You made a blanket comment about what you perceive marriage to be. Surely your own experience highly relevant to assessing your position.
It wasn’t one. It was a strong suggestion that, if that is your own experience, that the view of the purpose of marriage you derive from it is not typical.
Now, will you or will you not defend that “Breeder-hating” nonsense you so recently made? :dubious: Have you become suddenly “uninterested” in that as well?
No I didn’t I asked a question.
Are you disputing that there are people who use ‘breeder’ as a derogatory term?
Questions can be rhetorical, and based on your subsequent posts, I’m pretty sure that the average person would agree that they were intended as such.
Then it shouldn’t be so hard for you to provide an example or two, should it?
First time I ever heard it was 1996 or `97, when Sandra Bernhard was making semi-regular guest appearances on Roseanne, playing an on-again off-again lesbian.
I don’t doubt the term has been used - I just doubt any but the crazy fringe are serious when they do so. It’s the claimed contempt (from anyone other than the aforementioned crazy fringe) I doubt.
Ahh so it shouldn’t be offensive if I use the word faggot as I doubt anyone but the crazy fringe are serious when they do so.
It seems to me that if it being said that gays are using the term “breeder” derogatorily, it’s probably in reaction to others first making arguments that they don’t measure up because, as couples, they can’t procreate.
Just sayin’.
Oh well then that makes it not offensive then! I do so love when hispanics call me gringo, or even make fun of my two year old, ‘gringa’ daughter when they think I don’t know what the word means, I’m sure it’s only because they are an oppressed minority. :rolleyes:
Just sayin’.
I’m not sure who this bravado is supposed to impress, but in any case it has no relevance to the claim I was questioning - that contempt for ‘breeders’ is not unusual among homosexuals.
That’s not at all what I said.
My extended point would be, why wouldn’t anyone have – and express – contempt for someone who is trying to marginalize them? That has nothing to do with someone who might truly be calling you gringo just for the hell of it.
Here’s an example of a heterosexual person using the term derogatorily. It’s certainly not a term exclusively used by gays to deride straight people who reproduce. Generally, it’s a term of contempt used by people who dislike children, or who are striking back at people who privilege or glorify childbearing. I wouldn’t be so quick to pin the usage of that term on the gays if I were you…
[myhijack]And I never meant to imply that it was okay, but there simply might be reasons for it that the “oppressed” breeder class set themselves up for. But I guess it’s okay to marginalize, as long as you’re in the majority, heh?
Yeah, I’m saying, “But they started it.”
By the way, I’ve never heard a gay person use that term in real conversation (only sitcoms, etc.)[/myhijack]
The depth of disparagement implied by the word “breeder” is not really at issue and your attempt to derail the thread with that tangent is irrelevant.
In the quoted passage, you made a statement that implied that the homosexual commuinity, by and large or in some large numbers, disparaged heterosexual, procreative couplings. That is the statement that you have repeatedly been asked to defend and which you have continued to dodge.
In point of fact, barring some hitherto unrevealed information, there is no evidence that homosexuals, as a group, are contemptuous either of heterosexuals or of procreation, so your comment here quoted is a straw man and, barring actual evidence, I think all the other posters can safely ignore it as nonsense.
I’m sure there are quite a few Dopers who disagree. 
You do realize that refusal to marry is not good evidence of understanding what commitment truly is, I hope.