Morally I agree with you, but let's look at this from a different perspective. You cannot legislate morality. People will still be immoral regardless of the law. With that said this argument of beastiality and ****philia always get brought up. This things can be(and should be) legislated because **** PREY on children. It is not consensual, as is the same with beastiality.
|
-
03-19-2014, 10:54 PM #61
-
03-19-2014, 10:55 PM #62
-
03-19-2014, 10:55 PM #63
-
03-19-2014, 10:57 PM #64
-
-
03-19-2014, 10:58 PM #65
-
03-19-2014, 10:58 PM #66
The same argument was used decades ago to oppose freedom of african-americans. Society eventually realized black people were people too and deserved the same treatment white folks had.
Also, people who practice bestiality or ****philia are hurting and affecting third partys. A gay married couple isnt.
Many straight couples do not reproduce in purpose, yet have sex, so what gives then? They commit abominable acts every night then take a pill to counter any possible chance of what in your eyes constitutes the ABSOLUTE and ONLY reason to have sex...
You trolling dude? Its like talking to a cowboy from the 40's
-
03-19-2014, 10:59 PM #67
-
03-19-2014, 10:59 PM #68
who are you to define the arbitrary boundaries of consent? you are so willing to turn to the animal kingdom for examples of "homosexuality" but you use an anthrocentric perspective to judge "consent?" i bet a lot of bestiality enthusiasts would disagree and say that animals can and do consent to mutual, harmless interspecies sexual relationships through their actions rather than verbal communication.
and you are so quick and eager to shove the gay agenda down the throats of children, yet you want to tell them when they can and cannot consent to sex? why cant a sexually and emotionally mature 12 year old have sex with someone over 18? what authority do you or the state have to decide the magical age when someone can consent? so someone 17 years 364 days old cannot consent but someone 18 years 0 days can? what magically changed overnight?
-
-
03-19-2014, 10:59 PM #69
-
03-19-2014, 10:59 PM #70
ok *******, because I don't support queers forcing their agenda into a society that was founded on traditional marriage and was thriving and successful, now turned to chit for many reasons (gay pride being one of them) People like you are just pussies, laying down and letting immoral movements like gay pride force their **** on whoever they want to. Not even giving a chit if they teach kids their "values" I don't care if someones gay but keep it to yourself then no one really gives a chit, but that's the reason why they can't they need to flaunt it because their insecure.
Lol you would believe a psychologist cause you're just a mindless sheep letting everyone do your thinking for you.
yeah and many straight couples have abortions aka killing babies. Another movement you probably support.
-
03-19-2014, 11:00 PM #71
-
03-19-2014, 11:02 PM #72
-
-
03-19-2014, 11:02 PM #73
-
03-19-2014, 11:03 PM #74
-
03-19-2014, 11:05 PM #75
-
03-19-2014, 11:08 PM #76
-
-
03-19-2014, 11:08 PM #77
What about traditional marriage? I'm pro-gay and I support traditional marriage. We just have different understanding of what that actually means. Traditional marriage by any sense of the term is a modern invention to begin with. You view traditional in the narrow classification of gender, despite traditional referring to many other aspects of marriage that you probably wouldn't be too supportive of. Your view of marriage is entirely subjective.
-
03-19-2014, 11:09 PM #78
-
03-19-2014, 11:09 PM #79
-
03-19-2014, 11:11 PM #80
-
-
03-19-2014, 11:11 PM #81
With every new post you make, i get more and more convinced that you are a faggot.
But relax, since as you have learned from my post ITT, i dont have a problem with faggots like you at all. In fact, i have a couple of friends (one male and one female) who are faggots like you and they are two of the best persons ive ever met in my life.
-
03-19-2014, 11:13 PM #82
The born gay thing is just an excuse. No child is born homosexual considering they have no idea what sexual orrientation is at that point of life and are instantly programmed to reproduce. btw they're not gay, the word actually means happy. why should the word queer be offensive when that's a more accurate classification
-
03-19-2014, 11:13 PM #83
definition of phobia is an extreme or irrational fear of
and definition of homo is a homosexual man
put together is an irrational fear of homosexuals but they changed it beacuse homosexuals were acting like fukking *******s and demanded it be change and i mean *******s as in annoying puussy kuntsWhite knights are pathateic and never get women
Always reps good or funny posts
*******Abercrombie Model Aesthetics CREW*************
-
03-19-2014, 11:14 PM #84
a "modern invention" that has existed in dozens of societies for thousands of years. obviously only desiring one sexual partner for your whole life is not natural but sticking with one person of the opposite sex to raise your children certainly is, as statistics would indicate. kids need a mom and dad, each supports different types of growth in the child which is something i strongly believe two same sex parents cannot provide, no matter how good their effort or intentions. my mom and my dad provided very different styles of learning and leadership when i was growing up. inb4 you say two people of the same sex can have different genders or some other delusional BS like that.
more importantly, answer my earlier questions. or are you stumped?
-
-
03-19-2014, 11:16 PM #85
-
03-19-2014, 11:17 PM #86
-
03-19-2014, 11:17 PM #87
-
03-19-2014, 11:17 PM #88
That's the Greek etymology yes. But words gain meaning based on their usage, not their origin. Hydrophobia refers to molecules that repel water. They aren't actually afraid of water molecules. Xenophobia is an aversion/hatred of foreigners. It doesn't necessarily mean an extreme fear.
and definition of homo is a homosexual man
put together is an irrational fear of homosexuals but they changed it beacuse homosexuals were acting like fukking *******s and demanded it be change and i mean *******s as in annoying puussy kunts
-
-
03-19-2014, 11:18 PM #89
You're flat out wrong. If I own a business, then I OWN IT. Just as I own my home. I can accept or refuse anyone I deem necessary. Haven't you ever seen a sign that reads "no shirt, no shoes, no service"? It's the same primciple. Does it make it right? That's not the point here. Will that owner lose business and get bad press, Absolutey. So it's not a smart business move, but the point still stands. I'm honestly baffled at anyone who argues against private ownership. Just go ahead and let the government own everything, including your person. It's people with your mindset of no personal/private ownership that will help in destroying this country.
-
03-19-2014, 11:19 PM #90
Bookmarks