The Gay Marriage Question

[FurtiveFox]

_{'Jumped up nobber'??}

_{That's a bit un called for.}

Probably a fair comment

[FurtiveFox]

The majority of people will remain heterosexual as they are that way inclined. The human race will continue to perpetuate. And there is more freedom of choice for people to live their lives with a partner, irrespective of gender.

What's the downside here?

The spreading of disease, breakdown of society, creation of a moral vacuum for a start.

[The Doctor]

AIDS is far more prevalent in the gay population. For those with religious convictions it could be a compelling argument. Unfortunately it does not appear to be one you are open minded to.

I'm not open to arguments from the toxin to humanity that is religion - the sooner it's consigned to children's books the better. However, it's spread most by unprotected anal sex in the Western world: which is obviously going to be more prevalent in the homosexual community - that's more an argument for protection than it is against homosexuality.

[The Doctor]

Indeed and subject to the attentions of vile sexual predators who capture them when they are impressionable and could easily just be going through what would otherwise be a passing stage. The genetics argument is very convenient.

And the existence of sexual predators is an argument against homosexuality how exactly? You're hopefully aware that they do already exist.

You say convenient, I prefer to say factual.

[leicsmac]

The spreading of disease, breakdown of society, creation of a moral vacuum for a start.

Use a condom, and kindly explain to me how permitting homosexual marriages will cause a breakdown in society and is morally wrong.

And please bear in mind that I despise moral absolutism.

[FurtiveFox]

I'm not open to arguments from the toxin to humanity that is religion - the sooner it's consigned to children's books the better. However, it's spread most by unprotected anal sex in the Western world: which is obviously going to be more prevalent in the homosexual community - that's more an argument for protection than it is against homosexuality.

So your argument is gays struggle with the use of condoms? Think you will find it is far more due to their sodomising ways. I feel quite queasy. It's just plain dirty and obviously wrong.

[The Doctor]

I don't think you are 'born' gay and until someone can show me a 'gay' gene, I won't believe otherwise.

You compare it to being black or having blonde hair. These are clearly genetic traits!

It's like saying I can't choose to be a Leicester City fan anymore than I can choose to be a Caucasean male.

Because sexuality is also a genetic trait. I'm in a lecture at the moment, but I'll pull up the papers on that when i'm back at a pc.

[Guest MattP]

And those people would be morons. AIDS is a result of the HIV, which can be transmitted by blood transfusions, kissing or really any exchange of bodily fluids - so, unless you want to say we shouldn't kissing (which, btw, is how we find a good choice of mate) then it's a ****ing retarded view-point.

Kissing?

Sorry that's got to be bullshit. If that were the case HIV would be everywhere.

[Guest MattP]

It is bullshit.

http://www.avert.org/can-you-get-hiv-aids.htm

Kissing

To become infected with HIV you must get a sufficient quantity of the virus into your body. Saliva does contain HIV, but the virus is only present in very small quantities and as such has never been known to cause HIV infection.

[MooseBreath]

Kissing?

Sorry that's got to be bullshit. If that were the case HIV would be everywhere.

He's a gothic rocker type. To him kissing involves biting and thus blood and thus aids.

[Windsorfox]

Good points made here by leicsmac.

[Guest MattP]

Age of consent (whether hetero or homosexual) should remain at 16, but that's another debate entirely.

But animals shag their young, it's totally natural.

[The Doctor]

The spreading of disease, breakdown of society, creation of a moral vacuum for a start.

Homosexuality won't break down society unless you are so insecure the only thing keeping your world together was the knowledge that people were treated like second class citizens.

Bullshit - it won't cause a moral vacuum unless you morality is biblical - in which case you need to get back to killing rape victims (if married) or forcing them to marry their attacker.

[The Doctor]

So your argument is gays struggle with the use of condoms? Think you will find it is far more due to their sodomising ways. I feel quite queasy. It's just plain dirty and obviously wrong.

No, my argument is that you aren't quite understanding how the spread of disease works.

Except it isn't obviously wrong.

[leicsmac]

But animals shag their young, it's totally natural.

Really? You learn something new every day. Knew homosexuality was prevalent amongst some mammal populations but...

Either way, would you be open to the idea of a proportional scale based on age for this kind of thing, with an absolute minimum at 15/16?

[Guest MattP]

No, my argument is that you aren't quite understanding how the spread of disease works.

Except it isn't obviously wrong.

We all now how AIDS spread among the gays, rampant club scene and meth in the 70's/80's.

Read Andy Bell's book from Erasure, he tells it how is really was with what he went through and how he got it. Good read as well.

[The Doctor]

Kissing?

Sorry that's got to be bullshit. If that were the case HIV would be everywhere.

Well people would need to have the virus before they can transmit it. It's very hard to transmit via kissing, granted, but not impossible

And animals shag their "young" as they have a shorter life-span comparative to us.

[Guest MattP]

Really? You learn something new every day. Knew homosexuality was prevalent amongst some mammal populations but...

Either way, would you be open to the idea of a proportional scale based on age for this kind of thing, with an absolute minimum at 15/16?

Most post was tongue in cheek.

Yeah I'm a huge fan of the divide by 2 then +7 rule, I think we should live by it.

So a 40 year old, the youngest you can go is 27. Fair.

30 years old - 22 years old

18 year old - 16 years old.

16 year old - 15 years old

You can't go wrong with it.

[Guest MattP]

Well people would need to have the virus before they can transmit it. It's very hard to transmit via kissing, granted, but not impossible

And animals shag their "young" as they have a shorter life-span comparative to us.

It's never happened, judging be the amount of people who have kissed I'd say it's impossible.

And don't give people ideas, they'll be queuing up for Meth, Raves and Right Said Fred nights with that excuse

[FurtiveFox]

Use a condom, and kindly explain to me how permitting homosexual marriages will cause a breakdown in society and is morally wrong.

And please bear in mind that I despise moral absolutism.

Kindly bear in mind I don't have an hour to write an essay!

Man is not designed to lie with man and there is a reason for that. Whatever your religious convictions it is clearly against the law of nature. Venereal diseases seem more prevalent amongst the gay population which could be construed as a warning against their activities. Encouraging something which carries such risks is clearly immoral hence my suggestion the age of consent be raised to 25 to protect youngsters. If fully developed adults decide to take such risks that is their choice. Youngsters starting to find themselves in the adult world should be protected.

[leicsmac]

Most post was tongue in cheek.

Yeah I'm a huge fan of the divide by 2 then +7 rule, I think we should live by it.

So a 40 year old, the youngest you can go is 27. Fair.

30 years old - 22 years old

18 year old - 16 years old.

16 year old - 15 years old

You can't go wrong with it.

That and a absolute limit at 15 would make for a good law, IMO.

Though I think above 21/22 the age gap should probably become unlimited. By that time most people are fully adults both legally and emotionally so they should be treated as such by that point. The '2 and 7' rule should be used as a rule of thumb certainly, but only as law up until 21/22.

[Mike Oxlong]

Can't see what there's not to like about gaysters. Women I know consider many of them to be kind, considerate and good looking, ie serious competition even for the likes of someone with my ovary tickling capabilities.

So if they want to occupy themselves with each other that's fine by me.

[leicsmac]

Kindly bear in mind I don't have an hour to write an essay!

Man is not designed to lie with man and there is a reason for that. Whatever your religious convictions it is clearly against the law of nature. Venereal diseases seem more prevalent amongst the gay population which could be construed as a warning against their activities. Encouraging something which carries such risks is clearly immoral hence my suggestion the age of consent be raised to 25 to protect youngsters. If fully developed adults decide to take such risks that is their choice. Youngsters starting to find themselves in the adult world should be protected.

Yeah, apologies for that, would only have asked for a brief summation.

As for what you've written here, I'm sorry but I must disagree with your assertion that it is against nature. Sex is not just about procreation, it can be recreational too.

And I believe that the higher incidence of VD amongst the gay population comes from lax use of protection rather than any other reason. It makes sense to use a condom regardless of whether you're having vaginal or anal sex IMO. To nullify that risk that you talk about, protection use should be further encouraged.

I honestly don't think the act of sex between two consenting adults is immoral, regardless of what gender they are.

[Guest MattP]

That and a absolute limit at 15 would make for a good law, IMO.

Though I think above 21/22 the age gap should probably become unlimited. By that time most people are fully adults both legally and emotionally so they should be treated as such by that point. The '2 and 7' rule should be used as a rule of thumb certainly, but only as law up until 21/22.

I'll go with that.

[MC Prussian]

Marriage is an old-fashioned model of living and a relic from a more religious past.

People who want to get married these days are advised to think twice about it - what efforts it involves, what compromises you have to accept, what the legal ramifications are.

Other than that, I'd like to point you to the current divorce rate of around 60%.

So, I ask you, what is the point of marriage exactly?

This is not an issue about marriage at all. It's one of the few remaining battlefields for conservative thinkers, citizens and politicians to grind their gears, because STILL they cannot grasp the concept of it all.

Homosexuality has always existed and always will. You cannot put a ban on love or define love, compassion or care between two people of the same sex.

Homosexuality is, in fact, older than any religion or church and that's why I can but laugh at people dismissing gay marriage because of their religious beliefs.

It doesn't matter whether a child is brought up in a household of gays of lesbians. There are plenty of sad examples of heterosexual couples who neglect the most basic parental duties.

What does matter is the love, passion and responsibility involved in bringing up the kids.

Raising a child in a household of two gays or two lesbians does not automatically render the kid(s) homosexual.

It's an inherent drive that you cannot extinguish. Some men have tried in the past, but the efforts always failed.

In conclusion, if you just can't give up your anti-homosexual and anti-liberal stances and struggle with modern social life, I suggest you use a time machine and dwell in an existence filled with poverty, illiteracy, a few wars every couple of years as well as religious struggles.

Not to mention witchhunts, the lack of life insurances or a proper police force and an average life expectancy of roughly 40 years.

Civilization has evolved A LOT in general, but some people are still stuck in times past. Enjoy.