2014: the year Ellen Page made scores of neckbeards cry out in psychic anguish

the very least the french government could do to deal with the protests would be to make a referendum. the illusion of democracy would be saved for a while. not that the result of the referendum would change anything to the government's decision anyway, they would stick to their agenda no matter what.

So politicians have tricked people into supporting gay marriage so that it looks democratic to pass it? What are you saying?

i'm saying you can't make your opinion by refering to a poll only. you have to put it into context.

  On 2/18/2014 at 11:00 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

i'm saying you can't make your opinion by refering to a poll only. you have to put it into context.

But the context you are referring to is the current political climate surrounding American democracy, which is different from the current social climate surrounding same-sex marriage, unless I missed something.

  On 2/18/2014 at 2:32 AM, LimpyLoo said:

I can't believe that in 2014 this shit is still being floated:

 

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html

 

 

oh and:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRnOrpyrwxA

 

 

the old south with their confederate flags and 'traditional values' innit...

"Stay at home, spend my money there." lol

  On 2/18/2014 at 11:06 PM, OneToThirtySix said:

 

  On 2/18/2014 at 11:00 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

i'm saying you can't make your opinion by refering to a poll only. you have to put it into context.

But the context you are referring to is the current political climate surrounding American democracy, which is different from the current social climate surrounding same-sex marriage, unless I missed something.

 

hehe, nope. i'm talking about france, and the way political reforms are forced without considering popular rejection. A/D's point is that the majority of french citizens approve of gay marriage, as shown on a poll. my point is this poll has no objective value, and the incredibly successful protests show a different picture of the situation.

I get the sense that it just isn't true that the majority of French people are in opposition of gay marriage..

"Popular rejection".. really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_France#Public_opinion

Looks a little too divided to me..

...but if we must then i'd say that i mostly agree to what Brian Tregaskin said.

also, government in croatia wanted to pull the same thing on us too but a non-profit organization organized referendum in the last minute and majority voted for

>marriage=man+woman< to be part of our constitution. but gay couples gained ALL the legal rights that non-gay couples have, except for adopting children. that's the best solution imo, cause some one has to think about children too. they have rights too, you know?! ...and gay ppl have rights too.
we also have law that equals LGBT hatred to racial hatred and that's how things should be imo, no matter whether the 'inherent theory' has been proved (or >is a proven theory) or not and this is so simple that everybody should agree with imo.

p.s.
mentioning of the animal world with our world as a proof for anything (or everything) is very stupid imo, and ppl do this only when suits them.
if some butterfly in india is openly gay or snail in portugal or if monkey in center of berlin is acting omnisexually is it really a proof for natural source of homosexuality in humans? even if it is, what does it mean? that it's a lesser evil? that it's a preferred behavior? you'd say we can't judge? is that really the last step of logic? plz lets START with logic first.

so, when a chief lion is dethroned by another one the first thing the new one will do is to kill the old one's posterity. is that something we should do too? i know that the example is a bit extreme but u know what i mean, right?

Ok finally I understand a little better Brian. I also dislike polls in general. If you honestly feel that it's off by that much, I'll take your word for it. But from what looking I can do, it seems like it's at best pretty evenly divided, as far as can be seen. A protest doesn't mean a majority vote, either. If you have any way to show a majority voice, I'd like to see it.

Xox, I have a lot of issues with your post. Can you explain why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to have kids?

You're kind of mixed up on the nature question. I'm not saying we should mimic the behavior of other animals. Humans are mammals, many of which exhibit homosexual members; so it shouldn't be surprising that there are humans who naturally love and desire members of their own sex. It's background. It's logical AND biological [:

Your lion example is an example of violence; same sex marriage is an example of consensual love. I believe consensual love among adults should always be protected; violence is something I don't know when to sanction. Do you think otherwise?

I've been holding off on commenting about this shit, but when the stupids starting coming out in multiples I have to say something.

Firstly, you cannot revoke something for someone by allowing something for another. You have to revoke something to revoke it. Arguing that changing the definition of something is a revocation is nonsense.

Secondly, all our behavior is natural because we are of nature.

Both of you assholes keep saying homosexuals have equal rights...BUT. Equal rights BUT is not equal.

Third, wtf does not allowing gays to adopt children have to do with the rights of children? Pure insanity.

The personal feelings of those who are opposed to equal rights for homosexuals are apparent. Their deep seated desire to set the standard at which society operates regardless of the effect of said standards is appalling. It is colored with hypocrisy and prejudice. It shows a clear desire to commit oneself to a primitive and medieval standard of living and to force upon society the same standards.

  On 2/19/2014 at 12:17 AM, A/D said:

Xox, I have a lot of issues with your post. Can you explain why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to have kids?

 

Read that again, it wasn't his opinion, it was an outcome based on votes in Croatia.

  On 2/19/2014 at 12:40 AM, OneToThirtySix said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 12:17 AM, A/D said:

Xox, I have a lot of issues with your post. Can you explain why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to have kids?

 

Read that again, it wasn't his opinion, it was an outcome based on votes in Croatia.

 

He is promoting the idea as logical. His follow up sentence was that it was correct because the rights of children need to be upheld.

How is having parents of the same sex related in anyway to the "rights" of children. You have to be daft to not understand the implications of a statement like that.

Adopting is fine, corrupting the genome by shunting genes where they wouldn't have been in an egg so that two male or female partners can have share the genetic heritage of a child. hrmm. Are we that sophisticated at existing in this universe that we can account for every possible mistake that we may make to a forward projection to your children in their DNA? What if we fuck up society, how many children will be damned that can't be born via the implements of modern man. Same goes for IVF, and caesarian.

As for getting angry at what i'm talking about. Stand back and mute the indentured servitude to pre programmed outrage. We here for fun kum bunctious not in a knotxious funshine my brother. [-;

i hate when people say i always knew, but i always knew. she is ever so slightly butch.

  On 2/19/2014 at 12:55 AM, delet... said:

Adopting is fine, corrupting the genome by shunting genes where they wouldn't have been in an egg so that two male or female partners can have share the genetic heritage of a child. hrmm. Are we that sophisticated at existing in this universe that we can account for every possible mistake that we may make to a forward projection to your children in their DNA? What if we fuck up society, how many children will be damned that can't be born via the implements of modern man. Same goes for IVF, and caesarian.

 

As for getting angry at what i'm talking about. Stand back and mute the indentured servitude to pre programmed outrage. We here for fun kum bunctious not in a knotxious funshine my brother. [-;

I was talking about xox's comments. I'm pretty much inline with your opinion on the matter. You make good points against people being attached to the idea of "natural" though.

  On 2/19/2014 at 12:34 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Firstly, you cannot revoke something for someone by allowing something for another. You have to revoke something to revoke it. Arguing that changing the definition of something is a revocation is nonsense.

did you read carefully what i wrote? most people consider marriage as solely designed for a man and woman, whether you find that fair or discriminating. from that perspective, by changing the terms of the contract, the institution is nullified. if everybody can access this institution (as long as they're adults and willing), the institution is no longer. a new institution replaced it, keeping entirely intact the terms of the old one, except its fundamental principle (man+woman). is all.

  On 2/19/2014 at 12:34 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Both of you assholes

thanks mate lol :)

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:04 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 12:34 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Firstly, you cannot revoke something for someone by allowing something for another. You have to revoke something to revoke it. Arguing that changing the definition of something is a revocation is nonsense.

 

did you read carefully what i wrote? most people consider marriage as solely designed for a man and woman, whether you find that fair or discriminating. from that perspective, by changing the terms of the contract, the institution is nullified. if everybody can access this institution (as long as they're adults and willing), the institution is no longer. a new institution replaced it, keeping entirely intact the terms of the old one, except its fundamental principle (man+woman). is all.

 

 

  On 2/19/2014 at 12:34 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Both of you assholes

 

thanks mate lol :)

 

Yes, I read very carefully. I even had to look up ontological. Thanks for that. Don't fault me for thinking people who oppose equal rights are assholes.

That just isn't true at all. If that were true then once gay marriage was within the definition of marriage man+woman marriages would no longer be valid and recognized. This is obviously not the case.

Adieu, stop saying people are insane because they say things you disagree with.

On that note, you are insane if you think there is no debate to be had on the rights of children and homosexual adoption.

Who gets to define the fundamental principle of marriage? You think it's gender-based, I think it's love-based.

Sorry, that was @Brian.

Sheathe, of course there's a debate, it's the internet. Do you want to have it? What are your thoughts?

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:22 AM, sheatheman said:

Adieu, stop saying people are insane because they say things you disagree with.

 

On that note, you are insane if you think there is no debate to be had on the rights of children and homosexual adoption.

I call it as I see it. I'm fine if people disagree as long as they have a valid reason for doing so. If people make claims that are baseless and show a sincerity for believing such claims I see that as insanity.

If you want to give children full rights in the case of their own adoption give them the opportunity to choose to accept or disqualify any of their potential adopters. That is having all of your rights. To determine that people are not capable of being a guardian to children due to an arbitrary personality trait is pretty insane

No one recognizes all of the inconsistency within the opposition to equal rights for homosexuals?

lol wow just saw your replies... lol really it's a bit late over here so i'll try to respond tomorrow but to fellow watmmer who called me an asshole i'd just say that this could make you see world more clear and real:

8===> (i)

call me asshole again and i wont be responsible for my words and believe me, i know how to use them as a weapon and no matter if get banned i'll find you here or anywhere on the net for yrs to come

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:22 AM, sheatheman said:

Adieu, stop saying people are insane because they say things you disagree with.

 

On that note, you are insane if you think there is no debate to be had on the rights of children and homosexual adoption.

I'll bite; I've never heard a coherent argument against allowing gays to adopt.

  On 2/19/2014 at 1:34 AM, xox said:

lol wow just saw your replies... lol really it's a bit late over here so i'll try to respond tomorrow but to fellow watmmer who called me an asshole i'd just say that this could make you see world more clear and real:

 

8===> (i)

 

call me asshole again and i wont be responsible for my words and believe me, i know how to use them as a weapon and no matter if get banned i'll find you here or anywhere on the net for yrs to come

You're an ignorant asshole.

(Mods please don't ban this guy before I get to knock his ideological dick in the dirt.)

The fact that you made an argument using a crude drawing with special characters is pretty telling.

As illuminating as your drawing is I still don't see how it makes things "clear and real". I'm quite certain you are going to show your ignorance in great depth shortly though.

Rpeg, is your bite ad hominem?

Well xox, it sounds like all you're going to do is prove you're an asshole! That wouldn't really help your case.