NationStates

Westmalle Tripel wrote:

In the end wrote:Personally I think its disgusting disgracefull & they can all go rot in hell, because u can not have a kid by stickin a dick in a mans ass & u can't have a kid by a chick puttin a strapon on & screwin the other ladies pussy it just ain't right natural or normal, hell have u read the bible

Now politically ya their people I shouldn't judge em they hve the same right 2 have marital "bliss" or as some would say hell, just causei & god don't aprove doesn't mean it should b restricted just cause some of us don't agree that's wat makes america great the freedom 2 do as u pleas, I may disagree 100% of who u want 2 b but I will fight 2 the death 2 make sure we both have the right 2 b who we want

Do you ever have sex for pleasure? If procreation is your only goal in sex I think you are probably gay.

Wtf?!

Farnhamia wrote:

Freelanderness wrote:What language is this?

It looks like MIddle Low Troll. Been a while, though, I could be wrong.

Hmm, I can understand a few words... but not enough to make out the point of what he's saying.
He mentions chickens, donkeys, goats and cats... I'm not sure what that has to do with homosexual rights though

Niur wrote:

Westmalle Tripel wrote:
Do you ever have sex for pleasure? If procreation is your only goal in sex I think you are probably gay.

Wtf?!

I know, I was following along right until the last word.

Farnhamia wrote:

Niur wrote:Wtf?!

I know, I was following along right until the last word.

If procreation is his only goal in sex, it means that he doesn't find sex pleasurable. Since he's procreating, presumably it's heterosexual sex he's having, and heterosexual sex he is finding not to be pleasurable.

Farnhamia wrote:

Niur wrote:Wtf?!

I know, I was following along right until the last word.

I was attempting to make the homophobe uncomfortable. The use of a lack of procreation as a defense for judging and insulting homosexuals is ridiculous.

Farnhamia wrote:

Niur wrote:Wtf?!

I know, I was following along right until the last word.

Well, I do believe we should all aim to attain gayness in life. It is much preferable to sadness or other emotions.

Westmalle Tripel wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:I know, I was following along right until the last word.

I was attempting to make the homophobe uncomfortable. The use of a lack of procreation as a defense for judging and insulting homosexuals is ridiculous.

It's difficult to make a true homophobe uncomfortable, short of itching powder in their shorts, and to do that you have to have access to their shorts. It's complicated. I do agree that the "Gehz cant have babbies" defense is absurd.

Farnhamia wrote:

Freelanderness wrote:What language is this?

It looks like MIddle Low Troll. Been a while, though, I could be wrong.

What a vulgar language 'tis.

Great Anthonland wrote:

Episarta wrote:They should be given all the same rights as everyone else. There is no logical reason to deny them these rights. Can anyone give a good reason, one that does not invoke the name of a god or holy book or something of the sort?

Exactly. I haven't found anyone who had arguments against LGBT rights that had nothing to do with religion or outdated junk science.

Marriage itself is a religious concept. The idea that there can only be one man to one woman, for example, has absolutely nothing to do with logic.

The benefits (taxes and such) provided to married couples are meant to make it easier for them to have and raise children. More children means more workers. More workers means a more powerful country. Etc. Male gay couples cannot have children. Female gay couples rarely have their own children.

Honestly though, I used to be against it, but now I simply no longer care. Do what you want. Especially since it's a self-solving problem. (Gay people don't tend to procreate and pass down the genetic component of their sexuality.)

I'm more politically focused on destroying the Workers' Unions.

The North Papal States wrote:

Great Anthonland wrote:
Exactly. I haven't found anyone who had arguments against LGBT rights that had nothing to do with religion or outdated junk science.

Marriage itself is a religious concept. The idea that there can only be one man to one woman, for example, has absolutely nothing to do with logic.

The benefits (taxes and such) provided to married couples are meant to make it easier for them to have and raise children. More children means more workers. More workers means a more powerful country. Etc. Male gay couples cannot have children. Female gay couples rarely have their own children.

Honestly though, I used to be against it, but now I simply no longer care. Do what you want. Especially since it's a self-solving problem. (Gay people don't tend to procreate and pass down the genetic component of their sexuality.)

I'm more politically focused on destroying the Workers' Unions.

Gay couple care for children in the adoption system. Most go un-adopted. Get more gay marriages, get more out. ;]

The fact that this topic has stayed up for this long with such a lackluster OP is more vexing than why the homophobic government won't allow many rights to gays.

The North Papal States wrote:

Great Anthonland wrote:
Exactly. I haven't found anyone who had arguments against LGBT rights that had nothing to do with religion or outdated junk science.

Marriage itself is a religious concept. The idea that there can only be one man to one woman, for example, has absolutely nothing to do with logic.

The benefits (taxes and such) provided to married couples are meant to make it easier for them to have and raise children. More children means more workers. More workers means a more powerful country. Etc. Male gay couples cannot have children. Female gay couples rarely have their own children.

Honestly though, I used to be against it, but now I simply no longer care. Do what you want. Especially since it's a self-solving problem. (Gay people don't tend to procreate and pass down the genetic component of their sexuality.)

I'm more politically focused on destroying the Workers' Unions.

I think committing to a partner is logical and has served me well in my life. What the motivations for unfair tax laws are is only evidence of stupid people electing stupid leaders.

I agree unions have become to powerful.

I am off to enjoy the spoils of my illogical relationship, I promise not to procreate.

Luciratus wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:It looks like MIddle Low Troll. Been a while, though, I could be wrong.

What a vulgar language 'tis.

'Ey na, this language 'as an vital role. By the bloomin' way, your father's lover is a Doug McClure.

The North Papal States wrote:

Great Anthonland wrote:
Exactly. I haven't found anyone who had arguments against LGBT rights that had nothing to do with religion or outdated junk science.

Marriage itself is a religious concept. The idea that there can only be one man to one woman, for example, has absolutely nothing to do with logic..

Marriage predates religion; it is a contractual agreement between two people, or two families, on a union of love of social and economic benefit.

Dai Coon Ree wrote:"It seems I have choosen wrong words, it appears I have hurt People with what I have said. I am sorry. I dont mind Gay People being happy, they can do whatever they like to do. But please can you do it more private? Its odd to explain my 7 year old Son why two man holding hands and kissing each other?

Or maybe, instead of blushing, you could have used it to explain that not everyone is made exactly the same, done a little bit of parenting about tolerance? Clearly no need to be graphic about the details but you then have control, so when he does hear about it it's not in the playground surrounded by AIDS myths? Asking people to keep things private usually indicates that they should be shameful which is a message being passed to the younger generation, you don't know yet but the next generation of happy gay people could include your son

Sprye wrote:

Dai Coon Ree wrote:"It seems I have choosen wrong words, it appears I have hurt People with what I have said. I am sorry. I dont mind Gay People being happy, they can do whatever they like to do. But please can you do it more private? Its odd to explain my 7 year old Son why two man holding hands and kissing each other?

Or maybe, instead of blushing, you could have used it to explain that not everyone is made exactly the same, done a little bit of parenting about tolerance? Clearly no need to be graphic about the details but you then have control, so when he does hear about it it's not in the playground surrounded by AIDS myths? Asking people to keep things private usually indicates that they should be shameful which is a message being passed to the younger generation, you don't know yet but the next generation of happy gay people could include your son

This, and you could tell your son that the two men love each other. That's what people do when they're in love. Don't make a big deal of it and that's that.

Farnhamia wrote:

Sprye wrote:
Or maybe, instead of blushing, you could have used it to explain that not everyone is made exactly the same, done a little bit of parenting about tolerance? Clearly no need to be graphic about the details but you then have control, so when he does hear about it it's not in the playground surrounded by AIDS myths? Asking people to keep things private usually indicates that they should be shameful which is a message being passed to the younger generation, you don't know yet but the next generation of happy gay people could include your son

This, and you could tell your son that the two men love each other. That's what people do when they're in love. Don't make a big deal of it and that's that.

Yes, it should be no more awkward for the child than hearing how a man and a woman love each other.

Really, I find it disgusting when people say "I'm find with gays, but could they be a little less, you know, gay?" Its rather annoying.

I'd have to say that I'm very pro-gay rights.

The fact that I'm lesbian might have something to do with that.

The Rowan Woods wrote:I'd have to say that I'm very pro-gay rights.

The fact that I'm lesbian might have something to do with that.

Nah. What made you think that?

Ceannairceach wrote:Yes, it should be no more awkward for the child than hearing how a man and a woman love each other.

Really, I find it disgusting when people say "I'm fine with gays, but could they be a little less, you know, gay?" Its rather annoying.

#1... until all of society is conditioned to accept that homosexuality is not "different", "weird", "awkward" or anything else, it will always be awkward to tell a child that some guys love guys and some girls love girls. Especially if the child says something like "why are there 2 guys kissing over there"?

#2... it's annoying because of the ignorance... how can a gay person be less gay? Unless those people are griping about the really flamboyant gays at which point, well... it couldn't hurt them to tone it down... it's like living next to a neighbor that likes music. If it's at a normal volume, it's not bothersome, but when the music is loud, annoying, and shaking the floor, they need to turn it down.

Coffee Cakes wrote:#2... it's annoying because of the ignorance... how can a gay person be less gay? Unless those people are griping about the really flamboyant gays at which point, well... it couldn't hurt them to tone it down... it's like living next to a neighbor that likes music. If it's at a normal volume, it's not bothersome, but when the music is loud, annoying, and shaking the floor, they need to turn it down.

The problem with that analogy is that the flamboyant person is not doing anything wrong. Loud music has proven to cause sleep deprivation, hearing loss, and other problems. Quite different.

Ceannairceach wrote:The problem with that analogy is that the flamboyant person is not doing anything wrong. Loud music has proven to cause sleep deprivation, hearing loss, and other problems. Quite different.

That's about right.
I don't have a problem with flamboyant types, but sometimes, I don't know... trying to find the right words here... like um... ah forget it, it'll get ridiculed anyway...

Coffee Cakes wrote:

Ceannairceach wrote:Yes, it should be no more awkward for the child than hearing how a man and a woman love each other.

Really, I find it disgusting when people say "I'm fine with gays, but could they be a little less, you know, gay?" Its rather annoying.

#1... until all of society is conditioned to accept that homosexuality interracial marriage is not "different", "weird", "awkward" or anything else, it will always be awkward to tell a child that some black guys love white girls guys and some white guys girls love Hispanic girls. Especially if the child says something like "why are there 2 guys of different ethnic backgrounds kissing over there"?

It's like a game of bigoted mad libs. Maybe not you in particular, I think you were just illustrating a point. But still, the underlying idea is identical.

Coffee Cakes wrote:

Ceannairceach wrote:The problem with that analogy is that the flamboyant person is not doing anything wrong. Loud music has proven to cause sleep deprivation, hearing loss, and other problems. Quite different.

That's about right.
I don't have a problem with flamboyant types, but sometimes, I don't know... trying to find the right words here... like um... ah forget it, it'll get ridiculed anyway...

It's ok if you're scared of them. As long as you support their rights...

Geniasis wrote:

Coffee Cakes wrote:
#1... until all of society is conditioned to accept that homosexuality interracial marriage is not "different", "weird", "awkward" or anything else, it will always be awkward to tell a child that some black guys love white girls guys and some white guys girls love Hispanic girls. Especially if the child says something like "why are there 2 guys of different ethnic backgrounds kissing over there"?

It's like a game of bigoted mad libs. Maybe not you in particular, I think you were just illustrating a point. But still, the underlying idea is identical.

I know that's not aimed at me... shockingly. I was illustrating the point, and yeah, it is identical. And rather annoying to hear people make the exact same arguments against gay rights as were used on civil rights.