# Prop 8 Approved



## Jagon Fox (Nov 6, 2008)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081106/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage


dammit! this really sucks! I was so sure that prop 8 would get struck down like the biased piece of shit that it is!


----------



## Joe Cool (Nov 6, 2008)

And whats the moral of the story, kids? Stop being gay and learn how good a pussy feels and live with it.


----------



## Razgriez (Nov 6, 2008)

For being an highly liberal state I cant believe gay marriage hasnt passed yet.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Nov 6, 2008)

They just squeezed by with a 52 to 48 percent win.

It's a victory for the bigots today, but those numbers show that California is close to a majority acceptance. In a couple years, another vote will be made, and gay marriage will pass with the 52%.


----------



## Mael (Nov 6, 2008)

Well...
.
.
.
Massachusetts for the win I guess.


----------



## C. (Nov 6, 2008)

Rage said:


> They just squeezed by with a 52 to 48 percent win.
> 
> It's a victory for the bigots today, but those numbers show that California is close to a majority acceptance. In a couple years, another vote will be made, and gay marriage will pass with the 52%.



Funny how people will vote for a black president but gay marriage is still a no no.  

goodbye racial prejudice, hello sexual preference prejudice. 

Ok everyone lets find a gay candidate to run for president!  That should fix it


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Nov 6, 2008)

Demon Zabuza said:


> Funny how people will vote for a black president but gay marriage is still a no no.
> 
> goodbye racial prejudice, hello sexual preference prejudice.
> 
> Ok everyone lets find a gay candidate to run for president!  That should fix it



I blame the dirty tactics the religious were using to garner votes.

Saying things like "If Prop. 8 is passed, our kids will be taught about gay marriage in schools!". Even someone who would normally not be anti-homosexuality, would be concerned about their 10 year old kid being introduced to homosexuality at a young age. There is still a big fear among the population that one is not born homosexual, which they are, but rather it's a preference formed during sexual maturity.

It also doesn't help that all the religious would have went out and made sure to vote, to protect their "one man, one woman" marriage rights, while a lot of citizens don't care much at all about homosexual marriage, and were completely disinterested in Prop. 8. Had these people voted, they'd likely of voted against, but I'm sure a lot of votes were lost from the people who would vote against, but didn't bother voting out of sheer disinterest in the situation.


----------



## drache (Nov 6, 2008)

It's no over yet and least 3 different suits have been filed with the ALCU getting involved claiming that you can not remove a right from a group without first a 2/3 vote in the legistrature and then an affirmation by 2/3 of the population of the state.

I would think there's good odds on this legal arguement carrying given what happened.

In that case prop 8 would be unconsitutional and dismissed.


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Nov 6, 2008)

Well good. I think a 52% win is pretty bullshit. When it comes to taking away peoples rights, it should take more than half.


----------



## MitsukiShiroi (Nov 6, 2008)

Horrible.

Honestly, being bisexual myself, I don't understand what the big frickin' deal is. It's not like anyone is hurting another human being by falling in love with someone of the same sex.

Gay people are more and more accepted throughout the world so why not take the gay-acceptance countries like some European countries as an example and simply pass it? Isn't it part of the consitutional law to leave everyone in their values and NOT discriminate?

It's pure discrimination, that's all. Grow up and learn to accept. :/


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 6, 2008)

anybody see that gay guy get his ass beat by cops last night?


----------



## Jagon Fox (Nov 6, 2008)

drache said:


> It's no over yet and least 3 different suits have been filed with the ALCU getting involved claiming that you can not remove a right from a group without first a 2/3 vote in the legistrature and then an affirmation by 2/3 of the population of the state.
> 
> I would think there's good odds on this legal arguement carrying given what happened.
> 
> In that case prop 8 would be unconsitutional and dismissed.



oh i agree with you that it's not over by a long shot  but still it is dissapointing and it must be heartwrenching for all the couples who have either gotten married in the time they actually had or who want to get married. i really feel for them.


----------



## Instant Karma (Nov 6, 2008)

Stupid. Just plain stupid.


It was pretty damn close though.


----------



## Hat Hair (Nov 6, 2008)

MitsukiShiroi said:


> Gay people are more and more accepted throughout the world so why not take the gay-acceptance countries like some European countries as an example and simply pass it? Isn't it part of the consitutional law to leave everyone in their values and NOT discriminate?



The constitution is still not entirely well-defined (which has worked to the advantage of every side) and moments like this is when it comes around to bite people. Given the poor chances of heterosexual marriages succeeding nowadays and the slackening grip of religion in general, they probably just need something to be successfully Christian about.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 6, 2008)

watch vid to see gay beatdown

I for one don't want to waste my taxpayer money saving religious causes , this is a waste of public resources.


----------



## Disquiet (Nov 6, 2008)

Someone tell those 52% to grow the hell up and get over themselves, please.  Thanks.



> When it comes to taking away peoples rights, it should take more than half.


Well, ideally, when it comes to taking away people's rights it shouldn't happen at all.  A majority legislating on what a minority is allowed to do without hurting or even affecting anyone else is never going to be right anywhere.


----------



## MitsukiShiroi (Nov 6, 2008)

Hat Hair said:


> The constitution is still not entirely well-defined (which has worked to the advantage of every side) and moments like this is when it comes around to bite people. Given the poor chances of heterosexual marriages succeeding nowadays and the slackening grip of religion in general, they probably just need something to be successfully Christian about.



I see :/ Constitution here in the Netherlands dictates that every person is equal in every way, thus gay marriage etc is fully allowed without any hassle.


----------



## Koi (Nov 6, 2008)

Rage said:


> Well good. I think a 52% win is pretty bullshit. When it comes to taking away peoples rights, it should take more than half.



You know, I'll agree to this.  Especially with something so major, it should really be passed with something like a 2/3 majority.  Something squeaking by by 4% is pretty bogus.


----------



## Simulacrum (Nov 6, 2008)

collaboration Pinkfairywand and I did

thx for getting the minority vote to the polls, gais  

and rofl @ people complaining that it didn't pass with a sizable margin of the popular vote to justify taking away someone's "rights" (gay marriage is not a right, look it up). obama won the presidency 53 to 46 and he plans on confiscating private property (wealth) for purposes of redistribution and fairness and nobody here is complaining about that. HOPE AND CHANGE


----------



## Adonis (Nov 6, 2008)

Simmy, have you become so much of a troll you've forgone capital letters?


----------



## Psycho (Nov 6, 2008)

Simulacrum said:


> collaboration Pinkfairywand and I did
> 
> thx for getting the minority vote to the polls, gais
> 
> and rofl @ people complaining that it didn't pass with a sizable margin of the popular vote to justify taking away someone's "rights" (gay marriage is not a right, look it up). obama won the presidency 53 to 46 and he plans on confiscating private property (wealth) for purposes of redistribution and fairness and nobody here is complaining about that. HOPE AND CHANGE



well, confiscating wealth for redistribution is justifiable as a step towards monetary equality of the people, how is gay marrige giving someone an extra right? since the whole insitution of marrige (how it is used today) is far from that origianl dowry/obligation thing that the christians invented, why should religion dictate in anyway our lifes?


----------



## Nodonn (Nov 6, 2008)

> is far from that origianl dowry/obligation thing that the christians invented



I smell a brainwashing victim.


----------



## hammer (Nov 6, 2008)

god damni howthe hell did these props even getto this point more then have i seen take away rights.


atleast there filnig lawsuits.


----------



## Suzumebachi (Nov 6, 2008)

Demon Zabuza said:


> Funny how people will vote for a black president but gay marriage is still a no no.



Whoa, what?


----------



## Red Viking (Nov 6, 2008)

Razgriez said:


> For being an highly liberal state I cant believe gay marriage hasnt passed yet.



Actually, the majority of the state has a more conservative mindset.  It's only in the major cities where you find the highest concentration of liberals.

To be brutally honest, I think this decision has less to do with gay marriage than it has to do with the fact this whole thing started when a few lawmakers passed something without the people's input.

Not to say that gay marriage didn't have a part in the decision, but no matter how progressive a law may be, Americans _hate it_ when the government does something without having their say in the matter.

And on the subject of gay marriage, we just elected a black president when that would have been unheard of 30 years ago.  Give it time and try to change the minds of the people and the day will eventually come.  Forcing them to accept something right off the bat is grounds for disaster.

_That's_ why proposition 8 passed.


----------



## God Emperor of Mankind (Nov 6, 2008)

Everyone saying that the state is liberal is a teenager.

California has voted republican in most elections, pretty sure until 2000.

California has a REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR.

It's a borderline state, just because of the FAAAAAAAAAAAB-OULOUS San Fran and the ability to basically buy ganja legally if you have insomnia doesn't make it liberal.


----------



## Anemone (Nov 6, 2008)

Rage said:


> I blame the dirty tactics the religious were using to garner votes.
> 
> Saying things like "If Prop. 8 is passed, our kids will be taught about gay marriage in schools!". Even someone who would normally not be anti-homosexuality, would be concerned about their 10 year old kid being introduced to homosexuality at a young age. There is still a big fear among the population that one is not born homosexual, which they are, but rather it's a preference formed during sexual maturity.


This. This exactly is why it passed.


----------



## Purgatory (Nov 6, 2008)

Hopefully the Supreme Court will overturn this.


----------



## LittleBlondePunk (Nov 6, 2008)

Hate to say itbut they havent finished counting all the votes yet.


> Counties have until Dec. 2 to count the votes, according to the secretary of state's office. Some officials said they have more uncounted ballots than normal because of a surge in voting.



So remeber kids, always wait til the last vote is counted before making a call. Damn you Fox/CNN.


----------



## Girls' Generation (Nov 6, 2008)

God Emperor of Mankind said:


> Everyone saying that the state is liberal is a teenager.
> 
> California has voted republican in most elections, pretty sure until 2000.
> 
> ...



Yet, Obama and Kerry won California, did they not?


----------



## rldragon (Nov 6, 2008)

You are the lucky ones ... 
In my country, they are sooner to imprison gay people than allow them gay marriage 
_*The unofficial agreement currently is*_ that while gay people aren't sick, their choice of sexual orientation is rather disgusting.

Unless they are lesbians  Well, as far as the male part of population is concerned


----------



## TDM (Nov 6, 2008)

Sex and Drugs said:


> Yet, Obama and Kerry won California, did they not?





God Emperor of Mankind said:


> California has voted republican in most elections, pretty sure until 2000.


**


----------



## Vom Osten (Nov 6, 2008)

The people of California have spoken. 

Why can you not accept that?


----------



## naruto_bruin (Nov 6, 2008)

California might lean to the left more than the right, but we are not nearly as liberal as the New England states. It's not even comparable. Conservatives like Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon were from California and both easily carried the state during their elections. Honestly, if the bay area was removed, the results would have looked similar to that of Florida and Arizona.


----------



## Killer Zylos Wolf (Nov 6, 2008)

i want to give those idiots a piece of my mind. that way they can learn that gay people are the same as straight people. anyone who thinks otherwise is a discrimater and should die. we all are the same and are personalitys are what makes us different. so hate people because of that not because they are black or gay or have blond hair or were born somewhere else, etc...


they cant ban gay love otherwise they will have lots of people fucking them up. u cant ban love since that takes away freedom and thats not right.

if gay people were not spose to be here then...........why are we here? we are all here for a reason and we need to be treated the same.


----------



## Xion (Nov 6, 2008)

Demon Zabuza said:


> Funny how people will vote for a black president but gay marriage is still a no no.
> 
> goodbye racial prejudice, hello sexual preference prejudice.
> 
> Ok everyone lets find a gay candidate to run for president!  That should fix it



Well at least it's a step in the right direction. 

Discrimination Timeline:

Women (50%)  (Beginning of History - ~1920s)
Blacks (13%) (1800s - 1960s)
Gays (5%) (1900s - 2010 (?))
Transsexuals (1%) (1950s - 2020(?))


----------



## Republican (Nov 6, 2008)

Xion said:


> Sad, but MOST of the black people I have known had the same problem. Same with some of the white problem.
> 
> Problem is, BOTH were from the inner city.
> 
> The problem is not one of race, but of socioeconomic upbringing and cultural cliches and stereotypes that are clung to and end up feeding actual image.



The other thing I forgot to mention is how much black people are apparently trying to distance themselves from whites but I felt what I said already was going to ruffle enough feathers.

But in response to you, you said it yourself.

"MOST of the black people", "some of the white [people]"

I dislike those white people just as I dislike those black people. It's about proportion.



killerbee the man said:


> u do know that not all black people are the same and not all gay people are the same. i'm gay and u dont know how i behave so u cant say the way i act is repulsive. and i'm 1/4 black and i dont do crime or violence. what ur doing is still discrimation or  Stereotypeing.
> 
> u cant hate a gay becasue he/she is gay and u cant hate a black becasue he/she is black and u cant hate a women just beacuase she is a women. if u do hate them for those reasons then u are a discrimater or a stereotyper.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, but that isn't what I said. When you read it helps to read all the words in a given sentence.


----------



## Xion (Nov 6, 2008)

Republican said:


> The other thing I forgot to mention is how much black people are apparently trying to distance themselves from whites but I felt what I said already was going to ruffle enough feathers.
> 
> But in response to you, you said it yourself.
> 
> ...



I tried not to immediately label you a hate-spewing PoS because I do see your point in my own personal experiences and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are referring to your own personal experiences and not a blanket generalization.

Indeed it is sad. I feel uncomfortable around most inner city blacks I meet precisely because they seemingly DESPISE me. They look at most whites as "weak sacks of shit that have no business around here or with us." Ironic thing is, is that their experiences with racism and upbringing regarding their plight has led them to become racists themselves.

Oh the irony!

I hate black and white racists equally alike.


----------



## Republican (Nov 6, 2008)

Xion said:


> I tried not to immediately label you a hate-spewing PoS because I do see your point in my own personal experiences and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are referring to your own personal experiences and not a blanket generalization.



Was just making sure... For some reason when people respond to me it's usually to make a criminal of some persuasion out of me...


----------



## KuronoX54 (Nov 6, 2008)

Aww that sucks too bad I wasn't in Cali to vote aginst it


----------



## Killer Zylos Wolf (Nov 6, 2008)

Republican said:


> I'm sorry, but that isn't what I said. When you read it helps to read all the words in a given sentence.




ur hating blacks and gays becasue of stereotyping them. not every black person is bad and same for gays. i did read ur stupid post and i told u that its discrimation and stereotypeing since ur saying blacks make crime when there are alot of good black people and same for gays. dont post BS.

we are not spose to hate for color,race,orenation,gender,etc... we are spose to hate because of personality, jsut like i hate u because of ur personality. i dont even know what u are but i hate u. u could be a female straight asain that is catholic and i would still hate u becasue of ur personality, it would have nothing to do with ur gender and shit.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Nov 6, 2008)

This really sucks. 

Well, fellow ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".), queers, homos and dykes, it's time to take a bit out of the White Panther manifesto: "_Revolution by any means necessary, including fucking in the streets_"


----------



## ShangDOh (Nov 6, 2008)

Honestly I am not surprised. Outside of the damn Bay Area, many might find it surprising that California is not the Liberal paradise that most of the nation seems to think of us as. We gave this country Reagan after all....


----------



## Surreal (Nov 6, 2008)

killerbee the man said:


> ur hating blacks and gays becasue of stereotyping them. not every black person is bad and same for gays. i did read ur stupid post and i told u that its discrimation and stereotypeing since ur saying blacks make crime when there are alot of good black people and same for gays. dont post BS.
> 
> we are not spose to hate for color,race,orenation,gender,etc... we are spose to hate because of personality, jsut like i hate u because of ur personality. i dont even know what u are but i hate u. u could be a female straight asain that is catholic and i would still hate u becasue of ur personality, it would have nothing to do with ur gender and shit.



Hating an internet troll tends to be unhealthy and pointless.


----------



## Killer Zylos Wolf (Nov 6, 2008)

Surreal said:


> Hating an internet troll tends to be unhealthy and pointless.



if a non-troll reads what i write then they might understand. but w/e i like to say how stupid these people are. its fun for me.

but prop8 is the most stupidest thing ever and it should never have been passed. it should have been passed down the stupid idoits who made it asses. 

gay people=straight people.


----------



## Xion (Nov 6, 2008)

Surreal said:


> Hating an internet troll tends to be unhealthy and pointless.



He's not a troll, just a republican. 

Real trolls create lulz on purpose, not through their opinions.


----------



## Euraj (Nov 6, 2008)

That's too bad...


----------



## beads (Nov 6, 2008)

I still can't believe it passed.


----------



## kiss me! (Nov 6, 2008)

aww that's ssad...


----------



## Star (Nov 6, 2008)

Yeah and all that protesting in front of the LDS LA temple wont do a thing.
If they think we will budge for protestors they are wrong.
 WE WILL NEVER BUDGE!!
they can just go home they're waisting their lives.


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 6, 2008)

Again, good.  So long as they don't find an oversympathetic closet judge to overturn the case, we've already made a step in the right direction.

Seriously, though, all of that protesting and butt buddy hugging isn't going to change anything.


----------



## jkingler (Nov 6, 2008)

We need more Lafayette's and fewer drunk rednecks here in CA.

Tumse mil ke dil ka hai jo haal kya kahein


----------



## ReasonableDoubt (Nov 6, 2008)

Fuck Prop 8..

Equality for all.


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 6, 2008)

Points in this thread.
1- I hope Obama will change this. Homosexuals are actually known to be almost all strong personal activists and they've all came through for him. Even knowing there was most likely nothing to be gotten in return. Twelve (the actual mimnum gay percentage) percent of the country willing to give him their vote. I hope he cames through for the gays back.
2-Schwarzenegger is *against* proposition 8. Even the republican governor publicized how he sees this as a complete out of line from thing for the courts to do and he personally voted against it. Don't expect any suport for this proposition from him
3-Read above on the fact oh how this proposition is wrong to begin with. The Supreme Court will not be able to close their to this much longer, since this opens one evil friend of a precedent.
4-Kids in school were going to be taught age apropriate education. You know, like, techniques in how to *avoid* and *prevent *sexual abuse.


----------



## Sawako (Nov 6, 2008)

I'm disappointed in this.  I can't believe my own county voted yes for this, even though I'm in the Bay Area where you'd think more liberals would be.

All those Christians voted yes on this! Ugh.


----------



## hammer (Nov 6, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> Again, good.  So long as they don't find an oversympathetic closet judge to overturn the case, we've already made a step in the right direction.
> 
> Seriously, though, all of that protesting and butt buddy hugging isn't going to change anything.



care to give a deepand thoutfull non religus reason why?


----------



## Killer Zylos Wolf (Nov 6, 2008)

prop 8 is evil. its discrimation, its a freedom locker, its a nasty thing that should be ban.

ban prop 8. thats right a ban on a ban. 


tell me one *GOOD* reason why gays shouldn't get to marry, and why gay people are not the same as straight people. and no relgion since thats not a reason.


----------



## Aina (Nov 6, 2008)

Ryoko said:


> I'm disappointed in this.  I can't believe my own county voted yes for this, even though I'm in the Bay Area where you'd think more liberals would be.
> 
> All those Christians voted yes on this! Ugh.



You're not the only one upset about this, I just can't believe California, a large gay community, a place where everyone seems to accept it, passed Prop. 8.

WHOA! Hold your horses, I'm Christian and I voted no! D: _MOST_ Christians voted yes though. :<


This is all bullshit. D:


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 6, 2008)

hammer said:


> care to give a deepand thoutfull non religus reason why?



Spell check, maybe?

Seriously, is there anything you people ask for more than give something OTHER than a religious reason?  "Don't use the slippery slope.  Don't use personal opinion.  Don't use religious justification."  Is "I just don't like it" or "I want to see them executed" enough for you?  After all, "they deserve to be treated like anyone else" isn't a good defense for a lower class of people that claim their orientation was put in them at birth and they have to defile everyone they come in contact with through their colorful cheers, lisps, and wardrobes that blind the eyes.

Not to mention the constant butt buddying.


----------



## Republican (Nov 6, 2008)

I have to agree. Countries around the world are thinking more and more how girly and effeminate a nation America is what with all these gays running around with their entirely reprehensible behaviors. Yeah yeah yeah, not all gays are like that. Well nearly every gay from America in the international media completely embodies their stereotype, and it's disgusting.


----------



## Killer Zylos Wolf (Nov 6, 2008)

Republican said:


> I have to agree. Countries around the world are thinking more and more how girly and effeminate a nation America is what with all these gays running around with their entirely reprehensible behaviors. Yeah yeah yeah, not all gays are like that. Well nearly every gay from America in the international media completely embodies their stereotype, and it's disgusting.



what is really disgusting is people like u. 

gay people are the same as staright people.


----------



## Republican (Nov 6, 2008)

killerbee the man said:


> what is really disgusting is people like u.
> 
> gay people are the same as staright people.



I don't know a single straight male who puts forth the honest effort to behave like a woman, sexually or otherwise.


----------



## hammer (Nov 6, 2008)

Republican said:


> I don't know a single straight person who puts forth the honest effort to behave like a woman, sexually or otherwise.



i know plenty there called hair dressers.



Smash_2451 said:


> Spell check, maybe?
> 
> Seriously, is there anything you people ask for more than give something OTHER than a religious reason?  "Don't use the slippery slope.  Don't use personal opinion.  Don't use religious justification."  Is "I just don't like it" or "I want to see them executed" enough for you?  After all, "they deserve to be treated like anyone else" isn't a good defense for a lower class of people that claim their orientation was put in them at birth and they have to defile everyone they come in contact with through their colorful cheers, lisps, and wardrobes that blind the eyes.
> 
> Not to mention the constant butt buddying.



problem is NO MAN has a right to take away born givin rights.


----------



## Killer Zylos Wolf (Nov 6, 2008)

Republican said:


> I don't know a single straight person who puts forth the honest effort to behave like a woman, sexually or otherwise.




i dont eveb know what ur saying anymore. ur saying gay people are girls? damn i hat homophobics so much. ur on my ignor list now


----------



## hammer (Nov 6, 2008)

did i forget to mention that gays living to gather and cant marry falls under sepret but equal act which was banned?


----------



## beads (Nov 6, 2008)

Republican said:


> I have to agree. Countries around the world are thinking more and more how girly and effeminate a nation America is what with all these gays running around with their entirely reprehensible behaviors. Yeah yeah yeah, not all gays are like that. Well nearly every gay from America in the international media completely embodies their stereotype, and it's disgusting.



You know what affects their view of America more than anything else? The arrogance of the current administration and all their supporters, thinking that the world should bow to them, and that their opinions don't matter.


----------



## Azure Flame Fright (Nov 6, 2008)

I really don't see the big deal with this, it isn't like they are banning sex or love in general between two homosexuals, they are just saying you can't have a marriage ceremony.

What I am more interested in is if this has effected the status of having a same-sex partner in a common-law marriage.


----------



## hammer (Nov 6, 2008)

Republican said:


> I have to agree. Countries around the world are thinking more and more how girly and effeminate a nation America is what with all these gays running around with their entirely reprehensible behaviors. Yeah yeah yeah, not all gays are like that. Well nearly every gay from America in the international media completely embodies their stereotype, and it's disgusting.



and yet alot of the countrys we should give a darn about support gay mrrige?


----------



## Republican (Nov 6, 2008)

beads said:


> You know what affects their view of America more than anything else? The arrogance of the current administration and all their supporters, thinking that the world should bow to them, and that their opinions don't matter.



Can't say I blame America, what with being indisputably the greatest country on the planet barring some idiot hugely exaggerating.


----------



## Azure Flame Fright (Nov 6, 2008)

hammer said:


> did i forget to mention that gays living to gather and cant marry falls under sepret but equal act which was banned?



No, it does not fall under the Separate but Equal act.


----------



## Mek Blaze (Nov 6, 2008)

Damn, I expected more of California. I mean seriously, did California go into chaos because of gay people marrying each other? Still it was pretty close so I would bet gay marriage would be legal there again within a decade once some older homophobic people die off.


----------



## hammer (Nov 6, 2008)

Republican said:


> Can't say I blame America, what with being indisputably the greatest country on the planet barring some idiot hugely exaggerating.



hmm japan has advence stem cell resrch fix the brain plus the loli

china EVRYTHING WE HAVE EVN OREOS COME FROM CINA


theres two examples weres the amricans are better exmple?


----------



## hammer (Nov 6, 2008)

Azure Flame Kite said:


> No, it does not fall under the Separate but Equal act.



esscuse me tis late and im tierd. but eiher way a right is takin away


----------



## Azure Flame Fright (Nov 6, 2008)

hammer said:


> esscuse me tis late and im tierd. but eiher way a right is takin away



Marriage doesn't fall under human rights.
So what legal right is being taken away?


----------



## Republican (Nov 6, 2008)

Leave it to a flaming Democrat to cite racial segregation laws when arguing for gay marriage.


----------



## hammer (Nov 6, 2008)

Republican said:


> Leave it to a flaming Democrat to cite racial segregation laws when arguing for gay marriage.



it dosnt jsut fall under race its ment to be for evryone because sepret but equal is not equal


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 6, 2008)

hammer said:


> i know plenty there called hair dressers.
> 
> 
> 
> problem is NO MAN has a right to take away born givin rights.




...True, but man DOES have a right to take life away from that which only exists as a parasite in society and tries to lower other closeted perverts to his level.


----------



## Kool-Aid (Nov 6, 2008)

killerbee the man said:


> what is really disgusting is people like u.
> 
> gay people are the same as staright people.



except they like the same sects.


----------



## Republican (Nov 6, 2008)

hammer said:


> hmm japan has advence stem cell resrch fix the brain plus the loli
> 
> china EVRYTHING WE HAVE EVN OREOS COME FROM CINA
> 
> ...



1. America could destroy either of those countries if it truly wanted to.

2. America is a democracy and much closer to a real democracy than either of those.

3. Loli isn't banned in America.

4. We don't censor pornography in America.


----------



## hammer (Nov 6, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> ...True, but man DOES have a right to take life away from that which only exists as a parasite in society and tries to lower other closeted perverts to his level.



so being gay is perverted now?


----------



## Azure Flame Fright (Nov 6, 2008)

hammer said:


> *it dosnt jsut fall under race* its ment to be for evryone because sepret but equal is not equal



Read the Separate but Equal act, then come back here, citing a source incorrectly when you obviously know nothing about it does not help your side look good.


----------



## hammer (Nov 6, 2008)

Azure Flame Kite said:


> Read the Separate but Equal act, then come back here, citing a source incorrectly when you obviously know nothing about it does not help your side look good.



the concept is still the same either way and mines better then perverts and bible crap.


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 6, 2008)

hammer said:


> so being gay is perverted now?



If by that we can say immoral or bizarre preferences, then yes.

Are you a closet case or already out there and loving every minute of it?  If so, it'd be easier to come out and admit it as opposed to trying to defend them.


----------



## hammer (Nov 6, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> If by that we can say immoral or bizarre preferences, then yes.
> 
> Are you a closet case or already out there and loving every minute of it?  If so, it'd be easier to come out and admit it as opposed to trying to defend them.



na im not gay its jsut i see it as do they hurt me no. are they perverted not as much a sa  reugler person.

and leanardo devinchi was gay he was oneof the greats tmen in history but he died in misery because of bigotry and hiding what he was.

its not are right to ban somthing because some of us think tis yucky


----------



## Azure Flame Fright (Nov 6, 2008)

hammer said:


> the concept is still the same either way and mines better then perverts and bible crap.



No, you are doing the exact same thing they are doing, twisting and manipulating something else to say something that clearly isn't said to justify something you believe should or should not be done, the process you are operating with is no different than their's.


----------



## Mek Blaze (Nov 6, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> If by that we can say immoral or bizarre preferences, then yes.
> 
> Are you a closet case or already out there and loving every minute of it?  If so, it'd be easier to come out and admit it as opposed to trying to defend them.



Defending gay rights means you're gay? Oh then 48% of California must be gay by your logic.


----------



## hammer (Nov 6, 2008)

Azure Flame Kite said:


> No, you are doing the exact same thing they are doing, twisting and manipulating something else to say something that clearly isn't said to justify something you believe should or should not be done, the process you are operating with is no different than their's.



im just relly tierd right now i chould do better.


----------



## Republican (Nov 6, 2008)

hammer said:


> its not are right to ban somthing because some of us think tis yucky



If the American government is letting us vote on it then it is most certainly our right to ban it for whatever reason we want.


----------



## chaosakita (Nov 6, 2008)

Ugh. I'm incredibly disgusted by this. So much for California being liberal.



Joe Cool said:


> And whats the moral of the story, kids? Stop being gay and learn how good a pussy feels and live with it.



Are you serious?

And what about lesbians then?


----------



## hammer (Nov 6, 2008)

Republican said:


> If the American government is letting us vote on it then it is most certainly our right to ban it for whatever reason we want.



fie then prob 8.5 ban on candy because its yucky


----------



## Azure Flame Fright (Nov 6, 2008)

hammer said:


> im just relly tierd right now i chould do better.



Go to bed, come back when you are rested, the thread will still be here, arguing like this will only make your side seem like they are grasping at straws.


----------



## hammer (Nov 6, 2008)

Azure Flame Kite said:


> Go to bed, come back when you are rested, the thread will still be here, arguing like this will only make your side seem like they are grasping at straws.




true ill come back tomarrow.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Nov 6, 2008)

Republican said:


> If the American government is letting us vote on it then it is most certainly our right to ban it for whatever reason we want.



There's a Constitution that would like to have a word with you


----------



## Republican (Nov 6, 2008)

Jello_Biafra said:


> There's a Constitution that would like to have a word with you



Did I miss the article in the Constitution that says "Oh, and a man can get married to a man and a woman to a woman."


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 6, 2008)

Azure Flame Kite said:


> I really don't see the big deal with this, it isn't like they are banning sex or love in general between two homosexuals, they are just saying you can't have a marriage ceremony.
> 
> What I am more interested in is if this has effected the status of having a same-sex partner in a common-law marriage.



The marriage banned was one under legal context. A homosexual couple can longer be married under the law.


----------



## Republican (Nov 6, 2008)

What I want to know is what the heck a kid is going to call his parents. "Dad & Dad" would be confusing.


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 6, 2008)

Mek Blaze said:


> Defending gay rights means you're gay? Oh then 48% of California must be gay by your logic.



Look, one fruit doesn't speak for them all.  Maybe in the same lisp, but not all of them.  If you're going to defend it, it can't be for anything other than you are one of them, too liberal, a sleeping closet case, or just don't think it bothers you until they come into your neighborhood and slowly turn it into a hellhole by attracting more.


----------



## Azure Flame Fright (Nov 6, 2008)

Seto Kaiba said:


> The marriage banned was one under legal context. A homosexual couple can longer be married under the law.



It's still not all that bad, I mean, just go around with your boyfriend/girlfriend and leave it like that, marriage just makes things a lot more complicated anyway.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 6, 2008)

Azure Flame Kite said:


> It's still not all that bad, I mean, just go around with your boyfriend/girlfriend and leave it like that, marriage just makes things a lot more complicated anyway.



I agree with you personally, but don't you think the couples should have the right to make that decision themselves?



> Look, one fruit doesn't speak for them all. Maybe in the same lisp, but not all of them. If you're going to defend it, it can't be for anything other than you are one of them, too liberal, a sleeping closet case, or just don't think it bothers you until they come into your neighborhood and slowly turn it into a hellhole by attracting more.



Actually, if you recollect many things of the past and from many observations, the most homophobic and fervent anti-gay activists ironically enough, turn out to be gay themselves. Now you were so quick to label people who advocate gay rights as being homosexuals, but maybe that was just a defensive maneuver to hide up your own closeted homosexual desires, hm?


----------



## hammer (Nov 6, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> Look, one fruit doesn't speak for them all.  Maybe in the same lisp, but not all of them.  If you're going to defend it, it can't be for anything other than you are one of them, too liberal, a sleeping closet case, or just don't think it bothers you until they come into your neighborhood and slowly turn it into a hellhole by attracting more.



i know i SHOULDbe sleeping but i will take my time with this.

One youdont need to be liberl or gay to defend it. i wasborn in a romen cathlic family evrysingal one of us supports gays somy mom mustbe gayoh wait how was i born(dotn say i was adopted i got genetic disorder) Two of cors eit dosnt bother me unles sim raped by a gay man i wont hate gays infact ill still respect them jsut hate that one man. Three how will the ruin te neiberhood gays are well respected in alot of cases.


three leanardo devinchi a man CENTURYS aead of his time was gay and an amazing man.


----------



## Mek Blaze (Nov 6, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> Look, one fruit doesn't speak for them all.  Maybe in the same lisp, but not all of them.  If you're going to defend it, it can't be for anything other than you are one of them, too liberal, a sleeping closet case, or just don't think it bothers you until they come into your neighborhood and slowly turn it into a hellhole by attracting more.



How about defending something because you think its right/not right? If you see a gay kid getting beat up, would you help the kid? If helping that kid means you're gay, too liberal, a closet gay, or care too much then you truly scare me.


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 6, 2008)

Mek Blaze said:


> How about defending something because you think its right/not right? If you see a gay kid getting beat up, would you help the kid? If helping that kid means you're gay, too liberal, a closet gay, or care too much then you truly scare me.



Why step in and help someone who deserves it?  Don't help because you feel sorry for him.  He's the sicko and you're just a bystander.  Not your fault he chose to put himself out there.


----------



## Mek Blaze (Nov 6, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> Why step in and help someone who deserves it?  Don't help because you feel sorry for him.  He's the sicko and you're just a bystander.  Not your fault he chose to put himself out there.



So you're saying gay people deserve to get beat up. There's no point convincing you you're way too homophobic.


----------



## vervex (Nov 6, 2008)

I still don't understand why people don't leave gay people alone. So what if they want to get married? How does it disturb ANYONE? 

America should ban zealous fundamentalists, not gay marriages.


----------



## ReasonableDoubt (Nov 6, 2008)

vervex said:


> I still don't understand why people don't leave gay people alone. So what if they want to get married? How does it disturb ANYONE?
> 
> America should ban zealous fundamentalists, not gay marriages.



It disturbs all of the religious nuts that believe that marriage is only between a man and woman. IT also disturbs homophobes and uneducated overprotective parents.


----------



## Poison (Nov 6, 2008)

Jeez, I can't believe Prop 8 was Approved. =/


----------



## Republican (Nov 6, 2008)

vervex said:


> I still don't understand why people don't leave gay people alone. So what if they want to get married? How does it disturb ANYONE?
> 
> America should ban zealous fundamentalists, not gay marriages.



It disturbs me if gay people desecrate a church by being married in it. Beyond that I only feel sad that they will go to hell when they die but if they really have to, so be it, as long as it's not in a place that calls itself a Christian institution.


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 6, 2008)

Mek Blaze said:


> So you're saying gay people deserve to get beat up. There's no point convincing you you're way too homophobic.



Because I have a different point of view.  You're sure that you're not just heterophobic?

Yeah, I shouldn't be using Eminem as a reference, but the whole "Don't like gays?  Then you're homophobic" argument.  It's as bad as you people saying that those who oppose gay marriage rely on religion or the slippery slope.


----------



## hammer (Nov 6, 2008)

if gay marrigeis out lawed then

Straight marriage should be outlawed 'cause straight couples are the main cause of overpopulation.


----------



## Republican (Nov 6, 2008)

hammer said:


> if gay marrigeis out lawed then
> 
> Straight marriage should be outlawed 'cause straight couples are the main cause of overpopulation.



Whoops.


----------



## hammer (Nov 6, 2008)

Republican said:


> Whoops.



ah you saw what idid there


----------



## C. Hook (Nov 6, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> *Why step in and help someone who deserves it? * Don't help because you feel sorry for him.  *He's the sicko and you're just a bystander.* _Not your fault he chose to put himself out there._



*I suppose that's what you'd think about the Klu Klux Klan if you lived in 1870 Tennessee. I mean, obviously, the blacks deserved getting injured, killed, raped, and all matters of other things. They're the outsiders, the man in the white hood is just a normal guy like you.*

_I have seen straight people get beat up because crazy people THINK they're gay._

Oh, and by the way, explain _exactly_ why you think Homo-Sexuality is a crime. I'm sure it'd be very entertaining.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 6, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> Because I have a different point of view.  You're sure that you're not just heterophobic?
> 
> Yeah, I shouldn't be using Eminem as a reference, but the whole "Don't like gays?  Then you're homophobic" argument.  It's as bad as you people saying that those who oppose gay marriage rely on religion or the slippery slope.



You've displayed obvious homophobia, calling you homophobic isn't all that out of line.


----------



## Mek Blaze (Nov 6, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> Because I have a different point of view.  You're sure that you're not just heterophobic?
> 
> Yeah, I shouldn't be using Eminem as a reference, but the whole "Don't like gays?  Then you're homophobic" argument.  It's as bad as you people saying that those who oppose gay marriage rely on religion or the slippery slope.



Oh yes I believe that all straight people deserve to get beat up...Not.
Just because its not 'traditional' it doesn't mean it won't work. Some bigots thought that way of interracial marriage and all hell didn't break loose when it became legal.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Nov 6, 2008)

Republican said:


> Did I miss the article in the Constitution that says "Oh, and a man can get married to a man and a woman to a woman."



This is the reason why the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment exist

the Ninth Amendment: "_The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."_

The Fourteenth Amendment: "_No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_"

You let straight people get married to the people they choose to, you have to let gays get married to the people they choose as well.


----------



## vervex (Nov 6, 2008)

Republican said:


> It disturbs me if gay people desecrate a church by being married in it. Beyond that I only feel sad that they will go to hell when they die but if they really have to, so be it, as long as it's not in a place that calls itself a Christian institution.



Don't be ignorant: gay marriages don't happen in a church. *They happen at court.* Gay people just get married in front of a judge and sign papers. That's how it is in Canada and it disturbs nobody.


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 6, 2008)

C. Hook said:


> *I suppose that's what you'd think about the Klu Klux Klan if you lived in 1870 Tennessee. I mean, obviously, the blacks deserved getting injured, killed, raped, and all matters of other things. They're the outsiders, the man in the white hood is just a normal guy like you.*
> 
> _I have seen straight people get beat up because crazy people THINK they're gay._
> 
> Oh, and by the way, explain _exactly_ why you think Homo-Sexuality is a crime. I'm sure it'd be very entertaining.



First off, the Klan and Fruits are two different subjects.  The Klan wasn't originally created to be violent, but got out of hand when people realized it could be used against Blacks and Reconstruction.  For the Blacks who WERE out committing crimes at the time...yes, yes they did deserve retribution for what they did.  For those who didn't but were killed anyway, they're long gone.

As for those who you saw that were beaten up because people thought they were gay...they must've given off the wrong impression.

And enough asking for justification.  How about you, the closet cases, and liberals tell me exactly why you think it's perfectly fine and not a crime.  None of this "it doesn't affect you personally", "Everyone has a choice," "Some people are born gay.  It's not their fault", and the constant comparison to Blacks bull$hit argument.


----------



## sukker monkeez (Nov 6, 2008)

I hate our world. Lets just blow us all up, okay??


----------



## C. Hook (Nov 6, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> First off, the Klan and Fruits are two different subjects.  *The Klan wasn't originally created to be violent,* but got out of hand when people realized it could be used against Blacks and Reconstruction.  For the Blacks who WERE out committing crimes at the time...yes, yes they did deserve retribution for what they did.  For those who didn't but were killed anyway, they're long gone.



The Klan got out of line extremely quickly. When they did, they proceeded to kill thousands.

So you say we should accept their actions as morally right.



Smash_2451 said:


> As for those who you saw that were beaten up because people thought they were gay...they must've given off the wrong impression.



^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".). Fruit. Gay. No, I think I know more about it than you.



Smash_2451 said:


> And enough asking for justification.



It's perfectly reasonable. You said you were willing to see gays physically abused, and in fact said they deserved it. Apparently, beating up people who have sex with another of the same is punishable by beating. Want to add the cane, just to make it better? How bout a belt or a whip? Maybe even the cat of nine?



Smash_2451 said:


> How about you, the closet cases, and liberals tell me exactly why you think it's perfectly fine and not a crime.  None of this "it doesn't affect you personally", "Everyone has a choice," "Some people are born gay.  It's not their fault", and the constant comparison to Blacks bull$hit argument.



Well, I don't see why it would be a crime. Explain please. And I'm fairly certain that nearly all gays are born gay.


----------



## hammer (Nov 6, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> First off, the *Klan* and Fruits are two different subjects.  *The Klan wasn't originally created to be violent,* but got out of hand when people realized it could be used against Blacks and Reconstruction.  For the *Blacks* who WERE out committing crimes at the time...yes, yes they *did deserve *retribution for what they did.  For those who didn't but were killed anyway, they're long gone.
> 
> As for those who you saw that were beaten up because people thought they were gay...they must've given off the wrong impression.
> 
> And enough asking for justification.  How about you, the closet cases, and liberals tell me exactly why you think it's perfectly fine and not a crime.  None of this "it doesn't affect you personally*", "Everyone has a choice," "Some people are born gay.  It's not their fault", and the constant comparison to Blacks bull$hit argument.*



wait wut.


----------



## sukker monkeez (Nov 6, 2008)

hammer said:


> wait wut.


 
He (she?) thinks that everyone's retarded for thinking that gay people have no choice in the matter. Well, I ask him (her?) something: Did you *choose* to be straight? Or did you decide when you were very young that you didn't like anyone who was gay and thought 'I don't want to be like them, so I'm going to be straight."?


----------



## Mewshuji (Nov 6, 2008)

Gah, Prop 8 was approved?

... well, at least we're making some progress in equality. *looks at Mr. President Barack Obama*

I just wish the bible-thumpers would grow up and smell the daises. No offense to any Christians here, BTW. I'm a Christian myself. I'm talking about the folks who think America should be run by the Bible. and shouldn't be run by free choice.


----------



## Keile (Nov 6, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> First off, the Klan and Fruits are two different subjects.  The Klan wasn't originally created to be violent, but got out of hand when people realized it could be used against Blacks and Reconstruction.]For the Blacks who WERE out committing crimes at the time...]yes, yes they did deserve retribution for what they did.  For those who didn't but were killed anyway, they're long gone.
> 
> As for those who you saw that were beaten up because people thought they were gay...they must've given off the wrong impression.
> 
> And enough asking for justification.  How about you, the closet cases, and liberals tell me exactly why you think it's perfectly fine and not a crime.  None of this "it doesn't affect you personally", "Everyone has a choice," "Some people are born gay.  It's not their fault", and the constant comparison to Blacks bull$hit argument.



You have no idea as to what you're typing about.



The Klu Klux Klan is a white supremacist group that trades in racism, propaganda, murder, rape, kidnapping, bombings, threats and idealistic political agenda. It was never a peace group and is under careful watch by the United States government. In essence, the people that occupy this group are adamant about white superiority in America, and over the world. 

Retribution?
What are hell are you talking about?

The proper authorities have always dealt with crime. They will always deal with crime. No racist group fixated on eliminating and denigrating a group of people should ever take it upon themselves to punish those they see fit. Thats bullshit. You don't get to choose who lives and who dies because of some twisted ideology. And you don't get to choose who should marry and who shouldn't. 


And, those who were killed are dead, yes, we know that. Because they were wrongfully murdered. And your justification is that they are "long gone". You are justifying the Klu Klux Klan and trying to swerve into a positive light which is stark contrast to what they truly represent and how they have contributed to the misery of American people. The catalyst for hapless murder of innocents. 

You can choose to be gay. It is your decision. Sexual preference is a decision intrinsically linked to our freedom of choice. Those who choose differently and those who choose to live a life different, private, and safe, should be able to do so.


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 6, 2008)

sukker monkeez said:


> He (she?) thinks that everyone's retarded for thinking that gay people have no choice in the matter. Well, I ask him (her?) something: Did you *choose* to be straight? Or did you decide when you were very young that you didn't like anyone who was gay and thought 'I don't want to be like them, so I'm going to be straight."?



First off, I would like to thank you ahead of time for putting words in my mouth and speaking for me.

Second- well, yes, I'm a him.  I doubt there are any women- particularly on an online board- attacking them.  And a choice?  Right, when I popped out I decided I hate all fruits and queermos.  No.  How about the thought never occurred or my preference has been for the opposite gender?

You tell me how someone chooses to be gay.  Explain how the fruit gene appears from birth.  Any of you defenders, tell me that.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 6, 2008)

sukker monkeez said:


> He (she?) thinks that everyone's retarded for thinking that gay people have no choice in the matter. Well, I ask him (her?) something: Did you *choose* to be straight? Or did you decide when you were very young that you didn't like anyone who was gay and thought 'I don't want to be like them, so I'm going to be straight."?



Sexuality is hard-wired into your brain, it's not like someone wakes up one day and voluntarily decides they like girls or they like guys or whatever. amazingfunksta had a post on it yesterday, it has to do with the hypothalamus gland of the brain.

Also, I'm going to repeat what I said earlier: those who are most fervently anti-gay usually turn out to be gay themselves ironically enough. Smash seems to overcompensate in expressing his homophobia and is quick to make blanket accusations towards those as being gay themselves. That screams being on the defensive.


----------



## sukker monkeez (Nov 6, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> First off, I would like to thank you ahead of time for putting words in my mouth and speaking for me.
> 
> Second- well, yes, I'm a him. I doubt there are any women- particularly on an online board- attacking them. And a choice? Right, when I popped out I decided I hate all *fruits* and *queermos*. No. How about the thought never occurred or my preference has been for the opposite gender?
> 
> You tell me how someone chooses to be gay. Explain how the fruit gene appears from birth. Any of you defenders, tell me that.


 
Derrogatory terms. Please keep them nice? Anyways, YOU tell ME how someone chooses to be straight. _Please._

Oh, and, you are very welcome. I just love putting words in people's mouths.


----------



## hammer (Nov 6, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> First off, I would like to thank you ahead of time for putting words in my mouth and speaking for me.
> 
> Second- well, yes, I'm a him.  I doubt there are any women- particularly on an online board- attacking them.  And a choice?  Right, when I popped out I decided I hate all fruits and queermos.  No.  How about the thought never occurred or my preference has been for the opposite gender?
> 
> You tell me how someone chooses to be gay.  Explain how the fruit gene appears from birth.  Any of you defenders, tell me that.



exlain to me whats wrong with fruits fruits are very tasty i thought we were talking about gays.


----------



## C. Hook (Nov 6, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> You tell me how someone chooses to be gay.  Explain how the fruit gene appears from birth.  Any of you defenders, tell me that.





Go to the hell you believe is right for them.


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 6, 2008)

Keile said:


> You have no idea as to what you're typing about.
> 
> The Klu Klux Klan is a white supremacist group that trades in racism, propaganda, murder, rape, kidnapping, bombings, threats and idealistic political agenda. It was never a peace group and is under careful watch by the United States government. In essence, the people that occupy this group are adamant and white superiority in America, and over the world.
> 
> ...



Your paragraph on the Klan...sounds like you just watched the History Channel documentary or looked on Wikipedia.  You know nothing of the original Klan's motives prior to getting out of control, do you?  No, you know what the media has portrayed them as- racist bigots.  Don't compare the present Klan to the Klan of old.  That's like portraying the New Panther Party to the old Black Panther Party.  You can't.  And law enforcement rode with the Klan, so to say that they will deal with it when they are part of the group trying to solve the problem means nothing.

Oh sure, someone can choose to be gay.  Someone can choose to lick their lips.  Someone can choose to say yes to a bill that will keep the fruits from marrying and someone can try and justify fruit marriage all they want.  We can all chose.  Your point?


----------



## Keile (Nov 6, 2008)

sukker monkeez said:


> Derrogatory terms. Please keep them nice? Anyways, YOU tell ME how someone chooses to be straight. _Please._
> 
> Oh, and, you are very welcome. I just love putting words in people's mouths.



This debate is filibuster.

The fact remains that it doesn't matter whether or not one chooses to be gay. Marriage should be extended to those that love each other. It is about the power of human love, not the variability of gender. I don't see any negative dividends in allowing homosexuals to marry as it won't halt our birth rate and it'll mean the resolution of an important of modern society.


----------



## Asmodeus (Nov 6, 2008)

Reading this makes me laugh and think there truly no conservatives on the internets. Damn tubes. 

I'm all for Gay Civil Unions. I've got no problems with homosexuals having the same rights, adjustments, so on and so forth as married couples. 

That being said, Marriage is an institution that is traditionally associated with Religion. Given the nature of Religion (can anyone name a major Religion that is totally cool and accepting of Homosexuality?), getting "Married" seems like a strange contradiction. 

I know a lot of it is a placebo effect, and being able to say "We're Married" is the most important part of it. Given the circumstances around it though, I don't really see why there's so much backlash from the Homosexual community on this. Why would you want to be so closely tied to something (In this case Organized Religion) that by it's very nature disdains you? I just don't get that aspect. Is it just to be able to flip off people that don't like it and say "Told you I could?".

If that's the argument...that's fucking retarded. Time will prove who is wiser...but if this couldn't stay up in California, hell, where will it?



Smash_2451 said:


> Your paragraph on the Klan...sounds like you just watched the History Channel documentary or looked on Wikipedia.  You know nothing of the original Klan's motives prior to getting out of control, do you?  No, you know what the media has portrayed them as- racist bigots.  Don't compare the present Klan to the Klan of old.  That's like portraying the New Panther Party to the old Black Panther Party.  You can't.  And law enforcement rode with the Klan, so to say that they will deal with it when they are part of the group trying to solve the problem means nothing.



Pleeeease don't tell me you're defending the KKK. 

Seriously? 

A bunch of War Buddies that couldn't let go?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 7, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> Your paragraph on the Klan...sounds like you just watched the History Channel documentary or looked on Wikipedia.  You know nothing of the original Klan's motives prior to getting out of control, do you?  No, you know what the media has portrayed them as- racist bigots.  Don't compare the present Klan to the Klan of old.  That's like portraying the New Panther Party to the old Black Panther Party.  You can't.  And law enforcement rode with the Klan, so to say that they will deal with it when they are part of the group trying to solve the problem means nothing.



The Klan were ones that advocated white supremacy. Their origins are inevitably and undeniably tied in bigotry and prejudice. They originally formed due to angry white Southerners after the Civil War and would often engage in acts of terror against blacks, white northerners and Republicans which was the liberal party at the time. This is all in their early years. There was no degradation or loss of control, they were always the bigoted, prejudiced group they are today. That's something that they have always taken pride in. You can put yourself in denial all you want and refuse to acknowledge the countless sources of the Klan's history, but that doesn't change the truth of the matter that they are valid. 



> Oh sure, someone can choose to be gay.  Someone can choose to lick their lips.  Someone can choose to say yes to a bill that will keep the fruits from marrying and someone can try and justify fruit marriage all they want.  We can all chose.  Your point?



Sexuality is an inherent trait, not a voluntary decision.


----------



## Keile (Nov 7, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> Your paragraph on the Klan...sounds like you just watched the History Channel documentary or looked on Wikipedia.  You know nothing of the original Klan's motives prior to getting out of control, do you?  No, you know what the media has portrayed them as- racist bigots.  Don't compare the present Klan to the Klan of old.  That's like portraying the New Panther Party to the old Black Panther Party.  You can't.  And law enforcement rode with the Klan, so to say that they will deal with it when they are part of the group trying to solve the problem means nothing.
> 
> Oh sure, someone can choose to be gay.  Someone can choose to lick their lips.  Someone can choose to say yes to a bill that will keep the fruits from marrying and someone can try and justify fruit marriage all they want.  We can all chose.  Your point?



Actually, it sounds like I know what I'm talking about. And I can prove it. And I can give relevant sources. Wikipedia can be stated as a good source and yes, even the History channel is something that can be quoted upon. You state those such sources as somehow more unreliable than the meaningless conjecture you spout that I haven't yet seen any evidence for. Its funny when you question my validity of my knowledge when you seem to know noticeably less on the subject, and cannot even quote one source for which I can glean an insight into your inept understanding.

Out of control?

There was never any control. It was an organization based on ignorance and idiocy. The Black Panther Party was created as a response to the KKK and didn't reach the magnitude of the crimes the KKK committed. The KKK is portrayed as they were, racist bigots. And they still are, racist bigots. Unless you can prove otherwise. Unless you can provide reliable links that say the KKK wasn't just a group of racist bigots. And the principles of the KKK remain. They are still a group of racist bigots except that they now cannot commit crime on innocents as they see fit. All they can do is moan.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Sexuality is an inherent trait, not a voluntary decision.



That is debatable.


----------



## mushrooshi (Nov 7, 2008)

Hi. My first post!

I tried to login before I registered, I got mixed up with this and the Bleach forums...

Anyways:

I say gay marriage should be passed.

Simply put:

Banning it is discrimination. Gays don't hurt people. Gays won't hurt the economy. The only difference is they won't make babies.

Its another ridiculous religious junk law. I hated it how in the Texas pledge (Save me fellow democrats! I am stuck in a RUSH LIMBAUGH STATE!), which for some stupid reason we need to pledge allegiance to a fucking cookie shape on the US, they added 'Under God'.

That just pissed me flying. WHY?!? WHY!?! Are they TRYING to upset ATHEISTS and AGNOSTICS? What was the point in that? Make the bible bugs happy? Make the bible bugs shove it in our faces?

I am personally straight, and yes, I think gay people are weird as hell, or at least, most of them. But I will still support their rights. I don't think some stupid old book, one that was completely rewritten with parts lost in translation at least 5 times, and with one of those edits by a homophobe King James, to dictate the country.

Id rather have weird people go up to me and rub me and make me feel awkward, than to have those weird people punished by a freaking bible...


----------



## Jello Biafra (Nov 7, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> First off, the Klan and Fruits are two different subjects.  The Klan wasn't originally created to be violent, but got out of hand when people realized it could be used against Blacks and Reconstruction.  For the Blacks who WERE out committing crimes at the time...yes, yes they did deserve retribution for what they did.  For those who didn't but were killed anyway, they're long gone.
> 
> As for those who you saw that were beaten up because people thought they were gay...they must've given off the wrong impression.
> 
> And enough asking for justification.  How about you, the closet cases, and liberals tell me exactly why you think it's perfectly fine and not a crime.  None of this "it doesn't affect you personally", "Everyone has a choice," "Some people are born gay.  It's not their fault", and the constant comparison to Blacks bull$hit argument.



...



Where do I begin...

Okay, let's start off at the top. The Klan was taken over very quickly by white supremacists who were unnerved at the gall of those darkies in the south to try to be free and equal members of society. So they murdered them. By the thousands.

Blacks in the South committed crimes less often than Whites did. Any such stories of rampant crime by Black southerners is blatant myth fabricated by racist whites. When they did go to court, it was on false charges. Hundreds of blacks were executed for crimes that the State now acknowledges they didn't commit. That's called a kangaroo court.

But if that wasn't enough, fucktards like in the KKK decided to take the law into their own hands and terrorize blacks who had the audacity to vote or go to work outside of a tenant farm. 

Now to the task at hand. People are beaten up and brutalized every day for being gay. Sometimes they are even killed. It's no different in principle to the brutalization of blacks. Gays have every right to be who they are, regardless of whether they choose to be gay or not. 

Bottom line, There are far, far worse crimes than loving another human being.


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 7, 2008)

Keile said:


> Actually, it sounds like I know what I'm talking about. And I can prove it. And I can give relevant sources. Wikipedia can be stated as a good source and yes, even the History channel is something that can be quoted upon. You state those such sources as somehow more unreliable than the meaningless conjecture you spout that I haven't yet seen any evidence for. Its funny when you question my validity of my knowledge when you seem to know noticeably less on the subject, and cannot even quote one source for which I can glean an insight into your inept understanding.
> 
> Out of control?
> 
> ...



You said "The Klu Klux Klan is a white supremacist group that trades in racism, propaganda, murder, rape, kidnapping, bombings, threats and idealistic political agenda. It was never a peace group."  When the Klan first came out, it was just made by six bored Confederate soldiers who wanted to form a social group and went around pulling pranks and fooling superstitious Blacks into thinking they were ghosts.  Heck, the History Channel documentary even said "the origins of the Klan had little to do with the menacing behavior for which it would become known."  That and the fact  that you gave vague generalities that can be applied to ANY terrorist group just shows that you rely on the typical slander the media places on the Klan.

And no, the Panther Party was made in response to the nonviolence argument used by King and those who relied on peace in the Civil Rights Movement.  The Klan was not always a group of racist bigots.  Heck, you had a chief justice of the Supreme Court- Hugo Black- be a part of the Klan.  Truman was in for a second before he realized the Klan was anti-Catholic (KKKlan.com if you're so keen to show that I know "noticeably less" on the subject.)

"Pleeeease don't tell me you're defending the KKK.

Seriously?"

Even harder to know that I'm Black, right?

But back to the topic.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 7, 2008)

> Even harder to know that I'm Black, right?



Believe It! made that claim too. Even if you are, doesn't make any validate anything you've stated.


----------



## sukker monkeez (Nov 7, 2008)

Jello_Biafra said:


> ...
> 
> 
> Bottom line, There are far, far worse crimes than loving another human being.


 
Like killing someone because they love another human being... How about we declare that today, tomorrow, and then the next day, and the day after that and so on, we beat up on the straight people (just to put this into perspective, you know). Is it wrong to do that?


----------



## hammer (Nov 7, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> You said "The Klu Klux Klan is a white supremacist group that trades in racism, propaganda, murder, rape, kidnapping, bombings, threats and idealistic political agenda. It was never a peace group."  When the Klan first came out, it was just made by six bored Confederate soldiers who wanted to form a social group and went around pulling pranks and fooling superstitious Blacks into thinking they were ghosts.  Heck, the History Channel documentary even said "the origins of the Klan had little to do with the menacing behavior for which it would become known."  That and the fact  that you gave vague generalities that can be applied to ANY terrorist group just shows that you rely on the typical slander the media places on the Klan.
> 
> And no, the Panther Party was made in response to the nonviolence argument used by King and those who relied on peace in the Civil Rights Movement.  The Klan was not always a group of racist bigots.  Heck, you had a chief justice of the Supreme Court- Hugo Black- be a part of the Klan.  Truman was in for a second before he realized the Klan was anti-Catholic (KKKlan.com if you're so keen to show that I know "noticeably less" on the subject.)
> 
> ...



na it jsut makes it sad


----------



## mushrooshi (Nov 7, 2008)

Its freaking impossible to debate gay rights down here in Texas.

The answer I always get is 'Its a sin'.

Fuck the 'holy' bible.

If I ask for a good reason, outside of their religion, here are the general replies:

A. Its a sin [Didn't I just ask, NO RELIGIOUS REASONS]
B. Its wrong [Isn't that what I am asking you for the reasons?]
C. Because *insert retarded junk like cthulu or over9000]
D. **Long pause, then subject change**


----------



## Jello Biafra (Nov 7, 2008)

sukker monkeez said:


> Like killing someone because they love another human being... How about we declare that today, tomorrow, and then the next day, and the day after that and so on, we beat up on the straight people (just to put this into perspective, you know). Is it wrong to do that?



Only if it is also wrong to beat up gay people. If not, than beat away.


----------



## sukker monkeez (Nov 7, 2008)

Jello_Biafra said:


> Only if it is also wrong to beat up gay people. If not, than beat away.


 
 Oh joy. Because beating up on gays is not wrong!


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 7, 2008)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Believe It! made that claim too. Even if you are, doesn't make any validate anything you've stated.



I never said I was.  And I don't see why you'd doubt my ethnicity when you've nothing to disprove it.  For all I know, you could be a poster from Stormfront or some White Nationalist website, but you'd claim otherwise.  Even so, I'd have no reason to doubt your claim unless I disliked you.  Thus, the anonymity of the internet prevails.


----------



## C. Hook (Nov 7, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> You said "The Klu Klux Klan is a white supremacist group that trades in racism, propaganda, murder, rape, kidnapping, bombings, threats and idealistic political agenda. It was never a peace group."



Right. That's exactly what it was.



Smash_2451 said:


> When the Klan first came out, it was just made by six bored Confederate soldiers who wanted to form a social group and went around pulling pranks and fooling superstitious Blacks into thinking they were ghosts.



I don't know what's worse, the fact you think that's innocent and all right, or the fact that you ignore that they quickly went on to murder thousands, rape, pillage, and worst of all, end Reconstruction and decrease the black vote.



Smash_2451 said:


> Heck, the History Channel documentary even said "the origins of the Klan had little to do with the menacing behavior for which it would become known."  That and the fact  that you gave vague generalities that can be applied to ANY terrorist group just shows that you rely on the typical slander the media places on the Klan.



So you admit the Ku Klux Klan was a terrorist group. I suppose that's good for them!



Smash_2451 said:


> The Klan was not always a group of racist bigots.  Heck, you had a chief justice of the Supreme Court- Hugo Black- be a part of the Klan.  Truman was in for a second before he realized the Klan was anti-Catholic (KKKlan.com if you're so keen to show that I know "noticeably less" on the subject.)



Hugo Black's term at the Supreme Court destroyed most of Congress's efforts to secure a future for blacks. 

The fact that the website you have is obviously made by the KKK does not put you in a good light. 



Smash_2451 said:


> "Pleeeease don't tell me you're defending the KKK.
> 
> Seriously?"



You deny they, once again, KILLED 1000's of people? 



Smash_2451 said:


> Even harder to know that I'm Black, right?



You better lie better next time you fib.


----------



## Banana0evil (Nov 7, 2008)

mushrooshi said:


> Its freaking impossible to debate gay rights down here in Texas.
> 
> The answer I always get is 'Its a sin'.
> 
> ...



^ 
I can relate.
What pissed me off the most were the commercials that were playing on tv.
"If prop 8 dosen't pass, your 2nd grade child would be taught that they should have gay marriages in school."
Not only is that misleading, it's almost flat out lying. Since when do they EVER teach marriage in school? Even if they do, the parent can just write a note that says that they don't want their kid learning w/e is being taught. This whole issue is just a huge heartbreaker


----------



## mushrooshi (Nov 7, 2008)

Hi Class! We will be learning about marriage today!

If you are a boy, first, you need to find a woman. A woman who makes your pecker go UP-UP-UP! This is a sign...


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 7, 2008)

C. Hook said:


> Right. That's exactly what it was.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First off, you don't want to believe I'm Black, I won't try and convince you.

And I never said that what the original Klan did was all right.  It was all just for fun with six bored guys that wanted something to do after the war.  The violent, militant Klan wasn't even their intention.  Blame Nathan Bedford Forrest for that.  The Klan didn't end Reconstruction and it didn't end Black voting.  Blame disenfranchisement for that- Black voting continued WELL into the 1890s until the nadir of race relations.  I gave you ONE website and you act like it's the only one where you can find information on the Klan when you know it's not.  It's the one I found useful for the original Klan, not the ones following and I didn't deny the Klan killed anyone.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 7, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> I never said I was.  And I don't see why you'd doubt my ethnicity when you've nothing to disprove it.  For all I know, you could be a poster from Stormfront or some White Nationalist website, but you'd claim otherwise.  Even so, I'd have no reason to doubt your claim unless I disliked you.  Thus, the anonymity of the internet prevails.





			
				You said:
			
		

> Even harder to know that I'm Black, right?



It seemed awfully suspicious to make that claim, and I'm perfectly within reason to doubt it if you have nothing to prove otherwise. I don't see why you'd bring up your race unless you were trying to validate an argument of yours. You could make that claim that I am a poster on Stormfront or White Nationalist site, they do get their fair share of trolls after all.


----------



## Keile (Nov 7, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> You said "The Klu Klux Klan is a white supremacist group that trades in racism, propaganda, murder, rape, kidnapping, bombings, threats and idealistic political agenda. It was never a peace group."  When the Klan first came out, it was just made by six bored Confederate soldiers who wanted to form a social group and went around pulling pranks and fooling superstitious Blacks into thinking they were ghosts.  Heck, the History Channel documentary even said "the origins of the Klan had little to do with the menacing behavior for which it would become known."  That and the fact  that you gave vague generalities that can be applied to ANY terrorist group just shows that you rely on the typical slander the media places on the Klan.
> 
> And no, the Panther Party was made in response to the nonviolence argument used by King and those who relied on peace in the Civil Rights Movement.  The Klan was not always a group of racist bigots.  Heck, you had a chief justice of the Supreme Court- Hugo Black- be a part of the Klan.  Truman was in for a second before he realized the Klan was anti-Catholic (KKKlan.com if you're so keen to show that I know "noticeably less" on the subject.)
> 
> ...



I don't see how being Black changes anything. 



" The original Ku Klux Klan created in the aftermath of the American Civil War by six educated, middle-class Confederate veterans on December 24, 1865.[7] from Pulaski, Tennessee. They made up the name by combining the Greek "kyklos" (κυκλος, circle) with "clan"[8] It was one among a number of secret, oath-bound organizations, including the Southern Cross in New Orleans (1865), and the Knights of the White Camellia.[9] "

" In 1866, Mississippi Governor William L. Sharkey reported that disorder, lack of control and lawlessness were widespread; in some states armed bands of Confederate soldiers roamed at will. Southerners seemed to take out on blacks all their wrath at the Federal government. They casually attacked and killed blacks whose bodies were left on the roads. "

" The Prescript suggested elements of white supremacy belief. For instance, an applicant should be asked if he was in favor of "a white man's government", "the reenfranchisement and emancipation of the white men of the South, and the restitution of the Southern people to all their rights."[11] "


There was no social club. What I've posted is the fact. Take it or leave it, but I have provided proof for my claims. The KKK has always been a bigotry organization and was started by six, violent Confederates that underlined themselves with white supremacist belief. Essentially, almost exactly what the majority of the other posters have been saying all along. Not one word of a "social club" was found in any of the sources I read. And no, I will not read anything from any white supremacist website. It is propaganda. And I will not read anything that has a "KKK collectible" shop site and labels itself as "KKKlan.com". And Wikipedia is a helpful, informative, and unusually accurate website that has great research value. I can back it up with more evidence that says the same and all you can back your claims with is KKKlan.com



And the "old" KKK is a terrorist group. The "new" KKK shouldn't even exist as a result. The "new" Al-Qaeda only bombs Jews and the "new" KKK tries but fails at getting the world to hate and kill Jews and Blacks.


----------



## C. Hook (Nov 7, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> First off, you don't want to believe I'm Black, I won't try and convince you.



Good, it's not like anyone here would believe you anyway.



Smash_2451 said:


> And I never said that what the original Klan did was all right.



Yet you try to justify it, and justify the deaths of thousands with the intentions of the original Klan.



Smash_2451 said:


> It was all just for fun with six bored guys that wanted something to do after the war.  The violent, militant Klan wasn't even their intention.  Blame Nathan Bedford Forrest for that.  The Klan didn't end Reconstruction and it didn't end Black voting.  Blame disenfranchisement for that- Black voting continued WELL into the 1890s until the nadir of race relations.



They contributed to the death of Reconstruction by scaring blacks away from the polls. It's pretty obvious that when you have a group of people killing others because they vote, you are at a risk when voting.



Smash_2451 said:


> I gave you ONE website and you act like it's the only one where you can find information on the Klan when you know it's not.  It's the one I found useful for the original Klan, not the ones following and I didn't deny the Klan killed anyone.



Sure, I'm going to believe a website with several guys wearing Klan uniforms on the front page looking patriotic.


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 7, 2008)

Keile said:


> I don't see how being Black changes anything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you mastered the art of cut and paste and claim that as backing it up with evidence when you just clipped what paragraphs would help argument?  Give me a break.  If you're so eager to read something like Wikipedia- which can be edited by ANYONE out there- what's stopping you from looking at a website you claim is propaganda that you won't even give a chance?  Fear?  You've provided proof for your claims?  No, you've mastered copy and pasting when I didn't need a source to back up what I said.  You doubted it because you couldn't skim some source to see if what I said was accurate.  And the six soldiers were violent?  You knew them personally?  You found a credible source that shows the six men were violent when the Klan- their creation- was not meant to be so violent?

"The Ku Klux Klan was originally organized in the winter of 1865-66 in Pulaski, Tennessee as a social club by six Confederate veterans."



And look at that if you want a source.  PBS, not your "propaganda" I'm afraid to take a click website- motherloving P.B.S.


----------



## Vanity (Nov 7, 2008)

Yeah, I felt really sorry for gay people when I heard this news.

People need to just leave the gay people alone already. They aren't hurting anyone. Even if their religion doesn't agree with it they don't really have the right to force their religion down on society or whatever. Besides, wouldn't they rather that they at least be married instead of having out of wedlock sex if they are so religious? :S

I'm a Christian by the way and I don't have a problem with gay people. One of my long time friends in real life is gay.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 7, 2008)

> And look at that if you want a source. PBS, not your "propaganda" I'm afraid to take a click website- motherloving P.B.S.



Your denial isn't going to make it invalid.


----------



## Keile (Nov 7, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> So you mastered the art of cut and paste and claim that as backing it up with evidence when you just clipped what paragraphs would help argument?  Give me a break.  If you're so eager to read something like Wikipedia- which can be edited by ANYONE out there- what's stopping you from looking at a website you claim is propaganda that you won't even give a chance?  Fear?  You've provided proof for your claims?  No, you've mastered copy and pasting when I didn't need a source to back up what I said.  You doubted it because you couldn't skim some source to see if what I said was accurate.  And the six soldiers were violent?  You knew them personally?  You found a credible source that shows the six men were violent when the Klan- their creation- was not meant to be so violent?
> 
> "The Ku Klux Klan was originally organized in the winter of 1865-66 in Pulaski, Tennessee as a social club by six Confederate veterans."
> 
> ...




OoOOOOooOoOOoo, PBS. You've definitely proved me wrong. I mean, PBS is constantly updated and revised. I mean, PBS is such a relevant source that it is used everywhere. The point behind Wikipedia, *and be sure that everyone knows it is constantly being updated, and edited, by ANYONE. And that the authors must provide reliable cites and if those cites aren't there, then it is erased on a vigilantly moderated page such as one that stipulates the KKK*.* It is heavily prone to vandalism and untruths, which is why it is so heavily moderated. And guess..what?*

One crappy source versus my abundance of proof means I win.

 " ^ W.E.B. Du Bois, Black Reconstruction in America: 1860-1880, New York: Oxford University Press, 1935; reprint, The Free Press, 1998, pp.679-680 "

^, that was where the source came from for Wikipedia's explanation of how the KKK came to be.


I see no real inconsistencies between Wikipedia and other sources. *Not only does Wikipedia provide more accurate sources for its information on this subject, but they are linkable and they are avaliable, unlike our dear PBS. Which has one summarized page on the subject and doesn't even have testimonials from those living within the time. Wikipedia has primary accounts of those involved in the KKK, and links them justly. Unlike PBS, which has no accounts.* *Wikipedia has real old world pictures, quotes, and information from the era.* PBS barely has any of the three.* In their defense, they have pictures of a photoshopped burning cross and a cartoony drawing of men in hoods.*

I love how I can get near primary, relevant, and neatly classified  information from Wikipedia and disjointed, mostly secondary crap from PBS. I like how Wikipedia and in-text citations on every bit of proof. And I like how PBS has none of the above.

Which one would you be more likely to believe?


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 7, 2008)

Keile said:


> OoOOOOooOoOOoo, PBS. You've definitely proved me wrong. I mean, PBS is constantly updated and revised. I mean, PBS is such a relevant source that it is used everywhere. The point behind Wikipedia, *and be sure that everyone knows it is constantly being updated, and edited, by ANYONE. And that the authors must provide reliable cites and if those cites aren't there, then it is erased on a vigilantly moderated page such as one that stipulates the KKK*.* It is heavily prone to vandalism and untruths, which is why it is so heavily moderated. And guess..what?*
> 
> One crappy source versus my abundance of proof means I win.
> 
> ...



Your abundance of proof is one more source that you searched just to prove that you "win" when this isn't even a contest of who can find what.  Fact is you said the Klan wasn't a social club, yet a source among other sources that you didn't recognize or acknowledge would say otherwise.  And if PBS is a crappy source, why isn't their page taken down on the pretense of bad information?  You can tell when one website that has moderators- on a topic that isn't even the MAIN FOCUS of the page- is less credible than a page edited by all where the entire focus is on the topic?  That makes no sense.  PBS has accounts, had you looked around the page- there are even newspaper articles- as opposed to taking one look and going "Nah, I'm gonna win this argument and prove him wrong because I can!"  Photoshopped cross?  Drawing?  A similar drawing that's found on other sites about the Klan?

I'll believe whatever helps get the point across- not just the page that everyone flocks to when they can't find their answer by searching as opposed to falling back on Wikipedia.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Nov 7, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> Your abundance of proof is one more source that you searched just to prove that you "win" when this isn't even a contest of who can find what.  Fact is you said the Klan wasn't a social club, yet a source among other sources that you didn't recognize or acknowledge would say otherwise.  And if *PBS is a crappy source, why isn't their page taken down on the pretense of bad information?*  You can tell when one website that has moderators- on a topic that isn't even the MAIN FOCUS of the page- is less credible than a page edited by all where the entire focus is on the topic?  That makes no sense.  PBS has accounts, had you looked around the page- there are even newspaper articles- as opposed to taking one look and going "Nah, I'm gonna win this argument and prove him wrong because I can!"  Photoshopped cross?  Drawing?  A similar drawing that's found on other sites about the Klan?
> 
> I'll believe whatever helps get the point across- not just the page that everyone flocks to when they can't find their answer by searching as opposed to falling back on Wikipedia.



FoxNews is a bad source of news,why haven't they taken it down?Faulty logic at its best.


----------



## Keile (Nov 7, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> Your abundance of proof is one more source that you searched just to prove that you "win" when this isn't even a contest of who can find what.  Fact is you said the Klan wasn't a social club, yet a source among other sources that you didn't recognize or acknowledge would say otherwise.  And if PBS is a crappy source, why isn't their page taken down on the pretense of bad information?  You can tell when one website that has moderators- on a topic that isn't even the MAIN FOCUS of the page- is less credible than a page edited by all where the entire focus is on the topic?  That makes no sense.  PBS has accounts, had you looked around the page- there are even newspaper articles- as opposed to taking one look and going "Nah, I'm gonna win this argument and prove him wrong because I can!"  Photoshopped cross?  Drawing?  A similar drawing that's found on other sites about the Klan?
> 
> I'll believe whatever helps get the point across- not just the page that everyone flocks to when they can't find their answer by searching as opposed to falling back on Wikipedia.



Actually, debate is a contest. And I'm a competitive person. And that isn't the issue. Don't stray from the topic.

And I did look at the page.

And oh my god, I didn't find anything to support your evidence. Yes, there are accounts of real people in real issues during the time. But they are not related to what we are debating.

The accounts of a man running away from KKK members isn't representative of proof of how the KKK was originally conceived. Those accounts are for another day and another argument. An argument that I would most probably win anyway from the moment you started justifying the KKK with your vices of infallible logic that the KKK wasn't so bad afterall. 

And I don't understand your logic. It would make more sense that a student (and in this, a multitude of students) fixated on a writing a perfect thesis would undoubtedly have better and more accurate information than a student who doesn't have the methods nor the capability to make such a thesis. A team effort is most often better than a singular one, and if a collaboration of people working a project, and following a caste of rules that everyone must adhere to, would produce a better product than a singular effort that adheres to less rules, less detail, and less revision (but perhaps the same perfect vision; but this is unlikely as PBS doesn't have the tools to produce such a vision. It will never produce a document as thorough on the specifics on a country as the CIA Factbook, for example. It is beyond the scope for which PBS can be used).

Work revised a multitude of times is most often better than work revised only a few times. And I didn't link "other sites", I linked Wikipedia because I thought it best represented a culmination of other sites. I was giving a comparison between Wikipedia and your source, and found that Wikipedia is a better, more thorough, more understanding, and overall, better source that what you have given.

Wikipedia is not the end-all-do-all. You are right in that it does have its share of mistakes and inconsistencies. But in this particular case, it has done well.


----------



## Yakushi Kabuto (Nov 7, 2008)

Sad news indeed, but considering the close percents I still have hope for the future. Shifts in thought take time and this is no different from any issues of the past that involve something people discriminate against.


----------



## Gecka (Nov 7, 2008)

so this means that me and Yakushi Kabuto can't get married?


----------



## galliam (Nov 7, 2008)

Ok, so what exactly does having gay friends contribute to this argument? 

That aside, this is definitely a step in the wrong direction, even for the supposed "Christians" who were behind it. Being a Christian myself, we have to realize the serious implications of this, especially if you also consider yourself republican. Republicans typically wouldn't be for this at all if there wasn't this notion going through middle america that somehow Christian = Conservative. As a moderate conservative, and a Christian, I range in emotion from "eh, I don't care" to "What the hell are my people thinking" on this one. 

I understand the sentiment, really I do. I believe that God DID ordain marriage and that it is sacred, so then WHY are we allowing the government to even touch it? Is it because this is a so called Christian nation? Then why do we keep saying that America will be judged for its sins? When we allow the government to tell us who we can and can't marry based on one factor, what's to stop them then from starting to base it on others as well? If what we believe of the end times is the truth, the government will begin to discriminate the Christians next. Isn't this just a stepping stone to that end? Do we really want them to be able to dictate our lives at all? 

I don't necessarily believe that being homosexual is good, and whether I believe it to be a sin is irrelevant to the matter, because there are much larger forces at stake here. Too often we as a people want to have our cake and eat it with this whole america thing. Do I believe we are the greatest country? YES, I have pride, I was born here and I love it. Do I believe that Christian morals should be the principles we build our society on? To an extent, but even we know that theres infighting between all different denominations. Its not really different from the political parties current trend to degrade each other. 

Besides, what would happen if say, this homosexuality thing WAS a genetic inevitability? What would happen to the very notion of our religion? We're based on "come to me as you are" but we don't accept those that are born a different way? To avoid this, we often say that its a "choice," but the personal testimony of any gay person should tell you otherwise. Now, I'm not saying its genetic either, as I believe that until they can isolate the genetic sequence that makes you gay (they haven't, no matter how you would argue) I believe its a random set of conditions that are presented from pre natal all the way to adolescent stages. But the opinion on this is irrelevant, since its obvious that it is NOT a conscious choice. 

Either way you look at it, you have a notion that the world changed when this guy Jesus showed up, and he made it OK for both the Jew AND Gentile, Clean and Unclean to enter into the kingdom through divine providence and love. Why then would he exclude those who FEEL a certain way? I would wager that Jesus' love is overreaching the orientation of a person. Especially when he say's "come as you are."


----------



## Champagne Supernova (Nov 7, 2008)

i hope all you homophobic bastards are happy you've denied happiness to alot of people


----------



## Casyle (Nov 7, 2008)

Maybe this was answered somewhere in this thread, but I'm so tired and I may have missed it. And I'm not talking about recent years, when this subject has started heating up.  I'm talking about history.



> When it comes to taking away peoples rights, it should take more than half.



When has gay marriage ever been a right to take away? I'm serious, have homosexuals *ever* had the right to marry?  As far as I know, going back to Ancient times, marriage has always, always, been between a man and a woman.  I can't think of a civiilization, at least a major one, that allowed gay marriage.  I say major, because I dunno if there's some tribe that technically allowed it.  

Where is this precedence that gives homosexuals the right to marry?  

I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm serious, and I'm curious. I hear this a lot, that this is a right being taken away from them, but, until recently, I can't recall that gay marriage has ever been allowed, let alone a right.  

Marriage has changed a bit over the years.  Sometimes women were property, sometimes interacial marriages were illegal, sometimes polygamy was allowed, but it was always defined the same, man and woman.  Or is there a civilization that allowed it?  *Gay Marriage*



I've also never heard a good reason, or a reason period, as to why, if their brains are hard-wired and they can't help it, homosexuals can and have turned heterosexual, and heterosexuals can and have turned homosexual.


----------



## Xion (Nov 7, 2008)

Gecka said:


> so this means that me and Yakushi Kabuto can't get married?



If Gecka was really a chick my mind would have been blown. 

How could I stay mad at an underage lesbo?!


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 7, 2008)

Casyle said:


> Maybe this was answered somewhere in this thread, but I'm so tired and I may have missed it. And I'm not talking about recent years, when this subject has started heating up.  I'm talking about history.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



California did, for like, the sixt months or something before this amendement came to pass..


----------



## Casyle (Nov 7, 2008)

Earlier in my post I said I was referring to history, not recent years when gay marriage has started becoming such a hot topic.

My question is, starting back in Ancient times, have homosexuals ever had the right to marry?  To my knowledge the answer is no.  That is my question.  

Some people talk like marriage is some inalienable right to homosexuals,when, to my knowledge, it has never, until very recently, been a right, thus the fight over gay marriage.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Nov 7, 2008)

Casyle said:


> Earlier in my post I said I was referring to history, not recent years when gay marriage has started becoming such a hot topic.
> 
> My question is, starting back in Ancient times, have homosexuals ever had the right to marry?  To my knowledge the answer is no.  That is my question.
> 
> Some people talk like marriage is some inalienable right to homosexuals,when, to my knowledge, it has never, until very recently, been a right, thus the fight over gay marriage.



Blacks didn't have civil or political rights at the founding of this nation. That doesn't change the fact that their rights were inalienable. Governments do not give rights to the people, and indeed such thinking is dangerous. Governments recognize the rights that are inherent in the people.


----------



## Nodonn (Nov 7, 2008)

> can't think of a civiilization, at least a major one



*points to the non-homophobic part of the Western civilization*


----------



## vervex (Nov 7, 2008)

Casyle said:


> Earlier in my post I said I was referring to history, not recent years when gay marriage has started becoming such a hot topic.
> 
> My question is, starting back in Ancient times, have homosexuals ever had the right to marry?  To my knowledge the answer is no.  That is my question.
> 
> Some people talk like marriage is some inalienable right to homosexuals,when, to my knowledge, it has never, until very recently, been a right, thus the fight over gay marriage.



Religious gay marriage if obviously out of question; it's against the religious institutions to get married with someone of the same sex in most religions. However, a civil marriage is something to consider and is happening in some countries already, such as Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway (2009-1-1), South Africa and Spain. In many other countries, homosexual partnerships are also recognized.

I'm also going to destroy your whole argument of "oh but gay union has never been allowed in other civilizations" by pointing out that civil union (equivalent of marriage for 2 homosexual people) is a recent concept dating from 1989. It is therefor impossible before that date that any gay person could get married outside the church. The concept of marriage without religion (at the court) is also very recent for many countries; in most cases, it started after the separation of the state and the church. For some countries, that might have been after the Middle Ages and it goes until today, since others might not even allow it yet (countries ruled by religious institutions). 

I'd also like to point out that in some civilizations such as the Greek one, homosexuality was quite common. Teachers who taught their pupils also engaged homosexual relationships with them and it was considered part of their education. Same went for women who, hanging together at home alone most of the time, had homosexual intercourse. For them, it was just part of life.


----------



## NineTailedDemon (Nov 7, 2008)

Well no offense but gay sex is pretty nasty.

With that said most gay guys and women can't choose their sexual preference and the government not recognizing gays the right to marry is like saying gay people are less than human.



Xion said:


> How could I stay mad at an underage lesbo?!



You can be mad at her for hating men and her not liking ding dongs.


----------



## Aina (Nov 7, 2008)

^ Well, I don't find gay sex nasty. And tell me this, you're not going to be watching them have sex, nor any other _straights_ having sex. Another reason why it shouldn't be though of in such disgust. :<

But truly, they are making them sound like they are less human than they are. In my opinion, I think they are more human than anyone could ever be, I've never heard a report of a gay man ever trying to hurt any child, or be aggression unless they were going through a stage of denial, or just plain crazy. :{



hammer said:


> fie then prob 8.5 ban on candy because its yucky


I hate candy, it is yucky. :<
How about we make a Prop for it then!! 

NO. Of course not, outrageous crap like that is exactly what people think about gays. Every time I ask someone for their reasons apart from religious ones, and I here that, it makes me want to shoot them. It's just illogical and a retarded way to think.



Republican said:


> What I want to know is what the heck a kid is going to call his parents. "Dad & Dad" would be confusing.


Erm...Dad and Dad _have a name_. I call my parents by their name. I don't recall the last time I ever used dad or mom. If I ever even used it after I was 3 (according to my parents.)


Mewshuji said:


> I'm a Christian myself. I'm talking about the folks who think America should be run by the Bible. and shouldn't be run by free choice.





Kyasurin Yakuto said:


> I'm a Christian by the way and I don't have a problem with gay people. One of my long time friends in real life is gay.


This just makes me feel warm inside. <3

I'm glad I'm not the only Christian who thinks 'outside the box'. 


Gecka said:


> so this means that me and Yakushi Kabuto can't get married?


No way!? Now I'm uber against this crap. :'C


----------



## Jagon Fox (Nov 7, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> If by that we can say immoral or bizarre preferences, then yes.
> 
> Are you a closet case or already out there and loving every minute of it?  If so, it'd be easier to come out and admit it as opposed to trying to defend them.



wow! how spiteful you are. i almost feel sorry for you. and since when do you have to be gay to support gay marriage? i didn't realize it was a bad thing to treat other people like human beings you are a bigot plain and simple. why try to deny it when your words say otherwise? look up bigotry and homophobic in a dictionary sometimes.


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 7, 2008)

Casyle said:


> Earlier in my post I said I was referring to history, not recent years when gay marriage has started becoming such a hot topic.
> 
> My question is, starting back in Ancient times, have homosexuals ever had the right to marry?  To my knowledge the answer is no.  That is my question.
> 
> Some people talk like marriage is some inalienable right to homosexuals,when, to my knowledge, it has never, until very recently, been a right, thus the fight over gay marriage.



Ever heard of Achilees? How about Alexander the Great


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 7, 2008)

> I've also never heard a good reason, or a reason period, as to why, if their brains are hard-wired and they can't help it, homosexuals can and have turned heterosexual, and heterosexuals can and have turned homosexual.


I wonder if you could turn a reasonable person because you have lot of shit inyour brain.

Well, i wonder that making a new law in which astronauts can vote from the space has no sense for you, because no civilization ever in the past had a law to let humans to vote from the outside space.


----------



## neko-sennin (Nov 7, 2008)

Jagon Fox said:


> dammit! this really sucks! I was so sure that prop 8 would get struck down like the biased piece of shit that it is!



Sadly, this didn't surprise me too much. In spite of California's liberal public image, I live in LA's mostly Mexican-Filipino Panorama City district, where I walk surrounded by Catholic-sponsored "Yes On 8" bumper stickers.


----------



## Adonis (Nov 7, 2008)

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it until it finally gets answered:

If marriage is a Christian institution (it's not, btw, its predates most religions, oops), why are LEGAL benefits only available through said Christian institution in a secular society where people supposedly have equal rights and protection under the law?

We're not talking getting married in a pretty white church; it's a civil marriage. Religious qualms are relevant why?

And Casyle, if you honestly had to make a conscious decision before you decided you liked girls and not guys, I respond: "Lol, closet ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)."


----------



## Zhariel (Nov 7, 2008)

Such a shame, really. I was hoping we as people would advance far enough to not make this totally uncalled for decision. What will happen to the thousands of gay couples who were already married?


----------



## neko-sennin (Nov 7, 2008)

Adonis said:


> I've said it before and I'll keep saying it until it finally gets answered:
> 
> If marriage is a Christian institution (it's not, btw, its predates most religions, oops), why are LEGAL benefits only available through said Christian institution in a secular society where people supposedly have equal rights and protection under the law?
> 
> We're not talking getting married in a pretty white church; it's a civil marriage. Religious qualms are relevant why?



QFT. Your analytical skills pwn as usual.



Amasius said:


> Such a shame, really. I was hoping we as people would advance far enough to not make this totally uncalled for decision. What will happen to the thousands of gay couples who were already married?



_Ex post facto_, one would hope. But common sense has already failed so far in this matter...


----------



## Republican (Nov 7, 2008)

I doubt they'll start unmarrying every gay couple that was married in the last however many years.


----------



## Surreal (Nov 7, 2008)

> I'd also like to point out that in some civilizations such as the Greek one, homosexuality was quite common. Teachers who taught their pupils also engaged homosexual relationships with them and it was considered part of their education. Same went for women who, hanging together at home alone most of the time, had homosexual intercourse. For them, it was just part of life.




Don't forget they liked little boys.



> Well no offense but gay sex is pretty nasty.



What the hell does this have to do with anything? Anything at all? You find it "ewww" so that somehow matters in what way?

I find scat nasty. See, I can share irrelevant facts as well.


----------



## ~Flippy (Nov 7, 2008)

Republican said:


> I doubt they'll start unmarrying every gay couple that was married in the last however many years.



But they will continue to stone them with their rocks of condemnation.


----------



## Republican (Nov 7, 2008)

Ryouji Hirokura said:


> But they will continue to stone them with their rocks of condemnation.



That's a separate thing. People are going to pick on gays whether gay marriage is banned or not.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Nov 7, 2008)

Adonis said:


> I've said it before and I'll keep saying it until it finally gets answered:
> 
> If marriage is a Christian institution (it's not, btw, its predates most religions, oops), why are LEGAL benefits only available through said Christian institution in a secular society where people supposedly have equal rights and protection under the law?
> 
> ...



Marry me!


----------



## Jello Biafra (Nov 7, 2008)

Allelujah Haptism said:


> Marry me!



I now pronounce you  and 

You may now commence secksing each other.


----------



## Nodonn (Nov 7, 2008)

Jello_Biafra said:


> I now pronounce you  and
> 
> You may now commence secksing each other.



I'd rather have you guys do the marriage in the open, and the buttsecks behind closed doors.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Nov 7, 2008)

Nodonn said:


> I'd rather have you guys do the marriage in the open, and the buttsecks behind closed doors.



Says the guy with the Jiraiya avatar


----------



## sukker monkeez (Nov 7, 2008)

Casyle said:


> have homosexuals *ever* had the right to marry? As far as I know, going back to Ancient times, marriage has always, always, been between a man and a woman. I can't think of a civiilization, at least a major one, that allowed gay marriage. I say major, because I dunno if there's some tribe that technically allowed it.
> 
> I've also never heard a good reason, or a reason period, as to why, if their brains are hard-wired and they can't help it, homosexuals can and have turned heterosexual, and heterosexuals can and have turned homosexual.


 
Pertaining to the first section of this, I can name two that I think have allowed gay marriage in a quote unquote tribe. First: Ancient Greece. Not quite sure about this one, but I think so. Whatever. Second: Many Indian tribes have. In fact, the term 'Two Spirit' (reffering to an inter-sexed or transexual person, I do believe) is an Indian word and people who were Two-spirited were considered the most holy of any other in the tribe. 

Homosexuals can not turn heterosexual. Somtheing in their enviroment, whether it be their parents or an outside force, or even one's self, causes them to be ashamed of this fact and so they go back in the closet. It is the same for seemingly heterosexual people to suddenly come out despite the fact that they have notably dated women (or men, if you're speaking of women too, which I am), yet have actually rather enjoyed the company of another male as apposed to a female (or vice versa, whatever)


----------



## Surreal (Nov 7, 2008)

> Pertaining to the first section of this, I can name two that I think have allowed gay marriage in a quote unquote tribe. First: Ancient Greece.



Don't think ancient Greeks had gay unions. They did however find homosexuality normal and indulged in it quite openly.


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 7, 2008)

As far as I know, in some places and moments of the old japanese ages, being with a man  was considered more pure than being with a woman that was considered "unpure" and "sinful".

I'm sorry girls. Traditions and religions always pissing you off


----------



## sukker monkeez (Nov 7, 2008)

Surreal said:


> Don't think ancient Greeks had gay unions. They did however find homosexuality normal and indulged in it quite openly.


 
Ah, that's it. I thought I got that wrong. But you know what? It's practically the same thing.... And I think that one or two did 'unify'


----------



## Nemesis (Nov 7, 2008)

Surreal said:


> Don't think ancient Greeks had gay unions. They did however find homosexuality normal and indulged in it quite openly.



Well technically bisexuality was the norm.  But then the ancient Greeks and Romans would have found the terms gay, straight, bi odd

They never classified sexuality that way.  Anal was no go though between males unlike what people think,  it was actually thigh sex.

Marriage though was mostly about creating children and benefiting two families with love a distant third.  Thus was solely Man x woman  (Usually man was around 18 - 20 woman 14 - 16).


----------



## Killer Zylos Wolf (Nov 7, 2008)

gay people should be allow to marry. straight people are allowed to get marry right? well let me tell u something gay people are straight people the only small difference is they like different genders. 


anyone who says gay people cant marry or aren't the same as straight people is a homophobic and a discrimater and stereotyper. 


if u say gay people are bad then straight people are bad too, also black people will have to be bad and white people, people with blond hair are bad, people with brown hari are bad, males are bad females are bad, everyone is bad then. 

the only people i think are bad are the discrimaters and stereotypers since they dont allow people for who they are and they cant change it. u can change ur discrimation ways though and its ur personality so i hate that. 

i hate some gay people, since some are make these damn stereotypes come to light. i saw a girl on a site saying she wants pussys and shit like that. it pisses me off. but gay people dont only do it. straight people do it too. those people make me sick.


we are all human and we have to treat eachother right. so stop hating on gay people


----------



## Tunafish (Nov 7, 2008)

Christ, what's so wrong about it?

I hope several years from now, just like with the discrimination struggle back then, we will embrace homosexuality like it is our second nature.

 And now we wait.


----------



## Republican (Nov 7, 2008)

Pharos said:


> we will embrace homosexuality like it is our second nature.



Yuck... Can't it just be enough that we aren't discriminating against them. I don't want to have to embrace gayness.


----------



## sukker monkeez (Nov 7, 2008)

Republican said:


> Yuck... Can't it just be enough that we aren't discriminating against them. I don't want to have to embrace gayness.


 
Ah, but you have to, my friend! We embrace being black! We embrace being white! We embrace being millato.... We embrace being straight!! How about we embrace being gay??!!


----------



## Xion (Nov 7, 2008)

Republican said:


> Yuck... Can't it just be enough that we aren't discriminating against them. I don't want to have to embrace gayness.



You don't have to. Just don't be a bigot to them and support stuff that is constitutionally sound.


----------



## hammer (Nov 7, 2008)

Republican said:


> Yuck... Can't it just be enough that we aren't discriminating against them. I don't want to have to embrace gayness.



then i shall bring up the point that interacel marrige is nasty.


----------



## Xion (Nov 7, 2008)

hammer said:


> then i shall bring up the point that interacel marrige is nasty.



That is pretty random.

What point were you trying to make?


----------



## hammer (Nov 7, 2008)

Xion said:


> That is pretty random.
> 
> What point were you trying to make?



im jsut being sarcastic based on what he said.


----------



## Republican (Nov 7, 2008)

hammer said:


> then i shall bring up the point that interacel marrige is nasty.



Sure, if that's how you feel. It doesn't mean hate interracial couples.


----------



## Xion (Nov 7, 2008)

hammer said:


> im jsut being sarcastic based on what he said.



Oh. 

Carry on then.


----------



## hammer (Nov 7, 2008)

Republican said:


> Sure, if that's how you feel. It doesn't mean hate interracial couples.



but to truley not hate itmeans to not give a darn and if we dont give a darn then we shouldnt ban it bcause we dont give a darn.


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 7, 2008)

Pharos said:


> Christ, what's so wrong about it?
> 
> I hope several years from now, just like with the discrimination struggle back then, we will embrace homosexuality like it is our second nature.
> 
> And now we wait.



Second nature?!

And the comparison between fruits and blacks wears thin after a while.  There's no direct comparison- you don't see them being killed by the day just because of who they are.


----------



## hammer (Nov 7, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> Second nature?!
> 
> And the comparison between fruits and blacks wears thin after a while.  There's no direct comparison-* you don't see them being killed by the day just because of who they are*.



thats a joke right?


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 7, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> Second nature?!
> 
> And the comparison between fruits and blacks wears thin after a while.  There's no direct comparison- you don't see them being killed by the day just because of who they are.



WTF are you talking about.


----------



## hammer (Nov 7, 2008)

and again WHY ARE YOU TALKNI ABOUT FRUTIS WERE TALKING ABOUT GAYS NOT HOW AWSOME A WATERMELON IS.


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 7, 2008)

hammer said:


> thats a joke right?



I mean gays.  As far as I know, there aren't daily reports of them being killed just because they're gay.

And Epsylon, I was responding to the post that made a comparison between this movement and Blacks during the civil rights movement.  It's not a direct comparison, and I fail to see why it continues to be brought up.


----------



## hammer (Nov 7, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> I* mean gays.  As far as I know, there aren't daily reports of them being killed just because they're gay.*
> 
> And Epsylon, I was responding to the post that made a comparison between this movement and Blacks during the civil rights movement.  It's not a direct comparison, and I fail to see why it continues to be brought up.



probobly because its FAR easyier to hide being gay?  and there is a comperision because equal rights is equal rights.


----------



## Killer Zylos Wolf (Nov 7, 2008)

hammer said:


> and again WHY ARE YOU TALKNI ABOUT FRUTIS WERE TALKING ABOUT GAYS NOT HOW AWSOME A WATERMELON IS.



watermelons rock 



but gay people are not fruits smash_2451.

also there are gay people who get killed becasue they are gay, sometimes not killed but beat up badly. and they dont put it on the news since a black dieing is more entertaining to talk to people about. if a gay person got killed because he/she was gay it most likely would be on the news though, just depends where u live.


----------



## hammer (Nov 7, 2008)

killerbee the man said:


> watermelons rock
> 
> 
> 
> ...



actuly blacks gay latinos are all are under shadowed by the pretty white girl who took candy from a stranger and was kidnaped and held hostege 2 houes down and how brave she was.  thats pretty much why gay beatings are not talekd about.


----------



## sukker monkeez (Nov 7, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> Second nature?!
> 
> And the comparison between fruits and blacks wears thin after a while. There's no direct comparison- *you don't see them being killed by the day just because of who they are*.


 
You really are stupid.

Link removed
melta charge


Now please, do your friggin research. In 2005, the FBI reported nearly *1200* hate crimes based on sexual orientation. Thats almost four deaths/and or bashings *each day. *Think about it.


----------



## Killer Zylos Wolf (Nov 7, 2008)

hammer said:


> actuly blacks gay latinos are all are under shadowed by the pretty white girl who took candy from a stranger and was kidnaped and held hostege 2 houes down and how brave she was.  thats pretty much why gay beatings are not talekd about.



pretty much. news doesn't show everything and anything. it shows what people would care most about. if someone who is gay got killed becasue he/she was gay then it would be on the news, if they get told about it. but the news doesn't show people in fairness. this whole world needs to mature


----------



## Garfield (Nov 8, 2008)

Prop 9 - Ban Jesus Christ because my atheist bible says he ain't legit!!


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 8, 2008)

sukker monkeez said:


> You really are stupid.
> 
> Link removed
> melta charge
> ...



At last!  Another defender of the fruits who will flock to the internet just to prove me wrong.  1200 crimes in a year?  Is that all you've got?  Please, give me numbers I care about, not something we can shrug and forget about.  1200 is nothing.  You've got more women being raped not because they're dikes, but because they're fresh, easy targets.  Those numbers are high.



"actuly blacks gay latinos are all are under shadowed by the pretty white girl who took candy from a stranger and was kidnaped and held hostege 2 houes down and how brave she was. thats pretty much why gay beatings are not talekd about."

Sounds like a bad episode of some teen drama.  Seriously, Natalee Holloway went missing a LONG time ago and we moved on.  Sure, there was too much coverage on her, but she's either dead or...no, she's definitely dead.  Either way, don't bring the whole missing white girl into this.  And definitely don't assume that missing white girls are the only reason fruit crimes aren't covered.  Try that they aren't that important to most of the nation or that most are tolerant of it.


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

hammer said:


> probobly because its FAR easyier to hide being gay?


LOL
Depending on who 




sukker monkeez said:


> You really are stupid.
> 
> Link removed
> melta charge
> ...


----------



## sukker monkeez (Nov 8, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> At last! Another defender of the fruits who will flock to the internet just to prove me wrong. 1200 crimes in a year? Is that all you've got? Please, give me numbers I care about, not something we can shrug and forget about. 1200 is nothing. You've got more women being raped not because they're dikes, but because they're fresh, easy targets. Those numbers are high.


 
We all realize that women are raped. Hell, we all realize how high the numbers are. And yeah, I agree, the numbers are way too high. But people are being KILLED! Becaues they like the same sex! What if you were killed for liking the opposite sex? What if your parents were? What if your brother (not saying you have one or whatever. Im no stalker) was killed because he was gay? Would those "low numbers" mean something to you then? Probably not right?

And if you don't care about a measly 1200+ people dying, you're pretty damn cruel.


----------



## Killer Zylos Wolf (Nov 8, 2008)

sukker monkeez said:


> We all realize that women are raped. Hell, we all realize how high the numbers are. And yeah, I agree, the numbers are way too high. But people are being KILLED! Becaues they like the same sex! What if you were killed for liking the opposite sex? What if your parents were? What if your brother (not saying you have one or whatever. Im no stalker) was killed because he was gay? Would those "low numbers" mean something to you then? Probably not right?
> 
> And if you don't care about a measly 1200+ people dying, you're pretty damn cruel.



smash_2451  hates gay people so its only naturally for him/she to not care about gay people dieing. 

that is very sickening. to know people who dont care that people are deing because they are gay it make me sick to no ends. 

the people in this world need to mature more faster. since there are too many people who are inmature in mature matters.

but the gay people who just want sex and say that are kinda a problem too. but at the same time there are straight people who do the same. that sickens me too. if they didn't do this shit then maybe there wouldn't be as much discrimation and stereotypes for gays.

either way the people who hate people just becasue they are gay or black or white or are male or have blond hair or brown hair or w/e else will get punished in some way. so hate all u want ur just going to get alot of pain in ur life and after life and ur not going to like it at all.

for people who dont hate people for those reasons they wont get as much pain.


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 8, 2008)

I suppose it's only natural for me not to care about fruits 'dieing,' isn't it? Seriously, a bit of grammar work goes a long way.

I also love how the word hate is tossed around from supporters as common as homophobic is.  Yep, you just can't dislike them for no reason other than you don't like them or accept them.  There's always an underlying motive.  Meanwhile, supporters of it don't like to be called closet cases.

Irony.


----------



## Killer Zylos Wolf (Nov 8, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> I suppose it's only natural for me not to care about fruits 'dieing,' isn't it? Seriously, a bit of grammar work goes a long way.
> 
> I also love how the word hate is tossed around from supporters as common as homophobic is.  Yep, you just can't dislike them for no reason other than you don't like them or accept them.  There's always an underlying motive.  Meanwhile, supporters of it don't like to be called closet cases.
> 
> Irony.



grammar is nothing, same with spelling. 

so u hate gays right? why do u have all gays? well?


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> I suppose it's only natural for me not to care about fruits 'dieing,' isn't it? Seriously, a bit of grammar work goes a long way.
> 
> I also love how the word hate is tossed around from supporters as common as homophobic is.  Yep, you just can't dislike them for no reason other than you don't like them or accept them.  There's always an underlying motive.  Meanwhile, supporters of it don't like to be called closet cases.
> 
> Irony.



of corse we can say you hate them when you say you dont care if they die.

and what is so ironic about defnding gays and claim not to be gay?tell me which irony are you refering to.

situatinal.
dramatic.
or Verbal?


----------



## Legendary_Toad_Sage (Nov 8, 2008)

What's so great about marriage anyway?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 8, 2008)

hammer said:


> of corse we can say you hate them when you say you dont care if they die.
> 
> and what is so ironic about defnding gays and claim not to be gay?tell me which irony are you refering to.
> 
> ...



You know what I find it ironic? 

Watch this video to find out:

[YOUTUBE]cy-7AoxFEJA[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 8, 2008)

I don't care about the numbers.  They're so insignificant in comparison to larger numbers for groups being killed, which is why I cited women as an example. So if you can say I hate them, we can say you love them since you want them to be happy...and probably would have no problem shacking with one?

Okay, we're cool, then.

And situational.  When someone doesn't support fruits, they're "homophobic" or "hateful."  Flip the situation and someone when someone does defend them, it's perfectly fine and they're certainly not a closet fruit.


----------



## Dionysus (Nov 8, 2008)

Oh...  A potential Believe It! reborn appears!  We, the Cafe, have been waiting for this sign of the Rapture.

Welcome, Smash_2451.  Your posts will be cherished in this section.  Please continue.


----------



## Killer Zylos Wolf (Nov 8, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> I don't care about the numbers.  They're so insignificant in comparison to larger numbers for groups being killed, which is why I cited women as an example. So if you can say I hate them, we can say you love them since you want them to be happy...and probably would have no problem shacking with one?
> 
> Okay, we're cool, then.
> 
> And situational.  When someone doesn't support fruits, they're "homophobic" or "hateful."  Flip the situation and someone when someone does defend them, it's perfectly fine and they're certainly not a closet fruit.



i cant even tell what ur saying.


but u are for sure hateful to gays since u keep calling them fruits. and that is rude, hateful, dicrimation, stereotype, etc...

gay people are not fruits, they are gay. there is a huge difference:
fruit-food
gay people-human

ur too annoying for me, ur on my ignore list now. i dont want to read this BS from u anymore


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> I don't care about the numbers.  They're so insignificant in comparison to larger numbers for groups being killed, which is why I cited women as an example. So if you can say I hate them, we can say you love them since you want them to be happy...and probably would have no problem shacking with one?
> 
> Okay, we're cool, then.
> 
> And situational.  When someone doesn't support fruits, they're "homophobic" or "hateful."  Flip the situation and someone when someone does defend them, it's perfectly fine and they're certainly not a closet fruit.



1st off i can love omeone and not have a sexual intrest in them.

and no thats no the case because this argument cn be used for racisim toitslike saying oh just because i dont like whites dosnt make me racist you hipicrte. 






Seto Kaiba said:


> You know what I find it ironic?
> 
> Watch this video to find out:
> 
> [YOUTUBE]cy-7AoxFEJA[/YOUTUBE]



/all arguments of how  people like me must be gay for defnding gays 




Dionysus said:


> Oh...  A potential Believe It! reborn appears!  We, the Cafe, have been waiting for this sign of the Rapture.
> 
> Welcome, Smash_2451.  Your posts will be cherished in this section.  Please continue.


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

Dionysus said:


> Oh...  A potential Believe It! reborn appears!  We, the Cafe, have been waiting for this sign of the Rapture.
> 
> Welcome, Smash_2451.  Your posts will be cherished in this section.  Please continue.



I already told in another thread: Believe It is like Pain.
When one of his accounts is banned, he releases one of his other 6 to keep bothering.


----------



## KaiserNeko (Nov 8, 2008)

*Here I Am, With My Heavy Head Still Held High*

I started late.

I didn't know Prop 8 had, had such a backing. I didn't know the Mormon church had funded over tens of millions of dollars towards it, violating and breaking the conditions of their tax exemption status in the process, to pay for cheery, insulting signs, commercials packed to the brim with pathological lies, and a rally on every corner.

I started too late. 

It was only a week left before the election. Beforehand, I was fretting, I was worried, but I was confident that California wouldn't let me down. The liberal and accepting public of my home state couldn't possibly let this happen, could they?

I started way too late.

I saw the numbers in the early polls. I noticed how terrifyingly close they were, how scared everyone was, how the Bradley Effect could be all too keen to apply to this situation in the worst way. I had to get out there, I had to stop telling myself that this couldn't pass and do something.

I think we all started way too late.

For a whole week. I stood out on the busiest intersections in my city holding up No on 8 signs. I rallied my friends together and made calls all over the area. I stood across from individuals brandishing Pro-Prop 8 signs, believing I was ruining marriage. I was called ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) and queer for holding a sign which begged only for us to be allowed the same right every man and woman who could love each other is offered.

I actually caught strep throat while out rallying. Later October, early November whether gets pretty cold around here, and you shout a lot to the cars who honk and gives you a thumbs up. I'm still recovering. 

It was a bitter bite when I sat there, Tuesday night, so sickly and anxious to see the results of the election.

Obama had won, there were cheers to be had, but I couldn't get passed the fear in my gut... I waited, I checked, I waited, I checked... 50% of precincts confirmed... 80%... 90%... Winning the whole time...

I waited until Wednesday afternoon to really accept whether or not it had won. All the ballots tabulated. All the votes... and in the end, the Proposition had passed.

A Proposition which, in it's *title*, exclaimed outright it's intent to strip the *rights* from a group of people. My right to a civil marriage. I was told, "No, you don't get to sit on this part of the bus. You don't get to drink from this fountain. Here's your Civil Union, with it's 1000 missing benefits that come with marriage, locked only to your state." Not even separate but equal.

I was pushed back to second class citizen.

You know, I don't know if I'll ever get married. The idea is so romantic and it probably will happen, but I'm not going to rush into it. I'd like to find someone who cares about me for me and that I can have a long, loving relationship with that will last the rest of our lives before I take that plunge. Even then, who's to say we will?

The thing is, even if I don't, no consenting adult should be without the right to do so. No adult should be stripped of their, if not God given, then *America* given right to be seen as an equal under the law.

There are many churches which will aide homosexual couples in Religious Marriage. Civil Marriage isn't an issue for anyone. So why, why is it we're being segregated like this?

And lash your tongues at my comparisons to the days of black oppression. Minorities are minorities, whether the severity or circumstance is different or not. I take no step to say that Gays have suffered to even close the magnitude, but how quick are we to forget the mistakes we'd made in the past? Replace Gay Marriage with Interracial Marriage and just see how abhorrent it is.

If you are religious and you feel we are an "abomination" on your religious institution, remember that your religious institution gains legal benefits under the law. I'd stray far from arguing how much the Church owns it, less the government should decide to... separate the Church from State and decide we're all due for 'Civil Unions'.

I refrain from my disdain upon those who look upon me with disgust and apprehension. 

I am a human being. 

I love.

I care.

I can't help who I am.

So please, let me be happy.


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> I already told in another thread: Believe It is like Pain.
> When one of his accounts is banned, he releases one of his other 6 to keep bothering.



lol XD without atleast ONE itll be so boring with all of us liberlsafter all the inernets a series of tubes 


and this thread needs a mexican who went to the hospital for getting scrached in the eye  coughcough


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 8, 2008)

Prop 8 passed because the people running this shit didn't put the right face out there. On the Prop 8 website, when I was trying to figure out what the hell it was about...it was just pictures of families running and stuff like that. 

If they wanted to make that pass, instead of the bullshit legal jargin they put on the polling machine, they should have put this picture: 

*Spoiler*: __


----------



## mushrooshi (Nov 8, 2008)

I had a debate on the bus. I think I won.

No one gave me a good reason to ban gay marriage, outside of religious reasons, and wth me being an agnostic, it didn't work.

I could tell they were subtly saying that I am a moralless atheist/satanist (I find satanism entirely more ridiculous than christianity...), who wants everyone to be gay.

The person I was debating with had the sheer audacity to say I was 'narrow minded', when he said he doesn't want gay marriage, because he doesn't want to have his future kids in the future 'watch gays kiss'. Wow. So you are saying I am narrow minded, yet... you don't want you kids to be exposed to gay people.

'Bob, Joe, come here, get away from that man! hes GAY!' ~I could visualize it happening...

I did get one slightly-OK reason why gay marriage should be banned... READ THE FOLLOWING BEFORE FLAME!

This person said it should be illegal since gays get tax cuts... I think it would make more sense for the tax cuts to be abolished, and no so much the other way. I honestly think that gay marriage tax cuts are superflous and stupid.

Also, they were highly stunned when I said 'But is one man loving another simply a crime? Is it not better than murder, rape, or drugs?'.

Oh, and also, I heard from my other atheist friend this arguement, not so much about banning gay marriage, but banning the term. He said 'marriage' is a religious thing, but he does support their 'domestic partnerships', another word for marriage... not to mention, atheists who hate churches get 'married'...

Also, when I specifically defined no religious arguements, they tried to beat around the bush by saying it is 'perverted' and 'twisted'. Hello... What about Platonic relationships.

Platonic relationships are **GASP** SEXLESS! NO SEX! Wow... They were stunned at that.

The debate ended with 'But being gay is a sin, and at that, [the person I was debating against] will end the debate and read mah book'.

Can anyone say absolute failure?

Also, he wants the state to be church. AKA, Bible laws...


----------



## Halo (Nov 8, 2008)

Just came back from a No on Prop 8 rally. Incredibly peaceful, but lively and spirited crowd. Its too bad I'm working tomorrow or I'd participate in the walk as well.


----------



## Dionysus (Nov 8, 2008)

Debate on the bus?  That's stab worthy.  mushrooshi, I salute your courage.


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 8, 2008)

You all sound as if you'd prefer it if everyone agreed with you and had no complaints whatsoever about a topic that's going to garner disagreement.

You should expect that.  In the same sense you think that those who attack it are just trolling or homophobic, those who attack it in the same token would get tired of the same arguments from those who defend it.  Neither side is more right in the end.


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> You all sound as if you'd prefer it if everyone agreed with you and had no complaints whatsoever about a topic that's going to garner disagreement.
> 
> You should expect that.  In the same sense you think that those who attack it are just trolling or homophobic, those who attack it in the same token would get tired of the same arguments from those who defend it. * Neither side is more right in the end*.



one lets people do somthing the other dosnt. and youf ogot religus 
and YES unless you can say somthign thats not "asty" or "sin' you will be treated as such.


----------



## Xion (Nov 8, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> I suppose it's only natural for me not to care about fruits 'dieing,' isn't it? Seriously, a bit of grammar work goes a long way.



There's a difference between disagreeing with homosexuality and being a bigot.

Sadly you seem to be the latter.


----------



## mushrooshi (Nov 8, 2008)

Dionysus said:


> Debate on the bus?  That's stab worthy.  mushrooshi, I salute your courage.



School bus, actually...


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

mushrooshi said:


> School bus, actually...



lol my school would do that thugh stab me relly good.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 8, 2008)

Halo said:


> Just came back from a No on Prop 8 rally. Incredibly peaceful, but lively and spirited crowd. Its too bad I'm working tomorrow or I'd participate in the walk as well.



Peaceful rally? Where's the fun in that. I don't show up unless there's Molotov cocktails and cars getting turned over. 

Also how does one reverse a proposition when its passed?


----------



## The Fireball Kid (Nov 8, 2008)

everyone has the right to love. fuck god if he truly denies the love of two people for their sexuality.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 8, 2008)

Cell said:


> everyone has the right to love. *fuck god* if he truly denies the love of two people for their sexuality.



Wow, that's really nice of you.


----------



## mushrooshi (Nov 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Wow, that's really nice of you.



Holy shit your avatar has a hot chick in it, tell me the anime/manga she is from, and her name.


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 8, 2008)

Xion said:


> There's a difference between disagreeing with homosexuality and being a bigot.
> 
> Sadly you seem to be the latter.



Of course.  Because it offends you, I assume, you perceive me to be a bigot as opposed to someone who disagrees with it.


----------



## Xion (Nov 8, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> Of course.  Because it offends you, I assume, you perceive me to be a bigot as opposed to someone who disagrees with it.



No because you said you could care less if those "fruits" die.


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> Of course.  Because it offends you, I assume, you perceive me to be a bigot as opposed to someone who disagrees with it.



there a finel ine between bigotry and disagring. you can disagree and still defend them you can be a bigot and not give a shit.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 8, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> Of course.  Because it offends you, I assume, you perceive me to be a bigot as opposed to someone who disagrees with it.



I don't agree with it, but at the same time I don't care enough about what other people do. I'm not going to be gay just for not caring if they want to marry one another. 



mushrooshi said:


> Holy shit your avatar has a hot chick in it, tell me the anime/manga she is from, and her name.



Lol, its Rydia, she's not from an anime, she's actually from Final Fantasy IV, and I have a whole gallery of pictures in my profile of her.


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 8, 2008)

Xion said:


> No because you said you could care less if those "fruits" die.



I'd love for you to point where I said those words if you're so confident that _that's_ what I said.

Again, for those unable to read the lines, I said I didn't care about those numbers because they're so insignificant in comparison to larger numbers of groups being murdered by the year.

"I suppose it's only natural for me not to care about fruits 'dieing,' isn't it? Seriously, a bit of grammar work goes a long way."

If you're talking about _that_, however, I'm mocking his excellence in grammar.  killerbee said "smash_2451 hates gay people so its only naturally for him/she to not care about gay people dieing."  So he not only put words in my mouth, he did it poorly and that's what I mocked.


----------



## The Fireball Kid (Nov 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Wow, that's really nice of you.



god is a sadistic asshole, anyways. then again, i'm an atheist.


----------



## Green Poncho (Nov 8, 2008)

I thought being gay was allowed if you're are a good christian?


----------



## Xion (Nov 8, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> I'd love for you to point where I said those words if you're so confident that _that's_ what I said.
> 
> Again, for those unable to read the lines, I said I didn't care about those numbers because they're so insignificant in comparison to larger numbers of groups being murdered by the year.
> 
> ...



Semantics and you and Zabooooooomafoooo! :WOW


----------



## Zhariel (Nov 8, 2008)

Green Poncho said:


> I thought being gay was allowed if you're are a good christian?




Sadly, those "GOD HATES ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)" signs that people hold disagree. Who knows what's "allowed" anyway, it's all just laughable to me. If it isn't allowed, it be set in stone somewhere. Some bibley dick would open a book, point to a paragraph, and show where it says it's not allowed. And if he couldn't...then who would he be to say? Reminds me of this hilarious picture I found, Old God vs New God or something. Old God had sensible things listed as his quotes, and New God was all "I hate ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) lol"



But in the end, if there was a God, he'd probably just hate signs.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 8, 2008)

Amasius said:


> But in the end, if there was a God, he'd probably just hate signs.



Damn I got to get these signs down...


----------



## Green Poncho (Nov 8, 2008)

Godhatesfags.com

I love that troll.


----------



## drache (Nov 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Wow, that's really nice of you.


 
Maybe it's not nice of Cell but I think it sums up things quite nicely.

If god wants to be an asshole, fine fuck him, he can be a fad like like Loki.


Noone should believe in a god incapable of praticing what he preaches.





Smash_2451 said:


> Of course. Because it offends you, I assume, you perceive me to be a bigot as opposed to someone who disagrees with it.


 
You're oversimplifying and I can understand why I think. You're in the minority on this and thus you feel defensive.

That's understandable but you had to know that your position would not be the popular one.

You can disagree all you one, there's only 1 question: Do you support equal rights for *all* be they gay, striaght, red, brown, white, black  whatever so long as we're talking humans should all humans have equal rights?

If you don't think so then yes you're probably a bigot, if you would fight against those rights then you are definitely a bigot.


You can *believe* whatever you want that's your business, what matters is your *actions*.


----------



## Garfield (Nov 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Peaceful rally? Where's the fun in that. I don't show up unless there's Molotov cocktails and cars getting turned over.
> 
> Also how does one reverse a proposition when its passed?


One tries for Proposition 9 stating we should ban Jeezus coz my atheist bible said so :WOW


----------



## Deamiel (Nov 8, 2008)

CX said:


> One tries for Proposition 9 stating we should ban Jeezus coz my atheist bible said so :WOW



The best bet would having it become a federal law against the banning of gay marriage, but that's like a novice mountain climber climbing Mount Everest.

However, Proposition 8 is already under attack because it wasn't passed by Legislation before being sent to voters.


----------



## Garfield (Nov 8, 2008)

Deamiel said:


> The best bet would having it become a federal law against the banning of gay marriage, but that's like a novice mountain climber climbing Mount Everest.
> 
> However, Proposition 8 is already under attack because it wasn't passed by Legislation before being sent to voters.


But my way is more fun


----------



## NineTailedDemon (Nov 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Peaceful rally? Where's the fun in that. I don't show up unless there's Molotov cocktails and cars getting turned over.



Don't forget the snapple bottles too. They break very easily on streets.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 8, 2008)

drache said:


> Maybe it's not nice of Cell but I think it sums up things quite nicely.
> 
> If god wants to be an asshole, fine fuck him, he can be a fad like like Loki.
> 
> ...



Funny, you're being just as much of a bigot. You're not talking about God, you're talking about the people who believe in him and you are against them about it.


----------



## Deamiel (Nov 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Funny, you're being just as much of a bigot. You're not talking about God, you're talking about the people who believe in him and you are against them about it.



Well, it's kind of hard not to overly dislike hypocrites.  Many of these so-called Christians don't, in fact, properly practice their religion.

And due to the inability for them to follow their own religion, they have to go on a crusade (pun definitely intended) because they don't know how to read their own freaking book.


----------



## Garfield (Nov 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Funny, you're being just as much of a bigot. You're not talking about God, you're talking about the people who believe in him and you are against them about it.


Many people like the philosophy of evil as a countermeasure of evil = victory. I myself think the Gandhi approach of Love against hate works wonders. Fighting heat with cold is the best way right =3


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 8, 2008)

Deamiel said:


> Well, it's kind of hard not to overly dislike hypocrites.  Many of these so-called Christians don't, in fact, properly practice their religion.
> 
> And due to the inability for them to follow their own religion, they have to go on a crusade (pun definitely intended) because they don't know how to read their own freaking book.



Who are you to tell others how to practice their religion really? Just like who are they to tell people not to be gay...doesn't that make sense to you? That book is full of hope and love and stuff, but the early parts are filled with war, under handed tactics, and all manner of other things. So you can't sit here and say that its all a message of peace. 

Likewise, many small factions of religion are taught early on to dislike homosexuals and with the reasoning being that, homosexuals don't procreate, which is the main goal of the sexual relationships "to go out and be fruitful"...so it isn't just because Christians hate them without merit. 

The book of Leviticus (which aren't really even rules from God, but from the people leading the Israelis at the time) stated outright that men shall not lay with men as they lay with women. If you take the old testament literally then it stands to reason that you would feel strongly about gays not being able to marry.


----------



## Deamiel (Nov 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Who are you to tell others how to practice their religion really? Just like who are they to tell people not to be gay...doesn't that make sense to you? That book is full of hope and love and stuff, but the early parts are filled with war, under handed tactics, and all manner of other things. So you can't sit here and say that its all a message of peace.



I don't tell people how to practice their religion.  It's just blatantly obvious that many people (especially in the U.S.) don't.  And when it gets to the point that their beliefs contradict what their religion states, they become hypocrites of said religion.

And I support homosexuality.  I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was against it.

I also never stated the Bible was about peace.  You certainly are assuming a lot, aren't you?



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Likewise, many small factions of religion are taught early on to dislike homosexuals and with the reasoning being that, homosexuals don't procreate, which is the main goal of the sexual relationships "to go out and be fruitful"...so it isn't just because Christians hate them without merit.
> 
> The book of Leviticus (which aren't really even rules from God, but from the people leading the Israelis at the time) stated outright that men shall not lay with men as they lay with women. If you take the old testament literally then it stands to reason that you would feel strongly about gays not being able to marry.



I also read the Bible a bit.  I remember quite well parts that clearly stated to to be tolerant of other beliefs and to love your enemies the same as your allies.  Calling homosexual the plague of modern times isn't exactly going to convert them, now is it?

Homosexuals = Another set of beliefs / Enemies of most Christians.

When Christians treat them like shit, it's another instance of hypocrisy.

The important part, though, is that religion should have no bearing on law.

If the people who are against this law can't come up with a better reason than, "God hates ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)!," then it shouldn't become a law.


----------



## Nodonn (Nov 8, 2008)

> Homosexuals = Another set of beliefs



 ...


----------



## sukker monkeez (Nov 8, 2008)

Deamiel said:


> I also read the Bible a bit. I remember quite well parts that clearly stated to to be tolerant of other beliefs and to love your enemies the same as your allies. Calling homosexual the plague of modern times isn't exactly going to convert them, now is it?
> 
> Homosexuals = Another set of beliefs / Enemies of most Christians.
> 
> When Christians treat them like shit, it's another instance of hypocrisy.


 
I read it too, and I've never read anywhere where it clearly states that no gays are allowed in the Christian religion. Though, as you have mentioned, it *did *clearly state that you should love your enemies as you would love your friend. So take that!


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Okay, let's settle something. What do you think homosexuality is?

Homosexuals wouldn't even be a united people if there wasn't a united front against it.


----------



## Deamiel (Nov 8, 2008)

Nodonn said:


> ...



Is it not another set of beliefs?  Science states that the only reason for our existence is to procreate.  Doesn't homosexuality defeat that purpose?

So, homosexuals disagree with Science.

And most religions are heavily against homosexuality, so homosexuals disagree with them as well.

Even the thought process of "not giving a fuck" can be considered an ideal or belief.  So, before "facepalming" me, how about you think about it for more than... never.


----------



## Pilaf (Nov 8, 2008)

Deamiel said:


> Is it not another set of beliefs?



No...it's another set of attractions.


----------



## Deamiel (Nov 8, 2008)

Pilaf said:


> No...it's another set of attractions.



Homosexuals hold the belief that they are attracted to the same sex.  Whether that belief is scientific, psychological, whatever, it's still a belief.

Are you guys idiots?


----------



## Republican (Nov 8, 2008)

sukker monkeez said:


> I read it too, and I've never read anywhere where it clearly states that no gays are allowed in the Christian religion. Though, as you have mentioned, it *did *clearly state that you should love your enemies as you would love your friend. So take that!



It does, however, clearly define homosexuality as sinful. The problem is that people tend to judge others based on their sins when it isn't their place to do so - despite the call to love enemies as you'd love a friend.


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Deamiel said:


> Is it not another set of beliefs?  Science states that the only reason for our existence is to procreate.  Doesn't homosexuality defeat that purpose?
> 
> So, homosexuals disagree with Science.


I had to re-write this sentence three times to not sound mean.
1st- No. Science does not state the sole purpose of life to be making crotch goblins. Yes, Reprodution is one of the Basic Scientifical Traits of Life. Science states al living beings are able to reproduce. Also, feed breathe shit and die are also among them. And homosexuals are able to do them all.
2nd- No. Homosexuals do not disagree with science. You're just going at it wrong.





> And most religions are heavily against homosexuality, so homosexuals disagree with them as well.


Some religions aren't. christianity isn't. Many dumbasses just believe "God Hates ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)" because another dumbass told them it is.





> Even the though process of "not giving a fuck" can be considered an idea or belief.  So, before "facepalming" me, how about you think about it for more than... never.


Sure. I have. And now, allow me


----------



## Dattebayo-chan (Nov 8, 2008)

I'm disappointed. Seriously, we live in modern time. It's time to get over this stupidity and accept things like this. This is just sad. It's a marriage between two people who love each other and it's not dangerous. What's the big deal?


----------



## Pilaf (Nov 8, 2008)

Deamiel said:


> Homosexuals hold the belief that they are attracted to the same sex.  Whether that belief is scientific, psychological, whatever, it's still a belief.



Attraction is about as much a belief as hunger or the need to breathe are beliefs. 



> Are you guys idiots?



 No. Are you?


----------



## Deamiel (Nov 8, 2008)

Banhammer said:


> I had to re-write this sentence three times to not sound mean.
> 1st- No. Science does not state the sole purpose of life to be making crotch goblins. Yes, Reprodution is one of the Basic Scientifical Traits of Life. Science states al living beings are able to reproduce. Also, feed breathe shit and die are also among them. And homosexuals are able to do them all.
> 2nd- No. Homosexuals do not disagree with science. You're just going at it wrong.



Is our sole existence not to procreate and continue the species?  Umm... yeah!  Shitting, breathing, etc., simply allows us to do so.

And if homosexuals are against the most fundamental aspect of Science, then they do disagree with Science.



Banhammer said:


> Some religions aren't. christianity isn't. Many dumbasses just believe "God Hates ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)" because another dumbass told them it is.



Strange, I vaguely remember say 'most.'



Banhammer said:


> Sure. I have. And now, allow me



Mind giving me a reason for your 'facepalm.'  Nothing I said was a lie.


----------



## Harmonie (Nov 8, 2008)

I can not believe they were allowed to put the right of people into the hands of a lot of ignorant homophobes.

Prop 8 needs to go down right now. It is a violation of the separation of church and state, and under our Constitution we can not have that.


----------



## Deamiel (Nov 8, 2008)

Pilaf said:


> Attraction is about as much a belief as hunger or the need to breathe are beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> No. Are you?



Your conclusion is based on the assumption that homosexuality is a biological trait assigned at birth.

That hasn't been proven.


----------



## Pilaf (Nov 8, 2008)

Deamiel said:


> Your conclusion is based on the assumption that homosexuality is a biological trait assigned at birth.



It's a biological trait assigned by genetics long before birth. Genetics are arranged during the zygote stage.


----------



## Deamiel (Nov 8, 2008)

Pilaf said:


> It's a biological trait assigned by genetics long before birth. Genetics are arranged during the zygote stage.



Not proven.  By your logic, homosexuality is a genetic defect because it goes against the fundamentals of nature.

I like to keep an open mind about these things and not jump to overtly insulting homosexuals.


----------



## NineTailedDemon (Nov 8, 2008)

Most guys become homosexuals because they were never really liked much by women nor successful with them


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Deamiel said:


> Is our sole existence not to procreate and continue the species?  Umm... yeah!  Shitting, breathing, etc., simply allows us to do so.


Far from me to disagree that fucking should be the our main goal in life. 
But, as humans, we have evolved to be able to do far more in life than reproducing. Or else, anyone that  cooks reads or learns anything is against science.
But like I said, let's indulge you for I am feeling kind.
If man's purpose in life is to reproduce, then such purpose is transmited in sexual urges. (yes, you just made me speculate sex is all that matters in life. Does it sound stupid yet?)
Homosexuals do have sexual urges. Such urges even occur in hundreds of other species in nature.
Are penguins monkeys and dolphins against science?
Or does this finally sound stupid yet?


> And if homosexuals are against the most fundamental aspect of Science, then they do disagree with Science.


Stop using the word science. You want to use the word "Darwinism". The fundamental purpose of science is that for every action there is a reaction.
So, yea.
Does it sound stupid yet?



> Strange, I vaguely remember say 'most.'
> 
> 
> 
> Mind giving me a reason for your 'facepalm.'  Nothing I said was a lie.


It's not a lie if you believe in what you're saying. But if what you're saying sounds so stupid it causes my brain to be stunned surely, I must punish myself for recieving such information
As such


----------



## Pilaf (Nov 8, 2008)

Deamiel said:


> Not proven.  By your logic, homosexuality is a genetic defect because it goes against the fundamentals of nature.
> 
> I like to keep an open mind about these things and not jump to overtly insulting homosexuals.



Well it's good the world has people like you to keep bigots like me from insulting homosexuals then. 




NineTailedDemon said:


> Most guys become homosexuals because they were never really liked much by women nor successful with them



And you base that off of what? Did you pull it out of your own ass?


----------



## Red Sands (Nov 8, 2008)

@NTD: Not always the case.

This was straight up BS, I don't know why it's such a big deal, it's those people's lives, they can do what they want with it so banning gay marriages is just discrimination by excluding a certain group of people from being able to do one thing.


----------



## NineTailedDemon (Nov 8, 2008)

Yes I pulled it out of my ass pilaf but for the most part it seems logical.

Also the reason they ban gay marriage is because america loves the bible and the bible preaches about adam and eve not adam and steve.


----------



## Pilaf (Nov 8, 2008)

NineTailedDemon said:


> Yes I pulled it out of my ass pilaf but for the most part it seems logical.



It seems pretty logical to me that gay people never chose to be attracted to the same sex, since straight people never chose to be attracted to the opposite sex.



> Also the reason they ban gay marriage is because america loves the bible and the bible preaches about adam and eve not adam and steve.



 America loves the Bible, but obviously not our own constitution, which forbids any one religion from having favor with the law.


----------



## Deamiel (Nov 8, 2008)

Banhammer said:


> Far from me to disagree that fucking should be the our main goal in life.
> But, as humans, we have evolved to be able to do far more in life than reproducing. Or else, anyone that  cooks reads or learns anything is against science.
> But like I said, let's indulge you for I am feeling kind.
> If man's purpose in life is to reproduce, then such purpose is transmited in sexual urges. (yes, you just made me speculate sex is all that matters in life. Does it sound stupid yet?)
> ...



If said penguins, monkeys and dolphins refuse to procreate, then I would say that they are against 'Darwinism.'

And your examples against my argument are lame.  Cooking and learning?  Many animals learn.  It's called adapting and on a large scale evolving.

I still believe that a species sole purpose is to procreate and survive.  What purpose would a species serve if they willingly allowed themselves to die because they didn't primarily follow a basic natural principle?



Banhammer said:


> Stop using the word science. You want to use the word "Darwinism". The fundamental purpose of science is that for every action there is a reaction.
> So, yea.
> Does it sound stupid yet?



Sorry for sounding completely incompetent because I didn't use the proper term.  I'll remember it next time.



Banhammer said:


> It's not a lie if you believe in what you're saying. But if what you're saying sounds so stupid it causes my brain to be stunned surely, I must punish myself for recieving such information
> As such



It can't be all that stupid if you agreed with the basic idea of what I stated.


----------



## Jesus (Nov 8, 2008)

Science has never defined a purpose in life, nor in the Universe's existence. It just tries to understand how things happen.

It is humans who make things on purpose (or God, if you want to believe in him).
Only a human can define the sense of his own existence.


----------



## Kage no Yume (Nov 8, 2008)

Deamiel said:


> Not proven.  By your logic, homosexuality is a genetic defect because it goes against the fundamentals of nature.



So you're calling it a birth defect now?  Because you seem to be the only one arguing that it goes against the fundamentals of nature and is inherently wrong.



> I like to keep an open mind about these things and not jump to overtly insulting homosexuals.



...

And yet that's exactly what you're doing .  Just stop talking already, your hypocritical BS is starting to hurt my brain.


----------



## Deamiel (Nov 8, 2008)

Kage no Yume said:


> So you're calling it a birth defect now?  Because you seem to be the only one arguing that it goes against the fundamentals of nature and is inherently wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry, but my recent posts were an attempt at arguing why I thought people voted to ban gay marriage.

How about you read all of my posts before calling me hypocrite.  I also didn't call homosexuality a genetic defect because I don't believe it's genetic.  My post was a response to someone who believed it was genetic.

Again, you can't grasp a greater understanding of the situation before replying.

I actually approve of gay marriage.  I do not agree on blatant discrimination no matter the reason.


----------



## Red Sands (Nov 8, 2008)

Pilaf said:


> America loves the Bible, but obviously not our own constitution, which forbids any one religion from having favor with the law.



No matter how you dont want it, religion will always have a bigger influence in everything.


----------



## NineTailedDemon (Nov 8, 2008)

T-Rex said:


> Science has never defined a purpose in life, nor in the Universe's existence. It just tries to understand how things happen.
> 
> It is humans who make things on purpose (or God, if you want to believe in him).
> Only a human can define the sense of his own existence.



Science does define a purpose in life. To reproduce.


----------



## Republican (Nov 8, 2008)

Kage no Yume said:


> So you're calling it a birth defect now?  Because you seem to be the only one arguing that it goes against the fundamentals of nature and is inherently wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If most people are straight and homosexuality is supposedly genetic, it stands to reason that it goes against nature. Do you see what he's saying now.


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Deamiel said:


> If said penguins, monkeys and dolphins refuse to procreate, then I would say that they are against 'Darwinism.'
> 
> And your examples against my argument are lame.  Cooking and learning?  Many animals learn.  It's called adapting and on a large scale evolving.


You're not wront. Is just that, along with the evolution of feeding, evolution of actions, hunting and warring, so should came an evolution of loving. Like the ability to be able to find true love in either gender.
Finding the rightfull place for homosexuality is a part of evolution. And a part of science


> I still believe that a species sole purpose is to procreate and survive.  What purpose would a species serve if they willingly allowed themselves to die because they didn't primarily follow a basic natural principle?


Not that you are wrong.
But 1st- Homosexuals do not present even a remote danger to continuation of species
2nd- Homosexuals are still able to reproduce by either a third party, or as a favorable force in adoption, strengthening the comunity and species as a whole. And, since we made them and helped them to became a family, it's only natural that they'dd want to.
Oh wait.
We didn't.
Who's against science now?


> Sorry for sounding completely incompetent because I didn't use the proper term.  I'll remember it next time.


You don't sound incompetent, you just sound like a misinformed person in a subject where misinformation causes so much harm pain and misery.



> It can't be all that stupid if you agreed with the basic idea of what I stated.


I believe that arguing with the permises that you could be somewhat right would have more of a positive efect than bashing on you for being wrong. Sorry for any agressivity.


----------



## Pilaf (Nov 8, 2008)

Red Sands said:


> No matter how you dont want it, religion will always have a bigger influence in everything.



Religion was once used to justify slavery, and then to justify not allowing black people to marry white people.


----------



## Mael (Nov 8, 2008)

Republican said:


> If most people are straight and homosexuality is supposedly genetic, it stands to reason that it goes against nature. Do you see what he's saying now.



Once again I'll leave it to biology:

If you're strongly aroused by guys/girls and you are a guy/woman (respectively), then you are homosexual.

If you're strongly aroused by a woman and you're a guy or vice versa, then you are heterosexual.

Bi-sexuality I call bullshit on because that's more mind over matter.  To me, whether it be genetic or not, is one or the other.  Tila Tequila is full of shit as are most of them.  Just because there are hermaphroditic instances doesn't mean that sexual orientation can be both as well.

Also, the argument that homosexuality is a threat to human population is bullshit.  If anything, and forgive me if I sound crude or confusing, it could help stem overpopulation.  Seeing how gay/lesbian couples are incapable of pro-creating except through artificial means, most of them adopt which is essentially creating a neutral effect in the population count.  If anything, gay/lesbian couples are just less heterosexual couples that would potentially raise a big family.

Once again though.  I have no problem with gays/lesbians mostly because unlike people like Palin supporters, overzealous liberals, or PETA, they're not shoving their mantras down my throat.  I cannot recall any time I was accosted by gays to think the way they do...not one time.


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 8, 2008)

NineTailedDemon said:


> Science does define a purpose in life. To reproduce.



Darwinism defines *preservation of the species* as *a* (not *the*) purpose in life.
Such can came as either instinct to have sex (wich homosexuals have) instinct to protect others who have more potential to the species (wich homosexuals have), instinct to protect children (wich homosexuals have) or instinct to perserve one's self (wich homosexuals have)

That being a sole purpose is somethg psicology, another science, disagrees with.
So yeah. Take that


----------



## Jesus (Nov 8, 2008)

NineTailedDemon said:


> Science does define a purpose in life. To reproduce.


No. All that science tells us is that reproduction is part of life's essential mechanisms. This doesn't make it its purpose.

The notion of purpose implies an original intent, which, in the case of life, is actually negated by science itself.


----------



## Pilaf (Nov 8, 2008)

WalkingMaelstrom said:


> Bi-sexuality I call bullshit on because that's more mind over matter.  .



I don't know whether to be flattered or insulted.


----------



## Red Sands (Nov 8, 2008)

Pilaf said:


> Religion was once used to justify slavery, and then to justify not allowing black people to marry white people.



Tell me how long it took to change that with religion justifying it please.


----------



## Deamiel (Nov 8, 2008)

T-Rex said:


> No. All that science tells us is that reproduction is part of life's essential mechanisms. This doesn't make it its purpose.



It does make it, however, a mandatory purpose for overall survival.



T-Rex said:


> The notion of purpose implies an original intent, which, in the case of life, is actually negated by science itself.



Was procreation not an original intention?  I seriously doubt it was merely added later due to convenience.


----------



## Mael (Nov 8, 2008)

Pilaf said:


> I don't know whether to be flattered or insulted.



Sorry man...I just cannot accept that you're both gay and straight.  That's like someone saying their Jewish and Christian (btw Jews for Jesus = bullshit; you guys are Christian...just accept that title).  If you say you're bi-sexual, I think it's more a mental choice than a biological/genetic make-up.  Porn stars for example say they're bi but really they're either lesbians who would accept a guy doing them or they're straight and just to lesbian things for the lulz.  I do think homo/heterosexuality is more nature, but both doesn't seem feasible.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Nov 8, 2008)

Pilaf said:


> Religion was once used to justify slavery, and then to justify not allowing black people to marry white people.



Religion was also used or practiced by a good portion of the Abolitionists as well. It's all in how you twist it to your needs/desires.


----------



## Pilaf (Nov 8, 2008)

WalkingMaelstrom said:


> Sorry man...I just cannot accept that you're both gay and straight.



Well that's good because I'm neither.


----------



## NineTailedDemon (Nov 8, 2008)

T-Rex said:


> No. All that science tells us is that reproduction is part of life's essential mechanisms. This doesn't make it its purpose.
> 
> The notion of purpose implies an original intent, which, in the case of life, is actually negated by science itself.



Well I think whatever caused the human species creation had the intent of us reproducing thus why we have dna and sperm.


----------



## Jesus (Nov 8, 2008)

Deamiel said:


> It does make it, however, a mandatory purpose for overall survival.


Of course. However, it doesn't mean that every single individual of a specie has to reproduce; and there are other ways to contribute to the overall survival, as Banhammer has quite intelligently pointed out.



> Was procreation not an original intention?  I seriously doubt it was merely added later due to convenience.


Science says *nothing *of an original intention. And please do not call Intelligent Design a scientific theory.


----------



## Pilaf (Nov 8, 2008)

NineTailedDemon said:


> Well I think whatever caused the human species creation had the intent of us reproducing thus why we have dna and sperm.



Things like sexual reproduction and homosexuality for that matter didn't arise specifically to suit humanity's "creation." Humanity is a very new species considering the super ancient age of this planet, and life on this planet. There has been sex, and gay sex, since before the dinosaurs most likely.


----------



## Kage no Yume (Nov 8, 2008)

Deamiel said:


> Sorry, but my recent posts were an attempt at arguing why I thought people voted to ban gay marriage.
> 
> How about you read all of my posts before calling me hypocrite.  I also didn't call homosexuality a genetic defect because I don't believe it's genetic.  My post was a response to someone who believed it was genetic.
> 
> ...



The fact that you don't believe it's genetic is itself the problem.  I'll admit that I didn't read your earlier posts, but your current argument seems to be anti-homosexual.  

There have been multiple studies pointing out a major biological difference (certain parts of the brain) in homosexuals, as well as genetic influences.  These studies also point out that the differences start suring pre-natal to early post-natal development, which is in the womb and during early infancy.



Republican said:


> If most people are straight and homosexuality is supposedly genetic, it stands to reason that it goes against nature. Do you see what he's saying now.



But nature caused it, has always caused it, and will continue to cause it until the extinction of the human species.  How is it then not natural?

And as Banhammer has stated, homosexuals do help in preserving the species...not that we really need to populate the Earth more anyways.


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Too bad for those who are infertile

But whatever created us also intended for us to be able to function as a society without assaulting each others individual freedom

Wich is why we have a brain and did not forbid for those who'dd want to live as a family to do so like everyone else.

Oh wait, we did.


----------



## Mael (Nov 8, 2008)

Pilaf said:


> Well that's good because I'm neither.



So you're...Etherial?  I mean that would be pretty cool.   For the Greater Good I guess.

I could see how it's a possibility, but I just don't really think it's genetic but more of the mind.  Some patters of thought are genetic and some aren't and to me finding sexual attraction to both doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.  That and once again bullshit people like Tila Tequila really ruin the platform of defense.

Sigmund Freud maintained a belief that everyone goes through a period of it, but that it's more mental/psychological than anything else.  Over time people will become either hetero or homo.  Culture has a big part to play as well.  I mean, have you noticed how many more women claim they're bi than guys, especially in the mainstream?


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Oh, by the way, I don't believe homosexuality is either psik or genetic untill proven so. I'm not saying it isn't, it's just that we have to man up and admit we don't know. Dosen't mean we don't have to deal with it.


----------



## Jesus (Nov 8, 2008)

I never understood the reproducing argument. Should marriage between sterile people be banned as well?

Is love not an important enough reason for people to want to live together?


----------



## Deamiel (Nov 8, 2008)

Kage no Yume said:


> The fact that you don't believe it's genetic is itself the problem.  I'll admit that I didn't read your earlier posts, but your current argument seems to be anti-homosexual.
> 
> There have been multiple studies pointing out a major biological difference (certain parts of the brain) in homosexuals, as well as genetic influences.  These studies also point out that the differences start suring pre-natal to early post-natal development, which is in the womb and during early infancy.



Yes, and for every study pointing to genetics, you'll find one or more studies stating otherwise.

And just because I believe it's not genetic doesn't mean that I believe that homosexuals who chose to be homosexuals are bad people.

It's their choice (either forced or not) and I support that choice.


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 8, 2008)

It's not like banning gay marriage is gonna make gays want to have children.
And those who do, will be raising kids in a doomed house of lies.


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Deamiel said:


> Yes, and for every study pointing to genetics, you'll find one or more studies stating otherwise.
> 
> And just because I believe it's not genetic doesn't mean that I believe that homosexuals who chose to be homosexuals are bad people.
> 
> It's their choice (either forced or not) and I support that choice.



Homosexuals who choose to be homosexual....
I supose you mean chosing between coming out and being stigmatized or living a life with a lie, if not a life of lies. Because there really aren't any other good options for those in the further end of the pink scale.

You know, "being homosexual" wouldn't have to be a choice if there wasn't forces against it in the first place. It would just be natural and logical


----------



## Mael (Nov 8, 2008)

Banhammer said:


> It's not like banning gay marriage is gonna make gays want to have children.
> And those who do, will be raising kids in a doomed house of lies.



I have an associate of mine who is gay and he has two adopted children, a boy from I believe Cambodia and a girl from China.  From what I've seen they look perfectly normal and are engaging in cultural lifestyles similar to that of the believed heterosexual, nuclear family lifestyles.  I really see no harm in it.  Gay/lesbian parents don't seem the types to push their lifestyles on their children while hetero couples are much more likely to do so.  Once again, gays and lesbians having kids =/= corruption of family.  In face haters.


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 8, 2008)

by the way, when I say "want to have kids" I mean, marrying some disty ol' bimbo and making some o'dem crotch goblins


(one of my favorite new words by the way. Crotch goblins. makes me lol)


----------



## Deamiel (Nov 8, 2008)

Banhammer said:


> Homosexuals who choose to be homosexual....
> I supose you mean chosing between coming out and being stigmatized or living a life with a lie, if not a life of lies. Because there really aren't any other good options for those in the further end of the pink scale.
> 
> You know, "being homosexual" wouldn't have to be a choice if there wasn't forces against it in the first place. It would just be natural and logical



Being considered a homosexual does not depend upon the publicity received by "coming out."  It's simply something you choose, or for the sake of argument, something that was chosen for you.


----------



## shinjojin (Nov 8, 2008)

Prop 8 has been approved!!? 

OH HEEEELLLLL NO!


----------



## Jesus (Nov 8, 2008)

^^then it's not a choice 

The only real choice a homosexual person has, is whether to accept what they are, or to live in denial.
As very often, the difficulty rises out of social pressure.



Deamiel said:


> Yes, and for every study pointing to genetics, you'll find one or more studies stating otherwise.
> 
> And just because I believe it's not genetic doesn't mean that I believe that homosexuals who chose to be homosexuals are bad people.
> 
> It's their choice (either forced or not) and I support that choice.



Yeah, truth is that nobody really knows what determines people's sexual orientation.
I personally believe in a mix of environmental influence and genetic predisposition (not that I care that much, outside of pure scientific curiosity).


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

I only choose the hole I dig.
Not be homosexual or not


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 8, 2008)

You can choose your coffin, but not what goes in it


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

Banhammer said:


> You can choose your coffin, but not what goes in it



Or how


----------



## Green Poncho (Nov 8, 2008)

> The New Testament argument against homosexuality is gleaned mostly from Paul's letter to the Corinthians. Paul's disclaimer at the beginning of this letter is that as long as you are a good Christian, the liturgy of laws he states from the Torah do not apply to you.





So according to the people its okay to be gay if your a good christian.


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Well... Yes. That would be it.


----------



## drache (Nov 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Funny, you're being just as much of a bigot. You're not talking about God, you're talking about the people who believe in him and you are against them about it.


 

No I am not and don't tell me who I am talking to.


I am talking about your god (i am not going to capatlize for a number of reasons don't like it too bad).


As I said, if your god is so hateful that he refuses to let 2 people that aren't hurting anyone be happy, then fuck him.

And yes fuck those that follow such a hateful god.

That about sums up how I feel about it


Oh before you get yourself in a twist it's especially not bigotry because I say that without hate; hell I say that without any emotion except horror that people could be so hateful.

To me, it's a simple statement of fact, one I'd gladly tell to any deity's face.


I will not be part of a group that tolerates such hate and I will not soften my words about it either.


Christianity *at best* has a cancer, a cancer of hypocrisy, willful misinterpration and of hate. And you and yours aren't doing anythign about it; frankly you should before your religion becomes irrevelent.


----------



## Jagon Fox (Nov 8, 2008)

neko-sennin said:


> Sadly, this didn't surprise me too much. In spite of California's liberal public image, I live in LA's mostly Mexican-Filipino Panorama City district, where I walk surrounded by Catholic-sponsored "Yes On 8" bumper stickers.



touche, it does depend on where you are. it still sucks though


----------



## C. Hook (Nov 8, 2008)

Republican said:


> If most people are straight and homosexuality is supposedly genetic, it stands to reason that it goes against nature. Do you see what he's saying now.



And driving a car goes against nature. Being rich goes against nature. Having a replacement arm goes against nature. Being a black in a mostly white country goes against nature, or being a white in a mostly black country. Religion goes against nature in the first place. 

Honestly, I don't see why we don't just give nature the bird.


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

drache said:


> ).
> 
> 
> As I said, if your god is so hateful that he refuses to let 2 people that aren't hurting anyone be happy, then fuck him.
> ...


Fucking AMEN.


----------



## Mael (Nov 8, 2008)

Jagon Fox said:


> touche, it does depend on where you are. it still sucks though



Hate to beat a dead horse, but once again New England ftw.  We've got a decent Catholic population but alas not nearly as much of a Hispanic population, so the tenacious grip on the Catholic dogma doesn't permeate as much into our politicians and voters.


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

WalkingMaelstrom said:


> Hate to beat a dead horse, but once again New England ftw.  We've got a decent Catholic population but alas not nearly as much of a Hispanic population, so the tenacious grip on the Catholic dogma doesn't permeate as much into our politicians and voters.



Speaking of which, someone has numbers about the latin vote in these Propositions in CA, AZ and Florida?

I have a theory about them and I am curious to know how was their vote.


----------



## Xion (Nov 8, 2008)

C. Hook said:


> And driving a car goes against nature. Being rich goes against nature. Having a replacement arm goes against nature. Being a black in a mostly white country goes against nature, or being a white in a mostly black country. Religion goes against nature in the first place.
> 
> Honestly, I don't see why we don't just give nature the bird.



How does having any amount of money go with nature?


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Xion said:


> How does having any amount of money go with nature?



it gos agenst the bible lol


----------



## Jagon Fox (Nov 8, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> You all sound as if you'd prefer it if everyone agreed with you and had no complaints whatsoever about a topic that's going to garner disagreement.
> 
> You should expect that.  In the same sense you think that those who attack it are just trolling or homophobic, those who attack it in the same token would get tired of the same arguments from those who defend it.  Neither side is more right in the end.



well well well...isn't that the pot calling the kettle black


----------



## Xion (Nov 8, 2008)

hammer said:


> it gos agenst the bible lol



Not really. But any amount of money I guess "goes against nature." 

Although that statement is so broad and ambiguous there are many possible interpretations.


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Xion said:


> Not really. But any amount of money I guess "goes against nature."
> 
> Although that statement is so broad and ambiguous there are many possible interpretations.



hmm you know what else gos agenst nature? central heating  
screw nature


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 8, 2008)

drache said:


> No I am not and don't tell me who I am talking to.
> 
> 
> I am talking about your god (i am not going to capatlize for a number of reasons don't like it too bad).
> ...



So...you can say all of that and get a standing ovation and say it's not bigotry, but I can't say "Fuck all of the gays and fruits who want to bed down and to hell with the liberal followers who defend it"?

Right?


----------



## Xion (Nov 8, 2008)

hammer said:


> hmm you know what else gos agenst nature? central heating
> screw nature



Well it is an ambiguous expression, so the "against nature" argument requires one to read carefully. That is pretty much it.


----------



## Jagon Fox (Nov 8, 2008)

anyways you don't have to like gay people. you can hate them all you want, but is that really any reason to go out of your way to treat them like crap and try to strip them of their rights? can't you simply ignore them to the best of your ability?


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> So...you can say all of that and get a standing ovation and say it's not bigotry, but I can't say "Fuck all of the gays and fruits who want to bed down and to hell with the liberal followers who defend it"?
> 
> Right?



You can't because gays are humans, and fruits are part of living beings.

But "a god" is just an idea, or a figure carved in wood or stone.

Or a cartoon


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Xion said:


> Well it is an ambiguous expression, so the "against nature" argument requires one to read carefully. That is pretty much it.




(god damn you and big words making melook things up)

i guess your right there i relly dont like it when people make things 
ambiguous.





Jagon Fox said:


> anyways you don't have to like gay people. you can hate them all you want, but is that really any reason to go out of your way to treat them like crap and try to strip them of their rights? can't you simply ignore them to the best of your ability?



iknow wat you mean i seen many homophobic blacks hispanics etc, and when it comes down to it how chould i openlysupport obama and say its a step fword for my kind and then turn around and bash gays and take away rights its making me a hipicrte and i cant look myself in the mirror if i do somthing so horible.


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 8, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> You can't because gays are humans, and fruits are part of living beings.
> 
> But "a god" is just an idea, or a figure carved in wood or stone.
> 
> Or a cartoon



They're humans?  So they've adapted...copied our DNA?

Hard to think a human would debase themselves by taking part in such an act.


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> They're humans?  So they've adapted...copied our DNA?
> 
> Hard to think a human would debase themselves by taking part in such an act.



the act of butsex? if straits do butsex why cant gays?


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> They're humans?  So they've adapted...copied our DNA?
> 
> Hard to think a human would debase themselves by taking part in such an act.



Embriology is an amazing field. Lot of things can happen during pregnancy, such as be born without a head or without a brain.
But you are the first surviving anenzephalia case i ever saw.


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> Embriology is an amazing field. Lot of things can happen during pregnancy, such as be born without a head or without a brain.
> But you are the first surviving anenzephalia case i ever saw.



maybe hes mad because some person took his sign punched hi in the face and sent him to the hospital.


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

hammer said:


> maybe hes mad because some person took his sign punched hi in the face and sent him to the hospital.



José Nuñez! We will never forget you!


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> Jos? Nu?ez! We will never forget you!



lol may his ass getting kicked no be in vain


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

hammer said:


> lol may his ass getting kicked no be in vain





I even speak English better than him


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> I even speak English better than him



lol 16 stichs for one punch XD


----------



## Grizzly Bear (Nov 8, 2008)

The same amendment was passed here in Florida as Amendment #2.



Smash_2451 said:


> Spell check, maybe?
> 
> Seriously, is there anything you people ask for more than give something OTHER than a religious reason?  "Don't use the slippery slope.  Don't use personal opinion.  Don't use religious justification."  Is "I just don't like it" or "I want to see them executed" enough for you?  After all, "they deserve to be treated like anyone else" isn't a good defense for a lower class of people that claim their orientation was put in them at birth and they have to defile everyone they come in contact with through their colorful cheers, lisps, and wardrobes that blind the eyes.
> 
> Not to mention the constant butt buddying.



I'm against gay marriage, but I'm also against giving government authority to decide what two consenting adults do with their lives. This is placing government in the bedroom, in the house, in the confines of people's privacy. As I recall, the constitution was designed to protect against such intervention, not promote it. By all means, I hope that atrocious law gets overturned both here and in California.

I may not like it, but what consenting adults do with their lives is none of my concern, nor should it be as long as they are not trying to force me to get into a relationship that I don't want to be a part of.


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 8, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> Embriology is an amazing field. Lot of things can happen during pregnancy, such as be born without a head or without a brain.
> But you are the first surviving anenzephalia case i ever saw.



Ugh, you missed the South park reference, I guess.


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

Grizzly Bear said:


> The same amendment was passed here in Florida as Amendment #2.


*"lacking in numbers and capabilities"*




> I'm against gay marriage, but I'm also against giving government authority to decide what two consenting adults do with their lives. This is placing government in the bedroom, in the house, in the confines of people's privacy. As I recall, the constitution was designed to protect against such intervention, not promote it. By all means, I hope that atrocious law gets overturned both here and in California.
> 
> I may not like it, but what consenting adults do with their lives is none of my concern, nor should it be as long as they are not trying to force me to get into a relationship that I don't want to be a part of.


*applauds*
I don't know if you dont like gay marriage because of your religious beliefs, but i really admire your concept of everyone's freedom.
We need more people like you in the world.



Smash_2451 said:


> Ugh, you missed the South park reference, I guess.



You mean this?
[YOUTUBE]R9IRVTbWU0U[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

hy esplyon you got the pic of the mexican in the hospital you phptoshoped i wanna use it with my friend.

ontopic: if it was JSUT banning marrige in churchs thats just ridulus considering churchs are considerded privte reidence and can turn anyone away anyways. but the problem is there not letting them LEGALLY get married and i cant not acept it when some ones born givin rights are takin away.


----------



## Grizzly Bear (Nov 8, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> *applauds*
> I don't know if you dont like gay marriage because of your religious beliefs, but i really admire your concept of everyone's freedom.
> We need more people like you in the world.



I'm not particularly fond of it for personal reasons, but how I view gay marriage shouldn't be any justification to ban it. The rights granted by the constitution come before my personal vendettas.


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Grizzly Bear said:


> I'm not particularly fond of it for personal reasons, but how I view gay marriage shouldn't be any justification to ban it. The rights granted by the constitution come before my personal vendettas.



whycant evryone be like this ):


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

hammer said:


> hy esplyon you got the pic of the mexican in the hospital you phptoshoped i wanna use it with my friend.




In English 


In mexican Spanish


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> In English
> 
> 
> In mexican Spanish



gos to fore his friend to photoshop *gos to photoshop this*


----------



## sukker monkeez (Nov 8, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> So...you can say all of that and get a standing ovation and say it's not bigotry, but I can't say "Fuck all of the gays and fruits who want to bed down and to hell with the liberal followers who defend it"?
> 
> Right?


 
Omg....  You got something right for once.


----------



## Joe Cool (Nov 8, 2008)

drache said:


> No I am not and don't tell me who I am talking to.
> 
> 
> I am talking about your god (i am not going to capatlize for a number of reasons don't like it too bad).
> ...



God doesn't tolerate such ignorance. TO think his son died on the cross for you and all you return him is sensless bitching and moaning over wanting to have sex with another man. Thats what women are for. If you can't find an attractive woman then it is time for you to seek help and repent for turning down the beautiful creatures god has decided to allow us to reproduce with. Repaying him by wanting to sleep with another man and then cursing him in return....enjoy your eternal hell awaiting you good sir.


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Joe Cool said:


> God doesn't tolerate such ignorance. TO think his son died on the cross for you and all you return him is sensless bitching and moaning over wanting to have sex with another man. Thats what women are for. If you can't find an attractive woman then it is time for you to seek help and repent for turning down the beautiful creatures god has decided to allow us to reproduce with. Repaying him by wanting to sleep with another man and then cursing him in return....enjoy your eternal hell awaiting you good sir.



god=fail argument

id rather be a virgin and be married to someone i love ten sex


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 8, 2008)

sukker monkeez said:


> Omg....  You got something right for once.



Ugh...you again?  Can't you go back to just giving me negative rep. points and getting your feelings hurt by someone who doesn't sympathize with the fruits?

And regardless, it's a double standard.  If he can say that, I can say "Fuck the fruits."

It's only fair.  It's just that their rights and happiness sometimes aren't or shouldn't be.


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> Ugh...you again?  Can't you go back to just giving me negative rep. points and getting your feelings hurt by someone who doesn't sympathize with the fruits?
> 
> And regardless, it's a double standard.  If he can say that, I can say "Fuck the fruits."
> 
> It's only fair.  It's just that their rights and happiness sometimes aren't or shouldn't be.




if thats a duble standerd is hating racism a duble standerd? no? then NEW ARGUMENT.


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 8, 2008)

hammer said:


> if thats a duble standerd is hating racism a duble standerd? no? then NEW ARGUMENT.



Yeah, you said the same thing in the negative rep points you just gave.

And could you please run your posts through spell check before you post.  Your grammar is atrocious and it's difficult to tell half of the time what you're trying- and failing- to say.  It's not a new argument.


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> Yeah, you said the same thing in the negative rep points you just gave.
> 
> And could you please run your posts through spell check before you post.  Your grammar is atrocious and it's difficult to tell half of the time what you're trying- and failing- to say.  *It's not a new argument*.



neither is fruit this fruit that.


----------



## Joe Cool (Nov 8, 2008)

hammer said:


> god=fail argument
> 
> id rather be a virgin and be married to someone i love ten sex



God didn't give you a dick just so it could go to waste. Same with giving women a vagina.


Either seek help and get your gender confusion bullshit fixed or become a nun.


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Joe Cool said:


> God didn't give you a dick just so it could go to waste. Same with giving women a vagina.
> 
> 
> Either seek help and get your gender confusion bullshit fixed or become a nun.



i thought god gave me a dick to pee


----------



## Republican (Nov 8, 2008)

hammer said:


> i thought god gave me a dick to pee



He could have just as easily given you a simple hole like what girls have.


----------



## KaiserNeko (Nov 8, 2008)

Joe Cool said:


> Either seek help and get your gender confusion bullshit fixed or become a nun.



I...

am a MAN! *Strikes a Kamina pose!*

And I...

like other MEN! *Strikes a Kamina pose... with a rainbow bracelet on!*

So yeah.


----------



## Joe Cool (Nov 8, 2008)

hammer said:


> i thought god gave me a dick to pee



Nah, you can pee out your ass if you try really hard.


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> Yeah, you said the same thing in the negative rep points you just gave.


Here I am, sending more neg rep and redness to your ass 



Republican said:


> He could have just as easily given you a simple hole like what girls have.



Girls have more than one hole


----------



## Republican (Nov 8, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> Girls have more than one hole



Girls only pee out of one hole. Don't be like that. You know perfectly well what I mean.


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Republican said:


> He could have just as easily given you a simple hole like what girls have.



this is true 

however i still stand by what i say.


----------



## Joe Cool (Nov 8, 2008)

KaiserNeko said:


> I...
> 
> am a MAN! *Strikes a Kamina pose!*
> 
> ...



Seasons 1-3


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

i fucking swear epsly i think your belive it thory was right!

all we need to hear is gay mafia and them have 5 parahraphs filled with shit instead of 1 and were goo. (oh yea haku wa s a girl fc)


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

hammer said:


> i fucking swear epsly i think your belive it thory was right!
> 
> all we need to hear is gay mafia and them have 5 parahraphs filled with shit instead of 1 and were goo. (oh yea haku wa s a girl fc)



Whatta?


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> Whatta?



oh sorry 

what i meant was joe cool samsh=belive it dupes


----------



## drache (Nov 8, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> So...you can say all of that and get a standing ovation and say it's not bigotry, but I can't say "Fuck all of the gays and fruits who want to bed down and to hell with the liberal followers who defend it"?
> 
> Right?


 
Let's be clear here, I don't *hate* those that are intolerant.

I'm indifferent to them and I think they don't matter.

So when I say 'fuck them' I'm not being hateful, I'm proclaiming that to me it doesn't matter what you think.

50 some years ago a sizable portion of our population supported miscengation laws and you know what? Those got overturned too.

It might not be today, it might not be tomorrow but I gurantee you that on average America becomes a more progressive and tolerant place daily.


So go rage against the windstorm, go shout at the clouds; because in the long run that's about as effective.


And well frankly, how can you hate such terribly misguided people? I'm truthfully torn between saddness and pity.


So no, I am not a bigot because I am not hating, no matter how tempting it might be.



Joe Cool said:


> God doesn't tolerate such ignorance. TO think his son died on the cross for you and all you return him is sensless bitching and moaning over wanting to have sex with another man. Thats what women are for. If you can't find an attractive woman then it is time for you to seek help and repent for turning down the beautiful creatures god has decided to allow us to reproduce with. Repaying him by wanting to sleep with another man and then cursing him in return....enjoy your eternal hell awaiting you good sir.


 

Sufficent to say I think your god can go sit on a tack. And I don't give a damn if he's all powerful or not. Further, if your god exists and exercising what he supposedly gave me lands me in hell, well I don't give a flying fuck then. I did what I thought was best and acted towards a better day. And your god then is a selfish, childish, brattish bully who deserves to be forgotten.


You sir seem to sum up just about everything that's wrong with the world so why don't you sit on a tack with that god of yours? Oh wait that's right it doesn't matter because in the long run *you're irrelevent*.






Oh and fyi I'm not gay never have been never will be, not really in the end that it matters. I just don't want you conflating *supporting* equal rights with being homosexual because you know that just makes you look foolish.


edit: you really probably should get off of this whole god thing becuase I'm trying to play nice here, however I've got *plenty* of ammo left if you really want to make this about your god


----------



## xpeed (Nov 8, 2008)

Well, most of you guys don't know the full detail of the outcome for most people if Prop 8 didn't pass.  Pastors would have to marry gay people by force through law, in which it is against their religious beliefs and rules, which in the Bible in the Book of Leviticus and Ephesians, it's written that homosexuals are deemed sinful people and are not favored by God.  By law, this would be invading the pastor's freedom of religion since it's being forced against their own religious freedom and beliefs.  

If the pastor turn away a gay couple's wish to bet married, the pastor can be arrested for it and go to jail.  Simply in a nutshell. 
But it is also written in the Bible that man must obey their land's rules and laws for it is also a sin if they break the local law.


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

xpeed said:


> Well, most of you guys don't know the full detail of the outcome for most people if Prop 8 didn't pass.  Pastors would have to marry gay people by force through law, in which it is against their religious beliefs and rules, which in the Bible in the Book of Leviticus and Ephesians, it's written that homosexuals are deemed sinful people and are not favored by God.  By law, this would be invading the pastor's freedom of religion since it's being forced against their own religious freedom and beliefs.
> 
> If the pastor turn away a gay couple's wish to bet married, the pastor can be arrested for it and go to jail.  Simply in a nutshell.



well turning some one awa is hateful and hate is a sin


----------



## Republican (Nov 8, 2008)

xpeed said:


> Well, most of you guys don't know the full detail of the outcome for most people if Prop 8 didn't pass.  Pastors would have to marry gay people by force through law, in which it is against their religious beliefs and rules, which in the Bible in the Book of Leviticus and Ephesians, it's written that homosexuals are deemed sinful people and are not favored by God.  By law, this would be invading the pastor's freedom of religion since it's being forced against their own religious freedom and beliefs.
> 
> If the pastor turn away a gay couple's wish to bet married, the pastor can be arrested for it and go to jail.  Simply in a nutshell.
> But it is also written in the Bible that man must obey their land's rules and laws for it is also a sin if they break the local law.



If that's really the case then I would definitely not have supported the bill until they revised it, and wouldn't blame anyone for being against it.


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

xpeed said:


> Well, most of you guys don't know the full detail of the outcome for most people if Prop 8 didn't pass.  Pastors would have to marry gay people by force through law, in which it is against their religious beliefs and rules, which in the Bible in the Book of Leviticus and Ephesians, it's written that homosexuals are deemed sinful people and are not favored by God.  By law, this would be invading the pastor's freedom of religion since it's being forced against their own religious freedom and beliefs.
> 
> If the pastor turn away a gay couple's wish to bet married, the pastor can be arrested for it and go to jail.  Simply in a nutshell.
> But it is also written in the Bible that man must obey their land's rules and laws for it is also a sin if they break the local law.



I see that religious ads are very effective to fullfil people's head with shit.
Or was yours already filled with it?

We don't want your fucking useless religious weedings. We don't want your fucking homophobic ministers to marry us. And of course, we don't want to give any single dime to those fucking churches.

Gay marriage means civil marriage: IDIOT.


----------



## Champagne Supernova (Nov 8, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> I see that religious ads are very effective to fullfil people's head with shit.
> Or was yours already filled with it?
> 
> We don't want your fucking useless religious weedings. We don't want your fucking homophobic ministers to marry us. And of course, we don't want to give any single dime to those fucking churches.
> ...



WELL SAID


----------



## Champagne Supernova (Nov 8, 2008)

oh and i saw on a youtube video that 70% of black people voted yes on prop 8 

does this mean gay people have taken the black's place as the most hated group in america?


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

MadaraThe Shichibukai said:


> WELL SAID







> oh and i saw on a youtube video that 70% of black people voted yes on prop 8
> 
> does this mean gay people have taken the black's place as the most hated group in america?


I want to know the numbers of the latin vote. Do you know those results?


----------



## Champagne Supernova (Nov 8, 2008)

no i don't sorry


----------



## Republican (Nov 8, 2008)

MadaraThe Shichibukai said:


> oh and i saw on a youtube video that 70% of black people voted yes on prop 8
> 
> does this mean gay people have taken the black's place as the most hated group in america?



As little as I'd ever trust a Youtube video for actual information, that's probably because blacks tend to be deeply involved with religion and are for the whole "family values" thing. There's a reason why whenever you see the chorus singing gospel songs in movies its a bunch of black ladies.

As for the question... probably. I don't really know. It might just be that they're still equal except the black people also hate the gays now... lol.


----------



## Champagne Supernova (Nov 8, 2008)

Weapons Wired.


----------



## Psycho (Nov 8, 2008)

Republican said:


> As little as I'd ever trust a Youtube video for actual information, that's probably because blacks tend to be deeply involved with religion and are for the whole "family values" thing. There's a reason why whenever you see the chorus singing gospel songs in movies its a bunch of black ladies.
> 
> As for the question... probably. I don't really know. It might just be that they're still equal except the black people also hate the gays now... lol.



hispanics are probably the most religiously-involved people in the word (after the arabic population, not to be racist, but many of their countries are a theocracy), i've never seen a single big manifestation in brazil towards the liberation of gay marriage, though i've seen quite a few towards prohibiting homosexuality


----------



## drache (Nov 8, 2008)

xpeed said:


> Well, most of you guys don't know the full detail of the outcome for most people if Prop 8 didn't pass. Pastors would have to marry gay people by force through law, in which it is against their religious beliefs and rules, which in the Bible in the Book of Leviticus and Ephesians, it's written that homosexuals are deemed sinful people and are not favored by God. By law, this would be invading the pastor's freedom of religion since it's being forced against their own religious freedom and beliefs.
> 
> If the pastor turn away a gay couple's wish to bet married, the pastor can be arrested for it and go to jail. Simply in a nutshell.
> But it is also written in the Bible that man must obey their land's rules and laws for it is also a sin if they break the local law.


 

I'm sorry but you're either a liar or badly misinformed.

Preists wouldn't have had to do jack shit.


Please stop spreading that misinformation, a religion *has always* had the right to deny performing it's *private* cermonies for those it doesn't want to.


This however is not a such a thing and we're talking about legal marriage.


Keep up please.


----------



## Republican (Nov 8, 2008)

Sephiroth said:


> hispanics are probably the most religiously-involved people in the word (after the arabic population, not to be racist, but many of their countries are a theocracy), i've never seen a single big manifestation in brazil towards the liberation of gay marriage, though i've seen quite a few towards prohibiting homosexuality



Yes, they are largely Catholic. I can imagine the Latin American vote is also mostly for the ban.

I don't think you could call Brazilians Hispanics, though. I think that only applies to the Spanish-speaking countries.


----------



## Psycho (Nov 8, 2008)

Republican said:


> Yes, they are largely Catholic. I can imagine the Latin American vote is also mostly for the ban.
> 
> I don't think you could call Brazilians Hispanics, though. I think that only applies to the Spanish-speaking countries.



hispanics applys to all latin america actually, but brazil isn't very hispaic like... oh well

here's the demographics 

strange, the majority were against prop 8...


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

Brazilian speaks in Portuguese, and the most are black, white and indigenous.

Not all Latinamerica is as that. Argentina already has gay civil unions (not sure if they have the name "marriage" or not).
But I have lived in Bolivia for 4 years and of course they use to be close minded. It seems that spaniards did their job too well when we had to teach them our religion.

I am so sorry... u_u


----------



## Republican (Nov 8, 2008)

Sephiroth said:


> hispanics applys to all latin america actually, but brazil isn't very hispaic like... oh well
> 
> here's the demographics
> 
> strange, the majority were against prop 8...



Kind of surprised by the Catholic demographics but then again given the news about them lately... I don't know if I should be...


----------



## Republican (Nov 8, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> Brazilian speaks in Portuguese



I know but can you consider Brazilians Hispanic? Being a Hispanic person yourself presumably... you'd know, right.


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

Sephiroth said:


> hispanics applys to all latin america actually, but brazil isn't very hispaic like... oh well
> 
> here's the demographics
> 
> strange, the majority were against prop 8...



Oh thanks, i see.
Maybe latins change their minds when they come to the States.
If you go to El Paso, though it is in Texas, it is a very open minded city, and very gay-friendly. Probably because the diversity  of people from everywhere in the world, they learn to respect the other's and their differences.

But I actually can't understand the black vote.... Unless they want to see some minority more fucked up than they are, to not feel so discriminated in comparaison


----------



## Psycho (Nov 8, 2008)

Republican said:


> Kind of surprised by the Catholic demographics but then again given the news about them lately... I don't know if I should be...



protestants are the real uptight guys, catholic tend to not care


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

Republican said:


> I know but can you consider Brazilians Hispanic? Being a Hispanic person yourself presumably... you'd know, right.



No, actually not. They can be latinamerica, because portuguese is still a latin language and culture. But not hispanic.

The most of brazilian friends I have are black, or mixed, or much more with than spaniards.


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

Sephiroth said:


> protestants are the real uptight guys, catholic tend to not care



Strongly disagree.
Here in Spain they were huge riots against gay marriage, leaded by the Catholic Church and its followers:

The church called their followers to boicot gay marriages... It was a horrible show.

Luckly they couldnt do anything else.


----------



## Psycho (Nov 8, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> Strongly disagree.
> Here in Spain they were huge riots against gay marriage, leaded by the Catholic Church and its followers:
> 
> The church called their followers to boicot gay marriages... It was a horrible show.
> ...



i said they tend to, protestants, jehova's witnesses, mormons, muslims and lutherans are the worse towards other religions/races


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 8, 2008)

Deamiel said:


> I don't tell people how to practice their religion.  It's just blatantly obvious that many people (especially in the U.S.) don't.  And when it gets to the point that their beliefs contradict what their religion states, they become hypocrites of said religion.
> 
> And I support homosexuality.  I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was against it.
> 
> ...



And I stated nowhere that religion should have a bearing on law...all I said is that you are being a bigot against religion. We live in a society where people vote for  things, and regardless of why they voted that way, the vote stands. And you need to learn to read, I never said you were against gays. 



Nodonn said:


> ...



Do you know why he did this? 



sukker monkeez said:


> I read it too, and I've never read anywhere where it clearly states that no gays are allowed in the Christian religion. Though, as you have mentioned, it *did *clearly state that you should love your enemies as you would love your friend. So take that!



You didn't read enough, it clearly states in Leviticus that people are not to lay with the same sex. It also has parts where God tells them to kill everyone in certain cities, men, women and children. So much for love your enemies. 



Deamiel said:


> Homosexuals hold the belief that they are attracted to the same sex.  Whether that belief is scientific, psychological, whatever, it's still a belief.
> 
> Are you guys idiots?



Wrong, homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. It's not a belief, its a fact. A belief is when you believe something to be true. Gays have knowledge that they are gay.


----------



## Republican (Nov 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Wrong, homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. It's not a belief, its a fact. A belief is when you believe something to be true. Gays have knowledge that they are gay.



You can believe a fact, can't you...


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

Sephiroth said:


> i said they tend to, protestants, jehova's witnesses, mormons, muslims and lutherans are the worse towards other religions/races


I don't think so.
I think that every religion is as much pain in the ass as it is allowed to be. Here the Catholic Church has lot of followers, and they feel they have support enough to do what they holy fucking want.
The same for islam.
The same for protestants.
The same for mormons.
And a long etc.



> Homosexuals hold the belief that they are attracted to the same sex. Whether that belief is scientific, psychological, whatever, it's still a belief.
> 
> Are you guys idiots?


For the Holy Cock of Jesus!
Who in hell was the idiot that wrote this?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 8, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> I don't think so.
> I think that every religion is as much pain in the ass as it is allowed to be. Here the Catholic Church has lot of followers, and they feel they have support enough to do what they holy fucking want.
> The same for islam.
> The same for protestants.
> ...



The Catholic Church is one of the only major religions to admit that gays are actually natural.


----------



## Psycho (Nov 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The Catholic Church is one of the only major religions to admit that gays are actually natural.



other examples (but not as big) are the greek ortodox church and the wicca religion


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The Catholic Church is one of the only major religions to admit that gays are actually natural.



Not natural.. They believe that homos are not guilty for being homos but for being with another man. So if you are gay and catholic, you better marry a girl or become an hermit.
So they don't hate "to be" homosexual but "to practice" homosexualism.

It is an absolutly hypocrite idiotic point of view.


----------



## hammer (Nov 8, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> Not natural.. They believe that homos are not guilty for being homos but for being with another man. So if you are gay and catholic, you better marry a girl or become an hermit.
> So they don't hate "to be" homosexual but "to practice" homosexualism.
> 
> It is an absolutly hypocrite idiotic point of view.



my grandma is one of the msot religus people ou chould meet but she dosnt belive its a sin.(but thats jsut one boys family)


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 8, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> Not natural.. They believe that homos are not guilty for being homos but for being with another man. So if you are gay and catholic, you better marry a girl or become an hermit.
> So they don't hate "to be" homosexual but "to practice" homosexualism.
> 
> It is an absolutly hypocrite idiotic point of view.



How so? People can be something and stop themselves. The Church's stance on homosexuality is that you can be a homosexual, but not practice it. That's not hypocritical. That's much better than being beheaded or shunned. Being homosexual isn't like being black...you can stop engaging in homosexual activity and for the most part no one will know. 

So the Church isn't taking a hypocritical stance.


----------



## Xion (Nov 8, 2008)

Guess the only way to reverse this is with a SC ruling. 

Good thing they likely will overrule it then.


----------



## Psycho (Nov 8, 2008)

some times i abandon my anarchist stance and my common "hay govierno, soy contra" opinion, and say that some people just need to live under a dictatorship and have choices made for them... this is one of those times


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

hammer said:


> my grandma is one of the msot religus people ou chould meet but she dosnt belive its a sin.(but thats jsut one boys family)



I'm glad she is. There are always exceptions. But the oppinion of the church uses to be listened by the most of its followers.

Thats why millions protested against gay marriage here in Spain.



> How so? People can be something and stop themselves. The Church's stance on homosexualality is that you can be a homosexual, but not practice it. That's not hypocritical. That's much better than being beheaded or shunned. Being homosexual isn't like being black...you can stop engaging in homosexual activity and for the most part no one will know.
> 
> So the Church isn't taking a hypocritical stance.


That is a beautiful and perfect theory: if you want to be Catholic and gay, just don't do sex with a same-sex person. I have no problem with it. I believe it is perfect for everyone to do what they want to do with themselves.

Now here it comes the reality:
-The Catholic Church tries to have oppinion over non-followers' lifes, trying to ban and calling for *boycott* gay CIVIL marriages, gay parties, gay riots and gay public affection images from the streets. 

-It is perfect if they say how their gay followers should act, but they can't try to rule other's life if they don't want to see the church nor in a picture.

-The Pope is going to ban (or maybe he already did) all gays from being priests, because he said that gay priest are the main problem for minor molester cases commited by priests.

-The most of minor molestation cases were to little girls

-How in hell he is going to ban gays for being priests?. Does he have a gaydometer?? 

-there are probably more things to say but I can't tell nor remember right now.


----------



## Psycho (Nov 8, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> -How in hell he is wanting to ban gays for being priests. Do he have a gaydometer??



simple he'll send a guy to grab the priest's ass, if the priest looks at the guy and smiles, he's fired (if he passes, they'll send a little boy, if he passes that test to, he can be a priest)


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 8, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> I'm glad she is. There are always exceptions. But the oppinion of the church uses to be listened by the most of its followers.
> 
> Thats why millions protested against gay marriage here in Spain.
> 
> ...



The idea of gay riots scares even me... 

And I don't see why its an issue for you when they protest gay marriage. People protest all types of stuff all the time, I thought you were all about "rights" thats how you acted in the other thread. 

All of a sudden you only want people to have the right to assemble and protest when their ideals fit your own?


----------



## Deamiel (Nov 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The idea of gay riots scares even me...
> 
> And I don't see why its an issue for you when they protest gay marriage. People protest all types of stuff all the time, I thought you were all about "rights" thats how you acted in the other thread.
> 
> All of a sudden you only want people to have the right to assemble and protest when their ideals fit your own?



It's cool to protest.  However, to actively suppress one's ability to marry because it's against their fairytale book goes a little far.


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The idea of gay riots scares even me...
> 
> And I don't see why its an issue for you when they protest gay marriage. People protest all types of stuff all the time, I thought you were all about "rights" thats how you acted in the other thread.
> 
> All of a sudden you only want people to have the right to assemble and protest when their ideals fit your own?



People can protest for whatever they want. The Church can't say a fucking thing about something that is only incumbent to the Government, as civil marriage.

And much less to get involved in a riot against it.


----------



## Republican (Nov 8, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> People can protest for whatever they want. The Church can't say a fucking thing about something that is only incumbent to the Government, as civil marriage.
> 
> And much less to get involved in a riot against it.



Well if the Church is separate from the State then does that not make the people who are part of and who go to the Church "people" as well...


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> They're humans?  So they've adapted...copied our DNA?
> 
> Hard to think a human would debase themselves by taking part in such an act.



Sureee, cause straight people don't have butsecks with their wives


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> How so? People can be something and stop themselves. The Church's stance on homosexuality is that you can be a homosexual, but not practice it. That's not hypocritical. That's much better than being beheaded or shunned. Being homosexual isn't like being black...you can stop engaging in homosexual activity and for the most part no one will know.
> 
> So the Church isn't taking a hypocritical stance.



It's okay to be a homosexual, as long as you the decency to hate yourself for it


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 8, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> People can protest for whatever they want. The Church can't say a fucking thing about something that is only incumbent to the Government, as civil marriage.
> 
> And much less to get involved in a riot against it.



Okay, but when you hold an election to see if the prop. gets passed and it doesn't...you can't really say that people can't have much say in government because "they're Christians".


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

Republican said:


> Well if the Church is separate from the State then does that not make the people who are part of and who go to the Church "people" as well...


Again...
Do you see this pic?:


Ok now remove those black cockroaches out of the pic, and we are far better. Or at least switch their clothes to civilian ones.

While people can be followers of the Church, that institution CAN'T be involved in such a riot. More when they were not in protests against war in Iraq telling that they can't be involved in such protests. But they did later against gay marriage.
As always: hypocrits.

I even think that if you erase all the support, buses and trains paid by the church everywhere to make people travel for free to Madrid to protest against gay marriage, the whole thing would start looking more fair.


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Okay, but when you hold an election to see if the prop. gets passed and it doesn't...you can't really say that people can't have much say in government because "they're Christians".



Fuck. I'm not telling about followers. I am telling about a direct involvement of that institution.


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Joe Cool said:


> God doesn't tolerate such ignorance. TO think his son died on the cross for you and all you return him is sensless bitching and moaning over wanting to have sex with another man. Thats what women are for. If you can't find an attractive woman then it is time for you to seek help and repent for turning down the beautiful creatures god has decided to allow us to reproduce with. Repaying him by wanting to sleep with another man and then cursing him in return....enjoy your eternal hell awaiting you good sir.



That's what women are for... Fantastic...

I know only about two women and one transvestite who would not stab you or drop kick in the mouth right now.


And Jesus didn't flying spagethi about homosexuality. He dosen't mention it once in his entire stay.
Once.
He died so we could be forgiven for our killing stealing and adultery. Not so we'dd stop gays. Saying otherwise is an insult to christianity and evidence that you need more jesus in your life. 'Cause right now, you're in for just as big of a ticket to the hotbox as a heretic.


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

Banhammer said:


> That's what women are for... Fantastic...
> 
> I know only about two women and one transvestite who would not stab you or drop kick in the mouth right now.
> 
> ...



For the Holy Cock of Jesus Christ! Where do you find these posts guys!??
I need to send some rep to that smart religious guy!

"That's what women are for"


----------



## drache (Nov 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The Catholic Church is one of the only major religions to admit that gays are actually natural.


 

Buddhism has been fine with Homosexuality and in fact if anything is more tolerant then Catholism (as evidenced by the fact that most of this started with some Buddhist priests in Hawaii wanting to be able to legally marry a gay couple).


And yes well Catholism _might_ have finally admited that being gay is natural they still have alot of work to do to clean up thier image and catch up.

As it is the Catholic Church is *still* ruled by a bunch of old white men that are sexually repressed and can't seem to accept differences.


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 8, 2008)

Republican said:


> I know but can you consider Brazilians Hispanic? Being a Hispanic person yourself presumably... you'd know, right.



No, really, you can't. Latin Americans, maybe, but never hispanic. That's in fact the single greatest offense you can direct their culture, short of perhaps "slave monkeys".


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 8, 2008)

drache said:


> Buddhism has been fine with Homosexuality and in fact if anything is more tolerant then Catholism (as evidenced by the fact that most of this started with some Buddhist priests in Hawaii wanting to be able to legally marry a gay couple).
> 
> 
> And yes well Catholism _might_ have finally admited that being gay is natural they still have alot of work to do to clean up thier image and catch up.
> ...



No one was discussing buddism, I was pointing out the fact that Catholics don't regard homosexuals like he said. In fact, he was the one who named Catholics. Maybe you should point him in the direction of a country ruled by Buddhists?


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No one was discussing buddism, I was pointing out the fact that Catholics don't regard homosexuals like he said. In fact, he was the one who named Catholics. Maybe you should point him in the direction of a country ruled by Buddhists?



It was another user who said that Catholics are more "tolerant".

Anyway, Buddhism is not that tolerant. Though they dont bother for homosexual couples or behaviour, some divisions of he Buddhism (even the Dalai Lama) say that the "using of organs in places they were not made for", is not acceptable. For both, straight or gay sex.

Anyway, I endorse buddhism much more than the christian religions of any kind


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 8, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> I don't think so.
> I think that every religion is as much pain in the ass as it is allowed to be. Here the *Catholic *Church has lot of followers, and they feel they have support enough to do what they holy fucking want.
> The same for islam.
> The same for protestants.
> ...





EpsyloN said:


> It was another user who said that Catholics are more "tolerant".
> 
> Anyway, Buddhism is not that tolerant. Though they dont bother for homosexual couples or behaviour, some divisions of he Buddhism (even the Dalai Lama) say that the "using of organs in places they were not made for", is not acceptable. For both, straight or gay sex.
> 
> Anyway, I endorse buddhism much more than the christian religions of any kind



I was saying that you mentioned them and I gave a reply. I don't know what Buddhism believes so I won't comment on that. And why are you endorsing anything you don't believe in?


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 8, 2008)

Why do you always want to have the reason when you don't have it?...
That post is from page 21, we were talking about catholicism because first :


Republican said:


> Yes, they are largely Catholic. I can imagine the Latin American vote is also mostly for the ban.
> 
> I don't think you could call Brazilians Hispanics, though. I think that only applies to the Spanish-speaking countries.



And finally this guy said:


Sephiroth said:


> protestants are the real uptight guys, catholic tend to not care


And I replied with the Church's protests and all that BLAH!


----------



## drache (Nov 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No one was discussing buddism, I was pointing out the fact that Catholics don't regard homosexuals like he said. In fact, he was the one who named Catholics. Maybe you should point him in the direction of a country ruled by Buddhists?


 


You made a point about '
_The Catholic Church is one of the only major religions to admit that gays are actually natural. '_

_Which makes it sound like the Catholic Church is some major force for tolerance........largely they're not._

_That's what I was pointing out and using Buddhism to prove a point along the way._

_The Church's stance is not only insane but also inane, "we accept you just don't be who you are"?_

_Wow not that's tolerant _


_(sorry about the text, it's locked up on me after I quoted you)_


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 8, 2008)

drache said:


> You made a point about '
> _The Catholic Church is one of the only major religions to admit that gays are actually natural. '_
> 
> _Which makes it sound like the Catholic Church is some major force for tolerance........largely they're not._
> ...



That's why you don't join the Church then, but don't expect those people from that Church to vote yo approve your rights. I don't see how anyone is shocked that Christians wouldn't vote for this. Actually from what I have seen, it was the blacks who caused this to pass.


----------



## Republican (Nov 8, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I don't see how anyone is shocked that Christians wouldn't vote for this.



It's from being on a forum largely populated by atheists and people who otherwise aren't Christians and they believe too strongly in a ungoverned "universal" set of "rights" to understand that there are people that don't think quite like them.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 9, 2008)

Republican said:


> It's from being on a forum largely populated by atheists and people who otherwise aren't Christians and they believe too strongly in a ungoverned "universal" set of "rights" to understand that there are people that don't think quite like them.



For once I agree with you, people seem to be undergoing a second "enlightenment" where they think that atheistic and new ideals are the only way of thought for the intelligent person.


----------



## Deamiel (Nov 9, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> For once I agree with you, people seem to be undergoing a second "enlightenment" where they think that atheistic and new ideals are the only way of thought for the intelligent person.



Don't act all high and mighty.

You think that Christian ideals "are the only way of thought for the intelligent person."

Isn't that why you willingly try to impose those ideals on others because you believe they are wrong and only you can be right?

I think so.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 9, 2008)

Deamiel said:


> Don't act all high and mighty.
> 
> You think that Christian ideals "are the only way of thought for the intelligent person."
> 
> ...



Actually I don't, I know intelligent atheists, Muslims, Jews, and all manner of other things. I don't impose my ideals on others, the same way these people didn't. Whether you agree or not, they all only had one vote. Everyone's vote is equal. 

And stop trying to act like you know who I am or what I'm about. You don't know how I think or vote or what I believe. I'm Catholic but you think I give a darn what gays do? It's not hurting anyone (unless they like it like that) so I couldn't give two shits if they want to get married and play house, not like this country takes marriages seriously when they let FOX auction them off on television for ratings.


----------



## Mibu Clan (Nov 9, 2008)

Republican said:


> Can't say I blame America, what with being indisputably the greatest country on the planet barring some idiot hugely exaggerating.



Your gonna have to explain that... What makes America the best country in the world? Personally, I cant stand being here for too long... Colombia is way fucking better. 

Colombia is the best country in the world... see what I did? Exact same shit you pulled, stating something as fact without any actual evidence. More so indisputable is your opinion, and thus disputable. 

Anyways, as for the topic itself: Gays shouldnt be allowed to marry anyways... I have been made to understamd that marriage is a Civil Union, but it's origins come from Christianity do they not? Christianity is Fail , but more so it's against Homosexuals. (_and will burn in hell_)

Furthermore, Civil Unions should be applied for consenting adults, with the same benefits as Marriages Legally...

You cannot force a Church to legally marry you, as it goes against basic principles of said church. (As BS as it is)

Finally, the LAW and GOD/Religion/Shit should not be put in the same sentence together, seeing as one is speculation and based upon faith, not facts. The LAW requires it's citizens to abide by it's rules, as stupid as some are (Im looking at you drug policies, 21 drinking age but 18 gun and cigarretes hipocrasy).

So in essence, yes homosexuals may not legally get married and probably never will, as you cannot force doctrines upon faith, but they should be allowed Legal recognition of their relationship, and ultimately gain the same benefits as those of Marriage.

This has been discussed in other threads, and I agree. (Sharinganed )

Finally, *WHY THE FUCK GET MARRIED?* but this is a opinion of Devil> God


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 9, 2008)

Mibu Clan said:


> Your gonna have to explain that... What makes America the best country in the world? Personally, I cant stand being here for too long... Colombia is way fucking better.
> 
> Colombia is the best country in the world... see what I did? Exact same shit you pulled, stating something as fact without any actual evidence. More so indisputable is your opinion, and thus disputable.
> 
> ...



Columbia? A Country who's main exports are coffee and drugs, I guess its great if you want to be high or stay up twenty four seven. 

At least pick some baller country like Italy, where the food is the shit, and they've got loads of cool ancient Roman shit to look at. 

And people get married out of love.


----------



## Mibu Clan (Nov 9, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Columbia? A Country who's main exports are coffee and drugs, I guess its great if you want to be high or stay up twenty four seven.



It's a matter of opinion regardless, and what does being a great country have to do with what our main exports are?
To me, a Colombian currently in California, 

If by great you mean economically powerful, then America is on it's way to ungreatness. 

anyways, he said that America was indisputably the best country in the world, seeing as that is an opinion I disputed with a similar indisputable evidence of NOTHING. 

then again you have to see that it's all perspective, to him greatness implies I take it 



> At least pick some baller country like Italy, where the food is the shit, and they've got loads of cool ancient Roman shit to look at.


Lol... you have no idea what your talking about do you? Atleast know that there are great places here as well, and OMG the food here is incredible as we have one of the largest variety of, well, everything in terms of animals, fruits, meats and everything. (We lack oil though... but we have huge ammounts of Gas)

Hell, it just shows your incredibly marginal view of Latin America... To even imply our food if not the EPIC? It's all a matter of opinion, but please rephrain form making such weak comments with no basis whatsoever...

Oh, and who cares that our exports of Drugs are No. 1 in the world, whole reason that's viewed as wrong and bad is because of Political policies, and not the drugs themselves... (but this again is a matter of opinion)

Just as I have no means of proving to you why Colombia is made of EPIC and win, you cannot make me believe that America is the best. I have lives here half my life, and only in Colombia am I wholeheartedly at peace and in happiness. May be the people, the environment, the lack of Routine, The feeling of true Freedom... whatever. 

I simply made this out of personal experience, I have lived in Calfornia, both Santa Monica and Lakearrowhead (beatiful place), North Carolina, Boston, New York & Aventura Florida and Weston... (Cancun, Saint MArtin and Island have visisted as well)

None of which have EVER given me the pleasures of life over there... Especially the Party Life, which is just on another level completely.

Before you make any foolish statement, Drugs in Colombia are ILLEGAL. Our Politicians have always kissed America's ass... and so we mainly apply American accepted values (not general values as they are way different)


> And people get married out of love.



they do, I never said they didn't... but getting married through the church which is explictly, and according to the biblical passages, wrong and Gods word you cant foprce that upon them.... As much as you may hate it, and so do I beleive me, it is what it is.

So, by having Civil Unions through which the state recognizes their Legal bond, they can _marry_ through their loving and still, gain the same legal benefits.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 9, 2008)

Mibu Clan said:


> It's a matter of opinion regardless, and what does being a great country have to do with what our main exports are?
> To me, a Colombian currently in California,
> 
> If by great you mean economically powerful, then America is on it's way to ungreatness.
> ...



Most of what I said except for the part about marriage being about love, was a joke. 

Oh and Italian food >>> all others.


----------



## Mibu Clan (Nov 9, 2008)

I see... ?

In that case, Propositon 8 is awful for those who are targeted by it. Restricing Gay Marriage is NOT gonna make Gay people any lesser, hell they'll do those Parades of theirs for acceptance...


----------



## Jαmes (Nov 9, 2008)

this is such a delicate subject...


----------



## Jiratic (Nov 9, 2008)

All these people who said yes to prop 8- in a nutshel mind your own bloody business, it doesn't harm you in anyway or the sanctity of 50% divorced marriages


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 9, 2008)

And one out of three children is lving outside of bedlock.


So HAHA for "protecting family values"
One should start cleaning their own laundry before throwing soap stones at other people's lines


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 9, 2008)

Mibu Clan said:


> Your gonna have to explain that... What makes America the best country in the world? Personally, I cant stand being here for too long... Colombia is way fucking better.
> 
> Colombia is the best country in the world... see what I did? Exact same shit you pulled, stating something as fact without any actual evidence. More so indisputable is your opinion, and thus disputable.
> 
> ...


Perfect.
Now turn and go the fuck NOW back to Colombia.


----------



## drache (Nov 9, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That's why you don't join the Church then, but don't expect those people from that Church to vote yo approve your rights. I don't see how anyone is shocked that Christians wouldn't vote for this. Actually from what I have seen, it was the blacks who caused this to pass.


 

Okay, then I say I put forth an amendment revoking any Christian's right to free speech, or maybe just revoke your right to practice your relgion? 



Oh I'm sorry do you want everyone to vote against it to protect *your* rights?


Well why should we? 



I mean it's not like it's effecting us, right?


See this is why what you said is logically stupid and a fallacy. Either we protect everyone or we don't deserve to call ourselves a democracy.


So what did I expect? I expected people to grow the fuck up and act like adults and do the right thing.

Obviously for some this is too much to expect, but that's okay as the older people die out this will happen. As I said it's envietable that America will become a more tolerant and open place, it's like a moving glacier it can be slow at times but it's unstoppable.


So go ahead command the sky to obey you, in the end you're going to be irrevelent.


edit: This didn't succeed because of black people, stop spreading that loathsome rumor.

It succeeded becasue freaken Mormons from *Utah* dumped *30 million* or more into CA to get this amendment passed.


And frankly I hope the Mormons lose thier tax excempt status as they've clearly seemed to have violated it.


----------



## SoMaKuTala (Nov 9, 2008)

Since they are so adamant about applying religious principle to marriage, let?s go all the way.

Any federal, state or local rights given to "Marriage" should now be revoked and stripped.

If Marriage is non-secular, then secular rights should not be applied to it.

Then everyone will have to get civil unions if they want to have it recognized by the government and can still have marriages if they want it recognized by the church.


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 9, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I was saying that you mentioned them and I gave a reply. I don't know what Buddhism believes so I won't comment on that. And why are you endorsing anything you don't believe in?


Buddhism is the "religion" i feel more friendly with. I understand it more as a philosophy than a religion, and as any philosophy, I can pick the things I like and join them with the things I like from other philosophies.

The best of buddhism is that it doesn't matter if some divisions think that oral and anal sex is a sexual misconduct (for both, straight and gay sex), they will still fight for and support your *right* to do it.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Nov 9, 2008)

Banhammer said:


> And one out of three children is* lving outside of bedlock*.



Bedlock?


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 9, 2008)

You see what I did there


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 9, 2008)

Google has some weird headlines.  Here was an odd one:

"Uncounted ballots unlikely to reverse Proposition 8"



"Could the vote on Proposition 8, the gay-marriage ban, turn around when all the uncounted ballots are tallied? Almost certainly not."

Ah...ba-boom.  Tough break, fruits.  There's always he option of moving.  We can help you pack.


----------



## NineTailedDemon (Nov 9, 2008)

you would think getting a dick in your ass would hurt and make u decide to just fuck girls instead.


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 9, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> Ah...ba-boom.  Tough break, fruits.  There's always he option of moving.  We can help you pack.



You can get on your knees and start sucking too.
It could be a way to make you be useful for something


----------



## Xion (Nov 9, 2008)

Forget the drama, this will be struck down soon enough by the SCOCA.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 9, 2008)

drache said:


> Okay, then I say I put forth an amendment revoking any Christian's right to free speech, or maybe just revoke your right to practice your relgion?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're just lashing out at me when as I said before, you can't make people vote how you want them to. If you put something out there and it gets voted down, you have to find some other way to get it done or whatever. But you can't question the reason why someone voted a certain way. 

And your stupid comments about changing the Constitution to ban religion would fail by a higher margin than this passed. Even though freedom of religion and thought are the principals this country were founded on. 

You just have to learn, the majority doesn't always agree with you and isn't always right.

Edit: 69% of the blacks voted for this, its not a rumor.


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 9, 2008)

Oh that's just because those blacks that aren't religious nuts are just buthurt because they think gays are stealing their "civil rights thing" despite the colossal gap. Can't be a badass gangstah if your "depth" is the same as the homos.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 9, 2008)

Banhammer said:


> Oh that's just because those blacks that aren't religious nuts are just buthurt because they think gays are stealing their "civil rights thing" despite the colossal gap. Can't be a badass gangstah if your "depth" is the same as the homos.



A lot of blacks I know are notoriously anti-gay, its funny because I have a gay cousin and his family acts like its totally not there. He is a Church goer, sings in the choir and is Catholic, but its obvious he's gay from how he talks about this guy who lives with him and how they act with one another. (they've kissed in front of everyone before and been living together for almost a decade, they moved from here to NC together.)

But its funny because I think that when I have to pick a race or group that is more critical of other minorities in America, I would have to say its blacks.


----------



## drache (Nov 9, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You're just lashing out at me when as I said before, you can't make people vote how you want them to. If you put something out there and it gets voted down, you have to find some other way to get it done or whatever. But you can't question the reason why someone voted a certain way.
> 
> And your stupid comments about changing the Constitution to ban religion would fail by a higher margin than this passed. Even though freedom of religion and thought are the principals this country were founded on.
> 
> ...


 
First yes alot of blacks voted for this, so did a lot of whites.

Hell the only age group that voted against this was the under 30.

What's your point with singling out blacks?

It's not like they alone were the ones to get this passed.


Second, I'm not lashing out at you.

In fact I am using logic and reason to show why you *fail*.

That you were unable to refute said reasoning and logic shows that you fail.


Now since you seem confused, lashing out at you would involve me cussing at you and blaming you for things you weren't reponsible for. Which just isn't happening, *YOU* were the one that claimed somehow it's okay to legalize hate just because your religion says so.


Tell you what, figure out where you stand, why you stand there and then come back because this is just annonying how you're not only projecting but deflecting and I'm not in the mood to put up with this whole 'I'm going to ignore what you said and make up something instead'.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 9, 2008)

drache said:


> First yes alot of blacks voted for this, so did a lot of whites.
> 
> Hell the only age group that voted against this was the under 30.
> 
> ...



Imagine that, the black guy singling out the black people for voting how they want? Don't vote for that! But its your vote and your vote counts? I didn't say it was alright for people to vote in a hateful way, I just said that they voted how they wanted to. 

What you fail to realize is that things don't always go your way, if the majority votes against you, what good does whining about it do, find a way to get around it or take it to someone who can change it. But don't whine about how they shouldn't have voted against you. Why not, its what they believe. Who are you to get mad at people for exercising one of their rights?

I stated where I stood on this, mot that it matters because the state I live in wouldn't let this pass. Hell we're still getting dirty looks here since the election ended. 

And there's no logic to refute, this isn't something written in the constitution. This is something that people are trying to get passed, so how can you sit there and say that if the religious took this right away, we should take away theirs. That's mature. 

And for someone who's not lashing out at me, you sure seem to devote a lot of time to proving me as some kind of "confused fraud" who as you put it is saying one thing to fit in but actually for the other side.


----------



## xpeed (Nov 9, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> I see that religious ads are very effective to fullfil people's head with shit.
> Or was yours already filled with it?
> 
> We don't want your fucking useless religious weedings. We don't want your fucking homophobic ministers to marry us. And of course, we don't want to give any single dime to those fucking churches.
> ...



You're obviously full of anger.  I didn't even bash or talked bad about homosexuals and whatnot, but you went ahead and started bashing about Christians and the churches out of no where.  Great way representing gays through peaceful argument.  It's people like you that gives homosexuals a bad rep.  

Simply put, I just stated the facts and feelings for all Christians and pastors attitude towards Prop. 8.   I didn't bash anything about gays or whatnot.  I never stated anything about "shit" that's filled in my head.  You simply have a ignorant biased opinion about us Christians.  I don't blame you because I blame it on the radical Christians that gives us the bad rep.  Even though I don't support it, I will follow the laws even if it's against my religion.  I'm all for civil equality and if gays want to get married so be it.  I say let them because it has nothing to do with me.  It's between them and God.


----------



## Catterix (Nov 9, 2008)

As a Gay Christian, what actually pisses me off the most is what this has done to the Christian image. I can't stand the majority of American Christians, they're just so damn over the top and not... Christian!

Equal rights for all should overcome _any_ other function. That is the CORE Christian belief and yet these wankers violate that so they can impeach improper morals and manipulate others.

Religion isn't bad.
People are.


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 9, 2008)

xpeed said:


> You're obviously full of anger.  I didn't even bash or talked bad about homosexuals and whatnot, but you went ahead and started bashing about Christians and the churches out of no where.  Great way representing gays through peaceful argument.  It's people like you that gives homosexuals a bad rep.
> 
> Simply put, I just stated the facts and feelings for all Christians and pastors attitude towards Prop. 8.   I didn't bash anything about gays or whatnot.  I never stated anything about "shit" that's filled in my head.  You simply have a ignorant biased opinion about us Christians.  I don't blame you because I blame it on the radical Christians that gives us the bad rep.  Even though I don't support it, I will follow the laws even if it's against my religion.  I'm all for civil equality and if gays want to get married so be it.  I say let them because it has nothing to do with me.  It's between them and God.


Don't try to look like an innocent lamb now.
You not only said shit,but you openly LIED.


xpeed said:


> Well, most of you guys don't know the full detail of the outcome for most people *if Prop 8 didn't pass.  Pastors would have to marry gay people by force through law*, in which it is against their religious beliefs and rules, which in the Bible in the Book of Leviticus and Ephesians, *it's written that homosexuals are deemed sinful people and are not favored by God*.  By law, this would be invading the pastor's freedom of religion since it's being forced against their own religious freedom and beliefs.
> 
> *If the pastor turn away a gay couple's wish to bet married, the pastor can be arrested for it and go to jail.*  Simply in a nutshell.
> But it is also written in the Bible that man must obey their land's rules and laws for it is also a sin if they break the local law.


I don't care a shit if I look angry or I give "neg rep" to gay people. I just want you to shut the fuck up.
If you have your head filled with this shit and lies and you believe it, it is ok, but don't spread it to the rest of the people that smells better than you because they don't have anything rotten in their heads.


----------



## xpeed (Nov 9, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> Don't try to look like an innocent lamb now.
> You not only said shit,but you openly LIED.
> 
> I don't care a shit if I look angry or I give "neg rep" to gay people. I just want you to shut the fuck up.
> If you have your head filled with this shit and lies and you believe it, it is ok, but don't spread it to the rest of the people that smells better than you because they don't have anything rotten in their heads.



This is why I don't talk about religion with people because they obviously can't talk peacefully about it.  Also me saying "shit" is nothing.  OH wow, I'm going to hell for saying "shit"  And I lied.  Oh shut up.  I never said I am a perfect Christian so shut it and move on.  So me stating what the was written in the Bible makes me a liar?  Okay, Mr. Robinson.  

Catterix: I agree.  Most Christians are too extreme and don't condone the ways God tells us what is right and wrong in the Bible.  I avoid those types of ignorant Christians and am angry at them for taking it to the edge.  I especially hate it when a fellow Christian tells me that their church is the best and that I should not go to my church because it's worse than theirs.  WTF!


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 9, 2008)

Catterix said:


> As a Gay Christian, what actually pisses me off the most is what this has done to the Christian image. I can't stand the majority of American Christians, they're just so damn over the top and not... Christian!
> 
> Equal rights for all should overcome _any_ other function. That is the CORE Christian belief and yet these wankers violate that so they can impeach improper morals and manipulate others.
> 
> ...



People will take any idea and twist it to their own liking or fears. By the same right, I find it funny that the issue of homosexuality is literally breaking up the Episcopal Church...I don't see exactly how people read Sodom and Gomorrah, but I was taught to read not that the gayness was bad, but the fact that the people were being inhospitable and threatened the *gang rape* someone was the bad part. 

Yet I see Churches preach about God destroying the city because of gays and all these people base their belief on that one part of the Bible. (for the most part)

What also bothers me is people on the other side talking about "fuck God" this and that, as if God has control over what some idiots who happen to believe in him think or do.


----------



## xpeed (Nov 9, 2008)

^Yes, obviously those are the type that only listen to one person, they don't bother reading the Bible thoroughly.  I haven't read the whole Bible yet, but I do know what is right and wrong in morals and such.  I have nothing against homosexuals either such but this is a touchy subject so I'll leave it at this.


----------



## drache (Nov 9, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Imagine that, the black guy singling out the black people for voting how they want? Don't vote for that! But its your vote and your vote counts? I didn't say it was alright for people to vote in a hateful way, I just said that they voted how they wanted to.
> 
> What you fail to realize is that things don't always go your way, if the majority votes against you, what good does whining about it do, find a way to get around it or take it to someone who can change it. But don't whine about how they shouldn't have voted against you. Why not, its what they believe. Who are you to get mad at people for exercising one of their rights?
> 
> ...


 
My point remains that many different  'factions'  voted for this thus pointing blacks is just silly.

Now what you don't understand or just can't read is that I know things don't always go how they should.

What you also don't know or understand is that in the end this *will* pass, it just might take 20 years for the older generation to die off.

The under 30 voted against this by almost 2:1 and that my friend is the future.

Finally it's completely logical, marriage is a right just as much as your right to speech, community and so on and no the right to worship as Christian  is not in the Consitution nor is the right for you to get married.

At least no explicitly and that basically proves my point.


PS I've never called you a fraud, in fact all I've said is those that said with hate are in the end irrevelent, now if that applies to you /shrug.

As it is I'm not exactly sure what you believe because while you're seemingly defending those that voted for prop 8 that in and of itself means little.


----------



## KaySee (Nov 9, 2008)

hmm...this is really unfair.
i honestly think that homosexuals, bisexuals, and heterosexuals(sp?) should be
allowed to marry whoever they want, not what the law says is okay. 
IMO, i think that this proposition should've been killed the moment it showed up...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 9, 2008)

drache said:


> My point remains that many different  'factions'  voted for this thus pointing blacks is just silly.
> 
> Now what you don't understand or just can't read is that I know things don't always go how they should.
> 
> ...



I don't think that its anyone's right to take away people's right to do something stupid, even if they don't always know better. The older generation votes a lot of things down, as a matter of a fact they seem to hurt more than they help. 

And I don't doubt gay marriage will become a reality in most states, I don't think that anyone doubts that. I think the other side just wants to stave it off.


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 9, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> Don't try to look like an innocent lamb now.
> You not only said shit,but you openly LIED.
> 
> I don't care a shit if I look angry or I give "neg rep" to gay people. I just want you to shut the fuck up.
> If you have your head filled with this shit and lies and you believe it, it is ok, but don't spread it to the rest of the people that smells better than you because they don't have anything rotten in their heads.



Angry, I see.

Your partner leave you or are you too blind to even acknowledge the validity of another person's argument or question your own...if there is one?


----------



## EpsyloN (Nov 9, 2008)

Smash_2451 said:


> Angry, I see.
> 
> Your partner leave you or are you too blind to even acknowledge the validity of another person's argument or question your own...if there is one?


An oppinion is something. But there is no validity of being a LIAR.

Anyway, i actually know I am very passionate when I am discussing, and it has been bringing me problems my whole life... but I can't help it. It is my way to be.

Whoever is by my side must stand with it.


----------



## Adonis (Nov 9, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> *I don't think that its anyone's right to take away people's right to do something stupid, even if they don't always know better.* The older generation votes a lot of things down, as a matter of a fact they seem to hurt more than they help.
> 
> And I don't doubt gay marriage will become a reality in most states, I don't think that anyone doubts that. I think the other side just wants to stave it off.



Yeah, but when their doing something stupid effectively takes away another group's rights...


----------



## drache (Nov 9, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I don't think that its anyone's right to take away people's right to do something stupid, even if they don't always know better. The older generation votes a lot of things down, as a matter of a fact they seem to hurt more than they help.
> 
> And I don't doubt gay marriage will become a reality in most states, I don't think that anyone doubts that. I think the other side just wants to stave it off.


 
So then it's not anyone's right to take away another's right and yet you're going to defend those that do so?

That's a bit of a paradox.


And I think 'the other side' is mostly full of delusional people that actually think they can deny another thier full rights look at DOMA for example.

Then you also have the people that voted because they believed the lies that this would force religions to acknowledge gay people and thier marriage.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 9, 2008)

drache said:


> So then it's not anyone's right to take away another's right and yet you're going to defend those that do so?
> 
> That's a bit of a paradox.
> 
> ...



I had to go look up DOMA, because all that word means to me is "Angel of Silence"...and I am kind of shocked by this one, and the President who signed it.


----------



## Smash_2451 (Nov 9, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> An oppinion is something. But there is no validity of being a LIAR.
> 
> Anyway, i actually know I am very passionate when I am discussing, and it has been bringing me problems my whole life... but I can't help it. It is my way to be.
> 
> Whoever is by my side must stand with it.



Yeah, we'll excues you for being an ass while conversing on the claim that you're just passionate and has brought you problems in your life- as if we asked to hear that.  If it's your way to be, then people who disagree with you have their way to be.  They have those who will stand by them just as you have yours who _must_ stand by you.

And where's your friend, hammer?  As horrible as his spelling is, it was a challenge trying to decode his messages and try to make sense of whatever he was trying- and failing- to say.


----------



## drache (Nov 9, 2008)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I had to go look up DOMA, because all that word means to me is "Angel of Silence"...and I am kind of shocked by this one, and the President who signed it.


 
Clinton had little choice, though I'm still not happy that he did.

If he had fought it then arguably things would have gotten worse for democrats as we were a center right nation at the time.

Happily though, the times are a changing.


----------



## NineTailedDemon (Nov 9, 2008)

Banning gay marriage is pretty fucking gay.


----------



## Mibu Clan (Nov 9, 2008)

EpsyloN said:


> Perfect.
> Now turn and go the fuck NOW back to Colombia.



Well, I cant go back now even though I want to. I have made compromises here in California and am taking advantage of an opporunity for my future... gonna be here till January. 

Come January though...


----------



## Champagne Supernova (Nov 9, 2008)

check out this video i'm no nazi(infact i fucking hate them)and i'm pretty sure he is not but this video is worth watching 

Skyway Avenue


----------



## Taisaku (Nov 22, 2008)

people should be allowed to marry whoever they want regardless of what gender they are


----------



## Moonshine (Nov 22, 2008)

So they pass gay marriage or whatever then take it away again. This is going to happen over and over again for years i bet. 
Why can't they just let gay people marry? honestly.


----------

