• Gays v2 - really, there's nothing wrong with them
    394 replies, posted
Yes I know about surrogation and all that already. But I'm talking about creating a human being from the genetic material of people from the same sex.
[QUOTE=Mr._N;34729810]Yes I know about surrogation and all that already. But I'm talking about creating a human being from the genetic material of people from the same sex.[/QUOTE] How would that even happen?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34731028]How would that even happen?[/QUOTE] In theory stem cells could be used to make sex cells from an opposite gender, though adult stem cells are less flexible. Not to mention that there may be high risk of genetic mutations.
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;34715061]This. There's this: [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/16/neuroscience.psychology[/url] Basically it says that homosexual men/heterosexual women have similarly shaped brains, and homosexual females/heterosexual men have similar brains to each other. It's not definitive evidence, but it is good evidence to show support to the theory that you are born gay or straight. [/QUOTE] That's actually very interesting. So, would you say that the stereotypes that homosexual men are more feminine and homosexual women are more masculine are actually true? Also, I have a question for anybody who uses the argument that gays are inferior/worthless etc. because they can't reproduce. What do you think of infertile heterosexuals? I never see this argument used in response, and that confuses me, why does nobody ever ask that?
That argument was used several times in the previous thread ("What about infertile couples?"), and of course nobody responds to the rebuttals they cannot answer.
[QUOTE=Deckard;34749105]That's actually very interesting. So, would you say that the stereotypes that homosexual men are more feminine and homosexual women are more masculine are actually true? Also, I have a question for anybody who uses the argument that gays are inferior/worthless etc. because they can't reproduce. What do you think of infertile heterosexuals? I never see this argument used in response, and that confuses me, why does nobody ever ask that?[/QUOTE] It's ok because at least they're heterosexual.
It disgusts me that so many so called "Conservatives" appose gay marriage. To be a real Conservative you can't let religious values guide your life. The ideological roots of real Conservatives originate from the great Classical Liberals of the 18th-19th Century, most of whom were irreligious. Classical Liberals invented the concept of freedom, and homosexuals are no exception to that. True Conservatives believe that all men are [B][I]created[/I][/B] equal, and sexual orientation doesn't change that.
Blame the rise of the Christian Right in the 60s, who ruined Lincoln's GOP.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34731028]How would that even happen?[/QUOTE] The theory is already in place, at least for women. We can take some bone marrow, perform wizardy and then we get sperm cells. Don't ask me how it works, I dropped out of uni so I'm clueless beyond the bone marrow makes sperm stage.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;34766797]The theory is already in place, at least for women. We can take some bone marrow, perform wizardy and then we get sperm cells. Don't ask me how it works, I dropped out of uni so I'm clueless beyond the bone marrow makes sperm stage.[/QUOTE] Bone marrow contains adult stem cells, then it's just a matter of getting them to be natured as a sperm cell.
[QUOTE=Destroyer25;34766219]It disgusts me that so many so called "Conservatives" appose gay marriage. To be a real Conservative you can't let religious values guide your life. The ideological roots of real Conservatives originate from the great Classical Liberals of the 18th-19th Century, most of whom were irreligious. Classical Liberals invented the concept of freedom, and homosexuals are no exception to that. True Conservatives believe that all men are [B][I]created[/I][/B] equal, and sexual orientation doesn't change that.[/QUOTE] True conservatives? Do you know where the word conservative comes from? It comes from CONSERVE, as in, CONSERVE old traditions and family values. So in other words, conservatism is bullshit. It stands in the way. Any country would only benefit from more committed people. And regardless of what true conservatives (or whoever the fuck) believe, we are far from being equal.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;34769967]True conservatives? Do you know where the word conservative comes from? It comes from CONSERVE, as in, CONSERVE old traditions and family values. So in other words, conservatism is bullshit. [/QUOTE] This is outright wrong. The person you're responding to here seems to know a fair bit more about this than you do. Also, I for one have no clue what you mean by "any country would benefit from more committed people"
[QUOTE=limulus54;34771365]Also, I for one have no clue what you mean by "any country would benefit from more committed people"[/QUOTE] Ah, I meant that, if a country allowed all consent adults to marry whoever they wanted to, then the country would be better off than a country that doesn't allow all people to marry. I just kind of jumped into this.. gay debate. Whatever. lol.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;34769967]True conservatives? Do you know where the word conservative comes from? It comes from CONSERVE, as in, CONSERVE old traditions and family values.[/QUOTE] The origin of the word is completely irrelevant, I'm talking about the origin of the ideology, but clearly you can't make that distinction. Or were you just tossing red herrings out there? [QUOTE=Bat-shit;34769967]So in other words, conservatism is bullshit.[/QUOTE] Neoconservatism is, but not real Classical Liberalism/Classical Conservatism. Real Conservatives are Progressive Neoliberal Conservatives that support equal rights for all, maximum economic freedom and a state that exists primarily to protect our life and liberties. [QUOTE=Bat-shit;34769967]It stands in the way. Any country would only benefit from more committed people. And regardless of what true conservatives (or whoever the fuck) believe, we are far from being equal.[/QUOTE] Right, and Neoconservatives are the ones standing in the way.
People shouldn't be debating if they are unwilling to change their minds once all beliefs thrown out have been addressed. (I've not seen a single homophobe admit to being wrong.)
[QUOTE=Mr._N;34752965]It's ok because at least they're heterosexual.[/QUOTE] That makes no sense whatsoever. Care to elaborate on that bigoted and thoroughly ignorant statement?
Not being serious. I'm gay.
Oh, then I apologize. I just hate it when heterosexuals act all superior to us, so I assumed your comment was serious. Again, I'm sorry for my misconceived first impressions. My question still stands though, to anybody willing to take it. If you use the argument that gays are inferior/dispendable/whatever due to the fact they can't create a baby with each other, thus continuing the human life cycle, then what do you say about infertile heterosexuals? Besides, I find that argument laughable in a day and age where we have approximately 7 billion people roaming this Earth with no signs of slowing down.
It's not even an argument, because that way of thought is obsolete. We live in the modern times, therefore men are not judged anymore by their ability to reproduce. If I were to be in a tribe, then, from a global perspective, I would be then considered dispensable. But, because we are not that sort of society anymore, one cannot use that argument anymore. Nowadays income is more reliable way of determining through a woman's perspective whether a male is worthy or not "to live".
[QUOTE=Seith;34776802]It's not even an argument, because that way of thought is obsolete. We live in the modern times, therefore men are not judged anymore by their ability to reproduce. If I were to be in a tribe, then, from a global perspective, I would be then considered dispensable. But, because we are not that sort of society anymore, one cannot use that argument anymore. Nowadays income is more reliable way of determining through a woman's perspective whether a male is worthy or not "to live".[/QUOTE] I too believe the argument to be completely and utterly preposterous. However, I'm talking to the people who degrade gays due to the fact they don't repopulate the Earth.
I just think that there can be very much wrong in a homosexual person. And evidently that goes for others too. As for marriage.. either no direct benefits from having a "formal bond" or let just any couple do it and benefit from marriage depending how it works in their country. So.. somewhere in our world it's still backwards.
[QUOTE=Deckard;34776377]Oh, then I apologize. I just hate it when heterosexuals act all superior to us, so I assumed your comment was serious. Again, I'm sorry for my misconceived first impressions. My question still stands though, to anybody willing to take it. If you use the argument that gays are inferior/dispendable/whatever due to the fact they can't create a baby with each other, thus continuing the human life cycle, then what do you say about infertile heterosexuals? Besides, I find that argument laughable in a day and age where we have approximately 7 billion people roaming this Earth with no signs of slowing down.[/QUOTE] It's a pretty stupid argument in modern day. We have a huge population, we are not exactly dying out. It's also a stupid assumption that straight couples = reproducing. I mean as a heterosexual I can get married legally but I intend to never have children, however a gay couple who want to raise a family together by adopting a child/surrogacy/etc can't get married because of outdated beliefs. That makes no sense, it sounds like the reproduction thing is simply an excuse. It's things like this that make me believe the only real reasons people have for being against gay rights are because they are blindly following what their religion says or they're just plain ignorant and think gays are "gross" (or both). Also do they think these gay people who cannot get married will go "oh well, it's illegal, let's just change our sexuality and turn heterosexual then"? How is not allowing them to marry going to benefit the population? I wonder if anybody can explain this view...
[QUOTE=xXDictatorXx;34785866]It's a pretty stupid argument in modern day. We have a huge population, we are not exactly dying out. It's also a stupid assumption that straight couples = reproducing. I mean as a heterosexual I can get married legally but I intend to never have children, however a gay couple who want to raise a family together by adopting a child/surrogacy/etc can't get married because of outdated beliefs. That makes no sense, it sounds like the reproduction thing is simply an excuse. It's things like this that make me believe the only real reasons people have for being against gay rights are because they are blindly following what their religion says or they're just plain ignorant and think gays are "gross" (or both). Also do they think these gay people who cannot get married will go "oh well, it's illegal, let's just change our sexuality and turn heterosexual then"? How is not allowing them to marry going to benefit the population? I wonder if anybody can explain this view...[/QUOTE] I don't think there really is an explanation to this argument. It's just a shoddy excuse those people use when called out on their bigotry, so that they don't have to admit that they just hate dem dere queer-o-sexuals.
[QUOTE=Disgruntled;34790546]I don't think there really is an explanation to this argument. It's just a shoddy excuse those people use when called out on their bigotry, so that they don't have to admit that they just hate dem dere queer-o-sexuals.[/QUOTE] I lol'd. Seriously though, not trying to be too judgmental but the people who are against homosexuality, are simply fools trying to follow expectations lead by their earlier generations. We live in a time however, where expectations don't exactly have as much as a role as they once did. If only the homophobes knew what it is like to be homosexual, then maybe they wouldn't believe the same way they do. Its generally just... a selfish way to think is all.
It's really interesting how this topic is being prolonged so much in this thread and any other topic of conversation. It's funny how such a simple thing as tolerance and freedom can be still be pretty controversial today. I think a fair government should allow gay people to marry without voicing so many intolerance and controversy. It's not like we're endangering the children or anything. Gays always existed and people always needed something strange, different and weird to blame for the wrongs of society. That shit's gotta go. It's a simple matter that's generating a huge battlefield between people. Binding differences between one another creating despite between both gays and gay hatters forcing them to extreme their attitudes towards society and one another. Nobody needs this shit. The only thing that corrupts our children are bad parenting, useless authority, extremism and fundamentalism not gays, heavy metal and other "profain shit" . That's the message we should send to our governors and not a message of difference between stereotypes.
I don't fully understand why marriage is a religious ceremony though. Is marriage by a priest really different than a civil union by a government official? I'm not fully educated on the "issue" of gay marriage (I'm all for it of course) but can't two people of the same sex get a civil union and technically be married right now in any state? I could understand why a religious church might be against gay marriage but why would any government be against it? Obviously its wrong for the church to discriminate against same sex marriage but there's not much you can do about that is there? What I don't understand is why same sex marriage is "legal" in only some states. Legal in terms of what? Civil union or religious? Why would it be illegal in some states? What does the government have to do with religious beliefs? Isn't that a clear violation of the separation of church and state?
Civil unions claim to be 'separate but equal', however just like racial 'separate but equal' laws, they do not provide the same protections/benefits, and they suggest that the recipients are inferior (needing to be separated). Civil unions are not legal in all states, just as marriage isn't. It is, as you said, a clear violation of the separation of church and state. That doesn't stop the majority from taking part in bigotry, electing poor officials, and getting terrible laws passed.
I have no problem with any kind of relationship between any number of people of whatever gender (Male male, female female, male male male, female female female, male female female, etc etc.) As long as all parties consent I don't think it could ever be a problem, and I haven't heard any arguements against this. That being said, I don't think marriages help out society at all, and the only real benefit is the money stuff the couple gets. Everything else is superficial and unneeded, although it does have it's only right to exist I guess. Aw who am I kidding I love dick.
[QUOTE=Rammlied;34871051]That being said, I don't think marriages help out society at all, and the only real benefit is the money stuff the couple gets. Everything else is superficial and unneeded, although it does have it's only right to exist I guess.[/QUOTE] Marriage is a bit of an outdated concept in my opinion. The real problem is how many legal benefits are tied to marriage...
I love this [url]http://www.stopgeek.com/top-10-reasons-gay-marriage-should-be-illegal.html[/url] [QUOTE][B]Top 10 Reasons Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal[/B] 01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. 02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. 04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. 05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed. 06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children. 07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America. 09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children. 10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.