[Bespetna]

PS: If we let gay marrage spred that means more gay sex. Gay sex means more STD's.

This post has been edited by bespetna: 03 April 2006 - 08:26 PM

[ticktockclok]

PS: If we let gay marrage spred that means more gay sex. Gay sex means more STD's.

Any sex will increase your chance of contracting STDs, idiot.

[Kaezion]

i concede to your argument about children's incapacity to make rational decisions about consent.

while gayness isn't a disease, it is obviously an abnormality. the fact that it's acquired puts it in the same league as mental disorders - it's an abnormality that can be reversed.

the big difference between orientation and race is that race is innate, whereas orientation isn't. as a friend of mine from school explained to me, if you take some time to think critically about the theory of evolution, you will realize that whatever gene that might have caused homosexuality would have died off a long time ago - so much for the genetic factor. now, there are occasionally mutations and such in DNA that might allow extinct genes to reappear, but to explain that the homosexuals that you see now are all victims of a chance mutation that must affect precisely the right gene in precisely the right way?

in this case, you are using an argument that works in one case and applying to another case that is unrelated. no, racial differences aren't wrong. in fact, homosexuality isn't "wrong" per se. it can be viewed as a persistent mental condition - i'm not trying to imply that gay people are crazy; it's just that homosexuality is analogous to mental disorders in that homosexuality can be reversed and is technically an impairment of the human condition (as it prevents sexual reproduction, which is one of the basic functions of human beings). so the question we ask is, why do we treat depression or schizophrenia, if being different isn't wrong?

[Ferret Overlord]

PS: If we let gay marrage spred that means more gay sex. Gay sex means more STD's.

It's even larger a range of STDs when it's heterosexual, because there are sometimes gender specific ones.


I think a good cure for this would be either cloning, or in vitro fertilization. Then we can let gays do whatever they want, and they can pay the $50,000 to clone themselves. By the way people, when you clone yourself, the clone is a baby with the same DNA as you.

Or more cowbell.

[Neraphym]

i concede to your argument about children's incapacity to make rational decisions about consent.

while gayness isn't a disease, it is obviously an abnormality. the fact that it's acquired puts it in the same league as mental disorders - it's an abnormality that can be reversed.

the big difference between orientation and race is that race is innate, whereas orientation isn't. as a friend of mine from school explained to me, if you take some time to think critically about the theory of evolution, you will realize that whatever gene that might have caused homosexuality would have died off a long time ago - so much for the genetic factor. now, there are occasionally mutations and such in DNA that might allow extinct genes to reappear, but to explain that the homosexuals that you see now are all victims of a chance mutation that must affect precisely the right gene in precisely the right way?

in this case, you are using an argument that works in one case and applying to another case that is unrelated. no, racial differences aren't wrong. in fact, homosexuality isn't "wrong" per se. it can be viewed as a persistent mental condition - i'm not trying to imply that gay people are crazy; it's just that homosexuality is analogous to mental disorders in that homosexuality can be reversed and is technically an impairment of the human condition (as it prevents sexual reproduction, which is one of the basic functions of human beings). so the question we ask is, why do we treat depression or schizophrenia, if being different isn't wrong?

Evolution is not a perfect process. There are many parts of us that are imperfect, inefficient, or completely useless. If these things can survive through evolution, I'm sure a gene like homosexuality could have done the same, especially if that gene was always in use. If we look at history (pre-chuch), we see that homosexuality was both popular and accepted. We are also forgetting bisexuals (people who go for either sex). Maybe it is through bisexuals (perhaps a mixing of the homo/hetro gene), that has kept it alive.

Honestly, I have no clue. I only got a B in biology, and I don't know much about the subject of gay genetics. I am simply arguing against your point for the sake of arguing (which I find to be fun, especially with you ). I hear about all kinds of studies, and tests, and other sorts of stuff, all going back and forth between "it's in a gene" or "it's acquired after birth," but as the former seemed to be the more popular and well-backed, I simply chose to accept it as the most likely truth for the time being. Your logic and my own personal experience leads me to believe that the acquired argument is not definitely wrong, and should not be ignored.

Either way, homosexuality can be turned into heterosexuality. We can either isolate and replace the gene, or go through someone's mind and warp it as we see fit. The problem is, though, that 'fixing' homosexuality is invariably changing the person. That's like fixing a kind person and making them mean, fixing a selfish person and making them generous, or even fixing someone with brown hair and making them grow green hair. It changes who they are. This, of course, should be left up to the idividual being changed. No one has the right to force someone to change into something they are not. It's like a father wanting a child to grow up and become a lawyer, but the kid wants to be a teacher. Is it not wrong for the father to beat the child until he promises to become a lawyer? Replace 'lawyer' with 'straight person' and 'teacher' with 'gay person'.

so the question we ask is, why do we treat depression or schizophrenia, if being different isn't wrong?

The reason we treat such mental disorders is because they have negative effects on the person who is inflicted. A schizophrenic is troubled with all sorts of stuff, and someone who is depressed is someone who really needs to find happiness. These things aren't wrong because they're different, they are wrong because of the symptomes of their affliction (of course, if they do not wish to recieve treatment, provided they are sane enough to make such a decision and not a threat to society, they should not have to be treated). Homosexuality is not a negative. Only because of society is there a reason that someone would not want to be gay. It's fear... fear of being an outcast, fear of homophobes, fear of death. These things scare lots of gay friends I have, and because of this fear, they wish they were straight. Some rise above and are perfectly happy, but others go as far as to kill themselves because they are so ashamed of who they are. This is society's doing, no their sexuality.

Now, I believe that methods of sexuality changes should not be made availible (at least for people under a certain age) for the same reason child labor laws exist. People should not be forced to do something just because the option is there. In the past, parents expected their 7 year old kids to go to work, mostly because they needed the money. The child itself had no say in whether or not it could work. With child labor laws, 7 year olds can't go to work, thus parents couldn't force their kids to work. The same concept is applicable for gays. If a gay is born into a highly conservative and religous household, we don't want the kid to be forced, without any say, into becomming straight against his or her will. We want the parents to be forced to accept their children for who they are, not what they want them to be. Parents will be stuck with the 'gay kid,'' just as they are stuck with 'the child who can't work.' It sounds a tad bit harsh, but that's really the best option I see.

Back to KH2...

[NeoDraven]

by the way, homosexuality is not inherent. it's acquired. by this, i don't mean that people choose to be gay, but rather that people are somehow made gay after they are born, possibly due to circumstances in their lives or whatnot. this means that it can be reversed, as it is a psychological rather than physiological (genetic) trait of people. just thought i'd put that out there, because i'm sick of hearing this "homosexuality is innate, you can't do anything about it" bs.

and Ferret Overlord, it's a little pointless to refute my argument by citing that it's against the law, when the very thing (aka gay marriage) that you are lobbying for is currently outlawed in 48 states.

plus, the argument you make about children's inability to make decisions for themselves is pretty much exactly the same argument people a few decades ago (and today still) made about racial minorities.

Wow kaezion I see what your saying is showing that your a Homophobe

Dictionary Definition:
Homophobe: A Person who is constantly afraid of people who are homosexuals
and shows it by constantly talking about how they should not be allowed to get married.


HEY KAEZION CANADA HAS LEGALIZED GAY MARRIAGES ITS LEGAL BY OUR GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT SINCE Pierre Elliot Trudeau introduced the absolute clause statement in the 1960-1970's after the FLQ crisis.
Meaning that once a Law has been put thru and legislated like legalizing Gay Marriages unless it threatens people to getting killed or harmed but it aint its actually doing the opposite.

HAHA!!!
COME TO CANADA GAY PEOPLE WE WELCOME YOU!!!

[Neraphym]

Please, no name calling. The last thing we want is everyone calling eachother gay and/or homophobes. Also, that dictionary definition doesn't look official. Another thing (*rambles*), what's the absolution clause exactly? I'm not that familiar with other specific governments.

[ticktockclok]

I'm a homophobe and proud. Deal with it.

[Kaezion]

HEY KAEZION CANADA HAS LEGALIZED GAY MARRIAGES ITS LEGAL BY OUR GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT SINCE Pierre Elliot Trudeau introduced the absolute clause statement in the 1960-1970's after the FLQ crisis.
Meaning that once a Law has been put thru and legislated like legalizing Gay Marriages unless it threatens people to getting killed or harmed but it aint its actually doing the opposite.

HAHA!!!
COME TO CANADA GAY PEOPLE WE WELCOME YOU!!!

this explains everything. i almost pity you.


anyway, i have to admit, Alpha, that you've outreasoned me. the logic supporting gay marriage is stronger than that opposing. yet, i am still opposed to gay marriage - this is a personal, religious value of mine. i know this sounds uneducated and ignorant to the athiest who has never experienced true Christianity, but i trust in my God to be more logical than i. however irrational the reason, though, i - and millions of others in the U.S. - am opposed to gay marriage. obviously then, we cannot talk of legalizing gay marriage in a country that is founded on the principle of majority rule, as the majority of Americans do oppose gay marriage. so, while i concede that logically, your argument is stronger, i point out to you that it is not practicable in the U.S., for the simple reason that the majority - simple, religious folk like me - oppose it. maybe in the future, when the tables of public opinion have turned, homosexuals can have their wedding vows, but for now the option of marriage must be unfairly denied to them for the sole reason that it is the will of the majority.

parallels from this to women's suffrage or black rights do not hold, since they were amendments, and amendments had to acquire majority vote to pass - meaning that they had the support of the majority.

[Neraphym]

That's so true, unfortunately. The only hope for gays is for them to appeal to some constitutional right that protects their right to marriage. This goverment was set up to impose the will of the majority, but protect the rights of the minority. Here we see a majority taking the rights away from a minority for religious reasons. This is exactly why the founding fathers added the freedom of religion to the bill or rights. Simply put, taking away gay marriage is WRONG. Whether or not you have the majority behind you.

[NeoDraven]

Please, no name calling.  The last thing we want is everyone calling eachother gay and/or homophobes.   Also, that dictionary definition doesn't look official.  Another thing (*rambles*), what's the absolution clause exactly?  I'm not that familiar with other specific governments.

The Absolute Clause means that any major changes such as marital changes like allowing gay marriages or say pretence the drinking age once made a law in the constitution the absolute clause states it cannot be changed. This was to make sure the liberaly party could not make it so you have to pay per student for high school education.

[Soulblighter500000]

I don't believe in marriage to begin with. Marriage was originally for religous purposes, and evolved into contemporary society because women couldn't own their own property or employment. Today it is purely for custody, financial & legal benefits, and as a formality. It doesn't have any useful purpose in society anymore. The gays just want it so they also have an opportunity to walk away with 50% at the divorce. I say screw marriage altogether, why do u have to tie the knot when you can just love each other?

[NeoDraven]

I don't believe in marriage to begin with. Marriage was originally for religous purposes, and evolved into contemporary society because women couldn't own their own property or employment. Today it is purely for custody, financial & legal benefits, and as a formality. It doesn't have any useful purpose in society anymore. The gays just want it so they also have an opportunity to walk away with 50% at the divorce. I say screw marriage altogether, why do u have to tie the knot when you can just love each other?

SO you believe in Monogomy? and Concubines?

[Soulblighter500000]

I don't believe in marriage to begin with. Marriage was originally for religous purposes, and evolved into contemporary society because women couldn't own their own property or employment. Today it is purely for custody, financial & legal benefits, and as a formality. It doesn't have any useful purpose in society anymore. The gays just want it so they also have an opportunity to walk away with 50% at the divorce. I say screw marriage altogether, why do u have to tie the knot when you can just love each other?

SO you believe in Monogomy? and Concubines?

then u have no idea what i'm talking about, so let me say it more clearly:

NO MARRIAGE! GET IT? GOOD! DUMB-@$$!

[NeoDraven]

I don't believe in marriage to begin with. Marriage was originally for religous purposes, and evolved into contemporary society because women couldn't own their own property or employment. Today it is purely for custody, financial & legal benefits, and as a formality. It doesn't have any useful purpose in society anymore. The gays just want it so they also have an opportunity to walk away with 50% at the divorce. I say screw marriage altogether, why do u have to tie the knot when you can just love each other?

SO you believe in Monogomy? and Concubines?

then u have no idea what i'm talking about, so let me say it more clearly:

NO MARRIAGE! GET IT? GOOD! DUMB-@$$!

Monogomy is when you have multiple wifes (wife does not always mean married and not it doesn't)

Concubine means multiple women used for having children from because your actual lover(s) cannot have children.