|
Gay Marrages (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Cyrus King |
| 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. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| 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? |
|
|
| Orbax |
| 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 bull, and there are lots of things that have been around for many years and are just as stupid and pointless. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
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 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. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| 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. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| 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. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| 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 ed up and you dont need to go in depth on the issue. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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 bull 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. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| 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 bull 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. 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. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
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. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
|
Good point. If we go off the basis of "The government is doing it, therefore it is right...hooboy. |
|
|
|
|
