Well with any luck the gay people will be selected against and disapear then i wont have to listen to any more whining about how they need more parades and how bath houses should be legal
I agree with it (pro same-sex marriages)
I disagree with it
not sure
Well with any luck the gay people will be selected against and disapear then i wont have to listen to any more whining about how they need more parades and how bath houses should be legal
How do you breathe without choking yourself on your own saliva?Originally posted by ZerOrDie
Well with any luck the gay people will be selected against and disapear then i wont have to listen to any more whining about how they need more parades and how bath houses should be legal
....and you think that currently the 'ethical' thing will swing it? Are you thinking in 200 yrs everybody will agree?Originally posted by -KEN-
Maybe legally, but not ethically. 200 years ago a majority of the people in the world thought that slavery was A-OK, but now we realize that that isn't right.
Thats a long time.......
Such is life.
Of course not. Emancipation was in the mid-late 1800s, and by then the majority of the world had realized that slavery wasn't a good thing. But even today some people are bigoted and racist toward black people. Then again, you said MAJORITY, and I would certainly say that today a majority of the people think that slavery was a bad thing.Originally posted by Fountain
....and you think that currently the 'ethical' thing will swing it? Are you thinking in 200 yrs everybody will agree?
Thats a long time.......
Anyway, back on topic, if marriage is rewarded by the state, AND marriages can be preformed buy a judge, then I don't see how religious ideals can even apply anymore. Government recognition of marriage has taken it out of the hands of the religions.
I would like to thank all participants for keeping the flaming down to a minimum. This will allow us to discuss this topic more calmly.
No, tradition is not irrelevant because that is where the meaning is. Marriage is a name when a man and a woman will live the rest of their lives together with a family. Like DavidP said, it is a responsibility. If gays want to get 'married' they can find their own term.Clyde
Traditional is supremely irrelevent. Every social injustice around the world is "intended, traditionally", perhaps we should applaud the Muslim countries who stone people to death for pre-marrital sex as sticking to tradition.
My arguments are not poor. They are quite sound if you are willing to understand them.Clyde
From a poor argument to an even worse one, why should they care? Uhmm what matters is that THEY DO, not whether or not you can understand why.
Because salutations' define gender, not sexual preference.Clyde
Why do you care so much what they call themselves?
It is rather simple, actually. When a child is conditioned in a specific environment it is more likely for them to follow it. The media uses these types of ideas all of the time. They condition your thoughs on a topic from a single perspective. This is no different. I can elaborate on this in great detail if you would like, just ask.Clyde
They warp children's perspective huh, what evidence or reasoning do you have to support your claim?
No, I am not. Nor is there evidence to support it. Your claim is not only incorrect but feeble, too.Clyde
Yea, except you are.
Gender is defined by the reproductive organs of an entity - the physical form. It has nothing to do with sexual preference.Clyde
So he's a retard, right.... and you disagree with his stance because......... oh wait yea your bigoted sorry yea that's it.
If someone is into beastiality with an animal, would that render them the same species as their target?
I have explained this above. If you require more information then I will be happy to explain my reasoning behind this viewpoint.Clyde
What reasons do you have for believing that children brought up by a homosexual couple will be anything other than slightly more tolerant?
You may be correct. Homosexuals may not have control over their emotions and may truly be attracted to the same sex. This is why they should be able to seek help for this.Clyde
But it's not a personal "preference" or a lifestyle "choice", it's biology.
No, it is not natural. However, the term is being used quite loosely in this discussion, as DavidP said. By the term natural I am referring to it as the physical, original, use. For instance: It is unnatural to be born with 6 toes, it is unnatural to be born with 3 ears, it is unnatural (not physically, realistically, intended to be) to be attracted to a jelly-fish.Clyde
Why isn't it "ok"? And it certainly IS "natural", claiming otherwise is merely ignorance.
You see, this is where the term 'natural' probably caused mis-understanding. You are born black, just as you may be born homosexual. However, there is a very key difference. Physically you may be born black, but mentally you are born homosexual - which is unintentional to either case but one is a disorder, the other is not.Clyde
Personally i believe that being black is a malfunction and that people should be able to get medical treatment for it.
When a child is born blind it can still learn to read and write. If a child is born deaf it can still learn to communicate. If a child is born without an arm they can still drive a car. If a child is born with down-syndrome it does not make them any less important to their parents or loved-ones. The people who have these disorders learn to live with them and appreciate life, none-the-less, and should always be accepted by society. Being a homosexual is no different. They are born a way that is not mentally normal, and should not be discredited for something that they simply cannot change. Never the less, they should be helped with the problem if they want it - just as the blind, deaf, and mentally handi-capped are helped, and just as the physically-disabled are given equipment to make life easier (such as driving equipment, wheelchairs, etc.), so should homosexuals be given an option to correct this perhaps naturally-occurring error.
My opinion is not similar to any of those leaders(BTW, you forgot Stalin). I do not believe in killing, harming, or interrogating homosexuals, nor do I believe in causing them to flee from their homes. I fail to see the similarities between me and these leaders.H&R
Xei, I respect that you live in a free country and are because of that entitled to your opinion even if to me it is utterly abhorrent up their with the opinions of Adolf, Osama, Idi and Pol sorry if any personal heroes have been overlooked.
Then these animals obviously have the same disorder.major_small
homosexuality is actually natural... it's seen in animals pretty often...
ZerOrDie has brought up a good point. So now we not only have to give them the rights to marriage, to give irregular, eccentric reproductive rights, but we also have to watch the few that believe that they have the right to spend government money so they can shove their homosexuality in everyones' face.ZerOrDie
Well with any luck the gay people will be selected against and disapear then i wont have to listen to any more whining about how they need more parades and how bath houses should be legal.
To sum it all up:
Homosexuals should be accepted by society. However, it does not mean that they should be given additional rights or privileges beyond the norm. Also, even by accepting them it does not mean that we have to give them everything that they want, such as marriage (they can still live equally fulfilling, non-interfered, homosexual lives without it).
"What are you after - the vague post of the week award?" - Salem
IPv6 Ready.
Travel the world, meet interesting people...kill them.
Trying to fix or change something, only guaruntees and perpetuates its existence.
I don't know about angels, but it is fear that gives men wings.
The problem with wanting something is the fear of losing it, or never having it. The thought makes you weak.
E-Mail Xei
I agree that they should be accepted and they should not be given additional rights, but marriage is not an additional right... and about your last line, why can't straight people not get married, because they can still live equally fulfilling, non-interfered, heterosexual lives without itTo sum it all up:
Homosexuals should be accepted by society. However, it does not mean that they should be given additional rights or privileges beyond the norm. Also, even by accepting them it does not mean that we have to give them everything that they want, such as marriage (they can still live equally fulfilling, non-interfered, homosexual lives without it).
what about this: marriage is a legal institution... if you don't believe that, look at your income taxes... sure, it started out as a religious thing, but that's not what it is to our government. I think that it should be legal everywhere, but I also believe the church and state should be kept seperate. therefore, I think it should be legal in government bulidings (courthouses,town hall, etc.), but the state should not be able to force a church to marry homosexuals...
about the whole 'defect' thing... what about prodigys? are they 'defects'? can they not marry because they were born 'defective'?
back on the curch topic: this is one main reason i stray from christian religions... they are constantly contradicting themselves... equality for everybody, except gays... everybody can be forgiven unless they find their own sex attractive... that's why I'm more on the pagan/existential side...
Last edited by major_small; 11-19-2003 at 08:20 PM.
Join is in our Unofficial Cprog IRC channel
Server: irc.phoenixradio.org
Channel: #Tech
Team Cprog Folding@Home: Team #43476
Download it Here
Detailed Stats Here
More Detailed Stats
52 Members so far, are YOU a member?
Current team score: 1223226 (ranked 374 of 45152)
The CBoard team is doing better than 99.16% of the other teams
Top 5 Members: Xterria(518175), pianorain(118517), Bennet(64957), JaWiB(55610), alphaoide(44374)
Last Updated on: Wed, 30 Aug, 2006 @ 2:30 PM EDT
Well, first of all your critisize him on his reasoning and tell him to prove it. You made one sentance comments and proved nothing. So could you prove it?But it's not a personal "preference" or a lifestyle "choice", it's biology.
BTW: Let me add, the only reason any homosexual person could get their hands on kids is because of heterosexuals
The idea behind it is that a marriage consists of a wife and a husband. If your status is: Married, it means that you are engaged in a relationship with someone from the opposite sex. Homosexuals can have a form similar to marriage, but I believe that it should not be called marriage, there should be another term.major_small
I agree that they should be accepted and they should not be given additional rights, but marriage is not an additional right... and about your last line, why can't straight people not get married, because they can still live equally fulfilling, non-interfered, heterosexual lives without it
I can agree with you that the church and the state should be completely seperate. If a church will not marry a couple then they'll simply have to go to their city hall or something, it's not a big deal.major_small
what about this: marriage is a legal institution... if you don't believe that, look at your income taxes... sure, it started out as a religious thing, but that's not what it is to our government. I think that it should be legal everywhere, but I also believe the church and state should be kept seperate. therefore, I think it should be legal in government bulidings (courthouses,town hall, etc.), but the state should not be able to force a church to marry homosexuals...
No, a prodigy is not a defect. Your comment is not following the topic at hand. A prodigy is where a child learns at a quicker rate than normal. However, if someone who happens to be a prodigy and wants to get married then I believe that they should be able to as long as the marriage is not a homosexual one.major_small
about the whole 'defect' thing... what about prodigys? are they 'defects'? can they not marry because they were born 'defective'?
I would also like to point out that many religions in the world are based upon the same rules. As DavidP said they are here to create order out of a world full of chaos. Now, law can try to take all of the religions of the world and turn them in to 'Hate-Literature' (which I do not doubt will eventually happen) because they say that homosexuality is forbidden. Although this could certainly go into it's own thread (religous topics) for debate, it seems appropriate here.major_small
back on the curch topic: this is one main reason i stray from christian religions... they are constantly contradicting themselves... equality for everybody, except gays... everybody can be forgiven unless they find their own sex attractive... that's why I'm more on the pagan/existential side...
Personally, I do not follow any specific religion; however, I do believe that it would be ignorant to dismiss that there may be something(s) greater than ourselves in this universe and that these entities perhaps did influence the evolution of humanity. The rules of religion are here to bring order. Although many religious thoughts are flawed, there are many which contrast each other. For example: The 10 commandments. Each of these commandments are here for good reasons - call them morals, if you will. Such rules are integrated within our law systems as well, they probably started with religion. Without such rules society degrades. Such rules are not simply applied to a religion, they are created for a cause to remedy certain situations. How can we dismiss that such disputes have not happened in the past?
"What are you after - the vague post of the week award?" - Salem
IPv6 Ready.
Travel the world, meet interesting people...kill them.
Trying to fix or change something, only guaruntees and perpetuates its existence.
I don't know about angels, but it is fear that gives men wings.
The problem with wanting something is the fear of losing it, or never having it. The thought makes you weak.
E-Mail Xei
So in other words, if society created a status called, I don't know, narriage that had all the benefits of marriage just a different name and was defined as a union of two homosexuals, you would be ok? Then what is the difference between this and just letting them get married (besides having an extra place to put a checkmark on a tax form)?
And someone asked about the majority of people and just let the majority decide. The problem is that if the minority is strong enough, nothing is done. If given the choice between (1) passing a law that really upsets the minority for the benefit of the majority and (2) not passing a law which in turn pleases the minority but slightly irks the majority, they almost will always take the easy way out and do nothing.
And last, I never said the Bible tells you that the sky is purple. The point was exactly as Clyde put it, I don't care if you believe in things from the Bible that only affects yourself, but when your belief in the Bible affects others who do not hold your beliefs (and sometimes those who do), then it is wrong.
Last edited by PJYelton; 11-19-2003 at 09:06 PM.
I voted that I disagree, but after reading these posts I have to say that I don't really know...We have really strayed off topic as far as I can tell, since the actual issue is not homosexuality, it is about the government recognizing homosexuals as "married"
This is a hard topic, and really we have to keep our personal views separate...I started writing more, but now I realize I don't know enough to have a good opinion. Trying to keep an unreligious point of view, will this have any impact on our society?
Obviously yes, but what will it be? Do we really think it will make a large difference to homosexuals? Why do they really care in the first place?
I don't know enough to say, but we should examine their motives; are they valid, or simply an effort to "fit in" to society?
Anyone that does not, first and foremost, try to uphold their values does not deserve to be accepted. This goes for anyone, if you have faith in a religion or if you just think that your lifestyle is not wrong, then you should not have to convince anyone of it, just show them that it works.
My post is somewhat biased--I do not agree with homosexuality, but I think that a law granting homosexuals a right to marry might not be wrong in its entirety, there just need to be questions answered
"Think not but that I know these things; or think
I know them not: not therefore am I short
Of knowing what I ought."
-John Milton, Paradise Regained (1671)
"Work hard and it might happen."
-XSquared
A formidable challenge. Its been done before when traditions were found to be antiquated, and contrary to the basic liberties of humans. There is no reason for that statement to be a deterent from trying to change the mind of the majority....but look-you have to change the mind of the majority or no law CAN be passed.
The word rap as it applies to music is the result of a peculiar phonological rule which has stripped the word of its initial voiceless velar stop.
Why stop with marriage being defined as being between only two persons of either gender? Why doesn't the government recognize communal marriage arrangements? The government does not have the authority to say that a person or group of people can only be in love with one person. As long as it's between consenting adults and no one's life is endangered by it, why should the government interfere or prefer one lifestyle over another?
I know that sounded pretty sarcastic simply for the extremeness of the position, but I was being serious.
I am a programmer. My first duty is to God, then to nation, then to employer, then to family, then to friends, then to computer, and finally to myself. I code with dignity, honor, and integrity.
I disagree.
Homosexuality may be a natural inclination for some, but it should not become institutionalized.
The union of male and female is the natural order of things. It's O.K. that some are born different, but that doesn't change the simple fact that it is an anomaly. All people should be treated fairly and given equal rights. That doesn't mean we should publicly promote all types of lifestyles - does it?
When I was in Boy Scouts there was a similar debate going on. The question was whether to allow gays or not. Now, I don't think anyone really cared if someone in the organization was actually gay or not. It's just that noone wanted it to be publicly accepted by the organization. The same would hold true if the question was "Should we accept rascists?", or any other extreme, for that matter.
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
Originally posted by Xei
Everything Xei saidOriginally posted by Clyde
Everything Clyde saidGeezuz my head is going to asplodeOriginally posted by some tard
the gay people
Promote?Originally posted by Sebastiani
All people should be treated fairly and given equal rights. That doesn't mean we should publicly promote all types of lifestyles - does it?
We do. But people choose to be racist.Originally posted by Sebastiani
The same would hold true if the question was "Should we accept rascists?", or any other extreme, for that matter.
Last edited by BMJ; 11-20-2003 at 01:48 AM.
In response to DavidP, I used to be Mormon up until about a year ago. Too many questions answered by "have faith". Why were blacks unable to hold the priesthood until the civil rights movements? That is the question that sparked my internal debates. Then I was like...alright, this says to pray about it, so I did, and recieved no answer. Twice. I then realized that I have never felt the "holy ghost". At this point I'd been in the Mormon church for 17 years, gone to church *every* Sunday, gone to seminary every day before school, gone to SED/BYC, I did everything a good little Mormon boy should do. I was blinded, looking back on it...I then would not listen to myself now, I was completely blind. It is something I had to think of myself. I sense that you are similar to the way I was then. During the process of questioning what really mattered to me, I came to a cross road. I realized I could just say "ok, god has a plan...its not right for me to question", or I could continue questioning and see what happened. Well needless to say I continued my search for answers and found that what I got was not to my liking. I find that ignorance is bliss, and religion is a neverending source of ignorance. Have you ever questioned the things that do not make sense to you? Or were you as I was before this time when I felt it was not my place? Have you prayed to see if the religion is true? Did you get a "warm feeling inside your bosom", cause if you did I would wager to say it is psychological, not some supernatural being.
Religion is too human. A god, created in our likeness, that needs us to worship it. Why now, if a god can create us and the world in which we live, does a god need us to worship it??? Is it because along with our likeness it acquired our insecurities about needing to feel loved and to have a sense of purpose?
Religion is a curtain my friend, cast it aside and see things as they are, not as you were told.
//napKIN
napKINfolk.com
(I don't find anything wrong with people believing as they will, but believing so solely because they were told is something I don't agree with. I don't mean to force my beliefs down others throats. Sorry if it seems that I am.)
[edit: corrected grammatical error]
"The best way to get answers is to just keep working the problem, recognizing when you are stalled, and directing the search pattern.....Don’t just wait for The Right Thing to strike you – try everything you think might even be in the right direction, so you can collect clues about the nature of the problem."
-John Carmack
