The Gay Marriage debate!

Aren't men and women involved here? :dunno:

It disgusts me when liberals try to confuse same sex intercourse with interracial intercourse.

Humans are humans. We are the same underneath the skin. Different races can come together and produce healthy children who can in turn produce healthy children.

The races having sex isn't even like Tigers having sex with Lions but rather more like White Tigers having sex with Orange Tigers.

It's a silly comparison.

 

The comparison's made because black men are usually primarily attracted to black women with the converse being true. A preference for the other is a deviance from the norm. It's also against cultural precedents and offends some conservatives, especially among the older generation. However they still exist always have always will and it's as such, like you say it's completely natural. And doesn't hurt anyone.

I don't think it's a silly comparison at all

 

Apart from gays, right?

Again, you take the liberty to define what is right and wrong yourself.

You say: homosexuals are as perverted as two brothers that fuck each other, because they can't have children.

'A liberal' says: same sex intercourse is as acceptable as interracial intercourse, since they clearly want to do it and they don't harm anyone.


I don't see the difference here. You just have to choose your value: is it equality and human rights that you refer, or is it to follow nature's purpose, whatever that is.

The real reason people don't like homosexuals is the same as why they don't like handicapped people: they are different and they give you this uncomfortable feeling. Since it is not politically correct to judge people based on your personal disgust anymore, you have to come up with other arguments, be it 'common sense' (with no basis), 'naturalism', Bible or whatever stupidy

 

Hut and UGO, y'all are so wrong it's unbelievable. I'll come back to you and respond to both posts when I get a moment.

 

I never said Gays are "sub-human". I said that homosexuality is a mental disorder and that acting it out is wrong.

My basis for right and wrong tends to come first from my Christian beliefs and secondly from what makes sense from a wholistic picture. Something can be morally wrong without anyone being hurt physically, for example (IMO, naturally).

If it is proven that siblings can have healthy children in over 95% of the cases, would you accept "consentual" incest as OK since the "harm" issue is no longer in the equation? Consentual Polygamy too?

Interracial intercourse is only made an issue...because society has emphasized the distinction between the races. However same sex isn't an issue because of society it's because nature (the way we are designed, the purpose of sex, and the usual tendency between the sexes) suggests that heterosex is the norm. Big difference.

It's comforting for you to think that my position is based only on "stupidy" but rather YOUR position is based on lack of morality and a deliberate self delusionment that it is somehow a "normal" practice. Liberals try to make any and everything acceptable.

Like I said before, if this trend continues, one day men and women would be indistinguishable from each other on first appearances. That'll be a sad day.

 

The reason why the races are USUALLY attracted to people within the same race is merely because:

a) Tradionally people of a certain race lived together and so that was all they knew
b) Psychologically we are pre-disposed to copy what our parents have done: women look for men like their fathers and men look for women lik etheir mothers
c) Going out of your race is usually frowned upon

However...men are sexually attracted to women of all races and vice versa. Men who ONLY like women of their race are in the small minority.


However....put men together with women in 50-50 proportions ...oh wait it's already like that....and you wouldn't see an equal portion of women wanting women as opposed to men or men wanting men as opposed to women. It is the small minority that wants same sex....because that small minority are deviants....whether born that way or otherwise.

So yes, it is a silly comparison.

 

It's nice to say Sly's acute retardation on full display, as per usual.

This halfwit had the blind, dumb stupidity to favourably compare his intelligence to mine.

God I hate stupid people.

 

Firstly, Mental disorder is a condition which creates distress or disability. Gays don't tend to feel that anus adoration does.

Also, as anecdotal evidence against bum love being 'mental illness' there are hunter gatherer tribes recorded in long term studies without any diagnosable mental illness of any description. Conversely the variety and scope of mental disorder continues to increase with our technological and cultural progress. As our lives become more complex, so do our memetic structures & with it the scope for dissociative schisms as we develop. I'd guess diet/pollutants plays a part, too, but the causes are neither here nor there.

The crux is that bum love has been recorded across many of these same hunter gatherer tribes. That that strongly suggests it's always existed (chiming with all the evidence saying it is has genetic causes), and predates mental disorder.

 

I still can't people he called it a "mental" disorder ::

The guy has the IQ of a 6 year old.

You're a worthless, braindead maggot, Stafford.

 

See what I mean. You're so easy to hurt in a discussion. These are the rabblings of an insecure child with limited ability to express himself. This discussion is beyond your level sonny, leave the room so us adults can chat. There's a good boy.

 

Hurt? Are you kidding? From what? ::

I'm just enjoying watching you expose yourself as the worthless retard that you are. There's a reason you're alone in your views here, because you're the least intelligent, most backward person on the board.

 

It may have genetic causes...just as killers are born and not made (so they say). But it is a mental disorder that can potentially cause harm in that if this "brain disease" spreads the future of the human race could be in danger. People may have had bumlove urges from the dawn of time as indeed some have had urges to murder since then also.

Again the issue is whether or not it is right or wrong...not whether it always existed or is genetic or not.

 

:giggle:

Or because I'm the only one that has the cojones to stand up for good old fashioned (no ramonza) principles in this immoral age.

 

"Brain disease" :: ::

Maybe someone should just try and formulate the right medicine then Sly? To combat homosexuality?

You're hopelessly, hopelessly stupid.

 

Some drugs, counselling and prayer can indeed reverse his unfortunate condition.

Stupid, however, I am not. And you know this too, even though you have the smarts of an ape.

 

I wouldn't go as far as to say I'm homophobic, but the thought of man on man sex is actually a bit repulsive to me. Not to say it's "wrong" but it's not something I can understand the appeal of.

The difference is I'm a modern, intelligent, sensitive human being and I acknowledge their rights to be the same as a heterosexual human.

And if they want to put their penises in each other's anuses, and even get married, so be it. What's the problem?

 

But you miss the point of the comparison. It's not between the size of the minorities, it's of the way a (natural, non-harmful) minority position gets condemned by (usually) old, bigoted people in the name of 'traditional values' and fuck all else.

Which you continue to validate with your continued failure to justify why it's deviant/immoral/pathological, whatsoever.

 

And to think it's now 2012.

 

I wont debate this with you because unlike guys like Hut or Ugo you don't have the mental resources to formulate an intelligent and mature discussion.

But I will say this in response:

I don't advocate making bumming illegal. I don't advocate taking away any rights from the bummers, I'm saying that homosexuals "getting married" is like saying "women getting vasectomies".

The definition is what it is..and it EXCLUDES same sex unions.

 

In the Abrahamic-Western Tradition. No logical contradiction, just precedent.

 

ok. So why is brother-brother sex deviant if the size of the minority is irrelevant? If it is "non-harmful"? Why is it pathological?

I've already justified it:

Sex is designed for a man and a woman. Penis is not meant for bottom, it's meant for vagina. Sex is ultimately for the continuation of the species..the "fun" aspect of it creating the natural inclination to do it to reach that end. There is male and female gender for a reason.

That's my justification (as well as my Christian beliefs of course...but I wont bash you with a bible since you don't believe in it).

You simply don't agree with my justification and that's fine. i don't agree with you either. But don't sugest that I don't have a reason aside from 'traditional values'.

That's incorrect.

 

Yes but whoever invented marriage also defined it. The bummers need to invent their own institution and call it whatever they want. no one is stopping them from doing this. But there is no point in them trying to adopt the Abrahamic tradition and then change its definition. That's ridiculous. Like i said it's like pork lovers trying to change the definition of Halal or Kosher to suit their group.

Why fight to adopt a tradition that excludes their lifestyle and then change it.

It's fucked.

 

The Jews didn't invent marriage

 

Marriage was not invented by church, similar unions have existed before, and they exist now outside the church. Just the fact that church took over in the Middle Age by killing everybody who disagreed with them is not a reason to let them define words these days when, unlike then, actual laws overcome church's orders

 

Whoever. I don't care who. But the definition is one man one woman.

 

Was marriage invented by Homosexuals for their unholy unions..long before the church started?

 

I days in the distant past long before the church came into being...did man and man come together before a religious body and with witnesses to declare their union before all. Was it called "marriage" in whatever language ("sumerian" or whatever)?

 

No. Different kinds of unions have existed for long but whoever invented it is not important.

What is important is that the type of union that our culture sees as the most deep and important is called a marriage. And if we recognize that all people are equal in front of law, then all people should have the similar right to form such union.

And before you say it: all people are not equal as of now. For example people under 18 years can not form a marriage, since as a society we have decided that they are not 'mature' enough. Family members can not form one, because as a society we have decided that encouraging such behavior can be bad for the rest of the society.

Some of the rules have been changed during the times. For example black people are allowed now to be members of a church and marry both black and white people, which hasn't been the case for long.

So, we end up with the question, is there a reason to discriminate gay people as of now. If they are as worthy as everybody else, then give them the same right that black and poor people once got. If not, keep hating them

 

As before, shagging your brother would be a cause for concern since there's so little precedent of dudes wanting wanting to bum-rush their brother without co-arising mentalism. The same doesn't apply to gays.

So it's unnatural therefor it's wrong. Leaving aside that being a formal logical fallacy, the premise is also against the weight of evidence.

 

It has nothing to do with discrimination...from MY point of view. I'm saying that the defintion of Marriage is "one man and one woman". If gays want to live together I don't see anyone stopping this. If they want to have rights of passing on property or whatever..so be it. If they want to change their last names to be that of their "partners" (in crime) so be it. But them fighting for a word that is RESERVED for "hetero-union" is simply pathetic. I like pork but I'm not going to fight to make pork Halal. And pork lovers like myself shouldn't feel discriminated against.

What "right" do gays not have? WHAT?

Listen....the typical Law firm requires it's lawyers to wear suits...and usually the suits have to be dark. If someone wants to join that law firm they understand that they have to adhere to those rules. If they don't like wearing suits, then they shouldn't join a law firm. If you want to label the firm as being prejudice against people who don't wish to wear suits or against those that may have a genetic condition that doesn't allow them to wear suits...then that's up to you. I think the firm is justified in maintaining it's dresscode if it wants. If a person doesn't want to wear a suit or can't wear a suit then the law firm isn't for them.

No one is stopping a homosexual person from joining the marriage institution. All they are saying is that if you want to get married...find yourself a person of the opposite sex. If you don't want to do that...then marriage isn't for you.