Why G^y marriage is just wrong.

[QUOTE="ColdRush88"][QUOTE="bsman00"][QUOTE="ColdRush88"][QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="ColdRush88"]

This thread is so stupid.

When you seriously think that gay marriage is "just wrong" you need to get out of that cave you've been living in and see the real world. People should be allowed to love each other no matter what sex they are. Just because a few people (who are clearly homophobic) say that gay marriage is wrong doesn't make it so.

bsman00

good for you. I don't agree with you, therefore i'm a homophobe and live in a cave.

:lol: .....is all I can say.

hay man nice sig...is that liz vicious??? o yeah let gay people get married

Yes it is. :D

And your the 3rd person to ask about it. lol. She seems to be quite popular. I wonder why... ;)

yeah i wonder.... is it cause shes insanely HOT!

It could be. lol. Or maybe she's very good at DIY and drawing landscape pictures.:P

A nonsense argument, the slippery slope argument is stupid.

It's like saying we should have never let black people vote because that would cause people to want dogs to vote or for people to vote more than once.

A nonsense argument, the slippery slope argument is stupid.

It's like saying we should have never let black people vote because that would cause people to want dogs to vote or for people to vote more than once.

blackmagesm

actually it's nothing like that...

[QUOTE="blackmagesm"]

A nonsense argument, the slippery slope argument is stupid.

It's like saying we should have never let black people vote because that would cause people to want dogs to vote or for people to vote more than once.

Stumpt25

actually it's nothing like that...

Put the matter another way. States, acting through their representatives and reflecting the values of the voters, have the constitutional authority to define what voting is. Traditionally voting requires: a) The person be male b) The person be of a certain age c) white. Now here are some interesting possibilities. A 10 year old demands the right to vote, charging that the age requirement discriminates against him. Or a black fellow wants to vote, contending that the race prohibition violates the equal protection clause of the Fifteenth Amendment. Or a millionaire seeks four votes, asking why multiple voting should not be allowed the same legal status as the traditional one vote arrangement. In more imaginative scenarios, a fellow might want to know why the voting definition is so species-specific. This guy wants his dog to vote on the grounds that "black people can vote why not him." Why don't all these people have valid equal protection claims under the constitution?"

hmm.....

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="blackmagesm"]

A nonsense argument, the slippery slope argument is stupid.

It's like saying we should have never let black people vote because that would cause people to want dogs to vote or for people to vote more than once.

blackmagesm

actually it's nothing like that...

Put the matter another way. States, acting through their representatives and reflecting the values of the voters, have the constitutional authority to define what voting is. Traditionally voting requires: a) The person be male b) The person be of a certain age c) white. Now here are some interesting possibilities. A 10 year old demands the right to vote, charging that the age requirement discriminates against him. Or a black fellow wants to vote, contending that the race prohibition violates the equal protection clause of the Fifteenth Amendment. Or a millionaire seeks four votes, asking why multiple voting should not be allowed the same legal status as the traditional one vote arrangement. In more imaginative scenarios, a fellow might want to know why the voting definition is so species-specific. This guy wants his dog to vote on the grounds that "black people can vote why not him." Why don't all these people have valid equal protection claims under the constitution?"

hmm.....

....exactly

thanks for arguing my point :S

His points are rather stupid. A 10 year old and an animal are not consenting adults. We can't stop family members from feeling differently about each other, and the definition of marriage does not belong to Westerners only.The_Ish

So why shouldn't two siblings marry? They are consenting adults right? flowdee79

This is just a cheap loophole to maintain a prejudice against homosexuals, no matter how much you tout you're not a homophobe.

They want the right to marry the ones they love, not live a lie and feel miserable by marrying a woman just to please other people. Marriage changes. First there was divorce, then there was interracial marriage. Hell, even a whole damn religion spawned just for the right to enable divorce and yet everyone is having a cry over two men that love each other fortifying that love and being granted benefits as a couple?

Marriage should be between two consenting adults. (I'd even go far as to say any number of consenting adults). Any shallow arguments about children and animals is absolute nonsense since they cannot give consent nor sign a legally binding government document.

Red-XIII

I agree with this guy. Well put Red-XIII

This is just a cheap loophole to maintain a prejudice against homosexuals, no matter how much you tout you're not a homophobe.

They want the right to marry the ones they love, not live a lie and feel miserable by marrying a woman just to please other people. Marriage changes. First there was divorce, then there was interracial marriage. Hell, even a whole damn religion spawned just for the right to enable divorce and yet everyone is having a cry over two men that love each other fortifying that love and being granted benefits as a couple?

Marriage should be between two consenting adults. (I'd even go far as to say any number of consenting adults). Any shallow arguments about children and animals is absolute nonsense since they cannot give consent nor sign a legally binding government document.

Red-XIII

Completly agree.

And BTW, your horror story thread was awesome.

Wicked cool new avatar Jandurin.ElectronicMagic

And BTW, your horror story thread was awesome.

aliblabla2007

Firstly i'm not homophobic. and some of the most talented, nice, interesting people i have met are gay However, i believe that gay marriage is just wrong.

This guy writes a good article on it. I'll post an extract:

"Now let's turn to the issue of equal protection. Clearly this means that people who are similarly situated should be treated in the same way. So men and women, blacks and whites, straight people and gays, all have the right to vote, the right to speak their mind, and the right to marry. But gays already have the right to marry, just like the others. They have the right to marry adult members of the opposite sex. What they want, however, is the right to marry members of the same sex. This, however, is not a right enjoyed by anyone else. In other words, gays are not asking to be treated the same as everyone else. They want special rights that no one else claims or enjoys. They want to rewrite the definition of marriage.

They want the right to love another person and be proud about it. Marriage is important to some because it seals the deal. It shows everyone that this is not just some person you met and hooked up with. This is the person you want to spend your life with. If you tell a homosexual that their relationship is not as important as a regular one. Then you are hurting that persons feelings. If you hurt another person you are bad.

Put the matter another way. States, acting through their representatives and reflecting the values of the voters, have the constitutional authority to define what marriage is. Traditionally marriage requires: a) two persons Dho. b) both of them adults of legal age Dhoc) unrelated to each other and Double dho) one male and the other female. Now here are some interesting possibilities. A 10 year old demands the right to marry, charging that the age requirement discriminates against him.

No it does not. He is underage and therefore has not yet gained the rights adults enjoy.

Or a fellow wants to marry his sister, contending that the incest prohibition violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

The offspring suffers a high risk of beeing born with complications. Also, most people have a little voice in their head that tells them that doing your own sister is wrong. You just do not live in an intimate relationship with a close family member.

Or a Muslim seeks four wives, asking why polygamy among multiple "consenting adults" should not be allowed the same legal status as the traditional two-person arrangement.

If he has to ask this question he can go back to his own country.

In more imaginative scenarios, a fellow might want to know why the marriage definition is so species-specific. This guy wants to marry his dog on the grounds that "I love my dog and my dog loves me."

Dogs are not capable of saying "I do"

Why don't all these people have valid equal protection claims under the constitution?"

[QUOTE="the1stfandb"]

[QUOTE="okristian"]
Stumpt25

U may want to edit that post:|

at the very end

Sure why not.

EDIT

Because they are retards and so are you. Please die (in a fire).

Source

What do you think about this view?

okristian

U may want to edit that post:|

at the very end

i just dont think its right because gays can have true like offspring. i mean i guess some people do have probelms they cant help but its just not natural.JetB1ackNewYear

That's a good point and another excuse to bash gay marriage Thiago26792

*Facepalm*.... Why do you want to bash gay marriage? How does gay marriage affect you in any way?

[QUOTE="Thiago26792"]That's a good point and another excuse to bash gay marriage _Tobli_

*Facepalm*.... Why do you want to bash gay marriage? How does gay marriage affect you in any way?

Didn't you hear the news? It's contagious now!

Actually, if you follow that logic, gays won't be enjoying extra rights.

Heterosexuals will have the ability to marry their own sex too, if they so choose. It goes both ways.

Bio_Spark

Exactly, also if people are against special treatment, why do heterosexuals get the special right to marry the opposite sex? That right they have excludes gays so that means there right to marriage is special treatment, only by allowing everyone to marry whom ever they choose do we eliminate any form of special treatment in marriage.

I agree, but because the majority of gay people aren't faithful in their relationships and act in most inappropriate ways. I have two good friends that are gay and I grew up with them, and they're both good people, but sadly the majority of homosexuals that act badly hurt the minority that want to live normal lives. So yeah, I'm against gay marriage, but not a homophobe. GamerForca

I agree, but because the majority of gay people aren't faithful in their relationships and act in most inappropriate ways. I have two good friends that are gay and I grew up with them, and they're both good people, but sadly the majority of homosexuals that act badly hurt the minority that want to live normal lives. So yeah, I'm against gay marriage, but not a homophobe. GamerForca

[QUOTE="JetB1ackNewYear"]i just dont think its right because gays can have true like offspring. i mean i guess some people do have probelms they cant help but its just not natural.Mr_sprinkles

We should ban the marriage of sterile men and menopausal women :P

[QUOTE="GamerForca"]I agree, but because the majority of gay people aren't faithful in their relationships and act in most inappropriate ways. I have two good friends that are gay and I grew up with them, and they're both good people, but sadly the majority of homosexuals that act badly hurt the minority that want to live normal lives. So yeah, I'm against gay marriage, but not a homophobe. MattUD1

Why else would an unproportional amount have AIDS? edit: uh-oh, everybody is going to wrongly interpret my comment....

first off you all are missing the big PICTURE here....it also goes back to religion....

Most churched do not allow gay's because in the Bible it states Marraige is for a MAN AND A WOMAN. So you have to look at that factor too its not just that people think its wrong or right but what they also believe in. You may be gay and believe in god but other people may not accept you because to them it is wrong BECAUSE! of what they were raised on.

[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="GamerForca"]I agree, but because the majority of gay people aren't faithful in their relationships and act in most inappropriate ways. I have two good friends that are gay and I grew up with them, and they're both good people, but sadly the majority of homosexuals that act badly hurt the minority that want to live normal lives. So yeah, I'm against gay marriage, but not a homophobe. GamerForca

Why else would an unproportional amount have AIDS?

first off you all are missing the big PICTURE here....it also goes back to religion....

Most churched do not allow gay's because in the Bible it states Marraige is for a MAN AND A WOMAN. So you have to look at that factor too its not just that people think its wrong or right but what they also believe in. You may be gay and believe in god but other people may not accept you because to them it is wrong BECAUSE! of what they were raised on.

Kingdomkey33

A church marriage doesn't do anything for you though. You don't get what you would from a civil one. They mean different things to different people. Problem with the world is that nobody seems to mind their own business. If a tree falls in the very core of a forest...and you somehow hear about it. You don't care. If a gay couple gets married, you hear about, it doesn't affect your life...and yet you still somehow gather the nerve to complain about it. Humans...despicable.

Firstly i'm not homophobic. and some of the most talented, nice, interesting people i have met are gay However, i believe that gay marriage is just wrong.

This guy writes a good article on it. I'll post an extract:

"Now let's turn to the issue of equal protection. Clearly this means that people who are similarly situated should be treated in the same way. So men and women, blacks and whites, straight people and gays, all have the right to vote, the right to speak their mind, and the right to marry. But gays already have the right to marry, just like the others. They have the right to marry adult members of the opposite sex. What they want, however, is the right to marry members of the same sex. This, however, is not a right enjoyed by anyone else. In other words, gays are not asking to be treated the same as everyone else. They want special rights that no one else claims or enjoys. They want to rewrite the definition of marriage.

Put the matter another way. States, acting through their representatives and reflecting the values of the voters, have the constitutional authority to define what marriage is. Traditionally marriage requires: a) two persons b) both of them adults of legal age c) unrelated to each other and d) one male and the other female. Now here are some interesting possibilities. A 10 year old demands the right to marry, charging that the age requirement discriminates against him. Or a fellow wants to marry his sister, contending that the incest prohibition violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Or a Muslim seeks four wives, asking why polygamy among multiple "consenting adults" should not be allowed the same legal status as the traditional two-person arrangement. In more imaginative scenarios, a fellow might want to know why the marriage definition is so species-specific. This guy wants to marry his dog on the grounds that "I love my dog and my dog loves me." Why don't all these people have valid equal protection claims under the constitution?"

Source

What do you think about this view?

Stumpt25

[QUOTE="GamerForca"]

[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="GamerForca"]I agree, but because the majority of gay people aren't faithful in their relationships and act in most inappropriate ways. I have two good friends that are gay and I grew up with them, and they're both good people, but sadly the majority of homosexuals that act badly hurt the minority that want to live normal lives. So yeah, I'm against gay marriage, but not a homophobe. MattUD1

Why else would an unproportional amount have AIDS?

Where can I look?

[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="GamerForca"]

[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="GamerForca"]I agree, but because the majority of gay people aren't faithful in their relationships and act in most inappropriate ways. I have two good friends that are gay and I grew up with them, and they're both good people, but sadly the majority of homosexuals that act badly hurt the minority that want to live normal lives. So yeah, I'm against gay marriage, but not a homophobe. GamerForca

Why else would an unproportional amount have AIDS?

Where can I look?

Google... MattUD1

And I'm sure a million studies will just pop up right? Give me a website or something that might help, genius.

Here, this might work....

"The HIV virus is transmitted through the exchange of infected bodily fluids. Some 89 percent of persons known to have AIDS are homosexuals or intravenous drug users"
"These figures leave 4 percent of known AIDS patients who became infected with the disease through heterosexual contact"
"But it is a disease that has struck a disproportionately large number of homosexuals and has been spread through homosexual and bisexual sex."

[QUOTE="MattUD1"]Google... GamerForca

And I'm sure a million studies will just pop up right? Give me a website or something that might help, genius.

Forget it... I'm just assuming your BSin'g your claim that AIDS is more prevalent in homosexuals than in heterosexuals. I'm sure the numbers either way are inflated because of the population of homosexuals vs. heterosexuals.

AIDS Isn't a gay disease'; the vast majority of AIDS infections come from blood transfusions, sharing needles, and transferring from mother to child during child birth.

[QUOTE="GamerForca"]

[QUOTE="MattUD1"]Google... MattUD1

And I'm sure a million studies will just pop up right? Give me a website or something that might help, genius.

Forget it... I'm just assuming your BSin'g your claim that AIDS is more prevalent in homosexuals than in heterosexuals. I'm sure the numbers either way are inflated because of the population of homosexuals vs. heterosexuals.

Translation: You were right... uh-oh! The numbers must be inflated!

I used percentages in the link above.

[QUOTE="MattUD1"]Google... GamerForca

And I'm sure a million studies will just pop up right? Give me a website or something that might help, genius.

Here, this might work....

"The HIV virus is transmitted through the exchange of infected bodily fluids. Some 89 percent of persons known to have AIDS are homosexuals or intravenous drug users"
"These figures leave 4 percent of known AIDS patients who became infected with the disease through heterosexual contact"
"But it is a disease that has struck a disproportionately large number of homosexuals and has been spread through homosexual and bisexual sex."

AIDS Isn't a gay disease'; the vast majority of AIDS infections come from blood transfusions, sharing needles, and transferring from mother to child during child birth.

Mr_sprinkles

I don't want to extend my argument because, because like I said, I have two gay friends and I'm not a homophobe. However, AIDS through blood transfusions is extremely rare, and there are methods to prevent mother-to-infant infections (though it's obviously still possible).

^ I agree that is probably inflating the number, but I am correct regardless.