Brokeback mountain ruined the moviesq

[CrAz3D]

[Ender]

As much as I am a proponent for gay marriage and public acceptance of gays, this made me laugh.

[Krazed]

As much as I am a proponent for gay marriage and public acceptance of gays, this made me laugh.

Why?

[Warrior]

As much as I am a proponent for gay marriage and public acceptance of gays, this made me laugh.

Why?

Why not? One of the founding principals of this country has been equality.

Does being gay make anyone less of a human?

[CrAz3D]

As much as I am a proponent for gay marriage and public acceptance of gays, this made me laugh.

Why?

Why not? One of the founding principals of this country has been equality.

Does being gay make anyone less of a human?

It makes a dude less of a natural being ... but "freedom of choice" is why I support queerosexuality

[Newby]

It makes a dude less of a natural being ... but "freedom of choice" is why I support queerosexuality

... you can't be serious... can you? Wow.

[Warrior]

As much as I am a proponent for gay marriage and public acceptance of gays, this made me laugh.

Why?

Why not? One of the founding principals of this country has been equality.

Does being gay make anyone less of a human?

It makes a dude less of a natural being ... but "freedom of choice" is why I support queerosexuality

I'd say bigotry would make you less a human way before Homosexuality does anything close to that.

If you don't support equality for everyone then you're a hypocrite under the constitutional laws of the United States of America. For one who prides himself with so much constitutionalism (Like your allegiance to Ron Paul), you're pretty intolerant.

So what is it? It can't be that you're blind sheep following someone because he's the latest trend..or are you a hypocrite...or just plain stupid?

[iago]

I'm glad I haven't had to respond to this thread yet.

CrAz3d, seriously, you can't use the "it's less natural!" argument till you start eating only raw food (yes, there are people who do that) and give up any modern technologies you use (anything electrical, plastic, built, etc), including money. Money isn't natural.

If you actually do that, then you can start arguing about other things making people less of a human.

[leet_muffin]

Also note: gay sex happens amongst "natural" animals.

[BigAznDaddy]

Also note: gay sex happens amongst "natural" animals.

ehhh im pro creation so... me no gusta chicos con chicos

anyways that card made me lol

[rabbit]

Also note: gay sex happens amongst "natural" animals.

ehhh im pro creation so... me no gusta chicos con chicos

anyways that card made me lol

What?  And who cares if you're creationist or sane?  Gay sex happens in just about every species that has sex for pleasure.  Obviously God made it that way (if you're a creationist) or X if you're sane, where X is some reason currently unknown.

[Sidoh]

... X if you're sane, where X is some reason currently unknown.

I thought you were talking about Xenu!

[Warrior]

... X if you're sane, where X is some reason currently unknown.

I thought you were talking about Xenu!

first thing about xenu:

dont talk about xenu.

[Ender]

As much as I am a proponent for gay marriage and public acceptance of gays, this made me laugh.

Why?

If you're asking why I laughed despite being a proponent, it's for the same reason I laugh at asian jokes and jew jokes and white jokes and black jokes etc. Though, seeing how it's still a sensitive issue, I would be careful to let people know I'm a proponent so they don't take the laugh the wrong way.

If you're asking why I'm a proponent, then it's because I see many good reasons to be one and no good reasons not to be one.

flawed argument #1: Gays don't procreate, which is bad.
counterargument: Many heterosexuals choose not to have kids anyways. Do we discriminate against them?

flawed argument #2: It's against my religion.
counterargument: Separation of Church and State.

flawed argument #3: It's unnatural.
counterargument: plenty of things that save lives is "unnatural", along with just about every other aspect of our lifestyle.

And the good reasons are obvious. We are making people happy and granting them their due liberty.

I sense that CrAz3d is going to protest that if we allow gay marriage, we should also allow A, B, C, D. But there's going to be some flaw in his protest. Oh, and he will also come up with other flawed arguments, which will be annoying. He will probably repeat the "it's unnatural" argument

[Ender]

I have actually heard one and only one reasonable argument against gay marriage. It's actually not about gay marriage, but instead it pertains to a gay couple raising a child. It's the following:

If a gay couple raises a child, that child will either not have a mother figure or not have a father figure.

I don't buy this argument though. I counter that
1) we allow single men or single women to adopt children
2) we are guessing a priori that this will have an effect on the child (a priori since it's hard for us to take a psychological census, and also because the child is an individual, i.e. unique)
3) even if it does have an effect on the child, we are creating a new life (donor, carrier) or saving a life (adoption), and that could have more good to it than whatever troubles the absent father/mother figure could cause

In summary, the argument is based on uncertainty, and we should not deprive liberties based on uncertainty. Furthermore, there's the simple issue that we allow heterosexual single women or single men to adopt children, so it would be a contradiction if we use this argument as a substitute for ulterior convictions.

[CrAz3D]

As much as I am a proponent for gay marriage and public acceptance of gays, this made me laugh.

Why?

Why not? One of the founding principals of this country has been equality.

Does being gay make anyone less of a human?

It makes a dude less of a natural being ... but "freedom of choice" is why I support queerosexuality

I'd say bigotry would make you less a human way before Homosexuality does anything close to that.

If you don't support equality for everyone then you're a hypocrite under the constitutional laws of the United States of America. For one who prides himself with so much constitutionalism (Like your allegiance to Ron Paul), you're pretty intolerant.

So what is it? It can't be that you're blind sheep following someone because he's the latest trend..or are you a hypocrite...or just plain stupid?

Like I said, I disagree with queerosexuality, but I wouldn't ever outlaw it or say "hey, you're a fag, you can't marry that other fag" ... that isn't right.  I shouldn't prevent them from their choices (right or wrong)

[Towelie]

Like I said, I disagree with queerosexuality, but I wouldn't ever outlaw it or say "hey, you're a fag, you can't marry that other fag" ... that isn't right.  I shouldn't prevent them from their choices (right or wrong)

I don't see any reason for you to disagree with it, or believe it to be a wrong choice. You fail to come up with a rational argument for your case

[CrAz3D]

Like I said, I disagree with queerosexuality, but I wouldn't ever outlaw it or say "hey, you're a fag, you can't marry that other fag" ... that isn't right.  I shouldn't prevent them from their choices (right or wrong)

I don't see any reason for you to disagree with it, or believe it to be a wrong choice. You fail to come up with a rational argument for your case

It's what I believe, it's my opinion.  I don't think that a dude screwing a dude makes any damned sense.  But I'm not all about burning them so what's it matter?

[Sidoh]

It's what I believe, it's my opinion.  I don't think that a dude screwing a dude makes any damned sense.  But I'm not all about burning them so what's it matter?

No one is denying you of your right to hold your own opinions, but I don't think you should be so offended that they're questioned.  Even if something tends to be classified as an opinion, common justifications for holding that opinion can assert things that aren't logically cogent.

[CrAz3D]

Two dudes screwing doesn't make any sense ... that's not how you procreate so it's being used for a secondary purpose ... not saying they can't do it, just that I disagree.

[Towelie]

Two dudes screwing doesn't make any sense ... that's not how you procreate so it's being used for a secondary purpose ... not saying they can't do it, just that I disagree.

So, I can assume you are against the use of condoms also?

[CrAz3D]

You can assume that, yes.

[Sidoh]

Two dudes screwing doesn't make any sense ... that's not how you procreate so it's being used for a secondary purpose ... not saying they can't do it, just that I disagree.

Doesn't that mean that oral sex and anal sex between heterosexuals would be disagreeable too?  What about regular sexual intercourse with the use of birth control.  Let's face it, sex is primarily used for pleasure among humans.

[Towelie]

You can assume that, yes.

Lol. I'm not even going to get into that...

[Joe]

..give up any modern technologies you use (anything electrical..)..

If you actually do that, then you can start arguing about other things making people less of a human.

But he can't start arguing on the forums.

[iago]

I have actually heard one and only one reasonable argument against gay marriage. It's actually not about gay marriage, but instead it pertains to a gay couple raising a child. It's the following:

If a gay couple raises a child, that child will either not have a mother figure or not have a father figure.

I don't buy this argument though. I counter that
1) we allow single men or single women to adopt children
2) we are guessing a priori that this will have an effect on the child (a priori since it's hard for us to take a psychological census, and also because the child is an individual, i.e. unique)
3) even if it does have an effect on the child, we are creating a new life (donor, carrier) or saving a life (adoption), and that could have more good to it than whatever troubles the absent father/mother figure could cause

In summary, the argument is based on uncertainty, and we should not deprive liberties based on uncertainty. Furthermore, there's the simple issue that we allow heterosexual single women or single men to adopt children, so it would be a contradiction if we use this argument as a substitute for ulterior convictions.

That issue I see with that argument is that it opens a whole new can of worms -- sexism. Why does a woman have to be a mother figure and a man have to be a father figure? What's wrong with a stay-at-home dad bringing up a child (whether he's married to a man or a woman)?

But, I really don't want to get into that, and I'm not comfortable enough with my own position yet to argue it intelligently, so I won't go any further.

[rabbit]

But I'm not all about burning them so what's it matter?

Well, for one, "fag" is a shortening of "fagot", which is "a bundle of sticks, twigs, or branches bound together and used as fuel, a fascine, a torch, etc."¹, so, by calling a homosexual a "fag", you're insinuating that they are useful for nothing more than being burned (which is what they used to do to homosexuals: burn them at the stake).

[CrAz3D]

Rabbit: hoppy little fuzzy thing that can be BBQ'd and then turned into a pelt.

I'd watch out if I were you, someone is going to BBQ you some day!

[Towelie]

But I'm not all about burning them so what's it matter?

Well, for one, "fag" is a shortening of "fagot", which is "a bundle of sticks, twigs, or branches bound together and used as fuel, a fascine, a torch, etc."¹, so, by calling a homosexual a "fag", you're insinuating that they are useful for nothing more than being burned (which is what they used to do to homosexuals: burn them at the stake).

I love you.

Rabbit: hoppy little fuzzy thing that can be BBQ'd and then turned into a pelt.

I'd watch out if I were you, someone is going to BBQ you some day!

lol @ evading the argument yet again