Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

[mattj]

@Sunny C:
You have absolutely nothing to apologize about. We all have lives, and even with yours you are doing a great job keeping up. It took me several weeks to respond.

[AudinoGlitch]

In my opinion, the difference between gay couples and straight couples is that gay couples need to adopt if they want children. Love is love and gender shouldn't be a barrier.

Also, I'm not gay or bi. I'm asexual which means that I'm not into doinking men or women.

[henryJSB]

if anyone has a problem with homosexuality they are a deeply flawed and heinous human being.

[mattj]

If anyone has a problem with the Bible they are a deeply flawed and heinous human being.

Curious. How does that strike you? Could it be that people are in fact able to disagree with each other without the need to resort to hatred?

[henryJSB]

yeah there is a distinct difference between an extremely questionable book written by many many different people (too many for it to ever be a reliable source of information for anything) compared to someone's sexuality.

i don't care. you can disagree with me, but anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong is an extremely ignorant human being and pretty much scum in my book.

but thats just my opinion of course...

[marioguy]

if anyone has a problem with homosexuality they are a deeply flawed and heinous human being.

If anyone has a problem with the Bible they are a deeply flawed and heinous human being.

Did you just equate the Bible with homosexuality?

[Tisub Lord of Kummi]

if anyone has a problem with homosexuality they are a deeply flawed and heinous human being.

People who are obsessed with others needing to suck up to homosexuals are even worse, imo.

[CSolarstorm]

i don't care. you can disagree with me, but anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong is an extremely ignorant human being and pretty much scum in my book.

I'm an actual gay rights activist, and my parents are gay, and I still think you're wrong. Anyone who has a problem with homosexuality isn't 'heinous' or 'scum'. At worst, they just need a change in perspective, at best, they just have a different viewpoint, and you need to respect it, just like we respect whether someone is gay or straight, you know?

[henryJSB]

People who are obsessed with others needing to suck up to homosexuals are even worse, imo.

no one is 'sucking up' to homosexuals for christs sake, it's a matter of basic human rights for your fellow human beings.

I'm an actual gay rights activist, and my parents are gay, and I still think you're wrong. Anyone who has a problem with homosexuality isn't 'heinous' or 'scum'. At worst, they just need a change in perspective, at best, they just have a different viewpoint, and you need to respect it, just like we respect whether someone is gay or straight, you know?

congratulations, i'm also a gay rights activist. i'll call you the MLK and me and the malcolm x and leave our differing opinions on how to handle prejudiced people at that.

[Tisub Lord of Kummi]

no one is 'sucking up' to homosexuals for christs sake, it's a matter of basic human rights for your fellow human beings.

Basic human rights as defined by who, "god" or the "founding fathers"? You probably mean liberal agitators that want to lead people on with frivolous pet agendas.
Do gays just NEED to have legal marriage or else they would all die?

I'm sure there are many people out there that want to be able to marry their cats, siblings, and imaginary characters, but it's not up to society to accommodate everyone.

[meteor64]

Basic human rights as defined by who, "god" or the "founding fathers"? You probably mean liberal agitators that want to led people on with frivolous pet agendas.
Do gays just NEED to have legal marriage or else they would all die?

Do straight people? We could carry along that line and just abolish marriage altogether...

Funny how pragmatism doesn't fit into ethics.

I'm sure there are many people out there that want to be able to marry their cats, siblings, and imaginary characters, but it's not up to society to accommodate everyone.

Difference is, you're supposed to marry something that can reciprocate your feelings. Incest is a slightly different matter, which requires a different explanation (I remember a massive thread on it about a year back), but for the most part, marrying something that isn't a human denies the sort of bond that marriage defines.

[Swordsman of Kairnestar]

Am I the only one wondering why he changed "pets" to "cats"?

That's also the slippery slope fallacy, which is similar to equating homosexuality with paedophillia.

[Tisub Lord of Kummi]

Do straight people? We could carry along that line and just abolish marriage altogether...

Funny how pragmatism doesn't fit into ethics.

Funny how straight people have been marrying in their own way for thousands of years, they didn't need the consensus of gays on that.

Difference is, you're supposed to marry something that can reciprocate your feelings. Incest is a slightly different matter, which requires a different explanation (I remember a massive thread on it about a year back), but for the most part, marrying something that isn't a human denies the sort of bond that marriage defines.

The difference is subjective, what you feel is not the same others feel and might understand a "bond" in a different way.

Am I the only one wondering why he changed "pets" to "cats"?

That's also the slippery slope fallacy, which is similar to equating homosexuality with paedophillia.

Then stop equating gay unions to heterosexual marriage.

[J.T.]

Funny how straight people have been marrying in their own way for thousands of years, they didn't need the consensus of gays on that.

But gays need the consensus of heterosexuals to get married...?

The difference is subjective, what you feel is not the same others feel and might understand a "bond" in a different way.

Okay, how's this for a response: Informed consent. Everybody who tries this ******** slippery slope argument needs to learn that definition pronto. Get that cat or imaginary friend to sign a marriage contract and fully understand what it means, then maybe we can talk.

As for incest, the problem there is the possibility of having children who have a higher incidence of physical and mental conditions due to genetic material being too similar. Does that problem exist if homosexuals get married?

Then stop equating gay unions to heterosexual marriage.

Oh, yeah, you're right, a union of two loving adults giving informed consent to be with each other is totally different from... a union of two loving adults giving informed consent to be with each other. Bulletproof argument.

[meteor64]

Funny how straight people have been marrying in their own way for thousands of years, they didn't need the consensus of gays on that.

Well, I mean just look at the amount of gays history presents us with, it was such an acknowledged thing back then!

/sarcasm

The difference is subjective, what you feel is not the same others feel and might understand a "bond" in a different way.

The bond of marriage is a two way thing, and I'm pretty sure a cat or a chinchilla or a pelican cannot reciprocate a persons affection to an equal degree.

[Valoo.]

i don't care. you can disagree with me, but anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong is an extremely ignorant human being and pretty much scum in my book.

I am gay, and I disagree with that. I don't understand the mentality that finds homosexuality is abominable, but I wouldn't go as far as calling every person who finds it wrong scum.

People who are obsessed with others needing to suck up to homosexuals are even worse, imo.

...

Basic human rights as defined by who, "god" or the "founding fathers"? You probably mean liberal agitators that want to lead people on with frivolous pet agendas.
Do gays just NEED to have legal marriage or else they would all die?

It's about equality, and plus there are legal benefits of marriage. When you're denied something for no reason other than discrimination, you're going to want to obtain your rights.

I'm sure there are many people out there that want to be able to marry their cats, siblings, and imaginary characters, but it's not up to society to accommodate everyone.

Except there are legitimate reasons against that. Cats can't consent, siblings bring problems with sex, and imaginary characters are, well, imaginary.

[CSolarstorm]

congratulations, i'm also a gay rights activist. i'll call you the MLK and me and the malcolm x and leave our differing opinions on how to handle prejudiced people at that.

Oh. I have to say, I respect someone who uses the difference between MLK and Malcolm X to describe how people deal with the predjudiced. Still, I don't think the majority of what the naked eye sees as 'prejudice' is actually anything evil, just a lack of communiation and information. Just being on this forum as long as I have has shown me that respectful communication and listening usually gets more done.

Tishub probably changed it to 'cats' to reflect the stereotype that people who have cats are always obsessed with them.

@Tishub - It's not up to society to accomodate everyone, but in the same line of reasoning, it's a waste of our attention and energy to stop society from accomodating itself.

EDIT: Remember slippery slope isn't always a fallacy, and "Argument from Precedent" is the FIRST thing I wrote on the OP, and it applies very much to discussing where you draw the line on what kind of marriage we should legalize between stuff like beastiality to pedophilia and then same sex marriage.

[henryJSB]

i am genuinely shocked at some of the comments in this thread. i'm a new member, i see a lot of you people have been here for a while. how on earth do you deal with this without going insane?

there is so much wrong with what people have said here i don't know where to begin.

[Antiyonder]

I'm sure there are many people out there that want to be able to marry their cats, siblings, and imaginary characters, but it's not up to society to accommodate everyone.

Yeah, a cat as far as we know doesn't understand and can't consent to a marriage. Two homosexual humans on the other hand can.

As for siblings, a bit iffy yes, but much like the homosexual marriage, if they are two adults who agree to said marriage, then what's the problem.

The imaginary character one's a non issue since said person doesn't even exist.

[7 tyranitars]

i am genuinely shocked at some of the comments in this thread. i'm a new member, i see a lot of you people have been here for a while. how on earth do you deal with this without going insane?

there is so much wrong with what people have said here i don't know where to begin.

The point of a debate forum is not to bash and dispise everyone disagrees with you, but to argue with eachother on a respectable level. Secondly, not everyone who is against gay marriage is scum/w.e. insult you have for them. If you are talking about people who murder, then yes you are right. However not everyone does, especialy not in the 'western' countries. They are just misinformed.