GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   What I wrote back to my gay cousin about prop 8 (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=868561)

GatorB 11-11-2008 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiplashDug (Post 15039842)
No, unfortunately this statement is wrong.

First Amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


That does not say 'FREE FROM RELIGION' it says 'FREEDOM OF RELIGION' this clause establishes that 'NO LAW PROHIBITING A RELIGION' can be imposed.

Religion was a HUGE part of the founding documents of the U.S. You can find the reference to such everywhere - including the writings of its authors. The authors were not interested in excluding Religion - they just did not want the GOV to be allowed to restrict it.


:
Yes and Freedom Of Religion also means atheists like me also also FREE to NOT believe in anything too. I think some people forget us non-beleivers have rights too.

tony286 11-11-2008 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiplashDug (Post 15039864)
True! And I agree. But that is a separate issue all together. If you want campaign finance reform... by all means get it passed, you will have my vote.

But, that does not change the fact, that the funding practices are not currently against any rules, so therefor the election results are what they are. If we as a country continue down this path of using the COURT SYSTEM to overturn every thing the VOTER vote for just because one side didn't like the outcome, where does that leave us?

Basically, that is creating a society where JUDGES not THE PEOPLE (or their representatives) are making the laws. What happens down the road to the laws you hold dear when your opposition party gets into power and throws them all out via the court system?
You see that's why alot of judgeships are for life. So their choices arent weighted by having to get re elected. If you didnt have that you wouldnt of had alot of what happened during the civil rights movement it was judges that stood up to mob rule making sure blacks got the rights they were entitled too.

Fletch XXX 11-11-2008 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorB (Post 15039882)
non-beleivers


"what ive become,
a nonbeliever"

love 100 Demons

Trixie 11-11-2008 06:20 PM
So has your cousin written back to you yet to tell you to (no offense) fuck off and die? Don't take it personally, but if morons like you are allowed to vote, where will it end? Soon PETA will insist upon a constitutional amendment declaring all native-born primates including chimpanzees in zoos/prisons be sent absentee ballots. Next thing you know the chickens will want a say in it.

Nothing personal, but it's a slippery slope.

d-null 11-11-2008 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiplashDug (Post 15039793)
Well - the thing is, it should be decided by the states. And the people in those states. Thats the rights given to the people and the states by the constitution. And in our democracy - the majority rules. Like it or not.... that's the principle that has made this country great.

So, no matter your position on the issue - people should stand by the will of the people. When public opinion changes - or if the minority opinion becomes the majority... then by all means, bring it to a vote and make it law. That again, is the entire purpose of this democracy.
do you know what a "Constitutional Republic" is? you seem to favor changing the U.S.A. into a mob rules raw democracy.... the constitution is there to protect the "individual" from the majority, that is what has made the country as great as it is

the founding fathers knew the difference, and they saw the wisdom of creating a constitutional republic
:2 cents:

_Richard_ 11-11-2008 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayVega (Post 15038750)
I'm still fucking shocked. Not that I care about color. Any guy who is qualified should be able to apply. The fact that there is enough open minded Americans is what shocked me. I really thought he didn't have a snowballs chance in hell.

funny, we'll elect a Black president, but Gays can't marry. WTF?
what's shocking to me is how the line of reasoning of 'what would happen next?'

isn't that thinking about the problems of the world ass backwards? Lets make sure the beneficial and contributing members of society get walked on BEFORE the people that aren't.

How could gay marriage justify incest?

_Richard_ 11-11-2008 06:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NextBigTube (Post 15039334)
30 years from now we would probably be saying -
"30 years ago nobody ever thought America would want a gay president.."
Hopefully so! It would be an amazing FU to world opinion about the 'realities' of the United States. Just as the election of Obama did

kane 11-11-2008 06:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiplashDug (Post 15039793)
Well - the thing is, it should be decided by the states. And the people in those states. Thats the rights given to the people and the states by the constitution. And in our democracy - the majority rules. Like it or not.... that's the principle that has made this country great.

So, no matter your position on the issue - people should stand by the will of the people. When public opinion changes - or if the minority opinion becomes the majority... then by all means, bring it to a vote and make it law. That again, is the entire purpose of this democracy.
Sure thing.
so tomorrow if the people vote and decide that anyone affiliated with porn should be thrown in jail let it be so.

If the people vote that slavery really is good for the country, let it be so. We can get rid of all the illegals by simply buying slaves and having them do the jobs the illegals are doing.

Women voting? Clearly you have seen them drive so they can't be allowed to vote. If the majority rules, make it so.

Abortion? no. nadda. can't do it. Put it to a vote and if it passes outlaw it. Make it so that even if you are raped or a victim of incest you get to carry the child to term and give birth to it. Forget how you feel. You are a 15 year old girl who was just raped. This isn't a crime, think of it as a miracle baby and enjoy the process.

Interracial marriage? Now we can't go having white and black couples making a bunch of brown babies out there. A simple majority vote can put an end to this.

Do you get the point? Judges are there to sometimes step in and stop the mob from trampling on the minority.

TheSenator 11-11-2008 06:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiplashDug (Post 15039793)
Well - the thing is, it should be decided by the states. And the people in those states. Thats the rights given to the people and the states by the constitution. And in our democracy - the majority rules. Like it or not.... that's the principle that has made this country great.

So, no matter your position on the issue - people should stand by the will of the people. When public opinion changes - or if the minority opinion becomes the majority... then by all means, bring it to a vote and make it law. That again, is the entire purpose of this democracy.
The majority of people thought segregation was right too. :disgust

AmeliaG 11-11-2008 06:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarChild (Post 15039839)
It is the primary driving factor in sexuality period, you can't spin it any other way. The NEED to reproduce drives the DESIRE for sex as a species.

Here, I'll try to explain it to you another way maybe it will be a little more clear.

Your body gets hungry because you need food to survive. Food also tastes good, and can be pleasurable to eat. This all reinforces the NEED to eat, take in sustance. Your body does not get hungry because food tastes good. See the difference?

Sex feels good and is something you desire because that's how our species reproduces. So the _fundamental_ driving force behind sex is always reproduction. Now people have sex because it's fun, just as they eat because they're bored, but that doesn't diminish the fact that the whole process begins with reproduction.

In other words, if humans reproduced by peeing in to a pot of hot water, you most likely wouldn't have any desire for what we know as sex but you would sure be driven to pee in a pot of hot water.


Should we then outlaw all food which lacks nutritive value? Should we tell restaurants who serve high calorie or high fat or high glycemic index food that they are not allowed to call what they sell food any more?

If we are going to go by the logic you put forth about reproduction, then, as a society, we should totally condone rape of any female old enough to get her period. I'm pretty sure we don't base modern society, in 2008, on what the primal urges of the majority are.

It might have been evolutionarily successful to whack opponents hard on the head with a cave rock, but, as a society, we don't let people do that any more. Even if the urge might persist.

TheSenator 11-11-2008 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane (Post 15039997)
Sure thing.
so tomorrow if the people vote and decide that anyone affiliated with porn should be thrown in jail let it be so.

If the people vote that slavery really is good for the country, let it be so. We can get rid of all the illegals by simply buying slaves and having them do the jobs the illegals are doing.

Women voting? Clearly you have seen them drive so they can't be allowed to vote. If the majority rules, make it so.

Abortion? no. nadda. can't do it. Put it to a vote and if it passes outlaw it. Make it so that even if you are raped or a victim of incest you get to carry the child to term and give birth to it. Forget how you feel. You are a 15 year old girl who was just raped. This isn't a crime, think of it as a miracle baby and enjoy the process.

Interracial marriage? Now we can't go having white and black couples making a bunch of brown babies out there. A simple majority vote can put an end to this.

Do you get the point? Judges are there to sometimes step in and stop the mob from trampling on the minority.

well said....

d-null 11-11-2008 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSenator (Post 15040020)
The majority of people thought segregation was right too. :disgust
yes, it is sad that so many people in the u.s.a. have no understanding of what the constitution was intended to achieve and how it made this country so great and yet they are so quick to argue their dumbass democracy mob rules theories :2 cents:

WarChild 11-11-2008 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmeliaG (Post 15040030)
Should we then outlaw all food which lacks nutritive value? Should we tell restaurants who serve high calorie or high fat or high glycemic index food that they are not allowed to call what they sell food any more?

If we are going to go by the logic you put forth about reproduction, then, as a society, we should totally condone rape of any female old enough to get her period. I'm pretty sure we don't base modern society, in 2008, on what the primal urges of the majority are.

It might have been evolutionarily successful to whack opponents hard on the head with a cave rock, but, as a society, we don't let people do that any more. Even if the urge might persist.
You and I were not talking about law, or regulation or society we're talking about the nature of sexuality. That's it. Nothing more.

Simply that homosexuality is unnatural, or at very least, it's nature's way of ending evolutionary dead ends.

AmeliaG 11-11-2008 06:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiplashDug (Post 15039864)
True! And I agree. But that is a separate issue all together. If you want campaign finance reform... by all means get it passed, you will have my vote.

But, that does not change the fact, that the funding practices are not currently against any rules, so therefor the election results are what they are. If we as a country continue down this path of using the COURT SYSTEM to overturn every thing the VOTER vote for just because one side didn't like the outcome, where does that leave us?

Basically, that is creating a society where JUDGES not THE PEOPLE (or their representatives) are making the laws. What happens down the road to the laws you hold dear when your opposition party gets into power and throws them all out via the court system?



The idea that all laws should or will change when different parties are voted into more of a majority is just plain wrong. One of the main functions of the judicial branch of government is to prevent this. American government is based on exactly these sorts of checks and balances. If laws changed like that, we would not have seen peaceful exchanges of power for the past 200+ years. People can use the expression "activist judge" until they are blue in the face, but that won't change the fact that our forefathers set up the judicial branch of government to have solid checks and balance and to correctly interpret the meaning of what the legislative branch made law.

The Prop 8 vote was extremely close in California. Basically, half for and half against. A lot of people had inaccurate information when they went to the polls because another state meddled in our California election. If you are saying the states should decide, then I really don't think this was what California wanted.

Apart from everything else, a lot of people, due to the wording of Prop 8, did not understand that NO for for leaving our state constitution as is and YES was for changing our state constitution.

AmeliaG 11-11-2008 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarChild (Post 15040050)
You and I were not talking about law, or regulation or society we're talking about the nature of sexuality. That's it. Nothing more.

Simply that homosexuality is unnatural, or at very least, it's nature's way of ending evolutionary dead ends.


Prop 8 is purely a legal issue. Maybe you are talking about your feelings, but I'm just talking about law.

We are changing the California constitution based on a ludicrously expensive campaign waged by people from another state. Prop 8 was the second most expensive vote in the nation this year. Counting senate seats and all other propositions etc. Only the presidency cost more.

Nobody has to agree on biology theory in order to strike down a patently discriminatory law. The reason why being that we do not base modern law on evolutionary theory of the pre-civilization nature of man.

After Shock Media 11-11-2008 07:03 PM
I would be damn near certain that the issue could be successfully argued at the supreme court level that this law would violate ones right to privacy. Like it or not who you marry is a private matter as long as everyone is of an age of being able to give consent to do so. The age of consent could be set or altered by the states but I do not see them being able to prevent much more than that. If you do not see how it falls under the right to privacy there is no way I will argue it.

d-null 11-11-2008 07:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarChild (Post 15040050)
You and I were not talking about law, or regulation or society we're talking about the nature of sexuality. That's it. Nothing more.

Simply that homosexuality is unnatural, or at very least, it's nature's way of ending evolutionary dead ends.

that is a silly theory, because homosexuals are still fertile and just as easily able to have offspring, if nature wanted it to be a dead end they would be sterile, and there is no evidence that homosexuality is hereditary, so that a gay father or mother having a child means that the child is 90% likely to be straight

many homosexuals reproduce due to societal pressures and social mores and get in relationships with the opposite sex

WarChild 11-11-2008 07:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmeliaG (Post 15040073)
Prop 8 is purely a legal issue. Maybe you are talking about your feelings, but I'm just talking about law.

We are changing the California constitution based on a ludicrously expensive campaign waged by people from another state. Prop 8 was the second most expensive vote in the nation this year. Counting senate seats and all other propositions etc. Only the presidency cost more.

Nobody has to agree on biology theory in order to strike down a patently discriminatory law. The reason why being that we do not base modern law on evolutionary theory of the pre-civilization nature of man.
Then why in the name of all that's good did you reply DIRECTLY to me, quoting me on a side track that had nothing to do with a Prop 8? Are you touched or just a little slow?

AmeliaG 11-11-2008 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarChild (Post 15040088)
Then why in the name of all that's good did you reply DIRECTLY to me, quoting me on a side track that had nothing to do with a Prop 8? Are you touched or just a little slow?


If your point is that your post was off-topic, then, uhm, okaaaaaaay.

I understood your point to be that biology argued in favor of banning gay marriage.

My point, in case you missed it, is that, in the United States of America and the State of California, in 2008, we do not make law based on theories of the primitive biology of man thousands of years ago.

pocketkangaroo 11-11-2008 07:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 15039778)
laws define what you can and can't do.
not sure why people have a hard time wrapping their minds around that obvious truth.

laws are based on values and what people as a whole find to be acceptable or unacceptable.

gay marriage... well, obviously enough people find it to be unacceptable, hence the failure to change the law.

everyone who does not like the law is free to fight to change it... or leave the country.

welcome to a functioning democracy

:2 cents:
Your statement would make a lot more sense if we were a democracy. We're a republic though, and the reason we are is to avoid exactly what you wrote above. A majority of the people discriminating against the minority.

pocketkangaroo 11-11-2008 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiplashDug (Post 15039793)
Well - the thing is, it should be decided by the states. And the people in those states. Thats the rights given to the people and the states by the constitution. And in our democracy - the majority rules. Like it or not.... that's the principle that has made this country great.

So, no matter your position on the issue - people should stand by the will of the people. When public opinion changes - or if the minority opinion becomes the majority... then by all means, bring it to a vote and make it law. That again, is the entire purpose of this democracy.
Again with the democracy stuff. Seriously, this is Civics 101 here guys. We learn this in 7th grade.

After Shock Media 11-11-2008 07:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 15040161)
Again with the democracy stuff. Seriously, this is Civics 101 here guys. We learn this in 7th grade.
Um are you agreeing or disagreeing with what he said?

pocketkangaroo 11-11-2008 07:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiplashDug (Post 15039842)
Religion was a HUGE part of the founding documents of the U.S. You can find the reference to such everywhere - including the writings of its authors. The authors were not interested in excluding Religion - they just did not want the GOV to be allowed to restrict it.
That's not true at all.

Thomas Jefferson who was one of the most influential people behind our founding documents expressely stated the separation of church and state.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

James Madison wrote "Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history".

The Treaty of Tripoli states "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". This was written by many of our founding fathers.

Religion had no impact in our founding documents. It was a very secular document. They did this to protect religion in fact. They knew that including religion in the government would restrict the religions of those who were not counted. That is why they made countless statements about the separation. Religion has no business inside our government.

And even if they had written in the documents that we should all believe in God and go by his rule, it wouldn't be relevant today. We're over 200 years removed from that time. Science has shown those religions to be fairy tales. The country would need to change and adapt to survive. Basing every decision off the documents of our founding fathers is suicide.

pocketkangaroo 11-11-2008 07:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by After Shock Media (Post 15040168)
Um are you agreeing or disagreeing with what he said?
I'm disagreeing with his use of the word democracy. We aren't a democracy, we're a republic. The whole concept of a republic is to avoid the pitfalls of majority rules. Our founding fathers hated the concept of a democracy.

After Shock Media 11-11-2008 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 15040219)
I'm disagreeing with his use of the word democracy. We aren't a democracy, we're a republic. The whole concept of a republic is to avoid the pitfalls of majority rules. Our founding fathers hated the concept of a democracy.
OK. Just checking as what you said could be taken either way if someone did not know the answer about democracy and republic and rights of the individual over the majority.

wjxxx 11-11-2008 08:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlienQ (Post 15039456)
Marriage is a primary example of church and state separation being separate a complete falsehood.

If Separation of Church and State were true Gay Marriage would have been fine since the beginning of the United States Of America.
That`s bullshit. Marriage existed before church or state was formed. Even most primitive tribes have their own marriage ceremonies. And it is always between guy and woman.

Another bullshit it`s your claims that banning gay marriage is a form of discrimination.
Homosexual guy can marry woman and lesbian woman can marry guy - they have equal rights as heterosexuals.

Ayla_SquareTurtle 11-11-2008 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmeliaG (Post 15039750)
You misunderstand the issue. It is the religious fanatics and bigots who want to change the California state constitution.

Some very competent American judges decided that the California state constitution protected the rights of homosexuals who wish to marry. The people who brought up the whole changing the constitution thing were the ones opposed to gay marriage. Prop 8 was to change the constitution. Permitting gay marriage would merely uphold the California state constitution as it originally stood.
Well don't come in here with your FACTS and READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS! We don't need none of that.

Ayla_SquareTurtle 11-11-2008 08:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarChild (Post 15039839)
It is the primary driving factor in sexuality period, you can't spin it any other way. The NEED to reproduce drives the DESIRE for sex as a species.

Here, I'll try to explain it to you another way maybe it will be a little more clear.

Your body gets hungry because you need food to survive. Food also tastes good, and can be pleasurable to eat. This all reinforces the NEED to eat, take in sustance. Your body does not get hungry because food tastes good. See the difference?

Sex feels good and is something you desire because that's how our species reproduces. So the _fundamental_ driving force behind sex is always reproduction. Now people have sex because it's fun, just as they eat because they're bored, but that doesn't diminish the fact that the whole process begins with reproduction.

In other words, if humans reproduced by peeing in to a pot of hot water, you most likely wouldn't have any desire for what we know as sex but you would sure be driven to pee in a pot of hot water.
Actually, sexual acts are used by many different animals, including some of our closest relatives, as bonding. Same sex individuals and opposite sex individuals who are not currently fertile will "have sex" or do things with the sex organs, none of which leads to reproduction. It's actually very interesting and ties into some other social structure issues which vary from species to species at times.

pocketkangaroo 11-11-2008 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarChild (Post 15039414)
Homosexuality is nature's way of telling you your genes represent an evolutionary dead end and you shouldn't continue them through any form of breeding.

Let them marry, but I say no kids what so ever. Mother nature obviously knows best.
That shows a complete and utter lack of knowledge toward evolution and how it works.

Pleasurepays 11-11-2008 08:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo (Post 15040150)
Your statement would make a lot more sense if we were a democracy. We're a republic though, and the reason we are is to avoid exactly what you wrote above. A majority of the people discriminating against the minority.
are you fucking retarded? really? you think you are clever by directing attention away from real arguments will moronic, played out, 3rd grade semantics?

let me help you out in another way so that even you, a total fucking idiot can understand the idea that was being expressed that everyone but you understood. people vote in free elections and elect people who represent their values/political positions to represent them in our government. the government is a reflection of the will and values of the people. proposition 8 didn't get voted down by whaling captains in Norway or by the King of Eskimos... it got voted down by residents of California who chose to vote.

i'm not saying you can't suck a cock and push some little twinks shit in. please... i'm all for you exercising your right to do so. don't think i have any intention of telling you what cock to suck, where, how or why. do what you want. its the stupidity that i have a problem with.

pocketkangaroo 11-11-2008 08:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiplashDug (Post 15039864)
But, that does not change the fact, that the funding practices are not currently against any rules, so therefor the election results are what they are. If we as a country continue down this path of using the COURT SYSTEM to overturn every thing the VOTER vote for just because one side didn't like the outcome, where does that leave us?
You do realize that without this, porn would be illegal in this country. I have to admit I'm amazed to see people here lash out against the very principles that allow them to even work in this industry.

pocketkangaroo 11-11-2008 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 15040381)
are you fucking retarded? really? you think you are clever by directing attention away from real arguments will moronic, played out, 3rd grade semantics?

let me help you out in another way so that even you, a total fucking idiot can understand the idea that was being expressed that everyone but you understood. people vote in free elections and elect people who represent their values/political positions to represent them in our government. the government is a reflection of the will and values of the people. proposition 8 didn't get voted down by whaling captains in Norway or by the King of Eskimos... it got voted down by residents of California who chose to vote.

i'm not saying you can't suck a cock and push some little twinks shit in. please... i'm all for you exercising your right to do so. don't think i have any intention of telling you what cock to suck, where, how or why. do what you want. its the stupidity that i have a problem with.
I wasn't even discussing the issue with you. I was simply pointing out the fact that you were trying to argue a point by using a form of government we don't have. Our government was setup the way it was so that 51% of the country couldn't discriminate against the other 49%.

Don't get upset with me because you couldn't pass a 6th grade social studies test.

AmeliaG 11-11-2008 08:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 15040381)
are you fucking retarded? really? you think you are clever by directing attention away from real arguments will moronic, played out, 3rd grade semantics?

let me help you out in another way so that even you, a total fucking idiot can understand the idea that was being expressed that everyone but you understood. people vote in free elections and elect people who represent their values/political positions to represent them in our government. the government is a reflection of the will and values of the people. proposition 8 didn't get voted down by whaling captains in Norway or by the King of Eskimos... it got voted down by residents of California who chose to vote.

i'm not saying you can't suck a cock and push some little twinks shit in. please... i'm all for you exercising your right to do so. don't think i have any intention of telling you what cock to suck, where, how or why. do what you want. its the stupidity that i have a problem with.

If you want to make the argument for realism vs. traditional American political practices and structures, here you go.

Realistically, Prop 8 was an extremely close election.

Realistically, the subject matter of Prop 8 is going to be put to vote again.

Realistically, there is going to be a lot of sturm und drang on the issue, but it is pretty obvious how the movie ends. Prop 8 will eventually fail in California and homosexuals and heterosexuals in California will have equal rights.


Utah meddled in California politics to the tune of many many millions of dollars. The people in favor of Prop 8 changed the California state constitution with money from Utah. Because of the wording and the campaign ads, many people who voted did not understand that NO was a vote for gay marriage and YES for a vote for changing the state constitution. Additionally, their propaganda included many bald-faced lies, including that Obama supported Prop 8, when he has clearly stated he does not. Many people voted YES because they were Obama supporters and wanted to go with what he backed, only they were given inaccurate information.

Darkland 11-11-2008 08:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarChild (Post 15039414)
Homosexuality is nature's way of telling you your genes represent an evolutionary dead end and you shouldn't continue them through any form of breeding.

Let them marry, but I say no kids what so ever. Mother nature obviously knows best.
You were on to something there, albiet in a derogatory fashion, but you contradict yourself in the next...

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarChild (Post 15039447)
How come we have to pander to homosexuals, clearly an unnatural act, but we find pedophelia to be disgusting?

Sexuality's primary purpose is reproduction of the species. That makes homosexuality unnatural.
Who says it is unnatural? And yes reproduction is the engine that drives humanity but that does not make homosexuality unnatural.

Like I posted in another thread on this topic, homosexuality has been around just as long a heterosexuality, it has been around since before the written word and language. Homosexuality is even present within the animal kingdom. It is obviously there for a purpose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarChild (Post 15039625)
I'm just playing the Devil's advocate here.

I don't actually think Homosexuals should be treated it any different way than anybody else. Do what you want, be with who you want, it really doesn't bother me.

I do think it's interesting that we find one kind of sexual deviancy disgusting while thinking of others as just the way people were made though.
If it doesn't bother you or you do not care then why the hostility and insults like "deviancy" and "telling you your genes represent an evolutionary dead end."

I think there is a larger underlying issue here, and that takes form of the individuals who are genetically predisposed to attraction of the same sex. You gonna tell them they are unnatural or a deviant when they have no choice in the matter?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarChild (Post 15040050)
You and I were not talking about law, or regulation or society we're talking about the nature of sexuality. That's it. Nothing more.

Simply that homosexuality is unnatural, or at very least, it's nature's way of ending evolutionary dead ends.
Contradictory again, but I agree with you in one respect. I believe homosexuality has a place in our society and that it is built into the human genetic structure for natural reasons. Possibly population control. Can you imagine if every human had the need to procreate? Things would get out of control very quickly.

pocketkangaroo 11-11-2008 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmeliaG (Post 15040481)
If you want to make the argument for realism vs. traditional American political practices and structures, here you go.

Realistically, Prop 8 was an extremely close election.

Realistically, the subject matter of Prop 8 is going to be put to vote again.

Realistically, there is going to be a lot of sturm und drang on the issue, but it is pretty obvious how the movie ends. Prop 8 will eventually fail in California and homosexuals and heterosexuals in California will have equal rights.


Utah meddled in California politics to the tune of many many millions of dollars. The people in favor of Prop 8 changed the California state constitution with money from Utah. Because of the wording and the campaign ads, many people who voted did not understand that NO was a vote for gay marriage and YES for a vote for changing the state constitution. Additionally, their propaganda included many bald-faced lies, including that Obama supported Prop 8, when he has clearly stated he does not. Many people voted YES because they were Obama supporters and wanted to go with what he backed, only they were given inaccurate information.
You are correct, it will eventually pass. Each generation becomes more knowledgeable about science and accepting of others who are not like them. The country went generations of voting down laws that would give equal rights to women and blacks. Eventually that changed. Gay is just the new black at the moment. Some people just need things to hate.

I still think there is a good chance of the Supreme Court overruling it down the road. Eventually you get the right judges and right case that allows it to happen. The whole issue is somewhat similar legally to segregation in this country.

Pleasurepays 11-12-2008 06:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmeliaG (Post 15040481)
If you want to make the argument for realism vs. traditional American political practices and structures, here you go.

Realistically, Prop 8 was an extremely close election.

Realistically, the subject matter of Prop 8 is going to be put to vote again.

Realistically, there is going to be a lot of sturm und drang on the issue, but it is pretty obvious how the movie ends. Prop 8 will eventually fail in California and homosexuals and heterosexuals in California will have equal rights.
i don't doubt any of that at all.

i just find the prop 8 issue humorous. people don't want to accept that people have voted on something and voted no. everyone loves a democracy until they don't agree with the outcome.

and the arguments are interesting. one side can argue that homosexuality is unnatural. the other side likes to argue that gays are born homosexual. however, making that argument means ignoring the fact that someone can obviously choose to be gay and choose to have gay sex (regardless of biology and genetics) as is common in this industry for example. so being gay can be the result of a variety of issues. that has to be denied because then it opens the door to the other arguments.

its pretty fascinating.

NikKay 11-12-2008 07:30 AM
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

nicedreams 11-12-2008 04:51 PM
Glad you aren't my cousin.

Jimmy

AmeliaG 11-12-2008 05:12 PM
If a poster like camperjohn64's parents had a polling place in their house, and it appears they did, then I wonder how the ballots were handled and if they were handled properly. I would not put that past a guy who threatens to rape and murder me because I suggested that single people were more likely to parade flamboyantly than married ones. I'm a little perturbed at people on GFY going quite that far and no one saying anything.

Kudles 11-12-2008 06:46 PM
I hate people who judge other people

procam 11-12-2008 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wtfent (Post 15038223)
Don't take any offense to it, you are just the only gay person I'm close to so you get to here my bitching, we are family and always will be. True family should be that group of people that can always tell you how things really are without all the BS you here from strangers and so called friends. Would you rather have everybody always agree with you or have a few that tell you how it really is? I totally except you for who you are, lol no need to slowly back away, thats taking it to far.

You are so right about this having nothing to do with gays getting married so please don't take offense now that we cleared that up. To you its about civil liberties, to me its about protecting our constitution. I was just proving a point with what I wrote you. Where will the civil liberty fights stop after this? They say be careful what you wish for because it might come true. If this passes every freak in the world will use this as an excuse to defend whatever weird civil liberty they want to defend.

There is a brother and sister couple in Germany right now trying to fight for their civil liberties. They think because they are adults and have kids together they should be allowed to marry even though they are blood related.

Like we both agreed on, this has nothing to do with gays but where will this insanity all stop.

30 years ago nobody ever thought another man would want to marry another man, just imagine in another 30 years what will be going on.
Be glad you are not my str8 cousin thats grounds for whoopin some str8 ass@!:321GFY


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:54 PM.
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123