Crush...Yiff...Destroy!

Tailgunner · Coadjutor Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Posts: 161

Link: What do you think?

Discuss.
:}

Dogthing · Coadjutor Joined: 26 Oct 2003 Posts: 207

I'm a cold, blackhearted republican, and oil is pulsing through my veins even as we speak. But I am strongly, strongly in favor of gay marriage. I don't even think there should be any arguement over it, it's their basic right as human beings.

The same with abortion. I'm strongly pro-choice also. I'm still not sure how this coincides with my political choice, I'm still trying to figure that one out. :?

Wayd Wolf · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 456

The majority of Americans aren't ready to go along with gay marriage and don't see gay couplings as the same as marriage. They see marriage as inherently male to female. Legislation from the bench in the form of activist judges, a very small minority crusading noisily to make people think they're the majority, and so on won't change that.

No matter what anyone wants to say about religion, marriage plays a very important part in human society in society recognizing the basic place mating and reproduction holds in the continuance of the species.

No matter what anyone wants to say about fairness, it can hardly be held as fair to force something this unpalatable down so many throats against their will for no better reason than to make a political point.

If this was a matter of life and death or on the level of slavery, it would be something in need of remedy come Hell or high water. It's not however, and can't be made to look that way no matter what the invective.

Neither though is this a battle for the soul of humanity as some would have it. Gay couplings have been happening forever and we're still here.

What this seems to me to be about is an artificially created minority allowing some very noisy and self-centered activists to drag their entire group into the spotlight once again, knowing very well that theirs is a group defined by behaviour and not genetics/religion/etc. and a set of behaviours that the majority seem to have an inherent deep-seated distaste for. This results in the entire group being put up to ridicule by those who oppose and to unearned saintliness by those who favor.

What's next? Do bisexuals who have three-way relationships get a new classification of marriage for three-way couplings?

And then transexuals who get to be both bride and groom?

Then what? People who want to marry their horse? Don't laugh. That is EXACTLY where it goes. You may think being gay is one step removed from being straight. Well the horse fuckers think being a zoophile is one step from being gay. If straights are wrong and gays have a right to marriage, then why would gays be wrong and say zoophiles can't marry their animal sweetheart? If straights can't claim any special status with regard to marriage, no one else can either.

It will not stop there. It never does. If I were gay, I wouldn't want to be the one who opens the floodgates because once they're open, forget all the special goodies that some people want so bad like tax breaks. They'll be eliminated because everyone can marry anyone or anything because they say so and with nothing stronger to bind them than that.

Straights at least have biology on their side. No other sort of coupling produces babies and gays should be happy as passing an infant out one's ass sounds pretty painful; popping a baby out one's schlong sounds even less like fun. We should all be happy regarding zoophiles as some of today's kids hanging at the mall are ugly enough on purpose by way of their manner of dress never mind having half-cow ancestry though some of the kids working the food court do seem to be part jackass. I don't want to even think about the Purina Baby Chow or the wide variety of diaper designs we'd be subjected to hearing about from Huggies.

Those who favor not just civil unions but actually changing the definition of marriage which is a societal recognition of mating which brings about reproduction and continuance of humanity, need to be very careful here. If society no longer gives special recognition to mating and reproduction, all bets are off. We already make it way too easy for empty insincere and almost accidental marriages like Brittney Spears' fling and the way too easy multiple divorces of people like Liz Taylor. If we eliminate the basic definition of marriage, then we don't need to even have divorces. We might as well forgo the recognition of any and all couplings as we're well on our way to making them as ephemeral as ethics among furries.

Now, some will say anyone who is against gay marriage is in favor of things like Matthew Shephard being killed. Hardly. Civil unions? You want the city to say they see you as a couple, well fine by me. But marriage? Marriage is about mating and babies. I already think that getting married and divorced is too easy as it is; it's already way too misused. I'm not going to get behind the final nail in marriage's coffin though. I'll let Liza Minelli do that.

In the end, this is more of the same old same old from a small minority of a small minority, parading their insecurity and power hunger, trying to shove their sexual preferences in the faces of a public which tries very hard not to care in the first place, instead not being satisfied with live and let live, but wanting total unyielding steel-grip embrace and psychotic devotion at all times.

Not enough to not care who fucks who or what, the public is going to be made to deal with who fucks who or what and the harder the public tries to turn away and ignore them, the louder and more obnoxious they get. I don't want to watch my straight neighbors fucking any more than my gay neighbors. But at least if my straight neighbors try to force it in my face, I can have them hauled away for indecency and harassment. In the case of gay activists shoving their genitals in my face, I have to "accept them" with rabid fervor or I'm intolerant.

Now this marriage thing. Well if they get their way, they're in the same position as the man who conquered the world and having nothing further to conquer wept: there's nothing past that point to seize and when we're all truly "equal" we will have absolutely no reason to "tolerate" or "accept" them any more and be free to finally and at long last totally ignore them which we've being trying to do for more years than we care to think about, as it has been a tremendous burden when we could have been ignoring much more important people like our wives.

(Well, nothing but infidelity, arguing over bills, divorce, community property settlements, etc. Are you sure you want this whole mess? Just because you're not worrying about arguing with children over their bedtime doesn't mean you're not going to end up feeling like you've just been schtupped with a steel-belted sandpaper condom. Two adults are all that's necessary to inflict some real pain. Add the weight of law and you've got some real suffering coming. Don't say you weren't warned.)

Hey kids, just because I don't want to legalize gay marriage doesn't mean I want to persecute you either. I don't want to know if you exist in the first place, and that goes for straight people too. I can barely find interest to ponder my own existance sometimes. I only just slightly recognize my own family on a daily basis. What makes you so worthy of me finding the energy to overlook you despite your repeated attempts at getting noticed? Knock it off already. You're acting like furries or goth kids at the mall. Just go live your lives already and leave me to mine.

Sternstein Delphin · Recusant Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 8

You want my opinion? My opinion is that the state shouldn't stick its cock into the marriage business in the first place. Who in the fuck do they think they are? Sheesh, I'm even against tax breaks to the sterility impaired. In fact, I almost think that there should be an extra tax tacked on for adding to everyone else's burden with your spawn. However, I'm also heartily ill of seeing the religious fucktarts having their way with society, calling us amoral while they're beating up faggots, shooting doctors, and kicking the shit out of their own children. Fuck that shit. Anything that scores a hit against the religious reactionaries is okay with me.

Sternstein Delphin · Recusant Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 8

Besides, whether or not homosexuals should be able to attain marriage licenses should be strictly the business of homosexuals. What anyone else has to say is of little import.

Computolio · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 349

No starting any off-topic political discussion threads. It's bad enough when an ON-topic thread goes political.