Anti-Gay Marriage

[eclipse]

This is Serious Discussion. Express yourself appropriately.

[Vorena]

How would legalizing gay marriage eventually help lower the population?

The only way I could see it happening is if there is a shift in how people view having sex. Maybe somehow the public opinion of homosexual marriage ends up lowering libidos in people leading to less children. Another thing that might happen is with general acceptance being high that more people tend to grow on any homosexual tendencies they have rather than shut it out completely. I think sexual preference is something that you get conditioned into or out of. Therefore, with an increase in open homosexual marriages these families would like to have kids. Well, how can you have kids? Perhaps a surrogate mother/father, but I think that tends to be expensive. A different alternative is simply adoption.

Oh, perhaps gay marriage legalized leads to more homosexual couples that leads to an increase in adoption rates. This increased view on adoption might spark more people to choose adoption rather than having their own kids. That is the only way I see population decreasing because of that. However, I seriously doubt it would decrease levels to be noticeable at all. From what I could find through surveys listed on wiki it seems like the overall homosexual population is relatively small as in less than like 5% typically on a global scale from the people who conducted these surveys.

[Blademaster!]

How would legalizing gay marriage eventually help lower the population?

By slipery slope. Legalizing gay marriage would be a small step in letting people know homosexual behavior is more acceptable. For most homosexual males, part of why they are homosexual is just that they are looking to satisfy their libido. Most studies have shown that homosexual males constantly shift through sexual partner after sexual partner to satisfy their lust, and considering the history of STDs in the gay community this makes sense. If all you really care about is getting it off, then a male partner is likely more preferable than a female one, as a male partner is less likely to be looking for a commited relationship and can't get pregnant, so by letting homosexual behavior become more "rampant" you begin to run into what would happen if we could have real robot sex doll territory. But this is just one flawed way of looking at it. I also remember once reading something about how it ties into this experiment, but I'm too tired at the moment to really try and connect the dots on that one. It would probably have to do with male partners being easier to find, thus being another offshoot of why not too mate in an overcrowded borderline utopian society.

You could also argue that the constant shifting is a result of marriage not being legalized, but lesbians are generally more likely to stick to one partner so...

[Esau of Isaac]

By slipery slope. Legalizing gay marriage would be a small step in letting people know homosexual behavior is more acceptable. For most homosexual males, part of why they are homosexual is just that they are looking to satisfy their libido.

Yeah. Their homosexual libido.

Most studies have shown that homosexual males constantly shift through sexual partner after sexual partner to satisfy their lust, and considering the history of STDs in the gay community this makes sense. If all you really care about is getting it off, then a male partner is likely more preferable than a female one, as a male partner is less likely to be looking for a commited relationship and can't get pregnant, so by letting homosexual behavior become more "rampant" you begin to run into what would happen if we could have real robot sex doll territory.

How do you arrive at "most males will decide to have sex with men" from "homosexual men tend to do flings rather than long term relationships"? Do you think any gay men out there had sex with dudes to keep from knocking up a chick? Or that people became gay to not have kids? What?

[Blademaster!]

How do you arrive at "most males will decide to have sex with men" from "homosexual men tend to do flings rather than long term relationships"? Do you think any gay men out there had sex with dudes to keep from knocking up a chick? Or that people became gay to not have kids? What?

In a world where you only care about satisfying your libido, and just your libido not some specific "homosexual" one, being with a man is better than being with a women. Men don't prefer long relationships, they'd rather just have short sexual flings and move on. There is no risk of getting your partner pregnant, which is a plus for any swinger since if you get a girl pregnant while leading that kind of lifestyle, you can get pretty screwed over by the law. It's meant to follow the same kind of logic behind why real sex dolls could replace women, since you approach an easier method to satisfy your sexual needs with less cons than being together with a real women. I really can't think of a better way to explain it right now but like I said, it's a slipery slope and flawed theory.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Blademaster!

[Esau of Isaac]

In a world where you only care about satisfying your libido, and just your libido not some specific "homosexual" one, being with a man is better than being with a women.

But that's not this world. Most males are heterosexual, and are attracted specifically to female attributes.

I understand what you're saying but males aren't just solely interested in getting off. There may be some out there but they are not a sizable population that would be effected by a social change towards homosexuals.

[Superbus]

By slipery slope. Legalizing gay marriage would be a small step in letting people know homosexual behavior is more acceptable. For most homosexual males, part of why they are homosexual is just that they are looking to satisfy their libido. Most studies have shown that homosexual males constantly shift through sexual partner after sexual partner to satisfy their lust, and considering the history of STDs in the gay community this makes sense. If all you really care about is getting it off, then a male partner is likely more preferable than a female one, as a male partner is less likely to be looking for a commited relationship and can't get pregnant, so by letting homosexual behavior become more "rampant" you begin to run into what would happen if we could have real robot sex doll territory. But this is just one flawed way of looking at it. I also remember once reading something about how it ties into this experiment, but I'm too tired at the moment to really try and connect the dots on that one. It would probably have to do with male partners being easier to find, thus being another offshoot of why not too mate in an overcrowded borderline utopian society.

You could also argue that the constant shifting is a result of marriage not being legalized, but lesbians are generally more likely to stick to one partner so...

There's a lot of ad-hominem here but no basis in fact.

First off, the birth rate in developed countries is already dropping. Higher emphasis on education, higher emphasis on women being breadwinners, lower emphasis on being fruitful just for the sake of Jesus Says So, etc. If that's your concern, your enemy isn't gay marriage, it's a combination of progressive policies, better education, and liberal interpretations of societal norms.

Secondly, you talk as if homosexuality - or bisexuality - is a choice. As if people wake up and go "hey, you know what? I think I want to suck a dick today!" Picture having sex with another person of your gender. Does that make you physically ill? That's how gay people think when they think of having heterosexual intercourse; i know a few who had it when they were closeted and got legitimately sick afterwards.It's not a choice, it's biological. But without reading thirteen pages of the same old debate, I'm sure others have broached that.

Finally, there are no statistics that I know of - and you reference none - stating that male partners of gay relationships are more promiscuous than lesbians. It seems like you're running off of third-hand anecdotal (read: stereotypical) evidence here, which honestly, seems to be your entire problem. You simply don't know what you're talking about, and I say that with no malice.

[Espinosa]

First off, the birth rate in developed countries is already dropping. Higher emphasis on education, higher emphasis on women being breadwinners, lower emphasis on being fruitful just for the sake of Jesus Says So, etc. If that's your concern, your enemy isn't gay marriage, it's a combination of progressive policies, better education, and liberal interpretations of societal norms.

It's now the educated choice to opt against having children? Well now.

Secondly, you talk as if homosexuality - or bisexuality - is a choice. As if people wake up and go "hey, you know what? I think I want to suck a dick today!" Picture having sex with another person of your gender. Does that make you physically ill? That's how gay people think when they think of having heterosexual intercourse; i know a few who had it when they were closeted and got legitimately sick afterwards.It's not a choice, it's biological. But without reading thirteen pages of the same old debate, I'm sure others have broached that.

And you talk as if it's not. I'm afraid at this point the view that one is somehow born gay is just what one wants to think (very much intertwined with other views you hold similarly based in volition and not 'fact'). Intention and behaviour may be linked, but one doesn't lead to another, and choosing to act upon an intention is what most would call a decision. I'm perplexed how it's become normal to think people have no control over their actions whatsoever. Sexuality is a complex phenomenon and subject to change and be reconsidered over time. One may engage in heterosexual intercourse (without being physically ill as you claim) and come to realise they are gay, or vice versa.

Horrible analogy, but is it a meaningful piece of information that Anders Breivik throws up when he sees people hugging? Not really.

Biology is certainly there but what we understand as homosexuality is very much a social construct. Foucault is an intellectual authority worth consulting on this, with experience and articulation that third-rate liberal demagogues cannot boast.

Finally, there are no statistics that I know of - and you reference none - stating that male partners of gay relationships are more promiscuous than lesbians. It seems like you're running off of third-hand anecdotal (read: stereotypical) evidence here, which honestly, seems to be your entire problem. You simply don't know what you're talking about, and I say that with no malice.

That dickhead Olwenish remark at the end wasn't warranted, honestly. Anyway, I cannot imagine what we could possibly extract from a distinction between male and female homosexuals' promiscuity (which summarily can be contrasted to that of their straight peers in some regards) besides a new kind of sexism.

[Esau of Isaac]

It's now the educated choice to opt against having children? Well now.

It appears so, actually. Countries like Japan are spiking when it comes to population. Of course there are societal reasons that exacerbate that situation, but I've read similarly to what Superbus stated.

And you talk as if it's not. I'm afraid at this point the view that one is somehow born gay is just what one wants to think (very much intertwined with other views you hold similarly based in volition and not 'fact'). Intention and behaviour may be linked, but one doesn't lead to another, and choosing to act upon an intention is what most would call a decision.

You are wholly misinterpreting what he is saying. The notion that homosexuality is a choice is much the same as the idea that the taste of shit is a choice. The origin of sexuality is wholly irrelevant because either way at the end of the day it is not a choice to be gay, straight, or anywhere between.

Sexuality is a complex phenomenon and subject to change and be reconsidered over time. One may engage in heterosexual intercourse (without being physically ill as you claim) and come to realise they are gay, or vice versa.

And in realizing their sexuality do not choose to be gay. Even the verb you use betrays you. They didn't just wake up and say "Today I am going to fuck dudes because why not right"

Biology is certainly there but what we understand as homosexuality is very much a social construct.

Which is why it occurs in numerous species throughout the animal kingdom. Them heathens need Jesus.

[Rehab]

I'm trying to remember the exact places from which I remember hearing that some study (slash studies) had found that cases where people had less children and later in life, in aggregate, saw larger numbers of each of those children (being more likely to) do better, and that the poorer people are, in aggregate, the more children they're likely to have, though that trend may be getting less pronounced (I think that last one was the economist, at least).

It appears so, actually. Countries like Japan are spiking when it comes to population. Of course there are societal reasons that exacerbate that situation, but I've read similarly to what Superbus stated.

You are wholly misinterpreting what he is saying. The notion that homosexuality is a choice is much the same as the idea that the taste of shit is a choice. The origin of sexuality is wholly irrelevant because either way at the end of the day it is not a choice to be gay, straight, or anywhere between.

And in realizing their sexuality do not choose to be gay. Even the verb you use betrays you. They didn't just wake up and say "Today I am going to fuck dudes because why not right"

Which is why it occurs in numerous species throughout the animal kingdom. Them heathens need Jesus.

[spoiler=kinda gross]Fun (except not really) fact I got from an NPR article: supposedly, across all cultures across the world, there is only and exactly one thing that not a single culture (by-and-large) has been known to find appealing to smell or taste in any way. Two guesses what, and the first one don't count

I assumed what he meant by "homosexuality as we know it is a social construct" was more "the sexual tendencies and preferences commonly associated with homosexuality (perhaps such as its rigidity, and/or its affect/overlap with thought processes that aren't strictly related to sex) in any given culture are somewhat less than supported by a wide body of scientific evidence," and/or "'gay' is a generalized label that brings to mind some common perceptions, rather than the likes of a strict medical definition," as opposed to something along the lines of "people directly choose what they're attracted to and there's no reason to believe homosexuality is natural."

Edited July 25, 2013 by Rehab

[Superbus]

It's now the educated choice to opt against having children? Well now.

If you're looking at statistics that show just that - that highly educated people, especially women, are having children at a lower rate than less educated people - then yes. That's exactly what statistics - like, numbers - are saying, This has been a trend for decades. The potential reasons for this are varied - be it because of better sex education leading to lower unintentional pregnancies, or because of career advancement being a priority for women in their 20s, or due to budgeting concerns by people who can actually balance a budget - but the stats are indisputable.

And you talk as if it's not. I'm afraid at this point the view that one is somehow born gay is just what one wants to think (very much intertwined with other views you hold similarly based in volition and not 'fact'). Intention and behaviour may be linked, but one doesn't lead to another, and choosing to act upon an intention is what most would call a decision. I'm perplexed how it's become normal to think people have no control over their actions whatsoever. Sexuality is a complex phenomenon and subject to change and be reconsidered over time. One may engage in heterosexual intercourse (without being physically ill as you claim) and come to realise they are gay, or vice versa.

The science has so far shown biases - gay people are more likely to be left-handed, etc. - but no scientific answer - like a gay gene - but that's still a better record than people trying to prove that homosexuality has nothing to do with genetics or biology. And by scientific, I don't mean World Nut Daily.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Superbus

[nootkentensis]

This is a great topic! For some reason there appears to be no valid reason for preventing gay marriage! To me ,the marriage part is irrelevant. I would say that, if the act is OK, then why not marriage? But i don't believe that the act is OK. And this is my reasoning:

The act of homosexuality is dangerous to all mankind. (stay with me on this)

STD's are much higher in the homosexual community, for a reason. I'm not saying that god gives gays AIDS, or anything like that. But the act itself is conducive to infection (even with condoms). I could say the same about heterosexual acts of sleeping around with multiple partners, and will! The fact is that STD's don't just stay with the ones that go out an commit these acts. But they are spread all over by the ones that carry them.(stay with me a little longer) Why are there coral reefs that have herpes? How can HPV appear in hail samples? Fluids constantly pass through our bodies. Everyone knows that water is like a magnet to other particles, and as it passes through us and leaves us (sweat, urine, tears, etc.) It takes with it remnants of whatever it came from. People are just beginning to understand the links between STD's and cancer. But the point of all this is just that. STD's are caused by, and carried around by people who commit sodomy, bestiality, and adultery. So therefore, these acts should not be encouraged. But if this was made known better, people could make an informed decision instead of just saying, "it's wrong", or " you'll burn in hell".

Furthermore, when STD's are added to our atmosphere in abundance, they can influence weather patterns and destroy other life forms. I know ,sounds crazy, but sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.

[Tryhard]

bro what

you're being dumb

stop it

[Superbus]

This is a great topic! For some reason there appears to be no valid reason for preventing gay marriage! To me ,the marriage part is irrelevant. I would say that, if the act is OK, then why not marriage? But i don't believe that the act is OK. And this is my reasoning:

The act of homosexuality is dangerous to all mankind. (stay with me on this)

STD's are much higher in the homosexual community, for a reason. I'm not saying that god gives gays AIDS, or anything like that. But the act itself is conducive to infection (even with condoms). I could say the same about heterosexual acts of sleeping around with multiple partners, and will! The fact is that STD's don't just stay with the ones that go out an commit these acts. But they are spread all over by the ones that carry them.(stay with me a little longer) Why are there coral reefs that have herpes? How can HPV appear in hail samples? Fluids constantly pass through our bodies. Everyone knows that water is like a magnet to other particles, and as it passes through us and leaves us (sweat, urine, tears, etc.) It takes with it remnants of whatever it came from. People are just beginning to understand the links between STD's and cancer. But the point of all this is just that. STD's are caused by, and carried around by people who commit sodomy, bestiality, and adultery. So therefore, these acts should not be encouraged. But if this was made known better, people could make an informed decision instead of just saying, "it's wrong", or " you'll burn in hell".

Furthermore, when STD's are added to our atmosphere in abundance, they can influence weather patterns and destroy other life forms. I know ,sounds crazy, but sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.

*sigh* I'll bite:

Who says that these homosexuals are actually having this kind of sex? Who says gay men have to have anal sex? And last I checked, women scissoring isn't any more dangerous than heterosexual sex (though it IS 100X hotter, and that's Superbus Approved!)

Also, by saying this, you're saying that these people are fundamentally incapable of safe sex. Condoms, dental dams, etc.

[eclipse]

1. I don't care how hard you facepalm, explain WHY you're facepalming.

2. I have no idea how STDs influencing weather makes sense in the slightest. Last I checked, the two fields were completely unrelated.

[Tryhard]

This is a great topic! For some reason there appears to be no valid reason for preventing gay marriage! To me ,the marriage part is irrelevant. I would say that, if the act is OK, then why not marriage? But i don't believe that the act is OK. And this is my reasoning:

The act of homosexuality is dangerous to all mankind. (stay with me on this)

STD's are much higher in the homosexual community, for a reason. I'm not saying that god gives gays AIDS, or anything like that. But the act itself is conducive to infection (even with condoms). I could say the same about heterosexual acts of sleeping around with multiple partners, and will! The fact is that STD's don't just stay with the ones that go out an commit these acts. But they are spread all over by the ones that carry them.(stay with me a little longer) Why are there coral reefs that have herpes? How can HPV appear in hail samples? Fluids constantly pass through our bodies. Everyone knows that water is like a magnet to other particles, and as it passes through us and leaves us (sweat, urine, tears, etc.) It takes with it remnants of whatever it came from. People are just beginning to understand the links between STD's and cancer. But the point of all this is just that. STD's are caused by, and carried around by people who commit sodomy, bestiality, and adultery. So therefore, these acts should not be encouraged. But if this was made known better, people could make an informed decision instead of just saying, "it's wrong", or " you'll burn in hell".

Furthermore, when STD's are added to our atmosphere in abundance, they can influence weather patterns and destroy other life forms. I know ,sounds crazy, but sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.

The real reason STDs are more easily transmitted is because anal sex is more likely to cause STD's. That goes for both homosexual and heterosexual relationships. However, if it is safe sex, like Superbus said, it's much less likely to happen. If the person is responsible, you are at a much lower risk.

I would also like to bring up Africa and the fact that much of the AIDs spread etc there was because of heterosexual sex, not homosexual sex.

Your last statement is so woefully ridiculous to just throw out there and I have a hard time believing you're not trolling. "It's true, honest!"

I find your views somewhat disturbing and distasteful.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Kelsper

[Janusofthetwofaces]

This is a great topic! For some reason there appears to be no valid reason for preventing gay marriage! To me ,the marriage part is irrelevant. I would say that, if the act is OK, then why not marriage? But i don't believe that the act is OK. And this is my reasoning:

The act of homosexuality is dangerous to all mankind. (stay with me on this)

STD's are much higher in the homosexual community, for a reason. I'm not saying that god gives gays AIDS, or anything like that. But the act itself is conducive to infection (even with condoms). I could say the same about heterosexual acts of sleeping around with multiple partners, and will! The fact is that STD's don't just stay with the ones that go out an commit these acts. But they are spread all over by the ones that carry them.(stay with me a little longer) Why are there coral reefs that have herpes? How can HPV appear in hail samples? Fluids constantly pass through our bodies. Everyone knows that water is like a magnet to other particles, and as it passes through us and leaves us (sweat, urine, tears, etc.) It takes with it remnants of whatever it came from. People are just beginning to understand the links between STD's and cancer. But the point of all this is just that. STD's are caused by, and carried around by people who commit sodomy, bestiality, and adultery. So therefore, these acts should not be encouraged. But if this was made known better, people could make an informed decision instead of just saying, "it's wrong", or " you'll burn in hell".

Furthermore, when STD's are added to our atmosphere in abundance, they can influence weather patterns and destroy other life forms. I know ,sounds crazy, but sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.

The STD percentage may be higher in the gay community but by your logic we should ban straight anything too because the absolute value of STDs among the straight community is significantly higher than the absolute value of STDs among the gay community

Edited August 25, 2013 by ePamplemouss
Editing out flaming parts.

[Espinosa]

He just wants to be featured on serenes_txt, and the best way to achieve that is to shit out a long rant about homosexuality.

[Ansem]

obvious troll is obvious, by replying to him you're stooping to the same level as him

on the topic, i'm kind of curious to hear the logic behind weather patterns and std's.

the absolute value of STDs among the straight community is significantly higher than the absolute value of STDs among the gay community

source? i feel as if i will be using this piece of information in the future(long story short, group discussions revolving around controversial topics at a scholarship interview) and i doubt saying "a guy on the internet said so" will win any points.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Bacteriophage

[Steampunk]

obvious troll is obvious, by replying to him you're stooping to the same level as him

on the topic, i'm kind of curious to hear the logic behind weather patterns and std's.

Gay sorcery. Isn't that obvious?

[Janusofthetwofaces]

obvious troll is obvious, by replying to him you're stooping to the same level as him

on the topic, i'm kind of curious to hear the logic behind weather patterns and std's.

source? i feel as if i will be using this piece of information in the future(long story short, group discussions revolving around controversial topics at a scholarship interview) and i doubt saying "a guy on the internet said so" will win any points.

http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Abstract/2007/10000/Changes_in_Sexual_Behavior_and_STD_Prevalence.16.aspx

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192876

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats11/adol.htm

Look at anything in the very last link. You'll find percentages for MSM around 10% for some of them, and 4-6% for others like females. MSM is estimated to be AT MOST 10% of the population, making it 1% of the population as having it, whereas 4-6% of 51% of the population (females) is double to triple that.

[NotPennysBoat]

If anyone's curious, I found the thing about herpes in coral reefs. It is, of course, not supportive of the hilarious rant above. http://www.livescience.com/1621-herpes-virus-killing-coral-reefs.html The coral's immune system is compromised and the herpes virus is naturally occurring. We didn't *give* the coral reefs herpes.

As for HPV in hail samples, or clouds of STDs affecting weather patterns, yeah, I cannot find anything on that although I could really use the laugh.

[Esau of Isaac]

source? i feel as if i will be using this piece of information in the future(long story short, group discussions revolving around controversial topics at a scholarship interview) and i doubt saying "a guy on the internet said so" will win any points.

Even though sources were already given I think that in most discussions unless you want to get the numbers it's a fair assumption to make given the much lower population of homosexuals compared to heterosexuals. Having a higher absolute population of STD-carriers would require a pretty ridiculous interpretation of homosexual promiscuity.

[monkymeet]

I thought he was just satirizing the slippery-slope argument that lots of people employ.

"Gay marriage?! Next, people will marry their dogs, and then they'll want to marry rocks!"

That, or a troll.