Homosexuality

[Eevee]

As of now, I'm done with this thread. I tried coming in here again, but there are way too many people. What's the point in arguing if there are 20 people on you at once and every single one of them wants to argue with you to death?

Man, grow some balls. Either learn to express yourself and defend your point of view or don't say anything at all, especially if your point of view is that a whole group of people are doing something evil. Don't spew your bile and then run off with your tail between your legs because people expect you to back it up.

They all want to argue you to death because you are arguing to curb the rights of a segment of the population. Surprise! Some people don't like that. Would you approve if people with your eye color were barred from marrying? I mean, they could just get contacts..

Your position is, to put it succinctly, fractally wrong.

If you REALLY CARE THAT MUCH, contact me through PM or whatever.

Where you're completely unaccountable for anything you say? How convenient.

 

[Ruby]

I do agree with Sir Lucario that a debate turns into a formless mess when one side has many more people on it than the other. In a real-life debate there are roughly the same number of people on each side, even if one side is fractally wrong: even if it wants to curb the rights of a segment of the population. No, I do not expect this to be exactly the same as a real debate, but neither should you expect Lucario to be capable of arguing with a crowd that asks a new question every half-hour, makes a new remark every minute, and says something snide every second.

 

[Autumn]

Everybody in my English class had to do a public speech for the class, and originally my topic was going to be gay marriage - until my mom told me that'd I'd likely get ridiculed by my immature classmates for a while afterward. I chose global warming instead - but today the final public speaker was... speaking..., and her topic was Prop 8 and how we should all go and try to make a difference so that there's actual equality here in the shitty country of America. It made me happy :D

... I do want to do some sort of protest when I get older, though.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Okay then, let's do it this way, the way I did it to Time Psyduck that time;

SIR LUCARIO, RESPOND TO THIS.

You claim that homosexuality is unnatural.
- If so, explain this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
- Are we to assume therefore that you are opposed to such evil things as the Internet, computers, the Cave of Dragonflies, keyboards, mouses, monitors and *gasp* Lucario?
- Humans are natural. Gays are humans. Therefore gays are natural.
-

ARTICLE 16
1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Also, the following are not valid responses;
- Mocking of my arguments.
- Dismissing my arguments with your religion.
- Not answering by saying something like "Read my previous posts lolol."

Do this please.

 

[Latiass]

I do agree with Sir Lucario that a debate turns into a formless mess when one side has many more people on it than the other. In a real-life debate there are roughly the same number of people on each side, even if one side is fractally wrong: even if it wants to curb the rights of a segment of the population. No, I do not expect this to be exactly the same as a real debate, but neither should you expect Lucario to be capable of arguing with a crowd that asks a new question every half-hour, makes a new remark every minute, and says something snide every second.

Yes, this is a valid point; however, when the majority of a populous finds what you say to be disagreeable for the same reasons, you don't really need to respond to all of them individually. He could write a general response answering the specific questions we are restating, and we could continue further.

The number of people debating against you should not matter to someone who supports their argument; recently, Eevee made a journal somewhere and had 400 responses in a few days, most of which were people disagreeing with him (also mostly because they missed his point and took it as a personal attack). However, he didn't run away stating "there are too many people disagreeing with me, wah"

Again, restating: grow some balls. Defend your viewpoint.

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

Says who? I really couldn't care less about what people do in their bedrooms. I even work with a gay guy and he's pretty cool. The point is, that gays aren't born gay, and therefore homosexuality is unnatural.

Look at how dumb you are.
A depressingly large number of gay people would turn straight if they could, but they can't. Why the hell would you choose to make your life as hard as possible? Why the bloody hell would you purposefully risk getting beaten, humiliated, denied basic rights or even get killed (by the government) if you can choose not to?
You don't know anything.

And hahaha, you work with one gay guy? One out of ten people are gay, you've probably been touched by more filthy faggots than you an imagine. Is this 'I know a gay guy so I can't be a homophobe!' the new 'I know a black guy so I can't be a racist!' or what.

 

[Tarvos]

"I know a girl so I can't be a chauvinist/sexist"

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

"I know a human so I can't be a misanthrope."

 

[EvilCrazyMonkey]

So you admit that they aren't born gay? That's cool, we're at least getting somewhere.

Adults aren't born adults; how is this unnatural; why should marriage between adults be outlawed?

Either that, or it was more like a "that statement is like TOTALLY false, but since I don't have no rebuttal, I'll just ignore it by the way ur wrong!1!!"

and lol you don't do this

Homosexuality is unnatural,

no, it isn't

and if marrying children or animals is unlawful,

also children and animals aren't consenting, (most) gays are.

than so should marrying one of the same sex

no correlation, irrelevant; ignoring
if this is your definition of conclusion trust me you are doing it wrong

Who's to say it's not unnatural?

this article

You?

actually, no, this article

Yeah, because you are like, THE authority on nature, rofl.

I appreciate the flattery, but I am not the authority on nature; this article is.

People probably aren't born gay, though. They are born with hormonal imbalances that cause gender confusion and other related psychiatric problems, but not homosexuality; that is a choice. The fact that you probably feel adversely affected by this choice completely baffles me.

Homosexuality is not a choice; can you choose to get horny at a member of the same sex? Do you remember the day you chose to be straight?

The fact that you think this is a choice completely baffles me.

Says who? I really couldn't care less about what people do in their bedrooms.

Then why do you care what they do at weddings?

I even work with a gay guy and he's pretty cool.

I work with a black guy, and he's pretty cool.
Also, in a seemingly unrelated note, I'm not racist.
I work with a girl, and she's pretty cool.
Also, in a seemingly unrelated note, I'm not sexist.
I work with a human, and he's pretty cool.
Also, in a seemingly unrelated note, I'm not a misanthrope.

Use that skeleton for any type of discrimination imaginable.

The point is, that gays aren't born gay, and therefore homosexuality is unnatural.

Adults aren't born adults; how is this unnatural?

Well why don't we just make pedophilia, necropihlia ect. lawful then?

Children and dead bodies (preemptive strike: animals too) aren't consenting; no one should be able to marry them.
Gays, however, are consenting.

I already said I don't care. Go ahead and fap to whatever.

Then why do you care whom they have their wedding with?

I drew a conclusion, but you chose to ignore it. That's your fault.

Your conclusion sucked and we disproved the logic behind it; try again.

No, it's unnatural and therefore two people of the samne sex shouldn't be recognized as legally married.

amputations aren't natural and therefore marriages involving amputees shouldn't be recognized as legal.

I'd rather not have to repeat myself. Go back through my last couple of posts.

your last couple of posts contained no logic; try again

edit: this is what happens in the debating hall; do not simply glance over this.
do not leave long posts unanswered!

 

[see ya]

Also, another answer to your "It infringes on my rights" deal.

My (white) dad's going out with a black woman. This makes a lot of people in my area of America uncomfortable. They could, like you, say it's infringing on their rights. Does that mean we should go and make interracial marriage illegal? After all, they both could go and date someone of their own race, right?

There is NO difference between them and gay couples. The Bible was once used to keep blacks and whites from marrying, and yet they have that right now. Why in the fucking hell should gays not be allowed it as well?

By the way, they find people like you absolutely hilarious.

 

[EvilCrazyMonkey]

also re: gays can't marry because it's a religious thing and religious people should choose if they can marry or not:

why do atheists have the right to a) marry and b) vote on the topic

(not directed towards you skymin)

 

[Dark Tyranitar]

Okay. A few points.

First, marriage through the ages has been defined to be between a man and a woman. Half the point of marriage is so that people can found a family.

Homosexual people can live in the same house, have sexual intercourse with each other, and do most, if not all, other things that married couples can do. They only lack the right to call it 'marriage'.

Also, this.

This article says it all. An excerpt: "In my opinion, all homosexuals should be enraged at the notion that of all human beings, only homosexuals cannot control their sexual behavior by conscious choices. This dogma implies that they are less than human. Yet this is precisely what the normalizers claim: 'They can't help it.'"

Humans are natural. Gays are humans. Therefore gays are natural.

Humans are natural. Murderers are humans. Therefore murdering people is natural.
Humans are natural. Racists are natural. Therefore racism is natural.

- If so, explain this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...exual_behavior

In each of those cases, the homosexual behavior assisted in procreation. Most animals live mainly to reproduce, and they will do it in any way possible.

In response to 'taking the rights away from a segment of the population':
Every single law takes 'rights' away. People can't murder. People can't rob others. People can't take drugs. People can't take knives into airports.
The fact is, that segment has just as many rights as the rest of the population, they just happen to want to have more rights.

'Homosexuality can't harm others':

The fact is, the more you are around a group of people who do something, the more likely you are to adopt that same thing. Kids adopted by two gay parents are far more likely to become gay than kids living in traditional family units. People going to school with others who take drugs are far more likely to take drugs, so it follows that the same thing is applicable with homosexuality.

Finally, Prop. 8 was voted for BY POPULAR MAJORITY, so the fact is that people are still mostly against homosexuality.

Also, please read Ruby's post

I do agree with Sir Lucario that a debate turns into a formless mess when one side has many more people on it than the other. In a real-life debate there are roughly the same number of people on each side, even if one side is fractally wrong: even if it wants to curb the rights of a segment of the population. No, I do not expect this to be exactly the same as a real debate, but neither should you expect Lucario to be capable of arguing with a crowd that asks a new question every half-hour, makes a new remark every minute, and says something snide every second.

before attacking me.

I didn't get to all the points because you guys are too active on this; I can hardly be expected to respond to 50 posts.
[/long post]

 

[surskitty]

Marriage confers various legal benefits. Civil unions cover some of these benefits but not all.

Prop 8 was barely voted for by majority and since when was it a good idea to have the majority vote for rights of a minority?


Why does it matter if there'd be more known gay people if homosexuality was more accepted than it is? Also, you completely ignored "Homosexuality can't harm others". How would an increase in people "out" as liking their own gender harm people? Repression's bad, you know.

 

[Dark Tyranitar]

Okay: http://www.evangelical.us/homosexuality/questions/homosexuality-harm-society.html
There's your argument. Voila.

 

[Erindor the Espeon]

Dark Tyranitar, my good friend, you have explained it all.

My argument: my religion. Said over and over again, that people will disregard it. Oh well. It's not just my religion prohibiting it, I have made the choice to be against it.

And, as we have said, we all have the 'right' to have our own opinion. ;)

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

This article says it all. An excerpt: "In my opinion, all homosexuals should be enraged at the notion that of all human beings, only homosexuals cannot control their sexual behavior by conscious choices. This dogma implies that they are less than human. Yet this is precisely what the normalizers claim: 'They can't help it.'"

hmm yes 'mormon times' this is clearly a trust-worthy and unbiased source.

Humans are natural. Murderers are humans. Therefore murdering people is natural.
Humans are natural. Racists are natural. Therefore racism is natural.

Difference: homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone. At all.

In response to 'taking the rights away from a segment of the population':
Every single law takes 'rights' away. People can't murder. People can't rob others. People can't take drugs. People can't take knives into airports.

Murder's, well, murder, robbing is harmful to the victim, drugs can alter behaviour and potentially be a threat (I can't say I care too much if a person takes drugs as long as they do it in their home though? I'm for the legalization of Marijuana so :v) and knives or any other weapon into an airport is a fucking stupid idea and threatning as hell why would you even want to do this.

The fact is, that segment has just as many rights as the rest of the population, they just happen to want to have more rights.

How is wanting to marry the person you love a special right.

'Homosexuality can't harm others':

True.

The fact is, the more you are around a group of people who do something, the more likely you are to adopt that same thing. Kids adopted by two gay parents are far more likely to become gay than kids living in traditional family units. People going to school with others who take drugs are far more likely to take drugs, so it follows that the same thing is applicable with homosexuality.

Homosexuality isn't a learned behaviour. Where do you get your sources that gay adoption makes children gay? It better not be 'mormon times'.
I know actual gay couples (!) who are married (!!) and have adopted kids (!!?!!) and they beat the hell out of many other parents I've seen.
And anyway, even if it were true (it's not) and gay couples do raise gay children (they don't), how is that harmful?

Finally, Prop. 8 was voted for BY POPULAR MAJORITY, so the fact is that people are still mostly against homosexuality.

That's because Yes on Prop 8 lied their scummy asses off and convinced people of things that aren't true.
Anyone who voted on or supported Prop. 8 is a terrible human being.

EDIT: Oh wow, Evangelical.com! Hm, seems like another unbiased, trustworthy news source! You gonna link Conservapedia and Fox News next?

My argument: my religion. Said over and over again, that people will disregard it. Oh well. It's not just my religion prohibiting it, I have made the choice to be against it.

Religion is not an excuse to be biggot.

And, as we have said, we all have the 'right' to have our own opinion. ;)

If I said 'niggers can't marry' I'd be in my right but it doesn't mean I wouldn't be fucking wrong.

 

[Dark Tyranitar]

So because you don't like the sources, you can disregard everything they say? Wow. Way to be unbiased.

How is wanting to marry the person you love a special right.

Let's think.
a) The person you love is the same gender as you.
b) It's been frowned upon for millennia.
c) It doesn't contribute to society.

That's because Yes on Prop 8 lied their scummy butts off and convinced people of things that aren't true.
Anyone who voted on or supported Prop. 8 is a terrible human being.

Way to go. You just provided a totally biased carpet view of millions of people. That will convince me. The fact is, the majority made their choices and voted against something they didn't like. That's the beauty of democracy--if you don't like it, move to Cuba.

Also, how were the anti-Prop. 8 guys any different? For one thing, that ad of Mormon missionaries going into a home and ripping a marriage license up. Tell me that that is a nice, kind, unbiased, true thing to say.

Murder's, well, murder, robbing is harmful to the victim, drugs can alter behaviour and potentially be a threat (I can't say I care too much if a person takes drugs as long as they do it in their home though? I'm for the legalization of Marijuana so :v) and knives or any other weapon into an airport is a stupid idea and threatning why would you even want to do this.

But they're the PEOPLE'S CHOICES. You're TAKING THEIR RIGHTS AWAY!
Any other questions?

 

[voltianqueen]

lol at Fox News.

A gay couple raising a gay child is probably just a coincidence. My friend's parents are lesbians and she's straight so.

edit: The sources are probably the biased ones, not vplj. :S

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

So because you don't like the sources, you can disregard everything they say? Wow. Way to be unbiased.

They're called 'mormon times' and 'evangelist' for fuck's sake. If we were talking about the Bible, sure, I'd trust it, but you can't excpect religious websites to be unbiased against homosexuality since it says in the goddamn book that homosexuals are an abomination.
I even disregard things from extreme-left website even though I'm very left-leaning. I don't link to, I don't know, 'extreme-left wing daily' when I want to make a point in a debate.

 

[Dark Tyranitar]

So disprove the facts. Don't excuse away the websites.