Forums → WEPR → Gay Marriage-Should it be Legal or not?
| 561 | 107049 |
I personally think that it should be legal cause it doesnt hurt anybody and everyone has the right to marry who they love.
- 561 Replies
Mage, you are correct, but still missing some points.
So, this is to whomever you quoted. The issues There are MANY heterosexual couples that cannot and/or will not produce children. So, by your logic they should not marry.
Also, homosexual couples can have children just like heterosexual couples. There are many options. For example, my brother will be the donor to my wife.
My point is the reproduction is not a viable status for or against homosexual marriage. Or marriage at all.
I believe that it should be legal. Even though they marry to the same sex its still love and they should be able to get married.
My point is the reproduction is not a viable status for or against homosexual marriage. Or marriage at all.
I believe I said that. (with a typo)
Weather then can or can not produce children shouldn't be a factor in weather they should or should not get married.
I'm going to tell you all that nevets is a troller, and has pretty much admitted to being a troller. He's also claimed to have BAs in things that they don't give out BAs for, so if I were you I would take his "opinions" with a grain of salt.
I'm going to tell you all that nevets is a troller, and has pretty much admitted to being a troller. He's also claimed to have BAs in things that they don't give out BAs for, so if I were you I would take his "opinions" with a grain of salt.
I take it with 10% less then the lethal dose.
Sowait, there's no one else opposed to gay marriage other than Steven over there?
Fine, then I'll start a branch-off debate. How's that?
I for one, don't actually think that people who think gay marriage should not be legal are actually bigots, nor were people in the 60's racist, etc. etc. Now, I'm not saying that the things they believed in were good or that I support them, I'm saying that a lot of them were good people who were just corrupted by what their parents told them, and what their grandparents told them, and what society told them. It's like religion; if you're told something is true from birth, by people you trust like your parents(who themselves sincerely believe that what they're teaching you is true) then of course you're going to believe them, and you can't be faulted for that.
So hopefully, we'll have some better opposition on that front, eh?
I sense
I'm sorry, this is kind of mean of me and I know it's nitpicky but you left yourself wide open for it...You do not want to argue here. These are not the homosexuals you're looking for.
from your posts that you are one of those cause "bandwagon jumpers" who would be willing to argue anything from spotted owls to global warming just for the sake of playing the victim role.
That's kind of mean of you. What gives you that impression, other than to pad your argument with a healthy dose of insulting?
Your own comments show the fundamental flaw in your argument. The bottom line is same sex couples are by definition different than opposite sex couples.
I won't dispute that.However, whether they are different or not does not change the fact that they should have the same rights, y'know?
There is no right or wrong here, it simply is what it is.
I'll give you that one, but it's kind of irrelevant.
Even you acknowledge that the best a gay couple could hope for is to be the surrogate for a child whose bioloical (and by definition opposite sexed) parents have somehow been rendered unable to raise the child.
It is possible for same-sex couples to have children. I would go into this in detail, were it not for the fact that details about this have already been posted time and again in this thread, and any more of the exact same already-debunked argument would probably cause the thread to go into some kind of coma.
The fact remains that same sex couples can have sex until the cows come home and they will produce exactly zero progeny, end of story and species.
This would be true, if everyone was homosexual, which they're not. Heterosexual couples still exist, therefore the species will not go extinct. Furthermore, the extinction of the human race is not even a viable issue. We are living comfortably, our lives are not threatened by anything but each other, and therefore the only way we could possibly go extinct is by our own stupidity in causing WW3, not because some homosexuals were allowed to marry. And on that subject, who said that homosexual couples won't have sex before their marriage? That just...the whole sex thing is just a ridiculous and overused argument.
Thus all morality aside how can you even begin to infer that this is some kind of biological force at work. Nature doesn't work that way. When a species develops a trait that leaves it at a disadvantage they only end up in one place, extinct.
This is very true, heredity and natural selection, science aside, should root out any traits detrimental to the species. However, and I just want to say it is not my intent to compare these people in any way, our society is so coddled and far advanced that evolution for the human race is practically at a standstill. Why? Because back in the day, if you were dumb and stuck your fingers in an electrical socket, you died and your genes were erased from the gene pool, nowadays they have breakers. That's just an example.
And for another thing, You can claim all you want that Homosexuality is the genes talking but if thats true what they are saying is "out of the pool"
Read the above. Evolution in the human race is irrelevant, and we should not shun people for something that they cannot control.
I for one, don't actually think that people who think gay marriage should not be legal are actually bigots, nor were people in the 60's racist, etc. etc. Now, I'm not saying that the things they believed in were good or that I support them, I'm saying that a lot of them were good people who were just corrupted by what their parents told them, and what their grandparents told them, and what society told them. It's like religion; if you're told something is true from birth, by people you trust like your parents(who themselves sincerely believe that what they're teaching you is true) then of course you're going to believe them, and you can't be faulted for that.
Again going back to the definition of bigot.
bigot; a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
How does the fact they learned to be intolerant from an early age change the fact they hold bigoted views?
How does the fact they learned to be intolerant from an early age change the fact they hold bigoted views?
Okay, I misspoke. What I meant to say is, they cannot be blamed for being bigots. Yes, maybe they are bigots, but no, I do not think that we should punish them for that, because they believe what they were told.
I do not think that we should punish them for that, because they believe what they were told.
This doesnt mean that bigots should be let away with it. Nothing physical but they need a mental spanking.
This doesnt mean that bigots should be let away with it. Nothing physical but they need a mental spanking.
Well, it's not like being a bigot ever hurt anyone, right? I mean, beating someone up is one thing, but bigotry is on a far lower level of intolerance. We should let them have their opinions and we shouldn't punish them for it because just as gays and lesbians should have equal rights to do what they want, bigots should have equal rights to think what they want. As long as it's not hurting anyone, why should we bother them?
As long as it's not hurting anyone, why should we bother them?
They are hurting society as a whole though.
I agree that if a bigot has crazy views and says them but doesnt hurt anyone then of course, a mental spanking is all thats needed. Everyone has some kind of bigoted view in them. But Moe is right, its not just some harmless talk and these people are getting in the way of peoples lifes. If it hurts noone then leave it be, if it supresses because someone doesnt like it and has to dredge up reasons that defy logic to defend their bigoted view, spank em!
They are hurting society as a whole though.
So are idiots and the mentally ill, but you don't see anyone "mentally spanking" them, do you?
I agree that if a bigot has crazy views and says them but doesnt hurt anyone then of course, a mental spanking is all thats needed.
But why would we do that? I mean, it's not like we're actually ever going to change their minds(anyone who's argued with them knows that),so why punish them pointlessly? Even a "mental spanking" hurts, because what I'm getting from the way you're putting it is that you want us to insult them for their views?
Everyone has some kind of bigoted view in them.
Precisely, and we can't really control what we think or believe. We can try, but once a thought's in our head, we can't really kick it out.
But Moe is right, its not just some harmless talk and these people are getting in the way of peoples lifes.
Again, I cite idiots and the mentally ill. We cannot change their minds, it is not something they can control, so why should we punish them for it? For example, there are a few idiots who hinder science because they believe that the present scientific direction is incorrect, and they won't change their mind. And getting in the way of peoples' lives is a useless argument in the case of gay marriage because states are already beginning to pass laws legalizing it, so at this point the argument is pointless. Even if it weren't, and it isn't entirely, what will that do? We shouldn't punish people for what they believe any more than we should punish people for their orientation, because it's something that they can't really change about themselves, and it can be detrimental to the person if they try.
If it hurts noone then leave it be, if it supresses because someone doesnt like it and has to dredge up reasons that defy logic to defend their bigoted view, spank em!
These people don't "dredge up" reasons that defy logic, that's what they were taught by their parents and what their parents were taught by their grandparents. They truly believe in what they are saying, so they have a right to defend their bigot views, and if they believe that something is wrong, then they should have a right to try and stop it. Who are we to say that we are totally right? We may be(I believe we are) but these people do not believe us. I just don't see the point in punishing people when it will have no effect.
Why do you have this "unishment" in your head.
My mental spanking is to stand up to them. Idiots are idiots and the mentally ill are ill. They dont have a choice. When I see someone with a brain defy the logic then I need to state my opposition. Not saying anything is right, but thats an entierly different argument. I dont care if their parents taught them anything at all. What difference does that make to an intelligent mind. Sure it has an effect, but I dont believe all the things my parents do.
Also Im not trying to force them to change their minds. After all, they are human and are unlikely to just come back and say "yes, you are right, I was wrong to think gays, blacks, whites, women or whatever else was inferior.
No... I will not stand by and say nothing. Voices must be heard. Im here to cause waves and words or communication do more than you give it credit for.
You must be logged in to post a reply!