(August 20, 2014 at 3:56 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: You having an issue with men sodomozing other men (what about the lesbians?) is very much an issue; for you. I suggest you:

What about the lesbians? All homosexual acts are morally wrong.

This is why this issue is so boring for me and why the majority of the world does not bother with even considering it, the arguments for gay marriage are so poorly thought out.

Yet here you are. Funny how people don't consider it worth considering tend to be the most vocal opponents. Also weird how you don't 'get' what homosexuality is. Are you ok? I get it and I'm not even gay. Well,supposedly we're all a little bit gay.

Nobody really cares what your moral objections to a cock in the arse are, stat. Or indeed a fist in the pussy. Or indeed beyond that whatever people get up to in the privacy of their own consensual relationship.

So, again, your issues are an issue; for you. And again, I suggest you:

Quote: Brazil and other parts of South America allow same-sex marriage or civil partnerships, as do some US States. Compare the situation with 20 years ago and yes, we are winning.


I’ve played RISK with people like you, it’s a lot of fun. They control like ten percent of the board and they think they are winning the game.

Quote: If you like rabid hatred and bigotry towards a small minority. That used to be common with regard to the black community but then there was the civil rights movement.


You really think that this is the same as what blacks went through? Nobody is enslaving gays, nobody is lynching them, nobody is spraying them with fire hoses, burning down their churches, bombing their schools…it’s no wonder the majority of blacks do not support same-sex marriage. That’s an offensive and downright absurd comparison.

Quote: I'm glad you embrace the principle that gay people should be allowed the same rights, including marriage, as everyone else.


They already had equal rights. If one gay man wants to marry one woman nobody is going to stop him.

So ignore the point completely.

The parallel is actually quite good. Gay people are being attacked and sometimes murdered, thrown out of their jobs and homes, because of prejudice, just as blacks were. And the same group of people were largely responsible.

You comment is so ignorant not even you appreciate it.

(August 20, 2014 at 4:05 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Yet here you are. Funny how people don't consider it worth considering tend to be the most vocal opponents.

Did I start this thread? I was simply responding to the non-sequitur in the OP, “we do not talk about this much therefore Christians must now agree with us.”

Quote: Also weird how you don't 'get' what homosexuality is.

Now you’re committing the fallacy of equivocation, I said I do not understand what “being gay” means, I understand what homosexuality is. The two are not the same though.

Quote: Are you ok? I get it and I'm not even gay.

Then what does it mean to “be gay”?

Quote: Nobody really cares what your moral objections to a cock in the arse are, stat.

They seem to care when I vote in accordance with those moral convictions.

Quote: Or indeed a fist in the pussy. Or indeed beyond that whatever people get up to in the privacy of their own consensual relationship.

Whoa whoa whoa! Why consensual? Why private? Who are you to morally judge public or non-consensual relationships?

Do you support pedophilia? Bestiality? Incest? Rape? As long as they are done in the privacy of a relationship right? If you have an issue with any of these things then I suggest you just “deal with it”. Your arguments sound kind of absurd when they are used back on you don’t they?

(August 20, 2014 at 4:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(August 20, 2014 at 4:05 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Yet here you are. Funny how people don't consider it worth considering tend to be the most vocal opponents.

Did I start this thread? I was simply responding to the non-sequitur in the OP, “we do not talk about this much therefore Christians must now agree with us.”

Congrats.

(August 20, 2014 at 4:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Also weird how you don't 'get' what homosexuality is.

Now you’re committing the fallacy of equivocation, I said I do not understand what “being gay” means, I understand what homosexuality is. The two are not the same though.

Ok.

(August 20, 2014 at 4:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Are you ok? I get it and I'm not even gay.

Then what does it mean to “be gay”?

Why don't you ask a person who is gay? What does being straight mean?

(August 20, 2014 at 4:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Nobody really cares what your moral objections to a cock in the arse are, stat.

They seem to care when I vote in accordance with those moral convictions.

Well more fool them then, I guess.

(August 20, 2014 at 4:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Or indeed a fist in the pussy. Or indeed beyond that whatever people get up to in the privacy of their own consensual relationship.

Whoa whoa whoa! Why consensual? Why private? Who are you to morally judge public or non-consensual relationships?

Do you support pedophilia? Bestiality? Incest? Rape? As long as they are done in the privacy of a relationship right? If you have an issue with any of these things then I suggest you just “deal with it”. Your arguments sound kind of absurd when they are used back on you don’t they?

Why not consensual? Why not private?

I don't judge people on their private, consensual relationships, as I made clear.

Think you'll find the person that does, is you.

I'm not responding to your pathetic attempt at a false equivocation strawman fallacy. That's really too low, even for you. I mean, consensual rape? Do you come across that type of contradiction often?

But just remember; cock in the arse. If you don't like, don't try it. But please, do carry on spinning your wheels about how terrible it is that a man can put his hard, erect penis inside the anus of another man and find it pleasurable. All that juicy cum, dripping out inside of him. If it gets them off, then good for them. More power to them.

(August 20, 2014 at 4:13 pm)Diablo Wrote: So ignore the point completely.

The parallel is actually quite good. Gay people are being attacked and sometimes murdered, thrown out of their jobs and homes, because of prejudice, just as blacks were. And the same group of people were largely responsible.

Straight people are never murdered or fired? What reality do you live in?

Quote: You comment is so ignorant not even you appreciate it.

I thought that saying that a gay man could not marry a woman was rather ignorant. Attack me all you like, it does nothing to affirm your fallacious arguments.

Statler Waldorf Wrote:Do you support pedophilia? Bestiality? Incest? Rape? As long as they are done in the privacy of a relationship right? If you have an issue with any of these things then I suggest you just “deal with it”. Your arguments sound kind of absurd when they are used back on you don’t they?

Did you see the word "consensual"? That throws out rape and bestiality. Most paedophilic "relationships" are not consensual either, and those that are tend to be between an adult and someone slightly underage, which in a purely biological sense is fine. Incest is viewed as wrong for different reasons than the other 3. Maybe try something that isn't a strawman next time.

(August 20, 2014 at 3:56 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(August 20, 2014 at 3:34 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: You don't know what being gay means? Homosexual? Up-hill gardener? Batting for the other team? Swinging the other way?

Nope, I’ve seen a lot of people who claim to be gay now who have dated and had children with women, so no it’s tough to understand what that means then.

Quote: How bizarre. No wonder you guys object to it.

If you truly believe it’s the way they are born then why would you expect a non-gay person to understand it?

Quote: As to the rest of your reply. Petty presumptions and irrelevant. 'The gay community' like they're some sort of homogeneous entity that act in a uniform unilateral way.

Actually they refer to themselves as that, I figured you’d understand that though.

Quote: You having an issue with men sodomozing other men (what about the lesbians?) is very much an issue; for you. I suggest you:

What about the lesbians? All homosexual acts are morally wrong.

This is why this issue is so boring for me and why the majority of the world does not bother with even considering it, the arguments for gay marriage are so poorly thought out.

Quote: Brazil and other parts of South America allow same-sex marriage or civil partnerships, as do some US States. Compare the situation with 20 years ago and yes, we are winning.

I’ve played RISK with people like you, it’s a lot of fun. They control like ten percent of the board and they think they are winning the game.

Quote: If you like rabid hatred and bigotry towards a small minority. That used to be common with regard to the black community but then there was the civil rights movement.

You really think that this is the same as what blacks went through? Nobody is enslaving gays, nobody is lynching them, nobody is spraying them with fire hoses, burning down their churches, bombing their schools…it’s no wonder the majority of blacks do not support same-sex marriage. That’s an offensive and downright absurd comparison.

Quote: I'm glad you embrace the principle that gay people should be allowed the same rights, including marriage, as everyone else.

They already had equal rights. If one gay man wants to marry one woman nobody is going to stop him.

Usually, gay men who marry women are either in actuality bisexual or marrying so that these women can become "beards" that make them seem normal. Many men also think they're straight and marry women because they think that's the "normal" thing to do, only to realize that they are actually gay and cannot love their wives.

BTW, nobody has ever really said that gays suffered exactly the same discrimination that black people suffered, only that they suffered discrimination period for the same reasons. Also, nobody said that there wasn't an LGBT community- only that it isn't homogenous and that it doesn't have an "agenda" other than promoting equal rights.

Also if you don't believe that LGBT have been murdered in hate crimes fueled by their sexual orientation, then you've been living under a rock and I suggest you read about Matthew Shepard for instance.

You probably have been living under said rock if you think that peoples' natural sexual activity that harms no one is "wrong" because an ancient book of Bronze Age mythology, and so I suggest using this new technology called Google to find the legal arguments for same sex marriage. Of course, if you want, I can attempt to explain it, but be warned, it may contain too much logic.

(August 20, 2014 at 4:32 pm)Tobie Wrote:

Statler Waldorf Wrote:Do you support pedophilia? Bestiality? Incest? Rape? As long as they are done in the privacy of a relationship right? If you have an issue with any of these things then I suggest you just “deal with it”. Your arguments sound kind of absurd when they are used back on you don’t they?

Did you see the word "consensual"? That throws out rape and bestiality. Most paedophilic "relationships" are not consensual either, and those that are tend to be between an adult and someone slightly underage, which in a purely biological sense is fine. Incest is viewed as wrong for different reasons than the other 3. Maybe try something that isn't a strawman next time.

It's what he does.

In a Gish gash format that only our lovable stat could do.

(August 20, 2014 at 4:35 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(August 20, 2014 at 4:32 pm)Tobie Wrote: Did you see the word "consensual"? That throws out rape and bestiality. Most paedophilic "relationships" are not consensual either, and those that are tend to be between an adult and someone slightly underage, which in a purely biological sense is fine. Incest is viewed as wrong for different reasons than the other 3. Maybe try something that isn't a strawman next time.

It's what he does.

In a Gish gash format that only our lovable stat could do.

Sometimes I think he's only here to make atheists look better.

(August 20, 2014 at 4:36 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(August 20, 2014 at 4:35 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: It's what he does.

In a Gish gash format that only our lovable stat could do.

Sometimes I think he's only here to make atheists look better.

His bark is generally worse than his bite.

And he often raises some good points too. Just not in this thread. You could even end up liking him in a sadomasochistic sort of way.

Unless you're gay. Then he'd be picketing your wedding.