Obama turned politician - Page 2 - MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos
The Lounge General off topic chat.

Reply

Old 03-18-2007, 06:00 PM   #11 (permalink)
MMA Fanatic
 
spiritofbattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: In the thumb
Posts: 81
spiritofbattle has a little shameless behaviour in the past
oh yeah, one more thing...go obama do what feels right!
__________________
http://www.ready2bang.com
spiritofbattle is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 03-18-2007, 07:04 PM   #12 (permalink)
Free Thinker
 
pt447's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In your closet!
Posts: 5,673
Blog Entries: 1
pt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level now
the greeks and romans were ok with it! and besides the point, of course all society would be against it because organized society goes against human nature. we're meant to be tribal, not wholly organized. it's natural to be heterosexual because that's the point of life, but homosexuality happens all the time, in all animal species--mammals.

it's socially "wrong" because it serves no purpouse. being "gay" has no biological function. so it's perceived as morally wrong. yet homosexuality has nothing to do with morals. it has to do with personal prefference. morallity and ethics only deal with interpersonal relationships. sure it's not a choice, but they still preffer same sex partners. that doesn't hurt anyone. most of our tribal existance it would have been "banned" because it actually did hurt the tribe/society. it prevented another generation of people who were needed to work the land and help protect the society! in more organized societies, you have religion as the driving force behind many societies. religion calls it a sin because it won't produce another batch of obidiant little servants of the lord. also, the ecconomic argument is still around. but today, there's no reason to prohibit it. our economy isn't so fragile as to allow a fraction of the population not propogate the species! we've actually moved on. that's the beauty of modern society; it's stronger than the individual people who live in it.

there is no actual reason to deny homosexuals/lesbians from enjoying the same benefits and rights as anyone else. there actions can no longer be billed as a socio-ecconomical problem, and with a world so severely overpopulated as is, i hardly think the "you gotta have kids" approach matters at all. and lastly, it is a subject that truly only is between the people physically involved in the relationship. nobody else has any right to even comment on what two people choose to do with each other, providing nobody gets hurt.

and asside from the occasional tenderness of the buttox, homosexuality has hardly hurt anyone!
__________________
whiskey, racism, money, grease, twinkie's, guns.....yep lol thats about it

http://www.watchblog.com/

http://www.xanga.com/mfalino

Last edited by pt447 : 03-18-2007 at 07:08 PM.
pt447 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2007, 07:06 PM   #13 (permalink)
I eat babies
 
WouldLuv2FightU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Troy, Ohio
Posts: 7,647
Blog Entries: 3
WouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He Crosses
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt447
the greeks and romans were ok with it! and besides the point, of course all society would be against it because organized society goes against human nature. we're meant to be tribal, not wholly organized. it's natural to be heterosexual because that's the point of life, but homosexuality happens all the time, in all animal species--mammals.

it's socially "wrong" because it serves no purpouse. being "gay" has no biological function. so it's perceived as morally wrong. yet homosexuality has nothing to do with morals. it has to do with personal prefference. morallity and ethics only deal with interpersonal relationships. sure it's not a choice, but they still preffer same sex partners. that doesn't hurt anyone. most of our tribal existance it would have been "banned" because it actually did hurt the tribe/society. it prevented another generation of people! in more organized societies, you have religion as the driving force behind most. religion calls it a sin because it won't produce another batch of obidiant little servants of the lord. also, the ecconomic argument is still around. but today, there's no reason to prohibit it. our economy isn't so fragile as to allow a fraction of the population not propogate the species! we've actually moved on. that's the beauty of modern society; it's stronger than the individual people who live in it.

there is no actual reason to deny homosexuals/lesbians from enjoying the same benefits and rights as anyone else. there actions can no longer be billed as a socio-ecconomical problem, and with a world so severely overpopulated as is, i hardly think the "you gotta have kids" approach matters at all!
Right, like I said. I don't have anything against them being gay. The same way I can't judge a guy who for some reason can't help but like to have sex with farm animals. But that doesn't mean they should be allowed to marry.
WouldLuv2FightU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2007, 07:12 PM   #14 (permalink)
Free Thinker
 
pt447's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In your closet!
Posts: 5,673
Blog Entries: 1
pt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level now
Quote:
Originally Posted by WouldLuv2FightU
Right, like I said. I don't have anything against them being gay. The same way I can't judge a guy who for some reason can't help but like to have sex with farm animals. But that doesn't mean they should be allowed to marry.
why not? what is so specific about marraige as to only be offorded to heterosexuals? are you denying that homosexuality is as much about whom you are able to love as well as who you're attracted to? because all marraige offers is a secure enviornment for two loving people. they get to have the right to make decisions for each other in medical emergencies, and they have monetary protection for each other!

what is so specific about marraige as two homosexuals/lesbians could not perform the "sacrament" perfectly well?

is it religious?

and you can't bring up the "kids" argument, because by that theory, every married couple who chose not to have kids--or couldn't because of biological defects--should have their union annulled!

there is just no argument for the prohibition of same-sex marraige!
__________________
whiskey, racism, money, grease, twinkie's, guns.....yep lol thats about it

http://www.watchblog.com/

http://www.xanga.com/mfalino
pt447 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2007, 07:28 PM   #15 (permalink)
I eat babies
 
WouldLuv2FightU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Troy, Ohio
Posts: 7,647
Blog Entries: 3
WouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He Crosses
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt447
why not? what is so specific about marraige as to only be offorded to heterosexuals? are you denying that homosexuality is as much about whom you are able to love as well as who you're attracted to? because all marraige offers is a secure enviornment for two loving people. they get to have the right to make decisions for each other in medical emergencies, and they have monetary protection for each other!

what is so specific about marraige as two homosexuals/lesbians could not perform the "sacrament" perfectly well?

is it religious?

and you can't bring up the "kids" argument, because by that theory, every married couple who chose not to have kids--or couldn't because of biological defects--should have their union annulled!

there is just no argument for the prohibition of same-sex marraige!
Because "marriage" was created for heterosexual couples. The definition of "marriage" is a legal union between a MAN and a WOMAN. If they want the benefits of a married couple, then I feel they should have something separate from marriage. Look I know where you're coming from, but once you get married things change. Marriage meant nothing to me until I actually got married. It's hard to explain, but it's something that people cherish. And when the definition of marriage gets changed, it ruins the sanctity and significance for me. They don't deserve to get the benefits of a married couple because heterosexual married couples earn their benefits by contributing to society. When marriage first came about there were no benefits for the couples, it was just a union between two loving heterosexuals. It is only in the recent past that married couples started getting benefits. The definition of marriage doesn't mention anything about benefits, it's not like I asked for benefits when I chose to marry my wife. So when heterosexuals marry and don't have kids, it doesn't matter because they are still allowed to marry just so long as they are HETEROsexual. No one said you had to have kids in order to marry, you just have to be hetero. The government rewards married couples with benefits for contributing to society. Sure some poeple can't have kids, and a very few choose not to have any, but that's not what marriage is defined as. And I think it would be a lot of work for the government to track down every hetero married couple who hasn't procreated yet and strip them of their benefits.

If they want benefits, they will have to find some other way of getting them other than getting married. They will have to pass some legislature to where they just sign some paperwork or something and maybe get a few of the benefits like signing for medical treatment and stuff, or joint tax returns, as long as they provide proof that they are living together or whatever. But they shouldn't have to get married to do that, that's not the point of marriage.
WouldLuv2FightU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2007, 07:32 PM   #16 (permalink)
Free Thinker
 
pt447's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In your closet!
Posts: 5,673
Blog Entries: 1
pt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level now
uh, for a while, the "definition" of a voter was "white male"...

and again, you're assuming that two men cannot feel the love for each other that a man/women pair can. you say you cherish your wife, and that's awsome, but do you really believe that the only possibly relationship a human can have is with the opposite sex? i'm not saying i could even imagine loving a man the way i've loved the women in my life, but i don't doubt it's existance.

and also, if you look at the whole battle, same-sex couples don't neccisarily want the title of marraige as much as the exact same benefits defined under some other title, if that's what it takes. it's more about the security and the fact that they are a recognized couple by the law. until we accept that any two adults can be allowed to have any relationship they want... we'll always be a segregated soceity. not that homosexuals are some "last piece" of the puzzle, but they do represent a fundamental basic human problem of not being able to simply accept someone unlike themselves!
__________________
whiskey, racism, money, grease, twinkie's, guns.....yep lol thats about it

http://www.watchblog.com/

http://www.xanga.com/mfalino
pt447 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2007, 07:35 PM   #17 (permalink)
I eat babies
 
WouldLuv2FightU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Troy, Ohio
Posts: 7,647
Blog Entries: 3
WouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He Crosses
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt447
uh, for a while, the "definition" of a voter was "white male"...

and again, you're assuming that two men cannot feel the love for each other that a man/women pair can. you say you cherish your wife, and that's awsome, but do you really believe that the only possibly relationship a human can have is with the opposite sex? i'm not saying i could even imagine loving a man the way i've loved the women in my life, but i don't doubt it's existance.

and also, if you look at the whole battle, same-sex couples don't neccisarily want the title of marraige as much as the exact same benefits defined under some other title, if that's what it takes. it's more about the security and the fact that they are a recognized couple by the law. until we accept that any two adults can be allowed to have any relationship they want... we'll always be a segregated soceity. not that homosexuals are some "last piece" of the puzzle, but they do represent a fundamental basic human problem of not being able to simply accept someone unlike themselves!
OK I am seeing your points and like I said earlier in the thread this debate is hard for me because both sides put up great points.

But, where do you draw the line? Do you let men marry their animals? Do you let them marry their dolls? If they are born with those emotions and they can't help it, should they be allowed to marry too?
WouldLuv2FightU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2007, 07:37 PM   #18 (permalink)
I eat babies
 
WouldLuv2FightU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Troy, Ohio
Posts: 7,647
Blog Entries: 3
WouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He Crosses
Or what about grown men who can't help it but to like young boys? You know, pedophiles. Is that ok? Is it ok because they can't help it? Should they be allowed to if the young boy is willing? Gay people can't help it when they like the same sex, and we're supposed to "feel sorry for them". But why do we say it is sick when people are born to like children, or animals, or murdering, or cannabalism?]

And just because something occurs in nature, doesn't make it natural. Mental and physical retardation occurs in nature and other species a lot too. That doesn't make it natural. By natural I mean, normal, or average. Of course homosexuality is natural in the aspect you say, in that aspect EVERYTHING is natural. But that doesn't make it normal. You wouldn't say a murderer is excused because murder happens in nature would you? You wouldn't say pedophelia is natural even though some animals engage in it would you?

Last edited by WouldLuv2FightU : 03-18-2007 at 07:48 PM.
WouldLuv2FightU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2007, 07:41 PM   #19 (permalink)
Free Thinker
 
pt447's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In your closet!
Posts: 5,673
Blog Entries: 1
pt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level nowpt447 is on another level now
Quote:
Originally Posted by WouldLuv2FightU
Or what about grown men who can't help it but to like young boys? Is that ok? Is it ok because they can't help it? Should they be allowed to if the young boy is willing?
excellent! i was so waiting for you to bring this up.

i do not believe that a person has a choice in whom they are attracted to. but, i do not, for a second, believe that any situation involving children is akin to any situation involving adults. children must alwasy be protected, and while it is hypocritical to say "any one can like anyone they want" and yet condemn pedophilia, there does have to be a line.

two adults have the choice whether or not to engage each other however they wish. but a child, as we already recognize by law, has no ability to willfully act in their own best interests, being a child. unfortunatly, pedophiles desires break that line and harm children. yes, there is a divide, and recognizing that divide is important. there are dozens of reasons--if the main one isn't sufficiant--why pedophilia is wrong, but there is not a single, even possible, reason why same-sex, adult relationships shouldn't be equally protected in all ways of law and society!

basically, LUV, you committed the most often committed logical fallacy; the slippery slope. i am talking about same-sex relationships between adults, and you literally changed the subject to apply another set of principles to the original argument as a recourse for not having a rebuttle to my claim.

i hated logic class, but it was one of the most important i've ever taken!
__________________
whiskey, racism, money, grease, twinkie's, guns.....yep lol thats about it

http://www.watchblog.com/

http://www.xanga.com/mfalino

Last edited by pt447 : 03-18-2007 at 07:44 PM.
pt447 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2007, 07:57 PM   #20 (permalink)
I eat babies
 
WouldLuv2FightU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Troy, Ohio
Posts: 7,647
Blog Entries: 3
WouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He CrossesWouldLuv2FightU Is Respected By All He Crosses
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt447
excellent! i was so waiting for you to bring this up.

i do not believe that a person has a choice in whom they are attracted to. but, i do not, for a second, believe that any situation involving children is akin to any situation involving adults. children must alwasy be protected, and while it is hypocritical to say "any one can like anyone they want" and yet condemn pedophilia, there does have to be a line.

two adults have the choice whether or not to engage each other however they wish. but a child, as we already recognize by law, has no ability to willfully act in their own best interests, being a child. unfortunatly, pedophiles desires break that line and harm children. yes, there is a divide, and recognizing that divide is important. there are dozens of reasons--if the main one isn't sufficiant--why pedophilia is wrong, but there is not a single, even possible, reason why same-sex, adult relationships shouldn't be equally protected in all ways of law and society!

basically, LUV, you committed the most often committed logical fallacy; the slippery slope. i am talking about same-sex relationships between adults, and you literally changed the subject to apply another set of principles to the original argument as a recourse for not having a rebuttle to my claim.

i hated logic class, but it was one of the most important i've ever taken!
Well, you may have a point. But I don't think I changed the subject. You were the one who said they can't help the way they feel. So they were born that way correct? Well now you're making it seem like gays don't have those emotions until they are full grown adults, which is untrue according to what you said earlier. If they were born gay, then they were gay as a child too. And I am not asking if pedophiles should be allowed to marry, I am asking if they should be excused from their behavior. And murderers, and cannabals. You can't put gays in a separate group. They all have something in common. They were born with these twisted emotions and they can't help it. Some act on it and some don't. So why should I feel sorry for gay couples, but I should hate pedophiles and cannabals, even if they've never actually acted on their emotions before.

There are cannibals out there and pedophiles who engage in their activities under consent. Cannibals who allow other cannibals to eat parts of them, young teens who agree to having sex with full grown adults. (Both in other countries of course, not here). Like I said, I'm not askign if they should marry. I'm just asking if I'm supposed to accept the behavior of a gay couple, should I also accept the behavior of cannibals and pedophiles and beastiality?

Now, of course I'm not asking if pedophiles should be allowed to stalk down innocent random kids and **** them, or cannibals be allowed to stalk down strangers and eat parts of their body, but if both parties are willing, like in the case of gays, should we condone it?

Also, gays wouldn't get so much shit if they didn't create their own stereotype with the lisps, and metrosexual wardrobe in gay men, or the short hair, flannel shirts with gay women. If they want to be treated equal, then maybe they shouldn't have separated themselves by making themselves look like a whole nother species. They don't need to flaunt that they are gay. It would be like a cannibal walking aroung gnawing on a human foot that his partner let him have. Nobody wants to see that shit. Keep it to yourselves and don't let the rest of the world get a mental picture of what you do in your personal time and maybe life would be a bit easier for them.

But still a part of me agrees with you PT. Why should I give a shit if they want to get married? It doesn't really hurt me I guess. But there's always the other part of me thinking no they shouldn't be allowed to get married. I don't know, not that my opinion matters anyway. I still think it's ok the way they are doing it, by letting the state decide.

Last edited by WouldLuv2FightU : 03-18-2007 at 08:26 PM.
WouldLuv2FightU is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums
Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2
Powered by vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2009 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios