Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dranzer
First of all, homosexual marriages in the context of which you're speaking are not related to any of what the **** you just said.
How are they not related? It's people who love each other, who are you to tell them that they can't get married?
Quote:
Polygamy, in itself, from a scientific standpoint can be perfectly healthy. However, I don't support the idea of polygamous marriages.
Why not?
Quote:
Oh, and lowering the age of consent also has nothing to do with homosexual marriages, homosexuality as what we know it today (one person of the same gender marrying another) is not related to pedophilia (some priests are though).
First off, if you're trying to say that homosexuality has nothing to do with anything else, you're pushing it into its own corner to protect it. It is related, for the reasons I've already mentioned.
If people "love" each other, who are you to say that they shouldn't be married?
Secondly, children are exponentially more likely to be molested by a public school teacher than they are by a clergyman. I suppose that wouldn't fit into any stereotypical hatred of religion, though, so it's too inconvenient for you to bring up.
Quote:
Webster's Dictionary now includes LOL, and abbreviations/terms of that nature. Gay used to mean happy fifty or so ****ing years ago, that definition's changed too.
"LOL" is commonly used now -- just like "google" -- so it only made sense to include it in the dictionary. "Gay" has been adopted by homosexuals because they decided that they didn't like "queer" anymore -- just like how people have changed the definition of "homophobe" from "somebody who has a fear of homosexuals" to "somebody who doesn't support special rights for homosexuals".
Quote:
I see, so all that shit can change, but marriage can't be redefined to not be "gender specific"? Forgive me, but to try and preserve any religious aspect is ridiculous. Religion has been the root of some of the most meaningless wars and other fiascos in this world.
Religion has been used as motivation for some bad things, and also for many good things. The most destructive regimes of the last century were Atheistic. Look at the best and worst people in history. Some of the best: Mother Teresa, Ghandi, Dalai Lama ... all religious. Some of the worst? Hitler, Stalin, Mao ... none religious. To say that religion in general has been the "root" of evil makes about as much sense as saying that national pride is the "root" of wars. It has been used as such, but is in no way their purpose.
Quote:
Let's totally use it as a reason to deny rights to something you may or may not understand, but nevertheless involves love.
So what's your reasoning behind denying other people the same "right"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kyrel
It isn't a choice. You do not choose your sexual preference. You can choose however, to be repressed and ignore it. But that isn't healthy is it.
There is absolutely no evidence of any physical or genetic differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Since a homosexual lifestyle prevents reproduction, it cannot be genetic, unless it is a genetic deformity like Down's Syndrome. Since it is not taught, it cannot be learned or developed. There is only one way for somebody to be attracted to those of the same sex -- choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Merlin
Homosexuality and bisexuality is quite common in nature.
So is murder and cannibalism. I like to think that we're a bit better than simple animals.
Quote:
Dwarf chimpanzees are one of the closest genetic relatives to humans and they are all bisexual. The younger ones even have oral sex with the older chimpanzees. Lions are homosexual. The male lions will have sex with each other to create a better bond in the pack.
Male lions prettymuch rape other male lions to assert their dominance.
A friend of mine used to have a dog that humped everything. Couches, legs, other dogs, stuffed animals ... cats ... the stump in his backyard ... everything. With the argument of, "well, animals do it, so it must be alright for humans to do it", morality and ethics go out the window, right along with decency. So if you happen to be walking by a park one night and see a guy givin' it to a bench, just know that it's completely natural and you shouldn't judge him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Joxsjua
Never underestimate the power of denial, as we can see with Sasquatch over and over and over....
Awwwww, somebody doesn't like me ... They even ignored me after I helped themselves prove to be a complete and utter moron on a different subject (and before realizing how "ignore" works) ... What am I going to do with my life, now that an anonymous child on an internet gaming forum doesn't like or agree with me? Are you referring to the thread about Obama, when you claimed ... let me find it ... "... George Bush Sr. was re-elected a second term. Like I said before, there has never been a president in history that ran for a second term and lost. The closest was Bush Jr. when it came to them having to re-count the Florida ballots."?
Quote:
Watch the video coverage at least, do a bit of research for yourself and post some findings(the "entire thing" involves more than just their word. Why do you troll with extreme bias so frequently?.)
I did watch the video, genius. How many people did they interview that had any "knowledge" of the situation? The couple, and that's it. The others that commented on it heard it only from the couple. They didn't interview anybody who actually knew about it through firsthand knowledge, only people who had heard about it from the couple.
That would be like making up a story about me hitting you in a bar, and then telling all of your friends about it. Then reporting it to the media. But the media doesn't interview me, the bartenders, or anybody who was at the bar at the time the attack supposedly happened, they just ask your friends about it, even they don't know anything except what you told them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Martin
Sassy whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? You presume this couple is lying but it's your word against theirs when it boils down to it.
You tell me -- what happened to innocent until proven guilty? This couple comes out with a story -- a story that goes against conventional knowledge, that surprises everybody with any experience in that church. A story which cannot be backed up by any evidence whatsoever, including (but not limited to) documentation of any sort or the testimony of any of the church's clergy.
It's their word against common sense. They made the accusation, and the pastor (and the church) are innocent until proven guilty.
