PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gay Rights Debates
     Homosexuals ALREADY...
       Have the RIGHT to MARRY...

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
HumanBeing

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A MAN may MARRY a WOMAN.

A WOMAN may MARRY a MAN.

(Edited by HumanBeing 7/15/2004 at 4:46 PM).


-------
HumanBeing
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 4:45 PM on July 15, 2004 | IP
Lisa_b

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't  think gay people want to have "the right" to marry anyone exept the person they love. The thing people like you need to do is to consider what it would be like if the roles were reversed. How would you feel if you were forced to live as a homosexual? Put yourself in their shoes.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 5:23 PM on July 16, 2004 | IP
HumanBeing

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Poor analogy... It fails...

The reality/common sense of this issue is clear...

If the the roles were reversed, Humanity would be non-existent.

The ORDER is Man and Woman uniting and procreating and perpetuating the species of Humanity.

The DISORDER is the opposite point of view/lifestyle- homosexuality.

The issue of one being forced to be homosexual...

Again, a poor analogy... It fails, too...

The only one forcing one to be homosexual is the homosexual him/herself.

Of course, it is important for one to be in appropriate control of oneself.


(Edited by HumanBeing 7/17/2004 at 3:14 PM).


-------
HumanBeing
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 3:08 PM on July 17, 2004 | IP
Lisa_b

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from HumanBeing at 3:08 PM on July 17, 2004 :Poor analogy... It fails...
The reality/common sense of this issue is clear...
If the the roles were reversed, Humanity would be non-existent.
The ORDER is Man and Woman uniting and procreating and perpetuating the species of Humanity.
The DISORDER is the opposite point of view/lifestyle- homosexuality.

You missed my point and now you are fabricating an argument that did not exist.
Firstly, the whole world never will be gay, so there is no logic to judging a set of behavior by wondering what would happen if everyone did it. And if you actually studied biology, you would know that the only way to contribute to the survival of a species is not through procreation. In fact the greatest threats to our continued survival is overpopulation. There are over a million unwanted children that need homes in foster care in the world and there are not enough heterosexuals who are willing to adopt those children. China even has a law to ban producing more then one baby because they want control population in their country. Without people who don't procreate the world could easily over beyond it's capacity to feed itself.

Secondly, procreation existed long before marriage was even a concept. Take a look at every other species on the planet, they don't even need monogamous relationship in order to procreate. Marriage is not about children. There are many straight couples that don't have children, don't want them or can't have them. The government does not deny them a marriage certificate simply because of that fact. Having children is not a requirement for marriage, so procreation should not be used as a weapon against homosexuals. In fact, homosexuals can indeed have and raise kids. There were the hundreds of articles about the people being married in San Francisco and  who stand there getting betrothed while either holding or standing next to their kids. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b109/2/339

The issue of one being forced to be homosexual...
Again, a poor analogy... It fails, too...
The only one forcing one to be homosexual is the homosexual him/herself.
Of course, it is important for one to be in appropriate control of oneself.

Your argument is so faulty it is laughable. A gay person will never ever be able to treat and love someone of the opposite sex to the degree that would be required for marriage. To even suggest that a gay man/woman should marry a heterosexual woman/man is to support negative relationship that could result in all manner of problems. Homosexuals shouldn't be required to marry those who they can not love, but should be allowed to marry who they can.



(Edited by Lisa_b 7/19/2004 at 02:06 AM).
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 02:02 AM on July 19, 2004 | IP
JustineCredible

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

HumanBeing: You have the right to marry ANY person of the opposite gender you wish. The point here being it's your free will that determines the person whom you would choose to marry.
Gays are only allowed to marry as long as it is someone of the opposite gender?
This is about as logical as saying that gay marriage would in anyway lead to dog marriage.
Again the point being freedom of will. Since you are obviously heterosexual, your choosing a partner of the opposite gender is perfectly logical.
Someone who is homosexual would in turn choose a partner of the SAME gender.
The problem is that those relationships are not legally recognized and therefore they are not LEGAL Marriages, leading to the fact that gays are NOT allowed to marry EACH OTHER!

Damn, can we say "Dense?"




-------
"All those who believe in physcokenetics ~ Raise My Hand!"
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 11:16 AM on August 11, 2004 | IP
HumanBeing

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apparently, the pro-homosexuality activist is trying- aware or unaware/consciously or unconsciously- to force the USA, and others, by way of the government, to accept the disorder of homosexuality- even to the extent of the institution of marriage.

Instead of the pro-homosexuality activist resolving his/her own personal challenge- the disorder of going for a same-sex intimate relationship, as related to this issue- the pro-homosexuality activist is trying- aware or unaware/consciously or unconsciously- to present a mistaken impression that a personal disorder is really OK.

Of course, it's important to appreciate the disorder- however, it's still a disorder.

Instead of going pro-disorder...

Resolve the disorder.

Wishing for all the best.








-------
HumanBeing
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 4:43 PM on August 11, 2004 | IP
JustineCredible

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from HumanBeing at 4:43 PM on August 11, 2004 :
Apparently, the pro-homosexuality activist is trying- aware or unaware/consciously or unconsciously- to force the USA, and others, by way of the government, to accept the disorder of homosexuality- even to the extent of the institution of marriage.

Instead of the pro-homosexuality activist resolving his/her own personal challenge- the disorder of going for a same-sex intimate relationship, as related to this issue- the pro-homosexuality activist is trying- aware or unaware/consciously or unconsciously- to present a mistaken impression that a personal disorder is really OK.

Of course, it's important to appreciate the disorder- however, it's still a disorder.

Instead of going pro-disorder...

Resolve the disorder.

Wishing for all the best."

I suggest you get some professional help for your xenophobia and insistence on a disorder which doesn't even exist.

Years ago it was thought that one who was left-handed was somehow a disorder. Now it is thought to be a genetic trait. Although not proven to be genetic, it is widely accepted.
Those with acne used to be thought of as dirty or had bad eating habits, when in fact it has been proven to be simply bad hormones.
Homosexuality is similar in that for centuries it has been widely debated as to the validity of the basic fact that it just is.
Indeed Homosexuality was removed from the APA's list of disorders back in 1975. But did you know that the APA was one of LAST Psychological communities to remove it?

The idea that HumanBeing is still dealing with his hatred and insistance is strong signifier that he is the one with the disorder.












-------
"All those who believe in physcokenetics ~ Raise My Hand!"
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 7:46 PM on August 11, 2004 | IP
HumanBeing

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I wish for all who choose to make an offering, to make an offering about the issue...

Apparently, JC has made an offering about the issue and an inappropriate offering about me, personally.

I respond to address JC and to correct the record...

As offered in another topic thread:

This is to inform the audience that JustineCredible's- JC's- post about me is a mistaken impression of me- based on JC's own personal limitation of intellect and intuition.

JC- by way of JC's post- may be projecting JC's own self here...

For consideration/reference...

Projection:

"A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he/she him/herself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."


"The externalization of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people."


"Attributing one's own undesirabe traits to other people or agencies."


"The individual perceives in others the motive he/she denies having him/herself."


"People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An individual who unconsciously recognises his/her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."


"Projection is the opposite defense mechanism to identification. One projects one's own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blames them for having thoughts that the one who is projecting really has."

If JC only knew...

***

JC used inappropriate terms like:

- xenophobia
- hatred
- insistance- I imagine JC's trying for 'insistence'-here spelled correctly.

The use of these terms in this way/context is nonsense- just like considering homosexuality to be OK, instead of a disorder.

JC's use of these terms may be even more projection by JC.

***

JC is always welcome to check with me before presenting him/herself in this public arena- in this pathetic manner.

I have used appropriate terms like:

- limitation of intellect and intuition
- personal challenge to resolve
- offering compassion and forgiveness
- wishing for all the best

I sense that JC has some form of personal challenge to resolve.

I offer compassion and forgiveness- wishing JC all the best.

***

Also...

Wishing for appropriate abstract comments about the issue- without inappropriate comments about individual members of this forum.

And finally and most importantly...

Wishing for peace for all.



-------
HumanBeing
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 11:53 PM on August 11, 2004 | IP
JustineCredible

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Check with you? Please, I certainly do not need your permission to respond to blatent misinformation and backwards ideas.

PFT

Give me a break. Your post are drol, your opinions outdated and your pathetic attempt at decorum transparent.


And words said without meaning are worthless.




(Edited by JustineCredible 8/12/2004 at 01:14 AM).


-------
"All those who believe in physcokenetics ~ Raise My Hand!"
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 01:12 AM on August 12, 2004 | IP
HumanBeing

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

JC:

Your attitude at this forum is pathetic.

Once again, I offer you compassion and I forgive you. I wish you all the best to resolve your personal challenge.

This concludes my contact with you- until and unless you resolve your personal challenge/resentment and offer the appreciation, respect, and honor one deserves.

This starts with the way you are with yourself and then goes on to the way you are with others in the world.

All the best.


-------
HumanBeing
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 5:11 PM on August 12, 2004 | IP
Lisa_b

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you still can't answer anything I presented, eh? How on earth do you expect people to take you seriously or show you any respect when you just repeatedly use the same arguments that have been disproven every time while ignoreing our points? People like you who blindly argue against gay rights end up showing their real colours, which has nothing to do with gay rights at all, and it in fact entirely against the existence of homosexuals. Being gay is not a crime. Homosexuals will always exist, so the wishful thinking of religious conservatives is nonsense. Why should people that don't subscribe your narrow minded world-view change themselves solely to make you feel comfortable. Grow up. If you don't agree with homosexual acts, then don't do them. You are not in the position to rule other people's lives.

 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 08:56 AM on August 14, 2004 | IP
HumanBeing

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lisa_b:

Your post is nonsense.

I've already offered a point of view.

I'll respond/answer anything you/anyone may present- provided that whatever you/anyone may present possesses a logical base/premise.

Only one who posseses the appropriate intellect and intuition will take me seriously and offer me the respect I deserve.

You are incorrect to state that the pro-heterosexuality/pro-order point of view has been proven incorrect every time. It has yet to ever be proven incorrect. And, this will be the case forever.

There is great factual explanation for the support of the point of view of heterosexuality as the establishment of the ORDER of humanity.

By the way, regarding your offering of the term 'disproven'- the term is non-existent.

Also, your offering of the term 'ignoreing'- same story. Maybe you were going for 'ignoring.' Whatever, I imagine I've got the idea anyway...

Then you go off to some irrelevant points about homosexuality and existentialism, homosexuality and criminality, religious conservatism, people changing only for others, growing up, and people ruling others...

Your point of view is self-revelatory...

It's interesting and intriguing for one to consider making sense of your nonsense...

Regarding this issue, I appreciate you and your point of view even more- with just about every offering you make- as you continue to reveal your limitation of intellect and intuition.

You are pathetic.

I offer you compassion and forgiveness- wishing you all the best to resolve your own personal challenge.


Wishing all the best.



-------
HumanBeing
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 8:19 PM on August 14, 2004 | IP
somerandomperson

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Homosexuals aren't just apart of the human race. They exist in a lot of animals. When a species becomes overpopulated in an area a homosexual version of the animal may be in there. Same with humans.. it's clear that us humans are overpopulated. Like it or not, humans are animals, just highly intelligent, less-haired mammals that stand upright. The full classification of the human species is as follows..
Animalia Chordata Vertebrata Mammalia Primates Hominidae Homo sapiens.

The word animalia states that we indeed are animals. Now with that being said. I believe homosexuality is just a form of population control, but that doesn't mean human homosexuals should be treated like crap in society, not even physically or mentally handicapped people should be treated like crap. They are, afterall, human beings.

(Edited by somerandomperson 11/1/2004 at 10:47 PM).
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 10:44 PM on November 1, 2004 | IP
Sol

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No you're right, just like physically and mentally handicapped people, homosexuals should not be treated like crap.

Instead, they should be given help to overcome their disorder, just exactly like a physically or mentally handicapped person.
 


Posts: 60 | Posted: 04:03 AM on January 9, 2005 | IP
justforfun000

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Methinks humanbeing is more interested in showing how loquacious he can be that he simply resorts to flowery language stating nothing of evidence, but simply an attempt to state that there is a foregone conclusion that homosexuality is a "disorder".

Cite?
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 5:18 PM on January 11, 2005 | IP
Tigerlilly

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


There is great factual explanation for the support of the point of view of heterosexuality as the establishment of the ORDER of humanity.


Naturallistic fallacy. YOu insist that what's moral must be the natural order. In fact, you are commiting a form of the is/ought fallacy. You cannot go from factual premises to an ought conclustion. YOu must at least have 1 ought premise--even so, nothing--natural or unnatural is good or bad. Nature is neutral.

Who cares if it's the natural order that heterosexuals exist. It's totally irrelevant to any moral point.

In fact, however, it's quite simple to see the opposite. Homosexuals are just as natural as heterosexuals in the natural "order."

Animals are part of nature
Animal traits are natural
Homosexuality is an animal trait
Humans are animals
HUmans exibit homosexualility trait
Ergo, Human homosexuality is natural.

In fact, everything intrinsic bout humans IS natural. You cannot have an "unnatural" human. If I were attracted to trees, it would be natural by virture of me having that mental/genetic issue.


It's interesting and intriguing for one to consider making sense of your nonsense...


It's more interesting trying to keep one's intellectual organ from spontaneously combusting when reading such a anacryonistic, malodorous diatribe as you have provided by frequenting this board.


Regarding this issue, I appreciate you and your point of view even more- with just about every offering you make- as you continue to reveal your limitation of intellect and intuition.


Do you maintain a blackbelt in Bull-shit-do or does it come naturally? I am all for STYLE in a debate, but you have nothing but conpicuous invectives hiding beneath  ostensiblly "attempted" veneers of civility. You are deliberatly being obtuse, but you refuse to acknowledge it. I think you have a "disorder," and I wish you the best in your challenge to over come it.




-------
If it hurts no one, then there's nothing immoral about it.
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 8:53 PM on January 11, 2005 | IP
Lord_Bremen

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All the rights in the world won't allow homosexuals to have bodies physically compatible with each other.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 5:31 PM on January 20, 2005 | IP
justforfun000

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All the rights in the world won't allow homosexuals to have bodies physically compatible with each other.


They are MORE than physically compatible with each  other. You are implying that just because the vagina is a SPECIFIC hole to lead to reproduction, that it's the ONLY thing that is "meant" to be used to sexual gratification. If you have never used someone else's mouth, or hand, or for that matter, your OWN, then you can say this without being somewhat of a hypocrite.

If you have, then you are condemning yourself for using your body parts for something other then what is "compatible".

See how easy it is to turn an argument around? ;-)
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 6:58 PM on January 20, 2005 | IP
Lord_Bremen

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from justforfun000 at 6:58 PM on January 20, 2005 :
All the rights in the world won't allow homosexuals to have bodies physically compatible with each other.


They are MORE than physically compatible with each  other. You are implying that just because the vagina is a SPECIFIC hole to lead to reproduction, that it's the ONLY thing that is "meant" to be used to sexual gratification. If you have never used someone else's mouth, or hand, or for that matter, your OWN, then you can say this without being somewhat of a hypocrite.

If you have, then you are condemning yourself for using your body parts for something other then what is "compatible".

See how easy it is to turn an argument around? ;-)


Actually, we only feel sexual pleasure because it leads to procreation.  Any pleasure we feel without procreation is merely coincidental.

Moreover, using hands/mouth/etc. is WRONG.  Masterbation is WRONG.  Pleasure itself is not a good thing, but a weakness.  There is a reason sodomy laws are not gender specific - it is equally bad for heterosexuals to be hedonistic.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 7:09 PM on January 20, 2005 | IP
justforfun000

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, we only feel sexual pleasure because it leads to procreation.  Any pleasure we feel without procreation is merely coincidental.


This is purely a statement of belief. Even IF it was true, so what? Does that mean we have to interpret every activity that does not end in what "biology" designs to be the MAIN function as evil or wrong? By this simplistic definition a wine taster that spits out all of the wine they taste is being morally sinful because he's interfering with the "biological" nature of using the mouth and taste buds for the purpose of pleasure and not sustenance.

Moreover, using hands/mouth/etc. is WRONG.  Masterbation is WRONG.  Pleasure itself is not a good thing, but a weakness.  There is a reason sodomy laws are not gender specific - it is equally bad for heterosexuals to be hedonistic.


Yada yada yada. And why is it wrong? What EVIDENCE can you give me that it is a morally bad thing? Come on now, don't disappoint me. I know where you're going with this....
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 7:44 PM on January 20, 2005 | IP
SJChaput

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We ALL know where he is going with this.

based on his own belief if he does have sex often he must have a whole bunch of children, because using contraception is using sex for pleasure. He must have a child farm
 


Posts: 32 | Posted: 6:20 PM on January 21, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.