Homosexuality & Censorship

[Ludah]

The poor kids are gonna be tormented in school by other kids. That can mess you up pretty bad.

This is a problem with the society. Not the child, not the homosexual parents. Ironically, one of the best ways to act against this kind of stupid prejudice is to make that step forward, no matter how painful it is, and force the system to deal with and accept it.

 

[Remus]

In my country there was a gay parade in the capital yesterday and they were all beaten up. I'm so damn proud

 

[Raeven0]

Morality is subjective. Truth is not.

I can object to abortion on moral grounds, but I be damned if I let my pompous, self-righteous morals interfere with my reason.

Perhaps there exist people who find homosexuality morally atrocious, but that's no reason for it to be outlawed or despised.

 

[CptStern]

The poor kids are gonna be tormented in school by other kids. That can mess you up pretty bad.

you mean by people like you? or this guy?

In my country there was a gay parade in the capital yesterday and they were all beaten up. I'm so damn proud

 

[ríomhaire]

This thread is gay.

Sorry, had to..

Sulk & Mecha FTMFW

Nice :smoking:
Your old av was better

Edit:

A more obvious scientific fact is the one what scientific fact that two normal males or females cannot reproduce. Males and females are not physically “designed” for homosexual acts. Homosexuality is no more a normal sexual act than bestiality, pedophilia, or the “Cleveland Steamer;” quite simply it’s a sexual fetish.

HAHAHAHA. Are you claiming that the only purpose of sex is reproduction? [in the Western World] Reproduction is not even the primary purpose of sex. There is more sex happening for pleasure in the developed world than there is sex to produce offspring. The primary role of sex in society nowadays is recreational. If you think differently you are dilluded.

 

[FieryGoose]

Ok i'm gonna come back from the dead and restate my opinion first off. Ok first off marriage by deffinition according to Marriam-Webster: 1 a (1) : "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."
So honestly there's nothing to debate, marriage is just that. Sure the Union of Homosexuals is something else.... you name it. But marriage is a noun, do you want me to sound it out? It's http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?marria01.wav=marriage
As far as i know thats what marriage is and that's what it will be for as long as you and i shall live. What's the fuss over? We the people elect the senate to decide how our country is run, and gay marriage is illegal in most places of the US.
I'm probably the only right winger here but am i also the only one who reallizes that the only way homosexual activist can get things done is by cheating, aka going to the judges to fix their problems?
Let me make some things evident, i have nothing agianst gays i don't hate gays i don't care if they have a loving relationship but marriage just isn't feasable being that it means a relationship between a two people of the opposite sex. I'm not going to relate homosexuals to pedafiles or people who engage in beastily acts. I love everyone i just don't love everyones intentions/actions. Also i take back what i said about disliking homosexuals or something along those lines i take it back and sorry to anyone i offended. Also about mentioning aids i was only stating facts, if facts offend people deal with it.:thumbs:

 

[Raeven0]

Ok first off marriage by deffinition according to Marriam-Webster: 1 a (1) : "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."
So honestly there's nothing to debate, marriage is just that.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Get a better argument and try again.

Also, the "first off" was unnecessary, because you didn't get any further than restating your one point in several different ways.

What's the fuss over?

The fuss is over idiot homophobes like you who think you're superior to other people because you were born straight.

 

[Bull Goose Loony]

that's the typical cop-out excuse of every right wing anti gay marriage politician ive ever heard, and it's pathetic. Marriage isn't the holy, sacred, "keystone of society" that people try and make it out to be.

 

[FieryGoose]

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Get a better argument and try again.

Also, the "first off" was unnecessary, because you didn't get any further than restating your one point in several different ways.


The fuss is over idiot homophobes like you who think you're superior to other people because you were born straight.

actually its funny that you say i'm a homophobe since i hang out with guys all the time. Also since when are you the scientist deciding if someones born gay or if they chose to be gay? Also if we cannot refer to the deffinition of a common noun what can we refer to? The dictionary most accurately describes nouns, for verbs its a different story, they change evolve but the basic principles of marriage continue to stand weathered but unharmed.
I'm not going to go any farther than this to respond to Bull Goose, I don't see you coming up with anything better to defend your stance, for all i know your dumbfounded, why don't you say somthing intelligent. Also i sincerly hope you are not married for your own sake because if your wife saw what you just said i can bet she'd not be happy, might slap you around a little.:|

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Also if we cannot refer to the deffinition of a common noun what can we refer to?

How about we refer to reality?

Marriages between same-sex couples are happening across the world as we speak.

The "current" definition you're using is obviously incorrect.


Don't call people stupid unless they actually are.

 

[99.vikram]

Also since when are you the scientist deciding if someones born gay or if they chose to be gay?

To the best of my knowledge (limited to one gay guy), they are not the typical attention-seeker. They have known they were gay since age 10, as we have known we are straight. And this guy conforms to societal norms in every other respect, why should he simply "choose to be gay"?

The basic principles of marriage continue to stand weathered but unharmed.

Get real. Marriage was originally designed for the sole purpose of mating and protecting the offspring. "Love" is a sense of mutual attraction when we find (or think we have found) the perfect mate.

But we evolved it into a union of convenience where each parter takes a certain role in the household (I'm not being gender specific here). Why can't gay people also define it for themselves?

 

[Raeven0]

Also since when are you the scientist deciding if someones born gay or if they chose to be gay?

Personal experience, and overwhelming evidence posted in just about every other homophobic thread ever to be shot down and beaten into the ground in this forum

The dictionary most accurately describes nouns

Your blessed dictionary that lists "nook-you-ler" as a valid pronunciation of the adjective "nuclear"? Right, whatever

the basic principles of marriage continue to stand weathered but unharmed

I take it you haven't seen the divorce rates recently, especially in the self-righteous, upstanding Republican (read: homophobic) states

I don't see you coming up with anything better to defend your stance

"Civil rights"
"Equality"
"Decency"

Also i sincerly hope you are not married for your own sake

Which doesn't even make sense, let alone pertain to anything posted in the thread

 

[FieryGoose]

Personal experience, and overwhelming evidence posted in just about every other homophobic thread ever to be shot down and beaten into the ground in this forum

Your blessed dictionary that lists "nook-you-ler" as a valid pronunciation of the adjective "nuclear"? Right, whatever

I take it you haven't seen the divorce rates recently, especially in the self-righteous, upstanding Republican (read: homophobic) states

"Civil rights"
"Equality"
"Decency"

Which doesn't even make sense, let alone pertain to anything posted in the thread

Ok yea, websters is just the best dictionary around according to the majority of critics, also 90% of the ones that showed up on google search defined marriage as being between a man and woman. But whatever everyone bows at your knees through your errors nonetheless.

I didn't say marriages across america are standing strong i said the general priciple, why don't you read my posts?

Also let me see the evidence you found that people are homosexual due to a chemical imbalance, i'm fairly sure that the majority of gays are gay because there choices in life led them to the eventaul reduction of security, but then agian i don't have personal experiences...

So not allowing gays of the priveledge to marry due to numerous studies stating that an average gay person goes through over 100 partners during there lifetime...Just tell me what that says about the sence of importance in relationships that gays have. Not good.
Marriage is a privelidge, not a right, nowhere in the bill of rights does it say everyman has the right to marry another man. It doesn't even say heterosexuals are allowed to marry.
Think of it this way marriage is an exclusive group that only adult heterosexuals have access to, the homosexual community is complaining and bringing matters to court for the judges to decide, becuase they cant get through senate the way things are going. Married couples don't want the sanctity of their marraige comprimised, so they exclude gays. If you ask the average american if there marriage is sacred to them they will say yes. You can talk on behalf of the married comunity if your not married. Thats a dumbed down version of marriage.

I'm not even going to respond to the last comment because you just need to reread what i wrote it's clear enough for most people to get.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I thought Foxhound was banned from here.

 

[Bull Goose Loony]

Just to clarify Foxhound, your argument is this(feel free to correct me)

Gay marriage harms noone, there's nothing wrong with gay people, they should be allowed the basic right to express their love for each other, and have the same legal security etc. that marriage offers, but they aren't allowed it to be called marriage because then a dictionary definition would have to be changed?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Foxhound:

I will give you $500 for a single logical reason to ban gay marriage in America.

Before you try, I may as well point out that none of the ones you just mentioned are logical.
Feel free to try them anyways.

 

[Raeven0]

defined marriage as being between a man and woman.

I'm having trouble working out your point here. A dictionary states that only men and women should intermarry, ergo only men and women should intermarry? What? Since when did we start taking orders from dictionaries?

But whatever everyone bows at your knees through your errors nonetheless.

You've been misinformed. No one bows before me except cheap whores.

I didn't say marriages across america are standing strong i said the general priciple

This is a contradiction

Also let me see the evidence you found that people are homosexual due to a chemical imbalance

That's not what I said. But since I love reductio ad absurdum [edited to include the right term, because I'm a moron] and playing with minds, I will humour you:
- Suppose that all gay people choose, under natural circumstances, to be gay.
- It follows that they are all happy with their choice.
- There exist gay people who would rather be straight. This is a contradiction.
- Therefore, not all gay people choose to be gay.

So not allowing gays of the priveledge to marry due to numerous studies stating that an average gay person goes through over 100 partners during there lifetime...Just tell me what that says about the sence of importance in relationships that gays have. Not good.

This sounds suspiciously like several times throughout history when blacks, women, and children were denied certain rights because the dominant population didn't believe them worthy. Got precedent?

nowhere in the bill of rights does it say everyman has the right to marry another man. It doesn't even say heterosexuals are allowed to marry.

While we're taking totally irrelevant United States Government document quotes out of context, let's not forget "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Think of it this way marriage is an exclusive group that only adult heterosexuals have access to

Why?

becuase they cant get through senate the way things are going

Because the Senate sure rallied behind President Homophobe's anti-gay propaganda, right?

Married couples don't want the sanctity of their marraige comprimised

I really don't think gay people are their primary problem

If you ask the average american if there marriage is sacred to them they will say yes

If you ask the average American where Denmark is, he'll stare blankly at you and probably drool on your shirt.

 

[Bull Goose Loony]

(1.)Ok yea, websters is just the best dictionary around according to the majority of critics, also 90% of the ones that showed up on google search defined marriage as being between a man and woman. But whatever everyone bows at your knees through your errors nonetheless.

I didn't say marriages across america are standing strong i said the general priciple, why don't you read my posts?

(2.)Also let me see the evidence you found that people are homosexual due to a chemical imbalance, i'm fairly sure that the majority of gays are gay because there choices in life led them to the eventaul reduction of security, but then agian i don't have personal experiences...

(3.)So not allowing gays of the priveledge to marry due to numerous studies stating that an average gay person goes through over 100 partners during there lifetime...Just tell me what that says about the sence of importance in relationships that gays have. Not good.

(4.)Marriage is a privelidge, not a right, nowhere in the bill of rights does it say everyman has the right to marry another man. It doesn't even say heterosexuals are allowed to marry.
(5.)Think of it this way marriage is an exclusive group that only adult heterosexuals have access to, the homosexual community is complaining and bringing matters to court for the judges to decide, becuase they cant get through senate the way things are going. Married couples don't want the sanctity of their marraige comprimised, so they exclude gays. If you ask the average american if there marriage is sacred to them they will say yes. You can talk on behalf of the married comunity if your not married. Thats a dumbed down version of marriage.

I'm not even going to respond to the last comment because you just need to reread what i wrote it's clear enough for most people to get.

1. you may not have noticed this even though it's been repeated throughout this thread, but dictionarys do not dictate how we live our lives, they merely describe what words currently mean. dictionary definitions are updated and changed constantly.

2. this is just stupid. you don't choose whether you're attracted to the opposite sex or not. Gay people didnt wake up one day and say "right, i want to spend the rest of my life suffering abuse and prejudice"

3.Completely irrelevent, as previously noted, have you any idea how many people get divorced these days?

4/5. Legally, once you're over the age of 18, you have the Right to get married to another consenting adult. therefore, it is a right not a privelidge. You're analogy is wrong, because it's a club that every adult has the right to become a member of, but some of them can't because of your legal system has yet to catch up with most of the developed world. Also the fact t hat many other countries have legalised gay marriage shows that the majority of married couples realise there is no logical reason to fear gay couples having the same rights of expression as any other adult couple.

[edit] crap, beaten, and far more eloquently too.

 

[FieryGoose]

Foxhound:

I will give you $500 for a single logical reason to ban gay marriage in America.

Before you try, I may as well point out that none of the ones you just mentioned are logical.
Feel free to try them anyways.

Ok but let me tell you somthing first, capitalism in all logic shouldn't be working but it does... communism should in work logic but just look at how the ussr's society turned out; so my point is logical arguements aren't always accurate arguements. Ok now for a logical reason, and i know the logical fallacies... Gay marriage should remain how it is in america right now if not be more strict because, we the people elect government representatives in place in order to represent the people and through that they make the decisions for the bettering of american society which in the case of many states is making gay marriage illegal. But logically as i stated previously, maybe you didn't read it but gay couples rotate over 100 times, just as in single parent homes this affects the emotional status of children, which most married couples have(children), the average is 1-2 children per couple.

You mecha have stated no evidence that proves that gay marriage would better american society society as a whole, where's that evidence? What benifits will me as a heterosexual citizen see in my community if gay marriage does occur, please enlighten me.

 

[MultiVaC]

I usually try to avoid posting in the politics section, but I read a lot of it and I have to say, I love when these anti-gay people come in. They don't have a leg to stand on and they get severely owned every time. And some of them (gh0st) keep coming back for more. Well done Sulk, Mechagodzilla, and others, it would be pretty cool to see you guys take on Bill O'Reilly or someone, you would probably make him cry (if parasites can cry).

 

[DeusExMachina]

You mecha have stated no evidence that proves that gay marriage would better american society society as a whole, where's that evidence? What benifits will me as a heterosexual citizen see in my community if gay marriage does occur, please enlighten me.

You won't see any benefits. You're a heterosexual.
It doesn't affect you positivly or negatively. Married gay men aren't going to kidnap you and make you their sexual man slave. Married gay women aren't going to start a 40 woman orgy in the children's playground. It won't better american society, but it will show that we aren't hypocrites when it comes to equality and freedom. Black people having rights doesn't benefit you, maybe we should take their rights away? Their struggle for equality was obviously nothing but a point for the African agenda!

 

[FieryGoose]

You won't see any benefits. You're a heterosexual.
It doesn't affect you positivly or negatively. Married gay men aren't going to kidnap you and make you their sexual man slave. Married gay women aren't going to start a 40 woman orgy in the children's playground. It won't better american society, but it will show that we aren't hypocrites when it comes to equality and freedom. Black people having rights doesn't benefit you, maybe we should take their rights away? Their struggle for equality was obviously nothing but a point for the African agenda!

Your lucky i'm not black. Secondly for every black person, homosexual or heterosexual, they benifited from it, they're normal human beings, your talking about them like they don't exist on this forum. If if doesn't benifit the majority of americans why should i support it? I support civil union between two homosexuals, im not anti-gay, get that through your heads!! I'm sure most of you are mature enough to not stereotype homosexuals as helpless individuals that suffer to such a great extent that are persecuted daily, i'm sure it's no more pursecution than i get for being a christian. Where do you guys draw the line for marriage?

Marriage of homosexuals would be a currupt(a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct) act and should not be legalized, Also according to my knowledge most liberals want the people to decide what should happen well here's a poll from cnn:"When asked whether they thought same-sex "marriages" should be recognized by the law as valid and come with the same rights as traditional marriages, 68 percent of the respondents in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said they should not." well there you go. let the people decide right. Also it doesn't really matter if bushes proposal passed senate or not since gay marriage is not legal in any of the 50 states.

 

[Voodoo_Chile]

Ok, I haven't read the many "compelling" arguments from either side I'm just going to give you my own opinion.

Everyone,every person regardless of ALL other considerations deserve the same rights and access to benefits as everyone else. It doesn't always happen but it should. Simple really,pity people refuse to follow it.

Now lets go to the UN.

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.

Ok it's not exactly as universal as it should be however it doesn't descriminate in its definition of marrige. It says
"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". It does not state that 2 Men or 2 Women of full age cannot marry and form a family.

AND if we take This dictionary's definition
One of which is

1. A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.
2. Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.

Now if we take the UN at its word and that a family is a fundamental unit of society and that a family is simply two or more people sharing similar values and goals and that a marriage is a funadmental right between two people of full age then the UN already allows for and protects the rights of people to marry and have a family irregardless.

Well that's my spiel, Hope anyone who reads it understands these are my thoughts on the matter, Don't care after that.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Marriage is between two humans who love each other.

You ask us if we're mature enough to not stereotype, yet you say many homosexuals go through 100 partners in their lifetimes. Who's stereotyping here? You're a Christian, you should be supporting it because Jesus's teachings were about loving and caring for one another, no matter who or what they were.

 

[Bull Goose Loony]

Meh, now that i know he's a christian i realise there's no point in trying to talk sense into him, he's not gonna listen until Jesus rises from wherever and tells him he's a douchebag.

 

[FieryGoose]

Marriage is between two humans who love each other.

You ask us if we're mature enough to not stereotype, yet you say many homosexuals go through 100 partners in their lifetimes. Who's stereotyping here? You're a Christian, you should be supporting it because Jesus's teachings were about loving and caring for one another, no matter who or what they were.

Hey lets not get carried away here, first off i did not make that number up, here's the context:"The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. Because homosexuals are rarely monogamous, often having as many as three hundred or more partners in a lifetime — some studies say it is typically more than one thousand — children in those polyamorous situations are caught in a perpetual coming and going." So i'm trying my best not to stereotype, i'm only taking bits from quotes.

I'm going to be open and share this quote that almost exactly describes the way i feel about this whole debate:"Instead of discerning which side is theologically correct, non-Christian audiences tend to side with whomever seems “nicest.” Usually, that means the gay spokesman asking for anti-discrimination laws or support clubs for gay teenagers. The person against these things – usually a conservative Christian – does not seem “nice,” no matter how nice he or she may truly be."
Also the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights clearly doesn't state that regaurdless of sexual orientation people are allowed marriage. But i guess everything is open to interpretation.
Oh yea all the qoutes i got in this post were from Citizen Link.

Edit: See what I mean, Bull Goose is just stated another example of religous pursecution. But I love ya man and so does Jesus. lol.(not in a homosexual way)

Edit 2(for bull goose):Basically no matter how i put it you guys will think i'm a hate monger, homophobe, or an unintelligent piece of a human for not supporting gay activists, but agian i'm not the one who can convince you guys. I think eventually what ever your finnal decision is you will still wonder, "whats right and whats wrong" because according to you guys "right" and "wrong" are deffinately not static concepts, i believe they are.

 

[Bull Goose Loony]

perhaps granting them marriage would stabilise these relationships, increase and encourage monogomy(hopefully thats the right word)? or, perhaps those quotes are completely stupid, unfounded crap that no sane person would believe.

and regarding your second quote, about non christians being "nicer" than christians, i imagine you must have a rather pissed off Jesus on your hands if people that don't consciously follow his teachings are doing better at it than his official followers are. What happened to loving your fellow man?

 

[Bull Goose Loony]

Edit 2(for bull goose):Basically no matter how i put it you guys will think i'm a hate monger, homophobe, or an unintelligent piece of a human for not supporting gay activists, but agian i'm not the one who can convince you guys. I think eventually what ever your finnal decision is you will still wonder, "whats right and whats wrong" because according to you guys "right" and "wrong" are deffinately not static concepts, i believe they are.

It's just unfortunate your ideas of right and wrong are approximately 2000 years out of date.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"i know the logical fallacies..."

We'll see about that.

"Gay marriage should remain how it is in america right now if not be more strict because, we the people elect government representatives in place in order to represent the people and through that they make the decisions for the bettering of american society which in the case of many states is making gay marriage illegal."

Point 1: "Banning gay marriage betters society."

BURDEN OF PROOF.
You have not establised any premise for that conclusion.

Point 2: "The majority vote rules."

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY.
The majority are prohibited by the US Constitution from abusing majority status.
An abuse of that status would be voting to ban marriage for no logical reason.

"But logically as i stated previously, maybe you didn't read it but gay couples rotate over 100 times, just as in single parent homes this affects the emotional status of children, which most married couples have(children), the average is 1-2 children per couple."

Point 3: "Gays have multiple sexual partners, which hurts the "emotional status" of the children they don't have."

BURDEN OF PROOF.
Provide the study/studies from which the 100-couple figure is taken.
BURDEN OF PROOF.
Provide the study which shows the rate of new sexual partners would stay constant after marriage (instead of going down as one would logically expect them to).
BURDEN OF PROOF.
Provide the study which shows multiple sexual partners in one lifetime is "harmful" to children's "emotional status".
RED HERRING.
A "high" number of sexual partners is not a factor that can prohibit any heterosexual marriage. There is no logical reason to prohibit one and not the other for this reason.
REIFICATION.
"Emotional status" is an undefined nonsensical term.

Point 4: "Gays cannot have an average 1.5 children."

RED HERRING.
Mandatory breeding is not a requirement of heterosexual marriage. There is no logical reason to prohibit one and not the other for this reason.
INACCURACY.
Gays can have children through surrogacy or adoption.
APPEAL TO AUTHORITY.
The fact that something is "average" does not make it desirable by default.

"You mecha have stated no evidence that proves that gay marriage would better american society society as a whole, where's that evidence? What benifits will me as a heterosexual citizen see in my community if gay marriage does occur, please enlighten me.""

Point 5: "Mechagodzilla must first prove that I, and the rest of society, will benefit from homosexual marriage."

BURDEN OF PROOF / NEGATIVE PROOF.
It is not up to me to prove legality (although I can).
It is up to you to prove that homosexual marriage is somehow unconstitutional.

Here is a quick lesson about how America is designed to work, under the constitution:
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" Those three basic freedoms are allowed to all people equally, under the law.
Law in the US is designed to allow anything and everything, unless it contradicts those three freedoms in some substantial way.
Homosexual marriage falls under the "Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" parts.
-Gay marriage does not kill you in any logical way.
-Gay marriage does not restrict you in any logical way.
-Gay marriage does not harass you in any logical way.
Therefore, what you propose is unconstitutional.

RED HERRING.
No marriage needs to benefit you in any way, except your own.
Presumably, however, you benefit from living in a society where the constitution exists to prevent dictatorship, theocracy, etc.


I'm glad you know the fallacies.
Now I don't need to go into further detail as to why you get NO MONEY.


Also:

-Capitalism has a strong basis in logic. It did not appear spontaneously, and it does not run on magic.
-The USSR was an extreme socialist country, not a communist country.
-Pure communism is not a fully logical system.

 

[FieryGoose]

"i know the logical fallacies..."

We'll see about that.

"Gay marriage should remain how it is in america right now if not be more strict because, we the people elect government representatives in place in order to represent the people and through that they make the decisions for the bettering of american society which in the case of many states is making gay marriage illegal."

Point 1: "Banning gay marriage betters society."

BURDEN OF PROOF.
You have not establised any premise for that conclusion.

Point 2: "The majority vote rules."

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY.
The majority are prohibited by the US Constitution from abusing majority status.
An abuse of that status would be voting to ban marriage for no logical reason.

"But logically as i stated previously, maybe you didn't read it but gay couples rotate over 100 times, just as in single parent homes this affects the emotional status of children, which most married couples have(children), the average is 1-2 children per couple."

Point 3: "Gays have multiple sexual partners, which hurts the "emotional status" of the children they don't have."

BURDEN OF PROOF.
Provide the study/studies from which the 100-couple figure is taken.
BURDEN OF PROOF.
Provide the study which shows the rate of new sexual partners would stay constant after marriage (instead of going down as one would logically expect them to).
BURDEN OF PROOF.
Provide the study which shows multiple sexual partners in one lifetime is "harmful" to children's "emotional status".
RED HERRING.
A "high" number of sexual partners is not a factor that can prohibit any heterosexual marriage. There is no logical reason to prohibit one and not the other for this reason.
REIFICATION.
"Emotional status" is an undefined nonsensical term.

Point 4: "Gays cannot have an average 1.5 children."

RED HERRING.
Mandatory breeding is not a requirement of heterosexual marriage. There is no logical reason to prohibit one and not the other for this reason.
INACCURACY.
Gays can have children through surrogacy or adoption.
APPEAL TO AUTHORITY.
The fact that something is "average" does not make it desirable by default.

"You mecha have stated no evidence that proves that gay marriage would better american society society as a whole, where's that evidence? What benifits will me as a heterosexual citizen see in my community if gay marriage does occur, please enlighten me.""

Point 5: "Mechagodzilla must first prove that I, and the rest of society, will benefit from homosexual marriage."

BURDEN OF PROOF / NEGATIVE PROOF.
It is not up to me to prove legality (although I can).
It is up to you to prove that homosexual marriage is somehow unconstitutional.

Here is a quick lesson about how America is designed to work, under the constitution:
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" Those three basic freedoms are allowed to all people equally, under the law.
Law in the US is designed to allow anything and everything, unless it contradicts those three freedoms in some substantial way.
Homosexual marriage falls under the "Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" parts.
-Gay marriage does not kill you in any logical way.
-Gay marriage does not restrict you in any logical way.
-Gay marriage does not harass you in any logical way.
Therefore, what you propose is unconstitutional.

RED HERRING.
No marriage needs to benefit you in any way, except your own.
Presumably, however, you benefit from living in a society where the constitution exists to prevent dictatorship, theocracy, etc.


I'm glad you know the fallacies.
Now I don't need to go into further detail as to why you get NO MONEY.


Also:

-Capitalism has a strong basis in logic. It did not appear spontaneously, and it does not run on magic.
-The USSR was an extreme socialist country, not a communist country.
-Pure communism is not a fully logical system.

Thanks for putting words into my mouth mecha, but please show me this proof that you said you have. Forget about negetive proof just show me the proof, or i will assume you have none. I didn't say i wanted proof of legality i said i wanted proof that gay marriage would better society...Also yea... i live in america the land of the free,not a place that limits peoples thought to logic and allows for no faith in the unseen and religion basically.... yea...did you get the memo?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"Thanks for putting words into my mouth mecha, but please show me this proof that you said you have. Forget about negetive proof just show me the proof, or i will assume you have none."

1 - My paraphrasings are fully accurate summaries of your points.

2 - Ignoring the Burden of Proof is a logical fallacy, so even if I do provide logical proof of my argument (which I already have), you get NO MONEY.

3 - The proof is right here. (click)

"I didn't say i wanted proof of legality i said i wanted proof that gay marriage would better society..."

4 - A constitutional legal system is a benefit to society - unless you'd like to revoke the fundamental keystone of american society.

"Also yea... i live in america the land of the free,not a place that limits peoples thought to logic and allows for no faith in the unseen and religion basically.... yea...did you get the memo?"

5 - I don't need a memo, because I have read the constitution. America's systems of government are secular.
You are in no way being prohibited from having faith, but you cannot impose a purely religious law.

Actually, where does the constitution say you can't have faith anymore?

In the Land of the Free you cannot harm others for no logical reason, regardless of what you think god says.

America is not a theocracy.

 

[FieryGoose]

"Thanks for putting words into my mouth mecha, but please show me this proof that you said you have. Forget about negetive proof just show me the proof, or i will assume you have none."

1 - My paraphrasings are fully accurate summaries of your points.

2 - Ignoring the Burden of Proof is a logical fallacy, so even if I do provide logical proof of my argument (which I already have), you get NO MONEY.

3 - The proof is right here. (click)

"I didn't say i wanted proof of legality i said i wanted proof that gay marriage would better society..."

4 - A constitutional legal system is a benefit to society - unless you'd like to revoke the fundamental keystone of american society.

"Also yea... i live in america the land of the free,not a place that limits peoples thought to logic and allows for no faith in the unseen and religion basically.... yea...did you get the memo?"

5 - I don't need a memo, because I have read the constitution. America's systems of government are secular.
You are in no way being prohibited from having faith, but you cannot impose a purely religious law.

Actually, where does the constitution say you can't have faith anymore?

In the Land of the Free you cannot harm others for no logical reason, regardless of what you think god says.

America is not a theocracy.

please don't humor me, i don't have the time to find more information, the information that i posted in my post after the one that you are refering to i provided my sources which were purely opinionated, as of now i don't have any hardcore evidence, infact there may be none, nonetheless you only provided me with a photo of the constitution. That doesn't count as any evidence, it counts for as much evidence as any of my qoutes, "life libery and the pursuit of happyness" does not ential actions such as marriage, people can be happy and express ultimate love without such things as marriage, an example of such people would be people who live single lives. Are you infering that my God tells me to hurt people who i don't agree with, i think my situation is quite the opposite i love all regardless of what their thoughts are of me . I'm tired of you hiding behind your logical fallacies why don't you come out of your fortress and talk to me, there's no need to tear apart my opinion in attempts to ridicule me, its just unnessesary.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"please don't humor me, i don't have the time to find more information"

1 - I am humouring you. What I am not doing is mocking you.

2 - If you cannot come up with a law that actually makes rational sense, you should not be proposing it in the first place.

"you only provided me with a photo of the constitution."

3 - I was implying that you should actually read the constitution.

"'life libery and the pursuit of happyness' does not ential actions such as marriage,"

4 - You are very wrong here. Marriage is a liberty.
Liberty is:
a) The condition of being free from restriction or control.
b) The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
(Click here for the definition of liberty.)

If you ban marriage from homosexuals who want it, for no reason, that is a restriction. It destroys a liberty.

5 - Again, you are very wrong. The Pursuit of Happiness is not limited to the base necessities of survival. In fact, it means the opposite.
Anything that you decide to do that harms no-one is a pursuit of happiness.

If you ban gay marriage for no reason, you are destroying an ability to pursue happiness.

"Are you infering that my God tells me to hurt people who i don't agree with, i think my situation is quite the opposite i love all regardless of what their thoughts are of me ."

6 - If you have have absolutely no logical reason to ban a liberty - and you have no religious reason to ban a liberty either - then what is your reason for banning this liberty?

"I'm tired of you hiding behind your logical fallacies why don't you come out of your fortress and talk to me, there's no need to tear apart my opinion in attempts to ridicule me, its just unnessesary."

7 - I am not ridiculing you. That would be illogical.

8 - Any valid discussion uses logic - especially when we are talking about the US Constitution (which is a secular document).

9 - There is a need to tear apart your opinion, as you are using your (illogical) opinion as an excuse to harm members of your own society for no reason.

If you would your arguments to last longer, make sure they are strong before you present them.

 

[Bull Goose Loony]

wow, it's like watching godzilla destroying tokyo, but instead of tokyo, it's ignorance.

 

[15357]

Its like seeing godzilla destroying the whole of japan, but only a bit better.

 

[Ludah]

I'm considering making an obscenely stupid statement just to witness Mecha ripping me apart and sucking the neurons from my brain to feed his own intellect.

It would be an honor.

 

[ríomhaire]

Ok yea, websters is just the best dictionary around according to the majority of critics, also 90% of the ones that showed up on google search defined marriage as being between a man and woman. But whatever everyone bows at your knees through your errors nonetheless.

So the gay marriage in Canada is marriage?

I didn't say marriages across america are standing strong i said the general priciple, why don't you read my posts?

If half of all marriages break down how could you possibly say marriage is standing strong?

Also let me see the evidence you found that people are homosexual due to a chemical imbalance,

No one said anything about a chemical imbalance.

i'm fairly sure that the majority of gays are gay because there choices in life led them to the eventaul reduction of security, but then agian i don't have personal experiences...

Did you choose to be straight?

So not allowing gays of the priveledge to marry due to numerous studies stating that an average gay person goes through over 100 partners during there lifetime...Just tell me what that says about the sence of importance in relationships that gays have. Not good.

I find that +100 partners hard to believe but even still. Why would you punish the gays who want to marry because some don't want to?

Marriage is a privelidge, not a right, nowhere in the bill of rights does it say everyman has the right to marry another man. It doesn't even say heterosexuals are allowed to marry.

Why should hetrosexuals have more privelidges that homosexuals?

Think of it this way marriage is an exclusive group that only adult heterosexuals have access to, the homosexual community is complaining and bringing matters to court for the judges to decide, becuase they cant get through senate the way things are going.

So?

Married couples don't want the sanctity of their marraige comprimised, so they exclude gays. If you ask the average american if there marriage is sacred to them they will say yes.

We aren't talking about religion here mate, we're talking about the law. 'Sanctity' has no place in law. The churches can ban gay marriage all they want but if something is sacred or not should have no effect on the law.

Your lucky i'm not black. Secondly for every black person, homosexual or heterosexual, they benifited from it, they're normal human beings, your talking about them like they don't exist on this forum.

Did you just say blacks, homosexuals and heterosexuals aren't normal? That sentence is confusing.

If if doesn't benifit the majority of americans why should i support it?

Lets say there are 500 people being burned to death somewhere in your town. They can all be easily saved and it wouldn't even cost anything. It will not have a negative effect on anyone in the entire world. But, it will not benifit the majority of Americans. Do you suupport saving them?

I support civil union between two homosexuals, im not anti-gay, get that through your heads!!

What's the difference between a civil union and a marriage?

I'm sure most of you are mature enough to not stereotype homosexuals as helpless individuals that suffer to such a great extent that are persecuted daily, i'm sure it's no more pursecution than i get for being a christian. Where do you guys draw the line for marriage?

I don't understand the question to be honest. Your posts are confusing.

Marriage of homosexuals would be a currupt(a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct)

Blacks being free is a departure from the original, your computer is a departure from the original.

 

[Sparta]

Marriage of homosexuals would be a currupt(a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct) act and should not be legalized.

Who defines what is pure and correct?

Doesn't the American Constitution say every man and woman is equal under the eyes of God? Hence only God can determine what is right or wrong (if you believe in God) and i'm guessing unless you found the Ark of the Covenant, then you can't talk to God and therefore have no way of determining what is pure or correct.

If you think a man's love for a woman is pure, then whats the difference between a man's love for another man or a womans love for another woman? How does something so trivial as a different gender determine whether someones love is "corrupt" or "original" or "correct"?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Hey Sparta! I misread 'Sparda' and thought 'my, that was an unusually nice post'.

In any case, Foxhound, stop dithering and get it into your head that the burden of proof must be on those who want gay marriage banned - for reasons already stated. There must be a reason why something isn't allowed, not the other way around. It's the same principle, in a way, as 'innocent until proven guilty'. Any given behaviour is legal until proven harmful and detrimental to individuals/society.

Gay marriage has not yet been proven harmful in any way. Mecha will never have to surrender his $500, because there is no argument against it.

 

[JNightshade]

Man, Mecha is exceedingly good at this. Mecha, do you do something related to this for a living? Or are you just exceedingly good at shutting idiots down without being remotely rude? Whatever it is, you have my admiration