Gay marriages?

Basically, what I'm saying is that whoever taught you this was wasting their time because they built their theories on a foundation of philosophical balsa wood, and none of it has a logical leg to stand on.

Asshole.

You're still a bad person.
 
yes thats what you study, whether or not you become gay, or is it genetics. Its not a whole course, its a concentration in a phych class through syracuse univeristy. So try one more time to shut me down.
 
Well, considering you've presented no arguments, that shouldn't be hard. The onus of proof is on you, so thus far you've shut yourself down by not arguing anything. But what I was attempting to drive through that nearly impenetrable skull of yours is that the characterization of homosexuality as divergent, as "heterosexuality is the norm, let's see what makes people diverge from the norm", is inherently homophobic because it suggests that homosexuality is a perversion of the natural order to begin with, before a single argument has been made, and so the whole discussion is invalidated. Of course, you don't care, because you're a bad person.

You still haven't told us how old you are.
 
dude I hear ya.

Im not even going to bother making an argument because I know all the 15 year olds are going to piss and moan and say I have a religious bias or some bs like that.

Fags shouldn't get married. end of argument
 
And that's an inherently biased characterization. If you frame the discussion in that manner then you've placed one party at a disadvantage before the discussion has even begun and therefore the results are immediately invalidated. If you want to argue that homosexuality is a defect (which seems like an unkind thing to try to prove, but okay), then that should be part of the discourse, and NOT part of the starting point.

Everything is ethically relevant because everything informs a context.
 
you think he is tearing me apart because you agree with him. Just because i dont agree with gays doesnt make me ignorant. So maybe he should accept the fact i'm not changing my mind, if he wants to stick up for his kind of people go right ahead.
 
Wasn't planning on framing anything a certain way or having a starting point with that statement. I wanted to simply mention that. If we're arguing natural v unnatural, perversion v normality, and since most evidence points towards pre-disposition and genetics, then why not apply biological norms to such things?

I don't agree with that logic, because human behavior is much more than simple genetics and genotypical pre-disposition, but if that's the setting imposed on the debate, let's keep it there.
 
I very highly doubt that there is a moment of transformation. But I do

believe that there is a moment of realization. Gay people are not born

gay.

Since you dont really seem to be a holy roller, I would

assume that you believe in a darwinian based theory of evolution. If

so you would be familiar with the theory that evolution is a series of

successful mutations over a period of time to promote the existence of

a species by adapting to their environment. you get where im going? If

you were born gay that would be counter evolution a regression of a

species which would ultimately lead to the species being eradicated.

Republican_enemy posted above that he has studied gays and homosexuality. So he would most likely know along with any other person that has taken a psych class even a basic one that, homosexuality is a result of personal experiences.

Do you know what causes homosexuality in men? women? I dare you to find one homosexual man that truthfully had a good relationship with his father or had a dominant male figure early in his life. I almost guarantee you won't. and vice versa for women.

So if anyone is making false assumptions it is probably you.

How about you go get educated?
 
thank you, for putting all my ideas from recent post into a good form. I was to lazy to re explain all of my views and my views of how personal experiences result in confusion of pereference of sexuality.
 
dude, no offense.... but no.

Im technically on your side, but you've made a nice ass out of yourself so far... it's embarrassing.
 
No. But I'm pretty sure that's an admission of defeat right there. "I don't have a point to make, so I'm just going to call you gay." The problem with the really stupid people in the history of NS, from d-loc to jarossamdb7 to this guy, is that they can't self examine well enough to see what a hole they're digging for themselves.

You can call me gay all you want, I honestly don't take offense, it's sort of like accusing me of having blue eyes or being Argentinian.

I apologize for using words that are too big for you. I know some people don't like to have to make any effort when they're reading; god forbid you should be forced to think before spewing crap online. But I'm afraid I won't be dumbing things down to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

BurgRider: reread above. To use the phrase "what causes homosexuality" is an immediate admission of the unusefulness of your argument. It gets worse when you try to frame things from a "what caused the fall perspective", like, say, "it's because of a bad relationship with the father". If logical debate isn't begun on an even plane then there's no point to having it, and all studies that progress from a polluted original position are equally tainted. It's sort of like studying why being black causes you to commit crimes. Sort of. Not a perfect analogy, but it establishes what I'm trying to say about fallacious argumentative groundwork.

As for Republicanenemy, I have my suspicions as to whether he's actually studied any of this; judging by how he types and the above quote, he sounds about sixteen years old. I give you credit for trying to fight from a corner populated by morons and bigots, it sucks when you're associated with that sort of person from the get go... kind of like left wingers getting stuck in a category with 9/11 conspiracy theorists. And I'm taking you off the bad list because apparently you've actually thought about this.

Bad people list:

Royale

Republican_enemy

Piratemanskier
 
PS- the circle jerk of two (yay, a homosxual metaphor in this context) is getting a bit old. You don't have to congratulate each other every time the other one makes a post you agree with.
 
Usually those who are more regigiously conservative deny homosexuality as natural because it goes against teaching and doctrine, and so when people like Republican_enemy take a predispositioned side, it really slants the argument far too much. As he said, I do agree with JD, but that is not because I was just in that position all along, I let myself be informed. Instead of having a negetive view towards it to begin with, and a similar view of what is natural, which is therefore normal, which is therefore accepted type of shit, I came at it with why? Not why do these abnormal people choose this?

I, too, have taken numerous classes on sexuality, both in a biological and sociological context, to really understand what causes us to do what we do, and I could simply tell you that environments plays a large role in shaping some characteristsics of a person, but the biological construct is more powerful. Ultimately homosexuality is not a choice for many, but it was engraved by the development of parts of the body, such as instrumental glands (which really do dictate a lot of out development/behavoir). This didn't happen due to genes, because it would be difficult to pass down (or if we want to use the Kinsey scale to some degree, perhaps it is passed down). Instead, as I said earlier, it could be (in a non-negetive type of way) that imbalances during key stages of devlopment control much of the outcome. During development, many slight changes can profoundly affect people who are heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, whatever, in many ways that we seldomly consider as "abnormal" because it isn't despised by so many.

And also, it is hard to take somebody like Republican_enemy who views this as "if you support gays, you must be gay yourself" seriously. That would only go to show his very slanted view on the whole thing, making most of what he says so hard to find credible. I'm not trying to change his mind, but it is sad in a way that he would try to hold that view on people that are gay. I'm as hetero as it gets, but shit, it is whack to be so discriminitory towards other people. That is why I would debate this issue (as he asked) because there are all these people who just go out and bash. Not very ethical in my books.

 
i have been making points the last 4 pages of this thread. You just jumped in i am not going to sit here and re write everything. So i didnt call u gay cause i had nothig else to say. I called you gay because your defending them way to much to be straight.
 
i'm several pages late, and maybe it's too late for what i say to be read, but i'll throw it out there anyways.

gay marriage has been argued agaisnt because it is tearing apart our family values.

I understand that some of you are afraid of seeing or being around gays or gay culture etc. however your phobia does not mean that gay marriages should be banned and that we should attempt to remove gay culture from our own.

Gay marriage is not ruining the institute of marriage. The three leading republican presidential candidates have had 8 wives combined. One candidate is morman yet he is the only one to have had only one wife.

-Does this strike you as a bit hypocritical?-

Those that oppose gay marriage because it is destroying family values havent held marriage as sacred as they say it should be?

I understand that marriage is something defined by the church, and therefore the state can not exactly set in place laws to enforce gay marriage, however a gay union to allow gay partners the same legal advantages as heterosexual couples is nessisary.

is it the case that you are so intollerant of others insofar as you cannot extend the same freedoms that you enjoy to them?
 
i dont randomly go out there and bash gays, i am not a mean person in person. I was replying to this thread with my opinion, which happens to be based on faith. Some of these people are going all out with huge threads and seriously why the fuck do they care so much. JD_May thinks hes mad cool and smart using big words and writing stories about gay rights, if you care so much, go fuck your boyfriend and take it to the streets. You know who your argueing with, not fucking scholors, This is fucking NS, where gays and Emo's just arent accepted and why should they be?
 
no it's not how it should be, there is no straight requirement to join NS nor do you have to be straight to ski. Maybe you think you're justified in your hate because it's faith based however what you're doing is wrong and you need to stop.

defending gay rights does not make one gay, it just means they are tollerant of others, and that they understand that everyone deserves equality and fairness.
 
Im not saying you go out and bash gays, but with shit like "Gay ppl are rather disturbing in my opinion...

Homosexuality is wierd, not natural...

Being gay is just a form of being confused, probably mainly the way you were raised..." is a form of bashing,. With that type of shit, none of what you say can really be taken with any amount of validity. It also helps accentuate your ignorance and closed-mindedness.

And obviously, this isn't some scholarly discussion, but that doesn't mean it has to be reduced to common NS fuck yous and stuff. There can be some sophistication to it.
 
i dunno if this has been said, but...

Here in Sweden, im not too sure about the USA, you celebrate a civil union in front of some sort of government official (mayor or otherwise). Then, you have a religious celebration if you so choose in a church, to celebrate your marriage. Marriage is a religious deal. Should churches be forced to acknowledge and celebrate unions that go against their creeds? I don't think so: separation of church and state, freedom of religion...

Many people in sweden do not have a marriage, and stick with their civil union. Why should the gay community try to get something that they are not in a position of getting? It's the same reason i cannot be helped by the United Negro College Fund: i don't apply.

If it's equal rights we want, then civil union, or some other institution that can be made, is what is needed. Having the term marriage and having churches perform them is pushing it into the realm of absurdity and selfishness...

Go for civil union! Seriously... Equal rights should be had. But please, stop advocating for something that is not up there for you to grab. Should a white person be allowed to play the part of Othello simply because they have the right to act?
 
those are all sins, being gay is a sin, masturbation is a sin, all those things are sin. Christ however was killed so that we could be forgiven of those sins
 
on the whole gay rights argument often times the term marriage is used but i believe what is ment is a civil union-- something done by state not by any institute of religion
 
allow it. i do not understand why it is even against the law, it so obviously violates the constitutional rights of americans. the only explanation is that we are all homophobes, which is not an acceptable excuse
 
I see your point, it's very well thought out.

Are you saying that gayness is an imbalance of chemicals?

If you are, you can classify homosexuality and down's syndrome together in the same category.

That creates a whole new debate on whether gayness is a disorder or not.

Most chemical imbalances are unhealthy, not necessarily life-threatening but socially threatening.

 
Well no, because the imbalance I'm referring could ever be so slight. Not only that, I'm not speaking about it as a "defect" or anything negetive like that. It can be similar to something such as downs, but it would be more akin to how some hardwiring and other biological devlopments could affect how somebody remembers math differently than another, or how one person could sprint and the other long distance, or how another person is taller than the other, but in this instance, the attraction to the same sex. It is not as prevelant as heterosexuality, but it does happen. Should it be frowned upon?

As for the actual question of marriage, government santioned marriage, the legal binding ties and benefits that come with it, should be allowed. Religious views should not impede that. If it is civil union for gays, then it should be for all. Whether or not a religious denomination would perform or sanction a wedding is a different matter. The example of Sweden is good.
 
Marriage is a religious process; that's why the priest is there to unite the couple in holy matrimony. If couple's don't want to be religiously bonded, then they should have a civil union done.

Strictly religiously speaking, homosexual couples can't be married. It's a major sin. It's actually impossible.

But in modern times, they can have all the same rights as married couples and becoming legally united, just like marriage except without the religious part in it.
 
wow this is quite the controversial thread.. i really didnt think it was that big but, ya proved me wrong ns
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top