You strike me as too smart to be making such faulty arguments. You need to do some more thinking. There is absolutely no justification for antigay discrimination, in marriage or otherwise.
Legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't change the fact that people that are going to have kids will have kids. People that aren't going to have kids won't have kids. The procreation argument fails to take this into account. By banning same-sex marriage, all that is done is the further undermining of the Constitution, as well as denying a portion of the population their basic human rights.
Do you seriously believe that if gays are denied their right to marry they will all of a sudden start having sex with people of the opposite sex? If you say yes, you are lying or retarded. If you say no, your whole argument is completely pointless. I'm curious which it is.
What would your argument against same sex marriage be if gays could have children together ? According to current research it is theoretically possible that in the future to extract the DNA from the nucleus of an ovary and replace it with the DNA of sperm to create synthetic sperm , thereby allowing a gay couple to have a child. If this is possible in say 50 years, would you change your opinion on gay marriage ?
this won't be natural. It will be something artificial and sick. Even after 50 years, maybe there won't be necessary two parents, cuz 1 person will be enough to reproduce, but this won't be natural, the idea of marriage and family is smth different. The children have this both male and female origins, thats why children should have parents male and female, this is in the deeper archetype of human consciousness and sub consciousness and if you unbalance this will cause very bad effect to the kids
Different kind of effects, it depends. Even if in normal familly the balance is not good the kids can take different psychological traumas, caused by for example authoritative mother or etc.
Those are issues that can affect any family, regardless of the gender of the parents. Instead of focusing on the gender of the parents, we should focus on the family units that exist. There is no turning back. We have to look at the real world, and not some fantastical version that mirrors Leave It To Beaver.
the gender of parents is important. The parents sexuality is one of the thing that forms the children sexuality. As you know the development of the kids' sexuality is secondary formation, no one is born with it (there are no any scientifuc proof for born gay), and it is forming by the family, the society, etc. And if you want the real world, read some books, don't go with such cliches.
Not according to The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association. All of them have issued statements claiming that a parent's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child.
"no one is born with it"
You're at least 10 years behind in research. There have been connections found in prenatal environment, as well as genetic markers on the 7th, 9th, and 10th chromosomes.
giv me the proof that there are genes for being born gay. But not just a theory,but an evidence. The proof must be valid and repeatable. Also there must be researches on embryons, in which after they found such gay genes, so they become gay.
Good luck on embryo research. With many of the countries not allowing it for one, and what is being researched is stem cells. The closest we're going to get is post birth research that is done on those that are already known to be gay.
So far, Hamer has found markers, but his research was limited. Bocklandt was the one the found the correlation between mother fertility, as well as markers on the 7,8, and 10th chromosomes. I got the 8th and 9th confused. Mustanski found the same thing.
Although there is a hereditary cause [prenatal environment, genetics] for homosexuality, it isn't the only factor. Only an idiot would say that it is purely choice or purely genetic. Environment does also play a part in determining sexual orientation.
well, what is choice? Many of the choises we make are not conscious...Yes enviroment also take part...maybe in ways we still do not know and will understand in future...
The "choice" argument ignores the biological differences that have been noticed in homosexuals, such as neurological pathways, finger lengths, hormonal differences, etc. that have been observed in homosexuals. Being that there are biological differences, it can be reasonably stated that there is also a genetic cause.
Those biological differences are there, and what sparked interest in searching the genome for sexual orientation. Personally, I think the whole search is a waste of resources that could be better spent on other, more important issues. I'm sure you'd agree with me on that. I mean, why bother with MS research, or cancer research, right? No! We have to find out what causes men to have sex with other men, and women to have sex with other women!
I didn't either. Until I actually observed it myself. I can't remember the specifics, and I'll have to dig to find it, but I'll post a link on the study. I found it a few months ago, so I should be able find it again. I do remember that it wasn't so much the finger lengths, so much as the ratio between the 3rd and 4th fingers.
Of cource there are a lot of theories, but the thing that really piss me off is how this gey lobbies are using unproven things, presenting them like "the science and the only truth" and are brainwashing the kids...and the society.
I agree that this should not be taught in K-12 schools. They aren't quite there. However, I don't think they do teach this to children. I blame the non-peer reviewed science publications for pushing incomplete work upon the public. They do this all too often with many things. This just happens to be one of those hotbed issues.
So in fact there are no empiric proof, even not a particular gene...and according to some scientists the homosexuality in men is a way different than homosexuality in women...
Obviously, multiple independent studies coming to the same conclusion is not good enough? Bocklandt and Mustanski found the same genetic markers in different subjects.
If people would get off their high horse about embryo research, we'd have more definitive answers, one way or the other. This is a problem in many countries, and not just the US. As it is, most of the embryo research done now is geared toward actual health issues.
Also, in fact not everyone who doesn't share your opinion is behind the times. Sometimes people have different opinions, even sometimes outside USA there are a lot of other countries and different points of view. And yes, this about 10 years behind is just a cliche, which copy-pasters like you say. :-).
Procreation? Hmmm. Interesting argument. What about all those unwanted children that heterosexuals pop out? What about all those gay families that already exist who have children and whose rights are threatened by anti-gay family legislation. C'mon - what's the big fricken deal? Unless you are a moral pedagogue, there really is no logical reason to harm gay and lesbian couples through legislation. Just be nice. Live your life, and let love.
For a government, unwanted children are the preferable alternative to a want of children.
In answer to "what is the big deal?" - check out my last video (3). I say that the introduction of new law must be necessary for either creating good or preventing bad. In the eyes of government, gay marriage does neither.
Have you no concept of the power of propaganda to change the way people think? By extending the rights for lesbians and gay men to marry, you automatically begin changing the definition of relationship, family and normality. This shift in perception changes the attitudes of people. This translates into fewer gays and lesbians being murdered by their straight classmates, a decline in gay bashing in general, and the power to protect one's family under the law. I'd call that a good thing!
1) more weddings equals more business equals better economy
2) more adoption of unwanted kids
3) loved ones can have rights that heteros do
let me ask u this, why legalize interracial marriage? What did it really do for America? If marriage is only for procreation then why not just procreate with your own race? Once you've asked yourself this ponder why NOT legalize gay marriage as it correlates to my example of interracial marriage
The distinction between races is arbitrary. The distinction between sexes is not. This is because the two sexes are anatomically different.
If individuals of the same sex wish to couple, they may. They may even have a wedding (good for business). However, the government needn't involve itself because their relationship - on it's own - is not beneficial to society.
u don't get my point...i was responding to what u said
"I say that the introduction of new law must be necessary for either creating good or preventing bad. In the eyes of government, gay marriage does neither.
"
i submit to you here and now ...how was interracial marriage creating good for society. DON'T GET ME WRONG I AM FOR ANYONE GETTING MARRIED THOUGH, but i am just asking...u said if a law doesn't create good/prevent bad then why legalize interracial marriage?
sorry to cut in on the argument, but how are equal rights NOT beneficial to society. Discrimination is what is not beneficial to society, it promotes hate and violence.
You're off point. A single parent may feel however they like toward any number of people. But there is a difference between love and marriage. The government only cares about the latter.
the reason i'm off point is that your argument already is, and i'm responding to your argument. your whole argument of the government caring about marriage for the sole purpose of procreation is moot. If this was the case the gov't would simply encourage procreation as marriage is not required to achieve it.
There's most definitely a difference between love and marriage. i'll give you that.
there's also a difference between marriage and procreation though.
see, you think you can just find a trap and change the argument but debates don't work that way. In reality most single people are not single out of choice, but because they haven't found a person they could love for the rest of their life. singles search. they just do. because a few singles don't search though cannot justify your point because. something had to make them not search, and that thing is either unhappiness with themselves, potential lovers, or theyareclergy.unhappy=notbetterparents
Dude that's retarded.
Why: Straight people aren't going to suddenly become gay and not procreate if gay marriage is legal.
Please, don't be an idiot.
moyga 2 years ago
You strike me as too smart to be making such faulty arguments. You need to do some more thinking. There is absolutely no justification for antigay discrimination, in marriage or otherwise.
t0nyc0nde 2 years ago
Legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't change the fact that people that are going to have kids will have kids. People that aren't going to have kids won't have kids. The procreation argument fails to take this into account. By banning same-sex marriage, all that is done is the further undermining of the Constitution, as well as denying a portion of the population their basic human rights.
xlanciferionx 2 years ago
Do you seriously believe that if gays are denied their right to marry they will all of a sudden start having sex with people of the opposite sex? If you say yes, you are lying or retarded. If you say no, your whole argument is completely pointless. I'm curious which it is.
Beardhomestead 2 years ago
What the heck's your issue with gay folk?
If gorgeous talented gay people such as myself turn straight,
who are you gonna fuck?
cuz i'll be fucking your girlfriend!
Wahoozy!
anglomangler 2 years ago
What would your argument against same sex marriage be if gays could have children together ? According to current research it is theoretically possible that in the future to extract the DNA from the nucleus of an ovary and replace it with the DNA of sperm to create synthetic sperm , thereby allowing a gay couple to have a child. If this is possible in say 50 years, would you change your opinion on gay marriage ?
jasonlawmadrid 2 years ago
this won't be natural. It will be something artificial and sick. Even after 50 years, maybe there won't be necessary two parents, cuz 1 person will be enough to reproduce, but this won't be natural, the idea of marriage and family is smth different. The children have this both male and female origins, thats why children should have parents male and female, this is in the deeper archetype of human consciousness and sub consciousness and if you unbalance this will cause very bad effect to the kids
sergiomarchelli 2 years ago
What effects, and how so?
xlanciferionx 2 years ago
Different kind of effects, it depends. Even if in normal familly the balance is not good the kids can take different psychological traumas, caused by for example authoritative mother or etc.
sergiomarchelli 2 years ago
Those are issues that can affect any family, regardless of the gender of the parents. Instead of focusing on the gender of the parents, we should focus on the family units that exist. There is no turning back. We have to look at the real world, and not some fantastical version that mirrors Leave It To Beaver.
xlanciferionx 2 years ago
the gender of parents is important. The parents sexuality is one of the thing that forms the children sexuality. As you know the development of the kids' sexuality is secondary formation, no one is born with it (there are no any scientifuc proof for born gay), and it is forming by the family, the society, etc. And if you want the real world, read some books, don't go with such cliches.
sergiomarchelli 2 years ago
"the gender of parents is important"
Not according to The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association. All of them have issued statements claiming that a parent's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child.
"no one is born with it"
You're at least 10 years behind in research. There have been connections found in prenatal environment, as well as genetic markers on the 7th, 9th, and 10th chromosomes.
xlanciferionx 2 years ago
Sorry to disappoint you, but USA is not the world.
Also I've read enough to form my opinion and there is no any empiric evidences for born homo.
In fact there is not any scientific way even to detect or make test even for heterosexuality on a human embrion.
sergiomarchelli 2 years ago
"Also I've read enough to form my opinion and there is no any empiric evidences for born homo."
Please cite the source that says otherwise. I'd really be interested in reading it, provided it comes from a reliable source.
xlanciferionx 2 years ago
hehehe
giv me the proof that there are genes for being born gay. But not just a theory,but an evidence. The proof must be valid and repeatable. Also there must be researches on embryons, in which after they found such gay genes, so they become gay.
sergiomarchelli 2 years ago
Good luck on embryo research. With many of the countries not allowing it for one, and what is being researched is stem cells. The closest we're going to get is post birth research that is done on those that are already known to be gay.
So far, Hamer has found markers, but his research was limited. Bocklandt was the one the found the correlation between mother fertility, as well as markers on the 7,8, and 10th chromosomes. I got the 8th and 9th confused. Mustanski found the same thing.
xlanciferionx 2 years ago
Although there is a hereditary cause [prenatal environment, genetics] for homosexuality, it isn't the only factor. Only an idiot would say that it is purely choice or purely genetic. Environment does also play a part in determining sexual orientation.
xlanciferionx 2 years ago
well, what is choice? Many of the choises we make are not conscious...Yes enviroment also take part...maybe in ways we still do not know and will understand in future...
sergiomarchelli 2 years ago
The "choice" argument ignores the biological differences that have been noticed in homosexuals, such as neurological pathways, finger lengths, hormonal differences, etc. that have been observed in homosexuals. Being that there are biological differences, it can be reasonably stated that there is also a genetic cause.
xlanciferionx 2 years ago
sorry but these biological "diferences" you mentioned are quite speculative.
And yes, for real science this is just not enough.
sergiomarchelli 2 years ago
Those biological differences are there, and what sparked interest in searching the genome for sexual orientation. Personally, I think the whole search is a waste of resources that could be better spent on other, more important issues. I'm sure you'd agree with me on that. I mean, why bother with MS research, or cancer research, right? No! We have to find out what causes men to have sex with other men, and women to have sex with other women!
xlanciferionx 2 years ago
yes that's true...
But, the finger lengh..man...this fits more to "COSMO" quiz ...i just can't take it seriously...
sergiomarchelli 2 years ago
I didn't either. Until I actually observed it myself. I can't remember the specifics, and I'll have to dig to find it, but I'll post a link on the study. I found it a few months ago, so I should be able find it again. I do remember that it wasn't so much the finger lengths, so much as the ratio between the 3rd and 4th fingers.
xlanciferionx 2 years ago
so what have to do the ration of fingers with the sexual orientation? And you can see, what you want to see.
sergiomarchelli 2 years ago
Of cource there are a lot of theories, but the thing that really piss me off is how this gey lobbies are using unproven things, presenting them like "the science and the only truth" and are brainwashing the kids...and the society.
Sorry but this is just wrong and dishonest.
sergiomarchelli 2 years ago
"Of cource there are a lot of theories"
I agree that this should not be taught in K-12 schools. They aren't quite there. However, I don't think they do teach this to children. I blame the non-peer reviewed science publications for pushing incomplete work upon the public. They do this all too often with many things. This just happens to be one of those hotbed issues.
xlanciferionx 2 years ago
So in fact there are no empiric proof, even not a particular gene...and according to some scientists the homosexuality in men is a way different than homosexuality in women...
sergiomarchelli 2 years ago
"So in fact there are no empiric proof"
Obviously, multiple independent studies coming to the same conclusion is not good enough? Bocklandt and Mustanski found the same genetic markers in different subjects.
If people would get off their high horse about embryo research, we'd have more definitive answers, one way or the other. This is a problem in many countries, and not just the US. As it is, most of the embryo research done now is geared toward actual health issues.
xlanciferionx 2 years ago
"And if you want the real world, read some books, don't go with such cliches."
I am going with what I have witnessed with my own eyes. It doesn't get anymore real than that.
xlanciferionx 2 years ago
Also, in fact not everyone who doesn't share your opinion is behind the times. Sometimes people have different opinions, even sometimes outside USA there are a lot of other countries and different points of view. And yes, this about 10 years behind is just a cliche, which copy-pasters like you say. :-).
sergiomarchelli 2 years ago
"And yes, this about 10 years behind is just a cliche, which copy-pasters like you say."
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
xlanciferionx 2 years ago
No, it helps insolent people know their place.
sergiomarchelli 2 years ago
Ok,with that logic we should ban all women who are infertile from getting married. Lets not forget that NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO HAVE KIDS, LOL.
cunit4416 2 years ago
For those interested, the counter-argument is in my video response.
Kelvin5800 2 years ago
Procreation? Hmmm. Interesting argument. What about all those unwanted children that heterosexuals pop out? What about all those gay families that already exist who have children and whose rights are threatened by anti-gay family legislation. C'mon - what's the big fricken deal? Unless you are a moral pedagogue, there really is no logical reason to harm gay and lesbian couples through legislation. Just be nice. Live your life, and let love.
nicksum29 2 years ago
For a government, unwanted children are the preferable alternative to a want of children.
In answer to "what is the big deal?" - check out my last video (3). I say that the introduction of new law must be necessary for either creating good or preventing bad. In the eyes of government, gay marriage does neither.
-Ben
DebateVlog 2 years ago
Have you no concept of the power of propaganda to change the way people think? By extending the rights for lesbians and gay men to marry, you automatically begin changing the definition of relationship, family and normality. This shift in perception changes the attitudes of people. This translates into fewer gays and lesbians being murdered by their straight classmates, a decline in gay bashing in general, and the power to protect one's family under the law. I'd call that a good thing!
nicksum29 2 years ago 3
gay marriage is a good thing for government
1) more weddings equals more business equals better economy
2) more adoption of unwanted kids
3) loved ones can have rights that heteros do
let me ask u this, why legalize interracial marriage? What did it really do for America? If marriage is only for procreation then why not just procreate with your own race? Once you've asked yourself this ponder why NOT legalize gay marriage as it correlates to my example of interracial marriage
sexfanatic 2 years ago 4
The distinction between races is arbitrary. The distinction between sexes is not. This is because the two sexes are anatomically different.
If individuals of the same sex wish to couple, they may. They may even have a wedding (good for business). However, the government needn't involve itself because their relationship - on it's own - is not beneficial to society.
-Ben
DebateVlog 2 years ago
u don't get my point...i was responding to what u said
"I say that the introduction of new law must be necessary for either creating good or preventing bad. In the eyes of government, gay marriage does neither.
"
i submit to you here and now ...how was interracial marriage creating good for society. DON'T GET ME WRONG I AM FOR ANYONE GETTING MARRIED THOUGH, but i am just asking...u said if a law doesn't create good/prevent bad then why legalize interracial marriage?
sexfanatic 2 years ago
Male + Female = Baby. Race is irrelevant.
DebateVlog 2 years ago
Two lesbians, sperm, and a turkey baster. Male-Female distinction = irrelevant.
vital427 2 years ago 2
U didn't answer my question
how is interracial marriage IN YOUR OWN WORDS " either creating good or preventing bad"
since thats ur position on why a law must be made
"Male + Female = Baby"...i know but races can procreate WITHIN THEIR OWN RACE meaning INTERRACIAL is not needed so that arguement is null
btw there r laws everywhere that don't prevent bad/create good...like interracial marriage, so why not legalize gay marriage...
sexfanatic 2 years ago
sorry to cut in on the argument, but how are equal rights NOT beneficial to society. Discrimination is what is not beneficial to society, it promotes hate and violence.
ButtMonger801 2 years ago 2
Procreation...are you stupid? It's a constitutional issue not just some population matter. this whole idea is ludacris
herndon5 2 years ago 3
If it's procreation, then why can 80 year old people marry? They can't have children. You logic is flawed.
Hekerui 2 years ago 3
just fyi he never said to curb procreation by law. he said encourage adoption. not the same thing.
So, my question to you is why would a single parent not search for the love of another person? trust issues? anger issues?
o1dh4k 2 years ago
You're off point. A single parent may feel however they like toward any number of people. But there is a difference between love and marriage. The government only cares about the latter.
BB0901 2 years ago
the reason i'm off point is that your argument already is, and i'm responding to your argument. your whole argument of the government caring about marriage for the sole purpose of procreation is moot. If this was the case the gov't would simply encourage procreation as marriage is not required to achieve it.
There's most definitely a difference between love and marriage. i'll give you that.
there's also a difference between marriage and procreation though.
o1dh4k 2 years ago
see, you think you can just find a trap and change the argument but debates don't work that way. In reality most single people are not single out of choice, but because they haven't found a person they could love for the rest of their life. singles search. they just do. because a few singles don't search though cannot justify your point because. something had to make them not search, and that thing is either unhappiness with themselves, potential lovers, or theyareclergy.unhappy=notbetterparents
o1dh4k 2 years ago