|
|
#521 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Testing to see if my brain can actually work a certain way...
Please state the next required part of the proof. (P & P) -> S (Rx) [□(P & VA)x] -> Sx (P & P) -> (S & ~R) P=Maleness VA=Femaleness R=Reproduction S=Sex What does S & ~R imply? It sure as hell doesn't imply immorality. Last edited by Kilroy_x; 06-10-2007 at 01:11 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
#522 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Storm Sanctuary!
Posts: 255
|
To all those people who think gay marriage is wrong:
1. You have no reasonable proof against gay marriages with religion because bibles and any other religion are Straight up assumptions that May or May not be true. You can't argue hypotheticals to take away one's life, liberty, or property. If you truely were righteous, you would honor the fact that you may be persecuting someone with no real cause. 2. Why do people think that population will die out or any of those crazy thoughts? Most of us today were born from heterosexuals weren't we? I'm sure that homosexuals weren't created when we just started debating such a topic of homosexual marriage. 3. What makes it any more right to be a guy and a girl than a guy and a guy or a girl and a girl? Both would love each other in every situation if they commit to each other. The only physical difference known to society is population. Even then, not every guy and girl decides to have a sexual relationship when married and some men and women don't have children no matter how much they try. If you are straight, think about what type of person you would marry if you were the opposite sex. You would be marrying the exact sex that you are now and if you didn't then you would be a homosexual. Some people argue that if homosexuals can get married, animals (not humans) can get married to humans as well. That argument shouldn't work because if you think about it, a marriage should be something that beings can make a commitment to. A cat can't commit because either they aren't smart enough to talk like humans or a cat's language is different from that of a human being and we don't comprehend. However, I do honor that such an animal could one day act like a human and make a commitment which is why I refer to the idea of a marriage being with beings that can show that they want to commit to each other instead of just humans. As for polygamy, I value that people can make their own choices without others getting in their business or depriving their rights for no justified cause. It's just usual for two people to be married because of "normal" standards. |
|
|
|
|
#523 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Just look outside your window
Posts: 102
|
I really don't like gay people. I cringe with the thought of them. Its DESCUSTING, and WRONG.
p.s. I'm not a homophobe. I just don't like gays. |
|
|
|
|
#524 | |
|
Quite electrifying.
|
Quote:
2) You're homophobic if you don't like gays. 3) Tell me, why the hell are we so disgusting and wrong? DO NOT use biblical reasons. |
|
|
|
|
|
#525 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Just look outside your window
Posts: 102
|
Quote:
2)not really 3)if two people of the the same sex were suposed to have sex, they could have babys togeather. (no biblical reasons are neaded) |
|
|
|
|
|
#526 | |
|
Quite electrifying.
|
Quote:
Yeah, really. And your statement was probably one of the dumbest things I've ever read for obvious reasons. So, 2 gay guys, by your judgement, can have babies with one another. WRONG. |
|
|
|
|
|
#527 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Storm Sanctuary!
Posts: 255
|
Guess what, some people don't have sex if they are married. Even still, some people don't neccessarily have babies after sex. There might be an instance where because of some medical problems, babies might die when they were supposed to be born. Sometimes, people who have children just toss them in the garbage (very insane people, but yes some might do this) or even kill them (more insane).
|
|
|
|
|
#528 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Just look outside your window
Posts: 102
|
So you think that one man can take it from another... explain
|
|
|
|
|
#529 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Just look outside your window
Posts: 102
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#530 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
|
|
|
|
|
#531 |
|
Giant Pi Operator
|
Do you see homosexuality in the rest of nature? If not, homosexuality is unnatural.
Is there a gay gene? I think that the way a person is raised is MUCH more prevalent in determining the orientation of a person. (any minor genes coding for homosexuality, if existent, are still much less significant) Also, on the topic of 100% antidisestablishmentarianism: Separation of church and state will NEVER completely happen as long as religions exist, so don't hope for it to happen. Many political leaders have religious values; President Bush even expresses them openly in his speeches/etc. (despite his hypocrisy) I used to live in a country where merely BEING a homosexual was against the law...and the people there had no problem whatsoever with that law. This is a little more extreme example of the United States. |
|
|
|
|
#532 | ||||
|
FFR Player
|
Edit: Ninja'ed by ledwix, see the bottom of this post for my response
This whole thing falls under the category of "normal" that has been discussed in another thread. Homosexuality is looked down upon because it differs from the majority, and is thus considered abnormal. Most people don't understand it, simply because most people aren't homosexual. And it's already been established that people fear what they don't understand. In short... 1) Trait is present in the minority. 2) Majority, therefore, does not understand it. 3) Fear of the trait is developed, because people fear what they don't understand. 4) Fear turns to contempt. Now for another angle, let me expand on devonin's point. Quote:
Quote:
If you look at your own argument, you see how ridiculous it is. Just because someone cannot reproduce does not mean there is anything inherently morally wrong with them. Quote:
Quote:
I don't believe homosexuality is hereditary, nor do I believe it is caused by environmental pressures after birth. It may be similar to handedness, which seems to have a variety of causes, genetics being only a very small portion, along with environmental pressures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/handedness). Conscious choice is obviously incorrect, as attraction (as we have all experienced) is not influenced by conscious choice. This is particularly evident in teenage years, where people unconsciously and unintentionally develop attractions toward someone very often. In such a situation, you don't -choose- whether or not you develop a crush on someone. And if you think about it logically, who would just wake up one day and think, "Hmm, I think I'm gonna be a gay person," especially with all the problems homosexuals are experiencing today? Long story short, I believe homosexuality is caused by a large amount of different factors, such as development during prenatal months, genetics, environmental pressures, and a host of other possible effects. Handedness shows that a trait can be caused by a a variety of factors, so it seems highly likely to me that homosexuality is similar in that regard. Thus, I conclude that since homosexuality is a trait which cannot be influenced by the person himself, there is no reason to legally discriminate against those who exhibit the trait. There's more of a gray area in religion, though. Just how much should a religion be able to decide when its practices are mainstream and the basis for legal practices? Assuming that homosexual marriage is -legally- permissible, how should religions deal with it? Since a religion is supposed to be a collection of beliefs, can religious marriage be restricted when a similar legal policy is available? To answer that, let's use the standard by which people in America have been acting for over 200 years. Essentially, until you infringe upon another's rights, you are free to do almost anything. This means that you can't kill someone because your religion said so, but you -can- have a carpet made out of gum if your religion says so. In the former case, another person's right to life is infringed, whereas in the latter case, no rights are infringed. The question becomes, does religious restriction of marriage infringe on a person's legal rights, when a comparable institution (civil unions) is available? An amendment to the United States Constitution essentially says that the rights enumerated in it are not the only rights people possess. Is this right to marriage then a right guaranteed by the Constitution? I believe it is, since marriage has become a staple, a standard. If the majority of people engage in a certain religious practice, I believe that the right to engage in that practice should be protected legally. But that's just my opinion. Last edited by Relambrien; 06-11-2007 at 12:15 AM.. |
||||
|
|
|
|
#533 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
|
|
|
|
|
#534 |
|
Giant Pi Operator
|
okay.
|
|
|
|
|
#535 | |
|
(The Fat's Sabobah)
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#536 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Storm Sanctuary!
Posts: 255
|
Quote:
Edit: I don't believe that religion is justified in order to limit a gay person's life, liberty, or property. Religion varies from each other and sometimes greatly. Not every religion is the same and some people believe so strongly in theirs. You can't depend on any one sided religion to give you any answers against homosexual religion especially because no religion has had any reasonable proof against homosexuals. Since religions are so one-sided (which we can't trust because America is meant to have freedom of religion) and because none have any proof of a homosexual being as bad as what is shown in certain religions, we have no reason to restrict a homosexual's right to marriage. Last edited by Master_of_the_Faster; 06-11-2007 at 05:32 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#537 | |||||
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Maybe gay men really do just creep him out--maybe he's been hit on before, and it made feel really awkward. I can relate to that if it's true: My town/area is Whitey central, where there is literally such a small number of Blacks that there's more Asians, Middle Easterners, and Hispanics than there are Blacks, maybe 8-11 Black kids in my entire school. Several times I've been vacationing with my family to places where there, God forbid, isn't a massive majority of Whites populating the area. Once it was just 1-2 hours south of St. Charles still in Illinois, while another time it was in Virgina, really close to North Carolina. There was a lot of Blacks there, like really a lot, probably at least 80% of everyone was Black. That made me feel pretty uncomfortable. Not because I'm racist or I hate Blacks, but because I've never been someplace where's I've been the minority...or at least, somewhere where my family's been the minority. VA came first, then souther IL, so I was a lot younger when we were in Virginia, so that's more reasonable for myself, and when we were in the "Black place" in IL I was older, so it wasn't as awkward for me, but my mom still felt it. She even felt a bit afraid when in IL. But does that make her a "hater"? No. She was raised in places where there weren't many Blacks, mostly just Whites, so it's understandable why she might feel nervous. We haven't been anywhere where we've been minoritized recently, though, so I can't say if she still acts that way or not. ![]() Quote:
Quote:
Hoo...hope I didn't sound too dumb/wordy there, it's been awhile since I've had to actually try in a topic like this.
__________________
Professional Dubstep Hater Last edited by Omeganitros : Today at 01:46 AM. Reason: What the hell were you thinking? |
|||||
|
|
|
|
#538 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,111
|
Ugh, if "nature" really never intended to make people have homosexual feelings, then no one would have homosexual feelings. I mean, believe it or not, it's entirely natural. It is as natural as it is for a person to grow tall or be born with blonde hair, for example. Maybe it doesn't happen as often, but it's still natural considering a considerably large amount of the population is homosexual or at least bi.
Really, I don't think the "nature" argument works very well in this situation. I mean man, for all we know, maybe that "nature" everyone's talking about did it to make us realize there are things more important than reproduction and having kids. |
|
|
|
|
#539 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Storm Sanctuary!
Posts: 255
|
For all humans know, the very existance of our well beings could be defiance of nature. After all, anything that isn't by nature is man-made. All of the houses and buildings that we make destroy environments for some and give us an environment. If that were the case, then nature could not be a justified reason against gay marriage at all. What I pointed out is a possibility and only a possibility. A reasonable person never denies possibility no matter how crazy it seems, but should not act upon it or against it without reasonable proof or else you might be taking an unreasonable chance of interfering with life, liberty, or property with no justified cause.
|
|
|
|
|
#540 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 18
|
To add onto this - there's been numerous sightings of homosexual hooved animals as well as primates. This also isn't at all something newly discovered...it'd actually be a bit of a feat to haven't ever heard of this.
Also, if someone doesn't like gays, it doesn't mean they're a homophobe (remember, that means they're afraid of it). While fear can lead to disliking/hatred, disliking/hatred doesn't necessarily lead to fear. It's a vicious cycle. Many people fear what they don't understand, and they dislike what they fear. And that's what most all homophobes are in the end - a bunchof ignorants who can't grasp the reasoning of love might just be a little more complex than they thought it might be. Last edited by Melone Marshe; 06-13-2007 at 03:35 AM.. |
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|