Is it wrong to be gay?

[funmonkey54]

Originally Posted by korny

Why do we draw the line to anything that is consensual? That is the real question.

Why do we draw the line to anything ethical is the question. After all, obviously anyone who says something is ethically or morally wrong is just another one of those stupid Christians and if I don't agree with it morally, its just because they use a religious view.

[funmonkey54]

animals can show consent with each other, just not humans

Proof?

animals can show consent within their own species via whatever communication they use, but they dont speak our languages and thus can't show consent -to- humans, only to their own species / those they can communicate with

Once again, prove it. Animals, particularly domesticated ones, understand commands and can show feelings very well. Ever had a dog?

edit: also to the whole 'allowing homosexual marriage will lead to these other marriages being allowed'

why is this a bad thing? this kind of 'well it could happen' reasoning (especially comparing homosexuality to bestiality, what the fuck) isnt an excuse for discrimination

[/quote]
Once again, you misinterpret what I have said. I am not saying they will lead to these things, I am saying that unless you are in the mood to be blatantly hypocritical, you cannot support homosexuality without supporting polygamy/any-age marriage/etc as the arguments in favor of these are almost identical at the base of them.

And my point on bestiality was put aside a while ago as I do not believe I can fully argue that one. If you would read everything said and really take it into account you would notice that. Also, discriminating and making something illegal are not the same thing. Also, discrimination is not always a bad thing. Unless you believe that we should treat those that have murdered, rape, etc. the same and give them all the same privileges and opportunities as the average citizen.

My argument is that the line that was drawn was perfectly fine and does not need to be changed. as I said earlier, once you allow on exception, you lose all valid reasoning behind not accepting every other alternative with the same arguments.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by funmonkey54

But who is to decide they do not have the maturity to make such a decision? Who gets to decide that any more than someone should decide if it is right for homosexuals to marry? Both are subject to the same "who is to judge" and "where do we draw the line" situation.

And this more delicate issue. It is really not much different. I mean, do you support their rights as well? Because it is not any different in its arguments, so do you support it?

According to Korny, I am standing corrected. This would mean that he believes all homosexual rights advocates support polygamy. Anyone care to argue his/my statement(s)?

Yes, I think that, if several people want to be together, they have the right to.
No, not everyone who defends homosexuality defends poligamy. And it doesn't matter whether I defend poligamy or not, it has nothing to do with defending gay marriage... Approving gay marriage requires small changes in the laws, while poligamy will be much more complicated to deal with legally.

And, concerning the 13 year old stuff... I can use the same line of thought to ask "why can't a 13 year old drive?", "Who is to decide they do not have the capacity to do so?".
Well, there are 30 year olds who don't have the capacity and are much less mature than some 13 year olds.
But we need to establish a line, since there aren't any absolutely precise tests to determine such things. And, again it has nothing to do with gay marriage or hypocrisy. It's a completely different issue, and there is no need to compare such things.

[funmonkey54]

Originally Posted by robertson3r

so now youre comparing homosexuals to murderers and rapists, ok



discrimination in this case IS the same; making gay marriage illegal is discrimination against gays

No, I am not comparing homosexuals and rapists/murderers. I am comparing the "discrimination" involved with them. I am saying something that is illegal, is illegal and does not need to be changed in this case. I assumed you would say that and already had this type out. You seemed like you would misconstrue what I am saying to fit your thoughts, and wa-la! You did just that.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

Yes, I think that, if several people want to be together, they have the right to.
No, not everyone who defends homosexuality defends poligamy. And it doesn't matter whether I defend poligamy or not, it has nothing to do with defending gay marriage...

But it does. How can you defend one but not the other without just saying "Well I think it is wrong"?

Approving gay marriage requires small changes in the laws, while poligamy will be much more complicated to deal with legally.

Well, explain this to me. How would it be much more difficult to change? It too would only take the changing of a few things to instate. Marriage is currently between one woman and one man. Gay marriage just takes the changing of that to any individuals male or female (one of each) and polygamy only means taking out the numbers.

And, concerning the 13 year old stuff... I can use the same line of thought to ask "why can't a 13 year old drive?", "Who is to decide they do not have the capacity to do so?".
Well, there are 30 year olds who don't have the capacity and are much less mature than some 13 year olds.
But we need to establish a line, since there aren't any absoultely precise tests to determine such things. And, again it has nothing to do with gay marriage or hypocrisy. It's a completely different issue, and there is no need to compare such things.

There is need to compare such things as we are comparing the ideals behind the situations, not the literal situations. Also, that line just helps to prove my point. I am sure that if given the chance and opportunities to learn how to drive, many 13 year olds would.

With gay marriage being allowed, I believe you said it best yourself.

But we need to establish a line, since there aren't any absoultely precise tests to determine such things.

The line we have established is perfectly fine and does not need to be changed to include these different situations.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by funmonkey54

Well, explain this to me. How would it be much more difficult to change? It too would only take the changing of a few things to instate. Marriage is currently between one woman and one man. Gay marriage just takes the changing of that to any individuals male or female (one of each) and polygamy only means taking out the numbers.

There is need to compare such things as we are comparing the ideals behind the situations, not the literal situations. Also, that line just helps to prove my point. I am sure that if given the chance and opportunities to learn how to drive, many 13 year olds would.

With gay marriage being allowed, I believe you said it best yourself.

My point is that they are different issues and need to be treated differently. Approving one doesn't mean that the others should be approved.

So, after all, are you for or against gay marriage? Your comparisons didn't make that clear.

If you are against, do you have any arguments besides this comparison?

[funmonkey54]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

My point is that they are different issues that need to be treated differently. Approving one doesn't mean that the others should be approved.

So, after all, are you for or against gay marriage? Your comparisons didn't make that clear.

If you are against, do you have any arguments besides this comparison?

But what I am asking is how you justify supporting one and not the other?

I am in fact against it. I believe that a line was drawn and really does not need to be changed. If homosexuals care to live together and do what they want within the bounds of the law, then they are fine. I do not agree with their choices but they are keeping it legal. This push to change the law to suit their lifestyle choices further is not necessary.

And my arguments beyond this comparison include bringing in religion and would lead to a debate over how ethical morality in law is. I am avoiding those so as not to derail the thread any further than it already has gone.

So, in wraps, do I have more arguments? Yes, I do. But I believe this is the strongest argument, outside of bringing in religion/moral controversies/etc., and is fully valid.

[anzolr]

This thread doesn't seem like it will sway anyones opinion, because most of us are really stubborn and arrogant. We love to grasp onto our own ideologies of what is right or wrong in behaviors that have no serious harmful side-effects, and toss out any evidence and call BS. I'm not saying EVERYBODY is like that, but from what I've seen... most people are like that. I, personally, think that we shouldn't advertise homosexual behavior, just as we shouldn't advertise premarital sex. It MAY have an influence on certain people, people who do not know how to think on their own (which is more people than you think).
Continue arguing, but it will loop on forever. Some of us believe that our personal beliefs are what makes us who we are, and to an extent I respect that. Just don't try to convince someone else they are wrong. You don't HAVE to stoop to their level to make a point.

EDIT: Kindly state your point

[fido123]

I can't really just take the last glomp of 40 posts and respond to them all, so I'm just going to generalize.

First of all I'm leaving religion out of this 100%, and I think we all understand that it's wrong under religion, however we're not all a member of a religion that shares these views, or belong to a religion at all so can we leave all religious bias out of posts please? We understand.

I think when deciding whether something is right or wrong, you have to look at the negative consequences on others (including animals), and on society. If there are negative consequences that outweigh the positive ones, then it's wrong.Also, I don't think anybody can claim that their opinion is 100% correct when saying that it is not a choice. Either way, if homosexuality was a choice, it's not like one could choose not to be one. If I could choose I wouldn't be one at all, I try not to be. Why would somebody WANT to be one?

@GG: I'm just going to disregard everything you said because everything you need to read has already be posted but you're obviously just a stupid ****. If I wasn't gay I would enjoy heterosexual activity and you're honestly hilariously retarded. Keep posting, it's entertaining. The reason I think this is because you're using no rational reasoning in your opinion and yet holding such a strong stance on it. Use rational and I'll actually listen but I don't think you have the mental capacity. OH AND IM SORRY BUT YEAH DONT TAKE OFFENSE TO WHAT I'M SAYING. That makes it ok right?

[funmonkey54]

Originally Posted by anzolr

This thread doesn't seem like it will sway anyones opinion, because most of us are really stubborn and arrogant. We love to grasp onto our own ideologies of what is right or wrong in behaviors that have no serious harmful side-effects, and toss out any evidence and call BS. I'm not saying EVERYBODY is like that, but from what I've seen... most people are like that. I, personally, think that we shouldn't advertise homosexual behavior, just as we shouldn't advertise premarital sex. It MAY have an influence on certain people, people who do not know how to think on their own (which is more people than you think).
Continue arguing, but it will loop on forever. Some of us believe that our personal beliefs are what makes us who we are, and to an extent I respect that. Just don't try to convince someone else they are wrong. You don't HAVE to stoop to their level to make a point.

EDIT: Kindly state your point

I see what you are saying here, but more than anything, I believe most of us are really here to hear the other points of view. I know that I personal am trying to understand how those that support it think and I try to get them to think out their view points and back what they say just as much as anything. I am not so much trying to sway their opinion as much as I am trying to get them to recognize the validity in my points and to maybe give them a better understanding of the other point of view. I can only speak for myself here, but I would venture to guess there are others who are doing the same.

After all, this is a place to discuss, debate, and invoke critical thought more than anything.

[Squeek]

Originally Posted by Afrombean

Right. Sodomy can cause damage to the colon, while drugs like marijuana are totally safe in every way.

When did I mention sodomy? I didn't. I said being gay is not harmful to your body. Male gay sex may be, sure, but the act of loving someone the same gender is not harmful to your body.

Having gay sex is not a biological imperative. Nor is doing drugs, unless the person is physiologically addicted. Sex itself could be called a biological imperative, but specific kinds are personal preference, not imperatives. For example, a pedophile might be turned on by little girls and want to plow them, but it's not biological drive that leads them to wanting to plow little girls. All the biological drive does is make them want to plow something, it's up to the individual to decide what.

You're once again confusing homosexual love for gay sex. I never said gay sex.

The fact that some people love people of the same gender is hard-coded into their DNA.

Now, as for this one...

Guru, I shouldn't even give you the time of day. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You're blinded by bias from somewhere in your life. I'm not going to even make a guess as to where (though in my mind, I already know), but seriously, your kind of bias is not welcome here at all.

Originally Posted by GG_Guru

First of all, don't even start with that whole ****** sh*t alright? I don't wanna hear it. You do it all the time it's all part of the subliminal mind mal-f*ckin ****** sh*t you fags pull all the time, only I can see this sh*t coming all the way from Cleveland. Don't think I'm not on to you fido, you throw a little something here, you say a little something there, you drop a line about this, you make an opinion about that, your funk goes plan to seed and next thing you know, everyone's sucking dick. You fags are like Jehova witnesses or vampires or something as soon as one of you thinks you're gay, you want everyone else in the whole world to be gay too.

No. That's not what this is about. It's about equal rights. Did the demand for equal rights for African Americans or Asian Americans turn everybody Black or Asian? Did the demand for equal rights for women turn everybody into a woman? No, it didn't. This is simply a demand for equal rights for American citizens. Nobody is saying you have to be gay. Feel free to be like 95% of the rest of the population in continuing to love members of the opposite sex. Gay people just want equal rights.

I mean, who the hell are you anyway? You confused f*cked up backwards cocksucker? What you think you know who you are because you can express yourself? Cause you're finally out of that closet and you can be the real you is that it? Look I know I'm not supposed to say anything here cause as a black heterosexual male, by definition I am wrong about everything from jumpstreet. I know that, I know I can't win but you see this kid here? This kid used to be one of my friends, and all of a sudden he tells me he likes men, and I gotta sit here and pretend like I dig that? I don't think so, I don't even know how to f*cking deal with that ok? And maybe I've had a little too much to drink last night, and maybe I'll apologize to fido in the evening but for right now, I'm gonna rip him a new f*cking asshole.

It's only backwards to you because you don't understand it. And as for your friend, all you have to say is that you don't swing that way. That simple.

What is he? He's seeking equal rights. Just like your culture did all those years ago. I'm sure you would agree that in America, "All men are created equal". Equal rights for all citizens in America. This isn't hard.

You were born a man and unless you're hermaphodite, mother nature does not f*ck up, being gay is not a physical thing it's a pyschological situation. (Look you were probably molested as a little kid? And you got all f*cked up and insecure about your sexuality when you hit puberty and you thought to yourself "My gosh! I MUST be gay!") Well you're NOT! You were born a little boy. You didn't speak with a lisp? Fags put that on as an accent, see that is an affectation. When you were a little kid, you didn't act all fruity like you did now but there is an advantage that you fags have that all straight guys dont. Fido doesn't have to deal with chick drama all the time.

First of all, understand that not all homosexual love is male-male. I've said this before. Lesbians exist. There are women who love each other. This is typically forgotten because we like lesbians. They're visually appealing, even to heterosexual men.

Second, whose to say all homosexual men engage in those activities? This is not arguing that we should all be flamboyant. This is an argument for equal rights.

Third, to assume that all homosexuals were victims of abuse is pretty pathetic. Just because you don't understand something must mean that there's some logical tie to something else you don't understand. This is another rationalization method used by the same people who probably told you that being gay is wrong.

I've got no problem with the whole 'being gay' aspect fido. Alright? I really don't. You wanna f*ck men in the ass? That is your own business I've got no problem with that, I like ass f*cking as much as the next guy! I just don't think you need to parade it down in the middle of the street telling everybody you're into that sort of thing. Hey if it's your thing, and you wanna be left alone to do your thing then shut the f*ck up and keep it your thing and I'm not talking about high in the back of the closet either, just don't shove it in my face.

I want you do to something for me. I want you to go back in time. I want you to go back to when black people were slaves in America. I want you to tell them that they shouldn't revolt. Being slaves is good for the economy, after all. I want you to tell them later, after they're emancipated, that they shouldn't be allowed to vote. They have no right after all. Why parade about wanting to vote? Why protest?

Again, the thing you're not understanding here is that they're seeking equal rights, just like African Americans, Asian Americans, women, etc.

The next thing I want you to do is take a hard look at where your morality comes from.

Onto the next one.

Originally Posted by funmonkey54

Just curious here, where do you draw the line? I mean, the whole premise of the argument that homosexuals should have all the same rights as a straight couple is that they are in love and that should be the basis of a marriage. So, then, if a man were to fall in love with an animal, should they not be allowed to get married and carry out their lives together? Or, maybe on a slightly less drastic scale, should a child at age 13 and an adult of, say, 50 be allowed to hook up if they are in love? Or how about this one that exists as an issue today in certain areas. If 3 or 4 people fall in love, why should they all not be allowed to get married?

1) Bestiality is not allowed. There's a line drawn. It makes sense, because this is not human-human love. Not that I condone it, but some people ARE sexually attracted to animals, and they WILL engage in it. However, the Government does not need to recognize it. This is due to consent.

2) Children are off-limits. Though, in other countries, it's OK to marry kids, it won't be in our country because the age of consent is 18. Line drawn.

3) Multi marriage should be allowed. I don't see why not. Everybody's consenting. If they're all in love with each other, why not? Who are you to deny love?

Where I get stuck on this is that if we are to accept the one situation of homosexuality, how can we deny the others their right to carry out lives together as well? They can present all the same arguments homosexual advocates bring forth today and they would in fact, unless you do not believe in the validity of your own points, be equally valid in defending their case. How can you defend homosexuality being nothing more than an equal alternative, but not defend other alternatives without stepping in with some level of hypocrisy. Unless of course all of you that support the homosexual lifestyle support these others as well. In which case I stand corrected.

It's easy. Don't be an idiot and think about it for three seconds and you'll find it out.

Consent. Done.

Being gay is not a sexual fetish. It is love between two humans, just like normal love. Fetishes are designed as the enhancement to love.

Also, I support any fetish as long as it doesn't result in non-consentual harm. People are wired to be attracted to different things. Everybody has different sexual fetishes. I can only hope you live in an environment that supports yours.

Originally Posted by funmonkey54

I believe that when I was 13, I could have made a conscious decision then. While I am more mature now, the same could be said from the perspective of a 50 year old. They could say those that are 30 do not deserve to make a decision on marriage or relationships because they are less mature than a 50 year old. Who is to say that they are not mature enough to make that decision?

At 18, you'll look back at all the decisions you made when you were 13 and wonder if you were retarded. You really don't know anything about the world at 13. That's why the age of consent is 18.

Also, what about the polygamy. I don't see many people touching on that fact. What is your opinion and where do you believe we draw the line?

Wait, you have a problem with polygamy? Do you understand that human beings are the only species on the planet who attempt to be monogamous? Really, we're the only ones who think monogamy is better than polygamy. Isn't it also interesting that human beings are the only species on the planet who have negative opinions on homosexuality?

This is what I am saying. I mean really, no one has the right to draw any lines on these arguments. But to my points in saying all this, I am pretty sure we all agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere or chaos will reign more than it already does. I think we need to leave the line drawn where it is because in this crazy idea of everything must be politically correct there is only negative to come. If gay people want to hook up, go for it. But if it really is love and all, keep it to yourself. You can publicly say it, but the legal marriage should stay with the currently drawn line, because once you allow one exception, you really cannot combat the others without an awfully big hole of hypocrisy.

There's no chaos. This is madness on YOUR part. You're saying two human beings who love each other CANNOT get married. They CANNOT love each other in public. They CANNOT be members of religions or certain organizations. Just because they love each other.

Take a hard look at what you're saying here! You're saying two people who love each other are not human beings. You deny them their rights as citizens of this country because they love each other.

No, I am not comparing homosexuals and rapists/murderers. I am comparing the "discrimination" involved with them. I am saying something that is illegal, is illegal and does not need to be changed in this case. I assumed you would say that and already had this type out. You seemed like you would misconstrue what I am saying to fit your thoughts, and wa-la! You did just that.

First of all, it's spelled "voila". It's French.

Second of all, it's not illegal to be gay. It's immoral in some uptight religious communities and you don't get the benefits of a married couple if you hook up, but it's not illegal.

I am in fact against it. I believe that a line was drawn and really does not need to be changed. If homosexuals care to live together and do what they want within the bounds of the law, then they are fine. I do not agree with their choices but they are keeping it legal. This push to change the law to suit their lifestyle choices further is not necessary.

You're saying "you can love each other just don't let us see it!". You're basically saying homosexuality is a sexual fetish. It's not.

I ask you to explain your attraction to females. I know you're 15 and you don't even understand your own body yet, but explain to me why you love females. It doesn't make sense to me as someone who loves... television.

You can give me all the justification you want about why loving females leads to babies, but that still doesn't explain why you love females. You love females because the female body is visually pleasing to you. Homosexuals love members of their gender because the sight of those bodies is visually pleasing to them. Why is this difficult for you to understand?

[mhss1992]

+1 to everything Squeek said.

Originally Posted by funmonkey54

But what I am asking is how you justify supporting one and not the other?

Well, if I didn't make it clear enough, here is what I believe: I am in favor of every relationship that is consensual between the people involved, as long as they have enough maturity to deal with this choice, and it doesn't harm anyone.

Originally Posted by funmonkey54

I am in fact against it. I believe that a line was drawn and really does not need to be changed. If homosexuals care to live together and do what they want within the bounds of the law, then they are fine. I do not agree with their choices but they are keeping it legal. This push to change the law to suit their lifestyle choices further is not necessary.

Their choices are based on what they like, and they didn't choose to like the same sex. You don't care about the line being changed simply because you're not gay. Why do straight couples deserve more benefits? Just because they are the majority?

Originally Posted by funmonkey54

And my arguments beyond this comparison include bringing in religion and would lead to a debate over how ethical morality in law is. I am avoiding those so as not to derail the thread any further than it already has gone.

So, in wraps, do I have more arguments? Yes, I do. But I believe this is the strongest argument, outside of bringing in religion/moral controversies/etc., and is fully valid.

I'd like to hear the "moral controversies" you're talking about. I could provide a lot of arguments against religion's view on this, but I will just say this: if people have the right to choose their religion and believe it's right, why do they think they have the right to deny the rights of people who didn't choose their sexual orientation?

[fido123]

Holy **** thank you Squeek so much holy **** thank you I just had to make this post of appreciation for taking the time to read through all of GG's post and actually intelligently respond to it. I wanted to say all of that was just not in the mood nor could I put it in better words.


EDIT: I agree with the end of your post though GG

Originally Posted by GG

I've got no problem with the whole 'being gay' aspect fido. Alright? I really don't. You wanna f*ck men in the ass? That is your own business I've got no problem with that, I like ass f*cking as much as the next guy! I just don't think you need to parade it down in the middle of the street telling everybody you're into that sort of thing

I think too many gays do this, I am not one of them along with many others I know. If you do stereotype don't, it's like saying all black people love rap culture.

[MrRubix]

I second absolutely every point Squeek said -- right on target.

[Plan_Bsk81127]

What I love about stuff like this is how when the word "gay" is mentioned, the first thing that comes to most people's mind is the thought or image of a guy having butt secks with another guy. As if that is all being gay is about. Just thought it was kind of funny since I seemed to noticed that out of a few comments in this thread.

But in general, idc if one is gay, sure it wierds me out a bit, especially when they take it a bit too far, but doesnt bother me. They should have every right as any other person in love. Just thought I put my opinion on the topic while I posted here.

[MrRubix]

You know, the fact that so many people focus on the sex in this argument is pretty sad. What people do behind closed doors is their own business. Why do we need to discriminate based on those things? So what if we know how gay people have sex? It doesn't matter and it really needs to be left out of the argument altogether.

When you get right down to it, does anyone have a legitimate reason against gay right equality? Most people say "a marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman under God," and yet there's nothing preventing, say, atheists from getting married. Why does it matter if two people of the same sex wish to have that bond officialized? Do you feel that it somehow demeans heterosexual bonds?

I just think the whole thing's silly. Someone give me an actual, hardcore reason that is something other than "Whine whine whine."

[MrRubix]

This is the Critical Thinking forum. It's meant to be serious. Don't bring trolling/whatever here.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by robertson3r

well funmonkey's is that legalizing gay marriage necessitates legalizing bestiality and polygamy and **** so have fun with that one

It doesn't necessitate those things at all. Like Squeek said, bestiality is illegal because an animal cannot consent. So, that argument is void. And, polygamy? Personally, I have nothing against polygamy/polygyny/polyandry, because it doesn't violate any fundamental human rights. Again, someone give me a good reason why this shouldn't be legalized.

[funmonkey54]

Originally Posted by monstr

I think it is dumb when people try to use biblical to say that God doesn't think gay is ok and their going to hell. And if that is so, then straight people would be going to hell because there are couples who do infidelity ( sin ) rape children ( sin ) and the biggest one ... GOD HATES RELIGION.

What are you talking about?

Also, I am not saying it necessitates those things. I am just saying it would be hypocritical to support one but not the other. Also, I have already (multiple times might I add) disbanded my statement on bestiality as not true nor needed. I was wrong in saying that. Squeek apparently didn't see it or just felt like responding to something I already admitted was out of line. He seems to enjoy the whole attacking personally when he feels strong about something.

[MrRubix]

Anyways, here's the fundamental issue as I see it:

It's been declared that the US is a Christian nation and that marriage is primarily a Christian function. However, many like to keep marriage as a "Christian function between man and woman" as denoted in the bible:

http://www.gotquestions.org/marriage-Bible.html
http://bible.org/article/homosexuali...an-perspective

And, so, many seem to believe that to change "marriage" as it is defined is to be ignorant of its origins and implications. Of course, if this were true, why didn't we see more uprisings against atheists marrying?

But, you know what -- if you want to keep "marriage" as defined as a man-woman pairing, and people absolutely don't want to extend that word to include other forms, then I think that's fine. Calling it something else is fine as long as the rights are equal to those of marriage. I think it's a reasonable compromise that still ensures equal rights.

[Mollocephalus]

marriage is a stupid concept to begin with but it has socially practical applications. many coutries state in their constitutions how their norms are guided by divine teachings and religious boundaries, but it's probably time to move on from that. it's been a good while. christianity, or any other kind of religion for that matter, has ceased to aptly regulate and represent society dozens of years ago.

/religion