[QUOTE=Crimor;34461528]To put it simply, to hate me with that much force makes you my enemy, I do not pity my enemy, for sooner or later they will be crushed beneath my boot heel.[/QUOTE]
That's basically the same thing, some people demand others accept/respect them while refusing to accept that some people just have a problem with it.
It's somewhat ironic that homophobic people are seen as abnormal and that they must conform to society's wishes.
You might disagree with people but hate in any form is unnecessary, it leads to various problems (genocide, torture, murder, etc.).
In order to be accepted you have to be the bigger man and show some tolerance yourself.
[QUOTE=fluke42;34461370]But we recently linked homophobia to stupidity, why do they deserve our pity?[/QUOTE]
Define stupidity, do you mean lack of education or innate learning ability?
In either case lack of education/learning ability is rarely the individual's fault alone but generally influenced by socio-economic status and genetics.
Due to this influence you can't hold people accountable for their opinions if they are too uneducated/ignorant to change them.
Nor can you claim to be a "better person" than them because you would have been better-informed than them, if the situations were reversed would you still hold the same opinion?
And where are your figures for the link of homophobia to stupidity(Whatever that actually means)?
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;34465807]This is literally my only actual gripe with homosexuals. It is a weird topic, because to talk about it in a thread like this, it makes me come off as homophobic, when in fact I'm probably just anti-marriage.
The thing is, when marriage happens in a church, it has all sorts of associations and relations to the religion of the church. So to me, if you're getting married in a church, then it is completely up to the church whether or not they want to marry you or not. They are allowed to be as homophobic and intolerant as they want, because marriage is [I](or should be)[/I] just a service that the church offers, not one that they are required to give.
Somehow, marriage has been tangled into legal and state business, which is, I guess, why homosexuals wants in on it. Marriage needs to be completely seperated from the church and from religion before homosexual marriage would make sense.
Until then, homosexual marriage would be about two gay guys walking into a house full of people that want them to burn in hell and being married under that very religion.
Also, if marriage and religion was fully seperated, the religious nuts would have absolutely no arguments against homosexual marriage.[/QUOTE]
With as many contradictions as there are in religious practices, it's no wonder that you have lots of religious people who disagree on subjects, such as homosexuality. Therefore even the head of a religion, since by its nature you cannot say that anyone owns religion, cannot create an official stance. Only individual churches can tell you if you can be married, at that particular church. The pope/etc do not get to define marriage.
I would link homosexuality to overpopulation, even some other animals go homo when they need to satisfy their urges, but don't have enough resources to provide for another generation.
(Even ancient greeks had lots of homosexuality, but it was just because they had so much olive oil.)
And how the hell can you link homophobia to stupidness? Being stupid can mean many things, but mostly in the animal kingdom it means that you will die if you're stupid and others will live on and reproduce.
The cunning fox will snatch the hare and take it to it's young, where the stupid fox will be such a tool that it can't even find a mate to have pups with.
At the very least the homophobic persons genes will live on, where the homosexuals genes will not.
Who is the victor?
edit: Also, marriage is so strongly linked to church&state because those two organisations were the same not too long ago.
edit: Homosexuality, say it out loud a couple of times and it starts to sound funny.
[QUOTE=Kelju;34466897]I would link homosexuality to overpopulation, even some other animals go homo when they need to satisfy their urges, but don't have enough resources to provide for another generation.
And how the hell can you link homophobia to stupidness? Being stupid can mean many things, but mostly in the animal kingdom it means that you will die if you're stupid and others will live on and reproduce.
The cunning fox will snatch the hare and take it to it's young, where the stupid fox will be such a tool that it can't even find a mate to have pups with.
At the very least the homophobic persons genes will live on, where the homosexuals genes will not.
Who is the victor?[/QUOTE]
-snip-
Clearly a troll, I'll be on my way.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;34467009]-snip-
Clearly a troll, I'll be on my way.[/QUOTE]
Yes, you most certainly will be. If I'm a troll, what are you? You're being intolerant towards me as a person, after posting that there shouldn't be hate?
I don't judge you, you have really good points imo, and I respect you as a human being, even after you called me something that resides only in fantasy books.
I just studied fashion, you can't study fashion without tolerating gays. I even got grabbed a bit here and there, but politely explained that I only do that shit with the ladies.
I'm trying to joke a bit on the side, but still make a point. My point seems quite alot more intelligent than telling that people who don't like gay people are somehow less intelligent than the rest of the populace.
If saying that is the definition of being a troll, then I will gladly move under a bridge to frighten goats.
I don't know if this is a very good debate topic. Men throughout history have been gay (Spartans are frequently known for being homosexual during their large military journeys.) with some of the greatest nations to ever grace our planet known for being very openly sexual and homoerotic.
Many animals have been observed having homosexual relations. This is like trying to have a debate about mental retardation, it's not going to go anywhere and people are going to get offended.
That's what I have to say on this matter.
P.S: All these people linking homosexuality to modern things like overpopulation are hilarious. The most modern civilizations on Earth have always had large homosexual populations. The Romans, Greeks, Spartans, etc.
Well, guess it beats jacking off.
I'm sorry, I was misinformed and just decided to post the overpopulation idea to see what happens, most homosexuality in the animal kingdom is for other reasons, hell.. I just found out that even bedbugs have homosexual relations just because being full of blood is sexy in their "society" :D
Most of these modern civilizations also engaged in slavery, capital punishment, polygamy, wild orgies, battles to the death for amusement and other stuff, so having sex with someone of your own gender didn't seem like such a thing back then :)
If you also think that you most likely die at 20-40 years old , and most of the good looking chicks are enslaved to some fat fuck warlord or burned as witches, then it's kinda like the only way to have some good time.
[QUOTE=Kelju;34467451]Well, guess it beats jacking off.
I'm sorry, I was misinformed and just decided to post the overpopulation idea to see what happens, most homosexuality in the animal kingdom is for other reasons, hell.. I just found out that even bedbugs have homosexual relations just because being full of blood is sexy in their "society" :D
Most of these modern civilizations also engaged in slavery, capital punishment, polygamy, wild orgies, battles to the death for amusement and other stuff, so having sex with someone of your own gender didn't seem like such a thing back then :)
If you also think that you most likely die at 20-40 years old , and most of the good looking chicks are enslaved to some fat fuck warlord or burned as witches, then it's kinda like the only way to have some good time.[/QUOTE]
True, but there was certainly no lack of homosexuality out of choice or just being born that way.
[quote]I.2.20 (Bar/Brothel of Innulus and Papilio); 3932: Weep, you girls. My penis has given you up. Now it penetrates men’s behinds. Goodbye, wondrous femininity![/quote]
Graffiti from Pompeii.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;34466534]That's basically the same thing, some people demand others accept/respect them while refusing to accept that some people just have a problem with it.
It's somewhat ironic that homophobic people are seen as abnormal and that they must conform to society's wishes.
You might disagree with people but hate in any form is unnecessary, it leads to various problems (genocide, torture, murder, etc.).
In order to be accepted you have to be the bigger man and show some tolerance yourself.
Define stupidity, do you mean lack of education or innate learning ability?
In either case lack of education/learning ability is rarely the individual's fault alone but generally influenced by socio-economic status and genetics.
Due to this influence you can't hold people accountable for their opinions if they are too uneducated/ignorant to change them.
Nor can you claim to be a "better person" than them because you would have been better-informed than them, if the situations were reversed would you still hold the same opinion?
And where are your figures for the link of homophobia to stupidity(Whatever that actually means)?[/QUOTE]
I never said I would hate them, I will crush them simply so they will not crush me.
I don't get it. How can be gays equal if they cannot reproduce?
Love is irrelevant in this belonging, we talk about the biological function they lack.
It is not unfair to say that gays are, let's say retarded or handicapped, because their sexuality
is unfunctional I guess.
It is like saying a men born without legs equals a healthy jogger.
[QUOTE=Kellerbewohner;34472956]I don't get it. How can be gays equal if they cannot reproduce?
Love is irrelevant in this belonging, we talk about the biological function they lack.
It is not unfair to say that gays are, let's say retarded or handicapped, because their sexuality
is unfunctional I guess.
It is like saying a men born without legs equals a healthy jogger.[/QUOTE]
so should infertile couples lose the right to marriage? what about those who don't want children? marriage is about more than reproduction.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34472972]so should infertile couples lose the right to marriage? what about those who don't want children? marriage is about more than reproduction.[/QUOTE]
It may now be about more than reproduction, but it hasn't always been. Of course that is irrelevant now so his point is invalid. Plus he really needs to stop randomly hitting enter in the middle of his posts
I don't know why you guys are honestly arguing against homosexuality.
Being a utilitarian, I'm for the viewpoint as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, go right ahead.
As for the "Changing religion", christianity itself, morphed and evolved, and will continue to, for a very long time.
I have no problem with homosexuality, as long as marriage is not involved. They are not meant to marry.
[QUOTE=Captain Lawlrus;34473457]I have no problem with homosexuality, as long as marriage is not involved. They are not meant to marry.[/QUOTE]
Do you mean in the religious sense or the state sense? Because both of those are irrelevant.
[QUOTE=Captain Lawlrus;34473457]I have no problem with homosexuality, as long as marriage is not involved. They are not meant to marry.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs46/f/2009/215/6/c/I_am_a_good_person_by_PaMikoo.jpg[/img]
Now what do you say?
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;34473553][img]http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs46/f/2009/215/6/c/I_am_a_good_person_by_PaMikoo.jpg[/img]
Now what do you say?[/QUOTE]
I say that children aren't biologically formed from homosexual relationships and therefore marital benefits formed for the prosperity of a family should be null as it is in no sense a natural family.
[QUOTE=Captain Lawlrus;34473583]I say that children aren't biologically formed from homosexual relationships and therefore marital benefits formed for the prosperity of a family should be null as it is in no sense a natural family.[/QUOTE]
Yes because basic rights that protect families should be only be allowed to birth children. If you adopt a child, you are totally not a parent and are not a family at all. [/sarcasm]
You think it'd be common sense that in this day and age, why should other people care who marries whom? You're not marrying someone of the same gender
so why do you care if someone does? Jesus.
[QUOTE=Captain Lawlrus;34473583]I say that children aren't biologically formed from homosexual relationships and therefore marital benefits formed for the prosperity of a family should be null as it is in no sense a natural family.[/QUOTE]
Prosperous family: "Two chavs from downtown britain who fucked without protection"
Not-prosperous family: "Two women who set out to adopt kids and provide a good life for them"
Also, this is completely invalidating all adoption, which is downright idiotic.
[QUOTE=Tukimoshi;34473611]Yes because basic rights that protect families should be only be allowed to birth children. If you adopt a child, you are totally not a parent and are not a family at all. [/sarcasm]
You think it'd be common sense that in this day and age, why should other people care who marries whom? You're not marrying someone of the same gender
so why do you care if someone does? Jesus.[/QUOTE]
It's noteworthy that in practically every dictionary on earth, marriage is strictly defined as the formal union of a man and a woman. I care who marries who because gay marriage is an oxymoron. I have no problem with any sort of civil-union esque setup, but it is logically impossible for gays to "marry".
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;34473553][img]http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs46/f/2009/215/6/c/I_am_a_good_person_by_PaMikoo.jpg[/img]
Now what do you say?[/QUOTE]
Although I see what that image is getting at, a hospital isn't going to deny important medical care just because they aren't married/the other woman doesn't have insurance
[editline]30th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;34473632]Prosperous family: "Two chavs from downtown britain who fucked without protection"
Not-prosperous family: "Two women who set out to adopt kids and provide a good life for them"
Also, this is completely invalidating all adoption, which is downright idiotic.[/QUOTE]
Because all straight marriages are terrible result of poor criminals having unprotected sex, and all gay relationships are between two excellent, good people with good motives.
[editline]30th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Captain Lawlrus;34473714]It's noteworthy that in practically every dictionary on earth, marriage is strictly defined as the formal union of a man and a woman. I care who marries who because gay marriage is an oxymoron. I have no problem with any sort of civil-union esque setup, but it is logically impossible for gays to "marry".[/QUOTE]
Lesson 1 of debating: Never use the dictionary for your definitions of complex, multifaceted ideas
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34473790]Although I see what that image is getting at, a hospital isn't going to deny important medical care just because they aren't married/the other woman doesn't have insurance[/QUOTE]
They won't deny emergency care. They won't be getting cancer treatment or an organ transplant without money or insurance though.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34473833]They won't deny emergency care. They won't be getting cancer treatment or an organ transplant without money or insurance though.[/QUOTE]
Well then that is a completely valid point. Now I'm interested in hearing an anti-gay rights response to that
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34473833]They won't deny emergency care. They won't be getting cancer treatment or an organ transplant without money or insurance though.[/QUOTE]
Again with the proper institution of marriage involving a providing male, in the event of the dependent spouse requiring medical attention, the insurance would carry over. In homosexual relationships there isn't an assumed provider nor is there any natural means of acquiring children. Had the depicted couple not adopted children, it can be assumed that there would be excess income capable of covering hospital bills. I personally don't believe in the lack of public healthcare but that is an irrelevant issue.
[QUOTE=Captain Lawlrus;34473922]Again with the proper institution of marriage involving a providing male, in the event of the dependent spouse requiring medical attention, the insurance would carry over. In homosexual relationships there isn't an assumed provider nor is there any natural means of acquiring children. Had the depicted couple not adopted children, it can be assumed that there would be excess income capable of covering hospital bills. I personally don't believe in the lack of public healthcare but that is an irrelevant issue.[/QUOTE]
In the "proper institution of marriage", it would only be a religious contract between a man and a woman, and the government would have no say nor business in them at all. But that's not how things are.
And homosexual marriages don't suddenly mean all "traditional values" are thrown out the window. There can still easily be a sole provider for the household, while the second spouse could be a stay-at-home parent to take care of the children (be them adopted or from previous marriages). And in the event of emergency medical attention, I'm sure they would either use the victim's insurance, or whichever is better. It would be nice to have the better of the two used, though I can see why insurance companies and all wouldn't want to do that.
As for the adopted children thing, if that was a "normal" couple, with the two children as birthed children, rather than adopted, there would be no difference in "excess income".
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34473866]Well then that is a completely valid point. Now I'm interested in hearing an anti-gay rights response to that[/QUOTE]
There is no argument in support of it, other than to claim that the "sanctity of marriage" is more important than a human life
[QUOTE=Captain Lawlrus;34473922]Again with the proper institution of marriage involving a providing male, in the event of the dependent spouse requiring medical attention, the insurance would carry over. In homosexual relationships there isn't an assumed provider nor is there any natural means of acquiring children. Had the depicted couple not adopted children, it can be assumed that there would be excess income capable of covering hospital bills. I personally don't believe in the lack of public healthcare but that is an irrelevant issue.[/QUOTE]
Except when it's a lesbian couple and one goes through the process of insemination?
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34472972]so should infertile couples lose the right to marriage? what about those who don't want children? marriage is about more than reproduction.[/QUOTE]
I did not say gays shall not marry, I said they are not equal.
And that is true. Equal in rights yes, but never equal, tolerated nothing more and nothing less.
[img]http://www.webcam-steamate.com/cookies/37/b/happy.gif[/img]
People want Jesus to accept them no matter what state they choose to remain in. The fact is, Jesus wants people to conform to His image, and not remain in the state He finds them in. Jesus forgives our sins, when we repent.
Jesus told the woman about to be stoned for adultery to go and sin no more.
Jesus told the invalid man He healed by the pool to stop sinning before something worse happened to him.
Regarding marriage Jesus said “A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife.” He clearly lays out that marriage is ordained by God to be between and man and woman (males and females).
Jesus does not accept any kind of sexual behavior outside of marriage as described above.
Some people cannot accept this fact and want to pretend that Jesus is in agreement with their every behavior because of grace.
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;34473553]
Now what do you say?[/QUOTE]
I say this is a cartoon designed specifically to provoke an emotional response, and is absolutely meaningless in this context.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
