Staredit Network

Well, I guess couples that are sterile are lost . The meaning of life is not to reproduce. There is no objective meaning to life. The desire to reproduce was simply naturally selected because it increased our chances of reproducing. Anything that helps a speices reproduce better, or facilitate their survival becomes selected.


Billions of years ago we only ate food to extract nutrients for survival. Today, we eat things with no nutritional value like chips, cookies, and cupcakes. Let's ban ice cream because it's not what our primitive ancestors would have done.


But why is homosexuality wrong?


Actually, it is society that is creating more problems than is necessary.




Well, perhaps we should ban interacial marriage. It's just plain weird to me, so maybe it's weird to everyone!

- A black and a white raising a white child, will he turn out to have "white" characteristics?

- A black and white raising a black child, will he turn out to have "black" characteristics?

- A black and white raising a child with a mixture of both skin tons, maybe he'll be pyshotic.

The problem with slippery slope arguments is they claim event Y will follow X without any argument for Y.

Ive got friend in that situation and their not psyhotic!

Im really undesided, i mean i think they have the right to be gay, but marriage is something more. The whole point of marriage is that a man and woman come together to share there lives. Man+Man marragies arent even marraiges!

BTW: The whole thing about this isnt the marraige itself, but the benifits the government gives to married people

Did my key in the keyhole analogy not explain it?

That's the beauty of refuting an argument by assuming if it was true - reducto ad absurdism. I was being sarcastic on that part too.


Nah, marriage is just a tax bracket, a license to f**k, a piece of paper that says the couple is a union. It is the bond between the couple that will determine the merit of the relationship, not a piece of paper.


Actually, in the old days, marriage was just an economic procedure. Fathers would actually pay someone to marry their daughters. That was what marriage was until it evolved to what it is today.

Using a computer which is a tool is just as natural as an otter using a rock (another tool). You taking the "natural" thing waay out of context here. Everyone is talking about natural as in biologically speaking. Not about the natural way we have evolved to think and make better tools and such. Two humans of the same sex performing sex is not natural.



Where are you getting this baloney ? Fathers didnt pay someone to marry their daughters. The only thing fathers did was approve of the man marrying his daughter.

Unheterosexualism isn't natural. In the wild, you don't see two male monkeys that are lovers do you? No, you don't. You see a male monkey and a female monkey make their own little monkey group and live together. I don't think it gets more natural than that.

Okay, number 1, you are not the authority on what's natural and what's not, and neither am I. But I don't claim to be. Number 2, how do you know that two humans of the same gender having sex isn't natural? Maybe it's the next step in evolution (not what I think, but hey, whatever). Perhaps it's nature's answer to the overpopulation problem. You base your opinions of natural and unnatural on, basically, what is required for humans to survive and reproduce. Well, my goal in this world isn't to reproduce, it's to enjoy the little time I have. If some people choose to enjoy it in a different way, who are you to say that they can't?



Yeah, they did. It's called a dowry, and it still happens in a lot of cultures.

Uh, there are a lot of things the Discovery Channel censors. Animals do have sex with other animals of the same gender. Besides, we are animals too, and we have having gay sex, so by definition, gay sex is natural.

1. Animals are natural (given).
2. Anything an animal does is natural.
3. A human is an animal
4. Humans have sex with their own gender.
5. Therefore gay sex is natural.
QED.

There are gay whales. And whales are supposed to be smart.

At least Im basing my facts up about naturality up(which you are not). Please make sense, two homosexuals could in no way be a "step" in evolution. Evolution involves natural selection but when two members of the same sex have sex there is no reproduction, thus no evolution. Im not basing my "opinions" off what is required, but what I learned through biology and study of my own, and its not just "my" opinion but a fact that any biologist would know. Who am I to say they dont ? Seeing as they happen to live under the same goverment as I do, and if since something that affects them might very well affect me I have the frredom of speech to say whatever I want to.

We all want to enjoy life but we cant always do whatever we want. Like if I wanted to go on a killing spree because I felt like it, should I still be allowed to do so ? If you havent noticed we dont live in a Utopia or anything close to it, so we have to accept certain things about our goverment whether we like it or not.

This is what it comes down to:

The Nation isn't ready for full equality. Look at blacks, how far have them come? Same with woman. That is what this comes to. If a child were to be raised right now with two fathers, because of his parents, he would look like he was gay, even if he was in fifth grade. That's the problem. If a black boy was raised by white parents during the sixties, you know it would have been the same.

Actually women have come pretty far. Hilary could easily run for president in 2008(and quite possibly win).

yeah I know...thats what I said...or meant, anyways.

Hillary could run for president, whether or not she'd survive the ordeal is another topic altogether

Haha, sorry. I thought that keyhole part was a joke, not an actual argument. The argument is flawed in that is assumes that the meaning to life is to reproduce. Not only that, but you set the criteria on banning gay marriage to "is it inconsistant with the meaning of life?"

Sterile couples can not reproduce, maybe we should void their marriages. Straight couples can legally because the world just needs more children doesn't it?

They key fits in sterile couples, Drunk.

And what the hell is with your "Paid for by the Corrections for Dubious Arguments Inc."? I'm all of a sudden too good for you to offer me to be your sponser first?

Being homosexual is wrong, and ruining someone else's life because of it is totally idiotic. I coundnt care less, but don't adopt someone else and ruin their life. Most children of sam sex marrages have to go to counceling.

Well, I'm convinced.

Just because when someone is little and sees their gay parents kiss or whatever doesn't mean they will be gay.

Do you think Hannibal the Cannibal grew up watching his parents eat people left and right?

Do you think Jack the Ripper grew up watching his parents kill people and just then and there, at the age of 8, decide to be a psycho when he grew up?? I doubt it.

You are born however you are born. You are born gay or a mass murderer(in this case with unbalanced brain chemicals). You don't become it unless by choice.

I say it's fine if people want to be gay. Let them, it's not your life and you don't have to concern yourself with it. And they should be able to adopt regardless of their sexual orientation.

PS: Did not read entire post nor will I, just wanted to share my views on this.

Except that it doesn't open the door - that is, create a baby.

this is nature vs nuture
If a parent treats their boy as like a girl and the boy noes nothing else then he will believe that acting like a girl is normal

" hmm lets see, not everything we do is because "we want to" we dont because we want to. We because we eat, and we eat because we have to or die. And there are a whole lot of things in life we do not because we want to but because we have to. "
I just barely read this before I posted, but what if someone wants to die?
We want to live; therefore we want to eat.
If there were an alternative, then some people wouldn't eat, but as it is, it's a requirement for life and thus to want life is to want to eat.
(I think that's the least intelligent thing I've said upto here in this thread...)

Okay, I haven't really seen any really intelligent arguments against homoesexuality.

The Meaning of life is to reproduce: You don't know it's true, and there's no evidence supporting it, so that's a stupid argument. It also means you'd have to kill millions, perhaps billions of people, simply because they don't reproduce.

It's just wrong: Stop repeating yourself and give a reason

The child will also be homosexual: Stop repeating yourself and tell us what's wrong with that. BEsides that, straight couples get homosexual children, so a gay couple can have a straight phoster-child

The child will lead a bad life: Either it'll be because the gays abuse the said child, in which case it's not the fact that they're gay that makes his/her life bad, but the fact that they're asses, or
Because of the prejudice against gays that you're trying to explain, in which case you're saying it's because of people like you, not the gays, that will make the child's life bad

Also, the post I quoted above is the most recent post I read, so someone may have already said this

No evidence ? go take a simple high school biology class. There is plenty of evidence. What the bleep does killing billions of people have to do with the meaning of life or homosexuality ? nothing.



ok..since it's official, for the first time in the thread I shall say something unintelligent .... All gays will go to hell !!! Its wrong wrong wrong ! we have to stop them while we still can !!!

Biology tells us that animals will reproduce to continue their speices, but it says nothing about the purpose of life.

Great to see you, Drunk. I've missed your Serious Discussion contributions and sarcasm.

Helios, I was just messing with you about the evolution thing, I know how it actually works. You just seem to take this issue so personally. Oh, you still haven't come up with an answer to why we allow sterile people to get married. Just to remind you .

Okay, here's a question. Whether or not being gay is wrong, what does that have to do with marriage? Is sex all that marriage is about (an argument to which all of the anti-gay-marriage arguments allude), or is it love, or a political status?

"No evidence ? go take a simple high school biology class. There is plenty of evidence. What the bleep does killing billions of people have to do with the meaning of life or homosexuality ? nothing. "
I'm in Middle School right now.
And what evidence is there about the meaning of life, why we all exist, being to reproduce, that is taught in high school bioloy that you can't say right here? Say it here, please, I want to see how stupid, or possibly extremely intelligent, new, and revolutionary it is to my mind.

And I agree with Nozumu, now that I see something new: What does how wrong or right gay being is have to do with marriage?