1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

Same-sex marriage and gay rights in general: Yes or No?

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by Chozo Tiger, May 24, 2010.

?

Your stance on gay marriage and gay rights?

  1. Same-sex marriage; Gay rights all the way.

    75.1%
  2. I support civil unions, not marriage; Gay rights all the way.

    7.6%
  3. Not civil unions nor marriage; Gay rights all the way.

    1.8%
  4. Not civil unions nor marriage; Against gay rights.

    7.3%
  5. Homosexual activity of any kind should be punishable by law

    8.2%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fused

    Fused Shun the nonbeliever

    Actually, majority and minority have nothing to do with this issue. Please look at any social movement in history to see that discrimination, even agaisnt a minority, is still discrimination. Blacks are the minority. Let's take away their rights. Italians are the minority. Let's take away their rights. Buddhists are the minority, so let's take away their rights. Samaritans are the minority, so let's take away their rights. Boy oh boy, your logic is so much fun.
     
  2. Zenotwapal

    Zenotwapal have a drink on me

    Actually, he didn't mean all rights in general, he meant the right to marry.

    Oh, your logic is so much fun.
     
  3. Fused

    Fused Shun the nonbeliever

    It is fun because you can easily replace "rights" with "right to marry" and still get the same effect.

    I also like that you agree that it is a right instead of a privilege or something dumb like that that you can get if you act a certain way.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2010
  4. John13wb

    John13wb Earthbound Hero

    Not really. The struggle for blacks to get rights was actually a worthwhile cause. The right to marry is a joke, because if we give gays the right, then we have to allow every other fetish group marry e.g. zoophiles marrying animals.
     
  5. Fused

    Fused Shun the nonbeliever

    *sigh*

    I really don't even want to deal with this for the FORTY-SEVEN MILLIONTH TIME.

    Beastiality, pedophilia, necrophilia are all sex acts that involve only ONE, I repeat, ONE, consenting party while homosexuality, just like heterosexuality and bisexuality involve the consent of ALL, I repeat ALL of the parties involved. Lack of consent from ONE of the parties is easily viewed as rape, while if EVERYONE IN THE PARTY CONSENTS, it can be seen as a legitimate relationship that everyone involved has agreed upon. You've also got **** for evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is just a fetish instead of a legitimate variance of human sexuality.

    The right to marry is also not a trivial thing. When the slaves were emancipated and were actually deemed something as actual citizens, having the ability to have a legitimate marriage was nothing trivial to them. When interracial marriage was an issue, it was certainly not a joke to the people it was denied to. Marriage has been used to demean minority groups, and because of that it is not trivial. When you use something as a weapon, its not a joke.

    The only thing that's a joke is your post, considering how thought it WASN'T.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2010
  6. Carlisle

    Carlisle BAM

    *sigh* not THIS idiotic argument argument.

    Since I am too lazy to go over this again, I am just going to say nothing you could mention besides polygamy involves legal consent. Children, objects, and animals can not legally consent to a legal contract such as marriage.
     
  7. 7 tyranitars

    7 tyranitars Well-Known Member

    oh that's nice let''s take away rights because someon is a minority, Idk how you count but gay people are aprox 10% of the average population

    this:

    and this:

    (since I am even more lazy then carlisle)
     
  8. Antiyonder

    Antiyonder Well-Known Member

    Animals can't consent. Homosexual adult humans on the other hand are able to. Seriously it's not rocket science or geometry.

    If a man were to propose to a dog, the dog wouldn't be able to comprehend the question asked. Now if this man was to instead as a human adult man for his hand in marriage, the man will be able to choose and either accept or reject.

    Now if you still believe that marrying an animal is the same as a gay marriage perhaps you can prove it by touching on the factor of consent we have to remind everyone of. Is there a flaw in the whole consent argument or do you completely ignore that argument so that your argument will be valid?
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2010
  9. J.T.

    J.T. ಠ_ಠ

    Which is exactly my point. You don't believe the Bible should be used to make a law against gay marriage or gay rights in general. Soooo... it's really not something either of us care about when it comes to this topic.

    It is. However, "the Bible says it's immoral" is not a valid reason to say it's immoral.

    Which, in turn, I posted because someone else used the Bible as a reason to be against gay marriage.

    Which is why I didn't say that.

    That directly contradicts a few things, but I'll just bring up that moral/priestly/civil laws thing that SouthernWitch talked about. Either God is unchanging and the civil/priestly laws still apply, or the civil/priestly laws no longer apply and God does in fact change sometimes. Which is it?

    If your definition of "major religion" is "mine and ones like it", then yeah, you're right. But Hinduism, for example, is a pretty major religion.

    So you don't want a group of people to have equal rights to everyone else because it means you'll be paying a little bit of money for them to be doing it? That's a totally unselfish, Christ-like reason to oppose it.

    Because, as SunnyC said, when I make giant posts, I at least make them as soon as I can to prevent the debate from going stale.

    None of the points I made that you required sources for seemed very bold to me.

    I wasn't backpedaling. It's not my problem if you didn't understand what I was saying. Even if you or someone with the same views as you are not actively voting to take away rights to a group of people, you are advocating it, which is still bad.

    No one's cussing at you. There's a difference between swearing (which would be like saying "holy ****"), and cussing at you (which would be insulting you).

    You are, but it comes across as more obnoxious or prudish than funny.

    "Natural sexual use of women". So that would mean... what, exactly? The "natural sexual use of women" could just mean vaginal sex, for all we know. Oral sex could, by that definition, fall under an "unnatural use".

    I just read through all of Genesis 1. Never saw anything about him not creating homosexual people. Closest I could come up with was "male and female he created them", followed by "Be fruitful and increase in number". Is that what you're referring to? Because that doesn't prove anything, except that He made men and women and had them populate the earth.

    Who said I don't? God made us capable of sin to such a degree that, according to you, it is nigh impossible to live your whole life without sinning unless you're Jesus. He could have easily made us incapable of sin.

    Force them them? Probably not. Give them a better reason to believe other than "I'll send you to hell for eternity if you don't worship me without any proof that I exist"? Yes. Prove that He exists if he loves us so much and wants us to go to heaven, so those who don't believe for lack of evidence can finally come to Him? Absolutely.

    Okay, ignoring the fact that you seem to think gays are unable to control themselves and want to have sex with every single person of the same gender, and that only gay people rape people of the same gender...

    Keep in mind that gays already serve in the military, they just have to bottle it up. If this were anywhere near as much of a problem as you make it out to be, then such rape problems would exist in the military right now, and removing DADT would not change anything. Furthermore, with that in mind, I'd argue that DADT worsens that fear. With DADT in place, you have no idea which people around you are gay, and by your logic, a potential rapist. Removing DADT at least lets you be more on guard, because you know who may potentially (again, by your logic) rape you.

    Let me clear up a few things. When I said there's probably not much historical evidence for the development of morals, I meant written documents. And I said that because rudimentary morals would have come around before writing. I suggest reading the book(s) if you want to learn a bit about their claims. I will admit I haven't read either book myself yet, on account of I can't find them anywhere, but hopefully it'll shed a little light on this topic.

    Not quite sure what this has to do with gay rights though.

    But God punishes us for having sin, doesn't He? So it's more like someone throwing your descendants in jail because all of them have AIDS from your great-great-great-ancestor.

    I wasn't aware "many" or "so much" were absolutely descriptive phrases. All I said was that many Christians spend a lot of time preaching against gays. You don't need a source to know that, you just need to have access to the news, TV, the Internet, or any form of mass communication. I never gave an exact number. I never gave a statistic. I never gave a fraction. All I said was "many" and "so much", which in context pretty much means "a lot".

    So you see my point, right? Because I've only spoken to you online, all I know about you is what you've said, but I still feel confident that you are a Christian, because a lot of what I know about you points towards you being a Christian. But there's a lot more information on Ferdinand II, all of which points toward him being a devout Catholic. Saying he wasn't a true Christian is a desperate attempt to save face.

    Okay. So did Paul believe in Jesus as the son of God?

    Going to church and publicly worshiping Christ indicate that one is a Christian. Being an unpleasant person doesn't necessarily imply that one is not a Christian.

    But okay. So you're telling me that despite the fact that they picket funerals saying "God Hates ***s", despite the fact that they clearly like Jesus enough to protest against Jews for killing him, despite the fact that they have outright said "the Lord Jesus" during one of their major sermons (which was, again, anti-Semitic), despite the fact that they identify as Baptist, despite the fact that they preach God's wrath, and despite the fact that they claim to want to bring the word of the Christian God to them... you're telling me that unless I can find a quote from someone associated with the WBC directly saying Jesus is their Lord, then they can't be Christian?

    ...

    Okay.

    No, I didn't. I meant that Christian views on homosexuality can and have been turned into law, either on the state level or the federal level.

    I don't care who it was who passed those. The fact that they passed at all proves my point.

    Please tell me you don't mean Chick tracts.

    No. I'm aware that I have, and I acknowledged that. I've been trying to appease you by using more than just the KJV since you started complaining.

    How so?

    It brings the legitimacy of the claims of Jesus dying for our sins into question. The morals and teachings, though, do not necessarily hinge on how truthful the story is. A fiction book may still have a good moral.

    You... don't have any reasons yourself?

    So why the hell are you squeezing abortion and evolution into a debate on gay rights when neither have anything to do with the original topic?

    What does this "big dif" matter in the context of this debate?

    That's still no better than what I thought you said at first.

    No, blindly following the opinion this book that totally came from God says you should have is much more important.

    Could be. You have yet to prove this particular opinion is bad, though.

    Not really. The major point and the intent were the same.

    If a heterosexual soldier jokes around about his sexual experiences with a woman, I very highly doubt he would even get anyone around him to raise an eyebrow. If a homosexual soldier jokes around about his sexual experiences with another man, he is legally allowed to be discharged.

    As someone pointed out, there are few people who actually do that.

    You said

    In the context of this debate, the two are pretty much the same. So it's not really a strawman if that's pretty much what you're saying

    Okay, so is this the one that they were messing with in the fruit flies you were talking about earlier?

    'kay, so additional testosterone in female rats and removal of testosterone production in male rats will mess up their sexuality. That's not all that surprising.

    That's basically restating something I said earlier. So part of the brain varies in size with sexual preference? Um... okay. Your point?

    Too lazy to repeat what GA said.

    No, I just got a bit confused.

    ... So some people might enter a huge commitment with someone they don't love just for the shock value, and that's a valid reason to not allow gay marriage?

    So once again, it's okay to be gay as long as you believe in the Christian God?

    So it's not even their own sin that makes them gay? It's all the rest of the sin in the world?

    Right there, for starters.

    Maybe they're only in defiance of your interpretation?

    Well, can you prove there is supernatural?
     
  10. The Doctor

    The Doctor Absolute Beginner

    Have you missed the several thousand times people have pointed out why this slippery slope argument doesn't work?

    ANIMALS CAN'T CONSENT TO MARRIAGE.
     
  11. Zenotwapal

    Zenotwapal have a drink on me

    I think John used a bad example, but however, I agree with the fact that being gay seems more like a fetish than a life style.

    And by the way JT, using the WBC as a example of all Christians is like using a zebra to show parts of a canine.
    The WBC isn' t a church at all, it's more of a hate group.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2010
  12. John13wb

    John13wb Earthbound Hero

    So, how does the fact that none of those things can consent change the fact that they would have to be allowed? I mean, sure, calling me an idiot and telling me you are too lazy to respond may SEEM like good responses, but I didn't really understand how they responded.

    But, yes, we would have to allow those things. All of the arguments you've given for why homosexuals should be able to marry are all arguments that they would use. Such as:

    "Marrying a child/dog/corpse doesn't affect you, get out of my life."
    "Amazing how the 'Land of the Free" would dare oppress us."
    "Its natural to be attracted to those things."

    ...and the list goes on.

    7tyranitars, I'd like to see the facts that says the ten percent of the humans on the plant are gay. Or did you just make that up to support your argument?

    Also, calling my argument a joke is great. Because I feel the same way about gay marriage. It's the biggest joke of 'oppressed groups', right up there with furries.
     
  13. Fused

    Fused Shun the nonbeliever

    How so? Any logic for this opinion?

    Fetish Something nonsexual, such as an object or a part of the body which arouses sexual desire or is necessary for one to reach full sexual satisfaction

    Lifestyle A style of living that reflects the attitudes and values of a person or group

    While neither of these scare words paint a correct view on sexual orientations, which one does homosexuality, and all other sexual orientations, best fall under?

    You obviously read the first five words of my argument and then thought of this response. If you hadn't, you wouldn't have asked that question, because everyone has given you the same exact explanation,b ut let me tell you again below.

    Yes, but it does affect the child/dog/corpse, meaning they need to consent to the union, which chidlren, aniamls, and corpses don't have the legal standing to do. Fail #1.

    Like I said above, without informed consent from all parties invovled, such a union would be rape in the eyes of the law. Fail #2.

    Besides complex biology which I've gone through before (most notably, the role pheromones are beleived to play in sexual attraction (pheromones are strongest during puberty (children) and pheromones are noticable only among a certain species (animals) and only living things create them (corpses)) there is no evidence that attractions to children, animals, or corpses is a naturally occuring variance. Fail #3.

    And so do the counter arguments.

    Calling something a joke is one thing. Having a logical reason behind it is another thing, soemthing which you don't have. I've explained why gay marriage, marriage as a whole, equality and minority discrimination are not jokes but serious social issues to those it affects. If you've never felt the sharp end of a sword, it must be easy to call it a joke.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2010
  14. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    yeah, because you have the first-hand experience in being gay.

    edit: this was directed at John.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2010
  15. The Doctor

    The Doctor Absolute Beginner

    J.T. wasn't using it like that. It was to demonstrate that ShinySandshrew's argument that "you're not a true Christian if you don't outright state that Jesus is Our Lord and Saviour" doesn't work.

    Besides, everyone knows the WBC don't represent Christianity.

    The law requires both recipients sign a contract agreeing to marriage. A dog can't do that, a child wouldn't qualify since they're underage, and a corpse is a legal non-entity.
     
  16. Zenotwapal

    Zenotwapal have a drink on me

    Haha
    See I would say fetish.
    Since somebody could technically uh have a **** fetish?
     
  17. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    ....

    then everybody has fetishes under that definition.

    jesus christ.
     
  18. The Director

    The Director Ancient Trainer

    Not all homosexuals have a **** fetish, so homosexuality is not a fetish, instead a life style.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2010
  19. GaZsTiC

    GaZsTiC Alternating

    What is hidden under those asterisks, may I ask?
     
  20. Fused

    Fused Shun the nonbeliever

    Then you obviously have a **** fetish and shouldn't be allowed to legalize your fetish.

    @GaZ: D. I. C. K.

    I'm assuming, since we all like to forget lesbians.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page