The Top Ten Reasons Gay Marriage is Un-American , page 10

Pages: << 7 8 9 10 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 73 times

reply posted on 28-12-2008 @ 12:37 AM by Good Wolf

reply to post by weedwhacker

Geez, you're titchy.

I'm not the one of defined the terms, culture does that for us. I don't agree with it though. Gay should probably still mean 'happy'.

reply posted on 28-12-2008 @ 12:51 AM by weedwhacker

reply to post by Good Wolf

GW...'titchy' is likely one of those Kiwi terms that MIGHT translate into American English....just as we all have certain terms, even in English, that cause humourous responses, between us.

For instance....the American vernacular word 'fanny' is actually an innocent word (to parphrase) for the 'bum', (or 'butt') here in America. Well, those of us who are well-travelled know that the term has another meaning, at least in the UK. Perhaps as well in the New Zealand, I don't know, since I've never visited as of yet.

Back to the lowest common denominator....our testicles are not known as 'bollocks' here in the USA....we use a different term, (balls) and I am probably going to run afoul of the ATS censors.... but, in the interest of amicabilitity, I hope to spread some cultural references......

reply posted on 28-12-2008 @ 12:58 AM by Good Wolf

reply to post by weedwhacker

Titchy means to get overly dramatic or angry over seemingly nothing at all.

In New Zealand we have all of standard brit english terms and american english as well. However I prefer to use Brit English over American.

But yea, you get the point.

reply posted on 28-12-2008 @ 08:38 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by Good Wolf

'Titchy'...oh, OK, thanks for the heads up...sounds like 'drama queen', or just 'touchy'....overly sensitive, for example.

Here's the real problem with this 'gay marriage' issue: It is the word 'marriage' that causes all of the problems, because that word, all by itself, invokes a certain response in modern circles; one that is VERY different than would have been understood in centuries past, or, I daresay, even in certain modern cultures.

Firstly, a 'marriage' has usually, over the life of Human History, been known to be a 'contract'...originally designed to cement power between certain families...

Secondly, the very 'institution' of marriage has devolved into a travesty, for the most part. In modern America, a marriage has legal implications, as pertains to survivorship and property rights. Yes, there are MANY who believe that the 'marriage' must be blessed, religiously....and that is their choice. BUT, not all marriages have to be religious --- sometimes it is just a ceremony to celebrate the love of two individuals, and their commitment to each other - AND the legal aspects include all the rights and priveleges thereto.

I've seen some (not so intelligent) arguments AGAINST gay marriage by attempting to 'quote' the Bible...(Pssst!! Nothing in the Bible, but keep looking!)...as necessary for procreation. WELL...seems obvious to me that people need not be married in order to procreate!

By THAT logic, two elderly people, a man and a woman, over the age of childbirth would NOT be allowed to marry, if they wished!! Same with a barren man, or woman....WHY would these people, who will NOT 'procreate' still be allowed to marry, when two of the same sex cannot?!?

There is no logic here.....

reply posted on 29-12-2008 @ 08:06 AM by GamerGal

reply to post by weedwhacker

Just remember, marriage is responsible for all divorces! Think about that one.

reply posted on 3-1-2009 @ 12:10 AM by weedwhacker

reply to post by GamerGal

YES!!! GamerGal, you've hit the nail on the proverbial head!

Let's expand on this notion...everyone, I assume, has heard about the 'sacred' vows as exchanged in the wedding ceremony...."...until death do us part..." and other such, as it turns out, in over 50% of the time....nonsense!!!!

Shouts out to the few, the wonderful, who have had long-lasting relationships...sometimes they've even married!!

In the throes of early love, many a couple have been 'married'....only to see that 'love' falter and, despite the 'marriage vows'....the ones that were stated before the Church and before 'God'....well....seems, DIVORCE is the only answer, after all. "Irreconciliable Differences" is the usual excuse.

SO MUCH for the 'Sanctity of Marriage', eh???

Now, if two drunk people, who happen to be male/female, can get 'hitched' in Las Vegas or Reno in about 10 minutes.....WHY can't two loving partners, irrespective of sex, be married???

I'm just not understanding this concept....the 'wedding industry' is devoted to obtain as much money as possible, particularly by appealing to the 'Bride'. (YES, it is offensive to believe this, but it is true---the women are most easily influenced by the Wedding Industry. It is built-in to our 'culture'...)

What I do not understand is WHY most women don't see how they are being manipulated!!!

OK, let's now focus on the possiblity that some MEN wish to experience the same 'fantasy' that is the modern, Western wedding. OK, if they have the money, then what's the problem???

Let's face it, weddings are a cash-cow industry, right???

The venue, the caterer, the cake, the Planners...etc, etc...etc.....loys of MONEY!!!!

WHO CARES if the Groom and the Bride are ugly, and unlikely to spend more than a year together? The 'wedding' still goes on, since everyone really wants to go to the 'reception' for the free food and booze...

So, WHY refuse the same concept to a Gay couple??? Sure, they might only last a year, just like lots of straights....but who cares??? It's free food and booze!!!!!

See??? No real difference....the party is the same, the Industry (the 'wedding industry') benefits, and the results are likely just the same anyways.

(For those of you who are 'appalled', thinking that marriage is some sort of 'sacred' thing....well, just look at the divorce rates, and get over it).

reply posted on 26-1-2009 @ 08:39 AM by Russi