MovieChat Forums > ProductionNow > Replies
ProductionNow's Replies
It doesn't matter if you agree who marriage is meant for since it's not your "business" either
It does affect others, not that people care about what affects others
Womens' suffrage pertained to women's tangible civil rights, not the intangible topic of the family structure. Equal rights does not apply to marriage between homosexuals--who are equal but different, nor "non-persons". It started with couples living together , not marrying and having children-- and now to gay marriage with adopted children. Why do you think there are two sexes, just some evolutionary circumstance with no other purpose aside from sex/procreation? We don't know that.
Citing how well the children are raised is a tangent, not at the core of the issue. It's not about how well they literally treat their children, since both heteros/ homosexuals can do harm or good. It's how impressionable children interpret what they see and hear on an innate-level, instead of them choosing their beliefs when they are mature. And by all means, don't bother considering what the children have to experience from society when they explain having 2 mothers or 2 fathers; that's society's problem because we need to "progress", of course. There have been many blunders in history because society thought it was progressing.
And when it serves people, the "law" goes out the window as being unjust; typical hypocrisy. The only thing I am hearing is ultimate self-entitlement masquerading as "equal/civil rights". If we all did whatever we wanted without considering the impact and message it sends to society at large, we'd be in worse shape than we already are. Everything that is traditional is not antiquated.
thank you. I'll take a look at it.
I don't open links (or know what side of the fence you're on) but if the article is confirming that children of gay parents are well-adjusted, happy and well-cared for, it's not the crux of having both a male/female role model as parents. There are some things about the human-condition which are not intrinsically related to "equal rights" in the way that people use the term. Nor, do I think religion necessarily is a factor; people feel a certain way without religion being their teacher (or even being religious)
Because marriage is more than a (shallow) contract, like a certificate of marriage is more than a piece of paper. However, my problem was with your casual "its their fucking life" --which is not much of an argument either. I was not referring to a ''civil union'' and whatever that entails (monetary contract?) vs. a traditional marriage with adopted children. I'd need to know what specific difference you mean between ''civil union, marriage, formal union". Also, I expressed more on the topic in my reply to the OP.
It's not a moot point, or every "legal" thing that you oppose would be moot also.
I know what you mean: every topic (or person) today must be related to political-party, race.. all the trendy nonexistent reasons.
You are replying to the wrong poster, for the wrong reason.
The world does not have to pander and revolve around you because it's "your fucking life", whether it's about gay marriage or anything else. And toss around the term "fucking" so it loses it's meaning, unfortunately. (or you wish to sound provocative)
Even some GAY people may not agree with gay marriage either, without being ashamed or closeted. The out-of-control world we live in thinks every element must be "equal" or accepted, or people are being bigoted.
We have lost everything inherent about human nature, akin to mankind being like objects. It's another form of narcissism and selfishness to feel entitled because of "I want it, so give it to me". And there is no consideration to the children of gay parents. None. It very well may affect the children. Their reply is always "children are raised by awful straights". True, but that has nothing to do with the dynamics of gay marriage.
I don't feel it's a color/race thing, but a lack of charisma (not the same as beauty). Surprised she was even cast for Flashdance.
..dont' you know, the unwashed greasy look is supposed to be "mellow" and arty/ cool. Art depicts life.
It's because you are using perspective and , and not glorifying her plain looks with extreme (trendy) adjectives like ''gorgeous'' and ''amazing''. She is an average-looking woman. If she's gorgeous--the most extreme adjective for beauty--, then what adjective would they use for Liz Taylor, then? I think because she look acceptable, it gets escalated to "beautiful" due to fame. (And being attracted to a person , or finding them sexy, is is something different than being beautiful)
What, no adverb preceding "LOL"?
Great job on your verbosity--including the extra pompous adverb/ adjective preceding every noun/ verb. As if you speak this way in everyday life.