By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - If you are against gay marriage, explain why without mentioning religion

 

Are you for or against gay marriage?

For 290 49.49%
 
Against 171 29.18%
 
don't know 16 2.73%
 
whatever who cares? 108 18.43%
 
Total:585
mai on 28 January 2013

AFP reports: Pro-gay marriage marchers take to Paris streets 

I guess that was in responce of massive anti-gay marriage rally (200-300 thousands) few weeks ago.

So much talks over nothing, homos are certainly not the minority Europe should care about atm.



Around the Network
NotStan on 28 January 2013

I am not sure why gays care so much for marriage, but end of the day it doesn't really affect my personal life in the slightest, being outraged about it like youre the one that has to hold hands with the gay is just stupid. Not going to lie I do find homosexuality repulsive and unnatural to me, but I don't have anything against people that see it as normal, the whole bullshit about marriage for them being forbidden because they can't reproduce is another tub of shit. If anything, it might create loving home and environments for those stuck in foster care, waiting to be adopted by a heterosexual couple



Disconnect and self destruct, one bullet a time.

warlord74 on 28 January 2013

Marriage is the unique institution that unites mother and father with their biological offspring.

How does same sex marriage unite mother and father with their biological offspring??



fordy on 28 January 2013
Player1x3 said:
fordy said:

If you don't like my method of arguingm, then don't step in. However, it's a pretty long shot to be calling argumentative methods as bigotry. Even peaceful means of intolerance are still classed as bigotry. As you'll see in the definition, it defines that bigotry must have a level of intolerance.

Hahaha, wow, you really are a piece  of work, you know that? I serioulsy laughed after reading this part for a bit. 

I didnt step in into your ''debate''. I didnt even quote you. And ''argumentive methods''?? Really? Is that what you call attacking, flaming and insulting people? Oh my God, how can you possibly prove my and timmah's point any better?  Can you even hear yourself ??? Why didnt you post this before, so that I could know for sure not to waste my time here anymore?

You certanly are intolerant towards anyone that disagress with you on the subject, so far you have proven this quite well and multiple times already.

YOUR intolerance came by initially posting such a flame with such idiocy as not to provide any kind of justification behind it.

I think this post you made (together with few others) is more than enough of a justification.

So in other words, you're saying I'm bigoted towards a group of people I disagree with? Once again, that would make EVERYONE a bigot (including you. Surprise surprise).

Disagreeing is one thing, attacking and calling someone names is completly other.  You can disagree with someone without calling him a bigot and comparing him to Hitler. I know this is a hard concept to grasp for people like you who have an ego so out of whack that it'll do anything to protect itself, but at least try to acknowledge it. If I say ''I think MW2 is better than MW3'' and you say ''I think MW3 is better'', that would be a normal disagreement. If you procced to say that I am a bigot and Hitler-like for disagreeing with you, than YOU are intolerant and thus bigot.

Whether it comes out as agressive or as annoying as your illogical posts are, it's still bigotry by your definition. What you fail to see is that I'm arguing with one on a completely different matter to the other poster.

What you were arguing over with is irrelevant. You were adressing BOTH posters with a complete lack of human respect and a very hostile attitude.

Besides, are you implying that these guys are in some kind of anti-gay group? Also, the thought of arguing that someone is intolerable for not standing the views of an "anti" group (ie. one that displays the INITIAL intolerance to said group), is outright ironic and laughable.

Except that they weren't ''anti gay group''. You were ''anti other opinnion'' group..

Are you seriously going to try to argue your way down this dead end? 

Oh hell no,im out for good




No, you didn't step in, you merely openly trolled. Yeah that's a whole lot better there! Your "point" is not making any sense at all, since your own definition of bigotry does NOT line up with the official definition, sorry to tell you. You can argue all you like about how "insulting and flaming" constitutes bigotry, well show me that part in an OFFICIAL definition, not your own skewed meaning of the word. Nobody's wasting your time, unless somebody has a gun to your head threatening to reply to me. If you choose to respond and then whinge about your time being wasted, don't expect sympathy from anyone...

Now as I showed in the DEFINITION of intolerance, it only works if somebody has a degree of AUTHORITY over someone to impose said bigoted views Parental authority IS an authority; random person you talk to on a forum is NOT. Do you need to to be explained again, or have you got it this time?

Your problem is that YOUR warped defintion of bigotry clearly defines YOU as a bigot as well, including a lot of others, including anyone who raises their voice. I'm sorry, but if you come on to a forum not knowing the CORRECT definition of bigotry and try to use your own, you ARE going to get called on it. By the way, way to find insults that aren;'t there. I suggest you READ THE DAMN THREAD before posting things that have already been answered (regarding the Hitler thing). Half of your troubles appear to be coming from your lack of comprehension on the thread.

As I've mentioned to timmah, I'm only hostile to the ridiculous statements being made. There's a reson why I'm not hostile to him anymore and still hostile to you. If you post garbage, don't expect to BE treated LIKE a human being. Period!

Once gaain, "anti other opinion" means EVERYONE would be a bigot, including you. Stop cyclic arguing. You're looking ridiculous.



Michelasso on 28 January 2013

Oh, for God sake! I'm  single, I already have to pay taxes for the eterosexual couples, do you really want us to pay even for the gay ones? I have a solution: abolition of the legal marriage. The law should only protect the minors and give the possibility to make a simple legal pact between two people - actually, why only 2? Let's introduce a kind of poligamy as well! - that allows to inherit, visit in hospital and all stuff like that. No more marriage hypocrisis that ends up in divorces, no more taxes, no transferred pensions, no crap. Then, who wants, can get a religious/new wave/celtic/whatever marriage.