Either gay marriage or no marriage.

Page 4 of 6 [ 95 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Mamselle
Snowy Owl

Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 131

11 Jan 2014, 2:52 pm

appletheclown wrote:

mds_02 wrote:

You don't have to fear them, nor hate them to meet the definition of homophobic.

Merriam-Webster wrote:

HOMOPHOBIA: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

You have an aversion to them. You advocate discriminating against them by not allowing them to marry. And you said "I can't say I have a reason" so that aversion, and that support for discrimination against them is clearly irrational.

You don't get to change the definitions of words to suit you.

Prove homosexuality is right.

Prove it's wrong. You can't. Some people are gay, some people are straight, some people are bi. If we spent less time worrying about who's shtupping who, it would be a lot better world.

Another thing. You seem to think that homosexuality is a behavior. It's not. It's something you ARE, not something you DO. I'm straight, and except for an occasional date with an old friend-with-benefits, I'm celibate right now. I don't lose my sexuality just because it's not being expressed. I'd be straight even if I were a virgin who'd never been with a man.

appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

11 Jan 2014, 2:53 pm

mds_02 wrote:

appletheclown wrote:

It isn't morally neutral. Sex is one of the things most capable of being a moral issue there is. Murder is less controversial.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Either way, the gender of the person you are attracted to is morally neutral.

How?

_________________
comedic burp

Mamselle
Snowy Owl

Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 131

11 Jan 2014, 2:53 pm

Ganondox wrote:

I'm only going to tackle the last point because I only need to find a single counter example to proof the initial claim false. Here we have equal rights for people to marry with the established definition of marriage between people of opposite sexes. That is status quo. Now, there are reasons for people to want to preserve status quo in general. Wanting to preserve status quo has nothing to do with sexuality, and is thus no homophobic. Ergo, there are reasons for people to want to keep with the established definitions of marriage which aren't homophobic, and therefor the initial claim is false.

You cannot deny other people equal rights and then say you're not discriminating against them.

androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

11 Jan 2014, 2:55 pm

If I do not believe in marriage how am I discriminating?

appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

11 Jan 2014, 2:56 pm

Mamselle wrote:

appletheclown wrote:

mds_02 wrote:

You don't have to fear them, nor hate them to meet the definition of homophobic.

Merriam-Webster wrote:

HOMOPHOBIA: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Prove homosexuality is right.

Answer my question. I've already filled half this thread trying to prove it was wrong, part of it trying to be nice. You prove it is right.

_________________
comedic burp

Mamselle
Snowy Owl

Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 131

11 Jan 2014, 2:58 pm

appletheclown wrote:

Answer my question. I've already filled half this thread trying to prove it was wrong, part of it trying to be nice. You prove it is right.

You're saying it's wrong. The burden of proof is on YOU, not me. If you have an aversion to homosexuals, fine. There are plenty of kindred souls for you to hang out with in this world. What you DON'T get to do is decide for homosexuals what rights they will have, based on your aversion to them.

appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

11 Jan 2014, 2:58 pm

androbot2084 wrote:

If I do not believe in marriage how am I discriminating?

You aren't.

_________________
comedic burp

Mamselle
Snowy Owl

Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 131

11 Jan 2014, 2:59 pm

androbot2084 wrote:

If I do not believe in marriage how am I discriminating?

If you don't believe in marriage then why would you want to prevent anyone else from marrying who they choose? Again, you have the right to choose for yourself the way you will live. You don't get to choose for other people.

appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

11 Jan 2014, 3:01 pm

Mamselle wrote:

appletheclown wrote:

Answer my question. I've already filled half this thread trying to prove it was wrong, part of it trying to be nice. You prove it is right.

I don't think I need someone to tell me what I am saying. Burden of proof? This isn't lecture hall, and you are not the professor.

In this thread, I have never said "By law, Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry", I have only said I think it is wrong.

Prove it is right or don't respond.

_________________
comedic burp

Last edited by appletheclown on 11 Jan 2014, 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mds_02
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,077
Location: Los Angeles

11 Jan 2014, 3:04 pm

appletheclown wrote:

Common sense is that sex come about because their were two different genders not one organism able to sexually reproduce.
I don't have to change with the group and think evolution made sex for homosexuals. The only reason homosexuals can have orgasms is because an orgasm is heterosexual in nature. If there was no male-female to begin with there would be no orgasm, and we would still all be females who reproduce on their own.

1. This whole post is a load of nonsense.

2. The theory of evolution was never meant to explain every single behavior. The best bringing up evolution in this context will do is make me say "huh, that's interesting, how did that preference come about?" If you want to argue for discrimination against a certain group, then you have to do better than "eww, they're different" which is basically what your reasons amount to.

3. If it reproduces on it's own then it is, by definition, not female. It's not surprising that you have such backwards ideas about people's sexual preferences when you don't even seem to understand what the genders are.

_________________
If life's not beautiful without the pain,
well I'd just rather never ever even see beauty again.
Well as life gets longer, awful feels softer.
And it feels pretty soft to me.

Modest Mouse - The View

Mamselle
Snowy Owl

Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 131

11 Jan 2014, 3:11 pm

appletheclown wrote:

Mamselle wrote:

appletheclown wrote:

Answer my question. I've already filled half this thread trying to prove it was wrong, part of it trying to be nice. You prove it is right.

It is right because the homosexual friends and relatives I have who have the acceptance of their loved ones are happy and thriving whether they are in relationships or not. It is right because people are born to love who they love, and just because they have a different orientation than I do does not mean they should be discriminated against.

If you will only believe "proof" comes out of some religious book, I can't help you there. I'm Jewish, so the New Testament isn't exactly my strong suit.

And you can't cling to the Old Testament for "proof" either because a lot of things condemned in the old testament, like wearing red garments or eating bacon and shrimp scampi and fruit from trees less than five years old, are not considered hanging offenses anymore. However, from other people who ARE familiar with the New Testament I have learned that Jesus never spoke a single word condemning homosexuality. In fact, the things he said about marriage strongly favor the argument that he hated DIVORCE. So why is that legal?

appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

11 Jan 2014, 3:17 pm

mds_02 wrote:

appletheclown wrote:

1. Your first point is as irrational as you think I am.

2. The theory of evolution should explain everything in the science of biology. If not, don't tell me emotions are just my brain and call yourself an honest man.

3. If we were all once female then this asexual reptile is the 'female' we once were, not those irrelevant developmental fascinations.
If I don't know what genders are I would probably not exist.

_________________
comedic burp

mds_02
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,077
Location: Los Angeles

11 Jan 2014, 3:23 pm

Quote:

I've already filled half this thread trying to prove it was wrong, part of it trying to be nice

no you have not. You came in bitching about how you didn't like the fact that the word "homophobe" described you and tried to change its definition. Then you said outright that you don't know why you dislike homosexuality. Then you spouted some gibberish about evolution.

Quote:

I don't think I need someone to tell me what I am saying.

If the above quote is what you think you've done in this thread then, yeah, you do need someone to tell you what you're saying.

Quote:

Burden of proof? This isn't lecture hall, and you are not the professor.

...

Prove it is right or don't respond.

And this I just found funny.

mds_02
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,077
Location: Los Angeles

11 Jan 2014, 3:25 pm

appletheclown wrote:

3. If we were all once female then this asexual reptile is the 'female' we once were, not those irrelevant developmental fascinations.
If I don't know what genders are I would probably not exist.

This is the second time in just a couple hours where your argument hinged on you being able to change the definitions of words.

I'm done with that s**t.

appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

11 Jan 2014, 3:28 pm

Mamselle wrote:

appletheclown wrote:

Mamselle wrote:

appletheclown wrote:

Answer my question. I've already filled half this thread trying to prove it was wrong, part of it trying to be nice. You prove it is right.

First of all this has nothing to do with divorce.Jesus hated it because of the children. They would suffer.
He said a man and a woman shall be become one flesh. Doesn't sound like he supported it at all. If he supported it, he would have said so, because it is pretty important.

Don't tell me I can't quote the Old Testament when you don't believe in what it says to condemn.

_________________
comedic burp

appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

11 Jan 2014, 3:33 pm

mds_02 wrote:

appletheclown wrote:

3. If we were all once female then this asexual reptile is the 'female' we once were, not those irrelevant developmental fascinations.
If I don't know what genders are I would probably not exist.

This is the second time in just a couple hours where your argument hinged on you being able to change the definitions of words.

I'm done with that sh**.

Do you hate that females exist? I was pointing out asexual organisms don't have orgasms. Only because of the female gender can we have orgasms.

_________________
comedic burp

Page 4 of 6 [ 95 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

Either gay marriage or no marriage. Post Reply New Topic

Either gay marriage or no marriage.