Prop 8 overturned

[UberMario]

Well that is not what it's designed to be used for if you catch my drift. >_>;

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Did I say they were inferior? No, but, as someone had said on another site, "the parts fit for a reason", my real reason for hating it is the sex implications, and the fact that people sometimes not use the "default" (if you know what I mean) kind it's very offputting to me, even when it's in between a heterosexual pair.

You didn't explicitly state it, but if you think that you are allowed to get married and they aren't you clearly think your sexual orientation is better than theirs.

Then don't think about the sex implications. It's how their brain is wired. Your brain is wired so you want to get some with a girl, theirs is the opposite.

I have a similar standpoint with drugs, if one of my friends started to take, erm, stuff (I don't mind beer or wine drinkers at all) I'd most likely not stick around them much longer if I knew. Though that is more-or-less because I don't want to become addicted to ANYTHING of the sort like that, especially when it's not actually legal.

As sad as it is to say it, friends are not always forever, one of my very best friends for many years suddenly started to hate me for no apparent reason a couple years ago, and he never talked to me again. I never did find out what was wrong and neither did any of my other friends.

There's a big difference: being gay is not a choice. Yeah I understand you might not like people because of their choices, but not liking someone because of something beyond their control is just as bad, to me, as not liking someone for being mentally ******** or something along those lines.

 

[UberMario]

You didn't explicitly state it, but if you think that you are allowed to get married and they aren't you clearly think your sexual orientation is better than theirs.

Well it IS better because people, including gays, wouldn't exist without heterosexual orientation.

There's a big difference: being gay is not a choice.

lol 10lolz

Yeah I understand you might not like people because of their choices, but not liking someone because of something beyond their control is just as bad, to me, as not liking someone for being mentally ******** or something along those lines.

How is that seriously beyond their control? That's like saying "I prefer bacon to porkchops, so I will NEVER choose porkchops over bacon because it is a mentally implausible and would be the equivalent of me dividing by zero".

 

[victra♥]

I'd rather have it banned in the whole country, it's not even funny or natural.

It saddens me that it's becoming legal in more and more countries (not saying it wasn't already legal at the point of this overturning) and I don't really understand why they feel they have to do that. I understand religious differences but this is totally unexceptable imo. especially since comics and tv shows are starting to shove it down our throats too.

I'm glad none of my friends are *** because they wouldn't be friends for much longer if they were . . . . .

As for P8 conflicting with an already existing statement, I'm going to remain more-or-less silent on how I feel about the 14th Amendment basically being twisted to endorse homosexuality, but from the rest of the post it should be pretty easy to determine my standing.

you have got to be kidding me

It just extremely disturbs me, especially since it, at least when it comes to males, eventually will probably imply that they will . . . . well . . . . I'm not going to say, but you probably know what I mean when it comes to sex.

oh i see. You really aren't kidding.

It seems that you're willing to hinder the rights of others simply because it disturbs you, or that its something that you're just not comfortable with.

I don't know who is a troll or who isn't, so I'm going to play it straight.

Legislation is evaluated on the basis of rational values; in order for a law to be effective, it is judged based on how beneficial it is to society in concrete terms. Judge Walker overturned Prop 8 because he found that it failed the rational basis test, the lowest level of requirement for a law.

Even if same-sex marriage were made legal, it would not in any way hinder the rights of individuals to live according to their private morals, whether those morals support or condemn homosexual behavior. Even if same-sex marriage were legal, you as an individual still have the right to be a bigot. You can break ties with former close friends, disown your own family members and children who are of legal age, and refuse to associate with anyone who practices a lifestyle you disagree with. The only exception being if you are employed as an agent of the government or in the field of medicine or something of that nature. But your line of work is your choice, and it is your responsibility to choose a line of work that does not conflict with your personal beliefs.

Alternatively, a same-sex marriage ban would hinder the rights of certain individuals to live according to their morals.

Judge Walker's decision included the statement that private morals alone are not sufficient to form the basis of legislation. There must be something else, something that can be more quantitatively measured as either beneficial or detrimental to the government or to society to justify the state investing time and money into enforcing a piece of legislation. In this case, he found there to be none.

I think this, along with a few of crashic's post, is one of my favorite posts regarding prop 8. Maybe ubermario will read it when he gets the chance. Maybe.

 

[L/A/W]

so they can't marry? (because you don't like how they do things)
c'mon man just think about what you said
edit: you lol'd at being gay not being a choice?

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Well it IS better because people, including gays, wouldn't exist without heterosexual orientation.

That's like saying that black people are better than white people because without black people white people wouldn't exist.

lol 10lolz

Wow are you seriously that dumb?

How is that seriously beyond their control? That's like saying "I prefer bacon to porkchops, so I will NEVER choose porkchops over bacon because it is a mentally implausible and would be the equivalent of me dividing by zero".

Let me turn the tables on you: would you do it with a guy? No, and that's exactly how it is with them and females. Your analogy makes no sense.

 

[victra♥]

im pretty upset that you would reply to the fact about homosexuality not being a choice with "lol"

it gives us all an idea (if it hasn't already) with the kind of ignorance that we're dealing with here.

But with a topic like this, this sort of thing is bound to happen.

 

[TigerWoods]

You seem pretty polite at least so I'll remain that way for you :D

God I wish I didn't have to use euphemisms...

It just extremely disturbs me, especially since it, at least when it comes to males, eventually will probably imply that they will . . . . well . . . . I'm not going to say, but you probably know what I mean when it comes to sex.

A few things. Our mouths aren't really designed for kissing... but we do it anyway. The top half of the female anatomy aren't designed for being played with... but people do it anyway. Oh and eat lots of fiber and something much larger than most people's ..... will exit there...

Did I say they were inferior? No, but, as someone had said on another site, "the parts fit for a reason", my real reason for hating it is the sex implications, and the fact that people sometimes not use the "default" (if you know what I mean) kind it's very offputting to me, even when it's in between a heterosexual pair.

Hmm ok. You do know that there are a bunch of homosexual couples who dislike that and don't even do it there. Unless you want to hate on oral now. If that's the case then there really isn't any use in debating that subject.

Oh, and this has nothing to do with marriage by the way. Gays will have sex no matter what you do... ban marriage or not. Marriage isn't about the sex, dear boy.

I have a similar standpoint with drugs, if one of my friends started to take, erm, stuff (I don't mind beer or wine drinkers at all) I'd most likely not stick around them much longer if I knew. Though that is more-or-less because I don't want to become addicted to ANYTHING of the sort like that, especially when it's not actually legal.

As sad as it is to say it, friends are not always forever, one of my very best friends for many years suddenly started to hate me for no apparent reason a couple years ago, and he never talked to me again. I never did find out what was wrong and neither did any of my other friends.

A few things... that guy probably wasn't your best friend then...

That or maybe he was seriously offended by your views.

And I find it sad you'd abandon a friend who would need some serious aid. I've been there... and had people help me out.

Perhaps, but I just in general don't like it even without thinking from a religious standpoint.

Also, what I meant by "it's not even funny" is that it seems more and more shows use a gay character for comedic purposes. (See CollegeHumor, Family Guy, etc.) "Natural" might not have been the best word to put since there are homosexual animals (and I don't mean earthworms and snails), but the percentage of homosexual people in the world population in comparison with that documented in animals is strikingly higher.

You do know there is also a theory about an evolutionary advantage to having gays in the population? Aparently gay men have sisters who are incredibly fertile...

Oh and btw. Gay humor is funny. I find it funny. Gays find it funny.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I agree with Victra. How about you do some research before you start being ignorant and offending people.

 

[UberMario]

That's like saying that black people are better than white people because without black people white people wouldn't exist.

By far it does not. If EVERYONE in the world was gay, how many people would exist in 100 years?

Let's look at it using your analogy:

If everyone in the world was the same race, they'd still be able to reproduce.

Wow are you seriously that dumb?

Your statement implies that gay people are magnitized to others of their own gender and have absolutely no form of self-prevention or the ability to think about their actions.

Let me turn the tables on you: would you do it with a guy? No, and that's exactly how it is with them. Your analogy makes no sense.

Once again, your statement implied they have no self-control. There IS a difference between CHOICE and INVOLUNTARY.

Earthworms and snails cannot be called homosexuals...

(I'll reply to the rest in a moment)

I did say that I am not referring to them, since they are both genders at the same time.

 

[TigerWoods]

I edited that out lmao.... Can you reply to the above things?

Edit: Wow I'm slow to read.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Actually never mind. I don't want to get this closed.

Here, let's steer away from talking about what is or isn't wrong with the sex.

What about the marriage itself is wrong? Like Twoods (I think) said, sex is going to happen with or without marriage.

 

[Fletch]

It just extremely disturbs me, especially since it, at least when it comes to males, eventually will probably imply that they will . . . . well . . . . I'm not going to say, but you probably know what I mean when it comes to sex.

Plenty of (if not a majority) of heterosexual couples will have anal sex as well, should they not be allowed to marry then?

That actually isn't true, birds of prey in particular mate for life, as do several other species.

Yep, but I'd argue that it's the minority not the majority. For most animals monogamy didn't fit. It depends completely on the evolution/habitats species are brought up in, but I don't think we need to get into that.

Did I say they were inferior? No, but, as someone had said on another site, "the parts fit for a reason", my real reason for hating it is the sex implications, and the fact that people sometimes not use the "default" (if you know what I mean) kind it's very offputting to me, even when it's in between a heterosexual pair.

Parts fit all over the place. Do you not agree with oral sex either, or masturbation? Just curious.

I have a similar standpoint with drugs, if one of my friends started to take, erm, stuff (I don't mind beer or wine drinkers at all) I'd most likely not stick around them much longer if I knew. Though that is more-or-less because I don't want to become addicted to ANYTHING of the sort like that, especially when it's not actually legal.

As sad as it is to say it, friends are not always forever, one of my very best friends for many years suddenly started to hate me for no apparent reason a couple years ago, and he never talked to me again. I never did find out what was wrong and neither did any of my other friends.

Drugs are a little bit different, as it is more destructive behavior (or at least it can be), whereas someone being gay doesn't really affect you in any way, shape, or form. It's not like gay guys go around constantly trying to have sex with their male friends, and even if that was the case, you could very well have female friends that would try to do the same thing.

 

[UberMario]

Do you not agree with oral sex either?

That's what I was getting at, no I do not, neither that nor the one that goes to the other side.

A few things. Our mouths aren't really designed for kissing... but we do it anyway. The top half of the female anatomy aren't designed for being played with... but people do it anyway. Oh and eat lots of fiber and something much larger than most people's ..... will exit there...

Well here's the thing, the exit isn't meant to be an entrance. The first two are [a comparatively mild] sensory stimulus than anything.

Hmm ok. You do know that there are a bunch of homosexual couples who dislike that and don't even do it there. Unless you want to hate on oral now. If that's the case then there really isn't any use in debating that subject.

Not much to say here.

Oh, and this has nothing to do with marriage by the way. Gays will have sex no matter what you do... ban marriage or not. Marriage isn't about the sex, dear boy.

Not always, but to most people it is, or at the very least to live in the same house.

A few things... that guy probably wasn't your best friend then...

That or maybe he was seriously offended by your views.

We did lots of sports, gaming, and the like together for nearly a decade, and he didn't know anything about my views if you are referring to this. It's not like I "stole" his GF or anything like that. I try my best not to offend, though it might not come out as such in this thread in particular due to my sentiments.

And I find it sad you'd abandon a friend who would need some serious aid. I've been there... and had people help me out.

I definitely help my friends, what I meant by the drug thing was that if they were trying to get me to do drugs WITH them (like consistently), then the friendship would probably not last. Sometimes it's easy to get them out of the wrong crowd, other times you cannot change their ways. I've known both.

You do know there is also a theory about an evolutionary advantage to having gays in the population? Aparently gay men have sisters who are incredibly fertile...

Sounds pretty farfetched (though plausible if you consider female hormones), but I'd be very curious if this were in fact proven true somewhere. Not to be a "proof or it doesn't exist" statement, but could you post a link to said theory?

Oh and btw. Gay humor is funny. I find it funny. Gays find it funny.

Subject to opinion, I will not argue here because different people find different things funny.

I'm just going to stop [in general, not just toward you Tiger] because this is getting like politics, both sides feel they are right and thus neither wins.

 

[Fletch]

http://www.sensualism.com/gay/gene.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/science/gay-men-in-twin-study.html

Just want to get this out there... being gay has been proven to be largely genetic through multiple studies. These are two excellent studies on the subject, and I can provide more if need be.

 

[Wavebuster]

What does mating for life have anything to do with marriage?

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Uber come back. Can you actually talk about marriage? You can't ban sex, and it seems like that's all you have a problem with.

 

[victra♥]

it just seems apparent that the only thing marriage is good for, or perhaps in his viewpoint endorses, is sex.

 

[TigerWoods]

I guess this ended anyway. I think he confused anti-anal sex and anti-same sex marriage... or made them one entity.

This was a good thread indeed.

 

[Tacel]

ol 10lolz

Yes, because being gay is a choice. Same with being black or mentally ********.
Give me a break.

http://www.sensualism.com/gay/gene.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/science/gay-men-in-twin-study.html

Just want to get this out there... being gay has been proven to be largely genetic through multiple studies. These are two excellent studies on the subject, and I can provide more if need be.

 

[Fuelbi]

lol 10lolz

Actually, what he replied to you is actually true. Being gay is not a choice. You simply can't decide one day that you're gay and the next go back to being straight.


Now, to what this has turned into, I thought this was supposed to be a joyous occasion for my manos, but somehow this has turned into a gay marriage argument.

 

[UberMario]

Uber come back. Can you actually talk about marriage? You can't ban sex, and it seems like that's all you have a problem with.

Well that's mostly true. 95% percent of the issue I have with it is indeed sex. The other 5% can pretty much be summed up with "do you really have to kiss here?", which of course I wouldn't say. I can understand guys/gals being close friends with other guys/gals, but I don't really see the point in going beyond that:

Money? If children [adopted] aren't in the equation, it basically becomes one taking money from the other, which can be shared without being married.
Housing? You don't need to be married in love to live in the same facility. (Example: Dormitories usually involve housing the same gender in one room, but not because of their orientation)
Kissing, "Tickling", Romantic Feelings, and the like? Probably the most reasonable non-sex related reason for marriage. (Though like the above, you can do most of that without being married, though the second one is kind of questionable) I'm not too sure how to respond about my opinion on this one. It's nowhere near as bad as the sexual reasons from my standpoint, but there is something about it that, when done in public or on television kind of makes me feel like looking away or changing the channel.

it just seems apparent that the only thing marriage is good for, or perhaps in his viewpoint endorses, is sex.

Well you can have romantic feelings without being married, marriage, when boiled down is pretty much meant to be three things:

-You only will have GENUINE romantic feelings for your spouse. (Cheating is not ok, thinking another woman is beautiful more borderline)
-Sexual reasons (Though it isn't really as looked down upon in today's society, there was a time when extramarital affairs were not considered the norm, even with condoms)

(Of course there are other reasons, such as financial support for your soulmate [which you don't need to be married to give out or receive obviously] but are not the above three the most important reasons?)

These two are constantly broken in society (both in married and non-married couples), sadly, so marriage has lost most of it's meaning . . . . .

Actually, what he replied to you is actually true. Being gay is not a choice. You simply can't decide one day that you're gay and the next go back to being straight.


Now, to what this has turned into, I thought this was supposed to be a joyous occasion for my manos, but somehow this has turned into a gay marriage argument.

But you can choose not to be gay with someone else, just like if a guy likes a girl he does have the choice not to go out with her.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Well you really can't ban sex. It happens.

Sex and marriage should be different entities. I don't see why you lumped them, and I don't know why your thoughts about sex should prevent you from supporting them getting married.

 

[Fletch]

Well that's mostly true. 95% percent of the issue I have with it is indeed sex. The other 5% can pretty much be summed up with "do you really have to kiss here?", which of course I wouldn't say. I can understand guys/gals being close friends with other guys/gals, but I don't really see the point in going beyond that:

Money? If children [adopted] aren't in the equation, it basically becomes one taking money from the other, which can be shared without being married.
Housing? You don't need to be married in love to live in the same facility. (Example: Dormitories usually involve housing the same gender in one room, but not because of their orientation)

You do realize there are tax benefits and the like for being married? Which is a big reason that homosexual couples want marriage?

 

[Fuelbi]

But you can choose not to be gay with someone else, just like if a guy likes a girl he does have the choice not to go out with her.

Ubermario, that makes no sense what you said right there. There are several factors why another gay person wouldn't go out with another man/woman, just like there's several factors of why a straight person wouldn't go out with somebody of the opposite gender. Not to be against you or anything, but I've noticed how ridiculous some of your arguments have been.

 

[UberMario]

Well you really can't ban sex. It happens.

Sex and marriage should be different entities. I don't see why you lumped them, and I don't know why your thoughts about sex should prevent you from supporting them getting married.

While two "different" subjects, they are intertwined with each other.

You do realize there are tax benefits and the like for being married? Which is a big reason that homosexual couples want marriage?

Are you saying that gay marriage is mostly wanted for monetary reasons then?

Spoiler

I assume that is not the case, but still I ask anyway

Ubermario, that makes no sense what you said right there. There are several factors why another gay person wouldn't go out with another man/woman, just like there's several factors of why a straight person wouldn't go out with somebody of the opposite gender. Not to be against you or anything, but I've noticed how ridiculous some of your arguments have been.

How exactly does it not make sense? It's not like you walk up to a person and you are automatically married. You have to ask them out if marriage ever comes to play [forced marriages don't count], which is where choice comes into play.

Uber I have no idea what that has to do with anything. We're saying gays don't have a choice to BE GAY, not that they don't have a choice about who to be gay with.

I don't see where you're getting this from.

I see it as this: if someone is oriented towards their own gender but choose to remain single for life, they aren't truly gay then. (Though they might still be in the general sense, ifthey chose not to date other people "like them" then I have absolutely no issue.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Uber I have no idea what that has to do with anything. We're saying gays don't have a choice to BE GAY, not that they don't have a choice about who to be gay with.

I don't see where you're getting this from.

 

[Wrath`]

How exactly does it not make sense? It's not like you walk up to a person and you are automatically married. You have to ask them out if marriage ever comes to play [forced marriages don't count], which is where choice comes into play.

This makes no sense, If you are gay you do the same thing a straight guy does with a girl as a gay man does with a guy, it is all about attraction, you are attracted to girls the same way a homosexual man is attracted to guys. Are you saying gays should not be able to love like straights do?

 

[Ballistics]

I am so proud of you all for being so open minded. I think we have our schools and teachers to thank for that. But its important to understand that if we were growing up in earlier generations our viewpoints would probably be like Uber's, because its almost impossible to escape social conditioning. Stop attacking this guy, his ideas are different not wrong and should be respected. Everyone goes through change at their own pace.

With that being said, Uber, did you ever think your friend stopped talking to you because of how judgemental you are? Maybe hes gay and knew that you wouldn't be friends with gay people.

I think this a great step forward for our nation, but ultimately its just a big show. There are much more pressing concerns of injustice that include actual attacks on our civil rights like the fact that 1,102,161 people were ARRESTED this year for drug related offenses. We have privatized prisons because of the huge profit to be made by the sheer influx of inmates. Instead we should be helping these individuals who have serious drug problems with rehabilitation programs but instead we spend over 30 billion dollars on a war on drugs that doesn't get us anywhere.

I'm glad for gay people but I'm crying for my brothers in prison.

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

 

[victra♥]

uber, have you read el ninos post yet?

hindering gay marriage is nothing short of depriving someone of their rights.

 

[Tacel]

Being gay isn't a choice.
Banning gay marriage is just keeping innocent people from loving to the full extent, while the other straight people can. It's pretty similar to when black people didn't have the rights that white people did. It's not their fault that their black, and it's not bad to be black.
It's not fair, and they don't deserve having their rights for marriage taken away from them.
And why would you care if they had sex? It doesn't affect you at all.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

 

[UberMario]

did you ever think your friend stopped talking to you because of how judgemental you are?

Like I said (or at least I think I said this before), I never mentioned my viewpoint on this subject because it never actually came up. When he started to stop talking to me he went to a different school, but everytime we'd meet after he switched schools he wanted nothing to do with me. (Because we still went to the same sports clubs and other local activities)

 

[Fletch]

Uber, I'd like you to address my posts if you'd like. I'm not trying to be confrontational, just curious as to why you think the way you do.

 

[UberMario]

Uber, I'd like you to address my posts if you'd like. I'm not trying to be confrontational, just curious as to why you think the way you do.

Alright, I found the ones that I haven't so here are my replies to them:

Plenty of (if not a majority) of heterosexual couples will have anal sex as well, should they not be allowed to marry then?

I'm against the practice of that, and if that was the only reason they married then yes, however, for most it is not.

Yep, but I'd argue that it's the minority not the majority. For most animals monogamy didn't fit. It depends completely on the evolution/habitats species are brought up in, but I don't think we need to get into that.

Most of the monogamous pairs of animals are on the top of the food chain (with a few exceptions, like pigeons [to a degree] and ducks) and thus are less likely to lose their mate. Lions and Wolves count aswell to a degree because they male and females work together and do not abandon each other unless the male is ursuped from his command by another male, but by then it's not really his choice anymore. For lower animals, like rabbits, it endangers the animals to travel together so they rarely see each other again.

Parts fit all over the place. Do you not agree with oral sex either, or masturbation? Just curious.

The former, no I do not, the latter can be due to a physical disorder so I'm not going to say it's wrong.

Drugs are a little bit different, as it is more destructive behavior (or at least it can be), whereas someone being gay doesn't really affect you in any way, shape, or form. It's not like gay guys go around constantly trying to have sex with their male friends, and even if that was the case, you could very well have female friends that would try to do the same thing.

(Not to seem like peer pressure, but) many people would change their stance on how they view you depending on what your freinds are like, and I just don't want to be associated with homosexuality (as in he's hanging out with homos so he's probably a homo too). Also, the liklihood of becoming homosexual is far higher if constantly around those kind of people than if you are not. That is one of my biggest fears, call it a phobia if you will.

http://www.sensualism.com/gay/gene.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/science/gay-men-in-twin-study.html

Just want to get this out there... being gay has been proven to be largely genetic through multiple studies. These are two excellent studies on the subject, and I can provide more if need be.

From the first article, if you noticed, they genetically-engineered the flies to use a gene of the opposite sex, they weren't bred to do so.

In the second article it says that when one male sibling is gay:

There's roughly a 50% chance that an identical twin is gay.
There's roughly a 22% chance that a fraternal twin is gay.
There's roughly a 11% chance that unrelated siblings are gay.

Also, each group was only examined using LESS than 60 people in the interview per group, meaning only 30 families and thus a high chance for variability, you only get decent consistency in people-related subjects if there are at least 100 examples or preferably over a 1000. Using these percentages and the amount of families interviewed:

(keep in mind that ALL of the pairs of brothers interviewed [purposely because that was the point of the subject] had AT LEAST one gay member, none of the groups are totally straight)

30 of the 56 identical twins were both gay. (a mere 28 pairs interviewed)
12 of the 54 unidentical twins were both gay. (just 27)
6 of the 57 unrelated brothers were both gay. (Wait a minute, how did they end up with an odd number if they were talking about pairs? >_>)

6 vs 30 might look like a huge difference, but do these percentages apply when the number of examples is increased tenfold? The numbers they used were too low for consistency to be the only significant factor, as randomness was also pretty significant.

There is also one virtually overlooked function here (though it is hinted at):

Family Matters: If someone has a gay sibling of a virtually identical age, the likelihood of that person having similar, "peer pressuresque" feelings might make them strive to be gay aswell. Though many twins try to be different (either slightly or entirely), there are just as many that love being near identical, even if that means changing their standpoints. Unrelated brothers or ones that are of different ages are more likely to make independent decisions.

Also, notice some of the following:

"The study examined 56 identical twins, 54 fraternal twins and 57 adoptive brothers recruited through advertisements in gay-interest publications. "

That means that the people had to apply to be interviewed (because obviously the people aren't going to barge right in), what if one brother is ashamed of the other's sexual orientation? They probably won't sign up, meaning more twins that are both equally gay are likely to tip the percentages since they won't have that feeling.

"Dr. Bailey estimated that the degree of the genetic contribution to homosexuality could range from 30 percent to more than 70 percent"

Notice it's not 100%, in fact the numbers are so varied that at a 40% margin of error in their OWN views of their experiments (even higher since it's pretty much unsolved and thus can be anywhere from 0% to 100% for that matter) is nowhere near conclusive for anything.

"This is something that really sort of clinches it."

This kind of sounds unsure, like even he doesn't believe his own words.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[GreenKirby]

It just extremely disturbs me, especially since it, at least when it comes to males, eventually will probably imply that they will . . . . well . . . . I'm not going to say, but you probably know what I mean when it comes to sex.

You do know that women can enjoy oral/anal sex as well. :\

That actually isn't true, birds of prey in particular mate for life, as do several other species.

That's not marriage. That's procreation.

 

[Fletch]

I have, unless you are referring to one-or-two that I [assume I] skipped without noticing.

*editing, just a few minutes please*

You have usually just responded to one or two sentences in them.

 

[Crimson King]

Why don't they just have a separate thing for gay people called "Garriage" (as opposed to marriage), and give them the same financial/adoption rights that married people have?

That way the red necks will be happy because the "Sanctity of Marriage" will be protected (they oddly aren't opposed to marrying their siblings).

Then the gay people can just have big parties which can be the equivalent of weddings, and they get all of the same rights that straight people have, just with a different name.

Then over time, the red necks will realize how stupid they are, and just call it marriage.

Same reason we don't have "colored" water fountains. Separate, but equal was just too demeaning.

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

I hate that we compair homosexuals and African Americans to eachother, being homosexual is a choice, being born black isn't. Yes they were both segregated, but that doesn't mean they're the same subject.

 

[Mr.Freeman]

I don't think puu was too serious.

And Sephiroth, you kinda threw yourself out there to get bashed by others for saying that being gay is a choice.