specialistx2324 wrote:
how do i feel about gay people. first and foremost im not going to beat everyone with the religion rhetoric. gays and strait people can read for themselves. but you got to remember , with gay marriage increasing per year, the birth rate will go down dramatically. ill say it this way: try conceiving with two penises!
False, if not an outright lie.
specialistx2324 wrote:
the purpose of marriage is procreation not sensation. i could go on to say being homosexual is not acceptable/ its taboo in society since the beginning of time, but people will continue to do it.
Is the purpose of marriage procreation? Should we not then limit marriages to those couples who produce children? Interestingly enough, the primary reason, by overwhelming majority, for Canadian homosexual couples to marry, is to raise children. Must it be traditional procreation that defines marriage, or simply the raising of children?
specialistx2324 wrote:
but my belief of gay marriage is this: there are certain limits in human nature and in the natural world you just dont mess with. it is very scary to conflict natural laws/ nature with rights/freedom and privaledges. positive will always attract a negative charge, there is a sun in the day and a moon in the night, a sperm and egg makes kids,life does not exist without water and oxygen, there is gravity that holds us down, and so on. imagine a world where there is one skin color,one religion or everyone is gay in the world. How would you deal with that world? and ill tell you this: having gay marriages will alter the very definition of a family. In addtion, the existance of humanity would be altered forever because gay rights has construed the very definition of what makes a family.
Essentially, you are saying we should not allow gay marriage become we "just don't mess with" nature? You attempt to make it unnatural not only in a social sense, but by construing it as opposite to the very foundations of our world, such as water, oxygen and gravity, you attempt to make homosexuality something wrong, something that we cannot live with. You exaggerate on such a great level that you fail to register a valid point. There is no point to wondering about "a world where there is one skin color, one religion, or everyone is gay". It does not exist. It is as if we wonder whether the entire world is male- How do we reproduce? Completely pointless, and serves no valid purpose to the discussion.
specialistx2324 wrote:
if other states follow california, sooner or later maybe 20-30 years from now, the traditional family that has existed since the beginning of time will no longer exist. not only that, we are all born with a desire to have a mom and a dad regardless of race, color or religious beliefs. yes there are a lot of bad parents unfortunately. a mother and a father have different role in raising kids. a father is able to do something that the mom cant and vice versa. let me ask you this folks: how will a young adult deal with psychological obstacles when he/she has 2 moms or 2 dads? hmmmm. ill tell you right now its not pretty.
You assume there is psychological damage, but you provide no proof, just the assumption that it is somehow wrong to children. Children are fine with it, as long as we don't bring them up as we have before, teaching them that homosexuality is wrong, or at best, strange and weird. If we do not reinforce this idiotic drivel, then children raised by gay parents will not be psychologically damaged.
specialistx2324 wrote:
a good number of my friends in High school are gay, to this day i still know them. , but being gay is a matter of choice, not nature. for example i know someone back in highschool that was strait, had 2 girlfriends in HS and some college, and he is officially gay right now. i just saw his myspace page. people here say that being gay is not about choice but nature. if so then more of the human population would be gay. remember homosexuals constitutes a small part of the population.
How do you know it is choice and not nature? Your one example? It may be a classic example of someone struggling with their inner desires because they are being told it is wrong and evil, and finally accepting who they are later in life. It could be an example of someone choosing to be gay, for some reason, be it attention or some misconstrued ideas of his nature. It provides little proof either way. If "being gay is not about choice but nature", then it does not necessarily follow that "more of the human population would be gay". Little logic there.
specialistx2324 wrote:
from a sociological standpoint: a homosexual relationship of any kind is considered taboo. as a undergrad i took several courses in sociology. one thing my professor taught is that every right / freedom/ priviledge has a severe consequence no matter if it is good or bad.
It is considered taboo by many. Why don't we aim to change that? In many countries, including my own, it is no longer taboo, although some of the archaic beliefs of many remain, even in tolerant people.
As for your what your professor taught, I may summarize it quickly: Things have consequences. You can't seriously attempt to use university sociology in some argument against gay marriage, especially one that spells out an obvious trait of rights: Consequences- Which may or may not be bad! Do you not think that possible consequences are weighed before something such as gay marriage comes into law?
Overall, you present zero arguments against gay marriage.