News:

Facebook killed the radio star. And by radio star, I mean the premise of distributed forums around the internet. And that got got by Instagram/SnapChat. And that got got by TikTok. Where the fuck is the internet we once knew?

Main Menu

Brokeback mountain ruined the moviesq

Started by CrAz3D, March 06, 2008, 09:51:07 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

CrAz3D

Quote from: Warrior on March 06, 2008, 08:02:17 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on March 06, 2008, 07:51:13 PM
Quote from: Warrior on March 06, 2008, 07:42:34 PM
Quote from: Krazed on March 06, 2008, 07:24:14 PM
Quote from: Ender on March 06, 2008, 07:15:13 PM
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

Quote from: CrAz3D on March 06, 2008, 11:30:58 PM
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

Quote from: Towelie on March 07, 2008, 12:11:13 AM
Quote from: CrAz3D on March 06, 2008, 11:30:58 PM
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

Quote from: CrAz3D on March 07, 2008, 12:14:47 AM
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

Quote from: CrAz3D on March 07, 2008, 12:23:10 AM
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


Sidoh

Quote from: CrAz3D on March 07, 2008, 12:23:10 AM
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


Joe

Quote from: iago on March 06, 2008, 08:05:06 PM
..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. :)
Quote from: Camel on June 09, 2009, 04:12:23 PMI'd personally do as Joe suggests

Quote from: AntiVirus on October 19, 2010, 02:36:52 PM
You might be right about that, Joe.


iago

Quote from: Ender on March 06, 2008, 10:57:57 PM
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

Quote from: CrAz3D on March 07, 2008, 12:14:47 AM
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

Quote from: rabbit on March 07, 2008, 10:15:08 AM
Quote from: CrAz3D on March 07, 2008, 12:14:47 AM
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.
Quote from: CrAz3D on March 07, 2008, 10:16:35 AM
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