Gay Marriage 2008- Topic revisited

[Troll King]

[LIST]


Context! For the 501st time: I am not arguing whether or not being gay is good or bad. Please place the word "kill" with the term "pick flowers for"

My point is about the context. Can you honestly claim you're not arguing about whether being gay is good or bad when you keep using analogies that compare it to murder? If you're not making a value judgment then stop using comparisons and analogies that have an inherently extreme moral value like murder. You're creating a context by comparing something you find immoral to something (I'm hoping) that you find even more immoral.

Of all things to use as a comparison to make your point, do people have to pick something that generally considered to be the worst crime one could possibly commit? An analogy only works when you're comparing something to something else that is more mundane and ordinary. That makes it easier to understand. When your example is more extreme than your subject, your argument becomes little more than hyperbole.

[Vykromond]

How the hell is one 'mostly' heterosexual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale for example

[Displaced]

Fluffz please stop writing in engrish and start writing in english or in your native language, I want to be able to retord, but it is nigh on impossible to understand wtf you are on about.

[Izor]

How the hell is one 'mostly' heterosexual

[Da1andonly]

yes dicks mustard thus have motherland.

[Fluffz]

So I think you are yet to prove any different behaviour that homosexual couples have to traditional couples that should require different regulations or benefits.

• Personal: Woman get paid vacation when they are pregnant. Followed by a payed vacation afterwards because the woman traditionally breast-feeds the baby. Afterwards the man can gets paid vacation so the woman does not lose any qualifications. But if both partners are gay they would be far better off to have a payed, simulations, part time solution.
• Ethic: Kolar stated there will be changes in the reproduction technologies in the future. Maybe one day gays could genetically engineer a biological child. Do you really want to treat the gay pair and the heterosexual pair the same?
• Society: The tax thing i stated. Support at adoption.
• Culture: Minority support. Eg state funds love parade.

Tons of people get married just because they love each other and want that in writing, so to speak, and never have kids.

You might want to know that the church wedding still requires your will to get children. It is the government that decided to fuck things up by trying to change a religious tradition into a legal status. This legal status is becoming more an more inappropriate the more different groups have access. The gay pair should protest against being filed under the same legal status as the asexual living partnership just alike.

I don't think any homosexual would be really disturbed that people abort life because of its possible sexuality. And even if they did, it's the mothers right to choose; no one else has a say in that.

weee. Lets say sexuality is a birth given property. What would the mother base her judgement on? This doesnt seem right...

You're comparing homosexuality to murder

Context! For the 501st time: I am not arguing whether or not being gay is good or bad. Please place the word "kill" with the term "pick flowers for"

Your philosophy dictates that you want to remove the ability for any physical intimacy away from homosexual couples. You say it is a choice, and they should not have that choice.

Quote me on that or stfu.

[Squeezer]

What I do like is that everyone in these threads that tries to prove that homosexual feelings are just the same as heterosexual feelings have to make sure to point out that they are attracted to girls.
If it really wasn't an issue, if it's natural, then why the need to make it specifically clear that you aren't homosexual?

Personally I don't care if homosexuality is a choise, a disease or (dis)order people are born with. I think we have to accept it either way and the law should cater for these people. We can even just say that we don't know and don't call each other stupid for our take on it.

If it really is a genetic (dis)order that would be great. It would probably be possible to distinguish homosexuality in the embryo in the period that abortion is still an option. Then people could make the decision of having the child or not.
Maybe it would even be possible to alter the state of the embryo, then you wouldn't even have to abort.
I don't think any homosexual would be really disturbed that people abort life because of its possible sexuality. And even if they did, it's the mothers right to choose; no one else has a say in that.

I'm thinking that this is aimed at me since I was the one to make that analogy. I was referencing my sexuality to make the point, but whatever. It's your right to act like a jaded asshole just because some of us said we were heterosexuals. Notice how your were the one to bring this up? How EVERYONE else understands that we're merely discussing not imposing or defending our sexual preferences. Would you rather we don't make mention? I mean naturally the first question out of anyone's mouth if you're passionate about gay rights should be: are you gay?

I don't know what you're trying to get at. That we all feel the need to emphasize how typical we are? Fuck off. At least we're being honest and not projecting our opinions onto other people. I think most of us are assured of our sexuality and don't feel the need to rub it in everyone's face, but in the case of analogy (like I used above) it is necessary to make a point.

Everything else you said has already been said by me (to some degree) so I guess you're just trying to be a douche for the sake of being a douche.

edit: And we agree for the most part.

[Liquid Blue]

What I do like is that everyone in these threads that tries to prove that homosexual feelings are just the same as heterosexual feelings have to make sure to point out that they are attracted to girls.
If it really wasn't an issue, if it's natural, then why the need to make it specifically clear that you aren't homosexual?

In regards to my post involving dicks~

I can't remember who at the specific time, but someone was talking about how it was unnatural for people to be attracted to someone of their same gender, and the thought popped into my head that dicks are gross. I support people to have the opportunity and ability to have relationships with whoever they like, but I personally, think dicks are gross. What's wrong with commenting about that?

Other guy - "FAGS SHOULDN'T BE MARRIED IT'S UNNATURAL"

Me- Well that's the crazy thing, it's perfectly natural and happens in the animal kingdom all the time.

Other guy- "ITS NOT RIGHT! THE BIBLE SAYS MEN SHOULDN'T LOVE MEN"

Me- I don't really see what's so good about guys, we smell like beer and shit and dicks are gross, but hey if they want to do it you shouldn't concern yourself with it.


This topic is here to give people a chance to voice their opinion, and if that's apart of their opinion, I don't see why you need to be condescending *again*
when talking about other posters.

[genocidal]

I don't think homosexuality is like pregnancy (that is, you are or you aren't). I think it's all kind of on a sliding scale. I'm mostly heterosexual, but I'm comfortable enough with myself to admit homosexual tendencies and/or attractions. I'm sure izark will jump on that statement but that's the case with just about everyone - it all depends upon how honest you are with yourself.

[Nycle]

What I do like is that everyone in these threads that tries to prove that homosexual feelings are just the same as heterosexual feelings have to make sure to point out that they are attracted to girls.
If it really wasn't an issue, if it's natural, then why the need to make it specifically clear that you aren't homosexual?

What, be careful not to throw in hyperboles in bold too fast.

[Zerzera]

What I do like is that everyone in these threads that tries to prove that homosexual feelings are just the same as heterosexual feelings have to make sure to point out that they are attracted to girls.
If it really wasn't an issue, if it's natural, then why the need to make it specifically clear that you aren't homosexual?

Personally I don't care if homosexuality is a choise, a disease or (dis)order people are born with. I think we have to accept it either way and the law should cater for these people. We can even just say that we don't know and don't call each other stupid for our take on it.

If it really is a genetic (dis)order that would be great. It would probably be possible to distinguish homosexuality in the embryo in the period that abortion is still an option. Then people could make the decision of having the child or not.
Maybe it would even be possible to alter the state of the embryo, then you wouldn't even have to abort.
I don't think any homosexual would be really disturbed that people abort life because of its possible sexuality. And even if they did, it's the mothers right to choose; no one else has a say in that.

[Summa]

Funny how my argument to connect those two was "free will" and "choice". Yours like Kolars should be "sexual orientation dictates your action!" which got us into this whole discussion about "is gay a disease?" in the first place. This is your argument, not mine. I just point out its flaws. You say i am wrong and the reason you give is more than questionable.

Let me break this down even more simple for you since you really seem to suck at grasping concepts due to your conceited nature. In the intelligent world there is an overall consensus that people are born homosexual. They do not control which sex turns them on and which doesn't. If you disagree with that, then you are just denying facts and are retarded.

Acting on one's homosexual nature is a matter of choice, just like acting on one's heterosexual nature. There are natural urges called hormones (not sure if your balls have dropped yet so maybe you don't understand) that give people the desire to have sex with those who they are attracted to. In the case of homosexuals this is other men, whereas for me its basically anyone of the female gender.

One can resist temptation and not make the choice to become a sexually active homosexual, but I don't see how that is humanitarian. Your philosophy dictates that you want to remove the ability for any physical intimacy away from homosexual couples. You say it is a choice, and they should not have that choice. This also removes an enormous portion of intimacy from relationships and if there is absolutely no physical relationship then the relationship probably won't last.

So, from your words we have removed the ability to be sexually active with the gender they are attracted to, the ability for the most part to be in a relationship with someone they desire to be in one with, and definitely the ability to marry the one they love away from people who just so happened to be born the way they are. Why not just lock them in prison or kill them all? But then again you are from Australia talking about an issue in American society, and probably don't understand the freedoms we are granted and how unconstitutional what you propose is.

[Galleleo]

What I think Fluffz is saying, or that is what I get from it is the following:

Marriage is for reproducing, people get married to have kids.
Homosexuals cannot reproduce within a marriage (they can through various other ways, but not with their partner in the marriage).
Therefore homosexuals should not be able to get married in the same sense that woman and guys can get married.

IMO, if that really is his idea (it is hard to really understand what he is saying), his whole idea of marriage is fucked up. Tons of people get married just because they love each other and want that in writing, so to speak, and never have kids.

[Vykromond]

if u could put opne differ ent pennis in mouth each day fro 109 year.. would u do it

(spoiler: i would)

[Da1andonly]

but gay and all have opinions equal to motherland yes?