| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Canadium
Canada171 Posts
On February 10 2012 13:38 LambtrOn wrote: Yes, I agree. Tolerance is bad. Fuck all the non-white/christian/rich people. Cause that's what I said.... I can't stand that no one can let it go when someone disagrees with the majority. How do you know I'm not part of some ethnic minority group? | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On February 10 2012 13:35 Canadium wrote: Sorry I wasn't aware I had to present you with a bibliography.... I'm not going to. The statistics are well documented. Look them up yourself or stfu. If by documented you mean they don't exist, than yeah, sure thing buddy. | ||
|
LambtrOn
United States671 Posts
On February 10 2012 13:41 Canadium wrote: Cause that's what I said.... I can't stand that no one can let it go when someone disagrees with the majority. How do you know I'm not part of some ethnic minority group? I didn't say you said that. I'm just mocking you for saying tolerance is scary. | ||
|
Canadium
Canada171 Posts
On February 10 2012 13:41 1Eris1 wrote: If by documented you mean they don't exist, than yeah, sure thing buddy. Do some independent research. They do exist. And Lambtron.... get out of here if you have nothing useful to say. | ||
|
LambtrOn
United States671 Posts
On February 10 2012 13:44 Canadium wrote: Do some independent research. They do exist. And Lambtron.... get out of here if you have nothing useful to say. It's scary to think you think tolerance is scary. Why do you think that? And I've done a little reading on your claim and it's true, but you don't mention that the study was done in the 1980s and early 90s. And since then HIV deaths have seen a dramatic decrease. STDs run rampant among heterosexual couples too. That alone is not a good enough reason to deny people basic human rights to share a loving bond with someone. It's disturbing you want to take that away from people you don't know over have any connection to whatsoever. How exactly does them getting married affect you personally in a negative way? edit 2: and this from the article, note the bold: It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive mesaure.5 Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor. If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man's risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used. In summary, the aim of our work was to assist health planners with the means of estimating the impact of HIV infection on groups, like gay and bisexual men, not necessarily captured by vital statistics data and not to hinder the rights of these groups worldwide. Overall, we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group. source: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/1499.full | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On February 10 2012 13:35 ampson wrote: ...No. You can only marry someone of the opposite sex in the states I am referring to. The point I was making is that everybody, regardless of sexuality, has that right. It is therefore not violating the 14th amendment. However, as I have explained, I do not agree with the U.S.'s current policy on marriage. How is that not blatantly sexist? A man can marry woman, so why can't a woman marry a woman? That's literally a right determined by your genitals. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On February 10 2012 13:44 Canadium wrote: Do some independent research. They do exist. And Lambtron.... get out of here if you have nothing useful to say. Sure thing. And what do you know the only sites currently reporting on the issue are catholiceducation.com godandscience.org sodahead.com (Such paragons of our news media right?) Or perhaps you're trying to argue on the bases that the suicide rates are higher among LGBT people? (Hint, that's not a genetic defect, it's because of how bigots like you treat them) | ||
|
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
On February 10 2012 13:44 Canadium wrote: Do some independent research. They do exist. And Lambtron.... get out of here if you have nothing useful to say. That's for HIV positive homosexual people, not the entire population of homosexuals. I've seen those studies, and I've read the supposed "reports" by sites such as LifeSite, pretty fucking retarded, lmao. Why don't you go back to watching Fox News. | ||
|
Greater Spire
Taiwan50 Posts
On February 10 2012 13:28 Canadium wrote: There's something psychological about homosexuality that has yet to be discovered I feel.... Are we really going to just keep tolerating and tolerating without closely examining what we're condoning? Why do homosexuals have a life expectancy that is 20 years shorter than heterosexuals? What about the spread of STI's like AIDS? I don't believe homosexuals should have the right to marry.... This progressive tolerance movement gets scarier and scarier every day. User was warned for this post These words ought to be immortalised on your mantle so that one day your grandkids can look at your archaic beliefs and say: "You were retarded as fuck old man", just as Americans look back at their ancestor's views towards blacks today and find their commonly racist views disgusting. | ||
|
Canadium
Canada171 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On February 10 2012 14:28 Canadium wrote: It's pretty awesome that I get warned for my views.... It just goes to show you that these forums are not for rational discussion, but for the putting down of beliefs differing from the majority. You know what scares me. The end of rational discussion. Good bye. It wasn't your views, it's that you were making stuff up without providing any credible evidence, and then telling people to shut the hell up or get out if they didn't agree with you. | ||
|
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
On February 10 2012 14:28 Canadium wrote: It's pretty awesome that I get warned for my views.... It just goes to show you that these forums are not for rational discussion, but for the putting down of beliefs differing from the majority. You know what scares me. The end of rational discussion. Good bye. I agree, it is pretty awesome that you got warned. These forums are better than most at facilitating rational discussion. The problem with your comments are that they are unsubstantiated and misleading drivel. I doesn't really surprise me though, looking through your post history. | ||
|
Yergidy
United States2107 Posts
| ||
|
Bagration
United States18282 Posts
However, I do wonder if we are setting certain precedents for more radical changes. It is very possible that these changes could help lead to more radical changes in the future, such as polygamy. What do people here think about issues like that? | ||
|
Greater Spire
Taiwan50 Posts
On February 10 2012 14:55 Bagration wrote: Well that's good. I think the vast majority of forum-goers here can agree that this is a step forward and a step towards progress. Even if it conflicts with your personal beliefs, you cannot just go and outlaw everything you disagree with, and I think that it is a good step in the right direction. However, I do wonder if we are setting certain precedents for more radical changes. It is very possible that these changes could help lead to more radical changes in the future, such as polygamy. What do people here think about issues like that? Nothing wrong with it if all parties are consenting. | ||
|
fiftycaliber
United States4 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Greater Spire
Taiwan50 Posts
On February 10 2012 14:39 Yergidy wrote: So it's constitutional to vote for gay marriage, but unconstitutional to have a vote to ban gay marriage(cali)? That makes no sense what so ever. Yes, because discrimination is unconstitutional, whereas equality is constitutional. | ||
|
Bagration
United States18282 Posts
On February 10 2012 15:00 Greater Spire wrote: Nothing wrong with it if all parties are consenting. Fair enough. I am pretty indifferent to polygamy myself, but that could make for some interesting family dynamics. | ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
1. arbitrarily created age of adulthood 2. arbitrarily created age of consent 3. arbitrarily created drinking age 4. regulations on polygamy (an activity between 2/more consenting adults) I don't think gay marriage is any different from those 4 issues, and there is very little dispute about the government's right to regulate them. Sometimes, the view of the majority is unacceptable (unconstitutional), and the larger government should step in. I don't think this is one of those cases. I don't think if you are against gay marriage that you are a homophobe or a gay basher or you hate gay people. | ||
|
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
On February 10 2012 14:28 Canadium wrote: It's pretty awesome that I get warned for my views.... It just goes to show you that these forums are not for rational discussion, but for the putting down of beliefs differing from the majority. You know what scares me. The end of rational discussion. Good bye. Actually your views are irrational and stupid, and yet you think the contrary; that's what scares me. | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
OSC
RSL Revival
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Zoun vs Classic
Korean StarCraft League
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
