Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dr. Cranium

Do you think gay marriage should be "legalised"?

Recommended Posts

I'm not anti gay marriage, I'm anti pro gay marriage.

 

At least 50% of people supporting gay marriage aren't doing it for civil rights, they're doing it as an excuse to stick it to the man and a way to oppose religious beliefs. They will be more than happy to talk it up all over the internet, but wouldn't have the slightest interest in really going out and protesting with the gays. In a way it's another wave of hipster-ism; pretending to care.

 

It's going to be made legal pretty soon, it's something everyone is going to have to deal with, like it or not. To me it's no different than drinking alcohol or smoking. I don't do either of those, but I'm not calling out to make either illegal.

 

Personally I don't agree with it as to me it just seems unnatural based on mother nature. If 50% of couples were gay, we would wipe ourselves out as a species. We've been genetically designed that being gay isn't normal and those who are don't pass their genes onto the next generation. It's basic evolution.

 

The only issue I have with gay marriage is that it opens up a massive can of worms and could erode the entire meaning of marriage. Will it be ok for 3 men to get married, 2 men and a girl, a girl and a horse? It sounds silly now, but it will happen.

Edited by steveP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let them sign some stupid document to say they'll stick with the same person for an unnaturally long time, makes no difference to me.

 

I just can't predict how their kids (adopted or otherwise) will adapt to society... I mean of course they will, but it will surely create a new brand of headcase.

 

Any worse than bogans who ignore their kids when they're in their room screaming?

 

If gays had children and taught them manners and to behave, they'd be doing better than the average who have children these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not anti gay marriage, I'm anti pro gay marriage.

 

At least 50% of people supporting gay marriage aren't doing it for civil rights, they're doing it as an excuse to stick it to the man and a way to oppose religious beliefs. They will be more than happy to talk it up all over the internet, but wouldn't have the slightest interest in really going out and protesting with the gays. In a way it's another wave of hipster-ism; pretending to care.

 

It's going to be made legal pretty soon, it's something everyone is going to have to deal with, like it or not. To me it's no different than drinking alcohol or smoking. I don't do either of those, but I'm not calling out to make either illegal.

 

Personally I don't agree with it as to me it just seems unnatural based on mother nature. If 50% of couples were gay, we would wipe ourselves out as a species. We've been genetically designed that being gay isn't normal and those who are don't pass their genes onto the next generation. It's basic evolution.

 

The only issue I have with gay marriage is that it opens up a massive can of worms and could erode the entire meaning of marriage. Will it be ok for 3 men to get married, 2 men and a girl, a girl and a horse? It sounds silly now, but it will happen.

 

this..

 

Also, i know heaps of bogan cockheads that are against 'fags' getting married, and homosexuality in general.. i highly doubt their prejudice is based on a religious belief, more so that it seems unnatural..

 

a few people in here have said that gay marriage is being opposed purely because of the religious vote, but i think you will find it is actually being opposed because its the majority vote.. consider religious folks, people like steve p above there, obviously not making his decision based on a prejudice but moreso by looking at the facts and what he believes is right, and then there is the bogan's that just dont like 'fags' and think its gross or whatever..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I don't agree with it as to me it just seems unnatural based on mother nature. If 50% of couples were gay, we would wipe ourselves out as a species. We've been genetically designed that being gay isn't normal and those who are don't pass their genes onto the next generation. It's basic evolution.

 

Approx 4% of the population identify as gay, that's hardly going to cause the decline of the population. Further to that, if we'd evolved purely to procreate then why do hetero couples enjoy sexual acts that don't result in pregnancy such as oral & anal? Wouldn't that defy your logic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If 50% of couples were gay, we would wipe ourselves out as a species.

This is a piss weak argument that i have seen parroted around again and again.

 

Please explain to me how allowing gays to marry will somehow make them multiply?

 

Gay couples are gay couples, they exist now and they will exist tomorrow. The legal status of their union will have absolutely no effect on the number of gay couples that exist now or in the future.

 

The only issue I have with gay marriage is that it opens up a massive can of worms and could erode the entire meaning of marriage. Will it be ok for 3 men to get married, 2 men and a girl, a girl and a horse? It sounds silly now, but it will happen.

Firstly the meaning of marriage has well and truly eroded already. These days people treat relationships like one nighters and marriage like a relationship. Divorce is turning into a national sport.

 

Secondly if the question of polygamy ever arises in society to the point that people start to ask that it be made legal, then this topic can be discussed and decided upon based on the popular opinion at the time. It is not our job to make decisions on the wellbeing of generations 50-100 years in the future, they will be perfectly capable of doing that themselves.

 

As for marrying animals, that is pure stupidity (nearly as stupid as your multiplying gays argument). A horse is not a legal entity, it doesn't matter if somebody wants to marry it, there is no possible way it could happen.

If in the future horses are held with high enough regard that we start to make them citizens, then fine, let them marry humans, they deserve it :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is 4% that are openly gay.. im sure there are many more that arent 'out' or whatever, and you also have to remember thats 4% with the added stigma of actually being labeled gay.. Those numbers very well could be higher if it was perceived as being more normal to be a homosexual..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If 50% of couples were gay, we would wipe ourselves out as a species.

This is a piss weak argument that i have seen parroted around again and again.

 

Please explain to me how allowing gays to marry will somehow make them multiply?

 

Gay couples are gay couples, they exist now and they will exist tomorrow. The legal status of their union will have absolutely no effect on the number of gay couples that exist now or in the future.

 

he is talking about the fact that there will be less heterosexual couples to procreate, not that the homosexual couples will somehow multiply.. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Doesn't bother me at all if the laws change and they are allowed to get married, but to me and in my mind, marriage will always be between a man and a woman.
Let me just turn the clock back 50 years.
marriage will always be between a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman [/Quote]Exactly, I'm not opposed to it at all. I suppose a different way of putting my opinion is if someone says to me, about two people I don't know "They are a newly married couple" or something to that effect I will picture a man and a woman. What other people choose to do is completely up to them, its just hard to change a stereotype that I've lived with for a quarter of my life .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If 50% of couples were gay, we would wipe ourselves out as a species.

This is a piss weak argument that i have seen parroted around again and again.

 

Please explain to me how allowing gays to marry will somehow make them multiply?

 

Gay couples are gay couples, they exist now and they will exist tomorrow. The legal status of their union will have absolutely no effect on the number of gay couples that exist now or in the future.

 

he is talking about the fact that there will be less heterosexual couples to procreate, not that the homosexual couples will somehow multiply.. laugh.png

 

Again, how will the legal status of a gay couple have any effect on the number of heterosexual couples who exist?

Gay couples exist now, they will exist tomorrow and they will exist in the same numbers if they were ever allowed to marry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not anti gay marriage, I'm anti pro gay marriage.

 

At least 50% of people supporting gay marriage aren't doing it for civil rights, they're doing it as an excuse to stick it to the man and a way to oppose religious beliefs. They will be more than happy to talk it up all over the internet, but wouldn't have the slightest interest in really going out and protesting with the gays. In a way it's another wave of hipster-ism; pretending to care.

 

It's going to be made legal pretty soon, it's something everyone is going to have to deal with, like it or not. To me it's no different than drinking alcohol or smoking. I don't do either of those, but I'm not calling out to make either illegal.

 

Personally I don't agree with it as to me it just seems unnatural based on mother nature. If 50% of couples were gay, we would wipe ourselves out as a species. We've been genetically designed that being gay isn't normal and those who are don't pass their genes onto the next generation. It's basic evolution.

 

The only issue I have with gay marriage is that it opens up a massive can of worms and could erode the entire meaning of marriage. Will it be ok for 3 men to get married, 2 men and a girl, a girl and a horse? It sounds silly now, but it will happen.

 

this..

 

Also, i know heaps of bogan cockheads that are against 'fags' getting married, and homosexuality in general.. i highly doubt their prejudice is based on a religious belief, more so that it seems unnatural..

 

a few people in here have said that gay marriage is being opposed purely because of the religious vote, but i think you will find it is actually being opposed because its the majority vote.. consider religious folks, people like steve p above there, obviously not making his decision based on a prejudice but moreso by looking at the facts and what he believes is right, and then there is the bogan's that just dont like 'fags' and think its gross or whatever..

 

The thought of 2 guys getting it on with each other makes me physically ill.

Being tricked to look at sites like lemonparty really disturbs me because i cannot stand the sight of 2 guys doing anything like that together.

I don't have any gay friends (some acquaintances) and i make no effort to make friends with gay people.

 

With that said, what 2 consenting adults choose to do in private has nothing to do with me, and i am a firm believer that everybody is entitled to equality.

 

Just because you dislike gays does not mean you have to oppose freedom and equality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If 50% of couples were gay, we would wipe ourselves out as a species.

This is a piss weak argument that i have seen parroted around again and again.

 

Please explain to me how allowing gays to marry will somehow make them multiply?

 

Gay couples are gay couples, they exist now and they will exist tomorrow. The legal status of their union will have absolutely no effect on the number of gay couples that exist now or in the future.

 

he is talking about the fact that there will be less heterosexual couples to procreate, not that the homosexual couples will somehow multiply.. laugh.png

 

Again, how will the legal status of a gay couple have any effect on the number of heterosexual couples who exist?

Gay couples exist now, they will exist tomorrow and they will exist in the same numbers if they were ever allowed to marry.

 

How are you not getting this?? if 95% of the world are hetero and they make 10 million babies a year, then obviously if 50% of the world were homosexuals then the heterosexual couples would have less people to 'hook up with' meaning only 5 million babies are year are being made..

 

*obviously those numbers are made up, but it explains what steve is saying..

 

As for people being against gays, these bogans that i am talking about think that being gay is 'weird, gross, dishusting', so i highly doubt they would want them to have the same rights as 'normal' people do.. i honestly have not asked them though so i am just assuming, but it isnt that far fetched is it??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not anti gay marriage, I'm anti pro gay marriage.

 

At least 50% of people supporting gay marriage aren't doing it for civil rights, they're doing it as an excuse to stick it to the man and a way to oppose religious beliefs. They will be more than happy to talk it up all over the internet, but wouldn't have the slightest interest in really going out and protesting with the gays. In a way it's another wave of hipster-ism; pretending to care.

 

It's going to be made legal pretty soon, it's something everyone is going to have to deal with, like it or not. To me it's no different than drinking alcohol or smoking. I don't do either of those, but I'm not calling out to make either illegal.

 

Personally I don't agree with it as to me it just seems unnatural based on mother nature. If 50% of couples were gay, we would wipe ourselves out as a species. We've been genetically designed that being gay isn't normal and those who are don't pass their genes onto the next generation. It's basic evolution.

 

The only issue I have with gay marriage is that it opens up a massive can of worms and could erode the entire meaning of marriage. Will it be ok for 3 men to get married, 2 men and a girl, a girl and a horse? It sounds silly now, but it will happen.

 

Your last argument seems a little out there, marriage will always be an agreement entered into by 2 consenting adults, irregardless of sex (soon anyways).

 

Also, there is no "gay gene" that has been identified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If 50% of couples were gay, we would wipe ourselves out as a species.

This is a piss weak argument that i have seen parroted around again and again.

 

Please explain to me how allowing gays to marry will somehow make them multiply?

That's not the point I was making. It was a hypothetical scenario if being gay was 'the norm'.

 

The point I was making is that if it was 50%, we'd all be in serious trouble as a human race. But because it's 10%, people say it's not a problem and should be supported. There's no risk of a massive influx of people getting married at gay couples, that would be silly. But like the point I made before, natural selection filters out gay people from the gene pool. I'm not saying this should be the case, it's purely mother nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are you not getting this?? if 95% of the world are hetero and they make 10 million babies a year, then obviously if 50% of the world were homosexuals then the heterosexual couples would have less people to 'hook up with' meaning only 5 million babies are year are being made..

 

*obviously those numbers are made up, but it explains what steve is saying..

 

I am getting it, i am asking what is your/his point?

If 50% of the worlds couples were gay then yes we would have less children, but what the f*ck does that have to do with this conversation? What relevance does allowing gays to marry have with the idea that too many gays = apocalypse?

Heterosexual couples have been producing gay babies since the dawn of humanity, and they are going to continue to have them long into the future regardless if these people are allowed to marry or not.

 

There are 2 explanations for bringing this hypothetical idea up:

1 - you or he is deluded enough to think that allowing gays to marry will somehow increase their numbers.

2 - this pointless statistic was a hopeless attempt to add weight to your argument through ignorant hysteria.

 

As for people being against gays, these bogans that i am talking about think that being gay is 'weird, gross, dishusting', so i highly doubt they would want them to have the same rights as 'normal' people do.. i honestly have not asked them though so i am just assuming, but it isnt that far fetched is it??

It's not far fetched to think that people just hate gays, it is however absolutely ridiculous for those people to believe that the actions of 2 consenting adults in the privacy of their own home will have any effect on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If 50% of couples were gay, we would wipe ourselves out as a species.

This is a piss weak argument that i have seen parroted around again and again.

 

Please explain to me how allowing gays to marry will somehow make them multiply?

That's not the point I was making. It was a hypothetical scenario if being gay was 'the norm'.

 

The point I was making is that if it was 50%, we'd all be in serious trouble as a human race. But because it's 10%, people say it's not a problem and should be supported. There's no risk of a massive influx of people getting married at gay couples, that would be silly. But like the point I made before, natural selection filters out gay people from the gene pool. I'm not saying this should be the case, it's purely mother nature.

 

This just keeps getting better :lol: :lol:

 

So are you saying that if we don't 'naturally select' gays out of our gene pool by banning them from getting married, that the number of gays in our society will somehow increase?

Have you actually thought this through at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, there is no "gay gene" that has been identified.

 

I think I've been misunderstoon again. I'm not saying that at all. I mean if people decide to enter into a gay relationship, it's impossible to procreate, and hence your genes will not carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, there is no "gay gene" that has been identified.

 

I think I've been misunderstoon again. I'm not saying that at all. I mean if people decide to enter into a gay relationship, it's impossible to procreate, and hence your genes will not carry on.

 

Whats the difference between a gay couple getting married and not having kids and a heterosexual couple getting married and not having kids?

 

I am still at a loss as to how this is a defense to not wanting to legalise gay marriage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If 50% of couples were gay, we would wipe ourselves out as a species.

This is a piss weak argument that i have seen parroted around again and again.

 

Please explain to me how allowing gays to marry will somehow make them multiply?

That's not the point I was making. It was a hypothetical scenario if being gay was 'the norm'.

 

The point I was making is that if it was 50%, we'd all be in serious trouble as a human race. But because it's 10%, people say it's not a problem and should be supported. There's no risk of a massive influx of people getting married at gay couples, that would be silly. But like the point I made before, natural selection filters out gay people from the gene pool. I'm not saying this should be the case, it's purely mother nature.

 

This just keeps getting better laugh.pnglaugh.png

 

So are you saying that if we don't 'naturally select' gays out of our gene pool by banning them from getting married, that the number of gays in our society will somehow increase?

Have you actually thought this through at all?

 

I didn't say anything like that. I sense a bandwagon rolling through to pin point this entire debate on one person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, there is no "gay gene" that has been identified.

 

I think I've been misunderstoon again. I'm not saying that at all. I mean if people decide to enter into a gay relationship, it's impossible to procreate, and hence your genes will not carry on.

 

Whats the difference between a gay couple getting married and not having kids and a heterosexual couple getting married and not having kids?

 

Nothing. Generally people get married to start a family and have kids. I guess I just see it as redundant in the sense the way nature works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say anything like that. I sense a bandwagon rolling through to pin point this entire debate on one person.

What the hell does that even mean??

 

I'll make this very simple for you.

Right now we have 4-10% of people who are gay.

These people cannot reproduce so any 'gay gene' (so far beleived to not exist) that they might pass on will not be passed on.

 

If gays were banned form ever marrying we would still have 4-10% of people who are gay, who's imaginary 'gay gene' will never be passed on.

 

If gays were allowed to marry, they would still be the same 2 people who are part of the 4-10% of people who are gay and cannot reproduce so are unable to pass on the imaginary 'gay gene'.

 

Has it sunk in yet mate?

 

:edit:

And 50 years after gays are allowed to marry, we will still see 4-10% of people who are gay in a relationship where they cannot reproduce and pass on the imaginary 'gay gene'.

 

A gay person cannot be borne without a heterosexual couple to make them. Gays are produced at the same rate now as they were hundreds or even thousands of years ago as our genetics are still the same and we still reproduce the same way.

It doesn't matter if being gay is considered evil or "the norm" people have no choice in the matter so people will still be gay.

Edited by Chappy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is talking about a 'gay gene'.

Well then please explain to us 'uneducated heathens' what point you are trying to make when you refer to gay becoming "the norm" and humans dying off because we are all gay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say anything like that. I sense a bandwagon rolling through to pin point this entire debate on one person.

What the hell does that even mean??

It means everyone has all this enthusiasm about being wildly pro gay marriage and there's no way to channel that energy other than negatively towards people who have an opinion that deviates slightly. By all means go for it against homophobes or people set in their ways. But it's a blanket attitude towards anyone who isn't also crazy pro gay marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say anything like that. I sense a bandwagon rolling through to pin point this entire debate on one person.

What the hell does that even mean??

It means everyone has all this enthusiasm about being wildly pro gay marriage and there's no way to channel that energy other than negatively towards people who have an opinion that deviates slightly. By all means go for it against homophobes or people set in their ways. But it's a blanket attitude towards anyone who isn't also crazy pro gay marriage.

No in this case we are passionately having a go at you for your insanely flawed logic about reproduction.

 

If you actually stopped and attempted to think your own idea through without letting your indoctrinated mind be clouded by the dogma you are captive to, you would see how silly you are being.

 

In fact, i suspect deep down you know it is silly, because you have repeatedly avoided elaborating on your theory already.

Edited by Chappy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is talking about a 'gay gene'.

Well then please explain to us 'uneducated heathens' what point you are trying to make when you refer to gay becoming "the norm" and humans dying off because we are all gay.

I thought I had gone over that already, twice.

 

It was a hypothetical example if 50% of the population was gay, where 50% = normal. How would that impact the human race? Seeing gay people need straight couples to procreate, the population would soon decline. Nothing about dying off, nothing about a 'gay gene', just less people having babies.

 

Before that was blown out of proportion, the reason for that 'hypothetical' was to show that humans didn't evolve to be gay, otherwise we wouldn't exist. It's impossible for gay to be normal according to mother nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My IQ has taken a beating trying to read this :lol: Some real bottom-of-the-barrel-scraping here, to justisfy some of these arguements!

 

Some of you are forgetting the fact that same-sex couples can still have children, IVF, etc. Population growth isn't going to be affected that much if more homosexual people wed, or even come out. Besides, even if it is slightly effected, who cares?

 

I'm really at a loss as to why everybody is making such a big deal out of it. Is anybody who has been against it really going to suffer first-hand from it, if it's legallised? Probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is talking about a 'gay gene'.

Well then please explain to us 'uneducated heathens' what point you are trying to make when you refer to gay becoming "the norm" and humans dying off because we are all gay.

I thought I had gone over that already, twice.

 

It was a hypothetical example if 50% of the population was gay, where 50% = normal. How would that impact the human race? Seeing gay people need straight couples to procreate, the population would soon decline. Nothing about dying off, nothing about a 'gay gene', just less people having babies.

 

Before that was blown out of proportion, the reason for that 'hypothetical' was to show that humans didn't evolve to be gay, otherwise we wouldn't exist. It's impossible for gay to be normal according to mother nature.

 

Great, there is still one more question you are yet to answer.

 

WTF DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING IN THIS TOPIC???

 

You can argue that being gay is not natural (despite gays being produced by the same natural means as the rest of us) but that has nothing to do with them getting married.

 

What effect will the legal union of 2 'unnatural' beings have on you or society?

How is it going to affect you to the point that it gives you the right to stop them?

 

More importantly, given that these couples already exist, and all marriage will do is change their legal status, what difference will it make for you?

Edited by Chappy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, i know heaps of bogan cockheads that are against 'fags' getting married, and homosexuality in general..

 

a few people in here have said that gay marriage is being opposed purely because of the religious vote, but i think you will find it is actually being opposed because its the majority vote.. consider religious folks, people like steve p above there, obviously not making his decision based on a prejudice but moreso by looking at the facts and what he believes is right, and then there is the bogan's that just dont like 'fags' and think its gross or whatever..

 

While you're right on the surface, I think it stems from a culture created from thousands of years of religion based on a book that has homophobic teachings. BUT, I really don't think religion should be in this topic, so, just on the natural bit:

 

natural selection filters out gay people from the gene pool. I'm not saying this should be the case, it's purely mother nature.

 

SteveP is right in saying that our birth rate would halve if half the population were gay. But they're not. And gay marriage won't increase the gay population. There aren't gay guys out there in hiding in hetero relationships havign kids who will suddenly come out if gay marriage is legalised. Their population % will stay the same. I don't really understand the point that was being made.

 

i highly doubt their prejudice is based on a religious belief, more so that it seems unnatural..

 

(not having a go at you harris in this rant)

I hate the word natural, it's such a stupid word. Everything is "natural" anything that isn't natural can only be supernatural, and since magic doesn't exist, everything is f**king natural. Natural is defined commonly as everything that exists except the shit that human beings have done. Which is such a retarded notion it's amazing that it's so ingrained in our heads. Anything and everything human beings do is natural, because we are ultimately of natural origin like everything else in the universe. To say otherwise is like saying that human beings are special and operate outside of the laws of the universe.

 

Putting all that aside though, homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom especially in our closely related species and is at a near as makes no difference % as it is in humans. It's perfectly natural to have a small % of homosexual creatures in a population, be they humans or chimps. This does actually make evolutionary sense maybe not on the individual scale but remember evolution doesn't work on 1 person at a time it works collectively. A tribe might benefit from a homosexual element for any number of reasons. It honestly is perfectly "natural".

 

If we want to talk about what isn't natural, I'd say monogamous relationships that last 60 years aren't natural. But whatever.

Edited by bootlegapparel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we want to talk about what isn't natural, I'd say monogamous relationships that last 60 years aren't natural. But whatever.

 

Very good point.

Homosexuality has been around far longer than marriage.

 

OMG MARRIAGE IS UNNATURAL, BAN MARRIAGE!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×