Prawker Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 We are anything but immoral. Just because the miserable failure [bush] managed to read the bible does not mean he can pass a law based on his religion. We deserve just as much right to marry as any one else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubljdog Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 (edited) To be honest with everybody, and i'm sure this will offend all the butthole-pirates, I would much rather see marijuana get legalized before {censored} marriage becomes a possibility. The fight for weed has been going on much longer than the fight for {censored} rights. If you want equality let me have you as my slave for a good 20-30 years and then i'll let you all get married. Everybody else wanting equality in this country has fought for it through blood and sweat. {censored} just march and whine in their high-pitched voices to get what they want. There are a few {censored} out there i don't mind, because they just live their damn lives and don't get involved with all this {censored}. From my experience, most {censored} i've met fighting for rights are more worried about getting people to feel sorry for them then changing the law. Edited February 11, 2007 by doubljdog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin_4e Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 I think this poll is a little bit too narrow. I do not believe {censored} marriage is right or moral (one reason why I'm Catholic ) but by no means should they be considered unequal. They should have every single right that a man and a woman should have. That may have come off as areally hypicritcal of myself but I guess to sum it up, I do not believe in being {censored} but I do not believe it should be restricted. There is a differnce between morality and laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhsh8r Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 I would much rather see marijuana get legalized so would I.... because i care about that issue, i couldn't care less weather or not {censored} marriage is legalized, it really doesn't affect me, although on the other side of that it does not bother me or offend me or anything like that ether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 I'm all for freedom, anybody should be allowed to get married ( to the same sex if they so choose), marijuana (and most drugs for that matter) should be legal, whether it hurts the society or not, people have the right to {censored} UP their lives if they so choose, the only way we are going to move forward as a society is if we choose to, not because somebody forced us to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conan Obrien Posted February 12, 2007 Author Share Posted February 12, 2007 im {censored} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe75 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 No, we don't have Alabama here. We had Texas and California long ago... :pirate2: That was one of the best ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soündless Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Nice spam link. Most Windoze users who dislike spyware would love you. pshh, windows. im all mac, and i'm just looking for some cash, someone stole $50 frum me and i try 2 make it back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sipheren Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 I dont see anything wrong with it, each to there own is what I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Let the GAYMES Begin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uphuck Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 I really don't understand why this is topic here at insanelymac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 I really don't understand why this is topic here at insanelymac. This is the Real Life section of the forum, in case you didn't notice. All sort of topics are dealt with here, and this is just a topic like many others, certainly less controversial than many. If you don't agree, just read the technical sections of the forum only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biped Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 To be honest with everybody, and i'm sure this will offend all the butthole-pirates, I would much rather see marijuana get legalized before {censored} marriage becomes a possibility. The fight for weed has been going on much longer than the fight for {censored} rights. If you want equality let me have you as my slave for a good 20-30 years and then i'll let you all get married. Everybody else wanting equality in this country has fought for it through blood and sweat. {censored} just march and whine in their high-pitched voices to get what they want. There are a few {censored} out there i don't mind, because they just live their damn lives and don't get involved with all this {censored}. From my experience, most {censored} i've met fighting for rights are more worried about getting people to feel sorry for them then changing the law. hate to break it to you, but homosexuality is older than the bible, older than recreational weed usage. And perfectly natural. Apparently penguins are notoriously homosexuals. A few months ago, by accident i had a rather tearful discussion with the auntie of matthew shepard. a boy that was beaten, and hung off of a farm fence, just because he was {censored}. they had to use dental records to identify the poor guy. And matthew's mom begged the judge not to give the guilty the death penalty. even after their girlfriends lied about their alibi. there are lots of stories like that around, if thats not blood and sweat, i dunno what is. you should have prefaced your comments with 'i'm sure this will offend all the intelligent and reasonable people' instead. i'm not even {censored} and your utter stupidity offends me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Apparently penguins are notoriously homosexuals. Many animals are homosexual or bisexual: geese, apes... you should have prefaced your comments with 'i'm sure this will offend all the intelligent and reasonable people' instead. i'm not even {censored} and your utter stupidity offends me. Same feelings here. Intolerance, any kind of intolerance offends me. Fortunately around 75% of people here seem to be tolerant and open minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhsh8r Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 hate to break it to you, but homosexuality is older than the bible, older than recreational weed usage. 1st of all.... weed usage predates documented history, so its older than the bible, and according to the bible jesus was anointed with hash oil (weed....) so they both go back, but dont give me one is older than the other, as theyve both been around since before we can even tell.... but, minor effect to your arguement.... i think, i guess why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sHARD>> Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I'm just randomly going to throw my 2 cents in here to stir things up. Homosexuality is a disease. But wait, you say, how could good 'ol sHARD>> be a minority hating Republican?!?! I'm not. See, I'm just using a traditional scientific definition of a disease: something which stops you from reproducing. Does that make it bad? Well, if you don't mind it affecting you, no. Who the {censored} cares? Do you make fun of a guy with cancer? That's a disease. What about the guy with heart disease? No, probably not. Many {censored} rights activists would probably pull out a gun and shoot me right now, but the fact is that a few of my friends are {censored}, and I really don't care. Just because someone has a "disease" doesn't mean you look down on them or hate them for it. That's stupid. So you shouldn't hate homosexuals for being the way they are. It's just a aspect of them that makes them unique, though it does hinder their ability to reproduce. In terms of marrage, I think homosexuals should have the right to civil union only. Does that make me a bible thumper? Nope, I don't think the government should be in the buisness of defining "marriage" anyway. Marriage these days is a symbolic or religious link. The only purpose of current "marriage" laws is to provide tax breaks and legal advantages now that you have established yourselves as "lifelong partners". So instead, it seems wiser just to call everything a civil union. Homosexuals gain the extra rights currently only granted to married individuals, and bible thumpers don't have the institution of "marriage", as they like to call it, "destroyed". Sadly, no one else supports such a rational solution. {censored} politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biped Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I'm just randomly going to throw my 2 cents in here to stir things up. Homosexuality is a disease. But wait, you say, how could good 'ol sHARD>> be a minority hating Republican?!?! I'm not. See, I'm just using a traditional scientific definition of a disease: something which stops you from reproducing. whatsit with people and faulty logic these days, so your saying things like casteration, suicide, and monk-dom are diseases ?! let me take your logic one step further, at some point YOU are going to die, and exactly at that point in time, you will no longer be able to reproduce. so you my friend are one sick disesased {censored}... maybe you should go seek some help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Homosexuality is a disease... ...I'm just using a traditional scientific definition of a disease: something which stops you from reproducing. Does that make it bad? Well, if you don't mind it affecting you, no. Not all human beings reproduce, either by choice (they can't afford children, as you hear every day in Italy) or because of physical limitations. On the other hand there is a lot of irresponsible parenting going on in the world. Ergo: is reproduction the main aim of love between human beings? Personally I believe not, otherwise every love other than between a young hetero couple would make no sense (just think of love between parents and children, between siblings, between older men and women...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sHARD>> Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 As I figured, everyone would take this as face value. The only point of any species is to reproduce. Sorry, but let's throw religion out for a moment and look at science. That is also humanity's only purpose, from a scientific standpoint. Any behavioral trait which inhibits this ability is a disease, according to the classical scientific definition. But science is about objectivity, not about judging. My only point here is that is, and that there should be nothing wrong with being able to state this. It's not insulting or demeaning in any way. I have friends that have depression. It is a disorder which can hamper their ability to reproduce (through lack of desire or simply through death via suicide or stress related heart problems). But seriously now, does that mean that their depression is demeaning to them? On the contrary, I just see it as another facet of their personality. Oh, and biped? You assume homosexuality is a choice (castration, suicide, and monk-dom are). I do not. EDIT: Oh, and Alessandro17, choice is always there, I consider it a seperate issue. Science only considers it a disease when it interferes with our ability to make that choice. It is sad that some people lose their choice do to environmental factors, but generally a disease is something which occurs in the body or mind, not simply in the environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhsh8r Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 As I figured, everyone would take this as face value. The only point of any species is to reproduce. Sorry, but let's throw religion out for a moment and look at science. That is also humanity's only purpose, from a scientific standpoint. Any behavioral trait which inhibits this ability is a disease, according to the classical scientific definition. But science is about objectivity, not about judging. he has a valid point. you could also say humans are addicted to sex and water. oh, and air.... but seriously, he is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sHARD>> Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 he has a valid point. you could also say humans are addicted to sex and water. oh, and air.... but seriously, he is right. I'm glad you agree. Addiction is a bit different however: "Addiction is characterized by the repeated use of substances or behaviors despite clear evidence of morbidity secondary to such use." Just thought I'd point that out so no one tried to use it as evidence against the overall arguement, though I'm not going to spend my time arguing with you for agreeing with me I suppose it could be true for sex, and given the air quality in the cities these days, air too though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alucard! Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 {censored} is a {censored}, whether he lives in America or Africa city is still just a {censored}. Don't get me on another racist or something, nor Nazis's but I think they all should burn in hell! Come on! Pin and nut can fit but pin and pin do not match together. I mean come on man! This is really disgusting, if two guys before your eyes would make out, what would you feel? Would you say,aww that's so sweet, they belong to each other? Or would you say, hey you! {censored}, get the hell out of my site! I don't see the point in this. There is no future no youngsters coming out of there(unless they adopt or something, but you have to agree this looks kind of gross to!) I never liked them, and I never will! Call me a {censored} hater! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biped Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 As I figured, everyone would take this as face value. The only point of any species is to reproduce. Sorry, but let's throw religion out for a moment and look at science. That is also humanity's only purpose, from a scientific standpoint. Any behavioral trait which inhibits this ability is a disease, according to the classical scientific definition. But science is about objectivity, not about judging. snip snip Oh, and biped? You assume homosexuality is a choice (castration, suicide, and monk-dom are). I do not. from a biological standpoint, the purpose of any life is to reproduce, to propogate a species. however, you can't paint all life with the same broad stroke. we value our conscious existance. maybe a feat not achieved by any other known species. we think twice about killing humans ( for the most part ), but we don't fuss over killing a fly, stepping on a spider, throwing anti-biotics at bacteria. we are a bit a more than just a biological existance, and that is scientifically quantifiable. not getting into the realm of religion or spirituality. we differentiate our lives from the stuff we grow on petri dishes, as we should differentiate our use of language. mind you the classical scientific definition you speak of, fits right along the science of ether and orgons. the more contemporary definition of 'disease' is that it requires genetic interaction... all diseases alter your genetics at some level, and this is maybe where you are crossing the line. by saying homosexuality is a disease, is suggesting homosexuality arrises from a genetic flaw. weather or not the genetic flaw inhibits reproduction is inconsequential. you are not going to make friends suggesting homosexuality is a genetic flaw. i never suggested homosexuality was a choice, i'm not quite sure where you read that. i acknowledge 'sexual orientation' as it were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sHARD>> Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 from a biological standpoint, the purpose of any life is to reproduce, to propogate a species. however, you can't paint all life with the same broad stroke. we value our conscious existance. maybe a feat not achieved by any other known species. we think twice about killing humans ( for the most part ), but we don't fuss over killing a fly, stepping on a spider, throwing anti-biotics at bacteria. we are a bit a more than just a biological existance, and that is scientifically quantifiable. not getting into the realm of religion or spirituality. we differentiate our lives from the stuff we grow on petri dishes, as we should differentiate our use of language. mind you the classical scientific definition you speak of, fits right along the science of ether and orgons. the more contemporary definition of 'disease' is that it requires genetic interaction... all diseases alter your genetics at some level, and this is maybe where you are crossing the line. by saying homosexuality is a disease, is suggesting homosexuality arrises from a genetic flaw. weather or not the genetic flaw inhibits reproduction is inconsequential. you are not going to make friends suggesting homosexuality is a genetic flaw. i never suggested homosexuality was a choice, i'm not quite sure where you read that. i acknowledge 'sexual orientation' as it were. Maybe you don't see life so simply. But I do. Difference in opinion that we will never be able to resolve. Fair enough. Your definition of disease is incorrect however. Chronic diseases can be caused by exterior conditions. The answer does not always lie in genetics. We don't actually know what causes homosexuality, only what it's effects are. Also, I enjoy the company of friends who have the ability to take things from a purely scientific level. Perhaps I won't be making any friends who can't step back and be purely objective, but I have no problems with that whatsoever. Obviously, I already do have homosexual friends with whom I am able to get along, so I don't see this as a problem myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhsh8r Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I'm glad you agree. Addiction is a bit different however: "Addiction is characterized by the repeated use of substances or behaviors despite clear evidence of morbidity secondary to such use." Just thought I'd point that out so no one tried to use it as evidence against the overall arguement, though I'm not going to spend my time arguing with you for agreeing with me I suppose it could be true for sex, and given the air quality in the cities these days, air too though true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts