Do you think it's wrong to love someone of the same sex?
Yes
19.6%
103
No
80.4%
422
525 votes
monoOchrome said: Im not homophobic sorry to disappoint you Sure you're not. Only homophobes would call homosexuality a disease. |
| I've been straight, gay, straight, and now bi-sexual for the last 16 years of my life. I love every minute of it. |
Doc 1513...!!! |
monoOchrome said: what !? Nika-senpai you understand me wrong completly, I've never said that homosexuality is contagious oh my god I think I should stop its getting worse You implied that we can't approve of homosexuality because it puts our race into danger by limiting procreation. You also compared it to swine flu, saying that we try to stop swine flu and should also stop homosexuality because it affects procreation of the human race. I was explaining that the only way that homosexuality could put procreation into danger is if it was contagious, which it is not. I'm telling you, there will always be a lot of straight and bisexual people around to make babies, gays will not cause our race to die out, end of story. |
     I am the senpai that notices you. |
| LoL @ this topic. Almost 30 pages - a serious rival for the religious topics! Now, I'll add here some more shit. Let the flames burn high! (people who are getting butthurt easily please do not read) ...okay, actually lied there - DO READ IT, I WANT YOU TO CRY QQ~!!! Just kidding, I'll attempt to have a half serious discussion here: I'll start off by answering the poll question and the OP; "Do you think it's wrong to love someone of the same sex?" No. There's already too much hate in our world. I support any kind of love, even if it's the kind I personally don't understand. HOWEVER; Marrying same sex is a completely different situation. People who say that it won't hurt anyway, are just lacking in perception. While it might not hurt individuals, it will hurt the nation. Every (ethnical) nation, in our ever troubled world, had started as a simple family - a union between man and woman, male and female, yin and yang, pedo and loli. All of the ancient cultures stressed a great importance on this. They understood how important that really is. But in some people's minds these days, this understanding hasn't developed. I shall educate you. (ok seriously, butthurts should leave) The foundation of every nation is a family, which by a (traditional) rule, consists of male and female. Now try to remove this foundation. What will happend? A rhetorical question. The collapse of the nation will begin. Maybe slowly, but surely. Ok, I've explained ^up^ there the concept behind my reasoning. Now the supporting arguments and fact will come: ->Firstly, I'll confront people who say that it bears no danger to the procreation. I hate this (lot lying, I really do), but lets face the facts. The Europe for example. A place with one of most tolerant to homosexuality societies. Now, if take away the immigration, the population of Europe(ans) is DECLINING. The birth rate on avarage (in EU) is 1.4 kids per family. So if theoreticly there will be no immigration, Europe will die out - as simple as it can get. This is a fact. Now lets look at probably the most homophobic societies in our world - the Islamic ones. (punished by death there, yo) Not only that population is stably increasing there even despite the massive emigration (to Europe), at some regions they're even multiplying at incredibly fast rates. I bet you'll try to say "bleh, it's unrelated". While it might not be directly connected, is it really that unrelated? Hmmm, I really wonder... /sarcasm If at this point you rage about "so you suggest that we all turn into homophobes?!" or something like that - No, I don't mean something like that by any chance. I fact, I think it would be very wrong, since people don't choose if to be straight or homo. ->Lets continue to my other argument. This one is about the "Red Line". What do I mean? Ok, I'll explain. If we allow same sex marriages, why now allow marriage with an animal? Where's the difference? What about a marriage with a doll or a robot? What about a video game (hi there Love+)? And if two guys and five girls? Father and daughter? It's gonna get even more ridiculous from there on. This is where comes the question - what is the "Red Line"? Does it really necessary to break the thousands of years long traditions for the sake ... for the sake of what?! Equality? Bullshit. Many people aren't able to watch 3D movies, so what, forbid everyone from watching them, for the sake of equality?! Gay people aren't more (if I'm not mistaken) than 5% of the population, so we have to change the whole nation to suit their intertests? To break the traditions, morals, laws of nature, constitution (yeah you heard right, the constitution). Again, for the sake of what? It's not like I want to forbid homosexuals from loving each other, humping each other, dating, living & etc. Just not to legaly marry - you can live with this. And there's wouldn't be a need to break anything. If you've read all THAT, I'm impressed. Just kidding tl;dr, no sane person would this. Oh, I'm kind of kidding again... P.S. If you wanna argue with me - PROVE me that same sex marriages are not gonna affect negatively the sociery in any way. P.S.S. If you wanna reply to me "you are homophobic/ignorant/stupid/retarded" or other cr@p of that sort - don't bother it not the case. I love watching Hard Gay, even though he's not really gay... P.S.S.S People like Drunk_Samurai don't bother replying at all, you don't read posts anyway. |
EsleyJan 20, 2010 3:35 PM
 |
| I read the whole post...call me crazy. |
Th3End said: I read the whole post...call me crazy. You're a nut... |
|
| @ Esley I agree with "marriage" part... Some day, this whole "equal opportunities" thing will turn against population... |
| Web developers answer to pretty much any request: You tell me exactly what you want, and I will very carefully explain to you why it cannot be... |
Esley said: This is one of the most stupid things I have ever read. I take it you've never actually studied any of this before. The birth rate is actually worse in Japan and Hong Kong than Canada (where gay marriage is legal). In Japan gay marriage is non-existent. What country has a higher GDP? HMMMMMM. A lot of gay people just choose to not get married (or do and are extremely unhappy). Unhappy parents make for THE BEST parents right? Great foundation! A lot of gay people are not having children anyways. Middle Eastern countries, which you mentioned, have a high birth rate (as well as Africa) because their women are generally illiterate and have no choice. They have to pump out children. There is rape. Also in countries with substance farming, which has some of the highest birth rates, children = farming asset. A lot of children were only the "foundation" because you needed to have a lot of kids to eat. There is no reason for a business person to have tons of kids. The world doesn't need more people. There are so many orphans to be adopted, and loving gay couples may happily accept them if they want. Have to run to class that is my quick response on this. |
Esley said: Nope. We are already seeing the "traditional" family structure dissolving, and there's no problem with it. Some orphans grow up with no parents but still turn out decently.People who say that it won't hurt anyway, are just lacking in perception. While it might not hurt individuals, it will hurt the nation. Every (ethnical) nation, in our ever troubled world, had started as a simple family - a union between man and woman, male and female, yin and yang, pedo and loli. All of the ancient cultures stressed a great importance on this. They understood how important that really is. But in some people's minds these days, this understanding hasn't developed. I shall educate you. (ok seriously, butthurts should leave) The foundation of every nation is a family, which by a (traditional) rule, consists of male and female. Now try to remove this foundation. What will happend? A rhetorical question. The collapse of the nation will begin. Maybe slowly, but surely. How exactly are you implying that this "traditional" family is so important? What does it provide that we need so much? Psychology has shown that our families are not the most important things to us as we grow up, our personalities are shaped much more by friends and acquaintances. Also, this "traditional" family you speak of is certainly not something that has been present in every society. I hate this (lot lying, I really do), but lets face the facts. The Europe for example. A place with one of most tolerant to homosexuality societies. Now, if take away the immigration, the population of Europe(ans) is DECLINING. The birth rate on avarage (in EU) is 1.4 kids per family. So if theoreticly there will be no immigration, Europe will die out - as simple as it can get. This is a fact. First of all, Europe is not a place, it's a continent with lots of different countries with lots of different population growths.Now lets look at probably the most homophobic societies in our world - the Islamic ones. (punished by death there, yo) Not only that population is stably increasing there even despite the massive emigration (to Europe), at some regions they're even multiplying at incredibly fast rates. I bet you'll try to say "bleh, it's unrelated". While it might not be directly connected, is it really that unrelated? Hmmm, I really wonder... /sarcasm Also, please, don't put up half assed reasoning like this, it's so full of biases and faulty heuristics it hurts. There is proven no correlation in your example here. The decline in population has been time and again attributed to industrialization and growth, which incidentally, also increase education, and thus decrease silly things like homophobia. What do I mean? Ok, I'll explain. If we allow same sex marriages, why now allow marriage with an animal? Where's the difference? What about a marriage with a doll or a robot? What about a video game (hi there Love+)? And if two guys and five girls? Father and daughter? With that logic, we would not have gotten anywhere. It's gonna get even more ridiculous from there on. This is where comes the question - what is the "Red Line"? Does it really necessary to break the thousands of years long traditions for the sake ... for the sake of what?! Equality? Bullshit. Oh no, we can't do anything drastic and new, because if we do, gods only knows what will happen next! We can't have things like sails on our boats! that would break the thousand year tradition of oars! and if we break that, then what is next? Making a bonfire under the deck?! You see where this is going, right? Many people aren't able to watch 3D movies, so what, forbid everyone from watching them, for the sake of equality?! Gay people aren't more (if I'm not mistaken) than 5% of the population, so we have to change the whole nation to suit their intertests? To break the traditions, morals, laws of nature, constitution (yeah you heard right, the constitution). Again, for the sake of what? It's not like I want to forbid homosexuals from loving each other, humping each other, dating, living & etc. Just not to legaly marry - you can live with this. And there's wouldn't be a need to break anything. It's just as with them niggers isn't it? Why should we break all morality, tradition and religion only to give them human rights? After all, they're only a small amount of the population, why should the rest of us have to change our ideals and laws on their accounts? What's next? Allowing women to vote?The only reason why it's a "problem" to allow gay marriage is because there are narrowminded nutjobs who care too much and love spreading hate (Read: Religious people). Any rational human mind would not care about who is allowed to marry or not, so long as it does not affect him. And let's face it, it's not as if allowing gay marriage will end up forcing all straight guys to marry or anything. The problem here is moralfaggotry. People who see the need to push their moral onto others because theirs are so much better and more right than whatever sick ideas all the other depraved, liberal godless communists have. Well guess what, morality is not worth shit. It's a glorified personal opinion, nothing more. To force one's views onto others even when they are not hurting you or anyone else is tyranny. So in that respect, America, (and most other places really) is no where near being "free". So no Esley, I'm sorry, but you make no valid points for gay marriage being harmful in any way other than posing a risk of toppling a decadent old moralistic tyranny. |
| A long time ago...this was my belief |
| sad |
Baman said: Esley said: Nope. We are already seeing the "traditional" family structure dissolving, and there's no problem with it. Some orphans grow up with no parents but still turn out decently.People who say that it won't hurt anyway, are just lacking in perception. While it might not hurt individuals, it will hurt the nation. Every (ethnical) nation, in our ever troubled world, had started as a simple family - a union between man and woman, male and female, yin and yang, pedo and loli. All of the ancient cultures stressed a great importance on this. They understood how important that really is. But in some people's minds these days, this understanding hasn't developed. I shall educate you. (ok seriously, butthurts should leave) The foundation of every nation is a family, which by a (traditional) rule, consists of male and female. Now try to remove this foundation. What will happend? A rhetorical question. The collapse of the nation will begin. Maybe slowly, but surely. How exactly are you implying that this "traditional" family is so important? What does it provide that we need so much? Psychology has shown that our families are not the most important things to us as we grow up, our personalities are shaped much more by friends and acquaintances. Also, this "traditional" family you speak of is certainly not something that has been present in every society. I hate this (lot lying, I really do), but lets face the facts. The Europe for example. A place with one of most tolerant to homosexuality societies. Now, if take away the immigration, the population of Europe(ans) is DECLINING. The birth rate on avarage (in EU) is 1.4 kids per family. So if theoreticly there will be no immigration, Europe will die out - as simple as it can get. This is a fact. First of all, Europe is not a place, it's a continent with lots of different countries with lots of different population growths.Now lets look at probably the most homophobic societies in our world - the Islamic ones. (punished by death there, yo) Not only that population is stably increasing there even despite the massive emigration (to Europe), at some regions they're even multiplying at incredibly fast rates. I bet you'll try to say "bleh, it's unrelated". While it might not be directly connected, is it really that unrelated? Hmmm, I really wonder... /sarcasm Also, please, don't put up half assed reasoning like this, it's so full of biases and faulty heuristics it hurts. There is proven no correlation in your example here. The decline in population has been time and again attributed to industrialization and growth, which incidentally, also increase education, and thus decrease silly things like homophobia. What do I mean? Ok, I'll explain. If we allow same sex marriages, why now allow marriage with an animal? Where's the difference? What about a marriage with a doll or a robot? What about a video game (hi there Love+)? And if two guys and five girls? Father and daughter? With that logic, we would not have gotten anywhere. It's gonna get even more ridiculous from there on. This is where comes the question - what is the "Red Line"? Does it really necessary to break the thousands of years long traditions for the sake ... for the sake of what?! Equality? Bullshit. Oh no, we can't do anything drastic and new, because if we do, gods only knows what will happen next! We can't have things like sails on our boats! that would break the thousand year tradition of oars! and if we break that, then what is next? Making a bonfire under the deck?! You see where this is going, right? Many people aren't able to watch 3D movies, so what, forbid everyone from watching them, for the sake of equality?! Gay people aren't more (if I'm not mistaken) than 5% of the population, so we have to change the whole nation to suit their intertests? To break the traditions, morals, laws of nature, constitution (yeah you heard right, the constitution). Again, for the sake of what? It's not like I want to forbid homosexuals from loving each other, humping each other, dating, living & etc. Just not to legaly marry - you can live with this. And there's wouldn't be a need to break anything. It's just as with them niggers isn't it? Why should we break all morality, tradition and religion only to give them human rights? After all, they're only a small amount of the population, why should the rest of us have to change our ideals and laws on their accounts? What's next? Allowing women to vote?The only reason why it's a "problem" to allow gay marriage is because there are narrowminded nutjobs who care too much and love spreading hate (Read: Religious people). Any rational human mind would not care about who is allowed to marry or not, so long as it does not affect him. And let's face it, it's not as if allowing gay marriage will end up forcing all straight guys to marry or anything. The problem here is moralfaggotry. People who see the need to push their moral onto others because theirs are so much better and more right than whatever sick ideas all the other depraved, liberal godless communists have. Well guess what, morality is not worth shit. It's a glorified personal opinion, nothing more. To force one's views onto others even when they are not hurting you or anyone else is tyranny. So in that respect, America, (and most other places really) is no where near being "free". So no Esley, I'm sorry, but you make no valid points for gay marriage being harmful in any way other than posing a risk of toppling a decadent old moralistic tyranny. Ah, thanks for writing that. Filled in the gaps I didn't talk about. Though the only thing I have to say differently is my definition of morals (which by no means is universal) is that the only thing people shouldn't be doing is what you described as "tyranny" ie. taking away their basic human rights (though I am very lose with this definition, since really it isn't some : magical rule: I just like to live that way).. and before I am even able to continue to elaborate, I must run off again ;_; |
ESSWHYJan 20, 2010 7:25 PM
| love them~ |
I'd like tossing your salad.-"Yuru"/MMMKD DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM MOTHERFUCKER?-SophieWophie<3 |
fudgy said: love them~ |
| homosexuals are disgusting, fok them. i mean dont' fok them, shittt, do what you want!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
DaijinJan 20, 2010 6:34 PM
 |
| I personally don't care who loves whom, and wouldn't really care if gay marriage was legalized everywhere. However, I have considered this debate from a government's perspective, and not an individual perspective. (Note: I only speak about America because I am unfamiliar with the intricacies of these kinds of laws in many other countries.) In America, homosexuals are not the only people who are restricted from marrying each other. Of course, marriage of first cousins and closer blood relatives is illegal in many states, all states prohibit the marriage of more than two people, and some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from venereal diseases. To quote another article: "When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children. Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met. " Before reading that article, I had never thought about this issue from a purely economic standpoint, but it is interesting. Other arguments for and against gay marriage are usually based on logical fallacies, morality, emotions, and "what-if" scenarios, so I thought I'd post a little something different. |
 |
Yorokobu said: I personally don't care who loves whom, and wouldn't really care if gay marriage was legalized everywhere. However, I have considered this debate from a government's perspective, and not an individual perspective. (Note: I only speak about America because I am unfamiliar with the intricacies of these kinds of laws in many other countries.) In America, homosexuals are not the only people who are restricted from marrying each other. Of course, marriage of first cousins and closer blood relatives is illegal in many states, all states prohibit the marriage of more than two people, and some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from venereal diseases. To quote another article: "When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children. Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met. " Before reading that article, I had never thought about this issue from a purely economic standpoint, but it is interesting. Other arguments for and against gay marriage are usually based on logical fallacies, morality, emotions, and "what-if" scenarios, so I thought I'd post a little something different. It is not an economic issue. Two gay men without children are more likely to make money (as opposed to the type of 'stay at home mom' set up). Children cost your little American states money too, and there are _a lot_ of unwanted children. It is a problem for most states. In Canada, where I live, gay marriage has not caused any "economic" problems. I also know people who have gay parents. For example, one girl who I went to school with since grade 6 had a lesbian mother who divorced her dad and some point later got married to a woman. Her child is not gay (NOT INFECTIOUS OMGG), was popular, smart and a pretty nice girl. Her parents live in the same community and she is as normal as the rest of us. A lot of parents get divorced for many reasons, and it may be better for the family. I think her dad got remarried too. There is no "economic" problem. Some people don't want kids, some people get divorced, some people can't have kids, and some people are gay. Do women who can't have children deserve to not be married? Of course not, because that would be preposterous. p.s. To prevent people from marrying their brothers and sisters is to prevent genetic disorders.. and really has nothing to do with gay marriage.. |
| I'm completely indifferent. |
ESSWHY said: This is one of the most stupid things I have ever read. Lol butthurt alert - my mission is complete! J/k. ESSWHY said: There is no reason for a business person to have tons of kids. You're a ninja? Just throwing in some shit without argumenting? Anyway, 3 aren't "OMG TONS". Besides I've seen (yes, seen, met, spoke) business people with 5-7 kids, who are succussful (in their businesses) regardless. They're far from being illiterate too... And you know what - in the end they benefited from it. One child became a doctor, the other one a lawer, the next one a police officer & etc... Those kids also made a various connections (became friends) with other people which have their own connections and so on... In the end, those parents are having a good connections with shitload of different people, so if they need ANYTHING, all they can do is simply call their child and the matters is resolves very quickly with little as it can be money spent, or no money spent at all. ESSWHY said: The world doesn't need more people. Have you ever heard of population pyramid? Nah, I bet you didn't. The whole idea suggests that the society needs atleast fertility rate of 2.10 to be able to function properly. To break it down, the society needs far more young people than old, so they'll be able to support themselves AND the older population. Lets take France for examples. Many of the young French are with your kind of mentality that "kids are bother to my bussiness/studies, the world doesn't need more people anyway". Those same people also refuse to take on hard and dirty jobs, but also an essential jobs without which the society cannot function. Since 70's the French goverments understood that "this shit gonna get all us fucked", and allowed mass immigration - otherwise the French society just wouldn't be able to support itself! Other western/central European countries got a simillar issues. Anyway, you have failed to prove me anything. I asked a simple questions, but I guess you fail to understand it. How does a society benefits from gay marriages? What doesthe societies without gay marriages lose? If "Nothing" is the answer for both questions, then there's no need for them. And about the harms that may come from it I already explained above. P.S. Let the flames burn high hooo! Also this: Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met. @Baman I'l reply to your post some other time. |
|
Esley said: You're a ninja? Just throwing in some shit without argumenting? Anyway, 3 aren't "OMG TONS". Besides I've seen (yes, seen, met, spoke) business people with 5-7 kids, who are succussful (in their businesses) regardless. They're far from being illiterate too... And you know what - in the end they benefited from it. One child became a doctor, the other one a lawer, the next one a police officer & etc... Those kids also made a various connections (became friends) with other people which have their own connections and so on... In the end, those parents are having a good connections with shitload of different people, so if they need ANYTHING, all they can do is simply call their child and the matters is resolves very quickly with little as it can be money spent, or no money spent at all. The arguments were in the part of ESSWHY's post you did not quote. Read that part, will do you well. And oh wow personal anecdote :o amazing stuff bro. Esley said: Have you ever heard of population pyramid? Nah, I bet you didn't. The whole idea suggests that the society needs atleast fertility rate of 2.10 to be able to function properly. To break it down, the society needs far more young people than old, so they'll be able to support themselves AND the older population. Lets take France for examples. Many of the young French are with your kind of mentality that "kids are bother to my bussiness/studies, the world doesn't need more people anyway". Those same people also refuse to take on hard and dirty jobs, but also an essential jobs without which the society cannot function. Since 70's the French goverments understood that "this shit gonna get all us fucked", and allowed mass immigration - otherwise the French society just wouldn't be able to support itself! Other western/central European countries got a simillar issues. Fertility rate of 2.1? :/ We need a fertility rate below 1. There are far too many people in the world. And the whole idea of needing more people to support the older generation is entirely wrong and silly. It is to some degree true, if one takes it very broadly, for pre-industrialised or industrialising societies, or very poor strata within industrialised ones. But ponder this for a while - if we could handle the old people when they were young, why not when they are old? The baby boom after the war led to the enormous and heavy-weight 40ies generation. They were decidedly more in numbers than their parents. But they were still educated, they still grew up well and somewhat attended to. See, industrailisation led to this phenomenon of the service sector vastly growing in size. And we could handle a growing population before that too (the world population has been growing since the Black Death, see). Furthermore people live longer and better, and therefore they can do more. And then we have all the tech qhich makes all life so much easier. The idea that you need a lot of people is an antiquated and soon fossilised one, fit for perhaps the 16th century. Esley said: Anyway, you have failed to prove me anything. I asked a simple questions, but I guess you fail to understand it. How does a society benefits from gay marriages? What doesthe societies without gay marriages lose? If "Nothing" is the answer for both questions, then there's no need for them. And about the harms that may come from it I already explained above. Except she proved you are dead wrong, yeah. Or at least wrong, and then Baman brought the dead part in. A society benefits from gay marriage because it means that gay people (who, like it or not, are, in fact, a part of society!) are closer to being equals with heterosexuals. A society without leaves it impoverished in freedom. I don't see how you could benefit more. |
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. | Report rules abuse | Your Panel | Clubs | Messages | Forum | Recent <img src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4672/stuhlbarg.png" /> |
| they dont bother me as long as they dont hit on me >_< |
     |
naeCeal said: I really can't thin of any definition of "love" that doesn't enable it for gay people. Unless it's some idiotic religiously based one of course. Care to enlighten me?It also depends on your definition of "...love..". |
| censured |
|
naeCeal said: Opposites do not attract any more than people who are alike each other. In fact, all research shows that people tend to be more attracted to people who are similar to them and those relationships last longer. So sorry, but no cigar there.Love, as in to really care for someone that you would like to be around that one person forever, that kind of relationship. The other that I oppose here, or as I interpret it, is that of sexual lust. I shall elaborate for you; Opposites attract. Having a sexual attraction with someone who is of the opposite sex to you, stands to reason, clearly. Those who have a sexual attraction of the same sex, does not stand to reason. I won't elaborate any further. Also, what makes same sex attraction any more about sexual lust than opposite sex attraction? It makes just as much sense to say exactly the opposite. After all, you couldn't be that excited about your own sex's body when you have one of those yourself. The logic works both ways. So I fail to see your reasoning here. |
Baman said: How exactly are you implying that this "traditional" family is so important? What does it provide that we need so much? Are you asking why the normal are important or why families are important in general? Baman said: Psychology has shown that our families are not the most important things to us as we grow up, our personalities are shaped much more by friends and acquaintances. So, if the most important organ in the body is brain, you don't need the rest? What kind of argument is that? Your personaly is shaped by people and events. Your family are the first people you ever "meet", and they're the most shaping atleast at the initial years of persons life, which the "psychology" explained to be critical. There was even a show on NG which shown (kind of) retarted babies, which were worked (by parents with guidence of scientists) their IQ from age of 8 months. Then they were shown fully grown, with their current IQ above the avarage! Later on, other events and people show up in life shaping the personality much, but you can't just simply cannot neglect the affection of family. Baman said: Also, this "traditional" family you speak of is certainly not something that has been present in every society. ? ? ? What nations with "gay" familis are in there, that survived 'till our days? ... Or that you mean polygamy? It's kind of a traditional family, just males aren't limited to be a member of a single family... The most of other part of your post can be summed as "people who push their morals (personal/religious views) outo others are in fault". But there's a problem here. The right for gay marriages is a personal view too. Why should it be pushed on people who think it's wrong and shouldn't exist? Those kinds of debates are pointless if you don't stand in either corner and explain the basis for them (in your opinion). As i explained, the society/nation won't benefit from gay marriages, and won't lose anything for their absence. Their existance however might 'cause a certain problems (see my other posts). So why do we need them? Moreover, they don't really serve the purpose of creating your lineage (as traditional family does), so are pointless. Lilah said: For the sake of their happiness of course! D: What if they really want to marry? Imagine a little girl who has spent her life dreaming of her wedding day, only to discover that she will be denied it because of who she loves :( You see, this is quote problematic to bring "happiness" into that matter, 'cause what if (just theoreticly) it makes homophobes unhappy? So it's ok to make 1 person happy and the other is not? It's like in morals case, some more objective grounding is need. Lilah said: Also, I don't quite understand, if you have no problem with them loving each other, having sex, dating, etc, what difference does it make if they marry? Sorry if if that is a stupid question ^_^; The loving/sexing/masturbating are all matters just between the two persons. It shouldn't matter to other people. Marrying however brings this whole thing to a national level, which in turn might affect other people besides the "couple". Some other post explained the economic results of that. I'll explain the one with the consitution: Constitution is like a basic foundation for the state's laws. Thinks of them as the "superior" laws. Unlike usual laws which are constantly, created, removed and altered, you cannot do this to the constitution. And all laws must be according to the contitution. It's a protection mechanism of the state. Lets ridicule it a bit, but (theoreticly) what if the President/Parliament makes a law that everyone should suck their balls off. Normally they cannot do this (for many reasons, which are mostly described in the constitution (though not limited)), but without the "superior laws", there's little to stop them. In our case the marriage (as defined in the constitution of many countries) is between men and women. So in order to legaly marry same sex, you have to change the constitution. This act alone can lead to various problems. That tiny example shows how personal relations between two people and grow to affect the whole nation, and possibly not positively. P.S. Meh, didn't really sparked any flames. Getting bored of this... EDIT: @Baman Just remember, the example with black people is pretty misguiding and doesn't draws parallels well with our case. The vital difference is, that gays got EXACTLY the same rights as the heteros. Heteros can marry the other sex, and so the gays can. Gays can't marry the same sex, but heteros can't either. It comes down to a personal "tastes", and that's where the abuse of "equility" might come. |
EsleyJan 22, 2010 11:05 AM
|
naeCeal said: Love, as in to really care for someone that you would like to be around that one person forever, that kind of relationship. I would say this is an idea of love that not only applies to homosexuals, but friends as well. |
 Old avatar and sig retired for now. |
| Lilah, I love you. Anyway, Esley shows just how much looking at "the big picture" can be wrong sometimes. Even if his theories were reasonable (they aren't), so what? What does, for example, a gay couple across the street who wishes to be married, have to do with your silly theories about "hurting the nation" or whatever? I personally don't see much reason for any kind of marriage, but I also don't see any harm coming from it. They wish to make a contract to seal their relationship ; why not? To break the traditions, morals, laws of nature, constitution (yeah you heard right, the constitution). Again, for the sake of what? It's not like I want to forbid homosexuals from loving each other, humping each other, dating, living & etc. Just not to legaly marry - you can live with this. And there's wouldn't be a need to break anything. Traditions and morals are sources of intolerance. I don't see what is so important about them. Society will realize that there is no harm coming from this once they surpass the stupid limitations of tradition. It seems to me you are just hanging on a rope ; trying to find even the smallest distinction that MUST remain between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. People tend to do this. They need to find a way to "draw the line", no matter how insignificant it is. Take men and women for example. There are tons of behaviors that are considered to be masculine or feminine, just for the sake of difference. It shows our dualistic nature, the need to have a distinction to make us feel more secure. I could also say the same for sexuality. People are often ignorant of how sexuality is complex and divide others to "fags" and "not fags". Because of this bisexuality is not acknowledged as much, is considered a "phase", and similar opinions. Why? I suppose it's hard to imagine someone that doesn't belong to any of the 2 groups. Now, naeCeal's posts make me want to bang my head on the desk. This is quite easy to answer. Take note that only opposite sexes can only have a child together. With this being said, it gives reason to have sex at all. Anything else is, pardon my presumption, animal behavior. What makes me think this you might ask. To put it simply; same sexes cannot give birth to a child and so there is no other reason than sexual lust. *clap clap* FOR THE THOUSANDTH TIME, relationships are not based on procreation. It has not been this way since, I don't know, the ancient history? Romantic feelings can exist in any kind of human relationships, I'm sorry you can't understand that. |
naeCeal said: I disagree. I can understand opposite sexual attraction in which both sides have similarities in personality, thus those relationships last longer. Same sex attraction seems wrong, and sounds wrong. I perceive it as an illness; sorry for my abrupt perception and I probably sound rude, ignorant, etc. Like I said in my previous post. If homosexuality is a disease then homophobia is a much worse disease. |
naeCeal said: Rap sounds wrong too, but I don't go around saying it's not music just beca...no, wait....Same sex attraction seems wrong, and sounds wrong. I perceive it as an illness; sorry for my abrupt perception and I probably sound rude, ignorant, etc. This is quite easy to answer. Take note that only opposite sexes can only have a child together. With this being said, it gives reason to have sex at all. Anything else is, pardon my presumption, animal behavior. What makes me think this you might ask. To put it simply; same sexes cannot give birth to a child and so there is no other reason than sexual lust. I'm sorry to bring it to you, but everything is animal behaviour, We're animals too. And mating certainly is, whether it is homosexual or "normal", animals do both, and so do we.The sexuality of humans are also not designed only to procure spawn, but to forge bonds and relationships that are necessary for our survival as flock animals. The Greeks were often bumchums for example, the Spartans all were lovers, which helped them forge bonds to their comrades, making them more likely to fight hard to protect each other. So no, you show no basis on which to claim that gay relationships are only there for the lust. Esley said: The first. As you write later on, families obviously do affect us, but the form of which a family take is of absolutely no importance. The only possible problem is the fact that families that are different from a society's norms might be looked down upon by narrowminded people.Are you asking why the normal are important or why families are important in general? What nations with "gay" familis are in there, that survived 'till our days? I was referring to neither, merely assuring you that the illusory "core family" is nowhere near being universal. ... Or that you mean polygamy? It's kind of a traditional family, just males aren't limited to be a member of a single family... But there's a problem here. The right for gay marriages is a personal view too. Why should it be pushed on people who think it's wrong and shouldn't exist? Oh dear. You do see the fundamental difference though, right? Belligerently pushing your morality onto others for no reason but to rob them of something even when they do not affect you is completely different from pushing a "live and let live" view.By restricting the freedom of others (when it is not a matter of defending oneself or something, naturally), you are merely breeding conflict. Completely pointless conflicts that could be easily avoided if everyone were allowed to do what they want, so long as they don not infringe upon others. It's a naive view, yes, but if we want to reduce pointless conflicts, we would do good to try to follow it, especially inn a case like this. As i explained, the society/nation won't benefit from gay marriages, and won't lose anything for their absence. Their existance however might 'cause a certain problems (see my other posts). So why do we need them? But they do serve a purpose, they give people freedom. That alone should be purpose enough, especially in America who prides themselves so much on their so called freedom. And the problems you speak of are nothing.Moreover, they don't really serve the purpose of creating your lineage (as traditional family does), so are pointless. Ah, yes, so sterile people should not be allowed to marry either then, I take it?You see, this is quote problematic to bring "happiness" into that matter, 'cause what if (just theoreticly) it makes homophobes unhappy? So it's ok to make 1 person happy and the other is not? It's like in morals case, some more objective grounding is need. The homophobe will just have to learn to shut up and deal with it. He is not harmed in any way, it is he himself in his childish rage that is the problem. If we were to use this as a basis for not allowing gay marriages...Then what about that rap? I really really hate rap. So what if I were to say that rap makes me so angry that I demand people stop making it? Just remember, the example with black people is pretty misguiding and doesn't draws parallels well with our case. The vital difference is, that gays got EXACTLY the same rights as the heteros. Heteros can marry the other sex, and so the gays can. Gays can't marry the same sex, but heteros can't either. It comes down to a personal "tastes", and that's where the abuse of "equility" might come. Reape said: Actually animals have sex for fun too. As is the case with the "gay" animals.Animals don't have sex because they like it, they have sex to make kids. That said the "just for lust" seems pretty much less of an animalistic reason than "for the sake of having kids". |
BamanJan 22, 2010 12:53 PM
naeCeal said: Then pray tell, why do we feel enjoyment from sex? most lower animals mate out of instincts, and not because it feels good man.Oh please, you have missed the point too. Perhaps if you show me some valid sources I might care to treat you with some respect, and maybe forfeit. Unfortunately you are spouting nonsense. Seriously now, think about it some more. We would have no genitals were it for procreation giving rise to platonic love. So your point is useless. The fact that it does bring pleasure has ended up giving us another reason to have sex, for the sake of pleasure alone. Obviously this is just as valid a reason to have sex as any other. Your idea seems that gay people cannot feel love because they can't procreate. Am I understanding you correctly? What then with hetero people who either can or will not procreate? Are they inable to feel love too? You have to consider what love is. It is a bonding mechanism, simple as that, beneficial to humans because staying together and supporting each other is how we manage to survive. Love and affection exists not only between spouses, but also between family and friends, albeit normally in a different form. The physical intimacy is one of the defining features that differentiate lovers and friends/family. So then if two women were to happen to achieve such physical intimacy, their love would obviously be just the same kind of love that hetero people feel. It's just a bonding mechanism after all, it is not magically tied to procreation. in any way. |
| ...well where to begin...I guess I will start on my opinion... First off I will do a bit of defining here since most people in modern day and age confuse the use of today's word's with their true meaning so here is some things I will be using Homosexual - A person who has feelings towards the same Gender Heterosexual - A person who has feelings towards the opposite Gender Procreate - To produce, create, make another organic Life form Sex - Intercourse Gender - Male or Female (I will not use sex as the definition because I will use it as intercourse instead) Crush - someone who you have some feelings for but they are not very strong Like - Someone who you have feelings for Love - Someone who you have STRONG feelings for...think of Unconditional Love, that is the modern term of what LOVE used to stand for Platonic Love - A person who you have strong feelings for but they are purely mental and spiritual, NOT Physical. (It's the same as Love, just without physical intimacy. But considered Stronger due to having the same "strength" as love WITHOUT Physical Intimacy). Okay now onto my opinion. First, I have homosexual friends, many in fact. I personally could not care less. I believe that some people are born with opposite personalities than that in which the physical gender of their body was born. (i.e. guy personality in a girl's body (guy trapped in a girl's body) or girl personality in a guys body (girl trapped in guys body)). I do believe this could happen. I also think that a person of one gender can develop deep feelings for a person of the SAME gender. I do believe this as well. I am truly fine with homosexuals being in a relationship. My concern arises when "Marriage" or "Sex" pops up. When homosexuals want to get married, or want to have sex, that is where I draw the line. I would also like to say that no I am not sickened by the idea of homosexuals having sex. Neither am I so Christian as to say only Heterosexuals deserve to be married. Then why, pray tell, am I fine with people of the same gender having feelings but not fine with them having sex? or even MARRIAGE you ask? Well for a very simple reason. A reason in which, once I explain fully, you will see that everyone makes it into such a big deal of morals, and religion. I have neither. My opinion is not based on Morals, it's not based on Religion. It's on a simple fact. To explain this fact we must go back, very far back, to the history of relationships. What they are, how they were formed, WHY they were formed, etc. As some are aware already we have instincts just like animals, since we ARE animals technically. Go back a vast amount of time and you will see that our most primal instincts are to survive, and procreate. Survive has things like rest (i.e. sleep) and the ingestion of nutrients (food, water, anything needed to let that organic life form survive). It's in ALL Living beings. Even bacteria, and cells, the take in whatever they need to survive and not die, and procreate, except THEIR procreating is different, it's a form of cloning you can say, but still it's Procreating. Remember the definition of Procreate: To produce, create, make another organic life form. these two instincts are in all life forms. Now what does this have to do with us? well Procreating is also OUR instinct. We were made to survive and procreate, the ONLY reason we evolved...is well...I will save that for another time since THAT discussion would probably be longer to explain everything than THIS one. Back on topic, this is what we were made to do. So then...how did it come to how we are now? well, as you know sex is pleasurable. This is because we were made to do so, if we were made to do so, why would we be made to do something we DIDN'T like. Correct we enjoy sex because it entices us to Procreate, it is the RESULT of sex. Okay...now that we know that, what next? Well at some point people started (when our intellect increased) thinking that the person they were having sex with, might be a special person, someone who was special to them. This is relating to another desire. Do not confuse Desire with Instinct, Desire is a want, Instinct is subconscious. The Desire TO want, selfishness, the desire to keep the person to one's self. Alright...well then where do we go? Well...once this started being thought it developed into conversations, I wasn't there so I don't know what terminology they used but it was possessiveness. Right...now what? Well from here we have created MEANING to Procreation. Which means that we have created meaning on that other person, which MEANS that this entire thing has meaning. And once you put meaning on it...then the ball starts rolling, so to speak. How might you ask? Well if people put meaning on this than the effect of the possessiveness is authorities start mandating law's. I say authority but it was probably something like an Overload or Matriarch are someone who was the leader of these places. Well this all turned well and fine, it was once the terminology that started being used that is practically our definition of MARRIAGE started coming into play. Of course the word marriage was not developed until latter. But it's meaning has been something that's lasted a vast amount of time. But in this case I will use marriage to describe what I am trying to get across Now...if people start putting meaning on this and now the term that implies Marriage starts being used, then people start thinking hard about who they do this "Procreating" with. In which you start being taught only with someone you "Love" which was designed to describe that special person. Now we have a word to describe the feeling...the prerequisite to marriage. It's to LOVE the person. Well now we have that, but...how do we come to love the person? Well now we get to the interesting things. Relationships are actually a TRIAL based system to test if you love the person and are willing to spend your life with them...and Procreate. But now at this point, the meaning to Procreate starts getting a bit out of the picture with all these new things. But it still goes on, who would you have this relationship with? well someone you like of course. Well how do you find this person you like? well the most Likely occurrence is someone you know. A Friend so to speak, someone you know and over a period of time it grows into more than a feeling of Friendship. A confession is made and progression occurs. But there are others. But these are not really liking someone per say more than infatuation of a crush. Example being someone you see...they look good, you ask out, accepted and things take off. Or someone you see but are not necessarily friends with, someone you might talk to, but do not know well. Eventually you ask them out and it might take off. And now we have an entire system on just an increase in intellect and the instinct to Procreate. Well now that we know this...What does it help us? Well I could go on another explanation on how the terms I used "love" "like" and definitely "crush" are rarely used in this day and age by those of youth. They are usually used in moderately correct terminology by parents, grandparents, or youth like myself. But I won't go into that because that's not what this discussion is about and if I did and you read it...you would probably feel I wasted your time with some matters you did not have any concern about. Well than back on track, what does this all mean? Well if you took a look at what I just explained and what I was against you will see a strange occurrence. In both my rebukes on what my concerns are about homosexuals, both Marriage and Sex both contain Procreation. I won't be so naive as to suggest that it is okay for homosexuals to get Married OR have Sex with those of the same gender. However you may interpret my reasoning wrongly. I do not think they should get married NOT because it's a religious thing between man and wife. Or that it's wrong in gods eyes. Or that I just think that only 1 man and 1 women should get married. In addition I do not find it DISGUSTING, the thought of homosexuals having sex. Nor do I find the opposite reaction. What I have a concern with is this. Marriage was based off of naming Procreation, putting MEANING on it other THAN to procreate. Now I use Marriage as generality. Marriage IS Procreating. and Sex IS Procreating well than you can now say that I am against Procreating? Well you may ask why since Homosexuals CANNOT procreate, not naturally. I am not talking about adoption, or one of the two mates of the same gender having a physical mutation allowing such things (i.e. hermaphrodite). So why am I against it? For that EXACT REASON. THEY CAN'T. I do not care if homosexuals have feelings towards each other. If they love each other fine, but it should be platonic Love. Which if you don't know it's a non sexual love, Spiritual you could say and mental. If they love each other fine, than I don't care, they can be together, so be it. HOWEVER. Marriage is a different story and, in my opinion, so is sex. Marriage and Sex result in the same thing. They were meant to. The result of Procreation. They are there TO Procreate. And to the conclusion You show me a natural guy and another natural guy, and you show me that when they had sex, the Procreated. Or you show me a natural girl and another natural guy, and you show me that when THEY had sex, they Procreated. Show me this occurrence and I will accept that homosexual's can become Married and I will be fully accepting further use of Sexual Intercourse between them. If they can't, than I do not believe they should get married or have sex. Sex does not imply that you love someone, you can love someone without it. And you can love someone without Marrying them as well. |
TheUnknownMercJan 22, 2010 3:14 PM
 |
| Well, TheUnknownMerc makes a pretty good point which is: TheUnknownMerc said: Marriage IS Procreating. and Sex IS Procreating ...which homosexual couples cannot do, as the poster already mentioned. While I disagree about the "Sex" part (honestly, why should we even care what they do to each other?), the marriage part is about right. I have used "Nation/Society" instead of "Procreation", but it should be pretty obvious the the whole nation/society exists only thanks to procreation. Also: Sonic_Moronic said: FOR THE THOUSANDTH TIME, relationships are not based on procreation. It has not been this way since, I don't know, the ancient history? Romantic feelings can exist in any kind of human relationships, I'm sorry you can't understand that. Well, marriage is (the above poster explained). That why I don't say that homosexuals can't have a relationships, I just they shouldn't marry! If you'll try to insist that even marriages "HAD NEVER BEEN ABOUT PROCREATION" or something like that, all I can suggest that you'll try to learn history a bit better than you have. One small example (I don't wanna leave it "argumentless"): Over some periods the woman's "worth" was indicated by the number of children she had. Especially back then, people didn't live very long and every birth giving could be potentially leathal for the woman. Of course those those birth giving were in anti-sanitarian environment, which could result not only the death of the mother, but also a child. What does it means? It means if the woman had many children - she must be a very heathly one to survive all those birth givings. The fact that the children didn't die as well, mean shes (and the father) got a good healthy genes too. However, it also meant other thing. The woman's husband must be a pretty worthy man, 'cause wether by force or by intelligence (or possibly both) he managed to get a nice about of money/whatever they used. Cause that exactly what you need to feed that many children. So, in this marriage, was it romantic kind? No. The man looked for a good healthy woman to bear his children. The woman looked for a strong and wealthy man that can protect her children. Only in more recent history those things began to change... @All I don't really feel like replying the other arguments, since they're basicly the same Nth time, and my replies will be the similar as well. It's like a pointless rotation which isn't fun... For a change, I'll post here parts from a book called "The Future of Marriage" It was written by David Blankenhorn who is a pro-gay activist, and completely rejects any religious claims against gays. However, he rejects the idea of same sex marriages. That what he writes: "Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law. How so? The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling. When marriage becomes nothing more than coupling, fewer people will get married to have children. So what? People will still have children, of course, but many more of them out-of wedlock. That’s a disaster for everyone. Children will be hurt because illegitimate parents (there are no illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those that “shack up” break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents. Society will be hurt because illegitimacy starts a chain of negative effects that fall like dominoes—illegitimacy leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy." @Baman Here comes a bit ironic part, considering that you're the one I debate with the most Are these just the hysterical cries of an alarmist? No. We can see the connection between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy in Scandinavian countries. Norway, for example, has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly “gay” rainbow flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared—more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time, and nearly 70 percent of all children, are born out of wedlock! Across all of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39 percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex marriage. Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes, “When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.” He asserts that “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.” But it’s not just Norway. Blankenhorn reports this same trend in other countries. International surveys show that same-sex marriage and the erosion of traditional marriage tend to go together. Traditional marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is legal. |
|
| @Esley...wow a person who actually knows what they are talking about...I Don't see that everyday...there's hope for the internet yet in debates As for my comment on Sex that was just my personal opinion...i understand that the anal cavity is an erogenous part of the body since the females share the same skin with the Vaginal Canal, and the Males is close to the prostate glands, but male to male sexual intimacy...it's just...shouldn't be in my opinion...As for women...well...i have nothing to really say AGAINST it because they don't do much things that is different from what a male does (Foreplay). It's just my preference on that one. and as for the Sonic_Moronic's comment...read my post and you will learn your history as to how relationships were DERIVED from procreation. other than that the only other thing i have any comment on is that book I Being a person who grew up with a Single mom, no dad until maybe i was 15 or 16 when my mom got married (for the first time...she didn't marry my legitimate father). I was raised relatively well. Taught right from wrong, i was taught duties. My mom was working and in University for most of my childhood trying to support us so i was left alone in the town house most of the time. She tried her hardest and I'm grateful for it. She did well I have no clue if it's just me, or just others perspectives. I believe you don't need a father AND a mother...you just need a good parent. you don't need parentS. But as an experimentalist this is one experiment that there is no way to have a controlled subject since everyone's mental, and birth specifications vary. So like i said, i have no clue if it's from just my mentality, or just that others underestimate the will of a good parent...But i believe you just NEED a GOOD parent...father OR mother...you don't NEED both... Again opinions though (sorry for spelling errors or grammar errors here...except the parentS i meant to emphasize the S) |
|
TheUnknownMerc said: Marriage IS Procreating. and Sex IS Procreating Are you or have you ever been married? Are you planning to get married soon? Well I am. Your view on sex and marriage is not universal, and extremely insulting. First of all, as I use birth control (and plan to continue for the first ~7-9 years of marriage) I have sex because I love my fiance. In 7 years, say I find out that I am infertile. Does that suddenly make my marriage invalid? No. Not at all. Just because my fiance and I want kids in the future, doesn't mean that our marriage is for that purpose. I have already talked to him about this, and we decided if something went wrong we could always adopt. Adopting isn't a bad thing. We view sex as an expression of our love. You can view your sex as strictly procreation, but that is your choice and shouldn't affect why two other people have sex. People can have sex with eachother just because they like it or felt like it, it is their choice. People can choose to never have sex and never have kids. This is also valid and perfectly acceptable. People can get married for whatever reason they want, as well. If a man and women get married as more of a "business" arrangement no one can stop that. That is their own choice. Other people choose what they want their relationships to mean to them. Two gay people can adopt a child and love the child as well as anyone else adopting a child for whatever reason. And adopted children can be loved as much as children living with their actual parents. Surprisingly, people have sex while not married and have children while not married. So procreating isn't only done while married, either. :/ And lastly: The reason that monogamy exists at all in any animal is not because of whatever the fuck bull shit you people have been posting. Monogamy existed because certain animals under certain conditions achieve a higher fitness with different relationship patterns. In humans males are much more certain that the child their partner has is their own, so when they invest resource into the child's long life they know this child is their own. I don't really see how this has anything to do with marriage because it is simply one pattern of many that work in different situations. Many animals are also seen doing altruistic things, such as holding someone's baby while the mother forages. It can help them prepare for becoming a mother, helps the tribe (usually they are sister), and may gain favour with this mother. Biology is more complex than "WELL LIKE I HEARD DARWIN SAID THAT ANIMALS COMPETE TO PASS THEIR GENES DOWN AND THAT IS ALL SO OMG IF YOU ARE NOT DOING THAT YOU ARE BROKEN THE HUMAN RACE IS DOOMED!!!" edit: two men cannot do MORE to eachother than they could to a woman. A guy can stick his penis into a woman's anus. A woman can suck on a man's penis just as well (actually maybe not as well) as a man can. She can touch him there, as can a man. The only thing that a man cannot do to another man is stick his penis in a man's vagina, because he doesn't have one (unless he has surgery). How does this even matter. Hell, a woman can put a strap on and stick it in her girlfriend's anus for all she wants. All of these things are quite frankly none of your fucking business. |
ESSWHYJan 22, 2010 4:07 PM
| Honestly those are all weak arguments. Not everybody who gets married have children. There are many heterosexual couples who got married who either don't want children or can't have children. Marriage is for love not procreation. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |