Archive for Musicals.Net Musicals.Net |
| Monsieur D'Arque |
Ban Straight MarriageMake the world equal!Gays, strike a blow for equality! Straight men, strike a blow for personal freedom! Here's to a better, more egalitarian, more single world! (Quite obviously kidding.) |
||||||||
| random_person |
Yeah! Those straights think they're so big with their 'procreation'...time to put those hets in their place! 
|
||||||||
| Monsieur D'Arque |
Yes! You homes save us hets from clingy girlfriends, overeager parents and expensive weddings! | ||||||||
| Jman383 |
I'm down!! 
|
||||||||
| Beagle On Stage |
The only solution to the issues some straight men encounter with clingy girlfriends, overeager parents, and expensive weddings, is growing a pair of balls. | ||||||||
| random_person |
Couldn't they simply remove said balls? Think about it - their girlfriends and parents wouldn't be so eager about kids because they wouldn't be able to reproduce and for this same reason, said girlfriends would be less likely to wish to tie the knot. It's foolproof. 
|
||||||||
| Beagle On Stage |
Most guys aren't eager to part with their stones. | ||||||||
| Yakko |
I like the idea. If gays can't marry neither should the straights. | ||||||||
| Jman383 |
^^ Agreed! | ||||||||
| Catherine |
This reminds me of this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ1I_-MY_NY It is of a similar vein. Kind of. Ahh Johnny. |
||||||||
| random_person |
But it does get results. If I weren't still growing and thus needed the hormones, I'd gladly let you snip off my valuables. It's not like I'd ever need to use them.
|
||||||||
| Orestes Fasting |
Now now, settle down, there's no need to get intolerant. I might not agree with heterosexuality, and of course it's rather revolting when they flaunt their mismatched lifestyle in public, but just because it makes me uncomfortable is no reason to start taking away their hard-won rights.
Incidentally, is 'strike a blow' some sort of euphemism for a deviant sexual practice? I've heard that their sort have all sorts of funny names for what they do, 'missionary position' and other arcane terms, but I hardly like to contemplate the details... you'll have to forgive my innocence in these matters. |
||||||||
| Beagle On Stage |
Banning straight marriage would be so gay. | ||||||||
| Jman383 |
Nah, it'd be awesome. | ||||||||
| Yakko |
Dude I would be laughing my ass off should it happen! |
||||||||
| kozafluitmusique |
The problem with that is straight marriage has always existed.... | ||||||||
| Jman383 |
lol, no it hasn't. |
||||||||
| wolfenflautist |
^ It's certainly existed longer. | ||||||||
| Jman383 |
It's a man made concept. It doesn't give it precedent. It should be banned if gay marriage is banned... at least in America, where all men are supposedly created equally. Just sayin'... | ||||||||
| Beagle On Stage |
To paraphrase Blanche...
I know this thread is all you have, so I'm just going to be happy for you while you enjoy it. |
||||||||
| Disney-Bway27 |
Beagle, I love you. 
|
||||||||
| Jman383 |
Aw, Beagle, your closet case-ness was just personified by 10 I'm so proud of you.
|
||||||||
| Beagle On Stage |
Understandable. |
||||||||
| Monsieur D'Arque |
Beagle- your online persona reminds me so much of Dwight K. Schrute that I find it hard to believe you're not Rainn Wilson. | ||||||||
| Beagle On Stage |
I've taken the facebook quiz for Office characters so many times and I can NEVER get Dwight! It drives me up the wall. I usually get Jim, but one time I didn't so I got excited thinking I must have finally gotten Dwight... then it turned out to be Angela. Least favorite character!!! 
|
||||||||
| kozafluitmusique |
Lol, it has since creation...pretty much. This whole topic reminds me of an essay we read in English a couple days ago called "M for Marriage". Now, don't jump the gun and say it was anti-homosexuality, because it was actually written by someone who was gay. So. |
||||||||
| Mungojerrie_rt |
But they are all equal. Every man has the right to marry a woman. Equal. |
||||||||
| Jman383 |
Every man doesn't have the right to marry a man. Unequal. Lol.
And Koza, that's a religious statement, not fact. Man was no where NEAR being around at the time of "creation". We're a very new species. |
||||||||
| Jman383 |
I won't, but don't think just because someone is gay they can't be "homophobic". There are plenty of self-loathing men and women out there who are very much against gay rights. You want an example? Look at any homosexual Republican lol. |
||||||||
| kozafluitmusique |
Actually they were more talking about how unions should be allowed, but marriage stay between woman and man. Or something. That's why it reminded me of it. Because the reason they argued was because of the whole "family thing". And lol, I could already think of an example 
|
||||||||
| Mungojerrie_rt |
Yeah, but it's every man. Still equal. |
||||||||
| Jman383 |
No, it's a double standard. Unequal.
Point blank, straight marriage should be outlawed IMO. Why should a heterosexual be able to marry the person they're in love with, if I can't? Please, explain this to me. I need to be enlightened. |
||||||||
| Beagle On Stage |
If you ask me, civil law shouldn't deal in marriage at all. The conflict would then be completely solved. | ||||||||
| Jman383 |
And I agree. Marriage is a religious concept, not legal. | ||||||||
| Beagle On Stage |
Excellent. So... let's write our senators. | ||||||||
| Mungojerrie_rt |
Sill not unequal. Everyone can do the same. It's not like someone can do something that that someone else can't. Marriage isn't necessarily any one religion. The ritual is common all human history. And some animals. |
||||||||
| dolbinau |
+1. |
||||||||
| Dvarg |
Some men and women are allowed to marry someone they love, some are not. Of course it's unequal. And marriage is all kinds of different things. To some it is a religious thing, to others it's a juridical thing. It is a symbol as well as a practical contract, as well as many other things. Banning gay marriage is implying that marriage is only one thing. That is wrong, historically and sociologically. |
||||||||
| Monsieur D'Arque |
Well, we could outlaw "legal" marriage, or we could outlaw "marriage."
To quote a play about this sort of thing- "Thrice you hump them, then you HAVE TO dump them." |
||||||||
| Catherine |
Very disappointed the clip was ignored. =P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ1I_-MY_NY |
||||||||
| Jman383 |
|
||||||||
| Jman383 |
LOVE, LOVE, LOVE <3 That was a much needed laugh. Thanks, Cat
|
||||||||
| random_person |
Co-sign.
|
||||||||
| Pounce |
I don't think marriage is about "love". It's about raising a family and the commitment involved.
If people just want to live together and do whatever, I don't see the reason for marriage, gay or straight. I think gay marriage is more of a political thing rather than meeting some societal necessity. Other than raising children, what is the purpose of bonding two people together legally? |
||||||||
| random_person |
I concur...and even that last reason is falling out practice. |
||||||||
| Dvarg |
It has symbolic significance of course, particularly for the ones it actually concerns. Many straight couples also don't have children, for different reasons that only concern themselves. And it's ok if marriage is about raising children for YOU. But OTHER people are of different opinions. |
||||||||
| Pounce |
But why is it necessary to drag in all the legal implications? If children are not involved, why drag all of society into this, for example, the courts, lawyers, clerks,....paper work! If people want to commit to each other, do it in front of family, friends, their church, or whatever other form of spiritual practice they have. |
||||||||
| Dvarg |
Why not, if they want to? It's no concern of yours. |
||||||||
| Beagle On Stage |
Even paying an office clerk to file one sheet of paper that would not otherwise be there concerns all the taxpayers. The more I hear about this issue, the more convinced I become that discontinuing civil marriage is the only likely option. |
||||||||
| Matthew |
This thread is so effective!!! | ||||||||
| Pounce |
It is if my taxes have to pay for the legal infrastructure. If it is done amongst their friends, family, and church, they pay for it. |
||||||||
| Mungojerrie_rt |
Convincing. I maintain that it is equal rights. It may not be freedom of rights, but it treats everyone the same, even if it may be unfair. |
||||||||
| Brother Marvin Hinten, S. |
25 things gays don't get with civil unions that straights get with marriages:
1. Joint parental rights of children 2. Joint adoption 3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions 4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains 5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries 6. Crime victims recovery benefits 7. Domestic violence protection orders 8. Judicial protections and immunity 9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will 10. Public safety officers death benefits 11. Spousal veterans benefits 12. Social Security 13. Medicare 14. Joint filing of tax returns 15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children 16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children 17. Child support 18. Joint Insurance Plans 19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits 20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs 21. Estate and gift tax benefits 22. Welfare and public assistance 23. Joint housing for elderly 24. Credit protection 25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans This is just 25. Out of well over 1,000. That's why we want it. Is there any reason why we can't have it? Didn't think so. Now shush. |
||||||||
| Luc |
It seems a big part of the justification behind no gay marriages is that we cannot physically reproduce.
My rebuttle? SO WHAT? |
||||||||
| Beagle On Stage |
Sure you can, just not with each other. |
||||||||
| Matthew |
|
||||||||
| Beagle On Stage |
You're right. Maybe the lack of reproduction is a blessing in some cases. | ||||||||
| Luc |
Right. Which justifies the law how? |
||||||||
| Mungojerrie_rt |
I thought gay people were supposed to have style. Those shoes just don't match the outfit. |
||||||||
| Matthew |
|
||||||||
| idTAPthat89 |
LMAO! I can't stop watching that little black kid! AHAHAHHHAHA. Love it. |
||||||||
| Dvarg |
It's of course about the juridical aspects too, about inheritance, insurance etc. But nobody is so stupid that they don't immediately understand that, so it was unnecessary to point out.
|
||||||||
| dolbinau |
My rebuttle..neither can infertile people. It goes a bit further than the just the inability to reproduce, but the nature of male/female procreation. |
||||||||
| Mungojerrie_rt |
Interestingly, I was reminded about the story of the German penguins today.
In a zoo, there was a group of penguins that were always mating, but never producing any eggs. They were even trying to hatch rocks. Why? They were all male. So the zoo went searching for some female companions so they could actually breed. Gay rights groups complained that the penguins should be allowed to have homosexual relationships. It's amazing what some people will protest really. |
||||||||
| Monsieur D'Arque |
The only difference is that we want more penguins, and we certainly don't need more human babies. | ||||||||
| kozafluitmusique |
We do need more kids...the older generation is dying out. | ||||||||
| Felix Felicis |
The world is full. We do not need more people. |
||||||||
| kozafluitmusique |
No. The older generation is dying out. |
||||||||
| Felix Felicis |
But the younger generation is popping out little tinkers fast enough that we're still going too quickly. |
||||||||
| kozafluitmusique |
What is "fast enough"? And how many is enough? You always need kids, though. |
||||||||
| Felix Felicis |
But not so many as the planet physically cannot provide enough for everyone on it to survive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation |
||||||||
| Dax |
Something related:
California governor honours Harvey Milk, gay politician shot dead in 1978 Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of California, has signed a law setting aside a day to commemorate Harvey Milk, a gay San Francisco politician who was shot dead three decades ago. Under the measure, 22 May will be declared Harvey Milk day in California, coinciding with Milk's birthday. While it will not be a state holiday, schools will be encouraged to hold lessons "remembering the life of Harvey Milk, recognising his accomplishments and familiarising pupils with the contributions he made to this state". About Harvey Milk As for population, it always increases. In another 5-6 years, half the world population will be in "water-stressed" societies. In another 40 years the world population will be approximately over 10 billion. And then things will really suck, to put it mildly. 
|
||||||||
| kozafluitmusique |
I took AP Human Geo, I know about overpopulation, but there are some areas that don't have overpopulation problems, which is why on a whole there isn't. I just ... I don't know. It's all Malthus' fault. |
||||||||
| dolbinau |
Even if we do need Children, it's not like gay marriage, or gay people in general have anything to do with this - It's not like they will suddenly become 'straight' and have children.
Unless people believe that homosexuality will become more prevalent/somehow environmentally 'infectious' through marriage. |
||||||||
| Rorgg |
The logical train isn't that hard to follow. It's still not uncommon for homoseuxals to marry and have children out of societal pressure to conform to the norm (be it through familial, job-related, whatever). Legalization of gay marriage will help to normalize it as an acceptable option, reducing these marriages that aren't good for anyone involved in the longterm. |
||||||||
| LadyOfTheLake |
What I don't understand is, how would gay marriage affect straight people? Not their religious or political views, but their actual lives. Would it, really? So why the issue? I just think it's wrong to take away someone's happiness, just because you disagree with them. | ||||||||
| Jman383 |
Because some people are insecure, paranoid and over all, just annoying.
In my opinion, you do NOT "need" kids. Never. The babyboomers are going out, thank god, but it's not stopping our generation from having TONS of kids. It's disgusting, actually. |
||||||||
| Beagle On Stage |
Tax revenue would go down, so rates would increase. Not the apocalyptic kind of effect you had in mind, but an effect nonetheless. |
||||||||
| LadyOfTheLake |
Taxes are not a good reason to oppose gay marriage, in my opinion. |
||||||||
| Beagle On Stage |
Like I said, I know it wasn't what you had in mind, but you asked for ways others would be affected, and I provided an example of one. Don't use absolutes in political discussion unless you're sure they're true - particularly when it's a legal matter where economics are a completely valid concern, whether you think that is in good taste or not. | ||||||||
| Monsieur D'Arque |
Now imagine a world where the concept, not the legal practice of marriage, has been outlawed.
The year is 2039. The government is not happy with your sexual practices. They want you to be having more of it, with more people, in more deviant, creative, pleasurable ways. And they can make you. It's the exact opposite of every sci-fi film, ever. |
||||||||
| Beagle On Stage |
I don't understand this concept. Why does the government want everyone having devious sex? How do they make people do it who don't feel like it? What does this have to do with anything? It sounds more like a fetish porn tape than a dystopic sci fi film. | ||||||||
| Dvarg |
I don't understand how gay marriage influence the taxes. And if it does, I have no idea why it could be used as an argument, as the wellfare of people are more important than tax levels. |
||||||||
| Beagle On Stage |
Whether marriage constitutes welfare, and whether welfare should be bouyed by tax issues, are both certainly debateable. However, that was never the point of my statement. The point was that gay marriage does in fact affect ALL people, not just gays, when it was being portrayed as a black and white matter that doesn't touch anyone who chooses not to participate personally. I know you would love to discount my statement, but you can't change the question it was answering in order to do so. |
||||||||
| Dvarg |
I think you have very weird perspectives. |
||||||||
| idTAPthat89 |
What?! Is this seriously justification for why gays shouldn't marry? I hope I'm misunderstanding. And this isn't even accurate. |
||||||||
| fjays |
Its accurate in Australia, thats for sure though! We have a terribly aging population, so many old people! Its a worry, and its often talked about in the news. However, in this context, dude, let whoever marry WHOEVER. ITS THERE CHOICE, AND DOES NOTE EFFECT ANYONE ELSE |
||||||||
| nabla |
I think it's also important to note that gays aren't going to reproduce with each other whether you let them get married or not. Letting gays get married isn't going to result in any less babies than there ever would have been, so that point is kind of redundant | ||||||||
| High-baritonne |
Well, not really. I know many men and women who has been married for several years, gotten kids, and then divorced because they finally felt safe to tell that they were homosexual. As long as society don't accept homosexuals there are always someone who try to hide by leading normal lives. It's a pity, but if homosexuals are denied marriage then more babies are to come.
I am not against gay marriage. I'm just posting a fact. |
||||||||
| kozafluitmusique |
Of course not, Lyss! Sorry, I got off topic. |
||||||||
| Beagle On Stage |
As demonstrated, that is not quite true. And again, I know it's not what you meant. But we need to say what we mean, not make sweeping statements that don't hold up. |
||||||||
| fjays |
Dude, I was talking about emotionally.. Emotionally, it does not, and should not affect anyone else. Financially and whatnot? Yeh, sure, it might effect things, but who cares. ITS LOVE |
||||||||
| LadyOfTheLake |
Exactly what I was trying to say earlier! |
||||||||
| Beagle On Stage |
I know, so make sure you say what you mean. Politics are bigger than emotions.
|
||||||||
| What you own |
Quick question. Just Cause I just did a essay about it in AP history...
Aren't we kinda suffering from overpopulation? |
||||||||
| Beagle On Stage |
Yes, and that's been discussed quite a bit in this thread already. | ||||||||
| kozafluitmusique |
Depends on the area. |
||||||||
| What you own |
Very true. For overpopulation is not based on numbers but rather the amount of resourses that an area has available. So I guess you can say places like anartica (To lazy to heck the spelling) are under populated, But do they really have the resouces to support humen life... Of course there are alot of factors that contribute to over population. I never knew that about Austrialia. I've heard about the lost generation..but that was something with tribes.. Sorry I'm not very good with my Austrailian history. I'm focusing on Afro-Asia. Lol. Trying to get that down. Is this a wide spread probleam for austrialia or just is certain places? |
||||||||
| kozafluitmusique |
I think Eastern Europe is another place, but I could be wrong ... and wait, you're only a freshman and taking AP history? Wow ... or is it AP Human Geo? |
||||||||
| High-baritonne |
The world in it self is now, and will always be overpopulated, because even though the recourses might be there, somebody are always bound to take advantage of them and take more than they need. That is why the wheels won't turn. Ever. |