable homes. Rubbing genitals has no relevance to the creation of children, or the decision for two consenting adults to decide to join together to provide and care for somebody elses children, or simply form a stable home.

i thick they just want fairness and equality not like you have to have kids of your own or kids at all to get hitched around hear

and most people don’t treat you like you’re not married if you don’t

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Yalls stickin yer willies up each other bums

Get back to me when you are able to discuss these matters like an adult, without the juvenile assumptions about my sex life.

Marriage is not about "rubbing genitals". As for anything else you said, I'm sorry but I can't hear you over the din of your other bigoted statements.

Originally Posted by alexander.d.butler

Its not about WHY they want to do it
Its the fact that they CANT, that angers them.

Never amusing when straight people put on their "I'm so superior" badges and pretend they can read the minds of gay people.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Yalls stickin yer willies up each other bums hasnt had the weight of history behind it, not because the gays have been the "targets for discrimination", but instead because only when a man sticks his willy in a woman, might a baby come out.

The importance of a stable home hasnt had the weight of history behind it because man thrives when he has a stable household where he can stick his willy in his spouse, but instead because children thive when they have a stable home with their parents together in that home and tend not to thrive as well when only their mother to nurse from, to provide and care for them. Fathers of children when paternity is never esablished, most frequently spend none of their income providing and caring for their children. Fathers on average spend more of their income providing for their children in their home than they do for their children when they dont live in the home. Rubbing genitals has no relevance to two people joining together to form a stable household, or the benefit to be derrived from a stable household.

You want to take an instituiion that has the weight of history behind it because of the importance of humans responsibility for providing and caring for the children THEY have created, and turn it into an instituion that has the faux weight of history history behind it because of the importance of having a stable home to provide a comfortable marital bed to rub genitals. Because judicial or legislative fiat says it is so.

Rubbing genitals just has no relevance to the need for stable homes. Rubbing genitals has no relevance to the creation of children, or the decision for two consenting adults to decide to join together to provide and care for somebody elses children, or simply form a stable home.

Originally Posted by Perriquine

Get back to me when you are able to discuss these matters like an adult, without the juvenile assumptions about my sex life.

I wasnt making any assumptions about YOUR sex life and was instead making a generalization of gay mens sex life. Ive read in CDC publications that its a popular activity for men who have sex with men. Im sorry if you were offended by the implication that you are one of those gay men who sticks his willy into another man. Without a bottom, there could be no top.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

I wasnt making any assumptions about YOUR sex life and was instead making a generalization of gay mens sex life. Ive read in CDC publications that its a popular activity for men who have sex with men. Im sorry if you were offended by the implication that you are one of those gay men who sticks his willy into another man. Without a bottom, there could be no top.

"Sticking willies up eachother's bums" has what to do with anything? We know it's all most anti-gay people think of when they consider what gay equality means... But I thought you were more intelligent than that? Apparently not.

I totally support gay marriage because the time is long past that only heterosexual males should get screwed in divorces. The only problem will be cluing the judge in on which side he's supposed to have "empathy" for.

I think the problem really is a matter of semantics and psychology. A "marriage" gives a relationship "legitimacy" in a community as a formal and public commitment and title that creates a "family". The main problem being that a secular act gives a relationship legitimacy in the church community.

There is not a clear distinction between the religious aspect of marriage, and the secular aspect of it, that's the problem I think. No doubt the church establishment is keen to keep the status quo, and I think they've gone a long way to blocking homosexual marriage which, imo, is completely unethical.

Within a country of 300 million+ people, or even a state with 10+ million people, there are going to be hundreds or thousands of different interpretations of what constitutes a legitimate relationship.

Obviously the church community is a huge part of many peoples lives and many people feel that if "marriage" is extended to homosexuals, something many people believe is immoral and not a legitimate relationship, that degrades their own title of marriage by association.

I've said this before, but imo the term "marriage" needs to be dropped from law altogether, and "Civil Union" should be the standard for all couples. Homosexual or heterosexual.

To be "married", you should then need to perform some kind of religious ceremony at your church of choice (such as, getting married in a church by a priest). Something that is only recognized within that church community and not in law. Then each community can discriminate freely against any relationships they are opposed to, without that discrimination extending to federal or state law.

If, as I suspect, many homosexuals want to make homosexual marriage legitimate in the eyes of the church establishment, then that can be campaigned as a separate issue, which it is entirely.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

I wasnt making any assumptions about YOUR sex life and was instead making a generalization of gay mens sex life

One you've no business making if you expect to be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Ive read in CDC publications that its a popular activity for men who have sex with men.

Define "popular", bearing in mind that disease statistics don't necessarily define what's true of the greater population.

A recent, very large study found the 40% of heterosexually identified men have had anal sex with someone of the opposite-sex.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Im sorry if you were offended by the implication that you are one of those gay men who sticks his willy into another man. Without a bottom, there could be no top.

Continuing to make ignorant assumptions about the sex lives of gay men. For starters, the terms "top" and "bottom" don't apply only to anal sex. Additionally, those labels don't apply to all gay men, either.

Lastly, it has nothing to do with marriage. You're making those statements just to bait people.