Kim Kardashian to file for divorce from Kris Humphries

..and America's almost Third World view of gays rears its ugly head yet again....

 

She has a sex tape. What could be more important than that?

This was pretty funny:

Kim Kardashian Blasted Via Twitter Over Casey Anthony Trial Comments

 

Who cares.

Why give this Kardashian ditz more attention?

Couldn't the OP have used another example than this bimbo? I'm tired of hearing about these moronic celebrities, and their stupid meaningless life.

To the point though, I'm not sure why Homosexuals envy this Marriage business? Obviously, I understand it is for economic purposes, and benefits.

Marriage used to mean something, maybe 50 years ago, but today it means very little.

But really? Does Marriage make you love your partner/spouse more? Does it secure your relationship? Are you a better person, now that you're married? NO!

So there's nothing beneficial from marriage, other than financial gains.

Marriage is just another excuse for us to blow lots of our money on a one day event.

Marriage has no intellectual, spiritual, or emotional lasting relevance, none at all.



I guarantee, that if we last another 100 years, there won't be anymore marriages.

Heck, I'll bet in 25 years, half of couples will not be married - and will chose not to ever get married.

Marriage, like religion, is just another dieing trend.

 

Its just not celebrities who disrespect marriage, ALL marriages have a 50% chance in ending in divorce.

Not that I expect the right to get this thou.

 

There are 1400 legal rights that come with marriage. These rights reside on both the state and federal levels. The 14th amendment protects against this.

Time to get off your religious high horse and read abide by the constiution.

 

The only 'horsecrap' here that homosexuals and heterosexual have the same rules to follow.

Being a homosexual means you will only love and commit to those of the same sex.

Being a heterosexual means you will only love and commit to those of the opposite sex.

You know this, yet you come in here spewing your nonsense about the same rules. That is 'horsecrap' argument, and you know it.

 

Good lord...here we go again.

Take something that is clearly unavoidable and genetic...like race..and try and pretend it's the same thing as peoples choices of sexual gratification.

One of the stupidest, weakest things that always comes up in these discussions.


Show me the Science that makes this comparison valid please.

 

Homosexuality is not a choice.

 

Easilly dismissed when you realize Marriage is not about "2 human beings" choosing each other.

Its 1 man and 1 woman.

See how simple that was?

See above, and the actual criteria for what a Marriage is.

 

Just another "Celebrity" that we are all supposed to care about Snake. Marriages are like underwear in Hollywood, people seem to change them often.

 

Of course it is, just like many other things people do for sexual gratification that outsiders may not understand.

 

So when are attacted to woman, do you think to your self first and say "hmm, I think I'll choose to be a heterosexual today and I will find this woman to be attractive."

 

The 50% divorce rate by heterosexuals certainly does make a 'mockery' of marriage.

This sounds strangely familiar. Oh yeah, back in the 60's some would have said, the civil rights movement has no right to redefine what a marriage is. A marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race.

Hers a hint: what a marriage is, has been redefined several different times in this country. And it will be again the future.

And yes Civil Unions are separate. Since the SCOTUS said in 1954 anything that is separate is inherently unequal, 'Civil Unions' are unconstitutional.

 

Straight people are allowed to define their marriages anyway they want.
As a straight married male I find the idea that we have to protect a term is laughable. It is a word for (*)(*)(*)(*)s sake. And don't even talk about the institution. The institution has been (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up by straight people for the last 30 years.

 

I dont consider "attraction" to be any relevant part of the argument. how can you prove attraction?
You cant, you simply have to believe it exists...because if not why would someone do it? It's an easy answer to a boggling question. You dont have to really weigh out anyones choices, as the word "attraction" simply lifts all of that responsibilityoff your shoulders.

However people choose all kinds of things. I ahve seen disturbing websites in which people get off by enjoying fecal matter...smearing it on themselves...eating it..sharing it...dropping it on each other.

Do you believe these people are attracted to feces?

I dont think so.

I think some people will simply say yes, to what most would resoundingly say no to, because their drive to satisfy their sexual urges knows less limits.


The "attraction" angle is just another way of removing choice, and the possible consequences of said choice from the equation. Noone need take any responsibility from their choices...because they were born that way...even without any tangible proof at all.

It must be "attraction"..or "born that way". Makes it easier for those involved, and allows them to push for things like Marriage under some guise of discrimination.

 

How so? They have to fit into the same criteria, as such the definition is already made for them.

Thats your opinion. I do agree that many have (*)(*)(*)(*)ed it up...but I dont believe it to be a lost cause, and I certainly dont think dimisnishing it further by allowing any numbers of anything and everything to be the answer.

 

open marriages, swinger marriages, polyamourous marriages, marriages only for creating children, marriages with no creation of children by choice, marriages for social or financial benefits, etc etc. Those are all redefinitions of the institution of marriage. The fact that a man and a woman stood at the alter doesn't change that.

Are you married, and if you are, are you so insecure in your life and marriage that two men or two women getting married would significantly affect your own relationship?

 

The reason why you do not consider attraction to be 'relevant', is because if you did, then you would be forced to admit that heterosexual or homosexual is NOT a choice. I am sure if I asked you the same about your marriage, I would receive a similar answer. Sure you may have had choice, in 'choosing' which women to marry, but was it a choice that you choose to marry someone of the opposite sex?

The bull(*)(*)(*)(*) of feces (no pun attended) and 'responsibility' is just that – BULL(*)(*)(*)(*). I will leave it at that, because quit frankly neither argument really doesn’t even deserve an answer. Its just a smoke screen.

Homosexuality is not a choice, neither is heterosexuality. You refuse to look are yourself and ask yourself if you 'choose' to be heterosexual. If you did, you would realize that it is not a choice, and your BS arguments would quickly fade. Now we can't have that, now can we?

 

Care to explain how allowing 'gay marriage' would dimisnish marriage?

 

Cue the if gays were allowed to marry all men would marry each other and our existence will end argument. I hope I am wrong, but I have heard these types use impossibilities to defend their arguments.

 

Exactly. One can choose to have sex...or not. The idea that homosexuality is not a choice is idiotic.

 

Its only idiotic to those who stay willfully ignorant as to what ones sexuality is.

To those of us who understand what sexuality is, its idiotic to think that it is a choice.

 

The choice to have sex is a choice. The attraction is not.

 

What is idiotic is that you don't understand the difference between choosing to have sex and attraction.