12 reasons why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.

Whoa!
Someone finally realized what the article was getting at.
Can't you guys tell that the article is parody AND satire?

It is VERY clever, I have to admit. I will use it in my future debates about homosexual marriage. It gets the message across quite nicely.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thats what you get for posting brainy comedy where the general public is going to see it. Some people just wont be able to realize that every one of those 12 reasons contains both a reason people commonly give for why gays shouldnt marry, and the argument that refutes that reason

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think T and I have ever agreed on much of anything except maybe the following statement: Satire is indeed a dead horse. Those of us who know this should really stop kicking said horse, because our audience is dead.

And while I'm on the subject, subtlety and nuance are on life support in the neuro ICU, and the power is about to go out.

Damn shame. I'm going to miss those two.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Crap, time to start drinking more beer and smoking pot, need to get rid of those extra brain cells. I won't be needing them where I'm going. Keep the lights on in dull mediocrity, 15ofthe19, I'm commin' home!

 

Remember Irony's miracle recovery after 9/11 when all the news folks were saying that this is the death of irony? Why were they saying that, I never did know what exactly was irony killing about 9/11 but it seems to be up and about again, in pretty good shape too.

 

was 9/11 ironic or not? Was it a case of the nation that thought it was invincible being taken down a big notch by some dirty men with box cutters, or was it supremely un-ironic because the nation the world hates turned out to be the very nation that suffered such awful attacks?

Either way I think Irony doesn't have much to worry about anymore, it's safe to come out of hiding.

 

I'm very worried about the amount of people who didn't realise that was a satire.
I'm even more worried about the amount of people who didn't realise that was a satire *after* Mystech pointed it out.
Two things occurred to me when reading this thread:
"Not involved are the legions of right-wingers who think that it’s their place, or the place of the masses to decide." Good point. Yes, it's different when you're talking adoption, but seeing as homosexuality isn't illegal or anything, what's the problem? The age-old institution of marriage? *cough* Britney *cough*.
And secondly, on the subject of satire and the response to it (as in, certain people who realised it was a satire). "No more joking posts" - I'll be nice and actually take you seriously. I'm very tempted not to. But anyway - satire strives to make a point about a topic in an entertaining and unconventional way. Thus, uhh, has a use, has a point, is effective...discusses an issue...there's a pretty long list about why it's relevant and important. Also, to people who pointed out it might be insensitive, it's good of you, but - that satire seeks to deride that kind of viewpoint, which I'd assume is a good thing from the average homosexual's point of view. I'm not gay, so I won't profess to know, but I do have an autistic brother, I take very unkindly to any kind of insult on him, but I appreciate most satirical work on mental health care.
Okay, so half of that was irrelevant to the issue. Summing up my point of view: I believe gay people should have the right to marry. It's just exclusion on the basis of sexuality otherwise, and I thought we agreed that was bad?

 

While we are on the subject of Homosexuality, I wanted to ask a very fundamental question of readers Gay or otherwise.

With out raising a homophobic reation etc.

I understand that one of the greatest challenges facing a gay person, male or female or inbetween is the challenge of self acceptance.
Shit even an average smo like myself has trouble with self acceptance and I don't have the crap that alternative lifestylers have to put up with.

The question I wanted to ask an am prepared to post as a thread is:

Do all homosexual persons harbour deep with in a desire or wish that they were straight? This may seem an obvious question and answer but I mean really deep.......

"If someone could wave a magic wand ( excuse the pun) and deliver a homosexual person to the realms of heterosexuality would you or they wish this to be done?"

The reason I ask this is that I do know that homosexual men still desire to be parents, wanting children etc and knowing the difficulties, would be reluctant to have children.....

As I stated earlier I do understand that self acceptance is often hrad to achieve and this question I hope does not cause uneccessary pain.....

 

Well that's a good question, probably even disserves it's own topic. Homosexuals grow up on the same culture as everyone else in this society, they have a mix of the same values, and even before they themselves realize that they're gay, they may have formed fairly solid opinions on the issue of homosexuality in general.

Because of that, shame is a fairly common initial reaction to really realizing your own sexuality, and can be a really big factor in the decision to remain in the closet.

But then the experience can be very different for various individuals. Most people just get the heck over it eventually, if they ever felt any shame at all, and don't have any trouble accepting themselves.

As for the question of waving a magic wand and turning straight, I don't suppose that everyone would turn that down, however the mere suggestion of it may upset others. To some it would seem a bit like "if you could wave a magic wand and turn black (you unrhythmic low jumping white-boy!) would you do it? It's not something we'd change, it's just part of who we are.

 

The second sentence of every point either doesn't make sense or isn't true. Divorce is illegal? Single-parents can't raise children? None of these are facts, or if you believe they are then you should say where. New Zealand?

 

Fair coment......

 

As stated over and over and over and over again in this thread, that is because the list is a satire! The second sentences are what makes it a satire, showing that the points in the first sentences are as unsuportable as the ones in the second sentence. Really now, its only a three page thread, please read and try to comprehend before you come up with some statement like "Gee, you know what, I think this thread might be about homosexuals!" Duh! That is the point!

 

Wow

It's not so much a question of wishing they were straight, but a translation whereby "straight" equals "normal." And after a couple decades living on the fringe of every culture you know, it can start to wear on you.

Which is really strange, incidentally, when you look at the way men and women get along, at least in the United States. Happiness, apparently, is a warm bed. And a cold heart.

Those homosexuals who do actually wish to be straight are, I think, the clearest indication of what a genetic or biological predisposition toward homosexuality looks like. Some of these folks will, much like a 13 year-old girl has successfully argued, feel victimized by biology. I tend to think the socialized or "acquired" homosexuals, those whose sexuality is environmentally spawned or reinforced--e.g. reaction to sexual trauma--generally don't wish to be straight except, such as in the example given, the desire for it all to go away, and for everything to be statistically "normal." (This is a misnomer; fully 1/4 of women in the US will be raped in their lifetimes; the majority of that will occur in childhood or youth; normal, in the end, is reduced to plurality at best, if not an outright fraud.)

To draw a dangerous comparison, it's a problem of defining the goal. Statistically- or apparently-deviated individuals have not cornered the market on clarity; I know nobody who would assert they have. But watch how people deal with, for instance, the depressed. Nobody I know who deals with such difficulties actually wants to be normal. "Normalcy" is largely what pushed them over the edge, unless it's a running chemical or structural issue. "Normal" sucks. The normal don't like being normal, why should the deviant aspire to be? In the end, the goals ought to be functionality and sustainability. The mistake I've made, for instance, all through my life, was the twenty-five years of aspiring to normalcy. I chased "normalcy" for so long, made so many bad decisions in my quest for the normal that I am, in fact, the wreck that comes before you all here. I don't mind thinking harder than the people around me, but at the same time I wish it could go toward something more immediately useful than castles in the sky. But normal? (Expletive) normal!

And I've watched in my friends who wrestled with their sexuality a battle between the competing desires for normalcy on the one hand, and happiness on the other.

And yes, they are competing desires.

So a lot of what passes for "wishing they were straight" is actually an incorrectly-stated pursuit for functionality and security; "normalcy," the comfort of being like 90% of your neighbors, is an amazingly heavy weight of comfort.

I don't actually believe that a tremendous number of homosexuals wish they were straight. And of those that do, I'm of the opinion that it's generally not a wish to be straight per se, but rather a desire to not be considered--or consider themselves--superficially abnormal and set apart by a mere label.

I always smile when I hear a homophobe include some aspect of the "wealth" of gay men in a discussion of homosexuality, because the wealth spoke to a limited number of possibilities, most interesting being the propositions that sexual repression in society causes the men to channel more of their efforts into their work, or that ... hey, two gay men are wealthy? You mean they're not out blowing their lives on drink and drugs and wild sex? You mean they're living in a happy, apparently-monogamous relationship and behaving ... gasp! ... like people are allegedly supposed to behave when they are happy and secure? Or, at the very least, they're getting along as well as their "normal" neighbors? Very few of these men, for instance, will wish they were straight.

Another dangerous notion, but functional: Think of how hard it is to get information about drugs. I don't mean for you and me, but when we get right down to it, the whole drug war is predicated on an extremely limited number of sources, and most of them incomplete, inappropriate, or ill-conceived. It's really hard to get good data when the participants in the surveys are confessing to crimes. Point: As a nefarious idea--e.g. "drugs" normalizes within a society, the tone of discussion changes. The last six years have seen marijuana normalize somewhat, for instance. After one of the Clinton-era's own anti-drug experts compared marijuana's addictiveness to caffeine (still a slight exaggeration), the whole discussion changed. Everybody knew the stoners at work because they were looking at the coffee-freaks and laughing that stoner laugh. And in the middle of that, when NIDA finally announced that they had identified withdrawal symptoms from THC, every stoner in the country said, "Well? Duh!" And it's true. It's like caffeine withdrawal. Only it takes about a day to set in at least, and not forty minutes. And the stoners didn't tell NIDA to piss off because (A) we knew it was true, and (B) the discussion had finally reached a point where rational discourse is remotely possible. People might think stoners are lazy and inattentive, but watching and thinking are two things they're notorious for. Nobody denounced the study. Nobody called it false. Nobody called it political. The issue went away and we can now include that minor point in the honest discussion.

Any nefarious idea goes through this. In fact, I just this morning had my boundaries redrawn; my opinion of the most ridiculous sexual gratification changed. It's no longer a tie between exhibitionist adult babies and vinyl-doms. (What? Enjoy yourselves, but I do chuckle when I see it in public. I won't be chuckling anymore ... the ABs and the doms have just been normalized by ... oh, never mind.)

Homosexuality has traditionally been considered a nefarious idea. Wait, wait, wait. Let's get this straight. Gay men everwhere owe heterosexual men and homosexual women a debt of gratitude. For as long as humanity has reviled sodomy between men, and as long as there has been a debate about heterosexual sodomy, female homosexual intercourse has generally been worshipped. It's only a severe minority of people who actually have a problem with it. So in miles and miles and miles (to Infinity and Beyond!) of lesbian porno films and mountains (Olympus Mons!) of sapphic snapshots we find a partial normalization of "homosexuality."

But it's getting to the point where gay men can discuss their relationships with their parents. Anyone ever seen Jeffrey? The "mod parents" were wallpaper-crawlingly ... odd in a particular scene. Or how about John Waters recounting how his mother, upon learning that his film was called Pecker, and making the natural presumption since he's an oversexed, flamboyant gay man, said, "You know, dear, the other night on the television, they called it a johnson!"

These are pioneers.

It was Christmas day, 2001, standing on the fourth green at a par 3 course near my mother's house, that my mom starts talking about grandchildren. And she says to me, "And even if you or your brother are gay, I would hope you could settle down and maybe adopt one."

I just looked at her, jaw open. I didn't tell her, "I'll let you know when I figure it out." I decided leaving it an open question would be a bad idea. Few things surprise me in the world, but that . . . .

The discussion about homosexuality is changing. The idea of men having sex with one another is not so pointedly reviled. While fewer heterosexual men will want to watch gay men having sex, there is less fear among the herd. Whether resignation or actual progress, I think it will be an interesting day when mothers discuss their children's partners in any context.

 

wow....that was some post....tiassa...thanks for sharing that....

 

OH MY GOD! OH MY GOD! I thought I was the only one who knew! And they tried to lock me up! BUT YOU KNOW TOO! It's so obvious people!

 

GOD! I know that! Why do people keep saying stupid things like you, SpyMoose?! I. Was. Only. Joking! If the stupid thread can be satire why can't I?

 

It all depends on what you believe the purpose of marriage is. When I first heard this issue come up I believed that the only reason for marriage was to provide special benefits to parents to help them raise their children. Since I do not believe that homosexuals should adopt in most cases this excluded them from consideration I have changed my mind. I believe that it is in the interest of society to promote long lasting relationships between consenting adults. So yes I agree with homosexual marriages and probably group marriages if there are ample protections to keep them from being abusive. I also believe that it should be harder to get a divorce. The only time that the state needs to get involved in my private life is when my private life affects the state. The state should also keep its nose out of other people’s private lives just to be fair. If people want the benefits of marriage such as custody property transfers or just an ounce of human respect they should be allowed them. We should give larger tax credits if it is our goal to help families. We should give these tax credits to everyone who is raising children including homosexuals. Even freaks deserve respect.

 

unfortunately, by mixing with gay familys ,and gay people,or even having a sexual fetish,and chosing to go after the same sex. after all people,have the strangest tastes.

 

Thankyou for the story.
It was a perspective i have not seen before.

I can look at jokes both with and about gay people, in good humour, cause light humour exists. That, and cause my best friend and i have a Will and Grace friendship. Sometimes you tell people that you're friend is gay, and they'll look at you funny, and you feel that you are being rude even mentioning it, which is hard, because i have respect for both people's views and ways of life. There are conservative people, and religious people, and it can be auwquard to even invite friends out, because if one looks down on the other, it can be hard. Sometimes they clash, and all that can be done is to walk on.

It can be enlightening to look at it in anothers eye's.

Thankyou again

 

Men are created to be with women and vice versa for the main purpose of creating new generations.

Men are not created to be with men and neither women to be with women for any purpose including sexual pleasures.