If you search for anything remotely associated to "homosexuality" on Google the search bar is coloured with a rainbow banner. Like TL, Google are must be so totally pro-gay that they're willing to let all other equality issues subside. That's the extent to how stupid some of the posts are in this thread (IMO).
On June 26 2013 22:24 Nymzee wrote: If you search for anything remotely associated to "homosexuality" on Google the search bar is coloured with a rainbow banner. Like TL, Google are must be so totally pro-gay that they're willing to let all other equality issues subside. That's the extent to how stupid some of the posts are in this thread (IMO).
On June 26 2013 22:24 Nymzee wrote: If you search for anything remotely associated to "homosexuality" on Google the search bar is coloured with a rainbow banner. Like TL, Google are must be so totally pro-gay that they're willing to let all other equality issues subside. That's the extent to how stupid some of the posts are in this thread (IMO).
"Why get married when you could be happy?" Where prominent gay rights activist Masha Gessen confesses LIVE that the objective of the LGBT struggle is to destroy marriage itself.
And scratch my head wondering if the tin-foil is enough.
On June 26 2013 20:58 xSNRx wrote: Because today, in just the same way that homosexuality was normalized, there are researchers and interests groups out there who are looking to normalize pedophilia – perhaps based off of evidence that there are numerous/growing-number-of well-adjusted individuals in society who have pedophilic tastes but do not act out in ways that violate the rights of others. Consider the possible consequences of this? In 40 years, we could potentially have pedo-pride parades, debates on child-adult marriages, and child-adult couple adoptions, etc. Now I'm sure even to those who support same-sex-marriage, this must be a bit unsettling.
This is not unsettling because it is an improbability. Thing is, this used to be legal. In the past, a man could be married with an underage girl. Now, a relationship has to be between 2 consenting persons to be considered legal. Changing this would actually be going backward and not forward. This is not where we are headed as a society.
What is going to happen is probably more support for those with paraphilia. This is good because it will help to prevent potential sexual abuse from happening.
On June 26 2013 22:51 Alexstrasas wrote: "Why get married when you could be happy?" Where prominent gay rights activist Masha Gessen confesses LIVE that the objective of the LGBT struggle is to destroy marriage itself.
I'm still trying to figure out whether you are just trolling or if you really mean anything you say.
"Why get married when you could be happy?" Where prominent gay rights activist Masha Gessen confesses LIVE that the objective of the LGBT struggle is to destroy marriage itself.
And scratch my head wondering if the tin-foil is enough.
Its weird, because I never felt my relationship was ever impacted the relationship of another, gay or otherwise. When I marry my girlfriend, I don't think gay couples will be able to weaken our relationship by getting married as well.
But hey, maybe they are building some sort of super relationship destroying ray somewhere. Then they will unleash it, screaming "Today we destroy marriage!" and laugh into the camera.
"Why get married when you could be happy?" Where prominent gay rights activist Masha Gessen confesses LIVE that the objective of the LGBT struggle is to destroy marriage itself.
And scratch my head wondering if the tin-foil is enough.
Half of the USA was against banning slavery, and later a good portion of people were against giving right to non white people. Should we just let that discrimination happen because some people are against it ? I don't believe so.
Destroying marriage ? How would this destroy marriage more than legalizing divorce ?
"Why get married when you could be happy?" Where prominent gay rights activist Masha Gessen confesses LIVE that the objective of the LGBT struggle is to destroy marriage itself.
And scratch my head wondering if the tin-foil is enough.
I think you're on to something I did some digging and spoke to some sources and I've just recieved a leak of the next planned TL logo. I can't reveal my sources but they are very high up and extremely reliable.
"Why get married when you could be happy?" Where prominent gay rights activist Masha Gessen confesses LIVE that the objective of the LGBT struggle is to destroy marriage itself.
And scratch my head wondering if the tin-foil is enough.
As a married heterosexual male I fail to see how allowing gays to marry would affect my marriage at all.
On June 26 2013 18:58 Ghostcom wrote: Might I suggest that people present their arguments without insulting other posters? It seems especially ridiculous to go out of ones way to insult someone who is not actually partaking in a particular discussion. It should really not be that hard to refrain from doing so and it would make for a much more reasonable atmosphere as well as debate.
That implies you can have a reasoned debate on equality. There is no rational argument against it, and therefore no discussion to take place.
There's a lot of debate to be had on equality though. Who we give equal rights to is a pretty important thing. I mean, it's clear cut right now that we want homosexuals to have equal rights and not paedophiles or zoophiles, but what about polygamists? We will always have limits on "equality", or at least I hope we do. As of now we're looking for equal rights between any two consenting adults of sound mind, but the next movement might about the "two" part of that statement, and while I doubt there's every going to be allowance for banging kids any time soon, the age of consent is already subject to a lot of debate. And if in the far, far future we find sentient species on the same level as us intelligence wise, how will humanity react to xenophilia? + Show Spoiler +
"Why get married when you could be happy?" Where prominent gay rights activist Masha Gessen confesses LIVE that the objective of the LGBT struggle is to destroy marriage itself.
And scratch my head wondering if the tin-foil is enough.
As a married heterosexual male I fail to see how allowing gays to marry would affect my marriage at all.
On June 26 2013 18:58 Ghostcom wrote: Might I suggest that people present their arguments without insulting other posters? It seems especially ridiculous to go out of ones way to insult someone who is not actually partaking in a particular discussion. It should really not be that hard to refrain from doing so and it would make for a much more reasonable atmosphere as well as debate.
That implies you can have a reasoned debate on equality. There is no rational argument against it, and therefore no discussion to take place.
There's a lot of debate to be had on equality though. Who we give equal rights to is a pretty important thing. I mean, it's clear cut right now that we want homosexuals to have equal rights and not paedophiles or zoophiles, but what about polygamists? We will always have limits on "equality", or at least I hope we do. As of now we're looking for equal rights between any two consenting adults of sound mind, but the next movement might about the "two" part of that statement, and while I doubt there's every going to be allowance for banging kids any time soon, the age of consent is already subject to a lot of debate. And if in the far, far future we find sentient species on the same level as us intelligence wise, how will humanity react to xenophilia? + Show Spoiler +
is fucking an archon polygamy?
No pedophiles and zoophiles have the same rights, ie they can marry another consenting individual. However since we have laws stating that children and animals can't give informed consent, that means they can't marry the child or animal they love. Hence there's no slippery slope since those are way more far-reaching laws than marriage laws.
However polygamy is a different matter and marriage, in other parts of the world and historically, has not always been just two people. So it's not something that's impossible to deal with legally, nor is it immoral in any sense.
"Why get married when you could be happy?" Where prominent gay rights activist Masha Gessen confesses LIVE that the objective of the LGBT struggle is to destroy marriage itself.
And scratch my head wondering if the tin-foil is enough.
As a married heterosexual male I fail to see how allowing gays to marry would affect my marriage at all.
Clearly you're not straight then, bro. Haven't you heard? Allowing gays to marry means that everyone is going to be gay because equal marriage, rather than being equal, is supposedly going to superior for homosexual couples.
"Why get married when you could be happy?" Where prominent gay rights activist Masha Gessen confesses LIVE that the objective of the LGBT struggle is to destroy marriage itself.
And scratch my head wondering if the tin-foil is enough.
Plenty of straight people don't want to get married, and dislike the institution of marriage, what does that prove?
Socialist agenda? Do you know that homosexuality was illegal in USSR? Show a logical link between socialism, and LGBT rights.
On June 26 2013 18:58 Ghostcom wrote: Might I suggest that people present their arguments without insulting other posters? It seems especially ridiculous to go out of ones way to insult someone who is not actually partaking in a particular discussion. It should really not be that hard to refrain from doing so and it would make for a much more reasonable atmosphere as well as debate.
That implies you can have a reasoned debate on equality. There is no rational argument against it, and therefore no discussion to take place.
There's a lot of debate to be had on equality though. Who we give equal rights to is a pretty important thing. I mean, it's clear cut right now that we want homosexuals to have equal rights and not paedophiles or zoophiles, but what about polygamists? We will always have limits on "equality", or at least I hope we do. As of now we're looking for equal rights between any two consenting adults of sound mind, but the next movement might about the "two" part of that statement, and while I doubt there's every going to be allowance for banging kids any time soon, the age of consent is already subject to a lot of debate. And if in the far, far future we find sentient species on the same level as us intelligence wise, how will humanity react to xenophilia? + Show Spoiler +
is fucking an archon polygamy?
No pedophiles and zoophiles have the same rights, ie they can marry another consenting individual. However since we have laws stating that children and animals can't give informed consent, that means they can't marry the child or animal they love. Hence there's no slippery slope since those are way more far-reaching laws than marriage laws.
However polygamy is a different matter and marriage, in other parts of the world and historically, has not always been just two people. So it's not something that's impossible to deal with legally, nor is it immoral in any sense.
Saying that it's currently against the law isn't a very good argument when talking about whether the laws in the future will change, and with polygamy, do you think western society will ever allow polygamist marriage? Xenophilic relations? I'd like to stress that I'm not saying this as some sort of slippery slope argument (that giving dem gays our freedoms will bring about the end of the world and next men will be laying with giraffes), if anything I'm trying to state that the slippery slope will never come about because we will always have restraints on "equality", that it will always be subject to debate and that giving one people freedoms won't mean we give every type of person the same freedoms. Summing up why LGBT people deserve the same rights as heterosexual people with "it's equality" simplifies the issue too much in my opinion, it's a nuanced and complex issue with a lot of scientific reasoning behind the conclusion that they deserve the same rights as straight people. There's a reason why homosexual rights are different from paedophile and zoophile rights, and the blanket statement of "equality" by definition puts them on the same level. It's honestly just a matter of semantics most of the time, but I just took issue with someone explicitly stating that there should never be any discussion on the matter.
On June 26 2013 22:13 Alexstrasas wrote: After having built a monopoly, you now pass to the second phase and start with the LGBT agenda.
Its not like people can go somewhere else.
Well played sirs(?), well played.
Oh no ~_~ He found us out ! The rest of you are just forgetting to extrapolate
I approve of this agenda. That is a really smooth rise in that graph. You folks must have been planning this for hundreds of years to have it so clearly marked out.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/arMUS3L.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0DLy2RX.png)
