|
Homosexual Matrimony (pg. 17)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
I felt that was best left to you. |
Fair enough.
Sushi, why do fags feel the need to speak like idiots? |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Fair enough.
Sushi, why do fags feel the need to speak like idiots? |
:stongue: |
|
|
| Renzo |
As far as the States go, I find it interesting homosexuality has not been deemed by the high courts as a fundamental right, since the right to procreate and the right to marriage have been. When, and if, it is ever deemed fundamental, will surely be a momentous day for the homosexual community, since strict scrutiny will be applied to any case henceforth.
Sorry, Stu, but this is only for the United States. Your time will come, slugger. Just as soon as those scanners start coming around. I promise. |
|
|
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by boris_the_bear
thanks for popularizing electronic music, fags! ;) |
Got nothing have you?
Keep walking idiot
| quote: | Originally posted by ivofivo
Was on an airplane next to 2 gays, I felt uncomfortable and violated
when they looked at me. |
:haha:
Probably because looking like your mum dressed you made them feel violated. |
|
|
| Lomeli |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Fair enough.
Sushi, why do fags feel the need to speak like idiots? |
Hahahaha! ACE! |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
I actually revert my original position and take the affirmative on the topic. A homosexual influence on the human species may be just what we need. This would lead to a good population control mechanism.
I have nothing against homosexuals as long as we are dealing with the same genus. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
Because tradition dictates that marriage is a man + a woman. Simple concept.
edit: Like I said, I'm not about to approve a break of that tradition. Were it to be that gay marriage at some point became the norm, then I would certainly tolerate it. But I wouldn't be happy about it. |
Hmmm... well if we shouldn't deviate from tradition or reformulate our ideas surrounding traditions, then I vote we get those black men back in the cotton fields and women back in the kitchens and popping out babies.
| quote: | Originally posted by R.j.
I've read half of the Old Testament. I'm pretty sure that's more than most people.
Unfortunately, I don't/didn't believe any of it. |
So you aren't Jewish... You Christian then? Brought up Christian? You must have some religious background.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
North Americans seem to have a pragmatic view about what is 'unnatural' when it suits them, its simply a product of a demented society which considers sex shameful and violence is a form of entertainment. |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
I find it amazing that “free speech” apparently extends to corporate entities and their bribery of elected officials, but not to two hot women who want to say “I do” before getting down in a serious tribbing extravaganza. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Both sexual orientations are natural for human beings. Is it not extremely ing obvious by the evidence that gay people, you know, exist?
I am well the aware that the point you are trying to establish is that man+women=children is the "natural" way of things, and indeed, you are not wrong in this, as it is the practice most humans endeavor on. But just where is your evidence to suggest that homosexuality is unnatural? It has already been established in this thread that all range of other animals practice it as well - do you think they were corrupted by liberal society as well?
Where does "natural" end for you and "unnatural" begin though? Can you answer that? Can anyone answer that? It seems to me that people base this off of what their gut tells them, and that's typically just a reflection of what mom or dad taught them. But ing truly - what reason do you have to object to the happiness of others, much less the equal recognition by government amongst citizens?
There is a much larger issue for me here, and it does not have to do with homosexuality. Whatever your views are and whatever reasons you suppose for holding them are of limited concern to me. I've participated in enough of these threads to know that I am not really going to change anyone's mind, and truly - that's not my directive here. What I object to, however, is egocentricism in a civic sense; By this, I mean opinion's oppression on civil liberties. In this instance, people can't get over their ing selves to realize there is a very real breach of rights here - for the government and people to say that an entirely consensual union between people is inferior to others merely because of the parties involved is a gross injustice. It's like enough people agreeing with one another that red is an inferior colour to blue because the ocean is blue and the ocean is natural, thereby placing a ban on red, and worse still, getting away with it. It's ing cherry-picking in the worst, most irresponsible sense because the majority of people can almost wash their hands entirely clean of it when it's not in their face, but the silent minority must merely sit back and accept their branding in society as unnatural, second-class citizens, with second-class benefits.
It's very reminiscent of fights that have already been fought - particularly those over skin colour or ethnicity. To make an analagous point of this: I do not care if you are racist, your views are yours, but for you to use your government as a platform to project your ego, to merely perpetuate your own half-baked views at the expense of the others' basic, human rights for equal governmental recognition... well if you don't see a problem with that, this conversation was over before it started. |
+ 2438509824509823 |
|
|
| boris_the_bear |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Both sexual orientations are natural for human beings. Is it not extremely ing obvious by the evidence that gay people, you know, exist?
I am well the aware that the point you are trying to establish is that man+women=children is the "natural" way of things, and indeed, you are not wrong in this, as it is the practice most humans endeavor on. But just where is your evidence to suggest that homosexuality is unnatural? It has already been established in this thread that all range of other animals practice it as well - do you think they were corrupted by liberal society as well? |
animals don't need to actually think about the social consequences of every deviation. nature does that for them. that's why occurring deviations are being dealt with automatically. humans, on the other hand, have been liberate-minded enough to decide to vaporize each other with nuclear weapons and concentration camps and then go "ooooops. must've been doing something wrong...".
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Where does "natural" end for you and "unnatural" begin though? Can you answer that? Can anyone answer that? It seems to me that people base this off of what their gut tells them, and that's typically just a reflection of what mom or dad taught them. But ing truly - what reason do you have to object to the happiness of others, much less the equal recognition by government amongst citizens? |
homosexuality is a deviation in sexuality. i don't object to homo's ing and marrying. i just don't won't them to artificially increase the deviation percentage and what results as though there is nothing deviant about it. cancer is natural too, you know. but if we all where to have cancer at 20, where would we be?
you're basically saying this: all events in nature, however rare, are natural. hence, if we multiply and amplify the rarest forms, we would not cause harm.
well you see, just like i said, we should thank an open- and liberal-minded human being not only for the cure against a bunch of diseases and cable TV, but also for the generous nuclear stock, the Holocaust and other such great achievements.
liberty has two sides: the one where you proclaim equality among race and ethnicity, and the other where you grant yourself enough liberty to violate these same right, which yesterday you proclaimed as basic and unalienable
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
It's very reminiscent of fights that have already been fought - particularly those over skin colour or ethnicity |
skin and ethnicity is a different catagory
but you know, if you really keep asking me to prove the limits of deviation, and go as far as saying there is no such thing as deviation (it's all in our minds) then i wave the white flag for i find it impossible to prove all at once with great certainty. i think the argument is over for me, whatever the score. |
|
|
| boris_the_bear |
IMHO
from what I've gathered in this thread, the general idea to all liberties is that since we cannot prove the limits of deviation or even whether "deviation"/"normal" exists at all (since this is a category created by man), we are not entitled (read: it is wrong/it is bad) to prohibit anything on the grounds of our beliefs that it is somehow deviant from "normal". right?
however, since the categories "right/wrong" and "good/bad" are even MORE abstract and intangible when compared to "deviant/normal", can we really say that, for instance, homophobia or racism is bad? is homophobia bad? is it wrong? why is liberty the right thing?
what is right? what is good? what is bad? what is wrong? what's cookin', doc? :p
i have learned not to trust arguments for solving big life-size issues. why are we arguing? because someone is able to prove 100% his point and enlighten us with the unconditional truth of life? i doubt it. i PERSONALLY believe that it is impossible to discover the unconditional and objective truth just by arguing.
"I know that I know nothing" is the only thought i have really learned to trust. and it has never let me down :D
so let me stick to my opinion, while you stick to a variety of yours, and let there be more chop- threads on this forum!
plur! |
|
|
| Lomeli |
| Good for you for taking a step back and thinking about what is being said. Understanding and communicating in a civil manner is a step in the right direction. It's important to put yourself in another person's shoes to get their perspective of the whole picture, which we are all a part of, which is what we all call Life. |
|
|
| boris_the_bear |
amen.
hey, shouldn't that concern everyone? :whip: :p |
|
|
|
|
