To those that think gay marriage is wrong...Moving video

reply to post by therationalist


Uhm... Yeah... Comparing society/families/marriage with a race...

So, let's say only heterosexual families were allowed to participate in your race... Who would be the winner? The one with the most kids? Because as I understand it the "value" you're talking about is the ability to have kids. And I honestly don't see how having more kids can possibly add value to a society. More kids equals a greater strain on natural resources, social care and government expenses. Bigger families are poorer. Full stop.

In what possible way does a heterosexual family add value that a homosexual family cannot even or better?

And since when does an individual not have rights, only society?

Originally posted by therationalist
Yeah, any sane society should put het. rel. over homo. rel. as any sane company owner would pay more to an employee of greater value
than a lesser one. wouldn't you??
FYI, marriage is an institution just like the military and not an individual right, you have to qualify to join it.Society
offers benefits and protections to het. rel. because an average het. unit brings far more benefits to the society in return.

Please define these benefits. Children is one, but please enlighten me to the others.

Since, a homo rel. cannot bring the same, it would be illogical to give them the same benefits and protections.
First and foremost, society, not an individual has the right to define relationships and demand recognition and protection in return.

Are you saying the economic benefits that gay couples bring the hetero families that embrace them is null and void?
Case example, I have another gay couple as friends. This time their families embraced the relationship, being open minded and choosing to be happy that the two guys are happy to have found one another. Naturally these lads do not have kids, but they are favorite uncles amongst the nieces and nephews. These guys often send money through to their sisters, as a couple of them have not been lucky in love and are single mothers. They help pay the bills when things are tough and they buy food when necessary. They will often go short themselves to see their sisters looked after. They are quite happy being childless, because they find fulfillment through helping their sibling's kids. How is this not a valid relationship that contributes to society?

Regarding, change in value of het. marriages, let's assume that in a race, a person comes first and the organizers declare that he would be given the same recognition and prize as to the person who has come second. Would that be just for the person coming
first and what would be the value of coming first??

So marriage is now a race? I am confused. This argument is illogical at the very least.

reply to post by therationalist




I'm sorry. I'm just going to waste my time arguing with you.

“What a sad era when it is easier to smash an atom than a prejudice.” - Einstein

Not to forget ...

“However modest one may be in one's demand for intellectual cleanliness, one cannot help feeling, when coming into contact with the New Testament, a kind of inexpressible discomfiture: for the unchecked impudence with which the least qualified want to raise their voice on the greatest problems, and even claim to be judges of things, surpasses all measure. The shameless levity with which the most intractable problems (life, world, God, purpose of life) are spoken of, as if they were not problems at all but simply things that these little bigots KNEW!”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power

Let me know if you're ready for an actual debate and address the facts I pointed out. I bothered with links, quotes, paragraphs... You? Not so much. So your heart is obviously not into this. Perhaps you're struggling to convince yourself or accept the facts?

Either way. Good luck.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
I don't know... all this talk about gays being hypocrites because they don't like people being intolerant of them -- if I had people all my life coming up to me and telling me that everything about who I am is wrong, several times a day, day in and day out, month after month, year after year, for many years -- I think I would get a little annoyed by that. Especially when I haven't hurt anyone. And then on top of that, knowing that many of these same people specifically tried to keep me from being treated equally under the law - I'd get a little hyper-sensitive about it too.

I'm getting so tired of this circular logic of "you shouldn't be intolerant of my intolerance". Why is it okay for everyone else to be intolerant?

to address the OP, yes gay marriage should be legal.. its not in my country (Australia), which is a total disgrace..


this thread was such a bore to read, most gay people (i am one) couldnt give two hoots what people think about us.. the poster who has taken over it all with their own agenda of what their view is on it all, when at the same time spewing the hypocrite card is quite tiresome to read.. some gay guy must have given her a bad haircut.. cause somneone has a problem, even though they say they dont.. ahem.. no offense, yeah..

reply to post by just1question

Originally posted by just1question
I should have clarified that the men and women were NOT on the same planet. Way too tempting.

If you sent ANY group of just men or just women to a planet, the race would die. It doesn't matter if they're gay or not.

reply to post by therationalist

Originally posted by therationalist
You think all humans are equal then scientifically prove it??

If, by "equal" you mean "exactly the same", then you're right, all human's aren't equal. What you may not be aware of, however, is that we in the US have LAWS. The supreme law of our land dictates that, whether "equal" or not, all citizens of our country MUST be treated equally under the law. In other words, our laws are applied equally to all people. Marriage is a legal contract, and must be applied equally to all.

Originally posted by therationalist
The problem with sheep like you is they confuse equality in the eyes of god for everyone is equal.

If you understand equality in the eyes of god, then you should understand equality in the eyes of the law. Same concept.

Regarding natural diversity, answer this, which group is more diverse, a pair of two males or a pair, in which, one is male and one is female???

That would depend on the people. Two males can be VERY different (remember, they're not equal). They're different in personality, judgments, beliefs, intelligence, strength, ideals, morals, etc. On the other hand, a male/female pair may be nearly equal in all the above attributes.

Diversity is not determined by one's genitalia.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by just1question

 

Originally posted by just1question
I should have clarified that the men and women were NOT on the same planet. Way too tempting.

If you sent ANY group of just men or just women to a planet, the race would die. It doesn't matter if they're gay or not.

reply to post by therationalist

 

Originally posted by therationalist
You think all humans are equal then scientifically prove it??

If, by "equal" you mean "exactly the same", then you're right, all human's aren't equal. What you may not be aware of, however, is that we in the US have LAWS. The supreme law of our land dictates that, whether "equal" or not, all citizens of our country MUST be treated equally under the law. In other words, our laws are applied equally to all people. Marriage is a legal contract, and must be applied equally to all.

Originally posted by therationalist
The problem with sheep like you is they confuse equality in the eyes of god for everyone is equal.

If you understand equality in the eyes of god, then you should understand equality in the eyes of the law. Same concept.

Regarding natural diversity, answer this, which group is more diverse, a pair of two males or a pair, in which, one is male and one is female???

That would depend on the people. Two males can be VERY different (remember, they're not equal). They're different in personality, judgments, beliefs, intelligence, strength, ideals, morals, etc. On the other hand, a male/female pair may be nearly equal in all the above attributes.

Diversity is not determined by one's genitalia.

edit on 5/15/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

That was my point exactly.

And yes, I do realize that even on a planet of straight heterosexuals, there will be those that choose to be gay.

Now on to the gay animals.

If a male dog humps my leg, is he gay?
If a female dog humps my leg, is she gay or bisexual, or just a little confused?

After contemplating those two questions all bight, I have come to only one conclusion.

I gotta start hanging out in a different place with no dogs.


???

reply to post by just1question

Originally posted by just1question
And yes, I do realize that even on a planet of straight heterosexuals, there will be those that choose to be gay.

They may choose to have sex with others of the same gender, but that doesn't make them gay. You have a lot to learn about homosexuality. And I'm not your teacher.

Originally posted by just1question
If a male dog humps my leg, is he gay?

In the vast majority of cases, dogs "humping" is not sexual (unless the female is in heat and it's a male doing the humping). It's a behavioral issue related to "dominance" or play or inappropriate socialization with strangers and other dogs.

It demeans this thread to talk about dogs' behavioral issues, but being who I am, I though I'd educate you a little.

reply to post by just1question

Now on to the gay animals.

there is a Ricky gervais stand up joke that i really want to post in response to that but it would be against the T&C's i think

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


How in the hell does having sex with a person of the same sex NOT make you gay? WTF?

You obviously didn't catch my sarcasm in the animal comments and I was only responding to a previous post about the gay animals.

You can lose the condescending tone about educating me and NO I don't have alot to learn about homosexuality. It is not a subject that I feel I need to expand my horizons on. I don't feel like it is important for me to learn lots more about trees, but that doesn't make me tree hater.

Maybe part of what is wrong with our society is that most of it feels as if they need to bash others for their beliefs as opposed to debating about a subject. Since this has gotten so far away from the O.P., I shall do the same.


???

reply to post by just1question

Originally posted by just1question
How in the hell does having sex with a person of the same sex NOT make you gay?

As I said, I'm not your teacher.

You can lose the condescending tone

That's not likely.

I don't have alot to learn about homosexuality.

Then you can keep speaking out of ignorance and endure others' condescending tones.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I didn't realize I was being addressed by the leader of the gay community. Glad they picked you cause you are one arrogant prick. Glad your entire post had NOTHING to do with the O.P.

You strike me as one of those that enjoy lambasting others because of your arrogance. How do you know I'm not gay, Einstein?


???

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by just1question
How in the hell does having sex with a person of the same sex NOT make you gay?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
As I said, I'm not your teacher.

Perfect response. It's sad how people can be arguing about something for which they never even did the scientific research.

I'll be nice Benevolent Heretic and do a little "teaching", but I do suggest as you said that people do their own research on what "homosexuality" is before they even argue against it:

Now, homosexuality means ATTRACTION. It is who you are ATTRACTED to. Just because you are guy and having sex with a guy, that doesn't mean you are ATTRACTED to him. There could be many reasons.

Just because you are a guy having sex with a female that doesn't mean you are ATTRACTED to her, there could be many reasons (such as hiding your true sexuality/attraction, for example )

A BISEXUAL guy can "choose" to be gay or straight because they have attractions for BOTH, so they can "be straight" and just deny the attractions that they have to other men, then just because THEY had attractions for both they can wind up thinking that being "gay" is a choice, when really they are bisexual and choosing to be "straight" since they have attractions for BOTH.

Not all men have attractions to woman, for some it is only other men... so in that case it is not a choice,

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Originally posted by just1question
How in the hell does having sex with a person of the same sex NOT make you gay?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
As I said, I'm not your teacher.

Perfect response. It's sad how people can be arguing about something for which they never even did the scientific research.

I'll be nice Benevolent Heretic and do a little "teaching", but I do suggest as you said that people do their own research on what "homosexuality" is before they even argue against it:

Now, homosexuality means ATTRACTION. It is who you are ATTRACTED to. Just because you are guy and having sex with a guy, that doesn't mean you are ATTRACTED to him. There could be many reasons.

Just because you are a guy having sex with a female that doesn't mean you are ATTRACTED to her, there could be many reasons (such as hiding your true sexuality/attraction, for example

)

A BISEXUAL guy can "choose" to be gay or straight because they have attractions for BOTH, so they can "be straight" and just deny the attractions that they have to other men, then just because THEY had attractions for both they can wind up thinking that being "gay" is a choice, when really they are bisexual and choosing to be "straight" since they have attractions for BOTH.

Not all men have attractions to woman, for some it is only other men... so in that case it is not a choice,

edit on 15-5-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)

And before you go deeming yourself the bearer of "scientific" knowledge, you might want to go back and look at the definition again....Did you miss the word "sexually" somehow?

ho·mo·sex·u·al
/ˌhōməˈsekSHo͞oəl/
Adjective
(of a person) Sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.
Noun
A person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.

It may behoove you to go and study some more as to the origins of "attraction"...

???

Originally posted by just1question

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Originally posted by just1question
How in the hell does having sex with a person of the same sex NOT make you gay?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
As I said, I'm not your teacher.

Perfect response. It's sad how people can be arguing about something for which they never even did the scientific research.

I'll be nice Benevolent Heretic and do a little "teaching", but I do suggest as you said that people do their own research on what "homosexuality" is before they even argue against it:

Now, homosexuality means ATTRACTION. It is who you are ATTRACTED to. Just because you are guy and having sex with a guy, that doesn't mean you are ATTRACTED to him. There could be many reasons.

Just because you are a guy having sex with a female that doesn't mean you are ATTRACTED to her, there could be many reasons (such as hiding your true sexuality/attraction, for example

)

A BISEXUAL guy can "choose" to be gay or straight because they have attractions for BOTH, so they can "be straight" and just deny the attractions that they have to other men, then just because THEY had attractions for both they can wind up thinking that being "gay" is a choice, when really they are bisexual and choosing to be "straight" since they have attractions for BOTH.

Not all men have attractions to woman, for some it is only other men... so in that case it is not a choice,

edit on 15-5-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)

And before you go deeming yourself the bearer of "scientific" knowledge, you might want to go back and look at the definition again....Did you miss the word "sexually" somehow?

ho·mo·sex·u·al
/ˌhōməˈsekSHo͞oəl/
Adjective
(of a person) Sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.
Noun
A person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.

It may behoove you to go and study some more as to the origins of "attraction"...

???

Alright, I tried my best to not jump in on this thread as I felt there were enough people here explaining things that everything would become redundant. Yet, here I am posting.

You do realize that being sexually attracted to someone doesn't mean having sex with them, right? I'm sexually attracted to a lot of people, but that doesn't mean I jump on them and have sex with them.
Equally, that doesn't mean that someone who has sex with someone else is attracted to them either. Do you think all prostitutes are sexually attracted to every person they have sex with?

Sex with someone (gay or straight) doesn't automatically mean you're sexually attracted to them, nor does being attracted to someone mean you want to have sex with them.

Originally posted by just1question
Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Oh dear, how did we devolve to this overnight in my timezone?

I feel that everyone has had a good go and explaining this, but no-one has put all the pieces together in one post, so here goes;

Firstly, no-one chooses their sexual orientation. Straight people don't choose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. It's something that just feels natural to them. Social conditioning is on their side and most straight people probably do not think twice about this until confronted by a gay person and then they wonder why a gay person would 'choose' to be attracted to a person of the same sex.

Same thing goes for gay people. The only choosing they did was to accept the fact they are gay, not the actual inbuilt sexual attraction. Many gay people also go through a period of confusion when determining their sexual identity. This is the social conditioning thing playing out in most cases - they are consciously trying to live up to the heterosexual model, but instictively they are attracted to the opposite sex.

Some people are genuinely attracted to both sexes, and these are the bisexual people. They form the complete picture of human sexuality. It is not actually black and white, straight and gay. Sexuality is more like a sliding scale with completely straight, only ever attracted to members of the opposite sex people at one end and completely gay, only ever attracted to people of the same sex at the other. Between the two ends lays the bisexual population. These people fall into roughly three categories of varying strength; Starting at the straight end, you have people who are mainly attracted to the opposite sex, but from time to time find people of the same sex attractive. In the middle you have people who are equally attracted to members of the opposite sex and the same sex and toward the end of homosexual you have the people who are mostly attracted to people of the same sex, but from time to time are attracted to people of the opposite sex.


The issue of having sex with someone you are not attracted to just makes things confusing. If one uses the above model to explain sexuality, then there are 3 main reasons one would find themselves having sex with someone they are not attracted to;



1) Non consensual sex i.e. rape (pedophilia also falls under the broader category of rape in this case)

2) 'Sympathy shags' - having sex with someone for emotional reasons but you are not actually attracted to them. This sex is consensual but there is little to no physical attraction there.

2) Sexual experimentation. i.e. in the gay world it is quite common for gay people to have tried to sleep with a person of the same sex. People of straight orientation have been known to experiment too. This scenario does not mean that people are having non consensual sex or that they are changing their basic orientation. Rather they are giving in to peer pressure, or just satisfying a curiosity. There is an oft used argument of 'how do you know you don't like if you haven't tried it' that motivates younger adults in particular to experiment.

Originally posted by markosity1973

Originally posted by just1question
Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Oh dear, how did we devolve to this overnight in my timezone?

I feel that everyone has had a good go and explaining this, but no-one has put all the pieces together in one post, so here goes;

Firstly, no-one chooses their sexual orientation. Straight people don't choose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. It's something that just feels natural to them. Social conditioning is on their side and most straight people probably do not think twice about this until confronted by a gay person and then they wonder why a gay person would 'choose' to be attracted to a person of the same sex.

Same thing goes for gay people. The only choosing they did was to accept the fact they are gay, not the actual inbuilt sexual attraction. Many gay people also go through a period of confusion when determining their sexual identity. This is the social conditioning thing playing out in most cases - they are consciously trying to live up to the heterosexual model, but instictively they are attracted to the opposite sex.

Some people are genuinely attracted to both sexes, and these are the bisexual people. They form the complete picture of human sexuality. It is not actually black and white, straight and gay. Sexuality is more like a sliding scale with completely straight, only ever attracted to members of the opposite sex people at one end and completely gay, only ever attracted to people of the same sex at the other. Between the two ends lays the bisexual population. These people fall into roughly three categories of varying strength; Starting at the straight end, you have people who are mainly attracted to the opposite sex, but from time to time find people of the same sex attractive. In the middle you have people who are equally attracted to members of the opposite sex and the same sex and toward the end of homosexual you have the people who are mostly attracted to people of the same sex, but from time to time are attracted to people of the opposite sex.


The issue of having sex with someone you are not attracted to just makes things confusing. If one uses the above model to explain sexuality, then there are 3 main reasons one would find themselves having sex with someone they are not attracted to;



1) Non consensual sex i.e. rape (pedophilia also falls under the broader category of rape in this case)

2) 'Sympathy shags' - having sex with someone for emotional reasons but you are not actually attracted to them. This sex is consensual but there is little to no physical attraction there.

2) Sexual experimentation. i.e. in the gay world it is quite common for gay people to have tried to sleep with a person of the same sex. People of straight orientation have been known to experiment too. This scenario does not mean that people are having non consensual sex or that they are changing their basic orientation. Rather they are giving in to peer pressure, or just satisfying a curiosity. There is an oft used argument of 'how do you know you don't like if you haven't tried it' that motivates younger adults in particular to experiment.

You forgot about "Just for the heck of it" sex that a lot of people, both gay and straight, seem to have quite a lot. One night stands are in this category usually, though there is a hint of sexual attraction in there as well.

Otherwise, great post.

reply to post by Dondylion


Ahem, I stand corrected

Thanks for pointing out the very obvious omission there.

I also realise I made a teeny error in this part

2) Sexual experimentation. i.e. in the gay world it is quite common for gay people to have tried to sleep with a person of the same sex. - It should read a person of the opposite sex.

"Firstly, no-one chooses their sexual orientation. Straight people don't choose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex."

I am gonna have to say I disagree with that statement. I DID in fact choose my sexual orientation. Attraction and experimentaion made my choice for me, not social conditioning.

After all the discussion of gay and straight and shags and flings and attraction....at the end of the day I am under the impression that what it really boils down to is..."sex: IS the attraction...in the most primal of ways. It is the driving force in the deepest parts of the soul. Some are attracted to the same sex, some are not.

The only thing that makes it right or wrong is YOUR (as in everyone's) thought.

???

Originally posted by just1question


"Firstly, no-one chooses their sexual orientation. Straight people don't choose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex."

I am gonna have to say I disagree with that statement. I DID in fact choose my sexual orientation. Attraction and experimentaion made my choice for me, not social conditioning.

After all the discussion of gay and straight and shags and flings and attraction....at the end of the day I am under the impression that what it really boils down to is..."sex: IS the attraction...in the most primal of ways. It is the driving force in the deepest parts of the soul. Some are attracted to the same sex, some are not.

The only thing that makes it right or wrong is YOUR (as in everyone's) thought.

???

We are getting way off topic here, but I presume from your question marks you would like a reply.

If you perhaps re-read my post and in particular that parts about people experimenting and bi-sexuality then all is explained. Yes, sexuality is determined by sexual attraction. One can feel sexual attraction and not act upon it, so it is not strictly about sex, but the attraction part because I have just pointed out, one does not physically have to have sex with someone to be attracted to them.

You have not stated what side of sexuality you fall on, but it is irrelevant. If you have experienced sexual attraction to both the same and the opposite sex, then chose one side or the other, then in the sexuality model you fit at the farther ends of the sexuality scale. i.e predominantly attracted to one sex over the other.

Social conditioning comes mostly into play when there is an inner conflict in a person. i.e with gay people some of them have a difficult time reconciling the reality of being gay and coming to the recognition that what their upbringing has taught them to be is no longer going to happen. As every single person is different, the effects on the individual from extremely severe to virtually nothing as you have stated in your case.

And yes, I would agree with you, sexuality and whether it is right or wrong is a personal opinion - to a point. That point being that it is within the bounds what is considered lawful. You will find that religious groups will also play the God card in that debate as well however.

I watched the video and am moved to continue
to know that men having sex with men and
women having sex with women is unnatural
and therefore wrong.