ForumsWEPRGay Marriage-Should it be Legal or not?

565 58172
turret
offline
turret
1,641 posts
1,405

I personally think that it should be legal cause it doesnt hurt anybody and everyone has the right to marry who they love.

  • 565 Replies
AnaLoGMunKy
offline
AnaLoGMunKy
1,587 posts
3,110

I just realised it's pointless to discuss...


Well I dont believe that. Im not here to change minds. Im here to cause waves and further my understanding of... stuff.
davidmeads85
offline
davidmeads85
3 posts
0

Avorne - I sense 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. 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. There is no right or wrong here, it simply is what it is. 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. 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. 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. 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"

Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,113 posts
655

I'd like to put forward one thing before we proceed - you are in fact sharing the same name as nevetsthereaper - therefore I propose that you are in fact the same person just looking to get back into this thread after failing so hard before.

I am by no means a 'bandwagon jumper'. I argue the points I feel deserve arguing and try to defend the minorities from bigots. Until either of us can prove that Homosexuality is just genes or just choice then we might as well leave that alone - and why should it matter? Homosexuals deserve ALL the things that heterosexual couples have.

wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,462 posts
1,955

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. 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"


This is fine and good. However, when you become a dominant species that no longer struggles to survive then quirks may appear. Furthermore such genes can be in there for population control.
Moe
offline
Moe
1,728 posts
2,670

When a species develops a trait that leaves it at a disadvantage they only end up in one place, extinct. 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"


Good luck finding an entire species that developed the same harmful trait.
nevetsthereaper
offline
nevetsthereaper
642 posts
0

haha wrong again avorne. david is not me, for sho......

you'll never get it............

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,544 posts
2,210

There is no right or wrong here, it simply is what it is. 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. 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. 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. 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"


I've already pointed out how same sex couples can produce viable offspring through in vitro fertilization and other methods are being developed. Weather then can or can not produce children shouldn't be a factor in weather they should or should not get married. There are plenty of same sex couples who also are unable to produce children for various reasons. I've already showed how biological forces are at work through gene expression. As for your argument about it not being in nature humans are not the only species to display homosexual behavior, thousands of other species have been observed with this same trait.
Asherlee
offline
Asherlee
5,065 posts
1,175

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.

greenupgroove
offline
greenupgroove
23 posts
30

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.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,544 posts
2,210

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.
Hypermnestra
offline
Hypermnestra
26,393 posts
295

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.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,544 posts
2,210

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.
Hypermnestra
offline
Hypermnestra
26,393 posts
295

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?

Hypermnestra
offline
Hypermnestra
26,393 posts
295

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.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,544 posts
2,210

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?
Showing 136-150 of 565