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

[Atomic Playboy]

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

Do you like thinking about your parents having sex? Because if your only criteria is "thinking about these two people boning makes me sick," one would think you'd be opposed to your parents being married. No one likes to think of their parents getting it on. Or fat people. Really big, ginormous fatties. Do you like thinking about all that flesh writhing around in a pool of sweat and spittle? Should we ban fat people from getting married? And old people! Old people boning? Jesus God no. I don't want to think about that shit! It's disgusting!

OK, so only highly attractive young people will be allowed to marry from now on to spare the rest of us the disgust of having to picture them having sex. We'll train marriage officiants to spot the uggos and turn them away if they don't meet our objective standards for who we want to picture having sex. Because the only criteria that really matters to the sanctity of marriage is whether or not I'm comfortable with a total stranger's sex life.

 

[Moonbeam]

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.

nO WE ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE FOR A BUNCH OF WORTHLESS BIGOTS.

Gay people who want to pledge their love before God, you know that God approved emotion should be able to do so at the church alter like anybody else, and the fucktard bigots who practice hate, you know, that Devil sponsored emotion, should be ignored. The expression of life long devotion to another person before God, regardless of whether there is a God or not, functions as a moral stimulant for those who do believe, and can't harm those who don't. Taking an oath is a long human tradition that puts ones reputation on line. Those who live up to what they pledge honor their true selves. Don't try to take that from people just because you know nothing about such personal honor.

How many loves are ruined by unfaithful people. Let's not needlessly degrade that even more than it already has been in this donkey age of me me me.

 

[K1052]

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

How often, on average, do you find yourself thinking about hot sweaty mansex? :hmm:

 

[brycejones]

How often, on average, do you find yourself thinking about hot sweaty mansex? :hmm:

I'm guessing as much as TH dreams about doing tug jobs.

 

[alzan]

Do you like thinking about your parents having sex? Because if your only criteria is "thinking about these two people boning makes me sick," one would think you'd be opposed to your parents being married. No one likes to think of their parents getting it on. Or fat people. Really big, ginormous fatties. Do you like thinking about all that flesh writhing around in a pool of sweat and spittle? Should we ban fat people from getting married? And old people! Old people boning? Jesus God no. I don't want to think about that shit! It's disgusting!

OK, so only highly attractive young people will be allowed to marry from now on to spare the rest of us the disgust of having to picture them having sex. We'll train marriage officiants to spot the uggos and turn them away if they don't meet our objective standards for who we want to picture having sex. Because the only criteria that really matters to the sanctity of marriage is whether or not I'm comfortable with a total stranger's sex life.

Hear, hear! No sex for uggos, fatties, and old people.

/s

 

[Kadarin]

I look at the issue from a pretty libertarian point of view, in that I feel consenting adults should be able to do as they please. If these consenting adults wish to have sex among themselves regardless of their gender, then that's totally fine. If they are legally entitled to sign a contract, then they should be able to enter into a marriage contract, with all the legal rights and obligations of one.

It is not my right to deny others their fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on the basis of finding their sexual orientations and practices "icky".

 

[Moonbeam]

I look at the issue from a pretty libertarian point of view, in that I feel consenting adults should be able to do as they please. If these consenting adults wish to have sex among themselves regardless of their gender, then that's totally fine. If they are legally entitled to sign a contract, then they should be able to enter into a marriage contract, with all the legal rights and obligations of one.

It is not my right to deny others their fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on the basis of finding their sexual orientations and practices "icky".

That's because you use your intellect and moral training to rise above instinctive reactions that have become connected by false associations with the gag response.

Animals do not have our capacity for language and as a result all us mammals have developed a survival mechanism to expel poisonous food and remember not to eat it again at a cellular level. We retch when poisoned and find the experience something we avoid at all cost. But with us poor humans and our language we put each other down by calling us wretched. You make me vomit is something we have all heard. Once you have learned to despise yourself as vomit for acting this way or that, that behavior when witnessed, evokes the gag response. With so many people who because of the wonders of religion, were taught that gay feelings will send them to hell, they respond to that toxic idea by feeling icky.

Also, men don't like to recognize how gay they are when they play with their own dick. That you see, while it will send you to hell, is completely different. No homosexuality there, much. Lucky me, I was born with the one dick in the universe that isn't icky.

 

[vampirefo]

no, that's the point

There is no point, you are making stuff up that doesn't exist, simply post a link to where straight people using birth control is illegal, or where they have been unable to marry cause it.
For each link you post I will post a link where gays are unable to marry or in some places it's against the law.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

There is no point, you are making stuff up that doesn't exist, simply post a link to where straight people using birth control is illegal, or where they have been unable to marry cause it.
For each link you post I will post a link where gays are unable to marry or in some places it's against the law.

We could replace the words in literally every post you've made on this forum with "I don't understand what's being said because I am stupid but I won't let that stop me from making myself look stupider."

 

[tommo123]

There is no point, you are making stuff up that doesn't exist, simply post a link to where straight people using birth control is illegal, or where they have been unable to marry cause it.
For each link you post I will post a link where gays are unable to marry or in some places it's against the law.

are you simple or something?

 

[vampirefo]

We could replace the words in literally every post you've made on this forum with "I don't understand what's being said because I am stupid but I won't let that stop me from making myself look stupider."

You might be able to, I personally doubt you could, but until then understand how the law works.
If a law exists that states you can't do something, yet you do it anyway, that's illegal if not such law exists example no law exists that states straight people can't marry if they use birth control.
Once you understand how the law works, everything else will fall into place for you.

 

[vampirefo]

are you simple or something?

Yes, very simple yet it's to hard for you to understand.

 

[Atreus21]

What about straight marriages that fail to produce children? Should they be forced to divorce? Or should we mandate that couples have children before they're allowed to marry, just to take any chance of someone gaming the system off the table? If the point of the benefits of marriage is solely for reproduction and the raising of children, then surely those benefits should be off-limits to straight couples who do not raise children?

No, because the cost to police couples who are factually incapable of having children is too high. As I said before, infertile couples frequently don't know they're infertile, and even those who have been diagnosed with sterility sometimes produce children.

 

[Rebel_L]

nO WE ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE FOR A BUNCH OF WORTHLESS BIGOTS.

Gay people who want to pledge their love before God, you know that God approved emotion should be able to do so at the church alter like anybody else, and the fucktard bigots who practice hate, you know, that Devil sponsored emotion, should be ignored. The expression of life long devotion to another person before God, regardless of whether there is a God or not, functions as a moral stimulant for those who do believe, and can't harm those who don't. Taking an oath is a long human tradition that puts ones reputation on line. Those who live up to what they pledge honor their true selves. Don't try to take that from people just because you know nothing about such personal honor.

How many loves are ruined by unfaithful people. Let's not needlessly degrade that even more than it already has been in this donkey age of me me me.

Seriously Mooney, calm down and read what I wrote. The obviously appropriate place for the word marriage ends up being in the non-legaly binding ceremonies that the religious institutions will still hold, it will be a word for everyone. They can do it however they like and quit fighting about it, swear their vows before any God/thing/person they like and to whomever they want. Legal contracts that the government tracks should have clear and precise language that accurately describes whats going on. The word marriage no longer works for anyone in that capacity because it is not longer clear and well defined, there is a fight going on over the word that I can not understand. Fights don't breed acceptance and love, they breed hatred and grudges.


As for the bigotry that happens, it really is sad what people want to hate other people over, I can tell you this though, while you can fight to be legally treated equal you can not fight to gain acceptance. Acceptance has to be given, it can not be taken... I thought you were smart enough to know that.

 

[MrPickins]

No, because the cost to police couples who are factually incapable of having children is too high. As I said before, infertile couples frequently don't know they're infertile, and even those who have been diagnosed with sterility sometimes produce children.

But homosexuals couples do not?

 

[Atreus21]

[/B]

But homosexuals couples do not?

No, they do not. Two men cannot procreate.

 

[SlowSpyder]

No, because the cost to police couples who are factually incapable of having children is too high. As I said before, infertile couples frequently don't know they're infertile, and even those who have been diagnosed with sterility sometimes produce children.

No, they do not. Two men cannot procreate.

My mom had a hysterectomy and remarried after. She's in her 60's now. She will not have children, but got married. I don't see why her marriage would not be valid because she cannot have children any longer.

 

[Atreus21]

My mom had a hysterectomy and remarried after. She's in her 60's now. She will not have children, but got married. I don't see why her marriage would not be valid because she cannot have children any longer.

The vast majority of straight marriages can and do produce children. The cost to police the outliers outweighs the benefit.

This is distinct from homosexual relationships, which by biological incapacity cannot produce children.

 

[alzan]

No, they do not. Two men cannot procreate.

By themselves no they cannot. However with some of the same technology that infertile heterosexual couples use to create a baby SSM couples can have children.

There's also adoption, which interestingly enough is also used by infertile heterosexual couples.

Oh, still waiting for non-child producing heterosexual marriages to be declared illegal and for the police to show up at my door and arrest myself and my wife.

 

[Atreus21]

By themselves no they cannot. However with some of the same technology that infertile heterosexual couples use to create a baby SSM couples can have children.

There's also adoption, which interestingly enough is also used by infertile heterosexual couples.

Nonetheless, by themselves they cannot. With straight couples, by themselves they can. That's the distinction. One category is significantly more likely to produce children than the other.

 

[soulcougher73]

No, because the cost to police couples who are factually incapable of having children is too high. As I said before, infertile couples frequently don't know they're infertile, and even those who have been diagnosed with sterility sometimes produce children.

I'm still trying to figure out what reproduction has to do with marriage. Being married is just long commitment you make with another person that brings with it some perks like financial and death benefits etc.

Even single people can have children outside of marriage and get the same child perks. Not that I agree with the perks,but that's another discussion.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The vast majority of straight marriages can and do produce children. The cost to police the outliers outweighs the benefit.

This is distinct from homosexual relationships, which by biological incapacity cannot produce children.

My mother has a biological incapacity to have children, yet she remarried. That ability to produce offspring is not a condition for marriage, anyway. Should my mother's marriage be valid in your opinion?

 

[soulcougher73]

Nonetheless, by themselves they cannot. With straight couples, by themselves they can. That's the distinction. One category is significantly more likely to produce children than the other.

And that has what to do with marriage exactly? At least you understand how babbi is formed though.

 

[alzan]

Nonetheless, by themselves they cannot. With straight couples, by themselves they can. That's the distinction. One category is significantly more likely to produce children than the other.

Not all straight couples can produce children "naturally". What do you propose should happen to their marriages in your "No SSM marriages" utopia?

 

[Atreus21]

I'm still trying to figure out what reproduction has to do with marriage. Being married is just long commitment you make with another person that brings with it some perks like financial and death benefits etc.

My argument is that those perks come at a cost to society; society only grants them on the basis that it's worth the investment, because straight marriages tend to produce future taxpayers. Marriage is an institution society grants in its own interest. Even Zsdrsw agreed with me on this, though I haven't seen him in some time.