@ gunfighter: it shouldn't be ANY priority! Just because people hide behind their persecution with flowery talk and "protection of marriage" doesn't change the fact that its persecution all the same.

You are right though, that it at least forces a degree of legitimacy onto the argument. Fortunately, those against gay marriage and/or civil unions don't have a prayers chance in hell of winning this debate.

Isn't it obvious to you people that 150 years from now people are going to look on this issue the exact same way we now look at the slavery debate?

lol did you read his post? he seems to think its a choice... there is very little you discuss with that kind of fool

"King Atom came out with a couple of valid points"

No, he didn't. He superimposed his interpretation of certain ideas all over the place with nothing to back them up.

"The human body has been created to have men suited for women"

According to what? Apparently not, since some men are attracted to male bodies and some females to female bodies. By definition that means the human body was not necessarily created for men to find women attractive and vice versa.

Furthermore, the body wasn't "created" at all. It evolved from other organisms' bodies over time. Any intent applied to how it evolved is by definition a superimposition of his (flawed) interpretation of certain characteristics of the body on objective reality.

"Culturally, there is nothing to be produced, thus they cause a decline in the birth rate as more and more become confused."

There are two possible interpretations of this:

*culturally = strictly human reproduction;
*culturally = anything related to culture

If the latter, he's not saying anything, as value is subjective. And subjective interpretations of the cultural "value" of some idea or product produced does not make grounds for objective policy. If the former, then he is not talking about gay marriage but infertile marriage. This is not exclusive to gays and to limit it to banning gay marriage is to discriminate against some infertile couples while not discriminating against others. He's not talking about banning straight infertile couples from marrying, is he? No, just gays. It's still not logically consistent.

Furthermore, there is a far more serious, overarching superimposition that is best touched upon now...

"Culturally, there is nothing to be produced ..."
"Not knowing what your body is physically adapted for, choosing something else."

Where does he get the right to determine what the purpose of marriage is? "There is nothing to be produced, therefore they can't get married" implies that the purpose of marriage is to produce something. It is not. Marriage is a contract between two (or perhaps more) people to spend the rest of their lives as exclusive mates. The purpose for such a contract is entirely up to the people involved. Someone outside of a contract has zero say on the motivations behind the contract. To act as though he has the right to say what they are contracting for is supremely arrogant and supremely wrong.

"They are confused about their sexuality, therefore they cannot get married" is similarly flawed. It implies that marriage is a contract between two people who clearly understand their sexuality and intend to pursue it. Again, this is not the case. The motivations for the contract are entirely left to the contractors and not ours to mandate.

"For those of you who believe in God, you know that it is morally and quite simply, wrong."

The lack of a definition of "God" makes this statement unfalsifiable and therefore useless. For sake of argument, I define God as a supreme being who specifically condones gay marriage. What now?

"For those of you who believe in evolution, you know that we did not evolve to do such things. We evolved so that man and woman would be able to be together. Natural Selection condemns them."

No, we didn't. 100% of gays have straight parents. Straight, reproducing human beings are capable of producing gays. The natural selection argument makes no sense at all because natural selection has for tens of thousands of years run its course in human beings, and yet the genes that would lead straight mates to produce homosexual children are still clearly around in the pool. If natural selection were ever going to "condemn" gays, it already would have. The genes are clearly carried in straight human beings, and thus natural selection cannot "weed them out" or whatever terminology you want to use.

Furthermore, the "we've evolved to make men and women be together" thing is also flawed. Evolution doesn't evolve with a plan in mind. It just happens. Spontaneous order. Thus to claim that evolution had some kind of agenda to make men and women be together is flawed.

Seriously, what point(s), Gunfighter06? I don't see anything close to resembling legitimacy. Which is why it's an obvious troll. (the black people and women comment adds to the troll)

And that's not even touching the "lol gayness is a choice" bullshit. You didn't choose to be straight, what makes you think they chose not to be straight? How can you choose not to be attracted to something, anyway? I could use that. Temptation's a bitch, after all, and I have a girlfriend to be loyal to. Oh master gay people, teach me your ways! Show me how you make yourselves not attracted to what biology says you must be attracted to!

If you can't see the sheer lunacy of stating or implying that anyone chooses that to which they are attracted, try again. And keep trying until you see it. Because it's sheer lunacy, and there's no way around it.

Eden, I'm tired...I'll argue with you tomorrow. As for the rest of you...this kind of accepting that homosexual relationships are even legitimate sickens me. I hope you all change your minds at some point...but if not, then you will all just have to go on my kill list.

And yet again, don't yell at me, because I hurt your feeling by complaining about gay people. I wasn't trolling, Thucy asked me to put this up here...so either leave it alone, or state what you think should be said without getting all bitchy about my intolerance.

Very succinct and well thought out Eden...

LOL first KA challenges people to not get all "bitchy and yell" about his ignorant views. Eden takes the high road and counterpoints every bit of tripe KA puts out, and now the ball is in KA's court.

50 dip-points says KA's counter will be a bigoted bit of garbage, nonexistent, or woefully inadequate to all of the excellent points that Eden raises. Of course, since he's "too tired" to argue, I fully expect that he will make NO posts until he's responded to Eden's thoughts... fat chance imo.

You're the coolest ever, King Atom.

I wish replying to KA wouldn't be feeding the troll, because gender and sexuality issues are always very interesting to discuss, even if you are debating them with someone who really doesn't have even the foggiest grasp of the basic concepts.

*****FAG ALERT*****FAG ALERT*****FAG ALERT*****

Mafia, totally agree. I greatly enjoy discussing gender and sexuality issues. However arguing them with people who hate homosexuality and anything outside of the gender binary is not fun.

Just results in lots of yucky emotions.

LGBT issues are particularly close to my heart. :)

*****FAG ALERT*****FAG ALERT*****FAG ALERT******

Yep.. well sort of. Your terminology is all off, though. If you'd like I could correct you. It's not like you live that far from me. ;)

Personal lessons are better after all.

KA having problems with women, black people, gays, non-english speaking people... What more?
There is a beautiful word that exists to describe you, King Atom: Xenophobia. You seriously need help. Please go get some... And i really mean that. End of discussion for me.

I do see what you mean damian, but sometimes having to explain ideas like that from first principles really makes you think about them in ways that you never had before.

I suppose the difference is someone who means well but is just kinda ignorant and actually someone who is actually is bigoted and hateful.

(I realize "first principles" is a mathematics term, I just used it because it described what I meant quite well.)

*****FAG ALERT*****FAG ALERT*****FAG ALERT*******

I have no objection to you using the term "first principles" as you did. : )

Me neither I thought it was a nice eloquent way to put it.

Maple isn't having much luck is he. xD

@PE

"100% of gays have straight parents."

You have no way of verifying this.

"Maple isn't having much luck is he. xD" I've been called worse than that by people better than him.

Also @ abgemacht, that is true that that isn't verifiable, and is probably not true, it's also pretty clear what President Eden actually meant, and more to the point, I think his point still stands. I suppose it is possible that every single not straight person in the world has at least one parent who is bisexual or gay/lesbian and in denial, but that seems unlikely.

My only point is that the argument for gay-tolerance is solid enough without saying things that are not only unverifiable, but probably blatantly false. It hurts your argument.

It's really brave of Mapleleaf to come-out so boldly. I think he's just looking for a little recognition and acceptance. Thanks Maple, I always had my suspicions. Have you told your parents... and your sons?

I can guarantee you that the 100% stat is not true. You see I know this guy.

Who is this thing called a sperm donor for a lesbian couple. He's gay, and the mother is gay too. Yay personal anecdotes.

Sperm donors/Surrogate mothers aren't all that uncommon when it comes to gay couples who want kids.

Ah, point taken.

Ah, point taken......up your butt.

Damn Eden loves him some gays...haha..JUST KIDDING EDEN DONT KILL ME!!!

...Is it homophobic..if .. you are okay with gays and them being around you but if your straight and they try to hit on you or touch you...is it alright to freak out or is that being homophobic...

I guess maybe you should probably just politely tell them not too flirt or touch you but...still.....I dont like it....

and yes it has happened to me...twice... :( and I was so baked when it happened...I just kind of walked away......but I had a urge to hit them.....is that bad?

I personally would find it flattering