100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Same sex marriage vs interracial marriage | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
My brother died of AIDS from HIV tainted blood product. I am happy as hell when anyone wants to enter a committed marriage and only have sex with one person and is not out spreading disease of any form. Not that all singles have disease. I believe there is worse than AIDS coming and it will affect all both the straight and homosexual. Monogamy is just plain safer. Of course, this begs to question how do you feel about open marriages? I personally do not see the point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My brother died of AIDS from HIV tainted blood product. I am happy as hell when anyone wants to enter a committed marriage and only have sex with one person and is not out spreading disease of any form. Not that all singles have disease. I believe there is worse than AIDS coming and it will affect all both the straight and homosexual. Monogamy is just plain safer. Of course, this begs to question how do you feel about open marriages? I personally do not see the point. I prefer people be monogamous too, Id prefer they use safe needles if they are addicts, Id prefer they use condoms if they are an escortt,,,,, but I still wouldnt support a special 'protection' or government classification for people who choose these paths,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
clarification: it's pointless and unproductive... thats why we are taught self control as a child... and yes, since he didn't have any children, as far as nature is concerned, he was pointless... and he really didn't do anything special, figured out why an apple fell on his head... someone would have done it anyway... but if he would have had 2 children, each with the same inquisitive mindset, then maybe not so pointless... just because you want to love someone, doesn't mean you have too... So you find any relationship that doesn't result in having children pointless? And you think that Newton didn't do anything important? Is that because he didn't procreate? You've never been in love, have you? I don't know anyone, myself included, who has been able to stop loving someone just like that, because they didn't have to love them. i never said stop, i said self control... again, put your glasses on when you try to read...i guess you missed the part i highlighted above... nature is a balance, you know... when the balance gets off, bad things can happen |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
clarification: it's pointless and unproductive... thats why we are taught self control as a child... and yes, since he didn't have any children, as far as nature is concerned, he was pointless... and he really didn't do anything special, figured out why an apple fell on his head... someone would have done it anyway... but if he would have had 2 children, each with the same inquisitive mindset, then maybe not so pointless... just because you want to love someone, doesn't mean you have too... So you find any relationship that doesn't result in having children pointless? And you think that Newton didn't do anything important? Is that because he didn't procreate? You've never been in love, have you? I don't know anyone, myself included, who has been able to stop loving someone just like that, because they didn't have to love them. i never said stop, i said self control... again, put your glasses on when you try to read...i guess you missed the part i highlighted above... nature is a balance, you know... when the balance gets off, bad things can happen I read it the first time. You were giving your opinion. To you, self control is about not having to love someone when you don't want to? Well, ok. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they do lack equality,, when they 'get together' they have NO POTENTIAL to produce future citizens, their relationships have significantly less SOCIAL impact, long term FUTURE impact than what heterosexuals have when they 'get together',,,, and the argument about 'half the potential' is not the point because it take smore than 'half' potential for a future citizen to be born,,,, As stated in my previous post on page 7 of this thread: You and others have already declared that aging heterosexuals AND those unwilling to have children AND those situations in which one or the other partner is sterile DOES NOT PRECLUDE POTENTIAL and therefore does not render illegal their ability to marry. So we just have to follow that exact same reasoning – Two same sex couples may not be able to produce a child TOGETHER but that does not preclude the potential… JUST AS aging heterosexuals, those unwilling to have children and in situations where one or the other partner is sterile. If marriage is allowed based on potential to have and raise children together then based on the logic for WHEN potential exists, then same-sex couples have as much right to marriage as heterosexual couples. The original argument set out for ‘potential’ to have and raise children - fails and nothing new has been offered to debate. This is the point at which you always give up and start pushing unrelated issues into the discussion. But you fall into the same failed argument time after time, year after year and never have any better reasoning. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
adopting a child is not PRODUCING A child, its taking responsibility for what SOMEONE ELSE PRODUCED someone ELSE (Two someone elses in fact) that we in society try to encourage to commit to each other and their future family through marriage,, but who didnt choose that OPTION and then left the child to be raised by others instead So would it be better for such a child to be raised with a wet nurse and/or a mammy? Would it be better for such a child to be considered a bas tard who should assume the low ranking class that reflects the sins of it's egg & sperm doner? That seems to be what you would prefer rather than to give that child a loving home and family and an equal chance for education and success, at least when it comes to the care of that child by a loving same-sex couple. A couple for whom you would deny access to laws and contracts, not even worthy of being granted all the rights and responsibilities of a married couple - themselves second class citizens in your eyes. Any child to be given into their care is simply an unfortunate little bas tard. Honestly, how close is that to what you really think and feel? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Sun 05/26/13 06:43 AM
|
|
Sat 04/13/13 02:20 AM Topic: Why the States Should Be Out of Marriage. (Or Legalize All M QUOTE: QUOTE: QUOTE: QUOTE: here are non religious reasons: Anal sex has a number of health risks. Anal intercourse is the riskiest form of sexual activity for several reasons, including the following: The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts and anal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesn't completely prevent tearing. The tissue inside the anus is not as well protected as the skin outside theanus.Our external tissue has layers of dead cells that serve as a protective barrier against infection. The tissue inside the anus does not have this natural protection, which leaves it vulnerable to tearing and the spread of infection. The anus was designed to hold in feces. The anus is surrounded with a ring-like muscle, called the anal sphincter, which tightens after we defecate. When the muscle is tight, anal penetration can be painful and difficult. Repetitive anal sex may lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, making it difficult to hold in feces until you can get to the toilet. However, Kegel exercises to strengthen the sphincter may help prevent this problem or correct it. The anus is full of bacteria. Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner. Practicing vaginal sex after anal sex can also lead to vaginal and urinary tract infections. so, with the risks of anal sex outweighing any significant impact on society like procreation does why is it governments business to endorse, promote, encourage or license it? its enough to let it be a personal and private choice, IM against government licensing and putting its stamp of approval and endorsement on it,,, any sex and any relationship carries unhealthy risks nowhere near as much risk,, all things being equal, and one RISK of vaginal sex is creating LIFE<, life that will later be a citizen, a potential decision maker, leader, teacher its in the interest of society to promote and encourage such 'risks' come with the added security we know is provided when those lives are raised with their mother and father,,,, there is no such monumental interest society has in homosexual activiites.... there are many that say the earth is becoming overpopulated so that could be a positive to gay marriage there are many hetro couples that participate in anal penetration should they be banned from doing so thus jailed if caught noone said anything about banning anal sex the issue is promoting it,,,and no , I dont feel government should it should promote potential parents committing to each other before risking creating a life that was one of your reasons to ban gay marriage so its not a health issue unless you are gay seems it needs to be a two way issue or a non issue still missing the point not about 'banning' anything about choosing what we 'encourage' who is encouraging just because something is permissible does not mean its encouraged you are permitted to go travel to Somalia but it is not encouraged you go there in actuality it is discouraged |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To those who are against same sex marriage, do you feel that interracial marriage should not have been legalized either? If you feel differently about both, why? because others defined race and put people in those categories based upon things they have no control over, not on actions, or preferences, or tastes,,but on BIOLOGICAL HISTORY because the product of too many interracial unions , children, prove that they are no different than intraracial unions,,,,, all that matters is man and woman, they create life, and they are the foundation to be cherished and protected,,, How are they threatened because two men or two women can marry? Tell me how. They'll still have the same right to marry as they do now, they aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Letting others do the same doesn't mean they're not protected, they always have been and will be. how are you threatened if others are ok with having their home searched or their persons searched at an airport? immediate threat isnt the point,,,,cultural decline, cultural norms, cultural boundaries are,,,, Really? You're gonna try that argument, really? That's so entirely different it's not even funny! In that case I am threatened because I KNOW that if others keep accepting things like you describe above, they will come for me next, they always do I don't care how you wanna argue it, history proves it time and time again if you actually educated yourself. That's how I'm threatened, because once enough people consent to unlawful things it makes everyone else targets to be forced to give in to the same. Your choices in that case VERY MUCH do impact what happens to me because of the precedence it sets, it does not just effect you, it creates a snowball effect to where everyone else is effected as well. To try and compare that to allowing two people to privately marry one another is just ridiculous. It's not the same thing whatsoever. One has a ripple effect on everyone, the other just plainly does not. Last I checked your own marriages or rights to be together aren't gonna be taken away because we allow someone else the same. As for cultural norms and boundaries, quite frankly I don't care about that, just because we've done things one way for a certain period of time doesn't mean we can't be wrong or in need of change. Used to be that the cultural norm was to view blacks as inferior to whites, and the boundary placing the two races separate from each other. Should that not have changed? Tradition and what is actually good for people, don't always go together. When it comes to individual rights against that, the individual should win every time. EXACTLY THE SAME THOUGHT,, EXACTLY THE SAME LOGIC<, lets review 'That's so entirely different it's not even funny! In that case I am threatened because I KNOW that if others keep accepting things like you describe above, they will come for me next, they always do I don't care how you wanna argue it, history proves it time and time again if you actually educated yourself. That's how I'm threatened, because once enough people consent to unlawful things it makes everyone else targets to be forced to give in to the same. Your choices in that case VERY MUCH do impact what happens to me because of the precedence it sets, it does not just effect you, it creates a snowball effect to where everyone else is effected as well.' I am threatened because I KNOW that if others keep accepting this lifestyle they will come for my kids next and their kids, they always do, I dont care how you wanna argue it , history proves it time and time again if you actually educate YOURSELF. Thats how Im threatened, because once enough people consent to sinful things, it makes everyone else targes to be forced to give in to accepting those sinful things,. The reaction of society and government to our sexual choices VERY MUCH impact what happens to me because of the precedence it sets, it does not just effect you, it creates a SNOWBALL effect to where everyone else is effected as well starting with children, families and communities,,, and your kids and their kids can just say no to that lifestyle IF they want to assuming it is truly a choice and not an inherent emotion and if it is inherent emotion would you not want your kids or their kids to be able to live the life that makes them happy prohibition does not work just because its no permitted will not keep it from happening it just enhances the allure of doing something risque maybe if it is a choice make it not a big deal and maybe it wont be as alluring yu never did answer this point:: and your kids and their kids can just say no to that lifestyle IF they want to assuming it is truly a choice and not an inherent emotion and if it is inherent emotion would you not want your kids or their kids to be able to live the life that makes them happy again you ignore this point is it you truly back same sex marriage and looking for arguments to use?????????????? just a thought |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 05/26/13 09:49 AM
|
|
To those who are against same sex marriage, do you feel that interracial marriage should not have been legalized either? If you feel differently about both, why? because others defined race and put people in those categories based upon things they have no control over, not on actions, or preferences, or tastes,,but on BIOLOGICAL HISTORY because the product of too many interracial unions , children, prove that they are no different than intraracial unions,,,,, all that matters is man and woman, they create life, and they are the foundation to be cherished and protected,,, How are they threatened because two men or two women can marry? Tell me how. They'll still have the same right to marry as they do now, they aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Letting others do the same doesn't mean they're not protected, they always have been and will be. how are you threatened if others are ok with having their home searched or their persons searched at an airport? immediate threat isnt the point,,,,cultural decline, cultural norms, cultural boundaries are,,,, Really? You're gonna try that argument, really? That's so entirely different it's not even funny! In that case I am threatened because I KNOW that if others keep accepting things like you describe above, they will come for me next, they always do I don't care how you wanna argue it, history proves it time and time again if you actually educated yourself. That's how I'm threatened, because once enough people consent to unlawful things it makes everyone else targets to be forced to give in to the same. Your choices in that case VERY MUCH do impact what happens to me because of the precedence it sets, it does not just effect you, it creates a snowball effect to where everyone else is effected as well. To try and compare that to allowing two people to privately marry one another is just ridiculous. It's not the same thing whatsoever. One has a ripple effect on everyone, the other just plainly does not. Last I checked your own marriages or rights to be together aren't gonna be taken away because we allow someone else the same. As for cultural norms and boundaries, quite frankly I don't care about that, just because we've done things one way for a certain period of time doesn't mean we can't be wrong or in need of change. Used to be that the cultural norm was to view blacks as inferior to whites, and the boundary placing the two races separate from each other. Should that not have changed? Tradition and what is actually good for people, don't always go together. When it comes to individual rights against that, the individual should win every time. EXACTLY THE SAME THOUGHT,, EXACTLY THE SAME LOGIC<, lets review 'That's so entirely different it's not even funny! In that case I am threatened because I KNOW that if others keep accepting things like you describe above, they will come for me next, they always do I don't care how you wanna argue it, history proves it time and time again if you actually educated yourself. That's how I'm threatened, because once enough people consent to unlawful things it makes everyone else targets to be forced to give in to the same. Your choices in that case VERY MUCH do impact what happens to me because of the precedence it sets, it does not just effect you, it creates a snowball effect to where everyone else is effected as well.' I am threatened because I KNOW that if others keep accepting this lifestyle they will come for my kids next and their kids, they always do, I dont care how you wanna argue it , history proves it time and time again if you actually educate YOURSELF. Thats how Im threatened, because once enough people consent to sinful things, it makes everyone else targes to be forced to give in to accepting those sinful things,. The reaction of society and government to our sexual choices VERY MUCH impact what happens to me because of the precedence it sets, it does not just effect you, it creates a SNOWBALL effect to where everyone else is effected as well starting with children, families and communities,,, and your kids and their kids can just say no to that lifestyle IF they want to assuming it is truly a choice and not an inherent emotion and if it is inherent emotion would you not want your kids or their kids to be able to live the life that makes them happy prohibition does not work just because its no permitted will not keep it from happening it just enhances the allure of doing something risque maybe if it is a choice make it not a big deal and maybe it wont be as alluring yu never did answer this point:: and your kids and their kids can just say no to that lifestyle IF they want to assuming it is truly a choice and not an inherent emotion and if it is inherent emotion would you not want your kids or their kids to be able to live the life that makes them happy again you ignore this point is it you truly back same sex marriage and looking for arguments to use?????????????? just a thought no, I dont back same sex marriage and I dont raise my kids to think whatever makes them happy is by extension therefore ok my kids would have been happy to eat candy all day,, yet I brought them up in a healthier diet lifestyle, exposed them to healthier options, ENCOURAGED and lead by example to incorporate healthier habits into their own lives,,,,,, somebody lied and mislead people into thinking life should be about 'whatever makes you happy' I dont subscribe to such nonsense, nor is that how I Rais my kids,,, so,, back to the question,,, if my kids are 'happy' doing something destructive or unhealthy , no, I wouldnt want them to continue living in that destructive or unhealthy manner,,,,, and the point is not that choices arent influenced by parents, but we see how well 'just say no' worked for the drug campaigns and the abstinence campaigns...didnt we? Id rather direct my children to swim to their destination in calm waters, than by starting at the bottom of a waterfall (ie, ENVIRONMENT influences and matters as well as parents) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
clarification: it's pointless and unproductive... thats why we are taught self control as a child... and yes, since he didn't have any children, as far as nature is concerned, he was pointless... and he really didn't do anything special, figured out why an apple fell on his head... someone would have done it anyway... but if he would have had 2 children, each with the same inquisitive mindset, then maybe not so pointless... just because you want to love someone, doesn't mean you have too... So you find any relationship that doesn't result in having children pointless? And you think that Newton didn't do anything important? Is that because he didn't procreate? You've never been in love, have you? I don't know anyone, myself included, who has been able to stop loving someone just like that, because they didn't have to love them. i never said stop, i said self control... again, put your glasses on when you try to read...i guess you missed the part i highlighted above... nature is a balance, you know... when the balance gets off, bad things can happen I read it the first time. You were giving your opinion. To you, self control is about not having to love someone when you don't want to? Well, ok. lol... as usual, you see things with such clarity... 
|
|
|
|
|
