DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: 73109 on July 26, 2010, 10:32:28 PM
-
Where are you coming from? Why exactly should it be illegal? I'm not ranting, raving, or insulting. I just want to know your point of view. Also, do you believe no one is actually homosexual and they can suppress their homosexual urges?
-
The best I get from a non religious view point is "Marriage is LEGALLY defined as between 1 man and 1 woman"
The religious answer that is somewhat tempered is "Marriage is a religious institute, thus should follow religious laws"
The answer you will get from everyone else is "The government should stay out of marriage"
-
Because people like to butt into other people's affairs and hate things.
In all seriousness (not that that point wasn't serious, because it is 100% serious.):
I believe most people would say because marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman, and because they interpret the bible to say gays are bad, there is no place for them in marriage.
-
I understand that, I just want to see it typed and hear it from an actual anti gay marriage standpoint.
-
I understand that, I just want to see it typed and hear it from an actual anti gay marriage standpoint.
I highly doubt that anyone here, even if they are anti-gay marriage, will speak up.
Although I encourage they do.
-
I don't hate homosexuals, just to preface my post. I believe the Bible is clear that homosexuals should never act on their desires, though, since it goes against God's intent for marriage and that type of love. It's ONLY the act of homosexuality that is the issue as far as my faith goes. I have several homosexual friends, and we get along like any other set of friends.
-
Because people like to butt into other people's affairs...
Yep.
-
The best I get from a non religious view point is "Marriage is LEGALLY defined as between 1 man and 1 woman"
The religious answer that is somewhat tempered is "Marriage is a religious institute, thus should follow religious laws"
The answer you will get from everyone else is "The government should stay out of marriage"
Oh come on, you can't think of any other reason a non-religious person would be against gay marriage? You make it sound like you think anyone not religious and not a strict adherent to law thinks government should stay out of marriage rights. I think you're giving too much credit to too many people for being open-minded.
There's a difference between being against something and having a sensible argument against something. You've never heard the "it's not natural" argument? I think especially in older generations there is plenty of perception that homosexuality is simply a disease, something to be fixed, not encouraged through sanctioned marriage.
-
I don't hate homosexuals, just to preface my post. I believe the Bible is clear that homosexuals should never act on their desires, though, since it goes against God's intent for marriage and that type of love. It's ONLY the act of homosexuality that is the issue as far as my faith goes. I have several homosexual friends, and we get along like any other set of friends.
exactly this
-
The best I get from a non religious view point is "Marriage is LEGALLY defined as between 1 man and 1 woman"
The religious answer that is somewhat tempered is "Marriage is a religious institute, thus should follow religious laws"
The answer you will get from everyone else is "The government should stay out of marriage"
Oh come on, you can't think of any other reason a non-religious person would be against gay marriage? You make it sound like you think anyone not religious and not a strict adherent to law thinks government should stay out of marriage rights. I think you're giving too much credit to too many people for being open-minded.
There's a difference between being against something and having a sensible argument against something. You've never heard the "it's not natural" argument? I think especially in older generations there is plenty of perception that homosexuality is simply a disease, something to be fixed, not encouraged through sanctioned marriage.
Fine, just add "and some people are just biggots" to the end of my list.
-
You can allow something without approving of it. I don't understand how letting two guys or two gals get married has any effect on good, God-fearing Christian marriage.
-
You can allow something without approving of it. I don't understand how letting two guys or two gals get married has any effect on good, God-fearing Christian marriage.
That is an interesting point actually. At what point are humans supposed to enforce gods laws on non believers? I thought believers were supposed to let god deal with everybody in the next life and not in this life.
Am I wrong?
-
I've often wondered that too. Jesus didn't force anyone to follow his teachings or face government intervention. Everybody has a choice, and if there are universal moral laws by which we will be judged, it makes no difference if something is illegal in the eyes of the state.
-J
-
He also didn't live in a democratic society where each individual has somewhat of a say in the legislative process and in what they think the laws of the land "should" be, so he doesn't really speak to the issue of what the Christian role in government should be other than submitting to government authority. Anything beyond that, he leaves to us to figure out.
-
Does the government see marriage as an institute of man or an institute of God? (I honestly don't know). That may help answer the question I would think.
-
I think some officials see it one way, and some see it another.
-
Oh, lovely. :millahhhh
-
Whatever happened to a seperation of church and state?
-
Sounds like they share the house but sleep in separate rooms...sometimes.
-
Sounds like if their bunk beds were closer they would be having sex...in this case atleat.
-
My favorite answer is '' god created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve''. So funny.
-
Whatever happened to a seperation of church and state?
has nothing to do with the subject.
-
But what would be the point of a P/R thread in which it wasn't wrongly invoked at least once?
-J
-
You can allow something without approving of it. I don't understand how letting two guys or two gals get married has any effect on good, God-fearing Christian marriage.
-
Whatever happened to a seperation of church and state?
It doesn't matter. Laws do not matter because the spoken majority will get what they want. I believe that most people have no problem with gays, but they aren't the ones who speak loud. The ones who do speak up are antis and there are far more than spoken supporters, therefor it doesn't matter about old laws because this is (believe it or not) still the People's government.
At least that's my understanding
-
I say that there's a difference between what's Un-Christian and what's Un-American.
As a CHRISTIAN, I believe homosexuality is a sin.
As an AMERICAN, I believe any freedoms that don't interfere with the freedoms of others might as well be acceptable.
-
But what would be the point of a P/R thread in which it wasn't wrongly invoked at least once?
-J
I don't know. That was downright philosophical on your part.
-
Since the great majority of people who are against gay marriage are Christians (at least, in western society), I will be focusing on them.
I think it's okay for Christians to say they don't want gay marriage to be legalised. It's just part of their religion, most would agree. But I think enforcing their laws upon people who don't want to have anything to do with Christianity is not okay. This is happening on a large scale in America, where the church and the state aren't seperated. They're supposed to be seperated but they aren't. This is the reason America is the only country in western society where gay marriage is for the most part not allowed. Except for Italy, which is also extremely Christian.
It seems whenever religion has a substantial influence on politics, humans rights go out the window because the religion tells people how to think. This was demonstrated in the middle ages when the pope had absolute control over Europe (crusades, missionaries in Africa, conquest of the Americas, Pope Innocence 3 etc.). Whenever a religious leader is in control, they tend to force people to abide by the laws of their religion. You could say the phrase "Power corrupts" certainly applies to religious leaders.
However, I'm not saying Christianity is the only religion guilty of this, certainly not. The Islam is much worse. That's an interesting fact, because in the Middle-East religion and politics are one, completely unseperated. Leaders of the Islam even think that seperation of church and state is "a rebellion against God's law".
Another interesting point is that Hinduism and Buddhism have never forced their laws upon people, even though they have been in complete control over their countries for over 3000 years. So you could also say that there's something in Christianity and the Islam that causes their leaders to force their laws upon the population. But this is an entirely different debate.
In short, I think the only way to get gay marriage legalised is to seperate the church and the state more. I say more, because they can never be completely seperate. Doing this will be very hard if not impossible though, because religious followers and leaders will be reluctant to give up their power.
-
I don't know about Buddhism, but don't the moral tenets of Hinduism have a pretty large hand in Indian politics?
-
Another interesting point is that Hinduism and Buddhism have never forced their laws upon people, even though they have been in complete control over their countries for over 3000 years.
Not entirely true... But;
...this is an entirely different debate.
-
I don't know about Buddhism, but don't the moral tenets of Hinduism have a pretty large hand in Indian politics?
I'm not sure there is such a thing as buddhist law. At least not anything in the vein of 'christian law', if you can call it that.
-
[separation of church and state]
has nothing to do with the subject.
Seriously, is this phrase being thrown around in the wrong context a lot in our public schools or something? I cannot believe how widespread the ignorance is regarding it, or how often it is misused.
-J
-
Its not too annoying when I hear it misused given how simple it sounds.
-
Maybe it wasn't such a good idea of me to put those thoughts about hinduism and buddhism in my post, since it's kind of derailing the thread, but oh well.
I don't know about Buddhism, but don't the moral tenets of Hinduism have a pretty large hand in Indian politics?
They used to, but there was a long period of British colonial influence in which the Indian law system changed to closely resemble the English common law. However, there is also a so-called "family-law" system which is very complex. Basically it means that each religion in the country has its own set of laws they adhere to. So the moral tenets of Hinduism only influence the Hindu-part of the law.
I don't know about Buddhism, but don't the moral tenets of Hinduism have a pretty large hand in Indian politics?
I'm not sure there is such a thing as buddhist law. At least not anything in the vein of 'christian law', if you can call it that.
Buddhists live by the "Noble Eightfold Path". You could call it the Buddhist "law". The path is divided into wisdom, ethical conduct and mental development. It's briefly explained here: https://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html (https://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html)
[separation of church and state]
has nothing to do with the subject.
Seriously, is this phrase being thrown around in the wrong context a lot in our public schools or something? I cannot believe how widespread the ignorance is regarding it, or how often it is misused.
-J
From what I understand, separation of church and state refers to the limits a country's constitution places on the power of the government (both federal and state) to legislate about religion. At least, this is the defintion used in the US constitution and in secularist countries' constitutions. I do not see how I misused it.
-
Maybe I am mistaken, but to me, seperation of church and state is the Legislature deciding what is best without using religious ideals. Maybe I'm wrong. Sorry if I was mistaken.
-
It means the government cannot cannot adopt a state religion or force religious views onto you. It doesn't mean that the state should reject all religious principles or deny their teaching or practice in public places or institutions.
https://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So some apologetics organization wanting a theory or idea taught in school as part of a science curriculum should not be immediately rejected based on separation of church and state whereas a political group or senator drafting a bill that the Christian community wants to force onto non Christians (like the anti gay marriage people) should be.
-
So some apologetics organization wanting a theory or idea taught in school as part of a science curriculum should not be immediately rejected based on separation of church and state
Yes it should, if it's outside of mainstream science, and has been proven in court to be thinly veiled religion. That's for another thread though, I suppose. Those ideas are fine to teach in a civics or world religions course, but not a science class.
-
So some apologetics organization wanting a theory or idea taught in school as part of a science curriculum should not be immediately rejected based on separation of church and state
Yes it should, if it's outside of mainstream science, and has been proven in court to be thinly veiled religion. That's for another thread though, I suppose. Those ideas are fine to teach in a civics or world religions course, but not a science class.
Pretty much this. :tup
-
So some apologetics organization wanting a theory or idea taught in school as part of a science curriculum should not be immediately rejected based on separation of church and state
Yes it should, if it's outside of mainstream science, and has been proven in court to be thinly veiled religion. That's for another thread though, I suppose. Those ideas are fine to teach in a civics or world religions course, but not a science class.
What side of the spectrum you fall to is irrelevant to the big picture, using the separation of church and state as the only reason for the rejection of religion from anything government related is invoking its meaning and purpose incorrectly.
-
Maybe I am mistaken, but to me, seperation of church and state is the Legislature deciding what is best without using religious ideals. Maybe I'm wrong. Sorry if I was mistaken.
The term was used by Thomas Jefferson in some of his letters, and it appears nowhere in the Constitution.
-
So some apologetics organization wanting a theory or idea taught in school as part of a science curriculum should not be immediately rejected based on separation of church and state
Yes it should, if it's outside of mainstream science, and has been proven in court to be thinly veiled religion. That's for another thread though, I suppose. Those ideas are fine to teach in a civics or world religions course, but not a science class.
What side of the spectrum you fall to is irrelevant to the big picture, using the separation of church and state as the only reason for the rejection of religion from anything government related is invoking its meaning and purpose incorrectly.
I'm not speaking in a broad sense, I just believe as a scientist myself that there's literally no place in the science classroom for religious beliefs. This has less to do with separation of church and state as much as it has to do with teaching good science.
Also, does it really matter that the Wall of Separation isn't in the Constitution? It's still an extremely important principle that many people (including myself) hold very dear. If we keep religion out of government, then government stays out of religion.
-
The "Wall of Separation" is held quite dear in Canada. It's a bad idea for a politician to discuss religious matters; it'll lose them more votes than it gains them. More or less the opposite from the States, even though we have no formalized separation of church and state in our constitution.
But I agree with SeaWolf. The reasons for rejecting intelligent design have less to do with any constitutional arguments than they do with the fact that it's simply not science.
-
Regardless of whether or not you believe that should or should not be the ideal, that is not what "separation of church and state" means.
-
Regardless of whether or not you believe that should or should not be the ideal, that is not what "separation of church and state" means.
Perhaps you could define it then, for us? You'd know better, being a lawyer and all
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
-
I also question the use of Jefferson's phrase nowadays, especially since Jefferson attended a church service inside the House of Representatives 2 days after writing the letter containing that phrase.
-
The "Wall of Separation" is held quite dear in Canada. It's a bad idea for a politician to discuss religious matters; it'll lose them more votes than it gains them. More or less the opposite from the States, even though we have no formalized separation of church and state in our constitution.
What we need to be concerned about as far as the establishment clause is a government ever trying to establish a state religion. Everything else is out of the realm of the establishment clause.
-
I also question the use of Jefferson's phrase nowadays, especially since Jefferson attended a church service inside the House of Representatives 2 days after writing the letter containing that phrase.
Using a public building for worship =/= government establishment of religion
-
I also question the use of Jefferson's phrase nowadays, especially since Jefferson attended a church service inside the House of Representatives 2 days after writing the letter containing that phrase.
Using a public building for worship =/= government establishment of religion
I think that's what he was trying to say, that the way the phrase is used oftentimes today is clearly far removed from its original intended meaning.
-J
-
I also question the use of Jefferson's phrase nowadays, especially since Jefferson attended a church service inside the House of Representatives 2 days after writing the letter containing that phrase.
Using a public building for worship =/= government establishment of religion
I think that's what he was trying to say, that the way the phrase is used oftentimes today is clearly far removed from its original intended meaning.
-J
This. I can imagine the public outrage of people citing "separation of church and state" if a church service were held in the Capitol today.
-
As long as the Capitol is made available for other faiths to worship in as well (Judaism, Islam, Wicca, etc. etc.) I wouldn't have a problem with it myself.
-
As long as the Capitol is made available for other faiths to worship in as well (Judaism, Islam, Wicca, etc. etc.) I wouldn't have a problem with it myself.
Even if it weren't, it still wouldn't be a violation, AFAIK.
-
You're probably right. To be honest, I probably still wouldn't have a problem with it in that case. As long as it doesn't officially endorse that specific religion as the state religion.
I don't understand, however, why the whole gay marriage thing is NOT a church vs. state issue. Most people opposed to gay marriage clearly have religious motivation for opposing it. Aren't they imposing their own religious convictions upon people who don't share them?
If there's a problem with redefining the word "marriage" (I couldn't care less about the specific definition myself, as it doesn't affect me either way), then why can't we just have "civil unions" for any two people of legal consent, and leave the definition of the word "marriage" up to the individuals and their churches? I don't understand how that wouldn't solve the problem for everyone.
-
I don't understand, however, why the whole gay marriage thing is NOT a church vs. state issue. Most people opposed to gay marriage clearly have religious motivation for opposing it. Aren't they imposing their own religious convictions upon people who don't share them?
Many gay marriage opponents are religious (at least nominally), and use their beliefs as their reasoning. But not all gay marriage opponents are religious, and I have heard arguments against it that have nothing to do with religion. Therefore, it is not a church vs. state issue.
If there's a problem with redefining the word "marriage" (I couldn't care less about the specific definition myself, as it doesn't affect me either way), then why can't we just have "civil unions" for any two people of legal consent, and leave the definition of the word "marriage" up to the individuals and their churches? I don't understand how that wouldn't solve the problem for everyone.
Sounds fine to me. But good luck on getting that passed.
-
I don't understand, however, why the whole gay marriage thing is NOT a church vs. state issue. Most people opposed to gay marriage clearly have religious motivation for opposing it. Aren't they imposing their own religious convictions upon people who don't share them?
Many gay marriage opponents are religious (at least nominally), and use their beliefs as their reasoning. But not all gay marriage opponents are religious, and I have heard arguments against it that have nothing to do with religion. Therefore, it is not a church vs. state issue.
If there's a problem with redefining the word "marriage" (I couldn't care less about the specific definition myself, as it doesn't affect me either way), then why can't we just have "civil unions" for any two people of legal consent, and leave the definition of the word "marriage" up to the individuals and their churches? I don't understand how that wouldn't solve the problem for everyone.
Sounds fine to me. But good luck on getting that passed.
This. Once you give anything to the people (power, money, or in this case, terminology), it is nearly impossible to take it away.
-
Where are you coming from? Why exactly should it be illegal? I'm not ranting, raving, or insulting. I just want to know your point of view. Also, do you believe no one is actually homosexual and they can suppress their homosexual urges?
I'm not against it being illegal. I have no say in that legistlation. I simply disagree with homosexuality in the logical position that it's unnatural. A man having sex with another man is simply put two humans having sex with no results other than sexual satisfication. When a man and woman couple they create life. When a man and man couple or woman and woman couple, no life is created nor is a human built to have sex with the same sex human. Seriously, why doesn't anyone think of man having their penis up another man's asshole as unnatural? Nature doesn't support the idea of homosexuality. It is simply a form of sexual attraction that we have decided to make natural for completely illogical reasons and have supported this notion that it is natural and should be an accepted part of nature. I am not saying that any homosexual is delusional or evil. All that I am saying is that the idea of homosexualty cannot be substantiated in human nature and I would love to hear someone actually substantiate it.
I also completely disagree that homosexuality is genetic or has roots in the natural world. I this was so then you could trace homosexuality through a family line much the same I can trace heart problems or hair color. To me it's a tendancy that happened very early in life. I seriously doubt we are born with some tendancy towards the same-sex. I find that ridiculous.
Oh by the way, this entire argument was constructed without a single mention of religious dogma.
-
Wow.
-
A man having sex with another man is simply put two humans having sex with no results other than sexual satisfication.
And this is a bad thing why, exactly? You didn't directly refer to your religious beliefs, but they're all over your post. Humans do countless things for no other reason than to obtain our jollies. Some of us find sex quite enjoyable, with nary a thought towards procreation. The only reason to object to such a thing is religion. I also enjoy riding roller coasters and watching football with a cold beer in my hand. Strangely, bible thumpers have never harassed me for my heathenish fondness for those hobbies.
-
I also completely disagree that homosexuality is genetic or has roots in the natural world.
Than you disagree with biology and are just as bad as the evolution nay sayers.
-
Where are you coming from? Why exactly should it be illegal? I'm not ranting, raving, or insulting. I just want to know your point of view. Also, do you believe no one is actually homosexual and they can suppress their homosexual urges?
I simply disagree with homosexuality in the logical position that it's unnatural.
Completely and utterly wrong. Homosexuality is as natural as birds which can fly backwards. It may appear to be unnatural due to the fact that the act which mirrors copulation does not result in progeny.
What if human females ate their mate after sex. Would you then call it unnatural and label all praying mantis unnatural? Its rare and unusual, but by no means unnatural. What if a human male decides to have a harem of wives and violently guards them against other males. Would you find polygamy unnatural? Well many humans do, but it is a mainstay of the natural world.
And indeed, as species come closer to exhibiting intelligence and social cultures (ie, dolphins and bees) homosexuality is even more prevalent.
(It would have been better if you DID bring in the god argument, I can buy that religious folks see humans as innately superior to animals and thus above all animalistic instincts, nevermind how deluded and pretentious this idea is)
-
Nature doesn't support the idea of homosexuality. It is simply a form of sexual attraction that we have decided to make natural for completely illogical reasons and have supported this notion that it is natural and should be an accepted part of nature.
I agree that homosexuality isn't "natural" in that it isn't supported by natural selection like most other desires and pleasures are. But why does this matter? There are many other loopholes to have your body provide you with chemical rewards, for example MUSIC.
-
You're assuming it's not natural, because you assume the only point to any sexual interactions is to produce off spring. In that case, oral sex, masturbation or sex between two people who can't have children is unnatural. As would be sex during certain times of the month.
-
Where are you coming from? Why exactly should it be illegal? I'm not ranting, raving, or insulting. I just want to know your point of view. Also, do you believe no one is actually homosexual and they can suppress their homosexual urges?
I'm not against it being illegal. I have no say in that legistlation. I simply disagree with homosexuality in the logical position that it's unnatural. A man having sex with another man is simply put two humans having sex with no results other than sexual satisfication. When a man and woman couple they create life. When a man and man couple or woman and woman couple, no life is created nor is a human built to have sex with the same sex human. Seriously, why doesn't anyone think of man having their penis up another man's asshole as unnatural? Nature doesn't support the idea of homosexuality. It is simply a form of sexual attraction that we have decided to make natural for completely illogical reasons and have supported this notion that it is natural and should be an accepted part of nature. I am not saying that any homosexual is delusional or evil. All that I am saying is that the idea of homosexualty cannot be substantiated in human nature and I would love to hear someone actually substantiate it.
I also completely disagree that homosexuality is genetic or has roots in the natural world. I this was so then you could trace homosexuality through a family line much the same I can trace heart problems or hair color. To me it's a tendancy that happened very early in life. I seriously doubt we are born with some tendancy towards the same-sex. I find that ridiculous.
Oh by the way, this entire argument was constructed without a single mention of religious dogma.
Just because no religious dogma was mentioned in your post doesn't mean that it wasn't inspired by it, which if definitely seems to be. I'm not going to go in a long rant attacking your beliefs (Even though I think you are very strongly in the wrong) because I don't really like to do that. I'll just ask you a couple of questions.
1. Is it immoral to have sex for reasons other than procreation at any point in time? To add to that, if someone is biologically unable to procreate, is it immoral for him/her to have sex?
2. Why is homosexuality illogical (I find your usage of that term in this context interesting)? I can understand the "The bible says so" response to it being immoral (Again, I disagree with it, but whatever). If someone desires homosexual relations, both emotionally and physically and does not harm their partner or anyone else in the process, how is this illogical? Is it illogical to pursue happiness?
-
I should have never made this. Threads like this get me pissed. I frankly don't get how anyone can tell someone who they can fuck. Can this get locked?
-
I should have never made this. Threads like this get me pissed. I frankly don't get how anyone can tell someone who they can fuck. Can this get locked?
But I want to see his reply :'(
-
I just can't stand the bigotry. There is simply no good reason to ban gay marriage unless you feel it isn't religiously moral, and...GAH!!!!!!
I CAN'T EVEN ARTICULATE MY OPINION WITHOUT WANTING TO KILL SMALL KITTENS!!!
-
Ariich convinced me to keep this open. Talk amongst yourselves. I'm out of this one.
-
Where are you coming from? Why exactly should it be illegal? I'm not ranting, raving, or insulting. I just want to know your point of view. Also, do you believe no one is actually and they can suppress their urges?
Let me begin by: I'm Catholic. There. Now: I believe gay acts are, frankly, an abomination. If an individual is gay, fine, be gay. Just don't try to say you are "proud of" being gay or declare that being gay is perfectly normal (if it was normal, then why can't a gay couple reproduce...?). Being gay does not mean one has to wear tight clothes or dress like a girl, or even speak like one. Gays would be much more widely tolerated if gays acted like normal people and kept their personal love life or gender preference just that - PERSONAL and DISCREET. Also, don't try to adopt children. Can you imagine how miserable it would be to be raised by a gay couple - especially if you are straight? I can just picture the awkward conversations such an individual would encounter in school and everyday life. It would not be surprising to find that such an individual would grow up to be gay, socially awkward or - a serial killer!
-
I frankly don't get how anyone can tell someone who they can fuck.
Wow, I didn't realize people were doing that. Where can I find this information? I was under the apparently false impression this was about marriage.
-
Where are you coming from? Why exactly should it be illegal? I'm not ranting, raving, or insulting. I just want to know your point of view. Also, do you believe no one is actually and they can suppress their urges?
Let me begin by: I'm Catholic. There. Now: I believe is, frankly, an abomination. If an individual is gay, fine, be gay. Just don't try to say you are "proud of" being gay or declare that being gay is perfectly normal (if it was normal, then why can't a gay couple reproduce...?). Being gay does not mean one has to wear tight clothes or dress like a girl, or even speak like one. would be much more widely tolerated if gays acted like normal people and kept their personal love life or gender preference just that - PERSONAL and DISCREET. Also, don't try to adopt children. Can you imagine how miserable it would be to be raised by a gay couple - especially if you are straight? I can just picture the awkward conversations such an individual would encounter in school and everyday life. It would not be surprising to find that such an individual would grow up to be gay, socially awkward or - a serial killer!
1. So being unable to reproduce means you are an unnatural abomination? There are people who are straight that are biologically unable to reproduce, are they suddenly disgusting? I'm straight but I can't stand kids and have no desire to have any either. Am I an abomination?
2. Why would it suddenly be horrible? Are you implying being homosexual means you are automatically a bad parent? To add a point, what if a child is homosexual living under the roof of two straight parents? I personally think that's the fault of neither party myself. The child in question might feel miserable if the parents were pushy about forcing a particular sexuality on that child (regardless if he/she was straight or gay). If the parents were open-minded and supportive, then I don't think it would be awkward at all.
3. Wait.... what? So being ridiculed by society that isn't even a big deal automatically turns you into a serial killer?! Do you have ANY clue what you're saying here? Your entire argument is nothing but "I don't like gays because they are unnatural because they can't reproduce! And since they are unnatural, they are terrible people!"
I frankly don't get how anyone can tell someone who they can fuck.
Wow, I didn't realize people were doing that. Where can I find this information? I was under the apparently false impression this was about marriage.
Unless I'm mistaken, doesn't homosexual sex count as sodomy? I know for a fact that its illegal in some states (At least I keep thinking it is), but it is kind of off-topic. No offense numbers.
-
I have no issue with Homosexuality.. and Have no issue with gay people.. I like them
I do have an issue with opening pandoras box on marriage... and my only issue is that I feel the gay agenda does not belong in the schools ..
-
Where are you coming from? Why exactly should it be illegal? I'm not ranting, raving, or insulting. I just want to know your point of view. Also, do you believe no one is actually and they can suppress their urges?
Let me begin by: I'm Catholic. There. Now: I believe is, frankly, an abomination. If an individual is gay, fine, be gay. Just don't try to say you are "proud of" being gay or declare that being gay is perfectly normal (if it was normal, then why can't a gay couple reproduce...?). Being gay does not mean one has to wear tight clothes or dress like a girl, or even speak like one. would be much more widely tolerated if gays acted like normal people and kept their personal love life or gender preference just that - PERSONAL and DISCREET. Also, don't try to adopt children. Can you imagine how miserable it would be to be raised by a gay couple - especially if you are straight? I can just picture the awkward conversations such an individual would encounter in school and everyday life. It would not be surprising to find that such an individual would grow up to be gay, socially awkward or - a serial killer!
1. So being unable to reproduce means you are an unnatural abomination? There are people who are straight that are biologically unable to reproduce, are they suddenly disgusting? I'm straight but I can't stand kids and have no desire to have any either. Am I an abomination?
2. Why would it suddenly be horrible? Are you implying being means you are automatically a bad parent? To add a point, what if a child is living under the roof of two straight parents? I personally think that's the fault of neither party myself. The child in question might feel miserable if the parents were pushy about forcing a particular on that child (regardless if he/she was straight or gay). If the parents were open-minded and supportive, then I don't think it would be awkward at all.
3. Wait.... what? So being ridiculed by society that isn't even a big deal automatically turns you into a serial killer?! Do you have ANY clue what you're saying here? Your entire argument is nothing but "I don't like gays because they are unnatural because they can't reproduce! And since they are unnatural, they are terrible people!"
I frankly don't get how anyone can tell someone who they can .
Wow, I didn't realize people were doing that. Where can I find this information? I was under the apparently false impression this was about marriage.
Unless I'm mistaken, doesn't sex count as sodomy? I know for a fact that its illegal in some states (At least I keep thinking it is), but it is kind of off-topic. No offense numbers.
I think we should find a habitable planet in the universe, send all gays there where they can pave rainbow roads and engage in all activities they want and be free of prejudice and discrimination until they meet their inevitable end... the end of their kind due to the lack of offspring...
-
Really? That's funny, I think we should send all christians to a different planet where their kind can end due to them killing each other over minute differences in interpretation.
-
Where are you coming from? Why exactly should it be illegal? I'm not ranting, raving, or insulting. I just want to know your point of view. Also, do you believe no one is actually and they can suppress their urges?
Let me begin by: I'm Catholic. There. Now: I believe is, frankly, an abomination. If an individual is gay, fine, be gay. Just don't try to say you are "proud of" being gay or declare that being gay is perfectly normal (if it was normal, then why can't a gay couple reproduce...?). Being gay does not mean one has to wear tight clothes or dress like a girl, or even speak like one. would be much more widely tolerated if gays acted like normal people and kept their personal love life or gender preference just that - PERSONAL and DISCREET. Also, don't try to adopt children. Can you imagine how miserable it would be to be raised by a gay couple - especially if you are straight? I can just picture the awkward conversations such an individual would encounter in school and everyday life. It would not be surprising to find that such an individual would grow up to be gay, socially awkward or - a serial killer!
1. So being unable to reproduce means you are an unnatural abomination? There are people who are straight that are biologically unable to reproduce, are they suddenly disgusting? I'm straight but I can't stand kids and have no desire to have any either. Am I an abomination?
2. Why would it suddenly be horrible? Are you implying being means you are automatically a bad parent? To add a point, what if a child is living under the roof of two straight parents? I personally think that's the fault of neither party myself. The child in question might feel miserable if the parents were pushy about forcing a particular on that child (regardless if he/she was straight or gay). If the parents were open-minded and supportive, then I don't think it would be awkward at all.
3. Wait.... what? So being ridiculed by society that isn't even a big deal automatically turns you into a serial killer?! Do you have ANY clue what you're saying here? Your entire argument is nothing but "I don't like gays because they are unnatural because they can't reproduce! And since they are unnatural, they are terrible people!"
I frankly don't get how anyone can tell someone who they can .
Wow, I didn't realize people were doing that. Where can I find this information? I was under the apparently false impression this was about marriage.
Unless I'm mistaken, doesn't sex count as sodomy? I know for a fact that its illegal in some states (At least I keep thinking it is), but it is kind of off-topic. No offense numbers.
I think we should find a habitable planet in the universe, send all gays there where they can pave rainbow roads and engage in all activities they want and be free of prejudice and discrimination until they meet their inevitable end... the end of their kind due to the lack of offspring...
Are you absolutely serious? Take a minute, think about what you just said. You really want to ship anyone that happens to be homosexual off from the planet and onto another?
Really? That's funny, I think we should send all christians to a different planet where their kind can end due to them killing each other over minute differences in interpretation.
Adami you just reminded me why I love you.
-
Where are you coming from? Why exactly should it be illegal? I'm not ranting, raving, or insulting. I just want to know your point of view. Also, do you believe no one is actually and they can suppress their urges?
Let me begin by: I'm Catholic. There. Now: I believe is, frankly, an abomination. If an individual is gay, fine, be gay. Just don't try to say you are "proud of" being gay or declare that being gay is perfectly normal (if it was normal, then why can't a gay couple reproduce...?). Being gay does not mean one has to wear tight clothes or dress like a girl, or even speak like one. would be much more widely tolerated if gays acted like normal people and kept their personal love life or gender preference just that - PERSONAL and DISCREET. Also, don't try to adopt children. Can you imagine how miserable it would be to be raised by a gay couple - especially if you are straight? I can just picture the awkward conversations such an individual would encounter in school and everyday life. It would not be surprising to find that such an individual would grow up to be gay, socially awkward or - a serial killer!
1. So being unable to reproduce means you are an unnatural abomination? There are people who are straight that are biologically unable to reproduce, are they suddenly disgusting? I'm straight but I can't stand kids and have no desire to have any either. Am I an abomination?
2. Why would it suddenly be horrible? Are you implying being means you are automatically a bad parent? To add a point, what if a child is living under the roof of two straight parents? I personally think that's the fault of neither party myself. The child in question might feel miserable if the parents were pushy about forcing a particular on that child (regardless if he/she was straight or gay). If the parents were open-minded and supportive, then I don't think it would be awkward at all.
3. Wait.... what? So being ridiculed by society that isn't even a big deal automatically turns you into a serial killer?! Do you have ANY clue what you're saying here? Your entire argument is nothing but "I don't like gays because they are unnatural because they can't reproduce! And since they are unnatural, they are terrible people!"
I frankly don't get how anyone can tell someone who they can .
Wow, I didn't realize people were doing that. Where can I find this information? I was under the apparently false impression this was about marriage.
Unless I'm mistaken, doesn't sex count as sodomy? I know for a fact that its illegal in some states (At least I keep thinking it is), but it is kind of off-topic. No offense numbers.
I think we should find a habitable planet in the universe, send all gays there where they can pave rainbow roads and engage in all activities they want and be free of prejudice and discrimination until they meet their inevitable end... the end of their kind due to the lack of offspring...
Are you absolutely serious? Take a minute, think about what you just said. You really want to ship anyone that happens to be off from the planet and onto another?
Really? That's funny, I think we should send all christians to a different planet where their kind can end due to them killing each other over minute differences in interpretation.
Adami you just reminded me why I love you.
Of course not, I was not being serious.
But think about it: wouldn't that make both parties happy? Straight people on Earth would be happy not to have to deal with gays and gays on Homoearth could live the life they always wanted!
-
Newsflash: not all straight people have a problem with gay people.
-
I'd go to the gay planet. I'd refuse to live with anyone who wants to send a group of people away to another planet.
-
Newsflash: not all straight people have a problem with gay people.
This.
I have no issues with gay people at all. Why are you saying that all straight people hate gays?
-
Newsflash: not all straight people have a problem with gay people.
Hmm... I don't recall ever proclaiming "I have a personal problem with all gay people!"
-
I'd go to the gay planet. I'd refuse to live with anyone who wants to send a group of people away to another planet.
But why wouldn't they want to go? I imagine it would be a lush, green planet with tropical climate. To want to stay in an overcrowded, obsolete Earth and not go to a virgin, lush tropical Homoearth? It would actually be a favor...
-
I'd go to the gay planet. I'd refuse to live with anyone who wants to send a group of people away to another planet.
But why wouldn't they want to go? I imagine it would be a lush, green planet with tropical climate. To want to stay in an overcrowded, obsolete Earth and not go to a virgin, lush tropical Homoearth? It would actually be a favor...
So you'd go with them?
-
Newsflash: not all straight people have a problem with gay people.
Hmm... I don't recall ever proclaiming "I have a personal problem with all gay people!"
Of course not, I was not being serious.
But think about it: wouldn't that make both parties happy? Straight people on Earth would be happy not to have to deal with gays and gays on Homoearth could live the life they always wanted!
que?
You might not have said it word for word, but it smacks you pretty hard in the face in this comment here. You're basically saying that all straight people don't want to have to deal with gay people.
The only people I don't want to have to deal with are the assholes of the world. Everyone else I'm cool with.
-
I am officially declaring Sovereign Dream to be the new EPICVIEW.
-
Best troll ever? No.
2nd best after my husband Disappear? Possibly. But he has a lot to prove still.
-
I miss disappear.
-
I miss disappear.
Was he before my time?
-
I miss disappear.
Was he before my time?
Yea. He was amazing. He still posts at 5/8, but his style blends in too much over there, here it was brilliant. I wish he'd be unbanned and return.
-
Let's re-count what Sovereign Dream thinks about gays:
1. If you can't reproduce, you're an abomination.
2. If you are gay, the healthiest thing to do is to not let anyone know.
3. If you are adopted by gay parents, you will become gay. Or a serial killer.
4. Despite #3, seems to think that homosexuality is hereditary.
-
I'd go to the gay planet. I'd refuse to live with anyone who wants to send a group of people away to another planet.
But why wouldn't they want to go? I imagine it would be a lush, green planet with tropical climate. To want to stay in an overcrowded, obsolete Earth and not go to a virgin, lush tropical Homoearth? It would actually be a favor...
So you'd go with them?
Hell to the no... just like any party: no girls = no fun
I guess I am really pissing people off by believing that being gay is unnatural...
What a crazy idea, right? (Czar Chasm)
-
Yeah. It's definitely unnatural. That's why no other species except humans display homosexual tendencies.
-
There will be lots of girls on gay planets. They just won't like you.
But since everyone just chooses to be gay, you can just convert them. And then you'll be the most wanted man on the planet.
GO FOR IT!
-
I'd go to the gay planet. I'd refuse to live with anyone who wants to send a group of people away to another planet.
But why wouldn't they want to go? I imagine it would be a lush, green planet with tropical climate. To want to stay in an overcrowded, obsolete Earth and not go to a virgin, lush tropical Homoearth? It would actually be a favor...
So you'd go with them?
Hell to the no... just like any party: no girls = no fun
I guess I am really pissing people off by believing that being gay is unnatural...
What a crazy idea, right? (Czar Chasm)
Its not pissing people off as it is presenting an idea that many people on this forum (Myself included) view as bullshit.
-
There will not lots of girls on gay planets. They just won't like you.
But since everyone just chooses to be gay, you can just convert them. And then you'll be the most wanted man on the planet.
GO FOR IT!
Actually, I was thinking we separate the gay from lesbo planets. Or lesbians get a couple of moons orbiting the planet.
Besides, 9/10 lesbians are NOT attractive
-
You're the second newb this week to say that homo-sex is unnatural because it can't result in pregnancy. WTF. Doesn't anybody do things just because they're fun anymore? You do realize that some heterosexual couples also enjoy a little backdoor action, as well, right?
Furthermore, I suspect that if you investigated it, children raised in homosexual households probably do better than the ones who bounce around foster homes for 18 years.
-
Besides, 9/10 lesbians are NOT attractive
Yes, but 6/9 lesbians are satisfied.
-
Besides, 9/10 lesbians are NOT attractive
Yes, but 6/9 lesbians are satisfied.
Umm...ok?
-
OK, I'll bite.
The thread topic is about the issue of gay marriage. However, I don't believe that that is really what it's about. Discussions like this usually get down to the issue of homosexuality, which really must be dealt with before one can make a personal decision about the issue of gay marriage. Here are my thoughts on the core issue in case you are interested.
What causes Homosexuality? I can tell you what different people think.
1. Birth defect/hormone imbalance in the womb - There have been some studies that suggest that there is something to this. It explains girls who grow up acting like boys and boys that grow up acting like girls.
2. Poor relationship with father/domineering mother - This has always been one of my favorites because it is so very common among gay men. However, my wife's hair dresser shot this theory down by telling her that he's simply always known he was gay and had a great relationship with his father. Plus his mother was not domineering. OK, so that's one anomaly, but I still think there's alot of evidence that there's something to this.
3. Sexually abused by the same sex when young - Just like #2 this is very common among gay men. This one would be hard to research since not many would want to talk about it or possibly might not even remember it. I know at least 5 gay men that had sexual encounters with an older gay man in their formative years and the fact that they got "into it" helped them desire more.
4. Culture - We are bombarded with the topic at a very early age. Boys grow up worrying if they are gay or not half the time and the other half the time they're being called gay. This has been going on forever.
There are probably more but these 4 are all I can think of. I wonder if homosexuality might come from all four. One thing is for sure. It's not just a black and white type issue.
As a Christian and a student of the Bible there are things that are hard for me to figure out. In Romans the apostle Paul talks about men lying with men and doing things that are "unnatural". It's pretty clear Paul was against it (what this just Paul or was the words he wrote inspired by God). More simply, any sex outside of marriage is wrong and that is supported throughout the scriptures by Paul and a whole bunch of others. Sexual immorality was somewhat of a problem with the Romans. So this was a hot topic back then too. (Too-ga! Too-ga! Too-ga!) It also goes all the way back to the days of Abraham and Sodom and Gomorrah (those cities were VERY gay friendly and look what happened to them).
But what do we do about people that genuinely believe that they didn't choose that life and hate being what they're being. I honestly don't know. But one thing I do know. The marriage issue is not just about gays wanting to change the definition of marriage. Gays want everyone to accept their lifestyle and see them as just regular folks. Changing what marriage means would be victory towards that cause. It would be like a public affirmation to the lifestyle and that is what so many people are afraid of.
-
Besides, 9/10 lesbians are NOT attractive
Yes, but 6/9 lesbians are satisfied.
Umm...ok?
Oh come on, I thought it was hillarious.
-
OK, I'll bite.
The thread topic is about the issue of gay marriage. However, I don't believe that that is really what it's about. Discussions like this usually get down to the issue of homosexuality, which really must be dealt with before one can make a personal decision about the issue of gay marriage. Here are my thoughts on the core issue in case you are interested.
What causes Homosexuality? I can tell you what different people think.
1. Birth defect/hormone imbalance in the womb - There have been some studies that suggest that there is something to this. It explains girls who grow up acting like boys and boys that grow up acting like girls.
2. Poor relationship with father/domineering mother - This has always been one of my favorites because it is so very common among gay men. However, my wife's hair dresser shot this theory down by telling her that he's simply always known he was gay and had a great relationship with his father. Plus his mother was not domineering. OK, so that's one anomaly, but I still think there's alot of evidence that there's something to this.
3. Sexually abused by the same sex when young - Just like #2 this is very common among gay men. This one would be hard to research since not many would want to talk about it or possibly might not even remember it. I know at least 5 gay men that had sexual encounters with an older gay man in their formative years and the fact that they got "into it" helped them desire more.
4. Culture - We are bombarded with the topic at a very early age. Boys grow up worrying if they are gay or not half the time and the other half the time they're being called gay. This has been going on forever.
There are probably more but these 4 are all I can think of. I wonder if homosexuality might come from all four. One thing is for sure. It's not just a black and white type issue.
As a Christian and a student of the Bible there are things that are hard for me to figure out. In Romans the apostle Paul talks about men lying with men and doing things that are "unnatural". It's pretty clear Paul was against it (what is just Paul or was the words he wrote inspired by God). More simply, any sex outside of marriage is wrong and that is supported throughout the scriptures by Paul and a whole bunch of others. Sexual immorality was somewhat of a problem with the Romans. So this was a hot topic back then too. (Too-ga! Too-ga! Too-ga!) It also goes all the way back to the days of Abraham and Sodom and Gomorrah (those cities were VERY gay friendly and look what happened to them).
But what do we do about people that genuinely believe that they didn't choose that life and hate being what they're being. I honestly don't know. But one thing I do know. The marriage issue is not just about gays wanting to change the definition of marriage. Gays want everyone to accept their lifestyle and see them as just regular folks. Changing what marriage means would be victory towards that cause. It's would be like a public affirmation to the lifestyle and that is what so many people are afraid of.
The thing is, I don't see how two gay people getting married and going through the backdoor on Saturday nights hurts you or me. You are certainly within your rights to view it as immoral considering your status as a Christian (Although I strongly disagree with you, but I figure that's another topic), but I don't get how it hurts you in any way.
-
:rollin
I lost it reading about the "gay planet" proposition. Hilarious, if I didn't suspect there was a shred of seriousness behind it. :lol
I've heard some halfway-decent secular arguments against gay marriage (although definitely NOT in this thread :lol), but they're mostly based on a lot of psycho-babble and not particularly convincing. Most anti-gay marriage arguments I read are rendered completely irrelevant by the simple obvious truth that straight people suck so hard at marriage and families.
This isn't an issue I feel very strongly about (and I'm not sure why so many get so worked up over it), but I see no compelling reason the state should forbid two gay people from entering into the contractual shackles of matrimony.
I'd go to the gay planet. I'd refuse to live with anyone who wants to send a group of people away to another planet.
You already do, there are lots of people on earth that think stuff like that.
Which means there must be some other reason you want to live on the gay planet. :-*
-J
-
OK, I'll bite.
The thread topic is about the issue of gay marriage. However, I don't believe that that is really what it's about. Discussions like this usually get down to the issue of homosexuality, which really must be dealt with before one can make a personal decision about the issue of gay marriage. Here are my thoughts on the core issue in case you are interested.
What causes Homosexuality? I can tell you what different people think.
1. Birth defect/hormone imbalance in the womb - There have been some studies that suggest that there is something to this. It explains girls who grow up acting like boys and boys that grow up acting like girls.
2. Poor relationship with father/domineering mother - This has always been one of my favorites because it is so very common among gay men. However, my wife's hair dresser shot this theory down by telling her that he's simply always known he was gay and had a great relationship with his father. Plus his mother was not domineering. OK, so that's one anomaly, but I still think there's alot of evidence that there's something to this.
3. Sexually abused by the same sex when young - Just like #2 this is very common among gay men. This one would be hard to research since not many would want to talk about it or possibly might not even remember it. I know at least 5 gay men that had sexual encounters with an older gay man in their formative years and the fact that they got "into it" helped them desire more.
4. Culture - We are bombarded with the topic at a very early age. Boys grow up worrying if they are gay or not half the time and the other half the time they're being called gay. This has been going on forever.
There are probably more but these 4 are all I can think of. I wonder if homosexuality might come from all four. One thing is for sure. It's not just a black and white type issue.
As a Christian and a student of the Bible there are things that are hard for me to figure out. In Romans the apostle Paul talks about men lying with men and doing things that are "unnatural". It's pretty clear Paul was against it (what is just Paul or was the words he wrote inspired by God). More simply, any sex outside of marriage is wrong and that is supported throughout the scriptures by Paul and a whole bunch of others. Sexual immorality was somewhat of a problem with the Romans. So this was a hot topic back then too. (Too-ga! Too-ga! Too-ga!) It also goes all the way back to the days of Abraham and Sodom and Gomorrah (those cities were VERY gay friendly and look what happened to them).
But what do we do about people that genuinely believe that they didn't choose that life and hate being what they're being. I honestly don't know. But one thing I do know. The marriage issue is not just about gays wanting to change the definition of marriage. Gays want everyone to accept their lifestyle and see them as just regular folks. Changing what marriage means would be victory towards that cause. It's would be like a public affirmation to the lifestyle and that is what so many people are afraid of.
The thing is, I don't see how two gay people getting married and going through the backdoor on Saturday nights hurts you or me. You are certainly within your rights to view it as immoral considering your status as a Christian (Although I strongly disagree with you, but I figure that's another topic), but I don't get how it hurts you in any way.
Show me where I said anything about it hurting me. I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone either. The question was asked and I answered it the best way I can.
-
OK, I'll bite.
The thread topic is about the issue of gay marriage. However, I don't believe that that is really what it's about. Discussions like this usually get down to the issue of homosexuality, which really must be dealt with before one can make a personal decision about the issue of gay marriage. Here are my thoughts on the core issue in case you are interested.
What causes Homosexuality? I can tell you what different people think.
1. Birth defect/hormone imbalance in the womb - There have been some studies that suggest that there is something to this. It explains girls who grow up acting like boys and boys that grow up acting like girls.
2. Poor relationship with father/domineering mother - This has always been one of my favorites because it is so very common among gay men. However, my wife's hair dresser shot this theory down by telling her that he's simply always known he was gay and had a great relationship with his father. Plus his mother was not domineering. OK, so that's one anomaly, but I still think there's alot of evidence that there's something to this.
3. Sexually abused by the same sex when young - Just like #2 this is very common among gay men. This one would be hard to research since not many would want to talk about it or possibly might not even remember it. I know at least 5 gay men that had sexual encounters with an older gay man in their formative years and the fact that they got "into it" helped them desire more.
4. Culture - We are bombarded with the topic at a very early age. Boys grow up worrying if they are gay or not half the time and the other half the time they're being called gay. This has been going on forever.
There are probably more but these 4 are all I can think of. I wonder if homosexuality might come from all four. One thing is for sure. It's not just a black and white type issue.
As a Christian and a student of the Bible there are things that are hard for me to figure out. In Romans the apostle Paul talks about men lying with men and doing things that are "unnatural". It's pretty clear Paul was against it (what is just Paul or was the words he wrote inspired by God). More simply, any sex outside of marriage is wrong and that is supported throughout the scriptures by Paul and a whole bunch of others. Sexual immorality was somewhat of a problem with the Romans. So this was a hot topic back then too. (Too-ga! Too-ga! Too-ga!) It also goes all the way back to the days of Abraham and Sodom and Gomorrah (those cities were VERY gay friendly and look what happened to them).
But what do we do about people that genuinely believe that they didn't choose that life and hate being what they're being. I honestly don't know. But one thing I do know. The marriage issue is not just about gays wanting to change the definition of marriage. Gays want everyone to accept their lifestyle and see them as just regular folks. Changing what marriage means would be victory towards that cause. It's would be like a public affirmation to the lifestyle and that is what so many people are afraid of.
The thing is, I don't see how two gay people getting married and going through the backdoor on Saturday nights hurts you or me. You are certainly within your rights to view it as immoral considering your status as a Christian (Although I strongly disagree with you, but I figure that's another topic), but I don't get how it hurts you in any way.
Show me where I said anything about it hurting me. I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone either. The question was asked and I answered it the best way I can.
By "you" I didn't mean you specifically :lol
I just meant people in general that oppose gay marriage, not really referring to you at all. And I know you aren't forcing your beliefs either, I just felt like commenting.
Hope that clears it up. :)
-
Yeah. It's definitely unnatural. That's why no other species except humans display tendencies.
Well, Ibexes scratch their ass with their horns...
does this mean we should grow horns and scratch our own asses with them?
Or better yet - scratch other people's asses with them?
-
Yeah. It's definitely unnatural. That's why no other species except humans display tendencies.
Well, Ibexes scratch their ass with their horns...
does this mean we should grow horns and scratch our own asses with them?
Or better yet - scratch other people's asses with them?
Yes, just what we need. Hornier people.
-
Yeah. It's definitely unnatural. That's why no other species except humans display tendencies.
Well, Ibexes scratch their ass with their horns...
does this mean we should grow horns and scratch our own asses with them?
Or better yet - scratch other people's asses with them?
What does that have to do with if ass scratching is unnatural or not?
-
By "you" I didn't mean you specifically :lol
I just meant people in general that oppose gay marriage, not really referring to you at all. And I know you aren't forcing your beliefs either, I just felt like commenting.
Hope that clears it up. :)
Oh I see. :tup
I think I covered that in the last few sentences.
I will add this. "Normal" marriage doesn't look to good right now. Christians are some of the biggest groups of people that can't hold marriages together. It's really shameful. The family and marriage is on the rocks and changing the definition of marriage as we have always known it would be seen as another crack in the wall. It is my personal belief that pornography and cohabitation are doing more damage to the institution of marriage than the anything that politicians could do concerning gay marriage.
To summarize, Christians are hurting marriage more than gays.
-
Yeah. It's definitely unnatural. That's why no other species except humans display tendencies.
Well, Ibexes scratch their ass with their horns...
does this mean we should grow horns and scratch our own asses with them?
Or better yet - scratch other people's asses with them?
Yes, just what we need. Hornier people.
I see what you did there... :corn
-
By "you" I didn't mean you specifically :lol
I just meant people in general that oppose gay marriage, not really referring to you at all. And I know you aren't forcing your beliefs either, I just felt like commenting.
Hope that clears it up. :)
Oh I see. :tup
I think I covered that in the last few sentences.
I will add this. "Normal" marriage doesn't look to good right now. Christians are some of the biggest groups of people that can't hold marriages together. It's really shameful. The family and marriage is on the rocks and changing the definition of marriage as we have always known it would be seen as another crack in the wall. It is my personal belief that pornography and cohabitation are doing more damage to the institution of marriage than the anything that politicians could do concerning gay marriage.
To summarize, Christians are hurting marriage more than gays.
Well I agree that straight people are fudging up marriage, but gays haven't done anythign to it.
-
Fudging up marriage? You know Christians aren't allowed to go 3rd input, right?
FWIW, I do not think there's anything wrong with it. Let gays have marriage, let them live their lives free from oppression.
-
Fudging up marriage? You know Christians aren't allowed to go 3rd input, right?
FWIW, I do not think there's anything wrong with it. Let gays have marriage, let them live their lives free from oppression.
3rd input?
-
Yeah. It's definitely unnatural. That's why no other species except humans display tendencies.
Well, Ibexes scratch their ass with their horns...
does this mean we should grow horns and scratch our own asses with them?
Or better yet - scratch other people's asses with them?
Well, but imagine walking into a club, and being able to walk up to a cutie and say, "Hey, baby. You know, it really is true what they say about guys with big horns. :eyebrows: "
-
Fudging up marriage? You know Christians aren't allowed to go 3rd input, right?
FWIW, I do not think there's anything wrong with it. Let gays have marriage, let them live their lives free from oppression.
3rd input?
Anal
-
Yeah. It's definitely unnatural. That's why no other species except humans display tendencies.
Well, Ibexes scratch their ass with their horns...
does this mean we should grow horns and scratch our own asses with them?
Or better yet - scratch other people's asses with them?
Well, but imagine walking into a club, and being able to walk up to a cutie and say, "Hey, baby. You know, it really is true what they say about guys with big horns. :eyebrows: "
They leave really gnarly scratches on their own asses?
-
Fudging up marriage? You know Christians aren't allowed to go 3rd input, right?
FWIW, I do not think there's anything wrong with it. Let gays have marriage, let them live their lives free from oppression.
3rd input?
Anal
If anal isn't allowed, then neither is oral. Or fingering, or hand jobs, or fisting, or midget tossing. None of it.
-
I was taking the "fudging" up marriage thought and making an (apparently rather obtuse) anal joke out of it.
-
I was taking the "fudging" up marriage thought and making an (apparently rather obtuse) anal joke out of it.
You wanted to make an anal joke out of marriage?
Are you gay?
-
Fudging up marriage? You know Christians aren't allowed to go 3rd input, right?
FWIW, I do not think there's anything wrong with it. Let gays have marriage, let them live their lives free from oppression.
3rd input?
Anal
If anal isn't allowed, then neither is oral. Or fingering, or hand jobs, or , or midget tossing. None of it.
I'm pretty sure midget tossing is allowed. Only with the consent of the midget, of course
-
Yeah. It's definitely unnatural. That's why no other species except humans display tendencies.
Well, Ibexes scratch their ass with their horns...
does this mean we should grow horns and scratch our own asses with them?
Or better yet - scratch other people's asses with them?
Well, but imagine walking into a club, and being able to walk up to a cutie and say, "Hey, baby. You know, it really is true what they say about guys with big horns. :eyebrows: "
:omg:....... :hefdaddy
-
I was taking the "fudging" up marriage thought and making an (apparently rather obtuse) anal joke out of it.
You wanted to make an anal joke out of marriage?
Are you gay?
(https://randomfunnypicture.com/wp2/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/acme-fudge-packer.jpg)
-
I'd gladly ram my limousine into her hershey highway.
-
I'd gladly ram my limousine into her hershey highway.
I will never understand how one can partake (and incomprehensibly - enjoy) anal. It is...disgusting...
-
I'd gladly ram my limousine into her hershey highway.
I will never understand how one can partake (and incomprehensibly - enjoy) anal. It is...disgusting...
I did it a few times when I was like 16 with my girlfriend at the time. It was great untill the very end. Everytime I finished, she'd get right up and go to the bathroom for about 10 minutes. Just left an odd taste on my penis.
-
I'd gladly ram my limousine into her hershey highway.
I will never understand how one can partake (and incomprehensibly - enjoy) anal. It is...disgusting...
I did it a few times when I was like 16 with my girlfriend at the time. It was great untill the very end. Everytime I finished, she'd get right up and go to the bathroom for about 10 minutes. Just left an odd taste on my penis.
Thanks for letting me know.
(And I thought you were gay...?)
-
Question I always want to ask to fighters against gay marriages:
Why do you care so much about it?
It they own life, they don't proposing you to marry them or sleep with them. So what's the problem? Just ignore it.
-
I'd gladly ram my limousine into her hershey highway.
I will never understand how one can partake (and incomprehensibly - enjoy) anal. It is...disgusting...
I did it a few times when I was like 16 with my girlfriend at the time. It was great untill the very end. Everytime I finished, she'd get right up and go to the bathroom for about 10 minutes. Just left an odd taste on my penis.
Thanks for letting me know.
(And I thought you were gay...?)
If I were gay, I'd be back on my home planet.
-
Uranus?
-
Yeah. It's definitely unnatural. That's why no other species except humans display tendencies.
Well, Ibexes scratch their ass with their horns...
does this mean we should grow horns and scratch our own asses with them?
Or better yet - scratch other people's asses with them?
Did you actually remove the word "homosexual" from my post? Wow.
And secondly, you say homosexuality is unnatural. But it occurs widely throughout the natural world. It is absolutely natural. You cannot argue it any other way.
-
Uranus?
Or yours, it's a party either way.
-
Yeah. It's definitely unnatural. That's why no other species except humans display tendencies.
Well, Ibexes scratch their ass with their horns...
does this mean we should grow horns and scratch our own asses with them?
Or better yet - scratch other people's asses with them?
Did you actually remove the word " " from my post? Wow.
And secondly, you say is unnatural. But it occurs widely throughout the natural world. It is absolutely natural. You cannot argue it any other way.
I didn't remove it; this particular computer must have some sort of block on it. And I have never personally seen any animal bone another in the ass. EVER. And in a moral-religious context, it most certainly IS.
I have an idea: why don't we all turn gay? I don't think I need to tell you what would be the final result...
-
Oh my god, that computer bit was brilliant. Bravo! :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin
-
This is amazing.
-
I'd gladly ram my limousine into her hershey highway.
I will never understand how one can partake (and incomprehensibly - enjoy) anal. It is...disgusting...
I did it a few times when I was like 16 with my girlfriend at the time. It was great untill the very end. Everytime I finished, she'd get right up and go to the bathroom for about 10 minutes. Just left an odd taste on my penis.
Thanks for letting me know.
(And I thought you were gay...?)
You can be gay but still be into women.
-
Yeah. It's definitely unnatural. That's why no other species except humans display tendencies.
Well, Ibexes scratch their ass with their horns...
does this mean we should grow horns and scratch our own asses with them?
Or better yet - scratch other people's asses with them?
Did you actually remove the word " " from my post? Wow.
And secondly, you say is unnatural. But it occurs widely throughout the natural world. It is absolutely natural. You cannot argue it any other way.
I didn't remove it; this particular computer must have some sort of block on it. And I have never personally seen any animal bone another in the ass. EVER. And in a moral-religious context, it most certainly IS.
I have an idea: why don't we all turn gay? I don't think I need to tell you what would be the final result...
I've never seen anyone around where I live that actually likes metal (Other than myself). So obviously, nobody likes metal.
-
I'd gladly ram my limousine into her hershey highway.
I will never understand how one can partake (and incomprehensibly - enjoy) anal. It is...disgusting...
I did it a few times when I was like 16 with my girlfriend at the time. It was great untill the very end. Everytime I finished, she'd get right up and go to the bathroom for about 10 minutes. Just left an odd taste on my penis.
Thanks for letting me know.
(And I thought you were gay...?)
You can be gay but still be into women.
Yes..............it is called Bi................
-
Oh my god, that computer bit was brilliant. Bravo! :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin
I...uh...*ahem* actually wasn't joking about that... :|
-
Oh my god, that computer bit was brilliant. Bravo! :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin
I...uh...*ahem* actually wasn't joking about that... :|
I know, I was tipping my hat to your computer.
-
Just to clarify things, homosexuality in the animal kingdom is pretty commonplace. Male giraffes are almost constantly buggering each other, just to name one example.
My problem, though, is that not one of these two people have bothered to explain why something is unnatural just because it doesn't serve a specific, biological purpose. Pleasure is a perfectly acceptable goal, and procreation a damn fine thing to avoid for most people. As I pointed earlier in the thread, not one Christian has ever called me heathenous scum for doing any number of enjoyable things--except fornication and attending rock concerts.
-
Yeah. It's definitely unnatural. That's why no other species except humans display tendencies.
Well, Ibexes scratch their ass with their horns...
does this mean we should grow horns and scratch our own asses with them?
Or better yet - scratch other people's asses with them?
Did you actually remove the word " " from my post? Wow.
And secondly, you say is unnatural. But it occurs widely throughout the natural world. It is absolutely natural. You cannot argue it any other way.
I didn't remove it; this particular computer must have some sort of block on it. And I have never personally seen any animal bone another in the ass. EVER. And in a moral-religious context, it most certainly IS.
I have an idea: why don't we all turn gay? I don't think I need to tell you what would be the final result...
1) Because you didn't see animals in homosexual activity doesn't negate its existence (must I really make that argument?).
2) Your religion is yours. You have NO right to force your beliefs onto the people or the entity which governs those people
3) Homosexuality is a natural, but rare occurrence in nature. The female/male couples will always, always, outnumber the same sex couples because it is biologically wired. Homosexuality is no different from red hair on Japanese women. Its natural but rare.
Have your faith man, believe homosexuals are sinners, let your "loving" god tell you that some humans don't deserve to be in love, but don't dare think you deserve control over their lives or the government.
My problem, though, is that not one of these two people have bothered to explain why something is unnatural just because it doesn't serve a specific, biological purpose. Pleasure is a perfectly acceptable goal, and procreation a damn fine thing to avoid for most people.
Furthermore, the reason why sex is pleasurable because through evolutionary history those with the ability to enjoy it were most likely to seek it, and thus more likely to reproduce. Those biological areas grew as pleasure centers and it is completely acceptable that people seek pleasure through there (is it wrong for a male and female to have sex JUST for pleasure? then it shouldn't be for homosexuals).
As it always was, religion with its restricted knowledge of the universe assumed many things in creating their own "theory for everything." Rare or unusual was commonly labeled as evil or bad.
-
Yeah. It's definitely unnatural. That's why no other species except humans display tendencies.
Well, Ibexes scratch their ass with their horns...
does this mean we should grow horns and scratch our own asses with them?
Or better yet - scratch other people's asses with them?
Did you actually remove the word " " from my post? Wow.
And secondly, you say is unnatural. But it occurs widely throughout the natural world. It is absolutely natural. You cannot argue it any other way.
I didn't remove it; this particular computer must have some sort of block on it. And I have never personally seen any animal bone another in the ass. EVER. And in a moral-religious context, it most certainly IS.
I have an idea: why don't we all turn gay? I don't think I need to tell you what would be the final result...
1) Because you didn't see animals in activity doesn't negate its existence (must I really make that argument?).
2) Your religion is yours. You have NO right to force your beliefs onto the people or the entity which governs those people
3) is a natural, but rare occurrence in nature. The female/male couples will always, always, outnumber the same sex couples because it is biologically wired. is no different from red hair on Japanese women. Its natural but rare.
Have your faith man, believe s are sinners, let your "loving" god tell you that some humans don't deserve to be in love, but don't dare think you deserve control over their lives or the government.
Do me a favor and read what I write before you post replies!
I never "imposed" my religion on anybody; I was merely asked a question and responded with what MY VIEWS ARE.
And, let's agree to disagree on this statement: "being gay is natural".
Also: "Have your faith man, believe s are sinners, let your "loving" god tell you that some humans don't deserve to be in love, but don't dare think you deserve control over their lives or the government." ...
You fool: 1) we are all technically sinners 2) I have no problem with gays being in love with one another. I simply have a problem with making the assertion that being gay is natural and right. This only leads to the degradation of moral views and culture in the world. Allow me to guess: you support abortion too, right?
-
Soverign Dream...
*loud sigh*
I can't even put words into how I feel about this...I know I said I would stay out of it but...I lost IQ points...this is why I hate the fucking world.
-
I lost IQ points...this is why I hate the fucking world.
Wow, there are just no words to reply to something like that.
-
Soverign Dream...
*loud sigh*
I can't even put words into how I feel about this...I know I said I would stay out of it but...I lost IQ points...this is why I hate the ing world.
Don't worry, Cole; there is a glimmer of hope that you will live long enough to see the fruition of Project: Homoearth (as explained above in detail).
-
Yeah. It's definitely unnatural. That's why no other species except humans display tendencies.
Well, Ibexes scratch their ass with their horns...
does this mean we should grow horns and scratch our own asses with them?
Or better yet - scratch other people's asses with them?
Did you actually remove the word " " from my post? Wow.
And secondly, you say is unnatural. But it occurs widely throughout the natural world. It is absolutely natural. You cannot argue it any other way.
I didn't remove it; this particular computer must have some sort of block on it. And I have never personally seen any animal bone another in the ass. EVER. And in a moral-religious context, it most certainly IS.
I have an idea: why don't we all turn gay? I don't think I need to tell you what would be the final result...
1) Because you didn't see animals in activity doesn't negate its existence (must I really make that argument?).
2) Your religion is yours. You have NO right to force your beliefs onto the people or the entity which governs those people
3) is a natural, but rare occurrence in nature. The female/male couples will always, always, outnumber the same sex couples because it is biologically wired. is no different from red hair on Japanese women. Its natural but rare.
Have your faith man, believe s are sinners, let your "loving" god tell you that some humans don't deserve to be in love, but don't dare think you deserve control over their lives or the government.
Do me a favor and read what I write before you post replies!
I never "imposed" my religion on anybody; I was merely asked a question and responded with what MY VIEWS ARE.
And, let's agree to disagree on this statement: "being gay is natural".
Also: "Have your faith man, believe s are sinners, let your "loving" god tell you that some humans don't deserve to be in love, but don't dare think you deserve control over their lives or the government." ...
You fool: 1) we are all technically sinners 2) I have no problem with gays being in love with one another. I simply have a problem with making the assertion that being gay is natural and right. This only leads to the degradation of moral views and culture in the world. Allow me to guess: you support abortion too, right?
I am ok if you belief I am a sinner (from birth I might add). But don't call me a fool If I don't agree. It ruins your argument and reinforces the blind faith argument made by non-believers.
Christ man, its VERY EXISTENCE proves that it is natural. If things exist, they are part of the world ergo natural. (if it is unnatural why would your god endow them with ability to have that desire to partake in it? Why would the option even be created only to tell the people that they are wrong? Just shits and giggles?)
And the 50% divorce rate in America is not a degradation in moral views? You sound like the pope, AIDS is bad, but safe sex is worse. :yeahright
I support the notion that a 8-cell micro-organism is not a human.
-
Yeah. It's definitely unnatural. That's why no other species except humans display tendencies.
Well, Ibexes scratch their ass with their horns...
does this mean we should grow horns and scratch our own asses with them?
Or better yet - scratch other people's asses with them?
Did you actually remove the word " " from my post? Wow.
And secondly, you say is unnatural. But it occurs widely throughout the natural world. It is absolutely natural. You cannot argue it any other way.
I didn't remove it; this particular computer must have some sort of block on it. And I have never personally seen any animal bone another in the ass. EVER. And in a moral-religious context, it most certainly IS.
I have an idea: why don't we all turn gay? I don't think I need to tell you what would be the final result...
1) Because you didn't see animals in activity doesn't negate its existence (must I really make that argument?).
2) Your religion is yours. You have NO right to force your beliefs onto the people or the entity which governs those people
3) is a natural, but rare occurrence in nature. The female/male couples will always, always, outnumber the same sex couples because it is biologically wired. is no different from red hair on Japanese women. Its natural but rare.
Have your faith man, believe s are sinners, let your "loving" god tell you that some humans don't deserve to be in love, but don't dare think you deserve control over their lives or the government.
Do me a favor and read what I write before you post replies!
I never "imposed" my religion on anybody; I was merely asked a question and responded with what MY VIEWS ARE.
And, let's agree to disagree on this statement: "being gay is natural".
Also: "Have your faith man, believe s are sinners, let your "loving" god tell you that some humans don't deserve to be in love, but don't dare think you deserve control over their lives or the government." ...
You fool: 1) we are all technically sinners 2) I have no problem with gays being in love with one another. I simply have a problem with making the assertion that being gay is natural and right. This only leads to the degradation of moral views and culture in the world. Allow me to guess: you support abortion too, right?
I don't believe in Christianity so I don't consider myself a sinner. You're free to think that I might be one, but as far as I'm concerned I'm not a sinner and neither are you ;)
So do you think that if someone is gay that they should hide it and be shameful of it?
How does it lead to a degradation of moral views and culture in the world? I'm really curious to see why you think that.
And yes, I support a woman's right to choose what happens inside her womb. Why do you suddenly jump to ad hominems?
-
I lost IQ points...this is why I hate the fucking world.
Wow, there are just no words to reply to something like that.
His comment was harsh (A bit too harsh maybe), but I can definitely see what numbers is talking about.
-
See, now you joke, because you realize how stupid of an idea it was. The sad thing is, you were being serious. Yeah, you said you weren't but that is the main crutch when somebody fucks up miserably.
I lost IQ points...this is why I hate the fucking world.
Wow, there are just no words to reply to something like that.
I personally hate the world because SovereignDream is not alone. There are many many more homophobic people out there preaching about how homosexuality is against god. God created the man and the woman to fuck and make kids, anything else is heresy. What about sterile people, hermaphrodites and the like. God created those people too. I just hate this bigotry and there is more of it than is comprehensible...and that is why I hate this world we live in. I could go on but frankly, I like being here and I like interacting with the mostly smart population of this forum, so...I'll kindly shut the fuck up now.
-
Lol why do I feel like it will be days (maybe hours) before SovereignDream gets himself banned somehow?
SovereignDream, you and most other people on here have dodged the biggest question of all: Why does it bother you so much to the point where you don't think you should live on the same planet with someone who is gay?
Also, scientific evidence suggests that homosexuality is formed in the womb based on gender characteristics of certain parts of the brain. It is also said that 10% of all people are gay. that means every time you are in a crowd of 100 people, there are 10 people who are gay. How can you NOT call that normal. While it's obviously not the majority, it is far from abnormal. I'd say anything that is above 1% of the population is far from abnormal.
-
Yeah. It's definitely unnatural. That's why no other species except humans display tendencies.
Well, Ibexes scratch their ass with their horns...
does this mean we should grow horns and scratch our own asses with them?
Or better yet - scratch other people's asses with them?
Did you actually remove the word " " from my post? Wow.
And secondly, you say is unnatural. But it occurs widely throughout the natural world. It is absolutely natural. You cannot argue it any other way.
I didn't remove it; this particular computer must have some sort of block on it. And I have never personally seen any animal bone another in the ass. EVER. And in a moral-religious context, it most certainly IS.
I have an idea: why don't we all turn gay? I don't think I need to tell you what would be the final result...
1) Because you didn't see animals in activity doesn't negate its existence (must I really make that argument?).
2) Your religion is yours. You have NO right to force your beliefs onto the people or the entity which governs those people
3) is a natural, but rare occurrence in nature. The female/male couples will always, always, outnumber the same sex couples because it is biologically wired. is no different from red hair on Japanese women. Its natural but rare.
Have your faith man, believe s are sinners, let your "loving" god tell you that some humans don't deserve to be in love, but don't dare think you deserve control over their lives or the government.
Do me a favor and read what I write before you post replies!
I never "imposed" my religion on anybody; I was merely asked a question and responded with what MY VIEWS ARE.
And, let's agree to disagree on this statement: "being gay is natural".
Also: "Have your faith man, believe s are sinners, let your "loving" god tell you that some humans don't deserve to be in love, but don't dare think you deserve control over their lives or the government." ...
You fool: 1) we are all technically sinners 2) I have no problem with gays being in love with one another. I simply have a problem with making the assertion that being gay is natural and right. This only leads to the degradation of moral views and culture in the world. Allow me to guess: you support abortion too, right?
I don't believe in Christianity so I don't consider myself a sinner. You're free to think that I might be one, but as far as I'm concerned I'm not a sinner and neither are you ;)
So do you think that if someone is gay that they should hide it and be shameful of it?
How does it lead to a degradation of moral views and culture in the world? I'm really curious to see why you think that.
And yes, I support a woman's right to choose what happens inside her womb. Why do you suddenly jump to ad hominems?
"So do you think that if someone is gay that they should hide it and be shameful of it?"
Not necessarily hide it nor be shameful of it; simply be discreet and personal about it (i.e. Don't speak like a woman, don't dress like one).
"How does it lead to a degradation of moral views and culture in the world? I'm really curious to see why you think that."
Generally, if one supports the overly-flamboyant and in-your-face, non-discreet, "ya, we sodomize" aspect of , on can assume that this person has other moral views that aren't exactly on the right direction.
"And yes, I support a woman's right to choose what happens inside her womb."
See, I support a woman's decision to with someone or not. THAT is their choice. The silly moniker of pro-abortionists, unintelligently labeled "pro-choice," is insulting; "when you chose to with someone, skank, you took a risk to get pregnant. Suck it up and act like a grown-up"
^ That is how I generally fell about abortions. Note: GENERALLY
-
"Generally, if one supports the overly-flamboyant and in-your-face, non-discreet, "ya, we sodomize" aspect of ANAL SEX , on can assume that this person has other moral views that aren't exactly on the right direction."
Are you serious? Two dudes are boning eachother and that leads to baby killing...ah...your points are flawless.
-
See, now you joke, because you realize how stupid of an idea it was. The sad thing is, you were being serious. Yeah, you said you weren't but that is the main crutch when somebody s up miserably.
I lost IQ points...this is why I hate the ing world.
Wow, there are just no words to reply to something like that.
I personally hate the world because SovereignDream is not alone. There are many many more homophobic people out there preaching about how is against god. God created the man and the woman to and make kids, anything else is heresy. What about sterile people, hermaphrodites and the like. God created those people too. I just hate this bigotry and there is more of it than is comprehensible...and that is why I hate this world we live in. I could go on but frankly, I like being here and I like interacting with the mostly smart population of this forum, so...I'll kindly shut the up now.
Playing the "pity me; I'm a misunderstood gay teen" card much?
You have pre-conceived ideas of what theists think of gays. We do not think that God "doesn't love" you (those who do need a slap in the face)! Most theists believe something more along the lines of "God gave some people more challenging lives than others".
It's apparent that neither of us will change each others' minds: I am convinced it is unnatural and wrong; you are convinced it is natural and right.
-
Yeah. It's definitely unnatural. That's why no other species except humans display tendencies.
Well, Ibexes scratch their ass with their horns...
does this mean we should grow horns and scratch our own asses with them?
Or better yet - scratch other people's asses with them?
Did you actually remove the word " " from my post? Wow.
And secondly, you say is unnatural. But it occurs widely throughout the natural world. It is absolutely natural. You cannot argue it any other way.
I didn't remove it; this particular computer must have some sort of block on it. And I have never personally seen any animal bone another in the ass. EVER. And in a moral-religious context, it most certainly IS.
I have an idea: why don't we all turn gay? I don't think I need to tell you what would be the final result...
1) Because you didn't see animals in activity doesn't negate its existence (must I really make that argument?).
2) Your religion is yours. You have NO right to force your beliefs onto the people or the entity which governs those people
3) is a natural, but rare occurrence in nature. The female/male couples will always, always, outnumber the same sex couples because it is biologically wired. is no different from red hair on Japanese women. Its natural but rare.
Have your faith man, believe s are sinners, let your "loving" god tell you that some humans don't deserve to be in love, but don't dare think you deserve control over their lives or the government.
Do me a favor and read what I write before you post replies!
I never "imposed" my religion on anybody; I was merely asked a question and responded with what MY VIEWS ARE.
And, let's agree to disagree on this statement: "being gay is natural".
Also: "Have your faith man, believe s are sinners, let your "loving" god tell you that some humans don't deserve to be in love, but don't dare think you deserve control over their lives or the government." ...
You fool: 1) we are all technically sinners 2) I have no problem with gays being in love with one another. I simply have a problem with making the assertion that being gay is natural and right. This only leads to the degradation of moral views and culture in the world. Allow me to guess: you support abortion too, right?
I don't believe in Christianity so I don't consider myself a sinner. You're free to think that I might be one, but as far as I'm concerned I'm not a sinner and neither are you ;)
So do you think that if someone is gay that they should hide it and be shameful of it?
How does it lead to a degradation of moral views and culture in the world? I'm really curious to see why you think that.
And yes, I support a woman's right to choose what happens inside her womb. Why do you suddenly jump to ad hominems?
"So do you think that if someone is gay that they should hide it and be shameful of it?"
Not necessarily hide it nor be shameful of it; simply be discreet and personal about it (i.e. Don't speak like a woman, don't dress like one).
"How does it lead to a degradation of moral views and culture in the world? I'm really curious to see why you think that."
Generally, if one supports the overly-flamboyant and in-your-face, non-discreet, "ya, we sodomize" aspect of , on can assume that this person has other moral views that aren't exactly on the right direction.
"And yes, I support a woman's right to choose what happens inside her womb."
See, I support a woman's decision to with someone or not. THAT is their choice. The silly moniker of pro-abortionists, unintelligently labeled "pro-choice," is insulting; "when you chose to with someone, skank, you took a risk to get pregnant. Suck it up and act like a grown-up"
^ That is how I generally fell about abortions. Note: GENERALLY
I see no reason why gays should be discreet when you have Mr. Joe across the street bragging about all the pussy he's banging each night. If you don't want to hear them talk about it, then walk away. Simple as that. And I've met many gay people that don't cross-dress or anything like that, they simply happen to like men's junk instead of pussies. Big whoop.
What are morals that are going "In the right direction"? Are you taking an objective claim upon morality which is a subject that is often subjective?
I'm not saying people shouldn't take responsibility for their actions, but there are circumstances where a mother has children that she is mentally incapable of taking care of and the children wind up living shitty lives. Its definitely controversial, but if a woman is obviously going to be a bad parent I wouldn't begrudge her for having an abortion.
-
See, now you joke, because you realize how stupid of an idea it was. The sad thing is, you were being serious. Yeah, you said you weren't but that is the main crutch when somebody s up miserably.
I lost IQ points...this is why I hate the ing world.
Wow, there are just no words to reply to something like that.
I personally hate the world because SovereignDream is not alone. There are many many more homophobic people out there preaching about how is against god. God created the man and the woman to and make kids, anything else is heresy. What about sterile people, hermaphrodites and the like. God created those people too. I just hate this bigotry and there is more of it than is comprehensible...and that is why I hate this world we live in. I could go on but frankly, I like being here and I like interacting with the mostly smart population of this forum, so...I'll kindly shut the up now.
Playing the "pity me; I'm a misunderstood gay teen" card much?
Why in this thread are you assuming everyone who is in support of gays is gay? 73109 has a girlfriend who happens to be a prominent member of this board... Also you didn't answer my question yet.
-
Yeah. It's definitely unnatural. That's why no other species except humans display tendencies.
Well, Ibexes scratch their ass with their horns...
does this mean we should grow horns and scratch our own asses with them?
Or better yet - scratch other people's asses with them?
Did you actually remove the word " " from my post? Wow.
And secondly, you say is unnatural. But it occurs widely throughout the natural world. It is absolutely natural. You cannot argue it any other way.
I didn't remove it; this particular computer must have some sort of block on it. And I have never personally seen any animal bone another in the ass. EVER. And in a moral-religious context, it most certainly IS.
I have an idea: why don't we all turn gay? I don't think I need to tell you what would be the final result...
1) Because you didn't see animals in activity doesn't negate its existence (must I really make that argument?).
2) Your religion is yours. You have NO right to force your beliefs onto the people or the entity which governs those people
3) is a natural, but rare occurrence in nature. The female/male couples will always, always, outnumber the same sex couples because it is biologically wired. is no different from red hair on Japanese women. Its natural but rare.
Have your faith man, believe s are sinners, let your "loving" god tell you that some humans don't deserve to be in love, but don't dare think you deserve control over their lives or the government.
Do me a favor and read what I write before you post replies!
I never "imposed" my religion on anybody; I was merely asked a question and responded with what MY VIEWS ARE.
And, let's agree to disagree on this statement: "being gay is natural".
Also: "Have your faith man, believe s are sinners, let your "loving" god tell you that some humans don't deserve to be in love, but don't dare think you deserve control over their lives or the government." ...
You fool: 1) we are all technically sinners 2) I have no problem with gays being in love with one another. I simply have a problem with making the assertion that being gay is natural and right. This only leads to the degradation of moral views and culture in the world. Allow me to guess: you support abortion too, right?
I don't believe in Christianity so I don't consider myself a sinner. You're free to think that I might be one, but as far as I'm concerned I'm not a sinner and neither are you ;)
So do you think that if someone is gay that they should hide it and be shameful of it?
How does it lead to a degradation of moral views and culture in the world? I'm really curious to see why you think that.
And yes, I support a woman's right to choose what happens inside her womb. Why do you suddenly jump to ad hominems?
"So do you think that if someone is gay that they should hide it and be shameful of it?"
Not necessarily hide it nor be shameful of it; simply be discreet and personal about it (i.e. Don't speak like a woman, don't dress like one).
"How does it lead to a degradation of moral views and culture in the world? I'm really curious to see why you think that."
Generally, if one supports the overly-flamboyant and in-your-face, non-discreet, "ya, we sodomize" aspect of , on can assume that this person has other moral views that aren't exactly on the right direction.
"And yes, I support a woman's right to choose what happens inside her womb."
See, I support a woman's decision to with someone or not. THAT is their choice. The silly moniker of pro-abortionists, unintelligently labeled "pro-choice," is insulting; "when you chose to with someone, skank, you took a risk to get pregnant. Suck it up and act like a grown-up"
^ That is how I generally fell about abortions. Note: GENERALLY
I see no reason why gays should be discreet when you have Mr. Joe across the street bragging about all the he's banging each night. If you don't want to hear them talk about it, then walk away. Simple as that. And I've met many gay people that don't cross-dress or anything like that, they simply happen to like men's junk instead of . Big whoop.
What are morals that are going "In the right direction"? Are you taking an objective claim upon morality which is a subject that is often subjective?
I'm not saying people shouldn't take responsibility for their actions, but there are circumstances where a mother has children that she is mentally incapable of taking care of and the children wind up living lives. Its definitely controversial, but if a woman is obviously going to be a bad parent I wouldn't begrudge her for having an abortion.
Adoption exists, you know.
Besides, this conversation would not even be necessary if only the US parenting standards were virtually non-existent.
-
Exactly Seventh Son. Not all men act like the stereotypical gay guy. Just just like dudes instead of chicks.
Another thing...I'm not gay. The fact that you think I'm gay just shows all of us your true feelings. Anyone who is sane must want to bone chicks because thats normal. All the gays can just be weird and they need to get away from me...
AND ANOTHER THING!!!
"God gave them more challenging lives than others" Yeah...no. Perfect example of putting god in a place where he doesn't need to be. This is a matter of rights, not religion and the sooner we realize that the better off we will all be.
Edit: FUCKING A AND NIJAD BY Icy
-
Yeah. It's definitely unnatural. That's why no other species except humans display tendencies.
Well, Ibexes scratch their ass with their horns...
does this mean we should grow horns and scratch our own asses with them?
Or better yet - scratch other people's asses with them?
Did you actually remove the word " " from my post? Wow.
And secondly, you say is unnatural. But it occurs widely throughout the natural world. It is absolutely natural. You cannot argue it any other way.
I didn't remove it; this particular computer must have some sort of block on it. And I have never personally seen any animal bone another in the ass. EVER. And in a moral-religious context, it most certainly IS.
I have an idea: why don't we all turn gay? I don't think I need to tell you what would be the final result...
1) Because you didn't see animals in activity doesn't negate its existence (must I really make that argument?).
2) Your religion is yours. You have NO right to force your beliefs onto the people or the entity which governs those people
3) is a natural, but rare occurrence in nature. The female/male couples will always, always, outnumber the same sex couples because it is biologically wired. is no different from red hair on Japanese women. Its natural but rare.
Have your faith man, believe s are sinners, let your "loving" god tell you that some humans don't deserve to be in love, but don't dare think you deserve control over their lives or the government.
Do me a favor and read what I write before you post replies!
I never "imposed" my religion on anybody; I was merely asked a question and responded with what MY VIEWS ARE.
And, let's agree to disagree on this statement: "being gay is natural".
Also: "Have your faith man, believe s are sinners, let your "loving" god tell you that some humans don't deserve to be in love, but don't dare think you deserve control over their lives or the government." ...
You fool: 1) we are all technically sinners 2) I have no problem with gays being in love with one another. I simply have a problem with making the assertion that being gay is natural and right. This only leads to the degradation of moral views and culture in the world. Allow me to guess: you support abortion too, right?
I don't believe in Christianity so I don't consider myself a sinner. You're free to think that I might be one, but as far as I'm concerned I'm not a sinner and neither are you ;)
So do you think that if someone is gay that they should hide it and be shameful of it?
How does it lead to a degradation of moral views and culture in the world? I'm really curious to see why you think that.
And yes, I support a woman's right to choose what happens inside her womb. Why do you suddenly jump to ad hominems?
"So do you think that if someone is gay that they should hide it and be shameful of it?"
Not necessarily hide it nor be shameful of it; simply be discreet and personal about it (i.e. Don't speak like a woman, don't dress like one).
"How does it lead to a degradation of moral views and culture in the world? I'm really curious to see why you think that."
Generally, if one supports the overly-flamboyant and in-your-face, non-discreet, "ya, we sodomize" aspect of , on can assume that this person has other moral views that aren't exactly on the right direction.
"And yes, I support a woman's right to choose what happens inside her womb."
See, I support a woman's decision to with someone or not. THAT is their choice. The silly moniker of pro-abortionists, unintelligently labeled "pro-choice," is insulting; "when you chose to with someone, skank, you took a risk to get pregnant. Suck it up and act like a grown-up"
^ That is how I generally fell about abortions. Note: GENERALLY
I see no reason why gays should be discreet when you have Mr. Joe across the street bragging about all the he's banging each night. If you don't want to hear them talk about it, then walk away. Simple as that. And I've met many gay people that don't cross-dress or anything like that, they simply happen to like men's junk instead of . Big whoop.
What are morals that are going "In the right direction"? Are you taking an objective claim upon morality which is a subject that is often subjective?
I'm not saying people shouldn't take responsibility for their actions, but there are circumstances where a mother has children that she is mentally incapable of taking care of and the children wind up living lives. Its definitely controversial, but if a woman is obviously going to be a bad parent I wouldn't begrudge her for having an abortion.
Adoption exists, you know.
Besides, this conversation would not even be necessary if only the US parenting standards were virtually non-existent.
I'm pretty sure the resources available to adoption agencies are not infinite.
-
Still waiting for answer...I guess we'll wait til a new page to get to that, eh?
-
What are morals that are going "In the right direction"? Are you taking an objective claim upon morality which is a subject that is often subjective?
His comment reminded me of a conversation I had with my mom once. I heard her making my two little sisters promise to not "date any of those puerto rican kids at school" and when I asked her what the fuck she was doing she goes "what, I can't teach my daughters some morals?"
-
I think he left. Wow...that's not a very straight thing to do.
-
SovereignDream, you are entitled to your opinion and you are entitled to argue it as far as you like, whether it is a popular opinion or an unpopular one. But your posts are starting to cross more into the realm of taking shots at those who disagree with you and less about discourse. You need to rein it back in and keep your posts less personal.
I lost IQ points...this is why I hate the fucking world.
Wow, there are just no words to reply to something like that.
I personally hate the world because SovereignDream is not alone. There are many many more homophobic people out there preaching about how homosexuality is against god. God created the man and the woman to fuck and make kids, anything else is heresy. What about sterile people, hermaphrodites and the like. God created those people too. I just hate this bigotry and there is more of it than is comprehensible...and that is why I hate this world we live in. I could go on but frankly, I like being here and I like interacting with the mostly smart population of this forum, so...I'll kindly shut the fuck up now.
And there are many many people out there who in good faith have reasons they are against gay marriage that don't appreciate your misinformed labeling, namecalling, and uninformed outrage.
-
Why be against gay marriage if not for religious reasons. And if it is religious, ok, but why keep it in 21st century government?
-
I'm not even gonna go into this discussion really, but anybody claiming homosexuality is not natural needs to pick up a biology book. Nao. Or read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
rumborak
-
You speak of discretion and moral rightness. The problem is that not everybody shares your sense of morality. Personally, there are quite a bit of people who probably do, and I damn sure wish they'd show some discretion as well. You don't want to see homos being openly homo? Well, I don't want to see Christians being outwardly religious. Badgering people in front of concerts. Standing on street corners with giant posters of aborted foetuses. Knocking on my door to ask if I'd like to convert. Basically doing everything they can to impose their morals onto others.
Unfortunately, part of living in any society is learning to put up with assholes of all persuasions.
-
You speak of discretion and moral rightness. The problem is that not everybody shares your sense of morality. Personally, there are quite a bit of people who probably do, and I damn sure wish they'd show some discretion as well. You don't want to see homos being openly homo? Well, I don't want to see Christians being outwardly religious. Badgering people in front of concerts. Standing on street corners with giant posters of aborted foetuses. Knocking on my door to ask if I'd like to convert. Basically doing everything they can to impose their morals onto others.
Unfortunately, part of living in any society is learning to put up with assholes of all persuasions.
But they're just trying to save your eternal soul, that makes it ok.
-
Lol why do I feel like it will be days (maybe hours) before SovereignDream gets himself banned somehow?
SovereignDream, you and most other people on here have dodged the biggest question of all: Why does it bother you so much to the point where you don't think you should live on the same planet with someone who is gay?
Also, scientific evidence suggests that is formed in the womb based on gender characteristics of certain parts of the brain. It is also said that 10% of all people are gay. that means every time you are in a crowd of 100 people, there are 10 people who are gay. How can you NOT call that normal. While it's obviously not the majority, it is far from abnormal. I'd say anything that is above 1% of the population is far from abnormal.
"Why does it bother you so much to the point where you don't think you should live on the same planet with someone who is gay?"
Once again, because I believe that being gay (NOT the person; the act) is an abomination. I also never said that "I can't stand to live in a planet where gays exist"; I merely jokingly offered it as a solution to stop the conflict.
I am not being sneaky or hard to read; Allow me to reiterate - I think that being gay is WRONG.
Sorry for voicing my opinion....?
-
You still haven't answered Icy's original question.
What does it matter to you?
-
SovereignDream, you are entitled to your opinion and you are entitled to argue it as far as you like, whether it is a popular opinion or an unpopular one. But your posts are starting to cross more into the realm of taking shots at those who disagree with you and less about discourse. You need to rein it back in and keep your posts less personal.
I lost IQ points...this is why I hate the ing world.
Wow, there are just no words to reply to something like that.
I personally hate the world because SovereignDream is not alone. There are many many more homophobic people out there preaching about how is against god. God created the man and the woman to and make kids, anything else is heresy. What about sterile people, hermaphrodites and the like. God created those people too. I just hate this bigotry and there is more of it than is comprehensible...and that is why I hate this world we live in. I could go on but frankly, I like being here and I like interacting with the mostly smart population of this forum, so...I'll kindly shut the up now.
And there are many many people out there who in good faith have reasons they are against gay marriage that don't appreciate your misinformed labeling, namecalling, and uninformed outrage.
Noted
-
Why be against gay marriage if not for religious reasons. And if it is religious, ok, but why keep it in 21st century government?
I don't really care to debate the issue with you. The problem is that, thus far, you haven't shown you are willing to actually discuss the topic other than taking a highly offensive air of indignation that anyone could possibly disagree with you. Your refusal to acknowledge that there could possibly be any other view than your own makes attempting meaningful discourse with you on the subject pretty futile.
-
Yeah. It's definitely unnatural. That's why no other species except humans display tendencies.
Well, Ibexes scratch their ass with their horns...
does this mean we should grow horns and scratch our own asses with them?
Or better yet - scratch other people's asses with them?
Did you actually remove the word " " from my post? Wow.
And secondly, you say is unnatural. But it occurs widely throughout the natural world. It is absolutely natural. You cannot argue it any other way.
I didn't remove it; this particular computer must have some sort of block on it. And I have never personally seen any animal bone another in the ass. EVER. And in a moral-religious context, it most certainly IS.
I have an idea: why don't we all turn gay? I don't think I need to tell you what would be the final result...
1) Because you didn't see animals in activity doesn't negate its existence (must I really make that argument?).
2) Your religion is yours. You have NO right to force your beliefs onto the people or the entity which governs those people
3) is a natural, but rare occurrence in nature. The female/male couples will always, always, outnumber the same sex couples because it is biologically wired. is no different from red hair on Japanese women. Its natural but rare.
Have your faith man, believe s are sinners, let your "loving" god tell you that some humans don't deserve to be in love, but don't dare think you deserve control over their lives or the government.
Do me a favor and read what I write before you post replies!
I never "imposed" my religion on anybody; I was merely asked a question and responded with what MY VIEWS ARE.
And, let's agree to disagree on this statement: "being gay is natural".
Also: "Have your faith man, believe s are sinners, let your "loving" god tell you that some humans don't deserve to be in love, but don't dare think you deserve control over their lives or the government." ...
You fool: 1) we are all technically sinners 2) I have no problem with gays being in love with one another. I simply have a problem with making the assertion that being gay is natural and right. This only leads to the degradation of moral views and culture in the world. Allow me to guess: you support abortion too, right?
I don't believe in Christianity so I don't consider myself a sinner. You're free to think that I might be one, but as far as I'm concerned I'm not a sinner and neither are you ;)
So do you think that if someone is gay that they should hide it and be shameful of it?
How does it lead to a degradation of moral views and culture in the world? I'm really curious to see why you think that.
And yes, I support a woman's right to choose what happens inside her womb. Why do you suddenly jump to ad hominems?
"So do you think that if someone is gay that they should hide it and be shameful of it?"
Not necessarily hide it nor be shameful of it; simply be discreet and personal about it (i.e. Don't speak like a woman, don't dress like one).
"How does it lead to a degradation of moral views and culture in the world? I'm really curious to see why you think that."
Generally, if one supports the overly-flamboyant and in-your-face, non-discreet, "ya, we sodomize" aspect of , on can assume that this person has other moral views that aren't exactly on the right direction.
"And yes, I support a woman's right to choose what happens inside her womb."
See, I support a woman's decision to with someone or not. THAT is their choice. The silly moniker of pro-abortionists, unintelligently labeled "pro-choice," is insulting; "when you chose to with someone, skank, you took a risk to get pregnant. Suck it up and act like a grown-up"
^ That is how I generally fell about abortions. Note: GENERALLY
I see no reason why gays should be discreet when you have Mr. Joe across the street bragging about all the he's banging each night. If you don't want to hear them talk about it, then walk away. Simple as that. And I've met many gay people that don't cross-dress or anything like that, they simply happen to like men's junk instead of . Big whoop.
What are morals that are going "In the right direction"? Are you taking an objective claim upon morality which is a subject that is often subjective?
I'm not saying people shouldn't take responsibility for their actions, but there are circumstances where a mother has children that she is mentally incapable of taking care of and the children wind up living lives. Its definitely controversial, but if a woman is obviously going to be a bad parent I wouldn't begrudge her for having an abortion.
Adoption exists, you know.
Besides, this conversation would not even be necessary if only the US parenting standards were virtually non-existent.
I'm pretty sure the resources available to adoption agencies are not infinite.
So...kill all unborns?
-
You still haven't answered Icy's original question.
What does it matter to you?
Because teh gays is not only contagious but will also lead to people becoming murderers. Think of the children.
-
Why be against gay marriage if not for religious reasons. And if it is religious, ok, but why keep it in 21st century government?
I don't really care to debate the issue with you. The problem is that, thus far, you haven't shown you are willing to actually discuss the topic other than taking a highly offensive air of indignation that anyone could possibly disagree with you. Your refusal to acknowledge that there could possibly be any other view than your own makes attempting meaningful discourse with you on the subject pretty futile.
Couldn't have expressed this better myself...
-
Duly noted. Let us discuss, what are some non religious points to apposing gay marriage. I personally don't believe that religion belongs in politics, but I would be glad to hear some view points that are non religious...
oh and Sovereign
You still haven't answered Icy's original question.
What does it matter to you?
Dream:
-
You still haven't answered Icy's original question.
What does it matter to you?
Because teh gays is not only contagious but will also lead to people becoming murderers. Think of the children.
Oh, I'm sorry. I merely thought that I answered it A FEW POSTS UP?
-
Screw it. I'm tired of having to hold people's hands and having to constantly warn people for personal attacks, trolling, off-topic posts, etc. Obviously, people seem to think the rules don't apply in P/R anymore. Thanks to Ehra and people like him, I'm done warning people. I see a rule violation, it's a ban from P/R (or the entire forum, depending on severity). I see lots of violations, P/R gets deleted permanently. I don't have the time or the inclination to babysit this subforum anymore.
-
What? Those are reasons Sovereign has given for why homosexuality is wrong, how is repeating them a personal attack?
-
You still haven't answered Icy's original question.
What does it matter to you?
Because teh gays is not only contagious but will also lead to people becoming murderers. Think of the children.
Oh, I'm sorry. I merely thought that I answered it A FEW POSTS UP?
I don't think I'm breaking any rules by asking so here we go...
So Sovereign, if I may call you by a shortened name, gay people disgust you, so that is why it matters to you and there should be no gay marriage people?
-
What? Those are reasons Sovereign has given for why is wrong, how is repeating them a personal attack?
I chuckled...
-
I still didn't get a response.
-
You still haven't answered Icy's original question.
What does it matter to you?
Because teh gays is not only contagious but will also lead to people becoming murderers. Think of the children.
Oh, I'm sorry. I merely thought that I answered it A FEW POSTS UP?
I don't think I'm breaking any rules by asking so here we go...
So Sovereign, if I may call you by a shortened name, gay people disgust you, so that is why it matters to you and there should be no gay marriage people?
1) NOOO! You may not call me by a shortened name! Ok fine!
2) No, gay people don't "disgust" me. Gay acts DO
3)I don't think there should be gay marriage because it only encourages (in MY opinion) further abominations to take place
-
Like what? What else will the gays do?
-
You still haven't answered Icy's original question.
What does it matter to you?
Because teh gays is not only contagious but will also lead to people becoming murderers. Think of the children.
Oh, I'm sorry. I merely thought that I answered it A FEW POSTS UP?
I don't think I'm breaking any rules by asking so here we go...
So Sovereign, if I may call you by a shortened name, gay people disgust you, so that is why it matters to you and there should be no gay marriage people?
1) NOOO! You may not call me by a shortened name! Ok fine!
2) No, gay people don't "disgust" me. Gay acts DO
3)I don't think there should be gay marriage because it only encourages (in MY opinion) further abominations to take place
2. But gay acts don't take place in front of you. They take place in the bedroom, like most sexual activities do. Again, how do gay acts effect you or prevent you from having a happy life in any way?
3. I respect your opinion, but why have you come to the conclusion that being gay is a matter of choice? Just wondering.
-
Yeah, thats another thing that I don't get. Since when do you chose to be gay?
And still, what other acts would say gay people do?
-
And still, what other acts would say gay people do?
I think he is trying to say that more people would become gay because they think it's okay.
-
You still haven't answered Icy's original question.
What does it matter to you?
Because teh gays is not only contagious but will also lead to people becoming murderers. Think of the children.
Oh, I'm sorry. I merely thought that I answered it A FEW POSTS UP?
I don't think I'm breaking any rules by asking so here we go...
So Sovereign, if I may call you by a shortened name, gay people disgust you, so that is why it matters to you and there should be no gay marriage people?
1) NOOO! You may not call me by a shortened name! Ok fine!
2) No, gay people don't "disgust" me. Gay acts DO
3)I don't think there should be gay marriage because it only encourages (in MY opinion) further abominations to take place
2. But gay acts don't take place in front of you. They take place in the bedroom, like most sexual activities do.
3. I respect your opinion, but why have you come to the conclusion that being gay is a matter of choice? Just wondering.
"But gay acts don't take place in front of you."
true, but they are often (Note: OFTEN, not :ALWAYS) galvanized by popular culture and are portrayed as natural (here we go with the whole "natural" argument; keep in mind that this is MY - i repeat - MY view)
"I respect your opinion, but why have you come to the conclusion that being gay is a matter of choice?"
I actually never arrived at that conclusion. Whether or not it is a choice is unknowable to me; but what I would applaud in a gay individual is for him / her to fight their gay needs / wants and not engage in gay acts for the sake of society and themselves.
-
WHAT!??!?!??!?!??!
How would I feel if I asked you to never bone a chick ever again...yeah...you wouldn't dig it.
-
And still, what other acts would say gay people do?
I think he is trying to say that more people would become gay because they think it's okay.
Yes, that is a point I have been enigmatically stressing throughout...
-
WHAT!??!?!??!?!??!
How would I feel if I asked you to never bone a chick ever again...yeah...you wouldn't dig it.
-
WHAT!??!?!??!?!??!
How would I feel if I asked you to never bone a chick ever again...yeah...you wouldn't dig it.
Of course not. But keep in mind you asked for MY views. Not "give me some views that a pro-gay person might find agreeable..."
-
But you are still asking people to abandon everything that makes them human, Don't you find that a tad unreasonable?
-
But you are still asking people to abandon everything that makes them human, Don't you find that a tad unreasonable?
Hmm...I'm afraid I don't see this.
Explain
-
WHAT!??!?!??!?!??!
How would I feel if I asked you to never bone a chick ever again...yeah...you wouldn't dig it.
Of course not. But keep in mind you asked for MY views. Not "give me some views that a pro-gay person might find agreeable..."
Right but you're views are hypocritical and lack any empathy or legitimate backing at all. How can you say you wouldn't want someone to tell you to ignore your sexual desires but then do it yourself? I think you are trying to make reasons up for why you hate gays because you simply hate gays. And don't give me the crap about you just hating gay acts because it's obvious that isn't true.
"I respect your opinion, but why have you come to the conclusion that being gay is a matter of choice?"
I actually never arrived at that conclusion. Whether or not it is a choice is unknowable to me.
Then how would accepting gay marriage create more "abominations"?
-
But you are still asking people to abandon everything that makes them human, Don't you find that a tad unreasonable?
Hmm...I'm afraid I don't see this.
Explain
Don't bone who you want to bone.
That is what you are asking. That is asking people, regardless of their sexuality, to not do something that has been ingrained in our heads for 10s of thousands of years. You can't just ask people to not do that. That would be like me asking you to not have sex with a chick. I mean, yes, that is the norm, but imagine if some dude all of a sudden said "HEY! NO GUY SHOULD FUCK A CHICK!!!" You would go apeshit.
-
But you are still asking people to abandon everything that makes them human, Don't you find that a tad unreasonable?
And to add to that, don't you think it's unreasonable to hold judgments on other people with hardly any justification other than "because that's my opinion"? Like the "homosexuality is an abomination" argument, it's been shown that homosexuality is a naturally occurring thing in the animal world but you keep holding to your opinion simply because it's your opinion.
-
WHAT!??!?!??!?!??!
How would I feel if I asked you to never bone a chick ever again...yeah...you wouldn't dig it.
Of course not. But keep in mind you asked for MY views. Not "give me some views that a pro-gay person might find agreeable..."
Right but you're views are hypocritical and lack any empathy or legitimate backing at all. How can you say you wouldn't want someone to tell you to ignore your sexual desires but then do it yourself? I think you are trying to make reasons up for why you hate gays because you simply hate gays. And don't give me the crap about you just hating gay acts because it's obvious that isn't true.
"I respect your opinion, but why have you come to the conclusion that being gay is a matter of choice?"
I actually never arrived at that conclusion. Whether or not it is a choice is unknowable to me.
Then how would accepting gay marriage create more "abominations"?
Your signature insults yourself: you are the one who accused me of saying that gays chose to be so when I NEVER DID.
The "smart" comment that follows is unintelligible rubbish
-
But you are still asking people to abandon everything that makes them human, Don't you find that a tad unreasonable?
Hmm...I'm afraid I don't see this.
Explain
Don't bone who you want to bone.
That is what you are asking. That is asking people, regardless of their sexuality, to not do something that has been ingrained in our heads for 10s of thousands of years. You can't just ask people to not do that. That would be like me asking you to not have sex with a chick. I mean, yes, that is the norm, but imagine if some dude all of a sudden said "HEY! NO GUY SHOULD FUCK A CHICK!!!" You would go apeshit.
-
But you are still asking people to abandon everything that makes them human, Don't you find that a tad unreasonable?
Hmm...I'm afraid I don't see this.
Explain
Don't bone who you want to bone.
That is what you are asking. That is asking people, regardless of their , to not do something that has been ingrained in our heads for 10s of thousands of years. You can't just ask people to not do that. That would be like me asking you to not with a chick. I mean, yes, that is the norm, but imagine if some dude all of a sudden said "HEY! NO GUY SHOULD A CHICK!!!" You would go apeshit.
I urge gays to restrain themselves from engaging in gay acts because I believe it is wrong. I do not urge straight people to restrain themselves from this because I see no wrong in this.
-
WHAT!??!?!??!?!??!
How would I feel if I asked you to never bone a chick ever again...yeah...you wouldn't dig it.
Of course not. But keep in mind you asked for MY views. Not "give me some views that a pro-gay person might find agreeable..."
Right but you're views are hypocritical and lack any empathy or legitimate backing at all. How can you say you wouldn't want someone to tell you to ignore your sexual desires but then do it yourself? I think you are trying to make reasons up for why you hate gays because you simply hate gays. And don't give me the crap about you just hating gay acts because it's obvious that isn't true.
"I respect your opinion, but why have you come to the conclusion that being gay is a matter of choice?"
I actually never arrived at that conclusion. Whether or not it is a choice is unknowable to me.
Then how would accepting gay marriage create more "abominations"?
Your signature insults yourself: you are the one who accused me of saying that gays chose to be so when I NEVER DID.
The "smart" comment that follows is unintelligible rubbish
I gave you my evidence to where you said being gay is a choice. Just in case you missed it, I will restate:
Then how would accepting gay marriage create more "abominations"?
-
But WHY do you see it as wrong is the question we've all been asking. and "just cuz..." isn't an answer.
-
WHAT!??!?!??!?!??!
How would I feel if I asked you to never bone a chick ever again...yeah...you wouldn't dig it.
Of course not. But keep in mind you asked for MY views. Not "give me some views that a pro-gay person might find agreeable..."
Right but you're views are hypocritical and lack any empathy or legitimate backing at all. How can you say you wouldn't want someone to tell you to ignore your sexual desires but then do it yourself? I think you are trying to make reasons up for why you hate gays because you simply hate gays. And don't give me the crap about you just hating gay acts because it's obvious that isn't true.
"I respect your opinion, but why have you come to the conclusion that being gay is a matter of choice?"
I actually never arrived at that conclusion. Whether or not it is a choice is unknowable to me.
Then how would accepting gay marriage create more "abominations"?
Your signature insults yourself: you are the one who accused me of saying that gays chose to be so when I NEVER DID.
The "smart" comment that follows is unintelligible rubbish
What he means is that you just said that you don't know whether homosexuality is a choice or not. If that's the case, then how can you also claim that allowing homosexual marriage/sex would then encourage others to do the same? If it's not a choice then it doesn't make any sense that anything could "encourage" people to go gay.
-
WHAT!??!?!??!?!??!
How would I feel if I asked you to never bone a chick ever again...yeah...you wouldn't dig it.
Of course not. But keep in mind you asked for MY views. Not "give me some views that a pro-gay person might find agreeable..."
Right but you're views are hypocritical and lack any empathy or legitimate backing at all. How can you say you wouldn't want someone to tell you to ignore your sexual desires but then do it yourself? I think you are trying to make reasons up for why you hate gays because you simply hate gays. And don't give me the crap about you just hating gay acts because it's obvious that isn't true.
"I respect your opinion, but why have you come to the conclusion that being gay is a matter of choice?"
I actually never arrived at that conclusion. Whether or not it is a choice is unknowable to me.
Then how would accepting gay marriage create more "abominations"?
Your signature insults yourself: you are the one who accused me of saying that gays chose to be so when I NEVER DID.
The "smart" comment that follows is unintelligible rubbish
What he means is that you just said that you don't know whether homosexuality is a choice or not. If that's the case, then how can you also claim that allowing homosexual marriage/sex would then encourage others to do the same? If it's not a choice then it doesn't make any sense that anything could "encourage" people to go gay.
This exactly. Sorry if I wasn't being clear.
-
But you are still asking people to abandon everything that makes them human, Don't you find that a tad unreasonable?
Hmm...I'm afraid I don't see this.
Explain
Don't bone who you want to bone.
That is what you are asking. That is asking people, regardless of their , to not do something that has been ingrained in our heads for 10s of thousands of years. You can't just ask people to not do that. That would be like me asking you to not with a chick. I mean, yes, that is the norm, but imagine if some dude all of a sudden said "HEY! NO GUY SHOULD A CHICK!!!" You would go apeshit.
I urge gays to restrain themselves from engaging in gay acts because I believe it is wrong. I do not urge straight people to restrain themselves from this because I see no wrong in this.
I see. So the world should run based on your morals and what you believe is right and wrong. Ok then. I see...well...
ugh
-
WHAT!??!?!??!?!??!
How would I feel if I asked you to never bone a chick ever again...yeah...you wouldn't dig it.
Of course not. But keep in mind you asked for MY views. Not "give me some views that a pro-gay person might find agreeable..."
Right but you're views are hypocritical and lack any empathy or legitimate backing at all. How can you say you wouldn't want someone to tell you to ignore your sexual desires but then do it yourself? I think you are trying to make reasons up for why you hate gays because you simply hate gays. And don't give me the crap about you just hating gay acts because it's obvious that isn't true.
"I respect your opinion, but why have you come to the conclusion that being gay is a matter of choice?"
I actually never arrived at that conclusion. Whether or not it is a choice is unknowable to me.
Then how would accepting gay marriage create more "abominations"?
Your signature insults yourself: you are the one who accused me of saying that gays chose to be so when I NEVER DID.
The "smart" comment that follows is unintelligible rubbish
What he means is that you just said that you don't know whether is a choice or not. If that's the case, then how can you also claim that allowing marriage/sex would then encourage others to do the same? If it's not a choice then it doesn't make any sense that anything could "encourage" people to go gay.
Glamorizing gayness in pop culture will lead to more people being gay. Sorry. T'is is the most likely result
-
Not really. People will always be straight and people will always be gay. Being gay is biological, not mental. What it might do is make it more acceptable. Which is something we need as a country.
-
WHAT!??!?!??!?!??!
How would I feel if I asked you to never bone a chick ever again...yeah...you wouldn't dig it.
Of course not. But keep in mind you asked for MY views. Not "give me some views that a pro-gay person might find agreeable..."
Right but you're views are hypocritical and lack any empathy or legitimate backing at all. How can you say you wouldn't want someone to tell you to ignore your sexual desires but then do it yourself? I think you are trying to make reasons up for why you hate gays because you simply hate gays. And don't give me the crap about you just hating gay acts because it's obvious that isn't true.
"I respect your opinion, but why have you come to the conclusion that being gay is a matter of choice?"
I actually never arrived at that conclusion. Whether or not it is a choice is unknowable to me.
Then how would accepting gay marriage create more "abominations"?
Your signature insults yourself: you are the one who accused me of saying that gays chose to be so when I NEVER DID.
The "smart" comment that follows is unintelligible rubbish
What he means is that you just said that you don't know whether is a choice or not. If that's the case, then how can you also claim that allowing marriage/sex would then encourage others to do the same? If it's not a choice then it doesn't make any sense that anything could "encourage" people to go gay.
Glamorizing gayness in pop culture will lead to more people being gay. Sorry. T'is is the most likely result
But that means that "gayness" is a conscious choice, which you just denied when you said you're not sure!
Not only that, but there's a distinct difference between glamorizing something and allowing it. Smoking is allowed, it hasn't been "glamorized" in decades.
-
I basically said half of what you said, your other half was spot on as well though.
-
WHAT!??!?!??!?!??!
How would I feel if I asked you to never bone a chick ever again...yeah...you wouldn't dig it.
Of course not. But keep in mind you asked for MY views. Not "give me some views that a pro-gay person might find agreeable..."
Right but you're views are hypocritical and lack any empathy or legitimate backing at all. How can you say you wouldn't want someone to tell you to ignore your sexual desires but then do it yourself? I think you are trying to make reasons up for why you hate gays because you simply hate gays. And don't give me the crap about you just hating gay acts because it's obvious that isn't true.
"I respect your opinion, but why have you come to the conclusion that being gay is a matter of choice?"
I actually never arrived at that conclusion. Whether or not it is a choice is unknowable to me.
Then how would accepting gay marriage create more "abominations"?
Your signature insults yourself: you are the one who accused me of saying that gays chose to be so when I NEVER DID.
The "smart" comment that follows is unintelligible rubbish
What he means is that you just said that you don't know whether is a choice or not. If that's the case, then how can you also claim that allowing marriage/sex would then encourage others to do the same? If it's not a choice then it doesn't make any sense that anything could "encourage" people to go gay.
Glamorizing gayness in pop culture will lead to more people being gay. Sorry. T'is is the most likely result
But that means that "gayness" is a conscious choice, which you just denied when you said you're not sure!
I was just about to post this.
Flawed argument is flawed. SD.
Not really. People will always be straight and people will always be gay. Being gay is biological, not mental. What it might do is make it more acceptable. Which is something we need as a country.
Actually, being gay is biological and mental, but that's besides the point. I believe you mean conscious or not-conscious.
-
Not really. People will always be straight and people will always be gay. Being gay is biological, not mental. What it might do is make it more acceptable. Which is something we need as a country.
"What it might do is make it more acceptable. Which is something we need as a country."
I strongly disagree. Maybe we should make boning animals legal? And animal / human marriages too?
-
Ah...now we have the age old homosexuality=zoophilia
-
I didn't realize animals could give consent.
-
Ah...now we have the age old =zoophilia
Just so you get an idea of what I equate a (physical) gay relationship to. I've no problem with the emotional love in a gay relationship.
-
Ah...now we have the age old =zoophilia
Just so you get an idea of what I equate a (physical) gay relationship to. I've no problem with the emotional love in a gay relationship.
Explain to me, in detail, how having sex with a non-consenting animal is ANYTHING like having sex with an adult gay male who consents?
-
Ah...now we have the age old =zoophilia
Just so you get an idea of what I equate a (physical) gay relationship to. I've no problem with the emotional love in a gay relationship.
Then you sir are a homophobe and incredibly short sighted. There is nothing I can do about it. I just hope one day, you will need a gay person to help you out...and they might not be there for you.
-
Ah...now we have the age old =zoophilia
Just so you get an idea of what I equate a (physical) gay relationship to. I've no problem with the emotional love in a gay relationship.
Explain to me, in detail, how with a non-consenting animal is ANYTHING like with an adult who consents?
The fact that an adult consents to it makes it even worse...
-
Ah...now we have the age old =zoophilia
Just so you get an idea of what I equate a (physical) gay relationship to. I've no problem with the emotional love in a gay relationship.
Then you sir are a and incredibly short sighted. There is nothing I can do about it. I just hope one day, you will need a gay person to help you out...and they might not be there for you.
Can't you face it? There are many sane people that see the wrongness of gayness. That you do not see the clear violation of human dignity in the act is not of my concern.
-
Ah...now we have the age old =zoophilia
Just so you get an idea of what I equate a (physical) gay relationship to. I've no problem with the emotional love in a gay relationship.
Explain to me, in detail, how with a non-consenting animal is ANYTHING like with an adult who consents?
The fact that an adult consents to it makes it even worse...
Again. Explain IN DETAIL how it is bad and anything like having sex with a non-consenting animal.
-
Ah...now we have the age old =zoophilia
Just so you get an idea of what I equate a (physical) gay relationship to. I've no problem with the emotional love in a gay relationship.
Then you sir are a and incredibly short sighted. There is nothing I can do about it. I just hope one day, you will need a gay person to help you out...and they might not be there for you.
Can't you face it? There are many sane people that see the wrongness of gayness. That you do not see the clear violation of human dignity in the act is not of my concern.
:lolpalm:
Ok dude...whatever you say...
-
You know, the most interesting thing about this thread in retrospect is that SovereignDream has been posting this entire time with an avatar that features the lead in one of the most homoerotic movies ever swallowing a banana.
-
No...the Spartans were buff, macho, and cocky ...go look at this dudes thread entitled "A Fight To Remember" It makes sense.
-
Ah...now we have the age old =zoophilia
Just so you get an idea of what I equate a (physical) gay relationship to. I've no problem with the emotional love in a gay relationship.
Explain to me, in detail, how with a non-consenting animal is ANYTHING like with an adult who consents?
The fact that an adult consents to it makes it even worse...
Again. Explain IN DETAIL how it is bad and anything like with a non-consenting animal.
What the hell do you even mean by "in-detail" both are morally abhorrent.
I'm quite sorry you do not see it my way.
Oh, and one last thing:
THIS IS SPARTA!
-
You know, the most interesting thing about this thread in retrospect is that SovereignDream has been posting this entire time with an avatar that features the lead in one of the most homoerotic movies ever swallowing a banana.
Damn you. I was waiting for something about Felicio to be posted so I could have the best avatar quote ever and you just ruined it.
-
No...the Spartans were buff, macho, and cocky ...go look at this dudes thread entitled "A Fight To Remember" It makes sense.
Haha :rollin
Trust me, lifting weights is awesome. Maybe I'll spot you on the bench one day...so long as we keep the gayness at 0.
-
Ah...now we have the age old =zoophilia
Just so you get an idea of what I equate a (physical) gay relationship to. I've no problem with the emotional love in a gay relationship.
Explain to me, in detail, how with a non-consenting animal is ANYTHING like with an adult who consents?
The fact that an adult consents to it makes it even worse...
Again. Explain IN DETAIL how it is bad and anything like with a non-consenting animal.
What the hell do you even mean by "in-detail" both are morally abhorrent.
I'm quite sorry you do not see it my way.
I mean that when debating something you have to support it with legitimate reasons other than "because it's what I think"
No...the Spartans were buff, macho, and cocky ...go look at this dudes thread entitled "A Fight To Remember" It makes sense.
Haha :rollin
Trust me, lifting weights is awesome. Maybe I'll spot you on the bench one day...so long as we keep the gayness at 0.
EDIT: reported.
-
Jesus, that was hard to read. The last few pages of this thread are an absolute train wreck on all sides. Except for this:
You know, the most interesting thing about this thread in retrospect is that SovereignDream has been posting this entire time with an avatar that features the lead in one of the most homoerotic movies ever swallowing a banana.
For the record Sovereign, I completely disagree with you, but I'm impressed that you're able to keep a sense of humor while everybody else is losing their shit in an emotional whirlwind.
-J
-
[/quote]
Haha :rollin
Trust me, lifting weights is awesome. Maybe I'll spot you on the bench one day...so long as we keep the gayness at 0.
[/quote]
EDIT: reported.
[/quote]
Reported? Are you kidding me? For humorously offering to spot a kid bench pressing?
There's a couple types of people I greatly dislike, but lying, exaggerating snitches rank at about 2 or 3.
I'm very strongly encouraged to call you something that rhymes with 'cussy'.
-
Trust me, lifting weights is awesome. Maybe I'll spot you on the bench one day...so long as we keep the gayness at 0.
EDIT: reported.
Reported? Are you kidding me? For humorously offering to spot a kid bench pressing?
There's a couple types of people I greatly dislike, but lying, exaggerating snitches rank at about 2 or 3.
I'm very strongly encouraged to call you something that rhymes with 'cussy'.
-
Trust me, lifting weights is awesome. Maybe I'll spot you on the bench one day...so long as we keep the gayness at 0.
EDIT: reported.
Reported? Are you kidding me? For humorously offering to spot a kid bench pressing?
Then you should have nothing to worry about.
-
Trust me, lifting weights is awesome. Maybe I'll spot you on the bench one day...so long as we keep the gayness at 0.
EDIT: reported.
Reported? Are you kidding me? For humorously offering to spot a kid bench pressing?
There's a couple types of people I greatly dislike, but lying, exaggerating snitches rank at about 2 or 3.
I'm very strongly encouraged to call you something that rhymes with 'cussy'.
fussy?
this thread makes my head hurt.
-
Trust me, lifting weights is awesome. Maybe I'll spot you on the bench one day...so long as we keep the gayness at 0.
EDIT: reported.
Reported? Are you kidding me? For humorously offering to spot a kid bench pressing?
Then you should have nothing to worry about.
Seriously, who reports people? It's obvious I'm getting to your head here and you want to "get back" at me. I get it.
Just don't be surprised when you get called a "little girl," you little girl.
YOU GIRLY MAN
-
To be fair, SD, some of your comments towards both 13085193458 and icy have been borderline offensive. If you haven't already, I suggest reading the "How to aruge on the internet" sticky
-
SD, Dude, you need to relax. You're being totally disrespectful and now you're just insulting people willy nilly. You really should read the rules before you post.
-
SD, Dude, you need to relax. You're being totally disrespectful and now you're just insulting people willy nilly. You really should read the rules before you post.
Maybe it is a little hard to tell, but I assure you that these "insults" are not serious. I'm just being facetious.
-
we can't tell that on the internet
which is why we don't insult people at all, joking or not, while having an argument like this
-
Jesus, that was hard to read. The last few pages of this thread are an absolute train wreck on all sides. Except for this:
You know, the most interesting thing about this thread in retrospect is that SovereignDream has been posting this entire time with an avatar that features the lead in one of the most homoerotic movies ever swallowing a banana.
For the record Sovereign, I completely disagree with you, but I'm impressed that you're able to keep a sense of humor while everybody else is losing their shit in an emotional whirlwind.
-J
It is kind of funny, although I can't blame them for doing such a thing. Unfortunately I can't foresee this topic going well at all or staying open any longer.
SD: The reason nearly everyone has lost their cool with you is because every single point seems to be backed up with "Because I said so". You're free to think that way if you want, but I not a lot of people are going to take you seriously if you refuse to back up your points (Which I've yet to see). And the avatar is pretty ironic :lol
If you're willing to back up what you're saying with actual points then I'm sure the forum will be willing to take you seriously.
-
For the record guys, don't soil my image by referring to this guy as SD. Let's not dirty that name, shall we? :P
Second, SovereignDream, you might be interested by this little historical tidbit:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_(film) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_(film))
Leonidas' description of the Athenians as "boy lovers" [is] ironic, since the Spartans themselves incorporated institutional pederasty into their educational system.
Yep, your hero not only partook of homoerotic pleasures; it was with young boys.
And another one I found particularly interesting:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Europe)
In the Symposium (182B-D), Plato equates acceptance of homosexuality with democracy, and its suppression with despotism, saying that homosexuality "is shameful to barbarians because of their despotic governments, just as philosophy and athletics are, since it is apparently not in best interests of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or physical unions, all of which love is particularly apt to produce".
Barbarians, a.k.a the Germanic and Frankish tribes from which you and your ilk are likely descended, looked down upon homosexuality. The Greeks and Romans, who are the basis for modern Western civilization, and without whom you and your ilk would still be barbaric headhunters and militant religious berserkers, were strong proponents of homosexuality not only as socially acceptable, but as being of particular utility to the development of character, wisdom, and camaraderie.
If you're going to hate people just for loving who they want to love or marrying who they want to, then I suggest you buy the next flight to that distant planet of yours. Or to be more realistic and possibly more practical, ask yourself if treating another human being as less than human is a truly Christian thing to do. By supporting such bigotry, are you really making this world a better place? I mean it, step away from your computer for just an hour, and seriously chew on that.
Also stop attacking my friends. I find your treatment of them and just your conduct to be utterly despicable.
-
Not to mention Spartan women took measures to masculinize their appearance for their wedding days so that their husbands wouldn't be confused when it came to consummation :biggrin:
-
Personally, I thought the weightlifting comment was pretty funny. I suppose Sovereign, being a noob and all, doesn't have the rapport required to pull off facetiousness quite yet. Still, I wouldn't consider that particular remark to be an actual insult.
-
I can see two reasons a person would be anti-gay marriage.
One, because they think that being gay is, well, wrong. Likely because of religion. The problem I see is that there are plenty of things that we do that are against religion. For example, we look at women with lust in our eyes. Should that be illegal too? It's hard to know where to draw the line once you start combining religion with politics.
Two, because they don't want a liberal domino effect. This issue might not be a big deal, but once it blows over, something else becomes the target. The gay-marriage issue therefore becomes a type of "shield" for conservatives, so that liberals don't actually attack something even more significant. The problem is that while this is certainly a good strategy, it's not really honest. But this is politics, and the other side will destroy you if you have any degree of integrity.
I am reluctant to give my own view because I am undecided as of now.
-
I can see two reasons a person would be anti-gay marriage.
One, because they think that being gay is, well, wrong. Likely because of religion. The problem I see is that there are plenty of things that we do that are against religion. For example, we look at women with lust in our eyes. Should that be illegal too? It's hard to know where to draw the line once you start combining religion with politics.
Two, because they don't want a liberal domino effect. This issue might not be a big deal, but once it blows over, something else becomes the target. The gay-marriage issue therefore becomes a type of "shield" for conservatives, so that liberals don't actually attack something even more significant. The problem is that while this is certainly a good strategy, it's not really honest. But this is politics, and the other side will destroy you if you have any degree of integrity.
I am reluctant to give my own view because I am undecided as of now.
Basically, for religious and personal views, I deem gayness wrong.
-
As for secular reasoning, I see a couple of things.
First and foremost, like most things that are Republican/Democrat/Liberal/Conservative issues, it's just made-up bullshit to keep people both active and divided. As I keep saying, there isn't much tangible difference in what the candidates will actually do, so irrelevant causes likely to create passionate opinions are foisted upon us. Abortion and immigration fall into the same category. Every politician goes to Washington to grab money and power, which all comes from the same players. These sorts of issues are what allows them to stay in the game. "I'm going there to take care of the good people who share my values!" sounds a lot better than "I'm going to get rich and pork interns while doing nothing that will ever help you!"
The other thing, and I'm guessing it's the point that Bosk doesn't want to get into in this particular environment, is the legal ramifications of granting marital status to homos. Do they get the same benefits as normal couples? Tax breaks. Insurance? Marriage in this country comes with plenty of legal implications. Then you have to determine how to handle marriages from other states. What if two married lesbians show up in a state that doesn't recognize their marriage. I can see how it might be a pain in the ass. Personally, I disagree with this as a concern. Marriage shouldn't be a legal matter, anyway.
-
I have no problem with discussing the legal ramifications.
-
When Cole asked you what your secular reasons were, I took a guess that it was along those lines. If not, I'd be interested in hearing what they are.
-
Oh, I see. No, I was just saying I don't really want to get into the discussion in general. My reasons are largely based on the fact that my religious convictions lead me to believe homosexuality is sinful. Since nobody here is interested whatsoever in that argument, whether or not I can articulate it in a reasonable manner or not, and that even voicing that opinion will lead to all manner of untrue accusations being flung my way (not by you, but plenty of others who post here), I can't really be bothered to "argue with a brick wall," so to speak. My more "secular" reasons aren't really worth hashing out because (1) comparatively (i.e., in comparison to my religious reasons) they aren't ultimately of much significance to me, (2) they are admittedly colored by my religious reasons, and (3) I've said them before. If you and I were sitting down over a couple of beers (well, I'd be drinking diet Coke, but w/e), I'd be happy to talk it through with you, and I'm confident I would enjoy the discussion and feel like I had grown and become a better person from having it with you. But as for hashing it out on an Internet forum with kids who can't comprehend that anyone who thinks differently than their high school language arts teacher isn't productive.
-
For the record guys, don't soil my image by referring to this guy as SD. Let's not dirty that name, shall we? :P
Second, SovereignDream, you might be interested by this little historical tidbit:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_(film) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_(film))
Leonidas' description of the Athenians as "boy lovers" [is] ironic, since the Spartans themselves incorporated institutional pederasty into their educational system.
Yep, your hero not only partook of homoerotic pleasures; it was with young boys.
And another one I found particularly interesting:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Europe)
In the Symposium (182B-D), Plato equates acceptance of homosexuality with democracy, and its suppression with despotism, saying that homosexuality "is shameful to barbarians because of their despotic governments, just as philosophy and athletics are, since it is apparently not in best interests of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or physical unions, all of which love is particularly apt to produce".
Barbarians, a.k.a the Germanic and Frankish tribes from which you and your ilk are likely descended, looked down upon homosexuality. The Greeks and Romans, who are the basis for modern Western civilization, and without whom you and your ilk would still be barbaric headhunters and militant religious berserkers, were strong proponents of homosexuality not only as socially acceptable, but as being of particular utility to the development of character, wisdom, and camaraderie.
If you're going to hate people just for loving who they want to love or marrying who they want to, then I suggest you buy the next flight to that distant planet of yours. Or to be more realistic and possibly more practical, ask yourself if treating another human being as less than human is a truly Christian thing to do. By supporting such bigotry, are you really making this world a better place? I mean it, step away from your computer for just an hour, and seriously chew on that.
Also stop attacking my friends. I find your treatment of them and just your conduct to be utterly despicable.
I'm pretty sure you just won the thread. This was great. It probably won't win, but I nominate POTY.
-
But as for hashing it out on an Internet forum with kids who can't comprehend that anyone who thinks differently than their high school language arts teacher isn't productive.
:lol :rollin :rollin :lol :lol
-
First and foremost, like most things that are Republican/Democrat/Liberal/Conservative issues, it's just made-up bullshit to keep people both active and divided. As I keep saying, there isn't much tangible difference in what the candidates will actually do, so irrelevant causes likely to create passionate opinions are foisted upon us. Abortion and immigration fall into the same category. Every politician goes to Washington to grab money and power, which all comes from the same players. These sorts of issues are what allows them to stay in the game. "I'm going there to take care of the good people who share my values!" sounds a lot better than "I'm going to get rich and pork interns while doing nothing that will ever help you!"
Couldn't have said it better.
The other thing, and I'm guessing it's the point that Bosk doesn't want to get into in this particular environment, is the legal ramifications of granting marital status to homos. Do they get the same benefits as normal couples? Tax breaks. Insurance? Marriage in this country comes with plenty of legal implications. Then you have to determine how to handle marriages from other states. What if two married lesbians show up in a state that doesn't recognize their marriage. I can see how it might be a pain in the ass. Personally, I disagree with this as a concern. Marriage shouldn't be a legal matter, anyway.
I think the primary argument from a secular point of view is economically based. Why should the state give gay couples all the financial benefits of marriage? What state interests do they serve?
While I think it's obvious that there will be inherent differences in a "family unit" with a man and a woman versus one with two dudes, I have no idea if or to what degree they're meaningful. And frankly, since the field of psychology is such a mire of bullshit, unverifiable speculation, and God knows what else, I really have no desire to investigate it further.
Personally, I still lean toward taking marriage out of the hands of the government--at least for the most part--and making it a purely private contractual affair between two consenting parties.
But as for hashing it out on an Internet forum with kids who can't comprehend that anyone who thinks differently than their high school language arts teacher isn't productive.
:lol
-J
-
Oh, I see. No, I was just saying I don't really want to get into the discussion in general. My reasons are largely based on the fact that my religious convictions lead me to believe homosexuality is sinful. Since nobody here is interested whatsoever in that argument, whether or not I can articulate it in a reasonable manner or not, and that even voicing that opinion will lead to all manner of untrue accusations being flung my way (not by you, but plenty of others who post here), I can't really be bothered to "argue with a brick wall," so to speak. My more "secular" reasons aren't really worth hashing out because (1) comparatively (i.e., in comparison to my religious reasons) they aren't ultimately of much significance to me, (2) they are admittedly colored by my religious reasons, and (3) I've said them before. If you and I were sitting down over a couple of beers (well, I'd be drinking diet Coke, but w/e), I'd be happy to talk it through with you, and I'm confident I would enjoy the discussion and feel like I had grown and become a better person from having it with you. But as for hashing it out on an Internet forum with kids who can't comprehend that anyone who thinks differently than their high school language arts teacher isn't productive.
Come on bosk, I think there's a huge difference in what you've said and what SD has. I completely disagree on it being immoral, but I can understand why one's religious convictions can lead one to seeing it that way and I have no problem with that. My issue is some of the comments SD made regarding gays that is nothing more than an ad hominem and presenting it forth as a valid argument. Ehra's and number's comments were quite harsh yes, I'll concede that, but I really do doubt that the forum would act the same upon you as did SD.
And for the record, you seem like a really nice guy, and someone that would seem to be cool to have a classic coke with (Diet coke bosk? DIET COKE?! WHERE IS YOUR PRIDE MAN?!). :tup
-
Oh, I see. No, I was just saying I don't really want to get into the discussion in general. My reasons are largely based on the fact that my religious convictions lead me to believe homosexuality is sinful. Since nobody here is interested whatsoever in that argument, whether or not I can articulate it in a reasonable manner or not, and that even voicing that opinion will lead to all manner of untrue accusations being flung my way (not by you, but plenty of others who post here), I can't really be bothered to "argue with a brick wall," so to speak. My more "secular" reasons aren't really worth hashing out because (1) comparatively (i.e., in comparison to my religious reasons) they aren't ultimately of much significance to me, (2) they are admittedly colored by my religious reasons, and (3) I've said them before. If you and I were sitting down over a couple of beers (well, I'd be drinking diet Coke, but w/e), I'd be happy to talk it through with you, and I'm confident I would enjoy the discussion and feel like I had grown and become a better person from having it with you. But as for hashing it out on an Internet forum with kids who can't comprehend that anyone who thinks differently than their high school language arts teacher isn't productive.
I acknowledge and accept your views, and I assure you I can handle differing opinions. :P
That said, I guess I'm not sure how Christians reconcile their condemnation of homosexuality with the worship of a divine being (Jesus) who was buddy-buddy with a prostitute. Not to mention his preaching to love others as you love yourself, treat others as you want to be treated, forgive your enemy, etc. Besides, what about gays and lesbians who are both openly gay and devoutly Christian? I'm certain they exist, so what happens to them? Are they ostracized by the religious community? For all their loyalty to God and their adherence to the teachings of Jesus, save that one thing, are they shut out of Heaven just like that?
@ icy: I am humbled and altogether flattered. Thanks man, I'm glad my thoughts resonate with someone with such weight.
-
Oh, I see. No, I was just saying I don't really want to get into the discussion in general. My reasons are largely based on the fact that my religious convictions lead me to believe homosexuality is sinful. Since nobody here is interested whatsoever in that argument, whether or not I can articulate it in a reasonable manner or not, and that even voicing that opinion will lead to all manner of untrue accusations being flung my way (not by you, but plenty of others who post here), I can't really be bothered to "argue with a brick wall," so to speak. My more "secular" reasons aren't really worth hashing out because (1) comparatively (i.e., in comparison to my religious reasons) they aren't ultimately of much significance to me, (2) they are admittedly colored by my religious reasons, and (3) I've said them before. If you and I were sitting down over a couple of beers (well, I'd be drinking diet Coke, but w/e), I'd be happy to talk it through with you, and I'm confident I would enjoy the discussion and feel like I had grown and become a better person from having it with you. But as for hashing it out on an Internet forum with kids who can't comprehend that anyone who thinks differently than their high school language arts teacher isn't productive.
Fair enough. And thanks. :tup
I think the primary argument from a secular point of view is economically based. Why should the state give gay couples all the financial benefits of marriage? What state interests do they serve?
While I think it's obvious that there will be inherent differences in a "family unit" with a man and a woman versus one with two dudes, I have no idea if or to what degree they're meaningful. And frankly, since the field of psychology is such a mire of bullshit, unverifiable speculation, and God knows what else, I really have no desire to investigate it further.
Personally, I still lean toward taking marriage out of the hands of the government--at least for the most part--and making it a purely private contractual affair between two consenting parties.
-J
Why should the state be providing benefits to any married couple? I've never understood this. If this were 1679, and Uncle Charley needed the settlers to be fruitful, then I could understand it. I don't think that anybody believes that what America needs now is more Americans.
I do understand why people with kids get added benefits, though I think it's bullshit.
-
Oh, I see. No, I was just saying I don't really want to get into the discussion in general. My reasons are largely based on the fact that my religious convictions lead me to believe is sinful. Since nobody here is interested whatsoever in that argument, whether or not I can articulate it in a reasonable manner or not, and that even voicing that opinion will lead to all manner of untrue accusations being flung my way (not by you, but plenty of others who post here), I can't really be bothered to "argue with a brick wall," so to speak. My more "secular" reasons aren't really worth hashing out because (1) comparatively (i.e., in comparison to my religious reasons) they aren't ultimately of much significance to me, (2) they are admittedly colored by my religious reasons, and (3) I've said them before. If you and I were sitting down over a couple of beers (well, I'd be drinking diet Coke, but w/e), I'd be happy to talk it through with you, and I'm confident I would enjoy the discussion and feel like I had grown and become a better person from having it with you. But as for hashing it out on an Internet forum with kids who can't comprehend that anyone who thinks differently than their high school language arts teacher isn't productive.
Come on bosk, I think there's a huge difference in what you've said and what SD has. I completely disagree on it being immoral, but I can understand why one's religious convictions can lead one to seeing it that way and I have no problem with that. My issue is some of the comments SD made regarding gays that is nothing more than an ad hominem and presenting it forth as a valid argument. Ehra's and number's comments were quite harsh yes, I'll concede that, but I really do doubt that the forum would act the same upon you as did SD.
And for the record, you seem like a really nice guy, and someone that would seem to be cool to have a classic coke with (Diet coke bosk? DIET COKE?! WHERE IS YOUR PRIDE MAN?!). :tup
I might have articulated a post as elegant as bosk's, had I not a) been tired and bored b) felt as if I as arguing with people that were determined to condemn all opposing views; especially from a new user c) been a moderator / administrator who will receive compliments from forum users regardless of what is written down (no offense at all here, bosk. Please don't hurt me).
-
You switched from a) to 2) and then from there to 4). WHAT IS POINT 3), hm??? TELL ME!
-
You switched from a) to 2) and then from there to 4). WHAT IS POINT 3), hm??? TELL ME!
Hahaha Damn it! That's the second time I've done that!
As mentioned, I'm pretty tired and pretty distracted...
-
Oh, I see. No, I was just saying I don't really want to get into the discussion in general. My reasons are largely based on the fact that my religious convictions lead me to believe is sinful. Since nobody here is interested whatsoever in that argument, whether or not I can articulate it in a reasonable manner or not, and that even voicing that opinion will lead to all manner of untrue accusations being flung my way (not by you, but plenty of others who post here), I can't really be bothered to "argue with a brick wall," so to speak. My more "secular" reasons aren't really worth hashing out because (1) comparatively (i.e., in comparison to my religious reasons) they aren't ultimately of much significance to me, (2) they are admittedly colored by my religious reasons, and (3) I've said them before. If you and I were sitting down over a couple of beers (well, I'd be drinking diet Coke, but w/e), I'd be happy to talk it through with you, and I'm confident I would enjoy the discussion and feel like I had grown and become a better person from having it with you. But as for hashing it out on an Internet forum with kids who can't comprehend that anyone who thinks differently than their high school language arts teacher isn't productive.
Come on bosk, I think there's a huge difference in what you've said and what SD has. I completely disagree on it being immoral, but I can understand why one's religious convictions can lead one to seeing it that way and I have no problem with that. My issue is some of the comments SD made regarding gays that is nothing more than an ad hominem and presenting it forth as a valid argument. Ehra's and number's comments were quite harsh yes, I'll concede that, but I really do doubt that the forum would act the same upon you as did SD.
And for the record, you seem like a really nice guy, and someone that would seem to be cool to have a classic coke with (Diet coke bosk? DIET COKE?! WHERE IS YOUR PRIDE MAN?!). :tup
I might have articulated a post as elegant as bosk's, had I not a) been tired and bored 2) felt as if I as arguing with people that were determined to condemn all opposing views; especially from a new user 4) been a moderator / administrator who will receive compliments from forum users regardless of what is written down (no offense at all here, bosk. Please don't hurt me).
1. I'm sorry you were tired, but I don't think boredom is an excuse.
2. I think the condemnation you received is more of a result of how you presented yourself than a stubborn desire to suppress all dissenting views.
3/4. I have a degree of respect for bosk, but not because he's an admin, rather he's a really nice guy and although I disagree with him on most things political and religious, he presents his views forth in a respectful manner. That's probably why I like him.
-
You can be gay but still be into women.
For the record, I know several gay guys who have confirmed that boobs are, in fact, awesome.
-
You can be gay but still be into women.
For the record, I know several gay guys who have confirmed that boobs are, in fact, awesome.
Me too
I think MEN in general love boobs. Gay men or straight men.
But gay men have the advantage as they're allowed to squeeze boobs without fear of repercussion because it's 'adorable'
-
You can be gay but still be into women.
For the record, I know several gay guys who have confirmed that boobs are, in fact, awesome.
Me too
I think HUMAN BEINGS in general love boobs. Gay men, straight men, straight women or lesbians.
But gay men have the advantage as they're allowed to squeeze boobs without fear of repercussion because it's 'adorable'
Fix'd
-
2. I think the condemnation you received is more of a result of how you presented yourself than a stubborn desire to suppress all dissenting views.
3/4. I have a degree of respect for bosk, but not because he's an admin, rather he's a really nice guy and although I disagree with him on most things political and religious, he presents his views forth in a respectful manner. That's probably why I like him.
These. The reason Sovereign's opinions got the reactions they did is because he didn't "articulate it in a reasonable manner." Bosk wouldn't get the same reaction because he wouldn't do things like comparing homosexual sex to sex with animals (and it's unfortunate that he feels he would get the same reaction strongly enough that it's kept him from posting).
-
You can be gay but still be into women.
For the record, I know several gay guys who have confirmed that boobs are, in fact, awesome.
Me too
I think HUMAN BEINGS in general love boobs. Gay men, straight men, straight women or lesbians.
But gay men have the advantage as they're allowed to squeeze boobs without fear of repercussion because it's 'adorable'
Fix'd
This.
-
I'm glad this topic has finally been steered to an issue where we all have some common ground. ;D
-
Count on me to steer something to boobs.
-
The fact that gay men are into a nice pair is damned fascinating. This made me think back to a theory that I recall which suggested that men are attracted to tits because it reminds them of a woman's behind. The attraction to the latter being a holdover from our pre-upright ancestry.
I point this out only because it'd be damned funny if while you guys were using male attraction to tits as an example of gay men still appreciating women, the attraction was actually to ass, instead.
-
OK, so the moral of the story is
BOOBS
-
EDIT: reported.
Hey guys! Looks like icy knows how to use the report button! Thanks for letting us all know, icy!
:clap:
-
It's quite unfortunate that this is even an issue. I think almost everyone here would agree that marriage shouldn't even be under the pervue of the government, but there's almost no chance of that changing so we're stuck ion an unnecessary and intensely polarized debate.
-
I left yesterday and I see checking back that this thread has gone 4 more pages :eek
Anyway. I have to rebut some of what is said here Super Dude.
I acknowledge and accept your views, and I assure you I can handle differing opinions. :P
That said, I guess I'm not sure how Christians reconcile their condemnation of homosexuality with the worship of a divine being (Jesus) who was buddy-buddy with a prostitute. Not to mention his preaching to love others as you love yourself, treat others as you want to be treated, forgive your enemy, etc.
Christians have no right to condemn anyone. It's simply not our place. All we should be doing is communicating what God's word says. God is the only judge in our religion and is the only one with the authority to condemn. Jesus has plenty of nasty things to say about "religious" people doing the condemning.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Mathew 7:3-5
That's the most famous verse but there are many many others that prove that Christians are not the one to be condemning. Also, you throw out that Jesus was buddy's with a prostitute and I assume your speaking of Mary Magdalene. But it was Jesus love that Mary left that life style behind and Jesus love can also help gays turn from the homosexual lifestyle as well. I have seen this many times. The grace of Jesus can change lives.
Besides, what about gays and lesbians who are both openly gay and devoutly Christian? I'm certain they exist, so what happens to them?
Look, there are murderers, rapists, robbers, etc that are devoutly Christian. Christians aren't perfect we sin just like non Christians. We are born into a sinful desires and temptations and often give in to them. I know gay Christians. We can agree on how to go to heaven but we don't agree on other things. Most gay Christians choose to be celibate. If we were sinless then Jesus wouldn't have had to come to earth and die on the cross for us.
Are they ostracized by the religious community?
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "ostracized" but certainly a practicing homosexual living in that lifestyle is not going to be openly accepted until they repent (to God). The same thing happens with adulterers. You can't have Christians sleeping around and then leading the music on Sunday mornings. Then you open yourself up to being called hypocrites.
For all their loyalty to God and their adherence to the teachings of Jesus, save that one thing, are they shut out of Heaven just like that?
Here's the most important part that gets lost in all the mud slinging. Christians believe that you simply must believe that Jesus died on the cross an took our sins for us in order to go to heaven. There's no sin scales at the gates of heaven. They're not shut out. The invitation is extended to anyone who will believe. Wackos that get on TV and say that gays can't go to heaven are just flat out not reading the Bible.
-
Most gay Christians choose to be celibate.
You cannot honestly believe this.
Are they ostracized by the religious community?
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "ostracized" but certainly a practicing homosexual living in that lifestyle is not going to be openly accepted until they repent (to God). The same thing happens with adulterers. You can't have Christians sleeping around and then leading the music on Sunday mornings. Then you open yourself up to being called hypocrites.
But everybody sins. So who is fit to "lead the music on Sunday morning"? Or are there certain sins that make you a hypocrite for preaching one thing and doing the other, and others that don't? Why is homosexuality so often singled out as the one sin that disqualifies a person?
-J
-
Wait...is Cole actually banned from P&R because of this thread or is that just something he's put under his name?
-
Wait...is Cole actually banned from P&R because of this thread or is that just something he's put under his name?
Bosk said he was tired of giving out warnings so......
-
Most gay Christians choose to be celibate.
You cannot honestly believe this.
Yes. I know quite a few.
Are they ostracized by the religious community?
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "ostracized" but certainly a practicing homosexual living in that lifestyle is not going to be openly accepted until they repent (to God). The same thing happens with adulterers. You can't have Christians sleeping around and then leading the music on Sunday mornings. Then you open yourself up to being called hypocrites.
But everybody sins. So who is fit to "lead the music on Sunday morning"? Or are there certain sins that make you a hypocrite for preaching one thing and doing the other, and others that don't? Why is homosexuality so often singled out as the one sin that disqualifies a person?
-J
Valid point. I guess you'd have to ask the people that so frequently call us Christians hypocrites.
But I think I can address this issue somewhat. We all sin yes. But there is a difference between people that are trying to live a Godly life and follow Jesus teachings and someone who is publicly living an unGodly life. It's a fine line to try and figure that out with people that are flawed (and we all are). That's probably why so many churches have splits and fighting, because of sin. We're always needing to repent because we're a bunch of screw ups. Homosexuality is often singled out along with adultery and divorce. Those are just the biggies. The Bible also has some pretty strong words about homosexual sin (it also has alot of strong words about pride but many of us are too prideful to deal with that :-\). Also, I think that homosexuality is often singled out the most because it is so difficult to repent and come out of that lifestyle. There's probably a common lack of trust that someone is being genuine many times.
-
I was wondering that as well... :lol
-
Ignore that post, I thought the page ended with Iain's post.
-
Reading through this thread, especially Sovereign's posts, has been a bit of a headache. I think gay marriage should be allowed. There's no reason for it not to be allowed except for people who feel church and state shouldn't be completely separated.
-
Wait...is Cole actually banned from P&R because of this thread or is that just something he's put under his name?
Bosk said he was tired of giving out warnings so......
What a load of bollocks. If anyone should have been knocked out of P&R, it should have been Sovereign. Most tactless person I've ever seen post here.
-
Wait...is Cole actually banned from P&R because of this thread or is that just something he's put under his name?
Bosk said he was tired of giving out warnings so......
What a load of bollocks. If anyone should have been knocked out of P&R, it should have been Sovereign. Most tactless person I've ever seen post here.
Sovereign is great. He's like a mini, not quite as brilliant, version of Disappear.
-
Nah. Disappear was funny.
-
Nah. Disappear was funny.
So is this guy. A gay planet? A computer that automatically blocks out the word homosexual? That's brilliant stuff right there.
-
Nah. Disappear was funny.
So is this guy. A gay planet? A computer that automatically blocks out the word ? That's brilliant stuff right there.
I've still yet to see a good argument against a Homoearth...
-
Other than these?
1. We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2. Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive
-
Other than these?
1. We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2. Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive
I think he means under the assumption that we find a fabulous planet and a red rocket of sorts to get them there.
-
Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive
So much for your banhammer, then. :sadpanda:
I think he means under the assumption that we find a fabulous planet and a red rocket of sorts to get them there.
Shouldn't it be a pink rocket? Or like a purple-headed rocket or something?
-
Other than these?
1. We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2. Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive
I think he means under the assumption that we find a fabulous planet and a red rocket of sorts to get them there.
Considering Earth has a limited capacity that is bound to reach its limit one day, wouldn't it be infinitely more wise to use a habitable planet for colonization instead of just throwing gay people there?
Edit: Double kilo post! Fuck yeah! :metal
-
Other than these?
1. We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2. Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive
Well, I don't imagine it would be a mean-spirited "exile". Think more "Free Willy" and a "Go, make us proud" attitude. And when they finally do leave, we'll watch them depart in giant spacecraft and think "well, there they go..." "Let's hope the best for them".
-
I haven't really been following this thread, because I've lost all hope for talking about this issue seriously. But does anyone want to explain to me what homoearth is?
-
I haven't really been following this thread, because I've lost all hope for talking about this issue seriously. But does anyone want to explain to me what homoearth is?
A different planet where all of the gay people go to.
-
Other than these?
1. We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2. Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive
Well, I don't imagine it would be a mean-spirited "exile". Think more "Free Willy" and a "Go, make us proud" attitude. And when they finally do leave, we'll watch them depart in giant spacecraft and think "well, there they go..." "Let's hope the best for them".
Except that more gay people will be born every day.
-
Other than these?
1. We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2. Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive
Well, I don't imagine it would be a mean-spirited "exile". Think more "Free Willy" and a "Go, make us proud" attitude. And when they finally do leave, we'll watch them depart in giant spacecraft and think "well, there they go..." "Let's hope the best for them".
Except I see no reason why we can't live with gay people in peace.
I haven't really been following this thread, because I've lost all hope for talking about this issue seriously. But does anyone want to explain to me what homoearth is?
... I'd answer but I think I'll let Sovereign Dream do that.
-
I haven't really been following this thread, because I've lost all hope for talking about this issue seriously. But does anyone want to explain to me what homoearth is?
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=15190.msg630565#msg630565
-
Other than these?
1. We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2. Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive
Well, I don't imagine it would be a mean-spirited "exile". Think more "Free Willy" and a "Go, make us proud" attitude. And when they finally do leave, we'll watch them depart in giant spacecraft and think "well, there they go..." "Let's hope the best for them".
Except I see no reason why we can't live with gay people in peace.
Because religion says so, therefore nobody should be allowed to, apparently.
-
I haven't really been following this thread, because I've lost all hope for talking about this issue seriously. But does anyone want to explain to me what homoearth is?
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=15190.msg630565#msg630565
NOW I GET IT!!!! :lol
Seriously, WTF?
-
Other than these?
1. We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2. Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive
Well, I don't imagine it would be a mean-spirited "exile". Think more "Free Willy" and a "Go, make us proud" attitude. And when they finally do leave, we'll watch them depart in giant spacecraft and think "well, there they go..." "Let's hope the best for them".
How on earth would it NOT be mean-spirited?
-
Other than these?
1. We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2. Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive
Well, I don't imagine it would be a mean-spirited "exile". Think more "Free Willy" and a "Go, make us proud" attitude. And when they finally do leave, we'll watch them depart in giant spacecraft and think "well, there they go..." "Let's hope the best for them".
Except I see no reason why we can't live with gay people in peace.
I haven't really been following this thread, because I've lost all hope for talking about this issue seriously. But does anyone want to explain to me what homoearth is?
... I'd answer but I think I'll let Sovereign Dream do that.
I have no doubt gays and straights can co-exist peacefully, but I'm sure some buffer of privacy would be nice. And it would end all conflicts actual gay-haters have with gays here on Earth! I personally see it as a win-win situation.
-
Other than these?
1. We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2. Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive
Well, I don't imagine it would be a mean-spirited "exile". Think more "Free Willy" and a "Go, make us proud" attitude. And when they finally do leave, we'll watch them depart in giant spacecraft and think "well, there they go..." "Let's hope the best for them".
Except I see no reason why we can't live with gay people in peace.
I haven't really been following this thread, because I've lost all hope for talking about this issue seriously. But does anyone want to explain to me what homoearth is?
... I'd answer but I think I'll let Sovereign Dream do that.
I have no doubt gays and straights can co-exist peacefully, but I'm sure some buffer of privacy would be nice. And it would end all conflicts actual gay-haters have with gays here on Earth! I personally see it as a win-win situation.
President Stonewall Jackson had the same idea in regards to the Native Americans. It worked out really well for them in the end.
-
Other than these?
1. We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2. Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive
Well, I don't imagine it would be a mean-spirited "exile". Think more "Free Willy" and a "Go, make us proud" attitude. And when they finally do leave, we'll watch them depart in giant spacecraft and think "well, there they go..." "Let's hope the best for them".
How on earth would it NOT be mean-spirited?
*Ahem*... Imagine an overcrowded, obsolete Earth. Now imagine a lush, virgin, tropical beautiful Homoearth. Through the use of strategic, positive propagnda, and systematically showing through media how beautiful Homoearth is, we would peacefully convince all gays to move the the new Eden-like world while straights wish them the best as they depart in giant spacecraft.
-
I have no doubt gays and straights can co-exist peacefully, but I'm sure some buffer of privacy would be nice. And it would end all conflicts actual gay-haters have with gays here on Earth! I personally see it as a win-win situation.
Am I the only one that thinks it's kinda ironic that SD's avatar reflects a movie based on a largely bisexual society and features the main character eating a banana?
-
Nope:
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=15190.msg631070#msg631070
-
I have no doubt gays and straights can co-exist peacefully, but I'm sure some buffer of privacy would be nice. And it would end all conflicts actual gay-haters have with gays here on Earth! I personally see it as a win-win situation.
Am I the only one that thinks it's kinda ironic that SD's avatar reflects a movie based on a largely and features the main character eating a banana?
BA! NA! NA!
-
Other than these?
1. We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2. Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive
Well, I don't imagine it would be a mean-spirited "exile". Think more "Free Willy" and a "Go, make us proud" attitude. And when they finally do leave, we'll watch them depart in giant spacecraft and think "well, there they go..." "Let's hope the best for them".
How on earth would it NOT be mean-spirited?
*Ahem*... Imagine an overcrowded, obsolete Earth. Now imagine a lush, virgin, tropical beautiful Homoearth. Through the use of strategic, positive propagnda, and systematically showing through media how beautiful Homoearth is, we would peacefully convince all gays to move the the new Eden-like world while straights wish them the best as they depart in giant spacecraft.
Wouldn't it be smarter to use that planet for colonization instead?
I have no doubt gays and straights can co-exist peacefully, but I'm sure some buffer of privacy would be nice. And it would end all conflicts actual gay-haters have with gays here on Earth! I personally see it as a win-win situation.
Am I the only one that thinks it's kinda ironic that SD's avatar reflects a movie based on a largely bisexual society and features the main character eating a banana?
Nope, we discussed that before.
-
I have no doubt gays and straights can co-exist peacefully, but I'm sure some buffer of privacy would be nice. And it would end all conflicts actual gay-haters have with gays here on Earth! I personally see it as a win-win situation.
Am I the only one that thinks it's kinda ironic that SD's avatar reflects a movie based on a largely and features the main character eating a banana?
BA! NA! NA!
LOL.
Guys. I have an idea here.
I think SD is the new *official* forum n00b.
:neverusethis:
-
Other than these?
1. We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2. Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive
Well, I don't imagine it would be a mean-spirited "exile". Think more "Free Willy" and a "Go, make us proud" attitude. And when they finally do leave, we'll watch them depart in giant spacecraft and think "well, there they go..." "Let's hope the best for them".
How on earth would it NOT be mean-spirited?
*Ahem*... Imagine an overcrowded, obsolete Earth. Now imagine a lush, virgin, tropical beautiful Homoearth. Through the use of strategic, positive propagnda, and systematically showing through media how beautiful Homoearth is, we would peacefully convince all gays to move the the new Eden-like world while straights wish them the best as they depart in giant spacecraft.
That would never happen. Gays would just think you're trying to be rid of them (which you are) and I think I can safely say that not a one of them would go peacefully.
Do you really think we can't coexist with the gay community? Because I'm not having any trouble doing so
-
Other than these?
1. We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2. Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive
Well, I don't imagine it would be a mean-spirited "exile". Think more "Free Willy" and a "Go, make us proud" attitude. And when they finally do leave, we'll watch them depart in giant spacecraft and think "well, there they go..." "Let's hope the best for them".
How on earth would it NOT be mean-spirited?
*Ahem*... Imagine an overcrowded, obsolete Earth. Now imagine a lush, virgin, tropical beautiful Homoearth. Through the use of strategic, positive propagnda, and systematically showing through media how beautiful Homoearth is, we would peacefully convince all gays to move the the new Eden-like world while straights wish them the best as they depart in giant spacecraft.
Wouldn't it be smarter to use that planet for colonization instead?
I have no doubt gays and straights can co-exist peacefully, but I'm sure some buffer of privacy would be nice. And it would end all conflicts actual gay-haters have with gays here on Earth! I personally see it as a win-win situation.
Am I the only one that thinks it's kinda ironic that SD's avatar reflects a movie based on a largely and features the main character eating a banana?
Nope, we discussed that before.
"Wouldn't it be smarter to use that planet for colonization instead?"
Indeed: gay colonization...
Besides, I mean no offense here, but they would eventually die out...
-
Other than these?
1. We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2. Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive
Well, I don't imagine it would be a mean-spirited "exile". Think more "Free Willy" and a "Go, make us proud" attitude. And when they finally do leave, we'll watch them depart in giant spacecraft and think "well, there they go..." "Let's hope the best for them".
How on earth would it NOT be mean-spirited?
*Ahem*... Imagine an overcrowded, obsolete Earth. Now imagine a lush, virgin, tropical beautiful Homoearth. Through the use of strategic, positive propagnda, and systematically showing through media how beautiful Homoearth is, we would peacefully convince all gays to move the the new Eden-like world while straights wish them the best as they depart in giant spacecraft.
That would never happen. Gays would just think you're trying to be rid of them (which you are) and I think I can safely say that not a one of them would go peacefully.
Do you really think we can't coexist with the gay community? Because I'm not having any trouble doing so
Neither am I. I have a couple of friends irl that happen to be gay. Don't have a single problem with them. And btw, I like boobs and pussy just as much as any other guy.
-
Other than these?
1. We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2. Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive
Well, I don't imagine it would be a mean-spirited "exile". Think more "Free Willy" and a "Go, make us proud" attitude. And when they finally do leave, we'll watch them depart in giant spacecraft and think "well, there they go..." "Let's hope the best for them".
How on earth would it NOT be mean-spirited?
*Ahem*... Imagine an overcrowded, obsolete Earth. Now imagine a lush, virgin, tropical beautiful Homoearth. Through the use of strategic, positive propagnda, and systematically showing through media how beautiful Homoearth is, we would peacefully convince all gays to move the the new Eden-like world while straights wish them the best as they depart in giant spacecraft.
Wouldn't it be smarter to use that planet for colonization instead?
I have no doubt gays and straights can co-exist peacefully, but I'm sure some buffer of privacy would be nice. And it would end all conflicts actual gay-haters have with gays here on Earth! I personally see it as a win-win situation.
Am I the only one that thinks it's kinda ironic that SD's avatar reflects a movie based on a largely and features the main character eating a banana?
Nope, we discussed that before.
"Wouldn't it be smarter to use that planet for colonization instead?"
Indeed: gay colonization...
Besides, I mean no offense here, but they would eventually die out...
If they would die out, then why waste a beautiful planet on just them? Why not have the entirety of earth colonize it?
-
"Wouldn't it be smarter to use that planet for colonization instead?"
Indeed: gay colonization...
Besides, I mean no offense here, but they would eventually die out...
Uh, I don't think so. There have been gays for as long as we've had recorded history. Why would they not have died out before now?
-
If they would die out, then why waste a beautiful planet on just them? Why not have the entirety of earth colonize it?
Because he doesn't like to have to share his Godly world with teh gheys.
-
Other than these?
1. We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2. Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive
Well, I don't imagine it would be a mean-spirited "exile". Think more "Free Willy" and a "Go, make us proud" attitude. And when they finally do leave, we'll watch them depart in giant spacecraft and think "well, there they go..." "Let's hope the best for them".
How on earth would it NOT be mean-spirited?
*Ahem*... Imagine an overcrowded, obsolete Earth. Now imagine a lush, virgin, tropical beautiful Homoearth. Through the use of strategic, positive propagnda, and systematically showing through media how beautiful Homoearth is, we would peacefully convince all gays to move the the new Eden-like world while straights wish them the best as they depart in giant spacecraft.
That would never happen. Gays would just think you're trying to be rid of them (which you are) and I think I can safely say that not a one of them would go peacefully.
Do you really think we can't coexist with the ? Because I'm not having any trouble doing so
It's not like we would be sending them to Auschwitz; we would basically be sending them to a planet that has continents that all have Hawaii - esque beaches and climate! If you think about it, its a really good deal...
It would almost make me envy their gayness...
-
I guess this is like Hitler and Madagascar.
-
"Wouldn't it be smarter to use that planet for colonization instead?"
Indeed: gay colonization...
Besides, I mean no offense here, but they would eventually die out...
Uh, I don't think so. There have been gays for as long as we've had recorded history. Why would they not have died out before now?
Well...it follows logically that a world full of men would not yield any offspring...right?
-
Exile in Paradise is still exile. It's still someone wanting rid of you because you're "different". There's no amount of hype that would ever make this acceptable.
-
If they would die out, then why waste a beautiful planet on just them? Why not have the entirety of earth colonize it?
Because he doesn't like to have to share his Godly world with teh gheys.
Don't they teach that in kindergarten though? Sharing is caring?
I guess this is like Hitler and Madagascar.
I literally fell out of my chair laughing. :lol
-
Well...it follows logically that a world full of men would not yield any offspring...right?
(https://www.zuguide.com/image/Jeff-Goldblum-Jurassic-Park.3.jpg)
Life finds a way.
-
If they would die out, then why waste a beautiful planet on just them? Why not have the entirety of earth colonize it?
Because he doesn't like to have to share his Godly world with teh gheys.
Don't they teach that in kindergarten though? Sharing is caring?
In kindergarten they do. Not Sunday School.
-
"Wouldn't it be smarter to use that planet for colonization instead?"
Indeed: gay colonization...
Besides, I mean no offense here, but they would eventually die out...
Uh, I don't think so. There have been gays for as long as we've had recorded history. Why would they not have died out before now?
Well...it follows logically that a world full of men would not yield any offspring...right?
You seem to think that if you moved every gay person on Earth to another planet there would never be another gay person born on Earth.
-
Other than these?
1. We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2. Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive
Well, I don't imagine it would be a mean-spirited "exile". Think more "Free Willy" and a "Go, make us proud" attitude. And when they finally do leave, we'll watch them depart in giant spacecraft and think "well, there they go..." "Let's hope the best for them".
How on earth would it NOT be mean-spirited?
*Ahem*... Imagine an overcrowded, obsolete Earth. Now imagine a lush, virgin, tropical beautiful Homoearth. Through the use of strategic, positive propagnda, and systematically showing through media how beautiful Homoearth is, we would peacefully convince all gays to move the the new Eden-like world while straights wish them the best as they depart in giant spacecraft.
Wouldn't it be smarter to use that planet for colonization instead?
I have no doubt gays and straights can co-exist peacefully, but I'm sure some buffer of privacy would be nice. And it would end all conflicts actual gay-haters have with gays here on Earth! I personally see it as a win-win situation.
Am I the only one that thinks it's kinda ironic that SD's avatar reflects a movie based on a largely and features the main character eating a banana?
Nope, we discussed that before.
"Wouldn't it be smarter to use that planet for colonization instead?"
Indeed: gay colonization...
Besides, I mean no offense here, but they would eventually die out...
If they would die out, then why waste a beautiful planet on just them? Why not have the entirety of earth colonize it?
Because, as many of you depict it here on this thread, we owe it to them to have a world were they make their own rules and live lives they way they want to. And besides, it wouldn't be a waste at all. It would alleviate some of Earth's overcrowdednes.
-
"Wouldn't it be smarter to use that planet for colonization instead?"
Indeed: gay colonization...
Besides, I mean no offense here, but they would eventually die out...
Uh, I don't think so. There have been gays for as long as we've had recorded history. Why would they not have died out before now?
Well...it follows logically that a world full of men would not yield any offspring...right?
Nah, cause a lot of gay dudes are secretly bi.
-
"Wouldn't it be smarter to use that planet for colonization instead?"
Indeed: gay colonization...
Besides, I mean no offense here, but they would eventually die out...
Uh, I don't think so. There have been gays for as long as we've had recorded history. Why would they not have died out before now?
Well...it follows logically that a world full of men would not yield any offspring...right?
Because there is no such thing as bisexual women.
If they would die out, then why waste a beautiful planet on just them? Why not have the entirety of earth colonize it?
Because he doesn't like to have to share his Godly world with teh gheys.
Don't they teach that in kindergarten though? Sharing is caring?
In kindergarten they do. Not Sunday School.
Shame. Good thing I never went to Sunday School :biggrin:
-
"Wouldn't it be smarter to use that planet for colonization instead?"
Indeed: gay colonization...
Besides, I mean no offense here, but they would eventually die out...
Uh, I don't think so. There have been gays for as long as we've had recorded history. Why would they not have died out before now?
Well...it follows logically that a world full of men would not yield any offspring...right?
You seem to think that if you moved every gay person on Earth to another planet there would never be another gay person born on Earth.
Oh no, granted, there could be more gay people being born on Earth; we would simply send them off at a good age to live in Gay Paradise...
-
Other than these?
1. We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2. Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive
Well, I don't imagine it would be a mean-spirited "exile". Think more "Free Willy" and a "Go, make us proud" attitude. And when they finally do leave, we'll watch them depart in giant spacecraft and think "well, there they go..." "Let's hope the best for them".
How on earth would it NOT be mean-spirited?
*Ahem*... Imagine an overcrowded, obsolete Earth. Now imagine a lush, virgin, tropical beautiful Homoearth. Through the use of strategic, positive propagnda, and systematically showing through media how beautiful Homoearth is, we would peacefully convince all gays to move the the new Eden-like world while straights wish them the best as they depart in giant spacecraft.
Wouldn't it be smarter to use that planet for colonization instead?
I have no doubt gays and straights can co-exist peacefully, but I'm sure some buffer of privacy would be nice. And it would end all conflicts actual gay-haters have with gays here on Earth! I personally see it as a win-win situation.
Am I the only one that thinks it's kinda ironic that SD's avatar reflects a movie based on a largely and features the main character eating a banana?
Nope, we discussed that before.
"Wouldn't it be smarter to use that planet for colonization instead?"
Indeed: gay colonization...
Besides, I mean no offense here, but they would eventually die out...
If they would die out, then why waste a beautiful planet on just them? Why not have the entirety of earth colonize it?
Because, as many of you depict it here on this thread, we owe it to them to have a world were they make their own rules and live lives they way they want to. And besides, it wouldn't be a waste at all. It would alleviate some of Earth's overcrowdednes.
I'm pretty sure gay people are a very small minority in the world's population.
-
This has to be a troll.
-
"Wouldn't it be smarter to use that planet for colonization instead?"
Indeed: gay colonization...
Besides, I mean no offense here, but they would eventually die out...
Uh, I don't think so. There have been gays for as long as we've had recorded history. Why would they not have died out before now?
Well...it follows logically that a world full of men would not yield any offspring...right?
Nah, cause a lot of gay dudes are secretly bi.
Well, you may not be fully aware of all the premises of Project: Homoearth, but the idea is that men strictly get their own planet while all women get another planet or a couple of moons orbiting Homoearth.
-
Because, as many of you depict it here on this thread, we owe it to them to have a world were they make their own rules and live lives they way they want to. And besides, it wouldn't be a waste at all. It would alleviate some of Earth's overcrowdednes.
So you do not think that they should have the freedom to live their lives as they would like? What you're saying is "I do not want them to enjoy the same freedoms that I do, as a fellow human being. I would prefer that they be singled out and be made to endure separation and persecution that I do not have to endure. You know, because I don't particularly like what they do."
You don't want them to have their own freedoms and rules (like the rest of us), but you want to be entitled to set those rules and freedoms for them and THAT'S okay?
This has to be a troll.
Has to be. Greatest n00b troll ever.
-
"Wouldn't it be smarter to use that planet for colonization instead?"
Indeed: gay colonization...
Besides, I mean no offense here, but they would eventually die out...
Uh, I don't think so. There have been gays for as long as we've had recorded history. Why would they not have died out before now?
Well...it follows logically that a world full of men would not yield any offspring...right?
Nah, cause a lot of gay dudes are secretly bi.
Well, you may not be fully aware of all the premises of Project: Homoearth, but the idea is that strictly get their own planet while all women get another planet or a couple of moons orbiting Homoearth.
"Wouldn't it be smarter to use that planet for colonization instead?"
Indeed: gay colonization...
Besides, I mean no offense here, but they would eventually die out...
Uh, I don't think so. There have been gays for as long as we've had recorded history. Why would they not have died out before now?
Well...it follows logically that a world full of men would not yield any offspring...right?
Nah, cause a lot of gay dudes are secretly bi.
Well, you may not be fully aware of all the premises of Project: Homoearth, but the idea is that men strictly get their own planet while all women get another planet or a couple of moons orbiting Homoearth.
Why in the world would you seperate the men and the women? That's only asking for them to be killed off.
-
Also:
(https://www.atheist-community.org/images/cartoon/2N121218JHy191215Q9eQ.jpg)
-
Other than these?
1. We don't actually have the knowledge of any planet that would work nor the technology to transport people there; and
2. Exiling people who do things we don't like is patently offensive
Well, I don't imagine it would be a mean-spirited "exile". Think more "Free Willy" and a "Go, make us proud" attitude. And when they finally do leave, we'll watch them depart in giant spacecraft and think "well, there they go..." "Let's hope the best for them".
How on earth would it NOT be mean-spirited?
*Ahem*... Imagine an overcrowded, obsolete Earth. Now imagine a lush, virgin, tropical beautiful Homoearth. Through the use of strategic, positive propagnda, and systematically showing through media how beautiful Homoearth is, we would peacefully convince all gays to move the the new Eden-like world while straights wish them the best as they depart in giant spacecraft.
Wouldn't it be smarter to use that planet for colonization instead?
I have no doubt gays and straights can co-exist peacefully, but I'm sure some buffer of privacy would be nice. And it would end all conflicts actual gay-haters have with gays here on Earth! I personally see it as a win-win situation.
Am I the only one that thinks it's kinda ironic that SD's avatar reflects a movie based on a largely and features the main character eating a banana?
Nope, we discussed that before.
"Wouldn't it be smarter to use that planet for colonization instead?"
Indeed: gay colonization...
Besides, I mean no offense here, but they would eventually die out...
If they would die out, then why waste a beautiful planet on just them? Why not have the entirety of earth colonize it?
Because, as many of you depict it here on this thread, we owe it to them to have a world were they make their own rules and live lives they way they want to. And besides, it wouldn't be a waste at all. It would alleviate some of Earth's overcrowdednes.
I'm pretty sure gay people are a very small minority in the world's population.
Fast forward time a couple hundred years (or even a thousand), and I guarantee that Earth will be happy with any alleviations to its population. And if the world follows the typical loose moral extremist liberal douchebaggery galvanized by the US today, I'd think that they gay population would grow significantly over hundreds of years.
And the straight population wouldn't increase at all? And you'd give a whole planet to a minority group that could feasibly benefit the whole of the human race?
Well sir, I know who I'm not voting for in the primary's.
-
Through all this mayhem, you guys have missed a gem:
Well, you may not be fully aware of all the premises of Project: Homoearth, but the idea is that men strictly get their own planet while all women get another planet or a couple of moons orbiting Homoearth.
A troll who's homophobic and sexist? Can we keep him? ;D
-
Through all this mayhem, you guys have missed a gem:
Well, you may not be fully aware of all the premises of Project: Homoearth, but the idea is that men strictly get their own planet while all women get another planet or a couple of moons orbiting Homoearth.
A troll who's homophobic and sexist? Can we keep him? ;D
.............long live the british empire.
-
I have no doubt gays and straights can co-exist peacefully, but I'm sure some buffer of privacy would be nice. And it would end all conflicts actual gay-haters have with gays here on Earth! I personally see it as a win-win situation.
Am I the only one that thinks it's kinda ironic that SD's avatar reflects a movie based on a largely and features the main character eating a banana?
BA! NA! NA!
Evidence that it isn't sovereigns computer blocking out words:
why would bisexual and society both be blocked out?
-
Some interesting reading for anybody at all interested in the topic. Homosexuals are constantly presented with countless questions about their "alternative lifestyle", by heterosexuals who just can't seem to grasp that there is a different way. To illustrate the absurdity of the sh*t that homosexuals have to go through (especially by folks who believe that homosexuality is a choice) with the remarks of others, put your hetero self in their shoes and answer the following questions:
1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?
2. When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual?
3. Is it possible your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?
4. Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?
5. Isn't it possible that all you need is a good gay lover?
6. Heterosexuals have histories of failures in gay relationships. Do you think you may have turned to heterosexuality out of fear of rejection?
7. If you've never slept with a person of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn't prefer that?
8. If heterosexuality is normal, why are a disproportionate number of mental patients heterosexual?
9. To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react?
10. Your heterosexuality doesn't offend me as long as you don't try to force it on me. Why do you people feel compelled to seduce others into your sexual orientation?
11. If you choose to nurture children, would you want them to be heterosexual, knowing the problems they would face?
12. The great majority of child molesters are heterosexuals. Do you really consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual teachers?
13. Why do you insist on being so obvious, and making a public spectacle of your heterosexuality? Can't you just be what you are and keep it quiet?
14. How can you ever hope to become a whole person if you limit yourself to a compulsive, exclusive heterosexual object choice and remain unwilling to explore and develop your normal, natural, healthy, God-given homosexual potential?
15. Heterosexuals are noted for assigning themselves and each other to narrowly restricted, stereotyped sex-roles. Why do you cling to such unhealthy role-playing?
16. Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?
17. With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?
18. How could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual, considering the menace of overpopulation?
19. There seem to be very few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed with which you might be able to change if you really want to. Have you considered aversion therapy?
20. Do heterosexuals hate and/or distrust others of their own sex? Is that what makes them heterosexual?
Martin Rochlin, Ph.D., 1977
-
(https://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs885.snc4/71821_133888759997251_100001283838809_200334_4002127_n.jpg)
Some interesting reading for anybody at all interested in the topic. Homosexuals are constantly presented with countless questions about their "alternative lifestyle", by heterosexuals who just can't seem to grasp that there is a different way. To illustrate the absurdity of the sh*t that homosexuals have to go through (especially by folks who believe that homosexuality is a choice) through the remarks of others, put your hetero self in their shoes and answer the following questions:
1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?
2. When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual?
3. Is it possible your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?
4. Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?
5. Isn't it possible that all you need is a good gay lover?
6. Heterosexuals have histories of failures in gay relationships. Do you think you may have turned to heterosexuality out of fear of rejection?
7. If you've never slept with a person of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn't prefer that?
8. If heterosexuality is normal, why are a disproportionate number of mental patients heterosexual?
9. To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react?
10. Your heterosexuality doesn't offend me as long as you don't try to force it on me. Why do you people feel compelled to seduce others into your sexual orientation?
11. If you choose to nurture children, would you want them to be heterosexual, knowing the problems they would face?
12. The great majority of child molesters are heterosexuals. Do you really consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual teachers?
13. Why do you insist on being so obvious, and making a public spectacle of your heterosexuality? Can't you just be what you are and keep it quiet?
14. How can you ever hope to become a whole person if you limit yourself to a compulsive, exclusive heterosexual object choice and remain unwilling to explore and develop your normal, natural, healthy, God-given homosexual potential?
15. Heterosexuals are noted for assigning themselves and each other to narrowly restricted, stereotyped sex-roles. Why do you cling to such unhealthy role-playing?
16. Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?
17. With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?
18. How could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual, considering the menace of overpopulation?
19. There seem to be very few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed with which you might be able to change if you really want to. Have you considered aversion therapy?
20. Do heterosexuals hate and/or distrust others of their own sex? Is that what makes them heterosexual?
Martin Rochlin, Ph.D., 1977
Win.
-
Through all this mayhem, you guys have missed a gem:
Well, you may not be fully aware of all the premises of Project: Homoearth, but the idea is that men strictly get their own planet while all women get another planet or a couple of moons orbiting Homoearth.
A troll who's homophobic and sexist? Can we keep him? ;D
.............long live the british empire.
Andy's homophobic? This is news to me.
-
I seem to recall him saying that homosexuality was a way for women to emasculate men and make themselves more powerful, or something to that effect.
-
Through all this mayhem, you guys have missed a gem:
Well, you may not be fully aware of all the premises of Project: Homoearth, but the idea is that men strictly get their own planet while all women get another planet or a couple of moons orbiting Homoearth.
A troll who's homophobic and sexist? Can we keep him? ;D
.............long live the british empire.
Andy's homophobic? This is news to me.
I didn't mention andy. :-D
-
Trust me, lifting weights is awesome. Maybe I'll spot you on the bench one day...so long as we keep the gayness at 0.
EDIT: reported.
Reported? Are you kidding me? For humorously offering to spot a kid bench pressing?
Then you should have nothing to worry about.
Seriously, who reports people? It's obvious I'm getting to your head here and you want to "get back" at me. I get it.
Just don't be surprised when you get called a "little girl," you little girl.
YOU GIRLY MAN
Sovereign, when you posted your Fight to Remember thread, I warned you to read the rules. Clearly you have not done this because you seem incapable of refraining from attacking other users, and personal attacks are very much against the rules. Have a week off, and when you come back, you should try and get on with people more, but first and foremost you should obey the rules of this forum.
-
And another one bites the dust.
-
And another one bites the dust.
Dude I was just about to type those exact words.
-
And another one bites the dust.
Dude I was just about to type those exact words.
Great minds think alike!
-
Dammit, and I was just about to post the last counter argument that would finally make him see the err of his ways once and for all.
-
Dammit, and I was just about to post the last counter argument that would finally make him see the err of his ways once and for all.
That's odd I actually wrote up a 7 page response to the monkey argument, but it got deleted.
-
:rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin
-
This thread delivers! I don't usually come to PR, but damnit that was the greatest troll we've had since Valon!
-
That's odd I actually wrote up a 7 page response to the monkey argument, but it got deleted.
OH MY GOD
:lol :lol :rollin :rollin :rollin :lol :lol
-
That's odd I actually wrote up a 7 page response to the monkey argument, but it got deleted.
OH MY GOD
:lol :lol :rollin :rollin :rollin :lol :lol
So it WAS addressed....
-
My take: being gay is OK and it should be accepted.
-
My take: being gay is OK and it should be accepted.
lol
-
Back on topic: Icy, your avatar is ridiculous, WTF is that? :lol
-
Back on topic: Icy, your avatar is ridiculous, WTF is that? :lol
PM. I don't wanna get more off topic ;)
-
What the hell did I just read?! :laugh: 10 pages of troll glory. WOW!!!
-
What the hell did I just read?! :laugh: 10 pages of troll glory. WOW!!!
The sad thing is, I sense sincerity.
I wonder if he'll come back to this thread in a week...
-
What the hell did I just read?! :laugh: 10 pages of troll glory. WOW!!!
The sad thing is, I sense sincerity.
I wonder if he'll come back to this thread in a week...
Really? You sense sincerity? A gay planet? A lesbian moon? A computer that blocks out the word homosexual? You thought he was being serious?
-
What the hell did I just read?! :laugh: 10 pages of troll glory. WOW!!!
The sad thing is, I sense sincerity.
I wonder if he'll come back to this thread in a week...
Really? You sense sincerity? A gay planet? A lesbian moon? A computer that blocks out the word homosexual? You thought he was being serious?
Sadly, I do think he was. It was simply too good to be an act.
-
What the hell did I just read?! :laugh: 10 pages of troll glory. WOW!!!
The sad thing is, I sense sincerity.
I wonder if he'll come back to this thread in a week...
Really? You sense sincerity? A gay planet? A lesbian moon? A computer that blocks out the word homosexual? You thought he was being serious?
Sadly, I do think he was. It was simply too good to be an act.
Although the computer blocking out was definitely fake as I proved earlier in the thread. :p
-
You had to prove that?
Appearently none of you had the priviledge of discussing anything with former brother Disappear. Nothing spartan banana guy said was true. It was a brilliant troll.
-
You had to prove that?
Appearently none of you had the priviledge of discussing anything with former brother Disappear. Nothing spartan banana guy said was true. It was a brilliant troll.
No, apparently he was before my time. Are his posts still up somewhere or am I out of luck? :lol
-
You had to prove that?
Appearently none of you had the priviledge of discussing anything with former brother Disappear. Nothing spartan banana guy said was true. It was a brilliant troll.
No, apparently he was before my time. Are his posts still up somewhere or am I out of luck? :lol
If you go to our distant cousin site, he still posts there. But his posts there are lost in a sea of retardation. I don't know if his stuff here is still up, he was banned quite some time ago for the exact same kind of stuff sparta was. Only he gave off a super overly liberal persona, not an overly catholic conservative one.
-
Sometimes I forget that this is DREAM THEATER forums. So I think trolls would just be an obvious and normal thing to have. But then when I remember this is a site for Dream Theater fans, I wonder why the hell a troll would pick here.
-
Yeah it seems like an unusually obscure locale for trolls. I dunno, maybe we've gained a reputation for tight moderation and they come to test the waters and rock the boat, darned if I know.
-
I have a hard imagining how anyone could have thought Spartan Banana guy was being serious toward the end, but whatever. Spamming the thread with a bunch of joke posts is just as bad as insulting someone once, I guess.
I like Spartan Banana guy, though. Hope he comes back after his vacation.
-
I have a hard imagining how anyone could have thought Spartan Banana guy was being serious toward the end, but whatever. Spamming the thread with a bunch of joke posts is just as bad as insulting someone once, I guess.
I like Spartan Banana guy, though. Hope he comes back after his vacation.
:eyebrows:
-
Superdude,
Take my hand. Come and see the wonders of homoearth with me.
:neverusethis:
-
(https://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs448.ash2/72169_134263959959731_100001283838809_202328_964777_n.jpg)
-
:lol
-
Time for a new P/R poll: Homoearth: Utopian Paradise, Dystopian Nightmare, or neither?
Do you support homoearth? If the free-market brought it about, would you?
-
(https://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs448.ash2/72169_134263959959731_100001283838809_202328_964777_n.jpg)
:rollin
-
Actually, why don't we keep the gay people on this "obsolete world" and send the heteros to homoearth and just name it heteroearth? If it's so great then why would you want to send gay people there instead of yourself and the people you are comfortable with? Just wondering...(I guess he'll have to answer this when he comes back, although i don't know why I'm even asking the troll a question)
-
Actually, why don't we keep the gay people on this "obsolete world" and send the heteros to homoearth and just name it heteroearth? If it's so great then why would you want to send gay people there instead of yourself and the people you are comfortable with? Just wondering...(I guess he'll have to answer this when he comes back, although i don't know why I'm even asking the troll a question)
Cause why would us MEN want to go to some place called Homoearth? That's pretty gay.
As for renaming it, why not rename anal sex "almost vaginal sex"? Cause we don't rename things.
-
And just so we're clear, constantly calling someone a "troll" and harassing them for every post simply because they have extreme views (even if you might personally consider them extremely dumb views) is, plain and simple, a personal attack. And the fact that we have page after page of that exact conduct is the type of thing that is heading this board for a shut-down.
-
And just so we're clear, constantly calling someone a "troll" and harassing them for every post simply because they have extreme views (even if you might personally consider them extremely dumb views) is, plain and simple, a personal attack. And the fact that we have page after page of that exact conduct is the type of thing that is heading this board for a shut-down.
Maybe its the kind of home I grew up in, but if you said something really dumb, you were told "Hey, that was really stupid. Don't be a dumbshit". Do it twice and you got told "I thought I told you not to be a dumbshit, dumbshit." Do it a third time and it wouldn't be pretty :lol
I know this forum works differently and all, and I respect that but I think that's part of the average person's mindset to call someone out if they say something dumb.
-
People that never go near P/R were dropping in just to rag on the guy. He hasn't posted in three days, and yet the thread lives on.
I'm sure he got the message that his opinions were pretty radical and unfounded.
-J
-
Personally, I like people with radical opinions. Extremists have actually made P/R more entertaining lately. I agree with Bosk that the incessant troll badgering is more of a nuisance than the posters themselves. I think he's taking it far too seriously, but his point is valid. The regular posters here have been more disruptive than the so-called trolls.
-
Personally, I like people with radical opinions. Extremists have actually made P/R more entertaining lately. I agree with Bosk that the incessant troll badgering is more of a nuisance than the posters themselves. I think he's taking it far too seriously, but his point is valid. The regular posters here have been more disruptive than the so-called trolls.
Problem is, someone who is posting radical opinions for the sake of shaking up the whole board and getting a lot of reactions is the definition of a troll (Not calling anyone out here.......) . And trolls tend to disrupt good conversation so there becomes a mentality to purge the forum of the troll so it can resume normally once more. After all, you don't see too much badgering between the normal P/R posters, do you?
I mean, I really can't blame others for calling him a troll given his actions. I've seen people act in the exact same way and stir up a lot of trouble like that very easily before on other sites. After all, what better way to stir up a bunch of atheists than to pose as a hard-lined evangelical (regardless if you actually believe it or not) in an atheist forum? You'll get a lot of attention before you even know it! Or vice versa, posing as a militant atheist in a heavily christian forum would pretty much do the same thing. You'll get called out for being a troll by the whole place anyway.
-
I don't regret calling someone out on deeply intolerant beliefs, especially considering that it's this same type of casual cruelty which lies behind a lot of the recent suicides amongst gay teens.
If he had come in here and suggested that all Muslims be rounded up and sent to "Terrarist" or something you can be sure he would've been banned in a heartbeat.
-
I don't regret calling someone out on deeply intolerant beliefs, especially considering that it's this same type of casual cruelty which lies behind a lot of the recent suicides amongst gay teens.
If he had come in here and suggested that all Muslims be rounded up and sent to "Terrarist" or something you can be sure he would've been banned in a heartbeat.
To be fair I did jokingly suggest that all christians be rounded up and sent to a different planet, I wasn't warned or anything.
-
Personally, I like people with radical opinions. Extremists have actually made P/R more entertaining lately. I agree with Bosk that the incessant troll badgering is more of a nuisance than the posters themselves. I think he's taking it far too seriously, but his point is valid. The regular posters here have been more disruptive than the so-called trolls.
I agree.
Problem is, someone who is posting radical opinions for the sake of shaking up the whole board and getting a lot of reactions is the definition of a troll (Not calling anyone out here.......) . And trolls tend to disrupt good conversation so there becomes a mentality to purge the forum of the troll so it can resume normally once more. After all, you don't see too much badgering between the normal P/R posters, do you?
How do you know his goal was just to shake things up? On a board where most of us are pretty moderate about something like gay marriage, it's refreshing to have a different perspective to look at, even if you or I consider it totally ridiculous. That doesn't mean the guy has nothing to offer, or that we have nothing to learn from him (potentially). It's too bad that anybody with a radical view of something gets beaten into submission by a bunch of equally useless emotional posts instead of being given the opportunity to reasonably defend himself.
I mean not just anybody can mastermind something like project: homoearth. SovereignDream, I hope we see you again one day, sweet prince.
-J
-
Problem is, someone who is posting radical opinions for the sake of shaking up the whole board and getting a lot of reactions is the definition of a troll (Not calling anyone out here.......) . And trolls tend to disrupt good conversation so there becomes a mentality to purge the forum of the troll so it can resume normally once more. After all, you don't see too much badgering between the normal P/R posters, do you?
How do you know his goal was just to shake things up? On a board where most of us are pretty moderate about something like gay marriage, it's refreshing to have a different perspective to look at, even if you or I consider it totally ridiculous. That doesn't mean the guy has nothing to offer, or that we have nothing to learn from him (potentially). It's too bad that anybody with a radical view of something gets beaten into submission by a bunch of equally useless emotional posts instead of being given the opportunity to reasonably defend himself.
I mean not just anybody can mastermind something like project: homoearth. SovereignDream, I hope we see you again one day, sweet prince.
-J
If I made a topic saying that we should send all Christians to another planet and leave this one for all the non-believers and presented it in a serious fashion, I can guarantee you that I would be banned.
Sometimes, you just "know". After you've seen many trolls in a lot of political/religious arguments in the past, you just get to the point where you know when someone is only there to get a rise out of everyone and nothing else.
-
It isn't his views, it's the matter in which he states them that pisses me off. I know people disapprove of gay marriage and/or gay acts and give a perfectly articulate statement as to why without pissing people off. Whether that opinion is bullshit or not is irrelevant. You have to get your opinion across without calling someone a 'little sissy' or other names because it makes you look like an idiot.
Problem is, someone who is posting radical opinions for the sake of shaking up the whole board and getting a lot of reactions is the definition of a troll (Not calling anyone out here.......) . And trolls tend to disrupt good conversation so there becomes a mentality to purge the forum of the troll so it can resume normally once more. After all, you don't see too much badgering between the normal P/R posters, do you?
How do you know his goal was just to shake things up? On a board where most of us are pretty moderate about something like gay marriage, it's refreshing to have a different perspective to look at, even if you or I consider it totally ridiculous. That doesn't mean the guy has nothing to offer, or that we have nothing to learn from him (potentially). It's too bad that anybody with a radical view of something gets beaten into submission by a bunch of equally useless emotional posts instead of being given the opportunity to reasonably defend himself.
I mean not just anybody can mastermind something like project: homoearth. SovereignDream, I hope we see you again one day, sweet prince.
-J
If I made a topic saying that we should send all Christians to another planet and leave this one for all the non-believers and presented it in a serious fashion, I can guarantee you that I would be banned.
Sometimes, you just "know". After you've seen many trolls in a lot of political/religious arguments in the past, you just get to the point where you know when someone is only there to get a rise out of everyone and nothing else.
this too.
-
If I made a topic saying that we should send all Christians to another planet and leave this one for all the non-believers and presented it in a serious fashion, I can guarantee you that I would be banned.
No, you wouldn't. I don't think you would be very well respected for posting such a silly thing, but you wouldn't be banned for it provided your posts follwed the rules. But that's beside the point. Bottom line is, you may think you "know" when somebody is trolling. If you think someone is trolling, and it's to the point where it is bothering you and/or disrupting discussion, your job is to report it. Your job is not to yourself attack the person posting or add to a pile of "loltroll" posts. It is up to me (and the mods), not you, to decide whether to ban someone for trolling (or other violations). If you insist on attacking the person yourself, you are likely to be the person to get warned or banned.
-
If I made a topic saying that we should send all Christians to another planet and leave this one for all the non-believers and presented it in a serious fashion, I can guarantee you that I would be banned.
No, you wouldn't. I don't think you would be very well respected for posting such a silly thing, but you wouldn't be banned for it provided your posts follwed the rules. But that's beside the point. Bottom line is, you may think you "know" when somebody is trolling. If you think someone is trolling, and it's to the point where it is bothering you and/or disrupting discussion, your job is to report it. Your job is not to yourself attack the person posting or add to a pile of "loltroll" posts. It is up to me (and the mods), not you, to decide whether to ban someone for trolling (or other violations). If you insist on attacking the person yourself, you are likely to be the person to get warned or banned.
Well given that I'm not a Christian, I would assume the topic would be taken as a personal attack against Christianity and thus, trolling. But I guess not.
I suppose its the byproduct of too much exposure to trolls because when I see that happening, that's exactly what hits my thought process is "lol this guy is so trolling, *grabs popcorn*". Nearly impossible to find a place on the internet without having someone decide to start trolling the place, so I'm just too incredibly used to saying "lol troll".
-
In the defense of P/R regulars, he was doing more than posting controversial views in an inflammatory manner. He was also personally demeaning to people on the other side of the argument, and bordered on defamation of gays and lesbians.
-
In the defense of P/R regulars, he was doing more than posting controversial views in an inflammatory manner. He was also personally demeaning to people on the other side of the argument, and bordered on defamation of gays and lesbians.
I noticed this too, and he was baiting those on the opposite side of the argument to attack him (at least that's how I saw it).
This is off topic at this point though
but yeah, I think that the gay community should be able to do whatever it wants with regards to marriage
-
In the defense of P/R regulars, he was doing more than posting controversial views in an inflammatory manner. He was also personally demeaning to people on the other side of the argument, and bordered on defamation of gays and lesbians.
I pretty much agree with that, but bosk makes a very good point, if you suspect or even "know" that someone is trolling, posting "loltroll" is childish and makes even less contribution to the discussion than the alleged troll. Just report them and let the mods take action where necessary.
-
Yeah, I concede it should've been reported, although I'd argue 73109 and Icy tried to engage in legitimate debate, and it wasn't immediately clear that SovereignDream was trolling.
-
Yeah, I concede it should've been reported, although I'd argue 73109 and Icy tried to engage in legitimate debate, and it wasn't immediately clear that SovereignDream was trolling.
Indeed. Although sadly Cole's ability to argue coherently over something he feels strongly about leaves something to be desired. :lol
-
Problem is, someone who is posting radical opinions for the sake of shaking up the whole board and getting a lot of reactions is the definition of a troll (Not calling anyone out here.......) . And trolls tend to disrupt good conversation so there becomes a mentality to purge the forum of the troll so it can resume normally once more. After all, you don't see too much badgering between the normal P/R posters, do you?
How do you know his goal was just to shake things up? On a board where most of us are pretty moderate about something like gay marriage, it's refreshing to have a different perspective to look at, even if you or I consider it totally ridiculous. That doesn't mean the guy has nothing to offer, or that we have nothing to learn from him (potentially). It's too bad that anybody with a radical view of something gets beaten into submission by a bunch of equally useless emotional posts instead of being given the opportunity to reasonably defend himself.
Yeah, therein lies the problem. Having an outlandish opinion isn't trolling if you're intention is to promote and defend it. My take on trolling is that the intention is the key. If you're only looking to rile people up for LOLs, then it's problematic. I didn't get that out of him.
Epicview was a better example. I considered his posts to me no less misguided, but he was eager to defend them. Yet the same problem with him being dismissed as a troll every other post existed.
Furthermore, while I didn't feel interested in reading through 5 pages of silliness, I didn't see any baiting or personal attacks from him in what I did read. I thought his weightlifting comment to Icy was pretty amusing. The problem was that he wasn't in a position to pull off facetiousness, yet. I suspect that if I'd said that to Icy, he would have made a joke about it and all would have been kosher.
-
Oh, so now it's okay to derail the thread with anti-Semitic comments? Barto, consider this your final warning. Next time is a perm banfrom every Jewish deli in town
-
I suspect that if I'd said that to Icy, he would have made a joke about it and all would have been kosher.
Yes.
-
Oh, so now it's okay to derail the thread with anti-Semitic comments? Barto, consider this your final warning. Next time is a perm banfrom every Jewish deli in town
:rollin Nicely done.
-
Oh, so now it's okay to derail the thread with anti-Semitic comments? Barto, consider this your final warning. Next time is a perm banfrom every Jewish deli in town
I lol'd
-
In the defense of P/R regulars, he was doing more than posting controversial views in an inflammatory manner. He was also personally demeaning to people on the other side of the argument, and bordered on defamation of gays and lesbians.
I noticed this too, and he was baiting those on the opposite side of the argument to attack him (at least that's how I saw it).
What? We all do this kind of stuff all the time. He was saying dumb stuff and so were 90210 and everybody. Eventually he took it too far, but there were quite a few people contributing to making the thread shitty. Possibly including myself. And at this point, *definitely* including myself.
I understand there have to be rules, and I appreciate them. But it seems like a lot of people here are just overly sensitive and need to lighten up. It's an internet forum.
-J
-
Oh, so now it's okay to derail the thread with anti-Semitic comments? Barto, consider this your final warning. Next time is a perm banfrom every Jewish deli in town
Dude, this is Texas. Jewish delicatessens!. Your threats are hollow.