Marriage is nothing more than a bunch of legal contracts bundled together that the state recognizes to allow special privileges to the spouse, such as hospital visitation rights. Another example is if a woman has artificial insemination to have a child in a lesbian marriage and the biological mother dies, then legal guardianship is automatically granted to the widow. A child who might otherwise be perfectly happy being raised by the person they always knew and regarded as their mommy would have to be taken away by social services and put in an orphanage. Only the sickest and most deluded minds would like to put this sort of misery upon children. You might argue that gay people have no business having children in the first place, but you have nothing to base that on either. If anything, the available studies show that children raised by same sex couples do better because the couples have to plan so exhaustively prior to even getting pregnant. To put it another way, lesbian couples don’t have accidental pregnancies, unless they cheat on their partner with a fertile man, and that scenario just too unlikely to even be brought up. You also might argue that since the majority of citizens agree that marriage should only be between one man and one woman then homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to have marriages that are legally recognized because it would devalue the meaning of heterosexual marriage. The problem with that is, the only value of marriage is that it’s nothing more than …
Faggots Are People Too
Posted by admin on April 5th, 2011
Posted in Inside Ideas 
Tags: Artificial Insemination, Biological Mother, Citizens, Faggots, Gay People, Having Children, Homosexuals, Hospital Visitation, Legal Contracts, Legal Guardianship, Lesbian Couples, Lesbian Marriage, Marriage, Misery, Mommy, Orphanage, People, Pregnancies, Privileges, Same Sex Couples, Social Services, Visitation Rights
@rhocassiopeiae without having to search google, i feel safe in assuming that everything you just said is based on urban myth.
@ryevick yo mamma
African male frogs can physically change their sex into females if the environment is mostly males. Now humans can’t do it physically…but they can do it mentally. this mental metamorphosis is called homosexuality. There are 1.07 male per every females under the age of 40. That means 17 million american men will either be gay or w/o a mate.
dumbass
@BreakoutLuceal I’d really love to see this “anthropological evidence”. I’m not holding my breath, and I’m sure that when I point out the dubious source of the evidence you’ll only come up with one excuse after another or move the goal post again. Please do send me the links in PM. I anticipate a website that also argues that abstinence works, and evolution is “just a theory”.
@DeimosSaturn
When cultures socially regulated marriage, so what I was saying was that marriage has always been socially regulated between a man and a woman when cultures collectively regulated marriage. When cultures tried to regulate marriage by other definitions that include polygamy or gay marriage, this experiment, according to the anthropological evidence, has either been a failed experiment or a fatal one which was my original claim in the first place to refute yours.
These models are nevertheless important for promoting the social ideal and lifting the empirical reality.
The definition of marriage is one way the law of marriage helps further this civic purpose: our laws give a baseline definition of who is or is not married, providing a shared framework from which concepts such as out-of-wedlock pregnancies, or even adultery, can be understood.
If what you are saying is that its not universal for the simple fact that the traditional notion of marriage has not been emprically practiced this way in every nook and cranny of each cultural territory throughout history, then of course not but I never said this in the first place. The norms that constitute the social institution are aspirational in nature. That means these normative models ―are not and never were the descriptions of any universal empirical reality.
@BreakoutLuceal I’m not evading anything. Your “experts” are all either not really experts, or are technically “experts” but not in any field relevant to the history of marriage, or are “experts” in the history of marriage but also happen to believe in something else ridiculous like flat earth or young earth creationism and are laughed at by other people in their field.
I’ve already falsified your claim that 1 man 1 woman is NOT universal. Own up to it. Stop being a baby.
@DeimosSaturn
My claim was essentially there to address your claim that traditional marriage was polygamy where I was offering to give you information or experts that refuted that claim. What you are trying to do is evade the previous claim in order to not be exposed for the ill-advised claim you made about polygamy being traditional marriage that you cannot support.
@BreakoutLuceal Your claim is essentially that marriage (as you define it: 1 man 1 woman) is “universal” (meaning is appears in every culture throughout history). This claim is easily falsifiable by showing just one culture where marriage doesn’t exist. In fact, there are many cultures throughout history and even TODAY where marriage either never happens or is reserved only for the upper echelon of a society. Debunked. NEXT.
I can give you them in PM and you can attempt to debunk them in PM or comment section if you can of course.
We can always make sure that civil unions have all the same rights in the future without legally redefining marriage.
Secondly, these experts are not priest or politicians at least as far as I know. Now, even though many of them do attempt to argue that deregulating the traditional view of marriage causes the culture to collasp, I know correlation does not prove causation so my argument is that tradtional marriage is indeed universal. I would love to see you debunk this if you can.
@BreakoutLuceal Yes, they would enlighten me if they existed. If you could manifest them somehow. If these “experts” were actually experts and not just priests or politicians or people who were only “experts” in a field that had nothing to do with anthropology or history. Even if you did find some “expert” who was discredited by their peers because they spend their academic career trying to prove the bible correct, I could likely debunk them myself.
class war-driven ideology. Divide and conquer! The story of our species! Don’t lie to me and tell me you want gays to have all the same rights including all the rights of marriage but simply want it to be labeled differently. I’m not susceptible to doublethink like you are.
You’re also always anti-sodomy, anti-polygamy (though ironically I can point you to a bunch of christian-run web sites that prove the bible is pro-polygamy), anti-fornication, anti-sex education, and anti-sensitivity/tolerance toward GLBTs education in public schools. Time and time again, you guys prove yourself, you are lying when you say you aren’t concerned about what happens in the privacy of people’s homes. You spout this Orwellian doublespeak because you’re slaves to a
Now, you’re telling me you want civil unions to have all the same rights as marriage. If you were being sincere then this argument isn’t even necessary, but you’re NOT being sincere. Every anti-freedom christian like yourself that has said “just call it ‘civil union’ and they can have all the same rights” has always always always proven that upon further cross examination that they DON’T really mean it. Because you’re not just anti-gay marriage, you’re also anti-gay adoption.
Of course, you’re going to try to change the subject again. How many times am I going to debunk a point and you never acknowledge it and hope I forget only so you can bring up the same point a week later?
Marriage is not being redefined, no matter how many times you assert otherwise. If anything, YOU are the one trying to redefine marriage as something exclusive to 1 man and 1 woman when it was ORIGINALLY 1 man and 1 or more women. When is this point going to get into your head?
@BreakoutLuceal “Obviously, this is because there’s a fundamental difference between race and gender”
BUT THIS ISN’T ABOUT GENDER YOU IDIOT. I’ll try to make this as SIMPLE as possible for you: “legal marriage” is NOTHING MORE than a bundled set of legal contracts. GOT THAT? The “tradition” of marriage is the ownership of a woman (or women) by one man. GOT THAT? “Civil Union” is also a legal contract but carries diminished rights from a legal marriage. GOT THAT?
@BreakoutLuceal “but they did it for no compelling or rational reason whatsoever” Right, they used THE BIBLE to justify their reasons for keeping mixed race marriage illegal.
First of all, “behaviors” doesn’t enter into it since clearly sodomy, fornication, and adultery are not illegal at the federal level. In fact, these are all legal in MOST states. If we went by your logic, gay SEX would be banned, not just gay marriage.
@DeimosSaturn
Lastly, Experts in the field of historical or anthropological analysis would disprove your claim that marriage between a man and a woman is not universal. My experts I have would indeed enlighten you.
@DeimosSa
Obviously, this is because there’s a fundamental difference between race and gender. This is why we no longer have bans on interracial marriage or have Jim Crow laws but still have and always accepted separate facilities for the sexes and define marriage between one man and one woman.
Besides, We can always make sure that civil unions have all the same rights (including federal) down the future or marriage recognition elsewhere without having to redefine marriage everybody else.
@DeimosSaturn
you are wrongly applying the Brown decision to this case. in the Brown or even the Loving case, they not only segregated INDIVIDUALS (not behaviors) based on RACIAL characteristics but they did it for no compelling or rational reason whatsoever other than personal bias. In this situation, its the complete opposite. We have separate but equal situations for men and women that permeate our country ranging from restrooms, the military, and even separate but equal schools.
“unnatural” but every social mammal has homosexuals among them. Everything you’ve said thus far is wrong and you haven’t admitted to a single point yet! Do you feel absolutely no sense of humility or honesty?
special of social mammal on earth. There are observations of gay dolphins, elephants, naked mole rats, baboons, koala bears, etc. For you to say “it is impossible by nature” is a total denial of what has been empirically observed. You are ignoring reality and you keep changing your argument. You assert contemporary marriage is historical and yet the bible contradicts that. You try to assert it’s against the constitution but it’s actually unconstitutional. Now you’re saying homosexuality is