Homosexual Marriage

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by ToshX

Oh, how I just love feeding you "exceptions" to your statements :P No offense.

None taken, but I honestly see the argument that follows as an attempted formulation of a new rule altogether rather than a mere exception to my rule.

There are many things that could qualify as a crime just for an inaction, and all inactions have results.

...examples please.

If you do not have kids, you are, as another person said, affecting the population, even if it's a really small amount.

You're actually not affecting a population, because the population is question doesn't exist yet, and its existence is based entirely on an action taken actively. Unless you, completely out of nowhere, have found a way to prove non-existent things can have attributes and that they can have them in advance of their causative inactions..?sdg?A??

Honestly, I can barely even force myself to try to acknowledge that your perspective even pretends to be coherent.

They could pass a law, although they probably never will, that you MUST have kids if you are medically able to within 10 years of marriage if you do not already have kids.

This would be a senseless law, as well as an immoral and coercive law. It's also worse than probably over half of the most invasive laws on the books currently because it's an active invasion of freedom rather than a passive one.

This is just like if you just sit around in your car at a green light. If you just sit around all day and never move your car, you can be fined for not taking action and not moving, thus interrupting others in their process of getting from one place to another.

This example bears no similarity to the issue in contention. A road is produced by the government, using money levied from taxes on all citizens. Hypothetically, the road is therefore public property, ownership is shared equally amongst all taxpayers, and because the concept of public property is fundamentally incoherent to begin with, rules inevitably have to be put forth by government to allow individuals to actually utilize the property in question. In the process some number of people inevitably benefit or are harmed more than others.

Now, let's compare this with society, shall we? Who owns society? No one, this is an absurd question and to accept it as otherwise would be to accept the premise that human beings could own other human beings. Who pays for society? This is a more nuanced question, but it's also absurd if carried past a certain point; namely, if we accept the precedent your perspective would set, that human beings are entitled to the existence of a population of other human beings, that would also be a way of proposing human beings could own each other.

Ultimately, all voluntary human interactions can only be said to entitle people to the products of those voluntary human interactions. Anything else is a fundamentally incoherent way of understanding society.

This can be related to having kids in that if a considerable amount of people were to be homosexual and a consider amount didn't have kids, it could affect the population. Even a number as small as 1% changes a lot because if 1% of the population is just gone one year, well, 1% of everything is changed, whether it be bread purchased or water used. That's millions of dollars that aren't being spent any longer(or at least aren't being spent on the same things).

... ... ... ... ;(

This is... an appeal to an economic fallacy of the grandest nature.

I know that argument is a little far-fetched, but it IS possible and even a bit valid for them to make a law such as "you must have children within 10 years or marriage unless you are unable to do so" or something along those lines. At least, it's as valid as saying "you must drive your car up the lane if you are able to do so unless you park to the side of the road."

No. No it isn't. Aside from this being an absurd misunderstanding of economics, as well as a fallacious confusion of inaction with action, it forgets something else important as well. By driving on the road to begin with you accept the terms of use. Stopping is an active violation of these terms. What gives these terms legitimacy? The fact that they were layed down, even in some overly elaborate, ceremonial, needlessly authoritarian fashion where some people "represent" the populace, in the name of, under the finance of, and for the benefit of some set of people.

NO ONE OWNS LIFE. NO ONE CAN BUY LIFE. NO ONE CAN SUBSTANTIATE AUTHORITATIVE TERMS ON WHICH TO LIVE LIFE.

[Sh4d0wRe4p3r666]

This thread should be locked, this topic is the worst I've seen. I'm going to report on this thread.

[Coolgamer]

Homosexuals, transgendered people, bisexuals, and heterosexuals all are people. We all breathe, we all bleed, we all should be able to tolerate each other.

There is no logical reason to prevent same-sex marriage.

I enter the multiplayer lobby or the video chat these days, and I see at least 50 homophobic slurs within two minutes. It's not okay for me to bash someone's religion, but we all can bash sexual identities?

I'm not gay, but I knew someone who was. I say knew because he was brought up Christian and shot himself when he couldn't deal with being gay.

Hell, I've heard all of the arguments against homosexuality. Not one stands up to simple logic.

[Coolgamer]

Originally Posted by Bionikk7

ok so u guys want a reason that doesnt relate to the bible. I'll give you one but im not sure you'll accept it. If your gay, then you cant reproduce. Thus, the human population will go down, and eventually we'll all die out.Sure it'll probably take a long time, but hey? If we keep doing it, it will happen....eventually

Dissipation of vital force

This argument has been phrased since antiquity in agricultural terms, as "casting one's seed on sterile rocks." There was a recognized need for producing more children, generally to keep society going through the traditions of the family and farming. The concern was that more non-procreative sex would "ruin" the participants, reduce society's growth, and perhaps even contribute to social collapse.

It is not clear then why chastity ("casting no seed at all") is, by those same societies, generally seen in a positive light, even when it was imposed on those people.

A possible counter-argument is that there are multiple examples of non-procreative heterosexual sex (as well as masturbation), such as relations between people past the age of conception, commercial sex, and sex in which birth-control measures are used.

And finally, there is a very real question as to how many people the Earth can support. In earlier centuries, few children survived infancy, but current medicine now allows most to lead healthy lives, meaning that fewer pregnancies may be needed. And arguably less procreative sex can relieve population pressures.

[Lamoc]

Originally Posted by Coolgamer

Homosexuals, transgendered people, bisexuals, and heterosexuals all are people. We all breathe, we all bleed, we all should be able to tolerate each other.

There is no logical reason to prevent same-sex marriage.

I enter the multiplayer lobby or the video chat these days, and I see at least 50 homophobic slurs within two minutes. It's not okay for me to bash someone's religion, but we all can bash sexual identities?

I'm not gay, but I knew someone who was. I say knew because he was brought up Christian and shot himself when he couldn't deal with being gay.

Hell, I've heard all of the arguments against homosexuality. Not one stands up to simple logic.

It sad when someone kills themselfs for being discriminated thier whole life and "dissed" on. I knew a couple people that killed themselfs because of all the discrimination and hatred towards them. Its rediculous when people have to hide who they are.

[junkhouse]

my mums married to another woman so i don't really fink i am against it i am for it i don't care some of my best mates are gay

[Murderizer]

I dissagree with them because if it kept going on then not soon but in the far future, there wouldnt be enough children produced and the population could go down alot, unless there's lesbians because they can get babies from a little building, but gays cant do that.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Murderizer

I dissagree with them because if it kept going on then not soon but in the far future, there wouldnt be enough children produced and the population could go down alot

:Sigh: Let's start here. Why would this be bad?

unless there's lesbians because they can get babies from a little building, but gays cant do that.

Having a vagina and functional uterus certainly does make it easier to give birth! Thanks for noticing!

Men can contribute the necessary ingredients for a child regardless of sexual orientation, they just have fairly extreme difficulty doing so directly when they aren't attracted to women.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

:Sigh: Let's start here. Why would this be bad?

I'd rather just stop here: The existence of homosexuals would never cause the heterosexual popluation to die out. That argument is stupid.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[AOL_blows911]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

I'd rather just stop here: The existence of homosexuals would never cause the heterosexual popluation to die out. That argument is stupid.

Seconded.
1) Not letting homosexuals to marry DOES NOT MEAN they'll magically go straight and have kids the natural way. They'll still be homosexuals.

2) Allowing homosexuals to marry DOES NOT MEAN I'll magically go gay. I know a gay guy, and I personally don't like him (because he's an asshat, not becuse he's gay. I really couldn't care less about that). If all of a sudden I could marry him, there's no way in hell I'd go "FINALLY!! Cmon man, lets go get buisy!". I'm straight. He's not. That's that, and a law won't change it.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

I've got to say that's true (Adam Sandler's character in one of his new movies agrees). Forget the population matters because they just don't make any relevance. Stop talking about the damn population of people! Sure there may be gays and lesbians, but the vast majority of humans are naturally inclined to be straight as even I who argues in favor of gay marriage is straight. Religious people hate gay people and maybe if gay people were to marry, the gay people would still be hated. Please realise this, you may hate a group of people because of what their lifestyle is, but we all have equal rights. If you can't change the way you think of others than don't. Just live your life hating others for the rest of your life and they will hate you back. This will never change reguardless of peoples' rights so we might as well give everyone the same rights. I won't say anything more on the topic of homosexuality.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Master_of_the_Faster

Religious people hate gay people

Wrong.

You're characterizing all religious people by Westboro Baptists, and I suggest that you learn the first things about religion before you go spewing verbal diarrhea about what they say.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Master_of_the_Faster]

I know what I say about religion and people know what I mean. However, I didn't mean to put religion out there like that. Sorry about that. Last post on homosexual marriage unless something really urges me to have to reply.

[alias123]

*applause lamoc* couldn't have said it better myself! I am not gonna take the time to read some of the other posts because I know I'm gonna get pissed off at some of the idiots who posted here.

[psychopete]

Originally Posted by alias123

I am not gonna take the time to read some of the other posts because I know I'm gonna get pissed off at some of the idiots who posted here.

Still do it so you can get other sides of the arguement, no matter how retarded some people's reasoning may be.

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

I'd rather just stop here: The existence of homosexuals would never cause the heterosexual popluation to die out. That argument is stupid.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Exactly. To those who even think so, have any proof?

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by alias123

I am not gonna take the time to read some of the other posts because I know I'm gonna get pissed off at some of the idiots who posted here.

That attitude isn't going to get you very far, here, especially with all the glaring holes Lamoc has in her arguments that the "idiots" so nicely chose to fill in/point out.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Brianific]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

(and with good grammar, may I remind you) or don't post at all.
http://andy.mikee385.com

OgOdD HoMoS SHouLD bE aBLe Ta DO WHaT DeY WaNt. DiS iS a FrEe CoUNtrY yUNg.___ Sorry about that, I couldn't resist. You were so uptight about it. :/

[devonin]

Ironically, your grammar is actually fine in that sentence. Your spelling and punctuation are god-awful, but you didn't actually make the funny joke you were trying to make.

[seltivo]

there is NO reason same sex marriage should be illegal. if two people love each other, why the hell shouldn't they be allowed to get married? because religion prohibits it? because the majority of the population is EXTREMELY narrow minded?

maybe it's time to stop letting what people said thousands of years ago ruin peoples lives today, and realize that we can make our own choices and do what WE think is right.

religion was only supposed to be a guide line for what we do, not a strict set of rules that people follow like cultists, fearing some divine punishment. really, when was the last time you saw someone get smited? the old testament clearly states that slavery and other such things are ok. it even says somewhere that we should all burn a live cow every now and the because it creates a pleasing sent for the lord. we finally managed to realize that this might be a bit ridiculous, why can't we let a few other preposterous statements go?


sorry, i kind of got carried away...

[GuidoHunter]

Hi, seltivo. How about you read the thread before posting so that you can find out exactly how many of your points have been addressed already (I'll give you a hint: it's all of them).

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com