Is homosexuality a bad thing?

And where do you stand on interracial marriage? It wasn't so very long ago that it was viewed with the same disdain you have for gay marriage, for the same reasons.

First of all, I don´t have nothing against the rightful existence of gay people, my problem resumes with their attitude towards non-gay, the majority by the way, (you seam to forget the obvious) assaulting their millenarian traditions and cultural processes.

Gay marriage was recently approved in Portugal....and my position on this issue was against not because of the very much needed juridical protection that I think they (the gay) also are entitled, but because of the lack of distinction between institutions that we are also equally entitled to protect as a dignifying part of the mainstream culture.
Simple and without demagoguery !

So don´t bring me to the anti gay lobby crap complaining talk because I am in neither´s side.
(this is a general remark although in direct reply to Reasoning Logic at some specific issues)

Quote:

And where do you stand on interracial marriage? It wasn't so very long ago that it was viewed with the same disdain you have for gay marriage, for the same reasons.

Ignorant BS as usual from you....interracial marriage was not objected to because the definition of marriage did not support it, as was true with so called homosexual marriage. And allowing interracial marriage did not require a change in the definition of marriage before it could take place.

Seams just reasonable that opinion diversity goes both ways and also imply´s my right to disagree with their life style and not just the other way around...yet they seam to think that opinion diversity is exclusively at their lobby disposal... pathetic !

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:

And where do you stand on interracial marriage? It wasn't so very long ago that it was viewed with the same disdain you have for gay marriage, for the same reasons.

Ignorant BS as usual from you....interracial marriage was not objected to because the definition of marriage did not support it, as was true with so called homosexual marriage. And allowing interracial marriage did not require a change in the definition of marriage before it could take place.

Who's opining from ignorance? What sacred definition of marriage are you trying to superimpose over all others here? Legal? Christian? And for what reason do you think it’s sacred?

You are aware that many of traditional institutions were later found to be unconstitutional, aren't you?
You are aware that Argumentum ad antiquitatem is logically fallacious, aren't you? (Slavery, hello.)

Concisely and precisely pin down your objection and I'll be happy to highlight the error in your thinking (wasn't that long ago; I saw two sides to this argument too... only to discover one easily trumps the other in these United States.)

1.2 - One of these day´s regarding your type of argument build mothers and son´s would be also entitled to marry...why not ?

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Seams just reasonable that opinion diversity goes both ways and also imply´s my right to disagree with their life style and not just the other way around...yet they seam to think that opinion diversity is exclusively at their lobby disposal... pathetic !

Really? Is the local gay community in your area trying to tell heterosexuals who they can and can't marry? Are they trying to deny equal protection to heterosexuals under the state laws that regulate marriage? What State is this? I've heard of no such parity, anywhere.

1.2 - One of these day´s regarding your type of argument build mothers and son´s would be also entitled to marry...why not?

This is complete nonsense...so you think that assaulting institutional foundations and tradition as the basis of Identity in a Society is not a problem at all...

Why can´t gay people be imaginative enough to create their owns institutions instead of stealing and imposing to the majority their own perspective of life as a minority ? Just think if all the others minority´s were also up to question every other law principle and rule in our world...that would be a laugh, a circus...

Do you provide an argument at all, or is it just the Grammar authority "pal" ?

Why can´t gay people be imaginative enough to create their owns institutions

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Why can´t gay people be imaginative enough to create their owns institutions

this is an interesting position, one i sort of agree with, but probably not for the reason you're thinking

why would anyone group want to participate in something as broken as traditional marriage, a new and better alternative might be a good idea, if they came up with something really cool, heterosexuals might want to give it a try

I'll jump in once you provide something worth responding to. I've spent a long time slapping bigots down on this subject here at A2K and can't be bothered to haul it all out for such a poorly thought out argument on your part.

Once and for all do you even understand in the first place what you are saying or arguing for ? Because one can wonder...

What is mainly different as to be treated differently !!! which does n´t mean inferiorly, get it ?...

...or just why do you think there are rules and law´s in this world, eh ?
One of the biggest mistakes of our time is precisely to make this spaghetti mess were everything fits the same plate...and is not just about gay rights...its everywhere !

In less then 200 years Occident is going by by and down the drain on account of this Rousseaunian naive reasoning of equalising everything without a proper foundation in place !

Quote:

I'll jump in once you provide something worth responding to. I've spent a long time slapping bigots down on this subject here at A2K and can't be bothered to haul it all out for such a poorly thought out argument on your part.

Anyone who disagrees is a bigot I love that form of thinking!!!!

In any case I am all for gays in the military and others gay rights however I fail to see how the society have an interest in promoting long term gay relationships or the transferring of wealth to gay couples from single gay and straight men and women in order to achieve that promotion.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:

And where do you stand on interracial marriage? It wasn't so very long ago that it was viewed with the same disdain you have for gay marriage, for the same reasons.

Ignorant BS as usual from you....interracial marriage was not objected to because the definition of marriage did not support it, as was true with so called homosexual marriage. And allowing interracial marriage did not require a change in the definition of marriage before it could take place.

Who's opining from ignorance? What sacred definition of marriage are you trying to superimpose over all others here? Legal? Christian? And for what reason do you think it’s sacred?

You are aware that many of traditional institutions were later found to be unconstitutional, aren't you?
You are aware that Argumentum ad antiquitatem is logically fallacious, aren't you? (Slavery, hello.)

Concisely and precisely pin down your objection and I'll be happy to highlight the error in your thinking (wasn't that long ago; I saw two sides to this argument too... only to discover one easily trumps the other in these United States.)

1 - Argumentum ad antiquitatem does not apply in the case of slavery on account of treating differently what is in essence equal, which is a prevailing argument...thus, given the example you provide is not a question of gender but a question of species equal rights, the comparison you try to pull is forced and should be avoided...

1.1 - On the opposite spectrum Marriage is traditionally about gender thus cannot treat equally what is fundamentally different and the argument apply´s.

1.2 - One of these day´s regarding your type of argument build mothers and son´s would be also entitled to marry...why not ?

2 - No one so far as said a word on the sacredness of marriage, but you seam obstinate to bring it up that way...I wonder what is your agenda in this ?

No its not, and If you properly read my argument you would care to notice that legally I defend the same kind of protection heterosexual marriage has...

2 - You are the one so far who was not able to provide nothing but a mediocre caricature of an argument based on equal rights...it does n´t fit !
Encore la folie mon cher ami... n´importe quoi !