Textbook censorship. Hooray, hooray.

[Neutrino]

some people need to learn how to read. When I use alcohol as an example .. I'm using it as an example. not as a direct comparison.

No, you were using it as a comparison. It has no relevance to the issue.

When I tell you about indirect harm, don't talk to me about direct harm. you need to look beyond the obvious.

Well, that's what you were seeming to do.

First of all, there are things which destroy society, and things which strengthen society.

I would say "there are things, which weaken society and there are things, which stregthen society." is a bit more accurate. "Destroy" and "strengthen" are not really antonyms.

Secondly, the purpose of laws and legislations is to protect the society and protect the individuals. when the law punishes crminals, the purpose is not punishment for few people, but it's the protection of the whole society.

Agreed.

There are things called morals, and something thing called conscience, thigns that .. pretty much determine what is right and what is wrong.

Not quite true. Secular morals and conscience are subjective. Only religions claims they are absolutes and because there are multiple religions within society they cannot be used in government.

for example, anything that harms other people is considered bad. but why is it that way? why is it bad? because your freedom ends where my freedom begins? well, why should it be that way? Personally, if somebody asks me that question I wouldn't know how to answer, because he apparently doesn't care about others, he simply doesn't recognize right and wrong. that's why he is complaining.

Well, I do know how to answer. There are actually multiple ways of answering it, but to list one, an individual's rights are infringed upon when someone harms them, whether it be injuring them, killing them, or stealing from them among other things. But for society to function in a way that grants the greatest amount of freedom to the greatest amount of people the laws of the government must equally apply to everyone. It is not practical or desirable to treat people unequally in the eyes of the law. History has shown us that to do so leads to less freedom for the people. Thus one must extend the policy of punishing one individual for harming another individual to everyone within the society.

There's a lot more to it, but that a simplified version.

anyway, morals are means of preserving the health of the individuals and the society. curroption in morals results eventually in the curroption of society. ofcourse, it varies depending on the level of the corruption and the scale of its spread.

and you have to notice that moral curroption doesn't necessarily have a direct harm on any single person. that's a different issue.
Yes, things like drugs do have direct effects on specific individuals, such as the person taking them, but this is a diffetent issue.

It is also possible to link drugs to greater more indirect harms within society. You can create statistics for the detrimental affects of alcoholism. Thus you cannot compare it to gays as there is no similar evidence or statistics for them.

adultery is such a moral corruption, that might not have a direct effect on anyone, but has a negative effect on society. how? it causes a breakdown of the family, which causes psychological problems for children. These children are the next generation. when this is wide spread across the society, ofcourse it reults in destroying it.

Ok, but this still doesn't relate to gays. Now you could relate heterosexual adultery to homosexual adultery, but that is not what you are doing.

now ofcourse, adultery IS widespread in the west, and it's one of the causes for so many social problems, like children who are born not knowing who their father is, and thier mom probably can't take care of them because she has to work al day, so she rings a baby sitter. you have people who hate their families. and these are not rare cases, of course I need to research more on this subject.

Again, this has nothing to do with the issue. Heterosexual or homosexual adultery has nothing to do with the morality of a gay or straight monogamous relationship.

more to come ....

flame away .. I must be the worst nazi in your eyes by now :cheese:

No, but you have yet again failed to list a single reason as to why gays are bad or how they harm society.

So far your entire arguement consists of this:

"Gays are bad because they harm society."

All you have is a thesis statement. Valid arguements must also contains a body and conclusion as well. If you tried to do this with a school paper you would flunk.

 

[Tr0n]

The only part I actually read on that whole post...was the last 4 sentences...lol.Damn my A.D.D.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

No-one thinks you're a nazi, hasan. At least I hope not.
But still, your argument is really weak, for the reasons Neutrino pointed out.

Like I said, your argument is:

Gays + X = Chaos.

You need to fill in the blank.

My stance on morality is that portrayed in the US constitution.
It says that everyone has the right to
1) life
2) liberty
-and-
3) the pursuit of happiness
so long as they do not remove those rights from another person.
Since the constitution is what is being affected here, that seems reasonable to me.

So, that leaves the question:
How do gay marriages remove any of those three rights?

If those rights aren't being infringed, it is impossible for gay marriage to harm anyone.
And if gay marriage harms no-one in society, then society will be perfectly fine.

However, banning gay marriage removes the pursuit of happiness and the liberty from gays.

Therefore, the ban is the only danger to society, not the gays.

 

[hasan]

* when I finally clicked "review post", for a final review before I finally submit it, IE crashed on me!! :x .. time for a re-write.

Please be patient, I'm trying to gather my ideas and collect some resources ..
Yes, as you might have noticed, I haven't talked about gays at all, this is because .. like I said, I want to establish some basics first. not necessarily a common ground, but at least a starting ground for me; a one that you can see.

also (I think I shouldn't say this, as it makes my position look weak), google doesn't help much in this case. (maybe I'm using the wrong keywords ..)

anyway ..
yes, morals can be different depending on where you are, different societies have different moral codes, and thus it can be said that morals and social values are subjective .. and maybe should be thrown away.
but the truth is, if you look carefully, there are common basic priciples that everybody agrees on. it's the details where you find differences.
prostitution for example, is viewed as a shameful act by everybody, a "vice" .. if that't an appropriate term (I only saw it in a dictionary). yet it is legalized (isn't it? I think it is).
I hope you can see the harms of prostitution .. or else I would have to dig something up.
Something I want to bring your attention to, is the fact that breaking the social values destroys the society. not in the sense of eliminating it, but in the sense that it brings many harms to it and damages it greatly.
some issues might not seem like a big deal, but when you start voilating small things, it'll become easy to voilate bigger things. for example, some people argue that since alcohol is allowed, drugs should be allowed too. and so, it becomes easy after a while to just ommit any sort of morals all together. and I think that's what has been happening in the west, and this is why there is a big debate about legalizing drugs.

I think the root of this is the liberal view of society,
I think I need show that this view has brought alot of harms to western socities.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Yes, as you might have noticed, I haven't talked about gays at all, this is because .. like I said, I want to establish some basics first. not necessarily a common ground, but at least a starting ground for me; a one that you can see.

Well, now we can get back on topic and continue with the argument at hand.

anyway ..
yes, morals can be different depending on where you are, different societies have different moral codes, and thus it can be said that morals and social values are subjective .. and maybe should be thrown away.

Yes, societies do all have moral codes. However, I don't think anyone is proposing that morality be thrown away.

The purpose of constitutional law is to have a minimum set of moral standards that apply to everyone. That way, no culture is infringed upon.
The way this morality is determined is purely through fact. Since traditional or religious practices are varied in nearly unlimited ways, the constitution limits the extents of the law to what everyone holds in common: the secular world.

As such, the constitution allows every belief to exist, except those that harm people. That way, it doesn't play favorites.

but the truth is, if you look carefully, there are common basic priciples that everybody agrees on. it's the details where you find differences.

Actually, there are only three principles that all cultures agree upon. The writers of the constitution rather intelligently summarized them:
1) Every human on Earth should live without risk of death.
2) Every human on Earth should be free to do whatever they want.
3) Every human on Earth should not be prevented from being happy.

The details are where the differences are, but the differences are infinite in number and in scale. Only those three are universal.

The constitution lets you be happy, doing whatever you want, and not dead.
All it asks in return is that you don't kill anyone, don't make anyone unhappy, and don't keep anyone from doing what they want.
If your religion adds laws onto those three, and you choose to follow those laws, go ahead. The constitution protects your ability to follow your own morality in a way that is safe for everyone.

Adding the gay marriage ban to the constitution destroys what two of those three laws stand for. Since America is based on those three laws, the ban inherently hurts America as well.

prostitution for example, is viewed as a shameful act by everybody, a "vice" .. if that't an appropriate term (I only saw it in a dictionary). yet it is legalized (isn't it? I think it is).
I hope you can see the harms of prostitution .. or else I would have to dig something up.

Actually, it isn't considered a "shameful act by everybody" otherwise, we'd have no prostitutes.
Prostitution is outlawed for basically the same reason drugs are: It is often used to generate revenue for criminals, it is can be unsafe is not done responsibly, and it is sometimes harmful to minors.
However, prostitution as a concept is entirely safe and provides liberty and happiness to the people who don't see it as morally objectionable.

What we need, therefore, is not a blanket ban on prostitution. We just need to regulate it to make it more safe. If the prostitutes are required to practice safe sex, are guaranteed to be 18 or older, and are happy to be there, there's no problem. If the pimps aren't abusive or criminal, there's no problem.

I wouldn't go to a prostitute. But many, many other people obviously want to and would pay good money. And if no-one is being harmed in the process, why couldn't they?
It doesn't harm you, it doesn't harm me, it doesn't harm anyone, the whore gets the money she wants, and the guy gets a blowjob. Everyone wins!

Something I want to bring your attention to, is the fact that breaking the social values destroys the society. not in the sense of eliminating it, but in the sense that it brings many harms to it and damages it greatly.

Here's where the problems really start with your argument. America, and the world in general, is not just one society.
It's thousands upon thousands of societies all living amoungst each other.
By not following values of one group, you do nothing to harm that group. You just enter another group.

For example, if I don't worship god, I'm not destroying christianity. I'm joining atheism.

Does my refusal to read the bible force everyone else to stop reading too? Nope.
Am I hurting any christian just because I'm not doing what they say? Nope.
I'm probably less likely to hurt them, since I'm not going insane after being force-fed their beliefs.
Am I happy that I'm not christian? Hell yes!

So, just to recap:
I am doing atheist stuff, christians are doing their christian stuff, neither of us are bugging the other and society hasn't fallen apart.
And it's all thanks to the constitution and the separation of church and state!

some issues might not seem like a big deal, but when you start voilating small things, it'll become easy to voilate bigger things. for example, some people argue that since alcohol is allowed, drugs should be allowed too. and so, it becomes easy after a while to just ommit any sort of morals all together. and I think that's what has been happening in the west, and this is why there is a big debate about legalizing drugs.

The reason it's a debate is that legalising drugs could actually save lives, stop crime, and allow people who use drugs to be happy.

As long as drugs are being used in a way that doesn't hurt anyone, why stop them?
If Gary smokes pot in his basement, does he hurt you?
It's called a victimless crime.

It's like breaking the VCR that you own, and then being arrested for vandalism.

That brings up the ultimate question:
If something cannot hurt you, how can it hurt you?
And if no people get hurt, how can a society be hurt?
A society is made of people. If those people are alive and free, so is the society. Some people might not want to be part of that society, so what do we gain by forcing them to stay?

The only way to destroy a society is to pass laws against it.
The constitution only destroys three 'societies':

People who kill
People who remove liberty
-and-
People who cause unhappiness
(except in cases where people break these laws first)

Do married gays fit any of those three descriptions?

I think the root of this is the liberal view of society,
I think I need show that this view has brought alot of harms to western socities.

For the reasons I pointed out, the only harm that can be done to society is when a law is passed against it. The only group that can be hurt by the gay marriage ban debate are the gays.

If a liberal view of society were even partially realised, the world would be a better place.
And it has been partially realised. People of all genders, races, religions have equal rights.

Drugs don't need to be banned. They need to be made safe.
Prostitution doesn't need to be banned. It needs to be made safe.
Gays have always been safe. Why ban them?

 

[trizzm]

damnit people, it's simple.
Homosexual people can not reproduce. Young children can easily be influenced by growing gay masses and exposure. The homosexual communities are growing exponentially and the sole reason for that is the lifting of the taboo on gay matters. What kind of hope does humanity have if everyone is a homosexual?

A penis goes in the inside of a vagina. Say the opposite and renounce your humanity. I'm certainly going to teach that to my children. Not doing so would be irresponsible.

Furthermore, flamboyant gays are all attention whores.
Otherwise they would shut the **** up and live like normal people.

 

[Neutrino]

damnit people, it's simple.
Homosexual people can not reproduce. Young children can easily be influenced by growing gay masses and exposure. The homosexual communities are growing exponentially and the sole reason for that is the lifting of the taboo on gay matters. What kind of hope does humanity have if everyone is a homosexual?

A penis goes in the inside of a vagina. Say the opposite and renounce your humanity. I'm certainly going to teach that to my children. Not doing so would be irresponsible.

Furthermore, flamboyant gays are all attention whores.
Otherwise they would shut the **** up and live like normal people.

Wow, I usually like to stay away from name calling, but you are seriously ignorant.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

damnit people, it's simple.
Homosexual people can not reproduce. Young children can easily be influenced by growing gay masses and exposure. The homosexual communities are growing exponentially and the sole reason for that is the lifting of the taboo on gay matters. What kind of hope does humanity have if everyone is a homosexual?

A penis goes in the inside of a vagina. Say the opposite and renounce your humanity. I'm certainly going to teach that to my children. Not doing so would be irresponsible.

Furthermore, flamboyant gays are all attention whores.
Otherwise they would shut the **** up and live like normal people.

So, the only thing keeping you from being gay is the fear that someone will make fun of you?

Don't worry, we accept you for who you are. And there is no logical reason to hate gays, nor is there a law.
Ah! You got the gay on you!
Only in your case, it's caused by expose to stupid.

Also, your little doomsday scenario is only logically possible if gays are more intelligent, persuasive and well-liked than you.
No wonder you're scared.

So, good luck with the children thing, because I bet you're a real catch for the ladies.

Dammit people, it's simple.
People as dumb as trizzm should not reproduce. Young children can easily be influenced by growing masses of stupidity and exposure to overt idiocy. The dumbass communities are growing exponentially and the sole reason for that is the lifting of the taboo on being a god-fearing dunderchunce. What kind of hope does humanity have if everyone is as underinformed as trizzm?

Gays are harmless and you're not going to turn gay just because you neighbour is. Say the opposite and renounce your ability to think rationally. I'm certainly going to teach that to my children. Not doing so would be irresponsible.

Furthermore, people who post arguments based soley on illogical grounds, and actually expect to be taken seriously, are all attention whores.
Otherwise they would shut the fcuk up and live like normal people.

It's like mad libs. Only I made it less insane.

It's so great that when every bit of logic is stacked against this line of 'thought', someone just skips over all the intelligent conversation and says something to the effect of:
"gays are bad lol im straight as and arrow and unless i badmouth other people and pass laws against them i will turn less stright and my mom will slap me silly a/s/l"

Thanks for making this thread smarter with your rational arguments and clear-thinking, academic approach.

...that's sarcasm. It means I'm making fun of you, dummy.

 

[CptStern]

I thought we got rid of superstition along with witch burnings and animal sacrifices

trizzm I sincerely hope you never reproduce

 

[Absinthe]

Yes, the human race is in danger of extinction because of homosexuals. Never mind that this world is severely overpopulated as-is and homosexuals are still in a relatively small minority.

This "gays cant breed" argument is bullshit because people who flaunt it are essentially arguing that it goes against nature. Let's ignore, for a second, that homosexuality does exist in nature. Even if it did go against it, so ****ing what? The entire human race goes against nature in more than a couple ways. Contraception, anybody? Or how about medication and treatment? If it was up to nature, more than half of you would be dead by now. Scratch that, actually. None of you would even be here today. Prosthetics? Hey, if somebody loses a limb, we just give them an artificial one. I wonder how many other species have the ability to do that. Or how about genetic manipulation of produce? Hey, what about sex-change operations?

The "it's unnatural" argument does not hold up because it's entirely hypocritical. The moment these people start living naked in the wild and begin killing their meals with their hands and nails, I'll give them some credibility.

 

[Revisedsoul]

one thing hasan. if you say that homosexuality affects society in a negative manner. and it has been around longer than most relgious if not all, then by that reasoning what has it done to affect society in a negative way today?

 

[hasan]

ahem .. the secular world is not what everybody holds in common. There is a set of basic "global" moral code, which whether you like it or not, opposes prostitution and opposes gayness.

The "why does it exist" is not an argument. Killing exists every where and has existed since like ever, does that mean it's morally approved by the society?
Killings has been around since ever, and humanity still exists, does that mean killing is ok? or does it mean killing doesn't hurt anybody?
Animals kill each other, does that mean we can kill each other?

Morals are not based on interests and benifits, these are material things, morals are spiritual, not material. They are based on principles, not interests. This is what makes us humans, this is one of things that disinguishes humans form animals.
Animals only do things based on thier own interests, they do things to survive. It's the law of the jungle
That's why we relate chaos to the jungle. in the jungle, there is no law, the only law is survival for the stroengest, if you're not a wolf, wolfs will eat you.

So you can't come and tell me, if something doesn't hurt me it's ok.
say some guy kills some other guy. does that hurt me? no. but should be I be concerned? yes. Is killing wrong, even if it doesn't (or hasn't yet) hurt me? yes.
Actually, what if I'm greedy, and I want to kill some guy because some how if I do that I will get alot of money? that benefits me, so should I do it? or does that make if morally ok because of the "fact" that I will get richer and hence enhance my life experience?

Actually, if somebody kills someone, does that hurt the whole society, or just hurts the victim and his family?
well, it hurts only the victim directly, but indirectly it hurts the whole society, and it must be stopped, because if we don't stop it, it'll spread. and when it spreads, the society will turn to a jungle.
Does that make sense? do you see where I'm going?

so this line of thinking .. "if it doesn't hurt you, it doesn't hurt you" is dangerous.
Someone is smoking pot in his basement, the hell, he is killing his own self. but shouldn't I be concerned? I should.
Specially when people speak out about it and strive to legalize it, that should make me even be more concerned. What if the next guy to smoke be my son (I don't have a son, mind you =P), or even me?

If someone does it in his own basment, secretly, well then no one even knows about him, so none can stop him. but when people speak out .. no, it must be stopped.

prostituion is a moral degration, I don't know why I'm surprised that you say it doesn't hurt anyone. I shouldn't be.

look, when I tell you it hurts the society, that doesn't mean people will disappear or become extinct. It just means the society is moving on the path to its downfall.

I've yet to come across a good statistics, but look at western societies.
look at the suicide rates, what's thier cause? look how many people do drugs (I think here in my area, everybody is on drugs), people keep changing boy/girl friends. males leave thier girlfriends when they become pregnant, and you get thousands of kids who don't know who thier father is. look at the crime rate.
I can't count these type of things becuase I'm no social expert, but these things are everywhere. and they are pretty much all a result of the materialist and liberal line of thinking.

infact, I believe that what happened at Abu Gharib (the sexual humiliation part) is a result of this line of thinking, because these things are very common, and very normal, nobody objects to it. those people who did it find absolutly nothing wrong with it, because that's probably what they do to each other at thier friday/saturday night parties.

 

[hasan]

(too late to edit)
forgot to mention that, according to this line of thinking, there is no right and wrong, only what the voters decide.
so if the voteres decide on something, regardless what their reason is, that is what is considered right.
if everybody is on drugs, and everybody votes for drugs to be legal, that will be considered to be "right".

If there is nothing that everybody agrees on, what is it that determines right and wrong? nothing. Well then, how do we decide what to do? We just let people vote, and the majority wins.

I'm not saying that this is right, I strongly oppose that, if everyone voted for drugs or gayness, that does it make it right, but that's how the system works.

I'm just pointing out that according to "there is no right and wrong" way of thinking, if people vote against gay marrige, then that's what will be considered right, and if you have an opposing opinion, that's just your opinion, and everyone has his opinion.

 

[OCybrManO]

ahem .. the secular world is not what everybody holds in common. There is a set of basic "global" moral code, which whether you like it or not, opposes prostitution and opposes gayness.

The "why does it exist" is not an argument. Killing exists every where and has existed since like ever, does that mean it's morally approved by the society?
Killings has been around since ever, and humanity still exists, does that mean killing is ok? or does it mean killing doesn't hurt anybody?
Animals kill each other, does that mean we can kill each other?

Morals are not based on interests and benifits, these are material things, morals are spiritual, not material. They are based on principles, not interests. This is what makes us humans, this is one of things that disinguishes humans form animals.
Animals only do things based on thier own interests, they do things to survive. It's the law of the jungle
That's why we relate chaos to the jungle. in the jungle, there is no law, the only law is survival for the stroengest, if you're not a wolf, wolfs will eat you.

So you can't come and tell me, if something doesn't hurt me it's ok.
say some guy kills some other guy. does that hurt me? no. but should be I be concerned? yes. Is killing wrong, even if it doesn't (or hasn't yet) hurt me? yes.
Actually, what if I'm greedy, and I want to kill some guy because some how if I do that I will get alot of money? that benefits me, so should I do it? or does that make if morally ok because of the "fact" that I will get richer and hence enhance my life experience?

Actually, if somebody kills someone, does that hurt the whole society, or just hurts the victim and his family?
well, it hurts only the victim directly, but indirectly it hurts the whole society, and it must be stopped, because if we don't stop it, it'll spread. and when it spreads, the society will turn to a jungle.
Does that make sense? do you see where I'm going?

so this line of thinking .. "if it doesn't hurt you, it doesn't hurt you" is dangerous.
Someone is smoking pot in his basement, the hell, he is killing his own self. but shouldn't I be concerned? I should.
Specially when people speak out about it and strive to legalize it, that should make me even be more concerned. What if the next guy to smoke be my son (I don't have a son, mind you =P), or even me?

If someone does it in his own basment, secretly, well then no one even knows about him, so none can stop him. but when people speak out .. no, it must be stopped.

prostituion is a moral degration, I don't know why I'm surprised that you say it doesn't hurt anyone. I shouldn't be.

look, when I tell you it hurts the society, that doesn't mean people will disappear or become extinct. It just means the society is moving on the path to its downfall.

I've yet to come across a good statistics, but look at western societies.
look at the suicide rates, what's thier cause? look how many people do drugs (I think here in my area, everybody is on drugs), people keep changing boy/girl friends. males leave thier girlfriends when they become pregnant, and you get thousands of kids who don't know who thier father is. look at the crime rate.
I can't count these type of things becuase I'm no social expert, but these things are everywhere. and they are pretty much all a result of the materialist and liberal line of thinking.

infact, I believe that what happened at Abu Gharib (the sexual humiliation part) is a result of this line of thinking, because these things are very common, and very normal, nobody objects to it. those people who did it find absolutly nothing wrong with it, because that's probably what they do to each other at thier friday/saturday night parties.

(too late to edit)
forgot to mention that, according to this line of thinking, there is no right and wrong, only what the voters decide.
so if the voteres decide on something, regardless what their reason is, that is what is considered right.
if everybody is on drugs, and everybody votes for drugs to be legal, that will be considered to be "right".

If there is nothing that everybody agrees on, what is it that determines right and wrong? nothing. Well then, how do we decide what to do? We just let people vote, and the majority wins.

I'm not saying that this is right, I strongly oppose that, if everyone voted for drugs or gayness, that does it make it right, but that's how the system works.

I'm just pointing out that according to "there is no right and wrong" way of thinking, if people vote against gay marrige, then that's what will be considered right, and if you have an opposing opinion, that's just your opinion, and everyone has his opinion.

First, when people say "it doesn't harm you" they are using the universal you that refers to everyone... not just you, the individual. The only way it has any effect on people comes from the social stigma (caused by religion and people not understanding it) behind the practice of homosexuality. How can you even compare murder and homosexuality? One is an act of love between two consenting adults (that happen to be of the same sex) and the other is an extreme act of hatred against an unwilling person that ends the victim's life. I don't like prostitution, I don't like drugs, I don't like gambling, etc... but homosexuality harms no one that isn't intolerant. Now, you could argue that if everyone went gay all at once we'd die out as a species... but others will argue that gays have been around almost as long as sentient animals (including humans) themselves have existed (and were even publicly accepted in some prosperous societies) but never in a proportion even remotely near large enough to affect the survival of their race. Actually, you know what? With all the horrible stuff we do to the environment and the animals, I think the planet would be better off without us. Also, with the way our population keeps recklessly growing I'd almost tend to support anything that doesn't produce children.

Second, most of the people in the armed forces are religious conservatives... so I don't know how you're trying to blame blaming liberals for the shit that happens in combat. There are a lot of ****ed up religious people. Just look at those paedophilic Catholic priests or the "healers" that go on TV trying to extort money from gullible people or people that have started wars "in the name of God" (now, I'm not up to date on my religious studies... but I don't think God likes wars) or how the "religious right" disregards the environment in favor of big business (that's two wrongs... don't forget that greed is frowned upon) or any of countless other examples...

Third, there is right and wrong in a secular society... and it basically comes down to a simple test. If an optional (if it's not optional, you had no choice) activity is harmful to others at your benefit, it's wrong. If an optional activity harmful to no one and still benefits you, I can't justify stopping you from doing it just because I don't like it. Now, people may use that argument to try to validate the use of drugs... but you can do a lot of damage to others (not to mention the damage you do to yourself that your friends and family have to watch) when you are on drugs. If there was a drug found to have no adverse effects on the user (including causing him/her to harm others) there would be no reason to ban it.

 

[Carfax]

Interesting discussion.. Both sides have brought up some interesting points.. Now, I'll say my piece on the issue..

First, I'll dismantle the homosexuality is "natural" or "normal" arguement that gay supporters are bringing up.

First off, let me state that Homosexuality is NOT a true sexuality, but a pseudo-sexuality..

Heterosexuality is the only true sexuality, as it is supported at both the biological, and physiological level. What do I mean when I say this? Human beings reproduce sexually, hence the need for two genders. Both genders are equipped with internal and external sexual organs to aid in reproduction, and sexual union.

Homosexuals by definition logically require neither of these, yet they have them. Why would a gay man need sperm? Why would a lesbian need to menstruate? Why do they have genitalia DESIGNED to have sex, with a member of the OPPOSITE sex?

Infact, homosexuals are physically "incapable" of having sex..

So, essentially, to say that homosexuality is "normal" is absurd. If homosexuality were normal/natural, gays would not have external and internal sexual organs designed to accomodate the OPPOSITE sex..

Anal "sex" is NOT sex, and neither is oral sex. Both acts involve fooling the body into thinking you're having sex, by stimulating the external sexual organs.

Real sex involves coitus, and can only be accomplished by a male and a female.

Also, just because "some" animals do it, it doesn't make it natural/normal. Animals commit infanticide, so does that mean infanticide is natural/normal? Also, siamese twins are found in the natural world aswell, but does that means they are normal?

Should gays be allowed to marry?

Ofcourse not..

Why? Because, Marriage, despite what the idiot leftists would have you think, is not a RIGHT. There are stipulations involved, such as blood relative status, age, amount of people involved, and.....the same gender..

Why should homosexuals be allowed to marry, while polygamists cannot?

Answer that..

~Carfax

 

[Raziaar]

Fun subject. Hrm.

EDIT: I mainly posted so i'd have a means of subscribing to it. Is there another way?

 

[exodusuk]

have i stumbled across the essay forum or something

 

[HunterSeeker]

I see more reason to ban hetrosexuality then homosexuality. Homosexuality dosent harm anyone that dosent want to be harmed (read: Accepts homosexuality). Hetrosexuals however create humans. Humans cause grief and sorrow and death.

 

[Neutrino]

There is a set of basic "global" moral code, which whether you like it or not, opposes prostitution and opposes gayness.

"'Global' moral code?"

Hah! Now that is funny.

 

[HunterSeeker]

There is a remote stoneage society somewhere in the world (think it was australia) that has there male youths give the older men a blowjob basically, its mandatory (They see sperm=strength).

 

[Tr0n]

If I remember correctly...Wasn't the greatest general/leader of all time Alexander the Great bisexual?

 

[burner69]

Interesting discussion.. Both sides have brought up some interesting points.. Now, I'll say my piece on the issue..

First, I'll dismantle the homosexuality is "natural" or "normal" arguement that gay supporters are bringing up.

First off, let me state that Homosexuality is NOT a true sexuality, but a pseudo-sexuality..

Heterosexuality is the only true sexuality, as it is supported at both the biological, and physiological level. What do I mean when I say this? Human beings reproduce sexually, hence the need for two genders. Both genders are equipped with internal and external sexual organs to aid in reproduction, and sexual union.

Homosexuals by definition logically require neither of these, yet they have them. Why would a gay man need sperm? Why would a lesbian need to menstruate? Why do they have genitalia DESIGNED to have sex, with a member of the OPPOSITE sex?

Infact, homosexuals are physically "incapable" of having sex..

So, essentially, to say that homosexuality is "normal" is absurd. If homosexuality were normal/natural, gays would not have external and internal sexual organs designed to accomodate the OPPOSITE sex..

Anal "sex" is NOT sex, and neither is oral sex. Both acts involve fooling the body into thinking you're having sex, by stimulating the external sexual organs.

Real sex involves coitus, and can only be accomplished by a male and a female.

Also, just because "some" animals do it, it doesn't make it natural/normal. Animals commit infanticide, so does that mean infanticide is natural/normal? Also, siamese twins are found in the natural world aswell, but does that means they are normal?

Should gays be allowed to marry?

Ofcourse not..

Why? Because, Marriage, despite what the idiot leftists would have you think, is not a RIGHT. There are stipulations involved, such as blood relative status, age, amount of people involved, and.....the same gender..

Why should homosexuals be allowed to marry, while polygamists cannot?

Answer that..

~Carfax

So because homosexuals can't make babies that makes it unnatural? The act of sex on a personal level is to gain pleasure, and in the natural world this desire for pleasure would have us shagging and making babies. It took a while for us humans to discover that sex is what caused child birth. Before, and after then, women were having sex with women, and men with men. Why? Because the wanted to. It gave them pleasure, and didn't harm anybody.
No, kindly explain how the natural act of homosexuality can be linked to eating ones own young - which is clearly harmful. Please, explain. Devouring ones infants occurs in the natural world when the babies might starve unless some are killed, or if their prescence somehow risks the lives of them, and the parents. As a species we rarely if ever encounter such situations, and if we did due to the way we are socialised it is unlikley we would do it. Comparing life and death extreme survival techniques practised by a few species cannot be compared to the act of homosexual sex, which harms nobody and is done out of desire, not desperation.
Siamese twins do occur in nature. What is ur point? They are 'normal' in the sense they exist. Should we ban siamese twins? In the same way it seems you would like homosexuality banned. It happens, so why don't we accept the truth and just say "Hey, I don't think the same as you, but who cares, you can have the same rights as me".

Blood relative status can lead to abnormalities in children.
Age restrictions prevent child abuse and young people being led astray by horny paedophiles.
Amount of people involved; in my opinion, if three or four, five, six seven etc people want to get married they should be able to. If you can give me a logical argument why they shouldn't; and by logic I mean an argument that makes sense and is not just saying "The bible says it is wrong" - because as mentioned I'm sure many times before, the bible says a lot of things are wrong, yet we still do them. To stray off subject a little, it seems clear that the bible is not effective at making ruling decisions today - as it has been altered to benefit and is causing distress to people by stripping them of things that other people have; eg marriage.

Should we ban homosexual marriage? Of course not.
Why? Because it happens within our species.. simple as that. Banning the marriage of homosexuals seems like you just don't want to accept the truth, and that by passing laws that undermine their sexuality you will somehow get rid of it.

It seems the bible is the only 'valid' argument used against homosexuality - that gay marriage offends christians, and so it should be ceased. If religion causes so much pointless damage, it shouldn't be used as a basis of government rules. Try common sense to govern todays world, not some 2000 year old rules.

 

[burner69]

If I remember correctly...Wasn't the greatest general/leader of all time Alexander the Great bisexual?

Yup, along with, I believe, all his army, Spartacus, the roman army, the Greeks - pretty much all the people from those time periods.

 

[Tr0n]

Yup, along with, I believe, all his army, Spartacus, the roman army, the Greeks - pretty much all the people from those time periods.

Oh...no wonder why all those empires failed.They had gays! (sarcasm)

 

[Steve]

Oh...no wonder why all those empires failed.They had gays! (sarcasm)

Whatever, Tr0n. I know you hate homos. (playin')

 

[Tr0n]

Whatever, Tr0n. I know you hate homos. (playin')

You're still mad over her!I can tell!

You shouldn't be jealous... :hmph:

Anyways....I may be a redneck...but I ain't a ignorant dumbass one.

I have a gay uncle btw.

 

[Steve]

I have a gay uncle btw.

I don't. I guess I win.



....I'm just playin' around. My uncles are all rednecks...the kind you're not. The ignorant kind. So bleh.

 

[Carfax]

So because homosexuals can't make babies that makes it unnatural?

Are you always this obtuse? I said, homosexuals cannot have sex at all period! Their organs (just like the rest of us) are equipped for heterosexual intercourse. Homosexual intercourse is physically impossible.

Could nature be trying to tell us something, by equipping human beings with sexual organs designed for sex with the opposite sex?

The act of sex on a personal level is to gain pleasure, and in the natural world this desire for pleasure would have us shagging and making babies.

Thats incorrect. The SOLE purpose of sex has always been reproduction. Pleasure is a byproduct of this, but if you know anything about human physiology (and I suspect you don't), you'd know that the orgasm's primary purpose is to aid in the reproductive process (both male and female).

It took a while for us humans to discover that sex is what caused child birth.

Now you're just making stuff up..

[

Before, and after then, women were having sex with women, and men with men. Why? Because the wanted to. It gave them pleasure, and didn't harm anybody.

Are you honestly claiming everyone was GAY until people discovered that having sex with someone of the opposite sex would result in a child?

Now I've heard it all. You get the prize for the dumbest statement of all time!

No, kindly explain how the natural act of homosexuality can be linked to eating ones own young - which is clearly harmful.

It doesn't matter whether it's harmful or not. I'm answering your erroneous logic that just because animals do it, it "must" be natural. Therefore, if animals commit infanticide, it "must" be natural aswell according to your jaded logic.

Please, explain. Devouring ones infants occurs in the natural world when the babies might starve unless some are killed, or if their prescence somehow risks the lives of them, and the parents.

Now you are trying to justify infanticide.

Comparing life and death extreme survival techniques practised by a few species cannot be compared to the act of homosexual sex, which harms nobody and is done out of desire, not desperation.

Again, there is no such thing as homosexual "sex."

Siamese twins do occur in nature. What is ur point? They are 'normal' in the sense they exist. Should we ban siamese twins? In the same way it seems you would like homosexuality banned.

What do you mean what is my point? You and your leftist buddies are the ones who have been saying that just because some animals practice homosexuality, it "must" be natural.

When something is natural, it means it's from Nature, or it's NORMAL.. Siamese twins are not natural, because they are not normal. They are a mistake.

Are you going to tell me that two creatures joined at the head is "natural?" :laugh

And, don't put words in my mouth! I never said homosexuality should be banned.

It happens, so why don't we accept the truth and just say "Hey, I don't think the same as you, but who cares, you can have the same rights as me".

Um, marriage is not a right. There are stipulations involved. I thought I had already made this clear.

Blood relative status can lead to abnormalities in children.
Age restrictions prevent child abuse and young people being led astray by horny paedophiles.

What if the brother agrees to getting snipped so he can't reproduce? Or the sister gets her tubes tied?

Amount of people involved; in my opinion, if three or four, five, six seven etc people want to get married they should be able to. If you can give me a logical argument why they shouldn't;

There is nothing logically wrong with Polygamy. Polygamy is far more natural than homosexuality, yet polygamists are denied Marriage..

To stray off subject a little, it seems clear that the bible is not effective at making ruling decisions today - as it has been altered to benefit and is causing distress to people by stripping them of things that other people have; eg marriage

I never said anything about the Bible. You're the one that has brought it up. I'm not even a Christian.

Should we ban homosexual marriage? Of course not.
Why? Because it happens within our species.. simple as that. Banning the marriage of homosexuals seems like you just don't want to accept the truth, and that by passing laws that undermine their sexuality you will somehow get rid of it.

Homosexual marriage should be banned. It's absurd to think that homosexual marriage is the same thing as heterosexual marriage, and demands the same rights.

It seems the bible is the only 'valid' argument used against homosexuality - that gay marriage offends christians, and so it should be ceased. If religion causes so much pointless damage, it shouldn't be used as a basis of government rules. Try common sense to govern todays world, not some 2000 year old rules.

Again, you're so illiterate you didn't even notice I'm not Christian, and that I never used the Bible to justify my arguement.

~Carfax

 

[CptStern]

gays have every right to do as they please. It's none of your business, period.

 

[Carfax]

gays have every right to do as they please. It's none of your business, period.

Yeah, and drug users have the "right" to shoot themselves up with heroin and cocaine...

It's none of my business if it doesn't affect me right?

Ridiculous!

I'm glad the liberals and democrats lost the last election..

~Carfax

 

[^Ben]

Ignorant idiot award goes to you!

:golfclap:

 

[Carfax]

Ignorant idiot award goes to you!

:golfclap:

Typical moron. You can't win the debate using logic, so you resort to ad hominem attacks

~Carfax

 

[HunterSeeker]

Typical moron. You can't win the debate using logic, so you resort to ad hominem attacks

~Carfax

Maybe its becouse he thinks all logic goes out the other ear on you?

How is anyone harmed when two homosexuals marry?

 

[Kommie]

Maybe its becouse he thinks all logic goes out the other ear on you?

How is anyone harmed when two homosexuals marry?

I AM harmed because gay people scare me and acceptance is something that I hate and fear!

JESUS SAYETH IN THE BOOK OF propoganda; BS 1:11 " I hate gay people!, They are icky!" So if it's in the bible that means that it is proven fact (via the scientific method)

This was sarcasm
-edit-
We should get a mod to sticky a gay marriage thread so that there arent 50 new threads on this every day

 

[burner69]

Are you always this obtuse? I said, homosexuals cannot have sex at all period! Their organs (just like the rest of us) are equipped for heterosexual intercourse. Homosexual intercourse is physically impossible.

Could nature be trying to tell us something, by equipping human beings with sexual organs designed for sex with the opposite sex?

Thats incorrect. The SOLE purpose of sex has always been reproduction. Pleasure is a byproduct of this, but if you know anything about human physiology (and I suspect you don't), you'd know that the orgasm's primary purpose is to aid in the reproductive process (both male and female).

Now you're just making stuff up..

Are you honestly claiming everyone was GAY until people discovered that having sex with someone of the opposite sex would result in a child?

Now I've heard it all. You get the prize for the dumbest statement of all time!

It doesn't matter whether it's harmful or not. I'm answering your erroneous logic that just because animals do it, it "must" be natural. Therefore, if animals commit infanticide, it "must" be natural aswell according to your jaded logic.

Now you are trying to justify infanticide.

Again, there is no such thing as homosexual "sex."

What do you mean what is my point? You and your leftist buddies are the ones who have been saying that just because some animals practice homosexuality, it "must" be natural.

When something is natural, it means it's from Nature, or it's NORMAL.. Siamese twins are not natural, because they are not normal. They are a mistake.

Are you going to tell me that two creatures joined at the head is "natural?" :laugh

And, don't put words in my mouth! I never said homosexuality should be banned.

Um, marriage is not a right. There are stipulations involved. I thought I had already made this clear.

What if the brother agrees to getting snipped so he can't reproduce? Or the sister gets her tubes tied?

There is nothing logically wrong with Polygamy. Polygamy is far more natural than homosexuality, yet polygamists are denied Marriage..

I never said anything about the Bible. You're the one that has brought it up. I'm not even a Christian.

Homosexual marriage should be banned. It's absurd to think that homosexual marriage is the same thing as heterosexual marriage, and demands the same rights.

Again, you're so illiterate you didn't even notice I'm not Christian, and that I never used the Bible to justify my arguement.

~Carfax

So would you like to explain what it is that homosexuals do then? When they are having what they and everyone else in the world call 'gay sex' or 'sex' what exactly do you think they are doing? Ever had anal sex with your lady? Cuz by your logic that is not sex - so... why is it called anal sex?

Yeah, maybe it was trying to tell us something, but now there's 6 billion of us (I believe) I'm sure mother nature can survive with small minority of the human race not actively reproducing.

So you're saying every time you have sex with your woman its to make a child? What a load of crap. I've NEVER had sex in order to make babies, I've done it for pleasure. Whether or not the primary biological function of the penis and vagina may be reproduction, for the most part when we humans have sex, it's for pleasure.

I don't 'make stuff up'.

No, I never said that.

Before, and after then, women were having sex with women, and men with men. Why? Because the wanted to. It gave them pleasure, and didn't harm anybody.

Where exactly did you get the 'all' from? Plural does not mean entireity. Well done, you've just made an idiot of yourself.

Animals eating other's in their species is natural. Simple. But because it is not nice and unnecessary in our species we don't do it. What's so hard to grasp? Homosexuality occurs within nature, it does not harm anybody, therefore there is nothing wrong with it happening in the human race... but of course there must be cuz they don't make babies, and we need many more babies on this planet - right?

Infantacide happens in nature, I am explaining why, and yes I suppose justifying it. Wow, I'm explaining how the world works. Crazy guy I must be. If you have another theory for it please explain.

Again, this is the worst argument for gay marriage ever. They have sex, it just doesn't involve making babies. Get over it.

I was asking what point are you making by comparing siamese twins with homosexuals. Siamese twins happen in nature, ergo they are natural. Homosexuality happens in nature, ergo it is natural... and? What? What were you trying to say?

Natural is something made by nature (crap definition I know). How are siamese twins not natural? Are they man made (well, kinda yes, but you know what I mean).

Yes I am

And, don't put words in my mouth! I never said homosexuality should be banned.

Lmao. Don't put words in my mouth?

Are you honestly claiming everyone was GAY until people discovered that having sex with someone of the opposite sex would result in a child?

No, marriage is not a right. Heterosexual people have the ability to get married if they want. Gays don't. Right, ability, chance... regardless of the word it all boils down to homosexuals being treated worse than heterosexuals.

If they wanted to, I don't see the prob. Although if it were someone in my family I'd certainly ask them why they wanted to do it. I wouldn't agree with it. But I wouldn't stop them.

Agreed.

I was bringing up Christianity because it is often used as an argument. This is an open forum remember, not just you and me. I'm defending gay marriage, and that is an argument used against it.

It's absurd to think it's not.

Trust me, I'm not illiterate. And I'm an atheist, so the Bible doesn't bother me much either, so... we'll just leave those biblical points there for those who want to read it aye?

Incidently, you wanna tell me why someone doesn't have the right to take drugs too? And if you wanna pull that prohibition crap on me, learn from Holland, who have one of the lowest number of drugs users. Certainly lower than US or UK.

Whenever governments try to stop people from doing something it causes trouble, and is moral wrong.

 

[WaryWolf]

i liked john kerry's stance on gay marriage: that it should not be allowed, as part of christianity, but he would endorse a legally binding and protective bond between 2 people of the same sex.

i think everyone would agree with this, right?

 

[Kommie]

i liked john kerry's stance on gay marriage: that it should not be allowed, as part of christianity, but he would endorse a legally binding and protective bond between 2 people of the same sex.

i think everyone would agree with this, right?

As of now I think its the best compromise available

 

[burner69]

As of now I think its the best compromise available

When it comes to two human beings, I don't like the idea of 'compromising' deals - which leave one person less well off than the other.

Though I admit, sadly, that it seems this will be the way it goes. Hope things change in the future, and I hope no other countries follow suit.

 

[Rent-A-Hero]

When two people honestly and truly love each other, then who are we to say that they cant be together?

Personaly, I find homosexuality disgusting. But then should I go out of my way to ban peoples civil liberties and alter history books? Noooooo...

All morals are are a reflection of the current socity values. Which could be why we no-longer burn people at the stake for being "heritics".

Just my 2 cents, Im sure I will be flamed for it.

 

[Kommie]

When it comes to two human beings, I don't like the idea of 'compromising' deals - which leave one person less well off than the other.

Though I admit, sadly, that it seems this will be the way it goes. Hope things change in the future, and I hope no other countries follow suit.

I would prefer a compromise which keeps the "door" open than just trampling all over someone's rights based on their sexuality. So that way future generations or another administration would be more likely to allow them the same rights as all.
But I would rather they were allowed to do as they damn well please