Textbook censorship. Hooray, hooray.

[Mechagodzilla]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=230700

Seems a bit sad to me that Texas, having banned both gay marriage and civil unions, has now gone the extra step of teaching children that gay marriages and civil unions do not exist.
This will be a forerunner of the eventual legislation that gays (and 'metrosexuals') can be shot on sight "no questions asked".

Well, ABC didn't report that bit, but I can see it happening at this rate if the trend picks up. Texas don't like no gays. :p

Apparently the gov would not approve educational materials that so much as hinted that there was more than one way to marry.
Yep, even though it is an absolute fact that gay marriages do take place right now across the world, and could very well end up happening elsewheres in the US, Texas is modifying their textbooks to teach kids that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.
Goodbye, facts. Hello religious influence over a secular educational institution:
Board member Terri Leo, a Republican, said she was pleased with the publishers' changes. She had led the effort to get the publishers to change the texts, objecting to what she called "asexual stealth phrases" such as "individuals who marry."
[...]
Neither publisher added all the changes Leo initially pushed for. For instance, one proposed passage in the teacher's editions read: "Opinions vary on why homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals as a group are more prone to self-destructive behaviors like depression, illegal drug use, and suicide."
I'd let Terri Leo teach my kids, wouldn't you? Of course, some in the "liberal elite" disagree:
Board member Mary Helen Berlanga, a Democrat, asked the panel to approve the books without the changes, but her proposal was rejected on a 10-4 vote.

"We're not supposed to make changes at somebody's whim," Berlanga said. "It's a political agenda, and we're not here to follow a political agenda."
Boo! If we can't edit innaccuracies into educational materials just to further a political agenda, what can we do?

[Neutrino]

:x

I am seriously getting sick of this shit.

[K e r b e r o s]

Oh jesus, we really should protest this. Honestly.

[Maxi]

I like the us, and wan't my children to be taught in texas.

[Korgoth]

Oh their God.
And I say their God, becasue that is their driving force, and you know what, their God is completely different from the one I believe. The one I put my faith in is all loving, caring, forgiving, not homophobic, and pissed.
People who go to these extremes just because someone is different than them, just makes me shed a tear for humanity.

[el Chi]

That's disgusting. And how the hell did they ban civil unions!?

[Absinthe]

Disgusted, but not surprised.

[CptStern]

just another example of bush's "moral america" at work ..wont be surprised when they bring back the lords prayer in public school

[K e r b e r o s]

Oh, I'll have a say in that...

[hasan]

eh? they just redefined marrige.
what's so wrong with that?
what actually annoys me is that in canada they teach kids at school that gayness is normal. now THAT is wrong.

[CptStern]

it is normal

[burnzie]

it isn't normal.

If you look at it in the most basic form. You are supposed to mate with the opposet sex, its how it works on the "species" level. We wouldnt survive if everyone was gay...

[CptStern]

it isn't normal.

If you look at it in the most basic form. You are supposed to mate with the opposet sex, its how it works on the "species" level. We wouldnt survive if everyone was gay...

ah but mother nature allows for variances of species especially when resources are plentiful and over population is a threat

[TheGGMan]

yes and the fact other animals are gay. its liek saying being lazy isnt normal because it doesnt contribute to the species

THINK

doesnt surprise tbh, religoun is mostly a means of control over a society ergo this is why all surviving communities have it

[Absinthe]

As was pointed out earlier, homosexuality is indeed normal on a biological level.

It's also normal on a social level as well.

[Death.Trap]

I like the us, and wan't my children to be taught in texas.


I would have to agree.

EDIT-I'll debate this later...I'm to damn tired to be bothered right now =/

[burner69]

As a species we are born bi-sexual. So there goes your argument of gay not being 'natural'.

If you're suggesting homosexuality is wrong because it can't produce babies I ask people here - does everyone have sex to have a baby? Erm... I don't. I it is the general consensus that most of the time sex is for enjoyment.

If anybody has any anti-homosexual views they wish to debate on, I'm sure you'll find there are many people here willing to debate you.

Making kids blind to the world is sick, it'll just confuse them when they encounter a homosexual, and likely make them ignorant homophobics as they grow older.

As for considering teaching kids that gays are more prone to depression/ illegal drug use etc, though I'd question if it were true, I'm sure if it is it stems from being picked on by their own government time and time again.

You're country is already taking a step backwards, after less than a week. I find it disturbing.

[LAYP]

I wonder if we will meet a day when we all sit around a fire snort a grunt and call each other fags. Should be a week from now..

America's state sadness me, 4 more years then I get to vote.

[Dem0nEgg]

Dddddoouble think?

[hasan]

pfft .. no it isn't normal. and this gay gene doesn't exist. have proof it exists? post a link.
I'm sure most people have no proof, they were just fed in school that gays are born that way and that it's not fair bla bla ..
but truth is, there is not much scintific support for this, and the little that exists can be easily debated (not by me, mind you, I'm not a scientist, but I'm trying to say there is no solid evidence and no one can claim it's a scientific fact).

So, what I want to know is: what is wrong with defining marrige as a relation ship between a wife and a husband?!
wow .. just because there are marriges between gays doesn't mean we have to redefine marrige to fit gays.
and just because we are triyng to redefine marrige to be between males and females .. that doesn't mean we are saying "there are no married gays", truth is, there are gays who are legally considered married.

There is a huge difference between defining marrige, and sayign that there are no gays who are legally considered married.

[Lil' Timmy]

hasan, homosexuality is found in biology outside of humans. taking this as a given, how do you maintain that homosexuality is not "normal"? what do you mean by that?

[Death.Trap]

hasan, homosexuality is found in biology outside of humans. taking this as a given, how do you maintain that homosexuality is not "normal"? what do you mean by that?

Yes but unlike other animals who do not "think" and posses no consience(sp?) we have a choice in what we do.

[Lil' Timmy]

so are you arguing that homosexuals should suppress homosexual urges, in spite of nature?

also, to contend that no other animal beside humans possess self-awareness in a bit conceited.. at best you could say they possess a different sentience.

[aeroripper]

Man i can't wait until bush and his regime have book burnings against anything that offends his viewpoint.

Anybody want to see how to setup absoulte control in america? Add things like this to the list

[Death.Trap]

so are you arguing that homosexuals should suppress homosexual urges, in spite of nature?

also, to contend that no other animal beside humans possess self-awareness in a bit conceited.. at best you could say they possess a different sentience.


Yes Timmy, that's exactly what I'm saying. I have a homosexual cousin. He doesn't engage in any sexual activity with other guys because he believes it's wrong. If he can do it, why can't anyone else?

[LAYP]

Because what is the need to? Why does he believe its wrong?

[Mechagodzilla]

Yes Timmy, that's exactly what I'm saying. I have a homosexual cousin. He doesn't engage in any sexual activity with other guys because he believes it's wrong. If he can do it, why can't anyone else?

If he doesn't want to, that's his choice, whatever his motivation.

However, you can't possibly expect tens of thousands of american citizens to give up sex just because other people don't enjoy sex. That's insane.

I don't enjoy reading the bible, but I would never ban it.
"I found the bible is boring. If I can ban myself from the bible, why would christians get mad if I banned it from them>?"

eh? they just redefined marrige.
what's so wrong with that?

Because they redefined it into a way that is factually incorrect. The US government is censoring the truth out of education! I can't see how you'd be for it.

Let's say I hate jam sandwiches, and I'm on the school board.
I just changed every reference to sandwiches to make it absolutely clear that no sandwich can ever contain jam.
People might want jam, and people across the world eat jam sandwiches all the time.
However, I am teaching small children that jam does not exist, just to further my selfish agenda against a harmless product.
This is only a partial victory for me of course. I had pushed for other edits too, like adding the sentence: "Opinions differ as to how jam causes cancer."

Stalin had books censored to remove all reference to people who opposed him. Those who neglect history are doomed to repeat it.

what actually annoys me is that in canada they teach kids at school that gayness is normal. now THAT is wrong.

Alright, lets just for a minute concede the baseless notion that gays are "not normal".

Isn't decrying them as abnormal the same as punishing gays for being different?
Since gays are basically the same as any other human in society except in irrelevant cultural practices, abnormal is just another word for 'different' in this case.

I've gathered from your posts that you are an iraqi living in Canada.
How would you react if the canadian government passed a law to prevent you from ever marrying anyone?
After all, you are different too, because of your race and because of your religion.

By choosing to marry in a way that many christians do not agree with, gays have essentially created their own religious belief system.
You support the abolishment of a key part of their belief system, just because they are not the same as you.

Oh, gays can't procreate? Then they chose a life of procreational celibacy. That is thier choice. We won't force them to have straight sex because they chose a lifestyle that is different.
Either they chose, or they are born different than you, like how I was born white.

Be it tantamount to religious or to racial persecution, gays are being discriminated against solely because they are different.

That's what's called racism.

Gays may not be normal to you, but you're not normal to me either. There's this place called reality, and in it, everyone is different.
Normalcy is abnormal, since nothing is uniform.
So, you can either accept that no-one is normal, or you can continue to fight the facts and hurt people through your support of a comforting lie.

[Lil' Timmy]

If he doesn't want to, that's his choice, whatever his motivation.

However, you can't possibly expect tens of thousands of american citizens to give up sex just because other people don't enjoy sex. That's insane.more to the point, and to expand upon what LAYP was talking about. the real point here is that death.trap's cousin doesn't do it because he personally feels it's wrong. obviously, this says nothing about the wrongness or rightness of the act itself. to examne that, one has to appeal to either biology or social authority (religion, government, etc.). personally, i don't think social authority has any right to decree a position unless it's well-supported by facts. the fact is that homosexuality is a normal part of biology.

humans can choose to do any number of things, i can choose to run people over on the sidewalks with my jeep.. does that make it right?

EDIT: but, this is a somewhat separate discussion for homosexual marriage. marriage itself is entirely a social construct. most mammals, humans inclided, are monogamous over short terms, and polygynous over their lifetimes.. a bit of a precedent for the instituion of marriage, but not much. in any case, homosexual animals for pair bonds as readily as heterosexual ones. so it doens't say much one way or the other.

it seems to me that homosexual marriage should be decided within the realm of societal rule, and we as a society need to determine if we are more interested in defending a heterosexual monopoly on marriage and it's benefits or in defending the civil rights of all of our citizens.

[Kangy]

Homosexuality is normal and natural.

Humanity has specific genes in place to prevent destruction of humanity through homosexuality, and it's all over the animal kingdom.
Anyone opposing this due to religion disgusts me, as supposedly, America isn't tied to the Church.

[Mechagodzilla]

humans can choose to do any number of things, i can choose to run people over on the sidewalks with my jeep.. does that make it right?
That point draws an interesting comparison.
Freedom has its limits at the exact point where other's freedoms are infringed. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Running over people with a jeep, for example, infringes on thier freedom to live and be happy. So, to preserve freedom, America outlaws vehicular manslaughter.

Now let's look at the sides of the gay marriage argument:

-Gays, by seeking marriage, infringe on none of thse freedoms.
-Supporters of the constitutional ban, however, infringe on gay's liberties and their pursuit of happiness.

So, a vote against the gay definition of marriage is simultaneously a vote against american freedom.

Or, in other words, banning gay marriage is akin to hitting someone with a jeep:
It shouldn't be allowed, even if 60% of midwestern americans want to.

[Lil' Timmy]

animals run each other over with their jeeps.. i should be allowed to too you ****ing bigot! :angry: :flame:





:angel:

[burner69]

*Claps MechaGodzilla*

And guys, I would be very interested if anybody can find answers for illegalising gay marriage after that post which are actually logical and make any form of sense.

Because, you can't.

[Mechagodzilla]

I'm sorry timmeh!
I'll vote for the zebra-murderjeep ammendment the minute I become an American citizen.

And burner69, that's my 150$ theory, as expressed through my signature. :P
So far, no argument has even come close to winning the big prize, and only one person has even bothered to try.

[CptStern]

I'm sorry timmeh!
I'll vote for the zebra-murderjeep ammendment the minute I become an American citizen.

And burner69, that's my 150$ theory, as expressed through my signature. :P
So far, no argument has even come close to winning the big prize, and only one person has even bothered to try.


pffft that's an easy one:

"..cuz divorce is expensive" ...I'll take cash, no cheques please :thumbs:

[burner69]

I'm sorry timmeh!
I'll vote for the zebra-murderjeep ammendment the minute I become an American citizen.

And burner69, that's my 150$ theory, as expressed through my signature. :P
So far, no argument has even come close to winning the big prize, and only one person has even bothered to try.

I think your money's safe.

[hasan]

Because they redefined it into a way that is factually incorrect. The US government is censoring the truth out of education! I can't see how you'd be for it.

They are not saying there are no gays who are married, they are saying marrige is something between males and females. nowhere do they claim that there doesn't exist in the world people who have different difenition of marrige or people who allow gay marriges.


Let's say I hate jam sandwiches, and I'm on the school board.
I just changed every reference to sandwiches to make it absolutely clear that no sandwich can ever contain jam.
People might want jam, and people across the world eat jam sandwiches all the time.
However, I am teaching small children that jam does not exist, just to further my selfish agenda against a harmless product.

you are not teaching anyone that there are no people who put jam in sandwitch, you are saying if there is a jam between two breads then it's better be called something other than sandwitch.
I had pushed for other edits too, like adding the sentence: "Opinions differ as to how jam causes cancer."

well, when you make a claim about something, it's better be true, that's the criterian.
so, if that statement is correct, there is nothing wrong with it.
if it's not, then it's a pure lie.

That's kind of interesting, gay lobbies are pushing towards the exact same thing you are claiming to oppose: they are distorting facts according to thier agenda.

1- They teach kids at school that gays are normal.
All people who posted here had nothing to say other than gays are normal, I asked for links but I recieved none. why? becuase most people don't know what they are talking about and are just repeating what they have been spoon-fed at school.
2- They teach kids that any side who opposes thier view is racist, or just like racists. (ideological terrorism)


Alright, lets just for a minute concede the baseless notion that gays are "not normal".

Isn't decrying them as abnormal the same as punishing gays for being different?
Since gays are basically the same as any other human in society except in irrelevant cultural practices, abnormal is just another word for 'different' in this case.

People are not all the same, differences are a normal part of life, everything is different, there are different kinds of people, different kinds of animals, different kinds of fruits .. etc. there are even different "sub-types" of each type of animals and fruits.

Another part of life is right and wrong, some things are right and somethings are wrong. and naturally the concept of differences applies to right and wrong.

So, your argument about gays just being difference an be applied to anything that is wrong.

Let's give it a try:

racist people are different, they have different ideologies, why shouldn't they be allowed? just because you believe in tolerance doesn't mean you can stop people who don't believe in tolerance
from living. why should you teach kids at school that they should tolerate? why don't you let them decide on their own?
and why should you teach kids that racists are bad? why are they bad? they are just different! that's why you hate them1!!!111

/sarcasm

if you have really looked at my older posts, you would relize that I think gayness is psychological, and can be reversed.
It should be treated as some psychological illness that needs to be treated, just like drug addicts need to be treated.

btw, gayness doesn't have a direct harm on anyone, but in the long run, it harms the whole society.
It's one of those things liek alcolhol, adultery .. and all kinds of other things. when you drink alcohol in your basement, you have no direct effect on me. but in the long run, you'll have a negative effect on your children, and your family.
when you promote alcohol, you are spreading this illness to society, after a generation or two, you get a society with all sorts of social problems.
just to give an example.

How would you react if the canadian government passed a law to prevent you from ever marrying anyone?
After all, you are different too, because of your race and because of your religion.

gayness is -like a said - not a race nor a religion.


By choosing to marry in a way that many christians do not agree with, gays have essentially created their own religious belief system.
You support the abolishment of a key part of their belief system, just because they are not the same as you.

Can a drugs society (society, i.e. as in a group) be considered a differnt beliefe system because they are people who believe in taking drugs?


Be it tantamount to religious or to racial persecution, gays are being discriminated against solely because they are different.

This whole "different" argument doesn't do justice to the topic. It's alot bigger than that.

let me put it on bold:
Gayness destroyes society

Normalcy is abnormal, since nothing is uniform.
So, you can either accept that no-one is normal, or you can continue to fight the facts and hurt people through your support of a comforting lie.
I am getting a feeling that you are one of those people who think there is no such thing as morals, and tht morals are just some sorts of irrational restrictions set by society?

[burner69]

They are not saying there are no gays who are married, they are saying marrige is something between males and females. nowhere do they claim that there doesn't exist in the world people who have different difenition of marrige or people who allow gay marriges.


you are not teaching anyone that there are no people who put jam in sandwitch, you are saying if there is a jam between two breads then it's better be called something other than sandwitch.

well, when you make a claim about something, it's better be true, that's the criterian.
so, if that statement is correct, there is nothing wrong with it.
if it's not, then it's a pure lie.

That's kind of interesting, gay lobbies are pushing towards the exact same thing you are claiming to oppose: they are distorting facts according to thier agenda.

1- They teach kids at school that gays are normal.
All people who posted here had nothing to say other than gays are normal, I asked for links but I recieved none. why? becuase most people don't know what they are talking about and are just repeating what they have been spoon-fed at school.
2- They teach kids that any side who opposes thier view is racist, or just like racists. (ideological terrorism)


People are not all the same, differences are a normal part of life, everything is different, there are different kinds of people, different kinds of animals, different kinds of fruits .. etc. there are even different "sub-types" of each type of animals and fruits.

Another part of life is right and wrong, some things are right and somethings are wrong. and naturally the concept of differences applies to right and wrong.

So, your argument about gays just being difference an be applied to anything that is wrong.

Let's give it a try:

racist people are different, they have different ideologies, why shouldn't they be allowed? just because you believe in tolerance doesn't mean you can stop people who don't believe in tolerance
from living. why should you teach kids at school that they should tolerate? why don't you let them decide on their own?
and why should you teach kids that racists are bad? why are they bad? they are just different! that's why you hate them1!!!111

/sarcasm

if you have really looked at my older posts, you would relize that I think gayness is psychological, and can be reversed.
It should be treated as some psychological illness that needs to be treated, just like drug addicts need to be treated.

btw, gayness doesn't have a direct harm on anyone, but in the long run, it harms the whole society.
It's one of those things liek alcolhol, adultery .. and all kinds of other things. when you drink alcohol in your basement, you have no direct effect on me. but in the long run, you'll have a negative effect on your children, and your family.
when you promote alcohol, you are spreading this illness to society, after a generation or two, you get a society with all sorts of social problems.
just to give an example.
gayness is -like a said - not a race nor a religion.
Can a drugs society (society, i.e. as in a group) be considered a differnt beliefe system because they are people who believe in taking drugs?
This whole "different" argument doesn't do justice to the topic. It's alot bigger than that.
Gayness destroyes society


I am getting a feeling that you are one of those people who think there is no such thing as morals, and tht morals are just some sorts of irrational restrictions set by society?

I will now rip your argument to shreds.

1. You are taught things at school. Boys are taught about girls in sex education, if they weren't there might be some people missing out on information not given by parents. They would not be prepared for life as those who had been told. By not telling kids gays can marry too you are hiding the truth from them. Not lying, but not telling the truth.
2. Difference between sandwiches and gay marriage is that now gays CANNOT marry. Now there is not 'another name' for marriage between to gays. There is not marriage at all.
3.That I believe was relating to a topic about drugs we are having elsewhere, I could be wrong.
4. Don't know what you're talking about, please explain.
5. We should teach kids that gay marriage happens, not that it's normal. People have said normal here because; a) it happens, and b) it's easier than saying "it should be allowed to happen because a small number of the population chose to partake in it's practice."
6. By removing people's rights based on the principle of their sexuality is racist. That's pretty much by definition I think. That's why they're called racist, because they are.
7. How is homosexuality wrong? What wrong does it cause?
8. Racist people purposefully hurt people/ marginalise people/ abuse people based on their religion/ race/ sexuality. Homosexuals should not be compared to racists, as their sexual preferences cause no harm.
9. Homosexuality certainly is psychological - it's something in your brain. Every human process is reversable, as many psychologists have shown, you can make a person gay as well with enough psychological experiements done on them. It is NOT an illness. I don't even need to step in on the biological ground, I can simply say, an illness is something that causes harm. Finding people of the same sex attractive does no harm. If it does (other than perhaps getting on the nerves of ignorant people) then please tell me what harm it does.
10. You're final argument made little sense. You are sugesting that having gay families harms society? Please tell me why. Will everyone start bumming eachother and not go to work? Will everyone start attacking you in the street because they want to rape you, because, well, you're a male, and so are they. BS.
Don't just say GAYNESS DESTROYS SOCIETY. Give me some evidence I'll believe you, until then, don't make accusations.
11. Why is it immoral to be gay? Or to allow gays to marry? What harm does it do to them, you, and society? Nothing.

Come back with logical responses, and not igorant personal views based around nothing other than BS.

Until then, stop polluting this thread with backward, racist comments that do far more harm to society than any homosexual marriage ever could.

[burner69]

I will now rip your argument to shreds.

1. You are taught things at school. Boys are taught about girls in sex education, if they weren't there might be some people missing out on information not given by parents. They would not be prepared for life as those who had been told. By not telling kids gays can marry too you are hiding the truth from them. Not lying, but not telling the truth.
2. Difference between sandwiches and gay marriage is that now gays CANNOT marry. Now there is not 'another name' for marriage between to gays. There is not marriage at all.
3.That I believe was relating to a topic about drugs we are having elsewhere, I could be wrong.
4. Don't know what you're talking about, please explain.
5. We teach should teach kids that gay marriage happens, not that it's normal. People have said normal here because; a) it happens, and b) it's easier than saying "it should be allowed to happen because a small number of the population chose to partake in it's practice."
6. By removing people's rights based on the principle of their sexuality is racist. That's pretty much by definition I think. That's why they're called racist, because they are.
7. How is homosexuality wrong? What wrong does it cause?
8. Racist people purposefully hurt people/ marginalise people/ abuse people based on their religion/ race/ sexuality. Homosexuals should not be compared to racists, as their sexual preferences cause no harm.
9. Homosexuality certainly is psychological - it's something in your brain. Every human process is reversable, as many psychologists have shown, you can make a person gay as well with enough psychological experiements done on them. It is NOT an illness. I don't even need to step in on the biological ground, I can simply say, an illness is something that causes harm. Finding people of the same sex attractive does no harm. If it does (other than perhaps getting on the nerves of ignorant people) then please tell me what harm it does.
10. You're final argument made little sense. You are sugesting that having gay families harms society? Please tell me why. Will everyone start bumming eachother and not go to work? Will everyone start attacking you in the street because they want to rape you, because, well, you're a male, and so are they. BS.
Don't just say GAYNESS DESTROYS SOCIETY. Give me some evidence I'll believe you, until then, don't make accusations.
11. Why is it immoral to be gay? Or to allow gays to marry? What harm does it do to them, you, and society? Nothing.

Come back with logical responses, and not igorant personal views based around nothing other than BS.

Until then, stop polluting this thread with backward, racist comments that do far more harm to society than any homosexual marriage ever could.

EDIT: Why is sexuality different from race or religion? Please tell me.

[hasan]

Come back with logical responses, and not igorant personal views based around nothing other than BS.
Yes .. please do that.

[burner69]

Yes .. please do that.

You're funny :cheers: :rolleyes:

[burner69]

I like how I answer back all of your problems with homosexuality. Then you highlight one bit of mine and take the p*ss out of it claiming I have not made an effort.

If you cannot tell me why homosexuality is 'not natural' or 'bad' or 'immoral' then please don't bother posting anti-gay threads. If, however, you can, you're welcome to debate with me.

[burner69]

Oh and there is no research that I know that says homosexuality helps or hinders society. Although studies have been carried out. www.google.com
The reason you must come up with evidence that gays are bad is because you are throwing accusations.
I can't come up to you and say: "Deers are bad for society - prove me wrong." cuz it's illogical BS.
You, sir, are a racist as it stands. I would like you to try and accept others views (about gays, not MY view on gays). If you cannot understand that many millions of people find people of the same sex attractive, and it causes no harm, then you have a very closed mind indeed.
Go live in the dark ages.
This is modern society.

[hasan]

I like how I answer back all of your problems with homosexuality. Then you highlight one bit of mine and take the p*ss out of it claiming I have not made an effort.
I like how I posted several paragraphs, and how you wrote short lines, which are basically just talking points, which I already answered, then you claim that I am the one who is speaking nonsense.

Back in march 2003, I was in a forum about a half-life mod, they had an offtopic forum, and everyone was in support of the war.
When I replied back and tried to tell them that Americans are bombing civillians, they all accused me of the same thing you are accusing me now: I am stupid! and their answer was only "try to say something intellegent!".

I like how I reply to something, and isntead of replying to my reply, you restate the same thing I replied to.

[burner69]

You still haven't given any reasons WHY gays shouldn't be allowed to get on with it.
You've said it's immoral. WHY?

Just because you were right in one forum - I'm guessing the issue was about the war in Iraq, and I'm very much against the way America has handled itself. I was in the debate about that that got us the politics forum.

This is not about being right or wrong in other forums, this is about being right here.

I have explained many times why you cannoy justify stopping gays from marrying. You have just said it's immoral.
I've said it's moral BECAUSE: It dosen't harm anyone apart from homophobics, why else would someone fear/ have an otherwise nasty reaction to a homosexual?
It is natural, occurs in the animal kingdom.
It is natural, they DO it for Christ's sake, with all the stick they get for it off people like you don't you think they must feel really strongly about it to want to carry on.
They enjoy it. They do, or they wouldn't do it.
It harms no one.

Now please answer this question:
WHY SHOULD GAYS NOT BE ALLOWED TO MARRY?

Give reasons, ^^ like I have, and I might accept your opinion as half valid. Until then, you do not have an argument, and I would point out to you that you beliefs contridict basic reasoning.

[MadHatter]

Hmmmm, another heated debate. I think Half-Life 2 needs to hurry up and be released.

[hasan]

I'm not saying I'm always right -- no one is.
I'm just saying you're pretty much giving me the same attitude.

I have explained many times why you cannoy justify stopping gays from marrying. You have just said it's immoral.
I said it harms society, I also explained for you that "gayness doesn't have a direct harm on anyone, but in the long run, it harms the whole society.
It's one of those things like alcohol, adultery .. and all kinds of other things. when you drink alcohol in your basement, you have no direct effect on me. but in the long run, you'll have a negative effect on your children, and your family.
when you promote alcohol, you are spreading this illness to society, after a generation or two, you get a society with all sorts of social problems.
just to give an example."
/quoting myself

It is natural, occurs in the animal kingdom.
I'll have to look more into that, but some animals eat thier babies, does that make it natural, and thus aceptable?
Not everythings animals do is natural ..
http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

I requested an evidence for this gay gene, where is it?

[burner69]

Hmmmm, another heated debate. I think Half-Life 2 needs to hurry up and be released.
lol true.
Marxist View on games! (That I just invented). Games like half life 2 are used by the repressing classes to get gamers off forums discussing important issues that may eventually lead to some action being taken.
They all probably smoke cannabis anyway, bloody criminals ;)

[burner69]

Perhaps in this case, although I may not be totally right, I'm fighting on the side that has the most logical and moral sense to it.

Again you haven't answered my question.
WHAT HARM DOES IT DO TO SOCIETY?

Homosexuality is nothing like alcoholism. It's like comparing hugging somebody to shooting somebody.

Eating babies breaks moral and logical law. Gayness does not.

That web site also fails to realise that eating babies harms creatures, and therefore should not be replicated in our society, Gay people do not harm others. And if they do, it's nothing to do with their homosexuality.

Animals have sex with animals of the same sex.
And... ur... gay people exist. Are you saying that human behaviour is not natural? And even if it isn't 'natural' in your sense of the word, it still does no harm to anybody.
Tell me how it harms society as you claim. Please, do.

[burner69]

What harm? Go on, search google until you come up with ANY piece of crap that says gays are bad. I'm guessing it either comes from befire the 1970s or is from Nazi based belief systems.
If you can't open your eyes and see that gays do no harm to anyone, or society, there's no point in arguing with you.
However I shall continue to argue if you persist, as you have yet to give a logical reason why, and also I could make $150.

[Mechagodzilla]

hasan, give up.

It doesn't matter if there's a gay gene, or being gay is a choice.
It doesn't matter if animals do it, or if they don't and it's all somehow an illusion.
It doesn't matter because you have consistently failed to provide a single example of how a gay harms anyone just by existing.

"Well, lots of different things are bad, so gays therefore are too." is not a sensible argument.
Saying "gays are like drugs" and just leaving it at that is not a sensible argument.

Explain to me, one example of how a gay directly or indirectly harms anything just by existing.

Just one!

You can do that, right?

Here is an example of a crappy argument:
"gayness doesn't have a direct harm on anyone, but in the long run, it harms the whole society.
It's one of those things like alcohol, adultery .. and all kinds of other things. when you drink alcohol in your basement, you have no direct effect on me. but in the long run, you'll have a negative effect on your children, and your family.
when you promote alcohol, you are spreading this illness to society, after a generation or two, you get a society with all sorts of social problems.
just to give an example."
So are you saying that homosexuality is intoxicating? Does it cause liver damage? Is it a depressant? Does it harm brain cells? Does it trigger abuse? Does it affect your ability to drive?

You can't just explain that something is harmful without knowing why.

You're saying:

Gay + X = Chaos

It's not a sensible argument unless you know what "X" is.

[burner69]

In a mirrored argument going on in general topic - gay marriage. One guy who is opposing gays has admitted openly that the reason he can't justify his opinion is because there is no logic to it. He still believes it valid.
Take a look, and hang your heads in sorrow.

The anti-gay argument has no logic behind it.

[hasan]

lol, I think he won't give you the $150 unless he is convinced by the argument.

I'm still waiting for gay gene evidence, if it exists. but um, I'm not offering any $$$.

anyway, first of all, like I said, the harm of homosexuality is indirect, and is not short-term, but a long-term one. to be able to see it, one must look beyond what he first sees. It's really hard for the someone with a closed mind to see it.
I said it's like alcohol for example, its harm to society is not direct, and an idiot can argue that it doesn't harm anybody. a guy is getting intoxeicated in his living room, what harm does it do to you? let alone to society? I think arguing with someone thinking like that is pretty tough. he will always come back and say: how is a person getting drunk in his living room gonna harm anyone else?
one can easily invent a term "alcohol-o-phobic" and accuse anyone who tries to warn him of alcohol to be an irrational "alcohol-o-phobic", he might also draw connection between him and the Nazis (did Nazis ban alcohol?) or even dig up history to find a tolletarian regime which banned alcohol and connect him to that regime.
For me to explain the harms of gayness to society is no easy task, you first have to think about what the term society means, and what are the criterian for measuring the health of that society.
Some people would argue that the acceptance of gays is tolerance, and since tolerance is a good sign for a healthy society, then allowing gay marriges makes the society healthier!
But that arguemnt reduces the issue to a minority problem, which is in this case not true. because as I already said, but let me rephrase it, gayness is a practice, and it should be categorized along with pedophelia, bestiality, adultery, drugs and alcohol, not with religous and racial groups and minorities.

Society is made up of families (or tribes in some cases), these families are made up of individuals, in general, there must be some ways to tell whether a society is "socially healthy" or not. what I mean by that phrase is, it might be socially healthy as in there are strong social bounds between the people, but the society might be lacking in .. say, the side of economics. Think about third world countries. some countries might be poor but if you look at them purly from a social point of view, they might be considred healthy. so let's restrict the definition to the social aspect alone.

How do you know if a society is healthy? well one criterian would be the strength of social bounds, family bounds, etc. for example, imagine a place where everybody throws thier parents in a .. what's it called? senior homes? a place where people leave their old "useless" parents to "live". would you say that's a healthy society? no.
Imagine a place where everybody knows everybody, say for example, if one family's house gets burned, everybody helps that family get a new house and new stuff .. etc. I would say that's a healthy society.
If people grow up hating their parents, for what ever reasons, I'd say that's not a healthy society.
Naturally, tolerance IS one of the criteria.
Ofcourse these are only single criterions, one cannot only use one of them to measure the health of the society, but I'm just trying to give examples here.
Do we agree on that? because if we don't there is no point in continuing.

P.S. it's late right now (1:30 AM) so I might fo off and continue tomorrow.

[MadHatter]

lol, I think he won't give you the $150 unless he is convinced by the argument.

I'm still waiting for gay gene evidence, if it exists. but um, I'm not offering any $$$.


Who said it was related to a gene?

And yeah, it's getting late here to, I might add something to this another time. Damn, that's this debate, the drug debate, the nazi debate... I have quite a big of work to do.

[Neutrino]

It's really hard for the someone with a closed mind to see it.


That has got to be the single most ironic statement I have ever heard.

You do not have one single shred of evidence to back up your opinion. Oh and comparing it with alcohol does not work. There is direct evidence that alcohol harms people. It has nothing in common with gays. Try again.

[falconwind]

The concept of marriage and being gay existed far before any religion was invented. And I do say INVENTED.

[qckbeam]

That is an infuriating article...just reading it gets me extremly pissed off...

[falconwind]

Oh, almost forgot.

Censorship is bad.

First it's censorship, then it's revisionist history. Next thing you know Native Indians simply disappeared, the US won the Korean War, and Iraq was loaded with WMDs.

[BHC]

Disgusted, but not surprised.

same, and sweet avatar... ugh still disgusted.... really disgusted..

[MadHatter]

Oh, almost forgot.

Censorship is bad.

First it's censorship, then it's revisionist history. Next thing you know Native Indians simply disappeared, the US won the Korean War, and Iraq was loaded with WMDs.

Didn't we lose WW II? Oh yeah, and the moon landing was a frabrication of Hollywood. Also, Bush is a democrat. Can't believe you guys don't know these things. Hmph, should be ashamed.

[Mechagodzilla]

[See above.]
Apparently you missed my example of a crappy argument, hasan, because you just repeated the exact same crappy argument.

You are comparing gays to alcoholics and drug addicts?
You have failed to provide one single explanation of how they would harm someone like an addict harms his family.

You are comparing gays to pedophiles?
You have failed to provide one single explanation of how they would harm someone like a pedophile harms children.

You are comparing gays to bestialists?
You have failed to provide an example of how they would harm someone like a bestialist harms an animal.

Problem with all those arguments:
Addicts have impaired senses and are prone to harmful criminal behaviour.
Pedophiles and bestialists harm things that can't deny consent.

Gays do neither of those things.
Argument: Busted.

So no, you won't get 150$.
I will, however, seriously give the money to anyone that I am unable to fully refute on this topic.
Sadly, no such person exists.

I consider it to be like a prize for the guy who captures bigfoot.

[OCybrManO]

anyway, first of all, like I said, the harm of homosexuality is indirect, and is not short-term, but a long-term one. to be able to see it, one must look beyond what he first sees. It's really hard for the someone with a closed mind to see it.
I said it's like alcohol for example, its harm to society is not direct, and an idiot can argue that it doesn't harm anybody. a guy is getting intoxeicated in his living room, what harm does it do to you? let alone to society? I think arguing with someone thinking like that is pretty tough. he will always come back and say: how is a person getting drunk in his living room gonna harm anyone else?
one can easily invent a term "alcohol-o-phobic" and accuse anyone who tries to warn him of alcohol to be an irrational "alcohol-o-phobic", he might also draw connection between him and the Nazis (did Nazis ban alcohol?) or even dig up history to find a tolletarian regime which banned alcohol and connect him to that regime.
For me to explain the harms of gayness to society is no easy task, you first have to think about what the term society means, and what are the criterian for measuring the health of that society.
Some people would argue that the acceptance of gays is tolerance, and since tolerance is a good sign for a healthy society, then allowing gay marriges makes the society healthier!
But that arguemnt reduces the issue to a minority problem, which is in this case not true. because as I already said, but let me rephrase it, gayness is a practice, and it should be categorized along with pedophelia, bestiality, adultery, drugs and alcohol, not with religous and racial groups and minorities.

Society is made up of families (or tribes in some cases), these families are made up of individuals, in general, there must be some ways to tell whether a society is "socially healthy" or not. what I mean by that phrase is, it might be socially healthy as in there are strong social bounds between the people, but the society might be lacking in .. say, the side of economics. Think about third world countries. some countries might be poor but if you look at them purly from a social point of view, they might be considred healthy. so let's restrict the definition to the social aspect alone.

How do you know if a society is healthy? well one criterian would be the strength of social bounds, family bounds, etc. for example, imagine a place where everybody throws thier parents in a .. what's it called? senior homes? a place where people leave their old "useless" parents to "live". would you say that's a healthy society? no.
Imagine a place where everybody knows everybody, say for example, if one family's house gets burned, everybody helps that family get a new house and new stuff .. etc. I would say that's a healthy society.
If people grow up hating their parents, for what ever reasons, I'd say that's not a healthy society.
Naturally, tolerance IS one of the criteria.That's almost Reaganesque in that it is very long and yet says nothing that wasn't already known. It's just a bunch of mostly unrelated ramblings that never get back to the subject of how gays are bad for society. Don't tell us how long it takes for the bad effects of gayness to be seen and leave it at that. TELL US WHAT THE EFFECTS ARE. Seriously, quit avoiding the question and spit it out already. Just come out (pun intended) and clearly say something like "Gays are bad because they cause cancer in anyone standing within 7 feet of them and their gay breath destroys the ozone layer"... but make sure yours are factual... and, please, try to keep it under 100 words.

[Neutrino]

I will, however, seriously will give the money to anyone that I am unable to fully refute on this topic.
Sadly, no such person exists. I consider it to be like a prize for the guy who captures bigfoot.

This may sound really strange, but in some ways I'm tempted to give it a try; to make the best argument I could against gays and gay marriage. I always found it to be a very informative practice in philosophical debates.

It can be quite helpful in understanding the opposition's point of view and also allow one to better be able to refute it. Also, I have never seen anyone truly try to do it. I don't mean to sound arrogant at all here, but I've never seen someone here actually try to make a well thoughout and logical argument against it, so I would be somewhat curious as to what I could come up with.

Hmm, something for me to think about I guess.

[burner69]

lol, I think he won't give you the $150 unless he is convinced by the argument.

I'm still waiting for gay gene evidence, if it exists. but um, I'm not offering any $$$.

anyway, first of all, like I said, the harm of homosexuality is indirect, and is not short-term, but a long-term one. to be able to see it, one must look beyond what he first sees. It's really hard for the someone with a closed mind to see it.
I said it's like alcohol for example, its harm to society is not direct, and an idiot can argue that it doesn't harm anybody. a guy is getting intoxeicated in his living room, what harm does it do to you? let alone to society? I think arguing with someone thinking like that is pretty tough. he will always come back and say: how is a person getting drunk in his living room gonna harm anyone else?
one can easily invent a term "alcohol-o-phobic" and accuse anyone who tries to warn him of alcohol to be an irrational "alcohol-o-phobic", he might also draw connection between him and the Nazis (did Nazis ban alcohol?) or even dig up history to find a tolletarian regime which banned alcohol and connect him to that regime.
For me to explain the harms of gayness to society is no easy task, you first have to think about what the term society means, and what are the criterian for measuring the health of that society.
Some people would argue that the acceptance of gays is tolerance, and since tolerance is a good sign for a healthy society, then allowing gay marriges makes the society healthier!
But that arguemnt reduces the issue to a minority problem, which is in this case not true. because as I already said, but let me rephrase it, gayness is a practice, and it should be categorized along with pedophelia, bestiality, adultery, drugs and alcohol, not with religous and racial groups and minorities.

Society is made up of families (or tribes in some cases), these families are made up of individuals, in general, there must be some ways to tell whether a society is "socially healthy" or not. what I mean by that phrase is, it might be socially healthy as in there are strong social bounds between the people, but the society might be lacking in .. say, the side of economics. Think about third world countries. some countries might be poor but if you look at them purly from a social point of view, they might be considred healthy. so let's restrict the definition to the social aspect alone.

How do you know if a society is healthy? well one criterian would be the strength of social bounds, family bounds, etc. for example, imagine a place where everybody throws thier parents in a .. what's it called? senior homes? a place where people leave their old "useless" parents to "live". would you say that's a healthy society? no.
Imagine a place where everybody knows everybody, say for example, if one family's house gets burned, everybody helps that family get a new house and new stuff .. etc. I would say that's a healthy society.
If people grow up hating their parents, for what ever reasons, I'd say that's not a healthy society.
Naturally, tolerance IS one of the criteria.
Ofcourse these are only single criterions, one cannot only use one of them to measure the health of the society, but I'm just trying to give examples here.
Do we agree on that? because if we don't there is no point in continuing.

P.S. it's late right now (1:30 AM) so I might fo off and continue tomorrow.

I was going to answer back to that but it's been done very well ^^above^^

But yeah all your arguments are flawed in the one fact that they're b*llocks. You keep saying "gays are bad because they're like alcohol." "gays are bad because they're like starving children". Okay, I will argue back with you on these points. As you have chosen to argue with us.
I dare you to knock me for using these arguments, as this has been your style all night.
"Gays are good because they're like happy things."
"Gays are good because they're like half life 2"
"Gays are good because they are like a good Tv show."
"Gays are good because they are like a good book."
"Gays are good because they are like a good night out with your mates."
"Gays are good because they are like having sex."
"Gays are good because they are like birthday parties."

Stop asking for the gay gene. We never did. We just said it was natural because... er.... it happens in nature and is not harmful to animals. Don't even try and pull "eating babies" argument because a) that is negative and b) that usually done to help the other offspring survive, either due to food shortage or threat from prey.

[Mechagodzilla]

This may sound really strange, but in some ways I'm tempted to give it a try; to make the best argument I could against gays and gay marriage. I always found it to be a very informative practice in philosophical debates.
Sure, give it a shot. All the most sensible arguments I've gotten so far have come from pro-gay people who are just messing around.

In fact, all but one of them were. :P

It can be quite helpful in understanding the opposition's point of view and also allow one to better be able to refute it. Also, I have never seen anyone truly try to do it. I don't mean to sound arrogant at all here, but I've never seen someone here actually try to make a well thoughout and logical argument against it, so I would be somewhat curious as to what I could come up with.

Hmm, something for me to think about I guess.

That's why it's like bigfoot. :P
Lots of people claim that such an argument exists, but have no evidence.*
And it is entirely possible, although extremely unilkely, that such an argument exists.
However, there is absolutely no indication that anyone will ever find that argument and put it on display. In fact, it's most likely that the argument does not exist at all.

*(There's actually infinitely more logic and evidence behind bigfoot existing than there is behind banning gay marriage. Seriously: video footage, eyewitness accounts, physical tracks. Gay marriage's got nothing on that. :P)

[burner69]

I'll bet $150 hasan never answers the bloody question. Why hasan, why?

[Neutrino]

However, there is absolutely no indication that anyone will ever find that argument and put it on display. In fact, it's most likely that the argument does not exist at all.

Oh, I would definitely tend to agree as you well know. But it might be an interesting thought experiment. Plus it might be interesting to make a thread where we argue the issue both ways just to examine all aspects of it. It would certainly be different to say the least. :P

[burner69]

I think one person would have to resort to some odd ways of debating *gazed up a little* to even attempt that.

[Mechagodzilla]

I'll bet $150 hasan never answers the bloody question. Why hasan, why?

Because my question is just like alcohol!
Over time, exposure to my question erodes the family.
It is a drunk who keeps drinking bottle after bottle until he punches his wife in the face, like an unfounded metaphor in place of a rational argument.

Therefore, we should ban questions. And alcohol?

Oh, I would definitely tend to agree as you well know. But it might be an interesting thought experiment. Plus it might be interesting to make a thread where we argue the issue both ways just to examine all aspects of it. It would certainly be different to say the least. :P
I know what you mean, I've tried to win the prize myself too. I think I deserve it. :p

However, it would require more logical holes and "what ifs" than I'm willing to tolerate.

For example, if the world were destroyed there were only four people on earth and they were too gays and two lesbians, then gay marriage should be banned in order to save humanity!

...but then they could marry anyways and just have consensual extramarital affairs.

Damn you logic! I want the cash!

[Neutrino]

I think one person would have to resort to some odd ways of debating *gazed up a little* to even attempt that.

I'm pretty sure I could debate the issue far better than Hasan has. :p

[burner69]

Would not be hard. lol.
Ooo and mechagodzilla, where were u for the cannabis debate? If ur a logic man u wudda luved that. Neutrino was in that one. It was good/funny :rolleyes:

[MadHatter]

I'm pretty sure I could debate the issue far better than Hasan has. :p


Yeah, same here. I could do a lot better than the, "Gay is like alcohol", or, "Gay is a curse on humanity", or, "Gay is bad and it hampers mankind's surviva", or, "Gay is...." You know, the usuals.

But then again, I couldn't really do that because my beliefs and opinions regarding homosexuals are rock solid.

[MadHatter]

Would not be hard. lol.
Ooo and mechagodzilla, where were u for the cannabis debate? If ur a logic man u wudda luved that. Neutrino was in that one. It was good/funny :rolleyes:

Don't listen to him, Mech! He's an evil cannabis lover and he'll give you weed that'll turn you into a lizard who loves to chase Mexican men. j/k

[Kangy]

The Homosexual Gene: (http://www.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=50080&cat=World)

Read it and weep.

[burner69]

Hasan will be very pleased.

Thank you :imu: <-- dont know what that is but it's saying cheers in its own way

[burner69]

Don't listen to him, Mech! He's an evil cannabis lover and he'll give you weed that'll turn you into a lizard who loves to chase Mexican men. j/k
lol :laugh: :smoking: :bonce: <-- after a j

[Neutrino]

Hasan will be very pleased.

Thank you :imu: <-- dont know what that is but it's saying cheers in its own way

Oh, just to be clear I think Hasan was referring to me with the gene thing. I brought it up in a couple threads. Here's the articles that I used before:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993008
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996519
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996533

There are also many more studied I've read about that indicate a genetic link to homosexuality. This is not just some I or others came up with. There is an ever increasing amount of evidence to support it.

Edit: Hmm...I may just have to go digging around a bit here on this subject. Since Hasan asked about the genetic issue I wouldn't want to disapoint him or anything. :)

[diluted]

It's Texas. Is anyone really that surprised? :P

[hasan]

I like how you waste two pages of bashing me .. when I'm not around.

some people need to learn how to read. When I use alcohol as an example .. I'm using it as an example. not as a direct comparison.
When I tell you about indirect harm, don't talk to me about direct harm.
you need to look beyond the obvious.

If my posts disgust you, feel free to press ctrl-w or backspace or any other button for that matter. no one is forcing you to read.

If you can't see it, I'm trying to walk you through step by step, so be patient.
why step by step? because we don't even agree on the basics, there is no common grounds, so I have to start from the basics, to establish some sort of common grounds. so that when I say something, you understand where I'm coming from, instead of relating me to Nazis.

anyway, before we talk about gays or anything .. ther are a couple of points to make:
First of all, there are things which destroy society, and things which strengthen society.
Secondly, the purpose of laws and legislations is to protect the society and protect the individuals. when the law punishes crminals, the purpose is not punishment for few people, but it's the protection of the whole society.
There are things called morals, and something thing called conscience, thigns that .. pretty much determine what is right and what is wrong.
for example, anything that harms other people is considered bad. but why is it that way? why is it bad? because your freedom ends where my freedom begins? well, why should it be that way?
Personally, if somebody asks me that question I wouldn't know how to answer, because he apparently doesn't care about others, he simply doesn't recognize right and wrong. that's why he is complaining.

anyway, morals are means of preserving the health of the individuals and the society. curroption in morals results eventually in the curroption of society. ofcourse, it varies depending on the level of the corruption and the scale of its spread.

and you have to notice that moral curroption doesn't necessarily have a direct harm on any single person. that's a different issue.
Yes, things like drugs do have direct effects on specific individuals, such as the person taking them, but this is a diffetent issue.
adultery is such a moral corruption, that might not have a direct effect on anyone, but has a negative effect on society. how? it causes a breakdown of the family, which causes psychological problems for children. These children are the next generation. when this is wide spread across the society, ofcourse it reults in destroying it.
now ofcourse, adultery IS widespread in the west, and it's one of the causes for so many social problems, like children who are born not knowing who their father is, and thier mom probably can't take care of them because she has to work al day, so she rings a baby sitter. you have people who hate their families.
and these are not rare cases, of course I need to research more on this subject.

more to come ....

flame away .. I must be the worst nazi in your eyes by now :cheese: :devil:

when I say more to come ... I'm not runnign away, I'm just trying to take some more time to organize my thoughts.


btw .. READ THIS http://www.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=50080&cat=World and quote where is the evidence for gay gene? becuase I couldn't find it. :rolleyes:

[Kangy]

During the course of the study, Dr Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua, the lead author of the study, and his team questioned 4600 people including gays and straight people. They found that on an average mothers and relatives of gay men had more kids than relatives of straight men.

The researchers, who have presented their study in the 'Royal Society Journals' are now saying that these factors should be partly bound to the X chromosome, because male homosexuality, associated with increased female fecundity was found only in maternal line and not in paternal line of homosexuals. They also noticed that it was usually the younger sibling who was gay.

"We have finally solved this paradox. The same factor that influences sexual orientation in males promotes higher fecundity in females," the report quoted Dr Andrea Camperio-Ciani as saying.

This is what the "gay" gene does. It doesn't "prove" it's existance by going through the body of a homosexual, but it simply seeks to explain what it would do.

[Tr0n]

Wow...while there at it why don't they ban everything george bush says.Hell...don't forget to ban darwinism and space science...

I really do think something bad is gonna happen to this country within the next 10-20 years if this type of stuff keeps up. *cough*civil war?*cough*

[Neutrino]

some people need to learn how to read. When I use alcohol as an example .. I'm using it as an example. not as a direct comparison.

No, you were using it as a comparison. It has no relevance to the issue.

When I tell you about indirect harm, don't talk to me about direct harm. you need to look beyond the obvious.

Well, that's what you were seeming to do.

First of all, there are things which destroy society, and things which strengthen society.

I would say "there are things, which weaken society and there are things, which stregthen society." is a bit more accurate. "Destroy" and "strengthen" are not really antonyms.

Secondly, the purpose of laws and legislations is to protect the society and protect the individuals. when the law punishes crminals, the purpose is not punishment for few people, but it's the protection of the whole society.

Agreed.

There are things called morals, and something thing called conscience, thigns that .. pretty much determine what is right and what is wrong.

Not quite true. Secular morals and conscience are subjective. Only religions claims they are absolutes and because there are multiple religions within society they cannot be used in government.

for example, anything that harms other people is considered bad. but why is it that way? why is it bad? because your freedom ends where my freedom begins? well, why should it be that way? Personally, if somebody asks me that question I wouldn't know how to answer, because he apparently doesn't care about others, he simply doesn't recognize right and wrong. that's why he is complaining.

Well, I do know how to answer. There are actually multiple ways of answering it, but to list one, an individual's rights are infringed upon when someone harms them, whether it be injuring them, killing them, or stealing from them among other things. But for society to function in a way that grants the greatest amount of freedom to the greatest amount of people the laws of the government must equally apply to everyone. It is not practical or desirable to treat people unequally in the eyes of the law. History has shown us that to do so leads to less freedom for the people. Thus one must extend the policy of punishing one individual for harming another individual to everyone within the society.

There's a lot more to it, but that a simplified version.

anyway, morals are means of preserving the health of the individuals and the society. curroption in morals results eventually in the curroption of society. ofcourse, it varies depending on the level of the corruption and the scale of its spread.

and you have to notice that moral curroption doesn't necessarily have a direct harm on any single person. that's a different issue.
Yes, things like drugs do have direct effects on specific individuals, such as the person taking them, but this is a diffetent issue.

It is also possible to link drugs to greater more indirect harms within society. You can create statistics for the detrimental affects of alcoholism. Thus you cannot compare it to gays as there is no similar evidence or statistics for them.

adultery is such a moral corruption, that might not have a direct effect on anyone, but has a negative effect on society. how? it causes a breakdown of the family, which causes psychological problems for children. These children are the next generation. when this is wide spread across the society, ofcourse it reults in destroying it.

Ok, but this still doesn't relate to gays. Now you could relate heterosexual adultery to homosexual adultery, but that is not what you are doing.

now ofcourse, adultery IS widespread in the west, and it's one of the causes for so many social problems, like children who are born not knowing who their father is, and thier mom probably can't take care of them because she has to work al day, so she rings a baby sitter. you have people who hate their families. and these are not rare cases, of course I need to research more on this subject.

Again, this has nothing to do with the issue. Heterosexual or homosexual adultery has nothing to do with the morality of a gay or straight monogamous relationship.

more to come ....

flame away .. I must be the worst nazi in your eyes by now :cheese: :devil:

No, but you have yet again failed to list a single reason as to why gays are bad or how they harm society.

So far your entire arguement consists of this:

"Gays are bad because they harm society."

All you have is a thesis statement. Valid arguements must also contains a body and conclusion as well. If you tried to do this with a school paper you would flunk.

[Tr0n]

The only part I actually read on that whole post...was the last 4 sentences...lol.Damn my A.D.D. :(

[Mechagodzilla]

No-one thinks you're a nazi, hasan. At least I hope not. :P
But still, your argument is really weak, for the reasons Neutrino pointed out.

Like I said, your argument is:

Gays + X = Chaos.

You need to fill in the blank.

My stance on morality is that portrayed in the US constitution.
It says that everyone has the right to
1) life
2) liberty
-and-
3) the pursuit of happiness
so long as they do not remove those rights from another person.
Since the constitution is what is being affected here, that seems reasonable to me.

So, that leaves the question:
How do gay marriages remove any of those three rights?

If those rights aren't being infringed, it is impossible for gay marriage to harm anyone.
And if gay marriage harms no-one in society, then society will be perfectly fine.

However, banning gay marriage removes the pursuit of happiness and the liberty from gays.

Therefore, the ban is the only danger to society, not the gays.

[hasan]

* when I finally clicked "review post", for a final review before I finally submit it, IE crashed on me!! :x .. time for a re-write.

Please be patient, I'm trying to gather my ideas and collect some resources ..
Yes, as you might have noticed, I haven't talked about gays at all, this is because .. like I said, I want to establish some basics first. not necessarily a common ground, but at least a starting ground for me; a one that you can see.

also (I think I shouldn't say this, as it makes my position look weak), google doesn't help much in this case. (maybe I'm using the wrong keywords ..)

anyway ..
yes, morals can be different depending on where you are, different societies have different moral codes, and thus it can be said that morals and social values are subjective .. and maybe should be thrown away.
but the truth is, if you look carefully, there are common basic priciples that everybody agrees on. it's the details where you find differences.
prostitution for example, is viewed as a shameful act by everybody, a "vice" .. if that't an appropriate term (I only saw it in a dictionary). yet it is legalized (isn't it? I think it is).
I hope you can see the harms of prostitution .. or else I would have to dig something up.
Something I want to bring your attention to, is the fact that breaking the social values destroys the society. not in the sense of eliminating it, but in the sense that it brings many harms to it and damages it greatly.
some issues might not seem like a big deal, but when you start voilating small things, it'll become easy to voilate bigger things. for example, some people argue that since alcohol is allowed, drugs should be allowed too. and so, it becomes easy after a while to just ommit any sort of morals all together. and I think that's what has been happening in the west, and this is why there is a big debate about legalizing drugs.

I think the root of this is the liberal view of society,
I think I need show that this view has brought alot of harms to western socities.

[Mechagodzilla]

Yes, as you might have noticed, I haven't talked about gays at all, this is because .. like I said, I want to establish some basics first. not necessarily a common ground, but at least a starting ground for me; a one that you can see.
Well, now we can get back on topic and continue with the argument at hand.

anyway ..
yes, morals can be different depending on where you are, different societies have different moral codes, and thus it can be said that morals and social values are subjective .. and maybe should be thrown away.
Yes, societies do all have moral codes. However, I don't think anyone is proposing that morality be thrown away.

The purpose of constitutional law is to have a minimum set of moral standards that apply to everyone. That way, no culture is infringed upon.
The way this morality is determined is purely through fact. Since traditional or religious practices are varied in nearly unlimited ways, the constitution limits the extents of the law to what everyone holds in common: the secular world.

As such, the constitution allows every belief to exist, except those that harm people. That way, it doesn't play favorites.
but the truth is, if you look carefully, there are common basic priciples that everybody agrees on. it's the details where you find differences.
Actually, there are only three principles that all cultures agree upon. The writers of the constitution rather intelligently summarized them:
1) Every human on Earth should live without risk of death.
2) Every human on Earth should be free to do whatever they want.
3) Every human on Earth should not be prevented from being happy.

The details are where the differences are, but the differences are infinite in number and in scale. Only those three are universal.

The constitution lets you be happy, doing whatever you want, and not dead.
All it asks in return is that you don't kill anyone, don't make anyone unhappy, and don't keep anyone from doing what they want.
If your religion adds laws onto those three, and you choose to follow those laws, go ahead. The constitution protects your ability to follow your own morality in a way that is safe for everyone.

Adding the gay marriage ban to the constitution destroys what two of those three laws stand for. Since America is based on those three laws, the ban inherently hurts America as well.

prostitution for example, is viewed as a shameful act by everybody, a "vice" .. if that't an appropriate term (I only saw it in a dictionary). yet it is legalized (isn't it? I think it is).
I hope you can see the harms of prostitution .. or else I would have to dig something up.
Actually, it isn't considered a "shameful act by everybody" otherwise, we'd have no prostitutes.
Prostitution is outlawed for basically the same reason drugs are: It is often used to generate revenue for criminals, it is can be unsafe is not done responsibly, and it is sometimes harmful to minors.
However, prostitution as a concept is entirely safe and provides liberty and happiness to the people who don't see it as morally objectionable.

What we need, therefore, is not a blanket ban on prostitution. We just need to regulate it to make it more safe. If the prostitutes are required to practice safe sex, are guaranteed to be 18 or older, and are happy to be there, there's no problem. If the pimps aren't abusive or criminal, there's no problem.

I wouldn't go to a prostitute. But many, many other people obviously want to and would pay good money. And if no-one is being harmed in the process, why couldn't they?
It doesn't harm you, it doesn't harm me, it doesn't harm anyone, the whore gets the money she wants, and the guy gets a blowjob. Everyone wins! :D

Something I want to bring your attention to, is the fact that breaking the social values destroys the society. not in the sense of eliminating it, but in the sense that it brings many harms to it and damages it greatly.

Here's where the problems really start with your argument. America, and the world in general, is not just one society.
It's thousands upon thousands of societies all living amoungst each other.
By not following values of one group, you do nothing to harm that group. You just enter another group.

For example, if I don't worship god, I'm not destroying christianity. I'm joining atheism.

Does my refusal to read the bible force everyone else to stop reading too? Nope.
Am I hurting any christian just because I'm not doing what they say? Nope.
I'm probably less likely to hurt them, since I'm not going insane after being force-fed their beliefs. :p
Am I happy that I'm not christian? Hell yes!

So, just to recap:
I am doing atheist stuff, christians are doing their christian stuff, neither of us are bugging the other and society hasn't fallen apart.
And it's all thanks to the constitution and the separation of church and state!


some issues might not seem like a big deal, but when you start voilating small things, it'll become easy to voilate bigger things. for example, some people argue that since alcohol is allowed, drugs should be allowed too. and so, it becomes easy after a while to just ommit any sort of morals all together. and I think that's what has been happening in the west, and this is why there is a big debate about legalizing drugs.
The reason it's a debate is that legalising drugs could actually save lives, stop crime, and allow people who use drugs to be happy.

As long as drugs are being used in a way that doesn't hurt anyone, why stop them?
If Gary smokes pot in his basement, does he hurt you?
It's called a victimless crime.

It's like breaking the VCR that you own, and then being arrested for vandalism.

That brings up the ultimate question:
If something cannot hurt you, how can it hurt you?
And if no people get hurt, how can a society be hurt?
A society is made of people. If those people are alive and free, so is the society. Some people might not want to be part of that society, so what do we gain by forcing them to stay?

The only way to destroy a society is to pass laws against it.
The constitution only destroys three 'societies':

People who kill
People who remove liberty
-and-
People who cause unhappiness
(except in cases where people break these laws first)

Do married gays fit any of those three descriptions?

I think the root of this is the liberal view of society,
I think I need show that this view has brought alot of harms to western socities.

For the reasons I pointed out, the only harm that can be done to society is when a law is passed against it. The only group that can be hurt by the gay marriage ban debate are the gays.

If a liberal view of society were even partially realised, the world would be a better place.
And it has been partially realised. People of all genders, races, religions have equal rights.

Drugs don't need to be banned. They need to be made safe.
Prostitution doesn't need to be banned. It needs to be made safe.
Gays have always been safe. Why ban them?

[trizzm]

damnit people, it's simple.
Homosexual people can not reproduce. Young children can easily be influenced by growing gay masses and exposure. The homosexual communities are growing exponentially and the sole reason for that is the lifting of the taboo on gay matters. What kind of hope does humanity have if everyone is a homosexual?

A penis goes in the inside of a vagina. Say the opposite and renounce your humanity. I'm certainly going to teach that to my children. Not doing so would be irresponsible.

Furthermore, flamboyant gays are all attention whores.
Otherwise they would shut the **** up and live like normal people.

[Neutrino]

damnit people, it's simple.
Homosexual people can not reproduce. Young children can easily be influenced by growing gay masses and exposure. The homosexual communities are growing exponentially and the sole reason for that is the lifting of the taboo on gay matters. What kind of hope does humanity have if everyone is a homosexual?

A penis goes in the inside of a vagina. Say the opposite and renounce your humanity. I'm certainly going to teach that to my children. Not doing so would be irresponsible.

Furthermore, flamboyant gays are all attention whores.
Otherwise they would shut the **** up and live like normal people.

Wow, I usually like to stay away from name calling, but you are seriously ignorant.

[Mechagodzilla]

damnit people, it's simple.
Homosexual people can not reproduce. Young children can easily be influenced by growing gay masses and exposure. The homosexual communities are growing exponentially and the sole reason for that is the lifting of the taboo on gay matters. What kind of hope does humanity have if everyone is a homosexual?

A penis goes in the inside of a vagina. Say the opposite and renounce your humanity. I'm certainly going to teach that to my children. Not doing so would be irresponsible.

Furthermore, flamboyant gays are all attention whores.
Otherwise they would shut the **** up and live like normal people.

So, the only thing keeping you from being gay is the fear that someone will make fun of you?

Don't worry, we accept you for who you are. And there is no logical reason to hate gays, nor is there a law.
Ah! You got the gay on you!
Only in your case, it's caused by expose to stupid.

Also, your little doomsday scenario is only logically possible if gays are more intelligent, persuasive and well-liked than you.
No wonder you're scared.

So, good luck with the children thing, because I bet you're a real catch for the ladies.

Dammit people, it's simple.
People as dumb as trizzm should not reproduce. Young children can easily be influenced by growing masses of stupidity and exposure to overt idiocy. The dumbass communities are growing exponentially and the sole reason for that is the lifting of the taboo on being a god-fearing dunderchunce. What kind of hope does humanity have if everyone is as underinformed as trizzm?

Gays are harmless and you're not going to turn gay just because you neighbour is. Say the opposite and renounce your ability to think rationally. I'm certainly going to teach that to my children. Not doing so would be irresponsible.

Furthermore, people who post arguments based soley on illogical grounds, and actually expect to be taken seriously, are all attention whores.
Otherwise they would shut the fcuk up and live like normal people.

It's like mad libs. Only I made it less insane.

It's so great that when every bit of logic is stacked against this line of 'thought', someone just skips over all the intelligent conversation and says something to the effect of:
"gays are bad lol im straight as and arrow and unless i badmouth other people and pass laws against them i will turn less stright and my mom will slap me silly a/s/l"

Thanks for making this thread smarter with your rational arguments and clear-thinking, academic approach.

...that's sarcasm. It means I'm making fun of you, dummy.

[CptStern]

I thought we got rid of superstition along with witch burnings and animal sacrifices

trizzm I sincerely hope you never reproduce

[Absinthe]

Yes, the human race is in danger of extinction because of homosexuals. Never mind that this world is severely overpopulated as-is and homosexuals are still in a relatively small minority.

This "gays cant breed" argument is bullshit because people who flaunt it are essentially arguing that it goes against nature. Let's ignore, for a second, that homosexuality does exist in nature. Even if it did go against it, so ****ing what? The entire human race goes against nature in more than a couple ways. Contraception, anybody? Or how about medication and treatment? If it was up to nature, more than half of you would be dead by now. Scratch that, actually. None of you would even be here today. Prosthetics? Hey, if somebody loses a limb, we just give them an artificial one. I wonder how many other species have the ability to do that. Or how about genetic manipulation of produce? Hey, what about sex-change operations?

The "it's unnatural" argument does not hold up because it's entirely hypocritical. The moment these people start living naked in the wild and begin killing their meals with their hands and nails, I'll give them some credibility.

[Revisedsoul]

one thing hasan. if you say that homosexuality affects society in a negative manner. and it has been around longer than most relgious if not all, then by that reasoning what has it done to affect society in a negative way today?

[hasan]

ahem .. the secular world is not what everybody holds in common. There is a set of basic "global" moral code, which whether you like it or not, opposes prostitution and opposes gayness.

The "why does it exist" is not an argument. Killing exists every where and has existed since like ever, does that mean it's morally approved by the society?
Killings has been around since ever, and humanity still exists, does that mean killing is ok? or does it mean killing doesn't hurt anybody?
Animals kill each other, does that mean we can kill each other?

Morals are not based on interests and benifits, these are material things, morals are spiritual, not material. They are based on principles, not interests. This is what makes us humans, this is one of things that disinguishes humans form animals.
Animals only do things based on thier own interests, they do things to survive. It's the law of the jungle
That's why we relate chaos to the jungle. in the jungle, there is no law, the only law is survival for the stroengest, if you're not a wolf, wolfs will eat you.

So you can't come and tell me, if something doesn't hurt me it's ok.
say some guy kills some other guy. does that hurt me? no. but should be I be concerned? yes. Is killing wrong, even if it doesn't (or hasn't yet) hurt me? yes.
Actually, what if I'm greedy, and I want to kill some guy because some how if I do that I will get alot of money? that benefits me, so should I do it? or does that make if morally ok because of the "fact" that I will get richer and hence enhance my life experience?

Actually, if somebody kills someone, does that hurt the whole society, or just hurts the victim and his family?
well, it hurts only the victim directly, but indirectly it hurts the whole society, and it must be stopped, because if we don't stop it, it'll spread. and when it spreads, the society will turn to a jungle.
Does that make sense? do you see where I'm going?

so this line of thinking .. "if it doesn't hurt you, it doesn't hurt you" is dangerous.
Someone is smoking pot in his basement, the hell, he is killing his own self. but shouldn't I be concerned? I should.
Specially when people speak out about it and strive to legalize it, that should make me even be more concerned. What if the next guy to smoke be my son (I don't have a son, mind you =P), or even me?

If someone does it in his own basment, secretly, well then no one even knows about him, so none can stop him. but when people speak out .. no, it must be stopped.

prostituion is a moral degration, I don't know why I'm surprised that you say it doesn't hurt anyone. I shouldn't be.

look, when I tell you it hurts the society, that doesn't mean people will disappear or become extinct. It just means the society is moving on the path to its downfall.

I've yet to come across a good statistics, but look at western societies.
look at the suicide rates, what's thier cause? look how many people do drugs (I think here in my area, everybody is on drugs), people keep changing boy/girl friends. males leave thier girlfriends when they become pregnant, and you get thousands of kids who don't know who thier father is. look at the crime rate.
I can't count these type of things becuase I'm no social expert, but these things are everywhere. and they are pretty much all a result of the materialist and liberal line of thinking.

infact, I believe that what happened at Abu Gharib (the sexual humiliation part) is a result of this line of thinking, because these things are very common, and very normal, nobody objects to it. those people who did it find absolutly nothing wrong with it, because that's probably what they do to each other at thier friday/saturday night parties.

[hasan]

(too late to edit)
forgot to mention that, according to this line of thinking, there is no right and wrong, only what the voters decide.
so if the voteres decide on something, regardless what their reason is, that is what is considered right.
if everybody is on drugs, and everybody votes for drugs to be legal, that will be considered to be "right".

If there is nothing that everybody agrees on, what is it that determines right and wrong? nothing. Well then, how do we decide what to do? We just let people vote, and the majority wins.

I'm not saying that this is right, I strongly oppose that, if everyone voted for drugs or gayness, that does it make it right, but that's how the system works.

I'm just pointing out that according to "there is no right and wrong" way of thinking, if people vote against gay marrige, then that's what will be considered right, and if you have an opposing opinion, that's just your opinion, and everyone has his opinion.

[OCybrManO]

ahem .. the secular world is not what everybody holds in common. There is a set of basic "global" moral code, which whether you like it or not, opposes prostitution and opposes gayness.

The "why does it exist" is not an argument. Killing exists every where and has existed since like ever, does that mean it's morally approved by the society?
Killings has been around since ever, and humanity still exists, does that mean killing is ok? or does it mean killing doesn't hurt anybody?
Animals kill each other, does that mean we can kill each other?

Morals are not based on interests and benifits, these are material things, morals are spiritual, not material. They are based on principles, not interests. This is what makes us humans, this is one of things that disinguishes humans form animals.
Animals only do things based on thier own interests, they do things to survive. It's the law of the jungle
That's why we relate chaos to the jungle. in the jungle, there is no law, the only law is survival for the stroengest, if you're not a wolf, wolfs will eat you.

So you can't come and tell me, if something doesn't hurt me it's ok.
say some guy kills some other guy. does that hurt me? no. but should be I be concerned? yes. Is killing wrong, even if it doesn't (or hasn't yet) hurt me? yes.
Actually, what if I'm greedy, and I want to kill some guy because some how if I do that I will get alot of money? that benefits me, so should I do it? or does that make if morally ok because of the "fact" that I will get richer and hence enhance my life experience?

Actually, if somebody kills someone, does that hurt the whole society, or just hurts the victim and his family?
well, it hurts only the victim directly, but indirectly it hurts the whole society, and it must be stopped, because if we don't stop it, it'll spread. and when it spreads, the society will turn to a jungle.
Does that make sense? do you see where I'm going?

so this line of thinking .. "if it doesn't hurt you, it doesn't hurt you" is dangerous.
Someone is smoking pot in his basement, the hell, he is killing his own self. but shouldn't I be concerned? I should.
Specially when people speak out about it and strive to legalize it, that should make me even be more concerned. What if the next guy to smoke be my son (I don't have a son, mind you =P), or even me?

If someone does it in his own basment, secretly, well then no one even knows about him, so none can stop him. but when people speak out .. no, it must be stopped.

prostituion is a moral degration, I don't know why I'm surprised that you say it doesn't hurt anyone. I shouldn't be.

look, when I tell you it hurts the society, that doesn't mean people will disappear or become extinct. It just means the society is moving on the path to its downfall.

I've yet to come across a good statistics, but look at western societies.
look at the suicide rates, what's thier cause? look how many people do drugs (I think here in my area, everybody is on drugs), people keep changing boy/girl friends. males leave thier girlfriends when they become pregnant, and you get thousands of kids who don't know who thier father is. look at the crime rate.
I can't count these type of things becuase I'm no social expert, but these things are everywhere. and they are pretty much all a result of the materialist and liberal line of thinking.

infact, I believe that what happened at Abu Gharib (the sexual humiliation part) is a result of this line of thinking, because these things are very common, and very normal, nobody objects to it. those people who did it find absolutly nothing wrong with it, because that's probably what they do to each other at thier friday/saturday night parties.(too late to edit)
forgot to mention that, according to this line of thinking, there is no right and wrong, only what the voters decide.
so if the voteres decide on something, regardless what their reason is, that is what is considered right.
if everybody is on drugs, and everybody votes for drugs to be legal, that will be considered to be "right".

If there is nothing that everybody agrees on, what is it that determines right and wrong? nothing. Well then, how do we decide what to do? We just let people vote, and the majority wins.

I'm not saying that this is right, I strongly oppose that, if everyone voted for drugs or gayness, that does it make it right, but that's how the system works.

I'm just pointing out that according to "there is no right and wrong" way of thinking, if people vote against gay marrige, then that's what will be considered right, and if you have an opposing opinion, that's just your opinion, and everyone has his opinion.First, when people say "it doesn't harm you" they are using the universal you that refers to everyone... not just you, the individual. The only way it has any effect on people comes from the social stigma (caused by religion and people not understanding it) behind the practice of homosexuality. How can you even compare murder and homosexuality? One is an act of love between two consenting adults (that happen to be of the same sex) and the other is an extreme act of hatred against an unwilling person that ends the victim's life. I don't like prostitution, I don't like drugs, I don't like gambling, etc... but homosexuality harms no one that isn't intolerant. Now, you could argue that if everyone went gay all at once we'd die out as a species... but others will argue that gays have been around almost as long as sentient animals (including humans) themselves have existed (and were even publicly accepted in some prosperous societies) but never in a proportion even remotely near large enough to affect the survival of their race. Actually, you know what? With all the horrible stuff we do to the environment and the animals, I think the planet would be better off without us. Also, with the way our population keeps recklessly growing I'd almost tend to support anything that doesn't produce children. :laugh:

Second, most of the people in the armed forces are religious conservatives... so I don't know how you're trying to blame blaming liberals for the shit that happens in combat. There are a lot of ****ed up religious people. Just look at those paedophilic Catholic priests or the "healers" that go on TV trying to extort money from gullible people or people that have started wars "in the name of God" (now, I'm not up to date on my religious studies... but I don't think God likes wars) or how the "religious right" disregards the environment in favor of big business (that's two wrongs... don't forget that greed is frowned upon) or any of countless other examples...

Third, there is right and wrong in a secular society... and it basically comes down to a simple test. If an optional (if it's not optional, you had no choice) activity is harmful to others at your benefit, it's wrong. If an optional activity harmful to no one and still benefits you, I can't justify stopping you from doing it just because I don't like it. Now, people may use that argument to try to validate the use of drugs... but you can do a lot of damage to others (not to mention the damage you do to yourself that your friends and family have to watch) when you are on drugs. If there was a drug found to have no adverse effects on the user (including causing him/her to harm others) there would be no reason to ban it.

[Carfax]

Interesting discussion.. Both sides have brought up some interesting points.. Now, I'll say my piece on the issue..

First, I'll dismantle the homosexuality is "natural" or "normal" arguement that gay supporters are bringing up.

First off, let me state that Homosexuality is NOT a true sexuality, but a pseudo-sexuality..

Heterosexuality is the only true sexuality, as it is supported at both the biological, and physiological level. What do I mean when I say this? Human beings reproduce sexually, hence the need for two genders. Both genders are equipped with internal and external sexual organs to aid in reproduction, and sexual union.

Homosexuals by definition logically require neither of these, yet they have them. Why would a gay man need sperm? Why would a lesbian need to menstruate? Why do they have genitalia DESIGNED to have sex, with a member of the OPPOSITE sex?

Infact, homosexuals are physically "incapable" of having sex..

So, essentially, to say that homosexuality is "normal" is absurd. If homosexuality were normal/natural, gays would not have external and internal sexual organs designed to accomodate the OPPOSITE sex..

Anal "sex" is NOT sex, and neither is oral sex. Both acts involve fooling the body into thinking you're having sex, by stimulating the external sexual organs.

Real sex involves coitus, and can only be accomplished by a male and a female.

Also, just because "some" animals do it, it doesn't make it natural/normal. Animals commit infanticide, so does that mean infanticide is natural/normal? Also, siamese twins are found in the natural world aswell, but does that means they are normal?

Should gays be allowed to marry?

Ofcourse not..

Why? Because, Marriage, despite what the idiot leftists would have you think, is not a RIGHT. There are stipulations involved, such as blood relative status, age, amount of people involved, and.....the same gender..

Why should homosexuals be allowed to marry, while polygamists cannot?

Answer that..

~Carfax

[Raziaar]

Fun subject. Hrm.

EDIT: I mainly posted so i'd have a means of subscribing to it. Is there another way?

[exodusuk]

have i stumbled across the essay forum or something

[HunterSeeker]

I see more reason to ban hetrosexuality then homosexuality. Homosexuality dosent harm anyone that dosent want to be harmed (read: Accepts homosexuality). Hetrosexuals however create humans. Humans cause grief and sorrow and death.

[Neutrino]

There is a set of basic "global" moral code, which whether you like it or not, opposes prostitution and opposes gayness.

:laugh:

"'Global' moral code?"

Hah! Now that is funny.

[HunterSeeker]

There is a remote stoneage society somewhere in the world (think it was australia) that has there male youths give the older men a blowjob basically, its mandatory (They see sperm=strength).

[Tr0n]

If I remember correctly...Wasn't the greatest general/leader of all time Alexander the Great bisexual?

[burner69]

Interesting discussion.. Both sides have brought up some interesting points.. Now, I'll say my piece on the issue..

First, I'll dismantle the homosexuality is "natural" or "normal" arguement that gay supporters are bringing up.

First off, let me state that Homosexuality is NOT a true sexuality, but a pseudo-sexuality..

Heterosexuality is the only true sexuality, as it is supported at both the biological, and physiological level. What do I mean when I say this? Human beings reproduce sexually, hence the need for two genders. Both genders are equipped with internal and external sexual organs to aid in reproduction, and sexual union.

Homosexuals by definition logically require neither of these, yet they have them. Why would a gay man need sperm? Why would a lesbian need to menstruate? Why do they have genitalia DESIGNED to have sex, with a member of the OPPOSITE sex?

Infact, homosexuals are physically "incapable" of having sex..

So, essentially, to say that homosexuality is "normal" is absurd. If homosexuality were normal/natural, gays would not have external and internal sexual organs designed to accomodate the OPPOSITE sex..

Anal "sex" is NOT sex, and neither is oral sex. Both acts involve fooling the body into thinking you're having sex, by stimulating the external sexual organs.

Real sex involves coitus, and can only be accomplished by a male and a female.

Also, just because "some" animals do it, it doesn't make it natural/normal. Animals commit infanticide, so does that mean infanticide is natural/normal? Also, siamese twins are found in the natural world aswell, but does that means they are normal?

Should gays be allowed to marry?

Ofcourse not..

Why? Because, Marriage, despite what the idiot leftists would have you think, is not a RIGHT. There are stipulations involved, such as blood relative status, age, amount of people involved, and.....the same gender..

Why should homosexuals be allowed to marry, while polygamists cannot?

Answer that..

~Carfax

So because homosexuals can't make babies that makes it unnatural? The act of sex on a personal level is to gain pleasure, and in the natural world this desire for pleasure would have us shagging and making babies. It took a while for us humans to discover that sex is what caused child birth. Before, and after then, women were having sex with women, and men with men. Why? Because the wanted to. It gave them pleasure, and didn't harm anybody.
No, kindly explain how the natural act of homosexuality can be linked to eating ones own young - which is clearly harmful. Please, explain. Devouring ones infants occurs in the natural world when the babies might starve unless some are killed, or if their prescence somehow risks the lives of them, and the parents. As a species we rarely if ever encounter such situations, and if we did due to the way we are socialised it is unlikley we would do it. Comparing life and death extreme survival techniques practised by a few species cannot be compared to the act of homosexual sex, which harms nobody and is done out of desire, not desperation.
Siamese twins do occur in nature. What is ur point? They are 'normal' in the sense they exist. Should we ban siamese twins? In the same way it seems you would like homosexuality banned. It happens, so why don't we accept the truth and just say "Hey, I don't think the same as you, but who cares, you can have the same rights as me".

Blood relative status can lead to abnormalities in children.
Age restrictions prevent child abuse and young people being led astray by horny paedophiles.
Amount of people involved; in my opinion, if three or four, five, six seven etc people want to get married they should be able to. If you can give me a logical argument why they shouldn't; and by logic I mean an argument that makes sense and is not just saying "The bible says it is wrong" - because as mentioned I'm sure many times before, the bible says a lot of things are wrong, yet we still do them. To stray off subject a little, it seems clear that the bible is not effective at making ruling decisions today - as it has been altered to benefit and is causing distress to people by stripping them of things that other people have; eg marriage.

Should we ban homosexual marriage? Of course not.
Why? Because it happens within our species.. simple as that. Banning the marriage of homosexuals seems like you just don't want to accept the truth, and that by passing laws that undermine their sexuality you will somehow get rid of it.

It seems the bible is the only 'valid' argument used against homosexuality - that gay marriage offends christians, and so it should be ceased. If religion causes so much pointless damage, it shouldn't be used as a basis of government rules. Try common sense to govern todays world, not some 2000 year old rules.

[burner69]

If I remember correctly...Wasn't the greatest general/leader of all time Alexander the Great bisexual?

Yup, along with, I believe, all his army, Spartacus, the roman army, the Greeks - pretty much all the people from those time periods.

[Tr0n]

Yup, along with, I believe, all his army, Spartacus, the roman army, the Greeks - pretty much all the people from those time periods.Oh...no wonder why all those empires failed.They had gays! (sarcasm)

:rolleyes:

[Steve]

Oh...no wonder why all those empires failed.They had gays! (sarcasm)

:rolleyes:
Whatever, Tr0n. I know you hate homos. (playin')