YaHooka Forums  

Go Back   YaHooka Forums > The Chronic Colloquials > Free For All
Home FAQ Social Groups Links Mark Forums Read

Free For All A place for thoughts and ideas that are out of place anywhere else.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 02-27-2004, 02:24 PM   #1 (permalink)
Lushous
 
SmokeSomeDoja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Erogenous Zones
Posts: 19,662
Thanks: 237
Thanked 456 Times in 291 Posts
Best reasons against gay marriages

Top 12 Reasons Against Gay Marriage

Top twelve reasons homosexual marriage should not be legal:

1 .Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people canít legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spearsí 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasnít changed at all; women are property, blacks canít marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. Thatís why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. Thatís why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we havenít adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a ďseperate but equalĒ institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.


found this on some website

http://www.seanbonner.com/
__________________
fotoz fo yo azz



"I've run over black cats that were luckier than me."


SmokeSomeDoja is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 02:29 PM   #2 (permalink)
Lushous
 
SmokeSomeDoja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Erogenous Zones
Posts: 19,662
Thanks: 237
Thanked 456 Times in 291 Posts
ahahahaha, i find this quite funny -- all you die-hard conservatives, what do you think?
__________________
fotoz fo yo azz



"I've run over black cats that were luckier than me."


SmokeSomeDoja is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 02:41 PM   #3 (permalink)
Gone Daddy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Well seeing as I am a conservative I completely agree with everything they say in that piece. I think that it's none of their business.
 
Old 02-27-2004, 02:50 PM   #4 (permalink)
Old School
 
Giuseppe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: NoOhi
Posts: 172
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I've always seen homosexuality as a sort of birth control. Married couples get certain benefits at some jobs, why not let gay people have the same? Another case of people being afraid of something they dont understand.
Giuseppe is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 04:24 PM   #5 (permalink)
j-wonder
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
im with the koala on this one.....cept for the divorce part....some bitches deserve to get clipped.
 
Old 02-27-2004, 04:26 PM   #6 (permalink)
j-wonder
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
and as for #11....a lot of people dont want to adapt to gay marriages....as in, the vast majority of people....who are not gay.
 
Old 02-27-2004, 04:28 PM   #7 (permalink)
Lushous
 
SmokeSomeDoja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Erogenous Zones
Posts: 19,662
Thanks: 237
Thanked 456 Times in 291 Posts
do you even know what "adapting" entails? do you think its going to affect you in some way or another? is this going to be harmful to you in a way?
__________________
fotoz fo yo azz



"I've run over black cats that were luckier than me."


SmokeSomeDoja is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 04:30 PM   #8 (permalink)
j-wonder
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
and just cuz i can....#12 - yes black people are the same as white people....as humans who can perpetuate the species....at least
 
Old 02-27-2004, 04:33 PM   #9 (permalink)
paintballads
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
^^^^
gay marrige obviously affects a lot of people, if it didn't it wouldn't be a controversy.

to most very religious people (mainly christians) find gay marrige absolutely absurd.

as with most anything, if gay couples want to live and function as normal people in society, I have no problem with.

Just like "proud blacks": the ones that act ghetto and obviously present themselves as totally different people (gangsta, thugs, the whole urban scene) and expect everyone treat them with respect and trust

If gay couples want to function in society as "good" people, I have no problem. It is these overly gay people dressing and totally acting gay to get attention or what ever their sick minds want, then no I don't feel these people should have any right to get married.

^^^^
Those kind of people make me soo incredibly mad, that I can't even describe it.




^^^^
I am supposed to respect those people, and act like they aren't different at all? Come on, hearing about all this stuff just makes me sick.
 
Old 02-27-2004, 04:35 PM   #10 (permalink)
Lushous
 
SmokeSomeDoja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Erogenous Zones
Posts: 19,662
Thanks: 237
Thanked 456 Times in 291 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by paintballads
^^^^
gay marrige obviously affects a lot of people, if it didn't it wouldn't be a controversy.
obviously -- ok, how does it affect alot of people? what are the two sides? one is the stance that is evident in the article i posted. the other is basically the stance the article was making fun of. answer this: how will this affect you SO DIRELY?
__________________
fotoz fo yo azz



"I've run over black cats that were luckier than me."


SmokeSomeDoja is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 04:45 PM   #11 (permalink)
JC
Resident Necrophiliac
 
JC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,961
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Quote:
Originally posted by paintballads
^^^^
gay marrige obviously affects a lot of people, if it didn't it wouldn't be a controversy.
Thats such a stupid way of putting it, people are basically dumb, and know how to make controversy over nothing.
__________________
I've been known to cut a bitch.
JC is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 05:38 PM   #12 (permalink)
Admin
 
ZenSkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,455
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
I like the satirical tone of the original post ... and I have no idea what anyone has said since then.
__________________
Honk if you don't exist
ZenSkin is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 05:42 PM   #13 (permalink)
Gone Daddy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Wth the spirit of time I go!
 
Old 02-27-2004, 05:55 PM   #14 (permalink)
Naysayer
 
Frodo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: "Left my soul there, down by the sea..."
Posts: 4,026
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by ZenSkin
I like the satirical tone of the original post ... and I have no idea what anyone has said since then.
You didn't miss anything.
__________________
In the world of paranoid conspiracy theories, there are no coincidences.
Frodo is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 11:10 PM   #15 (permalink)
fungfufu
 
basketballjones45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,556
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
hey tupac rocked, or rapped.
__________________
BIIZZAAMMM!!!!!!!!!

if you want to feel funky feel free but pulleeaaze dont spread that funk on me
basketballjones45 is offline  
Old 02-28-2004, 01:11 AM   #16 (permalink)
DEA Internet Officer
 
The Police's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: DEA Headquarters.
Posts: 245
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Seriously, there was nothing missed.

You people agree with those statements? And are against gay marriage, am I missing something? This IS sarcasm...

If you weren't agreeing, you should be shot. Let the mother fuckers get married. People in CIVIL UNIONS face much higher estate taxes than people who are married, there is actual discrimination here.

They can adopt children and raise them a FUCK OF A LOT better than half of the parents in this country. When was the last time you heard about gay domestic disputes? Gay alcoholics who beat their children? Gay parents selling their children for crack?

I personally believe it is a good idea, they aren't going to fucking go away... if you'd just let them have what they want they can keep quiet for a while.

Fucking idiots.
__________________
You are under arrest. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. If you don't have the money for an attorney one will be appointed for you. Do you understand everything I am saying to you?
My Webpage
The Police is offline  
Old 02-28-2004, 11:53 AM   #17 (permalink)
Ribbed for her pleasure!
 
Hedons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Chicago Burbs. Delta(x) times Delta(p) is greater than or equal to h-bar over two.
Posts: 4,803
Thanks: 31
Thanked 234 Times in 117 Posts
I am a die-hard conservative.

I don't think it is the governments role to dictate definitions of marriage. Make marriage a legal contract entered together by two, three, however many people who are of age to enter into a contract. But then don't expect the government then to have a say in other areas of the matter such as requiring companies to provide benfits to significant others, special tax rules to married couples, etc... Get the government out of the picture.

-Hedons
Hedons is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 11:46 AM   #18 (permalink)
kamikazi89
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
The Married State
One good thing about gay nuptials: It'd drive the mullahs mad.

BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
Wednesday, March 3, 2004 12:01 a.m.

I shall not soon forget an evening I had with my friend Andrew Sullivan, the most eloquent of the gay conservatives, about a decade ago. The issue of homosexual marriage was then just beginning to stir. Look, Andrew, I said in effect, are you sure about this? We've just reached a point where America is more open to, and more reconciled with, its gay citizens than any society in history. The AIDS crisis didn't lead to panic or quarantine. Gay-bashing politicians have learned that the tactic rebounds on them. The armed forces are at least willing to compromise, and might have gone further than that if not for Bill Clinton's cowardice. And, just at this moment, you want to increase the stakes and demand not just equal rights but identical rights, in an area where the mainstream already feels vulnerable. I may have added something flippant about the idea of marriage somehow missing the point of being gay. (In other words, glad as I am not to be gay, if I were I would think, well, at least I don't have to go through all that.)
It was as well for me that this discussion took place at my own dining-room table. Make no mistake: This is an argument about the socialization of homosexuality, not the homosexualization of society. It demonstrates the spread of conservatism, not radicalism, among gays. For the infuriated Andrew, it became clear, the achievement of the married state was the consummation (all right, excuse the expression) and not the overstatement, of the advances in recognition that had already been won. As to my second point, or observation, how dare I imply that the gay state was somehow promiscuous or irresponsible?





Well, I do know how I had allowed myself to run away with that last idea, but on reflection this had been largely an aspect of my identification of homosexual life with youthful narcissism and had little bearing on the choices being made by, or offered to, people of my now advanced age. What do I really know about this, when I ask myself? I know that homosexuality is innate in our species, and perhaps in other species also, and thus that it is nonsense to speak of it as an offense to "nature," and nonsense on stilts to speak of it as an offense to any presumable Creator (belief in whose intentions is Andrew's problem and not mine). I know that homosexuality is a form of love, not just a form of sex, and thus that it deserves respect if not reverence. I know that our theocratic enemies are, and that our former totalitarian enemies were, ugly and paranoid on the point.
I also know many "married" homosexual couples, either from life or from literature. Thekla Clark's beautiful profile of her friends W.H. Auden and Chester Kallman ("Wystan and Chester") is indeed a portrait of a marriage: full of storms and miseries but undoubtedly both a stable life-relationship in itself, and a bulwark for other heterosexual couples: godsons and goddaughters, adopted "nephews" and "nieces." Gore Vidal and Howard Austen had played the same role in the lives of many of their friends, and of their friends' children, even if Gore himself still has aesthetic and philosophical objections to being defined as gay, and even if I suspect Auden would have felt somewhat absurd declaring that he was married.

So, even if I did not feel much more strongly about an unmolested Constitution than I do about most things, I would first have to answer the question: How do gay marriages threaten or challenge heterosexual ones? And with this comes another question: Why are the advocates of the one and only and immemorial man-woman marriage apparently so chronically insecure? On the same floor as the Hitchens family live two chaps, who are as clearly spliced as any couple I know. They hold responsible Washington jobs, they take an interest in the civic health of the city, and they help raise the children of a previous marriage into which one of them had entered. (Never forget, by the way, the forgotten hell that was the consequence of pressure for gay people to try to marry heterosexuals and make a go of things.)

In any domestic emergency involving my wife or daughter, I would probably turn first to these neighbors. The only discomfiting thing I find about their domestic arrangements is their practice of clasping hands for grace before meals. I can't make myself feel that my own marriage is undermined, or rather would be undermined, if they could legally tie the knot. Would I dance at their wedding? Undoubtedly, and always assuming I would be asked. Would my tenderly nurtured daughter go into shock? I can't see it happening.

On the other hand, if Charlize Theron and her beau were to wed and to move in next door, neither I nor my wife (assuming that the beau is the one pictured at the Oscars) would have complete peace of mind. Indeed, the Ten Commandments specifically caution me only against other heterosexual marriages. I say they warn me, because these injunctions only bother to warn men against coveting their neighbor's wives, or indeed any other of his animals or chattels. If this is all that God understands about the human nature he is said to have set in motion, we may all hope to slip by.





I share many of the misgivings that are expressed about opportunistic grandstanding by judges or mayors, but surely this problem, and not sexuality, ought to be the province of constitutional law. The Texas sodomy statute, for example, should have been struck down or repealed not as a "rights" or "equal protection" matter, but because it was an attempt to instate the teachings of a book that not all of us regard as holy, and to make an establishment of religion. Nothing can possibly violate the letter and spirit of the Constitution more than that.
When I become bored or irritated by the gay marriage battle--and I do, I sometimes do--I like to picture the writhing faces and hoarse yells of the mullahs and the fanatics. Godless hedonistic America, not content with allowing divorce and pornography, has taken from us our holy Taliban and our upright Saddam. It sends Jews and unveiled female soldiers to our lands, and soon unnatural brotherhood will be in the armed forces of the infidels. And now the godless have an election where all they discuss is the weddings of men to men and women to women! And then I relax, and smile, and ask my neighbors over, to repay the many drinks and kind gestures that I owe them.

Mr. Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His book "Thomas Jefferson" is forthcoming in the "Eminent Lives" series, from HarperCollins.


Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 
Old 03-03-2004, 11:52 AM   #19 (permalink)
paintballads
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
obviously -- ok, how does it affect alot of people? what are the two sides? one is the stance that is evident in the article i posted. the other is basically the stance the article was making fun of. answer this: how will this affect you SO DIRELY?
^^^
Not saying I am against gay marriage or that it affects me in any way, but to many christian families it does! This goes against their belief system and is morally and spiritually wrong to them. It affects them in that they feel the government is going against them, and that society is turning into heathens. To many people, religion is everything in their life, and when things like this happen, it scares them. I DO NOT CARE IF HOMOSEXUALS GET MARRIED OR NOT, just trying to contribute to the converstation....shi t.

My dad for instance is one of those people...when they questioned about the pledge of allegiance it angered my dad greatly. When they stopped prayer in school, it was devestating to him. I personally don't believe in the whole organized religion after first hand being involved in MANY MANY MANY different churches. My spiritual quest led me to believe, that I know what is right and wrong and to trust myself.
 
Old 03-03-2004, 11:58 AM   #20 (permalink)
paintballads
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Hedons
I am a die-hard conservative.

I don't think it is the governments role to dictate definitions of marriage. Make marriage a legal contract entered together by two, three, however many people who are of age to enter into a contract. But then don't expect the government then to have a say in other areas of the matter such as requiring companies to provide benfits to significant others, special tax rules to married couples, etc... Get the government out of the picture.

-Hedons
totally agree. a contract would be a lot more suitable with the government involvement.
 
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Inactive Reminders By Icora Web Design