Gay marriage Created 17 years ago2007-06-19 13:34:22 UTC by ZombieLoffe

10 reasons why gay marriage is wrong

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) 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.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage would be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) 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.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) 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.

9) 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) 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.

quite amusing ^^. I'm a catholic but i'm still for gay marriage. The church is a bit outdated in some points i have to admit.

Oh please, no more ZL, my lungs can't stand such laughter

AH, this was on #TWHL long time ago. Just admit it, IRC > forams

Some of your points should be disproven here.

Did you even read my first post?

I guess TWHL is in agreement - every sensible person ever is pro gay marriage.

You're an idiot if you can't spot even the most obvious sarcasm, i.e. every point in my first post. Jeez.

Yes. it was filled with bad jokes and some serious arguments.

What planet are you from, exactly?

Made me lol!
If you don't find it lollable then leave ze thread

Earth, why?

That was my point.

If you don't get it, that's my point as well.

hey espen.. i herd u liek gay marriage.

omg!!!!
i hav red 1st 2 liens n thred titl!!!! i wil maek asumpshun on dis n tri 2 b smrt-as!!!!!

What you're presenting here is called a "false dichotomy." This means that when two sides are arguing a point with more than two solutions, only the two represented solutions are mentioned. An example would be Biblecal Creation against Evolutionism. There are obviously thousands of other choices for the origins of the universe, but when this is argued only the two sides are represented and are considered to be opposite and mutually exclusive.

First of all, the bible never tells us to sacrifice our firstborn. Why must people always take things out of context. Sure the bible mentions child sacrifice but the bible also says "Ba'al is greater than the God of israel." you can read that as it is, or you can realize that it was a priest of Ba'al who was saying it.

Second, we've argued this a long time ago and my position is as follows: If you FORCE "tolerance of homosexuality," you are excluding all other sexual preferences and creating a protected class of people: heterosexual men don't have the right to marry other men either. If you force "tolerance of sexual preferences," that means that necrophiliacs, paedophiliacs, and beastiality-ers (?) will be in the clear to protest the laws' "intolerance" of thier sexual preferences.

In America (not where ZombieLoffe is), we elect our public officials to represent us according to our own personal views. Meaning that if the majority of voters in a district are Muslims, they are not going to vote a Jew into office instead of a Muslim who beleives like they do and will influence policy accordingly. Therefore if most people in a state vote for a senator who will oppose gay marriage, it doesn't matter if they oppose it because "it's yucky" or because "the bible is against it," the fact is that the people are being represented and that's the way democracy works. When enough states have enough people who think gay marriage is okay, I'm sure policy will be changed.

What nickel states is true, as long as the people (or the government figures who 'represent' them) are in charge of america, Gay marriage should not be allowed. But comparing homosexuality to beastiality or necrophilia is out of context. The sole difference is consent. Animals cannot verbally consent to sex, nor dead people. On the subject of Pedophilia, children may be physically able to consent to such acts, but natually, children aren't smart enough to make proper decisions on such matters. In my opinion, Humans should be allowed to marry any other human as long as both parties are of stable mindset and consent to the marriage. People need to mind their own fucking business when it comes to stuff like this, its rediculous when poeple come to these fucked up conclusions on what gay marriage is going to do to the world. gb2gaia fag-haters.

Dorian summarized everything I was about to post. <3

why do people always have to make these overly long posts =[. its ok for the OP but to respond with equally long posts makes for a tireing read ><

espen.. Dude. i honestly have nothing against you, but you have GOT to stop being such a pillock in the forums. You're making out as if you have a double figure IQ.

Its all psychology. Deal with it.

I'm against it, because we're provoking bad psychological behavior at a large scale. A smaller scale is better, because no matter what it will exist.

Like a few gays here and there aren't bad, but when they take up arms to march on Washington DC, thats too much.

How is homosexuality "bad psychological behaviour"? You sound like a fascist from the '60s saying it's a disease.

Besides, allowing people to marry eachother is hardly encouraging homosexuality. Ridiculous.

Marriage is a basic civil right and should be available to everyone, as long as both partners are consensual adults. It's just that simple.
Whether or not churches should be forced to wed gays is another issue, and a harder one to resolve... Personally, I think they should be. It would be discriminatory to let them shut out the gays.

but when they take up arms to march on Washington DC, thats too much.

So your saying that when they rally, like other groups (such as women) have done in the past for rights, you think its wrong?

I'd have to agree, once again, with ZL. You sound like a facist.

we're provoking bad psychological behavior at a large scale.

In your opinion.

Like a few gays here and there aren't bad, but when they take up arms to march on Washington DC, thats too much.

I know a lot of gay people. There's absolutely nothing wrong with them. They are human beings, just like me and you. How would you like it if someone pointed at you and said:- "You ... your kind, whatever you are - You're wrong, and you're a disgustingly ugly freak, the likes of which should be minimized in society and not allowed the same rights as anyone else."

There are many gay people who are of superior intelligence and wisdom to both you and I.

You would stop them marching if they wanted to?

/edit cos two posts appeared while I was typing

ZL
It would be discriminatory to let them shut out the gays.

Yes, it would, but I think they should be allowed to. They should have a choice just as gay people should have the choice to marry. If gay marriage is legal and the church refuses to take part then someone else will rise up to accomodate them. After all, there's money to be made in weddings! (Trust me!)

Whether or not churches should be forced to wed gays is another issue, and a harder one to resolve... Personally, I think they should be. It would be discriminatory to let them shut out the gays.

Don't confuse 'civil rights' with 'religious rights'. Since nobody forces you to be part of a religious organization as an adult, it's kind of difficult to envision the circumstance of wanting to change their rules. It's not like you don't have another choice...
When my parents got married, they had a religious wedding, but they weren't 'legally' married until some days later when they went to the city hall and got married 'by the law'. I don't know if it's still the case, but that means you don't need a church to get married, so those attemps will be seen as a provocation by the church people
.
So yeah, we should all have the same civil rights (which are by the way inventions of society and not part of the universal laws of physics), but forcing someone to go against their morals is wrong in this case. I'm sure there are better places for gay people to try to get legally married which are better than a church where they don't agree with it. It's kind of obvious.

What I really want to know is, did ZombieLoffe write the original post himself, or did he get it somewhere else?

Even if the Church is a somewhat private institution and gays could indeed marry legally (my parents never went to church for their wedding), it's still discrimination.
It's as if McDonald's would one day say "We don't want to serve blacks, because it goes against our moral values" - I'm pretty certain people wouldn't be okay with it.

So yeah, I guess it depends on where you want to draw the line between the freedoms of private organisations (the churches) and the rights of citizens.

it's still discrimination.

Yes it is. I completely agree.

However, there's nothing we can do about discrimination being a fundamental part of human nature. Even if we donned an immense robot exoskeleton which offered faster than light travel and an infinite nuclear missile launcher, we would not be able to change it.

In an ideal, balanced, and objective world - your vision of this scenario would be the way it really was.

Unfortunately, humans suck.

I'm going to avoid this thread like the fucking plague.

Nice job.

God dammit stop making threads that make me sound like a tard when i try to say something!

Well, say it properly instead of sounding like a fascist.

So, what did you mean to say?

How would you phrase it then?

Erm

Phrase what exactly?

That gays are bad?

gays aren't bad, just gay pride, ideology, and marriage because it doesn't make people think twice about it. According to Christianity, its wrong. Not just that, but naturally wrong. No babehs and stuff.

So condoms are wrong?
How is gay pride bad?

It's as if McDonald's would one day say "We don't want to serve blacks, because it goes against our moral values" -

No, you don't need to be baptized to eat at McDonald's, and McDonald's doesn't have a set of 'moral laws' (which I repeat can be flawed in the eyes of many). The valid comparison would be McDonald's saying they don't want to serve you the pizza you want because they are mainly dedicated to hamburgers. That's not really discrimination. Just look for a Pizza Hut and problem solved.
And part of what nickelplate said is true in a way. The church doesn't let an heterosexual man marry another man, so there is no individual discrimination in that sense.

Imagine a place where they make a cheese sandwich if you give them the ingredients. If you have bread and cheese, they make you the sandwich. But if you come up with two slices of cheese and no bread, they won't let you make a sandwhich.
Is that discrimination?
Two slices of cheese are not better or worse than bread and cheese. They are equally food and they should have the same respect as such. But if you want the sandwich makers to bend their rules for you, it's obvious they might say 'no'.

Well, that's all fine and good, if you hold christian values over gay ones.

Personally I don't.

/edit how come two people always post while I'm typing?#

/edit 2

The cheese sandwiches will show us the way.

comdoms were invented for those with no sexual discipline to control themselves. Which then made it possible for people to fuck around without the worry of getting pregnant.

People abuse things all the time. Homosexuality is just another unique case of it. We're abusing several constitutional rights in ways our forefathers didn't see coming, because back then it wasn't so pronounced.

People abuse things all the time. Homosexuality is just another unique case of it.

So homosexuality is a form of abuse?

We're abusing several constitutional rights in ways our forefathers didn't see coming, because back then it wasn't so pronounced.

You think gays are a recent phenomonen? That recent years have been more filled with gay people than previous history? General attitudes have changed. Nothing else.

Condoms were a technological advancement. Sex is good.

Dammit never fucking mind.

Churches denying marriage to gays is NOT discrimination and being BLACK is not the same as being GAY. You cannot TURN black no matter how hard you try (even you, Eminem) and there is absolutely NO dispute as to whether a black person chose to be black or whether they were born that way. We still don't know whether homosexuality is an environmental or a genetic issue or both so it makes it hardto know what to do.

McDonalds is a restaurant that provides fattening foods to consumers, Church is a place for people who believe the same to get together. Comparing them is like comparing tomatoes and bananas. They're both technically fruit, like McDonalds and Chruches are both technically "places."

Forcing a place that is only in existence BECAUSE of a certain moral set to violate their morals pretty much deprives that place of a reason to be there. The only reason you think it's discrimination and want to force churches to do something against their will is because you simply don't like freedom of religion or religious belief itself.

Right now, gays have THE EXACT SAME RIGHTS AS ANYONE ELSE. A gay man can marry just as many women as a straight man can. Thier rights are no different.

Since my dad was atheist, my parents got married in a courthouse by signing a paper and used the money for a nice honeymoon. Legal and Church marriages are as seperate as the State and the Church itself. So why can't they be happy with state marriages? Because they have an agenda to push themselves into everyone's life and force everyone to say "we're okay with your lifestyle, its fabulouth."

The fact is, you don't scream "descrimination" when a person can't afford a some food at McDonalds and McDonalds doesn't give them any. That is because McDonalds deals in money, and if you're poor, you need to find money before you eat. Churches deal in MORALS, if a church views you as morally poor, they can refuse you service just as easily.

If it makes you feel better, Zombie, I am a fan of political satire and found your post to be quite humorous.

Heres my views: Should a church have the right not to wed a gay couple? Of course. Freedom of religion works both ways, a church is not a public place and is allowed to discriminate any ways it wishes, however immoral that may be.

Should gays be entitled to every civil benifit that being married presents? Obviously. They should be able to be recognized as a married couple by the state, because our system is set up where for couples to prosper as one entity they practiacally NEED to be married.

Morals belong to the individual, people are always going to share seperate views and we should be ok with that. It's fine to disagree and agree with each other. Dealing with morals as a collective (eg Religions, Governments) is always going to cause conflict.

Thankfully most people agree on the larger scale - murder, rape, etc.
But the other ones.. abortion, gay marriage, and so on are just too dividing. Ideally we should have a global stance on such things, but that is never going to happen.

I personally think there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, life is for people to live it as they choose to. There is nothing wrong with people disagreeing either, the problems start, however, when the collectives push their views on the public too strongly. I'm not saying the collectives are all bad, they just need to be more compromising.

There are studies which actually show that there is a link between the chemical properties found in some plastics and hormonal changes in men and women.

And no, I dont agree with it all really. I dont want any of my children in the future to be brought up in a society were this type of behaviour is considered normal and human...

No fucking way.

Sorry to offend anyone, but seriously. It's just ridiculous.

You guys are fucked, seriously.

How can you allow gay marriage? You have any idea what'll happen when that happens? They'll finally reveal their secret method of having sex that actually produces a child (think of ear sex). But they won't be children, oh no: they'll be born as rainbow coloured super people with seven peeps and twenty bajingos (thankyou Scrubs) and horrible, horrible lisps.

When they amass a huge army, they'll attack and systematically eat the Pope, President Bush and all narrow-minded religious people, resulting in a cataclysmic system crash which will spawn the creation of a virtual world known as the Gaytrix. Complete with leather trenchcoat and sunglasses fetishes.

WE'RE DOOMED.

And there's no fucking escape - they'll find you on their gaydar!

Oh yes, all straight people are DOOMED.

Guys, resorting to ridiculous irony is the easiest way to say you've run out of arguments. I wouldn't transform it into a habit.

What nickelplate said about the church and its morals is pretty much true. You can tell a religious organization to stop sacrificing children to the Sun God because murder is a crime, but you can't tell them to change their internal laws to please a certain collective.
To use another example: Imagine a muslim man who wishes to marry 4 women at the same time in a christian church. The christian church is against polygamy. Would you say that the denial of this multi-wedding is also discrimination? The muslim man firmly believes he can have 4 wives, but the church in question doesn't recognize that 'right'. It's obvious the man has to go someplace else and swallow his complaints.

Dealing with morals as a collective (eg Religions, Governments) is always going to cause conflict.

But it's needed. Because morals are not internal. They deal with how you treat your peers. We can't afford having that type of anarchy: "Hey, my morals don't say anything bad about being a bully and taking your lunch, lolz"

Thankfully most people agree on the larger scale - murder, rape, etc.
But the other ones.. abortion, gay marriage, and so on are just too dividing.

There's a lot of truth in Striders words. For some collectives, abortion is a certain type of murder (with the distinctive fact that the human cells in question are surrounded by other cells instead of air).

For a start, no muslim would get married in a Christian church. Secondly, you can get married in other ways that don't include the Church.

The whole arguement here is the legality of marriage, not the place or organisation that performs the ceremony. I don't give a crap if the Church opposes it, that's their problem. But when a gay marriage isn't recognised by law? Hello? Religion and law aren't the one and same, despite what many think.

We've already agreed on that, Ant, read the rest of the thread.

Yeah, I suppose the church does have the right to refuse marrying people... But it's still sort of hard to know where to draw the line. Meh. Oh well, first things first; gay marriage should be legalised.

Sorry, been away for a week and I cbf.