• The development of any software program, including, but not limited to, training a machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) system, is prohibited using the contents and materials on this website.

How 'gay rights' is being sold to America

justin syder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2003
Messages
4,096
Location
New York, USA
Car(s)
1986 Mercedes-Benz 300E
I don't think being gay has anything to do with morals. Denying those who are equal rights shows poor morals IMO. I don't see the slippery slope by allowing two consenting adults to do what they want.

The fact that this is even an issue speaks quite poorly of the intolerant people in this country, and others. Sometimes I think that people with "christian" or "family" values have the worst sense of morality.
 
see the slippery slope by allowing two consenting adults to do what they want.


Because you could apply anything under that umbrella as long as society accepts it.

NAMBLA, necrophilia, even pedophilia can be accepted slowly by society. It would be easy to change two consenting adults to two consenting people.

And please take time to read the article before you post.
 
justin syder said:
And please take time to read the article before you post.
I did and found this:
A widely cited 1978 study by Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Wineburg reported that 43 percent of homosexuals had more than five hundred sex partners during their lifetime.
Wow...getting laid as a gay man seems to be even easier than I suspected! :p

EDIT: BTW, I agree with zenkidori!
 
zenkidori said:
I don't think being gay has anything to do with morals. Denying those who are equal rights shows poor morals IMO. I don't see the slippery slope by allowing two consenting adults to do what they want.

The fact that this is even an issue speaks quite poorly of the intolerant people in this country, and others. Sometimes I think that people with "christian" or "family" values have the worst sense of morality.
I agree, word for word. People's intolerability of others just shows how much is wrong is this world.

justin - why is it any of your business what two legal adults do behind closed doors? Why should we deny them protection under the law?
 
It will make the way for Polygamists. That will make way for 3 people to want to get married and been seen as equal.

How can you accept Gay marriage but then deny a man, a woman and another woman to be married. What makes those 3 different than a gay couple?
 
Because God thinks they're fags.

Seriously, though, no one is going to take you seriously if you keep equating two consenting adults to harming animals and children.
 
The problem, I think, justin (and many conservatives have), is that homosexuals dont want to keep it behind closed doors. They want it in the public. They want to promote their lifestyle and have it be in our face. The homosexual movement might not be the same as necrophilia or pedophilia, but, these other groups are getting courage to bring this out and get public sympathy. And if enough people get on their side, it becomes public outrage to shun and make laws prohibiting lewd behavior practised by like groups. Like homosexuality, these things have been shunned for years, if homosexuality, can become politically correct, why not them also. All you need is enough screaming protesters and a candidate who supports them.
 
I think that someday society will though. (Maybe I am not setting this up properly so that you can see my argument.) I equate them in the sense that they were seen as not accepted in society at a time. Years ago gay marriage would have been as rediculous as legitimizing or legalizing pedophilia etc.

And can we have a discussion without the insults or cheap shots. I have stated my side and not made any cheap insult. This is a fair discussion of two sides of an argument last time I checked.

And besides OliB, clearly some of you haven't read the article or don't want to.

Atleast, to get somewhere, lets limit the discussion to this for now,

How can you accept Gay marriage but then deny a man, a woman and another woman to be married. What makes those 3 different than a gay couple?
 
Wow...getting laid as a gay man seems to be even easier than I suspected!

All kidding aside you know that the hormones of two guys are as ragging as a hurrincane and it would be easy for two guys to get laid.

And its dangerous too,

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid22719.asp

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in the most recent U.S. study, conducted in 2003, men who have sex with men accounted for approximately two thirds of all HIV infections among men, although only 5% to 7% of men in the United States identify themselves as men who have sex with men. (Obviously their surveys underestimate the true number of men who have sex with men, but even accounting for this error, the data is overwhelming.)
 
I don't see how gay marriage is going to open up the path for pedophilia and necrophilia and all of the others you mentioned. Pedophilia, for instance, is wrong because a child doesn't have the ability to properly grasp what is going on and make decisions for themselves.
 
I do think that the entertainment industry (specifically MTV) is pushing the gay rights platform (ostentatiously I might add). Don't get me wrong, I fully support gay rights, but I think there is some type of overrepresentation on TV. Maybe somebody can find out what percentage of the population is homosexual, I have no idea.

That said, I don't believe the state has the right to deny 2 adults from getting married (gay or straight). I also don't believe the state should deny a man or woman to take on multiple spouses. It's a gross violation of a persons civil liberties
 
I have yet to hear a cogent argument for how allowing two people of the same sex to get married will devalue the marriage of a man and a woman. I also think the argument that "well, we'll start marrying dogs and cats and stereos next" is stupid. No one is suggesting that.

Now I will say this - in the distant future, is it even POSSIBLE? Maybe. The only reason I say that is that it wasnt so long ago that we didnt even recognize black people as having the same rights as a white person. Things do change over time - and I think that is the core of what conservatives fear - change.
 
justin syder said:
I think that someday society will though. (Maybe I am not setting this up properly so that you can see my argument.) I equate them in the sense that they were seen as not accepted in society at a time. Years ago gay marriage would have been as rediculous as legitimizing or legalizing pedophilia etc.
so by your definition then Blacks == pedophiles. blacks were once persecuted and rejected by society, so by that logic they are on in the same. That is seriously flawed.

furthermore, what is the problem with a man and two women getting married? what is you actual objection to these issues? Not that it opens the door to whatever, because that's BS. What is your real reason for thinking that gay marriage should be banned?
 
justin syder said:
It will make the way for Polygamists. That will make way for 3 people to want to get married and been seen as equal.

How can you accept Gay marriage but then deny a man, a woman and another woman to be married. What makes those 3 different than a gay couple?
whats wrong with polygamists anyway? is it any of your business in which kind of relationship they want to live? what makes those three different than an average straight couple?

justin syder said:
Wow...getting laid as a gay man seems to be even easier than I suspected!

All kidding aside you know that the hormones of two guys are as ragging as a hurrincane and it would be easy for two guys to get laid.

And its dangerous too,

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid22719.asp

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in the most recent U.S. study, conducted in 2003, men who have sex with men accounted for approximately two thirds of all HIV infections among men, although only 5% to 7% of men in the United States identify themselves as men who have sex with men. (Obviously their surveys underestimate the true number of men who have sex with men, but even accounting for this error, the data is overwhelming.)
HIV is more widely spread among homosexuals, yes, that is a fact, but only in the western nations.

however, have you ever thought about why that might be so?

before HIV became known, homosexuals just had no reason to have safe sex, they could not get pregnant.
heterosexuals on the other hand did use condoms in order not to cause pregnacy.

at the same time, heterosexuals had no problems in having a relationship, while homosexuals were persecuted and could be arrested for being homosexual. how are you supposed to find a partner and lead a relationship under such circumstances? the sex drive, however, still existed, so anonymous sex in backrooms, parks and toilets developed.
and anonymous sex isn't a homosexual thing, just think about prostitution...
in that situation, an unknown sexually transmitted disease could easily spread, and now, as it is spread, its hard to get rid of it...
oh, and take a look at the AIDS epidemic in africa. you'll notice that AIDS isn't a question of sexual preference, but of the circumstances people live in.
 
FACT: Less than 10 percent of gay people actually want to legalize gay marriage.

So why is this an issue? Because the media advertises it as a problem and they get some pathetic celebrities to advocate "gay" rights. The issue isnt about love or anything of that sort because gay people can still get legally "bound" (forgot the correct term) just without the "benefits" of gay marriage. It boils down to people who want the financial benefits of gay marriage (health insurance, etc.). And another fact:

Marriage = The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

That is the dictionary definition. Does it say anywhere in there a union between two "people"? No. Marriage is marriage, period. People who do not respect the realm of marriage will say that it wont devalue marriage TO THEM. But there are millions of people who will strongly argue that it WILL devalue marriage. You can attack their (our) views as much as possible, but criticizing someone's personal beliefs is hypocritical.
 
MPower said:
It boils down to people who want the financial benefits of gay marriage (health insurance, etc.).

And who are we to deny them that? To disallow them the financial benefits is tantamount to saying they don't deserve the same rights as everybody else.

And about "devaluing" marriage... I live in a country where gay marriage is legal. Now, since it's been legalized, I have not read, heard or, otherwise found a documented case of someone going to get married, and then calling it off because gays can do it and it's just not special anymore.

That's like saying that black people devalue the act of going to the bar, because now they're allowed to go as well.
 
MPower said:
That is the dictionary definition. Does it say anywhere in there a union between two "people"? No. Marriage is marriage, period. People who do not respect the realm of marriage will say that it wont devalue marriage TO THEM. But there are millions of people who will strongly argue that it WILL devalue marriage. You can attack their (our) views as much as possible, but criticizing someone's personal beliefs is hypocritical.

Same sex marriages have existed long, long befour YOUR definition came into play. Let's stop playing this little game, "marriage is for us, and only us, because the Bible says so." Pederasty was held in high regards by the Greeks long before your world view took control.
 
You know what? People want to allow illegal immigrants the right to get driver's lisenses. The idea of equal rights for everyone is not applied to every aspect of life. Why is it that Im not allowed to drink under the age of 21? Shouldnt I get the same rights as everyone? Why cant I drive when Im under 16 (or whatever the age restriction is in some particular state)? Fact is that there some circumstances where you cant just apply equal rights to everyone. The original reason that financial benefits were given to married couples was that the women would stay home to take care of the house and children. With gay couples not gaurdians of many children (such a small amount of gay couples actually are allowed to or adopt children, there is so little reason to give financial benefits to gay couples. I cant think of one logical reason.

About "devaluing" marriage... is gay marriage going to stop me from getting married? No. But does that prove that it isnt devalued? No. And keep in mind that the santity (spelling?) of a Catholic marriage will ever change because the church will never marry a gay couple. But it certainly does devalue a marriage outside of a religious marriage.
 
Top