Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Homosexuality

Page 36 of 93 [ 1477 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 ... 93  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

09 Aug 2007, 5:25 pm

Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
You didn't 'demolish' any of my arguments. I don't see any 7 year olds getting married. And it's about equal rights. Age requirements apply to everybody. All someone has to do is wait a few years and they can get married just like everyone else has to wait a few years. Whereas with gay couples, that's it. They can't.

There is no equal rights issue. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, almost universally. Being allowed to carry out homosexual relationships does not relate to rights, you choose your own actions. How you behave is up to you, and yes you can be held very accountable for it elsewhere.

It's not about the right to marry any old a**hole; it's about the right to have your existing relationship recognised by the state so you have the same protection for it that any straight couple can get. I'm not straight, therefore I would never in a relationship with a man. So any relationships I do have, I won't be able to have the same rights for as other people would for theirs.

It is recognised by the state in the UK in terms of legal protection, but you seem to want it to be called marriage as well. Allowing gay relationships is not in the national intrest really, for the simple reason it experates the people having no kids issue.


1. I don't mean in the UK. For the last time: I know I can get married here. I mean in other areas.

2. Gay people can have kids: they can adopt, or could actually be bisexual and have a kid from a previous relationship

3. Not all straight couples have kids: Why do we let old people, infertile people and asexual people get married? If it was just about having kids then the government should put more emphasis on reproduction in marriages and have some kind of cut off point involving age. Yet it doesn't. People can get married with no intention of having kids, or at the age of 70 if they want. Also, we don't need marriage to have kids.


Could one possibly use looser logic? It's just all kinds of apples-to-oranges precedents...


elaborate.... if you can :roll:

sorry if this will be a double post for this response.... my paprents live in BFE and pages are loading very slowly and it's just not very helpful


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


Sopho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,859

09 Aug 2007, 5:25 pm

Hadron wrote:
Encoraging people to be homosexual has economic and social implications on the society in which that happens. That is my issue with it, i have no religious prejudices or anything like that. The implications affect the vast majority of people who are not gay, and I believe their rights are a big part of the equation.

Their rights? The straight people's right to stop the gay people getting married?
And you can't encourage people to be gay - they either are or they aren't. It will always be that people are encouraged to be straight over gay, because the vast majority of society is straight. It will never be that kids grow up and think they'll be gay instead of straight because society encourages that. All that would be encouraged is for people to be in a relationship with the person they want to be with, rather that forcing themselves to be straight when they're not. That benefits society.



JoeCapricorn
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 48

09 Aug 2007, 5:26 pm

Furthermore, all of these "Religous" organizations claiming to be fighting for "Christian" morality are just full of *POOWORD*.

There is nothing I despise more than hate and the propagation of hate. It's worse than the drug trade. Where drugs chemically twist the mind into unrecognizable forms - hate does the same thing. It twists the mind of a human being to the point where they obsess about the people they hate, and will do anything to try to twist other peoples minds into hating those same people.

Don Wildmon, Jerry Falwell, Adolf Hitler, James Dobson, Fred Phelps, Paul Cameron, Billy Graham, Osama Bin Laden, Ann Coulter and a disgustingly large number of people like that are the type that want YOU to hate the same people they hate.

Wildmon, Dobson, Phelps, Cameron, the late Falwell (and his son), and Graham all want YOU to hate gay people, Muslims, Pagans, Hindus.

DO NOT LISTEN TO THEM. I doubt anyone here is sick and callous enough to believe any words that spew out of the mouths of James Dobson or Don Wildmon. If you disagree with what Adolf Hitler had to say, why is it any better to believe Don Wildmon?

This is how disgusting people consumed by hate look and sound. Do not become like that.

Don't be on the hate spectrum.

On the low end of the hate spectrum is people who say "Homosexuality is a sin"

The middle of the spectrum is people who say "God hates fags." as well as racist and anti-semitic crap.

The extreme end is what is described on this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=mksz043x-HA



Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

09 Aug 2007, 5:27 pm

Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Elemental wrote:
Hadron wrote:
There is no equal rights issue. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, almost universally.


For me, marriage is the right to marry someone you love. But let's assume your definition is right. Lacking in empathy to a painful degree, yes, but technically right.

So....why not give homosexuals (and bisexuals and, indeed, all people) an extra right? After all, human rights are not a zero-sum game, you don't lose a right because someone else is exercising a new one. Explain in detail how you feel that would be bad for you.

If anything it should be changed because it's sexist. Not necessarily homophobic, but sexist. I can't marry a woman just because I don't have a penis.


Well, buy a penis then, and we can wrap up this debate.
Who wants to help chip in for Sopho's penis? I'm sure they're available online somewhere... Lorena Bobbit had a penis, but that didn't make her a man. :P


your penis does not make you a man.....

so why would one do that for her


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


Hadron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Aug 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 957
Location: IntensitySquared or Zomg

09 Aug 2007, 5:28 pm

Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
You cant argue with half my points then, i suggest you read and either contest them or admit I am right

You're not right. You're coming up with the same old sh** I've heard and replied to on here too many times already. What specifically do you want me to reply to? If you were expecting me to go thought each o the numbers individually then I won't. I'm too tired.

Hadron wrote:
you make homosexuality socially acceptable, then incidences of it will obviously rise, as bisexuals are more likely to go into a homosexual relationship as opposed to a hetrosexual one. Which leads to the said effects that I am talking about. These countries you cite have democratically decided their stances on homosexuality, and I think you should respect it. There are a lot bigger problems in the world, like people not being fed for instance. People can be gay if they choose their country sensibly, so there is no issue, most of the US can move to canada if it bothers them. And as for birth rate, unless you want our country to become more of an racial melting pot than it already is, i suggest you encourage the people here to f**k more here, immigration is what is currently making up our short fall. If we dont have enough kids, who will pay our state pensions, and so on?

I don't know which country you mean by 'this country' but, assuming you mean the US, are you then suggesting that keeping the birth rate of white Americans up is more important than equal rights?
And it's not exactly as simple as moving to Canada if you want to get married. Most people can't afford to just get up and move to a different country, and they have family, work etc to think about to. Just let them get married ffs.

I wouldnt say it was the same old sh**, as you call it, go back and read all my arguements. As for being tired, we both live in the UK, if i can write it, you certainly can read it.
The US has made its decision for pragmatic reasons, i think if gay marriages and weddings were allowed they could quie easily end up with a massacre, and any way the democratically elected government has spoken. As for equal rights, you have them over here, in fact I would say the legislation here probably goes way too far, by deincentivising marriage. It is not as simple as letting people get married, there are very good reasons why it is not allowed. Stop being so idealistic.

Both living in the UK means nothing. I don't necessarily have the same sleeping patterns that you have, and it's because of other reasons that I'm tired. Besides, I did read it, I'm just too tired to be pissing around writing out a reply with numbers etc. There are not very good reasons why it isn't allowed. And I know it's allowed over here. I've said it about ten times already. Yes, you are coming up with the same old sh** I've read time and time again on here. Trust me, I've come across your type several times already.

Translation: Dear Sopho has lost the arguement and is a sore loser.
So what is my "type" anyway, go on. If you really want you can call me out on Intensity if you like.



Sopho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,859

09 Aug 2007, 5:28 pm

Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Elemental wrote:
Hadron wrote:
There is no equal rights issue. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, almost universally.


For me, marriage is the right to marry someone you love. But let's assume your definition is right. Lacking in empathy to a painful degree, yes, but technically right.

So....why not give homosexuals (and bisexuals and, indeed, all people) an extra right? After all, human rights are not a zero-sum game, you don't lose a right because someone else is exercising a new one. Explain in detail how you feel that would be bad for you.

If anything it should be changed because it's sexist. Not necessarily homophobic, but sexist. I can't marry a woman just because I don't have a penis.


Well, buy a penis then, and we can wrap up this debate.
Who wants to help chip in for Sopho's penis? I'm sure they're available online somewhere... Lorena Bobbit had a penis, but that didn't make her a man. :P


your penis does not make you a man.....

so why would one do that for her

I'm more of a man than Ragtime. :P



Sopho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,859

09 Aug 2007, 5:30 pm

Hadron wrote:
Translation: Dear Sopho has lost the arguement and is a sore loser.
So what is my "type" anyway, go on. If you really want you can call me out on Intensity if you like.

I didn't even know you were on Intensity. I might do, but I can't be arsed getting into another thread right now.
Your 'type' is arrogant, conservative, mindless idiot.
I definately havn't lost any argument here lol



Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

09 Aug 2007, 5:30 pm

Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:

Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
I don't find men repulsive at all, but the thought of having sex with one repulses me, just like the thought of having sex with a fat ugly woman repulses me. It's the same for everyone else.

If there's one thing this thread disproves, it's your final sentence.
And WHY does it repulse you? You haven't even tried it.[/quote]
I don't need to try it. It's the thought of it that I find repulsive, therefore I wouldn't try it. I know I wouldn't enjoy a man f***ing me because I wouldn't even want them anywhere near me in that way.


he hasnt had anal sex with a man, soph.... so his accusations are IRRELEVANT

lol


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

09 Aug 2007, 5:30 pm

Hadron wrote:
Encoraging people to be homosexual has economic and social implications on the society in which that happens. That is my issue with it, i have no religious prejudices or anything like that. The implications affect the vast majority of people who are not gay

Didn't Hitler have a similar argument about jewish people?


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


Last edited by greenblue on 09 Aug 2007, 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hadron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Aug 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 957
Location: IntensitySquared or Zomg

09 Aug 2007, 5:31 pm

Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Encoraging people to be homosexual has economic and social implications on the society in which that happens. That is my issue with it, i have no religious prejudices or anything like that. The implications affect the vast majority of people who are not gay, and I believe their rights are a big part of the equation.

Their rights? The straight people's right to stop the gay people getting married?
And you can't encourage people to be gay - they either are or they aren't. It will always be that people are encouraged to be straight over gay, because the vast majority of society is straight. It will never be that kids grow up and think they'll be gay instead of straight because society encourages that. All that would be encouraged is for people to be in a relationship with the person they want to be with, rather that forcing themselves to be straight when they're not. That benefits society.

Explain being Bisexual then. I thought you said people are or they are not gay.
As for people being gay, i believe it is choice people make, not a predisposition. I would like to think people have some control over their own actions.



Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

09 Aug 2007, 5:32 pm

Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
why is that so hard to conceive


(No pun intended.)


you never entend the humor that is found in many of your posts.........

keep your 2 copper, plz


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


Sopho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,859

09 Aug 2007, 5:33 pm

Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Encoraging people to be homosexual has economic and social implications on the society in which that happens. That is my issue with it, i have no religious prejudices or anything like that. The implications affect the vast majority of people who are not gay, and I believe their rights are a big part of the equation.

Their rights? The straight people's right to stop the gay people getting married?
And you can't encourage people to be gay - they either are or they aren't. It will always be that people are encouraged to be straight over gay, because the vast majority of society is straight. It will never be that kids grow up and think they'll be gay instead of straight because society encourages that. All that would be encouraged is for people to be in a relationship with the person they want to be with, rather that forcing themselves to be straight when they're not. That benefits society.

Explain being Bisexual then. I thought you said people are or they are not gay.
As for people being gay, i believe it is choice people make, not a predisposition. I would like to think people have some control over their own actions.

Of course people have control over their own actions. lol Being gay is not an action. You've just shown what an ignorant a**hole you really are, congratulations.
Yes, you either are gay or you aren't. Bisexual isn't gay.



Hadron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Aug 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 957
Location: IntensitySquared or Zomg

09 Aug 2007, 5:33 pm

Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Translation: Dear Sopho has lost the arguement and is a sore loser.
So what is my "type" anyway, go on. If you really want you can call me out on Intensity if you like.

I didn't even know you were on Intensity. I might do, but I can't be arsed getting into another thread right now.
Your 'type' is arrogant, conservative, mindless idiot.
I definately havn't lost any argument here lol

I suppose I could be arrogant, but the other three words are incorrect totally. If you are having to step into personal attacks, what does it say about your debating skills?



Sopho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,859

09 Aug 2007, 5:34 pm

Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Translation: Dear Sopho has lost the arguement and is a sore loser.
So what is my "type" anyway, go on. If you really want you can call me out on Intensity if you like.

I didn't even know you were on Intensity. I might do, but I can't be arsed getting into another thread right now.
Your 'type' is arrogant, conservative, mindless idiot.
I definately havn't lost any argument here lol

I suppose I could be arrogant, but the other three words are incorrect totally. If you are having to step into personal attacks, what does it say about your debating skills?

Well you did ask... :roll:



Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

09 Aug 2007, 5:34 pm

Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Could one possibly use looser logic? It's just all kinds of apples-to-oranges precedents...

What?
It's still fruit.
I was replying to the point that gay people can't get married because they supposedly can't have kids. Neither can old people or infertile people, yet they can get married. What's wrong with my logic there?


Because that's not WHY gay people can't get married. It may be a part of the reason, but not nearly all of it.


so then, all great-wise-knowing-one, why is she angry

plz put more thought into your claims.... (especially when you demand "Specifics" from others)


plz save us time from trying to pull your teeth (you're gonna be a very handsom candidate for some homo. sucking experiments by tge time we're done with you)

quit with the quips..... strap your brain in and think


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


Hadron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Aug 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 957
Location: IntensitySquared or Zomg

09 Aug 2007, 5:35 pm

Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Encoraging people to be homosexual has economic and social implications on the society in which that happens. That is my issue with it, i have no religious prejudices or anything like that. The implications affect the vast majority of people who are not gay, and I believe their rights are a big part of the equation.

Their rights? The straight people's right to stop the gay people getting married?
And you can't encourage people to be gay - they either are or they aren't. It will always be that people are encouraged to be straight over gay, because the vast majority of society is straight. It will never be that kids grow up and think they'll be gay instead of straight because society encourages that. All that would be encouraged is for people to be in a relationship with the person they want to be with, rather that forcing themselves to be straight when they're not. That benefits society.

Explain being Bisexual then. I thought you said people are or they are not gay.
As for people being gay, i believe it is choice people make, not a predisposition. I would like to think people have some control over their own actions.

Of course people have control over their own actions. lol Being gay is not an action. You've just shown what an ignorant a**hole you really are, congratulations.
Yes, you either are gay or you aren't. Bisexual isn't gay.

So what does being bisexual count as then. I would say it was a combination of being gay and straight, is it not. Provide evidence to the contrary that being gay is not an action/ behavior then!