{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/11/2013 10:24:47 PM
12
It should be allowed. It doesn't harm others in any way as far as teh puma is concerned. This topic also hits close to home for him since his Uncle was in a same-sex marriage.
English
-
There's a lot of things that don't directly affect people but shouldn't be condoned. I don't mind homosexuals having rights as long as its not marriage. Civil unions are okay.
-
So you're implying this effects you negatively in some way?
-
Technically, but not something that's very direct. Condoning homosexuality is not something that's good for our species and culture. I am by no means discriminating against gays, however I don't thing those who contradict the natural course of life should be encouraged to do so. It could in the long run make people more lenient in regards to sexuality. But that's just my personal outlook on it.
-
There isn't anything wrong in being lenient towards same sex marriage... It's entirely natural. We're far from being the only species to have homo sexual couples. To say it's not natural is to claim Single sex species are not natural. They both occur in nature, without progression being forced from an outside source. It's entirely fine.
-
I understand it occurs natural, but that doesn't make it normal. There are many neurological issues that can occur naturally, however they can be counterproductive to the species like homosexuality. Species' have to reproduce, and homosexuality is a barrier of that. It's hard to draw a line of what's permissible or not in nature.
-
Population control is far from being counter productive towards nature. Listen, if you have a point here, it's best you make it quickly. We're only going through the motions here at the moment. So far you've given arguments that have been almost entirely falsified in the past. The only reason those arguments carry on in the opposition's mind is from ignorance. : /
-
My point has already been made. I don't see how these points have been falsified since they're really based on scientific definitions. Homosexuality is simply a derivation from the norm, which is by definition abnormal. And from an evolutionary standpoint, it's counterproductive regardless of how one feels about overpopulation. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying there are different perspectives.
-
Edited by Trad: 1/11/2013 10:58:30 PMTeh puma's post was not in regards to overpopulation itself, although it is a branched topic from his post. Population control is something required of nature. It helps keep chains in order, and prevents mishaps that may occur in supply. Secondly, it doesn't matter what your perspective is on this issue. There simply is nothing naturally wrong with it. The only abnormal thing about it is that some people distance themselves away from homosexuals. More so in the southern half of the US, parts of Africa, and the middle east than anywhere else. The more developed places tend to not care about it, as they've already recognized there are no issues with it. Funny how this has branched from unions and marriage to this. These things are hardly related, surely this isn't the reason you want them to stay in unions?
-
Like I was just saying, there is something naturally wrong with it because it's an abnormality, literally by definition. You are basically trying to argue your perspective and igonoring the technicalities which do matter in this situation. And tolerance isn't the same thing as saying there's no issue with it. There are many reasons why I want it to stay civil unions. It's not something that I put minimal thought into because I'm aware it's an unpopular opinion in the US and is restricting some rights.
-
Edited by Trad: 1/11/2013 11:15:31 PMThen by all means list those reasons. Secondly, (since teh puma is not about to branch this off into semantics with you, that'd take far too long,) teh puma will just argue with definitions as you see them. Flawed as they may be. An abnormality does not equate to something being wrong in nature. Especially in this case. You've yet to present anything worth noting here.
-
I don't think we're making any progress here. If I do list these reasons, I'd have to explain them in grave detail, some of which I've already expressed and seem to suffice well enough. I think I'll just end this here, because this is an issue in which neither side will come to an agreement. However I do respect your opinions and think you have the right to express them, and that should extend to me as well.
-
Edited by Trad: 1/11/2013 11:18:16 PMAs arrogant, and childish as this sounds; no, teh puma doesn't care for your opinions on this matter as far to respect them as much as others. This is a matter of basic human rights, and frankly shouldn't have to be argued on. If you want to backpedal, then fine.
