Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay
jmervyn said:
That's okay, I'll admit I need help understanding some of your tripe.
Okay I was tired of not understanding the word tripe, and looked it up, the result I got was stomach, I'm confused now.
jmervyn said:
That is, indeed, what the queers in question are demanding; that the society (including me) honor their demand for state-granted equivalency of a religious rite and terminology.
No, they can demand something from the State (it seeing them to be equal to straight people), that's not demanding anything from you or society (except that you follow the laws, but that's something the state requires).
jmervyn said:
consider drunkenness, obesity, smoking, bestiality, and pedophilia all evil and wrong, yet those are readily accepted by the parties involved. Who's the weird one here?
Drunkeness and smoking is something you do to your own body which is up to yourself, that you call an act you do upon yourself, by free will, evil, shows me that we differ much in the understanding of what is evil.
Bestiality (sex with animals?) and pedophilia is not something I'll call evil, but a disease, much like homosexuality is in the very essence that you get some emotions that differs you from the way of reproduction (you won't reproduce when having sex with a male, an animal or a child), the difference here been that often with the two first there's talking about a rape, while with the last, homosexuality, it's accepted by both part, that's important to see the difference of. Just because it's a disease doesn't mean people can't accept to live with that disease, much like most addictnesses are diseases and many people still live with those.
jmervyn said:
Being queer <can> be damaging, as can being a hole-chaser, or a drunk, or a pedo-bear. AIDS is prevalent among male queers for specific reasons. Plus, some discussion of the far higher suicide rate was in one of the discussions back a bit.
I meant damaging for others, not for yourself, what you do towards yourself with your own free will is your own responsibility and only your own responsibility.
jmervyn said:
Pedo-bears generally do not hurt their victims; quite the opposite really. That doesn't make it good, nor does an arbitrary standard pulled out of your arse about the age of the victim. Watch a show about marital practices in some Muslim countries if you feel like catching a clue.
I don't know what a Pedo-bear is, according to google it's just another word for a pedophile, do you seriously believe that children aren't hurt when they're exposed to the acts of a pedophile, doing what makes this person a pedophile in the first place?
If I'm correct, you're refering to those kids that took material arts to defend themselves against bullies, but also got raped by their teachers? I can't see how these children aren't going to be effected negatively by these actions.
jmervyn said:
Since their religion appeals to the selfish nature of humanity, it also despises charity and what are generally recognized as 'good works'. Therefore any charity you would imagine needing to exist will be confiscated from individuals at the point of a gun. Hey, that's a great system!
This I didn't understand, I wrote that anyone may have the religion they wish for, as long as they don't force this religion down on others, what have this to do with what you wrote?
jmervyn said:
I don't know what you mean by "you've no saying", but the belief that drunkenness is not punishable by law is quite wrong. You're not allowed to be intoxicated in public, to operate many forms of equipment while intoxicated, to be intoxicated when working, and many other times. Your claiming that something is okay unless it breaks the law is massively ignorant; we (the society) make laws to prevent ongoing things in the attempt to shape society. It's not effect and cause.
If it's legal or not depends largely on the state you're in.
Unless something isn't illegal, then sure you may do it without being punished, however the law changes, there's no back tracking effect, which means if what you did at the time was legal, then you can't be punished for it, but it means that we can learn from the past and use this to redefine the laws for a better future.
jmervyn said:
and male/female marriage is enshrined because nobody really likes queers.
I did to a large degree agree with your last part until here, I don't think it's at the same level of protecting others against a threat (drunk people), or protection others against being raped (pedophiles), to protect the idea of marriage against people who have different preferences in who they want to have sex with.
Beside pedophilia is illegal because children are off age, meaning they can't take responsibility of their own actions yet (it's often the parents responsibility), thereby having sex with someone off age is to rape them pr. definition. That's even if the child agrees to it, with the sole exception of both people been off age, both agreeing to it (then it will most often be seen as the parents responsibility to take some sense into their kids).
If it was up to me though, I'd say everyone should be responsible for themselves, however I know there's a great amount of evolution when you grow up, and as long as all that information can't be processed any faster I agree with children have to be sacred to a large degree, otherwise they'd very often be abused.
then you have to view the opposite situation. The situation where drunkenness is prohibited because they <might> hurt someone, pedophilia is banned because there's already too many child predators getting away with whatever they feel like, and male/female marriage is enshrined because nobody really likes queers. 
