The right question.

[Bodzilla]

ywImcNViPtc

Brilliance.

[Bodzilla]

We've got some people that are against gay marriages on this forum, i'm just curious as to why i havn't seen a response yet.

[rossmum]

because anyone who is against gay marriage is a giant self-centred bigoted piece of shit with no regard for anybody but themselves, no interest in the real world, and only want freedom to apply to people they abitrarily deem to be proper

and i say that without a trace of irony, you should be fucking ashamed of yourselves you assholes

e/ whoops i somehow missed the entire point of my own post by forgetting to prefix marriage with 'gay', fuck. whatever you know what i mean

[JackalStomper]

because anyone who is against gay marriage is a giant self-centred bigoted piece of shit with no regard for anybody but themselves, no interest in the real world, and only want freedom to apply to people they abitrarily deem to be proper

and i say that without a trace of irony, you should be fucking ashamed of yourselves you assholes

e/ whoops i somehow missed the entire point of my own post by forgetting to prefix marriage with 'gay', fuck. whatever you know what i mean
+rep

[Rainbow Dash]

Saw that video, it was pretty amazing.

0gomWMdop8I

welp


Nothin wrong with votin for the sanctity of marriage. I voted for the amendment and Dr. Paul yesterday

SafelyInconsistant (http://www.youtube.com/user/SafelyInconsistant) 3 minutes ago





we the people are the government. if we the people (north carolina) don't accept the gay lifestyle as legitimate, then why can we not make it illegitimate?

simpson1177 (http://www.youtube.com/user/simpson1177) in reply to iwillspyonyou (http://www.youtube.com/user/iwillspyonyou) 31 minutes ago





Wow 1 state took a STAND? amazing.....

TheAviator365 (http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAviator365) 2 hours ago




But hey, atleast some people get it!


Here's democracy everyone! Now let's all vote on what car everybody should drive.

chronDiggity (http://www.youtube.com/user/chronDiggity) 3 hours ago

[CN3089]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/09/politics/obama-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_c1


booyeah http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-unsmith.gif

[samnwck]

It truly makes me sick that this still happens even now. It makes me even more sick to know I live in one of the states that has banned gay marriage rights. To know that 52% of the people here in Arizona, half the registered and active voters, are against equal rights to all persons is awful. To know that some of them could be my friends or my neighbors. I do not consider them people, when you have to oppress another group to feel superior, then you are no longer a human being, you are a fucking loser who is the one that does not deserve the rights to freedoms you so enjoy (but who's really free honestly).

[Bobblehob]

Hmm, to be honest the question of gay marriage here imo, comes down to a question of redefining a word that has a very important meaning to a lot of people. I really do love being called a "fucking loser" or a "self-centered, bigoted piece of shit" or any other things you guys can classify me as. The fact of the matter is this, I do not support gay marriage, not for religious reasons, but for others.

And now, before you go apeshit, you can read why. The question to me comes down to changing the definition of marriage. Why should we change the definition of an important institution to so many people, religious and non-religious. As it is, the law allows gay couples to obtain all of the benefits of marriage through other legal means, the only difference being the absence of a marriage license and the title of legal partnership instead of marriage. As it is, gay people are legally allowed to get all of these benefits, the only thing they aren't allowed to get is the title of marriage. Why is it that the law and definition of the word marriage must change to accommodate them when they can already get all of the same benefits of those who are married? Why not write legislation that gives them all of those same rights, together in one package and not just call it something else. Why is it necessary to change the definition and in turn make a slippery slope that may lead to legalization of things like polygamy, and even more ridiculous laws.

[thehoodedsmack]

First of all, there's nothing wrong with the concept of polygamy either.

But to address your bigger picture, I'll bet you that people would be perfectly fine with getting entirely equal rights without the title of marriage. The problem is they DON'T get all those rights with civil unions and/or domestic partnerships. I'm not sure why you think they do. Then again, it's handled state-by-state in America, so maybe they do where you live.

[Bobblehob]

True, thus why I suggested packaging rights that aren't available and using a different title, instead of completely changing the definition of marriage itself.

[thehoodedsmack]

No, you said:


As it is, gay people are legally allowed to get all of these benefits, the only thing they aren't allowed to get is the title of marriage.

Which is what made me do a double-take.

There's no value in the word "marriage" itself. You've semi-got the right idea with allowing universal rights under partnership laws, but my stance has always been taking it a step further: a system allowing for familial construction/deconstruction, and modular rights granted therein. Monogamy, polygamy, adult and child adoption, etc. Eventually you come to realize that given the diverse forms a family can take, the word "marriage" either becomes esoteric in its description, or gets practically redefined based on its historical associations.

[Bobblehob]

I was not aware that some of those rights where not available in some states.

[rossmum]

hi you're still a biggoted piece of shit thanks okay glad we understand each other bye

[rossmum]

by the way marriage has no innate value or meaning and therefore anyone who thinks it has sanctity to destroy in the first place must be high or stupid or both

marriage is only what you make it, in bobblehob's case something gays aren't allowed to have because blah blah blah rationalisation to avoid looking like a homophobic shitheel AND THAT IS WHY ONLY MEN AND WOMEN CAN BE MARRIED

e/ posting is a scared institution to me and i deem bobblehob to be a fucking awful poster therefore he's not allowed to do it lest he destroy its meaning to me!!!!!

[annihilation]

if marriage was so sacred it wouldn't be something you can do in 5 minutes while your drunk in vegas

hth

[Bobblehob]

by the way marriage has no innate value or meaning and therefore anyone who thinks it has sanctity to destroy in the first place must be high or stupid or both

marriage is only what you make it, in bobblehob's case something gays aren't allowed to have because blah blah blah rationalisation to avoid looking like a homophobic shitheel AND THAT IS WHY ONLY MEN AND WOMEN CAN BE MARRIED

e/ posting is a scared institution to me and i deem bobblehob to be a fucking awful poster therefore he's not allowed to do it lest he destroy its meaning to me!!!!!

Wow, you are a fucking moron. I already said that they should be able to have the same rights, I don't dispute that, but marriage already has a specific definition and there is no need to change it.

[TVTyrant]

Marriage shouldn't even be a legal term.

Marriage is just the word we tie onto a civil union to make it seem nice/religious. I'm not against gay marriage, I just don't believe that marriage should be the term used by the law for any union of two people. Its a religious word, and thus doesn't belong in the law.

[rossmum]

marrying people for money and divorcing in the same day is JUST FINE but god no how dare those filthy gays want to be able to share the same union that straight couples have

[TVTyrant]

Wow, you are a fucking moron. I already said that they should be able to have the same rights, I don't dispute that, but marriage already has a specific definition and there is no need to change it.
And this definition is?

[TVTyrant]

marrying people for money and divorcing in the same day is JUST FINE but god no how dare those filthy gays want to be able to share the same union that straight couples have
Seriously. People who think this somehow effects them (who arent gay I mean) are just awful.

[rossmum]

Wow, you are a fucking moron. I already said that they should be able to have the same rights, I don't dispute that, but marriage already has a specific definition and there is no need to change it.
hahahah you're precious

if you think that the christian version of marriage is the only correct definition than you're even more of a bigot than i thought you were, so well done writing off the thousands of other cultures which all have their own interpretations of marriage which are, according to your post right here, not as important or correct as the christian one

[Bobblehob]

Oh lol.

[rossmum]

well shit nice counter argument no way i can top that one

[Bobblehob]

And this definition is?

You know just as well as I do what that is.

[TVTyrant]

well shit nice counter argument no way i can top that one
lulz

[TVTyrant]

You know just as well as I do what that is.
Nope. I want to hear you define marriage. Put it in a box, and then sell that box. If you can';t defend your opinions than your opinions are worthless.

[Bobblehob]

well shit nice counter argument no way i can top that one

You have absolutely no argument to counter what I said. Give gay people the same rights under a different name, absolutely nothing wrong with it. I loved how this was actually an intelligent discussion before you came in to shit all over it.

[rossmum]

You know just as well as I do what that is.
hahahaha you can't even fucking define it you terrible pissant

your whole rationalisation of why it is okay for you to oppose gay marriage, and why doing so does not make you a horrible worthless bigot, hinges on a definition you are either unwilling or unable to provide. and even if you could provide it you would just prove me right that you only consider one particular definition out of literally thousands to be correct, oddly enough the same one generally associated with your specific culture and upbringing, while all others are inferior or somehow less correct

QED YOU ARE A BIGOTED ASSHOLE good fucking day

[Bobblehob]

Nope. I want to hear you define marriage. Put it in a box, and then sell that box. If you can';t defend your opinions than your opinions are worthless.

As defined by law and in any dictionary, the civil union of one man and one woman.

[rossmum]

As defined by law and in any dictionary, the civil union of one man and one woman.
ah yes the generic white christian definition of marriage

fuck all other cultures man i get you

[Bobblehob]

hahahaha you can't even fucking define it you terrible pissant

your whole rationalisation of why it is okay for you to oppose gay marriage, and why doing so does not make you a horrible worthless bigot, hinges on a definition you are either unwilling or unable to provide. and even if you could provide it you would just prove me right that you only consider one particular definition out of literally thousands to be correct, oddly enough the same one generally associated with your specific culture and upbringing, while all others are inferior or somehow less correct

QED YOU ARE A BIGOTED ASSHOLE good fucking day

Wow, its not even worth trying to discuss something rationally with you, I don't agree, therefore I must be evil, wrong, socially backwards, and what ever the fuck insult you can come up with. In the end its not worth the time to even respond to you anymore, so this will be the last one. Good day.

[rossmum]

you speak about rational discussion shortly after using "the definition of marriage" as an excuse for bigotry while conveniently ignoring the fact that you are actually only adhering to one particular definition and championing it above all others

so yeah you certainly are socially backwards good work

[Bobblehob]

you speak about rational discussion shortly after using "the definition of marriage" as an excuse for bigotry while conveniently ignoring the fact that you are actually only adhering to one particular definition and championing it above all others

so yeah you certainly are socially backwards good work

Are you really fucking blind? Or am I just missing something here. There is no bigotry involved in anything I have said, not once. Simply saying that gay people should be allowed legally to enter into a union with the same rights as marriage, but not with the same name is in no way bigotry, if you think it is, you are a fucking idiot.

[rossmum]

it pretty much is actually because you are saying that thanks to one definition of marriage, and by the way the modern christian definition of marriage is a relative newcomer to that arena, gays are not allowed to use that word and must use another word. heaven forbid we use the wrong meaningless, worthless fucking word. oh no. what a fucking disaster.

[Bobblehob]

it pretty much is actually because you are saying that thanks to one definition of marriage, and by the way the modern christian definition of marriage is a relative newcomer to that arena, gays are not allowed to use that word and must use another word. heaven forbid we use the wrong meaningless, worthless fucking word. oh no. what a fucking disaster.

Good god man, how do you live on a daily basis if you can be that fucking offended by anything, if words are so meaningless then why does it have to be called marriage in the first place, if words don't matter then why the fuck is everyone campaigning for gay marriage instead of the same rights under another name. I guarantee you that if the activists who work for this were to do just that, they could have those rights in the majority of the US in one election.

[rossmum]

sorry but if you can't see how not allowing them to use the same word is bigotry then i shudder to fucking ask what your views on anything else are

nice "last reply" by the way, and the two after that

[TVTyrant]

As defined by law and in any dictionary, the civil union of one man and one woman.
key word: civil union. As in it should all be defined that way. BTW, I have never seen the words "one" in the definition of marriage. Usually its "men and women", which is about as ambiguous as you can get.

[Bobblehob]

sorry but if you can't see how not allowing them to use the same word is bigotry then i shudder to fucking ask what your views on anything else are

nice "last reply" by the way, and the two after that

Oh no, we can't use a different word because one already has an accepted definition, regardless of its origin. It would be like saying it was bigotry to put a potato in a different group because it doesn't fall under the definition of a fruit.

[annihilation]

key word: civil union. As in it should all be defined that way. BTW, I have never seen the words "one" in the definition of marriage. Usually its "men and women", which is about as ambiguous as you can get.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ199/html/PLAW-104publ199.htm

[rossmum]

Oh no, we can't use a different word because one already has an accepted definition, regardless of its origin. It would be like saying it was bigotry to put a potato in a different group because it doesn't fall under the definition of a fruit.
lol that was a fucking terrible example and not at all relevant but please do continue trying to claw your way out of that nice big hole you keep digging yourself deeper into

[TVTyrant]

Oh no, we can't use a different word because one already has an accepted definition, regardless of its origin. It would be like saying it was bigotry to put a potato in a different group because it doesn't fall under the definition of a fruit.
Its not a fruit and never was. Its a root, you dumb idiot.

[Bobblehob]

key word: civil union. As in it should all be defined that way. BTW, I have never seen the words "one" in the definition of marriage. Usually its "men and women", which is about as ambiguous as you can get.

To be honest, I have never seen it defined as anything but 1 man and 1 woman.

This is the dictionary.com definition:

1. a.the social institution under which (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/which) a man and woman establish their decision (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decision) to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

[Bobblehob]

Its not a fruit and never was. Its a root, you dumb idiot.

That was the point I was trying to make xP

[annihilation]

potatoes are stems

[rossmum]

That was the point I was trying to make xP
and yet it's still a stupid fucking point, because a tuber and a fruit are demonstrably different and have a singular, factual definition. the definition of marriage depends entirely on culture, time period, religious observances or lack thereof, and your own personal beliefs. marriage in itself is not some unchanging, unshakeable institution that remains constant wherever you go.

[TVTyrant]

and yet it's still a stupid fucking point, because a tuber and a fruit are demonstrably different and have a singular, factual definition. the definition of marriage depends entirely on culture, time period, religious observances or lack thereof, and your own personal beliefs. marriage in itself is not some unchanging, unshakeable institution that remains constant wherever you go.
bingo.

[Bobblehob]

This issue here is the one specific definition in one specific country, where there is one single factual definition of what marriage is, regardless of personal opinion. If it were a law that covers every single country and culture it would be different.

[rossmum]

lol there is no such thing as a factual definition of marriage, just stop

[Guardian]

Well this is interesting, I personally do not have a problem with gay marriage and don't really care for it.

But I'm finding it interesting reading this argument.

Rossmum, yes Bobblehob could possibly be considered a bigot, but his original post was a personal opinion which gave his reasons why in a level headed manor.

You however, have been completely tearing him apart from the very start. Sure his reasons may seem shallow to some but valid to others. But you have been completely against him and all others who have any form of opinion otherwise to gay marriage saying that "because anyone who is against gay marriage is a giant self-centred bigoted piece of shit". Which according to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot , this is making you just as much of bigot, if not more than a bigot than Bobblehob.

Some people may have very valid reasons for going against gay marriage, I have heard many arguments about the fact that having gay couples adopt children could potentially screw with the child's mental development. I do not know what science says about this, like I said I am not really phased on this topic. Personally I think that all people should be able to express their love for each other no matter what sex or orientation. Many people have a problem with it being classified as a marriage and I think that Bobblehob has come up with a potential solution for the problem, from his point of view. Others might have different solutions which may be more appealing to a different culture.

I'm sure that there will be many gay couple who would be happy to have a recognized title which symbolizes their relationship even if it isn't "Married", but then there will be others who wont. There will always, always be people who have a different opinions and different reasons for agreeing and disagreeing with this topic, some may be shallow, some maybe well thought out, and some maybe extremely personal. But which ever way they approach this topic I don't think that they should be instantly labeled a "giant self-centred bigoted piece of shit". Anyone who has a differing opinion which they are willing to stand for could be labeled a bigot really, even me for writing this.

[TVTyrant]

This issue here is the one specific definition in one specific country, where there is one single factual definition of what marriage is, regardless of personal opinion. If it were a law that covers every single country and culture it would be different.
Yes, so 16 year old kids who have nothing to provide their families should get married, while people who have college educations and have done everything right don't deserve the same rights as other people.
While we're at it, we should repeal Brown v. Board of Education because obviously the niggers were separate but equal.

[TVTyrant]

Excellent post by Guardian. Would +rep

[rossmum]

Some people may have very valid reasons for going against gay marriage, I have heard many arguments about the fact that having gay couples adopt children could potentially screw with the child's mental development. I do not know what science says about this, like I said I am not really phased on this topic. Personally I think that all people should be able to express their love for each other no matter what sex or orientation. Many people have a problem with it being classified as a marriage and I think that Bobblehob has come up with a potential solution for the problem, from his point of view. Others might have different solutions which may be more appealing to a different culture.
guess what there is no scienfic basis to any of those arguments and that is because they are shitty justifications made up by homophobic retards to try and scare others into agreeing with their bullshit.

also there is no such thing as a valid reason for supporting arbitrary discrimination but interesting to see you think otherwise

[Bobblehob]

Watch out guardian, if you dare to disagree ;D

[rossmum]

frankly if you personally don't like gay marriage, fine, be an idiot

but the moment you support laws to block it you can fuck right off because you are the lowest form of scum on earth, the kind who thinks it is their right to decide what is and isn't okay for others to do with their lives, in their own homes, with their own partners. it is none of your fucking business and no amount of your own perceived moral or (if applicable) religious smugness makes you any less awful for trying to restrict the rights of your fellow man based on something you don't like, despite it having no effect whatsoever on your life.

the only time it is acceptable to enforce your views on others is when they are doing something that directly affects you. laws against murder, rape, assault, theft, they all exist for this reason. laws against things which don't affect others are absolutely abhorrent and anyone who supports them is a piece of shit

[Rainbow Dash]

Wow, its not even worth trying to discuss something rationally with you

:lmao:

yeah, you're one to talk.

[Bobblehob]

:lmao:

yeah, you're one to talk.

Says the guy who loses it when someone calls him stubborn xD

[t3h m00kz]

I could go out and marry a prostitute which would likely divorce in less than a week and it would be just as valid a marriage as any

the judge wouldn't give two shits

but if I make out with a dude, hang out with him for five years and determine he's the coolest mother fucker on earth, marriage is super off-limits

sanctity indeed

[Rainbow Dash]

Says the guy who loses it when someone calls him stubborn xD

Your definition of "losing it" is almost of as high a caliber as your definition of marriage.

[Bobblehob]

Your definition of "losing it" is almost of as high a caliber as your definition of marriage.

You went on a 2 page rant about how civil everyone should be while in the process being very much un civil with everyone involved, it was pretty hilarious.

[t3h m00kz]

two page rants are fun to go on don't hate

[Bobblehob]

two page rants are fun to go on don't hate

Definitely fun to read and to poke fun at the writer xD

[TVTyrant]

two page rants are fun to go on don't hate
this. bitches best listen to my m00ky darling <3

[Rentafence]

I'll side with this Guardian kid. Rossmum you're acting like a fucking smeghead. You can very easily have a civil discussion with him without resorting to ad hominem, there's no reason to do that when you're completely right in the first place. All you're doing is discrediting yourself and anyone who holds the same opinion. Cut the shit and act like an adult, at least for my sake so I don't have to deal with wankjobs making me look bad for supporting gay marriage.

[rossmum]

there are no two ways about it though, if you support laws which infringe upon others' rights, you are a giant cunt

[TVTyrant]

there are no two ways about it though, if you support laws which infringe upon others' rights, you are a giant cunt.
Yes, but raging at the ragers will only get you so far. Sometimes reason works on these people.

[Rainbow Dash]

You can very easily have a civil discussion with him without resorting to ad hominem

With Bobblehob? You must not pay much attention to his behavior.

[t3h m00kz]

With Bobblehob? You must not pay much attention to his behavior.

I so so feel dirty for agreeing

[Bodzilla]

hey guard, the reason why ross is tearing him apart, is because he has a very narrow understanding of a not very complex issue, and his "opinion" is dictating the rights of a minority of something he cant put up a worthy argument to defend.

he should be ripped apart, with a reasoning like that.

[TVTyrant]

and his "opinion" is dictating the rights of a minority of something he cant put up a worthy argument to defend.
Yeah I agree to an extent, but calling him names isn't going to convince him that his way is wrong.

[TVTyrant]

I so so feel dirty for agreeing
Mostly why I didn't comment after Sel, m00ky p1e.

[Bodzilla]

if a reasonable argument doesn't wake people up to a stupid belief or retarded unfounded opinion, i think ridicule is necessary tbqh.

[EX12693]

So.. from what I get from reading this thread, Bobble's argument against gay marriage is based ENTIRELY on semantics and opinion derived from said semantics. Seems legit. :smith:

Also bobble, you posted the definition of marriage from dictionary.com, yet conveniently left out all of the definitions. (you only posted HALF of the first one)


mar·riage


   [mar-ij] noun
1.a.the social institution under which (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/which) a man and womanestablish their decision (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decision) to live as husband and wife bylegal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.Antonyms: separation.

b.a similar institution involving partners of the samegender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.


2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married;wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony.Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood,singleness; separation.

3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision oftwo people to live as a married couple, including theaccompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding.Antonyms: divorce, annulment.

4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselvesto each other in the manner of a husband and wife, withoutlegal sanction: trial marriage.

5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage ofwords and music in a hit song. Synonyms: blend, merger,unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms:separation, division, disunion, schism.






Information manipulation much? I guess 1b, 2, 3, 4, and 5 dont count as definitions? And 3, 4, and 5 obviously say that those things can ONLY exist between a man and a woman?

Hey, Bobble. Stop being a moron.

[TVTyrant]

if a reasonable argument doesn't wake people up to a stupid belief or retarded unfounded opinion, i think ridicule is necessary tbqh.
To an extent, sure. This is teh interwerbz and thats how it goes. But IRL I wouldn't do that. I'd sooner walk away than berate somebody for being stupid. They don't know they are stupid, and you telling them is only going to make them mad. They don't go "Oh, I must be stupid".

[EX12693]

They don't go "Oh, I must be stupid".Bigotry has a tendency to do that to people...

[rossmum]

making dumb people mad is a lesser but still acceptable alternative result to making them realise how dumb they are

[Guardian]

I'm never said that Bobblehob was right, nor wrong for that matter. I was pointing out the fact that rossmum's over zealous use of bigotry was proving to be hypocritical.

I actually did a good hours research into the topic and rossmum is right there is no real reason why gay marriage shouldn't go ahead, but, the only real argument that I found against same-sex marriage, which was not religiously orientated, was a document which seemed to focus on the argument which Bobblehob is bringing up, in a way.

Here:
http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf

Although I think it is very bias. It does talk about what Bobblehob is talking about, only in a more complex way. Still don't think its much of an argument, but it is a point of view that should be considered before out right shut down.
Also rossmum from what I can gather the research done on children from same-sex marriage proves that the point I brought up is a myth. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/349.full.pdf+html page 12

Like I said, I am relatively un-phased by same-sex marriage, but I do think people should be able to express their love for each-other, so in a way I support it and what rossmum is trying to say, I just think he could have gone about it in a less agro and possibly more critical method.

[Bobblehob]

To be honest, my opinion on the subject is based solely on the arguments of people from both sides of the spectrum, and considering that in my country people on the conservative side have much more of a voice than most, I think it is still relevant to take their arguments into consideration as well as those of the more liberal people. I personally do not care that much about this issue, but I have read, and seen enough to form an opinion. The main point that I was trying to make with it in the first place is that there is a way to settle something like this that will keep people on either side happy. The alternatives are either going to disgruntle the conservatives, or the liberals, and generally create discontent in any circumstance. In this case, though I may be wrong, it would be the easiest way to give the rights to those who want them so that they can live the way they see fit, without changing the ideals and values of the others who hold them in high regard. Its a compromise. If you disagree, I can understand that, but I don't understand why you can think that acting so ridiculous is somehow magically going to make me understand that I am wrong and should change my beliefs. If you agree, fine, if you don't agree, fine.

I personally apologize for whatever sort of frustration or anger I may have caused in any of you that made you feel justified in attacking me for what I think is right.

[rossmum]

it honestly isn't worth taking their arguments into consideration at all as they intend on infringing on others' rights. they can be conservative all they want, but trying to enforce that on others is wrong regardless of anything else and totally unfair even if they are in a majority (and i doubt that a majority of americans truly do think gay marriage is a bad thing). marriage is an innately meaningless, worthless thing that is only made precious by the emotional investment of those involved, because to call some of the marriages that happen these days anything other than a bad joke is just ridiculous. if conservatives are truly that offended by the use of the word marriage also covering gay couples, they can stick their fingers in their ears and hum loudly rather than lording their own shitty worldview over everyone else. i think you will find, though, that they aren't actually concerned about the 'sanctity of marriage' regardless of their excuses, they merely want to punish gay couples because they are somehow so offended by the sexual orientation of others they feel the need to persecute them.

[=sw=warlord]

Marriage has existed longer than the bigoted short sighted view on it has.
Hell the concept has existed longer than quite a few religions and that's saying something.
Marriage doesn't mean union between two people of different genders it only implies there is a deep relationship between two people, gender does not come into this.
I'm betting that bobblehob probably thinks abortion is also the work of the devil and masturbation kills babies and makes you go blind.
true fact: every second you spend not copulating with the other gender means you're denying the potential conception of a new life so obviously everyone should spend their lives imitating rodents and fuck each other at every given chance.

PS. I like the teal.

[JackalStomper]

So.. from what I get from reading this thread, Bobble's argument against gay marriage is based ENTIRELY on semantics and opinion derived from said semantics. Seems legit. :smith:

Also bobble, you posted the definition of marriage from dictionary.com, yet conveniently left out all of the definitions. (you only posted HALF of the first one)

Information manipulation much? I guess 1b, 2, 3, 4, and 5 dont count as definitions? And 3, 4, and 5 obviously say that those things can ONLY exist between a man and a woman?

Hey, Bobble. Stop being a moron.

Perhaps legal definitions will provide a better insight into this argument.

Lets look at it shall we


In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Ok he's right we would have to redefine it. I will now radically do so and shake the world to its core.


In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between two people as <titles here>, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person who is a husband or a wife.

whoa this changes everything man there is just no way this could ever work!

Load of rubbish.
People are people, let us have equal rights. Equal, not substitute rights.

[TVTyrant]

Also, at some points marriage has meant you were enslaved to a male person. Think about that.

[TeeKup]

Bobble I want to know your "rational" reason for being against same-sex marriage. I really do. I guess the obvious thing is it doesn't equate to procreation.

[Higuy]

The only reason I can come up with against same-sex marriage is:

a. is not natural (i dont see how you can say having sex with the same sex = baby, becuase it dosent...)
b. against religion in terms of marriage

just to clarify, im not against same sex marriage (people should be free to do what they want and have those rights), and i am curious of what the outcome will be. its a pretty controversial topic.

[TeeKup]

Religion is an entirely irrelevant matter. The United States of America as no official religion, Senators and Representatives in the House and Congressmen are SUPPOSED to make their judgements without any religious influence. You know, seeing as how they presided over a population of over 300,000,000 people, not all of which follow the same religion/doctrine/dogma as everyone else.

It is incredibly irresponsible and foolish for all this "god bless america" garbage politicians keep using because they're catering to the christian/catholic population. I know they're the biggest demographic in terms of votes but it still doesn't make it right. People don't understand that Freedom of Religion is also Freedom FROM Religion. I love how my countryman don't follow the most basic and important doctrines our country was based on.

[DarkHalo003]

Religion is an entirely irrelevant matter. The United States of America as no official religion, Senators and Representatives in the House and Congressmen are SUPPOSED to make their judgements without any religious influence. You know, seeing as how they presided over a population of over 300,000,000 people, not all of which follow the same religion/doctrine/dogma as everyone else.

It is incredibly irresponsible and foolish for all this "god bless america" garbage politicians keep using because they're catering to the christian/catholic population. I know they're the biggest demographic in terms of votes but it still doesn't make it right. People don't understand that Freedom of Religion is also Freedom FROM Religion. I love how my countryman don't follow the most basic and important doctrines our country was based on.
That's why. This country has no declared religion, but that doesn't mean shit when the populace who votes for representatives are of any theology/religion. It goes in any way you want to think about. It'd be better to blame religion as a social construct than blame the country's political structure.

[Higuy]

Religion is an entirely irrelevant matter. The United States of America as no official religion, Senators and Representatives in the House and Congressmen are SUPPOSED to make their judgements without any religious influence. You know, seeing as how they presided over a population of over 300,000,000 people, not all of which follow the same religion/doctrine/dogma as everyone else.

It is incredibly irresponsible and foolish for all this "god bless america" garbage politicians keep using because they're catering to the christian/catholic population. I know they're the biggest demographic in terms of votes but it still doesn't make it right. People don't understand that Freedom of Religion is also Freedom FROM Religion. I love how my countryman don't follow the most basic and important doctrines our country was based on.

The "God bless america" was done in the 1980's when over 80% of the population went to some form of church. Obviously things are changing, but thats why its there and still is.

And yes, religion IS relevant. There is no such thing as a official religion in the United States and sure as hell dosent mean you need to follow one, but the fact that people have religions and adhere to them can influence their views on the matter, especially one like this. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant, it is a pure fact and will remain to be one. Everyone needs to be respectful of each others beliefs no matter what (that goes for both the religious people and the homosexuals), and you have to learn why people think differently than you, becuase that is the only way anything will ever get done.

[rossmum]

The only reason I can come up with against same-sex marriage is:

a. is not natural (i dont see how you can say having sex with the same sex = baby, becuase it dosent...)
b. against religion in terms of marriage

just to clarify, im not against same sex marriage (people should be free to do what they want and have those rights), and i am curious of what the outcome will be. its a pretty controversial topic.
it's not unnatural, it occurs in other species at a similar rate it does in humans. it is perfectly natural and has been a part of two-gendered species for as long as anyone knows. it might not result in sexual reproduction, but that doesn't make it unnatural.


Religion is an entirely irrelevant matter. The United States of America as no official religion, Senators and Representatives in the House and Congressmen are SUPPOSED to make their judgements without any religious influence. You know, seeing as how they presided over a population of over 300,000,000 people, not all of which follow the same religion/doctrine/dogma as everyone else.

It is incredibly irresponsible and foolish for all this "god bless america" garbage politicians keep using because they're catering to the christian/catholic population. I know they're the biggest demographic in terms of votes but it still doesn't make it right. People don't understand that Freedom of Religion is also Freedom FROM Religion. I love how my countryman don't follow the most basic and important doctrines our country was based on.
right.

the united states professes to be all about freedom, yet your average us citizen has very little more than anyone anywhere else. they aren't free from religion, or if they're a muslim, free from being maligned as a terrorist or sympathiser.

[Higuy]

it's not unnatural, it occurs in other species at a similar rate it does in humans. it is perfectly natural and has been a part of two-gendered species for as long as anyone knows. it might not result in sexual reproduction, but that doesn't make it unnatural.

it makes it unnatural when it goes against what nature made one man and one women for, aka to have sex and babys, thus furthering their populating by reproducing. I wasn't referencing the love aspect of it all; hell, someone could go get hitched with their car for all i care. love is a complex human emotion which leads to things like this.

anyway like i said before, they only way things like this and other topics will get solved is if each side can defend, challenge, or qualify both sides. If you fully cant understand both sides and were each is coming from you should have no room to talk.

[TVTyrant]

it makes it unnatural when it goes against what nature made one man and one women for, aka to have sex and babys, thus furthering their populating by reproducing. I wasn't referencing the love aspect of it all; hell, someone could go get hitched with their car for all i care. love is a complex human emotion which leads to things like this.
I actually agree with this. I don't hate gay people or anything, I mean not more than I hate everybody else, but as far as the aspect of it being biologically 'correct', thats a goddam load of shit.

[DarkHalo003]

it makes it unnatural when it goes against what nature made one man and one women for, aka to have sex and babys, thus furthering their populating by reproducing. I wasn't referencing the love aspect of it all; hell, someone could go get hitched with their car for all i care. love is a complex human emotion which leads to things like this.

anyway like i said before, they only way things like this and other topics will get solved is if each side can defend, challenge, or qualify both sides. If you fully cant understand both sides and were each is coming from you should have no room to talk.
This reason is really what keeps me away from this topic. If you love someone, good for you, but keep in mind what the point of certain functions are. I'm sure you can reason what those functions are.

And I also agree with Tyrant.

[Pooky]

I'm just going to throw in here that there's no 'point' to any human bodily function. Our bodies just are. Claiming that they have an intended purpose assumes that there was a higher intelligence involved in creating them.

Unless of course, you're a theist or something.

[TVTyrant]

I'm just going to throw in here that there's no 'point' to any human bodily function. Our bodies just are. Claiming that they have an intended purpose assumes that there was a higher intelligence involved in creating them.

Unless of course, you're a theist or something.
Just like salmon broadcast lay eggs and broadcast sperm in streams for no real reason. They just do it.

[TeeKup]

Let me re-state that Higuy:

Religion SHOULD be irrelevant taking into account our countries founding doctrines and policies. I don't care what you believe in or have faith in, but you shouldn't let its bias affect your judgment when you rule over millions of people, many of which could be no where like you.

Humans can care for other humans without the necessity of Religion, its called being a good human being and generally helping out others. A lot of "religious" people have this mentality that "I'm part of this amazing faith, I should share it with others." When half the time that "sharing" is engrossingly rude and offensive, and yet they claim to see nothing wrong with what they've done because their "Religion" asks of it. I'm sorry, but in this day and age, that is a total crock of shit.

[TVTyrant]

I agree with Teek 100%

[DarkHalo003]

I'm just going to throw in here that there's no 'point' to any human bodily function. Our bodies just are. Claiming that they have an intended purpose assumes that there was a higher intelligence involved in creating them.

Unless of course, you're a theist or something.
Uhhhh....I'm pretty sure the point of the heart is to pump blood throughout your body, the stomach is to digest food, the brain is to allow you to think and deduct....need I go further?

And Teek is right. Religions are really social constructs today. Even if you do believe in something, you don't have to take part in a religion to believe it. Hell, religion really is a social construct in today's world.

[rossmum]

it makes it unnatural when it goes against what nature made one man and one women for, aka to have sex and babys, thus furthering their populating by reproducing. I wasn't referencing the love aspect of it all; hell, someone could go get hitched with their car for all i care. love is a complex human emotion which leads to things like this.
no, it's not unnatural. the definition of unnatural is something that does not occur naturally. homosexuality observably occurs naturally in every single species capable of sexual reproduction, therefore there is nothing unnatural about it. it's not even a case of semantics in this regard; you are incorrect, period.

[TVTyrant]

no, it's not unnatural. the definition of unnatural is something that does not occur naturally. homosexuality observably occurs naturally in every single species capable of sexual reproduction, therefore there is nothing unnatural about it. it's not even a case of semantics in this regard; you are incorrect, period.
Yep, you're so right. Penises and vaginas just incidentally fit together. No reason about them at all, just happened that way.

[DarkHalo003]

no, it's not unnatural. the definition of unnatural is something that does not occur naturally. homosexuality observably occurs naturally in every single species capable of sexual reproduction, therefore there is nothing unnatural about it. it's not even a case of semantics in this regard; you are incorrect, period.
Homosexual behavior. Homosexuality is a declared sexual orientation. Homosexual behavior can be conducted by a heterosexual individual, which is often what we see with animals. Regardless, I have no problem with people of any sexual orientation loving any other sexual orientation so long as the rectum is not penetrated by foreign objects (in other words, I don't find anal sexual activity to be the slightest bit attractive). This applies to everyone in my opinion. In fact, I also hold the same belief towards oral sex (for example when a woman blows a man). The function of the external organs below the belt are to reproduce and/or release waste. The anus' function is to crap and the mouth's function is for eating, breathing, communicating, and drinking. These are just examples.

[t3h m00kz]

Fc2nDqoH-Zk

[TVTyrant]

M00kz, you would respond with a Chris chan video.

FUCKING LOL

[t3h m00kz]

Dude I love the guy. He's such a character.

[TVTyrant]

Dude I love the guy. He's such a character.
I can never decide if hes just doing it for the notoriety or hes actually like that.

[t3h m00kz]

Oh he's legit without a doubt.

[TVTyrant]

Oh he's legit without a doubt.
Goddamm lol. I love that theres a whole fucking wiki about him haha. I just wonder who the fags are who devote their entire internet lives to trolling him.

[t3h m00kz]

The slanderous trolls ruined everything! He's stopped making videos and it saddens me. His videos were awkwardly amusing!

[TVTyrant]

The slanderous trolls ruined everything! He's stopped making videos and it saddens me. His videos were awkwardly amusing!
I love the one where he has sex with the blow up doll lol

[=sw=warlord]

The only reason I can come up with against same-sex marriage is:

a. is not natural (i dont see how you can say having sex with the same sex = baby, becuase it dosent...)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A7uFSbRJ5w

[Higuy]

no, it's not unnatural. the definition of unnatural is something that does not occur naturally. homosexuality observably occurs naturally in every single species capable of sexual reproduction, therefore there is nothing unnatural about it. it's not even a case of semantics in this regard; you are incorrect, period.


I actually agree with this. I don't hate gay people or anything, I mean not more than I hate everybody else, but as far as the aspect of it being biologically 'correct', thats a goddam load of shit.


Yep, you're so right. Penises and vaginas just incidentally fit together. No reason about them at all, just happened that way.

.

Once again like I already said before, my posts had nothing to do with the love aspect of any of it. naturally, one man + one woman = baby, not 2 men = baby or 2 women = baby. In nature, it simply dosent work like that. Theres only one correct way to make another human being.


Let me re-state that Higuy:

Religion SHOULD be irrelevant taking into account our countries founding doctrines and policies. I don't care what you believe in or have faith in, but you shouldn't let its bias affect your judgment when you rule over millions of people, many of which could be no where like you.

Humans can care for other humans without the necessity of Religion, its called being a good human being and generally helping out others. A lot of "religious" people have this mentality that "I'm part of this amazing faith, I should share it with others." When half the time that "sharing" is engrossingly rude and offensive, and yet they claim to see nothing wrong with what they've done because their "Religion" asks of it. I'm sorry, but in this day and age, that is a total crock of shit.

No where was I:

A) backing religion
B) backing homosexuality

what I was saying is that even if you dont like religion along with a ton of other people, this is America, where religion is free. therefore, religion is relevant becuase it will influence other peoples opinions becuase they are free to believe whatever the hell they want. no, it is NOT right (and does not stay true to America's principles), but the simple fact is that it will and can influence those people and there isn't a whole lot that can be done about it. in my post i was trying to explain that nothing will ever get done becuase the two groups completley disagree on the matter. the only way to actually understand and further your side better is to understand the opposing side and see where they are coming from. the simple fact that you critcize the religious people of following their faith only only furthers my idea about the situation as well.

[rossmum]

UNNATURAL IMPLIES SOMETHING IS NOT A RESULT OF HOW NATURE OPERATES. IT IMPLIES THIS THING DOES NOT OCCUR IN NATURE, AND IS THEREFORE SOMEHOW CAUSED BY HUMANS. fuck me dead there is no other correct definition of the word 'unnatural', if homosexual behaviour was a conscious decision exclusive to humankind then yes, it would be unnatural. however it is neither voluntary nor exclusive to humans. it is, therefore, by mother fucking definition, not unnatural.

you guys have got to be fucking winding me up or something. 'unnatural' is entirely the wrong word for what you are trying to say.

[Bodzilla]

Yep, you're so right. Penises and vaginas just incidentally fit together. No reason about them at all, just happened that way.
your an ignorant fool that doesnt understand what natural means.

[Bodzilla]

There's a major court case in america that's for gay's rights to marry,

the opposition is backed by a plethora of religious lobbyists against it and as yet they havn't been able to prevent one piece of evidence that shows any sort of damage that could or will occur from giving these people the right to marriage.

last i checked they'd basically given up and where spending their time stalling for as long as they can.
They've brought up all the arguments i've seen in this thread and been spitfire'd outta the sky.

only a matter of time fella's, just accept it and for christ sakes stop posting rehashed things you've heard other people say and form a proper knowledgeable opinion on the statement.

for instance what does the fallacy of that it isn't natural, have anything to do with rights for a minority,
what does this supposed sanctity, which has not had a single argument that can demonstrate that it has a corrosion on heterosexual couples and the meaning of their individual relationships, have anything at all to do with these people who choose to spend their life together in love.

shame that we still in this day, with ALL the access to information we have at the touch of our fingertips, have people that choose to be willfully ignorant, and bigoted.

[DarkHalo003]

Nothing against the marriage, though I do believe marriage is a social construct no matter who's doing. Whether it's natural or not is subjective simply because there is no static term for natural. I really don't want to repeat myself, so go back and read my shit if you really want to continue arguing whether or not anal/oral sex is fucking sane.

I also want to remind that calling someone ignorant doesn't qualify your argument. God I'm so sick of seeing that word. Almost makes those who use it as bad as those who started this whole ordeal. :allears:

[TVTyrant]

your an ignorant fool that doesnt understand what natural means.
Yes, you are so right. My willingness to make a distinction between reproduction and love/sex makes me a fool. Because you know, on a biological stand point that they can't possibly be separate. I have nothing against gay people. If you love someone, you love them. The way most people express their love is through sex. Strictly biologically, love and such doesn't matter, and reproduction is the only thing that matters.
That isn't any way that I weigh the worth of a person. Its just a statement about science. Let me tell you a little story though. I have known a wide number of gay people in my life, and the way they are treated in this country is horrific. In 8th grade I had three gay teachers, Mr Schwartz, Mr Carrico, and Ms Talbot. I still keep in contact with Mr Schwartz and Ms Talbot via facebook. Mr Schwartz was in Oregon because in Michigan, its illegal for gay men to be teachers. Thats about the most fucking disgusting thing ever, because this guy was awesome. He was probably the best Science teacher I have ever had, and so far has been the only one who could make the math behind chemistry and cellular biology make any sense to me. I got into college because of a letter he wrote for me. Hes a great young man, who's currently fighting to get the rights he deserves in his home state.
Ms Talbot is a friend of my families as well as being just a plain nice lady. This summer, she had to go to Canada to get married. Yeah. A 40 year old woman had to travel to CANADA after 15 years of devoting her life to bettering the lives of young people everywhere. A woman with a masters degree, who... I cant even write about it in incenses me so much. All because shes gay.

In my life, I've had about 5 other gay friends, and all I have been very close to at one time or another. Three were in high school, and two young women I have met in college.

Call me ignorant if you want. Theres a sharp line between what the meaning of 'reproduction' is and what sex is. Your sex or gender bears no weight with me. But if we want to talk about science, or the human body, and not talk about our emotions, dont forget about the sperm and the egg. As far as love goes, you can't put a weight or price on that, and what is happening throughout this country is absolutely a tarnishing of our principles.

[Higuy]

Yes, you are so right. My willingness to make a distinction between reproduction and love/sex makes me a fool. Because you know, on a biological stand point that they can't possibly be separate. I have nothing against gay people. If you love someone, you love them. The way most people express their love is through sex. Strictly biologically, love and such doesn't matter, and reproduction is the only thing that matters.
That isn't any way that I weigh the worth of a person. Its just a statement about science. Let me tell you a little story though. I have known a wide number of gay people in my life, and the way they are treated in this country is horrific. In 8th grade I had three gay teachers, Mr Schwartz, Mr Carrico, and Ms Talbot. I still keep in contact with Mr Schwartz and Ms Talbot via facebook. Mr Schwartz was in Oregon because in Michigan, its illegal for gay men to be teachers. Thats about the most fucking disgusting thing ever, because this guy was awesome. He was probably the best Science teacher I have ever had, and so far has been the only one who could make the math behind chemistry and cellular biology make any sense to me. I got into college because of a letter he wrote for me. Hes a great young man, who's currently fighting to get the rights he deserves in his home state.
Ms Talbot is a friend of my families as well as being just a plain nice lady. This summer, she had to go to Canada to get married. Yeah. A 40 year old woman had to travel to CANADA after 15 years of devoting her life to bettering the lives of young people everywhere. A woman with a masters degree, who... I cant even write about it in incenses me so much. All because shes gay.

In my life, I've had about 5 other gay friends, and all I have been very close to at one time or another. Three were in high school, and two young women I have met in college.

Call me ignorant if you want. Theres a sharp line between what the meaning of 'reproduction' is and what sex is. Your sex or gender bears no weight with me. But if we want to talk about science, or the human body, and not talk about our emotions, dont forget about the sperm and the egg. As far as love goes, you can't put a weight or price on that, and what is happening throughout this country is absolutely a tarnishing of our principles.

.

[=sw=warlord]

If we're going to base this on what is natural how about we all remind ourselves Marriage is not natural.
Making it legal for both orientations does not diminish the meaning of the title any more than does the gender of someone who is managing a company affect said companies worth.

[TVTyrant]

If we're going to base this on what is natural how about we all remind ourselves Marriage is not natural.
Making it legal for both orientations does not diminish the meaning of the title any more than does the gender of someone who is managing a company affect said companies worth.
I haven't argued against either of these things, and I completely agree with them.

[TeeKup]

I'm not criticizing people for following their faith, I'm criticizing people for coercing their faith on others. :I

[Pooky]

Just like salmon broadcast lay eggs and broadcast sperm in streams for no real reason. They just do it.


Uhhhh....I'm pretty sure the point of the heart is to pump blood throughout your body, the stomach is to digest food, the brain is to allow you to think and deduct....need I go further?

And Teek is right. Religions are really social constructs today. Even if you do believe in something, you don't have to take part in a religion to believe it. Hell, religion really is a social construct in today's world.

That's just what they do. Nobody told Salmon to lay eggs, or told your heart that its purpose was to pump blood.

[ICEE]

I think part of the reason this shit flies in America is because our society is large, segmented and unwieldy. In general, people from Cali don't have anything in common with people from Georgia, etc. Because of this we can't tell our asses from our toes when it comes to making a societal change. Whats worse is that some individual states are larger and more populated than entire nations, but still we're tied to our ass-backwards cousins when it comes to decision making. In a way, being "American" invites stigmatization that should be localized to other states.

Whatever fuck it.

[Higuy]

That's just what they do. Nobody told Salmon to lay eggs, or told your heart that its purpose was to pump blood.

If Salmon didn't lay egg's their species would be extinct.

If my heart didn't pump blood becuase I didn't think that was its purpose, I would die.

Great logic man, I love your indepth thinking!

[rossmum]

If Salmon didn't lay egg's their species would be extinct.

If my heart didn't pump blood becuase I didn't think that was its purpose, I would die.

Great logic man, I love your indepth thinking!
please remind me what your 'logic' was in calling it unnatural when it has been proven that you clearly do not understand the simple definition of that term and therefore your entire line of argument is patently false

[DarkHalo003]

please remind me what your 'logic' was in calling it unnatural when it has been proven that you clearly do not understand the simple definition of that term and therefore your entire line of argument is patently false
The term natural is as definable as human nature. Calling something natural or unnatural is about as substantial as calling something ignorant in an argument. In other words, nothing is accomplished. Not to mention, your logic has fallacies as well, so if you're thinking you can question and invoke rhetoric just because you think your logic is sound, then you need to rethink the function of biological systems.

The point Higuy and Tyrant are making is that the function of salmon in using distributing sperm to egg is reproduction. The same applies to humans, but even more so we realize that when an erect penis enters a vagina and ejaculates sperm, the egg becomes fertilized by the sperm which in terms causes the female to become pregnant. With deduction, we can conclude that the point/function of the penis and vagina is to perform these functions. There are other parts of these two organs that promote intercourse as well, if you all didn't know. Now that we have this fact (fact assholes), we can understand why some people find no point in anal/oral sex.

[Rainbow Dash]

when a penis enters a butt it leads to an orgasm

therefore natural!!

[Spartan094]

dude this thread

[DarkHalo003]

I lol'd.

[t3h m00kz]

dude this thread

erryone mad

[Pooky]

If my heart didn't pump blood becuase I didn't think that was its purpose, I would die.

Congratulations, you just wrote one of the dumbest things I've ever read on Modacity and completely missed the point of what I was saying. :golfclap:

[Donut]

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s277/TheKillerDonut/lol-1.jpg
between your sig, your avatar, and the context, i was loling harder than i should have been

[TVTyrant]

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s277/TheKillerDonut/lol-1.jpg
between your sig, your avatar, and the context, i was loling harder than i should have been
This post is brilliant. Would +rep again.

[Bodzilla]

The term natural is as definable as human nature. Calling something natural or unnatural is about as substantial as calling something ignorant in an argument. In other words, nothing is accomplished. Not to mention, your logic has fallacies as well, so if you're thinking you can question and invoke rhetoric just because you think your logic is sound, then you need to rethink the function of biological systems.

The point Higuy and Tyrant are making is that the function of salmon in using distributing sperm to egg is reproduction. The same applies to humans, but even more so we realize that when an erect penis enters a vagina and ejaculates sperm, the egg becomes fertilized by the sperm which in terms causes the female to become pregnant. With deduction, we can conclude that the point/function of the penis and vagina is to perform these functions. There are other parts of these two organs that promote intercourse as well, if you all didn't know. Now that we have this fact (fact assholes), we can understand why some people find no point in anal/oral sex.
care to explain how this has any effect at all on hetero sexual couples if gay people are allowed to be married?

a tangible, logical explanation please.

all this talk of fish eggs and vaginas with sperm in them is just side stepping the issue and creating strawmen.

[neuro]

jesus christ, this thread.
some of you people are without a doubt amongst the worlds DUMBEST FUCKWITS ALIVE.

[TVTyrant]

care to explain how this has any effect at all on hetero sexual couples if gay people are allowed to be married?

a tangible, logical explanation please.

all this talk of fish eggs and vaginas with sperm in them is just side stepping the issue and creating strawmen.
I don't think DH is arguing against gay marriage dude. I think we've moved on to something far stupider and more pointless.

[DarkHalo003]

I don't think DH is arguing against gay marriage dude. I think we've moved on to something far stupider and more pointless.
Pretty much this. Sorry for going Offtopic.

[sleepy1212]

There's no such thing as "unnatural".

Also, other species don't generally do gay stuff for the same reason humans do gay stuff.

[mech]

Unnatural does exist, for example this 3vMfzcesI90

[rossmum]

The term natural is as definable as human nature. Calling something natural or unnatural is about as substantial as calling something ignorant in an argument. In other words, nothing is accomplished. Not to mention, your logic has fallacies as well, so if you're thinking you can question and invoke rhetoric just because you think your logic is sound, then you need to rethink the function of biological systems.

The point Higuy and Tyrant are making is that the function of salmon in using distributing sperm to egg is reproduction. The same applies to humans, but even more so we realize that when an erect penis enters a vagina and ejaculates sperm, the egg becomes fertilized by the sperm which in terms causes the female to become pregnant. With deduction, we can conclude that the point/function of the penis and vagina is to perform these functions. There are other parts of these two organs that promote intercourse as well, if you all didn't know. Now that we have this fact (fact assholes), we can understand why some people find no point in anal/oral sex.
oh, okay, you want to play it that way do you

homosexuality has been a part of 'human nature' since day one. literally day one. just the same as every other species. the species we evolved from all engage in homosexual behaviour, and the ones they evolved from, and the ones before them. because it is natural. and part of nature is what each species does. wheee shot down your entire autistic argument post in one simple statement of empirical fact

also being pointless is not being unnatural, nor is it bad, nor is it any of your business

basically the one point that keeps coming up over and over would seem to be that "there is no reasonable argument against gay marriage, you either support it, do not care either way, or are a bigot"

e/ if you are not against gay marriage, why do you keep throwing up these terribly half-cocked strawman arguments for me to burn down

[neuro]

if you find no point in oral/anal sex..

don't do it?




that's where it ends. nobody gets to say where i do or don't stick my dick.
Dark Halo, you're a fucking mentalpatient.

[DarkHalo003]

This post is just pointless ranting and makes no sense. Please don't read it:

My statements weren't arguments about whether or not I support homosexuality. It's just why I prefer not to engage in this subject. I've stated before that I think it's great that two people love each other, regardless of sexual orientation. Hell, this set of arguments is off-kilter anyways because it's more of an explanation of one my reasons why I dislike rest of humanity as a whole which is simply because people indulge or obsess in stupid shit like sucking a cock or penetration or money. In reality, all I care about is why people do things and if those reasons are legitimately good-hearted. If you want someone because you lust their physiology so badly, then I think you need to reconsider your life. When a lot of people do this, as in a hypocritical human society, then I think it's fucking stupid. So my bad for putting an offtopic load of shit here.


And Ross, you're right, homosexual behavior is found in nearly every species. It's not even that big of a deal. I'm only remotely bothered by it when straight guys act gay just to be assholes. I was simply trying to explain Higuy's and Tyrant's points of views as I was seeing them. However, for the sake of argument, animals also naturally rape and kill each other across their species. Not saying anything against natural homosexual behavior, but if you're using the fact that certain actions are "natural" to qualify something being alright then you have the former to consider. In other words, using the concept of whether or not something is natural is vague and subjective mainly because you could say anything is natural when you think about it.

@sleepy: I'm glad someone can put into words something better than I can.

@neuro: I really don't care where you stick your dick, unless of course its a fan of razors in which you would bleed out and die. I don't like it when people die from stupid shit like that. And you're probably right about my being a mental patient and yet I'm still positive I'm saner than most of society.

[Bodzilla]

Stop dodging my fucking question.
and for the record your still creating strawmen. You guys claimed it was unnatural, ross completely disproved it, end of discussion.

How can this possibly effect you in any harmful or detrimental way? When you answer this question you may have something thats worth listening to.

[DarkHalo003]

Stop dodging my fucking question.
and for the record your still creating strawmen. You guys claimed it was unnatural, ross completely disproved it, end of discussion.

How can this possibly effect you in any harmful or detrimental way? When you answer this question you may have something thats worth listening to.
If that was directed at me, I said I support it. As far as Ross is concerned, you can say the same for natural as well. I'd like better arguments on both sides here. Of course, I think that requires a thread all of its own regarding natural vs. unnatural. Marriage is only a legal representation of two individuals.

[Bodzilla]

natural means it's found in nature.
unnatural means it isn't.
i dont know what your having trouble with here.

BUT THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON THE FACT THAT A MAJORITY IS VOTING ON THE RIGHTS OF A MINORITY. A MAJORITY THAT HAS YET TO PROVE OR SHOW ANY CONCEIVABLE WAY FOR THIS TO HARM THEMSELVES OR SOCIETY.

[thehoodedsmack]

Bod, get in here (http://www.modacity.net/forums/showthread.php?24540-Natural-vs.-Unnatural) and rip shit up.

[Bodzilla]

theres nothing else to say on the matter, if he doesn't understand that natural means it's found in nature.... well then he's just fucking stupid.

[DarkHalo003]

I support Gay Marriage. Natural is from nature, no fucking duh. My argument was about its use in an argument of ethics when someone saying natural is morally okay. Now can we get over this shit fest?

[Bodzilla]

I think it's great that two people love each other, regardless of sexual orientation. Hell, this set of arguments is off-kilter anyways because it's more of an explanation of one my reasons why I dislike rest of humanity as a whole which is simply because people indulge or obsess in stupid shit like sucking a cock or penetration or money. In reality, all I care about is why people do things and if those reasons are legitimately good-hearted. If you want someone because you lust their physiology so badly, then I think you need to reconsider your life. When a lot of people do this, as in a hypocritical human society, then I think it's fucking stupid. So my bad for putting an offtopic load of shit here.

1. Great
2. Whats your point here....
3. Coolio no problemo
4. Are you implying that they're only in it for the cock? or that it's not a pre determined thing that a person is born with... or..... what are you even trying to say >_<
5. What the hell are you even talking about.

i cant follow your chain of thoughts here, it's scattered all over the place.

[Bodzilla]

I support Gay Marriage. Natural is from nature, no fucking duh. My argument was about its use in an argument of ethics when someone saying natural is morally okay. Now can we get over this shit fest?
no one said that natural was an automatic ok.

what we said was that it was illegitimate to claim it was unnatural and therefore not morally acceptable.
see the difference?

[neuro]

marriage is unnatural

monogamy is unnatural (at least extremely uncomommon)

umadbro?

[rossmum]

However, for the sake of argument, animals also naturally rape and kill each other across their species. Not saying anything against natural homosexual behavior, but if you're using the fact that certain actions are "natural" to qualify something being alright then you have the former to consider. In other words, using the concept of whether or not something is natural is vague and subjective mainly because you could say anything is natural when you think about it.
both of those things are natural and happen observably in nature in every species. holy fuck, it's almost like i have to keep repeating myself here.

in the case of rape and murder/killing, they are not good, and we should not do them, but they are still natural??? i don't get what you're trying to say by involving them

[FreedomFighter7]

Homosexual persons are just like any other person, they're out there looking for love, though not in the same way as the rest of us. Why deny them that, and the same rights the rest of us have? Why must people be nose-y and get into another's business?

[DarkHalo003]

Oh. My. God. I thought I cleared this up, but apparently not. I never said this stuff was unnatural and was merely trying to elaborate on what Tyrant/Higuy meant by their meanings of unnatural. How much more do you want me to spell out? Rossmum, I even make the implication that they start out in nature, hence why I pointed out the behavior is in animals.

Ross, I'm positive you were arguing that homosexual behavior is acceptable simply because it is a natural behavior. However, by that logic both rape/murder are acceptable because they are natural behaviors as well. In other words, I am trying to point out the fallacy that just because something is natural does not mean it should be acceptable. Rather than accepting something because it's "natural," there are better reasons to state why homosexuality should be accepted. Wow, I created a shit storm because I was overshooting my argument yet again.

Bod, I think I stated elsewhere that I was scatterbrained during a lot of this. In fact, I'm spoilering that post because it has so much bullshit that anyone will misinterpret the point of it, which is difficult to actual state with said post. I was meaning to call of the argument for the sake that it made little sense on the current topic, but apparently failed in that.

[rossmum]

you're elaborating on incorrect definitions using flawed logic

this is just going in fucking circles because for some reason you insist on trying to prop up some hilariously off-base use of a totally inappropriate word that does not belong in this thread to begin with, in any context.

i never said natural things were good by default because everything that occurs around us in the known universe is natural. everything. holy fucking shit. every. single. goddamn. fucking. thing. whether we understand it or not. i have no fucking idea what made you think my argument was that 'natural = good', but then again 90% of the posts in this thread are incredibly stupid strawman arguments with zero relevance to anything anyway.

[TVTyrant]

I'm glad I jumped ship on this, because its way funnier when someone else is getting ganged up on lol

[rossmum]

i tried and gave up about the same time people started making terrible examples and picking completely irrelevant, insignificant parts of the issue to turn into their main argument

additionally what do you mean how or why? how or why animals engage in homosexual behaviour? i have no idea why they do, it happens naturally. you know, in nature. how? well, all sorts of ways, i'm sure you don't need me to outline them. what is your point, exactly? homosexual behaviour is natural, it happens in nature, if you disagree you are not only factually wrong but also a bigoted idiot i really don't understand how you can question this unshakeable logic

e/ this was in response to a post higuy has since deleted

[TVTyrant]

The most interesting one to me is that Tom turkeys have been known for male/male couplings, but females will never do this.

Just an addition for the discussion.