|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 09:34 D10 wrote:
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.
I wil respond to you and izzy with the same logic:
I am playing a numbers game. And I am not alone. Logical people will play this game as well. Sure there are homosexuals that have 0 sex or prefer sex with 1 solid partner and just want to raise a child. They are in the vast minority. Homosexual individuals (male) on a general level, lead far more promiscuous lives than any other brand of sexuallity. As such the levels of STDs etc.. are higher.
Izzy: Your poopoo hole is not made to have things go in it. Unless the partner has a small weenar there will be physical damage. This is particularly bad because the flesh that lines your anus is not adept to healing and can actually cause severe bleeding both internally and externally. More importantly it causes an infection almost everytime said tearing occurs because of the germ infested area.
|
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.
Homosexuals can't have children, the only time there are 'bad things' happening is through mutual consent. Children of incestuous parents are not giving consent. Also the likely hood of abnormalities is greatly increased through decades of inbreeding and that's predominately why it was looked down upon in society.
|
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.
Fucking an animal is immoral for a completely different reason. Much like having sex with a child the animal has no consent in the ordeal, in fact it cannot even understand what is going on besides sex. Beastiality is immoral on a human level not a religious one. Comparing someone who fucks a completely oblivious animal to two people who know what they are doing is not really fair.
Civil rights cannot be maintained when they violate the rights of other citizens. Allowing a person to have multiple spouses creates an imbalance between those who only have one and the polygamists. Polygamy is a very viable way to avoid many many legal responsibilities and that is not fair to the people who live up to those same responsibilities. I do not question whether or not polygamy is morally correct but I do not think it is fair to allow it.
What I was trying to say is that those two examples are not the same as gay marriage. Both of them are wrong on levels which are legally supported. Gay marriage is socially unacceptable just like beastiality and polygamy are, but there are not as many strong legal reasons to ban it
|
Homosexuality is an anomoly. Let's establish that
When someone is born homosexual (let's assume that's how it is, for simplicity) they are "selected out" from the breeding process. They won't reproduce.
This makes homosexuals fundamentally different from heterosexuals.
I mean this in no way to offend homos, but its important to acknowledge that truth. They are different. They will never embody as a spousal unit, regardless of semantics, the complete expression of mankind, man and woman. Yin and Yin. Or yang and yang. Very different. I respect homos, but as a unique type of people, who don't necessarily fall under the same institutions as heteros.
|
On November 07 2008 09:46 SpiralArchitect wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 09:35 HeadBangaa 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. 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. Fucking an animal is immoral for a completely different reason. Much like having sex with a child the animal has no consent in the ordeal, in fact it cannot even understand what is going on besides sex. Beastiality is immoral on a human level not a religious one. Comparing someone who fucks a completely oblivious animal to two people who know what they are doing is not really fair. Civil rights cannot be maintained when they violate the rights of other citizens. Allowing a person to have multiple spouses creates an imbalance between those who only have one and the polygamists. Polygamy is a very viable way to avoid many many legal responsibilities and that is not fair to the people who live up to those same responsibilities. I do not question whether or not polygamy is morally correct but I do not think it is fair to allow it. What I was trying to say is that those two examples are not the same as gay marriage. Both of them are wrong on levels which are legally supported. Gay marriage is socially unacceptable just like beastiality and polygamy are, but there are not as many strong legal reasons to ban it
"Sex with animals is immoral because theres no consent."
So if the animal is visibly enjoying the sex, that makes it OK? I'm pretty sure if I suck Fido's dick, he's going to wag his tail.
STOP APPEALING TO LEGALITY IN ETHICS DEBATES, THAT'S RETARDED AND WRONG. Laws can be wrong.
|
On November 07 2008 09:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 09:34 D10 wrote:
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. I wil respond to you and izzy with the same logic: I am playing a numbers game. And I am not alone. Logical people will play this game as well. Sure there are homosexuals that have 0 sex or prefer sex with 1 solid partner and just want to raise a child. They are in the vast minority. Homosexual individuals (male) on a general level, lead far more promiscuous lives than any other brand of sexuallity. As such the levels of STDs etc.. are higher. Izzy: Your poopoo hole is not made to have things go in it. Unless the partner has a small weenar there will be physical damage. This is particularly bad because the flesh that lines your anus is not adept to healing and can actually cause severe bleeding both internally and externally. More importantly it causes an infection almost everytime said tearing occurs because of the germ infested area.
Lube + anal raited condom + proper training/teasing and it wont be a problem. =p Foreplay and stuff is there for reasons. There is foreplay for vaginal sex and same for anal sex.
|
On November 07 2008 09:47 HeadBangaa wrote:
Homosexuality is an anomoly. Let's establish that
When someone is born homosexual (let's assume that's how it is, for simplicity) they are "selected out" from the breeding process. They won't reproduce.
This makes homosexuals fundamentally different from heterosexuals.
I mean this in no way to offend homos, but its important to acknowledge that truth. They are different. They will never embody as a spousal unit, regardless of semantics, the complete expression of mankind, man and woman. Yin and Yin. Or yang and yang. Very different. I respect homos, but as a unique type of people, who don't necessarily fall under the same institutions as heteros.
I can agree with everything that you said there, that is a very well thought out and intelligent post. I simply think that the abnormal parts of homsexuality are on a consensual level. A level where two human beings who love each other willingly want to become united legally and not just in their eyes. Whereas polygamy violates given rights to the citizens and beastiality violates a unknowing animal.
Homosexuality is not natural in any way shape or form. But compared to those two I find it to be much more realistic to allow gay marriage.
Edit: Just because the animal is enjoying something doesnt mean they consent to it. In fact I greatly enjoy the drug cocaine and if it were to be put in my system right now I would enjoy it. But I personally do not want to do cocaine, therefore I do not consent to taking it.
How is it wrong to come from a legal stand point when we are discussing a legal proposition on gay marriage?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
more like ignorant drivel. anomaly is defined against a normality that is itself "established" through prejudices. there is no weight in that idea. and sexuality being a fundamental part of identity is another judgment.
whether gays subscribe to different institutions is not a matter of their biological disposition, but a matter of their choice. if they want to marry, they want to marry, if not, then no. no one has the privileged position of defining what marriage means, it is an institution constructed by all sorts of people.
i have no idea what point is being advanced by the reproduction bit. maybe it is an insider joke?
|
On November 07 2008 09:47 HeadBangaa wrote:
Homosexuality is an anomoly. Let's establish that
When someone is born homosexual (let's assume that's how it is, for simplicity) they are "selected out" from the breeding process. They won't reproduce.
This makes homosexuals fundamentally different from heterosexuals.
I mean this in no way to offend homos, but its important to acknowledge that truth. They are different. They will never embody as a spousal unit, regardless of semantics, the complete expression of mankind, man and woman. Yin and Yin. Or yang and yang. Very different. I respect homos, but as a unique type of people, who don't necessarily fall under the same institutions as heteros.
That's an archaic way of looking at things. We don't necessarily fall under the rules of survival of the fittest anymore, so the idea of them being different because they're unable to reproduce is wrong. There are plenty of straight couples that abstain from having children as well. Humanity has grown past the point in time where the survival of our species isn't a concern in the sense of having to reproduce.
|
On November 07 2008 09:50 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 09:46 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 09:35 HeadBangaa 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. 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. Fucking an animal is immoral for a completely different reason. Much like having sex with a child the animal has no consent in the ordeal, in fact it cannot even understand what is going on besides sex. Beastiality is immoral on a human level not a religious one. Comparing someone who fucks a completely oblivious animal to two people who know what they are doing is not really fair. Civil rights cannot be maintained when they violate the rights of other citizens. Allowing a person to have multiple spouses creates an imbalance between those who only have one and the polygamists. Polygamy is a very viable way to avoid many many legal responsibilities and that is not fair to the people who live up to those same responsibilities. I do not question whether or not polygamy is morally correct but I do not think it is fair to allow it. What I was trying to say is that those two examples are not the same as gay marriage. Both of them are wrong on levels which are legally supported. Gay marriage is socially unacceptable just like beastiality and polygamy are, but there are not as many strong legal reasons to ban it "Sex with animals is immoral because theres no consent." So if the animal is visibly enjoying the sex, that makes it OK? I'm pretty sure if I suck Fido's dick, he's going to wag his tail. STOP APPEALING TO LEGALITY IN ETHICS DEBATES, THAT'S RETARDED AND WRONG. Laws can be wrong.
Yep, like the ones that ban gay marriage
|
United States4471 Posts
On November 07 2008 09:40 vsrooks wrote:
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.
We were finally moving away from this side topic, let's try to avoid going back to it. This thread is about Prop 8 and the general concept of whether the government should be able to deny homosexual people the right to marriage.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 09:50 IzzyCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 09:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:34 D10 wrote:
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. I wil respond to you and izzy with the same logic: I am playing a numbers game. And I am not alone. Logical people will play this game as well. Sure there are homosexuals that have 0 sex or prefer sex with 1 solid partner and just want to raise a child. They are in the vast minority. Homosexual individuals (male) on a general level, lead far more promiscuous lives than any other brand of sexuallity. As such the levels of STDs etc.. are higher. Izzy: Your poopoo hole is not made to have things go in it. Unless the partner has a small weenar there will be physical damage. This is particularly bad because the flesh that lines your anus is not adept to healing and can actually cause severe bleeding both internally and externally. More importantly it causes an infection almost everytime said tearing occurs because of the germ infested area. Lube + anal raited condom + proper training/teasing and it wont be a problem. =p Foreplay and stuff is there for reasons. There is foreplay for vaginal sex and same for anal sex.
Alright thanks for teaching me about anal sex. Now lets return to reality, that's where I spend most of my time.
Your post is absurd as me saying "love care and respect" = perfect relationship. As if it was that simple. No I am sorry.. anal sex is still penetrative sex in a place where nothing like that is intended biologically to happen. That means no matter how much butter you rub back there sometimes the steak is going to bleed.
|
On November 07 2008 09:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 09:50 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 07 2008 09:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:34 D10 wrote:
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. I wil respond to you and izzy with the same logic: I am playing a numbers game. And I am not alone. Logical people will play this game as well. Sure there are homosexuals that have 0 sex or prefer sex with 1 solid partner and just want to raise a child. They are in the vast minority. Homosexual individuals (male) on a general level, lead far more promiscuous lives than any other brand of sexuallity. As such the levels of STDs etc.. are higher. Izzy: Your poopoo hole is not made to have things go in it. Unless the partner has a small weenar there will be physical damage. This is particularly bad because the flesh that lines your anus is not adept to healing and can actually cause severe bleeding both internally and externally. More importantly it causes an infection almost everytime said tearing occurs because of the germ infested area. Lube + anal raited condom + proper training/teasing and it wont be a problem. =p Foreplay and stuff is there for reasons. There is foreplay for vaginal sex and same for anal sex. Alright thanks for teaching me about anal sex. Now lets return to reality, that's where I spend most of my time. Your post is absurd as me saying "love care and respect" = perfect relationship. As if it was that simple. No I am sorry.. anal sex is still penetrative sex in a place where nothing like that is intended biologically to happen. That means no matter how much butter you rub back there sometimes the steak is going to bleed.
I dont see how people can argue about this. Poopers are meant to poop not to engage in any kind of penetration. Evolution clearly meant for man to fuck woman and not in the pooper.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well well, all the care for the healthy sex life of homosexual couples apparently evaporates when their civic liberties are being considered. i guess we have to run sex ed for everyone since this si a greater objective of government than protecting people's rights.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Oh you are nitpicking an aspect of a larger argument. Cute but incredibly weak. I will try and guide you through the entire logic of the argument at hand.
unhealthy sex -> unhealthy lifestyle -> state won't support = no marriage.
That is about the breakdown of it. Sure there is a lot of stuff to fill in but you could do that by starting to actually read the thread and the arguments that occurred.. not hopping in at the tail end and starting to nit pick because you couldn't bother to read the qualifying posts made previously.
|
On November 07 2008 10:01 SpiralArchitect wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 09:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:50 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 07 2008 09:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:34 D10 wrote:
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. I wil respond to you and izzy with the same logic: I am playing a numbers game. And I am not alone. Logical people will play this game as well. Sure there are homosexuals that have 0 sex or prefer sex with 1 solid partner and just want to raise a child. They are in the vast minority. Homosexual individuals (male) on a general level, lead far more promiscuous lives than any other brand of sexuallity. As such the levels of STDs etc.. are higher. Izzy: Your poopoo hole is not made to have things go in it. Unless the partner has a small weenar there will be physical damage. This is particularly bad because the flesh that lines your anus is not adept to healing and can actually cause severe bleeding both internally and externally. More importantly it causes an infection almost everytime said tearing occurs because of the germ infested area. Lube + anal raited condom + proper training/teasing and it wont be a problem. =p Foreplay and stuff is there for reasons. There is foreplay for vaginal sex and same for anal sex. Alright thanks for teaching me about anal sex. Now lets return to reality, that's where I spend most of my time. Your post is absurd as me saying "love care and respect" = perfect relationship. As if it was that simple. No I am sorry.. anal sex is still penetrative sex in a place where nothing like that is intended biologically to happen. That means no matter how much butter you rub back there sometimes the steak is going to bleed. I dont see how people can argue about this. Poopers are meant to poop not to engage in any kind of penetration. Evolution clearly meant for man to fuck woman and not in the pooper.
Last time i checked evolution clearly wasn't meant for people to swallow swords but you can do it.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 09:51 SpiralArchitect wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 09:47 HeadBangaa wrote:
Homosexuality is an anomoly. Let's establish that
When someone is born homosexual (let's assume that's how it is, for simplicity) they are "selected out" from the breeding process. They won't reproduce.
This makes homosexuals fundamentally different from heterosexuals.
I mean this in no way to offend homos, but its important to acknowledge that truth. They are different. They will never embody as a spousal unit, regardless of semantics, the complete expression of mankind, man and woman. Yin and Yin. Or yang and yang. Very different. I respect homos, but as a unique type of people, who don't necessarily fall under the same institutions as heteros. I can agree with everything that you said there, that is a very well thought out and intelligent post. I simply think that the abnormal parts of homsexuality are on a consensual level. A level where two human beings who love each other willingly want to become united legally and not just in their eyes. Whereas polygamy violates given rights to the citizens and beastiality violates a unknowing animal. Homosexuality is not natural in any way shape or form. But compared to those two I find it to be much more realistic to allow gay marriage. Edit: Just because the animal is enjoying something doesnt mean they consent to it. In fact I greatly enjoy the drug cocaine and if it were to be put in my system right now I would enjoy it. But I personally do not want to do cocaine, therefore I do not consent to taking it. How is it wrong to come from a legal stand point when we are discussing a legal proposition on gay marriage?
To your edit:
actually I'd argue that animals are the greatest indicator of consent. A dog can be your best buddy for 10 years but you do something it doesn't like and it will let you know with a growl or worse. If a dog is indicating it is happy when you suck its dick it truly is happy... and consenting. It is allowing you to perform the action. Just because they don't communicate verbally the same we do doesn't mean they cannot consent. If a person says "would you like me to pass you the ketchup?" And you smile and nod.. you are consenting in the action of receiving ketchup. Would it hold up in court? Perhaps not but that isn't the issue we are discussing here.
But all of this is a digression.. whether the adults consent is irrelevent as far as I am concerned. The unhealthy aspects inherent with homosexual lifestyle overwhelm the fact that they consent. For reasons stated previously.. I am just pointing out that the greater argument consumes the minor argument that they give consent and somehow that makes it ok.
|
On November 07 2008 09:53 vsrooks wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 09:47 HeadBangaa wrote:
Homosexuality is an anomoly. Let's establish that
When someone is born homosexual (let's assume that's how it is, for simplicity) they are "selected out" from the breeding process. They won't reproduce.
This makes homosexuals fundamentally different from heterosexuals.
I mean this in no way to offend homos, but its important to acknowledge that truth. They are different. They will never embody as a spousal unit, regardless of semantics, the complete expression of mankind, man and woman. Yin and Yin. Or yang and yang. Very different. I respect homos, but as a unique type of people, who don't necessarily fall under the same institutions as heteros. That's an archaic way of looking at things. We don't necessarily fall under the rules of survival of the fittest anymore, so the idea of them being different because they're unable to reproduce is wrong. There are plenty of straight couples that abstain from having children as well. Humanity has grown past the point in time where the survival of our species isn't a concern in the sense of having to reproduce.
It's not archaic. It's truth.
Gay people can never be yin-yang. They can't. That's why I'm anti "gay marriage" and pro "garraige".
That way, a gay person could say, "I'm garried" without having to qualify, as is the case with, "I am married to someone of the same sex." That's grammatically clumsy; a dedicated word could embody the semantics. Otherwise, we are muddying the grammar and introducing semantic ambiguity. Those are objective negatives. And for what? So gay people can use the word "marry" and be "equal"? They aren't "equal"! The word "equal" in that context means "same". They are different as I've substantiated, but equal in the sense that they are humans and have fundamental rights as we all do. The gay marriage initiative seeks semantic equivocation, and that is objectively incorrect.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 10:07 IzzyCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 10:01 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 09:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:50 IzzyCraft wrote:On November 07 2008 09:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 09:34 D10 wrote:
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. I wil respond to you and izzy with the same logic: I am playing a numbers game. And I am not alone. Logical people will play this game as well. Sure there are homosexuals that have 0 sex or prefer sex with 1 solid partner and just want to raise a child. They are in the vast minority. Homosexual individuals (male) on a general level, lead far more promiscuous lives than any other brand of sexuallity. As such the levels of STDs etc.. are higher. Izzy: Your poopoo hole is not made to have things go in it. Unless the partner has a small weenar there will be physical damage. This is particularly bad because the flesh that lines your anus is not adept to healing and can actually cause severe bleeding both internally and externally. More importantly it causes an infection almost everytime said tearing occurs because of the germ infested area. Lube + anal raited condom + proper training/teasing and it wont be a problem. =p Foreplay and stuff is there for reasons. There is foreplay for vaginal sex and same for anal sex. Alright thanks for teaching me about anal sex. Now lets return to reality, that's where I spend most of my time. Your post is absurd as me saying "love care and respect" = perfect relationship. As if it was that simple. No I am sorry.. anal sex is still penetrative sex in a place where nothing like that is intended biologically to happen. That means no matter how much butter you rub back there sometimes the steak is going to bleed. I dont see how people can argue about this. Poopers are meant to poop not to engage in any kind of penetration. Evolution clearly meant for man to fuck woman and not in the pooper. Last time i checked evolution clearly wasn't meant for people to swallow swords but you can do it.
hahahah you just shot yourself in the foot so bad here.
Yeah, and 99.999999999999% of people SHOULD NEVER SWALLLOW A FUCKING SWORD.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
unhealthy sex -> unhealthy lifestyle -> state won't support = no marriage.
i see no logic or argument from your outline. but since i've seen this argument repeated ad nauseum, i'll just pretend that you've made an argument. here's the copypaste response.
there are risky ways of doing all sorts of activities, yet the normal response is calling for better safety measures, and if the activity is harmful in itself, then it is discouraged. only when the activity is harmful to others, or considered a general moral hazard, and thus affect others' entrenched rights, does it warrant a ban. however, gay sex does not satisfy these standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
