Is gay marriage a threat to humanity?

ConfusedGuy92

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

The gays are fighting for state recognition, not religious, whether the ceremony takes place in a church or otherwise is irrelevant.



This is simply false, and can be demonstrated to be false. Even the first line of Wikipedia


The article goes on to say that it predates recorded history.

Argument invalid.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well Bluewolf - that's you put back in your box and no mistake .

Now, be a swell gal, do as the man says - STFU and stop getting mad dickio. :rolleyes:

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

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I still don't see how that is relevant to civil marriages.

Supporting gay marriage does not mean you wish to force religions to partake in such.

I never once said civil marriages. I considered it to be more of a religious thing in the first place.

Bannasidhe

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

Anyways, as I said, if you prefer to say "No one cares what you think" instead of having an intelectual debate about things, go bleed from your vagina elsewhere as the men have a conversation.

.

This guy is funny.
'Go bleed from your vagina'???
LOL!!!

reported.

ConfusedGuy92

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.

Logical Fallacy

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

I never once said civil marriages. I considered it to be more of a religious thing in the first place.

In that case what are you warbling on about?

I don't think a single person in the thread said they want to force the RCC to perform gay marriage?

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.

Not sure what that has to do with the thread topic?

nozzferrahhtoo

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

In you're soccer analogy, then it would be "Do not touch the ball with your hands like you would in rugby". Make sense when you clear it up yeah?

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.

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

Of course I don't know the history of something which has evolved since we lived in caves. And Greece is your example?

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".

coffee_cake

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where you posted several pictures of yourself and said several times that you were a woman. I hate being wrong like that.

Well, I have done both, so...

Also, I don't know if you are married, but if you were who was standing in front of you? Chances are, it was a priest/minister/rabbi etc. Those are the people that are against it, not me. If I was against it, I wouldnt be letting gays get married in my house, and I'm sure they share that sentiment.

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

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

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

again with the gender

ConfusedGuy92

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This guy is funny.
'Go bleed from your vagina'???
LOL!!!

reported.

Hey, she told me that no one cares about what I believe. It would seem that several people cared enough to post and disagree with me. She also told me that I was wrong, in which I believe is a debatable point and there are many people (although many are nazis ) that would disagree with that. I felt it was my duty to respond in a similarly derrogi.....bad manner.

44leto

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.

Confused guy you don't have to enter a gay marriage, you can say no.

coffee_cake

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.

http://www.geekosystem.com/wp-content/uploads/gallery/philosoraptor/philosoraptor-mordor.jpg

hooradiation

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

Yeah maybe that's where I'm going. I just consider marriage to be a religious thing first, and I guess that when people want to get married against the religious beliefs, it seems like an oxymoron to me.

You can hold that opinion all you want. It doesn't, however, constitute a valid reason as to why two consenting adults cannot get married to each other.

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

Edit: Motherfucker........

Bannasidhe

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

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

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

MagicMarker

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.

MagicSean

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.

nozzferrahhtoo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ConfusedGuy92 wrote: »

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

that's how gays show you that they love you

OldNotWIse

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

Corkfeen

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

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

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

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

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.