01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all: women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
0
Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
EDIT: I wasn't sure where to put this. It was intended to be a humorous post, so I put it here.
11) Say hello to more HIV.
If this is supposed to be funny, this is the most tasteless thing I've seen on here in a good while.
If this isn't, why isn't it in Marble Garden?
Quote:
11) Say hello to more HIV. Because only gays have unprotected sex.
Fixed.
Um...Psx?
I said MORE.
Did I lay the blame solely on homosexuals? I said 'MORE'. Not 'Say hello to HIV'. I said 'Say hello to MORE HIV'.
Quote:
If this is supposed to be funny, this is the most tasteless thing I've seen on here in a good while.
wooosh... right over yer head.
Yeah, it probably should go in Marble.
Anyway,
Quote:
11) Say hello to more HIV. Because gay marriage will lead to the ability to finally start having gay sex since they follow their christian guidelines very closely
Is that better? o.o
It's meant to be funny and I don't think serious discussion is necessarily supposed to come from this joke. If it's not supposed to be serious, then it doesn't belong in Marble at all. It belongs right here. If this topic became serious, then it might move to Marble.
Anyway, I've seen this a few times already as it has been making the rounds on the 'net. ^_^
11) Say hello to more HIV.
Keep that up and you'll be saying hello to my fist.
Quote:
Keep that up and you'll be saying hello to my fist.
I'm only saying the truth.
What you are doing is perpetuating a stereotype that HIV is a "gay disease". In Dallas the majority of people with HIV are black, should they be barred from marriage too?
1) Guys, Ultra was trying to add to the top 10 reasons--in a sense making this a topic for people to add more reasons of their own instead of just replying "lol" or "eww."
2) Ultra, you didn't do a great job in mimicking the format of the original 10. That's why Psx and Acrio had to fix your addition in their own ways and the reason you're getting the reaction you've gotten.
I'm only saying the truth.
You're saying a fallacy that stigmatizes not only homosexuals, but also AIDS victims. Explain how being married, which in theory reduces the number of partners with whom a person would have sex, would lead to more HIV. The average HIV sufferer is a black female.
And be glad it's just my e-fist. I had tostadas for dinner. I'll e-fart on you if you're not careful.
Guys, Ultra was trying to add to the top 10 reasons--in a sense making this a topic for people to add more reasons of their own instead of just replying "lol" or "eww."
Going by the above quote, I don't think he was.
Quote:
The average HIV sufferer is a black female.
And HIV was originally diagnosed exclusively to homosexual males in the 70s. Which is also around the time homosexuality was taken off the American Psychiatric Association's mental illness list (and since then, pedophilia's also been taken off). Given the fact that a lot of homosexuals also turn out to be child molesters, it's no surprise that HIV eventually ended up in otherwise straight people.
Quote:
Explain how being married, which in theory reduces the number of partners with whom a person would have sex, would lead to more HIV.
Legitimizing homosexuality. HIV became prominent soon after homosexuality became 'normal'. Marriage is also another way to legitimize homosexuality when it should have remained as a mental illness.
The more something is legitimized and paraded as 'normal', the more people become apathetic to such a thing. Homosexuals shouldn't be denied the rights granted to them by the Constitution, no doubt...but marriage should be kept between a man and a woman in this person's opinion.
*lets the Off-Topic monkey go through the topic and wreak havoc*
There, see what you've done? Now clean up this mess. With your TONGUES.
Given the fact that a lot of homosexuals also turn out to be child molesters, it's no surprise that HIV eventually ended up in otherwise straight people.
End of discussion. Congratuf***inglations, you're a raving bigot.
Quote:
you're a raving bigot.
Bigot, eh? Seeing as how I'm intolerant of what is ultimately self-destructive behavior, then yes, I am a bigot in the literal sense.
And congrats to you, too, Cyc, for bypassing the censor.
Not sure whether to warn for that, seeing as I'm so freakin' tired. I guess I'll just leave it up to the other mods/admins for now...
EDIT: Got it, but its just one more to add the filter. Isn't like "f**k" is any different than saying the real word.
As for ultra... The thing about most gays being child molestors? Don't. See, thats like me saying most christians turn into wife beaters. It's untrue and it just makes enemies. Don't make enemies, enemies can make life hard for you.
~Rico
Quote:
Bypassing what? If asteriks are bypassing then I know a little foul mouthed chatter that should be permabanned by now. o.o
I added the asterisks, Rico. There were none there before, and being inside the word left the curse word in, clear as day.
can't.. breathe.... laughing too hard... XD
~Rico
Yep, he sure is.
~Rico
*Throws the stick in a totally different direction*
GO FETCH BOYS! GO FETCH!
shortpacked.com/d/20050722.html
Genetics - Reproduction = ...?
Homosexuality is a genetic trait which is emphasised by environmental factors. Have you ever wondered WHY people put themselves through so much misery, shame and often suicide trying to hide or convert their trends which they don't want?
Making someone feel evil or hated for something they control is seriously sick and twisted.
From the article you posted:
Quote:
But other researchers in the US have not been able to replicate these findings.
Quote:
They looked at 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives, which included more than 4,600 people overall.
An estimated 5,000 people surveyed and studied out of roughly 10,000,000,000 on Earth. Am I suddenly supposed to treat a study using only 0.0000005% of the human population as 'fact'?
Besides, I still think homosexuality is, ultimately, self-destructive behavior. Can homosexuals reproduce? No.
Quote:
Making someone feel evil or hated for something they control (emphasis mine) is seriously sick and twisted.
Doesn't that kind of defeat the point of your whole post? o.o
And besides, I may vehemently dislike homosexuality from...well, pretty much all of my standpoints, but I'm not going to go out with a pitchfork and start murdering the homosexuals themselves. However, I would suggest they seek professional help.
One more thing.
Quote:
It has also been noted that homosexual males are more often the younger siblings of a number of older brothers. Scientists have said it might be that the mother develops some kind of resistance to the male Y chromosome in her offspring that makes subsequent baby boys more likely to be born gay.
Hmm? Claiming mothers pass on a 'gene' to create homosexual boys, whilst also claiming that doing so boosts the ability of these homosexual boys to procreate? Am I the only one who sees the contradiction?
Oh please, I accidentally missed out the word "can't" while trying to find a non-hypocritical way of basically saying "I hate people who hate people"
and why, pray tell, should a homosexual seek proffessional help for being in love and happy? Oh, right, I forgot, when a hetrosexual couple go out, it's love, when a homosexual couple do it's icky sex-games.
Of course, usually I have a neutral/moral stand-point on matters such as these, if someone wants to marry a tree (has happened) or marry someone as a joke for 28 minutes, they're free to do so. I never held any sentimental significance in marriage, beyond the legal benefits anyway.
Also, doesn't the fact that there's no law against it make it alright in the first place? Wouldn't homosexual marriage just make it so that they get the same rights as us.
I don't know about you, but if I was exiled from my family for loving a man, and when I died he was entitled to NOTHING and the evil family who pushed me away got EVERYTHING, then there's something wrong with the system.
It's not like homosexual adoption in which there is a third party being exposed to a setting which can have a negative effect (though, as someone who grew up with a homosexual mother, and has been in gay bars and talked to dozens of lesbians on a fortnightly basis, I can say it's not damaging in the slightest. Perhaps it's different for males, I've yet to study into that); this is just about 2 people, and wether they have actively decided "HEY! I'M GOING TO BE GAY!" (for the record, I'm a hefty believer in the "It's in your DNA" theory, despite the fact that I'd be a carrier if this true) or just have an uncontrollable attraction.
It's not like a dude or dudette can look at something he honestly doesn't find arousing and shout "FLAME ON!", it doesn't work like that. Wether it is the genes or the memes, it's still not something you can exactly say "Sparky. Sit, Sparky. Sit. Ok, now Sparky. DON'T BE GAY! DON'T BE GAY SPARKY!"
...did I just use South Park in a contraversial debate?
I have to leave this thread, like 10 seconds ago.
I'd be a lot less upset if homosexuality would stop trying to legitimize itself as a 'normal' lifestyle or something that is 'genetically inherited'. I'd also be a lot less irritated if homosexuality wasn't touted as 'superior' to heterosexuality as it continuously is today within the media. Then I'd just be annoyed from a moral and religious standpoint.
Quote:
and why, pray tell, should a homosexual seek proffessional help for being in love and happy?
Because they're effectively saying 'I'd like to have my genetics die with me, thank you very much.' That's what's so ironic about the 'homosexual gene' theory presented in the article you posted: what could be the reproductive advantage gained by not reproducing?
Quote:
Also, doesn't the fact that there's no law against it make it alright in the first place?
That might change pretty soon. In America in any case.
Quote:
I never held any sentimental significance in marriage, beyond the legal benefits anyway.
I could go into a large post concerning the sentimental, religious, and familial significance of a marriage, but that's another topic for another time.
Quote:
...did I just use South Park in a contraversial debate?
I wouldn't know. o.o
Ultra, I agree with Cycle, you're a bigot. Big thing here, Homosexuals should be allowed to be homosexual, they should be allowed to marry, even if a church refused them. Why? None of us create marrage, the people who did died millenia ago, it belongs to none of us and all of us (and not any single religio;n before any one says otherwise). If a religion doesn't approve of homosexual marriage, fine, they don't have to, but marriage offices (can't remember the correct name right now) that are religion free as they're government based, should provide the service. Plus, if we want equality and tolerance in the world, then every person deserves the same rights as anyone else, no matter their race, gender or sexuallity (and don't you dare say homosexuals have the right to marry, as long as it's not someone of the same gender, because that would be forcing their way of life away).
Quote:
I'd be a lot less upset if homosexuality would stop trying to legitimize itself as a 'normal' lifestyle or something that is 'genetically inherited'. I'd also be a lot less irritated if homosexuality wasn't touted as 'superior' to heterosexuality as it continuously is today within the media. Then I'd just be annoyed from a moral and religious standpoint.
Woohey, now they're not "normal" and are trying to be "superior". Big clue as to why homosexuality would not become "superior" to heterosexuality, continuation of our species, you have nothing to worry about because we are so very far from dieing out at the moment anyway. I haven't seen the media try to make it superior in anyway, if anything all it has done is highlight it and made evryone (in an ideal world) a little more understanding, though that may not have worked in a lot of things, and instead can have the oposite affect.
As for homosexuals not being normal, well, I'm straight, but believe me, I'm hardly what most would see as normal. I grew my hair for 4 years without cutting it, I watch a veriety of different shows that most would avoid simply because they don't like the look, my musical interests are far and varied as oposed to just sticking to rock music as my appearance suggests, I don't drink, smoke or take drugs, and I try to be peaceful and tollerant and unjudgemental towards anyone, all of which are very different to what is "normal" among my age group, my homosexual friends are more "normal" than me actually. In short, I fail to see your point as anything less than you don't like 'em, 'cause they're different.
And one last thing, I don't believe that homosexuality is a desease, a mental illness, or a genetic thing, nor do I believe that it's a concious choice, I believe that someone can fall in love with someone for who they are, not what, and can be attracted to someone of either gender, it just varies in how strong that attraction is. I'm strongly attracted to women rather than men, but I can see how many men are attractive, just as I'm sure a straight woman can see how another woman is attractive, oor a homosexual man can see how a woman is attractive...etc. In short, I believe that love, nomatter who it's with, is always the same.
That's my take on things anyway.
Quote:
Because they're effectively saying 'I'd like to have my genetics die with me, thank you very much.' That's what's so ironic about the 'homosexual gene' theory presented in the article you posted: what could be the reproductive advantage gained by not reproducing?
Because overpopulation is great for any society, economy, or ecology. Mmmmmmm.....resource depletion...
I loved it! XD Really made me smile. Then again I love this kind of sattire anyway.
I stand corrected as I didn't think Ultra was that ignorant. **shrugs**
Quote:
An estimated 5,000 people surveyed and studied out of roughly 10,000,000,000 on Earth. Am I suddenly supposed to treat a study using only 0.0000005% of the human population as 'fact'?
Obviously you've never taken upper level statistics yet to make that comment. There's a reason that you can do a small sampling and be extremely accurate--the human genetics aren't that different from person to person. That's how they determine whether or not medicines are okay for human use (among other things).
The only thing that can throw off a sampling is if the sampling isn't representative enough. Otherwise, that's actually a decent enough number.
Oh almost forgot:
Quote:
Besides, I still think homosexuality is, ultimately, self-destructive behavior. Can homosexuals reproduce? No.
So, is deciding to never have children a self-destructive behavior if you're heterosexual? If it isn't, your comments about the inability to reproduce as a major concern is an idiotic one.
BTW, going back to your original comment, you do realize that one of the reasons people deal with HIV in the first place is from having partners that pretend to be straight "to fit in" while having other lovers OR those that pretend to be in only one relationship while having other lovers. There's nothing anyone can do about the latter cases, but the first cases could possibly disappear if it were more accepted to have homosexual relationships. It's also why your comment about the media making homosexual relationships seem superior is just hilarious. Comments like those make me wonder what they show in your part of the country as even when I lived in NYC that definitely wasn't going on. Homosexuals are the new "Black/Colored" people of the U.S. and anyone who doesn't realize that has some blinders on.
*Giggles* You should check the SPA more often, Boss Lady, Ultra is my ignorant offspring, and I think he's just angry that he got my mummy's gay gene ^__^
Sorry, I forgot to bring up this...
Quote:
Given the fact that a lot of homosexuals also turn out to be child molesters, it's no surprise that HIV eventually ended up in otherwise straight people.
Where in god's name did you come up with that?!
I think you're more likely to find that most Child Molesters go after young boys, maybe they're easier targets, I don't know, but that does not mean in any possible way that most homosexuals become pedophiles.
And they say ignorance is bliss.
Quote:
I'd also be a lot less irritated if homosexuality wasn't touted as 'superior' to heterosexuality as it continuously is today within the media.
There's a significant difference between touting superiority and being proud of who you are.
I'd marry both Craig and Kat, but I think ultra would be against both marriages. XD
~Rico
Ultra's cute when he's being homophobic. 
To clarify, the first official AIDS case (not counting the very sporadic 1950's case and Congolese exploror in the 1930's case) was NOT documented in a homosexual. It was documented in a female Swedish nurse in 1978 who by all accounts was not gay.
But other than THAT little anomaly, yes, blacks, Hispanics, basketball players, hemophiliacs, drug users, prisoners and nurses are ALL gay because their groups can get AIDS more easily somehow than others. Including my mother.
Not that she had AIDS, but she's a nurse that works with the community on AIDS awareness and testing. So she goes around to all kinds of places - including gay bars, where she meets gay people all the time. So that means she must be gay. And since I go with her to some of these places to help her, that must mean I'M going to be gay too!!!
OH NOOOOO!!!!!!
*drowns in her sarcasm*
*SIGH*
I don't even have to participate in discussions for them to turn into hate-fests. Isn't that amazing? Everybody, please remember this for the next time I have a row with Ultra Sonic.
As for the paedophile thing, well, the thing is that all paedophiles are sick perverts because they get off on molesting small children. Gender isn't really applicable, it's more often the feeling of power they get off on.
Personal opinion: All paedophiles should have their balls chopped off and shoved down their throats.
Quote:
11) Say hello to more HIV.
Keep that up and you'll be saying hello to my fist.
lulz, ironic bigotry
As much as I hate to break my "ignore Harley on the forum" rule, I have to be pedantic for a moment:
Personal opinion: All paedophiles should have their balls chopped off and shoved down their throats.
Does that include 16 year olds with 15 year old partners?
Quote:
Besides, I still think homosexuality is, ultimately, self-destructive behavior. Can homosexuals reproduce? No.
Actually, homosexuals can reproduce. They cannot reproduce through homosexual behaviour, but they still have the same equipment as others of their gender. If you're going to argue a position, at least keep some facts accurate.
I think others on the board have done a fair job of showing other inconsistencies in your argument, although I am still unconvinced about the "homosexual gene" theory. It's possible, but not demonstrated conclusively by the studies. I'm willing to accept that homosexuality is not a choice someone makes, however. Just as heterosexuality is not a choice, or who you fall in love with is a choice. What you do about it, on the other hand...
"In this world there are people who hate other people just because of what they believe, and we hate people like that."
Tom Lehrer
Cycle, I really hope that you appreciate the irony of your post, you demonstrated yourself to be an intolerant individual. Welcome to the realm of conservatives, way to embrace.
Jimro
I'm going to write a 10 page essay on the significance of having cuteness in rabbits and make a thread with it here, then end it with three <BR>s and the word "gay" in parenthases and size 5 font.
It will be the newest gay topic.
It's going to be just as cool as this one too! It will have everything all the other's do. Ultra will spout off nonsense, Harley will use him as an example of why she is NOT the worst debater here, Craig will be there because Harley was, and Cycle will be charmingly threatening so Jimro can magically step out from behind the curtain to chastise him and dissappear from the forum for another month.
Let's make a date guys!!! 
Cycle, I really hope that you appreciate the irony of your post, you demonstrated yourself to be an intolerant individual.
The whole point was to be ironic. It's called humour. It stopped being funny when he decided to paint several dozen of my best friends as mentally-ill child molestors, though.
What about 19 year olds with 17 year old partners?
Where's the line? 
~Rico
i keep forgetting that americans aren't 'legal' under the age of 18.
add the different drinking, driving and cinema going ages.. little wonder i get confused.
You forgot Rico jumping in and ripping people apart for no particular reason!
~Rico
Cycle, i don't remember Ultra saying anything about YOUR Friends being Child molesters.
i get what you mean by it, but he didn't Label your friends Specifically as child molesters.
also, did you actually swear in your first post and NOT get warned for it? i remember there was a time when i got warned for double posting when it was my computer's fault.
the mods have grown very lenient wouldn't you say?
