Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dr. Cranium

Do you think gay marriage should be "legalised"?

Recommended Posts

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???

 

Like I said in my first post, nothing. It's not going to affect me in the slightest. Just like line dancing doesn't affect me. But that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to voice my opinion on the topic, which the whole point of this thread. But people love turning these debates into a witch hunt against people who have a different opinion. Like I said, where do you draw the line? Is it ok for 3 men to get married together?

Edited by steveP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said in my first post, nothing. It's not going to affect me in the slightest. Just like line dancing doesn't affect me. But that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to voice my opinion on the topic, which the whole point of this thread. But people love turning these debates into a witch hunt against people who have a different opinion. Like I said, where do you drawn the line. Is it ok for 3 men to get married together?

 

Why not?

 

The whole marriage thing is a joke these days anyways, i'll spend longer doing my phD than most people will be married.

 

Marriage has lost its respectability in this day and age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said in my first post, nothing. It's not going to affect me in the slightest. Just like line dancing doesn't affect me. But that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to voice my opinion on the topic, which the whole point of this thread. But people love turning these debates into a witch hunt against people who have a different opinion. Like I said, where do you drawn the line. Is it ok for 3 men to get married together?

 

You draw the line wherever society says it is to be drawn.

Right now popular opinion is in support of gay marriage.

 

If in 50 years time people support polygamy, who are we to say today that we know better?

 

Society changes, and along with it so does popular opinion.

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.

It was a hypothetical example if 50% of the population was gay

you can't stage an argument on a made up statistic. This is the same as justifying anti-speeding propaganda with brake tests. In the real world, we can swerve.

 

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

THIS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said in my first post, nothing. It's not going to affect me in the slightest. Just like line dancing doesn't affect me. But that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to voice my opinion on the topic, which the whole point of this thread. But people love turning these debates into a witch hunt against people who have a different opinion. Like I said, where do you drawn the line. Is it ok for 3 men to get married together?

 

You draw the line wherever society says it is to be drawn.

Right now popular opinion is in support of gay marriage.

 

If in 50 years time people support polygamy, who are we to say today that we know better?

 

Society changes, and along with it so does popular opinion.

Well in a way that is the issue; what is socially acceptable? I'm sure people in 500 years will look back at the year 2012 with disgust at how we treat trees or oil. 500 years ago everyone had a totally different set of values. And who's to say our culture is correct and another one on the other side of the world isn't. Like you said, right now gay marriage is supported and is considered to be culturally correct. But's who's to say that's right.

Edited by steveP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polygomus relationships, you say?

 

The only common-sense reason I can think for those not being legal in most parts of the world is that they're probably too much of a headf**k to 1) setup, and 2) sort out when the shit hits the fan :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in a way that is the issue; what is socially acceptable? I'm sure people in 500 years will look back at the year 2012 with disgust at how we treat trees or oil. 500 years ago everyone had a totally different set of values. And who's to say our culture is correct and another one on the other side of the world isn't. Like you said, right now gay marriage is supported and is considered to be culturally correct. But's who's to say that's right.

Society of today says that is right and the vocal/powerful minority is the only thing stopping it from being allowed.

 

Are you going to tell me that the powerful few should have the right to control the masses just because a 1500 year old book tells them to?

 

What you are proposing is to avoid change against the will of the people of today all because this was considered wrong 500 years ago and it might be considered wrong 500 years from now?

If popular opinion changes in 500 years then they are welcome to have this debate all over again and they can change things how they wish.

 

You argument is incredibly laboured and pointless, you are now just hunting for reasons to justify your medieval belief system.

You are welcome to your opinion, but if you feel the need to voice it then be prepared to back it up with credible reasoning otherwise people will call you out on your bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

best argument i have heard is "being against gay marriage because you think it's wrong is like saying i can't have a donut because you are on a diet"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polygomus relationships, you say?

 

The only common-sense reason I can think for those not being legal in most parts of the world is that they're probably too much of a headf**k to 1) setup, and 2) sort out when the shit hits the fan laugh.png

The only people who are harmed by polygamy are the people who choose to get involved.

It is not popular because it is a mental and emotional mindf*ck to manage. If we evolve to the point that we can reliably and happily have polygamous relationships and not have them go to hell in a handbasket within a year then i am all for making it legal! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polygomus relationships, you say?

 

The only common-sense reason I can think for those not being legal in most parts of the world is that they're probably too much of a headf**k to 1) setup, and 2) sort out when the shit hits the fan :lol:

The only people who are harmed by polygamy are the people who choose to get involved.

It is not popular because it is a mental and emotional mindf*ck to manage. If we evolve to the point that we can reliably and happily have polygamous relationships and not have them go to hell in a handbasket within a year then i am all for making it legal! laugh.png

 

What would need to happen first would be a societal acceptance of having sex with multiple partners while having a single "life partner", or wife/husband. This would make much more sense if we look at our instincts, impulses, and relationship to the animal kingdom. Polygyny or polyandry seems like a half way point between this goal to satisfy society. But that's from a very male perspective. I don't know how females would truly feel about this, and I don't know how to get an honest answer because how do you undo 2000 years of monogomous societal influence?

 

Also, this is getting off topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, this is getting off topic.

NEIN!

 

28100445.jpg

 

What would need to happen first would be a societal acceptance of having sex with multiple partners while having a single "life partner", or wife/husband. This would make much more sense if we look at our instincts, impulses, and relationship to the animal kingdom. Polygyny or polyandry seems like a half way point between this goal to satisfy society. But that's from a very male perspective. I don't know how females would truly feel about this, and I don't know how to get an honest answer because how do you undo 2000 years of monogomous societal influence?

 

I often wonder if the STD statistics would fly though the roof...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, this is getting off topic.

NEIN!

 

28100445.jpg

 

What would need to happen first would be a societal acceptance of having sex with multiple partners while having a single "life partner", or wife/husband. This would make much more sense if we look at our instincts, impulses, and relationship to the animal kingdom. Polygyny or polyandry seems like a half way point between this goal to satisfy society. But that's from a very male perspective. I don't know how females would truly feel about this, and I don't know how to get an honest answer because how do you undo 2000 years of monogomous societal influence?

 

I often wonder if the STD statistics would fly though the roof...

 

I would say no, i know a few people who are swingers and a lot of these swinging couples are VERY careful, moreso than my single friends haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do suspect that mankinds opting for monogamy has it's beginnings in the avoidance of STD's.

Back in the day there were plenty of STD's that could kill you. Not so many now but still plenty of nasty ones.

 

By restricting people to not have sex before marriage and remain with only one life partner, STD's were no longer a threat to the commoner who obeyed the rules.

 

If society was to ever encourage adultery then STD's would become an even bigger problem than now.

I don't have a solution for that dilemma, but i support allowing every adult to make an informed decision for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Condoms.

 

Speaking of which. A reason for the institution of marriage may actually be the prevelance of STDs in ancient society. What's the best way to limit/reduce STD transmission? Enforce very young marriages between people so they don't have many sex partners and outlaw divorce. Enforce the idea of illegitimate bastard children being a shameful and terrible thing. And there you go, less sex, less STDs. Now that we have condoms that's irrelevant though.

Edited by bootlegapparel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do suspect that mankinds opting for monogamy has it's beginnings in the avoidance of STD's.

Back in the day there were plenty of STD's that could kill you. Not so many now but still plenty of nasty ones.

 

By restricting people to not have sex before marriage and remain with only one life partner, STD's were no longer a threat to the commoner who obeyed the rules.

 

If society was to ever encourage adultery then STD's would become an even bigger problem than now.

I don't have a solution for that dilemma, but i support allowing every adult to make an informed decision for themselves.

 

Plenty of STD's that can kill you these days, they are just in the developing world/in the US. Like 100% resistant ghonoreea (sp?, my brain hurts and i cbf googling), mmmmmm that sounds nice :D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in a way that is the issue; what is socially acceptable? I'm sure people in 500 years will look back at the year 2012 with disgust at how we treat trees or oil. 500 years ago everyone had a totally different set of values. And who's to say our culture is correct and another one on the other side of the world isn't. Like you said, right now gay marriage is supported and is considered to be culturally correct. But's who's to say that's right.

Society of today says that is right and the vocal/powerful minority is the only thing stopping it from being allowed.

 

Are you going to tell me that the powerful few should have the right to control the masses just because a 1500 year old book tells them to?

 

What you are proposing is to avoid change against the will of the people of today all because this was considered wrong 500 years ago and it might be considered wrong 500 years from now?

If popular opinion changes in 500 years then they are welcome to have this debate all over again and they can change things how they wish.

 

You argument is incredibly laboured and pointless, you are now just hunting for reasons to justify your medieval belief system.

You are welcome to your opinion, but if you feel the need to voice it then be prepared to back it up with credible reasoning otherwise people will call you out on your bullshit.

I think you're trying to group and label everyone as the same who have different views on the topic. I never said anything about books thousands of years ago. The only motivation I used for my opinion is mother nature and how humans have evolved. If that isn't neutral, I don't know what is.

 

But if you want to get into that, I can.

It seems like today's cultures and societies who aren't religious seem to stumble through morality trying to figure it out as we go. Don't get me wrong, a lot of religious teachings and practices are certainly morally wrong. But at least the ones which haven't been adapted and modified over time have a definite set of values. Religious people have something that can referenced and looked up when they are unsure or are confused. They have something written down saying this is what I believe. Most people today don't even know what they stand for or where to turn for guidence.

 

Like what was discussed before, what is morally acceptable? How is flip flopping around on issues, guessing and making mistakes as you go any better than someone who follows something written down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given current defacto laws and how far our society bends over to accomodate religion and ethnic minorities, there's no real reason to oppose gay marriage.

It's not like straight guys are going to start at f**king dudes as soon as it's legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like what was discussed before, what is morally acceptable? How is flip flopping around on issues, guessing and making mistakes as you go any better than someone who follows something written down.

If you need a 1500 year old book to tell you how to live your life and it makes you happy to live like that then go right ahead.

 

People who take what they read in that 1500 year old fiction novel then try to impose their beliefs upon others by pushing their religion into our parliament can go f**k themselves.

 

In short, live however you want, and let others do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know 4 gays. (1 gay, 3 lesbians)

 

 

The guy is gay because he was teased at high school (making him hate guys)

 

1 of the lesbians is lesbian for attention, and the other 2 girls seem to be legit

 

 

 

so out of all the ones i know, 50% should not be allowed to be married or adopt kids.

 

And i might include that all 4 are heavy on drugs, besides from the guy who now has black outs from taking too much drugs

Edited by Wrexy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like what was discussed before, what is morally acceptable? How is flip flopping around on issues, guessing and making mistakes as you go any better than someone who follows something written down.

Because people who follow the book refuse to acknowledge when it is a mistake.

Edited by pyro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like today's cultures and societies who aren't religious seem to stumble through morality trying to figure it out as we go. Don't get me wrong, a lot of religious teachings and practices are certainly morally wrong. But at least the ones which haven't been adapted and modified over time have a definite set of values. Religious people have something that can referenced and looked up when they are unsure or are confused. They have something written down saying this is what I believe. Most people today don't even know what they stand for or where to turn for guidence.

 

Like what was discussed before, what is morally acceptable? How is flip flopping around on issues, guessing and making mistakes as you go any better than someone who follows something written down.

 

That's a very good point. People who have their morality fixed have a very good foundation to move through their life. Most of the guess work is taken out of the equation. Sometimes this is good, sometimes it is bad. I don't like it because it can limit peoples ability to think for themselves.

 

But anyway, is this really true? Most people pick and choose which stuff they want to follow even if it is written down plainly in front of them, they'll ignore a call to stone adulterers because to them it is immoral. That's their own morality speaking, not a religious morality.

 

The only motivation I used for my opinion is mother nature and how humans have evolved. If that isn't neutral, I don't know what is.

 

True, you did, but I believe that your understanding of the evolution of humans and animals is a little incomplete or maybe doesn't have a wide enough perspective. Like I said before, evolution is collective, not individualistic. What you said is true for an individual, but not true for a collective. Homosexuality is beneficial evolutionarily for a collective.

You are right in that your position is neutral, I just think you've based your position off only 75% of the info.

Edited by bootlegapparel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know 4 gays. (1 gay, 3 lesbians)

 

 

The guy is gay because he was teased at high school (making him hate guys)

 

1 of the lesbians is lesbian for attention, and the other 2 girls seem to be legit

 

 

 

so out of all the ones i know, 50% should not be allowed to be married or adopt kids.

 

And i might include that all 4 are heavy on drugs, besides from the guy who now has black outs from taking too much drugs

 

wait....he was teased by guys, making him hate guys, so now he likes guys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just going to say no and wait for the hate mail.......but.......

If marriage is by definition the "holy union of a man and a woman" and is something brought upon us by religion from the early ages, and religion doesn't want it then I agree. However if gay people want a legalised union to be accepted in the eyes of law/governement they need to bring it about in the same context but give it some other title that the majority will accept, and keep religion out of it. Put it to a referendum, oh wait that won't work, or will it?

Many people are happy to live as a couple and keep marriage out of it [something I'd like but am yet to convince the other half], all this bantering is for is to get recognition and the benefits associated with being a recognised couple in the eyes of government/tax/business etc. And hence why is show it very little respect.......

now you can start the hatin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Indians will take up the slack to fill the quota. I guarantee it. I live near many Indians..

 

The only people who are harmed by polygamy are the people who choose to get involved.

It is not popular because it is a mental and emotional mindf*ck to manage. If we evolve to the point that we can reliably and happily have polygamous relationships and not have them go to hell in a handbasket within a year then i am all for making it legal! laugh.png

 

Actually, sounds to me like one person will have a pretty good time.

 

The guy is gay because he was teased at high school (making him hate guys)

 

So, what, the guy's a masochist? Or did he just misunderstand when people told him he should f**k up the guys teasing him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My god this thread is making my head hurt...

3ojtj2.jpg

 

for steve.p, harris and wrexy

a1mgb7.jpg

Edited by sweepa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only people who are harmed by polygamy are the people who choose to get involved.

It is not popular because it is a mental and emotional mindf*ck to manage. If we evolve to the point that we can reliably and happily have polygamous relationships and not have them go to hell in a handbasket within a year then i am all for making it legal! :lol:

 

Actually, sounds to me like one person will have a pretty good time.

Really?

Imagine your mrs on her rags.

Now imagine that times 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just going to say no and wait for the hate mail.......but.......

If marriage is by definition the "holy union of a man and a woman" and is something brought upon us by religion from the early ages, and religion doesn't want it then I agree. However if gay people want a legalised union to be accepted in the eyes of law/governement they need to bring it about in the same context but give it some other title that the majority will accept, and keep religion out of it. Put it to a referendum, oh wait that won't work, or will it?

Many people are happy to live as a couple and keep marriage out of it [something I'd like but am yet to convince the other half], all this bantering is for is to get recognition and the benefits associated with being a recognised couple in the eyes of government/tax/business etc. And hence why is show it very little respect.......

now you can start the hatin'.

 

actually marriage predates all the popular modern religions so they really have no claim to it when it comes to defining the terms of marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just going to say no and wait for the hate mail.......but.......

If marriage is by definition the "holy union of a man and a woman" and is something brought upon us by religion from the early ages, and religion doesn't want it then I agree. However if gay people want a legalised union to be accepted in the eyes of law/governement they need to bring it about in the same context but give it some other title that the majority will accept, and keep religion out of it. Put it to a referendum, oh wait that won't work, or will it?

Many people are happy to live as a couple and keep marriage out of it [something I'd like but am yet to convince the other half], all this bantering is for is to get recognition and the benefits associated with being a recognised couple in the eyes of government/tax/business etc. And hence why is show it very little respect.......

now you can start the hatin'.

 

The very basis of modern marriage is in itself illogical.

I sometimes wonder what the point is, you have a good relationship but then you're all like "yea this is great dear, but i want to make it into something more, lets get the government and lawyers involved so that we are legally bound to each other".

What benefit do you get from the government giving you their blessing on your decision to spend your life with somebody?

 

With that said i want to get married as i personally do see a benefit for myself that we can discuss if somebody makes a "do you think its worth getting married?" thread.

I do agree that marriage for many people is pointless and that the campaign for gay marriage can be questioned when gay couples are allowed to be joined as one in front of the tax man.

 

At the end of the day, i don't believe marriage is essential in life, but i do believe it is only fair that all people are given the same choices in life regardless of how they were born.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only people who are harmed by polygamy are the people who choose to get involved.

It is not popular because it is a mental and emotional mindf*ck to manage. If we evolve to the point that we can reliably and happily have polygamous relationships and not have them go to hell in a handbasket within a year then i am all for making it legal! laugh.png

 

Actually, sounds to me like one person will have a pretty good time.

Really?

Imagine your mrs on her rags.

Now imagine that times 3.

 

Haha, I'd find a job that takes me overseas for a week each month.

 

Then again, if you put in enough effort, you could find three chicks with different times of the month, then put them on rotation.

Three rooms, no sharp objects nearby, and you're on a winner.

Edited by pmod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, I'd find a job that takes me overseas for a week each month.

 

Then again, if you put in enough effort, you could find three chicks with different times of the month, then put them on rotation.

Three rooms, no sharp objects nearby, and you're on a winner.

That plan is flawed, they'll synchronise in no time lol.

Edited by steveP

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  

×