The deepest insights come from trying to see the unifying root of two apparently antagonistic branches.
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.
Last edited by dixon76710; Feb 25 2012 at 11:05 AM.
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 donít treat you like youíre not married if you donít
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.
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.
A recent, very large study found the 40% of heterosexually identified men have had anal sex with someone of the opposite-sex.
Lastly, it has nothing to do with marriage. You're making those statements just to bait people.
Last edited by Perriquine; Feb 27 2012 at 05:34 AM.