NationStates Jolt Archive

I think my head just exploded.

I was listening to my local talk station at work, and of course the topic was gay marriage.

This woman was introduced as the guest, who then started spouting off that homosexuals cannot marry, as they cannot reproduce, and everybody knows (and I quote) "The whole reason for getting married is to have children!"

Five minutes later I stopped sputtering.

I'm sure there are others here who can argue her position better than she could, but last time I checked couples were not required to take a fertility test while signing up for the Target gift registery.

Please, please tell me this ninny is in the minority.

Note: Checking for any web links to this program.

This ninny is in the minority. Most people think gays shouldn't marry because God said they shouldn't and if they do, the next thing you know, people will want to marry their pets or three dogs and four women and two men will want to get married and then Rick Santorum's daughter will cry on TV and ... see? It's a domino effect.

Didn't you know? That's why we don't let sterile people marry either. It's all Shakespeare's fault you know. His play "Romeo and Juliet" helped establish the silly notion that people should marry eachother out of love, of all things.

Didn't you know? That's why we don't let sterile people marry either. It's all Shakespeare's fault you know. His play "Romeo and Juliet" helped establish the silly notion that people should marry eachother out of love, of all things.

Love? Puh-lease! That's so 16th century.

This ninny is in the minority.

A vocal and increasingly recognized minority.

It's all Shakespeare's fault you know. His play "Romeo and Juliet" helped establish the silly notion that people should marry eachother out of love, of all things.

Yeah, and look how well things turned out for them.

It's only within the last 350 years or so that marriage has actually become a 'Big Deal'. People used this odd notion called 'love' to justify unions that would have been unacceptable in a previous age, and because of people in general's 'ZOMG T3H WUV QUTE H#PP1N3$$ LOL' mystified attitude they let it happen. Romeo and Juliet was revolutionary because at that time, as for the thousand-plus years before it, marriage had been a primarily political and religious union, as opposed to a romantic one. The idea of equality in marriage is even newer, being only about fifty or sixty years old.

The idea of marriage for reproduction only, as far as I know, has not been seen since... well, a very long time ago. And that was generally only among the lower classes, when they could even be bothered to get married. The upper classes, the "free men" of mediaeval times, married for political reasons only, and marriages were arranged. This woman is obviously suggesting that we are on the level of serfs. I'd recommend calling in and telling them she insulted you.

A vocal and increasingly recognized minority.

Man, that's disheartening.

I know a couple who has decided to not have children. I'm trying to do some research to see how this minority feels about adoption. Probably not too favorable, eh?

This argument always makes my head hurt; thankfully I don't hear it used very often. Whenever I hear someone use the "gays can't reproduce" argument, I want to smack them upside the head. Last time I checked, sterility wasn't part and parcel of being homosexual.

No offense to that person, but I want my marriage to be something a lot more meaningful and lasting than a breeding contract.

Yeah, and look how well things turned out for them.Imagine what it would have been like had they not been caught in a family feud...

No offense to that person, but I want my marriage to be something a lot more meaningful and lasting than a breeding contract.

Aye. I'm not particularly interested in being a stud either.

Aye. I'm not particularly interested in being a stud either.

Yeah, who cares about love or emotional fulfillment? Get out there and crank out kids like the animal you are!

Aye. I'm not particularly interested in being a stud either.
Well, you never will be with that kind of attitude. ;)

Yeah, who cares about love or emotional fulfillment? Get out there and crank out kids like the animal you are!

Well, if you insist... :(

Yeah, who cares about love or emotional fulfillment? Get out there and crank out kids like the animal you are!

And get me a beer while you're up, too!

Well, you never will be with that kind of attitude. ;)

Then everybody wins. ;)

Aye. I'm not particularly interested in being a stud either.

Imagine what it would be like to have a bunch of HotRodlets running around
:eek:

Imagine what it would be like to have a bunch of HotRodlets running around
:eek:

They'd be going ...

"I ban you!"
"No, I banned you first!"
"Did not!"
"Did too!"

They'd be going ...

"I ban you!"
"No, I banned you first!"
"Did not!"
"Did too!"Hereditary succession in moderators? That's a scary thought! :eek:

depending on what you mean by marraige.
a religious or cemonial marraige is supose to express ones love. this is only governed by the religions rules. be it allow gays, the under age or animals marry.

the function of the gov recognising marraige is to give benifits to child producing couples. as it sates in my consitution.

They'd be going ...

"I ban you!"
"No, I banned you first!"
"Did not!"
"Did too!"

Nah, those would be little Frisbeeterialets.

HotRodlets would be more like

Random passerby: "Look, a green car! See the green car?"
1 1/2 year old HotRodlet: "Do you mean the 1989 Blubjaguar 71 Special with the reinforced tires or that 2002 Pensington-Miturlgeffieceop Voyager with the chrome tortoiseshell hood ornament?"

That, and they'd love marionette theaters.

Imagine what it would be like to have a bunch of HotRodlets running around
:eek:

I already did. It wasn't pretty. :(

Edit: The post above mine shows exactly what I mean. :P

Nah, those would be little Frisbeeterialets.

HotRodlets would be more like

Random passerby: "Look, a green car! See the green car?"
1 1/2 year old HotRodlet: "Do you mean the 1989 Blubjaguar 71 Special with the reinforced tires or that 2002 Pensington-Miturlgeffieceop Voyager with the chrome tortoiseshell hood ornament?"

That, and they'd love marionette theaters.

:D

One thing that amuses me about the whole thing is the idea of "gays can't have children!"

Tell that to the very pregnant, very lesbian daughter of dick cheney.

Gays most certainly CAN have children, at best they have a lack of interest to engage in the physical activity that results in pregnancy in the usual fashion.

I find it baffling that when it comes to government telling people what to do, uberconservatives have no problem with the government being in the bedroom, the chapel, and many other seemingly private places, but Heaven forefend that government should be able to tell businesses they shouldn't pollute or executives they shouldn't collude.

Why is governmental regulation wrong to these people only if it interferes with profit? What are we, Ferengi?

I'm with Jimmy Durante, who, along with "hot-cha-chaaa", said:

"I wish that everyone would leave everyone else alone."

One thing that amuses me about the whole thing is the idea of "gays can't have children!"

Tell that to the very pregnant, very lesbian daughter of dick cheney.

Gays most certainly CAN have children, at best they have a lack of interest to engage in the physical activity that results in pregnancy in the usual fashion.

Which results in lower profits for, say, Victoria's Secret, the KY Corporation, the alcohol industry, and the thousands of other companies and industries geared primarily toward heterosexuality...:rolleyes:

Which results in lower profits for, say, Victoria's Secret, the KY Corporation, the alcohol industry, and the thousands of other companies and industries geared primarily toward heterosexuality...:rolleyes:

Not necessarily. Leaving aside the KY Corporation, my Lady and I certainly contribute to the lingerie and liquor industries.

And the Ferengi thing might explain Ann Coulter ... :eek:

for me it is about profit. government needs taz to buy shiney things. allowing gay marraige means less tax. leads to less shiney things. and duck. i'm all about the duck.

for me it is about profit. government needs taz to buy shiney things. allowing gay marraige means less tax. leads to less shiney things. and duck. i'm all about the duck.

Taz (http://www.grudge-match.com/Images/taz.gif)?

The Duck (http://edbatista.typepad.com/edbatista/images/2005/02/Daffy%20Duck.gif)?

Of course, I don't live in Ireland so I don't know what you're talking about, but in the US the current tax laws actually tax married couples at a higher rate than single people, so it would mean more tax revenue here.

Taz (http://www.grudge-match.com/Images/taz.gif)?

The Duck (http://edbatista.typepad.com/edbatista/images/2005/02/Daffy%20Duck.gif)?

Of course, I don't live in Ireland so I don't know what you're talking about, but in the US the current tax laws actually tax married couples at a higher rate than single people, so it would mean more tax revenue here.

ment to say tax.

didnt know that. dont you get tax benifits for being married? then why bother get your marraige recognised by the gov if its going to cost you money? ok then in the case os usa its grand. in ireland gay marraige goes against my duck plan.

I don't see why people are against gay marriage, and why we don't just tell those who are to go get a life. Gay's getting married is not affecting your personal happiness, life span, or well being in any way, and if it is, grow up. Morally offensive? I find religion morally offensive, but you don't see me trying to ban it, do you? Live and let live.

Which results in lower profits for, say, Victoria's Secret, the KY Corporation, the alcohol industry, and the thousands of other companies and industries geared primarily toward heterosexuality...:rolleyes:They're going to stop using paper from Endangered Forests now! :D

ment to say tax.

didnt know that. dont you get tax benifits for being married? then why bother get your marraige recognised by the gov if its going to cost you money? ok then in the case os usa its grand. in ireland gay marraige goes against my duck plan.

http://www2.uol.com.br/setonline/reportagens/imagens/208_goste_ou_morra_13.jpg

??

http://www2.uol.com.br/setonline/reportagens/imagens/208_goste_ou_morra_13.jpg

??

my duck plan is simple. eat duck daily. i really love duck.

I don't see why people are against gay marriage, and why we don't just tell those who are to go get a life. Gay's getting married is not affecting your personal happiness, life span, or well being in any way, and if it is, grow up. Morally offensive? I find religion morally offensive, but you don't see me trying to ban it, do you? Live and let live.

Bless you, you're not going to get anywhere around here being so reasonable. ;)

ment to say tax.

didnt know that. dont you get tax benifits for being married? then why bother get your marraige recognised by the gov if its going to cost you money? ok then in the case os usa its grand. in ireland gay marraige goes against my duck plan.

I know but I couldn't resist.

I think my head just exploded.

I was listening to my local talk station at work, and of course the topic was gay marriage.

This woman was introduced as the guest, who then started spouting off that homosexuals cannot marry, as they cannot reproduce, and everybody knows (and I quote) "The whole reason for getting married is to have children!"

Five minutes later I stopped sputtering.

I'm sure there are others here who can argue her position better than she could, but last time I checked couples were not required to take a fertility test while signing up for the Target gift registery.

Please, please tell me this ninny is in the minority.

Note: Checking for any web links to this program.


What other reason is there for a government to grant marriage rights and benefits at all? Why should the government care if two people decide to live together for the rest of their lives? As long as they pay their taxes, then the government shouldn't be involved, IF marriage was only about two adults.

However, marriage laws and benefits, rights and responsibilities, were and are devised and designed to protect the children of the union, to protect and encourage both parents rights to raise those progeny and to protect the rights of both adults should the other adult decide to skip out on their responsibilities. Why should a government encourage the institution of marriage? Because it is the most successful way of raising children so it is in the governments best interest to encourage it.

http://www.urban.org/publications/310499.html

To try and take children out of the equation sounds like self -deceptive double speak.

And NO, just because I recognize what marriage laws and benefits are best intended for child rearing endeavors that does not mean that that I said it had to be exclusively given to child rearing couples only. But the benefits and rewards of marriage from the governments point of view need to be fashioned around encouraging the raising of children or else it serves no purpose for the government. Without children, two adults living together or married together, represents no difference to the government, and neither should it.

What other reason is there for a government to grant marriage rights and benefits at all? Why should the government care if two people decide to live together for the rest of their lives? As long as they pay their taxes, then the government shouldn't be involved, IF marriage was only about two adults.

However, marriage laws and benefits, rights and responsibilities, were and are devised and designed to protect the children of the union, to protect and encourage both parents rights to raise those progeny and to protect the rights of both adults should the other adult decide to skip out on their responsibilities. Why should a government encourage the institution of marriage? Because it is the most successful way of raising children so it is in the governments best interest to encourage it.

http://www.urban.org/publications/310499.html

To try and take children out of the equation sounds like self -deceptive double speak.

And NO, just because I recognize what marriage laws and benefits are best intended for child rearing endeavors that does not mean that that I said it had to be exclusively given to child rearing couples only. But the benefits and rewards of marriage from the governments point of view need to be fashioned around encouraging the raising of children or else it serves no purpose for the government. Without children, two adults living together or married together, represents no difference to the government, and neither should it.
Not true. The government has more interests in married couples than any potential future babies they may or may not produce someday. Married couples buy more stuff when they combine their incomes. Married couples buy houses. New housing starts count for more government revenue that babies do. In fact, it's a specific annual economic indicator. More marriages = more house sales = more taxes and more loans = more economic activity. Married couples are major contributors to that. Even without ever having a baby.

So it is in the immediate interest of the government to allow as many people as possible to marry.

my duck plan is simple. eat duck daily. i really love duck.

http://www.riverblue.com/hughes/duckiebw.jpg
?!

What other reason is there for a government to grant marriage rights and benefits at all? Why should the government care if two people decide to live together for the rest of their lives? As long as they pay their taxes, then the government shouldn't be involved, IF marriage was only about two adults.

However, marriage laws and benefits, rights and responsibilities, were and are devised and designed to protect the children of the union, to protect and encourage both parents rights to raise those progeny and to protect the rights of both adults should the other adult decide to skip out on their responsibilities. Why should a government encourage the institution of marriage? Because it is the most successful way of raising children so it is in the governments best interest to encourage it.

http://www.urban.org/publications/310499.html

To try and take children out of the equation sounds like self -deceptive double speak.

And NO, just because I recognize what marriage laws and benefits are best intended for child rearing endeavors that does not mean that that I said it had to be exclusively given to child rearing couples only. But the benefits and rewards of marriage from the governments point of view need to be fashioned around encouraging the raising of children or else it serves no purpose for the government. Without children, two adults living together or married together, represents no difference to the government, and neither should it.

But, since people can easily have children without living as a couple, what's the point of the resulation at all?

I think my head just exploded.

I was listening to my local talk station at work, and of course the topic was gay marriage.

This woman was introduced as the guest, who then started spouting off that homosexuals cannot marry, as they cannot reproduce, and everybody knows (and I quote) "The whole reason for getting married is to have children!"

Five minutes later I stopped sputtering.

I'm sure there are others here who can argue her position better than she could, but last time I checked couples were not required to take a fertility test while signing up for the Target gift registery.

Please, please tell me this ninny is in the minority.

Note: Checking for any web links to this program.

Even scripture (Christian) doesnt support this thinking.
So the person on the radio was a ninny.

Romeo and Juliet was revolutionary because at that time, as for the thousand-plus years before it, marriage had been a primarily political and religious union, as opposed to a romantic one. The idea of equality in marriage is even newer, being only about fifty or sixty years old.


Romeo and Juliet wasn't even original. I mean, Ovid wrote the same basic story line more than a thousand years before that in Pyramus and Thisbe. A basic summary for those who haven't read it: A young boy and young girl meet and fall in love. Their parents forbid them from marrying or even speaking to one another. They sneak around to talk to each other- through a hole in the wall of their adjacent courtyards. They decide to meet in the middle of the night outside of the city. Thisbe arrives first. A lion comes-with blood on its mouth from a recently killed cow- and Thisbe runs away, leaving her veil behind. The lion smears blood all over the veil. Pyramus comes and finds the veil, jumps to conclusions, and stabs himself to death (Ovid used a funny simile there...he compared the blood coming out of his chest to water coming out of a leaking water pipe:)). Then Thisbe comes back from her hiding place in a nearby cave, sees him dead, and kills herself, too. The parents figure out what happen and put their ashes in the same urn.

That story wasn't even original then...I think it originated in Babylon much earlier than Ovid's time.

Romeo and Juliet wasn't even original. I mean, Ovid wrote the same basic story line more than a thousand years before that in Pyramus and Thisbe. A basic summary for those who haven't read it: A young boy and young girl meet and fall in love. Their parents forbid them from marrying or even speaking to one another. They sneak around to talk to each other- through a hole in the wall of their adjacent courtyards. They decide to meet in the middle of the night outside of the city. Thisbe arrives first. A lion comes-with blood on its mouth from a recently killed cow- and Thisbe runs away, leaving her veil behind. The lion smears blood all over the veil. Pyramus comes and finds the veil, jumps to conclusions, and stabs himself to death (Ovid used a funny simile there...he compared the blood coming out of his chest to water coming out of a leaking water pipe:)). Then Thisbe comes back from her hiding place in a nearby cave, sees him dead, and kills herself, too. The parents figure out what happen and put their ashes in the same urn.

That story wasn't even original then...I think it originated in Babylon much earlier than Ovid's time.
IIRC, Shakespeare only wrote three original storylines...All's Well That Ends Well, The Tempest, and one other...

IIRC, Shakespeare only wrote three original storylines...All's Well That Ends Well, The Tempest, and one other...

That's what I thought. They've always taught us in English class that he was a master at telling stories that other people already made up.

And I've learned so much from AP Latin this year. It makes me so happy.:)

That's what I thought. They've always taught us in English class that he was a master at telling stories that other people already made up.

And I've learned so much from AP Latin this year. It makes me so happy.:)
Well, his fame definatly doesn't come from the plots, but the characters and actual words spoken.

When you go to college, take a Shakespeare class. It's fun.

Well, his fame definatly doesn't come from the plots, but the characters and actual words spoken.

When you go to college, take a Shakespeare class. It's fun.

Yeah. I've loved what I've read of his works so far. I have a book with all of the plays in it, so I'll probably get to most of them eventually.

I'll probably consider it. I loved reading Lady Macbeth's part in AP English Language this year.

http://www.riverblue.com/hughes/duckiebw.jpg
?!

whos that?

Yeah. I've loved what I've read of his works so far. I have a book with all of the plays in it, so I'll probably get to most of them eventually.

I'll probably consider it. I loved reading Lady Macbeth's part in AP English Language this year.Romeo and Juliet done with Matrix style costumes and Usher for music...that was the most memorable thing of my class.

whos that?

Duckie from 16 candles.

Duckie from 16 candles.

havent seen it.