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

[CSolarstorm]

That is an impossibility. Heterosexuals have always had the right to marry because we are the majority of the people on the planet. Until gays somehow outnumber heterosexuals (not sure how that could occur), that won't happen.

It was hypothetical. Grei was trying to put the shoe on the other foot - imagine yourself as the minority, being unable to marry.

The first representation of Saint Valentine appeared in the Nuremberg Chronicle, (1493); alongside the woodcut portrait of Valentine the text states that he was a Roman priest martyred during the reign of Claudius II, known as Claudius Gothicus. He was arrested and imprisoned upon being caught marrying Christian couples and otherwise aiding Christians who were at the time being persecuted by Claudius in Rome.

The legend states that Claudius prohibited Christians from marrying. Christians were the minority back then. Saint Valentine broke the law and married them anyway, or so the depiction goes, and that's why we celebrate Valentine's Day today.

This is a hypothetical comparison - it's just to illustrate the bitter sting of being a minority and hence being judged by quantity over humanity. I know it's useless though, because Christians can never be compared to homosexuals, and of course, even though I'm a Christian, I must be discriminating against Christians somehow by making this comparison.

So, how does the fact that none of those things can consent change the fact that they would have to be allowed?

Because without consent, necrophilia, rape, and beastiality, are rape. Homosexuality is not rape, it is between two consenting parties, does not harm those consenting parties or anyone outside those consenting parties, and therefore should be considered a basic freedom under the pursuit of happiness.

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..

I promise not to call you an idiot; but it is easy to explain why your argument is fallacious and homosexuality does not carry any of the consequences that the things you are relating it to do.

Marrying/having intercourse with a child affects the child; it deals them lifelong trauma. Having sex with a dog is animal cruelty and could subject you to jailtime by the humane society. Marrying a corpse...well I suppose it depends on where you get it...if it was a corpse when you met it, then it probably doesn't belong to you, and that means you're stealing/desecrating the dead and the memory of someone's relatives.

That's why all those things are illegal. There's no logical reason for homosexuality to be illegal; there are reasons for the above to be illegal. So no, those things would still be illegal by proxy, EVEN IF we legalized homosexuality.

Of course, places without such laws that the humane society have where I live, where beastiality is legal, I can't really answer for. 0_0 I honestly don't agree with those places then.

 

[J.T.]

That is an impossibility. Heterosexuals have always had the right to marry because we are the majority of the people on the planet. Until gays somehow outnumber heterosexuals (not sure how that could occur), that won't happen.

Holy crap, look at that way up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! NO! IT'S THE POINT!

Imagine, if you will, if the shoe were on the other foot. It doesn't have to actually be plausible, just imagine for a second. I know I'm wasting my time by trying to do this, because earlier you saw absolutely no hypocrisy in ignoring and mocking the plight of gays in Middle Eastern countries being treated unfairly for their orientation while simultaneously wailing persecution at the top of your lungs when the same countries do the same things to Christians... but just try for a second.

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.

Reason?

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.

First off, you're right, it is unfair, so it's a good thing that's not what I was doing. Second, your analogy is stupid and makes no sense to what I was saying; a better comparison would be to use a two-legged dog to judge what all dogs should look like. And again, that's not what I was doing.

The WBC isn' t a church at all, it's more of a hate group.

It fits a church by every definition of the word. Just because they make your side look bad doesn't mean you can say they're "not true Christians" to make your side look better.

So, how does the fact that none of those things can consent change the fact that they would have to be allowed?

Because one individual in the relationship can't say "I do", and you damn well know what's wrong with that. Quit playing ignorant and stop holding desperately on to that slippery slope as if it's all you have left... oh wait!

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.

Learn some reading comprehension, then.

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:

Hoo boy.

"Marrying a child/dog/corpse doesn't affect you, get out of my life."

It sure as hell negatively affects the child/dog/corpse/family of the corpse.

"Amazing how the 'Land of the Free" would dare oppress us."

Rape takes away freedom from others. The "Land of the Free" prevents you from taking away the freedom of others. So no.

"Its natural to be attracted to those things."

Prove it.

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?

It really depends on which study you use. This guy listed a good number of studies. The 10% estimate is the one most commonly used, but I'm not sure if it's the most accurate.

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.

Really. So all those countries that treat gays as second class citizens, toss them in jail, or even execute them must all be in on this joke too.

Oh, and

[IMG139]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/aversion_fads.png[/IMG139]

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

 

[Antiyonder]

So, how does the fact that none of those things can consent change the fact that they would have to be allowed?

Because people who can consent aren't being deprived of freedom. If you marry a child or a dog, they aren't agreeing to of their own free will.

"Amazing how the 'Land of the Free" would dare oppress us."
"Its natural to be attracted to those things."

You're free to do anything that doesn't infringe on another's freedom (i.e. taking away the rights to a gay marriage). That's why we don't allow rape, murder and theft. They infringe on the freedoms of others. Heck, there's no way for people to consent to rape as the word means to force yourself sexually on another.

If a man proposes to another man and the other man accepts, then no one's freedom is at stake, whereas the dog doesn't have a say in the matter.

To simplify it, consent doesn't compromise one's freedom.

 

[Mangoes]

Ah! Now that is the right question! For the most part, I agree that homosexuality doesn't affect me. But when they want benefits from the government (which is funded by the people's tax dollars) for their union, that is when it affects me. I don't want my tax dollars, or (whatever) going to benefits for same-sex couples. I don't really care if the amount going to these benefits is small, I still don't want it going there, just like I don't want my mo-net goin' to fund abortions or embryonic stem-cell research. I am free to oppose a law establishing something I disagree with on these grounds.

(I'm responding to his entire post)Sooooooo.... you're a bigot? I'm sorry, but isn't being a bigot something you try not to be? Or do you not mind being a bigot?

Do you agree with shoving your opinion down peoples thoats? It's one thing if it denys you freedoms, but your opinions are denying other peoples freedoms, freedoms much larger than any that you're denied.

 

[CSolarstorm]

By the way.

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.

I don't think your argument is a joke. It's just bad...but whatever. You're allowed to offer a bad debate. But your remark makes me feel like crap. Thanks.

Read up on gay bashing. Violence isn't a joke. Wanting equal rights, like social security, child caring rights, and hospital visitation, especially with two people of the same gender trying to take care of a child they care about isn't a joke. Trying to lay low in a neighborhood full of Catholic neighbors so we don't get gang-sniped isn't a joke. Standing up for your parents against perverted ten year old boys in elementary school is no joke. These are my experiences. You have no freaking idea what you're talking about.

Furries? I have a friend who's a furry.

I've never seen a march for equal rights for furries...furries have genders so I'd imagine some of them can get heterosexual marriage, and the rest of them, two of the same gender, would identify themselves as gay and participate in gay marches and stuff like that. I honestly don't understand the comparison then, as there is no controversy over "furry marriage" or "furry adoption".

But when they want benefits from the government (which is funded by the people's tax dollars) for their union, that is when it affects me. I don't want my tax dollars, or (whatever) going to benefits for same-sex couples. I don't really care if the amount going to these benefits is small, I still don't want it going there, just like I don't want my mo-net goin' to fund abortions or embryonic stem-cell research. I am free to oppose a law establishing something I disagree with on these grounds.

Aha! Thanks Mangoes, for highlighting that quote, and thanks ShinySandshrew, for being stingy enough to mention it! There's the answer to your question, Antiyonder. That's the so called "financial problems" that gay marriage inflict on society. That's why some people voted for Prop 8; not because they hated gay couples, as I said, but because they didn't want to pay higher taxes to extend financial benefits for gay marriages. It was about not paying higher taxes, because nobody likes taxes.

 

[Mangoes]

I don't think your argument is a joke. It's just bad...but whatever. You're allowed to offer a bad debate. But your remark makes me feel like crap. Thanks.

Read up on gay bashing. Violence isn't a joke. Wanting equal rights, like social security, child caring rights, and hospital visitation, especially with two people of the same gender trying to take care of a child they care about isn't a joke. Trying to lay low in a neighborhood full of Catholic neighbors so we don't get gang-sniped isn't a joke. Standing up for your parents against perverted ten year old boys in elementary school is no joke. These are my experiences. You have no freaking idea what you're talking about.

Furries? I have a friend who's a furry.

I've never seen a march for equal rights for furries...furries have genders so I'd imagine some of them can get heterosexual marriage, and the rest of them, two of the same gender, would identify themselves as gay and participate in gay marches and stuff like that. I honestly don't understand the comparison then, as there is no controversy over "furry marriage" or "furry adoption".

Yep, this post is way cool. If he honestly can't see how gays are an oppresed group, than he's a bit challenged in the areas of intelect, hm? Though I wouldn't expect much better by anyone who doesn't agree with gay marriage.

And furries aren't oppressed at all. Perhaps they're teased at school and other places, but they still have basic humane rights like marriage (unless they're gay, of course, because gays are the Devil and all that other BS) and they can still raise children (unless they have that disgusting, unnatural disease that is Homosexuality).

 

[Mangoes]

EDIT: oopsies, double post. Also, why is this forum sooooooo slow as a slowpoke? I swear, I could've made a grilled cheese in the time it took to load this page!

 

[Grei]

That is an impossibility. Heterosexuals have always had the right to marry because we are the majority of the people on the planet. Until gays somehow outnumber heterosexuals (not sure how that could occur), that won't happen.

And yet, who says that heterosexuals are the majority? I'm not claiming they are not, but as far as I know, there has been no real study on this. And besides, I'm sure if people like you weren't around, more people would feel human, or normal, or accepted, and would actually freely state that they're gay or bisexual or what have them.

Also, the whole "I'm angry and hateful" thing because he doesn't agree with your views is a joke. And you accused him of being one-sided.

Actually, he was one-sided. He hates gay people because he arbitrarily has reasoned that all gay rights activists are "douche bags". I've met a lot of douche bags who argue against gay marriage and homosexuality in general. He is one-sided; you being on the same side as he is does not change that.

Frankly, I think pretty much any anti-gay rights activist has hatred towards gays. None of them understand, none of them fully grasp how somebody can be homo-/bi-/pan-/whateversexual. Ignorance breeds hatred towards what one does not know. Therefore, anti-gay rights activists feel at least some degree of hatred towards gays. I mean, how dare they be different? How dare they go against our hypothetical creator? How dare they do something so gross?

Oh, right. Because they didn't choose to.

Also, I'm not calling him angry and hateful for disagreeing with me, and neither is SunnyC. Far from it. He is angry and hateful for a bullshit reason, but we don't think he is simply because he disagrees with us. We have actual reasons for feeling the way we do about him.

I agree with the fact

Your foolishly incorrect opinion =/= fact. Ever.

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.

Right, as if you have any freaking clue what you're talking about.

Yep, this post is way cool. If he honestly can't see how gays are an oppressed group, than he's a bit challenged in the areas of intellect, hm?

My sentiments exactly. I've insulted the opposing side in the past and so I'm trying hard not to now, but honestly? This is hardly a debate at all. We should be civilized and intelligent enough to realize, "Hey, these people are humans, like you and I. Why don't they have the same rights as us?"

It really makes me question just how "sophisticated" we are as a society when we can't even open our freaking eyes and realize what is human and what isn't, what is natural and what isn't, what is a fetish and what isn't.

 

[Antiyonder]

Challenge time again. How does the marriage between two men or two women harm and infringe on one's freedom? Failure to answer this question will be taken as an acknowledgement that you have no reason to oppose homosexuality, but are just stuck in your way.

 

[Zenotwapal]

It fits a church by every definition of the word. Just because they make your side look bad doesn't mean you can say they're "not true Christians" to make your side look better

Actually, quite the contary, they are classified as a hate group, not a church.
You can believe that because they are officially classified business wise.

Like your going to though, as nobody as hard headed as you is going to listen.

Challenge time again. How does the marriage between two men or two women harm and infringe on one's freedom? Failure to answer this question will be taken as an acknowledgement that you have no reason to oppose homosexuality, but are just stuck in your way.

Because for how many gay couples I've seen, and the fact that they seem to think that its ok to kiss and utterly and sexually touch in public while theres kids around, I will not stand there and give in to people who utterly whine and ***** about how they don't get this and that.
They sit there and complain about the fact that they don't have rights, when they do, just not the permission to mary yet.
I see it as this:
As long as they don't understand the concept of : GET A ROOM, they can live without marrage in my book.

 

[Antiyonder]

Here's a nomination for hypocritical answer:

Because for how many gay couples I've seen, and the fact that they seem to think that its ok to kiss and utterly and sexually touch in public while theres kids around, I will not stand there and give in to people who utterly whine and ***** about how they don't get this and that.

Yeah, because hetersexual couples never kiss or do inappropriate things in public. Only the homosexuals do that.

This is why I say to think over your reason carefully. If there's even the slightest chance that it makes you look hypocritical, then it becomes an invalid argument.

So maybe we should ban heterosexuals from getting married too. I mean, if I had a nickel for everytime I see a man/woman or boy/girl making out in public, I'd be able to buy the comic book stores in my town.

 

[Alli]

This is directed at Zenotwapal:

Wasn't that an irrational, generalizing and discriminating sentiment? Just because you happened to see some gay-couples who made-out in public do not give you the right to prevent them from pursuing happiness. There are many straight-couples who make-out in public. By your logic, they do not deserve the right to get married.

 

[Zenotwapal]

Here's a nomination for hypocritical answer:



Yeah, because hetersexual couples never kiss or do inappropriate things in public. Only the homosexuals do that.

This is why I say to think over your reason carefully. If there's even the slightest chance that it makes you look hypocritical, then it becomes an invalid argument.

So maybe we should ban heterosexuals from getting married too. I mean, if I had a nickel for everytime I see a man/woman or boy/girl making out in public, I'd be able to buy the comic book stores in my town.

Right yeah, but heterosexual couples seem to grasp the subject better.

This is directed at Zenotwapal:

Wasn't that an irrational, generalizing and discriminating sentiment? Just because you happened to see some gay-couples who made-out in public do not give you the right to prevent them from pursuing happiness. There are many straight-couples who make-out in public. By your logic, they do not deserve the right to get married.

However, how come when ever authorities tell them to stop, they pull a hissy fit?
Which most gay people I've met are arogant tards. They seem not o care about how I'm treated, but somehow the world revolves around them.

I'm not discriminatiing in any way. I'm making my point. And if you people can't take that, I cannot see how people in real life put up with you.

 

[CSolarstorm]

Because for how many gay couples I've seen, and the fact that they seem to think that its ok to kiss and utterly and sexually touch in public while theres kids around, I will not stand there and give in to people who utterly whine and ***** about how they don't get this and that.
They sit there and complain about the fact that they don't have rights, when they do, just not the permission to mary yet.
I see it as this:
As long as they don't understand the concept of : GET A ROOM, they can live without marrage in my book.

Well I call it as I see it, and that is prejudice. Every gay couple can "live without marriage" if the ones you see can't get a room. Not every gay couple has problems with public displays of affection.

Well, Zenotwapal called it; for all the guys and girls kissing in the park, in a restaurant, bar, holding hands in public or just making out in high school, heterosexuals can live without marriage too...for not getting a room.

Right yeah, but heterosexual couples seem to grasp the subject better.

However, how come when ever authorities tell them to stop, they pull a hissy fit?

Which most gay people I've met are arogant tards. They seem not o care about how I'm treated, but somehow the world revolves around them.

Do you have support for even a single word you say? A personal anecdote, even?

I'm not discriminatiing in any way. I'm making my point. And if you people can't take that, I cannot see how people in real life put up with you.

Of course you're discriminating, you liar. It's obvious you portray all gay people as "mostly arrogant tards" that "think the world revolves around them" who frequently have "hissy fits" because they don't "understand what heterosexual couples do" when it comes to behaving properly in public. That's discrimination.

 

[Antiyonder]

This is directed at Zenotwapal:

Wasn't that an irrational, generalizing and discriminating sentiment? Just because you happened to see some gay-couples who made-out in public do not give you the right to prevent them from pursuing happiness. There are many straight-couples who make-out in public. By your logic, they do not deserve the right to get married.

Thank you.


To reissue my challenge. Give me a nonhypocritical reason as to why gay marriage is harmful and how it infringes on ones freedom. To give examples of hypocrisy:

1. It's not natural: Neither is plasitc surgery, yet no one is determined to ban this. Why is that I wonder?
2. Because I've seen gay couples kiss in public: I've seen heterosexual couples kissing in public.
3. Because gay couples can't have kids: Neither can couples who are vasectomized. Vasectomy for those ignorant to the word is a little procedure in which a person is rendered unable to produce his/her own child.
4. It would be like okaying beastiality and pedophila: No it would. Those two kinds of relationships lack consent and freedom. Homosexual marriages don't.


So if any of you believe yourselfs not to be homophobic and believe that your stance against gay marriage is a just one, think really hard about your reasonings.

If you submit a reason similar to the 4 listed above that is a double standard, then that particular reason tends to be flimsy.

Right yeah, but heterosexual couples seem to grasp the subject better.

How so? And again, not every homosexual under the sun kiss in public. You can't judge every single person based on the actions of another.

 

[GhostAnime]

Actually, quite the contary, they are classified as a hate group, not a church.
You can believe that because they are officially classified business wise.

it doesn't ****ing matter if it's a hate group. it's a hate group church. the terms aren't mutually exclusive.

this is the second time you have no idea how to grasp the definition of something.

Because for how many gay couples I've seen, and the fact that they seem to think that its ok to kiss and utterly and sexually touch in public while theres kids around

and what is exactly wrong with kids seeing it? not that it has ANYTHING to do with gay marriage ... but just pitiful irrational spite.

 

[Fused]

Actually, quite the contary, they are classified as a hate group, not a church.
You can believe that because they are officially classified business wise.

Yes, because churches can't be hate groups.

Because for how many gay couples I've seen, and the fact that they seem to think that its ok to kiss and utterly and sexually touch in public while theres kids around, I will not stand there and give in to people who utterly whine and ***** about how they don't get this and that.
They sit there and complain about the fact that they don't have rights, when they do, just not the permission to mary yet.
I see it as this:
As long as they don't understand the concept of : GET A ROOM, they can live without marrage in my book.

OH THE STUPIDTY IRONING!

Sorry SunnyC, but I'm afraid I'll have to break this down in this week's episode of "Quot-by-Quote!"

Because for how many gay couples I've seen, and the fact that they seem to think that its ok to kiss and utterly and sexually touch in public while theres kids around

I got ten seconds on the clock. Go!

1. Straight people don't do the same thing?
2. Do all gay people do this?
3. Why is this a legitimate reason to deny them rights?
4. Sex in public is illegal and -

Oh time's up. But I think I gave you enough to work with.

I will not stand there and give in to people who utterly whine and ***** about how they don't get this and that.

If you weren't treated equally, don't you dare say you wouldn't be doing the same thing. And as SunnyC said, this hatred doesn't affect just homosexuals, but their chidlren they may have, etc.

They sit there and complain about the fact that they don't have rights, when they do, just not the permission to mary yet.

...or serve openly in the military; have equal job opportunities; joint tax filing; medical benefits; hospital visitation.

Are you so sure that they just can't marry?

As long as they don't understand the concept of : GET A ROOM, they can live without marrage in my book.

Again, straight people do the same thing; take away their right to marry. Not all gay people will **** in the middle of Times Square, so great job at making an unfounded, irrational generalization; weren't you the one complaining about how our side generalizes? Married people can do this in public, so nullify their unions.

I hope you realize how utterly ignorant you came across just now. It's sad, really.

Right yeah, but heterosexual couples seem to grasp the subject better.

Really? Even though literally every week a straight couple at my high school was caught having sex in the auditorium or in the bathroom?

This claim is not found in fact, or even rational logic, it's founded in personal prejudice that all heterosexuals are somehow superior to all homosexuals. If PDA is your only reason... then no one would be married.

However, how come when ever authorities tell them to stop, they pull a hissy fit?

Any proof for this?

Which most gay people I've met are arogant tards. They seem not o care about how I'm treated, but somehow the world revolves around them.

Again, proof? personal anecdote? Even if you do have one - I like how you hatefully use this as a reason agaisnt EVERY SINGLE GAY PERSON OUT THERE, EVEN THE ONES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STATE, THE COUNTRY, THE GLOBE.

I'm not discriminatiing in any way.

Please, you practically epitomize discrimination, or at least prejudice.

I cannot see how people in real life put up with you.

Considering some of the ignorant and arrogant remarks you've made, I cannot see how people put up with you.

I don't expect to hear from you for a while and I don't expect for you to explain how any of those terrible reasons answer Antiyonder's question of how gay marriage affects your freedom.

 

[GaZsTiC]

However, how come when ever authorities tell them to stop, they pull a hissy fit?

Because the f*ckin' pigs have no right to tell us to stop.

Which most gay people I've met are arogant tards. They seem not o care about how I'm treated, but somehow the world revolves around them.

Maybe they seem that way to you because they felt exactly the same when with you.

I'm not discriminatiing in any way. I'm making my point. And if you people can't take that, I cannot see how people in real life put up with you.

The KKK sure made a point. The Nazis sure made a point. Zenotwapal sure made a point.

 

[CSolarstorm]

I never saw my lesbian parents kiss until I was like fifteen, and old enough to understand. On the other hand, we took my uncle and his girlfriend in when I was like ten and I had to complain about them making out on the couch in front of me.

So...does anyone besides me actually have any authority on what gay parents are like to back up their claims about supposedly how perverted they all are?

 

[Fused]

So...does anyone besides me actually have any authority on what gay parents are like to back up their claims about supposedly how perverted they all are?

My first and only gay kiss was when I was like 13, it lasted like a second and it was inside of my house.

My sister had a girlfriend once. My sister was also a swimmer. She borke some state record, and she kissed her girlfriend just like straight people do... and everyone jumped on them like Zeno did just now; they called her a pervert, a monster, disgusting and rude mannered, etc. It was a kiss everyone gives to their partner in public; it was in the middle of a crowded room so it wasn't some ultra-passionate, pre-sex makeout session. And like I said previously, it went beyond just my sister: my mom was heartbroken the way people reacted; her teammates sided with her agaisnt their own, ignorant parents. And nobody wanted to recognize that my sister broke a record, but "OMG SHE KISSED A GIRL FOR FOUR AND A HALF SECONDS!!!"