Prop 8 Passes/Overturned - California Bans/Unbans Gay Marr…

On November 07 2008 12:00 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Oh you thought I was being literal when I said 99.99999%? Cause I added a percentage? Sorry.. I see the problem: you are retarded.

1 in a million is a fraction which is her opinion and that is fine but when I do percentages it suddenly becomes me passing off things as fact and it hurts my argument blah blah. Nevermind the radical number probably indicating a representation.. yeah better go with what you said. rofl

On November 07 2008 12:06 gymni wrote:


No man, I don't think you're being literal. I think you're exaggerating on false claims. Insulting me makes you cool.

Her opinion is he has 1 in a million chance of being with her. That is an opinion and can't be disputed. 99.999999% of gay couples marry for the anal sex and not for the love/financial aspect is a sample of one of the facts you're trying to pass off and isn't even close to the truth.

On November 07 2008 12:09 {88}iNcontroL wrote:



I cant help you if you took that as me trying to be factual. here is me, the author of the supposed statement you got all uppity about (didn't actually happen as you said) telling you I wasn't being literal. But you are clawing at the use of "99.9999%" as indicating as much.. there is a reason it was only you who thought that.

Stop pointing the finger. Get on the short bus and go learn something cause what you did thus far hasn't worked.

On November 07 2008 12:19 gymni wrote:


You aren't the one being factual. It's that you're using a fact and not being literal about it. The event in question is undeniably a fact. But the way you twist that fact is what is exaggerating the fact into something it's not. The woman in "Dumb and Dumber" uses her own opinion and can add any number to it and it would still be correct.

Listen, I wasn't even specifically mentioning you, my original claim was to everyone. But you took it as something exclusive to yourself, which is ironically self incriminating. All I'm saying is you don't have to exaggerate anything for people to agree with you and somehow you're disagreeing with this. It doesn't help you in anyway.

Carry on with the discussion I'm enjoying both sides thus far.

On November 07 2008 12:19 gymni wrote:


You aren't the one being factual. It's that you're using a fact and not being literal about it. The event in question is undeniably a fact. But the way you twist that fact is what is exaggerating the fact into something it's not. The woman in "Dumb and Dumber" uses her own opinion and can add any number to it and it would still be correct.

Listen, I wasn't even specifically mentioning you, my original claim was to everyone. But you took it as something exclusive to yourself, which is ironically self incriminating. All I'm saying is you don't have to exaggerate anything for people to agree with you and somehow you're disagreeing with this. It doesn't help you in anyway.

Carry on with the discussion I'm enjoying both sides thus far.

On November 07 2008 08:04 LG)Sabbath wrote:

Ok, if you want to play cat and mouse, let's do it.

My argument being that the bible cannot be taken word for word and I as a christian only use it as a second guide, my first guide being my conscience and my own judgement of situations.

Anything taken word for word from the bible will eventually suffer from: 1- different versions of the bible say things differently, 2- context is based on opinion and therefore prevents proper judgement, 3- ignoring context makes one look like a retard at best.

Therefore by following my own judgement I believe that, in general, people should be allowed the right to do as they please as long as they don't hurt others willfully or otherwise. Example: gay people marrying each other.

So let's take this sentence from the bible, supposedly said by Jesus himself:
"But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away!"

1- Does this mean that I should promptly remove my eyes for having many times in my life looked at women and desired them? How about you, will you remove your own eyes? I doubt you have never looked at women with desire, any adult non-homosexual man must have done it.

2- May I desire women without looking at them? Such as in my imagination? That certainly doesn't sound consistent, but it does pass jesus' adultery rule.

3- The Bible says that I may not kill myself, yet Jesus suggests that I remove my own eyes, which will most probably cause my death in a matter of seconds. What should I do then?

On November 07 2008 09:34 D10 wrote:
Homosexual sex between man might have an increased chance of STDs etc...

BUT, thats only in the case of the involved ones being all around fucking each other, and common, not all gays are in it for the party, i know some very conservative gays that just felt inlove with each other and they never had sex with anyone else, they just want to get married anf adopt a baby, now i ask you, they didnt had sex with many woman before they came out of the closet.

What harm are they doing to society ? they are productive members of it like anyone else, and want to be acknowledged as such.

On November 07 2008 09:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


I wil respond to you and izzy with the same logic:

I am playing a numbers game. And I am not alone. Logical people will play this game as well. Sure there are homosexuals that have 0 sex or prefer sex with 1 solid partner and just want to raise a child. They are in the vast minority. Homosexual individuals (male) on a general level, lead far more promiscuous lives than any other brand of sexuallity. As such the levels of STDs etc.. are higher.

Izzy: Your poopoo hole is not made to have things go in it. Unless the partner has a small weenar there will be physical damage. This is particularly bad because the flesh that lines your anus is not adept to healing and can actually cause severe bleeding both internally and externally. More importantly it causes an infection almost everytime said tearing occurs because of the germ infested area.

On November 07 2008 11:40 XaI)CyRiC wrote:


Why does it have to go to the degree of people going to work via bungee jumps for it to be outlawed? It's not like homosexual males are having anal sex twice a day (at least not the majority). I think there are a bunch of typos in the rest of your paragraph that I'm too lazy to fix, but I get the general idea Anal sex is something you can do, even if it is an alternative to something that is "more natural", or else how would they be doing it? If you want to restrict sex to a part of the reproductive process, then we can change it to homosexual intercourse or something else that takes that element out. As to the possible scenario where all heterosexual people stopped having vaginal sex, that'd only really become an issue if it resulted in fewer children being born. Otherwise, anal sex would become the majority trend (and opinion), and there'd be no one left to outlaw it. If you're talking about just a select group, i.e. gay men, then the level of harm in the grand scheme of things doesn't arise to a level where society suffers significantly.



So tattooing isn't a good comparison because of its frequency (or lack thereof)? How about smoking, drinking, eating artery-clogging foods, etc.? They're not perfect comparisons, but they're examples that show that the fact that something is potentially harmful to a person doesn't necessarily lead to the government having a compelling interest in preventing it.



Did it lead to a greater number of homosexuals, or just a greater number of known homosexuals? Unless you can show me how that study somehow differentiated between people suddenly becoming homosexual and people who were merely coming out of the closet because they felt less afraid to do so, then that study doesn't mean anything.



I can also understand why many people find the idea of homosexuality very disturbing and want to do whatever they can to remove it from their lives, but at some point people just have to respect each other. A lot more people would have voted differently on Prop 8 if they could put themselves in other people's shoes for just a moment.

On November 07 2008 11:48 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


1. my point was that homosexuals who have sex do so in the anal area. They do not vary.. they have penetrating sex there generally. People who bungee jump do it once or twice in their life and the situation is almost always with professionals near by, in a controlled environment / situation. Anal sex is the unnatural, more dangerous distant cousin to vaginal sex. That was the point I was trying to make. It is 100% the more dangerous form of what we all do (for the most part). When a group of people hold on to the single more dangerous form of an otherwise normal activity they are easily identified as self damaging people who are "wrong."

On November 07 2008 13:53 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
yep you nailed it. IF my argument was solely based on the spread of STDs you would be pwning me up and down right now. Sadly for you, I am not as simple as you are