Anti-Homosexual Bigotry = 1950's Racism 2.0

that makes no sense. the kid whose only 14 years younger than his mom gets made fun of.

shit adopted kids get made fun of that come from straight couples. perhaps if we stopped sheltering kids from homosexuality, and acting as though its a problem, some of the harassment would stop.
 
i honestly have no issue with most gay people. the only thing i have an issue with is the people who go around and act completely gay with high pitched lisps and act like girls. i totally believe that someone can be born gay but no one is born with the inability to act respectable and somewhat normal. I think it is fine that someone is gay but when they go around acting completely obnoxiously gay, thats when it starts to bother me.
 
im sick of this being labeled as a "christian" issue, yes Christians have their fair share of blame, but let us also remember how tolerant the christian faith is compared to Islam. (in regards to homosexuality. )

but no, if you ever say anything bad about Islam then you are automatically labeled as "insensitive" well fuck sensitivity.
 
and i have a problem with the fucks who run around acting manly talking about how many girls theyve boned. should we ban them from marriage too?
 
Err it makes plenty of sense.

Do you really think kids that are adopted under straight parents are going to get as much shit as people who have gay adoptive parents? Thats pretty unrealistic.

While about half of us tolerate homosexuality the other half does not. Those people are the ones that are going to make that kid's life miserable. Its really not fair to put someone into that kind of situation because frankly, it would suck. Can you imagine growing up with 2 dads? I sure can't.
 
This is precisely the problem. The fact that you cant imagine that, and that its such a horrible thought. Your not addressing the problem here.

At one time, more than half the people believed that blacks shouldnt be able to marry whites, or have children, and their children were mocked. did that make that ok?
 
i never said we should ban gay marriage...yes i agree it is stupid for men to brag about sex i mean srsly there is no way it can ever be argued. this topic is way too deep and everyone has their own views. There is really no right answer to the situation...
 
While it may not say that anywhere specifically, like any religion the superiority aspect is there. Every religion believes that they are the right one, and the true believers, and that others are wrong.
 
Right, that's part of believing, not religion. People who believe in evolution feel like their opinions are better than those who believe in creation.
 
but technically it shouldn't matter at all, seperation of church and state it seems illegial that they can not allow it as long as they find a priest willing to marry them.
 
I mean that the basis of banning gay marriage is either because of religious reasons or homophobia, neither of which is acceptable.

No one is forcing you to believe in evolution. And i would have no problem with teaching creationism in school, as long as it is taught with the explanation that it is written based on a book that lacks authenticity, versus evolution which is backed up by a large amount of scientific evidence.
 
so you are telling me a penis is meant to go in another dudes butt?that is so wrong!!!!! i dont care if its right or wrong to discriminate gays and all of that.... just think about it.... if gayness is natural than wouldnt guy couples be able to bear children naturally..... and if it was so natural why has the gay factor only recently began to show (as in the last 200 years or so.....
and for that matter why arnt all of the animals having gay butt sex?????
i am a christian so all of you are now going to jump on my case but really natural law shows that it isnt meant to be......
 
Gays have existed for way more than 200 years. Ever read about the greeks?

And animals hump other animals of the same sex all the time...

 
first of all know what you are saying before you say it and second of all, every major religion islam, buhdist, hindue, christianity, ect. all proclaim jesus as a holy profit or in some form of a holy man, spirit, ect. and what is the point of believing in something if you arnt ready to debate about it.... haha look at this thread for example.....
 
all religions are intolerant, i just chose christianity. islam is even harsher about homosexuality if im not mistaken. im ready to debate it. i am right now.
 
i'll jump on you for just being retarded, not christian

maybe you haven't noticed but everyone isn't the same. Your (relatively small?) penis may not ever go into another dudes butt, however just like there are some people who are afraid of heights, or bipolar, or anorexic, and plenty others who 'less seriously' deviate from the norm, there are those whose sexuality is a a bit different. However it doesn't make it any less natural, perhaps you want to study a bit more nature before you make comments about what 'natural' really is...





"No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not

been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex

at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue."

—Petter Bøckman

Homosexual behavior is widespread amongst social birds and mammals, particularly the sea mammals and the primates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior





 
ok
Read some John Stuart Mill. I think he would argue that prop 8 is legitimate.
not that i'm defending the passing of prop 8, mill just speaks to it.
and by the way, to clear up confusion, i do not believe in creation
 
im not saying a man can =nt love another man in a sexual way (which is so wrong), im just saying all of you gay right activist are all "well its a naturall thing" oh it is??? i couldnt tell cause i mean like i said before why dont men get pregnant when they have sex????
cause GOD didnt create males to get pregnant.....
oh yeah i said "GOD" created us and if you are thinking you dumb christan you are so ignorant god didnt create us than lets look at things from a "big bang" stand point: male mammals in our animal kingdom cant get pregnant..... no matter how many times guys try doing it nothing will happen except tension being released, no natural kids
 
then hes an idiot. period. what are you trying to prove. that creationists can be anti gay? then they fall into the homophobe category.
 
You're right, you are smarter than arguably one of the best political philosophers of our time. How could I have been so dumb to assume that you weren't smarter than him. If you had ever read Mill you would understand what I am trying to argue.
He would argue that because (in California) because a decision was passed in a free election, the decision stands. Furthermore, he would argue that there is a legitimate reason for passing this law because certain groups cite moral problems with gay marriage. He argues that laws preventing harm to morals and all other things besides that cause harm that is not physical are legitimate.
That's my point. It's not an argument, for the most part, about religion or homophobia. The argument is that gay marriage would cause some harm to some people. And that is what the Californians decided.
I was simply using the creation vs. evolution argument to cite an example. But you already knew that since you're smarter than Mill.
 
And how is that any different than jim crow laws...

how would gay marriage harm anyone...
 
the point is that you can still protest and put laws to a vote again if you think they are illegitimate
and obviously it does harm someone or there wouldn't be this kind of huge argument - people don't waste that must energy being assholes

 
again

JIM CROW LAWS

people supported them. they passed. did that make them legitimate? no.

and they believed that black people would cause harm, which they didnt, so to use your words. They were wasting energy being ass holes.
 
and what happened to the jim crow laws after the democratic process?
That's an extreme example too. Blacks did not have the opportunity to leave the country during slavery, etc.
 
ahsdfhdsakfjdhasfhsadjkfjsaklfhdjkfs

so basically even if its morally wrong, we should just wait for it to happen? it happened through protesting. the same protesting that happened now.

and im not talking about slavery. im talking about jim crow laws. by then slavery was ILLEGAL. they could leave the country.
 
so just cuase it creeps you out everyone should suffer because of you? Fuck off kid, church and state are seperate for a reason, so your arguement doesn't hold shit reguardless
 
yo man have you ever read Kant, do you know what Universalziability is? if you want to argue that gays should have equal rights then I totally agree with you. However the act of being gay simply is not right and as hard as you're trying you haven't been able to prove otherwise.
 
when did i say i expected it to be different? im pushing for it to be legal. much like they did. im not really sure where your going with this...
 
How is it different from Jim Crow laws:Well Jim Crow laws were generally popular in the South, where racism was extremely prevalent. Prop 8 was passed in California which isn't exactly part of the Bible belt. California is a liberal state and less we're forgetting the city of San Fransisco which is arguebly one of, if not the, gayest cities in America. So if Prop 8 passed then it's pretty clear that the majority of people believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. And for the record Christians don't believe that Jews are going to Hell. The problem is that the people have spoken the gays lost, get over it. Lucky for them is the endless appeals system.
 
so just because people believe in it its socially acceptable? the ignorance of you people is overwhelming.
 
there's technically no seperation of church and state in state

constitutions and supreme court precedence doesnt uphold the 14th

amendment to all things in the bill of rights for states yet.

We have some incorporation such as privacy for roe v. wade, double

jeapordy for palko v connecticut, free speech cases obviously, but per

state constitutions, it is a local vote.

if the majority of the people in a constituency don't want something, then they shouldnt have to.

think about it, by the same logic thats the only reason im gonna have

to pay ridic capital gains and income tax when i get out of college.

i don't want income redistribution, it sounds illegal (its a violation

of the 14th amendment; equal protection, as well as a violation of our

basic foundation of no taxation without representation- if i get taxed

more shouldnt i deserve more representation?) but i deal with it

because the majority of people have voted it into law.

when social paradigm shifts enough for the majority of a certain

district to tolerate same sex marriage, then they can grant the state

that power.

afterall, the power to marry is a power vested in the state and all

laws should be voted on in this country right? If the vote says no,

then the law should be no.
 
Absolute horseshit!

the constitution is not so the tyranny of the majority rules, it's a measure against this majority to ensure that every minority has the same rights every person is entitled to.

touche about tax rates but horseshit all the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top