Should gays be allowed to marry? - Page 19

existingfault · 08-11-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connor

TOPIC:
I don't think it should be allowed. For the plain reason that the catholic church will most probably be the one to marry them and just because they have the right to love too, does NOT mean that a priest should go ahead and do what the bible said not to.

Uh ... last time I checked, the entire world isn't Catholic. And I'm pretty sure those of us who aren't don't have to follow their rules. It's in that pretty little document called the Constitution, if you can believe it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Grievous

Just because something is genetic doesn't make it natural or right. Not saying I'm against gays getting married, but that's just a stupid thing to argue. ADD and tons of different forms of other mental diseases and deficiencies are genetic.

As others have said, the "right" part is subjective. But if something is genetic ... it pretty much is natural. Mutations and variations are how we ended up with different species. Unless it was caused by some artificial catalyst, like radiation or something, any deficiency is still natural. Maybe not necessarily favorable, but that's subjective as well. I have ADD, and I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with me. There's no such thing as a perfect human. So either we're all unnatural and wrong, or we accept that there are always going to be differences and live with it.

**KarnEvil9** · 08-11-2008, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by existingfault

Uh ... last time I checked, the entire world isn't Catholic. And I'm pretty sure those of us who aren't don't have to follow their rules. It's in that pretty little document called the Constitution, if you can believe it.

As others have said, the "right" part is subjective. But if something is genetic ... it pretty much is natural. Mutations and variations are how we ended up with different species. Unless it was caused by some artificial catalyst, like radiation or something, any deficiency is still natural. Maybe not necessarily favorable, but that's subjective as well. I have ADD, and I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with me. There's no such thing as a perfect human. So either we're all unnatural and wrong, or we accept that there are always going to be differences and live with it.

Radiation occurs naturally.

Grevious you're a nut, find me documents that say "gays are not supposed to happen" just like that, not something that has to be inferred by biased viewpoints.

**LordGrievous** · 08-11-2008, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarnEvil9

Radiation occurs naturally.

Grevious you're a nut, find me documents that say "gays are not supposed to happen" just like that, not something that has to be inferred by biased viewpoints.

I'm a nut? You're a little crazy about this whole argument.
Pentagon memo: Homosexuality a defect - Life - MSNBC.com

Babblez · 08-11-2008, 08:07 PM

Sero = God >.>

As for the Charles darwin argument, thats just as laughable as any other argument. Charles Darwin is no more a reliable source of information and history as the bible, or hell, my freaking grandmother. He came up with a bunch of THEORIES. Most scientists will even tell you that they were nothing more than theories. People have just blindly chosed to take his word as solid fact. Besides...I don't remember having ever heard anything about darwin saying that homosexuality was un-natural. There is nobody in the world, and definately not on these forums, that can determine what is and isn't natural. Why? Because humans aren't as God like as they would like to believe.

If somebody made a cure for cancer, but it involved some of the most unnatural procedures known, would that be deemed illegal? "Oh but thats stopping people from dying". And homosexuality is causing it? "Aids". Then so is hetrosexuality. Aids is also spread through same gender sex.

There is never going to be an answer to this that everybody agrees with. Its about as senseless as arguing Creation and Evolution. The simple fact is, one person should not be able to decide what is and isn't "morally acceptable". One person should not be able to decide who can and can't love each other. But as I've said before, marriage is for suckers anyway.

Edit: Woah, you're willing to believe anything that comes out of the pentagon? Jeez. I'm Australian and I still know thats a bit naive.

**LordGrievous** · 08-11-2008, 08:09 PM

If you're referring to when I said Charles Darwin, I was joking because Karn is overreacting.

**KarnEvil9** · 08-11-2008, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Grievous

I'm a nut? You're a little crazy about this whole argument.
Pentagon memo: Homosexuality a defect - Life - MSNBC.com

Allow me to specify. Academic documents. Not shit MSNBC puts out to cause a sensation. Additionally, that refers to a government document based on far outdated research. Lets get with the 21st century people.

Add to that:

Quote:

Edit: Woah, you're willing to believe anything that comes out of the pentagon? Jeez. I'm Australian and I still know thats a bit naive.

This

existingfault · 08-12-2008, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarnEvil9

Radiation occurs naturally.

Probably should have been more specific. I meant man-made radiation. But the defects that occur due to that are still the body's natural response ... hmm. I don't actually know where I'm going with that one. :P

As for the article:

Quote:

The document, called a Defense Department Instruction, was condemned by medical professionals, members of Congress and other experts, including the American Psychiatric Association.

“It is disappointing that certain Department of Defense instructions include homosexuality as a ’mental disorder’ more than 30 years after the mental health community recognized that such a classification was a mistake,” said Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass."

Critics of the document take up more than half of the article you linked, among them actual scientists! The majority of those critics are much more unbiased towards homosexuality than the United States military. I fail to see how that article is supposed to help your case at all.