-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Christie Golden!
- “Star Trek: Voyager: 16 Seven Of Nine” Review by Deepspacespines.com
- Nana Visitor Joins Us to Talk About Her New Book – Star Trek: Open a Channel: A Woman’s Trek!
- Out Today: “Star Trek #26”
- Star Trek Strange New Worlds Asylum Book Review
- John Jackson Miller Books Ranked!
- “Star Trek: The Next Generation: Headlong Flight” Review by Lessaccurategrandmother.blogspot.com
- Jumping into Adventure with “Into the Void”
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Jim Johnson!
- “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Asylum” Review by Trek.fm
- Movie Related Products
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Amazon Is Shutting Down Freevee, Its Ad-Supported Video Streamer
- “Breathe” Review
- “Transformers One” Review
- Captain America: Brave New World | Official Trailer
- Marvel Studios’ Thunderbolts* | D23 Brazil Special Look | In Theaters May 2, 2025
- Mattel apologizes after mistakenly printing porn site on ‘Wicked’ movie dolls packaging | CNN Business
- Music Video DB
but then the gays will start having sex with little kids
I want a tattoo of Jesus eating bacon.
According to US law in ALL states, it is illegal to marry your own sister, and in most states it’s even illegal to marry your first cousin. Do you think that gross example of “marriage inequality” is justified? And why? Is it because:
a) If two siblings decide to have children, the kids will have a slightly greater than average chance of having genetic disorders, and you totally agree with eugenics because the Nazis were totally right and you should never allow dwarfs to marry each other either since they have a 75% chance of producing a child with more birth defects than any sibling couple has ever produced. And of course, the one and only purpose of marriage is to produce perfect kids, so if a couple isn’t capable of doing so, then they should not be allowed to marry each other.
b) It’s totally gross. It just creeps the hell out of you to see a brother and a sister kissing in the mouth, let alone thinking about them having sex. It’s just unnatural, and thus wrong. Never mind the fact that other than some higher pack mammals, there’s not a single species of animals who’d have a problem banging their own sister, and in fact, there are quite a few species that reproduce exclusively through incest (bees, ants, termites, etc.). It doesn’t matter if everyone in nature does it, it’s still unnatural, and grosses me out and so it’s wrong and should never be allowed in public.
c) Even if the married siblings decide not to have children and keep their love behind closed doors, allowing them to marry each other would only encourage MY kids to try and have sex with each other. It’d lead them to believe that it’s okay to have sex with your sister, and it’s the government’s job to tell people who they can and can’t have sex with based on what the majority of the voters find gross. And of course preventing people from marrying the person they want to marry is not, in any way, a violation of their human rights because WE find their behavior gross and unacceptable so it’s within our right to prevent them from doing what they want to do.
Let me guess: Game of Thrones marathon?
“If two siblings decide to have children, the kids will have a slightly greater than average chance of having genetic disorder.”
‘Slightly’ is a gross understatement. Virtually everyone carries recessive disease genes, so for each of those genes carried by either parent of the siblings, there’s a 1 in 4 chance of that disease presenting in the siblings’ children.
Yes, gays fucking is gross. But I am a libertarian, and if you wanna marry, knock yourselves out. (I’m betting even though I am neutral on gay marriage, I get down voted for expressing my opinion that gay sex is just nasty.)
So, if you let the gays marry, you are gonna have to legalize plural marriage also (polygamy) at some point, and all of those brother-sister (incest) laws are out the door also. No, it’s not a straw-man, because those same individuals now should have the same protections of their beliefs (see the 14th amendment: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause) as those as hetero sexual couples, as well as homosexual / lesbian couples.
By the way, the 14th amendment was cited multiple times in almost every state where the gay marriage issue because a legal battle. So before you down vote me, or attempt to dispute my argument, do your research.
For the record, while I find gay sex completely stomach turning, lesbian sex is freaking amazing!
If gay sex is so gross then why are you watching it?
Just trying to find the scene you told us you were in where 7 asian dudes all jizzed on your face.
Uhhh, I’m not a dude, dude. I’m one of those lesbian chicks you were jerking off over about 3 posts up. The hint’s in the name.
This debate is so 2002. Of course teh Gays should be able to marry.
But what I really wanted to say is I’ve known a couple of guys named Drew… it’s like Terry or Sandy, non-gender specific names.
Doing whatever, being against whatever, whatever, just because some dude(s) write it in a book over 2000 years ago, is retarded a fuck^2.
Oh look. My post where I sited credible sources, fact, logic, and even a neutral stance on gay marriage got down voted, simply for expressing an opinion that gay sex is fucking vomit inducing. Once again, proving that liberals are full of shit because they can’t stand it when someone expresses an opinion,that is contrary to theirs.
Fuck you, liberals!
Let’s blame liberalism for your downvotes! How about these reasons:
– You haven’t worked out that the words ‘homosexual’ and ‘gay’ are not gender specific.
– Your aversion to two guys having sex vs your appreciation of lesbian sex has WAY more to do with your attraction to who’s taking part in the act than anything else (the obvious hint is that you’re only referring to WHO is involved, not what they’re doing). Yes, you’ll find sex between any two people that you find extremely unattractive to be unappealing… not exactly a revelation, and clearly irrelevant to the topic at hand.
– Your slippery-slope fallacy. Yes, the equal protection clause could easily apply to all three groups (homosexuals/polygamists/people in incestuous relationships), but granting access to marriage for any one of these three groups in no way means that the other two must also gain access.
– You whined about liberals for no reason, you whined about being downvoted. Yes, people will find a comment that pisses people off and then go back and downvote the other comments by the same author (feel free to vote all of my comments down, I can’t conceive of a reason that I’d give a crap).
>‘homosexual’ and ‘gay’ are not gender specific
Then what’s the male word for “lesbian”? My understanding is that male homosexuals are “gay” and female homosexuals are “lesbian”.
There isn’t one (good ol’ English), we’re stuck with ‘gay men’ for now.
What if you’re an atheist and you’re against gay marriage?
I can’t think of a compelling reason for an atheist to be against gay marriage. If there’s no imaginary sky creature telling you it’s not okay, why is it not okay?
And for the Christians, if God showed up tomorrow and said “hey, gay marriage is cool. That rule was only really applicable when the infant mortality rate was super high. Same thing with the fruitful and multiply thing, knock that shit off. There are too many of you” would they listen?
Gay marriage serves no purpose. The whole reason marriage came to into being was to protect the process of human reproduction. Since only heterosexuals can sexually reproduce with each other, it only makes sense for heterosexuals to be married.
Actually, I’m fairly certain the purpose of marriage wasn’t to protect the process, but to control the process. But now we have things like condoms and other forms of birth control, so marriage is largely symbolic.
Control as in prevent infidelity and ensure paternity. While marriage can work as a form of birth control, it effectively isn’t.
So we shouldn’t let infertile people marry? Women who have gone through menopause? Men who have had a vasectomy? A women who had ovarian cancer and had her ovaries removed? What about people who have just decided not to have kids? Are you going to annul a marriage between two people who haven’t had a kid in X amount of time? Also you’re saying here that gay people can’t raise kids. Fuck that. Man, that’s a fucked up line of thinking.
Your argument here is a shitty one. Pick a different one if this is what you’re going to try to argue as an atheist’s reason for hating gay marriage.
You’ve just made my argument for me. Allowing homosexuals to marry makes marriage meaningless. We can give homosexual “couples” the same perks and tax breaks that come with marriage without them actually getting married, so there’s no point to them getting married. Heterosexual couples, on the other hand, can and do have children, therefor, marriage for them has a function.
So the system won’t let me reply to your last post done there.
No I didn’t make your point for you. I asked a series of questions about other groups it sounds like you don’t want to get married and you didn’t answer any of them.
Why would I marry you? I don’t even know you. You’re not very good at debate.
I didn’t ask that question anywhere up there. How you got that from anything I typed means debating this with you is pointless because you’re not paying attention or have poor reading comprehension skills. Restricting marriage only to people who plan to have children is still not a good argument for why Atheists should be against gay marriage.
First line of the flow chart:
“Are you against marriage because: the Bible”
Not exactly sure how an atheist could be against gay marriage because of “the Bible”.
Wouldn’t that be a different flow chart altogether…?
Stop stalkering me gropey!!! … … .. … .. …
Do you have anything intelligent to say on the topic…?
Yet…?
Or even address the point…?
No…?