| All hail anal fisting. |
icirate said: Subjective. Your opinions that society is decaying because we have abandoned god is also subjective. No society has been ideal period. Christian society is the best we've ever managed to do and I'm yet to see any changes from it as improvements. icirate said: Because you don't give any examples as to why "legitamising" homosexuality is a bad idea. I don't think you even know what it means when you say that. It amazes me that I can call you out for responding to strawmen in almost every post and you'll not stop making them. When did I ever say anything about paying for expensive weddings? icirate said: Well you don't ban something for everyone because you believe a certain culture engages in it more. Religion is the culture difference that's stigmatised homosexuality. Is your reply suggesting that you should legalise prostitution in America, where studies show that it has decreased std's and helped keep prostitutes safe?If I give you an answer about cultural differences you'll just call me a racist. icirate said: You need to explain why these are bad first, not just you finding it immoral. YES. These two things can be argued for with the exact same arguments used to promote sodomy. Of course they need to be discussed. Due to religion people have been able to abuse "marriage". I'd say forget about the rare unpopular polygamy and focus on forced marriages. Polygamy decreases on it's own fast, but religion has introduced forced marriages. Should that not be the first port of call? Anyway as for polygamy what can you find wrong with it? If a woman was being honest I don't see how she could feel "love", but is that a reason to ban it? Because I don't think she's really in love. In Islam the context for polygamy is that you should only marry more than one person if you can financially support her. Maybe that's why it's declined. It wouldn't be fair if the more you marry the more marriage benefits you can claim. What's wrong with incest marriage? I don't see it as a problem if siblings fall in love and want to live the rest of their lives together. Banning them the right to marry won't and shouldn't encourage them to fall out of love. icirate said: I have as much a problem with it as I have with the amount that are heterosexuals you bigot. What does it matter? If it turned out that over half of homosexuals were also paedophiles, wouldn't you have a problem with that? The practice of homosexuality is safe I don't care about your (lack of) evidence of the link between homosexuals and child molesters. icirate said: I've read it once, as you said not everyone needs to think too deeply into it. You agree with the opinions in it lol. Just stop pretending to know what's in the Bible. You've embarrassed yourself time and time again in this thread alone. The Bible is clear enough that marriage to someone that is yet to go through puberty is fucked up and wrong. And I agree with that opinion anyway. You totally ignored my comment about lower mortality rates. If Muhammad married a 9 year old it's safe to assume that whenever a child began her first menstruation she was deemed adult. icirate said: Ok I think I see where you're coming from now, I wasn't misrepresenting that on purpose. But if what I say now is what you really meant....wow. Talk about deflecting. I used paedophilia as an example and you ignore why and how it was used and start ranting about it instead. So after legalising paedophillia you're saying give it a while to change. Give it a while to see the negative impacts. Are you insane! So what is the problem with paedophillia than? After legalising paedophillia many children will be molested from the first week since sex with children is now legal. Surely that's the issue you're against? If not I'm seriously worried. And it would be molestation to many people because after changing the age a person can have sex that is a huge responsibility. If the law said all children aged 7 are safe to have sex with anyone, drink and smoke you can bet that parents will still overide that law and "parent". That's why changing child sex laws is unrealistic. You should basically change the age they can do everything else too. This could happen so easily despite legalising homosexuality. The two are so far apart. Still your best argument is wait for society to decay**. What's worse for you is that your arguments can be dis proven. Netherlands same sex marriage introduced 2001 V Beastiality outlawed in Netherlands 2010 after a two year debate (Also many other northern countries that have legalised gay marriage have also illegalised beastiality). See that contradicts everything you're saying. Countries will follow Netherlands because they are progressing and show that you can outlaw certain things but not others, even if you don't want it to be true. I'd worry more about America banning sex with animals tbh, that's been rampant for way too long. Netherlands age of consent remains 16 as it always has :) **It's been 15 years for some countries. |
Dick_DawkinsJul 3, 2015 6:35 AM
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
Noboru said: I don't deny it. Maybe it would be wiser to have a general Voting Poll first to see the Results of the actual Acceptance within the Population and then give the Benefits and Marriage Title only to those Gay Couples, who actually raise Children. This Way, Gay People wouldn't be generally promoted to start a Relationship, but could still have the Support when needed to. Or a better idea: Marriage is not exclusively about having children, so just allow same-sex couples to get married across the board, and if they have children then they'll get those extra benefits, and if they don't, then they don't like everybody else. Noboru said: MiniSiets said: The same level as what? I have no qualms or discomfort over homosexual couples pursuing adoption, so I do not share your concerns. It was in Reference to other Postings by other Users. Pointing out that other users have an irrational basis for their beliefs doesn't make yours look any better. The fact of the matter is you claimed that your disapproval of same-sex marriage is rational, yet so far you have presented nothing but personal discomforts, false comparisons, and baseless speculations as reasons to deny it. |
kingcity20 said: Oh for the love of -_- nvm gotta love MAL |
traed said: Yeah but they still do it. They'll just find some other really dumb reason to fire someone if they want to.shiroyume said: Harassment isn't legal. This is great! But only the first step - you can get married now to your partner but it's still legal to discriminate, harass and/or fire gay people on their jobs if someone disagrees with their sexuality. Also, implement some heavier gun control law already! I don't think anyone is fine with some punkass brat starting to shoot people just because nobody wanted to fuck him or more recently, he was a freakin' obsessed loon. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/harassment.html |
| 死ねカス国に帰れ |
MiniSiets said: It isn't a good Idea imho, because you'd lose a similar Incentive akin to a low Base Rate.Or a better idea: Marriage is not exclusively about having children, so just allow same-sex couples to get married across the board, and if they have children then they'll get those extra benefits, and if they don't, then they don't like everybody else. Pointing out that other users have an irrational basis for their beliefs doesn't make yours look any better. not rational ≠ irrational. They might have some thought-out Points, but I wouldn't see them as absurd, despite not (entirely) agreeing with them. It's just that the Reasoning is more based on (personal) Emotions and Feelings, which have played only a very small Role in all of my Postings together. |
Noboru said: not rational ≠ irrational. rational - based on or in accordance with reason or logic. irrational - not logical or reasonable. Yes, stating that something is irrational is the same as not being rational, as irrational is by definition the state of not being rational. I'm sorry, but I find this whole conversation disingenuous. I'm very hard-pressed to believe that someone is so vigorously arguing against same-sex marriage based on such incredibly superficial grounds that have been presented here. When you're ready to finally pull the curtain on your religious underpinnings we'll talk again. |
kingcity20 said: Oh for the love of -_- nvm gotta love MAL |
icirate said: No society has been ideal period. Christian society is the best we've ever managed to do and I'm yet to see any changes from it as improvements. Stoning people and making non religious people unable to divorce is totally "the best we've ever managed to do". Not to mention forcing people to be Christians and murdering them and their children if they refused. |
Drunk_Samurai said: Things that never happened in the United States.icirate said: No society has been ideal period. Christian society is the best we've ever managed to do and I'm yet to see any changes from it as improvements. Stoning people and making non religious people unable to divorce is totally "the best we've ever managed to do". Not to mention forcing people to be Christians and murdering them and their children if they refused. |
RyanEnsign said: Things that never happened in the United States. The United States is a secular government. |
kingcity20 said: Oh for the love of -_- nvm gotta love MAL |
RyanEnsign said: Drunk_Samurai said: Things that never happened in the United States.Stoning people and making non religious people unable to divorce is totally "the best we've ever managed to do". Not to mention forcing people to be Christians and murdering them and their children if they refused. 1) That's what a Christian society gets you. 2) America has never been a Christian country. |
Drunk_Samurai said: I thought you just said those things happened in the US, but I guess you meant somewhere else.RyanEnsign said: Things that never happened in the United States. 1) That's what a Christian society gets you. 2) America has never been a Christian country. |
RyanEnsign said: Drunk_Samurai said: I thought you just said those things happened in the US, but I guess you meant somewhere else.1) That's what a Christian society gets you. 2) America has never been a Christian country. The same can be said about most religions and their respective countries anyway. |
| Why are people talking about religion? Your faith is irrelevant to the United States government. If you think marrying a homosexual is wrong, then don't marry a homosexual, go to church, and stick your nose out of other people's assholes. |
 |
MiniSiets said: That's not how Language works. Just ponder a bit about the Difference between "I do not like ice cream" and "I dislike ice cream" when asked whether or not you like Ice Cream. Hint: the former only describes the Absence of something, while the Prefix in the latter is used to describe the exact Opposite of something. You can just not like something without having to dislike it.Noboru said: not rational ≠ irrational. Yes, stating that something is irrational is the same as not being rational, as irrational is by definition the state of not being rational. When you're ready to finally pull the curtain on your religious underpinnings we'll talk again. My personal (ir-/un-) religious Beliefs or non-Beliefs have nothing to do with my Position. But you're free to believe whatever you want. |
Noboru said: I highly doubt that was intentional of them lol. "Hey guys you can marry someone from the political party. Article 16 doesnt say so. Oh and you cant marry people with different eye colour or hair colour either. Except people with brown eyes they are not allowed to at all. Also people who cant sing are not allowed to be married it just doesnt say that is allowed"No, because it was made like that on Purpose, so that every sovereign National State can decide for itself on that Part. No, it says that they are "born free and equal in dignity and rights", it doesn't have to mean they have to have everything equal later. I'm pretty sure its referencing criminals or terrorists not homosexuals or it means from birth onward but not worded well. It could have been more clear on that.I knew it! This is the inevitable Outcome: Males will be made obsolete because of SJW. Therefore, we should all reject everything that will lead to the Motivation of artificially creating Babies in Factories from the DNA. Nip it in the Bud! This is just a new thing and not a mainstay. Just because it can be done does not mean everyone would do it. Just because someone would be homosexual does not mean they could not have same opinions as you about it. Not sure what point youre trying to make by being sarcastic.You know the Difference between an Operation to restore the own Reproduction Abilities and a Method to get like, errm... Children from Females only? If anything, there should be more serious Research done on how to change the sexual Orientation if own, biological Children are wished. People have been trying to change sexuality for ages and it does not work. If it were possible it would involve genetic manipulation or something along those lines. Then these genetically manipulated genes would be passed down generation to generation. How is that natural? ___ Additionally, your entire premise that it would encourage people to have children is not even correct. "Raising fertility levels in Germany has not proved easy. Critics say the country has accomplished very little in throwing money at families in a system of benefits and tax breaks that includes allowances for children and stay-at-home mothers, and a tax break for married couples." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/world/europe/germany-fights-population-drop.html?_r=0 "Increased Life Expectancy May Mean Lower Fertility One of the benefits of postindustrial life is that it is largely free of the fear of early mortality. However, a curious side-effect of this confidence seems to be a dramatic reduction in birthrates. Writing in the journal Science, an anthropology professor draws a clear correlation between increased life expectancy and lower fertility in cities." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080215210722.htm Also Norway has higher birthrate than most of Europe and they hv had gay marriage since 2009 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Norway  (the green is total grown and the othr is natural growth) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Norway and http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141216082444.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4786160.stm |
traed said: lolI highly doubt that was intentional of them lol. "Hey guys you can marry someone from the political party. Article 16 doesnt say so. Oh and you cant marry people with different eye colour or hair colour either. Except people with brown eyes they are not allowed to at all. Also people who cant sing are not allowed to be married it just doesnt say that is allowed" Yet the Wording is not unambiguous enough to explicitly interpret Gay Marriages as being Part of the Human Rights. From my Understanding, it was only in Reference of heterosexual Relationships. It's hard to believe that some of those Members would have fully agreed to allow Same Sex Marriages. Just because it can be done does not mean everyone would do it. Yet the Thought of it being a real Possibility is disconcerting. Just like a wise Man here on MAL said: ""Give them a finger and they'll take the whole hand". These Words are likely to be applicable here as well.People have been trying to change sexuality for ages and it does not work. If it were possible it would involve genetic manipulation or something along those lines. Then these genetically manipulated genes would be passed down generation to generation. How is that natural? Just because they haven't succeeded doesn't mean they won't. Also, it hasn't even been clear what exactly causes the Sexuality, so modern Research might eventually find a Cure which won't have any negative Effects. A healed Person (be it any Sickness or Disorder) that has received Drugs/Pills, can function normally again and produces Children the natural Way is to me more normal than someone, who doesn't want to change their Unnormalness and alter Nature just so they can have Children even with their Flaws.Additionally, your entire premise that it would encourage people to have children is not even correct. You won't know how bad it would be without the financial and moral Support. Norway is also not comparable to Germany as it hasn't had as much Immigration and has a higher GDP per Capita. There are more Immigrants in Germany than the total Population of Norway:As of 2014, about 16,3 million people with an immigrant background were living in Germany, accounting for every fifth person[11] Out of the 16,3 million people a number of 8,2 million people had no German citizenship, more than ever before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany#1993-presentbtw: you got the Colors inverted. In 2010, Population has raised by approximately 63000 People whereby around 20000 account for Natives only. |
| ^ You seem to misunderstand what an illness is. An illness is something that harms a persons own well being. Being gay is not an illness. Also there is stacks and stacks of research that prove being gay has a physiology behind it. The exact cause isnt known but it is as least a predisposition by genetics or hormone exposure in the womb which all happen before they are ever born. Then shouldnt you be arguing immigration reduces fertility rates rather than gay marriage? There is no need for a cure for homosexuality because it is not at a rapid increase, it is the sam amount it appears in other animals. Maybe might need a cure if like more than half people were gay but its not even a fourth of that. and what about Canada? They gave same sex couples the same rights as married people since 1999 and legalized gay marriage in 2005. Their fertility rate had been fairly low before then but it had a recent spike http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-latest-baby-boom-caught-experts-by-surprise-in-part-because-our-birth-rate-is-declining |
traedJul 3, 2015 4:19 PM
| ^ He capitalizes nouns as a habit because he's German and that is what is done in the German language They really injected chloroform into peoples hearts? |
| Continuing on the Christian topic.... I'll personally never get it. Even in my most hardcore Christian days I did NOT give a flying fuck what a dude does with his dick or where he sticks it in. And yeah, let's not fool ourselves, the bible is VERY Anti-gay.....insanely anti-gay. When WBC does their little "God hates Fags" signs....they are 100% correct. The Christian god HATES gays....it's written in black and white and they will be cast into the everlasting fire and brimstone of hell to be tortured for ETERNITY for their heinous crime of liking dick. Remember folks....the Christian god is a peaceful and merciful god, he wants to save you from this horrible place....even though he was the one who created it and he's the one that ultimately sends you there! All you gotta do is follow him blindly, do NOT ask questions, and seriously....stop sucking dick. |
traed said: Than it's probably a Disorder, because it harms their normal Function.You seem to misunderstand what an illness is. An illness is something that harms a persons own well being. Being gay is not an illness. Maybe might need a cure if like more than half people were gay but its not even a fourth of that. I see, so your Definition is dependent on how much Persons have it. As long as the World can sustain themselves, even exotic Illnesses and/or Disorders won't count as long as it doesn't harm a Person's Wellbeing. and what about Canada? Canada has stricter Immigration Laws and is also an English-speaking Country. Maybe Immigration is a much bigger Factor than homosexual Marriages, but unlike the former, you can completely minimize potential Consequences of the latter.Rikame said: AIDS can't be cured either, yet People search for a Cure.Perhaps the reason why nobody has succeeded in curing it is because it's not something that can be cured? There's nothing that isn't "natural" about homosexuality, as it occurs frequently in nature across countless species, and there is no reason to believe that it is a "flaw", because there's no intentionality in sexuality. . There's nothing that isn't "natural" about accepted Diseases and Disorders, then. It's a Flaw if it impairs with the intended Function. Just because someone doesn't feel Pain and/or has live-threatening Illness doesn't mean he or she is fully normal. traed said: It's what used to be done in English as well:He capitalizes nouns as a habit because he's German and that is what is done in the German language https://www.gutenberg.org/files/33504/33504-h/33504-h.htm English technically doesn't even have a normed Spelling System. JustALEX said: What about People, who feel the same as you when it comes to personal Relationships, yet don't support Same Sex Marriages?Even in my most hardcore Christian days I did NOT give a flying fuck what a dude does with his dick or where he sticks it in. |
| No its not even remotely considered a disorder and has not been since the 70s by a board of psychologists when it was changed and over the years the DSM has been redone many times and they never felt a need to add homosexuality back on there. You're decades in the past there. No my definition of an illness does not depend on population because it is not an illness. Im saying its not a real issue unless the human population was on a rising scale where everyone is becoming 100% gay and not even a litle bisexual but that is a fantasy world which is not based on reality. That will never happen. No cure is needed even though I think people should be able to be free to do whatever they want which may include willingly changing their own sexuality if possible through some methods. Keep in mind some people will want to become gay or more likely bisexual. Its a two way street. In fact I think heterosexuals are currently closer to being an illness if you are going by as loose of meanings as you are using, for the harm to the earth and humanity as they kill it with overpopulation. |
Red_Keys said: Why are people talking about religion? Your faith is irrelevant to the United States government. If you think fucking siblings is wrong, then don't fuck siblings, go to church, and stick your nose out of other people's assholes. Not such a good argument now, is it? traed said: ^ You seem to misunderstand what an illness is. An illness is something that harms a persons own well being. Being gay is not an illness. By that definition it is an illness then. Being gay is demonstrably bad for your health. refer back to that other chart i put up in this thread Drunk_Samurai said: RyanEnsign said: Things that never happened in the United States. 1) That's what a Christian society gets you. 2) America has never been a Christian country. 1. No it's not. 2. But 1900's Britain was. Masked_Mantis said: icirate said: Because you don't give any examples that I like as to why "legitamising" homosexuality is a bad idea.It amazes me that I can call you out for responding to strawmen in almost every post and you'll not stop making them. When did I ever say anything about paying for expensive weddings? ftfy. I've given loads of reasons and pretending that I haven't doesn't mean shit when anyone can go back through the thread and check for themselves. Masked_Mantis said: icirate said: You need to explain why these are bad first, not just you finding it immoral. YES. These two things can be argued for with the exact same arguments used to promote sodomy. Of course they need to be discussed. Anyway as for polygamy what can you find wrong with it? What's wrong with incest marriage? hahaha! oh wow Masked_Mantis said: icirate said: You need to explain why these are bad first, not just you finding it immoral. YES. These two things can be argued for with the exact same arguments used to promote sodomy. Of course they need to be discussed. Due to religion people have been able to abuse "marriage". I'd say forget about the rare unpopular polygamy and focus on forced marriages. Polygamy decreases on it's own fast, but religion has introduced forced marriages. No it didn't. Stop saying religion as well. Stick to Christianity, I don't give two shits about what some barbaric cargo cult thinks. Masked_Mantis said: icirate said: I have as much a problem with it as I have with the amount that are heterosexuals you bigot. What does it matter? If it turned out that over half of homosexuals were also paedophiles, wouldn't you have a problem with that? The practice of homosexuality is safe I don't care about your evidence of the link between homosexuals and child molesters. What a response lmao You even deleted the link I gave. Apparently it bothers you. Masked_Mantis said: You totally ignored my comment about lower mortality rates. If Muhammad married a 9 year old it's safe to assume that whenever a child began her first menstruation she was deemed adult. Because I don't care about what Muslims think about this? You're right that people would have had to act like adults sooner in the past, when as many people as possible were needed to fight almost perpetual wars, but I don't see what that has to do with this discussion. Masked_Mantis said: Are you insane! So what is the problem with paedophillia than? After legalising paedophillia many children will be molested from the first week since sex with children is now legal. If the law said all children aged 7 are safe to have sex with anyone, drink and smoke you can bet that parents will still overide that law and "parent". Pick one. A bunch of children will be molested almost immediately which is horrific, but it won't noticeably change society until people had become used to the idea that it was seen as ok. It would take a generation or so for the abuse to really become rampant. Masked_Mantis said: Netherlands same sex marriage introduced 2001 V Beastiality outlawed in Netherlands 2010 after a two year debate (Also many other northern countries that have legalised gay marriage have also illegalised beastiality). See that contradicts everything you're saying. No it doesn't. I mainly brought up incestual marriage and polygamy, which, as if desperate to prove me right, you immediately started trying to make a case for. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
icirate said: Prove it.By that definition it is an illness then. Being gay is demonstrably bad for your health. . |
traed said: icirate said: Prove it.By that definition it is an illness then. Being gay is demonstrably bad for your health. . Here is a neat little graphic back from page 16. icirate said: |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
| Most of that stuff is caused by social disapproval caused by the religious, not by being gay itself. Oh and lesbians have the lowest rates of AIDS compared to straight people also which that little list failed to point out so I know that thing is bullshit bias. The AIDS rate in men is from anal sex not from being gay. It happens to straight people the same. |
traed said: Most of that stuff is caused by social disapproval caused by the religious, not by being gay itself. Ah yes, of course, I remember that time I gave someone AIDS and Syphilis by being disapproving of them. lol traed said: The AIDS rate in men is from anal sex not from being gay. It happens to straight people the same. That's not what the evidence suggests at all. Look at the fidelity rates of gay couples and the rampant promiscuity of them in general. Saying that 'it happens to straight people the same' is completely misinterpreting the truth. It's like me giving you a chart of the rates of cancer in smokers and non smokers and you saying that cancer is from inhaling too many poisonous gases such as exhaust fumes, it happens to non smokers the same. It's the sheer volume of carcinogenic material smokers inhale that's putting them at higher risk of cancer, just as it's the sheer volume of cock sodomites go through that's putting them at higher risk of AIDS. traed said: Oh and lesbians have the lowest rates of AIDS compared to straight people also. Smokers that exercise regularly are still at lower risk of heart disease than non-smoking fatties. What you're saying is both true and irrelevant. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
| Those studies do not compare homosexual anal sex with heterosexual anal sex. Obviously more homosexual men would perform anal sex than homosexual men by percentages. Also even if there was something about promiscuity that is caused by the social stigma making it so they can not have more open publicly dating type relationships as easily. Your metaphor is horridly inaccurate. I hope no one takes you seriously because they would be wasting their time with you. |
traed said: Those studies do not compare homosexual anal sex with heterosexual anal sex. Except that they do. They compare people by the gender of the person they sleep with and thus take into account all sorts of sexual activity. traed said: Obviously more homosexual men would perform anal sex than homoheterosexual men by percentages. Did you mean that^ instead? Well, yes. That's true. Your point? traed said: Also even if there was something about promiscuity that is caused by the social stigma making it so they can not have more open publicly dating type relationships as easily. You're seriously suggesting that a group of people averaging 50x the number of sexual partners of another is caused by social stigma. I'm suggesting that homosexuals are more promiscuous by nature - partly because there's no risk of causing a pregnancy. traed said: Your metaphor is horridly inaccurate. Your rebuttal is horridly devoid of substance. traed said: I hope no one takes you seriously because they would be wasting their time with you. Well that was hurtful. I'm not being as respectful as I could be, laughing at some of your more ridiculous statements, but to ad hoc not take me seriously and label me as a 'waste of time' when I'm making a case with evidence to back me up seems a bit cruel. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
icirate said: I've commented on them all and you either haven't rebutted them or your points weren't good in the first place. An example would be your image study. ftfy. I've given loads of reasons and pretending that I haven't doesn't mean shit when anyone can go back through the thread and check for themselves. How am I supposed to comment on Dr Gene Abel's lack of evidence of a connection between homosexuality and paedophillia? It's like you saying negative things have connections with watching porn. https://www.newgon.com/wiki/Gene_Abel icirate said: See I reply to all your points and you deliberately skip mine. Even if you don't know it, I'm sure your reason to be against incest really lies within certain scenarios, like people getting away with abuse and rape because these things are easier to commit on a family. hahaha! oh wow icirate said: Yes it did because...No it didn't. icirate said: Stop saying religion as well. Stick to Christianity, I don't give two shits about what some barbaric cargo cult (religion) thinks. ftfy. All religions are valid since you insist on believing in a deity. icirate said: Uh I don't care about the ends justify the means. Most countries that have homosexuality banned are shitholes, have their own problems and have promiscuous heterosexuals spreading diseases. What a response lmao You even deleted the link I gave. Apparently it bothers you. Take your own ideal Christian society, the 1900's Britain. A time that had dirty breeding heterosexuals spreading syphilis in one of the highest rates ever. It's the same thing in Africa heterosexuals are known to spread aids the most, in fact it's the most common std among women, but they banned homosexuality so all is good right? The severity of aids doesn't matter as much because it's among heterosexuals. We'll just spread awareness, education and contraceptives, but in countries where homosexuality is illegal we'll just stick our heads in the sand and remain in ignorant bigotry. icirate said: haha nice try attempting to turn it on Muslims but I wouldn't use wars as your excuse. What with the crusades happening at that time I can just as easily say Christians married 9 year olds. Because I don't care about what Muslims think about this? You're right that people would have had to act like adults sooner in the past, when as many people as possible were needed to fight almost perpetual wars icirate said: You're arguing that it may not be harmful at all. We can see the abuse when it's illegal so I don't see your point. A bunch of children will be molested almost immediately which is horrific, but it won't noticeably change society until people had become used to the idea that it was seen as ok. It would take a generation or so for the abuse to really become rampant. icirate said: Oh sorry. Throughout this thread a common argument was next they'll legalise sex with animals, good to know you agree I've shown that to be false, and I care quite a lot about animals so animal cruelty's a big deal to me. No it doesn't. I mainly brought up incestual marriage and polygamy, which, as if desperate to prove me right, you immediately started trying to make a case for. But polygamy and incest, what's the danger again? Something about deformities lol? Are you purposely ignoring me? I've already shown why in Muslim countries where polygamy is legal there is a surprisingly low amount of polygamous marriages. In a secular society where we don't adopt Muslim values it's quite obvious why we'd see the same results. You see polygamy all over game of thrones "legitamised" yet I don't see people rushing out to marry lots of different people. |
Dick_DawkinsJul 4, 2015 2:36 AM
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
icirate said: Don't ignore traed. You're more likely to get aids being straight than a lesbian, google image charts show it.Smokers that exercise regularly are still at lower risk of heart disease than non-smoking fatties. What you're saying is both true and irrelevant. |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
icirate said: Dis proving your own points showing you're against anal sex not homosexuality. You lose.Did you mean that^ instead? Well, yes. That's true. Your point? |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
icirate said: Prove it actually says anal sex specially. Also this has noting to do with marriage.Except that they do. They compare people by the gender of the person they sleep with and thus take into account all sorts of sexual activity. Did you mean that^ instead? Well, yes. That's true. Your point? If more homosexual men by percentage are doing anal sex than heterosexual men then that is the likely cause of the higher AIDS rates. Also you have to take into account condom use which would be lower in homosexual men because they do not have the fear of pregnancy which motivates many people. The same thing would apply to any heterosexual doing the same sexual act with someone of opposite sex. You're seriously suggesting that a group of people averaging 50x the number of sexual partners of another is caused by social stigma. I'm suggesting that homosexuals are more promiscuous by nature - Your rebuttal is horridly devoid of substance. Did not want to waste time explaining something so obvious.Well that was hurtful. I'm not being as respectful as I could be, laughing at some of your more ridiculous statements, but to ad hoc not take me seriously and label me as a 'waste of time' when I'm making a case with evidence to back me up seems a bit cruel. |
traedJul 4, 2015 2:59 AM
Masked_Mantis said: icirate said: I've commented on them all and you either haven't rebutted them or your points weren't good in the first place. An example would be your image study. ftfy. I've given loads of reasons and pretending that I haven't doesn't mean shit when anyone can go back through the thread and check for themselves. How am I supposed to comment on Dr Gene Abel's lack of evidence of a connection between homosexuality and paedophillia? It's like you saying negative things have connections with watching porn. https://www.newgon.com/wiki/Gene_Abel You presumably think of ad hominem as a logical fallacy, so you can start by explaining how you think the study is flawed, rather than the person that came up with the data. If we assume that only 1% of the population are child molesters, the percentages come out to 33% vs. 1%. Note the extreme difference still present. Masked_Mantis said: icirate said: See I reply to all your points and you deliberately skip mine. Even if you don't know it, I'm sure your reason to be against incest really lies within certain scenarios, like people getting away with abuse and rape because these things are easier to commit on a family.hahaha! oh wow Sure. Imagine the cognitive dissonance needed to explain to children why it was ok for adults but wrong for children. It's treading dangerous ground. Masked_Mantis said: All religions are valid since you insist on believing in a deity. That's a total non sequitur, and literally no Christian thinks that all religions are valid, so on top of being illogical it's also blatantly untrue. Masked_Mantis said: icirate said: Uh I don't care about the ends justify the means. Most countries that have homosexuality banned are shitholesWhat a response lmao You even deleted the link I gave. Apparently it bothers you. -and most people wearing band-aids have injuries! Let's give people that choose not to wear them freedom from the oppressive social stigma of telling them that their injury is at greater risk of infection! Oh wait, let's not. That would be retarded. And either tell me why that link is wrong if it really is or acknowledge that it's right. Masked_Mantis said: Take your own ideal Christian society, the 1900's Britain. Ideal? Strawman. I don't think it was an ideal society. Masked_Mantis said: It's the same thing in Africa niggers are known to spread aids the most, but they banned homosexuality so all is good right? The severity of aids doesn't matter as much because it's among niggers. We'll just spread awareness, education and contraceptives, but in countries where being a nigger is legal we'll just stick our heads in the sand and remain in ignorant bigotry. Same argument, different word thrown in, still aligns with the facts. Either you think neither argument is sound, or you're a racist. Masked_Mantis said: I can just as easily say Christians married 9 year olds. You can say a lot of things, but that won't make them true. Masked_Mantis said: icirate said: You're arguing that it may not be harmful at all. We can see the abuse when it's illegal so I don't see your point.A bunch of children will be molested almost immediately which is horrific, but it won't noticeably change society until people had become used to the idea that it was seen as ok. It would take a generation or so for the abuse to really become rampant. You're trying to tell me what I'm arguing, contradicting the apparent message and referencing something that isn't apparent from the quote. What is 'it' that you think I'm trying to argue won't be harmful at all? How is that reflected in that quote of mine? I can't tell. Masked_Mantis said: icirate said: Oh sorry. Throughout this thread a common argument was next they'll legalise sex with animals, good to know you agree I've shown that to be false, and I care quite a lot about animals so animal cruelty's a big deal to me.No it doesn't. I mainly brought up incestual marriage and polygamy, which, as if desperate to prove me right, you immediately started trying to make a case for. Yeah, I have no beef with you about that. ~eheh You're right that there's no real point in arguing for a connection between those things (gay marriage and bestiality). Masked_Mantis said: icirate said: You see polygamy all over game of thrones "legitamised" yet I don-But polygamy and incest, what's the danger again?No it doesn't. I mainly brought up incestual marriage and polygamy, which, as if desperate to prove me right, you immediately started trying to make a case for. The blurring of right and wrong through the normalisation of things classically considered to be wrong in film seems to be working its magic on you. I could tell you that it's wrong because the Bible says it's wrong, but that wouldn't cut it for you. You're like Eve of the garden of Eden, being tempted to do wrong because you don't know what the danger is. I can't show you the extent or scope of the danger because the slow collapse of a nation's moral values is something that could take entire generations to witness the effects of. What I'm really curious about now is what it is that will happen to the gay rights movement, now that they've fractured between those who are desperate to show that allowing two men to marry won't pervert the definition of marriage and those who've immediately started advocating for the legalisation of polygamy and/or incestual marriage. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
traed said: If more homosexual men by percentage are doing anal sex than heterosexual men then that is the likely cause of the higher AIDS rates. Also you have to take into account condom use which would be lower in homosexual men because they do not have the fear of pregnancy which motivates many people. The same thing would apply to any heterosexual doing the same sexual act with someone of opposite sex. Oh, well sure. I totally agree that the prevalence of anal sex is a factor of higher AIDS rates. Lack of condom use and rampant promiscuity/infidelity would be other big factors. traed said: You're seriously suggesting that a group of people averaging 50x the number of sexual partners of another is caused by social stigma. I'm suggesting that homosexuals are more promiscuous by nature - Just so we're clear, you're arguing that a quarter of homosexual men having over 1000 partners is because you have some sort of cunning intuition that the people performing these studies were, in what could only be some sort of conspiracy, cherry picking rich straight people and poor gay people, and that was the real causal factor? traed said: Also even if it were true (which I am merely humouring) it is still not caused by homosexuality as correlation is NOT causation. Therefore more likely is social dynamics not the homosexuality itself so this is not an argument against homosexuality, its an argument against promiscuity being encouraged. A lot of people misuse 'correlation is not causation'. If there's a correlation, we can certainly use that as grounds to look for a causal factor. The correlation itself certainly doesn't imply causation, but that isn't an argument for asserting that there isn't a causal factor between those two correlating things. For example, the correlation between heavy smoking and lung cancer exists, but that isn't grounds to say that smoking causes lung cancer. We know that smoking causes lung cancer from researching into carcinogens and how exposure to them can start up a cancerous growth. In this instance, we can see an extremely strong correlation between homosexuality and promiscuity, one that simply can't be explained away by social stigma or poverty, or a study being inaccurate. Is there a causation? Well, you've already talked about lack of fear of pregnancy. I'd say that could very well be a causal factor that helps to explain this strong correlation between homosexuality and promiscuity. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
icirate said: Obviously it doesn't work that way, you think I haven't seen studies all across the internet about black crime statistics? This guy doesn't have a connection between homosexuality and paedophillia. That's what I've been saying when I say that picture isn't evidence. You presumably think of ad hominem as a logical fallacy, so you can start by explaining how you think the study is flawed, rather than the person that came up with the data. icirate said: Not really, we do it with everything else. Sure. Imagine the cognitive dissonance needed to explain to children why it was ok for adults but wrong for children. It's treading dangerous ground. Children don't have life experience, so generally a lot of things are off limit for them until a certain age. That's why we need things like sex education in schools. icirate said: You really need to re think a religions importance a, Christian would say that won't they. Every human is a part of this world.That's a total non sequitur, and literally no Christian thinks that all religions are valid But too bad! All other religions are valid. If you don't like it go and pray that god show himself and remind everyone of Christianity. icirate said: I'm not wearing a bandage right now on a cut. I'll choose to if I want. If I want to have sex, for my own safety I'll use protection and have it with someone I know that has a safe sexual history. Duh. And whether that person is male or female I have the same 100% chance of not catching an std because I'm responsible lol. -and most people wearing band-aids have injuries! Let's give people that choose not to wear them freedom from the oppressive social stigma of telling them that their injury is at greater risk of infection! Oh wait, let's not. That would be retarded. And either tell me why that link is wrong if it really is or acknowledge that it's right. icirate said: Fine the best we have done, you posted it as that then. Secularism has produced a better society than the word of god. Ideal? Strawman. I don't think it was an ideal society. icirate said: Poeticjustice was right you are stupid. It aligns with statistics not facts, traed has already told you that lol. Same argument, different word thrown in, still aligns with the facts. Either you think neither argument is sound, or you're a racist. What makes a nigger more likely to spread aids, or commit a crime? Is it biological? icirate said: You can say a lot of things, but that won't make them true. Pot meet kettle. icirate said: Killing people isn't noticed by society straight away but it's very obvious to everyone that it is rampant today. Just like molestation is very clearly known as rampant and a problem. True story.You're trying to tell me what I'm arguing, contradicting the apparent message and referencing something that isn't apparent from the quote. What is 'it' that you think I'm trying to argue won't be harmful at all? How is that reflected in that quote of mine? I can't tell. icirate said: Oh look bible reasons lol. You said you wouldn't!!I could tell you that it's wrong because the Bible says it's wrong, but that wouldn't cut it for you. You're like Eve of the garden of Eden, being tempted to do wrong because you don't know what the danger is. I can't show you the extent or scope of the danger because the slow collapse of a nation's moral values is something that could take entire generations to witness the effects of. What I'm really curious about now is what it is that will happen to the gay rights movement, now that they've fractured between those who are desperate to show that allowing two men to marry won't pervert the definition of marriage and those who've immediately started advocating for the legalisation of polygamy and/or incestual marriage. And I've already told you what will happen when people advocate those things. And told you what does happen in countries that have already advocated them. |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
Masked_Mantis said: icirate said: Obviously it doesn't work that way, you think I haven't seen studies all across the internet about black crime statistics? This guy doesn't have a connection between homosexuality and paedophillia.You presumably think of ad hominem as a logical fallacy, so you can start by explaining how you think the study is flawed, rather than the person that came up with the data. One third of child abuse victims are boys. Only a very small percentage of the population is gay. All that chart does is the math. What's hard to understand? Obviously that's evidence of a correlation between homosexuals and paedophiles. The only response by those that weren't in agreement with this I can find is that all those people fucking little boys are totally not gay. #rapingboys #nohomo Masked_Mantis said: Children don't have life experience, so generally a lot of things are off limit for them until a certain age. That's why we need things like sex education in schools. Remember kids, you shouldn't be having sex until you're an adult. Here's how to have sex. Just, you know, don't practice that thing you've just been taught how to do. Riight. Things like teaching girls not to freak out when they suddenly start bleeding from their vaginas and what pads/tampons are is something I'm a-ok with though. Masked_Mantis said: icirate said: You really need to re think a religions importance a, Christian would say that won't they. Every human is a part of this world.That's a total non sequitur, and literally no Christian thinks that all religions are valid icirate said: That's a total non sequitur, and literally no Christian thinks that all religions are valid Masked_Mantis said: If you don't like it go and pray that god show himself and remind everyone of Christianity. He won't. The Bible shows how people's hearts will be hardened to God's word and that 'the tribulation' will occur; eventually there will be not one believer left upon the face of the Earth. Masked_Mantis said: I'm not wearing a bandage right now on a cut. I'll choose to if I want. If I want to have sex, for my own safety I'll use protection and have it with someone I know that has a safe sexual history. Duh. And whether that person is male or female I have the same 100% chance of not catching an std because I'm responsible lol. A safe sexual history. 100% chance. Right. Good luck with that. Masked_Mantis said: Fine the best we have done, you posted it as that then. Secularism has produced a better society than the word of god. Agricultural and technological revolutions have been making society better. Cultural value shifts can make society better for a limited time, but that doesn't necessarily improve a society's long term prospects. For example, if you made all drug use legal and gave every citizen a basic income and entirely free healthcare, wouldn't that make society so much better? Of course it would, until you ran out of money. I'm suggesting that the changes we're talking about are analogous to this. You can keep redefining marriage until anyone and everyone can get married, but then it loses its power as an institution. It'll become a formality, any group of friends renting a place will all 'get married' solely for tax purposes. Traditional families will cease to exist. Masked_Mantis said: It aligns with statistics not facts. Statistically significant correlations are obviously still important enough to take note of. Masked_Mantis said: What makes a nigger more likely to spread aids, or commit a crime? Is it biological? I'm not the one making claims about the cause of that statistic. I'm acknowledging that it's true. What's so hard for you about acknowledging that almost all homosexuals are rampantly promiscuous and much more likely to be child abusers? It might be an uncomfortable truth, but I don't see why you'd try to deny it, rather than make an argument based on the facts. Masked_Mantis said: icirate said: You can say a lot of things, but that won't make them true. Pot meet kettle. I'm doing my best to back up my claims, but every piece of evidence I put in front of you you dismiss out of hand almost reflexively. You want evidence about populations of people but refuse any statistical data - take a moment to appreciate how absurd that is. Masked_Mantis said: Killing people isn't noticed by society straight away but it's very obvious to everyone that it is rampant today. Just like molestation is very clearly known as rampant and a problem. True story. Those two things have never been less of a problem in today's society (at least where I live, except in the outback). I usually have time for the abstruse, but I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. Masked_Mantis said: icirate said: Oh look bible reasons lol. You said you wouldn't!!I could tell you that it's wrong because the Bible says it's wrong, but that wouldn't cut it for you. You're like Eve of the garden of Eden, being tempted to do wrong because you don't know what the danger is. I can't show you the extent or scope of the danger because the slow collapse of a nation's moral values is something that could take entire generations to witness the effects of. What I'm really curious about now is what it is that will happen to the gay rights movement, now that they've fractured between those who are desperate to show that allowing two men to marry won't pervert the definition of marriage and those who've immediately started advocating for the legalisation of polygamy and/or incestual marriage. I used a metaphor from the Bible but gave a non-biblical reason. Instead of reading it your brain apparently switched off at the sight of the word Eden. Masked_Mantis said: And I've already told you what will happen when people advocate those things. And told you what does happen in countries that have already advocated them. icirate said: I could tell you that it's wrong because the Bible says it's wrong, but that wouldn't cut it for you. You're like Eve of the garden of Eden, being tempted to do wrong because you don't know what the danger is. I can't show you the extent or scope of the danger because the slow collapse of a nation's moral values is something that could take entire generations to witness the effects of. What I'm really curious about now is what it is that will happen to the gay rights movement, now that they've fractured between those who are desperate to show that allowing two men to marry won't pervert the definition of marriage and those who've immediately started advocating for the legalisation of polygamy and/or incestual marriage. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
icirate said: Oh yeah cause no one throughout history ever does the math and presents propaganda for bigots to follow. It's the same as your homosexual anal sex debate with traed. You get the wrong end of the stick with statistics since there is no logic or evidence derived from the studies. Aside from it likely being faulty data (I don't know how because it's very uninformative) it could also be bs propaganda.One third of child abuse victims are boys. Only a very small percentage of the population is gay. All that chart does is the math. What's hard to understand? icirate said: Only a Christian would link sex education to encouragement. Every single time lmao. Remember kids, you shouldn't be having sex until you're an adult. Here's how to have sex. Just, you know, don't practice that thing you've just been taught how to do. Riight. Things like teaching girls not to freak out when they suddenly start bleeding from their vaginas and what pads/tampons are is something I'm a-ok with though. Also I'm surprised you're ok with teaching girls that. Shouldn't parents be doing that? Throughout history people have attributed menstruation to sexual maturity. That's even more encouraging to students to have sex obviously. icirate said: Again not important what a Christian would believe since they've been told what to believe. He won't. The Bible shows how people's hearts will be hardened to God's word and that 'the tribulation' will occur; eventually there will be not one believer left upon the face of the Earth. icirate said: Implying when marrying someone won't lie about their sexual history? A safe sexual history. 100% chance. Right. Good luck with that. If you're just being silly then yes you can be 100% when getting tested. If you're being even more silly then yes it's a fact that you can't catch an std off of someone who does not have one. Especially aids, aids is a virus, it needs to be transmitted. icirate said: That's speculation, and not the best speculation. How do you know we will keep redefining marriage rather than stopping? People have argued that because animals can't consent isn't a reason to stop people marrying animals, yet I showed countries banning sex with animals that also don't have animal marriage. It's just butthurt Christians doing the guessing game. You can keep redefining marriage until anyone and everyone can get married, but then it loses its power as an institution. It'll become a formality, any group of friends renting a place will all 'get married' solely for tax purposes. Traditional families will cease to exist. Muslims can only marry multiple women if they can provide financially for them. Since western countries aren't Islamic I'm sure they wouldn't adopt marriage benefits for each time you marry. It just doesn't turn out the way you think it does. Christians always get annoyed over the controversial stuff like games allowing same sex relationships. You don't see them using their "logic" in these situations do you? Surely in games where they have same sex relationships everyone's going to demand incest ones too, and animal ones, and polygamous ones. No lol. icirate said: This is why your stats are useless. You couldn't make claims even though you want to. If you met a homosexual couple who were both virgins and healthy, and weren't child abusers you'd still make a retarded claim to oppose their rights. I'm not the one making claims about the cause of that statistic. I'm acknowledging that it's true. What's so hard for you about acknowledging that almost all homosexuals are rampantly promiscuous and much more likely to be child abusers? Also because there's no evidence within those statistics you also have no evidence that *encouraging homosexuality will encourage child abuse. For all you know encouraging homosexuality could encourage monogamy. Also I hate to break it to you but even sexually promiscuous people can have safe sex, and they've been doing it for years. It's easier than you think. *Encouraging homosexuality is a bad argument also because it doesn't even exist. No amount of seeing homosexuality as a good thing has encouraged me to have sex with someone I'm not attracted to. Because that isn't my choice. icirate said: Only a Christian would find that absurd because you believe a deity has told you everything is a perversion and choice. I mean surely every statistic has to be evidence if a deity has said that right?Statistics aren't yet evidence. but every piece of evidence I put in front of you you dismiss out of hand almost reflexively. You want evidence about populations of people but refuse any statistical data Traed thwarted your claim about homosexuality earlier and you completely assumed that the statistic included people who engage in all sexual activity. Now that's absurd. icirate said: Yeah molestation happens quite a lot. It's already rampant. You're argument is that we can't see the effects of sex with children. Those two things have never been less of a problem in today's society Also in Australia you have Geoffrey Leonard, hasn't he been writing books for a while on sex with children? You don't yet know what will happen if it was legal to have sex with minors? icirate said: And you can't ignore this...: Masked_Mantis said:I used a metaphor from the Bible but gave a non-biblical reason. Instead of reading it your brain apparently switched off at the sight of the word Eden. And I've already told you what will happen when people advocate those things. And told you what does happen in countries that have already advocated them. ...with your bible metaphor because this is reality. We've progressed, and fallen in fluctuation. It's not been a constant downhill decay like your bible tells you. You love statistics and charts come on ffs ;) Essentially what Eve said is wrong because Netherlands. Progression from legalising gay marriage not the other way round. |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
traed said: The whole Decision has been done arbitrary just to minimize the Discrimination. Of Course, most People won't like it if you tell them they're not normal, yet the Norm is still that Men are attracted to Women and vice verse.No its not even remotely considered a disorder and has not been since the 70s by a board of psychologists when it was changed and over the years the DSM has been redone many times and they never felt a need to add homosexuality back on there. You can either choose to believe the Authorities if it makes your Live easier or you choose to think critically and just accept People with their Flaws instead of trying to convince yourself that they are perfectly normal, because everyone else is telling you that. Keep in mind some people will want to become gay or more likely bisexual. I wouldn't mind, as long as Marriage and Child Making would stay between Men and Women. I don't want to live in a misandristic Society in which Men are made obsolete just because Lesbians decided to have Children with both of their DNA for which Gay Marriages could act as a first Step. In my Opinion, Research shouldn't be done to fulfill absurd Wishes (getting own biological Children in a homosexual Relationship), but rather about curing the Circumstances preventing you from having Children the natural Way. In fact I think heterosexuals are currently closer to being an illness if you are going by as loose of meanings as you are using, for the harm to the earth and humanity as they kill it with overpopulation. That's not how Illnesses and/or Disorders work, because they either harm the Well-being or the intended biological Purpose of Reproduction which every Species on Earth including Humanity has. Besides, Nature will just regulate itself and it has been already proven with the Extinction of the Dinos. In a few Billions of Years, there won't be any Living Conditions for us on Earth, anyway. So when our Days on Earth are already doomed, we can just do as we want and rule over the World just like the Dinos did before us. |
NoboruJul 4, 2015 7:30 AM
| I think noboru might actually be retarded. |
|
TheBasedNico said: Happy Muh Freedoms to you as well~Happy Muh Freedoms everyone. Red_Keys said: You're free to believe whatever you want.I think noboru might actually be retarded. |
Masked_Mantis said: icirate said: Oh yeah cause no one throughout history ever does the math and presents propaganda for bigots to follow. It's the same as your homosexual anal sex debate with traed. You get the wrong end of the stick with statistics since there is no logic or evidence derived from the studies. Aside from it likely being faulty data (I don't know how because it's very uninformative) it could also be bs propaganda.One third of child abuse victims are boys. Only a very small percentage of the population is gay. All that chart does is the math. What's hard to understand? I give you data and all you can say is 'the data must be faulty!'. Go and reconstruct the maths yourself if you doubt it. Find another study on child sex abuse and find the percentage of victims that are boys, find the percentage of the population that are gay. Do the math. Of course you won't because it's easier to just pretend that it's a conspiracy against your precious gay community. I appreciate that you took the time to word 'for bigots to follow' in such a way that you're not simply calling me a bigot, by the way. Certain other users wouldn't. Masked_Mantis said: Only a Christian would link sex education to encouragement. Every single time lmao. Also I'm surprised you're ok with teaching girls that. Shouldn't parents be doing that? So are you for or against it? I'd expect the mother to teach her that, but you want a society in which she potentially has been adopted by two fathers, so that's obviously a no-go. Masked_Mantis said: icirate said: Again not important what a Christian would believe since they've been told what to believe.He won't. The Bible shows how people's hearts will be hardened to God's word and that 'the tribulation' will occur; eventually there will be not one believer left upon the face of the Earth. ayyy lmao This is essentially what just happened: Masked_Mantis said: icirate said: It's not important what a Christian would believe!No, this is what the Bible says about this issue, so this is what Christians believe. Masked_Mantis said: Again not important *snip* since they've been told what to believe. I wonder what you consider education to be then. I mean we've already established that you don't care about evidence as long as it goes against what you already thought about something, so you're clearly not interested in teaching yourself what to believe based on facts. Masked_Mantis said: icirate said: That's speculation, and not the best speculation. How do you know we will keep redefining marriage rather than stopping? People have argued that oh wait i'm not going to bring bestiality up again since we both agreed that it wasn't relevant to the discussion because animals can't consent isn't a reason to stop people marrying animals, yet I showed countries banning sex with animals that also don't have animal marriage. It's just butthurt Christians doing the guessing game.You can keep redefining marriage until anyone and everyone can get married, but then it loses its power as an institution. It'll become a formality, any group of friends renting a place will all 'get married' solely for tax purposes. Traditional families will cease to exist. mm said: ic said: YOU'RE JUST BUTTHURT AND DOING THE GUESSING GAME.Well it's going to affect the future of our societ- How can I argue against something that will affect the future badly without speculating about the future? Masked_Mantis said: Muslims can only marry multiple women if they can provide financially for them. Since western countries aren't Islamic I'm sure they wouldn't adopt marriage benefits for each time you marry. It just doesn't turn out the way you think it does. Christians always get annoyed over the controversial stuff like games allowing same sex relationships. You don't see them using their "logic" in these situations do you? Surely in games where they have same sex relationships everyone's going to demand incest ones too, and animal ones, and polygamous ones. No lol. Nice straw, man. I don't know what these Christians living in your head care about, but it would be nice if you spent time arguing with what I'm telling you and not them. I don't care about gay characters in video games. I don't care about video games at all. Put whatever filth you want in them. Masked_Mantis said: icirate said: This is why your stats are useless. You couldn't make claims even though you want to. If you met a homosexual couple who were both virgins and healthy, and weren't child abusers you'd still make a retarded claim to oppose their rights.I'm not the one making claims about the cause of that statistic. I'm acknowledging that it's true. What's so hard for you about acknowledging that almost all homosexuals are rampantly promiscuous and much more likely to be child abusers? Laws aren't made for unicorns. Not all drivers that speed or drive drunk crash cars. Not all promiscuous people get stds and not all drug users or gun owners commit crime. We don't make laws for them. We make laws for the majority of people, and the majority of people aren't as well behaved or as clever as you wish they were. So yes, I'd deny that handful of monogamous and God-fearing gay couples their right to marriage, if it meant stopping the thousands of others from turning around and using it as a precedent for advocating things such as incestual marriage and polygamy. Masked_Mantis said: Also because there's no evidence within those statistics Statistics are a form of evidence. You understand that, right? If you find one day that your future spouse has been very late back from work for no obvious reasons a statistically significant number of times you don't think that'll be evidence that you should be suspicious of something? If a statistically significant number of people that consume a certain brand of food get food poisoning, you don't think that's evidence that there might be something wrong with that brand of food? Masked_Mantis said: Also because there's no evidence within those statistics you also have no evidence that *encouraging homosexuality will encourage child abuse. For all you know encouraging homosexuality could encourage monogamy. What'll happen is that the speed and frequency at which people will divorce will increase. Masked_Mantis said: For all you know encouraging homosexuality could encourage monogamy. [my sexuality] isn't my choice. Homosexuals have many more partners than straight people. If that's their sexuality, it isn't their choice. Masked_Mantis said: I hate to break it to you but even sexually promiscuous people can have safe sex, and they've been doing it for years. #notalldrunkdriverscrashcars Masked_Mantis said: icirate said: deflectiondeflectiondeflectiondeflectiondeflectiondeflectiondeflectiondeflection. I mean surely every statistic has to be evidence if a deity has said that right?Statistics aren't yet evidence.but every piece of evidence I put in front of you you dismiss out of hand almost reflexively. You want evidence about populations of people but refuse any statistical data I've shown clearly by this point that they totally are evidence. Otherwise, what form of evidence is there? Testimonials from members of societies that have had gay marriage for generations? Let me just go and wait a century for you. Masked_Mantis said: Traed thwarted your claim about homosexuality earlier and you completely assumed that the statistic included people who engage in all sexual activity. Now that's absurd. I didn't assert that all the straight couples were doing anal. I asserted that the people were a good representation of their respective sexualities. I said 'included'. I didn't say 'only consisted of'. Masked_Mantis said: 'less' and 'a lot' aren't mutually exclusive. My argument was not that at all. Go and quote my argument rather than pretending it's something completely different.icirate said: Yeah molestation happens quite a lot. It's already rampant. You're argument is that we can't see the effects of sex with children.Those two things have never been less of a problem in today's society Masked_Mantis said: Also in Australia you have Geoffrey Leonard, hasn't he been writing books for a while on sex with children? You don't yet know what will happen if it was legal to have sex with minors? Never heard of him. There's a problem with child abuse in Aboriginal communities, but it's certainly illegal over here. Masked_Mantis said: icirate said: And you can't ignore this...: Masked_Mantis said:I used a metaphor from the Bible but gave a non-biblical reason. Instead of reading it your brain apparently switched off at the sight of the word Eden. And I've already told you what will happen when people advocate those things. And told you what does happen in countries that have already advocated them. ...with your bible metaphor. I've already told you that the effect of this will not be immediately apparent. How many times do I need to repeat myself before you'll stop twisting my words? It happened once again in that quote. I said Eden, and you just ignored everything that followed and attacked me for using a biblical metaphor, even though it had nothing to do with my argument Masked_Mantis said: We've progressed, and fallen in fluctuation. It's not been a constant downhill decay like your bible tells you. The Bible doesn't say that though. We've gone through a period of unprecedented prosperity that has encouraged everyone to relax their individual moral standards while simultaneously demanding more and more of their governments, but now we're at a point where the money is running out, so to speak. Masked_Mantis said: wut.Essentially what Eve said is wrong Masked_Mantis said: because Netherlands. Progression from legalising gay marriage not the other way round. I've already told you that it's not going to be apparent for a generation or two and explained why. Your example isn't useful. Also you're confusing change with progress. Progress is not a convenient label for changes you like. Progress at a societal level isn't apparent until you have the opportunity to look back on it. |
CaelidesuJul 4, 2015 7:53 AM
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
| wow it went for 20 pages? TheBasedNico said: Happy Muh Freedoms everyone. |
| Twitter and it's consequences had been a disaster for the human race |
icirate said: Drunk_Samurai said: 1) That's what a Christian society gets you. 2) America has never been a Christian country. 1. No it's not. 2. But 1900's Britain was. 1) Figures the Christian would be ignorant about their own religious follower's actions. 2) Doesn't mean anything. Also I love how you ignored Masked_Mantis's post about you calling this the ideal Christian society. |
Noboru said: Its not arbitrary. Psychology has specific guidelines of what is and what is not a mental illness. Homosexuality can be a disorder in the cases where it specifically caused a problem and dysfunctioning degredation in someone life but the same can be applied to heterosexuality if under the same conditions. Although the negative effects of heterosexuality would be less common because of the commonplace of heterosexuality. The whole Decision has been done arbitrary just to minimize the Discrimination. Of Course, most People won't like it if you tell them they're not normal, yet the Norm is still that Men are attracted to Women and vice verse. You can either choose to believe the Authorities if it makes your Live easier or you choose to think critically and just accept People with their Flaws instead of trying to convince yourself that they are perfectly normal, because everyone else is telling you that. I wouldn't mind, as long as Marriage and Child Making would stay between Men and Women. I don't want to live in a misandristic Society in which Men are made obsolete just because Lesbians decided to have Children with both of their DNA for which Gay Marriages could act as a first Step. That is absurd. It will never become a mysandronistic society just because of such a procedure. In fact the countries with the highest birth rates are highly mysogonystic and polygamous. So that is what you want? Mysogony and polygamy? Even though it reduces the gene pool by having men hoard women.In my Opinion, Research shouldn't be done to fulfill absurd Wishes (getting own biological Children in a homosexual Relationship), but rather about curing the Circumstances preventing you from having Children the natural Way. That's not how Illnesses and/or Disorders work, because they either harm the Well-being or the intended biological Purpose of Reproduction which every Species on Earth including Humanity has. Besides, Nature will just regulate itself and it has been already proven with the Extinction of the Dinos. In a few Billions of Years, there won't be any Living Conditions for us on Earth, anyway. So when our Days on Earth are already doomed, we can just do as we want and rule over the World just like the Dinos did before us. Then free will is an illness by your standards. |
| Urgh wanted to say something but this discussion looks too toxic and too reliant on quantity of arguments instead of quality of arguments... and that for both "sides". I am out. |
 |
| If you watch anime you're automatically gay anyway, even once |
RyanEnsign said: I support same sex marriage, everyone has the right to be miserable together. Marriage is a system that limits people's freedom in their relationships and families. My issue here is the fact that 9 unelected partisan judges who have been installed FOR LIFE get to decide what is constitutional. SCOTUS should not exist. It should be replaced by an elected (by we, the people) legal body of 50 or 100 people, one or two for each state, with term limits. No thank you. That will just make the courtroom a dog and pony show, saying and doing anything to get voted. As a judge, if your career rides on making the popular decision, you won't be true to the law. |
 |
LadyRenly said: RyanEnsign said: I support same sex marriage, everyone has the right to be miserable together. Marriage is a system that limits people's freedom in their relationships and families. My issue here is the fact that 9 unelected partisan judges who have been installed FOR LIFE get to decide what is constitutional. SCOTUS should not exist. It should be replaced by an elected (by we, the people) legal body of 50 or 100 people, one or two for each state, with term limits. No thank you. That will just make the courtroom a dog and pony show, saying and doing anything to get voted. As a judge, if your career rides on making the popular decision, you won't be true to the law. I commend you for understanding the nature of the Supreme Court. Depoliticization is the key to more accurate, reasonable rulings in the name of constitutional law, and the general betterment of the United States. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |