·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Don't Say Gay Bill
Don't Say Gay BillFollow
Thank you.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Thank you.
I do what I can.
Seriously, come on, dog rape? This guy does not have it together.
Edited, Apr 28th 2011 5:03pm by Guenny
Edited, Apr 28th 2011 5:03pm by Guenny
Guenny wrote:
Seriously, come on, dog rape? This guy does not have it together.
Edited, Apr 28th 2011 5:03pm by Guenny
Edited, Apr 28th 2011 5:03pm by Guenny
I don't know, to me dog rape proves that gays are evil.
Driftwood wrote:
I'm not saying people shouldn't be against it, I'm just saying that the problem is that the people who are against it make a point of trying to make sure that everyone else ends up being against it, to the point of spending hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars to make sure that legislation doesn't go through.
I feel the same way towards people who push homosexuality acceptace.
Driftwood wrote:
Why don't you show us? You're being just as ridiculous as the other side by acting like you have the manual. You're against it, I get it, I'm fine with that, you just need to be able to admit that you can't say that it's unnatural.
The point is there is no manual of the human body and it doesn't matter if it is or isn't natural. Being blind is natural, but not considered normal. People have made that determination by examining our bodies and how they work.
Driftwood wrote:
We have established that ***** goes in ******, baby comes out 9 months later. What we don't have all the details about is the way the human brain and attraction works. Not completely at least. You're basically saying that procreation is the only reason anyone should have sex ever. And if you really believe that, then it really must suck to not be getting laid.
Basically my argument is based around that at all. You're projecting an argument unto me that I'm not making. People have sex for pleasure all of the time. The FOCUS was on the fact of how the ****** and the ***** compliment each other, the fact that reproduction is a result is just a nice bonus.
As for the brain and attraction, I just saw a commercial of a show talking about people who are in LOVE with objects, i.e. their car. What is your honest opinion of those people?
Nadenu wrote:
I'm not surprised he doesn't get this. And now I'm even more afraid of him.
I'm surprised that I can state the opposition numerous of times and it's completely ignored. I question it to prove the very thing wrong and ALL OF THE SUDDEN people "get it". Actually, I'm not surprised at all. You should read more before posting...
Ugly wrote:
You realize that in order for there to be a normal person to set as the 20/20 standard, you have to have set an usual eye sight level, yes?
I'm fully aware of that. I was focusing on the fact that we determine what is normal by examining our bodies.
Almalieque wrote:
I'm fully aware of that. I was focusing on the fact that we determine what is normal by examining our bodies.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Think of your sig Ugly, you can do it.
If you're saying that reproduction through sex is "just a nice bonus" and that pleasure is the main point of sex, then you can't say that anything that give you that pleasure isn't normal. Your argument never make any sense and your comparisons are still terrible.
This message is not directed at you.
This message is not directed at you.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm fully aware of that. I was focusing on the fact that we determine what is normal by examining our bodies.
I'm confused on the question. If I understand your concern correctly, are you referencing to who is actually making the determination? If so, that was a failure of my own words. I mean people, but I used doctors as examples because that's typically what they do.
Almalieque wrote:
I feel the same way towards people who push homosexuality acceptace.
Heh, don't worry, I know you don't.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Think of your sig Ugly, you can do it.
Edited, Apr 29th 2011 8:58am by bsphil
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Almalieque wrote:
Segregation and acceptance are two different things.
On the point at hand, what's wrong with allowing a teacher to discuss homosexuality in any form? We're not talking about classes dedicated to acceptance by force.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
I got a little sad when I read the China thread and started missing BT, but I'm glad he lives on in Alma's ironic signature quote, which I'm 100% sure he takes as a compliment, judging by the other quotes around it.
Ah, I don't need Ugly's sig to remind me that Alma has no social functioning whatsoever, I just need the end of every one of his posts where he has the two people that ever agreed with him and my favorite person ever insulting him.
Ah, I don't need Ugly's sig to remind me that Alma has no social functioning whatsoever, I just need the end of every one of his posts where he has the two people that ever agreed with him and my favorite person ever insulting him.
Gays should have the same opportunity to be miserable just like the rest of us married straights.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Almalieque wrote:
Bsphil wrote:
And the people who pushed desegregation?
Heh, don't worry, I know you don't.
Heh, don't worry, I know you don't.
???
Segregation and acceptance are two different things. Churches are predominately self-segregated, but any race is accepted to attend. Nice failed attempt to try to link skin color to sexuality.
I find it funny that when people argue about SSM and bring up bestiality, incest, polygamy, etc. proponents say that they are completely unrelated stating it's a slippery slope argument. Yet, at the same time, will reference the civil rights movement, segregation, slavery, women rights, etc. in every sentence possible.
Yeah, weird that they would compare it to civil rights. Comparing it like a dumbass is much better.
Edit: this reminds me of that time when they tried to outlaw sodomy and legalize beastiality in Texas.
Edited, Apr 29th 2011 1:38pm by Ailitardif
Almalieque wrote:
I find it funny that when people argue about SSM and bring up bestiality, incest, polygamy, etc. proponents say that they are completely unrelated stating it's a slippery slope argument. Yet, at the same time, will reference the civil rights movement, segregation, slavery, women rights, etc. in every sentence possible.
SSM is unquestionably a civil rights matter. The courts have ruled and upheld that marriage is a fundamental right and can only be denied under special circumstances. It is upon opponents to SSM to explain why this fundamental right should be denied to this specific group. Unfortunately, due to politics and homophobia, it has fallen upon the proponents to convince people supposedly tasked with protecting our rights why they should be allowed to have them.
There is no legal "slippery slope" argument from SSM to [boogeyman sexual thingie] because [boogeyman sexual thingie] has its own specific reasons for being denied this right. If people can adequately defend why [boogeyman sexual thingie] shouldn't be allowed, it won't be. If they can't, then maybe it should be. But whether they can or not has nothing to do with SSM; it's nothing more than a desperate proxy being used because the opponent is losing the SSM debate and wants to change grounds to something "scarier".
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
something "scarier".
Something I've noticed: when people use this argument, and cite the example of "What if people wanted to marry an object?", 9 out of every 10 times they use "toaster."
Toasters: the most marriageable appliance.
Edited, Apr 29th 2011 3:51pm by Eske
**** toasters
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Eske Esquire wrote:
Toasters: the most marriageable appliance.
Slots, man. Slots.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Guess that makes vacuums more adulterous.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Sir Xsarus wrote:
@#%^ toasters
Jophiel wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Toasters: the most marriageable appliance.
Slots, man. Slots.
How do you know which slot is the non-gay one?
Because its not the one on the back.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Heh... ok
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 606
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (606)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Don't Say Gay Bill
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC