The gay marriage debate thread

[Nuclear]

Wow. Remember back when this thread was about sharing your story of kissing someone of your own sex? It actually wasn't too long ago. Please stick to that topic. If you have an idea for a better or more interesting one, then create a thread about that.

Discuss.

 

[takakenji]

its illegal in my country

 

[Pharaoh_]

I don't agree with it in all its entirety, not because I have no arguments against it, but because they should have the right to do what they want, when no one is influenced by that (I'm so gonna get quoted for this and before you do, think whether two men or two women get married will actually influence you in any way).

As for Gilles, who thought I didn't wanna talk about it, I said that would be my last post in that thread because it derailed. You learned what morale is after your 12-15 years of living and now you want to teach others what it is and what it is not? You're basically repeating the prejudices of your environment and this makes you what, more moral than the parties you've been judging?

 

[PROXY]

I'm totally agreeing with gay marriage.

People are often complaining about the children who will get bullied for having 2 dads. But hell, that's our fucked up's society's fault.

 

[Ezekiel12]

Yes. I also support orc human marriage.

 

[Zombie]

I'm against gay marriage.

Hello, thread.

 

[Ezekiel12]

I'm against gay marriage.

Hm, why?

 

[Celaquil]

I don't see how anyone that's not religious don't find this debate anything but funny.

I do, because I don't believe in any particular deity, but honestly. Why would anyone
want to find unity through a religion with a history of nothing but hate toward what
you are? I don't see why gay people want it, and I don't see why Christians would
want to set themselves in an even more foolish light by accepting something they've
been actively denying for so long all of a sudden, merely because it's more socially
accepted now than it was before.

My fault, if any, is that I don't see the correlation between accepting that you're gay,
which takes it's own sort of courage and intelligence, and simultaneously follow any sort
of organized religion at all.

Now, don't misinterpret my message here: I don't have anything against believing in a
deity, nor anything against being gay, nor anything against gay marriage. I simply find
the notion of trying to force a religious movement that's based on the belief that there
is a god that's all-mighty, which is good, and which actively as such lets innocent
children die by the hundreds to accept something they've been fighting against for years
kind of... Naive. Naive and stupid.

If you're gay and believe in god, good.
You don't need a bunch of Christians to accept you for being better than them.

 

[Rui]

People are often complaining about the children who will get bullied for having 2 dads. But hell, that's our fucked up's society's fault.

It's screwed up for having bullies or for having gay dads?

By the way, marriage wasn't really the topic at hand, more like homosexuality in general. If we turn this to a religious debate it sorta turns off-topic again.

 

[Celaquil]

By the way, marriage wasn't really the topic at hand, more like homosexuality in general.

What the debate in the other thread was is irrelevant to this thread, he wanted the topic
to be about gay marriage. Then as such it is about gay marriage.

If we turn this to a religious debate it sorta turns off-topic again.

No. You can't discuss gay marriage without taking a religious angling, it's like talking
about fish breeding without talking about water. Circumventing the discussion and
leaving out relevant parts.

 

[GhostThruster]

I don't see how anyone that's not religious don't find this debate anything but funny.

[...]

You don't need a bunch of Christians to accept you for being better than them.

do you know how patronising you sound?

let me share a tale. in australia, there was this massive historical event known as the 'stolen generations'. now as a european i don't expect you to be familiar with it, but i do believe you have at least a basic form of sympathy. so let me continue.

the stolen generations involved the abduction of thousands of indigenous children from their families under the pretense of 'protection'. this was the worst kind of social darwinism at play here. this shit went on for about 70 years or so, starting at roughly the beginning of the 20th century. the horrors that the stolen generations went through are indescribable; many contemporary historians label it as a systematic genocide.

only quite recently (around 1969-mid 70s) has the removal of aboriginal children from their families been stopped, but the damage is now irrepairable. gradually, aborigines won more and more rights over the decades and in this day and age i'm proud to say that racial discrimination and marginalisation of indigenous peoples is heavily frowned upon, and australia is very shameful of its history.

but it wasn't until 2007 that a formal apology by the australian government was issued. that's like 4 decades after the stolen generations ended. it was like the government was saying "i guess we'll stop bullying now, but we won't recognise the severity of our behaviour in any way, shape, or form lulz".


now you may be asking why the fuck am i lecturing you on australian history. here's why; it's a frickin' excellent analogy towards the situation with gay marriage. gays have historically been shunned, repressed, even killed because of their sexuality. they've suffered discrimination, dehumanisation, and marginalisation comparable to the plights of many other minority groups. as of recent, they've exponentially been gaining more and more equality and societal acceptance. but 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".

i don't see how people keep missing the fucking point of arguing for gay marriage. the legalisation of gay marriage, like the 2007 apology for the countless atrocities committed towards the stolen generations, is not a cry for christianity's attention (obviously, marriage has its roots in christianity but it's not some highly obscure ritual, it's a social convention that transcends its religious parameters). it is not an economic policy (for all you callahans out there). it has got nothing to do with 'gays getting what they want', it's got to do with society redeeming itself. it's a symbolic gesture of acceptance, a sign of saying 'we recognise that the shit we did and thought was wrong. have fun getting married now".

no doubt i'm going to get people asking why societal acceptance is so important. i assume it's pretty fucking obvious (for one, morality gives us a stable sense of identity), but i will respond to the inevitable inquirer at another time.

 

[PROXY]

It's screwed up for having bullies or for having gay dads?

By the way, marriage wasn't really the topic at hand, more like homosexuality in general. If we turn this to a religious debate it sorta turns off-topic again.

Of course for bulliyng these kids. I simply can't imagine how full of hatred you must be, to do such things. It simply won't fit into my mind.

 

[neo_sluf]

Every people has their own belief and ideas.

I disagree about the same sex marriage because of my religious belief, nothing more nothing less.

I don't want to explain why because RALLE WILL GIVE ME A NEGATIVE REP.. -_-

 

[Solu9]

Every people has their own belief and ideas.

I disagree about the same sex marriage because of my religious belief, nothing more nothing less.

I don't want to explain why because RALLE WILL GIVE ME A NEGATIVE REP.. -_-

Unless it's some extreme degrading reason I don't think you will receive negative reputation.
Also, you kinda already explained why you don't like same sex marriages. Religion.

 

[Chaosy]

lol, you want rep that much? It's not against the rules to have an opinion anyway.

The only good thing with gays is that they can't have kids, the world is over populated as it is. They can adobt an child, but that doesn't create new ones. Other than that, I find it disgusting.

 

[Nuclear]

Let's remove the religion out of the equation by reminding ourselves that married couples receive tax benefits & other shit in many countries, so it's a desirable thing for that reason too, in addition to it being a traditional declaration of love and partnership.


Also, studies have shown that LGBT parents are no worse than heterosexual parents. In addition to that, how the hell could you oppose children getting adopted? Any child is probably happier living with two men/women than without any parents.

Every people has their own belief and ideas.

I disagree about the same sex marriage because of my religious belief, nothing more nothing less.

I don't want to explain why because RALLE WILL GIVE ME A NEGATIVE REP.. -_-

So you want to impose your supernatural beliefs on other people even though you know that other people might not give a shit about what you believe? Congratulations, because of you our society is a little bit worse.

 

[rulerofiron99]

I see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed. If two people want to get married to each other, let them. Two other people marrying each other does not affect me, and I have no right to tell them they can't.

Recently, it's been moving backwards around the world. Christian fundamentalists are gaining traction in America, several African countries have made it a criminal offense to be gay, Russian is clamping down on fringe liberties.

 

[JamesxcX]

-.- .

 

[Celaquil]

do you know how patronising you sound?

Full and well, and I'm not denying it.

Although, it seems you're confused concerning what I'm being condescending about.
I appreciate that you shared that story with me, and it's horrifying, at the very least,
but I still fail to see how it's related to what I said. See, I'm not talking about society
and that society should accept gays, of which I'm semi-part of myself, being bi-curious.
I'm talking about a segment of society, Christians, which yeah, actually makes up a big
bulk of society. But! The other religions and the non-religious makes up a bigger bulk, and
those are the people we should be concerned about.

Christians won't change, seeing as they follow a religion where they've been thought
from people who "interpret" a 2000 year old gathering of stories that it's their god-given
right to shun, hate and completely deny the possibility of love between people of an
equal sex. Why should we at all bother with these people, when their very foundation
for reasoning is flawed.

That's why I find it funny, I find it funny that people fight the wrong fight, instead of
targeting the root of the problem: Marriage unrestricted from belief.

If I'd fight for anything, I'd fight for that, only I don't have to because we have this
in Norway. Obviously I think all countries in the world should have this option, but then,
other countries doesn't really concern me that much, so I won't march in no gay-parade
for shit that doesn't affect me in the slightest way, sorry.

 

[Strikest]

I'm against gay marriage, because I feel that gays shouldn't focus on conforming to societies' so-called norm.

 

[Deleted member 219079]

I'm only 16 and am yet to explore this wonderful world enough to decide my side on this.

My philosophy is "we shouldn't be against others' decisions", that would cover too big of a variation of decisions. It all comes down to "what is justice", e.g. where do we draw the border between what is right and what is wrong.

Then there's perspective, which is relative to individual's values. We all do prefer different kind of values and make decisions based on them. Let's say gay stuff is precious to Matt, Rick doesn't care and Peter is homophobic. The presence of value is strong to both Matt and Peter, still the value of gay stuff is different on another's perspective. They cause collisions, and for example friendship is hard to achieve between Matt and Peter, but could be achieved between let's say Rick and Matt.

So there's justice and there's individual values. Because of the variation in individual values, we need to have polls on laws so we could define justice.

Sorry if this post doesn't make sense to somebody, I haven't learned philosophy in school yet and wrote this in 3am....

 

[Gilles]

they should have the right to do what they want, when no one is influenced by that.

All laws influence us.

You learned what morality is after your 12-15 years of living and now you want to teach others what it is and what it is not? You're basically repeating the prejudices of your environment and this makes you, what, more moral than the parties you've been judging?

A) Are you guessing my age? Are you that poor at guessing, or are you trying to insult me? Yes, I intend to teach others what I believe to be moral for the rest of my life. I may not always be right, but I'll do my best. It's kind of what humans do: pass on knowledge.

B) I'm not sure how to respond to the second part here. Are you saying I consider myself to be more moral than others? Well I do consider myself to be correct about this particular moral, ie. homosexuality. I don't consider myself to be more moral than anyone else though. It's not my place to judge a person as moral or immoral, but to judge their actions as moral or immoral. I hope that answers your question.

it has got nothing to do with 'gays getting what they want', it's got to do with society redeeming itself. it's a symbolic gesture of acceptance

A) It has everything to do with gays getting what they want. They aren't only asking for acceptance, they are asking for laws to change.

B)There's a huge difference between accepting someone and allowing them to marry someone of the same gender. I wouldn't intentionally treat a homosexual any different than a heterosexual. We're all human and we are all sinners. However I don't agree with same sex marriage. I can do both; people seem to think agreement and acceptance are the same thing.

C) Your analogy doesn't work. I'm against gay marriage which is an action or a law. Racism is hatred or discrimination towards a race or group of people. That's a massive difference. If I were from the Westbro Baptist Church, then you could use that analogy. I am not from WBC, thank God.


Important Note: The biggest difference between myself and many of the others in this thread is the belief of sin. I believe that some actions are wrong, while (I assume) many of you believe actions are simply actions and we choose the ones that best suit us as the human race. This is called Nihilism, and it's become part of our culture without people realizing it. If I am wrong about some of you, or all of you, I apologize.

TL;DR: I'm against homosexual acts and gay marriage, not homosexuals. If you don't see a difference, then there's the biggest issue I'd like to talk about.

PS. Sorry about the wall of text. I told myself I would try and limit what I say to a couple sentences, but I just love talking so much I can't help myself.

 

[Death Adder]

The only good thing with gays is that they can't have kids.

This so much.

TL;DR: I'm against homosexual acts and gay marriage, not homosexuals. If you don't see a difference, then there's the biggest issue I'd like to talk about.

Well obviously there are differences but still, afaik you can't be homosexual without acts of homosexuality. One can't be without the other, how do you reason that their actions are wrong but being homosexual isn't? The only way to be homosexual is by performing the actions you deem wrong.

Besides like Chaosy said that at least they won't be making any more kiddos I couldn't care less what they're doing or think.

Tbh in a way I think the world would have been a nicer place if everyone were gays, then humanity would die out and all would be good seeing as the root of all problems stem from humanity itself to begin with.

 

[Pharaoh_]

All laws influence us.


A) Are you guessing my age? Are you that poor at guessing, or are you trying to insult me? Yes, I intend to teach others what I believe to be moral for the rest of my life. I may not always be right, but I'll do my best. It's kind of what humans do: pass on knowledge.

B) I'm not sure how to respond to the second part here. Are you saying I consider myself to be more moral than others? Well I do consider myself to be correct about this particular moral, ie. homosexuality. I don't consider myself to be more moral than anyone else though. It's not my place to judge a person as moral or immoral, but to judge their actions as moral or immoral. I hope that answers your question.


A) It has everything to do with gays getting what they want. They aren't only asking for acceptance, they are asking for laws to change.

B)There's a huge difference between accepting someone and allowing them to marry someone of the same gender. I wouldn't intentionally treat a homosexual any different than a heterosexual. We're all human and we are all sinners. However I don't agree with same sex marriage. I can do both; people seem to think agreement and acceptance are the same thing.

C) Your analogy doesn't work. I'm against gay marriage which is an action or a law. Racism is hatred or discrimination towards a race or group of people. That's a massive difference. If I were from the Westbro Baptist Church, then you could use that analogy. I am not from WBC, thank God.


Important Note: The biggest difference between myself and many of the others in this thread is the belief of sin. I believe that some actions are wrong, while (I assume) many of you believe actions are simply actions and we choose the ones that best suit us as the human race. This is called Nihilism, and it's become part of our culture without people realizing it. If I am wrong about some of you, or all of you, I apologize.

TL;DR: I'm against homosexual acts and gay marriage, not homosexuals. If you don't see a difference, then there's the biggest issue I'd like to talk about.

PS. Sorry about the wall of text. I told myself I would try and limit what I say to a couple sentences, but I just love talking so much I can't help myself.

a) I am not talking about the laws, I am talking about how such an act will influence you personally.

b) They pass on knowledge, sure, but what you say so far is not knowledge, it's an opinion (sure, a lot of people share your points of view - that doesn't make it a fact though). No, I don't try to insult you, it's just an age when the thinking process is developed enough to understand abstract values, such as morale or justice.

c) Of course you consider yourself correct; if you didn't, you would have a different opinion. I don't see the point of this.

d) Homosexuals will engage in the acts that you are talking about, isn't that obvious? You, discriminating acts from actors, is irrational (even in programming terms and formal reasoning this is peculiar). The ones who don't, either pretend or experience anhedonia, which can lead to a miserable way of thinking and living and if the character is not strong enough to sustain the pressure, they can also end up committing suicide. See the cycle? From a social phenomenon that supposedly influences you, another social phenomenon emerges.

e) As for the law that you keep referring to, culturally speaking, it has grown different (given that 16 countries have allowed it) among nations. Except for these countries, which, as you can see belong to regions of either low educational level or religious extremities (the role of woman is still primitively conceived in most of them), the rest of the world does not punish someone for homosexuality, yet most of them have not approved same sex marriage. You're smart enough to think about it, regardless of your aversion - what's the cause of this?

Therefore, the fact that laws change, only exposes the vulnerability of human thinking (and what you said that you recognize as right or wrong are only playful terms).

f) "but I just love talking so much I can't help myself."



g) Finally, I was going to appreciate this: "If I am wrong about some of you, or all of you, I apologize." but then I remembered you saying "Well I do consider myself to be correct about this particular moral, ie. homosexuality." (also known as contradiction)

 

[neo_sluf]

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..

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)

 

[Death Adder]

f) "but I just love talking so much I can't help myself."

Pretty sure this goes for each person who still bother with this thread.

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

Well naturally there are different bacteria in the, well, insides, that may not be very healthy for your neo sluf.jr if it's unprotected...

 

[Callahan]

Well obviously there are differences but still, afaik you can't be homosexual without acts of homosexuality. One can't be without the other, how do you reason that their actions are wrong but being homosexual isn't? The only way to be homosexual is by performing the actions you deem wrong.

It's like being against cancer not people who suffer from cancer.

 

[Callahan]

I'm totally agreeing with gay marriage.

People are often complaining about the children who will get bullied for having 2 dads. But hell, that's our fucked up's society's fault.

How a child can have 2 dads in the first place?Then think about what's most fucked up.

 

[BLazeKraze]

Well, this is a serious issue ...
For me, I'm not agree, because it doesn't fit well
Men are for women .... I don't want to insist religion in this topic ...
In your thoughts , do you think that it is good to have a gay wife ??? For the others , yes but most of the people "no" ...
Here in my country, many men have a relationship with gay but most of them have a reason, "they wan't money" . ..

Men+Women is better .

It is natural to have a women partner to build a happy family ....


I think homosexuality is a psychological problem(for me), but the American Psychological Association remove this from the list due to some research etc ...


EDIT : This debate is very very serious because we have own opinion and perception , it is hard to convince people to accept ideas .
Debating about gay marriage is unfinished ,

 

[Orcnet]

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)

That my fellow hive member, is for another story.

This thread is made for the debating matter of gay marriage/s (formerly gay love), not money nor human's greed for dirty paper.

 

[rulerofiron99]

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

Diseases like HIV/AIDS that have traditionally been associated with homosexuality in the Western world are just as dangerous (perhaps more so) in heterosexual relations.

Case in point: my home, South Africa. About a quarter of the population is infected, and far, far less than this amount is gay.

Also, no disease can be "created" from any particular act such as this.

How a child can have 2 dads in the first place?Then think about what's most fucked up.

In most cases, homosexual couples' children would come from foster care. Having two parents - regardless of sexuality - is much better than having no parents.

As someone that was raised in a regular happy family to me it also seems very "fucked up", but what I've heard from friends that were raised without parents is that even gay parents would have been preferable to being in the system.

A concern might be that the gay parents would somehow teach the child to be gay, but sexual orientation is something you're born with, and such a child would very quickly learn which they prefer, naturally.

All laws influence us.

This law would affect you in exactly one way: by allowing you to marry another man. Would you? If no, then this law does not affect you.

 

[Xonok]

A concern might be that the gay parents would somehow teach the child to be gay, but sexual orientation is something you're born with, and such a child would very quickly learn which they prefer, naturally.

Actually sexual orientation is not something a person is born with. Before early teens a person doesn't care about gender at all for natural reasons, only what the society has told to care about.
In the early teens (12-15) is a sort of vulnerable period where whatever the person sees the most becomes normal for him/her and in most cases won't change later.
Also, there's the question of parents as examples. Every person needs to have a male and female example in life or their psychology will likely become messed up, due to only seeing things from one gender's perspectives (you are what you see).

 

[Celaquil]

Men+Women is better .

It is natural to have a women partner to build a happy family ....

This is what disgusts me the most, at the very least religious people lean on
their religious horns, so in a way they're excused for being naive. 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.

For starters, if we're going to talk about what's natural, let's look to the animal
kingdom. So don't come telling me homosexual behaviour isn't natural, when
those who practice it on mere instinct live to prove you otherwise.

Secondly, whether it's natural or not isn't really at all important, what's
important is that people of the same sex can love one another just as
much as you or anyone else can love a woman.

And don't come here telling me that being in love with someone of the same
sex is a psychological decease, when you have nothing to back that theory
with, nothing at all. Imagine yourself, living in an alternate world, where the
majority of the world is gay, and you're among the few heterosexuals, you
fall in love with a girl and are denied the right to live with her, because
shit-head people around the globe who doesn't know what they're talking
about says blatantly that it's a "psychological decease" to be in love with
someone of a different sex. Are you honestly completely incapable of seeing
the situation from their perspective...? >.>

 

[Deleted member 219079]

especially when you start
telling me that being gay isn't natural, that's offensive.

Soo.. Are you it?

 

[Pharaoh_]

Actually sexual orientation is not something a person is born with.

Scientists have not concluded on that yet, but sure, you would know better.

 

[Death Adder]

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.

Looks like a certain someone has been infected, hue hue.

In all seriousness, what is considered natural right now? If being gay would be natural or normal then you do realise that the population would diminish.

Until men can give birth and breastfeed while women can impregnate you can't consider it natural or normal because naturally humanity would die out otherwise, eventually.

Now this doesn't mean that homosexuality is right or wrong it just means what it means, that it isn't natural because that's not how humans reproduce. That the act can be enjoyable is just a means to an end, an end which isn't there for a gay couple (of either gender) without other factors kicking in like adoption which isn't natural either.

Again not being natural or normal doesn't mean it's wrong so if you're taking that as an offense then you're just denying facts through biology which is plain stupid.

 

[Adaethus]

Actually sexual orientation is not something a person is born with.

You found this out where?

In the early teens (12-15) is a sort of vulnerable period where whatever the person sees the most becomes normal for him/her and in most cases won't change later.

According to what?

Also, there's the question of parents as examples. Every person needs to have a male and female example in life or their psychology will likely become messed up, due to only seeing things from one gender's perspectives (you are what you see).

Again, where do you get this from?

Asserting bullshit claims without any evidence to back it up isn't going to get you anywhere.

In all seriousness, what is considered natural right now? If being gay would be natural or normal then you do realise that the population would diminish.

Until men can give birth and breastfeed while women can impregnate you can't consider it natural or normal because naturally humanity would die out otherwise, eventually.

Now this doesn't mean that homosexuality is right or wrong it just means what it means, that it isn't natural because that's not how humans reproduce. That the act can be enjoyable is just a means to an end, an end which isn't there for a gay couple (of either gender) without other factors kicking in like adoption which isn't natural either.

Again not being natural or normal doesn't mean it's wrong so if you're taking that as an offense then you're just denying facts through biology which is plain stupid.

How do you define natural?

Here's a list of animals that have been observed to have homosexual behaviour.

Homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality or asexuality or any other sexual orientation.
Since when was the ability to have children a requirement to marriage? Should infertile couples not be able to marry?

This thread is making my blood boil.

 

[GhostThruster]

death adder that makes no fucking sense. more gay people doesn't mean less straight people; homosexuality isn't contagious.

also 'natural' doesn't mean 'necessary for reproduction'. i don't even get why you bolded 'naturally', it wasn't a particularly clever pun nor was your entire post particularly clever.

denying biological facts is stupid i concur, but even stupider is calling your verbal diarrhea 'fact'.

 

[Death Adder]

I consider it natural because straight sex is a necessity for humans not to die out. Nobody will consider it weird or strange that a man and a woman partake in the act since that's how humans reproduce.

Homosexuality can be considered unnatural because it can't be in order to reproduce, afaik. Maybe it was really popular at one time and the 'thing' but naturally it can't be so for long since they would not produce offspring to carry on their ideals.

Again I'm not saying that homosexuality is wrong or anything but it's obvious that the people who are straight think being straight is the right thing and they're the one's who will have kids who will be taught so as well.

It's so plain simple I don't get what's the fuss. Do you have a method for reproduction that doesn't include at least one male and one woman in any way?

death adder that makes no fucking sense. more gay people doesn't mean less straight people; homosexuality isn't contagious.

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.

 

[Deleted member 219079]

@Death Adder ; They'll never listen to you, we've picked our sides on this subject and argue about it depending on our side

Join jondrean's happy neutral people - corner, you don't have to choose whether you accept gay stuff at this young age

 

[Pharaoh_]

I consider it natural because straight sex is a necessity for humans not to die out. Nobody will consider it weird or strange that a man and a woman partake in the act since that's how humans reproduce.

Homosexuality can be considered unnatural because it can't be in order to reproduce, afaik. Maybe it was really popular at one time and the 'thing' but naturally it can't be so for long since they would not produce offspring to carry on their ideals.

Again I'm not saying that homosexuality is wrong or anything but it's obvious that the people who are straight think being straight is the right thing and they're the one's who will have kids who will be taught so as well.

It's so plain simple I don't get what's the fuss. Do you have a method for reproduction that doesn't include at least one male and one woman in any way?



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.

You're bringing pragmatics into the discussion (and not linguistically), which is 'what's the purpose in life'. The purpose of a human according to you is to reproduce. For someone else, it may be something completely different. Since this matter is subjective and the truth lies in both sides, both parties can be correct and incorrect at the same time (simply because there is no evidence in favor or against each side).

At this moment, that I am typing this, probably 49 people are dying. Do we know what they did in their lives? No. Do we care if they have successfully created offspring? No. I don't see how your ultimate destiny of human should be a restraining factor to what people can experience, feel and want.

 

[Death Adder]

Join jondrean's happy neutral people - corner, you don't have to choose whether you accept gay stuff at this young age

I'm not against gay marriage, I would actually prefer if more people were homophobic since less children would be produced.

I have not made a single statement against it or for it since that is irrelevant.

You're bringing pragmatics into the discussion (and not linguistically), which is 'what's the purpose in life'. The purpose of a human according to you is to reproduce.

No, but the ones who think that are the ones who will reproduce which give them quite the advantage considering the rest will not have offspring or at least not as many.

I for one could not care less about anything besides myself, that however is irrelevant to the subject.

I don't see how your ultimate destiny of human should be a restraining factor to what people can experience, feel and want.

What part about right or wrong isn't relevant but the ones who will have offspring to carry on their ideals will be the ones who reproduce didn't you get?

 

[Magtheridon96]

Gay marriage is fine.

Reason: Why not?

 

[Deleted member 219079]

Gay marriage is fine.

Reason: Why not?

That statement + that avatar = http://www.hahgay.com/

 

[Pharaoh_]

I'm not against gay marriage, I would actually prefer if more people were homophobic since less children would be produced.

I have not made a single statement against it or for it since that is irrelevant.



No, but the ones who think that are the ones who will reproduce which give them quite the advantage considering the rest will not have offspring or at least not as many.

I for one could not care less about anything besides myself, that however is irrelevant to the subject.

Since life scenarios are far more complex than what you suggest, I'm gonna give you a short one and try to see if your theory will make sense.

A female from Australia has been in a relationship for 5 years, got married to her partner and gave birth to a child. After years and years of suppressing the actual gender of her desire, the females, she decides to get divorced. Eventually, she meets a woman, they decide to live together and get married. Should the rights over her child be revoked?

Same scenario, but this time with a male.
A male from France has been married to a woman. The product of this bond is two children. The male has always liked men, but he could not admit it to himself, in fear of becoming unacceptable to his family, friends and social environment. He pays a visit to an entrusted psychotherapist (and, since I am familiar with the flow), the latter asks the former what kind of a change he would like in his life. Long story short, he encourages himself to follow the path he's always preferred. The wife gets upset and wants to deny custody over his children. Is it right?

P.S. You meant "homosexual" in your post, not "homophobic".

 

[Death Adder]

Since life scenarios are far more complex than what you suggest, I'm gonna give you a short one and try to see if your theory will make sense.

A female from Australia has been in a relationship for 5 years, got married to her partner and gave birth to a child. After years and years of suppressing the actual gender of her desire, the females, she decides to get divorced. Eventually, she meets a woman, they decide to live together and get married. Should the rights over her child be revoked?

Same scenario, but this time with a male.
A male from France has been married to a woman. The product of this bond is two children. The male has always liked men, but he could not admit it to himself, in fear of becoming unacceptable to his family, friends and social environment. He pays a visit to an entrusted psychotherapist (and, since I am familiar with the flow), the latter asks the former what kind of a change he would like in his life. Long story short, he encourages himself to follow the path he's always preferred. The wife gets upset and wants to deny custody over his children. Is it right?

I guess you thought my post was TLR since I've already stated that it's not about what you or me think is right it's that other person next to you that happen to have straight parents because they're the ones who are making kiddos.

The subject is that homophopiba is frowned upon and isn't accepted by a whole lot of people yeah? I'm saying it's because it isn't natural to them, because it's not normal. Want to know what normal means? a standard. How is something a standard? Well the majority of jackasses around the globe does the same thing and it becomes the standard.

Now let's make up one stupid example because that give you + points yeah?

Couple A are gay, between the two of them they can't get a child on their own.

Couple B are straight, when they goof around in their bedroom there's a possibility that the woman get's impregnated and that they have a child.

The child of Couple B will notice that one of them is of the Male gender and the other is a Female. Now just from this quick look it will assume that's normal. Poof there's one more who think that Homophobia isn't normal.

Now if suddenly Couple A had a way to get either one impregnated on their own over time it would most likely be more common with homophobia and it would be socially accepted since they would have offspring carrying on the idea that homophobia is natural.

 

[Pharaoh_]

I guess you thought my post was TLR since I've already stated that it's not about what you or me think is right it's that other person next to you that happen to have straight parents because they're the ones who are making kiddos.

I literally didn't understand what you have just said, sorry
Mind rephrasing?

 

[Death Adder]

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.

The ones who think that homophobia is to be frowned upon are the people it's foreign too.

The people it's foreign too are surprisingly not homophobic.

They will get children who they will teach their ways of life to and will thus carry on their idea that homophobia is wrong.

Rephrase: I guess you thought my post was too long and did not read through it. I've already stated that it's not about what you or me think is right, on our own. It's what the majority of people in the society we live in that unanimously decide this. And it happens to be the case that straight couples will have children naturally while gay couples would require other means than sex to have children of their own, this leads to that there are more children raised in families with straight parents. These then grown up and decide what is right tomorrow and it just happen to be so that "straight is right" got more votes and it will continue to be so until two women or men can give birth to children on their own.

 

[Pharaoh_]

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.

The ones who think that homophobia is to be frowned upon are the people it's foreign too.

The people it's foreign too are surprisingly not homophobic.

They will get children who they will teach their ways of life to and will thus carry on their idea that homophobia is wrong.

Agreed, except for the first part. A few hundred years ago, the majority thought that the Earth was flat and that was 'right'. Since we are constitute the new generation of thinking, I don't get why, by taking a look at how human thinking has evolved, we cannot allow ourselves to predict that we may also be wrong in any other case.
Same deal with schizophrenia; they thought it was a demon torturing the victim. In this case, I also see obscure thinking regarding homosexuality overall.
And how many years have passed to see if gay parents can raise a child just like a straight couple, to actually witness the result of the so-feared shift in sexual orientation?

 

[Death Adder]

Agreed, except for the first part. A few hundred years ago, the majority thought that the Earth was flat and that was 'right'. Since we are constitute the new generation of thinking, I don't get why, by taking a look at how human thinking has evolved, we cannot allow ourselves to predict that we may also be wrong in any other case.
Same deal with schizophrenia; they thought it was a demon torturing the victim. In this case, I also see obscure thinking regarding homosexuality overall.
And how many years have passed to see if gay parents can raise a child just like a straight couple, to actually witness the result of the so-feared shift in sexual orientation?

Because it's based entirely on what people think is right or wrong and not something you can prove through studies.

People decide it's wrong because there are more people who are straight and there will be more as long as it's the only way to reproduce.