|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:24 pm
itchyman24 Rayne Bloodstone ...and now the homosexuals are treated as unnatural creatures that deserved to be destroyed? =/ Seriously? so lets pick apart this sentence here... treated as unnatural creatures- i've already proven that they ARE unnatural
deserve to be destroyed- if i seem to have mentioned that homosexuals do deserve to be destroyed, it was unintentional. however, homosexuality is in itself destruction. for every homosexual, there are two less parents in the world. it's a human's natural instinct to pass on it's species and by not passing on your genes, they are lost forever, destroyed. SolarInvictus Sure all texts have at least some form of bias, but when you consider the amount of bias the bible has as well as innumerable entries of physical impossibilities no sane person would allow the bible as evidence in an actual debate. Correction Justinian was the emperor of Byzantium, and in case anyone hasn't looked at the topic in awhile, this is about Homosexual's rights in modern day society. Yes Homosexuals were discriminated against heavily in the past, but the entire point of History and discussions is so that we don't repeat the mistakes of those who came before us. ok, so lets get back to the main topic then. why should homosexuals be able to get married? the concept of marriage has been obscured over the years. you're supposed to have kids, raise a family after marriage. homosexuals cannot do that. plus, marriage is a religious ceremony. every main religion looks down upon homosexuality. so homosexuality and religion don't mix. also, whose last name would you take? I just have a quick bone to pick out of that one statement. You haven't proven anything on that regard. the only statement you made was that they are immoral. No proof stating such other than your own word.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:49 pm
itchyman24 Rayne Bloodstone ...and now the homosexuals are treated as unnatural creatures that deserved to be destroyed? =/ Seriously? so lets pick apart this sentence here... treated as unnatural creatures- i've already proven that they ARE unnatural
deserve to be destroyed- if i seem to have mentioned that homosexuals do deserve to be destroyed, it was unintentional. however, homosexuality is in itself destruction. for every homosexual, there are two less parents in the world. it's a human's natural instinct to pass on it's species and by not passing on your genes, they are lost forever, destroyed. ₲reen acid on your Ϩʞ↕и
So basically you choose to ignore the rest and only pick out what you can argue against? It is NOT unnatural as you are NOT born to ONLY like a certain sex. Again, it is all 100% optional and it's based on what you find attractive as you grow up. And sorry, but you haven't proven s**t. =/
How is it destruction? Don't you think overpopulation is destruction? But hey! It's all good if it's a guy and a girl having 30 kids that they leave out on the streets, right? Because they are a "natural" couple and that's their job? Seriously? Also, they can still have children, just so you know. The males can donate and the females if they wish to have children can go and get pregnant through a hospital of sorts. As LMF said. They also have the option to adopt the children that the dumbasses had and just tossed in the street.
You have nothing to back up your argument and keep going with the whole "they are unnatural" thing when it's far from the truth.
₣eels like you're dieing ΔɠΔ↕и
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:24 pm
Little Miss Fortune itchyman24 you're supposed to have kids, raise a family after marriage. homosexuals cannot do that. Neither can some heterosexual couples. Are you against artificial insemination or adoption, too?itchyman24 also, whose last name would you take?
Whose last name do a heterosexual couple take? Sure, the norm is for the woman to take the man's last name, but there's no rule saying that has to be the case. Some couples hyphenate, some keep their own names, some change to the woman's last name... etc. Does not having a stereotypical naming system to fall back on somehow make homosexual marriages wrong? No. I think you're just pulling these "arguments" out of your a** because you have nothing to base your beliefs on (except religion, which I'm not even going to get into debating XD)heterosexual couples that can't have children can adopt all they want. but they have the ability or potential to create children/a family. however i am against homosexuals that do not even have the slightest possibility of having a family. even if they adopted a child, what kind of world would that kid go through. it's just horrific. lol i put that last bit about the names part in as a joke... oops we're in serious discussion =P
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:32 pm
itchyman24 heterosexual couples that can't have children can adopt all they want. but they have the ability or potential to create children/a family. however i am against homosexuals that do not even have the slightest possibility of having a family. even if they adopted a child, what kind of world would that kid go through. it's just horrific. lol i put that last bit about the names part in as a joke... oops we're in serious discussion =P
"Horrific?" Seriously? Do you really believe that the gender of your parents is that important? What about single parents? A child raised by a single mom will only experience parenting from a female parent. A child raised by two mothers will also only experience parenting from female parents, but there will be two of them.
I don't see much of a difference... I certainly don't see anything "horrific."
Some heterosexual couples are horrible people who should not be parents. If there's a homosexual couple out there who are actually fit to be parents, I'd hope that they'd be more likely to be chosen over the horrible heterosexual couple if both families were trying to adopt a kid. The sexual orientation of the parents has nothing to do with their ability to raise a child.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:16 pm
itchyman24 so lets pick apart this sentence here... treated as unnatural creatures- i've already proven that they ARE unnatural You've proven nothing save that you're a Christian who's never read the bible in his life. neutral Sodom and Gommorah were not "primarily destroyed" because of homosexuality. They were "primarily destroyed" because they were sinful. There's no direct mention that Homosexuality was anywhere near the main reasons for Gods smiting. Also, I suggest you move away from the theological grounds old boy. You wouldn't like to debate against me when I don't apply logic =P
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:01 pm
On the topic of homsexuality being natural or not... Quote: Black swans An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are homosexual and they steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs. More of their cygnets survive to adulthood than those of different-sex pairs, possibly due to their superior ability to defend large portions of land. The same reasoning has been applied to male flamingo pairs raising chicks. Gulls Studies have shown that 10 to 15 percent of female western gulls in some populations in the wild exhibit homosexual behavior. Mallards Mallards form male-female pairs only until the female lays eggs, at which time the male leaves the female. Mallards have rates of male-male sexual activity that are unusually high for birds, in some cases, as high as 19% of all pairs in a population. Penguins In early February 2004 the New York Times reported that a male pair of chinstrap penguins in the Central Park Zoo in New York City had successfully hatched and fostered a female chick from a fertile egg they had been given to incubate. Other penguins in New York zoos have also been reported to have formed same-sex pairs. Zoos in Japan and Germany have also documented homosexual male penguin couples. The couples have been shown to build nests together and use a stone as a substitute for an egg. Researchers at Rikkyo University in Tokyo found 20 homosexual pairs at 16 major aquariums and zoos in Japan. Bremerhaven Zoo in Germany attempted to encourage reproduction of endangered Humbolt penguins by importing females from Sweden and separating three male pairs, but this was unsuccessful. The zoo's director said that the relationships were "too strong" between the homosexual pairs. German gay groups protested at this attempt to break up the male-male pairs but the zoo's director was reported as saying "We don't know whether the three male pairs are really homosexual or whether they have just bonded because of a shortage of females... nobody here wants to forcibly separate homosexual couples." A pair of male Magellanic penguins who had shared a burrow for six years at the San Francisco Zoo and raised a surrogate chick, split when the male of a pair in the next burrow died and the female sought a new mate. Vultures In 1998 two male Griffon vultures named Dashik and Yehuda, at the Jerusalem Biblical Zoo, engaged in "open and energetic sex" and built a nest. The keepers provided the couple with an artificial egg, which the two parents took turns incubating; and 45 days later, the zoo replaced the egg with a baby vulture. The two male vultures raised the chick together. A few years later, however, Yehuda became interested in a female vulture that was brought into the aviary. Dashik became depressed, and was eventually moved to the zoological research garden at Tel Aviv University where he too set up a nest with a female vulture And that's without even leaving the section on birds, or spending very long digging around the internet. What more evidence do you need that it appears in nature?
|
 |
 |
|
|
Nespin Fernagon Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:44 pm
Nespin Fernagon On the topic of homsexuality being natural or not...
And that's without even leaving the section on birds, or spending very long digging around the internet. What more evidence do you need that it appears in nature?Oh yeah, I forgot about that.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 3:32 am
I see it as inhumane and terribly disgusting to revoke the rights of a particular group purely because their views on a preferred lifestyle has differentiating views. It's like saying people with big noses aren't going to be allowed to get married or people who like orange-soda can't join the military.
Though I disagree with the thought that they may be born into their situation, I have no place to judge (or even comment) on other beings lifestyles. The fact that sentient's such as ourselves are treating fellow sentient's in a revulting manner makes me want to blow this dirtball into space-dust. It reminds me that our fragile human minds are corruptible and easily susceptible to manipulation (lulzbible).
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 10:45 am
itchyman24 meh im against gay marriage. ever heard of sodom and gommorah? the old bible story where both towns were full of homosexuals and God smited the place. it is now known as the Dead Sea. Pleasant thought, isn't it? I'm not gonna quote huge chunks of text, but you should at least read the first page of this thread. Even if you don't agree with the threadmaker's interpretation of the Bible, it at least shows that there are other interpretations than 'Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality'.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 1:31 pm
Silly RiRi itchyman24 meh im against gay marriage. ever heard of sodom and gommorah? the old bible story where both towns were full of homosexuals and God smited the place. it is now known as the Dead Sea. Pleasant thought, isn't it? I'm not gonna quote huge chunks of text, but you should at least read the first page of this thread. Even if you don't agree with the threadmaker's interpretation of the Bible, it at least shows that there are other interpretations than 'Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality'. Holy wow, that thread's still there x_x;;
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:33 am
I thought this was a FREE country...they should be able to get married if they want too!
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 6:47 pm
Valheita Silly RiRi itchyman24 meh im against gay marriage. ever heard of sodom and gommorah? the old bible story where both towns were full of homosexuals and God smited the place. it is now known as the Dead Sea. Pleasant thought, isn't it? I'm not gonna quote huge chunks of text, but you should at least read the first page of this thread. Even if you don't agree with the threadmaker's interpretation of the Bible, it at least shows that there are other interpretations than 'Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality'. Holy wow, that thread's still there x_x;; I always saw this thread, but I forgot it was mine! xD
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:52 pm
Okay, why are religious issues quoted so often in gay marriage issues? Marriage, as a LEGAL term, is different from marriage as a RELIGIOUS term ...
The government would NOT be forcing any RELIGIONS to recognize gay marriages. They would simply be allowing gay couples to LEGALLY marry...
If a government says they will keep religion and law seperate, which the US has said on several occasions, then they shouldn't base their laws on purely emotional and religious arguements.
There WAS a period where California's law system found gay marriages constitutionally protected, and they were legalized, but they beat the system by holding a "popular vote" to see if people wanted gay marriages, and since more people say no than yes, they banned them again (but still recognize the ones performed during that period of legalization).
Since when did people wanting something make it legal? You can't just hold a popular vote and IGNORE the constitution because people WANT you too .. =/
Example - If you killed someone everyone absolutely hates, but who had done nothing illegal, you would still be charged with murder. They couldn't say "He's innocent" because they agree with what you did .. You still BROKE THE LAW =/
(PS: to the poll - Anarchy will never happen. It would require a large group of people who are against organized politics to organize and rebel against a government (a political movement). Lol)
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:31 pm
The reason religious texts and sayings are quoted so much in a gay marriage debate is that marriage in itself started, and is still mostly a religious issue.
The problem most religious followers and figures have with homosexual marriages is that they see it that if the government allows homosexual marriage it is a freedom to commit a major "sin."
The thing about what you said is that the constitution is up for interpretation. Also since this is a representative democracy. Large number of people don't like an issue -> People are elected with similar views -> They make a motion that goes against said issue -> Motion passes -> Issue is banned.
PS; Anarchy could actually easily happen say, if a government suffers a great blow that would cause it to collapse, or if a government is ineffective.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:38 pm
SolarInvictus PS; Anarchy could actually easily happen say, if a government suffers a great blow that would cause it to collapse, or if a government is ineffective. Got a point there ... =) As to the rest of what you said, quote from the constitution's 1st amendment: The 1st amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. If marriage is religious, than gay marriage is a practice of an individual's beliefs. Therefore, no ban should be legalized. But this is politics. The law doesn't matter in politics. XD
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|