Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 7:27:55 GMT 5
CrossI'm talking about the type of marriage when all that you own belongs to your partner as well which is silly, no reason to do it at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by An Goldish Jade on Mar 1, 2016 12:53:01 GMT 5
Clearly one have made an wise comment,on the first page, it is undeniable that such behavior is against fundamental human behavior, and is an obvious Anti-Normal behaviour
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 1, 2016 14:40:51 GMT 5
How is anti-normal behavior identified? By the fact that a minority practices it? Also, "fundamental human behavior" too much sounds like an appeal to nature to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Mar 1, 2016 15:53:13 GMT 5
How is anti-normal behavior identified? By the fact that a minority practices it? Also, "fundamental human behavior" too much sounds like an appeal to nature to me. not that it matters many species spanning many genera exhibit homosexual behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by An Goldish Jade on Mar 2, 2016 13:59:33 GMT 5
You can try to clear wash it by claiming I am "attacking minority" as much as you want, thought I would like an evidence to show, that the fundamental animal behavior is for two of the same gender to practice disease transmitting, instead of the opposite gender, giving birth to increase the number of its species, anyway I have much important then be naive, and daydream somethings become wise, so I will stop wasting time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Mar 2, 2016 14:37:46 GMT 5
.....what?
|
|
full
Junior Member
Posts: 104 
|
Post by full on Mar 2, 2016 18:25:33 GMT 5
You can try to clear wash it by claiming I am "attacking minority" as much as you want, thought I would like an evidence to show, that the fundamental animal behavior is for two of the same gender to practice disease transmitting, instead of the opposite gender, giving birth to increase the number of its species, anyway I have much important then be naive, and daydream somethings become wise, so I will stop wasting time. Animals of various species engage in homosexual behaviors, many of which serve a real fundamental purpose, Albatross will readily form same sex pairs if one mate dies in order to ensure the chick's survival, Bonobos have inter sex relations frequently, it's a form of bonding and helps reduce tension in the troop, which by extension reduces stress and the need for physical conflict. But examples in the wild really shouldn't matter, some people are attracted to the same gender, what's wrong with that? |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 2, 2016 20:44:52 GMT 5
You can try to clear wash it by claiming I am "attacking minority" as much as you want, thought I would like an evidence to show, that the fundamental animal behavior is for two of the same gender to practice disease transmitting, instead of the opposite gender, giving birth to increase the number of its species, anyway I have much important then be naive, and daydream somethings become wise, so I will stop wasting time. Calm down dude, I was just asking for how "anti-normal" behavior is identified (or why it is bad), I was not trying to attack you. |
|
|
|
Post by An Goldish Jade on Mar 3, 2016 13:48:37 GMT 5
It seems that those Anti-Normal things are thinking that they are superior then normal ones, if an normal person finds an partner, no one(including those things) will say the person was born to choose that partner, but if you say those things are the same(by saying they not born that way), then you get attacked,and could you name an method this type of malicious behavior could benefit society? Since they cause unbalance in gender ratio that is suitable for reproduction, as well as giving vectors to disease, there is part about society that cannot be "debated" thought some could be debated, just like there is part of modern politics,history,science which only reactionist will "debate" about.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 3, 2016 18:58:01 GMT 5
It seems that those Anti-Normal things are thinking that they are superior then normal ones, Unnecessary generalization, but at least thank you for making clear what you mean. but now I at least know what I mean. if an normal person finds an partner, no one(including those things) will say the person was born to choose that partner, but if you say those things are the same(by saying they not born that way), then you get attacked, This again rather goes against the behavior of the supporters than the thing itself. I do not deny that there are some "heterophobic" nuts, but I believe most who think sexuality is heritable will apply that kind of thinking to heterosexuals and those who think it isn't will mostly apply that kind of thinking to homosexuals as well and could you name an method this type of malicious behavior could benefit society? How do childless heterosexual couples benefit society? Most reproduction-based arguments can also be used to ban infertile people from marrying. Moreover, I believe this form of utilitarianism (what benefits?) is no good ethical system. How is such a system applied to retarded people? Since they cause unbalance in gender ratio that is suitable for reproduction, OK, this is now going well beyond marriage or not, it really sounds like you try to criminalize homosexuality altogether. The imbalance would only be an issue if homosexuality was limited to one gender which is not the case. as well as giving vectors to disease While HIV is indeed disproportionally prevalent among gay men, it is still possible for them to avoid it. Moreover, if we were to criminalize all that can spread HIV, we may also criminalize homophobia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Efforts_to_combat_homophobiaP.S. Because you sound so aggressive, I want to make clear that I don't have any personal problem with you or so, so I'd advice you not to take anything I write personally. |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Mar 3, 2016 21:23:04 GMT 5
It seems that those Anti-Normal things are thinking that they are superior then normal ones, if an normal person finds an partner, no one(including those things) will say the person was born to choose that partner, but if you say those things are the same(by saying they not born that way), then you get attacked,and could you name an method this type of malicious behavior could benefit society? Since they cause unbalance in gender ratio that is suitable for reproduction, as well as giving vectors to disease, there is part about society that cannot be "debated" thought some could be debated, just like there is part of modern politics,history,science which only reactionist will "debate" about. not only does this make you sound to oaggressive for what was a passive conversation, but you also come across as very ignorant. Not such a great start for a new member. |
|
Cross
Junior Member
The biggest geek this side of the galaxy. Avatar is Dakotaraptor steini from Saurian.
Posts: 266
|
Post by Cross on Mar 4, 2016 14:19:58 GMT 5
Alright, before I start this post, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not writing this to argue for or against gay marriage, but merely to focus on the argument being used, and not the subject specifically.
So Creature386 said earlier :
Childless heterosexual couples are the exception, not the rule. I.E Marriage is often used to promote either breeding, or mostly sex for pleasure. Pro-gay marriage supporters use the latter form of sex to argue that, they too deserve to be on the same status as married heterosexual couples since married heterosexual couples often use sex also for pleasure rather than breeding. Whereas anti-gay marriage people argue that the point of marriage is to promote breeding. A childless heterosexual couple still has the potential to breed when they desire, unlike homosexual couples. So our stance on this subject is always based on either sex for reproduction or sex for recreational purposes.
My personal opinion is : If a homosexual couple wishes to spend their lives together like a typical married heterosexual couple, no one is stopping them from doing so. I merely think that marriage is unnecessary in the case of homosexual couples since the point of marriage is to encourage reproduction and to ensure that the biological children are legally protected and cared for by the parents who are bound by the law of marriage. Since a homosexual couple is incapable of reproduction, then marriage in that case would be superfluous/pointless since they can simply spend their lives together without getting married. The whole confusion/debate on this subject is due to the fact that marriage is often defined as a "status" that causes the illusion that married couples are superior to non-married couples, but this isn't the case IMO. The reason a lot of people don't encourage marriage in homosexual couples is because it's pointless in this sense. Being happy with your partner and having recreational sex is just a biproduct/inevitable result of marriage, not the reason. So I'm not gonna judge or condemn any homosexual people for this, all I'm saying is that if "love" as in bonding and recreational sex is what you're after, then there's really no point in having to get married. The reason some of us don't encourage/support gay marriage is not because we're denying them the right to be happy with their partner, but because they're kinda missing the whole point of marriage and it really makes no difference to their relationships before or after they get married. I.E You couldn't reproduce then, and now that you're married, you still can't reproduce. So what was the point?
Get my drift? I have absolutely no personal/negative feelings towards homosexuals. I'm just sharing my understanding on the point of marriage here.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 4, 2016 18:21:36 GMT 5
Childless heterosexual couples are the exception, not the rule. Sure, but marginal cases must be taken into account in political discussions (which is why no democracy is complete without minority rights). Jade's argument simply reminded me too much of eugenics where the "worth" of an individual is calculated via their usefulness. I.E Marriage is often used to promote either breeding, or mostly sex for pleasure. Given that premarital sex is not condemned in most countries where gay-supporters live in, the point of a marriage argued for is probably creating a family bond which can also work very well with adopted children (and orphanages are not exactly empty). A childless heterosexual couple still has the potential to breed when they desire, unlike homosexual couples. Not always, some are infertile and stuff like artificial fertilization is not affordable for everyone. Get my drift? I have absolutely no personal/negative feelings towards homosexuals. I'm just sharing my understanding on the point of marriage here. And I can live with that one (as it at least includes nothing that sounds like criminalizing homosexuality), as homosexuals in most European countries that "only" have civil unions can get along nicely, the marriage step is mostly symbolical, although the symbolical aspect already has enough potential to fuel some hot discussions.  |
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Mar 4, 2016 23:13:42 GMT 5
Alright, before I start this post, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not writing this to argue for or against gay marriage, but merely to focus on the argument being used, and not the subject specifically. So Creature386 said earlier : Childless heterosexual couples are the exception, not the rule. I.E Marriage is often used to promote either breeding, or mostly sex for pleasure. Pro-gay marriage supporters use the latter form of sex to argue that, they too deserve to be on the same status as married heterosexual couples since married heterosexual couples often use sex also for pleasure rather than breeding. Whereas anti-gay marriage people argue that the point of marriage is to promote breeding. A childless heterosexual couple still has the potential to breed when they desire, unlike homosexual couples. So our stance on this subject is always based on either sex for reproduction or sex for recreational purposes. My personal opinion is : If a homosexual couple wishes to spend their lives together like a typical married heterosexual couple, no one is stopping them from doing so. I merely think that marriage is unnecessary in the case of homosexual couples since the point of marriage is to encourage reproduction and to ensure that the biological children are legally protected and cared for by the parents who are bound by the law of marriage. Since a homosexual couple is incapable of reproduction, then marriage in that case would be superfluous/pointless since they can simply spend their lives together without getting married. The whole confusion/debate on this subject is due to the fact that marriage is often defined as a "status" that causes the illusion that married couples are superior to non-married couples, but this isn't the case IMO. The reason a lot of people don't encourage marriage in homosexual couples is because it's pointless in this sense. Being happy with your partner and having recreational sex is just a biproduct/inevitable result of marriage, not the reason. So I'm not gonna judge or condemn any homosexual people for this, all I'm saying is that if "love" as in bonding and recreational sex is what you're after, then there's really no point in having to get married. The reason some of us don't encourage/support gay marriage is not because we're denying them the right to be happy with their partner, but because they're kinda missing the whole point of marriage and it really makes no difference to their relationships before or after they get married. I.E You couldn't reproduce then, and now that you're married, you still can't reproduce. So what was the point? Get my drift? I have absolutely no personal/negative feelings towards homosexuals. I'm just sharing my understanding on the point of marriage here. What are you babbling about? The original purpose of marriage was and in many places still is to promote greater ties between two families. People are not pandas we need no promoting to reproduce we happily do so on our own. |
|
|
|
Post by An Goldish Jade on Mar 5, 2016 9:48:59 GMT 5
It seems that those Anti-Normal things are thinking that they are superior then normal ones, Unnecessary generalization, but at least thank you for making clear what you mean. but now I at least know what I mean. if an normal person finds an partner, no one(including those things) will say the person was born to choose that partner, but if you say those things are the same(by saying they not born that way), then you get attacked, This again rather goes against the behavior of the supporters than the thing itself. I do not deny that there are some "heterophobic" nuts, but I believe most who think sexuality is heritable will apply that kind of thinking to heterosexuals and those who think it isn't will mostly apply that kind of thinking to homosexuals as well and could you name an method this type of malicious behavior could benefit society? How do childless heterosexual couples benefit society? Most reproduction-based arguments can also be used to ban infertile people from marrying. Moreover, I believe this form of utilitarianism (what benefits?) is no good ethical system. How is such a system applied to retarded people? Since they cause unbalance in gender ratio that is suitable for reproduction, OK, this is now going well beyond marriage or not, it really sounds like you try to criminalize homosexuality altogether. The imbalance would only be an issue if homosexuality was limited to one gender which is not the case. as well as giving vectors to disease While HIV is indeed disproportionally prevalent among gay men, it is still possible for them to avoid it. Moreover, if we were to criminalize all that can spread HIV, we may also criminalize homophobia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Efforts_to_combat_homophobiaP.S. Because you sound so aggressive, I want to make clear that I don't have any personal problem with you or so, so I'd advice you not to take anything I write personally. Sees some very interesting comments, one very senseless attempt is comparing, infertile to Anti-Normal, thought because an actual answer for "born that way" do not appear, then it means no, they are not born that way, and it means that point is not even worth answering! As for others, the last one reminds me of Jap and Germany propaganda in WW2, and if the comment of "AID most commonly transmitted in Africa thought normal interaction" appears, then it seems that one thinks being infected by smallpox in USA is safe, so the one who thinks so should go ahead and catch smallpox to prove it is safe without medical treatment in USA, and I will take the "P.S" as an amusement. |
|
