# gay rights at risk...again



## sparx (Nov 13, 2008)

Well, assuming that a lot of you reading this (or at least some) live in the US (in california especially) you may have heard of Proposition 8. Prop 8 is a law passed in California that takes away the right for same sex marriages to validate. This to me, seems ridiculous. Not 2 months ago the Supreme Court in California GAVE them the right to marry, and now they're taking it away? 

To be honest, I can't really do this situation justice. If you wanna hear someone who REALLY knows what to say about all this, go here. Please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE


----------



## StainMcGorver (Nov 13, 2008)

Congratulations. You are the third person to announce this.


----------



## Takun (Nov 13, 2008)

I made a post on this in Rants and Raves.

Also, Connecticut just made gay marriage legal.


----------



## Grand Hatter (Nov 13, 2008)

Heh. well at least the situation was put to a vote in US.

Australian gays still await their deliverance.

And with Kevin Rudd at the helm, you can be sure it's going to be a LAWNG wait.


----------



## Xero108 (Nov 13, 2008)

I heard about it. Ah the United States. So narrow minded sometimes. I'm glad we're allowed to get married here in Canada and there's nothing that can be done about it no matter how much Harper wished to take it away from us


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 13, 2008)

it's funny though: Arizona... hardly an important state, yet I've seen them announce gay marriage being banned here more than any other state 0_o is arizona really that bad?


----------



## StainMcGorver (Nov 13, 2008)

Hell yeah.
Except Utah news will say "So-and-so the football player has a sign in their yard saying "No on Prop 8." He has a gay brother."


----------



## Xero108 (Nov 13, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> I've seen them announce gay marriage being banned here more than any other state 0_o



Arizona? Really? And I thought Texas was the worse...


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 13, 2008)

StainMcGorver said:


> Hell yeah.
> Except Utah news will say "So-and-so the football player has a sign in their yard saying "No on Prop 8." He has a gay brother."


....
thats fucked up in the ass I say


----------



## Mr Hollow (Nov 13, 2008)

But why are these people bothering making proposition 8 anyways?.
I mean whats the big deal?, Do they think gay marriage is going to ruin the image in their economy?. 
I mean, They are wasting their time on trying to alienate gay marriage when there are many other things to worry about, Global meltdown hello?, Financial crisis, Keeping the world economy stable a big issue?.
I just don't know why they bother doing this, Its not going to stop homersexuals being what they are or falling in love, So whats taking away the right of marriage going to do?.
There are far more important things than trying to make innocent peoples lives more tougher.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Nov 13, 2008)

Xero108 said:


> I heard about it. Ah the United States. So narrow minded sometimes. I'm glad we're allowed to get married here in Canada and there's nothing that can be done about it no matter how much Harper wished to take it away from us


I kinda think he doesn't lose any sleep over it, he just has to worry about the approval of his party and constituents. (Calgary fuck yeah >.>)


----------



## StainMcGorver (Nov 13, 2008)

Calgary is lucky.
It didn't get an 8 year hell. (Bush)


----------



## Xipoid (Nov 13, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> I made a post on this in Rants and Raves.
> 
> Also, Connecticut just made gay marriage legal.




I'll be impressed when gay marriage is legal in the Bible Belt.


----------



## Arcane hollow (Nov 13, 2008)

StainMcGorver said:


> Calgary is lucky.
> It didn't get an 8 year hell. (Bush)



It wasn't completely horrible.......I know some people near by....fuck i live them that think if gay marriage is legalized in all the states the human race will die out............That is just fucked up........I can't even tell them my views with out get the bible shoved in my face. *Sighs*


----------



## Adelio Altomar (Nov 13, 2008)

Xipoid said:


> I'll be impressed when gay marriage is legal in the Bible Belt.


 

A few years ago here in Texas, there was a prop or something to legalize gay marriage. The only county to actually go for was Travis county, where Austin resides. And now I can see why: there are a lot of gay people here! Four teachers ( two who I suspect greatly to be gay), and then this one guy keeps asking me if I'm bi "because I look it." And then the one *and only* time I went down to the (in)famous Sixth Street, I got eyed at by this creepy, white guy! O.O

I wouldn't be surprised if a gay village formed here!


----------



## Irreverent (Nov 13, 2008)

Xero108 said:


> I'm glad we're allowed to get married here in Canada and there's nothing that can be done about it no matter how much Harper wished to take it away from us



The gay community in Canada has way more to fear from the religious left then they do the conservative right.  Extending divorce, and adoption rights to gays would tank the Conservatives in Quebec.


----------



## Takun (Nov 13, 2008)

Xipoid said:


> I'll be impressed when gay marriage is legal in the Bible Belt.




I forgot to reply to this.  The sad this is the Bible Belt and evangelical southern culture is creeping into my state at scary speeds.  Country music stations and christian "rock" stations popping up left and right, racetracks and gambling popping up everywhere.  I mean Iowa has always been farming, but god damn.

Also, I like the avatar.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 13, 2008)

Irreverent said:


> The gay community in Canada has way more to fear from the religious left then they do the conservative right.  Extending divorce, and adoption rights to gays would tank the Conservatives in Quebec.



oh, now canada is dangerous for us?... where is there left for us to go? TT_TT


----------



## Grand Hatter (Nov 13, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> oh, now canada is dangerous for us?... where is there left for us to go? TT_TT



Finland! Race you there!


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 13, 2008)

Grand Hatter said:


> Finland! Race you there!


I sir... have the advantage >=3

I'll tell you once I figure out what it is. :| but hey, maybe you should wait there, and I'll pick you up? *evil plan*


----------



## Xipoid (Nov 13, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> I forgot to reply to this.  The sad this is the Bible Belt and evangelical southern culture is creeping into my state at scary speeds.  Country music stations and christian "rock" stations popping up left and right, racetracks and gambling popping up everywhere.  I mean Iowa has always been farming, but god damn.
> 
> Also, I like the avatar.




I lament your soon to be loss and smile at your latter statement in somewhat of an off-putting manner when juxtaposed.


----------



## Adelio Altomar (Nov 13, 2008)

An all gay country?


----------



## Takun (Nov 13, 2008)

Xipoid said:


> I lament your soon to be loss and smile at your latter statement in somewhat of an off-putting manner when juxtaposed.




Haha.  Well may not be my loss if my life plans go well.


----------



## X (Nov 13, 2008)

Grand Hatter said:


> Finland! Race you there!





NekoFox08 said:


> I sir... have the advantage >=3
> 
> I'll tell you once I figure out what it is. :| but hey, maybe you should wait there, and I'll pick you up? *evil plan*



ill see you there then.


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 13, 2008)

Wow... the gay community sure is an angry hive... Personally, I don't see why you guys give a damn. Do you even know what marriage is designed to do? The vows are _designed_ to unify a couple inseparably for safe pro-creation. It's not some fancy bling you wear around. Homosexuals aren't making anything, so why do you care? The ones who want to have sex have it without marriage anyways. Marriage is for the children, and the way you are doing it, there aren't gonna be any.


----------



## Xipoid (Nov 13, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Wow... the gay community sure is an angry hive... Personally, I don't see why you guys give a damn. Do you even know what marriage is designed to do? The vows are _designed_ to unify a couple inseparably for safe pro-creation. It's not some fancy bling you wear around. Homosexuals aren't making anything, so why do you care? The ones who want to have sex have it without marriage anyways. Marriage is for the children, and the way you are doing it, there aren't gonna be any.




I think the premise here is "equal rights under the law", as there are quite a number of benefits a married couple garner from the government.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 13, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Wow... the gay community sure is an angry hive... Personally, I don't see why you guys give a damn. Do you even know what marriage is designed to do? The vows are _designed_ to unify a couple inseparably for safe pro-creation. It's not some fancy bling you wear around. Homosexuals aren't making anything, so why do you care? The ones who want to have sex have it without marriage anyways. Marriage is for the children, and the way you are doing it, there aren't gonna be any.



I agree kinda. Marriage is supposed to be religious, and technically between a man and woman, and I personally am none of the above, but until they give us something official (equivalent to marriage) I'm gonna stand up for what we have a right to do

plus, remember married couples have benefits


----------



## Takun (Nov 13, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Wow... the gay community sure is an angry hive... Personally, I don't see why you guys give a damn. Do you even know what marriage is designed to do? The vows are _designed_ to unify a couple inseparably for safe pro-creation. It's not some fancy bling you wear around. Homosexuals aren't making anything, so why do you care? The ones who want to have sex have it without marriage anyways. Marriage is for the children, and the way you are doing it, there aren't gonna be any.



This see this v



Xipoid said:


> I think the premise here is "equal rights under the law", as there are quite a number of benefits a married couple garner from the government.



Civil Unions aren't even the same.  There was a beautiful post on /b/ last night about how Civil Unions AREN'T marriage and the difference between them, but I did not save it.  The problem is marriage _isn't _even religious anymore.  You can get them completely separate of a church.  Your definition would screw over Atheist couples like my friends, but I'm sure you don't care about the rights other than those supported by the Catholic church, unless you want to correct me.


----------



## Grand Hatter (Nov 13, 2008)

The issue is with marrital benefits.

Homosexuals are being left out of their partner's wills because of the failed recognition as couples.

Homosexuals are not entitled to join tax or medicare benefits in Australia.

Homosexuals can't enjoy superanuation funds as couples.

It's discrimination. So don't go flinging the crap that you're holier than us. We'd be happy with civil unions, HECK we'd be happy with freaking defacto relationships!

But we don't have anything. I think we're allowed to be angry.


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 13, 2008)

Xipoid said:


> I think the premise here is "equal rights under the law", as there are quite a number of benefits a married couple garner from the government.


Those are _also_ designed for the children. Those benefits are designed to help _parents _raise their children. Yet again, the fact that a homosexual relationship bears no fruit makes marriage pointless. True, many hetero couples who draw on the government's funds due to their marital status are nothing more than parasitic teams, but that's essentially what a gay couple would be by default _unless_ they adopt.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Nov 14, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Wow... the gay community sure is an angry hive... Personally, I don't see why you guys give a damn. Do you even know what marriage is designed to do? The vows are _designed_ to unify a couple inseparably for safe pro-creation. It's not some fancy bling you wear around. Homosexuals aren't making anything, so why do you care? The ones who want to have sex have it without marriage anyways. Marriage is for the children, and the way you are doing it, there aren't gonna be any.


You obviously didn't read the prop. 8 thread. Alright I'll repost.

The rights gay couples currently don't have in the US (fuck yeah Canadia) include:

Social Security pension, veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing, survivor benefits for federal employees, survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers, additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease, $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty, continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits, renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse, continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances, payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death, making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts...

And the right to benefits while married, such as: 
employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating, sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits...

As well as joint and family-related rights including: joint filing of bankruptcy permitted, joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records, family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison, next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims, custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce, domestic violence intervention, access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods, Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs, Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses, Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens, Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime, Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse, Court notice of probate proceedings, Domestic violence protection orders, Existing homestead lease continuation of rights, Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption, Funeral and bereavement leave, Joint adoption and foster care, Joint tax filing, Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society, Legal status with stepchildren, Making spousal medical decisions, Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver, Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation, Right of survivorship of custodial trust, Right to change surname upon marriage, Right to enter into prenuptial agreement, Right to inheritance of property, and Spousal privilege in court cases.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 14, 2008)

I find it funny how half the straight married couples I've ever met are miserable fucks around eachother, yet most gay couples I've ever known, or heard of are the happiest people... what reason is there that they CAN'T get married?


----------



## Nathyn (Nov 14, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> I find it funny how half the straight married couples I've ever met are miserable fucks around eachother, yet most gay couples I've ever known, or heard of are the happiest people... what reason is there that they CAN'T get married?



I've noticed this myself.


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 14, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> Your definition would screw over Atheist couples like my friends, but I'm sure you don't care about the rights other than those supported by the Catholic church, unless you want to correct me.



Stop masturbating in public. I don't have time for you to look beyond what I say to who I am. I don't see how you have the time.
For political purposes, I don't give a damn whether God is the one who cements your marriage together or not. I'm talking SPECIFICALLY about pro-creation, which is the _only_ reason the US gives the benefit of even a penny to couples. Face the facts and close your zipper.


----------



## Grand Hatter (Nov 14, 2008)

Easog said:


> You obviously didn't read the prop. 8 thread. Alright I'll repost.
> 
> The rights gay couples currently don't have in the US (fuck yeah Canadia) include:
> 
> ...



What he said.

Maybe prop 8 was taken the wrong way. Could it not be ressurected, but allowing homosexuals the right to defacto or or civil unions?

At least as a temporary remedy to this blatant discrimination...

Let the straight couples squirt our the children and have babies. Let them have their marriage.
Marriage does technically belong to the church, so legally, we have to recognise that.

But civil unions and defacto partnerships are not the province of churches.


----------



## Takun (Nov 14, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Those are _also_ designed for the children. Those benefits are designed to help _parents _raise their children. Yet again, the fact that a homosexual relationship bears no fruit makes marriage pointless. True, many hetero couples who draw on the government's funds due to their marital status are nothing more than parasitic teams, but that's essentially what a gay couple would be by default _unless_ they adopt.




Which we also have a hard time doing.  Look, you can cling to your beliefs all you want, but they keep gays from obtaining equal rights.



Korro-Sama said:


> Stop masturbating in public. I don't have time for you to look beyond what I say to who I am. I don't see how you have the time.
> For political purposes, I don't give a damn whether God is the one who cements your marriage together or not. I'm talking SPECIFICALLY about pro-creation, which is the _only_ reason the US gives the benefit of even a penny to couples. Face the facts and close your zipper.



I don't want a damn penny of the government's money.  I want the rights Easog posted above.  If my partner is the most important person in my life and I get in an accident, I want him to have the right to visit me as well as all the other benefits listed.

You might enjoy this.

"If marriage is really for pro-creation, as some gay rights opponents suggest, why not require married couples to have children? An initiative filed by gay marriage advocates in Washington State would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled. Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment. â€œFor many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine," said organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. â€œIf same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage." Supporters must gather at least 224,800 signatures by July 6 to put it on the November ballot."


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 14, 2008)

a possibly homophobic furry? what are the chances? 0_o


----------



## Kangamutt (Nov 14, 2008)

The problem is that they're making it a huge church thing over it. YOU DON'T NEED A CHURCH TO BE _LEGALLY_ MARRIED. (and I stress the word LEGALLY)

And as well for the whole benefit couples who raise children thing- What about gay couples who adopt?

I don't see why gay marriage should be illegal. I mean, imagine how much the economy would improve from gay couples draining their bank accounts for the big day, and then how much would be put in for the DIVORCES!

Yeah, the humour in that bit is a little morbid, but laugh goddamnit. Like you didn't think of taking advantage of that to make a little extra cash?


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Nov 14, 2008)

I like to ask people if they would be opposed to infertile couples getting married, since marriage is for procreation and all.


----------



## Xipoid (Nov 14, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Those are _also_ designed for the children. Those benefits are designed to help _parents _raise their children. Yet again, the fact that a homosexual relationship bears no fruit makes marriage pointless. True, many hetero couples who draw on the government's funds due to their marital status are nothing more than parasitic teams, but that's essentially what a gay couple would be by default _unless_ they adopt.



Tax exemptions, shelters, visitation rights, will rights, insurance policy benefits, and so forth. These benefits are given regardless of any children. If parasites are your concern, then the system must be changed to only reward those with children. If you do so, it could create a situation where people will just have kids to reap the benefits of the system, even if they are unfit to care for said children.

Here's a question: A good portion of property tax goes to the state school systems. Since homosexual couples cannot have kids in which to put into the schools, should they not pay as much property tax as a heterosexual couple?



Which leads me to my point where again I must say equal rights under the law. Either make it so everyone can receive the benefits or no one.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Nov 14, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> I agree kinda. *Marriage is supposed to be religious*, and technically between a man and woman, and I personally am none of the above, but until they give us something official (equivalent to marriage) I'm gonna stand up for what we have a right to do
> 
> plus, remember married couples have benefits


No, marriage is about love. Anyone can love another person no matter what gender, race, or practices. Banning gay marriage is showing how flawed the U.S. is and bringing back discrimination.  Plus fuck religion.


----------



## Grand Hatter (Nov 14, 2008)

Silibus said:


> No, marriage is about love. Anyone can love another person no matter what gender, race, or practices. Banning gay marriage is showing how flawed the U.S. is and bringing back discrimination.  Plus fuck religion and all its lies.



No, that's just the disneyfication of it.

Marriage was and is institutionalized in the bible. It is for the purpose of monogomous relationship between man and woman intent on raising children.

It all comes down to the children. This isn't to say gays can't raise kids, of course not.

But it is about procreation...

Before you ask, yes I am atheist. But I know what is the province of the churches and what isn't.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 14, 2008)

Silibus said:


> No, marriage is about love. Anyone can love another person no matter what gender, race, or practices. Banning gay marriage is showing how flawed the U.S. is and bringing back discrimination.  Plus fuck religion and all its lies.



yes, marriage is about love, but think about it. marriage as a definition is love between a man and woman. 

trust me, I hate that fact too, but it's more like, people expected that society would all be straight, and never saw us comin', so they shoved the bible in our faces and told us to fuck off


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 14, 2008)

*sips tea* the only Gay Couple I know and hang around with are pretty sad about it in florida. "This is just a minor set back for us"

Give em what they want, I see a couple as a couple, and if they want to get hitched then let em. Just effing stop with this whole thing...in the end they gonna get it, so why delay the inevitable. Oh I forgot, we're an idiotic nation who forgot there is other religions here other than Christianity, we say we're not racist but are still, we enjoy our "Ignorance is Bliss", Some folks still cant believe a HALF black guy is president, and believe in the media....-_- now excuse me while I get my Coconut Tea.


----------



## Takun (Nov 14, 2008)

Grand Hatter said:


> No, that's just the disneyfication of it.
> 
> Marriage was and is institutionalized in the bible. It is for the purpose of monogomous relationship between man and woman intent on raising children.
> 
> ...




Time continues to move though.  Definitions change all the time.  This one benefits a lot of people, and really who does it hurt?  Anyone?  Didn't think so.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 14, 2008)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> *sips tea* the only Gay Couple I know and hang around with are pretty sad about it in florida. "This is just a minor set back for us"



yea, I cried when I saw something on t.v about gay marriage (a while back ago), and this couple was crying, because the day before they're marriage, it was banned, and their future was pretty much ruined


----------



## Kangamutt (Nov 14, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> marriage as a definition is love between a man and woman.



Definitions are never set in stone. If they were, we'd still be eating raw meat.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Nov 14, 2008)

Grand Hatter said:


> No, that's just the disneyfication of it.
> 
> Marriage was and is institutionalized in the bible. It is for the purpose of monogomous relationship between man and woman for the purpose of their children.
> 
> ...


Religion... politics... all the same... *Shakes fist* I hate them both...


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 14, 2008)

Kangaroo_Boy said:


> Definitions are never set in stone. If they were, we'd still be eating raw meat.



jesus probably set it in stone a while back ago, when he was pissed that guys were getting together... like those commandment things

btw, I'm not trying to be funny, I really think that's what he'd do


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 14, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> yea, I cried when I saw something on t.v about gay marriage (a while back ago), and this couple was crying, because the day before they're marriage, it was banned, and their future was pretty much ruined


said they gonna move to a state where its legal after everything settled down, still to much drama.


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 14, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> a possibly homophobic furry? what are the chances? 0_o


Have you ever thought about that word before using it? A phobia is a form of insanity. And then to the fact that homo means man.... suddenly... wtf? Deathly afraid of men? OMG! 

Admittedly, after riding for years as the blind lance of the bandwagon, it has come to mean people who are afraid of homosexuality, but...wtf... why then accuse me of it?
I'm straight. 
Sure, I don't really believe most of you guys are actually sincere gays, but that's because there is no way for me to know, so I'm skeptical by default.
Honestly, I don't give a damn whether you get the right to marry or do whatever the fuck you want.
I do, however, get defensive when people start talking about a whole new way for people to drain more money from a government running dry on funds. Personally, I'd like to see ALL government aid withheld from couples who don't consumate their marriage with offspring, because their children can't provide for themselves yet. For those unfortunate enough to be sterile (of which I'm included) don't you *DARE*bitch about the government not giving you benefits reserved for the upbringing of children in America. Same goes to non-productive gays.
If you're gay and adopt, don't just lounge and bitch. GET UP AND CRUSADE, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! Those kids need the aid, and griping and text-crusading does nothing.


----------



## Kangamutt (Nov 14, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> jesus probably set it in stone a while back ago, when he was pissed that guys were getting together...
> 
> btw, I'm not trying to be funny, I really think that's what he'd do



By "set in stone" I didn't mean it literally. *facepalm*
Definitions are never permanent. They are constantly being changed. "Marriage" is just as vulnerable to being redefined as any other word/concept.
BTW, Jesus isn't the boss of me.


----------



## Takun (Nov 14, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Have you ever thought about that word before using it? A phobia is a form of insanity. And then to the fact that homo means man.... suddenly... wtf? Deathly afraid of men? OMG!
> 
> Admittedly, after riding for years as the blind lance of the bandwagon, it has come to mean people who are afraid of homosexuality, but...wtf... why then accuse me of it?
> I'm straight.
> ...



Cool.  Like I said I don't want the money, I want all the other rights married couples get as a joint couple.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Nov 14, 2008)

Phobia names come from Greek, _homos_ is Greek for "same" or some shit... and _phobos_ is fear.

Taxonomy in Biology is based on Latin. _Homo_ means "man".

Thought I'd point that out. lrn2dead language


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 14, 2008)

Easog said:


> Phobia names come from Greek, _homos_ is Greek for "same" or some shit... and _phobos_ is fear.
> 
> Taxonomy in Biology is based on Latin. _Homo_ means "man".
> 
> Thought I'd point that out. lrn2psychology



Methinks these words I said? Good sir, homophobe still means mush. Thanks for restating, though. 0.o?


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Nov 14, 2008)

You said homo means man, and I like to nitpick :V


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 14, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Have you ever thought about that word before using it? A phobia is a form of insanity. And then to the fact that homo means man.... suddenly... wtf? Deathly afraid of men? OMG!
> 
> Admittedly, after riding for years as the blind lance of the bandwagon, it has come to mean people who are afraid of homosexuality, but...wtf... why then accuse me of it?
> I'm straight.
> ...



but of course you realize, the chances of actually being able to adopt are like the chances of getting married? I've heard countless stories of gay couples who were denied being able to adopt, and even a few of my family members who are gay were also denied such a thing. I'm not trying to offend you, and people REALLY need to stop stretching the word "homophobia" out so far, of course I'm not telling you that you're "afraid of em" I'm just saying, if they bother you in any way, or if for some reason, you feel the need to get your point across to gay rights, then I can't say you're exactly pro-gay 0_o

btw, I was joking to an extent kangaroo xD

edit: I speak heavily on the adoption situation because I've always wanted to adopt


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 14, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> Cool.  Like I said I don't want the money, I want all the other rights married couples get as a joint couple.



I think we're _almost_ on the same page, but I think the benefits would be pursued with more success if you dropped the idea of being married and pursued the benefits on principle independently.



NekoFox08 said:


> but of course you realize, the chances of actually being able to adopt are like the chances of getting married? I've heard countless stories of gay couples who were denied being able to adopt, and even a few of my family members who are gay were also denied such a thing.



Then pursue adoption rights, not Marriage rights.



NekoFox08 said:


> I'm not trying to offend you, and people REALLY need to stop stretching the word "homophobia" out so far, of course I'm not telling you that you're "afraid of em" I'm just saying, if they bother you in any way



The point is, the term is just a blind lance. Sure, I'm not pro-gay, but who gives a damn? I don't have anything against it. If you find that lots of people are looking into the term and being offended, find a term that is less of a weapon. I've been called a homophobe all over the internet, and usually tied into insults or blatant trolling. It is certainly not positive, now is it? 



NekoFox08 said:


> or if for some reason, you feel the need to get your point across to gay rights, then I can't say you're exactly pro-gay 0_o



I don't give two shits about gay rights. If you choose to march off and claim them, I'll sit in my room drinking coffee and not giving a damn about it. I gleefully pounced this subject, though, for its short-sightedness and ill direction. In my own irritating way, I'm offering productive advice.


----------



## Kangamutt (Nov 14, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Methinks these words I said? Good sir, homophobe still means mush. Thanks for restating, though. 0.o?



Homo= Latin:man
homo= Greek: same

phobia=Greek: fear

Homo(L)+phobia(G)=/= fear of man. that is ANDROPHOBIA.
Andro= Greek:man

Hasn't your mother ever told you not to mix latin and greek?

Kids these days.


----------



## Takun (Nov 14, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> I think we're _almost_ on the same page, but I think the benefits would be pursued with more success if you dropped the idea of being married and pursued the benefits on principle independently.



Now that's not easy, nor is it my fight since I don't even plan to live in this country.  I don't care about the religious part because I'm Atheist, but there are a large number of religious gays who want the title and religious ceremony.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Nov 14, 2008)

Automobile is a mix of Latin and Greek, it's _scandalous_ really *in a snobby tone of voice* >.>


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 14, 2008)

Easog said:


> Automobile is a mix of Latin and Greek, it's _scandalous_ really



Now THIS deserves a thread!


----------



## Kangamutt (Nov 14, 2008)

"Automobile" is also French. Of course Latin _is_ a newer language compared to Greek, and like many languages, probably took (I forget if it's auto or mobile) and made it part of their own.


----------



## dietrc70 (Nov 14, 2008)

Grand Hatter said:


> What he said.
> 
> Maybe prop 8 was taken the wrong way. Could it not be ressurected, but allowing homosexuals the right to defacto or or civil unions?
> 
> ...



I agree with you.

Because of my conservative leanings, I may have some insight into the religious/conservative motives for opposing this.

For starters, there's no doubt that religious conservatives are way too hung up on homosexuality.  They often seem to think that it is a matter of choice, and that gays are actually attacking their value system and "promoting" homosexuality.

The other problem is that gay activists seem to enjoy provoking religious conservatives with their protests, etc.  This makes the religious types paranoid and convinced that they are really under attack and need to defend their values.  Gay activists also have an annoying tendency to smear any opponent of what they want as "homophobic," and it's really hard to win over opponents if you show no respect for their beliefs.

I think that calling the whole thing "gay marriage" was a mistake.  If the activists called it a "civil union" or something, it would be harder for religious conservatives to see the movement as an attack on "the sanctity of marriage."

Overall, I think what happened was that conservatives felt that they and their way of life were under attack, and supported Prop. 8 as a defensive backlash.

I just wish both sides could have communicated better and worked out a compromise.


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 14, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> Now that's not easy.


Duh. Who said it would be? It is easier than trying to redefine a word, though, and much more practical.



Takumi_L said:


> I don't care about the religious part because I'm Atheist, but there are a large number of religious gays who want the title and religious ceremony.



If by Religious gays, you mean Christian gays, the government can't do anything about it anyways. And fact o' the matter... Catholic Marriage is not open to redefinition. "Catholics" who have a qualm with this can go find another denomination, or make up their own shit, because trends aren't something Catholicism does.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Nov 14, 2008)

Yep, I've heard of Prop 8.  It's a shame it's passed.  And I thought America was going in the right direction in making same sex marriage legal.  Huh.  Go figure.


----------



## Bambi (Nov 14, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Those are _also_ designed for the children.


 
They are also designed for _love._

Who are you to say that a man and another man should not be wed?


----------



## valkura (Nov 14, 2008)

Dropping in to post a thought:

From a federal income tax standpoint (ignoring everything else), if you and your spouse have the same taxable income, and it is more than $65,725 a year, marriage causes more taxes than not being married.  Under that, it's the same.

Also, children earn you a dependency exemption, one per child (3500 each for 2008 ), same whether you're single or married.


----------



## Yaoi-Mikey (Nov 14, 2008)

Yes, we must protect the sanctity of marriage, what about all those used-up pornstars marrying 80-90 year old millionares, and the drunken bimbos getting hitched by elvis in a drive-through in vegas, what would their marriage mean if gay people were allowed to be married as well?


----------



## Kangamutt (Nov 14, 2008)

Yaoi-Mikey said:


> Yes, we must protect the sanctity of marriage, what about all those used-up pornstars marrying 80-90 year old millionares, and the drunken bimbos getting hitched by elvis in a drive-through in vegas, what would their marriage mean if gay people were allowed to be married as well?



This^


----------



## Aden (Nov 14, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Sure, I don't really believe most of you guys are actually sincere gays, but that's because there is no way for me to know, so I'm skeptical by default.



Irrelevant to any point here.



> Honestly, I don't give a damn whether you get the right to marry or do whatever the fuck you want.
> I do, however, get defensive when people start talking about a whole new way for people to drain more money from a government running dry on funds.



I'm sure that the strain from letting gays marry will be the straw to the camel's back, especially if the entire 6% of the population that's gay by statistic got married. The cost of Iraq would pale in comparison.



> Personally, I'd like to see ALL government aid withheld from couples who don't consumate their marriage with offspring



It seems you miss the point of marriage. My condolences to your future wife.



> Then pursue adoption rights, not Marriage rights.



It also seems you miss the point of true equality.



> The point is, the term is just a blind lance. Sure, I'm not pro-gay, but who gives a damn? I don't have anything against it.



What the fuck is "pro-gay"? You don't have to be "pro-gay" to be for equal rights.


----------



## Irreverent (Nov 14, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> oh, now canada is dangerous for us?...



Canada is completely safe....gay marriage is legal and I suspect, securely entrenched.   Short of a Province invoking the "notwithstanding clause" or succeeding from the Confederation, gay marriage is here to stay.   Sorry I gave you the wrong impression.

But there is much work still to be done in the areas of Gay divorce, adoption, estates etc.  Only the tip of the iceberg really.


----------



## Nickk (Nov 14, 2008)

sparx said:


> Well, assuming that a lot of you reading this (or at least some) live in the US (in california especially) you may have heard of Proposition 8. Prop 8 is a law passed in California that takes away the right for same sex marriages to validate. This to me, seems ridiculous. Not 2 months ago the Supreme Court in California GAVE them the right to marry, and now they're taking it away?
> 
> To be honest, I can't really do this situation justice. If you wanna hear someone who REALLY knows what to say about all this, go here. Please.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE


 
See, we live in this thing called a democracy where the people are the government, and we Californians decided that marriage should be defined between a man and a woman. If you don't like that, you can make a proposition for the next California elections that would reverse Prop 8. 

But don't expect everyone to be on your side; many people in California don't like gay marriage, and given the fact our state is dirt poor right now, it would be wise not to try to petition a pro-gay proposition just yet. Right now California dosen't even have enough money to improve schools and hospitals, but since Proposition 1 passed, and that coupled with the fact some pro-gay activitists are trying to make every fucking business and institution in the state "gay-friendly", we're fucking bleeding from the pockets. 

So you wanna do something? Make a proposition. But not just yet.


----------



## Roland (Nov 14, 2008)

Wake me when it's over? 

Thx.


----------



## Midi Bear (Nov 14, 2008)

Mr Hollow said:


> But why are these people bothering making proposition 8 anyways?.
> I mean whats the big deal?, Do they think gay marriage is going to ruin the image in their economy?.
> I mean, They are wasting their time on trying to alienate gay marriage when there are many other things to worry about, Global meltdown hello?, Financial crisis, Keeping the world economy stable a big issue?.
> I just don't know why they bother doing this, Its not going to stop homersexuals being what they are or falling in love, So whats taking away the right of marriage going to do?.
> There are far more important things than trying to make innocent peoples lives *more tougher*.


Your post was decent until then.


----------



## Mr Fox (Nov 14, 2008)

Roland said:


> Wake me when it's over?
> 
> Thx.


 
I'll wake you up when september ends.


----------



## Roland (Nov 14, 2008)

Mr Fox said:


> I'll wake you up when september ends.



OH MY GOD I FREAKING HATE THAT SONG AND HOW THEY PLAYED IT 60,000 GODDAMN TIMES ON THE RADIO RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE!!! >>>>> : ((((((((


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 14, 2008)

Roland said:


> OH MY GOD I FREAKING HATE THAT SONG AND HOW THEY PLAYED IT 60,000 GODDAMN TIMES ON THE RADIO RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE!!! >>>>> : ((((((((


...its NOVEMBER...why the fuck are they playing this song...*changes station*


----------



## Roland (Nov 14, 2008)

Because little Green Day groupies probably keep calling in and requesting that God awful song.


----------



## Yaoi-Mikey (Nov 14, 2008)

Argh, the song was good until they played it 50,000 times a day!

Anyhow, getting a bit off topic. lol


----------



## Roland (Nov 14, 2008)

I hated that song before it was cool.


----------



## Azure (Nov 14, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> sincere gays


How the fuck is a person sincerely gay?  You either are, or you aren't?  Also, learn what equality means, because that's what gays are really fighting for.  All the silly neocon pastors think I want to sully their rather sad matrimonial record with my gayness, but really, I want to be a part of it and make it truly respectable.


----------



## Roland (Nov 14, 2008)

Lies.  I want gay marriage to be legal purely to spite religion.


----------



## Arcane hollow (Nov 14, 2008)

Roland said:


> Lies.  I want gay marriage to be legal purely to spite religion.



Nice.

*Random person protesting for gay marriage*

*Random person 2 walks by.* Why are you protesting for gay marriage?

R1: "To spite religion."

R2: "Cool"

*Six hours later there are 300 people protesting*


----------



## Roland (Nov 14, 2008)

Arcane hollow said:


> *Random person 2 walks by.* Why are you protesting for gay marriage?
> 
> R1: "To spite religion."



That's a wicked selling-point.


----------



## Devious Bane (Nov 14, 2008)

What I don't get is, what is wrong with being happy? *Shot*

I have actually did some research about violation of beliefs in a person or group of people. It seems that a ban of gay marriage or limitations placed for being is unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment which grants freedom of religion which is broadly a belief. It also violates some amendments that prevent denial of rights for such. Loosely interpreting it, this is the case.

Overall, it's just something that doesn't need to be tampered with. Just because _someone _hates something because it's new and different, the majority takes over. In this case, the straight people.


----------



## Takun (Nov 14, 2008)

Devious Bane said:


> What I don't get is, what is wrong with being happy? *Shot*
> 
> I have actually did some research about violation of beliefs in a person or group of people. It seems that a ban of gay marriage or limitations placed for being is unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment which grants freedom of religion which is broadly a belief. It also violates some amendments that prevent denial of rights for such. Loosely interpreting it, this is the case.
> 
> Overall, it's just something that doesn't need to be tampered with. Just because _someone _hates something because it's new and different, the majority takes over. In this case, the straight people.



The churches aren't being forced to marry people though.  They can say yes or no.   Also, freedom to practice religion, not to say one is more right than the other...


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 14, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> How the fuck is a person sincerely gay?  You either are, or you aren't?


And you wouldn't believe the number of people I met before I holed up in my house who were just plain horny. The real schism now is between those with self control and those who would gladly fuck a hole in a couch as often as any man or woman. Sincere actually meaning you give more than a mocking consideration to what Love actually is. If you don't give a damn about love, and you find more pleasure ramming up ass than pussy... that doesn't make you gay. That makes you an animal of the lowest level.



Devious Bane said:


> Overall, it's just something that doesn't need to be tampered with. Just because _someone _hates something because it's new and different, the majority takes over. In this case, the straight people.



Actually, the majority now is either homosexual or bi. It's just the people in government who are mostly straight.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Nov 14, 2008)

Adelio Altomar said:


> A few years ago here in Texas, there was a prop or something to legalize gay marriage. The only county to actually go for was Travis county, where Austin resides. And now I can see why: there are a lot of gay people here! Four teachers ( two who I suspect greatly to be gay), and then this one guy keeps asking me if I'm bi "because I look it." And then the one *and only* time I went down to the (in)famous Sixth Street, I got eyed at by this creepy, white guy! O.O
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if a gay village formed here!



That would explain the "Keep Austin Weird" slogan. 
\


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 14, 2008)

Arcane hollow said:


> Nice.
> 
> *Random person protesting for gay marriage*
> 
> ...



Hey. Sweet! Maybe they'll start a stampede and trample each other!


----------



## Enigmaticat (Nov 14, 2008)

Gotta love the U.S. vote away the rights of others that live different lifestyles. -_-


----------



## Azure (Nov 15, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> And you wouldn't believe the number of people I met before I holed up in my house who were just plain horny. The real schism now is between those with self control and those who would gladly fuck a hole in a couch as often as any man or woman. Sincere actually meaning you give more than a mocking consideration to what Love actually is. If you don't give a damn about love, and you find more pleasure ramming up ass than pussy... that doesn't make you gay. That makes you an animal of the lowest level.


I'll bet you're a virgin.  And a damn jaded one at that.  Everyone is horny, that's part of a relationship, but seeing as you've defined that as the only trait you see in such, I think it a good thing you stay confined from the rest of humanity.


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 15, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> I'll bet you're a virgin.  And a damn jaded one at that.



Okay... to start things off, let's try our best to make our opponent seem somehow less important than us by whatever means we can get.



LemurBoi said:


> Everyone is horny, that's part of a relationship,



OOH! And then we can generalize our fucking asses off! I mean... c'mon! I'm horny! Why shouldn't every other human in existence be eager to jump in the bed?



LemurBoi said:


> but seeing as you've defined that as the only trait you see in such,



*distracted for a moment* Oh... wow... and I kept on typing... oh well... It makes my post seem longer anyways.



LemurBoi said:


> I think it a good thing you stay confined from the rest of humanity.



Well, that feels like a job well done. Now let's use our obvious stance as a voice of the world and exile him. Yeah... *posts*


----------



## Azure (Nov 15, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Okay... to start things off, let's try our best to make our opponent seem somehow less important than us by whatever means we can get.


Actually, I was using it as a tactic of persuasion to make my opponent seem less credible, a rather standard debate tactic.  What kills you is that I was right.


Korro-Sama said:


> OOH! And then we can generalize our fucking asses off! I mean... c'mon! I'm horny! Why shouldn't every other human in existence be eager to jump in the bed?


You made a similar sort of generalization, I was simply perpetuating it.  Libido is a part of every persons life.  Given your assumed age group, it is rather large at that stage of life.  So it's a reasonable generalization.  Yours however, is not.  You fail to understand the basics of homosexuality, and sex in general.  You ought to research it, in fact, to see how incorrect you are about it.  It's about love, not what I want to stick my dick in or have such stuck in me, but that's a nice bonus.



Korro-Sama said:


> *distracted for a moment* Oh... wow... and I kept on typing... oh well... It makes my post seem longer anyways.


Well, you did infer that all those "insincere gays" were in it only for the sex.  Do you even know any gay people?



Korro-Sama said:


> Well, that feels like a job well done. Now let's use our obvious stance as a voice of the world and exile him. Yeah... *posts*


Hey, you voted for McCain, right? And you have that whole Jesus is my Homeboy thing going on.  What's the deal with that anyway?


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 15, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> It's about love, not what I want to stick my dick in or have such stuck in me, but that's a nice bonus.



quite true... every word of it *points to the bonus part*


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 15, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> Actually, I was using it as a tactic of persuasion to make my opponent seem less credible, a rather standard debate tactic.  What kills you is that I was right.



I'm afraid the only thing that's killing me right now is the fact that you stopped making sense the first time you quoted me, but from there on out, it's your loss



LemurBoi said:


> You made a similar sort of generalization, I was simply perpetuating it.  Libido is a part of every persons life.  Given your assumed age group, it is rather large at that stage of life.  So it's a reasonable generalization.  Yours however, is not.  You fail to understand the basics of homosexuality, and sex in general.  You ought to research it, in fact, to see how incorrect you are about it.



Funny thing about that. Nobody has a fucking clue. Scientist just know the chemicals that make it all work. Aside from that, it's all belief and opinion.




LemurBoi said:


> It's about love,



This, I stated quite clearly as being the difference between those who are dealing with sexual preference and those who don't really give a damn whether their partner is human, animal, or an elaborate piece of plastic.




LemurBoi said:


> not what I want to stick my dick in or have such stuck in me, but that's a nice bonus.



Sure, great, whatever. Back to the topic at hand.




LemurBoi said:


> Well, you did infer that all those "insincere gays" were in it only for the sex.



Yes. Yes I did. That is what I defined them as. Yeah... find something wrong with that.



LemurBoi said:


> Do you even know any gay people?



Yup. I did anyways. Two who were madly in love with eachother, one with a crush on another girl, and one who is the insencere gay I base that term on. The first three being normal human beings, the last one having given up on any other purpose for his body other than to occasionally smear stuff with cum or to talk about sex or to draw scenes of sex.




LemurBoi said:


> Hey, you voted for McCain, right? And you have that whole Jesus is my Homeboy thing going on.  What's the deal with that anyway?



Hmm... I don't see the relevance, but yeah. I voted McCain. I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior. I accept the Pope's authority as God given, even. However, you're not interested in actually learning about any of that anyways, so waste somebody else's time. I'm going to bed.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 15, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Yes. Yes I did. That is what I defined them as. Yeah... find something wrong with that.


 I sure as hell do, you're classifying way too much



			
				Korro-Sama said:
			
		

> Yup. I did anyways. Two who were madly in love with eachother, one with a crush on another girl, and one who is the insencere gay I base that term on. The first three being normal human beings, the last one having given up on any other purpose for his body other than to occasionally smear stuff with cum or to talk about sex or to draw scenes of sex.



this is seriously what you base all homosexuals off of? 

dude :neutral:


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 15, 2008)

...I smell someone enjoying their "Ignorance is Bliss"


----------



## Azure (Nov 15, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> I'm afraid the only thing that's killing me right now is the fact that you stopped making sense the first time you quoted me, but from there on out, it's your loss


What are you, the next Bond villain?  What I'm afraid of is the fact that you will one day rejoin society in one form another.  You are so clueless you are even more horrible than the bigot's you defend.  Ignorance can be hard to think around, how do you manage it?



Korro-Sama said:


> Funny thing about that. Nobody has a fucking clue. Scientist just know the chemicals that make it all work. Aside from that, it's all belief and opinion.


So is this an appeal to outside authority in an attempt to excuse the truth of my statement.  You just described it there, in your post.  Chemicals brought on by a specific set of sensory stimuli and innate instinct.  We are no different from animals in this respect, we simply understand the process on a higher level.



Korro-Sama said:


> This, I stated quite clearly as being the difference between those who are dealing with sexual preference and those who don't really give a damn whether their partner is human, animal, or an elaborate piece of plastic.


So you're making my point for me?  Yet you generalized most gays as insincere. What were you attempting to gain from such?



Korro-Sama said:


> Sure, great, whatever. Back to the topic at hand.


You should be paying attention to this, after all, this is your major pre qualifier for love, is it not?  It's only about getting fucked, right?



Korro-Sama said:


> Yes. Yes I did. That is what I defined them as. Yeah... find something wrong with that.


If only I had the time to list all the things I find wrong with this.  But I'll keep it short.  What's wrong with that is that you clearly not any sort of authority on such a thing.  You don't understand your own sexuality, how would you know what love to another person would be? Much less know or even sympathize with something you look down upon.



Korro-Sama said:


> Yup. I did anyways. Two who were madly in love with eachother, one with a crush on another girl, and one who is the insencere gay I base that term on. The first three being normal human beings, the last one having given up on any other purpose for his body other than to occasionally smear stuff with cum or to talk about sex or to draw scenes of sex.


Sounds like you have a certain dislike for your "friend" there.  Are you sure you haven't a tiny bit of bias toward him for being gay?  Because everyone knows that all gay people have AIDS, or are closet pedophiles, and not to mention their incredible penchant for back alley buggery in exchange for loose cash to support their intravenous drug habit, amirite?  This doesn't prove anything at all, and shows that you are probably less in tune with your friends feelings than they would be comfortable with if they knew.



Korro-Sama said:


> Hmm... I don't see the relevance, but yeah. I voted McCain. I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior. *I accept the Pope's authority as God given, even*. However, you're not interested in actually learning about any of that anyways, so waste somebody else's time. I'm going to bed.


Wow.  This pretty much invalidates every word you've ever written in your entire life.  You should go to bed, and pray that you come to your senses before you are a bitter, 30something celibate shut in.  Go to school for vetinary study, you'll probably have lots of animals to keep you company in your exile, because they love and accept you no matter what.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 15, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Hmm... I don't see the relevance, but yeah. I voted McCain. I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior. I accept the Pope's authority as God given, even. However, you're not interested in actually learning about any of that anyways, so waste somebody else's time. I'm going to bed.


this is why I wish if God Does exist, God would come back from a coffee break and realize how fucked up we are and hit the damn reset button, for we deserve it cause we have too many enjoying their "Ignorance is Bliss"


----------



## Enigmaticat (Nov 15, 2008)

Religious, moral, and social values all come into this topic. When the concept is simple, people should be able to love another person no matter what gender. Sex does not build a relationship. (Yes it is an important part for some) 



LemurBoi said:


> Wow.  This pretty much invalidates every word you've ever written in your entire life.  You should go to bed, and pray that you come to your senses before you are a bitter, 30something celibate shut in.  Go to school for vetinary study, you'll probably have lots of animals to keep you company in your exile, because they love and accept you no matter what.



Everyone's opinion matters, no matter what they believe in. Just for saying that you prove yourself to be more close minded than anyone.


----------



## Azure (Nov 15, 2008)

Silibus said:


> Everyone's opinion matters, no matter what they believe in. Just for saying that you prove yourself to be more close minded than anyone.


So Hitlers opinion should be valued? Or the Churches opinion on a matter of state, should that matter?  That statement isn't logical at all.  The beliefs of bigots and ignorant people shouldn't be given credence or encouragement.


----------



## Takun (Nov 15, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> So Hitlers opinion should be valued? Or the Churches opinion on a matter of state, should that matter?  That statement isn't logical at all.  The beliefs of bigots and ignorant people shouldn't be given credence or encouragement.




Now, now.  Even though we've proven the world is round we need to take into consideration the feelings of those who think it's flat.  It's closeminded to shut off your mind to the idea that is could still very well be flat even now.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Nov 15, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> So Hitlers opinion should be valued? Or the Churches opinion on a matter of state, should that matter?  That statement isn't logical at all.  The beliefs of bigots and ignorant people shouldn't be given credence or encouragement.


So I shouldnt take your opinion into account? 

Yes all those people's opinions mattered, but their actions and methods were wrong.


----------



## Azure (Nov 15, 2008)

Silibus said:


> So I shouldnt take your opinion into account?
> 
> Yes all those people's opinions mattered, but their actions and methods were wrong.


And from where do they draw the motivator from their actions and methods?


----------



## Enigmaticat (Nov 15, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> And from where do they draw the motivator from their actions and methods?


Because you have an opinion on something does not mean you void all self control.


----------



## Takun (Nov 15, 2008)

Silibus said:


> Because you have an opinion on something does not mean you void all self control.



So ummmm like the opinion of a pedophile on age of consent should matter?


----------



## Azure (Nov 15, 2008)

Silibus said:


> Because you have an opinion on something does not mean you void all self control.


When you act on them to the detriment of something, yes, it does.  And people are in complete control when they do such.  The have fine self control, it's their beliefs that are the problem.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Nov 15, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> So ummmm like the opinion of a pedophile on age of consent should matter?



I think you are missing what im trying to say. You can have your opinion on anything, it doesnt mean that its right or wrong, and it doesnt mean others have to listen. (Example, LemurBoi not listening to Korro-sama's opinion) You can say and think what you want, but you cant tell someone that what they are saying/thinking is invalid because of their beliefs.



LemurBoi said:


> When you act on them to the detriment of something, yes, it does.  And people are in complete control when they do such.  The have fine self control, it's their beliefs that are the problem.



Beliefs are not the problem, actions upon those beliefs are what matter. But at the same time you must respect the beliefs of others.


----------



## Takun (Nov 15, 2008)

Silibus said:


> I think you are missing what im trying to say. You can have your opinion on anything, it doesnt mean that its right or wrong, and it doesnt mean others have to listen. (Example, LemurBoi not listening to Korro-sama's opinion) You can say and think what you want, but you cant tell someone that what they are saying/thinking is invalid because of their beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> Beliefs are not the problem, actions upon those beliefs are what matter. But at the same time you must respect the beliefs of others.




If someone's opinion isn't taken into consideration by the majority it doesn't matter.  

Matter: A subject under consideration.

Like I said, if it isn't even considered the opinion doesn't matter.


----------



## Azure (Nov 15, 2008)

Silibus said:


> I think you are missing what im trying to say. You can have your opinion on anything, it doesnt mean that its right or wrong, and it doesnt mean others have to listen. (Example, LemurBoi not listening to Korro-sama's opinion) You can say and think what you want, *but you cant tell someone that what they are saying/thinking is invalid because of their beliefs*.








My man Barack Odrama says it all here.  



Silibus said:


> Beliefs are not the problem, actions upon those beliefs are what matter. But at the same time you must respect the beliefs of others.


Read my previous statements.



			
				LemurBoi said:
			
		

> And from where do they draw the motivator from their actions and methods?





			
				LemurBoi said:
			
		

> When you act on them to the detriment of something, yes, it does. And people are in complete control when they do such. The have fine self control, it's their beliefs that are the problem.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Nov 15, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> If someone's opinion isn't taken into consideration by the majority it doesn't matter.
> 
> Matter: A subject under consideration.
> 
> Like I said, if it isn't even considered the opinion doesn't matter.


*Facepalm* Opinion doesnt have to matter to anyone but yourself. If others share that opinion its a plus. 

Shall we get back on topic?


----------



## Enigmaticat (Nov 15, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> My man Barack Odrama says it all here.
> 
> 
> Read my previous statements.


Wow, just wow. >_>"

Fyi: I voted Obama


----------



## Azure (Nov 15, 2008)

Silibus said:


> Wow, just wow. >_>"
> 
> Fyi: I voted Obama


Did you miss the bolded text? I was only using the words on the image to illustrate said point.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Nov 15, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> Did you miss the bolded text? I was only using the words on the image to illustrate said point.


I saw the text, but I was distracted by your lack of maturity. Im done here.


----------



## Neybulot (Nov 15, 2008)

Did anyone mention that Obama opposes gay marriage? (I didn't want to bother reading through all 5 pages of this.)


----------



## Azure (Nov 15, 2008)

Silibus said:


> I saw the text, but I was distracted by your lack of maturity. Im done here.


Enjoy your hollow victory.


----------



## WhiteHowl (Nov 15, 2008)

Neybulot said:


> Did anyone mention that Obama opposes gay marriage? (I didn't want to bother reading through all 5 pages of this.)


Obama gave pretty much the same plastic answer as McCain on the issue of gay marriages


----------



## Xipoid (Nov 15, 2008)

Okay, let's do a little thinking here:

1) Opinions are not picked willy-nilly out of the air. They have some basis upon which they are formed. The process where one goes from basis to opinion is not always the same, and it is here where dissension appears.

2) There is more than one type of opinion. Citing my first point, we must distinguish between them or else fall victim to generalizations. (E.g. you cannot treat an educated opinion as a regular opinion)

3) Opinions can always be used to make judgments about a person when taken in conjunction with how the opinion was formed. The reason for this is because the formation of an opinion shows how a person thinks.

4) The validity and credibility of a person is greatly determined by their opinions and actions as well as their established level of knowledge on the subject.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Nov 15, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> "If marriage is really for pro-creation, as some gay rights opponents suggest, why not require married couples to have children? An initiative filed by gay marriage advocates in Washington State would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled. Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment. â€œFor many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine," said organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. â€œIf same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage." Supporters must gather at least 224,800 signatures by July 6 to put it on the November ballot."



That sounds reasonable.  Where do I sign?


----------



## Get-dancing (Nov 15, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> So Hitlers opinion should be valued? Or the Churches opinion on a matter of state, should that matter?  That statement isn't logical at all.  The beliefs of bigots and ignorant people shouldn't be given credence or encouragement.



Well who is to decied what is or is not toleratible? What if I decieded I don't think Marxist beliefs should be respected? Or to that matter beliefs which pay no respect for long-ran social morals? 

Its only a matter of view what counts as 'bigoted'. You can call someone bigoted for denying homosexuals the privlage of marriage. Someone might call you a goody-two shoes PC Marxist for thinking that everyone is totally equal and desevres equal treatment. It's just a label afterall.

More to the point, Hitler had some good points. He was only trying to belt up Germany, yes he made some mistakes. You can't just generalise people as 'pure evil' or 'pure good'.



> but you cant tell someone that what they are saying/thinking is invalid because of their beliefs.



The man knows his stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem


----------



## Nargle (Nov 15, 2008)

I wonder if anyone realizes that Christianity isn't the only religion that has a definition of marriage, and that the US is ONLY using Christianity's definition. 

What a diverse, accepting nation we are....

(I didn't read pages 3 and 4, so sorry if this was already stated)


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 15, 2008)

Nargle said:


> I wonder if anyone realizes that Christianity isn't the only religion that has a definition of marriage, and that the US is ONLY using Christianity's definition.
> 
> What a diverse, accepting nation we are....
> 
> (I didn't read pages 3 and 4, so sorry if this was already stated)



amazing, how we're going crazy over just the half of what's really going on... we take all anger out on christians, but if we took our anger out on everyone who generally opposes gay marriage/opposes homosexuality... well, this world would have imploded in a mass of... hatred :|


----------



## Enigmaticat (Nov 15, 2008)

Silibus said:


> Gotta love the U.S. vote away the rights of others that live different lifestyles. -_-





Nargle said:


> I wonder if anyone realizes that Christianity isn't the only religion that has a definition of marriage, and that the US is ONLY using Christianity's definition.
> 
> What a diverse, accepting nation we are....
> 
> (I didn't read pages 3 and 4, so sorry if this was already stated)


No worries we all know how messed up the US is.


----------



## Yaoi-Mikey (Nov 15, 2008)

Great Odin, I frequent some christian forum (god knows why), and I just saw the most rediculous, stupid conversation.

It was someone saying they didn't like prop 8. or homosexuality, but they couldn't think of a real reason to not like it (automatic dumbass stamp), so someone chimes in with this long-winded thing about how non-christians (like we're some lower form of life) will try and say don't use the bible in your arguements otherwise you're just stupid and have no real opinion. 

But that's not the thing that annoyed me, his answer to the guys (kinda) question was ""don't worry, believe me, gay marriage is sick and wrong "because the bible says so, that's all you ever have to say, because the bible says so"", WTF!

Can you not form a real opinion, can you really be that weak as to just use your own "nyeh nyeh" trump card and block people out like some child?

DAMN DOES STUFF LIKE THAT ANNOY ME, I swear man, though there are more people than christians that oppose homosexuality, christians annoy me the most about it.


----------



## makmakmob (Nov 15, 2008)

Gays? Rights? America? 
Pffffffft... I'll come back when you guys are done fantasizing. 
Oh shit, I lied.
You know I actually don't see any reason for the disallowing of gay marriage other than pure prejudice. There's like, no logical reason to ban it whatsoever. I mean it doesn't _stop_ anyone. Can someone explain what the logical train of thought is? Following the bible  doesn't count because it provides no logical reason to ban gay marriage either.


----------



## Get-dancing (Nov 15, 2008)

Preserving marriage?


----------



## makmakmob (Nov 15, 2008)

Get-dancing said:


> Preserving marriage?



The fuck does that mean?


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Nov 15, 2008)

Get-dancing said:


> Preserving marriage?


Why do you care so much?


----------



## makmakmob (Nov 15, 2008)

Because I believe the decisions made by a government should be based on logic used to achieve a moral result,  and not blind obedience.
EDIT: HEY! you're called easog now! That's cool, too.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Nov 15, 2008)

I was asking G-D >..>

And yes, yes it is


----------



## makmakmob (Nov 15, 2008)

Easog said:


> I was asking G-D >..>
> 
> And yes, yes it is



Ooops. Sorry.


----------



## evilteddybear (Nov 15, 2008)

Get-dancing said:


> Preserving marriage?


Like in a jar, or something? 
But you offer a valid point, we should preserve old traditions,
you know, like not letting women vote, making black poeple slaves, and giving the church the ability to "convert" the Native population. These were all really great!


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Nov 15, 2008)

Don't forget castrating boys who had nice voices!


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 15, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> You should be paying attention to this, after all, this is your major pre qualifier for love, is it not?  It's only about getting fucked, right?



This is beyond unbelievable. This statement was just a shiny point on the whole post which reflected that you had NO interest in actually _reading _my posts, but rather in continuing a rant.
First of all, Sex is only the frosting on the cake. The Cake itself is Love. If you add your frosting on the cake too soon, and then go to bake your cake, you get nothing but burnt frosting. Love _can _exist completely without any sexual contact. My point was painted as plain as day that Love super-catagory over the sub-sub-catagory that sex exists in. It is the big deal. I don't have a fucking clue where you guys get off accusing me of bias against homosexuals. To be honest, I don't think love is even 1/16 as frequent as sexual coupling is, and I think that a mate should be your true love. If you are bitching at me about me thinking sex must only exist between unified couples in love, then you are justified in your bitchery. If it's about anything else, you should probably get your head out of your ass and start reading. My bias is not against homosexuals. I _am_ hyper critical of pre-marital sex, though. Make that your reason to be a ranting shit-machine across the forums, if you feel the need, but I stand on that. Of course I'm a virgin. Why the hell should I have to be ashamed of that? Or better, how does the experience of a chemical high make me qualified to speak about love? I would brush your flaming shit off like nothing, as I'm quite sure your nothing other than an energetic Troll, but you seem to have confused more than yourself, and I felt the need to dispel that.


----------



## Aden (Nov 16, 2008)

Sorry *Korro-Sama*, your douchebaggy signature makes me not read your posts. :C


----------



## Nocturne (Nov 16, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Stop masturbating in public. I don't have time for you to look beyond what I say to who I am. I don't see how you have the time.
> For political purposes, I don't give a damn whether God is the one who cements your marriage together or not. I'm talking SPECIFICALLY about pro-creation, which is the _only_ reason the US gives the benefit of even a penny to couples. Face the facts and close your zipper.



I don't see how you could possibly defend this assertion.  But I'm going to enjoy watching.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 16, 2008)

*Eating Delicious Popcorn*
This is better than the Debate club =3


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 16, 2008)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> *Eating Delicious Popcorn*
> This is better than the Debate club =3



bitch, give me that popcorn! let's start another fight in this thread >=3

jk  I dun like popcorn


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 16, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> bitch, give me that popcorn! let's start another fight in this thread >=3
> 
> jk  I dun like popcorn



all I'm saying is this

They will get what they want eventually

They are just delaying the inevitable 
We are Legion
And most likely there will be a compromise


----------



## Azure (Nov 16, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> This is beyond unbelievable. This statement was just a shiny point on the whole post which reflected that you had NO interest in actually _reading _my posts, but rather in continuing a rant.


Oh I read them, and rightly came to the conclusion that you think all gays are in it for the sex. Which I used to illustrate your incredible naivete upon the matter.  Let me say, you didn't disappoint.


Korro-Sama said:


> First of all, Sex is only the frosting on the cake. The Cake itself is Love. If you add your frosting on the cake too soon, and then go to bake your cake, you get nothing but burnt frosting.


Don't patronize me with your shitty methphors.  I know what love is, but apparently you don't. And who the fuck bakes a cake with the frosting on it?  You can't even do that, given that it is in a liquid state during the baking process.  I would know, I am an accomplished baker.



Korro-Sama said:


> Love _can _exist completely without any sexual contact.


It can, but a relationship in the context were speaking of needs sex.  Marriage, procreation, AMIRITE?  Sex *is *involved in that, isn't it? Same goes for same sex relationships, sex is a part of it, we just don't pop out crotchlings for a tax break. The world needs less consumers anyway, it's getting crowded down here, with all the religious white trash multiplying at such an alarming rate.



Korro-Sama said:


> My point was painted as plain as day that Love super-catagory over the sub-sub-catagory that sex exists in. It is the big deal. I don't have a fucking clue where you guys get off accusing me of bias against homosexuals.


Umm, you're against equal rights for them in a society built upon law due to your religious beliefs?  That's what I'd call a bias.



Korro-Sama said:


> To be honest, I don't think love is even 1/16 as frequent as sexual coupling is, and I think that a mate should be your true love.



There ya go again, with the whole physical aspect of a relationship being the dominant factor.



Korro-Sama said:


> If you are bitching at me about me thinking sex must only exist between unified couples in love, then you are justified in your bitchery.


I'm bitching at you because you pretend to a title you can't begin to claim.  You generalize homosexuals as purely sex driven, and call their relationships immoral, knowing your religion, you've probably uttered the word "abomination" more than a few times.



Korro-Sama said:


> If it's about anything else, you should probably get your head out of your ass and start reading. My bias is not against homosexuals. I _am_ hyper critical of pre-marital sex, though.


So let the gays get married, and voila, pre marital sex issue solved.  Equal rights would be fine too, dontcha know.  And way to change the subject, are you uncomfortable with the previous one, or attempting to redirect my ire?  That might work on the Halo forums, but not here it won't.



Korro-Sama said:


> Make that your reason to be a ranting shit-machine across the forums, if you feel the need, but I stand on that.


Yo, you the man now dawg.  You dropped a half ass insult.  At least you're trying.



Korro-Sama said:


> Of course I'm a virgin.


So I was right...



Korro-Sama said:


> Why the hell should I have to be ashamed of that? Or better, how does the experience of a chemical high make me qualified to speak about love? I would brush your flaming shit off like nothing, as I'm quite sure your nothing other than an energetic Troll, but you seem to have confused more than yourself, and I felt the need to dispel that.


You shouldn't be ashamed of it.  And love is just a chemical high now huh?  What about all that religious crap you spouted earlier? I thought that was love, eh?  I'm not a troll, I just don't tolerate retarded bullshit from clearly biased people.  Just thought I'd dispel that misconception for you.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 16, 2008)

sparx said:


> Well, assuming that a lot of you reading this (or at least some) live in the US (in california especially) you may have heard of Proposition 8. Prop 8 is a law passed in California that takes away the right for same sex marriages to validate. This to me, seems ridiculous. Not 2 months ago the Supreme Court in California GAVE them the right to marry, and now they're taking it away?
> 
> To be honest, I can't really do this situation justice. If you wanna hear someone who REALLY knows what to say about all this, go here. Please.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE



There was already a law on the books banning gay marriage... when the Supreme Court in California chose to ignore that law, as voted by the people of this state, Prop. 8 simply re-affirmed that earlier law (Prop. 22)... in other words, the Court ignored the law, so the law was made clear.  Again.


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 16, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> Oh I read them, and rightly came to the conclusion that you think all gays are in it for the sex. Which I used to illustrate your incredible naivete upon the matter.  Let me say, you didn't disappoint.
> 
> Don't patronize me with your shitty methphors.  I know what love is, but apparently you don't. And who the fuck bakes a cake with the frosting on it?  You can't even do that, given that it is in a liquid state during the baking process.  I would know, I am an accomplished baker.
> 
> ...



^THIS = Blissfully ignorant arrogance

YOU FUCKING DUMBSHIT! I'VE SAID THE SAME DAMN THING THREE TIMES AND YOU KEEP ON PRETENDING I'M SAYING EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE! Every place I find you here, you're trolling! EVERY FUCKING PLACE! You can't pretend it's you being indignant. That's bullshit! Here's what I said FOR THE FOURTH TIME!

1. The presence of Love is what seperates respectable humans from animals. Animals don't feel love, and there are home and heterosexuals alike who willingly ignore any reality of love to get their sex thrills with no responsibility or reward other than a CHEMICAL HIGH! (the one I was referring to earlier)

2. Love is a huge reality, of which sex is only one of the smaller parts, and is not necessary except for pro-creation.

3(based on 2) THEREFORE, very few couples in love actually have the need to have sex, since most couples don't plan on having children. THEREFORE, homosexuals don't need to have sex O.O OMG DID HE JUST SAY THAT?
Yes. That's what I believe. ANybody actually reading this to understand it would realize my stance (aside from the stuff about love) is 100% scientific. 

If you shove any more talk about religion at me, it becomes painfully obvious that the only thing you've been flinging this whole time is your own dung.


----------



## makmakmob (Nov 16, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> THEREFORE, very few couples in love actually have the need to have sex, since most couples don't plan on having children. THEREFORE, homosexuals don't need to have sex O.O OMG DID HE JUST SAY THAT?



Do you mean don't need or shouldn't have the right?


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 16, 2008)

makmakmob said:


> Do you mean don't need or shouldn't have the right?


Don't need. I'm not talking about human rights. I'm talking about necessities and practicality. Common sense kind of stuff.


----------



## Azure (Nov 16, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> ^THIS = Blissfully ignorant arrogance


Wowzers, I packed all three of those into a single post?  Shit, there has got to be some sort of score multiplier for that.



Korro-Sama said:


> YOU FUCKING DUMBSHIT! I'VE SAID THE SAME DAMN THING THREE TIMES AND YOU KEEP ON PRETENDING I'M SAYING EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE! Every place I find you here, you're trolling! EVERY FUCKING PLACE! You can't pretend it's you being indignant. That's bullshit! Here's what I said FOR THE FOURTH TIME!


FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FAGGOT FUCK. Actually, you have consistently kept your stance ambiguous, and poorly worded at that, for the sole purpose of being able to shift your argument and try to claim that that wasn't what you said.  Also, it ain't trollin unless you're butthurt. Which is your problem, not mine.  Man up and drop them yarbles boy, the internet is a mans world, a swingin pair of testes is a must.



Korro-Sama said:


> 1. The presence of Love is what seperates respectable humans from animals. Animals don't feel love, and there are home and heterosexuals alike who willingly ignore any reality of love to get their sex thrills with no responsibility or reward other than a CHEMICAL HIGH! (the one I was referring to earlier)


Animals can feel love, they simply haven't a name to put to it, nor can they express it in speech.  Just because you can't communicate something with another species does not mean it isn't there, you just aren't looking or thinking objectively. And there you go with the generalizations again, except now EVERYBODY needs to get a good fucking in the name of pleasure only.



Korro-Sama said:


> 2. Love is a huge reality, of which sex is only one of the smaller parts, and is not necessary except for pro-creation.


Stop trying to separate sex from love, the two are rather entwined to an irreversable degree. Physical affection for the purpose of pleasure isn't only about procreation, it's about showing your love as well, and intimacy and closeness. But you've never had teh sechs, so you would'nt be privy to such a thing.



Korro-Sama said:


> 3(based on 2) THEREFORE, very few couples in love actually have the need to have sex, since most couples don't plan on having children. THEREFORE, homosexuals don't need to have sex O.O OMG DID HE JUST SAY THAT?
> Yes. That's what I believe. ANybody actually reading this to understand it would realize my stance (aside from the stuff about love) is 100% scientific.


I'm gonna ask the same as Makmak up thar.



Korro-Sama said:


> If you shove any more talk about religion at me, it becomes painfully obvious that the only thing you've been flinging this whole time is your own dung.


Dude, I ain't the one who takes the Popes word as infallible truth.  I'll shove it as long as it's relevant, and on this topic, it's the primary motive for your bias, so prepare for more if you wish to continue.





Roose Hurro said:


> There was already a law on the books banning gay marriage... when the Supreme Court in California chose to ignore that law, as voted by the people of this state, Prop. 8 simply re-affirmed that earlier law (Prop. 22)... in other words, the Court ignored the law, so the law was made clear. Again.


No, the Court found the law to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. There is a huge difference.  It will be brought down eventually, I have a glimmer of hope for this generation.


----------



## Azure (Nov 16, 2008)

Oh, and I almost forgot, that's quite cute what you've got in your sig there.  Are you just riddled with personality disorder, because that's some mad passive aggressive tendancy you've got goin on there.


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 16, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> Dude, I ain't the one who takes the Popes word as infallible truth.  I'll shove it as long as it's relevant, and on this topic, it's the primary motive for your bias, so prepare for more if you wish to continue.



Yeah... bout this... You don't know a damn thing about Catholicism, do you? You just like the cushioned seats on the bandwagon. I don't take the Pope's word as infallible. No Catholic does, EXCEPT when he's speaking Ex Cathedra. Of all of our popes, there have been only three occasions in history where one has spoken Ex Cathedra, and all of them had to do with our traditions around the Blessed Mother.
I'm sensing you have an enormous bias because you want to feel somehow better than the have-nots when it comes to sex. It's gut-wrenchingly sick, your stench is.



LemurBoi said:


> Oh, and I almost forgot, that's quite cute what you've got in your sig there. Are you just riddled with personality disorder, because that's some mad passive aggressive tendancy you've got goin on there.



Oh, that? That's a case of me taking things seriously. I honestly have never met somebody so far up his own ass as you. If I can't get one thing through that butt-fat of yours to your head, I'll be satisfied. You need a wake-up.


----------



## Azure (Nov 16, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Yeah... bout this... You don't know a damn thing about Catholicism, do you? You just like the cushioned seats on the bandwagon. I don't take the Pope's word as infallible. No Catholic does, EXCEPT when he's speaking Ex Cathedra. Of all of our popes, there have been only three occasions in history where one has spoken Ex Cathedra, and all of them had to do with our traditions around the Blessed Mother.
> I'm sensing you have an enormous bias because you want to feel somehow better than the have-nots when it comes to sex. It's gut-wrenchingly sick, your stench is.


No, of course I knew that, but I was seeing if you did.  Even so, your religion has been one of the most harmful dividing forces humanity has ever witnesses, and it can't die soon enough. I needn't be biased where I apply pure logic, thanks very much. I don't want to feel any better than anyone, I simply want my rights, guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  The manner in which faith and religion have replaced law and logic in this country appalls me deeply, and I can only hope that one day, there will be a society that hasn't need for such things as you're pushing.  Oh, and feel free to not debate any of my points, I think this is over anyway.



Korro-Sama said:


> Oh, that? That's a case of me taking things seriously. I honestly have never met somebody so far up his own ass as you. If I can't get one thing through that butt-fat of yours to your head, I'll be satisfied. You need a wake-up.


LULZ, the only thing that gets through my butt fat is a nice juicy cock.  And I'm more awake now than you can ever hope to be, indeed, it is you who needs to awaken. Perhaps you can one day be persuaded to do so, but it's going to take a miracle.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 16, 2008)

...this topic gone to LemurBoi and Korro-sama
Me thinks this topic need to end soon -_-


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 16, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> THEREFORE, very few couples in love actually have the need to have sex, since most couples don't plan on having children. THEREFORE, homosexuals don't need to have sex O.O OMG DID HE JUST SAY THAT?



...you realize we get the same pleasure (maybe differently, but pleasure all the same) from sex as hetero's right? it's not like some chore that we HAVE to get fucked 0_o

I don't base a relationship off of sex, but damn, acting as if we have no reason to reward ourselves every now and then?


----------



## makmakmob (Nov 16, 2008)

I find Korro-Sama's opinion a little confusing due to the gigantic piles of insulting horseshit. 
So, you think sex before marriage is immoral. Should it be illegal?
You think Gays have no evolutionary reason to have sex. Should that be legal?
You reckon marriage should be only between a man and a woman?


----------



## Azure (Nov 16, 2008)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> ...this topic gone to LemurBoi


Fix'd.


----------



## Thatch (Nov 16, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> YOU FUCKING DUMBSHIT! I'VE SAID THE SAME DAMN THING THREE TIMES AND YOU KEEP ON PRETENDING I'M SAYING EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE! Every place I find you here, you're trolling! EVERY FUCKING PLACE! You can't pretend it's you being indignant. That's bullshit! Here's what I said FOR THE FOURTH TIME!
> 
> *<Oh wow. FUCKING CRUISE CONTROL>*
> 
> ...



Err, no. The scientific stance would probably be that love is a hormonal reaction in our brain that appeared during evolution because both children brought up by more than one parent generally had a higher chance of survival. So it is connected with sex, as without reproduction, there would be no need for love. 
And homosexual couples have the same needs and desires as heterosexual. What they are doing has no real outcome that would matter to anyone besides themselves, but yes, they DO 'need' to do it. Because that's how we are programmed.


----------



## Tudd (Nov 16, 2008)

makmakmob said:


> You think Gays have no evolutionary reason to have sex. Should that be legal?



You make me laugh.... The Church and evolution...


----------



## makmakmob (Nov 16, 2008)

Tudd said:


> You make me laugh.... The Church and evolution...



I don't quite get what you mean.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 16, 2008)

makmakmob said:


> I don't quite get what you mean.


that's the beauty of it. you don't have to get! just think of the words "church and evolution" 

makes me laugh every time xD


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 16, 2008)

szopaw said:


> And homosexual couples have the same *desires* as heterosexual. What they are doing has no real outcome that would matter to anyone besides themselves, but yes, they DO 'need' to do it. Because that's how we are programmed.



You don't need it. Nobody _needs_ it. It's fact. You may think celibacy is a myth, but two millennium of HISTORICAL proof counter that. The human body does perfectly fine without sex. If you get overloaded, you get wet-dreams. Impaling your partner's hole is no necessity. Jerking off isn't even necessary. Wanting something because it feels good doesn't make it a need.

As far as all those questions about what I think should be legal... the answer is long but simple. Laws are made to protect people from harm and to promote growth. Laws which preserve human rights are placed there to keep people from harm. Traffic laws are to protect people from harm. Minimum work age requirements are for protection. Tax laws are for promoting growth. There is no need to provide laws about marriage, because marriage is not something people need to be protected from. There's no human right to being able to have sex. There's no human right to being able to marry. I just don't get why there's a law involved with it. It's stupid. The only reason I'd see to have a marriage law is to protect the children. I don't think there's any reason to make a law for or against gay marriage. I think personally that it is pointless, but let the masses so determined on it get their way. That's the best case scenario. *Just do it without making more pointless laws.

*Anyways, adios.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 16, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Jerking off isn't even necessary.



I thought masturbation was actually healthy >_>


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 16, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> I thought masturbation was actually healthy >_>



^That's unproven. No reliable tests were ever done, and people said it to make kids feel good about doing it.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 16, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> ^That's unproven. No reliable tests were ever done, and people said it to make kids feel good about doing it.



oh well... I'll continue to fap as long as there is porn on the interwebz


----------



## Azure (Nov 16, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> You don't need it. Nobody _needs_ it.


Yet it is an integral part of love and affection.  We do NEED it, it's been a part of who we are since our inception.



Korro-Sama said:


> It's fact.


You're sorely lacking in that department.



Korro-Sama said:


> You may think celibacy is a myth, but two millennium of HISTORICAL proof counter that.


Show it.  Inb4 monks.



Korro-Sama said:


> The human body does perfectly fine without sex.


You would know. And what of the human mind?  Emotionally and mentally?



Korro-Sama said:


> If you get overloaded, you get wet-dreams. Impaling your partner's hole is no necessity. Jerking off isn't even necessary. Wanting something because it feels good doesn't make it a need.


So feeling good isn't a need, or do you just enjoy your perpetual misery.  I'll admit, I enjoy misery a great deal myself, makes me stronger, but I do like to feel loved and happy once in a while.  I'd just like my sort of love to be legal, instead of stigmatized.



Korro-Sama said:


> As far as all those questions about what I think should be legal... the answer is long but simple. Laws are made to protect people from harm and to promote growth. Laws which preserve human rights are placed there to keep people from harm. Traffic laws are to protect people from harm. Minimum work age requirements are for protection. Tax laws are for promoting growth. There is no need to provide laws about marriage, because marriage is not something people need to be protected from. There's no human right to being able to have sex. There's no human right to being able to marry. I just don't get why there's a law involved with it. It's stupid. The only reason I'd see to have a marriage law is to protect the children. I don't think there's any reason to make a law for or against gay marriage. I think personally that it is pointless, but let the masses so determined on it get their way. That's the best case scenario. *Just do it without making more pointless laws.
> 
> *Anyways, adios.


So you're saying that the state should have nothing to do with marriage, should not condone it in any way or reward it with any sort of legal status modifier related to financial wellness and legal solvency?  Welcome to our club? But sadly, some things need to be forced, and Gay Marriage is one of them.  Ya know, Congress shall make no law, bla bla bal, Freedom of(and from) Religion, and all that good Originalist mentality we supposedly subscribe too.


----------



## makmakmob (Nov 16, 2008)

If I where to stop doing things I liked I would only have things left to do that I hated. If all I did was that I would end up in either a hospital or a box. If I stopped doing those I would end up on a street corner begging for money. Don't get me wrong, I believe we should obviously draw the line somewhere, but I see no reason to not have sex. Being happy counts as being healthy, right?


----------



## Thatch (Nov 16, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> You don't need it. Nobody _needs_ it. It's fact. You may think celibacy is a myth, but two millennium of HISTORICAL proof counter that. The human body does perfectly fine without sex. If you get overloaded, you get wet-dreams. Impaling your partner's hole is no necessity. Jerking off isn't even necessary. Wanting something because it feels good doesn't make it a need.



We won't DIE without it, but we do desire it. The wet dreams you mentioned are proof by itself. Not every need has to be vital, some are just needs of the mind. And we won't feel fulfilled if we deny them. 
Half bad if one never tried it, there's nothing to miss then. But it will be there nevertheless.
Because we are just biological mashines that have their programming, and nothing you can say will prove otherwise. That is a fact.

And you want to control your need to prove others wrong? Everybody knows you can live without sex, but what for if you can have it?
It's like having a bar of chocolate but not eating it to prove others that you don't need it. Ridiculous and futile. There's nothing noble about it.


----------



## Tudd (Nov 16, 2008)

szopaw said:


> And you want to control your need to prove others wrong? Everybody knows you can live without sex, but what for if you can have it?
> It's like having a bar of chocolate but not eating it to prove others that you don't need it. Ridiculous and futile. There's nothing noble about it.



Beaten by chocolate... Only here.


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 16, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> Show it.  Inb4 monks.



Why can't I say the priesthood? And Christian single men and women. Yeah. What's wrong with those examples? Are they not human enough for you?



So you're saying that the state should have nothing to do with marriage, should not condone it in any way or reward it with any sort of legal status modifier related to financial wellness and legal solvency?[/quote]

No. You see, that would be harmful for the children. The children need parents. The parents need support for the children. But without the children, there is no need to support the parents. If laws exist that grant you some benefits without you being with dependants, then I can't defend them. Sounds pointless to me.




LemurBoi said:


> Freedom from Religion



This is unconstitutional, as it immediately prohibits public displays of your Religion, thus severely hacking away the freedom OF religion that is our right. There is no right that prohibits others from trying to convert you. There is a right that says you cannot force it on anyone, though.


----------



## Azure (Nov 16, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Why can't I say the priesthood? And Christian single men and women. Yeah. What's wrong with those examples? Are they not human enough for you?


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




Korro-Sama said:


> So you're saying that the state should have nothing to do with marriage, should not condone it in any way or reward it with any sort of legal status modifier related to financial wellness and legal solvency?


Yes.


Korro-Sama said:


> No. You see, that would be harmful for the children. The children need parents. The parents need support for the children. But without the children, there is no need to support the parents. If laws exist that grant you some benefits without you being with dependants, then I can't defend them. Sounds pointless to me.


The tax break for children is actually pretty damn small, 3,000 I think.  And I never condoned removing any other benefits family recieve for children.  I simply wish to have EQUAL access to them, and be treated in the same manner. Is that wrong?  



Korro-Sama said:


> This is unconstitutional, as it immediately prohibits public displays of your Religion, thus severely hacking away the freedom OF religion that is our right. There is no right that prohibits others from trying to convert you. There is a right that says you cannot force it on anyone, though.


No it's not.  I think you need to read the Constitution  again dude.  I don't infringe on your bullshit practices, so keep them out of my face, and out of matters of state and federal governance, and we'll be cool. I can ignore Jesus freaks just fine anyway, you think your speaking to me, but really, I'm fantasizing about sodomy while you drone on about Jesus.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 16, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> I'm fantasizing about sodomy



nice one 

seriously, I think in the end, this argument is getting too complicated... to put it simply, I just want some damn equality. everyone thinks we want special treatment, and benefits... but all we fucking want is what you straight people already have


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 16, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases



This was a step into oblivion for you. Those were not Catholic offenses, those were not Priest offenses. Those  were the criminal actions of several men now excommunicated from the Church. CLEARLY CONDEMNED! SO FUCK OFF! Oh...wait... you've been doing that the whole time. Oh well. g'bye.


----------



## Azure (Nov 16, 2008)

Blessed is the man who, having nothing to stay, abstains from giving us worthy evidence of the fact.  Just keep languishing in your ignorance, for a pig cannot smell his own filth.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 16, 2008)

All religion blows, this thread was a tl;dr pile of BS.

You all need a arse-whoopin'.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 16, 2008)

for the love of mother earth can someone please just close this topic already  -_-


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 16, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> You all need a arse-whoopin'.



hellz yea


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 16, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> Fix'd.


-_- wow, Korro gets a point for not doing that


NewfDraggie said:


> All religion blows, this thread was a tl;dr pile of BS.
> 
> You all need a arse-whoopin'.


Agreed
*pulls out a paddle with holes drilled into it*
No religion is right, or wrong
This topic gone to a downward spiral of c-c-c-c-Counters
I have learned some stuff of Korro is right and some from LemurBoi is right


----------



## Tudd (Nov 16, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> hellz yea



Oh God... please save me...


----------



## Azure (Nov 16, 2008)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> -_- wow, Korro gets a point for not doing that
> 
> Agreed
> *pulls out a paddle with holes drilled into it*
> ...


WAT?  Also, why are people so keen to close a topic where meaningful discussion has taken place.  Too harsh, or not your taste, or you didn't want to read it or be made uncomfortable?  Too bad. Go back to rating each others avatars and coddling your age inappropriate emotional states.  I won't interfere there.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 16, 2008)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:
			
		

> No religion is right, or wrong


I beg your pardon.
Seriously? ALL religion is wrong. Only some it's REALLY wrong or very evil.
It's basically like saying the NUKE isn't right or wrong.



			
				Question said:
			
		

> If it's not used to kill people then it's not wrong is it?


Well Jimmy, it was created to kill people and control them. To manipulate the Japanese to surrender or they would erase their molecules. Then they would show the world this might and make it bow down, only Russia went on stalemate during the cold war and neither ended up being able to do that.



			
				Question#2 said:
			
		

> Well what's that have to do with religion?


Think about it.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 16, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> WAT?  Also, why are people so keen to close a topic where meaningful discussion has taken place.  Too harsh, or not your taste, or you didn't want to read it or be made uncomfortable?  Too bad.


oh find it strange someone believes some stuff Korro speaks of is right, OMG tis the end of the world

no cause all I see is that this topic seems to have been tainted by the"I wanna be right, and have the last word" Bug


----------



## Tudd (Nov 16, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Think about it.



Thought is a complex process which people would rather have others do for them. Sort of like repairing a car or tuning one. Sort of like writing an OS. Sort of like building home. :grin:


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 16, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> I beg your pardon.
> Seriously? ALL religion is wrong. Only some it's REALLY wrong or very evil.
> It's basically like saying the NUKE isn't right or wrong.



so, what do you believe to be most logical? ^_^

I'm atheist (don't kill me ._.)


----------



## Azure (Nov 16, 2008)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> oh find it strange someone believes some stuff Korro speaks of is right, OMG tis the end of the world
> 
> no cause all I see is that this topic seems to have been tainted by the"I wanna be right, and have the last word" Bug


Last word?  Hey, he keeps coming back with his outrageous bullcrap views, it's my sworn duty to shoot that crap down.  I'm not trolling him, I'm EDUCATING him.  And I don't wanna be right, I am right.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 16, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> I beg your pardon.
> Seriously? ALL religion is wrong. Only some it's REALLY wrong or very evil.
> It's basically like saying the NUKE isn't right or wrong.


The Religion to those often on the inside see theirs as the right and others wrong, while those outside see it as wrong and theirs right, thus all religions are wrong and Right at the same time in my hypothesis.


----------



## Azure (Nov 16, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> so, what do you believe to be most logical? ^_^
> 
> I'm atheist (don't kill me ._.)


Atheism isn't a religion.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 16, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> Atheism isn't a religion.


I know, I just label anything you believe is right a religion. unless someone plans to tell me what it's really called


----------



## Thatch (Nov 16, 2008)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> The Religion to those often on the inside see theirs as the right and others wrong, while those outside see it as wrong and theirs right, thus all religions are wrong and Right at the same time in my hypothesis.



Then it's neither. It's just absolutely annoying.



NekoFox08 said:


> I know, I just label anything you believe is right a religion. unless someone plans to tell me what it's really called



An opinion.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 16, 2008)

szopaw said:


> Then it's neither. It's just absolutely annoying.


oh thank you >.< couldnt think of the word so I choosed Right and Wrong, thats what I mean.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 16, 2008)

szopaw said:


> An opinion.



oh, and religion is a fact?


----------



## Tudd (Nov 16, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> Atheism isn't a religion.



Nevermind


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 16, 2008)

Tudd said:


> Thought is a complex process which people would rather have others do for them. Sort of like repairing a car or tuning one. Sort of like writing an OS. Sort of like building home. :grin:



You're more intelligent than I gave credit. Seriously, I am sorry for doubting. O..o



NekoFox08 said:


> so, what do you believe to be most logical? ^_^
> 
> I'm atheist (don't kill me ._.)


Religion sticking to itself. Keeping out of ALL laws, public places (besides those designated. such as churches, meetings, events, etc) out of schools, and being fined attempting conversions or the like. This ALSO goes for non-religion.

What you do is what you do, keep it to your fuckin' self is the right, and soon to be my way.



			
				LemurBoi said:
			
		

> Atheism isn't a religion.


First intellectual thing I've seen you post, ever.
Actually you're right, it isn't. It is however a religious view.
But...he never said anything other than what would you suggest, meaning he wasn't talking about atheism being a religion.


----------



## Azure (Nov 16, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> First intellectual thing I've seen you post, ever.
> Actually you're right, it isn't. It is however a religious view.
> But...he never said anything other than what would you suggest, meaning he wasn't talking about religion.


Humph, must have read him wrong, else why would he include the don't kill me comment?  And you need to learn to read for content, as you said, tl;dr, so obviously you didn't read what I wrote.  It matters not anyway.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 16, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> Humph, must have read him wrong, else why would he include the don't kill me comment?  And you need to learn to read for content, as you said, tl;dr, so obviously you didn't read what I wrote.  It matters not anyway.



I said don't kill me cause there are clearly religious people in here. and atheism isn't god's best friend :3


----------



## Azure (Nov 16, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> I said don't kill me cause there are clearly religious people in here. and atheism isn't god's best friend :3


Oh, I see, however, they aren't here anymore.  Something good came of this.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Nov 16, 2008)

Roh roh fight the powah?

I'm getting deja vu from this thread...


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 16, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> Humph, must have read him wrong. Why would he include the don't kill me comment?
> 
> You need to learn to read everything. As you said, "tl;dr"; obviously you didn't read what I wrote, not that it matters anyway.


Fixed.

But no, I read a few posts or else I wouldn't of said that. Clearly.


----------



## Azure (Nov 16, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Fixed.
> 
> But no, I read a few posts or else I wouldn't of said that. Clearly.


Whats the matter with Yoda English? And why would you say one thing and then do another?  Clearly you have muddled motives, you should get those straight before you post, or learn to express sarcasm in a more transparent manner.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 16, 2008)

LemurBoi said:
			
		

> Whats the matter with Yoda English?


English came first.



			
				LemurBoi said:
			
		

> Why would you say one thing and then do another?


Kind of like religion saying to spread good then...burning gays.



			
				LemurBoi said:
			
		

> Clearly you have muddled motives, you should get those straight before you post, or learn to express sarcasm in a more transparent manner.


You should understand what tl;dr means, it doesn't have to be literal. I didn't read every comment, no. I went over it extremely quickly and I'm not replying to anybody specific in my first post here. 

When I said that was the first intelligent comment you posted, it actually was sarcasm; it still hasn't happened.


----------



## Tudd (Nov 16, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> You're more intelligent than I gave credit. Seriously, I am sorry for doubting. O..o



A forum isn't the easiest place to express ones intelligence, or anything about themselves for that matter. Although, it's always fun to prove your worth once in a while anyways.



> Religion sticking to itself. Keeping out of ALL laws, public places (besides those designated. such as churches, meetings, events, etc) out of schools, and being fined attempting conversions or the like. This ALSO goes for non-religion.
> 
> What you do is what you do, keep it to your fuckin' self is the right, and soon to be my way.



Now, this seems great. But the second everyone starts thinking about only #1 (his/her self) we get the glorious nation of "America". The land of mortgage failure, bank failure and economic failure as a whole.

Perhaps religion isn't all bad... They condemn murder don't they? 



Easog said:


> Roh roh fight the powah?
> 
> I'm getting deja vu from this thread...



Don't let Get-Dancing see else you'll be labeled a "Pinko"


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 16, 2008)

Tudd said:
			
		

> Perhaps religion isn't all bad... They condemn murder don't they?


Only if you mean against people following exactly what they say.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Nov 16, 2008)

Hmm, interesting.


----------



## Azure (Nov 16, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> English came first.


Evolution is inevitable.



NewfDraggie said:


> Kind of like religion saying to spread good then...burning gays.


I know it, even so, don't stoop to their level.



NewfDraggie said:


> You should understand what tl;dr means, it doesn't have to be literal. I didn't read every comment, no. I went over it extremely quickly and I'm not replying to anybody specific in my first post here.


As I said, work on your sarcasm.  If you wanted quotes around it, you should have done it the first time.  You're responsible for your message, not I.



NewfDraggie said:


> When I said that was the first intelligent comment you posted, it actually was sarcasm; it still hasn't happened.


ZING.  Clearly you are an internet pro. *golfclap*


----------



## Tudd (Nov 16, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Only if you mean against people following exactly what they say.



This one is a little unclear. Too many undefined parties.


----------



## Thatch (Nov 16, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> oh, and religion is a fact?



No a religion is a set of rules and stories that regard the supernatural world and often the origin of the world. 
But if you believe it's right, it's just your opinion. Atheists believe it's false, so it's their opinion. Hence Atheism=opinion.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 16, 2008)

szopaw said:


> No a religion is a set of beliefs that regard the supernatural world.
> But if you believe it's right, it's just your opinion. Atheists believe it's false, so it's their opinion. Hence Atheism=opinion.



I know atheism is opinion, I was just wondering what makes religion so... legit


----------



## Tudd (Nov 16, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> I know atheism is opinion, I was just wondering what makes religion so... legit



Because they use the word of God and God's intentions for humanity. God's intention is love which means the only thing we should be aiming for in our lives is doing the most loving thing for all of those around us. Also note, nature is setup to allow us to do so.

Not my ideas, nor do I believe it. Thats simply how the idea was portrayed to me via a teacher with a graduate degree in moral philosophy. :grin:


----------



## amansman1234 (Nov 16, 2008)

Korro-Sama = troll, and a good one at that


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 16, 2008)

^ Troll.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 16, 2008)

^ cute pink dwaggie >=3


----------



## Enigmaticat (Nov 16, 2008)

TPAM thread all of a sudden?


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 16, 2008)

^ Correct.



NekoFox08 said:


> ^ cute pink dwaggie >=3



<3


----------



## Yaoi-Mikey (Nov 16, 2008)

I have a really big vendetta against religion, it ruined my life for a loooooong time.

My parents were really religious, from the day I could really comprehend things they tried to bash the belief system of christianity into my head, I never liked it because I just never agreed with all the things it said and just generally thought it all sounded crazy, but eventually over time they were able to pound religion into my mind.

For the longest time I knew I liked boys, but I never thought it was wrong, I never thought there was anything different about it, but of course eventually my parents got into the whole homosexuality is evil part of religion, they made me think that all gay people were extremely sick or evil, they eventually made me think I myself was sick or evil.

It brought me so close to suicide so many times, I'd just sit and cry to myself wondering "Why has god made me this way", "Why am I gonna burn in hell", "I'm sick, I'm evil, there's no reason to live", and I came so close to actually doing it so many times, it still haunts me sometimes to this day.

I couldn't even look at myself in the mirror without feeling sick, it was horrible, I completely shut down, I started losing grades in school, I started drinking heavily, I would stay awake for days on end just torturing myself, I would just be sitting there staring off into space, sometimes I'd even just fall out of chairs from nowhere, nobody had no idea what was going on.

My parents tried helping me, they tried sending me to church and such but that only made me hate myself more, eventually I was sent to a small hospital-like place for depression, I eventually just lied my way out of there and got back home, nothing had changed.

I still just dragged along in life letting myself die, but one of the only things that helped me keep my sanity was books, I'd read all day for hours on end and read entire books in a day, there was one bookstore I went to all the time, I knew the owners and most of the regulars that go there, and one day when I went into that store I saw someone I didn't recognize, he had a really sweet look to him and he was reading the same kind of stuff I usually read, so I decided to talk to him.

We talked for the whole day, whenever I had to head home I asked if I could call him sometime and hang out or something, he said yes and he gave me his number, the next few days we hung out, and for once in a long time, I felt happy, I felt happy with him, I felt like he was someone like me, but I just couldn't find what it was that I felt in common with him.

After quite a while of hanging out with each other and the such one night I was staying over at his house, we started talking and he eventually said he liked me, I said I liked him too, then he stopped me and said he "liked me liked me", I was speechless for a minute, I didn't know what to say, I eventually broke down and told him I loved him too, that night we ended up expressing our feelings for each other, when I was with him that night I didn't feel sick or evil, I felt so happy, the happiest I'd ever felt before.

From then on we started to going out, we started actually acting like a couple no matter what anyone said, eventually I came out to my parents and I felt so relieved afterwards, I thought I'd feel so much worse, but I ended up losing so much of the weight I had on my shoulders for so long.

I beat my little religious self-hatred stage, that's why I have a big vendetta against religion.

*SIGH*

There's my little rant on religion and why I greatly dislike it.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 16, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> I thought masturbation was actually healthy >_>



I just read an article recently that said masturbation could help prevent prostate cancer, and aid other prostate-health issues.




LemurBoi said:


> Last word?  Hey, he keeps coming back with his outrageous bullcrap views, it's my sworn duty to shoot that crap down.  I'm not trolling him, I'm EDUCATING him.  *And I don't wanna be right, I am right.*



Sorry, but you aren't any more RIGHT than anyone else... it's your OPINION, nothing more.




Easog said:


> Roh roh fight the powah?
> 
> *I'm getting deja vu from this thread...*



I sure hope it's not contagious!


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 16, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> I just read an article recently that said masturbation could help prevent prostate cancer, and aid other prostate-health issues.



well... there ya go people. masturbation is healthy :3


----------



## AlexInsane (Nov 16, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> well... there ya go people. masturbation is healthy :3



BUT BUT BUT according to the Catholic Church, ze spermz r SACRED. 

U is wastin holy sperm!!11! SINUR!


----------



## Tudd (Nov 16, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> Sorry, but you aren't any more RIGHT than anyone else... it's your OPINION, nothing more.



Opinions can be right or wrong.

What if someone held the opinion that blacks should still be slaves. 

Is this person a bigot or is that just "his/her opinion"?

Stop being so damned afraid to make a judgment. All you see this religious people do is pass judgment.

Take some advice from the winning team once in a while.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 17, 2008)

Tudd said:


> *Opinions can be right or wrong.*
> 
> What if someone held the opinion that blacks should still be slaves.
> 
> ...



Exactly... only LemurBoi is insisting his opinion is RIGHT, with the implication it is not open to question.  You don't judge a person on what they believe, but on how they act on that belief.  Of course, that is _my_ OPINION.  Take it as you will....

However, don't give me crap about being on the "winning team"... your "advice" is no more or less valuable than mine.  Or anyone else's....


----------



## Lobar (Nov 17, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> I said don't kill me cause there are clearly religious people in here. and atheism isn't god's best friend :3



yes it is


----------



## Takun (Nov 17, 2008)

That's awesome.


----------



## Tudd (Nov 17, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> Exactly... only LemurBoi is insisting his opinion is RIGHT, with the implication it is not open to question.  You don't judge a person on what they believe, but on how they act on that belief.  Of course, that is _my_ OPINION.  Take it as you will....
> 
> However, don't give me crap about being on the "winning team"... your "advice" is no more or less valuable than mine.  Or anyone else's....



If you're playing any team sport and your team is losing, would you not attempt to see what tactics your opponents are using? Would you not attempt to adapt the ones that could prove to be effective with your team?

Again, the same idea applies. Not everything (or everyone) is equal. This is just a figment of the imagination of those afraid to see reality. If all were the same, we would all drive the same cars, marry the same people, work at the same type of jobs. However, we're not. We ARE different.

The same thing applies to advice. The advice that proves to be the most valuable may differ from person to person but it typically is the one that influences them to do better by others or themselves. Poor advice would just allow the cycle of destruction to continue. 

If you say you judge people based on how they act on their beliefs, then wouldn't the quality of the advice they give be a consideration? When people give advice, they typically use their own beliefs and values to decide what the person should be doing. After deciding what should be done, they then communicate this to the person seeking advice (or forcefully deliver it ;P). 

At this point, the person has now acted on their beliefs which is ripe for judgment based on your idea.

A better way to judge advice is by the merit the advice holds, not simply accepting all at face value because its "fair".


----------



## Mr Fox (Nov 17, 2008)

What the hell is this shit?


----------



## Bambi (Nov 17, 2008)

> Take some advice from the winning team once in a while.


 
Winning team ...?

Clue me in here -- whose winning, _what,_ exactly?


----------



## Digitalpotato (Nov 17, 2008)

Yaoi-Mikey said:


> I have a really big vendetta against religion, it ruined my life for a loooooong time.
> 
> *Insert long post here that I don't wanna stretch the page with. ^^;*



*dragon hugs you using his wings and front legs* 

Dude, I have a rather cynical view towards religion as well. It was also the hypocrisy and the contradictions, when you can bet past the whole "My family forced it on me" and "My sister said I was lying despite that she never actually WENT there and hasn't set foot in a church for over 5 years"  

They preach "Love thy neighbour" and then go onto say stuff like Gay people are evil and even go so far out as to call Eastern Religions "Eastern Mythology". They taught us about religions in Catholic Brainwashing but it really was mostly "You're in this religion because you're right. This religion is wrong, they suck. Muslim and Jewish people at least make an inch of sense."


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 17, 2008)

Tudd said:


> Take some advice from the winning team once in a while.


since when there was such a thing as a Winning team, there are teams in this "tell me how you feel about Prop 8 passing topic number 9621" if so I rather be in the damn stands Drinking lemonade and watching the "I'm right, you're wrong" game.

and I see no one winning here in this topic, just those that back off cause they dont want to get into a "Counter each other" posts, or lost interest.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 17, 2008)

Bambi said:


> Winning team ...?
> 
> Clue me in here -- whose winning, _what,_ exactly?



People wanting equality, getting religion to back the fuck off and get down off that high horse it has.

The winning team are the ones religion hate, the ones they can't control, the ones that don't follow them.

Once religion is like gays, keeping to themselves and not attempting to force it onto others. then it will be better, but still same goes for anti-religion, we can't force this onto people but they can't force theirs back.

That's the best solution, but religious fanatics argue against it, they want power. They think that because they are the word of "god" they are right, and never wrong.


----------



## Thatch (Nov 17, 2008)

Lobar said:


>



Quoted, because it's WIN XD


----------



## Roland (Nov 17, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Once religion is like gays, keeping to themselves and not attempting to force it onto others.



Ha. Ah-hah... Ah hah, hah hah... oh, hee hee, hoo hah... 

And I thought my jokes were bad...


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 17, 2008)

^ GTFO, troll.

Name a single homosexual person that's pushing their ways onto straight people.


----------



## Tudd (Nov 17, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> People wanting equality, getting religion to back the fuck off and get down off that high horse it has.
> 
> The winning team are the ones religion hate, the ones they can't control, the ones that don't follow them.
> 
> ...



Thanks for that. I just couldn't bring myself to spell it out. :grin:


----------



## Roland (Nov 17, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> ^ GTFO, troll.
> 
> Name a single homosexual person that's pushing their ways onto straight people.



I'm not a troll, really. 

I'm not saying they're going out telling people that they should be gay, but I'm more or less referring to the flamers that pretty much say "I'm going to shove my lifestyle in your face and if you don't like it then deal with it."


----------



## Tudd (Nov 17, 2008)

Roland said:


> I'm not a troll, really.
> 
> I'm not saying they're going out telling people that they should be gay, but I'm more or less referring to the flamers that pretty much say "I'm going to shove my lifestyle in your face and if you don't like it then deal with it."



A problem yes. Majority? Let's hope not...

Although, you two are not agreeing on the idea you're arguing about. Solve that, and you resolve this ENTIRE issue/dilemma/concern etc.


----------



## Roland (Nov 17, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Name a single homosexual person that's pushing their ways onto straight people.



In reference to this: Because of the nature of this question, I could have named any joe-blow homosexual that I pretended to know and could have gone about my merry little way.  

In case you haven't noticed as well, I -am- homosexual.  Yes, I talk this way about my own, because they are not exempt from being stupid just because they like cock/vagina.

@Tudd: They're not the majority most likely, because homosexuals that have enough self-respect to keep their lifestyle to themselves are probably not the ones grinding in rallies or anti-prop 8 protest.

My sympathies go out to the people that truly do want to marry so that they can have the same privileges and tax-benefits as many other same-sex married couples.  My sympathies do not go out to the people that get their blond-streaked hair in a bunch because someone is offended by their rude gestures and lack of tact.

Edit: I guess this is just a little bit off topic... 

OT: I am against prop 8, as I believe people should have the same right I have to participate in a gay marriage if I so choose.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 17, 2008)

You can't be that stupid?

Ugh, I will explain it just in case,

OK, so you have a gay man, a straight man, and a religious man. (fuck you everyone else and the opposite sex, it's a example)

The gay man is being treated differently all his life and in the past for thousands of years, the straight man isn't treated differently at all, and the religious man wants the straight man to become like him and the gay man to not be treated the same, be killed, or not allowed to do things that he is able to do.

The straight man doesn't really care, he's not being involved in anything and thus washes his hands clean. (heh, little bible reference.)

The gay man wishes to be treated equal and if the straight man can prance about kissing in public and not being discriminated upon by anyone around him, why can't he?

The religious man say no, you're not allowed to do any of that and also still wants the straight man to join his ranks and do what he does. Or he's trying to turn the gay man into a straight man, then convert him as a religious man.


Now, give the gay man other people like him. Allow him most rights, and now that he's finally free he will want to tell everybody about how happy he is, and tell those who think he shouldn't be gay or have rights to FUCK THE HELL OFF, he now can do what he likes and nobody should be treating him any different, so even if they don't like it he's still going to do it.

The straight man is now upset that the gay man is more happy than he is and wants to go back to the old ways, or he doesn't care, or he listens to the religion because of their numbers.

The religious man now fihts for dear life and soul to remove these rights, and eventually manages to manipulate, dominate, bitch & whine and get what he finally wants.

The gay man is devastated, he just had what he wanted and now has lost it. In most situations I would KILL the religious man. But he doesn't. He seeks peaceful protest hoping the straight men will realize their being controlled here and people, human beings. Are all the same, the deserve the same privileges, rights, and to not be treated differently.

In the end, the straight man doesn't care, or the ones that do are few.

The religious man begins attempting to convert people over.

The gay man just wants equality and the entire way it seems like he's shoving his lifestyle down other peoples throats because that's what the straight and religious men have been doing for thousands of years and it's time they all get to do it too.





I'm not saying it's right, but I'm saying they get treated differently, even if they never placed their lifestyle in others faces, it wouldn't make any difference. In fact, only like what 5% IF THAT actually go around all flamboyant and placing that out there in peoples faces, and they still don't convert people over or take away other peoples rights, it's freedom of speech to tell the world you're gay. It's fine to tell the world you believe in god too. But..here's the difference. They don't think themselves better for being gay. They don't convert straight to gay. They don't force anything but equality into laws about being gay.


----------



## Tudd (Nov 17, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> You can't be that stupid?
> 
> Ugh, I will explain it just in case,
> 
> ...



And how people fail to understand this is the mind boggling part.


----------



## Roland (Nov 17, 2008)

Roland said:


> @Tudd: They're not the majority most likely, because homosexuals that have enough self-respect to keep their lifestyle to themselves are probably not the ones grinding in rallies or anti-prop 8 protest.



My apologies, this comment was clearly not thought-out.  

Fighting for the right to marry -is- a good thing.  I support the people that are trying to do something about it.  How California and others even got themselves into this situation baffles me.  The protests are a double-edged sword, though. 

The media, the church and the down-right homophobic are going to blow this entire thing out of proportion.  Any protest will be turned into a violent protest.  The police will not testify truthfully.  The church will persecution. 

At the same time, it has a chance to make a difference.  Each fight is another fight for gay rights, but each fight is more fuel the opposing side gets to use against the oppressed minority.  

And I can't be too sure there aren't people that think that they're better because they're gay.  They walk and prance like they're royalty and act like they should be placed on a pedestal and waited on hand and foot.  These are the people that should be hated for being gay.  

You have a lisp? Cool.
You flick you wrist? I'll giggle, but there's still no harm done.
Say you're a princess and you're the hottest bitch in pink since musicals? Hate. 

I'm all for gay rights.  I'm not always for the way some of these people go about trying to get them.


----------



## Tudd (Nov 17, 2008)

Roland said:


> My apologies, this comment was clearly not thought-out.
> 
> Fighting for the right to marry -is- a good thing.  I support the people that are trying to do something about it.  How California and others even got themselves into this situation baffles me.  The protests are a double-edged sword, though.
> 
> ...



Hate directed towards attention whores is acceptable.


----------



## Takun (Nov 17, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> ^ GTFO, troll.
> 
> Name a single homosexual person that's pushing their ways onto straight people.




Well we had a thread on here about turning a straight guy gay/bi, so him?


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 17, 2008)

amazing how differently people view things... I don't get why straight people are bothered by the way others live their life... and I'm sure they can't understand why I think this way. they've probably got some idiotic trick up their sleeves, acting as if I'm the bad guy who's ruining childrens live just for the mere fact that I'm gay... it's just stupid. if the way I live influences a child... maybe he wasn't straight to begin with. 

sry for the rant... I just got attacked 2 days ago by this group of homophobes who literally just stood there and debated with me, "why are you a fag? I mean, you realize you're ruining other people lives right? you're influencing children to love other men." 

people are crazy -.-'''


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 17, 2008)

It's not possible, anyway.

Why would a gay/bi person want too.

And what KIDS were posting there, on topic, for it?


----------



## Takun (Nov 17, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> amazing how differently people view things... I don't get why straight people are bothered by the way others live their life... and I'm sure they can't understand why I think this way. they've probably got some idiotic trick up their sleeves, acting as if I'm the bad guy who's ruining childrens live just for the mere fact that I'm gay... it's just stupid. if the way I live influences a child... maybe he wasn't straight to begin with.
> 
> sry for the rant... I just got attacked 2 days ago by this group of homophobes who literally just stood there and debated with me, "why are you a fag? I mean, you realize you're ruining other people lives right? you're influencing children to love other men."
> 
> people are crazy -.-'''




Poor you :C


----------



## Mr Fox (Nov 17, 2008)

This thread just keeps on going and going.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 17, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> Poor you :C


lol, it's ok. it's just AMAZING how convinced these people are that all gay people are terrible people... makes me think... are we EVER going to be able to be equal to straight people?


----------



## Tudd (Nov 17, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> It's not possible, anyway.
> 
> Why would a gay/bi person want too.
> 
> And what KIDS were posting there, on topic, for it?



Quite possibly something akin to "Masterbation causes blindness". 



NekoFox08 said:


> lol, it's ok. it's just AMAZING how convinced these people are that all gay people are terrible people... makes me think... are we EVER going to be able to be equal to straight people?



Are black people there yet?


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 17, 2008)

Makes sense now, thanks Tudd. x3


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 17, 2008)

Tudd said:


> Are black people there yet?



meh, that's more lenient because most society fears them due to stereotypes. :neutral:

OR because caucasians tend to over exxagerate how much they accept black people. like "hey homie, we're down right?" I hear that all the time T_T


----------



## Tudd (Nov 17, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Makes sense now, thanks Tudd. x3



The sad thing is people _are_ actually as stupid as we fear they are.

I vote to help who you can to think and decide for themselves. After that... well you try and see what you come out with. XP



NekoFox08 said:


> meh, that's more lenient because most society fears them due to stereotypes. :neutral:
> 
> OR because caucasians tend to over exxagerate how much they accept black people. like "hey homie, we're down right?" I hear that all the time T_T



Thats only because they made themselves legally the same. Once they're at that point, people become intimidated by this "thing" known as "political correctness". 

Whole different can of worms that is clearly too far away from the current topic at hand.


----------



## Takun (Nov 17, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> lol, it's ok. it's just AMAZING how convinced these people are that all gay people are terrible people... makes me think... are we EVER going to be able to be equal to straight people?



If people didn't know better they'd assume I was straight >.>;


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 17, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> If people didn't know better they'd assume I was straight >.>;


lucky... something comes naturally when I talk and walk. when I talk, I have a lisp, where I can't say my "s" right, and when I walk, I tend to forget I'm shaking my ass a little too much xD


----------



## Takun (Nov 17, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> lucky... something comes naturally when I talk and walk. when I talk, I have a lisp, where I can't say my "s" right, and when I walk, I tend to forget I'm shaking my ass a little too much xD



Meh, that's their problem then.  The thing is once you start showing that you fit even a few of the main stereotypes you get lumped into it.  Bah, one thing I'm glad I don't fit.  Tall, athletic, no fashion sense, baritone voice, and bass singing.


----------



## T.Y. (Nov 17, 2008)

Rly i think thats awesome that CT and Mass. has gay marriage, also Canada has gay marriage so if i want to get marryed i just need to wait a hour in a car lol. (im in michigan lol)

anywho Yes I heard about the prop 8 thing in CA. Its B.S. that it passed.... 
(However i am glad CT. has gay marrige now) but anyways if 2 people love each other they have a right to be together like everybody else (and for all the catholic people out there, god wont send us to hell if we are gay im sure he will forgive us.. lol)(Btw im gay and catholic, wired huh? lol)

Also i think its Rascit that people insult gay people. (imo Gay people are their own people, Just like Blacks, Asains, Mexicans, etc.)

but anyways bottom line is that they say america is the land of the free but you cant do shit


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 17, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> Meh, that's their problem then.  The thing is once you start showing that you fit even a few of the main stereotypes you get lumped into it.  Bah, one thing I'm glad I don't fit.  Tall, athletic, no fashion sense, baritone voice, and bass singing.



hell, I'm not sure if I have fashion sense... I'm too poor to afford anything fashionable xD

I'm not really tall, I'm in advance choir ^_^, and I can ONLY play piano


----------



## Tudd (Nov 17, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> Meh, that's their problem then.  The thing is once you start showing that you fit even a few of the main stereotypes you get lumped into it.  Bah, one thing I'm glad I don't fit.  Tall, athletic, no fashion sense, baritone voice, and bass singing.



There ARE other stereotypes that exist for this sort of thing. 

<

Oh and T.Y. how can gays be their own race if they include other races?


----------



## T.Y. (Nov 17, 2008)

ummm, i dunno. ^^;;;;; (Me being my Retarded self.) 

anywho I heard there is a petition to have Prop 8 removed, is that true?


----------



## Roland (Nov 17, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> I'm not really tall, I'm in advance choir ^_^, and I can ONLY play piano



Hey, Sexy Mama... <3


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 17, 2008)

Roland said:


> Hey, Sexy Mama... <3


<3 to you too xD


----------



## Roland (Nov 17, 2008)

Any man that can sing, I have a soft spot for.  Bonus points if they play the piano.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 17, 2008)

Roland said:


> Any man that can sing, I have a soft spot for.  Bonus points if they play the piano.


I'm definitely not the best in my choir, cause we've got three guys who can go falsetto for fuck sake with no problem at all xD (oh wait, I don't think it was falsetto... but it's a really high pitch)

and I've always been obsessed with the piano... in my opinion, it sounds the most beautiful.


----------



## Roland (Nov 17, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> I'm definitely not the best in my choir, cause we've got three guys who can go falsetto for fuck sake with no problem at all xD (oh wait, I don't think it was falsetto... but it's a really high pitch)
> 
> and I've always been obsessed with the piano... in my opinion, it sounds the most beautiful.



I like the range and feeling you can get with a piano.  It's so versatile.  

And I believe you're thinking about high tenors.


----------



## Takun (Nov 17, 2008)

Roland said:


> I like the range and feeling you can get with a piano.  It's so versatile.
> 
> And I believe you're thinking about high tenors.



I can barely hit baritone singing.  Nice eh?


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 17, 2008)

YAY topic all peaceful nows

and today I turned down the offer of one of my Gay friends I been friends with since Middle school. I didnt want to be a burden on his current relationship *sweatdrop* just cause I know which day hes more in the mood doesnt mean anything...I just happen to know. He still find it funny, when he came out of the closet everyone but me left being his friend, and the only reason why I didnt leave him cause he wasnt black, emo, or an over the top otaku.


----------



## Roland (Nov 17, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> I can barely hit baritone singing.  Nice eh?



I'm a middle-ranged baritone.  Though now I suck.  I haven't practised in months.


----------



## Nargle (Nov 17, 2008)

I can't sing but I can play several instruments o.o

Go Nargle! XD


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Nov 17, 2008)

I just wish people would be a little more surprised when I come out to them. I hate feeling like I fit the stereotype.


And as long as we're on the topic, I play the violin/fiddle/thingy and absolutely can not sing. Kinda wish I could, but eh.


----------



## Nargle (Nov 17, 2008)

Easog said:


> I play the violin/fiddle/thingy



Oh my gosh you're awesome =3


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 17, 2008)

I only play drums, I use to play guitar and sing but not anymore... ;..;


----------



## FoxxLegend (Nov 17, 2008)

Grand Hatter said:


> Finland! Race you there!



Hell, let's find an island somewhere and inhabit it so we can do whatever we want! Gay marriage? Sure!!! Go for it!!! Your all still people to me!!! And some of you are my friends until I get a chance to meet you all!!! Then you'll all be my friends!!!


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 17, 2008)

this is a sad day for us all... I've... I've lost my piano Plug-in cord TT.TT


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 17, 2008)

You mean a 1/4 male to male jack?
Ther're like $10, for a decent size one.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 17, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> You mean a 1/4 male to male jack?
> Ther're like $10, for a decent size one.



I must've come in at the wrong time, but I'm... interested... $10 you say? :3


----------



## Roland (Nov 17, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> this is a sad day for us all... I've... I've lost my piano Plug-in cord TT.TT



I've got a midi to USB connection! 

...Which I've yet to make use of.  I feel like I should properly learn the piano before recording anything.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 17, 2008)

Roland said:


> I've got a midi to USB connection!
> 
> ...Which I've yet to make use of.  I feel like I should properly learn the piano before recording anything.



well, the thing is, I've never had any lessons (I taught myself to play), nor do I uh... know a single damn thing about notes. all I know is it's a black little thingy with a flag at the end, and a bulb at the tip, that illustrates what pitch you're supposed to play... other than that, I know nothing about it xD


----------



## Roland (Nov 17, 2008)

I've had plenty of lessons with many different instruments.  I had piano lessons once, but that was years ago and I'm pretty much learning everything from scratch now.  

Luckily I've got some music theory to back me up.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 17, 2008)

Roland said:


> I've had plenty of lessons with many different instruments.  I had piano lessons once, but that was years ago and I'm pretty much learning everything from scratch now.
> 
> Luckily I've got some music theory to back me up.



yea, I usually listen to a song I really like, seperate the different instruments in my head, then practice each instrument on my piano... it's really fun ^_^

I can play a chasing cars, and the scientist by coldplay, but that's it  I'm learning other songs I like


----------



## Takun (Nov 17, 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6doB7ZRtQJw&feature=related

I can play this, I'm working on singing too :3


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 17, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6doB7ZRtQJw&feature=related
> 
> I can play this, I'm working on singing too :3



aw, I wish I had sound


----------



## Nargle (Nov 17, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6doB7ZRtQJw&feature=related
> 
> I can play this, I'm working on singing too :3



Pretty song =3


----------



## Bambi (Nov 18, 2008)

> @Tudd: They're not the majority most likely, because homosexuals that have enough self-respect to keep their lifestyle to themselves are probably not the ones grinding in rallies or anti-prop 8 protest.


 
Is this a statement against Proposition 8 Protests, or just lewd conduct altogether?


----------



## Roland (Nov 18, 2008)

Bambi said:


> Is this a statement against Proposition 8 Protests, or just lewd conduct altogether?



There's an explanation to that comment underneath the post.  Hopefully it can clear up your question.


----------



## Zorro101 (Nov 18, 2008)

people are still fighting about this all over the place, iv seen fight alll over the news


----------



## Bambi (Nov 18, 2008)

> My sympathies go out to the people that truly do want to marry so that they can have the same privileges and tax-benefits as many other same-sex married couples. My sympathies do not go out to the people that get their blond-streaked hair in a bunch because someone is offended by their rude gestures and lack of tact.


 
Thank you!

I appreciate the clarity; you've really made my day, thanks! :3


----------



## Roland (Nov 18, 2008)

Bambi said:


> Thank you!
> 
> I appreciate the clarity; you've really made my day, thanks! :3



Haha, I did good apparently.  Good show.

Night, Folks.


----------



## Azure (Nov 18, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> Exactly... only LemurBoi is insisting his opinion is RIGHT, with the implication it is not open to question.  You don't judge a person on what they believe, but on how they act on that belief.  Of course, that is _my_ OPINION.  Take it as you will....
> 
> However, don't give me crap about being on the "winning team"... your "advice" is no more or less valuable than mine.  Or anyone else's....


Don't hate, appreciate ^^.  And yes, I am the winner.  Take your opinion and go out to the movies, that's about what it's worth.


----------



## Takun (Nov 18, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> Don't hate, appreciate ^^.  And yes, I am the winner.  Take your opinion and go out to the movies, that's about what it's worth.



Wow, I wish my opinion was worth $10, dood.


----------



## Azure (Nov 18, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> Wow, I wish my opinion was worth $10, dood.


Ttly dood.  I mean, he can't even buy popcorn with it.  But maybe a box of Jujy Fruit?  Dood


----------



## Takun (Nov 18, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> Ttly dood.  I mean, he can't even buy popcorn with it.  But maybe a box of Jujy Fruit?  Dood



Maybe, or like at least a round of skiball or something, dood?


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Nov 18, 2008)

Your opinion is worth $12 here, dood.


----------



## Azure (Nov 18, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> Maybe, or like at least a round of skiball or something, dood?


3 round of Time Crisis 2 dood. Or half a game of Air Hockey.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 18, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> Ttly dood.  I mean, he can't even buy popcorn with it.  But maybe a box of Jujy Fruit?  Dood



Actually, ten bucks will buy two 50 round boxes of good .22LR ammo (CCI Velocitors) for my Winchester Model 61....


----------



## Tudd (Nov 18, 2008)

^Attack of the meme!

Act on an opinion. It could earn you a lot more than $10.


----------



## Mr Fox (Nov 18, 2008)

Tudd said:


> ^Attack of the meme!
> 
> Act on an opinion. It could earn you a lot more than $10.


 
Doubt it. 

And memes like this usually last for like 2-3 days just let it pass, pretty good form of trolling though.


----------



## Azure (Nov 18, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> Actually, ten bucks will buy two 50 round boxes of good .22LR ammo (CCI Velocitors) for my Winchester Model 61....


Oh ya, well, you should go to the movies anyway dood.  Gunz are for real men dood.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 18, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> Oh ya, well, you should go to the movies anyway dood.  *Gunz are for real men dood.*



And I've been a gun owner since I was eight... however, I wouldn't mind going to the movies, but I have a bunch of DVDs I haven't watched yet, and some shows I've recorded that need viewing.


----------



## Azure (Nov 19, 2008)

What do you think of Blue Ray, and that whole High Definition thing?  Is it worth it, or do I just get an upconverter?


----------



## Tudd (Nov 19, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> What do you think of Blue Ray, and that whole High Definition thing?  Is it worth it, or do I just get an upconverter?



Use your eyes, dood.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 19, 2008)

Tudd said:


> Use your eyes, dood.



Just make sure you wash them afterwards...


----------



## Azure (Nov 20, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> Just make sure you wash them afterwards...


I've never washed my eyes. Cept when I get gay spooge in them.  I suppose that's the Lord's punishment for my heathen ways.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 20, 2008)

LemurBoi said:


> I've never washed my eyes. Cept when I get gay spooge in them.  *I suppose that's the Lord's punishment for my heathen ways.*



That depends... do your eyes stay in your head when you wash them, or do you have to put them in a glass with some soapy water?


----------



## Azure (Nov 20, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> That depends... do your eyes stay in your head when you wash them, or do you have to put them in a glass with some soapy water?


Taking them out would be damn useful, I'll admit. I just have to be sure I don't get them mixed in with my teeth, and I'll be OK.  Think of the Halloween pranks I could pull.  HEY KIDS, WATCH THIS!!!


----------



## conejo (Nov 20, 2008)

Roland said:


> My apologies, this comment was clearly not thought-out.
> 
> Fighting for the right to marry -is- a good thing.  I support the people that are trying to do something about it.  How California and others even got themselves into this situation baffles me.  The protests are a double-edged sword, though.
> 
> ...



apparently last saturday there were many protests all over the US.
none turned violent.
police were chill.

and yes dramaqueen hate is acceptable in any place haha.
god knows furries have their own collection of them. Those are indeed the ones that make things worse for their own kind.


----------



## RMA-reborn (Nov 20, 2008)

I have two points:

One - why can't homosexuals engage in some sort of legally binding agreement with one another, similar to marriage, but without the religious aspect? Surely they deserve the same right as everyone else, and the same chances. I liked what Olbermann had to said on this, he pointed out the essential moral void in the middle of the argument against Prop. 8. Even if -you- don't want to get married, others do. So why should -you- be able to stop them, just because -you- don't want it? Who are we to decide the moral compass of others?

Two - why are you guys wasting so much money, breath and ink over this? Surely you have an economy to save, an international reputation to improve, two wars to fight, a healthcare system to overhaul etc etc. It's always baffled me as to why American elections focus so much on a few small moral issues (abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia) and seem less enthused and forwards about these huge issues. I might just be naive - but still.


----------



## Aden (Nov 20, 2008)

RMA-reborn said:


> I have two points:
> 
> One - why can't homosexuals engage in some sort of legally binding agreement with one another, similar to marriage, but without the religious aspect? Surely they deserve the same right as everyone else, and the same chances. I liked what Olbermann had to said on this, he pointed out the essential moral void in the middle of the argument against Prop. 8. Even if -you- don't want to get married, others do. So why should -you- be able to stop them, just because -you- don't want it? Who are we to decide the moral compass of others?



I agree, but then you're getting into "seperate but equal". What I'd like to see is _every_ couple who wants these married benefits being recognized under the _same_ system as gay couples. Let the churches have their "marriage", but keep it confined to the churches.



> Two - why are you guys wasting so much money, breath and ink over this? Surely you have an economy to save, an international reputation to improve, two wars to fight, a healthcare system to overhaul etc etc. It's always baffled me as to why American elections focus so much on a few small moral issues (abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia) and seem less enthused and forwards about these huge issues. I might just be naive - but still.



Because of shitty fearmongering campaign tactics.


----------



## Tudd (Nov 20, 2008)

RMA-reborn said:


> Who are we to decide the moral compass of others?



You were doing fine up until this point. If that is true, one could argue that there is no reason to make murder illegal on the basis that the law should not govern moral one's moral compass. Moral compass being the one ruling the law, not the ideas set forth in the constitution. Of course this means the idea of being free as long as you don't impede upon the freedom of others is completely false, useless and NOT what the U.S.A. was founded on.  

The church cannot understand anything as being a shade of grey. Yet another inherent problem in arguments between those of faith and those without. 

The rest of your first point and your entire second point I agree with.


----------



## RMA-reborn (Nov 20, 2008)

I came off a bit abrupt in that post - and yes, I do believe that you should be free to do whatever you please, so long as it does not impede on the freedom of others to exercise their own freedoms. This is why I hate it when people tell me that "so-and-so can't say that, it offends me, so they should be banned!" I'm afraid, if you want to be free to say that, then you have to let them say what they want as well.

And I agree with the point about the moral absolutism of many, many people of faith I meet. They are good people, many of them - but their inability to see the world in the shades of grey that it is always annoys me.


----------



## Tudd (Nov 20, 2008)

RMA-reborn said:


> I came off a bit abrupt in that post - and yes, I do believe that you should be free to do whatever you please, so long as it does not impede on the freedom of others to exercise their own freedoms. This is why I hate it when people tell me that "so-and-so can't say that, it offends me, so they should be banned!" I'm afraid, if you want to be free to say that, then you have to let them say what they want as well.
> 
> And I agree with the point about the moral absolutism of many, many people of faith I meet. They are good people, many of them - but their inability to see the world in the shades of grey that it is always annoys me.



Two-way streets don't co-exist well with moral absolutism. 

I could compare this to anything, but I'll bet you've heard them all before so I'll leave it at that.


----------

