You have a point but I believe that's how it is for many homosexuals. It can overlap.

Your point has no sense. male and female are practically the same. all diferences come from todays society, not from our gens.
You are obviously a liberal to deny the existence of gender difference. Females are different from males, even today when females have entered the job market in full-force. For instance, females are the large plurality of consumerists (buy the most goods for themselves) and those who file divorce. Females are more emotional thinkers and not very independent minded in politics.

Men have less net-worth on average while females have larger net-worth. These are not abstract statistics but insights into how the male/female bond works. Men are still expected to follow old-marriage rules (pay the bill, support the wife by giving her money thus lowering his net-worth, etc.) while the female has changed radically from that era and now has a higher-net worth.

Gender exists in Science, too. I hope you don't deny that.

I know a load of cases in which the woman benefit in divorcing was 0, but it is very simple to remark the wrong cases out of the total ones
Something like 90% of divorces are won by women at the man's expense.

I'm not saying anyone is trying to make anyone else gay. But the gay rights movement really has nothing to do with rights. It's not about them wanting to be treated equal, being treated like a person, not threatened, not murdered, all of that is already an established right. But what is being pushed for a sexual revolution where what is sexually accepted is changed. They're not wanting us to be gay, they want us to change our opinion and admit to them that being gay is somehow ok when it's simply not.
They choose not to have a normal life and then demand everyone else tell them that they're normal.

Homosexuality, remember, is a sexual fetish. "Couples" under this group usually are just sexual units which will break apart more frequently than heterosexual units in search for new mates. Why? Heterosexual units conceive or care for children more often than homosexuals, which tie them together.

Calling homosexuality a sexual fetish is the most superficial thing that i have heard in months. it is not, it is most of times a hormone disorder, so is really like a person traped in the wrong body. people with those fethishes are not really afected by they marriage law, because as it is a fetish, they don't really want to live with the other person for ever (there are always exceptions)

You have a point but I believe that's how it is for many homosexuals. It can overlap.

New-era marriage has not adapted to the man. Ever since the 1960s, marriage has worked in favor of the feminists who were the only people lobbying to change the entire institution.

I do not think marriage is even possible anymore. How would one make marriage work; balancing out the benefits/cons of the male and female like it once was?

Bottom line: Your girlfriend, when married, can divorce you, fuck you over financially, take the children, and make you commit suicide. This happens, in many extents, severe or not, all the time.

Your point has no sense. male and female are practically the same. all diferences come from todays society, not from our gens. so there is nothing to balance as it is already balanced. Furthermore, what you are saying about my girlfriend has no sense either. I know a load of cases in which the woman benefit in divorcing was 0, but it is very simple to remark the wrong cases out of the total ones

Your point has no sense. male and female are practically the same. all diferences come from todays society, not from our gens.
You are obviously a liberal to deny the existence of gender difference. Females are different from males, even today when females have entered the job market in full-force. For instance, females are the large plurality of consumerists (buy the most goods for themselves) and those who file divorce. Females are more emotional thinkers and not very independent minded in politics.

Men have less net-worth on average while females have larger net-worth. These are not abstract statistics but insights into how the male/female bond works. Men are still expected to follow old-marriage rules (pay the bill, support the wife by giving her money thus lowering his net-worth, etc.) while the female has changed radically from that era and now has a higher-net worth.

Gender exists in Science, too. I hope you don't deny that.

I know a load of cases in which the woman benefit in divorcing was 0, but it is very simple to remark the wrong cases out of the total ones
Something like 90% of divorces are won by women at the man's expense.

And marriage is incompatible with homosexuality. At least what marriage used to be.

You liberals screwed up marriage so much since the 60s that it would make no difference if fags could marry. Marriage used to mean, united until death.

Why? As far as i know some homosexual couples are together until death. I'm liberal and i will with my recent girlfriend. But, do you mean that if I make my wife feel that her life is useless and that she is nothing compared to me she do not have the possibility (and even obligation) to make a new life far away from me?

Homosexuality, remember, is a sexual fetish. "Couples" under this group usually are just sexual units which will break apart more frequently than heterosexual units in search for new mates. Why? Heterosexual units conceive or care for children more often than homosexuals, which tie them together.

Calling homosexuality a sexual fetish is the most superficial thing that i have heard in months. it is not, it is most of times a hormone disorder, so is really like a person traped in the wrong body. people with those fethishes are not really afected by they marriage law, because as it is a fetish, they don't really want to live with the other person for ever (there are always exceptions)

You have a point but I believe that's how it is for many homosexuals. It can overlap.

New-era marriage has not adapted to the man. Ever since the 1960s, marriage has worked in favor of the feminists who were the only people lobbying to change the entire institution.

I do not think marriage is even possible anymore. How would one make marriage work; balancing out the benefits/cons of the male and female like it once was?

Bottom line: Your girlfriend, when married, can divorce you, fuck you over financially, take the children, and make you commit suicide. This happens, in many extents, severe or not, all the time.

Your point has no sense. male and female are practically the same. all diferences come from todays society, not from our gens. so there is nothing to balance as it is already balanced. Furthermore, what you are saying about my girlfriend has no sense either. I know a load of cases in which the woman benefit in divorcing was 0, but it is very simple to remark the wrong cases out of the total ones

Your point has no sense. male and female are practically the same. all diferences come from todays society, not from our gens.
You are obviously a liberal to deny the existence of gender difference. Females are different from males, even today when females have entered the job market in full-force. For instance, females are the large plurality of consumerists (buy the most goods for themselves) and those who file divorce. Females are more emotional thinkers and not very independent minded in politics.

Men have less net-worth on average while females have larger net-worth. These are not abstract statistics but insights into how the male/female bond works. Men are still expected to follow old-marriage rules (pay the bill, support the wife by giving her money thus lowering his net-worth, etc.) while the female has changed radically from that era and now has a higher-net worth.

Gender exists in Science, too. I hope you don't deny that.

I know a load of cases in which the woman benefit in divorcing was 0, but it is very simple to remark the wrong cases out of the total ones
Something like 90% of divorces are won by women at the man's expense.

I never said i don't contend divorce as well. It's also wrong but I neither go protest at divorced peoples doors nor do i do it at gay couple's doors. I support their right to have sex with anyone they want even if it's a sin, but I would not want to see sinful acts added into the nation's law either(anymore than it already is sense divorce already is in the law) I think it should be neither banned nor supported, leaving it as simply a choice.

it's a good opinion, but are they really able to choice when they can't get married and form a normal family? It's not about making pro gay campains traying to make straight homos, it's just to allow those people who has no choice to have a normal life.

I'm not saying anyone is trying to make anyone else gay. But the gay rights movement really has nothing to do with rights. It's not about them wanting to be treated equal, being treated like a person, not threatened, not murdered, all of that is already an established right. But what is being pushed for a sexual revolution where what is sexually accepted is changed. They're not wanting us to be gay, they want us to change our opinion and admit to them that being gay is somehow ok when it's simply not.
They choose not to have a normal life and then demand everyone else tell them that they're normal.

I translated it to this: OP is a f]�½Ð.

yo mammas black hole

i'm so sorry

I think it's harder to escape elohell.

Yes, i used a lol-reference, but i fell that i had to keep the original theme of that Einstein picture.