Legalise institutionalized sodomy?

St. Toxic · Post by **St. Toxic** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:15 pm

I'm sorry, Urizen, but this is as coherent as I ever get in a discussion. If my words don't reach home, I must assume we are simply on different levels. In the shortest amount of words, with as much logic as I can supply, the reason behind my opinions of same-sex marriage, and the legalization thereof, is my apathetic outlook for the modern world and my universal empathy. As same-sex marriage is bound to wound both people and organizations, with all reasons stated in former posts, I cannot agree that it is the way to go, and will only be acceptant of less striking alternatives, such as; "Give them a civil union that gives the all the exact same rights and benefits of marriage. But just don't call it marriage."

I hope this will bring further understanding to how my mind works.

EDIT: Before a response is given, I must add - "Heal not a wound, by tearing up a new one." - as this is truly the philosophy I live by.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:20 pm

Gay marriage thingy aside, should marriage/civil union be beneficial in society? I think it should be a personal matter only.

St. Toxic · Post by **St. Toxic** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:21 pm

Agreed.

Urizen · Post by **Urizen** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:23 pm

Well, that was a bit better. How is gay marriage going to hurt people and orginizations, exactly? I'm not talking about forcing the church to marry people, that's a different discussion. Neither am I talking about the gays themselves. Wether or not marriage is a good thing on the personal level, is yet another discussion.

St. Toxic · Post by **St. Toxic** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:29 pm

As I've said before, and you've obviously acknowledged, it splits the church even more, this being my main point. Other than that, I guess some homophobes get hurt as well, when fags start jumping out of the closets after the illustrious all-clear, but truly t'would be retarded to care for them. Afterall, we all need a thick skin.

But the religious group consists of alot of people, I'm sure it's more than enough a reason.

Urizen · Post by **Urizen** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:37 pm

The church itself wouldn't be any more ripped apart than it already is, since it wouldn't be forced into anything. Religous people would still believe in whatever golden calfs they believed in before, wouldn't they?

St. Toxic · Post by **St. Toxic** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:38 pm

No they're not forced to it, they're allowed to, twice as bad my friend. Then there'd suddenly be a division, gay-churches and straight-churches ( quite unhappy with each other they'd be ). And frankly, the gay church sure is to alter their calf quite a bit, seeing as he hates fags.

Kahgan · Post by **Kahgan** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:44 pm

Why the hell does the church have monopoly on marriage, marriage is olfer than the curch for fucks sake

'bout gay people adopting children; Serius reaserch has shown that it is important for children to have both a mother and a father, especially for boys, it is important to have a mother. fags should only be allowed to adopt children if the alternative is worse(chainlinked to a russian bed in the middle of siberia-thingie)

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:43 pm

Yeah, so let's put all the single moms to concentration camps then, huh? Since it's so fucking vital to have a mom AND a dad. Do you really think that having no parents at all is a better choice than having to moms/dads?

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:56 pm

Why is it important to have a mother? I'd have thought if the parents were loving enough it would be like genuine real life american baseball where the kid would grow up to be A-Ok.

If he'd turn out gay or crazy or whatever, it is no biggie alright that's just what happens to anyone. It'd be ideal two have two parents in rich family and dog, but it doesn't always work out like that.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:00 pm

Well put -> you can't always get what you want. Some of us end up with just one parent, without legs or negro skin and you can't help it, you're the shittiest player in the poker game of life and the dealer has goatse - sense of humor

Redeye · Post by **Redeye** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 7:10 am

I suppose I might as well toss in a secular/utilitarian argument
for marriage (mostly non-gay).
I don't give a shit, but here goes.

The idea is that you have an institution which encapsulates various
values and aspects of other, interrelated institutions.
So in a continuing cycle these things are carried into the future.

Modifying or breaking the perpetuation device alters the transmission.

We end up with a postmodern/posthumanist society where people
can experiment with different ways of being, to the detriment of
the traditional cycle(s).

Sure, some people will carry the torch, others will pick it up later
in life after experimentation with "loose" lifestyles/etc.
And some people will make alternate methods work.
Some people (children) will also make it through the wreckage
as more or less functional people as well.

But without the technology of posthuman mythology - life extension
to allow vastly delayed parenthood, artificial wombs, fully-functional
sex changes, etc. the replacement rates will be insufficient for
long term social survival.

That is, unless a reservoir of traditional families exists which can
be tapped. Foreigners.
The trick is to assimilate their children on an ongiong basis to keep
the party going on forever.
So we can play, play, play.

Thor Kaufman · Post by **Thor Kaufman** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:48 am

Megatron wrote:Why is it important to have a mother? I'd have thought if the parents were loving enough it would be like genuine real life american baseball where the kid would grow up to be A-Ok.

If he'd turn out gay or crazy or whatever, it is no biggie alright that's just what happens to anyone. It'd be ideal two have two parents in rich family and dog, but it doesn't always work out like that.

There usually is a special relationship between mother and her child, it's biological and has something to do with the fact that the mother is carrying the child around in her stomach and let the child suck on her breasts after it's born, besides a mother is often very near to the child and cares for it, which makes the child immensely happy and content.

Urizen · Post by **Urizen** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:41 am

Thor Kaufman wrote:which makes the child immensely happy and content.

lol. funny way to put it.

anyhows, this has been dealt with already. following your logic, single fathers should be thrown into the snake pit.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:59 am

Thor Kaufman wrote:besides a mother is often very near to the child and cares for it, which makes the child immensely happy and content.

I don't really think you can scientifically proove that. What about all the mothers who kill their kids? Kids is poor families, Divorced parents, dead parents, kids who have parents who hate them and vice versa? There's too many seperate things to just say 'no mother is bad'. It would work out in most situations to have a mother and that's good. But it doesn't mean a man can't do the same perhaps?

St. Toxic · Post by **St. Toxic** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:06 pm

Kahgan wrote:Why the hell does the church have monopoly on marriage, marriage is olfer than the curch for fucks sake

No monopoly here friend, but you can actually get married in a church, can you not? So, as previously said; "Give them a civil union that gives the all the exact same rights and benefits of marriage. But just don't call it marriage." and add to it, "No rights of processing this civil union are given to churches that follow classic religion."

Urizen · Post by **Urizen** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:33 pm

That does'nt make sense.

Kahgan · Post by **Kahgan** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 11:24 am

St. Toxic wrote:
Kahgan wrote:Why the hell does the church have monopoly on marriage, marriage is olfer than the curch for fucks sake
No monopoly here friend, but you can actually get married in a church, can you not? So, as previously said; "Give them a civil union that gives the all the exact same rights and benefits of marriage. But just don't call it marriage." and add to it, "No rights of processing this civil union are given to churches that follow classic religion."

ok well, they have sorta monopoly most poeple get married in the church, even if they don't believe in God or Jesus or whatever...

Kashluk, you're missing the point, the point beeing, thou shalt not on purposeth give a child two dads or two moms when better options are available.
When one parent die it's natural, you can't really do anything about it, therefore, it's acceptable. duh

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 1:10 pm

So divorcing is not natural and therefore it's A SIN AND THUS HERETICS SHALT BURN IN HELL!?

Dude, how many people do you know who've been brought up by two dads or two moms? How can you tell that their upbringing isn't "normal" or that they suffer from it?

And WHAT exactly is this "better option" you keep talking about? Orphenage? Cheap meat factory (as workers or as sausage)? Bill Cosby's talented children show?

kingcomrade · Post by **kingcomrade** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 4:13 pm

My whole thing is, who cares. Let the fags get married and adopt children. It's better than just leaving the children in orphanages.
On the other hand, I've only known only three gay people in my life and they were all obnoxious potsmoking narcissistic buttfuckers whom I'd never let my (imagined) children near. The one I knew in high school came down with AIDS. OOPS!

PS, does anyone want to buttsecks?

Duck and Cover

Legalise institutionalized sodomy?

Yay or Nay?