Almost Smart  

Go Back   Almost Smart > AlmostSmartism > Front Page

Front Page The threads which appears on the front page. Add your comments or create your own front page threads.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-26-2015   #1
foxyphoenix
Ubi dubium, ibi libertas.
 
foxyphoenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nature
Age: 30
Posts: 4,373
Rep Power: 106
foxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond repute
Love Wins!



http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...8e5_story.html

Quote:
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.
__________________
o.O

"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
-
Carl Sagan

"It is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance."
-
Charles Darwin

"What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of the spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected."
-
Chief Seattle

Almost Smart Store

foxyphoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2015   #2
Pittielynn
sweet, funny and down-right CUTE!
 
Pittielynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: History
Posts: 5,547
Rep Power: 95
Pittielynn has a reputation beyond reputePittielynn has a reputation beyond reputePittielynn has a reputation beyond reputePittielynn has a reputation beyond reputePittielynn has a reputation beyond reputePittielynn has a reputation beyond reputePittielynn has a reputation beyond reputePittielynn has a reputation beyond reputePittielynn has a reputation beyond reputePittielynn has a reputation beyond reputePittielynn has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Love Wins!

I love the tweets about people packing up and heading for Canada.... It's been legal for a decade here suckas! You can't escape progress!!
__________________


"Be strong while it's hard and laugh at it after it's over. You just gotta live." - Spadetje


All along I believed I would find you.
Time has brought your heart to me,
I have loved you for a thousand years.
I'll love you for a thousand more...
...One step closer.
•°o.O♠O.o°•

Almost Smart Store
Almost Smart Arcade

Last edited by Pittielynn; 07-01-2015 at 09:08 PM.
Pittielynn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2015   #3
psychoDiablo
Thx for the memories
 
psychoDiablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 15,971
Rep Power: 199
psychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to psychoDiablo Send a message via Yahoo to psychoDiablo
Re: Love Wins!

lol Everything is so gay now.
__________________
I wouldn't say I'm psycho only because I'm able to handle it.
Now learn patience

To chill is to be chillin.
Chillin is cooperating with your surroundings, unknowing'st of what everything is capable of; and all the while, as it happens and after, to accept without any thought of good or bad, but mainly, just enjoying rather deeply, the moment you had to sit and think. (Not thinking.)

|-Mr.MCR-|

Will you write
Will you love
Will you enjoy
Life when I am gone?
You will.
by Angelina

"I have lived life as horrible as it was, and as beautiful as it has become."

Last edited by psychoDiablo; 06-27-2015 at 04:22 PM.
psychoDiablo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2015   #4
Jenn and tonic
"maaaaagic!"
 
Jenn and tonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Age: 34
Posts: 5,965
Rep Power: 119
Jenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond reputeJenn and tonic has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to Jenn and tonic
Re: Love Wins!

Very exciting!
__________________
When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. – Thomas Jefferson
Jenn and tonic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2015   #5
Pittielynn
sweet, funny and down-right CUTE!
 
Pittielynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: History
Posts: 5,547
Rep Power: 95
Pittielynn has a reputation beyond reputePittielynn has a reputation beyond reputePittielynn has a reputation beyond reputePittielynn has a reputation beyond reputePittielynn has a reputation beyond reputePittielynn has a reputation beyond reputePittielynn has a reputation beyond reputePittielynn has a reputation beyond reputePittielynn has a reputation beyond reputePittielynn has a reputation beyond reputePittielynn has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Love Wins!

Everything was always gay, that's the point! :p
__________________


"Be strong while it's hard and laugh at it after it's over. You just gotta live." - Spadetje


All along I believed I would find you.
Time has brought your heart to me,
I have loved you for a thousand years.
I'll love you for a thousand more...
...One step closer.
•°o.O♠O.o°•

Almost Smart Store
Almost Smart Arcade
Pittielynn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2015   #6
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 61
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Love Wins!

Interesting how the same groups (homosexual activists) and the left in general has been forever condemning marriage as “paternalistic,” “chauvinistic,” “sexist," and was the 'anthesis of freedom' - especially for women. That it was/is "legalized, forced prostitution," and the institution of marriage was one of unmitigated oppression.

So, one moment it's "oppressive," and the next minute (when it comes to homosexual practice), these same groups tell us that the institution o f marriage has somehow transformed itself, and is no longer is an oppressive, sexist construct. Ha! You liberals are funny....walking, talking contradictions. :)

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/...-critics/15929

http://barbwire.com/2014/03/17/ameri...biased-source/
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2015   #7
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 61
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Love Wins!

Roe v Wade happened in the 70s. The pro-life movement has more youth momentum than ever before as well as science, reason, and ethics are on the pro-life side. So like the abortion issue, the issue of marriage law as public policy and how it will affect our culture will be a multi-generational battle.

(And whoever put "need more homos!" under my username shows how immature you are regarding this issue. I'm back, so to the mods, can you please remove that? Thanks)
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 08-01-2015 at 11:22 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2015   #8
foxyphoenix
Ubi dubium, ibi libertas.
 
foxyphoenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nature
Age: 30
Posts: 4,373
Rep Power: 106
foxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Love Wins!

It's hard to be paternalistic, chauvinistic, and sexist when the couple is two women.



Regardless, civil rights and women's rights have changed the landscape of marriage. No longer is a wife the property or subject of her husband. A woman wasn't allowed to have her own credit card until 1974. Marital rape was not recognized in some states until 1993.

What began as a business transaction between men regarding a woman has transformed into a recognition of love and commitment between two people.

It's not perfect -- some doctors still require a husband's permission before doing procedures that affect a woman's fertility-- but it's come a long way towards equality.

The marriage fight is over, and love has won. The next generations will look as unkindly on you and your beliefs as we do on those who opposed interracial marriage or women's rights.


P.S. Every time you post I'm making a donation to Planned Parenthood.
__________________
o.O

"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
-
Carl Sagan

"It is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance."
-
Charles Darwin

"What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of the spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected."
-
Chief Seattle

Almost Smart Store

foxyphoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2015   #9
psychoDiablo
Thx for the memories
 
psychoDiablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 15,971
Rep Power: 199
psychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to psychoDiablo Send a message via Yahoo to psychoDiablo
Re: Love Wins!

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
(And whoever put "need more homos!" under my username shows how immature you are regarding this issue. I'm back, so to the mods, can you please remove that? Thanks)
Hahaha! That was me! I did it back in April, so shows the log. I don't remember doing it, though. I changed a good number of user titles, so dont feel like you're the only one!


Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post


Just wanted to post this picture again. Although the silly writing on both their arms is... well, silly...
__________________
I wouldn't say I'm psycho only because I'm able to handle it.
Now learn patience

To chill is to be chillin.
Chillin is cooperating with your surroundings, unknowing'st of what everything is capable of; and all the while, as it happens and after, to accept without any thought of good or bad, but mainly, just enjoying rather deeply, the moment you had to sit and think. (Not thinking.)

|-Mr.MCR-|

Will you write
Will you love
Will you enjoy
Life when I am gone?
You will.
by Angelina

"I have lived life as horrible as it was, and as beautiful as it has become."
psychoDiablo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2015   #10
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 61
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Love Wins!

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
P.S. Every time you post I'm making a donation to Planned Parenthood.
^ Bully tactic - your comment about donating to PP is an attempt to use coercion and intimidation with the obvious intent of censorship.
A worldview or ideology that rests on a solid foundation of truth wouldn't even think of going there.

Also, inflating the argument with non relative material is like plumping up a chicken with water. Women's rights are irrelevant to same sex so-called "marriage." While women were at one point treated as property (even the daughters in Mosaic Law) the men were fully responsible for everything. With equality of rights and benefits MUST come equality of consequences and expectations though. Thus, a woman should NOT be practicing hypergamy (arguably innate) nor expecting any form of chivalry. "Hypergamy (colloquially referred to as "marrying up") is a term used in social science for the act or practice of marrying someone who is wealthier or of higher caste or social status than oneself." Women typically try to marry up to a higher earner historically. They are now becoming breadwinners and majority of the workforce, but still continue this ritual, because it is arguably biologically driven as it gives a sense of security, etc. Suffice it to say (without drowning the thread) feminists want a pedestal to sit on in liberation for themselves while simultaneously demanding men continue to adhere to the old social contract (Example: women can vote without being forced to register for the draft. This is not true equality). What we're seeing from most of today's women is demanding complete equality while simultaneously wanting men to remain in old social contract. That is incompatible with true equality.

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
"civil rights and women's rights have changed the landscape of marriage"
and again, you can't equate the two. Women and melanin are immutable characteristics and morally benign. Homosexual practice is not

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
"No longer is a wife the property or subject of her husband."
Thank goodness for the collapse of ancient paganism.

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
"A woman wasn't allowed to have her own credit card until 1974."
No one anywhere in the world owned a credit card until 1950. And now we are a nation addicted to credit. Women (and men) across the demographic spectrum are enslaved to enormous loads of unsecured debt, which has stolen their dreams. How is this a good thing?

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
"Marital rape was not recognized in some states until 1993."
I don't remember hearing bells ringing in 1993 that marital rape was outlawed everywhere in the U.S.

Some more detail, the argument about spousal rape was feminist in origin. SD was the first in 1975 to modify their laws, and less than 20 years later all states had laws that recognized the category of martial rape.

The bigger problem however is that "marital rape" or "spousal rape" is part of the larger panic-stricken hysteria of the "rape culture" which erroneously presumes the statistic that either 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 women are victims of rape (or more broadly, sexual assault). These statistics are woefully out of line with real world data, but feed the feminist ideology that a "rape culture" exists where women are under constant sexual assault by men.

From within this framework emerges the idea of spousal rape, that the sexual relations between a husband and wife can be denied for any reason by a woman and that any attempts by the husband to pursue her sexually are considered a form of sexual assault. Complicating this further, in some states marital rape is the same as other forms of rape - exemplified by the following quote from Phyllis Schafley:

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/200.../06-02-08.html

"A good man's life has been sacrificed, and three children have been denied their father, by the malicious feminists who have lobbied for laws that punish spousal rape just like stranger rape and deny a man the right to cross-examine his accuser. They have created a judicial system where the woman must always be believed even though she has no evidence, and the man is always guilty."

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
"What began as a business transaction between men regarding a woman has transformed into a recognition of love and commitment between two people."
Can you please further explain what this "business transaction" is?

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
"It's not perfect"
What about "it" (equality) is not perfect? What is the measure of perfect equality? Or are the goal posts being intentionally moved year after year, so that "equality" can never be obtained?

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
"some doctors still require a husband's permission before doing procedures that affect a woman's fertility."
With regards to the "some doctors still require a husband's permission" statement, I can't say that I've ever heard of this, so I did a *little* digging around. As it turns out, the state laws and federal courts aren't in sync on the matter of spousal consent for sterilization. As it turns out, the matter goes both ways, because some doctors will not perform sterilization on a husband without a spouse's consent, either.

http://goodmenproject.com/newsroom/a...r-a-vasectomy/

"...according to Janet Crepps, a lawyer at the Center for Reproductive Rights, while there’s absolutely no law requiring men to obtain their partner’s consent, it can be imposed on a case-by-case basis at a clinical level.

'Doctors can impose requirements in a private setting in order to protect themselves legally. It’s their choice that they want to do that. While it would be pretty difficult for a wife to successfully sue a doctor for doing a vasectomy on her husband, it wouldn’t surprise me if their legal counsel insisted that they would be better off getting that consent. That said, nobody I know is imposing that kind of requirement.'

"In short, doctors are given license to decide on whom they perform surgery based on medical judgment and experience, but most of them seem to be conducting themselves reasonably and ethically."

So, just more hysteria and arm flailing about nothing. Many Doctors are trying to protect themselves legally and ethically, and requiring spousal permission - in writing - helps to protect themselves.

Further, it is not likely that a woman seeking sterilization would be denied one *solely* on the basis of her husband not signing a permission form. Though, I have an enormous faith in the ability of leftists to manufacture such a sob story scenario.

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
"it's come a long way towards equality."
Equality is euphemistic language of the left, but typically result in the leveling people down to the same place, rather than bringing all people up. Equality rhetoric requires pretending that women did not benefit from or experience any privileges from their status as women in civilization.

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
"The marriage fight is over"
Triumphalism. Actually, it is just beginning.

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
"love has won."
True love will win. False and misguided love will always lose - it cannot sustain humanity.

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
"The next generations will look as unkindly on you and your beliefs"
So why are the opinions of the next generation are more relevant than the opinion of previous generations?
But quite the contrary, when all the "dust" settles, they will thank us for our tireless efforts and sacrifice.

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
"as we do on those who opposed interracial marriage"
You mean the eugenicists and the Democratic party?

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
"or women's rights."
Such as a female gestating in womb...her right to life?

The telling part of this is, the attitude of reproductive rights for me, but not for thee. For the left, "reproductive rights" only means the right to not have offspring - "reproductive rights" never mean the right to have children. This is why so many on the left can be so in favor of "reproductive rights," but hold the apparently inconsistent opinion that "well certain people just shouldn't be allowed to breed." It is an attitude, but what they are really saying is that people should not have as much choice to be able to bear children.

In this case, the issue is about spousal consent. If a man chooses to sterilize himself, and he is in a faithful marriage, does his "reproductive rights" trump those of his sexually committed wife? If she wants children, must she be stuck without any, purely on the basis of her husband's decision alone? How is it a feminist position to hold that a man's choice should be allowed to impose on a woman without any consideration for her own "reproductive choices?" The ridiculous system always spirals out of control. It collapses from its own inherent contradictions. Such is liberalism.

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 08-04-2015 at 12:21 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2015   #11
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 61
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Love Wins!

But non-sequiturs and obfuscations aside, you're comparing apples to oranges and cannot logically be upheld. Marriage is a societal foundation based upon the family structure. Whereas an interracial couple can begin a family, a homosexual couple, could never begin one without turning a woman into a vending machine or a man into a turkey baster, thus reducing men and women to be only about their parts, just an object.

I'm for family structure equality, not a law that promotes family structure inequality as equal or the same as family structure equality. They are not the same. The comparisons with polygamy, incestuous homosexual "marriage," and polyamory are based on the reasoning and logic put forth by the homosexual activist movement. If marriage is simply about "love" between consenting adults, then all of the groups want to marry for "love" have an even more legitimate than same sex "marriage," because though deficient and unbalanced in there own right, they are still less radical, because they still do not DELIBERATELY deny and segregate out motherhood only a woman can provide or fatherhood only a man can provide from the family structure.

Infertility and old age doesn't make an opposite sex relationship into a homosexual relationship. Infertility is something science and medicine seeks to correct, it doesn't change the meaning of man and woman marriage, b/c it's still a man and a woman. Children deserve to be raised by both a mother and a father. Homosexual parenting BY DESIGN, not by mistake, denies a child of the right (and basic fundamental need) for the lifetime of their relationship. Parenting is about what children need, not some "equality" trophy."

Homosexual advocates automatically point to what is bad or a loss (i.e. infertility, divorce) to justify or validate their behavior or their "family structure" as good, because they are already starting at a loss. They have to argue accidental privations to justify/validate inherent privations. Divorce, infertility aren't inherent in our family structure. It's a bad circumstance or a defect. And elderly man and woman who can't procreate still is a man and a woman. All other family structures have to be compared to other bad circumstances or defects...that alone reveals a inherent inequality in the family structure of same sex. Their idea or ideas of family structure is an inherent privation...a loss or defect in principle, not accidental.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15155/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rynlfggqAcU

Persons caught up in homosexual practice often use the argument that same-sex attraction is their natural inclination and since their attraction is — in their view — "natural," they believe that same-sex relationships are "moral" and therefore must be affirmed by government. However, it is also natural that their sexual relationships are sterile. Whereas sterility in a man-woman relationship is a sign of some defect or disorder, sterility in a homosexual relationship is the way it is intended to be. Sterility is the natural condition of homosexual acts. Therefore, one could argue that they should not violate their natural design by appropriating children.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as the marriage law and public policy goes, aside from the moral, public health, and ethical implications of homosexual practice....

Every adult already is treated equally under the marriage law regardless of their interests. That is, every adult can marry another adult of the opposite sex. If they don't want to participate in that, for whatever reason, that doesn't give anybody the right to redefine the meaning of the marriage.

Also, any adult can legally have a commitment ceremony and draw up a contract that sorts out and agrees to wills, property and hospital visitation rights, etc, again, without redefining the marriage law. People can make wills and designate their belongings to whoever they want. It's very easy to list beneficiaries on bank accounts, brokerage accounts, etc. Same thing with power of attorney and hospital visitation, etc. Just fill out the paperwork.

We all have different kinds of relationships. Some people are particularly close to a parent, or perhaps a sibling(s). Even just a best friend.
Nobody is going to stop you from leaving your things to these people or allowing them to visit you in the hospital if you put your wishes in writing.

Now can you get tax breaks from your relationship with a sibling? No, I guess not, but everything else is there for all the different types of relationships that EVERYBODY has. Not everybody has a spouse, but they are able to state their wishes in writing for all the above mentioned except for the tax breaks. Why should the relationships of people who are attracted to others of the same sex be elevated above the relationships that everybody else have? Anyway, here are the implications of redefining marriage...

"Same sex so-called "marriage" is a disaster for children. We'll hear about more of this over time, because most of us born into homosexual "families" cannot bear to speak against their parents. I could not until both of my biological parents had been dead for years. I do not speak to my mother's former lady love and I feel no especial concern for her feelings, since she had none for any of us." - Moira Greyland (raised by two women and who's father was in the homosexual lifestyle)...

http://askthebigot.com/2015/07/23/th...nd-guest-post/

This book provides a range of perspectives on the toll of redefining marriage, with special emphasis on the challenges posed to six general classes: children, women, society as a whole, foreign nations, gay men, and purveyors of free speech. Included are fifty-seven essays, over 550 end notes, and a mix of humanities and social-science perspectives. A must-read to get the full picture of what was at stake with the gay marriage debate. Many testimonials from children of same-sex couples are the first of their kind to be published here...

http://www.amazon.com/Jephthahs-Daug.../dp/1505810787


Regardless of how you and I feel, the evidence shows that the kids are not alright as you and I from the outside looking in.
That INTENTIONALLY and DELIBERATELY depriving children of their biological roots causes medical and emotional harm.

See here links that provide actual research and surveys of these children as adults. Intentionally creating more structural inequalities for children. Just because somebody wants to be a parent, doesn't always mean they should...

https://www.worldmag.com/mobile/article.php?id=33319

"IVF babies 'are a third more likely to develop childhood cancer'"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...od-cancer.html

The following shows why surrogacy is morally reprehensible and ethically wrong:

http://theothersideofsurrogacy.blogspot.com/

http://englishmanif.blogspot.com/201...-children.html

Also, 1) Men and women are essentially different beyond their mere body-parts. The possibility of 2 women or 2 men being able to have a baby together without an opposite sex partner due to a technological loophole doesn't change that fact.

2) Same-sex couples still need at least a 3rd party (technology), as a rule, to make this happen.

3) A child needs as its primary care-takers the gender complimentarity of a male and a female. No matter what our romantic desires or what our private bedroom habits are, we all should what is best for a child, not what is just ok, or better than nothing.
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/...theory_is_dead

4) Two men still need the womb of a woman to aid in creating a child. Mothers shouldn't be reduced to vending machines, whether they think going along with it is okay or not, at the expense of DELIBERATELY denying the child of a mother.

5) Two women still need the sperm of a man to aid in creating a child. Fathers shouldn't be reduced to turkey basters and test tubes, whether they think going along with it is okay or not, at the expense of DELIBERATELY denying the child of a father.

6) Redefining marriage teaches society that all this is a positive good. We can't prevent things like this from happening, but we should not have legislation that affirms, promotes, encourages, and/or celebrates this as a positive good, when it's not.

Please see www.anonymousus.org for testimonies that is a window into the future if we keep heading in the direction we are heading.

When a law teaches society that it is just as good to deliberately deny children their biological roots, their heritage, and domestic segregation is just as good and loving, that will in turn teach society that broken families are a positive good. Broken families have a direct causal effect on economic security and prosperity.

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 08-05-2015 at 12:39 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2015   #12
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 61
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Love Wins!

The following 2 articles does a good job explaining more in layman's terms the proxies and methodologies used in relation to the criticisms involving research on how children are affected when raised by same sex couples. These are a must read, a must bookmark, and a must share...

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/...-critics/15929


http://barbwire.com/2014/03/17/ameri...biased-source/

The redefinition of marriage contributes to income inequality by compromising, segregating, and undermining family structure equality and family autonomy. It is an attack on the basic and fundamental human rights for children. Marriage that encourages, recognizes, promotes one mother-one father is the eco-system of humanity. Otherwise, a child's right to a relationship with his or her genetic mother and father is deliberately infringed on.

The redefinition of marriage undermines that every child has a natural right to be born free, neither purchased nor sold. (Included is the right of the child to be born.), every child has a right to a mother and a father, wherever possible, every child has a right to bond with the heritage of his or her biological parents as much as possible, unless exigent circumstances require that he or she be placed in an alternative arrangement, every child has a right to a standard of living that satisfies his or her physical, emotional and psycho-social developmental needs, every child has a right to be protected from sexual abuse and exploitation. This includes the right to modesty and protection from excessively mature subject matter.

More insightful articles by Stella Morabito (not necessarily a staunch Conservative) that are a must read...

http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/...mily-autonomy/

http://thefederalist.com/2015/05/20/...n-free-speech/

http://illinoisfamily.org/homosexual...marriage-docx/

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/09/...llow-the-bait/

Commercial surrogacy, IVF, donor-conceived, adoption, frozen embryos are all the underlying issues here that most people haven't recognized yet. These are either inherently corrupted market ideas or market ideas susceptible to much more corruption as a result of the redefinition of marriage, at the cost of children and family autonomy.

Also, if you are *for* redefining marriage, in a way you are enabling the negative outcomes of abuse. Not only the founder of the "marriage equality" movement homosexual activists Larry Brinkin was a detestable racist child abuser himself (Google Larry Brinkin), you may want to consider this...

http://m.sfgate.com/news/article/Lar...se-5162743.php

Founder of HRC (euphemistically called "Human Rights Campaign"), homosexual activist organization that is the leading advocacy group for redefining marriage, was arrested for sex with minor...

http://www.advocate.com/crime/2014/1...crimes-charges ;

Listen to what this homosexual activist says about marriage as an institution and especially pay attention to what comments receives the loudest applause...
https://youtu.be/n9M0xcs2Vw4

Somebody went to "gay" clubs and bars and asked random "gays" if they believe their homosexual attractions are genetic (born that way), check out both their response and what they said was what caused the start of their homosexual desires/attractions....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h5p...ature=youtu.be ;

https://youtu.be/7mPKnUJcT9I

(By the way, much of the scientific data confirms that this is definitely a contributing factor to the imprinting these disordered feelings: http://barbwire.com/2015/02/19/abuse...ex-attraction/ )

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 08-04-2015 at 12:20 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2015   #13
foxyphoenix
Ubi dubium, ibi libertas.
 
foxyphoenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nature
Age: 30
Posts: 4,373
Rep Power: 106
foxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Love Wins!

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
^ Bully tactic - your comment about donating to PP is an attempt to use coercion and intimidation with the obvious intent of censorship.
A worldview or ideology that rests on a solid foundation of truth wouldn't even think of going there.
You've raised $25 for them so far! That's enough for a month of birth control pills for a woman in need! So she can have sex and not have her life ruined by a baby!! Congratulations!!

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
Also, inflating the argument with non relative material is like plumping up a chicken with water.
I'm sorry, you brought Roe v. Wade and the prolife movement into this thread. It just reminded me that with bigoted assholes like you, PP could use some support beyond what I give them yearly.

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
Women's rights are irrelevant to same sex so-called "marriage." While women were at one point treated as property (even the daughters in Mosaic Law) the men were fully responsible for everything. With equality of rights and benefits MUST come equality of consequences and expectations though. Thus, a woman should NOT be practicing hypergamy (arguably innate) nor expecting any form of chivalry. "Hypergamy (colloquially referred to as "marrying up") is a term used in social science for the act or practice of marrying someone who is wealthier or of higher caste or social status than oneself." Women typically try to marry up to a higher earner historically. They are now becoming breadwinners and majority of the workforce, but still continue this ritual, because it is arguably biologically driven as it gives a sense of security, etc. Suffice it to say (without drowning the thread) feminists want a pedestal to sit on in liberation for themselves while simultaneously demanding men continue to adhere to the old social contract (Example: women can vote without being forced to register for the draft. This is not true equality). What we're seeing from most of today's women is demanding complete equality while simultaneously wanting men to remain in old social contract. That is incompatible with true equality.
I completely agree with you. We should either have women in the draft or abolish the draft.
In my own relationship, my partner and I split all expenses. I make more money than he does, so I pay more.

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
No one anywhere in the world owned a credit card until 1950. And now we are a nation addicted to credit. Women (and men) across the demographic spectrum are enslaved to enormous loads of unsecured debt, which has stolen their dreams. How is this a good thing?
Now you're being deliberately stupid. It was a measure of control that men had over their wives.


Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
I don't remember hearing bells ringing in 1993 that marital rape was outlawed everywhere in the U.S.

Some more detail, the argument about spousal rape was feminist in origin. SD was the first in 1975 to modify their laws, and less than 20 years later all states had laws that recognized the category of martial rape.

The bigger problem however is that "marital rape" or "spousal rape" is part of the larger panic-stricken hysteria of the "rape culture" which erroneously presumes the statistic that either 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 women are victims of rape (or more broadly, sexual assault). These statistics are woefully out of line with real world data, but feed the feminist ideology that a "rape culture" exists where women are under constant sexual assault by men.

From within this framework emerges the idea of spousal rape, that the sexual relations between a husband and wife can be denied for any reason by a woman and that any attempts by the husband to pursue her sexually are considered a form of sexual assault. Complicating this further, in some states marital rape is the same as other forms of rape - exemplified by the following quote from Phyllis Schafley:

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/200.../06-02-08.html

"A good man's life has been sacrificed, and three children have been denied their father, by the malicious feminists who have lobbied for laws that punish spousal rape just like stranger rape and deny a man the right to cross-examine his accuser. They have created a judicial system where the woman must always be believed even though she has no evidence, and the man is always guilty."
So, if one partner wants sexual relations and the other doesn't, the first should just be allowed to go ahead without repercussions? Are you really defending rape???

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
Can you please further explain what this "business transaction" is?
Marriage began as a way to exchange goods or services with a woman's father in exchange for a bride. It was all about male property rights.

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
What about "it" (equality) is not perfect? What is the measure of perfect equality? Or are the goal posts being intentionally moved year after year, so that "equality" can never be obtained?
Equality - "the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities." We as a society are closer to equality than we used to be in certain regards, but we have not yet achieved equality in status, rights, and opportunities for many social groups.


Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
With regards to the "some doctors still require a husband's permission" statement, I can't say that I've ever heard of this, so I did a *little* digging around...

So, just more hysteria and arm flailing about nothing. Many Doctors are trying to protect themselves legally and ethically, and requiring spousal permission - in writing - helps to protect themselves.

Further, it is not likely that a woman seeking sterilization would be denied one *solely* on the basis of her husband not signing a permission form. Though, I have an enormous faith in the ability of leftists to manufacture such a sob story scenario.
The experiences of women on /r/childfree beg to differ. But sure, your disbelief in women's suffering is more important than them.


Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
Equality is euphemistic language of the left, but typically result in the leveling people down to the same place, rather than bringing all people up. Equality rhetoric requires pretending that women did not benefit from or experience any privileges from their status as women in civilization.
Preventing women from having social, financial, and bodily autonomy with the premise that they have a privileged state, is akin to saying the slave owners took care of their slaves and they should be thankful.

You're living in a delusion.

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
Triumphalism. Actually, it is just beginning.
Actually, the fight for marriage equality and equal rights for homosexuals for more than a century, and somehow it just keeps progressing forward.


Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
True love will win. False and misguided love will always lose - it cannot sustain humanity.
What is false love? Do you think that gay couples don't truly love each other?


Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
So why are the opinions of the next generation are more relevant than the opinion of previous generations?
But quite the contrary, when all the "dust" settles, they will thank us for our tireless efforts and sacrifice.
70% of millenials support same sex marriage. I don't think they will.

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
Such as a female gestating in womb...her right to life?
She has no right to the body of another person, just as you and I have no rights to the body of another person. I cannot demand that you use your organs to sustain me.

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
The telling part of this is, the attitude of reproductive rights for me, but not for thee. For the left, "reproductive rights" only means the right to not have offspring - "reproductive rights" never mean the right to have children. This is why so many on the left can be so in favor of "reproductive rights," but hold the apparently inconsistent opinion that "well certain people just shouldn't be allowed to breed." It is an attitude, but what they are really saying is that people should not have as much choice to be able to bear children.
Are there laws currently preventing people from having children? Is that a big concern?
I'll fight for people's rights either way.

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
In this case, the issue is about spousal consent. If a man chooses to sterilize himself, and he is in a faithful marriage, does his "reproductive rights" trump those of his sexually committed wife? If she wants children, must she be stuck without any, purely on the basis of her husband's decision alone? How is it a feminist position to hold that a man's choice should be allowed to impose on a woman without any consideration for her own "reproductive choices?" The ridiculous system always spirals out of control. It collapses from its own inherent contradictions. Such is liberalism.
Sexually committed != reproductive sexual relations only

His reproductive rights are his alone. He can choose to not reproduce and no one can force him to. If his wife wants children, she can find another partner. No one should be forced to have children they don't want to.



Love is Love!
__________________
o.O

"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
-
Carl Sagan

"It is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance."
-
Charles Darwin

"What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of the spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected."
-
Chief Seattle

Almost Smart Store


Last edited by foxyphoenix; 08-04-2015 at 01:42 PM.
foxyphoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2015   #14
foxyphoenix
Ubi dubium, ibi libertas.
 
foxyphoenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nature
Age: 30
Posts: 4,373
Rep Power: 106
foxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Love Wins!

Also, considering that most of your text is lifted from posts by Disqus user "Rockon" or Jason0, and you've cited two articles by Jason Salamone on Barbwire, whose Twitter has the same shit you've posted on your own user profile, I think at this point you're citing and referencing yourself.

It must be a really nice echochamber if you're the only one in it!
__________________
o.O

"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
-
Carl Sagan

"It is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance."
-
Charles Darwin

"What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of the spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected."
-
Chief Seattle

Almost Smart Store

foxyphoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2015   #15
psychoDiablo
Thx for the memories
 
psychoDiablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 15,971
Rep Power: 199
psychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond reputepsychoDiablo has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to psychoDiablo Send a message via Yahoo to psychoDiablo
Re: Love Wins!

Okay, 2 dudes kissing is gross, but I know love when I see it... Of course, no one knows if those two chicks and these two dudes who got married, actually went through with it... Divorce happens and it happens to the best of em... Lol, no, it .... blank ........

Remember though, Funk sonic used to be some 73 year old crazy old man, who turned into some 30 year old and has now become some crazy gaylord who hates himself because he's a gaylord trying not to be.... Or something like that. LOL

Still root for Buffalo much?
__________________
I wouldn't say I'm psycho only because I'm able to handle it.
Now learn patience

To chill is to be chillin.
Chillin is cooperating with your surroundings, unknowing'st of what everything is capable of; and all the while, as it happens and after, to accept without any thought of good or bad, but mainly, just enjoying rather deeply, the moment you had to sit and think. (Not thinking.)

|-Mr.MCR-|

Will you write
Will you love
Will you enjoy
Life when I am gone?
You will.
by Angelina

"I have lived life as horrible as it was, and as beautiful as it has become."
psychoDiablo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2015   #16
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 61
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Love Wins!

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
You've raised $25 for them so far! That's enough for a month of birth control pills for a woman in need! So she can have sex and not have her life ruined by a baby!! Congratulations!! I'm sorry, you brought Roe v. Wade and the pro-life movement into this thread. It just reminded me that with bigoted assholes like you, PP could use some support beyond what I give them yearly.
^ This comment is revealing. Actions without worrying about the consequences while others flip the bill for those consequences. Plus, name-calling and ad hominem doesn't invalidate my position and certainly doesn't help validate your own. So as an adult, I think we should aim higher when engaged in discourse, don't you think?

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
I completely agree with you. We should either have women in the draft or abolish the draft. In my own relationship, my partner and I split all expenses. I make more money than he does, so I pay more.
It's not splitting expenses if you pay more. And if you pay more, that's not equality. If you pay more, then is you partner, who pays less, oppressed in the relationship? Maybe the problem is that it isn't "true equality" we need with it's leveling of privilege, but to reject the narcissistic me-centered mindset in favor of a Christocentric sacrificial love that treats others the way we want to be treated.

Remember: Equality rhetoric is rooted in self and envy. Christ's love points us outside of ourselves and aligns our relationship with God and mankind.

But again, what does this all have to do with redefining marriage?

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
So, if one partner wants sexual relations and the other doesn't, the first should just be allowed to go ahead without repercussions? Are you really defending rape???
Straw man. Are you defending abolishing the law? fairness and justice? Because if the investigation only allows one side to defend themselves, then that is not justice. If one same sex partner is accused of rape, should they not be allowed to respond, because the accusation is the proof?

We should focus our efforts on the well defined categories of domestic abuse. If "spousal rape" is such a prevalent problem, why were the women's movements of the Progressive era so silent on this, choosing instead to focus on national prohibition of alcohol, arguing that alcohol (not rape) was the source of abuse in marriages most needing to be curbed?

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Marriage began as a way to exchange goods or services with a woman's father in exchange for a bride. It was all about male property rights."
Actually, marriage was created by God for the purpose of expressing his image in humanity, giving a fertile couple the power of procreation. Anything less than this ideal is a corruption caused by human sin - whether a "business transaction" or "same-sex unions." Correcting our culture's failure to recognize the God-given purpose in marriage and human sexuality is the essential point of this whole discussion, of which many diversions and dodges here are trying to distract us from.

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Now you're being deliberately stupid. It was a measure of control that men had over their wives.

"A woman wasn't even allowed to have her own credit card until 1974."
False. The 1974 bill made it illegal to discriminate against women in the issuing of credit cards. Many women could and did get them before that date; some faced (unreasonable) additional requirements, but it was not impossible. Ever stop to think that it was more a matter of the credit card companies' thinking (wrongly) that women, or some women in certain social situations, were poor credit risks? So only recently have people married for love? No men and women loving each other for the thousands of years before in monogamous marriage? See Ephesians 5, and again, thank GOD for the downfall of paganism. And what does this have to do with same sex "marriage" policy anyway?

The first "charge card" was Diners Club in 1950, which was created to allow customers of several restaurants in New York City to pay on a single monthly bill rather than pay cash at once. Naturally, this was targeted toward highly frequent diners of the 1950s, namely businessmen who preferred the convenience rather than carrying large sums of cash of paying by check. I fail to see the hardship in these policies in a world where cash and check payments were predominant.

The American Express network was not created until 1958, and again targeted toward businessmen of the time, not the general public.

Where are the articles protesting that credit cards weren't available for women, and all the suffering it caused? Intentional Google searching for this issue, I can't even find an indignant blog post on this injustice. Why is it that even Wikipedia, the fount of all that is truthy on the Interwebs, doesn't even make a passing reference to this? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card )

When cell phones were first public, the primary owners and users were businessmen - does this prove that phone manufacturers were sexist?

As far as the issue of control is concerned, in a culture where men were typically employed and women were not, with the culture of the nuclear family, the context of men shouldering financial responsibility makes more sense. The feminists pursued jobs, got credit cards, and the right to shoulder their own financial responsibility without regard to a man or a husband. Bravo: Feminists achieve independence from men. But were these gains due to institutional sexism that was overcome, or the loss of innocence and family that we are now paying the cultural price for?

So what was a measure of control that men had over their wives?

That is funny, because you admit to making more money than your partner, so isn't that controlling her partner? Admitted a relationship is not equal, because one makes more money and pays more. If this was a straight marriage that means you are controlling, but there is no control in same sex relationship? Why would it be any different now? and why do liberals and homosexual activists want any part of it? So allowing same sex "marriage" eliminates controlling relationships, just because there's not just one man or not just woman.? If there are two of each sex, then one can't control the other? That insinuates that men are always controlling unless they are in a same sex relationships? Really? So the structure of segregating one sex for the same, eliminates drama, jealousy, income inequality, and abuse?

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Equality - "the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities." We as a society are closer to equality than we used to be in certain regards, but we have not yet achieved equality in status, rights, and opportunities for many social groups.
So desires and behaviors should be conflated with personhood and immutable characteristics like melanin? Your response is lacking in specifics. What is "status," and how is it going to be "equal?" By "rights" do you mean human rights, or just a wish list of things you wish were true (ie, the "right" to internet access)? What is meant by inequality of "opportunities," and how far should we go in our zeal to make sure no one has any more opportunities than anyone else? In short, what does the end goal of equality look like (ought), what does current inequality or equality look like (is), and what will need to happen to move society there that will not entail further inequities(how)?

Are you concerned about inequality in the U.S. exclusively, or are you considering how to genuinely resolve systemic injustices, predation, and corruption throughout the world where ever it may exist? If so, how?

(Side note: Check out the rep comment from moderator Foxyphoenix gave me here. Another liberal who continues to prove they cannot simply disagree with another viewpoint without being childish and inflammatory)...
Attached Images
File Type: png Screenshot_2016-07-10-12-57-01.png (365.4 KB, 0 views)

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 07-10-2016 at 10:47 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2015   #17
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 61
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Love Wins!

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
The experiences of women on /r/childfree beg to differ. But sure, your disbelief in women's suffering is more important than them.
Your source is Reddit? Do they quote Wikipedia, too?

How do you know women are "suffering?" Most people don't "suffer" from fertility - it is not a disease. Perhaps counseling would be appropriate?

Please provide a source, such as a journalist that engages in some genuine investigative reporting to get to the bottom of this. Namely, someone who has engaged multiple positions even when they seem partisan. Even from a clearly biased source, this would be more informative than mere anecdotal evidence. Can you please provide evidence for my disbelief in woman's suffering other than conflating that with my viewpoint of leftist liberal political narratives?

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Preventing women from having social, financial, and bodily autonomy with the premise that they have a privileged state, is akin to saying the slave owners took care of their slaves and they should be thankful.
So abortions never involve emotional pressure and/or force? Bodily autonomy include the right to kill the most innocent and vulnerable individuals in our society? Due process in executions is meant to prevent wrongful death and lifetimes of regrets for the death of a criminal. There is no due process for the slaughter of an innocent child, simply a decision, often made by another person, and forced on a pregnant woman by parents, boyfriend or spouse and by liberal feminists who drank the marxist kool-aid. Speaking of slavery. Same sex "marriage" is an accelerating component that will add to that list the market for human genetic material (eggs and sperm), and commercial surrogacy would be thrown wide open, worse than it is now. Many more babies will be lab-produced like commodities, becoming children who will have no sense of progeny or where they came from - all for the vanity of those who value their lifestyle above the best interests of the children that they force into existence by dint of their money. Under slavery, the government didn’t have to acknowledge the biological connections of the family members? The same thing is happening when we make changes to the legal code that are gender-neutral. State by state, we have been erasing the concept of biological differences from how we describe marital parties and parenthood. If judges had been forced to respect biological connections of parents to their children in the days of slavery, it would have disrupted that institution for the better. This tells us that respecting biological connections of parents to their children is a characteristic of a free society and cannot be undermined. Remember that adoption does not undermine biology. The biological parent must consent or be found unfit. Removing biological connections from the legal code is not the same as adoption, and is legally cracking open the door to modern day parents and children to be treated like slaves.

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Actually, the fight for marriage equality and equal rights for homosexuals for more than a century, and somehow it just keeps progressing forward.
The modern homosexual activism push began with the Communist Mattachine Soiety on June 28th, 1969 - the same generation that is in political power today who have brought it to fruition. And the same sex "marriage" movement started in 1982. Back in 1982, homosexual activist Larry Brinkin (dupped "father of the gay marriage movement") sued his then employer Southern Pacific Railway for denying him bereavement leave after his partner died. He lost the suit, but he was the first to coin the term “domestic partner.” He also helped create and implement the first ordinance in the US that mandated that employers give equal coverage to same-sex partners. It is said by homosexual activists that he laid the foundation for the so-called "marriage equality" movement. He was recently busted with child/toddler porn and making nazi racist rants.

http://downtrend.com/71superb/invent...ld-porography/

Founder of the largest homosexual activist group in the world HRC that are front and center in the fight for so-called "marriage equality" (Terry Bean) was recently busted for sexual abuse of minors


Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
What is false love? Do you think that "gay" couples don't truly love each other?
Same sex couples can "love" each other, but it is still misguided (homosexual behavior is also anti-science in that its practitioners use their sex organs in a manner, which is obviously contrary to their intended design and function). Structure and design means nothing to them with regards to purpose. Also, it is definitely not and never can be a marriage, no matter what a piece of paper says. If marriage is defined by love and love is defined purely by adult consent and mutual affection. You still haven't answered, if marriage is about "male property rights," then why do so many same sex attracted persons want to marry? Do they enjoy being controlled and participating in such an outdated institution. They hate straight marriage yet want to mimic it?

And the reason why procreation is one of the many valid arguments for not redefining marriage is that even though not every marriage produces children, every child is born from a mother and father and therefore deserves to be connected to them wherever possible. Marriage legally defined between one man and one woman is the only definition of marriage that upholds this biological reality. Of course the government has no interest in ascertaining fertility or compelling procreation. That said, reproductive potential is essential to the government's interest in marriage. If humans did not procreate (again, the obvious: only a man and woman can), there would be no more reason for the government to be involved in marriage than there is for the government to be involved in recognizing and regulating platonic friendships.

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
70% of millenials support same sex "marriage." I don't think they will.
Those same millenials are bucking the trends in abortion attitudes and are majority pro-life. The next generation will experience the full effects of these decisions in the present. Reality doesn't respect ideology.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...opinion-polls/

See page 12-13 (#25) about the black community and their feelings about the homosexual movement.

Most blacks do not support same sex "marriage." Are these blacks bigoted?

http://www.rljcompanies.com/phpages/...Obama_2013.pdf

Since the Supreme Court ruling, support for same sex "marriage" has dropped by 6 points and opposition has increased by 4 points — a combined 10 point movement in public opinion. That is an astonishing degree of movement in such a short period of time.

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-conten...y-marriage.pdf


4 to 1 choose religious liberty over homosexual agenda...


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/po...rticle/2569587


Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
She has no right to the body of another person, just as you and I have no rights to the body of another person. I cannot demand that you use your organs to sustain me.
Does the same logic apply to a breast-feeding infant, say in a time or place where infant formula is not available? Should a mother cast off an infant under the justification that the infant does not have a right to use her mother's breasts to nurse?

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Are there laws currently preventing people from having children? Is that a big concern? I'll fight for people's rights either way.
If you are going to fight for people's right to have children, why not stand up now in favor of spousal consent laws for sterilization, so that both the reproductive rights of the husband and of the wife are considered before closing the door on fertility? Again, "reproductive rights" is not a merely negative right, but also a positive right, and as a positive right, cannot be naturally divorced from both parties in marriage.

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Sexually committed! = reproductive sexual relations only. His reproductive rights are his alone. He can choose to not reproduce and no one can force him to. If his wife wants children, she can find another partner. No one should be forced to have children they don't want to.
Good! You admitted that the wife's only option in this case is divorce! In which case, the need for spousal consent for sterilization is a mute point.

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
Love is Love!.....


It must be a really nice echochamber if you're the only one in it!
Interesting that you reposted social media links that are cited from somebody who disagrees with you as some kind of "gotcha." So it's a sin to be involved in social media other than that liberal forum. Can you please point out the incorrect content within the articles I posted?(which are mostly non-editorials, by the way). Have you or anybody else ever posted anything on another forum? Does that mean you or others are living in an "echochamber?"

Definition of "echochamber:" "In media, an echo chamber is a situation in which information, ideas, or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by transmission and repetition inside an "enclosed" system, where different or competing views are censored, disallowed or otherwise underrepresented."

If a Conservative or Christian is going into a liberal forum, I would say that's the exact opposite of an "echo chamber." If a liberal doesn't venture out of a liberal forums, then they are the ones in an "echo chamber." If you went into the homosexual or liberal forum and changed your mind then you're "open minded," but if you keep your same opinions then that's "echo chamber." If you're a liberal then you're so open minded, despite they never venture outside their own ideas.

This just reinforces that you are so angry and unhinged that you want make this about the messenger and the person rather than the content or the message. Why are you so fearful of an opposing viewpoint?

"Love is love" is a pretty solid "echo chamber" as well. And I'm sure sites like Barbwire appreciate it whenever their sites/links are reposted by the opposing side for more potential traffic to their site and articles.

So I've been hospitable in the sense that I have entertained your non-sequitur arguments, but the initial post has to do with redefining marriage. Every adult can legally marry another adult regardless of their interests, so the marriage law already treats everybody equally. So legally, Joe and Tom have equal opportunity to marry Sue, again, regardless of their interests or bedroom habits. It is already true that every adult can marry another adult of the opposite sex...can they not? So if every adult person already can marry another adult of the opposite sex, how is not redefining marriage a form of discrimination? Can you also please tell us how two women parenting doesn't discriminate against the children's chance at loving fatherhood only men can provide, and how two men parenting doesn't discriminate against the children's chance at loving motherhood that only women can provide? Is this not a form of discrimination based on biological sex of male and female at the expense of the needs of children?
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2015   #18
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 61
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Love Wins!

Quote:
Originally Said by psychoDiablo View Post
Okay, 2 dudes kissing is gross, but I know love when I see it...
Female homosexual practice isn't something we shouldn't be encourging, affirming, or endorsing if we care about other people's health and well-being.

Lesbianism: Sex and Lifestyle Health Risks

Women who engage in lesbianism, please don't think you're safe doing what you are doing when it comes to contracting HIV, because many studies show that women who identify as lesbians actually sleep around with more bisexual men than normal (hetero) women do. Typically, out of all the women who identify as "lesbians," only an average of 1.5% only have sex with women...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874216/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11177481

Now does that mean that if more women had sex with women only, they would be at less risk? Well, the answer is not necessarily. As the Center for Disease Control reports, "Despite the absence of confirmed cases of female-to-female transmission of HIV, the findings do not negate the possibility. Information on whether a woman had sex with women is missing in more than 60% of the 246,461 case reports ― possibly, because the physician did not ask, or the woman did not volunteer the information."

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/...sheets/wsw.htm

Plus, lesbianism (without any male contact) has it's own subset of medical risks and consequences higher than normal hetero populations...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ijjq8...el_video_title

Health Care Providers and Researchers Overlook Young Women who have sex with Women, Despite Risk Factors…

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/ind...552&Itemid=177

See also pages 5-6 in the following pdf under title, “Female Homosexual Behavior”…

http://www.corporateresourcecouncil....alth_Risks.pdf

Lesbians and cervical cancer…

Compared to normal women, lesbians may be at greater risk for HPV and cervical cancer due to health and lifestyle factors associated with poor overall health. Women who have sex with women can contract the virus from an infected partner in the same ways normal women can, including through genital-to-genital contact, touching the genitals of a partner and then one’s own, or sharing sex toys without cleaning them properly first. (Brown, J.B., Tracy, J.K. Lesbians and cancer: an overlooked health disparity. Cancer Causes Control, 19, 2008. p. 1009-1020.)

Women caught up in lesbianism/homosexuality are More Likely Than U.S. Women Overall to Have Risk Factors for Gynecologic and Breast Cancer:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3318301.html

Bacterial Vaginosis has mutated to a STD among women choosing lesbianism
New York Medical Center – National Institute of Health
1995 Dec 21
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8749623

Chlamydia trachomatis infection in increasing women who have sex with women CT growing women caught up in lesbianism/homosexuality. Allergy and Infectious Diseases, U. of Washington – National Institute of Health. Aug 19, 2010
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20724697

http://www.centerforhealthtraining.o...s/CT%20WSW.pdf

“…though most are unaware of their infection, according to a new report. Nearly half the women (46%) were seropositive for HSV-1, the report indicates, and 7.9% were seropositive for HSV-2.” ‘Herpes Simplex Virus Infections Common Among Lesbians.’
Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 02 January 2004

http://www.urotoday.com/component/je...bians-694.html

“We demonstrated a higher prevalence of BV, hepatitis C, and HIV risk behaviors in women who have sex with women compared with controls.” 'Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviors in women who have sex with women’
Sydney Sexual Health Centre, Sydney Hospital, Australia
National Institute of Health Sex Transm Infect. 2001 Oct
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

“A lesbian couple in a monogamous relationship each presented with vaginal discharge demonstrable on culture to contain Trichomonas vaginalis.” ‘Sexually acquired metronidazole-resistant trichomoniasis in a lesbian couple.‘
Directorate of Medicine, Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust, UK
National Institute of Health, 1996 Feb
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8...?dopt=Abstract

“There is a significantly higher prevalence of PCO and PCOS in lesbian compared with heterosexual women. Lesbian women with either PCO or PCOS had more pronounced hyperandrogenism than did heterosexual women with either PCO or PCOS.” ‘Prevalence of polycystic ovaries and polycystic ovary syndrome in lesbian women compared with heterosexual women.’ The London Women’s Clinic and The Hallam Medical Center, London, United Kingdom.
National Institute of Health, 2004 Nov
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15533359

“HSV-2 infection occurs in nearly 1 in 10 lesbians and is not predicted by report of sex with men or sexual identity. Most lesbians infected with HSV-2 are not aware of their infection. Sexual transmission of HSV-1 may occur more frequently among lesbians than among heterosexual women.” ‘Prevalence and risk factors for infection with herpes simplex virus type-1 and -2 among lesbians.’
Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
National Institute of Health 2003 Dec
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2015   #19
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 61
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Love Wins!

While HIV is predominately caused and spread by men who have sex with men:
In 2011, an astonishing and tragic 94.9 percent of HIV diagnoses among teenage boys (13-19-years-old) were linked to homosexual (“male-to-male”) sex. And 94.1 percent of the cases among young men ages 20-24 were from “gay” sex....

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistic...dolescents.pdf

Persons caught up in homosexual practice have almost 50 times the odds of HIV infection than did the reference population.

Men with biological sex confusion (aka. Transgender) have an HIV infection rate 50 times higher...

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...326-2/abstract

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/transgender/


, the "HIV/AIDs" epidemic of lesbianism is the emotional upheaval and psychological illness...

Lesbian couples have the highest rates of domestic violence compared to any other type of couple.

Confirmed by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence...

http://www.uncfsp.org/projects/userf...Fact_Sheet.pdf

And there are even more studies that were conducted that back this up:

- Among lesbians, a 1985 study by Gwat-Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier reported that slightly more than half of 1,109 respondents had been abused by a woman partner in their lifetime. (Gwat-Yong Lie & S. Gentlewarrier. Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications, p. 46 (1991) 15 Journal of Social Service Research The Haworth Press)

Several other studies seem to support these findings as well:

- Coleman's 1990 study of 90 lesbians, for example, reported that 46.6% had experienced repeated acts of violence. (Coleman, V. The Relationship Between Personality and the Perpetration of Violence, Internet, Abstracted from Violence and Victims, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1994)

- Ristock's 1994 survey of 113 lesbians reported that 41% been abused in at least one relationship with another woman. (Ristock, J., And Justice for All?...The Social Context of Legal Responses to Abuse in Lesbian Relationships, (1994) 7 Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 420)


- A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships.

The researchers found that 90% of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31% reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse. (Lettie L. Lockhart et al., "Letting out the Secret:Violence in Lesbian Relationships," pp. 469-492 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994))

- A study of lesbian couples reported (2000) in the Handbook of Family Development and Intervention "indicates that 54 percent had experienced 10 or more abusive incidents, 74 percent had experienced six or more incidents, 60 percent reported a pattern to the abuse, and 71 percent said it grew worse over time." (William C. Nichols, et al, editors, Handbook of Family Development and Intervention, p. 393 (New York:John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2000))


Studies of other populations in the LGBT "community" have documented even higher rates of abuse over respondents' lifetimes:

- The Portland, OR based Survivor Project's 1998 Gender, Violence, and Resource Access Survey of transgender and inter sex individuals found that 50% of respondents had been raped or assaulted by a romantic partner, even though only 62% of these individuals identified themselves as "survivors" of domestic violence when asked. (Courvant, Diana and Loree Cook-Daniels, 'Trans and Intersex Survivors of Domestic Violence: Defining Terms, Barriers, & Responsibilities', www.survivorproject.org/defbarresp.html.)

Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence:
Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey...

http://www.nij.gov/pubs-sum/181867.htm

Even as they are the most under-reported, lesbian couples continue to have the highest rates of domestic abuse and violence than any other couple, especially later in life as they have to confront the real world with real world responsibilities.

A romanticized/sexualized relationship between two women is much more prone to excessive intensity, lack of privacy, and a strong tendency for psychological fusion with a followed loss of the sense of one's separate feelings, and an inability to express or tolerate differences. (Enmeshment...loss of boundaries). The requirement of sensitive mutual understanding may inhibit healthy aggression, and a trend toward a suffocating exclusivity.

The following is a pro-homosexual site that covers the DV rate, and see their bullet points on the nature of domestic violence occurrences with same sex couples...

http://www.ncavp.org/issues/DomesticViolence.aspx

Even as more states have legalized same sex "marriage" and society is becoming more and more "gay" affirming, domestic violence rates has risen an average of 15% since 2008 in persons who live the homosexual lifestyle and embrace the so-called LGBT identity (so much for "homophobia)...

http://www.enewspf.com/index.php/lat...ion-nationally

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 08-08-2015 at 06:44 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2015   #20
foxyphoenix
Ubi dubium, ibi libertas.
 
foxyphoenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nature
Age: 30
Posts: 4,373
Rep Power: 106
foxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Love Wins!


Clearly child abuse.

Consenting adults should be allowed to marry any other consenting adult that they want to. Marriage started (before Christianity existed) as a patriarchal business transaction but has evolved into a social status expressing love and legal status expressing commitment, which is why gay people want to share it. There is no biological definition of marriage; if there were, our species' most natural state and that of our closest relatives is polygamy, so still not the "one man one woman" idea.

Yes, everyone used to have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Now everyone has the right to marry someone of the same sex, too. Everyone gained rights!

No one should be forced to stay in a relationship if they don't want to. No one should be forced to have sex if they don't want to (even if they are married), and no one should be forced to stay in a sexless relationship (but they should leave it, not force sex on their partner). No one should be forced to have children if they don't want to, even if their spouse does. No one should be forced to stay in a childless relationship if they don't want to (but, again, you can't force your partner to reproduce-- find a new relationship). Children do not have a right to their biological parents, a right to a mother, or a right to a father. We don't force single parents to marry to fill this supposed void, nor do we force biological parents to raise their own children.

With regard to my relationship's equality: we split bills based on percentage of income earned. If I earn 66% of the income that month, I pay 66% of the bill-- we pay according to our means. He has his own job, bank accounts, and credit card. If he wants to leave, he would be able to support himself. He wouldn't be stuck with me through legal, financial, or reproductive means. If he wants to father a child, he's free to leave and find someone to do that with. If hell freezes over and I want to have a child, he is not obligated to have one against his will. We are equal partners with equal stake and equal rights in the relationship, and we've been happy for seven years already.

You are welcome to have your own ideas for your own relationship(s), but it's horrid to expect society to follow your ideas of "natural" families as the only valid family unit, of heterosexual love as the only valid form of love, and of procreation as the only valid goal of marriage. Not everyone shares your religious beliefs and they should not be forced to live under your religion's rules. I am not a Christian, so I can have all of the enjoyable, non-procreative, unmarried, consensual sex I want to.

I also enjoy the fact that you're pointing out your own key ideas to posts; perhaps you are getting help constructing your inane arguments. My "shallow" ideas of equality are not limited to the US, nor are they restricted to women's rights and LGBT rights. I think everyone should be allowed to worship as they want to, provided that their worship does not infringe on others. I think some courts are currently biased towards women with regard to custody, alimony, and child support, and that should be corrected. I think parents (regardless of sex or biological relation to the child) should have paid family leave time for birth or adoption. I think the draft should be abolished. I think the death penalty should be abolished. I think people should be allowed to sterilize themselves for any reason. I think people should be able to divorce their spouse for any reason. I think every person should have an education, including comprehensive sex education. I think people should be paid living wages. I think everyone has the right to health care, and that single-payer systems are the best medically and economically. I think everyone should have access to contraception and should be allowed to use it. I oppose discrimination based on race, gender, sex, sexuality, and socioeconomic status.

I think you're free to have your own opinions, but I'm also free to point out how discriminatory and disjointed they are.

P.S. I have other social media accounts but I'm not copy/pasting from them and spamming the forum (it's really, really lame to quote yourself and then call it a "must read"). It's cute that you've deleted your Twitter and made your Disqus private. Taking your last name off your Barbwire profile is also key to avoiding detection. $45 for Planned Parenthood!
__________________
o.O

"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
-
Carl Sagan

"It is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance."
-
Charles Darwin

"What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of the spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected."
-
Chief Seattle

Almost Smart Store


Last edited by foxyphoenix; 08-08-2015 at 11:44 PM.
foxyphoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Listen to it enough, and it will literally make you stupid Funk*Sonic*7 Music 23 05-28-2007 12:47 AM
A simple love to give.. Mr Stabby Writer's Corner 9 08-17-2005 12:10 PM
My German Love Pup hai Jay Jokes & Comedy 13 10-13-2004 12:19 PM
love tynie General 29 06-04-2004 05:02 AM
Where is the love? StaticBUrnOut89 Debate & Politics 5 12-07-2003 12:53 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2006, Almost Smart