Give me some arguments why homosexuality is wrong and should be declared illegal.

[zinfamous]

Please don't ever use the "it's common in nature" argument. In nature, sniffing butts is common, eating your own shit is common, killing defective young is common, none of these are things people should engage in. Just because it happens in nature doesn't make it a good thing.

The argument irrevocably refutes the "it is not natural" contention that unread idiots like to make.

 

[zinfamous]

During the 70s there was a movement called FLIP, explicitely the Front for Liberation of Pedophilia, they were asking for "freedom" of sexual intercourse between adults and teens as well as sexual relations between parents and children (be sure that this will be the next "progress" in matter of "rights").

.

Quoting for posterity. I'm as patient as you.

Let's revisit this post when you are proven correct.


"During the 70s, there was this movement."

There were tons of "movements" in the 60s and 70s, and 80s, and 90s, and 2000s. Plenty of them never went anywhere. Most of them, combined, wouldn't add up to the number of movements my bowels produce in one year.

You are making an argument based on a phantom.

 

[doubledeluxe]

Only an ignorant, inbred, idiot would be against same sex marriage.

Its not 1850 anymore. Those morons need to catch up.

 

[doubledeluxe]

Not at all but since everybody talk of homosexuality as being natural, wich i agree more or less, why not being completely naturals, to death if i can say so.

That said i d like to give the exemple of France, a nation quite "advanced" on thoses matters and tell people how everything began to end with homosexual mariages.

During the 70s there was a movement called FLIP, explicitely the Front for Liberation of Pedophilia, they were asking for "freedom" of sexual intercourse between adults and teens as well as sexual relations between parents and children (be sure that this will be the next "progress" in matter of "rights").

Those homosexuals were part of the intellectual elite and they became bold enough as to appear in TVs and explicitly telling stories of sexual relations they had with 10-12 year old children despite such acts and related public statements were forbidden by laws.

With time it became clear that a big part of the intellectual elite and establishment had such habits, the neo cons counter revolution of the 80s put an end to their public displayings and they became silent but were still powerfull enough, they just waited and started recently to advocate for homosexual mariages, these are the same that were promoting pedophilia 30 years ago that pushed the harder for homosexual mariage.

Officialising such relations wasnt done to ease the homosexuals life but just to further the real agenda wich is the one i mentioned above, that is, pederastic pedophilia and perents/children sexual relations, mark my words, it will take only a few decades for such practices to be legalized completely, pedophilia is already legal in Europe, a German or a British has just to go to Spain and he can have sexual relations with 13 years old girls and boys.



Jedytrolla think that we are in a palestinian/israelis related thread.

What the fuck is wrong with you? How can you be so retarded? Are there special classes or were you born this way?

 

[Abwx]

Quoting for posterity. I'm as patient as you.

Let's revisit this post when you are proven correct.

Could happen in our lifetime...

"During the 70s, there was this movement."

There were tons of "movements" in the 60s and 70s, and 80s, and 90s, and 2000s. Plenty of them never went anywhere. Most of them, combined, wouldn't add up to the number of movements my bowels produce in one year.

You are making an argument based on a phantom.

That s not a phantom, a lot of people that had sympathy for this movement accessed to political power in the 80s, some became ministers, one is currently representant in the European parliament, that wasnt an underground movement, they were part of the establishment, their paper still exist and has now a national coverage.

What is not told here is that a lot of people of the intellectual elite as well as from the establishment are deeply influenced by The Marquis of Sade, the very man whose name was used for "sadism", despite being forbidden till 1960 or so his books were well known by thoses people, he advocate for total sexual "freedom", sexual cruelties and consequent deaths for the fun, and more importantly as well as curiously, for the abolition of death penalty by states, his logic is exactly the one that was used by the abolitionists here, not sure but seems to me that the US elite and establishment do not know this man and are thus not influenced by his dreadfull ideology but here one of his surname is the "divine Marquis"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Sade

 

[Abwx]

What the fuck is wrong with you? How can you be so retarded? Are there special classes or were you born this way?

Did i display any intolerance or racism or anything hatefull.?

Is the claim that a part of the society is advancing an untold agenda that incredible.?.

There are rights that are more urgent to create or recognize than this travesty of a mariage, if i can say so, it s not hard for the current conservative and retarded governements to give a right that is useless to most people, that is, that s not a right for the vast majority of us, i guess that it s easier than to reduce poverty and unequality, all measures that would mandate to reduce the oligarchies rights for the benefit of the masses, hence mock rights like this one are created as a smoke screen to hide the current neo cons counter revolutions.

 

[brycejones]

Did i display any intolerance or racism or anything hatefull.?

Is the claim that a part of the society is advancing an untold agenda that incredible.?.

There are rights that are more urgent to create or recognize than this travesty of a mariage, if i can say so, it s not hard for the current conservative and retarded governements to give a right that is useless to most people, that is, that s not a right for the vast majority of us, i guess that it s easier than to reduce poverty and unequality, all measures that would mandate to reduce the oligarchies rights for the benefit of the masses, hence mock rights like this one are created as a smoke screen to hide the current neo cons counter revolutions.

Are you on drugs? Is that your problem?

 

[Abwx]

Are you on drugs? Is that your problem?

Are drugs allowed.?.

Or are we considered as children that can marry within a same sex but are not, and will never be, mature enough to be allowed to smoke a reefer?..

What about legalizing majijuana, is this not a right that would benefit to much more people than gay mariages and would be a real right practicaly speaking.?.

The answer is yes but real rights are not granted that easily, they are extracted by constraints, the conservative current powers know too well that with said mariages they are not granting any rights for 99% of us, but hey, you are now free to marry a man if you re a man, isnt that the right that was the most urgent to put on application, never mind that there are millions that are workless and are living in poverty, they have now the right to be fukkked not only politicaly but litteraly physically, and the way the most legaly possible, what a progress...

That s what i call mock rights and that was all the point of my post that you re answering with questions...

 

[tommo123]

Dumb topic, none the less science says same sex people can't reproduce, prove science wrong and then marry away.

what does reproduction have to do with it? by that logic then straights using any contraceptive would be wrong. marrying someone who can't have children would also be just as "wrong".

 

[vampirefo]

what does reproduction have to do with it? by that logic then straights using any contraceptive would be wrong. marrying someone who can't have children would also be just as "wrong".

Is it illegal to do that? Has anyone straight couple claimed they weren't allow to marry cause they use birth control?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Please don't ever use the "it's common in nature" argument. In nature, sniffing butts is common, eating your own shit is common, killing defective young is common, none of these are things people should engage in. Just because it happens in nature doesn't make it a good thing.

I think I'd rather side with the scientists and naturalists than some random person on the interwebs.

[sarcasm font]Although your logic is cogent and very well thought out [/sarcasm font]

 

[alzan]

I think I'd rather side with the scientists and naturalists than some random person on the interwebs.

[sarcasm font]Although your logic is cogent and very well thought out [/sarcasm font]

Damn, there's a sarcasm font? When did that become available?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Damn, there's a sarcasm font? When did that become available?

I'm working on it in my laboratory.....

And to reiterate, there is no legal justification to make homosexuality illegal. Only emotional justifications, and those mean fuckall

 

[alzan]

I'm working on it in my laboratory.....

And to reiterate, there is no legal justification to make homosexuality illegal. Only emotional justifications, and those mean fuckall

Agree

Good luck with the font, it'll soon become the most popular font on AT

 

[shira]

No, it simply means homosexuality is not pro species survival.
It is clearly true any species overpopulation puts that species survival at risk. It is clearly not true the human species is at that point where our survival is at risk.

You're making a circular argument. You're just stating that homosexuality isn't "pro species survival" without justifying that claim.

As to your statement about overpopulation: You seem to be arguing that since the human species is not yet overpopulated, anything that increases the human population to a point shy of overpopulation is "pro survival." But clearly, if we get to a state of overpopulation faster, the survival of the human species will be at risk sooner. So, anything that moderates the rate of increase of the human population (or creates a stable human population) is "pro survival" and unmoderated growth is "anti-survival."

 

[MrPickins]

This thread has officially gone off the deep end...

Damn, there's a sarcasm font? When did that become available?

http://nathanhoang.com/sartalics/

 

[alzan]

This thread has officially gone off the deep end...



http://nathanhoang.com/sartalics/

Awesome

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Homosexuality is biologically wrong, that is an absolutely factual statement.

And you're an authority on this because???

 

[Rebel_L]

Okay so based on what I know about homosexuality, I do not consider it a wrong thing. I feel that same-sex marriages should be allowed.

However I realize that there are many people who think differently. I respect the fact that people have differing opinions, and see it as a good thing. I would like to invite such people to present their views and change mine, if possible.

Here's a catch, however. The arguments made against homosexuality and same sex marriage must be scientific and non-religious in nature. Therefore, please do not make arguments like "The bible considers it a sin".

Start.

I realize that this thread has already spiraled pretty far, but I will attempt to answer this the way I see it anyways.

For me your questions touches very different topics, as far as homosexuality goes I could not tell you a reason why it should be illegal. If we had a clear understanding of what causes same sex attraction I could see how some people would want to regulate whatever causes it to prevent widespread adoption of said trait to make sure the species doesn't die out.... but then with how its been around and consistently stays a small enough % of the population to not threaten species survival that seems like a waste of time.

As to marriage, I believe that our society has changed so much that we as a society have to have a look at the concept of marriage and rework the whole idea. For starters the clergy should not be government officers for making such legal agreements. People can have whatever religious ceremonies they like, they should however be separate from any legal agreement the government recognizes. Many countries already do this, I have no idea why north America seems to be a holdout in this.

As a people I think seeking companionship seems pretty common for everyone and people in healthy stable relationships are an advantage to society and we as a society should have a look at what kind of benefits we would like to give to people who agree to enter into a long term legal contract for said purposes. Those benefits should then be given to people who sign said companionship agreements. Second we should as a society consider what kind of benefits we want to give to people who are raising kids, and also what responsibilities come with raising kids, such benefits should be given to people raising kids who are meeting their responsiblities. (self made, adopted, single, couple, none of that should really matter, those benefits should go to whoever is responsible for raising a child)

The legal language used should drop the word marriage altogether. Huge chunks of the population have very different definitions for the word and if we remove it entirely from the equation perhaps it will lead to a clearer understanding and a little more acceptance for everyone.

 

[brycejones]

more ranting

You really should seek help.

 

[Annisman*]

Because thinking about it makes me throw up in my mouth, I didn't have to think much past that.

 

[shira]

Is it illegal to do that? Has anyone straight couple claimed they weren't allow to marry cause they use birth control?

You're confused. You previously wrote:

Dumb topic, none the less science says same sex people can't reproduce, prove science wrong and then marry away.

In other words, your "principle" is that being unable to reproduce is a valid justification for not allowing people to marry. So, applying that principle to straight people leads to the conclusion that if a straight couple is unable to reproduce, they shouldn't be allowed to marry, either.

So the question is, do you agree with that conclusion (that straight people who aren't able to reproduce shouldn't be allowed to marry), or are you admitting that you're unprincipled.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Okay so based on what I know about homosexuality, I do not consider it a wrong thing. I feel that same-sex marriages should be allowed.

However I realize that there are many people who think differently. I respect the fact that people have differing opinions, and see it as a good thing. I would like to invite such people to present their views and change mine, if possible.

Here's a catch, however. The arguments made against homosexuality and same sex marriage must be scientific and non-religious in nature. Therefore, please do not make arguments like "The bible considers it a sin".

Start.

Was with this thread the first few pages, then gave up on it.

I'm not gay, but very much for gay marriage. My general view in life is, if what someone does doesn't infringe on the rights of other people, more power to them.

Even if I were to agree that homosexuality isn't natural (not that I do or don't), I'm not sure how that can be a reason for wanting to put a stop to homosexuality or gay marriage. Think about the many 'unnatural' things humans do all the time. On the other hand you could say we have this big capable brain because of nature, so anything we use it for then is natural as it is a side effect of us using our brains that can think and process in ways other animals cannot.

The survival of the species and reproduction has nothing, nada, zilch to do with marriage. People marry all the the time that do not want or cannot have children. Just like those married couples, homosexuals would fall into that category.

When you peel the layers of the onion away, I think all that is left for opponents of gay marriage is bigotry and fear of something that is different to them. And of course hatred that is created by religion, particularly christianity in this country. (Which I also don't get. According to christianity we're all sinners, hetrosexuals and homosexuals both included. So gays are just sinning, much like hetrosexuals also sin.)

The arguments about what is natural or the survival of the species are piss poor arguments. But when you have nothing rational to use for your fear driven bigotry, you latch on to anything you can. Live and let live.

 

[brycejones]

Because thinking about it makes me throw up in my mouth, I didn't have to think much past that.

Why?

 

[tommo123]

Is it illegal to do that? Has anyone straight couple claimed they weren't allow to marry cause they use birth control?

no, that's the point