Tails Turrosaki wrote:UndercoverElephant, even I don't do the whole GAY PRIEd!!!111 thing. I hate most gays, actually, so I'm more homophobic than you ought to be.

But that is just...wow. Pretty, um...ridiculous, to say the least.

I think of it in terms of 3-D movies. Overrated. Who cares? 3-D is just an illusion what's the big deal so what? You can watch a 2-D movie it's the same thing.
But 3-D will get us somewhere. 3-D will soon evolve into REAL 3-D life with visuals to look at in all angles of a room and soon we'll be enveloped in this new world of glorious holograms and fantastic realism...

That's what this is like. Gay marriage. So what? Who cares? It's just marriage. You can get a civil partnership it's the same thing.
But marriage will get us somewhere.

It's not so much for the sake of marriage but it's the implication of marriage. It's saying that we are equal.

Also, tradition is never a reason for anything political. Come on. That's just being sentimental. Might as well complain about the new Pokemon generations because EVERYTHIN AFTR RED IZNT GUD!11!!




It's also like saying the blacks had water fountains, too. They were right next to the white fountains, but they weren't the white's fountains. But it's the same thing who cares? Segregation? Please, everyone's equal here!... Equally segregated.

trubble76 wrote:

Tails Turrosaki wrote:UndercoverElephant, even I don't do the whole GAY PRIEd!!!111 thing. I hate most gays, actually, so I'm more homophobic than you ought to be.

You hate most gays? Why? What about them do you hate, is it their gayness? If so, then why don't you hate all of the gays?
There's quite a few gay people on this forum, perhaps you would like to be specific about what you find so worthy of hate?

I usually find that people with such strong feelings have, umm, strong feelings.

Tails Turrosaki wrote:Hi. I'm Kevin.

I'm 16, I love to draw, I occasionally like to discuss controversial things, I'm an atheist, definitely secular, I'm gay, I try my best not to flaunt my gayness, I hate a lot of things, I'm cynical, I'm lazy as hell, and I try my best to not care about appearances outside of clothes...not to say I'm fashion forward (definitely not).

purplerat wrote:Once again UndercoverElephant, your own words present a very sensible argument against the position you've taken.

UndercoverElephant wrote:The institution of marriage was always about procreation.

UndercoverElephant wrote:I didn't want children, because of the overpopulation problem

UndercoverElephant wrote:
We most certainly haven't reached the end of cultural evolution (at least I hope not, because if so we're probably going to end up extinct.) I'm no Francis Fukuyama! There's plenty needs to change. I just don't think expanding the concept of marriage to cover homosexual civil partnerships is a sensible way forwards.

The greatest threat to our species is overpopulation and that threat is rapidly increasing. The best answer to that threat is to shift the primary focus of adult relationships away from procreation. You seem to acknowledge as much in your posts, yet for some reason you're still dead set on holding onto a destructive idea apparently just to keep gays from getting married.

Panderos wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Tails Turrosaki wrote:UndercoverElephant, even I don't do the whole GAY PRIEd!!!111 thing. I hate most gays, actually, so I'm more homophobic than you ought to be.

You hate most gays? Why? What about them do you hate, is it their gayness? If so, then why don't you hate all of the gays?
There's quite a few gay people on this forum, perhaps you would like to be specific about what you find so worthy of hate?

I usually find that people with such strong feelings have, umm, strong feelings.

Not that this makes his hate any more understandable, but...

Tails Turrosaki wrote:Hi. I'm Kevin.

I'm 16, I love to draw, I occasionally like to discuss controversial things, I'm an atheist, definitely secular, I'm gay, I try my best not to flaunt my gayness, I hate a lot of things, I'm cynical, I'm lazy as hell, and I try my best to not care about appearances outside of clothes...not to say I'm fashion forward (definitely not).

UndercoverElephant wrote:

purplerat wrote:Once again UndercoverElephant, your own words present a very sensible argument against the position you've taken.

UndercoverElephant wrote:The institution of marriage was always about procreation.

UndercoverElephant wrote:I didn't want children, because of the overpopulation problem

UndercoverElephant wrote:
We most certainly haven't reached the end of cultural evolution (at least I hope not, because if so we're probably going to end up extinct.) I'm no Francis Fukuyama! There's plenty needs to change. I just don't think expanding the concept of marriage to cover homosexual civil partnerships is a sensible way forwards.

The greatest threat to our species is overpopulation and that threat is rapidly increasing. The best answer to that threat is to shift the primary focus of adult relationships away from procreation. You seem to acknowledge as much in your posts, yet for some reason you're still dead set on holding onto a destructive idea apparently just to keep gays from getting married.

I don't believe that the introduction of gay marriage would make any difference to the birth rate.

CookieJon wrote:Why is the equivalent of gay marriage - and not marriage itself - "the way it should be" according to UndercoverElephant?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:
I live in a democracy and will abide by the will of that democracy. If enough people share my opinion, the law will not be changed. If they don't, it will.

So you think human rights should be left up to popular vote? That does explain a lot actually.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:
Wrong. The burden of proof is on you, and the other people who are claiming homosexuality is an adaption even though there is not one jot of evidence to support such a claim.

1. I never made that claim.
2. You on the other hand DID claim it is a spandrel, so regardless of any claims I might make you still have the burden to prove homosexuality is a spandrel,

UndercoverElephant wrote:Many spandrels are not negative to survival. THIS spandrel is negative to reproductive fitness, but persists. Spandrels are like that...

Showing you still do not understand that evolution is based on the reproduction of the species, not every single individual.
And you still haven't provided any evidence that homosexuality is a spandrel, go ahead keep asserting it is, it won't make it so.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

purplerat wrote:Once again UndercoverElephant, your own words present a very sensible argument against the position you've taken.

UndercoverElephant wrote:The institution of marriage was always about procreation.

UndercoverElephant wrote:I didn't want children, because of the overpopulation problem

UndercoverElephant wrote:
We most certainly haven't reached the end of cultural evolution (at least I hope not, because if so we're probably going to end up extinct.) I'm no Francis Fukuyama! There's plenty needs to change. I just don't think expanding the concept of marriage to cover homosexual civil partnerships is a sensible way forwards.

The greatest threat to our species is overpopulation and that threat is rapidly increasing. The best answer to that threat is to shift the primary focus of adult relationships away from procreation. You seem to acknowledge as much in your posts, yet for some reason you're still dead set on holding onto a destructive idea apparently just to keep gays from getting married.

I don't believe that the introduction of gay marriage would make any difference to the birth rate.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:
I live in a democracy and will abide by the will of that democracy. If enough people share my opinion, the law will not be changed. If they don't, it will.

So you think human rights should be left up to popular vote? That does explain a lot actually.

Do you have a better suggestion than democracy?

Democracy sucks, but I know of no other system that doesn't suck worse.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

CookieJon wrote:Why is the equivalent of gay marriage - and not marriage itself - "the way it should be" according to UndercoverElephant?

Civil Partnerships.

UndercoverElephant wrote:Most of your bad-tempered post has been ignored.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:
I live in a democracy and will abide by the will of that democracy. If enough people share my opinion, the law will not be changed. If they don't, it will.

So you think human rights should be left up to popular vote? That does explain a lot actually.

Do you have a better suggestion than democracy?

Democracy sucks, but I know of no other system that doesn't suck worse.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:
Wrong. The burden of proof is on you, and the other people who are claiming homosexuality is an adaption even though there is not one jot of evidence to support such a claim.

1. I never made that claim.
2. You on the other hand DID claim it is a spandrel, so regardless of any claims I might make you still have the burden to prove homosexuality is a spandrel,

If no reason has been found to support the claim that something is an adaptation driven by natural selection, we should assume it is a spandrel. If you don't understand why this is, then please re-read the article I linked to.

Looks like a spandrel, quacks like a spandrel....probably it's a spandrel.

Panderos wrote:@[color=#CC0000][b]UE[/b][/color] what do you make of the argument that children are often better off being raised by gay couples because gay couples never have a child by accident - they have to really really try to have one. Compare that with the 50% accidental pregnancy rate with straight couples.

Furthermore, the choice is never between a straight and gay couple. All children raised by gay couples have already been given up for adoption by their biological parents, and there are simply not suitable enough straight parents to adopt them all. So on a macroscopic scale the choice is between temporary foster care, and a permanent home with a gay couple.

Last of all, nobody is suggesting we take away kids from single parents. Does the addition of another mother or father result in a worse upbringing?

UndercoverElephant wrote:
If no reason has been found to support the claim that something is an adaptation driven by natural selection, we should assume it is a spandrel.

UndercoverElephant wrote:Looks like a spandrel, quacks like a spandrel....probably it's a spandrel.

UndercoverElephant wrote:
I don't have to, and if you understood what you are talking about, you'd know why.

Shrunk wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:
I live in a democracy and will abide by the will of that democracy. If enough people share my opinion, the law will not be changed. If they don't, it will.

So you think human rights should be left up to popular vote? That does explain a lot actually.

Do you have a better suggestion than democracy?

Democracy sucks, but I know of no other system that doesn't suck worse.

Democracy does not equal "popular vote". Popular vote without the principal of minority rights, which are not contingent on the will of the majority, is not a democracy. It's mob rule.

Shrunk wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:
Wrong. The burden of proof is on you, and the other people who are claiming homosexuality is an adaption even though there is not one jot of evidence to support such a claim.

1. I never made that claim.
2. You on the other hand DID claim it is a spandrel, so regardless of any claims I might make you still have the burden to prove homosexuality is a spandrel,

If no reason has been found to support the claim that something is an adaptation driven by natural selection, we should assume it is a spandrel. If you don't understand why this is, then please re-read the article I linked to.

Looks like a spandrel, quacks like a spandrel....probably it's a spandrel.

Whether or not your claim is correct, what is its relevance? Is a spandrel any less the result of genetic inheritance and evolutionary forces than "adaptive" traits?

UndercoverElephant wrote:
It may well be the case that they want to have children just as badly as straight couples with fertility problems, but it makes no difference to what I said about the ideal environment for rearing children. Men and women are different, and the difference is important. It is also important for a child to experience the interactions between their male and female parents.