Homosexual rights

//Edit by Shredderbeam//

THIS THREAD IS SATIRE.

//Edit//

This thread is against gay rights, the title "Red sauce on pasta" is relating to "straight sex". Please post your idea's comments, expect me to gfo against them if you go against me.

12 reasons gay rights are bad.

Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.

Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.

Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.

Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.


Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always

constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.


Why This Is A Serious Civil Rights Issue
When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters of civil justice, which often can be quite serious - and can have life-damaging, even life-threatening consequences.
One of these is the fact that in most states, we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and can and frequently do, totally ignore our wishes regarding the treatment of our partners. If a hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results consciously intended to be as inimical to the interests of the patient as possible! Is this fair?

Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave. As survivors, estranged families can, in nearly all states, even sieze a real estate property that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years, quickly sell it at the largest possible loss, and stick the surviving partner with all the remaining mortgage obligations on a property that partner no longer owns, leaving him out on the street, penniless. There are hundreds of examples of this, even in many cases where the gay couple had been extremely careful to do everything right under current law, in a determined effort to protect their rights. Is this fair?

If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. In court cases, a partner's testimony can be simply ruled irrelevant as heresay by a hostile judge, having no more weight in law than the testimony of a complete stranger. If a partner is jailed or imprisoned, visitation rights by the partner can, in most cases, can be denied on the whim of a hostile family and the cooperation of a homophobic judge, unrestrained by any law or precedent. Conjugal visits, a well-established right of heterosexual married couples in some settings, are simply not available to gay couples. Is this fair?

These are far from being just theoretical issues; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you numerous horror stories of friends and acquaintences who have been victimized in such ways. One couple I know uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Why, as a supposedly advanced society, should we continue to tolerate this kind of injustice?

These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws by legislation or court precedent over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and even consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a serious civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony, whether it is performed in a church or courthouse or the local country club, or whether an announcement about it is accepted for publication in the local newspaper.

Gay Couples are Unnatural

The idea that gay marriage is wrong because gay couples are somehow unnatural is not often stated openly, but this premise influences other arguments and lies behind many people’s negative opinions about homosexuality in general. For most people, heterosexual relationships are the norm, both in society and in nature. Homosexual relationships are thus abnormal and unnatural; therefore, they shouldn’t be validated by the state nor recognized as a form of marriage.

Such arguments are superficially effective because they try to harness the power of apparently neutral and objective categories like “nature” and “natural” in support of one’s position. In this manner a person can try to slough off accusations of bigotry and intolerance because, after all, it’s just a matter of factual observation as to what is and is not a proper part of the natural order and/or what is mandated by natural law.

It’s no more bigoted or intolerant than observing the dropped objects fall down rather than up, or that bears mate with other bears rather than with deer.
In reality, however, claims about the natural order or natural law only end up being masks for religious, political, or social prejudices — including those that rise to level of bigotry. The philosophical veneer might at times be impressive, but we must not fail to look beneath the surface in order to understand what the real ideas and arguments are. One means for doing that is to ask the not-so-easy question of just what is meant by “natural” and “unnatural.”

A common and simplistic meaning is that heterosexual relationships are “natural” because that is what we find in nature, whereas we don’t find homosexual relationships. The latter are therefore unnatural and should not be validated by society. A perfect example of this attitude towards the “unnaturalness” of homosexuality was expressed by Peter Akinola, Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria:

I cannot think of how a man in his senses would be having a sexual relationship with another man. Even in the world of animals — dogs, cows, lions — we don’t hear of such things.
There are many possible objections to this. First, humans are obviously a part of nature, so if humans have homosexual relationships, is that not therefore a part of nature? Second, we don’t find dogs, cows, and lions entering into legal marriage contracts with one another — does that mean that legal marriage as an institution is “unnatural” and should be eliminated?

Those objections point to the logical flaws in the argument, revealing what was described above: it’s merely a philosophical veneer applied to personal prejudices. Just as important, however, is that the argument is factually false. Homosexual activity and homosexual relationships can be found throughout nature — in dogs, cows, lions and more. With some species, homosexual activity is quite common and regular. This means that the argument isn’t just a philosophical veneer, it’s a cheap and poorly applied veneer to boot.

Sometimes the argument that homosexual relationships and homosexuality are “unnatural” might be meant in the sense that it doesn’t really flow from “human nature” in its raw state, untainted by civilization. Presumably this is supposed to mean that if it weren’t for the society around us, no one would be gay — we’d only ever want to mate with or have intimate relationships with members of the opposite sex.

There is no evidence offered to back this up — not even false evidence, as with the prior argument. Yet even if we accept that it is true, so what? The mere fact that humans wouldn’t do something when in a “state of nature” outside the confines of civilization is absolutely no reason to conclude that they also shouldn’t do it when living within civilization. We wouldn’t drive cars or use computers outside of the structures of civilizations, so should we stop doing them while a part of society?

Very often the argument that homosexual relationships are “unnatural” is meant to describe the fact that they do not and cannot lead to the creation of children, which is supposed to be the “natural” consequence of such intimate relationships, especially marriage. This argument also isn’t effective, but the relationship between marriage and raising children is addressed in more detail elsewhere.

Ultimately, the “homosexuality is unnatural” argument fails to support the case against same-sex marriage because there is no clear and convincing content to the concept of “unnatural” in the first place. Everything that is claimed to be “unnatural’ is either arguably very natural, arguably irrelevant to what the laws should be, or is simply immaterial to what should be treated as moral and immoral. It's no coincidence that what is "unnatural" also happens to be condemned by the speaker's religious or cultural traditions. Just because some trait or activity isn’t the norm among humans doesn’t make it “unnatural” and therefore wrong.

 

I don't support homosexuality at all, I think it's just wrong.

 

seeing as its something that your born with, I dont think you should call it wrong its a "Mental Illness" that you have no control over...im neutral at the moment there are many thing i have against its gross..

 

The gays dont make fun of you being heterosexual, why do you have to make fun of them, fucking homophobia i hate it <.<

"Oooh! Look at that guy, hes shirt has a bit of pink in the left corner, he must be gay!" etc etc.

 

It is not something that you are born with, its something that you decide your born with.

 

I typed of a quite a long response, and then realized that the first post was being sarcastic

 

Everyone who voted Yes should be applying for rights right now.

remember sythe, REALISM, There will always be arguments about this morals guide decision, decision guides trust, trust guides mistrust, mistrust guides arguments. ect

 

Honestly, I don't support homosexuality. It's wrong, just completely wrong. But, I don't think they should be treated differently, just no gay marriages or anything. But, homosexuality is sort of sick in a way.

 

Ok first of all wonderful wonderful wonderful satire, some of the best i've seen lately, and second, can i use your red sauce on pasta signature?

 

I don't like gays. It's unnatural. They do not deserve the right to marry and especially the right to adopt children.

 

Why do they not deserve the right to adopt children or get married? Many gay parents have raised successful children, many of whom are straight. And why deny them marriage, what does it do to you.

And if it is so unnatural, then why is there proof the some people are born as homosexuals?

 

The sarcasm in the article is hilarious. I was about to type some really long message about why you are an idiot, till I realized it was sarcasm.

 

The sarcasm should be apparent... and it's about as funny as Whoopi Goldberg.
http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=248092

^read my responses on that thread

And the poll is misleading. Gay rights != Gay marriage
I support the former, not the latter.

This thread rocks!!!!
^better than any sarcasm in original post

 

Cruel is right, gay rights and gay marriage rights are two different issues. To say that you do not support gay rights means that you do not support their basic rights as humans.

 

homosexuality is wrong. That's what i think.

 

Depends on which definition of natural you're using. You seem to be using the definition that is synonymous with normal.
But if you use the definition more closely related to nature, you could say homosexuality is unnatural due to the inability to produce offspring. But it's no matter really... if people are against homosexuality because it's unnatural, they simply have to explain why unnatural things are bad.
I disagree with homosexuality because God does. I disagree with gay marriage for other reasons.

 

Both are the same thing really in my opinion.
Also, there is proof god disagrees about homosexuality.

 

Whether homosexuality is supported by God/religion is irrelevant to this topic. Since religion and politics are not integrated, any religious claims made are void.

 

does anybody here, have any real physical experience with a gay person?
i doubt it.
first of all, the thing that really got on my nerves was, "being gay is unnatural"
your born with it, thats how it is. my brother for example, is gay. he didnt decide when he was 8 years old, "well, im gonna be gay now" he probably didnt even know what that was!
my mom said she always knew something was different about him, she said she knew by age 5.
being gay is natural.
gay marriage would also be lovely because adoption.
you ever see those signs saying "2 million babys are being waited to be adopted"
yeah, a ton of them arent. because straight couples figure, well if im gonna have a kid i want to him/her to be like me. etc etc.
with gay couples, you kinda dont have a choice. and if a gay couple wanted a kid, the majority would treat it good. considering they put a lot of thought into it etc...
um...in straight couples, there a millions of abuse cases with children, and divorces and so on. so uh...how are those uh, heterosexual marriages working out? seems those are causing lots of trouble, maybe we should make that illegal. (not really, just a figure of speach)
hate to sound like an idiot but...
just try me all you right wing christian homophobes.

 

0wn 12anging, Homophobia is a mental illness that is hard to control so don't go ther