The gay marriage debate thread

[chr2]

I think we can all agree that fags are a problem. Lung cancer is not to be taken lightly.

All joking aside, homosexuality is ancient - much older than Christianity - and has generally been accepted in certain ancient cultures (Greek and Roman i.e.). Ever read the Iliad (which, by the way, predates the bible)? Even Achilles, the manliest man of them all, had a male lover.
Saying that homosexual marriage is wrong based on what a book is saying about it, is just ridiculous. A book, which, I might add, was meant to reflect the society of the time in which it was written.

The only counter argument that could truly be made against homosexual marriage, is the one of reproduction. Some might say that the purpose of life is to reproduce and ensure that your genetics live on. This is general for all animals, and is based on the roots of our instincts. This is, I guess, and interpretation of the concept of survival, but over the course of countless generations instead of a single lifespan.
HOWEVER! I would hardly say any of this applies to modern society. Thanks to technology, we live in a world where reproduction is possible without the need of sexual interaction between a man and a woman, and at some point in the future, there won't even be a need for both parties for the reproduction to take place (cloning etc). Not to mention that we live in an already over-populated world.

Finally, I think someone said his problem with gay marriage was the fact that laws would have to be changed. Laws change all the gosh dang time. At some point most of them become irrelevant. Could you imagine if laws never changed? Some laws just belong to the past. Forbidding homosexual marriage is amongst those.

 

[Death Adder]

I think we can all agree that fags are a problem. Lung cancer is not to be taken lightly.

All joking aside, homosexuality is ancient - much older than Christianity - and has generally been accepted in certain ancient cultures (Greek and Roman i.e.). Ever read the Iliad (which, by the way, predates the bible)? Even Achilles, the manliest man of them all, had a male lover.
Saying that homosexual marriage is wrong based on what a book is saying about it, is just ridiculous. A book, which, I might add, was meant to reflect the society of the time in which it was written.

The only counter argument that could truly be made against homosexual marriage, is the one of reproduction. Some might say that the purpose of life is to reproduce and ensure that your genetics live on. This is general for all animals, and is based on the roots of our instincts. This is, I guess, and interpretation of the concept of survival, but over the course of countless generations instead of a single lifespan.
HOWEVER! I would hardly say any of this applies to modern society. Thanks to technology, we live in a world where reproduction is possible without the need of sexual interaction between a man and a woman, and at some point in the future there won't even be a need for both parties for the reproduction to take place (cloning etc). Not to mention that we live in an already over-populated world.

Finally, I think someone said his problem with gay marriage was the fact that laws needed to be changed. Laws change all the gosh dang time. At some point most of them become irrelevant. Could you imagine if laws never changed? Some laws just belong to the past. Forbidding homosexual marriage is amongst those.

Oh I must have missed this reproduction part you mentioned, great addition to the thread! ^-^

Homophobia isn't something new? mind blown, I wonder why it didn't carry on though. Reproduction you said? Oh wait I think it's coming together...

...could it be that it didn't last because the only way to get offspring is through hetro sex?

I'm guessing you didn't read through the walls of text, still nice of you to have added another one though.

 

[Deleted member 219079]

First, man invented a*al sex, then he felt the joy of success.

Then he found out he doesn't need opposite gender for it, and the first gay was born!

Now, we lock this thread for good!

 

[chr2]

Oh I must have missed this reproduction part you mentioned, great addition to the thread! ^-^

Homophobia isn't something new? mind blown, I wonder why it didn't carry on though. Reproduction you said? Oh wait I think it's coming together...

...could it be that it didn't last because the only way to get offspring is through hetro sex?

I'm guessing you didn't read through the walls of text, still nice of you to have added another one though.

I'm amused by the fact that you claim I haven't read the previous comments, yet obviously didn't read any of what I said. That, or you failed to grasp the concept of it.
I'm saying that hetero sex ISN'T the only way to reproduce. Not anymore, anyway, which is why that argument has no relevance in today's society.
Oh, and you seem to have the terms 'homophobia' and 'homosexuality' mixed up. Something you were corrected on earlier as well (speaking of not reading comments, amirite?).

 

[Death Adder]

a method for reproduction that doesn't include at least one male and one woman in any way?

Please do tell me.

 

[Callahan]

Homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality or asexuality or any other sexual orientation.

I guess this guy support pedos, necros, and zoos.
That's why gay should be kept in control.It's a can of worm that lead to all sort of perverted behavior.

 

[Pharaoh_]

Please do tell me.

I'm sorry to say, but this is ignorance, if you think that sex requires a woman to physically have sex in order to be impregnated.

@jondrean, if you are not interested in the discussion, I don't see why you keep posting.

@Callahan, grow up.

 

[chr2]

Please do tell me.

I don't see where you are going with this. At this point in time, both genders are necessary for reproduction to take place, yes, but sex isn't. There is this thing called sperm donors (which you seem to be aware of, based on that vague statement of yours). I'm sorry, do you think that somehow one gender is going to die out through this method or? I don't see how this isn't a viable method, as it has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
Also, we're able to create bodyparts from practically nothing. Gene-manipulation, bio-engineering; our knowledge of science is endlessly expanding. Again, both genders may be required in the reproduction process now, but they won't always be.

 

[Death Adder]

I'm sorry to say, but this is ignorance, if you think that sex requires a woman to physically have sex in order to be impregnated.

@Callahan, grow up.

"to physically have sex" does not translate into "in any way" in my book, e.g. sperm taken from a man, a surrogate mother etc...

So it's not ok for Callahan to use obvious mistakes but chr2 can just rule out what I've said because of mine.

I don't see where you are going with this. At this point in time, both genders are necessary for reproduction to take place, yes, but sex isn't. There is this thing called sperm donors (which you seem to be aware of, based on that vague statement of yours). I'm sorry, do you think that somehow one gender is going to die out through this method or? I don't see how this isn't a viable method, as it has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
Also, we're able to create bodyparts from practically nothing. Gene-manipulation, bio-engineering; our knowledge of science is endlessly expanding. Again, both genders may be required in the reproduction process now, but they won't always be.

It's a viable method, it does not make it natural though which is one of the main reasons as to why homosexuality is being shunned.

But when you start talking about what's natural and what's not, especially when you start telling me that being gay isn't natural, that's offensive.

Until men can give birth and breastfeed while women can impregnate you can't consider it natural or normal

Nobody will consider it weird or strange that a man and a woman partake in the act since that's how humans (edit: naturally) reproduce.

I've already stated that I think it will be accepted in the future when it will be considered natural.

 

[chr2]

What the fudge does "natural" have to with anything? Is it "natural" to build enormous concrete buildings and roads? To create machines that we depend on on a daily basis? To enslave countless animals to do out bidding? You can't just fling out words and hope they mean something. Nothing is "natural" in modern society.

 

[Pharaoh_]

I've already stated that I think it will be accepted in the future when it will be considered natural.

So you're actually admitting that it will be considered natural in the future (oh no wait, you think it will be). It's funny how fragile your opinion is, considering that this can be anytime in the future - yet you still insist it is unnatural. Tell me the qualitative difference of that time and the current (as in, given that you foresee the change of thinking, what still stops you from accepting it).

 

[Callahan]

I don't see where you are going with this. At this point in time, both genders are necessary for reproduction to take place, yes, but sex isn't. There is this thing called sperm donors (which you seem to be aware of, based on that vague statement of yours). I'm sorry, do you think that somehow one gender is going to die out through this method or? I don't see how this isn't a viable method, as it has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
Also, we're able to create bodyparts from practically nothing. Gene-manipulation, bio-engineering; our knowledge of science is endlessly expanding. Again, both genders may be required in the reproduction process now, but they won't always be.

Yeah why making baby for free by having sex with a woman when you can pay 10000$ to bio engineer babies in labs.
That's just phantasmagoric to think that "bio-engineered" reproduction will ever be a viable way of reproduction.That's just a privileged part of population who have access to this technology.
It shows how disconnected from reality gay community are.
Thinking that in future will become a sci-fi movie for everyone.

 

[Pharaoh_]

Yeah why making baby for free by having sex with a woman when you can pay 10000$ to bio engineer babies in labs.
That's just phantasmagoric to think that "bio-engineered" reproduction will ever be a viable way of reproduction.That's just a privileged part of population who have access to this technology.
It shows how disconnected from reality gay community are.
Thinking that in future will become a sci-fi movie for everyone.

Are you speaking of a world primarily comprised of gays? What makes you think that legalizing gay marriage will cause the rest of the males not to remain straight (and as such women to only seek alternative methods to give birth)?

 

[Adaethus]

I guess this guy support pedos, necros, and zoos.
That's why gay should be kept in control.It's a can of worm that lead to all sort of perverted behavior.

Since when were pedophilia, necrophilia and zoophilia sexual orientations?
How about you educate yourself a little before making yourself look ignorant? :l

 

[Pharaoh_]

Guys, don't be explicit with your offensive instincts. Tone it down. ;o
Doomlord, please remove the curse from your post.

 

[chr2]

Yeah why making baby for free by having sex with a woman when you can pay 10000$ to bio engineer babies in labs.
That's just phantasmagoric to think that "bio-engineered" reproduction will ever be a viable way of reproduction.That's just a privileged part of population who have access to this technology.
It shows how disconnected from reality gay community are.
Thinking that in future will become a sci-fi movie for everyone.

He asked for a solution, and I delivered. I never said this would be a viable method. Personally, I feel egg transplants make much more sense. Which I also stated. Which you seem to have ignored.

 

[Deleted member 219079]

@jondrean, if you are not interested in the discussion, I don't see why you keep posting.

Yeah you're right, I'm glad there's someone who takes the debate seriously.

 

[Callahan]

He asked for a solution, and I delivered. I never said this would be a viable method. Personally, I feel egg transplants make much more sense. Which I also stated. Which you seem to have ignored.

Except he asked a viable method not involving a man and woman in anyway.
You're the one ignoring.

 

[Callahan]

Since when were pedophilia, necrophilia and zoophilia sexual orientations?
How about you educate yourself a little before making yourself look ignorant? :l

Educated by Wikipedia lol.Also believing in Kinsey scale.How about I educate you : Your beloved guru Alfred Kinsey made sexual experiment on little children and described their crying ,screaming, and convulsing out of pain as infant "orgasm".Of course a guy like this will support homosexuality anything that can pervert traditional conception of sex is good to take.
Looks like you're the one worshiping pervertion out of ignorance.

 

[Death Adder]

So you're actually admitting that it will be considered natural in the future (oh no wait, you think it will be

What I have stated is that homosexuality will most likely not be considered natural or be socially accepted until men can be impregnated and breastfeed while women can impregnate. Which I've assumed will someday be possible, although there is no guarantee for this, it's most probable, as you know already.

what still stops you from accepting it.

Again I'm in favour of the homosexual increase which will hopefull reduce the birthrate, as I happen to dislike children among many things.
This isn't related to the subject as I've only got one voice out of the all the voices that says no to homosexuality in society which again means that personal standpoints are irrelevant.

 

[chr2]

Except he asked a viable method not involving a man and woman in anyway.
You're the one ignoring.

a method for reproduction that doesn't include at least one male and one woman in any way?

Where do you see anything about viabilty?
Also, this whole concept of "only one gender being involved in the process" shouldn't matter in this discussion. No hetero-sexual congress needs to take place in an egg transplant, which is what should matter.

 

[Death Adder]

Where do you see anything about viabilty?
Also, this whole concept of "only one gender being involved in the process" shouldn't matter in this discussion. No hetero-sexual congress needs to take place in an egg transplant, which is what should matter.

It's not about viability. It's about how it would give birth to enough people for raising a voice strong enough to make society acknowledge it.

What matter is that it's not considered natural because it can't be done through sex and thus there won't be as many people made through these means and then it won't be socially accepted.

If suddenly 20% of all childbirth were through DNA engineering inside labs then it would probably become socially accepted because there would be enough people that consider it normal.

 

[Adaethus]

Educated by Wikipedia lol.

Pedophilia, necrophilia and zoophilia are not sexual orientations, whether you wish it or not.

Also believing in Kinsey scale.

When did I mention I believed in the Kinsey scale?

How about I educate you : Your beloved guru Alfred Kinsey made sexual experiment on little children and described their crying ,screaming, and convulsing out of pain as infant "orgasm".

He's not my guru.

Of course a guy like this will support homosexuality anything that can pervert traditional conception of sex is good to take.
Looks like you're the one worshiping pervertion out of ignorance.

The conclusions you leap to here are outstanding.
I'm not a worshipper of anything.

This thread is about gay marriage and should remain so, not about "homosexuality perverting the traditional conception of sex" or something along those lines so I suggest we stay on topic.

 

[Death Adder]

This thread is about gay marriage and should remain so, not about "homosexuality perverting the traditional conception of sex" or something along those lines so I suggest we stay on topic.

AFAIK the (actual) subject is how to get society to accept homosexuality and treating families with same gender parents equally to the one man and wife norm.

It's the reason to why gay marriage isn't accepted to begin with after all, besides that it also breaks the supposed christian belief.

 

[chr2]

What matter is that it's not considered natural because it can't be done through sex and thus there won't be as many people made through these means and then it won't be socially accepted.

If suddenly 20% of all childbirth were through DNA engineering inside labs then it would be socially accepted because there would be enough people that consider it normal.

Aight, I wanna point to what I said about "natural" earlier. It doesn't hold a particular high role in the modern world.

Secondly, children are born through egg transplants all the time. Not just for homosexual couples, but couples struggling with infertility as well. It's generally socially accepted today, and I'd bet that some of your acquaintances were born through this method (this might vary depending on where you live, of course).

20%? That's a very specific number. I can guarantee you that some things done by much smaller fractions of the world's population are socially accepted.

 

[Callahan]

Pedophilia, necrophilia and zoophilia are not sexual orientations, whether you wish it or not.

It's not because they are not mentioned in Kinsey scale that it's not.
After all he's one of them.And yes they are sexual orientation as perveted as they are.
You know?it involve sex and is oriented toward specific object of desire.

When did I mention I believed in the Kinsey scale?

Your wikipedia link redirect to the Kinsey scale article.But you propably didn't read it yourself.Also your definition of sexual orientation is pretty much the Kinsey scale.

He's not my guru.

Then don't link to wikipedia Kinsey scale article and call it "education".And if you're not worshipping him you should.He's the one who contributed to democratize homosexuality before it was considered a deranged marginal behavior and he made it what it is today.Without him you would probably be interned in a sanitarium right now.Yep you owe everthing to a mentaly disturbed pervert.

The conclusions you leap to here are outstanding.
I'm not a worshipper of anything.

This thread is about gay marriage and should remain so, not about "homosexuality perverting the traditional conception of sex" or something along those lines so I suggest we stay on topic.

Yeah truth hurts too hard and can't be argued with.Let's call everything that you can't argue with off-topic, immature and ignorant.

 

[Death Adder]

20%? That's a very specific number. I can guarantee you that some things done by much smaller fractions of the world's population are socially accepted.

I thought it was pretty obvious I just took a number to get the point across.

Aight, I wanna point to what I said about "natural" earlier. It doesn't hold a particular high role in the modern world.

It doesn't?

Secondly, children are born through egg transplants all the time. Not just for homosexual couples, but couples struggling with infertility as well.

What I think is the main reason to why homosexuality isn't socially accepted is that currently a same sex couple can't have children on their own without other factors, like a natural/normal/most common/general/ w/e couple can.

It doesn't mean it's not viable, it just means it's not equal. A same sex couple can't do what the standard couple can and right of the bat there's a diversion. I think there simply the foundation for homosexuality is't enough to be socially accepted.

 

[Nuclear]

Nice. Didn't expect this many replies. I'm going to reply to some of your posts that caught my eye.

What I think is the main reason to why homosexuality isn't socially accepted is that currently a same sex couple can't have children on their own without other factors, like a natural/normal/most common/general/ w/e couple can.

It doesn't mean it's not viable, it just means it's not equal. A same sex couple can't do what the standard couple can and right of the bat there's a diversion. I think there simply the foundation for homosexuality is't enough to be socially accepted.

Disagree. It's because it's a new thing for many and people are confused about it. Usually people who are "disgusted" by gays change their mind quickly if they find out that one of their loved ones is gay. Suddenly it turns out that they are people like everyone else.

Hey guys may ask.. will there be disease created from male and male sex?..

Well we can't really prevent someone if he is inlove with a male..

No, there won't be "diseases created". Though HIV is transmitted more easily through anal sex.

But what if THE BOY married a GAY just because of money?.. cause if THE BOY is looking for sex he will choose a girl.. actually this case always happen in our place.. THE BOY is only inlove with a GAY if the GAY can support the BOY financially... (this statement is not mean to offend someones idea)

What the hell does this have to do with anything?

Side note: homosexuality is natural (as if that means anything), animals do it all the time.

I guess this guy support pedos, necros, and zoos.
That's why gay should be kept in control.It's a can of worm that lead to all sort of perverted behavior.

Slippery slope fallacy.


I haven't seen any compelling arguments against gay marriage yet. If you have one, feel free to post it.

There was also some talk of reproduction, so I'm going to ask:
a) Why do you care if someone else reproduces or not?
b) Does it look like humans are going extinct?

 

[Adaethus]

It's not because they are not mentioned in Kinsey scale that it's not.
After all he's one of them.And yes they are sexual orientation as perveted as they are.
You know?it involve sex and is oriented toward specific object of desire.

Sexual orientation is a lasting romantic and/or sexual interest toward members of the opposite, same or both sexes.
Pedo/necro/zoophilia are all psychiatric disorders - pedophilia for example is a sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

There's a difference between love between two people, rather than a one sided sexual urge to atypical objects/individuals.

Your wikipedia link redirect to the Kinsey scale article.But you propably didn't read it yourself.

Yes, it does - and yes I did. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here with your assumptions.

Also your definition of sexual orientation is pretty much the Kinsey scale.

What are you even saying?

Then don't link to wikipedia Kinsey scale article and call it "education".And if you're not worshipping him you should.He's the one who contributed to democratize homosexuality before it was considered a deranged marginal behavior and he made it what it is today.Without him you would probably be interned in a sanitarium right now.Yep you owe everthing to a mentaly disturbed pervert.

His research was controversial, and his methods were at times quite disturbing, yes, but his work was very valuable when it comes to understanding sexual orientation.

Yeah truth hurts too hard and can't be argued with.Let's call everything that you can't argue with off-topic, immature and ignorant.

That's not what I was saying.

-----

I think it's sad to think that murderers and rapists can get married as they please but in most places same sex couples can't.

 

[Gilles]

1. Comparing us to animals in order to figure out what is natural doesn't seem like a good idea. Sure there are homosexual tendencies in the animal kingdom. There is also incest, rape, murder, and cannibalism (including eating your own young).

I would argue that what is natural for a human is not the same as an animal. But that is a topic for another time.

2. While Callahan's post might look like a slippery slope fallacy, I would ask you first to explain why those acts are wrong. If they aren't wrong, then his point is valid.

Side rant:

Not to mention that we live in an already over-populated world.

This is a personal pet peeve. The world isn't anywhere near overpopulated.

 

[fladdermasken]

@ the (un)natural debate : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

2. While Callahan's post might look like a slippery slope fallacy, I would ask you first to explain why those acts are wrong. If they aren't wrong, then his point is valid.

I remember there was a loooong zoophilia thread back in 2012. Memories.

Side rant:

This is a personal pet peeve. The world isn't anywhere near overpopulated.

I think most of the time when people talk overpopulation they are confusing the earth's carrying capacity with too much people hogging all the good seats on the bus.

 

[Gilles]

While it (wiki link) does link to Natural Law, it didn't even mention Aquinas, which is disappointing. I'm biased though.

Yeah, here's hoping we didn't just start a zoophilia thread.

 

[BLazeKraze]

@Keiji, Yes, I already know that, that some animals have a homosexual behavior , ...
But I read some articles here on net and some books , Some psychologist said that this is normal but some psychologist said "not" ...
Well, In my opinion, I don't agree with same sex marriage , and that's all ,.
We have our own perception , thoughts etc. We cannot please people to agree with you ...
But I hope that someone will prove that this behavior is a "disorder" ...

 

[Callahan]

Yes, it does - and yes I did. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here with your assumptions.

Then why linking to a Kinsey scale article saying it's educative then saying you don't believe in Kinsey scale and now play it as if you believed it from the begining.

What are you even saying?

I'm saying your definition of sexual orientation is the definition of Kinsey scale.English do you comprehend it?

His research was controversial, and his methods were at times quite disturbing, yes, but his work was very valuable when it comes to understanding sexual orientation.

Quoting Wikipedia article again to sound smart.I bet you didn't knew he existed before I taught you.And no his work was not very valuable since the statistic were tampered.He basically took the average gay of carceral population and made it the average population.20% of gay in a world without woman.He also classified any man who ever had an homosexual experience once as homosexual even if they were heterosexual rest of their lives.
Aslo calling infant torture "controversial research quiet disturbing at time". < degeneracy much?It's plain cruel and inhumane.
But hey you want to be gay because some animals do it.Can't blame you for not wanting to be a man.

Anyway I don't care now I provided enought information to convince any reasonable intelligent person to not get fucked in the ass litteraly and metaphoricaly.I don't try to convince the gullible and Kinsey fanatics.They can rot in their own degeneracy.They are not valuable element in a society.

Slippery slope fallacy.

Oh the fallacy smartass.

Any other sexual orientation

Still pretty relevant to me.

 

[GhostThruster]

-snip-

but again, my whole point is that we're not fighting the wrong fight (and that ur condescension stems not from intolerance but rather from missing the point). ignoring the fact that it isn't even exclusive to a single religion, marriage has clearly transformed from being a purely religious ceremony to a widespread social norm (at least in most western nations). the fact that it's been incorporated into and regulated by national law exemplifies this. you yourself admit that (in norway at least) marriage has already been separated from belief.

how my analogy is relevant; your last sentence particularly bugged me. so let me repeat what i said: without the legalisation of gay marriage, it's like society is saying "i guess we'll stop bullying now, but we won't recognise our problematic intolerance lulz. also ur still different btw remember that". and you condone this because gay people "don't need a bunch of Christians to accept you for being better than them"? i would like you to visit australia and tell an aborigine "fuck the apology, fuck anti-discrimination laws. you don't need a bunch of white people to accept you for being better than them".

@strikest, it's not conforming because they're not forced to get married. rather, they're getting the choice to marry one another. that's not conformity, that's equality

-snip-

in response to ur response to pharaoh: if i am to be overtly literal like yourself than everything influences everything. but lets be pragmatic and lets keep pharaoh's quote in context. legalising gay marriage doesn't affect you realistically or directly. you will not suffer from this, nor will anyone else.

in response to ur response to me:
a) no it hasn't. "they aren't only asking for acceptance, they are asking for laws to change" this is purely rhetorical. it's pretty obvious that they want (ask implies that they're begging for a privilege, which isn't true. marriage shouldn't be a privilege.) laws to change as a means of gaining acceptance, and there's nothing fucking wrong with that.

b) again, no there isn't. what you said is purely rhetorical. you want to accept someone? you make them feel equal, or even better, you ACTUALLY MAKE THEM EQUAL.

c) it works completely. i wasn't talking about outlawing racism/discrimination, which has been criminalised for a while (in australia at least). rather, i wish to point out the similarities between the apology to the stolen generations and the legalisation of gay marriage.

@important note: everyone that isn't a psycopath has morals. nihilists can easily distinguish right from wrong, but rather argue that morality is artificial and subjective (which is kind of 'nuh-duh' unless you are blinded by super-fundamentalism). nihilism moreso questions existence on a larger scale rather than purely our insignficant morals.

@tl;dr: there is indeed a difference. but acceptance doesn't simply mean "i don't hate them thus i accept them". acceptance is a recognition of equality, or more generally, of truths. truth is gays aren't monsters, and allowing them to marry one another does not result in anyone's suffering.

-snip-

'natural' already has a definition, i'd suggest you (and death adder) use the word 'normal' instead. normal is a subjective term, natural isn't unless you want to get super philosophical. without delving into the philosophy of what determines if something is artificial/man-made, homosexuality is by definition natural.

One more gay person means one less straight. Not contagious? You don't think that a gay parent would encourage it's kid to be gay (intentionally or not) just like how a straight one would encourage theirs.

If a child live together with two mothers representing it's parents it would think that is normal, because it is to them, just like how a child with straight parents would assume it's friends in the playground also have a dad and a mother, unless shown otherwise.

so according to you the sexuality of your parents determines your sexuality. in other words, if your parents are straight then you will turn out straight. then riddle me this.... how the fuck did gay people turn up? out from holes in the ground?

but for argument's sake lets take this absurdity you believe as a biological 'fact' into consideration. gay couples would have to adopt a lot of children (or opt for surrogacy) and successfully 'convert' them with their black magic rituals in order to outnumber heterosexuals. there aren't enough orphans or sacrificial goats for that.

Unless you have the numbers to support you, you're wrong, because it's what the majority decides is right that is going to be right.

i'm not even going to bother disputing the sheer stupidity of this statement.

I guess this guy support pedos, necros, and zoos.
That's why gay should be kept in control.It's a can of worm that lead to all sort of perverted behavior.

i'm going to ignore the obvious fact that all those involve exploitation of the vulnerable (or dead), unlike homosexuality (doomlord put this more elegantly).
in most developed countries, gays are already generally tolerated. do you see the streets raining down with fucking pedophiles?

i'm so close to just flaming the fuck out of callahan, especially considering he's blatantly getting away with breaking site rules (and no, i'm not talking about double posting).

 

[Pharaoh_]

i'm so close to just flaming the fuck out of callahan, especially considering he's blatantly getting away with breaking site rules (and no, i'm not talking about double posting).

Please, don't. Sure, he is provocative, thinking that people disagreeing with him are either playing it smarter than they already are (how's that possible, dunno) or that gay people are no men (since we all know how homosexuality deforms one's genital area), but that's his point of view, no matter how harsh it may sound.

By the way, guys, there are also bisexuals and lesbians, don't focus so much on gay males, just because you feel that gays violate manhood. This only shows how partially you have structured your opinion and how personally you take this.

 

[Nuclear]

Oh the fallacy smartass.

Nice counter argument.

Well, In my opinion, I don't agree with same sex marriage , and that's all ,.
We have our own perception , thoughts etc. We cannot please people to agree with you ...

The good ol' "my beliefs are too fragile to be questioned, please don't try to change my mind or I might see that I'm wrong".

But I hope that someone will prove that this behavior is a "disorder" ...

Why? I don't understand why some people have such a hard on for hating other people. I mean for god's sake, they (people of different sexual orientations) are people just like you, they haven't done a single thing to you, why do you hate them?

 

[Deleted member 219079]

Last edited by Pharaoh_; Today at 03:07 PM. Reason: Made it more civilized.

Didn't know you had mod powers

Edit:

By the way, guys, there are also bisexuals and lesbians, don't focus so much on gay males, just because you feel that gays violate manhood. This only shows how partially you have structured your opinion and how personally you take this.

I think we cover lesbians when we talk about gays (if we have no other gender referrals) But you're right about bis. I bet bis just wanna have fuuun!

 

[Gilles]

By the way, guys, there are also bisexuals and lesbians, don't focus so much on gay males, just because you feel that gays violate manhood. This only shows how partially you have structured your opinion and how personally you take this.

I doubt anyone is intentionally focusing on them. I use the word gay to refer to all of the above.

 

[Gilles]

legalising gay marriage doesn't affect you realistically or directly. you will not suffer from this, nor will anyone else.

Realistically it does. Directly, no. Neither does a cult that sacrifices themselves. Or people doing meth. Or people marrying animals. The argument from "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else" is a scary concept, and realistically it's an excuse to do what you want and pretend that there aren't consequences to your actions. For you and others.

acceptance doesn't simply mean "i don't hate them thus i accept them".

That's a bit of a star man argument. I would do a lot further than "I don't hate", and say I love gay people as much as I love anyone else. "I love them, therefore I accept them.

unless you want to get super philosophical.

You do realize everything we are talking about is philosophical, right?

 

[Nuclear]

So how does it affect you? People doing meth affects you indirectly because it has an effect on society's well being (crime, poverty, etc.). But gay marriage? Well, I guess it does affect you by making society more equal and making some people happier.

 

[Deleted member 219079]

I haven't done a serious comment yet (don't like debating, why can't this be discussion) so:

Isn't it up to a priest whether (s)he performs the marriage ceremony?

 

[neo_sluf]

This is my opinion please don't be angry with me..

Being feminish is just ok.. if your really are since birth.. being gay is ok but kissing a men is bad nor wearing shorts and dressing up a girl.. there are decent gays out there that are decent and not doing immoral such as sex without marriage..


Marriage is intended for a man and a woman who loves each other. The Marriage is a gift from God.

So if TWO MEN married is useless since God will never approve the relationship because they are disrespecting the gift of God for a man and a woman.

So if you the two men want to married because just on LEGALIZATION and let say for the FINANCIAL BENEFITS for them they will do their wedding not in the church and not using the Bible..

Even though priest approve the marriage remember that TWO MEN MARRIADE EACH OTHER MARRIED ONLY ON PAPER BUT NOT WITH BLESSING OF GOD..

So in conclusion..IF TWO MEN LOVE EACH OTHER LET THEM.. BUT THEY WILL NOT MARRY..

I think there must be other legal ways of approving the relationship for gay but not the marriage because they are not for them.

 

[Deleted member 219079]

You mean it's religionally impossible but legally possible? That makes sense.

 

[neo_sluf]

You mean it's religionally impossible but legally possible? That makes sense.

100% RIGHT! Man you summarize my idea into 1 sentence.. nice..

 

[Pharaoh_]

This is my opinion please don't be angry with me..

Being feminish is just ok.. if your really are since birth.. being gay is ok but kissing a men is bad nor wearing shorts and dressing up a girl.. there are decent gays out there that are decent and not doing immoral such as sex without marriage..


Marriage is intended for a man and a woman who loves each other. The Marriage is a gift from God.

So if TWO MEN married is useless since God will never approve the relationship because they are disrespecting the gift of God for a man and a woman.

So if you the two men want to married because just on LEGALIZATION and let say for the FINANCIAL BENEFITS for them they will do their wedding not in the church and not using the Bible..

Even though priest approve the marriage remember that TWO MEN MARRIADE EACH OTHER MARRIED ONLY ON PAPER BUT NOT WITH BLESSING OF GOD..

So in conclusion..IF TWO MEN LOVE EACH OTHER LET THEM.. BUT THEY WILL NOT MARRY..

I think there must be other legal ways of approving the relationship for gay but not the marriage because they are not for them.

"God will never approve"; I am sorry, are you His mediator and you know that?

Marriage's sanctity has been ruined with divorce, when people decide to ignore the sacred vows, not by gay people getting married.

You're confusing homosexuals with transsexuals (or cross-dressers, your statements are quite vague to use the correct label).

Speaking of love when your post is disguised hatred against homosexuals and their lifestyle is not making your points any valid. If people are in love, they are in love (obvious, plain and simple).

And I'm sorry to say, but marriage is no gift from god, it's a social and legalized convenience (also known as convention). We, humans, gave a name to it, calling it "marriage", the world wasn't born with it; just like the stereotype of pink being a feminine color. The world isn't defined per se, we are the ones to define it.

 

[Heinvers]

I think there must be other legal ways of approving the relationship for gay but not the marriage because they are not for them.

That sounds very homophobic to me.
Then what do you propose?

 

[neo_sluf]

For Pharaoh

I know God will not approve because the God says it in the Bible..

Marriage concept comes from the Bible.. who is the owner of the bible?.. God.. so I does not come from us.

Now tell me if Marriage is not a gift of God why do people Marry at the church and use the bible?..

Well actually there are two types of marriage..

Marriage for God's approval and blessing

Marriage for legalization and rights (means more on money thingy)

--------------------

I think a CONTRACT that both of them will sign

 

[Solu9]

For Pharaoh

I know God will not approve because the God says it in the Bible..

Marriage concept comes from the Bible.. who is the owner of the bible?.. God.. so I does not come from us.

Now tell me if Marriage is not a gift of God why do people Marry at the church and use the bible?..

Well actually there are two types of marriage..

Marriage for God's approval and blessing

Marriage for legalization and rights (means more on money thingy)

--------------------

I think a CONTRACT that both of them will sign

Who is this God you talk about? Have you met him, have anyone met him? Noooope. He is as fictional as Luke Skywalker.
God is described in some dusty tome as the creator of all things. But Harry Potter is also described as a powerful wizard.
No one has met Harry Potter and seen if he really can do all that magic jazz, and no one has met God and seen if he can create a human from clay.

As long as there are no proofs of God's existence, he is fictional, spurious, not real.

 

[Pharaoh_]

Who is this God you talk about? Have you met him, have anyone met him? Noooope. He is as fictional as Luke Skywalker.
God is described in some dusty tome as the creator of all things. But Harry Potter is also described as a powerful wizard.
No one has met Harry Potter and seen if he really can do all that magic jazz, and no one has met God and seen if he can create a human from clay.

As long as there are no proofs of God's existence, he is fictional, spurious, not real.

Actually, if there's no proof in favor of either, then both statements are equally true. Thus, you cannot as well prove that he is fictional.

But hey, this is no time to talk about his existence. I intentionally did not reply to neo_sluf, he is is clearly influenced by religion and I will respect that.