Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[raven_gaurd0]

Offensive is what we do.

 

Marriage is by no means a documentation of love between two people. It should be, but it's a legally binding contract in which a government official is basically approving that the health of society will benefit by their union. I see no societal benefits from homosexual union. To be honest, it really isn't any different than two guys just being in an apartment and...having...gay butt-secks. But that's not the point, the point is, marriage is superficial and it is perfectly within the rights of the state (and certainly within the religion, which is a private establishment) to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

 

 

 

As for 'right' and 'wrong'...it's foolish to make that judgment. I feel that if there is a God, then He will decide, and we mortals cannot and should not condemn something as good and bad. It's simply not our place to do any more than warn against what we perceive as bad.

[Serpent Eye]

Offensive is what we do.

 

Marriage is by no means a documentation of love between two people. It should be, but it's a legally binding contract in which a government official is basically approving that the health of society will benefit by their union. I see no societal benefits from homosexual union. To be honest, it really isn't any different than two guys just being in an apartment and...having...gay butt-secks. But that's not the point, the point is, marriage is superficial and it is perfectly within the rights of the state (and certainly within the religion, which is a private establishment) to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

 

 

 

As for 'right' and 'wrong'...it's foolish to make that judgment. I feel that if there is a God, then He will decide, and we mortals cannot and should not condemn something as good and bad. It's simply not our place to do any more than warn against what we perceive as bad.

 

 

 

My parents marriage has not been a benefit to society. My sister's marriage has not been a benefit to society. In fact, no marriage that I know of has benefited society. I think your argument is weak. It comes off as if you're suggesting that two men/two women getting married would negatively impact society. This is bigotry; intolerance is for the unintelligent.

 

 

 

By your argument, "regular" marriages are no more, and no different, than two straight people having intercourse. The value and the validity of a marriage is not based off of what kind of sex people have! Grow up.

 

 

 

There would be a huge uproar if a state declared that Asian, Mexican, Caucasian, Italian, Korean, Puerto Rican, or any one specific race of people/couple could not get married. It wouldn't stand in society - there is no way. If you went up so someone and told them that they couldn't get married because of where they were born, you would get slapped in the face, or worse. I don't see why it's any different for basis on sexual orientation.

 

 

 

It's hypocritical of you to say "As for 'right' and 'wrong'...it's foolish to make that judgment," so soon after you spewed your words of intolerance and single-mindedness. Your last sentence is one big failure. If you don't even have the right to judge what is "good" or "bad" in God's eyes, than you certainly don't even have the right to begin to perceive what is "good" or "bad." You may as well just condem the person outright. Who are you to warn anyone of anything?

 

 

 

- - -

 

 

 

I'm too angry to continue.

[Omar]

I do think it's an attempt to be different, but tbh I couldn't care less if someone's gay. Heck, my friend is bi and I didn't know for ages.

 

@raven: No, they're not allowed to do that, because it's prejudice against gays. End of story.

[raven_gaurd0]

Calm down, Cane.

 

 

 

Yes your parents marriage was beneficial to society. It resulted in you, and, your sister. Don't you dare pull the intolerance card on me; I'm analyzing this from a very pragmatic angle. My first paragraph was about social implications, in which I was implying that because homosexuals cannot procreate, they are not as of a good use to society as a man and a woman are. Intercourse is important. Gay doesn't result in life, straight does. One of them replenishes the ever-diminishing ranks of society, the other one is just fun. I'm not saying that gay people should all die, should all burn in Hell, should all become straight, I'm saying that they shouldn't get married.

 

 

 

I won't touch morality because I already explained my view on it; simply that I have none that I can back up because it's simply not my place.

 

 

 

@Harrington, what are you referring to, and if it's the marriage thing, how is it prejudice? It's very practical.

[Serpent Eye]

Calm down, Cane.

 

 

 

Yes your parents marriage was beneficial to society. It resulted in you, and, your sister. Don't you dare pull the intolerance card on me; I'm analyzing this from a very pragmatic angle. My first paragraph was about social implications, in which I was implying that because homosexuals cannot procreate, they are not as of a good use to society as a man and a woman are. Intercourse is important. Gay doesn't result in life, straight does. One of them replenishes the ever-diminishing ranks of society, the other one is just fun. I'm not saying that gay people should all die, should all burn in Hell, should all become straight, I'm saying that they shouldn't get married.

 

 

 

I won't touch morality because I already explained my view on it; simply that I have none that I can back up because it's simply not my place.

 

 

 

I don't know if you're referring to me as Cane... but that isn't in any way, shape or form my name.

 

 

 

No, my parents marriage was not beneficial to society. Neither was my birth. I was born. I increased the population. Nothing more, nothing less. Being born isn't a benefit.

 

 

 

- - -

 

 

 

Don't you dare pull the intolerance card on me; I'm analyzing this from a very pragmatic angle.

 

 

 

Really?

 

 

 

My first paragraph was about social implications, in which I was implying that because homosexuals cannot procreate, they are not as of a good use to society as a man and a woman are.

 

 

 

This statement is the VERY definition of the word intolerant! Seriously. Anyone with half a brain would read this and understand that it's a hateful, Neanderthal-ian statement. I... I really can't comprehend how someone could be so... daft. Honestly.

 

 

 

And marriage has nothing to do with procreation. You can have a child without being married! End of argument! Just because it is something people usually do before children are created doesn't mean that it is an essential part of the process. The argument of "Gay people shouldn't get married because they can't procreate" is non-existant.

[raven_gaurd0]

Biblical reference.

 

 

 

You increased the population, which benefited society. Yes, being born is a benefit. If you view it as otherwise, then let nobody be born and society will no longer exist in 100 years.

 

 

 

Marriage's original intention was for procreation and the bringing together of families, and procreation is a benefit to society. If you want to deny that, then you're even more foolish and stubborn than you're already making yourself out to be. Original intention is all that matters, and since it's a Governmental obligation to help society, it's perfectly reasonable to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

[l0rd]

Biblical reference.

 

 

 

You increased the population, which benefited society. Yes, being born is a benefit. If you view it as otherwise, then let nobody be born and society will no longer exist in 100 years.

 

 

 

Marriage's original intention was for procreation and the bringing together of families, and procreation is a benefit to society. If you want to deny that, then you're even more foolish and stubborn than you're already making yourself out to be. Original intention is all that matters, and since it's a Governmental obligation to help society, it's perfectly reasonable to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

 

 

 

Like many things, the base and motives to get married has changed. You can't tell me a heterosexual couple's motives are to get married is to benefit society, and to procreate, sure in some cases those alone can be valid reason to get married.

 

But now the spectrum of motives and reasons to get married has broadened to love, loneliness, companionship and friendship among others. Marriage now stands for all of these things.

 

 

 

If two people share ANY of these motives or reasons, and both wish to get married, then it should rightfully be their option. Times change.

[Serpent Eye]

Biblical reference.

 

 

 

You increased the population, which benefited society. Yes, being born is a benefit. If you view it as otherwise, then let nobody be born and society will no longer exist in 100 years.

 

 

 

Marriage's original intention was for procreation and the bringing together of families, and procreation is a benefit to society. If you want to deny that, then you're even more foolish and stubborn than you're already making yourself out to be. Original intention is all that matters, and since it's a Governmental obligation to help society, it's perfectly reasonable to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

 

 

 

I don't see birth as a benefit.

 

 

 

And I honestly don't care what marriage's original intention was.

 

 

 

If you define me as stubborn based off of the fact that I refuse to accept your viewpoint on things, then yes, I am being stubborn. But I'm not being foolish - I'm standing up in the face of intolerance.

 

 

 

I don't think I'll put much faith into a "supportive government" that discriminates against people, then.

 

 

 

- - -

 

 

 

I don't think I'll even view this topic any more.

 

 

 

Nothing is really being accomplished by it.

 

 

 

I made a plea to have it locked, because I knew offensive things would be said in here. I ended up coming to terms with the moderator's perspective: it allows for an open forum, to discuss things, and to perhaps make a change by seeing other people's opinions on things.

 

 

 

I've changed my mind since then.

 

 

 

I apologize that I added fuel to the fire with my posts - but I was just striving to promote acceptance.

[raven_gaurd0]

Oh, don't be on a high horse. You were throwing mud, like the rest of us.

 

 

 

As for l0rd...why can't they accomplish those means of loneliness, companionship, etc, without getting married? I don't know a couple of people who feel somehow divided if they truly love each other, simply because they aren't married.

[l0rd]

Oh, don't be on a high horse. You were throwing mud, like the rest of us.

 

 

 

As for l0rd...why can't they accomplish those means of loneliness, companionship, etc, without getting married? I don't know a couple of people who feel somehow divided if they truly love each other, simply because they aren't married.

 

 

 

Marriage is a symbol of much more than what those first motives. Marriage is basically the highest form of companionship. If a couple were in love and wanted to spend the rest of their lives together getting married is physical way of documenting such a thing. and blah blah blah I'm tired but I think you get what I mean bai

[Shinjula]

Raven, you are also forgetting some stuff abut the rights of marriage, when two people gt together and make an investment in each other to the degree that they wish to commit to each other certain rights and resposibilities come along with that, you say that a gay relationship is an unproductive one because it creates no children but there is more to it than that.

 

 

 

My marriage to my husband improves his ability to work, when he is sick I can tend him thus reducing the burden on the rest of society, this is of use to society. Working together we are more productive than either of us could be on our own thus benifitting society. We support each other allowing us even greater ability to contribute to society thus benefiting society.

 

 

 

These benefits must come with a cost (which at least in my own country are met). As the one who reduces strain on society when he is ill I am given the right to access to him when he is ill i.e. hospital visitation rights. As one who contributes to his ability to earn I am given the right to a portion of those earning when he dies i.e. Inheritance rights. As one who give him greater productivity I am given rights over income i.e. joint tax rights.

 

 

 

This is the legal side of marriage and it is senseless to deny us.

 

 

 

Further to your other comments the origins of marriage occured so far back in prehistory that no data on it survives so speculating about the original intent is for historians to do and so far no data suggests the conclusions you have asserted. For all you know homosexual marriage was just as prevalent amongst homosexuals as heterosexual marriage was, its origin is simply the pairing of people.

 

 

 

Marriage was also an institution as far back as Sumerian times predating christianity by more than six thousand years so any argument based on your religeon isnt valid. (And in sumerian culture homosexuality was venerated as sacred so it is more than likely that homosexual marriage existed way way way before anything you are talking about occured)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do much prefer the argument from love but your heart seems closed to that idea, but really love is the most important thing, however since you are so closed to it, pragmatism it is, and the arguments from pragmatism are just as reliably behind gay marriage as those from love are.

[Hiierarch]

Raven, I really do hope that procreation isn't the only reason for marriage in your opinion. I also hope that procreation isn't the only way to benefit society through marriage. What if a very low income, lets say for the sake of the argument that the couple makes $23,500 a year. Now this couple has eight children, and can't support them. So maybe they will put them up for adoption, or keep them and don't have the ability to pay for schooling, including bus fees, lunch fees, etc. How is that family benefiting society over a gay couple who makes $23,500 and lives comfortably without taking away from the tax payers, without taking from society, without taking from the schools. How does gay marriage take away from society? It absolutely doesn't.

[Howlin0001]

Gay doesn't result in life, straight does.

I though sex and working organs do? You may be straight but you may not be able to reproudce. Also just because your homosexual it don't mean you won't/can't reproduce.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Marriage's original intention was for procreation and the bringing together of families, and procreation is a benefit to society.

 

Marriage's intention was never for procreation. Indeed, that's a silly argument since marriage is nearly always monogamous and that results in less women giving birth. Marriage's intention was to encourage children to be raised in a stable relationship between two guardians, and to legally set social norms that had established themselves in ancient civilisations, such as not getting married or giving birth by relatives.

 

 

 

As for procreation being beneficial - the world is overpopulated. It could be argued that a birth rate of > 2.2 is detrimental to global society, not beneficial.

 

 

 

Gay doesn't result in life, straight does

 

So really, your argument isn't about the definition of marriage at all. You just don't like gays, plain and simple. (The fact you're a devout Christian is obviously a coincidence)

 

 

 

So, just playing around here, you're against people marrying if one of them has had a castration then? Or if they're paralysed? Or if the woman is too weak to give birth? Or if they're too old to have children?

 

 

 

Anyone else you want to deny rights to?

[XxTearGodxX]

In my opinion it is wrong. If you cannot reproduce with the person you are in love with then you should not be together.

[Kiriyama]

In my opinion it is wrong. If you cannot reproduce with the person you are in love with then you should not be together.

 

 

 

I'll bring up the point of being infertile again.

 

 

 

Its not just homosexuals that can't reproduce.

[RichieMcD]

In my opinion it is wrong. If you cannot reproduce with the person you are in love with then you should not be together.

 

 

 

So a man who has a low sperm count, unfertile semen etc or a woman whose reproductive parts such as womb, ovaries etc are not fit for carrying a baby shouldn't be together?

 

 

 

Also for example straight couples who choose not to reproduce, should they be together?

 

 

 

 

Gay doesn't result in life, straight does

 

 

 

What about straight couples who choose not to reproduce or whose reproductive organs aren't fit fore reproduction? What about Homosexual males who donate sperm to sperm banks for infertile couples or Homosexual woman who choose to have a child through donor sperm?

 

 

 

 

My first paragraph was about social implications, in which I was implying that because homosexuals cannot procreate, they are not as of a good use to society as a man and a woman are. Intercourse is important. Gay doesn't result in life, straight does. One of them replenishes the ever-diminishing ranks of society, the other one is just fun. I'm not saying that gay people should all die, should all burn in Hell, should all become straight, I'm saying that they shouldn't get married.

 

 

 

 

Gay is just for fun? So then I see you've missed BlueLancer's post showing in Homosexual men and women there is a biological difference to Heterosexual Men and Females. Homosexual male brains are quite like Hetero females while Homosexual females brains are quite like Hetero males.

 

 

 

Straight couples who are married yet choose not to have children by your argument have no right to be married as they offer just as much to society as a Homosexual couple does from your view, same can be said for infertile couples who aren't in a position to have children.

 

 

 

So are people who simply don't want children or aren't in a position for children now denied the right for marriage who do they keep the right for marriage yet they're just as much "use" to society as a homosexual couple? Pure and utter discrimination purely because of someones sexual alignment, quite often a biologically based preference.

[Omar]

Calm down, Cane.

 

 

 

Yes your parents marriage was beneficial to society. It resulted in you, and, your sister. Don't you dare pull the intolerance card on me; I'm analyzing this from a very pragmatic angle. My first paragraph was about social implications, in which I was implying that because homosexuals cannot procreate, they are not as of a good use to society as a man and a woman are. Intercourse is important. Gay doesn't result in life, straight does. One of them replenishes the ever-diminishing ranks of society, the other one is just fun. I'm not saying that gay people should all die, should all burn in Hell, should all become straight, I'm saying that they shouldn't get married.

 

 

 

I won't touch morality because I already explained my view on it; simply that I have none that I can back up because it's simply not my place.

 

 

 

@Harrington, what are you referring to, and if it's the marriage thing, how is it prejudice? It's very practical.

 

 

 

1. Harrinator, Harrington is someone else.

 

2. Gay results in adoption. And even if it doesn't, it doesn't hurt to marry them. It's like denying a child a toy when you know he'll enjoy it and it won't cause trouble.

 

3. If you prohibit gays from marrying, it won't help replenish the "ever-diminishing ranks of society".

 

John and Joe are men. They're in love. They would like to get married but they're not allowed. Are Joe and John going to marry women? No, why would they?

 

John and Joe are men. They're in love. They get married. And... that's all there is to it.

[Howlin0001]

Why is it some/most of you are talking about only the gay side of homosexuality and not the lesbian side as well?

 

There are a few examples of this on the thread.

[3rkid]

Why is it some/most of you are talking about only the gay side of homosexuality and not the lesbian side as well?

 

There are a few examples of this on the thread.

 

 

 

Apparently people like to talk more about penis and anal sex on this thread.

 

 

 

Funny how this happens to be my first post on this thread...

[Zierro]

I've noticed something about this...

 

 

 

On the internet, when you take the time to think about all your opinions logically before posting, homosexuality doesn't seem wrong at all. However, in real life, I tend to be pretty uncomfortable around gay people. :lol:

[Omar]

Why is it some/most of you are talking about only the gay side of homosexuality and not the lesbian side as well?

 

There are a few examples of this on the thread.

 

Well, it applies to both.

[Howlin0001]

Why is it some/most of you are talking about only the gay side of homosexuality and not the lesbian side as well?

 

There are a few examples of this on the thread.

 

Well, it applies to both.

 

 

 

I know it applies to both but reading the replies/opinions kinda implies some/most people are only impling this to men and says nothing about the other half of it.

[Quoi_Tu]

Why is it some/most of you are talking about only the gay side of homosexuality and not the lesbian side as well?

 

There are a few examples of this on the thread.

 

Well, it applies to both.

 

 

 

I know it applies to both but reading the replies/opinions kinda implies some/most people are only impling this to men and says nothing about the other half of it.

 

 

 

Many men don't feel uncomfortable about the other side. Quite the opposite really.

[Lenticular_J]

Eeeexactly.

 

 

 

But just about all straight men are homophobes, at least to some extent. Lesbians, on the other hand, are cool. It's how we are.

 

 

 

Why is a plural lesbian censored...?