Is gay marriage a threat to humanity?

Bannasidhe · 17-01-2012 3:50pm

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

I think this guy wants to have a gay marriage with me

Wrong gender again. Yup, this conversation is just chock full of bleeding and unbleeding vaginas.

Adds Vajazzle to the proceedings:D.

Delirium · 17-01-2012 3:50pm

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

Koth, I don't think marridge is actually a 'legal government' thing like people call it to get it on their side. I think it was once a religious thing, which was forced to become a legal binding relashionship, and now they are trying to cut out the original religious thing all together, and that's where I can understand them disagreeing with it (although a former nazi is just doing it out of crazy nazi-ist-ness.)

marriage most definitely is a legal thing. If the government doesn't approve/allow a certain type of marriage, the couple cannot avail of rights afforded to married couples.

ConfusedGuy92 · 17-01-2012 3:50pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Still not telling them not to touch the ball at all though is it? Now you are getting it! Keep going, you are nearly there. In your change of my analogy you end up making my point for me. Saying "Do not do X like that" is not the same as saying "do not do X". Massively different.

So saying "do not touch it with your hands like in rugby" does not mean "do not touch it at all". It means one thing and one thing only.... do not do it like in rugby.

I said it was a starting point, not an example. Again not a subtle difference. You appear to have a penchant for taking massively different things being said and acting like the things are almost the same and any pretense at a difference is just "splitting hairs".

Your entire analogy refers to context, and in that context, it says:-

In rugby you touch the ball, in soccer you do not, ergo, do not touch the ball in soccer as you would in rugby.

bluewolf wrote: »

Well, I have done both, so...

We're talking about civil marriage here. Churches and shuls can do whatever they like

again with the gender

I wasn't talking about civil marriages, who is this 'we'? I said something relating to the thread and it sparked up a discussion.

http://mmoredrama.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/there-are-no-girls-on-the-internet.jpg

MagicSean · 17-01-2012 3:51pm

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

Heres another way to look at things, do you guys consider incestuous marriages to be alright? Because many people involved in them would, and maybe in the future they will be faught for and accepted and we will be the 'old descriminatory generation' saying it's disgusting and ludacris.

Interesting thought. Incestuos relationships were not uncommon in the past, especially in royal circles. They were presumably stopped because of the possible medical complications arising out of them for children. It does make you wonder why people are so against them though. If you ask anyone would they consider a sexual relationship with a family member you would probably get a punch in the face but logically there is no reason why it should be so repulsive. it just is.

MagicMarker · 17-01-2012 3:51pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Whatever else about the horrible cnut, saying that he was a Nazi; or using it as a stick to beat him with is a bit lazy, not to mention unfair.

It's like somebody using the fact that you were born into a Catholic family to diminish any position you hold. He had about as much say in joining the Hitler Youth as you did about being baptised. And like yourself and Catholicism, he made the decision to desert the group that he had been forced into as a child. The Nazis murdered members of his family ffs, I doubt he viewed them in a good light.

Considering he includes millions of children who have no say in the matter as part of his club I don't think it's unreasonable to say that he was a Nazi, regardless of how he thought about it.

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-01-2012 3:51pm

hooradiation wrote: »

And inb4 bestiality, polygamy and incest are brought up as "yeah, but what about this?"

Amazing how quickly these people run out of points and try to change the subject entirely by creating a false equivalency between them isn't it?

MagicMarker · 17-01-2012 3:52pm

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

Heres another way to look at things, do you guys consider incestuous marriages to be alright? Because many people involved in them would, and maybe in the future they will be faught for and accepted and we will be the 'old descriminatory generation' saying it's disgusting and ludacris.

What's wrong with incestuous marriages once the people involved are consenting and happy?

Genghiz Cohen · 17-01-2012 3:53pm

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

Argument invalid.

See, what you've done there is a reverse Argument from Authority.

Only dribbling morons fall into that fallacy.

You fell into that fallacy.

See what I'm getting at?

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-01-2012 3:54pm

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

Your entire analogy refers to context

I am aware of what my analogy refers to thanks. It refers to the fact that saying "Do not do X" and "Do not do X like that" are two totally different things, no matter how much you wish to pretend otherwise.

Just like saying "I consider marriage to be a religious thing" does not mean it is. You can "consider" it to be so all you like but you have already admitted you do not know anything about the history of it... and you have already been corrected by a number of users on the error.

ConfusedGuy92 · 17-01-2012 3:56pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Wrong gender again. Yup, this conversation is just chock full of bleeding and unbleeding vaginas.

Adds Vajazzle to the proceedings:D.

Seems like vajazzling would be a health hazard.

Did I get called a mother****er off someone? I mean am I personally offending anyone (with the exception of miss menstration whom was predetermined). I mean I consider marriage to be a religious sacrament. Religion considers homosexuality to be wrong. It's pretty simple and not very offencive in my eyes.

Just shows how equality is taken down so quickly. Gays can make all the comments on straight guys they want but the second I make in any way a downgrade of gay belief I have the everyone but the pope coming down on me.

Micky Dolenz · 17-01-2012 4:01pm

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

Seems like vajazzling would be a health hazard.

Did I get called a mother****er off someone? I mean am I personally offending anyone (with the exception of miss menstration whom was predetermined). I mean I consider marriage to be a religious sacrament. Religion considers homosexuality to be wrong. It's pretty simple and not very offencive in my eyes.

Just shows how equality is taken down so quickly. Gays can make all the comments on straight guys they want but the second I make in any way a downgrade of gay belief I have the everyone but the pope coming down on me.

Mod

Not cool. Banned.

hooradiation · 17-01-2012 4:01pm

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

Seems like vajazzling would be a health hazard.

Did I get called a mother****er off someone? I mean am I personally offending anyone (with the exception of miss menstration whom was predetermined). I mean I consider marriage to be a religious sacrament. Religion considers homosexuality to be wrong. It's pretty simple and not very offencive in my eyes.

Just shows how equality is taken down so quickly. Gays can make all the comments on straight guys they want but the second I make in any way a downgrade of gay belief I have the everyone but the pope coming down on me.

My heart bleeds for the massive injustice you're suffering of having to defend your opinions.

You poor thing.

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-01-2012 4:01pm

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

I mean am I personally offending anyone .....I mean I consider marriage to be a religious sacrament.

And I consider the bank to be an institution made for giving me personally as much free money as I want. They never seem to however.

In other words no... you are not offending anyone... but people are a little keen to point out the disparity between what you consider to be true... and what actually is. It is not small.

Babybuff · 17-01-2012 4:04pm

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

I have the everyone but the pope coming down on me.

that's how gays show you that they love you

OldNotWIse · 17-01-2012 4:10pm

I can think of bigger "threats to humanity" than affording partnership rights to same sex couples.

Corkfeen · 17-01-2012 4:15pm

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

Seems like vajazzling would be a health hazard.

Did I get called a mother****er off someone? I mean am I personally offending anyone (with the exception of miss menstration whom was predetermined). I mean I consider marriage to be a religious sacrament. Religion considers homosexuality to be wrong. It's pretty simple and not very offencive in my eyes.

Just shows how equality is taken down so quickly. Gays can make all the comments on straight guys they want but the second I make in any way a downgrade of gay belief I have the everyone but the pope coming down on me.

Aww, i'm gonna miss you. Purely because never have I seen a username so fitting for an individual. :eek:

OldNotWIse · 17-01-2012 4:17pm

Min wrote: »

Not having gay marriage in law is not discrimination.

Are gay couples going to say that now that nature itself must change as it discriminates against them when it comes to having children that are biologically from both of the gay couple?

I think the threat is everyone feeling they have some right to this, that and the other, that all traditions must be swept out, otherwise these new discriminations are invented as everything must be homogenised.

It is gone to the point where allowing a difference is now seen as discrimination, though gay couples will never say nature discriminated against them when it came to having biological children from of the same sex couple.

The church gets it's teaching on homosexuality from the bible where it states homosexual sex is a sin. The church will not change it's view as the bible will not be changing it's text, just as the rules of nature only allow for human life to be created naturally via a male/female relationship, to some that may be discrimination but it is no different to Pope Benedict being against gay marriage when the rules of the bible only allow for male/female marriage.

So the Pope thinks there will be consequences, according to the bible there was in the past.
People are making a mountain out of a molehill, read the bible and it is clear that sex outside of marriage is not allowed and also homosexual sex is not allowed. Put that and what the bible said happened in Sodom and Gomorrah together and it is clear the Catholic church is sticking to the teaching of the bible unlike someother Christian faiths.

Anyway, the world is in a mess and it's getting worse, whether that is due to how society has gone is another matter.

It's easy to be-little people who are seeking out rights for themselves when you have those rights at your disposal already. Just because you never had to fight for your rights (they are automatically bestowed upon you because you are part of the majority) does not mean that other people should not be allowed/do not have to fight for theirs.

And by the way, do you adhere to everything the bible says or are you one of the many who uses it on an a la carte basis as a scapegoat for homophobia?

Logical Fallacy · 17-01-2012 4:45pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

It's easy to be-little people who are seeking out rights for themselves when you have those rights at your disposal already. Just because you never had to fight for your rights (they are automatically bestowed upon you because you are part of the majority) does not mean that other people should not be allowed/do not have to fight for theirs.

And by the way, do you adhere to everything the bible says or are you one of the many who uses it on an a la carte basis as a scapegoat for homophobia?

I'm assuming he does not wear clothes made from two different materials.

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-01-2012 5:00pm

MagicSean wrote: »

If you ask anyone would they consider a sexual relationship with a family member you would probably get a punch in the face but logically there is no reason why it should be so repulsive. it just is.

Looking over my posting history it appears I do not get the opportunity to disagree with you often, so I will latch on to this one even though it is not a point of disagreement but more of another way of looking at it.

I was arguing for Incest being ok on threads here and on another forum in the context of reproduction not being on the cards. Aside from reproduction what are the other arguments against it. No one could give me a single good one.

So to play devil’s advocate I tried desperately to think of one myself and I could come up with only one, which was more a point of concern than a per se argument against incest.

What I came up with is that sex changes relationships. And sexual relationships are two a penny. We can mostly all go out and get some. Sibling relationships however are rarer and hence more precious. Turning it into your bog standard sexual relationship is really not advisable as you are changing something you will never get with anyone else into something you can have with just about anyone.

Again not an argument against incest and as I say I always defend the side that says there is little or nothing morally wrong with incest… but certainly a point of concern for anyone considering such a relationship… and perhaps some small explanation of the repulsion many feel for it.

MagicSean · 17-01-2012 5:12pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Looking over my posting history it appears I do not get the opportunity to disagree with you often, so I will latch on to this one even though it is not a point of disagreement but more of another way of looking at it.

I was arguing for Incest being ok on threads here and on another forum in the context of reproduction not being on the cards. Aside from reproduction what are the other arguments against it. No one could give me a single good one.

So to play devil’s advocate I tried desperately to think of one myself and I could come up with only one, which was more a point of concern than a per se argument against incest.

What I came up with is that sex changes relationships. And sexual relationships are two a penny. We can mostly all go out and get some. Sibling relationships however are rarer and hence more precious. Turning it into your bog standard sexual relationship is really not advisable as you are changing something you will never get with anyone else into something you can have with just about anyone.

Again not an argument against incest and as I say I always defend the side that says there is little or nothing morally wrong with incest… but certainly a point of concern for anyone considering such a relationship… and perhaps some small explanation of the repulsion many feel for it.

I think it's more along the lines of the necessity for preserving the status of relationships so that they provide what they are supposed to to a child as it is being raised. The warping of the relationship between direct family members often leads to difficulty with forming normal relationships in the real world as the incest victim would have a warped view of the expected roles in a normal relationship.

hooradiation · 17-01-2012 5:21pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

and perhaps some small explanation of the repulsion many feel for it.

That and we apparently have a built in, but not entirely fool proof, "kinship detector" which is supposed to prevent incest.

Nothingbetter2d · 17-01-2012 5:23pm

given how many gay priests & pedophile priests there is in the RCC i dont think the pope has much ground to stand on regarding his statement.

44leto · 17-01-2012 5:32pm

Is this thread a threat to humanity??

MagicMarker · 17-01-2012 5:36pm

44leto wrote: »

Is this thread a threat to humanity??

No, just your sanity.

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-01-2012 7:04pm

MagicSean wrote: »

the incest victim would have a warped view of the expected roles in a normal relationship.

I think by the word victim it is likely we are talking about different things. When I defend incest morally I do so on the assumption it is between consenting adults. Alas we have one word "incest" for consenting siblings on one end and fathers raping babies on the other. For example. Certainly no variety of incest I have debating for morally on here would involve there being a "victim".

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-01-2012 7:05pm

hooradiation wrote: »

That and we apparently have a built in, but not entirely fool proof, "kinship detector" which is supposed to prevent incest.

What the article essentially says though is that it is all predicated on how long you have spent with the sibling and the mother. Which is essentially related to what I was saying anyway in my sibling relationship suggestion.

karaokeman · 17-01-2012 7:47pm

I'd say its quite obvious by the results of this poll that more and more people are now supporting gay rights.

Its quite true also that no one living in the modern world really cares what the church thinks anymore.

Gays are born gay, they are entitled to basic human rights just like us. Anyone who denies them that right is a threat to humanity.

OldNotWIse · 01-03-2012 5:23pm

What is the definition of humanity?

token101 · 01-03-2012 5:38pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

What is the definition of humanity?

Whatever it is the pope says the gays are a threat to it :eek: Burn them, burn them all

prinz · 01-03-2012 5:39pm

Gay marriage isn't a threat to humanity. Selfishness and the dictatorship of selfishness is.

OldNotWIse · 01-03-2012 6:08pm

Humanity: the totality of experience of existing as a human

How can two gay people who love each other and are minding their own business interfere with the "experience of existing as a human" for others?

OldNotWIse · 01-03-2012 6:11pm

token101 wrote: »

Whatever it is the pope says the gays are a threat to it :eek: Burn them, burn them all

Ok so

I'm looking forward to a good roasting... I was indoctrinated reared a catholic but tbh any establishment that treats women like second class citizens, condones the rape and abuse of innocent children and stigmatises those who were born gay can, as my wonderful Gran says, "go and thump thunder" lol

smash · 01-03-2012 6:13pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

What is the definition of humanity?

You dragged this thread back up again to ask that question?

OldNotWIse · 01-03-2012 6:17pm

smash wrote: »

You dragged this thread back up again to ask that question?

So it would seem

Pacifist Pigeon · 01-03-2012 6:24pm

Guys, you should really try kissing another guy, it's fantastic. It's a small bit like kissing a girl except there's a lot more tongue action and your stubble scraps off the other guy's stubble which adds extra sensualness, excitement and pleasure. It's so intense. The only reason straight guy don't do it is because they're afraid of the fear factor of being seen as gay. It's only gay if you like it more than kissing a girl.

OldNotWIse · 01-03-2012 6:27pm

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Guys, you should really try kissing another guy, it's fantastic. It's a small bit like kissing a girl except there's a lot more tongue action and your stubble scraps off the other guy's stubble which adds extra sensualness, excitement and pleasure. It's so intense. The only reason straight guy don't do it is because they're afraid of the fear factor of being seen as gay. It's only gay if you like it more than kissing a girl.

Gawd, I'm a gay woman and you nearly have me convinced to kiss a man from that description :eek:

desertcircus · 01-03-2012 6:48pm

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Guys, you should really try kissing another guy, it's fantastic. It's a small bit like kissing a girl except there's a lot more tongue action and your stubble scraps off the other guy's stubble which adds extra sensualness, excitement and pleasure. It's so intense. The only reason straight guy don't do it is because they're afraid of the fear factor of being seen as gay. It's only gay if you like it more than kissing a girl.

This is interesting...when I shaved off my beard for charity, my girlfriend described kissing me as being "like kissing a girl" and refused to kiss me till my beard grew back.

Also: that's an amusing potential double meaning of "beard".

vixen chaser · 01-03-2012 10:52pm

Gay marraige is wrong, full stop. I don't consider myself conservative or a gay basher, but gay marraige is unnatural. It's not just the religious aspect of it, itvis also the social. If countries allow this to happen, and in some cases it has, society will simply become disturbed. Marraige is sacred between man and woman. Now in my opinion there are many straight people who only consider marraige simply a day out and before you know it divorce papers are on the table. Divorce in my opinion was the worst thing to happen to this country. Marraige should be for life between man and woman, who then may create a family of their own by reproducing. Gay's can't do that, simply because life wasn't created that way. full stop. I say that with obviously no disrespect to childless hetro couples.

MagicMarker · 01-03-2012 10:56pm

vixen chaser wrote: »

Gay marraige is wrong, full stop. I don't consider myself conservative or a gay basher, but gay marraige is unnatural. It's not just the religious aspect of it, itvis also the social. If countries allow this to happen, and in some cases it has, society will simply become disturbed. Marraige is sacred between man and woman. Now in my opinion there are many straight people who only consider marraige simply a day out and before you know it divorce papers are on the table. Divorce in my opinion was the worst thing to happen to this country. Marraige should be for life between man and woman, who then may create a family of their own by reproducing. Gay's can't do that, simply because life wasn't created that way. full stop. I say that with obviously no disrespect to childless hetro couples.

Unfortunately, to have a valid opinion on marriage one must be able to spell marriage.

Better luck next time.

grindle · 01-03-2012 10:58pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

Unfortunately, to have an valid opinion on marriage one must be able to spell marriage.

Better luck next time.

+ the rest. What the fück is an itvis?

Lollipops23 · 01-03-2012 11:02pm

vixen chaser wrote: »

Gay marraige is wrong, full stop. I don't consider myself conservative or a gay basher, but gay marraige is unnatural. It's not just the religious aspect of it, itvis also the social. If countries allow this to happen, and in some cases it has, society will simply become disturbed. Marraige is sacred between man and woman. Now in my opinion there are many straight people who only consider marraige simply a day out and before you know it divorce papers are on the table. Divorce in my opinion was the worst thing to happen to this country. Marraige should be for life between man and woman, who then may create a family of their own by reproducing. Gay's can't do that, simply because life wasn't created that way. full stop. I say that with obviously no disrespect to childless hetro couples.

who the hell says? marriage is about 2 people in love coming together and declaring themselves as a unit for all the world to see. Kids don't come into the equation- having them doesn't make your marriage any more valid than not.

Gay marriage is NOT an threat to humanity- surely more people being happy and treated with respect is only a good thing for society...?

Nodin · 01-03-2012 11:05pm

vixen chaser wrote: »

Gay marraige is wrong, full stop.
I don't consider myself conservative or a gay basher, but gay marraige is unnatural. It's not just the religious aspect of it, itvis also the social.
.

If you want to be technical, all marriages are "unnatural" as marriage is a human societal construct.

vixen chaser wrote: »

If countries allow this to happen, and in some cases it has, society will simply become disturbed. Marraige is sacred between man and woman.
.

"sacred" to who and how? There was no formal marriage arrangements via the church until the 1500's, afaik. A blessing was given if requested and that was that.

vixen chaser wrote: »

Now in my opinion there are many straight people who only consider marraige simply a day out and before you know it divorce papers are on the table. Divorce in my opinion was the worst thing to happen to this country. Marraige should be for life between man and woman, who then may create a family of their own by reproducing. Gay's can't do that, simply because life wasn't created that way. full stop. I say that with obviously no disrespect to childless hetro couples.

And if mammy and daddy have to sit there for decades in an atmosphere of mutual hatred, glarin at each other, that'll just build the kids character.

Do infertile heteroxexual people not have to marry?

vixen chaser · 01-03-2012 11:05pm

grindle wrote: »

+ the rest. What the fück is an itvis?

lol, is that all yee can do?. Do you want me to start on how sick the idea of gay marriage is?

44leto · 01-03-2012 11:06pm

vixen chaser wrote: »

Gay marraige is wrong, full stop. I don't consider myself conservative or a gay basher, but gay marraige is unnatural. It's not just the religious aspect of it, itvis also the social. If countries allow this to happen, and in some cases it has, society will simply become disturbed. Marraige is sacred between man and woman. Now in my opinion there are many straight people who only consider marraige simply a day out and before you know it divorce papers are on the table. Divorce in my opinion was the worst thing to happen to this country. Marraige should be for life between man and woman, who then may create a family of their own by reproducing. Gay's can't do that, simply because life wasn't created that way. full stop. I say that with obviously no disrespect to childless hetro couples.

LOL
That is a very conservative view, republican true and blue. There are gay couples with children, some from a marriage which broke up and all research confirms it to be healthy family life. Whether you believe marriage is for life without the possibility of parole that is just simply not the reality, marriages break up. Also some marriages remain childless, be it for medical reasons or reasons of choice, but marriage is not solely about children.

If you are not for gay marriage, don't enter one, simple. But gay people have a right to see their union recognized by law and not the present second class citizen compromise that is civil partnership.

grindle · 01-03-2012 11:06pm

vixen chaser wrote: »

lol, is that all yee can do?. Do you want me to start on how sick the idea of gay marriage is?

Go on, please, I'm a bit of a perv.

Nodin · 01-03-2012 11:08pm

vixen chaser wrote: »

lol, is that all yee can do?. Do you want me to start on how sick the idea of gay marriage is?

Amuse us. You never know, you might actually come out with some fallacy I haven't heard before.

Or you could just admit you don't like 'gays' and therefore gay marriage would be a double no-no for you.

Spoonman75 · 01-03-2012 11:08pm

vixen chaser wrote: »

Gay marraige is wrong, full stop. I don't consider myself conservative or a gay basher, but gay marraige is unnatural. It's not just the religious aspect of it, itvis also the social. If countries allow this to happen, and in some cases it has, society will simply become disturbed. Marraige is sacred between man and woman. Now in my opinion there are many straight people who only consider marraige simply a day out and before you know it divorce papers are on the table. Divorce in my opinion was the worst thing to happen to this country. Marraige should be for life between man and woman, who then may create a family of their own by reproducing. Gay's can't do that, simply because life wasn't created that way. full stop. I say that with obviously no disrespect to childless hetro couples.

You're right. Gay marriage is unnatural. So is heterosexual marriage. Marriage is a human construct. Can you show evidence that society will become disturbed? What exactly do you mean by disturbed?

And yes, Gays and Lesbians can have children. All they need is a willing woman and a turkey baster.

Nyan Cat · 01-03-2012 11:10pm

Marriage is not natural either (straight marriage) it didnt just evolve like a flower. Humans created it/decided that marriage was the way for them however you want to phrase it. 'natural' suggests it grew or always existed, cane about without help or something.

And of course the sole purpose of marriage is to create babies... Nothing to do with love, a mutual desire to spend your life with that person, a binding commitment etc. babies are really only a small part of it. Not everyone who marries have babies either.
If the sole rule for marriage is that they must create children, should people with the inability to procreate be excluded from marrying? Of course not

MagicMarker · 01-03-2012 11:11pm

Spoonman75 wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by disturbed

It means you'll catch teh ghey.

grindle · 01-03-2012 11:14pm

Spoonman75 wrote: »

You're right. Gay marriage is unnatural. So is heterosexual marriage. Marriage is a human construct. Can you show evidence that society will become disturbed? What exactly do you mean by disturbed?

And yes, Gays and Lesbians can have children. All they need is a willing woman and a turkey baster.

I'l translate that for the ol' chas-a-tron, will I?

"Your rihgt. Gay marraige is unatural. Sovis hertosexual marraige. Marraige is idea thing. Can you show idea truth that all peeple will be disturbed? What exactly do you mean by disturbed?

And yes Gay"s and Lesbian"s can have children. All they need is willing notman and a turkey baster."

Is gay marriage a threat to humanity?

Comments