varusword75 wrote:
it's not like I read most your posts.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Don't Say Gay Bill
Don't Say Gay BillFollow
Or anything at all.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Gbaji, I'm posting from my phone, so you're not going to get a full explanation for the time being.
You said that you didn't agree with the "homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex" argument. Well, ******* super. It's a ******* insane argument. So why do I need to counter it again?
Just watch Alma contort himself trying to defend it. Seriously. What the **** was your point? Just to throw it out there and test the waters?
You said that you didn't agree with the "homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex" argument. Well, ******* super. It's a ******* insane argument. So why do I need to counter it again?
Just watch Alma contort himself trying to defend it. Seriously. What the **** was your point? Just to throw it out there and test the waters?
varusword75 wrote:
I'd say that a group of people are far more likely to contract and spread a deadly virus falls under the "overwhelming reason to not allow it".
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
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,
I guess you missed Jopheds post, not that I blame you it's not like I read most of your posts.
Anyway he posted,
I'd say that a group of people are far more likely to contract and spread a deadly virus falls under the "overwhelming reason to not allow it".
Edited, May 5th 2011 10:41am by varusword75
I guess you missed Jopheds post, not that I blame you it's not like I read most of your posts.
Anyway he posted,
Quote:
The courts have made it clear that you have a fundamental right to marry unless there's some overwhelming reason to not allow it.
I'd say that a group of people are far more likely to contract and spread a deadly virus falls under the "overwhelming reason to not allow it".
Edited, May 5th 2011 10:41am by varusword75
We are talking about marriage here. People in monogamous, commited relationships don't tend to contract or spread disease.
varusword75 wrote:
I'd say that a group of people are far more likely to contract and spread a deadly virus falls under the "overwhelming reason to not allow it".
Lesbians?
#583Almalieque,
Posted: May 05 2011 at 9:04 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The government doesn't care who you love or if you love at all, hence why a person who doesn't love anyone is equally discriminated against.
varusword75 wrote:
Ugly,
You're assuming they're going to change their behaviour.
Quote:
I'd say that a group far more likely to contract and spread a deadly virus would be an ideal group to paired up though marriage so as not to spread it everywhere else.
You're assuming they're going to change their behaviour.
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
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
You are denied the right to marry someone you love. Marriage is about love. It cannot be any clearer than that. If you fail to see this, that's your problem, but it also puts you arguing from the wrong position.
The government doesn't care who you love or if you love at all, hence why a person who doesn't love anyone is equally discriminated against.
How can we discriminate against the unknown? No one knows nor cares who you might fall in love with. The discrimination is 100% denying the right to marry someone of the same sex. If you so happen to love someone of the same sex, then you're screwed. A bisexual can't marry someone they love of the same sex, but they can marry someone they love of the opposite sex. A heterosexual man can marry a woman who he doesn't love. The person's sexuality is irrelevant. There are no laws requiring love, you're making the same nonsensical argument that Belkira was making.
You really have a hardon for me, don't you?
Almalieque wrote:
How can we discriminate against the unknown?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Amalieque: Pathologically disingenuous.
varusword75 wrote:
Ugly,
No they don't. What's the divorce rate?
Quote:
Don't most people when they get married?
No they don't. What's the divorce rate?
varusword75 wrote:
What's the divorce rate?
Off-topic, divorce rate stats suffer from the same weighing issues as life expectancy stats; premature endings drag the whole thing down and paint an inaccurate picture. Once you make it past the first couple years of marriage, the chance of your marriage surviving increase dramatically. Likewise, a bunch of other variables (income, time between marriage and having a child, your own family, religion) have a strong influence in bucking the odds.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
You are denied the right to marry someone you love. Marriage is about love. It cannot be any clearer than that. If you fail to see this, that's your problem, but it also puts you arguing from the wrong position.
The government doesn't care who you love or if you love at all, hence why a person who doesn't love anyone is equally discriminated against.
How can we discriminate against the unknown? No one knows nor cares who you might fall in love with. The discrimination is 100% denying the right to marry someone of the same sex. If you so happen to love someone of the same sex, then you're screwed. A bisexual can't marry someone they love of the same sex, but they can marry someone they love of the opposite sex. A heterosexual man can marry a woman who he doesn't love. The person's sexuality is irrelevant. There are no laws requiring love, you're making the same nonsensical argument that Belkira was making.
You really have a hardon for me, don't you?
I did ;)
The entire community won't change. Just like how all heterosexual men don't change and suddenly become monogamous. The point is, that your reason of spreading disease is unfounded as it will actually reduce the spread of disease by shacking up some who are monogamous. Don't worry though, none of us expect you to comprehend any of this. We're just going through the motions for the benefit of the viewers at home.
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
varusword75 wrote:
Do we have any real proof that allowing homosexuals to marry would be good for society?
Well, we could link statistics from European countries that allow SSM, but you don't real sources, facts, or proofs, so why would it matter?
varusword75 wrote:
Do we have any real proof that allowing homosexuals to marry would be good for society?
I don't need to provide any. The standing is that marriage is a fundamental right that can not be denied without some major justification. Once someone shows harm due to their rights being denied, it's up to the defenders to justify why their rights should be denied.
In the most recent case in California, this resulted in some jamoke saying that their rights should be denied because marriage is all about having children and he didn't need to prove it because it's just obvious. Brilliant legal analysis which quickly led to the defense appealing their lost case.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,
Then do it.
Quote:
Well, we could link statistics from European countries that allow SSM,
Then do it.
Why? You don't read it. Just looked up some info online though, and it seems I'm right. Also interestingly, states that BAN gay marriage directly make homosexuals feel worse off and more discriminated against, and shows an increase of HIV among gay men. If you'd like a quote:
Quote:
The data of current psychological and other social science studies on same-sex marriage in comparison to opposite-sex marriage indicate that same-sex and opposite-sex relationships do not differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent's sexual orientation is unrelated to their ability to provide a healthy and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits. Same-sex couples and their children are likely to benefit in numerous ways from legal recognition of their families, and providing such recognition through marriage will bestow greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships.
Pawelski JG, Perrin EC, Foy JM, et al. (July 2006). "The effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws on the health and well-being of children". Pediatrics 118
Pawelski JG, Perrin EC, Foy JM, et al. (July 2006). "The effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws on the health and well-being of children". Pediatrics 118
So, banning gay marriage means worse health for homosexuals, and granting it will help them. Ball in your court, my closeted friend.
Edit: Here's an article about an author who studied the effect of gay marriage legalization in the Netherlands, where it's been legal for about a decade: http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/how-the-dutch-work-same-sex-marriage/
Her conclusion? It caused no damage to "traditional" marriage, made homosexuals personally happier, and was better for their self-esteem than civil unions.
Edited, May 5th 2011 1:54pm by LockeColeMA
varusword75 wrote:
Ugly,
or it could actually spread even more because homosexuals would be more willing to have sex with other guys they think are married and monogamous.
Quote:
The point is, that your reason of spreading disease is unfounded as it will actually reduce the spread of disease by shacking up some who are monogamous
or it could actually spread even more because homosexuals would be more willing to have sex with other guys they think are married and monogamous.
...what?
varusword75 wrote:
Ugly,
or it could actually spread even more because homosexuals would be more willing to have sex with other guys they think are married and monogamous.
Quote:
The point is, that your reason of spreading disease is unfounded as it will actually reduce the spread of disease by shacking up some who are monogamous
or it could actually spread even more because homosexuals would be more willing to have sex with other guys they think are married and monogamous.
You mean married closet cases?
Eske Esquire wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Ugly,
or it could actually spread even more because homosexuals would be more willing to have sex with other guys they think are married and monogamous.
Quote:
The point is, that your reason of spreading disease is unfounded as it will actually reduce the spread of disease by shacking up some who are monogamous
or it could actually spread even more because homosexuals would be more willing to have sex with other guys they think are married and monogamous.
...what?
Haha, that's almost as retarded as gbaji's assertion that abortion increases unwanted babies because people have unsafe sex solely because they can abort and then decide not to.
Recent Visitors: 233
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (233)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Don't Say Gay Bill
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC