Poll: Gay Marriage
- Thread starter 2012 Wont Happen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Honestly. Who the hell is the government to tell anyone that only certain relationships are valid. Fuck that. Everyone should be allowed to love whoever they want, regardless of gender.
Well, thats alittle extreme - some groups claim that gays are corrupted by Satan - used to be that I too would have been classified as corrupt too because I'm left handed; even this century, the right handed facists (no offence to right handed people in general, just the ones who act as if being left handed is 'wrong!') where punishing children for using their left hand for writing. Even when I was young, there was a time where, had my mother not intervened, I'd have been forced to be right handed by my apparently secular teachers.CrashBang said:
So, do I think the Christian church is inheritly evil? No, probably not. The Catholic church? No, probably not, although corrupt and with too much power over Africans and South Americans. And I say that as someone who was christianed Roman Catholic (although neither myself or my parents practise an form of religion).
I think there are alot of people who use the Christian church to push their own hates onto the world, but I can say the same about governments and corporations when it comes down to it.
I personally am agnoistic - I doubt god exists, and am uncertain as to if their is an afterlife or not. I think until scientific theory explains 100% of physics, including the beginning of our Universe and the nature of any Multi-verse that may exist, we can't rule out the possiblity of an afterlife. Any statement that "there is/isn't 100% certainly an afterlife" is based on faith rather than proof.
BAD MAN! Darwinism is a dirty word created to try and discredit evolution in a PR war, trying to make is seem like a matter of faith than science.Captain Blackout said:
Gays should have every right straight people have. Marriage, adoption, the lot. No doubt about it.
There's a lot of talk about gay adoption. What's the problem? I'd have loved to have a gay dad! Remember in the playground when you were kids?
'My dad'd batter your dad'
'No, my dad'd batter your dad'
'Listen! My dad'd shag your dad!'
'My dad'd batter your dad'
'No, my dad'd batter your dad'
'Listen! My dad'd shag your dad!'
While I am an adamant believer that all humans have the right to love and be loved back, I am against gay marriage, though NOT for the reasons most often evoked:
- Marriage itself, while a romantic concept, is nothing more than that. It has absolutely no bearing, nor warranty, upon love.
- You take your money and throw it away... plain and simple. Ask anyone who got married in a church how much it all costed to him/her and the family. 25 000$? 65 000$ Sometimes upwards to 200 000$ for ONE day of party and ONE week of "lune de miel"?
- And to whom does that money go? A cult that is already multi-billionnaire? A cabinet of lawyers (who secretely await for you to call them back upon your nigh-inevitable divorce)? An Elvis impersonator in a shotgun chapel?
- Simply signing someone as your new roommate is already a complicated chore. Now imagine the millions in taxpayer money to create a new "same-sex couple" legislation and paperworks. Now, imagine even further and quadruple that amount in divorce filings...
One counter-argument to my own arguments that I wish to propose, and one that I have no idea how to solve, would be about child care. Heterosexual couples already have so much law and jurisdiction to work through, I have no idea about how same-sex couple would settle this.
- Marriage itself, while a romantic concept, is nothing more than that. It has absolutely no bearing, nor warranty, upon love.
- You take your money and throw it away... plain and simple. Ask anyone who got married in a church how much it all costed to him/her and the family. 25 000$? 65 000$ Sometimes upwards to 200 000$ for ONE day of party and ONE week of "lune de miel"?
- And to whom does that money go? A cult that is already multi-billionnaire? A cabinet of lawyers (who secretely await for you to call them back upon your nigh-inevitable divorce)? An Elvis impersonator in a shotgun chapel?
- Simply signing someone as your new roommate is already a complicated chore. Now imagine the millions in taxpayer money to create a new "same-sex couple" legislation and paperworks. Now, imagine even further and quadruple that amount in divorce filings...
One counter-argument to my own arguments that I wish to propose, and one that I have no idea how to solve, would be about child care. Heterosexual couples already have so much law and jurisdiction to work through, I have no idea about how same-sex couple would settle this.
This is more a PSA than a directed attack.
"Gay people are not born gay," reads more like a pseudo-fact than it does an opinion, which is why I called Semitendon on it. Arguing opinions doesn't exist, because they are empty, superfluous things that cannot be quantified.
What people do when they argue is offer a position, opinion, statement, whatever - and then support it with factual evidence. You should never offer an opinion in rebuttal to another opinion - you attack the basis, which lies in the evidence.
Someone says, "I think hamburgers are bad."
Someone responds, "I think you're stupid!"
That's not an argument - that's middle school.
Someone says, "I think hamburgers are unhealthy."
Someone responds, "Where is the evidence to suggest such a thing?"
Someone says, "In a recent study conducted at UM..."
And on and on and on...
Always remember chilluns, with some exceptions, a respectable opinion is rooted in fact.
"Gay people are not born gay," reads more like a pseudo-fact than it does an opinion, which is why I called Semitendon on it. Arguing opinions doesn't exist, because they are empty, superfluous things that cannot be quantified.
What people do when they argue is offer a position, opinion, statement, whatever - and then support it with factual evidence. You should never offer an opinion in rebuttal to another opinion - you attack the basis, which lies in the evidence.
Someone says, "I think hamburgers are bad."
Someone responds, "I think you're stupid!"
That's not an argument - that's middle school.
Someone says, "I think hamburgers are unhealthy."
Someone responds, "Where is the evidence to suggest such a thing?"
Someone says, "In a recent study conducted at UM..."
And on and on and on...
Always remember chilluns, with some exceptions, a respectable opinion is rooted in fact.
No worries then; I just find that debates on the internet don't really reach the 'truth' (for lack of a better word). Logically reasoning without evidence is akin to the philosophers of ancient Greece; they worked out a set of laws of motion, but never tested them.Semitendon said:
Anywho, on topic, I believe from what I've heard and read, sexuality is part genetic, part environment. The fact that homosexuality has been observed in non-human species suggests it has an evolutionally advantage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals).
I believe the hypothesis I heard was "The genes that increase the odds of homosexually increase the sex drive of the individual, and hence the non-homosexual ones with the higher sex drive breed more and survive genetically"
Also, I believe someone suggested that adoption, like we humans practise, allow for homosexual members of a species to increase their species' chances of survival by reducing the infant mortatity rate. It seems to be practised by penguins in captivity, but I don't know if its been seen in the wild.
Anywho, if I find any scientific journal on the subject, I shall post.
See, Now here is someone who finally gives me something to think about. I have to admit, I don't know enough about penguins to come up with a valid answer, so I will have to look into it. Kudos to you for posting the vid.cobra_ky said:
While your penguins raise excellent questions, the majority of the rest of your post leave something to be desired. The idea that "social pressure" would make a caveman have heterosexual sex is a little silly. The edit about recessive genes, only further's my point. Let's say that the gay gene develops with the cavemen, and unfortunatly some of the lesbians are forced into sex with males. They have four kids who have a percentage chance of being gay. Now, factor the number of forced sex occurances with the degredation of a "gay" gene up to today's time. Or for that matter up to the time of the Egyptians. ( one of the earliest "known" cultures with gay people, and you will find that the odds on a person having enough "gay" gene strength to have them actually affected by it, are very, very, low.
Gay marriage should be legal, plain and simple. To deny this is a breach of the right to engage in marriage, surely?
OK, Thaius....I don't know where you got your info from, but take it from me, there is more proof that people ARE born gay, than not.Thaius said:
Firstly, looking in nature, there's a lot of homosexuality there....not to mention bisexuality, asexuality, and even transsexuality/gender role reversal amongst other animals, plants, wildlife etc.
Now effectively, you are saying that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Believe me, it is definitely NOT!
I present myself as a case in point. I am openly gay. At puberty, I knew that there was something 'wrong'. By 15, I was in a terrible situation, where I was trying to deny the simple fact that I was attracted to men. At 17, I was bullied because, despite my efforts to put on a front, my peers could tell that I was not interested in girls. At 20, I was hospitalised by a group of thugs after being seen leaving a gay bar. At 21, I came out to my parents. It was a horrible thing to put my parents through, and if I could have it any other way, I would not have done it.....my point? If homosexuality really was a choice, do you really think that I would have chosen a route that would cause me unneccessary depression, risk, or alienation from friends & family? Do you believe that any sane person living in a society that persecutes, ridicules, condemns and in some cases, kills homosexuals, would actually think "Yeah! I like the sound of that!
Your argument is based on very little substance, including a misinterpretation of Darwin's theory of evolution, bucked up with the good old "God made Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve" nestling in there somewhere.
Forget the religious aspect for a sec, or the evolutionary aspect. - All that is being asked here is if two people should be married. - If they were black, the answer would be YES. If they were left-handed, the answer would still be YES.
The only controversies surrounding homosexuality in this day & age are caused by religion, and religion alone. Whether it's some obscure passage in the Old Testament, to the pope voicing his hatred for 'deviations', ultimately it comes down to a handful of people who are increasingly out of touch with the modern world. - If the vatican was to publicly accept homosexuals into the flock, there would probably be an outcry for a month, but the long-term benefits would be overwhelming!
He did, when he kindly refrained from smiting homosexuals for the past three thousand years (well, any more than usual). Others merely failed to notice.Kris015 said:
I don't mind it I just find it kinda weird when they do it in christian churches where guy-girl normaly get married.
He is so loving that he would commit mass genocide because people stopped believing in him. And instead of trying to find every other possible way to make them believe in him again, he refrains to killing. Oh, the Christian God is not a loving one nor a caring one.Fondant said:
Maybe it's because I haven't had any sleep, but I don't get this. If the homosexual person is the one with the higher sex drive, how does that further the species? How does this cause the straight people to have "higher sex drive breed more and survive genetically"Doug said:
Not being sarcastic or anything, I just don't understand it. Maybe if I had more sleep lol
that's a very narrow concept of what marriage entails. first of all, the debate is not over marriage ceremonies, which gay couples can and do already have. the debate is over the legal rights granted to legally married couples which are denied to gay couples. second, there's no need to spend anywhere near that much on a wedding ceremony (and for most couples those amounts are inconceivably beyond reach.) i have friends who are planning a lesbian wedding ceremony and they're spending barely anything on it.ceeqanguel said:
Gay marriage generates tax income:ceeqanguel said:
*ahem* May I see your degree in genetic biology? No? Well, I don't have one either, but you're 'it makes logical sense' approach makes me sad. Its the same problem that creates alot of these conspiracy theories exist.Thaius said:
Ok, lets have a look where you went wrong; firstly, where you were right; "why would homosexuality, which produces no offspring, be mutated into someone". This would be true where is a pure genetic on/off switch. However, the truth seems to be their is a gene which influences your sexual preferences.
So, why would this gene survive? Well, lets look at the 'side effects' (misnomer - genes have effects, not side-effects). From what I understand, this gene also increases the sex drive of the inidividuals who have it. So, lets say 40% of people with this gene are 'gay', and 60% are 'straight'. Lets also say this gene doubles the number of children the 'straight's have.
So, lets compare to an all straight group without the gene; lets say there are 100 of them couples having around 4 kids each couple.
So, 100 people are in 50 couples and have 200 children.
Now, the 'gay gene' group, with 100 people still. We have 60 'straight's, and so 30 couples, and because of the gene, each couple has 8 kids.
So, 100 people are in 30 couples and have 240 children.
Ok, these numbers are largely random, and almost certainly do not reflect the real numbers, but it shows that a 'homosexual' gene could have evolutionally value. Other factors include the possiblity of homosexual couples increasing the survival chances of the offspring of the heterosexual couple by either adopting the children in the event of death, or by aiding in community survival (more eyes on guard around a camp, men who can be trusted to guard the women in the event of attack, etc, etc, ad nausem for earlier societies)
I'm completely fine with the idea of homosexuality, but i also believe that marriage is a sacred act between a man and a woman. If two members of the same sense wish to call themselves married in the same way that a man and a woman are, that's were i have a problem. Its stepping a boundary that you cant say is fine just because its who they are. Kleptomaniacs have a physiological need to steal, but that doesn't mean we're going to let them stroll out of the Louvre with the Mona Lisa. That may come across as meaning that i think being Gay is as bad as stealing, but just chill, i was using it as an example.