An easy way to eliminate same-sex marriage

[Lursa]

Not how it works. You are free to ignore me. And in the end we end up on the same side of most issues, so I enjoy your posts. But if you say something that I feel a need to comment on, or correct a part, I will do so. It's part of how the forum works.

I am not interested in your opinion on this. You may post anything you like.

Look at whatever you want, comment on whatever you want.

Please refrain from quoting me however.

Thanks again for nothing.

 

[azgreg]

1. A state simply has to create a new union only available to naturally reproductive couples.

2. The Supreme Court (currently conservative) has to rule it Constitutional.

3. Then what's considered "marriage" now, just becomes the new civil union, and this new type of union becomes the new "marriage", available only to naturally reproductive couples (therefore automatically excluding same sex couples).

And that's it.

One day you're going to get laid and your whole world will change.

 

[Lursa]

One day you're going to get laid and your whole world will change.

 

[Utilitarian Technocrat]

His messages are focusing on extreme personal sexuality crisis issues he has.

Are you being stupid, or just lying honestly? I'll chalk this up to poor reading comprehension to start with.

Woman? Can't stand women. Women are both inferior and evil.

No, I personally believe that men tend to eviler than women.

And if anything, the "inferiority" which I postulated on only makes women more intriguing. One could argue it's the nature of the superior to protect and sacrifice on behalf of the weaker. Often the 'inferior' is more valued than the 'superior', such as how people would feel about cruelty to an innocent and inferior 'animal' like a cat or a dog, versus a 'superior' human who deserved what the got.

If man "can't stand women" (whatever that means), then I view them as defective in some way or another, not particularly worthy of life.

Men? Gay sex is evil, insanity and should be outlawed.

No, the notion of "evil" is separate from the notion of "mental illness".

Masturbation? Destroys a person. If only a way it could be successfully outlawed.

Masturbation is heavily associated with pornography and tasteless views on sex, I'm unsure what "destroys" a person means.

Porn? Intolerable.

Correct, porn is generally rather tasteless, and basically to "sex" what MD2020 is to a glass of dry, white wine.

His messages are totally fixated on sex and relationships,

Right, I believe these issues are very integral to society (as well as many people's lives) - given how much they relate to perennial social issues such as abortion, divorce, equal rights, and such.

while being totally self banned from sex and relationships in extremely proactively hateful and condemning ways.

I'm not in anyway "banned" from anything whether it's "sinful" or anything else. I've been with enough women in the past, and a lot of them were married or dating someone else and using me for an affair - I used to not care because I assumed that her husband or boyfriend must be a loser who didn't know how to make her happy, but I wouldn't feel down with that now even if she didn't mind.

I'm also not interested in having children for the foreseeable future, so that would be an issue to to deeply consider.

Finding masturbation and pornography potentially distasteful isn't "hateful" just because you love them so much.

Very troubled and alarming messages. On a social level particularly if he really is as he posts, rather than just messing with people on a forum for the hell of it. His messages read like he is watching people with binoculars or hidden cameras trying to figure out who is masturbating and how people who do have sex and romantic relationships act - keeping notebooks of his observations of them in some bizarro self-study of others.

No, that makes very little sense - I'm trying to gauge how much of a social problem the access to porn and sexually-oriented business via social media is.

Your sensitive notions of "privacy" have no bearing whatsoever on objective discussions of the topics themselves.

The question is why did he bring this to a political forum?

Because this isn't about "relationships" to begin with, it's about social and political issues which are often discussed. Not that complicated.
Pointing out the inferiority of women, and the evilness of men isn't "bashing", simply because it triggers you, it's merely pointing it out.


And likewise, "gays" don't exist, and eventually we should just strait up outlaw describing people as "gay" or "LGBT", since it's just dishonest misinformation which was invented to perpetuate the myth that homosexuality is completely "genetic" or "immutable", and has no legal basis or validity whatsoever - the only thing which exists are heterosexual and homosexual sex acts, not "individuals".

There is no such - the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, likewise, did not acknowledge "LGBT people" or "sexual preference" - it only mentioned discrimination against the biological sex of the people getting married. (Meaning that 2 "straight" men have just as much of a legal right to get married as 2 "gay" men do.

That'll get a person banned fast as you can snap your fingers. Not saying there is any rules violation here and it's not my call anyway.

No, it actually will not - you obviously haven't read many stories.

 

[Utilitarian Technocrat]

One day you're going to get laid and your whole world will change.

No, as opposed to your own experiences with adult virginity. My honest belief after having spent more time hooking up than I'm comfortable admitting -is that hooking up purely "for pleasure" isn't the same as naturally reproducing -
and there's no reason for the government to care if "two people hook up for fun" anymore than in "2 male college students decide to be roommates".

So rather, it is informed by my experiences, while yours is merely informed by your lack thereof. (Your porn, not being surrogate for experience, of course ).

 

[joko104]

I've been with enough women in the past, and a lot of them were married or dating someone else and using me for an affair.

Anyone who has or boasts of affairs with married women is pure scum and the definition of a real loser in my opinion. However, I don't mean you because your messages have all the elements of highly disturbed fantasy messages of extreme sexuality issues and insecurities, nothing else.

 

[Lursa]

No, as opposed to your own experiences with adult virginity. My honest belief after having spent more time hooking up than I'm comfortable admitting -is that hooking up purely "for pleasure" isn't the same as naturally reproducing -

It's not. No one said it is. Really, they're opposites. Is this news to you?

and there's no reason for the government to care if "two people hook up for fun" anymore than in "2 male college students decide to be roommates".

Agreed. Never implied otherwise.

So rather, it is informed by my experiences, while yours is merely informed by your lack thereof. (Your porn, not being surrogate for experience, of course ).

Believe me, I would NOT want to have had your experiences or really, hear details. I havent had experience with adult virginity (as you mention) since I lost my virginity many years ago, as an adult. And it's kinda hard to reproduce it, LOLOLOL.

Obviously, you arent experiencing it either, since you're not a virgin Did you mean that you've since taken a vow of chastity?

I dont know what porn you are referring to...I think you made that up in a sad attempt at a personal attack. I will observe however, that your decision to remain chaste isnt doing you any favors, like I wrote to Joko, you sound like a very confused, unhappy individual.

 

[joko104]

It's not. No one said it is. Really, they're opposites. Is this news to you?


Agreed. Never implied otherwise.

Believe me, I would NOT want to have had your experiences or really, hear details. I havent had experience with adult virginity (as you mention) since I lost my virginity many years ago, as an adult. And it's kinda hard to reproduce it, LOLOLOL.

Obviously, you arent experiencing it either, since you're not a virgin Did you mean that you've since taken a vow of chastity?

I dont know what porn you are referring to...I think you made that up in a sad attempt at a personal attack. I will observe however, that your decision to remain chaste isnt doing you any favors, like I wrote to Joko, you sound like a very confused, unhappy individual.

It is sad, but also frightening in a social sense, that anyone would run onto a political forum obviously desperately needing attention in such a mass of sexual frustrations and fantasies.

 

[joko104]

A couple weeks ago a lesbian couple of my acquaintance got married. One is my niece's aunt on the other side of her family.

I didn't go. I believe I have a religious obligation that I cannot show approval of such a union by attending. I *like* both women and get along with them fine, but I couldn't in good conscience celebrate their union, so I stayed home.
My niece (same religion, goes to the same church I do), did in fact attend. In fairness to her, this is her aunt and her aunt has been good to her throughout her life.

I didn't say anything to any of those concerned. I have a tendency to mind my own business and answer to my own conscience, and let others do the same.
If my opinion was asked, I'd be honest... I'd try to be tactful but I'd have to speak the truth if I spoke at all. My opinion has not been asked so I kept my nose out of it.
I ran into the new couple at a birthday party last week. I said hi and hugged them both. I didn't say congratulations, but I also didn't express my disapproval. What would be the point really? I wouldn't be saying anything they hadn't heard before I'm sure.

Just injecting a little "real life" into the discussion...

Do you think they approve of you? Should they?

Attending a wedding isn't celebrating their union. At my wedding, some people did stand up and object - strongly (not a gay marriage but very non-Christian man to a very Christian bride.) Big formal church wedding and reception. Her mother stood up and ordered them to sit down. "Sit down. You are only here to observe, nothing more." One of the only four there for me stood up and said "Lady, do you want me to throw their asses out the door?" He would have done it too - MY kind of people. LOL

I'm curious, have you approved of every other couple's marriage for every wedding you attended, endorsing their marriage by your attendance?"

This said, if you felt you would have been compelled to state opposition to the marriage ceremony, yes you were correct to stay away. The ceremony wasn't about you. It was about them for them.

 

[Utilitarian Technocrat]

Anyone who has or boasts of affairs with married women is pure scum and the definition of a real loser in my opinion.

More like, the fact that they were open to having affairs (without telling me prior to the fact) means they were married to a loser who couldn't please them. Having an affair isn't even a crime, it's just a "sexual preference", so the law doesn't care what you and your backward feelings have to say, much as the law can't force a women to stay with a dimwit simply because he imagines he's "a nice guy" or something creepy like that..

In a lot of ways, marriage, as a legal institution is just an outdated social construct which keeps people (women especially) legally trapped in miserable relationships - in some ways, a woman having an affair is just her seeking a little bit of liberation, so why should she prostrate herself to some idiot who thinks she's "obligated" to be with her due to his own personal insecurity, instead of seek out better options?

However, I don't mean you because your messages have all the elements of highly disturbed fantasy messages of extreme sexuality issues and insecurities, nothing else.

No. you're just no one would offer you one, he he. That's why you have Pepe LePew as your avatar, it's a reflection on your own personal experiences.

And no, being a comparatively normal, feminist-minded person, who doesn't think that porn or masturbation promote tasteful depictions of women or sex (or that organizations with documented ties to pedophilia, zoophilia, and other perversities should be tolerated) - are not "extreme sexuality issues and insecurities". It's the toleration of those things which are.

Nor are personal anedocates about having hooked up when a person was younger "disturbed" - immature, maybe, but disturbed? Hell no - you must be more sexually puritanical than an Islamist if you find that "disturbed".

It is sad, but also frightening in a social sense, that anyone would run onto a political forum obviously desperately needing attention in such a mass of sexual frustrations and fantasies.

I'm sorry that you're so insecure with your sexual frustrations or fantasies, and silly antifeminist sentiments. Being concerned about the harmful or tasteless aspects of porn and masturbation is just something a normal, healthy, social-conscious person would do.

You must just be weird and really unable to imagine life without regularly masturbating and using porn, maybe you should see a shrink for that?

 

[Utilitarian Technocrat]

It's not. No one said it is. Really, they're opposites. Is this news to you?


Agreed. Never implied otherwise.

Believe me, I would NOT want to have had your experiences or really, hear details. I havent had experience with adult virginity (as you mention) since I lost my virginity many years ago, as an adult. And it's kinda hard to reproduce it, LOLOLOL.

Obviously, you aren't experiencing it either, since you're not a virgin Did you mean that you've since taken a vow of chastity?

I don't know what porn you are referring to...I think you made that up in a sad attempt at a personal attack. I will observe however, that your decision to remain chaste isnt doing you any favors, like I wrote to Joko, you sound like a very confused, unhappy individual.

I'm not sure what you mean by "remaining chaste" to begin with - for most, I would think it's "too late" to "remain chaste", assuming that was even a goal.

Unless you just mean not regularly hooking up for pleasure, or viewing porn and masturbation as potentially tasteless depictions of women, sex, and so on is "remaining chaste". (And no, since these are normal, healthy views on those subject, it seems rather than you and others are just rather obsessed with those things.

 

[joko104]

More like, the fact that they were open to having affairs (without telling me prior to the fact) means they were married to a loser who couldn't please them. Having an affair isn't even a crime, it's just a "sexual preference", so the law doesn't care what you and your backward feelings have to say, much as the law can't force a women to stay with a dimwit simply because he imagines he's "a nice guy" or something creepy like that..

In a lot of ways, marriage, as a legal institution is just an outdated social construct which keeps people (women especially) legally trapped in miserable relationships - in some ways, a woman having an affair is just her seeking a little bit of liberation, so why should she prostrate herself to some idiot who thinks she's "obligated" to be with her due to his own personal insecurity, instead of seek out better options?



No. you're just no one would offer you one, he he. That's why you have Pepe LePew as your avatar, it's a reflection on your own personal experiences.

And no, being a comparatively normal, feminist-minded person, who doesn't think that porn or masturbation promote tasteful depictions of women or sex (or that organizations with documented ties to pedophilia, zoophilia, and other perversities should be tolerated) - are not "extreme sexuality issues and insecurities". It's the toleration of those things which are.

Nor are personal anedocates about having hooked up when a person was younger "disturbed" - immature, maybe, but disturbed? Hell no - you must be more sexually puritanical than an Islamist if you find that "disturbed".


I'm sorry that you're so insecure with your sexual frustrations or fantasies, and silly antifeminist sentiments. Being concerned about the harmful or tasteless aspects of porn and masturbation is just something a normal, healthy, social-conscious person would do.

You must just be weird and really unable to imagine life without regularly masturbating and using porn, maybe you should see a shrink for that?

You're messages scream of someone completely reclusive and collapsing in on living only in your own head. People understand trolling, but I'm not seeing your messages as trolling. What you're doing in your messages is not the reality of them. There is no reality in your messages. Rather, it is this is the vehicle by which you seek attention.
Name anything that isn't repulsive to everyone about how you have described yourself, what you brag of having done and are doing, and your radically anti-social messages.

 

[Utilitarian Technocrat]

You're messages scream of someone completely reclusive and collapsing in on living only in your own head. People understand trolling, but I'm not seeing your messages as trolling. What you're doing in your messages is not the reality of them. There is no reality in your messages. Rather, it is this is the vehicle by which you seek attention.

I have no clue what you're even talking about since you rarely read before you respond or make any sense.

How is being concerned about the tasteless portrayals of women and sex in regards to porn and masturbation "seeking attention"?

How is admitting that women have had affairs with me without telling me at the time they were married or dating "seeking attention"?

How is pointing out the FACT that people who identify as "LGBT activists" or use the "LGBT flag" as a political symbol - have documented ties to pedophile organizations as recent as the 1990s "seeking attention"?

Name anything that isn't repulsive to everyone about how you have described yourself, what you brag of having done and are doing, and your radically anti-social messages.

I don't give a crap about your misogynist, hillbilly nonsense about "loyalty" or whatever legally-irrelevant concept you're harping on about.

I already said the only women I ever had "affairs" with (as opposed to just "hooking up") never told me the were with another guy until after the fact.

Regardless, a woman's under no legal obligation to stay with a guy, especially if he's a loser - you can "moralize" about it all you want, but you do jack if she wants to seek out other opportunities.

And considering the number of hicks and losers I've encountered that some woman stooped to dating or marrying, likely out of fear or desperation, I barely even blame it when a woman has an affair anymore - it's just capitalism in action, and a lot of insecure males all of a sudden start to hate "capitalism" when it's a woman being the capitalist - heh.

 

[Lursa]

I'm not sure what you mean by "remaining chaste" to begin with - for most, I would think it's "too late" to "remain chaste", assuming that was even a goal.

Unless you just mean not regularly hooking up for pleasure, or viewing porn and masturbation as potentially tasteless depictions of women, sex, and so on is "remaining chaste". (And no, since these are normal, healthy views on those subject, it seems rather than you and others are just rather obsessed with those things.

You are the one posting OP after OP about these things...so your baseless (unless you can prove some interest in porn or masturbation, etc in the rest of us) accusations about us are just you trying to avoid the topic.

You seem pretty confused and pretty obsessed.

 

[roguenuke]

You initially said something about our populations levels, implying, maybe unintentionally, that if population levels reach a certain point, and I would say that could be at both ends, then the government has an interest in whether or not a couple could reproduce.

But in the same manner that a woman would have to reveal that she is pregnant in order to avail herself of the pregnancy leave benefit, then so too would a couple reveal their ability to reproduce in order to access this specific set of benefits. Does not a woman have to be pregnant before she can access her right to the abortion or the maternity leave? So how would it be any different to have to be able to reproduce to have access to these benefits, especially in light that the other union still exists and those benefits are intact?

I believe that it would take an extreme drop in population level to reach that point where essentially we would lose some rights, probably simply because those in charge were able to take them away without much pushback. There are always balances and exceptions, which is why I stated that the way I did.

And no, the woman doesn't have to be pregnant to access maternity leave. You can get maternity leave for adopting a child. You can get maternity leave if you use IVF or sperm donation (which means that you could have a lesbian couple who each get maternity leave from work, maybe pregnant at same time or each pregnant some time during their marriage). You certainly do not have to prove the child is yours and your spouse's.

Paid Parental Leave | NC Office of Human Resources

To support healthy families and strengthen our economy, Governor Roy Cooper issued Executive Order No. 95 on May 23, 2019, extending Paid Parental Leave to

oshr.nc.gov

And does the other union still exist? Why would anyone use this "new" relationship if they may lose benefits if they become unable to procreate? Why go through the hassle for something like that? Especially when likely members of your own family may not be able to access those same benefits?

 

[roguenuke]

Which is more important? The benefits and equal access to all, or the label? Because his words show he only proposed to take what is currently labeled "marriage", and rename it, and then make this new union, based upon a different principle, and label it "marriage" instead.

So just another attempt at separate but equal as well as wasting money (taxpayer money) implementing this "new" union type for no real government interest, just to try to eliminate same sex marriage (because that is the purpose that was stated by the OP for doing this)?

You can show that something is discriminatory just by showing that the purpose itself is discriminatory. For instance, it is not discriminatory to refuse to bake a rainbow cake for anyone or to tell someone you can't bake them a cake (because you have run out of needed ingredients the cake they requested needs). It would be good to tell them why you can't bake that cake for them, but it isn't illegal discrimination until/unless you refuse because of some protected classification related to them. Another example, you can refuse to sell kosher foods if you own a bakery or a store. You could not refuse to sell kosher foods only to those who are not Jewish. The reason for the discrimination in these cases does matter. The same applies to government. Their reasons for their proposed discriminatory laws matters. Some discriminatory laws are allowed, because when challenged, they (the state) can give a valid reason for those laws. However, if the state has been found to be discriminatory in why those laws were put into place to begin with, then that could negate their claims about "why" the law is needed.

 

[Deuce]

Which is more important? The benefits and equal access to all, or the label? Because his words show he only proposed to take what is currently labeled "marriage", and rename it, and then make this new union, based upon a different principle, and label it "marriage" instead.

His goal clearly is taking rights away from homosexuals, and he has no other motivation or goal.

 

[Lursa]

His goal clearly is taking rights away from homosexuals, and he has no other motivation or goal.

Yeah...and I never even got him to defend his OP...he avoided the direct questions. Oh well. Maybe next time

 

[uptower]

It doesn't need to be 'eliminated'. It's progress.

 

[maquiscat]

His goal clearly is taking rights away from homosexuals, and he has no other motivation or goal.

Once again, I am addressing what he proposed to what his goals are. I have noted that what he proposes will not actually achieve his goal. The closest it will come is changing the label of the institution, but that does not eliminate it. No rights loss.

 

[Unbeknownst]

How about we just... not?

 

[bomberfox]

Are you being stupid, or just lying honestly? I'll chalk this up to poor reading comprehension to start with.

No, I personally believe that men tend to eviler than women.

And if anything, the "inferiority" which I postulated on only makes women more intriguing. One could argue it's the nature of the superior to protect and sacrifice on behalf of the weaker. Often the 'inferior' is more valued than the 'superior', such as how people would feel about cruelty to an innocent and inferior 'animal' like a cat or a dog, versus a 'superior' human who deserved what the got.

If man "can't stand women" (whatever that means), then I view them as defective in some way or another, not particularly worthy of life.


No, the notion of "evil" is separate from the notion of "mental illness".


Masturbation is heavily associated with pornography and tasteless views on sex, I'm unsure what "destroys" a person means.


Correct, porn is generally rather tasteless, and basically to "sex" what MD2020 is to a glass of dry, white wine.



Right, I believe these issues are very integral to society (as well as many people's lives) - given how much they relate to perennial social issues such as abortion, divorce, equal rights, and such.



I'm not in anyway "banned" from anything whether it's "sinful" or anything else. I've been with enough women in the past, and a lot of them were married or dating someone else and using me for an affair - I used to not care because I assumed that her husband or boyfriend must be a loser who didn't know how to make her happy, but I wouldn't feel down with that now even if she didn't mind.

I'm also not interested in having children for the foreseeable future, so that would be an issue to to deeply consider.

Finding masturbation and pornography potentially distasteful isn't "hateful" just because you love them so much.


No, that makes very little sense - I'm trying to gauge how much of a social problem the access to porn and sexually-oriented business via social media is.

Your sensitive notions of "privacy" have no bearing whatsoever on objective discussions of the topics themselves.


Because this isn't about "relationships" to begin with, it's about social and political issues which are often discussed. Not that complicated.
Pointing out the inferiority of women, and the evilness of men isn't "bashing", simply because it triggers you, it's merely pointing it out.


And likewise, "gays" don't exist, and eventually we should just strait up outlaw describing people as "gay" or "LGBT", since it's just dishonest misinformation which was invented to perpetuate the myth that homosexuality is completely "genetic" or "immutable", and has no legal basis or validity whatsoever - the only thing which exists are heterosexual and homosexual sex acts, not "individuals".

There is no such - the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, likewise, did not acknowledge "LGBT people" or "sexual preference" - it only mentioned discrimination against the biological sex of the people getting married. (Meaning that 2 "straight" men have just as much of a legal right to get married as 2 "gay" men do.


No, it actually will not - you obviously haven't read many stories.

Poachers dont care about “weaker” species. Actual science doesnt deal with such heavily value laden terms.

 

[bomberfox]

I have no clue what you're even talking about since you rarely read before you respond or make any sense.

How is being concerned about the tasteless portrayals of women and sex in regards to porn and masturbation "seeking attention"?

How is admitting that women have had affairs with me without telling me at the time they were married or dating "seeking attention"?

How is pointing out the FACT that people who identify as "LGBT activists" or use the "LGBT flag" as a political symbol - have documented ties to pedophile organizations as recent as the 1990s "seeking attention"?


I don't give a crap about your misogynist, hillbilly nonsense about "loyalty" or whatever legally-irrelevant concept you're harping on about.

I already said the only women I ever had "affairs" with (as opposed to just "hooking up") never told me the were with another guy until after the fact.

Regardless, a woman's under no legal obligation to stay with a guy, especially if he's a loser - you can "moralize" about it all you want, but you do jack if she wants to seek out other opportunities.

And considering the number of hicks and losers I've encountered that some woman stooped to dating or marrying, likely out of fear or desperation, I barely even blame it when a woman has an affair anymore - it's just capitalism in action, and a lot of insecure males all of a sudden start to hate "capitalism" when it's a woman being the capitalist - heh.

You arent posting facts, you were corrected on this before.

 

[Deuce]

Once again, I am addressing what he proposed to what his goals are. I have noted that what he proposes will not actually achieve his goal. The closest it will come is changing the label of the institution, but that does not eliminate it. No rights loss.

Incompetent and bigoted have never been mutually exclusive qualities to a policy proposal.

 

[maquiscat]

You can get maternity leave if you use IVF or sperm donation (which means that you could have a lesbian couple who each get maternity leave from work, maybe pregnant at same time or each pregnant some time during their marriage). You certainly do not have to prove the child is yours and your spouse's.

That would require being pregnant as well. Are maternity leave and parental leave two different things anywhere that you are aware of? If a surrogate is used, do all three (father, mother and surrogate) get parental/maternity leave?

And does the other union still exist?

By the wording given, yes, that currently called marriage would still exist. Not really sure what would be the difference in rights and benefits, especially since he noted that those who adopt wouldn't be under his new union.

Why would anyone use this "new" relationship if they may lose benefits if they become unable to procreate?

If you are no longer having biological children, why would you need those supposed benefits that are solely about having biological children?

Why go through the hassle for something like that? Especially when likely members of your own family may not be able to access those same benefits?

Again, what need is there for such, when you are not going to use them?