PDA

View Full Version : The gay agenda is out in full force...



Pages : [1] 2

Igmann
10-09-2013, 08:10 PM
And they want your children.


Josh Hutcherson certainly knows how to give a provocative interview.

As the young actor, who turns 21 on Saturday, gears up for all the hoopla surrounding the release of "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" (out November 22) the second of four movies based on Suzanne Collins's best-selling book series he's not holding back at all about who he is and his attitudes towards sexuality.

"I would probably list myself as mostly straight," he tells Out magazine in its November cover story. "Maybe I could say right now I'm 100 percent straight. But who knows? In a f---ing year, I could meet a guy and be like, 'Whoa, I'm attracted to this person I've met guys all the time that I'm like, 'Damn, that's a good-looking guy,' you know? I've never been, like, 'Oh, I want to kiss that guy.' I really love women. But I think defining yourself as 100% anything is kind of near-sighted and close-minded."


Popular culture wants the young boys of our society to look up to this phaggot and replicate his lifestyle. Apparently it's "close minded" to consider yourself 100% heterosexual. And there are people who are 100% hetero, don't give me that crap about "no one is 100% straight." You're either sexually attracted to members of your own sex OR you aren't.

The progressive movement wants to destroy western society and it will use the gay "rights" and feminist movement as part of that effort. By destroying the nuclear family and brainwashing children into accepting homosexuality and other deviant behavior, it will in turn have a population of spineless followers who question nothing and obey authority without question. For example, in the 1700s we had a revolution over unfair taxation. Today, we have men like this:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8hythu3sp1rtcur5o1_500.jpg

And boys like this:

_MHoXImztvY

This is a direct insult to nature and if we continue to go towards this trend either evil will prevail and western society will become defunct. OR we will have ourselves a good old fashioned inquisition, one in which we cull off the weak, the progressives (Communists in disguise), the feminists and anyone who challenges natures order.

/rant

Spartan5364
10-09-2013, 08:12 PM
wtf @ black kids rapping
mind blown

IDNeon
10-09-2013, 08:15 PM
Pray to God and build His church and look away from this misguided bufoon.

tk217
10-09-2013, 08:16 PM
Black children are rapping? We have to stop this!

IDrinkBloodLOL
10-09-2013, 08:17 PM
5nd

Igmann
10-09-2013, 08:18 PM
wtf @ black kids rapping
mind blown

I am shocked myself, apparently it's a new trend where black kids rap about gay chit. Now, I went through a predominantly black school system K-12 and I'm only 24 so go back about 18 years... If anyone tried to pull off a stunt by rapping about sucking dick they'd get a proper beat down. It's not just limited to that, any kind of soft behavior...

BRB "you sweet as fuack cuz"
BRB 15 guys wanna fight you b/c you're sweet

Now it's just perfectly normal to be rapping about dick


Black children are rapping? We have to stop this!

Did you even watch the video? No you didn't, stfu then

mferrandi
10-09-2013, 08:19 PM
someone stop this gay agenda madness please!

tk217
10-09-2013, 08:20 PM
Did you even watch the video? No you didn't, stfu then

Do you even understand what they're doing? No. You don't.

Spartan5364
10-09-2013, 08:21 PM
it happens more often than you think lulz

FLwkgsZAzK8

Ramoneb87
10-09-2013, 08:22 PM
Obviously a conspiracy for population control.

In China they limit the number of children you can have, here we just push the gay agenda on the children

jthm
10-09-2013, 08:22 PM
7NyX5CxGraE

homicidal_misc
10-09-2013, 08:25 PM
lol the dude sounds like a retard. Either you are attracted to men and are gay or you are not. Thinking a dude is aesthetic is different from wanting to do down on them or take it in the ass. Not anyone else's problem if he has an identity issue. Knowing who/what you are doesn't make you close minded.

n7DDTd_ZZIk

Igmann
10-09-2013, 08:26 PM
LOL @ troll attempts, you guys can at least be more creative.

A-GAME
10-09-2013, 08:26 PM
Gay mafia is srs business. Do not **** with.

fsuboy1411
10-09-2013, 08:27 PM
You wonder why people say humans are getting dumber? Well, this is it right here. Progressivism, feminism, promotion of homosexuality, promotion of multiculturalism. It is a step backwards in human evolution.

frankenstein78
10-09-2013, 08:28 PM
Interdasting. OP is not a phaggot. hehe.

Dude, who gives a fuk about what one actor's thoughts are on a subject? And then why do I give a fuk about anyone's sex life but my own or a good friend's as we drink a few beers?

A-GAME
10-09-2013, 08:29 PM
You wonder why people say humans are getting dumber? Well, this is it right here. Progressivism, feminism, promotion of homosexuality, promotion of multiculturalism. It is a step backwards in human evolution.


The irony is delicious. Pls, continue.

ImInTHIS
10-09-2013, 08:30 PM
Op let's say someone is unbiased, uses common sense, and isn't a follower. What's in store for the future? More sloots for them?

Posthardcore
10-09-2013, 08:33 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale



why hef to b mad? it's only game

fsuboy1411
10-09-2013, 08:35 PM
The irony is delicious. Pls, continue.
Point out the irony and I will.

homicidal_misc
10-09-2013, 08:35 PM
Interdasting. OP is not a phaggot. hehe.

Dude, who gives a fuk about what one actor's thoughts are on a subject? And then why do I give a fuk about anyone's sex life but my own or a good friend's as we drink a few beers?
the issue is there unfortunately are a lot of people who care what celebrities think, and the youth in particular. I don't think it's about what people do in their sex lives as much as the forcing of acceptance to the point that you have morons like the actor in the OP saying some dumb ass **** like that. He could have said, hey, I don't think there is anything wrong with you if you are a homo, or some variation of that. But he went on a moronic little rant and now it's going to be peddled around like some profound truth.

Manc33
10-09-2013, 08:40 PM
_VKWLC87Uzw

Igmann
10-09-2013, 08:41 PM
Interdasting. OP is not a phaggot. hehe.

Dude, who gives a fuk about what one actor's thoughts are on a subject? And then why do I give a fuk about anyone's sex life but my own or a good friend's as we drink a few beers?

It's not one actor, Hollywood which is owned by the Progressive movement has been pushing homosexuality and feminism since the 1960s. A lot of young people who are impressionable buy into that. It's the same thing with academia. There's a reason why half of your gen ed courses in college are "gender in America" or "diversity in America"....where in usually you have a feminist professor rant about gender inequality for 2 semesters. A lot of impressionable teens out of HS buying into that garbage.


You wonder why people say humans are getting dumber? Well, this is it right here. Progressivism, feminism, promotion of homosexuality, promotion of multiculturalism. It is a step backwards in human evolution.

Exactly, it cultural Marxism at its finest. In order to break the will of the people and have a stranglehold over society, one must first destroy the family and the traditions that that society was founded on. That is what the progressive movement is currently doing.

ImInTHIS
10-09-2013, 08:46 PM
It's not one actor, Hollywood which is owned by the Progressive movement has been pushing homosexuality and feminism since the 1960s. A lot of young people who are impressionable buy into that. It's the same thing with academia. There's a reason why half of your gen ed courses in college are "gender in America" or "diversity in America"....where in usually you have a feminist professor rant about gender inequality for 2 semesters. A lot of impressionable teens out of HS buying into that garbage.



Exactly, it cultural Marxism at its finest. In order to break the will of the people and have a stranglehold over society, one must first destroy the family and the traditions that that society was founded on. That is what the progressive movement is currently doing.

Well there's nothing we can do about it brah. Nothing. You'll be laughed at by the unaware masses. Just sit back, take advantage of the retards, and enjoy the access of more sloots. As long as some gay don't force themselves on me, I don't care what they do.

Kiknskreem
10-09-2013, 08:47 PM
So gay rights are a conspiracy to destroy the family unit?

Ok Jeff.

fsuboy1411
10-09-2013, 08:48 PM
It's not one actor, Hollywood which is owned by the Progressive movement has been pushing homosexuality and feminism since the 1960s. A lot of young people who are impressionable buy into that. It's the same thing with academia. There's a reason why half of your gen ed courses in college are "gender in America" or "diversity in America"....where in usually you have a feminist professor rant about gender inequality for 2 semesters. A lot of impressionable teens out of HS buying into that garbage.
Hollywood is owned by Jews. Lets not use euphemisms. Lets call them what they are. And they are Jews. And they have been behind every "ism" movement besides Nazism.

sawoobley
10-09-2013, 08:52 PM
7NyX5CxGraE

excellent watch

VTheKing
10-09-2013, 08:52 PM
jesus christ OP, the R/P is used to way higher standards of trolling. should've added something about all the Bergs and Steins in Hollywood, posted a video about some gay activist wanting to destroy marriage and showed us how Russia is doing it right.

1.5/10

8814
10-09-2013, 08:54 PM
jesus christ OP, the R/P is used to way higher standards of trolling. should've added something about all the Bergs and Steins in Hollywood, posted a video about some gay activist wanting to destroy marriage and showed us how Russia is doing it right.

1.5/10

Oh look, it's the answer Jon Stewart taught him to give.

Posthardcore
10-09-2013, 08:55 PM
one must first destroy the family and the traditions that that society was founded on.

Like slavery, black segregation and gender inequality?




















owait.

Just lol at tradition, I can never take this seriously.

Spartan5364
10-09-2013, 08:55 PM
Oh look, it's the answer Jon Stewart taught him to give.

oh be respectful and call the man his real name: Jonathan Leibowitz

Igmann
10-09-2013, 08:59 PM
Well there's nothing we can do about it brah. Nothing. You'll be laughed at by the unaware masses. Just sit back, take advantage of the retards, and enjoy the access of more sloots. As long as some gay don't force themselves on me, I don't care what they do.

Incorrect, a storm is brewing.


So gay rights are a conspiracy to destroy the family unit?


The gay "rights" movement is cleverly disguised as a rights movement since Americans have had a fetish for rights movements since the 1950s. Although in fact it is just a conspiracy to destroy the family unit and tradition.


Hollywood is owned by Jews. Lets not use euphemisms. Lets call them what they are. And they are Jews. And they have been behind every "ism" movement besides Nazism.

I understand what you are saying but this is not that kind of thread.


jesus christ OP, the R/P is used to way higher standards of trolling. should've added something about all the Bergs and Steins in Hollywood, posted a video about some gay activist wanting to destroy marriage and showed us how Russia is doing it right.

1.5/10


Like slavery, black segregation and gender inequality?

owait.

Just lol at tradition, I can never take this seriously.
Location: Canada

You've already bent over and submitted to your socialist overlords or at least your predecessors have, so your opinions don't really matter here.

8814
10-09-2013, 08:59 PM
oh be respectful and call the man his real name: Jonathan Leibowitz

http://assets.bodybuilding.com/forum/images/icons/icon10.gif Thank you.

LIBminded
10-09-2013, 09:01 PM
So gay rights are a conspiracy to destroy the family unit?

Ok Jeff.

Go fuk yourself you homo supporting poop hole fuker.

Posthardcore
10-09-2013, 09:03 PM
:( snif snif snif



QQ some moar, the tears are delicious.

indosthetic
10-09-2013, 09:03 PM
Oh hey look, OP is another white conservative who is threatened by something different. Just like his parents/grandparents probably were by blacks and their pesky "civil rights".


OR OP is a closet-homo.














































OP do you like cawk in your angus?

Posthardcore
10-09-2013, 09:05 PM
Oh hey look, OP is another white conservative who is threatened by something different. Just like his parents/grandparents probably were by blacks and their pesky "civil rights".


OR OP is a closet-homo.














































OP do you like cawk in your angus?

Yo dude, stop trying to destroy the ''tradition'' and stop trying to progress so much!!!

Kiknskreem
10-09-2013, 09:06 PM
The gay "rights" movement is cleverly disguised as a rights movement since Americans have had a fetish for rights movements since the 1950s. Although in fact it is just a conspiracy to destroy the family unit and tradition.

Motha****ing society gettin' all inclusive and ****.

VTheKing
10-09-2013, 09:07 PM
Location: Canada

You've already bent over and submitted to your socialist overlords or at least your predecessors have, so your opinions don't really matter here.

Location: Philadelphia

change your location to "Pennsylvania", lest you rub your filth all over the forum

Mr Beer
10-09-2013, 09:19 PM
Don't care, this is a non-issue.

ImInTHIS
10-09-2013, 09:21 PM
Incorrect, a storm is brewing.



The gay "rights" movement is cleverly disguised as a rights movement since Americans have had a fetish for rights movements since the 1950s. Although in fact it is just a conspiracy to destroy the family unit and tradition.



I understand what you are saying but this is not that kind of thread.




Location: Canada

You've already bent over and submitted to your socialist overlords or at least your predecessors have, so your opinions don't really matter here.

What storm is brewing? Over what? If war breaks out I'll just laugh at all the sheep while saying, "You get what you pay for", and die trying to fight back. No point in having fear or worrying.

Igmann
10-09-2013, 09:24 PM
Location: Philadelphia

change your location to "Pennsylvania", lest you rub your filth all over the forum

Let's see...

Philadelphia GDP: 347 billion USD
All of British Columbia GDP: 208 billion USD

Yes, this city which is full of filth is still more productive than your entire province even though we have 1/3 of your population. Enjoy your socialism and your bumble**** location, phaggot.


letting gays get married is an elaborate scheme to destroy the traditional family

seems legit. meanwhile in canada where we've had gay marriage legalized for decades.. divorce rates still lower than america. try again

You're being far too one dimensional - intentionally so - in your analysis.


Oh hey look, OP is another white conservative who is threatened by something different. Just like his parents/grandparents probably were by blacks and their pesky "civil rights".


As we see here, every leftist fool has been taught to play the race card when race isn't even brought up. Is your inferiority complex so strong that you have to grasp for that straw too?


What storm is brewing? Over what?If war breaks out I'll just laugh at all the sheep saying, "You get what you pay for", and die trying to fight back. No point in having fear or worrying.

I don't want to digress from the thread, but the destination that this country is headed towards won't be the most pleasant.

Posthardcore
10-09-2013, 09:28 PM
As we see here, every leftist fool has been taught to play the race card when race isn't even brought up. Is your inferiority complex so strong that you have to grasp for that straw too?




I guess that means yes.

Thanks for your time.

EDIT: Damn, I can't believe there exists people that retarded in the world.

A-GAME
10-09-2013, 09:37 PM
I guess that means yes.

Thanks for your time.

EDIT: Damn, I can't believe there exists people that retarded in the world.


Don't get out much do you?

Lakersbake
10-09-2013, 09:38 PM
So gay rights are a conspiracy to destroy the family unit?

Ok Jeff.

There are LGBTQ "leaders" on record saying that very thing.

Do some research on things before just writing them off.

Posthardcore
10-09-2013, 09:39 PM
Don't get out much do you?

I don't know one single person who's against gay marriage. And I know a chitton of people.

It looks surreal to me.

A-GAME
10-09-2013, 09:41 PM
I don't know one single person who's against gay marriage. And I know a chitton of people.

It looks surreal to me.

Same. Most Australians don't give a ****.

Lakersbake
10-09-2013, 09:42 PM
http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc275/swd805/Leninism_zpsfeb143a0.jpg (http://s216.photobucket.com/user/swd805/media/Leninism_zpsfeb143a0.jpg.html)

A-GAME
10-09-2013, 09:44 PM
http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc275/swd805/Leninism_zpsfeb143a0.jpg (http://s216.photobucket.com/user/.jpg.html)


Russia is a lovely place to live. Why don't you move there?

LIBminded
10-09-2013, 09:45 PM
Who's pushing this Gay Agenda on us? Gay Lobbyists like Anderson Cooper or Jews?

Posthardcore
10-09-2013, 09:45 PM
http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc275/swd805/Leninism_zpsfeb143a0.jpg (http://s216.photobucket.com/user/swd805/media/Leninism_zpsfeb143a0.jpg.html)

Wait.

Is ''not encouraging interest in sex'' a part of ''traditional values''?

Igmann
10-09-2013, 09:48 PM
I guess that means yes.

Thanks for your time.

EDIT: Damn, I can't believe there exists people that retarded in the world.

Step 1: Race Card
Step 2: Straw Man

I can't believe natural selection has failed us so badly that your parents have actually managed to reproduce. And you're still alive into your 20s...it's that modern medicine/lifestyle. You know if we lived in the caveman days, you would be the beta that acts as the personal b*tch to the tribe's alpha. You'd sit in the corner and jerk off watching him fuack all the women. You probably have some cuckold fantasies, I mean I can just see the submissiveness and weakness in all of your posts on this section.


that seems to be one of the bigger talking points against gay marriage, how its destroying traditional families.

yet in a country almost identical to yours where we've had it legalized for a long time and nobody cares about it, gay families do pretty well and nobody here complains about the erosion of family values

Gay marriage by itself isn't the issue. There's more to destroying tradition than implementing one act. The gay agenda as an aggregate force isn't about gay marriage, it's about pushing Hollywood to present homosexuality as the norm. It's about pushing it into the education system and society as a whole.

Aside from that, I don't think that government should be in the business of marriage in the first place. You shouldn't get special tax privileges just because you are married to someone.

Igmann
10-09-2013, 09:50 PM
http://www.snopes.com/language/document/commrule.htm

not quite, comrade.

That's not too far from what the Communists in the east have done to the countries that they occupied.

ectobruh
10-09-2013, 09:50 PM
Yep. Definitely not having kids. Fukk this generation

Lakersbake
10-09-2013, 09:50 PM
So gay rights are a conspiracy to destroy the family unit?

Ok Jeff.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/29/lesbian-activists-surprisingly-candid-speech-gay-marriage-fight-is-a-lie-to-destroy-marriage/

Posthardcore
10-09-2013, 09:52 PM
Step 1: Race Card
Step 2: Straw Man



It's not a strawman. It's a demonstration of the fact that your sophism (appeal to tradition) is a retarded and backwards way of thinking.

Lol at herpingderping the ''strawman'' card when your whole premise is a sophism, aka invalid as fukk cuz.
Wake up.

EDIT: And if we lived in a tribe, you'd be left behind or beaten up by us. Tribes are mini socialism.

Mr Beer
10-09-2013, 09:54 PM
Same. Most Australians don't give a ****.

Yes, we are a largely civilised bunch.

Posthardcore
10-09-2013, 09:55 PM
Yes, we are a largely civilised bunch.

Mirin' username to location ratio

A-GAME
10-09-2013, 09:56 PM
Yes, we are a largely civilised bunch.


Aren't we? It's hard to understand how people can go so potato, but sometimes I take growing up here in a civilized society for granted.

stezus
10-09-2013, 09:59 PM
Flexible gender rules invariably lead to unfavorable gender relations, as are seen in America. The point to realize is that women's desire in men is indeed inflexible and subject to evolutionary forces, of which will surface regardless of how society chooses to suppress it. Hence we have dichotomies between bad boys and nice guys which is part of a larger issue, but, it's not as simple as saying this is a "sophism".

Men need to act like men, which is a mostly fixed role, in order for society to function optimally. This is because of evolution and female demand. Apparently some can't live up to the role and need to redefine it.

squanto
10-09-2013, 10:00 PM
What kind of a pussy do you have to be to be afraid of 2 people getting married? Pathetic

Igmann
10-09-2013, 10:05 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/29/lesbian-activists-surprisingly-candid-speech-gay-marriage-fight-is-a-lie-to-destroy-marriage/

You can present all of the evidence in the world, it still won't change the number of willing fools in existence today.


It's not a strawman. It's a demonstration of the fact that your sophism (appeal to tradition) is a retarded and backwards way of thinking.

Lol at herpingderping the ''strawman'' card when your whole premise is a sophism, aka invalid as fukk cuz.
Wake up.

EDIT: And if we lived in a tribe, you'd be left behind or beaten up by us. Tribes are mini socialism.

Negative, you're intentionally distorting my position. The straw man which you have created and are now attacking is tradition/"sophisim" (even though it seems that you don't know what sophism means). So far you've failed to address any points made ITT.

Tribes are not founded on socialism and LOL if your education system taught you that. We both know that you couldn't beat your way out of a paper bag, let alone another grown male.

Igmann
10-09-2013, 10:07 PM
Flexible gender rules invariably lead to unfavorable gender relations, as are seen in America. The point to realize is that women's desire in men is indeed inflexible and subject to evolutionary forces, of which will surface regardless of how society chooses to suppress it. Hence we have dichotomies between bad boys and nice guys which is part of a larger issue, but, it's not as simple as saying this is a "sophism".

Men need to act like men, which is a mostly fixed role, in order for society to function optimally. This is because of evolution and female demand. Apparently some can't live up to the role and need to redefine it.

The origin of feminism right there.

We are at a time when the incapable want to be capable and the only way that they can achieve that is to suppress or steal from those who are capable. That's socialism in a nutshell.

thatarmenianguy
10-09-2013, 10:10 PM
And they want your children.



Popular culture wants the young boys of our society to look up to this phaggot and replicate his lifestyle. Apparently it's "close minded" to consider yourself 100% heterosexual. And there are people who are 100% hetero, don't give me that crap about "no one is 100% straight." You're either sexually attracted to members of your own sex OR you aren't.

The progressive movement wants to destroy western society and it will use the gay "rights" and feminist movement as part of that effort. By destroying the nuclear family and brainwashing children into accepting homosexuality and other deviant behavior, it will in turn have a population of spineless followers who question nothing and obey authority without question. For example, in the 1700s we had a revolution over unfair taxation. Today, we have men like this:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8hythu3sp1rtcur5o1_500.jpg

And boys like this:

_MHoXImztvY

This is a direct insult to nature and if we continue to go towards this trend either evil will prevail and western society will become defunct. OR we will have ourselves a good old fashioned inquisition, one in which we cull off the weak, the progressives (Communists in disguise), the feminists and anyone who challenges natures order.

/rant

THIS is why we need bullying...It's no wonder why the media has been demonizing bullying the past few years - its fits quite well with their gay agenda.

Posthardcore
10-09-2013, 10:10 PM
Negative, you're intentionally distorting my position. The straw man which you have created and are now attacking is tradition/"sophisim" (even though it seems that you don't know what sophism means). So far you've failed to address any points made ITT.

Tribes are not founded on socialism and LOL if your education system taught you that. We both know that you couldn't beat your way out of a paper bag, let alone another grown male.

Of course we evolved as social animal groups. That was socialism. Food and goods were shared; individuals of the group were taken care of, etc. etc. It's irrelevant to how we should act, I just wanted to point out how stupid you were to even bring up tribes as if it was supporting your backward worldview.

And an appeal to tradition is a sophism. Claiming that destroying tradition is necessarily wrong is an appeal to tradition. It is a sophism. It's wrong. It's retarded. Deal with it and move on.

Now, pls go and try your sub-50 IQ level trolling elsewhere.


THIS is why we need bullying...It's no wonder why the media has been demonizing bullying the past few years - its fits quite well with their gay agenda.

Mother of God. Enough internet for today.

Igmann
10-09-2013, 10:21 PM
Of course we evolved as social animal groups. That was socialism. Food and goods were shared; individuals of the group were taken care of, etc. etc. It's irrelevant to how we should act, I just wanted to point out how stupid you were to even bring up tribes as if it was supporting your backward worldview.

Again you're incorrect. You don't have a clue about what you're saying do you? You're just arguing for the sake of arguing. I mean it makes sense, no one else pays you any attention IRL so you come onto the internet to feel relevant, many people do that, I understand. But no, you're statement is incorrect, tribes have always been capitalist, you received what you contributed and nothing more. Socialism is the exact opposite.



And an appeal to tradition is a sophism. Claiming that destroying tradition is necessarily wrong is an appeal to tradition. It is a sophism. It's wrong. It's retarded. Deal with it and move on.

No one claimed that. Look through the thread, no one said that here.



Now, pls go and try your sub-50 IQ level trolling elsewhere.


I think I'll continue to post, you can leave the thread if you like, no one wants you here anyway.

Posthardcore
10-09-2013, 10:31 PM
No one claimed that. Look through the thread, no one said that here.





''Exactly, it cultural Marxism at its finest. In order to break the will of the people and have a stranglehold over society, one must first destroy the family and the traditions that that society was founded on. That is what the progressive movement is currently doing.''

I'm out, this thread sucks.

Fist-Of-Freedom
10-09-2013, 10:32 PM
Of course we evolved as social animal groups. That was socialism. Food and goods were shared; individuals of the group were taken care of, etc. etc. It's irrelevant to how we should act, I just wanted to point out how stupid you were to even bring up tribes as if it was supporting your backward worldview.

And an appeal to tradition is a sophism. Claiming that destroying tradition is necessarily wrong is an appeal to tradition. It is a sophism. It's wrong. It's retarded. Deal with it and move on.

Now, pls go and try your sub-50 IQ level trolling elsewhere.



Mother of God. Enough internet for today.

Understand that wasn't a forced socialism as we have today, and was done with a much smaller population which happens to work (for the most part). But ultimately done selfishly in order to die or survive on an individual basis.

You can't even compare the two.

I for one am sick of the gay agenda in my face all the time. So cool, you're gay.. I don't care so stop throwing it in my face every day.

Insecure people.

Posthardcore
10-09-2013, 10:34 PM
Understand that wasn't a forced socialism as we have today, and was done with a much smaller population. But ultimately done selfishly in order to die or survive.

You can't even compare the two.



Agreed.

Fist-Of-Freedom
10-09-2013, 10:37 PM
Yep. Definitely not having kids. Fukk this generation

then... "they" win

:D

Lakersbake
10-09-2013, 10:38 PM
Agreed.

So you are agreeing it wasnt socialism at all. Unforced socialism is not socialism.

stezus
10-09-2013, 10:39 PM
Of course we evolved as social animal groups. That was socialism. Food and goods were shared; individuals of the group were taken care of, etc. etc. It's irrelevant to how we should act, I just wanted to point out how stupid you were to even bring up tribes as if it was supporting your backward worldview.

And an appeal to tradition is a sophism. Claiming that destroying tradition is necessarily wrong is an appeal to tradition. It is a sophism. It's wrong. It's retarded. Deal with it and move on.


Appealing to sophism is not wrong when that "sophism" is the optimal arrangement for human coexistence. You are really off in your assessment of argumentation. Just because something is closer to tradition or nature, does not make it an appeal to tradition or nature just because of that. If you read my post you'll understand why.

Igmann
10-09-2013, 10:48 PM
''Exactly, it cultural Marxism at its finest. In order to break the will of the people and have a stranglehold over society, one must first destroy the family and the traditions that that society was founded on. That is what the progressive movement is currently doing.''

I'm out, this thread sucks.

Again, no one said that destroying tradition in itself is necessarily wrong. Do go, no one is here to argue, get lost.


Appealing to sophism is not wrong when that "sophism" is the optimal arrangement for human coexistence. You are really off in your assessment of argumentation. Just because something is closer to tradition or nature, does not make it an appeal to tradition or nature just because of that. If you read my post you'll understand why.

Exactly, the fool has been so indoctrinated to be against tradition that any positive comments directed towards certain traditions are immediately to be labeled as appeals to tradition. Even though no one is making any broad appeal to tradition for tradition's sake.

It's like when someone says that affirmative action is wrong b/c it is discriminatory, the leftists immediately cry racism.

Igmann
10-09-2013, 10:52 PM
Understand that wasn't a forced socialism as we have today, and was done with a much smaller population which happens to work (for the most part). But ultimately done selfishly in order to die or survive on an individual basis.

You can't even compare the two.

I for one am sick of the gay agenda in my face all the time. So cool, you're gay.. I don't care so stop throwing it in my face every day.

Insecure people.

It wasn't socialism in the first place. Tribes in the past and even today are inherently capitalistic and fascist in the traditional sense. Socialism is "give what you can, take what you need"...Tribes/capitalism are "take what you've earned." In short, in a socialist tribe, you would have a lot of incapable freeloaders holding back the productive members of the tribe. In a few generations, that tribe would cease to exist. In a real tribe (capitalist), you take what you produce and if you are incapable of hunting/gathering, you get culled off by attrition or the collective. That tribe would then grow in numbers because natural selection would remove the weak elements.

Mr Beer
10-09-2013, 10:53 PM
Mirin' username to location ratio
‘kin oath bro.

Aren't we? It's hard to understand how people can go so potato, but sometimes I take growing up here in a civilized society for granted.
Yeah, it’s not perfect but honestly it seems the best country to live in.

A-GAME
10-10-2013, 12:26 AM
All your angus are belong to us

VTheKing
10-10-2013, 12:32 AM
Let's see...

Philadelphia GDP: 347 billion USD
All of British Columbia GDP: 208 billion USD

Yes, this city which is full of filth is still more productive than your entire province even though we have 1/3 of your population. Enjoy your socialism and your bumble**** location, phaggot.


Unsurprisingly, a Filthadelphia spawn who can't even tell the difference between a city and a metropolitan area. Go buy some car batteries to throw at Santa Claus, or maybe worship some manlet who doesn't even ****ing exist. Oh, and don't stop at traffic lights when you go through Camden (if they're even working) - who knows what might happen.

Bhavasita87
10-10-2013, 12:53 AM
Of course we evolved as social animal groups. That was socialism. Food and goods were shared; individuals of the group were taken care of, etc. etc. It's irrelevant to how we should act, I just wanted to point out how stupid you were to even bring up tribes as if it was supporting your backward worldview.


Nothing about our socially cooperative nature leads to any of the ideals of socialism. They have nothing to do with each other. At all. In fact, social cooperation in order to further the ends that are important to you is pretty much the definition of free enterprise.

Social cooperation is about some desired result - one that has historically been a utilitarian goal most of the time. Socialism is about a desired social state and how to make society conform to that state.

Kiknskreem
10-10-2013, 06:02 AM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/29/lesbian-activists-surprisingly-candid-speech-gay-marriage-fight-is-a-lie-to-destroy-marriage/

Wow bro!

One woman's opinion totally validates the entire gay rights movement as being an overarching conspiracy to destroy the family!

Thank god we have protectors like you to show us what's what.

indosthetic
10-10-2013, 07:05 AM
As we see here, every leftist fool has been taught to play the race card when race isn't even brought up. Is your inferiority complex so strong that you have to grasp for that straw too?
.
naa it aint about race, its an analogy.

youre just another white-conservative fool who is threatened by people who are different.

same story, different generation.

Timmy96
10-10-2013, 07:08 AM
OP, what ever happened to free speech in this country. If you don't like the Gay agenda, what ever that is, maybe you should move to another country. Russia perhaps.

Gabriel Anton
10-10-2013, 07:12 AM
male celebrity makes his sexuality "ambiguous" to potentially attract a gay following

this is new and interesting

Jesse_l_g
10-10-2013, 07:22 AM
Although in fact it is just a conspiracy to destroy the family unit and tradition.

Negged for being a phaggot. waitwut

ll ReNeGaDe ll
10-10-2013, 07:27 AM
_MHoXImztvY


When you heard

"sucking on your knob
just like corn on the cob"

You chuckled. Admit it. Cause I'm dyin' over here.

Igmann
10-10-2013, 08:53 AM
naa it aint about race, its an analogy.

youre just another white-conservative fool who is threatened by people who are different.

same story, different generation.

You're from a poverty country and a poverty culture, I understand some feelings of not belonging and general self hatred kick in when you see white folks but that's just something you'll have to deal with being here. You're full of sh*t, do us all a favor and don't reproduce, you're polluting the gene pool. And that's the last time I'll address a red.


Unsurprisingly, a Filthadelphia spawn who can't even tell the difference between a city and a metropolitan area. Go buy some car batteries to throw at Santa Claus, or maybe worship some manlet who doesn't even ****ing exist. Oh, and don't stop at traffic lights when you go through Camden (if they're even working) - who knows what might happen.

LOL you're so mad that my city where 28% of the population is living in poverty is still more productive than your bastion of socialism and "income equality." Speaking of Camden...A great example of what happens to a city when it gets taken over by liberals.


Negged for being a phaggot. waitwut

Rep power: 2929

If anyone has any serious posts, do go on. Any posts written by children or sub 100 IQ "progressives" will no longer be addressed. I'm not here too argue, the brainwashing has hit some of you pretty hard. TBH, some of you are at the point where the only way to deal with you to be to sterilize you and seclude you in a camp far away from the rest of society.

Posthardcore
10-10-2013, 09:38 AM
So you are agreeing it wasnt socialism at all. Unforced socialism is not socialism.

Voluntary forms of socialisms is still socialism. And it being ''unforced'' can be debatable. Individuals of the group were greatly compelled. But whether it is forced or unforced, it doesn't matter.

Posthardcore
10-10-2013, 09:41 AM
Appealing to sophism is not wrong when that "sophism" is the optimal arrangement for human coexistence.

But it's not the case.

Tradition has failed on several issues. And a sophism is wrong no matter what. You need to use your brain and argue with real ideas, not rely on tradition. Tradition is irrelevant. You have to explain why certain traditions need to be kept, you can't just say ''Oh we're destroying traditional values'' because my response would be ''yeah? so what?''.

Igmann
10-10-2013, 10:32 AM
philly metro population: 6.5 million
bc population: 4.2 million

philly metro gdp: 346 billion
bc gdp: 217 billion

divide each out and you get 52k for both

not much of a difference is there? plus bc doesn't have anywhere near the amount of fortune 500 and other large companies calling vancouver their home

Philadelphia proper is the majority of Philadelphia metro in terms of economic development, that's why I didn't even care to mention the difference. Everyone from the outside travels to the city for work.

ZenBowman
10-10-2013, 11:14 AM
Maybe the most ironic thread of all time on the misc. Two authoritarian collectivist thugs claiming that collectivism is destroying civilization.

lmfao.

BruceBruce325
10-10-2013, 11:23 AM
ive seen guys that looked good and said... dude looks good.... doesn't mean im gay.....right?

8814
10-10-2013, 11:31 AM
ive seen guys that looked good and said... dude looks good.... doesn't mean im gay.....right?

You live in Atlanta. You have bigger problems.

BruceBruce325
10-10-2013, 11:46 AM
You live in Atlanta. You have bigger problems.

Because it has a lot of gays?

I mean it's not as dangerous as detroit.. chicago.... or some seedy cities in cali....

DizzySmalls
10-10-2013, 11:51 AM
THIS is why we need bullying...It's no wonder why the media has been demonizing bullying the past few years - its fits quite well with their gay agenda.
lol @ your thought process

We can't all be intelligent

8814
10-10-2013, 12:25 PM
Because it has a lot of gays?

I mean it's not as dangerous as detroit.. chicago.... or some seedy cities in cali....

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

Gabriel Anton
10-10-2013, 12:26 PM
Because it has a lot of gays?

I mean it's not as dangerous as detroit.. chicago.... or some seedy cities in cali....

Given his nick, I'm guessing it's more to do with Atlanta's status as the capital of black america.

BruceBruce325
10-10-2013, 01:23 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

yea but thats mostly black on black and in areas whites shouldn't go

TH3SHR3DD3R
10-10-2013, 03:14 PM
I'ma just go 'head and leave dis right hur:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51y8oqZPcaL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

Dat dere synopsis:


Are blacks in America immune from criticism? Are they never responsible for their own failures? And most importantly, is black rule the end for an American city? Paul Kersey of SBPDL has an emphatic “yes” to all three in “Black Mecca Down” – a shocking, controversial, and uproarious account of the fall of Atlanta. Once dubbed “The City Too Busy To Hate,” Atlanta, GA was supposed to be the model city for the New South, a thriving metropolis that would show the old Confederacy had moved beyond race and joined the global economy. Instead, Atlanta became a black dystopia dominated by corruption, incompetence, and crime. Starting with Maynard Jackson, Atlanta's first black mayor, the greatest city in the South followed the pattern of Detroit, with basic institutions collapsing even as the cries of “racism” increased. The sequel to the bombshell “Escape From Detroit” is Kersey at his best, showing the tragic aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement in the decline of a once great city. More than that, you'll find the original reporting, remarkable anecdotes, and trademark wit that have made the author and his site a sensation.

Rexy
10-10-2013, 03:26 PM
so does that mean that nobody is 100% gay either?

in b4 rainbow chitstorm

BruceBruce325
10-10-2013, 03:41 PM
I'ma just go 'head and leave dis right hur:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51y8oqZPcaL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

Dat dere synopsis:

thats about right

Lakersbake
10-10-2013, 08:17 PM
Wow bro!

One woman's opinion totally validates the entire gay rights movement as being an overarching conspiracy to destroy the family!

Thank god we have protectors like you to show us what's what.

Im beginning to see that you do not know what the word conspiracy means.

stezus
10-10-2013, 08:40 PM
But it's not the case.

Tradition has failed on several issues. And a sophism is wrong no matter what. You need to use your brain and argue with real ideas, not rely on tradition. Tradition is irrelevant. You have to explain why certain traditions need to be kept, you can't just say ''Oh we're destroying traditional values'' because my response would be ''yeah? so what?''.

You're getting real close to troll status my friend. I never once said we're destroying traditional values, let alone that being the basis of my argument. You need to go back and read my post as to why I explained it, very logically. It's actually a scientific position I hold, and to be against it is very unscientific, and exceptionally idealistic.

Posthardcore
10-10-2013, 08:52 PM
You're getting real close to troll status my friend. I never once said we're destroying traditional values, let alone that being the basis of my argument. You need to go back and read my post as to why I explained it, very logically. It's actually a scientific position I hold, and to be against it is very unscientific, and exceptionally idealistic.

1) Why do you assume I was pointing this at you?
2) You can explain the ''scientific'' position that you hold right now if you wish so we can all be entertained.

stezus
10-10-2013, 09:26 PM
1) Why do you assume I was pointing this at you?
2) You can explain the ''scientific'' position that you hold right now if you wish so we can all be entertained.

lol at this science fanboy coming into this thinking he has science on his side. look up research on the dark triage, cads and dads, hypergamy, etc. there is actually an objective research on what women/men like. fact: women like a dominant male especially when they're ovulating. this is just a quick example of a fixed desire in women that's shaped from evolution

Posthardcore
10-10-2013, 09:43 PM
lol at this science fanboy coming into this thinking he has science on his side. look up research on the dark triage, cads and dads, hypergamy, etc. there is actually an objective research on what women/men like. fact: women like a dominant male especially when they're ovulating. this is just a quick example of a fixed desire in women that's shaped from evolution

Your point being?

stezus
10-11-2013, 12:03 AM
Your point being?

human sexuality has several "constants" regardless of culture and social constructs. sexuality and gender are inextricably linked; efforts to claim gender roles are socially constructed and dependent on culture and "the times" fail to account for the fixed nature of sexuality. what you consider tradition is actually an evolutionary force - one i might add that your ilk can't cope with and seek to dismiss or suppress

also your passive aggressive use of the socratic method hasn't impressed me

lemeseethem
10-11-2013, 12:07 AM
I'm lemeseethem and I support this message.

ICrapBig
10-11-2013, 01:43 AM
Yo dude, stop trying to destroy the ''tradition'' and stop trying to progress so much!!!

yes because all progress is good progress as long as it feels good when we do it eh?

Bring on the progress and let the clever people decide where we need to progress for progress sake!

progress progress progress

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrg3ab7Spa1qikg2v.gif

A-GAME
10-11-2013, 03:41 AM
yes because all progress is good progress as long as it feels good when we do it eh?

Bring on the progress and let the clever people decide where we need to progress for progress sake!

progress progress progress

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrg3ab7Spa1qikg2v.gif


I bet you have a beautiful angus.

Muskelbernd
10-11-2013, 05:16 AM
Thank the jews and Frankfurt school for this. Traditional values and families are nearly destroyed.

cool2001
10-11-2013, 05:19 AM
And they want your children.



Popular culture wants the young boys of our society to look up to this phaggot and replicate his lifestyle. Apparently it's "close minded" to consider yourself 100% heterosexual. And there are people who are 100% hetero, don't give me that crap about "no one is 100% straight." You're either sexually attracted to members of your own sex OR you aren't.

The progressive movement wants to destroy western society and it will use the gay "rights" and feminist movement as part of that effort. By destroying the nuclear family and brainwashing children into accepting homosexuality and other deviant behavior, it will in turn have a population of spineless followers who question nothing and obey authority without question. For example, in the 1700s we had a revolution over unfair taxation. Today, we have men like this:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8hythu3sp1rtcur5o1_500.jpg

And boys like this:

_MHoXImztvY

This is a direct insult to nature and if we continue to go towards this trend either evil will prevail and western society will become defunct. OR we will have ourselves a good old fashioned inquisition, one in which we cull off the weak, the progressives (Communists in disguise), the feminists and anyone who challenges natures order.

/rant

http://kletterman.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/angry-old-man.jpg

Posthardcore
10-11-2013, 10:42 AM
human sexuality has several "constants" regardless of culture and social constructs. sexuality and gender are inextricably linked; efforts to claim gender roles are socially constructed and dependent on culture and "the times" fail to account for the fixed nature of sexuality. what you consider tradition is actually an evolutionary force - one i might add that your ilk can't cope with and seek to dismiss or suppress



Again, your point being? Women should not work, they should stay at home and nurture the children while the man slays the poon and spreads his seeds?

Where are you going with this?


yes because all progress is good progress as long as it feels good when we do it eh?

Bring on the progress and let the clever people decide where we need to progress for progress sake!

progress progress progress



What a well substantiated post.

stezus
10-11-2013, 12:47 PM
Again, your point being? Women should not work, they should stay at home and nurture the children while the man slays the poon and spreads his seeds?

Where are you going with this?



well that's one thing to consider, women can't do the same type of work men do that's for sure. and certainly on average they don't possess the same qualities such as leadership, ambition, humor, risk-taking, handling stress, etc. and this is all supported scientifically might i add. women are much different from men. did i just shatter your sheltered liberal worldview?

if you recall though we were discussing gender roles and being a phaggot. stay on topic

Posthardcore
10-11-2013, 02:49 PM
well that's one thing to consider, women can't do the same type of work men do that's for sure. and certainly on average they don't possess the same qualities such as leadership, ambition, humor, risk-taking, handling stress, etc. and this is all supported scientifically might i add. women are much different from men. did i just shatter your sheltered liberal worldview?

if you recall though we were discussing gender roles and being a phaggot. stay on topic

You're wrong except for what I bolded. You can't say that women can't do the same type of work that men do because there are, in fact, some women who could do work X better than some men, even though men would perform at that work better than women on average. It's way more productive to judge on an individual basis. Of course, it might be easier for your brain to segregate women from men and judge either with your skewed pre-conceptions, but that just doesn't reflect reality. Some of us have grown out of that ''tradition'' ;)

You also seem to confuse being a ''phaggot'' aka being feminine and being homosexual aka being attracted to males.

handaid
10-11-2013, 02:54 PM
pretty sure "i am straight now but in a year who knows" means "i am currently in the closet and am trying to determine when coming out will have the most positive affect on my acting career"

authorscj
10-11-2013, 03:07 PM
http://idahoagenda.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/bb8fac06f15f5a02aae78dc090758f82-wix_mp.jpg

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonard-wrigley/national-coming-out-day_b_4059708.html

Igmann
10-11-2013, 03:13 PM
pretty sure "i am straight now but in a year who knows" means "i am currently in the closet and am trying to determine when coming out will have the most positive affect on my acting career"

Let's ask ourselves... Why does "coming out" have a positive effect on anything? This is just one more piece of evidence that proves that Hollywood is pushing the gay agenda.

Posthardcore
10-11-2013, 03:18 PM
Let's ask ourselves... Why does "coming out" have a positive effect on anything? This is just one more piece of evidence that proves that Hollywood is pushing the gay agenda.

Dude ''gay agenda'' is a nonsensical term. Let's all move on.

Spartan5364
10-11-2013, 03:31 PM
Dude ''gay agenda'' is a nonsensical term. Let's all move on.

how so?

Igmann
10-11-2013, 03:33 PM
Dude ''gay agenda'' is a nonsensical term to me. And since I'm a self centered arrogant leftist, your use of the term offends me, in fact any opinion different than mine offends me, hence my need to go on a tantrum every time that it is shared in this section. So let's all just move on and stop thinking for ourselves and just follow my will because I'm the only person who can be right about anything.

See I fixed it for you.

stezus
10-11-2013, 03:35 PM
You're wrong except for what I bolded. You can't say that women can't do the same type of work that men do because there are, in fact, some women who could do work X better than some men, even though men would perform at that work better than women on average. It's way more productive to judge on an individual basis. Of course, it might be easier for your brain to segregate women from men and judge either with your skewed pre-conceptions, but that just doesn't reflect reality. Some of us have grown out of that ''tradition'' ;)

You also seem to confuse being a ''phaggot'' aka being feminine and being homosexual aka being attracted to males.

ROFLLLLL.

Bro, may i ask why you're even on a body building site? You sound like the most effeminate brainwashed "male feminist" ive ever seen, it's funny but so cringeworthy! Literally the words you type sound like a woman from jezebel who can't get over her poor sex appeal, or the comments section on a feminist article on The Atlantic's facebook feed; you should be ashamed of yourself son.

Can you point me to all the women working in coal mines and fighting in the special forces? Where are all the female CEOs, poets, comedians, artists, inventors, etc.? In before - but but but, we have female leaders in some countries! Look at germany and this new fed chairman coming in!

That's because they're appointed lmao. On the basis of their gender, it's essentially affirmative action. You think Obama won the presidency based on merit? Lmfao

Now do me a favor, the world a favor, and especially any ancestors in your lineage that are shaking their damn had were they able.. get some beef jerky, rent gran torino. Start watching john wayne and clint eastwood, stop being a b1tch NOW while you have a chance to change. Whatever it takes to make up for that pathetic post.

Posthardcore
10-11-2013, 03:37 PM
See I fixed it for you.

No lol. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of making sense.

An agenda is a list of something that should be done/considered. Things that people want done or considered regarding gays consist an equal rights agenda, not a ''gay'' agenda. You can't do things to ''spread'' homosexuality lol.

Go back to school.

Spartan5364
10-11-2013, 03:40 PM
No lol. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of making sense.

An agenda is a list of something that should be done/considered. Things that people want done or considered regarding gays consist an equal rights agenda, not a ''gay'' agenda. You can't do things to ''spread'' homosexuality lol.

Go back to school.

"equal rights" agenda for gay people = gay agenda... why is this so difficult to grasp?

Posthardcore
10-11-2013, 03:41 PM
ROFLLLLL.

Bro, may i ask why you're even on a body building site? You sound like the most effeminate brainwashed "male feminist" ive ever seen, it's funny but so cringeworthy! Literally the words you type sound like a woman from jezebel who can't get over her poor sex appeal, or the comments section on a feminist article on The Atlantic's facebook feed; you should be ashamed of yourself son.

Can you point me to all the women working in coal mines and fighting in the special forces? Where are all the female CEOs, poets, comedians, artists, inventors, etc.? In before - but but but, we have female leaders in some countries! Look at germany and this new fed chairman coming in!

That's because they're appointed lmao. On the basis of their gender, it's essentially affirmative action. You think Obama won the presidency based on merit? Lmfao

Now do me a favor, the world a favor, and especially any ancestors in your lineage that are shaking their damn had were they able.. get some beef jerky, rent gran torino. Start watching john wayne and clint eastwood, stop being a b1tch NOW while you have a chance to change. Whatever it takes to make up for that pathetic post.

1) I hate modern day feminism and am strongly against it.
2) Why do you make it seem like I assumed any of the things you posted.
3) I said you can't make a stereotyping claim based on an average, it's inaccurate and ignorant.
4) You're butthurt because I was correct.


"equal rights" agenda for gay people = gay agenda... why is this so difficult to grasp?

You guys are pretty good at not making sense.

stezus
10-11-2013, 03:45 PM
1) I hate modern day feminism and am strongly against it.
2) Why do you make it seem like I assumed any of the things you posted.
3) I said you can't make a stereotyping claim based on an average, it's inaccurate and ignorant.
4) You're butthurt because I was correct.


How is the claim that women on average do not have the characteristics of men incompatible with the fact? What am i missing here?

Let me ask you a question. Is it inaccurate to say women can't build muscle as well as men can?

Igmann
10-11-2013, 03:46 PM
No lol. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of making sense.

An agenda is a list of something that should be done/considered. Things that people want done or considered regarding gays consist an equal rights agenda, not a ''gay'' agenda. You can't do things to ''spread'' homosexuality lol.

Go back to school.

No, it's your opinion.


Now do me a favor, the world a favor, and especially any ancestors in your lineage that are shaking their damn had were they able.. get some beef jerky, rent gran torino. Start watching john wayne and clint eastwood, stop being a b1tch NOW while you have a chance to change. Whatever it takes to make up for that pathetic post.

That won't undo the years of brainwashing that he has gone through in his household which was clearly run by a woman...Or in his education system which was clearly run by progressives. Once you've drank the Kool Aid, it's usually too late.


"equal rights" agenda for gay people = gay agenda... why is this so difficult to grasp?

Gays have the exact same rights as everyone else. There are no laws against homosexuality in America, so the term "gay rights" is a paradox in itself.

Posthardcore
10-11-2013, 03:52 PM
How is the claim that women on average do not have the characteristics of men incompatible with the fact? What am i missing here?

Let me ask you a question. Is it inaccurate to say women can't build muscle as well as men can?

Of course not.

You just can't say that men do X work better than women. You have to treate everyone in an unbiased fashion and judge on an individual basis.

You can say that men do x work better than women on average, but it is not productive to do so unless you're arguing statistical analyses with someone.


No, it's your opinion.




Yes, as much as it's my opinion that the earth is not flat.

Also, lol at ''gays have the same rights'' ignoring that the very definition of marriage is discriminatory. Let's write a law that says you can't hang out with people who are shorter than you. Hey, it applies to everyone equally herp derp.

stezus
10-11-2013, 03:57 PM
Of course not.

This ^ is incompatible with...


You just can't say that men do X work better than women. You have to treate everyone in an unbiased fashion and judge on an individual basis.


This ^. You have successfully agreed with stereotyping based on an average in your first quote.

Experience the cognitive dissonance. Let the jimmies rustle through you!

Posthardcore
10-11-2013, 03:59 PM
This ^ is incompatible with...



This ^. You have successfully agreed with stereotyping based on an average in your first quote.

Experience the cognitive dissonance. Let the jimmies rustle through you!

Lol no, because my ''of course not'' was in response to your statement that specified on average.

stezus
10-11-2013, 04:01 PM
Lol no, because my ''of course not'' was in response to your statement that specified on average.

Actually i didn't specify on average.

Igmann
10-11-2013, 04:04 PM
Yes, as much as it's my opinion that the earth is not flat.

Also, lol at ''gays have the same rights'' ignoring that the very definition of marriage is discriminatory. Let's write a law that says you can't hang out with people who are shorter than you. Hey, it applies to everyone equally herp derp.

Claiming your own opinion as a fact doesn't make it a fact.

Posthardcore
10-11-2013, 04:05 PM
Actually i didn't specify on average.

....


How is the claim that women on average do not have the characteristics of men incompatible with the fact? What am i missing here?

Let me ask you a question. Is it inaccurate to say women can't build muscle as well as men can?

If you're talking about your last question. It's a biological reality that women can't build muscle as well as men can because of differences in hormonal levels. That statement can be made because it is always true (unless I'm mistaken).

Posthardcore
10-11-2013, 04:07 PM
Claiming your own opinion as a fact doesn't make it a fact.

I know dude, no matter how hard I try to push my opinion that gravity makes things fall, it won't make it a fact.

Lol at you.

stezus
10-11-2013, 04:07 PM
....



If you're talking about your last question. It's a biological reality that women can't build muscle as well as men can because of differences in hormonal levels. That statement can be made because it is always true (unless I'm mistaken).

Actually it's not always true. There are some few men that have very low testosterone for one reason or another and poor means to build muscle, and some few women with unnaturally high testosterone and more ability to build muscle than perhaps these men.

So why aren't you treating people like individuals?

Igmann
10-11-2013, 04:09 PM
I know dude, no matter how hard I try to push my opinion that gravity makes things fall, it won't make it a fact.

Lol at you.

You've brought a lot of comedic value to this thread and unfortunately nothing more than that. I thank you though, you serve as a great example of how not to raise a child.

Posthardcore
10-11-2013, 04:12 PM
Actually it's not always true. There are some few men that have very low testosterone for one reason or another and poor means to build muscle, and some few women with unnaturally high testosterone and more ability to build muscle than perhaps these men.



Would those particular women still be able to build more muscle than those particular men, it seems far-fetched but I'm not an expert.

If that is the case, (jake's on them) then yeah you can't make a statement of truth regarding all women and all men.


You've brought a lot of comedic value to this thread and unfortunately nothing more than that. I thank you though, you serve as a great example of how not to raise a child.

I would have, if there was actually something to be taken seriously in the first place lol.

stezus
10-11-2013, 04:15 PM
Would those particular women still be able to build more muscle than those particular men, it seems far-fetched but I'm not an expert.

If that is the case, then yeah you can't make a statement of truth regarding all women and all men.


The point is a statement like men can build muscle easier than women never states ALL MEN. We can already assume it's a stereotype based on an average, referring to the average. Therefore it's no less accurate if there are outliers. Therefore other similar statements i have made regarding women, which are stereotypes based on an average referring to the average, are no less accurate.

Logic is a brilliant thing

Posthardcore
10-11-2013, 04:20 PM
Therefore it's no less accurate if there are outliers.

It actually is less accurate. It's even less accurate depending on what you're talking about. I see you've briefly mentioned ''artists'' in another post. Stating that men are better artists than women is an ignorant statement, both because of the different tones of voices, vocal range, vocal timbre (in case of singers) or even because of stage presence alone AND the fact that there are many women who are better overall artists than most men.

It seems more conventional to say that men can build more muscle than women (without specifying on average) because it's more practical in terms of training, nutrition, expectations etc.

In many cases, it is nothing more but either statistical masturbation or pure sexism (not talking about you in particular).

Some dude want to be entitled to some kind of superiority because of their gender, which THAT is being a phaggot.

Kaybee93
10-11-2013, 04:29 PM
I know dude, no matter how hard I try to push my opinion that gravity makes things fall, it won't make it a fact.

Lol at you.

There is a flaw in your thinking. Your opinion that gravity makes things falls is not what makes gravity a fact. What makes it a fact is the law of gravity. Your opinion is worthless in proving that gravity is a fact. Slight nuance, but important nonetheless.

And yes, you actually CAN do things to spread homosexuality. You can do things to spread almost any immoral conduct. The same way sluttiness, drug use, binge drinking and smoking were spread. Get em when young, tell them it's normal and cool, watch it spread.

I'd also like to point out that the normalization of destructive behaviors stems from liberals. Many will get offended but liberals have a different brain structure, which is a direct result of living in an environment of plenty. I'd recommend anyone interested in this to look up r/k theory.

stezus
10-11-2013, 04:29 PM
It actually is less accurate. It's even less accurate depending on what you're talking about.

No it isn't, if the average is clear then we can make the same generalizations about the muscle building claim. Women have several biological differences that we can make similar conclusions about. They have less ability to handle stress (fact), weaker (fact), less aggressive (fact), more risk averse (fact). I could go on and on. After building so many facts we can make some inferences about their performance that's affected by these traits, such as leadership.

Anyway time to go out and destroy some sloots

Posthardcore
10-11-2013, 04:39 PM
There is a flaw in your thinking. Your opinion that gravity makes things falls is not what makes gravity a fact. What makes it a fact is the law of gravity. Your opinion is worthless in proving that gravity is a fact. Slight nuance, but important nonetheless.

And yes, you actually CAN do things to spread homosexuality. You can do things to spread almost any immoral conduct. The same way sluttiness, drug use, binge drinking and smoking were spread. Get em when young, tell them it's normal and cool, watch it spread.

I'd also like to point out that the normalization of destructive behaviors stems from liberals. Many will get offended but liberals have a different brain structure, which is a direct result of living in an environment of plenty. I'd recommend anyone interested in this to look up r/k theory.

And I agree with your first paragraph. That's exactly why it's important not to mistake facts with opinions.

I don't know about you, but I'm disgusted by the sole sight of a naked male and I've been that way since I started having erections, there is no way someone is going to ''spread'' homosexuality and force it upon me.

We're in 2013 though, I don't have the time nor the energy to explain to you such things, most of the world has grown out of that biggotry. Your kind is no longer a threat towards humanity. Nothing personal though.

Posthardcore
10-11-2013, 04:40 PM
No it isn't, if the average is clear then we can make the same generalizations about the muscle building claim. Women have several biological differences that we can make similar conclusions about. They have less ability to handle stress (fact), weaker (fact), less aggressive (fact), more risk averse (fact). I could go on and on. After building so many facts we can make some inferences about their performance that's affected by these traits, such as leadership.

Anyway time to go out and destroy some sloots

Dude, yes it IS less accurate.

Saying that X is better in Y (when in fact, some cases it's the contrary) is LESS accurate than saying some or most X are better than some or most Y.

Lol'd at bolded.

Kaybee93
10-11-2013, 05:13 PM
And I agree with your first paragraph. That's exactly why it's important not to mistake facts with opinions.

I don't know about you, but I'm disgusted by the sole sight of a naked male and I've been that way since I started having erections, there is no way someone is going to ''spread'' homosexuality and force it upon me.

We're in 2013 though, I don't have the time nor the energy to explain to you such things, most of the world has grown out of that biggotry. Your kind is no longer a threat towards humanity. Nothing personal though.


It is not about you or me. At around age 22, brain plasticity sharply decreases and we start to really come into who we are. Unless you've been a closet gay all this time since then, there is little risk of you going gay past 22

However, when you are young, you're not intellectually sound enough to fight off the propaganda in the media. Kids are highly influencable. Some of them are bound to experiment after hearing all that BS on how being gay is normal and healthy and all that jazz. That is how homosexuality is spread, by indoctrinating the minds of kids.

Liberals have used this tactic to spread whatever movement they've been spearheading insidiously through the population.

PS: Anyone ever notice that whenever you disagree with liberal ideology, you are a bigot. Tolerance only applies when you think like them. I believe that is what is called hypocrisy.

fsuboy1411
10-11-2013, 05:22 PM
Also, lol at ''gays have the same rights'' ignoring that the very definition of marriage is discriminatory. Let's write a law that says you can't hang out with people who are shorter than you. Hey, it applies to everyone equally herp derp.
When you CANNOT have children, marriage is IRRELEVANT. The very concept of marriage was brought about for the sole purpose of regulating the responsibilities and obligations that come along with procreation. This is an attempt to change the very definition of Marriage. Again, lesbians and Gays CANNOT have children, so marriage is irrelevant.

Fiyero
10-11-2013, 05:33 PM
Gays have the exact same rights as everyone else. There are no laws against homosexuality in America, so the term "gay rights" is a paradox in itself.No, they do not. And homosexuality is only legal in America, because of the equal rights movement. 10 years ago it was illegal. And gays still cannot marry a person of their choosing, and can be fired or denied housing for being gay.

Fiyero
10-11-2013, 05:35 PM
When you CANNOT have children, marriage is IRRELEVANT. The very concept of marriage was brought about for the sole purpose of regulating the responsibilities and obligations that come along with procreation. This is an attempt to change the very definition of Marriage. Again, lesbians and Gays CANNOT have children, so marriage is irrelevant.No United States marriage law requires children to obtain a marriage license, so your argument is meaningless. Infertile people and people who choose not to have children can still get married, therefore denying it to gays on that basis is legally invalid. And gays are capable of having children in the same ways many heterosexuals have children.

BeefyMcNasty
10-11-2013, 05:37 PM
So a comment made by an actor is a "gay agenda?"

Timmy96
10-11-2013, 05:38 PM
The stupidity in this thread is simply amazing. It is no wonder why we need anti discrimination laws to protect Gays.

TAS44
10-11-2013, 05:44 PM
When you CANNOT have children, marriage is IRRELEVANT. The very concept of marriage was brought about for the sole purpose of regulating the responsibilities and obligations that come along with procreation. This is an attempt to change the very definition of Marriage. Again, lesbians and Gays CANNOT have children, so marriage is irrelevant.
-Homosexuals can raise children, just not biological children.
-Today the purpose of marriage is to "unite" two people in love, to serve as a financial partnership, and to set financial guidelines.

I don't know what definition of marriage you are referring to, but the biblical definition of marriage has been irrelevant for hundreds of years.

fsuboy1411
10-11-2013, 05:46 PM
No United States marriage law requires children to obtain a marriage license, so your argument is meaningless. Infertile people and people who choose not to have children can still get married, therefore denying it to gays on that basis is legally invalid. And gays are capable of having children in the same ways many heterosexuals have children.
Procreation IS ALWAYS possible between a man and a women. Procreation, IS IN NO WAY, POSSIBLE between two men or two women. Again, THERE IS ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY, albeit very small possibility between certain men and women, BUT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY. Again, Marriage has had one definition, and only one definition throughout human history. That is, to regulate the obligations and responsibilities that come along with procreation. If two men or two women marry each other, PROCREATION IS NOT POSSIBLE.

Mr Beer
10-11-2013, 05:50 PM
Procreation IS ALWAYS possible between a man and a women. Procreation, IS IN NO WAY, POSSIBLE between two men or two women. Again, THERE IS ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY, albeit very small possibility between certain men and women, BUT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY. Again, Marriage has had one definition, and only one definition throughout human history. That is, to regulate the obligations and responsibilities that come along with procreation. If two men or two women marry each other, PROCREATION IS NOT POSSIBLE.

If two 80 year olds marry each other PROCREATION IS NOT POSSIBLE. If a guy who cannot produce living sperm marries PROCREATION IS NOT POSSIBLE. If a woman has no ovaries then PROCREATION IS NOT POSSIBLE.

Sorry, but capital letters are not a viable substitute for logic.

TAS44
10-11-2013, 05:54 PM
The stupidity in this thread is simply amazing. It is no wonder why we need anti discrimination laws to protect Gays.
Conservative logic at it's finest.

Fiyero
10-11-2013, 05:57 PM
Procreation IS ALWAYS possible between a man and a women. Procreation, IS IN NO WAY, POSSIBLE between two men or two women. Again, THERE IS ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY, albeit very small possibility between certain men and women, BUT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY. Again, Marriage has had one definition, and only one definition throughout human history. That is, to regulate the obligations and responsibilities that come along with procreation. If two men or two women marry each other, PROCREATION IS NOT POSSIBLE.Marriage has had countless definitions, what the heck are you talking about? Our version is actually very very modern. And children are not required for marriage, which means your argument is irrelevant when discussing marriage laws.

Igmann
10-11-2013, 05:57 PM
No, they do not. And homosexuality is only legal in America, because of the equal rights movement. 10 years ago it was illegal. And gays still cannot marry a person of their choosing, and can be fired or denied housing for being gay.

Even 10 years ago you would not go to prison for being gay. Again the same laws that gays have to follow, straight people have to follow as well.

Fiyero
10-11-2013, 05:59 PM
Even 10 years ago you would not go to prison for being gay. Again the same laws that gays have to follow, straight people have to follow as well.Straight people don't get fired or denied housing for being straight. Straight people aren't denied 1500 state and federal benefits for choosing to marry the person they love. And 50 years ago, being gay most certainly could get your imprisoned or tortured.

Igmann
10-11-2013, 06:21 PM
Straight people don't get fired or denied housing for being straight.

They could be fired or denied for being straight, seeing that it is not a protected status.


Straight people aren't denied 1500 state and federal benefits for choosing to marry the person they love.

I can agree that the federal government shouldn't give special benefits to anyone just for being married.


And 50 years ago, being gay most certainly could get your imprisoned or tortured.

Okay...50 years ago.

Kiknskreem
10-11-2013, 06:35 PM
Gays have the exact same rights as everyone else. There are no laws against homosexuality in America, so the term "gay rights" is a paradox in itself.

You don't exactly have your rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness if you can't marry your consenting adult partner because they're the same gender as you.

Nor equal protection under the law.

Not that your opinion really matters though... society's trajectory is well set. Don't let the door hit your beliefs on the way out.

Igmann
10-11-2013, 06:38 PM
And black people and white people both had to follow anti miscegination laws.

Are you saying interracial marriage bans are not a rights issue?


But they do.

So the fact that you think they shouldn't doesn't mean its then ok to deny gays equal protection under the law.

Let's not derail the thread here...

Interracial marriage and gay marriage are two completely different issues.

Government benefits for married couples is wrong. We can argue that it is discriminatory towards people who are asexual or just never plan on getting married. Why should anyone who is married get those 1500 benefits when someone who is not married can't? How will allowing gay marriage to take place alleviate the fact that non-married people are being discriminated against? Two wrongs =/= right

And since when does the Constitution give the federal government the responsibility to deal with marriage in the first place? This is clearly a state issue.

Spartan5364
10-11-2013, 06:40 PM
You don't exactly have your rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness if you can't marry your consenting adult partner because they're the same gender as you.

Nor equal protection under the law.

Not that your opinion really matters though... society's trajectory is well set. Don't let the door hit your beliefs on the way out.

prop 8, nevar forget

Kiknskreem
10-11-2013, 06:43 PM
Interracial marriage and gay marriage are two completely different issues.

No, they are fundamentally the same.

Both gays and interracial couples were prohibited from marrying for no reason other than people's prejudices.


Government benefits for married couples is wrong. We can argue that it is discriminatory towards people who are asexual or just never plan on getting married. Why should anyone who is married get those 1500 benefits when someone who is not married can't? How will allowing gay marriage to take place alleviate the fact that non-married people are being discriminated against? Two wrongs =/= right

Its cool if you don't think marriage benefits should exist, but so long as they do, gays should get them just like straights.



And since when does the Constitution give the federal government the responsibility to deal with marriage in the first place? This is clearly a state issue.

Everybody has their right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and also equal protection under the law.

fsuboy1411
10-11-2013, 06:43 PM
If two 80 year olds marry each other PROCREATION IS NOT POSSIBLE. If a guy who cannot produce living sperm marries PROCREATION IS NOT POSSIBLE. If a woman has no ovaries then PROCREATION IS NOT POSSIBLE.

Sorry, but capital letters are not a viable substitute for logic.
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/pregnant-at-70/
Procreation is always possible between a man and a women. No matter what the age. It may be highly, highly unlikely, but it is possible. Men produce sperm their whole life until they die. 2 men or 2 women can never produce children, ever, in the history of their marriage. You are attempting to change the definition of marriage.

If you want to argue about a man being castrated, or having a vasectomy, or a women having her tubes tied, and then still being able to get married, then fine. Get your story straight.

stancel
10-11-2013, 06:45 PM
People are born gay just like you are born straight. It's not something they adopt due to outside influences, I first realized I was gay when I was 11 years old, almost 12 because I was starting to have sexual/erotic fantasies for the very first time and they were about males only. I never ever had any sexual feelings/attraction toward the opposite sex. Before I knew I was gay, I had a few crushes on girls, because I thought I was straight because that's what society said boys were supposed to be. But one's natural sexuality wins over what society thinks. Society taught me to be a straight boy, but my homosexuality was going to develop anyway. Just like heterosexuals, homosexuals realize their orientation at puberty as their sexuality begins to develop. Homophobes are trying to legislate against people's natural sexuality. There is nothing that can make a homosexual man become a heterosexual man. It's part of who you are on a biological level.

Kiknskreem
10-11-2013, 06:46 PM
If you want to argue about a man being castrated, or having a vasectomy, or a women having her tubes tied, and then still being able to get married, then fine. Get your story straight.

Well you don't think a man who lost his testes in a car crash shouldn't be able to get married, do you?

Igmann
10-11-2013, 06:58 PM
No, they are fundamentally the same.

Okay an interracial straight couple getting married is the same as two men getting married, you win. That's why interracial marriage was legalized 50 years ago give or take and gay marriage still isn't legal in most states.



Both gays and interracial couples were prohibited from marrying for no reason other than people's prejudices.

Not really. It's just so easy to peg one issue (gay marriage) to another issue (interracial marriage), isn't it. Especially an issue that's as sensitive to this country as race relations.



Its cool if you don't think marriage benefits should exist, but so long as they do, gays should get them just like straights.

Everybody has their right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and also equal protection under the law.

So the solution to ending the discrimination against those who are asexual or don't want to get married is to expand the discriminating act of giving marriage benefits not just to straight people but also to homosexuals. I don't agree with that.

Kiknskreem
10-11-2013, 07:02 PM
Not really.

Yes, really. There is no legitimate reason why gays should not be able to get married.



So the solution to ending the discrimination against those who are asexual or don't want to get married is to expand the discriminating act of giving marriage benefits not just to straight people but also to homosexuals.

I said nothing of the sort. If you think asexuals are being denied their constitutional rights, however, you should advocate for them.

Bhavasita87
10-11-2013, 07:03 PM
The stupidity in this thread is simply amazing. It is no wonder why we need anti discrimination laws to protect Gays.

Super geeky/nerdy people are bullied, made fun of, and stereotyped. We definitely need anti-discrimination laws to protect them.

Igmann
10-11-2013, 07:10 PM
Yes, really. There is no legitimate reason why gays should not be able to get married.

If the individual states want to take on that issue, it is their Constitutional right to do so. It is not a federal or civil rights issue and it should stay that way.



I said nothing of the sort. If you think asexuals are being denied their constitutional rights, however, you should advocate for them.

Anyone who makes the decision never to get married is being treated unequally by the law, not just asexuals. That's not my issue to advocate for although it is a double standard. All I'm asking for is consistency.

Igmann
10-11-2013, 07:14 PM
Super geeky/nerdy people are bullied, made fun of, and stereotyped. We definitely need anti-discrimination laws to protect them.

Yes, we need anti-discrimination laws for zoophilliacs, necrophilliacs, furries and so forth...It's the only fair way.

After all, why should I as a landlord discriminate against the guy who wants to fondle his live in goat ON MY PROPERTY of all places.

Kiknskreem
10-11-2013, 07:20 PM
If the individual states want to take on that issue, it is their Constitutional right to do so. It is not a federal or civil rights issue and it should stay that way.

Its every bit as much a civil rights issue as interracial marriage.



Anyone who makes the decision never to get married is being treated unequally by the law, not just asexuals. That's not my issue to advocate for although it is a double standard. All I'm asking for is consistency.

I have no problem with taxing people equally.

Posthardcore
10-11-2013, 08:29 PM
It is not about you or me. At around age 22, brain plasticity sharply decreases and we start to really come into who we are. Unless you've been a closet gay all this time since then, there is little risk of you going gay past 22

However, when you are young, you're not intellectually sound enough to fight off the propaganda in the media. Kids are highly influencable. Some of them are bound to experiment after hearing all that BS on how being gay is normal and healthy and all that jazz. That is how homosexuality is spread, by indoctrinating the minds of kids.

Liberals have used this tactic to spread whatever movement they've been spearheading insidiously through the population.

PS: Anyone ever notice that whenever you disagree with liberal ideology, you are a bigot. Tolerance only applies when you think like them. I believe that is what is called hypocrisy.

Source pls.

Posthardcore
10-11-2013, 08:30 PM
When you CANNOT have children, marriage is IRRELEVANT. The very concept of marriage was brought about for the sole purpose of regulating the responsibilities and obligations that come along with procreation. This is an attempt to change the very definition of Marriage. Again, lesbians and Gays CANNOT have children, so marriage is irrelevant.

So couples who do not sign a contract saying they are planning on having children shouldn't have the right to get married right?

Mr Beer
10-12-2013, 12:44 PM
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/pregnant-at-70/
Procreation is always possible between a man and a women. No matter what the age.

It wasn't her egg. If you're going to say, procreation is always possible, when you use eggs or sperm from other people, then guess what, gay couples can procreate too. I am honestly embarrassed for you right now.


You are attempting to change the definition of marriage.

No sir, in fact it is you that is attempting to change the definition of marriage, to "procreation management contract", or whatever weird phrase it is that you think best serves your agenda here.


If you want to argue about a man being castrated, or having a vasectomy, or a women having her tubes tied, and then still being able to get married, then fine. Get your story straight.

My position is consistent: your argument that the right to marriage is dependant upon the possibility of natural procreation is nonsense unless you are going to exclude infertile straight people from marriage...which would be equally nonsensical, but whatever. People believe all kinds of crazy crap, but you'll get called on it.

Fiyero
10-12-2013, 12:56 PM
Let's not derail the thread here...

Interracial marriage and gay marriage are two completely different issues. Legally, no they are not.

Carpig
10-12-2013, 01:08 PM
Legally, no they are not.

But they are. The reasons given for restricting or allowing are different.

Defined gender roles and race are not the same. Everytime the gay agenda spouts this nonsene, Dr. King rolls over in his grave.

Race can be proven through lineage and genealogy (let alone physical characteristics). There is no such way to prove any kind of gay legacy. "Oh, Im half Italian and half queer on my mom's side of the family."

Posthardcore
10-12-2013, 01:11 PM
But they are. The reasons given for restricting or allowing are different.



They are still analogous since reasons given for both are just as retarded and illegitimate.

Fiyero
10-12-2013, 01:15 PM
But they are. The reasons given for restricting or allowing are different. One discriminates on the basis of race, one discriminates on the basis of gender. Both are equally protected classes. Nope, they're not different legally.


Defined gender roles and race are not the same. Everytime the gay agenda spouts this nonsene, Dr. King rolls over in his grave. Guess he hated his wife, since she compared the two often.

Carpig
10-12-2013, 01:52 PM
One discriminates on the basis of race, one discriminates on the basis of gender. Both are equally protected classes. Nope, they're not different legally.

Guess he hated his wife, since she compared the two often.


How is there any gender discrimination? Marriage is legal based on actual, tangible gender characteristics and all people have access to the same type of marriage. Just because the current version of marriage doesnt fit your lifestyle does not make it discriminatory.

Equal doesnt mean fair.

Carpig
10-12-2013, 01:56 PM
They are still analogous since reasons given for both are just as retarded and illegitimate.

That is quite the intellectually dishonest statement.

Please show me where we shipped in gays by the thousands, enslaved them, and treated them like second class citizens for a couple centuries.

Bhavasita87
10-12-2013, 02:06 PM
The gov should not be involved in marriage.

But phuck the LGBT/gay pride types who feel that they deserve some sort of special recognition for being gay, or that they deserve to have everyone accept them. I support your freedom to bang another dude. I also support someone's freedom to not serve you, because they don't like guys who bang other dudes.

And Lol@ the people who seem to think that gay rights is pretty much one of the most important issues in the world.

Posthardcore
10-12-2013, 02:18 PM
That is quite the intellectually dishonest statement.

Please show me where we shipped in gays by the thousands, enslaved them, and treated them like second class citizens for a couple centuries.

How does that have anyhing to do with what I said about the retarded reasons supporting discriminatory laws?

Fiyero
10-12-2013, 02:36 PM
How is there any gender discrimination? A man can marry a woman. A man cannot marry a man for the sole reason that his biological sex is male. That's Sex discrimination and a violation of the 14th Amendment.


Marriage is legal based on actual, tangible gender characteristics and all people have access to the same type of marriage. Just because the current version of marriage doesnt fit your lifestyle does not make it discriminatory. Pretty much every court case that has addressed this issue disagrees with you.

Kaybee93
10-12-2013, 03:11 PM
I don't get why people are making such a big deal about gay marriage.

I see marriage as an arrangement to maximize productivity, stability and give children the best possible environment to grow in. The key here being children. Which is why government incentivizes marriage as they are investing in a proper upbringing of the future generations.

Bastards have always been frowned upon and for good reason. You need a legitimate father and a mother to properly raise a kid, despite what the liberals will tell you. Oh and please don't bring out the example of the one kid who turned out alright, as I have the stats behind me to back my claim.

The government understands that and incentivizes people to get married and have children. This is beneficial to society.

Now, gays don't reproduce. What is the point of them marrying and getting the incentives designed for those who are supposed to make and raise kids? And yes, I believe anyone who isn't planning on having kids shouldn't marry and receive incentives designed for those who are supposed to ensure the future generations are well brought up. Anyways, at the point where the marriage institution is now, we might as well be done with it.

Posthardcore
10-12-2013, 03:14 PM
I don't get why people are making such a big deal about gay marriage.

I see marriage as an arrangement to maximize productivity, stability and give children the best possible environment to grow in.

But no one cares about how you see marriage. That's irrelevant.

Carpig
10-12-2013, 03:15 PM
A man can marry a woman. A man cannot marry a man for the sole reason that his biological sex is male. That's Sex discrimination and a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Pretty much every court case that has addressed this issue disagrees with you.

That's quite the stretch. Homos are not a protected class, thus it is not discrimination.


For the record...I'm not a fan of marriage in any form. I agree it's tilted unfairly against singles/gays with regards to taxation and certain benefits. The issue is that homosexuality is not a tangible trait (like race or gender) and its separated from other sexual deviance only by arbitrary social constructs. How is it equal to publicly condone one abnormality but not another?

Posthardcore
10-12-2013, 03:16 PM
How is it equal to publicly condone one abnormality but not another?

What other abnormality are you talking about?

Carpig
10-12-2013, 03:34 PM
What other abnormality are you talking about?

Any other sexual deviance is, by definition, abnormal.


I'm not saying we shouldn't tolerate. I'm saying it should not be endorsed and condoned.

Lakersbake
10-12-2013, 04:19 PM
But no one cares about how you see marriage. That's irrelevant.

Just like with gun control, think about the children.

Timmy96
10-12-2013, 04:51 PM
Any other sexual deviance is, by definition, abnormal.


I'm not saying we shouldn't tolerate. I'm saying it should not be endorsed and condoned.

You are assuming homosexuality is abnormal which it isn't.

cool2001
10-12-2013, 04:57 PM
Any other sexual deviance is, by definition, abnormal.


I'm not saying we shouldn't tolerate. I'm saying it should not be endorsed and condoned.


You're a little late for that redneck view. Legally It HAS been both endorsed and condoned for the last 40 years. Switch on the TV - it's mainstream.

TreFo
10-12-2013, 05:16 PM
yup

Fiyero
10-12-2013, 05:40 PM
That's quite the stretch. Homos are not a protected class, thus it is not discrimination. But sex is, and a partner's sex is being discriminated against.



How is it equal to publicly condone one abnormality but not another?Because there is no rational or legal reason to deny equality to gays.

Fiyero
10-12-2013, 05:42 PM
Any other sexual deviance is, by definition, abnormal.


I'm not saying we shouldn't tolerate. I'm saying it should not be endorsed and condoned.Why? What is endorsing or condoning gay people who exist going to do? It's not going to create more gays. This is such an issue, because people like you make such a big deal out of the whole concept of sexual orientation. Some men are attracted to other men. Some women are attracted to other women. Some people are attracted to both men and women. That's reality and has been that way for all of animal history. Get therapy if it bothers you so much, but get over it.

Posthardcore
10-12-2013, 06:18 PM
Any other sexual deviance is, by definition, abnormal.




Like?

cool2001
10-12-2013, 07:01 PM
I don't get why people are making such a big deal about gay marriage.

I see marriage as an arrangement to maximize productivity, stability and give children the best possible environment to grow in. The key here being children. Which is why government incentivizes marriage as they are investing in a proper upbringing of the future generations.

Bastards have always been frowned upon and for good reason. You need a legitimate father and a mother to properly raise a kid, despite what the liberals will tell you. Oh and please don't bring out the example of the one kid who turned out alright, as I have the stats behind me to back my claim.

The government understands that and incentivizes people to get married and have children. This is beneficial to society.

Now, gays don't reproduce. What is the point of them marrying and getting the incentives designed for those who are supposed to make and raise kids? And yes, I believe anyone who isn't planning on having kids shouldn't marry and receive incentives designed for those who are supposed to ensure the future generations are well brought up. Anyways, at the point where the marriage institution is now, we might as well be done with it.

The big handouts come when the couple has kids. So just being married means little.

8814
10-12-2013, 07:28 PM
Homosexuality, ****philia, bestiality, incest are all immoral. You can rank them if you like but the bottom line is the same.

The gay agenda is indeed out in full force. It's not going to be done away with singly; at least not in present day America.

cool2001
10-12-2013, 10:46 PM
Homosexuality, ****philia, bestiality, incest are all immoral. You can rank them if you like but the bottom line is the same.

The gay agenda is indeed out in full force. It's not going to be done away with singly; at least not in present day America.

Do you see a future America that wakes up to itself and rounds up the homos and shoots them or at least makes it illegal and locks them in jail?

sawoobley
10-12-2013, 10:55 PM
Do you see a future America that wakes up to itself and rounds up the homos and shoots them or at least makes it illegal and locks them in jail?

No.

Bullroarer
10-12-2013, 11:33 PM
Do you see a future America that wakes up to itself and rounds up the homos and shoots them or at least makes it illegal and locks them in jail?

Take the long view. What the gay rights crowd has proven is that human sexual morals are pliable and can be molded to suit anyone's agenda. Fair enough, we pretty much all knew that.

Now, America isn't going anywhere. We're going to be here for a long, long time. Over the course of our nation's moral evolution, we can easily expect to see gays go out of favor, come back into favor, get rounded up and shot, etc. a thousand times over before this country's done. Same with every other sexually aberrant group out there.

The question is: considering what we now know about morality's plasticity, how is it any more immoral to round them up and lock them away than it is to let them marry and have pride festivals?

Dioskouori
10-12-2013, 11:48 PM
If gays can marry will they stop holding pride parades and rallies? cause I'll call my congress man right now.

Actually probably not. Steve King for one, legal in Iowa for another.

cool2001
10-12-2013, 11:57 PM
Take the long view. What the gay rights crowd has proven is that human sexual morals are pliable and can be molded to suit anyone's agenda. Fair enough, we pretty much all knew that.

Now, America isn't going anywhere. We're going to be here for a long, long time. Over the course of our nation's moral evolution, we can easily expect to see gays go out of favor, come back into favor, get rounded up and shot, etc. a thousand times over before this country's done. Same with every other sexually aberrant group out there.

The question is: considering what we now know about morality's plasticity, how is it any more immoral to round them up and lock them away than it is to let them marry and have pride festivals?

I was just asking a question.

I can see Americans burning homos at the stake. Maybe not tomorrow but in the South they'll be lighting bonfires.

Dioskouori
10-13-2013, 12:00 AM
I was just asking a question.

I can see Americans burning homos at the stake. Maybe not tomorrow but in the South they'll be lighting bonfires.Based on? Where are you from?

Kiknskreem
10-13-2013, 12:44 AM
The question is: considering what we now know about morality's plasticity, how is it any more immoral to round them up and lock them away than it is to let them marry and have pride festivals?

Oh, good call.

And since morality is just a plastic construct, how is slavery any more immoral than not having slavery?

Asking the tough questions as always, bullroarer. :rolleyes:

Bullroarer
10-13-2013, 01:32 AM
Oh, good call.

And since morality is just a plastic construct, how is slavery any more immoral than not having slavery?

Asking the tough questions as always, bullroarer. :rolleyes:

Well, yeah, that is a good question. Got any answers?

I mean, I don't think you realize that the underlying assumption of y'all's crusade here is that all morality can be socially constructed to suit anyone's purposes. That being the case, how is your morality any more moral than anyone else's? Iow, why should anyone take you guys' claims to be judges of other people's (read: homophobes', racists', misogynists') morals seriously?

Kiknskreem
10-13-2013, 01:47 AM
Well, yeah, that is a good question. Got any answers?

I mean, I don't think you realize that the underlying assumption of y'all's crusade here is that all morality can be socially constructed to suit anyone's purposes. That being the case, how is your morality any more moral than anyone else's? Iow, why should anyone take you guys' claims to be judges of other people's (read: homophobes', racists', misogynists') morals seriously?

Morality doesn't really exist, its just people's opinions. Yea, we get it.

I think we all know that understanding that academically doesn't generally inform one's actual behavior in the real world.

Unless one is a complete sociopath, perhaps.

cool2001
10-13-2013, 02:24 AM
If Obama could decree that all homosexual babies be drowned at birth we could eradicate the problem in a couple of generations.

Kaybee93
10-13-2013, 04:21 AM
But no one cares about how you see marriage. That's irrelevant.

This is definitely furthering the conversation. You might as well have not posted if you didn't have **** to say.

ICrapBig
10-13-2013, 04:23 AM
Morality doesn't really exist, its just people's opinions. Yea, we get it.

I think we all know that understanding that academically doesn't generally inform one's actual behavior in the real world.

Unless one is a complete sociopath, perhaps.

What a load of crap.

Morality is easy to define and innate in almost all mammals, just developed to different degrees across species. Human morality is not difficult to define and those feelings of disgust people hold for homosexuality are as natural as breathing oxygen

Start here (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=jonathan+haidt+the+righteous+mind&rlz=1C1CKMB_enAU497AU497&oq=jonathan+haid&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0l5.6270j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8) before you make retarded statements like that

Kiknskreem
10-13-2013, 07:02 AM
What a load of crap.

Morality is easy to define and innate in almost all mammals, just developed to different degrees across species. Human morality is not difficult to define and those feelings of disgust people hold for homosexuality are as natural as breathing oxygen

Start here (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=jonathan+haidt+the+righteous+mind&rlz=1C1CKMB_enAU497AU497&oq=jonathan+haid&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0l5.6270j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8) before you make retarded statements like that

Sorry, morality does not objectively exist. There is no actual right or wrong.

Get over it.

Timmy96
10-13-2013, 07:36 AM
Do you see a future America that wakes up to itself and rounds up the homos and shoots them or at least makes it illegal and locks them in jail?

I think something similar was tried in Germany during WWII. How well did that work out for them?

8814
10-13-2013, 09:19 AM
Do you see a future America that wakes up to itself and rounds up the homos and shoots them or at least makes it illegal and locks them in jail?

No.

ChickenDiapers
10-13-2013, 09:33 AM
Pray to God
Who?

Posthardcore
10-13-2013, 10:40 AM
Homosexuality, ****philia, bestiality, incest are all immoral. You can rank them if you like but the bottom line is the same.

The gay agenda is indeed out in full force. It's not going to be done away with singly; at least not in present day America.

Homosexuality: Neither orientation nor act are immoral
****philia: Sexual interest not immoral but act is immoral since there is no informed consent capability
Beastiality: Sexual interest not immoral bu act is immoral since there is no consent capability
Incest: Neither sexual interest nor act are immoral

They all are completely different things.


This is definitely furthering the conversation. You might as well have not posted if you didn't have **** to say.

I was being honest. What you said is irrelevant to whether gays should have the right to get married. You need a legit argument.


What a load of crap.

Morality is easy to define and innate in almost all mammals, just developed to different degrees across species. Human morality is not difficult to define and those feelings of disgust people hold for homosexuality are as natural as breathing oxygen

Start here (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=jonathan+haidt+the+righteous+mind&rlz=1C1CKMB_enAU497AU497&oq=jonathan+haid&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0l5.6270j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8) before you make retarded statements like that


Sorry, morality does not objectively exist. There is no actual right or wrong.

Get over it.

Kiknskreem is correct. ICrapBig, you fail. :D

dekiruman
10-13-2013, 11:24 AM
Step 1: Race Card
Step 2: Straw Man

I can't believe natural selection has failed us so badly that your parents have actually managed to reproduce. And you're still alive into your 20s...it's that modern medicine/lifestyle. You know if we lived in the caveman days, you would be the beta that acts as the personal b*tch to the tribe's alpha. You'd sit in the corner and jerk off watching him fuack all the women. You probably have some cuckold fantasies, I mean I can just see the submissiveness and weakness in all of your posts on this section.



Gay marriage by itself isn't the issue. There's more to destroying tradition than implementing one act. The gay agenda as an aggregate force isn't about gay marriage, it's about pushing Hollywood to present homosexuality as the norm. It's about pushing it into the education system and society as a whole.

Aside from that, I don't think that government should be in the business of marriage in the first place. You shouldn't get special tax privileges just because you are married to someone.

I wonder whether or not you're worth wasting my rational thoughts. No one can make you gay, no matter how much media or how many cultural influences come your way.

Could anyone ever make YOU want to get down with a dude? Didn't think so.

And gay people will not get married in large numbers, there are to many obstructive pathologies in gay culture for large numbers of gay men to get married. So quit worrying.

Bhavasita87
10-13-2013, 12:52 PM
It would be interesting to see how many people who support legal homosexual marriage would oppose legal incestual or polygamous marriage.

Fiyero
10-13-2013, 01:09 PM
If Obama could decree that all homosexual babies be drowned at birth we could eradicate the problem in a couple of generations.Since heterosexuals have gay babies, gays would still be born in the exact same numbers they are now.

Spartan5364
10-13-2013, 01:10 PM
Since heterosexuals have gay babies, gays would still be born in the exact same numbers they are now.

wait, so it's not genetic?

Fiyero
10-13-2013, 01:13 PM
What a load of crap.

Morality is easy to define and innate in almost all mammals, just developed to different degrees across species. Human morality is not difficult to define and those feelings of disgust people hold for homosexuality are as natural as breathing oxygen

Start here (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=jonathan+haidt+the+righteous+mind&rlz=1C1CKMB_enAU497AU497&oq=jonathan+haid&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0l5.6270j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8) before you make retarded statements like thatI don't really see any logical reason of why it would be inherently disgusting. What rationally makes a man being in love with a man disgusting, while a man being in love with a woman is not? Aside from different anatomy, I don't see how that would be disgusting, and most straight people I know don't find it disgusting.

Fiyero
10-13-2013, 01:14 PM
wait, so it's not genetic?When did I say it's not genetic/biological? You guys keep whining that gays can't reproduce, and yet you think gays make gay babies?

Spartan5364
10-13-2013, 01:16 PM
When did I say it's not genetic/biological? You guys keep whining that gays can't reproduce, and yet you think gays make gay babies?

well if it's not inherited from parents then it's not genetic... random mutations would not be able to produce so many homosexuals

Fiyero
10-13-2013, 01:19 PM
well if it's not inherited from parents then it's not genetic... random mutations would not be able to produce so many homosexualsThere are genetic markers in heterosexuals that can lead to gay offspring. I still can't believe people like you actually think being gay is a choice. The level of disconnect with logic and reality it takes to believe that is mind boggling.

CRyan64
10-13-2013, 01:20 PM
Well, yeah, that is a good question. Got any answers?

I mean, I don't think you realize that the underlying assumption of y'all's crusade here is that all morality can be socially constructed to suit anyone's purposes. That being the case, how is your morality any more moral than anyone else's? Iow, why should anyone take you guys' claims to be judges of other people's (read: homophobes', racists', misogynists') morals seriously?

If we accept this definition, principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior., note that there is no mention of what actions are classed as right/wrong good/bad, only that morality deals with these principles. So ie, raping people could be classified as good.

So yeah, one's sense of morality isn't objectively any "more" moral than another persons. Instead, a moral code can be loosely imposed on a group by physical/psychological power, by law, etc. So instead of asking "why should we listen to what you have to say about morality," instead we should ask, "are there any foundational principles that we can agree upon?"

For example, if we can agree to classify harmful acts as immoral, then we can speak of what kinds of actions that we both agree are immoral. (rape, murder, etc.) If we can agree in saying that everyone should have certain basic rights, then from this we can build a foundation for how we treat others, what they are allowed to have, etc.

So in general, if we can agree to accept a foundational set of axioms, then from there we can agree upon how our society should operate, and we can use these axioms to justify a position on a certain issue.

Spartan5364
10-13-2013, 01:23 PM
There are genetic markers in heterosexuals that can lead to gay offspring. I still can't believe people like you actually think being gay is a choice. The level of disconnect with logic and reality it takes to believe that is mind boggling.

I'm not saying it's a choice. I don't know what it is. I remember reading something about how there was a genetic background to it hence why I asked.
I would be surprised if it would be a choice since I don't think anyone would want to choose that kind of lifestyle

fsuboy1411
10-13-2013, 01:26 PM
There are genetic markers in heterosexuals that can lead to gay offspring. I still can't believe people like you actually think being gay is a choice. The level of disconnect with logic and reality it takes to believe that is mind boggling.
link?

Fiyero
10-13-2013, 01:50 PM
link?http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121211083212.htm
Sex-specific epi-marks produced in early fetal development protect each sex from the substantial natural variation in testosterone that occurs during later fetal development. Sex-specific epi-marks stop girl fetuses from being masculinized when they experience atypically high testosterone, and vice versa for boy fetuses. Different epi-marks protect different sex-specific traits from being masculinized or feminized -- some affect the genitals, others sexual identity, and yet others affect sexual partner preference. However, when these epi-marks are transmitted across generations from fathers to daughters or mothers to sons, they may cause reversed effects, such as the feminization of some traits in sons, such as sexual preference, and similarly a partial masculinization of daughters.

KRANE
10-13-2013, 01:56 PM
I'm not saying it's a choice. I don't know what it is. I remember reading something about how there was a genetic background to it hence why I asked.
I would be surprised if it would be a choice since I don't think anyone would want to choose that kind of lifestyleThen allow me me to assist: The way you feel, think, behave is of your own choosing. And certainly what you will/can do is a choice. Hope that helps.

Posthardcore
10-13-2013, 01:59 PM
It would be interesting to see how many people who support legal homosexual marriage would oppose legal incestual or polygamous marriage.

I don't see anything wrong with incestual or polygamous marriage, and I think anybody who's honest has to support those two too.

Spartan5364
10-13-2013, 02:02 PM
Then allow me me to assist: The way you feel, think, behave is of your own choosing. And certainly what you will/can do is a choice. Hope that helps.

no doubt homosexual behavior is immoral and should be stamped out of society but the issue is whether or not homosexuals can choose whom to be attracted to.
As much as you can't choose to be attracted to males, I too doubt they can choose.

Bhavasita87
10-13-2013, 02:03 PM
I don't see anything wrong with incestual or polygamous marriage, and I think anybody who's honest has to support those two too.

Yea, many don't though.

When it comes to homosexuals, they are posting "Love is love" memes on facebook.

But incest or polygamy..... no thanks jeff!

Fiyero
10-13-2013, 02:07 PM
Yea, many don't though.

When it comes to homosexuals, they are posting "Love is love" memes on facebook.

But incest or polygamy..... no thanks jeff!Well, incest and polygamy are historically involved in cults, tribes, and forced marriages. They're typically not the loving, committed, monogamous relationships heterosexual and homosexual relationships strive for. There are also far more legal challenges with polygamy, and the issue of genetic deformities with incest.

Fiyero
10-13-2013, 02:09 PM
no doubt homosexual behavior is immoral and should be stamped out of society but the issue is whether or not homosexuals can choose whom to be attracted to.
As much as you can't choose to be attracted to males, I too doubt they can choose.Why is homosexual behavior immoral and what do you propose a gay person do? Forced celibacy? Marry someone of the opposite-sex? Both options are rejected by Paul.

Posthardcore
10-13-2013, 02:10 PM
Well, incest and polygamy are historically involved in cults, tribes, and forced marriages. They're typically not the loving, committed, monogamous relationships heterosexual and homosexual relationships strive for. There are also far more legal challenges with polygamy, and the issue of genetic deformities with incest.

Rights > Legal Challenges
and
Incestual love =/= reproduction.

Fiyero
10-13-2013, 02:12 PM
Rights > Legal Challenges
and
Incestual love =/= reproduction.I'm merely pointing out you have a much harder time overriding compelling interest when it comes to those situations than gay marriage.

Bhavasita87
10-13-2013, 02:15 PM
Since your argument is pretty much how people who don't like incest or polygamy argue, I'm going to respond to it as such

When it comes to things they like: Tolerance, bitches!!!! Love is love!!!!

When it comes to things they don't like: Come up with stupid and inconsistent arguments.



Well, incest and polygamy are historically involved in cults, tribes, and forced marriages.

And that has any relevance to people in modern times.... how?


They're typically not the loving, committed, monogamous relationships heterosexual and homosexual relationships strive for.

1.) Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

2.) How is this relevant, even if it were true? They should be denied rights because some of these people don't view monogamy the same way as you? Bish, pls.

Your argument is basically the same as people who claim that two gays who want to get married are "destroying marriage". How does two siblings who want to get married affect you?

Love is love. Why are you being such a bigot?



There are also far more legal challenges with polygamy, and the issue of genetic deformities with incest.

So are you against any two people who have a higher risk of children with genetic issues being married? If you say no, then you're an inconsistent hypocrite.

So your argument against why polygamy shouldn't be legal is that the government currently makes it more difficult for it to be practical?

Love is love.

Why are you being such a bigot?

Posthardcore
10-13-2013, 02:16 PM
I'm merely pointing out you have a much harder time overriding compelling interest when it comes to those situations than gay marriage.

Dude..............................

Mr Beer
10-13-2013, 02:45 PM
It would be interesting to see how many people who support legal homosexual marriage would oppose legal incestual or polygamous marriage.

Polygamous marriage would get legally complicated and requires some forethought, there is no reason for it to be illegal though. Would not oppose/10.

My objections to incestuous marriage are to do with birth defects and the broad opportunities for coercive relationships. If these can be addressed reasonably, I guess I would not oppose it. I think it's pretty gross but I don't respect that objection to gay marriage so I have to be consistent here.

Bhavasita87
10-13-2013, 02:51 PM
My objections to incestuous marriage are to do with birth defects and the broad opportunities for coercive relationships. If these can be addressed reasonably, I guess I would not oppose it. I think it's pretty gross but I don't respect that objection to gay marriage so I have to be consistent here.

So the government should regulate personal relationships based on psychological dynamics between the two? Even if you do, coercive relationships can exist in any setting. Should the government conduct psychological evaluations of all prospective couples to make sure that one isn't submissive while the other basically has them by the balls/is manipulative?

And if you oppose it based on potential genetic issues, do you also then support required genetic screening for all potential couples, and then denying marriage to people whose combined DNA has a higher change of genetic issues?

KRANE
10-13-2013, 02:53 PM
no doubt homosexual behavior is immoral and should be stamped out of society but the issue is whether or not homosexuals can choose whom to be attracted to.
As much as you can't choose to be attracted to males, I too doubt they can choose.Baiting aside, I already answer that.
Why is homosexual behavior immoral and what do you propose a gay person do? Forced celibacy? Marry someone of the opposite-sex? Both options are rejected by Paul.More choices. Someone's getting it.

Posthardcore
10-13-2013, 02:54 PM
So the government should regulate personal relationships based on psychological dynamics between the two? Even if you do, coercive relationships can exist in any setting. Should the government conduct psychological evaluations of all prospective couples to make sure that one isn't submissive while the other basically has them by the balls, so to speak?

And if you oppose it based on potential genetic issues, do you also then support required genetic screening for all potential couples, and then denying marriage to people whose combined DNA has a higher change of genetic issues?

I've done my philosophy final project on incest 4 years ago. It was a very challenging topic.

To what extent and at what point should the government regulate the dynamics between two individuals in a relationship?

Bhavasita87
10-13-2013, 02:56 PM
I had done my philosophy final project on incest. It was a very challenging topic.

To what extent and at what point should the government regulate the dynamics between two individuals in a relationship?

Not challenging at all if your principles take a clear stance on the role of government.

Mr Beer
10-13-2013, 02:57 PM
So the government should regulate personal relationships based on psychological dynamics between the two? Even if you do, coercive relationships can exist in any setting. Should the government conduct psychological evaluations of all prospective couples to make sure that one isn't submissive while the other basically has them by the balls, so to speak?

And if you oppose it based on potential genetic issues, do you also then support required genetic screening for all potential couples, and then denying marriage to people whose combined DNA has a higher change of genetic issues?

It's a difficult question, how to reasonably legalise incestuous marriages and I don't pretend to know the answers. All I'm saying is, if it could be managed properly, I wouldn't object.

As far as the whole 'government check' thing goes, I have no problem with the concept of high risk groups receiving additional government attention for otherwise routine matters. Whether it's paying extra attention to Muslims at airports or making it illegal for men to inpregnate their sisters.

Bullroarer
10-13-2013, 03:37 PM
Morality doesn't really exist, its just people's opinions. Yea, we get it.

I think we all know that understanding that academically doesn't generally inform one's actual behavior in the real world.

Unless one is a complete sociopath, perhaps.

Of course it informs people's behavior in the real world, otherwise we wouldn't even be talking about letting you all marry.

You liberals' whole rhetorical strategy boils down to relativizing other people's morals while claiming a privileged position for your own morals, using special terms like 'human rights' to define the discussion for the rest of us.

But if you're saying you recognize all of those things are just opinions, then you're admitting that you guys are full of chit when you claim authority to re-define the nation's sexual and marital morality, mirite?

Posthardcore
10-13-2013, 03:39 PM
Not challenging at all if your principles take a clear stance on the role of government.

It was a philosophy project, not a political science one though. The government is rarely of any relevance when discussing moral issues.

Posthardcore
10-13-2013, 03:41 PM
But if you're saying you recognize all of those things are just opinions, then you're admitting that you guys are full of chit when you claim authority to re-define the nation's sexual and marital morality, mirite?

As long as one agrees with the oppression of a government, he's full of chit dude. It's a matter of who pushes his views the hardest. Some are more consistent than others though.

Bullroarer
10-13-2013, 03:44 PM
Homosexuality: Neither orientation nor act are immoral
****philia: Sexual interest not immoral but act is immoral since there is no informed consent capability
Beastiality: Sexual interest not immoral bu act is immoral since there is no consent capability
Incest: Neither sexual interest nor act are immoral.

'Informed consent' is a modern legal fiction, most societies throughout history have never used it, and 'consent capability' can easily be re-defined to accommodate the above practices. It can also be re-defined such that gays can never give it. Poverty argument, bro.

Bullroarer
10-13-2013, 03:47 PM
I've done my philosophy final project on incest 4 years ago. It was a very challenging topic.

To what extent and at what point should the government regulate the dynamics between two individuals in a relationship?

Can't imagine how anyone from a liberal or libertarian position can have any objection to it other than personal squeamishness. But squeamishness isn't an argument.

Dioskouori
10-13-2013, 03:49 PM
As long as one agrees with the oppression of a government, he's full of chit dude. It's a matter of who pushes his views the hardest. Some are more consistent than others though.Have to agree here. If you accept the state as the final authority then invariably you can't condemn one action by the state while accepting the other. At that point you've already given it control to make those decisions for you. You can bellyache, don't get me wrong (until Fienstein finds a way to limit the first amendment anyway), but you can't push the state to enforce your views and then complain that the state is also enforcing his rules since you both gave the state that authority to do such.

Personally I do not accept the state as the final authority. I place that in the hands of the people. Does that sometimes mean "majority rules" Yes, but that is why education is important, and not just fact regurgitation but actual thinking skills.

Posthardcore
10-13-2013, 03:55 PM
'Informed consent' is a modern legal fiction, most societies throughout history have never used it, and 'consent capability' can easily be re-defined to accommodate the above practices. It can also be re-defined such that gays can never give it. Poverty argument, bro.

Uwotm8?

Informed consent is very clearly defined and it is so based on an individual's ability to understand consequences and implications of a certain activity.

Consent capability is debatable, I agree, but it is also built upon the axiom that you shouldn't take advantage of somebody who just can't and couldn't ever give consent. It is inconsistent though since that would mean we should all be vegans, fukk that. I personally haven't studied the issue of beastiality enough to give an informed opinion.

I'm interested in knowing how it can be redefined to mean gays can't give it though lol.


Can't imagine how anyone from a liberal or libertarian position can have any objection to it other than personal squeamishness. But squeamishness isn't an argument.

Indeed, that's why we came to the conclusion that there's no real solid reason to deem it immoral.

Kiknskreem
10-13-2013, 04:01 PM
Of course it informs people's behavior in the real world, otherwise we wouldn't even be talking about letting you all marry.

You liberals' whole rhetorical strategy boils down to relativizing other people's morals while claiming a privileged position for your own morals, using special terms like 'human rights' to define the discussion for the rest of us.

But if you're saying you recognize all of those things are just opinions, then you're admitting that you guys are full of chit when you claim authority to re-define the nation's sexual and marital morality, mirite?

Can one really claim the moral high ground while acknowledging that objective morality doesn't really exist?

I guess not. Still doesn't change a damn thing with regard to how I feel about gay marriage and the people who oppose it.

DizzySmalls
10-13-2013, 04:02 PM
Can one really claim the moral high ground while acknowledging that objective morality doesn't really exist?

I guess not. Still doesn't change a damn thing with regard to how I feel about gay marriage and the people who oppose it.
You can claim superiority of taste or preference. That's what everyone does.

Posthardcore
10-13-2013, 04:04 PM
You can claim superiority of taste or preference. That's what everyone does.

No, you can claim a more consistent moral code based on meaningful moral axioms that serve a purpose we could all agree on and not just perceived unfounded ''icky feelings''.

DizzySmalls
10-13-2013, 04:05 PM
No, you can claim a more consistent moral code based on meaningful moral axioms that serve a purpose we could all agree on and not just perceived unfounded ''icky feelings''.
You can use that as the basis for your taste if you'd like. It's definitely more convincing to a rational person if you do.