Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Do you agree with Same-sex marriage? watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you agree with Same-sex Marriage?
    Yes!
    355
    77.34%
    NO!!!
    104
    22.66%

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amankhanhussain)
    i won't. according to you it is who i am.
    :facepalm:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ojwasguilty)
    :facepalm:
    anyway . it was good to chat with you. and sorry for my english. english is not my native lang.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amankhanhussain)
    why the hell homosexual is natural.
    It's perfectly natural to the participants; it naturally occurs in mankind (maybe 3% of the population) and in some animal species.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    What I find funny is that homosexuality was encouraged by the Ancient Romans, they used to say men were for fun and women were for childbearing. Yet it tends to be the religious that are against homosexuality

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's not just the religious that are against homosexuality. A lot of blue collar workers are against it and they tend to be a very irreligious group. Attitudes towards gays by construction workers for example are not generally positive. "Poof, ******, etc" - you still hear these words derogatively used every day on construction sites.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amankhanhussain)
    well then heterosexual is more natural. someone can't have happy life being homosexual. they have a lot problems than a heterosexual face.
    Ironically, most of the problems that homosexuals face are created by intolerant bigots like you that can't keep your nose out of other people's bedrooms.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Ironically, most of the problems that homosexuals face are created by intolerant bigots like you that can't keep your nose out of other people's bedrooms.
    i don't mock at homo. or abuse. i am just saying it is not right and i don't agree with it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amankhanhussain)
    i don't mock at homo. or abuse. i am just saying it is not right and i don't agree with it.
    Well good to know. Just remember tat opinions are like ass holes - everybody has one - and unless you are prepared to justify your position by going beyond saying "I just think it's wrong" then your opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well good to know. Just remember tat opinions are like ass holes - everybody has one - and unless you are prepared to justify your position by going beyond saying "I just think it's wrong" then your opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
    no idea what you meant?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Usually you'll find it's because they are not allowed to (and deep down they really want to)
    Reminds me of a certain episode of Two and a Half Men.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Howard)
    It's not just the religious that are against homosexuality. A lot of blue collar workers are against it and they tend to be a very irreligious group. Attitudes towards gays by construction workers for example are not generally positive. "Poof, ******, etc" - you still hear these words derogatively used every day on construction sites.
    I know it's not just them but you got the point. And let's be honest, builders will take the piss out of everything

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    I understand your argument. However, the Bible and perhaps this goes across most of the Abrahamic faiths, they only ever discuss marriage within a heterosexual context, omitting any references to it from a homosexual point of view.

    In an effort to view opposition to homosexual marriages as a homophobic belief, one has to read into or suggest that it is implied (because the scriptures only address it from a heterosexual viewpoint).

    The examples, or analogies in this case, that you have provided do not seem to correspond to what we are discussing here. A more apt analogy would be "I like coffee" or "I am comfortable on water".

    In the first case, that of coffee, does that mean that I hate or I detest any beverage other than coffee and equally in my second analogy, does it necessarily mean that I am not comfortable on land?
    If you state you are only in favour of heterosexual marriage then, by implication, you reject and are not in favour of homosexual marriage. You also have to consider context: the Abrahamic faiths all reject homosexual relations.

    Many people scream 'it's just my beliefs!' and 'it's not homophobic' to say they are only in favour of heterosexual marriage, yet if someone said 'I am only in favour of white on white marriage', they would be denounced as a racist and a white supremacist, even if they said 'it's just my beliefs!' and 'it's not racist'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Couldn't care less.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i do and i do not agree with it because man and woman are made for each other but also it dose not matter what sex you are because love is love and if you have true feeling for someone then it is not relevent
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    I know it's not just them but you got the point. And let's be honest, builders will take the piss out of everything

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    We do indeed. Even working in construction management we take the piss. I often answer my phone in a camp voice saying "good morning gay bathhouse" (after checking whose calling) It's just having a laugh really.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amankhanhussain)
    no idea what you meant?
    He is saying that you saying 'I think homosexuality is wrong', without any objective evidence or reasoning, is about as useful as saying 'I don't like broccoli'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    If you state you are only in favour of heterosexual marriage then, by implication, you reject and are not in favour of homosexual marriage. You also have to consider context: the Abrahamic faiths all reject homosexual relations.
    Not necessarily so. An implication will only be made where one opts for one choice over another, and not where one simply states a choice with no reference to the other.

    As for context, homosexual relationships do seem to be forbidden in the Abrahamic faiths but anything that is forbidden in one form, does not necessarily mean that it is rejected if presented in another form.

    Many people scream 'it's just my beliefs!' and 'it's not homophobic' to say they are only in favour of heterosexual marriage, yet if someone said 'I am only in favour of white on white marriage', they would be denounced as a racist and a white supremacist, even if they said 'it's just my beliefs!' and 'it's not racist'.
    Would it still be considered "racist" if there was established scientific evidence to the effect that marrying out of one's race would lead to a severe and degenerative life for any offspring?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Not necessarily so. An implication will only be made where one opts for one choice over another, and not where one simply states a choice with no reference to the other.

    As for context, homosexual relationships do seem to be forbidden in the Abrahamic faiths but anything that is forbidden in one form, does not necessarily mean that it is rejected if presented in another form.
    I was going by your original statement of 'I don't think being in favour of only a "man-woman" relationship...', with the key word being 'only', which creates the implication.

    If someone said 'I am in favour of heterosexual marriage', then you're right that would not necessarily create the implication.

    Would it still be considered "racist" if there was established scientific evidence to the effect that marrying out of one's race would lead to a severe and degenerative life for any offspring?
    Probably, given a lot of people would use the same sort of language if people discriminated against two disabled people marrying, where there is a very real prospect of any offspring developing disabilities.

    However, given homosexual marriage does not lead to a severe and degenerative life for any offspring and as homosexual marriage does not require the production of offspring to be valid, I am not sure how that affects my analogy?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    I was going by your original statement of 'I don't think being in favour of only a "man-woman" relationship...', with the key word being 'only', which creates the implication.

    If someone said 'I am in favour of heterosexual marriage', then you're right that would not necessarily create the implication.



    Probably, given a lot of people would use the same sort of language if people discriminated against two disabled people marrying, where there is a very real prospect of any offspring developing disabilities.

    However, given homosexual marriage does not lead to a severe and degenerative life for any offspring and as homosexual marriage does not require the production of offspring to be valid, I am not sure how that affects my analogy?
    The point being that if presented in a particular manner or context, then views which may have seemed radical or extreme can become excusable and justified, to the person making such views.

    As I said, it doesn't necessarily mean that such views are homophobic if it can only be derived through implication.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    The point being that if presented in a particular manner or context, then views which may have seemed radical or extreme can become excusable and justified, to the person making such views.

    As I said, it doesn't necessarily mean that such views are homophobic if it can only be derived through implication.
    Of course, but motive and intention rarely come into it when people are branded racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. A person espousing racist views may believe that what they are saying is divinely inspired and preventing a great evil, but that does not prevent their comments being labelled racist, and probably justifiably so.

    My point is that if someone saying only white-on-white marriage is acceptable is branded a racist, regardless of intention or motive, then I don't see why saying only heterosexual marriage is acceptable cannot also be branded homophobic, regardless of intention or motive.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amankhanhussain)
    what rubbish they do choose to become a homo.
    it is a choice.
    What reliable evidence do you have to support that?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.