so youre basically just going to keep insulting and ignoring my poitns then?

No, he's right. You're the one ignoring points brought up, for ones that you feel you can't (or rather, know you can't) refute. And for the ones you think you can argue, you keep using the same unproven theories and beliefs, never offering any further evidence of why they should be other than you think so, or a "majority" of people think so. (Actual majority parts even, are unproven, rather, you use speculation for them.) I've stopped using evidence with you, since it's futile; you pick out what you want to talk about, based on your 2 talking lines, and discard the rest.

Come back to this thread with provable fact, not belief and speculation, and then maybe we can continue to have an actual discussion. Until then, there's really nothing to talk about.

So west is the one who should decide if the gays should get married or not? If west think its ok, than thats the way it is,right? Is that what you're trying to say????

As for the Ancient Greece go on youtube and type ''Ancient Greeks Homosexuality Myth'' and watch it. It clearly says that city-states in Greece had strict laws against homosexualty. I would post the video here myself, but it wont allow me to copy and past links.

EDIT: Also type ''Homosexuality in ancient Greece'' and watch it

Ah, something new! But really, Youtube? Where anyone can upload anything? That's not a way to make your point. Let's analyze the entire ancient Greek structure, shall we?

To start off with, yes, homosexual marriage was not permitted; this was because in those days, marriage was for the sake of having kids. And homosexuality, as a declared sexuality, was also shunned. But it would be daft to say it didn't go on. Boys were trained from a young age to fight in the military, and it was not only normal, but expected, that the trainee would stay with, and sleep with, his trainer. The idea was that the trainee would need to form a close bond with the trainer, be like him, think like him, etc. And the most common way of bonding was seen to be having sex, at ages sometimes as young as 9. This boy would later finish his training and learning, probably go off to fight a war or 2, then later be responsible for being the trainer, again, needing to form a bond with his new young trainee. This life, coupled with the inherit dangers (and short lifespans) of being a soldier in these days means that they didn't have time for women. Who you were attracted to, male or female, didn't matter. Men in the military would have sex with other males. Some units would even do mass orgies to try to bond as a unit, though this was not as common.

I know i said im not gonna argue with you anymore but you're getting so annoying its making my brain explode.

He said ''they are both an example of majority of people oppressing a minority of people''.

Than i said ''yes, but oppressiong minority of people as in not being able to get married and making them slaves is totally diffrent and thats why his example fails. If gays were treated like slaves or something similiar to that, his example would be vaild.

Ah thats cute. so now your response is ''Your source suxxxx''? Well, at least you're trying. But did you even watch those 3 videos??? I dont think you did. The guy said that ancient greece allowed gay marrige(sort of) and i posted a source that dispoves him and says that city_states and greece had very strict laws against homosexuality. but then you come and argue about something that is barely related to the thing he said.

Aso watch this video too: ''Homosexuality in ancient greece'', at the beginning it says that all those scientist and authors who want to make some connection betweeen homosexuality and Hellenisam were/are homosexuals themselfes!!!!!!!!!!!

What a ''coincidence'' huh?


JUst go watch the video. i dont entirely agree with it, but it has some good points

For all I know, that could be a video you uploaded. What the videos say is irrelevant. I could upload a video to YouTube saying what I want to say, what you're saying now is that I could cite it as a source for why I'm correct? This is why I discredit YouTube as a source; I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia, but there is at least some fact checking there, which can not even be said for YouTube. There is no validity to YouTube. What I was discussing was based on your text on how the Greek culture shunned homosexuality. The only thing shunned was identifying as such.

Simply put, YOU need to make YOUR argument. Don't just put some video up (or link to) on YouTube, make your own point, in words, in the place of dispute. Is there something specific in them you want to dispute? Mention it here! I'm responding to you, not some video. If I were responding to the video, I'd post in the video's comment section.

Hence why I put the sort of. It was called Pederasty and older men would have a relationship with a younger boy who was of a similar age as when as a woman was when they married a man in Greece. They would need the boys fathers permission and they would be expected to give them gifts and such.

Sounds in many wasy very similar to marriage to me.

I swear, i did NOT upload that video. You're just gonna have to believe me on this one. What i wanted to say with those videos is, is that homosexuality wasnt OK in ancient Greece,and those guys who tired to find a connection between homosexuality and Ancient Greece were gays themselfes, and whats better way to promote your sexuality and culture than saying it was an important part of one of the oldest civilisations in the world???