[聊天]同性恋者也能注册结婚～你们说...........！|『海外生活』 - 『漫游』酷论坛

最初由 httang 发布
it's called: Bush's new strategy to get votes...

最初由 Exodus 发布

hehe, first of all, I would like to point out my post on last page, which stated my support towards homosexual marriages, however, I'm bored and would like to argue your point.

One problem with homosexual marriages: It doesn't take into account the impact on children. If same-sex relationships become the law of the land, then homosexual marriage will be presented to America's schoolchildren as the equivalent of heterosexual marriage.

Here's how and why it will happen. Right now, the vast majority of U.S. public school districts have put themselves in a very vulnerable position, one that conservatives have been warning about for years but few school boards listened. What they've done is add under their non-discrimination policies the category of "sexual orientation." It only remains for enough time to elapse – and for same-sex marriage to be legalized – for "gay" education activists to force schools to implement sweeping changes in curricular content.

Among those changes will be "diverse" textbooks that include same-sex couples as role models, even for little children. To refuse such content will be considered "discrimination," and the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal Defense Fund will take that district to court, as they have recently in order to force homosexual clubs onto schools. If not those two well-heeled groups, then the National Education Association will sue, as it has promised, on behalf of any teachers involved. Increasingly liberal courts, modeling themselves after the Supremes, are pretty likely to rule in favor of such plaintiffs.

That also goes for the "right" of teachers who are homosexual to wear wedding rings, talk about their homosexual spouses with students and introduce spouses at school functions. Your little Katie will learn in kindergarten that "Mrs." Jones is married to another "Mrs." Jones – and that she can grow up and choose to do the same if she wishes. It is, after all, her "right."

Grade-school and middle-school anti-bias units will now crank into high gear the focus on homosexuals and cross-dressers. Because marriage is now legalized, children will be persuaded in misleading material that anyone who objects to homosexual behavior is not simply biased, that person is breaking the law. The take-away for students from these shallow lessons will be that it is illegal to criticize homosexuality, and every person young or old should be protected from the mean conservatives. Standing up for equality in America will translate into the freedom to practice homosexuality for every student who "discovers" such inclinations.

Sex education will be required to take into account this new form of "family" and abstinence – until – marriage education will take a twisted new turn. Suddenly, it will be co-opted by Planned Parenthood and other liberal activists with their own unique spin. Every student will be taught that, of course, abstinence until heterosexual or homosexual marriage is fine if that's one's choice. But since pregnancy isn't a danger for homosexuals, sex can be a wonderful option for younger and younger people – as long as it's carried out "responsibly," of course – like brushing one's teeth. To not teach this would be, again "discrimination" based on sexual orientation. Condoms are always available for those who can't wait. Let's show you third-graders how this condom fits on this banana, just so you are prepared.

Expect a whole new crop of young adult novels featuring same-sex romance leading to marriage to appear instantly and be adopted just as magically by middle-school and high-school language departments throughout the U.S. Your 13-year-old Kyle will be required to read and give a book report on a novel where Bruce and Jason meet, date and get married. What won't be covered is how Bruce and Jason split up a year later after cheating on each other dozens of times.

And it gets better (or worse). This stop-gap standard will last for just a few years, until the inevitable next piece of the puzzle is in place. Hank and Jim will petition the courts to allow Mary, the biological mother of "their" adopted child, to become part of their marriage. After all, what business does the court have in their bedrooms, determining who they have a right to love? Along about this same time, Cindy and her partner, Luke (who is really Lucy, except that she dresses like a man) will demand that the law recognize Luke as a "husband" in spite of her biology. And so will emerge the accompanying new curricular materials reflecting the legalization of group marriage and transgender unions, making sure every U.S. school child knows that these are future options for him, her or them.
In such a legal and educational environment, what happens to religions that don't believe homosexuality is moral? Will those religions and their ancient teachings eventually come before some future Supreme Court and be told that they are guilty of discrimination? That their beliefs are no longer constitutional because of privacy rights?

If this sounds like lunacy, it's because it is. What we do in the bedroom has always been public, in the form of what we call a family. It becomes what we teach and pass on as wisdom to our children. And if we aren't sure what "wisdom" entails, by golly, you can tell us~

最初由 RTR 发布
12 Reasons Same-Sex Marriage will Ruin Society:

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.

10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

original source: http://www.gatorgsa.org/gaymarriage.html

最初由 obviw 发布
呵呵..这个赞同一下..

BUSH那家伙连堕胎都反对...呵呵..在堕胎普通的中国是不是也应该算很保守呢..既然BUSH的思想比中国人保守, 那么各位是不是也想继续支持反对这种保守的观念呢..
呵呵, 以上典型的BUSH方式逻辑, 就如同伊拉克足球打进足球四强和他N多关系一样.. 可惜还是有很多人会被不断转弯的逻辑所迷惑啊...
呵呵..所以引伸太多没什么意思...GAY自古就存在, 但古代的流传下来的婚姻关系, 在当时以传宗接代保存血统等为主要目的...而在现代的观念中, 这个目的已经在多数地区失去了..取代的是相爱的人互相结合的观念. 因此在为GAY争取权利的首要目标应该是确定婚姻的基本目的..如果大众对此产生巨大分歧但贸然实行的话, 也就可能带来所谓的伦理混乱..记得一些人在媒体上宣扬的GAY婚姻会导致社会混乱的基础就在于此...混乱的根源是因为对同一事物的认知分歧而得不到有效的解释..
同时就前面REK谈到的GAY在近代减少的结果..据说一个主要的原因是因为启蒙思想..初期的启蒙思想并不完善..所以一昧的追求男女结合的"自然化". 共产主义产生的19世纪, 想必所受到的影响也有一定的可能.. 因为如果就中国本身的道德伦理作为反对GAY的根据的话, 那么什么断袖之癖都是发生在孔子老前辈作古之后的..我们对中国"传统"的道德观念等或许只知道片面的吧..呵呵..何况也难保证是否是精华还是糟粕..
呵呵..不过毕竟社会在进步..思想也在改变..至少在现代医学,特别是心理学上, GAY都是确认为很正常的一种行为....只是稍微另类而已..但从普通性来讲..可能要比纹身穿刺之类都要普通..
呵呵..还有提到了可以限制人口..呵呵..的确是GAY结婚的优点..而且可以减低整体人口的生育率..不过人毕竟是有个人自由的,..所以这个只是带来的附加好处..而不能作为减少人口的手段...不过说起来...几十年后几千万光棍也得处理一下了..呵呵..不过自愿为主吧...
当然就部分人的不适应么..毕竟是自愿为主的基础..就如同我们每个人都不可能跑马拉松一样,, 我们不能因为自己不能跑不完就要求不要有这样的项目..毕竟还是自愿为主...
呵呵, 其它人如果真的要反对的话, 直接把对社会或其它的危害说出来....呵呵.当然包括对自己的感觉被伤害多少等等也可以说明一下..

最初由霸王哆啦发布

说句不中听的，你这冠冕堂皇的每一句话都是被同人女用到发臭的废话。
限制人口？火星笑话，你敢估一下同性恋在人群中的比例是否足以影响生育水平么？一杯水加一勺盐叫盐水，一勺水兑进一桶盐叫什么？
部分的人不适应？你管95%叫部分？

最初由 obviw 发布
呵呵，什么是废话呢。。如果话说的有道理， 10句废话也可以变成道理。
当然啦, 如果是废话的话, 我倒爷想听听不是废话的话, 毕竟学习一下也是好的, 总不至於连自己的理由也是不传之秘把..
呵呵..同时就数据来讲么...95%应该所谓的 straight的人数吧, 但是这个百分比是不能用来作为不适应的数据的..
呵呵, 盐和水的说法么...很容易说是在考虑问题以前就已经把2方面分开来看了...
呵呵, 要举例子么..当年美国南方部分州不教进化论还不是把进化论当作异类看待, 感到不习惯呢.., 可是后来呢.....
反对么.总得说一些具体的理由啦, 一昧的以什么"废话"之类贬低他人是会引起很多麻烦的噢,..

最初由霸王哆啦发布

引起麻烦？引起麻烦？引起麻烦？你真的是怕引起麻烦还是唯恐不麻烦呢？
废话就是废话，前缀一千二百字的修饰也还是更改不了废话废的本质，别说10句，100句同理。
不适应？为何不适应？怎么不适应？是你不在地球上生活还是你认为我们都是地外生物？为何这“绝大多数”要等同极少数以此证明一个谬论是真理？
为何要分开？难不成我国或是us至今不把生育问题和婚姻问题联系起来考虑的么？谁家汤是汤盐是盐喝一口汤吃一勺盐么？
你可以认为道德不适合你，但是道德保证了人类这个种族自外于猩猩繁衍发展了千年，你想返祖，没人拦你，但是你想说猩猩比人上等，你休想别人赞同你。

最初由霸王哆啦发布
得红眼病的人也不是自己愿意的呀~可满世界的去传播就是他们的不对了。

最初由 obviw 发布
呵呵, 我的麻烦是用来解决麻烦的..至少是让麻烦减少, 也就是说让 T1=k T0
的时候, K小于1而已..这是个人说话及引起麻烦的准则.
何况仔细分析前面的话, 你冲上来一句废话, 所以我让你解释一下自己的观点, 而你却连续使用了十余句反问句. 是否有故意回避问题的嫌疑呢. 而且你能保证的自己所谓的反问能够得到明确的答案么.. 缺乏目的性的散漫组合是是缺乏辩论所需要的最基本的攻击能力的..
是不是喜欢用文字游戏故意混淆视听呢. 人毕竟还是很脆弱的, 打个比方如果人不能分辨转弯时少于3度的变化..那么如果一个人每次转弯177度而自我感觉180度的时候, 大概60个圈后就会发现自己的方向和预期的完全颠倒了....呵呵..当然..重要的前提是需要你这样的绝对"180度"的反对声音来转.. 很可惜的是, 有时候道德也是这样被利用的...所以缺乏了绝对性的道德, 而不得不依靠理性的分析和解释..就如同通过分析你只转了177度而没到你所谓的180度...
事情就是这样简单..呵呵...

最初由 obviw 发布
呵呵, 红眼病是不是很泛滥呢..
呵呵, 算了, 先去考试了, 回来再谈...