Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by upallnight

Also btw, you can talk about how me putting my penis inside a vagina is being "natural" all you want.  But I promise you that nothing in the whole world could ever make that feel "natural" or desirable to me.

What about in her pooper?

It's that whole "her" thing.

However, that dancing banana sure gets me hot. 

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Tymoris

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff

I've also read multiple responses by people that there is nothing about being a homosexual that is good, nobody would ever choose to be a homosexual, and if it were possible, homosexuals would rather be straight. These are things said by you very pro-anarchists here. With this being identified, I believe then that our new concern should be how do we best cure this disease in order to provide homosexual people with the correct life path and allow them to be happy like the rest of us... or perhaps I read what you said wrong.

You are absolutely right, we should transfer all gays into camps, along with the elderly, muslim, communists, liberals and people with IQ's below 120 to cure them all once and for all and march to our utopia.

What if you are an elderly gay muslim communist who is borderline retarded?

 

You can be content that you aren't a disgusting liberal ;)

 

Holy shit! That made me laugh. That was too funny. 

You gain +500 humor xp.

lol indeed

Originally posted by outfctrl

This is really getting old.  The people of the US do not want this, but it still comes up on the ballot to vote on. 

Give it a rest already.

 Domestic Partnership is fine, but not Marriage.

20 years ago the vote would not of been as close as 53% - why should they give up now?  They're winning.

Originally posted by upallnight

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by upallnight

Also btw, you can talk about how me putting my penis inside a vagina is being "natural" all you want.  But I promise you that nothing in the whole world could ever make that feel "natural" or desirable to me.

What about in her pooper?

It's that whole "her" thing.

However, that dancing banana sure gets me hot. 

Yeah! You like that don't you?

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by upallnight

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by upallnight

Also btw, you can talk about how me putting my penis inside a vagina is being "natural" all you want.  But I promise you that nothing in the whole world could ever make that feel "natural" or desirable to me.

What about in her pooper?

It's that whole "her" thing.

However, that dancing banana sure gets me hot. 

 

Yeah! You like that don't you?

Oh, goodness. 

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by Gameloading

What you're doing is pretty much using the just because argument.
imagine if we all started to introduce laws limiting other peoples freedom and just use just because as an argument.
What if a law was introduced that says you can't mow your lawn, just because?

I don't know if gay marriage will be accepted all across the US in our lifetime. I think it will considering there are already states accepting it.

Saying a group of people should not be allowed to get married is a huge violation of their freedom. If you want to cut on somebodies freedom like that, you better come up with a convincing argument.

What is so terrible about gay marriage that we should put a ban on it?

Well, another point.

Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget. Invokes incest and marrying children.

 

What did you expect? Supporting gay marriage is political suicide as a president in the US. The US is very far behind other nations from a social aspect.
 

Originally posted by Gameloading

The US is very far behind other nations from a social aspect.

It's amazing of your arrogance in that simple statement. I can easily turn the tables and state the US is so far ahead other nations from a social aspect.

And you always speak of arrogant Americans - nice hypocrisy there.

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Gameloading

The US is very far behind other nations from a social aspect.

It's amazing of your arrogance in that simple statement. I can easily turn the tables and state the US is so far ahead other nations from a social aspect.

And you always speak of arrogant Americans - nice hypocrisy there.

 

His arrogance is a direct result of his ignorance. He is what we might call a "child of the NGE." To learn more and gain a deeper understanding would involve "too much reading."

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by Gameloading

What you're doing is pretty much using the just because argument.
imagine if we all started to introduce laws limiting other peoples freedom and just use just because as an argument.
What if a law was introduced that says you can't mow your lawn, just because?

I don't know if gay marriage will be accepted all across the US in our lifetime. I think it will considering there are already states accepting it.

Saying a group of people should not be allowed to get married is a huge violation of their freedom. If you want to cut on somebodies freedom like that, you better come up with a convincing argument.

What is so terrible about gay marriage that we should put a ban on it?

Well, another point.

Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget. Invokes incest and marrying children.

 

What did you expect? Supporting gay marriage is political suicide as a president in the US. The US is very far behind other nations from a social aspect.
 

I don't understand where the morals and social barriers come in with people like you. What reason do I have to believe that you're not just an anarchist who would agree with the statement "everybody should be able to do whatever they want to do, be whoever they want to be, love whoever they want to love, and nobody should stand in their way at all"?

zchmrkenhoff, why didn't you tell us that you write editorials for The Oninion?

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

zchmrkenhoff, why didn't you tell us that you write editorials for The Oninion?

I'm not a cliche.

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Gameloading

The US is very far behind other nations from a social aspect.

It's amazing of your arrogance in that simple statement. I can easily turn the tables and state the US is so far ahead other nations from a social aspect.

And you always speak of arrogant Americans - nice hypocrisy there.

 

Why am I arrogant for simply pointing out that the US is behind other nations from a social aspect? Loads of people criticize other nations all the time, yourself included, but that's okay as long as it's not the US? 

I always speak arrogant of Americans? That's not true and you know it. I'm dissapointed in you Dekron, I'd expect lies to make somebody look bad ffrom someone like Fishermage, but not from you.

There is significantly more gay hate in the US than many other western nations.

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by Gameloading

What you're doing is pretty much using the just because argument.
imagine if we all started to introduce laws limiting other peoples freedom and just use just because as an argument.
What if a law was introduced that says you can't mow your lawn, just because?

I don't know if gay marriage will be accepted all across the US in our lifetime. I think it will considering there are already states accepting it.

Saying a group of people should not be allowed to get married is a huge violation of their freedom. If you want to cut on somebodies freedom like that, you better come up with a convincing argument.

What is so terrible about gay marriage that we should put a ban on it?

Well, another point.

Obama defends DOMA in federal court. Says banning gay marriage is good for the federal budget. Invokes incest and marrying children.

 

What did you expect? Supporting gay marriage is political suicide as a president in the US. The US is very far behind other nations from a social aspect.
 

 

I don't understand where the morals and social barriers come in with people like you. What reason do I have to believe that you're not just an anarchist who would agree with the statement "everybody should be able to do whatever they want to do, be whoever they want to be, love whoever they want to love, and nobody should stand in their way at all"?

Believing people should be able to do what they want within reason are not the views of only an anarchist.

You continue to use strawman logic. Desperately trying to uphold your view that homosexuality is a choice despite the fact organizations which treated homosexuality as something can be changed have terrible trackrecord and this view is rejected by the APA.

You're unable to argue why homosexuality is wrong or gay marriage should be banned with any logical evidence.

Xenophobia. Typical. People are afraid of what they don't know. The ads that were used in Maine ratcheted up that fear X1000.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Except there is no hard evidence that confirms playing with girls make a boy gay. These are all old silly prejudices that are being made fun of in sitcoms.
You might be introduced to your political upbringing, but you gain info from lots of other sources of information as well.
This isn't the case with homosexuality. In fact, society strongly encourages relationships between a man and a woman. When was the last time you have seen a gay couple in a children cartoon? I can't think of a single one. Yet these kids still grow up to be homosexuals.

The idea that homosexuality is a conscious choice is ridiculous. There is no benefit to being gay. Just take a look at all the discrimination in the western world, nevermind the middle east.

I think the reason why you think homosexuality is a choice is because you want homosexuality to be a choice. You dislike homosexuality, but since you don't want to be bigot you have convinced yourself that some people made immoral decisions.
It's one of the biggest reasons why the US is so far behind other from a social perspective

Closet human governemnt ruling over others is the ultimate aim of where this lies.

I can't accept that and you won't be able to sneak it past me.

You strip away natural, Creator, given rights whenever you determine humans had to be "programmed the determined science way".

You explain free will/choice as envinronmental variables, cells, and genes. You're changing the wording in order to pass down the scientific ruling but were still explaining free will, before the definition warped, even if one can't see it.

Anyway how does this effect abortion in the pro-choice community? You won't be able to call it that any longer.

(Even though I think right to life collides with reproductive rights)

What about homosexual women that go on to find husbands, forgoing the same sex, and start a family? You're going to tell me they were bi-sexual all this time with a straight face? Why weren't they pursuing both sexes? They were "programmed" your determined way and should be doing just that.

Science doesn't gain a gold medal for trying to supplant the so called "worse other side". You've become worse than what is hostilely percieved against.

You can keep that in your country but in the US I hope we don't subsribe to a numbered majority rule by scientists or a left leaning idealogy. It's not what our checks & balances are about nor the spirit of our Declaration of Independence. We have free will to determine our choices. Gay marraige or not.

You still depend upon a numbered majority, evidenced by your multiple science fields trying to explain/rule our lives previously discussed between us, while beliefs don't require such to be accepted in those believing as Christians and us Catholics are still around.

P.S. My unbringing is pure leftist idealogy. I've broken 27/32 years of being leftist and now have made my own choice to pursue a pseudo-Republican/Idependent conservative political line of thought. Key word: choice

Also since when the heck do choices have to reward benefits for attainment? Some people choose something because they like it or it's right. Ah more rewording changes to fit benefit into liking. Ah okay.

Originally posted by zzvicezz

If its a choice then its a choice.

If its not a choice and is genetic/whatever then it is clearly a genetic/whatever abnormality with the potential to be cured.

Either way the activists lose..so you might note that they dropped the "its not a choice" and the "its a choice" routine about 3-5 years ago.

 

For the past couple years they have fallen back on the simplistic scream someone is a hatemonger routine. Its simpler and easier for the idiots with signs.

 

 

You are also my hero. In a way. I was sort of sarcastic when I raised the point regarding this, where I claimed that because nobody wants to be a homosexual and nobody would choose it, then it must be a genetic disorder or disease that should be cured for the betterment of those so-afflicted, but that doesn't seem right, I was sort of insulting those people as I'm quite positive there are many people that are quite happy being gay and would gladly choose it.

My argument is, just do your biz in secrecy and privacy. I hate to rehash the old anarchist argument, but, if you want to fiddle about with the same sex, your dog, or your mother, just do it in the privacy of your own home and don't tell us about it... it'd be a lot better for everybody.

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff

Originally posted by zzvicezz

If its a choice then its a choice.

If its not a choice and is genetic/whatever then it is clearly a genetic/whatever abnormality with the potential to be cured.

Either way the activists lose..so you might note that they dropped the "its not a choice" and the "its a choice" routine about 3-5 years ago.

 

For the past couple years they have fallen back on the simplistic scream someone is a hatemonger routine. Its simpler and easier for the idiots with signs.

 

 

You are also my hero. In a way. I was sort of sarcastic when I raised the point regarding this, where I claimed that because nobody wants to be a homosexual and nobody would choose it, then it must be a genetic disorder or disease that should be cured for the betterment of those so-afflicted, but that doesn't seem right, I was sort of insulting those people as I'm quite positive there are many people that are quite happy being gay and would gladly choose it.

My argument is, just do your biz in secrecy and privacy. I hate to rehash the old anarchist argument, but, if you want to fiddle about with the same sex, your dog, or your mother, just do it in the privacy of your own home and don't tell us about it... it'd be a lot better for everybody.

I see you're still trying to make a point without anything backing up your statement. If homosexuality can be changed, nobody has figured out how to do it. Organizations that have been claiming to be able to cure homosexuality have awful trackrecords and such organizations are kicked out of pretty much any semi serious psychological association.
 

You don't really have an argument. An argument is something that has logic or evidence to back it up. You have neither, you expect people to be secrecy (which is definitely not better for everybody) for no good reason.

I'm actually quite baffled at your response. You actually think homosexuality equals sex with dogs and your mother, and anybody who does it see it that way is an anarchist? Thats just nonsense.

A relationship that's between two members of the same sex isn't just about sexual relationship. It's an experience of love and I think it deserves respect because of that. I find your suggestion that these people are not allowed to express their love in public to be very close minded. I'd love to know why you think that it's better for everybody if it's kept in secret.

Also Narug, you're going to have to rephrase your post if you want me to respond to it. I went over it 3 times and I still have no idea what you're trying to say.

I have many gay friends and this is sure to displease them.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff

Originally posted by zzvicezz

I see you're still trying to make a point without anything backing up your statement. If homosexuality can be changed, nobody has figured out how to do it. Organizations that have been claiming to be able to cure homosexuality have awful trackrecords and such organizations are kicked out of pretty much any semi serious psychological association.
 

You don't really have an argument. An argument is something that has logic or evidence to back it up. You have neither, you expect people to be secrecy (which is definitely not better for everybody) for no good reason.

I'm actually quite baffled at your response. You actually think homosexuality equals sex with dogs and your mother, and anybody who does it see it that way is an anarchist? Thats just nonsense.

A relationship that's between two members of the same sex isn't just about sexual relationship. It's an experience of love and I think it deserves respect because of that. I find your suggestion that these people are not allowed to express their love in public to be very close minded. I'd love to know why you think that it's better for everybody if it's kept in secret.

Also Narug, you're going to have to rephrase your post if you want me to respond to it. I went over it 3 times and I still have no idea what you're trying to say.

Well I don't know, they keep researching how to cure it, they shouldn't give up if it's really a disease. The thing is, I don't think it's a disease and think the individual themselves just needs the motivation to choose against homosexuality.

I don't know what logic and evidence mean in your world and I don't quite understand bt I can still try I suppose.... homosexuality equals sex with dogs and your mother as they go against the default vision and goal of a successful society which is promoting the nuclear family. I don't know if anybody is going to try to argue that the nuclear family isn't the most prominent type of family, as well as the most successful type of family to raise children and function properly, but if they are, then I also make the sweeping bold-generalization that the nuclear family is the best type of family.

If people choose to not participate in the nuclear family and thus let their lineage die with their death then I would encourage them to do their gay thing in privacy so as not to detract from those who do wish to make the choice to participate in one. I realize that it is an experience of love, as, like homosexuality, love isn't a lightswitch that turns on or off but is realistically a collection of properties, feelings,and all that shared by two people. If people so choose to be in a homosexual relationship, regardless of if they are in love or not, and if it makes them happy, then that is wonderful for them, I just hope they have the respect for the rest of us to conduct their operations in privacy. A strong, unified society promotes the nuclear family above all, reveres such a family, and encourages it.

I still fail to see what the relevance is between whether it is chosen or not, at least insofar as gay marriage is an issue. If is genetic, people won themselves and have the right to contract with other people for lifetime alliance -- called marriage or whatever; if it is chosen, people still have the same right.

Sounds like a diversion from the real issue to me.