California: Prohibition on gay marriage
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
Trying to help you see other points of view, maybe? Maybe when some of us see a person like you, who clearly doesn't understand most of the world around him, we want to educate them on the things they are ignorant to, in hopes that they'll be better for it?
But you've never budged. You don't even hide the fact that you think homosexuals are perverts anymore. You're disgusting, and you shouldn't be allowed to participate.
And I appreciate that, believe me.
How can stickin' ones penis into another man's anus be considered anything but perverted? I mean, seriously, give me some reason to view that as other than perverted and disgusting and weird and odd and strange.
And yet, when I mention fuckin' my goat and sheep, people react with disgust and call me nasty names.
Send a PM to James R. or Tiassa, they'll ban me at the drop of a hat!
Baron Max
Because it's not weird or odd or strange. It's completely natural. Every species we've ever discovered has displayed homosexual behavior. Every. Single. One. Birds, mammals, fish, insects, etc., etc.. So it's completely normal that a certain percentage of our population would be homosexual. That's how it is with every other sexual species on the planet, so why would it be any different in humans?
I'm not saying you're wrong to think it's disgusting. Of course you do. I also find the idea of fucking a man in the ass completely gross. Actually, I find the idea of anal sex at all totally gross, but I might be in the minority on that one...anyway, the point is that we think it's gross because we're not gay, but the difference between people like me and people like you is that people like you take that "Ick" factor and use it to force your beliefs on others. People like you take the fact that gay sex (but only between men, of course) grosses you out and you use that fact to oppress gays. People like me don't, because we aren't stupid like you, and we know that homosexuality is a totally natural and expected occurrence. And we also understand that nobody gets hurt, there are no victims, and that they should not be punished for having completely natural desires that do not harm anyone.
Because you're comparing homosexuality to beastiality. Think about that for a second. You're comparing sex between two adults to sex between an adult and a fucking goat. Do not see how demeaning, how derogatory that idea is? You're dehumanizing homosexuals by comparing their exploits to fucking beastiality!
And it's always viewed as odd, strange, perverted and disgusting.
And be careful of the "natural" argument. There's lots of things that happen in nature that we humans find disturbing and disgusting. It's one of the reasons that we feel that we're above the lower animals. Lots of things that happen naturally in nature is abhorrent to humans ...so be careful how you use that argument.
You're wrong there, sir. I don't now nor would ever approve of "oppressing" the gays because of their odd, strange, perverted sexual delights.
However, to sanction those same odd, strange and perverted sexual practices with the "social title" of marriage is simply wrong for society to be forced to do.
So is cancer, but most of us don't accept it so readily, do we? Or do you like cancer, too?
I don't want to punish them at all, and I'd stand up for them if anyone tried to do that. But that's not the same thing as society being forced to sanction their odd, strange, preverted sexual desires with the title of marriage.
You see, that's exactly what's happening here ....the gays are seeking society's approval by bestowing upon them the social title of "married". That's just wrong. Marriage is between a man and a woman. If gays want some legal rights in the same equal way as marriage, let's call it "gay-riage" or something, and everyone should be happy.
Nope, not comparing it at all. Those are just two different strange, odd, disgusting, perverted methods of enjoying sex. It's not a comparison at all.
And oddly, you've used the strange, perverted sex acts of other animals in a direct comparison to gay sex. Don't you find that odd?
Baron Max
Mod Hat - Trolling
Mod Hat — Trolling and the appearance of hypocrisy
Max, you have the appearance of hypocrisy.
You cannot arbitrarily invoke "society" or any of its aspects when you so clearly reject it:
Of course, even in that particular argument, you were defying yourself:
Now, hypocrisy in and of itself is not a violation of any policy, but it is clear that as your arguments have no substantive connection to one another, and share only an intent to offend, outrage, and obfuscate, hypocrisy isn't the problem. This is one among the various methods of the troll. And trolling is prohibited.
Oh: You can skip the mewling, bullshit faux supplicant routine. Two cents worth of sincerity has for too long been too much to ask of you. It's time to come up with a new routine, and preferably one with some substance and at least a modicum of that strange elixir we call honor.
If you're not capable of that, then stay the hell out of EM&J, because I will send your ass out the door.
And don't bother appealing to me on this issue. You have a problem, take it up the ladder. James is sympathetic to trolls right now. And there's Stryder and Plazma.
Mod Hat — Trolling and the appearance of hypocrisy
Max, you have the appearance of hypocrisy.
Baron Max said:
You cannot arbitrarily invoke "society" or any of its aspects when you so clearly reject it:
Of course, even in that particular argument, you were defying yourself:
Now, hypocrisy in and of itself is not a violation of any policy, but it is clear that as your arguments have no substantive connection to one another, and share only an intent to offend, outrage, and obfuscate, hypocrisy isn't the problem. This is one among the various methods of the troll. And trolling is prohibited.
Oh: You can skip the mewling, bullshit faux supplicant routine. Two cents worth of sincerity has for too long been too much to ask of you. It's time to come up with a new routine, and preferably one with some substance and at least a modicum of that strange elixir we call honor.
If you're not capable of that, then stay the hell out of EM&J, because I will send your ass out the door.
And don't bother appealing to me on this issue. You have a problem, take it up the ladder. James is sympathetic to trolls right now. And there's Stryder and Plazma.
That is false. Do not project your personal sexual idiosyncracies unto all of humanity.baron said:
No they don't. Society is perfectly accepting of gays getting married.baron said:
American society wants to restrict their choices of spouse, though. And that's where the equal protection stuff comes in.
Last edited:
Baron Max:
Not sure exactly what you're referring to here. I assume you've misunderstood something I wrote.
Anyway, the relevant point is that ethics is not a matter of majority vote. It is certainly possible for a majority of 50 or 60% to make a moral mistake, which is exactly what happened in California.
"Perverted" has connotations of disgust. The fact that you find it disgusting is just your personal opinion. Why you have such a strong feeling about this is a mystery. Perhaps it goes back to a bad experience in your childhood or adolescence. Who knows?
Weird and odd and strange for you may be perfectly normal and natural to somebody else.
Your goat and sheep do not consent. I know you aim to shock with this repeated statement of yours, but you consistently miss the point.
Why do you support a ban on gay marriage then?
What has marriage got to do with sex acts?
I asked before, and I'll ask again: can you think of any reason other than sex that two people would want to get married?
If not, you've got some growing up to do, even at your advanced age.
Why?
Stating what is presently the case doesn't make an argument about what ought or ought not to be the case.
Without the disparagement, many have suggested that. Most people refer to "civil unions".
Not sure exactly what you're referring to here. I assume you've misunderstood something I wrote.
Anyway, the relevant point is that ethics is not a matter of majority vote. It is certainly possible for a majority of 50 or 60% to make a moral mistake, which is exactly what happened in California.
"Perverted" has connotations of disgust. The fact that you find it disgusting is just your personal opinion. Why you have such a strong feeling about this is a mystery. Perhaps it goes back to a bad experience in your childhood or adolescence. Who knows?
Weird and odd and strange for you may be perfectly normal and natural to somebody else.
Your goat and sheep do not consent. I know you aim to shock with this repeated statement of yours, but you consistently miss the point.
Why do you support a ban on gay marriage then?
What has marriage got to do with sex acts?
I asked before, and I'll ask again: can you think of any reason other than sex that two people would want to get married?
If not, you've got some growing up to do, even at your advanced age.
Why?
Stating what is presently the case doesn't make an argument about what ought or ought not to be the case.
Without the disparagement, many have suggested that. Most people refer to "civil unions".
Yeah, that must be it. I'm sorry for making such an unfounded, ignorant mistake. I'll try not to let it happen again.
Not anymore! I'm in full support of anything and everything that the gays want. Y'all have convinced me, and I thank you all for the enlightenment.
And a special thanks to Tiassa whose veiled threats and deletions of my posts were more than adequate to convince me that all gays are wonderful people and should have anything they want.
Go Gays!
Baron Max