@CritAnime

Quote:

CritAnime wrote: @Franko Hell I think your one of the most articulate people I have yet to meet in real life. Just don't turn that wit on me eh

Wow articulate...first time that's ever been used to describe my writing...

Unless it actually stands for...

Arrogant...
Rubbish...
Tripe...
Incoherent...
Codswallop...
Unintelligible...
Loathsome...
Annoying...
Trash
Engelbert Humperdinck...

Those are more like the words usually used to describe my scribblings (well maybe not the "Engelbert Humperdinck" bit) but I couldn't think of one word beginning with "e" to use as I was suddenly distracted by the realisation that I seem to have to put three full stops after most things...

Hmmm... wonder why I do that !!!

Is it a compulsive disorder do you think ???

Or could it be the nervous twitch in my pinkie as it tends to hover over that key...

Think I'll need to look into that now that I've noticed it... odd... very odd...


Oh yeah, while I'm posting this... BigD you're a ninny you half wit...

_________________

@BigD

Quote:

r you'll be perceived as an angry intolerant fanatic like Richard Dawkins.

Pot, kettle, black. That is not where I see the intolerence coming from !


It is only religious nutters like you that have it on for poor old Dawkins. He talks far more sense than any of you evil evangelist people do. It is about time the bigotted Christian Fundamentalists gave the guy a break, I have never come across a bunch of arrogant, intolerant, ignorant, misinformed and generally uneducated bunch as the Religious so called Right. Religious Wrong would be a better name for everything they stand for


As for scientists with a religious faith, there are a few but definately a minority and not one of them would believe that creationist crap. That is purely the imagination of a modern form of Christian fundemental idiocy. And American Pastors that buy Doctorates online do not count as scientists BTW.

Placing you entire belief system on a poorly written fantasy novel, total baloney. Join the 21st century and ditch the superstition, that way you will not hate so many people all the time.

You are really pathetic. Feel free to believe in your junk but don't push you ideas on others and bad mouth people that know a LOT more than you do with your narrow minded philosophy.

@Franko

Quote:

BigD you're a ninny you half wit...

Insulting your contemporaries in a weird attempt at banter and one-upmanship doesn't further this discussion. And since you hate polls, articles and indeed any sort of proof to back up your statements beyond personal testimony I suggest you stop making your bold as brass statements until you can sufficiently research and defend them!

I also have personal testimony; as already discussed the majority of the homosexuals I've met I've had 'civil' conversations with and a lot of them are unhappy with the lifestyle and only continue with it because they have been made to feel they have no choice!

This is primarily due to the 'gay pride' movement attempting to circumvent the inbuilt conscience all humans have that homosexual practise is not a completely right or natural activity. It is also due to the trendy 'Will & Grace' watching and Eddie Izzard type 'liberal elite' attempting to sustain the idea that having homosexual friends is trendy and asking them about their love life and 'partner' is a perfectly 21st century thing to do.

Supporting the redefinition of marriage in the false belief that you're furthering 'gay rights' and 'equality' is ridiculous. Equality has already been achieved with Civil Partnerships and most homosexuals don't want to go any further than that as they don't want to mimic heterosexual lifestyles.

Redefining marriage and hence supporting the unfettered realisation of the aims of the 'gay rights agenda' is perpetuating misery and self-delusion for practising homosexuals while damaging society in general. It will increase the likelihood more children will be brought up in broken or deeply unsuitable homes. It will also make marriage increasingly irrelevant as its meaning, benefits and special place in our society is further eroded.

Last edited by BigD on 14-Oct-2012 at 10:46 AM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

I also have personal testimony; as already discussed the majority of the homosexuals I've met I've had 'civil' conversations with and a lot of them are unhappy with the lifestyle and only continue with it because they have been made to feel they have no choice!

I thought you said it was a lifestyle choice and now you say that they don't feel it's a choice.

@BigD

what in the name of Jesus's left testicle are you talking about.

Quote:

This is primarily due to the 'gay pride' movement attempting to circumvent the inbuilt conscience all humans have that homosexual practise is not a completely right or natural activity. It is also due to the trendy 'Will & Grace' watching and Eddie Izzard type 'liberal elite' attempting to sustain the idea that having homosexual friends is trendy and asking them about their love life and 'partner' is a perfectly 21st century thing to do.

what kind of idiotic rubbish are you spouting there. your blaiming media now for "forcing" people into having homosexual friends?? where the hell did you pick that one up from. what are you gonna say next? that a magical sun demon is holding all gay people's minds in.some sort of maddening frenzy?

you really have lost grip on reality on that one. this isn't about marriage any more. your just showing your true spots as a uninformed, uneducated biggot.

oh and the person you spoke to that said they feel trapped. what nonsense is that? that to me sounds like someone who experimented in homosexuality, discovered they didn't like it but rather than admit they were curious fabricated some trapped scenario.

Last edited by CritAnime on 14-Oct-2012 at 02:29 PM.

_________________
My personal blog - CritAnime.com

Admin at Commodore Gaming Wiki

@BigD

Quote:

I throw that straight back at you. Why should a few people's minority 'lifestyle' destroy a cherished institution valued by millions?

Since it is possible to get you to answer (or declare you wont answer) if I focus on a single question long enough, I'll do the same with this.

Despite repeated attempts by you to make this claim, you have not yet shown why legalising gay marriage will "destroy" marriage. So here is the question I will ask over and over again this time...

How will legalising gay marriage destroy marriage?

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@BigD

Quote:

And since you hate polls, articles and indeed any sort of proof to back up your statements beyond personal testimony I suggest you stop making your bold as brass statements until you can sufficiently research and defend them

Internet polls are notoriously biased. Especially the ones you cited which are so easily manipulated. And as for proof you have provided no such valid evidence that gays raising kids will end society. Gays have raised kids for long amounts of times and still do, without marriage, this isn't having any statistically significant impact.

Quote:

only continue with it because they have been made to feel they have no choice!

So these people are so tuned into their external influences that they overturn their internal only straight influences? Sorry that definition is laughable. Gay Pride doesn't make people gay. Gay Pride is better ensuring Gay People aren't dead, which was the "Christian" response to someone claiming to be gay.

Quote:

Equality has already been achieved with Civil Partnerships

If you have two seperate terms with two seperate definitions you innately have an inequal system.

Quote:

Redefining marriage and hence supporting the unfettered realisation of the aims of the 'gay rights agenda' is perpetuating misery and self-delusion for practising homosexuals while damaging society in general

Polls and statistics right?! Well again in the USA those states with gay marriage are in the bottom 1/3 of least divorced states. That's right where gay marriage exists the overall rate of divorce is lower than where gay marriage does not exist. Marriage there appears to be more relevant and enjoyed.

Also - you skipped over my response to why you should support the least among us. Go back and read it and feel free to comment.

@SpaceDruid

I don't want to be rude to you but your selective reading seems to be an issue.

My quote from a couple of posts ago
Quote:

... will also make marriage increasingly irrelevant as its meaning, benefits and special place in our society is further eroded.

Redefining marriage in reality means it is for all intensive purposes destroyed. More so with passing decades as the inevitable push comes to redefine it again to include polygamy. The fact you haven't taken that on board is not surprising as you are blinded to the effects this will have on our society should it come into force.

The fact that you look at this through rose tinted & liberally biased spectacles as an 'equality' exercise despite the fact there is no further 'equality' required due to Civil Partnerships being legal has completely escaped you so it is not surprising the bigger picture seems to have as well!

There are plenty of case studies to look at and discuss before signing up to the big social experiment here. Why don't we do the sensible thing and see what damage occurs to social cohesion in Canada and New York etc over the next fifty years before we do anything so rash and unadvised as Boris and Dave are suggesting for our country?

Last edited by BigD on 15-Oct-2012 at 12:03 AM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BrianK

Quote:

Also - you skipped over my response to why you should support the least among us. Go back and read it and feel free to comment.

No people group is defined by a life choice. You are well off the mark with that one. 1.5% of people of the UK population engage in sexual activities which should have no bearing on the rest of us let alone lead to the effective destruction of an institution as valuable and cherished by society as marriage.

If practising homosexuals want to formalise a commitment they have Civil Partnerships. If they want marriage they can get counselling, deal with their homosexual feelings and marry someone of the opposite sex. Perfect equality in action.

My guess (backed up with statistics) is the majority of practising homosexuals will shun both options and continue with the promiscuous lifestyle that they are accustomed to.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@CritAnime

Quote:

what kind of idiotic rubbish are you spouting there. your blaiming media now for "forcing" people into having homosexual friends??

You can be friends with practising homosexuals without endorsing their lifestyle. Friends want what is best for the other person and in the case where a friend is struggling with homosexual feelings that doesn't extend to endorsing a relationship that is destructive and ultimately making the person miserable (as I have seen in a few of the people I've befriended over the years). Many people struggle with the homosexual lifestyle and with feelings they wish they didn't have.

My point is the media push forward the idea that practising homosexuals should be 'proud' of their lifestyle and that their friends should endorse and encourage them in their search for homosexual companionship. Gay pride events foster this 'pride' in order to give credence to the premise of being an 'out and proud' practising homosexual and counteract and neutralise any semblance of personal conscience remaining.

We shouldn't be surprised at these developments from the gay rights activists as they are all mapped out for people to see in the Gay Liberation Front Manifesto 1971.

Quote:

It means that we must root out the idea that homosexuality is bad, sick or immoral, and develop a gay pride.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

No people group is defined by a life choice.

Sure there are. Christians will tell you all the time how they are defined by their love of Christ life choice, for one example that's starring you in the mirror.

Quote:

My guess (backed up with statistics) is the majority of practising homosexuals will shun both options and continue with the promiscuous lifestyle that they are accustomed to.

While you failed to site these statistics. I believe they will back you up. Why? 21.3 out of every 1000 marriagable males are not married. It's because 16 out of every 1000 marriageable females are not married in the UK either. LINK Statistics show that straights are shunning marriage and therefore most of them are leading a promiscuous lifestyle that they are accustomed to.

So here's my point - if your qualifier is equally true with straights (which it is based on cited statistics) then you can't reserve it for a rejecting reason. It's simply not the 'exception' you wish it to be.

Last edited by BrianK on 15-Oct-2012 at 12:00 PM.

@BigD

Quote:

I don't want to be rude to you but your selective reading seems to be an issue. My quote from a couple of posts ago Quote: ... will also make marriage increasingly irrelevant as its meaning, benefits and special place in our society is further eroded.

See you roll your eyes thinking you've answered the question when you clearly have not. I wouldn't have asked if you did.


How exactly will allowing more people to have the same rights as others "erode" these rights?

Quote:

Redefining marriage in reality means it is for all intensive purposes destroyed. More so with passing decades as the inevitable push comes to redefine it again to include polygamy. The fact you haven't taken that on board is not surprising as you are blinded to the effects this will have on our society should it come into force.

Again, something you've been saying for hundreds of posts now. It's no more valid now that it was when you started saying it.

And I'll remind you polygamy was perfectly legal and acceptable in your Bible as it was written. It took some pagans to come along and object to the practice for it to be outlawed. Allowing two consenting couples to marry does not lead to polygamy being legalised any more than allowing mixed race/religion marriages did.

Unless of course you disagree with mixed race/religion marriages?

How about victims of rape no longer having to marry their attacker? Is this part of that erosion you keep mentioning?

There has never been a time where the definition of marriage remained constant. You for example don't follow your own Bible's rules on marriage that were in place when it was translated into Latin. Unless of course your wife isn't allowed out of the house without you, has to wear a veil, you smack her face when she talks without your permission and all the other horrible things it describes.

You are trying to lay claim to an ideal that has never existed. Just like all people who don't like change and harken for the "good old days" that were never very good in reality.

Your constant scaremongering is as flaccid as your arguments. You keep forgetting we are not in church listening to a sermon.

So far, referencing your attempts at scaremongering have had you compare the SNP to the Nazi's, Gay rights to paedophilia and people being able to marry inanimate objects. Ironically, these tactics were the very ones employed by the Nazi Party in order to instill fear into the population in order to rise to power.

The Church used them for the same purposes. We had a thousand years of stagnated human development before we stopped listening to it. As the rise of the Nazi's showed, it's still an effective tactic when used subtly.

You are not using it subtly...

Quote:

The fact that you look at this through rose tinted & liberally biased spectacles as an 'equality' exercise despite the fact there is no further 'equality' required due to Civil Partnerships being legal has completely escaped you so it is not surprising the bigger picture seems to have as well!

Since you've made the claim I selectively read your posts, I'll make sure to reply to everything. I normally don't because I've already replied several hundreds of posts ago or someone else has done so.

While we are on the subject, why did you reply to 1 line in my post #1169 which was very long and covered lots of subjects again? Was that not selectively replying to me? What about all the dozens of other times you did it to my posts? Or the hundreds of posts from other people? Don't you understand all the references people make about pots calling kettles black?

And I wonder if you will address my every point in this thread, or shall you just quote one line that you think you can be a clever dick to (you aren't) like you normally do?

To answer the quote;

There isn't the same legal benefits to marriage and civil partnerships. An example would be if your partner dies, you don't automatically have access to their possessions. One poor grieving widow not only lost her partner, she was made homeless by the housing association because the house was in the partners name. That's one example. Others have given other examples in this thread previously.

Quote:

There are plenty of case studies to look at and discuss before signing up to the big social experiment here. Why don't we do the sensible thing and see what damage occurs to social cohesion in Canada and New York etc over the next fifty years before we do anything so rash and unadvised as Boris and Dave are suggesting for our country?

Funnily enough, that's the same excuse a US senator gave for not abolishing slavery. You really don't think things through do you? 50 years? Are you for real?

On that same advice, we probably shouldn't let people divorce or have bad parents since you seem to think there might be some correlation to people becoming gay, we should study it for 50 years before deciding..

This whole "experiment" has already taken place many times in the past already. Giving women the vote didn't bring the end days, freeing the slaves didn't lead to an uprising that wiped out the white man. This is about giving people the same rights as you. It doesn't matter how many times I say this, you'll ignore it and instead say I'm part of some rose tinted liberal elite agenda.


I remember Mary Whitehouse and the Festival of Light. She was adamant that the next generation would be the beginning of the end. Only, instead of plagues of locusts, we got acceptance, civil rights, equality for women (of sorts, still needs work) and man walked on the Moon. We got global communication, home computers and we wiped out Small Pox. Heck, even former member Sir Cliff Richard opened his mind and accepted gays as his equals and as such, should have equal rights.

That's Sir Cliff Richard, best friend and supporter of Mary Whitehouse. Member of the the Festival of Light. The man you disparaged for not sharing your views. The man that campaigned against homosexuality, saying it was a "perversion invading public society" back in 1971 (Hey, the same year as the "gay manifesto" you clutch so tightly to was written - by a group also no longer with us) is now totally groovy with same sex marriage. Time breeds out ignorance. Well maybe not for everyone eh?

Same sex marriage is going to happen regardless of you or your cronies. If not with this government, then a future one. Just as many objected to freeing the slaves and held the inevitable back, eventually common decency won through. I believe the human race as it's core is a decent one. For all the megalomaniacs that set us back so many steps, we still manage to blunder our way forwards and upwards.

One day somebody will be wondering what all the fuss was about.

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 15-Oct-2012 at 01:49 AM.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

Same sex marriage is going to happen regardless of you or your cronies. If not with this government, then a future one. Just as many objected to freeing the slaves and held the inevitable back, eventually common decency won through. I believe the human race as it's core is a decent one. For all the megalomaniacs that set us back so many steps, we still manage to blunder our way forwards and upwards.

You're again deluding yourself that somehow a life choice such as homosexuality is comparable to a colour of a man's (or woman's) skin or the gender of an individual. These things are characteristics that people are born with, they are genetic whereas there is no homosexual gene!

This argument is not about equality as whatever you think the inheritance laws and tax benefits (now non-existent thanks to the Liberal Democrats forcing the Conservative's hand) are same for civil partners and married couples. There is no legal reason to change the definition on 'equality' grounds only a political reason to attempt to grab the 'pink' vote, to keep the coalition limping on and to placate the rabid liberally biased media and their 'gay right agenda' to further what the Gay Liberation Front Manifesto started .

The irony is that practising homosexuals are not bothered and are not calling for the change. Most consider 'marriage' a heterosexual institution that they have no interest in copying.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BrianK

Quote:

While you failed to site these statistics. I believe they will back you up. Why? 21.3 out of every 1000 marriagable males are not married. It's because 16 out of every 1000 marriageable females are not married in the UK either. LINK Statistics show that straights are hunning marriage and therefore most of them are leading a promiscuous lifestyle that they are accustomed to.

Civil partnerships have not stopped homosexuals beingly highly promiscious with an average of seven partners a year so are you arguing that 'homosexual marriage' would? Marriage has until now encouraged monogamy and commitment for the benefit of children. You are right in stating more people are choosing to live together without committing to each other for life. The proposals would cause further diluting, watering down and usurping the special place that marriage has in our society will only further increasing cohabitation without commitment. This can only be a bad thing for children and increase the likelihood that they will be raised in broken homes and their parents are likely to separate at an earlier age than if they had committed to each other and got married.

To help you with getting to grips with the UK arguments as they stand, here's some research for you and your friends stateside;

This event was held in Birmingham at the Consertative Party's Conference last Monday and shows you the true concerns of the UK population to these unwarranted proposals to redefine marriage.

Coalition For Marriage Speeches in Defence of Marriage at The Conservative Party Conference 2012

Last edited by BigD on 15-Oct-2012 at 03:13 AM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Do you even think when you type, or do you go into automatic attack mode on anything that doesnt fit with your narrow minded, often contradictory view of things?

One post, "1 in 66"people being gay is too small a number, and will "destroy a cherished sanctitity of marriage for millions" (or some such nonsense).

Very next post, this whole thing is a political ploy.

Not much of a ploy if the number is too small to have a right to influence anything.

Last edited by fishy_fis on 15-Oct-2012 at 11:24 AM.

@BigD

Quote:

Civil partnerships have not stopped homosexuals beingly highly promiscious

Nor has marriaged stopped heterosexuals from being highly promiscious. Statistics show that the 984 out of 1000 women in the UK who are not married are indeed having sex. Statistics, also, show that out of the 16/1000 married women around 30% are having sex with someone other than their husband.

Quote:

so are you arguing that 'homosexual marriage' would?

I'm arguing you're making a false equvolent. Since straights are promoiscious as well your belief is false that marriage 'fixes' that problems. It might for a minority. I have gay friends who aren't gay and aren't promiscious. A statistical statement of average number of partners is a group summary which doesn't mean everyone does it. It means some have none and some have more and we should honor the rights of the individual (as we do for straights) that wish to live the way they want to live.

(As a side jab with your own logic -- if promiscious behaviour is the reason to outlaw it's equally as valid to outlaw it for straights. Or with my logic - equally valid reason to include gays.)

Quote:

Marriage has until now encouraged monogamy and commitment for the benefit of children.

Read you old testament marriage clearly didn't encourange monogamy then either. Go back to the charts and see all the different types of Polygamy marriages happening in the bible. As for the 'benefit of children' there is NO law that requires children are only born to a married couple NOR is there any law that requires married couples to bear children. So again we see why your reasoning here is flawed too.

Quote:

Coalition For Marriage Speeches in Defence of Marriage at The Conservative Party Conference 2012

This Christian organization welcomes all money. I'm sure there's many Shia that agree and contribute to your cause. I don't know all the rules in England but as far as I've seen there's little in the way of mandated Biblical Law.

In the USA the US Constitution is the highest document. If you believe your God dictates something to you, then enjoy. What it does not mean is that you get to force me to live by the rules of your God. Instead you must translate those values so they can be supported by all in society. In your reasons given you are bearing false witness and failing to translate those values accurately and honestly. If your understanding of God is against gay marriage the answer is simple - don't get one. Read up on the Amish in the USA. They don't believe they should have technologies in their home but likewise they don't force me to not have a TV.

Last edited by BrianK on 15-Oct-2012 at 12:25 PM.

@BigD

Oh wait a second. Yet again I raised a large number of points and rebuttals and you've ignored them and selectively replied to the only part you think you can argue against. What a surprise.


Since you've chosen not to respond to the counter claims of same sex marriage destroying or eroding marriage, you can't even make the claim again. It has been debunked.

Pretending responses like mine didn't happen by not replying to them doesn't make you right. You've been doing this for hundreds of posts now, since you don't seem to understand how a debate works, let me just point that out to you.


Quote:

You're again deluding yourself that somehow a life choice such as homosexuality is comparable to a colour of a man's (or woman's) skin or the gender of an individual. These things are characteristics that people are born with, they are genetic whereas there is no homosexual gene!

Well first of all, we know of no homosexual gene, that doesn't mean there isn't one. We haven't found the gene that caused freckles or cancer or high IQ's either, does that mean they don't exist?

And secondly, there isn't a gene responsible for being blown up by an IED, being deafened by industrial noise, loss of a lung due to asbestos poisoning, or any of the other myriads of causes of disabilities, yet you have not yet made a claim disabled people shouldn't have equal rights.

And thirdly, yet again (sigh), you claim homosexuality is a "life choice" despite all the rebuttals made in this thread. The closest you came to understanding this was when you conceded that homosexuality can't be cured, instead the person has to become celibate. As if that was in any way humane, logical or acceptable.

As I mentioned earlier, you can't keep making this claim. It has been debunked. Each time you say it, you sound like an idiot. Just because you failed to respond the previous dozens of times to the debunking, doesn't make you right.

Quote:

This argument is not about equality

Yes it is. That's exactly what it's about. That's ONLY what it is about. Everything else you've claimed these last thousands posts has been debunked. EVERYTHING.

Quote:

There is no legal reason to change the definition on 'equality' grounds only a political reason to attempt to grab the 'pink' vote,

What pink vote? You've already claimed homosexuals are such a tiny minority that they aren't worth bothering to give equal rights to, so why would they have any value to a political campaign?

You can't have it both ways. Either there are significant numbers of homosexuals which destroys one part of your argument (There isn't a demand for gay marriage) and are worthy of political attention (and subsequently the right to equality), or their are not. So which one is it?

Quote:

to keep the coalition limping on and to placate the rabid liberally biased media and their 'gay right agenda' to further what the Gay Liberation Front Manifesto started.

Again with the agendas and the Gay Liberation Front Manifesto.

Just a bit of history for you. The Gay Liberation Front was a protest group born out of the Stonewall riots (Now you know where the Stonewall Charity gets it's name).

In case you need reminding, in the late 60's, civil rights were kinda a big thing. White people were still revaluing wither people of darker skin were over reacting to their treatment, women were about to burn their bras and Gay people were able to come out of the closet and not be thrown in jail for the first time.

That is, apart from in New York City where the only "gay bar" in the whole city was frequently raided and anyone caught so much as holding hands with another man was given a beating and then thrown into jail.

Every young person was a reactionary then, wither it was Che Guevara you had on your wall, or a woman playing tennis scratching her bare arse. It was all part of the "counter culture". Young people saying they were not going to put up with the status quo any longer.

It was in this climate that this manifesto was drawn up.

It is no longer any more relevant today than any other protest group that existed then. None of my gay friends even know the manifesto existed and when thanks to your post I showed them a copy, most of them laughed, while others were heavy with heart as they remembered the time. It was not a safe world to be gay in.

You quoting this document now as some official mandate of the whole gay community is like my citing the Black Panthers as representing all black people in America, or the Nazi party as representing all German people today. It is a historic document and should be treated as such.

I know you have trouble comprehending old books relevance to the world today, so thought you might need some help with that.

Quote:

The irony is that practising homosexuals are not bothered and are not calling for the change. Most consider 'marriage' a heterosexual institution that they have no interest in copying.

Where are you getting these figures from?

The loaded question that asked young gay people if they wanted to marry their current partner? Ask a young heterosexual couple that and you'll get equally low numbers.

You claim homosexuals are more promiscuous that heterosexuals, which has been debunked at least twice already and even if it were true, is entirely meaningless to the argument as people who marry are no longer looking for a partner, they've found one. One they want to spend the rest of their lived with, you know, get married to?

You've quoted a couple of celebrities that don't desire gay marriage. Well blow me, does that matter? Since when have celebrities been experts on anything political? Sting anyone?

The FACT is, there is a demand. That's why we are having this endless conversation. It might not be huge amounts of people compared to heterosexual couples, but as you are so keen on pointing out, they are a minority. Of course the fucking numbers of people wanting it will be small. Have you any idea what minority means?

No doubt you'll repeat everything you've claimed again. Your repeated failure to respond to the posts that debunk your claims already shows this is what you'll do.

I'll just quote myself from my previous post

Quote:

And I wonder if you will address my every point in this thread, or shall you just quote one line that you think you can be a clever dick to (you aren't) like you normally do?

Yep, that's exactly what you did. And you'll do it again to this post.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@thread

Despite some, err,.. "wacky" notions by BigD, this thread is a decent example of how far humanity has come (in some ways at least).

Over 60 pages of discussion and only one person who has issues with other people having equality.
Wouldve been somewhat different only 20 years ago.

@fishy_fis

Just 20 years ago there wasn't really the internet like today so although there were plenty of people like BigD around and you only really met then in real life...

Sadly though it's still the same today (if not worse), remember this site only has a tiny number of active posters and people viewing it...

From my own experience there are still plenty of BigD's out there in the real world becoming more vocal & bitter all the time and the internet sadly give them a voice for their bile & hatred of all things that doesn't fit in with their warped views of the world (especially on the subject of migrants)...

As I firmly believe everyone has the right to express their views no matter how much anyone may disagree with some of those views, the only real answer to them is wherever you spot them spreading their hatred is to comment on it and show them up for the ignorant hate filled brain dead muppets that they are...

Last edited by Franko on 15-Oct-2012 at 01:46 PM.

_________________

@Franko

I dunno. I agree that there's plenty of people out there still who live their lives based on what theyre told (and then burry their heads in the sand when exposed to something that opposes that hand crafted, narrow-minded, ignorant view), but I'd be inclined to think that only 20 years ago, had something like the internet existed, this thread would contain a few more people like BigD, despite the small amount of people using the site.

Generation by generation certain unenlightened (for lack of a better term) prejudices get weened out and the new generations start out in a world where said prejudices arent as prevalent, and the cycle continues. Not that the newer generations arent screwed up in their own ways, but Im inclined to think my theory probably has some truth to it. Guess we'll never know for sure unless someone builds a time machine :)

Either way, in a morbidly curious way Im interested in a response from BigD to SpaceDruid's simple, straight forward question.

Wonder if he'll give an actual answer or continue with terrible attempts of side stepping he's been handing out thus far.

edit: typos

Last edited by fishy_fis on 15-Oct-2012 at 04:27 PM.
Last edited by fishy_fis on 15-Oct-2012 at 04:26 PM.