Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Batman

Obama wins election

Recommended Posts

sorry, I won't reply to the genetical / biological arguments as I don't have that much knowledge in either department :)

as Dieter Nuhr once famously said "Wenn man keine Ahnung hat, einfach mal Fresse halten!"

(rough translation: "if you have no idea what you're talking about, just keep quiet") :grin:

You don't have to be an expert in genetics to know that homosexuality is a dead end when it comes to sexual reproduction. The statement also seems a bit flawed because you have stated ideas and facts, and I doubt you are an expert in every one of those subjects (although mebbe you're of those Renaissance men who knows just about everything under the sun).

that's the same argument you already made above: "some people said it should be like that, so it has to be like that forever"

I don't agree with this status quo, and the examples from history I made above (women voting, etc) show that laws can - and should - change over time, the same as societies change over time.

Also I could counter that while California and most other states in the US and countries in the world oppose this, there are also cases, like Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, ... that approve of the equalisation of same-sex marriages with different-sex ones...

are they wrong? is this a case of majority - most governments in the world oppose it, so every other one should too?

Every society should be able to make their own standards for what is appropriate and what is not. For most races, nationalities, and religions (and throughout history), marriage has been an institution between a man and a woman. You'll get the odd-end that allows homosexual "marriage," or polygamy, or even paedophilia, but, as I stated above, they're footnotes in the scope of real marriage. Homosexual "marriage" is unacceptable to everyone else.

that's an interesting example :)

but there is maybe one flaw in it: if "german" is 'different-sex marriage' and "arabic" is 'same-sex marriage' then the class should actually be something like "language class" or "write an essay" or something similar :)

No. I meant in the sense that German would have to be redefined in order to accomodate an entirely different language. You could do the same analogy using Arabic versus German: you cannot redefine Arabic as German or German as Arabic. It is simply invalid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have to be an expert in genetics to know that homosexuality is a dead end when it comes to sexual reproduction. The statement also seems a bit flawed because you have stated ideas and facts, and I doubt you are an expert in every one of those subjects (although mebbe you're of those Renaissance men who knows just about everything under the sun).

touché :grin:

alright, I try... I don't agree.

while homosexuality may be the dead end for the homosexuals themselves (that doesn't have to be either), it wouldn't be the dead end for reproduction of the society, because of these indirect measures and benifit groups mentioned in the article above.

Sure you could say "What if everybody would be homosexual?", but that's only theoretical... Fact is: only a small part (relatively speaking) of the population is homosexual, and since this phenomenon is not only found with humans, but also various mammals and other animals I could guess that there are evolutionary reasons for that (or at least: there are no reasons for NOT having any homosexuals in a population)

Every society should be able to make their own standards for what is appropriate and what is not. For most races, nationalities, and religions (and throughout history), marriage has been an institution between a man and a woman. You'll get the odd-end that allows homosexual "marriage," or polygamy, or even paedophilia, but, as I stated above, they're footnotes in the scope of real marriage. Homosexual "marriage" is unacceptable to everyone else.

again the status quo situation that I don't agree with anyway

For most races, nationalities and especially religions homosexuality alone (and not their marriage) was/is unacceptable... do you agree with that too? After your logic I think you would

No. I meant in the sense that German would have to be redefined in order to accomodate an entirely different language. You could do the same analogy using Arabic versus German: you cannot redefine Arabic as German or German as Arabic. It is simply invalid.

well see, imo Arabic and German are pretty much disjoint sets (linguists might disagree, maybe), but homo- and heterosexual marriages aren't...

two people living together, with certain responsibilities and certain benifits.

The only difference between the two are tradition and religion, either or both of these are the reason for the legal situation...

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

touché :grin:

alright, I try... I don't agree.

while homosexuality may be the dead end for the homosexuals themselves (that doesn't have to be either), it wouldn't be the dead end for reproduction of the society, because of these indirect measures and benifit groups mentioned in the article above.

Sure you could say "What if everybody would be homosexual?", but that's only theoretical... Fact is: only a small part (relatively speaking) of the population is homosexual, and since this phenomenon is not only found with humans, but also various mammals and other animals I could guess that there are evolutionary reasons for that (or at least: there are no reasons for NOT having any homosexuals in a population)

The point I was trying to make is that homosexuality is a defect, unlike being born a female or a race other than "white." I hope that point has come across. It is something I take insult when others bring up the past of slavery and the civil rights movement. My comments to them run along the lines of: "when were homosexuals ever enslaved for centuries? When were homosexuals ever exploited for cheap labour? When were homosexuals ever imprisoned disproportionately or given the death penalty disproportionately, hm?"

again the status quo situation that I don't agree with anyway

For most races, nationalities and especially religions homosexuality alone (and not their marriage) was/is unacceptable... do you agree with that too? After your logic I think you would

There is a difference between maintaining aberrant behaviour between consenting adults private and forcing everyone else to accept it as part of the status quo. For example, I cannot force blind people from existing, but I wouldn't want them to have the right to drive, or for society to accept their natural right to drive in the name of "equality" and "civil rights." 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.

well see, imo Arabic and German are pretty much disjoint sets (linguists might disagree, maybe), but homo- and heterosexual marriages aren't...

two people living together, with certain responsibilities and certain benifits.

The only difference between the two are tradition and religion, either or both of these are the reason for the legal situation...

:P

The language of marriage is spoken between a man and a woman. Once you change the integrants, you're speaking a whole other language. In fact, if we're going to redefine marriage, why limit it to just one other person of the same sex? We could have marriages for bisexuals where they can marry a man AND a woman. We could have homosexual polygamy and have 20 men married to each other. Why limit it to just humans? Why couldn't men marry sheep and women marry horses? Why not marry inanimate objects? No limits, no boundaries; to prevent these situations from happening would be to infringe upon the "civil rights" of the people in each hypothetical situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all in all it's a sad attitude you have there :(

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

[...]

There is a difference between maintaining aberrant behaviour between consenting adults private and forcing everyone else to accept it as part of the status quo. For example, I cannot force blind people from existing, but I wouldn't want them to have the right to drive, or for society to accept their natural right to drive in the name of "equality" and "civil rights." 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.

so if people who love each other decide to make a commitment to each other,... wait no they do that anyway... if the state legally recognises their commitment to give them eg health benifits, tax advantages, be legal parents of a child together, etc. - this affects you the same way as a blind driver on an open street would - a direct threat to your life... nice :P

The language of marriage is spoken between a man and a woman. Once you change the integrants, you're speaking a whole other language. In fact, if we're going to redefine marriage, why limit it to just one other person of the same sex? We could have marriages for bisexuals where they can marry a man AND a woman. We could have homosexual polygamy and have 20 men married to each other. Why limit it to just humans? Why couldn't men marry sheep and women marry horses? Why not marry inanimate objects? No limits, no boundaries; to prevent these situations from happening would be to infringe upon the "civil rights" of the people in each hypothetical situation.

and that's too polemic to grant a response :thumbsdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all in all it's a sad attitude you have there :(

Hey, guess what? obama also thinks gay "marriage" is wrong. That's a sad attitude he has, huh?

so if people who love each other decide to make a commitment to each other,... wait no they do that anyway... if the state legally recognises their commitment to give them eg health benifits, tax advantages, be legal parents of a child together, etc. affects you the same way as a blind driver no an open street - a direct threat to your life... nice :P

Okay, no blind driver this time. Let everyone run around naked and repeal loitering and jaywalking ordinances, while we're at it. They don't affect me in any way either.

and that's too polemic to grant a response :thumbsdown:

Gay "marriage" warrants this exact response :thumbsdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..why limit it to just one other person of the same sex? We could have marriages for bisexuals where they can marry a man AND a woman. We could have homosexual polygamy and have 20 men married to each other. Why limit it to just humans? Why couldn't men marry sheep and women marry horses? Why not marry inanimate objects? No limits, no boundaries; to prevent these situations from happening would be to infringe upon the "civil rights" of the people in each hypothetical situation.

:smirk: you had me there almost right up until the inanimate objects !!! Sheeesh! You have to draw the line somewhere. :beady:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, guess what? obama also thinks gay "marriage" is wrong. That's a sad attitude he has, huh?

I don't agree with him on that, no, but at least he didn't claim that homosexuality is a genetic defect and that same-sex marriages is the same as marrying people with animals :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with BA on one point... homosexuality (in humans) is NOT the norm, and I don't think you can put it in the same drawer as race or gender. As far as natural selection and the ability to reproduce go, there's no restrictions at all on that whether you're white, black, Native American, female, male, whatever. If you're homosexual however there IS - there's an obstacle right there, regardless of how many ways there are around it as mentioned in that article. Homosexuals are instantly and inevitably confronted with something other people aren't.

But that said, I'm all for gay marriage and the other points Martin made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, so you object to the means, not the ends of the discussion? Hahah. Sorry, but I don't believe in an invisible guy in the sky like obama does :beatnik:

what are you talking about? :confused:

I said I don't agree with him on that, but I can respect his opinion if he uses less polemic arguments than you do :P

I agree with BA on one point... homosexuality (in humans) is NOT the norm, and I don't think you can put it in the same drawer as race or gender.

I never said it's the norm, it clearly isn't... but to call it a "genetic defect"?

only 2% of the world's population are blond... that's not the norm either :shades:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You consider it less polemic to object to homosexual "marriage" because an invisible man in the sky (whom nobody else has ever seen) told him so? lol @ that. I guess I coulda used that weird reason and you wouldn't have gotten so indignant about it :beatnik:

... and now you are equating being born blond with being gay. You have just established that nobody really knows what causes "gay," that it can only be speculated, whereas there is a gene for "blond." Being blond does not affect sexual reproduction in nature (I'd imagine it increases it in some circles... there are women who go out of their way to colour their hair blond! :cool: ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we want to increase the human population anyway? There are enough of 'em running around. And enough people listening to the invisible man in the sky about not using contraception to lead to the existence of several accidental babies. Give the kids a home, give homosexuals their rights. I think it makes sense :cool:

No really - it's harmless. Why must people be so aggressively against it? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:stars: being careful, because this type of discussion can be tricky. I have to say, maybe it's wrong, but I kind of agree a bit with BA. Only, I'm not nearly as strident about it. :rolleyes:

Why do we want to increase the human population anyway? There are enough of 'em running around. And enough people listening to the invisible man in the sky about not using contraception to lead to the existence of several accidental babies. Give the kids a home, give homosexuals their rights. I think it makes sense :cool:

No really - it's harmless. Why must people be so aggressively against it? :P

I also agree with this too,(xcept maybe the 1st couple lines :/ }/\ I'm pretty much a live & let live sort of guy. And I don't think the whole "Gay Marriage" issue really impacts me as directly as many of the other great troubles of our time do. But I'm aware this is an issue very personal to many. When you think about it, gays and straights are actually pretty much the same in every way, except that one thing. Sigmund was right, it's the minor differences. :shades:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Public nudity is forbidden. Why does it have to be that way? Because that's what I was told, and why would I be lied to?

You are way too clever for me. I shouldn't get involved in this argument because there's no way I could defend myself against someone with such a sharp wit as yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...