Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Platuan4th wrote:Using your definition argument, how do you define what is normal an abnormal:
# conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm; not abnormal; "serve wine at normal room temperature"; "normal diplomatic relations"; "normal working hours"; "normal word order"; "normal curiosity"; "the normal course of events"
# in accordance with scientific laws
# being approximately average or within certain limits in e.g. intelligence and development; "a perfectly normal child"; "of normal intelligence"; "the most normal person I've ever met"
# convention: something regarded as a normative example; "the convention of not naming the main character"; "violence is the rule not the exception"; "his formula for impressing visitors"
# forming a right angle
Very good, you're starting to get it.
Platuan4th wrote:
Oh, look, the first one has to do with Social norms. What is a Social norm:
Social norms are the behavioral expectations and cues within a society or group.
Go ahead and finish the definition not just the part that by itself would support your argument.
"Social norms are the behavioral expectations and cues within a society or group. This sociological term has been defined as "the rules that a group uses for appropriate and inappropriate values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. These rules may be explicit or implicit. Failure to follow the rules can result in severe punishments, including exclusion from the group."
Values are relative. Not absolute.
Beliefs are based on religion or lack of religion. Not absolute
Attitudes change with each new experience. Not absolute.
Behaviours change over time. Not absolute
Platuan4th wrote:
What determines social norms? The Mores and morals of a society.
The English word morality comes from the same root, as does the noun moral. However, mores do not, as is commonly supposed, necessarily carry connotations of morality.
No where do I see morals coming from society.
Platuan4th wrote:
And before you incorrectly state once again that Society and morals have nothing to do with this, look at your own posted definition and how is depends on something being abnormal.
Nature has no morals and has no society. Sex is a natural act. Making it an unnatural act makes it perverse.
Platuan4th wrote:
Stop being obtuse.
I'm out, because, like all people like you, you're entrenched in your own ignorance.
Come back again soon! Bring a better argument next time though!
On a more serious note I do support gay marriage on account of kids, because the best parents are the ones that want their kids.
As if on cue, you hear two people singing from the stairwell, and the door is opened and a pair of very smelly, very dirty guardsmen stumble in, completely drunk, and covered in vomit, and immediately collapse unconsious on the porch. You drag them to their beds, realising that they will not be waking up for some time.
Red9 wrote:Nope, because that is how nature intended it.
Who cares how nature intended it? We're typing messages into small boxes which use coded electrons to send messages to other little boxes to show everyone else our little messages. It's not natural.
But we do it because we enjoy, and society allows it because it does greater society no harm. The same holds for gay marriage, and well, everything.
Monster Rain wrote:I think smoking pot is probably more healthy than getting pounded in the Ass on a regular basis. Particularly when you factor in the increased risk of HIV infection.
Only if it is unprotected and with multiple partners with unknown sexual histories. Which is a bad idea no matter who is involved.
Meanwhile, oral sex really does cause cancer, unprotected or not. Don't tell the ladies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/06 06:40:11
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I wonder if Emma Watson's new haircut is related to the Prop. 8 ruling… lol.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/06 06:45:09
Being a Mac user is like being a Navy SEAL: a small, elite group of people with access to the most sophisticated technology in the world, who everyone calls on to get the really tough jobs done quickly and efficiently.
Red9 wrote:
A human marrying a human is no perversion. Race is irrelevent and purely superficial. Stop bringing this up as it does not pertain to the discussion.
Perversion is a moral judgment by connotation. The definition you provided indicates that, when pertaining to sexuality, perversion is related to norms. Norms, in the relevant sense, are moral constructs associated with variances in probability.
Red9 wrote:
I'll explain why since you are a bit thick. This is a perversion of the natural and intended way of operation. It has nothing to do religion or morals or opinions. Man bones woman, makes child, humans go on. Man bones man, no child, humans die out. (same applies to women )
If you really want to present this as an argument from nature, then you should stop using words like 'intended'.
Still, you have a simplistic understanding of nature if you somehow believe that things like morality are not a part of it. Just to establish the frame of reference: humans exist as a part of nature and therefore all human activity is natural. Approaching the question of whether or not something should be legal from the position of "Is it natural?" smacks of a tendency to obfuscate the real issue at hand; namely the question regarding whether or not the thing in question is useful, detrimental, or neutral.
More specifically, it should be noted that a potential glut in population caused by purely procreative sex can have a significant negative impact on any given animal population; ie. procreation isn't necessarily the only end which sex is meant to accomplish.
Red9 wrote:
Nature has no morals and has no society. Sex is a natural act. Making it an unnatural act makes it perverse.
No action can be made fully unnatural. It simply isn't possible, nature is inescapable.
Red9 wrote:Social standards and morals has nothing to do with perversion.
That's true if you suppose that nature is somehow capable of possessing an intention. I don't believe that to be the case. The elements of nature can interact to determine which elements are more successful given all relevant elements, but that's not something we can approach in any way which is not predicated on a subjective judgment.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2010/08/06 07:19:42
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Red9 wrote:
The English word morality comes from the same root, as does the noun moral. However, mores do not, as is commonly supposed, necessarily carry connotations of morality.
I've studied ethics for a number of years now, and I've never heard anyone claim that mores were not intrinsically related to morality. I've never even heard that claim from a sociologist, and much of that discipline is based on controlling for morality.
Red9 wrote:
No where do I see morals coming from society.
Behavioral expectations and cues within a given group directly influence the morality of members of that group. Morality as a whole is the necessary result of any interaction, but predominately appears to be the result of social interaction and therefor society.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Who cares how nature intended it? We're typing messages into small boxes which use coded electrons to send messages to other little boxes to show everyone else our little messages. It's not natural.
But we do it because we enjoy, and society allows it because it does greater society no harm. The same holds for gay marriage, and well, everything.
Ultimately, that's the reason that the natural/unnatural dichotomy is useless. Nature is either the whole of all that exists, most probably limited to Earth, or that which is not the result of human action. If we accept the former definition, then whether or not something is natural isn't even a sensible question outside of theology. If we accepted the latter definition, then the question of "Is it natural?" is not relevant to human action as it is necessarily excluded by the definition of the opposing category.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/06 07:14:02
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
dogma wrote:Ultimately, that's the reason that the natural/unnatural dichotomy is useless. Nature is either the whole of all that exists, most probably limited to Earth, or that which is not the result of human action. If we accept the former definition, then whether or not something is natural isn't even a sensible question outside of theology. If we accepted the latter definition, then the question of "Is it natural?" is not relevant to human action as it is necessarily excluded by the definition of the opposing category.
Yes, very much that. If you take the first idea, everything is natural including gay sex. If you take the latter definition, then almost nothing in our lives is natural, most of it a lot less natural than gay sex.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
If everything is natural, then nothing is. My two cents, but not really.
If you have a very solid definition of 'natural', you're probably simplifying an entire statement into one word. I have spent way too much time around artists and hippies.
It certainly isn't any kind of technical term, so whatever. Xerox isn't copy, Google isn't search, and Natural isn't necessarily healthy. Soylent green is made of people.
I'm not sure why everyone is using the argument from nature given that homosexual relationships have been observed in nature. Further,marijuana is natural, but it's (depending where you live) against the law. If we're legislating based on the origin of an act or concept, shouldn't we strive to be consistant?
That said, I may be missing the point. I (hypothetically speaking) certainly didn't decide to stick my penis into the ass of another person without first having some desire to do so. That desire didn't come from nothing. I didn't create it using the power of my intellect. It comes from some baser part of me. Something closer to human nature, perhaps?
Either way, this is a simply ridiculous argument, and I find it difficult to comprehend how people can honestly think that it makes any sense.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/06 07:55:27
mattyrm wrote: If it only affects you and your partner, i dont give a gak what you get up to in your house, and all the homophobic nonsense they were flinging around in the commercials over there before this bill was passed was ridiculous.
There are commercials about it? Geez... someone link pls...
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Soylent Green is made of Soy and Lentils.
I'm not sure why everyone is using the argument from nature given that homosexual relationships have been observed in nature. Further,marijuana is natural, but it's (depending where you live) against the law. If we're legislating based on the origin of an act or concept, shouldn't we strive to be consistant?
That said, I may be missing the point. I (hypothetically speaking) certainly didn't decide to stick my penis into the ass of another person without first having some desire to do so. That desire didn't come from nothing. I didn't create it using the power of my intellect. It comes from some baser part of me. Something closer to human nature, perhaps?
Either way, this is a simply ridiculous argument, and I find it difficult to comprehend how people can honestly think that it makes any sense.
People also suffer from urges to kill, injure, rape, pillage, take dangerous drugs, overeat and listen to dubstep, all of which are difficult to accept as normal 'human nature' and therefore justify simply because they can be observed in nature. The fact is, though, that everything is slightly dangerous. It's just a matter of risk management. Homosexuals, other than perhaps eventual hemmoroids, are at the same risk of the exact same sexually transmitted infections as heterosexuals, but it is well documented at least in Australia that the gay community is more aware of the risks, and take far more precautions than the average swingers.
Also...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/06 08:10:00
Arctik_Firangi wrote:People also suffer from urges to kill, injure, rape, pillage, take dangerous drugs, overeat and listen to dubstep, all of which are difficult to accept as normal 'human nature' and therefore justify simply because they can be observed in nature. The fact is, though, that everything is slightly dangerous. It's just a matter of risk management. Homosexuals, other than perhaps eventual hemmoroids, are at the same risk of the exact same sexually transmitted infections as heterosexuals, but it is well documented at least in Australia that the gay community is more aware of the risks, and take far more precautions than the average swingers.
Perhaps we should legislate on the basis of fairness, equality, and minimising/mitigating harm or some other principle that doesn't rely on incredibly tenuous assumptions then? Who knows?
Arctik_Firangi wrote:People also suffer from urges to kill, injure, rape, pillage, take dangerous drugs, overeat and listen to dubstep, all of which are difficult to accept as normal 'human nature' and therefore justify simply because they can be observed in nature.
That's the point. Calling something 'natural' or 'unnatural' is arbitrary and irrelevant. What matters is if it does harm to the greater community, if it doesn't then let people do it if they want.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/06 08:40:10
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Arctik_Firangi wrote:People also suffer from urges to kill, injure, rape, pillage, take dangerous drugs, overeat and listen to dubstep, all of which are difficult to accept as normal 'human nature' and therefore justify simply because they can be observed in nature. The fact is, though, that everything is slightly dangerous. It's just a matter of risk management.
Beware the slippery slope, the one right next to the roller coaster.
Homosexuals, other than perhaps eventual hemmoroids, are at the same risk of the exact same sexually transmitted infections as heterosexuals, but it is well documented at least in Australia that the gay community is more aware of the risks, and take far more precautions than the average swingers.
They likely do it because of the AIDS epidemic that faced several gay communities a few decades ago, and was heavily publicized. I think it would be difficult to get accurate information regarding such a small community.
I am not entirely sure how comparable the community in Australia would be to anywhere else. Most of the reasons behind the AIDS epidemic in the U.S. as well as the interaction between the gay community and the whole, can be seen as culturally specific. Anyway, here is an interesting report from the CDC.
"While the heavy toll of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men has been long recognized, this analysis shows just how stark the health disparities are between this and other populations," said Kevin Fenton, M.D., director of CDC's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention. "It is clear that we will not be able to stop the U.S. HIV epidemic until every affected community, along with health officials nationwide, prioritize the needs of gay and bisexual men with HIV prevention efforts."
Also...
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2010/08/06 09:13:49
Arctik_Firangi wrote: Homosexuals, other than perhaps eventual hemmoroids, are at the same risk of the exact same sexually transmitted infections as heterosexuals, but it is well documented at least in Australia that the gay community is more aware of the risks, and take far more precautions than the average swingers.
They likely do it because of the AIDS epidemic that faced several gay communities a few decades ago, and was heavily publicized. I think it would be difficult to get accurate information regarding such a small community.
I am not entirely sure how comparable the community in Australia would be to anywhere else. Most of the reasons behind the AIDS epidemic in the U.S. as well as the interaction between the gay community and the whole, can be seen as culturally specific. Anyway, here is an interesting report from the CDC.
So, you've shown that having sex with people who have AIDS is a good way to get AIDS, and that a reasonable proportion of gay people have AIDS. My point stands. The risk is still exactly the same when precautions are taken, and more homosexuals tend to take those precautions and get screenings. Perhaps if more heterosexuals actually had STI screenings the numbers would be significantly different/.
It's unfortunate that a lot of homosexuals have AIDS. It's unfortunate that 1/12 of young people in the UK have Chylamydia and over 50% of sexually active people the world over have had some form of HPV.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/06 10:55:43
Arctik_Firangi wrote:So, you've shown that having sex with people who have AIDS is a good way to get AIDS, and that a reasonable proportion of gay people have AIDS. My point stands.
Not really, and I am not trying to use this information to rally against marriage or some such nonsense. Keep in mind that I am talking about the U.S., and if you could provide information that reinforces what you say about Australia, that would add something more to the conversation.
A data analysis released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention underscores the disproportionate impact of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men in the United States.
TBH, I am not even entirely sure if you read the summary.
The risk is still exactly the same when precautions are taken, and more homosexuals tend to take those precautions and get screenings. Perhaps if more heterosexuals actually had STI screenings the numbers would be significantly different/.
You appear to be wrong, at least when it comes to the U.S. Wait, condoms work when you use them? Is that what you are saying? What the report indicates is that, basically, gay/bi males IN GENERAL are not using condoms enough. There are suggestions that STDs might be considered normal in some parts of the community, and in others, there is not enough concern about it. There are also reports that talk about how the advent of HIV drugs has given rise to a nonchalance, but I am not entirely sure I think that is the main problem.
Read the report I posted again, it is just a brief summary and it won't take long.
It's unfortunate that a lot of homosexuals have AIDS. It's unfortunate that 1/12 of young people in the UK have Chylamydia and over 50% of sexually active people the world over have had some form of HPV.
You quote percentages for other demographics, but refer to the number for gay/bi males as 'a lot'? Odd. I personally think that there is a great deal of lumping together going on here, and sub-groups are often the ones that take the brunt of that confusion, in pretty much any demographic. The LGBT community is certainly not monolithic, even though I am not sure how culturally significant being within any of those groups actually is. It may be very significant, it could also be much to do with the power of branding as well.
Shades of gray. Or a rainbow flag, whatever.
Break those numbers into demographics, and just take a quick look, I wouldn't be surprised if there were several groups and sub-groups that have a much higher rates of STDs.
Again.
the disproportionate impact of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men in the United States.
This indicates that for gay/bi males in the U.S., you're wrong, and I haven't even seriously doubted what you have said concerning Australia in the same respects. It would be interesting to see something that reinforces your suggestion, as you stated that there was much information that does.
I support gay marriage, and am not entirely sure why it might appear that I don't, if that is indeed what you are suggesting. I also feel that people have a right to whatever opinion they please, but it should not have direct control over how laws are written and enforced, at least most of the time. I don't see how gay marriage could possibly be a detriment to society, at least no more than any other marriage could be.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2010/08/06 11:39:56
Red9 wrote:[Please stop quoting the Declaration of Independence as if it were the Constitution. Also, just because you have the "right" to go after what you want doesn't always mean you can or will get what you want.
You know I had to go there now:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyras wrote:I don't care if gays get married or not. It deosn't effect me one bit and although I disagree with their lifestyle, I also believe it's not my place to judge them for it. What concerns me though is that some seven million voters were told their voices don't count for squat. If the government can disregard a vote like this one then what other democratic votes can they drop because it doesn't fit their view?
Oh and the judge should have recused himself from the case due to a conflict of interests.
That is true. The proposal lost by 62% the first time, but only 52% the second time. Third time would have been the charm. The Democratic process works, but now this will be decided by a few old men and women by judicial fiat.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/06 12:27:09
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
[DCM]
GW Public Relations Manager (Privateer Press Mole)
Red9 wrote:
AgeOfEgos wrote:Homosexual behavior is seen throughout the animal kingdom.
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior Can't argue that, but consider how much of that is used as establishing dominance or for actuall mating benefits like the flour beetle that gets rid of bad sperm, or the female whiptail lizard that does it to make its eggs more fertile and resistent to outside factors while it incubates? Is it perverse in those contexts? Nope, because that is how nature intended it. Bugs can't jerk off so a little help from the bro's might be necessary ;D
AgeOfEgos wrote:Bonobos, our closest genetic relative, engage in various acts of homosexual behavior (Such as rubbing genitals together, males 'rump rubbing and smacking', etc).
I see homosexual behaviour everyday that doesn't nullify the fact that it is perverse behaviour, so whats your point?
AgeOfEgos wrote:That it does not lead to pregnancy is not an argument against its behavior, else that thought train will end up at a rather illogical conclusion.
That is an argument against it's behaviour, because perverting an act designed to allow reproduction into a recreational behaviour is illogical as well.
What conclusion is that pray tell? Is it the obviousness of "gay sex doesn't make babies?"
Your reply demonstrates adding intention to a system that is not. I post examples of homosexual behavior, in the example of the Bonobos, for pleasure and you state 'That's how nature intended it so it's not perverse'. I would question;
1. Where are you getting the information from that denotes what nature 'intended'? Is this a sentient power?
The reason for pointing out homosexuality is present in our closest relatives, is to demonstrate that such biological urges are not uncommon and should even be expected. Simply because it happens in other parts of nature does not constitute it being acceptable, regardless if it's a natural biological urge (which sounds like an argument against homosexuality but read on).
You cannot use, however, have it both ways and use nature as grounds for your definition as perverse. If you follow that to it's logical conclusion, as you stated "because perverting an act designed to allow reproduction into a recreational behavior is illogical as well".....then any form of birth control would be perverse. One could even argue then that not having sex with every woman I meet that is ovulating and willing...would be perverse. Fortunately, we are also gifted with a unique sentience that allows us to help sedate our biological urges and judge them on the merits of the action.
So, to sum up;
1. Homosexuality is an observed biological urge in primates.
2. We are a primate.
3. A union between two consenting homosexuals hurts no one
Years from now, people will look back at this ridiculous argument with the same sneer we use regarding miscegenation laws.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/08/06 12:38:53
Adepticon TT 2009---Best Heretical Force
Adepticon 2010---Best Appearance Warhammer Fantasy Warbands
Adepticon 2011---Best Team Display
Im stunned you lot are still arguing about this, a good case simply cannot be made for banning it.
If gays want to get married and be as eternally fething miserable as straight people then let em!
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
Red9 wrote:[
It's not a fear card and they are only the same in that they are both perversions of the norm. Said before but slippery slope, you allow one perversion to be legal and then it's only a matter of time until others follow.
OF course it is a fear card, and the unspoken but heavily implied implication is that "gay men want to have sex with your little boys".
It isn't coincidence that most homophobes rush to mention pedophilia in the context of discussing gay rights and homosexuality any chance they get.
There is no implication, and making up implied statements just makes you look foolish. Read the bolded part again and think about what that means before you spout off rubbish.
It isn't a coincidence that most supporters of homosexuality call everyone else a homophobe. I don't fear homosexuality, nor am I afraid of homosexuals. Just as you missunderstand what I'm saying, you don't even understand what you are saying.
You are wrong. GO read any of the literature by any of the main homophobic/anti-gay hate groups or personalities that regularly write/speak about this topic, or attend any rally about such. What I describe will be discussed, although since they assume most attending support them they will actually come out and say things like "The gays wnt to molest our little boys", etc., etc.
I have heard it and read it many many times.
These are the types of fear mongering homophobes that you are aligning yourself with.
mattyrm wrote:
If gays want to get married and be as eternally fething miserable as straight people then let em!
For all the pontificating earlier, this wins the thread.
Hey I said that first!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CT GAMER wrote:
Red9 wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:
Red9 wrote:[
It's not a fear card and they are only the same in that they are both perversions of the norm. Said before but slippery slope, you allow one perversion to be legal and then it's only a matter of time until others follow.
OF course it is a fear card, and the unspoken but heavily implied implication is that "gay men want to have sex with your little boys".
It isn't coincidence that most homophobes rush to mention pedophilia in the context of discussing gay rights and homosexuality any chance they get.
There is no implication, and making up implied statements just makes you look foolish. Read the bolded part again and think about what that means before you spout off rubbish.
It isn't a coincidence that most supporters of homosexuality call everyone else a homophobe. I don't fear homosexuality, nor am I afraid of homosexuals. Just as you missunderstand what I'm saying, you don't even understand what you are saying.
You are wrong. GO read any of the literature by any of the main homophobic/anti-gay hate groups or personalities that regularly write/speak about this topic, or attend any rally about such. What I describe will be discussed, although since they assume most attending support them they will actually come out and say things like "The gays wnt to molest our little boys", etc., etc.
I have heard it and read it many many times.
These are the types of fear mongering homophobes that you are aligning yourself with.
People that usew fear to hide fact.
Disgusting...
Modquisition on.
Thats trolling. Watch it.
This is public warning to all. Avoid personal attacks or dispersion of this nature or you will be suspended.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/06 12:52:28
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Fateweaver wrote:Gays should not be allowed to marry. End of.
If you want to be gay that is your prerogative. Don't expect churches and God fearing institutions to agree with your decision and get upset when they won't marry you.
Religious views should have absolutely zero influence on politics and law making, you know that whole separation of church and state thing.
Hit the nail on the head before I could even bring out my hammer.
Also: Gay isn't someone's perogative, it's who they are. A gay person can't choose to be gay.
I would've believed that arguement would've been thrown out as the rubbish it is.
Forgive me if my understanding of perogative is mistaken in this context.
Ok I was going to read and be silent but come on now not their choice? Umm ok how is it not? It is their preference, which means a choice.
I would also like to say I support gay marriages. Because I don't see how it is any of.my business what other people do if it doesn't effect me. And.I can't se how it would.
Shadowmarine wrote:Ok I was going to read and be silent but come on now not their choice? Umm ok how is it not? It is their preference, which means a choice.
I take it you don't know any people that are homosexual, beyond the characters in Will & Grace. Do you conciously choose to be straight? Have you ever once in your life thought "Maybe today I'll bugger off to a gay bar and meet some rough chap because I think I'll be queer today"?
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Ahtman wrote:Women who won't wear a burqa are a perversion of societies morals. They must be chaste and pure such as the example below.
I finally understand the Taliban.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
Wrex, I've been writing reviews for the last three hours and couldn't even begin to be bothered quoting apart what you said in response to my remark.
My point is that members of the gay community are more aware of STIs - this is because there is a problem. I acknowledge that. Australia has plenty of health programs in place that address the education of these matters. If you've ever looked into any LGBT publications or press, once you get past the excessive pushing of services in sexual deviancy and organised rallies, there is plenty of evidence of this being a focus of the community as well. Statistics regarding incidence have nothing to do with this. I do pretty much agree with what you said, and yes, I presumed that you had no problem with gay marriage. In fact, you stated it pretty clearly.
Sorry for not being entirely objective in calling the gay community 'a lot', I didn't think I'd have to re-publish the contents of what you had already linked as reference. The only oversight in what I said is in that I did not address the following... penises are not supposed to go into anuses, and for physical reasons I hardly want to imagine this leads to condoms not being so useful in this situation as they might be for vaginal use. Thanks for inspiring me to bother to think about that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/06 14:34:00
Fateweaver wrote:Gays should not be allowed to marry. End of.
If you want to be gay that is your prerogative. Don't expect churches and God fearing institutions to agree with your decision and get upset when they won't marry you.
Religious views should have absolutely zero influence on politics and law making, you know that whole separation of church and state thing.
Hit the nail on the head before I could even bring out my hammer.
Also: Gay isn't someone's perogative, it's who they are. A gay person can't choose to be gay. I would've believed that arguement would've been thrown out as the rubbish it is.
Forgive me if my understanding of perogative is mistaken in this context.
Ok I was going to read and be silent but come on now not their choice? Umm ok how is it not? It is their preference, which means a choice.
It's not a choice who someone is attracted to or not. Someone can't jump up and say suddenly 'I want to feth men now!" if they're a straight male. Same goes for all directions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/06 17:42:09
Well they technically could but it would be kind of a strange thing to do. I mean if you did that in movie theater when I'm watching something really epic cool I think I might have to sock ya.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote:Well they technically could but it would be kind of a strange thing to do. I mean if you did that in movie theater when I'm watching something really epic cool I think I might have to sock ya.
)
