Same sex marriage

[Retro Rob]

I don't understand your point. Why does mentioning that people historically hurt and killed other people make any case other than that harm caused is the sole basis for determining what we should be morally against? Why do you think historians deigned to record all those instances you mention? I think it's to help us figure out what not to do.

My point is that nature doesn't dictate anything when pitted against human intelligence. We submit to nature at will, and we ignore it at will.

We control it, not the other way round.

 

[MrDudeMan]

So what you are saying it technology made gays? Cool theory bro

That's not even approximately similar to what I just said. You literally and completely missed my point.

Once a person is born with X, Y, or Z genes, mutations, inclinations, or whatever the fuck you want to call them to make yourself feel good, they can only spread their genes if their X, Y, or Z thing doesn't impede breeding. If a guy is born gay and is repulsed by vaginas, he's not going to spread his genes unless he cheats nature. I'm not giving an opinion about whether or not that should happen; I'm talking about nature only.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

ITT: morons that have never read any David Hume.

 

[SlitheryDee]

My point is that nature doesn't dictate anything when pitted against human intelligence. We submit to nature at will, and we ignore it at will.

We control it, not the other way round.

So if what's natural is irrelevant to you, then that will no longer come up as an argument against gay marriage, correct? What is your argument against it then?

 

[soulcougher73]

That's not even approximately similar to what I just said. You literally and completely missed my point.

Once a person is born with X, Y, or Z genes, mutations, inclinations, or whatever the fuck you want to call them to make yourself feel good, they can only spread their genes if their X, Y, or Z thing doesn't impede breeding. If a guy is born gay and is repulsed by vaginas, he's not going to spread his genes unless he cheats nature. I'm not giving an opinion about whether or not that should happen; I'm talking about nature only.

So where did X, Y, Z come from to begin with? Any why couldnt they come around again from someone who doesnt have X, Y, Z?

 

[Retro Rob]

So if what's natural is irrelevant to you, then that will no longer come up as an argument against gay marriage, correct? What is your argument against it then?

This.

I don't make the unnatural argument...I simply believe personally that ANY sexual activity outside of man/woman marriage is wrong...I don't impose that on others, and I allow people the freedom to disagree and make SSM legal if they so choose.

I have no dog in the fight.

I just enjoy the discussion more than anything.

 

[nehalem256]

I think the point is, get out of THEIR face. Mind your own damn business, not theirs. They're not invading YOUR space, telling you what you can and can't do, you're the one invading THEIR space, telling them what they can and can't do.

Well except for the gay couples suing florists, photographers, and bakers to force them to participate in their weddings you mean...

 

[soulcougher73]

This.



I just enjoy the discussion more than anything.

So you support gay marriage but dont want to help the fight and just continue on with the discrimination? Am i reading you right?

 

[jhbball]

My point is that nature doesn't dictate anything when pitted against human intelligence. We submit to nature at will, and we ignore it at will.

We control it, not the other way round.

God, you're dumb.

 

[jhbball]

OK, that's fair, so why do you accept it then?

Because it's the decent thing to do as a human being? You're a fucking waste of life.

 

[MrPickins]

It's not subjective at all. You know what a human body is supposed to look like and what it is made to do, don't be silly.

And no, it should not be illegal to have babies with defects. However, it should not be celebrated when a baby has a defect, and that is what gay marriage is doing.

What you call celebration, I call living a normal life.

 

[jhbball]

This.



I just enjoy the discussion more than anything.

And being a bigot.

 

[MrDudeMan]

So where did X, Y, Z come from to begin with? Any why couldnt they come around again from someone who doesnt have X, Y, Z?

I have no idea nor does it matter for the purpose of my argument. If someone is born without a dick, for example, that's a mutation that would have a very hard time spreading to offspring.

Being gay isn't a horrible mutation like being born without a dick in my opinion, but the genes responsible for being gay can't pass themselves to offspring unless nature is circumvented or gay people engage in heterosexual activities even if only to breed. Draw whatever conclusions and make whatever assumptions will make you feel all warm and fuzzy, but gay genes don't propagate unless a P goes in a V.

 

[MrDudeMan]

What you call celebration, I call living a normal life.

It's not normal. Normal is defined as what most people do and most people aren't gay. Also, gay people can't continue making more gay people without the help of a higher level construct, so it's definitely not natural in terms of breeding. It is natural, though, in terms of how they are programmed to behave. I'm not making the argument that gay people choose to be gay, but it's ridiculous to call it normal. You can feel like a normal person and live a generally normal life, but, in terms of sexual reproduction, there's nothing normal about it.

 

[fskimospy]

I have no idea nor does it matter for the purpose of my argument. If someone is born without a dick, for example, that's a mutation that would have a very hard time spreading to offspring.

Being gay isn't a horrible mutation like being born without a dick in my opinion, but the genes responsible for being gay can't pass themselves to offspring unless nature is circumvented or gay people engage in heterosexual activities even if only to breed. Draw whatever conclusions and make whatever assumptions will make you feel all warm and fuzzy, but gay genes don't propagate unless a P goes in a V.

That's an astoundingly simplistic view of genetics, one that basically has no bearing on how most genetics work in reality.

Real life isn't like the pea plants you learned about in 6th grade. Many traits are the result of many, many combinations of various genes.

 

[piasabird]

I think it is all about the money and government taxes and benefits under the tax code. I think being married should have nothing to do with the IRS tax code. The government seems to have a need to classify people into groups and give certain groups preferential treatment. This is all a progressive scheme to get people to hate each other.

 

[fskimospy]

It's not normal. Normal is defined as what most people do and most people aren't gay. Also, gay people can't continue making more gay people without the help of a higher level construct, so it's definitely not natural in terms of breeding. It is natural, though, in terms of how they are programmed to behave. I'm not making the argument that gay people choose to be gay, but it's ridiculous to call it normal. You can feel like a normal person and live a generally normal life, but, in terms of sexual reproduction, there's nothing normal about it.

Normal is not defined as what the majority of people do. It is defined as something that is not strange or unexpected. Being gay is neither of those.

 

[soulcougher73]

It's not normal. Normal is defined as what most people do and most people aren't gay. Also, gay people can't continue making more gay people without the help of a higher level construct, so it's definitely not natural in terms of breeding. It is natural, though, in terms of how they are programmed to behave. I'm not making the argument that gay people choose to be gay, but it's ridiculous to call it normal. You can feel like a normal person and live a generally normal life, but, in terms of sexual reproduction, there's nothing normal about it.

But hetro people are the ones who make gay people. Im lost lol

 

[Retro Rob]

Normal is not defined as what the majority of people do. It is defined as something that is not strange or unexpected. Being gay is neither of those.

You're actually making his point, as gay was "abnormal" for centuries because people thought it was "strange".

Nowadays, people don't consider it "strange" so therefore, its no longer abnormal.

Abnormal in this context, is a purely subjective term.

 

[Retro Rob]

So you support gay marriage but dont want to help the fight and just continue on with the discrimination? Am i reading you right?

Where did I say that I support it?

 

[mnewsham]

You're actually making his point, as gay was "abnormal" for centuries because people thought it was "strange".

Nowadays, people don't consider it "strange" so therefore, its no longer abnormal.

Abnormal in this context, is a purely subjective term.

Gay sex with young boys was (and still is in certain parts of the world) perfectly normal for hundreds if not thousands of years. In fact homophobia is a rather modern concept. We have tons of historical evidence.

 

[MrDudeMan]

That's an astoundingly simplistic view of genetics, one that basically has no bearing on how most genetics work in reality.

Real life isn't like the pea plants you learned about in 6th grade. Many traits are the result of many, many combinations of various genes.

No shit, but the genes that end up making guys want to stick their dicks in buttholes instead of vaginas are directly in opposition of the continuation of said genes. It makes no difference how complicated the mechanism is that created the genes or how many variables govern the interactions of said genes at conception; the only important factor in spreading the gene is what behavior it ultimately dictates.

Look at any population of literally anything in terms of the constraints that govern population continuation:

• You need an interaction between objects of type 1 and type 2 to make offspring
• Objects of the same type can interact, but aren't capable of making offspring

Now simulate the model after removing all type 1 and type 2 interactions. What happens? It could be millions of steps leading up to the actual interaction between objects, but if they can't mate then they all die and there's absolutely nothing you can say that will make that untrue unless you introduce an outside force, e.g. technology.

Gay people can procreate by choosing to override their programmed biological urges - I understand and accept that - but that's not what we're discussing. On that level, it's a different argument that must take into account more factors.

 

[MrDudeMan]

But hetro people are the ones who make gay people. Im lost lol

Think of a gay person as having a combination of differences/changes/mutations/whatever that are capable of changing course regardless of what was inherited from their parents that make them attracted to their own sex. If you still don't understand, you should stop trying to participate in this discussion because subtlety and nuance clearly is beyond your grasp.

 

[mnewsham]

Think of a gay person as having a combination of differences/changes/mutations/whatever that are capable of changing course regardless of what was inherited from their parents that make them attracted to their own sex. If you still don't understand, you should stop trying to participate in this discussion because subtlety and nuance clearly is beyond your grasp.

Based upon what evidence? Did we discover the "homo" gene when I wasn't looking?

 

[soulcougher73]

Where did I say that I support it?

You said you are ok if we make SSM legal which means you support it. Otherwise youd be against it and not want it legal. BUT at the same time you have no dog in the fight which means you dont care if we continue on with the status quo of discriminating against gays. That is how i came to my conclusion.