The gay marriage debate thread

[Radicool]

@Callahan you need to calm down and rationally talk about this. There is no reason why we can't talk about this topic without being rude.

i was under the impression that this was the 'gay marriage' thread, not 'where do gays come from'. the current conversation is off-topic and irrelevant,

We are not discussing "where gay people come from" but "Why people are gay". It is relevant to the topic of gay marriage because people believe that choosing to be gay is wrong and unacceptable and therefore these people shouldn't be allowed to have a gay marriage. So there is a debate that gay people do not choose their sexual orientation and it is unreasonable to disallow them to have gay marriage. That's the debate in a nutshell.

It means people are born with sexual orientation.
People are born as baby.
Therefore baby is born with sexual orientation.
Therefore baby is sexualy oriented.

The reasons for your misunderstanding is beyond me. I don't want to argue about what you think I meant, but I will say it once more. Babies are not sexually orientated.

If there was a gay gene it would be extinct from natural selection during prehistory and there was no such thing as closet and societal marginalisation at that time...Also recessive gene you don't know how it works.In order to be expressed you need 2 allele of that recessive gene which would means more gay gene transmission through non-gay relationship.

Not necessarily correct. This science article explains "The Gay Gene" fairly well. Of course there is lacking evidence, but it does share some interesting facts and theories.
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/born-way-evolutionary-view-‘gay-genes’

The article doesn't appear to factor in bisexuals either. Given this "gay gene" exists, it could be passed on from bisexuals. Let's not forget that there are plenty of gay people who do end up having wives. For example; Elton John had a wife. She died unfortunately and now John has openly announced he is gay. Elton now has two children whom was given birth to by a surrogate mother.

A lot of gay people end up being with women due to social pressures, fear of not having a family, wanting to live a normal life, etc, not to mention that this often causes some level of depression and sexual dissatisfaction in these couples.

Asking people to prove their point does not require to be smart.

If you want to make a claim which people find hard to believe, then you need to back it up with evidence, otherwise its not a creditable claim. I'm not trying to be smart, I'm just here to debate "gay marriage" like several others.

 

[chr2]

(...) Humanity exist from much longer that modern society.If there was a gay gene it would be extinct from natural selection during prehistory and there was no such thing as closet and societal marginalisation at that time.
If it was genetic the trend could only decline overtime and not suddenly raise in 2014. (...)

Homo sexuality has existed since some of the earliest recorded history (the Iliad etc), and likely before that. If was socially acceptable in some ancient cultures, specifically Ancient Greece and -Rome. Heck, it was even common for Greek men to have a male lover.
Also, you're wrong to think social marginalization is a modern concept. It has existed since the dawn of mankind, albeit with focus on other groups (slaves, Jews (in Ancient Egypt and medieval ages), blacks, native Americans, the poor in any early society, and the list goes on and on).

(...) Looks like so far the only defense of pro gay is to claim every non pro gay are dumb uneducated to discredit valid reasoning.Debating is so easy when you have stereotypes on your side.Asking people to prove their point does not require to be smart.
I'm the one in position requiring to be smart.

You seem to be forgetting the 17 pages of people arguing how denying gays the right to marriage is a direct violation of their human rights. Also, when the only counter arguments are "my religion says it's wrong!" and "it's unnatural!" (despite the fact that homo sexuality is commonly found in nature), no wonder anti-gays seem like an uneducated lot.
You're forgetting who the minority is. While there's an overwhelming amount of stereotypes against gays (they're rapists, they're interested in every single other male individual, they're all gold diggers (thanks for that one, neo_sluf) etc.), I can hardly think of a single stereotype that puts gays in a positive light.
You claim your stance on this subject requires you to be smart, yet the millions of religious nutheads in America who have made gay marriage illegal shows the opposite.

 

[LordDz]

Works on what? So you need to have babies to have a relationship? What about heterosexuals who adopt?

 

[Deleted member 219079]

Works on what? So you need to have babies to have a relationship? What about heterosexuals who adopt?

You can ask those 3 questions from Einsty if we ever succeed to resurrect him.

HE'S DEAD WHY DO YOU QUESTION HIS FORMULAS!!

 

[LordDz]

Because that's what science is? Developing?

 

[Rui]

leading to perhaps heterosexual relationships where they father a child.

Like uncle barnaby worthington? =P

I'd prefer if this thread remained open. Everyone's tone going up happens every time a sensitive topic is raised. Also, it's either this or no meaningful activity in off-topic... gotta keep people entertained somehow =P

 

[Callahan]

Homo sexuality has existed since some of the earliest recorded history (the Iliad etc), and likely before that. If was socially acceptable in some ancient cultures, specifically Ancient Greece and -Rome. Heck, it was even common for Greek men to have a male lover.
Also, you're wrong to think social marginalization is a modern concept. It has existed since the dawn of mankind, albeit with focus on other groups (slaves, Jews (in Ancient Egypt and medieval ages), blacks, native Americans, the poor in any early society, and the list goes on and on).

Yeah where's the relevence to the existence of supposed gay gene I was replying to?
I don't care about historic gay behavior.If there was a gay gene it would have existed from prehistory anyway because human exist for 200 000 years and there's only 3500 years of history.

You seem to be forgetting the 17 pages of people arguing how denying gays the right to marriage is a direct violation of their human rights. Also, when the only counter arguments are "my religion says it's wrong!" and "it's unnatural!" (despite the fact that homo sexuality is commonly found in nature), no wonder anti-gays seem like an uneducated lot.
You're forgetting who the minority is. While there's an overwhelming amount of stereotypes against gays (they're rapists, they're interested in every single other male individual, they're all gold diggers (thanks for that one, neo_sluf) etc.), I can hardly think of a single stereotype that puts gays in a positive light.
You claim your stance on this subject requires you to be smart, yet the millions of religious nutheads in America who have made gay marriage illegal shows the opposite.

It has nothing to do with opinions.I said I'm the one in position of having to prove and demonstrate that require more skill than being in position of accusing of being wrong.And your point doesn't prove anything.There's plenty of dumb people who think killing is bad it doesn't mean you have to think killing is good to be smart.
And you also cry about gay stereotypes but when it's stereotypes against anti-gays suddenly stereotypes are fine.You're not better than them afterall so don't demand from others what you don't demand from yourself.

 

[Radicool]

This debate about who is smart and who isn't smart really isn't going anywhere. This isn't a competition about who's got the largest brain, this is a debate about gay marriage.

How to debate:
1.) Make a point or claim.
2.) Explain yourself
3.) Provide some evidence to prove you didn't pull it out of your ass.

I don't care about historic gay behavior.

You don't care? You just said before that if there was a gay gene it would have vanished by now. I argued otherwise and haven't heard a reply from you yet. chr2 has just said that the "gay gene" has existed for centuries then you say you don't care? You do realise that if there is proof that gay people have been around for centuries then a "gay gene", if it exists, can in fact be passed down to offspring. What position are you in to argue anything if you tell somebody "you don't care" about their point? There point is very relevant and can potentially shed a lot of light onto this topic.

If there was a gay gene it would have existed from prehistory anyway because human exist for 200 000 years and there's only 3500 years of history.

Not necessarily. Your forgetting genetic mutation. A "gay gene" may have only been around for a few hundred years. People can undergo rare genetic mutations which alter their genetic code. These genetic mutations can be passed onto offspring.

 

[Boris_Spider]

1) Debates are not focused on convincing the arguing parties to change their positions. Debates are oriented towards understanding other position. Since everyone views information differently, evidence is of little use for purposes other than attempting to understand a differing point of view (bad example: atheists won't recognize 'evidence' sourced from any bible-like book).

2) If there was such a thing as a gay gene, it wouldn't last very long - homosexuals don't reproduce very well. Since there isn't one, will the argument revert back to declaring immorality as the source of homosexuality? What else is supposedly fixable in people (for immorality - a god is a solution, for bad genes - selective breeding or gene therapy are solutions)?

Why is there such a dedication to making homosexuals defective by so many people? Since anti-gays base themselves on morality, what the hell happened to the free will concept; people are free to do and think as they please unless you think they shouldn't think the way that they think? If you really believe yourselves in the right, why can't you just sit in the corner and snicker at those you deem unworthy like every other child? You get to feel good about yourself, your targets get to live in peace - everyone wins!

3) Everything born/spawned/replicated (like mitosis?) is a genetic mutation, as we are different than our predecessors. Most mutations are meaningless and have no effect. Some kill us quickly and a rare one will further our ability to procreate or survive.

4) Gays can marry, making it illegal is illegal. The churches can all go <CENSORED> themselves...

//\\0o//\\

 

[Radicool]

1) Debates are not focused on convincing the arguing parties to change their positions. Debates are oriented towards understanding other position. Since everyone views information differently, evidence is of little use for purposes other than attempting to understand a differing point of view (bad example: atheists won't recognize 'evidence' sourced from any bible-like book).

This is a very interesting point. Thanks for sharing. I think it is in everyone's best interest to understand the things they make decisions about. If you are making decisions based on what you don't understand, you will often make the wrong one.

Science is the only thing that consistently makes sense of what happens in this world around us. It provides an accurate understanding of things, and what it doesn't know yet, it will eventually find truth. I disagree with your point that "evidence is of little use" because its the foundation of proper understanding. People should orientate their decisions with scientific understanding rather than instinct or religion.

Morale is a tricky thing. Gay marriage is a tricky question. They say there is no right or wrong when it comes to morale but perhaps if we understand what it means to be gay, we may reconsider what we once perceived to be right and wrong...

2) If there was such a thing as a gay gene, it wouldn't last very long - homosexuals don't reproduce very well.

This is not necessarily correct. There is believable speculation to deny this fact. See my reply on page 17 regarding the gay gene vanishing out.

Since anti-gays base themselves on morality, what the hell happened to the free will concept; people are free to do and think as they please unless you think they shouldn't think the way that they think?

This is such a great point. It's such an obvious contradiction. It explains why there can be so much cognitive dissonance. To allow freedom only to cage their will.

3) Everything born/spawned/replicated (like mitosis?) is a genetic mutation, as we are different than our predecessors. Most mutations are meaningless and have no effect. Some kill us quickly and a rare one will further our ability to procreate or survive.

This ties into my point on page 17 about the gay gene. Take a look.

 

[chr2]

Yeah where's the relevence to the existence of supposed gay gene I was replying to?
I don't care about historic gay behavior.If there was a gay gene it would have existed from prehistory anyway because human exist for 200 000 years and there's only 3500 years of history.

I was merely pointing out that homo sexuality isn't some "trend" that's "suddenly raising in 2014".
I'm not saying I believe homo sexuality to be genetic, but we have evidence of some mutations, that aren't evolutionally benifitial, that have existed since ancient times (the ginger gene is estimated to be up to a 100,000 years old). So IF homo sexuality is genetic, it's plausible that this "gay gene" too could have survived through history.

It has nothing to do with opinions.I said I'm the one in position of having to prove and demonstrate that require more skill than being in position of accusing of being wrong.And your point doesn't prove anything.There's plenty of dumb people who think killing is bad it doesn't mean you have to think killing is good to be smart.
And you also cry about gay stereotypes but when it's stereotypes against anti-gays suddenly stereotypes are fine.You're not better than them afterall so don't demand from others what you don't demand from yourself.

This has everything to do with opinions.
For example, and this ties in with your next point, from my perspective, I'm the one who has to prove and demonstrate that there is nothing wrong with being gay, while you're accusing my opinion of being wrong. You claiming that my "point doesn't prove anything" is an opinion. This entire discussion is based on opinions!
You're drawing conclusions that aren't there. I never said that x stereotype is good, while y stereotype is bad, neither did I "demand" that stereotypes against gays cease to exist. You stated that stereotypes weren't on your side (which is an opinion), while I claimed the opposite (also an opinion). Stereotypes, and subjectivity in general, are impossible to escape. They're visible in my posts, and they're visible in your posts. You're no better than the rest of us.

 

[Pharaoh_]

Slightly off-topic and I should not perpetuate this discussion, when the topic is about marriage, but given that it has been raised as an issue (quite naturally), I'd like to share this video with you:

 

[A Void]

Here is a late opinion, since I wanted to share my opinion about this "subject".

To understand human sexual orientation, we must first understand the meaning of them. Here are three known most common human sexual orientations.

Homosexuality - As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex. It "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions.

Heterosexuality - As a sexual orientation, heterosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" to persons of the opposite sex; it "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions.

Bisexuality - is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior toward both males and females, and may also encompass romantic or sexual attraction to people of any gender identity or to a person irrespective of that person's biological sex or gender, which is sometimes termed pansexuality.

To put it simply, those who think that either of the sexuality orientations are bad and unnatural. Is like saying that the earth is flat. And, you know? That sounds pretty dumb. Also, do not write: "What do I say to my children?, God hates F***, This is against nature, I am not against it but I find it disgusting, Homosexuality does not give procreation, being gay is a choice" Here are the answers:

1. Educate your children. We are living in 21th century if you haven't noticed.
2. Do not judge, and you shall not be judged. Love thy neighbor. - Jesus
3. Again, if homosexuality is against nature then heterosexuality is also unnatural. Fail.
4. Yeah? That's your opinion and as if you wanted to hear that from a Gay or Lesbian couple. Would that offend you?
5. What about the few millions women in the world who can't have a child? Procreation leads to overpopulation.
6. Can? Heterosexual men or women be Homosexual? Or have any feelings related to the term: Homosexuality.??? No. People are indeed born that way.

 

[Ken-E]

Yes, I agree to gay marriage. A lot of heterosexual couples are miserable! Man beats woman scenario for example, is that what you would call a healthy marriage? Of course not, but a loving gay couple can't get married because they simply had the same gender? I think they deserve the right to take pride on their partner of choosing like heterosexual couples.

I always thought that my country as hypocritical, we have several public figures who are gay and television shows that portrays quirky gay people. Tons of gay dudes roaming around in real life everyday! Since majority of people in the Philippines are Christians, gay people are such. But we can't seem to approve gay marriage because of the same damn reason...

(Sorry for talking about my country)

 

[trolman]

THREADLY REMINDER

You can not support homosexsuality yet oppose childlove without beeing a cold hearthed nazi hypocrite.

 

[A Void]

THREADLY REMINDER

You can not support homosexsuality yet oppose childlove without beeing a cold hearthed nazi hypocrite.

Yes you are correct, you are already hijacking these threads and spaming your dogma. You are correct, I do support homosexuality but do not support childlove aka molestation. Are you happy with answer? I hope this clears the topic.

 

[trolman]

I admit I am a hypocritical, ignorant, closeminded bigout.I will continue using logical fallacies due to the lack of proper debate skills and report you to the mods in hope they are as brainwashed as me and kill every oppertunity of free speach.

Got it.

 

[Nuclear]

Yes you are correct, you are already hijacking these threads and spaming your dogma. You are correct, I do support homosexuality but do not support childlove aka molestation. Are you happy with answer? I hope this clears the topic.

Don't feed the trolls.

 

[A Void]

Don't feed the trolls.

you're right, I should have added him to the ignore list. :/

 

[trolman]

Everyone I cant prove wrong and doesent share my opinion is a troll.

Classic Nuclear.

 

[Sky Green]

Personally, I dislike going into these kinds of discussions, since they often devolve into a religious/political debate.

Therefore I shall use the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I will point out the articles relevant to this discussion. Some parts will be bolded to emphasize their importance in this discussion. I will also make some comments below an article.

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

All - Does in fact include homosexual people.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Although not mentioning sexuality specifically, I do believe it can be considered to be "other status".

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Spouses - Does not specifiy that the spouses have to be of the same gender.



Now, I cannot force people to believe in something, but I must say this; We cannot have all people be equal if people of different sexual orientation cannot achieve the same rights as heterosexuals.

 

[Deleted member 219079]

So accepting gay marriage has something to do with equality? It has little to do with equality. First off, a quote I wrote on Conchiga Wurst thread:

P1: If individuals will not have sex with the opposite sex, there won't be children. Thus, the population will not grow.
P2: If population will not grow, that population is guaranteed to disappear.
Concludes in: If population consists of individuals not being capable of/refusing to/dieing before having sex with the opposite sex, that population is guaranteed to disappear.

So if human population consisted of those kind of individuals, we would be guaranteed to disappear.

And now, I shall write a little more, from a different viewpoint. On my Disliking others' comments on YouTube - thread I said: "we should just let people make their decisions and let them follow them.". But then again, I also wrote: "You could ask "what about the bad decisions?" The bad decisions might be cause by sickness, bad environment etc. Or then it was just "miscalculation" by that one.", so how do we know that gays aren't just trying to back up their wrong decision, accepting their gayness and not be upset about it? It all comes down to what is justice.

It's impossible to form a global law which everyone wants to follow, I don't want to accept some special marriages (what are they called, rainbow families ?), but those who are in the group most likely to form a special marriage (gays, lesbians...), are also most likely to enhance their rights. Then there's people who just want also back up special marriages, even though they are most likely to from a normal marriage:

I think these arguments are most-heard outta the mouths of special marriage - defenders:

Marriage is binding of love, not gender. Marriage shouldn't be decided based on gender.
Equality.
Feelings doesn't watch the gender, thus marriage should neither.

1 and 3 actually are same, invoking to feelings. Feelings do not form justice. If they did, all countries would have their own laws. Oh wait...

2nd refers to LGBT equality, a lil' copy and pasta:

LGBT rights are considered human rights and civil rights. LGBT rights laws include, but are not limited to, the following:

allowing of men who have sex with men to donate blood,
government recognition of same-sex relationships (such as via same-sex marriage or similar unions),
allowing of LGBT adoption,
recognition of LGBT parenting,
anti-bullying legislation and student non-discrimination laws to protect LGBT children and/or students,
...

allowing of men who have sex with men to donate blood,

The hell his this? o___O Okay, this special marriage is REALLY special...

government recognition of same-sex relationships (such as via same-sex marriage or similar unions),

And why should this be a thing? Trolman's pedo argument is valid against this one.

allowing of LGBT adoption,
recognition of LGBT parenting,

If laws are at the point where the previous chapter is accepted, I don't see why this shouldn't be.

anti-bullying legislation and student non-discrimination laws to protect LGBT children and/or students,

How are you going to stop the bullying of special children with a law? Lol...

So yeah, of course gays'll back up their laws, as in the biological level, we live to survive, thus, backing up our rights leads to better survival. Accepting gay marriage when you're normal is up to you (depends on what values you want to support), as gay-marriage law won't affect your rights.

And them some hive comments, yay! ^^ It's known for hivers not to accept their defeat, where it gets to the point where you:
Write wall o' text -> Read reply -> See that he didn't reply to all of your arguments -> Say "you obviously haven't read my post fully, so it's of no use to reply to you"

Rights! Feelings! Freedom! Equality! RAINBOWS!! LOVE TO EVERYONE!!! HATE NO ONE!!!!

Dare to click?

Imma spread the love!! <3
LOVE EVERYONE YAY

 

[Mechanical Man]

I support gay marriage. After all you can marry for any reason, there are many hetero marriages which are not because of love, but for personal gains. But I'm against child adoption of gay couples.

However for marriages in the church, is the church who define the rules, if only blonde with blue eyes can marry there, then only they can.

 

[A Void]

Homosexuality is considered to be human sexuality. Sexuality is not pedophilia or any other crap you might think of while writing.

Just like Heterosexuality it has the same capabilities for procreation, meaning that homosexual humans can also impregnate a woman and have a baby. It is just that they will feel nothing attractive nor appealing when having sex with the opposite-gender. The difference between these sexuality's is that they all have different attractions and "feeling of true love".

Homosexuality - Same-Gender Attraction and feeling of true love.
Heterosexuality - Opposite-Gender Attraction and feeling of true love.
Bisexuality - Both-Gender Attraction and feeling of true love.

Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or considered to be compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural universal.

Marriage is not limited to gender.

 

[Gismo359]

Just like Heterosexuality it has the same capabilities for procreation, meaning that homosexual humans can also impregnate a woman and have a baby.

You do realize that in a homosecual couple, both will be either women or men. In the first case there wont be anybody to impregnate them, and in the second there wont be anyone to impregnate.

 

[A Void]

You do realize that in a homosecual couple, both will be either women or men. In the first case there wont be anybody to impregnate them, and in the second there wont be anyone to impregnate.

Just like Heterosexuality it has the same capabilities for procreation, meaning that homosexual humans can also impregnate a woman and have a baby.

Read the quote until you understand what I specifically wrote. Also fix your grammar.

 

[Deleted member 219079]

Homosexuality is considered to be human sexuality.

So this is the point where special marriage defenders just throw in whatever they come up with.

I've heard this argument: Animals are known to have special individuals too.

So it kind backfires, is it a general behavior or only human behavior? If I were to back up gays I'd say it's human behavior, as human have imagination (make your own conclusions on how that's better, not gonna make argument against myself).

So which one? General or human behavior? Funny, gays can't accept they're special, then they run into dead end, they change direction, then repeat.

Just like Heterosexuality it has the same capabilities for procreation, meaning that homosexual humans can also impregnate a woman and have a baby.

Read my quote in my prev. post.

Homosexuality - Same-Gender Attraction and feeling of true love.
Heterosexuality - Opposite-Gender Attraction and feeling of true love.
Bisexuality - Both-Gender Attraction and feeling of true love.

Feeling

Yay! Feelings :D <333 love! Emotions!! Omg!!! Don't mock gays, you homophobes, we just wanna make love, not hate, m'kay?? Thanksssss!! <333

Marriage is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or considered to be compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural universal.

Alrighty...?

Marriage is not limited to gender.

Uhh... aallrighty. So this is the feelings-argument I've already answered. Don't goddamn recycle >.<

If we just called it special marriage, I wouldn't be offended if that marriage could be allowed. But saying homosexuality, as an actual thing, bugs me. It should be special sexuality. So I'll be against it until it'll called special (forever that is, as gays don't want to be called special (few does))

 

[DD Mikasa]

Well.I am not against it,but i don't agree whith them getting publicity.Yes it is you're decision what you do whith you're private life but keep it private no need to make a fuss about it.

About them adopting childrens thast a big No!No! for me.

 

[A Void]

So this is the point where special marriage defenders just throw in whatever they come up with.

I've heard this argument: Animals are known to have special individuals too.

So it kind backfires, is it a general behavior or only human behavior? If I were to back up gays I'd say it's human behavior, as human have imagination (make your own conclusions on how that's better, not gonna make argument against myself).

So which one? General or human behavior? Funny, gays can't accept they're special, then they run into dead end, they change direction, then repeat.

Uhh... aallrighty. So this is the feelings-argument I've already answered. Don't goddamn recycle >.<

If we just called it special marriage, I wouldn't be offended if that marriage could be allowed. But saying homosexuality, as an actual thing, bugs me. It should be special sexuality. So I'll be against it until it'll called special (forever that is, as gays don't want to be called special (few does))

Yep, you just proved my point that you will find unlimited arguments in close-mind and ignorance of yours.

I repeat myself, It is a human(not animal) sexuality. We are talking about known and scientifically established human sexuality from the very birth. If it was not from birth it would be called a mental disorder(it was called that, until more research was established 1970-1973).

Homosexuality just like Heterosexuality is sexual orientation of Humans.

There is nothing special to homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality. It is your opinion that it is special and your wishful thinking.

 

[DD Mikasa]

Yep, you just proved my point that you will find unlimited arguments in close-mind and ignorance of yours.

I repeat myself, It is a human(not animal) sexuality. We are talking about known and scientifically established human sexuality from the very birth. If it was not from birth it would be called a mental disorder(it was called that, until more research was established 1970-1973).

Homosexuality just like Heterosexuality is sexual orientation of Humans.

There is nothing special to homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality. It is your opinion that it is special and your wishful thinking.

Human( i am not saying humans are smart animals) same as animals apply to law's of natyre.One of them is to leave offsprings so their race continues the existence.So homosexual marriage both gay/lesbian are going agains the law's of natyre.We know who gose agains the law's get's busted.So imo it is wrong.But it is their decision and I respect it.I just don't agree whith them getting all this publicity for something that it isen't even normal.

 

[A Void]

Human( i am not saying humans are smart animals) same as animals apply to law's of natyre.One of them is to leave offsprings so their race continues the existence.So homosexual marriage both gay/lesbian are going agains the law's of natyre.We know who gose agains the law's get's busted.So imo it is wrong.But it is their decision and I respect it.I just don't agree whith them getting all this publicity for something that it isen't even normal.

Oh noe! Looks like I have to repeat myself:

Just like Heterosexuality it has the same capabilities for procreation, meaning that homosexual humans can also impregnate a woman and have a baby. It is just that they will feel nothing attractive nor appealing when having sex with the opposite-gender. The difference between these sexuality's is that they all have different attractions and "feeling of true love".

 

[DD Mikasa]

Oh noe! Looks like I have to repeat myself:

Just like Heterosexuality it has the same capabilities for procreation, meaning that homosexual humans can also impregnate a woman and have a baby. It is just that they will feel nothing attractive nor appealing when having sex with the opposite-gender. The difference between these sexuality's is that they all have different attractions and "feeling of true love".

Where on earth did i said they aren't capable of inpregnanteing a woman???????I just sugested they should keep their business to themselfs sinc it isen't normal.

Also they are attracted by the same gender,in this type of "love" they can't have offsprings.
Whitch gose against the natyre laws.Simple as that.

 

[A Void]

Where on earth did i said they aren't capable of inpregnanteing a woman???????I just sugested they should keep their business to themselfs sinc it isen't normal.

Also they are attracted by the same gender,in this type of "love" they can't have offsprings.
Whitch gose against the natyre laws.Simple as that.

Who decided that it isn't normal? Are you God? Do you have any scientific evidence? Any proof? How do you know nature laws? Did mother nature dictate you the laws? Who says they can't have offspring?

Please answer these questions.

 

[DD Mikasa]

Who decided that it isn't normal? Are you God? Do you have any scientific evidence? Any proof? How do you know nature laws? Did mother nature dictate you the laws? Who says they can't have offspring?

Please answer these questions.

It is really easy.

Anal sex is the highest-risk sexual behavior. Receptive anal sex (“bottoming”) is riskier than insertive anal sex (“topping”).So gay couples are more likely to be touched from a STD like HIV sinc this is the only way they can preforme the sexual act whith both partner gaining pleasure.You call an activity that destroys you're life normal?

Am I a god ? NO,nor i am claiming to be.


If an homosexual couple can have offsprings why are they trying to adopt children,when they can have their own???Cuz they can't.Unless one of the partners have an offspring from a previus heterosexual mariage.I dident claim they can't inpregnant a woman.

 

[Deleted member 219079]

Yep, you just proved my point that you will find unlimited arguments in close-mind and ignorance of yours.

I repeat myself, It is a human(not animal) sexuality. We are talking about known and scientifically established human sexuality from the very birth. If it was not from birth it would be called a mental disorder(it was called that, until more research was established 1970-1973).

Homosexuality just like Heterosexuality is sexual orientation of Humans.

There is nothing special to homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality. It is your opinion that it is special and your wishful thinking.

Alrighty, answer my posts here and http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/off-topic-478/gay-marriage-debate-thread-253262/index10.html#post2637488.

So you chose humans? Okay that's a good decision. After all, humans have imagination, which leads to varying choices of lifestyle, also great inventions like compass or clock or cultivation. So, why couldn't gayness be a great invention too? What if some individuals just seem to like same sex more, why to cover it?

Nope, my first linked post denies it.

 

[Nuclear]

@DD Mikasa

Antibiotics go against the nature too, better ban them.

Though the mindset is understandable, I used to think that homosexuality was icky too... and then I grew up.

 

[A Void]

@DD Mikasa

Antibiotics go against the nature too, better ban them.

Though the mindset is understandable, I used to think that homosexuality was icky too... and then I grew up.

computer also are man-made they are not natural. Should we deny everything that is against nature?

 

[DD Mikasa]

@DD Mikasa

Antibiotics go against the nature too, better ban them.

Though the mindset is understandable, I used to think that homosexuality was icky too... and then I grew up.

I never said was icky or smth.I respect their decision but I myself dont find that normal.That is my opinion.

 

[Gismo359]

@A Void
Jesus, how can homosexuals procreate? True, a male homosexual can impregnate a woman but the child will be in no way shape or form related to said male's homosexual partner, thus they do not procreate. Just because they happen to have an equal amount of arms, legs, eyes and etc. and that he is the biological father's husband doesnt make them genetically related. True, some species do only have one gender but that doesn't apply for humans.

Also, don't accuse people of bad grammar just because of a few mistakes. That shows how civilized you are. But since you started it - fix your grammar.

 

[A Void]

@A Void
Jesus, how can homosexuals procreate? True, a male homosexual can impregnate a woman but the child will be in no way shape or form related to said male's homosexual partner, thus they do not procreate. Just because they happen to have an equal amount of arms, legs, eyes and etc. and that he is the biological father's husband doesnt make them genetically related. True, some species do only have one gender but that doesn't apply for humans.

Also, don't accuse people of bad grammar just because of a few mistakes. That shows how civilized you are. But since you started it - fix your grammar.

Ok sorry I had to be polite. Please fix your grammar. I got carried away from all this trouble-some arguments.

 

[DD Mikasa]

computer also are man-made they are not natural. Should we deny everything that is against nature?

Antibiotics were made to help humanity to deal whith their disease who take lifes.Computer original purpose was to help humans to calculate different things so they could minimize the mistakes made by humans who could take other human lifes.

Homosexual mariage (gay mostly) spreads disease,deadly disease...
Don't play stupid and start pretending they should be treated the same cuz they are not to be treated the same way.

 

[chobibo]

Homosexual mariage (gay mostly) spreads disease,deadly disease...

What deadly disease is that? Is that exclusive to homosexuals?

 

[DD Mikasa]

What deadly disease is that? Is that exclusive to homosexuals?

I explained on the previous posts.

 

[A Void]

That's why condoms were invented.

 

[chobibo]

Both men and women can spread that stuff, they aren't homosexual exclusive.

 

[DD Mikasa]

That's why condoms were invented.

To bad condoms aren't immunte from being broken .And not all people can actually notice that before is to late...

 

[Dr Super Good]

DD Mikasa, you are aware that many straight people do that as well right? Most homosexuals do not do it (eg Stephen Fry who stated his views on "anal sex" in a program addressing the misinformed public) and I have no idea what on earth makes you think that they do. As such your argument about diseases is total... shit... quite literally.

 

[Nuclear]

Not allowing gay marriage will surely stop all anal sex and make gays straight. Because fuck logic.

 

[chr2]

The argument that gay marriage shouldn't be legalized because homosexuals can't procreate is utter bull. All of mankind will not become gay just because same-sex marriage is allowed. Mankind won't just suddenly cease to exist. Not to mention the fact that homosexuals will still be homosexual, whether they can marry or not. In other words, the legalization of gay marriage should in no way influence the current birth rate...

 

[Gismo359]

I never said gay marriage is bad, just the argument.