Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/10/06 06:01 PM, Draconias wrote: Homosexuality is disfavored.

I'll agree with that and that the topic starter is being completely biased. However, even though I'm pro-same-sex marraige, I have to say that the concept of homosexuality itself is "wrong" on some notes, not all the ones you listed, but many. Any points I don't respond to I agree with, but some of these I can't accept.

Why?
It can never hold the "holiness" or virtue held by truly married couples: (ex) aged grandparents with happy children after decades of marriage.

If you mean "holiness" in a religious sense, then I wholeheartedly agree with you. However, when you use the virtue it depends on the couple themselves. I never grew up thinking of marraige as "A union between a man and a woman." Instead I always was under the misconception that it was "A union between those who truely love each other." Many marraiges, more than a simple majority, end in divorce today. Many are unable to hold virtue. I'm sure the ratios probably won't vary much with same-sex couples. If we allowed them to marry I'm sure many would divorce; but I also believe there would be some that would go and live contently and perhaps adopt children and raise them. If you want to argue it's a bad influence for children to be raised by homosexuals just say so; I don't feel like debating it though if I don't need to. Basically; I believe they can truely love each other; but not all will, that's how it all works today--sadly.

It breaks the status quo, and there's no justification except "I want to!"

I'll agree it breaks the status quo; however we're always doing that and the hopes that we'll ever be able to maintain it are simply too idealistic. There will always be something there that someone will make a deal out of; its inevitable. Also, the same justification for marraige is "I want to!".

It will increase government costs and decrease government income significantly.

When you say significantly you are skewing it a bit. I agree with you; but there really aren't as many homosexuals seeking marraige as you seem to be expecting.

It serves no purpose except to promote long-term sex between homosexuals.

I doubt not allowing them wouldn't end up with that same long-term sex. People don't simply break up since they can't be married. It serves another purpose; giving same-sex couples a ton of the legal benefits normal married couples recieve.

It provides no benefit to society in any way, shape, or form.

Why does it seems your points took a turn from homosexuality itself to the concept of marraige? Anyway...you're correct. It provides no immediate effect for society except making liberals and same-sex couples think that justice has been served. However, in the long run it will end up blending into society and people won't care about it as much. It'll become commonplace; and that will take away some of the anti-gay discrimination that is currently present. Most people already have come to just accept gays for who they are, however there are those who remain hateful. It'll never be eliminated. But it would be curbed somewhat.

In the end; homosexuality itself I do not support. However, I am supportive of consenting adults having the right to marry who they wish as long as the church that holds their marraige agrees. In Spain holy men are forced to marry same-sex couples regardless of whether they support it or not. I don't feel that burden should be placed on the church. If they want marraige they must find a church that is willing to wed them.

At 1/10/06 06:01 PM, Draconias wrote:

At 1/10/06 11:20 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: And that pretty much covers it. Any new arguments?

Yeah: It's your damn job to provide an argument, not sit there with a completely closed mind and a falsely impregnable defense and wait for others to provide arguments against it.

Funny, you ask for an argument, I give you one, and you ignore it . . . try reading through the page before responding . . . something about basic libertites and all that siliness.

You ask something unreasonable and, put simply, stupid: you want other people to find arguments to fit your beliefs and your philosophies and your worldview and values, but those values are, from the start, completely biased towards supporting Gay Marriage. It's annoying when you sound like a retarded claiming you've disproved things you haven't even touched, simply because it doesn't fit your pefect little world view.

That entire paragraph applies as much to yourself if you change the word supporting to banning.

This is a waste of a topic if you're not even going to refute arguments, you simply throw them to the side because "that's just an opinion," as if beliefs and opinions can't control Society or make any impact whatsoever.

If I say allowing females or blacks to vote is wrong, it would be my opinion. That opinion is less important than the rights of women and blacks. The same applies to your opinions and gay people.
Yes, beliefs and opinions can control society, the Aztec belief that humzn sacrifice was neccesary to make the sun rise every day and their opinion that thier enemy's blood would work just fine controled society throughout Central America for some time. Control does not equal right.

Homosexuality is disfavored.

So were blacks, but we were wrong to oppres as you are now.

Why?
It breaks all rules of Social Conduct.

All of your rules.

It is assosciated with a severely negative, damaging culture and tendencies.

Such as?

It is disgusting, an act of Sodomy.

I agree it's disgusting, which is why I leave it to them. What they do is none of my business. Besides, not all couples necessarily have sex. What about women, are they sodimites too?

It doesn't produce children, and never will.

And the world is becoming overpopulated. Besides, not all couples have children, and do you wish to illegalize bachalorhood?

It can never hold the "holiness" or virtue held by truly Married couples: (ex) aged grandparents with happy children after decades of Marriage.

Yes, if you don't let them marry, they can't be married virtuously . . . go figure.
But Xiivi already said everything I'd have to say here so I'll let it stand as such.

It breaks the status quo, and there's no justification except "I want to!"

Theres not justification other than "I don't want them to!"

It will increase government costs and decrease government income significantly.

How so?

It serves no purpose except to promote long-term sex between Homosexuals.

It's opinions like such as that one that are the reason divorce rates are so high. Marriage should not be strictly about sex! If you want just sex, don't get married; if you want to spend your life with someone you love, then get married.

It provides no benefit to Society in any way, shape, or form.

To society in general, the only benefit might be increased tolerance. Also, the detrimant of sexism and hatred will only be aided by the lack of reform.

Et cetera.

Your mind is so closed that's its not worth mentioning any arguments to you, you'll simply make up statements that no one else ever said (like Fli) to make your side sound true, when it isn't.

Once again, this applies as much, if not more, to you as anyone.

At 1/10/06 06:01 PM, Draconias wrote: ... you'll simply make up statements that no one else ever said (like Fli) to make your side sound true, when it isn't.

Aren't you quite a bit tetchay.

I'm sure saying along these lines, "You don't have an argument, thus I win!" Is the best argument ever.

LOL...

People can determine what is valid and what isn't valid all on their own. Someone can tell who are well versed...

and those who sort of getting by.

Fact: Naturaly homosexuality is not ment to happen due to us not being suited for it, if the genitalia was designed for it then naturaly it would occur in like 50% of population.

Debatable: Religous teachings saying it is wrong.

Fiction: People saying it is morally wrong is stupid as that is your opinion, not a fact.

Now i am not for or against Homosexuality and i could not give a damn if it went on, this is mostly because i say screw societies morals as you should not be bound to them(wait for it) but i mean the typically expected ones such as pre marital sex and so on. Aslong as it hurts noone then go ahead and do it as noone then has a reason to complain.

At 1/10/06 06:01 PM, Draconias wrote:

At 1/10/06 11:20 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: And that pretty much covers it. Any new arguments?

Yeah: It's your damn job to provide an argument, not sit there with a completely closed mind and a falsely impregnable defense and wait for others to provide arguments against it.

I'm not going to deny I'm very biased on this issue. Put simply, I believe it is YOUR job to provide an argument AGAINST homosexuality, since I see no reason why homosexuality is wrong. My argument centers around the fact that homosexuality is a sexual 'choice' in a similar way to prefering oral sex to regular sex. Since it is stupid to discriminate on those grounds, it is stupid to discriminate against homosexuals. Happy?

Regardless, even if I did have no reasons to support homosexuality, you ought to be able to argue your position well, right? So why don't you?

This is a waste of a topic if you're not even going to refute arguments, you simply throw them to the side because "that's just an opinion," as if beliefs and opinions can't control Society or make any impact whatsoever.

But I asked for an ARGUMENT as to why homosexuality was wrong. So far I haven't seen one that isn't very easily refutable. While I agree that 'opinion' is perfectly valid in a sociological context, it is not when I want an 'argument'.
Equally, if you feel this is a waste of topic, I'm not forcing you to post here. The reason you are posting here is because I am saying something you find distasteful, and you have to resort to an ad hominim attack to make yourself feel better.

Homosexuality is disfavored.

Why?
It breaks all rules of Social Conduct.

Which rules of social conduct? If you are talking about Rousseau's Social Contract theory, you are incorrect - homosexuality is perfectly acceptable under this doctrine. Otherwise, your argument can be re-written "Homosexuality is wrong because it is not widely accepted". This is clearly not an intelligent argument - it used to be that people thought the Earth was the centre of the universe!

It is assosciated with a severely negative, damaging culture and tendencies.

Source? Generally speaking, homosexuals are no different than straight people, so it has its fair share of madmen.

It is disgusting, an act of Sodomy.

Again, this is personal opinion. Fli would tell you that the act of lovemaking is a very special act. Since it is impossible to say if you or Fli is more accurate, your argument falls down

It doesn't produce children, and never will.

Agreed. Why is this wrong? Driving a car will never produce children.

It can never hold the "holiness" or virtue held by truly Married couples: (ex) aged grandparents with happy children after decades of Marriage.

Possbily - but I know plenty of people who have just had sex for the sake of having sex. By your argument, this is MORE of a sin than sodomy, since two gay men can live together happily in love for a long time.

It breaks the status quo, and there's no justification except "I want to!"

"I want to respond to this post". Does that make it wrong to post? As for breaking the status quo, your argument would suggest that bands like Franz Ferdinand, Queen or The Beatles were morally reprehensible.

It will increase government costs and decrease government income significantly.

Gays pay taxes. Gays do not (generally) have children for the state to support. Do the maths.

It serves no purpose except to promote long-term sex between Homosexuals.

Whereas marriage does... what?
If you argue marriage is for producing children, you fall victim to the fact that gay couples can adopt unwanted children
If you argue gays should not be allowed to adopt, you use circular reasoning by saying "Gays are wrong", since that is your premise.

It provides no benefit to Society in any way, shape, or form.

Again, nor does me posting on the BBS. It isn't going to stop me.

Your mind is so closed that's its not worth mentioning any arguments to you, you'll simply make up statements that no one else ever said (like Fli) to make your side sound true, when it isn't.

As I say, I agree I have a closed mind. Might I suggest that you have one equally, if not more, closed than me?
The reason I support my side is that you have just given me nine arguments against homosexuality, and I was able to debunk them using nothing but logic in two or three lines each.

Okay, I know this is going to be challanged but....

I am against gay marriage. Read on...

I think that marriage is a religious concept. Therefore, unless homosexuals have found a religion that's okay withhomosexuality, they can't get married.

Furthurmore, we shouldn't even be able to ponder this decision. Why? Because if marriage is indeed a religious concept, then the government has no reason to even acknowledge it. Beaurocrocy has no place in marriage.

In short: I believe that in the eyes of the government NO ONE should be married. Go on. Pick apart my statement at will.

At 1/11/06 01:55 PM, Pandaman64 wrote: Okay, I know this is going to be challanged but....

I am against gay marriage. Read on...

I think that marriage is a religious concept. Therefore, unless homosexuals have found a religion that's okay withhomosexuality, they can't get married.

Furthurmore, we shouldn't even be able to ponder this decision. Why? Because if marriage is indeed a religious concept, then the government has no reason to even acknowledge it. Beaurocrocy has no place in marriage.

In short: I believe that in the eyes of the government NO ONE should be married. Go on. Pick apart my statement at will.

No I think I agree with you. I suppose in that sense I'm against gay marriage. But I'm not against civil partnerships. And cartainly not against homosexuality

At 1/11/06 01:55 PM, Pandaman64 wrote: Okay, I know this is going to be challanged but....

I am against gay marriage. Read on...

I think that marriage is a religious concept. Therefore, unless homosexuals have found a religion that's okay withhomosexuality, they can't get married.

Marriage is a relationship and bond, most commonly between a man and a woman, that plays a key role in the definition of many families. Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures, but it has been an important concept as a socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship. ...

well your entitled to your opinion but allas for you majority rules and gay marriage is allowed, if they changed the name to like registration would that make you happy? as most dont have the whole frilly dilly down the isle type.

Furthurmore, we shouldn't even be able to ponder this decision. Why? Because if marriage is indeed a religious concept, then the government has no reason to even acknowledge it. Beaurocrocy has no place in marriage.

one could say religion has no place in politics but again they are bound to one another, anything religous will involve politics vise versa....the government has to acknowledge it these days really, again though would you prefer a registered type thing with all the benifits of marriage but not the title of marriage?

In short: I believe that in the eyes of the government NO ONE should be married. Go on. Pick apart my statement at will.

so in short men and women should not be viewed as married and only registered to have marriage benefits?

whichever is fine by me though.

At 1/11/06 02:03 PM, Jinzoa wrote:

At 1/11/06 01:55 PM, Pandaman64 wrote:

so in short men and women should not be viewed as married and only registered to have marriage benefits?

whichever is fine by me though.

What marriage benefits? I think that marriage has just as much place in courts and governemtn as a barmitzfa or a baptism. There should be no 'registration' in my book. No interaction between law and marriage whatsoever.

At 1/11/06 01:58 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:
No I think I agree with you. I suppose in that sense I'm against gay marriage. But I'm not against civil partnerships. And cartainly not against homosexuality

Civil partnerships? That term fills a role similar to the post civil war term Freedman. It's marriage without calling it marriage. Why not just call it gay marrying? It's shorter by one syllabel. Marriage isn't just a title. It's an action. Why is it calling it something else while leaving it be in essence, the same thing makes you feel better about it?

At 1/11/06 02:23 PM, Pandaman64 wrote:

Civil partnerships? It's marriage without calling it marriage. Why not just call it gay marrying?

Because, if you define 'marriage' as 'the union of a man and a woman', 'gay marriage' is a contradiction in terms. If you don't define marriage as that, that's fine. I do. Call it waht you want, the bigger issue is if it should be allowed or not.

At 1/11/06 02:17 PM, Pandaman64 wrote:

At 1/11/06 02:03 PM, Jinzoa wrote:

At 1/11/06 01:55 PM, Pandaman64 wrote:

What marriage benefits? I think that marriage has just as much place in courts and governemtn as a barmitzfa or a baptism. There should be no 'registration' in my book. No interaction between law and marriage whatsoever.

the problem with that is then if they get divorced what happens to all the stuff? how do people know if your married or not if there is no official record? the benefits of marriage are the whole equal property thing and other financial things.

At 1/11/06 01:45 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: I'm not going to deny I'm very biased on this issue. Put simply, I believe it is YOUR job to provide an argument AGAINST homosexuality, since I see no reason why homosexuality is wrong.

Let me lay this out, cleanly:

Your goal is to sway people.

The Majority is on my side of the argument. At this point, I have most of Society and all of the lawmakers supporting me. I have history, tradition, status quo, Religion, Law, and Emotion on my side. To maintain control of this country, I simply need to defend my population base.

You have only a Minority. You have only futile attempts thus far on your side. To "win" this debate on any level, you must convince my supporters to join your side. By necessity, if you want to become the Majority, you must be the one to make persuasive arguments. You need to reduce my population base.

That's all. Sitting on the Defense when you wish to spark change is ineffective. Sitting on the Defense when you want to prevent change is the natural order of Debate.

It is nearly impossible to disprove unimplemented, vague, almost gaseous ideas proposed by the Attacker. Why? Because you haven't actually physically fleshed them out enough for anyone to attack. When it is your intention to displace a solid, proven system that has been as solid as stone (irony) for generations, then you must weaken it before your weaker idea can take root.

The only way to do so is to Attack. Defending achieves nothing for your side.

My argument centers around the fact that homosexuality is a sexual 'choice' in a similar way to prefering oral sex to regular sex. Since it is stupid to discriminate on those grounds, it is stupid to discriminate against homosexuals. Happy?

Woah, woah, woah. Stop! You said something massively different than anyone has previously been addressing. Maintaining Marriage is in no way, shape, or form descriminating against Homosexuals. No one is supporting descrimination.

Whatever you may think, to me (the majority), you are not entitled to Marriage simply because you claim to love one another. Marriage is not something like a Basic Right or anything of the sort.

It is not something denied to someone based on unchangeable inherited factors; regardless of Homosexuality or not, a man and a woman can still get married. Gender is a very important, critical divide in Humanity, and Marriage plays a very important role for bridging that gap and uniting us more strongly across time and generations. It is not something you are entitled based on claimed Love.

Whatever you may think, those are the basic assumptions of the Majority. Do you wish to challenge any aspect of those? It is those assumptions you must work by if you wish to sit on the Defense, and those assumptions you must challenge if you wish to go on the Attack.

:: Why?

It breaks all rules of Social Conduct.

Which rules of social conduct? If you are talking about Rousseau's Social Contract theory, you are incorrect - homosexuality is perfectly acceptable under this doctrine.

I was not. To put it bluntly, Anal Sex is considered generally disgusting and unsavory based on the mass opinion of the country. It is based on the widely-held opinion, but this is not Science; this is Rules of Conduct. Your analogy is entirely invalid.

Men don't wear Dresses in the US because it breaks the Social Rules of Conduct. In the same way, you don't go around naked, and you shouldn't have your underwear showing. Again, in the same way, farting and belching during Formal Events is considered rude and inappropriate, and having sex in Public is considered disgusting.

There is no "truth" to these things, these are just the Social Rules!

Two men in Love semi-breaks this, and anal sex thoroughly breaks it. The Social Rules apply in public and private.

It is assosciated with a severely negative, damaging culture and tendencies.

Source? Generally speaking, homosexuals are no different than straight people, so it has its fair share of madmen.

"Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"

Look around, the negative, damaging culture I am talking about is the feminizing of the masculine character. It may be a media-only culture, but it is significant, dangerous, and thoroughly unwelcome to Men.

It is disgusting, an act of Sodomy.

Again, this is personal opinion.

In the state I live in, Anal Sex is legally defined as an act of Sodomy and outlawed due to its "digusting" nature, along with Bestiality and other "disgusting" acts. I am quoting the Law, and Majority opinion.

Remember, when I speak opinions here, I am attempting to represent the entire Majority.

It doesn't produce children, and never will.

Agreed. Why is this wrong? Driving a car will never produce children.

First, besides being entirely invalid, your analogy is wrong. Driving a car can produce children. Many people lose their virginity in the backseat of a car, and driving the car is inextricably linked from the events it triggers within certain context (driving out to a "make out" area).

Second, you analogy is invalid for a very simple reason: driving a car isn't meant or expected to produce children. Marriage absolutely is meant and expected to produce children.

It will increase government costs and decrease government income significantly.

Gays pay taxes.

Marriage reduces the taxes paid significantly and adds to government processing. Welfare is a different issue.

It provides no benefit to Society in any way, shape, or form.
Again, nor does me posting on the BBS. It isn't going to stop me.

False analogy. Again. You're not currently arguing for the "right" to post on the BBS forums, thus no benefit is necessary. One is in debate and currently in disfavor; the other is not even an issue.

I wish I had more room, but I don't. The available characters and time I have are very limited. While you may claim you have "debunked" my reasons, you can not disprove any statement with simply a two-line "It doesn't matter" You call these things debunked, but the argument hasn't even started. By allowing no back-and-forth, you dismiss it unfairly.

At 1/12/06 06:34 PM, Draconias wrote:
Let me lay this out, cleanly:

Your goal is to sway people.

The Majority is on my side of the argument. At this point, I have most of Society and all of the lawmakers supporting me. I have history, tradition, status quo, Religion, Law, and Emotion on my side. To maintain control of this country, I simply need to defend my population base.

Okey dokey. Because you have the majority on your side, that makes my arguments irrelevant? You sound like one of those people who would be against Women's Sufferage.

You have only a Minority. You have only futile attempts thus far on your side. To "win" this debate on any level, you must convince my supporters to join your side. By necessity, if you want to become the Majority, you must be the one to make persuasive arguments. You need to reduce my population base.

And the way I choose to do that is by demonstrating that there are no convincing arguments against homosexuality. My reasoning is that if something is not WRONG, then it must be RIGHT - or at least morally neutral.

The only way to do so is to Attack. Defending achieves nothing for your side.

It pisses you off ^^

My argument centers around the fact that homosexuality is a sexual 'choice' in a similar way to prefering oral sex to regular sex. Since it is stupid to discriminate on those grounds, it is stupid to discriminate against homosexuals. Happy?

Woah, woah, woah. Stop! You said something massively different than anyone has previously been addressing. Maintaining Marriage is in no way, shape, or form descriminating against Homosexuals. No one is supporting descrimination.

I didn't say anything about marriage. I was talking about the actual act of homosexual sex.

Whatever you may think, to me (the majority), you are not entitled to Marriage simply because you claim to love one another. Marriage is not something like a Basic Right or anything of the sort.

"Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right." Article 12 of the UN convention of Human rights. You'll also notice that the wording is not "a man and a woman".

I was not. To put it bluntly, Anal Sex is considered generally disgusting and unsavory based on the mass opinion of the country. It is based on the widely-held opinion, but this is not Science; this is Rules of Conduct. Your analogy is entirely invalid.

There is no "truth" to these things, these are just the Social Rules!

So if there's no truth to them, the only reason people respect them is because other people respect them. There's no reason to assume they're true. It used to be the norm to make sexist jokes in mixed company. Now you are not allowed to

Two men in Love semi-breaks this, and anal sex thoroughly breaks it. The Social Rules apply in public and private.

Why in private?

Look around, the negative, damaging culture I am talking about is the feminizing of the masculine character. It may be a media-only culture, but it is significant, dangerous, and thoroughly unwelcome to Men.

Again, why? In today's computer age, we are unlikely to have to slay a wolly mammoth for food. There is no reason why all men have to be manly men nowadays.

In the state I live in, Anal Sex is legally defined as an act of Sodomy and outlawed due to its "digusting" nature, along with Bestiality and other "disgusting" acts. I am quoting the Law, and Majority opinion.

It doesn't produce children, and never will.

Agreed. Why is this wrong? Driving a car will never produce children.

First, besides being entirely invalid, your analogy is wrong. Driving a car can produce children. Many people lose their virginity in the backseat of a car, and driving the car is inextricably linked from the events it triggers within certain context (driving out to a "make out" area).

Nice to see you're really getting to the main point of my argument. Your reasoning with the car is spurious, but owning a budgie will never lead to producing children

Second, you analogy is invalid for a very simple reason: driving a car isn't meant or expected to produce children. Marriage absolutely is meant and expected to produce children.

Well, now you're talking about gay marriage. Homosexuality is not meant to produce children. Neither are stable non-married hetrosexual relationships.

It provides no benefit to Society in any way, shape, or form.
Again, nor does me posting on the BBS. It isn't going to stop me.

False analogy. Again. You're not currently arguing for the "right" to post on the BBS forums, thus no benefit is necessary. One is in debate and currently in disfavor; the other is not even an issue.

It's not a false analogy. Its a perfectly reasonable anaology. Your argument is that external factors mean that my argument is irrelevant. This is a logical fallacy, since the "benefit to society" would happen regardless of popular opinion.

By allowing no back-and-forth, you dismiss it unfairly.

Go for it. I'm a big fan of Socratic dialogue.

At 1/10/06 06:01 PM, Draconias wrote: Your mind is so closed that's its not worth mentioning any arguments to you, you'll simply make up statements that no one else ever said (like Fli) to make your side sound true, when it isn't.

I said on the first page that this was what was going to happen, dog. Did you not realize that this topic was structured in such a way that he was making an impossible demand? He's basically asking you to prove something subjective without using subjective arguments.

At 1/14/06 12:26 PM, Elfer wrote:

I said on the first page that this was what was going to happen, dog. Did you not realize that this topic was structured in such a way that he was making an impossible demand? He's basically asking you to prove something subjective without using subjective arguments.

I don't mean it to be impossible. If you could think of a better way of doing it I'll change to that.

At the moment, though, only Draconias has come close to a decent argument, so the point's pretty moot

If I can think of a better way of doing this?

Well, perhaps you could come up with some criteria as to what makes something "wrong"

Otherwise, everything can be dismissed as just an opinion.

At 1/14/06 11:34 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: Okey dokey. Because you have the majority on your side, that makes my arguments irrelevant? You sound like one of those people who would be against Women's Sufferage.

No, Toad. Since I have the Majority on my side, you must be active to change anything. That's the situation, and only your actions can change it. Why do you think "Equal Rights" people like Martin Luther King Jr. had to make persuasive arguments? Why do you think the Women's Sufferage people had to make persuasive arguments?

It's because, regardless of right or wrong, they wanted to change the Majority belief! That's your goal here, and simply saying "come to me" will achieve nothing. You must go to your opponents and defeat them.

My reasoning is that if something is not WRONG, then it must be RIGHT - or at least morally neutral.

That's the major flaw I mentioned before: simply because something isn't wrong doesn't make it right. If something is neutral, then there is no reason to change the status quo and deal with all the problems that may stir up. If something is wrong, then we should actively fight against it.

It is not until you conclusively prove that your topic is right that anything can or should change. I've been telling the same thing to the Marijuana people as well: you must prove something beneficial and good if you want change. Anything else is no grounds for social upheaval.

No one is supporting descrimination.
I didn't say anything about marriage. I was talking about the actual act of homosexual sex.

No one is supporting descrimination. However, that doesn't mean we should favor them, or give them stuff. Descrimination is always wrong, but descrimination has nothing to do with Gay Marriage, the primary issue with Homosexuality.

"Article 12 of the UN convention of Human rights.

First of all, UN. How often does the United States listen to them? They wanted the Kyoto Protocol; we refused. They banned Incendiary weapons; we refused. They voted against permitting our invasion of Iraq; we did it anyway. Since when do we ever allow the UN to define anything for us?

Second, while it doesn't say "a man and a woman," it also doesn't say "a man and a man" or "a woman and a woman" or anything at all about the arrangement. The UN intentionally avoided dealing with gay marriage or polygamy.

Third, you do have the right to Marriage. However, marriage can be defined as a union between a man and a woman, and traditionally has been for millenia. People against gay marriage are asking for a more specific definition of marriage.

There's no reason to assume they're true. It used to be the norm to make sexist jokes in mixed company. Now you are not allowed to

"Truth" can't even apply to Social Rules. The two concepts belong to entirely different realms. Social Rules do change, but that's because someone argued that they should be changed. Sitting back and only taking attacks does not change anything.

Two men in Love semi-breaks this, and anal sex thoroughly breaks it. The Social Rules apply in public and private.

Why in private?

Gay couples (male), by definition, have anal sex. It is an act done in private, which usually isn't judged, but the two concepts of "gay (male) couple" and "anal sex" are inextricably linked. Therefore, any show of affection in public is connected to anal sex, and people know something disgusting happens between the two, even if it is in private. That's why being gay is okay with most people, but public affection between two gay males is offensive to many people.

Again, why? In today's computer age, we are unlikely to have to slay a wolly mammoth for food. There is no reason why all men have to be manly men nowadays.

Men want to be Men. We are raised to be men. Everything that is our identity and our purpose, our worth and our goals, the social expectations that shape us and guide us all tell us to be Men. When you try to attack and change that, you severely threaten the well-being and mental peace of at least 2 billion Men, and you deal with some very critical, messy, and dangerous social issues.

Most Men know we don't want to screw around with something so old and deeply rooted in the mind of every one of us. Most just can't deal with that kind of issue.

Second, you analogy is invalid for a very simple reason: driving a car isn't meant or expected to produce children. Marriage absolutely is meant and expected to produce children.

Well, now you're talking about gay marriage. Homosexuality is not meant to produce children. Neither are stable non-married hetrosexual relationships.

Which is why Homosexual couples are fine, Homosexuality is fine, and all is well and good... until you try to lobby for Gay Marriage. The issues of Homosexuality and Gay Marriage are inextricably linked right now. No one challenges the right to be Homosexual; the entire issue is whether you not you should be able to have a Homosexual Marriage.

If you haven't realized it, Homosexuality isn't an issue. The entire issue, the only one that can be argued, is whether Homosexuality should have the right to extend its reach to the deepest, most "holy" parts of our society.

No, I do not mean "holy" in a religious sense.

It's not a false analogy. Its a perfectly reasonable anaology. Your argument is that external factors mean that my argument is irrelevant. This is a logical fallacy, since the "benefit to society" would happen regardless of popular opinion.

No, the analogy is false because you already have one thing, and you are lobbying for the other. A correct analogy with a right to post on the BBS is if you were banned and you were arguing for your right to post.

Since you did something a majority of the board would find offensive (based on the rules), you aren't allowed to post. The same is true for Gay Marriage, the real issue at hand.

Draconias, with your blessing I'd like to ignore your post, and give you some reasons why I feel homosexuality is morally not wrong. I think this is what you've been asking for.

1. Personal opinion - I admit from the start that my 'gut feeling' is that there is nothing wrong with it. This obviously isn't any sort of argument I'd expect you to accept, I just thought it worth pointing out I'm going to be biased

2. Freedoms - The blow to civil liberties is fairly great if you legistlate against a group of people just because of their sexual preference. This attack on liberties is far greater than the distaste some people feel towards homosexuality

3. Marriage - Marriage is two institutions, the church and the state. If the church do not want to allow gay marriage, that's their lookout - I can't argue with that. If the state do not want to allow gay marriage (or 'civil partnerships') then they are guilty of discrimination.

4. Choice - If a gay person is gay, just calling it 'wrong' will not make him heterosexual. The gay people I know are good people - no better or worse than the heterosexual people I know. Why should they have to live with the stigma of being classed as 'wrong', when they have done nothing - as far as I can see - wrong

5. Majority - Although majority opinion and tradition are on your side, that does not mean they are correct. Firstly, the majority of people and tradition were pro-slavery. That must prove that 'majority' arguments are fallacious. Secondly, as homosexual rights become a bigger and bigger issue, people are being indoctrinated from an early age (as I suspect both you and I were). So there is a good chance that, were a shift in legislation to happen, the majority would support gay marriage.

6. Differences - A gay man can pay taxes, fight in the army, join the police force. The only difference between a gay man and a heterosexual man is his sexual choice. I consider this to be irrelevent - akin to discriminating on the grounds of skin colour. There are many heterosexual men who cannot have children - would you be in favour of legislation stopping them marrying?

7. Lesbians - Lesbians are typically seen as 'more acceptable' then homosexual males. Why is this? I would suggest it is something to do with the fact that people feel distaste towards the act of anal sex. Distaste is not a good reason to curtail freedoms. I find eating meat offensive, but it would be dictatorial to suggest no-one was allowed to eat meat.

8. Natural - Homosexuality cannot be seen as natural. Nor can living in a house. To say 'homosexuality is unnatural' is to deny 6000 years of evolution.

I hope at least some of these arguments may make you reconsider your position. I would suggest that, since neither of us is likely to switch sides, we debate these points intellectually, rather than argumentatively.

At 1/15/06 08:03 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: Draconias, with your blessing I'd like to ignore your post, and give you some reasons why I feel homosexuality is morally not wrong. I think this is what you've been asking for.

Okay.

2. Freedoms - The blow to civil liberties is fairly great if you legistlate against a group of people just because of their sexual preference.

Remember, simply not legislating for a group is different from legislating against a group. The United States currently refuses to legislate Gay Marriage into existance; the US isn't legislating against Gays, it is simply refusing to give them free benefits.

3. If the state do not want to allow gay marriage (or 'civil partnerships') then they are guilty of discrimination.

I believe that is completely untrue. If a child comes up to me and demands candy "because the boy over there has some," and I refuse, does that mean I am discriminating? No. If I was selling candy and refused to deal with one particular child, that would be discriminating, but that's not the situation here.

Gay Marriage is not a basic right.
Nothing in our laws so far even suggest anyone is entitled to it.
Gay Marriage is denied to everyone, so no group is being descriminated against.
All the major religions, the founders of Marriage, refuse to accept Gay Marriage.
Adding Gay Marriage will favor a specific group, which is descrimination.

A "Civil Union" would break the idea that Same-Sex Marriage must be Homosexual Marriage.

4. Choice

There is no stigma for being gay in most regions of the United States. Also, being gay is something you don't need to reveal. Most of the stigma you may get for being gay is if you fit into the "gay guy" stereotype of a feminized man.

5. Majority - Although majority opinion and tradition are on your side, that does not mean they are correct. Firstly, the majority of people and tradition were pro-slavery.

Wrong. Only a minority of people supported Slavery. First of all, only a severe minority owned slaves, even in the South. Second, the South had much fewer people than the North, and most of the North was neutral or anti-slavery.

A Civil War is what happens when a Minority challenges the beliefs of the Majority. The Majority (North) forced the Minority to follow the Majority Belief.

So there is a good chance that, were a shift in legislation to happen, the majority would support gay marriage.

I was in no way, shape, or form "indoctrinated" with any beliefs about Homosexuality in my childhood. It was never mentioned.

However, what you're suggesting is that if we brainwash our kids into believing Gay Marriage is good, then. . . it might be legalized? I don't like the sound of that logic.

6. There are many heterosexual men who cannot have children - would you be in favour of legislation stopping them marrying?

Stop. You're doing it again: legislating to add something is massively different than legislating to take away something. The issue of sterile men is very complex, often unknown for many years, and completely different because they already can marry. Also, most sterility problems can be corrected using medical procedures, like artificial insemination.

If sterile people already could not marry, I would be reluctant to just give them the ability to without any further questions. They would need to show that certain issues, like not knowing for decades that you're even sterile, would make enforcement unfair and the entire concept untenable-- which it is.

7. Distaste is not a good reason to curtail freedoms.

Freedoms? We have absolutely not established that Marriage is a freedom or a right in this thread, and you can only curtail something which was already available.

Adding is different than taking.
Redefining something is different than allowing everyone to participate.

8. Natural - Homosexuality cannot be seen as natural. Nor can living in a house. To say 'homosexuality is unnatural' is to deny 6000 years of evolution.

Actually, living in a house is arguably natural. All organisms require Shelter to survive. Houses are Shelter. Therefore, living in a house (just like living in a Cave) is a natural thing.

I think a big part of this issue is the underlying assumptions we both make about the issue.

Gay Marriage isn't some aspect of marriage we're refusing to give out, it's a complete redefinition of marriage. Regardless of yoursexuality, you can marry; it's tied to your gender, not your orientation. That means that, to allow Gay Marriage, we must redefine the entire foundations of a multi-millenia tradition, and all simply because a small minority wants government benefits. That's not a good enough reason.

Also, by refusing to redefine marriage, we are not descriminating against anyone. Anyone can get married; it's not like we're saying "Oh, you're Black, you can't get married!" All we're saying is that Marriage should stay Marriage. That's not descrimination at all. The only thing you could possibly justify as something the government is withholding from gay couples is a union under law. Even then, it's still not a right that is being denied, or something that we must defile the very foundations of marriage to achieve.

What I believe would be better in every respect than Gay Marriage is, instead, Civil Unions. There are two key factors that make Civil Unions better: not connected to Homosexuality, not redefining marriage. If Gay Marriage was legislated, that would be descrimination; it's favoring one specific group over another. Heterosexuals would not be allowed (or effectively able) to have same-sex marriage in that situation, but Homosexuals would be allowed both normal and same-sex marriage. That's descrimination.

Civil Unions wouldn't have that restriction. They can be for any two people who want to make a legal Union between them; whether that be Siamese Twins, or two people planning to work and live together for many years (like Foresters), they could still Union. Also, the restrictions of "don't break it until you die" could be more lax. CU would be better.

At 1/15/06 12:21 PM, Draconias wrote: Gay Marriage is denied to everyone, so no group is being descriminated against.
Adding Gay Marriage will favor a specific group, which is descrimination.

I'm sorry, I just find these two statements a bit fiddly here. Can you select one of these and stick with it? Either Gay Marriage is denied to everyone equally, or Gay Marriage favours a specific group. You can't have it both ways.

Well, i have only few things to say about this.

There are many religious people out there, like some christians that i know. And they say that marrying someone who is not christian or who has the same sex as you as a sin... Wow, i thought that all humans are the same! And it seems that religion makes humans go against eachother. Don't you agree? How can you go against your own race? Same with homosexuality, whats wrong with that? You cannot say it is wrong bacause you have no right to do so. It is like racizm i suppose. Why, maybe the Bible is wrong, maybe being with someone of the opposite sex is a sin. You don't know that now don't you, you can't proove that! All human belifs are based on same thing, and i think it is time for a change. And i belive there is no one in here that can say that homosexuality is wrong, just as no one can say it is right. I myself don't really care. All i want is for every human have right to love and not be afraid of that. Why would loving and wanting to be with someone should be wrong? No matter who it is! And if somone, now can proove me that loving somone is wrong... That person might as well go and kill him or herself right now!
>_<

Great, a debate that will never end because it eventually comes down to opinion and different perceptions of what is moral.

Threads like these give me a headache.

Indeed, but i like to argue about stuff and prrove them wrong... (sometines ^^)

Yet again... Marriage is not about religion, race or sex... its about looove... Don't you agree?

At 1/15/06 02:45 PM, Kero_the_boy_killer wrote: Indeed, but i like to argue about stuff and prrove them wrong... (sometines ^^)

Yet again... Marriage is not about religion, race or sex... its about looove... Don't you agree?

but zoooomg gays can't be in love, all they want is the pleasure.

*coughing fit*

but zoooomg gays can't be in love, all they want is the pleasure.

*coughing fit*

So what? We all want different things in life don't we... for some people love-is pleasure... it depends on whatever you describe it as... i guess O_O Either way, they love to do it?... i mean it's not like ony homesexuals think love is only pleasure... i can find some preety weird people out there... >_>

The innocent brilliance of children is uncanny: "MYOB" is probably the best end-all to an argument.

Assuming homosexuality is wrong (which it isn't), how does it effect you? And I mean effect, not affect, because "it's yucky" doesn't count.

At 1/15/06 09:49 PM, mwazzap wrote: The innocent brilliance of children is uncanny: "MYOB" is probably the best end-all to an argument.

Assuming homosexuality is wrong (which it isn't), how does it effect you? And I mean effect, not affect, because "it's yucky" doesn't count.

Man that comment was stupid. What I meant to say was that libertarianism is good, and that we all need to chill and have some legalized drugs.

At 1/15/06 09:54 PM, mwazzap wrote: Man that comment was stupid. What I meant to say was that libertarianism is good, and that we all need to chill and have some legalized drugs.

Unfortunatley that cannot happen. We could have some asprin and sniff magic markers if youd like :).

This will never end. Since most of the people in this country are religious they feel that their religious morals are being violated. You can call them bigots and ignorant fucks that cannot think for themselves but doing that will not change anything. You can show them evidence on why it is good and it WILL NOT change anything. According to them their religion says it is wrong so there-fore it is wrong to them. Being anti-homosexual is a choice and you should respect that choice. EVEN IF IT IS BIAS.
The only way to get beyond the homosexual thing is to influence the youth. WHICH IS ALREADY HAPPENING. There is not one ARGUMENT from the pro-hetero that will suffice for the people who are pro-homo. And There is not one ARGUMENT from the pro-homo that will suffice for the people who are pro-hetero. So why? What is the point of debating something that will end up nowhere?

At 1/15/06 12:48 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 1/15/06 12:21 PM, Draconias wrote: Gay Marriage is denied to everyone, so no group is being descriminated against.
Adding Gay Marriage will favor a specific group, which is descrimination.

I'm sorry, I just find these two statements a bit fiddly here. Can you select one of these and stick with it? Either Gay Marriage is denied to everyone equally, or Gay Marriage favours a specific group. You can't have it both ways.

Umm. . . what are you talking about? One is present tense, the other is future tense, and both contribute to the same image.

If Gay Marriage was added, that would be discrimination through favoritism.

While Gay Marriage remains non-existant, the denial is universal and no descrimination exists.

Does that re-wording make more sense to you? By leaving Marriage untouched, no one is descriminated against. However, if you were to redefine Marriage to give Gay couples government benefits, that's favoritism, and thus descrimination. It would be descrimination due to the "Gay" part of "Gay Marriage."

Normal Marriage is open to everyone, but Gay Marriage would give benefits to people based on their sexual orientation and effectively deny heterosexuals the same benefits. That may be tough logic for you to wrap your head around, but that's the reality of the situation: unless you make a new form of "Marriage" that is completely independent of sexual orientation, you're descriminating, and thus breaking the law. The current Marriage is independent of sexual orientation and has no restrictions, implied or otherwise, on what type of people are allowed to be married.