|
On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 06:57 Thorakh wrote:
[quote]So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent her 'because it's wrong'? My god. Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure.
I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so...
If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement)
Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy.
|
The state should stay out of marriage.
Have people sign a document that says 'civil union' and gives whatever rights marriage currently does, and that's your contract with the state and each other, and then it's up to you and whatever church / service you use, to get 'married' or not - and it has no legal or economic impact on anything.
|
On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 06:57 Thorakh wrote:
[quote]So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent her 'because it's wrong'? My god. Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. So if you want to be with a "partner" then so be it because thats all it will ever be, you cannot start a family (other than an artificial one)
That's your opinion. Why should everyone else be forced to accept your opinion?
Also, do you have any actual EVIDENCE to back up your claim? As far as I can recall, the divorce rates for fundie Christians are similar to those of other social groups in the US.
|
On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 06:57 Thorakh wrote:
[quote]So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent her 'because it's wrong'? My god. Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. So if you want to be with a "partner" then so be it because thats all it will ever be, you cannot start a family (other than an artificial one)
Nope, just plain wrong.
|
On February 10 2012 07:19 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:17 CrimsonLotus wrote:
Can someone at least try to give a somewhat rational argument as how gay marriage would hurt society?
I think about it over and over and I just can't see it. From Antyee You must forget the fact that people cho(o)se only one partner, because it's safest method for procreation. The human infants are quite vulnerable compared to any other species' , and people figured out (that's why having a big brain helps) that having only 1 partner is good for the female (she can easily bring up her child since she has someone who can support them) and also for the male (100% chance for reproducing). So you can't really say it's against procreation. [before anyone said "but you don't need to live your whole live with someone 'cause your child grows up pretty fast and you could move on to a new partner", but why would you do it? you have someone, who'd most likely have more children; and people those days when marriage was invented didn't live for 60+ years] This is why society pushed not having sex till marriage, so that you would find someone that you will have a family with and raise correctly. look at the effects of divorce.
You really seem to want to control how people live their lives. You have absolutely no entitlement to that. Stop believing you do.
|
On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 06:57 Thorakh wrote:
[quote]So if your mother or father had a genetic disability that would limit his or her ability to raise you, you would resent her 'because it's wrong'? My god. Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. So if you want to be with a "partner" then so be it because thats all it will ever be, you cannot start a family (other than an artificial one)
You do realize that there are studies that show that homosexual couples are better parents then heterosexual couples, right?
|
On February 10 2012 07:30 aebriol wrote:
The state should stay out of marriage.
Have people sign a document that says 'civil union' and gives whatever rights marriage currently does, and that's your contract with the state and each other, and then it's up to you and whatever church / service you use, to get 'married' or not - and it has no legal or economic impact on anything.
This. There should be no discrimination in government. Religious people have their own little ceremonies, but legally the only thing that should matter is a civil union between two consenting adults.
|
If we're all about happy family and all that, I think you should focus on making sure heterosexual marriages work out and not result in horrible divorces from reasons such as - adultery, inability to commit, inane reasons like many celebrity marriages, etc. Also you should focus on helping families who have been left stranded by heterosexual partners doing such things.
It seems a little disingenuous to criticize a group that hasn't shown an inclination to being worse family-wise than heterosexual couples when they haven't even been given a chance to prove themselves. And theorycrafting, like in starcraft, means relatively little.
|
On February 10 2012 07:30 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:
[quote]
Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so... If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement) Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy.
I'm athiest thank you for assuming im religious though. The pleasure side of sex is to trick humans into doing it (lust) the side which harbors a strong relationship and bonds familys is (love). It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with giving the best chance for the child. If your gay, it would be your partner, not your husband/wife.
|
As this thread has been going I am going to be flamed for this.
I am against gay marriage because it is a religious thing. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and if these specific denominational churches don't want to marry two men that is their decision. The issue comes with the fact that certain benefits come from being married. As such I propose something like a civil union where you get the exact same rights without the title of marriage. Save divorce proceedings, same everything, just not marriage.
Theres no reason why this could not happen. It does not offend either side, or shouldn't offend either side. The symbolic aspect comes from the religious significance of marriage and how important it was in the past.
Edit: FYI I am athiest
|
On February 10 2012 07:34 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:
[quote]
So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so... If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement) Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy. I'm athiest thank you for assuming im religious though. The pleasure side of sex is to trick humans into doing it (lust) the side which harbors a strong relationship and bonds familys is (love). It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with giving the best chance for the child. If your gay, it would be your partner, not your husband/wife.
Wtf. Tricking humans? Why the hell are humans being tricked?
You just said you don't believe in god....and your statement goes completely against evolutionary concepts...
I'm just going to concede you're deluded
edit: haha, lol@ all the "btw I'm an athiest, but it's important for religion" 
|
Fine, if you think that Marriage is only for man/woman, then call it something else for shits sake. The point of this is not about having an arbitrary label attached to their love, it's about having it official. That they can get their rightful economic and legal rights because of their dedication to each other, and that their relationship can be solidified into something. If you want to keep your precious marriage between man and woman, fine, don't marry Gay people in your Church. No one gives two shits. However, denying them the legal ability to solidify their dedication is straight up stupid and ignorant.
|
On February 10 2012 07:36 Blurry wrote:
As this thread has been going I am going to be flamed for this.
I am against gay marriage because it is a religious thing. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and if these specific denominational churches don't want to marry two men that is their decision. The issue comes with the fact that certain benefits come from being married. As such I propose something like a civil union where you get the exact same rights without the title of marriage. Save divorce proceedings, same everything, just not marriage.
Theres no reason why this could not happen. It does not offend either side, or shouldn't offend either side. The symbolic aspect comes from the religious significance of marriage and how important it was in the past.
Edit: FYI I am athiest
The problem is that the government calls it marriage too. If this wasn't the case, I think almost everyone here would agree with you.
|
On February 10 2012 07:36 Blurry wrote:
As this thread has been going I am going to be flamed for this.
I am against gay marriage because it is a religious thing. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and if these specific denominational churches don't want to marry two men that is their decision. The issue comes with the fact that certain benefits come from being married. As such I propose something like a civil union where you get the exact same rights without the title of marriage. Save divorce proceedings, same everything, just not marriage.
Theres no reason why this could not happen. It does not offend either side, or shouldn't offend either side. The symbolic aspect comes from the religious significance of marriage and how important it was in the past.
Edit: FYI I am athiest
This is understandable - unfortunately for people to lobby to make civil unions acquire the same rights as marriage will probably cause the same amount of uproar.
|
On February 10 2012 07:31 Ercster wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:On February 10 2012 07:00 Saltydizzle wrote:
[quote]
Well aids and cancer are something you develop. Married gay people cannot reproduce, therefore are at a disadvantage to regular married people. So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. So if you want to be with a "partner" then so be it because thats all it will ever be, you cannot start a family (other than an artificial one) You do realize that there are studies that show that homosexual couples are better parents then heterosexual couples, right?
My respect for people's arguments usually ends when I see the phrase ' studies have shown'.
I don't see why parents orientation would matter (insofar as bullying(?) from other kids would affect the child), there are good and bad homosexual parents just like there are good and bad heterosexual parents.
|
On February 10 2012 07:37 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:34 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:
[quote]
They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage.
I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so... If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement) Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy. I'm athiest thank you for assuming im religious though. The pleasure side of sex is to trick humans into doing it (lust) the side which harbors a strong relationship and bonds familys is (love). It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with giving the best chance for the child. If your gay, it would be your partner, not your husband/wife. Wtf. Tricking humans? Why the hell are humans being tricked? You just said you don't believe in god....and your statement goes completely against evolutionary concepts... I'm just going to concede you're deluded
I'll summarize every up for you so maybe you will understand.
People have no sense of responsibility. Sex until marriage is so that you will find a long lasting partner that can support your family. With all of the young pregnancys and marrying so young it makes a huge single parent/divorce rate. Stable marriage always results in better chances for your child to develop properly. Waiting and finding the right person later in life, instead of giving into pleasures, will always be better for the child. This is why society has pushed all of the ideals.
|
On February 10 2012 07:34 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:
[quote]
So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so... If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement) Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy. I'm athiest thank you for assuming im religious though. The pleasure side of sex is to trick humans into doing it (lust) the side which harbors a strong relationship and bonds familys is (love). It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with giving the best chance for the child. If your gay, it would be your partner, not your husband/wife.
You do know that many many couples divorce because of sexual issues right? Having sex before marriage would allow you to avoid being in a long term relationship with somebody who you are sexually incompatible with.
What do you mean "trick" humans into doing it? That implies a conscious choice of deception, which is obviously not what an atheist would believe. So I'm confused. The fact is that sex is pleasurable, and nothing more. That's the end of the statement.
All the recent studies have shown that same-sex parents are just as capable as hetero parents. That's not a valid argument. If anything the argument shows that homosexuals are better, but this is usually considered by the fact that they can't have accidental children.
I should also mention that it is pretty much impossible for homosexual couples to marry because of accidental children. If that's a serious issue for you, then it clearly shouldn't be for homosexual couples. They would only be marrying for financial stability and for their relationship.
|
On February 10 2012 07:36 Blurry wrote:Marriage has always been between a man and a woman
I say we need to go back to the notion of a biblical marriage: one man, 700 wives and 300 concubines.
|
On February 10 2012 07:40 fortheGG wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:31 Ercster wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:04 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:02 LambtrOn wrote:
[quote]
So are infertile people. What's your point? They are unfortunately at a disadvantage, and cannot pass on their genes. Gay people choose to be at a disadvantage. I don't think it's right, it's just my opinion. Personally I feel sick thinking about gay couples, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be in an uncomfortable position. Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. So if you want to be with a "partner" then so be it because thats all it will ever be, you cannot start a family (other than an artificial one) You do realize that there are studies that show that homosexual couples are better parents then heterosexual couples, right? My respect for people's arguments usually ends when I see the phrase ' studies have shown'. I don't see why parents orientation would matter (insofar as bullying(?) from other kids would affect the child), there are good and bad homosexual parents just like there are good and bad heterosexual parents.
I'm not saying there aren't bad same-sex parents, I'm just saying statistically they're better parents than straight parents.
|
On February 10 2012 07:42 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:37 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:34 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:30 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:26 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:18 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:15 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:13 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:11 1Eris1 wrote:
[quote]
Haha choose to be at a disadvantage...WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE AT A DISADVANTAGE? That is honestly the dumbest arguement used by people like you
Also. My opinion is that people like you shouldn't be able to speak because I find your thoughts make me disgusted. Should you not have a voice? When your state can vote on that decision to limit my free speech, feel free to. Right now I am given the option to vote, and will do accordingly You didn't answer my main question though. Why would someone chose to be at a disadvantage? Would you turn down a 10% raise at work in favor of a 5% one? No you wouldn't, because it's idiotic. Your right, they didn't "choose", they were "born" with the disadvantage. You can see the effects of divorced and single parents on children. When a man and a woman marry, and raise a children, it gives the kid the best chance. compared to someone having a kid, say their gay and get a divorce, and ruin the family envoirnment that is so essential. Right, because heterosexual people only ever divorce because one of them is gay, and not because of money, work, mutual dislike, etc or anything like that. You are supporting the society you hate. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The reason they say don't have sex until marriage is so you find someone that will be there. That makes the family have a huge chance for success, increasing the chance that the child will grow up in a stable family. Sex is for PROCREATION, not for the sake of pleasure. I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but thats basically what your arguement is stemming to so... If it's for procreation why did "god" make it pleasurable? (and why is masturbation even possible by that arguement) Fact is, your arguing based on religious terms, and the concept of Gay Marriage is a government function. Religion is supposed to be seperate from Government, so this shouldn't have anything to do with Religion. No one is forcing your church to start marrying gay couples, nor is this bill forcing you to marry a gay guy. I'm athiest thank you for assuming im religious though. The pleasure side of sex is to trick humans into doing it (lust) the side which harbors a strong relationship and bonds familys is (love). It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with giving the best chance for the child. If your gay, it would be your partner, not your husband/wife. Wtf. Tricking humans? Why the hell are humans being tricked? You just said you don't believe in god....and your statement goes completely against evolutionary concepts... I'm just going to concede you're deluded I'll summarize every up for you so maybe you will understand. People have no sense of responsibility. Sex until marriage is so that you will find a long lasting partner that can support your family. With all of the young pregnancys and marrying so young it makes a huge single parent/divorce rate. Stable marriage always results in better chances for your child to develop properly. Waiting and finding the right person later in life, instead of giving into pleasures, will always be better later in life.
you just made a great argument for homosexual civil unions. lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
