NationStates Jolt Archive

Are you for or against it?

Personally I am against it. Heterosexuality is unnatural, going aginst humans instinctive urges to procreate to help forward the species. If a man is tied down to one woman, he can't spread his manseed as widely, and ensure the continuation of his genetics.

Relationships are intended for mutual benefit and enjoyment (that's not a word, is it? What word am I looking for there?), heterosexual marriage can never be perfect, and goes against the intentions of relationships and therefore it is not valid.

Your thoughts?

pushing the copy cat threads a little but I will allow one more:

I do agree having heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman is redundant I see no reason why people can’t be more...creative with there life partners:D

Are you for or against it?

Personally I am against it. Heterosexuality is unnatural, going aginst humans instinctive urges to procreate to help forward the species. If a man is tied down to one woman, he can't spread his manseed as widely, and ensure the continuation of his genetics.

Relationships are intended for mutual benefit and enjoyment (that's not a word, is it? What word am I looking for there?), heterosexual marriage can never be perfect, and goes against the intentions of relationships and therefore it is not valid.

Your thoughts?

Your disloyal to the human race, if herosexual marraige was banned the birthrate would plummet and we'd all grow old and die as we become fewer and fewer until we're extinct. Ad your being unpolitically correct.

Your disloyal to the human race

here is me caring-

oh wait I don't silly me :)

Your thoughts?

COPYPASTA!!!

There would be even more STDs. :eek:

Your disloyal to the human race, if herosexual marraige was banned the birthrate would plummet and we'd all grow old and die as we become fewer and fewer until we're extinct. Ad your being unpolitically correct.

I think you're taking a far too two-dimensional POV on that post. They were clearly advocating ALL forms of human relationship. Same-sex, opposite-sex, polyamory, etc. and as far as I'm concerned the world is dangerously overpopulated anyway. We could use a good die off:p

There would be even more STDs. :eek:

STI do keep up

Absolutely, In fact I think that I would support a UN resolution implementing this ban.

Your disloyal to the human race, if herosexual marraige was banned the birthrate would plummet and we'd all grow old and die as we become fewer and fewer until we're extinct. Ad your being unpolitically correct.

There would be even more STDs. :eek:

Actually, I read that in some Western countries, a large minority of births are out of wedlock now, so people aren't taking advantage of the spiritual and economic benefits of traditional marriage anyway. And I didn't know that wearing a wedding ring kept you safe from STDs.

Personally I am against it. Heterosexuality is unnatural, going aginst humans instinctive urges to procreate to help forward the species. If a man is tied down to one woman, he can't spread his manseed as widely, and ensure the continuation of his genetics.
Do you mean "homosexuality"? You seem to be making a rather weak case, otherwise. Wikipedia has this to say:
Heterosexuality refers to sexual and romantic attraction between individuals of the opposite sex.
I see no way how this goes against procreation to help forward the species.

And I didn't know that wearing a wedding ring kept you safe from STDs.

Well, people who are legitmately monogomous know their partner's history and all that jazz.

If it were a free for all, people who normally would be in the relatively safe monogomous relationships would now be in the more risky multiple partner relationships. You get the spread of STDs or STIs to the group of people who normally would not be at such a high risk for them.

It seems all the people here boycotting hertero marriage want to put humanity to a horrible slow end....:( Either by extinction, disease or both. Not to mention crimes involving sex are going to be gruesome so the suicide rate would go up. I'm tempted to call the idea of boycotting heterosexual marriage genocide. :eek:

How old is the Human race?
How old is the institution of marrige? Okay, so what was a good enough system to take a relatively small breeding group from which all several billion humans alive today decended is now the system that will spell our end?
I mean come on, genocide? Its a good thing you didnt carry through with your temptation, you might have killed me laughing.

Maybe it's marriage that's a bad idea. Everyone complains about it.

You fail at making a comparison.

Your disloyal to the human race, if herosexual marraige was banned the birthrate would plummet and we'd all grow old and die as we become fewer and fewer until we're extinct. Ad your being unpolitically correct.

If we don't ban heterosexual marriage we will overpopulate, this will be followed by mass extinction.

Mattorn;12086565']Do you mean "homosexuality"? You seem to be making a rather weak case, otherwise. Wikipedia has this to say:

I see no way how this goes against procreation to help forward the species.



This thread is (literally, I mean) a joke. It is designed to mock Criik's thread on homosexuality.

If we don't ban heterosexual marriage we will overpopulate, this will be followed by mass extinction.

Death by AIDS or death by starvation...hmmm.... and the population can be controlled regaurdless of marriage. At least starving is less painful than being eaten alive by microbes because your system can't fight back. And also not that you would be infringing on hetero rights, hypocritical! Besides why get AIDS or starve when so many wars are going on? Just vote Republican. (blah) and they'll do plenty to get us all killed without having us die from STD epidemics. :p And if you want to control population growth why choose the most painful way to do it?

Mattorn;12086565']Do you mean "homosexuality"? You seem to be making a rather weak case, otherwise. Wikipedia has this to say:

I see no way how this goes against procreation to help forward the species.

NSGeneral Commons Sense also has this to say

This thread is a joke...maybe...depends on how much cherry pie you can eat out of your modem

And if you want to control population growth why choose the most painful way to do it?

Because you touch yourself at night.

I think you're taking a far too two-dimensional POV on that post. They were clearly advocating ALL forms of human relationship. Same-sex, opposite-sex, polyamory, etc. and as far as I'm concerned the world is dangerously overpopulated anyway. We could use a good die off:p

Nonsense! We need younger folks to take care of us when we get too old to take care of ourselves! :eek:

Wasn't the troll fed sufficiently in the other thread? Must a new thread for it to come to and be fed some more be started?

"Heterosexual" Marriage ?

Is there another kind ? :rolleyes:

pushing the copy cat threads a little but I will allow one more:

I do agree having heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman is redundant I see no reason why people can’t be more...creative with there life partners:D:eek:
I think we found a Puppet of a Mod... so who are you? :p


nah, I'm for Heterosexual Marriage... after all, if a man can't please one woman, why get two or more pissed off at him. :D

"Heterosexual" Marriage ?

Is there another kind ? :rolleyes:Harem...
Polygamy...
Beastiality...

Your disloyal to the human race, if herosexual marraige was banned the birthrate would plummet and we'd all grow old and die as we become fewer and fewer until we're extinct. Ad your being unpolitically correct.

Ever heard of cloning? If they did it in Star Wars, they can do it here! :p

Because you touch yourself at night.

Since I don't, your argument has just been rendered useless, because it doesn't answer my question and its false.

Ever heard of cloning? If they did it in Star Wars, they can do it here!

Whats the point if we all have and AIDs epidemic and die, banning hetero marraige is just not worth it, too much pain and waste of resources. At least with hetero marriage around people could legally make more people and enjoy doing it, with the bonus that nature does the creating for you and you don't need to waste a million dallars on a clone who will just die of STDs. :p

Banning heterosexual marriage won't put a dent in birthrates. People are sexual creatures, and because sex outside of marriage is a sin, only liberals and other non-religious fanatics will reproduce, making the world a better place.

I fail to see the downside.

Banning heterosexual marriage won't put a dent in birthrates. People are sexual creatures, and because sex outside of marriage is a sin, only liberals and other non-religious fanatics will reproduce, making the world a better place.

I fail to see the downside.

You know hetero marriage was designed to prevent STDs,

a) allowing homo marraige defeats the point and boosts STDs

b)people who have sex out of hetero marriage get STDs from hookers and such

c) Liberals and non religios fanatics tend to care more for themselves and will get tons of abortions, leaving us back where we were.

d) And this just proves my point that liberals want to exterminate all non-liberals :(

Are you for or against it?

Personally I am against it. Heterosexuality is unnatural, going aginst humans instinctive urges to procreate to help forward the species. If a man is tied down to one woman, he can't spread his manseed as widely, and ensure the continuation of his genetics.

Relationships are intended for mutual benefit and enjoyment (that's not a word, is it? What word am I looking for there?), heterosexual marriage can never be perfect, and goes against the intentions of relationships and therefore it is not valid.

Your thoughts?

u know what my thoughts are, i think some one -NO NAMES MENTIONED- has smoke a few to many joints and should go boil there filthy head :upyours:

Mattorn;12086565']Do you mean "homosexuality"? You seem to be making a rather weak case, otherwise. Wikipedia has this to say:

I see no way how this goes against procreation to help forward the species.

Simple. Say a man and a woman are married. The man is expected to only get jiggy with the woman, and vice-versa. However, if said man and woman are not married, the man can operate his swizzle-stick with any willing woman, and vice-versa for the woman, therefore increasing both's chances of getting pregnant or impregnating someone.

You know hetero marriage was designed to prevent STDs,

Okay... this is a new one. Not really sure how to respond to that.

a) allowing homo marraige defeats the point and boosts STDs

Proof.

b)people who have sex out of hetero marriage get STDs from hookers and such

That's right. You either have sex with a spouse of the opposite sex, or you frequent hookers. *nodnod*

c) Liberals and non religios fanatics tend to care more for themselves and will get tons of abortions, leaving us back where we were.

Non religious fanatics care more for themselves... You can't possibly be trying to make a valid point here...
d) And this just proves my point that liberals want to exterminate all non-liberals :(

Of course. Why do you think we started the War on Terror?

It seems all the people here boycotting hertero marriage want to put humanity to a horrible slow end....:( Either by extinction, disease or both. Not to mention crimes involving sex are going to be gruesome so the suicide rate would go up. I'm tempted to call the idea of boycotting heterosexual marriage genocide. :eek:

We are


DOOOOOOOOOMED

Okay... this is a new one. Not really sure how to respond to that.



Proof.



That's right. You either have sex with a spouse of the opposite sex, or you frequent hookers. *nodnod*



Non religious fanatics care more for themselves... You can't possibly be trying to make a valid point here...


Of course. Why do you think we started the War on Terror?

Homo sex causes AIDS, homo marraige would encourage that thus defeating one of the health reasons to marraige.

And liberals and non-religious fanatics usually see nothing wrong with abortion so whether I'm right on their selfishness or not liberals won't populate the earth, they're just too wishy washy to withstand the excrutiating agony of childbirth, studies show that c-section births raise chances of miscarraige, death during periods, and prenetal emergencies that are often life threatening, in another pregnancy so most women would only be able to produce 1 child, so either liberal mothers would abort the child, or have it through the belly then suffer the medical problems listed above. (read it in a science magazine)

Your previous post before the one I quoted proves that liberals want all non liberals to either convert or die. Or you would have found the thought of all non liberals dying from the hetero marriage ban appalling rather than good.

You know hetero marriage was designed to prevent STDs,

Really? Then why do heterosexual couples have STDs? STDs aren't just for gays any more!

a) allowing homo marraige defeats the point and boosts STDs

Last I checked, marriage was monogamous. IF homosexuals marry, they too would be in such a relationship. Further, there is no proof that sexuality is a determining factor if someone is going to have an STD or not.

b)people who have sex out of hetero marriage get STDs from hookers and such

Pulling your facts out of your ass now, are you?

c) Liberals and non religios fanatics tend to care more for themselves and will get tons of abortions, leaving us back where we were.

Darn, then I guess overpopulation wouldn't be a problem then.

Further, getting an abortion for anyone is a hard decision to make, even for a liberal. While a liberal has no fundamental problem with the abortion itself, they would be weary because it is a child that they are carrying and they are making a life-altering decision, just as if they choose to carry the child instead.

d) And this just proves my point that liberals want to exterminate all non-liberals :(

Two questions... what are you smoking and where can I get some?

Homo sex causes AIDS, homo marraige would encourage that thus defeating one of the health reasons to marraige.

Proven wrong. Homosexual relations do NOT cause AIDS. AIDS is a byproduct of HIV, which can be transmitted in many ways, and shockingly, through heterosexual sex as well as through blood transfusions, sharing of needles...

It's no longer just for gays!

But, if the purpose of marriage is for health, then shouldn't gays get married in the first place, so they stay healthy as well?

And liberals and non-religious fanatics usually see nothing wrong with abortion so whether I'm right on their selfishness or not liberals won't populate the earth, they're just too wishy washy to withstand the excrutiating agony of childbirth, studies show that c-section births raise chances of miscarraige, death during periods, and prenetal emergencies that are often life threatening, in another pregnancy so most women would only be able to produce 1 child, so either liberal mothers would abort the child, or have it through the belly then suffer the medical problems listed above. (read it in a science magazine)

Nice run-on sentence. Don't be afraid to use punctuation, or is that another byproduct of liberalism you refuse to embrace because it'll make you "wishy-washy"?

Let me guess, this "science" magazine was put out by your church?

While c-sections do increase the chance, it doesn't mean it'll always happen. Further, c-sections are done in the event that the child is unable to come through the birth canal for numerous reasons. I know I was too big to come out that way, so I was born through a c-section because it would have been impossible for me to have been born the traditional way.

Exactly how does one die from their periods? Bleeding is a natural part of the menstration cycle.

Give me a link to prove this.

Pre-natal emergencies that are threatening aren't limited to subsequent pregnancies that follow one that ended in a c-section or abortion. They can happen the first time around, or after a previous pregnancy.

Miscarriage can happen for reasons, such as the mother is under a certain BMI, which prevents the egg from nesting well in the uterus, or there is trauma dealt to the unborn child, or any number of reasons. Having previously aborted an unborn baby is one of many, many reasons. It is not the sole reason.

Again. I demand a link, and it should come from a real medical source, such as a university or a site that deals with medicine and not some site with a political agenda or religious bias.

"Liberal" mothers can have more than one child, but, many decide not to. Why? Because it is better to nuture one or two children so that they grow up being respectable citizens rather than having a dozen and having to spread your attention so thin that many feel ignored.

There are also economic clime reasons why "liberals" have fewer children. They want their children to have more out of life.

Now, I'm not saying "conservatives" don't want the same, I'm merely defending liberals here.

Given the right conditions and assurances that they can get support, liberals would have more children. Such as universal childcare, tax benefits, anything that eases the financial burden of having more mouths to feed, and backs to clothe.

Your previous post before the one I quoted proves that liberals want all non liberals to either convert or die. Or you would have found the thought of all non liberals dying from the hetero marriage ban appalling rather than good.
Putting a dent in birthrates is a viable way to control population.

It's better to have fewer people and more resources than to put a strain on non-renewable resources simply because people think that humans come first and that the rest of the planet will keep up.

The planet has limited resources and we have to respect it.

"Heterosexual" Marriage ?

Is there another kind ? :rolleyes:

Depends on the country

Are you for or against it?

Personally I am against it. Heterosexuality is unnatural, going aginst humans instinctive urges to procreate to help forward the species. If a man is tied down to one woman, he can't spread his manseed as widely, and ensure the continuation of his genetics.

Heterosexuality =/= monogamy.


Relationships are intended for mutual benefit and enjoyment (that's not a word, is it? What word am I looking for there?), heterosexual marriage can never be perfect, and goes against the intentions of relationships and therefore it is not valid.

Mutual benefit and enjoyment =/= perfection.

Your thoughts?
The Montoya Principle must be invoked numerous times, here. You keep using certain words, but I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

"Heterosexual" Marriage ?

Is there another kind ? :rolleyes:

Marriage between homosexuals is legal in several countries. As are groupmarriages, which can have elements of bisexuality in them.

Homo sex causes AIDS

Wow, I didn't tihnk anyone believed that crap anymore. The things one can learn on the intarwebs.