[vampyroteuthis]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	They just want more rights.

You can have them too.

[Zsych]

	Originally Posted by Tocsin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If the purpose of marriage is specifically for procreation, why do we allow infertile men or women to marry, or women long past child bearing age?

Because for most of human history, this has never been an issue that needed discussion. People typically couldn't tell who was infertile. Most women never lived to be beyond child bearing age. And how many people would've chosen to actually marry those women? There was no need for extra qualification of these things.

Now promoting of other types of lifestyles because they are possible, also affects mainstream behavior - thus the wrecking of marriages for example, and all the resulting psychological trauma to children... because deviants were not punished, the main system changed in unexpected ways.

Its hardly like people who choose to be mature, can't get along or make each other happier. Without a commitment to success, even ordinary and insignificant tasks seem to not be successful.

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Gays practice sodomy and all the states had laws against sodomy.

Ever heard of lesbians? Wanna cover that, now? Please.

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The states could then go further by actively promoting and encouraging sodomy for everyone since sodomy has apparently become a safe and honorable pracitice in post modern uber-leftist society.

Why would the state have to promote or encourage anything?

With proper precautions, butt secks is just fine and dandy. Any particular reason why it should be frowned on or made illegal? I thought you and your hypocritical ilk were in favour of keeping government out of people's private activities? It's okay as long as it supports your inane puritanical views, I suppose.

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	They just want more rights.

Did every right-wing nut case on this site get together and pick out this nonsensical political meme to run around repeating as much as they could?

Death panels.

[peppersasen]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Some heterosexual people practice sodomy but virtually all homosexual men practice sodomy which automatically criminalizes gay men. Since sodomy is an integral part of being a gay male and sodomy is still in many places illegal, all gay men are criminals under the statutes prohibiting sodomy..

not all homos are sodomites, my dear:

• 
  To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
  
• 
  To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
  
• 
  To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
  
• there's even this anti-anal movement (kind of) right here:
  To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
  (NSFW and will probably get deleted but it's called Man2Man Alliance or something)

sorry to disappoint you, Ray.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's unfortunate that some people are born with abnormal urges. People with a sick attraction for the same sex have all the rights the rest of us do.

wasn't it removed from the DSM-II in 1974? and then, of course, on the third day:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Zsych]

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ever heard of lesbians? Wanna cover that, now? Please.

Nobody minds those. God doesn't care.

---------- Post added 06-16-2012 at 01:51 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by peppersasen To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	wasn't it removed from the DSM-II in 1974?

That doesn't really mean anything on one side or the other. "People chose to consider it a problem", "People chose not to consider it a problem" - there's no science behind it. Nobody has developed a scientific way for determining what is good for society.

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by peppersasen To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	wasn't it removed from the DSM-II in 1974?

Keep in mind you are trying to get through to a person whose brain is frozen in 1960.

inb4

libruhl, commie, socialist, muslim, etc. etc. conspiracy.

---------- Post added 06-16-2012 at 01:54 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nobody has developed a scientific way for determining what is good for society.

Thank Allah we have Ray9 to guide us through the dark.

[Zsych]

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Thank Allah we have Ray9 to guide us through the dark.

Well, if people were being intelligent about building new societies, they'd have analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of past ones before starting to change things. Randomly created new systems based on simple ideas, have all manner of new problems that you didn't see before.

[Distance]

Can one oppose gay rights, but believe in general democratic principles?

Oh sure, plenty of people do this. It's called cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy.

[anticlimatic]

Opposing gay rights is a choice that should, and is, a natural part of democratic principals-- the principal that everyone gets a vote, and after they are counted, the majority's opinion should prevail. If the majority supports gay rights, then they have earned them by democratic principal, if the majority does not, then they have not. Simple as that.

If I were a gay man, whose only allies were other homosexuals and heterosexual sympathizers, I would personally say fuck democracy, and appeal to basic human rights instead.

[Tocsin]

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Keep in mind you are trying to get through to a person whose brain is frozen in 1960 1690.

Fixed.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


---------- Post added 06-16-2012 at 01:40 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Because for most of human history, this has never been an issue that needed discussion. People typically couldn't tell who was infertile. Most women never lived to be beyond child bearing age. And how many people would've chosen to actually marry those women? There was no need for extra qualification of these things. Now promoting of other types of lifestyles because they are possible, also affects mainstream behavior - thus the wrecking of marriages for example, and all the resulting psychological trauma to children... because deviants were not punished, the main system changed in unexpected ways. Its hardly like people who choose to be mature, can't get along or make each other happier. Without a commitment to success, even ordinary and insignificant tasks seem to not be successful.

Even if I buy such an argument for procreation as the basis for marriage, then doesn't it follow then that, to be fair, we should:

1. Ban marriage as an option for ALL couples who cannot or do not intend to fulfill the function of procreation, or,
2. Extend marriage to include ALL couples regardless of their intention or ability to fulfill the function of procreation.

[themuzicman]

	Originally Posted by ManWithNoName To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do you have any citation that this is why the state grants the liscence to be married? And that it grants it under the conditions that they will procreate?

The Supreme court ruled that individuals have the right to procreate (in a case where a man was to be forcibly sterilized), and took the opportunity to cite marriage and procreation as fundamental to the human race (Skinner v. Oklahoma). This was then cited in the case of Loving v. Virginia, where a mixed race couple was arrested for living together as married people in violation of Virginia law, citing the same passage.

So, what the Supreme court has demonstrated is that marriage and procreation are tightly knit together in the state's view of them.

	As it seems to grant it basically regardless of if the married individuals (gay or straight) intend to procreate, as plenty of people get married and do not have children. And allows plenty of people to get married in mixed families and such whom don't procreate and just raise childen from previous failed marriages.

Raising children is a different set of tax credits and benefits and such.

	If it's not codified in law or something somewhere then you can't really say that the state allows people to get married because of procreation and that gay people do not meet this clause. The only thing you can say is that you would like the basis of marriage to be for procreation.

States do not need to provide justification in the laws written as to why they are written. In fact, in most cases, they don't.

But you have your justification.

	And which you should logically also be protesting against all people who get married and don't procreate. That is, if you don't want to be discrimintory against gay people, where you allow straight people to get married who have no intention of procreation but not gay people.

In general, we can't tell who will and will not procreate and who will not when they apply for a license. We do know it requires a male-female pairing to procreate together, and thus a male-female pairing for issuing marriage licenses is a reasonable standard for the state to use.

Furthermore, if the state wanted to either require evidence of ability to procreate before issuing a license, or even put standards on which male-female couples may receive those benefits, that would be an acceptable course for the state to take. However, for reasons of its own choosing, it does not.

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by sunitaishot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If liberal democracy means that all in a society have the same basic rights, is it consistent to oppose gay rights, in one believes liberal democracy is a desired system?

Good question. That argument has resulted in the following question being taken seriously by the world:

If liberal democracy means that all in a society have the same basic rights, is it consistent to oppose the rights of terrorists and murderers, if one believes liberal democracy is a desired system?

The EU ruled that it does for terrorists and murderers, on the basis of the argument that you made. You will eventually be required to follow suit.