Untrue! Try "NUH UH"

To be fair, it's on a game forum about a subject you've probably read about a billion times before, in the wrong thread...I was tempted to skim it if I didn't think Xavius would be making a good point

Come visit us at 4chan sometime. Stop by /tg/, it's fairly tame. We'll take care of you. Promise.

(Tits or gtfo.)

At times like this, it's best to use a comic to sum up the religious arguments (and I'd also include philosophical ones as well).

Yes, I know what a testtube baby is, and yes I know that now gay women can get married, and have a child born into that family, because they don't need a man in the relatioinship to have the child, they can just get a sperm donor.

And men can hire a woman to have their sperm implanted into her, and pay her to have thier children.

Thus, for the first time in human history, a gay couple can have a child, without requiring the intimacy of a third person into the mix.


I'm sorry that such an idea bothers you.

Hm. No?

Where does he say that it bothers him?

When he said that he was going to call BS on what I said.

Which is basically what he did. There's no expression of fear from him. That might be you transferring emotion.

Adoption?

He meant your definition as the BS and cleared it up.

Adoption would not be a child born into their relationship.

@xavius: lol wut? fear?? projecting much?

Why does it seem so strange to you that test tube babies and the gay rights movements developed around the same time? Why is that something that needs to be called "BS" on?

the old argument was "marriage is for having kids, you can't have kids" and they say "yes we can have kids, look we can go to a fertility clinic."

why do you think its BS that such things are connected?

The old argument was as flawed then as it is now, then. To claim marriage is only for child bearing is both narrow-minded and, quite frankly, foolish. Marriages have been granted to those who cannot have children due to injuries, or are just barren to begin with. Nor is marriage required for child-rearing, especially in modern society.

Furthermore, just because we point at something to point out the illogic of the arguments used against us does not mean that we use it as a rallying point. Furthermore, the Gay rights movement developed largely as an extension of the Civil Rights movement and a reaction to the outright oppression, abuse, and hatred we were subjected to, and had a fire lit under it by the stonewall riots. A reaction to raids on gay bars by police enforcing "sodomy laws".

TL;DR version: Yes we're calling BS on that BS.

Yeah, that doesn't explain why in all of human history, gay relationships were never recognized as marriage.

It also doesn't explain why people think its a good idea to riot over the word marriage.

I think your view is being limited to the united states, and is not really paying attention to the rest of history, or the rest of the world. (You may think that marriage and children, is a foolish connection, but the rest of the world, and earlier history, would find your statement foolish.)

It should probably be noted that, at least for Islam, the Quran's words are meant to apply only to Muslims. That is, if you are simply reading the Quran for expanding your knowledge, you should know that its ideas are meant to be applied to people who have accepted Islam. Does the Quran speak violently about homosexuals? Yes. But that's if you're a homosexual who also wants to be included within the Muslim community. The ideal (and well, to me, proper) behind the Quran: Don't accept Islam, do whatever you want.

I'm sorry, are you saying that my opinion on the state of the society in the US is limited to the US..? And this is somehow a bad thing?

But sure, I'll take the ball.

People riot over the word marriage because it's a powerful word. For many there is no stronger spiritual connection than marriage save for that of parent and child. And there is no stronger connection between two people legally. Unless there are specific clauses in the marriage agreement that say otherwise, legally a married couple are considered the same person for nearly everything. People riot because some idiot on capital hill says that we can't have that. Instead we have Civil unions, which are not enforced in the same way, because they aren't considered the same thing. And we're not even granted that right everywhere. An organization can set a set of benefits for marriage, and deny some or all of those rights to a civil union or domestic partnership. They cannot do the inverse or they'd be lynched for discrimination.

Furthermore, throughout history nobody stopped to think that sometimes men or women can love other men or women. The idea of homosexual love is just recently being accepted. Since it was widely still considered that any feelings toward the same gender were simple lust, no one who felt those feelings would seek to attempt a marriage.

I will, however, make an aside here to note one glaring exception to that. Greece and Rome, in ancient times, DID accept homosexual couples. And many ancient Romans and Greeks felt that complete love could only be felt among equals. Women were by no means considered equals, again, something that lasted until recent times.

The Greeks felt that ideal, or true, love could only be felt between a man and a boy. But they still didn't accept two men entering marriage. Of course, the Greeks' ideals of marriage were very different from our own, as well as their other ideals of love (such as sodomy = you're a woman and lose citizenship status), so they aren't exactly the greatest example.

tl;dr - nice, I'll make sure to remember that.

So: tl;dr, what the hell are you arguing about? It can be summarised in a few words, right?

It was also around the same time as the space race. Maybe the second phase of the gay conspiracy is to ship people like you to the moon. Either way, Tervic didn't express any whit of fear, but you're flailing like a beached bluegill.

I tell ya, it's been an interesting week reading the replies from the No on 8 people. I've never seen such a chipped shoulder before. All kinds of calls for action, such as removing the LDS church's tax exempt status, to removing their organizational privileges, or taking away the rights of mormons to marry or even vote. The boycotts will certainly be interesting, but I think we'll be okay Our church has a long history of being boycotted, hated, shot at, and having homes burnt down, etc. We even survived an executive order in missouri to murder all mormons(An order which was never officialy rescinded until the 1970's).