Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
so now that prop 8 has passed and cheesesoda and ACK can no longer get married here in california, what do you think is going to happen and how do u feel? should gays be allowed to marry? i think theyre nasty but theyre people too and they deserve equal rights just like wat women and black people got in the past, like samuel l. jackson said in da commercials
Gay people are just disgusting. The way they campaigned for no on Prop 8 is retarded, too. They lost a lot of respect from the national community by literally hiring people to dig up shit on leaders of the Yes campaign.
u6795 wrote on Thu, 06 November 2008 05:34 Gay people are just disgusting. O.o
This thread has to be among the stupidest ever started... even for Rocko.
Now if only we could get those niggeers from marrying.
Ma1kel wrote on Thu, 06 November 2008 07:29 Now if only we could get those niggeers from marrying. You guys do what ever you want in the Netherlands, but thats not going to fly over here in the US.
Even though it's another stupid post from rocko, the prop 8 bullshit is just that... bullshit. They should be given EQUAL rights, just as other people. Not BETTER rights. Which means, alot of places that disallow public signs of affection, should remain the same for gays. This also means, ENOUGH OF THE STUPID GAY PRIDE PARADES! I'm fucking SICK of hearing of "gay pride". The whole concept behind being gay is that it's not a choice- it's something you simply are. And the concept behind being proud, is that you did something that you CHOSE to do, and you feel you did the right thing or the like. THESE TWO THINGS DO NOT MIX. Besides, if I were to hold a "straight pride parade", I'd be labeled as a bigot.
Here's an idea. How about people can go and live their lives however they choose to, as long as it's not harming others? Why is it so hard for people to grasp this simple concept?
IT'S UTTERLY DISGUSTING, THAT'S WHY. PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT BE DISGUSTED, AMIRITE? PLUS, IT SENDS A BAD MESSAGE ABOUT FAMILY VALUES. I MEAN, YOU WOULDN'T WANT HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE TO ACTUALLY OUT-SHINE HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGES THAT 50% OF END IN DIVORCE.
I agree that they should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want. I'm just saying, personally, it's fucking disgusting.
My best friend's a homosexual, I think I just lost some respect for you u6795. I see no reason why they shouldn't be given equal rights.
"Personally" is different from "my view on it when it comes to other people".
Canadacdn wrote on Thu, 06 November 2008 10:13 Here's an idea. How about people can go and live their lives however they choose to, as long as it's not harming others? Why is it so hard for people to grasp this simple concept? Impossible, you can't live without bothering someone in this day and age.
No one has a right not to be offended. Anyone who opposes anything on the grounds that they find it revolting, offensive, etc, has no valid position. They've got a right to their own opinion, and they have a right to propagate that opinion (no matter how stupid it might be), but they do not have a right to codify that opinion as law. Everyone, however, has the right to not have their life interfered with so long as they do nothing which causes real, tangible harm to another person. I've yet to see evidence that allowing gays to get married would do any harm at all, so why do lawmakers insist on interfering with their lives? Because it offends their brainwashed sensibilities- no other reason. This is a travesty.
Canadacdn wrote on Thu, 06 November 2008 12:13 Here's an idea. How about people can go and live their lives however they choose to, as long as it's not harming others? Why is it so hard for people to grasp this simple concept? I'm all for legalizing polygamy then But seriously the gay issue isn't even a big deal. This isn't a theocracy so we shouldn't expect it to be one. Not that I am against any religion at all, I am just saying the only basis that makes gay marriage wrong would be religion, and this is not a religion-controlled society.
CarrierII wrote on Thu, 06 November 2008 15:28 My best friend's a homosexual, I think I just lost some respect for you u6795. I see no reason why they shouldn't be given equal rights. Cool, but next time read my post more. I said I agree that they should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want. I also agree they should be given equal rights. Go give him a high five for me that he has the balls to come out and tell people he's gay, though. I still think it's disgusting.
Great, next Gay sex will be banned, great porn studios in LA and CA will not produce gay porn and then we will lose 95% of all great lesbian porn, and women will be objectified in porn by having ass sex for money! THANKS, CALIFORNIA, YOU RUINED PORN FOR US!
America isn't run on your personal opinions. Are you gay? If not, then you have no say in whether gay marriages should be allowed or not. It's the bases of this country to allow people to live freely and pursue their own happiness, regardless if you think it's "disgusting." If two men and/or 2 women want to get married, what the hell is wrong with that? It's their own pursuit of happiness and no one else should be allowed to stand in their way because they think it is "gross," "unnatural" or "disgusting." The only time pursuit of happiness can be taken away is if that happiness either takes away from others or breaks a law set in motion by an amendment of the constitution. For example, if your pursuit of happiness is to kill people, then obviously you can't do that. But gay marriages? You've got to be kidding me... everyone just needs to grow up and get over themselves...
it just goes to show that we haven't moved far left. Most of the country is still right to center if that wasn't true then it would have passed. Americans are not ready to redefine marriage
Intolerance of other people, be it there religion, sexual preference, race, gender or anyother deatail people find to hate about eachother is just saddening to see. It's a shame.
Intolerance of other people, be it there religion, sexual preference, race, gender or anyother deatail people find to hate about eachother is just saddening to see. It's a shame. Like Reborn said, ditto Here.
CarrierII wrote on Thu, 06 November 2008 16:28 My best friend's a homosexual, I think I just lost some respect for you u6795. I see no reason why they shouldn't be given equal rights. >respect >u6795 lolwat
Ma1kel wrote on Fri, 07 November 2008 08:57 CarrierII wrote on Thu, 06 November 2008 16:28 My best friend's a homosexual, I think I just lost some respect for you u6795. I see no reason why they shouldn't be given equal rights. >respect >u6795 lolwat Dunno who the fuck you are, but okay. Also just to make myself clear: I DON'T THINK GAYS ARE BAD PEOPLE. I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD BE DENIED RIGHTS. I MERELY THINK THE ACT OF BEING HOMOSEXUAL IS KIND OF NASTY. THIS DOES NOT MEAN I HATE GAYS OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT. I HAVE GAY FRIENDS TOO, IT'S COOL. SERIOUSLY.
u6795 THE ACT OF BEING HOMOSEXUAL IS KIND OF NASTY You do realize that little kids tend to think the opposite gender is "GROSS", "ICKY", and have "COOTIES". They also are disgusted when they see "grown-ups" kissing. Also, picture your parents having sex. Yeah... let that image just sink in. Disgusting, right? Without that act, you wouldn't be alive. I realize you said you don't hate gays and blah blah blah. That doesn't change the fact that your finding it disgusting is just a mental immaturity that is something one should try to get over. I'm not saying it's easy, as I'm guilty of the same reaction, but I try to refrain from letting it affect me because I know it's irrational.
Once again, people are misinterpreting what he's saying. He means it's disgusting to him, as in he doesn't want it to happen to him. Hence, "personally". At the same time, when you see a straight couple kissing and you're a guy, what are you concentrating on? Chances are, your subconscious places you in the spot of the guy. When it's both guys kissing though and you're a guy, you picture yourself as one of the guys more than likely. Also, note that there's a difference between having an opinion, and having that opinion affect things.
Arizona also had this proposition on their ballet. I didn't put down a vote on it because I don't have a strong opinion about it.... But, I'm starting to agree with my friend about the issue. It should be permitted (and they have the same rights as all of us), but they children shouln't be made to have to go through a same-sex marriage....It'll just harm them. I am NOT saying same-sex marriage is bad for children though... And, that is my position.
Cabal8616 wrote on Fri, 07 November 2008 15:41 Once again, people are misinterpreting what he's saying. He means it's disgusting to him, as in he doesn't want it to happen to him. Hence, "personally". At the same time, when you see a straight couple kissing and you're a guy, what are you concentrating on? Chances are, your subconscious places you in the spot of the guy. When it's both guys kissing though and you're a guy, you picture yourself as one of the guys more than likely. Also, note that there's a difference between having an opinion, and having that opinion affect things. How can I misinterpret what he said? He didn't say, "I couldn't allow myself to engage in any homosexual acts." He said it's disgusting and, also, "kind of nasty". If you're right about his opinion, maybe he should just let you speak for him. He does a poor job of defending himself.
cheesesoda wrote on Fri, 07 November 2008 15:55 Cabal8616 wrote on Fri, 07 November 2008 15:41 Once again, people are misinterpreting what he's saying. He means it's disgusting to him, as in he doesn't want it to happen to him. Hence, "personally". At the same time, when you see a straight couple kissing and you're a guy, what are you concentrating on? Chances are, your subconscious places you in the spot of the guy. When it's both guys kissing though and you're a guy, you picture yourself as one of the guys more than likely. Also, note that there's a difference between having an opinion, and having that opinion affect things. How can I misinterpret what he said? He didn't say, "I couldn't allow myself to engage in any homosexual acts." He said it's disgusting and, also, "kind of nasty". If you're right about his opinion, maybe he should just let you speak for him. He does a poor job of defending himself. Well, I wouldn't allow myself to engage in homosexual acts, but that's an entirely different matter from me simply saying that gay people are disgusting. I see nothing wrong with someone having an opinion like that. Things like race, yeah, that's another issue again, but sexual preference is different. How do I do a poor job defending myself? I try, but this topic is sort of confusing me as it's hard to tell if people are commenting on my posts or not. I'm also retarded, so that's part of the blame right there. By the way, I do sometimes let Cabal speak for me. He knows me well enough that I don't mind.
Constitutionally since marriage (of any kind)is not addressed in the Constitution, under the 10th Amendment the states are in their right to make laws governing it. California's citizens made their decision, if you don't like it then get active in your state to make it legal or make a national amendment to the Constitution. Until gays can prove that they did not choose to be gay they won't become a clearly defined group by the government and so will find it hard to prove victim status by the Equal Protection Clause which I see some of you have alluded to when you say "equal rights."
Ironically, exit polls showed that 70% of blacks voted for the proposition. http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10909847?source%253Dmost_emailed.26978592730A3B8C7 F471EACE0DA4EF2.html So while many people danced in the streets over the election of America's first black president, believing that equality had finally been recognized... another group has become more marginalized. Sad day, really. Gay people aren't 'disgusting' . All the people I've met that represent the seedy dregs of society are straight. In fact, gay people represent one of the highest income brackets in North America, with a lot of purchasing power, meaning many of them are educated, and hard working; they get that attitude from dealing with assholes who think they're disgusting. Plus, who cares if a kid has two dad's? Is it any worse than a kid who's parents aren't on speaking terms, and he switches houses every second day? Frankly, I think a house of broken love would fuck a kid up more.
Hahahaha. Wow. I'm going to sound racist here, but holy shit, is it just me, or are alot of black people just as racist as they like to claim white people are? Or rather, outright ignorant?
Prop 8 FTW. nikki6ixx wrote on Fri, 07 November 2008 17:01 Ironically, exit polls showed that 70% of blacks voted for the proposition. http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10909847?source%253Dmost_emailed.26978592730A3B8C7 F471EACE0DA4EF2.html Not a bit ironic (by your logic) as Blacks and Latinos also make up for the better part of the Christian population within the United States. I can bring up the stats but can't be bothered/lazy. nikki6ixx wrote on Fri, 07 November 2008 17:01 they get that attitude from dealing with assholes You got that right. ---- Marriage should be defined as a "union between two humans that are naturally capable of conceiving and bearing children."
pawkyfox wrote on Sat, 08 November 2008 00:25 Marriage should be defined as a "union between two humans that are naturally capable of conceiving and bearing children." Why?
How can you state that without a fucking reason? Marriage - to the government - is a social contract that gives certain benefits to a couple. None of the benefits have any reason to be limited to hetrosexual couples. So what the fuck? Separate but equal is nonsense.
No, no. I think pawky's definition is fine. How dare we let elderly couples and infertile couples marry, anyway. They're such a fucking abomination to humanity. Post-menopause? HA! That's just an excuse for those women to live in sin. Impotence? Don't even get me started on what load of shit this is. If what they were doing was moral, God wouldn't let those heterosexual couples be unable to conceive. I mean, Abram and Sarai conceived when they were old, so I see no reason why other elderly couples can't, as well. Oh, and my parents are living in sin, too. My mother had a hysterectomy, and my dad had a vasectomy. They are completely incapable of procreation. Therefore, their marriage should be nullified. Oh, pawky, you're a fucking idiot.
One other thing... I don't understand why people believe that being gay is a 'choice' , especially when gay people are still subjected to humiliation, and ostracizing within society; even injury, or death at the hands of some homophobic dipshit is still a very real possibility in this day and age.. That's not exactly a lifestyle many would want to pursue I've met one dude who's own family has more or less disowned him because of his orientation. Even going home for Christmas is painful, because his parents, the 'good Catholics' , are always trying to set him up with a girl, or leave pamphlets about those camps that are supposed to 'rehabilitate' people of a different orientation.
pawkyfox wrote on Sat, 08 November 2008 00:25 Marriage should be defined as a "union between two humans that are naturally capable of conceiving and bearing children." Ehh? Why? Since when is marriage about conceiving children? You're saying that if or when I get married I have to have a kid? Or at least be able to have a kid? That's completely ridiculous not to mention limiting and imposing.
One of my best friends is a lesbian; when she gets married (some day) I intend to be her best man, assuming her brother doesn't lay first claim to the position. Maybe by that time I'll have a girlfriend or a wife of my own, and I sure as hell want one of the kindest, most caring human beings I've ever met to have the same shot at happiness. I don't think I really need to elaborate too much where I come down on gay rights; majority rule does not grant the majority the power to oppress the minority. Might does not make right; opinion makes poor policy. Every citizen of this country is guaranteed equal protection under law- if a right or a privilege is granted to one, it must be granted to all. An individual or group may feel however they wish about any other individual or group, but to use the democratic process as a vehicle to deny others rights which they enjoy themselves is nothing more nor less than a betrayal and a gross violation of every ideal this nation claims to stand for.
Bump, because I'm really curious as to what his reasoning is.
What really ticks me off is that people don't see this as unconstitutional because it was voted on, but when it comes to things such as raising/lowering the drinking age, gun control, abortion, ect, a vote is redundant because it's thought to be unconstitutional none-the-less. It's contradicting and it just goes to show that rules do not exist for the general idea of things, but rather completely on an individual bases.
nikki6ixx wrote on Sun, 09 November 2008 13:15 Bump, because I'm really curious as to what his reasoning is.
z310 wrote on Mon, 10 November 2008 00:15 nikki6ixx wrote on Sun, 09 November 2008 13:15 Bump, because I'm really curious as to what his reasoning is.
R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 09 November 2008 19:30 What really ticks me off is that people don't see this as unconstitutional because it was voted on, but when it comes to things such as raising/lowering the drinking age, gun control, abortion, ect, a vote is redundant because it's thought to be unconstitutional none-the-less. It's contradicting and it just goes to show that rules do not exist for the general idea of things, but rather completely on an individual bases. Which constitution? State or Federal? The preposition was to amend the California Constitution...so it's constitutional in that respect as an amendment changes the constitution. Concerning the federal I see a possible argument concerning the Equal Protection Clause but gays have to prove that they did not choose to be gay, thus saying they had no choice at being lumped into a group that they claim doesn't have equal rights. But there are a hundred ways for that to shoot down. I have a feeling that this matter wasn't addressed in the Constitution because throughout history and not just in their day, marriage consisted between man and woman, especially in the judeo-christian west. Either in polytheistic or monotheistic cultures, homosexuals did in fact exist but for the overwhelming majority of the time were kept out of family life. Even in Greece where homosexuality could be said to have thrived, it was by no means a family building endeavor as both men had wives(who for the most part did not participate, a counterexample would be Sappho) and children.
And for some reason now I guess we're supposed to look backwards and say "well, this is how it's always been so it must be the right way." I'm sorry, what? For tens of thousands of years humanity governed itself through a combination of strong-arm tactics, showmanship, and heredity, but I think most of us realize that there are newer ways that just work better in the modern world. In older times, when our understanding of brain and body chemistry was less complete (even nonexistent), one could perhaps be forgiven for claiming that homosexuality was an aberration, an abomination, and downright strange- but with the knowledge we have today, we ought to fucking know better. We're asking a group to prove that they deserve protection in order to receive it. Since when was that the way it's supposed to work in this country? No, it is meant to be the other way around- those who wish to deny it to them must instead provide a compelling reason why it should be denied. Any reason beginning with the words "throughout history" or "it isn't natural" is not compelling; it fails to provide any evidence whatsoever that allowing a homosexual couple to get married would do harm to other citizens of this country, or of the state in which they reside. The case against has yet to be made; the case for is provided by the overwhelming number of citizens, who have done no harm to anyone, asking for what ought to have already been theirs by simply being citizens in the first place, since the rights they seek are guaranteed to anyone else. And for everyone who says they wouldn't oppose gay rights if only the gays would shut up about it, wake up and smell the fucking coffee! Can you think of a single cause in recorded history that ever succeeded because its champions decided to sit quietly and not bother anybody? This is the proven process: Activism creates awareness, awareness generates interest, interest generates support, support generates success. If no toes are stepped on, the media doesn't pay attention. Fortunately, all it seems to take for gays to get the required coverage is to be obvious in public, and the die-hard reactionaries do the rest of the work for them. If they drop out of the spotlight, nobody agitates for change and the status quo is maintained, which is most decidedly not what they're after. If you'd rather they shut up and stop bothering you, fine, but do try to realize the full extent of what you're asking for (unless you do already and are just trying to mask the sentiment). Keep in mind that nobody (sane) is asking for marriages between twelve year olds and adults here; everything on the table (including polygamy, which by the way means multiple spouses of either gender) covers relationships between consenting adults. To disallow any such relationship through the passage and enforcement of a law is to say that the government knows better than the people it governs what is best for them. What the fuck, people? Does anybody even realize how silly that sounds? What the churches do is up to the churches, but the government is treading on some pretty shaky ground. Whether homosexuality is rooted in psychology or biology, it doesn't matter one bit- or shouldn't, anyway.
NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 04:26 And for some reason now I guess we're supposed to look backwards and say "well, this is how it's always been so it must be the right way." I'm sorry, what? For tens of thousands of years humanity governed itself through a combination of strong-arm tactics, showmanship, and heredity, but I think most of us realize that there are newer ways that just work better in the modern world. In older times, when our understanding of brain and body chemistry was less complete (even nonexistent), one could perhaps be forgiven for claiming that homosexuality was an aberration, an abomination, and downright strange- but with the knowledge we have today, we ought to fucking know better. We're asking a group to prove that they deserve protection in order to receive it. Since when was that the way it's supposed to work in this country? No, it is meant to be the other way around- those who wish to deny it to them must instead provide a compelling reason why it should be denied. Any reason beginning with the words "throughout history" or "it isn't natural" is not compelling; it fails to provide any evidence whatsoever that allowing a homosexual couple to get married would do harm to other citizens of this country, or of the state in which they reside. The case against has yet to be made; the case for is provided by the overwhelming number of citizens, who have done no harm to anyone, asking for what ought to have already been theirs by simply being citizens in the first place, since the rights they seek are guaranteed to anyone else. And for everyone who says they wouldn't oppose gay rights if only the gays would shut up about it, wake up and smell the fucking coffee! Can you think of a single cause in recorded history that ever succeeded because its champions decided to sit quietly and not bother anybody? This is the proven process: Activism creates awareness, awareness generates interest, interest generates support, support generates success. If no toes are stepped on, the media doesn't pay attention. Fortunately, all it seems to take for gays to get the required coverage is to be obvious in public, and the die-hard reactionaries do the rest of the work for them. If they drop out of the spotlight, nobody agitates for change and the status quo is maintained, which is most decidedly not what they're after. If you'd rather they shut up and stop bothering you, fine, but do try to realize the full extent of what you're asking for (unless you do already and are just trying to mask the sentiment). Keep in mind that nobody (sane) is asking for marriages between twelve year olds and adults here; everything on the table (including polygamy, which by the way means multiple spouses of either gender) covers relationships between consenting adults. To disallow any such relationship through the passage and enforcement of a law is to say that the government knows better than the people it governs what is best for them. What the fuck, people? Does anybody even realize how silly that sounds? What the churches do is up to the churches, but the government is treading on some pretty shaky ground. Whether homosexuality is rooted in psychology or biology, it doesn't matter one bit- or shouldn't, anyway. Thread over. Nice speech.
Thread not over: nikki6ixx wrote on Mon, 10 November 2008 15:01 z310 wrote on Mon, 10 November 2008 00:15 nikki6ixx wrote on Sun, 09 November 2008 13:15 Bump, because I'm really curious as to what his reasoning is.
nikki6ixx wrote on Fri, 07 November 2008 17:01 So while many people danced in the streets over the election of America's first black president, believing that equality had finally been recognized... another group has become more marginalized. Sad day, really. That's quite rich coming from a kid that PM'ed Ethenal to convey your message to me that I am a "homophobe." I don't know who the blind hypocrite here is. --------------- So far this thread has been very one-sided except for the efforts of a few. I have no problem with gays and their lifestyle. But gay marriage is not just an issue that affects only gays. It asks cooperation from the majority by urging them to change their value system. Excuse me? What did you say? That's ain't gonna happen so easily. The reason? Not that the majority is being oppressive. It's far from that. I don't think it is appropriate to suggest that this is a case where a certain majority is oppressing the minority. It is also not too fair to suggest that this issue is comparable to the issue of women voters and Blacks. This issue goes right into the fundamental concept of human life for the past thousands of years. Given the huge numbers of the general religious population in the US, it would be an uphill struggle for homosexuals to gain "acceptance" by a group of people who have an entirely different value system. While it may seem that this majority is trying to preserve the integrity of their value system by denying others their right to practice their own, so small and tightly packed is the society that the change demanded is too great and fundamental that they simply cannot cooperate. If you think this is the majority oppressing a minority, I would say it is merely a false illusion. It is more the case of the majority reacting to the threat of eventual subjugation by a minority in the near future. Christian parents want to impart Christian values to their kids. This applies to people of all faiths. When in the future (if gay marriages are "legalized"), their kid asks them why one of his friends has 2 dads or 2 moms, what the heck are they going to say? You have got to be quite bigoted and indifferent if you do not see the conflict of ideals there. This is one of the core reasons why we resist gay marriage. Saying "boooo religion" is not a good approach to solve the problem. Telling us to "grow up" is not going to solve the issue. Calling us "backward thinking dead brains" is not going to solve the issue. Only the most hardcore activitists go and "impose" their view that homosexuality is wrong. I believe they should save their breath for other useful purposes. But the majority that are anti-gay marriage could care less about the sexual activities and lifestyles of adults of the same sex. They have other genuine reasons as stated above. If the majority was really oppressing the minority, ALL of them would be going around saying homosexuality is wrong. Sure it is inferred but they do not want to impose anything...they just will not cooperate with gay marriage and amend their lifestyle to accept it because it severely compromises their value system. I probably won't cooperate either. I could care less if you lived right next to my house and played with a dick the night before but then when you bring your kid along with his other dad to the bustop in the morning, I don't want to be anywhere nearby with MY kid. I know you would say I am a "blowhard" and "intolerant" but then again, I believe in my Creator and the rules set forth. I would most probably try to find a place where similar thinking people like me live...perhaps I will move down South. I could give a thousand more examples where the conflict of ideals would come up. And this is exactly what those who voted for Prop 8 fear could happen in the future regardless of where they live...of course while many voted because they believe homosexuality to be downright wrong, my above reasons is also a a cause for it. Not a women voter issue, not anywhere close to being close to the racism suffered by Blacks, this is something deep but I think this issue will be resolved like the above issues in the decades to come as the religious population wears thin with each incoming generation and the liberal trend continues to spiral upwards. In an era where the terms "homophobe" and "homohpobia" is freely and unjustly and stupidly applied to anyone who is not pro-homosexuality without respect to their values and religion, expect more opposition as you try to forcibly change the value system of the majority.
pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 I have no problem with gays and their lifestyle. Suuuure you don't, because... pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 I probably won't cooperate either. I could care less if you lived right next to my house and played with a dick the night before but then when you bring your kid along with his other dad to the bustop in the morning, I don't want to be anywhere nearby with MY kid. I know you would say I am a "blowhard" and "intolerant" but then again, I believe in my Creator and the rules set forth. I would most probably try to find a place where similar thinking people like me live...perhaps I will move down South. I find that very offensive, and I'm not even gay. That's an affront to every gay person out there. Are you implying the kid is going to be raised 'improperly' ? Sounds like it to me. In fact, it'll be you who's crippling your child, as you teach them to hate. By the way, I'm sure you stand next to some neighbours at the bus stop who get up to some pretty freaky shit when the curtains are down. Does that mean that they're bad influences on their children, and yours? pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 Given the huge numbers of the general religious population in the US, it would be an uphill struggle for homosexuals to gain "acceptance" by a group of people who have an entirely different value system. What 'value system' is that? I'm pretty sure most gay people share the same 'values' as the rest of us; hard work, equality, honesty, civic duty, love of freedom, etc. Or wait, do you mean the 'values' in the Bible? Oh, by the way. It's funny you think I'm some right-wing, conservative nutjob, and yet it's you who opposes something so tiny as gay marriage; as well as believing gay people will corrupt the country, and your children.
GoArmy44 wrote on Mon, 10 November 2008 22:05 Which constitution? State or Federal? The preposition was to amend the California Constitution... Does it really matter? My point was that people complain that voting on other things such as abortion and gun control and changing it is unconstitutional, but then they go ahead and ban an entire array of people from doing something and then consider it fair. It's hypocritical and just goes to show how stupid the government thinks everyone is.
*repeatedly hits head against wall* Are you SERIOUS, pawky? So you're defending (unintentional) oppression because of society's stubbornness to change? That is fucking stupid. Who gives a shit if some kid questions why his/her friend has two moms/dads? That's not an actual reason to bitch about it. Compromising their value system? I haven't had to compromise any of my values since I became a libertarian. I don't need society to follow my views for me to live my life the way I see fit. You must be pretty fucking self-important to require the government to regulate morality just for your own self-assurance.
cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 22:47 *repeatedly hits head against wall* Im afraid if I read another one of pawkies posts, my head will crack. Really, how did you manage to write a 1-page response so full of bullshit without seriously asking yourself "what the FUCK am I writing here?"
pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 I have no problem with gays and their lifestyle. But gay marriage is not just an issue that affects only gays. It asks cooperation from the majority by urging them to change their value system. No, it doesn't. It DOES NOT, repeat DOES NOT, affect you no matter how determined some people are to wish it did. You do not have to change your value system. pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 The reason? Not that the majority is being oppressive. It's far from that. I don't think it is appropriate to suggest that this is a case where a certain majority is oppressing the minority. It is also not too fair to suggest that this issue is comparable to the issue of women voters and Blacks. Women perhaps; you're dead wrong to say it's not comparable to racial intolerance. The reason your country is so backward in the field of equal rights on sexuality is pretty much exactly the same reason it took you so fucking disgracefully long to get equal rights on grounds of race. Namely religion. pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 This issue goes right into the fundamental concept of human life for the past thousands of years. Rhetoric. pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 Given the huge numbers of the general religious population in the US, it would be an uphill struggle for homosexuals to gain "acceptance" by a group of people who have an entirely different value system. While it may seem that this majority is trying to preserve the integrity of their value system by denying others their right to practice their own, so small and tightly packed is the society that the change demanded is too great and fundamental that they simply cannot cooperate. What do you mean "while it may seem..."? It doesn't need to seem like that; it is PRECISELY that. pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 If you think this is the majority oppressing a minority, I would say it is merely a false illusion. It is more the case of the majority reacting to the threat of eventual subjugation by a minority in the near future. As opposed to the subjugation that religion has imposed upon pretty much every society throughout history wherever and whenever it has the strength to be able to? Including your country right now? That is real subjugation. "Eventual subjugation" by a homosexual minority? You're crazy. pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 Christian parents want to impart Christian values to their kids. This applies to people of all faiths. Yep, and the irony is the people who do this immoral action (indoctrination of children) are always the same dipshits who keep whining about homosexuality on "moral" grounds, even though there has never, ever been a convincing moral argument against homosexuality. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad. pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 When in the future (if gay marriages are "legalized"), their kid asks them why one of his friends has 2 dads or 2 moms, what the heck are they going to say? You have got to be quite bigoted and indifferent if you do not see the conflict of ideals there. As opposed to someone asking me why my parents think the world was made in a week by a celestial superbeing 6000 years ago? I personally think it would be far less embarrassing to have two dads. pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 Saying "boooo religion" is not a good approach to solve the problem. It's a good start, since religion is once again standing firmly in the way of progress. pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 Sure it is inferred but they do not want to impose anything...they just will not cooperate with gay marriage and amend their lifestyle to accept it because it severely compromises their value system. I'll just repeat the fact that it does not "compromise" your value system, no matter how hard you have convinced yourself it does. You do not even have to "accept" it if you want... pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 I probably won't cooperate either. I could care less if you lived right next to my house and played with a dick the night before but then when you bring your kid along with his other dad to the bustop in the morning, I don't want to be anywhere nearby with MY kid. I hear you, I don't particularly want to be around intolerant religious nutcases either; difference is you don't see me saying that it "compromises my value system" when a Christian walks past. pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 I know you would say I am a "blowhard" and "intolerant" but then again, I believe in my Creator and the rules set forth. You stone people to death for working on the Sabbath? You think envy belongs in the 10 Commandments shortlist, but rape and slavery and cruelty to children don't? You think someone can be punished for a crime committed by someone else? You think the path to forgiveness is the torture and execution of someone else? This is what your Bible says. I would go so far as to call these things morally despicable, and yet the same people who get their "morals" from such a nightmarish book love to rant about homosexuality on "moral" grounds (as if there has ever been a convincing moral argument against homosexuality... which there hasn't). Oh, the irony... I don't know whether to laugh or cry. pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 I could give a thousand more examples where the conflict of ideals would come up. What do you mean "more"? You haven't given one yet. pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 Not a women voter issue, not anywhere close to being close to the racism suffered by Blacks, this is something deep but I think this issue will be resolved like the above issues in the decades to come as the religious population wears thin with each incoming generation and the liberal trend continues to spiral upwards. We can only hope. America finally got something approaching equality on racial grounds despite religion's best efforts to the contrary; perhaps equality on sexual grounds will be next, but once again, religion is the only real impediment to sensible morality. pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 In an era where the terms "homophobe" and "homohpobia" is freely and unjustly and stupidly applied to anyone who is not pro-homosexuality without respect to their values and religion, expect more opposition as you try to forcibly change the value system of the majority. Again, I can only repeat the fact that your "value system" is NOT BEING FORCIBLY CHANGED. You're going to have to get your head around this.
schritt für schritt für schritt btw spoony, whats up with cw.cc? it looks rather dead :[
Spoony, I doubt he'll wrap his head around these simple concepts. I think it might just be easier and more efficient if everybody who disagrees with him would hit their head against the wall until we agree with him. Either that or we can shove a crayon up our noses until it hits our brain.
I was going to write another rant out, but I actually think I can slim it down this time. What pawkyfox *really* said: I am incapable of explaining anything that doesn't fit into my limited worldview. I want the government to make gays not be gay in public because they'll make my kids ask questions that make my brain hurt. If they're allowed to get married, I might actually have to question my beliefs, I'm scared shitless that some of them might actually change if I think about them too much! Can't anyone see how selfish gays are? I'm being oppressed here! I'm with Spoony on this one- I don't know whether I should be laughing or crying.
cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:47 Compromising their value system? I haven't had to compromise any of my values since I became a libertarian. I don't need society to follow my views for me to live my life the way I see fit. If your a libertarian you should have known that society wouldn't follow your views, as it is always society's goal to put limits on everything...
Jerad Gray wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 11:26 cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:47 Compromising their value system? I haven't had to compromise any of my values since I became a libertarian. I don't need society to follow my views for me to live my life the way I see fit. If your a libertarian you should have known that society wouldn't follow your views, as it is always society's goal to put limits on everything... Oh, I know this, but that doesn't make me feel/vote any different.
Spoony wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:46 *shrug* I retired a while ago why :[
Ma1kel wrote on Tue, 18 November 2008 14:06 Tyranny of the majority is awesome. Hence why I'm no big fan of democracies and why America was never intended to be one for this very reason.
Ma1kel wrote on Wed, 19 November 2008 06:37 And why it is a democratic republic. *Constitutional Republic.
lmfao most of you are seriously fucked up in their faces. So faggots are disgusting? however I can handle it, I am not a fag but I don't hate, or find them disgusting. its just something I don't need to see and they just don't have to confront it with me. But why FFS WHY, are you hating on them, we love lesbians right? So why bother hate on man fags? Seriously, come up with something good an proper. Because I know all man love lesbian girls who rub pussy's when their between 18 and 27. So please PLEASE, come with something good or just die or something.. Geezz, fkn moreones.
renalpha wrote on Thu, 20 November 2008 15:05 lmfao most of you are seriously fucked up in their faces. So faggots are disgusting? however I can handle it, I am not a fag but I don't hate, or find them disgusting. its just something I don't need to see and they just don't have to confront it with me. But why FFS WHY, are you hating on them, we love lesbians right? So why bother hate on man fags? Seriously, come up with something good an proper. Because I know all man love lesbian girls who rub pussy's when their between 18 and 27. So please PLEASE, come with something good or just die or something.. Geezz, fkn moreones. Nice bigotry against asexuals there, mate. I feel offended.
renalpha wrote on Thu, 20 November 2008 13:05 lmfao most of you are seriously fucked up in their faces. So faggots are disgusting? however I can handle it, I am not a fag but I don't hate, or find them disgusting. its just something I don't need to see and they just don't have to confront it with me. But why FFS WHY, are you hating on them, we love lesbians right? So why bother hate on man fags? Seriously, come up with something good an proper. Because I know all man love lesbian girls who rub pussy's when their between 18 and 27. So please PLEASE, come with something good or just die or something.. Geezz, fkn moreones. Shut the fuck up and stop being stupid. If you actually READ this thread for once, there's a difference between hatred and personally not wanting to be something because you personally find it disgusting.
your an dipstick nub. you guys were talking about its good that they are not allowed to marrie. grow up and take a look at the real deal. the faggots are offended by this because it makes no sence at all.
I don't think anyone in here agrees that the outlawing of gay marriage is a good thing...
renalpha wrote on Fri, 21 November 2008 13:29 your an dipstick nub. you guys were talking about its good that they are not allowed to marrie. grow up and take a look at the real deal. the faggots are offended by this because it makes no sence at all. Be specific when you say you guys. Also nice, you say gays should have the same rights and you call them faggots later. To make things clear again since I still think people don't understand me: I support gays and think they should have all the rights that normal couples have. I have gay friends and all of them are extremely nice people. My only problem is I, being a hetero male, think being homosexual is nasty. I don't let that opinion influence my actions or relationships with them in the slightest. Anyways, I'm going to stay out of this thread now, it's way too retarded for me to handle due to Renalpha shitting it up after Spoony's awesome posts.
I will get back to this thread later today.
pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 25 November 2008 08:55 I will get back to this thread later today. Don't bother. You're a self-righteous asshole who has absolutely no solid ground to stand on. You hide behind religion and a pseudo-standard "family formula" that has not existed for as long as people try to claim. It's always changing, and it always has been. As far as this debate goes, God and the Bible are irrelevant. I would argue that God and the Bible is irrelevant in the world period, but that's a different argument for a different day. Just about everything in the world compromises someone else's values. We eat cows, that's morally wrong in Hinduism. Some cultures eat dogs, horses, and cats. We see this as mainly morally wrong and disgusting. Many people think alcohol consumption is immoral and seeing someone drunk makes them uncomfortable. The same goes for smoking. Sex, although natural, and we all were created out of the act (except for many a rare exception with artificial insemination), many people are ashamed of the act and are absolutely repulsed by the idea of prostitution. Yet, at one point, the Catholic church used to make money off of prostitution and condoned it as a "necessary evil". While I certainly have intolerance for a lot of lifestyles and acts, I recognize that as long as no unwilling participant is being harmed in the act or lifestyle, it shouldn't be prohibited. Otherwise, you're just catering to a bunch of egotistical, self-important assholes who seem to claim moral supremacy and take it upon themselves to guide the blind. Guess what, morons? You're just as fucking blind as the rest of us. However, you're too god damn ignorant to realize it because you suck on the teet of some imaginary being and it's "book of wisdom" that was written by man several thousand years ago. Tell me, who are the ones that are truly lost? Because, to me, it's starting to look like it's you.
renalpha wrote on Thu, 20 November 2008 13:05 Because I know all man love lesbian girls who rub pussy's when their between 18 and 27. :counter-example: It's like going to the Consumer Electronics Showcase with your check-book. What's the point?
you know whatever, if they wanna get married and do what they do want then whatever... it's not really that big of a deal.. but i do think stuff like that should stay between a man and a women.. but gays will do it reguardless, so why worry about it? Ryu wrote on Thu, 06 November 2008 19:04 Great, next Gay sex will be banned, great porn studios in LA and CA will not produce gay porn and then we will lose 95% of all great lesbian porn, and women will be objectified in porn by having ass sex for money! THANKS, CALIFORNIA, YOU RUINED PORN FOR US! this is the AMERICA not england -.-