New York legalizes gay marriage.

[Luigitoilet]

OKAY. Everyone stop posting about other people's posting. Either talk about this specific law, gay marriage laws in general or gtfo.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

y should gay marriage be allowed?

certainly we base our laws of equality off of what r morals r, but when did we establish that being gay or lesbian was morally right? it's not as "nature" intended.

i guess it's not so much being gay or lesbian that bothers me, but the excuse that "i am born this way." u were certainly not born that way; it's a ****ing choice.

 

[Luigitoilet]

y should gay marriage be allowed?

certainly we base our laws of equality off of what r morals r, but when did we establish that being gay or lesbian was morally right? it's not as "nature" intended.

i guess it's not so much being gay or lesbian that bothers me, but the excuse that "i am born this way." u were certainly not born that way; it's a ****ing choice.

what the hell? and I thought safehaven was a weak troll. this is the weakest of them all.

OOPS. I'm being a hypocrite.

To elaborate: if being gay or bisexual is a choice, being straight is also a choice then ,right? did you consciously choose to be attracted to the girls that you are attracted to? did you sit down and think about each girl you had a crush/lust for?

Also, how do you know what "nature" intended? Does nature have sentience? It has a will to be enforced?

 

[StealthyGunnar]

what the hell? and I thought safehaven was a weak troll. this is the weakest of them all.

OOPS. I'm being a hypocrite.

To elaborate: if being gay or bisexual is a choice, being straight is also a choice? did you consciously choose to be attracted to the girls that you are attracted to? did you sit down and think about each girl you had a crush/lust for?

Also, how do you know what "nature" intended? Does nature have sentience? It has a will to be enforced?

i wasnt trying to troll. sorry if i came of like 1 and angered u or something .. anyways, r u asking me if being straight is a choice? and as for consciously choosing to be attracted to some1, y arent animals gay or lesbian? it is in their and our instinct to find a mate, a partner of the opposite sex.

the reason i pull up the "nature" thing is because only 1 man and 1 woman can naturally have a child. i hope i dont have to elaborate when i say naturally >_<

 

[Luigitoilet]

i wasnt trying to troll... anyways, r u asking me if being straight is a choice? and as for consciously choosing to be attracted to some1, y arent animals gay or lesbian? it is in their and our instinct to find a mate, a partner of the opposite sex.

the reason i pull up the "nature" thing is because only 1 man and 1 woman can naturally have a child. i hope i dont have to elaborate when i say naturally >_<

gee, you stumped me there. I have no clue why there is no homosexuality in other animal species-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

 

[StealthyGunnar]

gee, you stumped me there. I have no clue why there is no homosexuality in other animal species-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

well i REALLY appreciate the attitude. seriously, man. it's 1 thing proving me wrong, but it's totally another to be an *** about it. yes, i admit it, u got me there.

i apologize i dont spend my time researching homsexual animals, but from what i read, it's the screwing of genes that reduces/increases certain estrogen levels, in mouse at least. is that right?

 

[rPSIvysaur]

That's just some tests that involves mice. Many things have been tested using mice. If it is indeed involved in genes, then it has to do with the genetics of individuals. This involves mating, to pass on genes. And guess what two males or two females can't produce together? Offspring. This means that the "genetic mutations" that cause homosexuality would have to occur in an extremely large number of individuals. If homosexual tendencies were to somehow be passed on via genetics, then over time, they would be eliminated because they prevent the procreation of offspring, whereas the heterosexual genes would be far superior and dominant in terms of offspring. It would only benefit man more to have heterosexual genetics.
But for some reason, homosexuality still exists, meaning that it doesn't completely revolve around genetics.

certainly we base our laws of equality off of what r morals r, but when did we establish that being gay or lesbian was morally right? it's not as "nature" intended.

Interesting that you bring this up. When did we establish that being homosexual was morally wrong? "Nature" has no intentions. "Nature" does what it wants. So how did we determine that homosexuality was morally wrong? It was because back in yonder year, the population of this planet wasn't as large as it was today. It was considered a duty to have children and procreate, to help build the population of the earth. We still get some of these ideals in third world countries and in some religions (an obvious example is the stereotype of catholics with large families) because they're old. But now the population has grown beyond carrying capacity. It isn't really the duty of anyone to actually keep the population of earth alive, since it's pretty much overpopulated.

 

[Luigitoilet]

well i REALLY appreciate the attitude. seriously, man. it's 1 thing proving me wrong, but it's totally another to be an *** about it. yes, i admit it, u got me there.

i apologize i dont spend my time researching homsexual animals, but from what i read, it's the screwing of genes that reduces/increases certain estrogen levels, in mouse at least. is that right?

Sorry, didn't mean to offend, but for future reference- Google is your friend! Don't neglect him

Actually, I have no idea what you're talking about there about the mice estrogen thing. I Googled for mice estrogen levels and found this on wikipedia

"Researchers found that disabling the (fucose mutarotase) FucM gene in laboratory mice – which influences the levels of estrogen to which the brain is exposed – caused the female mice to behave as if they were male as they grew up. "The mutant female mouse underwent a slightly altered developmental programme in the brain to resemble the male brain in terms of sexual preference" said Professor Chankyu Park of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology in Daejon, South Korea, who led the research. His most recent findings have been published in the BMC Genetics journal on July 7, 2010.[30][31]

In March 2011, research shows that serotonin is involved in the mechanism of sexual orientation of mice.[32][33]"

that's the closest thing I can find to what you said but correct me if I'm mistaken. If that's what you meant, that seems to be referring to fundamentally altering estrogen levels in mice resulting in an increased homosexual preference. Which kind of helps to prove my point that sexual preference is not a willful choice

again, sorry to be rude, I just sincerely thought you were yanking my chain and trying to troll the thread. we already had a guy drawing comparisons to child porn in here, and you are typing just like him.

 

[1048576]

Ca5H, please read this:

http://www.prettyfedup.com/pfu/philosophical/whyarepeoplesostupid2.htm

Basically, nobody does anything because they're "evil" or "stupid," there's always underlying circumstances.

IMO, how much of a gay person's gayness can be attributed to genes vs. social environment should be irrelevant. You have to ask two things: does gayness cause harm, and if so, what can we do about it. You're not going to stop gay people from being gay by denying them marriage benefits. Further, if you value "traditional relationships," then you should prolly support gay marriage, because we're still gonna have sex, just in a less monogamous fashion. Of course, this all assumes gay people are harmful, which is plainly false.

Also, I really don't like being told that all gay people are liars, which is the implication when you tell them that they made a choice when they consistently say they didn't.

 

[El Nino]

Another point to consider is that straight couples are not required to have kids when they get married. So what would be the reason to deny a homosexual couple the right to marry on the basis that they can't have kids?

Also, marriage is not defined based on "nature" or strict biological factors. Marriage is defined based on social conditions. Monogamy itself can be "unnatural" depending on the animal species.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

Sorry, didn't mean to offend, but for future reference- Google is your friend! Don't neglect him

Actually, I have no idea what you're talking about there about the mice estrogen thing. I Googled for mice estrogen levels and found this on wikipedia

"Researchers found that disabling the (fucose mutarotase) FucM gene in laboratory mice – which influences the levels of estrogen to which the brain is exposed – caused the female mice to behave as if they were male as they grew up. "The mutant female mouse underwent a slightly altered developmental programme in the brain to resemble the male brain in terms of sexual preference" said Professor Chankyu Park of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology in Daejon, South Korea, who led the research. His most recent findings have been published in the BMC Genetics journal on July 7, 2010.[30][31]

In March 2011, research shows that serotonin is involved in the mechanism of sexual orientation of mice.[32][33]"

that's the closest thing I can find to what you said but correct me if I'm mistaken. If that's what you meant, that seems to be referring to fundamentally altering estrogen levels in mice resulting in an increased homosexual preference. Which kind of helps to prove my point that sexual preference is not a willful choice

again, sorry to be rude, I just sincerely thought you were yanking my chain and trying to troll the thread. we already had a guy drawing comparisons to child porn in here, and you are typing just like him.

ya that was the mice thing i was talking about. and i know safehaven, always trolling the League of Legends Thread in the Light House. again, i wasnt meaning to troll. my father's conservative Christian beliefs have been beaten into me since i was a toddler...

since everybody is attacking me back because of my rude and immature comments, ill just leave u guys to discuss.

END NOTE: id rather not post and not be hated, than post and be hated. i wasnt ready for a debate. again, the reason ive said these things is because of beliefs that i did not choose to believe, but what i was told were true. i have nothing against gay or lesbian people. sorry if i offended any1.

 

[safehaven]

bro i dont troll the lol thread, i troll dastrn, the biggest noob ive ever seen post. im actually really good at that game, so next time you think im "trolling" maybe u should take my advice lol

but about the law:

when did saying something was in nature become some argument that it was ok?

not even trying to play devils advocate here. the reason why we should allow gay marriage is not cause we see it in nature (hey look, murder is ok to right?) but its because marriage is good. and if we allow some people to marry through our legal system, denying people who want the same union seems wrong.

am i doing it right?

 

[Luigitoilet]

bro i dont troll the lol thread, i troll dastrn, the biggest noob ive ever seen post. im actually really good at that game, so next time you think im "trolling" maybe u should take my advice lol

literally nobody cares.

but about the law:

when did saying something was in nature become some argument that it was ok?

not even trying to play devils advocate here. the reason why we should allow gay marriage is not cause we see it in nature (hey look, murder is ok to right?) but its because marriage is good. and if we allow some people to marry through our legal system, denying people who want the same union seems wrong.

am i doing it right?

Where are you from? Maybe I was wrong, maybe you're just bad at English. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm taking a guess here that you are trying to say "since when did something being natural become equivalent to being morally right?"

if that's what you meant (I mean seriously: "when did saying something was in nature become some argument that it was ok" reads like I put my sentence into google babelfish and translated it into several different languages then back to English), then you're right that it doesn't. There is no correlation.

The reason we should allow gay marriage is not because marriage is "good" (I don't even know what that means to you) but because equality among people is what any decent society should strive for. Everyone else can marry, why not gays?

I think you are saying the same thing, right? If you wrote sensibly and more correctly I wouldn't even have to ask.

 

[safehaven]

literally nobody cares about what you just said either. I dont think you can win cool points by insulting people, though I could be wrong

if we are striving for as a "decent society" (whatever that means) for equality among "people," then kids should be able to drink. every convict should be able to vote, the mentally insane should be able to own their own property and live where they want, child molesters should be entitled to the same privacy as everyone else, and poor families should be able to send their kids to private schools.

the next time you try and make some sweeping, authoritative and dogmatic statement, think about it before you say it

 

[Gatlin]

if we are striving for as a "decent society" (whatever that means) for equality among "people," then kids should be able to drink. every convict should be able to vote, the mentally insane should be able to own their own property and live where they want, child molesters should be entitled to the same privacy as everyone else, and poor families should be able to send their kids to private schools.

The ones I bolded I found to be kind of silly. Those aren't in place simply to be "unfair", they are there for the safety of other people. Kids (I'm guessing you meant teenagers?) don't have the proper mentality to handle alcohol as well as a legal adult. Mentally insane people I don't believe should walk around the streets just as everyone else seeing as they have strong potential to cause harm to others. If I had a child, I would want to know if my neighbor was a child molester or not for obvious reasons. I don't find gay marriage to have potential to physically harm others, or create fear among a community.

OT: Very awesome to see progress is being made.

 

[Lore]

Also, alcohol in children can cause developmental issues, I think. After a certain age it doesn't matter, though.

 

[Zajice]

dogmatic

I feel kinda bad for having to look up a word in a post that didn't use proper punctuation and capitalization.

 

[safehaven]

"alcohol can cause developmental issues"

bull****. hormones in our food actually do cause women to grow up faster and men to have smaller penises (actually documented), but these arent outlawed in the least.
cigarettes cause lung cancer but arent outlawed for some reason

the point, is, you cant just make some rule using ****ty terminology and using buzzwords like "equality," when it isnt about equailty, its about getting lawmakers reelected

this nation wasnt founded on or for equality, as i already said earlier (and i probably got infracted for cause lt is an awful mod)

edit: why should u. its faster to type like this. just like programming, the more shortcuts u make the more stuff u can get done. grammar whoring over simple interaction is just annoying.

 

[Zajice]

I feel like this debate is being taken into a whole different realm of topics than was originally intended.

 

[Lore]

"alcohol can cause developmental issues"

bull****. hormones in our food actually do cause women to grow up faster and men to have smaller penises (actually documented), but these arent outlawed in the least.
cigarettes cause lung cancer but arent outlawed for some reason

Eh? You're thinking of the documented cases of women on birth control peeing into toilets and introducing hormones into the water supply. That's what causing what you're talking about, not hormones in food. Besides, it isn't smaller penises that is the problem; the problem is the slowly shrinking Y chromosome.

By the way, I consider brain damage in children and young teens to be a far bigger issue than small "equipment."

Anyway, we're getting off topic again. This whole argument (which I shant compliment by calling it a debate) is pretty pointless, especially when you're so obviously steadfast in your beliefs.

 

[safehaven]

no im thinking of cows and chickens being injexted with hormones to produce more milk and to get massive boobs just so they can have more breast meat

and alcohol doesnt damage development rofl. its not about "caring," its about it just doesnt hurt it.. lol?

its funny when people who arent in science try and argue about it, cause it becomes pretty obvious that they arent and just heard some random rumor on the internet.

 

[Crimson King]

"alcohol can cause developmental issues"

bull****. hormones in our food actually do cause women to grow up faster and men to have smaller penises (actually documented)

When you claim something, cite your source because this sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

 

[Wrath`]

no im thinking of cows and chickens being injexted with hormones to produce more milk and to get massive boobs just so they can have more breast meat

and alcohol doesnt damage development rofl. its not about "caring," its about it just doesnt hurt it.. lol?

its funny when people who arent in science try and argue about it, cause it becomes pretty obvious that they arent and just heard some random rumor on the internet.

Tell me again how this relates to the legalization of same sex marriage?

 

[safehaven]

look it up yourself if u dont believe me. i dont feel the need to cite anything in a thread where no one will believe me anyway.

just use a search engine to look up anything in the world u want to know. not hard. i was researching the same thing, hence why i believe what i do. do the same thing i did, look it up yourself

wrath: follow the divergence of the thread and read prior posts

 

[Fuelbi]

I guess if I want to marry a guy at least it'll be cheaper getting tickets to New York than getting to California right?

I hope homosexuals can marry some day in every state for real though. I guess we just have to wait till people get over the mentality they have for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals that they've also given to women, blacks, etc.

 

[camerino1]

I'm glad New York has finally done this. I live in Canada so it isn't such an issue for me, but it makes me happy to see this. People should be able to love and marry who they want... I think so anyway. Also, I can't see a social backlash to allowing gay marriage anywhere in the western world (there are a few states that from what I have been told by friends who live there, that are still very homophobic...).

 

[Crimson King]

look it up yourself if u dont believe me. i dont feel the need to cite anything in a thread where no one will believe me anyway.

just use a search engine to look up anything in the world u want to know. not hard. i was researching the same thing, hence why i believe what i do. do the same thing i did, look it up yourself

wrath: follow the divergence of the thread and read prior posts

Not sure why I even bothered.

Moving on, with this being a slowly trickling issue, will we see more states adopt it across the board? I think some states (Louisiana =\) will always have an opposition to it, but it'd be nice to see it legalized in every state.

 

[Lore]

Not sure why I even bothered.

Moving on, with this being a slowly trickling issue, will we see more states adopt it across the board? I think some states (Louisiana =\) will always have an opposition to it, but it'd be nice to see it legalized in every state.

We can also add Georgia and Alabama to the list of "hell no" states. :/

 

[safehaven]

Not sure why I even bothered.

Moving on, with this being a slowly trickling issue, will we see more states adopt it across the board? I think some states (Louisiana =\) will always have an opposition to it, but it'd be nice to see it legalized in every state.

im not sure either. especially when u only ask one person in the whole thread to link to sources. its quite interesting, not to mention the request is pretty bad.

if u dont care enough to learn it yourself, you probably never will learn it. thats why some people fail in college, cause they cant take responsibility for their learning
tl:dr stop being lazy

 

[rPSIvysaur]

Bible belt all day.

im not sure either. especially when u only ask one person in the whole thread to link to sources. its quite interesting, not to mention the request is pretty bad.

if u dont care enough to learn it yourself, you probably never will learn it. thats why some people fail in college, cause they cant take responsibility for their learning
tl:dr stop being lazy

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

We can also add Georgia and Alabama to the list of "hell no" states. :/

...and Texes.

 

[Wrath`]

im not sure either. especially when u only ask one person in the whole thread to link to sources. its quite interesting, not to mention the request is pretty bad.

if u dont care enough to learn it yourself, you probably never will learn it. thats why some people fail in college, cause they cant take responsibility for their learning
tl:dr stop being lazy

Who is the lazy one, you wont even provide evidence for your cause, ever hear of "Burden of Proof"?

 

[1048576]

A quick search (including a study by the University of Cornell http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/diet/fs37.hormones.cfm) shows no conclusive evidence of a correlation between increased breast size and food hormones. I found nothing relating penis size and food hormone levels, and my google-fu is usually pretty strong, so, uh... +1 for source please.

Nobody asked anyone else for proof because nobody else made any ridiculous claims.

 

[safehaven]

i dont need to lol?

u dont need to cite everything u believe whenever u say it. hey look another high school kid who wants to act all "scientific." u are proving all u know about science is what u have heard from playing portal

for people who dont know:
scientists are not a bunch of agnostic pricks. they are real people with families. if u spend time with them, u realize they arent marked by skepticism so much as they are very inquisitive.

U KNOW WHAT ILL LOOK IT UP

ok

http://www.environmentalhealthnews....control-estrogen-diminishes-fertility-in-rats

this is basically the effect of estrogen. this study isnt new by any means at all. its just confirms common knowledge in this area

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/estrogenic-food-additives

estrogen in our food supply

ok i didnt even see those before, but look, more evidence. that took 10 minutes of half trying to find.

this isnt a formal debate. no one else has cited sources for their random arguments and im asked to cite mine lolllllll

thing is stop being lazy

its not a ridiculous claim to some people. people only think its ridiculous cause u arent familiar with anything scientific at all, but still approach someone knowledgeable (me) with arrogance and disdain. i just hate smashboards cause everyone here obviously isnt educated and doesnt want to be. so w/e

 

[Wrath`]

i dont need to lol?

u dont need to cite everything u believe whenever u say it. hey look another high school kid who wants to act all "scientific." u are proving all u know about science is what u have heard from playing portal

for people who dont know:
scientists are not a bunch of agnostic pricks. they are real people with families. if u spend time with them, u realize they arent marked by skepticism so much as they are very inquisitive.

U KNOW WHAT ILL LOOK IT UP

I'm in college dawg, U MAD?

When one makes a statement in a debate they usually provide links to back up their points, but I guess you like weak arguments.

Anyway NY da best sate

 

[rPSIvysaur]

There are people in this world that just go onto your ignore list.

 

[safehaven]

There are people in this world that just go onto your ignore list.

this post should be infracted according to the standard set in place by our beloved moderator.

also im very glad gay people can marry, it is a great step towards human equality and the american dream being fulfilled, now they just need a picket fence, a dog, and a little white house with blue shutters and everyone will be happy!

 

[Luigitoilet]

look it up yourself if u dont believe me. i dont feel the need to cite anything in a thread where no one will believe me anyway.

just use a search engine to look up anything in the world u want to know. not hard. i was researching the same thing, hence why i believe what i do. do the same thing i did, look it up yourself

wrath: follow the divergence of the thread and read prior posts

Hey, for everyone's future reference, NEVER EVER EVER EVER do this in a debate.

You say something, the burden of proof is on you. Don't just say "look it up lol the sources are there somewhere lol my whole life philosophy is based on google"

Not only does this make you look like a bubonic ******, but it also stifles real conversation and debate about significant issues.

edit: and yeah, like I said, the "don't post solely about other people's posting" goes for everyone. I would love to just infract safehaven over and over, but you other guys (RocketPSI) are also poisoning this thread.

 

[rPSIvysaur]

Bad choice in moderating to infract a suggestion about dealing with another person's posting. The ignore list on SWF is meant to serve a purpose, suggesting others use it is hardly against against the rules.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Bad choice in moderating to infract a suggestion about dealing with another person's posting. The ignore list on SWF is meant to serve a purpose, suggesting others use it is hardly against against the rules.

So what? I'm not infracting for using the ignore function. There is no reason to post in the NY legalizing gay marriage thread about how you are ignoring some random user. You aren't dealing with anything, you are just pettily letting safehaven know that you don't like what he's saying. No one cares and it's off-topic. Use the ignore function all you want, but everyone else shouldn't hear about it. People can decide for themselves to use it or not use it.