March 28, 2013
-
Marriage should only be for procreation!
This is the argument by some who oppose same sex marriages. Logically then all marriages should be dissolved when the partners become too old to bear children and proof of fertility should be a prerequisite to marriage. I guess these are the same people who believe that anal sex is a sin and fellatio and cunnilingus should be prosecuted as abhorrent behavior. I imagine these are pretty unhappy people who are afraid of their own desires.
I actually have some homophobia. It’s just not in my DNA to consider sex with another man. It has no appeal to me. But get over it! Not everyone is built the same. What you find exciting might not be the same as it is for me but why should I care and get my panties in a bunch over it. Live and let live. That’s the basis of freedom. It’s supposed to be for all.
Comments (29)
I have to say, I am proud that Canada has legalized same-sex marriages
The only thing I got out of this was that you wear panties. LOLOL kidding. I agree with what you said, but you know I just had to “rip” ya Rush!
I that that if reproduction is the goal of marriage, people who don’t produce children after a certain time period should have their marriage annulled. Once a female goes through menopause, she should automatically be divorced. I also love how some people want to use the Biblical definition of marriage to make a law, and then they are the first ones to cry separation of church and state if they feel the government is doing something to limit their religious freedoms.
right on. their logic is twisted and empty and lame, frankly
I like this! the logic behind it all is very, very flawed.
Sex should be for only two consenting adults in Canada:
“Canadian law now permits anal sex by consenting parties above the age of 18, provided no more than two people are present.[11] The bill repealing Canada’s sodomy laws was the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 (Bill C-150), which received royal assent on June 27, 1969. The bill had been introduced in the House of Commons by Pierre Trudeau,[12] who famously stated that “there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation”.[13] In the 1995 Court of Appeal for Ontario case R. v. M. (C.), the judges ruled that the relevant section (section 159) of the Criminal Code of Canada violated section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when one or both of the partners are 16 to 18 years of age;[14] this has not been tried in court again.
A similar decision was made by the Quebec Court of Appeal in the 1998 case R. v. Roy.[15]Wikipedia on Sodomy law
I used to hate living in Minnesota because oral sex was illegal
“and get my panties in a bunch over it”….not asking…truly im not….
@olwd - I like my panties.
@PPhilip - I guess voyeurism is discouraged
@godfatherofgreenbay - I’d like to meet the state senator who championed the legislation allowing this. She must be very brave.
@RushmoreJ - You need to figure out exactly what the word present means. I think the law is referring to active participants but then again if you are pleasuring yourself while watching that might mean no voyeurs.
@Erika_Steele - I think we need civil unions for everyone. If Marriage is a religous thing, well the Government should not control it.
@Ikwa - Sorry. I misread your post. I agree with you.
@Ikwa - yes there should be separation of church and state but regardless of your sexual preference you should be treated the same under the law (Divorce rights, Social Security Benefits, inheritance rights, etc.)
I don’t think that you’re homophobic for not wanting to have sex with a man; then every heterosexual person would be homophobic. I support same-sex marriage, too, but the image of two men having sex doesn’t turn me on, either. The problem is that it’s not enough for homophobes to keep to their own preferences. They want everyone’s preferences to be the same so that they can feel comfortable with their homophobia. They deeply resent being part of the minority in that regard. I’m with you, live and let live. As long as a government entity controls marriage rites, then all people should be subject to the same laws in that regard. And let’s be real, here. Not everybody is married in a religious ceremony, yet they are still very much married in the eyes of the law, so this crap about civil unions being separate from marriage rites is just that, a big stinking load.
@Erika_Steele - Thats Ok I do that myself sometimes.
@RushmoreJ - Yes and civil unions could bring it faster. it is all about languge. People want to have religous freedoms and Equality. The problem is so many don’t see how the two run together. So you just do like I do to a toddler ,call it something else to help them make up their mind my way.
@theKisSilent - well said
@Ikwa - Whatever it takes. Let’s just get on with it and move on to the real problems facing the world.
@RushmoreJ - agreed!
If this were the case, I would not be allowed to get married because I dont want children.
@Love_in_102 - Procreation happens from the union of male and female. That’s human nature. That’s what allows for the continuation of humanity from one generation to the next.
If everyone were gay, humanity would go extinct. That is proof that homosexuality is a sexual disorder and not a standard of equality or human rights.
Cherry picking people from the human race who can’t have children and then basing your argument on them is intellectually dishonest.
And that’s a Bozo No No!
@wildchildofthebluemoon - @beforedawn - @PPhilip -
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove - are you trying to claim that allowing same-sex marriage would turn more people homosexual?
@flapper_femme_fatale - What I just proved in my comment is that homosexuality is a sexual disorder and as such it cannot be the basis for human rights or equality.
Only healthy human nature can be the standard for equality and human rights.
We are equal because we are all human beings, not because of our sexual preference.
And since gender male and female is obviously a part of human nature and homosexuality obviously a sexual disorder, the very notion of “gay” marriage is complete, utter nonsense.
Love is love, it knows no difference.
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove - Would you also deny marriage and equal rights under the law to all people with sexual “disorders” – sterile men, barren women, woman past menopause, men with vasectomies,etc. It seems to me you ought to build your argument around your other premise – that we are all human beings and due equal rights, regardless of our sexual preference.
@RushmoreJ - My point is that marriage has nothing to do with sexual disorders. It has everything to do with human nature.
Under the US Constitution, our rights are based on, “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” From the Declaration of Independence.
That means that marriage is between a man and a woman. Anything else is nonsense.
“Gay” marriage makes as much sense as me demanding to be President Obama. There are no human rights associated with nonsense.
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove - I couldn’t disagree more..Marriage is about sharing your life with the person you love and it has little to do with procreation. I doubt I will change your mind and you certainly will not change mine. So there is little point in arguing about it.
@RushmoreJ - By who’s authority do you think you can change an ageless institution?
Your opinion is no more authoritative than anyone else’s.
Also, nobody needs marriage to be able to share their life with the one you love.
Couples love each other up and down and all around without being married.
@ImNotUglyIJustNeedLove - we live in a democracy. Majority rules. Sorry you lose.
@RushmoreJ - The majority ruled in California and the will of the people was over ruled by a judge.
There is nothing democratic about gay rights. It’s about the most fascistic assault on basic human rights in US history.
Gay marriage destroys the 1st Amendment. Without the 1st Amendment there is no Democracy.