Prop 8 upheld - Page 12

2b-Rigtheous

Korea (South)50 Posts

May 30 2009 03:01 GMT

#221

I for one am glad they upheld prop 8. It's getting to the point of ridiculous now. If they pass homosexual marriage, then it becomes normal. Our kids will be exposed to this, and there is a lot of evidence that suggests environmental factors play a huge role in making one homosexual or not. I certainly don't want my future kids to think being homosexual is normal and fine, when it clearly isn't.

Oh, but sorry, "I'm so close-minded and need to move with the times" Give me a break... We're honestly going backwards, not forwards. Homosexual culture in Ancient Greece was around for a long time, it's nothing new!!!! The family unit has all but been, destroyed and it is because of all this political correct 'nonsense' that they feed us in the media. Now please don't misunderstand me, I have nothing against homosexuals at all (my best friend is a homosexual), but I do have a problem with normalizing it in our society.

expendable

United States17 Posts

May 30 2009 03:02 GMT

#222

Oh, I'm glad you think it's laughable even though, the Bill of Rights and US Constitution clearly expresses that marriage is not a right. If you believe it is a right, then you agree with NAMBLA, pedophilia, polygamy, etc. You can't just extend rights to one group, or a few groups, a right is specific to all groups. Think this through before you start down the road of 'marriage is a right, not a benefit'

Marriage is not the right - the right is equal protection under the law, which this is blatantly not. Marriage is not the issue here, the issue is that some people think it is OK to have different laws for different people (in this case, gays instead of blacks) - which is exactly what started the civil rights movement.

It is impossible, for two non-human females to fuck each other. You have to have a penis (Not necessarily, in the human sense, since dildo's fill the niche of sexual intercourse), to fuck, this is called copulation, or sexual intercourse. What is so hard to comprehend.

It is impossible for two members of the same gender to reproduce. I'm sure no one is disagreeing with you on this. Stop avoiding the actual issues.

Idle

Korea (South)124 Posts

May 30 2009 03:04 GMT

#223

On May 30 2009 11:57 Aegraen wrote:

Show nested quote +

On May 30 2009 11:49 Idle wrote:

On May 30 2009 11:28 Aegraen wrote:

On May 30 2009 11:21 Idle wrote:

On May 30 2009 11:15 Aegraen wrote:

On May 30 2009 11:12 scwizard wrote:

On May 30 2009 11:07 Aegraen wrote:

On May 30 2009 10:53 scwizard wrote:

On May 30 2009 09:13 Aegraen wrote:
Please, homosexuals stop trying to impose your ideology onto others. It's getting a tad ridiculous. You aren't happy with having the same benefits in civil unions, you just want to the name 'marriage' and to impose your views on everyone.

I have heard from homosexuals that the homosexual agenda is to make gay marriage legal, so that homosexuality will begin to be considered something that's normal in our culture.

Truly this terrible agenda must be stopped :O

Homosexuality, isn't normal. Propagation of the species is hardcoded into all species. Something that a tiny minority of the country does, isn't normal. (I'm waiting for, but, but, animals have same-sex also!) I'll pay 50$ to the first person who can show me how two female non-humans can fuck. Also, while it may happen, and rarely at that, two males having sex in the wild (lions, zebra, spiders, what have you), is not the norm.

With the laws of propagation and nature out of the way, I don't care one iota what gays do in their lives. I'm for, civil unions. I also am for abolishment of state derived benefits to all parties. Gays have every single right entitled to them as citizens of the USA under the Bill of Rights, US Constitution, and Declaration of Independence (throwing this one here, just for the hell of it). The day that gays are denied one of the rights entitled to all citizens of this country, will be the day I'll stand up for them.

At least we stopped calling it a right.

We're using normal to mean different things here. I'm using normal to mean:
Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard
So basically, something that's is part of the standard culture.

While you're using it to mean:
Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.

Are you saying that nothing biologically unnatural should be culturally acceptable? Because that's a pretty absurd stance to take.

No, what I'm saying is that trying to normalize something that a huge minority does, goes against what constitutes normalcy. Is pedophilia normal? Is murder, normal? Extremes, but it drives the point down, that at such huge minority, it cannot be constituted as something that is normal.

The problem with this example is that pedophilia and murder are damaging to other people. Homosexuality affects nobody except the two people involved, who in my opinion are entitled to decide what is right for them as long as it is not affecting others. You can make the argument that gay marriage affects others by giving them tax benefits or whatnot, but as long as straight couples are entitled to those benefits then the state should not be able to deny homosexual couples those same benefits. As I said in my first post, the state sanctioned institution of marriage should not exist. Have a system of unions that allows for rights such as visitation, custody, etc and be done with it. But as long as the governmental institution of marriage exists it needs to be equal for everyone regardless of their sexual affiliation.

While I agree, as long as there is state derived benefits, there should be civil unions, and marriage. To me, its a social and cultural battle as well, but I agree that they should be entitled to the same benefits, however, calling it marriage, no.

I'm just wondering how far you are going to push this. What about NAMBLA? What about Polygamy? What about pedophilia? As long as you aren't calling marriage a right, and it is indeed a benefit, then the state and ultimately the populace (voters), can decide who can, and who cannot receive that benefit. It is called a democratic notion. The will of the voters has been done.

I'd push it as far as consenting adults can decide what they do together. Pedophilia is not between consenting adults,it is an adult taking advantage of a person who does not understand the consequences of their actions, or is being forced into something they don't want to do. Polygamy should be nobody's business except those involved as long as its between adults capable of making their own decisions.

And no, the state cannot decide who can benefit from an institution such as marriage. That's called discrimination and there are laws specifically to prevent it. Accepting one type of discrimination as okay while others are not is hypocritical.

The government is in the business of discrimination. Ever heard of Affirmative Action?

Which is also something I am 100% against. Affirmative action is nothing more than discrimination of the majority, which to me is just as wrong as discrimination of the minorities.

Aegraen

United States1225 Posts

May 30 2009 03:05 GMT

#224

On May 30 2009 11:54 scwizard wrote:

Show nested quote +

On May 30 2009 11:44 Aegraen wrote:

On May 30 2009 11:41 scwizard wrote:

On May 30 2009 11:20 scwizard wrote:

On May 30 2009 11:15 Aegraen wrote:

On May 30 2009 11:12 scwizard wrote:

On May 30 2009 11:07 Aegraen wrote:

On May 30 2009 10:53 scwizard wrote:

No, what I'm saying is that trying to normalize something that a huge minority does, goes against what constitutes normalcy.

How statistically prevalent does something need to be before it can be "normalized"?

You still haven't answered this Aegraen :/

Thats for each person to answer, and generally for society to decide. My personal opinion on the matter, at least 15%.

Damn, women who's had sex during their lifetime with other women is at 11% according to a study. So close and yet so far. Nice dodge

Well anyways what culture considers as normal is obviously not a binary. I would still like to see homosexual relationships considered normal, because of the reasons I initially gave. Hopefully more states will embrace gay marriage, which will help homosexual relationships be considered more normal than they are now.

But yeah, if you consider anything below 15% to be abnormal, and you believe that it's wrong to try and force abnormal things into the cultural norm, then I'll never be able to convince you that you should vote against proposition 8 G_G

I wouldn't ever. But, again I don't live in CA, and my residency is in FL. You should be going after the black and hispanic population of CA as they are very traditional and adamantly oppose gay marriage. Most whites are actually, in favor.

IntoTheWow

is awesome32277 Posts

May 30 2009 03:05 GMT

#225

On May 30 2009 12:01 Aegraen wrote:

Show nested quote +

/facepalm.

It is impossible, for two non-human females to fuck each other. You have to have a penis (Not necessarily, in the human sense, since dildo's fill the niche of sexual intercourse), to fuck, this is called copulation, or sexual intercourse. What is so hard to comprehend.

So when did nature become a barrier for humans?

Do surgeries occure in nature? Techonlogy? You are a bad troll and your arguments are so archaic you sound beyond dumb.

Your posts always full of fallacies. I take them as an insult to my intelligence, so go fuck yourself. Someone ban this idiot.

Aegraen

United States1225 Posts

May 30 2009 03:05 GMT

#226

On May 30 2009 12:00 Frits wrote:

Show nested quote +

Don't be a hypocrite, this is your favorite argument which you use in every thread.

Show nested quote +

Not a hypocrit, those things happened and can be proven.

DamageControL

United States4222 Posts

May 30 2009 03:05 GMT

#227

On May 30 2009 12:01 Aegraen wrote:

Show nested quote +

Ok, first of all fuck is definitely colloquial. Secondly, and more importantly, OBVIOUSLY this basically destroys any argument based of naturalness or whatever you were hoping to achieve.

BTW: according to dictionary.com sexual intercourse (which is according to dictionary.com also what fucking is) is

genital contact, esp. the insertion of the penis into the vagina followed by orgasm; coitus; copulation.

NOTE: especially not exclusively

Another definition: Sexual union between humans involving genital contact other than vaginal penetration by the penis.

Obviously its impossible for anything besides humans (hetero or homo sexual) to fuck, in this sense, but take that out and it seems like...the moneky's are fucking. $50?

Archerofaiur

United States4101 Posts

May 30 2009 03:06 GMT

#228

Aegraen you better be paying at least one of us.

Archerofaiur

United States4101 Posts

May 30 2009 03:10 GMT

#229

On May 30 2009 12:02 expendable wrote:

It is impossible for two members of the same gender to reproduce.

Not true

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

"In the absence of males, females are also capable of asexual reproduction."

Aegraen

United States1225 Posts

May 30 2009 03:10 GMT

#230

On May 30 2009 12:06 Archerofaiur wrote:
Aegraen you better be paying at least one of us.

Hands you ten rubels.

Idle

Korea (South)124 Posts

May 30 2009 03:10 GMT

#231

On May 30 2009 12:01 2b-Rigtheous wrote: Our kids will be exposed to this, and there is a lot of evidence that suggests environmental factors play a huge role in making one homosexual or not. I certainly don't want my future kids to think being homosexual is normal and fine, when it clearly isn't.

I'd love to see one unbiased study that suggests environmental factors play a role in one's sexuality. The only ones I can find have been done by or funded by organizations with an anti-homosexual agenda. You need to support your argument with evidence.

Additionally, saying something "clearly" isn't fine is a complete joke when that's the basis of an entire debate. If its being debated then sorry bud but its not clearly anything.

Frits

11782 Posts

May 30 2009 03:10 GMT

#232

On May 30 2009 12:01 Aegraen wrote:

Show nested quote +

What's so hard to comprehend is why any of this is relevant to anything.

Aegraen

United States1225 Posts

May 30 2009 03:11 GMT

#233

On May 30 2009 12:10 Archerofaiur wrote:

Show nested quote +

Not true

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

"In the absence of males, females are also capable of asexual reproduction."

Wrong. I guess you missed the part where it said two members of the same gender. Asexual reproduction, is conducted purely by one individual.

DamageControL

United States4222 Posts

May 30 2009 03:12 GMT

#234

On May 30 2009 12:10 Frits wrote:

Show nested quote +

What's so hard to comprehend is why any of this is relevant to anything.

Regardless... I think I've shown him to be fairly wrong.

Archerofaiur

United States4101 Posts

May 30 2009 03:12 GMT

#235

You said 50$. Its ok though cause everyone knew you were

A) wrong when you made that statement and

B) not the kind of person who would follow through on his word anyway

Frits

11782 Posts

May 30 2009 03:13 GMT

#236

On May 30 2009 12:05 Aegraen wrote:

Show nested quote +

Not a hypocrit, those things happened and can be proven.

I am anti-prop 8, please prove how I did any of those things.

Aegraen

United States1225 Posts

May 30 2009 03:13 GMT

#237

On May 30 2009 12:10 Frits wrote:

Show nested quote +

What's so hard to comprehend is why any of this is relevant to anything.

Originally, it was to point out that homosexuality, is not normal, because it goes against nature and for the propagation of species (Whether this is any merit to the arguement is for each person to think about, then again I pointed this also, because this is the true goal of the pro-gay marriage agenda, to normalize their actions). Then I threw in jest the 50$ comment, because if people would have noticed, the statement illustrated the impossibility of the situation.

scwizard

United States1195 Posts

May 30 2009 03:14 GMT

#238

Aegraen is actually correct and doesn't owe any of you people jack.

I still haven't seen an example of two members of the same gender, in a two (or more) gendered species, being capable of sexual reproduction.

Aegraen

United States1225 Posts

May 30 2009 03:15 GMT

#239

On May 30 2009 12:12 Archerofaiur wrote:
You said 50$. Its ok though cause everyone knew you were

A) wrong when you made that statement and

B) not the kind of person who would follow through on his word anyway

You seriously believe two non-human females can fuck? Fuck means copulation. Copulation means sexual intercourse.

In the animal kingdom, it is impossible for two females to fuck, period. If they could, it would go against every single thing we know.

DamageControL

United States4222 Posts

May 30 2009 03:15 GMT

#240

On May 30 2009 12:14 scwizard wrote:
Aegraen is actually correct and doesn't owe any of you people jack.

I still haven't seen an example of two members of the same gender, in a two (or more) gendered species, being capable of sexual reproduction.

He said fuck. No reproduction. Therefore he owes me $50

Prev 1 10 11 12 13 14 24 Next All

Please or register to reply.

Prop 8 upheld - Page 12

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming