How absurd.
Advertisement

by Seperates » Wed May 15, 2013 4:34 pm

by Neutraligon » Wed May 15, 2013 4:34 pm
Lyassa and Nairoa wrote:Neutraligon wrote:
No you are the majority, that does not make you correct. Lets see, we have 12 states right now who recognize same sex marriages. We are looking at adding a few more. We have SCOTUS looking into both state level bans and federal non recognition. This is no more a trend the allowing interracial marriage or women to vote.
Here we go again...I been down this road before, in these threads, mate. Women, blacks, jews, blah blah.
Don´t go that way, it ain´t the same thing.

by New Libertarian States » Wed May 15, 2013 4:36 pm
Lyassa and Nairoa wrote:Neutraligon wrote:
No you are the majority, that does not make you correct. Lets see, we have 12 states right now who recognize same sex marriages. We are looking at adding a few more. We have SCOTUS looking into both state level bans and federal non recognition. This is no more a trend the allowing interracial marriage or women to vote.
Here we go again...I been down this road before, in these threads, mate. Women, blacks, jews, blah blah.
Don´t go that way, it ain´t the same thing.
by Lyassa and Nairoa » Wed May 15, 2013 4:36 pm

by New Libertarian States » Wed May 15, 2013 4:36 pm

by Farnhamia » Wed May 15, 2013 4:36 pm


by Russadonia » Wed May 15, 2013 4:36 pm
Lyassa and Nairoa wrote:Neutraligon wrote:
No you are the majority, that does not make you correct. Lets see, we have 12 states right now who recognize same sex marriages. We are looking at adding a few more. We have SCOTUS looking into both state level bans and federal non recognition. This is no more a trend the allowing interracial marriage or women to vote.
Here we go again...I been down this road before, in these threads, mate. Women, blacks, jews, blah blah.
Don´t go that way, it ain´t the same thing.

by Disserbia » Wed May 15, 2013 4:37 pm
Neutraligon wrote:Disserbia wrote:Does it really matter?
In some ways yes. unfortunately if people think of it as a choice, then they will probably simply say then there is no reason for equality, homosexuals can simply choose not to be attracted to those of the same gender. The fact that it shouldn't matter will not be brought up.

by Farnhamia » Wed May 15, 2013 4:38 pm

by Seperates » Wed May 15, 2013 4:38 pm

by New Libertarian States » Wed May 15, 2013 4:38 pm
I'm straight.....
by Neutraligon » Wed May 15, 2013 4:38 pm

by New Libertarian States » Wed May 15, 2013 4:39 pm

by Seperates » Wed May 15, 2013 4:39 pm
Dusk_Kittens wrote:Homosexuals are born that way.
Homosexual people may be born that way or may choose to be gay.
Note the difference. One is a noun, the other is an adjective. I realize this is very odd language (and someone is bound to toss unfounded allegations of prejudice at me, a bisexual woman, but using a noun "homosexual" and contrasting it with an adjective used in the phrase "homosexual people" should not be misinterpreted to suggest that I don't believe homosexuals are people; THEY ARE PEOPLE, TOO), but I use it because I hope it may help some understand.
In the case of the noun, those people are indeed innately gay (born that way, or genetic), whether they ever have a homosexual relationship or not.
In the case of the adjective, those people are in some cases innately gay (born that way, or genetic) and embrace being gay (this doesn't always happen easily, due to social bullshit), and in other cases have an experience that they use to define themselves as gay (environmental).
Is there "a gay gene"? As others have said, I doubt it's quite that simple. There is, however, most definitely a physical factor involved in some cases, which may suggest one gene or several, or a genetic predisposition.

by Yumyumsuppertime » Wed May 15, 2013 4:39 pm

by Disserbia » Wed May 15, 2013 4:42 pm
by Lyassa and Nairoa » Wed May 15, 2013 4:43 pm

by Yumyumsuppertime » Wed May 15, 2013 4:44 pm

by Phing Phong » Wed May 15, 2013 4:44 pm
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:I have an idea.
As there have been homosexuals for far longer than there have been fundamentalist Christians and other social conservatives, why don't you get your own nation, and run it as you wish? After all, one's cultural, political, and religious beliefs are far more of a choice than one's sexual orientation, and I don't see why anyone else should be forced to deal with your offensive decisions.

by New Libertarian States » Wed May 15, 2013 4:45 pm


by Seperates » Wed May 15, 2013 4:46 pm
Phing Phong wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:I have an idea.
As there have been homosexuals for far longer than there have been fundamentalist Christians and other social conservatives, why don't you get your own nation, and run it as you wish? After all, one's cultural, political, and religious beliefs are far more of a choice than one's sexual orientation, and I don't see why anyone else should be forced to deal with your offensive decisions.
They can have one square mile of San Francisco, in order to preserve their democratic right to an unfounded persecution complex.

by Neutraligon » Wed May 15, 2013 4:46 pm
Phing Phong wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:I have an idea.
As there have been homosexuals for far longer than there have been fundamentalist Christians and other social conservatives, why don't you get your own nation, and run it as you wish? After all, one's cultural, political, and religious beliefs are far more of a choice than one's sexual orientation, and I don't see why anyone else should be forced to deal with your offensive decisions.
They can have one square mile of San Francisco, in order to preserve their democratic right to an unfounded persecution complex.
by Lyassa and Nairoa » Wed May 15, 2013 4:47 pm
Neutraligon wrote:Lyassa and Nairoa wrote:
You people should get a country of your own. Away from us. Where you could do...whatever God knows you do.
Why the are citizens of the united states and have (should have) all the rights and responsibilities that entails. We are no different from you, xcept we find different people attractive.

by Yumyumsuppertime » Wed May 15, 2013 4:47 pm
Phing Phong wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:I have an idea.
As there have been homosexuals for far longer than there have been fundamentalist Christians and other social conservatives, why don't you get your own nation, and run it as you wish? After all, one's cultural, political, and religious beliefs are far more of a choice than one's sexual orientation, and I don't see why anyone else should be forced to deal with your offensive decisions.
They can have one square mile of San Francisco, in order to preserve their democratic right to an unfounded persecution complex.

by Seperates » Wed May 15, 2013 4:48 pm
Lyassa and Nairoa wrote:Neutraligon wrote:
Why the are citizens of the united states and have (should have) all the rights and responsibilities that entails. We are no different from you, xcept we find different people attractive.
No, you find the WRONG people attractive...if you find people same sex people attractive, why don´t realise there´s something wrong with you ?
Why do you feel proud about it ? Is it a way to catharsis the shame ?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Dimetrodon Empire, Eahland, Emotional Support Crocodile, Fartsniffage, Neu California, Phage, Philjia, PhilTech, Port Caverton, Ryemarch, Tarsonis, The Huskar Social Union, The Notorious Mad Jack
Advertisement