The end to Gay Marriage

Why Gay's should not hold the right to marry.

This message is not intended to differentiate right versus wrong in a moral aspect of the homosexual lifestyle. This message is about marriage. While the whole anti-gay movement is fueled by the idea that it is immoral, I am here to prove to you that a Gay Marriage or Union is irrational without drawing attention to it's obvious religious immorality.

In an effort to avoid letting my words go unnoticed, I have decided to make one solid and undebatable message similar, in efficacy, to something as prestigious and irrefutable as the Constitution.

Purpose- The purpose of this thread is to highlight the differences between homosexual relationships and heterosexual ones. Also, the purpose of this thread is to reasonably justify, once and for all, a validated opinion against the idea of a Gay "Union" or "Gay Marriage".

Subtopic 1: The idea of a Gay Marriage/Union being equivalent to that of a Straight Marriage/Union physically and emotionally.

A) Physically

This is the obvious one. Only a heterosexual marriage is a true physical union. Let's get more in depth.

Lesbian's can't unite without the aid of an artificial conjointment (See: double sided dildo). Gay's, on the other hand, can unite, though unnaturally, through two orifices: the mouth and the anal cavity. It is not a true physical union, however, because of the plain fact that the mouth and the anal cavity aren't meant to be penetrated. This is proven through consequence as a result of action. Serious health issues are bound to emanate as a result of homosexual oral and anal sex.

While this content is somewhat off topic, here's why:

Anal Sex-

"The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an "exit-only" passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic."

Oral Sex-

"There is an extremely high rate of parasitic and other intestinal infections documented among male homosexual practitioners because of oral-anal contact. In fact, there are so many infections that a syndrome called "the Gay Bowel" is described in the medical literature.33 "Gay bowel syndrome constitutes a group of conditions that occur among persons who practice unprotected anal intercourse, anilingus, or fellatio following anal intercourse."34 Although some women have been diagnosed with some of the gastrointestinal infections associated with "gay bowel," the vast preponderance of patients with these conditions are men who have sex with men.35"

Source: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

Truthfully, heterosexual sex is the only real physical UNION. In essence, male genitalia in conjunction with female genitalia is the perfect fit; male genitalia in conjunction with a male orifice, asshole or otherwise, fit's but with excess genitalia and/or high probabilities of horrid repercussions; and female genitalia in connection with female genitalia can unite only through means of artificial tools, thus negating it's claim of a real flesh-to-flesh union.

B) Emotionally

There are three types of love: Eros, Philos, and Agape. All three forms of love are forms of attraction from one being to another. Eros is known as "Erotic Love". Philos, a higher form of love, is known as a love based on friendship between two people (Give and Take). And Agape, the highest form of all love, is known as unconditional love. At best, Homosexual Relationship's fall under Eros love. Here's why:

Homosexuality largely falls under the category of perversion. Perversion is generally defined as, "various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal". Now you ask, "what constitutes something being abnormal?", and I answer, "abnormal is something that is nontypical; something that is not average." Webster concurs. Now let's take a look at some numbers. Statistically, homosexual persons account for ten percent of the world's population.

"The estimate of the worlds population is over 6,650,000,000 and several scientific studies have shown that the percentage of gay people are approximately 10%.

The Indiana University Kinsey Reports stated 10% of males being more or less exclusively homosexual and 2% to 6% of females being more or less exclusively homosexual.

A 1990 study (Homosexuality/Heterosexuality by McWhirter, Sanders, and Reinisch) stated 13.95% of males and 4.25% of females had "extensive" or "more than incidental" homosexual experience.

A 1993 study (The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior) found 9% of men and 5% of women were involved in frequent or ongoing homosexual experiences.

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html"

By definition, homosexuality is numerically far from average. Therefore, it comfortably fits under the category of perversion. Now, before you homosexual's have a fit, the idea of perversion is tainted by the majority of societies as a whole; not by me. It is undeniable that the majority of the types of perversion are frowned upon by almost all, including myself, and unfortunately for the pro-gay movement, homosexuality simply falls under the same category.

Moving on.

Subtopic 2: The (un)natural aspect of homosexuality

A) Animals

Many claims from the pro-gay movement suggest that homosexuality is acceptable based on the grounds that "animal's do it too".

"Studies" show that over 1500 species exhibit gay behavior.

Reference: # ^ Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press, 1999; ISBN 0312192398
# ^ Harrold, Max (1999-02-16). "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity". The Advocate, reprinted in Highbeam Encyclopedia. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-53877996.html. Retrieved on 2007-09-10.

The anti-gay movement refutes this belief by claiming that these studies are biased and controlled.

I say, as humans, why to try to use animal behavior to justify the behavior of our own?

B) Is it Genetic?

The major claim for the idea of homosexuality stemming from genetic causes goes as follows:

The fetus of a male or female gains, somehow, opposite sex hormones, traits, and genes.

This interesting claim leads to many homosexuals professing that they are "a female trapped in a male's body", or vice versa. Likewise, this rather interesting statement leads to a series of question's that could potentially identify a serious flaw in the supposed claim of homosexuality stemming from genetic causes: What about bisexuals? Is it possible for them to carry BOTH sets of hormones? If so, how? Or do they just experience sexual mood swings? If so, how and why?

Also, the figures for male versus female homosexuality are pretty lopsided, as shown earlier in this message. The male homosexual population approximately doubles the female population. While this is not reasonable cause to dismiss the idea of homosexuality as being a genetic disorder, it is a question that should definitely be answered.

Subtopic 3: Threats to the foundation of marriage.

A) The definition of Marriage

Marriage is defined as, "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc". As you can blatantly see, society would have to significantly alter the definition of marriage in order for it to accommodate gays, therefore, no longer making it marriage as we know it.

1) Calling it a Civil Union

Is ridiculous, as well. Calling it a "civil union" is, essentially, taking the original definition of marriage, unjustly twisting it around to accommodate the gay population, and titling it with a phony "politically correct" name.

B) Gateway for more disaster?

If we, all of the sudden, make it legal for two men to get married; what about 3 men? Or four women? How about three men and three women in one marriage? Can I marry my balloon? What about my donkey?

My donkey has feelings for me, I know it.

Enough satire, back to reality: If the sex of the participants is no longer relevant, then why should the number be? If the definition of marriage can be twisted around to accommodate homosexuality, then why not Polygamy or Beastiality?

Subtopic 4: Procreation

"When Massachusetts officials facing the court case Goodridge v. Department of Public Health set out to defend that state's marriage law from a challenge by seven homosexual couples, their major line of defense was procreation. Making babies, the state argued, was the first purpose of marriage. By definition, same-sex partners could not create a child as a couple. This was important, the argument continued, because children usually do best when growing up with their two natural parents. Moreover, requiring fertility tests before marriage by opposite-sex couples would be cumbersome and overly intrusive. It was better to let all otherwise qualified opposite-sex couples to marry than to go down that troubling regulatory path.

And the initial trial court, let us remember, agreed with the state. The judge ruled that the primary purpose of marriage, under Massachusetts law, was in fact procreation. Accordingly, the court concluded that the state could reasonably distinguish between homosexual claimants to marriage and those heterosexual couples that were at least "theoretically ... capable" of procreation without relying on "inherently more cumbersome" non-coital reproductive methods.[1]

Even Evan Wolfson, the acknowledged leader of the "gay marriage" movement, has agreed that:
At first glance, the "basic biology" argument seems to make some sense. After all, it doesn't take more than a fourth-grade health class education to know that men's and women's bodies in some sense "complement each other" and that when a man and a woman come "together as one flesh" it often leads to procreation.[2]

But of course, the trial court decision did not survive appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. This higher court, on a 4-3 vote, dismissed the procreation argument, pointing to opposite-sex couples in which the woman was over childbearing age or otherwise infertile. Could the state "rationally" tell them that they could not marry? It could not. Indeed, the court noted that, under state law, even those "who cannot stir from their death bed may marry," provided they were of the opposite sex. Moreover, infertility is not grounds for divorce, and so by inference it is not a bar to marriage, either. In addition, the court noted that Massachusetts law protects the parental rights of homosexuals and allows same-sex couples to adopt children. It was irrational for the state to enable "gay parenting" while also denying the children involved the benefits of "family stability and economic security" found in a marital home."

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PL04J01

A tough argument, indeed. But, consider this: The main argument for this excerpt was the idea that women have become infertile with age through menopause and, because they are sterile, marriage with an infertile women is logically equivalent to the marriage of a same-sex couple. This is fallacious. What they fail to realize is that infertility, as a direct result of menopause, is the ending phase of a long life of procreation or the ability to procreate. With homosexual couples, there was never that state of procreation to begin with. The intent to procreate was never there. This is why opposite-sex marriages shouldn't be declared invalid and same-sex marriages should.

Conclusion-

A conclusion is simply, "the last main division of a discourse, usually containing a summing up of the points and a statement of opinion or decisions reached." Because I've done this out of passion, and not a grade, I'll opt out of pointlessly repeating myself as a way of concluding this message. Thanks for reading, stop the gay's, and support Carrie Prejean.

 

Waiting for a rebut from Finniscool xD.

Joking...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7093422.stm

Also this is one of them things where it goes to show that humanitarianism is messed up. Everyone is different, we shouldn't be judged by the choices we've made (unless it's something illegal). Im not gay but honestly what is the difference between straight and gay love?

 

gay love has 2 penis's =|

 

or 2 vagina's possibly in spooning positions?

 

your response is awful. i'll get to it a little later. btw, please don't link sythe.org to the fb group. if you'd like, copy and paste what you wrote here into a new group topic. thanks.

 

theripcity, your logic is very Clichéd. None of what you have said is valid by any means, and can be proven wrong easily, I wasnt real reasons why there should be no gay marriage, not nonsensical ones.

 

Gays already have the right to marry...they can marry members of the opposite sex no matter where they live. There is no need to give them special treatment and destroy what marriage stands for by letting them marry each other.

 

What does marriage stand for? Are there any rules for marriage? Or just ones that priests have setup? Marriage is not based on Christianity, and the only people who are stubborn enough to argue are Christians, who really amaze me at their lack of knowledge of anything.

 

No. This thread is ridiculous. According to your logic, the point of sex and marriage is to have the right kind of sex and the right kind of marriage. You take the ignorant aspect to this. People don't choose to be gay. It happens as they're in the womb, just like blue eyes and dark hair. To me, your argument is like this:

Blond people shouldn't be able to get haircuts because brown hair is more common and I don't know why people have blond hair, so therefore they should be limited for the rest of their life.

That seem right to you? By the way, learn more about sex and homosexuality. All you know is what a man reading from a 2,000-year-old book tells you.

 

I am not religious in anyway and I know that the bible is just a cluster of incoherent stories put together by mentally ill barbarians attempting to brainwash the world but the idea of marriage is based on religion, not just christianity though, so shouldn't religion dictate how marriage works?

 

Gays can be married in other religions, but for the Christian marriages, it's not allowed.

 

God gave everyone the gift of free will. Let them do with it as they please.

 

That's like saying every human is significantly different, which this is true, but you fail to look at the bigger picture: humans collectively make one whole species. Heterosexual relationships and Homosexual relationships don't correlate as smoothly.

Every heterosexual relationship and homosexual relationship is different in it's own relationship sub-category, respectively. But you can not compare a pair from one side to a pair of the opposite side. I'll admit, while homosexual and heterosexual relationships are actual relationships, there's a reason why the terms heterosexual or homosexual is slapped on before it: to title the obvious dissimilarities of the two.

This is a fucking joke of an argument. By LAW, a man and a woman MUST consummate their marriage in order to seal the deal.

You're ignoring the facts. Numerically, homosexuality isn't average and it is a means of sexual gratification, therefore: perversion.

You can not deny that it is definitely frowned upon by the majority. After all, only a few states in the U.S and a few countries in the world allow it.

In a controlled or secluded environment. I've witnessed, with my own eyes, two brother dogs living across the street from me, humping on a daily basis, because they've been secluded from the outside world. They see a hole and penetrate it; they don't know any better. Is their ignorance right to justify human screwballs?

The difference it makes is if we can't figure out the true origin of homosexuality then we are indefinitely led to assume that their is no true origin of homosexuality until proven otherwise.

Because they are two different things. One is real; one isn't. If we are to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate gay's, then we are changing marriage and it is no longer the original idea of marriage. Whether you'd continue to call it marriage or not, it is not the same. It is something else.

Engage in homosexual sex all you want, I don't care. I think it's sick and wrong, but you are entitled to do as you please. Calling it marriage, however, is where my problem is.

Honestly, what's your defense for polygamy being right? Lol. You've merely tried, and failed, to point out a flaw in my techniques in the field of debate. But, for the sake of being awesome and all-knowing, I'll re-answer you're question:

If the sex of the participants is no longer relevant, then why should the number be? If the definition of marriage can be twisted around to accommodate homosexuality, then why not Polygamy or Beastiality?

This argument is childish, silly, and the worst of all fallacies. You know better. Poor sythe; Undoubtedly, he would frown upon his right hand man if he'd ever come across these words.

0o0o0o nice philosophy there. Sike. You've proved nothing with this statement. Elaborate.

By the way, you've failed to address a ton of other important parts of my discourse. I refuse to further respond to your comments until you address each and every part of my essay; top to bottom.

 

Also, everyone else in here, so far, is retarded. If I feel you haven't fully read the entire post or failed to grasp a full understanding of my words, I won't bother to respond to you.

 

There is thread, similar to this.
Check the thread: http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=598619

Please avoid making new threads, similar to other older threads.
Thank you !

-Sincerely yours, Maskiet

 

if i was still a moderator, i'd fucking kill you

 

Wonder why you have no ex-staff status.

Anyway, there is no law saying people NEED to have sex once they're married, just as there is none saying they CAN'T have sex before they're married. It's required by the law of ignorant Christians, but nobody else. Also, "Homosexuality is seeking sexual gratification and is therefore perverse" is not true at all. Homosexuality is what gender one is attracted to, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with wanting sexual gratification. You know what has to do with it? Intercourse has to do with sexual gratification, that's the reason people have sex. It's not a choice people make to be gay, and it's not a choice people make to be sexual beings. It's the way everything in nature is. Evolution proves this, humans started out being very basic with basic instincts. While there was growth in the brain, the sex drive was passed down through generations and generations, and just like red hair, sometimes mutates to be homosexual or bisexual. The basic function was to mate and continue the species, but now we have society and Christians who think stifling everything they are too weak to handle is the best way to deal with things.

 

Lol, evolution.

I was before the time of "ex-staff status".

Oh, and here you go you fucking retard.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consummate This shit is widely known. Excuse my hostility, but I do not welcome ignorance. Go learn somewhere else.

 

Then what was the purpose of your initial statement of, "Every relationship is different, no matter whether it's same sex or heterosexual."?

Sorry I wasn't specific. I'm talking about the United States of America. Task at hand, my friend. The whole world is the next step

No. Go back to the portion of my essay that covers the physical aspect of homosexuality.

I'll do this in a way that you'll probably understand more clearly if you've taken a beginner's philosophy class.

A) Abnormal is something that is nontypical; something that is not average.
B) Numerically, the gay lifestyle is the furthest thing from average and gay's occur at a very nontypical rate.
C) Perversion is a means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the gay lifestyle is a perversion.

Honestly, I do know. You look at the facts on paper: 10/50 states allow gay marriage in America. That's 20%; a significant minority.

You are contradictory in this portion of your response as there is no proof that the majority of the world, as a whole, declares homosexuality as wrong through theological justification, therefore your statement does not sustain a valid, secular, and rational argument for this aforementioned topic. So, by your own words, I will not consider this irrational view.

The countries of "Holland, Sweden, etc" are still part of a significant minority, which is my point. What are you trying to prove here?

Also, I researched a shitload and couldn't find a single thing even remotely related to the idea of Saddam legalizing homosexuality.

Yes, animals are irrelevant. That was my initial point.

I brought them into the argument for general information/education and immediately dismissed them with "I say, as humans, why to try to use animal behavior to justify the behavior of our own?". You, on the other hand, responded with, "Animals are irrational, and are incapable of autonomy. How could they have made the free willed decision to have been homosexual if not made homosexual?". Therefore, you brought animals into the argument. I only brought them in from an informational perspective.

And, therefore, we are led to assume that homosexuality has no genetic origin until significantly proven otherwise. Possibilities or hypothesis' aren't facts.

Alright, then let me clear up the uncertainty with a bottom line: by changing the definition, you have changed the concept. Definition's aren't just words on paper. There's meaning to these meanings.

This portion of your response is leading us on a path in which this argument will evidently go back and forth in circles. In an effort to avoid this, I shall use the "fuck" word in an attempt to emphasize key parts of the following:

Yes, in your private freedom, you are free to do as you fucking please, but, for the billionth fucking time, you can not call it marriage. Again, you will fucking ask "why" and again I will fucking respond with my initial point's of "The end to Gay Marriage", specifically those that you "either agreed with, could not respond to, or found too complex to respond to" in which I have claimed "jubilant victory".

Morally, I can easily identify why it's wrong. Here it is from a rational perspective, though:

Consider this: taxes, assets, and income. Joint bank accounts? Claiming children annually; not to mention living in a continuous lifestyle of adultery (which is grounds for a divorce and an annulment in monogamous marriages), and even things as little as parent-teacher conferences. There's a long list of complications that would arise from polygamy. The whole legal system would have to be revamped in order to accommodate more perversion.

I assume you're a democrat liberal, so, what about all of the rich men having 6 or 7 wives and all the poor men who end up with zero? There are some women who'd much rather be the fourth wife of a rich man than the first wife of a poor man. Also, as previously stated, this would affect monogamous marriage's in a serious way. Would we take away the 60-40 rule and make it acceptable for men to cheat on women or vice versa? Let's not even get into the UNION part of the argument. How the fuck can multiple person's unite as one? Neutral my ass. Polygamy is nothing but negative.

No, marriage originally pivotally required consent from the two involved parties providing they were of opposite sex. Using your logic, by taking out the limitation of opposite sex from this concept, what's the problem with altering the 'consent' portion of this concept as well? If we can change one part of the definition then why not? Oh, wait.. because it would no longer be marriage if we change ANY part of the definition.

BEASTIALITY CAN NEVER BE MARRIAGE THE SAME WAY HOMOSEXUALITY CAN NEVER BE MARRIAGE.

Clearly, you are infallible because you are drawing severely incoherent correlation's between two topics by comparing "the act of sex with an animal" to "the philosophy of avoiding using animal behavior as justification for human behavior". While both topic's are animal related, they are significantly different and not one in the same as you subliminally attempt to state in an effort to infallibly cast away my argument of bestiality.

Bullshit. Do I have to explain this one too or can you realize it on your own?

Shall we tally them up?