|
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.
No athiest would ever think that. We're too rational.
|
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.
It's got to do with the difficulty of getting children. Straight couples will get kids accidentally and will be less motivated to rear them, whereas gay couples who want children have to go through a lot of trouble to actually get kids, so they're very likely to be very motivated to be good parents.
|
On February 10 2012 07:43 DoubleReed 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. 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.
They will never have the connection that you get from your blood parents. Sex feels good so we will do it and reproduce. what does that have to do with god?
|
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.
... No.
Sex is for procreation, yes, but it's not only for that.
If you think that human capabilities, biological functions, organs etc. which developed for some evolutionary purposes should ONLY EVER be used to do those things, most of human culture would be wiped away.
Starcraft serves no evolutionary purpose, now does it?
|
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.
So by that logic you'd support bills that outlaw sex until marriage, masturbation, and that require people to "be in love" before they get married?
Sounds like you'd be better off in Saudi Arabia or something buddy. Here in the United States we have things called freedom of expression and privacy.
|
On February 10 2012 07:45 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:43 DoubleReed 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. 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. They will never have the connection that you get from your blood parents. Sex feels good so we will do it and reproduce. what does that have to do with god?
????
It's adoption! Usually the assumption is they don't have parents, or their parents don't want them.
That's an incredibly offensive thing to say. Do you have anything to back up the assertion that adopted children are loved less? Because my anecdotal evidence says you're a idiot.
|
On February 10 2012 07:47 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:42 Saltydizzle wrote: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:
[quote]
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. So by that logic you'd support bills that outlaw sex until marriage, masturbation, and that require people to "be in love" before they get married? Sounds like you'd be better off in Saudi Arabia or something buddy. Here in the United States we have things called freedom of expression and privacy.
Calm down buddy...
Im saying that it gives them the best chance. there is more than one way to skin a cat. The changes in society have caused divorce to be seen as "acceptable" which has turned the american family to shit. I don't believe in god or believe any story from the bible truly happened, but its all about the morals of the bible. The morals are the only thing to be taken seriously.
|
On February 10 2012 07:51 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:47 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:42 Saltydizzle wrote: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:
[quote]
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. So by that logic you'd support bills that outlaw sex until marriage, masturbation, and that require people to "be in love" before they get married? Sounds like you'd be better off in Saudi Arabia or something buddy. Here in the United States we have things called freedom of expression and privacy. Calm down buddy... Im saying that it gives them the best chance. there is more than one way to skin a cat. The changes in society have caused divorce to be seen as "acceptable" which has turned the american family to shit. I don't believe in god or believe any story from the bible truly happened, but its all about the morals of the bible. The morals are the only thing to be taken seriously.
So divorce is unacceptable?
What if my partner turns out to be incredibly abusive? Should I stay with him, at danger to my life, to keep up the image of "marriage or the american family"?
|
On February 10 2012 07:48 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:45 Saltydizzle wrote:On February 10 2012 07:43 DoubleReed 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:
[quote]
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. They will never have the connection that you get from your blood parents. Sex feels good so we will do it and reproduce. what does that have to do with god? ???? It's adoption! Usually the assumption is they don't have parents, or their parents don't want them. That's an incredibly offensive thing to say. Do you have anything to back up the assertion that adopted children are loved less? Because my anecdotal evidence says you're a idiot.
Why were they abandoned? If they had a good family in the first place, it wouldn't happen. Why do you think adopted people try to find their blood parents, it will never be the same.
|
Saltydizzle and Yosho, your understanding of biology is akin to that of 10 year olds. If anyone thinks that gay marriage should not be allowed because it goes against nature, you're wrong. It actually is the epitome of biological replication.
Selection occurs at the level of the gene, not the organism. Homosexuality, although seemingly limiting the reproduction of its gay bearer, does well to propagate its own self (whatever that biological factor is, it has not been discovered due to limits in technology) in straight bearers; there are studies showing that female relatives of gay men are more fecund, for example.
Also, given that homosexuality is a behavioural trait, there must be a genetic link involved, and given the prevalence of the trait, it is likely to be very strong.
If you think gay marriage should be disallowed for religious reasons... well, then you're either young, dumb, or both.
|
On February 10 2012 07:51 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:47 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:42 Saltydizzle wrote: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:
[quote]
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. So by that logic you'd support bills that outlaw sex until marriage, masturbation, and that require people to "be in love" before they get married? Sounds like you'd be better off in Saudi Arabia or something buddy. Here in the United States we have things called freedom of expression and privacy. Calm down buddy... Im saying that it gives them the best chance. there is more than one way to skin a cat. The changes in society have caused divorce to be seen as "acceptable" which has turned the american family to shit. I don't believe in god or believe any story from the bible truly happened, but its all about the morals of the bible. The morals are the only thing to be taken seriously.
Oh so it is a religious argument. The morals from the bible are pretty terrible too you know. Like "rape" refers to the father or brother not consenting for someone to have sex with the woman. The woman has no choice at all. Oh, and of course the fact that the wife was basically the property of the husband for all intents and purposes. I mean, if you're going to get morals from somewhere, you might want to pick something less sexist and immoral.
No the morals are some of the most terrible parts. Sorry. But let's try to veer away from religion, shall we?
Either way, people didn't have to be married for nearly as long back in the old days. Seriously, you were only like married for 15-20 years before you died. And considering the woman was property, many people attribute female rights as a reason for higher divorce rates. Honestly, the "American Family" was pretty shit before. There was just no escape from it.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On February 10 2012 07:51 Saltydizzle wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 07:47 1Eris1 wrote:On February 10 2012 07:42 Saltydizzle wrote: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:
[quote]
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. So by that logic you'd support bills that outlaw sex until marriage, masturbation, and that require people to "be in love" before they get married? Sounds like you'd be better off in Saudi Arabia or something buddy. Here in the United States we have things called freedom of expression and privacy. Calm down buddy... Im saying that it gives them the best chance. there is more than one way to skin a cat. The changes in society have caused divorce to be seen as "acceptable" which has turned the american family to shit. I don't believe in god or believe any story from the bible truly happened, but its all about the morals of the bible. The morals are the only thing to be taken seriously.
+ Show Spoiler +One can argue that things aren't moral because they are in the "bible", they are in the "bible" because they are moral..
If the bible says 2 + 2 = 4, it isn't so because it is in the bible, it is in the bible because it is so.
Sex before marriage is because religiously the only reason you should be having sex is to procreate, sex before marriage directly contradicts this. Having sex before marriage has nothing to do with "finding a partner that can support your family."
Sorry, but is your argument that homosexuals cannot make a "good" family? And therefore any child would suffer in that environment?
|
On February 10 2012 06:47 MidKnight wrote:
Because marriage gives a lot of social benefits etc.? It's fine if religious bigots don't approve of marriage in church "in front of God" or whatever, but not allowing 2 individuals of the same sex who love and care for each other to form a union and gain same benefits as 2 individuals of opposite sex is dumb.
Maybe you are true, but I really feel like that the marriage in church "in front of God" and the civil marriages shouldn't share the same name, since they aren't the same thing.This bothers a lot of people (especially religious people). (see aedriol's post)
And calling them bigots, only because they truly believe in something, is quite rude and I don't see why is it better than protesting against gay marriage. To be honest, at least here, in Hungary, gay protesters cause way bigger uproar and they don't care about other people who might not like what they're doing. Why would anyone want to change anything, if he/they just can't make a compromise?
On February 10 2012 06:50 LambtrOn wrote:
Why are you stuck in the past? Social customs change. Women weren't able to vote not that long ago? Do you disagree with that since it was an old fashioned tradition? You can't pick it choose which parts of the past are acceptable and which aren't. Gay marriage is good for all the reasons straight marriage is good, mainly It creates a loving family where gays are able to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Look how far our society has progressed. Gay marriage will be legal, history has already told us that. Answer this, how is it bad?
The question of voting is very interesting imo. Before women weren't able to vote, men voted for those who offered the the most things that are not yet entirely unbelievable. Nowdays, the same thing happens. I can't decide which one is better, maybe the former one, since less votes means less work with them. Nothing has really changed with that, just some people has more work to do.
As for the social benefits that both of you are stressing out:
I'm pretty sure, one of the most important "benefits" of it is adoption (correct me, if I'm wrong).
Other than that, why would you use the word "love" to get (partly monetary) benefits? I mean, why would you want to marry anyone, if it's not for love (which doesn't need marriage), or having children?
Adoption is something that can't be labeled nor good nor bad, since there are countless examples for both. Adoption should be harsher regulated, since a lot of children become victim of it.
You do realize that there are studies that show that homosexual couples are better parents then heterosexual couples, right?
Read Murphy's Lawbook on statistics.
I don't think that there's a big enough sample size or time elapsed to state anything like this.
I wouldn't really like to write anything pro/contra gay couples adopting children, because in my opinion it's more on the mentality of the parents, which doesn't really have anything to do with their personal "preferences", but I'm not sure if it doesn't affect the child if both his/her parents are of the same sex. At least since it's not publically totally accepted, and being hated for something you can't do anything about just feels bad for anyone.
|
Here's my thought on how to solve all gay marriage bickering:
The main argument against it, both in this thread and elsewhere, is that "marriage is defined as between a man and a woman." The validity of this argument is moot for what I'm about to propose, so let's just take it at face value and ignore our feelings about it.
So, since we've determined that the word "marriage" itself is the problem, because many religions hold it to be sacred, why exactly is a government that believes in separating church and state in the business of marrying anyone, even straight couples? By applying religious connotations to the word, they've invalidated it as something a secular government should be able to do.
So no one gets married by the government. The government will approve civil unions, with all the rights currently given by marriage, to all kinds of couples. If they then want to take that union to a church for marriage, that's their own business. The main issue people have with this is the word "marriage," so let's remove it from the equation completely.
|
On February 10 2012 08:04 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2012 06:50 LambtrOn wrote:
Why are you stuck in the past? Social customs change. Women weren't able to vote not that long ago? Do you disagree with that since it was an old fashioned tradition? You can't pick it choose which parts of the past are acceptable and which aren't. Gay marriage is good for all the reasons straight marriage is good, mainly It creates a loving family where gays are able to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Look how far our society has progressed. Gay marriage will be legal, history has already told us that. Answer this, how is it bad? The question of voting is very interesting imo. Before women weren't able to vote, men voted for those who offered the the most things that are not yet entirely unbelievable. Nowdays, the same thing happens. I can't decide which one is better, maybe the former one, since less votes means less work with them. Nothing has really changed with that, just some people has more work to do.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Less votes so less work? What the fuck is that? People shouldn't have a voice because it's too much work? Are you fucking kidding me?
|
Great, now that you guys finally resolve silly issues like this, you can start to think about how to deal with real issues everyone overlooked, like the big ass debt you are swimming in, excessive government spending, failing education, religious influence in schools, corrupt and inefficient and overbearing law enforcement going after easy prey like demonstrators and stoners, biased and overloaded justice system punishing slight offenses more than hardcore criminals, excessive prison population, lobbying by mega corporations and repeated attempts at the subversion of the free and open nature of the internet, your trigger-happy military, violence and lack of security in several large cities, rape hysteria, terrorism hysteria, etc etc etc
You guys are on the fast track to becoming a third world country and you are arguing whether or not to restrict a capable adult's right to choose a partner freely or how to punish soft drug users even more. Seriously??
"If we as a state are going to take the position that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and replaceable, if we are going to send a message to fathers and potential fathers in this state that it isn't important to be in the lives of their children because dads specifically don't matter, that is something we should all do together," he said last month.
This is exactly what you are doing now, with your highly discriminatory divorce, alimony, child support laws and insanely ant-male family courts. Just ask any divorced father how does he like the treatment he gets. You do not value fathers at all, and it does have its consequences. Hypocrite populist idiot.
|
On February 10 2012 08:13 Frigo wrote:Great, now that you guys finally resolve silly issues like this, you can start to think about how to deal with real issues everyone overlooked, like the big ass debt you are swimming in, excessive government spending, failing education, religious influence in schools, corrupt and inefficient and overbearing law enforcement going after easy prey like demonstrators and stoners, biased and overloaded justice system punishing slight offenses more than hardcore criminals, excessive prison population, lobbying by mega corporations and repeated attempts at the subversion of the free and open nature of the internet, your trigger-happy military, violence and lack of security in several large cities, rape hysteria, terrorism hysteria, etc etc etc You guys are on the fast track to becoming a third world country and you are arguing whether or not to restrict a capable adult's right to choose a partner freely or how to punish soft drug users even more. Seriously??Show nested quote +"If we as a state are going to take the position that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and replaceable, if we are going to send a message to fathers and potential fathers in this state that it isn't important to be in the lives of their children because dads specifically don't matter, that is something we should all do together," he said last month. This is exactly what you are doing now, with your highly discriminatory divorce, alimony, child support laws and insanely ant-male family courts. Just ask any divorced father how does he like the treatment he gets. You do not value fathers at all, and it does have its consequences. Hypocrite populist idiot.
This is at the state level, dude. Chill.
|
On February 10 2012 07:51 Saltydizzle wrote:
Calm down buddy...
Im saying that it gives them the best chance. there is more than one way to skin a cat. The changes in society have caused divorce to be seen as "acceptable" which has turned the american family to shit. I don't believe in god or believe any story from the bible truly happened, but its all about the morals of the bible. The morals are the only thing to be taken seriously.
Wow, really? "Morals of the bible"? Have you even read a chapter of that book? The bible is a fucking monstrosity. "Morals of the bible", seriously, you do not want to open that can of shit.
|
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
Marriage is not a religious thing. It's a contract between (usually) two individuals, and has existed long before christianity hijacked it.
|
As a gay man, I'm very happy to see strides in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
