Jay-Z, Gay Marriage: Obama's New Stance Is 'The Right Thing To Do' (VIDEO)

[culturecarnage]

Originally Posted by YG716

Originally Posted by culturecarnage

Originally Posted by YG716

Before you decide to be so sarcastic....

Read the entire thread before you decide to comment. Or at least go back a few pages.

   I have addressed the questions you asking.

you're making assumptions that i didn't read them and saying that you made valid points doesn't mean you did. its bigotry cut and dried, this idea that marriage is to be protected is out and out ridiculous as if the people who get married now somehow hold it in such high regard. quite frankly who gives a *$#% about what someone does that doesn't affect you in any way what so ever. 
same goes for abortion, the only person who gets a right to say what i do with my vagina is me. point blank period. this ###!%#%@ of trying to legislate and determine moral behavior has got to stop. in telling me what i get to do with my vagina you're staking out some ownership of women as a whole an their reproductive rights. in denying gay marriage you're staking out ownership of sexuality. society is made p of people and people have no rights over other people. jay-z's parallel of gay mariage as a civil rights issue is hauntingly accurate.

Missing the point. Make your argument else where I have done too much typing to explain again. reread it if you already read it. I already said to point out a reason that is not emotionally driven on why gay marriage needs to be legalized. Staking out ownership of sexuality??? Who does that serve besides yourself? In what way will the majority benefit from that??

Your vag is your vag and rightfully so and as you are a human being amongst a community of others you are more than welcome to do as you please with it . However this is legislation. Legislation is not made for self serving purposes, especially amongst a minority group. Ownership of sexuality? That why the government recognizes marriages and provides benefits to married couples? You cant be serious. Marriage is not about that to the government. I already explained this.

 Legislation for gay marriage cannot be justified for any other reason than self serving purposes. What legislation gets passed that serves no point but to make a minority group happy especially when it takes a majority to pass it?? There's no discrimination here. Its fact that gay couples can not put people into this world. They offer nothing to anyone but themselves. Nobody's being unjust and oppressing anyone here. Legislation is set forth for the majority and has a beneficial purpose to the majority. That's why it gets passed. That's is why its called politics. Politics is whats popular amongst a majority.

you seem to forget the fundamental part of majority rule is that they must protect minority rights. we dont live in a populist society. women's suffrage, abortion rights, civil right for african americans were all staked out to protect minority rights under majority rule. you are under the impression that law exists in some sort of vacuum outside of social conventions and that laws' purpose is to dictate some kind of agreed upon social good. laws are a reflection of society's social conventions to create a standard of both liberty and equality. to make gay marriage legal would only be to update the law to what the majority of the population already agrees upon and protect the rights and equality of a minority.
your arguments tell me you know nothing about how society, law, legislature, and politics actually work. turn the tv off and open a book. read some legal history and social theory. i assure you, you'll be all the better for it. 

lastly, for you to say that its an emotional argument is ridiculous as if in courtrooms and legislatures across the country if not the world don't make emotional arguments and as if somehow emotional arguments cannot be rational. it's absolutely ridiculous.

 

[foxdawg2000]

Originally Posted by culturecarnage

Originally Posted by YG716

Originally Posted by culturecarnage


you're making assumptions that i didn't read them and saying that you made valid points doesn't mean you did. its bigotry cut and dried, this idea that marriage is to be protected is out and out ridiculous as if the people who get married now somehow hold it in such high regard. quite frankly who gives a *$#% about what someone does that doesn't affect you in any way what so ever. 
same goes for abortion, the only person who gets a right to say what i do with my vagina is me. point blank period. this ###!%#%@ of trying to legislate and determine moral behavior has got to stop. in telling me what i get to do with my vagina you're staking out some ownership of women as a whole an their reproductive rights. in denying gay marriage you're staking out ownership of sexuality. society is made p of people and people have no rights over other people. jay-z's parallel of gay mariage as a civil rights issue is hauntingly accurate.

Missing the point. Make your argument else where I have done too much typing to explain again. reread it if you already read it. I already said to point out a reason that is not emotionally driven on why gay marriage needs to be legalized. Staking out ownership of sexuality??? Who does that serve besides yourself? In what way will the majority benefit from that??

Your vag is your vag and rightfully so and as you are a human being amongst a community of others you are more than welcome to do as you please with it . However this is legislation. Legislation is not made for self serving purposes, especially amongst a minority group. Ownership of sexuality? That why the government recognizes marriages and provides benefits to married couples? You cant be serious. Marriage is not about that to the government. I already explained this.

 Legislation for gay marriage cannot be justified for any other reason than self serving purposes. What legislation gets passed that serves no point but to make a minority group happy especially when it takes a majority to pass it?? There's no discrimination here. Its fact that gay couples can not put people into this world. They offer nothing to anyone but themselves. Nobody's being unjust and oppressing anyone here. Legislation is set forth for the majority and has a beneficial purpose to the majority. That's why it gets passed. That's is why its called politics. Politics is whats popular amongst a majority.

you seem to forget the fundamental part of majority rule is that they must protect minority rights. we dont live in a populist society. women's suffrage, abortion rights, civil right for african americans were all staked out to protect minority rights under majority rule. you are under the impression that law exists in some sort of vacuum outside of social conventions and that laws' purpose is to dictate some kind of agreed upon social good. laws are a reflection of society's social conventions to create a standard of both liberty and equality. to make gay marriage legal would only be to update the law to what the majority of the population already agrees upon and protect the rights and equality of a minority.
your arguments tell me you know nothing about how society, law, legislature, and politics actually work. turn the tv off and open a book. read some legal history and social theory. i assure you, you'll be all the better for it. 

lastly, for you to say that its an emotional argument is ridiculous as if in courtrooms and legislatures across the country if not the world don't make emotional arguments and as if somehow emotional arguments cannot be rational. it's absolutely ridiculous.

 

[lobotomybeats]

Originally Posted by foxdawg2000

Originally Posted by culturecarnage

Originally Posted by YG716

Missing the point. Make your argument else where I have done too much typing to explain again. reread it if you already read it. I already said to point out a reason that is not emotionally driven on why gay marriage needs to be legalized. Staking out ownership of sexuality??? Who does that serve besides yourself? In what way will the majority benefit from that??

Your vag is your vag and rightfully so and as you are a human being amongst a community of others you are more than welcome to do as you please with it . However this is legislation. Legislation is not made for self serving purposes, especially amongst a minority group. Ownership of sexuality? That why the government recognizes marriages and provides benefits to married couples? You cant be serious. Marriage is not about that to the government. I already explained this.

 Legislation for gay marriage cannot be justified for any other reason than self serving purposes. What legislation gets passed that serves no point but to make a minority group happy especially when it takes a majority to pass it?? There's no discrimination here. Its fact that gay couples can not put people into this world. They offer nothing to anyone but themselves. Nobody's being unjust and oppressing anyone here. Legislation is set forth for the majority and has a beneficial purpose to the majority. That's why it gets passed. That's is why its called politics. Politics is whats popular amongst a majority.

you seem to forget the fundamental part of majority rule is that they must protect minority rights. we dont live in a populist society. women's suffrage, abortion rights, civil right for african americans were all staked out to protect minority rights under majority rule. you are under the impression that law exists in some sort of vacuum outside of social conventions and that laws' purpose is to dictate some kind of agreed upon social good. laws are a reflection of society's social conventions to create a standard of both liberty and equality. to make gay marriage legal would only be to update the law to what the majority of the population already agrees upon and protect the rights and equality of a minority.
your arguments tell me you know nothing about how society, law, legislature, and politics actually work. turn the tv off and open a book. read some legal history and social theory. i assure you, you'll be all the better for it. 

lastly, for you to say that its an emotional argument is ridiculous as if in courtrooms and legislatures across the country if not the world don't make emotional arguments and as if somehow emotional arguments cannot be rational. it's absolutely ridiculous.

Well done, I came in here with a rebuttal to that nonsense.  It's nice to know I don't have to waste the keystrokes.

 

[ninjahood]

at da end of da day though...this whole topic is just a political puff cloud

To distract you from da economy....

 

[oneforall]

Reading this topic as a Finnish person is super funny. You guys are still so conservative idiots.

 

[wr]

Gay marriage is the beginning. Since people will no longer have to traditionally and naturally rear children, we will and already are beginning to see the symptoms of mechanized child reproduction. We are climbing towards a society were test tube babies will soon be the norm and natural womb birth will be seen as a remnant of our past. All this to support same sex couples growth. What's going to happen to the world when a large population of same sex couples decides to have offspring and the growing alternative solution is met with companies providing an efficient child growth/ selection service to couples where it is biologically impossible for them to have true offspring of each partners genetic makeup. Pretty soon same sex couples won't have to have ask couples to have children for them. They'll get to pick how their child is made. You think racism and classism is bad now? We are moving closer to a world of elite genes vs non elite genes.

I doubt some of you guys are even aware of the ethics issues that arise out of a test tube genetically engineered populations.

In all other disciplines, the term marriage implies the merging together of opposites. Not the coming together of two things that are the same. I think if same sex couple want to get "married" they need to agree that what they are doing is going to have to be called something else. It is actually an affront to all heterosexual couples to modify something that has been a constant for so long.
B4 someone attacks what I said, I really don't care about gay people being together if that's what they want. I just don't agree with gay and same sex lifestyles taking over and modifying terms they shouldn't. The world is changing so change and be new. Stop redefining the old. 

I really don't care to hear arguments about homosexuality being found in nature. So what if some animals are asexual/ %*+# sexual by definition or action. If they can produce that way, that's how they were created. Be real with yourself, as a human you an't asexually reproduce so get of your biological high horse. 

 

[sportdelapolo]

Originally Posted by Wr

Gay marriage is the beginning. Since people will no longer have to traditionally and naturally rear children, we will and already are beginning to see the symptoms of mechanized child reproduction. We are climbing towards a society were test tube babies will soon be the norm and natural womb birth will be seen as a remnant of our past. All this to support same sex couples growth. What's going to happen to the world when a large population of same sex couples decides to have offspring and the growing alternative solution is met with companies providing an efficient child growth/ selection service to couples where it is biologically impossible for them to have true offspring of each partners genetic makeup. Pretty soon same sex couples won't have to have ask couples to have children for them. They'll get to pick how their child is made. You think racism and classism is bad now? We are moving closer to a world of elite genes vs non elite genes.

I doubt some of you guys are even aware of the ethics issues that arise out of a test tube genetically engineered populations.

In all other disciplines, the term marriage implies the merging together of opposites. Not the coming together of two things that are the same. I think if same sex couple want to get "married" they need to agree that what they are doing is going to have to be called something else. It is actually an affront to all heterosexual couples to modify something that has been a constant for so long.

  You really believe this?
  

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by Sportdelapolo

Originally Posted by Wr

Gay marriage is the beginning. Since people will no longer have to traditionally and naturally rear children, we will and already are beginning to see the symptoms of mechanized child reproduction. We are climbing towards a society were test tube babies will soon be the norm and natural womb birth will be seen as a remnant of our past. All this to support same sex couples growth. What's going to happen to the world when a large population of same sex couples decides to have offspring and the growing alternative solution is met with companies providing an efficient child growth/ selection service to couples where it is biologically impossible for them to have true offspring of each partners genetic makeup. Pretty soon same sex couples won't have to have ask couples to have children for them. They'll get to pick how their child is made. You think racism and classism is bad now? We are moving closer to a world of elite genes vs non elite genes.

I doubt some of you guys are even aware of the ethics issues that arise out of a test tube genetically engineered populations.

In all other disciplines, the term marriage implies the merging together of opposites. Not the coming together of two things that are the same. I think if same sex couple want to get "married" they need to agree that what they are doing is going to have to be called something else. It is actually an affront to all heterosexual couples to modify something that has been a constant for so long.

  You really believe this?
  

The rest of the scientific community has been  preparing for this for centuries. Laugh at me all you want but there are such things as think tanks and science endowments that plan for every scenario possible and this discussion is one of them...
What do you think all these advances in stem cell research are about?

“Human reproduction is an inefficient process,

 

[Rootin4EverybodyBlack]

What really irritates me about this whole gay marriage movement is the fact the supporters of the movement are so damn argumentative with those who don't support. As soon as somebody says they don't support gay marriage there's a bucket of hate and insults being thrown at them, like damn I ain't allowed to have my own opinion.

Serious question, if we're going to change the definition of marriage to allow two ppl of the same sex to get married, why can't a man have multiple wives?..or a woman have multiple husbands?... or allow people to marry their cousins, brothers..sisters, uncles, etc

If we're going to get rid of the constraints on the definition of marriage we have to do it for EVERYBODY. But I bet the same people yelling and flaming others for not supporting gay marriage wouldn't be nearly as supportive of the types of marriages I mentioned.

 

[rko2004]

This should be interesting.

 

[sundoobie]

Originally Posted by malikdagoat

What really irritates me about this whole gay marriage movement is the fact the supporters of the movement are so damn argumentative with those who don't support. As soon as somebody says they don't support gay marriage there's a bucket of hate and insults being thrown at them, like damn I ain't allowed to have my own opinion.

This right here!  I actually did support gay marriage in 08 and voted NO only because I knew this issue wasn't going to go away.  Then after Prop 8 passed, I saw the backlash with gay activists protesting/boycotting businesses, vandalizing churches, bullying donors, etc.  It was disgusting and it made turned me away from their cause and now I really don't give a flying crap. 

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by malikdagoat

What really irritates me about this whole gay marriage movement is the fact the supporters of the movement are so damn argumentative with those who don't support. As soon as somebody says they don't support gay marriage there's a bucket of hate and insults being thrown at them, like damn I ain't allowed to have my own opinion.

Serious question, if we're going to change the definition of marriage to allow two ppl of the same sex to get married, why can't a man have multiple wives?..or a woman have multiple husbands?... or allow people to marry their cousins, brothers..sisters, uncles, etc

If we're going to get rid of the constraints on the definition of marriage we have to do it for EVERYBODY. But I bet the same people yelling and flaming others for not supporting gay marriage wouldn't be nearly as supportive of the types of marriages I mentioned.

makes for a legal nightmare to have to go back and redefine marriage in this instance, and all the other instances like you say. 
Plus to all my gay people out there. Do you really want to be married? The institution in itself is failing all across the world. As a matter of fact, industrialization and declining marriage rates are directly related.  What about civil unions was not enough?

Plus I see people saying that "well blacks weren't allowed to marry whites, this is the same thing". 

WRONG

Blacks and whites could not be married because to begin with blacks legally weren't even considered full humans

. This is literally like complaining about not being able to marry your pet ( hence the nature of black/ white relations in this country).  A person and 3/5th's of a person didn't legally constitute a marriage just like a farmer and his horse can't tie the knot.

When in history of this country has a homosexual been legally on the law books deemed as a sub human species?

 

[scarsorscabs]

Originally Posted by Wr

Gay marriage is the beginning. Since people will no longer have to traditionally and naturally rear children, we will and already are beginning to see the symptoms of mechanized child reproduction. We are climbing towards a society were test tube babies will soon be the norm and natural womb birth will be seen as a remnant of our past. All this to support same sex couples growth. What's going to happen to the world when a large population of same sex couples decides to have offspring and the growing alternative solution is met with companies providing an efficient child growth/ selection service to couples where it is biologically impossible for them to have true offspring of each partners genetic makeup. Pretty soon same sex couples won't have to have ask couples to have children for them. They'll get to pick how their child is made. You think racism and classism is bad now? We are moving closer to a world of elite genes vs non elite genes.

I doubt some of you guys are even aware of the ethics issues that arise out of a test tube genetically engineered populations.

In all other disciplines, the term marriage implies the merging together of opposites. Not the coming together of two things that are the same. I think if same sex couple want to get "married" they need to agree that what they are doing is going to have to be called something else. It is actually an affront to all heterosexual couples to modify something that has been a constant for so long.
B4 someone attacks what I said, I really don't care about gay people being together if that's what they want. I just don't agree with gay and same sex lifestyles taking over and modifying terms they shouldn't. The world is changing so change and be new. Stop redefining the old. 

I really don't care to hear arguments about homosexuality being found in nature. So what if some animals are asexual/ %*+# sexual by definition or action. If they can produce that way, that's how they were created. Be real with yourself, as a human you an't asexually reproduce so get of your biological high horse. 

Jesus.
You say gay marriage is the "beginning" but discuss methods that were created to aid heterosexual couples in reproducing.  Who is to blame?  Should heterosexual couples that are unable to reproduce just give up?  Since we're dealing with what ifs, what if the world is overrun with heterosexuals that can no longer reproduce, what do we do then?  See how ridiculous it all sounds?

The rest isn't even worth discussing.

 

[rko2004]

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

Originally Posted by malikdagoat

What really irritates me about this whole gay marriage movement is the fact the supporters of the movement are so damn argumentative with those who don't support. As soon as somebody says they don't support gay marriage there's a bucket of hate and insults being thrown at them, like damn I ain't allowed to have my own opinion.

This right here!  I actually did support gay marriage in 08 and voted NO only because I knew this issue wasn't going to go away.  Then after Prop 8 passed, I saw the backlash with gay activists protesting/boycotting businesses, vandalizing churches, bullying donors, etc.  It was disgusting and it made turned me away from their cause and now I really don't give a flying crap. 

That really hurt the issue. Not all did it but sheesh they did some crazy stuff.

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by ScarsOrScabs

Originally Posted by Wr

Gay marriage is the beginning. Since people will no longer have to traditionally and naturally rear children, we will and already are beginning to see the symptoms of mechanized child reproduction. We are climbing towards a society were test tube babies will soon be the norm and natural womb birth will be seen as a remnant of our past. All this to support same sex couples growth. What's going to happen to the world when a large population of same sex couples decides to have offspring and the growing alternative solution is met with companies providing an efficient child growth/ selection service to couples where it is biologically impossible for them to have true offspring of each partners genetic makeup. Pretty soon same sex couples won't have to have ask couples to have children for them. They'll get to pick how their child is made. You think racism and classism is bad now? We are moving closer to a world of elite genes vs non elite genes.

I doubt some of you guys are even aware of the ethics issues that arise out of a test tube genetically engineered populations.

In all other disciplines, the term marriage implies the merging together of opposites. Not the coming together of two things that are the same. I think if same sex couple want to get "married" they need to agree that what they are doing is going to have to be called something else. It is actually an affront to all heterosexual couples to modify something that has been a constant for so long.
B4 someone attacks what I said, I really don't care about gay people being together if that's what they want. I just don't agree with gay and same sex lifestyles taking over and modifying terms they shouldn't. The world is changing so change and be new. Stop redefining the old. 

I really don't care to hear arguments about homosexuality being found in nature. So what if some animals are asexual/ %*+# sexual by definition or action. If they can produce that way, that's how they were created. Be real with yourself, as a human you an't asexually reproduce so get of your biological high horse. 

Jesus.
You say gay marriage is the "beginning" but discuss methods that were created to aid heterosexual couples in reproducing.  Who is to blame?  Should heterosexual couples that are unable to reproduce just give up?  Since we're dealing with what ifs, what if the world is overrun with heterosexuals that can no longer reproduce, what do we do then?  See how ridiculous it all sounds?

The rest isn't even worth discussing.

yet you discuss
I'm just getting at the fact that this is a trend that will further us as a society into the mechanization of life. You seem to take trife over the fact that I said it was the beginning. Let me clarify because you have taken it as me saying homosexuality is the basis for stem cell research. I'm saying that people, scientist, companies that do this stuff already will cater to the market for gay couples since they cannot have children in the traditional since meaning taking genetics from a mother and a father and creating an offspring. Instead, genetics can be taken from both parents and grown in a womb like device. 

Don't married people want children?

If given an option of having a child from both parents genetics rather than one or the other or a surrogate, don't you think they would take it?

 

[deuce king]

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

Originally Posted by malikdagoat

What really irritates me about this whole gay marriage movement is the fact the supporters of the movement are so damn argumentative with those who don't support. As soon as somebody says they don't support gay marriage there's a bucket of hate and insults being thrown at them, like damn I ain't allowed to have my own opinion.

This right here!  I actually did support gay marriage in 08 and voted NO only because I knew this issue wasn't going to go away.  Then after Prop 8 passed, I saw the backlash with gay activists protesting/boycotting businesses, vandalizing churches, bullying donors, etc.  It was disgusting and it made turned me away from their cause and now I really don't give a flying crap. 

Why did the actions of a few individuals that were apart of the cause deter you from continuing to support them if that's what you truly believed and voted for??

 

[dior paint]

I don't care about gay people or marriage.

So as far as gay marriage goes I really don't have an opinion.

 

[scarsorscabs]

Originally Posted by Wr

Originally Posted by ScarsOrScabs

Originally Posted by Wr

Gay marriage is the beginning. Since people will no longer have to traditionally and naturally rear children, we will and already are beginning to see the symptoms of mechanized child reproduction. We are climbing towards a society were test tube babies will soon be the norm and natural womb birth will be seen as a remnant of our past. All this to support same sex couples growth. What's going to happen to the world when a large population of same sex couples decides to have offspring and the growing alternative solution is met with companies providing an efficient child growth/ selection service to couples where it is biologically impossible for them to have true offspring of each partners genetic makeup. Pretty soon same sex couples won't have to have ask couples to have children for them. They'll get to pick how their child is made. You think racism and classism is bad now? We are moving closer to a world of elite genes vs non elite genes.

I doubt some of you guys are even aware of the ethics issues that arise out of a test tube genetically engineered populations.

In all other disciplines, the term marriage implies the merging together of opposites. Not the coming together of two things that are the same. I think if same sex couple want to get "married" they need to agree that what they are doing is going to have to be called something else. It is actually an affront to all heterosexual couples to modify something that has been a constant for so long.
B4 someone attacks what I said, I really don't care about gay people being together if that's what they want. I just don't agree with gay and same sex lifestyles taking over and modifying terms they shouldn't. The world is changing so change and be new. Stop redefining the old. 

I really don't care to hear arguments about homosexuality being found in nature. So what if some animals are asexual/ %*+# sexual by definition or action. If they can produce that way, that's how they were created. Be real with yourself, as a human you an't asexually reproduce so get of your biological high horse. 

Jesus.
You say gay marriage is the "beginning" but discuss methods that were created to aid heterosexual couples in reproducing.  Who is to blame?  Should heterosexual couples that are unable to reproduce just give up?  Since we're dealing with what ifs, what if the world is overrun with heterosexuals that can no longer reproduce, what do we do then?  See how ridiculous it all sounds?

The rest isn't even worth discussing.

yet you discuss
I'm just getting at the fact that this is a trend that will further us as a society into the mechanization of life. You seem to take trife over the fact that I said it was the beginning. Let me clarify because you have taken it as me saying homosexuality is the basis for stem cell research. I'm saying that people, scientist, companies that do this stuff already will cater to the market for gay couples since they cannot have children in the traditional since meaning taking genetics from a mother and a father and creating an offspring. Instead, genetics can be taken from both parents and grown in a womb like device. 

Don't married people want children?

If given an option of having a child from both parents genetics rather than one or the other or a surrogate, don't you think they would take it?

I picked out a part of what you wrote because it's flawed.  Your wording made it seem as if gay marriage is the root of the future doom of human life as we know it but now you're backtracking.  It wasn't my interpretation but how you wrote it.
Do you believe if gay people didn't exist that this trend would continue?  Are they somehow to blame?  If not, then what exactly does this have to do with gay marriage?

And +!$ is trife?

 

[bdubnyckid]

I don't care what these people do in their private time, nor do they effect how I live my life. 
I let them prosper and enjoy life. 

 

[lobotomybeats]

Originally Posted by malikdagoat

What really irritates me about this whole gay marriage movement is the fact the supporters of the movement are so damn argumentative with those who don't support. As soon as somebody says they don't support gay marriage there's a bucket of hate and insults being thrown at them, like damn I ain't allowed to have my own opinion.

Serious question, if we're going to change the definition of marriage to allow two ppl of the same sex to get married, why can't a man have multiple wives?..or a woman have multiple husbands?... or allow people to marry their cousins, brothers..sisters, uncles, etc

For the most part I don't actually don't have a problem with polygamy.  Actually, you would think with the amount of extramarital affair sex scandals involving politicians, they would be huge proponents for polygamy. Unlike homosexual marriages, there are intriguing arguments against polygamy. I know in some polygamous societies lower status men don't get to marry at all because the women want the higher status men.  Also, in the most common traditional sense of the word polygamy (1 man, many wives) the women are repressed and under the man's control.  Oh and if polygamy is ever legalized, a man better have the right to have multiple husbands and women have the right to multiple wives.

The incest question is ridiculous and not even worth a response deeper than 'gene pool.'

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by Sportdelapolo

Originally Posted by Wr

Gay marriage is the beginning. Since people will no longer have to traditionally and naturally rear children, we will and already are beginning to see the symptoms of mechanized child reproduction. We are climbing towards a society were test tube babies will soon be the norm and natural womb birth will be seen as a remnant of our past. All this to support same sex couples growth. What's going to happen to the world when a large population of same sex couples decides to have offspring and the growing alternative solution is met with companies providing an efficient child growth/ selection service to couples where it is biologically impossible for them to have true offspring of each partners genetic makeup. Pretty soon same sex couples won't have to have ask couples to have children for them. They'll get to pick how their child is made. You think racism and classism is bad now? We are moving closer to a world of elite genes vs non elite genes.

I doubt some of you guys are even aware of the ethics issues that arise out of a test tube genetically engineered populations.

In all other disciplines, the term marriage implies the merging together of opposites. Not the coming together of two things that are the same. I think if same sex couple want to get "married" they need to agree that what they are doing is going to have to be called something else. It is actually an affront to all heterosexual couples to modify something that has been a constant for so long.

  You really believe this?
  

Today's technology makes it possible to clone people right now....matrix reality aint that far from actuality.

 

[Animal Thug]

Originally Posted by RawSheed

I can finally call him Gay-Z

  

 

[dior paint]

But listen...

Ninjahood still has a Myspace link in his sig.

That's more discussion worthy than anything in this thread.

 

[Rootin4EverybodyBlack]

Originally Posted by lobotomybeats

Originally Posted by malikdagoat

What really irritates me about this whole gay marriage movement is the fact the supporters of the movement are so damn argumentative with those who don't support. As soon as somebody says they don't support gay marriage there's a bucket of hate and insults being thrown at them, like damn I ain't allowed to have my own opinion.

Serious question, if we're going to change the definition of marriage to allow two ppl of the same sex to get married, why can't a man have multiple wives?..or a woman have multiple husbands?... or allow people to marry their cousins, brothers..sisters, uncles, etc

For the most part I don't actually don't have a problem with polygamy.  Actually, you would think with the amount of extramarital affair sex scandals involving politicians, they would be huge proponents for polygamy. Unlike homosexual marriages, there are intriguing arguments against polygamy. I know in some polygamous societies lower status men don't get to marry at all because the women want the higher status men.  Also, in the most common traditional sense of the word polygamy (1 man, many wives) the women are repressed and under the man's control.  Oh and if polygamy is ever legalized, a man better have the right to have multiple husbands and women have the right to multiple wives.

The incest question is ridiculous and not even worth a response deeper than 'gene pool.'

How is it ridiculous?If we're going to open up the definition of marriage, you have to open it up for EVERYBODY. I know the possible consequences of polygamy and incest, however who is the government to not allow people to make that decision?You can't tell people "aye, you can't have two wives" but in the next sentence tell Tom and Ben they can get married.Either define marriage as between and man and a woman or open it up for any human to marry another human (despite the possible results), that's all I'm saying.

 

[ogbobbyjohnson773]

Originally Posted by malikdagoat

Originally Posted by lobotomybeats

Originally Posted by malikdagoat

What really irritates me about this whole gay marriage movement is the fact the supporters of the movement are so damn argumentative with those who don't support. As soon as somebody says they don't support gay marriage there's a bucket of hate and insults being thrown at them, like damn I ain't allowed to have my own opinion.

Serious question, if we're going to change the definition of marriage to allow two ppl of the same sex to get married, why can't a man have multiple wives?..or a woman have multiple husbands?... or allow people to marry their cousins, brothers..sisters, uncles, etc

For the most part I don't actually don't have a problem with polygamy.  Actually, you would think with the amount of extramarital affair sex scandals involving politicians, they would be huge proponents for polygamy. Unlike homosexual marriages, there are intriguing arguments against polygamy. I know in some polygamous societies lower status men don't get to marry at all because the women want the higher status men.  Also, in the most common traditional sense of the word polygamy (1 man, many wives) the women are repressed and under the man's control.  Oh and if polygamy is ever legalized, a man better have the right to have multiple husbands and women have the right to multiple wives.

The incest question is ridiculous and not even worth a response deeper than 'gene pool.'

How is it ridiculous?If we're going to open up the definition of marriage, you have to open it up for EVERYBODY. I know the possible consequences of polygamy and incest, however who is the government to not allow people to make that decision?You can't tell people "aye, you can't have two wives" but in the next sentence tell Tom and Ben they can get married.Either define marriage as between and man and a woman or open it up for any human to marry another human (despite the possible results), that's all I'm saying.

For everybody? How bout just for 2 consenting adults?