Who cares about some one’s preference on where they stick their dick, as long as you’re not being ass raped you it’s all good. And is any one that scared of getting raped by a gay, I mean they’re gay, you’re a heterosexual male, if it comes down to it whip some ass (stop thinking like a gay).
People should just leave their sexual preference where it belongs, in their bedrooms, swinger clubs, or chicken coops… Goes for straight people as well, I’m all for the gorgeous girls in the world, but I could care less to hear about your conquering of some hot blond bimbo, call me old fashioned, but I have zero interest in living vicariously through your sex life.
And on marriage, marriage should be between anyone who want’s to marry another person, how many heterosexual couples can’t even make it past 6 months? The whole idea that marriage is a sacred commitment between a man & woman is BS. It’s going down to the court and getting a paper signed, and maybe just maybe paying for an asian Elvis impersonator.
One more thing, married couples should get no more or no less federal assistance than a single person. Why the fuck does being married all of the sudden entitle you to extra benefits from the government? Same goes with children, can’t afford’em with out tax breaks, than don’t have em. It’s called responsibility, it’s not the governments job to make your hardships easier by subsidizing your childcare expenses.
If you don’t want the government in your bedroom, then keep your bedroom buggery out of Military public service.
Precisely, and it is the “in your face” component to all of this that raises my most strenuous objections. Sexuality is a private issue, and forcing one of the more controversial aspects of it occupy such a front-and-center position is counterproductive, to say the least. We’ve already got more than enough trouble dealing with the traditional male/female dynamic in the ranks, though I’m sure it is stepping across some kind of line to say so.
It gets worse: the GLBT agenda isn’t compatible with the keep-your-mouth-shut-and-serve approach, and we can look forward to years of activism in the ranks once this goes through. Think this stops at the incorporation of openly homosexual troops? Think again. You’re also going to get the bisexual and transsexual fringe element in the mix, as well as overt gay activism, because the road to progress in their view requires confrontation to the point of open acceptance.
And is any one that scared of getting raped by a gay, I mean they’re gay, you’re a heterosexual male, if it comes down to it whip some ass (stop thinking like a gay).
Disagreed with much of the associated post, but this statement, in particular, strikes me as rather naive. A traditional barracks scuffle involving a homosexual soldier would technically be a hate crime under current law. Think about that for a minute. Don’t think that infusing a group of people with such special protections willl have any effect upon unit cohesion, discipline and morale? You’re kidding yourself.
It was a joke for one, I really don’t think gays go around looking for straight guys. And on the whole morale allowing gays in the military, already a shit load of em in the military. People should just keep their private lives private and nobody would have a problem.
and the concept of marriage being between a man and a woman goes back even further than that. If they want to form a legal union within their culture, fine. Let them find their own word to define it. If they want to find a way within the system to protect the rights they share with their domestic cohabitants, fine. I do not propose hate or discrimination.
But if they want respect for their culture, they need to respect the culture of others. It is disrespectful to expect another culture to change the definition of something they have lived by since time began, in this case it’s the definition of marriage. Regardless of the fact that human beings are flawed and often screw up their marriages and other relationships. If we were to allow disrespect for something based on this analogy, we would not be required to respect anything, including the liberties listed in the amendments to the constitution and we would be subject to absolute tyranny.
As far as the source of the word lesbian, it has nothing to do with this discussion
Usually the best system of doing anything is the one that endures during the worst of times when survival dictates the structure of society. The traditional heterosexual family element is most common in cultures where everyone pulls their weight. Whether it be early settlers of North America, the early Roman Republic, or the tribal society of the Machiguenga and thousands of other modern day tribal peoples.
When it comes to civilizations, homosexual activity in society seems to gradually be more accepted during times of peace and prosperity. During these eras, society in general tends to drift from their religious and traditional beliefs in favor of earthly pleasures and relaxation. Birth rates dramatically decrease, government corruption increases, and society itself becomes more divided and weaker. For many societies, this is where they usually collapse under their own immorality, or a tyrant takes over to keep his subjects in check.
“Idle hands are the devil’s workshop.” -Earliest know reference is Chaucer’s Tale of Melibee in 1386
For you Libertarians: The moral/immoral influences of socieity will mold and build the minds and souls of our future leaders. How long will a nation last when the corrupted minds of our leaders find ways to exploit the system? Washington is currently being run by the anti-religious generation of the 1960s who defined themselves by their definance of tradition. How long before the immoral offspring of our society invade the TeaParty movement and find ways to get what they want?
…back on topic. Military units compromised only of men have been the main staple of effective military armies throughout history. Why?..because it is the best way to build an army. The elements of such armies are strong mental and physical individuals, and with as much uniformity as possible. Unformity in sex, appearance, modivations, and beliefs. Race really isn’t a big deal, its cultural, religious, and societal differences that screw things up and dissolves trust in the ranks.
Um, not really. Pretty much every ancient culture had open gay relationships including what would be defined as marriage, the biggest being the Greeks. You have to remember back around that time they didn’t have God’s who killed gays so they didn’t have a huge problem with it. It wasn’t until the Abrahamic religions spread through the regions that gay men became openly prosecuted for their sexual choices.
Look at Lot, instead of letting the gays come near the angels, he offered his daughters, of course he committed incest with them later, but that’s cool, he was still a righteous holy man. :rolleyes:
Uh, NO. The greeks did have a lot of homosexuality but nothing that was considered marriage. They also had marriage between men and women and they knew the difference between marriage and homosexual relationships which were often between men and boys and were not a form of marriage.
Again, gay marriage has never been practiced in a widespread fashion as marriage in any culture of note or civilization that I am aware of and the Greeks are not the answer. Their practice was much different.
Look at Lot, instead of letting the gays come near the angels, he offered his daughters, of course he committed incest with them later, but that’s cool, he was still a righteous holy man. :rolleyes:
I never said it was extensive. That doesn’t mean it didn’t exist.
And its amusing you think because what people did 3k years ago we should do that today. Should we also go back to the feudal system of land ownership and governance?
Exactly what makes something 3k years ago relevant today?
A few kings or emperors doing something you want to equate with marriage is irrelevant. The society did not adopt and practice it. There is a reason for this. It does not further the society’s interests.
And its amusing you think because what people did 3k years ago we should do that today. Should we also go back to the feudal system of land ownership and governance?
Exactly what makes something 3k years ago relevant today?
How exactly is your question relevant? There is a rhetorical term for your trying to distract with irrelevant questions but I am too dumb to remember what it is.
(And FYI, I did not bring up the Greeks – what I assume you are referring to for 3K years ago).
The evolution of society and what it develops as institutions to further its own interests and preserve itself is of great interest as it shows how things developed and why and why other things did not develop and are not positive influences in a society.
No its about you attempting to tell me what I can and cannot post. We already have mods and site staff running around telling people not to post their opinions because they don’t fit a certain mold. I don’t need you doing it, too.
I never said anything about raising kids. Where do you come up with this stuff? You’re good at putting words in people’s mouths, and basing your argument off something someone never said anything about. I never said gay marriage was wide spread or that gay marriage has anything to do with raising kids.
When you have something that has been handed down from civilization to civilization, society to society, for thousands of years, as a bedrock of civilization, you should be very very careful about messing with it. A tweak here or there but not a fundamental redefinition. You get lots of unintended consequences and really screw things up.
The question Im asking is why is it that you pick and choose one specific “quality” about ancient society, and say this is why we should do this today yet completely ignore the multitude of failures these same cultures practiced.
sorry to get you butt hurt. I was trying to keep this thread from devolving into what the last gay marriage thread was.
I never said anything about raising kids. Where do you come up with this stuff? You’re good at putting words in people’s mouths, and basing your argument off something someone never said anything about. I never said gay marriage was wide spread or that gay marriage has anything to do with raising kids.
then you said
so I responded as I did about kids. “Nuclear families” in a generic sense usually include kids. Not all marriages do, but many of them, probably a majority, do, and is the reason society came up with marriage as it did – to protect the family and raising of children
I am not picking one quality of society. I (actually not me, much smarter people than me) am (are) showing that what you call a quality of society comes down throughout time as a bedrock of practically all societies and civilizations and that we inherited that societal wisdom of the past on what works and protects society.
If society wants to start a new quality of society, call it “gay unions” and wants to try that out, giving gay partners legal claim on each other, that is fine. Let’s not kill marriage off in the name of experimentation.
The gay rights movement is not happy with that. As has been mentioned, their modus operandi is to be in your face to try and force people to accept their way of thinking and in fact to be preferred / special class. They want to flaunt it in public.
What they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is their business. Even walking down the street or whatever holding hands – ok, that is their business. But when they radicalize it and try to force people to accept it as normal – and most people, while ambivalent, are probably personally not accepting of it as normal, even if they are accepting of it as OK – that is not OK.