In the threads about homosexual marriage all the bigots of this forum keep dodging th emost important question there is to do with this issue and that is why.
Please, only post in this thread if you are against homosexual marriage and you're argument isn't God says so or, personally I find it wrong/wierd/gross etc.
Also, the whoel voting majority thing isn't relevant because I'm not talking about specific places that either do or don't have it. But why should it be an issue that is even worthy of voting for from a specifically legal (ya know, the only one tha matters in this case) point of view
Well, marriage is a religious institution, so if the religions are against it, then that's up to them. However, what about marriage under the law, or civil union. Are as many of the people that are against gay marriage also against gay civil union? If marriage is a religious institution, then let the religions decide for themselves, but should gay couples be given the same rights as straight married couples under the law, that's the question I guess.
ERRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WRONG. Marriage is not entirely a religious institution- there are so many nonreligious marriages that your statement is refuted instantly. Also, the civil union thing is like saying 'well, black people can use drinking fountains, just the black ones.' It's the exact same principle as 'separate but equal' and we all know that's BS. -------
but should gay couples be given the same rights as straight married couples under the law, that's the question I guess.
That's just discrimination! That's not even the 'separate but equal' principle- it's 'separate and totally screwed over.'
Okay, you people all missed the point except for Moegreche. If you didn't have something logical against it you weren't meant to post. Then, when the thread inevitably died without any evidence against my side of the argument all we would have to do is post the link to this thread on any anti homosexual thread. Which from that point onwards asserts that we are right. *facepalm*
I'm against it not only for religious reasons, but also because it's immoral. This country's (America) becoming more and more like Sodom and Gomorrah. Also, gays contribute nothing to the population. lol
Okay. Let me get this straight.
It's not religious reasons.... but you quote sodom and gomorrah. Do you realize how badly you've sabotaged yourself? And you say sodom & gomorrah is bad - the only 'ious' individual offered his daughter up to be raped by men outside rather then them bother the angels.. nice guy.
Above and beyond that, if 'sodom and gomorrah' is not a religious argument, you have to quantify *why* sodom and gomorrah is a bad thing, which you haven't done. You talk about it being immoral, but not why it's immoral.
As for gays not contributing anything to the population.. okay. So, should we also consider guys who fire off blanks & women who don't ovulate as second class citizens because they can't procreate?
Also, gays contribute nothing to the population. lol
Yeah, I was pretty miffed when I read this as well. I thought it might have been a joke with the "lol" thing because a statement like this certainly isn't funny. I can't imagine why someone would even say something like this unless they really were just typing with no thought process whatsoever. While having children is certainly a part of society, it's not the only thing people contribute. In fact, most of our time is spent doing what everyone else in the society does - work, buy stuff we don't need, eat stuff to make us fat, etc. Homosexuals can do these things just as well as anyone else. In fact, their demographic is really strong - you have generally well-educated people who have made a lifestyle choice that saves them tens of thousands of dollars on raising children. And the gay couples that decide to adopt or have children do so by choice and not because of an accident. The presence of gay people and their very secure financial situation is a prime target for advertisers, and this recognition alone I think in enough to refute the quoted statement.
Okay, you people all missed the point except for Moegreche. If you didn't have something logical against it you weren't meant to post. Then, when the thread inevitably died without any evidence against my side of the argument all we would have to do is post the link to this thread on any anti homosexual thread. Which from that point onwards asserts that we are right. *facepalm*
I understood the point of the thread- I was just refuting their 'oints' to eliminate possible arguments that don't work.
This might not going along the lines of the point of the thread, but I noticed that the arguments must be non-religious. So I thought I might add that even though religions may be against gay marriage or gay sex, most religions want you to realize this for yourself. Christianity, for example, has a lot of preachers, priests, and teachers, but in the end, only the person themself can decide whether or not to follow Christianity. That's why even though I disagree with gay marriage, I don't feel it's my right to go against it.
Also, gays contribute nothing to the population. lol
Neither do unmarried people. In fact (if you don't mind another slightly religious standpoint), priests contribute nothing to the population either, but it would be ridiculous to say they contribute nothing at all. Even if you don't agree with them, they at least comfort the followers of their religion.
This might not going along the lines of the point of the thread, but I noticed that the arguments must be non-religious. So I thought I might add that even though religions may be against gay marriage or gay sex, most religions want you to realize this for yourself. Christianity, for example, has a lot of preachers, priests, and teachers, but in the end, only the person themself can decide whether or not to follow Christianity.
Except for the fact Christianity does effect non Christians. Do you really think Prop 8 would have passed if it weren't for the thousands of outraged Christian voters?
Neither do unmarried people
So it's impossible for unmarried people to have children now?
Also, gays contribute nothing to the population. lol
haha this one stupid sentence has created so much controversy... and turned the whole thread towards the appreciation of homosexuals... kinda ironic i find... Anyways i'm hoping you meant Gays can't create children, therefore they can't increase the population... That I would understand, and would sound alot btr than what was said above.. To say they are absolute nothing and have nothing to do with the population is neo-nazi...
Except for the fact Christianity does effect non Christians. Do you really think Prop 8 would have passed if it weren't for the thousands of outraged Christian voters?
Well, I meant that's the way it should be. I know a lot of radical Christians that want everyone to submit to Christianity will inevitably cause this anyway, but I was just saying why even a religious argument doesn't really hold up.
So it's impossible for unmarried people to have children now?
Hmm, good point. Let's say childless people. My point was that that statement shouldn't serve as a legitimate argument.
I was going to point you all to the homosexuality thread, but apparently, mods were having fun and it turned into a locked thread, so.... >_>
It's not the discrimination that gets me. There are still black and other races racism going on today. It's not like the law can prohibit private discrimination or something. All that they can do is just punish the racists. Like that's going to do anything.
No, not even this amounts to the fact that homosexuals lose rights as American citizens. Some examples are that they cannot visit their lover when they are in the hospital when they have a serious injury or about to die; that they get extended jail time when they commit a crime, or get outrageous charges for simple reasons; that they cannot hold high-paying jobs while being homosexual; that they cannot attend public meetings with other people; that they cannot marry (obvious).
No. Compared to the public discrimination, this is much worse and completely ridiculous. You can discriminate them all you want for all I care, the law cannot change the human beings' views. However, the law can give homosexuals the rights that they deserve as American citizens. The majority of people now view homosexuality as immoral and wrong. However, half a decade ago, before the start of civil rights protests, the majority of people viewed black citizens with rights as immoral and wrong. So.. did we just step up our views of people? Course not, we just repeated the history of just how sectional humans really are!
Neither do unmarried people. In fact (if you don't mind another slightly religious standpoint), priests contribute nothing to the population either, but it would be ridiculous to say they contribute nothing at all. Even if you don't agree with them, they at least comfort the followers of their religion.
If y'all are getting upset (especially you Moegreche) over that one message saying gays don't contribute anything to the population. Then you can suck it. It was a joke and y'all need to grow some "sense of humor" trees.
If y'all are getting upset (especially you Moegreche) over that one message saying gays don't contribute anything to the population. Then you can suck it. It was a joke and y'all need to grow some "sense of humor" trees.
Jokes don't work too well with no emphasis on these forums. You need to either give a smiley or a (jk) after the joke so we know you're not serious.
