Homosexual marriage - do you agree?

[QuickSilverD]

What came first; the chicken or the egg?

Come on everyone knows that: the egg, just kidding. The purpose of that was to show you how right heterosexuality is.

purpuse/meaning. Potayto/Potahto.

"creatures are born with the sole intention to life for living sake" is a sweet way of saying "The meaning of life is to live." That doesn't really get you anywhere

. Biology / Philosophy

I can't prove you wrong, just as you can't prove yourself right. OPINIONS cannot be FACTS. You can use facts to support your opinions, but your opinion cannot BE fact, because opinions are held by the individual.

Why are we even debating then?

So now you're going back on your word? You've just been kicking and screaming about Homosexuality being caused by nurture and now you're saying that no one can know. As much as I LIKE the new viewpoint, as it is less biased, it seems like you're trying to take a back-door out of the heat.

I’m still inclined to believe in nurture, but since I can’t prove it.

Trying, but failing. Look, if you really don't get this opinions/facts thing, then ask me next time you're on MSN, 'kay?

reinstall MSN messenger then.

Oaft. Now you're calling others opinions ridiculous? You're not doing wonders for your street cred here.

Ok let me take another look at that “ridiculous” idea, ok let’s see “men are not suppose to mate with women”, “men are not supposed to mate with women” uhmp, yeah you’re right is not ridiculous at all

You're not right. You're not wrong. I'm not right. I'm not wrong. Omni isn't right. Omni isn't wrong. Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of this monotonous argument.

if we are neither right nor wrong, what are we?

 

[OmniscientOnus]

if we are neither right nor wrong, what are we?

Opinionated.

We need another thread for us three to get into (QuickSilverD, Riku, and of course myself OmniscientOnus (yes, Omni is acceptable, but onus is just mean)). We've gotten so far off topic on this one that we're basically only debating about our opinions of each other's opinion, and not really at all about homosexuality anymore, let alone homosexual marriage, which we haven't touched base on for, oh, I'd guess 15 or so pages. Another good, constant poster, wouldn't be too bad either.

 

[itsgalf]

I didn't read the rest of this thread...because it's 39 pages long. I don't agree in homosexual marriage. If we were all gay, humans would be extinct. I saw some slutty women on Oprah that were talking about how after 4 years of marriage they all of the sudden realized they were gay and started cheating on their husbands. It's just a way to justify cheating on the spouse. VERY slutty

 

[OmniscientOnus]

I didn't read the rest of this thread...because it's 39 pages long. I don't agree in homosexual marriage. If we were all gay, humans would be extinct. I saw some slutty women on Oprah that were talking about how after 4 years of marriage they all of the sudden realized they were gay and started cheating on their husbands. It's just a way to justify cheating on the spouse. VERY slutty

Oh man... you really should read the rest of this thread. You'll save us all the trouble of having to debate all of that over again. Mind you, a good portion of those 39 pages was created by 3 or 4 different people. Do we really have to do that again?

 

[Spyforshinra]

you could pick out the most important parts?

Well my two cents state that if people want it, they should be able to have it.

I've no problem if people do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't bother me

 

[Tristis Miles]

I'll try to make this short and sweet. Thanks to Omni, Rhea, Lady Aerith, and Riku for making that a little more possible

It really dosn't make sense to me why they'd want to get married anyway... Just so they could say they're more than 'domestic partners'?

Why do heterosexuals want to get married anyway? Why does marriage even exist, and people go along with it? I'll use Riku's and QSD's word here: I 'assume' for the same reasons.

I also feel that both a mother and a father bring certain parenting qualities into a family and that a child needs both to live normally. I'm not at all saying that anyone without one parent is going to be ... anti-social, or more likely to be imprisoned - more that they will be deprived of the qualities which either the mother or father brings.

And to that you've to observe what you consider the "qualities which either the mother or father brings." You're referring to gender roles, yes? If so, homosexuality isn't what your focus is. I've said earlier in this topic that everyone possesses 'masculine' and 'feminine' qualities. A homosexual couple for parents merely means there's different genitalia: the child won't develop in a 'less-ideal' way because of this: rather develop according to the personality and viewpoints set across. (Gender roles aren't fogged, basically.) So regardless of sex, the child could still have what's considered a maternal and paternal figure.
---
On a less professional note, Lady Aerith back on page 30: You go girl. lol.
---

Originally Posted by Meikyousisui
and the fact that they are always kissing in front of other not gay ppl
Yet straight people are allowed to kiss wherever they want and no-one gives a damn - its something called freedom.

And to add on, isn't it rather odd that heterosexuals go further than kissing (to the point of practically swallowing each other's tongues and well, you get the idea) and although disturbing as this is, isn't made as big of a deal as a mere kiss for homosexuals? Also, how do you think a homosexual feels when they see this happening?

show me one marriage couple, just one that don’t have sexual relations.

That's as easy as pie, because I'm fairly sure you know and merely have forgotten in your debatable excitement that not everyone is able to, or wants to. As Lady Aerith has explained, marriage means a lot of things. It may mean just sex for you, but you can't apply it like everyone shares that opinion. So to show you? Okay. A heterosexual man, me. One day yes, I'd like to get married and share my life with someone, but we won't have sex as that's simply not possible. So tell me, should I not be allowed to marry because I can't get a woman pregnant? Am I worthless for that reason?

soon you start see people marrying with their cousins, their dogs, and even their OS

I recall you mentioning this back awhile, and another proved its major difference to homosexuality. I also recall, correct me if I'm wrong, that you supplied no reply to that opposition. In short, the things you have mentioned are harmful, whereas a homosexual relationship does not produce those negatives. With no link for connection, the acceptance of homosexual marriage will not spiral into said chaos forms.

1) the U.S. was founded on Christian principles

Unless I'm more out of it in Global class than I thought, the U.S. was established as a sort of sanctuary - free from religious persecution. You had all sorts of groups coming to America to practice their own religion without someone slugging them for it, and it's determinedly trying to run in a secular fashion. Majority as Christian, yes, but in no way founded on their principles.

Oh no, no, no, I was not being sexist, this is how we men are, and I just say it didn’t disgust me as oppose as a male-male kiss, but I still hold my believe that homosexuality is ethically immoral and that gay or lesbians couples are not suitable to raise children.

As a man, I take offense to what you've said here. Sorry, but I don't 'get off' on watching two females interact. Please keep your personal interests in application to yourself - don't set them on others.
---
I like your example on bisexuals, Omni. It somewhat coincides with my previously explained ideal that homosexuality may perhaps be nature's way of controlling human population.
---

The fact that there is more gay people now than before only confirms that homosexuality is nurture thus decidable and preventable.

Agreed with Rhea's response to this, for she shares my exact thought. It's uncertain whether there's more homosexuals in existence now than before, as earlier homosexuality was strictly suppressed. Now that it's more out in the open, individuals may feel more comfortable and less afraid to reveal their orientation.

because what is natural can usually be predicted, it follow certain rules, it can be explained, you know the drill.

I thought the opposite, actually. Check out chemistry and science altogether. There are rules yes, but a lot of annoying exceptions to remember, wouldn't you agree? And if all that was natural could be explained, then we wouldn't be debating now, would we?

 

[sora]

i agree as long as im not affected in some way everyone has rights

 

[Just_Devyn]

wow, gj tristis, thats pretty well a kick in the face to all nay sayers on the... oh, i duno, earth.

 

[Davey Gaga]

wow, gj tristis, thats pretty well a kick in the face to all nay sayers on the... oh, i duno, earth.

What, in good grief, are you talking about? Please explain what you mean by this further.

 

[Misty]

sora and Just, please extend your posting to a reasonable degree, take for example, any of the posts which have contributed greatly to a threads discussion. One liners aren't allowed in here, as they are seen as spam.

 

[Tifa AC]

Okay lets see if i can write this right.
You cant controll your feelings,many peoples now for many many many years born with the feeling they should be the other Sex,so why not.
my uncle was a Homosexuall and he was one of the most right persons i have known in my life.
Also i know many womans they has got in there minds how would it be to be with a nother woman,are they now homosexuall,i dont think so.
so what i like to say okay me to i believe in god.
Listen we all meet one day our Judge and if its so bad what they so he will tell them.We are not the judge for them se havent got the right Judgeing them.

 

[Lucifer Morningstar]

William Blake once defined the three most oppressive influences on an individual as The Church, The State, and Marriage. Not far from the mark at all. Strange considering he had a fairly normal marriage, all things considered.

At any rate, seems that those who are openly homosexuals suffer enough oppression at the hands of their fellow man and woman, so if they wish to oppress themselves by Blake's definition, by all means let them says I.

 

[Cecily]

Of course gay men and women should be able to get married. There's nothing wrong with it. I mean, for everyone who thinks it's "gross" or "abominable," it wouldn't be right for a gay person to tell a straight man and women they're "gross," would it?

I actually had a problem with this in high school. One of my friends was afraid to tell me he's gay because he thought I'd beat him with a Bible or something. I can understand where he's coming from, but not all Christians use our religion as an excuse to hate other groups of people.

 

[TranceGenesis]

William Blake once defined the three most oppressive influences on an individual as The Church, The State, and Marriage. Not far from the mark at all. Strange considering he had a fairly normal marriage, all things considered.

At any rate, seems that those who are openly homosexuals suffer enough oppression at their hands of their fellow man and woman, so if they wish to oppress themselves by Blake's definition, by all means let them says I.

Probably why a lot of people oppress the church nowadays, people are only oppressed if they let themselves be oppressed. Like people say its whats inside that counts, but thats what people are judging others on is this day and age. Would i be saying something wrong by mentioning that this kind of conversation could be oppressing in itself?

 

[Lucid]

There are strong moral connotations associated with homosexuality, I am a firm believer in 'to each his (or her) own'. After all; if everybody were the same it would be boring. The majority of anti-minority say that what nature indended was male female intercourse to promote growth, now, whilst this is logical I find it hard to negotiate based on people who believe they are the authority on what 'nature intended'. There are enough people making babies now - bring on the fags! :]

 

[Just_Devyn]

what i meant, was that everything he said there is pretty well un-counterable.

 

[Crash]

Homosexual sex is fine. In animal populations it's nature's way of regulating overpopulation, but this says nothing about the individual's right to sexual pleasure and romantic love. Those are rights. Any attempt to subvert them is wrong as a disgusting violation of one of the deepest needs of the human soul, which is never rational. It's so irrational no one has ever even attempted to rationalise it.

That's what's disgusting, not human affection.

They say that homosexuality has a genetic cause. If so, I wonder if heterosexuality has a genetic cause. If scientists can come up with a cure for homosexuality, they can come up with a cure for heterosexuality, and sexuality altogether.

 

[Mega Girl]

There are uncountable cases of animal homosexuality, and as such I believe that what nature intended is obvious.

Do gay people have a right to cerebrate their unions? Of course they do. What is more important and to the point- do they have a right to benefit from the large privileges afforded to married heterosexual couples?

Because this is where the problem is. In the Western civilisation, married couple receive quite a bit of privileges over unmarried people. Why would people in a homosexual relationship not be allowed to receive the same benefits?

 

[QuickSilverD]

There are uncountable cases of animal homosexuality, and as such I believe that what nature intended is obvious.

Sh!t , I’ve been trying to avoid this topic! Listen there have been uncountable cases of genetic mutation like for example frameshift that ends up causing many deceases, Siamese twins, premature births, a race of intelligent animals that are destroying nature itself, just because it happens doesn’t means that it is automatically right..

 

[Davey Gaga]

More often than not, however, genetic mutations prove beneficial to at least one living organism, most likely in the same ecosystem.

Genetic faults and genetic mutations are two entirely different things, and conjoined twins are an example of a genetic fault. I do understand what you mean, though.