Religion, it just brings people together.
Fuck Israel
Poll
Do you agree with the gay marriage approval in California?
| Yes | 67% | 67% - 112 | ||||
| No | 27% | 27% - 45 | ||||
| I don't know | 0% | 0% - 0 | ||||
| Plead the fifth | 3% | 3% - 5 | ||||
| Other? (Please State) | 1% | 1% - 3 | ||||
| Total: 165 | ||||||
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3937
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/18/politics/ … index.htmlPresident Barack Obama on Friday nominated Eric K. Fanning to be secretary of the Army, which could make him the first openly gay secretary of a U.S. military branch.
The U.S. Senate must confirm Fanning before he can lead the Army.
"Eric brings many years of proven experience and exceptional leadership to this new role," the President said in a statement. "I am grateful for his commitment to our men and women in uniform, and I am confident he will help lead America's Soldiers with distinction."
...
Fanning has served as acting under secretary of the Army since June, and before that, served as chief of staff to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter. Fanning also served as under secretary of the Air Force and deputy undersecretary of the Navy.
Sounds more qualified than me. I am cool with this.
The president must know how homophobes like Ultrafunkula would perceive this. I wonder if he nominated him to try to rally gay people and their supporters in 2016 or if he did it out of spite for the right wing. Obviously the guy is perfect for the job anyway.
that^ is a huge part of it, yes, but it's not just that. minorities of all kinds always try to consolidate and stand up for themselves against ever present xenophobia. it's a survival instinct, plain and simple. lgbt bunch is really nothing special in that regard, just one of the more vocal and trendy atm.Jay wrote:
Married couples get fairly significant tax benefits in the US and can share health insurance benefits, social security payments etc. It's one of the major reasons gays pushed so hard for marriage equality. It wasn't the ceremony they wanted, they were already doing that on their own, it was state recognition.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
so which other groups specifically besides lgbt are denied the right to marriage?Shahter wrote:
that^ is a huge part of it, yes, but it's not just that. minorities of all kinds always try to consolidate and stand up for themselves against ever present xenophobia. it's a survival instinct, plain and simple. lgbt bunch is really nothing special in that regard, just one of the more vocal and trendy atm.Jay wrote:
Married couples get fairly significant tax benefits in the US and can share health insurance benefits, social security payments etc. It's one of the major reasons gays pushed so hard for marriage equality. It wasn't the ceremony they wanted, they were already doing that on their own, it was state recognition.
The smug, sidestepping argument you'll usually hear from the right is that LGBT folks have always had the right to marry, as long as it's a heterosexual union. The more insidious argument will answer by casually lumping LGBT's in with other groups denied marriage to their objects of affection, such as animal porkers and child/adult couples.
I should know, I grew up drowning in the right. And even from that perspective, I haven't figured out a foolproof way to break them of their opposition to gay marriage by appealing to their sense of reason. If you win, they'll just fall back on God.
I should know, I grew up drowning in the right. And even from that perspective, I haven't figured out a foolproof way to break them of their opposition to gay marriage by appealing to their sense of reason. If you win, they'll just fall back on God.
I have the impression that the LGBT crowd are fairly self-interested and tiresome, they are after all campaigning for themselves, not more general rights or liberties for everyone.
Not being able to 'marry' is hardly an unbearable tragedy, not compared with many things happening now or in history.
Not being able to 'marry' is hardly an unbearable tragedy, not compared with many things happening now or in history.
Fuck Israel
any number. you cannot marry your dog, your car, your mom, your left arm, the list goes on.Cybargs wrote:
so which other groups specifically besides lgbt are denied the right to marriage?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +640|3937
I volunteered to be part of an anti-hate campaign. The hardest people to convince to join were gay men. They were your typical 'freedom of speech' types who didn't give a shit about issues outside the gay community. Of course that doesn't mean everyone in the LGBT community are hypocritical flakes. But if I ever take part in something like that again, I am going to expend less energy recruiting from them and pushing their agenda. Their loss.Dilbert_X wrote:
I have the impression that the LGBT crowd are fairly self-interested and tiresome, they are after all campaigning for themselves, not more general rights or liberties for everyone.
Not being able to 'marry' is hardly an unbearable tragedy, not compared with many things happening now or in history.
Because none of those are consenting adult humans, apart from your mum, and is that even illegal? If it is, it probably shouldn't be.Shahter wrote:
any number. you cannot marry your dog, your car, your mom, your left arm, the list goes on.Cybargs wrote:
so which other groups specifically besides lgbt are denied the right to marriage?
Just point out that the issue is no different to when inter racial marriages were banned for no good reason. As for the god thing, hand them a bible and tell them to find the verse forbidding gay marriage. if they can, which I'm guessing less then 5% can get them to read the few passages before and after and ask them if they follow any of those "forbidden" things.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I should know, I grew up drowning in the right. And even from that perspective, I haven't figured out a foolproof way to break them of their opposition to gay marriage by appealing to their sense of reason. If you win, they'll just fall back on God.
naw yeah naw. stop being daft.Shahter wrote:
any number. you cannot marry your dog, your car, your mom, your left arm, the list goes on.Cybargs wrote:
so which other groups specifically besides lgbt are denied the right to marriage?
change those few words and it could apply to any other minority group. no shit minority groups are going to advocate for their interests first and fore-most.Dilbert_X wrote:
I have the impression that the aboriginal crowd are fairly self-interested and tiresome, they are after all campaigning for themselves, not more general rights or liberties for everyone.
Not being able to 'native title' is hardly an unbearable tragedy, not compared with many things happening now or in history.
According to the bible gays should be killed - marriage would be moot.DrunkFace wrote:
Just point out that the issue is no different to when inter racial marriages were banned for no good reason. As for the god thing, hand them a bible and tell them to find the verse forbidding gay marriage. if they can, which I'm guessing less then 5% can get them to read the few passages before and after and ask them if they follow any of those "forbidden" things.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I should know, I grew up drowning in the right. And even from that perspective, I haven't figured out a foolproof way to break them of their opposition to gay marriage by appealing to their sense of reason. If you win, they'll just fall back on God.
Fuck Israel
There's a difference between not having your own land and not having a piece of paper which changes nothing.Cybargs wrote:
change those few words and it could apply to any other minority group. no shit minority groups are going to advocate for their interests first and fore-most.Dilbert_X wrote:
I have the impression that the aboriginal crowd are fairly self-interested and tiresome, they are after all campaigning for themselves, not more general rights or liberties for everyone.
Not being able to 'native title' is hardly an unbearable tragedy, not compared with many things happening now or in history.
Fuck Israel
both are still 'pieces of paper'.Dilbert_X wrote:
There's a difference between not having your own land and not having a piece of paper which changes nothing.Cybargs wrote:
change those few words and it could apply to any other minority group. no shit minority groups are going to advocate for their interests first and fore-most.Dilbert_X wrote:
I have the impression that the aboriginal crowd are fairly self-interested and tiresome, they are after all campaigning for themselves, not more general rights or liberties for everyone.
Not being able to 'native title' is hardly an unbearable tragedy, not compared with many things happening now or in history.
I think you've just pointed out something true of groups in general, not limited to minorities or even fringe groups.Dilbert_X wrote:
I have the impression that the LGBT crowd are fairly self-interested and tiresome, they are after all campaigning for themselves, not more general rights or liberties for everyone.
daft yourself. i gave you an answer to your question. you don't like it? - try asking a different one.Cybargs wrote:
naw yeah naw. stop being daft.Shahter wrote:
any number. you cannot marry your dog, your car, your mom, your left arm, the list goes on.Cybargs wrote:
so which other groups specifically besides lgbt are denied the right to marriage?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
he asked an idiotic question and got a fitting answer, that's it.DrunkFace wrote:
Because none of those are consenting adult humans, apart from your mum, and is that even illegal? If it is, it probably shouldn't be.Shahter wrote:
any number. you cannot marry your dog, your car, your mom, your left arm, the list goes on.Cybargs wrote:
so which other groups specifically besides lgbt are denied the right to marriage?
now, getting back to the issue of gay marriage, i don't really see any reason not to allow that. marriage is a social construct, and as such should evolve along with the society it is practiced in. now, if the question would be asked, should the same social care and support from the state be extended to gay unions (which, make no mistake, is what they are really aiming at) - to that my answer would definitely be no, simply because, for obvious reasons, gay families are incapable of performing the role as well as traditional ones.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6541|Graz, Austria
Two homosexual men can get children with (a) surrogate mother(s).Shahter wrote:
should the same social care and support from the state be extended to gay unions (which, make no mistake, is what they are really aiming at) - to that my answer would definitely be no, simply because, for obvious reasons, gay families are incapable of performing the role as well as traditional ones.
Two homosexual woman can use IVF, a sperm donation or a random natural fucking to get a child.
And adoption works for both groups.
That should be enough to fulfill all the traditional and ecological functions of a family.
All of the above is more or less legal everywhere for heterosexual couples, where one or both are infertile.
So it basically comes down to be an arbitrary decision, that has been enforced mostly by religion for the past several thousand years.
so how does two consenting adults equate to acts of bestiality and incest? There are very good societal reasons why we don't let close family members marry each other.Shahter wrote:
daft yourself. i gave you an answer to your question. you don't like it? - try asking a different one.Cybargs wrote:
naw yeah naw. stop being daft.Shahter wrote:
any number. you cannot marry your dog, your car, your mom, your left arm, the list goes on.
nek minnit youre going to bring in gay dudes marrying kids.
we don't know yet if that's all there is to it. there's also the question of psychological and social influences and specifics which would inevitably happen when children are raised in those "non-traditional" families. the issue haven't been sufficiently researched yet, but it's very likely, given the nature of sexuality, that undesirable personality deformations would occur.globefish23 wrote:
Two homosexual men can get children with (a) surrogate mother(s).Shahter wrote:
should the same social care and support from the state be extended to gay unions (which, make no mistake, is what they are really aiming at) - to that my answer would definitely be no, simply because, for obvious reasons, gay families are incapable of performing the role as well as traditional ones.
Two homosexual woman can use IVF, a sperm donation or a random natural fucking to get a child.
And adoption works for both groups.
That should be enough to fulfill all the traditional and ecological functions of a family.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
it doesn't.Cybargs wrote:
so how does two consenting adults equate to acts of bestiality and incest?Shahter wrote:
daft yourself. i gave you an answer to your question. you don't like it? - try asking a different one.Cybargs wrote:
naw yeah naw. stop being daft.
you have any more questions? maybe some obvious statements? feel free to come back to me when you have a point.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6541|Graz, Austria
I wonder how that would make any difference to children who are raised by a single parent.Shahter wrote:
we don't know yet if that's all there is to it. there's also the question of psychological and social influences and specifics which would inevitably happen when children are raised in those "non-traditional" families. the issue haven't been sufficiently researched yet, but it's very likely, given the nature of sexuality, that undesirable personality deformations would occur.globefish23 wrote:
Two homosexual men can get children with (a) surrogate mother(s).Shahter wrote:
should the same social care and support from the state be extended to gay unions (which, make no mistake, is what they are really aiming at) - to that my answer would definitely be no, simply because, for obvious reasons, gay families are incapable of performing the role as well as traditional ones.
Two homosexual woman can use IVF, a sperm donation or a random natural fucking to get a child.
And adoption works for both groups.
That should be enough to fulfill all the traditional and ecological functions of a family.
Especially single dads and their sons and single mothers and their daughters.
The opposite sex parent often is a heterosexual child's imprinted desired stereotype for a sexual partner in later life.
But that doesn't mean at all that it would become homosexual if only a same-sex person of reference exists.
Just like Konrad Lorenz' geese would later on try to fornicate with human females, not with males.
I could list any number of undesirable personality deformations in children growing up in "normal," heterosexual households. And so can you!
unfortunately, that's not really possible to tell. children are very bad at explaining their feelings.globefish23 wrote:
I wonder how that would make any difference to children who are raised by a single parent.
Especially single dads and their sons and single mothers and their daughters.
as i said, the issue have not been researched enough yet.The opposite sex parent often is a heterosexual child's imprinted desired stereotype for a sexual partner in later life.
But that doesn't mean at all that it would become homosexual if only a same-sex person of reference exists.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.