Definition for Terrorist: Liberal Democrat

[Reaktor4]

You haven't been here long, have you?

Over a year ago i used to lurk, then again a while ago and finally i bothered to register. I generally dont read threads like that on forums.

Do a search. They pop up once every 2 months or so. They are usually several hundred posts long to.

So what? At the end do people usually believe anything other than what they did at the start?

 

[Neutrino]

lol? I hope you're joking. there are so many things wrong with that logic.
Supposition: Wars destroy humanity.
Fact: Wars has always happened throughout history.
Fact: There are 6 bilion people today, more than there was in the past.
Conclusion: False.

You say my logic is wrong and then you go and prove it.

Your supposition that wars destroys humanity is indeed wrong and your conclusion is correct. Wars indeed haven't destroyed humanity. But you are trying to twist my example into something it is not. Wars are obviously harmful and they kill people. This is obvious. So trying to use that as an analogy for gays is inaccurate as gays do not harm or kill people.

anyways .. look at western societies, and tell me they are healthy!!

They are healthy. Not saying they can't be improved by any means, but things are getting better over time.

Though I think they would be healthier if there was a greater acceptance of all minorities, including gays.

I'm sorry, but I think the opinions that gays harm society is entirely founded on baseless speculation, a lack of information on the subject, and prejudice . There is no evidence to suggest that gays harm society.

I'm constantly amazed that people are willing to condemn an entire group of people without any real evidence to back them up. I'm sorry, but in my opinion if for some reason it was necessary to condemn someone you should have a damn good reason that is backed up by evidence and is obviously true. None of which is true when it comes to gays. Yet, many people have no problem saying they are wrong, evil, harmful, etc without any real reasons.

Honestly, it makes me sick.

 

[blahblahblah]

So what? At the end do people usually believe anything other than what they did at the start?

And I quote..."Fine, nobody ever gets anywhere in religious arguments anyway". Now you say - "so what?"

Changing your mind?

 

[Reaktor4]

No. You dont know what the common phrase getting somewhere means? That surprises me but whatever..
Ok, if people argue, and eventually some of them change their minds because they see that the 'other side' was right, they have gotten somewhere. If everyone still thinks what they did at the beginning, as is the case 99% of the time in religious arguments, they have gotten nowhere.

 

[Narcolepsy]

This thread is a joke. My sanity and hope for the human race depends on this fact.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Only 24 hours ban? C'mon, he deserves more than that.

He's made a thread based on preaching hate, created multiple profiles for use in said hate, and has been spamming similar semi-literate sentence length posts for months.

This would be the worst joke ever, except I swear that this is not a gag.
He's not smart enough to stay in 'character' like this for this long.

I'd say a perma-ban is warranted.


As for gay marriage, this thread is further proof that I will never, ever have to give up the prize in my sig.

 

[hasan]

They are healthy. Not saying they can't be improved by any means, but things are getting better over time.

Though I think they would be healthier if there was a greater acceptance of all minorities, including gays.

meh ..
Think in terms of family bonds, social relationships, family values .. etc.
I'm trying not to be offensive as much as I can, but it's kinda hard ..

I'm sorry, but I think the opinions that gays harm society is entirely founded on baseless speculation, a lack of information on the subject, and prejudice . There is no evidence to suggest that gays harm society.

I'm constantly amazed that people are willing to condemn an entire group of people without any real evidence to back them up. I'm sorry, but in my opinion if for some reason it was necessary to condemn someone you should have a damn good reason that is backed up by evidence and is obviously true. None of which is true when it comes to gays. Yet, many people have no problem saying they are wrong, evil, harmful, etc without any real reasons.

Honestly, it makes me sick.

Gays are not a "group of people" as in a social or racial group or minority.
NOBODY is born gay (although you disagree .. ) so your argument is meaningless. It's like saying that condemning drugs is prejudice, well guess what, it's not.
drugs must be stopeed and drugs addicts must be treated and cured from their addiction.

 

[Reaktor4]

It's like saying that condemning drugs is prejudice, well guess what, it's not.
drugs must be stopeed and drugs addicts must be treated and cured from their addiction.

Hey, lets make them illegal. Thatll stop them.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Gays are not a "group of people" as in a social or racial group or minority.
NOBODY is born gay (although you disagree .. ) so your argument is meaningless. It's like saying that condemning drugs is prejudice, well guess what, it's not.
drugs must be stopeed and drugs addicts must be treated and cured from their addiction.

Actually, even if nobody is born gay, then a law would be more similar to religious persecution, rather than racial.
Religion is not something you are born with, yet it is protected and allowed. Neut's argument is meaningful and valid.

Also, addiction and illness have almost nothing to do with banning drugs. Otherwise, why would we still have alchohol and nicotene?
What is banned is the harming of others. Drugs are intrinsically related to crime. Gays harm no-one through marriage.
Also, being gay is not an illness, as it causes no detriment outside of persecution.

Also, the argument that gays and family are mutually exclusive is a baseless claim. It only doesn't match your family.

 

[hasan]

in a secular society, there is no meaning to banning gays really. I was just stating my view, which doesn't apply to western societies. why? because before we talk about gays, talk about drugs, alcohol, porn .. (yes porn .. it should be made illegal).

gayness is not like religion, gayness is like drugs, it's a (bad) practice that has negative side efects on society.

Also, addiction and illness have almost nothing to do with banning drugs. Otherwise, why would we still have alchohol and nicotene?

alcohol should be banned too, IMO. tobacoo too definetly.

 

[Steve]

gayness is not like religion, gayness is like drugs, it's a (bad) practice that has negative side efects on society.

umm...hasan? when was the last time somebody ran over a kid with their car because they were gay? or killed some old lady to get some money so that they could pay for gay sex?

 

[CptStern]

lets all agree on this: you live your life I live mine; I have no say in yours, you have no say in mine

 

[Steve]

lets all agree on this: you live your life I live mine; I have no say in yours, you have no say in mine

now, those are words i can live by.

 

[Neutrino]

in a secular society, there is no meaning to banning gays really.

I wish more peope realized that.

I was just stating my view, which doesn't apply to western societies. why? because before we talk about gays, talk about drugs, alcohol, porn .. (yes porn .. it should be made illegal).

gayness is not like religion, gayness is like drugs, it's a (bad) practice that has negative side efects on society.


alcohol should be banned too, IMO. tobacoo too definetly.

Gayness is like drugs? No it's ****ing not. You continue to make completely meaningless comparisons to try to back up your opinion. You don't seem to actually have any valid reasons at all.

Drugs and alcohol affect people. Gays have nothing in common with them. They do not affect other people! The only possible way they affect you is because you can't mind your own business and stay out of their bedrooms.

Like I said before, gays are not harmful. They don't affect anyone else any more than heterosexuals do.

If you don't like gays, fine. But don't try to fabricate evidence and change reality just to fit your opinions.

 

[hasan]

You continue to make completely meaningless comparisons to try to back up your opinion. You don't seem to actually have any valid reasons at all.

This is what I think you are doing, except I ran into more people who have your opinion so I kinda got over it.

The only possible way they affect you is because you can't mind your own business and stay out of their bedrooms.

maybe when they stop getting thier bedroom to the outside world? nobodyu is trying to go into thier bedroom, they are the ones trying to sell what's happening in their bedroom.

 

[Subatomic]

Hasan, you think people CHOOSE to be gay. It is not their 'fault'. They are not addicted. It is a genetic trait, you idiot.

They cannot be treated to become straight

 

[hasan]

Hasan, you think people CHOOSE to be gay. It is not their 'fault'. They are not addicted. It is a genetic trait, you idiot.

They cannot be treated to become straight

I'm not an idiot.

And people are not born gay. whoever brainwashed you with that nonesense.

 

[Narcolepsy]

I'm not an idiot.

And people are not born gay. whoever brainwashed you with that nonesense.

And how do you know that? Is there some scientific breakthrough in the last 5 minutes that I am not aware of?

 

[Neutrino]

This is what I think you are doing, except I ran into more people who have your opinion so I kinda got over it.

No, I'm basing my opinions off personal experience and scientific evidence. You are grasping at straws and quoting anti gay sites.

maybe when they stop getting thier bedroom to the outside world? nobodyu is trying to go into thier bedroom, they are the ones trying to sell what's happening in their bedroom.

That is complete and utter bullshit. The only reason there is focus on what goes on in people's bedrooms is because some people don't like gays and think it's somehow their business when it's not.

You know, there were once people that thought blacks were stealing white women and contaminating the white race. What you are doing is no different.

I'm not an idiot.

And people are not born gay. whoever brainwashed you with that nonesense.

Yes, they are.

Have you ever talked with a gay person about it?

Did you choose your own sexuality? Do you consciously decide who you find attractive and who you don't? No, and niether do gays. They are human, just like the rest of us.

I'm brainwashed? Well if listening to current pyschological and genetic findings, talking with gays about the subject, and thinking logically about the issue is brainwashing, I guess I am brainwashed.

I guess I'm also brainwashed into believe that the Earth orbits the Sun too huh?

Gays have been around all throughout history as I've said numerous times. It's natural for a certain perentage of the population to be gay.

If you want some current findings on the subject here:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993008
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996533
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996519

Even if it that wasn't true and that your (unfounded) idea that they are not born that way was accurate it still wouldn't matter. Even if they chose the lifestyle they are still not hurting anyone.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I'm going to have to differ to Neut and Narco's posts.
Calling homosexuality a result of choice is a baseless assumption, especially in light of pretty much all scientific evidence out there.
But if facts aren't your thing, here's a common-sense answer to it too:

If there were no natural inclination to be gay, why would people choose it?

If the only naturally-occuring sexuality were to be straight, then there would be no gays.

But, since people are gay, and there is no artificial reason for them to be gay, we can only assume that it's natural.

 

[Neutrino]

Wait, do you mean differ or defer?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Pft, I mean what I meant!





...Actually, yeah I meant defer. It was a full-word typo. :O

 

[mchammer75040]

in a secular society, there is no meaning to banning gays really. I was just stating my view, which doesn't apply to western societies. why? because before we talk about gays, talk about drugs, alcohol, porn .. (yes porn .. it should be made illegal).

What the f*ck? Why in the hell should porn, alcohol and drugs be illegal? I love how you think you have the right to stick your nose in everyone elses business and tell them how they should live.

maybe when they stop getting thier bedroom to the outside world? nobodyu is trying to go into thier bedroom, they are the ones trying to sell what's happening in their bedroom.

What the hell are you talking about? You and merc go hand and hand seriously.

 

[blahblahblah]

...Actually, yeah I meant defer. It was a full-word typo. :O

that made me lol for some reason. Something about full-word typo's

 

[Mechagodzilla]

It's mostly a result of me pronouncing defer as "differ" to annoy my grammar-sensitive friends. Looks like it's carried over to typing somehow.

maybe when they stop getting thier bedroom to the outside world? nobodyu is trying to go into thier bedroom, they are the ones trying to sell what's happening in their bedroom.

What the hell are you talking about? You and merc go hand and hand seriously.

Thankfully not as bad as merc, but it is somewhat hypocritical that he's complaining about open sexuality while simultaneously promoting a hetero lifestyle.

 

[MadHatter]

I agree that Michael Moore is a sensational piece of crap.

The title of this thread is full of rhino poo though. The root word of "liberal" is liberty. I don't know about the initiator of this thread, but last time I checked liberty was a defining word of freedom, civil rights, etc. and terrorism was a psychological method of warfare intended to instill fear and terror.

Regarding the homosexual marriage issue:

Yes, homosexuality is natural and not a choice. I can barely remember the article I read, but it is caused by a difference in chemical composition or different chemical balances... Or whatever the hell I read. I might see a guy and say, "Damn, that's a sexy dude. Wish I was as hot as that guy or looked like that" (someone like Brad Pitt, for example), shrug and move on to check out some girl's toosh -- no big deal to me. A homosexual guy, however, will be more aroused and feel inclined to 'make a move' on Brad Pitt as a result of his chemical inbalance -- or just fall deeply love and buy the poor fellow some flowers. They just can't help it.... It's really as simple as that.

Now, about marriage and all that jazz: I believe homosexual marriage should be advocated; HOWEVER, don't call it marriage; call it something that means the same thing as marriage but just don't call it marriage. They added 'jiggy' to the dictionary. I'm sure someone can come up with a new word for homosexual marriage.

I vote no for allowing homosexual couples parenting children. Marriage is suppose to help nurture children with stability. Two fathers or mothers is not stability. The only way I can fathom homosexual coulpes parenting is this: We have a female couple and the father / male gaurdian of the child cooperates by performing his duties of what is expected from a father / male gaurdian.

Just my 1/2 cent...

 

[Narcolepsy]

Excellent post, Neutrino. Maybe your articles mentioned this, but wasn't there a study that proved that animals have a tendency to be gay in about the same proportion as humans?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

The title of this thread is full of rhino poo though. The root word of "liberal" is liberty. I don't know about the initiator of this thread, but last time I checked liberty was a defining word of freedom, civil rights, etc. and terrorism was a psychological method of warfare intended to instill fear and terror.

It's especially poo-poo since terrorists are mostly extremist religious fundamentalists. Just look at the taliban. They're the least liberal people on earth, just about. Fighting to subjugate women and create theocracy, and so on.

Now, about marriage and all that jazz: I believe homosexual marriage should be advocated; HOWEVER, don't call it marriage; call it something that means the same thing as marriage but just don't call it marriage. They added 'jiggy' to the dictionary. I'm sure someone can come up with a new word for homosexual marriage.

I vote no for allowing homosexual couples parenting children. Marriage is suppose to help nurture children with stability. Two fathers or mothers is not stability. The only way I can fathom homosexual coulpes parenting is this: We have a female couple and the father / male gaurdian of the child cooperates by performing his duties of what is expected from a father / male gaurdian.

Just my 1/2 cent...

I'm going to disagree with you on those two cents though. (or half-cents , in this case) There's no reason why gays can't call marriage whatever they want. If they want to call it marriage, it's up to them.

And that argument against gay parentage would work, but only if gender stereotypes were more common. It's not like if a kid had two dads, they'd both have 9-to-5 jobs and wouldn't do any housecleaning, or in the case of two moms they would only do chores and and cook dinner.
Any responsable set of parents would find a reasonable balance of childrearing and gainful employment, and there's no reason for gays to be an exception to that.

So, the only way you could fathom it is also basically the only way it'll happen.

 

[MadHatter]

Excellent post, Neutrino. Maybe your articles mentioned this, but wasn't there a study that proved that animals have a tendency to be gay in about the same proportion as humans?

Yes. Infact, I believe they've discovered homosexual lions. If I recall correctly, penguins are also noted for forming marriage-type bonds similar to humans and sometimes homosexual couples / groups.

Another thing I thought I might point out is homosexuality in ancient times. Homosexuality was a common aspect of many people in Greece, Rome, Egypt, etc. People didn't eschew or scold homosexuals, it was rather accepted as a normal thing. Something to remember: Don't be under the impression that all homos are panzies. Alexander the Great was homosexual (some might say bi-sexual). He's one of many famous peeps.

Rigid religious rules caused homosexuals to crawl under rocks. Time has progressed. Religion and people have become more accepting and tolerant again. Thus, homosexuals feel less afraid or ashamed than they previously felt and are more willing to open up and reveal themselves these days.

 

[merc]

guys, sorry about last night everything i said was just a joke i was just messing around cause i was real bored last night... sorry for getting you all riled up so much and sorry to hasan and neutrino for arguing so much... lol really i was just seeing how mad i could get you guys, sorry about that... hasan forgive me plz no hard feelings... lol i knew i wouldnt say i was just playin but like i said i wasnt going to say taht earlier i knew i was going to end up saying that because i was really just playing... sorry guys! just think the same of me as you did before this thread and forget it ever happened peace homies

-merc

 

[sublidieminal]

Mother Love says forgive and forget!

 

[MadHatter]

I'm going to disagree with you on those two cents though. (or half-cents , in this case) There's no reason why gays can't call marriage whatever they want. If they want to call it marriage, it's up to them.

And that argument against gay parentage would work, but only if gender stereotypes were more common. It's not like if a kid had two dads, they'd both have 9-to-5 jobs and wouldn't do any housecleaning, or in the case of two moms they would only do chores and and cook dinner.
Any responsable set of parents would find a reasonable balance of childrearing and gainful employment, and there's no reason for gays to be an exception to that.

So, the only way you could fathom it is also basically the only way it'll happen.

Marriage is defined as a unification of man and woman. Call it whatever, just not marriage. Maybe they can call it homarriage... I dunno. I'll think about this and come back later. I haven't heeded this issue much thought lately.

You missed the point of my stability argument by a few degrees. I'm damn sure two guys or two girls could coordinate an effective 'stability plan' to care for a child... But it's not exatcly that; it's HOW they care and nurture a child. If a boy is being raised by two women, how will he fare without a fatherly-figure to guide him through his path to manhood and his troubling times relating to his gender (puberty!!!)? That's the core principle of marriage.

I just thought of something, too. I wonder if homosexuals married in ancient times and how frequently... Think I'll go look it up because I don't remember. Back then there was so much stress to have an heir though.

 

[Neutrino]

Marriage is defined as a unification of man and woman. Call it whatever, just not marriage. Maybe they can call it homarriage... I dunno. I'll think about this and come back later. I haven't heeded this issue much thought lately.

I think I understand where you're coming from, but I have to disagree.

Here I'll repost what I've written before on the subect:

Also, as I've stated earlier some people are for civil unions but against gay marriage. I'll just reiterate that this position is in essence just as discriminatory as being against gay marriage. At one time in our past the exact same argument was used to justify segregation in schools between black and white students. The argument was fundamentally flawed then and it is just as flawed now. For an example consider this:

Segregation was justified by the argument that both the black students and white students received the same treatment and the same education so there was no discrimination. After all, if you have two identical schools with identical curriculums and you fill one with white students and one with black students where's the problem?

Niether school is superior to the other, both groups get the same rights and the same access to an education so what's the problem? But of course there was a problem. This is because they were forced to attend different schools. This kind of segregation has been shown to be discriminating and is of course why this sort of thing is illegal now.

Now what if we just change a few words:

Niether union is superior to the other, both unions get the same rights and the same access to a legal union so what's the problem? But of course there is a problem. This is because they are forced to use different names for the union. This kind of segregation has been shown to be discriminating and is of course why this sort of thing should be illegal now.

It's a "same but different" argument that has been used to discriminate against groups in the past as well.

Furthermore, it is wrong for two other reasons. One, marriage is secular when it comes to the government. I, an atheist, have just as much right to marry as a Christian or other religious person. The argument against gay marriage is a religious one for the most part, which cannot be used to create laws. If one religion controlled marriage I wouldn't be able to marry either. Second, forcing gays to call it something other than marriage violates the first amendment in my opinion. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Many gays are religious as well and they believe in the a religious marriage just like other religious people do. But to force them to change the name of their religious ceremony would be to interfere with a religious practice.

You missed the point of my stability argument by a few degrees. I'm damn sure two guys or two girls could coordinate an effective 'stability plan' to care for a child... But it's not exatcly that; it's HOW they care and nurture a child. If a boy is being raised by two women, how will he fare without a fatherly-figure to guide him through his path to manhood and his troubling times relating to his gender (puberty!!!)? That's the core principle of marriage.

Well, this really isn't an issue as gays already have the right to adopt. The controversy is just about gay marriage. Kind of funny isn't it? It's legal for them to adopt children but not to marry. Something doesn't quite make sense there.

But anyway, to address you point, how do you feel about single parents? Are you against singles adopting children too? (They can)

guys, sorry about last night everything i said was just a joke i was just messing around cause i was real bored last night... sorry for getting you all riled up so much and sorry to hasan and neutrino for arguing so much... lol really i was just seeing how mad i could get you guys, sorry about that... hasan forgive me plz no hard feelings... lol i knew i wouldnt say i was just playin but like i said i wasnt going to say taht earlier i knew i was going to end up saying that because i was really just playing... sorry guys! just think the same of me as you did before this thread and forget it ever happened peace homies

-merc

Oh, you were just playing! Hahahah....**** off.

Sorry, apology not accepted. As far as I'm concerned you should be permanently banned and hopefully you will be sometime.

If it was meant to be a joke, it wasn't funny. Though, I doubt it was a joke as you've ben spouting the same crap for months.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

You missed the point of my stability argument by a few degrees. I'm damn sure two guys or two girls could coordinate an effective 'stability plan' to care for a child... But it's not exatcly that; it's HOW they care and nurture a child. If a boy is being raised by two women, how will he fare without a fatherly-figure to guide him through his path to manhood and his troubling times relating to his gender (puberty!!!)? That's the core principle of marriage.

My dad has never really given me any counsel on gender issues and so on, and I understand everything fairly well, I think.
There isn't much that two women can't teach a male child. They just can't speak from experience.
All you need is adequate knowledge of the topic and, if that fails, sex ed.

Edit: I agree with Neut. This was the worst "joke" I've ever seen in my entire life, and it fully deserves a ban.
And I agree that probably was based on a true story.

 

[MadHatter]

Good points, Neut. This is a very hipocritical and contridicting subject that's injected with morals, traditions, opinions, and the works.

I'll have to ponder on this and respond later. I'm on the verge of altering some views of mine if I cannot see any logical reason not to.

 

[MadHatter]

My dad has never really given me any counsel on gender issues and so on, and I understand everything fairly well, I think.
There isn't much that two women can't teach a male child. They just can't speak from experience.
All you need is adequate knowledge of the topic and, if that fails, sex ed.

Edit: I agree with Neut. This was the worst "joke" I've ever seen in my entire life, and it fully deserves a ban.
And I agree that probably was based on a true story.

Yeah, some kids who grew up in a homosexual or single parent environment turn out okay and some don't (same goes for mother-father households). It's almost like a roll of the dice. But again, the factor is the quality of the parenting for your example.

 

[Sparta]

guys, sorry about last night everything i said was just a joke i was just messing around cause i was real bored last night... sorry for getting you all riled up so much and sorry to hasan and neutrino for arguing so much... lol really i was just seeing how mad i could get you guys, sorry about that... hasan forgive me plz no hard feelings... lol i knew i wouldnt say i was just playin but like i said i wasnt going to say taht earlier i knew i was going to end up saying that because i was really just playing... sorry guys! just think the same of me as you did before this thread and forget it ever happened peace homies

-merc

I have to admit, it was the funniest this place has been in months. Even though it was really offensive to pretty much everyone, it was still entertaining to read.

 

[Tr0n]

Hmmmm...leave merc alone guys.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Yeah, some kids who grew up in a homosexual or single parent environment turn out okay and some don't (same goes for mother-father households). It's almost like a roll of the dice. But again, the factor is the quality of the parenting for your example.

Edit: Sorry, but I'd like to see a single study that determines to what ;level a difference in quality exists between types of parents.

Common sense would say that two parents are better than one. Common sense also dictates that two men or two women working as a team are fully capable of being as effective as a man-woman pair.

So, the logical assumption is that gay parents would have equally 'okay' kids as hetero parents.

 

[Neutrino]

Hmmmm...leave merc alone guys.

Sorry, but no. I've had it with him.