Kids React to Gay Marriage

This episode of Kids React, by the Fine Brothers, explores gay marriage by asking children what they think about various aspects of oppositional arguments and beliefs. While the reactions show an uplifting amount of gay and lesbian relationship normalization and acceptance, they also display an early exposure and internalization of homophobia.

  • april showers

    Important to normalize attitudes before they really understand biology.

    • lady_black

      Please tell me what “really understanding biology” has to do with marriage? You realize that marriage and biology are two unrelated topics, right?

      • april showers

        Since marriage is the only appropriate forum for sexual intercourse, people for whom there is no potential for sexual intercourse are simply mocking marriage. These children will learn about human reproduction in biology but since they will have already accepted gay marriage, they will be confused at first but then they will just assume that shopping for a sperm donor or surrogate mother is just an added expense that gays have to go through, and the commodification of children will become normal, as well. It will be the children bought and owned as as fashionable accessories that will finally put a stop to this..

        • lady_black

          Oh I love children. But they have nothing to do with marriage. And who elected you to be the sexual intercourse police? You do realize that straight couples use sperm donors and surrogates, right? And it doesn’t always involve a shopping trip. How about you keep your nose out of other people’s marriage? They don’t need to have children at all, gay or straight. But if they want children, there are ways around fertility issues. Also, gay or straight. Besides the ones we already discussed, there’s adoption. That’s where gay couples adopt children that their effed-up straight parents were unwilling or unable to parent. Bless them for doing that.

          • april showers

            Yes, lady, bless those married couples who adopt children conceived by those effed up straight parents that chose to engage in sexual intercourse outside of a committed union. The consequences of their irresponsibility can affect many other innocent people. But it all goes back to biology doesn’t it, lady, when adopted kids turn 18 and want to know who their parents are? No judge would deny them the knowledge of their biological origins.

            BTW, I am certainly not proposing to be the marriage police, that role has been duly usurped by the state, and, naturally, we see the wreckage all around us.

          • Arekushieru

            Um, actually, yes, you are. Government is only making laws with respect to preventing discrimination against those who want to get married. That and dictating who can and cannot get married are two different things, mmkay? Self-projection, much?

            Kids who want to know their biological origins have nothing to do with whether one is married or not. After all, adopted children can just as easily want to know their biological origins if they came from parents who are married. Oops. And, considering the number of single parents there are out there, not every unmarried person gives up their children.

            I am asexual. It does not mean I don’t want to get married. A commitment involves FAR more than sex, after all, too. That you believe that is probably more the reason behind why there is such wreckage in marital unions than anything else, btw. You are also implicitly claiming that all elderly people who do not engage in sex must divorce. Oops.

        • Arekushieru

          Also, not every person who is a parent is married, nor does everyone want to (wait to) get married to enjoy sexual intercourse.

        • Jennifer Starr

          Assuming that all intercourse must only be penis in vagina, assuming that sex must only take place within marriage and that both sex and marriage are only for the purpose of reproduction. A lot of ‘assumptions’. The problem is that all of the above is just your opinion, April, not fact. And while you’re entitled to hold that opinion, no one has to live their personal life by your rules.

          • april showers

            Actually, Jennifer, sexual intercourse is penis in vagina. All other sexual activity is, well, sexual activity. That is not an assumption. It’s a fact.

            I haven’t said that sex must only take place in marriage or that both sex and marriage are only for the purpose of reproduction. What I did say was that marriage is the only APPROPRIATE forum for sexual intercourse. That, again, is a fact. Any inappropriate sexual activity is just that. If you are unable to engage in sexual intercourse, then there is simply no need for a commitment.

            I am certainly NOT trying to impose rules on other people. Reciting the rules does not equate to imposing the rules. When people mock the rules, the consequences will be borne by the irresponsible and immature and their unfortunate offspring. I have no control over other people nor do I wish it, because that would make me responsible for their behavior. A most undesirable situation.

          • fiona64

            You *really* need to get out more.

          • lady_black

            These “rules” exist only in your head.

          • Jennifer Starr

            If you are unable to engage in sexual intercourse, then there is simply no need for a commitment.

            I have a friend who is unable to have intercourse (penis in vagina) with her husband due to bladder issues which cause severe pain. By your so-called ‘rules’ I guess you think he’d be justified in cheating on her or ditching her?

            Again, your ‘rules’ are simply opinion. Nothing more

          • april showers

            Of course not, Jennifer, there was a commitment! That means no cheating! I’m sure she’ll be back to health soon, though, right?

          • Jennifer Starr

            And what if she isn’t? What if it just isn’t possible? You seem to want to reduce marriage and commitment to the ability to have PIV sex. I think a marriage, whether it’s hetero or same-sex, is much more than that. Or at least it should be.

          • april showers

            Nonsense, I am not “reducing” marriage. I am very simply explaining that in western society, the marriage tradition is the only appropriate forum for PIV sex. It is a public ceremony to acknowledge and accept the consequences of PIV sex. Sexual activity outside of marriage is inappropriate and can be considered “cheating” and leaving your partner would be “ditching” as you so aptly labeled it.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I have attended many wedding ceremonies. Never once have I heard a minister give a lecture about ‘consequences’ of PIV sex. You make sex in marriage sound less pleasurable and fun and more like a duty or an obligation. And sex between two unmarried persons isn’t cheating .

          • april showers

            That’s weird because I’ve attended many wedding ceremonies, too, and I have always heard the priest/minister/rabbi ask the bride and groom if they will gratefully accept the children that will be conceived in this union. Are you sure you were paying close attention? Maybe it wasn’t really a wedding but a civil service or some other counterfeit/mockery sort of wedding?.

          • Jennifer Starr

            One Unitarian, one interfaith Jewish/Christian, a couple of United Methodist and a couple of Baptist and two civil services. And yes, the civil services are really weddings.

          • april showers

            So, did they mention the part about the UNION of a man and a woman? Why did they use the word union? How do a man and a woman become one?

          • fiona64

            You also seem unable to comprehend that a religious reference (such as what you make) is irrelevant to civil law. You really need assistance with this, I guess. You might start with cracksomefrigginbooks dot com.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I always thought of that more in the figurative sense than the literal because there is more than one way to join, but I lack the obsession you seem to have with other people’s private sex practices.

          • april showers

            Actually, I couldn’t care less about other people’s private sex practices, as long as all involved are consenting adults. But propagandizing children is a little different and that is what this video is, hence my comment, which you appear to object to.

          • Arekushieru

            Oh, please, do you have the SAME objection to people who use their children to ACTUALLY propagandize heterosexual marriage?

            The Duggars come to mind….

          • P. McCoy

            Yes April, what about the Duggars. What about the Catholic Church demanding that you be opento children (the Eastern Orthodox) do too, or you can’t be married. As for appropriate, at one time attempting to get married as a Black man or woman to a White man or woman was not only inappropriate, but illegal, as seen as un biblical as well as disgusting as Gay marriage. Still is in many places in the United States – well not illegal thank heavens after 50 years.

          • lady_black

            Propagandizing? More like orientation to reality. My kids grew up with gay couples around. Some are not exposed to them yet, but they will be. There’s nothing wrong with teaching children that not all families are the same, or like their own. Because it’s the truth.

          • lady_black

            Literally a man and a woman do not become one. That’s a figure of speech.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I think that sex should be pleasurable and fun, whether ‘consequences’ are a part of it or not. My complaint was that you made sex within marriage sound more like a duty or an obligation. And many married couples make the decision to only have one child or to be childfree while continuing to enjoy an active sex life. My parents chose to have three. My pro-choice. liberal grandparents chose to have seven. Everyone is different.

          • april showers

            Obviously, sexual intercourse is pleasurable and fun, again, that’s biology. Of course, I never implied that sex within marriage is a duty or obligation, either, and, yes, I also know many married and unmarried people with a varying number of children and some childless whether by choice or not. What people choose to do or not do, doesn’t change the essential nature of marriage. That’s all I’m saying.

          • fiona64

            That’s weird because I’ve attended many wedding ceremonies, too, and I have always heard the priest/minister/rabbi ask the bride and groom if they will gratefully accept the children that will be conceived in this union.

            Then the *only* weddings you’ve ever attended were Catholic (and hence no rabbi involved). I was so dumbfounded the first time I heard this in a wedding, during my former fiance’s brother’s wedding, that I asked him about it in the car on the way to the reception. His response? “Yep … they want to make sure there ar emore Catholics.”

            Maybe it wasn’t really a wedding but a civil service or some other counterfeit/mockery sort of wedding?.

            Oh, that’s nice. Now you’re saying that anyone who is married outside of the Catholic church is in a counterfeit “mockery” of a wedding?

            Take your sanctimony and stick it.

          • april showers

            Dearest, Please note that I have never claimed that anyone married outside of a catholic church is in a counterfeit wedding. That would be stupid. However, you do know that many people arrange for their “wedding” in any location of their choosing and hire anyone to say anything during the “wedding”, they have a legally recognized marriage, but not a traditional wedding. In a traditional marriage with a traditional wedding, which, btw is the topic of conversation here, the officiating clergy will note that it is a celebration of the UNION of a man and a woman.

            I have attended many traditional weddings of various Christian/Jewish traditions and this is always the case.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Why the quotes? The fact that it’s not a traditional event in a church or presided over by clergy doesn’t make it less of a real wedding.
            And again, the term ‘union’ doesn’t have to specifically refer to a certain kind of sex.

          • april showers

            Here’s where we disagree. Union means when two unite and become one. This is the family friendly language for two people engaging in sexual intercourse and creating a new family of their own biological children. The word marriage also denotes two things stuck so closely together, they have become one.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Not everyone goes into a marriage with the purpose of creating a family with children, biological or otherwise. Some couples consciously choose to remain childfree.

          • april showers

            I agree and some people have children together and don’t get married. I actually wish I had a dollar for all the married women I have known who were told that they were sterile but then conceived. I have also known couples who swore off childbearing but changed their minds later. Not to mention the very few women I have known who have married a series of men and had children with each husband. None of these options or variations change the very definition of marriage.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I have also known couples who swore off childbearing but changed their minds later.

            And I know a couple, married for over thirty years, who never had children, never wanted any, and are extremely happy that way. Different strokes, different folks. And that’s okay.

          • Jennifer Starr

            So, not a union of hearts, minds, souls, etc–just PIV? And you still didn’t explain why you put wedding in quotes in your earlier post.

          • lady_black

            You are full of shit. You’re taking figurative speech and making it literal. Of course a man and a woman do not “become one” either physically, mentally or emotionally. What they are uniting is their lives.

          • fiona64

            Rita, er, April appears to think that coverture law still exists.

          • april showers

            I’m not even British, so why would I think that? That would be stupid!
            However, I do know a british woman named Fiona, but she wasn’t born in 64. Probably a different person.

          • fiona64

            You really are very dim. Coverture law existed in the US as well. It didn’t end in France until after WWII, BTW; it’s not as though it’s ancient history. You don’t have to be British to know about it, either; all it takes is cracking a damn book once in a while. Its vestiges existed well into the 1970s in this country, with women unable to have their own credit cards, etc. http://www.uslaw.com/us_law_dictionary/c/Coverture

          • april showers

            Oh, right, the 70’s, when the US defaulted on their debt and we were all forced to use debt notes as currency. So use of credit was expanded to cover up the devaluation. Remember in the 80’s how credit card interest was tax deductible? Way to over extend the ignorant. Yeah, let’s get some credit cards in every women’s hands, so she can feel like she’s a wealthy woman!

            Fiona, my mother and grandmother had plenty of credit in the 40’s, 50’s & 60’s. They had credit at the butcher shop, the drug store, the dentist, the milkman, etc. and they paid their bills with real money. No banks were making money off of their credit arrangements with local vendors.

          • fiona64

            Yep, still deliberately obtuse.

            Not that I’m surprised at this point …

          • april showers

            So are you denying that banks have actually been the primary beneficiaries of the vast expansion of the use of consumer credit in this country since the 70’s? Who owns the banks? Who owns the central banks of the US and Western Europe? Women? I think families is a better description of the ownership of your debt. But my view is not filtered by gender bias, so I happen to see everything in a more class based family structure. I don’t feel the need to personally denigrate your ability to understand the world around us, because we have different viewpoints, though. That would be like making fun of someone wearing glasses with my contacts on.

          • fiona64

            So, now you are just doubling down on being deliberately obtuse.

            Okey-dokey then.

            You’re nothing but a homophobic, misogynistic troll. Go back to LieSiteNews and your Quiverful sites and leave the rest of us alone.

          • april showers

            Actually, since egg and sperm can become one, it is not as figurative a turn of speech as you may believe. When the lives of a man and a woman are united and the fruit of their unity is, hopefully in most cases, a child which is the product of egg and sperm united. This relationship, between father, mother and child, is the basic unit of society. When one part is missing, well, it’s missing. When a child is missing due to the choices made by adults, the adults are the only ones to experience the consequences. When one of the parents is missing, the life of the child can be adversely affected and the larger family can pitch in and there are all sorts of decisions that have to be made by a variety of adults for the benefit of the child to compensate (if you will) for this missing parent situation, Hopefully, this situation would only arise due to some unforeseen circumstance. To deliberately impose this situation on a child is, IMHO, less than respectful to the child.

          • lady_black

            Oh shut up. You know what’s really disrespectful of a child? Staying married to his father who drugs you and rapes you. Staying married to his father who denies him. You can love someone, but after you put up with enough nonsense, love gets used up. My son deserves better than that. And I went and made a better life for him. Don’t like it? Go screw yourself.

          • april showers

            Uh, on the contrary, I am not the one talking about love. I am only talking biology. You made a conscious decision to protect your child from a dangerous situation. Congratulations! You are a mom! All good parents want their children to have a better life. IMHO, that is the definition of a good parent.

          • fiona64

            Well, I guess all of the Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Buddhist (yes, Buddhist), Unitarian, MCC, and other weddings must be doing it “wrong” then (according to you), since the ONLY time I’ve ever heard the requirement to breed, er, procreate mentioned was in that Catholic wedding.

            And, BTW, putting the word wedding in sarcasti-quotes when referring to anything other than the Catholic version of the ceremony? Is another tell that you’re full of shit when you say that anyone married outside of the Catholic church didn’t have a real wedding.

            And what we are talking about here is NOT, in fact, a religious ceremony but *legally recognized marriage.* It’s civil law we’re discussing.

            Stop lying.

          • lady_black

            My husband and I were married in the chapel of the hospital where I was working, by the hospital chaplain. Not because we were religious, mind you. But because I really liked “Reverend Sam” both as a person and a colleague. He performed the brief, civil marriage ceremony that we requested, with no religious overtones whatsoever. If that bitch told me my marriage was a “counterfeit mockery of a wedding” to my face, I might just snatch her bald and stomp on her bleeding scalp.

          • lady_black

            No it is not. And having people write their own vows is both perfectly acceptable, and a lovely touch. After all, marrying is not something the priest or minister is “doing to” the couple. It is something the couple is doing for themselves.

          • Arekushieru

            Not everyone has to have sex in order to have children. Never heard of IVF, my dear? That’s for the infertile who can and DO have sex ‘without consequences’. Also, not every person who is married wants to have children. Oops.

            Children born into marital unions have these relationships FORCED on them. Obvious lack of logic is illogical.

          • lady_black

            When will you people EVER get it through your thick heads that marriage has nothing to do with your church, synagogue, mosque, kingdom hall or any other name by which you choose to call your place of worship? It’s an option for those who choose that. But the plain meaning of marriage is a civil contract having nothing to do with religion. People who get married by a judge, district justice, mayor, county clerk, ship captain or Elvis impersonator are just as married as couples who have a church wedding. I assure you that no inferences are made to “welcoming children” in a civil marriage ceremony, and that is merely a religious concept.

          • fiona64

            I know, right? These homophobic trolls clearly attend far more bizarre weddings than I do …

          • april showers

            “Homophobic troll”? namecalling? Even my children can make a point without throwing a derogatory slur.

          • Arekushieru

            So, do you teach them that name-calling is an inappropriate and equally unjustifiable defense when they are being bullied?

          • fiona64

            If you don’t want to be called out as a homophobic troll, Rita, it’s quite simple: stop being a homophobic troll.

          • lady_black

            That’s assuming that there is even a ‘minister’ present. There was no minister at my daughter’s wedding. No mention of sex of any kind, either.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Very true–a wedding does not require the presence of clergy.

          • Arekushieru

            Nope.

          • Arekushieru

            But, you said that if one is not going to have sex there is no need to get married, therefore, by your logic, they did not make a commitment. Are you confused?

          • Jennifer Starr

            marriage is the only APPROPRIATE forum for sexual intercourse. That, again, is a fact.

            Actually, no, that’s not a fact. Something does not become a fact just because you say that it is. It’s an opinion, and it’s your opinion, which you are entitled to. But you need to accept that not everyone shares your belief.

          • april showers

            What’s your belief on the meaning of marriage? Two people who love each other?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Two consenting adults who love each other, yes.

          • april showers

            So, I can marry my grandmother if she will have me?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Your fantasies are all your own. I hear Rick Santorum dreams of men marrying dogs.

          • april showers

            I guess I should clarify that it would be for tax purposes and all the other benefits that the state magically bestows on “two consenting adults who love each other”. So, anyway, basically, you would have no problems other than your personal disgust at what you perceive to be my disturbing and disgusting sexual fantasy? Am I correct?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Are you the same April Showers from topix who claimed to have ‘beaten the gay’ out of your thirteen-year-old kid? You want to talk about disgusting–that’s disgusting.

          • april showers

            Uh, definitely not! I don’t even know what topix is!

          • Jennifer Starr

            Apologies. I’m very glad that wasn’t you.

          • lady_black

            As a long-time married person, I can assure you that “tax purposes” simply don’t exist, with the exception of when one spouse dies, and then of course, they are no longer married. I’m tired of that lie being bandied about. It simply isn’t true, and in too many cases, there is actually a marriage penalty due to the way marginal taxes are levied.

          • april showers

            Dear lady, I totally agree that the civil benefits can be offset by the obligations and a few times my husband and I have considered a civil divorce for this reason and I do know some couples who were married in the church but obtained a civil divorce because of financial concerns. But, perhaps you just need a new accountant? Good luck again.

          • Jennifer Starr

            A civil divorce would make you no longer married.

          • april showers

            A civil divorce would make me no longer married in the eyes of the state, which is another social construct altogether.

          • Dez

            The only marriage the government acknowledges is civil marriage. Church marriages are not considered legal until you get a civil marriage contract. Marriage is a social construct that is defined by the specific society. I’m an atheist that got married to a catholic in a non-religious marriage ceremony with no intention on having children.

          • lady_black

            Uh yeah. And being married in the eyes of the state is the only thing that matters, legally speaking. I’ve heard of couples who regularly divorce and re-marry for tax purposes. Fortunately it’s very rare, because what a waste of a court’s time and what a mockery of marriage that is. It makes headlines precisely because it’s the territory of “kooks.” I can understand seniors who live together rather than marry because of the effect it would have upon their Social Security. I can even understand rare cases where couples are forced to divorce so the results of a financially devastating illness will not bankrupt the couple and their children. But marriage, divorce and re-marriage based on tax advantages (even where they would exist, as in the marriage penalty) is simply ridiculous. It’s none of my business. I simply would never personally do it.

          • april showers

            I find it very interesting that you feel that people who change their marital status too frequently are actually making a mockery of marriage. Isn’t the state marriage registry set up by the state just for that purpose, to register marriages and divorces? Isn’t it like the DMV in that respect? Is moving and changing addresses “too often” on your driver’s license making a mockery of driving? I know you would probably never do it personally, but I find it very interesting that some people feel that using a state registry to their own personal benefit is a mockery of a state registry. A state registry, of course, being a bureaucracy, which has no function other than intruding into the personal details of people’s lives, and arbitrarily handing out rewards and punishments, based on, basically, the whims of the political class. But, I see how you’re not judging them and that you hold yourself and your marriage to an intangible higher standard than some “kooks” who feel that they should actually be able to organize their lives as they wish within the establish parameters, Interesting concept. I guess this is just what happens when tax law is based on private personal circumstances. People can change their circumstances on paper to benefit themselves and their families, as long as the paperwork is properly filled out.

          • lady_black

            Changing your address on your driver’s license is free and done online. It doesn’t require a wasting of court time that repeatedly dissolving the bonds of marriage does. A computer takes care of it. Anyone who has ever been divorced can tell you it’s often much more complicated. If you don’t have minor children, and don’t own anything, it’s fairly simple. You both sign and then you’re divorced. That isn’t the reality of most married couples. There are various issues to be settled. Custody, division of assets and debts, etc.

          • april showers

            But don’t those issues only apply in a hostile divorce situation. I thought you were referring to an amicable divorce on paper between two parties who simply are arranging their finances in their own best interests.

          • lady_black

            It’s still expensive, and a waste of court time.

          • fiona64

            Here’s a news flash for you: that’s the only place where it matters.

          • april showers

            Here’s a news flash to you! Some of us answer to a higher authority!

          • fiona64

            Your religion is irrelevant to discussions of civil law.

          • lady_black

            The Tea Party?

          • cjvg

            “A civil divorce would make me no longer married in the eyes of the state, which is another social construct altogether.”

            As is religion and religious marriage. Many different societies created many different religions, all have their particular dictates which permeate the societies they sprung from.

            Again, no logic, no reasoning ability and no reading comprehension, your statements are deteriorating to aimless drivel punctuated by banality

          • lady_black

            I don’t need an accountant at all, you bloviating busybody. Our taxes are very simple, and I’m perfectly capable of doing them on my own. Stop moving the goalposts. You claimed that people were marrying for “tax purposes.” When it was pointed out that you were wrong, you now suggest divorcing for tax purposes, along with the condescending remark that I just don’t know what I’m talking about. Begone, Rita!

          • april showers

            Why are you so angry? It was only a suggestion and there are some benefits for some people and not for others. Tax law is ever changing as you must know. I don’t know any Rita and I have never said that you do not know what you are talking about and I wouldn’t either.

          • lady_black

            Sorry about that. You remind me of another poster who posts in the same illogical style with much of the same fallacious information that you do. If you are not that person, I apologize. But my comment still stands.

          • fiona64

            Yep … it must be a coincidence that “April” and Rita both use the same BS arguments, both have 11 kids, etc. But they are totes different people. /snark

          • april showers

            So if another poster has a son in the Navy then it must be you, right Fiona? Because there is only one person in your world with 11 children? And this from the women who suggests that I should get out more?

          • fiona64

            You’re funny, with your deliberately obtuse behavior.

          • fiona64

            I am sure that, with just the teensiest bit of effort, you can stop being deliberately obtuse.

          • cjvg

            Alas, your hopes are invain

          • cjvg

            That would be incest, something that society has also created social barriers against because of the obvious genetic consequences. However it was a commonly used practice among the pharaoes

          • Arekushieru

            I disagree. Society has not created social barriers around people who have children because they both carry markers for the same inheritable genetic disease when they’re unrelated to each other. Partly because those who engage in incest and those like I mentioned above don’t always have children, anyways, either.

          • cjvg

            The fact that society did not create those bans is most likely because it had no knowledge (and no way to find out) about unrelated people who had the same inheritable genetic disease. That knowledge is a fairly current phenomena.
            I agree that those who engage in incest do not always have children but in earlier societies it was an unavoidable and hard to control risk so it societies assumptions are that there will be children barring unusual circumstances.
            However yours is an interesting premises, why do you believe it became unacceptable in societies that previously accepted and even celebrated/dictated it for certain groups?

          • Arekushieru

            In another post you refer to something that I believe leads to a condition commonly known as the Westermarck Effect. While I’m not saying that I agree with the implementation of this assessment, I think this assessment does address two birds with one stone, so to speak.

            For one, I think that’s the actual reason that social barriers surrounding incest were created. Because you’re quite right. The power balances between family members (whether adopted, step-children, biological, foster, etc) are more significantly highlighted than the power balances ascribed to other social/employment institutions, even if the act occurred between two similar-aged siblings/co-workers.

            For two, genetic conditions like hemophilia existed in ancient times and they probably occurred in certain populations more than others. Which means, the genetic effects were observable. But, they didn’t necessarily originate as an inherited disease, making it unlikely that the people at the time considered it a disease between related people. And, if they believed that, then why didn’t it become just as unacceptable/intolerable for people with observable symptoms of hemophilia to be married to each other as it did for incestuous pairings? Besides, the very fact that we DO now have the knowledge to understand the effects of genetic conditions passed on by unrelated people yet we’ve still failed to convince people en masse as in ancient/medieval times that creating social barriers around sexual intercourse between two unrelated people with inheritable genetic diseases, tends to dispel that theory, too.

          • cjvg

            I like outlying opinions, make you think, besides it is not like I don’t have plenty of them. Outlying opinions are a sign of a curious mind and I’m quite intrigued by your well though out opinions so I would like to know more

          • Arekushieru

            Yeah, I’m attempting to reply to your comment as we speak, but it’s quite difficult when I’m a person who’s (and whose brain is) easily distracted ([and] overstimulated).

          • cjvg

            Don’t worry, I’m not in a hurry.
            Whenever you get to it is fine

          • april showers

            We agree again! The obvious genetic consequences are part of the social construct of marriage! Why is that? Oh, right, biology again!

          • cjvg

            Do you have any semblance of reading comprehension or does your particular form of idiocy automatically translate every statement as confirming your unwarranted prejudices?

          • april showers

            Prejudices? What are my prejudices, pray tell?

          • cjvg

            Read your own statements and you’ll literally break your neck over them. Your proclamations are overflowing with your personal beliefs packaged as “this is the only correct way because I say so” that is what prejudices are dear!

          • fiona64

            Do you read your own posts? Your bigotry is writ large.

          • april showers

            Some rich irony here, my dear. Since pejorative labels and derogatory stereotyping are defining characteristics of bigots, I might suggest you peruse your own posts.

          • fiona64

            Here’s a little pro-tip, sweetie: calling out bigotry is NOT bigotry.

          • fiona64

            You do know that adult incest is not illegal, right? Right?

            And that in New Jersey the consanguinity laws allow you to marry a first cousin of the opposite gender? That’s all good, from your perspective, but two consenting adults of the same gender is bad because they can’t procreate? Bubba’s condom busted in the back of the Buick is a good enough reason to marry, for you, but not love, commitment and respect?

            Dearie, I know gay couples who have been together for longer than I’ve been *alive* (and that’s quite some time now). There is no reason, other than bigotry, to deny those couples the right to marry.

          • april showers

            fiona, tell that to cj, she called it incest.
            Btw, I am related to gay couples who have been together since Vietnam ti present and from WW2 til the death of my uncle in the mid 80’s. They live(d) their lives as they wished and never once complained about not being able to marry their partner or have a wedding. I guess it isn’t(wasn’t) important enough, since, well, yeah.

            As for Bubba’s condom busting in the Buick (loved the alliteration, btw!), if they conceived a child, then that’s my concern. The child deserves love, respect and commitment, the adults can sacrifice for 18 years and work on someone else’s needs and build a strong family for the child. But, yes, we disagree here as well and that is really the basis of our fundamental polarity. Respect for children vs. respect for adults. Yet, our differing worldviews don’t compel me to attack you with insulting labels that I conveniently use to rationalize my dismissal of your opinions. Whatever.

          • lady_black

            You are forcing us to ponder whether an ill-conceived (pun intended) shotgun wedding is truly in the best interest of children. You state with great authority that the adults “can sacrifice for 18 years and work on someone else’s needs” blah, blah, blah. They will be doing that anyway, whether they choose to marry or not, they are still parents if they choose to bring the pregnancy to term. It often doesn’t work that way, and here’s why. Whether you like it or not, marriage is not a child-centered construct. It’s an adult-centered construct. Marriage begins with two adults, and ends with two adults. Children, if there are any, are a temporary presence as they are inclined to grow up and make lives of their own. If the two adults are not suited, are not happy, lack commitment, or just plain can’t stand each other, there will be no “strong family” for the child.

          • april showers

            Uh, I am not even able to force anybody to ponder anything, so I’ll just agree quickly here (I’ve got stuff to do) that adults will be making sacrifices for their children whether they are married or not, and further, I admit that there are circumstances where the obligations of marriage would be ill-advised financially because of said child(ren), and, again, these obligations are more related to civil regulation of marriage rather than concern for offspring. However, statistics bear out the greater chances of certain measures of success ( I am not actually agreeing here that the markers are actually indicative of health on all important levels) for the child in a married family with both biological parents. As to the two “adults” who are not suited, not happy, lack commitment or just plain can’t stand each other, they sound like children, rather than adults and should call on the larger family for help or adopt the child out to a healthy environment. What can I say? Good luck to all.

          • lady_black

            One need not be a “child” for a marriage not to work out. Of course you believe people should give away their flesh and blood to strangers. You’re a selfish person with rigid ideas of what’s “proper” and “healthy.” If my grandmother (who was divorced due to abandonment and raised my mother as a single parent long before that was an “acceptable” option) were alive to hear something like that come out of your mouth, she would bop you over the head with her cane. Better a child be brought up by a single parent where there is no strife, tension and abuse than to chain them to an unhappy home for the sake of your ideals.

          • april showers

            Yikes, my dear, re-read my post. I said to look to the larger family first. I consider adoption to be for those that, for whatever reason, have no family at all. I have the same type of grandmother who raised three kids on her own, by the way, and I have uncles that were adopted by my other grandmother who had 18 kids of her own. Was she selfish? I am not against single adults raising their own kids, but your post led me to believe that you were talking about children who should probably not be raising children without a very strong family back up, which, if there isn’t one, adoption should be a consideration. Can we agree on this?

          • lady_black

            As I already replied in a different post, NO she does NOT say that.

          • cjvg

            Thank you!

          • Dez

            However, statistics bear out the greater chances of certain measures of success ( I am not actually agreeing here that the markers are actually indicative of health on all important levels) for the child in a married family with both biological parents.

            Citation needed because every study lately has shown kids do well with gay parents just as well as straight parents. This is why every marriage ban has been lifted because anti-gay opponents can not prove their position that gay parents are detrimental to children.

          • cjvg

            Would you stop trying to misrepresent my words for your benefit!
            If you fail to make ant reasonable or logical argument for your premises, do NOT attempt to dishonestly use my statements as being supportive to your drivel!
            Even so if you are misusing another’s words it would behoove you the use their actual name, i’m quite feed up with your deliberate dishonesty and rudeness.
            What I said was that historically seen marriage was a societal construct by man to attempt to restrict female fertility, and thereby ensuring that the children he raised where biologically his. Basically it is proof of male insecurities.

          • fiona64

            Once again, Rita, if you don’t want to be called out for your homophobic bigotry, then stop being a homophobic bigot.

            You have no idea whether or not marriage was important to those couples because *same-sex marriage was not an option for them.* Stop being deliberately disingenuous. I dare you.

            You don’t respect children, or else you would respect the children of gay couples as well.

          • april showers

            Children of gay couples have the same needs as children of straight couples. They want to know who they are and be wanted and loved by their parents.

          • fiona64

            Here’s a news flash for you: gay couples *do* love their children, and their children are most assuredly wanted. They CHOOSE to have chlidren, as opposed to having them by accident.

          • april showers

            You are still focused on adults rather than children. Reread my post. Every child has a mother and a father. That’s biology. Every child wants to know who he/she (the child) is in space and time. Every child wants to know, love and please both of their parents and their larger family. When circumstances interfere with this ideal scenario, the child suffers.

            Fertile gay people can have children when they engage in sexual intercourse with opposite gender folks. Gay couples cannot because biology. They CHOOSE to reject their fertility.
            Sexual intercourse is never an accident unless force is used, which is, of course, criminal.

          • fiona64

            Gay couples cannot because biology. They CHOOSE to reject their fertility.

            Well, now I know you’re a complete moron whose words can be dismissed with extreme prejudice. No one chooses their sexual orientation.

          • april showers

            Sexual orientation is “fluid”. not fixed.

          • fiona64

            No, dear, it is not fluid. A gay man forcing himself to have sex with a woman is not somehow straight, just because you’re too stupid to realize it. He’s just living a lie.

          • april showers

            I’m not trying to change anyone to do want they don’t want to do. All I said is if a gay man wants a family, he could have one, the same as everyone else

          • fiona64

            All I said is if a gay man wants a family, he could have one, the same as everyone else

            Well, isn’t that generous of you? /sarcasm
            Gay couples DO have families, as has already been explained to you repeatedly.

            Stop being so deliberately obtuse.

            If you can.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yes, he can have a family–with the same-sex partner of his choice. The fact that you don’t consider that appropriate is immaterial.

          • Jennifer Starr

            No, sorry–it’s not fluid. Not at all.

          • Arekushieru

            Sexual orientation is ‘fluid’ only insofar as the type of attraction one feels may vary. It is not ‘fluid’ according to whether it can be ‘chosen’ or not. As an example, let’s talk about gender fluidity. When someone says they are gender fluid, they mean that they may present as a man at one moment, and a woman the next, and so on. But it does NOT mean that they can present as whatever gender they choose at any given moment. Therefore, you are advocating forced sexual activity,

          • cjvg

            Biology does not make a parent(s).

            Intent makes you a parent, willingness to raise a child makes you a parent, ability to raise a child makes you a parent.

            If it was only biological factor then people who adopted children would not be parents

          • Arekushieru

            That’s… a lot of assumptions on your part. Besides, the fact that many adopted children want to know who and where they came from is no more proof of anything than children of immigrants wanting to know where their families and relatives came from. It’s an atavistic part of human nature and that is ALL.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’m sure they do know who they are and that they are wanted and loved. I can’t think of any reason why they wouldn’t.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Actually, I think making someone marry just because they conceived a child is an incredibly bad idea. I’ve seen what often happens in those situations–mom and dad don’t love one another and end up resenting one another and also resenting the child. I think that they should both support the child once its born, however, but they can do that without marriage.

          • april showers

            I would certainly agree with you that “making someone marry” or forcing anyone to do anything that they do not want to is usually counterproductive. Here’s where respect for children actually begins before conception. Limiting sexual intercourse to partners with whom one is prepared to actually parent a child with, is, in my personal opinion, the minimum amount of respect that one would have for their own children and the grandchildren of their parents, etc.. I am aware that this is a counterculture position, but I feel that is because it is a more child centered position, than, say, an “I can do whatever I want as long as I am not hurting anyone but my own children” position. This is not to say that every act of PIV sex is only for the purpose of procreation, but a clear knowledge of biology requires that we expect, and acknowledge as mature adults that PIV sex can result in a pregnancy, regardless of the intentions.

          • fiona64

            Limiting sexual intercourse to partners with whom one is prepared to actually parent a child with, is, in my personal opinion, the minimum amount of respect that one would have for their own children

            So, in your mind, the childfree should either be celibate or prepare to have children they don’t want? Nice.

          • april showers

            Uh, the celibate are childfree whether they are celibate by choice or not. Those who do not want children must take extra precautions to not conceive if they intend to have sexual intercourse. These interventions and precautions only reduce the chance of conceiving, they do not eliminate it unless one or both partners have been surgically sterilized.

          • fiona64

            Uh, you do not know the difference between childfree and childless, obviously. The terms are not interchangeable.

            And just a little pro-tip? Surgical sterilizations can, and do, fail.

          • april showers

            That doesn’t change my point, if you want to pile surgical sterilization in with other means of preventing conception, feel free.

          • fiona64

            You don’t have a point, Rita … just a bunch of homophobic dumbassery.

          • april showers

            More name-calling? Really?

          • fiona64

            Just pointing out the reality of your posts, dear. Again, if you don’t want to be called out as a homophobic dumbass, stop behaving like one.

          • Arekushieru

            Why would you? You believe that your grandmother should not be married because she does not engage in sexual intercourse *ahem* sorry… AS YOU DEEM APPROPRIATE *ahem*.

          • lady_black

            Your grandmother is already family, thus there is no need for an artificial legal construct that makes you family. Your grandmother may or may not be your legal next-of-kin, but it’s the law that spells that out. Not your wishes.

          • lady_black

            Hopefully they love each other.

          • Arekushieru

            Equally consenting persons who want to marry each other. That’s my definition. I don’t think love has to come into it, nor do I think it should be restricted to two people of the opposite sex. Anything else should be illegal, however.

          • lady_black

            Here is the LEGAL meaning of marriage. Since marriage is based in law, we would do well to examine what the legal meaning of marriage is. Marriage makes two consenting adult strangers legal next-of-kin and a brand new, previously non-existent family. That’s it. That’s pretty much universal across cultures. Only the window-dressing changes. The particulars of the arrangement are unique to the couple, and entirely at their discretion. Hopefully they do love each other. Maybe they will have children. Maybe not. But regardless of whether or not they love each other, or whether or not they decide to have children, they are still married, and still family.

          • cjvg

            If that was the case humanity would have died out before we made it out of the infancy of our history. Marriage is a societal concept, before the knowledge of how pregnancies came about there really was no such thing.

            Marriage is an attempt by men to ensure that they where only raising the children that are biologically theirs, by creating a social barrier against sexual access to their chosen woman

          • april showers

            Why thanks, cjvg, for making my point! Excellent post!

          • cjvg

            Wrong, it does in no way confirm your ridiculous premises that gay marriage is against biological and societal law. It merely points out that societal law is not necessarily a biologically imperative but merely an artificial construct created to assuage the patriarchal fears or illogical religious beliefs.

            Obviously you have very little respect for women since you are under the belief that men must be able to control women in order for them to have any faith that the children they are raising are theirs.

          • april showers

            Your post: “Marriage is an attempt by men to ensure that they where (sic) only raising the children that are biologically theirs, by creating a social barrier against sexual access to their chosen woman”.

            So if I agree with your post that marriage as a tradition is a commitment to fidelity between a man and a woman who engage in sexual intercourse, for the purpose of raising their biological children, then I somehow have very little respect for women? Does having respect for women mean the opposite? Please elaborate on your definition of “respect for women”?

          • cjvg

            Again reading seems to be extremely hard for you! Traditional marriage was an institution that left women very little power, in fact it left them none.

            Their voices, bodies, possessions and pretty much anything in between was owned by their husband, they had no rights other then what their husband magnanimously granted them!
            This granted the husband the social, legal and physical means to ensure his wife had no choices other then the ones he approved off. Divorce, no children, not wanting to marry him were not really an option!

            Women only got the right to vote long after the freed male slaves already had it (!) think about that for a second
            Women did not have the right to own property or inherit long after black men had it ! So in effect a woman was considered less then a black man, even in an era where black men where considered lesser humans and it was acceptable to enslave them!

            Are you seriously arguing that this set up shows great respect and love for women?! Obviously any BS will do for you. Slavery also showed great respect for the human beings they where selling and abusing, I’m sure that logic will also appeal to you!

          • april showers

            Oh, yikes!, so do I assume that your definition of “respect for women” means hatred for the “patriarchy” and all of their “institutions of oppression”?

          • Jennifer Starr

            So you don’t think it was oppressive that a wife couldn’t vote, own her own property or get divorced without her husband’s permission? That women were basically considered the property of their fathers until ownership was handed over to their husbands in a marriage that was basically arranged? Because I think that’s pretty oppressive, and I’m glad that those notions have fallen by the wayside.

          • april showers

            I am certainly glad all those notions fell by the wayside as well. That being said, I personally don’t keep any property in my name, it’s a liability, nor do I vote because of lack of options and further, in my personal life, I have found my grandfathers, father, brothers, husband and sons to be very easy to deal with, much more so than any of the female members of my family, so, on an individual level, I find men are very simple and, I hate to say this, but easy to manipulate. So, let’s just say, I’m a just a little bit of a skeptic on the whole oppression meme as far as western civ goes. Obviously, slavery and coercion are wrong, but there were plenty of female leaders since ancient times so, apparently, the opportunities for ambitious females existed among the more productive classes, which is, basically, the same as it is today. I guess I’m agnostic on this point.

          • cjvg

            There where female leaders, but not exactly plenty! And lets actually pay attention to how they became leaders, most became leaders when their husband (who was in charge) died and their young sons where not of age yet (perpetuation of hereditary leadership) or if their were no male heirs (see the British queens)
            Obviously this is a dishonest and patently false argument that is easily disproven when one has even a modicum of high school history education. As for the rest of your argument, does your husband or father or son or grandfather not have property either? No, then it is probably a matter of financial means and you and the males in your family are equal. Choosing not to vote is significantly different from not being allowed to vote, you know why, because if you make the choice not to vote you still have the right to do so!
            Not having any rights and choosing not to exercise your rights is a diametrically opposed position n one you exercise your RIGHT not to use the rights you have in the other there is no choice of yours involved, your choice was not even a consideration!
            The fact that you can manipulate the males in your family is nice for you, not all males are so weak willed if that was the case there would not be so much male on female violence!

          • april showers

            I will admit that my ancestry is from a more matriarchal society than some and I have chosen to marry a man whose ancestry is also more matriarchal despite our racial differences, so my biracial children have inherited certain expectations that are more in line with a somewhat female dominated decision making process in a strong family environment. However, we do not think of males as weak if they defer financial or social decisions or whatever to females. They are strong physically, intellectually and spiritually and their ability to protect and provide for their families is a major part of familial success. So I guess we may read history a little differently, cj, but I think the facts do bear me out and you feel that the facts support your theory of male oppression. I look at things more with a class based, family strength basis. Strong families seem to be the hallmark of wealth creation throughout history and when wealthy families consolidate their strength, they can overpower weaker or less educated peoples and stressed families. Basically when strong families unite together and try to prevent weaker families from becoming strong and challenging their power, you have oppression based on class rather than gender. As you have mentioned, most of the female leaders throughout history, obtained power from their family, well, the same can be said for many of the male leaders. Family is the basic unit of human society and, it seems to me, based on history, it always has been.

          • cjvg

            Who is cj? Why are you replying to me if you are talking to her appy

          • Jennifer Starr

            The day that I turned 18 my dad took me to register to vote, and I’ve voted in pretty much every election since then. And it was my dad who also encouraged me to have property, a bank account and investments in my own name.

          • lady_black

            What a wonderful dad you were blessed with. Every woman, married or not, should have things in her own name.

          • april showers

            I started working on my father’s electoral campaigns before I was in school (licking envelopes-yuck!), so by the time I was in high school, I understood well the futility of voting. Of course, when I was young, I also had all my few assets in my own name. I also spent much too much time in school which interfered greatly with my education. Currently, I only have credit in my name, but yes, I certainly agree that everyone can and should make their own financial decisions, and btw, your dad sounds like a great guy who loves his daughter. I’m sure he’s very proud of you.

          • cjvg

            No it means that am in complete opposition to inequality in all its forms, but I guess believing in fair and equal treatment equals hate in your world.

            Hateful are those people who oppose equal treatment and equal rights for people who are not them. Especially since giving others people equal human and civil rights that they arrogantly claim belongs to them, does not impact their lives in the slightest!

            Their marriages will not be any less strong or weaker by granting everyone marriage rights, their children will still be their children even if gay people are allowed to adopt parentless kids, the products of their womb will still be in their womb even if another woman decides to abort. etc. etc.

          • april showers

            I have certainly never opposed equal rights or equal treatment, I myself have been denied equal treatment in many circumstances and have been the target of bigots, bullies and other types of derogatory slurs so I completely understand the unfairness and hurtfulness of it all. I remember, in the early 90’s, when I wanted to register myself and my children’s care-giver as a domestic partnership so that she could access my health benefits, I was subjected to a very intrusive interview and denied because even though we lived in the same house and she was taking care of my children enabling me to work, I was denied because I wasn’t actually engaging in any sexual activity more intimate than a kiss! Can you imagine? Determining the validity of our relationship on the basis of our sexual proclivities? Of course, it should have been none of their business but the sex police were able to enforce their bigotry. I had to move on with my life.

          • cjvg

            So you belief that you where entitled but others should not be.
            Nice double standard

          • april showers

            Yes, I actually thought that as one of the employees of the company, I was entitled to the same benefits as the other employees. I was wrong, some employees are more equal than other employees. As for my double standard?, I have never advocated or voted for any position on state regulated marriage because I don’t believe marriage is the business of any government at all.

          • cjvg

            But your sole reason for posting here is because you are arguing against teaching kids that all freely chosen adult relationships are equal. You state that you do not want children to be taught anything other then that heterosexual marriage is the norm and the only acceptable form of relationship choice.

            However, as soon as it was beneficial to you, you want your particular form of unconventional relationship acknowledged and given full benefits, quite hypocritical!
            I guess you want exceptions made for you, but others can just drop dead and die.

            So how do you think these kids will grow up when indoctrinated with your strict exclusionary definitions? They will grow up just like the people in your company that denied you the benefits you claim you deserve!

            Just as an aside, your “relationship” sounds like a well working room mate situation, not a family unit. It is the same as having a live in nanny. Insurance companies do not extend benefits to room mates or nannies since they are not forming a family unit!

          • april showers

            I was actually asking you a question, denoted by the question mark (?). Not interpreting or making up stuff.

          • cjvg

            And I answered your question, maybe you should bother to read it!

          • april showers

            Personally, I don’t believe it is the right or responsibility of the state to record personal information about people’s voluntary associations. Further, that they feel that they can issue rewards and punishments based on people’s personal association is the height of arrogance. They do it regardless of what I think, and like everything else they “control”, they screw it up beyond recognition. It is this filthy habit they have that inspires your quest for “equality and fairness”. For adults, they make their own choices and reap the consequences. My only concern here is the children who are subjected to this type of messaging that equates heterosexual relationships (from which they were born) with a homosexual lifestyle that is sterile. Forcing children to make judgements about adult choices and behaviors before these children can appreciate all the ramifications of these choices is insensitive, IMHO. Sometimes in life, children are forced to make judgements about adult choices that affect them, it’s just not a situation that should be encouraged.

          • cjvg

            Showing children that what ever choice they will make for their life is acceptable is equated to oppression by you?!

            Children are not asked to make a judgment, that is the whole point they are taught NOT to judge other on their personal voluntary made choices!

            You are really trying your best to twist this around but again this comes back to not judging and trusting others that they are competent enough to make their own choices.

            No child will turn gay because their teacher is, they merely learn that there are different sorts of families and that all families are equal and accepted

            That is actually the opposite of judging and in the same time reassures children that they will be accepted

          • april showers

            Weird, so you equate marriage traditions with slavery, which is, of course, characterized by the involuntary nature of the relationship and threat of violence. Are you actually proposing that marriage is a tradition of involuntary sexual fidelity and forced child-rearing, by its very nature? You’re very funny, by the way!

          • cjvg

            If you had any form of accurate history education then you would know that that is exactly what marriage was.
            Marriage was developed to make treaties, mitigate hostilities seal peace accord, ensure the proper succession (see virginity prerequisites) claim land holdings etc.

            Reading and educating yourself is in actuality very beneficial if you want to stop looking foolish in these debates.

          • lady_black

            Pretty funny that you are having your ass handed to you by someone for whom English is her third language. She does NOT AGREE with you. She is explaining to you the origin of marriage. You may be of the OPINION that the concept of women as male property is still valid. That doesn’t mean anyone else agrees with you. Reading (comprehension) is fundamental to online discussion.

          • lady_black

            She isn’t making your point, and the purpose for marriage has changed many times over the course of human history. The concept of women as male property described by cjvg is no longer a valid concept, so if that was your “point” you really haven’t got a point.

          • april showers

            She absolutely didn’t even mention women as male property in her post, so why would I address that issue and why does that translate into a reading comprehension issue? However, she did very clearly note that the concept of marriage evolved very early in human history into an arrangement of sexual fidelity, and, of course, the evolutionary biomarkers for this “partner preference” are there, as the optimal arrangement for the health of any viable offspring.
            I would say that anyone that can’t agree with this, may have a little issue with intellectual dishonesty. Please keep responses on point, though, name calling belittles the name caller not the name callee.

          • lady_black

            Simply because she didn’t use those exact words doesn’t mean she didn’t make reference to the concept. Where you have a social construct that says marriage is to ‘ensure that the children men are raising are their own’, the concept of women as male property is implicit. You’re terribly dense, but I can hardly believe you’re THAT dense. Think of the religious ceremonial handing over of ‘title’ that has thankfully fallen by the wayside. “Who ‘gives’ this woman to be married to this man?” Since one cannot “give” what one does not OWN, the implication is clearly that fathers own their daughters until such time (if any) that he hands over his “ownership” to a husband. She then becomes the property of the husband, to assure that any children born to her are his, and the cycle ever continues. In this day and age we acknowledge that fathers do not “own” their children, and husbands do not “own” their wives.

          • april showers

            Well, perhaps I do have a different take on things than you but I certainly haven’t resorted to questioning your reading comprehension or analytical skill set! Where you say “ownership” is the implied concept, I actually read “obligation to protect”. Humans cannot really be owned except by themselves, everybody implicitly understands this concept and any attempt to force people to bend to your will is going to be time consuming and resource intensive. This concept plays out repeatedly in history. What we do know about men first hand, is that they tend to want to protect their female relatives from harm from other males, some of whom we know can be dangerous predators. Men very often die in the process of protecting woman and children and also in the process of engaging in dangerous work to provide for their families. When a father “gives away” a daughter, you can just as easily imply that he is obliging the husband to protect his daughter from physical harm! You should want guys like this in your family. Perhaps you don’t see things like that but that doesn’t mean that I think you are dense.

          • lady_black

            A “duty to protect” doesn’t lend itself to the ability to “give” something to another. And who says we need men to “protect” us? I can protect myself, thank you very much. I have no need of protection, which is really just a dog whistle that means “control.” You remind me of a police officer who pulled me over in Memphis, where I was visiting with family. He remarked that he wouldn’t “let” his wife go that far away by herself, to which I replied that I wasn’t his wife and didn’t need my husband’s permission to travel.

          • april showers

            True, duty to protect and control can sometimes be seen as overlapping. Women can become controlling, as well, when they are charged with protecting someone or in their insecurity.

            However, you must admit that western women certainly enjoy a great amount of security enabling their relative independence. The well lit streets patrolled by armed men (or women) and the safe vehicles that you drive around in are a manifestation of the male drive to protect women and families. I find it interesting that you duly stopped for a cop and most likely, proved your identity, ownership of your vehicle and perhaps personal financial responsibility in case of an accident, all systems of control, set up by predominantly men, right or wrongly, for your personal safety. Any conversation you had with the cop, was an excuse for him to engage you in any meaningless conversation while he is in the process of looking for red flags that may signal danger to the community. If he had found something, he would have detained you for further investigation. Whether we agree with his tactics or not, they make the streets safer for us women travelling alone.
            Disclaimer: I am not claiming here that you cannot take care of yourself. I am sure that you can.

          • lady_black

            Danger to the community. Yes, indeed. A thirty-something lady driving a mini-station wagon with children in the back seat is certainly a cause for alarm, isn’t it? Never mind that he admitted pulling me over just to check me out. Never mind that he terrified my children by removing me from the car and putting me in the back of his cruiser. I’m supposed to answer some nosy, personal questions simply because the asker has a badge and a gun. Never mind the fear it causes. Not all cops are good guys. Some of them are rapists. My “crime” was being a woman with an out of state license plate, driving around without a man in attendance. And all of this is supposed to make me feel “safe.” Well, let me tell you. It’s a HUGE FAIL. I was terrified that I was about to be kidnapped (or only god knows what) in full view of my children. And let me tell you something else. It didn’t score any points for the police in the eyes of my kids, either. You want to make me feel safe? Leave me the fuck alone! That would go a long way. It might not seem like a big deal to you, but it left scars on me to the extent that I still feel them 20 years later.

          • april showers

            Personally, I agree with you that cops are a threat to public safety, and I fully believe that he pulled you over because you were a female with out of state license, and that you would be safer being left alone. My point was that the system is set up for your safety, of course, predators will always go where they think they can find easy prey. Having a monopoly on the use of force is like a neon sign to predators. That’s why I said “rightly or wrongly” in my post.

          • lady_black

            You HAVE no point.

          • april showers

            Ok, but I think they may be some women in other countries that may not agree with you.

          • cjvg

            Don’t bother, she continues to deliberately misunderstand and interpret any and all responses made. If that is not working she moves the goal posts or ignores the answer completely.

            There is no honest debate or factual concersation possible with this one!

          • fiona64

            You don’t read too well, do you?

          • cjvg

            Seriously, learn to read
            I did not support your assertions in any way, but you know that and are just to dishonest to acknowledge it!

          • Arekushieru

            Medical definitions of sexual intercourse apparently disagree with you.

            Reciting ‘rules’ that do not even match the correct definition are only opinions. Trying to make your opinions the ‘rules’ IS precisely enforcing them on others, then. Oops.

        • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

          No thank you. I will have all the hot earthshaking thigh melting sex I want with anyone I think is sexy. Asexuals must not make rules for those with normal sexuality.
          I will never marry again. Why buy the whole pig when all you want is 6 ounces of sausage?

          • april showers

            Best of luck to you, plum!

        • fiona64

          You clearly need to get out more since a) you think that sexual intercourse is only for procreation and b) you think that people have to be married to have sex and c) you think that people have to have children and d) you think that no gay people have children.

          BTW, the “children bought and owned as fashionable accessories” business? You had better talk to all of the right-wing Christians who think it’s chic to adopt a child from Ethiopia, and the “women of a certain age” who were adopting female infants from China because it was fashionable to do so. Far more cachet than adopting from the local foster system, don’cha know …

          • april showers

            It’s so weird how you seem to think that you know what I think!
            a) I have never said that sexual intercourse in ONLY for procreation. However, it is certainly a biological fact that human reproduction is based on sexual intercourse.
            b) I have never said that people MUST be married to have sex, however, marriage, as an institution, is by definition, the only appropriate forum for sexual intercourse in traditional western societies. If you don’t plan on having sexual intercourse with someone, then there is certainly no NEED to marry, let alone a RIGHT. Any sexual activity outside of marriage is just inappropriate sexual activity.
            c) I have never said anywhere that people have to have children. On the contrary,I think that people that don’t want children certainly shouldn’t have them.
            d) I certainly never said that gay people have no children. That would be stupid.

            Also, you seem to imagine that I somehow blame gay people for the latest reproductive technologies and celebrity foreign adoptions adding to the ever increasing commoditization of children, and that you are “informing” me of heterosexual couples using children as accessories. I assure that I am well aware of how the self-absorbed, narcissistic and affluent hetero community are the progenitors of this process and have used children as pawns since the days of the monarchies.

          • fiona64

            So, what all of your logorrhea really said was: gay people are icky, and since you don’t think they “have to” get married (since they can’t breed and all), they shouldn’t be allowed to?

            Got it. You’re just another homophobic twit who can be dismissed.

          • Dez

            Yup for april marriage is PIV sex only. Love is irrelevant. Kind of makes you think what kind of brainwashing or drama happened in her life to have such a bleak and disappointing view of marriage. Must be some kind of religious fanatic that thinks their view of marriage is the only right and correct view. She can not even comprehend that atheists, childfree couples, and gays get married.

          • april showers

            “Gay people are icky?” More assumptions and all equally incorrect. More name calling? Quelle surprise!
            My dear, are you even aware that there are gay people opposed to same sex marriage? I guess they all just think “gay people are icky” and are just a bunch of “homophobic twits”! Just dismiss them.

          • Jennifer Starr

            If there are gay people opposed to same sex marriage, they probably shouldn’t get married.

          • Arekushieru

            You are a misogynist and you are presumably a woman. Having gay friends does not make you anti-homophobic. And being gay does not exclude you from being homophobic. Does THAT answer your question? Just not in the way you wanted, right? Oops.

            Btw, you ARE homophobic when your position states and implies that one marital institution is more ‘real’ than the other.

          • fiona64

            ::pats Rita’s head::

            Of course, sweetie. You’re absolutely right We should excuse your homophobic bullshit because there are some people who have been socialized to believe that who they are is disgusting and they’ve bought into it. /sarcasm

            There are straight people who don’t believe in marriage, too, you ignorant bint. That’s irrelevant to the fact that you are a homophobic, misogynistic jerk (and yes, Rita, women can be misogynists).

          • april showers

            So your point is that anyone that doesn’t agree with you is a self loathing, ignorant hater, therefore, their different views can be dismissed. OK, got it.

          • fiona64

            You really need to learn how to read for comprehension, Rita, rather than posting asinine straw men.

          • lady_black

            If a gay person is opposed to same sex marriage, they are just as DELUDED as you are, and furthermore, they need not marry if they are opposed to it. Yes, it really IS that simple.

          • Arekushieru

            A) We never disagreed with that last. Fiona wasn’t remarking on that, either, so why did you feel the need to bring it up?

            B) Go back and read what CJVG said. Considering that marriage is a SOCIAL construct therefore can’t HAVE hard and fast rules, you are wrong, wrong, WRONG.

          • lady_black

            We know what you believe, because you TELL us what you believe. Now let me tell YOU something. People have a right to marry (yes, I said RIGHT) whether or not they intend to, or are even capable of having sexual intercourse. Intercourse is not the be-all and end-all of intimacy. There are other ways to achieve sexual release and intimacy. With each successive post, you get more and more ridiculous. In your world, young veterans who have sustained injuries that do not allow intercourse and old couples who have no ability or interest in getting frisky have no right nor need to marry. I’m here to tell you that you are WRONG. Wrong on what people’s needs and rights are, and wrong on marriage and sexual intimacy. People marry for many reasons, and that’s THEIR BUSINESS, not yours. Try keeping your nose and your narrow-minded views out of the bedrooms of strangers. Mind your OWN business.

    • Dez

      Gay is normal. There is no scientific research that says otherwise. What is not normal is homophobia which is not found in any animal species except in human beings. So who is the abnormal one?

  • lady_black

    Kids know. Love is love.

  • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

    This is a wonderful video. Love!