Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There is no scientific proof of why most people are heterosexual and some are homosexual,
Actually there is much scientific evidence towards the reasons people are homosexual or heterosexual. As to pinpointing the ultimate cause that determines whether a person will be homosexual or heterosexual, research is still in progress as there is not sufficient consensus.
We can't say there is no scientific proof, but we can say that there is not enough proof to be 100% certain.
So you are not going to discuss the objections, but simply open a new discussion?Sorry I havent been participating in this discussion until now. Its just there have been so many responses and I barely had enough time to skim over half of em let alone read the whole lot. I would just like to add to my video,
I´m not homsexual and I want this institution changed.why do homosexuals want to change an institution
For similar reasons that this institution has been changed numerous times throughout history.that is as old as the oldest known civilisations.
I´m not sure I understand why you bring up an argument that criticizes change of institutions in general. Institutions have always been subject to change, and I am pretty sure there are institutions whose change you have supported or would support.Why dont they just create a new ceremony especially for themselves, just dont call it marriage. Why do they want the one thing the law says they cant have? Just create something else and stop trying to change something that already is, and works just fine the way it is - male to female marraige
Well this comment (and any variation on it), is not valid, because the OBVIOUS POINT I was trying to make is that marriage is legally reserved for MALE and FEMALE in the sense that the two sexes CAN reproduce (obviously should they choose too). And CLEARLY its referring to whether they can reproduce as a whole / as a general rule of thumb, thus it is clearly NOT referring to whether there are individual cases due to birth defects or surgery etc
Likewise, it is illogical to play the card that “they once disallowed interracial marriages” (thus implying that people who opposed gay marriage are as ignorant as those who once opposed racial marriage). The reason this argument doesn’t apply is because we are talking about GENDERS, not RACES!
The reason this argument doesn’t apply is because we are talking about GENDERS, not RACES! It’s perfectly natural for a black man and a white woman to marry and even start a family if they choose. Because their genders ALLOW it cause its NATURAL.
If a black man and a black man decide to start a family, nature does NOT ALLOW IT (because quite OBVIOUSLY it is unnatural!) Unnatural in the sense that they cant reproduce.
Likewise, it is illogical to play the card that they once disallowed interracial marriages (thus implying that people who opposed gay marriage are as ignorant as those who once opposed racial marriage). The reason this argument doesnt apply is because we are talking about GENDERS, not RACES! Its perfectly natural for a black man and a white woman to marry and even start a family if they choose. Because their genders ALLOW it cause its NATURAL. If a black man and a black man decide to start a family, nature does NOT ALLOW IT (because quite OBVIOUSLY it is unnatural!) Unnatural in the sense that they cant reproduce.
Well this comment (and any variation on it), is not valid, because the OBVIOUS POINT I was trying to make is that marriage is legally reserved for MALE and FEMALE in the sense that the two sexes CAN reproduce (obviously should they choose too).
But these "individual cases" make up a group of the human population. So if you're looking at excluding groups and not just individuals, then there are certainly groups of heterosexual people who would be disqualified from marriage on the basis of their ability to reproduce.And CLEARLY its referring to whether they can reproduce as a whole / as a general rule of thumb, thus it is clearly NOT referring to whether there are individual cases due to birth defects or surgery etc
Which means, of course, that your argument rests solely on the basis of marriage being available only to those people who intend to reproduce.Unnatural in the sense that they cant reproduce.
... the OBVIOUS POINT I was trying to make is that marriage is legally reserved for MALE and FEMALE in the sense that the two sexes CAN reproduce (obviously should they choose too). And CLEARLY its referring to whether they can reproduce as a whole / as a general rule of thumb, thus it is clearly NOT referring to whether there are individual cases due to birth defects or surgery etc
Or maybe even the intent to reproduce? I'm not exactly sure what his point is, so I'm still kinda waiting for a reply.Do you have any evidence that marriage laws are based on the ability to reproduce?
Ok, this is to address all those who have raised the following point. When I said as part of my vid that gay people cant reproduce, and this is one of the compelling reasons that gay marriage is unnatural, people have responded by pointing out various groups of people who cant reproduce such as couples who have fertility problems etc, and they have gone on to say so their marriage is unnatural too, because they cant reproduce either, so they shouldnt be allowed to get married according to you
Well this comment (and any variation on it), is not valid, because the OBVIOUS POINT I was trying to make is that marriage is legally reserved for MALE and FEMALE in the sense that the two sexes CAN reproduce (obviously should they choose too). And CLEARLY its referring to whether they can reproduce as a whole / as a general rule of thumb, thus it is clearly NOT referring to whether there are individual cases due to birth defects or surgery etc
Likewise, it is illogical to play the card that they once disallowed interracial marriages (thus implying that people who opposed gay marriage are as ignorant as those who once opposed racial marriage). The reason this argument doesnt apply is because we are talking about GENDERS, not RACES! Its perfectly natural for a black man and a white woman to marry and even start a family if they choose. Because their genders ALLOW it cause its NATURAL. If a black man and a black man decide to start a family, nature does NOT ALLOW IT (because quite OBVIOUSLY it is unnatural!) Unnatural in the sense that they cant reproduce.
Using the intent argument falls flat also. You can have a heterosexual couple who has no intent to produce offspring...should they not get married also?Or maybe even the intent to reproduce? I'm not exactly sure what his point is, so I'm still kinda waiting for a reply.
I'm surprised that this thread has gone the distance since the OP came up with no original argument whatever. It's simply a rehash of so many threads before it. Why don't these folks just say, plainly and simply, "I don't like homosexuality" instead of couching their dislike for homosexuality with pretentious 'logic' and ambiguous scriptures?
Yes, they should. And the OP has already stated that. So I'm failing to see his argument against same-sex marriage in any form whatsoever.Using the intent argument falls flat also. You can have a heterosexual couple who has no intent to produce offspring...should they not get married also?
Agreed.Other than from a religous standpoint, there is probably no reason to make gay marriage illegal. Once we start basing our laws on religious doctrine, we are in for catastropic problems!
That would be fine, up to the point that the "I don't like homosexuality" crowd starts legislating...which they do. And so here we are.Why don't these folks just say, plainly and simply, "I don't like homosexuality" instead of couching their dislike for homosexuality with pretentious 'logic' and ambiguous scriptures?
I'm surprised that this thread has gone the distance since the OP came up with no original argument whatever. It's simply a rehash of so many threads before it. Why don't these folks just say, plainly and simply, "I don't like homosexuality" instead of couching their dislike for homosexuality with pretentious 'logic' and ambiguous scriptures?
Dogs always roam in packs. Strength in numbers. If they say "I" then they are singling themselves out and going away from the pack who uses arhaic literature to oppress.
The FACTS are that some people have an unasked for sexual orientation toward those of the same gender. Therefore, this is 'natural' for them and they should not feel guilty about it. The FACTS are also that this subject as presented by the anti-'gays' is just one huge beat-up that needs to be stopped once and for all!
Looking back on history, one can rely on the fact that eventually people will realize their mistakes and rectify them. We need to keep up the good fight and soon enough, we will be sitting back listening to our kids and grandkids talk about how weird it was years ago when the LGBT community was denied equal rights. Just like we've done in history class wondering how in the world we denied women equal rights, or blacks equal right, or how we could enslave entire races of people based on something they are born with : skin color.
I make no secret of the fact that I dislike the act of homosexuality. I find it extremely repuslive. However, its not my personal dislike that makes homosexuality unnatural, its the fact that depending what you believe in (nature or God), life has been designed to come into the world via male sperm and a female egg (this is natural), it then follows that its natural for the male who conceiverd the child and the female whose egg was conceived would then raise their own child, as its technically part of them - again completely natural.
And if you look at it from lifes perspective, homosexuality is also curbing the possibility of overpopulation.
Marriage is an institute
Marriage is a relationship. Not an institution.
Marriage is an institute which has become the backbone of the family unit/family structure, and an attack on (natural) marriage is an attack on the natural family unit (ie mother, father, and child/children).
So...are we discussing social "norms" or a made up institution?
When homosexuals fight for gay marriage (and then illogically they also seem to fight for the right to adopt children), they are actually fighting against one of the pillars and foudnations of stable society across the earth - the family unit (as it is in nature, mother and father and children)
So then, equality is unnatural, gay marriage and adoption rights are making society unstable? Howso?
How is embracing change and equality ruining a precious man made institution or these "pillars and foundations" as your post suggests?
So concerning how homosexuality is so unnatural, why do some birds form same sex pairings for the raising of their young?I make no secret of the fact that I dislike the act of homosexuality. I find it extremely repuslive. However, its not my personal dislike that makes homosexuality unnatural, its the fact that depending what you believe in (nature or God), life has been designed to come into the world via male sperm and a female egg (this is natural), it then follows that its natural for the male who conceiverd the child and the female whose egg was conceived would then raise their own child, as its technically part of them - again completely natural. This thread is about marriage. Marriage is an institute which has become the backbone of the family unit/family structure, and an attack on (natural) marriage is an attack on the natural family unit (ie mother, father, and child/children). When homosexuals fight for gay marriage (and then illogically they also seem to fight for the right to adopt children), they are actually fighting against one of the pillars and foudnations of stable society across the earth - the family unit (as it is in nature, mother and father and children)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?