Member List
Calendar
F.A.Q.
Search
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  
 

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 » Other Boards » Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #76  
Old 07-22-2011, 12:10 AM
Teddiursa of the Sky's Avatar
Teddiursa of the Sky Offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Terseland.
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Teddiursa of the Sky
Default Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
The situation is infinitely more complicated than you make it out to be, and although I do not definitely disagree with you (I am uncertain as to what is right myself) I do not think you comprehend the intricacies of the problem. A "do as thou wilt" attitude towards the actions of others is certainly easy, but it is horrifically unrealistic and can only be detrimental to the human race. Society, after all, does not consist of isolated bubbles of human interaction. Just because there is no clear victim from a crime, does not mean that it doesn't hurt.
I agree with you. However, if you are uncertain as to what is right, simply ask if you'd do it.
__________________
Latest Test/Work in Production:
  #77  
Old 07-22-2011, 12:53 AM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pe2k Voices View Post
I agree with you. However, if you are uncertain as to what is right, simply ask if you'd do it.
That's an insufficient method; there are things that I'd never do, but it's not because they're necessarily wrong. Just like I would never, ever, marry another dude, but that doesn't mean that homosexuals are morally wrong. The moral rightness of an action, imo, must be determined by a balance between the individual benefit and the societal benefit. For example, murder is an action with a great individual benefit but a horrific societal cost, while euthanizing the disabled has societal benefit but an enormous individual cost. Finding the balance is key, but there's no simple way to do that. In this case, I see that homosexual marriage has individual benefit but no great social cost that I can think of, while incest and polygamy have clear social costs (in the case of incest, even a evolutionary cost) alongside individual benefit.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."
  #78  
Old 07-22-2011, 12:56 AM
Master Zorua's Avatar
Master Zorua Offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Where you least expect me to be...
Posts: 2,612
Default Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?

My view on the matter is this: As long as there's no blood relation, or as long as they are both of the legal age, there should be no issue with gays getting married. If you think about it, it helps the overpopulation problems, since gays cannot have children without outside intervention (Artificial insemination or impregnating/becoming impregnated by a third party), and most of them are very good-hearted people. I think the real issues surrounding marriage are homophobia and unloading personal religious beliefs on others. If anything, these shouldn't be issues at all. Focus on things that Americans really care about: jobs, a balanced budget, cutting government spending, placing and enforcing term limits on politicians, boarder security, getting politicians to focus on representing us, not their own party agendas. These are VASTLY more important than whether or not Joe and Jim or Lilly and Farah who love each other very much should or should not get marred because they are of the same gender.
__________________
  #79  
Old 07-22-2011, 01:16 AM
Teddiursa of the Sky's Avatar
Teddiursa of the Sky Offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Terseland.
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Teddiursa of the Sky
Default Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Zorua View Post
My view on the matter is this: As long as there's no blood relation, or as long as they are both of the legal age, there should be no issue with gays getting married. If you think about it, it helps the overpopulation problems, since gays cannot have children without outside intervention (Artificial insemination or impregnating/becoming impregnated by a third party), and most of them are very good-hearted people. I think the real issues surrounding marriage are homophobia and unloading personal religious beliefs on others. If anything, these shouldn't be issues at all. Focus on things that Americans really care about: jobs, a balanced budget, cutting government spending, placing and enforcing term limits on politicians, boarder security, getting politicians to focus on representing us, not their own party agendas. These are VASTLY more important than whether or not Joe and Jim or Lilly and Farah who love each other very much should or should not get marred because they are of the same gender.
How does letting gays marry help the overpopulation problems? They are gay regardless of marriage or not, and so will abstain from sex with the opposite gender even without marriage. It helps no population control.

The States are already taking care of it. New York, for example, allows gay marriage. Iowa, Massachusetts, Maryland are others.
__________________
Latest Test/Work in Production:
  #80  
Old 07-22-2011, 01:19 AM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,471
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
Any children that come out of an incestuous marriage are likely to be hurt, for one, by a host of congenital birth defects that may even cause death are certainly pain and suffering. After all, incest is taboo in almost every single culture and there isn't a single major religion that speaks well of it, strongly indicating that that taboo stems from the fundamental biology of humans and is embedded deep within our social psychology. In short, incest is a crime in which humanity is the victim, and this is something that is unconsciously recognized across the entire world.
I never said anything about children. There is, in fact, a significant risk to any child that is born from such a union (although they are relatively rare in cousin couples, I believe the percentage I saw quoted was around 3%), so prohibiting incestuous couples from having children, I wouldn't have a problem with. But why should that mean they shouldn't be allowed to marry? Marriage and children aren't necessarily hand in hand anymore, you can be married and not have children.

Quote:
As for polygamy, does it not come across as manipulation to you at all? According to your logic, victims of kidnapping who exhibit Stockholm syndrome should be allowed to live with their kidnappers for the rest of their lives rather than return to their families. When it comes to human wants, nothing is clear-cut. There are a host of reasons for inducing polygamy other than romantic love that could all be seen as manipulations on part of the man that are equally bad as Stockholm syndrome. Oh, and let's not mention the fact that by its very nature it objectifies women and reduces their status as equal to men due to the differences in how men and women perceive romantic relationships. Wives become a status symbol, the same as a big house or a nice car. In this way polygamy is much like prostitution.
My logic doesn't apply to victims of Stockholm Syndrome. They've had a psychological reaction to being taken against their will, and the kidnapper committed a crime and should be sent to jail. There isn't any connection between that and polygamy, and there are plenty of reasons for inducing marriage other than romantic love that could be seen as manipulations on the part of the man whether it's polygamous or monogamous.

And objectifying women? I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that women didn't get to choose who they marry. It wouldn't change the ability of a woman to decline a marriage offer, or to divorce her husband. And let's not forget that a woman could also marry multiple men as well.

Frankly, I don't like incest or polygamy. I find the former disgusting, and not just from a blood standpoint (I've got three female friends I consider sisters and the thought of anything like that with them disgusts me severely), and the latter I just don't see the point in. But it's not my place to say that people can't any more than it's yours, or anyone else's.

Master Zorua: Brofist me my friend.
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.
  #81  
Old 07-22-2011, 01:24 AM
Teddiursa of the Sky's Avatar
Teddiursa of the Sky Offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Terseland.
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Teddiursa of the Sky
Default Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Fedora View Post
I never said anything about children. There is, in fact, a significant risk to any child that is born from such a union (although they are relatively rare in cousin couples, I believe the percentage I saw quoted was around 3%), so prohibiting incestuous couples from having children, I wouldn't have a problem with. But why should that mean they shouldn't be allowed to marry? Marriage and children aren't necessarily hand in hand anymore, you can be married and not have children.
Did you know that there have been studies proving that there is no genetic relation to incest? It is because of psychological dispositions that a sister and a brother (for instance) would become attached to each other romantically.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Fedora View Post
My logic doesn't apply to victims of Stockholm Syndrome. They've had a psychological reaction to being taken against their will, and the kidnapper committed a crime and should be sent to jail. There isn't any connection between that and polygamy, and there are plenty of reasons for inducing marriage other than romantic love that could be seen as manipulations on the part of the man whether it's polygamous or monogamous.

And objectifying women? I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that women didn't get to choose who they marry. It wouldn't change the ability of a woman to decline a marriage offer, or to divorce her husband. And let's not forget that a woman could also marry multiple men as well.

Frankly, I don't like incest or polygamy. I find the former disgusting, and not just from a blood standpoint (I've got three female friends I consider sisters and the thought of anything like that with them disgusts me severely), and the latter I just don't see the point in. But it's not my place to say that people can't any more than it's yours, or anyone else's.

Master Zorua: Brofist me my friend.
Matters not whether or not your logic applies to that situation or not. The point still stands.
__________________
Latest Test/Work in Production:
  #82  
Old 07-22-2011, 01:36 AM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Fedora View Post
I never said anything about children. There is, in fact, a significant risk to any child that is born from such a union (although they are relatively rare in cousin couples, I believe the percentage I saw quoted was around 3%), so prohibiting incestuous couples from having children, I wouldn't have a problem with. But why should that mean they shouldn't be allowed to marry? Marriage and children aren't necessarily hand in hand anymore, you can be married and not have children.
Marriage promotes having children. Do I really have to say that? Married couples tend to have kids more than unmarried couples. You can't simply ban couples from having children, but you can make it less likely by making them unable to marry.

Quote:
My logic doesn't apply to victims of Stockholm Syndrome. They've had a psychological reaction to being taken against their will, and the kidnapper committed a crime and should be sent to jail. There isn't any connection between that and polygamy, and there are plenty of reasons for inducing marriage other than romantic love that could be seen as manipulations on the part of the man whether it's polygamous or monogamous.
So, why not "psychological reactions" towards in-life situations that lead to someone getting married? Could be anything: money, grief, an older man manipulating the naive and innocent feelings of a younger woman that doesn't understand what's happening, etc. etc.

Quote:
And objectifying women? I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that women didn't get to choose who they marry. It wouldn't change the ability of a woman to decline a marriage offer, or to divorce her husband. And let's not forget that a woman could also marry multiple men as well.
Mmm, sorry, but this issue isn't really up for debate. Whether it's a Mormon sect or an ancient Chinese emperor, polygamy is ALWAYS associated with women being of lower status than men. And you know what? Women have been able to choose who they marry throughout history. That didn't stop Victorian era dames from being seen as possessions of their husbands. It sure wouldn't stop it now. The women being able to choose who they marry has never, ever prevented women from being objectified; our own country's history is sufficient evidence of that. Also, the way women and men view romantic relationships is different. A man that bangs lots of chicks is viewed as a stud, a woman that bangs lots of guys is viewed as a ****. Women desire to have relationships with multiple men less than men desire to have relationships with multiple women. So even a "fair" polygamy allowance would still result in mostly men having multiple wives.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."
  #83  
Old 07-22-2011, 02:06 AM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,471
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pe2k Voices View Post
Did you know that there have been studies proving that there is no genetic relation to incest? It is because of psychological dispositions that a sister and a brother (for instance) would become attached to each other romantically.
Actually, fun fact: there is no biological opposition to incest. The only thing remotely close is called the Westermarck effect, which influences how we see people we grow up around and who grow up around us. It's extremely unlikely for anyone you get to know or who gets to know you in the first six years of life to end up romantically, or even physically, attracted to you. Meanwhile, it's actually been shown that brothers and sisters who met later in life are very likely to be attracted to each other. It's called genetic sexual attraction.


Quote:
Matters not whether or not your logic applies to that situation or not. The point still stands.
Lusankya was arguing that my logic, that what a person wants is what matters, means that people with Stockholm Syndrome should be allowed to stay with their kidnappers if they want. I was refuting that point. My logic was not that what a person wants is what matters, what matters is that people aren't hurt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
Marriage promotes having children. Do I really have to say that? Married couples tend to have kids more than unmarried couples. You can't simply ban couples from having children, but you can make it less likely by making them unable to marry.
So you can't ban certain kinds of couples from having children, but you can ban certain kinds of couples from getting married and enjoying the various non-harmful legal benefits that comes with marriage?

Quote:
So, why not "psychological reactions" towards in-life situations that lead to someone getting married? Could be anything: money, grief, an older man manipulating the naive and innocent feelings of a younger woman that doesn't understand what's happening, etc. etc.
And that doesn't happen without polygamy?

Quote:
Mmm, sorry, but this issue isn't really up for debate. Whether it's a Mormon sect or an ancient Chinese emperor, polygamy is ALWAYS associated with women being of lower status than men. And you know what? Women have been able to choose who they marry throughout history. That didn't stop Victorian era dames from being seen as possessions of their husbands. It sure wouldn't stop it now. The women being able to choose who they marry has never, ever prevented women from being objectified; our own country's history is sufficient evidence of that.
Your assumption is that that's linked with the practice of polygamy, but it's nothing to do with polygamy, it has always been related to the culture at large. The culture of ancient China, the culture of those Mormon sects, and the culture of every society that has ever objectified women whether it engaged in polygamy or not. The fact is, those societies didn't see women as people in the first place. They saw them as property who were only there to have babies and make me a sammich. Our society is perfectly aware that women are people. Unlike in the past, women have legal rights, they have the ability to live on their own without being wives, they have every right to divorce a man and live on their own if they get fed up with him, as they undoubtedly would if they weren't comfortable being in a polygamous relationship.

Quote:
Also, the way women and men view romantic relationships is different. A man that bangs lots of chicks is viewed as a stud, a woman that bangs lots of guys is viewed as a ****. Women desire to have relationships with multiple men less than men desire to have relationships with multiple women. So even a "fair" polygamy allowance would still result in mostly men having multiple wives.
And your point is... because my point is that women will be just as free to objectify men in exactly the same way. You are right, they probably won't for the most part, but they can, they're perfectly free to.

Oh, and that double standard needs to die a painful death anyway. The only way to do that is to completely and utterly ignore it.
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.
  #84  
Old 07-22-2011, 02:30 AM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Fedora View Post
Actually, fun fact: there is no biological opposition to incest. The only thing remotely close is called the Westermarck effect, which influences how we see people we grow up around and who grow up around us. It's extremely unlikely for anyone you get to know or who gets to know you in the first six years of life to end up romantically, or even physically, attracted to you. Meanwhile, it's actually been shown that brothers and sisters who met later in life are very likely to be attracted to each other. It's called genetic sexual attraction.
Considering that in prehistoric times the people you are most likely to know in your first six years of life are probably very closely related to you, it's the same deal. Evolution couldn't come up with a way to detect what genes the other person has, so it did the next best thing.

Quote:
So you can't ban certain kinds of couples from having children, but you can ban certain kinds of couples from getting married and enjoying the various non-harmful legal benefits that comes with marriage?
Banning couples from having children is physically impossible. It's an unenforceable rule without having to resort to forced sterility programs and the like. Also, this might be a good use for civil unions.

Quote:
And that doesn't happen without polygamy?
Polygamy guarantees that it will happen.

Quote:
Your assumption is that that's linked with the practice of polygamy, but it's nothing to do with polygamy, it has always been related to the culture at large. The culture of ancient China, the culture of those Mormon sects, and the culture of every society that has ever objectified women whether it engaged in polygamy or not. The fact is, those societies didn't see women as people in the first place. They saw them as property who were only there to have babies and make me a sammich. Our society is perfectly aware that women are people. Unlike in the past, women have legal rights, they have the ability to live on their own without being wives, they have every right to divorce a man and live on their own if they get fed up with him, as they undoubtedly would if they weren't comfortable being in a polygamous relationship.
And those very same cultures are the only ones that practice polygamy. If that's not a connection I don't know what is. There isn't a single significant culture that practiced polygamy without seeing women as objects. That is a simple fact, it's a 1:1 correlation. The kind of culture that breeds acceptance of polygamy is the same culture that breeds objectification of women.

Quote:
And your point is... because my point is that women will be just as free to objectify men in exactly the same way. You are right, they probably won't for the most part, but they can, they're perfectly free to.
??? Policies should be based on reality, not on some mental notion of what "should" happen. Ignoring reality doesn't change it. Women will be objectified more than men. That's practically guaranteed.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."

Last edited by Lusankya; 07-22-2011 at 02:33 AM.
  #85  
Old 07-22-2011, 04:07 PM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,471
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
Considering that in prehistoric times the people you are most likely to know in your first six years of life are probably very closely related to you, it's the same deal. Evolution couldn't come up with a way to detect what genes the other person has, so it did the next best thing.
In prehistoric times the people you are most likely to know in the first six years of life were your tribemates, whether they were family or not. Frankly, I consider it more likely a way to enforce interbreeding between tribes in order to ensure a wide gene pool, which is not the same as preventing inbreeding. Several generations down the line it's no longer inbreeding and doesn't have the same genetic risks, which if you have a large enough tribe is easy to accomplish, but you're still working in a limited gene pool.

Quote:
Banning couples from having children is physically impossible. It's an unenforceable rule without having to resort to forced sterility programs and the like. Also, this might be a good use for civil unions.
You're right, you can't ban it. You also can't ban relatives from falling in love with each other, and frankly it disgusts me that people would discriminate against a person just because of who they fell in love with. What you can do is discourage incestuous couples from having their own children and instead encourage adoption.

Oh, and civil unions without all the same rights as marriage are discriminatory, civil unions with all the same rights as marriage might as well just be marriage. Ergo, civil unions are, frankly, idiotic, unless we get rid of state sponsored marriage altogether and replace it with state sponsored civil unions entirely (which I wholeheartedly support).

Quote:
Polygamy guarantees that it will happen.
Really? I didn't know you can see the future.

Quote:
And those very same cultures are the only ones that practice polygamy. If that's not a connection I don't know what is. There isn't a single significant culture that practiced polygamy without seeing women as objects. That is a simple fact, it's a 1:1 correlation. The kind of culture that breeds acceptance of polygamy is the same culture that breeds objectification of women.
Every non-matriarchal society until recent times as breed objectification of women. In Socratic terms you see if as "if polygamy, then objectification of women," but there is no evidence of this that isn't covered by "if non-modern non-matriarchal society, then objectification of women." It would have happened with or without the polygamy, because the objectification of women came first, in all situations except arguably the Mormon sects, who had subjection and objectification of women as part of their religion from the beginning, meaning the two occurred simultaneously.

Yes, there is a 1:1 correlation. But Lus, you went and forgot the golden rule: Correlation does not equal causation.

Quote:
??? Policies should be based on reality, not on some mental notion of what "should" happen. Ignoring reality doesn't change it. Women will be objectified more than men. That's practically guaranteed.
No, they won't be guaranteed to be objectified more than men. Men will most likely engage in polygamy more than women, yes, but you're again assuming the two are one in the same, when they aren't, because there is no evidence of causation.
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.
  #86  
Old 07-22-2011, 06:02 PM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Fedora View Post
In prehistoric times the people you are most likely to know in the first six years of life were your tribemates, whether they were family or not. Frankly, I consider it more likely a way to enforce interbreeding between tribes in order to ensure a wide gene pool, which is not the same as preventing inbreeding. Several generations down the line it's no longer inbreeding and doesn't have the same genetic risks, which if you have a large enough tribe is easy to accomplish, but you're still working in a limited gene pool.
Tribemates are likely to be very closely related to you. Also, intertribal breeding would have been a rare thing. Just look at how isolated tribes in South America, or even chimpanzees live.

Quote:
You're right, you can't ban it. You also can't ban relatives from falling in love with each other, and frankly it disgusts me that people would discriminate against a person just because of who they fell in love with. What you can do is discourage incestuous couples from having their own children and instead encourage adoption.
So do you support bestiality? There has to be a line drawn somewhere on what kind of "love" can be considered moral.

Quote:
Oh, and civil unions without all the same rights as marriage are discriminatory, civil unions with all the same rights as marriage might as well just be marriage. Ergo, civil unions are, frankly, idiotic, unless we get rid of state sponsored marriage altogether and replace it with state sponsored civil unions entirely (which I wholeheartedly support).
I fail to see how it's discriminatory. This isn't like segregation based on skin color. That aside, civil unions are irrelevant to the problem.

Quote:
Really? I didn't know you can see the future.
I didn't know you can't see the past. Polygamy has never, ever occurred without discrimination against women. There's no reason to think that it ever will.

Quote:
Every non-matriarchal society until recent times as breed objectification of women. In Socratic terms you see if as "if polygamy, then objectification of women," but there is no evidence of this that isn't covered by "if non-modern non-matriarchal society, then objectification of women." It would have happened with or without the polygamy, because the objectification of women came first, in all situations except arguably the Mormon sects, who had subjection and objectification of women as part of their religion from the beginning, meaning the two occurred simultaneously.

Yes, there is a 1:1 correlation. But Lus, you went and forgot the golden rule: Correlation does not equal causation.
Whether polygamy causes discrimination or discrimination causes polygamy is irrelevant. Either way, discrimination will exist as long as polygamy exists. All the historical evidence points to the fact that polygamy is inextricably connected with discrimination. Modern cultures that practice polygamy are always discriminating against women. Likewise, modern cultures where women enjoy a higher status never practice polygamy. Trying to deny the connection, regardless of causation, is like trying to deny that the sun's rising and the coming of day aren't connected. Since polygamy is illegal in both western and eastern cultures, the burden of proof is on you to show that polygamy can occur without discrimination against women.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."

Last edited by Lusankya; 07-22-2011 at 06:05 PM.
  #87  
Old 07-25-2011, 09:45 PM
Cheerful Cherubi's Avatar
Cheerful Cherubi Offline
Photosynthesis with Viciousness
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,165
Default Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?

I'm actually openly bisexual, and many of my best friends are gay and lesbian, so yes, I think it is completely okay!
__________________
VPP WFL Trainer Record

Signature made by Foxamivalth!
  #88  
Old 07-26-2011, 12:19 AM
Sight of the Stars's Avatar
Sight of the Stars Offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Top of Mt. Everest. -shivers- Cold.
Posts: 4,043
Send a message via AIM to Sight of the Stars Send a message via Skype™ to Sight of the Stars
Default Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?

People love other people. What'sit matter? It's really nobody's business anyway, and if someone wants to have a relationship with the same gender, let them. I've got a really simple view on this matter.
__________________
.previously known as White Wolf of the Snow.
Quote:
[12:38:59 AM] GallantlyGlaceon: ...So how do we do this? XD
[12:39:20 AM] Sight of the Stars: it's nothing really big, just usually a note in your sig that's all like 'paired with soandso'
[12:39:44 AM] Sight of the Stars: just be like "SIGHT OF THE STARZ IS MAH BIZNITCH"
[12:39:57 AM] GallantlyGlaceon: XDDD
[12:39:59 AM] Sight of the Stars: and I'll be like "GALLANTLYGLACEON IS MAH HOE."
  #89  
Old 07-26-2011, 01:07 AM
Teddiursa of the Sky's Avatar
Teddiursa of the Sky Offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Terseland.
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Teddiursa of the Sky
Default Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sight of the Stars View Post
People love other people. What'sit matter? It's really nobody's business anyway, and if someone wants to have a relationship with the same gender, let them. I've got a really simple view on this matter.
While I agree with your statement. I do believe homosexuals should be able to marry. As Lusankya said. There are several things that would be considered going over the line. Incest being one of them. It is our business when society does not accept it.
__________________
Latest Test/Work in Production:
  #90  
Old 07-26-2011, 11:40 AM
-Pichu Boy-'s Avatar
-Pichu Boy- Offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The land of tea and fish 'n' chips
Posts: 3,959
Send a message via AIM to -Pichu Boy-
Default Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
I fail to see how it's discriminatory. This isn't like segregation based on skin color. That aside, civil unions are irrelevant to the problem.
Civil Unions are usually thought of as a 'lesser' kind of marriage. So, forcing homosexuals to take the 'lesser' kind of marriage is insinuating that they are 'lesser' people. So, it's discriminatory.

I also can't see how you can say civil unions are irrelevant to the discussion. Most places only have civil unions available to gay couples, so they're completely relevant.

Also, I've got too short an attention span, so how exactly did incest and beastiality come up in the discussion? Not that I'm surprised, someone always seems to make that comparison, but I'm intrigued who brought it up and why.
__________________
URPG | ASB
MK + Trainer17 = Evil twins | MK + Leo = BFFs
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: AlienSector.com