Would be higher if it wasn't the same as your avatar.
- Registered Member
Member for 11 years, 1 month, and 2 days
Last active Wed, Dec, 31 1969 18:00:00
- 0 Followers
- 2,422 Total Posts
- 54 Thanks
Apr 16, 2011Posted in: General Off TopicQuote from crimsonedge11 »Consenting adult polygamists are victims? And what about animals? They are slaughtered every day for food, but they are suddenly victims if some sick **** decides to marry one?
If you don't consider polygamist wives "victims", why do you consider it immoral?
Breeding an animal for meat is important to the economy, it's important to society and it's generally good for health. Marrying an animal does no good for economy, society or health.
Keep in mind that places like Utah or the Deep South where these things are more commonplace aren't exactly LGBT-friendly.
We are talking about 2 different countries, one culture being much different than another. The difference between Canada and the US, is enormous, not necessarily in a good way. In some states pedophiles get 25 years to life in prison without possibility of parole. But in other states they might get a slap on the wrist and given probation. Can you take a guess which side of the political fence are the ones letting child rapists get light prison sentences or probation? Would you not agree that a child rapist getting probation is a moral injustice?
In Canada, simply owning drawn underage pornography is illegal and punishable by prison time. If you want to deter pedophilia, you should be all on-board for becoming more like Canada.
Quote from crimsonedge11 »Political turmoil is brewing in the US right now, and White heterosexual males are being alienated from society.
No. White heterosexual males do not know what it means to be "alienated" any more than they know what it's like to give birth.
This is not about minorities or either particular sex.
What the world will look like decades from now is anybodies guess. But we both know what happened last time White people felt like they were pushed in a corner, hint: Germany.
I spat Cheerios all over my computer. First off, I'd like to say your argument sounds a little too much like a threat. Also, your argument implies three things:
1: WWII happened solely due to white anger.
2: White people must remain dominant for the world to remain in order.
3: Whites and homosexuals are warring factions.
If you seriously think homosexual marriage is going to lead to global racewar, you're even more delusional than I thought. By the way, comparing the side you're supporting to the Nazis is rarely a wise debate tactic.
What do you think is gonna happen when millions get together and say, you are no longer going to tell us how to live, who to accept, who to hire, which people to rent my property to, and etc?
We're quite a long way from there, but I think the America our forefathers dreamed of will truly be born. You describe an America where people-- all people-- treat their fellow Americans with tolerance, warmth, and equality. It would take a truly twisted man to see this as some kind of Nazi dystopia.
You're a silly, ambiguously racist goose. Come up with some arguments that aren't groundless fear-mongering and actually have something to do with the topic at hand.
Apr 15, 2011If marriage is supposed to be for reproduction, should we outlaw sterile individuals from marrying?Posted in: General Off Topic
Quote from alphap »Yea, I guess I probably did jump into this without knowing a whole lot. Gays just really creep me out, seem unnatural, and I'm Christian...so yea.
Understandable. There's nothing wrong with being uncomfortable with people, you can't control that, nor can you control what your religion dictates. Just remember that most of those people have had to deal with a lot worse than being "creeped out" in their life.
Homophobia's a perfectly natural thing to feel and phobias are often uncontrollable and irrational. I admire that you don't try to use it to justify discrimination.
Quote from crimsonedge11 »Something just crossed my mind about how slippery of a slope this is. If gay marriage is allowed, then it would also be considered discrimination if they didn't allow polygamists to marry, or even people wanting to marry their pets, or lots of other forms of marriage that get increasingly more strange. What about pedophiles? It would be discrimination to hold their sexuality against them too right? Discrimination seems to be the argument everyone is using to support this, but why don't we just go all out and say to hell with any sort of moral bounds left of the fabric of our former society?
All of the things you mentioned have direct victims in most situations. Homosexuality does not. It is something done between two consenting adults.
The fact that you think legalized homosexual marriage will lead to the end of morality is evidence enough that your judgment is too clouded for you to even debate fairly-- places where it's legalized are still functioning perfectly. Canada has a much lower rate of violent and sexual crimes than the US and it's legal there-- and if anything, pedophelia and other sexual deviancies are even less tolerated there than the US.
Your argument has zero evidence to support it and you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It's hilariously obvious that your entire political stance is motivated by your personal feelings, rather than what's actually moral and constitutional.
Alcohol, television, the internet, civil rights, capitalism, telephones, and public parks have all been, at one point in time, spoken against as "the end of morality as we know it". The entire concept of written fiction was criticized by Greek philosophers who feared it would evolve and become more and more entertaining until everyone sat inside and read until they died of starvation. Your stance is no different- a sociopathic, narcissistic self-obsessed mess of backwards logic without evidence meant to keep the world the way YOU like it, no matter how irrational it is, and no matter how many innocent people you hurt.
People will look back at you decades from now with the same scorn they'd feel towards an anti-civil rights activist or a crusader against woman's suffrage. The world is changing for the better and you are too fearful of the unknown to accept it.
TL;DR: You're a silly goose. Come up with some arguments that aren't groundless fear-mongering.
Apr 14, 2011Posted in: General Off TopicQuote from shairn »Quote from Peri »
I promise you, nobody has ever been emotionally moved at the sight a pride parade.
Well maybe some have, but that's not the point. The more common it's made out to be, the more acceptable it is and the easier it is for gay people to be accepted just like everybody else :3
A peaceful, respectful march for homosexual rights is one thing. Balls-tight pink thongs and giant rainbow balloon phalli are another.
Quote from alphap »
Eh, I should've worded that a little better. I half meant "giving into the urge" and half meant "indirectly choosing", such as choosing homosexual friends and then choosing to be like them. And then choosing to ignore their parents, most likely; every parent I've met would most likely discourage that kind of thing.
This is largely a regional thing. My parents are far-right conservative Fox News-loving Obama-haters, and they've always held that homosexuality is completely natural and should be tolerated. The parents you've met do not represent the parents of the world.
You're pleasant and level-headed, but you don't seem to know a lot about LGBT issues or psychology. Consider doing some research.
Apr 14, 2011Posted in: General Off TopicQuote from shairn »Quote from .Mark »I'm against the fags.
Not gays, fags.
Fags are the ones who protest and go on the massive parades and **** like that. I hate those.
On the other hand, gays are the ones who just don't give a **** about that.
But marriage, no.
Well, if no homosexual stands up and demands to be regarded the same as everybody else, they'll stay marginalized n-n
I promise you, nobody has ever been emotionally moved at the sight a pride parade.
Apr 14, 2011Posted in: General Off TopicQuote from alphap »I don't know exactly what percentage of homosexuals were born homosexual, but it seems like the number of people who chose to be homosexual must be far higher.
I simply don't understand this line of logic at all. How and why someone would simply choose to be attracted to something baffles me.
I mean, there is no urge that someone chooses to have. To give in to this urge could be considered a choice, given.
Apr 14, 2011Posted in: Forum Discussion & InfoQuote from ==Maverick== »Quote from Peri »http://www.minecraftforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=1020&p=3925216#p3925216
Apparently, this is an offense on the same level as responding to a spambot thread.
Yes, its because youre quoting/responding to spam, which makes it even harder for moderators...because now they have to make sure they edit out THAT quote too, which is twice the work if the user had followed rules in the first place.
The change of difficulty in moderation consists entirely of scrolling down a bit further to delete the thread.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.