Not supporting same sex marriage does NOT make someone a bigot.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] It contributes to the spread of disease.br0kenrabbit

Heterosexual activity also spreads disease, you dolt.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] It contributes to the spread of disease.br0kenrabbit

Heterosexual activity also spreads disease, you dolt.

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] It contributes to the spread of disease.Nibroc420

Heterosexual activity also spreads disease, you dolt.

It is against the law to help with injurying someone (no sports or competitions included).DerveCreaves

In what way?

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

Heterosexual activity also spreads disease, you dolt.

Rich3232

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] It contributes to the spread of disease.Nibroc420

Heterosexual activity also spreads disease, you dolt.

How did you get from disease to children? Can't back up your argument so off to another topic, eh?

STFU

Sex results in a chance of getting disease. Homosexuals have sex for pleasure, spreading disease and having 0% chance of reproduction. Heterosexuals can actually produce children, so while they run the same risk of becoming diseased, they also have a chance to bring more children into the world.Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] But only one results in children. In a Pros vs Cons, Heterosexual wins.Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

Heterosexual activity also spreads disease, you dolt.

br0kenrabbit

How did you get from disease to children? Can't back up your argument so off to another topic, eh?

STFU

Quit feeding him, guys. He's trolling. Don't give him the attention he so desperately craves.

not as many but that's not the point. Damage is the point.DerveCreaves

I'll bet money there's more heterosexual people with STDs than homosexual people.

Maybe it doesnt, but it certainly tends to be associated with that.

[QUOTE="DerveCreaves"] not as many but that's not the point. Damage is the point.br0kenrabbit

I'll bet money there's more heterosexual people with STDs than homosexual people.

As a gay man, I want to be able to stay my partner if he is sick in the hospital(it is an embarrassment that same sex couples are denied this) , and have all the legal benefits of marriage and be able to adopt a child with my partner. These are the rights that are given to straight couples but denied to same sex couples, and if marriage will give this to us, it should be legal.layton2012

Indeed.

I don't see any similarities between not supporting gay marriage and not supporting interracial marriage. Similarly, laws banning gay marriage bear no resemblance to the anti-miscegenation laws from a purely conceptual standpoint.

Bringing up bigotry as being associated with any of the above is stupid. There are no parallels at all...

So, let's recap:

"I am against gay marriage because of my religion"
Wasn't there something about seperation of church and state?
Why should your particular religion dictate what other people can and cannot do?

"Yeah, but we're majority and we don't like it".
So when atheists outnumber christians in the future, you are, by your logic,
okay with the fact that they will outlaw your religion? I mean, they're the majority after all..
Or is it perhaps a good thing that there's no tiranny of the majority?

"Anyway, the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman".
And definitions never change. Black people are still not allowed to marry white people.

"But marriage is a religious thing.."
That's why atheists can get married. Oh that's right, we're talking about secular marriage.

"But but, the sanctity!"
Of what? Britney's shotgun marriage? Or the Kardashians?

"Well, but gay people can't have children."
Neither can infertile people or older people who want to get married.
And where does it say that children are a requirement for marriage?

"But we need straight marriage or humans will go extinct"
Does gay marriage stop heterosexuals from marrying each other?
This is getting retarded.

"Ok, then I want to marry my dog, a child or my pet stone. Eat that hah!"
Can they give consent and enter a marital contract? Try again.

"Oh yeah? I want to marry 5 women or my sister."
Here comes the slippery slope and a nice way to keep shifting the goal post.
Anyway, my personal opinion?! If they're adult and can consent, let them!
Do I think it's weird, yes. Is it my business? NO!

"Damn, but why can't they make civil unions which grant the same rights?"
Where's the logic in having two exactly the same things, but naming them differently?
Where one of those things isn't allowed for people based on their sexuality.
Smells like water fountains for colored people, that wasn't such a great idea either.

"Aargh, but homosexuals are not natural!"
You're right homosexuality doesn't occur in nature at all..... sigh!

"But if homosexual people adopt children, those children will grow up gay"
Because a: straight people never produce gay children? And b: what is wrong with being gay?

"Still, gay people are icky!"
I can probably point out a lot of things about you that I find icky. Does it matter?
Not a friggin bit!

There simply is NO valid reason to oppose gay marriage. I can do this all day long.

[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] But only one results in children. In a Pros vs Cons, Heterosexual wins.Nibroc420

But different strokes for different folks I guess.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="Rich3232"] only if you few having kids as a a pro Teenaged

But different strokes for different folks I guess.

You are comparing sports to punching g thug in front of his house down the street. You are commparing sports to two people stabbing eachother with knives consensuallly. you are supporting to people doing an action that will damage and could do permanent damage to inner areas of their body and other issues. How is there a comparison?DerveCreaves

You are staying put in the examples you feel comfortable approaching. The examples you've provided would be illegal, in most cases, for the detrimental values to public order, safety and wellbeing- embodied in a judicial criminal interpretation that would negate the existence of consent, or a statute that would deny the need for a lack of consent with thses offences, completely.

Slapping someoen across the face, hard, with his consent- would not be illegal (criminally or tort wise). acting a fight scene the includes physically hurting someone, playing sports or fighting competitively- are all prime examples of self risk taking that would afford defences to a harm perpetrator. The reason is that those activities are not considered ones that society should discourage. Anal sex is comparable to those examples, and not those you gave.

We encourage sports- because we consider the benefit a sports event offers to be in the positive spectrum, and the consent of the players and audience to be 'effective'. When two G thugs (jesus, stop using that) fight it out- they damage a vital public interest, in a completely externalized way. when gay people have sex- we can assume their consent is 'efficient', and the sexual gratification and joy they receive out of it to immeasurably outweigh the slight physical pains they may receive. meaning- there's no palpable reason why we should outlaw it.

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"]Can I legally marry my dog? No? Bunch of bigots..00-Riddick-00

If you are both adult and both able to give consent.
I would be totally fine with it. Well I would think you're weird, but your relationship is none of my business.

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"][QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"]Can I legally marry my dog? No? Bunch of bigots..TheFlush

If you are both adult and both able to give consent.
I would be totally fine with it. Well I would think you're weird, but your relationship is none of my business.

Even if you're okay with it, it's illegal.Nibroc420

So is taking a shower on Sundays in some states.

Fvck it.

[QUOTE="TheFlush"]

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"] Ok, I will admit this was really bad analogy. But why can't I marry a relative?Nibroc420

If you are both adult and both able to give consent.
I would be totally fine with it. Well I would think you're weird, but your relationship is none of my business.

However weird I might find such a relationship, I think it's not right that it's illegal.

So, let's recap:

"I am against gay marriage because of my religion"
Wasn't there something about seperation of church and state?
Why should your particular religion dictate what other people can and cannot do?

"Yeah, but we're majority and we don't like it".
So when atheists outnumber christians in the future, you are, by your logic,
okay with the fact that they will outlaw your religion? I mean, they're the majority after all..
Or is it perhaps a good thing that there's no tiranny of the majority?

"Anyway, the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman".
And definitions never change. Black people are still not allowed to marry white people.

"But marriage is a religious thing.."
That's why atheists can get married. Oh that's right, we're talking about secular marriage.

"But but, the sanctity!"
Of what? Britney's shotgun marriage? Or the Kardashians?

"Well, but gay people can't have children."
Neither can infertile people or older people who want to get married.
And where does it say that children are a requirement for marriage?

"But we need straight marriage or humans will go extinct"
Does gay marriage stop heterosexuals from marrying each other?
This is getting retarded.

"Ok, then I want to marry my dog, a child or my pet stone. Eat that hah!"
Can they give consent and enter a marital contract? Try again.

"Oh yeah? I want to marry 5 women or my sister."
Here comes the slippery slope and a nice way to keep shifting the goal post.
Anyway, my personal opinion?! If they're adult and can consent, let them!
Do I think it's weird, yes. Is it my business? NO!

"Damn, but why can't they make civil unions which grant the same rights?"
Where's the logic in having two exactly the same things, but naming them differently?
Where one of those things isn't allowed for people based on their sexuality.
Smells like water fountains for colored people, that wasn't such a great idea either.

"Aargh, but homosexuals are not natural!"
You're right homosexuality doesn't occur in nature at all..... sigh!

"But if homosexual people adopt children, those children will grow up gay"
Because a: straight people never produce gay children? And b: what is wrong with being gay?

"Still, gay people are icky!"
I can probably point out a lot of things about you that I find icky. Does it matter?
Not a friggin bit!

There simply is NO valid reason to oppose gay marriage. I can do this all day long.

TheFlush

[QUOTE="DerveCreaves"] You are comparing sports to punching g thug in front of his house down the street. You are commparing sports to two people stabbing eachother with knives consensuallly. you are supporting to people doing an action that will damage and could do permanent damage to inner areas of their body and other issues. How is there a comparison?pie-junior

You are staying put in the examples you feel comfortable approaching. The examples you've provided would be illegal, in most cases, for the detrimental values to public order, safety and wellbeing- embodied in a judicial criminal interpretation that would negate the existence of consent, or a statute that would deny the need for a lack of consent with thses offences, completely.

Slapping someoen across the face, hard, with his consent- would not be illegal (criminally or tort wise). acting a fight scene the includes physically hurting someone, playing sports or fighting competitively- are all prime examples of self risk taking that would afford defences to a harm perpetrator. The reason is that those activities are not considered ones that society should discourage. Anal sex is comparable to those examples, and not those you gave.

We encourage sports- because we consider the benefit a sports event offers to be in the positive spectrum, and the consent of the players and audience to be 'effective'. When two G thugs (jesus, stop using that) fight it out- they damage a vital public interest, in a completely externalized way. when gay people have sex- we can assume their consent is 'efficient', and the sexual gratification and joy they receive out of it to immeasurably outweigh the slight physical pains they may receive. meaning- there's no palpable reason why we should outlaw it.

So, let's recap:

"I am against gay marriage because of my religion"
Wasn't there something about seperation of church and state?
Why should your particular religion dictate what other people can and cannot do?

"Yeah, but we're majority and we don't like it".
So when atheists outnumber christians in the future, you are, by your logic,
okay with the fact that they will outlaw your religion? I mean, they're the majority after all..
Or is it perhaps a good thing that there's no tiranny of the majority?

"Anyway, the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman".
And definitions never change. Black people are still not allowed to marry white people.

"But marriage is a religious thing.."
That's why atheists can get married. Oh that's right, we're talking about secular marriage.

"But but, the sanctity!"
Of what? Britney's shotgun marriage? Or the Kardashians?

"Well, but gay people can't have children."
Neither can infertile people or older people who want to get married.
And where does it say that children are a requirement for marriage?

"But we need straight marriage or humans will go extinct"
Does gay marriage stop heterosexuals from marrying each other?
This is getting retarded.

"Ok, then I want to marry my dog, a child or my pet stone. Eat that hah!"
Can they give consent and enter a marital contract? Try again.

"Oh yeah? I want to marry 5 women or my sister."
Here comes the slippery slope and a nice way to keep shifting the goal post.
Anyway, my personal opinion?! If they're adult and can consent, let them!
Do I think it's weird, yes. Is it my business? NO!

"Damn, but why can't they make civil unions which grant the same rights?"
Where's the logic in having two exactly the same things, but naming them differently?
Where one of those things isn't allowed for people based on their sexuality.
Smells like water fountains for colored people, that wasn't such a great idea either.

"Aargh, but homosexuals are not natural!"
You're right homosexuality doesn't occur in nature at all..... sigh!

"But if homosexual people adopt children, those children will grow up gay"
Because a: straight people never produce gay children? And b: what is wrong with being gay?

"Still, gay people are icky!"
I can probably point out a lot of things about you that I find icky. Does it matter?
Not a friggin bit!

There simply is NO valid reason to oppose gay marriage. I can do this all day long.

TheFlush

This sums it up. Modern religious conservatives really are hilarious when they try to use their faulty logic and world view to support bronze age myths and laws

[QUOTE="TheFlush"]

So, let's recap:

"I am against gay marriage because of my religion"
Wasn't there something about seperation of church and state?
Why should your particular religion dictate what other people can and cannot do?

"Yeah, but we're majority and we don't like it".
So when atheists outnumber christians in the future, you are, by your logic,
okay with the fact that they will outlaw your religion? I mean, they're the majority after all..
Or is it perhaps a good thing that there's no tiranny of the majority?

"Anyway, the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman".
And definitions never change. Black people are still not allowed to marry white people.

"But marriage is a religious thing.."
That's why atheists can get married. Oh that's right, we're talking about secular marriage.

"But but, the sanctity!"
Of what? Britney's shotgun marriage? Or the Kardashians?

"Well, but gay people can't have children."
Neither can infertile people or older people who want to get married.
And where does it say that children are a requirement for marriage?

"But we need straight marriage or humans will go extinct"
Does gay marriage stop heterosexuals from marrying each other?
This is getting retarded.

"Ok, then I want to marry my dog, a child or my pet stone. Eat that hah!"
Can they give consent and enter a marital contract? Try again.

"Oh yeah? I want to marry 5 women or my sister."
Here comes the slippery slope and a nice way to keep shifting the goal post.
Anyway, my personal opinion?! If they're adult and can consent, let them!
Do I think it's weird, yes. Is it my business? NO!

"Damn, but why can't they make civil unions which grant the same rights?"
Where's the logic in having two exactly the same things, but naming them differently?
Where one of those things isn't allowed for people based on their sexuality.
Smells like water fountains for colored people, that wasn't such a great idea either.

"Aargh, but homosexuals are not natural!"
You're right homosexuality doesn't occur in nature at all..... sigh!

"But if homosexual people adopt children, those children will grow up gay"
Because a: straight people never produce gay children? And b: what is wrong with being gay?

"Still, gay people are icky!"
I can probably point out a lot of things about you that I find icky. Does it matter?
Not a friggin bit!

There simply is NO valid reason to oppose gay marriage. I can do this all day long.

wis3boi

This sums it up. Modern religious conservatives really are hilarious when they try to use their faulty logic and world view to support bronze age myths and laws

[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] But only one results in children. In a Pros vs Cons, Heterosexual wins.Nibroc420

What a terrible arguement. The last thing this planet needs is more people having kids dude. The absolute LAST thing.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="TheFlush"]

So, let's recap:

"I am against gay marriage because of my religion"
Wasn't there something about seperation of church and state?
Why should your particular religion dictate what other people can and cannot do?

"Yeah, but we're majority and we don't like it".
So when atheists outnumber christians in the future, you are, by your logic,
okay with the fact that they will outlaw your religion? I mean, they're the majority after all..
Or is it perhaps a good thing that there's no tiranny of the majority?

"Anyway, the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman".
And definitions never change. Black people are still not allowed to marry white people.

"But marriage is a religious thing.."
That's why atheists can get married. Oh that's right, we're talking about secular marriage.

"But but, the sanctity!"
Of what? Britney's shotgun marriage? Or the Kardashians?

"Well, but gay people can't have children."
Neither can infertile people or older people who want to get married.
And where does it say that children are a requirement for marriage?

"But we need straight marriage or humans will go extinct"
Does gay marriage stop heterosexuals from marrying each other?
This is getting retarded.

"Ok, then I want to marry my dog, a child or my pet stone. Eat that hah!"
Can they give consent and enter a marital contract? Try again.

"Oh yeah? I want to marry 5 women or my sister."
Here comes the slippery slope and a nice way to keep shifting the goal post.
Anyway, my personal opinion?! If they're adult and can consent, let them!
Do I think it's weird, yes. Is it my business? NO!

"Damn, but why can't they make civil unions which grant the same rights?"
Where's the logic in having two exactly the same things, but naming them differently?
Where one of those things isn't allowed for people based on their sexuality.
Smells like water fountains for colored people, that wasn't such a great idea either.

"Aargh, but homosexuals are not natural!"
You're right homosexuality doesn't occur in nature at all..... sigh!

"But if homosexual people adopt children, those children will grow up gay"
Because a: straight people never produce gay children? And b: what is wrong with being gay?

"Still, gay people are icky!"
I can probably point out a lot of things about you that I find icky. Does it matter?
Not a friggin bit!

There simply is NO valid reason to oppose gay marriage. I can do this all day long.

Nibroc420

This sums it up. Modern religious conservatives really are hilarious when they try to use their faulty logic and world view to support bronze age myths and laws

Then give a valid reason as to why we should accept that opinion and not ridicule it?

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="Rich3232"] only if you few having kids as a a pro Leejjohno

What a terrible arguement. The last thing this planet needs is more people having kids dude. The absolute LAST thing.

stop feeding nibroc

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="TheFlush"]

So, let's recap:

"I am against gay marriage because of my religion"
Wasn't there something about seperation of church and state?
Why should your particular religion dictate what other people can and cannot do?

"Yeah, but we're majority and we don't like it".
So when atheists outnumber christians in the future, you are, by your logic,
okay with the fact that they will outlaw your religion? I mean, they're the majority after all..
Or is it perhaps a good thing that there's no tiranny of the majority?

"Anyway, the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman".
And definitions never change. Black people are still not allowed to marry white people.

"But marriage is a religious thing.."
That's why atheists can get married. Oh that's right, we're talking about secular marriage.

"But but, the sanctity!"
Of what? Britney's shotgun marriage? Or the Kardashians?

"Well, but gay people can't have children."
Neither can infertile people or older people who want to get married.
And where does it say that children are a requirement for marriage?

"But we need straight marriage or humans will go extinct"
Does gay marriage stop heterosexuals from marrying each other?
This is getting retarded.

"Ok, then I want to marry my dog, a child or my pet stone. Eat that hah!"
Can they give consent and enter a marital contract? Try again.

"Oh yeah? I want to marry 5 women or my sister."
Here comes the slippery slope and a nice way to keep shifting the goal post.
Anyway, my personal opinion?! If they're adult and can consent, let them!
Do I think it's weird, yes. Is it my business? NO!

"Damn, but why can't they make civil unions which grant the same rights?"
Where's the logic in having two exactly the same things, but naming them differently?
Where one of those things isn't allowed for people based on their sexuality.
Smells like water fountains for colored people, that wasn't such a great idea either.

"Aargh, but homosexuals are not natural!"
You're right homosexuality doesn't occur in nature at all..... sigh!

"But if homosexual people adopt children, those children will grow up gay"
Because a: straight people never produce gay children? And b: what is wrong with being gay?

"Still, gay people are icky!"
I can probably point out a lot of things about you that I find icky. Does it matter?
Not a friggin bit!

There simply is NO valid reason to oppose gay marriage. I can do this all day long.

Nibroc420

This sums it up. Modern religious conservatives really are hilarious when they try to use their faulty logic and world view to support bronze age myths and laws

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Sex results in a chance of getting disease. Homosexuals have sex for pleasure, spreading disease and having 0% chance of reproduction. Heterosexuals can actually produce children, so while they run the same risk of becoming diseased, they also have a chance to bring more children into the world.Nibroc420

What a terrible arguement. The last thing this planet needs is more people having kids dude. The absolute LAST thing.

Anal Sex is causing bodily harm like the Examples I gave, it;s not the same thing as sports or slapping someone (with consent.) it;s causing damage and can cause serious damage. By doing something no intended.DerveCreaves

Under that rationale- nearly every activity has the potential of causing serious damage. most of them- in much more severe ways.

taking your arguments to the next logical level would demand us to outlaw (since we've already covered sports)- driving, swimming, eating (wrong pipe just the once and you're dead), flying etc. etc.

Jesus, I would suggest complete seclusion but, apparently, we can't even be agoraphobics considering 80% of all accidents happen at the home (or w/e).

You're not a bigot, but you clearly have no problem with using government guns to tell other people what to do.

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Sex results in a chance of getting disease. Homosexuals have sex for pleasure, spreading disease and having 0% chance of reproduction. Heterosexuals can actually produce children, so while they run the same risk of becoming diseased, they also have a chance to bring more children into the world.Nibroc420

What a terrible arguement. The last thing this planet needs is more people having kids dude. The absolute LAST thing.

Tell that to China.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

What a terrible arguement. The last thing this planet needs is more people having kids dude. The absolute LAST thing.

Leejjohno

Tell that to China.

Geological locations are extremely hard to converse with.Nibroc420

I cock-slap Europe at least twice a week.

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] That is one opinion, and you're entitled to it. Personally i think the world would be better off without so much hatred for people with differing opinions, and a decrease in disease wouldn't hurt either.Nibroc420

Tell that to China.

So are you :lol:

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Sex results in a chance of getting disease. Homosexuals have sex for pleasure, spreading disease and having 0% chance of reproduction. Heterosexuals can actually produce children, so while they run the same risk of becoming diseased, they also have a chance to bring more children into the world.Nibroc420

But different strokes for different folks I guess.

But we're both aware of this particular context right?

Hm, I guess not, if you have to point out something irrelevant to it...

Technically Moses is right, to an extent.

Marriage is the joining of a man and a woman; that has always been the case and definition. A gay marriage is essentially an oxymoron. Which is why in the UK we have Civil Partnerships, which by the way, encompasses all the rights a married couple get. It is merely another word, that is literally it.

Having said that, I am of the opinion that definitions and red tape can be changed, and they may as well call it marriage considering it's the same thing. The only qualm I would be the state potentially forcing the church to perform gay marriages, which would be wrong. Let them come round in their own time.

So no, it doesn't make them a bigot. It's not actually that simple. Whilst I don't see what the problem with civil partnerships is, as it happens, I do support the introduction of same sex marriage, so long as the individual church consents to it.

Marriage is the joining of a man and a woman;

DarthJohnova

Marriage means joining ANY two things together. Matrimony took to the word marriage because of this definition.

[QUOTE="DarthJohnova"]

Marriage is the joining of a man and a woman;

br0kenrabbit

Marriage means joining ANY two things together. Matrimony took to the word marriage because of this definition.

That may be your connotation, or even the current denotation. However people around the world, for hundreds of years, have known marriage to be between a man, and a woman.Nibroc420

And people since pre-history have been joined in same-sex marriages, what's your point?

Just because it wasn't common in CHURCH-DOMINATED western society doesn't mean it's a new thing.

Also, for most of history if you weren't of noble birth, you had NO rights. That doesn't make it correct.

Consensus has nothing to do with right or wrong, why can't you understand that?

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

[QUOTE="DarthJohnova"]

Marriage is the joining of a man and a woman;

Nibroc420

Marriage means joining ANY two things together. Matrimony took to the word marriage because of this definition.