Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Tagaziel, May 16, 2008.
Certainly more than the chick who once rejected your ugly sister at a gay bar.
where is that "Der Falmmenkrieg hat begonnen" pic when you need it?
Kein Flammenkrieg bitte, oder ban.
I don't flame, dammit! I was just making a point.
By accusing me of generalization? After just judging "the whole lesbian population" on account of something your sister told you?
I don't mean to argue, but she worked there for over a year and met more than two lesbians. So I can generalizate more competent than YOU.
Anyway, I just wanted to scare them lesbian-lovers a bit. Bisexual is fine (I read an article that majority of women are bi, but choose men as partners only because we are better fitted for the role - but then you know how the articles are), but lesbians aren't interested at all in guys and *may* often be agressive towards them (if one tries to make a move on them), so better watch out. I won't say I know lesbians through-and-through, but I have a fairly good source.
i'm just going to wager a guess as to where you live as being a symptom of your naivete and just let it go. the only cities i've ever lived in have been progressive liberal-leaning cities (milwaukee, boston, nyc, and chapel hill) and they are almost as full of gay and lesbian couples as they are straight people, bums or lunatics.
the words coming from your mouth could be colored green they're from such a naive place.
Mayhap. I'm not an omnibus.
Goddamnit, note to self: stop talking about things I have no idea about.
Update: majority Californians still bigots
Sad but true, once you get beyond some of the bigger cities, CA is pretty much redneckville. Ever been to Bakersfield *shudder*? The central valley *shudder*? The "far" north *shudder*?
Hell, even INSIDE the cities things can get pretty bad. Los Angeles was one of two or three large cities to briefly ban Naked Lunch, and every once in a while the entire place seems to undergo paroxysms of insane conservatism.
It really depresses me that folks just can't say, "Hey, they're human beings, and by law should be given the same legal protections and rights as others. What they do is their own business." But, nooooooo, apparently it makes one more moral to push one's personal opinions onto others. Why the fuck it's anyone's business whether another person likes bumping uglies with the same sex is something I don't think I'll ever understand.
HEY. My lovely town of Bakersfield isn't... it's not... that is to say...
the first same sex couple got married a couple of days ago.
i have a lot of gay friends who are absolutely ecstatic about it, and i feel really happy for them.
I'm really hoping the ruling doesn't get overturned. Equal protections FTW!!
Hey Darky, long time no see...
I swiped Wooz's I don't give a flying 'cause it really means jack all to me as I am probably crazier than all the straight and gay lot combined.
it's not an oversimplification, it's a factual error. gay brains are physically different from straight ones, and homosexuality is dependent on genes and possibly on hormone exposure in the womb.
evolution would say "sounds great, gimme the lot!", since the gene sequences that makes women produce gay sons are the same sequences that increase their general fertility.
I almost never read 4 pages of posts but I did, just for you guys.
Homosexuals and heterosexuals HAVE EQUAL MARRIAGE RIGHTS RIGHT NOW.
A gay man can marry the exact same people I can. This is equal protection. It is not equal rights to say homosexuals should be able to marry, it is new rights.
What is the difference between a man marring a man and a man marrying his sister? Or his mother? Or to the more extremes, his dog or a child? Why is it okay to be disgusted by incest but you shouldn't be disgusted by homosexuality?
Now all that being said, let me make one thing clear. I am all for homosexual couples having all the same hospital visitation rights, tax rights, inheritance rights and all that other junk. But we shouldn't have to change our definition of marriage to meet the desires of a segment of the population.
i can only hope that someday you are forced to confront your ignorance and/or adherence to religious "morality" face to face with that which you lack understanding for...and you lose.
You are a gigantic retard, hope this helps.
And why exactly should people care about your Judeo-Christian definition of marriage and relinquish the right to get married under their own definition? You can define marriage however you want and that's fine. It is irrelevant to the fact that they should have the same rights.
Consentual adults is the difference for most of these cases except incest, where the main argument against marriage is the consequences for their children (which have a big chance of ending up handicapped). Animals and children are not and cannot be consenting adults and hence those
Also, being disgusted by something people willingly do in their private lives shouldn't feature into laws.
So your argument is 'It was always like this it should always be like this'.
That's a pretty dumbassed argument, there.
Also, how does two men or two women being allowed to be married affect *your* marriage adversely?
Also, people, saying 'you're an idiot' is basically spam and not very useful. So don't.