Discussion » Nonsense » Straight People create Gay Marriage

  • A.w
    A.w wrote:
    <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_sjZ44Lggkso/TaJ7lu2lFhI/AAAAAAAADW8/AqrEF54XJDg/6062ad1etw1dftcec0okxj.jpg" alt="" width="440" height="330" /></p> <p>I promise that I tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Thanks God!!!&nbsp;</p> <p>^^</p>
  • Simen Wangberg

    My favorite response to people who say that being gay is a choice is to ask them when they chose to be straight.

    Not many people can pin down a precise time in their life when they made that decision - shocking, I know.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Gay marriage upsets me on so many levels, not the least of reasons being that I think marriage is a sinful institution of state-sanctioned prostitution.

    On the other hand, it's the conservative gays that want this dumb shit, not the clandestine faggots who're sucking off strangers in public restrooms. Many of the gay folks who're interested in this shit would be "family values" voting Republicans if the Republican party didn't irrationally hate dykes and fags.

    I suspect that the entire controversy is a gambit by social conservatives to try and make socially conservative blacks and Hispanics disillusioned with the Democratic Party.

    So while I'm probably one of the more radically liberal members of the forum, I gotta say I'm not entirely onboard with the idea of gay marriage. Rather than extending equal rights to gay couples, I think the gubbermint should rescind all the tax exemptions and special privileges allowed to families of breeders; Americans are resource gluttons anyway, and we'd be doing the world a favor by discouraging the manufacturing of more Americans. But America's been trying to get rich straight white dudes to give up or share their special privileges for over two centuries to no avail. I don't see this going anywhere.

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    Prostitution is commonly defined as the custom of having sexual relations in exchange for economic gain...

    If you are extremely liberal, you can't deny these people marriage right. Once u agree that men should put his stick into another guy's asshole, Once u think that same gender sexual attration is normal but not backing gay marriage seems to me that u don't have an idea to offer to people.

    With the amercan concept of"Anything goes", the world is hijacked by it's culture and this will spread over nations to think evil is holy, that artificial is natural.



  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    @阿姆雷特, see High Priest: "Prostitution is commonly defined as the custom of having sexual relations in exchange for economic gain..." Two people in one room means two wage earners paying the same rent as a single person. People get married because they love each other and/or for economic benefit. Ya dig?

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    @High Priest, You don't learn, do you? If you should expect us to tolerate your irrational fear of buttsex simply because it's written in a thousands of years old book in a language you can't even read, then the least you could do is respect the rest of the book and not cast judgement upon other people, and not create obstacles for their happiness.

    If you are extremely liberal, you can't deny these people marriage right.

    To be clear, I really don't care if people go through a marriage ceremony; gay folks can do this already. The issue is whether it will be sanctioned by the state.

    Will there be a legal document that a gay person can show to hospital staff in order to visit a loved one when they are seriously ill? Can you put yourself in the shoes of a gay person? Or, since you apparently think gay dudes will put their dicks anywhere, including their own shoes, perhaps you should imagine yourself in the sensible shoes of a lesbian? How would you feel if your loved one was dying and you couldn't visit them because the nurses are only legally allowed to admit members of the immediate family and spouses. That's utterly unfair to people in a committed gay relationship.

    I simply don't think that it's right for people in heterosexual relationships to enjoy advantages over people in homosexual relationships. Besides the example above, the advantages I'm talking about are social and economic in nature. Enhanced status in peer groups and religious organizations. Joint checking accounts, shared assets, tax deductions.

    Take off your ideological blinders and think about this for one fucking minute:

    Does the world need more people?


    So why the fuck should we be providing people with economic incentives for producing more people? That's insanity. Will it change? Probably not in my lifetime. But what we can do is extend the same rights, privileges, and respect to homosexual couples as we do for heterosexual couples.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Once u agree that men should put his stick into another guy's asshole,

    Nobody said this, and that you assume that there's some sort of phantasmal "gay agenda" to force all left-handed people to use their right hands pretty much invalidates everything you've said or will say about queer folks.

    Rather, what we're saying is that it's perfectly okay for a dude to put his dick in another dude's asshole, as long as it's safe, consensual, and in private. Should it be encouraged? Not any more than putting dicks in pussies should be encouraged.

    Once u think that same gender sexual attration is normal but not backing gay marriage seems to me that u don't have an idea to offer to people.

    I did. Take away the special privileges and preferential treatment typically offered to people in state-sanctioned heterosexual relationships, and let them realize just how much they are taking for granted. No more special tax exemptions for married couples. Sharing a room and food provide ample benefits on its own, not to mention love or whatever. People don't need any additional encouragement to breed.

    With the amercan concept of"Anything goes", the world is hijacked by it's culture and this will spread over nations to think evil is holy, that artificial is natural.

    How the bleeding fuck is that concept American? You do realize that this issue is far less controversial in comparatively liberal Europe, yes? It sounds like you think gayness didn't exist before some American queers decided to throw parades.

    You can't consider homosexuality as evil or unnatural without invoking the artifice of religion. Moreover, if anal sex is so unnatural, then why did God give men prostates by which to stimulate orgasm through the anus?

  • Stine Ekren
    Stine Ekren wrote:

    I guess most of people including government holds the consensus attitude toward this homosexual relationship issue that is"neither support nor oppose",but some other people are likely to turn the"not support"idea into"oppose" opinion,at least we don't have to advocate or preach such relationships,aren't we?

    @"Does the world need more people?"


    so are you expecting chaging the world? I mean a world going to an end?but the fact is that there is only one thing never grows old,and that is the" world".

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    @Evanescence, I'm afraid that "not supporting nor opposing" gay marriage is not very different from opposing it outright. People are simply seeking a way to get the government to acknowledge gay marriages and give gay couples the same rights and privileges extended to straight people. They're not asking for the government for special treatment; they just want it to stop discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, just like the government doesn't prevent marriages between people of different ethnicities. Anymore, that is.

    There are enough vocal homophobes to silence the even smaller minority of gays who want to get married if single gays and liberal straights don't show solidarity and speak up, even though the issue doesn't affect them.

    I'd like to introduce the idea of the spiral of silence theory of mass communication. Even if a majority of people tolerate the idea, they won't necessarily say so if they believe that it is not a majority opinion, because they are afraid of being grouped in with the minority.

    Once more, nobody ever preached a gay lifestyle to anyone who wasn't already gay. This dreadfully misinformed belief that the gays have an agenda to convert all the straights is too ridiculous to refute and too common to ignore.

    I don't know what to make of your last comment. Of course I expect the world to change. The only existential constant is change.

  • Stine Ekren
    Stine Ekren wrote:

    @Dando, what makes the world constantly changing?

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    A conspiracy!

  • Stine Ekren
    Stine Ekren wrote:

    haha, is that a ghost  conducing the conspiracy?

  • High Priest
    High Priest wrote:

    Dando zero, don't be contracting yourself, sometime gay mariage is upseting you and sometime your are advocating it.

    Learning is one things, but what to learn is another thing. Learning to spread and back fallacy could be crime, because it destroy the morality in the community.

    What's wrong with the world having more people?  People belong to the state and for there can't be state without people Dando! Double check urself before shouting insanity to something vital to this world as procreation. Imagine people converting to your fucking childess doctrine,  that;s the end of the world.



  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    @Evanescence, Either that or thermodynamics.

    @High Priest, I never contradicted myself; you merely equivocated. I think gay marriage should be legal, but this is quite different from advocating or encouraging a gay lifestyle to people who aren't already gay. Gay people don't need encouragement to be gay. They're already gay. At no point during one's sexual development does one do a cost-benefits analysis and say to him/herself, "Well, I wanna be gay, but I won't be able to get married when I'm older. I guess I'd better learn to be straight instead." That's absolutely ludicrous.

    Ridding ourselves of sexism, racism, and homophobia seems to me to be the most effective way of preserving community morality. Classifying people of different sexual orientations as diseased deviants doesn't seem very moral to me, and I daresay it's quite contrary to the teachings of the Gospels.

    People are going to continue fucking and making babies and I don't think anyone has any illusions otherwise. Y'know why? 'Cuz different people make different choices. Get used to it. Consolation prize: most of what happens behind closed doors doesn't affect you at all, whether it happens between two hairy sweaty guys with moustaches, or between those two guys and a judge.

    Speaking of logical fallacies, you just committed a textbook example of a slippery slope fallacy by suggesting that the world would end if we don't maintain present birth rates. Hold on a fucking second. You're standing in China, of all places, and telling me that if we don't give people incentives to get married and have kids, then we're all gonna die?

    And I'm the crazy one?

  • Ms. Stephanie
    Ms. Stephanie wrote:


  • pommie
    pommie wrote:

    gay baby = gayby

  • Stine Ekren
    Stine Ekren wrote:

    @Dando,thermodynamics? hehe, hope u can prove that can generate the baby automatically or are u assuming that human beings are not a part of the world in the universe?...
    homosexuality is not the thing that we could avoid and advocate.It happened naturally and I do agree gay marriage should be legal .
    You are so caritative to aware and concerned about those minority groups of people who's fear of reprisal and isolation by voice their opinion against majority, I appreciate that,but as for the "homophobia",

    well, we can't change people's ideas and die-hard opinion why not just let it go since it's not a issue which can restrain gay people's nature who are already gay and also it's not gonna work to advocate homosexuality to straight people to make them change ideas,isn't it?

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    @Evanescence, I was joking about advocating homosexuality to straight people. The reason is that a lot of people describe homosexuality as a disease or acquired disorder rather than an identity. There really are a lot of religious groups which offer miraculous "cures" for gayness.

    There are not, however, gay institutions for turning straight people gay. Contrary to what religious folks think, gayness isn't a disease and queers aren't interested in converting breeders. Sociological research shows that when gay couples adopt kids, the children no more likely (and sometimes even less likely) to be gay themselves.

    People aren't separate from nature, but neither are they slaves to it. We no longer consider miscegenation (race mixing) unnatural, although there was a time and a place where it was considered so, much the same as women working outside the home. There are still reactionaries who claim that these behaviors are evil, unnatural, or a sign of disorder. We dismiss them as crazy.

    Homophobes are no different. Sooner or later we'll realize that being so fixated upon other peoples' sex lives is the real disease, not homosexuality.

    Until then, I think all we can do is make jokes about buttsex until people forget their so-called "natural" revulsion and disgust.

  • Martin Svean
    Martin Svean wrote:

    would someone please shoot me.

  • Stine Ekren
    Stine Ekren wrote:

    @Dando, I partially agree to your point there, are you really concerning fixated homophobe thing will really change gay people's idea? c'mon, are they choose to be gay themself or it's naturally happened?

    "People aren't separate from nature, but neither are they slaves to it. "

    I don't think so, people are slaves,no one in the world is wholly free. It is just like a person  get thirsty and want to buy a cola,it seems like he choose by himself, but actually he is obey his thirst obey his nature~and somehow  to choose buy which beverage is also abey to the advertisement impact spread by media.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    @Evanescence, If we went back in time and asked previous generations about the human behaviors they considered natural, we would surely find them contrary to our present standards. Human nature is subject to changes in the human social environment and influenced by human choices just like our choices are influenced by our baser natures, whatever they may be at this point in history.

    Just like a thirsty person might settle for water, or maybe even decide to die a slow and painful death from dehydration, people who are born gay have similarly unpleasant alternatives to an openly gay lifestyle, such as living "in the closet" and pretending to be straight during the day and being gay when their friends and loved ones aren't watching, or do what was expected of gay people in the old days: join a monastery or a convent and be celibate.

    (I should say that the openly gay community has little love for the closeted gay community, considering them the source of the social stigma of promiscuity attached to the gay community as a whole. Closeted queers make the rest look bad.)

    Like compelling left-handed people to be right-handed seems like the New Coke to me. Whether sexuality is a preference or an orientation (as someone who tried really fucking hard to be gay but failed, I insist it's the latter), people resent being forced to change.

    Instead of making life harder for homosexuals, straight people can simply stop interfering when gay people petition the government to acknowledge their marriages. Not only is that easier, but it makes everyone happier, save for a minority of reactionary motherfuckers who actively try to make life harder for gays, just because they think buttsex is gross. These folks don't understand that it's the closeted homosexuals, not the openly gay, who pose a threat to their communities.

Please login to post a reply to this thread.


WeLiveInBeijing.com is a social community for people living in or traveling to Beijing.

Powered by: Bloc