Forums → WEPR → Gay Marriage-Should it be Legal or not?

I wasn't using it as my argument, as i have previously posted. It was relevant/funny, so i thought i'd share.

Yeah I know it was meant as a joke but they are actual arguments that get used.

Yeah I know it was meant as a joke but they are actual arguments that get used.

It's the reason i don't have tall friends though ;]

Hopefully very few people take them seriously.
I would feel better if no one did.

actually many people take many of those as reasons. they just dont think about the sarcastic stupid part of that

Then please explain why there is homosexuality in many different species if it's so incorrect.

cancer is present in many different species... birth defects effected by errors in genetic code are present in different species....

its like opening a can of food with a shot gun. its not what they're meant to be used for. but as long as you have a consenting shot gun and a consenting can of food they're your items and the two interacting can use them however they want (except to kill the other b/c that's punishable by law) ...as for maladies being effected by illicit sex not being any more present than "normal" intercourse. well... for all those who participate in rectal intercourse unprotected... or even protected if you get some of the stuff on you down there some how... you have a higher chance of getting a Urinary tract infection than you would normally. your male part or female part aren't meant to have e. coli found in your colon anywhere near them... as e. coli aren't present in your urinary tract normally... and upon them showing up they bunker down in the tissues that aren't evolved or specialized to accommodate them and they reak havoc on them... causing a rather painful sensation.

the rectal sphincter upon intercourse of that variety can over time get too "exercised" and the muscle can tone enough that its like a muscle builder that tried to scratches his head... the muscle is too big to do what its supposed to and the guy can't scratch his head b/c of his arms. now the sphincter will tone enough so it can't properly close... therefore poo now has the potential to seep out w/o you being able to stop it. The lining of the insides of the colon are also weaker than that of the lady's parts insides... meaning the lady's parts can endure while you might tear your butt insides. Its not meant to go there...whether ur attracted to it on a male or a female. I know that's not the only form of homosexual activity. anatomically/morphologically (that means according to shape... mental argument pro homo would entail physiology of the brain which is a different word than morphological... meaning according to shape and where things are located (sperm tube and egg receptacle) homosexuality is in fact morphologically incorrect usage of those body parts for those actions. but as I'll say later on... that doesn't really matter as long as you have two or more, nowadays, consenting individuals that wanna go on whatever bodily joy ride they wanna go on.


now a similar such example. saying there's no reason to fear illicit intercourse participants is pretty much the same as saying people actually shouldn't be wary of the "unclean" foods that the very same book (be it inspired or not) said should not be eaten. Now why do you suppose most if not all of those foods were listed? I'm sure it was only to control people for the sake of controlling them and in no way founded.. but lets take a 2nd look shall we. These ancient people could observe macroscopic (visible to the naked eye) phenomena (not macroscopic molecular chemistry... lets not get picky here) and put some 2s together w/ some other 2s and come up w/ some merit worthy hypothesis. I would think that after observing a lot of people eating pigs in ancient times when food processing was poor you could witness enough people contracting trichonella to know that it was bad for you. I would also think that one could also note that people that ate lots of pork died of heart attacks (i'm sure the symptoms would be highly similar even if cutting up dead people didn't happen much)... compared to those who didn't eat the "unclean" animals. Pork is high in sodium. Chronic ingestion of really high amounts of sodium can effect chronic high blood pressure... chronic high blood pressure effects hypertrophy of different parts of the heart (and warped valves). this hypertrophy gives all sorts of heart problems... and alot of the time will give you a heart attack.

I've also heard that some of these hoofed animals that are "forbidden" are also highly permeable to impurities and other unhealthy things via their hooves and/or feet from the ground. so them picking up nasty stuff from the ground isn't necessarily the healthiest thing in the world. if consumption of a lot of this food compared to lack of consumption of this food were noted over time then I'm sure you could find a trend saying that the "lack" thereof lived a lot longer... or just longer on average comparatively.. therefore any ancient person paying attention worth his weight in salt would say those foods are bad. ...and telling people to be wary of these foods would be justified. ...killing people just for eating them rather... not so justified in my opinion. so there may be some merit behind other "commanded" things

now this is what I was trying to get at earlier. what I see a lot goes something like this... the discrimination against all things related to illicit intercourse was unfounded and all of these ultra conservative stay a virgin till marriage people are crazy and have always been crazy. and I was trying to curb the distaste for the ancient people and show how such thoughts could come about. so I'll try it again.

now what is a practical reason for being wary for all things illicit? in ancient times people couldn't investigate too much b/c the technology wasn't there. ...but they could observe a few things. these epiphanies they had could've come from legit deistic sources... or they could've put 2 and 2 together and thought it was a god given epiphany or they could've just put 2 and 2 together and marketed it as a god given epiphany. What the mentality later became is irrelevant. (A tool to control people for the sake of controlling them is what you'll often see...) I for one get bored with doing anything just for the sake of doing it regarding a social life after too long. ...but if I thought I had figured something out that no1 else really could comprehend that I thought needed to be implemented whatever way possible then I would've exhausted every way possible...

people in positions of power aren't charged with making everyone happy nor are they charged with insuring that everyone has equal rights. they are charged with protecting as many people as they possibly can under their care. whether they are corrupt or hypocritical is irrelevant... the ideal leader in an ancient time is supposed to be the chief who plays whatever role he/she need be to keep his/her people safe. All of the other stuff is secondary to the overall safety of their charge.

In nature, animals and people don't herd together for the sake of socializing and happy fun-time primarily.... primarily if they come together as a herding group they do so for protection. So whatever is seen as a compromise to the health of the herd (whether ignorantly unaware that their wrong or not) justifies action against those involved in the compromisation (don't think that's a real word... deal w/ it)of the herd.

The misconception that you might get here is that I now must prove that illicit sex is in fact more harmful for the overall group of people as opposed to only having intercourse within marriage(be it polygamous or monogamous). That view is false. All I have to do is prove that the person in charge who took note of certain phenomena could make the hypothesis that illicit intercourse compromised the over all herd... and hence there would be the birth of rules that restricted illicit intercourse and restricted whatever was left over... and further actions if the person thought necessary. ...it would then become the accused position to prove that its foreseen compromising of the herd isn't true. Until it proves that it isn't a detriment it must be treated with a wary eye b/c the wariness is probably founded on either sound logic or bad logic. When you're dealing with the entire herd as opposed to the individual's safety you must as the leader choose the herd if it comes down to it. Its like cutting off a gangrenous appendage and distancing yourself from it to save the rest of the body. When you hold other people's lives in your hands you can't just afford to wait some things out and see how they turn out. You could possibly have everyone die or get ill. If I were a leader, I'm not sure I could decide to not take action when everyone's lives were possibly at stake... especially in an ancient world where I would know nothing about how diseases worked or what exactly they were. All I would know is that they are bad and some of them can spread... and some of those that can spread can infect/afflict/kill mass amounts of people.


Now I must prove that the things termed "illicit" can be observably detrimental to large numbers of people. Every story I've ever seen that has mentioned prostitution has mentioned all sorts of diseases that go with it... that spread because of it... that kill people. I would think that doing something with a prostitute and noticing a day or so later that your area hurt like fire could be linked to the prostitute... and then you could make the assumption that having intercourse w/ people who've had intercourse w/ lots of people is observably detrimental and transmittable to other people.

Observing that oral actions could transmit a lower area malady to the face could show that it is transmittable in a different way. People being around other people with lets say bacterial infections b/c of intercourse infecting other people that've never had intercourse could show that it is transmittable by means other than intercourse.... and therefore perceivably much more dangerous to the population.

Seeing these people die from necrotic untreatable at the time appendages and body parts would show that what they had was dangerous and that if they had had intercourse w/ lots of other people who'd done the same you might surmise that it gets spread that way and should be stopped.

for those married who weren't afflicted by their parents (they're clean) who never went outside of marriage and never got sick it could be viewed that these couplings were a lot safer than non-married multi-partner people. ...and not only to themselves but to the people around them.

you might say that I must delve further into the safety of the heterosexual marriage dynamic to prove that it itself is safe... no... not really. I don't. As it is necessary and the only method at the time that provided progeny. Even an ancient people would see that removing all female and male interactions alongside the other interactions would cease to produce children and therefore they would die out... therefore it must occur. And if you were to even limit it in any way it would be to limit it to marriage. This would make the position of these people on everything else to be set to "unnecessary." They would be unnecessary risks since mere observation could be used to deduce that intercourse is tied to the diseases.

Now albeit the distaste for homosexuality for the sake of it being homosexual isn't much in the way of bad except its not hetero marriage intercourse... but the observation of groups of people either admitting to the act or being caught in the act of participating in mass intercourse would be foresee-ably as bad as hetero mass non-married intercourse... and since it doesn't produce off-spring it is an unnecessary risk. All it would take to cause further distaste for this demographic is the proof that disease could spread between homosexuals. It would then surely be seen as an action with no benefit of furthering man-kind... only a means for disease vectors to spread to different people....some of which wouldn't be homosexuals. Therefore you could say that the homosexual people could be seen by someone who has taken notice of how the phenomena of sickness can spread through them w/o the production of children and feel they are an unnecessary risk and want them to stop. If I were to have lived in such a world where I didn't understand the way the diseases worked, but only knew that they did spread and that they did hurt people I'd want the ones who could possibly be unnecessarily spreading it to stop. Which would mean advocating intercourse within marriage, being virginal till marriage, and avoiding people who were known to have been "unclean" or to have committed "unclean" acts(what is now defined as -> std or other disease related)

what some of you imply is that in a world where we don't know anything other than certain actions might effect maladies that hurt people and that we have no way of studying it to find out how to cure it, circumvent it, and/or destroy it we should just continue to do them and that telling people that even tho they don't want to to abstain from doing them is wrong... when not doing that not only in your minds eye maybe start an epidemic (reaffirming that you don't know anything of the logistics of what you're dealing with...only that it does in fact exist, jump hosts, and possibly maime if not kill them.) and do damage to a lot of your following and possibly even kill you. You imply that not being defensive about the health of people (which means the health of yourself to an extent) when you've observed that these things do happen (it would be plainly observable to people w/ no tech...then not knowing what they're observing would further the reason for being defensive about it amirite?) If there is reasonable suspicion in that day and age that it could do more harm than good then I say its justifiable to take action against it and to promote the "safer necessary intercourse" alternative. I wouldn't agree with the stoning part tho...

Only once these controversial practices have proven that they are now safe... or never were truly detrimental would the people have reason enough to cease the antagonization of those who partake in those actions.

An example that is founded in its antagonization of the people who participate in it would be those who have intercourse with monkeys. From what I'm told that's how aids originated anyway. Therefore we see someone about to consummate their relationship with a monkey and we tell them not to do that and they tell us to leave them alone and go away... they can do what they want with their body.... well we see how that turned out the first time it happened and know that the person could contract aids possibly and then spread it to other people... I would think we would be morally obligated to stop that individual from consummating that monkey... and even if we later found out the monkey didn't have anything and we just stopped the guy from having a good time I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep because I'd know I advocated what I knew at the time was the best thing to do... which was to stop him from pursuing his "freedom to do whatever the hell he wanted to do with his body"

now in the current day we know the logistics and parameters of most of these diseases. we know so much more about everything. there is little or no need for us to play defense anymore. we've even cured someone of aids... we can treat other diseases that would in previous times eat/rot people away. Any justified (justified as in reasonable doubt in its safety) doubt we had in the practices has now been put out to pasture. We can now prove that it is just as safe... and with better living conditions things are a lot cleaner than back then so there is less going around to begin with. The sentiment I am trying to express is that it is bad that stuff happened the way it did in hindsight... but in a dark age world there is some merit in its justification....and there are perfectly easy observations that could've been made that would effect such conclusions as to such illicit behaviors having a very high likelihood of being unhealthy for the populace and thus worth keeping from happening(prostitution still effects badness...so i guess we were right on one end). Now that we know more, we can evolve past just wanting to effect safety and allowing for the happy fun time I mentioned earlier. Safety isn't so much a dire issue anymore. Everyone knows the parameters of everything they're dealing with. They can even be tested/treated for them as opposed to being rotted away to death. These so called theoretical "rights" people talk about aren't so much rights in reality as they are privileges of individuals who are under the domain of a governing body who has developed enough passed the dark ages to be able to confidently give them out and know that the repurcussions to its people will be negligible or even non existent. ...which is where we are now. So like I said earlier, two or more consenting individuals now have the ability to know whether or not their partner(s) are clean... and they can protect themselves otherwise(to an extent)... thus these consenting individuals can go have a field day with themselves for all I care. (unless ur killing each other as a part of some weird fettish...then I think we might wanna think about stepping in... but then again you might not want us to)

so in conclusion... homosexuals are not only just as acceptable... they should've gotten rights as all other people have as soon as we proved our justified scare was nothing to be scared about. (not in accordance w/ some faiths still... but then again that might be a case of something being archaic an no longer needing to apply...but since books are static (unless u rewrite it differently) they don't change with time... maybe that decision is a faith thing)

and remember... justification isn't proving its bad in this case. its having a reasonable doubt in its safety enough to try and promote that people do otherwise... and that hypocrisy only calls into question the morals of the hypocrite... not the ideal they claim to but do not follow.

and i don't agree w/ the hate mongering that went along w/ it... but for those who felt they "knew" bad things to not be able to change it even tho they fore saw danger would incite a more ardent effort and the process would repeat until one or the other ended up run off or dead.... and then it would pretty much be stuck at that intensity. The fear is now irrational since it has been proven so.

In a world where everything was dirty tons of things could give you diseases... as I said before... being defensive for the greater good of the people would be better than having everyone go out an act like bonobo monkeys and spreading the sicknesses to everyone.

but those are just my thoughts and ramblings... so go do whatever you wanna do... I don't care

it is bad and it is illegal.
boys for girls.
girls for boys.
others are illegal.

Illegal =/= bad
Why do you think it is bad? Why should it be illegal? How does it influence other people if two gay people marry each other?

But beeing a gay is...Eww

Why is gay eww? Gay isn't a thing, it's a persons sexuality, therefore part of their identity.

it is bad and it is illegal.
boys for girls.
girls for boys.
others are illegal.

Do you mean homosexuality is bag/illegal.
Rather confusing statement.
All i took from it was perhaps marrying animals is bad/illegal, as it's an "other" to homosexuality/hetro

You know i dont have any (and i will not have) gay friend but its their choise

lol you might be surprised. there are more gay people then you think and one of your closest friend might be one and doesnt tell you just because he is afraid to lose you. i have a friend ive known for ages and in the end... well i wont tell anything more but i am the only one s/he trusted to come out too (except of course people who are like him/her)

lol you might be surprised. there are more gay people then you think and one of your closest friend might be one and doesnt tell you just because he is afraid to lose you.

This is very true, i didn't tell a lot of my friends i was gay until i became more comfortable.

Prove that it is, objectively, bad

An interesting proposition. I'd suggest you work on your own proof that discriminating against homosexuals is objectively bad. My challenge is about as rhetorically useful as yours.

Gay isn't a thing, it's a persons sexuality,

Which is a thing, you know. A person's sexuality is a thing.