|
On November 04 2008 23:38 HooHa! wrote:
You aren't magnetized to someone else's penis when you are gay. There's a choice in everything.
The fact is, if everyone was gay, we wouldn't progress as the human race. Not for very long anyways.
Regardless of the genetics or whatever the mumbo jumbo is, or whatever you feel. I'm not really sure the point you're making. It's obvious that a society 100% full of gay people wouldn't survive past a single generation...but are you trying to imply that allowing gay marriage will suddenly turn a whole nation gay?
As far as I know the number of gays in the US amount to 2-7% (the studies I've seen say 1% but since it seemed obviously flawed I inflated it a bit, probably too much but that's not that important). Do you really think that allowing gay marriage will somehow cause the number to rise to a full 100% in even 500 years?
If yes...then could you explain your reasoning? If no, then your argument is pointless.
|
On November 04 2008 23:55 HooHa! wrote:
Well, I knew a lesbian girl who had lesbian moms, and she was a bad driver, actually a horrible driver. Theres one stat. Include it into the tranny data that doesn't exist yet. We'll file it one by one.
Life isn't fair.
Statistical legitimacy relies on three things:
1. Average "man" and natural distribution.
2. Law of Large Numbers
3. Law of regularity.
You 'statistic' of this one person you saw who happened have these characteristics is completely retarded and you'd have to be brain dead to try and base anything off of it. Literally, it's no different from seeing one person living in North America with brown hair, and then concluding that everyone living in North America has brown hair. It's mind boggling how many people don't understand statistical legitimacy, yet insist on using it in their pathetic arguments to justify their shameful views and values.
|
On November 05 2008 00:07 PsycHOTemplar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2008 23:55 HooHa! wrote:
Well, I knew a lesbian girl who had lesbian moms, and she was a bad driver, actually a horrible driver. Theres one stat. Include it into the tranny data that doesn't exist yet. We'll file it one by one.
Life isn't fair. Statistical legitimacy relies on three things: 1. Average "man" and natural distribution. 2. Law of Large Numbers 3. Law of regularity. You 'statistic' of this one person you saw who happened have these characteristics is completely retarded and you'd have to be brain dead to try and base anything off of it. Literally, it's no different from seeing one person living in North America with brown hair, and then concluding that everyone living in North America has brown hair. It's mind boggling how many people don't understand statistical legitimacy, yet insist on using it in their pathetic arguments to justify their shameful views and values.
I think he was being sarcastic, at least that's why I gave that post the benefit of the doubt and didn't reply to it. This post adresses Ki_Do's argument perfectly though.
|
Well, it was replying in general to the discussion. I quoted him specifically because he seemed representative of that squalid train of thought.
Apologies if you were sarcastic, HooHa.
|
On November 04 2008 23:38 HooHa! wrote:
You aren't magnetized to someone else's penis when you are gay. There's a choice in everything.
The fact is, if everyone was gay, we wouldn't progress as the human race. Not for very long anyways.
Regardless of the genetics or whatever the mumbo jumbo is, or whatever you feel.
People have choice, yes, but honestly? "Gee, I want to choose to be discriminated against, that sounds like a good way to live life" Or, how about.. someone is born the way they are and find that they are attracted to the same sex that they are.. just like someone who is born and is attracted to the opposite sex.
Your second ?point is just... sad. Everyone is obviously not gay, because people are DIFFERENT, and there's a thing called diversity. It's not like some virus that all of a sudden the world will turn 'gay' and we will all stop reproducing, that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard.
|
On November 04 2008 23:55 HooHa! wrote:
Life isn't fair.
Life isn't fair is not an argument, life can be changed. It's a logical fallacy.
|
TBH, if you're going to talk about whether homosexuality is a choice or not I don't think it's so obvious for either side. I used to think 'why would anyone ever choose to be ridiculed and beat up, that alone should be convincing enough.' But then you look at history, and find societies like Sparta where bisexuality was commonplace and expected.
I really think sexual choice has more to do with indoctrination than anything, although perhaps the few that deviate despite these indoctrinations truly are deviants, I think just about everyone has the propensity to be bisexual (though personally, I am fully heterosexual due to such indoctrinations). Although perhaps a primary preference is still applicable to all (and noticeably important to socialization with people who won't take the inclination that you're coming onto them, a reason why gay guys always have lots of female friends).
|
I think the most prevelant arguments are either the unnatural act of it (wherein you can dispute the true meaning of "nature") or that it is a poor enviroment to raise children, which is silly as the act of marriage itself doesn't lead to children (obviously adopted or through other means....).
Oh and I think others feel that marriage is either a religious or state sponsored act, and it is irrelevant to gay people that they become married, which is easy to counter since theres no real reason why hetero couples should marry.
|
I have an aunt who lives with another women and they had a child. My little cousin is the smartest, cutest, and most respectful kid I've ever met in my entire life. Shes only 5 and she can speak some basic spanish and french words on top of being incredibly articulate in english. There is no argument you can give me that will tell me my cousin is being raised incorrectly.
|
I can't see why a gay couple couldn't be a stable environment for children. If both are sane of mind.
Gays and lesbians reproduce or adopt (they fuck the ugly women, lol), thats fine with me. It is better to have good homo parents then a retard drunk or psycho hetero. As far as rolemodels go there are more rolemodels then just the parents. Kids raised by homosexuals are not predestined to become like their parents in the sexual sence.
|
is gayness a behavioral thing?
by that i mean gay people should be unable to procreate like heterosexual couples and wouldn't pass on genetic attributes that would lead to a son or daughter that would also be gay
|
On November 04 2008 18:47 Rayzorblade wrote:
I will also note that I am fucking beyond drunk, but I really wanted to respond to this because I am so infuriated at people who actually think it's okay to deny the rights of others on the basis of sexual preference.
THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN DENYING RIGHTS OF WOMEN, AFRICAN-AMERICANS, ETC.
I wasn't going to reply to this thread, but when I read this, it made no sense to me and now I know that you were truly beyond drunk. Historically speaking (I am not up to date on this issue) no one is being denied any rights. Everyone has the right to a heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman, and no one is being denied that right. This IS different from denying rights of women and or African Americans. What homosexuals want is SPECIAL rights.
I am not saying that homosexuals shouldn't have the right to marriage, but don't think that these are the same kind of rights.
|
On November 05 2008 01:51 Chromyne wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2008 18:47 Rayzorblade wrote:
I will also note that I am fucking beyond drunk, but I really wanted to respond to this because I am so infuriated at people who actually think it's okay to deny the rights of others on the basis of sexual preference.
THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN DENYING RIGHTS OF WOMEN, AFRICAN-AMERICANS, ETC. I wasn't going to reply to this thread, but when I read this, it made no sense to me and now I know that you were truly beyond drunk. Historically speaking (I am not up to date on this issue) no one is being denied any rights. Everyone has the right to a heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman, and no one is being denied that right. This IS different from denying rights of women and or African Americans. What homosexuals want is SPECIAL rights. I am not saying that homosexuals shouldn't have the right to marriage, but don't think that these are the same kind of rights.
That's such a lame loophole because the only reason that marriage is between man and woman strictly is because homosexuality was viewed as a sin in the past. And now the anti-gay lobby clings to this belief like it's law.
Laws can be changed, rights can be given. You're denying people privileges that you willingly accept yourself but don't want to give to others because they're different. It's not that different from racism in the early days.
Your argument is basically that gays can't get married because they're gay, and marriage is about heterosexual marriage. If you apply that to racism you could say that black people could sit anywhere in the bus in the old days, as long as they weren't black... When they wanted to sit anywhere they were asking for special rights because they weren't white. That basically means that any right you're asking for is a special right. You're just narrowing it down to homosexuality, you can discriminate people on basically anything.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
I also can't really see why it should be outlawed. Some things that I have to say:
There were some arguments about the semantics of gay marriages in which marriages very specifically means between a man and a woman. This seems to assume that words have meanings outside of their use, that marriages somehow essentially means the pairing of a man and a woman. Words have always changed their meanings, the word "decimate" used to mean to destroy exactly one tenth (deci meaning a tenth obviously). "Meld" used to mean to display something, but has since become a combination if weld and melt. So words change their meanings, so it can't be said that the word marriage refers specifically to male and female.
Secondly, as someone already pointed out, the comparison with polygamy doesn't really hold. Polygamy is a vastly different situation, while gay marriage simply has one person of a different gender (than expected) in the marriage. For you to argue that gay marriage is fundamentally different, you'd have to prove that people from different genders are fundamentally different, and that men can never be like women (barring the obvious physical differences) or women like men. Psychological research up to date has found very little evidence to suggest that men and women are fundamentally, or even practically, very different.
Furthermore, the whole child thing doesn't make sense to me. How does marriage change gay couples' ability to have children? If unmarried people aren't allowed to adopt a child, and it's somehow proven that gay couples permanently scar children's mental health, then surely that law could be extended to include gay marriages? However, I'm not sure if this law does exist, as I can't believe that a law would be passed stating that women need to be married in order to be artificially inseminated. So basically, I can't see how getting married changes a couples ability to have a child. And if it does, it's not like they could conceive naturally, so then other laws could be implemented should it be necessary.
From my studies in psychology it does not seem like gay couples would have a particularly greater chance to raise gay children, except that perhaps children from gay couples would be more open to being gay, which might change the prevalence of gay couples with gay children (which is not necessarily a bad thing). Added to that, even if there was a larger chance for gay couples to have gay children, would this necessarily be a bad thing? The government cannot outlaw homosexual marraige for that reason, as that would imply that homosexuality is somehow a bad life-style, or a life-style that the government is against.
And finally, if homosexuals not having children is seen as an inherent problem with homosexuals (not that it cant be remedied with sperm donation or whatever the female version of sperm donation is), then surely that "problem" should also include women who don't have children. Seriously, if you can't force women to have children, then you can't use that as a reason against homosexuality.
|
I'm impressed at how good this thread turned out. Nice well-thought out arguments.
|
On November 05 2008 02:00 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2008 01:51 Chromyne wrote:On November 04 2008 18:47 Rayzorblade wrote:
I will also note that I am fucking beyond drunk, but I really wanted to respond to this because I am so infuriated at people who actually think it's okay to deny the rights of others on the basis of sexual preference.
THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN DENYING RIGHTS OF WOMEN, AFRICAN-AMERICANS, ETC. I wasn't going to reply to this thread, but when I read this, it made no sense to me and now I know that you were truly beyond drunk. Historically speaking (I am not up to date on this issue) no one is being denied any rights. Everyone has the right to a heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman, and no one is being denied that right. This IS different from denying rights of women and or African Americans. What homosexuals want is SPECIAL rights. I am not saying that homosexuals shouldn't have the right to marriage, but don't think that these are the same kind of rights. That's such a lame loophole because the only reason that marriage is between man and woman strictly is because homosexuality was viewed as a sin in the past.
It may be a loophole, but it's a fact regardless. Whether it is lame or was a result of religious belief is also irrelevant because that's just the state our society is in.
And now the anti-gay lobby clings to this belief like it's law.
Okay.
Laws can be changed, rights can be given. You're denying people privileges that you willingly accept yourself but don't want to give to others because they're different. It's not that different from racism in the early days.
Then give them the right. It is different from racism. You can be a former homosexual [or heterosexual], but you can't be a former Chinese person (not in a true sense anyway).
Your argument is basically that gays can't get married because they're gay, and marriage is about heterosexual marriage. If you apply that to racism you could say that black people could sit anywhere in the bus in the old days, as long as they weren't black... When they wanted to sit anywhere they were asking for special rights because they weren't white. That basically means that any right you're asking for is a special right. You're just narrowing it down to homosexuality, you can discriminate people on basically anything.
Sure. Wow, initially, I thought you were disagreeing with me.
|
Simple solution: remove the words "marriage" from law, define it instead as "civil union." Civil unions provide the same rights to heterosexual couples as they do homosexual couples (tax breaks, resuscitation rights, etc). Allow marriage to be defined only by a church. If, say, Catholics are opposed to gay marriage, don't allow them to be married within the church.
This solution makes much more sense; it allows moralistic opposition to gay marriage to be defined by religious doctrine, but prevents mass discrimination by a public institution. Using arguments like "unfit household" and "against nature" are total hogwash and irrelevant to the issue. You can have whatever moral disagreement with gay marriage that you like, but it's antithetical to living in a civilized society to deny any group of people consistent human rights.
Also, if you want to argue constitutionality, amendments to constitutions typically exist to PROTECT individual rights rather than to DENY them.
|
On November 05 2008 00:14 Chef wrote:
Well, it was replying in general to the discussion. I quoted him specifically because he seemed representative of that squalid train of thought.
Apologies if you were sarcastic, HooHa.
Well it's true I was in a car with a horrible lesbian driver before, but I was kidding about the statistic.
|
Your argument is basically that gays can't get married because they're gay, and marriage is about heterosexual marriage. If you apply that to racism you could say that black people could sit anywhere in the bus in the old days, as long as they weren't black... When they wanted to sit anywhere they were asking for special rights because they weren't white. That basically means that any right you're asking for is a special right. You're just narrowing it down to homosexuality, you can discriminate people on basically anything.
Comparing it to racism is ridiculous. Being black, white, or whatever you are, is not a choice. Whether you want to like girls or guys is. Your not born "Gay". I know that's an entirely different argument but a few of you using it as your main point of emphasis is laughable.
|
Several of you are saying people chose to be straight or gay, to be attracted to men or women etc.
You guys chose to not be gay? Isn't that kind of admitting you're gay but you tried not to be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
