Second EU Nation Moves To Ban Gay Marriage

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Nonsense. There are many comparisons that can be made between the two. Below is a list of the main ones.

1) The main purpose of both sexual acts is recreation as opposed to reproduction.
2) Neither sexual union can produce fertile offspring.
3) Both acts generally involve penetration of the anus for the purpose of sexual stimulation.

What foolishness. Of course marriage has to do with procreation, and the ability to procreate has everything to do with love. It's the most intimate and tangible way two individuals can express their love for one another.

You're attempting to equate two types of situations that are vastly different. The bottom line is that heterosexual unions have the ability to produce fertile offspring. Same sex unions do not. One can't make simple comparisons between the two behaviors, because the end results for each of the behavoirs..are vastly different.

The only clear results observed from same sex unions are the following:

a) hemmoroids
b) Creating big messes of fecal matter/saliva/and sexually reproductive fluids..over body parts meant for excretion of waste and ingestion of food.
c) Spreading STD's

Not bigotry. People oppose degenaritive behavior, and those who attempt to pass off degenerative behavior as logical and rewarding. History has shown that such behavior has led to the ultimate destruction of many once great societies.(ie Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc)

There is nothing rewarding or honorable about two men engaging in sexual acts involving the anus, mouth, and touching of each others genitalia. Me stating this is not bigotry. It is truth and simply put..common sense.

I have no problem with an individual doing what they want to do with their bodies in private. I just don't like it when they try to force this "acceptance" of such degenerative and unnatural behaviors on others.

Fin

You're totally full of shit.

Once again, you're lying. You're making things up. And you're being a bigot.

Provide me with ANY EVIDENCE that the cultures you mentioned fell due to sexual behavior, or acceptance of homosexuality? Any evidence. One website that isn't based on your precious bible?

Come on, just answer this one challange. Back up your shit beliefs, just once, with anything credible!

F*CKING CIVILIZATIONS COLLAPSING FROM SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, YOU CAN'T REALLY BE THAT DENSE!

And, you still haven't answered the question: HAVE YOU EVER HAD SEX?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, you're telling PVS that you ARE that fricking stupid?

As I pointed out to you, being gay does not make a man sterile. If that gay man were to have sex with a woman during her fertile period, she could become pregnant. This is also the case with a heterosexual man.

More evolved = superior in your mindset. However, that is not really what the theory of evolution is all about! You seem to think that evolution implies that one day humanity will evolve into beings of pure energy, existing as a thought! That isn't the case.

Cap..Cap..what part of this statement don't you understand...let me repeat it again...read it slowly this time..

Originally posted by whobdamandog

Regardless of their ability to "reproduce" with the opposite gender, their sexual preference and behavior is not conducive to producing offspring.

If they were more "evolved" they would be attracted to sexual behavior that produced fertile offspring..right? Thus that would enable homosexuals a greater chance of surviving and passing on the homo genes right? Again Cap, PVS, BF..this is real common sense stuff fellas..you all just have to read a bit slower and apply a bit more "common sense" to what you have read next time...🙄

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Cap..Cap..what part of this statement don't you understand...let me repeat it again...read it slowly this time..

If they were more "evolved" they would be attracted to sexual behavior that produced fertile offspring..right? Thus that would enable homosexuals a greater chance of surviving and passing on the homo genes right? Again Cap, PVS, BF..this is real common sense stuff fellas..you all just have to read a bit more carefully and a bit slower next time...🙄

Wrong! Every time you open your mouth, you prove to everyone, save yourself, that you posses no knowledge of the things you talk about. Your grasp of these concepts is totally ridiculous! You've wasted page after page of posts arguing against things you don't even ****ing understand!

And "common sense" is not very common. You are living proof of that fact. You can not pass on the "homo gene"! There is no sinlge "homo gene" as you so insultingly put it. If you paid any attention to what you've been arguing against, rather than spinning your wheels by babbling about things you don't understand, you'd know there is no single homo gene.

Do you understand how human genes work? Have you tried to find out? Do you even believe in human genetics, or is that against your religion too?

Again:

Have You Ever Had Sex?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic

There is no sinlge "homo gene" as you so insultingly put it.

That's all I was waiting for Cap..straight out of the "horse's mouth" so to speak.

Don't try to force your lifestyle CHOICES on others.

Fin

whobdamandog, I challenge you to name a single rational reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry that is related to a legitimate state interest.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
That's all I was waiting for Cap..straight out of the "horse's mouth" so to speak.

Don't try to force your lifestyle CHOICES on others.

Fin

Straight from the horses mouth, you are ignorant!

And you'll notice, in the very quote you decided to use, it says single gene. There is no single gene that makes you gay. That is a fact. There are many genes that act in unison, controlling sexuality. The fact that you claim another false victory over that statment only proves me right, that you know nothing of which you argue against.

Everyone on these forums wouldn't be calling you stupid if you could come up with an argument that made you seem at all informed.

God, are you stupid!

Again:

Have you ever had sex?

You've also not provided us with any evidence that the civilizations you mentioned were destroyed by the sexual activity of it's citizens.

I wonder why?

How disappointing, Europe seems to be heading in such a promising direction in this area, doing away with foolish outdated notions, and doing the right thing by letting gays marry (I was hoping all the English media with Elton John and so forth might have some effect on Australia's prime minister, that is rethinking his opposition to gay marriages.)

All I can hope is that this wont suddenly become the first actual example of the domino effect, and that other EU nations wont follow suit.

You've also not provided us with any evidence that the civilizations you mentioned were destroyed by the sexual activity of it's citizens.

I will say I don't believe any of that's true. Civilisations collapse for a number of reasons, but sexuality has never been one of them. In fact some of the greatest, longest lasting cultures, had quite interesting sexuality. Both Rome and Greece had thriving homosexual communities (Greece didn't really fall, it became the Eastern Roman Empire, of the Byzantines), Egypt had a strong history of incest etc. In fact Edward Gibbon blamed the fall of Rome on the rising barbarian powers, but they were secondary, he pointed his finger firmly as Christianity, and what it had done to Roman virtues and society.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
How disappointing, Europe seems to be heading in such a promising direction in this area, doing away with foolish outdated notions, and doing the right thing by letting gays marry (I was hoping all the English media with Elton John and so forth might have some effect on Australia's prime minister, that is rethinking his opposition to gay marriages.)

All I can hope is that this wont suddenly become the first actual example of the domino effect, and that other EU nations wont follow suit.

I don't think the domino effect will take place. The EU said they were considering taking actions against Poland for it's opposition to "gay rights".

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Depends on how you categorize "homosexual" behavior in animals. Moot point none the less. Animal behavior can't be equated with human behavior.

then i guess you cant apply the laws of evolution to your weak little argument, right?

oh i love this:
"Don't try to force your lifestyle CHOICES on others."
ok, so you know better, although you have no idea why gay people are actually gay. but you SAID SO!!!!! SO THATS IT!!!! FIN!!!!
great way to cap off your argument. did you stand up on your computer desk and beat your chest when you posted that?

what amazes me is your completely irrational hatred and prejudice for gay people. makes me think....hmmm....what is it psychologists say about people with an intense and irrational fear of gay people...........cant place my finger on it...........somebody help me out.....

well anyway, when you run out of bullshit to spew, i look forward to your flooding of smilies and unfunny owned pics. dont let me down.

You mean, when they're gay too?

I ahte Gay People, but that's because I have no soul 😐

Originally posted by §noopbert
You mean, when they're gay too?

I ahte Gay People, but that's because I have no soul 😐

Don't worry about your soul, I'm sure it'll turn up, smelling of good quality whisky, wearing a traffic cone on it's head and covered in purple lipstick. Maybe it will even have a tattoo in an unsightly place. That, or it will get seriously in debt playing cards to a man called Serjo and have to begin peddling vital organs in South America.

After all, souls need the occasional night out on the town. And when it returns you can happily proclaim your support for gay people. 😉

Nonsense. There are many comparisons that can be made between the two. Below is a list of the main ones.

1) The main purpose of both sexual acts is recreation as opposed to reproduction.
2) Neither sexual union can produce fertile offspring.
3) Both acts generally involve penetration of the anus for the purpose of sexual stimulation.

You're telling me that straight people ONLY have sex for reproduction? Many many straight people have sex for recreation as well. Also, sex is only done for more reasons then the two you've given, this is known as the logical fallacy of "false dilemma". It's also an expression of love between two people, which can be done in both heterosexual sex and homosexual sex.

Also, where's this strange "general" occurrence of anal sex in bestiality? How would you know that it usually involves anal sex? This is nothing but an assumption on your part, probably because you wanted to have 3 examples rather then 2. All of these "comparisons" are incredibly questionable, at best, and absolute bullshit, at worst.

Homosexuality is between two consenting human adults, both of which can understand and comprehend the meaning of sex and marriage. Bestiality is between a man and an animal that can't give valid consent and doesn't comprehend the action that is happening. Big difference between the two.

What foolishness. Of course marriage has to do with procreation, and the ability to procreate has everything to do with love. It's the most intimate and tangible way two individuals can express their love for one another.

The two aren't inherently connected. People get married without ever subscribing to that idea, some marry and never have children. Marriage is simply a recognition of the love between two people, that's recognized by the government, procreation has nothing to do with it. Please provide proof that marriage has something constantly to do with procreation. You simply saying this doesn't make it so.

You're attempting to equate two types of situations that are vastly different. The bottom line is that heterosexual unions have the ability to produce fertile offspring. Same sex unions do not. One can't make simple comparisons between the two behaviors, because the end results for each of the behavoirs..are vastly different.

The only clear results observed from same sex unions are the following:

a) hemmoroids
b) Creating big messes of fecal matter/saliva/and sexually reproductive fluids..over body parts meant for excretion of waste and ingestion of food.
c) Spreading STD's

Avoiding my question. Two heterosexual people get married who aren't able to have children, how is this different then homosexual's getting married? Would you oppose this on the same basis, since, according to you, marriage is primarily about procreation? The end result would be the same. Two people are married for the sake of love who can't produce offspring themselves. Also, it's quite ironic that you are saying I'm making improper comparisons between two pairs of human beings who can't procreate, while you are under the incorrect belief that comparing homosexual and bestial sex is in some way sound.

You're "clear results" is just pathetic trolling, sadly, probably not intended, and it's quite disgusting hearing your honest, and moronic views on homosexuality. Also, on another note, I weep for your child, who would honestly probably be better of with a homosexual parent then you. I certainly hope he adopts more common sense when he grows up then you have.

Hemorrhoids have nothing to do with homosexuality. This is again based on the broken idea that anal sex = homosexual sex, which, as has been said in the past, is often not the case. Just another sloppy and factually incorrect assumption you are making.

Again, oral/anal sex happens in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, it's not mutually exclusive to one type.

STD's are running rampant in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. As long as the person is smart and uses protection, it won't matter what sexual preference they are. Again, STD's, like every other "clear observation" (which, might I add, are baseless and only observed by you) you've listed is not exclusive to homosexuality.

Not bigotry. People oppose degenaritive behavior, and those who attempt to pass off degenerative behavior as logical and rewarding. History has shown that such behavior has led to the ultimate destruction of many once great societies.(ie Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc)

There is nothing rewarding or honorable about two men engaging in sexual acts involving the anus, mouth, and touching of each others genitalia. Me stating this is not bigotry. It is truth and simply put..common sense.

I have no problem with an individual doing what they want to do with their bodies in private. I just don't like it when they try to force this "acceptance" of such degenerative and unnatural behaviors on others.

Yes, bigotry, as has been shown in the previous segments of this post.

Homosexuality is no more or less rewarding then heterosexuality. Both involve two willing adults, and both involve the same emotions, feelings, and level of love and involvement between the two parties.

No one's trying to force anything on you. YOU and people like you are trying to force YOUR beliefs on others by outlawing something that has no effect on you. If homosexual marriage was allowed, it's not like they'd be doing it in your living room, or even in your church. Everything would be happening in private, no one would force you to watch it or experience it. You'd not even notice the difference, other then maybe some happier people in the world. But yeah, no real Christian would want that.

Also, if you oppose unnatural behaviors then you should oppose marriage itself. The idea of one person spending their entire life with another person is unnatural in and of itself. We have a biological drive creates an innate desire to have multiple sexual partners during our life. As humans we've grown to the point where we can deny this, but the desire is still there, and marriage goes against this. How often do you see two animals in nature spending an entire life staying sexually mutual to one another?

Originally posted by BackFire
Also, on another note, I weep for your child, who would honestly probably be better of with a homosexual parent then you.

You kinda have to have sex before you can have children. Or, at least find a woman willing to carry his child to term without throwing herself down the stairs.

Well, I dunno. Maybe if you pray hard enough baby Jesus will intervene.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Okay..obviously the "evolutionary" gap between man quadrapedal animals is to large, how about between a man and an ape. Many apes are intelligent enough..to communicate using limited sign language...corrrect? So would a union between a man and say a female gorilla be acceptable..if of course..the female gorilla agreed to such a union? After all..men and apes are of the same family..correct?

Children can communicate- that doesn't mean they can consent, either legally or morally. No animal is sophisticated enough to do that.

Again, ridiculous examples that you know full well cannot stand up to analysis are just a waste of time. You aren't even being serious; you are just trying to catch out people who subscribe to evolutionary theory (i.e. nearly everyone). It won't work- you will be using false logic every time.

The significant issue on this piece isn't if gays are right or wrong but what civil rights can be qualified if action is taken on same sex civil unions. This was said a few pages back its not whether its right or wrong in and of itself but where are people allowed to take this civil matter when its finished.

However I do like the idea of polygomy as long as I get my tax pieces on all the wives🙂

Originally posted by soleran30
The significant issue on this piece isn't if gays are right or wrong but what civil rights can be qualified if action is taken on same sex civil unions. This was said a few pages back its not whether its right or wrong in and of itself but where are people allowed to take this civil matter when its finished.

However I do like the idea of polygomy as long as I get my tax pieces on all the wives🙂

you are still trying to say there is a slippery slope when there clearly is none.
regardless of the intention of your posts, the connections you make are indicative of the same old "allowing gays to marry will lead to a breakdown in morals" prejudice, dispite your consistant PC disclaimers to the contrary.

Any person should be allowed to enter into a civil and legal union with any other consenting person. 'Civil' is used simply as a point that the union is not necessarily religious or spiritual (but it can be) but is still officiated over in some official capacity, and 'legal' simply represents the relationship of that union with the state, in the form of taxation, accounting, and the fact that for practical reasons you can only enter into a union with one person.

Nothing else matters- no factor of the children you have or do not have, or the acts you perform. The purpose of the union is as an act of civil and legal commitment and that is it. It's a basic human right to be able to form such a union if desired; what you intend to DO in that union is neither here nor there.

So there is no need for all this paranoid worry about where such an ideal leads.

I think the essential point is not even one of solidifying a union, but more of conferring the rights a spouse has under the law- E.G. the intestacy rules.

Originally posted by PVS
you are still trying to say there is a slippery slope when there clearly is none.
regardless of the intention of your posts, the connections you make are indicative of the same old "allowing gays to marry will lead to a breakdown in morals" prejudice, dispite your consistant PC disclaimers to the contrary.

ok you do know that MOST laws today that include applicable laws to "marriage" and other pieces are clearly defined and one new law will not create the solution. Stop TRYING to say and use some basic moral piece on my understanding. I DON"T care about same sex unions from a moral standpoint. What I am spelling out to you using various examples on several different posts is that there are OTHER legal ramifications to allowing this union none of which have a moral basis just an underlying understanding that WHOLE tax structures will be changed, TONS of health laws, inheritance pieces........whatever thats my point. So its not just a simple sign a new law piece and its ok.......

Originally posted by soleran30
whatever thats my point

based on absolutley nothing.

your entire aregument is based on nothing. "TONS" of nothing