Can a faction boot someone because they are not straight?

Aisubeki - Sanctuary

not to throw a monkey wrench into your gas, but the only statement mentioned about APA/DSM IV was about homophobia, which is not a real fear. but people can feel free to discuss your gas?

Summer_Blush - Heavens Tear

Aisubeki - Sanctuary wrote: »

but the only statement mentioned about APA/DSM IV was about homophobia, which is not a real fear

Just because its in a statement or book w/e, dosent mean that its the absolute truth

Just because the Bible says god existed, does that mean we are forced to believe he existed?

Aisubeki - Sanctuary

DSM = science, data, and research
bible = religion, bunch of old guys writing a bunch of books over 2000 years; in 4 different languages, translated into every modern language in the modern world. (means theres gunna be alot of errors in translation)

you tell me which one is more likely to be bullshiz, darling.

Summer_Blush - Heavens Tear

at the end of the day whichever one you chose to follow your still being fed information from a higher source, and you take it like candy

they both follow the same procedure, its just down to the person what information source he believes is more creditable

MANray_ - Sanctuary

Aisubeki - Sanctuary wrote: »

1. i've mearly stated that your sexual orientation is no one's business, which should in no way be brought into light outside any dating circumstances whatsoever

False, it has been acknowledged by most civilized societies that identity is intrinsic to social interaction and the exercise of cultural rights.

2. homophobia is not an accepted phobia by the DSM-IV

It has however been recognized as a crime in most of the Western World and it is considered a form of discrimination violatory of the universal declaration of human rights.
I fail to see why this distinction seems so important to you, but most psychologists understand homophobia as a form of projection, meaning homophobes usually repress their own homosexual tendencies...

3. **** are not an oppresed minority, they are a people whove made a life choice whom flamboyantly want others to forcibly accept it.

There are many reports of hate crimes against people because of their sexual orientation, not only in parts of the world where patriarcal theocratic societies are in power, but even in Western Europe and the United States. Systematic discrimination, abuse and targetting by hostile groups are undeniable fact. Furthermore, the LGBT society seeks only to be given access to public life and public spaces, no one is being forced to accept anything...

Aisubeki - Sanctuary

False, it has been acknowledged by most civilized societies that identity is intrinsic to social interaction and the exercise of cultural rights.

your identity does not include your sexual orientation; provide it is an equal right/oppurtunity situation. you do not get a job with your sex ori, you do not buy goods with your sex ori, you do not apply to government related documents with your sex ori (voting registrar, etc).

It has however been recognized as a crime in most of the Western World and it is considered a form of discrimination violatory of the universal declaration of human rights.
I fail to see why this distinction seems so important to you, but most psychologists understand homophobia as a form of projection, meaning homophobes usually repress their own homosexual tendencies...

it has not. it has been used as a -blanket- term for all forms of intolerance towards those of said orientation despite the roots of said intolerance, be they religious, ignorance, fear, etc. homophobia is NOT a real fear according to international psychologists, and is not the correct term to be labeling anyone intolerant of those of said orientation.

There are many reports of hate crimes against people because of their sexual orientation, not only in parts of the world where patriarcal theocratic societies are in power, but even in Western Europe and the United States. Systematic discrimination, abuse and targetting by hostile groups are undeniable fact. Furthermore, the LGBT society seeks only to be given access to public life and public spaces, no one is being forced to accept anything...

and there aren't hate crimes against other things, including race (where actual minorities occur in terms of population), religion(again, terms of population), etc. does this mean they are all oppressed individuals? no, it means there are large numbers of ignorant masses. not everyone who is discriminated against is an oppressed minority. they recieve equal rights and oppurtunities by law, and therefore are equal citizens in the eyes of the government. see prop 8's unconstitutionalized overture.

LGBT is just screaming, IM *** LOOK AT ME. the epitome of forced acceptance.

LenieClarke - Heavens Tear

Aisubeki - Sanctuary wrote: »

because sexual orientation has no business anywhere outside dating, be it politics, religion, forums, etc. what people do in the sack is their own business, and not the worlds.

i might consider believing a word of this if i ever saw you --- if i ever saw ANYBODY --- applying this reasoning to heterosexuals. that never happens. strange, isn't that?

both you and the idiot green typer have been using this term, it isnt a real term, stop using it.

would you prefer i start using some more offensive term? i can think of a number of them.

(did you know the term "antisemitism" was invented by an antisemite who got tired of being called a "jew hater"? pretending that there's something wrong with the word "homophobia" is not going to make homophobia suddenly be okay.)

1. they are equally protected under rights of law,

when was the last time somebody got fired from their job, or evicted from their apartment, for being heterosexual? do you think such discrimination would stand up in court?

they are not segregated against, and are entitled to every right an american has. they aren't a minority / second class citizen group at all.

you've never actually spoken to any homosexual people, i see. the real situation is a great deal more complex than that.

2. they are able to get married in a number of states, and states outlawing it have bee overturned by supreme courts recently,

because this is EXACTLY the situation us straight folks are faced with. oh wait --- no it's not, nor was it ever.

on top of this, **** have no need to get married,

trivially true, because nobody actually NEEDS to get married. (hey, let's abolish marriage! for everybody! think that'll go over well?)

this is primarily a religious ceremony,

false and irrelevant. marriage is primarily a matter of civil law, and nobody's trying to tell churches who they can and cannot allow to get married within their congregations anyway; civil marriage will be quite sufficient.

really, you're mainly just proving you have no idea what the real civic debate is all about. you're either willfully ignorant or sadly deluded about how a significant minority of your countrymen are forced to live, and about just what solutions have been proposed for their difficulties.

that's no surprise nor even really any shame --- the USA, this entire world, is complex enough that most all of us are ignorant about quite a lot of it, by necessity --- but you're speaking out of ignorance about real people whose real problems you do not begin to comprehend, in ways that make it clear you oppose those problems ever being actually solved. and that is disgraceful of you.

LenieClarke - Heavens Tear

SashaGray - Heavens Tear wrote: »

here's the gas:

The statement was made that homosexuality has been stated by the APA to NOT be a mental disorder. thats true, but it wasnt always true. Homosexuality does not appear in the DSM IV - the APA bible of metal disorders, however it did appear in the DSM I, II, and III, it was removed due to political pressure.

discuss.

perfectly understandable, because that is how most every change the DSM ever undergoes comes about. that book is a political document outlining what the powers that be wish to consider abnormal far more than it is anything else --- it is far indeed from any objective science, as also is psychiatry itself.

discuss, again.

Borsuc - Raging Tide

LenieClarke - Heavens Tear wrote: »

when was the last time somebody got fired from their job, or evicted from their apartment, for being heterosexual? do you think such discrimination would stand up in court?

You should be able to evict someone from your apartment without any reason, it's none of their business -- as long as the contract allows it, obviously.

Same thing with a faction or basically anything at all. The reason is your own business. Not the GM's or the government's or whatever the hell you want to imply.

LenieClarke - Heavens Tear

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

Same thing with a faction or basically anything at all. The reason is your own business. Not the GM's or the government's or whatever the hell you want to imply.

you might wish to review the first posting i made on this thread, for reference.

Aisubeki - Sanctuary

i might consider believing a word of this if i ever saw you --- if i ever saw ANYBODY --- applying this reasoning to heterosexuals. that never happens. strange, isn't that?

dont be an idiot, refer to my response to manray:

your identity does not include your sexual orientation; provide it is an equal right/oppurtunity situation. you do not get a job with your sex ori, you do not buy goods with your sex ori, you do not apply to government related documents with your sex ori (voting registrar, etc).

would you prefer i start using some more offensive term? i can think of a number of them.

(did you know the term "antisemitism" was invented by an antisemite who got tired of being called a "jew hater"? pretending that there's something wrong with the word "homophobia" is not going to make homophobia suddenly be okay.)

once again, refer to above response:

it has been used as a -blanket- term for all forms of intolerance towards those of said orientation despite the roots of said intolerance, be they religious, ignorance, fear, etc. homophobia is NOT a real fear according to international psychologists, and is not the correct term to be labeling anyone intolerant of those of said orientation.

when was the last time somebody got fired from their job, or evicted from their apartment, for being heterosexual? do you think such discrimination would stand up in court?

this proves my point stupid, they'd be protected under law against that type of discrimination, effectively making them 'an equal citizen under protection of their rights and laws.'

false and irrelevant. marriage is primarily a matter of civil law, and nobody's trying to tell churches who they can and cannot allow to get married within their congregations anyway; civil marriage will be quite sufficient.

wrong, marriage ceremonies and how they are conducted is based off judeo-christian tradition. it is a religious ceremony, where in both religious dotrines, homosexuality is forbidden, therefore it isnt a 'right' they arent recieving. this tends to be their biggest 'ace card' in the discrimination argument and it just doesnt plain work.

you've never actually spoken to any homosexual people, i see. the real situation is a great deal more complex than that.
because this is EXACTLY the situation us straight folks are faced with. oh wait --- no it's not, nor was it ever.

id suggest looking up irrelevant, this is irrelevant, because:
a. sarcasm is not a counter argument
b. talking to a homosexual does not constitute fact, this would be opinion
c. you failed reading comprehension once again

really, you're mainly just proving you have no idea what the real civic debate is all about. you're either willfully ignorant or sadly deluded about how a significant minority of your countrymen are forced to live, and about just what solutions have been proposed for their difficulties.

that's no surprise nor even really any shame --- the USA, this entire world, is complex enough that most all of us are ignorant about quite a lot of it, by necessity --- but you're speaking out of ignorance about real people whose real problems you do not begin to comprehend, in ways that make it clear you oppose those problems ever being actually solved. and that is disgraceful of you.

insinuations and ad hominem, far from actual logical counterargument.

you are an embarassment, and need to stop posting.

MANray_ - Sanctuary

Aisubeki - Sanctuary wrote: »

your identity does not include your sexual orientation; provide it is an equal right/oppurtunity situation. you do not get a job with your sex ori, you do not buy goods with your sex ori, you do not apply to government related documents with your sex ori (voting registrar, etc).

Identity does include gender orientation. Is your family not a part of who you are? Would your wife be not important in defining you? What would be the point of marriage then, if not (at least in part) the acknowledgement of a special bond between two individuals by society? Do you think it has nothing to do with your job? You do not talk about your family with co-workers? You don't bring your partner to social gatherings organized by your employer? You think your boss won't take into account what he knows about your personal life (your plans, your family, how stable you are) when considering you for a promotion? And have you ever bought a magazine because you wanted to look at the pics of the girl in the cover? Never bought clothes that you thought would make you more attractive to women? Are you honestly telling me that in a culture in which attractive women are routinely used to sell all sorts of products to men that your sexual orientation has nothing to do with what you buy? And you think whether you're married is not important when filing a tax report? You think economic dependants are unimportant to social services?

it has not. it has been used as a -blanket- term for all forms of intolerance towards those of said orientation despite the roots of said intolerance, be they religious, ignorance, fear, etc. homophobia is NOT a real fear according to international psychologists, and is not the correct term to be labeling anyone intolerant of those of said orientation.

No, it has not. The term was actually coined by psychologists. And much like other similar terms (such as Xenophobia) it isn't meant to be interpreted in a literal way. You don't call a pair of binoculars a "television" and there are almost no "politicians" left in the world that are members of a city-state...

and there aren't hate crimes against other things, including race (where actual minorities occur in terms of population), religion(again, terms of population), etc. does this mean they are all oppressed individuals? no, it means there are large numbers of ignorant masses. not everyone who is discriminated against is an oppressed minority. they recieve equal rights and oppurtunities by law, and therefore are equal citizens in the eyes of the government. see prop 8's unconstitutionalized overture.

There is no equality by law yet in most of the world, for starters... And the distinction is based on whether discrimination does in fact exist. Most Christian churches still don't accept homosexuals into their priesthoods for instance... Oh, but i forgot according to you there's no job discrimination...

LGBT is just screaming, IM *** LOOK AT ME. the epitome of forced acceptance.

That's free speech in public forums, or did they hold a rally in your living room? If you don't want to accept them just stay in your home, watch Fox news and don't get "curious" when browsing the internet. I guess that if you run into people of a different race on the street they are "forcing" you to accept them...

LenieClarke - Heavens Tear

Aisubeki - Sanctuary wrote: »

your identity does not include your sexual orientation

this is, in fact, not true. one's sexual orientation is a part of one's personality and identity. nor is this controversial --- heck, it's so basic you can look up "identity" in wikipedia, even, and go down the links given there.

it has been used as a -blanket- term for all forms of intolerance towards those of said orientation despite the roots of said intolerance, be they religious, ignorance, fear, etc.

correct. once again, this doesn't actually help your position.

when was the last time somebody got fired from their job, or evicted from their apartment, for being heterosexual? do you think such discrimination would stand up in court?

this proves my point stupid, they'd be protected under law against that type of discrimination, effectively making them 'an equal citizen under protection of their rights and laws.'

you need to start thinking before you type. it is, in fact, quite legal in most jurisdictions to fire or evict an employee / tenant for them being homosexual; part of the homosexual rights movement's bigger beefs these last few decades has involved passing laws to change that. you'd know that, if you'd actually paid attention to what's been being done politically on this front.

it's technically legal to fire or evict people for being straight, too --- unless you live someplace where some *** rights movement has changed that recently, that is. my question to you, once again: do you think such discrimination against heterosexuals would actually stand up in court, regardless of what the law allowed?

wrong, marriage ceremonies and how they are conducted is based off judeo-christian tradition.

you don't think Hindus get married, then? nothing judaeo-christian-islamic about that religion, after all.

i'm an atheist, as is my spouse. our marriage was quite nonreligious. or do you think we can't be married? the city magistrate disagrees, if so, as does (of course) civil law.

marriage as an institution predates every currently practiced religion; throughout history, marriage has had effects that touched directly on whatever passed for civil law at the time --- property law, inheritance law, and family law. those effects have, if anything, been more consistent and enduring than the religious effects of marriage --- which have changed whenever the dominant religion changed, after all.

it is a religious ceremony, where in both religious dotrines, homosexuality is forbidden,

plenty of religious denominations have nothing against homosexuality. would you like to make it a matter of freedom of religion --- theirs, that is?

(and BTW, "both" religious doctrines? is this like playing both kinds of music, country and western?)

you are an embarassment, and need to stop posting.

i am indeed embarrassing you. this is not difficult. i'll keep posting, because embarrassing the ignorant is fun.

ArchSaber - Sanctuary

Funny thread.

Zyfou - Heavens Tear

ArchSaber - Sanctuary wrote: »

Funny thread.

I just want two hot girls to make out after all this.

Please? =D

Axelire - Heavens Tear

Every time someone refers to homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, I think to myself, why would anyone choose to be discriminated against? Why would anyone choose to put themselves in a position where they could be a potential victim to a hate crime? Why would anyone risk being disowned by their family? The list goes on.

b:surrender

SashaGray - Heavens Tear

Summer_Blush - Heavens Tear wrote: »

Do not want!

wanna make out?

Nahktuul - Archosaur

There are teenagers out there comitting suicide because their middle school/high school peers are bullying them because they are ***, or everyone thinks they are ***.

When was the last time you heard of a teenager killing themselves because they were bullied about being straight?

The race thing was done, the woman thing was done. Now its the *** thing. Get over it, stop being so hateful. All that hate does is fuel the fires of hell for you to roast in.

Enjoy.

LenieClarke - Heavens Tear

SashaGray - Heavens Tear wrote: »

Summer_Blush - Heavens Tear wrote:

Do not want!

wanna make out?

gifs! gifs!

Aisubeki - Sanctuary

this is, in fact, not true. one's sexual orientation is a part of one's personality and identity. nor is this controversial --- heck, it's so basic you can look up "identity" in wikipedia, even, and go down the links given there.

wikipedia, wow the ultimate authority on everything.... which can be editted by any moron with a keyboard. read cracked.com's 13 most insane wikipedia goof ups.

your sexual orientation does not pertain to any part of your identification in society. i reiterate, you do not perform basic functions of society where your identity is needed.
-jobs do not require your orientation
-voting doesn't
-purchasing goods doesn't
-applying for any government program doesn't
-signing up for pw doesn't
-when you are pulled over by the cops, it doesn't
-list can go on and on.

you need to start thinking before you type. it is, in fact, quite legal in most jurisdictions to fire or evict an employee / tenant for them being homosexual; part of the homosexual rights movement's bigger beefs these last few decades has involved passing laws to change that. you'd know that, if you'd actually paid attention to what's been being done politically on this front.

this is bull ****. this has been the basis of hudreds if not THOUSANDS of NAACP cases built upon the 14th amendment about people being free to have things of equal oppurtunity regardless of age, sex, race, etc. perfectly legal my ***. i dont know where you are from, but that isnt how things work in the US. if someone denies you a job, house, position, etc based on any of the aforementioned reasons, they are in violation of federal law, and in full rights to be sued for reparations.

you don't think Hindus get married, then? nothing judaeo-christian-islamic about that religion, after all.

which is still steeped in their own religious and cultural qualities, whereas western marriage ceremony is strictly based on judeo christian tradition; a primarily western religion. marriage ceremonies are considered a sanctimonious act under their god.

i'm an atheist, as is my spouse. our marriage was quite nonreligious. or do you think we can't be married? the city magistrate disagrees, if so, as does (of course) civil law.

this is not real marriage, this is called a commonlaw marriage, get your facts straight.
definition: a marriage relationship created by agreement and cohabitation rather than by ceremony

**** have rights to do this in a number of states, which in either way is irrelevant. they arent denied this 'right' because it isnt a 'right' to begin with. they're allowed to love each other are they not? they need a piece of paper to prove this?

marriage as an institution predates every currently practiced religion; throughout history, marriage has had effects that touched directly on whatever passed for civil law at the time --- property law, inheritance law, and family law. those effects have, if anything, been more consistent and enduring than the religious effects of marriage --- which have changed whenever the dominant religion changed, after all.

ignoratio elenchi, weddings aren't business transactions anymore, this is america. we aren't like the old folks in the old country trading our daughters for he who has the most pigs.

plenty of religious denominations have nothing against homosexuality. would you like to make it a matter of freedom of religion --- theirs, that is?

(and BTW, "both" religious doctrines? is this like playing both kinds of music, country and western?)

as in both judaism and christianity disapprove of homosex. it says so in their bibles. just because a certain denomination gets 'liberal' on the church doesn't make that the accepted practice in the entire faith. methodists are essentially taking the bible in their own hands when they go *** backwards to allow marriages, and homosexual pastors.

i am indeed embarrassing myself. this is not difficult. i'll keep posting, because showing my embarrassing ignorance is fun.

fixed this for you.

when you care to actually make valid points like manray, come and talk.

all you do is equate arguments to 'you're a poopie head, and wrong because i say so'

whats even more sad is the fact you are so close minded that anyone who disagrees with homosex is an ultimate evil? grow up, geez.

Deora - Lost City

Axelire - Heavens Tear wrote: »

Every time someone refers to homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, I think to myself, why would anyone choose to be discriminated against? Why would anyone choose to put themselves in a position where they could be a potential victim to a hate crime? Why would anyone risk being disowned by their family? The list goes on.

b:surrender

Which is a good point in proving how stupid it is.

Nahktuul - Archosaur wrote: »

There are teenagers out there comitting suicide because their middle school/high school peers are bullying them because they are ***, or everyone thinks they are ***.

When was the last time you heard of a teenager killing themselves because they were bullied about being straight?

The race thing was done, the woman thing was done. Now its the *** thing. Get over it, stop being so hateful. All that hate does is fuel the fires of hell for you to roast in.

Enjoy.

Think of it this way, why in the hell would being gay make any sense what so ever? The entire purpose of sex, and the only purpose of it is to reproduce (granted humans have turned into into a giant glorified act of etc etc etc...), so why exactly would someone or some animal choose to try and procreate with another one of its kind of the same sex when its obviously going to end up going nowhere, therefore, obviously not normal and is a flaw. People saying that gays should not be hated upon because they are being a discriminated minority are the ones that need to go die in a fire. Why? Just think to yourself, why does being gay make any sense at all, you don't see animals all being gay with each other now do you?

Oh and for those of you wondering Im also one of those people that thinks babies born with birth defects that obviously would prevent them from living if not medically intervened should die OR if they must be kept alive should be sterilized and be prevented from ever being able to reproduce.

I also am strongly against finding "cures" for genetic defects as natural selection should have gotten rid of them because they simply would not be able to survive on their own but "medicine" allows them to stay alive thus setting back all of humanity.

I am sort of split on cancer research depending on the CAUSE of the cancer, if it is self inflicted such as lung cancer they deserve to die, if it is caused by uncontrolled exposure to a toxic substance such as a biological disaster caused by something beyond the control of that person, maybe

I am also strongly against all those "aid" systems that send food etc to other countries, the world is already over populated and struggles to support the people living on it, either figure out how to keep up in the modern world or you are going to die, what are you teaching them by giving them things for free? You are teaching them by being poor and lazy they can get stuff for free from countries that worked and have money, and where does that keep them? right in the poorhouse.

I have no sympathy for the people that feel humans as a whole should be slowed down and have progress reversed because they want to keep morons alive.

Hate me if you want, but I care more about humanity being able to succeed as a whole then one particular person.

Nahktuul - Archosaur

Aisubeki - Sanctuary wrote: »

wikipedia, wow the ultimate authority on everything.... which can be editted by any moron with a keyboard. read cracked.com's 13 most insane wikipedia goof ups.

your sexual orientation does not pertain to any part of your identification in society. i reiterate, you do not perform basic functions of society where your identity is needed.
-jobs do not require your orientation
Many jobs to this day discriminate against g4ys, because the Equal Employment Act actually does NOT cover sexuality or transgender. (Transgender is in a red underline right now, which tells me that transgender is not even accepted in a literary form.
-voting doesn't
-purchasing goods doesn't
-applying for any government program doesn't
-signing up for pw doesn't
-when you are pulled over by the cops, it doesn't
Ever been beaten by the cops because your a qu33r? Because your partner is in the car and you two are obviously g4y?
-list can go on and on.


this is bull ****. this has been the basis of hudreds if not THOUSANDS of NAACP cases built upon the 14th amendment about people being free to have things of equal oppurtunity regardless of age, sex, race, etc. actually, your right. Except you left out sexuality, the whole argument you are proposing, which isnt even accepted. BTW, you also left out disability, which is covered by Federal Law. perfectly legal my ***. i dont know where you are from, but that isnt how things work in the US. if someone denies you a job, house, position, etc based on any of the aforementioned reasons, they are in violation of federal law, and in full rights to be sued for reparations.Incorrect. It isnt against Federal Law to discriminate against sexuality. It is a states decision. And guess what? If your in a red state in America, your screwed if your ***. You have almost 0 rights. Therefore, homosexuals are forced to look to move to places that accept them, not burn them at the stakes.

which is still steeped in their own religious and cultural qualities, whereas western marriage ceremony is strictly based on judeo christian tradition; a primarily western religion. marriage ceremonies are considered a sanctimonious act under their god.


this is not real marriage, this is called a commonlaw marriage, get your facts straight.
definition: a marriage relationship created by agreement and cohabitation rather than by ceremony

**** have rights to do this in a number of states, which in either way is irrelevant. they arent denied this 'right' because it isnt a 'right' to begin with. they're allowed to love each other are they not? they need a piece of paper to prove this? Do straights? Apparently so, since the straights claim to be the one to invent 'marriage'. And we all see how that turned out. But thats not relevant to this thread, is it?



ignoratio elenchi, weddings aren't business transactions anymore, this is america. we aren't like the old folks in the old country trading our daughters for he who has the most pigs. Actually, marriages and divorces are a major part of the American economy. Even more interesting, is that a majority of homosexuals are in that business. Talk to your *** hairdresser or makeup artist at your wedding in the future (if you have one)

as in both judaism and christianity disapprove of homosex. it says so in their bibles. just because a certain denomination gets 'liberal' on the church doesn't make that the accepted practice in the entire faith. methodists are essentially taking the bible in their own hands when they go *** backwards to allow marriages, and homosexual pastors.


fixed this for you.

when you care to actually make valid points like manray, come and talk.

all you do is equate arguments to 'you're a poopie head, and wrong because i say so'

whats even more sad is the fact you are so close minded that anyone who disagrees with homosex is an ultimate evil? grow up, geez.

fixed this for you.

when you care to actually make valid points like myself, come and talk. Also, walk a mile in our shoes before you start claiming to know Federal Law on issues that you have no idea entail.

whats even more sad is the fact that you are so close minded, that anyone who disagrees with ignorance is an ultimate evil? grow up, geez
b:bye

Rillien - Heavens Tear

Deora - Lost City wrote: »

Which is a good point in proving how stupid it is.



Think of it this way, why in the hell would being gay make any sense what so ever? The entire purpose of sex, and the only purpose of it is to reproduce (granted humans have turned into into a giant glorified act of etc etc etc...), so why exactly would someone or some animal choose to try and procreate with another one of its kind of the same sex when its obviously going to end up going nowhere, therefore, obviously not normal and is a flaw. People saying that gays should not be hated upon because they are being a discriminated minority are the ones that need to go die in a fire. Why? Just think to yourself, why does being gay make any sense at all, you don't see animals all being gay with each other now do you?

Oh and for those of you wondering Im also one of those people that thinks babies born with birth defects that obviously would prevent them from living if not medically intervened should die OR if they must be kept alive should be sterilized and be prevented from ever being able to reproduce.

I also am strongly against finding "cures" for genetic defects as natural selection should have gotten rid of them because they simply would not be able to survive on their own but "medicine" allows them to stay alive thus setting back all of humanity.

I am sort of split on cancer research depending on the CAUSE of the cancer, if it is self inflicted such as lung cancer they deserve to die, if it is caused by uncontrolled exposure to a toxic substance such as a biological disaster caused by something beyond the control of that person, maybe

I am also strongly against all those "aid" systems that send food etc to other countries, the world is already over populated and struggles to support the people living on it, either figure out how to keep up in the modern world or you are going to die, what are you teaching them by giving them things for free? You are teaching them by being poor and lazy they can get stuff for free from countries that worked and have money, and where does that keep them? right in the poorhouse.

I have no sympathy for the people that feel humans as a whole should be slowed down and have progress reversed because they want to keep morons alive.

Hate me if you want, but I care more about humanity being able to succeed as a whole then one particular person.

*Takes a deep breath*

I rather think this is one of the most efficient flame-inducing posts I have ever seen. Good luck with the incoming criticisms.

Zyfou - Heavens Tear

Aisubeki - Sanctuary wrote: »

wikipedia, wow the ultimate authority on everything.... which can be editted by any moron with a keyboard. read cracked.com's 13 most insane wikipedia goof ups.

I hope I'm not the only one who couldn't stop laughing at this.

Aisubeki - Sanctuary

Many jobs to this day discriminate against g4ys, because the Equal Employment Act actually does NOT cover sexuality or transgender. (Transgender is in a red underline right now, which tells me that transgender is not even accepted in a literary form.

wrong. look up romer vs evans 1996 ruling against colorado amendment 2 which i quote:

that would have prevented any city, town or county in the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action to recognize *** and **** citizens as a Protected class.

there have been a number of class action suits which have rendered state discrimination to be unconstitutional. and not to sound like a broken record, prop 8 in CA is another perfect example.

Incorrect. It isnt against Federal Law to discriminate against sexuality. It is a states decision. And guess what? If your in a red state in America, your screwed if your ***. You have almost 0 rights. Therefore, homosexuals are forced to look to move to places that accept them, not burn them at the stakes.

refer to the above. its been considered unconstitutional in a number of states to even deny them any kinds of rights as a citizen. red state lol...

Do straights? Apparently so, since the straights claim to be the one to invent 'marriage'. And we all see how that turned out. But thats not relevant to this thread, is it?

if the ceremony part is of a religious institution, seperation of church and state gives the church plenty of right to deny **** a marriage ceremony. what part of it is legal for **** to get married under commonlaw in a ton of places dont people understand? this isn't a deny of rights whatsoever.

Actually, marriages and divorces are a major part of the American economy. Even more interesting, is that a majority of homosexuals are in that business. Talk to your *** hairdresser or makeup artist at your wedding in the future (if you have one)

since when? and how is this even relevant? marriage ceremonies aren't like the **** business, tv, music, entertainment etc.

when you care to actually make valid points like myself, come and talk. Also, walk a mile in our shoes before you start claiming to know Federal Law on issues that you have no idea entail.

fool, walk a mile in the shoes of a real discriminated race or religion, then you can come and ***** about being butthurt.

can the government deny the existance of your race? they can in mine if our territory is in conflict of interest of commercialism/industry.

can the government unlawfully possess and seize your land without repairations? they did it to mine.

have your people been systematically *****, pillaged, and purposely killed in the name of expansion? mine have.

ignorance is bliss they say...

JanusZeal - Heavens Tear

Deora - Lost City wrote: »

Which is a good point in proving how stupid it is.



Think of it this way, why in the hell would being gay make any sense what so ever? The entire purpose of sex, and the only purpose of it is to reproduce (granted humans have turned into into a giant glorified act of etc etc etc...), so why exactly would someone or some animal choose to try and procreate with another one of its kind of the same sex when its obviously going to end up going nowhere, therefore, obviously not normal and is a flaw. People saying that gays should not be hated upon because they are being a discriminated minority are the ones that need to go die in a fire. Why? Just think to yourself, why does being gay make any sense at all, you don't see animals all being gay with each other now do you?

Oh and for those of you wondering Im also one of those people that thinks babies born with birth defects that obviously would prevent them from living if not medically intervened should die OR if they must be kept alive should be sterilized and be prevented from ever being able to reproduce.

I also am strongly against finding "cures" for genetic defects as natural selection should have gotten rid of them because they simply would not be able to survive on their own but "medicine" allows them to stay alive thus setting back all of humanity.

I am sort of split on cancer research depending on the CAUSE of the cancer, if it is self inflicted such as lung cancer they deserve to die, if it is caused by uncontrolled exposure to a toxic substance such as a biological disaster caused by something beyond the control of that person, maybe

I am also strongly against all those "aid" systems that send food etc to other countries, the world is already over populated and struggles to support the people living on it, either figure out how to keep up in the modern world or you are going to die, what are you teaching them by giving them things for free? You are teaching them by being poor and lazy they can get stuff for free from countries that worked and have money, and where does that keep them? right in the poorhouse.

I have no sympathy for the people that feel humans as a whole should be slowed down and have progress reversed because they want to keep morons alive.

Hate me if you want, but I care more about humanity being able to succeed as a whole then one particular person.

Actually, yes, homosexuality is documented in the animal kingdom.. so much for your laughable philosophical spiel on that.

Next, lung cancer is also a product of second hand smoke, not just first hand. Oops?

All I will say, since you don't deserve nearly as long of a post in response, is, if your laughable post is actually serious and not just some silly troll attempt, chances are you post silly nonsense behind a computer as a beneficiary of booster shots and other immunizations which are not a product of natural selection -- they are artificially created and used for human compassion to help us live. Chances also are that you've visited the hospital at numerous points in your life, and surely the aid you received would have ended up with you being worse off if not cost you your life or livelihood or quality of life, if you didn't receive it, so please don't be a hypocrite and waste compassionate people's time trying to seek aid when you get injured or sick. Let natural selection take place. I'm all for consistency, but I guarantee at best you're a troll, and at worst, you're a hypocrite. b:bye

Aisubeki - Sanctuary wrote: »

wikipedia, wow the ultimate authority on everything.... which can be editted by any moron with a keyboard. read cracked.com's 13 most insane wikipedia goof ups.

Wikipedia, and any actual encyclopaedia, are only a good as it's sources. Far more often than not, Wikipedia is well sourced, which is far better than what "any moron" can do and simply dismiss something without actually making a better or better sourced argument.

LenieClarke - Heavens Tear

Aisubeki - Sanctuary wrote: »

wikipedia, wow the ultimate authority on everything....

so when even wikipedia knows better than you... how wrong are you, then?

your sexual orientation does not pertain to any part of your identification in society. i reiterate, you do not perform basic functions of society where your identity is needed.
-jobs do not require your orientation

yet people get fired from their jobs for having the wrong one. QED.

this is bull ****. this has been the basis of hudreds if not THOUSANDS of NAACP cases built upon the 14th amendment about people being free to have things of equal oppurtunity regardless of age, sex, race, etc.

sexual orientation is not part of that "etc". activists on my side of this argument are fighting hard to make it so, but so far, that's a fight being carried out on the local and (occasionally) state level. U.S. federal law does not consider sexual orientation to constitute any protected class.

once again, even wikipedia knows you're wrong; look up the civil rights act of 1968 --- or look it up anywhere else, don't restrict yourself to wiki just because i can prove you wrong with that alone.

perfectly legal my ***. i dont know where you are from, but that isnt how things work in the US. if someone denies you a job, house, position, etc based on any of the aforementioned reasons, they are in violation of federal law, and in full rights to be sued for reparations.

the "aforementioned reasons", as far as U.S. federal law is concerned, extend only to race, color, national origin, disabilities, and family-with-children status. not to sexual orientation, nor to gender identity for that matter.

which is still steeped in their own religious and cultural qualities, whereas western marriage ceremony is strictly based on judeo christian tradition; a primarily western religion. marriage ceremonies are considered a sanctimonious act under their god.

i take it "secular nation" is another term you've never heard of, then. nor "separation of church and state", for a certainty.

this is not real marriage, this is called a commonlaw marriage, get your facts straight.

i did. so did wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law_marriage

what i have got is a civil marriage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage --- common law marriage is not even legal in my jurisdiction, to the best of my knowledge. but that's because my state has passed statute law abolishing it, not because common law marriages were ever "not real" to begin with. to the contrary, when and where they existed as a matter of law they were exactly as real as any other marriage, by definition.

really, proving you wrong with nothing better than wikipedia IS very embarrassing. for you.

**** have rights to do this in a number of states,

no, they do not. (name two. cite the state laws that support your contention. i'll google up the actual statute texts to double-check you, once you provide the cites.)

which in either way is irrelevant. they arent denied this 'right' because it isnt a 'right' to begin with. they're allowed to love each other are they not? they need a piece of paper to prove this?

of course not, no more than my spouse and i do. but that piece of paper is DAMN handy when we need to make medical decisions for each other, get each other covered as dependants under insurance policies, jointly own marital property, and on and on and on. you know, matters pertaining to civil law. i keep bringing that term up, maybe you should try to research it?

ignoratio elenchi, weddings aren't business transactions anymore, this is america. we aren't like the old folks in the old country trading our daughters for he who has the most pigs.

did i say we were or should be? marriage touches on property law because married couples own property in common. imagine that! (trust me, you'll understand this better once you get your very own mortgage with your spouse's name on it next to yours. or maybe you won't until you get to divvy up that joint property, in this thing called "divorce court"...)

as in both judaism and christianity disapprove of homosex.

and anything that isn't one of those two doesn't exist to you. any more than reform judaism or liberal christian denominations do. certainly you don't feel any need to give any consideration to people holding any such opinions, because... well, apparently just because they're too different from your own for you to care. newsflash: that is bigotry.

Nahktuul - Archosaur

Aisubeki - Sanctuary wrote: »

wrong. look up romer vs evans 1996 ruling against colorado amendment 2 which i quote:

there have been a number of class action suits which have rendered state discrimination to be unconstitutional. and not to sound like a broken record, prop 8 in CA is another perfect example.

refer to the above. its been considered unconstitutional in a number of states to even deny them any kinds of rights as a citizen. red state lol...


if the ceremony part is of a religious institution, seperation of church and state gives the church plenty of right to deny **** a marriage ceremony. what part of it is legal for **** to get married under commonlaw in a ton of places dont people understand? this isn't a deny of rights whatsoever.


since when? and how is this even relevant? marriage ceremonies aren't like the **** business, tv, music, entertainment etc.



fool, walk a mile in the shoes of a real discriminated race or religion, then you can come and ***** about being butthurt.

can the government deny the existance of your race? they can in mine if our territory is in conflict of interest of commercialism/industry.

can the government unlawfully possess and seize your land without repairations? they did it to mine.

have your people been systematically *****, pillaged, and purposely killed in the name of expansion? mine have.

ignorance is bliss they say...

It is obvious you enjoy living in bliss shrouded as ignorance. I wish you well in your journey to truth. Whatever form you decide it to be.

BTW, I read through your jabber of nonsene. You speak entirely of seperate states. Not as a nation as a whole.

Just because states and a 'number of lawsuits' happen, doesnt make it A-OK. It is until it is written into the law of the Federal Government that the victory is won.


Bless your heart, its filled with such rage.

Aisubeki - Sanctuary

Wikipedia, and any actual encyclopaedia, are only a good as it's sources. Far more often than not, Wikipedia is well sourced, which is far better than what "any moron" can do and simply dismiss something without actually making a better or better sourced argument.

wikipedia in my eyes is like reducing any evil in society to nazism. just about anything can be related to it, but aren't there much better sources and examples out there people can use? wikipedia just seems like a cop out excuse for a source to site.

http://www.bestcollegesonline.com/blog/2009/02/10/25-biggest-blunders-in-wikipedia-history/
http://www.cracked.com/article_16939_5-celebrity-wikipedia-entries-clearly-written-by-that-celebrity.html
http://www.pcworld.com/article/170874/the_15_biggest_wikipedia_blunders.html

---

It is obvious you enjoy living in bliss shrouded as ignorance. I wish you well in your journey to truth. Whatever form you decide it to be.

BTW, I read through your jabber of nonsene. You speak entirely of seperate states. Not as a nation as a whole.

Just because states and a 'number of lawsuits' happen, doesnt make it A-OK. It is until it is written into the law of the Federal Government that the victory is won.


Bless your heart, its filled with such rage.

or, you are just another one of those bleeding heart whiners who just cant accept the fact there are such things as disapproval without hate. tolerance does not equate to acceptance, i do not need to accept your lifestyle, like i said to OP... get over it, its just one opinion out of 6 billion.

saying,
yo troll, y u mad? doesnt equate to validity whatsoever.

Deora - Lost City

januszeal - Heavens Tear wrote: »

actually, Yes, homosexuality Is Documented In The Animal Kingdom.. So Much For Your Laughable Philosophical Spiel On That.

Next, Lung Cancer Is Also A Product Of Second Hand Smoke, Not Just First Hand. Oops?
did You Not See Where I Said self Inflicted Smoking Like A Chimney Is Gonna Cause That

All I Will Say, Since You Don't Deserve Nearly As Long Of A Post In Response, Is, If Your Laughable Post Is Actually Serious And Not Just Some Silly Troll Attempt, Chances Are You Post Silly Nonsense Behind A Computer as A Beneficiary Of Booster Shots And Other Immunizations Which Are Not A Product Of Natural Selection
oh How Wrong You Are... I Haven't Gone To A Hospital In Well Over A Decade And That Was Only To Pick Up My Very Brief Medical History For Someone That Wanted It, I Also Haven't Been To A Doctor In Well Over A Decade As Well... I Also Don't Take Any Medication Whatsoever And Rarely Get Sick, Ever Heard Of Healthy Diet Etc? Vitamin C Which Is Naturally Occurring Is Very Good For Your Immune System I Might Add
-- they Are Artificially Created And Used For Human Compassion To Help Us Live. Chances Also Are That You've Visited The Hospital At Numerous Points In Your Life, And Surely The Aid You Received Would Have Ended Up With You Being Worse Off If Not Cost You Your Life Or Livelihood Or Quality Of Life, So Please Don't Be A Hypocrite And Waste Compassionate People's Time Trying To Seek Aid When You Get Injured Or Sick. Let Natural Selection Take Place.
id Be All For That, But Seeing As How I Said Above I Really Don't Ever Get Sick That Has Yet To Happen i'm All For Consistency, But I Guarantee At Best You're A Troll, And At Worst, You're A Hypocrite. B:bye

i Will Admit I Wrote That Entire Post In A Tone Meant Just To **** People Off, But, All Of My Points Are Valid.


wikipedia, And Any Actual Encyclopaedia, Are Only A Good As It's Sources. Far More Often Than Not, Wikipedia Is Well Sourced, Which Is Far Better Than What "any Moron" Can Do And Simply Dismiss Something Without Actually Making A Better Or Better Sourced Argument. i Do Hope You Were Not Directing That At Me As You Know... I Never Said Wikipedia Isn't A Good Source