Nope. I compared natural things to natural things.
Nigga compared being gay to predators. Fucking animals in the forest eating. Lets just take all of those predators away then and see what happens to the eco system then eh?
Nigga compared being gay to volcanoes. Do you think we can stop volcanoes? Do volcanoes not cool off the earth? Do they not create land? what are you getting at here.
2 consenting adults are the same as sociopaths lying, cheating, and KILLING. ok.
2 consenting adults are the same as pedophilia, the desire of children and the likely chance of child molestation. Raping an a child that doesnât consent to sex is the same and 2 consenting adults
This black or white all or nothing thinking prejeduiced people pull out all the time to justify what they say. This sudden lack of ability to look at the grey is hilarious.
Oh SHIT! Nigga did this, nigga did that, nigga compared a baseball to a baseball bat!
AnywaysâŚzzz
If being gay is going to be lauded as being natural and therefor compared to every natural good thing that there is in a highly simplistic manner, then Iâm going to compare it to the bad natural things in a highly simplistic manner, since it being NATURAL is the argument. I donât need to make the metaphor or comparison complex because the original argument isnât complex. The original argument is âitâs good because itâs naturalâ and thatâs it. So I blew up natural. Donât be mad cause you stoopid.
Tldr:
Donât want me to use stupid examples?
Then donât hide behind stupid examples.
That kid who has special feelings for someone of the same gender, they shouldnât be told that others feel the way they do or that itâs ok, because making them feel like something is wrong with them and they canât be accepted is the complete exact opposite of âabusingâ them. But youâre ok with gays being gay otherwise.
The amount of butthurt and delusion from some of you morons is hilarious.
Yeah no. Sorry. Your argument boils down to we should discuss 7 year old little jimmys gay feelings.
When little jimmy shouldnât be thinking about sex AT ALL at that age. Now yes kids do think about that shit at that age but it isnât the time for âteachingâ adults to be bringing the subject up. Wait till the kids are teens/of age or just before that before you bring up sex and how to approach it, in a public school. If the parents themselves want to broach the subject earlier than that with their kids then thatâs their choice, but it shouldnât be something that schools are teaching at an early developmental age.
I know there is a basis for homosexual birth but i just think itâs bullshit. I have not encountered one single gay person who claims he was actually born from it and the way they describe their coming out of the closet it just sounded too environmental caused. Like i said, itâs only google sites that claim the gay birth as academical.
The whole âhomosexuality is biologicalâ is just another con to make people see it as a race, when itâs not.
I do not think Scientific Articles are hard to read, just boring. Then again I have had to read a ton of them because of my major.
Iâm not on the internet everyday. I hope you put in your head that this is a subject of terminologies not the ceremony itself.
The Hebrew word Kiddushin was translated through Greek (or french) and Latin to the word we know todays as: marriage. Therefore, the origin of the term âmarriageâ was taken from the book of genesis when Eve was created for Adam by God. You may pop up an argument about the Egyptians practicing marriage long before but they had a different term for it.
If homosexuality is comparable to friendships within the same gender then why do they have sex?
If homosexuality is safe then why do homosexuals spread the most STDâs and literally tear each others assholes?
If homosexual âloveâ is as pure as natural love then why are gays so much more promiscuous than straight couples?
If homosexuality is a valid means of romantic bonding then why does nature not allow them to reproduce?
If there is nothing inherently wrong with being homosexual then why would a society of all homosexuals fail to exist beyond one generation?
Either homosexuality is a mental illness or its a choice, thus condemnable.
I havent heard any of you saying otherwise that gay people are not mentality ill other then your a dumb bigot.
And I havent heard you refute the point that it was taken off the american psychological association cause of gay lobbyist and not new science studies.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3
http://www.sexscience.org/journal_of_sex_research/
Is cited from that study.
Probably the best argument for homosexual marriage is the one that goes something like this- homosexual culture is promiscuous precisely because homosexuals never really had a path to an open legitimate long term committed relationship, with the social acknowledgements and pressures that come with it. Gay marriage will change that, and its availability will lead, in the long run, to a gay culture that is less promiscuous.
I can buy that, and I can buy the argument that even on the off chance that it plays that way, it was worth legalising gay marriage.
What I cannot buy is the argument that they should then be able to have kids just like straight married couples, because youâre talking about kids like some doll like accessory that exist only to give legitimacy to the gay coupling, rather than an actual human life.
And lets face it- the science is too skewed (by advocates on both sides) to know if kids growing up in gay households are just as likely as kids in straight households to grow up well adjusted (lets not compare gay couples with broken households, because the bigger issue here isnât adoptions, where I concede that it may be better to have a kid adopted by a commited gay couple than raised in a broken straight one, but in-vitro kids, made to order and born in surrogacy).
Great points. Unfortunately none of this can be discussed. Most would rather bury their heads in the sand and ignore all the information that runs contrary to what they want to believe.
(Iâm not going to ask you to close the thread given I could do that, @Valaris, but it would be nice to know that youâre still alive whenever you get the chance. [Wow, I have to stop omitting words.])
So now someone is arguing against gayness as a bad thing âbecause itâs natural and look at all these other naturally bad things!â rather than the usual argument of âbecause itâs unnatural and thatâs an affront to Gawdâ. ThatâsâŚa new one.
Well, not really, but itâs the road less taken at any rate. I guess Robert Frost would approve. Bravo.
Noted about your availability, @ralph_sab. Iâm still going to have (again) ask you to actually cite/show where youâre taking this from, though, since as Iâve yet been unable to find and youâre the (only) one arguing this line.
Also, the Egyptian religion was hardly the only pre-Christianâor even pre-Judiasmâreligion that existed where marriage still existed. Try again please. I already knew you debating etymology. Itâs just that nothing in the etymology of the word âmarriageâ, which is only 800 years old with French origin, has shown me what youâre supposedly arguing, which doesnât make much sense anyway even if I did believe it was true. This is because the crux of your argument is âtheyâre changing the word from what it was originally intended!ââŚwhich happens literally all the time.
Let me ask a related question for you to ponder while youâre looking up evidence to back up what youâre saying: Do you have problems with the fact the other words have (radically) changed over time even though thatâs how language naturally evolves since language is an artificial construct anyway?
yeah
Well the thing is, this thread was never going to solve anything. Certain of these posters, IE Zaltacon and Cisco, are beyond saving. Therefore trolling is the only appropriate response. Their simple minds only understand extremism. Cisco deserves an extra round of mocking as he is so pathetic he has to make fake accounts to praise himself. LOL WOW.
I actually like the Jesus fellow. Many good christians out there, the trolls in here are not. You know whatâs so funny about all of this is that if Jesus came back today, the christian conservatives would stone him to death.
- jesus was brown (like seriously, do you believe a dude from the middle east would be brown haired blue eyed? GTFO)
- jesus was homeless (âFoxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.â)
- jesus redistributed wealth (âIf you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.â)
- jesus gave out free healthcare (heal ppl of blindness, death, leprosy and etc)
- jesus liked to party (water into wine)
- jesus called out the hypocrisy of the pharisees, the ancient day version of republicans
you know if these rabid trolls spent half the time they did fighting gay marriage and instead oh i dunno⌠fighting poverty and injustice, the world would be a better place. as a protestant, i used to think catholicism sucked, but pope francis is getting things done, unlike these idiotic fundies.
Funny how you decide to make this just about sex, when I didnât say anything about sex. If you would like to try this thing called reading, youâd see I only mentioned feelings, which those special feelings about another are something a child can develop well before ever learning what sex is.
But even funnier, sex isnât related to your stupid bullshit about how we shouldnât tell children that being gay is ok to begin with. So when little jimmy experiences those feelings at a young age, we shouldnât tell him that having feelings of love or attraction to a member of the same gender is ok. Letâs wait until heâs a teenager so we can say âPsyche! It was ok all along.â
This sounds like the same âwait to let them know about itâ mentality that kept your mother from learning about coat hangers so she could prevent me responding to your bullshit until it was too late.
When Iâm telling a young person what, exactly? You didnât say, so Iâm going to assume you couldnât find something to pull out of that walking storage shed full of fallacies you call your asshole.
Iâve read this post of yours numerous times and I continue to have zero clue to what the hell you actually tried to say. Actually, replace âtriedâ with âfailedâ, because the structure of your post couldnât make it on engrish.com. Especially that part about attacking oneâs personal background. The hell does that even mean? Whose personal background did I attack? Where does pointing out that some children will develop attraction to the same gender and that acting like itâs not ok will hurt them is attacking any âbackgroundâ? Or did you mean âbacksideâ, specifically yours with the amount of bending over youâve done in this thread? Preparation H isnât for things like these but maybe itâll ease the pain.
Why do people who are attracted to each other have sex? Ask your parents. Then ask them why they didnât use protection to protect us from the shitheads they spawned.
I swear, itâs like that episode of South Park where idiots get so full of themselves they begin smelling their own farts. Except in these cases the shit had the effect of a carbon monoxide leak and your brains actually got less oxygen than you managed to scrape up in the womb. Hereâs hoping these stop receiving any entirely.
Your second paragraph sounds you are forcing yourself to be confused so that you can have me stand as wrong. I already gave the source, the hebrew word which originates in the book of Genesis. That is the source⌠i gave the word in hebrew, so look the word up and see itâs meaning and how it was translated. Genesis is a book that written way back in BC under the language of Hebrew. The hebrew word when translated to French and Latin birthed out the word marriage.
The Egyptians is the best weâve manage to trace, itâs really debatable which civilization actually came first to practice the ceremony. You are trying way too hard to make me look wrong, look at how you just put focus on the Egypt part. It boggles my mind how the referencing of a hebrew book in bc is not good enough origin for you⌠if my evidence is wrong, then show me the term marriage in an older book.
edit: Donât get me wrong Dammed, iâm not saying that Gay people shouldnât have wedlock with each other. That is really all their business. I just think it would be appropriate if they make a different name for wedlock⌠lets just avoid the whole conflict.
I assume this is an American site, due to at least the terrible moron grammar it tries so force upon us, so why would anyone want to close the thread when people are civilly talking about the issues around such a landmark judge ruling? America as we all know is a 3rd world country where the rich feed off the poor as any other totalitarian state, why should discussion of gay rights be omitted from the GD? (which lets face it is full of bullshit and those negro folks spoiling current media real people are catching up on before they log on here,)
(Understood, fishjie.)
Fine. Iâll look it up when I come back from exercise, though I imagine it might take a while given how many translations of the Bible there are.
Still, when you can, please answer the other question I asked since itâs essentially what youâre asking debating beyond my asking you for a link to where youâre taking this from so you donât have the excuse of saying I looked at the wrong translation of the many translations of the Bible whenever I get through checking.
For the record, I couldnât care less about making you look wrong since Iâm not trying to change your mind and am genuinely curious, being actually interested etymology. I do care about you being able to prove your point from facts, however, and am just being thorough (and pedantic) about it, though I did go back and edit my second paragraph to make it less of a run-on at least.
Speaking of pedantry, who is âweâ in âweâveâ? Because Iâm pretty sure there are definitely other civilizations before the Egyptians.
You misunderstood me. Iâm not going to close the thread (at least) presently and, as I said, Iâm not asking Valaris to do so; I literally just wondering where he is now since he usually chimes in by now. Then again, I suppose itâs entirely possible just had a busy weekend since Iâm not sure what he actually does in his real life and itâs not like this takes priority.
I donât give a shit about Christianity, it is still funny how you label every single person who contends your point of view as a Christian or Fundie. You are hypocrtical as hell for calling other people as funies because all of your arguments are the typical atheist nonsense that anybody can find off one google search off the first set of atheist sites.
The only thing you contribute to threads like this is actual trolling, you donât start or provide any post about the argument but just go out christian bashing and labeling everybody as christians. When some guy tries to respond to you decently, you end up insulting them because of their beliefs. You are just a typical society cliche who is literally just over compensating due to being a complete social outcast your entire life. You are also the first poster iâve ever seen actually scared of people online (Serpent)⌠please man, your e-thugging was always a joke and your ignorance is only praised by the other idiots of this forum.
I havenât even been lurking tbh. These discussions donât typically have the same vibe that they used to. Although, this was a huge decision so I thought Iâd stop by just to see what was up. How are you?
I understand your point, but I would pose the question instead as, why shouldnât they be? I always feel like the burden of proof is on the person trying to deny someone of their rights, donât you?
You have mentioned that you donât buy into the scientific articles on the subject since they have special interests backing them (although you fail to provide evidence for this assertion). My question to you would be, is there anything that would change your mind on the subject? If so, is there really an opportunity for discussion or is this more of you sharing your opinion? I am asking, genuinely, and I hope you donât take this as an attack (that is not my intention).