Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

When you say 'Gay marriage is inevitable,' do you mean rich people want it?

Posted by   + Show Post

You have no doubt heard the news that gay marriage is inevitable. The New York state legislature redefined marriage in 2011. Rhode Island redefined marriage earlier this week. Delaware just removed the gender requirement from marriage. Minnesota is poised to vote on the issue this week. This steady drumbeat of state legislatures changing the definition of marriage as it has been known for millennia surely must show that so-called gay marriage is inevitable.

But have you ever stopped to ask yourself what exactly people mean when they say this? Here is what I think:

"Gay marriage is inevitable" means that the rich people of both parties have decided that we are going to have genderless marriage.

Back in 2008, during the Prop 8 campaign, the two sides spent roughly equal amounts: about $40 million on each side. The Yes on 8 campaign had 100,000 volunteers, people of modest means from both parties. The opponents of Prop 8 simply couldn't match the volunteer effort. In that roughly fair fight, the people won.

The Gay Lobby immediately brought suit, paid for by Hollywood elitist "Meathead" Rob Reiner. Reiner generally finances Leftwing causes, so no real surprise there.

But as races developed in state legislatures, the Gay Lobby got reinforcements from not just Hollywood millionaires, but Republican billionaires. In New York State, Republican hedge-fund manager Paul E. Singer pumped money into the campaign coffers of pro-gay marriage Republicans. In the words of the Washington Post, "He coaxed Republican state senators in New York to back a same-sex marriage law in 2011, offering financial cover against backlash stemming from their votes, helping raise six figures for each of them." You would think they would show some shame over such blatant quid pro quo corruption. But hey, he's rich. He supports Republican candidates and Democratic causes, so who is going to confront him?

Just last week, Rhode Island voted to dismantle the only social institution we have that connects children with their parents. I saw another version of the same story, when I testified there in January. (I gave them a piece of my mind, too, as you can see here.)

When I arrived at the state house in Providence, I was stunned by the size of the crowds. The place was packed with African-American and Hispanic Evangelicals who opposed the marriage redefinition bill. I took some (very amateur) photos and videos. I had a feeling no one in the Mainstream Media would show those images. But about one thousand people supported natural marriage.

There were so few people advocating gay marriage that the media literally could barely find anyone to interview. (Full disclosure: this little story, published by the Ruth Institute, was written by a student of mine who showed up for the hearings.)

How did the marriage redefinition bill pass, given the opposition from traditionally Democratic constituents? Look at the professional side of the equation. One can track the number of lobbyists registered for each side of each bill on this page, from the Rhode Island Secretary of State. The House version of the marriage redefinition bill, H5015A has one lobbyist opposed: my buddy Chris Plante of NOM Rhode Island. The other side has 12 registered lobbyists. On the Senate side, the proponents of the marriage redefinition bill, S0038, have 18 lobbyists. Opposed? You guessed it. Chris Plante, all by his lonesome.

On one side, one thousand people of modest means and one registered lobbyist. One the other side, a comparative handful of people and 18 professional lobbyists.

Somebody must really hate the idea of gender, that they are paying that kind of money to remove all traces of gender from the law in a little state like Rhode Island.

Same story in Minnesota, where a vote on the marriage bill is expected this week. Minnesota for Marriage has one registered lobbyist. According to John Helmberger, Chairman of the Minnesota for Marriage, the other side has 12 lobbyists. Paul Singer's organization pumped a quarter million dollars to lobby Republicans to redefine marriage in Minnesota.

In Illinois, home of Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel, the sledding has been surprisingly tough for the Kids Don't Really Need a Mom and a Dad Crowd. The reason? The African-American pastorate, traditionally loyal Democrats, are not buying what the rich folk are selling. Check out this video of a press conference, where the pastors of many denominations express their opposition to redefining marriage. Beginning around seven minutes, Bishop Lance Davis of the New Zion Christian Fellowship decries the large amounts of money being thrown around to "undo the Bible and shove it down our throats."

The March for Marriage in Washington DC provided another setting where the economic contrast between the two sides jumped out at any honest observer. We came to rally for natural marriage on the day that the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the Prop 8 case. There were 10,000 people on the side of natural marriage: busloads of Hispanic Pentecostals from the Bronx, Catholics from the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, a Catholic boys school with a band and banners, Chinese Evangelicals bused in from Delaware. And the Coalition of African American pastors sent pastors and people from all over the place. For some of these people, the bus fare was a financial hardship.

On the other side, a few hundred white people. These oh-so-politically correct folk were quite shocked to see the real Rainbow Coalition, our majority minority crowd, as we rounded the corner to march past the Supreme Court.

So when the Gay Lobby says "gay marriage is inevitable," what they really mean to say is this:

We have the money and the power to get what we want.

The ordinary people of both parties are resisting. We plan not to go along quietly, with the "inevitable" march of history.



source

by on May. 9, 2013 at 7:50 PM
Replies (201-210):
Meadowchik
by Silver Member on May. 16, 2013 at 5:11 AM

 Along, buttersworth's train of thought, one could say that gay marriage would make those otherwise inhibited impulses more likely to surface in the case of bisexuals and closeted gays.

As for my opinion, the best humane approach to population reduction is education for women. That's already happening.  On the other hand, according to these pattens the world will see a continual shift of population densities, where countries with higher education levels lose population and countries with lower education levels have higher population rates.  Eventually, the countries with more people may indeed have greater influence, and by simple logic, the less educated have more influence in the world.

IMO there are simply those among the rich who have lower moral standards, and they seek affirmation on the unimportance of marriage by advocating its deconstruction.  There are indeed legal scholars who are same-sex marriage proponents who say society needs the deconstruction of marriage and that same-sex marriage is an effective means toward that end.

Quoting AdrianneHill:

I think most people on the solidly bisexual spectrum are different than both straights and gays. Most people can be and are attracted at one point or another to someone outside their usual preferred gender . Not everyone acts on those attractions. Most people aren't turned on equally by men and women, they usually have a favorite.
Sometimes people have convinced themselves they're straight but let their gay out when their inhibitions are down. And vice versa. I think some of those people fall into the category that homophobes lump all LGBTs in which is they had confused gender roles growing up or were abused in some way. I'm saying again the majority isn't like this but I do believe it plays a part in some people's bisexuality. If this isn't you (general) then great but I've known too many eight-drink peter pumpers who were straight when sober.


Quoting buttersworth:

 Are you sure you are either gay or not? Because I'm bisexual and I don't think i was born that way. We use our brains a lot for sex, and we have a lot of visuals in our society to pander to it. It has been said that gays, lesbians and bisexuals are usually very intelligent, and my thought about that is, we are bored people who can sometimes turn our mental energy towards slight sexual deviance, like homosexuality.


 


Quoting AdrianneHill:

Yeah. Im pretty sure that isn't it. You aren't recruited, you are either gay or not. The gay lifestyle does very little to halt population because a healthy percentage of gay and lesbian couples either have kids or want kids. There's so much wrong with this post but I don't have time to list it. Because believe it or not, I have to go to church so I must dress. Yup, lost a bet with the husband so going to a new church a week until I kill myself. Or find one I like. Yeah right. Last week Methodist, this week is nondenominational.


Quoting buttersworth:


OP, you said: "But have you ever stopped to ask yourself what exactly people mean when they say this? Here is what I think:





"Gay marriage is inevitable" means that the rich people of both parties have decided that we are going to have genderless marriage. "



This is where I agree. I might think a little different in the details of how this is / has been / will be arranged, but i basically agree. and i would add ---



if more people accept a gay lifestyle, less people are procreating. if less people are procreating, our population gets smaller. a smaller population is what many wealthy people have called for. a smaller population is what many call 'sustainable'. a smaller population is considered more ecological -friendly. and a smaller world population is favored by the U.N. apparently, in their quest to catalog all natural resources including human, for the supposed purposes of sustainability.



Were it not for population control, politicians would care less if gays could marry. They never cared before. Why care now?


 


 

 

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on May. 16, 2013 at 11:45 AM
Many straight couples have no worry of unplanned pregnancy because of one or both being sterile. I had no worry of unplanned pregnancy either, because I religiously practiced natural family planning, and now my husband is fixed. This argument is just silly and reaching. There is no switch of responsibility just because a couple can't have children.

You may not support conventional divorce, but it is legal. Straight people have been breaching the marriage contract for centuries. Why shouldn't gay people have a crack at it, considering marriage is a civil right and all.


Quoting Meadowchik:

 



Quoting kailu1835:

It makes zero sense for the government to not equate the responsibilities of a same sex relationship with those of heterosexual relationships.

I am married. If I cheat and get pregnant, my husband is automatically the legal parent. There is no difference with lesbians who are married. Any children born to a married woman belong to her spouse, legally. Most lesbians who get pregnant do so on purpose with a donor, so why would her wife not want children? Its typically something they are doing together, same as most heterosexual married couples. There is zero difference in a marriage between man and woman or two men or two women. The responsibilities are identical.


Not so.  The responsibilities are indeed different.  A gay partner has no reason to expect an unplanned pregnancy from their relationship, very unlike heterosexual partners in general.

You're so worried about marriage meaning less because of what's getting married? Please. Half of all hereto marriages end in divorces, many of them nasty. Heteros have already made it mean little. 


And? I don't support unconditional divorce, either.


 

kansasmom1978
by Bronze Member on May. 16, 2013 at 11:49 AM

How bout we stop with all the gay marriage crap, all the Christian/anti Christian stuff and all the bashing.

Meadowchik
by Silver Member on May. 16, 2013 at 12:00 PM

 Sterility is an exception for heterosexual couples, not the rule.  The two different relationships are different in concrete ways which affect the individuals involved and also society.  Saying, for example, that we must be legally blind to those differences is preposterous.

Your last paragraph: so you're saying that the fact that some heteros breach the marriage contract, that we should discard the model as it is and let gay couples try it.  Sorry, that doesn't fly.  Either it is useful for both kinds of relationships, despite how much people succeed at the ideal, or it is not.  Marriage has always been understood as a hetero contract, until recently.  Yes, there have been same-sex unions throughout history, but give me an example when they were legally indistinguishable from marriage itself.  Every exmaple I've known of was considered a special type of relationship, not one of many covered by the same legal concept of marriage.

 

Quoting kailu1835:

Many straight couples have no worry of unplanned pregnancy because of one or both being sterile. I had no worry of unplanned pregnancy either, because I religiously practiced natural family planning, and now my husband is fixed. This argument is just silly and reaching. There is no switch of responsibility just because a couple can't have children.

You may not support conventional divorce, but it is legal. Straight people have been breaching the marriage contract for centuries. Why shouldn't gay people have a crack at it, considering marriage is a civil right and all.


Quoting Meadowchik:

 



Quoting kailu1835:

It makes zero sense for the government to not equate the responsibilities of a same sex relationship with those of heterosexual relationships.

I am married. If I cheat and get pregnant, my husband is automatically the legal parent. There is no difference with lesbians who are married. Any children born to a married woman belong to her spouse, legally. Most lesbians who get pregnant do so on purpose with a donor, so why would her wife not want children? Its typically something they are doing together, same as most heterosexual married couples. There is zero difference in a marriage between man and woman or two men or two women. The responsibilities are identical.


Not so.  The responsibilities are indeed different.  A gay partner has no reason to expect an unplanned pregnancy from their relationship, very unlike heterosexual partners in general.

You're so worried about marriage meaning less because of what's getting married? Please. Half of all hereto marriages end in divorces, many of them nasty. Heteros have already made it mean little. 


And? I don't support unconditional divorce, either.


 

 

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on May. 16, 2013 at 12:57 PM
Whether or not a couple can conceive has NEVER been a precursor to marriage, and it certainly isn't how. Again, completely ridiculous argument. In fact I would say allowing day marriage will decrease the percentage of unplanned pregnancies among married couples.

It isn't just SOME heteros its HALF of ALL straight people who get married.

It used to be understood that black people weren't even human. Just because "it's understood" doesn't make a thought process correct.


Quoting Meadowchik:

 Sterility is an exception for heterosexual couples, not the rule.  The two different relationships are different in concrete ways which affect the individuals involved and also society.  Saying, for example, that we must be legally blind to those differences is preposterous.


Your last paragraph: so you're saying that the fact that some heteros breach the marriage contract, that we should discard the model as it is and let gay couples try it.  Sorry, that doesn't fly.  Either it is useful for both kinds of relationships, despite how much people succeed at the ideal, or it is not.  Marriage has always been understood as a hetero contract, until recently.  Yes, there have been same-sex unions throughout history, but give me an example when they were legally indistinguishable from marriage itself.  Every exmaple I've known of was considered a special type of relationship, not one of many covered by the same legal concept of marriage.


 


Quoting kailu1835:

Many straight couples have no worry of unplanned pregnancy because of one or both being sterile. I had no worry of unplanned pregnancy either, because I religiously practiced natural family planning, and now my husband is fixed. This argument is just silly and reaching. There is no switch of responsibility just because a couple can't have children.

You may not support conventional divorce, but it is legal. Straight people have been breaching the marriage contract for centuries. Why shouldn't gay people have a crack at it, considering marriage is a civil right and all.



Quoting Meadowchik:


 





Quoting kailu1835:

It makes zero sense for the government to not equate the responsibilities of a same sex relationship with those of heterosexual relationships.

I am married. If I cheat and get pregnant, my husband is automatically the legal parent. There is no difference with lesbians who are married. Any children born to a married woman belong to her spouse, legally. Most lesbians who get pregnant do so on purpose with a donor, so why would her wife not want children? Its typically something they are doing together, same as most heterosexual married couples. There is zero difference in a marriage between man and woman or two men or two women. The responsibilities are identical.



Not so.  The responsibilities are indeed different.  A gay partner has no reason to expect an unplanned pregnancy from their relationship, very unlike heterosexual partners in general.

You're so worried about marriage meaning less because of what's getting married? Please. Half of all hereto marriages end in divorces, many of them nasty. Heteros have already made it mean little. 



And? I don't support unconditional divorce, either.



 


 

Meadowchik
by Silver Member on May. 16, 2013 at 1:05 PM

 Um, actually, kailu, the cultural designation of marriage as a sexual coupling and the designation of it as hetero is already a fertility test, in a sense.  A hugely significant percentage of heterosexual women will get pregnant, and an overwhelming percentage of them could.

So it's relevant and in no way parallels interracial marriage bans, especiall not in practical life or levels of significance.. Race is largely a social and anti-miscegenation laws were largely arbitrary and targeted "white purity" while not putting less if any real significance on "black purity" or "asian purity," ect...

Quoting kailu1835:

Whether or not a couple can conceive has NEVER been a precursor to marriage, and it certainly isn't how. Again, completely ridiculous argument. In fact I would say allowing day marriage will decrease the percentage of unplanned pregnancies among married couples.

It isn't just SOME heteros its HALF of ALL straight people who get married.

It used to be understood that black people weren't even human. Just because "it's understood" doesn't make a thought process correct.


Quoting Meadowchik:

 Sterility is an exception for heterosexual couples, not the rule.  The two different relationships are different in concrete ways which affect the individuals involved and also society.  Saying, for example, that we must be legally blind to those differences is preposterous.


Your last paragraph: so you're saying that the fact that some heteros breach the marriage contract, that we should discard the model as it is and let gay couples try it.  Sorry, that doesn't fly.  Either it is useful for both kinds of relationships, despite how much people succeed at the ideal, or it is not.  Marriage has always been understood as a hetero contract, until recently.  Yes, there have been same-sex unions throughout history, but give me an example when they were legally indistinguishable from marriage itself.  Every exmaple I've known of was considered a special type of relationship, not one of many covered by the same legal concept of marriage.


 


Quoting kailu1835:

Many straight couples have no worry of unplanned pregnancy because of one or both being sterile. I had no worry of unplanned pregnancy either, because I religiously practiced natural family planning, and now my husband is fixed. This argument is just silly and reaching. There is no switch of responsibility just because a couple can't have children.

You may not support conventional divorce, but it is legal. Straight people have been breaching the marriage contract for centuries. Why shouldn't gay people have a crack at it, considering marriage is a civil right and all.



Quoting Meadowchik:


 





Quoting kailu1835:

It makes zero sense for the government to not equate the responsibilities of a same sex relationship with those of heterosexual relationships.

I am married. If I cheat and get pregnant, my husband is automatically the legal parent. There is no difference with lesbians who are married. Any children born to a married woman belong to her spouse, legally. Most lesbians who get pregnant do so on purpose with a donor, so why would her wife not want children? Its typically something they are doing together, same as most heterosexual married couples. There is zero difference in a marriage between man and woman or two men or two women. The responsibilities are identical.



Not so.  The responsibilities are indeed different.  A gay partner has no reason to expect an unplanned pregnancy from their relationship, very unlike heterosexual partners in general.

You're so worried about marriage meaning less because of what's getting married? Please. Half of all hereto marriages end in divorces, many of them nasty. Heteros have already made it mean little. 



And? I don't support unconditional divorce, either.



 


 

 

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on May. 16, 2013 at 1:11 PM
The argument for purity (interracial marriage) is the same one made against gays being allowed to marry and have children since so many people erroneously believe that being raised children in a home with gay parents means higher likelihood of kids being gay.

These days, gay people CAN and DO have children, and raise healthy, well adjusted ones at that. So again, barring homophobia, there are no logical reasons not to allow gay people to have legal marriage and protect their kids.


Quoting Meadowchik:

 Um, actually, kailu, the cultural designation of marriage as a sexual coupling and the designation of it as hetero is already a fertility test, in a sense.  A hugely significant percentage of heterosexual women will get pregnant, and an overwhelming percentage of them could.


So it's relevant and in no way parallels interracial marriage bans, especiall not in practical life or levels of significance.. Race is largely a social and anti-miscegenation laws were largely arbitrary and targeted "white purity" while not putting less if any real significance on "black purity" or "asian purity," ect...


Quoting kailu1835:

Whether or not a couple can conceive has NEVER been a precursor to marriage, and it certainly isn't how. Again, completely ridiculous argument. In fact I would say allowing day marriage will decrease the percentage of unplanned pregnancies among married couples.

It isn't just SOME heteros its HALF of ALL straight people who get married.

It used to be understood that black people weren't even human. Just because "it's understood" doesn't make a thought process correct.



Quoting Meadowchik:


 Sterility is an exception for heterosexual couples, not the rule.  The two different relationships are different in concrete ways which affect the individuals involved and also society.  Saying, for example, that we must be legally blind to those differences is preposterous.



Your last paragraph: so you're saying that the fact that some heteros breach the marriage contract, that we should discard the model as it is and let gay couples try it.  Sorry, that doesn't fly.  Either it is useful for both kinds of relationships, despite how much people succeed at the ideal, or it is not.  Marriage has always been understood as a hetero contract, until recently.  Yes, there have been same-sex unions throughout history, but give me an example when they were legally indistinguishable from marriage itself.  Every exmaple I've known of was considered a special type of relationship, not one of many covered by the same legal concept of marriage.



 



Quoting kailu1835:

Many straight couples have no worry of unplanned pregnancy because of one or both being sterile. I had no worry of unplanned pregnancy either, because I religiously practiced natural family planning, and now my husband is fixed. This argument is just silly and reaching. There is no switch of responsibility just because a couple can't have children.

You may not support conventional divorce, but it is legal. Straight people have been breaching the marriage contract for centuries. Why shouldn't gay people have a crack at it, considering marriage is a civil right and all.




Quoting Meadowchik:



 







Quoting kailu1835:

It makes zero sense for the government to not equate the responsibilities of a same sex relationship with those of heterosexual relationships.

I am married. If I cheat and get pregnant, my husband is automatically the legal parent. There is no difference with lesbians who are married. Any children born to a married woman belong to her spouse, legally. Most lesbians who get pregnant do so on purpose with a donor, so why would her wife not want children? Its typically something they are doing together, same as most heterosexual married couples. There is zero difference in a marriage between man and woman or two men or two women. The responsibilities are identical.




Not so.  The responsibilities are indeed different.  A gay partner has no reason to expect an unplanned pregnancy from their relationship, very unlike heterosexual partners in general.

You're so worried about marriage meaning less because of what's getting married? Please. Half of all hereto marriages end in divorces, many of them nasty. Heteros have already made it mean little. 




And? I don't support unconditional divorce, either.




 



 


 

Meadowchik
by Silver Member on May. 16, 2013 at 1:17 PM

 Nope, that's not the argument I have made.  There are plenty of invalied arguments for and against same-sex marriage.  Just taking one side does not mean I've adopted aany argument for my position.

There is a problem with legally attaching responsibilities that do not exist.  Either someone will end up being oppressed or the responsibilities will be abandoned from the contract altogether.

Quoting kailu1835:

The argument for purity (interracial marriage) is the same one made against gays being allowed to marry and have children since so many people erroneously believe that being raised children in a home with gay parents means higher likelihood of kids being gay.

These days, gay people CAN and DO have children, and raise healthy, well adjusted ones at that. So again, barring homophobia, there are no logical reasons not to allow gay people to have legal marriage and protect their kids.


Quoting Meadowchik:

 Um, actually, kailu, the cultural designation of marriage as a sexual coupling and the designation of it as hetero is already a fertility test, in a sense.  A hugely significant percentage of heterosexual women will get pregnant, and an overwhelming percentage of them could.


So it's relevant and in no way parallels interracial marriage bans, especiall not in practical life or levels of significance.. Race is largely a social and anti-miscegenation laws were largely arbitrary and targeted "white purity" while not putting less if any real significance on "black purity" or "asian purity," ect...


Quoting kailu1835:

Whether or not a couple can conceive has NEVER been a precursor to marriage, and it certainly isn't how. Again, completely ridiculous argument. In fact I would say allowing day marriage will decrease the percentage of unplanned pregnancies among married couples.

It isn't just SOME heteros its HALF of ALL straight people who get married.

It used to be understood that black people weren't even human. Just because "it's understood" doesn't make a thought process correct.



Quoting Meadowchik:


 Sterility is an exception for heterosexual couples, not the rule.  The two different relationships are different in concrete ways which affect the individuals involved and also society.  Saying, for example, that we must be legally blind to those differences is preposterous.



Your last paragraph: so you're saying that the fact that some heteros breach the marriage contract, that we should discard the model as it is and let gay couples try it.  Sorry, that doesn't fly.  Either it is useful for both kinds of relationships, despite how much people succeed at the ideal, or it is not.  Marriage has always been understood as a hetero contract, until recently.  Yes, there have been same-sex unions throughout history, but give me an example when they were legally indistinguishable from marriage itself.  Every exmaple I've known of was considered a special type of relationship, not one of many covered by the same legal concept of marriage.



 



Quoting kailu1835:

Many straight couples have no worry of unplanned pregnancy because of one or both being sterile. I had no worry of unplanned pregnancy either, because I religiously practiced natural family planning, and now my husband is fixed. This argument is just silly and reaching. There is no switch of responsibility just because a couple can't have children.

You may not support conventional divorce, but it is legal. Straight people have been breaching the marriage contract for centuries. Why shouldn't gay people have a crack at it, considering marriage is a civil right and all.




Quoting Meadowchik:



 







Quoting kailu1835:

It makes zero sense for the government to not equate the responsibilities of a same sex relationship with those of heterosexual relationships.

I am married. If I cheat and get pregnant, my husband is automatically the legal parent. There is no difference with lesbians who are married. Any children born to a married woman belong to her spouse, legally. Most lesbians who get pregnant do so on purpose with a donor, so why would her wife not want children? Its typically something they are doing together, same as most heterosexual married couples. There is zero difference in a marriage between man and woman or two men or two women. The responsibilities are identical.




Not so.  The responsibilities are indeed different.  A gay partner has no reason to expect an unplanned pregnancy from their relationship, very unlike heterosexual partners in general.

You're so worried about marriage meaning less because of what's getting married? Please. Half of all hereto marriages end in divorces, many of them nasty. Heteros have already made it mean little. 




And? I don't support unconditional divorce, either.




 



 


 

 

buttersworth
by Silver Member on May. 18, 2013 at 2:39 PM

 No, i was never abused growing up. I liked males in 'that way before i understood it, and female curiousity developed later.

Quoting AdrianneHill:

I think most people on the solidly bisexual spectrum are different than both straights and gays. Most people can be and are attracted at one point or another to someone outside their usual preferred gender . Not everyone acts on those attractions. Most people aren't turned on equally by men and women, they usually have a favorite.
Sometimes people have convinced themselves they're straight but let their gay out when their inhibitions are down. And vice versa. I think some of those people fall into the category that homophobes lump all LGBTs in which is they had confused gender roles growing up or were abused in some way. I'm saying again the majority isn't like this but I do believe it plays a part in some people's bisexuality. If this isn't you (general) then great but I've known too many eight-drink peter pumpers who were straight when sober.


Quoting buttersworth:

 Are you sure you are either gay or not? Because I'm bisexual and I don't think i was born that way. We use our brains a lot for sex, and we have a lot of visuals in our society to pander to it. It has been said that gays, lesbians and bisexuals are usually very intelligent, and my thought about that is, we are bored people who can sometimes turn our mental energy towards slight sexual deviance, like homosexuality.


 


Quoting AdrianneHill:

Yeah. Im pretty sure that isn't it. You aren't recruited, you are either gay or not. The gay lifestyle does very little to halt population because a healthy percentage of gay and lesbian couples either have kids or want kids. There's so much wrong with this post but I don't have time to list it. Because believe it or not, I have to go to church so I must dress. Yup, lost a bet with the husband so going to a new church a week until I kill myself. Or find one I like. Yeah right. Last week Methodist, this week is nondenominational.


Quoting buttersworth:


OP, you said: "But have you ever stopped to ask yourself what exactly people mean when they say this? Here is what I think:





"Gay marriage is inevitable" means that the rich people of both parties have decided that we are going to have genderless marriage. "



This is where I agree. I might think a little different in the details of how this is / has been / will be arranged, but i basically agree. and i would add ---



if more people accept a gay lifestyle, less people are procreating. if less people are procreating, our population gets smaller. a smaller population is what many wealthy people have called for. a smaller population is what many call 'sustainable'. a smaller population is considered more ecological -friendly. and a smaller world population is favored by the U.N. apparently, in their quest to catalog all natural resources including human, for the supposed purposes of sustainability.



Were it not for population control, politicians would care less if gays could marry. They never cared before. Why care now?


 


 


 

autodidact
by Platinum Member on Jun. 11, 2013 at 10:13 PM

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured