Originally posted by FeceMan
3. If homosexuals want to get married, they need to start acting like it. Now, I'm not saying that all gays are promiscuous sluts, but when they are fornicating in the street, they set an example that says that they are far too base in their desires to be qualified for marriage. Quite frankly, a loss of self-control into physical pleasures like that--in public!--demonstrates and almost animalistic, bestial nature to them; they appear...unevolved. If gays want to marry, such activities need to stop at once.
The rest of what you said I am in agreeance with, except here:
I've never seen Gay people f*ck on the street...seriously. I've had wild sex, sure, i've seen some graphic and raunchy gay porn, but i have also seen straight porn which was just as nasty.
Your argument has the following flaws:
1) A few gay men having sex on the street does not constitute or represent all other gay people. "If gays want to marry, then they should stop acting like this..."...what do you watch ? Where are you from where this occurs ?
If two or three, or even a hundred gay men had an orgy in Times Square, that would STILL not represent the Gay/Bisexual population. So you would restrict the freedoms on all gay people, because a few of them have done something outrageous ?
The same absurd reasoning goes behind labelling all Black people as criminals, because a few of them commit crimes....
2) Even if your example DID accurately portray all Gay people (which it doesn't)....what about Straight people ?
Did you know:
-there is MORE straight porn than Gay porn...?
-there is more heterosexual rape than homosexual rape ?
-there are MORE promiscious heterosexuals than homosexuals?
- there are more HETEROSEXUAL DIVORCES than Homosexual divorces ? lol
If you want to make generalizations, then you have to be fair.
How absurd would it sound If I argued that if Heterosexuals want to keep the right to marriage, then they should start "acting" like it ? 😬
You're 3rd point is stupid....simply put.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Why can't some behave that way and others marry? Also, what has one to do with the other at all.
Not to mention that such a thing would be impossible to enforce.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
If your aim is to change that, then pointing to animals will never work and nor will saying : "Genetics, take a class."
It is not a matter of pointing to animals. Human beings are animals.
It likely comes as zero suprise to you that a majority of the things you've said in this thread are pretty much exact quotes of posts by Whob. He was always quick to say that people who defend homosexuals are saying it's the same as a dog licking his ass or eating his own shit.
Tell me what you'd think if someone equated you to that kind of activity? Do you even stop for one second and consider how that would make you feel? Do you ever stop for one second and consider how in the hell you could call homosexuality a result of molestation or flighty neighbors? It's just not true. You know it's not true. You accused my father of molesting me in my crib when I was too young to remember. Do you honestly think that every homosexual in the world (and there are a hell of a lot more of us than you think) were molested by their parents or their childhood neighbors?
And you're right. Most people in this country have something against homosexuals. People like yourself want to pretend marriage is some sacred institution that exists in the shining light of god. But that's your delusion. The rest of the country doesn't give one good god damn about marriage. They just don't like ****. And neither do you. That's fine. I don't like you either. But you don't see me saying you don't have the right to exist or be happy.
How about every time you talk about how unnatural my existence is I call your wife a whore and your father a bastard?
Originally posted by FeceMan
Because, were I to consider the homosexual lifestyle a sin, I could go onto a tirade about how this shows that gays are genetically inferior to straight people.Not to mention that such a thing would be impossible to enforce.
What the hell?
You assume that you should tell people how to behave, if they want to have parades and make out in public, great. Not my ****ing problem. If they want to marry (like everyone else is allowed to) they should be allowed to do that.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
No, I'm not.It's just one example off the top of my head to show that most Americans in state-wide elections or otherwise don't support gay marriage.
B-but your math is off.
It's not 80% disapproving.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I've never seen Gay people f*ck on the street...seriously. I've had wild sex, sure, i've seen some graphic and raunchy gay porn, but i have also seen straight porn which was just as nasty.
EDIT: I take that back. I've never seen it in person. As stated in other threads, I have seen things that are liable to make most men and women cringe, possibly crossing themselves in the process.
1.) A few gay men having sex on the street does not constitute or represent all other gay people. "If gays want to marry, then they should stop acting like this..."...what do you watch ? Where are you from where this occurs ?If two or three, or even a hundred gay men had an orgy in Times Square, that would STILL not represent the Gay/Bisexual population. So you would restrict the freedoms on all gay people, because a few of them have done something outrageous ?
The same absurd reasoning goes behind labelling all Black people as criminals, because a few of them commit crimes....
2) Even if your example DID accurately portray all Gay people (which it doesn't)....what about Straight people ?Did you know:
-there is MORE straight porn than Gay porn...?
-there is more heterosexual rape than homosexual rape ?
-there are MORE promiscious heterosexuals than homosexuals?
- there are more HETEROSEXUAL DIVORCES than Homosexual divorces ? lol
If you want to make generalizations, then you have to be fair.
How absurd would it sound If I argued that if Heterosexuals want to keep the right to marriage, then they should start [b]"acting" like it ? 😬[/b]
Although, there's a difference between taking away a right and granting a right.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Neither have I, but I'm pretty damn sure it occurs.
Heterosexual street sex occurs too...what is your point ?
Originally posted by FeceMan
I agree, it doesn't represent all gay people. However, they are what people see and about what people will form impressions.
And knowing this, you would still intentionally fall into unfair generalizations? 😬
That's hypocritical, don't you think ?
Originally posted by FeceMan
Of all these things, I must ask you: do they occur in great quantities or in greater ratios?
Quantities....do your research. Documented public sex occurs far more often between heterosexual participants than Homosexual participants.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Although, there's a difference between taking away a right and granting a right.
Which would you rather do ?
give a right, or take one away ?
Originally posted by §uffer§noopy
Links or source material I could find in a library, please.
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm
Originally posted by sithsaber408
All that jargon you babbled: not true.
Addressing a main point:
Majority rules is not a valid opinion. Most people at many points in the US said slavery was ok. Or that women should not be allowed to vote. Thats BACKWARD: like you are being today. Envision yourself in a historical perspective. You'd be the type telling us in the 1920s that interracial marriages are against the natural order and devastating to society.
I'm of the opinion that most people in the US are uneducated and not qualified to make judgements on national policy and science. You reinforce that theory, spouting off a bunch of garbage that has all been debunked.
Addressing a personal point:
Read my post. I kindly offered to ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS outside of this thread. I pointed out that your perception of genetics and how it related to homosexuality sucked.
I NEVER made any statements saying that homosexuality is genetic or behavioral. I left that argument alone and addressed your misconceptions. Read more carefully next time.
If you want to debate that science of genetics vs behavior...It shouldn't be a problem, since you've clearly not attempted to learn the science or understand it. THAT makes you unqualified to judge (not some innate characteristic) (as evidenced by your completely misguided understanding of genetics).
And I NEVER told you just to accept something. So please, don't pull that crap because you can't pull together something resembling a cohesive argument.
Originally posted by sithsaber408a) You are factually incorrect. There were ballot initiatives in 6 states for 2006 banning gay marriage. and only one didn't pass. In Arizona.
A quick and simple poll of opinion would be this:In the last mid-term elections when the Democratic party took the congress and a small majority in the senate, 6 states had measures approving gay marriage on the ballot.
Only 1 passed.
If 5 out of 6 don't approve it, that equals about 80%, wouldn't you say?
Also, there are currently 26 states in the U.S. which ban same-sex marriage, currently.
In addition, your math is horrible. 5 in 6 states banning gay marriage does not mean that 5 in 6 people disapprove of gay marriage. That's just ludicrous. At best, it's an assumption that's harmful to your position.
And recent polls suggest that only 40-53% of Americans are opposed to gay marriage.
Do some research first 😬
And since a few of us are on a legal issue, allow me to illuminate.
As it currently stands, marriage is an institution that is recognized by law. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.
Under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, all U.S. citizens are equal under the law.
So looking at it plainly, in black and white, it could easily be argued that gay marriage is protected by the Constitution.
Also, it is in the Constitution that laws passed in one state have to be honored by all the others (The Full Faith and Credit Clause). But before Massachusetts passed a law allowing gay marriage, Congress hastened to pass the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) saying: "No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state." Meaning that same-sex couples married in Massachusetts would not be legally recognized as married if they moved to another state.
So, looking at in plainly, black and white. Congress was violating the Constitution by banning gay marriage.
But that's just my take 😬
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Heterosexual street sex occurs too...what is your point ?
And knowing this, you would still intentionally fall into unfair generalizations? 😬That's hypocritical, don't you think ?
Quantities....do your research. Documented public sex occurs far more often between heterosexual participants than Homosexual participants.
Which would you rather do ?give a right, or take one away ?
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I don't get your argument....protect the freedom of the people ? How is banning gay marriage protecting anybody ? 🤨
Did I ever say that I think it should be banned in my post?
No 😐
I'm saying that the government shouldn't have the right to control something that doesn't impose a threat to the freedoms of anyone.
Originally posted by FeceManWhy do you say "not in this magnitude" when you a) admit that you've never seen gay people **** in the street and b) provide no proof that there is a siginificant amount of public gay sex?
Not in this magnitude, I'd wager.
Urizen even mentioned that there is more documented heterosexual public sex. And then you mention 'ratios.' What lick of difference does ratios make?
You are arguing from a hideous prejudice and nothing you say should be taken seriously.
Originally posted by Strangelove
Why do you say "not in this magnitude" when you a) admit that you've never seen gay people **** in the street and b) provide no proof that there is a siginificant amount of public gay sex?
Urizen even mentioned that there is more documented heterosexual public sex. And then you mention 'ratios.' What lick of difference does ratios make?
One is a group of 10,000 people. 8,000 of them eat beans.
The other is a group of 100,000 people. 30,000 of them eat beans.
Which group is more likely to eat beans?
You are arguing from a hideous prejudice and nothing you say should be taken seriously.