Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Batman

Obama wins election

Recommended Posts

BA, I know you enjoy a good debate, and also that you are very firm in your opinions. I think it would be preferable if you ackowledged that your statements are opinion however, and not assume that they are fact.

... but if everyone was homosexual, then birth rates would be greatly reduced... and that goes against the notion that part of the reason all organisms exist is to propagate themselves; that reads more like a defect than something "beneficial" (much like two parents with the sickle-cell gene will have dead offspring),

This statement is in fact quite untrue. Two parents with the sickle cell gene will produce a child with a 1 in 4 chance of having the disease. Huge difference.

The point I was trying to make is that homosexuality is a defect

Another of your facts? I find this statement to be quite offensive actually. It is your opinion, and while it may be shared by some others, it is certainly not shared by all. Since the possibility of individuals other than myself being offended by it are rather high, I'd appreciate it if any similar comments be made as statements of opinion only, please.

Blind people - and other handicapped people - are given special rights due to their handicap. So what homosexuals face isn't really about civil rights, but special rights.

You have just insulted all handicapped and gay individuals (by comparing being gay to being handicapped). The rights the handicapped are afforded (no one has given them anything), are rights that were guaranteed by the Constitution.

(although mebbe you're of those Renaissance men who knows just about everything under the sun).

:shades:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This statement is in fact quite untrue. Two parents with the sickle cell gene will produce a child with a 1 in 4 chance of having the disease. Huge difference.

My fault. I should've paraphrased it as the chance of inheriting a lethal disease.

Another of your facts? I find this statement to be quite offensive actually. It is your opinion, and while it may be shared by some others, it is certainly not shared by all. Since the possibility of individuals other than myself being offended by it are rather high, I'd appreciate it if any similar comments be made as statements of opinion only, please.

I find it just as offensive to compare races other than white to homosexuals in the context of this subject. Being of a race other than white does not make one like a homosexual. Since it has not been determined what causes it, this comparison is also a matter of opinion (and a wrong one at that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it just as offensive to compare races other than white to homosexuals in the context of this subject. Being of a race other than white does not make one like a homosexual. Since it has not been determined what causes it, this comparison is also a matter of opinion (and a wrong one at that).

with the difference that I meant it as a positive thing :)

I apologise if you got that wrong...

Since it has not been determined what causes it, this comparison is also a matter of opinion (and a wrong one at that).

I thought it was a fact that homosexuality is a "defect"? :shades:

PS actually I wanted to stay out of this thread after my last post :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Mick Jagger once observed (as well as a fact among most mammal species during occasional immature activity,) "Most boys first sexual experience is with other boys." That was true in my case as well. Had I been profoundly impacted at that time or continued to pursue that emerging pubescent course of activity, I could be indulging in homosexual activity today. Was I born that way? No. Was an attempt (albeit innocently) made to indoctrinate me in that activity? Yes. But I matured socially and physically beyond homosex's initial "thrill."

Like an abortion policy in the USA that started out as a way to avoid 200 "back alley" deaths of women each year and now has blossomed into an industry whereby 500 thousand women are lost each year; a policy seeking to accomodate the small percentage of homosexuals who were born into the wrong gender and cannot help feeling trapped in the wrong body will also serve the majority of homosexuals who have made a lifestyle choice to not move past their first homosexual encounters, as policies grow to accomodate wider and wider economic privledges - ironically among the highest per capita income group of individuals in America.

Most Americans have come to accept that what is done in the privacy of one's bedroom is fine, as long as it does not involve minors. I really feel most, if asked, would approve homosexuals living next door to them in the same manner as hetrosexual couples, quietly adding their personalities to society while maintaining a descreet sex life within their bedrooms. And isn't that what the homosexual community really ever wanted? They have arrived! But to legislate homosexuality as on a socio-economic par with the foundational tenet of civilization, the male/female relationship, is to invite future system manipulation, easily executed marriage fraud for financial gain, as well as misconceptions about societal goals among the young and impressionable who may be approaching their pubescence.

Tolerance toward homosexuals should be promoted by a responsible government, homosexuality should not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the government should be "promoting" anything except equal rights for everyone. When every single heterosexual marriage is free from scandal then people can begin to discuss whether or not a same sex union compromises the traditional definition. Because I don't think a 50% divorce rate was part of that. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or the heterosexual lifestyle, it would seem. Except for the whole "they can't reproduce" argument, all the other arguments can be made about the institution of marriage in general. Abolish all of it or abolish none of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just something about the whole gay marriage thing..

I'm sure you guys know that prop 8's stance was to protect marriage, as something between one man and one woman. And I'm sure you know that most of prop 8's funding came from Mormons. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Mormons famous for bigamy? Maybe they meant between one man and an a**load of women.

On a happier note, prop 1A passed!

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which was 1A?

What exactly is this 'traditional' marriage that we're trying to preserve? Because it seems that most faiths have a historical backdrop of bigamy and incest, seeing how a majority of anti-homosexual attitudes come from that front should we re-define marriage to hold more 'traditional' 'biblical' paramaters such as being able to hook up with 10 wives at a time and your daughter?

Not to cast stones in my glass house, but it feels like a lot of the arguments being thrown out against homosexual marriage have an air of contempt for homosexual people, that someone is a 'better person' simply because they enjoy the 'proper' hole.

Seems awfully... I dunno, hateful.

Life should be decent for everyone, if someone honestly doesn't care about passing on their genetic seed (gasp, it happens, regardless if we are just replicating strands of DNA and that is our only purpose, if someone doesn't want to believe that, why force them? Exactly why some d-bag in a white button up and slacks shouldn't force everyone to believe that there is an invisible man in the sky and we should all act accordingly) and they happen to love a man, really love a man (or a woman who happens to love a woman I don't wanna be sexist in my anti-homophobe rant) and that is the only time they have felt that 1 in a million connection, you know, that feeling that's a million cliches rolled into one, their heart is all a flutter, they feel ten feet tall, so on, and so forth and they want to spend the duration of their life with that person (at that point; whether those feelings will last and the marriage survive is moot, seeing as the heterosexual marriage success rate is not exactly stellar, a 50% divorce rate or so, and think of all those wonderful loveless marriages that drag on for decades) then who really has the high ground and moral authority to declare their bond unsacred in the notso iron clad institution of marriage?

Furthermore, if we wanna take this argument down the 'what's to prevent someone from marrying a horse or a comic book' road.....

first off

Well, it's good to know that you find a homosexual to be worth about as much as a goat.

Secondly

I'll take us down this road.... so what, if an even smaller percentage of the population wishes to marry a duck or a coffee cup, let 'em, if they don't feel the need for romance or procreation, who's it gonna hurt? I'm pretty sure that by and large our population will continue to make babies, and that a large majority will still seek to find romance (and a large majority of that large majority will be heterosexual... still!)

and humanity will live on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

w.r.t. to comparing homosexual marriage to marrying animals, inanimate objects etc:

Like sex... marriage should be between two consenting adults. If you manage to find an animal that consents to being married to the person who consents to being married to the animal, sure - why not?

But since you'll never know if an animal or a coffee cup 'consents' - it is unlikely that this would be legalised ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like sex... marriage should be between two consenting adults. If you manage to find an animal that consents to being married to the person who consents to being married to the animal, sure - why not?

But since you'll never know if an animal or a coffee cup 'consents' - it is unlikely that this would be legalised ever.

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lordy lordy lordy

I have known homosexual people in my life who were far more dedicated to each other than many, many heterosexuals couples. And oh - none of them that I have known have been involved in abusive relationships, like so many heterosexual couples I have known.

My cousin is a shining example of one who was "born" hetero, got herself into two terribly abusive marriages, and after those experiences she decided she would never again allow a man to have that sort of power over her. She is now in a same-sex relationship, and couldn't be happier.

I'm all for it, and I fail to see why two people who are dedicated to one another cannot be allowed the same rights as two other people - one who beats up and abuses the other, and are obviously not terribly dedicated to each other - are allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×