Conquer Club

william18 wrote:
The reason is because there ARE benefits if I marry a women for the community. So we should let them because they want to? What about the people who don't want it? Should we neglect the majority just because our community isn't accustomed to the gay's needs?

You seem to be falling into the same hole that Napoleon did, quite a while ago. Children are the only real "benifit" heterosexual couples can add to the community, yes? After all, that's the only thing a heterosexual couple can do that a homosexual one cannot.
What about sterile couples, then? They can't produce children, therefore they should not be allowed to marry. Or the elderly? To old to have children = no marriage. Or couples that simply don't want to have children?
If you're going to descriminate, at least be consistant about it...

OnlyAmbrose wrote:The idea of a "marriage amendment" is absurd in a secular state, because the entire argument for it is based on the idea that homosexuality is immoral. The only argument you can make for its immorality stems from churches, and as such no such argument can be made in a secular state.

Sorry to disagree with you Ambrose but if you use that kind of logic then we can't have laws against stealing, murder, lying in court on the grounds that it's immoral and only churches can decide that. The government decides what is moral and not moral in almost every law. Homosexual marriage is so unnatural and fucking stupid. You don't need a priest to tell you that. 2 men can't get together and make a child and raise it properly. You would be denying the child a mother which is cruel. 2 women can't get together and make a child and raise it properly. You would be denying the kid a father and that is also cruel. You don't have to be a religious person to see the flawed logic of how stupid homosexual marriage is. Why don't we just start letting people marry animals or people within their own families? It's just a bunch of dipshits trying to make themselves feel like they're the next bunch of civil rights activists that are pushing this.

bradleybadly wrote:Sorry to disagree with you Ambrose but if you use that kind of logic then we can't have laws against stealing, murder, lying in court on the grounds that it's immoral and only churches can decide that.

There's a difference between secular and amoral. Morality isn't restricted only to religion after all.

bradleybadly wrote:The government decides what is moral and not moral in almost every law. Homosexual marriage is so unnatural and fucking stupid. You don't need a priest to tell you that.

I don't mean to be insulting (I honestly don't, sorry), but I feel about the same way with religion. That doesn't mean I actively try to stop other people from having one, I just don't partake myself.

bradleybadly wrote:2 men can't get together and make a child and raise it properly. You would be denying the child a mother which is cruel. 2 women can't get together and make a child and raise it properly. You would be denying the kid a father and that is also cruel. You don't have to be a religious person to see the flawed logic of how stupid homosexual marriage is.

There is, perhaps a case against gay adoption (although I frankly haven't seen any unbiased data from either side as of yet). But children and marriage are not synonymous. I know that I'm beating the same drum as posters before me, but sterile people and the elderly are allowed to marry, and they can no longer have children.

bradleybadly wrote:Why don't we just start letting people marry animals or people within their own families? It's just a bunch of dipshits trying to make themselves feel like they're the next bunch of civil rights activists that are pushing this.

Because a heavy majority of the public feels that those are wrong. Interracial marriage was once considered about as unnatural as gay marriage is now, but I have no problem with it.

Frigidus wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:Why don't we just start letting people marry animals or people within their own families? It's just a bunch of dipshits trying to make themselves feel like they're the next bunch of civil rights activists that are pushing this.

Because a heavy majority of the public feels that those are wrong. Interracial marriage was once considered about as unnatural as gay marriage is now, but I have no problem with it.

So what if a majority of people all of a sudden feel marriage to animals is ok then?

bradleybadly wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:Why don't we just start letting people marry animals or people within their own families? It's just a bunch of dipshits trying to make themselves feel like they're the next bunch of civil rights activists that are pushing this.

Because a heavy majority of the public feels that those are wrong. Interracial marriage was once considered about as unnatural as gay marriage is now, but I have no problem with it.

So what if a majority of people all of a sudden feel marriage to animals is ok then?

I wouldn't think so, but I'd be in the minority. Morality is very relative, I'm sure our country is already seen as a moral cesspool by some cultures.

bradleybadly wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:The idea of a "marriage amendment" is absurd in a secular state, because the entire argument for it is based on the idea that homosexuality is immoral. The only argument you can make for its immorality stems from churches, and as such no such argument can be made in a secular state.

Sorry to disagree with you Ambrose but if you use that kind of logic then we can't have laws against stealing, murder, lying in court on the grounds that it's immoral and only churches can decide that. The government decides what is moral and not moral in almost every law. Homosexual marriage is so unnatural and fucking stupid. You don't need a priest to tell you that. 2 men can't get together and make a child and raise it properly. You would be denying the child a mother which is cruel. 2 women can't get together and make a child and raise it properly. You would be denying the kid a father and that is also cruel. You don't have to be a religious person to see the flawed logic of how stupid homosexual marriage is. Why don't we just start letting people marry animals or people within their own families? It's just a bunch of dipshits trying to make themselves feel like they're the next bunch of civil rights activists that are pushing this.

Come on, man use your logic.

Are you seriously comparing gay marriage to murder and stealing? Killing someone or stealing from them is an infringement on THEIR liberty. Can you explain to me how someone else's right to marry whom they choose infringes on yours?

Totally unrelated. Gays getting married doesn't hurt you or anybody else (except them, IMO). So since it doesn't affect you in the slightest, who are you to infringe on THEIR liberty and tell them what they can or can't do?

Laws against murder and stealing are not religious laws, they're laws based on the promises America was founded upon: life, liberty, and property. If you kill someone you take away their right to life. If you rob someone you take away their property. There is no religion behind this, simply the secular principles upon which this nation was founded.

Gay marriage doesn't violate any of them.

Frigidus wrote:I wouldn't think so, but I'd be in the minority. Morality is very relative, I'm sure our country is already seen as a moral cesspool by some cultures.

I appreciate the fact that you're at least trying but that doesn't really answer the question. What if the majority of people all of a sudden feel incest is ok? What is pedophilia is someday considered ok?

I'm not a Christian and don't plan on making a religious argument but I do believe in good and evil. Some things like pedophila, homosexuality, and incest are wrong. They just are. Organisms evolved into males and females and that is the way it is. It's natural for opposite sexes to get together and create new life. For humans, it's how we pass on to the next generation and continue. Homosexuality does nothing to help that process and keeps us from evolving into a better species.

bradleybadly wrote:
2 men can't get together and make a child and raise it properly. You would be denying the child a mother which is cruel. 2 women can't get together and make a child and raise it properly. You would be denying the kid a father and that is also cruel.

You're basing these arguments on the fairly flawed idea of the perfection of the nuclear family. Why do children need a father/mother figure (as opposed too, say, good parenting)? And, for that matter, why is the opposite sex, by default, unable to provide this?

Before the advent of the nuclear family, tribal family structures were all the rage. You probably spent more time with a group of elderly nannies than you did with your actual parents. Did the human race, for thousands of centuries, consist solely of emotionally scarred psychos because of this?

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Come on, man use your logic.

Are you seriously comparing gay marriage to murder and stealing? Killing someone or stealing from them is an infringement on THEIR liberty. Can you explain to me how someone else's right to marry whom they choose infringes on yours?

You missed my point. You're saying that the government shouldn't get involved because it's a moral issue. I'm saying you can't escape morality because almost every law the government passes is based on whether or not they think it is moral. There's no way to escape the fact that laws are either moral or immoral.

wait wait wait.

who SAYS 2 gay men can't raise a child properly? who SAYS 2 gay women can't raise a child properly?

how many kids are out there right now being raised by their grandparents, or their older sibling, or a single mother.

are you telling me THEY are the archetype for a healthy family situation?

what about a "complete heterosexual family unit" where there's an alcoholic father who beats the kids and a mother too hopped up on valium to care, except to put the kids down and sap their confidence at every opportunity?

is that healthy? can they raise a child properly?

and furthermore, exactly what the f*ck IS the definition of a child being raised properly?

(hint: there is none)

bradleybadly wrote:

Frigidus wrote:I wouldn't think so, but I'd be in the minority. Morality is very relative, I'm sure our country is already seen as a moral cesspool by some cultures.

I appreciate the fact that you're at least trying but that doesn't really answer the question. What if the majority of people all of a sudden feel incest is ok? What is pedophilia is someday considered ok?

I'm not a Christian and don't plan on making a religious argument but I do believe in good and evil. Some things like pedophila, homosexuality, and incest are wrong. They just are. Organisms evolved into males and females and that is the way it is. It's natural for opposite sexes to get together and create new life. For humans, it's how we pass on to the next generation and continue. Homosexuality does nothing to help that process and keeps us from evolving into a better species.

It is my personal opinion that anything done in someones bedroom between any number of consenting individuals is fine. For me this takes pedophilia and bestiality out of the equation. I also feel that incest is disgusting, but frankly it isn't my place to tell someone what they sexually can and can not do. No matter my preferences (pretty straight and narrow ones), I just can't feel right saying that our country is truly free if we base our legislation on cultural taboos.

yeah, also, how the f*ck do people make the jump from homosexuality to bestiality?

seriously -- that is a complete logical fallacy.

In science they say being gay is a disease. A mental and genetic disease.

william18 wrote:In science they say being gay is a disease. A mental and genetic disease.

I don't remember reading that. It's genetic, but it isn't a disease or a disorder or anything...

Frigidus wrote:

william18 wrote:In science they say being gay is a disease. A mental and genetic disease.

I don't remember reading that. It's genetic, but it isn't a disease or a disorder or anything...

A disease or disorder is something that make or urdge's you to do unatural things. Being gay is unatural.

william18 wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

william18 wrote:In science they say being gay is a disease. A mental and genetic disease.

I don't remember reading that. It's genetic, but it isn't a disease or a disorder or anything...

A disease or disorder is something that make or urdge's you to do unatural things. Being gay is unatural.

Is it unnatural for a reason other than the fact that it doesn't involve a dude and a chick?

william18 wrote:In science they say being gay is a disease. A mental and genetic disease.

You missed out the 'don't'... Which is sort of the crucial point. They don't classify it as a mental condition any more and that is why homosexuality is recognised as legally fine.

where HOT AND SEXY?

I've tried to make this point earlier already, but I'll try again nevertheless since this has been properly revived.

"Gay marriages" are not some sort of extension to an existing right to marry, on the contrary, the existing definitions of marriage as something between two persons of different sexes is a restriction of this right. In "allowing gays to marry", a group of people is not being granted a special status, everyone would receive this right, it's just that a heterosexual might not ever feel the urge to marry someone of the same sex while a homosexual probably might at some point.

In other words: gay marriage is not a special right that's given to a group of people, it's simply the removal of a restriction that applies to everyone. But some people don't notice it since they wish to exercise their right to marry only within certain boundaries that were previously allowed.

I can't believe "no" is winning this argument.

The question should be rephrased: "Should two persons who are in love be allowed to marry?"

Or, more to the point, why would any sane person WANT to marry?

Guiscard wrote:

william18 wrote:In science they say being gay is a disease. A mental and genetic disease.

You missed out the 'don't'... Which is sort of the crucial point. They don't classify it as a mental condition any more and that is why homosexuality is recognised as legally fine.

Yeah, add the don't if you are living any year after 1971.

Alright, let's see here...

I was raised by a bunch of fags and pot heads. Despite the behaviour that I exhibit online here, I'm actually a very stable, very normal kid. I'm not gay, I'm not a drug addict, I get decent grades in school, you know, the usual. I've never been lacking love and affection or role models of any gender. There is nothing wrong with being raised by two men or two women. If there was, then children raised by single mothers (IE me for the first 5 years of my life) would turn out messed up.

Now, homosexuality and bestiality, paedophilia and incest are very very different. Homosexuality doesn't hurt anybody any more than heterosexuality does (barring any religious and moral objections). Bestiality often injures either the person or the animal. That makes it bad. That and the fact that animals can't give consent, but that's something different... Paedophilia is bad because, put quite simply, a child cannot give consent and it almost always hurts the child, physically and/or mentally. Incest is bad because of the mutant offspring it produces, but ultimately, what goes on in between two consenting individuals is none of my business... If you want to f*ck your mom, go right ahead. I just don't want to know about it, and try not to have a child.

william, shut up.

A disease is an abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions, associated with specific symptoms and signs.

Homosexuality impairs no bodily function. Their body works perfectly fine. Nothing wrong with their normal bodily functions. Disorder, maybe:

Mental disorder or mental illness are terms used to refer to a psychological or physiological pattern that occurs in an individual and is usually associated with distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture.

But that sure-as-fucking-hell is not a reason to deny them ANYTHING. I mean, you don't deny people with ADHD or depression the right to get married because they're "unnatural". And quite frankly, I think that our society would be less natural if we didn't have abnormalities in it. "Unnatural" things are a part of humanity. And you could say "Oh, well since they have some sort of disorder they should get help for it." but that would just do more harm than good. Imagine the psychological and physical side effects of being forced to take medication for something that doesn't need to be fixed. Personally, I think that drugging yourself to overcome something like that is far more unnatural than your natural "disorder".

I think some of the opinions expressed in this thread dont really reflect much of an understanding of human sexuality. We tend to assume that humans do gender in a binary fashion, but there are a number of instances in which this is not quite the case. Though these things are starting to change/have changed as a result of a more western influence, there are a number of cultures where there are more than 2 sexes. Furthermore, it becomes increasingly possible to have relationships where 2 biological males are in a sexual relationship, which is seen locally as non-taboo. Likewise there are relationships in which biologically opposite sex partners are in a relationship that is seen as taboo.

The point is, a lot of our assumptions are being seen as universal, when evidence would seem to suggest that they in fact are not. To use this framework to shape our understanding of the issue in question, will therefore shape our answer in potentially an incorrect fashion, which would lead to further and unnecessary discrimination and stigmatization.