Super Mario Bros. X Forums

Still irrelevant to what I was talking about. I'm saying he shouldn't back down on his opinions just because people disagree with him.

Opinion, view, standpoint, whatever you want to call it, he obviously thinks homosexuality is a choice and I want him to stand by that and defend it.

Hearing a different side of the story? Isn't that the point of a debate?

Because I wanted him to actually explain why he thought that, rather than just saying "sorry guys, I don't know what I was thinking".

Joey wrote:Still irrelevant to what I was talking about. I'm saying he shouldn't back down on his opinions just because people disagree with him.

I don't believe he "changed" my views. I don't know if he's right or wrong. I don't know if people choose it or not.

Still irrelevant to what I was talking about. I'm saying he shouldn't back down on his opinions just because people disagree with him.

I don't see what's bad about conceding to a point.

And I'm supportive of gay marriage since I'm gay myself.

Maruiki wrote:

Joey wrote:Still irrelevant to what I was talking about. I'm saying he shouldn't back down on his opinions just because people disagree with him.

I don't believe he "changed" my views. I don't know if he's right or wrong. I don't know if people choose it or not.

What is going to make you believe that you don't choose, though? As I said, I am bisexual and did not choose to be this way. No, I cannot prove this. Neither can the millions of gay/bisexual people around the world who would say the same thing. But again, if you disbelieve all of these people, it's probably time to put on your tinfoil hat because you're not listening to the evidence at all.

Also, I agree with everything that Knux has been saying in this topic.

Let's please stop making fun of Maruiki.

^
I'm not making fun of Maruiki, I'm criticizing his debate practices. While I did engage in sarcasm with the tinfoil hat thing, I do believe that making claims like that is a conspiracy theory-orientied position.

SnifitGuy wrote:The only problem that I see is that some homosexual people get married only for benefits and then divorce. Also, I remember this commercial (I know commercials aren't always real, but the facts are true) where a gay couple actually sued a church because they wouldn't marry them. The fact that the couple sued them is such a dick move to me because it was because they could have other people marry them. Getting married, while serious, should not be taken as seriously as it is. It makes no sense to give the right to marry people only to priests, captains of ships, and defenders of peace. Sure, marriage is serious, but who would you rather have marry you to the one you want to spend the rest of your life with: a random priest or your best friend? (I know this part is very off topic).

The "only for benefits" applies just the same to straight marriages. You couldn't really fix that problem unless you just removed any marriage benefits for everyone.

SnifitGuy wrote:The only problem that I see is that some homosexual people get married only for benefits and then divorce.

This is complete bullshit, since as FanOfSMBX said this can happen in any kind of marriage.

SnifitGuy wrote:Yes, but it's more common in gay marriages. Divorce in general is stupid, especially since it almost always happens after the parents have kids. I'm just saying this because it is more common in gay marriages. In all marriages, however, I agree that it is annoying and a problem.

I'd like to call bullshit. Please give me a single case where that has happened in gay marriage, I'm sure you have no evidence to back your claims up.

Heterosexual marriage has way more divorces than homosexual marriage, mind you. How can you say divorce is more common in homosexual marriages? It's not, it's more common in heterosexual marriages.

Divorce in general is stupid, especially since it almost always happens after the parents have kids.

Unless you're suggesting the homosexual couple adopts a child (which is fine by me), this line in your statement is a contradiction. I've found that not many homosexual couples have kids, I've also found that not many homosexual couples divorce!

You have no evidence to back your claims of divorce happening more common in homosexual couples. You only seem to be shaming homosexuals in your posts here. I would suggest you change your views, because you can't be homophobic forever.

SnifitGuy wrote:

Pseudo-dino wrote:

SnifitGuy wrote:The only problem that I see is that some homosexual people get married only for benefits and then divorce.

This is complete bullshit, since as FanOfSMBX said this can happen in any kind of marriage.

Yes, but it's more common in gay marriages. Divorce in general is stupid, especially since it almost always happens after the parents have kids. I'm just saying this because it is more common in gay marriages. In all marriages, however, I agree that it is annoying and a problem.

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/w ... v-2011.pdf

According to this, the divorce rates are almost the same from states with data available so I'm not sure where you're getting your statement from that it's "more common."

8bitmushroom wrote:Unless you're suggesting the homosexual couple adopts a child (which is fine by me), this line in your statement is a contradiction. I've found that not many homosexual couples have kids, I've also found that not many homosexual couples divorce!

His statement wasn't a contradiction. It's just not accurate.

SnifitGuy, I think you need to reconsider where you're getting your information from.

Even if that rate is technically statistically accurate, SnifitGuy (which I don't think it is), I don't think it's a reason for gay marriages not to exist. People will do things like that no matter what the couple is like.

I know this doesn't really fit the thread 100%, but I didn't feel like it needed a new topic.

What do you guys think about Russia's law forbidding "promotion of homosexuality" to minors? I admit I was rather peeved at it around Olympics, but you'll never believe this. The Sims 4 is rated M! That's the same rating as a GTA or CoD game, just for having gay relationships. There's no sex* or anything - just two people of the same gender marrying! How does that "harm a child's development" in any way?

*yes there is Woohoo but you get a cutscene of the people in their bed-clothes, and then they get under the blankets, it fades out, and once it fades back in to the game interface everyone's back out of bed - no difference for gay or straight couples whatsoever, nothing actually EXPLICIT other than a euphemized acknowledgement of sex existing

FanofSMBX wrote:The Sims 4 is rated M! That's the same rating as a GTA or CoD game, just for having gay relationships. There's no sex* or anything - just two people of the same gender marrying! How does that "harm a child's development" in any way?

*yes there is Woohoo but you get a cutscene of the people in their bed-clothes, and then they get under the blankets, it fades out, and once it fades back in to the game interface everyone's back out of bed - no difference for gay or straight couples whatsoever, nothing actually EXPLICIT other than a euphemized acknowledgement of sex existing

That's really unacceptable, shame on you ESRB.

I know very little about whatever Russia did, so I'm judging by FanofSMBX's post and will assume "promotion" means "advocation or forced exposure".

Making a law to prevent "promotion of homosexuality" seems silly because I'm not sure why people would be promoting homosexuality in the first place. It's not something you can advertize - you either are or aren't. Maybe I'm misinterpreting things, correct me if I'm wrong.

You know? Pride parades, information flyers about homosexuality, etc. Basically anything that portrays being gay in a positive light.

FanofSMBX wrote:I know this doesn't really fit the thread 100%, but I didn't feel like it needed a new topic.

What do you guys think about Russia's law forbidding "promotion of homosexuality" to minors? I admit I was rather peeved at it around Olympics, but you'll never believe this. The Sims 4 is rated M! That's the same rating as a GTA or CoD game, just for having gay relationships. There's no sex* or anything - just two people of the same gender marrying! How does that "harm a child's development" in any way?

Well, of course these are bad things. It's fucking stupid that the ESRB considers gay marriage explicit. That's really outrageous, and I don't see how it can be thought of in any was as mature compared to straight marriage.

Russia's law is also awful, but it didn't really come as much of a surprise to me when I heard about it months ago. That government is getting more corrupt and oppressive every day.

EDIT: It wasn't the ESRB that rated The Sims 4 as "M", it was Russia's ratings system, and the rating wasn't actually called M but is the "18+" rating. It's rated normally in the US (by the ESRB) and other countries as far as I can tell.