TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Gay Marrages
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 »

Personally I'm against either homosexual marriages or adopting children by gay/lesbian couples.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz Your "example" is more or less worthless because, for the most part, homosexuals practice their sexuality (the actual act) behind closed doors and not in public. As an artist, if I were to photograph or paint a nude woman in public (not having sex or masturbating) that would be ok in the United States because of a recent US Supreme Court ruling. Nudity for the sake of art is protected by the first ammendment of the US constitution, but what you describe is a person experiencing sexual gratification through public lewdness without benefit to art in any way. It's true there are some exhibitionists who are also homosexuals, but for every homosexual exhibitionist, I'm sure there are probably 3 or more hetero exhibitionists due to sheer population alone. I try to imagine if I were a parent with a young child. Personally, I believe art should never be censored, and I would always fight for the right of an artist. But, I believe there's a clear distinction between people playing with themselves or having sex in public, and simple nudity. Mardi Gras celebrations that include nudity are also protected free speech.

Your counterargument is more or less worthless because, as I already explained, publicity is a very trivial part of the example. This isn't a question of free speech, and it hardly surprises me that people decided to nit pick at the difference between my example and the issue of gay marriages even though those differences are completely irrelevant. You're creating a straw-man argument. I repeat, publicity is not the issue here. The issue is the question of redefining legal doctrines to suit certain individual tastes. This is moral relativism at its finest, and I am completely opposed to that philosophy.

quote:

^^ Contradiction. Even for "civil unions" we'd still have to rewrite the law in some way in order for homosexuals to "have the same rights as all other citizens," as you purportedly support. If you don't support "civil unions" either, your above statement is simply untrue. :P

I support civil unions because they already exist, and no law needs to be rewritten under such circumstances. My two quotes, however, hardly contradicted each other - in fact, my entire argument (as well as Orbax), which everybody seems to be ignoring again, centers around the fact that those two do not contradict each other at all. Giving them the same rights as everyone else does not equal rewriting the law to give them special rights.

To me, gay marriages are not giving people equal rights, they are giving certain people more rights than the rest of us. Should they rewrite the law so I can marry a dog? Maybe I'd like to marry my mother or my sister? Some people are into incest... maybe we should rewrite the law for them too. After all, they can't change what they are.

quote:

BS. The majority of people getting married would still be heterosexuals.

Yes, but the institution is already in place for them. We're talking about extra money going to this cause.

quote:

Whatever you want to call it, "marriage" or "civil unions," the most important things are the legal benefits that come with marriage. Equality in other words. What a concept.

Yes indeed, what a concept. Just because you've come to accept such things as "equality" and "multiculturalism" as shining examples of how far society has progressed, does not mean all of us have. Homosexuals are not literally equal to heterosexuals - this does not mean to say that one of them is higher or lower on the cultural scale, but they are not the same.

People are desperate for "equality" because they've been taught to believe that "inequality" automatically implies some sort of hierarchy. This is not the case. To me, gay marriages, multiculturalism, all of these things are just subsets of moral relativism.

How far are we willing to go for "equality?" True equality would seem to be a Harrison Bergeron/1984ish extreme dictatorship society. I don't think that's what I'd like to live in. Everybody loves equality when it means getting more rights and getting something for nothing, but I wonder, how would you feel if equality meant taking away some of your rights?

I don't want equality. I want individuality. But hey, that's just one political opinion, right?

In closing, I'd like to start a campaign to legalize incestual marriages. Who's with me?

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King You took the words right out of my mouth. First the example is flawed becuase it is not a group of people that seems to be doing this and second, homosexuality has existed since the dawn of time, where easter eggs havent.

Then we should forget about AIDS and Ebola too because they are new things?

quote:

by DaveSeanz

Im saying that they shouldnt call it marriage. Call it a Coupling, or a civil union, or whatever the hell you want. They get to pay for it, they get to handle it, and they get the same benefits as a married couple would. They dont get to be called married though. That is my point. You may find my dedication to word choice odd, but its one of those little things I care about. Others are Honor, Morals, Integrity. just words, but a lot of tradition is carried with them.

The reason most people are up in arms about it is because the idea of a pair of homosexuals getting married under God is one of the most offensive things they can think of.

People always say to me "but its LOVE". Once you bring it to that kind of emotional level, you are a simpleton, and thats the weakest argument Ive ever heard. You may say that I speak of honor and tradition and those are just as emotional.

No so. Honor and Integrity have been codified for the most part. Open doors, take off your hat. Love though? No one can define it, and its different every time. Completely subjective.

quote:

Why should heterosexuals be the only ones to be recognized as partners that love each other in marriage

again, marriage has been codified. thats like asking why blue cant be red, and birds be called fish.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax again, marriage has been codified. thats like asking why blue cant be red, and birds be called fish.

But we should change the code. Because they're people too.

It's so easy when you skip about 10 steps of logic. Reminds me of the proofs I did on my eng exams when I didn't know what the hell I was talking about - write 3 lines, then "clearly, further manipulation will lead to", then write whatever it's supposed to end up looking like.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut But we should change the code. Because they're people too. It's so easy when you skip about 10 steps of logic. Reminds me of the proofs I did on my eng exams when I didn't know what the hell I was talking about - write 3 lines, then "clearly, further manipulation will lead to", then write whatever it's supposed to end up looking like.

lol

digi: your easter egg argument holds NO water. That is ONLY illegal because it would be done in public. I'm sure you could shove easter eggs up any oriface you want all day in the privacy of your own home. If you were a hetrosexual and could only get off by having sex in a public place you would also be arrested. What we're talking about here is peoples lives, not some easter egg fetish. The fact that you'd even lower it to an arguement like that proves very clearly that you have no concept of the issues involved here. You talk about this great cost to tax payers. Explain to me, exactly what costs I'm going to have to pay as a tax payer. Gay Marriage is legal in Canada and I haven't seen my taxes go up. I haven't seen a new "gay marriage tax" on my incometax form. You're scared and grasping at anything you possibly can.

You truly insult yourself every time you try to relate this issue to "marrying dogs".

Orbax, Dolphins as a whole are not gay, nor are they the only animal that practices homosexual relationships for pleasure. Again your sweeping generalizaions make you look like quite the bright light.

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe digi: your easter egg argument holds NO water. That is ONLY illegal because it would be done in public. I'm sure you could shove easter eggs up any oriface you want all day in the privacy of your own home. If you were a hetrosexual and could only get off by having sex in a public place you would also be arrested. What we're talking about here is peoples lives, not some easter egg fetish. The fact that you'd even lower it to an arguement like that proves very clearly that you have no concept of the issues involved here. You talk about this great cost to tax payers. Explain to me, exactly what costs I'm going to have to pay as a tax payer. Gay Marriage is legal in Canada and I haven't seen my taxes go up. I haven't seen a new "gay marriage tax" on my incometax form. You're scared and grasping at anything you possibly can. You truly insult yourself every time you try to relate this issue to "marrying dogs". Orbax, Dolphins as a whole are not gay, nor are they the only animal that practices homosexual relationships for pleasure. Again your sweeping generalizaions make you look like quite the bright light.

lol get the fuck out of here dumbass. Your bus is leaving.

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe digi: your easter egg argument holds NO water. That is ONLY illegal because it would be done in public. I'm sure you could shove easter eggs up any oriface you want all day in the privacy of your own home. If you were a hetrosexual and could only get off by having sex in a public place you would also be arrested. What we're talking about here is peoples lives, not some easter egg fetish. The fact that you'd even lower it to an arguement like that proves very clearly that you have no concept of the issues involved here. You talk about this great cost to tax payers. Explain to me, exactly what costs I'm going to have to pay as a tax payer. Gay Marriage is legal in Canada and I haven't seen my taxes go up. I haven't seen a new "gay marriage tax" on my incometax form. You're scared and grasping at anything you possibly can.

Wow, you're stupid. Once again, for the 473rd time, yes, it is illegal because it's in public, but publicity is not the issue, the issue is rewriting a law to suit a specific cultural group. God, the ease with which some people manage to miss the point every time in order to suit their own point of view is astounding.

I'm scared though. Please don't hurt me with your big words and your small... complicated words.

Mothers and sisters are people too, don't deny us the right to marry them!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax Then we should forget about AIDS and Ebola too because they are new things?

How can you compare AIDS and EBOLA..two very deadly virus's to shoving easter eggs up orifices?

At least come up with a better example.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King How can you compare AIDS and EBOLA..two very deadly virus's to shoving easter eggs up orifices? At least come up with a better example.

Referring back to your original post, incest has been around since the dawn of time too. Should we legalize that?

So has bestiality. Should we legalize that too?

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King How can you compare AIDS and EBOLA..two very deadly virus's to shoving easter eggs up orifices? At least come up with a better example.

quote:

homosexuality has existed since the dawn of time, where easter eggs havent.

You were saying that nothing should be done about this "new fad" of easter ass shoving, whereas putting your penis in another mans butt has been happening for thousands of years, therefor lets take care of the old business first, or only, you werent very clear.

I was saying according to "only old things deserve legislation and correction" AIDS and Ebola have no historical eminence, so we shouldnt do anything about them.

Basically using antiquity for a premise is bullshit, and there are lots of things that have been around for many years and are just as stupid and pointless.

Heh, it seems to me we are running in circles here. Nobody (except Nellie) is supporting heterosexuality be forced upon individuals. I believe we all agree that homosexuals can fuck each other all day long in the privacy of their own home and that it's their own personal thing. But, as I've said earlier, the concept of a civil union has another, much more important aspect here, and it's the tax subsidies. By having equal rights as heterosexual couples, gays would receive tax benefits whose sole intention is to support families in breeding children, as well as to help them cope with the financial stress of their upbringing. While it is true that heterosexual couples too sometimes don't want to or can't have children, that can often not be known in advance. For gays it is 100% certain that they will never have children, and there is no reason whatsoever for them to get those subsidies.

Now, on the subject of choosing/being born gay...It is a fact that most humans are at least mildly bisexual, and in that situation their sexual preference can be largely influenced by society. If that wasn't a fact, then homophilic societies like Rome or Sparta would have exactly the same percentage of gays as the homophobic societies, like christian states during the middle ages. However, that is not the case. In a modern western world, that still has some of it's values based on christian teachings, it is genuinely accepted that males can truly love females and vice-versa. In ancient Greece, however, there have been some philosophical books that included quotes such as "A man should be moderate in making love with boys and females", indicating that the homosexual preference was encouraged, while females served only for breeding. Now, if we look at the demographic picture of Rome or Greece, we will see that it was infact horrible, and that they managed to keep their population growth only because of the constant barbarian immigrant influx.

That leads us to the question of how homosexuality should be treated today. Now, since it certainly is not harming anyone, it definitely should not be forbidden. But, although it is not a direct problem for individuals, it is a problem for the state as it influences the amount of population growth. In a current situation, where most western countries have serious problems with natural growth, the worst possible thing that could happen to them is an increased amount of permanent homosexual relationships. So while the state should not ban such behaviour, it certainly should not support it. Infact, it should do everything it can to discourage such behaviour. It doesn't mean, however, that the homosexual people have been stripped of their basic rights. There are countless examples where people are discriminated based on their preferences or physical capabilities. A blind person can't get a driver's licence, a heavy smoker can't become a pro-athlete, etc. It's tough luck that nature made some of us better than the others. We must accept that we're not living in a utopia where we are all equal but in a real world where we are not, and since such things are simply a fact of life, the absolute equality argument can't be used.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Now, since it certainly is not harming anyone, it definitely should not be forbidden.

Thats the only thing I disagreed with hehe. But thatll bring up AIDS, and then someone will bring up subsaharan africa, and then we will get into travelling priests who have sex with women to cleanse them and how that spreads it. and then well get back on track and talk about Solidified nations like US. and then its propaganda, and drug users will get thrown in...its just too much work.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Referring back to your original post, incest has been around since the dawn of time too. Should we legalize that? So has bestiality. Should we legalize that too?

Again, you seem to be straying off topic.

With incest, if two consenting adults wanted it... than so be it. It disgusts me, but they shouldnt be denied this. Incest is still accepted in many parts of the world.

Beastiality is dealing with a whole other species and topic, theres no point going into this.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Again, you seem to be straying off topic. With incest, if two consenting adults wanted it... than so be it. It disgusts me, but they shouldnt be denied this. Incest is still accepted in many parts of the world. Beastiality is dealing with a whole other species and topic, theres no point going into this.

2 adults consenting means nothing. What if I contacted a person over the internet to come and kill me in my home and eat my body. Someone actually did this. They went to a cannabal channel on IRC and got someone to come eat his brain after he killed himself. They met up, killed him, and the cannibal ate his brains. Totally what the guy wanted, both sides won.

Tell me why they should be allowed to do this.

when do you draw a line, who draws the line. How is understood that some things are just fucked up and you dont need to go in depth on the issue.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Again, you seem to be straying off topic. With incest, if two consenting adults wanted it... than so be it. It disgusts me, but they shouldnt be denied this. Incest is still accepted in many parts of the world. Beastiality is dealing with a whole other species and topic, theres no point going into this.

So incest disgusts you but not homosexuality? Do you think that, perhaps, the only reason one disgusts you and not the other is because you grew up in a society that condones homosexuality but not incest?

And if you think that people should have the right to incest, assuming they're consenting, no matter how disgusting it is - it's still illegal for them to be married, do you think that should be legalized?

P.S. Very good post, Tito.

orbax: It's nice to see that you've resulted to relying solely on petty name calling.

As a side note, I thought it was homosexual orgies that spread aids through africa? Now it's travelling preists? Make up your mind.

btw, you're getting warmer with the traveling preits, but you're still way off the mark.

digi/orbax: You two gents are a dying bread. You two can fight all you want and talk of the bible, or social costs, or how you think it's choice to be gay. You can spout your bullshit all over the internet. It's not going to matter. Equal rights for homosexuals is coming to a country near you soon. It's already legal in Canada, and in some european countries. Some states are allowing it now too. Enjoy it while it lasts.

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe orbax: It's nice to see that you've resulted to relying solely on petty name calling. As a side note, I thought it was homosexual orgies that spread aids through africa? Now it's travelling preists? Make up your mind. btw, you're getting warmer with the traveling preits, but you're still way off the mark. digi/orbax: You two gents are a dying bread. You two can fight all you want and talk of the bible, or social costs, or how you think it's choice to be gay. You can spout your bullshit all over the internet. It's not going to matter. Equal rights for homosexuals is coming to a country near you soon. It's already legal in Canada, and in some european countries. Some states are allowing it now too. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Ive resorted to *clever* name calling, because you are obtuse and a moron. I dont spend time trying to correct you. Ever heard the saying of "casting pearls to swine"?

and I know exactly whats happening in Africa. Its the aforementioned travelling priests. Its the fact that they refuse to wear protection, that prosititution is the only way for women to get by, the fact that they rub a plant in the womans vagina that removes all lubrication because they like it dry. Sex is rampant. Aids is rampant. No protection and total promiscuity.

quote:

homosexual orgies

yeah...because I said that...nice try though?

Homosexuals will never be accepted by this society. They may get laws, they may get whatever they want legally. But just like womens lib, there will always be that glass barrier with someone on top looking down.

Speaking of shortlived breeds. Bleeding heart liberals. If you think the US is gonna swing that way, enjoy whatever orgasms of liberalism you can get from it. Im predicting a re-election of Bush and more conservatives than ever. The only reason someone might think that US is going lib, is because libs wont shut their mouths about it. Conservatives, go to work, make their hundreds of thousands of dollars, and go home and watch the news where a whole bunch of people making 30 grand a year are screaming in the streets.

and yes, that was a generalization. A good one. Because I live in an extremely affluent area, and the only people with liberal bumberstickers are driving total POS's and all the bush people are driving insanely nice cars.


PS this post isnt for you. You just gave me a soapbox so I used it. I fully expect you to, nay, would be disappointed in you if you didnt, completely miss every point I made and focus on stuff that doesnt exist in my posts. This was directed towards the literate members of this forum.

I should add that gay marriages aren't legal in Canada, that whole thing came out of left field. The courts have asked for the marital laws to be rewritten, but gay marriages are by no means a reality here at this point.

To add: failsafe, your sweeping generalizations aren't helping your side of the debate, and I never once made any reference to the bible or social costs (other than the literal monetary cost of marital licenses). In fact, what I've done in this thread is step back and argue the issue from a purely logical perspective, sans morality or emotion or religion. Having said that, one can't escape from the fact that marriage in the sense of "love" was invented by religion, and the secular side of marriage only exists to provide benefits to couples who plan on (possibly) having children in the future. For childless families, there are civil unions.

Even if gay marriages are being legalized, it hardly removes the validity of any of our arguments. The government does lots of stupid things due to pressure from special interest groups and lobbyists (re: defeating the anti-affirmative-action bill). It doesn't mean that what they've done makes sense from a logical or policy standpoint.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut

Good point. If we go off the basis of "The government is doing it, therefore it is right...hooboy.

Orbax, I assume you're just horribly misguided; becasue I don't believe someone could be as stupid as you seem and still manage to feed and dress theselves.

The ___--MAIN--___ reason for the rapid spread of AID's in Africa is the trucking industry. You did indeed get the dry sex part right, you just got the people who are doing it wrong. It's the truck drivers that visit the prostitutes and then bring the AID's back to their homes. I figured such an authority on africa like yourself would know this, apparently not.

god, if you're wrong about the spread of aids through africa then what else might you be wrong about?

http://www.globalministries.org/africa/hap7.htm
http://flakmag.com/features/aids2.html
http://www.kit.nl/ils/exchange_cont...me=No&language=
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_...1404053,00.html
http://www.irinnews.org/AIDSreport....Southern_Africa

diji: So if a woman or man knows they're infertile in a hetrosexual relationship they shouldn't be allowed to get married then? If child bearing is a deciding factor when talking about getting married then why are people who don't have children allowed to get married, or further more allowed to have the tax breaks? Wouldn't they be ripping off tax payers too then?

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe diji: So if a woman or man knows they're infertile in a hetrosexual relationship they shouldn't be allowed to get married then? If child bearing is a deciding factor when talking about getting married then why are people who don't have children allowed to get married, or further more allowed to have the tax breaks? Wouldn't they be ripping off tax payers too then?

Technically, yes, if two people in a hetero couple don't plan on ever having children then they probably should not get married, or at least should not receive the full benefits of marriage. However, from a policy standpoint, it's not very effective to implement that kind of a system - it's far easier to look at two men and know they won't have kids than it is to look at a hetero couple and know that.

why even marry to have kids then? Why not just have the government hand out tax breaks to those with children?

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe Orbax, I assume you're just horribly misguided; becasue I don't believe someone could be as stupid as you seem and still manage to feed and dress theselves. The ___--MAIN--___ reason for the rapid spread of AID's in Africa is the trucking industry. You did indeed get the dry sex part right, you just got the people who are doing it wrong. It's the truck drivers that visit the prostitutes and then bring the AID's back to their homes. I figured such an authority on africa like yourself would know this, apparently not. god, if you're wrong about the spread of aids through africa then what else might you be wrong about? http://www.globalministries.org/africa/hap7.htm http://flakmag.com/features/aids2.html http://www.kit.nl/ils/exchange_cont...me=No&language= http://www.news24.com/News24/South_...1404053,00.html http://www.irinnews.org/AIDSreport....Southern_Africa

I was covering the main topics. I dont care who is using the prostitues, and it isnt worth mentioning. The fact that there is rampant use of unprotected prositution means that someone is *Gasp* doing it. It was implied, but, and I did predict this, you missed the *fucking point* congratulations to me.

and even if your "if you are wrong about 1 thing, my God where does your wrongness end" argument had the smallest shred of logic (which youve obviously never studied in) the fact that I wasnt wrong would disprove your little theory. Im glad someone has a webpage that you can link to?

Your last post was almost intelligent though, so close!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.