The real reason for same-sex "marriage"

[renard_ruse]

For those brainwashed idiots out there who have honestly been fooled into thinking that the same-sex "marriage" movement has anything to do with people of the same sex who are "in love" and just want the "right to call themselves "married"," this pretty much proves what the REAL agenda has been all along:

An American thinker associated with post structuralist thought is Judith Butler. Trained in Continental philosophy and published on Hegel, Butler is better known for her engagement with feminist theory and as the 'mother' (along with English literature scholar Eve Sedgwick) of Queer Theory. In Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, Butler explored the persistence of biological sex in feminist theory as the source and cause of the unequal social treatment and status of women. Using ideas about power and subjectification first broached by Michel Foucault in Discipline and Punish,[16] and the linguistic theories of J. L. Austin, Butler argued that sex was an effect rather than the cause of social gender difference, and that the fiction of a stable core gender identity was maintained through socially coerced performances of gender. Butler's ideas depend greatly on the notion of "performativity" and she is widely credited with introducing the term into gender studies. Austin described performative words as those that both describe and produce a thing. The classic example is a minister's statement, "I now pronounce you husband and wife," which both describes and produces two people as married. Similarly, Butler argued that repetitive socially coerced gender performances, which aspire to replicate a normative gender ideal, actually produce the sexed body and gender identity...

In other words, they DO want to get rid of marriage because they want to get rid of masculinity and femininity from the culture. Its actually got nothing to do with the 0.5% of people who want to call themselves "married" to the same sex and everything to do with how people talk about marriages, relationships, and families. Its about changing the vocabulary of social discourse to further remove reference to sex role differences, which the vast majority of people do not wish to get rid of. Yet, the vast majority are being manipulated into thinking its about "fairness," "love," etc. Its not and never has been.

 

[cjh]

Rob Halford is gay.

 

[renard_ruse]

I'll most likely be called "extreme" for pointing this out, rather than Ms. Butler, the real extremist, being called out as "extreme."

 

[renard_ruse]

Rob Halford is gay.

I've got no problem with what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom or hotel suite. Never have.

 

[pointless]

Rob Halford is gay.

like supercrazy gay.

w/ leather and little hats and stuff.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Its a ruse for reparations. I mean, if we're equal our outcomes should be equal, and if they aren't I'm a victim of stealth discrimination and entitled to compensation.

 

[kbate]

Its a ruse for reparations. I mean, if we're equal our outcomes should be equal, and if they aren't I'm a victim of stealth discrimination and entitled to compensation.

bullshite.

If you're equal, you get the same refs, the same field and the same rules; what you do from there is up to you.

You want to skew the board your way in order to have the home team be "more equal".

 

[Sideslider]

I've got no problem with what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom or hotel suite. Never have.

Why should someone keep it to the privacy of their bedroom or hotel?

If people don't wanna see something, they have every right to look somewhere else...not tell someone to stop.

And anyone who might be offended by that idea...got one word for you....

"So?"

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

bullshite.

If you're equal, you get the same refs, the same field and the same rules; what you do from there is up to you.

You want to skew the board your way in order to have the home team be "more equal".

No, dear. I oppose any action that makes you frown or harms you. I generally agree that the Scouts did good to include gay boys for membership. But I cant imagine any argument that's gonna change my thinking about same-sex marriage. Queer is a fluke of Nature like cancer or 3 heads.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Why should someone keep it to the privacy of their bedroom or hotel?

If people don't wanna see something, they have every right to look somewhere else...not tell someone to stop.

And anyone who might be offended by that idea...got one word for you....

"So?"

How about shower singing and offensive odors (especially those silent ones)?

 

[kbate]

No, dear. I oppose any action that makes you frown or harms you. I generally agree that the Scouts did good to include gay boys for membership. But I cant imagine any argument that's gonna change my thinking about same-sex marriage. Queer is a fluke of Nature like cancer or 3 heads.

Please indicate the harm you are opposing.

I don't ask for or expect you to like me or approve of me, I only want you to explain what gives you the right to limit me based on (as you put it) my nature.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sideslider]

How about shower singing and offensive odors (especially those silent ones)?

you've NEVER laughed at either one of these things?

besides...if someone is actively watching me sing in the shower, they're either gonna get invited in or asked to leave...but I probably wouldn't stop anyway.

 

[kbate]

Get the votes, convince the states, amend the Constitution.

Why? Your "right to marry" as a heterosexual does not exist in the constitution, why should I have to go that route?

 

[Sideslider]

Get the votes, convince the states, amend the Constitution.

Where the fuck in the constitution does it exclude anyone that they should have to fight for rights?

This kind of ignorance is what ruins communities.

 

[CandiCame]

Sean loves him some traditional gender rolls, eh?

1/10 unoriginal thread.

As far as getting rid of gender checkboxes for a more inclusive spectrum. Yes. This is a thing we should do.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Get the votes, convince the states, amend the Constitution.

The Constitution doesn't cover marriage and thus there should be no need to amend the Constitution.

Sean loves him some traditional gender rolls, eh?

1/10 unoriginal thread.

As far as getting rid of gender checkboxes for a more inclusive spectrum. Yes. This is a thing we should do.

You really fucking want me to stab you don't you. Renard Ruse is not a Sean. I'm honored to call Sean (formerly SeanH) as fellow Sean. Renard isn't a Renaud and he should die.

 

[CandiCame]

The Constitution doesn't cover marriage and thus there should be no need to amend the Constitution.



You really fucking want me to stab you don't you. Renard Ruse is not a Sean. I'm honored to call Sean (formerly SeanH) as fellow Sean. Renard isn't a Renaud and he should die.

holy fucking shit i am seriously so sorry. I have no idea why I did that. I deserve whatever punishment you deep worthy. Not even joking. I am legit sorry.

The only reason I can offer is that I am literally a walking corpse right now and I need to sleep.

Seriously I have nothing. I am sorry.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

you've NEVER laughed at either one of these things?

besides...if someone is actively watching me sing in the shower, they're either gonna get invited in or asked to leave...but I probably wouldn't stop anyway.

I usta live next door to a couple where the female was loud and the male pushed the headboard into the wall every few seconds. So around 1 or so it sounded like an alleycat trying to come thru the wall.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Get the votes, convince the states, amend the Constitution.

Those things have been done. Since none of these are the reason you're afraid of gay marriage it must be something else.

 

[warrior queen]

Really? And here I was thinking all along it had more to do with inheritance rights and being able to make legal decisions together that come with a 'standard' marriage.
Guess they really had me fooled!

 

[knot_sweet]

Honestly can't see the big deal behind gay marriage.

Two people want to publicly announce they are legally together, affording them legal protection re death / medical / property issues.

Whether you're two men, two women, or one of each makes no damn difference to anyone except the people making the offer of legal protection to each other and any potential children.

As for Ms Butler, I personally think she's a few bricks short of a fireplace and as for renard... Conspiracy theory much? Put down the sizzurp and step away from the keyboard.

I don't think the aim is to abolish marriage. If anything, this just means the potential for more people to get married. Considering the amount that a marriage licence costs, I'm surprised the government didn't agree to gay marriage years ago. More money for them, yay

And the divorce lawyers must be laughing. More people getting married = more people getting divorced = more rich lawyers.

 

[bronzeage]

For those brainwashed idiots out there who have honestly been fooled into thinking that the same-sex "marriage" movement has anything to do with people of the same sex who are "in love" and just want the "right to call themselves "married"," this pretty much proves what the REAL agenda has been all along:



In other words, they DO want to get rid of marriage because they want to get rid of masculinity and femininity from the culture. Its actually got nothing to do with the 0.5% of people who want to call themselves "married" to the same sex and everything to do with how people talk about marriages, relationships, and families. Its about changing the vocabulary of social discourse to further remove reference to sex role differences, which the vast majority of people do not wish to get rid of. Yet, the vast majority are being manipulated into thinking its about "fairness," "love," etc. Its not and never has been.

Okay, they want same sex marriage, so they can destroy marriage. That is some powerful intellectual thinking there.

And, she was trained in Continental philosophy and published on Hegel, so it must make sense. It's a good thing she didn't study Eastern philosophy and publish on Kant, because then she would sound stupid.