|
On October 21 2011 09:38 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 09:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this? really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;( This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments. Let me break this down for you: Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense. Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument. Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it. Why are you discriminating against people who love animals or objects? Just because society has indoctrinated you to be a bigot doesn't mean the government should discriminate against people who love such things. Is homosexual love superior to non-human love? Shouldn't such people be afforded the same rights we afford to hetero- and homo-sexuals? I don't understand how you can support discriminating against these people just because they feel something different than what you are used to. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it. - Animals and objects can't consent. How can they get married if one of the partners in the marriage never agrees to it? - Gay couples can
do you really think that if human marries computer ,computer is victim because computer didint agree to it?Computer doesnt care hes married to human or not so why not let it happen?
|
United States7483 Posts
On October 21 2011 09:49 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 09:38 Tektos wrote:On October 21 2011 09:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this? really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;( This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments. Let me break this down for you: Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense. Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument. Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it. Why are you discriminating against people who love animals or objects? Just because society has indoctrinated you to be a bigot doesn't mean the government should discriminate against people who love such things. Is homosexual love superior to non-human love? Shouldn't such people be afforded the same rights we afford to hetero- and homo-sexuals? I don't understand how you can support discriminating against these people just because they feel something different than what you are used to. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it. - Animals and objects can't consent. How can they get married if one of the partners in the marriage never agrees to it? - Gay couples can do you really think that if human marries computer ,computer is victim because computer didint agree to it?Computer doesnt care hes married to human or not so why not let it happen?
Definition of marriage requires consent, but if you want to take that position, sure why not? If it doesn't hurt anyone, what's the problem?
To quote Penn Jillette: "When we have a problem, we should see if we can solve it with more freedom instead of less freedom."
|
On October 21 2011 09:49 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 09:38 Tektos wrote:On October 21 2011 09:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this? really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;( This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments. Let me break this down for you: Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense. Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument. Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it. Why are you discriminating against people who love animals or objects? Just because society has indoctrinated you to be a bigot doesn't mean the government should discriminate against people who love such things. Is homosexual love superior to non-human love? Shouldn't such people be afforded the same rights we afford to hetero- and homo-sexuals? I don't understand how you can support discriminating against these people just because they feel something different than what you are used to. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it. - Animals and objects can't consent. How can they get married if one of the partners in the marriage never agrees to it? - Gay couples can do you really think that if human marries computer ,computer is victim because computer didint agree to it?Computer doesnt care hes married to human or not so why not let it happen?
I don't think you understand what consent means.
If we create sentient computers, and humans start becoming attached to their AIs, there will probably be a big civil battle over computer-human marriages.
|
On October 21 2011 09:53 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 09:49 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:On October 21 2011 09:38 Tektos wrote:On October 21 2011 09:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this? really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;( This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments. Let me break this down for you: Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense. Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument. Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it. Why are you discriminating against people who love animals or objects? Just because society has indoctrinated you to be a bigot doesn't mean the government should discriminate against people who love such things. Is homosexual love superior to non-human love? Shouldn't such people be afforded the same rights we afford to hetero- and homo-sexuals? I don't understand how you can support discriminating against these people just because they feel something different than what you are used to. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it. - Animals and objects can't consent. How can they get married if one of the partners in the marriage never agrees to it? - Gay couples can do you really think that if human marries computer ,computer is victim because computer didint agree to it?Computer doesnt care hes married to human or not so why not let it happen? Definition of marriage requires consent, but if you want to take that position, sure why not? If it doesn't hurt anyone, what's the problem?
the problem is that its illegal ;( and definitions are changing ;
|
On October 21 2011 09:48 TOloseGT wrote:That's an interesting study, and I wish I could read it for free, but from the abstract, it implies that they did not use families of two homosexual women or two homosexual men in the studies. Only single mothers, heterosexual couples, and single mothers with one or more father figures.
The latter is true. It is probably too hard to do a homosexual couple study because all those are adoptions or planned in-vitro fertilization. This means that they are almost all persons of relatively high means, which means there are a lot more confounding variables to control for.
It could be done, but I think it would be hard to come up with statistically sound results.
|
On October 21 2011 09:22 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 09:15 dtvu wrote:Children often imitate our behaviours, so the question is that are we comfortable with our children seeing this as the norm and imitating it. Will the child believe he/she is gay because his/her parents are gay?
From my point of view, I don't know why gay people would want to enter into Marriage in the first place. If they want a wedding ceremony, they could simply hold a private one and there are de facto laws to safe guard long term relationships. Marriage in this day and age is simply a piece of paper that can be ripped up. However, if gay people want to have their right to marriage, than my view is to just let them, why bother stopping it when they are already fixed in their mind set. Maybe with them legally bound, we will see a reduce HIV spread in their community due less infidelity. Ah yes, the infamous "think of the children" remark. I point you to heterosexual parents that indoctrinate their children into cults, I also point you to gay parents that raised intelligent heterosexual children. I don't know about Australia's marriage system, but in the U.S., state recognized marriage gives couples rights that civil unions don't provide. In this case, marriage isn't just a piece of paper. As for your comment about HIV, LMFAO at you.
You are not getting what I'm saying, I have no problem with gay marriage, I'm merely raising issues that's out there. This is not just a subset of children, this is every child. It is like a revolution to an extent since the way society will change will be very dynamic and we need to have the infrastructure in place to go with the change in Marriage law.
I know that HIV is common with the hetero population as well and that heterosexually are prob even less faithful. Just an off-hand comment, applies to everyone with HIV.
|
United States7483 Posts
On October 21 2011 09:55 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 09:53 Whitewing wrote:On October 21 2011 09:49 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:On October 21 2011 09:38 Tektos wrote:On October 21 2011 09:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this? really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;( This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments. Let me break this down for you: Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense. Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument. Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it. Why are you discriminating against people who love animals or objects? Just because society has indoctrinated you to be a bigot doesn't mean the government should discriminate against people who love such things. Is homosexual love superior to non-human love? Shouldn't such people be afforded the same rights we afford to hetero- and homo-sexuals? I don't understand how you can support discriminating against these people just because they feel something different than what you are used to. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it. - Animals and objects can't consent. How can they get married if one of the partners in the marriage never agrees to it? - Gay couples can do you really think that if human marries computer ,computer is victim because computer didint agree to it?Computer doesnt care hes married to human or not so why not let it happen? Definition of marriage requires consent, but if you want to take that position, sure why not? If it doesn't hurt anyone, what's the problem? the problem is that its illegal ;( and definitions are changing ;
*rolls eyes*. If legality is your only problem with it, laws can be changed for the better. If you have another GOOD reason for it, then that's something else entirely, but if the only reason for being against something is that it's illegal then that's not exactly rational.
Here's the deal: there is no reason at all to oppose people having as much freedom as possible so long as their freedoms do not infringe on others. The right for homosexual couples to marry does not in any way shape or form infringe on the rights of others. There is no reason to ban it, it doesn't hurt you at all. There is no good argument against it: there just isn't.
|
On October 21 2011 09:59 dtvu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 09:22 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 09:15 dtvu wrote:Children often imitate our behaviours, so the question is that are we comfortable with our children seeing this as the norm and imitating it. Will the child believe he/she is gay because his/her parents are gay?
From my point of view, I don't know why gay people would want to enter into Marriage in the first place. If they want a wedding ceremony, they could simply hold a private one and there are de facto laws to safe guard long term relationships. Marriage in this day and age is simply a piece of paper that can be ripped up. However, if gay people want to have their right to marriage, than my view is to just let them, why bother stopping it when they are already fixed in their mind set. Maybe with them legally bound, we will see a reduce HIV spread in their community due less infidelity. Ah yes, the infamous "think of the children" remark. I point you to heterosexual parents that indoctrinate their children into cults, I also point you to gay parents that raised intelligent heterosexual children. I don't know about Australia's marriage system, but in the U.S., state recognized marriage gives couples rights that civil unions don't provide. In this case, marriage isn't just a piece of paper. As for your comment about HIV, LMFAO at you. You are not getting what I'm saying, I have no problem with gay marriage, I'm merely raising issues that's out there. This is not just a subset of children, this is every child. It is like a revolution to an extent since the way society will change will be very dynamic and we need to have the infrastructure in place to go with the change in Marriage law. I know that HIV is common with the hetero population as well and that heterosexually are prob even less faithful. Just an off-hand comment, applies to everyone with HIV.
I don't understand why you assume there will be a revolution. There is a gradual trend in acceptance of homosexuality. What's wrong with a gradual acceptance of homosexual marriage? We will definitely see more Prop 8s and NY's gay marriage amendment, and if it take one state per year to legalize gay marriage across the nation, so be it.
Your offhand comment was wrong and distasteful.
|
If people who are against gay marriage are wrong why theres a discussion at all?i just think its against nature
|
On October 21 2011 09:55 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 09:53 Whitewing wrote:On October 21 2011 09:49 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:On October 21 2011 09:38 Tektos wrote:On October 21 2011 09:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this? really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;( This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments. Let me break this down for you: Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense. Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument. Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it. Why are you discriminating against people who love animals or objects? Just because society has indoctrinated you to be a bigot doesn't mean the government should discriminate against people who love such things. Is homosexual love superior to non-human love? Shouldn't such people be afforded the same rights we afford to hetero- and homo-sexuals? I don't understand how you can support discriminating against these people just because they feel something different than what you are used to. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it. - Animals and objects can't consent. How can they get married if one of the partners in the marriage never agrees to it? - Gay couples can do you really think that if human marries computer ,computer is victim because computer didint agree to it?Computer doesnt care hes married to human or not so why not let it happen? Definition of marriage requires consent, but if you want to take that position, sure why not? If it doesn't hurt anyone, what's the problem? the problem is that its illegal ;( and definitions are changing ;
Essentially you are worried it will 'open the floodgates'. If it isn't already clear to you, changes in the Marriage Act are incredibly slow moving and controversial. Large debates are generated, with arguments ranging from a religious/secular bases to tax concession bases. Your particular examples cannot be grounded along those lines. Even if it were the case that your particular examples came to pass, then given the degree of debate, the passage itself would be evidence that it would have become acceptable to society by that time.
|
United States7483 Posts
On October 21 2011 10:07 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
If people who are against gay marriage are wrong why theres a discussion at all?i just think its against nature
Considering that homosexual behavior is quite common amongst animals, I think the evidence strongly disagrees with you on that one.
So does almost every ancient culture on the planet before Christianity came around.
|
On October 21 2011 10:09 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 10:07 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
If people who are against gay marriage are wrong why theres a discussion at all?i just think its against nature Considering that homosexual behavior is quite common amongst animals, I think the evidence strongly disagrees with you on that one. So does almost every ancient culture on the planet before Christianity came around.
so why theres discussion or voting or whatever at all?and were people too dumb thousands of years to see it?
|
On October 21 2011 09:49 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 09:38 Tektos wrote:On October 21 2011 09:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this? really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;( This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments. Let me break this down for you: Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense. Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument. Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it. Why are you discriminating against people who love animals or objects? Just because society has indoctrinated you to be a bigot doesn't mean the government should discriminate against people who love such things. Is homosexual love superior to non-human love? Shouldn't such people be afforded the same rights we afford to hetero- and homo-sexuals? I don't understand how you can support discriminating against these people just because they feel something different than what you are used to. You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it. - Animals and objects can't consent. How can they get married if one of the partners in the marriage never agrees to it? - Gay couples can do you really think that if human marries computer ,computer is victim because computer didint agree to it?Computer doesnt care hes married to human or not so why not let it happen?
Some guy wants to stick his thing in his disk tray - fuck it man whatever floats your boat.
Doesn't change the fact that your comparison is a totally false one. It doesn't take a fucking genius to see why the campaign for gay marriage is different than if someone was to campaign for the right to marry their computer.
If you can't see that difference, like...think harder, man.
On October 21 2011 10:07 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
If people who are against gay marriage are wrong why theres a discussion at all?i just think its against nature
What? So you're saying there is never an discussion where one side is wrong and the other is right? Isn't that the nature of most disagreements?
So when there was a discussion about whether slavery was right, you would have said 'hey, if the slavers are wrong why is there even a discussion?'. Plus, that argument works both ways. If pro gay marriage people are wrong why is there a discussion at all? Seriously you're blowing my mind here.
As for 'against nature', never have I heard any argument as to why that makes it wrong.
Today I rode to work on a bicycle. Totally unnatural method of transportation.
|
Gay marriage isn't allowed yet in Australia? :o
Kinda shocks me to hear that in such a 'developed' country it isn't allowed yet.
Hopefully the vote will pass.
@ all the good christians whining about this, you know it isn't a choice right.
I'm not gay myself, but I've allways learned that if u are, u are born that way.
What do you want them to do then? Hide under a rock?
Live and let live rlly
|
On October 21 2011 10:03 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 09:59 dtvu wrote:On October 21 2011 09:22 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 09:15 dtvu wrote:Children often imitate our behaviours, so the question is that are we comfortable with our children seeing this as the norm and imitating it. Will the child believe he/she is gay because his/her parents are gay?
From my point of view, I don't know why gay people would want to enter into Marriage in the first place. If they want a wedding ceremony, they could simply hold a private one and there are de facto laws to safe guard long term relationships. Marriage in this day and age is simply a piece of paper that can be ripped up. However, if gay people want to have their right to marriage, than my view is to just let them, why bother stopping it when they are already fixed in their mind set. Maybe with them legally bound, we will see a reduce HIV spread in their community due less infidelity. Ah yes, the infamous "think of the children" remark. I point you to heterosexual parents that indoctrinate their children into cults, I also point you to gay parents that raised intelligent heterosexual children. I don't know about Australia's marriage system, but in the U.S., state recognized marriage gives couples rights that civil unions don't provide. In this case, marriage isn't just a piece of paper. As for your comment about HIV, LMFAO at you. You are not getting what I'm saying, I have no problem with gay marriage, I'm merely raising issues that's out there. This is not just a subset of children, this is every child. It is like a revolution to an extent since the way society will change will be very dynamic and we need to have the infrastructure in place to go with the change in Marriage law. I know that HIV is common with the hetero population as well and that heterosexually are prob even less faithful. Just an off-hand comment, applies to everyone with HIV. I don't understand why you assume there will be a revolution. There is a gradual trend in acceptance of homosexuality. What's wrong with a gradual acceptance of homosexual marriage? We will definitely see more Prop 8s and NY's gay marriage amendment, and if it take one state per year to legalize gay marriage across the nation, so be it. Your offhand comment was wrong and distasteful.
I think you need to lighten up, I don't particularly care all that much since this is a forum - free speech.
|
|
|
On October 21 2011 10:24 dtvu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 10:03 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 09:59 dtvu wrote:On October 21 2011 09:22 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 09:15 dtvu wrote:Children often imitate our behaviours, so the question is that are we comfortable with our children seeing this as the norm and imitating it. Will the child believe he/she is gay because his/her parents are gay?
From my point of view, I don't know why gay people would want to enter into Marriage in the first place. If they want a wedding ceremony, they could simply hold a private one and there are de facto laws to safe guard long term relationships. Marriage in this day and age is simply a piece of paper that can be ripped up. However, if gay people want to have their right to marriage, than my view is to just let them, why bother stopping it when they are already fixed in their mind set. Maybe with them legally bound, we will see a reduce HIV spread in their community due less infidelity. Ah yes, the infamous "think of the children" remark. I point you to heterosexual parents that indoctrinate their children into cults, I also point you to gay parents that raised intelligent heterosexual children. I don't know about Australia's marriage system, but in the U.S., state recognized marriage gives couples rights that civil unions don't provide. In this case, marriage isn't just a piece of paper. As for your comment about HIV, LMFAO at you. You are not getting what I'm saying, I have no problem with gay marriage, I'm merely raising issues that's out there. This is not just a subset of children, this is every child. It is like a revolution to an extent since the way society will change will be very dynamic and we need to have the infrastructure in place to go with the change in Marriage law. I know that HIV is common with the hetero population as well and that heterosexually are prob even less faithful. Just an off-hand comment, applies to everyone with HIV. I don't understand why you assume there will be a revolution. There is a gradual trend in acceptance of homosexuality. What's wrong with a gradual acceptance of homosexual marriage? We will definitely see more Prop 8s and NY's gay marriage amendment, and if it take one state per year to legalize gay marriage across the nation, so be it. Your offhand comment was wrong and distasteful. I think you need to lighten up, I don't particularly care all that much since this is a forum - free speech.
Well...technically TL has no obligation to uphold your right to free speech, they can ban anyone they want to at any time.
Not saying you should get banned, just pointing that out.
|
As the OP said, I think the country is much too homophobic for this to actually pass. (And it's quite refreshing to see something besides an overzealous "patriot" talking about Australia. The minute I criticise anything about this country around my friends, I'm told I should find somewhere I think is better.)
I don't know why people are arguing that it's unnatural. That's a flimsy suggestion, and seems like a cheap substitute for "God wouldn't allow it".
|
On October 21 2011 10:12 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 10:09 Whitewing wrote:On October 21 2011 10:07 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
If people who are against gay marriage are wrong why theres a discussion at all?i just think its against nature Considering that homosexual behavior is quite common amongst animals, I think the evidence strongly disagrees with you on that one. So does almost every ancient culture on the planet before Christianity came around. so why theres discussion or voting or whatever at all?and were people too dumb thousands of years to see it?
Your argument makes no sense. If you are trying to say that the factually correct position is never debated, then you are plainly wrong.
If you are trying to say that no debate as to homosexual marriage would arise if it were (as he asserts) common, then I would say that issues which affect minority groups should not be ignored so easily.
If you are trying to say that marriage should have included homosexual partnerships in pre or non-Christian institutions, then I would suggest to you that you have changed the goalposts so to speak. His assertion of the long-standing existence of homosexual behaviour was in response to your assertion that it was against nature. It was not raised to suggest any point to do with marriage. Nonetheless, in response, I would say that marriage bears a far different meaning (in terms of carrying the family name for example) in modern society than it did in those times.
|
On October 21 2011 10:27 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 10:24 dtvu wrote:On October 21 2011 10:03 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 09:59 dtvu wrote:On October 21 2011 09:22 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 09:15 dtvu wrote:Children often imitate our behaviours, so the question is that are we comfortable with our children seeing this as the norm and imitating it. Will the child believe he/she is gay because his/her parents are gay?
From my point of view, I don't know why gay people would want to enter into Marriage in the first place. If they want a wedding ceremony, they could simply hold a private one and there are de facto laws to safe guard long term relationships. Marriage in this day and age is simply a piece of paper that can be ripped up. However, if gay people want to have their right to marriage, than my view is to just let them, why bother stopping it when they are already fixed in their mind set. Maybe with them legally bound, we will see a reduce HIV spread in their community due less infidelity. Ah yes, the infamous "think of the children" remark. I point you to heterosexual parents that indoctrinate their children into cults, I also point you to gay parents that raised intelligent heterosexual children. I don't know about Australia's marriage system, but in the U.S., state recognized marriage gives couples rights that civil unions don't provide. In this case, marriage isn't just a piece of paper. As for your comment about HIV, LMFAO at you. You are not getting what I'm saying, I have no problem with gay marriage, I'm merely raising issues that's out there. This is not just a subset of children, this is every child. It is like a revolution to an extent since the way society will change will be very dynamic and we need to have the infrastructure in place to go with the change in Marriage law. I know that HIV is common with the hetero population as well and that heterosexually are prob even less faithful. Just an off-hand comment, applies to everyone with HIV. I don't understand why you assume there will be a revolution. There is a gradual trend in acceptance of homosexuality. What's wrong with a gradual acceptance of homosexual marriage? We will definitely see more Prop 8s and NY's gay marriage amendment, and if it take one state per year to legalize gay marriage across the nation, so be it. Your offhand comment was wrong and distasteful. I think you need to lighten up, I don't particularly care all that much since this is a forum - free speech. Well...technically TL has no obligation to uphold your right to free speech, they can ban anyone they want to at any time. Not saying you should get banned, just pointing that out.
Well it's not like I flaming or trolling, I merely presented my views with a comment. How can we have a proper discussion of people are instantly saying someone's views are wrong. There are no black and white, only grey areas. This is why there's discussion. Key note that I have no problem with gay marriages. It's funny how even if you are on their side, you have to say what they want you to say. This is reverse oppression isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
2138
1990
1867
EPT
