I remember BurlySurly showing way too much interest in Zibbler's daughter... I guess we shouldn't allow Marines to marry either.Originally posted by ohio
marines.... I'm pretty sure it's marines.
:devil:
Same-Sex Marriages...Is it Still Taboo?
- Thread starter Drunken_Ninja
- Start date
I agree bad parenting messes kids up. This is just anecdotal evidence, but the 3 years I have worked with teenagers, there is a huge difference in the students that come from single or broken homes and the students from an intact (mom & dad) family unit.
So would putting a child in an even more disfuntional environment like a homosexual "family" be any different than a single parent or broken home, probably not. It is still however not the optimum way (I would bet you a 10-spot, that most child psychologist would agree) to raise a child, apart from thier mother and father. No that is not to say that every child should stay with their bio-parents, not at all.....blah blah blah (that's not what this thread is about).
Homosexuality is not going to corrupt the youth of america, they already are. This issue of whether or not to permit homosexual marriage is just the symptom of the "no self-control, do what makes you happy, no consequences, it's not my fault" culture that america has drifted into over the last 20 years.
So how does Burly Surly truly feel about pedophelia?
Maybe he just finds bunny ears erotic. Pedophelia or beastiality??:devil:
Originally posted by BurlySurly
oh man, that little girl (the hot one) has a shirt on that says "DISCO"
Maybe he just finds bunny ears erotic. Pedophelia or beastiality??:devil:
Sure,Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Uhm...okay I think I agreeIf I understand you correctly you're essentially saying that with human population numbers growing at exponential rates, we're not suited or balanced with the natural environment...irregardless of our technological improvements that allow us to continue to exist beyond our means, beat famine, beat disease and so on.
If I did understand you correctly, than I completely 100% agree...if not...uhm...would you mind expanding upon your point a wee bit?
"You're essentially saying that with human population numbers growing at exponential rates"
- Yes they absolutely are. Look at the population of man compared to the population of animals (as a whole). Our percentage should be MUCH MUCH smaller, and the animal's percentage should NOT be as low as it is comparitively speaking (and dropping)
"we're not suited or balanced with the natural environment regardless of our technological improvements that allow us to continue to exist beyond our means, beat famine, beat disease and so on"
- We are over suited/equipped for the environment and we are definitely not balanced with it. We consume far more than our share of resources (i.e. food, water) and we leave uncomparable amounts of unbeneficial waste in our wake. We can beat famine and disease and live beyond our means because of technology, thats great for us as a species but is it good for the earth and its occupants (besides us) as a whole, absolutely not. It promotes further overpopulation because we are still overproducing (babies) and we are also living much longer.
Anyway, basically what I am saying is this: Our intelligence thus, our ability to create technology is what makes us unsuited for our environment. Now, I believe that a balance SHOULD be able to be achieved (because of our vast intelect) between having technology thus being the most superior longest living race of animals on earth and reproducing at a non exponential rate. But the question is, can we come together as a whole to say, "we have to control our nature (over-reproducing/waste) for the longevity of the planet". When the time comes the human race will have to have a battle between the animalistic nature of over reproducing/over consuming vs. our intelect that tells us that we can not continue along this path unless we want to destroy our environment. See, any organism when multiplying and consuming exponentially will eventually either consume all its resources or drown in its on self polluted environment and die off.
P.S. Oh, and regarding the marriage thing. Who friggin cares. Marriage is a beautiful GESTURE but in the end if the mental and spiritual bond between the 2 people is there why is marriage even needed. Well aside from pleasing whatever deity it is that you worship. Bottom line=Love is love, a bond is a bond, marriage shouldnt matter and shouldnt change anything. I will most likely get married eventually, but it will be to please family and government. I will be content being in love.
P.S.S. Re: Masturbation right or wrong... Not that it matters but, I plead the 5th
You guys remember stuff too well.JrB...that's not exactly a site i "frequent" but its one i keep on hand for arguments such as these. Seems the dolphin is giving consent. Albeit, not verbally. So mute, deafs cant give consent?
Dude.
The slope is real. You know it and i do. Maybe its what you want, or maybe you refuse to let yourself see it. But i for one, even if a cant stop it, will never agree with it. If i can change a mind or two along the way...fine. If not, fine.
On the other hand, I also predicted the Bears were going to win the super bowl last year
they went 4-12.
You're not engaged to another dolphin are you???
Da Bears!!!!!!Originally posted by BurlySurly
On the other hand, I also predicted the Bears were going to win the super bowl last year
The Cheese
Me too, but I'd be arrested for spousal ause and child (my helmet) endangerment after one ride.
I agree with Everything 100% as stated below.
Originally posted by golgiaparatus
Sure,
"You're essentially saying that with human population numbers growing at exponential rates"
- Yes they absolutely are. Look at the population of man compared to the population of animals (as a whole). Our percentage should be MUCH MUCH smaller, and the animal's percentage should NOT be as low as it is comparitively speaking (and dropping)
"we're not suited or balanced with the natural environment regardless of our technological improvements that allow us to continue to exist beyond our means, beat famine, beat disease and so on"
- We are over suited/equipped for the environment and we are definitely not balanced with it. We consume far more than our share of resources (i.e. food, water) and we leave uncomparable amounts of unbeneficial waste in our wake. We can beat famine and disease and live beyond our means because of technology, thats great for us as a species but is it good for the earth and its occupants (besides us) as a whole, absolutely not. It promotes further overpopulation because we are still overproducing (babies) and we are also living much longer.
Anyway, basically what I am saying is this: Our intelligence thus, our ability to create technology is what makes us unsuited for our environment. Now, I believe that a balance SHOULD be able to be achieved (because of our vast intelect) between having technology thus being the most superior longest living race of animals on earth and reproducing at a non exponential rate. But the question is, can we come together as a whole to say, "we have to control our nature (over-reproducing/waste) for the longevity of the planet". When the time comes the human race will have to have a battle between the animalistic nature of over reproducing/over consuming vs. our intelect that tells us that we can not continue along this path unless we want to destroy our environment. See, any organism when multiplying and consuming exponentially will eventually either consume all its resources or drown in its on self polluted environment and die off.
P.S. Oh, and regarding the marriage thing. Who friggin cares. Marriage is a beautiful GESTURE but in the end if the mental and spiritual bond between the 2 people is there why is marriage even needed. Well aside from pleasing whatever deity it is that you worship. Bottom line=Love is love, a bond is a bond, marriage shouldnt matter and shouldnt change anything. I will most likely get married eventually, but it will be to please family and government. I will be content being in love.
P.S.S. Re: Masturbation right or wrong... Not that it matters but, I plead the 5th
Uhm...well actually (blush) I have so little desire to see what's on that video, especially at work, that I'm just taking your word for what's on it...Originally posted by BurlySurly
JrB...that's not exactly a site i "frequent" but its one i keep on hand for arguments such as these. Seems the dolphin is giving consent. Albeit, not verbally. So mute, deafs cant give consent?
the same can be said about recreational sex. because the mating process is just to procreate. anything else'd be a perversion of the mating process, because u are having sex for entertaining, are not mating. then u'd wrongly extend that concept to whatever u want. as firstable, any form or recreational sex, lewinsky, or gay style. then why stop here? why not every pleasurable activity? then why stop there? why not extend it to every activity done for gratification? and ....
obviosly thats non-senes, and the point is drawing border lines at some point. otherwise u get into weaker analogies.
hmm about the gay marriage, i think is a deeper issue having to do with equal access to rights, than just mundane questions about sodomy or whatever people like to do for fun.
i think the matter of the question is, whether gay couples deserve the right to be equally protected under the law as heterosexual couples, and given the same rights(right over medical stuff, mortages, blablabla). i think the line should be line here, would be defining a couple as to bonding humans. and not saying, yeah i can marry my vacuum cleaner, and put my bike as a dependant. which in an strict sense is, but again, strictly logic is only temporally consistent.
i guess they should. it doesnt matter if there is a marriage or whatever. its just about couples (people who choose to life their lifes together, hetero, homo, or whatever they can came up with)
now, would that affect society as somebody suggested? definately no, i mean, right now the educational model is not as diverse as some propose, we are only taught what mainstream knowledge science (except fundamentalism, but that anothe issue) and comon sense makes more likely. if people had to be taught about all the posible alternatives in life, then schooling would take forever. we only get what is more likely, or more "common" that doesnt mean we necesarally have to discard everything else, because of the chore it would be to teach it. thats a no sense argument.
now, it should not be done, because is a tradition. well, thats a fallacy.
should be illegal because its not popular, and should thing done the way most people do them? thats another fallacy Argumentum ad Populum
well, for burly surly, well u gotta read this before entering the political debate forum. its cool if you disagree with everybody in pretty much everything, but uh!, some of your analogies are quite poor. u'll see your continuous logic inconsistency. which is far more than temporal.
http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/
anyway, yeah u beat me once about the bad american debate.
refer to my quote.
btw, this is the first time i post with an avatar!!!
:love:Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
I agree with Everything 100% as stated below.
The problem here is that you have a preconcieved notion of a homosexual "family" that is simply not accurate. I have seen enough dysfunctional relationships (straight and gay) and enough dysfunctional homes (single parents AND married) to know that what was right or wrong in those houses had nothing to do with sexual orientation. It is simply unrelated. No correlation.
Statements about "not being able to control oneself," demonstrate a complete lack of understanding or personal association with homosexuals. The ability to control oneself is no different than my (or Burly's) desire to go out on Saturday night and pick up women. Some homosexuals are promiscuous, some are not at all. Amazingly, it's exactly the ame with heterosexuals. If it were truly an issue of compulsive behavior, that character trait would manifest itself in other areas. It does not.
No I don't. Because I don't associate it with the same things you do. Maybe I've seen enough of it to know there is no connection, or maybe you're heavily influenced by a religion you claim to not subscribe to.
You are wrong again...and let me explain why.
Recreational sex is nothing more than human nature at its finest. Long ago, humans lost their ability to smell and sense when a female is in estress. So now, even though you feel like you're not trying to have kids, your body is trying to as often as possible, since that gives it the best chances of creating new offspring. If your body were simply doing it for pleasure, you would not ejaculate fertile sperm at the end. Females, subconsciosly, have sex to secure a mate so that when estress does roll around, things will go accordingly. Its a very genius plan nature has designed for us. Our instinct is inescapable.
Religion has absolutely nothing to do with the stance I've taken, other than the fact that we must respect a huge portion of society subscribes to religious thinking, which is anti-gay in this respect.
To me, its all about protecting the values I hope future americans will have. I dont want children being forced to choose between Gay or Straight as an equal option. I think that's what this will eventually come to if we let it progress too far.
my argument was purposely wrong, to demonstrate the fallacy of that argument.
any form of non-reproductive sex, under you definition of perversion of mating, can be considered a perversion of mating.
You're wrong again.
The penis cannot tell the difference between the feeling of a mouth or a vagina. A clitoris is stimulated in the same way as well. The attraction in the mind is where the difference lies, not in the actual feeling of pleasure.
Well if we do evolve to the point where it's a 50 50 choice, and not something one is more inclined to do than another...than perhaps we'll finally bring our population numbers under control and find homes and families for the tons and tons of needy children around the world who were abandoned by their natural parents
See...the cup is half full!
then, the atraction in the mind is not a pervertion of mating, but a pervertion of mind, that have nothing to do with the mating process, because gay sodomy, has nothing to do with strictly reproductive mating.
Good!
Now we're getting somewhere. We all know the problems associated with permiscuous sex, and why morals should be applied to life. Congratulations again DUDE.
then, the argument of the pervertion of mind have nothing to do with matting, thus, nothing to do with gay marriage, and has nothing to do with this discussion about whether gay marriage right should be granted
The perversion of the mind leads the individual to try and mate in a way that is not possible. Its UNNATURAL.
Ah...so the penis alone (eyes closed now) won't enjoy the feeling of ....a male mouth rather than a female mouth, and believe me...a clitoris damn well knows the difference between a boy and a wet tongue
Just cause it feels good don't mean nature programmed us to play with ourselves the way we do
And if we're going strictly off of physical pleasure...and if it's pleasurable then it's no longer a perversion of nature, then there's no way you can be anti-homosexual as a rule...because the gender of the individual does not prohibit one from feeling pleasure
And oh...btw...if your penis doesn't know the difference between a mouth and a vagina...you've been hanging around the wrong sorts of girls or boys
since its unnatural, it is then not mating. because mating is a reproductive function.
u cannot mate sticking your penis in somebody's ass, or somebody's mouth, or whatever part u feel inclined to.
then it has nothing to do with this, as its more of masturbation but insted using something else, u use a sphincter.
there is no mating there.
No kidding. Where are you going with that?
Well first of all, mine can. Second, you should lump ass in there with mouth. And I can't speak from experience, but I'm sure there's plenty of men that can confirm a woman's ass feels about the same as a man's... which brings usto your next point:
By this logic, it's alright for me to hump an antelope as long as I'm thinking of Pamela Anderson. That's kind of a slippery slope...
edit: fixed the BOLD lettering
What i mean is that they stimulate in the same way.Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
And oh...btw...if your penis doesn't know the difference between a mouth and a vagina...you've been hanging around the wrong sorts of girls or boys
Yes, the perversion is in the mind, but the actions do not teach good values in my eyes, although thats not the brunt of my argument. My argument is that this will have a negative affect on America as a whole, since most people dont go by this lifestyle, and equalizing it will do more harm than good for most of the people here.Many fundamentalist christians would call heterosexual oral sex a perversion of the mind that leads the individual to try and mate in a way that is not possible.
You can't have it both ways, boss. Once you're allowing yourself to put your ding dong in anything but the hoo hoo, you're walking down a slippery slope.
It may be alright for you, because it feels good, but is it something you'd like to tell your mother about?Originally posted by ohio
By this logic, it's alright for me to hump an antelope as long as I'm thinking of Pamela Anderson. That's kind of a slippery slope...
Now we're thinking.
EDIT:
What i originally wrote was probably offensive. Ill clean it up.
Many Fundamentalist christians think its wrong to mow your grass on certain days of the week to.
yet somehow they manage to use your own argument more logically than you do.
there's actually very little I can do if that's what someone chooses to claim (except point to various disputable psychological and athropological works), but your argument... jeez, you're straddling the fence like democratic presidential candidate.
well just edit what i wrote, and it should be fine.
Whatever it takes... If nature is thourough (sp) enough to have a backup plan (i.e. a natural tendency toward homosexuality in the event of unhealthy overpopulation) for overpopulation even in the case of advanced species such as humans then, WOW! Mother nature is more badass than I ever imagined.Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Well if we do evolve to the point where it's a 50 50 choice, and not something one is more inclined to do than another...than perhaps we'll finally bring our population numbers under control and find homes and families for the tons and tons of needy children around the world who were abandoned by their natural parents
As far as wether or not I think that its factual that this is occurring... I have no friggin idea. I am not educated enough about Rome to know wether or not it was as overpopulated as some of the places today. But I know that homosexuality was very popular back then... Anyway, I bet that a nice little study would show Homosexuality to be a trend/fad. That is not to say that every gay person is acting gay to be cool or to seem more open, but I think that it is possible that the number of homosexuals increase when it becomes the "in" thing to do inorder to be ultra liberal. IMHO IMHO IMHO IMHO IMHO.
Anyway, may mother nature slap me across the face with much wrongitude in order to fix the earth
Oh, and as for the actual original topic of this thread... I think that, as superficial as I believe the act of marriage to be, anyone should have the right to be married... Especially if it is supposedly the ultimate expression of a bond between lovers.
NOTE: I do not believe the emotional love and bond between 2 people getting married to be superficial, just the actual marriage part.
wow. do you really believe that?
I've watched a few friends come out, and I wouldn't wish what they went through on anyone...
and since when was gay the "in" thing? even gay people don't think gay is cool. maybe it's different on OK, but do you all of a sudden see 17 yea olds shedding their A&F gear for sequins and sleeveless shirts?
edit: by the way it's Greek society you're thinking of. They believed that women were mostly for procreation, and that a true bond of love could only exist between men. Kind of like modern fraternities...
They also created foundation for our modern society in terms of science/technology, philosophy, art, and language. So you can see how homosexuality TOTALLY corrupted their moral and technical progress.
head to the velvet elvis in vegas and get hitched.
i know plenty of atheistic couples who are legally married. VT doesn't have any JoPs?
WTFO? You have not managed to demonstrate that a gay relationship is dysfunctional, son.
Data?
J
