• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 00:02
CEST 06:02
KST 13:02
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall10HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6
Community News
Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation5$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced4Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles5[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China9Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL66
StarCraft 2
General
The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing
Tourneys
$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
i aint gon lie to u bruh... ASL20 Preliminary Maps BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall SC uni coach streams logging into betting site
Tourneys
[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China [BSL20] Grand Finals - Sunday 20:00 CET CSL Xiamen International Invitational The Casual Games of the Week Thread
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Summer Games Done Quick 2025! Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
Culture Clash in Video Games…
TrAiDoS
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 595 users

Prop 8 upheld - Page 9

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 7 8 9 10 11 24 Next All
koOl
Profile Blog Joined October 2008
Canada254 Posts
May 30 2009 01:41 GMT
#161
On May 30 2009 10:39 DeathSpank wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2009 10:38 seppolevne wrote:
On May 30 2009 10:32 DM20 wrote:
On May 30 2009 10:30 seppolevne wrote:
On May 30 2009 09:37 KurtistheTurtle wrote:
I don't care about gay marriage in terms of "marriage," the church can keep that. The part I have a problem with is how gays aren't allowed the same domestic partnership and financial/social benefits as male/female couples. I think the church can refuse to "marry" two gay people, but they shouldn't be allowed to even have influence on whether or not these people share the benefits.

Basically, I think they should be allowed to "marry" without the title of "marriage."

My thoughts as well.


This is like telling a black he can ride the bus but he has to sit at the back.

Buses are a public service. The church is not. The state should have no (real) say as to what a church does, and the church should have no say in what the state does.

somehow I doubt a church is going to marry gay people....I also doubt that the majority of gay couples will want to get married in a church.


there are MANY churches that would...maybe not traditional ones but yes, there are MANY that do
hihi
scwizard
Profile Joined March 2009
United States1195 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-05-30 01:48:26
May 30 2009 01:41 GMT
#162
On May 30 2009 09:14 houseurmusic wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2009 09:09 scwizard wrote:
On May 30 2009 08:02 scwizard wrote:
I know numerous gay/bi/queer types. Sometimes it seems like half the girls I know are bi. I like these people and wish for their happiness, and that is why I oppose proposition 8.

So yeah that's my position, and that position makes me wonder, do people like houseurmusic know any gay people? Do they have any gay friends? Do they have any gay people that they admire?

I can be gay for all you know. There are many gays that are not for gay marraige.

Are you fucking kidding me.

I challenge teamliquid to find either of the following:
1. A person who is gay/bi and opposed to gay marriage.
2. A person who has a very close gay/bi friend and is opposed to gay marriage.

I won't believe such people exist unless there's evidence to the contrary.
seppolevne
Profile Blog Joined February 2009
Canada1681 Posts
May 30 2009 01:44 GMT
#163
On May 30 2009 10:40 DM20 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2009 10:38 seppolevne wrote:
On May 30 2009 10:32 DM20 wrote:
On May 30 2009 10:30 seppolevne wrote:
On May 30 2009 09:37 KurtistheTurtle wrote:
I don't care about gay marriage in terms of "marriage," the church can keep that. The part I have a problem with is how gays aren't allowed the same domestic partnership and financial/social benefits as male/female couples. I think the church can refuse to "marry" two gay people, but they shouldn't be allowed to even have influence on whether or not these people share the benefits.

Basically, I think they should be allowed to "marry" without the title of "marriage."

My thoughts as well.


This is like telling a black he can ride the bus but he has to sit at the back.

Buses are a public service. The church is not. The state should have no (real) say as to what a church does, and the church should have no say in what the state does.


Yes so the way it was, gays could get married if they found a church to marry them, the choice to marry even with heterosexual couples is up to the church, if you can't find a church you do it at a courthouse.

Prop 8 made it illegal for gays to marry even at court houses. Telling a gay person they can get married but not calling it marriage is even more insulting than saying they can't

Ok I wasn't all that versed in Prop 8. The first paragraph I completely agree with.
J- Pirate Udyr WW T- Pirate Riven Galio M- Galio Annie S- Sona Lux -- Always farm, never carry.
Idle
Profile Joined May 2009
Korea (South)124 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-05-30 01:56:46
May 30 2009 01:46 GMT
#164
On May 30 2009 10:35 Aegraen wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2009 10:29 Idle wrote:
On May 30 2009 10:27 Aegraen wrote:
On May 30 2009 10:25 Idle wrote:
On May 30 2009 10:19 Aegraen wrote:
On May 30 2009 10:18 Idle wrote:
On May 30 2009 10:12 Aegraen wrote:
On May 30 2009 10:03 Diomedes wrote:
Aegraen is posting offensive stereotype nonsense, in the bluntest most unconvincing manners, in almost every thread.

So surely you are wrong. Main problem is his intentions. I suspect he is some enbittered far left wing 'liberal' trying to make 'his opponents' look bad.


Try again, I'm a libertarian/conservative.


You call yourself that but your attitude and viewpoints are completely counter to libertarian/conservative ideals.


No, they are not.


The principles of Libertarianism are to maximize individual liberty, minimization of state power over individuals' personal and economic decisions, or for some libertarians (me), the abolition of the state.

So yes, your attitude that the state should be able to have control over who can and cannot get married is in direct conflict with libertarian ideals.




Marriage is not a right; I believe in Federalism. Therefore I am not against any tenants of libertarianism. Personally, if I had the choice I would abolish all state derived benefits associated with marriage and civil unions.

The abolition of the state, is called anarchy. You're an anarchist, not a libertarian.


You're right, I am. Guess what, anarchy is nothing more than an extreme form of libertarianism.


You're belief that without a state that you have maximum freedom and personal liberty is in reality, the opposite. Without some structure, you have no liberty or freedom, because anyone can come and take from you and kill you. There is no laws, to prevent this.

Anyways off topic.


There are no laws to prevent somebody from coming and killing me, but there are also no laws preventing me from defending myself, or even doing the same to them. Safety != liberty or freedom. However, this is completely off topic for this thread.

To make this relevant I'll address your continued assertion that marriage is not a right. You are correct, marriage is not a right. However allowing the government to decide who is capable of entering into the privilege of marriage is still counter to libertarian ideals.

You are arguing against things that are not happening. Nobody is trying to change the church's rights or definition of marriage. The problem is that there is a governmental institution of marriage, which is conducted by the state, and is being denied to individuals. You don't get to decide that somebody can't drive a car because you don't like the make of car they're driving. Likewise you shouldn't get to decide that a person cannot be married in a state sanctioned union because you dont' like the person they're marrying.
I'd turn gay for Baby.... wait, that came out wrong.
scwizard
Profile Joined March 2009
United States1195 Posts
May 30 2009 01:53 GMT
#165
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
Aegraen
Profile Blog Joined May 2009
United States1225 Posts
May 30 2009 02:00 GMT
#166
On May 30 2009 10:46 Idle wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2009 10:35 Aegraen wrote:
On May 30 2009 10:29 Idle wrote:
On May 30 2009 10:27 Aegraen wrote:
On May 30 2009 10:25 Idle wrote:
On May 30 2009 10:19 Aegraen wrote:
On May 30 2009 10:18 Idle wrote:
On May 30 2009 10:12 Aegraen wrote:
On May 30 2009 10:03 Diomedes wrote:
Aegraen is posting offensive stereotype nonsense, in the bluntest most unconvincing manners, in almost every thread.

So surely you are wrong. Main problem is his intentions. I suspect he is some enbittered far left wing 'liberal' trying to make 'his opponents' look bad.


Try again, I'm a libertarian/conservative.


You call yourself that but your attitude and viewpoints are completely counter to libertarian/conservative ideals.


No, they are not.


The principles of Libertarianism are to maximize individual liberty, minimization of state power over individuals' personal and economic decisions, or for some libertarians (me), the abolition of the state.

So yes, your attitude that the state should be able to have control over who can and cannot get married is in direct conflict with libertarian ideals.




Marriage is not a right; I believe in Federalism. Therefore I am not against any tenants of libertarianism. Personally, if I had the choice I would abolish all state derived benefits associated with marriage and civil unions.

The abolition of the state, is called anarchy. You're an anarchist, not a libertarian.


You're right, I am. Guess what, anarchy is nothing more than an extreme form of libertarianism.


You're belief that without a state that you have maximum freedom and personal liberty is in reality, the opposite. Without some structure, you have no liberty or freedom, because anyone can come and take from you and kill you. There is no laws, to prevent this.

Anyways off topic.


There are no laws to prevent somebody from coming and killing me, but there are also no laws preventing me from defending myself, or even doing the same to them. Safety != liberty or freedom. However, this is completely off topic for this thread.

To make this relevant I'll address your continued assertion that marriage is not a right. You are correct, marriage is not a right. However allowing the government to decide who is capable of entering into the privilege of marriage is still counter to libertarian ideals.

You are arguing against things that are not happening. The nobody is trying to change the church's rights or definition of marriage. The problem is that there is a governmental institution of marriage, which is conducted by the state, and is being denied to individuals. You don't get to decide that somebody can't drive a car because you don't like the make of car they're driving. Likewise you shouldn't get to decide that a person cannot be married in a state sanctioned union because you dont' like the person they're marrying.


Who said I am against civil unions?

Secondly, I'd be perfectly happy abolishing all state derived benefits to both civil unions and marriage. I don't see why having a baby entitles you to tax cuts, and all sorts of other ludicrous bonus' over individuals. I shouldn't be subsidizing other's children.

On that point, we should repel the 16th amendment, and institute a fair tax. The rate at which is proposed now, is way too high (23%), more in line would be a 10-15% tax, and require 2/3 of house and senate to raise.

This is way off topic now.
"It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost." -- Murray N. Rothbard -- Rand Paul 2010 -- Ron Paul 2012
scwizard
Profile Joined March 2009
United States1195 Posts
May 30 2009 02:05 GMT
#167
So you think that there shouldn't be a governmental institution of marriage?
In that case wouldn't that mean that there's no formal institution of marriage?

How would custody battles be decided then if there's no such legal thing as marriage?
Aegraen
Profile Blog Joined May 2009
United States1225 Posts
May 30 2009 02:07 GMT
#168
On May 30 2009 10:53 scwizard wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.
"It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost." -- Murray N. Rothbard -- Rand Paul 2010 -- Ron Paul 2012
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42554 Posts
May 30 2009 02:08 GMT
#169
If marriage was a religious institution then they could do whatever the fuck they liked with it and nobody would have any right to tell them what to do because it would be theirs. But it's not, it's a social institution which effects people in a great many ways, most of them too minor to be included in civil partnerships because they're simply assumed. To give a basic example, visitation rights in a prison are assumed for spouses as they are for family members but are not the same for partners.
It's a secular institution and one which is so entrenched within our society that entrenching a rival institution for gays to the same extent would be impossible. The only way to make it fair is to allow anyone who wants to get married to get married.

If the church then wants to make up their own thing which is for straight couples only then they can. After all, it's not like they invented marriage, it was a social institution, as it always had been, when they claimed that only they had the right to officiate in it.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Aegraen
Profile Blog Joined May 2009
United States1225 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-05-30 02:10:32
May 30 2009 02:10 GMT
#170
On May 30 2009 11:05 scwizard wrote:
So you think that there shouldn't be a governmental institution of marriage?
In that case wouldn't that mean that there's no formal institution of marriage?

How would custody battles be decided then if there's no such legal thing as marriage?


No, government should not give benefits to those in civil unions or marriage. This includes, tax breaks, tax exemptions, etc.

There is a formal institution, you just wouldn't receive any benefits for being married.

The same way they are now. Whoever is the more fit parent receives custody.
"It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost." -- Murray N. Rothbard -- Rand Paul 2010 -- Ron Paul 2012
scwizard
Profile Joined March 2009
United States1195 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-05-30 02:12:49
May 30 2009 02:12 GMT
#171
On May 30 2009 11:07 Aegraen wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.
jeppew
Profile Joined April 2009
Sweden471 Posts
May 30 2009 02:13 GMT
#172
On May 30 2009 11:07 Aegraen wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.

Aegraen
Profile Blog Joined May 2009
United States1225 Posts
May 30 2009 02:15 GMT
#173
On May 30 2009 11:12 scwizard wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.
"It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost." -- Murray N. Rothbard -- Rand Paul 2010 -- Ron Paul 2012
scwizard
Profile Joined March 2009
United States1195 Posts
May 30 2009 02:15 GMT
#174
On May 30 2009 11:10 Aegraen wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2009 11:05 scwizard wrote:
So you think that there shouldn't be a governmental institution of marriage?
In that case wouldn't that mean that there's no formal institution of marriage?

How would custody battles be decided then if there's no such legal thing as marriage?


No, government should not give benefits to those in civil unions or marriage. This includes, tax breaks, tax exemptions, etc.

There is a formal institution, you just wouldn't receive any benefits for being married.

The same way they are now. Whoever is the more fit parent receives custody.

Ahh, ok. That is a very reasonable ground to take. It'll never catch on though. Heterosexuals won't accept it though, because it deprives them of benefits, and homosexuals will never accept it because it deprives them of the opportunity to have the government make their relationship something legitimate through calling it officially marriage.
Aegraen
Profile Blog Joined May 2009
United States1225 Posts
May 30 2009 02:19 GMT
#175
On May 30 2009 11:13 jeppew wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5zOlPsO6U4


Fucking means copulation. Two non-human females cannot fuck. I guess you fell for it.
"It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost." -- Murray N. Rothbard -- Rand Paul 2010 -- Ron Paul 2012
scwizard
Profile Joined March 2009
United States1195 Posts
May 30 2009 02:20 GMT
#176
On May 30 2009 11:15 Aegraen wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.

How statistically prevalent does something need to be before it can be "normalized"?
Idle
Profile Joined May 2009
Korea (South)124 Posts
May 30 2009 02:21 GMT
#177
On May 30 2009 11:15 Aegraen wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.
I'd turn gay for Baby.... wait, that came out wrong.
Aegraen
Profile Blog Joined May 2009
United States1225 Posts
May 30 2009 02:22 GMT
#178
On May 30 2009 11:15 scwizard wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2009 11:10 Aegraen wrote:
On May 30 2009 11:05 scwizard wrote:
So you think that there shouldn't be a governmental institution of marriage?
In that case wouldn't that mean that there's no formal institution of marriage?

How would custody battles be decided then if there's no such legal thing as marriage?


No, government should not give benefits to those in civil unions or marriage. This includes, tax breaks, tax exemptions, etc.

There is a formal institution, you just wouldn't receive any benefits for being married.

The same way they are now. Whoever is the more fit parent receives custody.

Ahh, ok. That is a very reasonable ground to take. It'll never catch on though. Heterosexuals won't accept it though, because it deprives them of benefits, and homosexuals will never accept it because it deprives them of the opportunity to have the government make their relationship something legitimate through calling it officially marriage.


Of course. It's all about money (Mostly in respect to homosexuals), for both parties.

Then again, you have to have some principles to turn down money. Say, like, what all states who cherish federalism should have done to all Stimulus money. Oh well.



"It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost." -- Murray N. Rothbard -- Rand Paul 2010 -- Ron Paul 2012
jeppew
Profile Joined April 2009
Sweden471 Posts
May 30 2009 02:23 GMT
#179
On May 30 2009 11:19 Aegraen wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2009 11:13 jeppew 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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5zOlPsO6U4


Fucking means copulation. Two non-human females cannot fuck. I guess you fell for it.

you really got me there, and i was just about to make plans for those 50 bucks.
Kwidowmaker
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
Canada978 Posts
May 30 2009 02:25 GMT
#180
On May 30 2009 11:19 Aegraen wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2009 11:13 jeppew 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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5zOlPsO6U4


Fucking means copulation. Two non-human females cannot fuck. I guess you fell for it.



Fucking is slang, you can't even try to fucking give it a definite definition.

The animal world is incredibly homosexual at times. Early civilisation had homosexuality. What you mean by "normal" is what is currently accepted by society. But society can be improved.

The only reasons for not letting gays marry are bigoted and cruel.
Kk.
Prev 1 7 8 9 10 11 24 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
PiGosaur Monday
00:00
#39
PiGStarcraft478
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
PiGStarcraft478
WinterStarcraft374
Nina 233
RuFF_SC2 158
StarCraft: Brood War
Leta 223
Sharp 74
Icarus 9
Dota 2
monkeys_forever652
League of Legends
JimRising 807
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox613
Other Games
summit1g6571
shahzam912
ViBE192
Maynarde172
Trikslyr44
CosmosSc2 23
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick43838
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH298
• Hupsaiya 76
• practicex 22
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Jankos1854
• masondota2362
Upcoming Events
The PondCast
5h 58m
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
11h 58m
WardiTV European League
11h 58m
Jumy vs NightPhoenix
Percival vs Nicoract
ArT vs HiGhDrA
MaxPax vs Harstem
Scarlett vs Shameless
SKillous vs uThermal
Replay Cast
19h 58m
RSL Revival
1d 5h
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs Reynor
OSC
1d 8h
Replay Cast
1d 19h
RSL Revival
2 days
Classic vs Cure
FEL
2 days
OSC
2 days
[ Show More ]
RSL Revival
3 days
FEL
3 days
FEL
3 days
CSO Cup
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs QiaoGege
Dewalt vs Fengzi
Hawk vs Zhanhun
Sziky vs Mihu
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Sziky
Fengzi vs Hawk
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
FEL
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-07-07
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSL Xiamen Invitational
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.