Do you believe same sex marriage is okay?

[QUOTE="peter1191"]

Lol how so? The only reason it is acceptable is the simple fact that society has lived with it, so our horror towards such behavior has diminished to acceptance. Really, there is no difference. All of it is unnatural. Most ppl use religious arguements to substantiate their views. Ok, I agree. But what about evolutionary agruements? Is it possible that humans would be sexually attracted to their own gender? Doesn't this inhibit reproduction? Isn't this a "flaw" of human nature, if it is innate (aka born w/homosexuality) rather than developed? Just some things to contemplate as society slips into ever increasing acceptance of insanity.

Dark_Knight6

If that's the case, aren't heterosexual couples who are unable to birth a child just as unnatural. And last I checked, they were allowed to marry one another.

Good your smart. I expected some sorry reply like: "we're all equal anyway, forget the logic, its love!" Heterosexual couples who can't give birth are nonetheless "natural" if we want to go down this Darwinistic route (which by the way I don't like to use, but I was just putting it out there for thought) because it is not that they lack the "tools" to create children, it is merely the fact their "tools" are unable to function. THey can still provide a natural home for the development of youth, who can grow up and be able to reproduce themselves. Homosexuals are not "impared," they are incompatible by nature (for making children). They do not provide the optimum enviornment for raising future generations (lack of male or female figure, depending on the case) if adoption was a sought after course. Biologically there is a great difference between imparity and incompatability. Now, I ask you: can we make such an arguement for father-daughters or mother-sons? No. THink about it. As our society accepts innuendos as "equal" these arguements will lose clout as the one I have posted above. DONT LET YOUR COMPLACENCY BE THE REASON FOR CASUAL INSANITY

Well, homosexuality is not natural (I don't see any study confirming this)

peter1191

Actually I hear it is these days.

My Dev. Psych teacher has told us on numerous occasions that homosexuality is now considered natural.

Lol how so? The only reason it is acceptable is the simple fact that society has lived with it, so our horror towards such behavior has diminished to acceptance. peter1191

Our acceptance towards women in the workforce has grown, does that mean it's bad too? Pedophilia, incest, and bestiality all take advantage of a person/animal, and polygamous relationships are inherently unequal.

Really, there is no difference. All of it is unnatural. peter1191

Seeing as how there are numerous accounts of homesexuality in the wild, I would say it's quite natural. Either way, it has no bearing on whether it should or should not be allowed.

Most ppl use religious arguements to substantiate their views. Ok, I agree. But what about evolutionary agruements? Is it possible that humans would be sexually attracted to their own gender? Doesn't this inhibit reproduction? Isn't this a "flaw" of human nature, if it is innate (aka born w/homosexuality) rather than developed? Just some things to contemplate as society slips into ever increasing acceptance of insanity.

peter1191

How does that mandate prohibiting same sex marriage? Should we make people in wheelchairs crawl up steps just because they were born "flawed?"

I see no reason why it should be illegal. Also, Proposition 8's campaign was disgusting and dishonest.PannicAtack

God that campaign made me so angry and frustrated...And it's something i never would have suspected from california. WTH

Seeing as how there are numerous accounts of homesexuality in the wild, I would say it's quite natural. Either way, it has no bearing on whether it should or should not be allowed.

metroidfood

Humans=/=Wild animals

[QUOTE="metroidfood"]

Seeing as how there are numerous accounts of homesexuality in the wild, I would say it's quite natural. Either way, it has no bearing on whether it should or should not be allowed.

ghoklebutter

Humans=/=Wild animals

If your point was correct then we would share no psycological similarities to any other animals. Guess what, we do. I have invalidated your point.

[QUOTE="metroidfood"]

Seeing as how there are numerous accounts of homesexuality in the wild, I would say it's quite natural. Either way, it has no bearing on whether it should or should not be allowed.

ghoklebutter

Humans=/=Wild animals

Has nothing to do with humans being wild animals, it has to do with the fact that there is evidence that homosexuality happens naturally in many species including humans

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]I see no reason why it should be illegal. Also, Proposition 8's campaign was disgusting and dishonest.lostrib

God that campaign made me so angry and frustrated...And it's something i never would have suspected from california. WTH

Humans=/=Wild animals

ghoklebutter

Homo sapiens are indeed part of the animal kingdom, like it or not.

I find it to be supremely ironic that we are taking about human rights then comparing ourselfs to animals in the wild. While some birds and bees have large amounts of homosexual relationships (for perhaps biological reasons we have yet to determine) we are not small minded animals. We are the smartest of animals, and can easily differentiate between correct and unnatural sexual behavior when presented to ourselves. My dog, because he rarely sees any other dog in his life (except on walks) jumps up on other dogs in some inappropriate manner. Is he homosexual? He sure is acting like it. THen again, when you are isolated from your kind, any interaction will do.

And, like I said earlier, I hate the "natural selection" arguement because it inflames passions, but seriously, no anedotal evidence. Give me one good reason why it should be accepted in our biological make up for homosexuality if it does not aid in our survival?

Good your smart. I expected some sorry reply like: "we're all equal anyway, forget the logic, its love!" Heterosexual couples who can't give birth are nonetheless "natural" if we want to go down this Darwinistic route (which by the way I don't like to use, but I was just putting it out there for thought) because it is not that they lack the "tools" to create children, it is merely the fact their "tools" are unable to function. THey can still provide a natural home for the development of youth, who can grow up and be able to reproduce themselves. Homosexuals are not "impared," they are incompatible by nature (for making children). They do not provide the optimum enviornment for raising future generations (lack of male or female figure, depending on the case) if adoption was a sought after course. Biologically there is a great difference between imparity and incompatability. Now, I ask you: can we make such an arguement for father-daughters or mother-sons? No. THink about it. As our society accepts innuendos as "equal" these arguements will lose clout as the one I have posted above. DONT LET YOUR COMPLACENCY BE THE REASON FOR CASUAL INSANITY

peter1191

If they're "tools" don't work, something has gone awry, has it not? So how exactly are they any more natural than homosexuals when something has gone wrong with their body. So much so, that they cannot reproduce. As far as a male and female figure being required for a stable household, I'd like some proof. And as far as the youth being able to reproduce, homosexuals do not always raise homosexuals. I'm not going to bother addressing your slippery slope argument at the end because frankly, it's terrible.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]I see no reason why it should be illegal. Also, Proposition 8's campaign was disgusting and dishonest.PannicAtack

God that campaign made me so angry and frustrated...And it's something i never would have suspected from california. WTH

Oh rearry? i didnt hear that. To Wikipedia!

I find it to be supremely ironic that we are taking about human rights then comparing ourselfs to animals in the wild. While some birds and bees have large amounts of homosexual relationships (for perhaps biological reasons we have yet to determine) we are not small minded animals. We are the smartest of animals, and can easily differentiate between correct and unnatural sexual behavior when presented to ourselves. My dog, because he rarely sees any other dog in his life (except on walks) jumps up on other dogs in some inappropriate manner. Is he homosexual? He sure is acting like it. THen again, when you are isolated from your kind, any interaction will do.

And, like I said earlier, I hate the "natural selection" arguement because it inflames passions, but seriously, no anedotal evidence. Give me one good reason why it should be accepted in our biological make up for homosexuality if it does not aid in our survival?

peter1191

how do video games aid in our survival? Should we ban video games?

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

God that campaign made me so angry and frustrated...And it's something i never would have suspected from california. WTH

lostrib

Oh rearry? i didnt hear that. To Wikipedia!

Although I do think that marriage was originally made for a man and woman, that doesn't really matter. To me it's about love, not gender. Homosexual behavior has been studied in animals, so it's kind of "natural" that humans would experience it too.

I find it to be supremely ironic that we are taking about human rights then comparing ourselfs to animals in the wild. While some birds and bees have large amounts of homosexual relationships (for perhaps biological reasons we have yet to determine) we are not small minded animals. We are the smartest of animals, and can easily differentiate between correct and unnatural sexual behavior when presented to ourselves. My dog, because he rarely sees any other dog in his life (except on walks) jumps up on other dogs in some inappropriate manner. Is he homosexual? He sure is acting like it. THen again, when you are isolated from your kind, any interaction will do.

And, like I said earlier, I hate the "natural selection" arguement because it inflames passions, but seriously, no anedotal evidence. Give me one good reason why it should be accepted in our biological make up for homosexuality if it does not aid in our survival?

peter1191

Dimples are still around, yet they don't do ****.

And you have yet to explain why homosexuality is unnatural, despite the fact that it is found in nature, and explain why being unnatural is cause for not allowing it, seeing as how driving cars is unnatural.

[QUOTE="peter1191"]

Good your smart. I expected some sorry reply like: "we're all equal anyway, forget the logic, its love!" Heterosexual couples who can't give birth are nonetheless "natural" if we want to go down this Darwinistic route (which by the way I don't like to use, but I was just putting it out there for thought) because it is not that they lack the "tools" to create children, it is merely the fact their "tools" are unable to function. THey can still provide a natural home for the development of youth, who can grow up and be able to reproduce themselves. Homosexuals are not "impared," they are incompatible by nature (for making children). They do not provide the optimum enviornment for raising future generations (lack of male or female figure, depending on the case) if adoption was a sought after course. Biologically there is a great difference between imparity and incompatability. Now, I ask you: can we make such an arguement for father-daughters or mother-sons? No. THink about it. As our society accepts innuendos as "equal" these arguements will lose clout as the one I have posted above. DONT LET YOUR COMPLACENCY BE THE REASON FOR CASUAL INSANITY

Dark_Knight6

If they're "tools" don't work, something has gone awry, has it not? So how exactly are they any more natural than homosexuals when something has gone wrong with their body. So much so, that they cannot reproduce. As far as a male and female figure being required for a stable household, I'd like some proof. And as far as the youth being able to reproduce, homosexuals do not always raise homosexuals. I'm not going to bother addressing your slippery slope argument at the end because frankly, it's terrible.

Well, your problem is that you've assumed my arguements rather than read my words. Where in that paragraph did I say homosexuals raise homosexuals? I did not even imply that. I merely stated that a man raising a boy, or a woman raising a girl, is more conductive to the boy or girl's role in the future. Now, I already answered your response in my post. Homosexuality is incompatible. Non-fertile couples are impared. The practical difference (i.e. no children) is slight. But biologically, they are a world apart.

Yes. I think not legalizing same sex marriage is discriminatory. Can't believe our government allows it.Tauruslink

When you look at our history concerening civil rights, you'll see that we're not the brightest crayon in the box.

[QUOTE="Tauruslink"]Yes. I think not legalizing same sex marriage is discriminatory. Can't believe our government allows it.Dark_Knight6

When you look at our history concerening civil rights, you'll see that we're not the brightest crayon in the box.

But what we lack in progressive movement we make up for in apple pie.

...Right? Right?

[QUOTE="peter1191"]

I find it to be supremely ironic that we are taking about human rights then comparing ourselfs to animals in the wild. While some birds and bees have large amounts of homosexual relationships (for perhaps biological reasons we have yet to determine) we are not small minded animals. We are the smartest of animals, and can easily differentiate between correct and unnatural sexual behavior when presented to ourselves. My dog, because he rarely sees any other dog in his life (except on walks) jumps up on other dogs in some inappropriate manner. Is he homosexual? He sure is acting like it. THen again, when you are isolated from your kind, any interaction will do.

And, like I said earlier, I hate the "natural selection" arguement because it inflames passions, but seriously, no anedotal evidence. Give me one good reason why it should be accepted in our biological make up for homosexuality if it does not aid in our survival?

metroidfood

Dimples are still around, yet they don't do ****.

And you have yet to explain why homosexuality is unnatural, despite the fact that it is found in nature, and explain why being unnatural is cause for not allowing it, seeing as how driving cars is unnatural.

Again, no one answers the question. THey just use some crappy ancedotal evidence. What does dimples have to do with anything?! Homosexuality does not allow for reproduction. Simple. Unnatural. Just because other animals experience it does not make it natural. Some people are born with 4 arms and two heads. Some animals suffer the same fate. Is it natural? NO! Because it does not aid the person (or animal) in any meaningful way! When something is against your very nature, that something is destructive to that nature. Homosexuality is that. Answer the question. How could homosexuality aid in our survival? Video games are entertainment. Fast food is the same, but for the stomach. Is homosexuality entertainment? Can we afford to entertain a notion contrary to society's structure, and to the raising of children in a proper household? Because as far as I know, many communities in the US today complain of a fatherless household, for example. Now why would that be a problem if only a woman or a man was needed in the house?

I find it to be supremely ironic that we are taking about human rights then comparing ourselfs to animals in the wild. While some birds and bees have large amounts of homosexual relationships (for perhaps biological reasons we have yet to determine) we are not small minded animals. We are the smartest of animals, and can easily differentiate between correct and unnatural sexual behavior when presented to ourselves. My dog, because he rarely sees any other dog in his life (except on walks) jumps up on other dogs in some inappropriate manner. Is he homosexual? He sure is acting like it. THen again, when you are isolated from your kind, any interaction will do.

And, like I said earlier, I hate the "natural selection" arguement because it inflames passions, but seriously, no anedotal evidence. Give me one good reason why it should be accepted in our biological make up for homosexuality if it does not aid in our survival?

peter1191

Your evoluion argument doesnt really apply to the modern world because in general those that would be considered not evolutionary viable are still kept around ie the mentally retarded, crippled, old etc. The "survival of the fittest" mold doesnt really work anymore, because people taht are not evolutionary fit are taken care of by teh rest of society instead of being left to die and thus removing them from the gene pool.

And just because we arent "small minded" animals doesnt mean we should recognize "correct" behavior. The fact that we have more complicated minds means that it is actually more difficult for us to determine the correct behavior.

Sure. If your brain says I like the same sex, go for it.

Well, your problem is that you've assumed my arguements rather than read my words. Where in that paragraph did I say homosexuals raise homosexuals? I did not even imply that. I merely stated that a man raising a boy, or a woman raising a girl, is more conductive to the boy or girl's role in the future. Now, I already answered your response in my post. Homosexuality is incompatible. Non-fertile couples are impared. The practical difference (i.e. no children) is slight. But biologically, they are a world apart.

peter1191

You're right, you didn't say that. You see, I've seen this narrow minded argument so many times that I usually just skim through posts containing it. The fact of the matter is, you have not provided any proof as to why heterosexual couples are better off raising children strictly based on the fact that they're heterosexual. There difference is large from a biologically speaking. But that doesn't defer the fact that infertile couples are, in fact, unnatural.

[QUOTE="Dark_Knight6"]

[QUOTE="Tauruslink"]Yes. I think not legalizing same sex marriage is discriminatory. Can't believe our government allows it.metroidfood

When you look at our history concerening civil rights, you'll see that we're not the brightest crayon in the box.

But what we lack in progressive movement we make up for in apple pie.

...Right? Right?

Is apple pie even of American origin? :P

[QUOTE="peter1191"]

Well, your problem is that you've assumed my arguements rather than read my words. Where in that paragraph did I say homosexuals raise homosexuals? I did not even imply that. I merely stated that a man raising a boy, or a woman raising a girl, is more conductive to the boy or girl's role in the future. Now, I already answered your response in my post. Homosexuality is incompatible. Non-fertile couples are impared. The practical difference (i.e. no children) is slight. But biologically, they are a world apart.

Dark_Knight6

You're right, you didn't say that. You see, I've seen this narrow minded argument so many times that I usually just skim through posts containing it. The fact of the matter is, you have not provided any proof as to why heterosexual couples are better off raising children strictly based on the fact that they're heterosexual. There difference is large from a biologically speaking. But that doesn't defer the fact that infertile couples are, in fact, unnatural.

And here, is where we reach an impase, permenantly. Here is where we stick to our beliefs with so little deviation, we are in stalemate. Because I can provide to you a hundred different reasons why heterosexual couples can better support a child then homosexuals. But each one can never to substantiated by proof, only ancedotal evidence. So here is what I believe in a nutshell: a man can only be a man through the presence of some father figure, in or outside the home. A woman can only truely understand her role through a mother figure, in or outside the home. The person can be a role model, a relative, a teacher, etc, or even a parent (suprise suprise!). IT is this last "possibility" that is most effective, for a parent always remains in the child's life.

It should be legalized

Again, no one answers the question. THey just use some crappy ancedotal evidence. What does dimples have to do with anything?! Homosexuality does not allow for reproduction. Simple. Unnatural. Just because other animals experience it does not make it natural. Some people are born with 4 arms and two heads. Some animals suffer the same fate. Is it natural? NO! Because it does not aid the person (or animal) in any meaningful way! When something is against your very nature, that something is destructive to that nature. Homosexuality is that. Answer the question. How could homosexuality aid in our survival? Video games are entertainment. Fast food is the same, but for the stomach. Is homosexuality entertainment? Can we afford to entertain a notion contrary to society's structure, and to the raising of children in a proper household? Because as far as I know, many communities in the US today complain of a fatherless household, for example. Now why would that be a problem if only a woman or a man was needed in the house?

peter1191

Like I said, dimples do not aid the person in any meaningful way. And yes, 4 arms and two heads is natural if it happens in natures. The frequency of which it occurs is low, but if it happens from a natural mutation, it's still natural. Being meaningful to reproduction has nothing to do with it.

Neither are unnatural things "destructive." We live in a world of unnatural things, and we're doing better than ever.

And we've long since reached the point where something being meaningful to reproduction has had any bearing on a person's rights.

Beats me.

"The findings from this first cohort of solo DI families to be studied lend further weight to the view that these women represent a distinct subgroup of single parents, who, out of a strong desire for a child, have made the active choice to go it alone. Moreover, this route to parenthood does not necessarily seem to have an adverse effect on mothers' parenting ability or the psychological adjustment of the child."

I see no problem with it, whats disturbing is that people make a big deal out of it.

[QUOTE="Dark_Knight6"]

[QUOTE="peter1191"]

Well, your problem is that you've assumed my arguements rather than read my words. Where in that paragraph did I say homosexuals raise homosexuals? I did not even imply that. I merely stated that a man raising a boy, or a woman raising a girl, is more conductive to the boy or girl's role in the future. Now, I already answered your response in my post. Homosexuality is incompatible. Non-fertile couples are impared. The practical difference (i.e. no children) is slight. But biologically, they are a world apart.

peter1191

You're right, you didn't say that. You see, I've seen this narrow minded argument so many times that I usually just skim through posts containing it. The fact of the matter is, you have not provided any proof as to why heterosexual couples are better off raising children strictly based on the fact that they're heterosexual. There difference is large from a biologically speaking. But that doesn't defer the fact that infertile couples are, in fact, unnatural.

And here, is where we reach an impase, permenantly. Here is where we stick to our beliefs with so little deviation, we are in stalemate. Because I can provide to you a hundred different reasons why heterosexual couples can better support a child then homosexuals. But each one can never to substantiated by proof, only ancedotal evidence. So here is what I believe in a nutshell: a man can only be a man through the presence of some father figure, in or outside the home. A woman can only truely understand her role through a mother figure, in or outside the home. The person can be a role model, a relative, a teacher, etc, or even a parent (suprise suprise!). IT is this last "possibility" that is most effective, for a parent always remains in the child's life.

The problem is that you've pidgeonholed the role men and women; it is possible that a person of the opposite gender can take on the role of a man/woman. So it is not necesarily true that with out a man, a boy can't learn to be a man. In addition, it's not like homosexual couples only hang out with people of the same sex they do have friends and relatives of the opposite sex who could fulfill these roles

In addition, I have a feeling if we looked at the statistics we would see that it is not homosexual couples that are screwing up children and having them taken away by social services or giving them away to orphanages or leaving them in dumpsters. Just because people can make children doesnt mean they make good parents. Anyone can donate their genetic material to make a child but it takes a lot more to be a parent.

I see no problem with it, whats disturbing is that people make a big deal out of it.

ZenesisX

Agreed...it's only when a bunch of fearmongering nuts got a bunch of people to believe that homosexuals would destroy them did it matter. And to be honest i cant understand the logic it just makes me angry.

[QUOTE="peter1191"]

[QUOTE="Dark_Knight6"]

You're right, you didn't say that. You see, I've seen this narrow minded argument so many times that I usually just skim through posts containing it. The fact of the matter is, you have not provided any proof as to why heterosexual couples are better off raising children strictly based on the fact that they're heterosexual. There difference is large from a biologically speaking. But that doesn't defer the fact that infertile couples are, in fact, unnatural.

lostrib

And here, is where we reach an impase, permenantly. Here is where we stick to our beliefs with so little deviation, we are in stalemate. Because I can provide to you a hundred different reasons why heterosexual couples can better support a child then homosexuals. But each one can never to substantiated by proof, only ancedotal evidence. So here is what I believe in a nutshell: a man can only be a man through the presence of some father figure, in or outside the home. A woman can only truely understand her role through a mother figure, in or outside the home. The person can be a role model, a relative, a teacher, etc, or even a parent (suprise suprise!). IT is this last "possibility" that is most effective, for a parent always remains in the child's life.

The problem is that you've pidgeonholed the role men and women; it is possible that a person of the opposite gender can take on the role of a man/woman. So it is not necesarily true that with out a man, a boy can't learn to be a man. In addition, it's not like homosexual couples only hang out with people of the same sex they do have friends and relatives of the opposite sex who could fulfill these roles

In addition, I have a feeling if we looked at the statistics we would see that it is not homosexual couples that are screwing up children and having them taken away by social services or giving them away to orphanages or leaving them in dumpsters. Just because people can make children doesnt mean they make good parents. Anyone can donate their genetic material to make a child but it takes a lot more to be a parent.

Your completely correct, and I did not deny one word that you said in my original post. Look closely, I said that the parent would be the "most effective" at full filling such a role. Is that wrong or right to assert? Because men and women generally have pretty similar roles when it comes to children, despite variation. Now your free to disagree with me, but two parents of two different genders would naturally be able to full fill their roles more effectively than not. Come on now, there is always talk about how a "real man" takes responsiblity, stands up for what he believes, protects his family. Homosexuals? A few can claim this as well. THe majority I've met in my life, however, are high-pitched fools who don't know left from right. Have there been intelligent ones? Of course, undoubtablly (it would be foolish to deny). But since we're talking about "love" and marriage being the equivalent of love (though in no time in history has this been true), well, I might as well stand up and say that all homosexuals are dumb and this is a foolish conversation. The concrete is preferable to the intangible, but I have seen mostly fools around me that have been homosexuals. I may be "narrow minded," but I still have yet to see one reason why homosexuality is natural, accepted, and not some mental disease or unnatural development.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="peter1191"]

And here, is where we reach an impase, permenantly. Here is where we stick to our beliefs with so little deviation, we are in stalemate. Because I can provide to you a hundred different reasons why heterosexual couples can better support a child then homosexuals. But each one can never to substantiated by proof, only ancedotal evidence. So here is what I believe in a nutshell: a man can only be a man through the presence of some father figure, in or outside the home. A woman can only truely understand her role through a mother figure, in or outside the home. The person can be a role model, a relative, a teacher, etc, or even a parent (suprise suprise!). IT is this last "possibility" that is most effective, for a parent always remains in the child's life.

peter1191

The problem is that you've pidgeonholed the role men and women; it is possible that a person of the opposite gender can take on the role of a man/woman. So it is not necesarily true that with out a man, a boy can't learn to be a man. In addition, it's not like homosexual couples only hang out with people of the same sex they do have friends and relatives of the opposite sex who could fulfill these roles

In addition, I have a feeling if we looked at the statistics we would see that it is not homosexual couples that are screwing up children and having them taken away by social services or giving them away to orphanages or leaving them in dumpsters. Just because people can make children doesnt mean they make good parents. Anyone can donate their genetic material to make a child but it takes a lot more to be a parent.

Your completely correct, and I did not deny one word that you said in my original post. Look closely, I said that the parent would be the "most effective" at full filling such a role. Is that wrong or right to assert? Because men and women generally have pretty similar roles when it comes to children, despite variation. Now your free to disagree with me, but two parents of two different genders would naturally be able to full fill their roles more effectively than not. Come on now, there is always talk about how a "real man" takes responsiblity, stands up for what he believes, protects his family. Homosexuals? A few can claim this as well. THe majority I've met in my life, however, are high-pitched fools who don't know left from right. Have there been intelligent ones? Of course, undoubtablly (it would be foolish to deny). But since we're talking about "love" and marriage being the equivalent of love (though in no time in history has this been true), well, I might as well stand up and say that all homosexuals are dumb and this is a foolish conversation. The concrete is preferable to the intangible, but I have seen mostly fools around me that have been homosexuals. I may be "narrow minded," but I still have yet to see one reason why homosexuality is natural, accepted, and not some mental disease or unnatural development.

Looking at your post i see there is no way to convince you. Although for reference, homosexuality is not a mental disease.

And everybody is dumb one way or another

Your completely correct, and I did not deny one word that you said in my original post. Look closely, I said that the parent would be the "most effective" at full filling such a role. Is that wrong or right to assert? Because men and women generally have pretty similar roles when it comes to children, despite variation. Now your free to disagree with me, but two parents of two different genders would naturally be able to full fill their roles more effectively than not. Come on now, there is always talk about how a "real man" takes responsiblity, stands up for what he believes, protects his family. Homosexuals? A few can claim this as well. THe majority I've met in my life, however, are high-pitched fools who don't know left from right. Have there been intelligent ones? Of course, undoubtablly (it would be foolish to deny). But since we're talking about "love" and marriage being the equivalent of love (though in no time in history has this been true), well, I might as well stand up and say that all homosexuals are dumb and this is a foolish conversation. The concrete is preferable to the intangible, but I have seen mostly fools around me that have been homosexuals. I may be "narrow minded," but I still have yet to see one reason why homosexuality is natural, accepted, and not some mental disease or unnatural development.

peter1191

So you're basing your entire perception of homosexuality off of anecdotal evidence?

Homosexuality in no way impairs someone from being a physically/mentally healthy person and a contributor to society. There's nothing wrong with it.

[QUOTE="ZenesisX"]

I see no problem with it, whats disturbing is that people make a big deal out of it.

lostrib

Agreed...it's only when a bunch of fearmongering nuts got a bunch of people to believe that homosexuals would destroy them did it matter. And to be honest i cant understand the logic it just makes me angry.

Just one last post before I'm off to sleep. I want to see what you guys have to say. Here is my question: where does it end? First homosexuals today, then polygamists tommore (look at canadian politics for an example). Then father-daughter or mother-son relations (when they are old enough to consent). THen the age for said consent will be dropped. Then bestiality. Where does it end? Where do you draw the line on proper human interactions? I say at a man and woman. You say that man-man and woman-woman are "equal." Thats a very flimsy word. "equal" It can be used over and over again, and it will mean something new each and every time. I do not fearmongol, I try to see why such an idea as homosexuality has become accepted in our culture. I will probably be a minority oppositing this trend soon. But you know what, integrity. Thats what I aim for. As everyone else goes with the flow, and accepts things in society as they come, I step outside of it and see the trends. When African-Americans gained their equality back in the 1960s, or Women in the 1920s then 1970s, it was not based of "love" or emotion. It was based of REAL EQUALITY. There is no reason a black man should be inferior to a white one, intellectually or not. Likewise a woman maybe weaker than a man, but in a society where intellect is the new ammunition, she is an equal. Homosexuals are humans too. THey have all the rights we do. They just ask for more. They ask us to change our definition of marrige for them. And who knows? Once a ingrained tradition of the human race is altered, where does it end? There is no "REAL EQUALITY" in the union of homosexuals, only there is equality in the homosexuals themselves. Consider this arguement. It will not convince you, but at least I made my point.

The way I see it it you are against gay marriage you are essentially pro discrimination. I'm cool with gay marriage.

I think its ok and I have not seen a good logical reason yet as to why it shouldnt.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="ZenesisX"]

I see no problem with it, whats disturbing is that people make a big deal out of it.

Agreed...it's only when a bunch of fearmongering nuts got a bunch of people to believe that homosexuals would destroy them did it matter. And to be honest i cant understand the logic it just makes me angry.

Just one last post before I'm off to sleep. I want to see what you guys have to say. Here is my question: where does it end? First homosexuals today, then polygamists tommore (look at canadian politics for an example). Then father-daughter or mother-son relations (when they are old enough to consent). THen the age for said consent will be dropped. Then bestiality. Where does it end? Where do you draw the line on proper human interactions? I say at a man and woman. You say that man-man and woman-woman are "equal." Thats a very flimsy word. "equal" It can be used over and over again, and it will mean something new each and every time. I do not fearmongol, I try to see why such an idea as homosexuality has become accepted in our culture. I will probably be a minority oppositing this trend soon. But you know what, integrity. Thats what I aim for. As everyone else goes with the flow, and accepts things in society as they come, I step outside of it and see the trends. When African-Americans gained their equality back in the 1960s, or Women in the 1920s then 1970s, it was not based of "love" or emotion. It was based of REAL EQUALITY. There is no reason a black man should be inferior to a white one, intellectually or not. Likewise a woman maybe weaker than a man, but in a society where intellect is the new ammunition, she is an equal. Homosexuals are humans too. THey have all the rights we do. They just ask for more. They ask us to change our definition of marrige for them. And who knows? Once a ingrained tradition of the human race is altered, where does it end? There is no "REAL EQUALITY" in the union of homosexuals, only there is equality in the homosexuals themselves. Consider this arguement. It will not convince you, but at least I made my point.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="ZenesisX"]

I see no problem with it, whats disturbing is that people make a big deal out of it.

peter1191

Agreed...it's only when a bunch of fearmongering nuts got a bunch of people to believe that homosexuals would destroy them did it matter. And to be honest i cant understand the logic it just makes me angry.

Just one last post before I'm off to sleep. I want to see what you guys have to say. Here is my question: where does it end? First homosexuals today, then polygamists tommore (look at canadian politics for an example). Then father-daughter or mother-son relations (when they are old enough to consent). THen the age for said consent will be dropped. Then bestiality. Where does it end? Where do you draw the line on proper human interactions? I say at a man and woman. You say that man-man and woman-woman are "equal." Thats a very flimsy word. "equal" It can be used over and over again, and it will mean something new each and every time. I do not fearmongol, I try to see why such an idea as homosexuality has become accepted in our culture. I will probably be a minority oppositing this trend soon. But you know what, integrity. Thats what I aim for. As everyone else goes with the flow, and accepts things in society as they come, I step outside of it and see the trends. When African-Americans gained their equality back in the 1960s, or Women in the 1920s then 1970s, it was not based of "love" or emotion. It was based of REAL EQUALITY. There is no reason a black man should be inferior to a white one, intellectually or not. Likewise a woman maybe weaker than a man, but in a society where intellect is the new ammunition, she is an equal. Homosexuals are humans too. THey have all the rights we do. They just ask for more. They ask us to change our definition of marrige for them. And who knows? Once a ingrained tradition of the human race is altered, where does it end? There is no "REAL EQUALITY" in the union of homosexuals, only there is equality in the homosexuals themselves. Consider this arguement. It will not convince you, but at least I made my point.

Okay where to start (yeah i know this isnt gonna change your mind but at least other people should see a fair argument):

Beastiality is animal abuse, hence it is illegal most places

Incest (father-daughter, mother-son as you say) in many cases this is child abuse, but even considering consent, there are genetic problems. It makes the gene pool smaller which increases the likeliness of genetic defects. Its one of the reasons that hemophilia was such a large problem among the royal families of Europe.

Homosexuality is two consenting adults who have sex with people of the same sex. It's not illegal and doesnt harm other people, unlike those other two things. Hence as two people they should have EQUAL rights as any other american. Check the 14th amendment of the constitution, that states that no citizen of the united states should be deprived of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and shall be given equal protection under the law.

And if marriage is considered a basic right of heterosexuals then homosexuals should have that right as well. This should never have been a political problem, people should all have the same rights and opportunities of everyone else.

I personally am against same sex marriage and wish it wasn't legal. That is all.Vuurk

unfortunately, in the majority of states it is not legal

I don't understand how people can be so judgmental and self-centered that they think they somehow can decide how other people can choose to display their love for each other. Marriage is not an institution "owned" by either the state or a particular belief. It is an age-old practice that predates modern society in every possible way and is merely a way of publicly announcing your love and commitment to someone else.

If God truly were against gays getting married... you'd think he'd come down from the sky and smite them all. But he doesn't. You want to know why? Because God doesn't hate gays, he loves them as much as he loves everyone else... no matter what anyone has been misled to believe. If God truly does exist and is "God," he wouldn't care how you lived your life or what religion you chose... just so long as you are kind to other people and respect them as much as you expect to be respected.

I don't understand how people can be so judgmental and self-centered that they think they somehow can decide how other people can choose to display their love for each other. Marriage is not an institution "owned" by either the state or a particular belief. It is an age-old practice that predates modern society in every possible way and is merely a way of publicly announcing your love and commitment to someone else.

If God truly were against gays getting married... you'd think he'd come down from the sky and smite them all. But he doesn't. You want to know why? Because God doesn't hate gays, he loves them as much as he loves everyone else... no matter what anyone has been misled to believe. If God truly does exist and is "God," he wouldn't care how you lived your life or what religion you chose... just so long as you are kind to other people and respect them as much as you expect to be respected.

foxhound_fox

Wow this is one of the better statements i've seen so far. Also a great view on religion

I don't understand how people can be so judgmental and self-centered that they think they somehow can decide how other people can choose to display their love for each other. Marriage is not an institution "owned" by either the state or a particular belief. It is an age-old practice that predates modern society in every possible way and is merely a way of publicly announcing your love and commitment to someone else.

If God truly were against gays getting married... you'd think he'd come down from the sky and smite them all. But he doesn't. You want to know why? Because God doesn't hate gays, he loves them as much as he loves everyone else... no matter what anyone has been misled to believe. If God truly does exist and is "God," he wouldn't care how you lived your life or what religion you chose... just so long as you are kind to other people and respect them as much as you expect to be respected.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

I don't understand how people can be so judgmental and self-centered that they think they somehow can decide how other people can choose to display their love for each other. Marriage is not an institution "owned" by either the state or a particular belief. It is an age-old practice that predates modern society in every possible way and is merely a way of publicly announcing your love and commitment to someone else.

If God truly were against gays getting married... you'd think he'd come down from the sky and smite them all. But he doesn't. You want to know why? Because God doesn't hate gays, he loves them as much as he loves everyone else... no matter what anyone has been misled to believe. If God truly does exist and is "God," he wouldn't care how you lived your life or what religion you chose... just so long as you are kind to other people and respect them as much as you expect to be respected.

JustPlainLucas

Well if he's gonna smite us all anyways...lets just have equal rights till then :D