My 2 cents

[Gamago25]

Gay Marriage in, Oppresive Theocracies out.

any questions?


:mrgreen:

 

[JustineCredible]

Nope, no arguments here: Just remember this:

All arguements against gay marriage are based in one of three things:

1) Lies
2) Fallicies
3) Majority Oppression

There are no two ways around it. Denying Gays Equal marriage is simply unconstitutional.

 

[Folgore]

Nope, no arguments here: Just remember this:

All arguements against gay marriage are based in one of three things:

1) Lies
2) Fallicies
3) Majority Oppression

There are no two ways around it. Denying Gays Equal marriage is simply unconstitutional.

First of all hi
Accepting gays equal marriage is against laws of nature.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

So rather than let them have this strong commitment of marriage(that's what it's supposed to be), we need the governement to say "You can't have that commitment"?

That's the government promoting promiscuity. That's stupid. That spreads STDs. One could go as far as to say it spreads the "evil unnatural girl on girl action."

 

[JustineCredible]

First of all hi
Accepting gays equal marriage is against laws of nature.

Who's laws of nature? Hmmm...

Because if you're one of those yahoo's who's going to try to say it's not a naturally occuring event I've got news for you. You're simply wrong. There's no arguing, no hemming and hawing...no "if's", "and's", or "but's."

First off, marriage, as the gay community is fighting for, is a LEGAL institution. One which has had it's definition changed throughout history. Secondly, gays and lesbians are just as physiologically able to have children, individually as any other human being. Just because one is gay or lesbian does not suddenly make that person sterile.
Thirdly, other studied species also form homosexual, monogamous relationships.
And last but NOT LEAST disallowing equal access to marriage for gay couples is simply unconstitutional.


So you can complain and whine all you want about your supposed "laws of nature", but it's not going to change the fact that homosexual human beings do and have always existed, nor is it going to change the fact that just like everyother human being, homosexuals will and do form lasting, committed relationships.

 

[crimson372]

You mentioned laws of nature, but how can you attempt to take away the gay communities constitutional rights based on laws of nature which, sorry to break it to you, are nothing more than your own opinion.

Every time people use the word moral values or laws of nature it upsets me because there is no list of what is moral and what isn't. Many people have different opinons of what is moral and what moral values they which to follow. You cannot say something(such as gay marriage) should be outlawed because of your own personal opinion-based(or religious-based) moral values, or what you refer to as Natural laws.

 

[Libertarian]

I'ts not about marriage, it is about forcing others 2 legitimize them

Considering male homosexuals have on average more then 1000 different partner sexual partners in their sexual lifetime, it would seem that the concept of marriage really has nothing to do with average homosexual behavior or goals, and everything to do with bigotedly forcing onto heterosexual society the requirement that homosexuals be legitimized by heterosexual society for homosexuals abnormal sexual behaviors.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Re: I'ts not about marriage, it is about forcing others 2 legitimize them

Considering male homosexuals have on average more then 1000 different partner sexual partners in their sexual lifetime,

I wish!

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Re: I'ts not about marriage, it is about forcing others 2 legitimize them

Considering male homosexuals have on average more then 1000 different partner sexual partners in their sexual lifetime, it would seem that the concept of marriage really has nothing to do with average homosexual behavior or goals, and everything to do with bigotedly forcing onto heterosexual society the requirement that homosexuals be legitimized by heterosexual society for homosexuals abnormal sexual behaviors.

So are we to ban heterosexual marriage on the grounds that many heterosexuals have multiple partners too?

 

[akyron]

Re: I'ts not about marriage, it is about forcing others 2 legitimize them

Considering male homosexuals have on average more then 1000 different partner sexual partners in their sexual lifetime, it would seem that the concept of marriage really has nothing to do with average homosexual behavior or goals, and everything to do with bigotedly forcing onto heterosexual society the requirement that homosexuals be legitimized by heterosexual society for homosexuals abnormal sexual behaviors.

Please list a source when you make a statement like that.


Dont say Gene Simmons or Wilt Chamberlain. They arent gay.

 

[JustineCredible]

Re: I'ts not about marriage, it is about forcing others 2 legitimize them

Considering male homosexuals have on average more then 1000 different partner sexual partners in their sexual lifetime, it would seem that the concept of marriage really has nothing to do with average homosexual behavior or goals, and everything to do with bigotedly forcing onto heterosexual society the requirement that homosexuals be legitimized by heterosexual society for homosexuals abnormal sexual behaviors.

That's only for those who watch "Queer as Folk."
Your "Average Joe" gay/lesbian simply doesn't have that many partners. Polls which state those numbers are all too easily skewed. Plant a few pollsters out in an urban "gay ghetto" and of course you'll get all sorts of lies.

 

[crimson372]

Considering male homosexuals have on average more then 1000 different partner sexual partners in their sexual lifetime, it would seem that the concept of marriage really has nothing to do with average homosexual behavior or goals, and everything to do with bigotedly forcing onto heterosexual society the requirement that homosexuals be legitimized by heterosexual society for homosexuals abnormal sexual behaviors.

that is a generalization. It is like saying more people from this race steal so we should ban that race from all conveinant stores. Even if your statement is true (which I doubt) it is a generalization and there are many many homosexuals who do not fit into that stereotype.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

that is a generalization. It is like saying more people from this race steal so we should ban that race from all conveinant stores. Even if your statement is true (which I doubt) it is a generalization and there are many many homosexuals who do not fit into that stereotype.

Agreed. Well said.

Welcome to Debatepolitics!

 

[Libertarian]

Which part of my post is it that you opine is a "generalization", and if so, why is that a bad thing?

 

[crimson372]

Pretty much all of it. I was going to point out a specific section but realized it's basically one long strung-out statement. The fact that you don't want to grant homosexuals rights because, according to your statement, most of them have abnormal sexual behaviors is a prejudice action and that is just plain wrong. The part that was a generalization is when you stated that the goal of homosexuals was not marriage (or something like that). Note how you didn't say "the homosexuals in this study", or even "most homosexuals", you simply said homosexuals, which means you believe all homosexuals have those goals, and seeing as how you have not met every homosexual and do not know every homosexual and seeing as how people on this debate forum know and/or are homosexuals that do not fit within your statement, it makes it a generalization and overall wrong (in the incorrect sense)
Now, what makes your statement wrong (in the immoral sense) is that you wish to persue a law based on generalizations. That is prejudice, and it is simply wrong. I honestly don't know how you don't think using generalizations to back up a point is wrong.

 

[Libertarian]

Next time I refer to homosexual political goals of forced legitimacy recognition via avenues like marriage I will make sure I do a head count of all of them and list the exact number and say it is the political goal of 84,958 homosexuals in the U.S.....

 

[GottaHurt]

Nope, no arguments here: Just remember this:

All arguements against gay marriage are based in one of three things:

1) Lies
2) Fallicies
3) Majority Oppression

So religion, hatred and personal values play no part what-so-ever in the anti-gay marriage argument?

There are no two ways around it. Denying Gays Equal marriage is simply unconstitutional.

Please show me, where exactly in the constitution, that homosexuals are afforded/guaranteed equal rights in regard to marriage.

So you can complain and whine all you want.

Heterosexuals aren't the ones whining and complaining.

 

[Libertarian]

You could co-opt the arguments of homosexual political extremists and apply it to pedophile, zoophiles, necrophiles, then watch homosexual political activists go about and use one tiny little distinction to try to all of a sudden make their particular brand of abnormal sexual behavior suddenly be utterly different from all the other abnormal forms of behavior.

You know, sodomy is a crime in some States, which makes homosexual sex a crime in those states.

 

[GarzaUK]

You could co-opt the arguments of homosexual political extremists and apply it to pedophile, zoophiles, necrophiles, then watch homosexual political activists go about and use one tiny little distinction to try to all of a sudden make their particular brand of abnormal sexual behavior suddenly be utterly different from all the other abnormal forms of behavior.

You know, sodomy is a crime in some States, which makes homosexual sex a crime in those states.

This may surprise you but quite alot of male homosexual sexual activity does not invlove sodomy.
As a straight guy you must understand that oral, is sometimes better than the real full on thing.

 

[JustineCredible]

Next time I refer to homosexual political goals of forced legitimacy recognition via avenues like marriage I will make sure I do a head count of all of them and list the exact number and say it is the political goal of 84,958 homosexuals in the U.S.....

What I really find humorous is your assertation that homosexual sex is in anyway "abnormal."

Not for Homosexuals it's not. Just as using the left hand for southpaws isn't "abnormal."

Now for homosexuals, heterosexual sex is indeed "abnormal."
For Heterosexuals, homosexual sex would in fact be concidered "abnormal."

It really IS a matter of perception.

 

[Libertarian]

Ah, the moral relativism argument. You know, for serial killers, murdering is normal.....

 

[crimson372]

Next time I refer to homosexual political goals of forced legitimacy recognition via avenues like marriage I will make sure I do a head count of all of them and list the exact number and say it is the political goal of 84,958 homosexuals in the U.S.....

Even if every homosexual but one fell into your stereotype it would still be a stereotype and shouldn't be enforced by law. 84,958 may be a large number but it means nothing.

You could co-opt the arguments of homosexual political extremists and apply it to pedophile, zoophiles, necrophiles, then watch homosexual political activists go about and use one tiny little distinction to try to all of a sudden make their particular brand of abnormal sexual behavior suddenly be utterly different from all the other abnormal forms of behavior.

When it comes to pedophiles the reason that is illegal is because a child is not capable of making a choice about a relationship as intense as an adult would put on, and is in most cases considered rape even if the young indivisual consented to it. Practices of Zoophiles are illegal because once again the animal doesn't consent to what is happening and the human being is harming the animal physically and mentally. necrophiles obviously don't have permission of their partners. These things are illegal not because of moral values or natural laws or religious reasons. These things are illegal because two of them are considered rape and the other could somewhat fall into that category, seeing as how you still have say over what happens to your remains and a necrophiliac will be violating that. Anyway, my point is homosexuals are having consentual sex between both partners, that is a big difference between rape. no matter how abnormal each may be.

You know, sodomy is a crime in some States, which makes homosexual sex a crime in those states.

I am gay and I do not and will not ever participate in sodomy. Oral is just fine. Once again you make arguements in generalizations assuming all homosexuals participate in anal sex when that is not true.

Ah, the moral relativism argument. You know, for serial killers, murdering is normal.....

Yes it is normal, but serial killers are not sent to jail because people think it is abnormal, they are sent to jail because they take away other peoples freedoms to live. Nothing should be illegal because someone considers it abnormal, things are illegal because they are proven wrong (without using religious resources) which has yet to be proven with homosexuals.