Same sex marriage

[soulcougher73]

Because, you can't say being gay is natural so you accept it on those grounds, and then turn right around and ignore the millions of other things that happen in nature that you condemn (murder, cannibalism, genocide to name a few).

That's grade-A Christian bible "cherry picking" you're quick to point out and condemn, but now the shoe is on the other foot, and you're willing to cherry pick yourself.

Hypocrite!

Secondly, I think every tax-payer should be able to do what every other tax payer does. That's not an argument FOR gay marriage as much as it is a reason why I don't fight it.

How dare we condemn the ones that harm other people, but dont condemn that one that harms nobody!!!

 

[dank69]

It also gave us Hitler, Stalin, Dahmer, Gacy...because murder is a huge occurring in nature, so we agree and that's also acceptable.

Aside from it "hurting people", why reject what nature has given us?

How dare we condemn the ones that harm other people, but dont condemn that one that harms nobody!!!

Cherrypicker!

 

[nehalem256]

Aside from it "hurting people", why reject what nature has given us?

So if someone wants to torture an animal they own you would be fine with it?

 

[nehalem256]

How dare we condemn the ones that harm other people, but dont condemn that one that harms nobody!!!

Look at the AIDS rate for gay men in the US compared to the general population.

 

[Retro Rob]

There is no aside. The line IS hurting others. You don't get to ignore the one thing that matters. Why do you need more justification other than hurting others? Oh that's right, because you are an imbecile.

Of course there is no aside, because you'd expose your own hypocrisy.

I asked that question deliberately, and for THAT specific reason.

 

[dank69]

Of course there is no aside, because you'd expose your own hypocrisy.

I asked that question deliberately, and for THAT specific reason.

So it is hypocritical to design laws based solely on whether actions hurt others?

 

[nehalem256]

So it is hypocritical to design laws based solely on whether actions hurt others?

Its hypocritical to believe that and not support legal toaster marriage and dog fighting.

 

[soulcougher73]

Yeah I screwed that up.... it is natural for humans to be born with defects. But it is not natural in the way that they are not supposed to be born that way, is what I was getting at.

I know what you meant, i was just being silly. But either way you are still saying we should discriminate against handicapped people. That is lower than low.

 

[IronWing]

You want to restrict freedoms too? Asshole

The world with me as god emperor would likely be a hilariously unpleasant place for everybody but me. ()

 

[BudAshes]

I'm pro gay marriage because the people against it are always the biggest fucking morons around. See this thread for proof.

 

[Retro Rob]

So if someone wants to torture an animal they own you would be fine with it?

If it happens in nature, I'm all for it. But that's my point...nature doesn't dictate our actions as much as our intelligence does.

For some reason, people are fine with our intelligence putting a bridle on our nature tendency to kill and maim (even animals), but it's "wrong" to do it as regards sexual activity whether it be gay or straight.

It's never wrong to reel in natural tendencies period, given we have good reason for doing so. But then we're no longer discussing nature at that point, we're discussing human decency which transcends nature.

I think the bottom line is we're not ruled by the dictates of nature. The simple fact that Dank and others see how we're guided by rules, laws of the land, as regards murder etc, proves that very point.

 

[dank69]

Its hypocritical to believe that and not support legal toaster marriage and dog fighting.

I've revised my statement to others instead of other people specifically for your pedantic ass. I also said have at it with your toaster.

 

[nehalem256]

I know what you meant, i was just being silly. But either way you are still saying we should discriminate against handicapped people. That is lower than low.

So you are saying we should let blind people drive?

 

[nehalem256]

I've revised my statement to others instead of other people specifically for your pedantic ass. I also said have at it with your toaster.

So now your argument is that toasters are worthy of equal legal protection as people?

 

[soulcougher73]

Look at the AIDS rate for gay men in the US compared to the general population.

Look at the birth defect rate for hetro couples vs gay men in the US.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I'm pro gay marriage because the people against it are always the biggest fucking morons around. See this thread for proof.

Its hypocritical to believe that and not support legal toaster marriage and dog fighting.

So now your argument is that toasters are worthy of equal legal protection as people?

Yup.

 

[IronWing]

So now your argument is that toasters are worthy of equal legal protection as people?

Yep, so if you didn't get consent first, it was rape.

 

[soulcougher73]

If it happens in nature, I'm all for it. But that's my point...nature doesn't dictate our actions as much as our intelligence does.

For some reason, people are fine with our intelligence putting a bridle on our nature tendency to kill and maim (even animals), but it's "wrong" to do it as regards sexual activity whether it be gay or straight.

It's never wrong to reel in natural tendencies period, given we have good reason for doing so. But then we're no longer discussing nature at that point, we're discussing human decency which transcends nature.

I think the bottom line is we're not ruled by the dictates of nature. The simple fact that Dank and others see how we're guided by rules, laws of the land, as regards murder etc, proves that very point.

Well its definatly human decency to discriminate against gays. How dare they be different!!

 

[soulcougher73]

So you are saying we should let blind people drive?

Nope as that would harm people. Harming others is not good.

 

[soulcougher73]

Yep, so if you didn't get consent first, it was rape.

:thumbsup: lol

 

[Scarpozzi]

How dare we condemn the ones that harm other people, but dont condemn that one that harms nobody!!!

If they engage in any of that nasty stuff, they better have condemns!

 

[dank69]

If it happens in nature, I'm all for it. But that's my point...nature doesn't dictate our actions as much as our intelligence does.

For some reason, people are fine with our intelligence putting a bridle on our nature tendency to kill and maim (even animals), but it's "wrong" to do it as regards sexual activity whether it be gay or straight.

It's never wrong to reel in natural tendencies period, given we have good reason for doing so. But then we're no longer discussing nature at that point, we're discussing human decency which transcends nature.

I think the bottom line is we're not ruled by the dictates of nature. The simple fact that Dank and others see how we're guided by rules, laws of the land, as regards murder etc, proves that very point.

Answer the question in post 156, Rob, if you can.

 

[BudAshes]

Answer the question in post 156, Rob, if you can.

The dude just likes to post long meaningless ramblings. You might as well be arguing with your dog about gay marriage.

 

[dank69]

The dude just likes to post long meaningless ramblings. You might as well be arguing with your dog about gay marriage.

Well, I don't have a dog, but if I did, I know he'd be smarter than Rob!

 

[Retro Rob]

So it is hypocritical to design laws based solely on whether actions hurt others?

No it isn't...and I didn't say it was. The fact that we do that shows that nature takes a back seat to humanity when we want it to.

Put it like this: homosexuality in nature is just an excuse and justification for people to engage in ANY sexual behavior they may have thought was once wrong, but since they WANT to do it, they use the "nature" argument.

That argument is stopped cold as regards the millions of other things that happen in nature that we arbitrarily condemn, and the reason is that it harms others -- I have no issue with that, personally. But my overall point is that homosexual acts are not controlled by nature, they're simply controlled by our desires, so we make excuses to do it...but since we're intelligent enough to control our murderous, cannibalistic nature, why does that not also apply to sexual activity, is my question.

Now, if you want to argue that sexual reproduction is a primary facet of nature, then I'd counter that gays don't "reproduce" together....they just have sex.