What is okay?
Men marrying women
 5%  [ 1 ]
Women marrying men
 0%  [ 0 ]
Both
 55%  [ 11 ]
Neither
 40%  [ 8 ]
Total Votes : 20

I don't think that Blue Bear gets that this thread is not serious ><
It's... not? This could be the most serious thread I've ever read, and perhaps the most important! Without this thread, I never would have found my true religion. I can only pray that my BOMT God can lead all those "heteros" back to the path of righteousness!

reo wrote:
[. . .]
Second, it's disgusting. When I'm in public, I don't want to see straight people kissing. It's just gross, and wrong. You can do it at home (you filthy sinner), but not around me, because it makes me uncomfortable. In fact, when I'm walking around at night, I'm afraid that straight people will force me to have sex with them. Besides, why would anybody want to "do it in the vag"? Do they know that women menstruate out of there? In contrast, homosexual sex is beautiful and flawless and obviously not disgusting so you perverts need to get with it and stick to it (before marriage, while it lasts).
Not only is it disgusting, quite frankly, it's annoying too! Think of all the times you've been unable to walk through a building only because some *shudder* opposite-sex couple decided to kiss right in front of you! My God does not look kindly upon them, though he does give everyone a chance to redeem themselves, so long as they never act on their opposite-sex attractions. Because, let's face it, it's unnatural to think those thoughts.

Also, thanks Chronomex Very Happy I'm liking this thread
Another reason to ban opposite sex marriage is that marriage is created ONLY for a woman and a man to have sex and the world is over populated as it is.
qazz42 wrote:
Another reason to ban opposite sex marriage is that marriage is created ONLY for a woman and a man to have sex and the world is over populated as it is.

I'd have to disagree strongly with that. As I said in the other thread, I think that opposite sex marriage was also created to help people become more complete. My best friend is a girl (whom I happen to like) and I have learned more about myself simply by being her friend than any friendship with any guy could hope to teach me. Being legally bound to a significant other also helps you learn to be selfless and interdependent, because you are legally and emotionally obligated to do so.
Additionally, a healthy marriage is the safest place for kids to be born, because they have a stable family life and both a mother and a father to help them develop - the same "learning from the opposite sex" concept applies here, too.
I'm honestly more amused by the people who still don't get that this is a joke than most of the people actually joking. Whoever came up with this idea deserves a Nobel Prize.
CompyNerd255 wrote:
Additionally, a healthy marriage is the safest place for kids to be born, because they have a stable family life and both a mother and a father to help them develop - the same "learning from the opposite sex" concept applies here, too.
What about all the brave single parents who do a great job of raising their kids? Clearly those kids grow up fine; wouldn't you also like kids to have two loving, adoring parents, regardless of the genders of those parents.
KermMartian wrote:
CompyNerd255 wrote:
Additionally, a healthy marriage is the safest place for kids to be born, because they have a stable family life and both a mother and a father to help them develop - the same "learning from the opposite sex" concept applies here, too.
What about all the brave single parents who do a great job of raising their kids? Clearly those kids grow up fine; wouldn't you also like kids to have two loving, adoring parents, regardless of the genders of those parents.


I like to say that while there's a lot of decent, if not excellent single parents raising their kids these days, there are a fair share of very bad ones. I would say many of the ones with that bad single parent won't turn out as nearly as well. I think that no matter the gender, having two parental figures is important to a growing youth.
[quote="Ashbad"]
KermMartian wrote:
I like to say that while there's a lot of decent, if not excellent single parents raising their kids these days, there are a fair share of very bad ones. I would say many of the ones with that bad single parent won't turn out as nearly as well. I think that no matter the gender, having two parental figures is important to a growing youth.
Well, then you can't think very highly of me. I don't think you can make a generalization about how single-parented children turn out any more than you can make a generalization about one entire type of marriage being better than the other. If a single parent loves and nurtures their child, great. If a gay or lesbian couples loves and nurtures their child, equally great. To say, oh, because the child lacks a <gender> role model, they won't turn out well is shockingly biased and short-sighted. I'd go so far as to say that only people from "classical" two-parent male-female parent families would even make that kind of a claim.
KermMartian wrote:
Ashbad wrote:
I like to say that while there's a lot of decent, if not excellent single parents raising their kids these days, there are a fair share of very bad ones. I would say many of the ones with that bad single parent won't turn out as nearly as well. I think that no matter the gender, having two parental figures is important to a growing youth.
Well, then you can't think very highly of me. I don't think you can make a generalization about how single-parented children turn out any more than you can make a generalization about one entire type of marriage being better than the other. If a single parent loves and nurtures their child, great. If a gay or lesbian couples loves and nurtures their child, equally great. To say, oh, because the child lacks a <gender> role model, they won't turn out well is shockingly biased and short-sighted. I'd go so far as to say that only people from "classical" two-parent male-female parent families would even make that kind of a claim.


I think you may have misinterpreted what he was saying, based on the immensely sensitive nature of the subject, and possibly overreacted. What Ashbad was pointing out that while many single parents perform admirably, it is harder on the children of those who aren't up to the task, because they don't have the broader parental safety-net. I don't think anyone would claim that "single-parented children won't turn out well", but I think you would also be hard pressed to claim that it isn't beneficial for a child to have role-models of both genders. And I certainly know of many single-parented children who have openly expressed a degree of envy towards families where both parents are present and caring, though I also know of many single-parented children who are very happy with the parenting that they experienced growing up. Which I think is directly a function of what Ashbad was saying.
^ Exactly was I was aiming at, actually. Smile
Compynerd255 wrote:
qazz42 wrote:
Another reason to ban opposite sex marriage is that marriage is created ONLY for a woman and a man to have sex and the world is over populated as it is.

I'd have to disagree strongly with that. As I said in the other thread, I think that opposite sex marriage was also created to help people become more complete. My best friend is a girl (whom I happen to like) and I have learned more about myself simply by being her friend than any friendship with any guy could hope to teach me. Being legally bound to a significant other also helps you learn to be selfless and interdependent, because you are legally and emotionally obligated to do so.
Additionally, a healthy marriage is the safest place for kids to be born, because they have a stable family life and both a mother and a father to help them develop - the same "learning from the opposite sex" concept applies here, too.


So marriage should only be legal for opposite sex couples simply because they get a special learning bond that you know exists only between a girl and a guy because you are straight? Rolling Eyes
It seems Compynerd means that.
I assume he also has some sort of proof to back up such a great claim, outside of his own straight relationship?

Anyways, back on topic: Another reason that we should ban opposite sex marriage is that it seems straight couples have been raising a lot of straight children recently. This is obviously unnatural due to my religious beliefs and should be banned in order to prevent future births to straight children.
I don't care about your religious beliefs. I don't believe the same thing as you. Furthermore please note that without straight people we'd be extinct.
Question of the day: When will people understand this is a circlejerk mockery thread?

Quote:
I don't care about your religious beliefs. I don't believe the same thing as you.


qazz42 wrote:
Question of the day: When will people understand this is a circlejerk mockery thread?


Actually, it very much needs to not be mockery. Light-hearted poking is one thing, mocking is another.
elfprince, noted.

Anywho, for a hilarious read that is slightly off topic: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/domenick-scudera/my-gay-lifestyle_b_1063570.html
elfprince13 wrote:
qazz42 wrote:
Question of the day: When will people understand this is a circlejerk mockery thread?


Actually, it very much needs to not be mockery. Light-hearted poking is one thing, mocking is another.


It's not people that are being mocked, but specific, flawed arguments.
<seriousness>
in all honesty, i am of the opinion that restrictions on marriage of any kind would yield beneficial results. as it stands, couples often get married within a few months of having met one another, while still in the "infatuation" stage. their new-found companionship may seem perfect at first, but, after just a brief period of living together, they will come to realise that there is much more to situation than they had anticipated. little annoyances with one another add to a growing feeling of being "trapped," and fighting ensues. in more recent, "rebellious" couples, this soon leads to divorce, a practice which destroys their ability to trust others and take companions seriously. for "traditional" couples, on the other hand, divorce is evil (and would embarrass them in front of their "friends"), so the two will continue to live with one another, escalating the situation to the point of nightly shouting matches, utter resentment of one's partner, and an overall miserable existence.

a potential solution to this rampant problem would be restricting marriage to those who have been in frequent contact and, if at all possible, living together for at least a year, allowing them to find solutions to the problems of everyday life without feeling like they are being "forced" into anything, and maintaining the power of marriage to bind a couple together to form a strong, cohesive unit that is greater than the sum of its parts.

from what i've seen, heterosexual couples seem to be worse about the whole "rush into marriage without thinking" thing, but both sides could benefit from such a practice.
</seriousness>
People like Kim Kardashian are among those people that really makes me inclined to agree with you shimbs.
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 2 of 3
» All times are UTC - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement