Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > General Discussions

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11th April 2004, 16:45   #241
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
ROFL = Rolling On the Floor Laughing, for future reference.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2004, 22:50   #242
hgnis
Hobbit Humper
Forum King
 
hgnis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: banned camp
Posts: 4,121
BS = Brittney Sucks.

I am so important I feel the need to let it be known like a liberal discovering the internets for the first time. Uh hur hur hur. I also wash myself with a rag on a stick.
Realitybites
<3
hgnis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2004, 22:54   #243
EternalSSaturn
Senior Member
 
EternalSSaturn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Buda, TX, USA
Posts: 156
Send a message via AIM to EternalSSaturn Send a message via Yahoo to EternalSSaturn
where has all the serious debate gone? oh well. it is better when I can read which arguements are which.
This is a forum. Why can't we just get along?
EternalSSaturn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 00:04   #244
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
Unless this is a thread debating religion, it has no place in this thread. On topics of law and morality, religion SHOULD be included, but it should NEVER be the pillar of any arguement. That being said....



There are several Non-religious concepts that can be used to argue against SSM.

1. The institution of marriage has been around for couple of years now and for homosexuals to want to change it to conform to their lifestyles is highly seflish. It not only changes marriage for the future, but has retroactive effects. Straight people don't want to be assosiated with gay people, and by encompassing the same union with the term marriage makes them very uncomforatable.

2. If we allow gay marriage, then what arguments can be made against incestual marriages and marriages with 12 year olds? If i love them and they love me should we be allowed to marry? (i think this is what most people mean when they say "sanctity of marriage")

3. What is it that gays want to do with marriage? If they want benefits, they should fight for that, not marriage. If they want to express love, then they can make another institution for themselves that doesn't cause so many waves (civil unions).



I will fight for civil unions. I will fight against gay marriages. I think that viewpoint is both defendable and reasonable.

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 00:17   #245
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
Quote:
Straight people don't want to be assosiated with gay people, and by encompassing the same union with the term marriage makes them very uncomforatable.
first: not all straight people dont want to be associated

second: some white people dont want to be associated with black people either...

third: as for it being selfish to want to dedicate your life to one person through a vow of faithfulness... i dont think its selfish, i think it was selfish when they changed marriage to allow divorces, so people wouldnt have to stay married if they simply changed their mind later on, but i dont see people really complaining about that..

Quote:
2. If we allow gay marriage, then what arguments can be made against incestual marriages and marriages with 12 year olds? If i love them and they love me should we be allowed to marry? (i think this is what most people mean when they say "sanctity of marriage")
i believe the only reason 12 year olds cant get married, is because they are not yet citizens, and so they arent really recognized by the government... and i think a 12 year old can get married with a parents consent...

and incest is wrong for other reasons(one being birth defects)

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 00:27   #246
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
I think that last post was the most sensible anti-SSM argument here....However, lol, your first point is funny....

Quote:
1. The institution of marriage has been around for couple of years now and for homosexuals to want to change it to conform to their lifestyles is highly seflish. It not only changes marriage for the future, but has retroactive effects. Straight people don't want to be assosiated with gay people, and by encompassing the same union with the term marriage makes them very uncomforatable.
Ok....i guess that wanting to be treated as equals makes them selfish? yeah, women who fought for the right to vote were selfish bastards, weren't they? Besides, you basically say that straight people do not want to be recognized in the same institution as gays because it makes them "uncomforatable". Seriously, you are trying to keep people from geting married because it makes someone else "uncomforatable"? So, who is it that is selfish? Is this more a fear of the unknown than anything else? A person I know who is against SSM actually said that. Is this kind-of a hear no evil see no evil speak no evil issue? Besides, look at all the straight guys who say gay/lesbian marriage is ok..... they don't seem to uncomforatable to me....

your point #2 is most likely the best (or only) argument against SSM that at least has some logical merit. But, at least here in the US, 12-yr-olds won't be getting married anytime soon simply because they are minors. As for incestual, 1) The chances are pretty low that there will be a lot of people arguing for incestual marriage or trying to get arried that way. No matter how much someone tries to say that science isn't real, I think it is common knowedge that this kind of thing makes genetic defects in kids..... However, I really don't care to be honest. So, put simply:

--**[(YAWN)]**--

As for your argument #3: I think it has to do with being recognized as equals. And also the benefits. But if they are declared married then they get the benfits, so therefore that's what they ARE fighting for. I hope that made sense.... \

and @EternalSSaturn:
Quote:
where has all the serious debate gone? ....Why can't we just get along?
How can we get along yet hold a debate? lol.....
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 00:31   #247
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
well shouldn't they be able to choose whatever they like (in the case of incest)? In addition, the genetic defects associated with incest do not actually manifest themselves for several generation. example: kings and queens of europe don't look freakish, but EXTENDED incest lead to problems such as hemophilia (i think). but what other moral reasons? religious ones?


since when are children not yet citizens? so children don't have a nationality?

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 00:32   #248
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
Quote:
Ok....i guess that wanting to be treated as equals makes them selfish? yeah, women who fought for the right to vote were selfish bastards, weren't they?
no, but they were selfish bitches

women are slaves of the men!!!

white, land owning men, that is...

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 00:38   #249
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
@electricmime: uhhhh.......right.

As for the discussion: minor means that you are not legally an adult. And marriage is for adults. And that will never change, unless a 12-yr old army somehow gets into congress lol.....

edit: as for moral reaons about incest: most people look down upon incest so it would not happen very often. I doubt that incest would happen unless it was forced, and in that case it is more along the lines of molestation/ rape/ whatever.
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 01:38   #250
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
so becuase you doubt it... it won't ever happen? and marriage is for adults?


by those sme ideas, marriage is between a man and female and "that will never change".

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 01:44   #251
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
marriage is for adults, because only adults are recognized as total citizens, and since we are talking about marriage in the eyes of the government, then it makes sense that they would not be allowed to marry (once again, without their parents, or guardians, permission...)

minors are not considered equal to adults, but if you want to argue about that, you should start a new thread, because that has nothing to do with this...

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 02:02   #252
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
What he said.

Seriously dude, congress will never pass anything saying that people who aren't adults have the rights of adults.

mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 02:47   #253
EternalSSaturn
Senior Member
 
EternalSSaturn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Buda, TX, USA
Posts: 156
Send a message via AIM to EternalSSaturn Send a message via Yahoo to EternalSSaturn
um...TOPICALITY??
EternalSSaturn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 02:52   #254
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
?

mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 04:43   #255
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
So here are the arguements of the anti-ssm

1. We are gonna impose our christian morals on you whether you like it or not.
2. If we let gays do it, polygamists and pedophiles will want the same rights
3. its just wrong...great arguement
4. Anal sex is bad? and should be illegal...cause everyone that has anal sex is immoral
5. Gays are going to hell
6. Gays shouldnt raise kids? what does this have to do with letting them marry?
7. They just want to get the rights of married couples....well is there something wrong with that...and if you are gonna say theyll cost america money...how about iraq
8. once again, c'mon guys we are christians and we think gay people are yucky
9. gays dont love each other as much as normal people do...ok...hey can i borrow your super powers of being able to see into other people souls, i gotta find out if this girl likes me
10. Marriage is sacred...yes it is, why do you think there is all this fuss, this would call to issue denying someone their basic freedoms in the constitution based on a religous bias...something the governor of California or the president cannot stop
11. Its been this way forever, why rock the boat...yeah why rock the boat. Why did we free those slaves in the first place? Why did we allow women to vote? Why did we do all those things that gave people equal rights in the first place?


The bible is as much fiction as the greek and roman mythology so all those dumb arguments arent worthy of my list.

[EDIT] i dare any of you pro-ssm to counter[/EDIT]

Last edited by billyvnilly; 12th April 2004 at 05:07.
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 04:59   #256
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
Lol, that's a pretty good complete collection. I think you forgot a few.....

1. "God doesn't like it. Yeah I'm not God and really don't know anything about him but I insist I am right NOW LISTEN TO ME OU LITTLE ATHEIST SCUM....."
2. "Oh no its not natural.....oh no.......the end of the world!!"
3. The fear of the unknown. AKA "Oh no!! a new idea!!"
4. Hear no evil see no evil speak no evil
5. "You gays are so selfish, wanting to be equal. Of course we aren't selfish when we say haha, we won't give you rights."
6. "It's gonna cause the downfall of society."
7. "there is no way that gay marriage will end the adoption/homeless kid problem" yeah, but it will help it....
8. "Homosexuality is a choice. But of course I never chose to be straight."
9.
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 05:18   #257
Nimelennar
Major Dude
 
Nimelennar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 841
Send a message via ICQ to Nimelennar
I am so sorry that I'm coming back in here, but:

The birth defect argument you're making against incest is exactly the same as the anal sex argument that I was making against same-sex marriage.

What significant difference is there? I see none.

The world is made of conflicts: good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark, hot and cold. All are essential to life. None can prevail for any length of time, or life will fail. In the end, the best any can hope for is balance.
Nimelennar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 05:25   #258
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
well, anal sex only affects someone who chose to get into the act (unless its rape, which is wrong for a totally different reason)... while the birth defects affect an unborn child...

so there is a pretty big difference

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 05:32   #259
Nimelennar
Major Dude
 
Nimelennar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 841
Send a message via ICQ to Nimelennar
That's not my point. My point is that the argument assumes that the married people will have unprotected sexual intercourse. This was thrown against me several times, so I don't get why it can be an acceptable argument against incest.
Also, abortion is legal, and it affects unborn children, so if abortion is legal, and anal sex is legal, why not incest? If same-sex marriage and abortion are legal, why not incestuous marriage?

The world is made of conflicts: good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark, hot and cold. All are essential to life. None can prevail for any length of time, or life will fail. In the end, the best any can hope for is balance.
Nimelennar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 05:41   #260
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
well, with the birth deffects, its assuming the child will eventually be born, and then it will affect a life(being that they dont consider an unborn child a human life)

but, i dont think abortion should be legal, and it really pisses me off that minors can get one without their parents permission/knowledge.. they say its surgery, and yet with any 'normal' surgery, you need your parents permission to get it.. no matter what it is

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 05:48   #261
Nimelennar
Major Dude
 
Nimelennar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 841
Send a message via ICQ to Nimelennar
I don't think abortion should be legal, and it really pisses me off that a woman can get one without the father's knowledge.
And, since the damage was done while the child was "not alive," it can't possibly be affecting a life!!!
Nor can smoking or drinking during pregnancy, which are also legal.
Now, I'm going to go and be sick that, even sarcastically, I'm making this kind of argument.

The world is made of conflicts: good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark, hot and cold. All are essential to life. None can prevail for any length of time, or life will fail. In the end, the best any can hope for is balance.
Nimelennar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 07:15   #262
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar
That's not my point. My point is that the argument assumes that the married people will have unprotected sexual intercourse. This was thrown against me several times, so I don't get why it can be an acceptable argument against incest.
Because incest will create a genetically fucked-up child. That's why. Anal sex affects those who explicitly agree to it, and no more. That's why.

Abortion considers that a unborn child becomes a life at a certian point - just because the damage is done before that point doesn't mean it doesn't impact that life once it has been created.

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 07:29   #263
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by GqSkrub
I will fight for civil unions. I will fight against gay marriages. I think that viewpoint is both defendable and reasonable.
my opinion is that that opinion is only defensable if you back the opinion that legally-recognised marriages for straight couples should be abolished (in favour of civil unions), and acknowledge that gays can be allowed to be married if their religion allows it.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 15:00   #264
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
Because incest will create a genetically fucked-up child. That's why. Anal sex affects those who explicitly agree to it, and no more. That's why.

Abortion considers that a unborn child becomes a life at a certian point - just because the damage is done before that point doesn't mean it doesn't impact that life once it has been created.

well if you do any research into the subject, you will find that only generations of inbreeding will cause a "fucked-up child". One single generation of inbreeding is not enough to cause significant genetic trauma to cause anymore mutations than would occur normally. Therefore the "fucked-up child" arguement is useless and can not be used in the way that anal sex can not be used against ssm.


Quote:
1. We are gonna impose our christian morals on you whether you like it or not.
2. If we let gays do it, polygamists and pedophiles will want the same rights
3. its just wrong...great arguement
4. Anal sex is bad? and should be illegal...cause everyone that has anal sex is immoral
5. Gays are going to hell
6. Gays shouldnt raise kids? what does this have to do with letting them marry?
7. They just want to get the rights of married couples....well is there something wrong with that...and if you are gonna say theyll cost america money...how about iraq
8. once again, c'mon guys we are christians and we think gay people are yucky
9. gays dont love each other as much as normal people do...ok...hey can i borrow your super powers of being able to see into other people souls, i gotta find out if this girl likes me
10. Marriage is sacred...yes it is, why do you think there is all this fuss, this would call to issue denying someone their basic freedoms in the constitution based on a religous bias...something the governor of California or the president cannot stop
11. Its been this way forever, why rock the boat...yeah why rock the boat. Why did we free those slaves in the first place? Why did we allow women to vote? Why did we do all those things that gave people equal rights in the first place?


this is a very biased list. There are non-religously motivated reasons as well. Please be fair when assessing the topic because being insultual does not add to the discussion.


Quote:
my opinion is that that opinion is only defensable if you back the opinion that legally-recognised marriages for straight couples should be abolished (in favour of civil unions), and acknowledge that gays can be allowed to be married if their religion allows it.

i don't understand your reasoning.

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 15:27   #265
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by billyvnilly
2. If we let gays do it, polygamists and pedophiles will want the same rights
pedophilia ain't the same. not even close.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 17:22   #266
Nimelennar
Major Dude
 
Nimelennar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 841
Send a message via ICQ to Nimelennar
Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
Because incest will create a genetically fucked-up child. That's why. Anal sex affects those who explicitly agree to it, and no more. That's why.

Abortion considers that a unborn child becomes a life at a certian point - just because the damage is done before that point doesn't mean it doesn't impact that life once it has been created.
First, one of the things that I was trying to say was that, if incestual marriages are wrong because they presuppose sexual intercourse, then all of that BS that was thrown at me about "Oh, you can't assume that because they're going to be married they're going to have sex," was just that: BS.

Second, my point was that if taking a baby's life before it's considered "alive" cannot be considered wrong, and neither are smoking nor drinking during pregnancy, nor doing drugs during pregnancy (any more so than doing drugs at any other point in time), then surely something which may harm the baby before it's considered alive like having closely related parents can't be worse than actually killing it before it becomes "alive," nor worse than things that have been proven to have a negative effect on most babies, like smoking/drinking in excess/doing drungs.

The world is made of conflicts: good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark, hot and cold. All are essential to life. None can prevail for any length of time, or life will fail. In the end, the best any can hope for is balance.
Nimelennar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 18:40   #267
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
We're just messing with the definition of the word marriage.

You can legitimately define it religiously OR legally. You can't do both because there IS a separation of church and state.

Religiously speaking, of course monotheists aren't likely to approve of gay marriage.
And legally speaking, there's not much difference between marriages of basically any type, given certain restrictions.

So pick a definition already. Marriage means many things to many people, as evidenced by this thread. If you'd set up a definition to start off with, there'd probably be lots less misinformation, confusion, and ill-will abounding.

Define it legally or religiously, don't try and do both simultaneously!
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 18:59   #268
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
when debating the legalisation of marriage, i thought it'd be clear that we were referring to a legal meaning of the term. you're right that there's a lot of evidence of interference between the two in here, though.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 19:01   #269
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
I thought it'd be clear that it was supposed to be a legal definition, too! Of course, the majority of our debaters do not seem to be conversant with the basics of a coherent argument minus fallacy.
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 19:14   #270
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
the plain fact is that even in a modern society, although they will pay it lip service, a lot of people don't really believe in the concept of seperating the church and state. the opinion that religion is that which gives us morals (as opposed to the opposite, which is what i believe*) is still very pervasive in our society. while modern idealism would specifically forbid the interference of the two, the ideas of a lot of people make this a very difficult thing to achieve.

the seperation of church and state is, to many people, something they support only when it supports them, making it effectively useless. if one wishes to be impartial in this way, they may have to be willing to accept that their views on morality as influenced by their religion do not fall into place with others.

*and is not an opinion opposed to religion in any way

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 19:36   #271
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar
First, one of the things that I was trying to say was that, if incestual marriages are wrong because they presuppose sexual intercourse, then all of that BS that was thrown at me about "Oh, you can't assume that because they're going to be married they're going to have sex," was just that: BS.
Fine, let's say that sex is presupposed for those who are married. Why does it make a difference?

Anal sex involves exactly the people who are doing it. Incest does affect another life, assuming that the woman gets pregnant. Given the amount of morons who are having kids when they can't properly care for them anyway, it's a pretty good bed that incestuous relationships are going to create children.

You're right that incest does not necessarily produce overt genetic flaws in the first or even first several generations. But what do we do, then? Wait until unviable children are created? No, we outlaw it.

Gays' genetic line normally stops with them. Anal sex is their choice, and affects no life other than their own.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar Second, my point was that if taking a baby's life before it's considered "alive" cannot be considered wrong, and neither are smoking nor drinking during pregnancy, nor doing drugs during pregnancy (any more so than doing drugs at any other point in time), then surely something which may harm the baby before it's considered alive like having closely related parents can't be worse than actually killing it before it becomes "alive," nor worse than things that have been proven to have a negative effect on most babies, like smoking/drinking in excess/doing drungs.
Smoking and drinking and incest all affect an unborn child after it has been born - they give a higher risk of problems for that person after he has been born. Abortion does not. You're not "taking a baby's life before it's considered 'alive'", because it's not considered "alive", don't you get it?

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 20:31   #272
EternalSSaturn
Senior Member
 
EternalSSaturn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Buda, TX, USA
Posts: 156
Send a message via AIM to EternalSSaturn Send a message via Yahoo to EternalSSaturn
marriage-the act of marrying two people
or the resulting union

that's how I see it.
EternalSSaturn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 21:04   #273
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
Quote:
Originally posted by Nimelennar
First, one of the things that I was trying to say was that, if incestual marriages are wrong because they presuppose sexual intercourse, then all of that BS that was thrown at me about "Oh, you can't assume that because they're going to be married they're going to have sex," was just that: BS.

Second, my point was that if taking a baby's life before it's considered "alive" cannot be considered wrong, and neither are smoking nor drinking during pregnancy, nor doing drugs during pregnancy (any more so than doing drugs at any other point in time), then surely something which may harm the baby before it's considered alive like having closely related parents can't be worse than actually killing it before it becomes "alive," nor worse than things that have been proven to have a negative effect on most babies, like smoking/drinking in excess/doing drungs.

once again you go totally off topic, now you are on abortion... and i think abortion should be illegal.. but difference between killing a baby before its born, is that they dont consider it alive.. if you take drugs, drink, smoke, or its from incest, then when its born, it will have problems directly associated with those things... which why they see it as different...

the biggest flaw i see in that though, if a baby isnt alive before its born, why is killing a pregnant woman count as killing two people? but once again.. thats on abortion, not gay marriage

and it wasnt that you are assuming they are having sex.. its that you are assuming they are having anal sex (its not the only way to have sex for gay people, and some dont like it) and its assuming that they arent using protection, and even if they are having unprotected anal sex, its only hurting two willing people...

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2004, 22:54   #274
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
I think Nimelennar has a point here. xzxzzx i also has a good point. so I really don't care if incestual marriage is outlawed or not, I just won't do it. But I don't see this downward spiral of society as everything falls apart the way some people are twisting it.

edit: I had to read more of the thread lol....
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2004, 05:02   #275
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
anyways... i claim marriage is sacred. and i'm right here.


So what makes homosexuality not a mental disorder?

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2004, 05:11   #276
electricmime
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 991
it is a mental disorder, and we should lock those sick freaks up.. i mean how can we let these people walk our streets, infecting our children?!

but at least you are open minded enough to allow the slightest possibilty that you just might be wrong...

but even if mariage is sacred, why does that mean that gays cant get married (in the eyes of the government), if a religion says they can (in the eyes of god)?

There is no reset button on life... but the graphics kick ass
electricmime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2004, 05:15   #277
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
YEA lock those freaks up!!!! I DON'T WANT THEM ROAMING OUR... wait a minute... damn sarcasm.

Anyways, i guess that religion feels that marriage is THEIR institution that the government is using. So now that gay people want in they feel it's their responsibility to safeguard it. Also, most religious fanatics that care enough to argue this aren't as open-minded as I.

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2004, 05:40   #278
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
SSM is the next step in the plight of the gay. First they got to ride the wave of support for women's civil liberties. SO now we cant discriminate in the work place based on sexual preference. So isnt the gov. discriminating against them?

Marriage is a religous institution. The gov is not involved in the actual marriage. HOWEVER, as soon as someone is married, its the gov's responsibility to recognize them as a spiritual union. If they are gonna give gays civil unions(which they do) and there are religions that are marrying gays(which there are) then the gov isnt doing it duty at respecting our religous institutions. Even if its not respecting the majority, last time i checked everyone is equal. its the law buddy.


On a side note: gays that did get the chance to marry in san fran. may not get their license because of a legal issue with the marriage licesne document. They scratched out bride and wrote groom. And they will most likely be denied the licesnse. So maybe those that slipped through may not have after all.
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2004, 11:39   #279
GqSkrub
Major Dude
 
GqSkrub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lancaster Pennsylvania
Posts: 897
Send a message via AIM to GqSkrub
Well if marriage is a religious institution, then why don't they get to choose who is in it? IN other words, if they don't want gays they shouldn't be forced to include gays. This was a point i made earlier in this thread, but it was torn down by saying marriage was a legal thing, and had nothing to do with religion. Even shy shy was against me

No sig here folks.
GqSkrub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2004, 14:53   #280
Tavernology
Senior Member
 
Tavernology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 240
Aww!! You're shitting me! I missed the chance to beat the Christian up!!! DAMN!!
Tavernology is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > General Discussions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump