Opposite sex marriages should be illegal.

[QUOTE="abdelmessih101"]

[QUOTE="Diablo112688"]They rarely work out, and also they cause too many problems. They are also wrong in my eyes. It is not natural nor does it benefit me. Diablo112688

But at least it's not immoral. ;)

Yes it is. In my opinion it is.

Too bad you're not God. ;)

[QUOTE="abdelmessih101"]

[QUOTE="Diablo112688"]They rarely work out, and also they cause too many problems. They are also wrong in my eyes. It is not natural nor does it benefit me. Talldude80

But at least it's not immoral. ;)

LOL. exactly. the statements that being gay is wrong or not natural has NOWHERE in law making. Thats an opinion, laws shouldnt be based on somebody's hate towards another's sexual orientation. immoral is definately the word for this thread.

It's not hate. :| Everyone sins, that doesn't mean I hate everyone. :| The fact that homosexuality is immoral doesn't mean I hate gays. :|

 

1. They rarely work out

2. they cause too many problems.

3. They are also wrong in my eyes.

4. not natural

5. nor does it benefit me. Diablo112688

1. Why does that matter

2. Like what? And again, why does that matter?

3. Who cares, you aren't participating, its none of your business

4. Why does that matter

5. What does that have to do with anything?  

They rarely work out, and also they cause too many problems. They are also wrong in my eyes. It is not natural nor does it benefit me. Diablo112688

Right...  Just because that's how you feel, that's how it should be. :roll:

[QUOTE="Diablo112688"]They rarely work out, and also they cause too many problems. They are also wrong in my eyes. It is not natural nor does it benefit me. kingdre

Right...  Just because that's how you feel, that's how it should be. :roll:

His actual point is to show how irrational this logic (which is commonly used by opposers of same-sex marriage) actually is.

Where did you get that illogical idea from? Your ass, right? And where's the relevance to that anyway?

xMOBSTER23x

First off, I said probably. Secondly, the relevance (or lack thereof) of AnnoyedDragon is how he said "straight" marriages. Obviously they're straight marriages and the reasons they don't work out is because the moral fiber of America is steadily declining. Thirdly, on average, I've met more gay people who have had more partners then straight people have. Call me a bigot or whatever but that's what I've seen. So no, that idea is not illogical.

Right...  Just because that's how you feel, that's how it should be. :roll:

kingdre

That thinking is the reason Prop. 8 passed.  Well, that and loads of lies.  

they do have a very low sucess rateN8A

Is that because of their sex or because of the people themselves? [spoiler] Oh snap... [/spoiler]  

Is that because of their sex or because of the people themselves? Oh snap...

battlefront23

Gonna go out on a limb and say the people, themselves.

You're welcome to start a petition to get a measure placed on next year's ballot.Oleg_Huzwog

Satire>petitions. 

They rarely work out, and also they cause too many problems. They are also wrong in my eyes. It is not natural nor does it benefit me. Diablo112688

Linkage to where you got this from?..if anything normal marriages never work...last time I looked it was only every other couple stays together...Also, how do you know it is "unnatural" to be in love with the same sex, if it was unnatural then it would have to be forced upon them...also where gay marriage is allowed are the places that are obviously the most tolerant, so it would probably cause as much trouble as someone having a lot of zits or something to that extent at an early age...(if they adopt a kid)...

[QUOTE="xMOBSTER23x"]

Where did you get that illogical idea from? Your ass, right? And where's the relevance to that anyway?

battlefront23

First off, I said probably. Secondly, the relevance (or lack thereof) of AnnoyedDragon is how he said "straight" marriages. Obviously they're straight marriages and the reasons they don't work out is because the moral fiber of America is steadily declining. Thirdly, on average, I've met more gay people who have had more partners then straight people have. Call me a bigot or whatever but that's what I've seen. So no, that idea is not illogical.

The irrelevance of what AnnoyedDragon said doesn't make your equally irrevelant idea relevant or right. I live in a big city, and the people of my generation(gay or straight, male or female) seem to be pretty equal on the number of "partners" they have. But they all have a similar idea, which is when they decide to get married, it's someone they want to settle down with and stay with for the rest of their life. This belief is pretty much the same among gays and straights. I doubt you really know any gay people anyway, but that's besides the point. Not only is your idea illogical, but it's ignorant and offensive.

The irrelevance of what AnnoyedDragon said doesn't make your equally irrevelant idea relevant or right. I live in a big city, and the people of my generation(gay or straight, male or female) seem to be pretty equal on the number of "partners" they have. But they all have a similar idea, which is when they decide to get married, it's someone they want to settle down with and stay with for the rest of their life. This belief is pretty much the same among gays and straights. I doubt you really know any gay people anyway, but that's besides the point. Not only is your idea illogical, but it's ignorant and offensive.

xMOBSTER23x

This is the OT. Who cares if every little post is completely relevant... Mainly, I brought that up because it doesn't matter about the sex in a marriage, it depends upon the people in the marriage. I, however, find it rare gay people have a long lasting relationship with their partner. This is not a bigoted or hateful ( :roll: ) comment at all, it's just what I've seen with my own two eyes. So no it's not ignorant or offensive.

[QUOTE="xMOBSTER23x"]

The irrelevance of what AnnoyedDragon said doesn't make your equally irrevelant idea relevant or right. I live in a big city, and the people of my generation(gay or straight, male or female) seem to be pretty equal on the number of "partners" they have. But they all have a similar idea, which is when they decide to get married, it's someone they want to settle down with and stay with for the rest of their life. This belief is pretty much the same among gays and straights. I doubt you really know any gay people anyway, but that's besides the point. Not only is your idea illogical, but it's ignorant and offensive.

battlefront23

This is the OT. Who cares if every little post is completely relevant... Mainly, I brought that up because it doesn't matter about the sex in a marriage, it depends upon the people in the marriage. I, however, find it rare gay people have a long lasting relationship with their partner. This is not a bigoted or hateful ( :roll: ) comment at all, it's just what I've seen with my own two eyes. So no it's not ignorant or offensive.

I doubt you've met that many gay people, so yes, it is ignorant to assume they are more likely to divorce than straights based on the couple gays you may have met(which i think you just made up anyway). Your idea is ignorant, just think about it for a minute.

I doubt you've met that many gay people, so yes, it is ignorant to assume they are more likely to divorce than straights based on the couple gays you may have met(which i think you just made up anyway). Your idea is ignorant, just think about it for a minute. xMOBSTER23x

[QUOTE="xMOBSTER23x"]

The irrelevance of what AnnoyedDragon said doesn't make your equally irrevelant idea relevant or right. I live in a big city, and the people of my generation(gay or straight, male or female) seem to be pretty equal on the number of "partners" they have. But they all have a similar idea, which is when they decide to get married, it's someone they want to settle down with and stay with for the rest of their life. This belief is pretty much the same among gays and straights. I doubt you really know any gay people anyway, but that's besides the point. Not only is your idea illogical, but it's ignorant and offensive.

battlefront23

This is the OT. Who cares if every little post is completely relevant... Mainly, I brought that up because it doesn't matter about the sex in a marriage, it depends upon the people in the marriage. I, however, find it rare gay people have a long lasting relationship with their partner. This is not a bigoted or hateful ( :roll: ) comment at all, it's just what I've seen with my own two eyes. So no it's not ignorant or offensive.

Wait so self-righteous and so-called open minded people who support homosexuals are allowed to be bigoted and hateful towards those who don't share their ideas on the topic? hmm...am I sensing the creation of a double standard?

[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="xMOBSTER23x"]

The irrelevance of what AnnoyedDragon said doesn't make your equally irrevelant idea relevant or right. I live in a big city, and the people of my generation(gay or straight, male or female) seem to be pretty equal on the number of "partners" they have. But they all have a similar idea, which is when they decide to get married, it's someone they want to settle down with and stay with for the rest of their life. This belief is pretty much the same among gays and straights. I doubt you really know any gay people anyway, but that's besides the point. Not only is your idea illogical, but it's ignorant and offensive.

Huell_Howser

This is the OT. Who cares if every little post is completely relevant... Mainly, I brought that up because it doesn't matter about the sex in a marriage, it depends upon the people in the marriage. I, however, find it rare gay people have a long lasting relationship with their partner. This is not a bigoted or hateful ( :roll: ) comment at all, it's just what I've seen with my own two eyes. So no it's not ignorant or offensive.

Wait so self-righteous and so-called open minded people who support homosexuals are allowed to be bigoted and hateful towards those who don't share their ideas on the topic? hmm...am I sensing the creation of a double standard?

No, because nothing I said was bigoted or hateful.

[QUOTE="xMOBSTER23x"] I doubt you've met that many gay people, so yes, it is ignorant to assume they are more likely to divorce than straights based on the couple gays you may have met(which i think you just made up anyway). Your idea is ignorant, just think about it for a minute. battlefront23

Well, for one, you live in Oregon, and what seems to be a suburban area. The straight people of our generation aren't what they used to be. Their life****(statistically) are much more in common with your stereotype of gays(which I still doubt you know any), in that they have multiple sexual partners before marriage. Your idea may have had some logical truth in the 50's, but in our modern time, there is no logical truth to it. Only ignorance. 

And "doubt" is all I can do, merely just as inaccurately and ignorantly assume is all you can do.

[QUOTE="Huell_Howser"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]

This is the OT. Who cares if every little post is completely relevant... Mainly, I brought that up because it doesn't matter about the sex in a marriage, it depends upon the people in the marriage. I, however, find it rare gay people have a long lasting relationship with their partner. This is not a bigoted or hateful ( :roll: ) comment at all, it's just what I've seen with my own two eyes. So no it's not ignorant or offensive.

xMOBSTER23x

Wait so self-righteous and so-called open minded people who support homosexuals are allowed to be bigoted and hateful towards those who don't share their ideas on the topic? hmm...am I sensing the creation of a double standard?

No, because nothing I said was bigoted or hateful.

Other than calling his ideas illogical, ignorant, and offensive?

Well, for one, The straight people of our generation aren't what they used to be. Their life****(statistically) are much more in common with your stereotype of gays(which I still doubt you know any), in that they have multiple sexual partners before marriage. Your idea may have had some logical truth in the 50's, but in our modern time, there is no logical truth to it. Only ignorance.

And "doubt" is all I can do, merely just as inaccurately and ignorantly assume is all you can do.

xMOBSTER23x

Dude, I just put that up on my profile. :shock:

[QUOTE="xMOBSTER23x"][QUOTE="Huell_Howser"]

 

Wait so self-righteous and so-called open minded people who support homosexuals are allowed to be bigoted and hateful towards those who don't share their ideas on the topic? hmm...am I sensing the creation of a double standard?

Huell_Howser

No, because nothing I said was bigoted or hateful.

Other than calling his ideas illogical, ignorant, and offensive?

Calling someone ignorant isn't hateful. Look up the definition of ignorant and see what it is. I truly think his assumptions are illogical. Saying that is not "hateful" or "bigoted". And I did think his assumption was offensive. There was nothing "hateful" or "bigoted" with me saying that I was offended. 

He has the right to tell his ideas here, just as I have the right to tell him how ignorant, illogical and offensive they actually are.

[QUOTE="xMOBSTER23x"] Well, for one, The straight people of our generation aren't what they used to be. Their life****(statistically) are much more in common with your stereotype of gays(which I still doubt you know any), in that they have multiple sexual partners before marriage. Your idea may have had some logical truth in the 50's, but in our modern time, there is no logical truth to it. Only ignorance.

And "doubt" is all I can do, merely just as inaccurately and ignorantly assume is all you can do.

battlefront23

Dude, I just put that up on my profile. :shock:

So... you're agreeing with me? I don't quite understand what you meant.

So... you're agreeing with me? I don't quite understand what you meant. xMOBSTER23x

No I'm not. I'm pointing out that that is creepy... And also, you talk about how ignorant I am and such... You're quite ignorant yourself if you "assume" all these thinsg about me. Practice what you preach, bub. 

[QUOTE="xMOBSTER23x"]So... you're agreeing with me? I don't quite understand what you meant. battlefront23

No I'm not. I'm pointing out that that is creepy... And also, you talk about how ignorant I am and such... You're quite ignorant yourself if you "assume" all these thinsg about me. Practice what you preach, bub. 

One has to assume to a certain extent. But some assumptions are so illogical and inaccurate that one would be ignorant to actually believe them(as your assumption of gays to straights is)

No, because nothing I said was bigoted or hateful.

xMOBSTER23x

Yeah you did, you told him his idea was ignorant. Bigotry right there. Perhaps even hatred. Depends.

[QUOTE="xMOBSTER23x"]

No, because nothing I said was bigoted or hateful.

King_Stones

Yeah you did, you told him his idea was ignorant. Bigotry right there. Perhaps even hatred. Depends.

Nope. Saying someone's idea is ignorant=/= hatred for them. It does not mean I am bigoted towards them either. His view is ignorant.

Nice try DS, I know you're still bitter that I got your alt. accuont banned... :lol: . I like proving you wrong, it's easy, too.

[QUOTE="N8A"]they do have a very low sucess ratebattlefront23

Is that because of their sex or because of the people themselves?

Proof?

How can anyone say gay marriages won't last when gay marriage isn't even allowed? You have no demographic to base this off. And as for the promiscuity of homosexuals, just because some have more partners doesn't mean they all do. I also don't see how that should be a reason to ban gay marriage, because it's none of your business. On another interesting side note, men are naturally promiscuous so when you look at gay men, you are seeing raw male sexuality.

Just curious: if there was a choice between a legal union with no religious status and a religious marriage with no legal status, how many people would choose the 2nd form over the 1st?jimmyjammer69

I would pick neither.  Whatever form marriage is in, it'll stay useless.

[QUOTE="King_Stones"][QUOTE="xMOBSTER23x"]

No, because nothing I said was bigoted or hateful.

xMOBSTER23x

Yeah you did, you told him his idea was ignorant. Bigotry right there. Perhaps even hatred. Depends.

Nope. Saying someone's idea is ignorant=/= hatred for them. It does not mean I am bigoted towards them either. His view is ignorant.

Nice try DS, I know you're still bitter that I got your alt. accuont banned... :lol: . I like proving you wrong, it's easy, too.

You got DS banned? And you think I'm him? :lol:

Where did you prove me wrong?

By the way, yeah it's bigoted to blatantly disregard anyone else's opinion just because it differs from yours. Which is what you did. Boy, proving you wrong is really what's easy... :roll:

Proof?

How can anyone say gay marriages won't last when gay marriage isn't even allowed? You have no demographic to base this off. And as for the promiscuity of homosexuals, just because some have more partners doesn't mean they all do. I also don't see how that should be a reason to ban gay marriage, because it's none of your business. On another interesting side note, men are naturally promiscuous so when you look at gay men, you are seeing raw male sexuality.

Red-XIII

My point is that it's not the sexes of those marraiges; it's the problems they had with each other. BTW I already stated I hold no opinion on homosexuality being legalized but I do think it's morally wrong. 

[QUOTE="xMOBSTER23x"][QUOTE="King_Stones"]

 

Yeah you did, you told him his idea was ignorant. Bigotry right there. Perhaps even hatred. Depends.

King_Stones

Nope. Saying someone's idea is ignorant=/= hatred for them. It does not mean I am bigoted towards them either. His view is ignorant.

Nice try DS, I know you're still bitter that I got your alt. accuont banned... :lol: . I like proving you wrong, it's easy, too.

You got DS banned? And you think I'm him? :lol:

Where did you prove me wrong?

By the way, yeah it's bigoted to blatantly disregard anyone else's opinion just because it differs from yours. Which is what you did. Boy, proving you wrong is really what's easy... :roll:

You know I'm talking about your Persecuted_1 account you used for suspension dodging. 

It isn't bigoted to call someone's view ignorant and expalin why it is, which is what I did. If someone said all black people are evil because their skin color causes them to be evil, I would call their view ignorant and explain why their view was ignorant. Doing so would not make me a bigot or a hateful person, but a logical person.

You have been proven wrong. Try again at your own risk.

You know I'm talking about your Persecuted_1 account you used for suspension dodging.

It isn't bigoted to call someone's view ignorant and expalin why it is, which is what I did. If someone said all black people are evil because their skin color causes them to be evil, I would call their view ignorant and explain why their view was ignorant. Doing so would not make me a bigot or a hateful person, but a logical person.

You have been proven wrong. Try again at your own risk.

xMOBSTER23x

Try at my own risk...wow you're really in love with yourself aren't you? :lol:

I had no clue you were talking about P1, I had no clue who "got it banned", and I don't care. I was P1, yes, but I'm not DS.

You just always think you're right. Which is why you don't see how your post qualifies as bigotry. It does, it's clear, you think you're right just because, and the only thing wrong you showed with the other guy's viewpoint, were things that were opinion driven. You proved nothing, and you are bigoted towards others.

To clear things up:

Bigotry: 1.stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.2.the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

[QUOTE="xMOBSTER23x"]

You know I'm talking about your Persecuted_1 account you used for suspension dodging.

It isn't bigoted to call someone's view ignorant and expalin why it is, which is what I did. If someone said all black people are evil because their skin color causes them to be evil, I would call their view ignorant and explain why their view was ignorant. Doing so would not make me a bigot or a hateful person, but a logical person.

You have been proven wrong. Try again at your own risk.

King_Stones

Try at my own risk...wow you're really in love with yourself aren't you? :lol:

I had no clue you were talking about P1, I had no clue who "got it banned", and I don't care. I was P1, yes, but I'm not DS.

You just always think you're right. Which is why you don't see how your post qualifies as bigotry. It does, it's clear, you think you're right just because, and the only thing wrong you showed with the other guy's viewpoint, were things that were opinion driven. You proved nothing, and you are bigoted towards others.

Of course you didn't know:roll:. I know you're bitter, I don't mind though, your frustration amuses me.

My reasoning was not opinion based. It was based on logic. There was nothing hateful or bigoted in it, and it's obvious you have a baseless argument solely as an attempt to bother me. It's sad, really. But it can be seen in the quote chain. This is pointless and boring, and I've proven to you why you were wrong and repeated myself multiple times. All you're doing now is attempting to insult me and to look as if you "won" the "argument". If you'll excuse me, I have an exam in the morning for which I need to study. 

And the definition of bigotry that was just posted fits what our little resident mobster was doing.

There you go number 23. The shoe fits.

On a side note, it was fuuny for me to think about what he just told me about getting my P1 account banned. All I pictured was this - "Oooh! Oooh! Mods! Look, look! Someone is using an alt account while another was suspended! Get him mods! Get him!"

To clear things up:

Bigotry: 1.stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.2.the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Huell_Howser

Exactly. I called him ignorant and explained why. I had a logical reason for doing so, which is not what bigotry is. 

[QUOTE="Diablo112688"]They rarely work out, and also they cause too many problems. They are also wrong in my eyes. It is not natural nor does it benefit me. kingdre

Right...  Just because that's how you feel, that's how it should be. :roll:

Of course! He's higher up in the foodchain than the rest of us, therefor of more value! :o

Sarcasm aside, gay marriages shouldn't be illegal. Let people do what they feel like, if marriage is the solution for them to show their love for eachother, let them marry! You don't really have a say when it comes to how other ppl should show their love and affection for one person.

All you're doing now is attempting to insult me and to look as if you "won" the "argument".

xMOBSTER23x

:? You can now add hypocrisy to your list of offenses, right next to bigotry. Wow. yes, please go study, it seems you need it.

And if you think I'm frustrated, you've got to be on drugs. Bad ones.

Same sex and different sex marriage should be legal. We live in America, the land of freedom.

[QUOTE="Diablo112688"][QUOTE="abdelmessih101"]

 

But at least it's not immoral. ;)

abdelmessih101

Yes it is. In my opinion it is.

Too bad you're not God. ;)

Too bad not everybody believes in "God" ;)

I don't know what could more natural than a normal marriage :| 123625

Promiscuity.  Humans are naturally inclined to seek out lengthy relationships (since raising a child to the point where it has a good chance of survival usually takes many years), but not life long ones.  There was a study done about this years ago.  I can't remember the exact numbers, but I seem to recall it finding that men were naturally inclined to seek relationships of 2 years (long enough to impregnate a woman and ensure the infant survives) and women seek 10 year realationships (long enough for the kid to become somewhat self-sufficient - at least in terms of raw survival).  This makes sense when you look at the way so many relationships evolve, too - even ones where the partners remain together, though not without issues.  'Getting bored of each other' is such a common theme in dysfunctional relationships.  And not surprisingly, the boredom often starts to set in after a year or two, and especially a year or two after children are born (not with the children... but with each other).

[QUOTE="Talldude80"]

[QUOTE="abdelmessih101"]

But at least it's not immoral. ;)

abdelmessih101

LOL. exactly. the statements that being gay is wrong or not natural has NOWHERE in law making. Thats an opinion, laws shouldnt be based on somebody's hate towards another's sexual orientation. immoral is definitely the word for this thread.

It's not hate. :| Everyone sins, that doesn't mean I hate everyone. :| The fact that homosexuality is immoral doesn't mean I hate gays. :|

actually, people are born hetero or homosexual.  so being homosexual is just as wrong as being a heterosexual (do you think being a heterosexual is immoral also? i think not).

Don't believe all the religious propaganda that you've heard over the years, sexual orientation is not a choice. For something to be immoral, people need to do it on PURPOSE.   I'm not saying it's "normal" to be a homosexual, but its not any more immoral than being left-handed or having red hair. 

and FYI, a fact is not something based on opinion. a fact has something that supports it. 

Here's an Example: FACT-The Earth revolves around the sun.  Opinion-people who call homosexuality immoral are actually immoral themselves.