ForumsWEPRWhy Do People Hate Gays And Oppose Gay Marriage

85 22575
Ultimaster
offline
Ultimaster
10 posts
Nomad

Why?*


*I'm not gay myself.

  • 85 Replies
sportgirl
offline
sportgirl
10 posts
Nomad

I don't really care about gays, It is weird when people who are gay hit on straight people but how can they know. Gay marriage is something else, Its just people doing what straight people would do, but for us straight people I really do think marriage is weird and unusual with gays but it isn't BAD in that people have to go against it. Really and truly, I don't think its any peoples business what gays do, I don't believe in being gay myself but what can you do, people and different and some are super different.

Wyrzen
offline
Wyrzen
325 posts
Peasant

No....we have sex because we revel in it, we drink up the lustful wine that is love-making, we do it because we are sensual pleasure seeking creatures. That's the foremost reason for us having sex. Not to have kids. Good lord, why do you think contraceptives sell so well?


No...we have sex because thats how we propagate our species. What you say has to do with the fact that we enjoy it immensely, and that not everybody does it for the sake of children.

Thats the reason sex exists is to create kids, we as humans just happen to seek out the pleasure side of it.

You're arguing a different point than I am. I'm saying why it exists, your saying why most people do the act.

And calm down. This is a debate, not a "You're idea is stupid and insignificant you idiot."

Contraceptives obviously sell well because people wish to procreate without the added stress of pregnancy. Thats common knowledge my friend.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,981 posts
Grand Duke

No...we have sex because thats how we propagate our species. What you say has to do with the fact that we enjoy it immensely, and that not everybody does it for the sake of children.

Thats the reason sex exists is to create kids, we as humans just happen to seek out the pleasure side of it.

You're arguing a different point than I am. I'm saying why it exists, your saying why most people do the act.


Well, unfortunately, we have to contextualise acts and situations. In today's context, propagation is the last thing on most peoples' minds when they have sex. Saying that sexual intercourse is used mostly as a means to propagate our species, and therefore, homosexuality should be banned is, completely irrelevant when we apply it in context, which is the important focus of your trend of thought, because sex for fun is the main drive for sex these days.

And calm down. This is a debate, not a "You're idea is stupid and insignificant you idiot."


Well, if you think that everyone who disagrees with you, and phrases his arguments in such a way is claiming you're an idiot, you really have to stop coming onto the internet.

Contraceptives obviously sell well because people wish to procreate without the added stress of pregnancy. Thats common knowledge my friend.


You can't procreate and not be pregnant. I'm now actually having doubts that you know what you're saying.
Wyrzen
offline
Wyrzen
325 posts
Peasant

We're getting away from the purpose of the thread.

Well, unfortunately, we have to contextualise acts and situations. In today's context, propagation is the last thing on most peoples' minds when they have sex. Saying that sexual intercourse is used mostly as a means to propagate our species, and therefore, homosexuality should be banned is, completely irrelevant when we apply it in context, which is the important focus of your trend of thought, because sex for fun is the main drive for sex these days.
And, if you read my earlier posts more thoroughly, you'd see that I myself condemned my weak argument and the lame attempt I made at creating one with the sex ideal, thus completely negating all those points you brought up.


Yes, they are valid, but when I shut down my own argument, all the points you bring up are totally unnecessary, as the aforementioned points are already dead.

You can't procreate and not be pregnant. I'm now actually having doubts that you know what you're saying.


To procreate is to have sex, as in they are synonymous, along with copulation. Sex and procreation, since they are the same thing, can both result in life, which is what the contraceptives are for. So you can procreate, have intercourse, or copulate and not be pregnant. And even if you argue that procreation is only for creating children, what if the sperm and egg don't join? The couple in question still procreated, but the possible pregnancy failed, thus they are not pregnant.

Well, if you think that everyone who disagrees with you, and phrases his arguments in such a way is claiming you're an idiot, you really have to stop coming onto the internet.


You're free to disagree with me; this is the whole point of the thread. But it is possible to disagree and debate without trying to cause offense to the opposing party. The "Good Lord, why do you think contraceptives sell so well?" tidbit is phrased to show possible ignorance on my behalf, while adding the "Good Lord" portion shows exasperation on your part, leading to my taking the implied "You're an idiot" part, along with taking the Lord's name in vain. Dropping that part would still phrase the question, without planting the seeds of discord in this debate-turning-argument.
BRAAINZz
offline
BRAAINZz
787 posts
Nomad

To procreate is to have sex, as in they are synonymous, along with copulation. Sex and procreation, since they are the same thing, can both result in life, which is what the contraceptives are for. So you can procreate, have intercourse, or copulate and not be pregnant. And even if you argue that procreation is only for creating children, what if the sperm and egg don't join? The couple in question still procreated, but the possible pregnancy failed, thus they are not pregnant.


To procreate is to breed, or create offspring. Not to have sex, read the dictionary please.

And while sex can end in procreation, you don't even need sex to make children.

We're getting away from the purpose of the thread.


People used the inability of homosexuals to reproduce as a point, which we subdued using other people, namely heterosexual examples, who didn't choose to procreate, then we commenced de-evolution to a battle of dictionaries.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,981 posts
Grand Duke

Yes, they are valid, but when I shut down my own argument, all the points you bring up are totally unnecessary, as the aforementioned points are already dead.


Well of course you shut them down in lieu of my arguments.

To procreate is to have sex, as in they are synonymous, along with copulation. Sex and procreation, since they are the same thing, can both result in life, which is what the contraceptives are for. So you can procreate, have intercourse, or copulate and not be pregnant. And even if you argue that procreation is only for creating children, what if the sperm and egg don't join? The couple in question still procreated, but the possible pregnancy failed, thus they are not pregnant.


No. To have sex is to put your penis into a girl's orifices, such as that both are sexually stimulated, if it's heterosexual sex. What homosexuals do is up to your imagination, lest I mention what I should not on this PG website.

To procreate, is to breed. I would have thought the ''create'' rings a mighty bell.

And even if you argue that procreation is only for creating children, what if the sperm and egg don't join?


Then that's not procreation.

The "Good Lord, why do you think contraceptives sell so well?" tidbit is phrased to show possible ignorance on my behalf, while adding the "Good Lord" portion shows exasperation on your part, leading to my taking the implied "You're an idiot" part, along with taking the Lord's name in vain. Dropping that part would still phrase the question, without planting the seeds of discord in this debate-turning-argument.


All I have to say, is that people are far too paranoid, and read too much into things. If you want to assume it so, go ahead, but don't insist I meant it when you're the only person who seems agitated over such a common daily expression.

We're getting away from the purpose of the thread.


No we're not. I'm showing how your whole sex-is-for-procreation argument is invalid as a reason to oppose homosexual relations.
Wyrzen
offline
Wyrzen
325 posts
Peasant

To procreate is to breed, or create offspring. Not to have sex, read the dictionary please.


Ah, but I did read the dictionary. What if the attempt to create offspring fails? Or if a couple tries for kids while on contraceptives? It's then the same thing as sex or copulation, then rendering them all synonymous.
Besides, it's not like there is 'The Dictionary'. There are many different dictionaries with many different definitions of the same word. One dictionary may use procreation as the creation of life, which is synonymous with fertilization. Another, such as the one I read, labeled it as sex, copulation, the consummation of love, etc. All depends on what dictionary you read. Which makes your asking me to read 'The Dictionary' a sub-standard question.

No offense.

[quote] People used the inability of homosexuals to reproduce as a point, which we subdued using other people, namely heterosexual examples, who didn't choose to procreate, then we commenced de-evolution to a battle of dictionaries.[quote]

And, like I said, I'm not arguing that point in any form. I used it as an example of my poor debating skills regarding this certain subject, and that most anti-gay marriage arguments are based solely on 'Because' and not cold, hard facts.
Wyrzen
offline
Wyrzen
325 posts
Peasant

Wow. Go me with my double quote fail. ^

>.<

Wyrzen
offline
Wyrzen
325 posts
Peasant

To procreate, is to breed. I would have thought the ''create'' rings a mighty bell.


Yes, but thats how sex works, just you use contraceptives to halt the creation, rendering it a failed procreation, still thus labeling it as sex.
Sex is still a process in which life is created, you can just use all sorts of ways to halt the creating.

Why are we even talking about this?

I have no opinion on gay marriage.

[quote]Well of course you shut them down in lieu of my arguments.[quote]

And no, I didn't shut them down in lieu of your arguments, I shut them down before your arguments, as I told everybody beforehand they failed as an argument, and I say this as we continue to debate the argument I killed as soon as I brought it up.
Wyrzen
offline
Wyrzen
325 posts
Peasant

Son of a gun, I did it again.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,981 posts
Grand Duke

What if the attempt to create offspring fails? Or if a couple tries for kids while on contraceptives? It's then the same thing as sex or copulation, then rendering them all synonymous.


If a couple uses contraceptives, they never would be trying for kids, because they're intentions were clear. No kids.

If an attempt fails, it's not procreation.

It's then the same thing as sex or copulation, then rendering them all synonymous.



They are not the same. Copulation is the action when you thrust your penis into a woman, as explained earlier. Procreation is when an offspring is formed. They are two different things. Procreation can stem from copulation, or it can stem from medical means. But it doens't go the other way round.


One dictionary may use procreation as the creation of life, which is synonymous with fertilization. Another, such as the one I read, labeled it as sex, copulation, the consummation of love, etc. All depends on what dictionary you read. Which makes your asking me to read 'The Dictionary' a sub-standard question.


I have yet to come across a dictionary that defines it as just love making. Show it, or there's no actual proof to back your argument up. As far as Webster, Oxford, FreeDictionary go, all of them refer to procreation as reproduction.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,981 posts
Grand Duke

Yes, but thats how sex works, just you use contraceptives to halt the creation, rendering it a failed procreation, still thus labeling it as sex.
Sex is still a process in which life is created, you can just use all sorts of ways to halt the creating.

Why are we even talking about this?

I have no opinion on gay marriage.


No, it isn't even a failed procreation. Sex for most people is intended as a form of pleasure, without even kids in the picture. They're intention is to just have fun. Sex might be the process which life can be created, but people these days hardly have procreation in mind when they have such urges.

And no, I didn't shut them down in lieu of your arguments, I shut them down before your arguments, as I told everybody beforehand they failed as an argument, and I say this as we continue to debate the argument I killed as soon as I brought it up.


You actually didn't shut it down. All you did was claim that it was the closest you could get to a ''valid'' argument.

Let's see.....the closest reason I can come to having a valid reason I guess would have to be with creating life.

The reason we have sex is further propagate our species, correct? If we didn't have it, the human race would have perished or never even existed. Heck, most life wouldn't exist except for those funky little asexual creatures who bud and such.

Now if we look at homosexual relations, you can't create life homosexually. Now obviously you can adopt and such, but what if that option didn't exist? No kids, no new members of our species.
Wyrzen
offline
Wyrzen
325 posts
Peasant

Show it, or there's no actual proof to back your argument up.


Once again, this was my original point regarding a large percentage of those who oppose gay marriage; they lack good facts and just base everything on the bible, which in and of itself is not 100% true regardless.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,981 posts
Grand Duke

Once again, this was my original point regarding a large percentage of those who oppose gay marriage; they lack good facts and just base everything on the bible, which in and of itself is not 100% true regardless.


As in, show that some authority actually states and defines that procreation and sex are the one same thing, and that they're not two closely related, but distinct processes.
Wyrzen
offline
Wyrzen
325 posts
Peasant

I have respect for you. And your superior....whatever-it-is-we're-doing skills.

I admit defeat.

Showing 46-60 of 85