|
On November 07 2008 08:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 08:38 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 07:17 HeadBangaa wrote:
GIve marriage to gays if you also give it to animal lovers, polygamists, etc. Absolutely no discretion as to what another person can marry. That is consistent. Else, respect the arbitrary line where it is.
To say, "Gay people should be able to marry, but not polygamists and animal lovers" is exercising your bigotry, and is half-ass liberalism. In future generations, you will be seen as the bigot. People in this thread seemed to be trapped in the moral intuition they grew up with, not concerned with its consistency.
You can't with one hand say, "all people inherently have the right" and with the other say, "except all these people, who I arbitrarily decided have no rights." Don't be dogmatic, or else you're just as bad as the religiosos. Are you serious? Polygamy is not permitted for completely different reasons which actually make sense legally. As for the case of marrying an animal that is totally immoral on any level because that animal cannot make a conscious decision of whether or not they want to marry you or w/e. Homosexuals are asking for the same legal rights which Heterosexuals are guaranteed. Comparing them to people that love animals and Polygamy is not even a reasonable comparison. It's a reasonable comparison because like it or not homosexual sex is not natural, is abnormal and is in many ways a damaging endeavor (physically). The comparison is often made to beastiality or polygamy because like homosexual sex it is something people swear they are born with/a part of them that can not be changed. Polygamists in a different way (more of a moral, religious or familial set up kind of necessity) but similar all the same. headbangaa is far from the first to make that comparison and people always play the bleeding heart liberal card and say "sex with animals is not the same!" No shit. But functionally on a policy level they can be evaluated on a similar level.
Homosexuality IS natural since it does appear in unadulterated nature. Animals in the wild do engage in homosexual behavior.
As for the physical harm caused by homosexual sex, it is also true for heterosexual sex, both anal and vaginal. So sex being a damaging endeavor isn't a valid argument against homosexuality and if you refer to the increased number of HIV positive male individual I will refer you to the lack of HIV positive homosexual females, so that is redundant, unless you agree with female homosexuality and not male homosexuality.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 09:00 aRod wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 08:45 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 08:43 aRod wrote:On November 07 2008 08:36 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
@aRod
Who cares?
Every state that has voted on this... I was more expressing my lack of passion about how the marriage label is applied than actually questioning whether people oppose gay marriage. Ah.. I suppose a poor choice of words then cause a LOT of people care even if you don't hehe Well I don't intend on avoid expressions all together. Who cares is commonly used to express feelings of disintrest. Here's a quote from urban dictionary Who Cares: (Expression) A response to something of no concern or interest whatsoever.
hahahah dude.. don't presume to be informing me on the definition of "who cares" rofl.
I fucking know ok? Like I was saying: It is totally understandable for me to take what you said on the literal level as well.
Are we done with this completely pointless side debate? Cause we can derail a meaningful thread further if you think it important to standby the use of "who cares" however you see fit. Jesus christ rofl
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 09:04 Etherone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 08:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 08:38 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 07:17 HeadBangaa wrote:
GIve marriage to gays if you also give it to animal lovers, polygamists, etc. Absolutely no discretion as to what another person can marry. That is consistent. Else, respect the arbitrary line where it is.
To say, "Gay people should be able to marry, but not polygamists and animal lovers" is exercising your bigotry, and is half-ass liberalism. In future generations, you will be seen as the bigot. People in this thread seemed to be trapped in the moral intuition they grew up with, not concerned with its consistency.
You can't with one hand say, "all people inherently have the right" and with the other say, "except all these people, who I arbitrarily decided have no rights." Don't be dogmatic, or else you're just as bad as the religiosos. Are you serious? Polygamy is not permitted for completely different reasons which actually make sense legally. As for the case of marrying an animal that is totally immoral on any level because that animal cannot make a conscious decision of whether or not they want to marry you or w/e. Homosexuals are asking for the same legal rights which Heterosexuals are guaranteed. Comparing them to people that love animals and Polygamy is not even a reasonable comparison. It's a reasonable comparison because like it or not homosexual sex is not natural, is abnormal and is in many ways a damaging endeavor (physically). The comparison is often made to beastiality or polygamy because like homosexual sex it is something people swear they are born with/a part of them that can not be changed. Polygamists in a different way (more of a moral, religious or familial set up kind of necessity) but similar all the same. headbangaa is far from the first to make that comparison and people always play the bleeding heart liberal card and say "sex with animals is not the same!" No shit. But functionally on a policy level they can be evaluated on a similar level. Homosexuality IS natural since it does appear in unadulterated nature. Animals in the wild do engage in homosexual behavior. As for the physical harm caused by homosexual sex, it is also true for heterosexual sex, both anal and vaginal. So sex being a damaging endeavor isn't a valid argument against homosexuality and if you refer to the increased number of HIV positive male individual I will refer you to the lack of HIV positive homosexual females, so that is redundant, unless you agree with female homosexuality and not male homosexuality.
SO IS CANABALISM I GUESS? Animals fucking eat their own all the time. Gerbils will devour their children when they see a threat. Bees kill themselves to defend the fucking hive. Dogs will eat themselves until they die if the condition is correct.
STOP
DONT
FUCKING GO THERE
jesus christ did you just use lesbians as your argument for homosexual HIV being "redundant" ? I was obviously talking about homosexual men.
|
Cannibalism is natural, It does not make it correct in my view, but it is natural.
bees die defending they don't kill themselves, is it so different then someone running into battle guns blazing?
humans will eat themselves till they die if the condition is correct as well.
I did use lesbians as HIV being redundant in pertaining to the "it is harmful and if something is harmful it is wrong argument."
|
On November 07 2008 09:02 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 08:55 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 08:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 08:38 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 07:17 HeadBangaa wrote:
GIve marriage to gays if you also give it to animal lovers, polygamists, etc. Absolutely no discretion as to what another person can marry. That is consistent. Else, respect the arbitrary line where it is.
To say, "Gay people should be able to marry, but not polygamists and animal lovers" is exercising your bigotry, and is half-ass liberalism. In future generations, you will be seen as the bigot. People in this thread seemed to be trapped in the moral intuition they grew up with, not concerned with its consistency.
You can't with one hand say, "all people inherently have the right" and with the other say, "except all these people, who I arbitrarily decided have no rights." Don't be dogmatic, or else you're just as bad as the religiosos. Are you serious? Polygamy is not permitted for completely different reasons which actually make sense legally. As for the case of marrying an animal that is totally immoral on any level because that animal cannot make a conscious decision of whether or not they want to marry you or w/e. Homosexuals are asking for the same legal rights which Heterosexuals are guaranteed. Comparing them to people that love animals and Polygamy is not even a reasonable comparison. It's a reasonable comparison because like it or not homosexual sex is not natural, is abnormal and is in many ways a damaging endeavor (physically). The comparison is often made to beastiality or polygamy because like homosexual sex it is something people swear they are born with/a part of them that can not be changed. Polygamists in a different way (more of a moral, religious or familial set up kind of necessity) but similar all the same. headbangaa is far from the first to make that comparison and people always play the bleeding heart liberal card and say "sex with animals is not the same!" No shit. But functionally on a policy level they can be evaluated on a similar level. Well the way I see it Polygamy is denied not only because its immoral but having multiple wives/massive amounts of children is a way to get ez tax breaks and avoid the law. Marrying an animal is outlawed simply because how can an animal sign a marriage license? How can it make a decision to be married? Those are both viable legal reason. What I was pointing out was that these two are outlawed for viable reasons while gay marriage is outlawed because its unnatural. I totally agree that it is unnatural since obviously man was meant to impregnate woman. But I do not think that the reason given is sufficient to deny gay people the right to marry. Homosexual behavior is damaging.. this is supported in overwhelming numbers. Homosexual sex is physically unnatural and damaging. It creates a tremendously greater aptitude for contracting HIV and the lifestyle affiliated with homosexual sex/relationships has overwhelmingly been sporadic and fast leading to greater STD transfers. The book I got these arguments/figures from is in my car.. please don't ask me to fact check cause I am lazy as shit but if someone presses me on it I can go outside and get the book. Point is these are viable reasons for why homosexual marriage should not be condoned on a state level. Nevermind the astronomically higher levels of depression, drug use and alcoholism. Which can be partly associated with (and are) social pressures/prejudices. This argument can get turned on its head as people would say "well allowing gay marriage would move away from the public prejudice which creates alcoholism, drug use etc.." but the other end of that angle has already been nominated as the "official" approach and that is to discourage homosexuallity in its entirety. I can understand if people start to get confused with my posts.. I support gay marriage but I am playing devil's advocate here since most people argue symphonically against anything that might be religiously related.
Yes it is damaging, but as you said drug abuse and alcohol play similar roles. There are many many things which are damaging but still allowed by the government. The citizens are given the right to choose which of these things is going to be better for them and I believe that everyone deserves that right.
If you really think about it the spread of STDs can also be attributed to drug abuse and the sharing of needles. It can also be attributed to sexuality being much more accepted since the revolution in the 60s. Homosexuality contributes too, that I cannot deny. But does that warrant the prejudice put up against the gay community? In my opinion it does not. The world is filled with damaging things and it is up to each citizen to decide whether or not to participate in those things. Whether it be drugs or butt sex.
The point I am trying to make is none of those things is a full proof legal reason. Homosexuality is no more damaging that ciggarettes or alcohol which are both completely legal right now. Gay people are not asking for the right to spread butt sex to the world either, they simply want to be able to marry. The people who are hurt most by this are not the crazy wild partiers in the gay night clubs, but the dedicated citizens of American who have a loving partner.
edit: btw I love that your playing devils advocate here Inc. I love a good debate.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
This isn't a legal issue.. that should be clear. Stop citing it like that wins any ground. It's a social ordeal and people are not comfortable with it. The harmful reasons stated are why the non religious and contemporary logicians file themselves against the unification of gay marriage and state.
Etherone: You fucking agreed with me. YES they are natural.. THAT WAS MY POINT. Where you got confused was: Natural =/- OK. As you tried to say: homosexual occurs in nature therefor it is natural/ok.
|
The biology that determines sexual behavior is not completely understood. But there are clear differences in the brains of people attracted to women and people attracted to men. It's not surprising that people attracted to both sexes actually have brain characteristics in between the brains of those attracted to single sexes. Homosexuals may have a neural developmental abnormallity atypical for their sex, but this isn't "unnatural." After all it occurs in nature and happens 1/50 times.
Outlawing gay marriage isn't going to stop homosexuals from "pitching and catching" and will mostly likely have no influence on the spread of STDs like HIV. The question is what is the best way to curb the spread of devastating STDs like HIV. I don't know the answer, but I believe in sexual education about strait and homosexual practices and their associated risks will help.
|
Oh god, i dont even know where to begin, other than to say anyone against homosexuality, homosexual sex acts, or gay marriage needs to get a life and shut the fuck up. It affects you in no way whatsoever. It affects the individuals in no way whatsoever. Who cares if in 20 years people want to marry a pitchfork or a pig, WHAT THE FUCK DOES IT MATTER TO YOU? How does this impact you? Are YOU going to marry a horse because the neighbor does? If so I suggest you seek immediate help. And this whole ideat that a bunch of gay people are more likely to contract aids because they hang out with other previously infected gay people who through 6 degrees of separation must know a crackhead and shared a needle with him is beyond ridiculous. Quit hiding behind your own insecurities and admit the only thing you have against homosexuality is because you grew up with your shit head parents and elementary school friends bashing it around you as a child.
|
On November 07 2008 09:16 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
This isn't a legal issue.. that should be clear. Stop citing it like that wins any ground. It's a social ordeal and people are not comfortable with it. The harmful reasons stated are why the non religious and contemporary logicians file themselves against the unification of gay marriage and state.
Etherone: You fucking agreed with me. YES they are natural.. THAT WAS MY POINT. Where you got confused was: Natural =/- OK. As you tried to say: homosexual occurs in nature therefor it is natural/ok.
not confused at all, you were right about it being natural, but you said homosexuality is not natural, when in fact it is.
|
On November 07 2008 09:16 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
This isn't a legal issue.. that should be clear. Stop citing it like that wins any ground. It's a social ordeal and people are not comfortable with it. The harmful reasons stated are why the non religious and contemporary logicians file themselves against the unification of gay marriage and state.
Etherone: You fucking agreed with me. YES they are natural.. THAT WAS MY POINT. Where you got confused was: Natural =/- OK. As you tried to say: homosexual occurs in nature therefor it is natural/ok.
The thread title is "Proposition 8..." which lead me to believe that it was a legal issue. Sorry. I dont really understand what we are arguing about now since what you said aligns fairly with my posts. I was originally trying to say that comparing Polygamy/Beastiality to gay marriage isnt fair since both of those have viable legal reason to outlawed, not just social reason like gay marriage.
|
Marriage involving animals isn't allowed because the animal can't consent to the marriage.
Incest was outlawed because it's factually known to cause problems for the children on a biological level.
Polygamy is a problem because of the benefits received from marriage on a government level.
Homosexuals don't do anything wrong from a legal standpoint, as far as saying that anal sex is wrong because it's 'damaging' is dumb. There's mutual consent in the relationship and there are a lot of heterosexual couples that engage in anal sex, so that's not even exclusive to homosexuals. Lesbians also obviously don't have problems with anal sex and it's actually safer sex than heterosexual sex.
|
well now i feel like an idiot you said NOT homosexual sex, is not natural. sorry didn't read the double negative
I am wasting time arguing with someone I agree with...
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 09:21 NewbSaibot wrote:
Oh god, i dont even know where to begin, other than to say anyone against homosexuality, homosexual sex acts, or gay marriage needs to get a life and shut the fuck up. It affects you in no way whatsoever. It affects the individuals in no way whatsoever. Who cares if in 20 years people want to marry a pitchfork or a pig, WHAT THE FUCK DOES IT MATTER TO YOU? How does this impact you? Are YOU going to marry a horse because the neighbor does? If so I suggest you seek immediate help. And this whole ideat that a bunch of gay people are more likely to contract aids because they hang out with other previously infected gay people who through 6 degrees of separation must know a crackhead and shared a needle with him is beyond ridiculous. Quit hiding behind your own insecurities and admit the only thing you have against homosexuality is because you grew up with your shit head parents and elementary school friends bashing it around you as a child.
You used to be a good poster 
It's odd to see someone in the same post: blasting people for being closeminded and ignorant towards homosexuals but then within the same post being closedminded and ignorant about the very people you claim are so bad.
I think it goes beyond "if they do it I will." And I think if you calmed down and thought about it for a second you'd agree.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 09:25 vsrooks wrote:
Marriage involving animals isn't allowed because the animal can't consent to the marriage.
Incest was outlawed because it's factually known to cause problems for the children on a biological level.
Polygamy is a problem because of the benefits received from marriage on a government level.
Homosexuals don't do anything wrong from a legal standpoint, as far as saying that anal sex is wrong because it's 'damaging' is dumb. There's mutual consent in the relationship and there are a lot of heterosexual couples that engage in anal sex, so that's not even exclusive to homosexuals. Lesbians also obviously don't have problems with anal sex and it's actually safer sex than heterosexual sex.
Incest doesn't cause problems biologically for the offsping it greatly increases the likelihood that abnormalities will occur..
That is the very numbers game I am playing here. Homosexual sex doesn't kill babies. It just increases the likelihood that bad things can happen.. greatly. Hence why it is argued to be a bad thing overall, just like incest was deemed as such.
|
On November 07 2008 09:27 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 09:25 vsrooks wrote:
Marriage involving animals isn't allowed because the animal can't consent to the marriage.
Incest was outlawed because it's factually known to cause problems for the children on a biological level.
Polygamy is a problem because of the benefits received from marriage on a government level.
Homosexuals don't do anything wrong from a legal standpoint, as far as saying that anal sex is wrong because it's 'damaging' is dumb. There's mutual consent in the relationship and there are a lot of heterosexual couples that engage in anal sex, so that's not even exclusive to homosexuals. Lesbians also obviously don't have problems with anal sex and it's actually safer sex than heterosexual sex. Incest doesn't cause problems biologically for the offsping it greatly increases the likelihood that abnormalities will occur.. That is the very numbers game I am playing here. Homosexual sex doesn't kill babies. It just increases the likelihood that bad things can happen.. greatly. Hence why it is argued to be a bad thing overall, just like incest was deemed as such.
Not all bad traits just Rare non dominant traints. So you get fun genetic diseases.
Anal sex is only damaging if you're doing it wrong T_T
|
On November 07 2008 09:27 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 09:25 vsrooks wrote:
Marriage involving animals isn't allowed because the animal can't consent to the marriage.
Incest was outlawed because it's factually known to cause problems for the children on a biological level.
Polygamy is a problem because of the benefits received from marriage on a government level.
Homosexuals don't do anything wrong from a legal standpoint, as far as saying that anal sex is wrong because it's 'damaging' is dumb. There's mutual consent in the relationship and there are a lot of heterosexual couples that engage in anal sex, so that's not even exclusive to homosexuals. Lesbians also obviously don't have problems with anal sex and it's actually safer sex than heterosexual sex. Incest doesn't cause problems biologically for the offsping it greatly increases the likelihood that abnormalities will occur.. That is the very numbers game I am playing here. Homosexual sex doesn't kill babies. It just increases the likelihood that bad things can happen.. greatly. Hence why it is argued to be a bad thing overall, just like incest was deemed as such.
( homosexual male sex) So basically your arguing against anal sex.
|
Homosexual sex between man might have an increased chance of STDs etc...
BUT, thats only in the case of the involved ones being all around fucking each other, and common, not all gays are in it for the party, i know some very conservative gays that just felt inlove with each other and they never had sex with anyone else, they just want to get married anf adopt a baby, now i ask you, they didnt had sex with many woman before they came out of the closet.
What harm are they doing to society ? they are productive members of it like anyone else, and want to be acknowledged as such.
|
On November 07 2008 08:38 SpiralArchitect wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 07:17 HeadBangaa wrote:
GIve marriage to gays if you also give it to animal lovers, polygamists, etc. Absolutely no discretion as to what another person can marry. That is consistent. Else, respect the arbitrary line where it is.
To say, "Gay people should be able to marry, but not polygamists and animal lovers" is exercising your bigotry, and is half-ass liberalism. In future generations, you will be seen as the bigot. People in this thread seemed to be trapped in the moral intuition they grew up with, not concerned with its consistency.
You can't with one hand say, "all people inherently have the right" and with the other say, "except all these people, who I arbitrarily decided have no rights." Don't be dogmatic, or else you're just as bad as the religiosos. Are you serious? Polygamy is not permitted for completely different reasons which actually make sense legally. As for the case of marrying an animal that is totally immoral on any level because that animal cannot make a conscious decision of whether or not they want to marry you or w/e.
There are TONS of people out there who fuck their animals and have romantic feelings for them. You just wrote them all off as "immoral". Much in the same way a priest might condemn homosexuality.
And then you rape the civil rights of polygamists in one sentence. Which legal sensibilities trump civil rights, buddy? Isn't that the premise of the pro gay marriage platform, that civil rights are to be respected? Legal ramifications empowering otherwise would be defined as institutional bigotry, and it is erroneous to use that as a premise for robbing people of their inherent rights.
Though I thank you for being the only person thus far to actually try to engage my argument (and revealing your bigotry in the process). For the record, I don't buy the premise of "all people have the inherent right to marry, regardless of sexuality" and am showing you that I can use this premise to make anybody here a bigot.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 09:35 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 08:38 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 07:17 HeadBangaa wrote:
GIve marriage to gays if you also give it to animal lovers, polygamists, etc. Absolutely no discretion as to what another person can marry. That is consistent. Else, respect the arbitrary line where it is.
To say, "Gay people should be able to marry, but not polygamists and animal lovers" is exercising your bigotry, and is half-ass liberalism. In future generations, you will be seen as the bigot. People in this thread seemed to be trapped in the moral intuition they grew up with, not concerned with its consistency.
You can't with one hand say, "all people inherently have the right" and with the other say, "except all these people, who I arbitrarily decided have no rights." Don't be dogmatic, or else you're just as bad as the religiosos. Are you serious? Polygamy is not permitted for completely different reasons which actually make sense legally. As for the case of marrying an animal that is totally immoral on any level because that animal cannot make a conscious decision of whether or not they want to marry you or w/e. There are TONS of people out there who fuck their animals and have romantic feelings for them. You just wrote them all off as "immoral". Much in the same way a priest might condemn homosexuality. And then you rape the civil rights of polygamists in one sentence. Which legal sensibilities trump civil rights, buddy? Isn't that the premise of the pro gay marriage platform, that civil rights are to be respected? Legal ramifications empowering otherwise would be defined as institutional bigotry, and it is erroneous to use that as a premise for robbing people of their inherent rights. Though I thank you for being the only person thus far to actually try to engage my argument (and revealing your bigotry in the process). For the record, I don't buy the premise of "all people have the inherent right to marry, regardless of sexuality" and am showing you that I can use this premise to make anybody here a bigot.
Actually frits made a great post engaging your argument.. you missed it evidently.
|
As far as Christian beliefs towards the Bible goes, they need to realize that the Bible is a product of redaction. God didn't write the Bible, Jesus didn't write the Bible. The Bible is a collection of religious texts written by various different authors. These authors were people capable of flaws just like anyone else. Moses, Paul the Apostle, Solomon, etc. are not the Son of God. They're human beings that held a place of stature in the Christian community at the time. God didn't write the Bible, neither did Jesus.
Different versions of the Bible include texts that are not in other versions of the Bible. Different versions of different Bibles use different language, an obvious example is the King James Bible(commonly used version of the Bible especially in the South), which was published with political reasons in mind. The English version of the Bible that everyone is quoting is a translation from the original Bible that was in Hebrew. The Bible has changed immensely over time, it's not something that has ever been written in stone.
I'm not trying to discredit the Bible as an important sacred text that has a lot of spiritual meaning. I'm just attempting to point out that it's foolish to quote one or two lines of the Bible and blindly follow them. Religion is a spiritual thing, if you want to believe that being gay is a sin, then it should be something you're learned through a spiritual connection with God, not something you're simply believing because it's written in the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
