What's new
By:
Filters

Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

scootsy said:
Do gay men typically find the same features attractive that straight women do? Is it still about facial symmetry, masculine features and a low shoulder to hip ratio? Also, size "doesn't matter" to most females, do gay males also utter that same complete bs?
Click to expand...

Gay men are as varied in their appreciation of the male form as straight women, I'd imagine. Outside of symmetry, I don't think there is any biological feature that is universally attractive in either sex.
 
One Brow said:
Gay men are as varied in their appreciation of the male form as straight women, I'd imagine. Outside of symmetry, I don't think there is any biological feature that is universally attractive in either sex.
Click to expand...

there may not be any universal traits, but there are certainly general ones: symmetry, sexual dimorphism, shoulder-to-hip ratio (.85-.95 are rated highly attractive by a massive majority of people)
 
DutchJazzer said:
well assuming this article is correct.
there is one for u

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/09/13692/
Click to expand...

Try again, her husband was gay.

I tried to read the rest of that article and got most the way through it. She sure does feel like her gay husband owed her the life she wanted, with all the material wealth and security her little heart desired. Never once did she seem in the least concerned with his desires or what their marriage meant for him. She just knew what his duty to her was. I bet she was a real peach.

I know many many men who's wives leave them completely against their wishes, often because the woman feels bored or bogged down or unfulfilled. It's completely legal and acceptable in our society. I know there are stories from the female perspective just as heartbreaking but I mostly know other men, so it's their stories I hear. But now that gay couples are getting married we hear the exact same types of stories and somehow now it's unacceptable and we should restrict the freedoms and liberties (don't even need to use the word "rights") of gay people to protect them and those around them from the injustices straight people are free to inflict on one another.
 
Gameface said:
Try again, her husband was gay.

I tried to read the rest of that article and got most the way through it. She sure does feel like her gay husband owed her the life she wanted, with all the material wealth and security her little heart desired. Never once did she seem in the least concerned with his desires or what their marriage meant for him. She just knew what his duty to her was. I bet she was a real peach.

I know many many men who's wives leave them completely against their wishes, often because the woman feels bored or bogged down or unfulfilled. It's completely legal and acceptable in our society. I know there are stories from the female perspective just as heartbreaking but I mostly know other men, so it's their stories I hear. But now that gay couples are getting married we hear the exact same types of stories and somehow now it's unacceptable and we should restrict the freedoms and liberties (don't even need to use the word "rights") of gay people to protect them and those around them from the injustices straight people are free to inflict on one another.
Click to expand...

again assuming that story is true(i never hear dof the site, yu may question the validity of the site)
the problem is the kids are taken away from the mother.
in most marriages the mother ussually has "monoploy" on the children.
but because her husband has better job and "better" home/family live. she lost her kids to the husband. because of the marriage they also have better economical situation than a single mother. which ofcourse led to her losing her biological children to some **** (rhymes with swags).

this whole shift in definition of marriage. muddies the position of husband and wife in relation to children. and that has a negative impact on society.
but then again i might not grasp the article since it is not in my native language
 
scootsy said:
Hey I already revived that wanted a question answered and only got crickets!!!!

:angryface:
Click to expand...

I replied. Of course I more or less agreed and the question remained unanswered.
 
DutchJazzer said:
again assuming that story is true(i never hear dof the site, yu may question the validity of the site)
the problem is the kids are taken away from the mother.
in most marriages the mother ussually has "monoploy" on the children.
but because her husband has better job and "better" home/family live. she lost her kids to the husband. because of the marriage they also have better economical situation than a single mother. which ofcourse led to her losing her biological children to some **** (rhymes with swags).

this whole shift in definition of marriage. muddies the position of husband and wife in relation to children. and that has a negative impact on society.
but then again i might not grasp the article since it is not in my native language
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sure the judge gave the kids to the man because he was gay.

Based on the way the woman presented her story I imagine she's a raging bitch who mentally abuses her kids and is an all around horrible woman. I mean I don't know, but the judge saying "if you would have asked for more I would have given you more" kind of makes me think the woman had some issues.
 
Siro said:
If you're talking to your relief society friends, then you can make an argument about the evils of drinking coffee or whatever. That's how preaching to the choir works. Everyone already agrees with you, so you don't need to expend much effort explaining your position. But when you're talking to a more diverse audience, you can't throw nude protests as an example of declining morality, because we do not share religious beliefs. In this case, for gay marriage to be immoral, you must demonstrate that it has harmed individuals or society in measurable ways. And the correlation must be clear. Claiming a connection between gay marriage and something like hurricanes or failing infrastructure is irrelevant. Most do not believe there is a causal link between gay marriage and hurricane strength or government spending on infrastructure. You have to show a connection that is based on consensus reality, not arbitrary subjective sentiment.

Edit: Also, I don't need an objective measure to support the right for two consenting people to get married. We live in a society based on the idea that individuals have the right to do as they wish as long as their freedom does not infringe on another's. If you want to deny them this right, then you must show that their actions infringe on your freedom, somehow.
Click to expand...

That was a nice speech and all but you claimed by any "objective measures" homosexual marriage hasn't harmed the morality of Canaduh. I want to know what "objective measures" YOU are looking at to determine a hit to morality?
 
Gameface said:
Yeah, I'm sure the judge gave the kids to the man because he was gay.

Based on the way the woman presented her story I imagine she's a raging bitch who mentally abuses her kids and is an all around horrible woman. I mean I don't know, but the judge saying "if you would have asked for more I would have given you more" kind of makes me think the woman had some issues.
Click to expand...
no not because gay. but the 2 men have a better combined income. simple as that
 
One Brow said:
Again: it did not/does not/will not happen to churches that banned/ban/will continue to ban interracial marriages, and it will not happen to the LDS over gay marriage. You have the complete, total right to be as bigoted as you choose while practicing your religion (in the US), and the very worst you will experience is hear a lot of people complain about it.
Click to expand...

Nobody knows who the hell those churches are.

The Mormon church was already broken up by the government because of marriage, and their men thrown in jail so your assurances are empty crap.
 
moevillini said:
Just my opinion. Married is the term we've grown accustomed to - that's not to say the meanings and language can't evolve over time. It can and does happen.

Gay is a prime example! Maybe there will come a time when it simply means happy and joyous again.
Click to expand...

I remember a girl just a year older than me, the same age as my cousin/neighbor/friend who was her best friend. . . . . her name "Gay". yes that was her legal name. When she was seventeen she eloped with some guy who was probably a lot of fun, and I bet they thought they were having a gay time.

I was the paperboy who rode my bike past her house every day, leaving the Salt Lake Tribune on her parents' doorstep. I thought it was a very nice name for a pretty girl.
 
PearlWatson said:
Nobody knows who the hell those churches are.

The Mormon church was already broken up by the government because of marriage, and their men thrown in jail so your assurances are empty crap.
Click to expand...

This is absolute historical fact. Not only were LDS believers/practitioners in polygyny jailed for "cohabitation", the LDS Church itself had property like churches and temples seized by the government. . . expropriated . . . . and that specified by an act of the US Congress, and signed by the US President, and upheld by the SCOTUS. Members of the LDS Church were barred from immigrating as well. As recently as 1975 when I was stupid enough to marry a girl from outside this country, the US Immigration Service insisted on eliciting an oath from her that she did not believe in polygamy, as a pre-condition for immigration and citizenship.

The LDS Church itself had a large number of a rising generation in the 1880s who were just incredibly opposed to their church's practice of polygamy, sometimes on account of seeing the hardships it meant for their mothers, and really didn't need the stupid government to stop the practice, and today the largest source of folks who are just absolutely disgusted with polygyny are the children of polygynist parents, still.

The reason our government raised the issue over Utah/Mormon polygamy in the nineteenth century was mainly driven by big money interests who wanted to assert claims to Utah resources like mining, coal, railroad lines. . . . during that era, the land policy of the US changed away from encouraging and promoting private ownership of land towards Federal ownership and control of lands and resources. yes, a few stupid "christians" fomented about the diabolical Mormons and their wicked marriages, but the yellow journalism merely exploited those folks so William Randolph Hearst could exert control over mining in Utah. . . well, there were British interests, and the Rockefellers as well. Today, the largest mine, and the most historically long-lived and profitable mine. . . . the Kennecott Copper property, is under the control of the British Crown, the majority stockholder in Rio Tinto. It was developed with Rockefeller and other New York financial giant control. . . .

One interesting note is that Rio Tinto and its predecessor owners secured unusual "rights" from both the federal and Utah governments, to the extent that they own the whole Oquirrh mountain range, with large acreages of the foothills, which are now prime residential real estate.

funny how the rich can just get governments to roll over for them, and just keep getting richer and richer.

I haven't the least doubt that the current rage about LGBT issues, in the hands of government lawmakers, will turn out to be a huge power grab as well.
 
Hey babe, in the future feel free not to address me by name. If I'm not worth having a conversation with you can save your preaching. I'm not impressed.

I've responded to you twice and you seem inclined to make incoherent, rambling, look at me type tirades instead of ever actually acknowledging my responses to you.
 
Can't believe there's over 50 pages on this already... could someone please give me a quick bullet point summary?
 
PearlWatson said:
It sure sounds like the same pool of eugenicist libtards to label murder as a "heath" issue.
Click to expand...

If that's what my posts "sound" like to you, then your reading comprehension is a characteristic example of the flawed American education system that the whole world laughs at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top