Gay Marriage 2008- Topic revisited

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

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

Try something with a little less egghead liberal bias LOL

[Izor]

haha i hardly believe that...i dont think anyone ive ever talked to that wasnt gay has ever admitted to even being attracted to another guy...

[Fluffz]

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.

I explicitly wrote multiple times that i do not consider homosexuality "evil". I even wrote "people could choose who stands for whom" in the previous analogy. But than what happened?

My analogy about "how the term equal was used incorrect". As a response to Concrete on the matter of "understanding equal":
If a person kills someone and requests the same treatment like a person who didnt kill someone - by your logic he is right as long as he is part of a minority

Without further input on my part you thought that the murder in the analogy is the gay person when it could be the straight one just alike. I gave you no reason to think like that. I explicitly warned from this thought. In this way the term "picks flowers for" is actually a worse term than "kill" because the one picking flowers could be misunderstood as the gay person. My only mistake in this thread was to assume everyone already takes equality of homosexuals as granted. Judging by the replies 90% of you guys thought like TK, that should make you think!

[Zerzera]

I don't know what you're trying to get at.

Dear Squeezer, it was not directed at you. It was just something I noticed last homo-thread too. I really don't think that you are helping people when you defend them and then right after make sure to put a distance between you and them.
What is being said? I don't want to resort into stupid analogies, like the most people do, I just want to describe how I see it.
To me it looks like they are saying:
"It's okay to be homosexual, but be aware that I am not a homosexual, it would be terrible if you would think I am a dirty homo."

You could argue that it wouldn't help the cause if you were a homosexual defending your own behaviour, but I think it's just the fear of being called a homosexual.

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.

I can not choose to be gay and like wang any more then I love vagina. I never decided in my 22 years on Earth that girls are more appealing to me, it is just how I am and nothing can change that.

At a certain point you just start liking girls, you start getting turned on by girls. For gay people, at a certain point they start liking boys (or girls) and start getting turned on by then.

Me in the old thread:

I never chosen to be heterosexual, so to me it feels pretty bold to claim someone who isn't heterosexual actually made a rational decision to be homosexual.

So what if I display the same view as you?

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.

No, I gave my opinion on the discussion about the causes of homosexuality, which I hadn't touched on before in this thread. As you can see, I think it's irrelevant. But since it kept coming back, I wanted to give my opinion.

[Zerzera]

Please Fluffz, I am doing my best to read and understand your posts, which I believe I do fully. It would be nice if you would do the same with my posts, instead of repeating the same argument.

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.

That has nothing to do with marriage! You are talking about pregnancies and raising babies. These facilities are disconnected from marriage! You get them for being pregnant, you get them for raising a child, not because you are married.

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?

Yes. I don't care how or if people reproduce inside their marriage.

Society: The tax thing i stated. Support at adoption.

You are taxed, based on your income and (shared) possessions, not on whether you sleep with a man or a woman.

Culture: Minority support. Eg state funds love parade.

?

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 care what you do inside your religion. We are talking about the law, and not about your mythical beliefs. The church is not the law, sorry.
Even if there is God, I don't aknowledge your church as His representative.

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

Then, sadly, she can't make the decision of aborting it because of homosexual ity. I was being hypothetical.

[Squeezer]

Dear Squeezer, it was not directed at you. It was just something I noticed last homo-thread too. I really don't think that you are helping people when you defend them and then right after make sure to put a distance between you and them.
What is being said? I don't want to resort into stupid analogies, like the most people do, I just want to describe how I see it.
To me it looks like they are saying:
"It's okay to be homosexual, but be aware that I am not a homosexual, it would be terrible if you would think I am a dirty homo."

You're putting words in my mouth. I've had people ask me if I'm homosexual before and I politely tell them no. I'm not ashamed of my sexuality and as Gen said above, I even display some homosexual traits.

As for distancing myself from gays, I get your point but the fundamental difference still remains. I'm not queer and they are. I'm not distancing, just making a distinction. Again I don't flaunt this in people's faces. I don't feel the need to alert every LBGT person I meet that I'm straight. If it comes up in discussion (like say...this thread), then I speak from what I know which happens to be a heterosexual male viewpoint. I'm not going to pretend I know what its like to be any different but does that mean I cannot support something I favor but don't fully understand?

[genocidal]

haha i hardly believe that...i dont think anyone ive ever talked to that wasnt gay has ever admitted to even being attracted to another guy...

It doesn't surprise me at all that you're only friends with not just heterosexuals but only repressed heterosexuals that lie to themselves daily. I bet I could write a movie about the mid-life crisis you and your "friends" will have in about 15-20 years.

[Zerzera]

As for distancing myself from gays, I get your point but the fundamental difference still remains.

It's not worth discussing this anymore. I am willing to accept what you said.

I just think that if you are right, then using your own experience as argument is useless.
If someone thinks that homosexuality is something unnatural, and heterosexuality is natural. How will the experiences of a heterosexual ever act as counterargument to their belief?

[Pressure Drop]

I think people are blurring the lines between unnatural and nature here …

Nature throws up a lot of different combinations and varieties not all of which enhance the individual’s ability to reproduce or even survive. Why is there cystic fibrosis or the vast amount of other genetic diseases?

Why is it so hard to believe that nature has thrown up a small % of people who can still enjoy full lives and contribute to society yet are attracted to the same gender – yes you can say that is an evolutionary dead end or whatever but it’s not a big problem or a disease. It could be the foetus is subjected to the wrong levels off hormones or that persons genes combine to have the same affect so their sexual orientation is reversed.

Again it doesn’t matter as ultimately they are a human being with the same capabilities as the rest of us and should be treated as such and allowed to live there lives with the same freedoms afforded to heterosexual couples.

[genocidal]

Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end (or natural) only if you believe that sex acts are and can only be consummation of true love.

If you've ever had premarital sex, ever had sex with more than one person, or ever used birth control then you are having unnatural sex and are an evolutionary dead end, by your own definition. There is nothing stopping a homosexual from reproducing just as there is nothing stopping me from doing so except the will not to. So please, stop with the "if ever1 gay than no babbies" and the "natural" arguments.

[Pressure Drop]

Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end (or natural) only if you believe that sex acts are and can only be consummation of true love.

If you've ever had premarital sex, ever had sex with more than one person, or ever used birth control then you are having unnatural sex and are an evolutionary dead end, by your own definition. There is nothing stopping a homosexual from reproducing just as there is nothing stopping me from doing so except the will not to. So please, stop with the "if ever1 gay than no babbies" and the "natural" arguments.

i don't know what point you are trying to make

To pass on their DNA to the next generation they need to reproduce otherwise those genes are defunct. The fact that a homosexual doesn't find the opposite sex attractive and by the definition of being homosexual DOESN'T want to have sex with them but ONLY members of their sex. That is kind of stoping them reproduce... finding surrogates or sperm doners etc can be a minefield and the lesbian couple that then demanded child maintenance of their male friend who said he'd help them bare a child wouldn't exactly help that case. BUT regardless in those cases it is only 1/2 the couples genes passed on AND MORE IMPORTANTLY not those of the person they selected as a partner CUASE THEY ARE THE SAME SEX. do gays have the urge to reproduce - clearly in some cases yes, will it be more difficult for them- probably yes as it could well require alot more money to entice a surrogate or pay for medical techniques.



how the hell is that the same as premarital sex, how is that unnatural?? that is very natural, mariage and the concept you are talking about are just religous constructs... having sex with more than one person? again thats not the same as being gay or affect ability to reproduce. Sex is enjoyable so people do it mainly recreationally and not to reproduce, that isn't shocking.

[genocidal]

i don't know what point you are trying to make

I italicized my point to avoid confusion.

To pass on their DNA to the next generation they need to reproduce otherwise those genes are defunct. The fact that a homosexual doesn't find the opposite sex attractive and by the definition of being homosexual DOESN'T want to have sex with them but ONLY members of their sex. That is kind of stoping them reproduce...

Argument: Homosexuality is unnatural because two men can't reproduce together.
Assumption: That a natural relationship requires child-rearing.
Examples of unnatural relationships: sexual relationships where birth control is used, marriages between infertile couples.

finding surrogates or sperm doners etc can be a minefield and the lesbian couple that then demanded child maintenance of their male friend who said he'd help them bare a child wouldn't exactly help that case.

The details are incidental. You could say the same for a poor heterosexual couple who has trouble caring for a baby due to 10 hour work days for both spouses. The fact is that the human body can procreate and that it requires a male and a female.

BUT regardless in those cases it is only 1/2 the couples genes passed on AND MORE IMPORTANTLY not those of the person they selected as a partner CUASE THEY ARE THE SAME SEX.

This is also incidental. Science dictates that procreation requires exactly one male and exactly one female. Does that mean that surrogate mothers are unnatural? That sperm banks are unnatural? The point I'm making is that there are exceptions galore to broad statements like "heterosexuality is the only natural relation." Therefore, why bother?

Sex is enjoyable so people do it mainly recreationally and not to reproduce, that isn't shocking.

Precisely, so if a heterosexual female engages in recreational sex with birth control then it is the same degree of unnatural as a homosexual female engaging in recreational sex. Unless you think that "pretending" to procreate absolves one from being unnatural, which is fucking silly.

If you're going to call heterosexuality "natural" because of procreation then recreational sex throws a wrench into your definition. At best, you have to account for an endless lists of caveats to something being natural, which kind of defeats the purpose. It would almost be like saying playing subspace is unnatural because it reduces the ability of males to find a female that will let him knock her up.

What the fuck is the point of saying something is "natural" or not? That doesn't mean anything.

[Bioture]

Jesus loves gay people.


lol i'm such a troll today

[castromarx]

aghahahhajkahkajhkajhahahhahaha there's a topic on this. As if it really fucking matters. really.

[Epinephrine]

Who knew? Genocide and I actually see eye to eye in some things.



I'm personally pretty happy with how many people actually support gay marriage on this forum. I think if we were to have had this conversation 5 years ago on this board, things would have been a lot different. But then again, everyone's a bit more grown up, maybe even made a gay friend or two and realized that it wasn't the end of the world. I remember my parents even used to be vehemently anti-gay until they realized some of my best friends whom they'd met a few times and liked were gay, and now they really don't talk about it anymore, it's just not a big deal.

In the end I think in another 20 years or so it won't be a big deal at all. Just like when MOST people talk about how Barack Obama running for president the fact that he's back isn't even an issue anymore, neither will being gay. Obviously people like Izor will still exist, but then again there's still people who think the world is flat.

In the end, the more people are exposed to other people and realize that other people who have different beliefs and different ways of life aren't really as bad as all the stereotypes say they are, the better off we are as a world.