Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

How can people think homosexuality is a choice?

Announcements Posted on
Post on TSR and win a prize! Find out more... 10-04-2014
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    And so DYKWIA continues masking his homophobia with 'factual opinion' for yet another day. *popcorn*
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Have you ever thought that someone might not want to be gay because they feel that it would be better for themselves, their families and everyone if they were straight? Gay people who become straight often become good allies in fighting the lies of the gay lobby and opposing gay marriage.



    No, it's not 'tough ****'. I will fight it. You are trying to force acceptance of gay marriage on a society that doesn't want it (or at least a large minority don't want).



    Did you mean to say that? I think that homophobia is harmful (by homophobia I mean people who want gays dead or homosexuality to be illegal).
    1) i don't know why i bother with you... again you completely ignore what i say and bring up reasons why gay people wouldn't want to be gay due to the people around them.

    2) so... in your opinion, MLK was wrong to do what he did because he tried to force black civil rights and equality on a large majority who didn't want it? the surfragettes were wrong because they tried to force womens' vote on a large majority who didn't want it?
    or do you think fighting for both of those rights were ok because you agree with them... but just because YOU happen to agree with discrimination against people who love others of the same sex.. it's ok to keep gay people unequal purely on the basis that a "large" minority want to keep it that way?

    3) i meant homosexuality in the last para whenever i said homophobia... this is what i meant


    firstly i have never said i oppose polygamous marriage... i do not know enough about the legal implications of having more than one spouse to form an opinion on it...
    secondly... comparing homosexuality to paedophilia is completely ridiculous. homosexuality does not harm anyone, it is two mutually consenting adults entering into a relationship, just like a straight couple. paedophilia - when their urges are carried out - involves the manipulation and rape of children who are often scarred and haunted for life. people cannot help being a paedophile and being a paedophile in itself is not a crime... however looking at child porn and grooming/raping children etc. ARE crimes and very harmful to others, not just the victims. yes i think it is 100% acceptable to put a stigma on paedophilia since child abuse is 100% wrong.
    if you are going to compare homosexuality to paedophilia then you also have to equally compare heterosexuality to paedophilia.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Have you ever thought that someone might not want to be gay because they feel that it would be better for themselves, their families and everyone if they were straight? Gay people who become straight often become good allies in fighting the lies of the gay lobby and opposing gay marriage.
    Do you mean people who used to be gay who do actually become straight or just gays who choose to remain celibate, because there's a difference.

    No, it's not 'tough ****'. I will fight it. You are trying to force acceptance of gay marriage on a society that doesn't want it (or at least a large minority don't want).
    You can't 'force' any sort of marriage on 'society', because marriage is a matter between the individuals getting married and a third party to administer a ceremony if the individuals in question wish it. 'Society' has no place in that, and so no right to have a say in it.

    This problem has arisen because the state has decided to be involved where it really shouldn't be. Currently the state grants privilege and special rights to heterosexual marriage (which, to be fair, is better than it used to be when only religious marriages had this state-granted privilege).

    The ideal situation is that the state wouldn't grant special rights or privileges to any sort of relationship, but while we're in a situation where it does to heterosexual marriage, why shouldn't gays have the same privileges?
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    It's a disease that affects gay people a lot more than straight people.
    And effects lesbians a lot less than straight people. Yet somehow I can guess you don't support lesbian marriage being legalised either.

    This is something that really depends on the situation too - straight men who have sex a lot will have more chance of catching HIV than gay men who don't have sex much, straight men who don't use condoms will have more chance of catching HIV than gay men who do use condoms, etc.

    the rights of the majority.
    'The majority' has no rights. Only individuals have rights.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Have you ever thought that someone might not want to be gay because they feel that it would be better for themselves, their families and everyone if they were straight? Gay people who become straight often become good allies in fighting the lies of the gay lobby and opposing gay marriage.
    I'm sure you have heard of John Smid. He was once a very active supporter of "gay therapy" and led one of these conversion facilites. He has now admitted that he himself is gay and that it is impossible to change sexual orientation - source


    No, it's not 'tough ****'. I will fight it. You are trying to force acceptance of gay marriage on a society that doesn't want it (or at least a large minority don't want).
    Just out of interest, would you support a civil partnership if it gave all the rights of marriage under an other name? (That it, right of kin, parental rights of child, status as significant other)
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bellissima)
    1) i don't know why i bother with you... again you completely ignore what i say and bring up reasons why gay people wouldn't want to be gay due to the people around them.

    2) so... in your opinion, MLK was wrong to do what he did because he tried to force black civil rights and equality on a large majority who didn't want it? the surfragettes were wrong because they tried to force womens' vote on a large majority who didn't want it?
    Those were different circumstances. Is there anything wrong with black people? Is there anything wrong with allowing interracial marriages? No. In fact, interracial marriages are generally a good thing since they break down racial barriers. Again, women's rights are fine. In fact, I'm even pro-choice to some extent.

    or do you think fighting for both of those rights were ok because you agree with them... but just because YOU happen to agree with discrimination against people who love others of the same sex.. it's ok to keep gay people unequal purely on the basis that a "large" minority want to keep it that way?
    It is a large minority, if not a majority, so don't put that in quotes. Those against gay marriage are around the 50% mark. And no, I don't believe in discrimination against gays, only a defense of marriage. I don't think allowing gay marriage is good for society, or safe.

    firstly i have never said i oppose polygamous marriage... i do not know enough about the legal implications of having more than one spouse to form an opinion on it...
    secondly... comparing homosexuality to paedophilia is completely ridiculous. homosexuality does not harm anyone, it is two mutually consenting adults entering into a relationship, just like a straight couple. paedophilia - when their urges are carried out - involves the manipulation and rape of children who are often scarred and haunted for life. people cannot help being a paedophile and being a paedophile in itself is not a crime... however looking at child porn and grooming/raping children etc. ARE crimes and very harmful to others, not just the victims. yes i think it is 100% acceptable to put a stigma on paedophilia since child abuse is 100% wrong.
    if you are going to compare homosexuality to paedophilia then you also have to equally compare heterosexuality to paedophilia.
    Okay, I admit the comparison to pedophilia isn't perfect and was maybe crass. But you have no issue with comparing gay marriage to the civil rights movement, which a ridiculous comparison to make. Are gays forced to sit in certain places on buses? Are gays discriminated against in terms of pay? No and no.

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Do you mean people who used to be gay who do actually become straight or just gays who choose to remain celibate, because there's a difference.
    Well yeah, they say they are straight and admit that gay marriage may not be a good thing.

    You can't 'force' any sort of marriage on 'society', because marriage is a matter between the individuals getting married and a third party to administer a ceremony if the individuals in question wish it. 'Society' has no place in that, and so no right to have a say in it.
    When you make it legal you are forcing us to accept it. And what about our children who will be raised in an environment that you didn't want? What happens when they are taught homosexual lies in schools?

    This problem has arisen because the state has decided to be involved where it really shouldn't be. Currently the state grants privilege and special rights to heterosexual marriage (which, to be fair, is better than it used to be when only religious marriages had this state-granted privilege).

    The ideal situation is that the state wouldn't grant special rights or privileges to any sort of relationship, but while we're in a situation where it does to heterosexual marriage, why shouldn't gays have the same privileges?
    So in other words, because gays can't marry people of the same sex you want to take away everyone else's rights instead?

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    And effects lesbians a lot less than straight people. Yet somehow I can guess you don't support lesbian marriage being legalised either.

    This is something that really depends on the situation too - straight men who have sex a lot will have more chance of catching HIV than gay men who don't have sex much, straight men who don't use condoms will have more chance of catching HIV than gay men who do use condoms, etc.
    I was talking about men who have sex with men. tbh, I didn't really think about lesbian couples. I don't think they should be allowed to marry either. But HIV infection rates are only one reason gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.

    (Original post by Darrenh800)
    I'm sure you have heard of John Smid. He was once a very active supporter of "gay therapy" and led one of these conversion facilites. He has now admitted that he himself is gay and that it is impossible to change sexual orientation - source
    No, i've not heard of him. I don't think that's right. There are plenty of people who say therapy has helped. Perhaps he was trying to force gays to turn straight, which wouldn't work. It's like how people can change their accents over time. It's not gonna happen overnight, and it won't happen if you're not willing, but you can do it. I know people who used to be gay and aren't any more. Heck, there are even people who have become gay and lesbian later in life.

    Just out of interest, would you support a civil partnership if it gave all the rights of marriage under an other name? (That it, right of kin, parental rights of child, status as significant other)
    I wouldn't want that ideally, no. However, if it was between that and full gay marriage, I'd support it if it got you off our backs.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    When you make it legal you are forcing us to accept it.
    Really? Many churches do not recognise secular marriages, but they are enshrined in law. What 'legalisation' of any sort of marriage essentially means is that you can get a piece of paper from the state with 'MARRIED' stamped on it, plus possible legal/financial benefits (which are wrong regardless of whether you're gay or straight - why shouldn't unmarried straight couples get those benefits?).

    What about people who don't want to accept state involvement in heterosexual marriage but have to because it is enshrined in law? Or, as a better example, religious people who are forced to accept secular marriages because they are enshrined in law?

    The solution is to get the law and the state out of it altogether.

    And what about our children who will be raised in an environment that you didn't want? What happens when they are taught homosexual lies in schools?
    Such as......?


    So in other words, because gays can't marry people of the same sex you want to take away everyone else's rights instead?
    Yes, though I disagree with your phrasing of it. It's not a 'right' as such, it's a state-granted privelege that is, for some reason, only available to heterosexual couples. Heterosexual couples should never have been given that 'right', the state ought to stay out of a personal matter like marriage altogether.

    Everyone already has the right to have a ceremony in which they can declare themselves married to a man, a woman, two men, three men, a horse or a shoe if they really want to, because no-one has the right to prevent them from doing so. However, only marriage ceremonies between heterosexual couples are granted state-enforced priveleges. Personally, I think these priveleges should be abolished altogether, but while they do exist, I will support the cause of any group trying to win equality of them.

    I was talking about men who have sex with men. tbh, I didn't really think about lesbian couples. I don't think they should be allowed to marry either.
    So what's the reasoning behind this one?

    But HIV infection rates are only one reason gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.
    The others being....?
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Really? Many churches do not recognise secular marriages, but they are enshrined in law. What 'legalisation' of any sort of marriage essentially means is that you can get a piece of paper from the state with 'MARRIED' stamped on it, plus possible legal/financial benefits (which are wrong regardless of whether you're gay or straight - why shouldn't unmarried straight couples get those benefits?).

    What about people who don't want to accept state involvement in heterosexual marriage but have to because it is enshrined in law? Or, as a better example, religious people who are forced to accept secular marriages because they are enshrined in law?

    The solution is to get the law and the state out of it altogether.
    Straight couples need certain rights when they are married. It originally stemmed out of having kids and providing a stable environment for raising them. And before you say 'gay adoption', I think that only confuses children and may make them homosexual. They need a balanced family with a male and female influence.

    Such as......?
    They might give young, very easily influenced children strange ideas. I think it is a bag of hurt.

    Yes, though I disagree with your phrasing of it. It's not a 'right' as such, it's a state-granted privelege that is, for some reason, only available to heterosexual couples. Heterosexual couples should never have been given that 'right', the state ought to stay out of a personal matter like marriage altogether.

    Everyone already has the right to have a ceremony in which they can declare themselves married to a man, a woman, two men, three men, a horse or a shoe if they really want to, because no-one has the right to prevent them from doing so. However, only marriage ceremonies between heterosexual couples are granted state-enforced priveleges. Personally, I think these priveleges should be abolished altogether, but while they do exist, I will support the cause of any group trying to win equality of them.
    Marriage is a historical ceremony which assists couples in raising kids and staying monogamous. However, many of the other forms of marriage can cause harm to others and would be dangerous. Heck, marrying an animal is deeply wrong since they can't consent and if a person had sex with an animal, that is like rape.

    So what's the reasoning behind this one?
    The others being....?
    The possible confusion to children, the possible effects on demographics in our country etc.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Straight couples need certain rights when they are married. It originally stemmed out of having kids and providing a stable environment for raising them.
    For most of history, marriage was just as often about politics and alliances between families. They were usually arranged and the couple in question forced into it. We've ditched all this, and accepted that marriage is first and foremost a commitment between individuals.

    We don't say infertile people can't marry, or that married couples who choose not to have children should have their marriages revoked.

    And before you say 'gay adoption', I think that only confuses children and may make them homosexual. They need a balanced family with a male and female influence.
    Studies on this showed a greater proportion of children raised by gay couples grew up straight than children raised by straight couples.


    They might give young, very easily influenced children strange ideas. I think it is a bag of hurt.
    Again, 'strange ideas' such as?

    Marriage is a historical ceremony which assists couples in raising kids and staying monogamous.
    Apart from the long history of polygamous marriage.

    Heck, marrying an animal is deeply wrong since they can't consent and if a person had sex with an animal, that is like rape.
    They also don't consent to being farmed or kept as pets or killed for food. But maybe a horse was a bad example.

    The possible confusion to children, the possible effects on demographics in our country etc.
    Confusion about what? Again, do kids have problems understanding that some marriages are in churches and some aren't?

    And what about demographics?
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Those were different circumstances. Is there anything wrong with black people? Is there anything wrong with allowing interracial marriages? No. In fact, interracial marriages are generally a good thing since they break down racial barriers. Again, women's rights are fine. In fact, I'm even pro-choice to some extent.



    It is a large minority, if not a majority, so don't put that in quotes. Those against gay marriage are around the 50% mark. And no, I don't believe in discrimination against gays, only a defense of marriage. I don't think allowing gay marriage is good for society, or safe.



    Okay, I admit the comparison to pedophilia isn't perfect and was maybe crass. But you have no issue with comparing gay marriage to the civil rights movement, which a ridiculous comparison to make. Are gays forced to sit in certain places on buses? Are gays discriminated against in terms of pay? No and no.



    Well yeah, they say they are straight and admit that gay marriage may not be a good thing.



    When you make it legal you are forcing us to accept it. And what about our children who will be raised in an environment that you didn't want? What happens when they are taught homosexual lies in schools?



    So in other words, because gays can't marry people of the same sex you want to take away everyone else's rights instead?



    I was talking about men who have sex with men. tbh, I didn't really think about lesbian couples. I don't think they should be allowed to marry either. But HIV infection rates are only one reason gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.



    No, i've not heard of him. I don't think that's right. There are plenty of people who say therapy has helped. Perhaps he was trying to force gays to turn straight, which wouldn't work. It's like how people can change their accents over time. It's not gonna happen overnight, and it won't happen if you're not willing, but you can do it. I know people who used to be gay and aren't any more. Heck, there are even people who have become gay and lesbian later in life.



    I wouldn't want that ideally, no. However, if it was between that and full gay marriage, I'd support it if it got you off our backs.
    it is the same principle as the black civil rights movement. gays are being discriminated against due to something they cannot help and shouldn't HAVE to help even if that were remotely possible (which it isn't). i am not saying it is to the same extreme, but it is the same principle, eg. take the blacks being segregated on the bus. they didn't HAVE to take the bus if they didn't want to, it was their choice... they could but if they did choose to then they had to sit in the back of the bus, segregated. it is the same for gay people. they do not have to get married, but if they were to choose to, they could either get a civil union in some countries (which is similar to allowing blacks on the bus but making them sit in a designated area) OR in most places a union of any sort isn't allowed at all. how is that fair? how is that just? how is that acceptable?

    comparing homosexuality to paedophilia is much more absurd than comparing gay marriage movement to the black civil rights movement....

    how on earth would allowing two people who love eachother harm society and be dangerous?

    and homosexual lies?!?! what are you on about! you are so offensive it's beyond belief!
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    For most of history, marriage was just as often about politics and alliances between families. They were usually arranged and the couple in question forced into it. We've ditched all this, and accepted that marriage is first and foremost a commitment between individuals.
    Unless it can cause harm to society, which it can.

    We don't say infertile people can't marry, or that married couples who choose not to have children should have their marriages revoked.
    No, but that is because we can't predict the future, what if a couple decide later in life to have kids or to have IVF?

    Studies on this showed a greater proportion of children raised by gay couples grew up straight than children raised by straight couples.
    I find that hard to believe.

    Again, 'strange ideas' such as?
    They might think that it is normal to be gay and abnormal not to be. That would be strange.

    Apart from the long history of polygamous marriage.
    Another form of marriage I am against, as are a lot of pro-gay marriage people. It seems hypocritical, no?

    Confusion about what? Again, do kids have problems understanding that some marriages are in churches and some aren't?

    And what about demographics?
    Kids might get confused about gender roles in society and get an unbalanced youth where they are exposed to a male-only family or a female only family. In fact, gay marriage leads to gender segregation, where couples will only hang out with their own sex.

    By demographics I mean that gay couples are less likely to have kids so it may change age proportions in our society, which could threaten our social security.

    (Original post by Bellissima)
    it is the same principle as the black civil rights movement. gays are being discriminated against due to something they cannot help and shouldn't HAVE to help even if that were remotely possible (which it isn't). i am not saying it is to the same extreme, but it is the same principle, eg. take the blacks being segregated on the bus. they didn't HAVE to take the bus if they didn't want to, it was their choice... they could but if they did choose to then they had to sit in the back of the bus, segregated. it is the same for gay people. they do not have to get married, but if they were to choose to, they could either get a civil union in some countries (which is similar to allowing blacks on the bus but making them sit in a designated area) OR in most places a union of any sort isn't allowed at all. how is that fair? how is that just? how is that acceptable?
    It's completely different. Gays are not punished for being gay and I don't believe they should be.

    comparing homosexuality to paedophilia is much more absurd than comparing gay marriage movement to the black civil rights movement....
    Not really, and it seems hypocritical of you to try and suggest that my comparisons are not valid, but yours somehow are.

    how on earth would allowing two people who love eachother harm society and be dangerous?
    i've said this numerous times before, I really don't like to repeat myself: HIV infection rates, harm and confusion to children, skewing of population demographics, damage to the sanctity and value of marriage etc.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    It's completely different. Gays are not punished for being gay and I don't believe they should be.



    Not really, and it seems hypocritical of you to try and suggest that my comparisons are not valid, but yours somehow are.



    i've said this numerous times before, I really don't like to repeat myself: HIV infection rates, harm and confusion to children, skewing of population demographics, damage to the sanctity and value of marriage etc.
    yes gays are being punished for being gay in that they cannot get married, they are being treated different to the rest of humankind in that they do not have the same right. they are being discriminated against. in a lot of countries they ARE persecuted disgustingly and allowing gay marriage in powerful countries such as the USA and UK would send out a strong message.

    how is it hypocritical? i have explained why paedophilia is not a valid comparison to homosexuality... you haven't done anything to explain your opposing view and reply to what i said. i have also explained why comapring gay marriage rights to black civil rights is valid as it is the same principle... you haven't said anything convincing that actually means anything in response.

    HIV infection rates would possibly be reduced seeing as there would be more of a future for gay couples. even if they WEREN'T, HIV rates should have nothing to do with whether an entire group of people should be able to marry or not. should straight people with HIV not be able to marry? do you think africans in poverty shouldn't be able to marry? what about people with hep B or HPV? your argument is also very flawed when you take into account lesbians, who are also homosexuals.

    the only harm and confusion caused to children is due to homophobia in society.
    sanctity of marriage is irrelevant because that is to do with religion and religion should not be involved with the government and law making and should not influence what is fair and what isn't. there are also plenty of atheists and people of opposing religions that marry. as for the value of marriage.... that means nothing. what do you mean by "value" of marriage? that is meaningless... maybe if you define what you even mean by that rubbish then i can respond.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Unless it can cause harm to society, which it can.
    Still yet to hear this supposed harm.


    No, but that is because we can't predict the future, what if a couple decide later in life to have kids or to have IVF?
    What if they're past childbearing age? But the principle remains fundamentally the same; there are plenty of straight couples who don't want their marriage to be about children, or at least, not primarily, they want it to be about their commitment to each other, and would consider your insistence that it's all about children to devalue it.

    They might think that it is normal to be gay and abnormal not to be. That would be strange.
    Why would they think it was abnormal not to be?

    Another form of marriage I am against, as are a lot of pro-gay marriage people. It seems hypocritical, no?
    That's not the point. The point is you were trying to talk about 'historical marriage', which has just as often been polygamous.

    Kids might get confused about gender roles in society and get an unbalanced youth where they are exposed to a male-only family or a female only family.
    'Gender roles'? Are you advocating we live in the 19th century? When I was a kid, both my parents worked, but my mum more than my dad and it was more often my dad who was at home. I had some friends whose dads weren't employed, did all the housework etc, and who had mums working full time jobs. Sexism's coming to an end, my friend, apparently unfortunately for you.

    In fact, gay marriage leads to gender segregation, where couples will only hang out with their own sex.
    Not at all. If anything, quite the opposite. Most gay men prefer the company of women as friends to men.

    By demographics I mean that gay couples are less likely to have kids so it may change age proportions in our society, which could threaten our social security.
    Even if gay marriage made a greater proportion of people gay (which is a totally unsupported assertion), people who would have been straight who wanted to have kids will want to adopt if they're gay. Those who don't, won't.

    And if you'd rather obstruct freedom and equality than restructure social security, then you have a big problem with priorities.
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    ...
    (Original post by Bellissima)
    ...
    (Original post by Darrenh800)
    ...
    It's pointless trying to argue with DKYWIA. He's very clearly homophobic, thinks homosexuals ought be turned straight using something other than therapy (let's try shocking people into being straight again! Because that worked when we did it in the 60's!); He doesn't care if he doesn't have logically sound arguments; he's perfectly fine being un-researched, uniformed, so and so forth; his views are barbaric. To see what I mean, take a look at what he said:

    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    I genuinely find gay stuff gross and it makes me really mad to see a gay couple or worse gay pride stuff. And yes, I am deeply opposed to gay marriage. I feel it is wrong, and I don't care if you think my reasons aren't sound. I think ultimately the best solution would be a more successful method of making those who want to be straight, straight. Therapy as it is doesn't always work and it is slow and expensive.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    It's pointless trying to argue with DKYWIA. He's very clearly homophobic, thinks homosexuals ought be turned straight using something other than therapy (let's try shocking people into being straight again! Because that worked when we did it in the 60's!); He doesn't care if he doesn't have logically sound arguments; he's perfectly fine being un-researched, uniformed, so and so forth; his views are barbaric. To see what I mean, take a look at what he said:
    Look, you misinterpreted what I said. I think that people who want to be straight shouldn't be stopped from trying. It clearly does work. Also, you seem to think that I don't care if my reasons aren't sound. This isn't what I said, I said I don't care whether YOU think my reasons aren't sound. IMO, I have good arguments against gay marriage. Yes, I have my own personal views on homosexuality, but those don't influence my views on gay marriage. I agree that maybe my views on homosexuality maybe aren't 100% kosher, but I try not to let that influence my views on gay rights. You asked for my views on the matter and I told you. Don't get offended if you ask for my honest opinion. I may not like seeing homosexuality in public, but I agree that I have no right to stop it.
    • 19 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I had a discussion with someone a while ago who thought gay people chose to be gay. I brought up the suicide rates, oppression issue etc, and they simply said "well they just like attention". It's astonishing - there might be something in the nature + nurture argument, but it cannot just outright be a choice.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Do you mean people who used to be gay who do actually become straight or just gays who choose to remain celibate, because there's a difference.



    You can't 'force' any sort of marriage on 'society', because marriage is a matter between the individuals getting married and a third party to administer a ceremony if the individuals in question wish it. 'Society' has no place in that, and so no right to have a say in it.

    This problem has arisen because the state has decided to be involved where it really shouldn't be. Currently the state grants privilege and special rights to heterosexual marriage (which, to be fair, is better than it used to be when only religious marriages had this state-granted privilege).

    The ideal situation is that the state wouldn't grant special rights or privileges to any sort of relationship, but while we're in a situation where it does to heterosexual marriage, why shouldn't gays have the same privileges?
    But, in the UK at least, gay couples get all these privileges - okay they can't inherit titles but honestly who cares - under civil partnership. Most of the right wing, even the heavily conservative right wing - as DYKWIA demonstrates - would settle for them so I honestly think it's in the interest of the gay community to settle for them
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darrenh800)
    But, in the UK at least, gay couples get all these privileges - okay they can't inherit titles but honestly who cares - under civil partnership. Most of the right wing, even the heavily conservative right wing - as DYKWIA demonstrates - would settle for them so I honestly think it's in the interest of the gay community to settle for them
    why should they have to be separated from everyone else? it's wrong. they are people too and therefore should be treated the same as everyone else.... if it is exactly the same legally then why not call it marriage? you don't call marriage between two black people a different name to a marriage between two white people. it's like what i said with allowing african americans on the bus... they were allowed on the bus, but they had to sit in a specified seat. it's subtle discrimination to let them know that they are not as worthy as straight people of marriage.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Look, you misinterpreted what I said. I think that people who want to be straight shouldn't be stopped from trying. It clearly does work. Also, you seem to think that I don't care if my reasons aren't sound. This isn't what I said, I said I don't care whether YOU think my reasons aren't sound. IMO, I have good arguments against gay marriage. Yes, I have my own personal views on homosexuality, but those don't influence my views on gay marriage. I agree that maybe my views on homosexuality maybe aren't 100% kosher, but I try not to let that influence my views on gay rights. You asked for my views on the matter and I told you. Don't get offended if you ask for my honest opinion. I may not like seeing homosexuality in public, but I agree that I have no right to stop it.
    i am still waiting to hear about these "homosexual lies" that you started talking about.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    It's pointless trying to argue with DKYWIA. He's very clearly homophobic, thinks homosexuals ought be turned straight using something other than therapy (let's try shocking people into being straight again! Because that worked when we did it in the 60's!); He doesn't care if he doesn't have logically sound arguments; he's perfectly fine being un-researched, uniformed, so and so forth; his views are barbaric. To see what I mean, take a look at what he said:
    i know i don't know why i got into it because i had a similar thing with him over the NHS where facts, graphs, tables were brought up as strong evidence to show what a load of rubbish his "statistics" were and proved what he was saying was baseless.... but he still carried on repeating himself...

    i don't understand how what he says makes sense to him because it is foundless and he can't even back himself up properly... so how does he defend these opinions to himself?
Updated: February 26, 2012
Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.