# To continue this gay marriage shit because I am astounded



## Takun (Jan 17, 2010)

> I think they have a nagative effect already, especially to younger gays. The gay communities have a horrible drug problem. STDs plague many of the population, and, yet again, especially in gay urban areas, for obvious reasons.


STDs and drugs are everyone's problem.  This isn't an "isloated" problem.  By preventing gay marriage you are instead ENFORCING the belief that gay relationships are fundamentally different from straight ones.  Now why would gays turn to drugs, sex, and prostitution?  Well it would be pretty hard to escape a fate if you were, say, kicked out of your house as a teenager for being gay.  If you were constantly portrayed as a second class citizen.  



> And they don't mind older gays having sex with way younger gays, as seen with Protland Mayor, Sam Adams. I saw the blogs, and I also saw _a lot_ of gay people screaming about how people need to stay out of his life. Also, we got people like Perez Hilton "leading the way."


Right.  This is stupid.  Are we going to get into every straight sex scandal and start using those as a basis to outlaw gay marriage?  Do I support what he did?  I don't know.  I didn't follow it.  It's his life.  If you were trying to make a gay=pedo connection you are failing and that's a far stretch.  We aren't talking outliers.  We're talking citizens of this country like you and me.


Now I want you to tell me how encouraging gays to be in a long last, monogamous relationship with a partner is bad for this country.  How this is somehow going to lead to rampant unprotected sex and drug use.  Why straight people who like to go clubbing, pick up women, and use as many drugs as they want are granted this right by default, but gay people such as myself who do not partake in any of these activities are not.  I'll be waiting.  Thanks.


----------



## LizardKing (Jan 17, 2010)

Saw this earlier and thought I'd throw it in here.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 17, 2010)

LizardKing said:


> Saw this earlier and thought I'd throw it in here.



And if Jesus gets married, being the pretty faithful and committed husband he'd no doubt be, y'know what that means. No more posing (practically) nude for Catholics on a cross to fuel their bondage/blood/death/homoeroticism fetish. I could see it now. Jesus explaining to Larry King about his new life "yeah, no regrets at all, it was an awesome 2000 years. just i think y'know everyone sorta reaches a point in their career where they feel like they've accomplished everything they can and they wanna settle down, live a normal life, go mainstream and not so much cater to their respective fringe groups. plus, i really felt it was time to clear the air since there were all these misconceptions about me, and it was like, everyone was writing about me but me, so hopefully they'll pay as much attention to my book as everyone elses".


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jan 17, 2010)

I just got an infraction from Xaerun. Literally. Just for that comment that I made. Well, Xaerun, it is good to know how unbiased your judgement is, seeing that it is the truth, and seeing that there are daily "Let's bash heterosexuals, conservatives, and asexuals on a daily basis" threads with no infractions handed out.


----------



## Takun (Jan 17, 2010)

JesusFish said:


> I just got an infraction from Xaerun. Literally. Just for that comment that I made. Well, Xaerun, it is good to know how unbiased your judgement is, seeing that it is the truth, and seeing that there are daily "Let's bash heterosexuals, conservatives, and asexuals on a daily basis" threads with no infractions handed out.



ITT: straights bawwing?

No seriously.  I love how you think this goes one way.


----------



## Xaerun (Jan 17, 2010)

JesusFish said:


> I just got an infraction from Xaerun. Literally. Just for that comment that I made. Well, Xaerun, it is good to know how unbiased your judgement is, seeing that it is the truth, and seeing that there are daily "Let's bash heterosexuals, conservatives, and asexuals on a daily basis" threads with no infractions handed out.



_>implying you can see all staff actions

>implying I do nothing else but browse threads here and do not chance upon some threads or are directed to them via the report system which is easy to use and quite accessible
_


----------



## Takun (Jan 17, 2010)

In this thread I would like to know why gay marriage would be bad for society, why it would destroy straight marriage, and why LGBT should be banned from equal rights.  Real reasons that would legally hold up.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 17, 2010)

Takumi_L said:


> *STDs and drugs are everyone's problem. This isn't an "isloated" problem.* By preventing gay marriage you are instead ENFORCING the belief that gay relationships are fundamentally different from straight ones. Now why would gays turn to drugs, sex, and prostitution? *Well it would be pretty hard to escape a fate if you were, say, kicked out of your house as a teenager for being gay. If you were constantly portrayed as a second class citizen*.


 
Frist. I'm not talking about gay marriage being negative.

Second. Drug use seems to be a bigger problems with gays. It's not them being gay that makes take drugs, it's the care free lifestyle that gays like advocate. Has it ever occurred to you why HIV seems to strike gays more then straights?

Third. Don't give me this sad, over used story about how gay kids are kicked out on the streets for being gay. That doesn't not happen to most. It may hapen to a few, not the rest. 

Also, you don't understand what a second class citizen is. 




> Right. This is stupid. Are we going to get into every straight sex scandal and start using those as a basis to outlaw gay marriage? Do I support what he did? I don't know. I didn't follow it. It's his life. If you were trying to make a gay=pedo connection you are failing and that's a far stretch. We aren't talking outliers. We're talking citizens of this country like you and me.


 
Why the fuck would I do a "gay=pedo connection"? I'm gay myself.



> *Now I want you to tell me how encouraging gays to be in a long last, monogamous relationship with a partner is bad for this country.* How this is somehow going to lead to rampant unprotected sex and drug use. Why straight people who like to go clubbing, pick up women, and use as many drugs as they want are granted this right by default, but gay people such as myself who do not partake in any of these activities are not. I'll be waiting. Thanks.


 
Did you even read it?


----------



## Thatch (Jan 17, 2010)

JesusFish said:


> "Let's bash heterosexuals



That's a new one. Links plox.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 17, 2010)

Continuing from earlier:



			
				Jashwa said:
			
		

> Kiva19 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 17, 2010)

JesusFish said:


> I just got an infraction from Xaerun. Literally. Just for that comment that I made. Well, Xaerun, it is good to know how unbiased your judgement is, seeing that it is the truth, and seeing that there are daily "Let's bash heterosexuals, conservatives, and asexuals on a daily basis" threads with no infractions handed out.



But you totally still love Xaerun cuz you be on some One Love shit right?


----------



## Hir (Jan 17, 2010)

lol jesusfish.


----------



## Taren Fox (Jan 17, 2010)

It's only a matter of time. Bi-racial marriages weren't legal in some states until the late 60's.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 17, 2010)

I'm gonna repeat what I said in another thread.  As long as we have federally recognized marriage, sure, gay marriage is a great step towards equality.  But as long as marriage has a definition, _any_ definition, that is codified in the law, some relationships are getting left out.

What should be done is that government gets the fuck out of marriage altogether.  Every couple (or threesome, or whatever) should be free to decide their own terms for their relationship, from what to call it to what it means and what should happen if it comes to an end.  These can all be laid out in a "family contract" to be filed with a Justice of the Peace, and the government would not be allowed to refuse it.  There would be no limits beyond the existing limits of contract law (though I would add a caveat against allowing parents or legal guardians to sign for their children against their will), and everyone would be truly equal.


----------



## Takun (Jan 17, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Frist. I'm not talking about gay marriage being negative.
> 
> Second. Drug use seems to be a bigger problems with gays. It's not them being gay that makes take drugs, it's the care free lifestyle that gays like advocate. Has it ever occurred to you why HIV seems to strike gays more then straights?
> 
> ...




Yes I did. We were talking about reasons not to allow gay marriage.  I fail to see how lifestyles that aren't marriage factor in to this.  Gays can't get married because they show a statistically higher chance to do drugs and have stds?  Isn't this exactly why we should be encouraging gay marriage in the first place?


This was the original

 	Quote:
 	 	 		 			 				 					Originally Posted by *Takumi_L* 

 
_Really now. I am quite curious as how to gay marriage would have negative effects on society as a whole. Go ahead. I'm waiting._




> I think they have a nagative effect already, especially to younger gays. The gay communities have a horrible drug problem. STDs plague many of the population, and, yet again, especially in gay urban areas, for obvious reasons. And they don't mind older gays having sex with way younger gays, as seen with Protland Mayor, Sam Adams. I saw the blogs, and I also saw _a lot_ of gay people screaming about how people need to stay out of his life. Also, we got people like Perez Hilton "leading the way."



Unless I can't read, you just said that it already has a negative effect and then listed things that aren't gay marriage.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 17, 2010)

Letting gays get married would obviously make more people gay, Takumi.  Duh.


----------



## Kommodore (Jan 17, 2010)

Lobar said:


> I'm gonna repeat what I said in another thread.  As long as we have federally recognized marriage, sure, gay marriage is a great step towards equality.  But as long as marriage has a definition, _any_ definition, that is codified in the law, some relationships are getting left out.
> 
> What should be done is that government gets the fuck out of marriage altogether.  Every couple (or threesome, or whatever) should be free to decide their own terms for their relationship, from what to call it to what it means and what should happen if it comes to an end.  These can all be laid out in a "family contract" to be filed with a Justice of the Peace, and the government would not be allowed to refuse it.  There would be no limits beyond the existing limits of contract law (though I would add a caveat against allowing parents or legal guardians to sign for their children against their will), and everyone would be truly equal.



Listen to this man.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 17, 2010)

Takumi_L said:


> Yes I did. We were talking about reasons not to allow gay marriage. I fail to see how lifestyles that aren't marriage factor in to this. Gays can't get married because they show a statistically higher chance to do drugs and have stds? Isn't this exactly why we should be encouraging gay marriage in the first place?


 
Yet again, you are talking as if I'm protesting gay marriage. My comment was about the negative image gays project.

Now do tell, what was my main message?


----------



## Takun (Jan 17, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Yet again, you are talking as if I'm protesting gay marriage. My comment was about the negative image gays project.




Okay and how does gay marriage perpetuate this lifestyle.  I fail to see how living a loving monogamous lifestyle with one person leads to an increase in wild freaky STD ridden sex and overindulgence into drugs.  I guess I'm just not seeing how THAT can be attributed to gay marriage.  It seem to be the exact opposite to me.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 17, 2010)

Takumi_L said:


> Okay and how does gay marriage perpetuate this lifestyle*.* I fail to see how living a loving monogamous lifestyle with one person leads to an increase in wild freaky STD ridden sex and overindulgence into drugs. I guess I'm just not seeing how THAT can be attributed to gay marriage. It seem to be the exact opposite to me.


 
I never said marriage has anything to do with it. That's something you came up with on your own.


----------



## Takun (Jan 17, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> I never said marriage has anything to do with it. That's something you came up with on your own.



See this is confusing.  Because you quoted me (implying that you were responding to me) asking for reasons gay marriage would be bad for society.  You then said, "I think they have a nagative effect already, especially to younger gays."

So either you were saying that (which you are saying you are not) or you quoted me for absolutely no reason at all.  If that is the case, try not to make that mistake in the future.  It is quite confusing when you give answers that have absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand.

Now that this is out of the way, the challenge still stands to anyone who could give a valid reason why it would be negative.


----------



## Kanin (Jan 17, 2010)

Truthfully gay marriage would be good for society, but people are morons that can't use their brains to save their life. Gay marriage being legal would cause a large cash flow into the economy from all the expenses from the wedding, which would help the economy. But it would also help the reputation of gays, which would reduce young gays from turning to drugs and other crap for escaping from people's shit by reducing the amount shit people give them. Which in turn would also help the reputation of gays, more people feeling safe about it, and less people doing drugs or killing themselves because of people telling them it's wrong.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 17, 2010)

really this thread should've been titled "I am astounded this marriage of gay to shit continues"


----------



## Kiva19 (Jan 17, 2010)

Well, I would love to explain my reasoning...but my last thread was closed before I could respond to the GROSS misinterpretations of my point of view. Jashwa already posted the PM I sent to him, in case anyone is interested in that. 

I think the reason people have such trouble with this issue is because they attach too much emotion to it. We are all taught that marriage is a result of intense love between two individuals. That is true on a certain level. Two individuals choose to marry one another because they love each other. 

However, society does not choose to recognize this union for the same reasons. We do not recognize two people as being "married", and extend the benefits that go along with it because those two people love each other. Society recognizes it because those two people have the ability to produce children..and their entrance into that agreement is conductive to that. I am assuming I don't have to explain WHY reproduction is beneficial? 

It makes no sense whatsoever, to legally recognize homosexual couples when they cannot reproduce. Their relationship contributes nothing that is beneficial to all of society, and thus they should enjoy no special recognition. 

Just to throw this out there as well...I don't have anything against gays. I have gay friends, and they all know my position on this. Some of them even support it. My position here doesn't stem from any prejudice...it extends from logic.


----------



## Kanin (Jan 17, 2010)

Also marriage is a religious cerimony, so the goverment is supposed to not have control over it, they can't pick who can get married and who can't, it's completely against the Constitution so this shit should of been stopped a long time ago, but there are too many assholes pushing their beliefs on others and taking a shit on things they don't like, whether or not what they are shitting on is wrong.


----------



## FluffMouse (Jan 17, 2010)

*Because it's been considered 'taboo' like a lot of other stuff that's now becoming more socially acceptable. People fear it will change things, and open up the doors to everything else being accepted. And since most if not all religion is based on traditions and set morals that are normally against all taboo, you can see how those things becoming widely accepted would effect them. More freedom generates more atheists.. or free thinking at least.*


----------



## Xaerun (Jan 17, 2010)

Kiva19 said:


> Well, I would love to explain my reasoning...but my last thread was closed before I could respond to the GROSS misinterpretations of my point of view. Jashwa already posted the PM I sent to him, in case anyone is interested in that.
> 
> I think the reason people have such trouble with this issue is because they attach too much emotion to it. We are all taught that marriage is a result of intense love between two individuals. That is true on a certain level. Two individuals choose to marry one another because they love each other.
> 
> ...



I would like to hear your thoughts on IVF and children had outside of marriage sometime, in a different thread or something.
Oh, and surrogate mothers etc


----------



## Taren Fox (Jan 17, 2010)

Kiva19 said:


> However, society does not choose to recognize this union for the same reasons. We do not recognize two people as being "married", and extend the benefits that go along with it because those two people love each other. Society recognizes it because those two people have the ability to produce children..and their entrance into that agreement is conductive to that. I am assuming I don't have to explain WHY reproduction is beneficial?
> 
> It makes no sense whatsoever, to legally recognize homosexual couples when they cannot reproduce. Their relationship contributes nothing that is beneficial to all of society, and thus they should enjoy no special recognition.


Straight couples who cannot get pregnant shouldn't be able to see each other in the hospital, get tax breaks, or be able to share their health and life insurance with their spouse.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 17, 2010)

Takumi_L said:


> See this is confusing. Because you quoted me (implying that you were responding to me) asking for reasons gay marriage would be bad for society. You then said, "I think they have a nagative effect already, especially to younger gays."
> 
> So either you were saying that (which you are saying you are not) or you quoted me for absolutely no reason at all. If that is the case, try not to make that mistake in the future. It is quite confusing when you give answers that have absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand.
> 
> Now that this is out of the way, the challenge still stands to anyone who could give a valid reason why it would be negative.


 
Me:


> I think they have a nagative effect *already*, *especially to younger gays*.


 
Past tense, while also being kind of facetious. Then I led on how the gay community projects a negative stereotype, which other people pick up. 

My message was pretty much about how the gay community needs to clean itself up, while also advocating better representation. You just didn't pick because you assumed I was being a right-wing, religious, straight bigot. How dare I speak out against it. 

Conservatives what I am and Liberals hate what I say.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 17, 2010)

Kiva19 said:


> Well, I would love to explain my reasoning...but my last thread was closed before I could respond to the GROSS misinterpretations of my point of view. Jashwa already posted the PM I sent to him, in case anyone is interested in that.
> 
> I think the reason people have such trouble with this issue is because they attach too much emotion to it. We are all taught that marriage is a result of intense love between two individuals. That is true on a certain level. Two individuals choose to marry one another because they love each other.
> 
> ...



TL;DR: one group's emotional need to recognize and solidify their love and very not-emotional need to have their rights equalized and recognized has to take a back seat to another group's equally emotion-based need, but I'm gonna mental gymnastics my way around it to make it sound like I'm justifying the prejudice with unadulterated, clinical analysis.

Oh btw, I not only have lots of gay friends but a brother takin a dump in my bathroom right now and I didn't even make him shine my shoes first. So, uh, *I win this thread*, or something.


----------



## Takun (Jan 17, 2010)

Kiva19 said:


> Well, I would love to explain my reasoning...but my last thread was closed before I could respond to the GROSS misinterpretations of my point of view. Jashwa already posted the PM I sent to him, in case anyone is interested in that.
> 
> I think the reason people have such trouble with this issue is because they attach too much emotion to it. We are all taught that marriage is a result of intense love between two individuals. That is true on a certain level. Two individuals choose to marry one another because they love each other.
> 
> ...




Old people can't reproduce.  Infertile people can't reproduce.  Many people get married and never have kids.  Many people still have kids out of wedlock.  Marriage is not needed for that.  When it's found out that a married couple cannot have kids they do not have to get a divorce.  Saying society recognizes that people get married to have kids is false.  It's assumed that two people getting married in the United States are in love.  If you were to tell someone you didn't love your husband/wife they would ask you why you married them.  This argument holds no weight at all in preventing homosexual couples the same benefits as heterosexual couples. 

Your reasoning also assumes that having children is always beneficial.  Is a below poverty line family having more kids that the state has to help support really beneficial to everyone?

Let's go ahead and say that reproduction is the only reason people got married way back when it was first recognized in this country.  It isn't the only reason now.  It's an old belief and tradition that really has no weight now.



> *Marriage Rights and Benefits  *
> 
> *Learn some of the legal and practical ways that getting married changes your life.*
> 
> ...





Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Me:
> 
> 
> Past tense, while also being kind of facetious. Then I led on how the gay community projects a negative stereotype, which other people pick up.
> ...



So are you or are you not saying that gay marriage has a negative effect on society? And if not, why would you go ahead and quote my question and answer it.  I didn't pick up on that because I asked a question and then you went ahead and... gave an answer to some other question?


----------



## Kiva19 (Jan 17, 2010)

Actually, legal marriage and religious marriage are two separate things. Religious marriage is supposed to symbolize God recognizing the union of two people, while legal marriage is the government's (society's) recognition. A church can marry two homosexual people if they wish to, but the state and federal government won't recognize it.


----------



## Takun (Jan 17, 2010)

Kiva19 said:


> Actually, legal marriage and religious marriage are two separate things. Religious marriage is supposed to symbolize God recognizing the union of two people, while legal marriage is the government's (society's) recognition. A church can marry two homosexual people if they wish to, but the state and federal government won't recognize it.




Indeed.  And either marriage needs to be removed from the legal level or given equally to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.  Cause as it stands, it doesn't only give benefits to couples who reproduce, but anyone who is straight and wants to go to vegas and get married for a day.


----------



## Kanin (Jan 17, 2010)

Kiva19 said:


> Actually, legal marriage and religious marriage are two separate things. Religious marriage is supposed to symbolize God recognizing the union of two people, while legal marriage is the government's (society's) recognition. A church can marry two homosexual people if they wish to, but the state and federal government won't recognize it.


 
Yet people are using religion as a backing for why it should be illegal.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 17, 2010)

Takumi_L said:


> So are you or are you not saying that gay marriage has a negative effect on society? And if not, why would you go ahead and quote my question and answer it.  I didn't pick that because I asked a question and then you went ahead and... gave an answer to some other question?



Basically what I'm seeing him saying is that the main reason why gay marriage isn't being universally accepted in this country is because of how the gay community presents its case and how they present themselves.  As a straight person, I think I can safely say that this is how the majority of America sees the gay community:

http://www.lolsam.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/gay-pride-float-men.jpg

http://scrapetv.com/News/News Pages/Science/Images/gay-pride-parade-fairy.jpg

http://en.ce.cn/Life/trend/200806/30/W020080630534798203203.jpg

As you can see, not your most professional looking group of people you could ask to represent your cause.  I could relate several stories I have of being utterly disgusted and embarrassed trying to drive somewhere, getting caught by drifters from the local pride parade frolicking around my car with giant dildos and shit.

Now I personally don't give a shit on the issue.  Gays getting married doesn't affect me in the slightest.  However, when considering other people, it's not exactly hard to see WHY someone wouldn't be too thrilled to support people who seem more interested in the sex than actual love.


----------



## Takun (Jan 17, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Basically what I'm seeing him saying is that the main reason why gay marriage isn't being universally accepted in this country is because of how the gay community presents its case and how they present themselves.  As a straight person, I think I can safely say that this is how the majority of America sees the gay community:
> 
> http://www.lolsam.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/gay-pride-float-men.jpg
> 
> ...



Yeah I know this.  However when I look back to college it's pretty hypocritical to get this from any of the straight guys I know.  They spent every off night they had trying to bed their next slut, getting drunk and fucking chicks they didn't know from whatever club they could get into that night.

I agree the image needs work and I think it's going to get better and better as time goes on.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Jan 17, 2010)

I was going inside right

Dese 4 jocks was gettin in the car

1 sez "I gotta new sheets"

One of em sez "Why"

"I fucked a virgin last night"



ewwwwwwwww


----------



## Lobar (Jan 17, 2010)

Kiva19 said:


> Actually, legal marriage and religious marriage are two separate things. Religious marriage is supposed to symbolize God recognizing the union of two people, while legal marriage is the government's (society's) recognition. A church can marry two homosexual people if they wish to, but the state and federal government won't recognize it.



A damn good reason for disregarding religious concerns regarding legal marriage, no?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 17, 2010)

Takumi_L said:


> Yeah I know this.  However when I look back to college it's pretty hypocritical to get this from any of the straight guys I know.  They spent every off night they had trying to bed their next slut, getting drunk and fucking chicks they didn't know from whatever club they could get into that night.
> 
> I agree the image needs work and I think it's going to get better and better as time goes on.



At the same time straight people aren't asking for benefits.  They have them and always will.  There's no civil rights at stake so things like "Jersey Shore" on MTV doesn't bother anybody, and instead just remains as comedy for many.  

They also don't feel the need to have parades where they feel the need to display their sexual fetish of choice, not their love for each other in a way that doesn't make straight people want to gouge their eyes out.  This is why the "gay image" needs to change if you want equality.

Think about it this way: What if Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke jive in all of his speeches?  What if he went around acting like a militant or said "LAWDY I SHURE HOPE MISTAH WHITE MAYNE GIVES US OUR RIGHTS!"  He wore a suit, acted professional, spoke in a well versed manner.  This is why people get offended when people say that the pursuit of gay marriage is like the Civil Rights movement of the 60s.  Because the leaders we read about today acted professionally, despite the extreme groups and ultimately that professional image drowned out the Black Panther movement.  Instead what we have now is the fetish community drowning out whatever professional image the gay community has, which to my knowledge there is none.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 17, 2010)

Lobar said:


> I'm gonna repeat what I said in another thread.  As long as we have federally recognized marriage, sure, gay marriage is a great step towards equality.  But as long as marriage has a definition, _any_ definition, that is codified in the law, some relationships are getting left out.
> 
> *What should be done is that government gets the fuck out of marriage altogether.  Every couple (or threesome, or whatever) should be free to decide their own terms for their relationship, from what to call it to what it means and what should happen if it comes to an end.  These can all be laid out in a "family contract" to be filed with a Justice of the Peace, and the government would not be allowed to refuse it.  There would be no limits beyond the existing limits of contract law (though I would add a caveat against allowing parents or legal guardians to sign for their children against their will), and everyone would be truly equal.*



Anything that gets the Government out of people's personal lives is something to consider.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Jan 17, 2010)

With a world population expected to reach 9 billion by 2040, and gross overpopulation already a problem, can someone explain to me why popping out babies is considered a good thing?


----------



## FluffMouse (Jan 17, 2010)

Easog said:


> With a world population expected to reach 9 billion by 2040, and gross overpopulation already a problem, can someone explain to me why popping out babies is considered a good thing?


Moar underdeveloped minds for the church to control.
That is the only reason. Or raisin.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 17, 2010)

SugarMental said:


> Because it's been considered 'taboo' like a lot of other stuff that's now becoming more socially acceptable. People fear it will change things, and open up the doors to everything else being accepted. And since most if not all religion is based on traditions and set morals that are normally against all taboo, you can see how those things becoming widely accepted would effect them. *More freedom generates more atheists.. or free thinking at least.*



Are you aware that the Founding Fathers of America were religious men?  So no, you don't need atheism in order to promote freedom or free thinking.




Taren Fox said:


> Straight couples who cannot get pregnant shouldn't be able to see each other in the hospital, get tax breaks, or be able to share their health and life insurance with their spouse.



Straight couples are male and female, only prevented from having children by a medical condition.  Gays, by default, have absolutely no possibility of ever producing children in a gay relationship, even if they are reproductively able to do so WITH THE OPPOSITE SEX.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 17, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Straight couples are male and female, only prevented from having children by a medical condition.  Gays, by default, have absolutely no possibility of ever producing children, even if they are reproductively able to do so.


You're ignoring the fact that that ability to reproduce without outside help has nothing to do with the rights/benefits that marriage grants.


----------



## Takun (Jan 17, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> At the same time straight people aren't asking for benefits.  They have them and always will.  There's no civil rights at stake so things like "Jersey Shore" on MTV doesn't bother anybody, and instead just remains as comedy for many.
> 
> They also don't feel the need to have parades where they feel the need to display their sexual fetish of choice, not their love for each other in a way that doesn't make straight people want to gouge their eyes out.  This is why the "gay image" needs to change if you want equality.
> 
> Think about it this way: What if Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke jive in all of his speeches?  What if he went around acting like a militant or said "LAWDY I SHURE HOPE MISTAH WHITE MAYNE GIVES US OUR RIGHTS!"  He wore a suit, acted professional, spoke in a well versed manner.  This is why people get offended when people say that the pursuit of gay marriage is like the Civil Rights movement of the 60s.  Because the leaders we read about today acted professionally, despite the extreme groups and ultimately that professional image drowned out the Black Panther movement.  Instead what we have now is the fetish community drowning out whatever professional image the gay community has, which to my knowledge there is none.




100% agreed.  I think pride parades had a purpose and are now just outdated.  While before they raised awareness (any publicity is _good_ publicity) now that people are well aware of gays, they are doing more harm than good.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 17, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Are you aware that the Founding Fathers of America were religious men?  So no, you don't need atheism in order to promote freedom or free thinking.



I would hardly call Jefferson and other deists "religious", but that's another thread.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 17, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> You're ignoring the fact that that ability to reproduce without outside help has nothing to do with the rights/benefits that marriage grants.



Read back for other comments related to marriage and children in this thread... I commented based on those comments, as well as the one I directly quoted.  Far as I'm concerned... far as I've heard... gays seem to want "marriage" for the tax benefits granted by Government approval.  They could get married any time they wished, if they could find a church or otherwise to marry them.  However, if they did that, it wouldn't come with that little thing called a "marriage certificate", you know, that little piece of paper that comes with all the tax bennies.

Gays can marry any time they want, just not within the eyes of the law.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 17, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Gays can marry any time they want, just not within the eyes of the law.


That's the important part.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 17, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> That's the important part.



Why?  I thought the important part was "they love each other"...


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 17, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Why?  I thought the important part was "they love each other"...


If it was only about loving each other, marriage wouldn't matter.  It's not like marriage enables people to love each other more.


----------



## Taren Fox (Jan 17, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Straight couples are male and female, only prevented from having children by a medical condition.  Gays, by default, have absolutely no possibility of ever producing children in a gay relationship, even if they are reproductively able to do so WITH THE OPPOSITE SEX.


Did you even read my post before you quoted me?


----------



## FluffMouse (Jan 17, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Are you aware that the Founding Fathers of America were religious men?  So no, you don't need atheism in order to promote freedom or free thinking.


The founding fathers were free thinkers and were heavily influenced by science and philosophy. 
I wouldn't say they were atheists, or anti-religious.. but pretty damn close. They also believed 
in the separation of church and state. They were also apparently Deists.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 17, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> If it was only about loving each other, marriage wouldn't matter.  It's not like marriage enables people to love each other more.



No, it doesn't, but marriage is a "contract" between two people, a commitment and a promise made in front of witnesses.  That is marriage.  Tax bennies have nothing whatsoever to do with marriage, the Govenment has simply tagged that on a traditional ceremony that never had anything to do with taxes, before the Government got its hands into marriage.

Here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage


----------



## Takun (Jan 17, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> No, it doesn't, but marriage is a "contract" between two people, a commitment and a promise made in front of witnesses.  That is marriage.  Tax bennies have nothing whatsoever to do with marriage, the Govenment has simply tagged that on a traditional ceremony that never had anything to do with taxes, before the Government got its hands into marriage.
> 
> Here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage




Yes people who love each other are the ones who should be able to marry each other.  However, I'm sure you can see the list of benefits legal marriage grants.  There are some pretty important ones listed there.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 17, 2010)

Roose, you need to shut up before someone on these forums kills you. You know you know it's about the rules and benefits of contractual arrangements applying equally to all, you know you don't really believe in that, you know you are a prejudiced bigot in a lot of ways already, and we all know it, so let's stop holding hands like little fucking girls at a tea party about it.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 17, 2010)

Takumi_L said:


> Yes people who love each other are the ones who should be able to marry each other.  However, I'm sure you can see the list of benefits legal marriage grants.  *There are some pretty important ones listed there.*



Marriage doesn't have to be "legal" in order to exist... yes, all the nice "legal" bennies, but if that is the ONLY reason you want to marry, then you've missed the whole point.  What is more important:  Promising your commitment and loyalty to the one you love?  Or being able to check off "married" on your tax forms?


----------



## Kiva19 (Jan 17, 2010)

The prevailing logic here is that heterosexual unions are recognized by the government (and privileges granted) because the government has an interest in the fact that those two individuals are in love. 

That's ridiculous! The government doesn't give a rat's ass that two people are in love. That is not why heterosexual unions are recognized and privileges are granted to them. The government is trying to encourage a behavior that is beneficial to the country..which is reproduction within a commited relationship. 

If two people want to get married because they love each other, and be recognized for that fact...then they can pursue a religious ceremony....heterosexual or otherwise. The ONLY reason a heterosexual couple gets that peice of paper giving them certain benefits under the law is because of their unique ability to produce a child (and do so in the best environment possible). 

It really isn't that complex a concept.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 17, 2010)

Takumi_L said:


> (any publicity is _good_ publicity)



This is a HUGE misnomer, which you touched on at the end of your sentence, which some of the gay people I know at college seem to not understand.  It all depends on how much you have to lose and who your target is.

William Hung had nothing to lose when he went on American Idol and embarrassed himself.  Yet that bad publicity allowed him to produce three studio albums and have several appearances on television mostly because his audience, the average American person with access to the internet, loved every second of how horrible he was.

The gay community however has everything to lose by having a bad image.  This is something it didn't take into consideration when they started their pride parades, apparently trying to force people into accepting their way of life, which by the way hasn't and will never work, especially for "The Man."  It also doesn't help that your biggest "professional" voice is one of the talking heads on a major liberal news network who acts just as wacky as his Fox News counterparts. (*COUGHKEITHOLBERMANNCOUGH*)


----------



## Takun (Jan 17, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Marriage doesn't have to be "legal" in order to exist... yes, all the nice "legal" bennies, but if that is the ONLY reason you want to marry, then you've missed the whole point.  What is more important:  Promising your commitment and loyalty to the one you love?  Or being able to check off "married" on your tax forms?




Ugh, you aren't getting it.  It isn't the taxes.  We aren't trying to skirt taxes.  Fuck off with that logic.



*Employment Benefits*



Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.


*Medical Benefits*



Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.



Lots of big ones that we would like.




Term_the_Schmuck said:


> This is a HUGE misnomer, which you touched on at the end of your sentence, which some of the gay people I know at college seem to not understand. It all depends on how much you have to lose and who your target is.
> 
> William Hung had nothing to lose when he went on American Idol and embarrassed himself. Yet that bad publicity allowed him to produce three studio albums and have several appearances on television mostly because his audience, the average American person with access to the internet, loved every second of how horrible he was.
> 
> The gay community however has everything to lose by having a bad image. This is something it didn't take into consideration when they started their pride parades, apparently trying to force people into accepting their way of life, which by the way hasn't and will never work, especially for "The Man." It also doesn't help that your biggest "professional" voice is one of the talking heads on a major liberal news network who acts just as wacky as his Fox News counterparts. (*COUGHKEITHOLBERMANNCOUGH*)



Now see I disagree that back in the past it wasn't beneficial.  It got it out in the open that HEY gays exist.  Look at them.  Yes I don't like it and think it hurts but I wasn't exactly around to have any say in it.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 17, 2010)

Kiva19 said:


> The prevailing logic here is that heterosexual unions are recognized by the government (and privileges granted) because the government has an interest in the fact that those two individuals are in love.
> 
> That's ridiculous! The government doesn't give a rat's ass that two people are in love. That is not why heterosexual unions are recognized and privileges are granted to them. The government is trying to encourage a behavior that is beneficial to the country..which is reproduction within a commited relationship.
> 
> ...



Perhaps if they took their nose out if the marriage business altogether, fewer people would be getting married for the wrong reasons (economic necessity/greed), fewer marriages would fail, and some of the damage that scheme has done would, over time, be reversed. Sometimes, the best thing you can do is just leave well enough alone. *But*, in the meantime, what a lot of people want is for the rules to apply equally to all.

We simply don't give a flying fuck about your prejudices, I'm sorry, they're going to have to go to the back of the bus cuz straight marriage is being oppressed take a back seat. You're not going to convince anyone here. Anyone. So you may as well just quit while you're behind or you lose your cool and an hero.


----------



## Kiva19 (Jan 17, 2010)

Well, I don't think I can make any progress here. It's obvious that the concept of legal marriage is much too hard for some people to grasp. I suppose I shall just watch this thread spiral out of control too. We already have people making classic, misinformed statements about the founding fathers!


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jan 17, 2010)

Easog said:


> With a world population expected to reach 9 billion by 2040, and gross overpopulation already a problem, can someone explain to me why popping out babies is considered a good thing?


 
More votes.


----------



## Grimfang (Jan 17, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Marriage doesn't have to be "legal" in order to exist... yes, all the nice "legal" bennies, but if that is the ONLY reason you want to marry, then you've missed the whole point.  What is more important:  Promising your commitment and loyalty to the one you love?  Or being able to check off "married" on your tax forms?



I've always been under the impression that same-sex couples get shafted without _important_ rights and benefits granted in marriage. Even if same-sex couples were expected to just "give up that tax form checkbox", I think there is quite a bit more we're missing out on.

It just seems like you're overly trivializing non-trivial issues.


My two cents: Even if a gay couple cannot produce children so naturally, that does not mean they are of no benefit to society. There are straight couples that can't produce children. If we're going to be oh-so fair and balanced, how about we do exactly that? And how about couples that adopt? Straight couples do that.

I'm seeing double standard arguments.


Oh, Takun answers some other questions I had...



Takumi_L said:


> Ugh, you aren't getting it.  It isn't the taxes.  We aren't trying to skirt taxes.  Fuck off with that logic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is informative.

And pretty much what I was getting at: How the hell is all of that reduced down to "_being able to check off "married" on your tax forms?_"

Really?


----------



## Takun (Jan 17, 2010)

Kiva19 said:


> Well, I don't think I can make any progress here. It's obvious that the concept of legal marriage is much too hard for some people to grasp. I suppose I shall just watch this thread spiral out of control too. We already have people making classic, misinformed statements about the founding fathers!




We understand it quite well thank you.  We are saying that it should be expanded upon to grant the rights to everyone or should be done away with completely.  Since it's not going anywhere, we would like the rights.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 17, 2010)

Kiva19 said:


> The prevailing logic here is that heterosexual unions are recognized by the government (and privileges granted) because the government has an interest in the fact that those two individuals are in love.
> 
> That's ridiculous! The government doesn't give a rat's ass that two people are in love. That is not why heterosexual unions are recognized and privileges are granted to them. The government is trying to encourage a behavior that is beneficial to the country..which is reproduction within a commited relationship.
> 
> ...



Again you continue to ignore that desire and ability to make babies is no prerequisite for legal recognition of marriage and the whole host of benefits it provides, the very _least_ of such being a tax benefit.  Also the fact that the government can and does recognize and reward having children directly takes a whole lot of wind out of your sails.

Even if the purpose of legally-recognized marriage was to promote having children, there's still plenty of kids that need adopting.


----------



## Kiva19 (Jan 17, 2010)

Take their nose out of it? There nose IS out of it for homosexual couples! You are arguing that they should put their nose IN it! Homosexual couples have the ability to be married for what you stated as the "right" reasons, right now. By claiming that you just want the equal benefits the GOVERNMENT grants heterosexual couples...you are inviting the government into marriage.

Apparently the logic here is that everyone should get the privileges (even though homosexual couples lack the ability to produce a child..which is why the privileges exist in the first place), or no one should get them.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 17, 2010)

Like I already said either in this thread or the one that spawned it, I forget which, since the fuck _when_ is "it's allowed because it's useful to society" the main reason _anything_ is legal in a western democracy? I mean Jesus fucking Christ, this is the guy that originally tried to explain that he was such a level headed conservative, and peel back the layers of his bullshit and he starts to sound more like some kind of Borg fascist! "It's not efficient! It doesn't add to our perfection! Obliterate it!"

Edit: just to clarify, what spawned this is, if you'll recall, this is the guy who differentiates liberals from conservatives on the shakier-than-Haiti-last-week argument that one wants policies that are beneficial to society and to only disallow those which aren't, and the other wants to allow all the bad policies and do away with the good. I pointed out both sides are basically full of shit and want plenty of social controls _and_ non-changes that either are outright harmful to the overall health of society or simply serve no real purpose. This guy was pretty obviously that kind of "conservative" from the start, who doesn't realize his own fucking ideology doesn't even pretend anymore to be about anything but the party getting what the party wants for the sake of the party and the emotional wants of its members (just like the liberals). This is just him further proving my point.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 17, 2010)

Takumi_L said:


> Now see I disagree that back in the past it wasn't beneficial.  It got it out in the open that HEY gays exist.  Look at them.  Yes I don't like it and think it hurts but I wasn't exactly around to have any say in it.



I'm not too sure about that.  Gay life was a part of American society and at least known about since the 60's, though granted people didn't want to recognize it existed.  Now while the Stonewall Riots and subsequent marches in remembrance of that I think were beneficial in at the very least encouraging gay individuals to be more open about themselves and to not be afraid, I don't think it encouraged anyone who wasn't to start accepting them as equal individuals.  What caused that to happen, from my perspective, was having someone they know come out of the closet and realize, "Hey, maybe these people aren't so bad."

I think this is especially true today with how most pride parades seem to have absolutely nothing to do with political activism and are more about being able to walk outside in broad daylight wearing wearing elaborate sexually themed costumes.  This also seems to be detrimental to having someone come out of the closet since that is the image they'll be associated with.

EDIT: This all is essentially the same rhetoric I give you furrys when you ask why people don't treat you with respect, give or take a few points.


----------



## Kiva19 (Jan 17, 2010)

No, there is not a legal prerequisite that says someone must be tested for fertility...however, it is understood that the majority of men and women are fertile and thus capable of producing a child. That is why their union is afforded special recognition, and is encouraged through the offering of certain benefits. 

Adopting a child is not the same as producing one yourself. The union of two homosexual people was not conductive to producing a new child...they are simply raising another heterosexual couple's child. Why should their relationship be recognized or encouraged by the rest of society?


----------



## Lobar (Jan 17, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I'm not too sure about that.  Gay life was a part of American society and at least known about since the 60's, though granted people didn't want to recognize it existed.  Now while the Stonewall Riots and subsequent marches in remembrance of that I think were beneficial in at the very least encouraging gay individuals to be more open about themselves and to not be afraid, I don't think it encouraged anyone who wasn't to start accepting them as equal individuals.  What caused that to happen, from my perspective, was having someone they know come out of the closet and realize, "Hey, maybe these people aren't so bad."
> 
> I think this is especially true today with how most pride parades seem to have absolutely nothing to do with political activism and are more about being able to walk outside in broad daylight wearing wearing elaborate sexually themed costumes.  This also seems to be detrimental to having someone come out of the closet since that is the image they'll be associated with.



IIRC the first pride parade simply consisted of well-dressed gays marching without all the campy shit.  It would be nice to return to that.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 17, 2010)

He was saying take their nose out of marriage. 

Anyways, I'm done arguing with close minded bigots who refuse to consider the concept of equal rights.


----------



## Takun (Jan 17, 2010)

Kiva19 said:


> Take their nose out of it? There nose IS out of it for homosexual couples! You are arguing that they should put their nose IN it! Homosexual couples have the ability to be married for what you stated as the "right" reasons, right now. By claiming that you just want the equal benefits the GOVERNMENT grants heterosexual couples...you are inviting the government into marriage.
> 
> Apparently the logic here is that everyone should get the privileges (even though homosexual couples lack the ability to produce a child..which is why the privileges exist in the first place), or no one should get them.




God you are fucking dense. Legal marriage provides a HOST of privileges that have absolutely nothing to do with children and everything to do with JUST a spouse.  While it'd be nice to have no government involvement, there is too much in there EVEN if we don't get married.  So what you get is gay couples who have been together for 40 years not being allowed to visit one another on their death bed because they are not married.  You get denied the right to speak for your spouse if they were to be stuck in a vegetative state.  Once again I linked all the information on it.  To say that government isn't in our lives as couples is bullshit.  It is.  

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30190.html


----------



## Lobar (Jan 17, 2010)

Kiva19 said:


> No, there is not a legal prerequisite that says someone must be tested for fertility...however, it is understood that the majority of men and women are fertile and thus capable of producing a child. That is why their union is afforded special recognition, and is encouraged through the offering of certain benefits.



If they wanted to reward producing children, they would do it directly...like they already do through other means.

And since gays are a minority, even if you allowed them to marry the *majority* of married couples would still produce children. :v



Kiva19 said:


> Adopting a child is not the same as producing one yourself. The union of two homosexual people was not conductive to producing a new child...they are simply raising another heterosexual couple's child. Why should their relationship be recognized or encouraged by the rest of society?



You really see no benefit to society in offering someone's unwanted child a family and a future?  While creating one somehow is beneficial?  I don't think you're arguing honestly here.




edit: vvvv Ah, sorry, I missed the "subsequent marches" bit.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 17, 2010)

Lobar said:


> IIRC the first pride parade simply consisted of well-dressed gays marching without all the campy shit.  It would be nice to return to that.



Which is why I mentioned the Stonewall Riots and the marches after that since those are the exact parades you're mentioning.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 17, 2010)

Kiva19 said:


> No, there is not a legal prerequisite that says someone must be tested for fertility...however, it is understood that the majority of men and women are fertile and thus capable of producing a child. That is why their union is afforded special recognition, and is encouraged through the offering of certain benefits.
> 
> Adopting a child is not the same as producing one yourself. The union of two homosexual people was not conductive to producing a new child...they are simply raising another heterosexual couple's child. Why should their relationship be recognized or encouraged by the rest of society?



Oh, of course, how foolish of me. I figured the potential benefits of _all these orphans_ having _someone_ to raise them other than the system would've been obvious to you, but that would be totally out of line with your "if it doesn't add to our perfection, obliterate it" mentality. Tell me, genius, if _I_ couldn't have been found a suitable hetero couple a few months after I was born, what would _you_ have opted for? A fucking foster home where most likely I'd grow up to be someone who'd just as soon murder your lionking-masturbating-ass as look at you, or a gay couple who'd already know a thing or two about being misjudged/misunderstood like I would inevitable be who could help prepare me for it?

Oh fuck it. We're practically _born_ damaged. We probably all ought to be fucking euthanized in your little Aryan utopia.


----------



## Dass (Jan 17, 2010)

Kiva19 said:


> Take their nose out of it? There nose IS out of it for homosexual couples! You are arguing that they should put their nose IN it! Homosexual couples have the ability to be married for what you stated as the "right" reasons, right now. By claiming that you just want the equal benefits the GOVERNMENT grants heterosexual couples...you are inviting the government into marriage.
> 
> Apparently the logic here is that everyone should get the privileges (even though homosexual couples lack the ability to produce a child..which is why the privileges exist in the first place), or no one should get them.



Oh for god's sake, HOW OBLIVIOUS ARE YOU?!

Your argument is that marriage only exists to produce children. This could in no way be farther from the truth. WHY ISN'T THIS BREACHING YOUR SKULL?!


----------



## Kommodore (Jan 17, 2010)

I was under the assumption that picking arbitrary qualities, like fertility or superhawtsexyness or anything else really was _not kosher_ for most people. 

I mean, if I went to Disneyland or something and wanted to go on a ride and I found a sign that said "Space Mountain! Vegetarians only" I would not only be slightly annoyed but very confused as to why such a frivolous and _random_ requirement need be met in order for me to go on the ride. 

I get the same vibes from this whole marriage/fertility/kid thing, to be honest.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 17, 2010)

Dass said:


> Your argument is that marriage only exists to produce children. This could in no way be farther from the truth. WHY ISN'T THIS BREACHING YOUR SKULL?!



Because when your ideology/religion is essentially state-worship, the only reason people exist, in your mind, is to serve the state, which exists for its own sake to the benefit of no one but itself. Thus the only reason marriage could be allowed in orthodoxy to that belief system is to produce children, who in turn exist for the state.



CommodoreKitty said:


> I was under the assumption that picking arbitrary qualities, like fertility or superhawtsexyness or anything else really was _not kosher_ for most people.



Kosher? That's for the Jews. They cannot be assimilated and actually subtract from, rather than add to the eventual perfection of Kiva's envisioned Final Solution - or at least that of the ideology he's sold his soul to.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 17, 2010)

Kiva19 said:
			
		

> Helping the child is not the same as producing a new life. That was already done by a heterosexual couple. Apparently, this is just going over your head.
> 
> No, YOU are missing the point. The homosexual couple itself did not produce that child! Those two individuals did not produce a new child. One of them, and a member of the opposite sex did...which is a heterosexual interaction. Why encourage the homosexual union with various benefits, when it was a heterosexual action that actually produced a new child. You are definitely just grasping now.
> 
> ...



Just sharing this pm with everyone here.

Kiva believes helping the child doesn't matter and homosexual parents are automatically worse than heterosexual ones.


----------



## Dass (Jan 17, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Just sharing this pm with everyone here.
> 
> Kiva believes helping the child doesn't matter and homosexual parents are automatically worse than heterosexual ones.



Allow me to now make the least intimidating threat I can muster.
I will PHYSICALLY INCONVINIENCE that person.

Single parents, etc.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 17, 2010)

Takumi_L said:


> So are you or are you not saying that gay marriage has a negative effect on society? And if not, why would you go ahead and quote my question and answer it. I didn't pick up on that because I asked a question and then you went ahead and... gave an answer to some other question?


 
No, I really don't. I thought if I said "they" and not "it" you would have picked it up. But I apologize. I came out left came out of left field with that. Didn't mean to throw you off. So again, I apologize.



Jashwa said:


> Just sharing this pm with everyone here.
> 
> Kiva believes helping the child doesn't matter and homosexual parents are automatically worse than heterosexual ones.


 
May the fury of a bunch of furries be upon you, Kiva.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 17, 2010)

I can't image what kind of mental gymnastics are required to argue that a +1 for the population is more important than making sure that +1 actually becomes a productive member of society.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 17, 2010)

Kiva19 said:
			
		

> The homosexual couple itself did not produce that child! Those two individuals did not produce a new child... a child raised in a homosexual environment will be missing either one, or both of his biological parents. Why should we encourage this?



*Again, what would you have had the state do with me, an orphan?* I mean you're two steps away from basically saying why suffer them to live in the first place, so just fucking say it so we can ban your ass like they're probably already headed towards anyway.



			
				Jashwa said:
			
		

> Kiva believes helping the child doesn't matter and homosexual parents are automatically worse than heterosexual ones.



It's worse than that. He basically sees children being raised by anyone but their biological parents as a non-option, which is why for the second time now I've demanded an answer (to no avail), what would he have them do with us?



			
				Lobar said:
			
		

> I can't image what kind of mental gymnastics are required to argue that a +1 for the population is more important than making sure that +1 actually becomes a productive member of society.



The kind of mental gymnastics required of *all* strains of *state worship*, which is the logical conclusion of whatever "conservatism" this guy practices. Jesus Christ, I'm starting to think some of you guys are just a dense as he is. He's practically wearing it on his sleeve how his mind works.


----------



## Kiva19 (Jan 17, 2010)

There are benefits extended soley because one has a spouse, but again..that is because a married, heterosexual couple is the most conductive relationship for producing a child, who will one day become a contributing member of society! 

The government intends to encourage a relationship that has the best chances of producing a stable, productive member of the community in the future. Encouraging two heterosexual people that love one another to get married by extending certain benefits to them is done because there is a significant chance that those two people will have a child....and that this child will be raised in the best environment possible. 

Yes, the evil heartless conservative wants all those orphans to die in the streets! Give me a break! 

Has anyone thought about why those children are up for adoption in the first place? Most of those children did not come from a married couple. I would much rather encourage heterosexual couples to get married and have a child which they keep, than encourage homosexual couples to marry so that they can adopt the unwanted children of non-married heterosexual couples. Not to mention, you don't have to be married to adopt a child. 

I find it funny that no one here has mentioned an alternative as to why the government recognizes and extends benefits to heterosexual couples since the ability to produce a child is apparently irrelevant. I guess the federal and state governments have a vested interest in your love life? 

EDIT: You people are insane. I have no idea how you deduced from my statements..that I want orphans to die instead of being adopted. No, I want there to be less orphans in the first place...by encouraging people to get married before they have children. *sighs* 

Anyways...this is deteriorating to the point of name-calling and such. So, I'll just watch from now on =P. Enjoy preaching to the choir. =D


----------



## Kommodore (Jan 17, 2010)

Kiva, question: 

If creating new life is in and of itself more important than improving the quality of an existing one, what would you say to the following example:

You have the option to bring a 4 year-old child up from an impoverished position in a poor nation to a life of luxury in the first world. Or, 

You bring into the world a child who lives in abject poverty in a war-stricken area of the world, where he is doomed to either starve, be murdered, or do murder himself? 

Keep in mind the first one does not bring life into the world, but the second one does. 



			
				Wolf-Bone said:
			
		

> Kosher? That's for the Jews. They cannot be assimilated and actually subtract from, rather than add to the eventual perfection of Kiva's envisioned Final Solution - or at least that of the ideology he's sold his soul to.



No see it is okay so long as the Jew doesn't like teh cohcks.

Also: 
*Again, what would you have had the state do with me, an orphan?

*I think you prove Kiva's point._

*sniggers_


----------



## Dass (Jan 17, 2010)

Kiva19 said:


> There are benefits extended soley because one has a spouse, but again..that is because a married, heterosexual couple is the most conductive relationship for producing a child, who will one day become a contributing member of society!
> 
> The government intends to encourage a relationship that has the best chances of producing a stable, productive member of the community in the future. Encouraging two heterosexual people that love one another to get married by extending certain benefits to them is done because there is a significant chance that those two people will have a child....and that this child will be raised in the best environment possible.
> 
> ...



Who's name calling? We're bringing up good points which you aren't addressing! You coward!

Anyway... Yep. I can see anything at all I say won't make it through your skull. I'd guess you are one of the 63% of creationist Americans, considering fact is having so much difficulty with you. Counter-argument, if having a baby is the only reason why heterosexual couples get those benefits in America, why are less right-leaning countries handing the same benefits to homosexual couples?


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 17, 2010)

Kiva19 said:


> Not to mention, you don't have to be married to adopt a child.



Well don't you see that as part of the problem, at least? I mean, a single parent raising a non-biologically related child is clearly not the best possible scenario in which that kid could be raised to be a good little Hitler youth.



			
				Kiva19 said:
			
		

> Enjoy preaching to the choir. =D



I hope you die in a fire. No, I take that back. I hope you die _after_ you've been in a fire and spent a good while lingering on life support under the whole of your charred flesh and wrapped in more bloody cloth than the shroud of tourin.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 17, 2010)

Gwohohohoho look what I have found:



> Korasick and her husband, John, 30, are members of a small but growing demographic group here in the U.S. According to the Census Bureau's 1998 Current Population Survey, a greater percentage of women of all ages are not having children. *In that year, 5.7 million (or 18.4 percent) married women of childbearing age (defined by the Census as between 15 and 44 years old) were childless.* And many of them like it that way. The National Center of Health Statistics confirms that *the percentage of women of childbearing age who define themsleves as voluntarily childless is on the rise*: from 2.4 percent in 1982, to 4.3 percent in 1990, to 6.6 percent in 1995 (the most recent available figure). That's 4.1 million women saying no to motherhood in 1995.



Currently existing childless couples are already leeching undeserved joint filing status and ability to make medical decisions on each other's behalf in ratios far greater than the percentage of the homosexual population.  Why isn't Kiva19 pressing for the revocation of privileges from couples that don't provide us with precious precious babies?

edit: You coward.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 17, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> (*COUGHKEITHOLBERMANNCOUGH*)


 
I've been wondering about that guy's sexuality. He almost cried on MSN when gays got out voted on Prop 8.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 17, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> I've been wondering about that guy's sexuality. He almost cried on MSN when gays got out voted on Prop 8.



I think he's about as genuine as Glenn Beck is about how he hates the government.  I'd say if he's a legitimate journalist he'd have a shred of dignity and with how he conducts himself on his program, but then I remember he started off his career working Sportscenter for ESPN so I'm having a hard time seeing his political expertise outside of the general liberal way of looking at things.

Then again maybe all the talking heads really are that crazy.


----------



## Jelly (Jan 17, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I think he's about as genuine as Glenn Beck.  I'd say if he's a legitimate journalist he'd have a shred of dignity and with how he conducts himself on his program, but then I remember he started off his career working Sportscenter for ESPN so I'm having a hard time seeing his political expertise outside of the general liberal way of looking at things.



No one on a news channel is a journalist.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 17, 2010)

jellyhurwit said:


> No one on a news channel is a journalist.



This is true, something I, like an Alzheimer's patient, keep forgetting and then get upset over.


----------



## Revy (Jan 17, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Think about it this way: What if Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke jive in all of his speeches? What if he went around acting like a militant or said "LAWDY I SHURE HOPE MISTAH WHITE MAYNE GIVES US OUR RIGHTS!" He wore a suit, acted professional, spoke in a well versed manner. This is why people get offended when people say that the pursuit of gay marriage is like the Civil Rights movement of the 60s. Because the leaders we read about today acted professionally, despite the extreme groups and ultimately that professional image drowned out the Black Panther movement. Instead what we have now is the fetish community drowning out whatever professional image the gay community has, which to my knowledge there is none.


 ha this is epic...


----------



## Jelly (Jan 17, 2010)

Revy said:


> ha this is epic...



The things that are going to be televised today are the most extreme sensational things.
It wasn't always like that.
But that's how it is now.


----------



## Takun (Jan 17, 2010)

Kiva19 said:


> There are benefits extended soley because one has a spouse, but again..that is because a married, heterosexual couple is the most conductive relationship for producing a child, who will one day become a contributing member of society!



Are you really that for gone that you really it is fine that homosexual couples are lacking all the stuff I've listed?  Then go to back it up with "because they don't contribute to society."

I'm sure glad such great people as Alan Turing weren't gay.  That'd be embarrassing.  I mean to claim that gays cause do something as important as computers would be just plain silly. 



> The government intends to encourage a relationship that has the best chances of producing a stable, productive member of the community in the future. Encouraging two heterosexual people that love one another to get married by extending certain benefits to them is done because there is a significant chance that those two people will have a child....and that this child will be raised in the best environment possible.


APA tests have shown over and over that homosexuals are completely competent parents and raise normal children.  This is a lie.



> Yes, the evil heartless conservative wants all those orphans to die in the streets! Give me a break!
> 
> Has anyone thought about why those children are up for adoption in the first place? Most of those children did not come from a married couple. I would much rather encourage heterosexual couples to get married and have a child which they keep, than encourage homosexual couples to marry so that they can adopt the unwanted children of non-married heterosexual couples. Not to mention, you don't have to be married to adopt a child.


Really now?  Why not both.  And ahahahahah are you really implying that an unmarried gay couple has a chance at adopting a kid?


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jan 17, 2010)

Lobar said:


> I can't image what kind of mental gymnastics are required to argue that a +1 for the population is more important than making sure that +1 actually becomes a productive member of society.


 
Once again: More votes.
All you have to do is have a bunch of fucking retarded children, tell them that they can do anything they want if they believe in themselves, and you have many potential voters. 

Now all you gotta do is be hip, and advertize on Myspace with a vague basis for your campaign. I like "Change." It is so ambiguous, that a bunch of dumbfuck teens, man-childs, and minorities are bound to vote for it.

The dumbfuck teens because they have no purpose in life whatsoever, and know it, and so they vote so that hopefully they will at least have bread and circuses provided to them by the government.

The Man-Children because they need food, but instead buy novelties and shit rather than invest their money in things that could be potentially worthwhile.

And Minorities, because minorities hate being minorities, but love to stress the fact that they are minorities to make the majority feel guilty for being themselves.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 17, 2010)

Roose, don't even fucking try it. Seriously. Just don't.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 17, 2010)

For fuck's sake, can somebody please add gay marriage to the "shit we're tired of hearing about" file?



			
				Jesusfish said:
			
		

> ITT: Gay people get angry. As always.


QFT.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 17, 2010)

JesusFish said:
			
		

> The dumbfuck teens because they have no purpose in life whatsoever, and know it, and so they vote so that hopefully they will at least have bread and circuses provided to them by the government.



the dumbfuck teens are becoming gradually less teen and less dumbfuck, and as it is, _all they have_ is bread and circuses provided to them by reality shows and jon stewart/colbert. They hear "Change" and are hoping against "Hope" that it means maybe something resembling some actual _direction_ in their lives.

Stop being such a dumbfuck teen yourself and get your finger on the fucking pulse of your own fellow demographic man. Jesus fuck. Get in touch with *reality*.




			
				JesusFish said:
			
		

> The Man-Children because they need food, but instead buy novelties and shit rather than invest their money in things that could be potentially worthwhile.



I agree. I really wish fewer of those people would be running banks, airlines, the housing industry, and giant multinational corporations that transcend government.




			
				JesusFish said:
			
		

> And Minorities, because minorities hate being minorities, but love to stress the fact that they are minorities to make the majority feel guilty for being themselves.



Er, hold on just one second, I gotta take a call here.
Yeah, it's Get dancing. Says if you don't mind he'd like you to take his dick out your mouth.


----------



## Zee Skunkeh! (Jan 17, 2010)

Holy shit.

I generally don't debate, not because I don't have views but because I am terrible at expressing them firstly and then explaining them. I think that gay people shouldn't be looked at as gay people but just as people. Period. No one should be proudly applauding someone for coming out and being courageous, no one should be pushing someone to come out and be gay, and conversely, no one should be restricting a gay person's rights or discriminating against them because homosexuality does not come first in their description, the fact that they are a living, breathing human being does.

This thread is so angry and bitter, it makes me sad.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jan 17, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> At the same time straight people aren't asking for benefits. They have them and always will. There's no civil rights at stake so things like "Jersey Shore" on MTV doesn't bother anybody, and instead just remains as comedy for many.
> 
> They also don't feel the need to have parades where they feel the need to display their sexual fetish of choice, not their love for each other in a way that doesn't make straight people want to gouge their eyes out. This is why the "gay image" needs to change if you want equality.
> 
> Think about it this way: What if Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke jive in all of his speeches? What if he went around acting like a militant or said "LAWDY I SHURE HOPE MISTAH WHITE MAYNE GIVES US OUR RIGHTS!" He wore a suit, acted professional, spoke in a well versed manner. This is why people get offended when people say that the pursuit of gay marriage is like the Civil Rights movement of the 60s. Because the leaders we read about today acted professionally, despite the extreme groups and ultimately that professional image drowned out the Black Panther movement. Instead what we have now is the fetish community drowning out whatever professional image the gay community has, which to my knowledge there is none.


 
http://scrapetv.com/News/News Pages/Science/Images/Gay-Pride-Parade.jpg
"HOMG!11!!11 WHY CAN'T YOU ACCEPT US FOR WHO WE ARE YOU NAZI FASCIST CHRISTIAN REPUBLIKAN"


----------



## Zee Skunkeh! (Jan 17, 2010)

Your right to dress like an idiot comes with my right to tell you that you look like an idiot.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jan 17, 2010)

Zee Skunkeh! said:


> Your right to dress like an idiot comes with my right to tell you that you look like an idiot.


 
WHY CANT U ACCEPT ME FOR WHO I AM?


----------



## Ricky (Jan 17, 2010)

Kiva19 said:


> Anyways...this is deteriorating to the point of name-calling and such. So, I'll just watch from now on =P. Enjoy preaching to the choir. =D



So you're going to say a bunch of unfounded bullshit and then leave it at that because you *know* you're gonna get called on it...

Pussy.


----------



## Zee Skunkeh! (Jan 17, 2010)

JesusFish said:


> WHY CANT U ACCEPT ME FOR WHO I AM?



CUZ U LOOK STUPIT

YEA I WENT THERE


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 17, 2010)

JesusFish said:


> http://scrapetv.com/News/News Pages/Science/Images/Gay-Pride-Parade.jpg
> "HOMG!11!!11 WHY CAN'T YOU ACCEPT US FOR WHO WE ARE YOU NAZI FASCIST CHRISTIAN REPUBLIKAN"



Actually, pics like that sometimes force me to wonder if it has anything to do with morals and everything to do with the fact that you won't in a million years find a politician/lawmaker/champion of the culture wars who 1) has a body in that good a shape and 2) isn't ashamed to flaunt it. I think it might be fuckin jealousy. I mean I've had enough fat bitches I used to be down with to know there's _a lot_ of people who resent anyone who's stronger/healthier/more attractive than them, for no real good reason.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 17, 2010)

This is what I think.

Also, dicks.


----------



## Zee Skunkeh! (Jan 17, 2010)

I'd call you a sadistic necrophiliac zoophile, but that would be beating a dead horse.


----------



## Ricky (Jan 17, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> This is what I think.
> 
> Also, dicks.



You're right.

We need more threads about "WHATS UR FAVORITE CANDY" instead.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Jan 17, 2010)

I think society's perception of gays is nothing more than a classic case of the media influencing public opinion. We've all seen the pictures of the skin-exposing fairies prancing around the gay pride floats, but I can't recall ever seeing a picture that featured any of the people dressed in normal-looking, everyday clothes that (from what I've seen) outnumber the aforementioned fairies at pride parades.

They're there, but they're not nearly as numerous as people tend to believe.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 17, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> This is what I think.
> 
> Also, dicks.


 


Ricky said:


> You're right.
> 
> We need more threads about "WHATS UR FAVORITE CANDY" instead.


 
Fuck you guys. These bearly pop up.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jan 17, 2010)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Actually, pics like that sometimes force me to wonder if it has anything to do with morals and everything to do with the fact that you won't in a million years find a politician/lawmaker/champion of the culture wars who 1) has a body in that good a shape and 2) isn't ashamed to flaunt it. I think it might be fuckin jealousy. I mean I've had enough fat bitches I used to be down with to know there's _a lot_ of people who resent anyone who's stronger/healthier/more attractive than them, for no real good reason.


 
http://collegeotr.s3.amazonaws.com/images/blogs/0c11eb5adf23c556efb28ccf727cce5c.jpg

I think if this picture included beer, we know who would have won in 2008. Neither McCain or Obama.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 17, 2010)

Next person to post in this thread has to draw or write postmortem Michael Jackson rule 34 with Macully Colkin as a supporting character. Or at least wants to but just can't find the time in between replying to bullshit posters like Kimbamakumba19 or w/e his name be and putting their shit up Anne Coulter's proper crusted vagine. We clear?

/owt


----------



## Lobar (Jan 18, 2010)

Since he took his ball and went home, to keep the lulz going, a little internet detectivery reveals that Kiva19 is a Republican, believes gay marriage will lead to "animal marriage", is a creationist that believes the theory of evolution contributed to the atrocities committed by Hitler AND Stalin, and is also anti-abortion even in cases of rape.

I hope he sticks around.  This could be fun.


----------



## Ricky (Jan 18, 2010)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Actually, pics like that sometimes force me to wonder if it has anything to do with morals and everything to do with the fact that you won't in a million years find a politician/lawmaker/champion of the culture wars who 1) has a body in that good a shape and 2) isn't ashamed to flaunt it. I think it might be fuckin jealousy. I mean I've had enough fat bitches I used to be down with to know there's _a lot_ of people who resent anyone who's stronger/healthier/more attractive than them, for no real good reason.



Maybe it just says something about the people who "like to flaunt it."

Like...  Have you ever gone to a nude beach?  It's always the people you DON'T want to see naky.

Same with locker rooms.  This is why I avoid both of these places.


----------



## ArielMT (Jan 18, 2010)

Zee Skunkeh! said:


> I'd call you a sadistic necrophiliac zoophile, but that would be beating a dead horse.



Get thee to a punnery.


----------



## Kommodore (Jan 18, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Since he took his ball and went home, to keep the lulz going, a little internet detectivery reveals that Kiva19 is a Republican, believes gay marriage will lead to "animal marriage", is a creationist that believes the theory of evolution contributed to the atrocities committed by Hitler AND Stalin, and is also anti-abortion even in cases of rape.
> 
> I hope he sticks around.  This could be fun.




Haha that's awesome.


----------



## Takun (Jan 18, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> Get thee to a punnery.



for wise men know what MONSTERS you make of them.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 18, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Maybe it just says something about the people who "like to flaunt it."
> 
> Like...  Have you ever gone to a nude beach?  It's always the people you DON'T want to see naky.
> 
> Same with locker rooms.  This is why I avoid both of these places.


Locker rooms.  The fat people ;;


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 18, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Locker rooms. The fat people ;;


 
Must be an East Coast thing.


----------



## Telnac (Jan 18, 2010)

Yikes.  I'm gone from the forums for _*one day*_ and I see the Conservative thread locked, and an argument that appears to have started on that thread _create its own thread_ and continue here?

O...k...

Well, to put my 2 cents in, I break with the Republican party & social conservatives on this one.  The government should get out of the business of marrying *anyone.*  Civil unions for all.  Then, if you want to take the next step and get married according to the your personal traditions & beliefs, you're welcome to do so since all the legal stuff is rolled into the civil union.  If your beliefs & traditions say you can marry someone of the same sex?  Great!  If they allow your dog to be the minister for the ceremony, more power to ya.  If you want to do it the traditional way, have fun.

Frankly, I'm surprised that socially conservative churches don't take this view, too.  That way, if a church doesn't want to marry gay people, they don't have to.  If they don't want to recognize a gay couple's marriage, they don't have to... but they MUST recognize the legal status of the civil union.

Oh, wait, maybe it's because socially conservative churches don't care about God's Word as much as they care about sticking their noses into other people's business (never mind the fact that Jesus Himself chewed out the religious authorities of His day for doing the _*exact same thing!*_)


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jan 18, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Must be an East Coast thing.


No. It is an everywhere type of thing.
Down here, though, it is fat people, and old people in the gym locker rooms. Needless to say, Old people should stay in the VA homes or at their houses, and hard-labour camps should be erected for the morbidly obese people. That way, they shed the weight, and are afraid of gaining any at all.


----------



## Hottigress (Jan 18, 2010)

JesusFish said:


> No. It is an everywhere type of thing.
> Down here, though, it is fat people, and old people in the gym locker rooms. Needless to say, Old people should stay in the VA homes or at their houses, and hard-labour camps should be erected for the morbidly obese people. That way, they shed the weight, and are afraid of gaining any at all.




What is it with you and old gays, gyms, and buzzcuts? :V


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jan 18, 2010)

Hottigress said:


> What is it with you and old gays, gyms, and buzzcuts? :V


 
Old people at gym =/= Old Lesbian butch gym teachers.


----------



## Hottigress (Jan 18, 2010)

JesusFish said:


> Old people at gym =/= Old Lesbian butch gym teachers.



X3 Touche good man, touche.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 18, 2010)

JesusFish said:


> No. It is an everywhere type of thing.
> Down here, though, it is fat people, and old people in the gym locker rooms. Needless to say, Old people should stay in the VA homes or at their houses, and hard-labour camps should be erected for the morbidly obese people. That way, they shed the weight, and are afraid of gaining any at all.


 
See my state got most of the vegans, so neh.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 18, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> Did you even read my post before you quoted me?



Yes, I read this:



Taren Fox said:


> Straight couples who cannot get pregnant shouldn't be able to see each other in the hospital, get tax breaks, or be able to share their health and life insurance with their spouse.



And my response was this:



Roose Hurro said:


> Straight couples are male and female, only prevented from having children by a medical condition.  Gays, by default, have absolutely no possibility of ever producing children in a gay relationship, even if they are reproductively able to do so WITH THE OPPOSITE SEX.





Kiva19 said:


> The prevailing logic here is that heterosexual unions are recognized by the government (and privileges granted) because the government has an interest in the fact that those two individuals are in love.
> 
> That's ridiculous! The government doesn't give a rat's ass that two people are in love. That is not why heterosexual unions are recognized and privileges are granted to them. The government is trying to encourage a behavior that is beneficial to the country..which is reproduction within a commited relationship.
> 
> ...



Exactly.

So, Taren Fox, how does this all tie in?  Does your whole "Straight couples who cannot get pregnant" thing have anything whatsoever to do with the issue?  I said quite clearly its isn't the fault of the male/female (straight) couple if they find themselves unable to reproduce... gay couples can never reproduce, in any way, shape or form.  So, "legal" marriage has no possibility of accomplishing its reason for existing, when it comes to gay couples.  I think Kiva's post, quoted above, touches on the whole "legal" marriage thing.  It really isn't that complex a concept.




Takumi_L said:


> Ugh, you aren't getting it.  It isn't the taxes.  We aren't trying to skirt taxes.  Fuck off with that logic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You know, using color, bold and large text doesn't help your point.  You are still talking bennies, whether tax-related or not.  And I agree with you on all the non-tax bennies, but then, I'm not the one who created the whole "legal" marriage crap.  All I know is, marriage at its core has nothing to do with taxes, employment or medical bennies.  It has to do with making a Promise to someone you love.  That's it.  Yes, you might like... WANT... all those bennies, but, as I said, you should not be marrying for just the bennies.

So, what to do?  Continue working to change the law, so you can be "legal"... but don't whine that you can't get "married".




Kiva19 said:


> Well, I don't think I can make any progress here. It's obvious that the concept of legal marriage is much too hard for some people to grasp. I suppose I shall just watch this thread spiral out of control too. *We already have people making classic, misinformed statements about the founding fathers!*



I'm all ears, Kiva... considering America was founded on religious freedom, amongst other factors, sounds to me like you'll have your work cut out for you.




Takumi_L said:


> We understand it quite well thank you.  *We are saying that it should be expanded upon to grant the rights to everyone or should be done away with completely.*  Since it's not going anywhere, we would like the rights.



That's a fair expectation.




Kiva19 said:


> Take their nose out of it? There nose IS out of it for homosexual couples! You are arguing that they should put their nose IN it! Homosexual couples have the ability to be married for what you stated as the "right" reasons, right now. By claiming that you just want the equal benefits the GOVERNMENT grants heterosexual couples...you are inviting the government into marriage.
> 
> *Apparently the logic here is that everyone should get the privileges* (even though homosexual couples lack the ability to produce a child..which is why the privileges exist in the first place), or no one should get them.



Yes, that is the logic... and yes, I said that's a fair expectation.  But then again, life is never fair, is it?




Wolf-Bone said:


> Like I already said either in this thread or the one that spawned it, I forget which, since the fuck _when_ is "it's allowed because it's useful to society" the main reason _anything_ is legal in a western democracy? I mean Jesus fucking Christ, this is the guy that originally tried to explain that he was such a level headed conservative, and peel back the layers of his bullshit and he starts to sound more like some kind of Borg fascist! "It's not efficient! It doesn't add to our perfection! Obliterate it!"
> 
> Edit: just to clarify, what spawned this is, if you'll recall, this is the guy who differentiates liberals from conservatives on the shakier-than-Haiti-last-week argument that one wants policies that are beneficial to society and to only disallow those which aren't, and the other wants to allow all the bad policies and do away with the good. I pointed out both sides are basically full of shit and want plenty of social controls _and_ non-changes that either are outright harmful to the overall health of society or simply serve no real purpose. This guy was pretty obviously that kind of "conservative" from the start, who doesn't realize his own fucking ideology doesn't even pretend anymore to be about anything but *the party getting what the party wants for the sake of the party and the emotional wants of its members* (just like the liberals). This is just him further proving my point.



Interesting viewpoint, I'd say.  And pretty much what politics is all about, nowadays.




Takumi_L said:


> God you are fucking dense. Legal marriage provides a HOST of privileges that have absolutely nothing to do with children and everything to do with JUST a spouse.  While it'd be nice to have no government involvement, there is too much in there EVEN if we don't get married.  So what you get is gay couples who have been together for 40 years not being allowed to visit one another on their death bed because they are not married.  You get denied the right to speak for your spouse if they were to be stuck in a vegetative state.  Once again I linked all the information on it.  *To say that government isn't in our lives as couples is bullshit.  It is.*
> 
> http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30190.html



I don't think anyone has been denying that, just saying that Government either needs to grant equal rights, or they need to get out.




Wolf-Bone said:


> Because when your ideology/religion is essentially state-worship, the only reason people exist, in your mind, is to serve the state, which exists for its own sake to the benefit of no one but itself. Thus the only reason marriage could be allowed in orthodoxy to that belief system is to produce children, who in turn exist for the state.



This is why Government should get out of the whole marriage thing.




Lobar said:


> I can't image what kind of mental gymnastics are required to argue that a +1 for the population is more important than making sure that +1 actually becomes a productive member of society.



Problem is, there is no way to tell if anyone ever born will ever become "a productive member of society."  This also brings up the question of who determines what makes a life productive in the first place.  Very unsteady ground, I'd say.




Dass said:


> Anyway... Yep. I can see anything at all I say won't make it through your skull. I'd guess you are one of the 63% of creationist Americans, considering fact is having so much difficulty with you. Counter-argument, if having a baby is the only reason why heterosexual couples get those benefits in America, *why are less right-leaning countries handing the same benefits to homosexual couples?*



Good question... do you have the answer, Dass?




Wolf-Bone said:


> Roose, don't even fucking try it. Seriously. Just don't.



Aren't you kinda jumping on the bandwagon a bit early, WolfBone?  By the way, I noticed the change in your SN's color.  Please, try not to get yourself banned again... we'd all miss your unique wisdom.




Rigor Sardonicus said:


> For fuck's sake, can somebody please add gay marriage to the "shit we're tired of hearing about" file?



I second this...




Zee Skunkeh! said:


> Holy shit.
> 
> I generally don't debate, not because I don't have views but because I am terrible at expressing them firstly and then explaining them. *I think that gay people shouldn't be looked at as gay people but just as people.* Period. No one should be proudly applauding someone for coming out and being courageous, no one should be pushing someone to come out and be gay, and conversely, no one should be restricting a gay person's rights or discriminating against them because homosexuality does not come first in their description, the fact that they are a living, breathing human being does.
> 
> This thread is so angry and bitter, it makes me sad.



Bingo!  Just as people of different racial/religious/cultural backgrounds should all be looked upon equally.  After all, we're all human, to state the obvious.


----------



## Takun (Jan 18, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> You know, using color, bold and large text doesn't help your point.  You are still talking bennies, whether tax-related or not.  And I agree with you on all the non-tax bennies, but then, I'm not the one who created the whole "legal" marriage crap.  All I know is, marriage at its core has nothing to do with taxes, employment or medical bennies.  It has to do with making a Promise to someone you love.  That's it.  Yes, you might like... WANT... all those bennies, but, as I said, you should not be marrying for just the bennies.
> 
> So, what to do?  Continue working to change the law, so you can be "legal"... but don't whine that you can't get "married".




See the thing is that it seems you are implying that people would marry for those non tax benefits.  No, those are things you would want only if you loved someone enough to marry them.  Why would I go get married so some person I don't love can visit me in the ICU?  That is kind of... a dumb thing to say.  Not sure if you are implying that or not.  And not letting gays get married is separating gays from straights.  Sorry you can't get _married _but you can get something like marriage but that isn't called that.  I think the best course of action is that legal marriage is changed to civil unions for everyone and the if you want to have have a religious ceremony you can.  Doesn't change the fact that everyone is still going to call them marriages though...


And can you call them benefits?  It sounds silly and childish when you call them bennies.  Like they are silly and trite.


----------



## Hottigress (Jan 18, 2010)

Takumi_L said:


> See the thing is that it seems you are implying that people would marry for those non tax benefits.  No, those are things you would want only if you loved someone enough to marry them.  Why would I go get married so some person I don't love can visit me in the ICU?  That is kind of... a dumb thing to say.  Not sure if you are implying that or not.  And not letting gays get married is separating gays from straights.  Sorry you can't get _married _but you can get something like marriage but that isn't called that.  I think the best course of action is that legal marriage is changed to civil unions for everyone and the if you want to have have a religious ceremony you can.  Doesn't change the fact that everyone is still going to call them marriages though...
> 
> 
> And can you call them benefits?  It sounds silly and childish when you call them benefits.  Like they are silly and trite.



True that.


----------



## Azure (Jan 18, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Basically what I'm seeing him saying is that the main reason why gay marriage isn't being universally accepted in this country is because of how the gay community presents its case and how they present themselves.  As a straight person, I think I can safely say that this is how the majority of America sees the gay community:
> 
> http://www.lolsam.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/gay-pride-float-men.jpg
> 
> ...


Fuck you tuxedo crotch is totally fucking classy.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 18, 2010)

Roose, if I could strangle you through the internet, you'd be dead.  People aren't trying to marry just for benefits.  They're still in fucking love.  The reason they don't try to go get a religious marriage is because most of them aren't religious since the religions say they're evil.  They can make a promise to each other without the religions or anything specifically saying that they did.  They do make that promise to each other.  They just want to be legally recognized and get the benefits that straight couples do for that same fucking promise.  You act like just because they aren't married means that they can't be in love and vow to be together forever and that they're trying to get married for benefits and not love.  They're not.  I'm going to repeat it again because you tend to take at least a few times before you _actually_ listen to a word that someone is trying to fucking say.

The couples that want to get married are already committed to each other and want to be legally recognized for the commitment the same way that straight couples are.  It's not about the term marriage, or at least not for most people.  The reason that they argue for the term marriage is because "separate but equal" *never fucking works. *The states tried that with civil unions, and those aren't equal.  I'm sure the homosexual population as a whole would be happy if they were given the same benefits as "married" couples while still using a different term, but it just doesn't happen because of people like you who, while not hating the homosexuals/bisexuals, simply do not understand the problem with the way things are right now.  That is why Takumi is highlighting his posts in bold and red.  He's trying to convey to you the things that homosexuals are missing out on right now.  You're just not _seeing_ them. 


Fuuuck.  That post was started to sound like WB for a bit.  Don't make me scare myself again, Roose.


----------



## Hottigress (Jan 18, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Fuck you tuxedo crotch is totally fucking classy.




^This. I loled at this.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Jan 18, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Roose, if I could strangle you through the internet, you'd be dead.



Probably not. You got a fat face like my friend. He's not that strong.


----------



## Hottigress (Jan 18, 2010)

Load_Blown said:


> Probably not. You got a fat face like my friend. He's not that strong.




I miss you and your shpunk Shanaynay.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 18, 2010)

Load_Blown said:


> Probably not. You got a fat face like my friend. He's not that strong.


Hey, look, it's LB.  Don't worry LB, I'll acknowledge you making a worthless post.  Are you happy now?


----------



## Hottigress (Jan 18, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Hey, look, it's LB.  Don't worry LB, I'll acknowledge you making a worthless post.  Are you happy now?



:< Be nice to him.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Jan 18, 2010)

I always wanted to say that

I feel fulfilled


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 18, 2010)

Load_Blown said:


> I always wanted to say that
> 
> I feel fulfilled


Glad I could help.


----------



## Hottigress (Jan 18, 2010)

Yay gays. :3c


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 18, 2010)

Takumi_L said:


> See the thing is that it seems you are implying that people would marry for those non tax benefits.  No, those are things you would want only if you loved someone enough to marry them.  Why would I go get married so some person I don't love can visit me in the ICU?  That is kind of... a dumb thing to say.  Not sure if you are implying that or not.  And not letting gays get married is separating gays from straights.  Sorry you can't get _married _but you can get something like marriage but that isn't called that.  I think the best course of action is that legal marriage is changed to civil unions for everyone and the if you want to have have a religious ceremony you can.  Doesn't change the fact that everyone is still going to call them marriages though...
> 
> 
> *And can you call them benefits?  It sounds silly and childish when you call them bennies.  Like they are silly and trite.*



I could.  But I like the sound of "bennies" better.  It's kinda like calling your son "Timmy" instead of Thomas or Tom... it's the diminitive form of the name, an "endearment".

Oh, and no, I didn't intend any such implication.  You made that all by yourself.




Jashwa said:


> Roose, if I could strangle you through the internet, you'd be dead.  People aren't trying to marry just for benefits.  They're still in fucking love.  The reason they don't try to go get a religious marriage is because most of them aren't religious since the religions say they're evil.  They can make a promise to each other without the religions or anything specifically saying that they did.  They do make that promise to each other.  They just want to be legally recognized and get the benefits that straight couples do for that same fucking promise.  You act like just because they aren't married means that they can't be in love and vow to be together forever and that they're trying to get married for benefits and not love.  They're not.  I'm going to repeat it again because you tend to take at least a few times before you _actually_ listen to a word that someone is trying to fucking say.
> 
> The couples that want to get married are already committed to each other and want to be legally recognized for the commitment the same way that straight couples are.  It's not about the term marriage, or at least not for most people.  The reason that they argue for the term marriage is because "separate but equal" *never fucking works. *The states tried that with civil unions, and those aren't equal.  I'm sure the homosexual population as a whole would be happy if they were given the same benefits as "married" couples while still using a different term, but it just doesn't happen because of people like you who, while not hating the homosexuals/bisexuals, simply do not understand the problem with the way things are right now.  That is why Takumi is highlighting his posts in bold and red.  He's trying to convey to you the things that homosexuals are missing out on right now.  You're just not _seeing_ them.
> 
> ...



Yeah, it does sound a little bit WolfBonish.  Only a little bit, though.  And sorry, didn't intend to scare you.  Shame about the strangle part, though.  Remember, if you can strangle someone through the internet, then they can do the same, and it becomes a contest of whose grip is stronger.  But, fortunately, such a wish is destined to remain just a wish, never granted.  And no, I wouldn't be dead, even if you could.  It's not like I'm helpless.  Fingers and thumbs are, after all, breakable.  Kinda like sausages with a crunchy center.

But I digress.

Thank you, I was hoping someone would rise to the challenge, and put all the pieces together from this puzzle.  Well, not quite all the pieces, but enough to show they're listening.  As I believe I've said before in another thread, I see many things.  I also tend to state the obvious at times, to make sure those reading are "listening".  I even leave out stuff, just to see if anyone notices.  I've also made clear on many occasions that I like to play Devil's Advocate... take up the stick, and poke it into the battlefield, to see if the bodies are alive.  However, despite what you say, there are people out there who marry not for love, but for the bennies of "legal" marriage, just as there are people out there who say "Wham, Bam, Thank you, M'am!" and have no intention of ever making "that promise".  They just like screwing around, without the commitment.  Solely for their own pleasure... this is the reason we have whores, isn't it?  Just to service the horny, without love being a factor.  So, my own point stands.  There are people out there, straight and gay, who marry just for the bennies.


----------



## Jazzy (Jan 18, 2010)

> There are people out there, straight and gay, who marry just for the bennies.


If people want to get married just for benefits then gay people will just do a lavender marriage, and continue to have sex with other people they are attracted to.

whether gay marriage is legal or not, if people want to get married for pure benefits they will; so really, legalizing gay marriage isn't going to increase or decrease the amount of people who do this. It really isn't about the benefits, although they're nice to have.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 18, 2010)

Jazzy said:


> If people want to get married just for benefits then gay people will just do a lavender marriage, and continue to have sex with other people they are attracted to.
> 
> *whether gay marriage is legal or not, if people want to get married for pure benefits they will; so really, legalizing gay marriage isn't going to increase or decrease the amount of people who do this.* It really isn't about the benefits, although they're nice to have.



Indeed... but that doesn't change the fact people do marry for the bennies.  Not for the love.


----------



## Jazzy (Jan 18, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Indeed... but that doesn't change the fact people do marry for the bennies.  Not for the love.



We're absolutely in agreement on this fact; all I'm saying is that I've heard this whole "Gay people just want benefits" thing used as an argument against gay marriage, and I'm saying that it's a baseless argument.

If benefits were the only thing we cared about, we could get them without any problem by marrying an opposite sex gay friend; but that would be living a lie; and you know, some people are ok with that and I know that I'm a member of a demographic where living a lie was for a very, very long time the "standard" thing to do, but times have changed and people just want to live life on their own terms.

at the end of the day, for me personally, and for many other gay people I know, it comes down to actually being equal and not "Equal but separate."


----------



## Holsety (Jan 18, 2010)

> I could. But I like the sound of "bennies" better. It's kinda like calling your son "Timmy" instead of Thomas or Tom... it's the diminitive form of the name, an "endearment".


Purposely doing something that undermines your posts by making you look like you have some sort of mental handicap seems pretty stupid. Maybe its a term of "endearment" to YOU, but to everyone else it makes it feel more like we are humoring the small child trying to fit in with the "big kids"

._.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 18, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Fuck you tuxedo crotch is totally fucking classy.



Not when you're trying to convince a bunch of people that voting "No" on something like Prop 8 is a good thing.  :V


----------



## Takun (Jan 18, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> I could.  But I like the sound of "bennies" better.  It's kinda like calling your son "Timmy" instead of Thomas or Tom... it's the diminitive form of the name, an "endearment".
> 
> Oh, and no, I didn't intend any such implication.  You made that all by yourself.
> 
> ...



I like how you say you weren't implying that and then a post or two later say that exact thing.  Yeah I see how people now get married for the benefits, but I see it often as person in a relationship can't get married so they find another couple to marry.


----------



## Holsety (Jan 18, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Not when you're trying to convince a bunch of people that voting "No" on something like Prop 8 is a good thing.  :V



I'm pretty sure if there were "straight pride" parades, there would be even more people who interpret it as "show off your weird fetish" than at the gay ones.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 18, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> http://www.lolsam.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/gay-pride-float-men.jpg
> 
> http://scrapetv.com/News/News Pages/Science/Images/gay-pride-parade-fairy.jpg
> 
> http://en.ce.cn/Life/trend/200806/30/W020080630534798203203.jpg


 
I can't disagree that this is a problem.  Hell even here in Canada we have militant gay activists despite our ability to marry, adopt, and not get fired for our sexuality without winning the 'lawsuit lottery'.  I'm honestly perplexed as to what they are 'activising' over.  Quite frankly, the only thing left for gay rights is to box up the straight people into freight trains and ship them off to factories to make fabulous shoes for us.

Still, we have gay pride parades which are little more than 'Gay Mardi Gras' under the guise of 'human rights'.  I don't participate in them cause, well, they're tacky.  It wouldn't be so bad if they just ADMITTED it was 'Gay Mardi Gras' and for the hell of it.  I'm pretty sure St. Patrick's day parades stopped being about Irish culture years ago.  I dunno, I just think it stops being about your 'freedoms' when they are putting up a beer tent.

However those of us gays who don't want to parade around, slap up rainbows and instead get married and adopt a some kids at $10k a pop with their middle names being 'Second' and 'Mortgage' are pretty invisable.  I mean, who wants to point a camera at that?

Then agian, despite that, we somehow passed gay marriage in Canada in 2005 but the political scape of the United States seems a lot less homogenious.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 18, 2010)

Holsety said:


> I'm pretty sure if there were "straight pride" parades, there would be even more people who interpret it as "show off your weird fetish" than at the gay ones.



There may very well be, but again like I told Takumi, the straight population isn't trying to gain anything, so even if they did have straight pride parades, their image is pretty much irrelevant.

The gay community has more to lose by looking like a bunch of sexual deviants.



			
				AshleyAshes said:
			
		

> Then agian, despite that, we somehow passed gay marriage in Canada in 2005 but the political scape of the United States seems a lot less homogenious



The American society has been, and I feel always will be, leaning conservative.  Traditional values play a HUGE role right up next to the old saying "Image is Everything."  Right now the only thing holding back gay marriage are those two issues.  Now a significant portion of the country has overlooked traditional values or are like me in the "I don't give a shit" category.  However, plenty of people aren't going to go against their "values" because of what a significant population of gay Americans, married at that, means.  And as I've demonstrated through those pics you referenced, the image of what would happen isn't exactly appealing to the undecided masses.

On the subject of St. Patrick's Day parades, you're right, it really doesn't have much to do with being Irish anymore, since EVERYONE is Irish on St. Patrick's Day.  But, and I'm starting to repeat myself, the Irish aren't looking to gain anything in society.  They've already got a holiday that excuses them and everyone else to drink themselves into a stupor.  The gay community however is fighting an uphill battle for marriage equality, and in some cases the average American citizen is given a chance to vote on it.  If you want to win over the hearts and minds of the masses, the current status quo isn't something for gay Americans to abide by.


----------



## HotActionYiffFur (Jan 18, 2010)

People make me so mad sometimes. You should be able to marry whomever you wish, inter species of course.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 18, 2010)

HotActionYiffFur said:


> People make me so mad sometimes. You should be able to marry whomever you wish, inter species of course.



I hope you meant _intra_species. D:


----------



## HotActionYiffFur (Jan 18, 2010)

Nope MRAWWW ;3


----------



## Azure (Jan 18, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Not when you're trying to convince a bunch of people that voting "No" on something like Prop 8 is a good thing.  :V


Yeah, true.  I'm still gonna go buy that thong though.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 18, 2010)

I'll just leave you to your own devices.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 18, 2010)

Zee Skunkeh! said:


> I'd call you a sadistic necrophiliac zoophile, but that would be beating a dead horse.


Ironically, I already did that joke to death before you even registered. What now.



ArielMT said:


> Get thee to a punnery.


AUGH


----------



## Zee Skunkeh! (Jan 18, 2010)

It means that your time has come and gone and that I'm ... to become...you...
_
oh god noooooooo_


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 18, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Thank you, I was hoping someone would rise to the challenge, and put all the pieces together from this puzzle.  Well, not quite all the pieces, but enough to show they're listening.  As I believe I've said before in another thread, I see many things.  I also tend to state the obvious at times, to make sure those reading are "listening".  I even leave out stuff, just to see if anyone notices.  I've also made clear on many occasions that I like to play Devil's Advocate... take up the stick, and poke it into the battlefield, to see if the bodies are alive.  However, despite what you say, there are people out there who marry not for love, but for the bennies of "legal" marriage, just as there are people out there who say "Wham, Bam, Thank you, M'am!" and have no intention of ever making "that promise".  They just like screwing around, without the commitment.  Solely for their own pleasure... this is the reason we have whores, isn't it?  Just to service the horny, without love being a factor.  So, my own point stands.  There are people out there, straight and gay, who marry just for the bennies.


So, essentially, you're just posting for the fun of it and it doesn't have anything to do with gay marriage and legalizing it or not?


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 18, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Are you aware that the Founding Fathers of America were religious men?  So no, you don't need atheism in order to promote freedom or free thinking.


No they weren't, they were anti-religious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#United_States

Also...pretty much the intellectual people are destroying the other type ITT so...continue.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 18, 2010)

NewfDraggie said:


> No they weren't, they were anti-religious.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#United_States
> 
> Also...pretty much the intellectual people are destroying the other type ITT so...continue.



They were religious, mostly deists.  However they also knew of the power religious establishments held over governments and didn't want that to be a deciding factor, since their new nation was supposed to be for the people, by the people. Joseph J. Ellis' book *Founding Brothers* gets fairly in detail about the subject, among others with each of who we call the Founding Fathers.  I recommend a read.

http://www.amazon.com/Founding-Brothers-Revolutionary-Joseph-Ellis/dp/0375405445


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 18, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> They were religious, mostly deists.  However they also knew of the power religious establishments held over governments and didn't want that to be a deciding factor, since their new nation was supposed to be for the people, by the people.  Joseph J. Ellis' book _Founding Brothers_ gets fairly in detail about the subject, among others with each of who we call the Founding Fathers.  I recommend a read.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Founding-Brothers-Revolutionary-Joseph-Ellis/dp/0375405445


Sorry I should of elaborated more, they were anti-religious with the state; they didn't want religion to merge with politics.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 18, 2010)

NewfDraggie said:


> Sorry I should of elaborated more, they were anti-religious with the state; they didn't want religion to merge with politics.



There ya go.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 18, 2010)

NewfDraggie said:


> Sorry I should of elaborated more, they were anti-religious with the state; they didn't want religion to merge with politics.


That's blatantly obvious and has nothing to do with what Roose said.  He just said that they still believed in religion and was trying to prove the point that they didn't have to be athiests to be free thinkers.


----------



## SnowFox (Jan 18, 2010)

Is it time to post that family guy clip again yet?


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 18, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> That's blatantly obvious and has nothing to do with what Roose said.  He just said that they still believed in religion and was trying to prove the point that they didn't have to be athiests to be free thinkers.


But nobody said that you needed to be an atheist to be a free thinker, so...?

Edit: Ah I see, another case of a Roose issue. Somebody said that with more freedom comes more atheists, but Roose then thought that means all freedom comes from atheists and without them there can't be freedom. Well there's your problem.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 18, 2010)

Zee Skunkeh! said:


> It means that your time has come and gone and that I'm ... to become...you...
> _
> oh god noooooooo_


Yeah, uh good luck with that, newfag, since you still haven't learned to use the quote button.


----------



## Zee Skunkeh! (Jan 18, 2010)

I'm used to slower fora where you don't need to quote everything.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 18, 2010)

Zee Skunkeh! said:


> I'm used to slower fora where you don't need to quote everything.



Wat?


----------



## Zee Skunkeh! (Jan 18, 2010)

NewfDraggie said:


> Wat?



Fora/forums


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 18, 2010)

Zee Skunkeh! said:


> I'm used to slower fora where you don't need to quote everything.


Why don't you just go back to those?


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 18, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Why don't you just go back to those?


Shhh this user could provide epic lulz.


----------



## Zee Skunkeh! (Jan 18, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Why don't you just go back to those?



They banned me for posting links to meatspin. I went out in a blaze of glory and schnapps.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 18, 2010)

Zee Skunkeh! said:


> They banned me for posting links to meatspin. I went out in a blaze of glory and schnapps.



"I got banned for being a total retard, but I used this excuse to sound cool and act like the ban was intentional"


----------



## Zee Skunkeh! (Jan 18, 2010)

Nah, they'd already banned me like three times, Ebol had left by that point, and once they took rep out of the dump...actually, it's kind of a long story but let's just say the place was pretty boring by the time I wanted to leave.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 18, 2010)

"I wanted to leave, yet I want this forum to be just like that one"


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 18, 2010)

SnowFox said:


> Is it time to post that family guy clip again yet?


That was the best thing Surgat has ever done.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Jan 18, 2010)

Hey guys what's up?


----------



## Lobar (Jan 18, 2010)

Hyenaworks said:


> Hey guys what's up?



i like how you censored the chocolate cornet so people would think it is a penis


----------



## Hyenaworks (Jan 18, 2010)

Lobar said:


> i like how you censored the chocolate cornet so people would think it is a penis



It is pretty amusing.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 18, 2010)

Newf, I think something's wrong with one of us. I'm finding it very difficult to dislike you lately.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Jan 18, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Newf, I think something's wrong with one of us. I'm finding it very difficult to dislike you lately.


It's because you have gotten so win. Well you were win before but now your more win! +729% extra win


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 18, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Newf, I think something's wrong with one of us. I'm finding it very difficult to dislike you lately.


It's something wrong with Newf.  He's being a likeable person.  I don't know what to think, either.  


EinTheCorgi said:


> It's because you have gotten so win. Well you were win before but now your more win! +729% extra win


Shut up.


----------



## Rsyk (Jan 18, 2010)

Hyenaworks said:


> It is pretty amusing.


Ah, so that's what it was.
I couldn't figure it out.
I didn't think it was a penis, because it's not attached to anything. 
But I don't know what that clip is from, so I didn't have a clue.
I still thought it was something naughty.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Jan 18, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Shut up.



Blow me.


----------



## Azure (Jan 18, 2010)

EinTheCorgi said:


> Blow me.


Only if you're 7 or younger. Wait, that's you talking.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 18, 2010)

EinTheCorgi said:


> It's because you have gotten so win. Well you were win before but now your more win! +729% extra win


Um, k...



Jashwa said:


> It's something wrong with Newf.  He's being a likeable person.  I don't know what to think, either.


Maybe it's the power of transgenderedness :V


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Jan 18, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Um, k...



yes k add two more k's and you have a racist group and a FC after the first k and you have were the triple k's hang out to search for prey. :3


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 18, 2010)

EinTheCorgi said:


> Blow me.


I didn't expect that out of you.  I'm not an 8 year old girl.


And no.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Jan 18, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> I didn't expect that out of you.  I'm not an 8 year old girl.
> 
> 
> And no.


Not that I really want you to its just it would shut you up.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 18, 2010)

Jazzy said:


> *We're absolutely in agreement on this fact*; all I'm saying is that I've heard this whole "Gay people just want benefits" thing used as an argument against gay marriage, and I'm saying that it's a baseless argument.
> 
> If benefits were the only thing we cared about, we could get them without any problem by marrying an opposite sex gay friend; but that would be living a lie; and you know, some people are ok with that and I know that I'm a member of a demographic where living a lie was for a very, very long time the "standard" thing to do, but times have changed and people just want to live life on their own terms.
> 
> at the end of the day, for me personally, and for many other gay people I know, it comes down to actually being equal and not "Equal but separate."



Good... but I do think the people who say that really do believe that is all gay couples want.  Not that it's an excuse for arguing against gay marriage, but, hey, I've been around long enough to hear lots of arguments over silly, nonsensical stuff.  Any reason to argue, that's just how some people are.  And that last line of yours?  Funny, but it got me to think about the book "Animal Farm", for some reason.  If we're all gonna be equal, then we need to be equally equal.  Not "Four legs good, two legs baaad!"




Holsety said:


> Purposely doing something that undermines your posts by making you look like you have some sort of mental handicap seems pretty stupid. Maybe its a term of "endearment" to YOU, but to everyone else it makes it feel more like we are humoring the small child trying to fit in with the "big kids"
> 
> ._.



Purposely arguing over a single word and its usage undermines your claim of stupidity, Holsety.  Accept the fact I'm a writer who likes to play with words... I choose which words I wish to use, and how I wish to use them.  So, tell me, who, exactly, is the "small child" here?  Let's move onward and upward, like mature adults, then.




Takumi_L said:


> I like how you say you weren't implying that and then a post or two later say that exact thing.  *Yeah I see how people now get married for the benefits, but I see it often as person in a relationship can't get married so they find another couple to marry.*



Huh?  I thought WolfBone was our resident weedhead.  Perhaps you could rewrite this line so it makes sense?  Or, better yet, stop reading implications into things.  If I want to say something, I'll say it loud and clear.  I ain't shy!




AshleyAshes said:


> I can't disagree that this is a problem.  Hell even here in Canada we have militant gay activists despite our ability to marry, adopt, and not get fired for our sexuality without winning the 'lawsuit lottery'.  I'm honestly perplexed as to what they are 'activising' over.  Quite frankly, the only thing left for gay rights is to box up the straight people into freight trains and ship them off to factories to make fabulous shoes for us.
> 
> Still, we have gay pride parades which are little more than 'Gay Mardi Gras' under the guise of 'human rights'.  I don't participate in them cause, well, they're tacky.  It wouldn't be so bad if they just ADMITTED it was 'Gay Mardi Gras' and for the hell of it.  I'm pretty sure St. Patrick's day parades stopped being about Irish culture years ago.  I dunno, I just think it stops being about your 'freedoms' when they are putting up a beer tent.
> 
> ...



Sorry, but that last word made me laugh...




Term_the_Schmuck said:


> The gay community has more to lose *by looking like a bunch of sexual deviants*.



Ummm... aren't gays already sexual deviants?




Jashwa said:


> So, essentially, you're just posting for the fun of it and it doesn't have anything to do with gay marriage and legalizing it or not?



Essentially, I'm trying to stimulate a response, hopefully one that results in reasoned discussions, hopefully one that shows what the respondant(dent?) is made of.  Also, quite often, people don't finish their thoughts, or don't give important details.  Over the internet, it isn't a good thing to credit people with knowledge they don't reveal in their arguments and counter-arguments, because they assume "everybody knows".  And yes, I and quite a few others here post for fun.  However, this does indeed have to do with gay marriage and the legal issue... that is the subject of this thread, after all.  Isn't it?  I did bring up the thread-subject in the latter half of my post, but you have apparently ignored it.  Care to respond in your next post?




NewfDraggie said:


> No they weren't, they were anti-religious.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#United_States
> 
> Also...pretty much the intellectual people are destroying the other type ITT so...continue.



Newf, Newf, Newf... separation of Church and State has nothing to do with the religious beliefs (or lack) of the Founding Fathers, themselves, but with what they wanted for this nation they were forming.  Here, read:

http://earlyamericanhistory.net/founding_fathers.htm

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/305/foundfathers.htm

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_religion_were_the_Founding_Fathers

http://www.americansc.org.uk/Reviews/Founding_Fathers.htm

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Thomas_Jefferson

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

I could list more, but this will do.  Note that I included material negative to my assertion, as well.  But, this material also makes clear the Founding Fathers were not anti-religious... that they supported FREEDOM OF RELIGION WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.  So, Deists or not, they were still religious men, in their own individual ways.  Not surprising, really, given religious freedom didn't exist in Europe at that time, can't blame them for being bitter against the Government-supported religion of their day (Catholicism).  But the fact remains, the American colonies were formed by men trying to escape religious repression and persecution... but that doesn't mean they were against religion, otherwise, they wouldn't have supported FREEDOM OF RELIGION WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.  They would have banned religion outright.  Hey, we have enough people here who believe religion should be banned, don't we?




Term_the_Schmuck said:


> They were religious, mostly deists.  However they also knew of the power religious establishments held over governments and didn't want that to be a deciding factor, since their new nation was supposed to be for the people, by the people. Joseph J. Ellis' book *Founding Brothers* gets fairly in detail about the subject, among others with each of who we call the Founding Fathers.  I recommend a read.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Founding-Brothers-Revolutionary-Joseph-Ellis/dp/0375405445



Here you go, Newf... something else to read.




NewfDraggie said:


> Sorry I should of elaborated more, they were anti-religious with the state; they didn't want religion to merge with politics.



Ahhh...




Jashwa said:


> That's blatantly obvious and has nothing to do with what Roose said.  *He just said that they still believed in religion and was trying to prove the point that they didn't have to be athiests to be free thinkers.*



Thank you, that was, indeed, my point.




SnowFox said:


> Is it time to post that family guy clip again yet?



No.




NewfDraggie said:


> *But nobody said that you needed to be an atheist to be a free thinker*, so...?
> 
> Edit: Ah I see, another case of a Roose issue. Somebody said that with more freedom comes more atheists, but Roose then thought that means all freedom comes from atheists and without them there can't be freedom. Well there's your problem.



Read this:



SugarMental said:


> Because it's been considered 'taboo' like a lot of other stuff that's now becoming more socially acceptable. People fear it will change things, and open up the doors to everything else being accepted. And since most if not all religion is based on traditions and set morals that are normally against all taboo, you can see how those things becoming widely accepted would effect them. *More freedom generates more atheists.. or free thinking at least.*



SugarMental asserted that "freedom generates more atheists/free-thinkers", and I simply made it clear that you don't need to be an atheist to be a free thinker.  I countered her assertion.  Furthermore, freedom does not generate more atheists, any more than a lack of freedom generates more religious belief... at least from my viewpoint, so if you have proof to the contrary, I'm all ears.

Oh, and as for my assertion, just look to the Founding Fathers material, above... lots of free-thinking there, when it comes to personal religious belief, and more.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 18, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Ummm... aren't gays already sexual deviants?



My entire post, and the ones prior to it, were all about image.  It's more about them not presenting themselves as sexual deviants and more as American citizens trying to be productive members of society, and that being the case deserve to be treated as such.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 18, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> My entire post, and the ones prior to it, were all about image.  It's more about them not presenting themselves as sexual deviants and more as American citizens trying to be productive members of society, and that being the case deserve to be treated as such.



Well, you see, that's kinda the whole issue... pressed suits or not, homosexuality is not "the norm" in society.  It is a deviant behavior, by definition:  http://www.freeessays.cc/db/44/smu50.shtml


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 18, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Well, you see, that's kinda the whole issue... pressed suits or not, homosexuality is not "the norm" in society.  It is a deviant behavior, by definition:  http://www.freeessays.cc/db/44/smu50.shtml



I think you're missing my point and trying to argue semantics with me.  Look, the point I'm making is that they're not going to be seen as fellow Americans suffering from something that they claim is unjust in today's society if the main exhibition of their suffering is "Gay Mardi Gras" as someone on here put it.


----------



## Rsyk (Jan 18, 2010)

EinTheCorgi said:


> Not that I really want you to its just it would shut you up.


Why would you not want Jashwa to blow you?


Jashwa said:


> I'm not an 8 year old girl.


Oh, that's why.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 18, 2010)

Rsyk said:


> Why would you not want Jashwa to blow you?


:3


----------



## moonchylde (Jan 18, 2010)

Holsety said:


> I'm pretty sure if there were "straight pride" parades, there would be even more people who interpret it as "show off your weird fetish" than at the gay ones.



Straight people already have an equivalent of the gay pride parades. It's called Mardi Gras.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 18, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I think you're missing my point and trying to argue semantics with me.  Look, the point I'm making is that they're not going to be seen as fellow Americans suffering from something that they claim is unjust in today's society *if the main exhibition of their suffering is "Gay Mardi Gras"* as someone on here put it.



No, that definitely doesn't help.

And my point is, it is hard to present yourself as "fellow Americans" or "suffering from something" when your behavior is outside the norm... what is known as a deviant behavior, as my above link detailed.  That "image" is what sticks, even if "the norm" of society don't consciously realize it.  Remember, primates tend to have trouble with such things.  Easily frightened by things "outside the norm."


----------



## Nebuk (Jan 18, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I think you're missing my point and trying to argue semantics with me.  Look, the point I'm making is that they're not going to be seen as fellow Americans suffering from something that they claim is unjust in today's society if the main exhibition of their suffering is "Gay Mardi Gras" as someone on here put it.



Why do you think that everyone has the same opinion you do of the gay community? Can you cite any evidence that supports your claim? Anecdotal evidence does not apply here.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 18, 2010)

Nebuk said:


> Why do you think that everyone has the same opinion you do of the gay community? Can you cite any evidence that supports your claim? Anecdotal evidence does not apply here.



What do you want, Gallup polling on public approval of pride parades? It's an opinion. D:


----------



## Nebuk (Jan 18, 2010)

Lobar said:


> What do you want, Gallup polling on public approval of pride parades? It's an opinion. D:



Term_the_Schmuck has consistently told us that the gay community has a bad image. I'm trying to figure out if this is just a personal problem he has with gays or if his argument has any ground.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 18, 2010)

Nebuk said:


> Term_the_Schmuck has consistently told us that the gay community has a bad image. I'm trying to figure out if this is just a personal problem he has with gays or if his argument has any ground.



So if he doesn't have a Gallup poll in his pocket, he's a bigot for thinking pride parades send the wrong message?


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 18, 2010)

Nebuk said:


> Term_the_Schmuck has consistently told us that the gay community has a bad image. I'm trying to figure out if this is just a personal problem he has with gays or if his argument has any ground.


No one ever said that Term has a problem with gays.  Just because pride parades send the wrong message, which they do, doesn't mean that he fucking hates them queers that are ruining God's Amerikkka.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 18, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> No one ever said that Term has a problem with gays. Just because pride parades send the wrong message, which they do, doesn't mean that he fucking hates them queers that are ruining God's Amerikkka.


 
Yeah, what he said.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jan 18, 2010)

Nebuk said:


> Why do you think that everyone has the same opinion you do of the gay community? Can you cite any evidence that supports your claim? Anecdotal evidence does not apply here.


 
I went to your state, Massachusetts, once. I actually travelled to Boston with my family when I was 10. While a gay pride parade was taking place.

I guess I am biased because, as a kid that young, seeing rainbow flags hung on every light pole, and seeing men dressed like naked clowns and wearing colourful halloween costumes, I thought that the people dressed as such were not all completely there in the head. I thought them to be daft. As it turns out, I still think that. I have no problem with gays (and am considered a Pansexual), but in all honesty, that shit is ridiculous.  
Many a flaming gay man are, in my mind, man-children with the horomonal problems of a woman.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 19, 2010)

Lobar said:


> What do you want, Gallup polling on public approval of pride parades? It's an opinion. D:



At the same time it's not even my opinion, if they bothered to read the entire thread.  But I'll get back to that.



			
				Roose said:
			
		

> And my point is, it is hard to present yourself as "fellow Americans" or "suffering from something" when your behavior is outside the norm... what is known as a deviant behavior, as my above link detailed. That "image" is what sticks, even if "the norm" of society don't consciously realize it. Remember, primates tend to have trouble with such things. Easily frightened by things "outside the norm."



"Outside the norm" is exactly what's been going on all throughout the 20th Century.  Women getting equal rights within the home, African Americans overcoming Jim Crow laws.  Both these groups had to overcome the "image" that stuck with them, that they were uneducated or unable to be productive members of society next to their counterparts.  Of course the image will never go away as not everyone can be swayed.  However this being a democracy, majority opinion rules.  In 2005, it was tallied that 7 percent of all couples in the country were inter-racial.*  That's pretty significant considering that at one time, and to many still is, a deviant behavior.  Yet we as a society got over it for the most part.

Right now, I'd make the assumption that the opinion on gay Americans is roughly neck and neck, giving a slight edge to those with negative feelings for them due to recent events with Prop 8, New Jersey, and so on.

Making people less afraid of things "outside the norm" however shouldn't include guys in tuxedo thongs pressing dildos against your car window during a parade.

*http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18090277



			
				Nebuk said:
			
		

> Why do you think that everyone has the same opinion you do of the gay community? Can you cite any evidence that supports your claim? Anecdotal evidence does not apply here.



As Lobar mentioned, there isn't exactly a poll done to see what some people's reservations on gay Americans might be.  But for hints, all you need to do is look at the Prop 8 ads run in California.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-jc4ujp9Ok&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4&feature=related

Pay close attention to the reasons they give in the first video.  Essentially persuading the audience that gay marriage will ultimately affect them and force them to accept something that they aren't totally comfortable in.  The prospect of being sued if you were a photographer or doctor (performing non-essential surgery) refusing to provide your services to gay couples or at least getting the stigma of being labeled a bigot.

Now watch the second video.  It attempts to persuade the audience that they will have no control over what their child is learning in school.  That their protests will immediately be thrown out because gays can legally marry.  You can also catch the subtle hint of them saying that being taught about gay marriage in school has the possibility of turning your child gay.

Now think about this for a second:  What do you think is the first thing that comes to mind when your average American voter thinks about homosexuality?

Is it this: http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/gay-marriage.jpg

Or this: http://www.dsphotographic.com/g2/16031-3/Manchester+Pride+Parade+-+016.jpg

I don't think I'd be out of line when I say the second picture is what most people think of when someone says "so-and-so is gay".  While the first picture shows raw emotion and elation of achieving equality and acceptance at the very least in the eyes of the law, it isn't what people picture, or what is nearly as promoted.

So with the combination of those ads and what someone's preconceived notions of what a gay American is, it's not hard to see why some people would either not take gay people seriously or be scared shitless that these people are actually influencing government action.

And before you start going off on how I'm a bigoted asshole, I will remind you again that these aren't MY opinions.  I've stated already that my opinion on gay marriage is that I have no opinion.  It doesn't affect me in the slightest what happens in the gay marriage debate, being a straight American.  I have plenty of gay friends, many of whom I trust and hold dear and who don't act like the pictures I've shown in my posts.  These are simply my observations, take em' or leave em'.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 19, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> "Outside the norm" is exactly what's been going on all throughout the 20th Century.  *Women getting equal rights within the home, African Americans overcoming Jim Crow laws.  Both these groups had to overcome the "image" that stuck with them, that they were uneducated or unable to be productive members of society next to their counterparts.*  Of course the image will never go away as not everyone can be swayed.  However this being a democracy, majority opinion rules.  In 2005, it was tallied that 7 percent of all couples in the country were inter-racial.*  That's pretty significant considering that at one time, and to many still is, a deviant behavior.  Yet we as a society got over it for the most part.
> 
> Right now, I'd make the assumption that the opinion on gay Americans is roughly neck and neck, giving a slight edge to those with negative feelings for them due to recent events with Prop 8, New Jersey, and so on.
> 
> ...



However, neither women nor "African Americans" were sexual deviants amongst the population, they were simply oppressed for reasons of gender and skin coloration.  The "image" stuck with them was easy to disprove, while no gay person can disprove their deviant sexuality.  In fact, gays are trying to get their deviant sexuality accepted as "normal"... a much harder thing to do.  Not the same thing as sufferage or equal rights for those of "color".  And yes, the KKK still exists, and so do those who believe women are still inferior to men.  Interracial marriage?  Well, those marriages still involve men and women, not men and men, or women and women.  Not the same thing.

Yes, homosexuals should look at what they have accomplished, as well as what they still need to accomplish...

... which does, indeed, bring us to the very clear fact tuxedo thongs and the waving of fake dildos in public should be banned.


----------



## Lupine Delusion (Jan 19, 2010)

speaking of which.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_t_xlGGymR...yJFc5YT70LA/s1600/2686515656_611f2b0a4a_o.jpg


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 19, 2010)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Newf, I think something's wrong with one of us. I'm finding it very difficult to dislike you lately.


ilu too <3


Jashwa said:


> It's something wrong with Newf.  He's being a likeable person.  I don't know what to think, either.


Actually I act like an ass sometimes to piss you people off, lately I've just been myself.


Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Maybe it's the power of transgenderedness :V


See above. :3


Roose Hurro said:


> Newf, Newf, Newf... separation of Church and State has nothing to do with the religious beliefs (or lack) of the Founding Fathers, themselves, but with what they wanted for this nation they were forming.  Here, read:
> 
> http://earlyamericanhistory.net/founding_fathers.htm
> 
> ...


Already cleared that up, roose.


> Here you go, Newf... something else to read.


Already cleared that up, roose.


> Ahhh...


You knew I had cleared that up, yet you posted useless information anyway. Why roose?


> Read this:


Did read it, notice:
"Ah I see, another case of a Roose issue. Somebody said that with more freedom comes more atheists, but Roose then thought that means all freedom comes from atheists and without them there can't be freedom. Well there's your problem."


> SugarMental asserted that "freedom generates more atheists/free-thinkers", and I simply made it clear that you don't need to be an atheist to be a free thinker.


He didn't say that, he said freedom generates more atheists/free-thinkers. And it's true, the population of atheists rises exponentially with the freedom of the country.


> I countered her assertion.  Furthermore, freedom does not generate more atheists, any more than a lack of freedom generates more religious belief... at least from my viewpoint, so if you have proof to the contrary, I'm all ears.


Uh yeah, look at the percentage of atheists compared to freedoms in a country. The less free the country the more religious it usually is. Canada for example has a lot of freedom and like 20%+ people are atheist. The USA has a decent amount of freedom and about 13 or 14% are atheist, and that number is rising fast.

It's not that religious people don't have free thinking, it's just as freedoms increase the amount of free thinkers increase. The more people think into things the more they understand them, research them, and they can determine exactly what it is. This is why with more free thinkers there is more atheists, they understand religion more and choose to not follow such silly things.


But I really don't give a shit, to be honest. :V


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 19, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> However, neither women nor "African Americans" were sexual deviants amongst the population, they were simply oppressed for reasons of gender and skin coloration.  The "image" stuck with them was easy to disprove, while no gay person can disprove their deviant sexuality.  In fact, gays are trying to get their deviant sexuality accepted as "normal"... a much harder thing to do.  Not the same thing as sufferage or equal rights for those of "color".  And yes, the KKK still exists, and so do those who believe women are still inferior to men.  Interracial marriage?  Well, those marriages still involve men and women, not men and men, or women and women.  Not the same thing.



I posted those examples because the link you posted had a very general view over what is considered deviant behavior, and thus I feel like my examples aren't out of line.  In fact the very first sentence of that dude's paper pretty much spells it out:



> A person would be considered to be acting deviantly in society if they are violating what the significant social norm in that particular culture is.



The only difference, as you pointed out, is that with homosexuals it's a sexual deviancy.  Though they can't disprove the fact that they love someone of the same gender, what they can disprove are some of the claims mentioned in the Prop 8 ads I posted and/or start carrying themselves with a little more decency during pride parades.  That to them it's not about being able to wear pink thongs and so on, but it's about being able to love the person of their choice without having to place a legal limit on how much they can love them.  That is what I'm getting at; changing the perception people have of gay people being as they are during parades to how they are outside of them, as normal people working 40 hours a week, paying taxes, who just so happen to love someone of the same gender.


----------



## Ricky (Jan 19, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> The only difference, as you pointed out, is that with homosexuals it's a sexual deviancy.



Almost anything could be considered a deviancy if it doesn't follow 100% of the norm.  Interracial sex could be considered deviant as well and was punishable as a felony in some states just a few decades back.

This isn't a way to judge if something is morally right or wrong however and shouldn't play a factor in deciding laws.



> Though they can't disprove the fact that they love someone of the same gender, what they can disprove are some of the claims mentioned in the Prop 8 ads I posted and/or start carrying themselves with a little more decency during pride parades.



I don't think that's a huge problem.  The reason people dress like they do is *because* it's a parade.  Everyone in their right mind knows that's not how they dress for work, for example.



> That to them it's not about being able to wear pink thongs and so on, but it's about being able to love the person of their choice without having to place a legal limit on how much they can love them.



It's not about how much they can love them; it's about some legal red tape from a society that has its roots in religion and Christianity, even though it seems there has always been an attempted separation of church and state.  Nobody is saying they can't love each other forever; they simply do not fall under the definition of what we consider "marriage."

Something that is defined solely on personal beliefs and religious rituals has no place in our government at all.  Our society is too structured around it however for it simply to be removed but I think this is what Gays should be shooting for and not to try and get people to change their ideas about what marriage is.  They shouldn't have to.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 19, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Almost anything could be considered a deviancy if it doesn't follow 100% of the norm.  Interracial sex could be considered deviant as well and was punishable as a felony in some states just a few decades back.



I literally *JUST* covered this with Roose.  *READ THE THREAD.*



> I don't think that's a huge problem. The reason people dress like they do is *because* it's a parade. Everyone in their right mind knows that's not how they dress for work, for example.



Unfortunately you seem to be missing the point.  Pride parades, as I see them and how others have admitted them being on here, are basically a "coming out" event showing people that homosexuality exists and that there are homosexuals among us.  If my image of a homosexual is wearing assless leather chaps and pretty much nothing else, how am I supposed to think of this person, regardless of what he may or may not be doing with his life?



> It's not about how much they can love them; it's about some legal red tape



Did you even read what I wrote?  Have you been following anything I've been saying?


----------



## Ricky (Jan 19, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I literally *JUST* covered this with Roose.  *READ THE THREAD.*



Calm down there, killer.  So I'm agreeing with you.  And yeah, I didn't read the whole thing but I don't really feel like it either.  If that bothers you this much maybe you should take a break.



> Unfortunately you seem to be missing the point.  Pride parades, as I see them and how others have admitted them being on here, are basically a "coming out" event showing people that homosexuality exists and that there are homosexuals among us.  If my image of a homosexual is wearing assless leather chaps and pretty much nothing else, how am I supposed to think of this person, regardless of what he may or may not be doing with his life?



That's the leather scene and yeah, they are in the parades too.

I think people should realize it's a parade and people dress up, kind of like every other parade in existence.  If they are confused about this they are probably a moron and that can't really be helped, you know?



> Did you even read what I wrote?  Have you been following anything I've been saying?



Again, I'm not going to spend all morning reading the entire 200+ post thread.  I was just throwing in my .02

If you don't like that, you can fuck off.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 19, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Calm down there, killer. So I'm agreeing with you. And yeah, I didn't read the whole thing but I don't really feel like it either. If that bothers you this much maybe you should take a break.
> 
> Again, I'm not going to spend all morning reading the entire 200+ post thread. I was just throwing in my .02
> 
> If you don't like that, you can fuck off.



I think it's fair to be a little ticked when someone quotes you, acts like they're trying to disprove something you're saying _and then say the same exact thing you said TWO posts up._

Reading the thread doesn't mean reading all 200 posts, but it's usually a good idea to read what the person you're quoting has said in previous posts so we don't keep running around in circles saying the same shit over and over again and then acting like it's new.  I've already had to repeat myself more times than I'd like to, we don't need someone coming in and repeating for me.


----------



## Ricky (Jan 19, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I think it's fair to be a little ticked when someone quotes you, acts like they're trying to disprove something you're saying _and then say the same exact thing you said TWO posts up._



My bad...  I wasn't trying to disprove anything, really so sorry if I came off that way.


----------



## Murphy Z (Jan 19, 2010)

> Gay pride parades



I find it pretty much irrelevant. Rights aren't supposed to be voted on anyways. This stuff should be cleared out with legislature and judicial decisions, not people in parades nor people voting on it. 



> Sexual deviants



Homosexual sex is not illegal. Bringing up deviancy is irrelevant.



> Not normal



Just because something isn't normal, doesn't necessarily make it illegal (see above). Irrelevant.



> just to get benefits



Except possibly in cases of severe birth defects, etc., marriage is a right. That means one doesn't have to justify oneself. Plus people are assumed innocent until proven guilty. You can't stop someone from marrying because they might do something (which is legal anyways). Irrelevant.



> Nobody is saying they can't love each other forever; they simply do not fall under the definition of what we consider "marriage."



Incorrect. Quoting Webster's Online dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage) (boldface mine)

_1 a __(1)_ *:* the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law _(2)_ *:** the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
	
 <same-sex marriage
	
>* *b* *:* the mutual relation of married persons *:* wedlock *c* *:* the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
*2* *:* an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; _especially_ *:* the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
*3* *:* an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry  â€” J. T. Shawcross>


It's been in the dictionary for over ten years. Appeal to tradition fallacy.


----------



## 8-bit (Jan 19, 2010)

NewfDraggie said:


> Sorry I should of elaborated more, they were anti-religious with the state; they didn't want religion to merge with politics.




But it often does. :/


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 19, 2010)

Murphy Z said:


> I find it pretty much irrelevant. Rights aren't supposed to be voted on anyways. This stuff should be cleared out with legislature and judicial decisions, not people in parades nor people voting on it.



I'm just seeing that in order for the legislature to actually take this as a serious issue that needs to be pushed forward then there has to be some better PR in favor of gay relationships and the plight of gay Americans.  51% of Congress isn't going to wake up tomorrow and say "You know what?  It's about time we let gays marry."  They, as well as the American people, need to be convinced that this is a good idea, especially at the state level.  Otherwise we're just going to have this back and forth affair of legalizing gay marriage and then taking it away again, kind of like in California.



> Homosexual sex is not illegal. Bringing up deviancy is irrelevant.



Deviancy is not exclusive to legality.  It's extremely relevant when considering society's opinion on the issue as well as how willing they'll be to change gay marriage to be an accepted social norm.


----------



## Takun (Jan 19, 2010)

Roose we aren't going to withold social security from all old people because a few people are going to abuse the system and we shouldn't ban gay marriage because you fear a few people who aren't in love are going to do so just for the benefits.


----------



## Jelly (Jan 19, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Remember, primates tend to have trouble with such things.  Easily frightened by things "outside the norm."



None aside from humans really come to mind.
Also this is superbly irrelevant.

and why wouldnt you just fake marry a chick, 
that way you wont get beat up for being a faggot


----------



## Murphy Z (Jan 19, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I'm just seeing that in order for the legislature to actually take this as a serious issue that needs to be pushed forward then there has to be some better PR in favor of gay relationships and the plight of gay Americans.  51% of Congress isn't going to wake up tomorrow and say "You know what?  It's about time we let gays marry."  They, as well as the American people, need to be convinced that this is a good idea, especially at the state level.  Otherwise we're just going to have this back and forth affair of legalizing gay marriage and then taking it away again, kind of like in California.



I don't think gay parades are that important to the legislative/judicial process. If posters here can figure out that those paraders don't really represent gays, why can't legislators? Aren't they smart? Either they already know that fact, know that and are hiding it to keep getting re-elected or whatever, or if they're really that ignorant, then having or not having parades isn't going to make any difference: they'll just find some other hokey reason.

They're well into middle age with established opinions, what can possibly "convince" them, especially if they already know anyways?

That same 51% aren't waking up and saying "You know what? I'd make a Bill to let gays marry, but those stupid parades keep me from doing so."

You're essentially turning lawmen into strawmen that can be easily swayed by silly decadent parades that happen about once a year.



> Deviancy is not exclusive to legality.  It's extremely relevant when considering society's opinion on the issue as well as how willing they'll be to change gay marriage to be an accepted social norm.



I was only referring to the legality of it. If people use fallacious reasoning to argue why it should still be illegal, that's not my problem.  I can only point out it's bad reasoning and hope for the best.


----------



## Ricky (Jan 19, 2010)

Murphy Z said:


> That same 51% aren't waking up and saying "You know what? I'd make a Bill to let gays marry, but those stupid parades keep me from doing so."



I really think people understand that you dress up in a parade.  This is because most of them have been to parades before, maybe recently and probably even as a kid.

People don't assume Irish people wear kilts to work because they see them dress up for St. Patrick's Day.



> I was only referring to the legality of it. If people use fallacious reasoning to argue why it should still be illegal, that's not my problem.  I can only point out it's bad reasoning and hope for the best.



Yeah, the problem is it's not really making something illegal.

Marriage is an institution that is based on religious ideals.  It has no place in law.  In this case though we're trying to extend it to include gay couples which is not as easy to dissuade than if we were making gay sex illegal (which would luckily never happen the way things currently are).


----------



## Zeep (Jan 19, 2010)

fuck yall


ill run around in my
rainbow pinstripes
and make out
with my same sex
lover

in public.

if i want to.


----------



## Ricky (Jan 19, 2010)

Zeep said:


> fuck yall
> 
> 
> ill run around in my
> ...



Do you have like...  some weird twitch that causes you to keep hitting the enter key at random?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 19, 2010)

Murphy Z said:


> I don't think gay parades are that important to the legislative/judicial process. If posters here can figure out that those paraders don't really represent gays, why can't legislators? Aren't they smart? Either they already know that fact, know that and are hiding it to keep getting re-elected or whatever, or if they're really that ignorant, then having or not having parades isn't going to make any difference: they'll just find some other hokey reason.



I use the parades as a reference because they show the extreme display of the part of gay culture people are most reserved on.  By no means am I suggesting that the future of gay marriage all hinges on parades.  I'm simply point to a well known image of gay people which in my estimation is what people think of when they think of gay individuals.  And no, I don't think the politicians are smart enough to realize that.  We have members of Congress and state legislatures sitting RIGHT NOW who still believe, as Dubya did, that the jury is still out on evolution.  I wouldn't put it pass them that they also don't exactly have a high opinion on gay individuals, be it because of religion or they think gay sex is icky.  Even when the issue is brought up for the people to decide, they still don't have the greatest representation.  Not every state in the Union is Massachusetts.

Also most of the posters here who've voiced their concerns on the parade issue I brought up ARE gay or bisexual, so if anyone knows what the true meaning of being gay is, it would be those people.  



> I was only referring to the legality of it. If people use fallacious reasoning to argue why it should still be illegal, that's not my problem. I can only point out it's bad reasoning and hope for the best.



I never claimed it was good reasoning.  Then again, people aren't always reasonable.  But if you asked me what was the main reason why gay marriage isn't being moved forward, as Takumi did at the beginning of the thread some 200 posts ago, public image would be my best guess.


----------



## Zeep (Jan 19, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Do you have like... some weird twitch that causes you to keep hitting the enter key at random?


 

i can type
how i want

not even  jashwa can 
change me

i am super hobo


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Jan 19, 2010)

I hope they pass it in NJ. I support the gay/bi/trans community. Its good show diversity.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 19, 2010)

PenelopeSkunk4 said:


> I hope they pass it in NJ. I support the gay/bi/trans community. Its good show diversity.



They already voted "No" on it.  And with a Republican governor coming in, it won't happen any time soon.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Jan 19, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> They already voted "No" on it.  And with a Republican governor coming in, it won't happen any time soon.


That's a bummer.


----------



## Uro (Jan 19, 2010)

I'd like the opportunity to be in a formalized relationship with someone I love. I don't care if it's called marriage, or frafrafelle. I just want the federal benefits and recognition that straight marriages have.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 19, 2010)

Wow, it sure is SSDD in here.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 19, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I posted those examples because the link you posted had a very general view over what is considered deviant behavior, and thus *I feel like my examples aren't out of line*.  In fact the very first sentence of that dude's paper pretty much spells it out:



No, your examples aren't "out of line", they're a whole different class.  Read the line you quoted, again, and my comment, below




Term_the_Schmuck said:


> The only difference, as you pointed out, is that with homosexuals it's a sexual deviancy.  Though they can't disprove the fact that they love someone of the same gender, what they can disprove are some of the claims mentioned in the Prop 8 ads I posted and/or start carrying themselves with a little more decency during pride parades.  That to them it's not about being able to wear pink thongs and so on, but it's about being able to love the person of their choice without having to place a legal limit on how much they can love them.  That is what I'm getting at; changing the perception people have of gay people being as they are during parades to how they are outside of them, as normal people working 40 hours a week, paying taxes, who just so happen to love someone of the same gender.



The only difference is pointed out quite clearly by the word "acting"... neither women nor racial minorities are "acting".  They were simply victims of discrimination, and really, not considered deviant so much as sub-human.  Solely for reasons of gender and skin color.  Not in any way the same as homosexuality, which directly involves the practice of deviant sexuality in both genders and all races.  As I said, a whole different class.  And the reason it is so difficult to "change the perception" when there is simply no way to get around their deviant sexuality... especially when the "Gay Pride" parades rub it in people's faces.




Ricky said:


> Almost anything could be considered a deviancy if it doesn't follow 100% of the norm.  Interracial sex could be considered deviant as well *and was punishable as a felony in some states just a few decades back*.



Still, interracial sex was sex between a man and a woman... once the whole issue of racial discrimination was dealt with, an issue having nothing to do with deviancy, then the sex became normal, simply an act between a man and a woman of different race as well as opposite genders.




Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Unfortunately you seem to be missing the point.  Pride parades, as I see them and how others have admitted them being on here, are basically a "coming out" event showing people that homosexuality exists and that there are homosexuals among us.  *If my image of a homosexual is wearing assless leather chaps and pretty much nothing else, how am I supposed to think of this person, regardless of what he may or may not be doing with his life?*



Exactly my point.




Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Deviancy is not exclusive to legality.  *It's extremely relevant when considering society's opinion on the issue as well as how willing they'll be to change gay marriage to be an accepted social norm.*



Indeed...




Takumi_L said:


> Roose we aren't going to withold social security from all old people because a few people are going to abuse the system and we shouldn't ban gay marriage because you fear a few people who aren't in love are going to do so just for the benefits.



Ummm, excuse me, but why would I care if they do it just for the bennies?  Personally, I don't care if gays get married or not, it has no effect on my life and how I conduct myself.  Please, think before you write, Takumi.




jellyhurwit said:


> None aside from humans really come to mind.
> Also this is superbly irrelevant.



Tried to find more specific info, but I seem unable to find the right keywords.  So, this will have to do:

http://anthro.palomar.edu/behavior/behave_2.htm




jellyhurwit said:


> and why wouldnt you just fake marry a chick,
> that way you wont get beat up for being a faggot



I wouldn't have to fake-marry a "chick"... I'm straight.




Ricky said:


> I really think people understand that you dress up in a parade.  This is because most of them have been to parades before, maybe recently *and probably even as a kid*.
> 
> People don't assume Irish people wear kilts to work because they see them dress up for St. Patrick's Day.



I wouldn't want my kid to see a parade where men dress like that and wave around fake dildos.  And it's the Scotts who wear kilts, not the Irish.




Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I never claimed it was good reasoning.  Then again, people aren't always reasonable.  But if you asked me what was the main reason why gay marriage isn't being moved forward, as Takumi did at the beginning of the thread some 200 posts ago, *public image would be my best guess.*



Mine, too...


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Jan 19, 2010)

What's a fake dildo


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 19, 2010)

Load_Blown said:


> What's a fake dildo


I was wondering that same thing.

Is it like a giant dildo balloon?


----------



## Suzaba (Jan 19, 2010)

Load_Blown said:


> What's a fake dildo



Technically... couldn't a fake dildo... by definition... be a real penis?


----------



## Jelly (Jan 19, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Tried to find more specific info, but I seem unable to find the right keywords.  So, this will have to do:
> 
> http://anthro.palomar.edu/behavior/behave_2.htm



1. Chimpanzees are the closest genetic/geolocal primates that we share an LCA. "When chimpanzees from different troops come together, there is often an exciting, friendly encounter lasting several hours, following which, some of the adult females switch groups."
2. And this is why this is irrelevant, even chimps don't make decent human models (but are the best behavioral models, due to similarity in early environment, social dynamics, and genetic similarity), and as you might note the researchers paid great attention to dividing non-human and human.

the reason you couldn't find anything else is because:
what consensus there is doesn't support your view

also you'd have to do peer review research



Roose Hurro said:


> I wouldn't have to fake-marry a "chick"... I'm straight



but what if you wanted the benefits without any attachment
like is all the rage with these gays you talk about


----------



## Ricky (Jan 19, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> I wouldn't want my kid to see a parade where men dress like that and wave around fake dildos.



Awesome -- so don't fucking take them there.  Problem solved.



> And it's the Scotts who wear kilts, not the Irish.


YOU ARE WRONG; IT IS BOTH

(and I have most definitely seen lots of IRISH people in KILTS playing the bagpipes at the St Patty 's day parades)


----------



## peacheskawaii (Jan 20, 2010)

no other minority group in recent years has faced such political opposition as gay people. and i don't get it. straight people are really afraid of us, and i find it hilarious!


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 20, 2010)

jellyhurwit said:


> 1. Chimpanzees are the closest genetic/geolocal primates that we share an LCA. "When chimpanzees from different troops come together, there is often an exciting, friendly encounter lasting several hours, following which, some of the adult females switch groups."
> 2. And this is why this is irrelevant, even chimps don't make decent human models (but are the best behavioral models, due to similarity in early environment, social dynamics, and genetic similarity), and as you might note the researchers paid great attention to dividing non-human and human.
> 
> the reason you couldn't find anything else is because:
> ...



My view is supported by fact, since I've studied such things in the past, long before the internet existed.  I'm just presently unable to find any online info relative to what I studied in the past, observations of primates reacting in mistrust and fear towards things out of the norm in their environment.  Other chimps would not fit that description. 




jellyhurwit said:


> but what if you wanted the benefits without any attachment
> *like is all the rage with these gays you talk about*



Never said it was all the rage with gays, I simply stated that there are people out their who marry for reasons other than love... you know, who marry only for the bennies.




Ricky said:


> Awesome -- so don't fucking take them there.  Problem solved.



Problem not solved, if I happen to run into such a "parade" while taking my kids out for ice cream.  Adult activities need to remain private, not flagrantly displayed in public, where children can see.  This is my point.




Ricky said:


> YOU ARE WRONG; IT IS BOTH
> 
> (and I have most definitely seen lots of IRISH people in KILTS playing the bagpipes at the St Patty 's day parades)



Well, I stand corrected, then.




peacheskawaii said:


> no other minority group in recent years has faced such political opposition as gay people. and i don't get it. straight people are really afraid of us, and i find it hilarious!



Not afraid, more like violently ill...

After all, it's not like you're serial killers running amok.


----------



## Qoph (Jan 20, 2010)

I, for one, would like to see gay demonstrations a bit more 'professional'.  Right now they're just playing into the stereotype.  How about some normal clothes, normal signs, and just acting fucking NORMAL.  You're not helping your case by looking like a bunch of freaks.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 20, 2010)

Qoph said:


> I, for one, would like to see gay demonstrations a bit more 'professional'.  Right now they're just playing into the stereotype.  How about some normal clothes, normal signs, and just acting fucking NORMAL.  You're not helping your case by looking like a bunch of freaks.


I'm pretty sure that's the general consensus amongst everyone in the gay community except the paraders.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Jan 20, 2010)

Pride is pretty corporate now


Has been for a while


----------



## Jelly (Jan 20, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> My view is supported by fact, since I've studied such things in the past, long before the internet existed.  I'm just presently unable to find any online info relative to what I studied in the past, observations of primates reacting in mistrust and fear towards things out of the norm in their environment.  Other chimps would not fit that description.



Hey, don't worry about it, I can't expect people to actually be able to cite the knowledge they have. Because obviously, science being such a field so devoid of trust and so requiring critical thought, you clearly wouldn't remember what happened to all that research you did. Maybe you sat on it and your butt swallowed it all ups! ^o^

I don't think you want to match credentials in primate social ecology. It wasn't a hobby, it was part of my college career. I know the names and pecking order of the chimps at Ngogo, I can recognize them when people show me videos on NatGeo.

But I would also like to say that I love the rewording here and its potential implication:
"And my point is, it is hard to present yourself as "fellow Americans" or "suffering from something" when your behavior is outside the norm... what is known as a deviant behavior, as my above link detailed. That "image" is what sticks, even if "the norm" of society don't consciously realize it. Remember, primates tend to have trouble with such things. Easily frightened by things "outside the norm." " - OUTSIDE THE NORM REPRESENTING A SOCIOCULTURAL NORMATIVE CONCEPT (which is pretty much the most irrelevant point when related to primates who hardly even have culture but group dynamics are still observable)

TO:

"observations of primates reacting in mistrust and fear towards things out of the norm in their environment." - OUTSIDE THE NORM REPRESENTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPT (if I put an oil barrel in your living room, you might be super unnerved to find it there when sitting down to eat a bowl of cornflakes)



Roose Hurro said:


> Never said it was all the rage with gays, I simply stated that there are people out their who marry for reasons other than love... you know, who marry only for the bennies.



I love how you keep dodging this question.
What makes this any different from the potential represented by straight marriage?
At least that way you can get married and not be ostracized by a large part of society.

Two pluses (straight marriage) for faking
vs.
One plus and a very distinct negative (gay marriage) for faking

A gay marriage only represents a less attractive package, as homosexuality is still very taboo in the public mindset compared to heterosexual relationships in America.
People are still attacked for being homosexuals.
Homosexuals are regularly derided for their relations.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jan 20, 2010)

I for one would not like to have my kid see Christian/football/World of Warcraft parades.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 20, 2010)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> I for one would not like to have my kid see Christian/football/World of Warcraft parades.


Because gay=playing a video game?


----------



## Kommodore (Jan 20, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Because gay=playing a video game?



Well yeah, didn't you get the memo?


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 20, 2010)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> I for one would not like to have my kid see Christian/football/World of Warcraft parades.


 
You spelled 'riots' wrong.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 20, 2010)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Well yeah, didn't you get the memo?


No, I was too busy fagging it up by playing first person shooters.


----------



## Qoph (Jan 20, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> No, I was too busy fagging it up by playing first person shooters.



Quit teabagging everyone, fag.

Oh, and lots of people turned out to the football parade in Pittsburgh.  Even some of the schools closed :V


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 20, 2010)

Qoph said:


> Quit teabagging everyone, fag.
> 
> Oh, and lots of people turned out to the football parade in Pittsburgh.  Even some of the schools closed :V


I refuse to acknowledge that the Steelers won the super bowl last year :V


----------



## Qoph (Jan 20, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> I refuse to acknowledge that the Steelers won the super bowl last year :V



Yeah, it was kinda like, oh goody we won... again... :|
First time was better, definitely.

ON TOPIC THE STEELERS HAVE A PLAYER WHOSE LAST NAME IS 'GAY'.
Too bad he sucks.


----------



## Ricky (Jan 20, 2010)

Roose Hurro said:


> Problem not solved, if I happen to run into such a "parade" while taking my kids out for ice cream.  Adult activities need to remain private, not flagrantly displayed in public, where children can see.  This is my point.



If you happen to just _run into a parade_ you're pretty far gone, anyway.

That said, I think it's a matter of parental discretion on these sorts of things.  I didn't see any dildos being waved around last year and that was the parade in SF (I'm guessing it's the biggest in the US) but even if there are a few isolated incidents like this it was still the parents' responsibility to make sure they are taking their child to something suitable.

The Folsom Street Fair and Dore Alley are much worse, anyway.

Here on Castro St. you'll see dildos on display in the windows.

Again, it's really a matter of parental discretion but there aren't many little kids here, anyway.


----------



## Kommodore (Jan 20, 2010)

Qoph said:


> ON TOPIC THE STEELERS HAVE A PLAYER WHOSE LAST NAME IS 'GAY'.
> Too bad he sucks.



Heh. 

Heheh.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 20, 2010)

Qoph said:


> Yeah, it was kinda like, oh goody we won... again... :|
> First time was better, definitely.
> 
> ON TOPIC THE STEELERS HAVE A PLAYER WHOSE LAST NAME IS 'GAY'.
> Too bad he sucks.


*ba dum tish*

I hate the Steelers.  I'm a Titans fan.


----------



## Qoph (Jan 20, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> *ba dum tish*
> 
> I hate the Steelers.  I'm a Titans fan.



IT IS MY SOLEMN DUTY AS A MOD TO KEEP THIS ON TOPIC.

But to put it simply, I agree with the legal equality side of gay marriage, and think that it should be legal for a church to perform a gay marriage if they choose to.  If not, then the church definitely can't be forced to do it.


----------



## Azure (Jan 20, 2010)

Boy, this thread is a laugh a minute.


----------



## Suzaba (Jan 20, 2010)

Um... maybe I'm just too naive, but... why should gay marriage even be debated? Why is it even involved in the legal system? To me it seems like if you don't personally believe in same-sex marriage... then... don't marry somebody of the same sex. I've heard these kind of debates going on for years and I still can't understand why people take up arms over issues that don't affect them in the slightest. I can't see how somebody's marriage affects your marriage....like... if your marriage is fucked up, it's probably because _*you*_ fucked it up, not because gays are marrying each other. I've seen a lot of straight couples with a serious case of invidia; they see a happy gay couple and it just pisses them off. Every single argument I've ever read or heard against gay marriage has been wildly speculative and/or reeks of self-righteous Judeo-Christian fandom.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 20, 2010)

Ricky said:


> If you happen to just _run into a parade_ you're pretty far gone, anyway.



Not really.  It happens ALL the time.  Especially when they don't really advertise it in your local paper, then you have to drive somewhere and you end up held up because the parade route is in your way.  It isn't unheard of to run into any parade.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 20, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Not really. It happens ALL the time. Especially when they don't really advertise it in your local paper, then you have to drive somewhere and you end up held up because the parade route is in your way. It isn't unheard of to run into any parade.


 
This is true.  Had a dealer for an event of mine be an hour late.  Turned out he was late, left just on time, but between the venue and his store was the St. Patricks Day parade. :X


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 20, 2010)

I think what I'll do is I'll go to a gay pride parade and start blaring "Faggot".

...actually, on second thought, they probably do that already.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 20, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> I refuse to acknowledge that the Steelers won the super bowl last year :V



Next thing, you'll be telling us they stole the game...


----------



## Eerie Silverfox (Jan 20, 2010)

I hope your dreams are never recognized.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Jan 20, 2010)

Dammit, people, pay attention to me! YOU ARE ALL TRANSPHOBIC AND THIS IS BIGOTRY D:<

^ See how annoying it is?


----------

