Jump to content
turtletech

Opinions on gay Marriage?

Do you support Gay marriage?  

142 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think it should be legal?

    • Yes
      84
    • No
      50
    • Civil Unions, not marriage.
      9


Recommended Posts

I can't tell if your being sarcastic or not, but he pointed out why some gays are diseased and others are not.

 

Disease is not a correct word for it. Abnormality, aberration is. It is not transmutable, except via teaching that "gay is cool". However, the mechanisms of developing homosexuality are just that. The must be studied and cured. Because it is a slippery slope. Today we tolerate homosexuality, tomorrow we will tolerate pedophilia. And do not tell me "that will never happen". They are already working on "protecting pedophiles against hate speech", also in Canada one senator already said that "Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, just like homosexuality". So all these aberrations must be nipped in the bud. 50 years ago, nobody thought that homosexuality will be recognized as "alternative sexuality". So "never say never".

Studies were done that brains of homosexuals vary IN ACTIVITY from brains on straight. Many homosexuals do have hormonal levels different from straight people. look it up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homosexuality isn't a disease, bronchitis is a disease. Cancer is a disease. These are bad for your health. This is not the case with homosexuality. It is somebody choosing not to be interested in the opposite gender.

 

I know of... Four of my friends who are either gay or lesbian. They all the time say how there are a ton of cool gay people. They aren't saying "GAY IS KOOL BE LIEK US" like suggested.

 

Yeah, brain activity is different, they have a different view. Generally that means they're different. What's wrong with that?

 

And you are wrong on the pedophilia(why even bring that up you sick :censored2:), that's completely different.

 

Besides, your dog can hump its brother, but your man neighbors can't date? Where's the fairness in that?

Edited by Coyote98

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homosexuality isn't a disease, bronchitis is a disease. Cancer is a disease. These are bad for your health. This is not the case with homosexuality. It is somebody choosing not to be interested in the opposite gender.

 

I know of... Four of my friends who are either gay or lesbian. They all the time say how there are a ton of cool gay people. They aren't saying "GAY IS KOOL BE LIEK US" like suggested.

 

Yeah, brain activity is different, they have a different view. Generally that means they're different. What's wrong with that?

 

And you are wrong on the pedophilia(why even bring that up you sick :censored2:), that's completely different.

 

Besides, your dog can hump its brother, but your man neighbors can't date? Where's the fairness in that?

 

1. I said it is NOT a disease.

2. A while back, pedophilia, along with necrophilia, zoophilia and homosexuality were considered in the same family of sexual aberrations.

3. Read up on the beginning of movement to "protect the pedophilia".

4. As far as "different", cancer cells are also different from normal, lets not treat them, after all, who are we to judge them, they are not bad, they are different.

5. Different is a matter of degrees. Today you protect homos' saying that "they are different, what's wrong with that", the same logic is already beginning to be applied to pedophiles. Aberration is aberration, no matter how you want to sugar coat it. As I said cancer cells are merely "different" from your own cells, so, why don't you open your arms and welcome cancer cells into your body, they are not evil, right? they are merely "different". and what damage can mere 6% of cancer cells do to your body, right? Wrong. 6% of your body turns cancerous - you are DEAD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't tolerate gays, I accept them, because you know, they are not much different from anyone else, not a whole lot there to worry about. I was never told to tolerate, I was never told anything about them. Difference between gays and pedophiles, one is legal, the other is not.

 

I hope you are not one of those "Then they will marry animals and animated characters" people, its not really the problem right now.

 

Don't believe something because a politician said it.

 

Homosexuality isn't even fully known yet, hasn't even been given a real chance.

Edited by Tomtortoise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homosexual relations involve legally given consent. Pedophilia does not. Therefore, only a complete fool would argue that pedophilia would receive legal protection. And no one in Canada is advocating in favour of protecting pedophiles, just because some fool on the internet made a claim doesn't mean there's an organized pro-pedo lobby up here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As he said earlier people in the 1950's didn't expect that gay marriage would be legalized, but it did. And we have more then enough idiots in America to think that its a good idea to legalize them because were hearting their poor little pedo hearts. I'm not necessarily saying that it will be legalized, I'm just saying keep an open mind about what could happen in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is very simple. I understand that AMA, under a political pressure de-classified homosexualism as a disease. However, that is exactly what it is. No, it has no microbes, or viruses. It is MUCH more complex.

1. Our behavior is regulated by hormones. There are dozens of them of various function and potency. A hormonal disbalance can make you hairy or not. Can make you butch or make you a femboy. Of course they also affect our behavior. If someone is attracted to "wrong sex" hormonal disbalance may be the cause.

2. Neurology. Men and women have their brain working differently. They use different parts of the brain more. No surprise that many artists were gay, because their brain has their "feminine" side more developed.

3. Psychiatrical or psychological past: a person with a series of devastating relationships with opposite gender or one who experienced trauma from opposite gender (gang rape, I knew a girl like that), can turn to their on gender for comfort.

 

How are you defining "disease"? How do you qualify a "hormonal imbalance"? What is your measurement for "normal"?

 

If you mean to say that a disease is qualified by hormone levels/neurology/psychological differences between a person and the average of the population, then pretty much everyone is "diseased" in some way or another. Your explanation is so vague that someone with a high IQ is "diseased." Someone with a higher sex drive is "diseased." Your argument breaks down under any level of scrutiny.

 

The reality is the REAL homosexuality - when you are NOT aroused by an opposite gender at all is a disease. The mechanisms for it a very complex, usually all 3 of abovementioned mechanisms are involved. Homosexuality IS an aberration.

 

No more of an aberration than any other quality that differs from the average.

 

In nature homosexuality does happens among higher mammals. However it happens either as test of domianance (Dominant male wolf would mount less dominant male wolf), or when females are unavailable or all taken by stronger males.

 

It can happen as a test of dominance or when there aren't enough available females. But you're going to need a citation if your claim is that those are the only situations where homosexuality occurs in nature.

 

Both of those situations happen in jails (Gay for the stay) and CAN NOT be considered real homosexuality. Homosexuality is a disease, disorder and aberration, which has NOTHING to do with religion.

 

Calling homosexuality a disease a bunch of times doesn't actually make it a disease. Unless, of course, your definition of disease is as vague as I suggested earlier, in which case it's a meaningless statement, since virtually everything could be a disease by that logic.

 

Family is a cradle of society, family = ONE MAN+ONE (or more) women and their children and possibly their parents (3 generations), living in one roof, bound by common loyalty and purpose. Without this brick - society fails. Take a look at the society in USA in 1950s: crime, standards of living, juvenile crimes, and current. This is due to the breakdown of FAMILY structure.

 

[citation needed]

 

Same thing happened all over the world. Once traditional (3 generations) family is destroyed - people do NOT learn any loyalty to each other neither do they have an idea how to be attached and bound to anything (if today you have daddy named Mike and tommorow your daddy is named Zach, and 3 days later you have a 2nd mommy).

 

[citation needed]

 

I rest my case

 

Lol.

 

The must be studied and cured. Because it is a slippery slope. Today we tolerate homosexuality, tomorrow we will tolerate pedophilia. And do not tell me "that will never happen". They are already working on "protecting pedophiles against hate speech", also in Canada one senator already said that "Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, just like homosexuality".

 

Lol, so the statement of one senator in another country is valid reasoning behind the legalization of pedophilia? Your slippery slope argument leaves a lot to be desired.

 

Studies were done that brains of homosexuals vary IN ACTIVITY from brains on straight. Many homosexuals do have hormonal levels different from straight people. look it up

 

Um, duh?

 

2. A while back, pedophilia, along with necrophilia, zoophilia and homosexuality were considered in the same family of sexual aberrations.

 

And why do we care how something was classified "a while back"? A while back, the Sun was thought to orbit the Earth, slavery was okay, racial discrimination was good to go, etc. Something isn't true solely because it was once thought to be true. It's an appeal to antiquity and it's a logical fallacy.

 

3. Read up on the beginning of movement to "protect the pedophilia".

 

Calling it a "movement" is giving it more credit than it's worth. There's no more of a "movement" to protect pedophilia than there is a "movement" to worship Satan. The latter has been around for a lot longer, and I don't see anyone crying in fear of it becoming the dominant world view.

 

4. As far as "different", cancer cells are also different from normal, lets not treat them, after all, who are we to judge them, they are not bad, they are different.

 

This is a false equivalency. Life is nearly universally regarded as something worth protecting, and cancer typically threatens that. Heterosexuality isn't threatened by homosexuality.

 

5. Different is a matter of degrees. Today you protect homos' saying that "they are different, what's wrong with that", the same logic is already beginning to be applied to pedophiles. Aberration is aberration, no matter how you want to sugar coat it. As I said cancer cells are merely "different" from your own cells, so, why don't you open your arms and welcome cancer cells into your body, they are not evil, right? they are merely "different". and what damage can mere 6% of cancer cells do to your body, right? Wrong. 6% of your body turns cancerous - you are DEAD.

 

False equivalency combined with a slippery slope argument. You're getting more efficient at using logical fallacies.

 

As he said earlier people in the 1950's didn't expect that gay marriage would be legalized, but it did. And we have more then enough idiots in America to think that its a good idea to legalize them because were hearting their poor little pedo hearts. I'm not necessarily saying that it will be legalized, I'm just saying keep an open mind about what could happen in the future.

 

Confirmation bias much? Do a bit of thinking before accepting fallacious arguments as fact.

Edited by Python890

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't say that just because he did its just a good point. If you said it, I probably would have agreed with it to.

 

What? Confirmation bias means you accept something as truth because you want it to be true.

 

He made a slippery slope argument that pedophilia will be the next accepted "aberration" or "disease" (note: slippery slope arguments [of his form] are logical fallacies). You accept it as true for one of two reasons: 1. You don't apply any critical thinking to recognize how it could be wrong, or 2. You want it to be true because it supports your anti-gay viewpoint. I believe you accept it mostly because of #2, but I'm sure you also did #1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't say that just because he did its just a good point. If you said it, I probably would have agreed with it to.

 

You have a point, but there is a difference between a grown man getting it on with a child(it would also change the age of consent, problem there).

 

As for Tigerclaw, I was away, and Python summed it up whilst I was gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As he said earlier people in the 1950's didn't expect that gay marriage would be legalized, but it did. And we have more then enough idiots in America to think that its a good idea to legalize them because were hearting their poor little pedo hearts. I'm not necessarily saying that it will be legalized, I'm just saying keep an open mind about what could happen in the future.

 

You know, you're quite the bigot. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they are a pedophile. Those are two completely different realms. Its like comparing a kid that gets in fights at school to a serial killer. There's just no logical thing that could make it so that they are two of a kind.

 

And as for the whole matter of how things were, you do know that around that time, interracial marriage was being debated too. Until the late 60's actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know, you're quite the bigot. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they are a pedophile. Those are two completely different realms. Its like comparing a kid that gets in fights at school to a serial killer. There's just no logical thing that could make it so that they are two of a kind.

 

And as for the whole matter of how things were, you do know that around that time, interracial marriage was being debated too. Until the late 60's actually.

So you agree then that they both are wrong (gay and pedo)? Also, I wasn't aware that interracial marriage had legislation against it. Do you have any sources for this claim? If not then thats irrelevant as we are talking about legislative decisions here not just things that are looked down upon as taboo in our society.

 

I wouldn't call m99 a bigot per se either. He just seems to be a younger kid with a lot of beliefs rooted in faith versus logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you agree then that they both are wrong (gay and pedo)? Also, I wasn't aware that interracial marriage had legislation against it. Do you have any sources for this claim? If not then thats irrelevant as we are talking about legislative decisions here not just things that are looked down upon as taboo in our society.

 

I wouldn't call m99 a bigot per se either. He just seems to be a younger kid with a lot of beliefs rooted in faith versus logic.

 

Laws against interracial marriage, http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar14.htm

 

http://historum.com/american-history/47157...ationships.html

Forum topic on it which talks about how it is almost the same for the homosexuals of today

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on the topic of antiquity, M99, I hope you realize it works both ways. Many years ago, it was perfectly ok for a 40 year old male to get it on with a 13 year old girl. This of course, had many survival benefits, as life span was much shorter, and having a child at a young age in order to keep the genetic lineage alive was a good option, regardless of the age.

 

However, if we look at it from a purely objective POV, not subjected to any social or legal constrictions, biologically, it is natural. Which pokes a hole into the argument that "homosexual is unnatural".

 

If homosexuality is unnatural, and should not be made legal, certain degrees of sex abuse should be made legal, if your sole argument is based on how "natural" it is.

 

Now, on antiquity, if a 40 year old having sex with a 13 year old was perfectly normal many years ago, does this mean it should be legalized today? Of course not. Which is why the argument based on antiquity is completely irrelevant, and illogical. As much as a person may want to nostalgically romanticize the past, one can only move forwards, because one must acknowledge the improvements we have made, which can not be ignored.

 

Now, on the topic of raising a child.

 

It is incredibly absurd to assume that a child NEEDS a father and a mother figure in order for proper development. Regardless of any moral or ethical arguments of such, people tend to forget that this is only a hypothesis, not backed by any real scientific study.

 

One simply cannot make this kind of argument, and be taken seriously, unless a true, unbiased scientific study is conducted first. Large control sample, as well as a large experimental group spanning AT LEAST 2 decades, to cover the full developmental cycle from birth to adulthood. Only then can a serious argument for or against homosexual relationships be made.

 

I could be wrong however. Maybe such study has already been conducted. But I doubt it, because if there is, there shouldn't be such a discrepancy on people's opinions.

 

anyways, I think Python has addressed the huge amounts of logical fallacies in M99's arguments. It's very obvious that he hasn't taken debate class.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
on the topic of antiquity, M99, I hope you realize it works both ways. Many years ago, it was perfectly ok for a 40 year old male to get it on with a 13 year old girl. This of course, had many survival benefits, as life span was much shorter, and having a child at a young age in order to keep the genetic lineage alive was a good option, regardless of the age.

 

However, if we look at it from a purely objective POV, not subjected to any social or legal constrictions, biologically, it is natural. Which pokes a hole into the argument that "homosexual is unnatural".

 

If homosexuality is unnatural, and should not be made legal, certain degrees of sex abuse should be made legal, if your sole argument is based on how "natural" it is.

 

Now, on antiquity, if a 40 year old having sex with a 13 year old was perfectly normal many years ago, does this mean it should be legalized today? Of course not. Which is why the argument based on antiquity is completely irrelevant, and illogical. As much as a person may want to nostalgically romanticize the past, one can only move forwards, because one must acknowledge the improvements we have made, which can not be ignored.

 

Now, on the topic of raising a child.

 

It is incredibly absurd to assume that a child NEEDS a father and a mother figure in order for proper development. Regardless of any moral or ethical arguments of such, people tend to forget that this is only a hypothesis, not backed by any real scientific study.

 

One simply cannot make this kind of argument, and be taken seriously, unless a true, unbiased scientific study is conducted first. Large control sample, as well as a large experimental group spanning AT LEAST 2 decades, to cover the full developmental cycle from birth to adulthood. Only then can a serious argument for or against homosexual relationships be made.

 

I could be wrong however. Maybe such study has already been conducted. But I doubt it, because if there is, there shouldn't be such a discrepancy on people's opinions.

 

anyways, I think Python has addressed the huge amounts of logical fallacies in M99's arguments. It's very obvious that he hasn't taken debate class.

The key point here is that it doesn't work. It doesn't even make sense from the perspective of reproduction and furtherment of the human race. From the point regarding mother/father (female/male), I've already iterated my points but it can be agreed that regardless there are attributes that would be missing from having a female mother and male father that a child in a hetero environment would have. Not to say it isn't possible to be raised and survive that way, but I really don't think it would be ideal. Most especially from an emotional/social impact on the child.

 

Tomtortoise: I guess I never fully grasped how late into the 20th century that racism from slavery carried into society. Good information there but I believe that can be argued as a bit different as there was a whole controversy (some can argue a war) that was fought over slavery in which a lot of these laws were enacted prior to. We're not fighting to "free the homos" (for lack of better words). Such a comparison would be insulting at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The key point here is that it doesn't work. It doesn't even make sense from the perspective of reproduction and furtherment of the human race. From the point regarding mother/father (female/male), I've already iterated my points but it can be agreed that regardless there are attributes that would be missing from having a female mother and male father that a child in a hetero environment would have. Not to say it isn't possible to be raised and survive that way, but I really don't think it would be ideal. Most especially from an emotional/social impact on the child.

Got any evidence that gay parents raise terrible kids? I think the only thing that's been shown is they tend to result in having slightly more gay kids than straight parents, but seeing as how you haven't backed the statement of being gay is immoral yet that's also moot.

 

Furtherment of the human race sounds quite like eugenics. Messy business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say they would be terrible kids. I said they would be missing some emotional/social aspects that a child in a hetero family would have. I can see the results similar to that of a child without a mother or father with, like you said, extra influence on homo tendencies.

 

I've already clarified that the morality is one that I take on a personal, individual, religious case. However, a believe it or not, religious morals have a lot to do with best practices and safety (not saying safety is the case here though). A lot of times this isn't always apparent to human kind as a face value black and white explanation. Hence, faith. A good example that I firmly believe in is the case and argument of incest. One question that is asked is "how did mankind reproduce if Adam and Eve were the only two created?". Simple answer is that at first they reproduced internally within their families. Using religious morals this was not a problem or wrong at the time (look it up). It did not become a problem until much later when God commanded it to stop. This I firmly believe was due to the genetics behind interbreeding and genetic disorders. You know, keep the mutation/genetic disorder in the family and if you have two family members with it then the more likely their offspring will have it type of theory. So for me, and again I'm not asking anyone else to be forced into this logic, if you stick with the religious morals (and understand their context) you end up coming out OK in the end. :)

 

Eugenics insinuates reproduction. There is no reproduction going to happen so that comparison is "moot" as you would say. I'm getting at the root logic behind homosexuality here. Just asking some people to step back and think about if humans were ever designed to work that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't call m99 a bigot per se either. He just seems to be a younger kid with a lot of beliefs rooted in faith versus logic.

 

While I believe he is a younger, impressionable kid that's probably parroting his parents beliefs, there's no age requirement on being a bigot.

 

The key point here is that it doesn't work. It doesn't even make sense from the perspective of reproduction and furtherment of the human race. From the point regarding mother/father (female/male), I've already iterated my points but it can be agreed that regardless there are attributes that would be missing from having a female mother and male father that a child in a hetero environment would have. Not to say it isn't possible to be raised and survive that way, but I really don't think it would be ideal. Most especially from an emotional/social impact on the child.

 

Small point here, but you're shifting your argument a bit. You open by saying "it doesn't work," then backpedal to "it wouldn't be ideal."

 

Regarding the ideal statement, I've already discussed at length why this is silly- there are many influential variables on a child's development. So, if you want to make the claim that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to get married because if they have a child, it may not have an ideal childhood, then you should also apply that argument to other variables. How about a requirement to have an income of $X before getting married? How about a requirement of an address in a low-crime area? What about only allowing people near good public school systems to get married? How about tests to ensure the couple getting married are medically cleared, so that if they do decide to have a child, the chances of one of the parents dying, causing emotional distress to the child are minimized? Where does the line get drawn? At what point does "ideal" change to "good enough"? Or, if you feel strongly about ideal child upbringing, at what point does the discussion of marriage requirements diverge into a discussion of child licenses and requirements for that?

 

(Note: I think the argument of two different-sex parents being more ideal than two same-sex parents is moot anyway since neither side has any respectable evidence toward their point, but for the sake of argument I'll assume same-sex parents are worse at parenting.)

 

Tomtortoise: I guess I never fully grasped how late into the 20th century that racism from slavery carried into society. Good information there but I believe that can be argued as a bit different as there was a whole controversy (some can argue a war) that was fought over slavery in which a lot of these laws were enacted prior to. We're not fighting to "free the homos" (for lack of better words). Such a comparison would be insulting at best.

 

Sure- they are different things entirely. However marriage licenses are just accepted now- people have the mindset that the state has to give you permission to marry. But the problem is that the government's poor judgment and discrimination in the past is still affecting the rights of others today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Small point here, but you're shifting your argument a bit. You open by saying "it doesn't work," then backpedal to "it wouldn't be ideal."

"It doesn't work" was regarding my take on homosexual logic in general. IE: you can't reproduce. "It wouldn't be ideal" is regarding homosexuals raising children. Two different things.

 

Regarding the ideal statement, I've already discussed at length why this is silly- there are many influential variables on a child's development. So, if you want to make the claim that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to get married because if they have a child, it may not have an ideal childhood, then you should also apply that argument to other variables. How about a requirement to have an income of $X before getting married? How about a requirement of an address in a low-crime area? What about only allowing people near good public school systems to get married? How about tests to ensure the couple getting married are medically cleared, so that if they do decide to have a child, the chances of one of the parents dying, causing emotional distress to the child are minimized? Where does the line get drawn? At what point does "ideal" change to "good enough"? Or, if you feel strongly about ideal child upbringing, at what point does the discussion of marriage requirements diverge into a discussion of child licenses and requirements for that?
The difference is that one is controllable, the other is not. You can't guarantee a person's income or help with that situation. You can't guarantee or provide a person's location. Legislation should only be passed where it can be applied reasonably. It would be hard to enforce the pretty extreme circumstances you have mentioned.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The difference is that one is controllable, the other is not.

 

I'm not talking about an annual verification of these things- I'm talking about a one-time check before marriage. Just adding to the current requirements.

 

You can't guarantee a person's income or help with that situation.

 

It would seem someone's income is easily verified with tax documentation.

 

You can't guarantee or provide a person's location.

 

You already need to provide an address for a marriage license. It wouldn't be hard to deny licenses if that address falls in a high-crime area.

 

Some states used to require blood tests for a marriage license in order to test for some STDs. Requiring a physical isn't much beyond that.

 

Legislation should only be passed where it can be applied reasonably. It would be hard to enforce the pretty extreme circumstances you have mentioned.

 

These things can be applied reasonably. What it can't do is guarantee that these factors don't change after the marriage- so it's not a guarantee of ideal conditions for raising a child. But then, the fact that two people are of different sexes does not guarantee ideal conditions for raising a child either. These "new" requirements are easily verified and provide a much stronger case for an "ideal" child-raising environment. They're really no more "extreme" than a requirement of different sexes for marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are good points and I was actually going to point out the chance that these things can vary and change after marriage as well. Except my point is (follow me here) that homosexuality usually wouldn't change nor would I expect it to change. It's much more static. Much more of a black and white variable in the bigger equation. It's a case of "failure from the get go" and "could be bad but possibility for improvement". Again forgive my lack of better words there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those are good points and I was actually going to point out the chance that these things can vary and change after marriage as well. Except my point is (follow me here) that homosexuality usually wouldn't change nor would I expect it to change. It's much more static. Much more of a black and white variable in the bigger equation. It's a case of "failure from the get go" and "could be bad but possibility for improvement". Again forgive my lack of better words there.

 

I understand your point, but I really don't think that it's strong enough to endorse such a strict requirement on sex, while ignoring other variables (especially when you consider that many of those other variables can be stronger influences of "ideal" child development than parents' sexes). To me, it seems like you're starting with a conclusion and trying to justify it, rather than using justifications to arrive at a conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anybody want some pizza?

 

Yes, but I see no relevance. Unless there was a bet that giving up required buying me a pizza. Either way, I don't care. Just give me some damn pizza.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand your point, but I really don't think that it's strong enough to endorse such a strict requirement on sex, while ignoring other variables (especially when you consider that many of those other variables can be stronger influences of "ideal" child development than parents' sexes). To me, it seems like you're starting with a conclusion and trying to justify it, rather than using justifications to arrive at a conclusion.

It's just unrealistic to try and enforce or regulate the other variables. I can agree that they all are valid points and have impact on a child's direct and indirect well being. I have no need to justify the conclusion though aside from my own beliefs and personal experience :) It's the others who question it that tear out this long discussion wanting factual hard evidence, justification, etc. It would be amusing to me to see how things would be if every piece of legislation went through the horse beating and tedious scrutiny/"justification requirements" as seen in this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be amusing to me to see how things would be if every piece of legislation went through the horse beating and tedious scrutiny/"justification requirements" as seen in this topic.

 

I think the world would be a better place if politicians used logic and reasoning in lieu of emotion and archaic religious beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no need to justify the conclusion though aside from my own beliefs and personal experience :) It's the others who question it that tear out this long discussion wanting factual hard evidence

infallible logic

 

This post is my evidence for why direct democracy doesn't work.

Edited by Bomb has been planted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you agree then that they both are wrong (gay and pedo)? Also, I wasn't aware that interracial marriage had legislation against it. Do you have any sources for this claim? If not then thats irrelevant as we are talking about legislative decisions here not just things that are looked down upon as taboo in our society.

 

I wouldn't call m99 a bigot per se either. He just seems to be a younger kid with a lot of beliefs rooted in faith versus logic.

 

No, I don't believe they're wrong, I was trying to give an example that would make more sense to him. I couldn't really think of anything where the other case is extreme enough to have the shock factor needed for the comparison. And interracial marriage wasn't legal until the late 1960's. Even then, it was difficult.

 

Also, m99 is a bigot for being so incredibly hateful towards another group that has done nothing wrong truly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying this as a Christian Libertarian

The government shouldn't be in the marriage business.

 

Best case scenario, the government switches to issuing mutual Civil Union contracts, marriage is and always has been an inherently 'religious' thing. And hey, the separation of church and state should be a door that shuts both ways.

 

Gay people have exactly as much right to be gay as other people do to criticize them.

 

I have found from reading my Bible that homosexuality is just as wrong as two hetero people fornicating. I do apologise for the apparent representatives of Christianity not... representing well.

The church has an awful record of divorce, perhaps this challenge will make the spoiled American christians think about their own marriages.

 

And on immorality there are basically two different types.

Wrongs, or sins, you commit against others. Stealing, murder, and not calling your hits for example.

And then there are sins against self; recreational drugs, lust, alcoholisim, gluttony, fornication, and homosexuality would fall in htis category.

 

Wrongs against others should be regulated by the government

 

Wrongs against self cannot be corrected externally.

But wrongs against self can quickly become widespread, drunk driving and children born into a suddenly single parent house because the boyfreind was full of :censored2: for example.

 

Where homosexuality hurts others is a darn tricky question

Edited by Greenace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saying this as a Christian Libertarian

The government shouldn't be in the marriage business.

 

Best case scenario, the government switches to issuing mutual Civil Union contracts, marriage is and always has been an inherently 'religious' thing. And hey, the separation of church and state should be a door that shuts both ways.

 

Gay people have exactly as much right to be gay as other people do to criticize them.

 

I have found from reading my Bible that homosexuality is just as wrong as two hetero people fornicating. I do apologise for the apparent representatives of Christianity not... representing well.

The church has an awful record of divorce, perhaps this challenge will make the spoiled American christians think about their own marriages.

 

Wow, someone with a modicum of common sense. I didn't think I'd see that for a bit. I got a little tired of the debate there, but really, you make a good bit of sense. Just saying though, marriage isn't always religious. Marriage has existed far before Judeo-Christian beliefs. It existed with the Egyptians, the Romans, the Greeks, the Mesopotamians, most of these existing before Christianity or Judaism, and most not barring homosexuality at all. The only reason homosexuality had been rare in marriages in earlier times was the idea that it was necessary to bear children. With overpopulation and changing views on the rearing of children, those types of marriages have become more common. They still did exist in Roman and Greek society though. Egyptian too. Too little is known about Mesopotamia to be certain on them however.

 

Also, I do hold the belief that yes, it should be a two way door, as long as those things are supported by all people and not affecting everyone. I still believe that people getting health care or health plans through religious organizations should be able to get contraceptives and other things as it promotes societal well-being and is not opposed by the people seeking it. Other measures should also be noticed. Just because one belief says that they don't like something doesn't mean that all belief systems are that way.

 

Gay people have exactly as much right to be gay as other people do to criticize them.

 

And on immorality there are basically two different types.

Wrongs, or sins, you commit against others. Stealing, murder, and not calling your hits for example.

And then there are sins against self; recreational drugs, lust, alcoholisim, gluttony, fornication, and homosexuality would fall in htis category.

 

Wrongs against others should be regulated by the government

 

Wrongs against self cannot be corrected externally.

But wrongs against self can quickly become widespread, drunk driving and children born into a suddenly single parent house because the boyfreind was full of :censored2: for example.

 

Where homosexuality hurts others is a darn tricky question

 

1. I have never found a situation where it can harm another person.

2. Thank you, again, you have a modicum of common sense. But to put it more simply, let religious laws stay with religion, unless it can be proved that there is a significant negative impact to others because of the action governed against.

 

Edited by turtletech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marriage has existed far before Judeo-Christian beliefs. It existed with the Egyptians, the Romans, the Greeks, the Mesopotamians, most of these existing before Christianity or Judaism, and most not barring homosexuality at all. The only reason homosexuality had been rare in marriages in earlier times was the idea that it was necessary to bear children. With overpopulation and changing views on the rearing of children, those types of marriages have become more common. They still did exist in Roman and Greek society though. Egyptian too. Too little is known about Mesopotamia to be certain on them however.

 

Let's let the myth of overpopulation be its own thread, but I ought to point out that in all those societies marriage was a religious function carried out by priests even when it was (at least in the upper classes) a stone cold method of making alliances among families.

 

 

Heres a question for those who say same sex marriage is logical. Where does that stop? Should polygamy be OK, despite it being very detrimental to the women in the 'marriage?' Can people marry their dogs? Can people marry their business and claim it as a dependent?

 

If marriage is not defined as being between a man and a woman then there is no way to really define or confine it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saying this as a Christian Libertarian

The government shouldn't be in the marriage business.

 

Best case scenario, the government switches to issuing mutual Civil Union contracts, marriage is and always has been an inherently 'religious' thing. And hey, the separation of church and state should be a door that shuts both ways.

 

Gay people have exactly as much right to be gay as other people do to criticize them.

 

I have found from reading my Bible that homosexuality is just as wrong as two hetero people fornicating. I do apologise for the apparent representatives of Christianity not... representing well.

The church has an awful record of divorce, perhaps this challenge will make the spoiled American christians think about their own marriages.

 

And on immorality there are basically two different types.

Wrongs, or sins, you commit against others. Stealing, murder, and not calling your hits for example.

And then there are sins against self; recreational drugs, lust, alcoholisim, gluttony, fornication, and homosexuality would fall in htis category.

 

Wrongs against others should be regulated by the government

 

Wrongs against self cannot be corrected externally.

But wrongs against self can quickly become widespread, drunk driving and children born into a suddenly single parent house because the boyfreind was full of :censored2: for example.

 

Where homosexuality hurts others is a darn tricky question

+1 here. I'd be all for this. The current proposition though, and supported thoughts are to condone homosexual marriage, not bring government out of it. If we are going to support one way or the other, I'd rather vote "no".

 

I also want to point out that my personal religious views and my views on this matter regarding governmental regulation are different. Please do not assume that my personal opinions on the matter are that of which I would see forced on people. Read a few pages back and you will see my stance on how I feel the government should be involved with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heres a question for those who say same sex marriage is logical. Where does that stop? Should polygamy be OK, despite it being very detrimental to the women in the 'marriage?' Can people marry their dogs? Can people marry their business and claim it as a dependent?

 

As far as I'm concerned, people should be able to do whatever they wish to do as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. This means gay marriage is fine, polygamy is fine, etc as long as everyone involved gives consent. The assumption that polygamy is "very detrimental" to the women involved is a large assumption which seems to be based on other cultures' use of polygamy. "Traditional" marriage can also be very detrimental to the women involved- there are plenty of abusive relationships. Additionally, cultures that embrace polygamy typically don't also allow much choice in their marriages. To call polygamy inherently detrimental seems to jump the gun a bit.

 

A business is not a person and does not have marriage rights. A dog is not a person and does not have marriage rights. Additionally, neither of those can consent to a relationship.

 

I'm not sure why this is so confusing and why everyone paints this as a slippery slope that ends in bestiality, pedophilia, and the collapse of a reasonable society.

 

But of course, the realist in me recognizes that government defining marriage won't go away any time soon, so the fight gets focused on the largest group deprived of marriage rights- which is currently the homosexuals.

 

If marriage is not defined as being between a man and a woman then there is no way to really define or confine it.

 

This is shortsighted and a premature conclusion.

Edited by Python890

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, listening to Airsofters try to hold political debates is almost as bad as...as...as listening to politicians hold political debates. Unfortunately we need to accept a generous amount of presupposition and understand that a very small percentage of people will have their opinion changed on this or any matter and that discussing it is rather silly.

 

That being said, America is split about half way on this subject and seeing that everybody has made it such a huge deal it will take more than half to change what has now become a defining status quo in the country.

 

And finally for me, idc just as long as I am still allowed to marry women...there's always going to be idiots, I'm not gonna try to stop em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's let the myth of overpopulation be its own thread, but I ought to point out that in all those societies marriage was a religious function carried out by priests even when it was (at least in the upper classes) a stone cold method of making alliances among families.

 

 

Heres a question for those who say same sex marriage is logical. Where does that stop? Should polygamy be OK, despite it being very detrimental to the women in the 'marriage?' Can people marry their dogs? Can people marry their business and claim it as a dependent?

 

If marriage is not defined as being between a man and a woman then there is no way to really define or confine it.

 

No, there is. Through all of human society there has been the idea of someone being faithful to their significant other, no matter who that is. It's always been consensual, within a species (I.e. Not Dogs), and between two people.

 

And you're only using the "Slippery Slope" argument because you lack a fitting and logical argument. It's the last argument of a man with no ideas on where to turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's let the myth of overpopulation be its own thread, but I ought to point out that in all those societies marriage was a religious function carried out by priests even when it was (at least in the upper classes) a stone cold method of making alliances among families.

 

 

Heres a question for those who say same sex marriage is logical. Where does that stop? Should polygamy be OK, despite it being very detrimental to the women in the 'marriage?' Can people marry their dogs? Can people marry their business and claim it as a dependent?

 

If marriage is not defined as being between a man and a woman then there is no way to really define or confine it.

 

!!!You are right with the marriage of dogs and business! To solve this problem once and for all we must climb back up this slope and stop the progress of everyone in their tracks. I think the best way to do this is stop all marriage, better yet, don't even let people look at each other; by having everyone, man or woman, wear full covering loose fitting clothes. There should not be no attraction of anyone to anything, take out magnets and gravity while we are at it, all we have to do is pass a law, it works in the same way that making laws against gays and not letting them get married prevents them from existing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
on the topic of antiquity, M99, I hope you realize it works both ways. Many years ago, it was perfectly ok for a 40 year old male to get it on with a 13 year old girl. This of course, had many survival benefits, as life span was much shorter, and having a child at a young age in order to keep the genetic lineage alive was a good option, regardless of the age.

 

However, if we look at it from a purely objective POV, not subjected to any social or legal constrictions, biologically, it is natural. Which pokes a hole into the argument that "homosexual is unnatural".

 

If homosexuality is unnatural, and should not be made legal, certain degrees of sex abuse should be made legal, if your sole argument is based on how "natural" it is.

 

Now, on antiquity, if a 40 year old having sex with a 13 year old was perfectly normal many years ago, does this mean it should be legalized today? Of course not. Which is why the argument based on antiquity is completely irrelevant, and illogical. As much as a person may want to nostalgically romanticize the past, one can only move forwards, because one must acknowledge the improvements we have made, which can not be ignored.

 

Now, on the topic of raising a child.

 

It is incredibly absurd to assume that a child NEEDS a father and a mother figure in order for proper development. Regardless of any moral or ethical arguments of such, people tend to forget that this is only a hypothesis, not backed by any real scientific study.

 

One simply cannot make this kind of argument, and be taken seriously, unless a true, unbiased scientific study is conducted first. Large control sample, as well as a large experimental group spanning AT LEAST 2 decades, to cover the full developmental cycle from birth to adulthood. Only then can a serious argument for or against homosexual relationships be made.

 

I could be wrong however. Maybe such study has already been conducted. But I doubt it, because if there is, there shouldn't be such a discrepancy on people's opinions.

 

anyways, I think Python has addressed the huge amounts of logical fallacies in M99's arguments. It's very obvious that he hasn't taken debate class.

 

 

Completely wrong, If a child has two fathers or two mothers they have a gap in concept in how to treat the other sex in a romantic way as well as how they them selves should be treated. I have a strong conviction, that the way a man learns the way he should be treated is from the way he views his interaction with his mother, as well as he views his fathers treating his mother and expects or mimics the same himself, like wise with a female. It's very proven that children in violent house holds are usually temperamental in relationships as well as the opposite for relaxed house holds showing the environment your raised in effects your behavior. Childhood is a large developing time in a child's life and it has been proven in overwhelming cases that a child that has a missing parent shows certain social and relationship gaps that other children develop in a mother father household. Simply having one more mothers or fathers in a relationship does not fill this void. Having simply increased the number of parental mothers or fathers to 2 does not fill the male/female role in that child's life so they will experience the same emotional gap as a one parent household and having a butch mother is no father.

 

 

I have opinions against homosexuality, but I would be what most liberals would consider them selves and that's a tolerant or compassionate person. Even tho I have views that disagree with there life style I still view them as humans and should be afford the freedoms of the average man. True intolerance is a person who for my views looks with disgust and forces me to accept this life style and promote it. This is true intolerance of my beliefs and is very unfair to the millions of others who disagree with this life style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...