Magic Under Fire For Donation Which Opposes Gay Marriage

[Grumpy Heat Fan]

I don't know what you are referring to. If it is about the claim that some people would allow legal equality of gay partners but do not want to call it "marriage" than first of all, that is an improvement, but in reality gay partnerships currently are treated with LESS legal benefits and protection than a heterosexual marriage. That is what the majority of the argument is about, which stems back to the driving force being disliking homosexuality and desire to regulate it.

My stance has always been to give homosexual people a new institution, that affords them all the legal rights and benefits and protection, but is specifically in a different category than traditional marriage.

If they want the world to acknowledge this as a "new family unit" then it should be deserving of a new institution.

But leave the traditional foundation of human existence alone.

[qm22]

I knew I shouldnt had gotten into this.. Reading responses like these from people who act like they have all the knowledge and logic in the world right in their hands. It is not irrelevant. Eating and nourishing your body is something that you NEED immediately to maintain your existence. You dont need to have kids to maintain your physical existence. If a person chooses to not pass along their genes to the next generation then it is their personal choice.

But they need to have sex. The sexual drive is a biological fact. That sexual drive is what evolved, not a mental "I want to have kids" gene.

So just because you decide not to have kids, doesn't mean you don't want to have sex. It is only modern science contraceptives that is saving you from children. As I said before, if you lived 200 years ago, people had children whether they liked it or not. No birth control pills and all the other things we have now.

I hope that clears things up for you.

Your posts in this thread seem to advocate that we should basically follow generalized biological instincts as a guideline for living life and how to regulate it legally. In other words, it basically is a suggestion that we should live like animals, and if we do not, we are defective/other perjoratives. An interesting take on civilization.

Your views on biology are actually arrogant. Biology is a science and you should stop citing the support of it. You can't take the fact that humans breed with opposite sexes as a credible piece of information to assume exceptions to this scenario are biologically defective. That's uninformed guesswork.

[Kariya]

Would you be opposed to bisexuals getting married? By your definition, they wouldn't be suffering from a 'defect' or 'malfunction' since they are still attracted to females, correct?

[christian72589]

I don't know what you are referring to. If it is about the claim that some people would allow legal equality of gay partners but do not want to call it "marriage" than first of all, that is an improvement, but in reality gay partnerships currently are treated with LESS legal benefits and protection than a heterosexual marriage. That is what the majority of the argument is about, which stems back to the driving force being disliking homosexuality and desire to regulate it.

My stance has always been to give homosexual people a new institution, that affords them all the legal rights and benefits and protection, but is specifically in a different category than traditional marriage.

If they want the world to acknowledge this as a "new family unit" then it should be deserving of a new institution.

But leave the traditional foundation of human existence alone.

That seems completely reasonable to me. If politics are about compromise, I don't see why this hasn't been done yet rather than a constant back and forth stalemate demonizing both sides from extreme points of view.

[Yuri Vaultin]

People are not born gay, its a choice, so if you choose to.live that life, deal with the consequences, you don't deserve all the rights as everyone else, same with felons not going able to vote, if you choose to break the law you don't deserve the privileges of everyone else

So gays are now like shoplifters. Splendid. You clearly have multiple doctorates and I feel that even though I am armed with an abundance of common sense I am just no match for your well thought out and supported points.

Are you gay?

No, just opened minded. Or Canadian, as you may call it.

I have this weird, almost perverse character flaw where I judge people entirely on the merits of their character and not on who they are banging.

[peja drobnjak]

I have this weird, almost perverse character flaw where I judge people entirely on the merits of their character and not on who they are banging.

yeah okay who i bang has absolutely no bearing on my character at all

[Pooh_Jeter]

Not going to read 13 pages of gay marriage debate, but it stuns me how people are still against it. There isn't a rational reason to oppose it. Most arguments are veiled bigotry or a slippery slope argument. It's amazing how certain tenants of organized religion are taken as the whole truth, but certain others are swept under the rug.

Free speech is a pillar of a healthy society, but illogical and irrational thought shouldn't be nurtured and encouraged. It's like creationism being taught in Science class.

[MannyRam99]

I have this weird, almost perverse character flaw where I judge people entirely on the merits of their character and not on who they are banging.

What if they were banging Adolf Hitler or Joseph Kony ?

... yeah not such a good guy anymore huh ?, I see right through your "open mindness"

[qm22]

I don't know what you are referring to. If it is about the claim that some people would allow legal equality of gay partners but do not want to call it "marriage" than first of all, that is an improvement, but in reality gay partnerships currently are treated with LESS legal benefits and protection than a heterosexual marriage. That is what the majority of the argument is about, which stems back to the driving force being disliking homosexuality and desire to regulate it.

My stance has always been to give homosexual people a new institution, that affords them all the legal rights and benefits and protection, but is specifically in a different category than traditional marriage.

If they want the world to acknowledge this as a "new family unit" then it should be deserving of a new institution.

But leave the traditional foundation of human existence alone.

That seems completely reasonable to me. If politics are about compromise, I don't see why this hasn't been done yet rather than a constant back and forth stalemate demonizing both sides from extreme points of view.

Well, at least it would be a substantial improvement that would solve the majority of legal discrimination problems.

Still, it is wrong to call it the traditional foundation of human existence. I wonder how humans survived before Judeo-Christian marriage in Asia...which has the bulk of human populations and predates Christianity...

I wonder if Christian marriage impinged on their traditional foundation of human existences.

[jaze89]

I've read a variety of forums with a variety of topics; this thread is one of maybe 2 I've read in my life that have actually made me disgusted with people. It actually depresses me.

EDIT: People aren't born bigots, it's a choice. Homosexuality, however, is not a choice.

[Grumpy Heat Fan]

Your views on biology are actually arrogant. Biology is a science and you should stop citing the support of it. You can't take the fact that humans breed with opposite sexes as a credible piece of information to assume exceptions to this scenario are biologically defective. That's uninformed guesswork.

So let me get this straight, are you saying the male reproductive organ isn't biologically evolved specifically to penetrate a female's reproductive organ and procreate?

I'm not going to sit here and educate you on scientific facts about biology, evolution, and the human body. You should do that yourself....

[Grumpy Heat Fan]

Would you be opposed to bisexuals getting married? By your definition, they wouldn't be suffering from a 'defect' or 'malfunction' since they are still attracted to females, correct?

As long as the marriage is between a man and a woman, knock yourself out. If a bisexual man is marrying a woman, that doesn't matter to me. He's marrying a woman.

[Inigo_Montoya]

I don't know what you are referring to. If it is about the claim that some people would allow legal equality of gay partners but do not want to call it "marriage" than first of all, that is an improvement, but in reality gay partnerships currently are treated with LESS legal benefits and protection than a heterosexual marriage. That is what the majority of the argument is about, which stems back to the driving force being disliking homosexuality and desire to regulate it.

My stance has always been to give homosexual people a new institution, that affords them all the legal rights and benefits and protection, but is specifically in a different category than traditional marriage.

If they want the world to acknowledge this as a "new family unit" then it should be deserving of a new institution.

But leave the traditional foundation of human existence alone.

Separate but equal?

[christian72589]

[/quote]
Are you gay?[/quote]
No, just opened minded. Or Canadian, as you may call it.

I have this weird, almost perverse character flaw where I judge people entirely on the merits of their character and not on who they are banging.[/quote]

Yeah, I guess open-mindedness also means being a nationalist and making gross generalizations while drizzling in snide comments.... wow don't we all wish we were like you

[lovethewire]

I've read a variety of forums with a variety of topics; this thread is one of maybe 2 I've read in my life that have actually made me disgusted with people. It actually depresses me.

Then why r u steal reading?

[jaze89]

I've read a variety of forums with a variety of topics; this thread is one of maybe 2 I've read in my life that have actually made me disgusted with people. It actually depresses me.

Then why r u steal reading?

Because I'm looking for some sort of bastion of hope.

[Yuri Vaultin]

So gays are now like shoplifters. Splendid. You clearly have multiple doctorates and I feel that even though I am armed with an abundance of common sense I am just no match for your well thought out and supported points.

Quite a hypocritical post, seeing as you how talked about how anti-gay marriage people should "put down" gays/gay animals.

Because that was clearly what we were saying, right?

Then you sit there on a fake pedestal and chastise him for doing the same you did?

No. I said you specifically should kill gay squirrels, because they are spreading their unholy message and butt cheeks. They are after all, as unnatural as zombies.

But in all seriousness my post above was the only way I could deal with a poster that, if I was not a mod might refer to as ignorant, ill informed along with a host of expletives.

[lovethewire]

I've read a variety of forums with a variety of topics; this thread is one of maybe 2 I've read in my life that have actually made me disgusted with people. It actually depresses me.

EDIT: People aren't born bigots, it's a choice. Homosexuality, however, is not a choice.

Homosexuality is certainly a choice

[Grumpy Heat Fan]

There isn't a rational reason to oppose it. .

There are actually many. Maybe you haven't heard all of them. The average person on the street isn't as educated on the subject....

Here's one valid one for you : There are significant health risks and problems with a homosexual lifestyle. Doctors actually try to encourage against it. Here's a hint : The anus was not meant for constant penetration.

[christian72589]

That seems completely reasonable to me. If politics are about compromise, I don't see why this hasn't been done yet rather than a constant back and forth stalemate demonizing both sides from extreme points of view.[/quote]

Well, at least it would be a substantial improvement that would solve the majority of legal discrimination problems.

Still, it is wrong to call it the traditional foundation of human existence. I wonder how humans survived before Judeo-Christian marriage in Asia...which has the bulk of human populations and predates Christianity...

I wonder if Christian marriage impinged on their traditional foundation of human existences. [/quote]

Who said anything about Christianity? Would you disagree that homosexual marriage flows against the grain of any and all major culture's traditions? Was homosexuality widely practiced and accepted in Asia traditionally?