12 reasons to ban gay marriage

[Monty Cantsin]

sources- http://www.utopia-politics.com/forums/inde...?showtopic=8918 (http://www.utopia-politics.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8918)

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears 55 hour just for fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all - women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.


comments?

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

hahahahaha thats exactly how conservatives think is the funniest bit of it....... they always come back to the same points......

[Inti]

That was a pretty good one. Really liked it, thanks;D Now I have more fuel against those conservatives on other forums.. :D They will get fried, oh yes.. :D

[The Feral Underclass]

But you know...this isn't homophobia, according to mad people!!!

People jsut attempt to justify their own rationalizations. The right hate gay people, so they invent all this bollocks to try and rationalize it. It would be better if they just said "We dont want gay people to marry because we hate them" instead of all this bullshit.

[The Red Factor]

I can't belive how bad that is. It's a joke for someone to take those points seriously.

[Hiero]

Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Are you sure this isnt a joke, that kind of proves it doesnt it. If not i dont really care if that guy died a horriable death.

[The Red Factor]

Are you sure this isnt a joke, that kind of proves it doesnt it. If not i dont really care if that guy died a horriable death.


HAHAHA, I couldn't agree more. Think that person was on some serious drugs before they wrote that? I don't get what people like that are so afraid of. Even they should realise that their points are fucking lame.

[Blackberry]

Beware the scary gay agenda (http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html).

[sparky44]

Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 19 2004, 11:26 AM

HAHAHA, I couldn't agree more. Think that person was on some serious drugs before they wrote that? I don't get what people like that are so afraid of. Even they should realise that their points are fucking lame.
Please tell me what drugs they were on so I know enough not to use them and develop that homophobic attitude.

[sh0cker]

It is not conservative. It is natrual and I agree ban on gay marrigies. Those gay bastards are destroing our communities.

[sparky44]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 01:59 PM
It is not conservative. It is natrual and I agree ban on gay marrigies. Those gay bastards are destroing our communities.
Who are these gay marriages hurting?? And just how is it destroying our communities???

[Pingu]

gay is natural, some animals have some gay animals in their community too, it's just something what's comes around in nature

altough there are of course more heterosexuals

they are 2 pinguins homo in a Zoo in New York, crazy that Bush didnot kill them :P

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 01:59 PM
It is not conservative.
Actually by definition it is conservative. Any view which wishes to maintain the status quo or to regress into "old fashoined" morals, such as the opposition to gay marriages, and opposes progression is in fact conservative.


It is natrual

It is not natural to hate. Morals are not finite. People in ancient Greence and Rome openly advocated and encouraged homosexual relationships. Oppression against homosexuals is relativly new and is not an innate charactor in human beings. Although I am sure there are many self hating gay people, I do not think that is because there is a strand of DNA which has programmed them to feel that way.


Those gay bastards are destroing our communities.

First of all, this website is for left-wing and radical left-wing people. We do not tolerate homophobia here, of any kind.

Community Policy

No posts which are rascist, anti-semitic, sexist, homophobic, knowingly false and/or defamatory, hateful, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy.

Community Policy in full (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=7192)

Homosexuality, unfortunatly for you, is something which exists in society. It is a fact, just as it is a fact that straight people exist, or that trees give us oxygeon. We are not going away!

Gay people are normal human beings who function just like any other human being. We have jobs, we have friends, we like music. We are simply attracted to our same sex, rather that to the opposite sex. It is not wrong, only different.

I am unsure how you have come to the conclusion that gay people destroy communities. I can assure you that gay people simply live, they get on with their lives just like straight people do. If there are gay people in your community, you probably dont even know about it. Do you think we have some secret hidden agenda which wishes to break up straight communities and inflict our sexualities on you all. <_<

Your opinions are very out of date and are extremly homophobic. We are no different to straight people and I think that you should reconsider how you think about things like this. Hate will not set you free.

This means not welcome&#33;

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I saw that same thing at IWW.com.
And for those of you who think so, this was not written by anti-gay marriage folks, it was written by pro-gay marriage people making fun of coservative douche bags and their dumb ass logic.

[SittingBull47]

oh wow. kudos to that claptrap. That&#39;s my daily blood-boiler.

[cubist]

gay is natural, some animals have some gay animals in their community too, it&#39;s just something what&#39;s comes around in nature

yes a type of lizard has lesbian sex to become more fertile,

in most cases though animals are homosexual due to capitivity, i have gay gerbils but they must relieve them selves at some point mustn&#39;t they

[Saint-Just]

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

People say homosexuality is not natural in a rather different sense, in that it goes against humans rather than nature. This quote seems a poor argument.


2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can&#39;t legally get married because the world needs more children.

The world population does not need increasing until we can meet the needs of the present population. We need a balanced set of age groups in societies but that will occur naturally in the long run, only in the short run is the solution to an ageing population to have more children. As it is this problem only exists in a small percentage of the world&#39;s nations anyway.

Most of the other points are terribly poor and can be deconstructed very easily. However, there is some truth to the point that the legislature often does not protect the rights on minorities as well as the judiciary does.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 19 2004, 07:49 PM
People say homosexuality is not natural in a rather different sense, in that it goes against humans
What a very strange thing to say. Homosexuality goes against humans? In what sense. What is human? Human in the physical sense or human in regards to morals and how we percieve our being inside society? Please explain?


This quote seems a poor argument.

Not at all. When people use the word nature in this context they are declaring that it is an objective concept. To attempt to look at the concept of nature objectivly you have to reduce it right back to the very beginning of humanity. What is natural to human beings? In an objective sense it is to walk around with no clothes on and hunt wild animal. It is to live in caves and to not have electricty or clean running water.

Humanity has evolved from then. We have electricity, we have running water, we wear clothes now for several reasons, one because it is more comfortable in cold weather and two because of ethics surrounding nudity. It is not natural to be afraid of wearing clothes but throughtout history what we define as nature objectivly has now become subjective views. The statement "Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control" punches a whole in the absurdness of that hyopthesis that somehow we can look at nature in the same objective way we could when we were hunter/gatherers. We can not do that. Nature has become subjective and therefore the statement that homosexuality is unnatural is rediculas. Nothing we do is natural, from wearing eyeglasses to wearing polyester to using a telephone to driving a car.

In this modern age we now have to redefine what is natural. Objectivly any view on nature is subjective. Our concepts of ethics, morals, political philosophy, economic management have shifted in new realms. What was nautral 2000 years ago is no longer natural, thus it becomes a subjective view. So it follows, what is natural for me may not be natural for you. It is perfectly natural for me to sleep with another man, just as it is natural for you to wear trousers. You claim the statement is unscientific when actually it is the notion that homosexuality is unnatural which is not scientific, and which is worse, sarcasm, or the rationalization for hatred.


Most of the other points are terribly poor and can be deconstructed very easily

In a scientific way I suppose, but what they shows is how this logic is pure subjectivism being disguised by these people as objectivism, which compeltely ignores the historical circumstances we are now in, which is illogical. You can not objectivly deconstruct a lifestyle which is subjective, without becoming illogical. And that&#39;s the point.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Frankly, I thought that even though numbers 8 and 11 made good points, the way they were worded made them seem pretty stupid.
The others one were good, I think.

[canikickit]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 19 2004, 07:49 PM
People say homosexuality is not natural in a rather different sense, in that it goes against humans rather than nature. This quote seems a poor argument.
How does homosexuality go against humans? Humans want to have sex with members of their own gender and they do, that is natural.
Humans feel attracted to members of their own gender. That&#39;s what happens, there&#39;s nothing unnatural about it.


The world population does not need increasing until we can meet the needs of the present population. We need a balanced set of age groups in societies but that will occur naturally in the long run, only in the short run is the solution to an ageing population to have more children. As it is this problem only exists in a small percentage of the world&#39;s nations anyway.

Infertile couples and old people can&#39;t legally get married because the world needs more children.

For some reason you take the second part of the sentence seriously while ignoring the second part of the sentence completely. Don&#39;t you know that old people and infertile people can get married? You completely missed out on the point they are making.

Lots of people make arguments that homosexuality is unnatural because children cannot reduce from such a coupling. However this point is contradicted in the fact that infertile couples and older women cannot have children, yet conservatives do not argue against such marraiges.


Most of the other points are terribly poor and can be deconstructed very easily.

Wrong&#33; You misinterpreted the whole thing. The logical fallacies are deliberate.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

it would be more unnatural to force homosexuals to marry into the opposite gender..........

I DON&#39;T THINK PEOPLE GET THE POINT.... THIS LIST IS MAKING FUN OF CONSERVATIVES. IT WAS MADE BY LIBERALS TO SHOW THE STUPIDITY OF THE CONSERVATIVE ARGUMENTS..... GET WITH IT YALL......

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by I chicorazon [email protected] 20 2004, 01:31 AM
it would be more unnatural to force homosexuals to marry into the opposite gender..........

I DON&#39;T THINK PEOPLE GET THE POINT.... THIS LIST IS MAKING FUN OF CONSERVATIVES. IT WAS MADE BY LIBERALS TO SHOW THE STUPIDITY OF THE CONSERVATIVE ARGUMENTS..... GET WITH IT YALL......
I got it when I read it, it was funny, because it&#39;s true. Conservatives very often omit logical arguments, it is a ploy of ignorance for and by the close minded to control and disable others.
I am totally "WITH IT," dude.

[Dune Dx]

wether you agree with Gay marriage or not people should have the right to do so otherwise you are imposing on their free will. The only time you should stop people from doing something is if effects the rest of the populace

[DarkAngel]

&#39;&#39;America is a free country....that is why two people of the same gender should not be able to get married&#39;&#39;

-George W. Bush

hahahah :D

[Saint-Just]

Wrong&#33; You misinterpreted the whole thing. The logical fallacies are deliberate.

I understand it entirely. Admittedly, I do often fail to understand things. And, you may well be right.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can&#39;t legally get married because the world needs more children.

This is saying is that the world does not need more children. However, it also supposes that Conservatives say heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children, however it links this statement to the assumption that the world needs more children. This is not true and Conservatives know this, the world does not need more children. The Conservative argument is not a logical fallacy, infertile couples and old people cannot have children however old people could at one point and infertile couples could have children if not for whatever fertility problems they have. The Conservative argument is that heterosexual marriages are ‘natural’ because they are designed to produce children. Infertile couples and old people are at some point designed to produce children.

The statement would only be valid if conservatives really did think the world needs more children, but it doesn’t as I explained. It is more than clear that the logical fallacies are deliberate, however they are remain poor arguments.


What a very strange thing to say. Homosexuality goes against humans? In what sense. What is human? Human in the physical sense or human in regards to morals and how we percieve our being inside society? Please explain?

That’s not from my perspective. But what I am saying is that Conservatives say natural in the sense that homosexuality goes against what it is to be human. Conservatives see that, in the short term, homosexuality is not natural because it is not moral (as you suggested was the argument). In the long term I think Conservatives will change their view. The attitude of Conservatives towards women shifted in the last century and I think the same will be true of their attitude towards homosexuals.


7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That&#39;s why we have only one religion in America.

In any society the socities values are determined by that societies history and its religious history. Since the U.S. developed many of its laws, its morality and traditions on a Christian basis Christian thought is very strong in most aspects of American society. Although American allows freedom of religion it does ask all American citisens to subscribe to traditional American values. Although it is a bit far stretched you could argue that traditionall Christians are against homosexuality and therefore all living in American society should not tolerate homosexuality if it is an important Christian value.


8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

I think Conservatives see gay marriage as a step in making homosexuality more acceptable in general. To argue whether that would make people more gay is a question that is very difficult, it goes back to the ‘nature/nurture’ argument. It has been known that in certain societies gender roles have been switched entirely, perhaps sexual preferences is similarly entirely dictated by one’s social development, that is an example of one possible argument.


9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Conservatives are concerned about society becoming more liberal in general. Accepting homosexual marriages would most likely be a step in that direction. Therefore, I think it is a valid argument from Conservatives. I doubt dogs will be marrying in the near future however from a Conservative point of view ‘gay marriages’ look like a step towards other things like gay sex education and so on.


10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That&#39;s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

Of course a child can be raised by a single parent however, although I know little about it myself, there are plenty of arguments that a child develops more thoroughly having a male and a female role model, whether that be at school or at home from a relative and so on.


11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven&#39;t adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

Conservative ideology adapts to change, but it looks to only adopt change following rigorous analysis. Will the change be dislocative and so on.


12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

During the segregation of schools a lot of African-Americans were in two minds about integration. For example, Malcom X opposed integration entirely. I don’t agree that this is correct but it is a rational argument and these statements are supposed to expose Conservative arguments as irrational.

Irrational Conservatives will give irrational arguments but not all Conservatives do so.


wether you agree with Gay marriage or not people should have the right to do so otherwise you are imposing on their free will. The only time you should stop people from doing something is if effects the rest of the populace

Almost everything affects the rest of the populace, it is the way in which it affects it which should be considered. Conservatives argue it infringes on the freedoms of others, Liberals argue it does not.

[canikickit]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 21 2004, 03:40 PM
I understand it entirely. Admittedly, I do often fail to understand things. And, you may well be right.
Fair enough. I&#39;m Sorry for being a bit over exuberant (by saying "Wrong&#33;")


2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can&#39;t legally get married because the world needs more children.

This is saying is that the world does not need more children.

Yes. I&#39;ll admit that the addition of the statement "...the world needs more children" doesn&#39;t really belong there.


infertile couples and old people cannot have children however old people could at one point and infertile couples could have children if not for whatever fertility problems they have.

So what though?
With regard to old people - if they weren&#39;t old when they got married then the statement doesn&#39;t apply to them. By the logic presented in this first point, gay marraiges are not valid because they cannot produce children, if you follow that logic, you must also not allow the marraige of two people who are beyond the age of having children.

With regard to infertile couples - if you&#39;re firing blanks because you worked in a nuclear power plant - you can&#39;t have kids. If you got cancer of the womb from smoking, you can&#39;t have kids. That&#39;s all there is to it. Should they be allowed marry, following the logic that two men can&#39;t have kids together.

If I met a nice woman and fell in love with her should I not be allowed to marry her if I have a miniscule sperm count?

It&#39;s the same idea. We wouldn&#39;t be able to have kids. Neither could George Michael and Boy George if they fell in love, why does it matter?


The Conservative argument is that heterosexual marriages are ‘natural’ because they are designed to produce children. Infertile couples and old people are at some point designed to produce children.

I would argue that cancerous growths in the womb are natural also. A person who shoots blanks is designed to shoot blanks. If can&#39;t have kids, they must be unnatural?


The statement would only be valid if conservatives really did think the world needs more children, but it doesn’t as I explained. It is more than clear that the logical fallacies are deliberate, however they are remain poor arguments.

They are commentry on arguments made, not arguments in and of themselves.
Don&#39;t forget, it was also written that infertile couples and old people "can&#39;t legally get married" but they of course can. You are probably right in your appraisal that the points can be refuted - but the points are subtle and only work in relation to you having heard the typical conservative viewpoint being parodied.


That’s not from my perspective.

I&#39;m glad. It is a most ridiculous notion.


Conservatives see that, in the short term, homosexuality is not natural because it is not moral (as you suggested was the argument).

How is it immoral? And what is morality and why do a chosen few get to decide what moral guidelines people must adhere to? What is the basis of all this?

Did you mean that is how conservatives see things. the way you wrote it implies that you believe they are right (that&#39;s not an accusation, by the way). "conservatives say that" is what I think you mean (?).


In the long term I think Conservatives will change their view. The attitude of Conservatives towards women shifted in the last century and I think the same will be true of their attitude towards homosexuals.

I hope so.


Although it is a bit far stretched you could argue that traditionall Christians are against homosexuality and therefore all living in American society should not tolerate homosexuality if it is an important Christian value.

A bit far stratched? If things are rooted in society, why not try to get rid of them, or at least the stuff you view as trash? Why should they respect outdated nonsense?

I think Conservatives see gay marriage as a step in making homosexuality more acceptable in general.

What are they scared of? Why is homosexuality becoming more acceptable a threat of any sort?
Even if 100% of a population was homosexual, children would still be born. Lesbians still have ovaries and wombs. People still have the desire and can logically see the need to have children. One thing you wouldn&#39;t have with 100% gay pop. is unwanted pregnancies. And bad fashion.


Conservatives are concerned about society becoming more liberal in general. Accepting homosexual marriages would most likely be a step in that direction. Therefore, I think it is a valid argument from Conservatives.

That doesn&#39;t make it a valid argument for conservatives. They would have to show that homosexual marraiges would result in "crazy shit" happening, that society would become more liberal, and that this would not be a good thing.

It is also insulting to put same-sex relationships on the same level as beastiality.

Allowing gay marraiges may be seen as liberalising society too much, but why is that justification for not allowing gay people the same rights as hetrosexual people? IF conservatives thought that free speech was liberalising society too much (it does) would that be a valid argument against it?


Of course a child can be raised by a single parent however, although I know little about it myself, there are plenty of arguments that a child develops more thoroughly having a male and a female role model, whether that be at school or at home from a relative and so on.

Well there you go. "at school or at home from a relative and so on" Two same sex parents could raise a child and allow the influence from school or a relative (an aunt or uncle perhaps, depending on the relevant sex).


I don’t agree that this is correct but it is a rational argument and these statements are supposed to expose Conservative arguments as irrational.

I can only assume that the person who wrote the piece I am defending thinks this is entirley irrational.
I believe the whole idea of segregation is very much looked down upon in the US.

To be honest, Chairman Mao, I don&#39;t know why I&#39;m bothering to defend all this shit.
You were right, all the points weren&#39;t rock solid. Like I said however, I think it is a good piece from a humourous perspective. Given the basis of it&#39;s approach, it was always going to have holes in it.

I think it would be easier to criticise the validity of statements conservatives make, than defend the criticism of statements conservatives might make.

[Saint-Just]

With regard to old people - if they weren&#39;t old when they got married then the statement doesn&#39;t apply to them. By the logic presented in this first point, gay marraiges are not valid because they cannot produce children, if you follow that logic, you must also not allow the marraige of two people who are beyond the age of having children.

With regard to infertile couples - if you&#39;re firing blanks because you worked in a nuclear power plant - you can&#39;t have kids. If you got cancer of the womb from smoking, you can&#39;t have kids. That&#39;s all there is to it. Should they be allowed marry, following the logic that two men can&#39;t have kids together.

If I met a nice woman and fell in love with her should I not be allowed to marry her if I have a miniscule sperm count?

It&#39;s the same idea. We wouldn&#39;t be able to have kids. Neither could George Michael and Boy George if they fell in love, why does it matter?

The conservative idea is that you should not marry if you &#39;were not meant to have children&#39;, the idea relies on the existence of a &#39;god&#39; who designed men and women. Men or women who are infertile, by design, were meant to have children but they have come across a problem that prevents them from doing so. Where as, two men, according to &#39;god&#39;, are not supposed to have children. Its not about when they marry but whether it is &#39;natural&#39; for them to have children.

I don&#39;t think any atheist conservatives would subscribe to that argument though, that homosexuality is wrong because it is not natural.


I would argue that cancerous growths in the womb are natural also. A person who shoots blanks is designed to shoot blanks. If can&#39;t have kids, they must be unnatural?

I am not sure how rare that is. Anyway, Conservatives would argue that it is not natural for a woman to have cancerous growths in the womb. There are a lot of bad things that happen in the world that we can&#39;t explain. Infertility is an abnormality and on the whole &#39;god&#39; intended men and women to have children together.


How is it immoral? And what is morality and why do a chosen few get to decide what moral guidelines people must adhere to? What is the basis of all this?

Did you mean that is how conservatives see things. the way you wrote it implies that you believe they are right (that&#39;s not an accusation, by the way). "conservatives say that" is what I think you mean (?).

I use &#39;see&#39; as in see from their perspective. What is morality is a rather difficult question. My point was though that conservatives have an idea of a rigid moral structure that should not be set against by anyone. I would suggest that this moral structure has fit with their idea of what is &#39;natural&#39;.


A bit far stratched? If things are rooted in society, why not try to get rid of them, or at least the stuff you view as trash? Why should they respect outdated nonsense?

I think Conservatives see gay marriage as a step in making homosexuality more acceptable in general.

What are they scared of? Why is homosexuality becoming more acceptable a threat of any sort?
Even if 100% of a population was homosexual, children would still be born. Lesbians still have ovaries and wombs. People still have the desire and can logically see the need to have children. One thing you wouldn&#39;t have with 100% gay pop. is unwanted pregnancies. And bad fashion.

Conservatives get rid of things very slowly or often not at all. They see traditions as things that have been previously decided upon because they are best for society and so should be upheld.

I agree that homophobia is an irrational fear. But many people want to hold on to the current values and ideals in society and also are intolerant of difference. The conservative argument depends on these things providing stability and an organic growth in society.


That doesn&#39;t make it a valid argument for conservatives. They would have to show that homosexual marraiges would result in "crazy shit" happening, that society would become more liberal, and that this would not be a good thing.

It is also insulting to put same-sex relationships on the same level as beastiality.

Allowing gay marraiges may be seen as liberalising society too much, but why is that justification for not allowing gay people the same rights as hetrosexual people? IF conservatives thought that free speech was liberalising society too much (it does) would that be a valid argument against it?

I think its only logical that homosexual marriages are part of a greater liberal attitude towards many things. It is liberal thinking that developed freedom of speech in society. You are right that Conservative ideology is essentially against freedom of speech, at present it is against homosexual marriages. But as I said conservatives accept gradual change, they once stood against freedom of speechbut over time the freedom to say what you want has become greater. Similarly conservatives are against homosexual marriage now but I believe that in many years they will accept it.


Well there you go. "at school or at home from a relative and so on" Two same sex parents could raise a child and allow the influence from school or a relative (an aunt or uncle perhaps, depending on the relevant sex).

I agree.


can only assume that the person who wrote the piece I am defending thinks this is entirley irrational.
I believe the whole idea of segregation is very much looked down upon in the US.

Thats true, generally, so yes it is a fairly good argument since nowadays segregation is mostly rejected. At the time a lot of African-Americans were in two-minds about integration. Not because they wanted poorer education for African-Americans but because they believed that African-Americans should not mix with white due to cultural peculiarities. Its still true that African-Americans are schooled from a white perspective on history and culture.


You were right, all the points weren&#39;t rock solid. Like I said however, I think it is a good piece from a humourous perspective. Given the basis of it&#39;s approach, it was always going to have holes in it.

They looked like a bad argument to me. As you said, given the basis of the approach it is bound to have holes, but I think its a lot more than holes. Its fair to say I might be being too critical though.

[withoutmercy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 03:43 AM



Okay, there is absaloutely nothing wrong with gay marriage in my opinion, they have every right to be happy, just as straight ppl do.

"3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children."

That is absaloutely incorrect, it doesnt matter if your parents are gay or straight it matters what you think of the same sex or opposite sex. I am bi and my parents are completely straight so how does your theory work in that case???

"10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That&#39;s why single parents are forbidden to raise children."

Since when arent single parents alowed to raise their children???

And do u actually beleive their was meaning in Britney Spear&#39;s marriage, if you do you are stupid, it was all just one big publicity stunt&#33;&#33;&#33;

:blink:

[STI]

Originally posted by withoutmercy+Mar 23 2004, 10:43 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (withoutmercy @ Mar 23 2004, 10:43 AM)
[email protected] 19 2004, 03:43 AM



Okay, there is absaloutely nothing wrong with gay marriage in my opinion, they have every right to be happy, just as straight ppl do.

"3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children."

That is absaloutely incorrect, it doesnt matter if your parents are gay or straight it matters what you think of the same sex or opposite sex. I am bi and my parents are completely straight so how does your theory work in that case???

"10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That&#39;s why single parents are forbidden to raise children."

Since when arent single parents alowed to raise their children???

And do u actually beleive their was meaning in Britney Spear&#39;s marriage, if you do you are stupid, it was all just one big publicity stunt&#33;&#33;&#33;

:blink: [/b]
Holy fuck. Either, you missed the ENTIRE thread because your browser has been raped by AOL spyware, or you just chose not to read it. It is MAKING FUN OF arguments against gay marriage.

.Fuck.

[timbaly]

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.


I have heard this argument made by many, but not in such a ridiculous fashion. Many conservatives and traditionalists and even some moderates claim that if gays are allowed to marry than other "alternative lifestyle" groups would wish to marry as well. The "alternative groups" are people that believe in polygamy or that beleieve in having more than one other spouse, and people who want to marry in large groups. Many people feel threatened by these groups because "the very fabric of our society will be torn down."

[STI]

According to the bible and a bit of reasoning, God doesn&#39;t really care much about polygamy. Caleb was a holy enough man to be one of the two people to live both in Egypt during the exile and the promised land. He had 5 wives.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Heres a radical new idea, take the government out of marriage alltogether? You can fuck and live together if you are married, and you can fuck and live together if you are not. What differnce does it make?

[STI]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 02:35 AM
Heres a radical new idea, take the government out of marriage alltogether? You can fuck and live together if you are married, and you can fuck and live together if you are not. What differnce does it make?
The difference lies in the legal rights and obligations associated with marriage.

[revolutionindia]

asdasd

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 09:22 AM
Also

1.Gays are a mutation

2.They are a threat to universal brotherhood.

I have taken an instinctive dislike to homosexuality .
MY instincts are strong and they are always right.

Ignore your natural instincts at your own risk.
HA&#33; These reasons are funny too.
I&#39;m sure some people say "mutation," as an insult but mutation is the constant change that most all organisms go through.
To say "They are a threat to universal brotherhood," is just stupid. It has no specific meaning. Brotherhood in general should by all reasoning be strengthened, except for in homophobic circles and that is just like supporting segregation to support "universal brotherhood."
You can say you "instinctive dislike," a tree. It dosn&#39;t mean anything either. Risk homosexuals running amuck&#33;? Why not?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

1.Gays are a mutation

YEAHHH&#33; Ban mutants&#33; HAHAHA, now those X-Men are THROUGH&#33;&#33;&#33;


2.They are a threat to universal brotherhood.

Could you explain your "universal brotherhood"? Funny how when I am driving, the only brotherhood I see are angry old men giving me the finger and calling me cock sucker because of my bad driving. I don&#39;t see how taking away the gays is going to magically make us all friendly and happy people.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 09:22 AM
Ignore your natural instincts at your own risk.
What you mean like eating....and breathing?? <_<

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

^^ hahahaha

okay, heres a solution that everybody can deal with. the conservatives argue that marriage is endowed by god and what not, and therefore gays shouldn&#39;t be allowed to do it. my question then is, why is the state allowed to issue marriage licenses in the first place if it is considered a religious activity? by their logic, that would be comparable to the state issuing confirmation, right? so my solution is, make all licenses given by the state civil unions, regardless of sexual orientation. if churches want to discriminate against homosexuals, be my guest. but since it is not the place of the state to issue marriage in the first place, then they shouldn&#39;t. to anybody. people can say they are married all they want, but just call them all &#39;civil unions&#39; with the same rights for everybody, and i think we&#39;ll all be satisfied. since they won&#39;t agree to bring up rights for homosexuals, we&#39;ll bring down rights for heterosexuals.

[StalinsSoldiers]

this is a so called a free country of the whole world. yeah right this is just a right-wing- christian extremist country. they want to moled people into thier own eyes and pressures people economicaly and physicaly to follow there law and order. this country is no different from the talibans, nazi germany or the ussr. having already made moled like britany spears having younger generations follow her lead by buy sweat shop made cloths, breast implants or just plastic surgery just to keep up in this materialistic society. fuck what they say, let them homos do what they fucking want to do. fuck the conservatives there not for the people.