The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Zampanó
If these decisions are not under my purview, why on earth would the itinerary of my junk be any of your business?

As long as humans have been ****ing each other, people have been commenting on or gossiping about who someone is ****ing or being ****ed by, why, how, when, etc. So why, suddenly, commenting on who you sleep with is off-limits, kind of eludes me. As long as you're a human being on the Earth and as long as I have a mouth, I certainly have the right to comment on who you sleep with, your taste in movies, music, video games, TV shows, clothing style, and pretty much everything that defines your "lifestyle", and you also have that right in the vice-versa.

That's how I look at it, anyway.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Those things are all under purview and in fact are frequently commented on by other people. I always kind of scratch my head when people make this point.

As long as humans have been ****ing each other, people have been commenting on or gossiping about who someone is ****ing or being ****ed by, why, how, when, etc. So why, suddenly, commenting on who you sleep with is off-limits, kind of eludes me. As long as you're a human being on the Earth and as long as I have a mouth, I certainly have the right to comment on who you sleep with, your taste in movies, music, video games, TV shows, clothing style, and pretty much everything that defines your "lifestyle", and you also have that right in the vice-versa.

That's how I look at it, anyway.

It's not against the right to be an irritating gossiping or moralizer, it's against those that would deny others equal rights because of their opinion.

Sure, but there's a difference between the two, which... you realize because that's what you just said.

My post was in reply to his "who are you to suddenly have an opinion on who I sleep with?"

I'm the guy next door. That alone entitles me to have an opinion. lol

Does it entitle me to treat you like shit, run over your dog, and generally just be a bad neighbor? Not really, no. Buuut if I want to invite some friends over, have a big BBQ in my backyard, and loudly talk to them about how much of a no-good f*g you and that lazy negro down the street are, that'd be my right, certainly.

The whole "who are you to" argument is pretty much a basis to quit the debate quickly in most cases. I doubt RH used it for the purpose but on a regular occasion, it's idiotic.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Those things are all under purview and in fact are frequently commented on by other people. I always kind of scratch my head when people make this point.

As long as humans have been ****ing each other, people have been commenting on or gossiping about who someone is ****ing or being ****ed by, why, how, when, etc. So why, suddenly, commenting on who you sleep with is off-limits, kind of eludes me. As long as you're a human being on the Earth and as long as I have a mouth, I certainly have the right to comment on who you sleep with, your taste in movies, music, video games, TV shows, clothing style, and pretty much everything that defines your "lifestyle", and you also have that right in the vice-versa.

That's how I look at it, anyway.

Comments, I can handle. I'm not being morally outraged by gossip about who f***** who. Chatter is fine (and probably more prevalent in the gay community than in the mainstream). Comments aren't damaging.

Does it entitle me to treat you like shit, run over your dog, and generally just be a bad neighbor? Not really, no. Buuut if I want to invite some friends over, have a big BBQ in my backyard, and loudly talk to them about how much of a no-good f*g you and that lazy negro down the street are, that'd be my right, certainly.

It's not against the right to be an irritating gossiping or moralizer, it's against those that would deny others equal rights because of their opinion.

I agree, forcing people to do this or that is wrong, sure.

I think that street goes both ways though, is all I'm saying.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

And I've lowered my stance against homosexuality precisely because there appears to be some (not as definitive as you claim) evidence of the biological factor. I posted the article precisely because Miranda's claim puts homosexuals in a bad light.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

When we refuse to make certain social distinctions, sure there's nothing wrong with it. I don't necessarily think it's wrong as much as it is different. To me, there is nothing normal about same sex relationships. On a certain level, for me to call something normal, it has to happen at least 51% of the time.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

Pertaining to couples who don't have children, that's a good argument if the opposition's argument [b]for marriage was procreation (which to some extent it should be). The bottom line is, if we define marriage as an agreement between one man and one woman, the sodomy situation doesn't play out, nor does the no children or economical reasons argument. I'm not saying that it's necessarily valid but if that IS the argument (man and woman), then those don't work. [/B]

Anyway, if you are trying to bypass those issues by declaring marriage to be 1 man and 1 woman then you've still got to face the 1138 legal rights and privileges being offered to heterosexual couples at the expense of same-sex couples. Even if you don't call it marriage, that is a civil rights issue.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I agree, forcing people to do this or that is wrong, sure.

I think that street goes both ways though, is all I'm saying.

Is that what I said, or are you just mentally retarded?

There's also the third option, which is that maybe you're speaking without knowledge of the context surrounding my post, ergo ignorance. You can take your pick. Retard.

3 hours of sleep in the last 24 might have made me miss something, but when you say "DON'T MAKE PEOPLE DO THINGS" and follow it up with "AND THAT GOES FOR BOTH SIDES," how else am I supposed to take it?

Edit: And "context" doesn't exist online. All we have is the words on the screen. If you have a sob story behind the post, i'm sorry i pissed you off?

Maybe you shouldn't try to discuss big boy topics with only three hours of sleep?

Though, frankly, I have to lol @ "as a black person". As a black person, and one who lives in the gay capital of the entire world, I imagine that I would have a lot more experience regarding civil rights issues, compared to... what irrelevant red neck home town/state are you from, again? Nebraska or something?

Originally posted by Zampanó
And now we're back to square one. I'm going to reiterate the main point of that quote: "It's: I'm different, and there's nothing wrong with that." Even if homosexuality is a choice, what's wrong with it? How is it a bad light to choose to be gay?

According to the Wiki, the proportion of women in the population is (.481). Clearly female births are not normal.

Anyway, if you are trying to bypass those issues by declaring marriage to be 1 man and 1 woman then you've still got to face the 1138 legal rights and privileges being offered to heterosexual couples at the expense of same-sex couples. Even if you don't call it marriage, that is a civil rights issue. [/B]

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Maybe you shouldn't try to discuss big boy topics with only three hours of sleep?

Though, frankly, I have to lol @ "as a black person". As a black person, and one who lives in the gay capital of the entire world, I imagine that I would have a lot more experience regarding civil rights issues, compared to... what irrelevant red neck home town/state are you from, again? Nebraska or something?

So wait, i don't have enough minority cred?

My point is that you're a hypocritical, naive individual who is just as biased as the people he speaks out against, if you genuinely believe that discrimination and bigotry don't happen on both sides of the fence.

And to answer your sarcasm seriously, of course you don't. You live in the middle of nowhere and haven't experienced anything besides your idiot peers, TV and the internet. So of course, your perspective is limited. I mean, that's why you brought up me being black, right? Because I should know better?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
My point is that you're a hypocritical, naive individual who is just as biased as the people he speaks out against, if you genuinely believe that discrimination and bigotry don't happen on both sides of the fence.

And to answer your sarcasm seriously, of course you don't. You live in the middle of nowhere and haven't experienced anything besides your idiot peers, TV and the internet. So of course, your perspective is limited. I mean, that's why you brought up me being black, right? Because I should know better?

Edit: I brought up you being black because the black community is notorious for jumping on every single perceived slight. (Rev. Jesse Jackson, anyone?)

Oh yea gotta agree with Zampano about the black community pretty much shitting on MLK's dream.. Well, it's JJ's fault. But I'd say the homosexual community is doing the same.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

That's not what I meant. I don't think you can use that stat in that situation.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

I'm not trying to bypass anything, I'm perfectly fine with civil unions being called civil unions and afforded the rights that heterosexual married couples have, as long as they're still not called marriages.

I feel like this discussion is going in a direction that's a lot less productive. So, please allow me to reel this back in a bit. What, exactly, did you take issue with in this statement:

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I agree, forcing people to do this or that is wrong, sure.

I think that street goes both ways though, is all I'm saying.

here?

At least the Tea Party wasn't doing stuff to get arrested at their protests....

Feel free to wage this war at RoK if you prefer. For the record, I'm right.