Thread: California Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage

Originally Posted by wasup

As Sagea brought up, this argument implies that attraction with a woman with ovarian cancer or who had their uterus removed or otherwise cannot have a baby is "useless" (as well as heterosexual attraction with a man who "shoots blanks" or is otherwise infertile). Furthermore, if you use a condom with your girlfriend, is the attraction therefore useless? If you simply do not intend to have babies, is the attraction useless?

Sometimes I think about I'm a psycic. I knew somebody would say this.

We're not talking about condoms, birth control, or people not being able to reproduce. We're talking about the reason sexual attraction exists. To reproduce. Recreational sex and homosexuality are only extras of the ability.

I am not saying that sex is soley for reproduction. I am not a religious zealot. I am saying that some sex, including gay sex and sex with a condom, serves no purpose beyond that of pleasure, and that sex does not exist for pleasure, but for reproduction. Do you follow?

also, don't think of me as homophobic, because I'm not.

Fixed it sandform...

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Sometimes I think about I'm a psycic. I knew somebody would say this.

We're not talking about condoms, birth control, or people not being able to reproduce. We're talking about the reason sexual attraction exists. To reproduce. Recreational sex and homosexuality are only extras of the ability.

I am not saying that sex is soley for reproduction. I am not a religious zealot. I am saying that some sex, including gay sex and sex with a condom, serves no purpose beyond that of pleasure, and that sex does not exist for pleasure, but for reproduction. Do you follow?

also, don't think of me as homophobic, because I'm not.

In that case, you seem to be trivializing your argument. Are you trying to suggest anything here or simply saying that you think sex for pleasure is useless (i.e. by your criteria, not specifically homosexuality but sex for pleasure or a relationship without sex is useless). Your argument itself seems rather pointless to me. Are you simply saying that sex for pleasure and relationships without sex are "useless" but can and should still exist, or are you trying to suggest that such sex and relationships should not occur for that reason? If it's the former, then I don't exactly see the purpose of bringing it up. If it's the latter... what is the purpose of watching TV? What is the purpose of playing tennis? What is the purpose of laser tag? Should we ban or "oppress" these things because they are pointless?

Originally Posted by wasup

but sex

Huh huh, you said but sex.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Huh huh, you said but sex.

but he didn't say butt sex.

Originally Posted by Sandform

but he didn't say butt sex.

Huh? I am just trying to add intellergence to the conversation.

I wouldn't really like to be friends with someone that is gay, but I think they should definately be able to get married and do whatever fantasies they want to do.

Originally Posted by kingofclutch

I wouldn't really like to be friends with someone that is gay, but I think they should definately be able to get married and do whatever fantasies they want to do.

Being gay doesn't effect anything about who you are except who you date.

That is like saying I wouldn't really like to be friends with someone who takes trips to the alps.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Being gay doesn't effect anything about who you are except who you date.

That is like saying I wouldn't really like to be friends with someone who takes trips to the alps.

I know you may think that I am stereotyping, but yes gay people do act different than straights other than who they date.

Originally Posted by kingofclutch

I wouldn't really like to be friends with someone that is gay, but I think they should definately be able to get married and do whatever fantasies they want to do.

Is there a particular reason for this or do you think you're going to catch 'teh gay' by socialising with them? Are you uncomfortable as being viewed as a sexual object by someone that isn't female?

As for Christian Fundamentalists most likely being gay: Ted Haggard

Originally Posted by Alextanium

As for Christian Fundamentalists most likely being gay: Ted Haggard

Yes, exactly. Good example. It's about reaction formation.

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

Then again, Ted Haggard might just be a con man who says what his followers want to hear so they will send him money.

Originally Posted by wasup

Fixed it sandform...



In that case, you seem to be trivializing your argument. Are you trying to suggest anything here or simply saying that you think sex for pleasure is useless (i.e. by your criteria, not specifically homosexuality but sex for pleasure or a relationship without sex is useless). Your argument itself seems rather pointless to me. Are you simply saying that sex for pleasure and relationships without sex are "useless" but can and should still exist, or are you trying to suggest that such sex and relationships should not occur for that reason? If it's the former, then I don't exactly see the purpose of bringing it up. If it's the latter... what is the purpose of watching TV? What is the purpose of playing tennis? What is the purpose of laser tag? Should we ban or "oppress" these things because they are pointless?

It wasn't an "argument" in the first place. You missed my point.

Sex for resons other than reproduction is awesome. It just serves no purpose other than pleasure. Get it?

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

It wasn't an "argument" in the first place. You missed my point.

Sex for resons other than reproduction is awesome. It just serves no purpose other than pleasure. Get it?

It is also an expression of love...

A lot of people are saying that since homosexuality does not have a biological purpose, the attraction is useless. Well, I agree with you. But how do you go from "biologically useless" to "let's outlaw it"? Silly Putty is pretty useless as well, after all.

This all boils down once again to the universal argument of bigotry: "ewwww, therefore, outlawed" and that argument is even more useless than silly putty.

God supposedly created Adam. Alone. Without woman. He created Eve as an after thought right?

Originally Posted by Sandform

God supposedly created Adam. Alone. Without woman. He created Eve as an after thought right?

The weakest of all arguments.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

It wasn't an "argument" in the first place. You missed my point.

Sex for resons other than reproduction is awesome. It just serves no purpose other than pleasure. Get it?

Hence why I asked you in my post whether you meant that. And because you mean that, you are essentially saying "homosexuality is awesome" as well. In which case I think that it is rather a trivial point to make in the first place and doesn't really have any substance.

Originally Posted by Sandform

How is this an argument?

All i'm saying is that apparently God didn't have sex on his original agenda in the first place...

I think it's pretty weak because you can't use religion to justify homosexuality: religion is very deeply ingrained with a profound homophobic sentiment. If you bring up this example (which is weak in itself because supposedly god DID create Eve with the intention that only a man and a woman would do it) you ask for religion to come into play, which so stridently opposes homosexuality.