it is ur right to strap bombs to ur body and blow up in a place where u won't affect any others.

and so is ur right to marry the same gender, as long as u have the consent of the other party.

while it is true that the "freedom of speech" is flawed to the point it can't be fixed, it shouldn't be used as an argument here. Wat Elric tried to say, is in the entertaining field, there are lots of things that u don't like. Lots of ppl don't like violent games or movie, while some don't like girly games and romance. Some ppl think rock and metal are depressing, while the others think pop are for kids. But that doesn't mean that we should ban or disallow them just becuz we don't like it.

And hey Xeru, I don't like real girls so plz remove ur avatar plz? That disgust me seeing a real girl dancing.

if u don't like it, close ur eyes and ignore them. Easy enough.

he's talking about the reasons why marriage is forbidden.

if it's not becuz they are the same gender, it's becuz one of them is black (aka racism) or Hispanics, Jew or Muslims (religion), all of them are stupid.

It is not your right to strap bombs to your body and blow up in a place where you will not affect any others. Because there is no single place where you can blow yourself up and not affect others. In your apartment? What will be the emotional impact on your neighbors be? What about the structure itself? We live in a society that is interdependent, and there is no single action that we can take that will not affect the feelings of others. As Elric said himself, he is disgusted by homosexuality to a certain extent, and I feel much the same way. This would be the effect of homosexuality on society. Let's go again to streaking nude. Sure, you and your buddies might have a laugh, but what about the others watching you? Homosexuality is indecent. Full stop.

Still a weak argument. There is a reason for public indecency laws. The majority should not have to put up with an action from the minority that causes their lives to be uncomfortable. There are a lot of things that you don't like. There are a lot of things that I don't like. However, there are also things that society dislikes. I and much of society object fundamentally to the thought of having to live through something that disgusts me--not just ideologically, but biologically. For instance, society dislikes people pissing everywhere. What are you going to say now--just pin up your nose? Really? For instance, this forum dislikes me putting up nude pictures. What's your reply to that--close your eyes?

Still a weak argument. There is a reason for public indecency. The majority should not have to put up with an action from the minority that causes their lives to be uncomfortable. There are a lot of things that you don't like. There are a lot of things that I don't like. However, there are also things that society dislikes. I and much of society object fundamentally to the thought of having to live through something that disgusts me--not just ideologically, but biologically.For instance, society dislikes people pissing everywhere. What are you going to say now--just pin up your nose? Really? For instance, this forum dislikes me putting up nude pictures. What's your reply to that--close your eyes?

Where religion is concerned, it is a fundamental flaw to compare homosexuality to religion. I don't even think I need to elaborate further.

I am okay with closing up all homosexuals into a room and letting them live there. Or maybe making a homosexual town for them to live. That's what you're saying, right?

Uh.

That's a really dumb comparison to make.

Racial/Cultural lines is one thing. I am prepare to transcend that.

To step over what biology dictates...that's objectionable.

forest
desert
or maybe u can just kill urself with a knife, or sleeping pills

and wat is ur definition of indecent? Is it against the law? Is being with someone u love is against the law? I'm sorry but I don't quite understand it.

the reason to public indecency is becuz it IS the public. Going or outside naked or doing it outside is not a hobby, it's a sexual desire to show ur body to the others. It affects the others and it's indecent.

homosexuality, on the other hand, does not affect public at all. Do any of them flirting in the public? I don't think so. Unless it's the kind of homosexuality that chase after any guy that he sees which is the same as sexual offenders.

We as well as lots of other entertainment business, have a clearly defined rating so as not to make the young think of something bad. Bloody or scenes that includes killing, raping or any other kind of bad thing that might make the kid into a psycho shouldn't be showed to them.

oh so it comes to the majority huh?

that's stupid. Minority should have their own freedom too. Black men were disgusting and are considered as low-life or "minority", should they be killed cuz the white can't stand it?

Idealogical, wat is idealogical btw? Is it something that u like and dislike, and that is morally accepted, or wat is right and wat is wrong for u, for the majority of the ppl?

Everyone is so sucked up with the idea of moral and "wat the majority do". No, I say if it's who u really are, then be who u really are. Say the big f word to everyone that say no to it.

I'm a perverted masochistic lolicon who have no interests in the real girls, have a back and feet fetish. Does that disgust u? I don't care. That is who I am and that is who I'll be.

It is a sad fact that lots of ppl denying their own true self in order to join the majority.

not really, u don't have to.

say, u like hip hop and dislike, or even hate, disgust, watever fit u, rock. But ur neighbor like, love, addicted, to rock and metal. Though he doesn't turn it on loudly, in fact he always listen with a headset. Wat do u do?

Will u be annoyed by the fact that he likes rock, even though he doesn't make u listen to it?

The same to a homosexual guy next to ur door. U disgust homosexuality, but does he force u to do homosexuality? No.

yes, naturally, as a beast, it is our nature to feel attraction to and mate with a different gender.

but don't forget we are not just beast, we are human, with heart and love, not just some lustful attraction that only for mating and reproducing.

and how do u explain animals that took care of other kind? U can always read dogs feeding cats and see them as their offsprings everywhere on the newspaper.

Once again, I am wholeheartedly open with having gays in forests and deserts, where they have nothing to do with me. I am very open to this. However, the legalization of same-sex marriage means that they have the same rights as us and can cuddle in public and can flirt in public and sneak a quick kiss in public. I cannot stand for that.

Being with someone you love is not against the law. Wanting to marry a person of the same gender is. I'll admit freely--while I can see where religion comes from, where racial attitudes comes from, I do not understand homosexuality. At all. And the fact that it causes many people in society qualms because the sight of a man cuddling with another man is quite frankly disgusting means that it is thus indecent.

However, the legalization of same-sex marriage means that they have the same rights as us and can cuddle in public and can flirt in public and sneak a quick kiss in public. I cannot stand for that.

Because it has been accepted by society to be undesired. Just like homosexuality. Undesired.

First off, regarding your final sentence. I'm not too sure what the implication is--it smells a bit like a half-assed attempt to accuse me of homosexuality? Because I sure as hell hope it's not. Well, actually, it would be a bit funny. I am not denying my 'own true self'. I am expressing my views, which state that homosexuality is repulsive.

Furthermore, you're creating a straw man argument here. I have never stated any wish for homosexuals to be killed. Moving forth, "I am a pathological killer. According to Aister, I must raise my middle finger to the rest of society and be who I am."

I don't think you're getting my point about homosexuality.

It affects society.

It is not just limited to the homosexuals themselves. Granting homosexuals the right to marry grants them the right to do what normal couples do in public. And quite frankly, I and the legion of people like me think that to be disgusting, and thus publically indecent. Homosexuals can go ahead and be homosexuals. You can be whatever kind of messed up person you are. Just as long as I have no part in it.

This is sort of why I'm seeing your "suicide in a private place" and "rock music in headphones" and "going nude in your own house" arguments as incredibly asinine. I am okay with homosexuals being closet homosexuals. I do not want to persecute them. However, I fundamentally object to them having the same public rights as us.

I explain this deformity as the reason why natural selection works in the first place.

Think of it this way. We allow freedom and right to flaunt whatever twisted and (at the end of the day) wrong feelings we have. What if one day, we legalize animal-human marriage? It's the same concept. People should not have the right to express themselves in ways that disgust the vast majority in public. Slippery slope.

oh so they aren't doing that if it's banned?

the law say no marriage between same gender, does it say no cuddling between same gender? Nope.

Give me an exact quote where it is against the law to cuddling, teasing and flirting the same gender in the public.

Allowing marriage between the same gender won't make them do wat they are already allowed to.



u don't understand doesn't mean u should forbid it. It's personal reference and no one force u to understand it, and no one can force another to quit it.

and about ur last sentence...

I don't care who or wat is the two parties, if they really love each other, I'm fine with that. And if it's one of my friend, I'll support him as much as I can.

You reason well, Aister, but you fail to see the bigger picture.

The thing about legalization about same-sex marriage is less about the actual marriage. It is about the unwritten social rights of same-sex couples. It is, effectively, a law that will determine whether or not society is forced to tolerate open homosexuality.

remember, the law doesn't allow same sex marriage...

it doesn't say anything about same sex flirting or cuddling.

now... with the homosexuality is still disallowed in most place, do the homos flirt in the public? No, why? Cuz ppl shun on them, not becuz it is not allowed to.

and now... same sex marriage is allowed, do the homos flirt in the public? Still no, why? Cuz normal ppl are still shunning them.

On the other hand

if u say homo will flirt in public after the "unban", they probably ignored all the shunning of the ppl around them. So why shouldn't they do it when it was still banned?

In regards to your last post, I feel that you didn't even bother to read this. Basically, if you cede homosexuals the right to marry, it turns into a slippery slope.


It's not what giving homosexuals the right to marry that's the problem. It's what giving homosexuals the right to marry represents. It represents that our society has become one that supports and tolerates something that is against biology, against the fundamental parts of being a human, tolerates something that natural selection has weeded out a long time ago and for good reason, tolerates something that is, on all levels, wrong.

I am not religious. But I will not tolerate something that runs contrary to the basic functions to the human race. If we endorse homosexuality, we open the freedom to bestiality, to polygamy, to incest. THAT is UNTHINKABLE. The legalization of same-sex marriage will be used as precedence to legalize marriage in that respect, and so, it follows logically, if you advocate for same-sex marriage, you advocate for polygamy, for beastiality, for incest legalization. Do you really?

Society is not prepared to accept homosexuality. How do I know this? you ask. Well, quite simply, the fact that same-sex marriage is not legal is perfect evidence.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. That is the way the law writes it, and quite frankly, the law does not need to be agreed with. Humanity has survived quite adequately for millennia without homosexuality, so your "stagnant society" argument holds no water.

Once again, I am okay with putting all of the homosexuals away from society and letting them do whatever. But by allowing them to marry, I allow them into my society, into a society that does not wish for them to be there. Violence from religious group follows. Allowing homosexuals into society will only ensue instability. But even on a smaller scale, same-sex marriage enables homosexual couples to receive the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive. They should not receive equal treatment, at least in the same system.

Aister, you miss an ultimate question. Why do homosexuals fight for the right to marry? Because they want to force themselves unto society.

tl;dr, my main arguments
Slippery Slope
Society is not prepared to accept homosexuals, and the legalization of marriage will allow homosexuals to force themselves onto society.
Heck, it's just wrong.

Time I popped in here, since I am from one of the (few?) countries where same-sex marriage is actually allowed.

Xeru, I'll break down your argument piece by piece.



Let me ask you one simple question. If it has been weeded out by natural selection a long time ago, why does it still exist? I believe the natural selection criterion for humans has been debunked quite a long time ago, if you really want to use natural selection in the most strict sense then you must also be against keeping humans alive that would, using natural selection, have been killed in the past. I am talking about cripples, mentally very challenged people and of course many more. We have developed healthcare not only to help the healthy, but also to help the sick. This is fundamentally against your natural selection argument. So really, I do not believe that this is in any case a legitimate argument.



What are the basic functions of the human race, according to you? It would help if you stated those.

You are correct that you have a slippery slope argument in here. Slippery slope arguments should always be used with care, as you have to be able to establish that not only A leads to B but also that B certainly leads to C, C to D and this all the way to Z. But for debate's sake, I will debunk your argument without saying that you can not establish this link.

Between homosexuality and bestiality there are many differences. Homosexuality is between two (mature) men or women, who both have their own free choice of whether they want to indulge in this fantasy. How you can compare this to bestiality is beyond me. Bestiality is between a man or woman and an animal. This represents a fundamental power difference. An animal can not be seen as a mature human, so there is a power difference. That is also the reason bestiality is called animal ABUSE. You can not say that this is the same as with 2 humans, you would be saying that a human has the same cognitive skills and power as an animal.

Polygamy is a different matter again. I believe polygamy should not necessarily be prohibited, and using your earlier argument, you also can not. From HUMAN NATURE and NATURAL SELECTION it follows that for a man it is smart to inseminate as many women as possible, to ensure the survival of his genes. Therefore you are either advocating polygamy or adultery, and I think adultery is the friendliest choice here.

On incest I am not yet completely sure of my stance. I believe that as long as it is between two consenting adults and as long as it is done safely (that is, not creating any offspring), I believe it has much in common with a normal sexual relation. But as I said, I am not completely sure yet, so I would love to hear the arguments against in favor of that some other time.



How does this, in any way, make sense. You are saying that before there was a law against fraud, society did not need a law against fraud? There used to be very little laws, the law has kept expanding on what is legal and what is not. Laws tend to change over time, or are you saying that we should never have given black people the right to their own bodies?



Humanity has also survived quite adequately for millennia with rape and murder, this doesn't mean we can't act against it. As I have mentioned before, the law tends to change over time. The law does not need to be agreed with, that is correct. However the law should be sensible and fair to all.



Why should they not receive equal treatment? A homosexual marriage is one between two consenting adults. A heterosexual marriage is one between two consenting adults. The difference here is that one is with a man and a woman, the other one is with a man and a man or a woman and a woman. An argument that is commonly brought up is that a same-sex marriage can not produce children. That is correct, no surprises there. However I ask of you, how is that bad? Same-sex couples that want to have children can adopt, I do not believe anyone will call adopting selfish. Many countries are encouraging not giving birth to too many children, because countries and the world are being overpopulated. Therefore I'd like to use the argument of same-sex marriages not being able to produce children, but in a way that is in favor of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is better than heterosexual marriage in this aspect, because it does not put as large a strain on natural resources.

That is not to say I believe everyone should indulge in homosexual relations, I know for myself that I will always be heterosexual and I therefore do not believe that you can use the slippery slope argument here saying that "IN 50 YEARS WE WILL HAVE NO MORE CHILDREN BECAUSE EVERYONE IS GAY".



Why do homosexuals fight for the right to marry? Because they love each other, and they want to prove it, as heterosexual couples do, by marrying each other.

I hope this clears up my stance on gay marriage, and I'm looking forward to seeing counter-arguments

mhm.

You sort of really miss my point here. To start off, I guess I'll play along with the natural selection thing. First off, homosexuality is a deformity of humanity. Bold claim, but consider that homosexuals do not breed, and thus are produced only by mutations. But that isn't even the point here. Moreover, while being crippled/handicapped is a physical unhealthiness, homosexuality is the same on a mental level. The comparison is a bit silly. We help the crippled and the handicapped become un-crippled and un-handicapped. I don't think you want to help homosexuals become heterosexual (my stance is of course a different question). Because of this, I don't think this really makes sense.

And then you go on. You miss the point here though. The thing is that the same argument that has been made for homosexuality easily applies to homosexuality/bestiality/incest. If we allow for the argument for homosexuality to be accepted, we allow for the others to follow suit.

"I feel XXX way. I want to be with XXX, and if they want to be with me, who are you to stop me?"
XXX=A man, my sister, three different women.

In essence, you are saying that incest, polygamy (I don't want this to turn into an argument for animal rights, so I'm just going to throw bestiality out of the window, though I still think there are a lot of possibilities for that argument) should also be legalized.

I'd just like you to agree or disagree with that before I present my argument as to why allowing incest and polygamy to be legalized in the form of marriage is an asinine sentiment.

I don't think you bothered to mull over that point adequately.

The fact that society has not legalized homosexual marriage means that the majority of people did not vote for legalization of homosexual marriage, meaning that the majority of people are against legalization of homosexual marriage. Laws can be changed. However, at this time, seeing as society does not want legalization of homosexual marriage, this law should not be changed.

The survival of humanity with homosexuality was brought up as a point against Elric and Aister's (majority fluff) argument that our society will become stagnant or something like that. Don't scramble my words.

There are several reasons why they shouldn't receive equal treatment.

The first is that while everyone accepts heterosexual marriage, the majority do not accept homosexual marriage. Seeing as marriage provides benefits from the state, and the state's money is from the people, the majority of people is then forced to give up money to the state to support something that the people do not support.

The second is that allowing homosexual marriage fundamentally alters our culture in a way that does not reflect the culture of the majority, and thus the culture that should prevail.

You go on to talk about reproduction. I think what you did there could be aptly summarized by "creating your own argument and then smashing it to the ground." So a bit like playing with yourself?

And why is marriage proof? Oh right, because it legally binds you to the other. And why do you want to be legally bound to the other? Oh right, so that the system can provide you with benefits. See: point 1 above.