• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

You Laugh You Lose: Gentlemen's Club Edition

BSL

BSL

B-B-B-BLAMM!!!
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
6,453
Location
Baton Rouge
NNID
bsl883
3DS FC
3308-4560-2744
I also read it, rather than watching it. Though, I read it because I nostalgia'd.
 
BSL

BSL

B-B-B-BLAMM!!!
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
6,453
Location
Baton Rouge
NNID
bsl883
3DS FC
3308-4560-2744
lmfao if he actually knows her, it would be even funnier.
 
Juno McGrath

Juno McGrath

Smash Hero
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
8,240
Location
Raleigh, NC.
Just last week a woman was beaten half to death in her own home and the words "we found you ****" were spray painted on the walls behind her.

People ARE being threatened, people are being beaten people ARE being killed

**** you, get in touch with reality and stop speaking before you know anything you ****in prick.
 
Jane

Jane

Smash Hero
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
5,593
Location
Ba Sing Se, EK
exarch said:
But what about this Family Research Council? wiki; site

Lol, ok these guys seem a little more up front about their opinions. But opinions aren't bad things (unless you start to call them facts...) So I checked out a few articles, here's one. So this is a report on a scholarly article that directly disagrees with what the SPLC has found to be irrefutably true (thus making it a hate group-article-thing). It doesn’t have the nicest points to summarize, but it does go through painstaking lengths to explain the prior state of the argument (giving it a pretty fair treatment) and parallel lengths regarding the methodology and significance of the new study (and its conclusions.) The other articles I looked at used copious amounts of footnotes and so forth to give support to their arguments, something I thought was lacking from SPLC’s articles.

Long story short:
Family Research Council (the "hate group" Chick-Fil-A is donating to) seems to be very meticulous about the content it has on its website, going through huge lengths to make their work credible--and is not what I would call a "hate group".
Southern Poverty Law Center (the group which classifies the FRC as a "hate group") more presumes itself as credible, and had several flaws in the few articles I read.
Click to expand...

i appreciate you going through such lengths to show the other side of the coin in such a mature, and detailed manner. after looking at that article you linked us to however, i found that, regardless of how meticulous their effort into research and how "fair" they were, it is still an article trying desperately to prove that, somehow, hetero parents > homo parents. which really, you dont need ****ing research to realize that that is a bull**** concept in and of itself.

i mean, if you really, truly believe that a homosexual person is somehow incapable of providing the same amount of love, care, and compassion as a heterosexual person, then yes, homosexual couples will not be as suitable of parents as a heterosexual couple. but come on, how many logical people believe this to be true? moving on..

i'd like to quickly quote something that was stated in the aforementioned article.

The advocates of homosexual parenting then continue, "Research done specifically on children raised by homosexual parents shows that there are no differences (or no differences that suggest any disadvantage) between them and children raised by heterosexual parents."

Pro-family groups respond with a number of critiques of such studies on homosexual parents. For example, such studies usually have relied on samples that are small and not representative of the population, and they frequently have been conducted by openly homosexual researchers who have an ideological bias on the question being studied. In addition, these studies also usually make comparisons with children raised by divorced or single parents--rather than with children raised by their married, biological mother and father.
Click to expand...

...frequently conducted by openly homosexual researches who have an ideological bias on the question being studied. ahh, the sweet smell of irony.


i just have one question for you, exarch -- you claim to not have a problem with gays, yet are against gay marriage. is this because you are religious and feel that homosexual marriage was never intended by the bible? and if so, what would make you opposed to gay marriage strictly on legal terms?
 
_Keno_

_Keno_

Smash Lord
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
1,604
Location
B'ham, Alabama
You know, when a group states what it stands for and then proceeds to do research, I cant help but feel that they are obviously looking for certain results. Spending massive amounts of money doing that research...I mean, obviously they'll "find" whatever it is they want to.
 
exarch

exarch

doot doot doot
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,333
Location
Usually not playing Brawl. Location: Enterprise
Sorry I don't have a funny this time.
[collapse=Mostly @ Jane, acknowledgment to PEACH]PEACH, that’s not exactly a statement conducive to this discussion. Both sides could easily write each other off with that attitude. Also you’re assuming the group itself was responsible for the research and that they spent large money doing so, and for neither assertion do I think you actually spent the time to research yourself to back up. On the other hand, if either is the case here I think we all would be interested in that.

Anyway, to respond to Jane. Sorry for the textiness.
[collapse=preliminary comments]While the hypothesis--homosexual parents are worse than heterosexual parents--is offensive, it still can be tested. It's like testing to see whether races score differently on standardized tests like the SAT. No one wants to find out that asians score better--or that blacks score worse, and logically it doesn't make sense why it would, but the results are there. Neither that article nor the other are feel-good articles, but just because they disagree with what we want to be true does not make them hateful.

Sidenote: And while pointing out the irony is appropriate, we don’t have many other options for researchers. Obviously we need research to be done by asexual researchers. I’m also doing my best not to argue about the validity of the article, since most disagreements are rooted in what the two sides have decided to be valid.[/collapse]
And the main points:
As for your question, I think the Bible strongly suggests that God’s original plan did not include homosexual marriage. I do think that homosexuality goes against what God wants for us, but if I pretended that I can’t like homosexuals because of that reason I’d be a horrible, horrible hypocrite. How could I dislike someone because they can’t follow what God wants when I can’t even make it through a day without messing up? I acknowledge I’m as far from perfect as everyone else--to act as if I’m better than anyone is living a lie. In contrast, the church in essence is imperfect people trying to do God’s will, and if you accept my understanding(s) then you see why I think there is no grounds for homosexual-marriage in the Christian church. Again, it’s not that homosexuals can’t participate in church; everyone should be as welcome as anyone.

Marriage on legal terms I’m much more open to, and I think it makes sense economically. Only I would like it not to be called marriage (petty, I know.) In fact for the government to deny a couple benefits it gives to another couple based on sex is not the place for the government. I would suggest two possible solutions. The first is that the government renames what it considers “marriage” currently into civil-unions (or whatever name you prefer,) and let the church/religious institutions be the only ones throwing the word marriage around (so hetero couples can get married in a church and union’d in city hall, homo couples can get married in another religious context, and union’d in city hall.) The other solution is for the government to abolish all the things which apply exclusively to a married couple currently. There are other ‘solutions’ I think work too, but these are among my favorites.

Of course if you understand marriage only in an economic/social/governmental contexts, you’re missing the point. Maybe the fact that we see don’t see marriage in a primarily religious context is the principal reason why the marriage failure rate is the highest it’s ever been, but that’s idle speculation.[/collapse]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom