quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, the inability to bear children is a defect. It's a psychological defect in their case, but a defect nevertheless.

Yes, but thats not what im arguing, im saying that homosexuality is NOT a defect that should otherwise be utilized in not allowing them to get married and raise children. I clearly understand that a woman that cant have children is an unfortunate defect.

quote:

People gain rights based on their behaviour and achievments, not everything is granted at birth. It is not a fundamental human right, same as driving or serving in the army. If they are not fit for it, well, life sucks.

But the thing is , THEY ARE FIT FOR IT, they are exactly the same as any other person, except that they are attracted tot he same sex. Thats all.

quote:

Not only that they don't have more of a right, it is questionable whether they should have any right to adopt children at all. If they should be allowed to adopt children, then I agree they should recieve standard family subsidies. However, no coherent study has been performed on the effects of homosexual parents on a child's well-being so I believe it is wise to be reluctant on that matter.

And no coherent studies has been done on the negative long term affects of children being brought up in a gay marriage. Its only recently that same sex couples have begun to raise children in a family. And are you going to base the potential love a parent or parents can have of their child on "studies"???

quote:

Not to mention the peer pressure during puberty. Imagine what would happen to a kid if his friends would learn that he has two gay dads. I believe it is more important to worry about the well being of a child than to worry about the emotional scars of two adult people who consentually don't want to have any children of their own.

Kids are cruel, this is known. There will always be something that kids will find in others to make fun of. Thats their nature. Its up to people like you to teach them that they are normal, and their parents are HUMAN and EQUAL and LOVE each other just like you and your wife do.

And if they were worried about the well being of their child, there are alternatives that can be approached, like special schools, home schooling or just going to a school that has a zero tolerence policy about hate. But im sure our kids will be raised in a society more tolerant than the disgusting notions that seem to linger to this day.

quote:

It is not a right, it is a privilege limited by one's age, sanity, and sexual preference. If some people can't adjust to it, well, too bad.

What happens if one is bisexual or a hermaphrodite? How about a transexual who wants to get married. The defintion of marriage is changing, so people who cant adjust, well, too bad.

quote:

No, because of two reasons. First one is that it's easier, and often the only way possible, to make a standardization than to deal with each relationship independently. I can't see how the state should know if a woman is incapable of having children or not. Sometimes people who think they can't have children get them in the end, and sometimes those who are capable don't. It's really something that cannot be known in advance.

So its Okay that heterosexuals can pick or choose whether they want children in their marriage, but homosexuals cant? How come homosexuals cant have that option as well?

quote:

Now, providing child tax cuts to families after they get children is a compromise we all generally agreed on, so I don't see why you are reiterating the old thread. But even here I must mention that the compromise is not a completely just one, as subsidies towards heterosexual families which yet don't have children can encourage them to make few in the future. Providing such subsidies to gay couples is rediculous.

I agree with you here. If it is known that the couple does not want subsidies, than they should be deprived of those benefits. But if subsidies encourages them to adopt and raise children, why not? Just becuase the hetereosexuals can actually procreate, doesnt mean that the children of homosexuals shouldnt be deprived of those benefits becuase their fathers could not biologically make a baby.

quote:

Well, it's a right as well as it's a right to drive a car or to work as a university professor. However, it is not a fundamental right which all people posess, it is a right that is gained through one's personal actions.

I thought it was a privilege? What personal actions do heterosexuals do that enables them to only be the ones allowed to get married?

quote:

Well, how can you be then against blind people getting driver's licenses? Or do you think they should get some too? Maybe even make it easier for them to get those, to balance out their inequality considering their vision defects?

Im against blind people getting their liscenses becuase it puts them and other people at risk. Driving requires SIGHT, marriage does not REQUIRE solely a man or woman. Homosexual marriage does not directly hurt anyone. It is a neccesity to have sight to drive... you cant compare blind drivers to homosexuals who want to get married. Two totally different analogies. In fact, this blind driver tool you seem to use is only hurting your stance, its a very weak example.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape If you're male, it's only natural to want to screw your hot female cousin. If your cousin was male, it's not natural to want to shove your dick up his poopshoot just like you wouldn't have a great desire to do the same to your neighbor's Labrador Retriever. So what was your point again? [[[smoke]]]

How do you know being gay is not natural? Nature has animals that change between sex, and wouldn't be surprised if there were gay animals. As for "Homo marriages don't need to be recognized by our society", you do know legal state marriage was intend to gain land between families and such. If religion doesnt want to deal with gay marriages, fine with me, but it should be recognized by the state, especially if he/she/it pays taxes or served in the military.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

leave it that way

depite my hatred of religion I have to agree with the religious people on this issue.

and a gay couple adopting a kid just sickens me

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Jay Marriage is between a man and a woman. leave it that way depite my hatred of religion I have to agree with the religious people on this issue. and a gay couple adopting a kid just sickens me

Youre going to have to live with it. You are a dying thought, things are changing for the better...thank god.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Jay and a gay couple adopting a kid just sickens me

Do you know of any current gay couples that have adopted? If not STFU, unless you want to adopt the 130,000+ children in foster care.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Jay Marriage is between a man and a woman. leave it that way depite my hatred of religion I have to agree with the religious people on this issue. and a gay couple adopting a kid just sickens me

The whole marriage system is flawed in my opinion. We reached a general consensus in the gay marriage thread that child bearing couples/people intending to have kids etc (I argued that this should include adopting homosexuals) should be able to get 'marriage benefits', which generally translate into "child related" benefits. IMO, civil unions are fine for most gays and heterosexual couples who never intend to have kids. That being said, it is a tad idealistic, and it's unlikely that the marriage system will be overhauled, especially in conservative countries such as America. There is process here, one of our states has just allowed gays to have civil unions, which in my opinion is a step in the right direction.

As for smokeape, why do you hold the views that you do? Do you know of any scientific studies that have conclusively proved that homosexuality is entirely brought on by the society/the environment in which gay people live? As I understand it, it's still up in the air, but there is a general acceptance that there's probably some kind of genetic or biological component to it. Either way, until you can show me a credible study that proves that being gay is not natural, then you truly need to re-evaluate your position.
Lot's of things are 'not normal'. I assume that a lot of southern Americans would look down on you for marrying someone from another 'race', which is of course completely ridiculous, but it happens. Just because something isn't 'normal' doesn't mean it's bad. I'm a vegetarian, that isn't normal. The vast majority of people do not eat meat. Just because something isn't 'normal' doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it.
Further to that, it is my understanding that there are documented cases of homosexual activity in the animal kingdom, which does give some weight to the idea that homosexuality does in fact have a genetic and/or biological component to it.

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

Cyrus, your entire argument stems around 4 main points that have already been addressed:

1) Homosexuality is not a defect like blindness and thus should not exclude anybody from state-sanctioned privileges.
Response: This is merely a semantic game you're playing. You can call it a defect, a quirk, a trait, an orientation, it's all the same in the end. We say they can't reproduce, you say they are biologically able but just don't - technically, your explanation is worse, because it involves saying to oneself "I choose to be in a relationship through which I will NEVER be able to produce offspring, but I still want all the government benefits for it." Thanks, but no thanks.

If I complained to the bank about how it's discrimination not to give me a student loan just because I'm not a student, they'd laugh at me. This isn't morality - it's policy. It's just how the system works.

2) They're the same as any other person.
Response: So are 10 year olds, but they can't marry either. When we are talking about a fundamental human right, I agree that it should not be denied to anyone based on sexuality; however, marriage is NOT a fundamental human right, therefore the "sameness" of homosexuals is not relevant. Marriage is a contractual legal structure that requires both parties to meet certain conditions, and if they don't meet them, tough shit. It's not up to the State to change the conditions just to suit the particular needs of minority groups. Nobody cries out about age discrimination in the marital laws because it just doesn't make any sense, and neither does "gay discrimination".

3) Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone.
Response: So what? The state should give me $1 billion. It doesn't hurt anyone either.

4) "You can't choose who you love".
Response: Even if I were to accept this bland, trite, cliché platitude and sound bite as something that actually holds any inherent objective truth or logic, you CAN choose who you marry, and if you choose to marry someone who you are biologically incompatible with for conception, then you should be prepared to accept the consequences of that (i.e. civil unions instead of "real" marriage).

As well as this, your (and most of the left-wing) responses are riddled with semantics, buzz words, and generally sentimental crap that doesn't help your argument at all. For future reference, the following terms are subjective and you cannot use them as absolutes in order to support your weak argument:
- Equal[ity]
- Discrimination
- Love/attraction
- Hate/homophobic
- "Things are changing"
- "Deal with it"
And so on.

I also want to address the particular term, homophobic. This is, in fact, simply an ad hominem attack, just a cleverly veiled one. I'm not "afraid" of anything, I strongly object to the use of this term in any argument on the subject of gay marriage, and honestly, if you are going to call me "homophobic" then maybe I should just call you "fag lover".

This topic was discussed thoroughly, ad nauseam, and it was agreed upon that civil unions were a very good compromise. It was also agreed upon that the current marital system for heterosexuals is somewhat flawed and could use some rewriting, but that is a separate issue not to be confused with gay marriages/civil unions.

That is all.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Cyrus, your entire argument stems around 4 main points that have already been addressed: 1) Homosexuality is not a defect like blindness and thus should not exclude anybody from state-sanctioned privileges. Response: This is merely a semantic game you're playing. You can call it a defect, a quirk, a trait, an orientation, it's all the same in the end. We say they can't reproduce, you say they are biologically able but just don't - technically, your explanation is worse, because it involves saying to oneself "I choose to be in a relationship through which I will NEVER be able to produce offspring, but I still want all the government benefits for it." Thanks, but no thanks.

First off, im not playing a game here, but if you see it that way, so be it. Im simply stating that a woman with a birth defect who wants children is the same as a homosexual who wants a child. Why cant cant homosexuals have the same rights as her. Both cannot produce a child, so they adopt, all while being happily married. Also, i dont think its right for anyone to take advantage of the government system, but when gays are selectively accused of this problem, where in fact, the majority of heterosexuals participate in, i think its wrong. If straights can have that "choice", why cant homosexuals?????? Im trying to point out that heteros have a choice, where gays dont, and that is unfair.

quote:

If I complained to the bank about how it's discrimination not to give me a student loan just because I'm not a student, they'd laugh at me. This isn't morality - it's policy. It's just how the system works.

thats if you were applying for a student loan.. then yes its understandable that they shouldnt give you one if you arent studying. But if you were to apply for a general loan, one that EVERYONE should be entitled too regardless of any personal attributes, and you were declined becuase of your race... than thats unfair. Marriage isnt written in stone, its not a "policy", and its not a "system" that cant be changed. It is amendable, just like the laws that prohibited blacks from drinking from the same fountains as whites. Stop trying to make it look as though it cant be changed for the betterment of equality.

quote:

2) They're the same as any other person. Response: So are 10 year olds, but they can't marry either. When we are talking about a fundamental human right, I agree that it should not be denied to anyone based on sexuality; however, marriage is NOT a fundamental human right, therefore the "sameness" of homosexuals is not relevant. Marriage is a contractual legal structure that requires both parties to meet certain conditions, and if they don't meet them, tough shit. It's not up to the State to change the conditions just to suit the particular needs of minority groups. Nobody cries out about age discrimination in the marital laws because it just doesn't make any sense, and neither does "gay discrimination".

First off, 10 year olds are not consenting adults and arent mature enough to understand the meaning of a loving relationship. Your comparisons are extremely weak and exaggerated. Yes 10 year olds are the same, and so are 50 year olds, but with respect to getting married, consenting adult homosexuals are just as understanding as a heterosexual couple in the same age category. In essence, you are depriving a large group of people a privilege that they also should have the choice to participate in becuase it was written hundreds of years ago that this is the only way it should be. Wel, guess what, present day amendments can be and will be made togive these people an equal opportunity.

And those "legal" conditions that cant be changed for some unknown reason, is a crock of bull. Why cant they be changed? Why do you perceive it to be etched in stone? Discrimination laws were removed to give equality to all. Again, you are trying to make me beleive that this "contractual agreement" cannot be changed for some reason..WHY???? That is the problem i have..why can it not be changed? ill tell you why, becuase you cant admit that you dont want it changed thats all it comes down too. And the state has a responisibiltiy to represent all its citizens, and if that means amending certain aspects of the legal system to help this "minority", then so be it. And they arent "suiting it for a particular group"...they are suiting it for the whole population.

quote:

3) Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone. Response: So what? The state should give me $1 billion. It doesn't hurt anyone either.

Is this the best you can do??? Your constant exageration and extreme exemplification is not helping your argument. I can also state the same thing about myself...but thats not the point.

quote:

4) "You can't choose who you love". Response: Even if I were to accept this bland, trite, cliché platitude and sound bite as something that actually holds any inherent objective truth or logic, you CAN choose who you marry, and if you choose to marry someone who you are biologically incompatible with for conception, then you should be prepared to accept the consequences of that (i.e. civil unions instead of "real" marriage).

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Where did i say you cant choose who you love? You know, you have a knack for assuming things without actually checking if they were said. Please quote where i said that.

And again, what happens if they WANT to have children, adopt and raise children? Should woman with birth defects not have a "real marraige" becuase they should "prepare to accept the consequences" and accept a "civil union" instead? Why is there this "HAVE TO" attitude? Please explain.

quote:

As well as this, your (and most of the left-wing) responses are riddled with semantics, buzz words, and generally sentimental crap that doesn't help your argument at all. For future reference, the following terms are subjective and you cannot use them as absolutes in order to support your weak argument: - Equal[ity] - Discrimination - Love/attraction - Hate/homophobic - "Things are changing" - "Deal with it" And so on.

But Diginut, i dont think equality is subjective with this respect. There is a clear INEQUALITY here and i will continue to use these terms becuase they do help my stance. People like you know these words are powerful and cannot stand seeing them. I can use any word i want to help support my argument. You might as well label every word as subjective becuase you dont agree with it.

Unfortunately, you have failed to explain why, other than the fact that these people just happen to be gay, should homosexuals be treated differently. And arent you the one who basically said "tough shit".... thats equivalent to "deal with it".

quote:

I also want to address the particular term, homophobic. This is, in fact, simply an ad hominem attack, just a cleverly veiled one. I'm not "afraid" of anything, I strongly object to the use of this term in any argument on the subject of gay marriage, and honestly, if you are going to call me "homophobic" then maybe I should just call you "fag lover".

The difference here is that you are calling me a name and using crudeness in comparison to a word that isnt crude. Accusing someone of homophobia is different from calling someone a "fag lover". You can simply say "im not homophobic". But if you can call me a fag lover, i can call you a "fag hater."

quote:

This topic was discussed thoroughly, ad nauseam, and it was agreed upon that civil unions were a very good compromise. It was also agreed upon that the current marital system for heterosexuals is somewhat flawed and could use some rewriting, but that is a separate issue not to be confused with gay marriages/civil unions. That is all.

The problem i have with this "compromise" is that there is still a seperation between gays and straights. One group cannot have the same benefits as the other becuaseof their sexual orientation, and becuase - like you said, contractual agreements have to follow laws that are somehow etched in stone and cannot be changed in your eyes. Well, these stones are being sanded and unused. THINGS ARE CHAGING!

I feel they should all be included in the same laws and attain the same rights as hetereosexuals do with respect to marriage. EQUALITY... i know you hate that word Diginut, but i think it should be the basis of everything in this issue.

That is all.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

quote:

Originally posted by arctic As for smokeape, why do you hold the views that you do? Do you know of any scientific studies that have conclusively proved that homosexuality is entirely brought on by the society/the environment in which gay people live? As I understand it, it's still up in the air, but there is a general acceptance that there's probably some kind of genetic or biological component to it. I'm a vegetarian, that isn't normal. The vast majority of people do not eat meat. Just because something isn't 'normal' doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it. Further to that, it is my understanding that there are documented cases of homosexual activity in the animal kingdom, which does give some weight to the idea that homosexuality does in fact have a genetic and/or biological component to it.

Ok, keep eating bean sprouts and jacking off to Richard Simmons videos. We'll even approve the marriage between you and your neighbor's Labrador Retriever as well. At least you won't procreate so the next generation won't have to deal with offspring reared with your sick and retarded views!


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Rizen, cousins getting married isn't a "no-no". For many of us, it's a little "too close for comfort", but despite it being taboo, it's never been considered immoral by any religious institution or illegal by any state (at least, not to my knowledge). .

Actually, as far as I know every state I have ever lived in has laws that prevent anyone marrying anyone closer than their third cousin I believe. Maybe second cousin in some states. But I know of no state that allows marriage between first cousins.

MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Ok, keep eating bean sprouts and jacking off to Richard Simmons videos. We'll even approve the marriage between you and your neighbor's Labrador Retriever as well. At least you won't procreate so the next generation won't have to deal with offspring reared with your sick and retarded views! [[[smoke]]]

You are a waste of cum.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

did you guys see this?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110509,00.html

quote:

"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," he said in the statement.

you've got to be shitting me? sacred? sacred my ass


bush = asshat

___________________