Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Top 17 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

Page 11 of 20 [ 316 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 20  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

08 Apr 2008, 5:31 pm

slowmutant wrote:
I do not think of gays as cattle. I don't travel in gay circles, I don't know any gays myself, but I definitely do not think of them in sub-human terms. I'm much more enlightened than I'm being given credit for. Just because I appeared on this thread doesn't mean I agree with the views of the person who created it.



it was a metaphor.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

08 Apr 2008, 5:32 pm

I know.



D1nk0
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,587

08 Apr 2008, 5:45 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
DeaconBlues wrote:
Okay, iamnotaparakeet, let's hear a reasoned argument as to why gay people shouldn't get married. And no, that does not permit appeal to the Torah, the Qu'ran, the Bible, the Baghavad Gita, or any other religious texts - while often informed in the past by religious convictions, ours is still at base a secular society, with secular laws (despite the best efforts of evangelical radicals to rewrite the Constitution).

The arguments mocked above are, in fact, the only arguments I have yet heard advanced. The two guys next door getting married will ruin my marriage? How, exactly? It's a change in the institution of marriage, and gub'mint shouldn't get involved? Three words: Loving v. Virginia. That was a change...


Even though this is a strawman it still has some good, mainly the first sentence:

Quote:
2. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.


Firstly, what is gay and what is natural?

Natural, in this specific case, refers to the bodies of both sexes: male and female. With the exception, or rather statistical aberration, of hermaphrodites there are only these two sexes. The body of the woman is designed for the man and the body of the man is designed for the woman; the vulva and vagina are designed for the penis and the shaft and crest are designed for the clitoris. These items of our bodies are built for each other whether the users are learned as to their function or not.

On a side note, the applications of anal, oral, or manual masturbations are not natural uses of these body parts. Those the practices exist, it is not what the parts were meant for. Similar, though not exactly like, cooking a steak in a toaster. I understand the female may need manual stimulation of the clitoris, but that is a more natural use than inserting a sexual organ into part of the digestive tract though not natural enough to justify the actions of lesbians. Thus, I differentiate between designed function and practiced function.

What is homosexuality then, I define it as attraction to the same sex; id est, the desire for practicing a function of two bodies apart from and without regard for what they are designed for.



Just exactly where did you get these definitions? If you have the impulse to do something with your genitals that will not lead to procreation, how is that unnatural? Its NOT! I want to ask you iamnotaparakeet-WHAT evidence do you have that humans have free will? liberals like StuartM from AFF think that there is no "human nature" and that everything we *want* to do has been taught unto us by means of social conditioning. That is completely ASSININE. Human behaviour is VERY predictable. That doesnt mean you can predict the behaviour of every single individula but if at least 80% of people behave a certain way given a certain stimulus than you got yourself a Definite PATTERN my friend :wink: .



Griff
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312

08 Apr 2008, 5:51 pm

slowmutant wrote:
Quote:
Whatever the moral status of homosexuality, do we deserve our freedom? Do we deserve our jobs? Do we deserve to live with a sense of stability? Do we deserve to have families of our own? Do we deserve our lives? Do we deserve our reputations? Do we deserve our peace? Perhaps you should answer these questions instead of quibbling over whether or not homosexuality is "moral."


You deserve freedom.

Not because of your sexual orientation, but because of your status as human beings.
Simple answer to a simple question!

Quote:
Morality IMO isn't immediately attached to sexual preference. I do not summarily accuse you or your community of being immoral.
The people I were ripping on earlier were!

Quote:
You fight so passionsionately for the gays of the world.
What about me, though? What about me? When can I just go on with my life and forget that this issue ever existed?

Quote:
I can't imagine what your life has been like.
There's nothing wrong with my life. I find it pretty offensive that my countrymen think they need to call my marriage a "civil union" instead of a marriage, but it's really not that big a deal. Hardly anyone around here comments on me being a gay dude.

I want to keep it that way. History could still go in reverse, man. It doesn't have a set direction. It isn't even on some kind of cycle like some people think it is. The Christian right-wing still don't believe that I should have a right to live in peace. They think that I'm out to "recruit" their kids or some other bizzare kind of belief. I'm not going to feel secure until the moderate conservatives have completely broken from and denounced these freaking lunatics.



Griff
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312

08 Apr 2008, 6:03 pm

slowmutant wrote:
I'm much more enlightened than I'm being given credit for.
We know you are. Just try to realize that there are a bunch of freaks out there who think that I'm trying to abduct their kids and carry them off to fairyland, and the sodomy laws will return if they're allowed to get the upper hand.

You're not the problem. Oh, no doubt, I'm pretty offended if you have to call our marriages "civil unions," but I don't feel threatened over that.

I feel threatened by the people who think that I'm trying to "recruit" their male offspring and carry them off to fairyland.

And those other weirdoes who think that I'm carrying some contagious disease. I don't know where they get these ideas.

Oh, but remember, you're not in the clear just because you're not a freaking lunatic. "Civil union"? Oh, I oughta...grrr!

You're not psycho, though. I know that. Sheesh, kinda sorry everyone jumped on you.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

08 Apr 2008, 6:04 pm

The evildoers of the world may one day find a conscience. That's all we can hope for, isn't it? I mean, I don't expect the world to be perfect, but it could absolutely and without a doubt be better than it is now. The haters could stop hating and see the error of their ways. A shift in global consciousness, when it occurs, will eliminate most of today's man-made evils.

Jesus would want it that way. :thumleft:

BTW when John Lennon said imagine no religion, I think he refers to the abolishment of
"old religion" and "old ways" that have enslaved the minds & hearts of the human race for so long. Maybe not the literal abolishment of all religion everywhere.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

08 Apr 2008, 6:17 pm

slowmutant wrote:
BTW when John Lennon said imagine no religion, I think he refers to the abolishment of
"old religion" and "old ways" that have enslaved the minds & hearts of the human race for so long. Maybe not the literal abolishment of all religion everywhere.



he meant no religion in the literal sense but i'd have no problem with religion if they left everyone alone on issues that don't adhere to their beliefs and quit trying to legislate their myths as fact (ie, creationism in place of evolution).



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

08 Apr 2008, 6:25 pm

Quote:
he meant no religion in the literal sense but i'd have no problem with religion if they left everyone alone on issues that don't adhere to their beliefs and quit trying to legislate their myths as fact (ie, creationism in place of evolution).


Maybe. But even if that were somehow accomplished, how to quash the religious impulse common to all humankind? How to make sure it stays quashed? That level of control would make 1984's The Party seem loose and permissive by comparison. I don't know if it could be done. Should it be done?



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

08 Apr 2008, 6:40 pm

slowmutant wrote:
Quote:
he meant no religion in the literal sense but i'd have no problem with religion if they left everyone alone on issues that don't adhere to their beliefs and quit trying to legislate their myths as fact (ie, creationism in place of evolution).


Maybe. But even if that were somehow accomplished, how to quash the religious impulse common to all humankind? How to make sure it stays quashed? That level of control would make 1984's The Party seem loose and permissive by comparison. I don't know if it could be done. Should it be done?


is this in reference to getting rid of religion? i don't think you'll ever get rid of religion. humanity is a superstitious, paranoid species overall for that to ever happen...at least any time soon. especially with religion still being forced at the sword.



Griff
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312

08 Apr 2008, 6:49 pm

slowmutant wrote:
Quote:
he meant no religion in the literal sense but i'd have no problem with religion if they left everyone alone on issues that don't adhere to their beliefs and quit trying to legislate their myths as fact (ie, creationism in place of evolution).


Maybe. But even if that were somehow accomplished, how to quash the religious impulse common to all humankind? How to make sure it stays quashed? That level of control would make 1984's The Party seem loose and permissive by comparison. I don't know if it could be done. Should it be done?
Seeeeeeeeeee?????? Look! Man, this really is just everything in the world like my point, so okay; let's try this. It'll be fun.

"Maybe. But even if that were somehow accomplished, how to quash the [homosexual] impulse common to [some] humankind? How to make sure it stays quashed? That level of control would make 1984's The Party seem loose and permissive by comparison. I don't know if it could be done. Should it be done?"

See? In both your version and mine, the answer should be, "FREAKING HELL, NO! NO! NO! NOOOOOOOOOOO!! !! !! !!"

You see? It's not complicated, man. It's just...like that. See?

Umm...anyway.



Griff
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312

08 Apr 2008, 6:54 pm

skafather84 wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
Quote:
he meant no religion in the literal sense but i'd have no problem with religion if they left everyone alone on issues that don't adhere to their beliefs and quit trying to legislate their myths as fact (ie, creationism in place of evolution).


Maybe. But even if that were somehow accomplished, how to quash the religious impulse common to all humankind? How to make sure it stays quashed? That level of control would make 1984's The Party seem loose and permissive by comparison. I don't know if it could be done. Should it be done?


is this in reference to getting rid of religion? i don't think you'll ever get rid of religion. humanity is a superstitious, paranoid species overall for that to ever happen...at least any time soon.
Well, I honestly think that good societal health and a more positive cultural outlook will eventually diminish these tendencies...

Quote:
especially with religion still being forced at the sword.
Superstition blossoms at the point of a sword, god or no god.

Oh, by the way, SM, that's pretty much all I'd really do to get religion gone from our culture. I think that religion would eventually become irrelevant in a society in which people didn't have to live in fear for their lives. Even if religion stayed, its adherents would be more level-headed, therefore easier to live around.



Last edited by Griff on 08 Apr 2008, 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

DejaQ
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,719
Location: The Silver Devastation

08 Apr 2008, 6:55 pm

I think some of the people here need to lighten up. When you lose control of your emotions, it makes rational discussion difficult. It's a sensitive area of discussion, to be certain, but you need to remain level-headed if you want your argument to have a good image. :?



Griff
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312

08 Apr 2008, 7:04 pm

Level-headed doesn't work on people like Zendell. I honestly don't think he's mentally stable.

Parakeet's just a jerk, though. Frankly, I'm a bit sick of him.



zendell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,174
Location: Austin, TX

08 Apr 2008, 7:58 pm

deleted



Last edited by zendell on 09 Apr 2008, 3:12 pm, edited 3 times in total.

zendell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,174
Location: Austin, TX

08 Apr 2008, 8:08 pm

deleted



Last edited by zendell on 09 Apr 2008, 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

DejaQ
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,719
Location: The Silver Devastation

08 Apr 2008, 8:09 pm

Griff wrote:
Level-headed doesn't work on people like Zendell. I honestly don't think he's mentally stable.

Parakeet's just a jerk, though. Frankly, I'm a bit sick of him.


Now you see, if you resort to calling out people on a personal level like that, you're only as good as (if not worse than) the people you criticize. It's important to continue presenting your argument in a reasonable manner without resorting to argumentum ad hominem.

By all means, point out fallacies in your opponent's logic, but remember to attack the argument, not the person.