FileFront Forums - Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

FileFront Forums (http://forums.filefront.com/)

- The Pub (http://forums.filefront.com/pub-578/)

- - Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other? (http://forums.filefront.com/pub/284339-do-you-jim-take-john-your-lawfully-wedded-something-other.html)

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Blade (Post 3438702)

I'm not even going to post in here anymore because you're all so ignorant and stupid. You don't have simple common sense, it's like your not even thinking at all.

That statement made me chuckle.

Simply put: Make an argument other than "It wasn't meant to be; it's wrong!" and maybe you'll be taken seriously. And don't make hypocritical statements like the one above.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The 13th Raptor (Post 3438839)

The purpose of sex is no longer mainly for procreation, it’s recreational, emotional, not the primal urge it once was, we have evolved beyond this, as have some animals. We are in the unique position to be able to decide for ourselves what our purpose will be in life, where most animals are slaves to the “live to procreate” cycle, we can make up our own future. If two men can fall in love and be happy, then so be it. THEY don’t need to be able to procreate in order to feel “complete” together, as can some straight couples. You are simply bound to old fashioned beliefs, probably thanks to your parents… good luck with that.

You're right but that's been the case for thousands of years. People will have sex...It's sort of a foregone conclussion.

The question is, is the beavior right?" The answer is No. Neither hetrosexuallity or homosexualy, its not right. That being outside of marriage and gay anal sex.

I don't think there's anything wrong with loving another man...If I had a father that cared I'm sure I'd love him in the same way.

but two men just aren't the basis for a family. Tradition aside. Two men are not a family they're partners.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

well, two men and an adopted child might think they are...

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saquist (Post 3439728)

but two men just aren't the basis for a family. Tradition aside. Two men are not a family they're partners.

As long as you'll specify that a man and a woman are equally not a family, I'll be inclined to agree. However, I'm pretty sure that there are studies out there (that a less apathetic member than I could bring out) that point out that children are brought up better by two parents of the same gender. If anyone would like to procure this evidence, it would be most appreciated. Likewise, if anyone has refutory evidence I shall accept my incorrectness.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Hmmm, I would have thought that one parent of each gender was better, but thats beside the point. I think I get what Saquist is saying, two guys and a child is not really the type of relationship we normally associate with family.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Indeed, it isn't the traditional arrangement, but traditionally we executed homosexuals. :uhoh: Times are changing, and I don't really think these would be much of a difference.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider149 (Post 3441345)

I think I get what Saquist is saying, two guys and a child is not really the type of relationship we normally associate with family.

What's wrong with that? Just because we don't normally associate it with the family, doesn't mean it isn't one. It also doesn't mean that that may not be equally good, or maybe even better than the traditional family.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Yes, it may be, but that is not the point. the point is that it is not a 'conventional', stereotypical family in the 'father, mother, child(ren)' sense.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider149 (Post 3441890)

Yes, it may be, but that is not the point. the point is that it is not a 'conventional', stereotypical family in the 'father, mother, child(ren)' sense.

True, it's not conventional. But what does that matter? In 1942 it was "Conventional" for the secret police to round up all the Jews in Germany and send them off to a gassy death.

Re: Do you Jim take John to be your lawfully wedded something or other?

It used to be "conventional" in the US to persecute blacks.