10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong

[Openmind]

The basis for evolution is survival value. One advantage for man is the opposable thumb. That's why cows aren't interested in Ipad's. You need two thumbs to operate them effectively.

A dog species has survival value if it can hunt or sniff stuff. The best sheep herding dogs were breed for that trait. That is artificial evolution. Your loving dog is probably here because it's progenitors probably didn't bite the hand that fed them.

Some dolphins are extremely intelligent, but in their history, they failed to learn how to operate laths, milling machines and punch presses. Therefore they could not invent the engine even though they sorely wanted to when they saw jet skis whizzing overhead.

On a more serious note, there were competitors to man's intelligence, why they became extinct is controversial. It could be genocide by the Homo Sapians, who are noteworthy for doing such things. Or it could be competition for the same resources for which we are also noteworthy.
There were many intelligent primates. Neanderthals died off fairly recently.

Homo Erectus (named after their erect stature, and not an erect body part) died off over a million years ago. They made simple tools such as screwdrivers and allen wrenches. For a perhaps fictional account of competition between intelligent species see Planet Of The Apes, episodes, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 9.

I think I read too much Science News.

I love your style. Nice to mix factual information with humor!

 

[Lagboltz]

I love your style. Nice to mix factual information with humor!

Thank you, I forgot to comment on Gipper's final paragraph,

Why have my wonderful loving dogs ..... write a great book like "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder?​

The reason is very obvious. Your dogs depend on you for all their social services such as a dog house (or living room sofa?), dog food and utilities. You probably coddle them more than the government does with social security. Face it. They are poor and taking advantage of the rich. I wouldn't be surprised if they wrote a book, "How I got Welfare for fr... Hey, lookat the Squirrel".

 

[PLC1]

Thank you, I forgot to comment on Gipper's final paragraph,

Why have my wonderful loving dogs ..... write a great book like "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder?​

The reason is very obvious. Your dogs depend on you for all their social services such as a dog house (or living room sofa?), dog food and utilities. You probably coddle them more than the government does with social security. Face it. They are poor and taking advantage of the rich. I wouldn't be surprised if they wrote a book, "How I got Welfare for fr... Hey, lookat the Squirrel".

LOL! Dogs are "liberals", no doubt.

You mean that Homo Erectus used only simple tools, like screwdrivers and allen wrenches? Who invented the power saw, was that homo habilis?

 

[Lagboltz]

LOL! Dogs are "liberals", no doubt.

You mean that Homo Erectus used only simple tools, like screwdrivers and allen wrenches? Who invented the power saw, was that homo habilis?

I believe you are right. In particular it was Leonardo Di Vinci. Here is a drawing of his power saw.

Here is a self portrait of Di Vinci.

 

[PLC1]

I believe you are right. In particular it was Leonardo Di Vinci. Here is a drawing of his power saw.

Here is a self portrait of Di Vinci.

Not bad for a homo habilis, huh? Isn't that the same Da Vinci who invented a helicopter?

 

[Openmind]

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

I just thought it was time to bring back this thread after a couple of years in the archives!

It's just too good to bury it forever. . .and we can all use some comic relief!

And. . .two years later. . . I wonder what the reaction will be (after the end of DADT, for exemple).

 

[Openmind]

Oooh what nonsense. No one is being stopped from getting married. Even here in conservative central Tx we have a couple churches that perform gay marriages on a regular basis.

Yes, but can they get all the same tax law "advantage?" Can their partner and their kids be treated by the law the same way (in term of inheritance etc. . .)?

In fact, until very recently, could the partner of a service man/woman receive the same widow/widower income if the loved one was killed in action?

I'm sure gay people don't need a "benediction" to know they love each other, and to treat each other as wife and wife/ husband and husband.

But can the rest of society do it without their union being LEGALIZED?

NO!

 

[PLC1]

I just thought it was time to bring back this thread after a couple of years in the archives!

It's just too good to bury it forever. . .and we can all use some comic relief!

And. . .two years later. . . I wonder what the reaction will be (after the end of DADT, for exemple).

Probably the same as it was the first time around, with those on the authoritarian side arguing against gay marriage, while those on the libertarian side argue for.

 

[dogtowner]

Yes, but can they get all the same tax law "advantage?" Can their partner and their kids be treated by the law the same way (in term of inheritance etc. . .)?

no and yes

 

[Openmind]

no and yes

Well, I guess that is a very clear and confident answer!

Worthy of the gay right opponents!

 

[dogtowner]

Well, I guess that is a very clear and confident answer!

Worthy of the gay right opponents!

Are tax laws the same. No. Marriage is a requirement for certain things.

Can be treated the same ala inheritance. Yes. With standard and freely available documents (that EVERYONE would be smart to use) this can be accomplished.

I'm glad that even the homosexual community leaders have dropped the pretense of committed loving couple to just admit they want the government benefits. You know, the money.

 

[Openmind]

Are tax laws the same. No. Marriage is a requirement for certain things.

Can be treated the same ala inheritance. Yes. With standard and freely available documents (that EVERYONE would be smart to use) this can be accomplished.

I'm glad that even the homosexual community leaders have dropped the pretense of committed loving couple to just admit they want the government benefits. You know, the money.

I don't see why the two can't be combined. You mean that, heterosexual couples ONLY want to get married for the government benefits? . . .or can they want to get married for love . . .and the fiscal advantages marriage provides?

It is EXACTLY the same with homosexual couples. . .
That's what "EQUAL RIGHTS" are all about.

 

[dogtowner]

I don't see why the two can't be combined. You mean that, heterosexual couples ONLY want to get married for the government benefits? . . .or can they want to get married for love . . .and the fiscal advantages marriage provides?

It is EXACTLY the same with homosexual couples. . .
That's what "EQUAL RIGHTS" are all about.

Marriage is not a right.

One would hope that a couple loves one another but this speaks strictly to the religious aspect of it while the civil aspect is strictly legal.

Marriage has been exclusive to opposite sex forever for obvious reasons and by societal requirement. Heterosexual couples seek marriage for the obvious reasons and are rewarded with whatever tax advantages government assigns.

 

[Openmind]

Marriage is not a right.

One would hope that a couple loves one another but this speaks strictly to the religious aspect of it while the civil aspect is strictly legal.

Marriage has been exclusive to opposite sex forever for obvious reasons and by societal requirement. Heterosexual couples seek marriage for the obvious reasons and are rewarded with whatever tax advantages government assigns.

Marriage is only valid if there is love. Love is not the prerogative of heterosexual couples. There is NO reasons to witheld the right to legal unions from homosexual couples who want to be legally recognize as a couple. . .and the reasons are a moot poin.

The "religious" aspect of marriage is another story. . . no religious entity should be FORCED to marry ANYONE (neither heterosexual or homosexual couples), but no religious entity should be FORBIDDEN to marry ANYONE (neither heterosexual or homosexual couples).

 

[dogtowner]

Marriage is only valid if there is love. Love is not the prerogative of heterosexual couples. There is NO reasons to witheld the right to legal unions from homosexual couples who want to be legally recognize as a couple. . .and the reasons are a moot poin.

The "religious" aspect of marriage is another story. . . no religious entity should be FORCED to marry ANYONE (neither heterosexual or homosexual couples), but no religious entity should be FORBIDDEN to marry ANYONE (neither heterosexual or homosexual couples).

Has nothing to do with the point I made but thats OK.

As states are the ones who establish who can marry (age, genetics etc) then take your case there. Where that has occurred, there are (I believe) 26 states that have chosen no. Perhaps if enough go the other way the US can think about changing how it ses things.

I was told by an arranged bride (a lovely Indian girl) that it would appear that arranged marriages perform far better tban those based on love. And had the numbers to back that up. Perhaps Tina Turner said it best "whats love got to do with it ?".