Are you against gay marriage?

[Ōkami]

Yes. It is not in human nature.

Technically speaking, marriage isn't human nature either.

 

[Wolfus]

I'm just going to jump in this conversation and add my quick two cents. Homosexuality isn't really too frowned upon when looking at it as a whole. They have more or less equal rights and acceptance and such politically speaking. The overall distaste of them is a lot more prevalent when you look at it from the perspective of a gay person themselves. Most of the aggression is a bit more passive given the era we live in, but it's still there. Some people are a bit more outspoken about it than others on a small level, but it's not that bad to be gay in today's society in my opinion.

You are correct, but did you read my threads? Gays have about the same rights in the law, yet they say they want their rights. They no longer want equality. They want more rights in some form of compensation, giving the privileges to avenge their past or something like this.
If you pay attention, moralists try to make gay people untouchable. They can't be criticized, homossexualism can't be criticized, we have not only to accept but to agree with it. They're taking out part of our freedom of speech. Is this equality? No it's not.

 

[Prime Rib]

Technically speaking, marriage isn't human nature either.

Its actually a Divine right

 

[Pavoneo]

You are correct, but did you read my threads? Gays have about the same rights in the law, yet they say they want their rights. They no longer want equality. They want more rights in some form of compensation, giving the privileges to avenge their past or something like this.
If you pay attention, moralists try to make gay people untouchable. They can't be criticized, homossexualism can't be criticized, we have not only to accept but to agree with it. They're taking out part of our freedom of speech. Is this equality? No it's not.

Yeah, but I feel like this happens with any sensitive popular topic. It will die down soon everything will be on the same level so to speak :L.

 

[Umari Senju]

Sigh... the classic moralism. "Oh, society is opressive, ah, opression, bla bla bla, the system bla bla bla. Don't make me laugh.
Gays are like x men. You 'really think society bothers that much? Gay moralists makes more drama, way more drama, making it seems as if everybody that isn't gay is opressing gays. That's not reality, that's not even close.
The researches in order to try fo find the cause, they are not necessarily to find a "cure", but to understand it. We study a lot of things. Moralists are the people who are making drama and forcing "opressive situations" in situations that weren't opressive at all.
But I got it explained in these 2 threads.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

So answer me this then? How many hertosexuals get beat up or killed for being heterosexual? Not as many as homosexuals.

How many hetrosexuals have to hide their sexuality for fear of being shunned by society?

How many times do heterosexuals get told through life that being attracted to the opposite *** is unnatural and amoral; an affront to god and not the way of things.

Tell me, How is it against nature or the "natural order" if so many have existed since the birth of man?

Tell me, what do you know what it means to grow up gay or with gay parents?

So what makes you or anyone else the authority on what is right and what is wrong when it comes to sexual orientation?

Gay people, are not the problem, ignorance is. You can't give any scientific, religious, or moral standing on homosexuality because you are NOT one.

You have no idea what they go through, how they feel, how they even work. all your data is something shown to you over and over again by a society that views it as wrong, against nature, abnormal because it doesn't fall in with how the rest of biology is suppose to work.

Who made you or anyone else the premere scholar on how biology is suppose to work or why homosexuality exists?

What you are doing (backing you views with percentages and scientific data) is no different the what "moralists" as you put it, are trying to do. Understanding why people are homosexual is one thing.

Telling them that it is wrong or an act against nature is so very narrow minded and foolish. Do you dain to know nature's grand plan?

And you wonder why homosexual are so forceful about being accepted. Try walking a mile in their shoes. Try being told all your life that you are an abomination to the world because of who you are attracted to. Try living your life in fear of being beaten up or killed because of your sexual preference

Maybe then you will begin to understand.

You are correct, but did you read my threads? Gays have about the same rights in the law, yet they say they want their rights. They no longer want equality. They want more rights in some form of compensation, giving the privileges to avenge their past or something like this.
If you pay attention, moralists try to make gay people untouchable. They can't be criticized, homossexualism can't be criticized, we have not only to accept but to agree with it. They're taking out part of our freedom of speech. Is this equality? No it's not.

No one is saying gay people are untouchable and can do no wrong. That is so far from the truth. There is as much bigotry and hatred from the gay and lesbian community as there is from the hetorsexual community. No human is perfect. no, far from it.

As many equal rights as homosexuals have they are still percieved as abnormalities in society to the point where they can't even be recognized in marriage or are passed over to be parents becuase of this.

That is not equality.

 

[Scorpio0Pharaoh0Titan]

ok , I'll hold everything about the "variables" in item 1.]

1- Placing limitations is not related to the parents being gay or not. Some gay parents might place countless limitationms, and some none, the same for straigth parents. It's barely related to this.
I never said that, did I? I clearly said not 100% accurate. And please, you're a scientist? Don't make me laugh. Unlesss you know only about your field, and nothing about math. Or are you saying that you know science? Because you're not the only one.
The variables, that are what we are considering here, are aplied to both same-*** couples and non same-*** couples. They live in the same society, and they suffer the influence of it. Some different from others, boviously, but that will happen in both cases. These differences of influence will be seen sometimes more in gay parents kids, sometimes in straigth. You're just trying to apply a variable to a variable, getting something very insignificant to consider.

The main point about the variables is not which are them or how many of them are in the situation. That's not the point. The point is how these variables impac the behavior of what we are analysing. If you're really a scientis, you'd know that.
If we got a situation with more than 1000 variables, however they are so insignificant for the event that the result with or without them is basically the same in all cases, then these variables don't matter.
No, I'm not saying this is the case. I'm giving an exemple for you to see the point of the variables.

2-The bold part.That would make any person with math knowledge laugh. That's not how you compare the %. What you do, in this case, is get the relative % of gay kids raisde by gay parents, in relation to the total of kids raised by gay parents. You'll get an X %. Then, you get the relative % of gay kids raisde by straigth parents, in relation to the total of kids raised by straigth parents. You'll get Y.
Then you comapre them.

Your logic is so flawed here, that you tried to compare the quantity instead of the %, when that's an obvious mistake. It would be the same as, for exemple: get a city with 5000 people. There are 2000 criminals there. Now get a city with 5 million people, and there are 10000 criminals there. So, the big city is more dangerous, because it has the double of criminals? No. You should get the % of criminals.

And about the psychologists, are you serious? You're really saying that no psychologist ever stated the weigth of the action of parents on the behavior of kids? You're really saying this?

Again, you're just stating variables of variables, only to say that they don't gewt accounted for, when they're so insignificant to consider. Especific cases countless times. I said it already. %, probability, they're not something "for sure". It doesn't mean that because we have a higher probability, it will always happen. That's never what I said.

You should learn about probability before trying to discuss something related to it.

1. (See bolded part of your 1. as to why your reasoning completely fails).

The fact is that unfortunately, in society, couples (whether same *** or not) are in fact subjected to different variables and it is these variables that make a world of difference.
Unless you have evidence that supports your theory that same-*** couples themselves are the cause of a child being gay, then I cannot take your word for it.

2. Actually, that IS how you compare in math. You use statistical analysis. Ratios is part of statistical analysis. The % of gay children from same-*** couples compared to the % of gay children from straight couples are RATIOS. Any person with half a brain will understand this.

% of a population vs. % of another population is also ratios.

10 % of 1000 vs 20 % of 1000 is a ratio just represented in a different manner. Nowhere did I compare quantity.

And lastly, % probability is useless in determining the cause. % probability only determines correlation... which is what I was saying was what you were advocating for the whole time - which isn't the same as causation.

Bold- That's what % is for. One way to check the causes of homossexualism is the phycologic influence. What i'm saying is, if it is something genetical, then no matter the influences, it will be very hard to turn the person gay, as it's genetical that he is not.

However, if the cause is phycological, then the influences would have big amount of results. And phycologically, the actions of parents, and what they teach the kids, have a great impact on the future behavior of kids(not related to homossexualism, but to many things, to most things).Obviously, it's not the only factor in play, but it's a very important one.
I'm considering the physological factor in here. If the cause is genetial, then everything I said would be wrong. And all those variables you mentioned, they'd be useless as well.

And ultimately, that's exactly why you have a baseless argument... you already have bias towards homosexuality being something psychological and thus, believe that same-*** couples influence their children being gay (since, in your eyes, it's psychological).

Also, you're a bullshitter. There has not been any data whatsoever about same-*** couples having a higher chance at causing their children to be gay (psychologically stimulated). It's still a THEORY.

So, yep, bullshit.

 

[Umari Senju]

My point is the more people are homosexual, the worse the impact will be on this world. If you didn't notice that, you are clearly lacking comprehension skills.
Homosexuals force their views and know they are unaccepted is what you just said. However, if this is what everyone thinks, and only a few (gay's) disagree, then how can you say the homosexuals are correct? Usually, one can realise he is incorrect when the rest of the world disagrees with him, you have to be stubborn to still think you are right when the vast majority disagrees.

I have nothing more to say to a person who implied black's are unequal to white's.

Man you are so way off. and completely misinterrperated what I just posted. In no way did I even once suggest that blacks are not equal to whites. I am black so stop right there. My comparison was how we USED to be.

Blacks were not always equal to whites. try not to sweep the 200 hundred years of slavery under the rug. My point was on the camparison of how society used to view blacks in those days. We were seen as sub human. beneath white poeple. (Much like gays and lesbians are viewed as abnormalities today)

Are blacks still considered slaves and sub human today? No. Why is that? I can tell you, it wasn't because we decided to stay quiet and hope that whites would just suddenly have a change of heart.

We fought and died for it. We had people who supported the movement of freedom and because it was the right thing to do for your fellow man not because of their skin.

This homosexual movement is the same as the slave movement. They are seen as lesser creatures because they don't fall in line with what is preceived as "normal" human behaviour.

@the part in bold: So tell me, slavery back in the day for blacks was widely accepted as a way of life for the majority of the early US. Did that mean it was right? Martin Luther King fought for equal rights for all. The majority of the US was against it. It even got him killed. Was he wrong? Because by what you just posted, he represents the minority of how the rest of society once viewed this issue. Did that make him wrong for doing what he did? Do you see the contridiction in what you just posted?


Don't come accross to me as high and mighty when you completely missed what I was trying to point out. You make yourself out to sound like a bigot for it.

 

[Olorin]

yes they should be able to get married
yes they should be able to adopt children
yes those who hate on them and deny them rights everyone should have are ... (imagine the word)

 

[Scorpio0Pharaoh0Titan]

ok , I'll hold everything about the "variables" in item 1.]

1- Placing limitations is not related to the parents being gay or not. Some gay parents might place countless limitationms, and some none, the same for straigth parents. It's barely related to this.
I never said that, did I? I clearly said not 100% accurate. And please, you're a scientist? Don't make me laugh. Unlesss you know only about your field, and nothing about math. Or are you saying that you know science? Because you're not the only one.
The variables, that are what we are considering here, are aplied to both same-*** couples and non same-*** couples. They live in the same society, and they suffer the influence of it. Some different from others, boviously, but that will happen in both cases. These differences of influence will be seen sometimes more in gay parents kids, sometimes in straigth. You're just trying to apply a variable to a variable, getting something very insignificant to consider.

The main point about the variables is not which are them or how many of them are in the situation. That's not the point. The point is how these variables impac the behavior of what we are analysing. If you're really a scientis, you'd know that.
If we got a situation with more than 1000 variables, however they are so insignificant for the event that the result with or without them is basically the same in all cases, then these variables don't matter.
No, I'm not saying this is the case. I'm giving an exemple for you to see the point of the variables.

2-The bold part.That would make any person with math knowledge laugh. That's not how you compare the %. What you do, in this case, is get the relative % of gay kids raisde by gay parents, in relation to the total of kids raised by gay parents. You'll get an X %. Then, you get the relative % of gay kids raisde by straigth parents, in relation to the total of kids raised by straigth parents. You'll get Y.
Then you comapre them.

Your logic is so flawed here, that you tried to compare the quantity instead of the %, when that's an obvious mistake. It would be the same as, for exemple: get a city with 5000 people. There are 2000 criminals there. Now get a city with 5 million people, and there are 10000 criminals there. So, the big city is more dangerous, because it has the double of criminals? No. You should get the % of criminals.

And about the psychologists, are you serious? You're really saying that no psychologist ever stated the weigth of the action of parents on the behavior of kids? You're really saying this?

Again, you're just stating variables of variables, only to say that they don't gewt accounted for, when they're so insignificant to consider. Especific cases countless times. I said it already. %, probability, they're not something "for sure". It doesn't mean that because we have a higher probability, it will always happen. That's never what I said.

You should learn about probability before trying to discuss something related to it.

One more thing to add:

What I meant by the 1000 same *** couples vs. 6 billion straight couples is very simple really (you just confused yourself into thinking that I was trying to take a ratio, when, in fact, after I said that even with ratios you would be destroyed - in other words, if you were taking a SAMPLE AND A RATIO, both would be AGAINST YOU).

The part where I mention RATIO is the exact same as you using % probability.

The part, however, where I mentioned the 1000 vs. 6 billion was to indicate that the population pool you can get is too low.

In other words,

let's say that 50 % of 1000 happen to bring gay kids... and 1 % of 6 billion happen to bring gay kids.

Then, you'd be inclined to think that if that 1000 went to 6 billion it would remain at 50 %, but any scientist who knows probability would realize you can't apply it that linearly to the real world... which is where MY expertise comes in.

That 50 %, due to entropy, would exponentially decrease as 1000 approached 6 billion....

In order for you to make a claim using % probability that REMAINS ACCURATE, you MUST have a stable population.

And woflus, with that, I am done arguing with you. It seems like you need to re-read, slowly, what I have been saying in the past 7 pages.

I think i've said everything I needed. I will not be wasting my time any more explaining to you why your idea behind:

"same-*** couples are a bad influence on children as they can make a child become gay"

is inherently flawed.

I already explained to you that using ratios is useless. % of population is useless if you don't have a stable and variable controlled population. Not every same-*** couple is the same. Your data would be flawed and biased.

I already explained to you that correlation is not the same as causation and for you to claim that same-*** couples directly influence children to be gay then you are claiming that same-*** couples THEMSELVES are the CAUSE for that as the only thing IN COMMON between different same-*** couples is them being a same-*** couple.

There is no evidence for that, so yea... stop with your bullshit.

 

[Wolfus]

1. (See bolded part of your 1. as to why your reasoning completely fails).

The fact is that unfortunately, in society, couples (whether same *** or not) are in fact subjected to different variables and it is these variables that make a world of difference.
Unless you have evidence that supports your theory that same-*** couples themselves are the cause of a child being gay, then I cannot take your word for it.

2. Actually, that IS how you compare in math. You use statistical analysis. Ratios is part of statistical analysis. The % of gay children from same-*** couples compared to the % of gay children from straight couples are RATIOS. Any person with half a brain will understand this.

% of a population vs. % of another population is also ratios.

10 % of 1000 vs 20 % of 1000 is a ratio just represented in a different manner. Nowhere did I compare quantity.

And lastly, % probability is useless in determining the cause. % probability only determines correlation... which is what I was saying was what you were advocating for the whole time - which isn't the same as causation.

Ok, I'll just reply to 2, as I'm in the cellphone. But later today, I'll reply to the rest.

You clearly know nothing about math. You don't compare ratios like that. Did you even pau attention to what you did? You said "get the numbers of gay kids raised by gay parents with gay kids raised by straigth parents. That's not how you compare it. Obviously the 2nd will be higher, as there are many more straith couples than gay couples. What you compare it's the relative % of the 1st and the 2nd, then you see what has higher ratio.
An exemple of this is the same I gave before. The criminals one.

As for the rest, I'll reply later as I said.

 

[Alice in Noodleland]

YES! LET THEM GET MARRIED! NO BUTS NO IF'S.


Then let them deal with the problems later.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Turson]

yes they should be able to get married
yes they should be able to adopt children
yes those who hate on them and deny them rights everyone should have are ... (imagine the word)

Does that mean that big majority of our society are ***? Thats harsh.

 

[Scorpio0Pharaoh0Titan]

Ok, I'll just reply to 2, as I'm in the cellphone. But later today, I'll reply to the rest.

You clearly know nothing about math. You don't compare ratios like that. Did you even pau attention to what you did? You said "get the numbers of gay kids raised by gay parents with gay kids raised by straigth parents. That's not how you compare it. Obviously the 2nd will be higher, as there are many more straith couples than gay couples. What you compare it's the relative % of the 1st and the 2nd, then you see what has higher ratio.
An exemple of this is the same I gave before. The criminals one.

As for the rest, I'll reply later as I said.

No. You misinterpreted what I said.

I'll REWORD it... geez: (1) Population of same *** couples is too low for you to make a viable statistical analysis.
(2) EVEN IF YOU USED RATIOS (I.E: % POPULATION OF 1 vs 2) you wouldn't come out victorious. There has not been a sample done to this day on this. You don't have anything to base your theory on.

You just CLAIM that this is true, when it is not.

Give me proof that the Relative % of children who are raised under same-*** couples is HIGHER than that of children raised under non same-*** couples and I will gladly say that the correlation holds merit.

Until then, you are theorizing that the relative % will be higher because you THINK that being gay is psychological and therefore assume that same *** couples will influence a child's sexual orientation.

You must be registered for see links

 

[Jobrjo]

Where in the bible does it say he's against it?

A simple Google search can take care of that. To list a few: Lev 18:22, Rom 1:26-28, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:10.

From a very extremist religious point of view God would be against Naruto/Anime and even women addressing men without being address firstly.... This kinda leaves us in an awkward position right..

((I'm not "liberal" or "extremist" in regards to my Christianity. Frankly, I go with what the Bible says nd do not add to nor take away by some man's opinions.))
Where does scripture say anime is bad?
And as for women addressing men first, I assume you are making reference to 1 Tim 2:12. If so, the context (8-15) is speaking in regards to authoritative teaching between Christians (such as preaching), not any time a man and woman speak.
I'd also like to point out that these aren't my rules. No one has the authority to change scripture in any way aside from the writer.

[{(However, I will say this. If you discard Scripture, than you have no logical reason to prevent homosexual marriage. In fact, without it, anything goes. However, the reality is that there is a God who has rules, and eternal consequences for breaking/following them. However such is another discussion for another time, I'm simply saying this to say it, not to argue it.]})

 

[Jack Spicer]

I'm not against it. I'm for it because I believe in equality. Just let people marry and be happy. To me, it's just not that complicated. It's simple. Two adults love each other. Let them be together. I don't think about gender or sexual orientation. It's just love, you know?

 

[-S-]

No type of marriage is good. Lel.

Jokes aside, why not? They're people too. And why is it any of your business if you don't agree with it? You can get married to the opposite *** if you want, and allowing same-*** marriage isn't going to prevent that. Everyone gets to be happy.

 

[Disquiet]

I've never even seen Scorpio0Pharaoh0Titan before, this dude comes out of nowhere and starts going ham on the math stuff lol. That's a compliment by the way, as I can understand the point you're trying to get across.

Anyways, I'm not against it.

 

[HadouKage]

I don't support it because it goes against the nature cycle. But ppl gonna do what they want anyways

 

[NarutoIndra]

Man you are so way off. and completely misinterrperated what I just posted. In no way did I even once suggest that blacks are not equal to whites. I am black so stop right there. My comparison was how we USED to be.

Blacks were not always equal to whites. try not to sweep the 200 hundred years of slavery under the rug. My point was on the camparison of how society used to view blacks in those days. We were seen as sub human. beneath white poeple. (Much like gays and lesbians are viewed as abnormalities today)

Are blacks still considered slaves and sub human today? No. Why is that? I can tell you, it wasn't because we decided to stay quiet and hope that whites would just suddenly have a change of heart.

We fought and died for it. We had people who supported the movement of freedom and because it was the right thing to do for your fellow man not because of their skin.

This homosexual movement is the same as the slave movement. They are seen as lesser creatures because they don't fall in line with what is preceived as "normal" human behaviour.

@the part in bold: So tell me, slavery back in the day for blacks was widely accepted as a way of life for the majority of the early US. Did that mean it was right? Martin Luther King fought for equal rights for all. The majority of the US was against it. It even got him killed. Was he wrong? Because by what you just posted, he represents the minority of how the rest of society once viewed this issue. Did that make him wrong for doing what he did? Do you see the contridiction in what you just posted?


Don't come accross to me as high and mighty when you completely missed what I was trying to point out. You make yourself out to sound like a bigot for it.

That's completely different, which you fail to see. How can black's have any negative impact on white's? They can't, hence it is easy to look at them as equals. There was never anything wrong with that idea, white's only looked down upon them because the human race's instinct is to be get a sense of superiority towards others.

On the other hand, gay's can have a negative impact, and I have explained this on several occasions, thus will not do it for the third time. But it is absolutely clear they cannot bring in anything positive, yet bring in only negatives.

So no, this homosexual movement is nothing like the slavery movement. The slavery movement was actually taking back what is righteously theirs, as what is theirs is being equals. Homosexuals are not equals as they do not reproduce to aid the future, nor do they love for the sake of gaining kids for a nice happy life. They love for the sake of pleasure, which is something I completely disagree with. Heterosexuals can make kids and keep humanity going, what can Homosexuals do, may I ask?

 

[Irie]

...Why can't we all just love each other?