START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
Culture & Lifestyle

Rant

The Big Gay Apple

Posted 11 months ago|17 comments|489 views
Written by
Last night New York State became the sixth State in the Union to legalize Gay Marriage. New York is also one of the largest US States to do so. According to the new law homosexuals desiring to play house as if they had complementing genders can now do so starting in July. Yes folks, Gay Marriage is now legal in New York State. Before July only Straight marriage was legal but now Gay marriage is legal too!

Hold up a minute! What the heck is straight marriage? Oh yeah, that's when a person with male sex organs unites in a social contract with a person with female sex organs and they vow to each other in a legal contract to basically form a family unit. Seeing as they got compatible sex organs and all. But wait a minute! I don't ever recall them calling it straight marriage. Why is that? Oh, yeah, that's right; it is because they never had too. Marriage in the Merriam Webster Dictionary of up to 2006 still included both complementing genders in their definition of marriage. The word marry is by definition a male female act.

So what is actually happening in New York is that they are redefining words in the dictionary? Yes, that is what is happening. So from now on don't try to look up what simple words like fruits, wood bundles and strange mean because you might find completely different definitions for them such as normal, natural, and acceptable.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43507672/ns/...
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
11 months ago: It is a good thing for society if loving couples of either sex and or gender, declare their love for each other and promise to be faithful to each other instead of sleeping around.

It is good for the children of these couples to have the stability that this declaration creates. stable family units are good no matter what their make up.

The only alternative to marriage is promiscuity, which is bad for society because it breaks up the family units and spreads diseases.

It is difficult for me to understand how anyone can declare that marriage for all is a bad thing. It is hard for me to understand how some religious people think it is OK to deny basic human rights to other human beings purely on a religious basis.

The Bill of rights, and the Constitution guarantees equal rights to all.

Religious folk claim that allowing equal rights to LGBT individuals somehow changes their own "straight Marriages", but there is absolutely no evidence that giving equal rights to all effects straight marriages at all, except that the bigoted narrow minded religious nuts might get angry and take it out on their spouse, wh ich would lead to more divorce.

Just chill out Dwayne and don't beat your wife and your marriage will be perfectly safe.
10 months ago: So now I beat my wife?
10 months ago: Hi, I'm a Canadian. When Canada legalized same-sex marriage federally 6 years ago, there were many people and organizations (especially the Roman Catholic church) predicting the downfall of society. Now to clarify, this federal legislation had the effect of legalizing same-sex marriage across the country. Individual provinces and territories did not have separate legislative authority on the matter.

Here we are 6 years later and strangely enough nothing seems to have happened. If anything, the 'gay' issue is fading to the background. I honestly believe that by moving forward on gay rights, the whole issue has become moot.

People just don't see it as a big deal anymore.

Society has not crumbled and disintegrated. We don't have incestuous marriages, polygamy, or animal marriages. In many respects, society has moved on and a segment of the population that had to fight and 'stick out' to attain their rights, now seem to be far more mainstream and far less 'out there' because there is far less need for them to be.
10 months ago: The thought pattern which indicates gay marriage was passed and everything seems to be O.K is what I think of as the "here and now" thought pattern. Social conservatives tend to see what has happen time and again as societies have degraded into a depraved "free for all". The liberal "here and now" thought pattern is like breaking out windows, and shooting holes in the roof of a house and then saying "you see, the house did not fall apart, you conservatives don't know what you are talking about". While the social conservatives know full well that the Roman empire died a slow agonizing death as it sank into more and more depravity and blood lust. All the while its citizens were slowly overtaken and either killed or enslaved as its enemies moved in on it from the outside in.

I fully realize the world will not end tomorrow or the next day as these things come about. As a Christian I am already aware of where the "here and now" crowd is pushing us to. My fight is not for me so much as it is my children. Even though the house may not fall today, the so-called social "progress" which liberals are engaging our country in today will effect the condition of where my children will live in the future. Just as the Romans committed slow and painful suicide, we to seem destined for the same path. My hope is to slow the reaching of that destination down for my children's sake.
10 months ago: I think you are missing the point Edward. I'm not against limiting someone's rights. All adults in the US are allowed to marry. It is a falsehood that all people are not allowed the right to marry. All people are allowed to marry. They are allowed to marry with stipulations. For example one can not be currently married to someone else. It is these stipulations that gay rights advocacy groups seek to change. Marriage is a monogamous, heterosexual ritual. If the rite is extended to people of the same gender whom are not sexual compatible then who is to say that the monogamy aspect should be respected either.
10 months ago: For those who have missed the writing on the wall as to where things are going, you may want to check out this interesting link.

http://www.pro-polygamy.com/
10 months ago: Dwayne, I respect the position you have taken, however, similar arguments have historically been used to limit the rights of women to vote, work outside the home, enforce racial segregation and a slew of other social conventions.

As social 'norms' evolve and change, we often assume and take the position that the change will have disastrous effects. I think we often need to step back and take a look at the larger picture.

To the point of the Roman Empire, the fall was far more complex than just the change is social norms. I would present the argument that all 'empires' have a life cycle. Egypt, Greece, Macedonia, Rome, Byzantium, Mongolia, the Kievan Rus, Persia, Prussia, Austria, and Britain have all had empires that spanned significant time and geography. There is a natural life-cycle. Rome, in many respects exceeded its life cycle for some time, but ultimately the cycle was completed.

Usually, the fall of one empire leads to the ascension of another and in that process, there is usually a significant shift on social norms and political fundamentals.

Where evolution does not yield results, revolution does.
10 months ago: Edward P,

It seems like you are responding to my comment and Jakarta's comment by using a very telling juxtaposition of the homosexual agenda. At first you compare the unnatural demands of the homosexual agenda to the legitimate rights fought for by subjugated people. Then you dismiss the historical evidence that a collapse of law, order morality and justifiable taxation led to the collapse of the Roman empire by calling it a cycle. However what is most telling of your comment is the last part. Where you declare the homosexual agenda's next course of action if it does not voluntarily win the minds of the public over and that is a violent revolution!
10 months ago: Another thing worth mentioning is...
10 months ago: Homosexual behavior is not a natural part of the reproductive process. Gender and sex only serve one biological purpose and that is reproduction. Any arguments about love and equality are cultural and nonscientific. Religion and societal trends have nothing to do with it. Marriage serves as an extension of reproduction by creating an institution that serves to protect the environment where reproduction take place. Don't forget that it was the sexual revolution that began in the early part of the twentieth century and progressed past the sixties that led to the disintegration of that family nucleolus of which marriage is the foundation. Now that we all live in the aftermath of this sexual revolution the predatory practices of the homosexual agenda use the broken condition of the marital state to justify unnatural homosexual unions.
10 months ago: WOW!!!!

So, anyone too old to have children should not be allowed to marry. Anyone unable to have children should not be able to marry. Anyone who does not want to have children should not be allowed to marry.

Marriage serves only as an extension of the biological process for reproduction....right?

Also, based on other arguments you have made, sexual activity now should be restricted to the biological goal of reproduction?!?!?!

As I said before, WOW!
10 months ago: "Religion and societal trends have nothing to do with it"

Umm -- marriage is a construct of religion and society. No religion, no society = no marriage.

"Love and equality are cultural and nonscientific"

Umm -- Marriage is cultural and nonscientific. By that argument, the family unit should be done away with and we should simply reproduce at will without the construct of marriage and family - of any sort.

"Don't forget that is was the sexual revolution that began in the early part of the twentieth century which progressed past the sixties that led to the disintegration of that family nucleus of which marriage is the foundation"

Umm -- the sexual revolution that began at the start of the 20th century was centered primarily around women's suffrage, women in the workforce, and equal rights before the law. The sexual aspects of the revolution was more a function of the 60s and the advent of the birth control pill.

Are you suggesting that the advances women made in the first half of the 20th century have led to the "homosexual agenda"
10 months ago: Also remember that had it not been for the sexual revolution we would not have the wide spread plague of sex outside of marriage and the large incidences of divorce. Historically speaking people got married in order to have children and raise a family and the sexual revolution which was a precursor to the homosexual agenda served to turn sex into a recreational activity for the bored rather than a very special privilege for those bound by the contractual obligation of marriage. Marriage if practiced correctly prevented sexual deviance, sexually transmitted diseases, broken homes, divorce, promiscuity and a plethora of other sexually related problems that arise out of a non heterosexual marital bond.
10 months ago: Sex outside of marriage has been around for a long, long time. But given that divorce was often an impossibility, the 'other' partner just had to live with it. The correlation between divorce and the sexual revolution has more to do with the ability for one spouse to divorce the other for the infidelity.

Women were pretty much unable to divorce their husbands even if the husband was openly sleeping around. The decreased inequality of the power structure within society and marriage led to the increase in divorce. that has led to divorce becoming more acceptable as we have become desensitized to it. However, to say that the sexual revolution has led to marital infidelity is a fallacy.
10 months ago: Besides what I said before still stands uncontested, "you compare the unnatural demands of the homosexual agenda to the legitimate rights fought for by subjugated people."

The homosexual agenda is not concerned with women's rights or the rights of the elderly or of those unable to have children so please do not lump those into the mix. As I said before the gay agenda takes marriage which is a legitimate heterosexual rite whose roots exist in the reproduction of the human species and breaks it down to the point that anything goes. Well dear sir, anything does not go!

Biology dictates reproduction and when a man and a woman declare their love it is primarily an act of reproduction. Love after all in the context of marriage is exclusively pledging ones sexual organs to one another. Isn't it? However keep in mind that there are a lot of things you can do with your respective body parts but they all serve specific purposes. The further away from those purposes you stray the more danger you expose them to.

Take your hand for example. It is designed for grabbing but not everything should be grabbed. You wouldn't grab a hot burning ember or a moving meat grinder. Would you? Well there is the argument for the wayward homosexual penis and vagina. There are plenty of things you can do with these sexual organs that don't involve reproduction but the further away you stray from their intended use the more danger you expose them to.
10 months ago: There were many, many people who though it was unnatural for blacks to have the same freedoms and rights as everyone else. There still are many, many people who think it is an unnatural desire for a white person to marry a black person.

As I understand the "homosexual agenda" it revolves around the focus of saying "we want the same rights as everyone else" not anything goes.

In your own arguments, you have said religion, culture and society have no bearing on the institution of marriage -- I still can't figure that one out. What then is the basis for marriage. If it is simply reproduction, then let's deal with marriage when a couple has reproduced.
10 months ago:
Of course you can figure it out. Dark skin is not a hindrance to home ownership or equal working conditions nor is it a determinant for reproduction whereas the use of ones own sexual organs on the body of someone else of the same gender does prevent reproduction! Marriage as a nest for future children should have boundaries that do not extend to far from its intended purpose. As I see it no person's liberties to work, live or enjoy life should be hindered. Consequently, laws that protect the workplace and home and property of people that have homosexual encounters should be a top priority. However no person that engages in homosexual activity is prohibited from getting married under current marriage laws. Current marriage laws just stipulate that such people marry someone of the compatible gender. It is biological commonsense.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2012 RantRave