Your stance on gay marriage

[Samuraikoku]

Page 141 and still no conclusion. Guess that's what these forums are for...

I think gay marriage is wrong for the simple reason that man is not supposed to be another man's wife. That's what women are for. Likewise, a man is not supposed to bang another man in the rear (or a girl do another girl), because that's why there is an opposite sex. Everything is supposed to be in harmonious opposites (yin/yang), and in the animal kingdom, those creatures that for whatever reason break this principle suffer the penalty of not passing their genes to the new generation.

There, said it. Hope this stirs up a fuss, otherwise it looks the action has died down a bit.

No fuss stirred. Everyone has agreed AGAINST your position. Including yours truly.

[Cthag-antil]

Really....how tragic for you.

Any reason you are patronizing me, besides an attempt to cover for your derailing of the original topic?

Hardly, the 'sub' thread was a valid vein and hardly the only divergence...and besides why whine to me about it and tell someone who might give a poo..like a mod?

[Ceannairceach]

Page 141 and still no conclusion. Guess that's what these forums are for...

I think gay marriage is wrong for the simple reason that man is not supposed to be another man's wife. That's what women are for. Likewise, a man is not supposed to bang another man in the rear (or a girl do another girl), because that's why there is an opposite sex. Everything is supposed to be in harmonious opposites (yin/yang), and in the animal kingdom, those creatures that for whatever reason break this principle suffer the penalty of not passing their genes to the new generation.

*Sigh* there is utterly no reason for a restriction on what sex a person can marry. Things aren't "meant" to be any which way. People can reproduce without heterosexuality or heterosexual sex.

[Ovisterra]

Page 141 and still no conclusion. Guess that's what these forums are for...

I think gay marriage is wrong for the simple reason that man is not supposed to be another man's wife. That's what women are for. Likewise, a man is not supposed to bang another man in the rear (or a girl do another girl), because that's why there is an opposite sex. Everything is supposed to be in harmonious opposites (yin/yang), and in the animal kingdom, those creatures that for whatever reason break this principle suffer the penalty of not passing their genes to the new generation.

There, said it. Hope this stirs up a fuss, otherwise it looks the action has died down a bit.

No fuss stirred. Everyone has agreed AGAINST your position. Including yours truly.

And me! I think someone telling other people what they can and can't do with the person they love is wrong

[Ceannairceach]

Any reason you are patronizing me, besides an attempt to cover for your derailing of the original topic?

Hardly, the 'sub' thread was a valid vein and hardly the only divergence...and besides why whine to me about it and tell someone who might give a poo..like a mod?

I wasn't asking you directly. I was simply asking why an HIV discussion was thrown in to a topic that was about homosexual marriage, of which there is no correlation.

[Cthag-antil]

People can reproduce without heterosexuality or heterosexual sex.

With technological assistance....

[Ceannairceach]

People can reproduce without heterosexuality or heterosexual sex.

With technological assistance....

And, in this day and age, it is possible, thereby muting the "survivalist" position of "they can't reproduce/can't pass on their genes".

[Samuraikoku]

People can reproduce without heterosexuality or heterosexual sex.

With technological assistance....

But they still can reproduce. Not to mention, some heterosexual people couldn't reproduce without technology (how about in vitro babies?)

[Cthag-antil]

Hardly, the 'sub' thread was a valid vein and hardly the only divergence...and besides why whine to me about it and tell someone who might give a poo..like a mod?

I wasn't asking you directly. I was simply asking why an HIV discussion was thrown in to a topic that was about homosexual marriage, of which there is no correlation.

Who are you to judge what is and what isnt related?

Especially if we are discussing why people might oppose homosexuality and homosexual marriage by extension.

[Samuraikoku]

I wasn't asking you directly. I was simply asking why an HIV discussion was thrown in to a topic that was about homosexual marriage, of which there is no correlation.

Who are you to judge what is and what isnt related?

Especially if we are discussing why people might oppose homosexuality and homosexual marriage by extension.

Statistics are no grounds to oppose homosexual marriage.

[Ceannairceach]

I wasn't asking you directly. I was simply asking why an HIV discussion was thrown in to a topic that was about homosexual marriage, of which there is no correlation.

Who are you to judge what is and what isnt related?

Especially if we are discussing why people might oppose homosexuality and homosexual marriage by extension.

Because HIV-infection is and has never been a roadblock for marriage.

[Cthag-antil]

With technological assistance....

But they still can reproduce. Not to mention, some heterosexual people couldn't reproduce without technology (how about in vitro babies?)

I couldnt have been born without technology so you wont hear me arguing...just clarifying...lets not get carried away.

[Cthag-antil]

Statistics are no grounds to oppose homosexual marriage.

Certainly not the ones I quoted.

They highlight a health risk in gay male sex.

I truly wonder what that might be....

[Terra Mariana]

Well, I certainly prefer reproducing the good old-fashioned way.

Though on a second thought, if we take the technological path, why not abolish sex altogether. It would eliminate all the fuss over sexual identity and sexual discrimination. Let's grow people in vats and make use of sex-suppressing drugs compulsory - think of all the time people otherwise occupied with sex-related issues would have to do more constructive things. Men would no longer need to waste time and money on courting women, women would no longer have to ward off horny men, homos would no longer need to be homos and rub the fact in everyone's face... Everyone would be just "human". Hell, with some refinement, we could even eliminate gender differences, becoming a species of androgynous "angelic" beings that reproduce through cloning or parthenogenesis. We could engineer everyone to look entirely the same so there would be no difference between individual beings altogether. An unparalleled opportunity to create a society without any discrimination, because there would no longer be individual factors to discriminate against!

But somehow I doubt even the most die-hard champions of equality would sign up for this.

[Cthag-antil]

Who are you to judge what is and what isnt related?

Especially if we are discussing why people might oppose homosexuality and homosexual marriage by extension.

Because HIV-infection is and has never been a roadblock for marriage.

Didn't suggest it was...however I personally wouldnt marry a HIV infected individual...but you have to understand that this kind of thread will get generic when specific questions get asked and responded to so thus a new thread diverges from the main.

[Samuraikoku]

Well, I certainly prefer reproducing the good old-fashioned way.

Though on a second thought, if we take the technological path, why not abolish sex altogether. It would eliminate all the fuss over sexual identity and sexual discrimination. Let's grow people in vats and make use of sex-suppressing drugs compulsory - think of all the time people otherwise occupied with sex-related issues would have to do more constructive things. Men would no longer need to waste time and money on courting women, women would no longer have to ward off horny men, homos would no longer need to be homos and rub the fact in everyone's face... Everyone would be just "human". Hell, with some refinement, we could even eliminate gender differences, becoming a species of androgynous "angelic" beings that reproduce through cloning or parthenogenesis. We could engineer everyone to look entirely the same so there would be no difference between individual beings altogether. An unparalleled opportunity to create a society without any discrimination, because there would no longer be individual factors to discriminate against!

But somehow I doubt even the most die-hard champions of equality would sign up for this.

Because that goes against individual freedom.

[Terra Mariana]

If there was no individuality to begin with, individual freedom would become irrelevant, would it not?

[Ifreann]

Not really, no. As I've said before, correlation doesn't imply causation. If there is a greater proportion of homosexuals who are HIV positive than heterosexuals, that doesn't mean that being homosexual somehow makes you more prone to HIV infection. There are such things as coincidences, you know.

Words fail me.

It means that being male and homosexual makes you vulnerable to HIV infection...for some reason...although I have my suspicions as to what that reason could be.

No it doesn't mean that at all.

It is no coincidence...that is like saying people who play rugby/football seem to sustain more injuries than those playing lawn bowls (or tennis or golf etc) regularly for reasons that have nothing to with playing rugy/football.

No, it's not like that at all.

Homosexuality is a sexual preference identity

Just sexual preference, actually.

....HIV is a sexually transmitted disease....

There are other methods of transmission too.

homosexual men are more at risk from HIV infection than say any other demographic....

According to your warped notion of what statistics mean.

hmmm there is some kind of connection there I just can't put my finger on....

Vocabulary correlates very strongly with shoe size among children. Therefore, bigger feet cause children to spontaneously learn new words.

[SilentJreally]

I say legalize it. I want to get married too. love is love Why should straight people have everything? I'm gonna rephrase that so my point is clearer. Why should straight people be allowed to dictate gay men and women? It should be up to gay men to decide if gay men want to get married. Straight people already have that decision and mess it up everyday.
p.s
I'm not trolling, I am just sick of every topic toward gay men being controlled by people or nations that are so hateful.

[Cthag-antil]

Well, I certainly prefer reproducing the good old-fashioned way.

Though on a second thought, if we take the technological path, why not abolish sex altogether. It would eliminate all the fuss over sexual identity and sexual discrimination. Let's grow people in vats and make use of sex-suppressing drugs compulsory - think of all the time people otherwise occupied with sex-related issues would have to do more constructive things. Men would no longer need to waste time and money on courting women, women would no longer have to ward off horny men, homos would no longer need to be homos and rub the fact in everyone's face... Everyone would be just "human". Hell, with some refinement, we could even eliminate gender differences, becoming a species of androgynous "angelic" beings that reproduce through cloning or parthenogenesis. We could engineer everyone to look entirely the same so there would be no difference between individual beings altogether. An unparalleled opportunity to create a society without any discrimination, because there would no longer be individual factors to discriminate against!

But somehow I doubt even the most die-hard champions of equality would sign up for this.

I wouldnt sign up for that...sounds a bit creepy...its the differences I find interesting.

But your descriptions remind me of UFO reports and related phenomena.

[Ifreann]

There, said it. Hope this stirs up a fuss, otherwise it looks the action has died down a bit.

[Cthag-antil]

No it doesn't mean that at all.

Really...

So what does it mean then?

Is it meaningless?

[Terra Mariana]

Well, I certainly prefer reproducing the good old-fashioned way.

Though on a second thought, if we take the technological path, why not abolish sex altogether. It would eliminate all the fuss over sexual identity and sexual discrimination. Let's grow people in vats and make use of sex-suppressing drugs compulsory - think of all the time people otherwise occupied with sex-related issues would have to do more constructive things. Men would no longer need to waste time and money on courting women, women would no longer have to ward off horny men, homos would no longer need to be homos and rub the fact in everyone's face... Everyone would be just "human". Hell, with some refinement, we could even eliminate gender differences, becoming a species of androgynous "angelic" beings that reproduce through cloning or parthenogenesis. We could engineer everyone to look entirely the same so there would be no difference between individual beings altogether. An unparalleled opportunity to create a society without any discrimination, because there would no longer be individual factors to discriminate against!

But somehow I doubt even the most die-hard champions of equality would sign up for this.

I wouldnt sign up for that...sounds a bit creepy...its the differences I find interesting.

But your descriptions remind me of UFO reports and related phenomena.

I agree - without differences, there wouldn't be anyone to discriminate and generally be an asshole against. What would a man like myself do then... Oh, wait, I wouldn't really be a man or anything then, just another genetically-engineered clone hermaphrodite with no sex drive or personality of my own.

Another idea - how about we become cyborgs, machines... You know, like terminators or cymeks. Our consciousnesses being but complex programs, we could reprogram ourselves and adopt any gender identity we fancied at the moment. Hell, a gay cyborg could even modify his structure to have more... uh, slots to... uh, link up with more than one like-minded being. The only problem would be hackers, who would maliciously tamper with one's gender identity software, which leads to the conclusion that should we become cyborgs, gender identity and sex in general would probably be abolished to avoid certain misunderstandings caused by such tampering.

[Ifreann]

No it doesn't mean that at all.

Really...

So what does it mean then?

Is it meaningless?

If a statistic said 51% of people with HIV are gay, for example, then that means only that 51% of people with HIV are gay. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Cthag-antil]

I wouldnt sign up for that...sounds a bit creepy...its the differences I find interesting.

But your descriptions remind me of UFO reports and related phenomena.

I agree - without differences, there wouldn't be anyone to discriminate and generally be an asshole against. What would a man like myself do then... Oh, wait, I wouldn't really be a man or anything then, just another genetically-engineered clone hermaphrodite with no sex drive or personality of my own.

Another idea - how about we become cyborgs, machines... You know, like terminators or cymeks. Our consciousnesses being but complex programs, we could reprogram ourselves and adopt any gender identity we fancied at the moment. Hell, a gay cyborg could even modify his structure to have more... uh, slots to... uh, link up with more than one like-minded being. The only problem would be hackers, who would maliciously tamper with one's gender identity software, which leads to the conclusion that should we become cyborgs, gender identity and sex in general would probably be abolished to avoid certain misunderstandings caused by such tampering.

You are a cyborg...you are using a machine as an extension of yourself in data space, the virtual world...actively communicating via a machine interface, organic and inorganic as one...you are just not hardwired into the machine...yet...mwahahahahaha...