Prop 8, What do you say?

[Sahaqiel 1232]

You seem to be forgetting

vague and highly unlikely

Worst case scenario, actually, is that a meteor crashes into the Earth and the crust of the Earth is ripped completely off, then the momentum of the meteor knocks the Earth into an orbit that is elliptical, making it so that half the time, it's either too close or too far away from the sun to sustain any type of life, which doesn't matter, because the crust was ripped off and a majority of the organic material was completely destroyed, then we crash into Mercury, then are hurled into the sun.

We're just talking about a life choice.

I mean, there are abstinent people, but do schools force you to become abstinent? Has it become the norm? Has the population died out?

Jesus.

I mean, if you're going to say homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because our population might die out from lack of productive sex, you might as well prevent abstinent people from marrying too. I mean, at least some homosexuals get artificially inseminated.

I don't reproduce.

Am I a danger to society?

Sahaqiel

[DungeonMaster 0]

You're overexaggeratig the worst case scenario, that's the worst case if a meteor hit, not if homosexuality was to become taught as acceptable. And i'm not saying being hetro is taught as the norm and they're adopting kids(possibly getting surrogates)That kid will most likely turn out to be gay, as they've learnt that to be the norm

But if people are taught at the most influential stage of their life, that being homosexual is ok, they are more likely to become gay, you're also assuming i was saying that it would happen instantly.

[Sahaqiel 1232]

Abstinence has been around for awhile.

So what you're saying is, that when two parents teach their kids that abstinence is OK, then they will become abstinent and eventually, the human race will diminish because not bearing children becomes more common than bearing them? It's the same thing.

Further, homosexuals can adopt children, married or not, yeah? This would change nothing.

Also, I was kind of pointing fun at the vagueness of your statement.

And what about impotent people? Should they not be allowed to marry too?

The argument that homosexuality decreases the population has always been a pretty flimsy one.

The world is overpopulated anyway.

With people, I mean.

Sahaqiel

[DungeonMaster 0]

Yes, they shouldn't be allowed to marry because the whole concept of marriage is that they are together and have children, if they are abstinent then the marriage is void.

And no, if they aren't going to have children(in any biological sense) then they shouldn't be married. However i don't agree that homosexuals should call it married. Therefore prop 8 is correct.

And it doesn't matter if the world is overpopulatedd with people(to the extent resources are dwindling). It doesn't matter because it would eventually become overpopulated.

[Sahaqiel 1232]

Dude, what? <_<

Marriage doesn't state that you have to have children. It's one of those things that you consider while married. What the hell kind of reason is that to deny impotent people the right to marry?

If you hadn't noticed, many people have children before marriage, and some of them don't even get married. I have a friend who has a child with a woman he lives with, but they're not married yet.

Also, you're saying we are and will get more overpopulated, yet you don't support something that will help that problem?

As far as I'm concerned, marriage is taking an oath to be together with the one you love forever. Beyond death, even, in an abstract way.

It never states anything about having to reproduce.

Sahaqiel

[DungeonMaster 0]

I concede but i disagree with homosexual marriage

[なべ 184]

The only reason our society has anyone in it who is against same-sex marriage is because of religion. As such, no other arguments should be relevant except those involving religion.

It doesn't matter whether same-sex marriage is "right" or "wrong". It only matters that it is purely a religious-based argument. As such, the state has no right to stick their noses in.

So regardless of your views on the matter, same-sex marriage should not be anything except legal, purely by logic alone.

[DungeonMaster 0]

Oxford english dictionary: Marriage, a legal bonding between a man and a woman

Clearly not a man and a man, that's why i disagree, not because of some religious thing, i'd be alright with same sex union but not marriage

Edited 27 Oct 2008 by DungeonMaster (see edit history)

[Sahaqiel 1232]

That definition was only changed to that because of religion. It was originally between men, women, and between two men.

Sahaqiel

[DungeonMaster 0]

No it wasn't, you're making up some bullshit point again

And where did i say: Relgious bonding

In that post?

Edited 27 Oct 2008 by DungeonMaster (see edit history)

[Sahaqiel 1232]

Uh, yeah, it was.

History is much in favor of homosexuality, but for some reason, always hit a snag.

Anthropologists report that women in Lesotho, Afria, engaged in socially accepted "long term, erotic relationships," called motsoalle. Warriors from Congo also took boy-wives from the ages of 12-20, who would help with household tasks and engage in sexual activities. However, this died out by the time European explorers took control of certain parts of Africa.

_

Native American, (South, North, and Central) tribes commonly participated in "Two-Spirit" relationships where a male or female would be raised to be with the gender of their selection. Two-Spirit relationships were common amongst shamans, and they were praised for their superior spirituality in comparison to regular shamans. They would have sexual intercourse with regular members of the same sex. However, this was crushed by Spaniards who invaded the land. The invaders repeatedly resorted to such things as public burnings and mass executions.

[DungeonMaster 0]

I am aware of that.

Also, it doesn't matter what the original meaning of 'marriage' meant. You can't argue that marriage is a legal bonding between a man and a woman. So therefore, in any form, the same-sex marriage is illegal, as it's not between a man and a woman.

[Sahaqiel 1232]

That definition was only changed to that because of religion. It was originally between men, women, and between two men.

No it wasn't, you're making up some bullshit point again

Apparently, you weren't aware of that.

Marriage is not solely based upon Christianity, where that definition you got originated from. Before Christianity, yes, there was marriage. Just because Christianity practices marriage, it doesn't mean that it's the only form of marriage out there. For instance, mormons practice polygamy, or multiple marriages. Is this Christianity? No. It's still marriage, not "opposite sex unions". The only reason that the definition in that book is like that because of heavy Christian influence. Therefore, the true definition of marriage doesn't give two @#$%s about what gender the two participants are.

Sahaqiel

[DungeonMaster 0]

No, i was aware that Islam is the religion of Muslims before you pointed that out in the uptmost matter of fact manner.

Also, what can you say the true definition of marriage is? I can say the same as, that it's opposite sex union is the true meaning, your opinion on that means nothing in accordance to Islamic and Christian definitions. You may think that's the true meaning of marriage but it doesn't make it fact.

Edited 27 Oct 2008 by DungeonMaster (see edit history)

[Sahaqiel 1232]

The point I was trying to make was that Islam and Christianity don't define what marriage is, because marriage isn't solely based upon them.

But that is where the definition you stated came from, because America is biased towards Christianity.

Marriage is to bind two people that love each other together, most of the time. Sometimes not. (ie - arranged marriages)

The stated religions are the only thing that seem to disagree, saying that two people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry, despite the two loving each other. This is because Christians were forcing homosexuality to be suppressed.

If you're going to say that you're not in favor of homosexuality for a non religious reason, you'd be wrong, because your reason is that definition, and it's only that way because of religion.

Sahaqiel