It's ironic you complain about somebody wanting something so simple and then proceed to cry about how marriage should be done 'your' way.
The big government conservatives are ok with government handing out welfare for their causes.
Topic: An complete argument for same-sex marriages. You can't prove it wrong - page 5. (Read 2706 times)
May 14, 2014, 05:48:11 AM
The big government conservatives are ok with government handing out welfare for their causes.
May 14, 2014, 03:04:31 AM
It's ironic you complain about somebody wanting something so simple and then proceed to cry about how marriage should be done 'your' way.
May 14, 2014, 03:03:10 AM
Using the government to get special privileges is great fun for men and women. It should not be limited to just two people. Groups of people should have the same benefits of marriage rights, shared health care, tax breaks, etc...
Why stop at just special privileges for just two?
Why stop at just special privileges for just two?
May 14, 2014, 01:17:58 AM
Quote
How long before pedophiles start marching for rights, and the "progressives" (read liberals) side with them.
If you really believe in these kind of arguments then you're a moron, homosexual relations with consenting partners and rape ( Nonconsensual Sex ) have nothing to do with each other, I'd really like to know what goes on in a religious persons' head because they keep coming up with more and more nonsensical bullshit and expect me to go along with it.
Next you'll be telling me a dick and a vagina are the same thing.
May 14, 2014, 01:01:38 AM
Don't people see farther down the road? 50-100 years ago, homosexuality was viewed on nearly the same level as pedophilia, and there were very little to no rights for gays. Now gays are accepted in the public eye. How long before pedophiles start marching for rights, and the "progressives" (read liberals) side with them. The argument for why gayness was persecuted in the past is that we were not ready for it or something along those lines. I don't want to see the day when all kinds of perversions are accepted. It needs to stop somewhere.
May 14, 2014, 12:33:40 AM
And it is wrong to say that homosexual activity is common in the animal kingdom. It is extremely rare, and found only in less than 0.001% of the animal population.
Can you back that up? Or are you using some new definition of the word 'rare'. Scientists that work with animals say that and have many documented examples. It is FAR from rare. It is common.
May 14, 2014, 12:31:48 AM
Homosexuality is a Life Choice Due to the fact that homosexuality has been proven to sometimes be a life choice (not always genetic), it would be hypocritical to allow gay marriage, but then not allow incest-marriage, or polygamy, since these are obviously both life choices also. A lot of people simply support something because it sounds nice and seems humanitarian, this can lead to ignorance, hypocrisy, and a detrimental/self destructive policy.
That is also a valid point, Hazir. I am afraid that if we legalize homosexual marriage now, then some people will start campaign to get incest and pedophilia legalized. Tolerance is always exploited.
In places all over the world where it has been legalized for long periods of time this has not happened.
"Tolerance is always exploited." - Wow.
May 14, 2014, 12:07:40 AM
Homosexuality is a Life Choice Due to the fact that homosexuality has been proven to sometimes be a life choice (not always genetic), it would be hypocritical to allow gay marriage, but then not allow incest-marriage, or polygamy, since these are obviously both life choices also. A lot of people simply support something because it sounds nice and seems humanitarian, this can lead to ignorance, hypocrisy, and a detrimental/self destructive policy.
That is also a valid point, Hazir. I am afraid that if we legalize homosexual marriage now, then some people will start campaign to get incest and pedophilia legalized. Tolerance is always exploited.
May 14, 2014, 12:00:44 AM
Homosexuality is a Life Choice Due to the fact that homosexuality has been proven to sometimes be a life choice (not always genetic), it would be hypocritical to allow gay marriage, but then not allow incest-marriage, or polygamy, since these are obviously both life choices also. A lot of people simply support something because it sounds nice and seems humanitarian, this can lead to ignorance, hypocrisy, and a detrimental/self destructive policy.
May 13, 2014, 11:55:58 PM
I don't have any problem with gays marrying each other. It is their choice. If they want to get married, then let them do that. Still I am against gay couples adopting children.
And it is wrong to say that homosexual activity is common in the animal kingdom. It is extremely rare, and found only in less than 0.001% of the animal population.
And it is wrong to say that homosexual activity is common in the animal kingdom. It is extremely rare, and found only in less than 0.001% of the animal population.
Interesting revision history of this wiki page...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexual_behavior_in_animals&action=history
May 13, 2014, 11:42:10 PM
I don't have any problem with gays marrying each other. It is their choice. If they want to get married, then let them do that. Still I am against gay couples adopting children.
And it is wrong to say that homosexual activity is common in the animal kingdom. It is extremely rare, and found only in less than 0.001% of the animal population.
And it is wrong to say that homosexual activity is common in the animal kingdom. It is extremely rare, and found only in less than 0.001% of the animal population.
May 13, 2014, 11:02:54 PM
I think people are interesting beings. If I was too look for some natural or wild influence I would look at my most basic source, nature. You don’t see males having doing it with males in the animal kingdom.
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
"Homosexual behavior in animals is sexual behavior among non-human species that may be interpreted as homosexual or bisexual. This may include sexual activity, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairs. Research indicates that various forms of this are found throughout the animal kingdom.[1][2] As of 1999, nearly 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been observed engaging in same-sex behaviors; this is well documented in about 500 species. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
May 13, 2014, 10:57:51 PM
hackjack, all the points that you given are man's arguments. And the arguments of man kind often go against the commandments of God. Nothing new there.
On more of a legal level, man may make any kind of law he wants. But in this case of homosexual 'marriage', I like God's law better. It's like a breath of fresh air that just makes sense, just the opposite of man's law on this issue.
On more of a legal level, man may make any kind of law he wants. But in this case of homosexual 'marriage', I like God's law better. It's like a breath of fresh air that just makes sense, just the opposite of man's law on this issue.
How did you know what God's law is? I see in nature plenty of examples of homosexuality.
May 13, 2014, 09:41:14 PM
I think people are interesting beings. If I was too look for some natural or wild influence I would look at my most basic source, nature. You don’t see males having doing it with males in the animal kingdom.
Thus taking the most basic knowledge. Provided to me. Since we too are animals. Leaves me with one conclusion. That same sex is only a perverted and twisted form of sexual desire and intercourse. Not intended for people that want to assume responsibility in life for their actions.
Now. As being human. If homosexuality is tolerated more likely it will be a norm. When nature provides no evidence of any normality in such desires.
Thus taking the most basic knowledge. Provided to me. Since we too are animals. Leaves me with one conclusion. That same sex is only a perverted and twisted form of sexual desire and intercourse. Not intended for people that want to assume responsibility in life for their actions.
Now. As being human. If homosexuality is tolerated more likely it will be a norm. When nature provides no evidence of any normality in such desires.
May 13, 2014, 09:32:00 PM
peanutcoins, all the points that you given are man's arguments. And the arguments of man kind often go against the commandments of God. Nothing new there.
On more of a legal level, man may make any kind of law he wants. But in this case of homosexual 'marriage', I like God's law better. It's like a breath of fresh air that just makes sense, just the opposite of man's law on this issue.
On more of a legal level, man may make any kind of law he wants. But in this case of homosexual 'marriage', I like God's law better. It's like a breath of fresh air that just makes sense, just the opposite of man's law on this issue.
May 13, 2014, 09:13:32 PM
1. Men and Women have equal rights.
2. If you are a man, you have the right to marry a woman. And if you are a woman, you have the right to marry a man.
3. If you are a woman, you have the right to do what men do. And if you are a man, you have the right to do what women do. (This by 1) (provided that the action is possible).
4. Therefore, Men have the right to marry men, and women have a right to marry women. (This by 2 and 3). Some would say that (2) is wrong and that it should read that men and women only have the right to marry the opposite sex. So...
1. If you were to say that a person could only marry a person of the opposite sex, the reason would have to be: a) sexual reproduction must be possible for married couples, b) since it is a better type of sex, c) Only men should marry women and only women should marry men, d)"the parts don't fit", or e) If the popular opinion opposes gay marriage, it should be illegal.
1a. Suppose, “Since sexual reproduction is not possible in same-sex relationships, same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed.”
2a. You effectively eliminate all marriages in which sexual reproduction is impossible (since the condition of not being able to sexually reproduce is defined as a reason that a marriage should not be able to take place).
3a. Heterosexual couples who can not sexual reproduce can be married
4a. Therefore, no matter the relationship, being able to sexually reproduce shouldn't be the issue that determines whether or not two can be united (By 3a‘s contradiction of 2a).
5a. So, we've ruled that not being able to sexually reproduce should not be a factor used to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.
1b. Suppose that heterosexual sex is the best sex. (between 2 people)
2b. There exist people who think homosexual sex is better that heterosexual sex. (between 2 people)
3b. Something “being the best,” unless as it were to be determined by a comparative analysis, is simply "one opinion among many".
4b. Thus heterosexual sex "being the best sex" is an opinion that carries the same weight as the opinion of homosexual sex "being the best sex".
5b. Hence, by difference in opinion, 1b is wrong (correctly stated, it would read: Some people believe heterosexual sex is better than homosexual sex).
1c. You can’t support a position by using the position as the reason for why it should be true.
2c. The overlying question is: For what reason would you be able to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples?
3c. 1(c) says “Only heterosexual couples should be able to marry” is the reason answering the question in 2c, which asks why only heterosexual couples should be married.
4c. Hence, this reason does not support the viewpoint that only heterosexual couples should be able to marry (by 2c and 3c over the rule 1c).
1d. Suppose "the parts don't fit" in homosexual sexual activity is the reason that homosexual marriage cannot exist..
2d. Sex is putting body parts together (Yes, it has degrees - physical contact)
3d. Homosexuals can't have sex.
4d. Some homosexuals have homosexual sex.
5d. "The parts fit" making this reason wrong as well.
1e. When there is no viable reason that exists to support a certain opinion, that opinion is nullified.
2e. All possible reasons supporting heterosexual-only marriages (that I can think of) have been disproved, making them not viable
3e. Therefore all opinions against same-sex marriage are nullified.
2. None of the reasons in (1) hold true.
3. If we were to say, “Marriage is to only be a union between a man and a woman,” there would be a contradiction.
4. Therefore, since all points in the argument have been fully supported, proving all opposing notions to be false, it can be said with no room for interpretation otherwise that same-sex marriage is an undeniable right for the people living under the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States of America!
2. If you are a man, you have the right to marry a woman. And if you are a woman, you have the right to marry a man.
3. If you are a woman, you have the right to do what men do. And if you are a man, you have the right to do what women do. (This by 1) (provided that the action is possible).
4. Therefore, Men have the right to marry men, and women have a right to marry women. (This by 2 and 3). Some would say that (2) is wrong and that it should read that men and women only have the right to marry the opposite sex. So...
1. If you were to say that a person could only marry a person of the opposite sex, the reason would have to be: a) sexual reproduction must be possible for married couples, b) since it is a better type of sex, c) Only men should marry women and only women should marry men, d)"the parts don't fit", or e) If the popular opinion opposes gay marriage, it should be illegal.
1a. Suppose, “Since sexual reproduction is not possible in same-sex relationships, same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed.”
2a. You effectively eliminate all marriages in which sexual reproduction is impossible (since the condition of not being able to sexually reproduce is defined as a reason that a marriage should not be able to take place).
3a. Heterosexual couples who can not sexual reproduce can be married
4a. Therefore, no matter the relationship, being able to sexually reproduce shouldn't be the issue that determines whether or not two can be united (By 3a‘s contradiction of 2a).
5a. So, we've ruled that not being able to sexually reproduce should not be a factor used to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.
1b. Suppose that heterosexual sex is the best sex. (between 2 people)
2b. There exist people who think homosexual sex is better that heterosexual sex. (between 2 people)
3b. Something “being the best,” unless as it were to be determined by a comparative analysis, is simply "one opinion among many".
4b. Thus heterosexual sex "being the best sex" is an opinion that carries the same weight as the opinion of homosexual sex "being the best sex".
5b. Hence, by difference in opinion, 1b is wrong (correctly stated, it would read: Some people believe heterosexual sex is better than homosexual sex).
1c. You can’t support a position by using the position as the reason for why it should be true.
2c. The overlying question is: For what reason would you be able to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples?
3c. 1(c) says “Only heterosexual couples should be able to marry” is the reason answering the question in 2c, which asks why only heterosexual couples should be married.
4c. Hence, this reason does not support the viewpoint that only heterosexual couples should be able to marry (by 2c and 3c over the rule 1c).
1d. Suppose "the parts don't fit" in homosexual sexual activity is the reason that homosexual marriage cannot exist..
2d. Sex is putting body parts together (Yes, it has degrees - physical contact)
3d. Homosexuals can't have sex.
4d. Some homosexuals have homosexual sex.
5d. "The parts fit" making this reason wrong as well.
1e. When there is no viable reason that exists to support a certain opinion, that opinion is nullified.
2e. All possible reasons supporting heterosexual-only marriages (that I can think of) have been disproved, making them not viable
3e. Therefore all opinions against same-sex marriage are nullified.
2. None of the reasons in (1) hold true.
3. If we were to say, “Marriage is to only be a union between a man and a woman,” there would be a contradiction.
4. Therefore, since all points in the argument have been fully supported, proving all opposing notions to be false, it can be said with no room for interpretation otherwise that same-sex marriage is an undeniable right for the people living under the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States of America!
Jump to: