Conquer Club

hecter wrote:

Blitzaholic wrote:

gryffin13 wrote:I want legitimate answers to this: what is a logical reason for not allowing gay marriage other than personal religious beliefs. The only argument I've ever heard is "the bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman." I want to hear rationale for not allowing gay rights.

BTW I am writing this from an American perspective, I am not sure the laws in many other countries, but feel free to respond from your own perspectives

you want an opinion, i mean some say all homosexual activity leads to sexual diseases more often then it does hetrosexuals, i need the statistics, but if you want an opinion of what some think, it may be it is high risk behavior that hinders health and that there is a majority of gay and lesbians that have a much higher rate of suicidal ideation, role confusion, depression and substance abuse. you asked and many americans feel this way, i would need to ponder on it more if you wanted my opinion personally.

Monogamous homosexual activity is just as dangerous and heterosexual monogamous activity. And that's what we're talking about, isn't it? Monogamous sexual behaviour (marriage).

good point hecter, the problem is that heterosexual can cause life and death, homosexuality only creates death, no life, this is the dilemma and why many are conflicted on this sensitive topic.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Blitzaholic wrote:
you want an opinion, i mean some say all homosexual activity leads to sexual diseases more often then it does hetrosexuals, i need the statistics, but if you want an opinion of what some think, it may be it is high risk behavior that hinders health and that there is a majority of gay and lesbians that have a much higher rate of suicidal ideation, role confusion, depression and substance abuse.

Right...


see the problem with this is that we're talking about the marriage. I doubt gays who marry get a lot of sexual diseases. And as for the fact there may be a higher rate of suicidal ideation (whatever that means), role confusion (huh?), depression (oh man I'd like to see proof relating this to the homosexual behaviour and not discrimination and hate) and substance abuse (same), gryffin asked for logical reasons.

hmm well they are logical, particularly man on man penetrative sex as it often results in tearing of the anus and greater likelihood of blood being present.

Of course much mixed gender sex involves anal sex and some gay men do not have penetrative sex either but i would say it is more prevalent for male on male.

As to depression, confusion and substance abuse etc. I would imagine that despair must have been fairly prevalent for anyone isolated and ostracised by mainstream society. Thankfully this is being reduced now but 30 years ago and less, same sex was not accepted at all in the mainstream.

This is chicken and egg; only when society goes through the tough transition to complete acceptance of same gender proclivities will any of these things be removed completely. However they probably are a sad reality.

Blitzaholic wrote:good point hecter, the problem is that heterosexual can cause life and death, homosexuality only creates death, no life, this is the dilemma and why many are conflicted on this sensitive topic.

Homosexuality creates love, and I think that's enough to give it merit. Besides, you're talking about gays like they're guns. This is obviously not the case.

jiminski wrote:
hmm well they are logical, particularly man on man penetrative sex as it often results in tearing of the anus and greater likelihood of blood being present.

That's not disease, that's just injury. It is indeed more likely to get and STD from it, if you don't use protection.

As to depression, confusion and substance abuse etc. I would imagine that despair must have been fairly prevalent for anyone isolated and ostracised by mainstream society. Thankfully this is being reduced now but 30 years ago and less, same sex was not accepted at all in the mainstream.

That is not logical reasoning to ban gay marriage, to me that is a logical reason to not ban it.

This is chicken and egg; only when society goes through the tough transition to complete acceptance of same gender proclivities will any of these things be removed completely. However they probably are a sad reality.

Yeah that's what I meant by my post. I don't really doubt it all, but they just don't support an anti-gay stance.

Blitzaholic wrote:
good point hecter, the problem is that heterosexual can cause life and death, homosexuality only creates death, no life, this is the dilemma and why many are conflicted on this sensitive topic.

As hecter said, it creates love.

And besides, I know many gay people who have adopted kids or had one of their own. (Well one parent obviously...)

And are you saying people should have kids?

Calm down there Snorri, did you read my post or are you too busy trying to swat the bee in your bonnet?

If there is blood involved then disease is more likely be passed and to mutate.
there was perhaps in the post sexual gender revolution a great deal of promiscuity and un-protected sex .. freedom is a pisser if you still have to wear wellies on your willies!

in order to correctly argue we must try to understand the counter arguments 'logic'.
Whether we agree or not i would say that they are logical arguments.

Blitzaholic wrote:

the guy who started this thread ask for opinions i think, and all norse did was give his opinion, and he is right, millions of americans have this view that it influences individual identity, others disagree, but millions hold this viewpoint, norse is entitled to his, so cut him some slack.

Thanks blitz

ya know, these liberals really give me a hard time.

Norse wrote:

Blitzaholic wrote:

the guy who started this thread ask for opinions i think, and all norse did was give his opinion, and he is right, millions of americans have this view that it influences individual identity, others disagree, but millions hold this viewpoint, norse is entitled to his, so cut him some slack.

Thanks blitz

ya know, these liberals really give me a hard time.

Oh come on - you're cock blocking millions of americans here.

Besides, your life is completely unaffected by gay marriage, yet you've got to come in and whine and whimper about it. What does that say about yourself?

unriggable wrote:
Oh come on - you're cock blocking millions of americans here.

Besides, your life is completely unaffected by gay marriage, yet you've got to come in and whine and whimper about it. What does that say about yourself?

Unwinnable, what you must realise, and realise soon, is that if you want to play in the playpen of the devil, then you are going to "whimper and whine" yourself eventually.

If you can point me to a a section where I have "whimpered or whined" myself, then please feel free to do so. What you must realise, child, is that you have neither the capacity, nor the courage to take me on in a head on debate.

Gay marraige doesnt affect me? no, it doesnt. Does it affect you? is this why you're getting so "hot" about it?

Let me ask you a roundabout question:

What does it matter to you what I think about Gay marriage?

jiminski wrote:Calm down there Snorri, did you read my post or are you too busy trying to swat the bee in your bonnet?

I was quite calm in my response.

If there is blood involved then disease is more likely be passed and to mutate.

I know, but that's not even what this thread is about. It's about gay couples wanting to marry each other. And really who cares if they marry and give each other diseases?

in order to correctly argue we must try to understand the counter arguments 'logic'.
Whether we agree or not i would say that they are logical arguments.

They are not logical because: A.) They don't deal with gay marriage B.) They try to twist the logic to fit they're stance.

The problem with the argument is that they're not anti-gay. Because they make the problem worse if we continue like it.

Norse wrote:
Gay marraige doesnt affect me? no, it doesnt. Does it affect you? is this why you're getting so "hot" about it?

Let me ask you a roundabout question:

What does it matter to you what I think about Gay marriage?

I'll tell you why. The reason it is not allowed in the US is because of people like you. Each person gets a vote and they all cast them using the same flawed logic you use and therefore deprive people rights.

If you are trying to tell me that we should not care about the rights of a minority then there is no use even trying to talk to you. If thats how people always were we would still have slavery.

They already have CUC, why do we give them marriage? Marriage is an institution, and it is a social benefit, accorded to couples who may have children so they may raise them more easily. let's turn the question around,it isn't should gays be allowed to marry, but why should gays be allowed to marry, and I see no reason.

Napoleon Ier wrote:They already have CUC, why do we give them marriage? Marriage is an institution, and it is a social benefit, accorded to couples who may have children so they may raise them more easily. let's turn the question around,it isn't should gays be allowed to marry, but why should gays be allowed to marry, and I see no reason.

Because they don't have less rights than heterosexuals have?

I know you object to it based on religious grounds, but those are not a good enough reason, especially when you don't live in a theocracy.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:They already have CUC, why do we give them marriage? Marriage is an institution, and it is a social benefit, accorded to couples who may have children so they may raise them more easily. let's turn the question around,it isn't should gays be allowed to marry, but why should gays be allowed to marry, and I see no reason.

Because they don't have less rights than heterosexuals have?

I know you object to it based on religious grounds, but those are not a good enough reason, especially when you don't live in a theocracy.

Marriage isn't a right, it is a social advantage given to those who could potentially bear children and lives their lives together. Gays can't have children. Why do I want to have society give them a benefit they shouldn't have?

Also, your whole attitude of "gays have right s" is fraudulent. Gays do not exist. We live on a broad spectrum of sexuality,and some people are leaningmore to one side than the other. No one is saying more-gay-leaners can't marry. Of course they can! Just not someone of the same sex. They have just the same rights as everyone else. Yes, you might argue, thatsa right which is unlikely ever to come and benefit them.

Well, some people aren't benefited as much by some rights than others. That's life.

gryffin13 wrote:

Norse wrote:
Gay marraige doesnt affect me? no, it doesnt. Does it affect you? is this why you're getting so "hot" about it?

Let me ask you a roundabout question:

What does it matter to you what I think about Gay marriage?

I'll tell you why. The reason it is not allowed in the US is because of people like you. Each person gets a vote and they all cast them using the same flawed logic you use and therefore deprive people rights.

If you are trying to tell me that we should not care about the rights of a minority then there is no use even trying to talk to you. If thats how people always were we would still have slavery.

Gryfin, little miss ignorance..

Are you not going to reply to my last post to you? I'll remind you of it

gryffin13 wrote:
This is laughable. You are insulting someone's intelligence by misusing words! Real Smart! Look up literally in the dictionary and tell me if you think you used it correctly. Do you think your conversation is actually like talking to a brick wall? Literally means that what you say is actually true, and I have read the post and what snorri said was not an exact echo, of what you previously wrote. I suggest you learn what words mean before insulting people's intelligence.

norse wrote:Ouch, bit of a clanger here eh? It is called "a figure of speech"...they are used fairly often as melodramatically making points.

Maybe you are taking these figures of speech...um....too literally? maybe?

However, since we're all being little pedantic autistic brats today...

You state "we are having a conversation"..now how can we be having a conversation when we are not verbally communicating with each other? Maybe "dialogue" may be a better word for this.

Here is an online dictionary for you

Also, FYI:
Hypocrite
Cunt

Oh my, made you look a little silly there...were you hoping to avoid these statements?

Ha!

PUSSY

Napoleon Ier wrote:They already have CUC, why do we give them marriage? Marriage is an institution, and it is a social benefit, accorded to couples who may have children so they may raise them more easily. let's turn the question around,it isn't should gays be allowed to marry, but why should gays be allowed to marry, and I see no reason.

I'm not quite sure what a CUC is, but I assume it is the same as a civil union? But we do not have those in the US. Also marriage is not only for children but gays are denied the right to visit their significant other in the hospital, share taxes, and many other rights granted to heterosexuals who are married.

Also would you say that married heterosexual couples who do not intend to have children should not be granted marriage?

And would you say that homosexual couples who intend to adopt children should be granted marriage?

Norse, if you want to discuss the use of words, I would be more than happy to, but I did not want to clutter this forum with un-relevant material. If you want to talk about it feel free to open another forum and I will gladly discuss.

Also, you did not respond to my statement.

gryffin13 wrote:Norse, if you want to discuss the use of words, I would be more than happy to, but I did not want to clutter this forum with un-relevant material. If you want to talk about it feel free to open another forum and I will gladly discuss.

Also, you did not respond to my statement.

I think we already just have disscussed the use of words.

Now, You were very happy to discuss the use of words when you thought you had some high-ground, before being ripped down by myself. See, little pestering brats like yourself get my gaunt, I will forever cherish these pathetic "blow-out" statements you come out with.

I am now going to enjoy a glass of brandy, and a fat cuban cigar, whilst trailing my eyes over my success over you.

Life doesnt get much easier than this.

Happy fucking new year, you peice of shit.

What I want to know is why are we letting people of different races marry each other? Marriage is an institution to allow benefits to people who want to propagate their species. If you marry somebody of a different colour, then you are diluting your species and in effect helping it to die out. While we're at it, married people who do not propagate within 10 years should be imprisoned. Infertile people (whether by age, genetics/disease or artificial means) should not be allowed to marry. Birth control should not be sold to married persons either. Because marriage is an institution for people to propagate the species. We are giving them benefits so they can have children, nothing more.

Norse wrote:

gryffin13 wrote:Norse, if you want to discuss the use of words, I would be more than happy to, but I did not want to clutter this forum with un-relevant material. If you want to talk about it feel free to open another forum and I will gladly discuss.

Also, you did not respond to my statement.

I think we already just have disscussed the use of words.

Now, You were very happy to discuss the use of words when you thought you had some high-ground, before being ripped down by myself. See, little pestering brats like yourself get my gaunt, I will forever cherish these pathetic "blow-out" statements you come out with.

I am now going to enjoy a glass of brandy, and a fat cuban cigar, whilst trailing my eyes over my success over you.

Life doesnt get much easier than this.

Happy fucking new year, you peice of shit.

Do you just live in your own little world? I still have the high ground, I conceded nothing to your masked ad hominem statements. I assume that you don't want to continue it elsewhere because you actually don't want to , but I still will if you do.

Since I'm still happy to, doesn't that imply that I am still right?

And you again ignored my legitimate response with abusive unrelated comments.

And I don't know the word "gaunt" would you explain to me what it means? I looked it up, and no dictionary has a word "gaunt" listed that would make sense in your context.

How could this even be a legitimate debate on homosexual marriage? You've already set up the discussion so that people can't give religious reasons as logical ones.

gryffin13 wrote:I want legitimate answers to this: what is a logical reason for not allowing gay marriage other than personal religious beliefs.

Then if someone doesn't think homosexual marriage should be made legal you're making it sound like those people are against rights.

gryffin13 wrote:I want to hear rationale for not allowing gay rights.

Anyone who decides to try and discuss this with you is going to be made to look like they hate homosexuals.

CoffeeCream wrote:How could this even be a legitimate debate on homosexual marriage? You've already set up the discussion so that people can't give religious reasons as logical ones.

gryffin13 wrote:I want legitimate answers to this: what is a logical reason for not allowing gay marriage other than personal religious beliefs.

Then if someone doesn't think homosexual marriage should be made legal you're making it sound like those people are against rights.

gryffin13 wrote:I want to hear rationale for not allowing gay rights.

Anyone who decides to try and discuss this with you is going to be made to look like they hate homosexuals.

Are you implying that religious reasons are logical? Give me an example please.

And of course I am saying that being against gay marriage is anti-gay rights. Thats my WHOLE argument. If there was nothing wrong with not allowing gay marriage there would be nothing to discuss.

Napoleon Ier wrote:They already have CUC, why do we give them marriage? Marriage is an institution, and it is a social benefit, accorded to couples who may have children so they may raise them more easily. let's turn the question around,it isn't should gays be allowed to marry, but why should gays be allowed to marry, and I see no reason.

'Cause "Just as good, but different" doesn't stack up. Different schools for blacks and non-blacks is violating everyone's equality. According to the government both were equal in their education opportunities (despite the fact schools for black kids were frequently less funded...) yet it is still violating the right for everyone to be equal.

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Also, your whole attitude of "gays have right s" is fraudulent. Gays do not exist. We live on a broad spectrum of sexuality,and some people are leaningmore to one side than the other. No one is saying more-gay-leaners can't marry. Of course they can! Just not someone of the same sex. They have just the same rights as everyone else. Yes, you might argue, thatsa right which is unlikely ever to come and benefit them.

So homosexuals can marry, they just can't marry the people they want to.
Definately fair.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Well, some people aren't benefited as much by some rights than others. That's life.

So you're copping out? "Life is unfair, and since I'm in the demographic that's on top I'm not even going to consider trying to make a statement on a Risk forum that it should be any different."

gryffin13 wrote:

CoffeeCream wrote:How could this even be a legitimate debate on homosexual marriage? You've already set up the discussion so that people can't give religious reasons as logical ones.

gryffin13 wrote:I want legitimate answers to this: what is a logical reason for not allowing gay marriage other than personal religious beliefs.

Then if someone doesn't think homosexual marriage should be made legal you're making it sound like those people are against rights.

gryffin13 wrote:I want to hear rationale for not allowing gay rights.

Anyone who decides to try and discuss this with you is going to be made to look like they hate homosexuals.

Are you implying that religious reasons are logical? Give me an example please.

And of course I am saying that being against gay marriage is anti-gay rights. Thats my WHOLE argument. If there was nothing wrong with not allowing gay marriage there would be nothing to discuss.

Why marriage and not Civil Union? Civil Unions are recognized by the courts, and gays get the same rights (at times, it seems more), while leaving alone the religious sacrement of marriage. Seems like a good compromise to me.

Why should we allow gays to marry though? CivilUnion, sure why the h*ck not, but Marriage? No! That is for heterosexual couples who could potentially have/adopt a kid and deserve these social advantages.