What's after gay marriage?

T

thrustbucket

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
As I've said before, I am greatly fascinated in watching how society continues to progress it's self defined tolerance through the decades. I keep asking myself "what's next?" It seems about every generation or so, we allow stuff that was unheard of to the previous generation.

So I watch this stuff with a fascination, wondering what the next generation will "tolerate" that most progressive people today might think is ridiculous.

I came across this article, and wonder if maybe, like before, the Europeans are blazing a new trail in "tolerance" and progressive thinking.

But seriously, for those that get what I'm saying, what do you think is next on the list? What could the next generation possibly learn to embrace that most people today don't find acceptable? What is silly today that will be sensitive tomorrow?

For example: I seriously wonder if the next generation will generally find eating meat as disgusting and barbaric, and try to legislate against it. I'd like others to list things they can think of that they could see become legislated in the next 100 years.

Disclaimer: As usual, I feel the need to say this, because there are a couple people here that will immediately jump down my throat and accuse me of belittling the gay agenda and/or progress thereof through comparisons. Let me be clear: I am absolutely not. I think it's fair to point out that homosexual marriage was unthinkable to the majority a generation ago, that's fact. And I think it's fair to pontificate on what the next "Big thing" will be for our next generation.
 
Not sure. Personally, I find the idea of a gay marriage a bit ironic. In my opinion, a marriage is about 2 partners coming together who can "produce" a family. While adoption is available, I still think the ideal should be people who can actually reproduce their DNA, or at least attempt to. Maybe if one of the gay men had ovaries, a womb, and eggs, etc implanted, or gay women had a way to produce sperm and inceminate the other, I wouldn't have a problem).
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Not a lot to add. Just wanted to be the first to say:

...

The gay agenda? What the hell?[/quote]

I know right, everything's an agenda now, it's like everybody who isn't perfectly content has a fucking master plan written down or something. I dunno when that wording got so popular. All I know is that it has an intended negative connotation.

[quote name='Methadon']Not sure. Personally, I find the idea of a gay marriage a bit ironic. In my opinion, a marriage is about 2 partners coming together who can "produce" a family. While adoption is available, I still think the ideal should be people who can actually reproduce their DNA, or at least attempt to. Maybe if one of the gay men had ovaries, a womb, and eggs, etc implanted, or gay women had a way to produce sperm and inceminate the other, I wouldn't have a problem).[/quote]

I guess the married women and men with inoperable (or nonexistent) reproductive systems don't find it quite that ironic.
 
[quote name='Methadon']Not sure. Personally, I find the idea of a gay marriage a bit ironic. In my opinion, a marriage is about 2 partners coming together who can "produce" a family. While adoption is available, I still think the ideal should be people who can actually reproduce their DNA, or at least attempt to. Maybe if one of the gay men had ovaries, a womb, and eggs, etc implanted, or gay women had a way to produce sperm and inceminate the other, I wouldn't have a problem).[/QUOTE]
Ugh, again with this faulty argument. Many married couples choose not to have children. Others simply cannot. Should they, then, be exempt from marriage? The right to marry has nothing to do with raising children. Stop pretending that it does.

And here we go again, with another insipid notion put forth by the always glib thrustbucket. Why does gay marriage have to "lead" to anything else? And what's this "gay agenda" garbage? Christ, show a little intellectual integrity for once in your life, tool.
 
I thought marriage was about love, at least that's the assumption I've been living under and will continue to live under. We don't stop sterile people from marrying, or old woman who can't bear children anymore.
I'm going to say gay adoption is the next thing. It is allowed in a lot of areas, but some forms (jointly filling and adoption of the partners child) is still disallowed in some areas. Florida doesn't allow gay people to even adopt.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']
And here we go again, with another insipid notion put forth by the always glib thrustbucket. Why does gay marriage have to "lead" to anything else? And what's this "gay agenda" garbage? Christ, show a little intellectual integrity for once in your life, tool.[/quote]I dunno if Thrust was trying to say that gay marriage is going to lead to something else. I know it kinda looks like he did, but I'm pretty sure that was accidental. I think this thread was more intended for musings on what the next big "libuhral versus conservuhtive" fight will be.

Also, I have an ice cream sandwich agenda that I'm about to go fulfill.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']
And here we go again, with another insipid notion put forth by the always glib thrustbucket. Why does gay marriage have to "lead" to anything else? And what's this "gay agenda" garbage? Christ, show a little intellectual integrity for once in your life, tool.[/QUOTE]

Oh lord here we go. You feel I derailed the other thread so is this revenge?

Gay marriage leads to things just like civil rights lead to gay marriage. Just like Womens suffurage lead to civil rights. Do you really need this lesson? Your an educated person, stop being so over-sensitive, looking for an argument and fight everywhere, and either participate in the OP or don't.

Everything is an agenda. I don't see how that's a negative connotation. You make it one, I don't.

Womens rights was/is an agenda. Black rights was/is an agenda. Workers rights was/is an agenda. Abolishment of slavery was/is an agenda. Religious freedom was an agenda. All of these things exibit a pattern of social evolution in society. I am merely speculating on what's next in the pattern.

Anyone that feels that the word "agenda" has negativity attached, has their own personal problems with the word you'll need to deal with on your own.

They are all ongoing agendas for furthering society. Can we get over the semantics of language and get back to my simple questions please? If you feel you can't, then go back to the other thread.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']Ugh, again with this faulty argument. Many married couples choose not to have children. Others simply cannot. Should they, then, be exempt from marriage? The right to marry has nothing to do with raising children. Stop pretending that it does.

And here we go again, with another insipid notion put forth by the always glib thrustbucket. Why does gay marriage have to "lead" to anything else? And what's this "gay agenda" garbage? Christ, show a little intellectual integrity for once in your life, tool.[/quote]


I'm not trying to sound as narrow minded as I may come off. I realise that many heterosexual married couples never have childeren by both choice and nature. I feel a marriage without children is a waste, however. The underlying point of my arguement was that the purpose of marriage is to grow a family.

I'm not arguing it on the legal aspect of it; I'm simply saying ANYONE who gets married should do so in hopes of growing a family, and that I personally feel that the potential for pregnancy should be a factor as well. If a couple cannot become pregnant, then adoption/labs should be considered. We shouldn't have enough unfit parents to even have kids up for adoption, we just do.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']I dunno if Thrust was trying to say that gay marriage is going to lead to something else. I know it kinda looks like he did, but I'm pretty sure that was accidental. I think this thread was more intended for musings on what the next big "libuhral versus conservuhtive" fight will be.

Also, I have an ice cream sandwich agenda that I'm about to go fulfill.[/QUOTE]
After repeatedly threadjacking the last few gay marriage threads with unrelated polygamy arguments, I see this thread as a continuation of that theme. "If gay marriage is permitted, what's next?"

... Mmm, ice cream sandwich.

[quote name='thrustbucket']Oh lord here we go. You feel I derailed the other thread so is this revenge?[/QUOTE]
Don't be so vain. For this to be "revenge," it would require a personal grudge against you, which I don't have. The only goal I had in my response was to point out how you continually disappoint me with these thinly-veiled slippery-slope arguments of yours.

You really want to know what's next after gay marriage, thrust? Happiness with my partner. Scary, huh?

[quote name='Methadon']I'm not trying to sound as narrow minded as I may come off. I realise that many heterosexual married couples never have childeren by both choice and nature. I feel a marriage without children is a waste, however. The underlying point of my arguement was that the purpose of marriage is to grow a family. [/QUOTE]
I dunno, that's pretty high on the narrow-minded-o-meter.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']After repeatedly threadjacking the last few gay marriage threads with unrelated polygamy arguments, I see this thread as a continuation of that theme. "If gay marriage is permitted, what's next?"[/quote]

So it was just revenge. Wonderful for you.

I was also asked repeatedly to take these types of comments to another thread, which I now have done.

So either contribute to the OP or go "be happy" with your partner, but stop being a hypocrite and derailing this one.

You really want to know what's next after gay marriage, thrust? Happiness with my partner.
Click to expand...

So what's your point? That you live in a narrow world that isn't worth discussing the future of or that you can't see past your own immediate life-events?

The only goal I had in my response was to point out how you continually disappoint me with these thinly-veiled slippery-slope arguments of yours.
Click to expand...
Your biggest mistake is assuming I'm attempting to argue against homosexuality or have an agenda against gay marriage. You clearly either didn't read my disclaimer in the OP or flat out don't believe it.

I guess using your logic, womens rights and civil rights are slippery slopes as well? Shit, pretty much the entire constitution was a dangerous foundation for slippery slopes, eh? Creating a foundation for something that potentially brings rights, freedoms, recognition and legal representation to everyone equally is the biggest slippery slope of all.

You of all people should be proud of this particular recent "slippery slope" and where it can lead. That's what this thread is about.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']So it was just revenge. Wonderful for you.[/QUOTE]
Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong point.

[quote name='thrustbucket']I was also asked repeatedly to take these types of comments to another thread, which I now have done.

So either contribute to the OP or go "be happy" with your partner, but stop being a hypocrite and derailing this one.[/QUOTE]
I'm perfectly on topic. I find fault in your slippery-slope argument against gay marriage. Always have. If you'd like to start a topic on issues like polygamy without equating it to gay marriage, I'm all for it - it's topic worthy of discussion! Unfortunately, it seems as if you are unable to do so, and that's disappointing.

[quote name='thrustbucket']So what's your point? That you live in a narrow world that isn't worth discussing the future of or that you can't see past your own immediate life-events?[/QUOTE]
Aw, I was hoping you'd be happy for me. Now I may cry.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong point.[/quote]

:roll:

I'm perfectly on topic. I find fault in your slippery-slope argument against gay marriage. Always have.
Click to expand...
:applause:

I have never ever ever made an argument against gay marriage, and you can't show me where I have. I tried to point that out in my disclaimer, which you clearly did not "comprehend".

The only place where I have made "slippery slope arguments against gay marriage" is in your mind.

Recognizing that events preclude events in a progressive way is not inherently negative.

I know you have it in yourself to turn off your insecure defensive knee-jerk tendencies and see the harmless intent I have. Please try harder to see it. Or do everyone a favor and put me on ignore, since you might simply be incompatible, or incapable of tolerance, concerning my observations of social progression.
 
[quote name='Milkyman']man-robot love[/QUOTE]

My first reaction was to laugh. But then I realize how hypocritical that would be.

Seriously, that could happen. Likely not within 100 years though. And something tells me the Japanese would carry the torch in this regard. :)
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']My first reaction was to laugh. But then I realize how hypocritical that would be.

Seriously, that could happen. Likely not within 100 years though. And something tells me the Japanese would carry the torch in this regard. :)[/quote]

Well, we already have fem-bots and real dolls. It's just a matter of time until they're combined and people start making love in the uncanny valley.
 
I think human - robot "love" will be a reality in the next generation or two.
One thing that has me worried is the idea of genetically screening babies. As someone who a) has a brother with downs syndrome and b) has poor hearing in one ear due to genetics I don't like the thought of either one of us being killed off because of some genetic tests. I know there are already tests out there for downs which sometimes leads to abortions and I personally find it disgusting. That being said it's already partially acceptable now and I would not be surprised if the practice only grew in the future.

edit: and I don't think bukket is asking what path of sin gay marriage will lead to but was rather commenting and looking for predictions on the changing moral values of america.
 
[quote name='Methadon']Not sure. Personally, I find the idea of a gay marriage a bit ironic. In my opinion, a marriage is about 2 partners coming together who can "produce" a family. [/quote]

I haven't been married, but I never knew I had to get checked to see if I can have children first. What about all those married couples that can't have children? They have to get a divorce now?

And a generation ago interracial marriage was hated by most, and the only reason it became legal was because of the courts and they RADIAL JUDGES!!! :roll:

But JFK actually was in favor of civil unions so he was way ahead of his time.
 
Probably Donkey and Monkeys getting married.

I mean seriously, SO Unnatural like fruit flies and bonobos

also - social evolution is not only a wive's tale, but is totally untrue.

the world isn't a better place than it ever was, even if you have civil rights here, someone else is getting shitted on somewhere else, same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']Probably Donkey and Monkeys getting married.

I mean seriously, SO Unnatural like fruit flies and bonobos

also - social evolution is not only a wive's tale, but is totally untrue.

the world isn't a better place than it ever was, even if you have civil rights here, someone else is getting shitted on somewhere else, same as it ever was, same as it ever was.[/quote]

using the Talking Heads to make a point is just plain cheating
 
[quote name='Methadon']I feel a marriage without children is a waste, however.[/quote]So, because I knew my wife couldn't have children before we were married, my marriage was/is a waste. You are a fucking asshole prick.
 
[quote name='lbradeen']

edit: and I don't think bukket is asking what path of sin gay marriage will lead to but was rather commenting and looking for predictions on the changing moral values of america.[/QUOTE]

Thank you.
 
[quote name='lanzarlaluna']So, because I knew my wife couldn't have children before we were married, my marriage was/is a waste. You are a fucking asshole prick.[/quote]

agreed
 
[quote name='Milkyman']man-robot love[/quote]

"I'll never forget you, Fry! MEMORY DELETED"

[quote name='looploop']Well, we already have fem-bots and real dolls. It's just a matter of time until they're combined and people start making love in the uncanny valley.[/quote]

Well there's a difference between fucking an inanimate object that looks/acts human and actual "love." A dude/chick banging some robot programmed to bang him/her is one thing, but if robots are ever made in some hundreds of years to actually be sentient, then it would really become something that would need to be addressed.
 
robot love, gay rights, and prenatal eugenics
dissolving electoral college, truants in senate
third party candidates and global warmings
these are a few of my favorite things
 
[quote name='Kuroi Kaze']
dissolving electoral college[/QUOTE]

this is an awful, terrible idea and i really hope that nobody tries to change this.


however, i do think that environmental policy will be HUGE over the next 10 years or so.
 
I'd love to see the electoral college go the way of the dodo personally. Make every vote count. Not just votes in swing states. If you live in a state that always votes one way or the other you might as well skip presidential elections.

Maybe not do away with it totally, but maybe award the states' electoral votes based on proportion of vote (as in the primaries) vs. winner takes all. Then you still have impact balanced on state size, but also have every vote count.

They also need to get rid of super delegates in the primaries. That was a mess. Worked out ok, but I don't like the ID of having so many delegates out of the hands of voters.
 
I like how everyone forgets that gay marriage was legal up until about the 16th century. Even the Catholic Church had them, but shhhhh... we can't have that come out.

And they should keep the electoral college because 1-2% of every vote ever isn't counted because there is no way for a perfect system. I would have it go by percent, you get 40%, you get 40% of the states electoral college votes.

The system will never be changed, you think Bush would change it after he "won" by it's fuck ups? Do you think McCain will once he wins, but loses the popular vote by millions? No, no one will ever change it. It's why we need every type of gun made and handed out to the people to revolt against this fucked up thing we call a government.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Maybe not do away with it totally, but maybe award the states' electoral votes based on proportion of vote (as in the primaries) vs. winner takes all. Then you still have impact balanced on state size, but also have every vote count.

[/QUOTE]

this is a much better idea. a bill recently went through california that would have done this, where voting was broken down by each electoral district. meaning the nominies would split the votes in california instead of taking them all. i really like the idea, too bad it fizzled out.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']this is a much better idea. a bill recently went through california that would have done this, where voting was broken down by each electoral district. meaning the nominies would split the votes in california instead of taking them all. i really like the idea, too bad it fizzled out.[/quote]

The problem with that is it opens up the districts for gerrymandering by whomever is in power. That's not to say it isn't a better solution than winner takes all but if you're going to put all that energy into changing a law you might as well come up with something that cant be so easily bent in favor of those in power.
 
[quote name='javeryh']Gay honeymoon?[/quote]
Ass, I saw the thread title and was just about to post that.

I didn't the read the whole op, but I'm going to go with marijuana decriminalization or ending the death penalty. One of these will happen in my lifetime.
 
[quote name='Ugamer_X']
I didn't the read the whole op, but I'm going to go with marijuana decriminalization or ending the death penalty. One of these will happen in my lifetime.[/QUOTE]

Those are both good suggestions. I agree, very likely.
 
[quote name='Ugamer_X']Ass, I saw the thread title and was just about to post that.

I didn't the read the whole op, but I'm going to go with marijuana decriminalization or ending the death penalty. One of these will happen in my lifetime.[/quote]

I'm hoping for decriminalization but I would warn against overestimating the common sense of the rulers.

Decriminalization: less non violent offenders in jail, increased tax revenue
Staying the course: Get to look tough on crime
 
[quote name='lanzarlaluna']So, because I knew my wife couldn't have children before we were married, my marriage was/is a waste. You are a fucking asshole prick.[/quote]


Thank you. You've heard me without listening. I could quote something about reading comprehension from this thread, but that'd just make me more of an asshole. If you had paid attention to what I was saying, however, you would have realized that I'm saying being married not attempting to procreate is a waste. If there's a physical defect preventing you and your wife from becoming pregnant, then that's where technology comes in. If you can afford it, she can still carry the child in her womb; if you can't, there's always adoption.

The point is that marriage between two people who are never going to even attempt to grow a family is nothing more than a fancy title and more money spent on "boyfriend & girlfriend".

As a married couple, you are 'king', and your wife is 'queen'. When you add to your family, your children are the stars (numerous, shining, etc).

So since we're on the subject, do you and your wife plan to have any children, either through medicine or adoption (ever; doesn't have to be right now)?
 
[quote name='lbradeen']The problem with that is it opens up the districts for gerrymandering by whomever is in power. That's not to say it isn't a better solution than winner takes all but if you're going to put all that energy into changing a law you might as well come up with something that cant be so easily bent in favor of those in power.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I wouldn't do it that way for just that reason.. Just award the electoral votes proportionate to the whole state's votes.

Get 55% of the votes, get 55% of the electoral votes. Just like it's done in most primaries.
 
[quote name='Ugamer_X']
I didn't the read the whole op, but I'm going to go with marijuana decriminalization or ending the death penalty. One of these will happen in my lifetime.[/QUOTE]

Death penalty will have to be a state by state thing. There's nothing in the constitution about the state not being able to take life unfortunately--the clauses say they can deprive people of life,liberty and property as long as there's due process of the law etc. And the Supreme Court has ruled many times that death isn't in and of itself a cruel and unusual punishment.

NJ got rid of theirs this year. Maryland's governor is trying his damnedest to get it repealed here--but wasn't successful this year. So progress is occurring on those fronts, but it's hard to imagine it going away anytime soon in Texas.

Probably a better change of decriminalization of marijuana. Probably won't see legalization, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't at least decriminalized at the federal and state level in our lifetimes.
 
[quote name='Methadon']
The point is that marriage between two people who are never going to even attempt to grow a family is nothing more than a fancy title and more money spent on "boyfriend & girlfriend".
[/QUOTE]

And that's where you come across like an asshole. Marriage is a symbolic union between two people in love. Children don't have to be in the picture for marriage to be valid.

I'll probably get married someday, but I don't want to have kids at all (neither does my current g/f thankfully) as I can't stand the little bastards and don't want to spend all the time and money on raising them.

It's just symbolic and has legal benefits. Also provides more incentive to work through problems rather than just saying fuck it and splitting up, as it's much harder to get a divorce vs. just breaking up etc. etc.
 
A frightening increase in executive power at the expense of legislative power.

A steady increase in prosecution and punishment of petty crimes at the expense of reason, common sense, and the American taxpayer. Further blurring of the line between law enforcement and entertainment (IE more invasive twists on shows like 'Cops' and 'TCAP')

Further polarization of religious/non-religious - American secularists becoming more vocal.

Further erosion of consumer rights, further acceptance of this (fine print gotchas, add-on costs, and bait-and-switches more common)

Further gloabalization, steady increase in America's gap between rich and poor as America's rich take advantage of this.

More support for public transportation in America.

Continually increasing healthcare costs - transparent tiered healthcare depending on financial situation.
 
[quote name='Methadon']Thank you. You've heard me without listening. I could quote something about reading comprehension from this thread, but that'd just make me more of an asshole. If you had paid attention to what I was saying, however, you would have realized that I'm saying being married not attempting to procreate is a waste. If there's a physical defect preventing you and your wife from becoming pregnant, then that's where technology comes in. If you can afford it, she can still carry the child in her womb; if you can't, there's always adoption.

The point is that marriage between two people who are never going to even attempt to grow a family is nothing more than a fancy title and more money spent on "boyfriend & girlfriend".

As a married couple, you are 'king', and your wife is 'queen'. When you add to your family, your children are the stars (numerous, shining, etc).

So since we're on the subject, do you and your wife plan to have any children, either through medicine or adoption (ever; doesn't have to be right now)?[/quote]

Seriously? There are tons of completely valid reasons people get married that have nothing to do with having children and they are no one's business but their own.
 
[quote name='camoor']
A steady increase in prosecution and punishment of petty crimes at the expense of reason, common sense, and the American taxpayer. Further blurring of the line between law enforcement and entertainment (IE more invasive twists on shows like 'Cops' and 'TCAP')
[/QUOTE]

This one I don't think we'll see. Most of the cops and prosecutors I've worked with are already moving away from that--> at least in high crime areas.

They have bigger fish to fry, more important cases to handle, more dangerous people needing limited prison beds etc.

Rehabilitation is coming back as well. I don't know that we'll ever get to the main focus on rehab we had prior to the 1970's and 80s when crime rates began skyrocket and research (flawed research at that) showed that treatment didn't work to prevent recidivism.

There's a pretty solid refutation of that now, and a growing movement in criminology and criminal justice around evidence based policy-->identifying what works and promoting it's use.

So I think we'll slowly see more use of community treatments etc. vs. just straight mass incarceration. It will take a while, but it will happen in my view.
 
[quote name='camoor']A frightening increase in executive power at the expense of legislative power.
[/quote]

I hope to see this reversed but doubt anyone in power will give up power.

A steady increase in prosecution and punishment of petty crimes at the expense of reason, common sense, and the American taxpayer. Further blurring of the line between law enforcement and entertainment (IE more invasive twists on shows like 'Cops' and 'TCAP')
Click to expand...
As far as non violent drug offenses are concerned i think we're moving away from jail time and more towards drug courts.

Further polarization of religious/non-religious - American secularists becoming more vocal.
Click to expand...
I'm hoping that the decline of the republican party will decrease the amount of religion in politics as politicians in general realize it's not to their benefit. There will of course still be douchenozzles spouting douchnozzly things but they've always been there.

Further erosion of consumer rights, further acceptance of this (fine print gotchas, add-on costs, and bait-and-switches more common)

Further gloabalization, steady increase in America's gap between rich and poor as America's rich take advantage of this.
Click to expand...
I unfortunately agree with all of those

More support for public transportation in America.

Continually increasing healthcare costs - transparent tiered healthcare depending on financial situation.
Click to expand...
Transportation could go either way.
Healthcare is moving towards greater access. MA already requires everyone to have healthcare and in CT they are currently working on legislation that would let individuals get private healthcare through state negotiated plans.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']And that's where you come across like an asshole. Marriage is a symbolic union between two people in love. Children don't have to be in the picture for marriage to be valid.

I'll probably get married someday, but I don't want to have kids at all (neither does my current g/f thankfully) as I can't stand the little bastards and don't want to spend all the time and money on raising them.

It's just symbolic and has legal benefits. Also provides more incentive to work through problems rather than just saying fuck it and splitting up, as it's much harder to get a divorce vs. just breaking up etc. etc.[/quote]


Children don't need to be in the picture for a marriage to be legally valid; the point I'm stressing is that a marriage is about starting a new family, and adding to the old one. I honestly don't see any *real* reason to marry someone you don't intend to have a family with, but rather only reasons to make marriage seem more "sensible". With divorce rates as high as they are, marriage alone certainly doesn't do a good job of deterring divorce (not as hard as you think).



I know it sounds like I'm essentially saying that your marriage is bullshit, but I'm moreso implying that you're wasting it while you and your wife remain the only members of the family. Why you hate kids is beyond me; didn't you use to be one? Of course, if you're not going to be responsible enough to love and care for that child, I'd rather you not attempt anyway, but you don't need to be married.

Marriage is supposed to be about family, and love is supposed to be there first (hence my view that your marriage is not invalid, you're just not using it to it's potential). Why two people who think they're smart would ever think it's a dumb idea to have kids, only remove their "oh so special" genes from the procreation pool.
 
The big point I guess is to just STFU and let people live their lives however they want.

Just because you feel marriage is pointless without children doesn't mean others do. For many it's just meaningful to symbolize their love for each other regardless if they plan on having kids. No need to force your views on others and tell them they don't need to get married if they're not going to have kids.

As for why I don't like kids, I have no patience for dealing with them. They're hyper, annoying, need constant attention in their early years etc. It's ok to baby sit my nieces and nephews every once in a blue moon, but I'd never want to do it full time. And as I turn 30 this year, it's not a case of being young etc. I just don't enjoy children, and thus don't want to have any of my own. I'm very focused on my career and enjoying life myself to give that up to have children. I'll freely admit that I'm about as egotistical and self-centered as they come, other than with my select few closest friends and loved ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top