Dumb Anti-Gay Arguments...

[bulbasaur]

It is also absurd when people think 2/3 is 3/5.  It's obvious that these people are misinformed on the facts.  Yet, they still believe that they are correct on the facts.   

It's rather absurd if we all sit down and think about it. In our modern-day society we have no problem developing new words that describe our current culture. We can easily come up with "tweeting" and "twerking" but there's no word for a homosexual union that is on the same level as marriage. We're fighting over the definition of a word that has existed in our vocabulary since long before any of us were born just so some members of our society can feel "equal". That's not equality at all. Surely there isn't a shortage in human vocabulary to describe what a man might call his male lifelong companion.

I'm reminded of Catholic missionaries into Laos. While introducing and converting the Hmong people over to Catholicism, the church was very adamant that they weren't just changing the definition of Shamanistic terms. After all, at that time the Hmong already believed in a creator whom they referred to as "saub". However, the term "saub" was clearly not used in the same light as the Catholic teachings of the Judeo-Christian God. A new term was needed.

[dogmai]

They can legitimize their relationship and call it whatever they want. However, why they want to call it a "marriage" or be a part of the "marriage institution" in order to feel equal doesn't make much sense.

Well not allowing them to be called a married couple is basically saying they are not equals.

This is about semantics. If gays didn't offend those who want to uphold their traditional views about marriage then it wouldn't be such a big issue.

So basically it all comes down to equality. Some people see homosexual couples as unequal to heterosexual couples and think they are unfit to get married. So gays are trying to have others see them as equals, hence the marriage conflict.

[Believe_N_Me]

So you're saying that a person has to be called "married" in order to be an equal? 

"Marriage" is a heterosexual practice just like men have urine stalls for them to pee standing up. Should women have those stalls as well in order to feel "equal"? Women can pee standing up too, after all - and men can pee sitting down so why even bother with the different urinals?

Y'all act like the institution of marriage was created with the intentions of keeping out homosexuals. 

[dogmai]

So you're saying that a person has to be called "married" in order to be an equal? 

Yes. It's like calling someone with an Irish ancestry, an American. Then calling someone else with an Asian ancestry, an Asian-American.

"Marriage" is a heterosexual practice just like men have urine stalls for them to pee standing up. Should women have those stalls as well in order to feel "equal"? Women can pee standing up too, after all - and men can pee sitting down so why even bother with the different urinals?

I just checked, my bathroom only has one toilet. I heard more and more women's public restrooms have urinals now.

Y'all act like the institution of marriage was created with the intentions of keeping out homosexuals. 

Some people in here thinks that's how it is.

[dogmai]

Looks like some people in here are giving their own dumb anti-gay arguments.

[Believe_N_Me]

Yes. It's like calling someone with an Irish ancestry, an American. Then calling someone else with an Asian ancestry, an Asian-American.

I just checked, my bathroom only has one toilet. I heard more and more women's public restrooms have urinals now.

Some people in here thinks that's how it is.

Based on this response, clearly you have NO CLUE what marriage is. You also don't know what equality is.  BTW, Asian-Americans choose to identify themselves that way.

Please only respond when you know why marriage was instated in the first place and why it has always been a heterosexual practice.

[Evil_K_Man]

Let's go all the way back to why marriage even existed and the purpose of marriage.

Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. Through marriage, a woman gained status and developed identity since she couldn't get that on her own. These are the core principles of marriage. Nowhere in that does it talk about "love". And because of that definition, society implemented rules and laws to protect "marriage".

That is only the "effect" of marriage, not the "reason". Marriage like many other rules is about control and maintaining order. Humans are like any other animal and we like to f*ck as much as possible, so in order to ensure we don't all kill each other over mates, marriage was develop to maintain order which in "EFFECT" ensures that property (if that is how you define women) are not infringed upon by other males...not because of procreation ore lineage. You can procreate without marriage. And people were smart enough to know that marriage does not "guarantee" your heirs are yours if your wife likes to sleep around because you were busy f*cking the maid.

Look at the hmongs as an example, why do you think we do not marry within the same clans? its to maintain order and move family members around so clans don't end up killing one another over disputes. Its the same thing as how marriage was developed.

You are over thinking something that is relatively simple to understand and has a rational explanation.

[Evil_K_Man]

Marriage back in the days didn't include homosexuality since i'm sure anybody found of such behavior were killed or persecuted...

Also in the less enlighten days, minority rights weren't a concern to the majority.

[HUNG TU LO]

Marriage back in the days didn't include homosexuality since i'm sure anybody found of such behavior were killed or persecuted...

So marriage and (adopted) children were always the natural progression that homosexuality would move towards from the start?

 

This is just as absurd as the people who claim that it is natural progression that all cultures and societies become this Western-American-modern society.

[KimchISA]

Dogmai still have not answered my question? Scientifically speaking not a social construct. Being "Gay" Male/Male, Female/Female is against Darwinian Evolution. Period. The argument for it scientifically is just laughable. Now social construct wise, being "Gay" does not equate to "Marriage" why do majority of society have to adjust what has been the norm since the beginning of time to now change for few minority?

[Evil_K_Man]

So marriage and (adopted) children were always the natural progression that homosexuality would move towards from the start?

 

This is just as absurd as the people who claim that it is natural progression that all cultures and societies become this Western-American-modern society.

You again...ugh...

Gays might not have a progression towards marriage, but as human beings its normal to want progression towards equal treatment.

[KimchISA]

Umm.. These days the "gay agenda" is pushing their point of view down our Throats. Nothing wrong with equal rights, but don't show me some Gay Pride parade with butt nekkid dudes riding on a Big Dildo and call it Normal.

[Evil_K_Man]

Dogmai still have not answered my question? Scientifically speaking not a social construct. Being "Gay" Male/Male, Female/Female is against Darwinian Evolution. Period. The argument for it scientifically is just laughable.

Ok, you guys, if you are going to use "science" to explain things, make sure you UNDERSTAND THAT SCIENCE thoroughly enough so people can't poke holes in your argument.  But let’s try it your way…but with how should I put it…BETTER SCIENCE.

Assume gay is genetic (since you are referring to it from a scientific perspective), then YES you are correct in that gays would be eliminated because evolution tells us that genes can only be carried on through procreation and well..gays don't procreate...at least with each other. But is that the end of the story? NO, because like a lot of people who don't know what they are talking about, you understand SIMPLE biology/science only.  Have you ever considered that the gene(s) for being gay are probably carried by the STRAIGHT parents and are expressed as recessive genes?...because you know it’s the Straights who give birth to the Gays...not the other way around.

Let’s go back to BASIC high school biology...do you remember the Punnett Square? It gives us the possibilities of combination of how a child will receive it's gene from its parents. Let’s say Straight is A and Gay is B, but in this case B is the recessive gene. We can conclude this because the population representation of gays is somewhat small compared to straights.  So here is an example of two STRAIGHT parents who carry heterozygote genes, expressed as AB, and AB.  We know they are straight because A is dominant.  So when these two get their groove on, the chances of their kids receiving their genes are

AA - Straight
AB - Straight
BA - Straight
BB - You guess it..GAY.

In this case, their kids have a 25% chance of receiving the BB genes which will express itself if there is no dominant gene.

I realize that this is a simple explanation and that genetics is a lot more complicated then you or I understand, but see how things make more sense when you put in more effort to UNDERSTAND them?

[Evil_K_Man]

Dogmai...you can thank me later.

[prima_donna]

It's the same thing with the neo-Feminists. This isn't about the equal right to vote, education, employment anymore. It's about, "I won't feel equal until I, too, have a penis!" 

I find this statement ignorant. Keep telling yourself that because you dont know squat about feminism.