Originally Posted by SohnoJam
Hey, do your research before saying shit, okay?
Calling homosexuality a "defect" is highly offensive.
Either way.
A defect is defined in genetics as anything that is detrimental to the survival of a species. I'd say the inability (or rather, unwillingness) to reproduce is an obvious hindrance to the survival of any species.
To everyone else, except Odlov, who brought up some good points on the fiscal and social benefits of marriage, take love and affection out of the equation and then formulate a decent argument.
@Odlov,
While it's true that denying certain benefits to people based on something as seemingly arbitrary seems "unethical", think of it as a negative incentive of something that society as a whole still very much frowns upon. And for whoever mentioned the unconstitutionality of anti-homosexual laws, do you really think the law treats everyone equally? As much as some would like to think that the law views everything objectively and treats everyone with a general demeanour of egalitarianism, if everyone was equal in all respects, there wouldn't really be much of a need for those laws in the first place, would there?
[Piratez]
I am neither Oyster nor lsl.
I am neither Oyster nor lsl.
Hydrotoxin:
You do realize that over population is a global disaster right now correct? So a group of people who don't add to the issue is great.
BTW: "take love and affection out of the equation"? It's marriage. That's why it was invented. The final bond between two individuals to live and love together forever.
And you have a rather bad point at your negative incentive point. Society frowned upon African-Americans and said they weren't real people so they could be their slaves. That doesn't mean it was morally or ethically correct.
As for your point about the reason we need laws: What the state regulates and what extremists and unethical people do are completely different. The state finds murder illegal, that doesn't mean people can't murder. Laws are suppose to govern over the ignorance of society. It's so even if some racist wants to burn an African-American, and his friends thinks its okay, the state stops it.
People don't always treat others with respect and equality. That doesn't make it right. And the state should get involved in that.
You do realize that over population is a global disaster right now correct? So a group of people who don't add to the issue is great.
BTW: "take love and affection out of the equation"? It's marriage. That's why it was invented. The final bond between two individuals to live and love together forever.
And you have a rather bad point at your negative incentive point. Society frowned upon African-Americans and said they weren't real people so they could be their slaves. That doesn't mean it was morally or ethically correct.
As for your point about the reason we need laws: What the state regulates and what extremists and unethical people do are completely different. The state finds murder illegal, that doesn't mean people can't murder. Laws are suppose to govern over the ignorance of society. It's so even if some racist wants to burn an African-American, and his friends thinks its okay, the state stops it.
People don't always treat others with respect and equality. That doesn't make it right. And the state should get involved in that.
Need help?
Creati0n says: still my favorite. <3
I sacrificed my firstborn for this great human being to join (M) ~R
Just Use Thunder!
Creati0n says: still my favorite. <3
I sacrificed my firstborn for this great human being to join (M) ~R
Just Use Thunder!
Originally Posted by Hxcbbqimo
Hydrotoxin:
BTW: "take love and affection out of the equation"? It's marriage. That's why it was invented. The final bond between two individuals to live and love together forever.
Marriage is a religious rite. I assume you are a theist-- subsequently marriage is quite important to you. Love is a societal construct. Do you think the first humans married each other, or mated with the most attractive and physically fit partners so as to strengthen the human population (by instinct, no less). Marriage is an excuse for the weak, the least fit and "desirable" people in society to mate and breed more weakness.
Originally Posted by Hxcbbqimo
And you have a rather bad point at your negative incentive point. Society frowned upon African-Americans and said they weren't real people so they could be their slaves. That doesn't mean it was morally or ethically correct.
Not only does this have naught to do with the discussion at hand, but you're speaking to someone who believes that ethics and morals are entirely subjective, and therefore do not truly exist. AMERICAN society frowned upon blacks, but they actually encouraged reproduction because they served a purpose- slaves generate capital. Again, I'm asking you to view the issue objectively, and not allow your opinion to be clouded by relativistic and traditionalistic thought.
Originally Posted by Hxcbbqimo
As for your point about the reason we need laws: What the state regulates and what extremists and unethical people do are completely different. The state finds murder illegal, that doesn't mean people can't murder. Laws are suppose to govern over the ignorance of society. It's so even if some racist wants to burn an African-American, and his friends thinks its okay, the state stops it.
Again, this has nothing to do with the topic or what I said. I did not give a reason for the existence of laws, nor did I state that people will not break them. I simply stated flawed reasoning in someone elses post. Laws are not meant to "govern the ignorance of society". They are there for the benefit of the population, and to prevent social unrest. As for those bizarre, arbitrary laws, I prefer to view them as outliers and disregard them entirely. Statistical analytics FTW.
Originally Posted by Hxcbbqimo
People don't always treat others with respect and equality. That doesn't make it right. And the state should get involved in that.
Who are you to say what is "right" or "respectful", or to designate what the state should and shouldn't do? As far as I'm concerned, right and wrong don't even exist, and respect is completely arbitrary. And the state does get involved in inequality. That involvement takes place in the form of the executive and judicial branches in the U.S. system. That's what laws are for.
[Piratez]
I am neither Oyster nor lsl.
I am neither Oyster nor lsl.
If you don't believe in natural rights and accept their existence then I will just exit the conversation right now.
And you are right. I am a theist. Catholic. I also belong to an society built of objective thinking. And I am considering all aspects of marriage. And I don't see how the "ultimate goal" per-say is procreating. BUT. I will stoop to your level (provided you accept natural rights), and debate with you as if the ultimate goal and our drive is for the prolonging of humans. Over population will end the human race. And homosexual marriage helps because they don't procreate. And the more homosexuals that exist in the world, the more people not procreating at the highest rate ever known to man. It's a HUGE issue right now. So simply for your shallow reasoning of prolonging the human race rather than any aspects of love, one should support domestic partnership.
And as for them adopting: Why on earth would you not allow two people who love each other to have a kid? Would you rather them live as orphans? You need to understand that many homosexuals would take a child as such a lavish gift that they could potentially treat them incredibly well.
And again, sinking towards your incredibly shallow state of mind about marriage: Doesn't homosexuals having more rights help the economy? If the work place doesn't discriminate against sexual preference, homosexuals can start acquiring higher paying jobs and purchase expensive items, and further help and economic crisis.
So there are your immoral yet statistical points of why homosexuals should have equal rights.
And you are right. I am a theist. Catholic. I also belong to an society built of objective thinking. And I am considering all aspects of marriage. And I don't see how the "ultimate goal" per-say is procreating. BUT. I will stoop to your level (provided you accept natural rights), and debate with you as if the ultimate goal and our drive is for the prolonging of humans. Over population will end the human race. And homosexual marriage helps because they don't procreate. And the more homosexuals that exist in the world, the more people not procreating at the highest rate ever known to man. It's a HUGE issue right now. So simply for your shallow reasoning of prolonging the human race rather than any aspects of love, one should support domestic partnership.
And as for them adopting: Why on earth would you not allow two people who love each other to have a kid? Would you rather them live as orphans? You need to understand that many homosexuals would take a child as such a lavish gift that they could potentially treat them incredibly well.
And again, sinking towards your incredibly shallow state of mind about marriage: Doesn't homosexuals having more rights help the economy? If the work place doesn't discriminate against sexual preference, homosexuals can start acquiring higher paying jobs and purchase expensive items, and further help and economic crisis.
So there are your immoral yet statistical points of why homosexuals should have equal rights.
Need help?
Creati0n says: still my favorite. <3
I sacrificed my firstborn for this great human being to join (M) ~R
Just Use Thunder!
Creati0n says: still my favorite. <3
I sacrificed my firstborn for this great human being to join (M) ~R
Just Use Thunder!
Originally Posted by hydrotoxin
A defect is defined in genetics as anything that is detrimental to the survival of a species. I'd say the inability (or rather, unwillingness) to reproduce is an obvious hindrance to the survival of any species.
There are methods that gay couples can reproduce, through surrogacy and in-vitro methods. But, if it's a genetic defect, then wouldn't you prefer advocating adoption rather than methods which might have a higher chance of passing it on?
Originally Posted by hydrotoxin
...think of it as a negative incentive of something that society as a whole still very much frowns upon.
What parts of society, exactly? And how numerous are they compared to people who honestly don't mind gays?
[Inq]
Need help with anything? Have a question? PM me! I'll try my best to help you.
