Should same sex marriages be legal?

[Neutrino]

Just go around any school/street and ask the kids 12-17 how they would feel if they had gay parents.

That would have no relevance to the issue. Those people would obviously have no first hand experience with it for the most part and thus would not have any basis for knowing whether they would like it or not like it.

Instead why don't you go ask kids who have been raised by gay parents whether they are against it?

So like I said, I really don't think you know what you're talking about.

 

[Asuka]

1st of all most of the kids being adopted were 1st raised by normal parents. About the children that are raised from the ages to young to remember who there last parents are. There arnt enough raised children by gay people to even bring up asking them. The percent is so small. Its just started to be legal for marriages and it sickens me how people can even think to allow it.

Not going to argue about this anymore. Getting sick just thinking about this.

 

[NeLi]

As I said earlier; The only reason kids would be ashamed of their gay parents, would be because of people who discriminate them. So, we should try to solve that issue instead. Not try to outlaw gay peoples rights to raise kids.

 

[Neutrino]

1st of all most of the kids being adopted were 1st raised by normal parents.

They were being raised in perfectly normal household by normal parents, huh? Why exactly are they up for adoption then?

About the children that are raised from the ages to young to remember who there last parents are. There arnt enough raised children by gay people to even bring up asking them. The percent is so small.

83% of adopted children are under the age of 10. http://www.buddybuddy.com/adoption.html

You seriously think a 10 year old has anything against gays? Doesn't that pretty much invalidate your "ask kids 12-17" argument?

The point is that asking random people on the street whether they want to be raised by gay parents is not a relevant statistic. You must ask people who were in fact raised by gay parents whether or not they are against it to determine if kids are against it. I'm quite sure that you would find most people raised by gays would have nothing against them for the most part. Sure you would get a few, just like you would get a few kids who didn't like their hetrosexual parents.

Its just started to be legal for marriages and it sickens me how people can even think to allow it.

Well here's something to make you feel better.

Statistic show that tolerance and support for gays has been increasing steadily over the past couple decades. More than likely it will become fully accepted in our society within not that long of time if statisics and historical trends continue.

Getting sick just thinking about this.

Yup, I think that pretty much sums up your entire argument.

 

[CptStern]

You got a spare bedroom by chance? Canada is sounding better and better.

actually I do ...if you dont mind rocking my kid to sleep every night the room's yours

 

[Neutrino]

actually I do ...if you dont mind rocking my kid to sleep every night the room's yours

Sweet. I'll be there shortly. :E

 

[CptStern]

Sweet. I'll be there shortly. :E

oh and bring a change of pants ....you'll know why when it happens to you :E

 

[qckbeam]

Looks like it's going to be a race Neutrino... hope you're prepared

 

[Phisionary]

I'm going to invade your canada CptStern and take all your sensible laws and open minded people and make them mine.. yahuh.

 

[CptStern]

I'm going to invade your canada CptStern and take all your sensible laws and open minded people and make them mine.. yahuh.

and we're going to let you!! :E

 

[OCybrManO]

Never said most people dress that way. I put it there because its something some gay people do.

It's not a gay thing. The transvestives that are also gay are usually called "drag queens" (being "in drag" means wearing clothing typically associated with the opposite sex and "queen" is slang for a homosexual male)... whereas "transvestite" without mention of sexuality usually refers to straight men that wear women's clothing just because they like it. You'd know this stuff if you were a fan of Eddie Izzard (a British comedian that is also a self-proclaimed "Executive Transvestite").

 

[NeLi]

 

[Phisionary]

awww.. it's not an invasion if you let me! and that's just unamerican!

oh well. i'll have to come in peace... i guess... *sigh*

i've heard very good things about vancouver from people i know...

hmm. i guess this is OT.. :stare:

Edit: Eddie Izzard is hilarious! Yay for funny transvestites!

 

[CptStern]

awww.. it's not an invasion if you let me! and that's just unamerican!

oh well. i'll have to come in peace... i guess... *sigh*

i've heard very good things about vancouver from people i know...

hmm. i guess this is OT.. :stare:

well as long as you buy us all a round o' beer we'll be happy to let you in ...although if you bring your guns, that's when the gloves comes off ..and no one likes 2 minutes for roughing
:cheers:

ya vancouver is nice I guess ...havent been there ...it's almost a world away ...Nanuvut needs more people ...kinda cold all year round but hey what you gonna do?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Ugh. Just when I thought I was getting through to people.

Since Raziael's posts are lame enough that I consider them not worthy of the usual point-by point rebuttal, I'm just going to comment of the most ignorant/funny points.

By saying "We are humans, we should act like it" I meant we arnt animals, we can reason.

Well, not all of us can reason. You prove that quite effectively. here's why:

Being gay is not being normal.

Many millions of gay people and their supporters prove otherwise.

What proof do you have, beyond your baseless opinion?

Gay people cant have children, and they cause other problems. Men trying to be female etc.

Oh shit, men acting female! Call the national guard because this is a huge problem!

How is it a problem, exactly?

Another problem with gay marriages is what if they want to adopt a kid?

Here's news: they already do! But you probably hadn't even noticed, correct?

Yup, so insidious is this gay threat that it can camoflage itself by not affecting your life in any way whatsoever. Why, you didn''t even know they could adopt kids! They're obviously relying on your own ignorance to confuse you. Damn them!

After all, you were planning to adopt a kid right? Good thing there generous people like you who will give these poor children a loving home.

Wait... you will never, ever adopt a child?
Maybe it's not the gays that you hate. Maybe it's the fact that you might not be as good as some of them.

And these aren't problems. These are just things that make you different from the minority of gay men.

"Another problem with black people: They aren't the same colour as me! WTF?!!!"

You cant force that kid to wake up and see his 2 fathers or 2 mothers or even worse a guy that looks like a female and other way around.

Yeah that would ruin them. Pity the poor children who you don't love enough to adopt.

I find it sad that one day if, god forbid, you procreate some kid will be forced to wake up and see his bigotted daddy and his soon-to-be divorced truckstop mom.
(allegedly)

If i was put in that kind of situation i wouldnt even look at my parents anymore.

Well, they probably wouldn't enjoy looking at you either. (allegedly)

I wouldnt treat them like my parents i wouldnt care they are my parents.

See? the problem is that you have no concept of love. Your point is that gays would make you petulant, whiney little dumbass?

I hate to break it to you, but under that logic, your parents must already be gay.

They mean nothing to me and thats that.

Where's the love? I have the feeling that you weren't loved enough as a baby.

Its simple as that. We all feel we are born with natural rights. Meaning natures given rights. What kind of right is to be able to "like" your own gender?

I'd guess, it's more of a right then your right to be a moron. (allegedly)

Does that make any sense? Its disgusting and wrong. It shouldnt be allowed. It causes diseases and more problems.

Yes, major problems like adopting children and acting effeminate.

I'm glad that you decide to show your support for fighting the aids epidemic though. Since the rest of your 'reasons' why gays are bad are obviously jokes, I'll assume that you actually love gays.

Since your dislike STDs is important, I'll help spread the word of your cause with these awesome slogans:

Be like Raziel-Jcd and support safe gay sex!
-or-
Use a condom during anal sex: It's what Raziel-Jcd would do in that "position".

Feel free to sig those messages. We've got to spread the word and fight HIV.

What if they wanted to have a kid, but not adopt it but have it done by takeing sperm from a random guy and havning it done that way. The kid wont have a father or mother. Its just sick/not normal simple as that.

Wow, that opinion really is "simple". You, sir, are the most "simple" person I know.

Too bad they already do that too. Damn! Foiled by your own lack of knowledge again! All along you life was unaffected! Curse you, sensible America! Curse your support of the gays!

 

[Bad^Hat]

Sorry, but all I'm hearing is "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!"

Someone is yet to answer my question -

I don't understand the thinking behind the people who say homosexual couples are wrong for loving eachother. Are you saying they're kidding themselves, or they should kid themselves?

 

[Lil' Timmy]

of course same-sex marriages should be legal. only people who put their decision making in the hands of illogical and incoherent belief-systems, or fools would think other wise. thus speaketh the timmy.

 

[Pogrom]

*sigh*

I hate it when I wake up and all of a sudden a thread is 10 pages longer than when I left it.

I honestly think that we've covered every base here. No one arguing in the negative has been able to form a single coherent response that doesn't centre on religious grounds.

And as we are talking about secular law, that renders the entire negative argument null and void. Honestly people, apart from prejudice, there is absolutely no reason to oppose gay marriage.

 

[f|uke]

I hate it when I wake up and all of a sudden a thread is 10 pages longer than when I left it.

Seriously,. and half of it is Mecha practicing his debate skills.

I made some valid points but they just got drowned out in the noise.

Utterly pointless.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Utterly pointless.

now you're getting the hang of it! and it only took you 600 posts to get the point of internet forums! :thumbs:

 

[Neutrino]

now you're getting the hang of it! and it only took you 600 posts to get the point of internet forums! :thumbs:

While it only took you 2500.

 

[qckbeam]

Neutrino, 'bout time to change your sig ain't it?

 

[Johan_Tayn]

I saw one thing and one thing alone I wanted to address.

Gay's aren't normal.

True.

Because, regardless of where you come from creation vs. evolution wise, you have to admit the reason why marriage/relationships have developed is to PRO-CREATE. Which is impossible for a same sex couple.

Normal being defined as: "Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations."

The "norm" has always been the "the reason why this wonderful tradition we call marriage developed is so we can PRO-CREATE in a nuclear family unit" stance. All societies who have tried to adopt homosexuality have deteriorated and been destroyed. Prove me wrong on that point.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

While it only took you 2500.

wrong, for you see i am the one who made that the point of internet forums! case in point...

 

[qckbeam]

I wouldn't listen to Lil' Timmy. He smells...

 

[CptStern]

I saw one thing and one thing alone I wanted to address.

Gay's aren't normal.

True.

Because, regardless of where you come from creation vs. evolution wise, you have to admit the reason why marriage/relationships have developed is to PRO-CREATE. Which is impossible for a same sex couple.

Normal being defined as: "Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations."

The "norm" has always been the "the reason why this wonderful tradition we call marriage developed is so we can PRO-CREATE in a nuclear family unit" stance. All societies who have tried to adopt homosexuality have deteriorated and been destroyed. Prove me wrong on that point.

friends of mine are married yet they chose not to pro-create before they were married ...so should their marriage be anulled?

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Gay's aren't normal.

True.

Because, regardless of where you come from creation vs. evolution wise, you have to admit the reason why marriage/relationships have developed is to PRO-CREATE. Which is impossible for a same sex couple.

Normal being defined as: "Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations."

The "norm" has always been the "the reason why this wonderful tradition we call marriage developed is so we can PRO-CREATE in a nuclear family unit" stance. All societies who have tried to adopt homosexuality have deteriorated and been destroyed. Prove me wrong on that point.

eh, yes and no.. for there is not a necessary causal-relationship between marriage and procreation that i can see. lots of animals (including people) procreate without taking vows. and many people marry without procreating. regardless, why should normalcy be a virtue in and of itself?

what societies do you speak of? are there no societies that have "been destroyed" that have not tried to "adopt homosexuality"? what is the causal link between destruction and homosexuality for a society anyway? this contention seems rather queer.

 

[Johan_Tayn]

I have to go to bed, but look up Canaanite culture and you will find that they were eventually destroyed by their own hedonistic ways, including homosexuality.

But it turns out that the divorce rate among same-sex registered partners in Sweden is substantially higher than the rate among heterosexuals. European demographers Gunnar Andersson and Turid Noack report that male same-sex partnerships in Sweden have a 50-percent higher divorce rate than heterosexual marriages. Perhaps surprisingly, female same-sex partnerships in Sweden have a 170-percent higher divorce risk than heterosexual marriages.

 

[Yakuza]

Just when I think you have somthing interesting to say you chuck up personel insults that queer any hope of a pleasant read.

Oh shit, men acting female! Call the national guard because this is a huge problem!

Here is somthing interesting, it was written along time ago, but still kinda interesting.

According to a certain person, a number of years ago Matsuguma Kyoan told this story:
In the practice of medicine there is a differentiation of treatment according to the Yin and Yang of
men and women. There is also a difference in pulse. In the last fifty years, however, men's pulse has
become the same as women's. Noticing this, in the treatment of eye disease I applied women's
treatment to men and found it suitable. When I observed the application of men's treatment to
men, there was no result. Thus I knew that men's spirit had weakened and that they had become
the same as women, and the end of the world had come. Since I witnessed this with certainty, I
kept it a secret.
When looking at the men of today with this in mind, those who could be thought to have a
woman's pulse are many indeed, and those who seem like real men few. Because of this, if one
were to make a little effort, he would be able to take the upper hand quite easily. That there are few
men who arc able to cut well in beheadings is further proof that men's courage has waned. And
when one comes to speak of kaishaku, it has become an age of men who are prudent and clever at
making excuses. Forty or fifty years ago, when such things as matanuki were considered manly, a
man wouldn't show an unscarred thigh to his fellows, so he would pierce it himself.
All of man's work is a bloody business. That fact, today, is considered foolish, affairs are finished
cleverly with words alone, and jobs that require effort are avoided. I would like young men to have
some understanding of this.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

iron john.

oh and:

I wouldn't listen to Lil' Timmy. He smells...

.. like teen spirit my friend.. like teen spirit.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Gay's aren't normal.

True.

False. The reason why will be adressed down a bit.

Because, regardless of where you come from creation vs. evolution wise, you have to admit the reason why marriage/relationships have developed is to PRO-CREATE. Which is impossible for a same sex couple.

People can procreate without marriage. Marriage itself is arbitrary to reproduction.

If you had gone through the thread, you would have seen this point repeated extensively: You can't ban marriage for someone just because they can't have children. What about the infertile? What about people who choose to adopt?

No-one has answered those questions yet.

Normal being defined as: "Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations."

Again, this is a point addressed already in this thread, in my response to asus. The only possible way to judge "normalcy" would be a comparison with the majority.

Backtrack to page 33 of this thread to see the problem with a "majority rules" legal system.

The "norm" has always been the "the reason why this wonderful tradition we call marriage developed is so we can PRO-CREATE in a nuclear family unit" stance.

Gays can raise children. Gays can have families. The only thing that they can't do that you can do is marry.

Again, you can't make a faith-based tradition into law. That would be like forcing children to believe in Santa Claus.

Whoopity-shit if something is "traditional". It used to be traditional to have gay sex, long before christianity showed up.
Oh, but you have a reason to hate that point:

[quute]All societies who have tried to adopt homosexuality have deteriorated and been destroyed. Prove me wrong on that point.[/QUOTE]
That's an illogical point. What you're asking is like "there's a sandwich factory behind the sun. Prove me wrong."

You have to actually put forward some evidence that gays are somehow responsible for a society's destruction first. Otherwise, it's like assuming a crime was caused by a black man because blacks and crimes exist at the same time.

Here's a question you should ask yourself:
How in the hell does being gay make your country weaker?

Please answer. And with facts, please.

I have to go to bed, but look up Canaanite culture and you will find that they were eventually destroyed by their own hedonistic ways, including homosexuality.

Screw that. If you're going to advocate discrimination, you'd better damn well present a flawless reasoning. Find a site, link to it, and prove your point. Prove that gays destroy society. Don't send me on some goose-chase.

I'll make it interesting for you
Show me a single plausible scenario in which gays destroy America by being equals, and I will pay you 100$ on top of the 40$ prize I offered earlier.

140$ if you can prove that gay people will inadvertantly destroy America. It should be easy to win with all your facts, right?

You might want to read this thread first though, since you tend to argue points that have already been quashed.

But it turns out that the divorce rate among same-sex registered partners in Sweden is substantially higher than the rate among heterosexuals. European demographers Gunnar Andersson and Turid Noack report that male same-sex partnerships in Sweden have a 50-percent higher divorce rate than heterosexual marriages. Perhaps surprisingly, female same-sex partnerships in Sweden have a 170-percent higher divorce risk than heterosexual marriages.

I can quote things too. In fact, someone rebutted this exact same argument:

But what he DOESN'T tell you is that the divorce rate (as a percentage of marriages) is 64% overall in Sweden and has been part of a growing trend in increasing divorces in that nation (and in much of Europe) for years. The US divorce rate is 49%. But the more telling statistic is the rate of divorce per 1000 people in the overall population. In the year 2000, that number for Sweden was 2.4. For the US, that number was 4.1. What this tells you is that the SAME Swedes are getting married and divorced over and over again. Where as in the US, it's simply more and/or different people getting divorced. Nor does Mr. Gagnon reveal that even in the US, the divorce rate among conservative Christians (those most likely to oppose gay marriage) were higher than any other faith group. He also fails to mention that the most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the gay partner laws were passed.

You're also not the only one who can use statistics. They can be used against you too.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

A survey done by George Barna, himself a conservative Christian, "verified findings of earlier polls: that conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all." The same Barna study also found that divorce in the south and midwest (the most conservative areas of the country) were up to 8% higher than elsewhere in the US.

Oh shit! Oh shit! Looks like we must now ban Protestant Christian marriage too!

Thank you, Google.

And wait: You're against gay divorce? Which is essentially gays not being married? Huh? What? Huh?

Although your divorce point has been quashed, what were you trying to prove anyways? That gays are bad because they divorce?
What about the 50% of americans who divorce too?
What the hell are your points?
Do you even know that what you say has no logical basis whatsoever?

 

[Lil' Timmy]

yes, ban gay divorce!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Just when I think you have somthing interesting to say you chuck up personel insults that queer any hope of a pleasant read.

I'm sorry, but if you had learned anything from this thread, you might have noticed that raziel's points were all either already addressed earlier in the thread, or based solely on biggotry. So I extracted some fun from an otherwise depressingly idiotic post.

I like how you use "queer" as a negative verb there too. Pure class.

And all my points were clearly either speculation or allegation. I never professed to know, 100%, that Raziel-Jcd is a tremendous douchebag.

Here is somthing interesting, it was written along time ago, but still kinda interesting.

According to a certain person, a number of years ago Matsuguma Kyoan told this story:
In the practice of medicine there is a differentiation of treatment according to the Yin and Yang of
men and women. There is also a difference in pulse. In the last fifty years, however, men's pulse has
become the same as women's. Noticing this, in the treatment of eye disease I applied women's
treatment to men and found it suitable. When I observed the application of men's treatment to
men, there was no result. Thus I knew that men's spirit had weakened and that they had become
the same as women, and the end of the world had come. Since I witnessed this with certainty, I
kept it a secret.
When looking at the men of today with this in mind, those who could be thought to have a
woman's pulse are many indeed, and those who seem like real men few. Because of this, if one
were to make a little effort, he would be able to take the upper hand quite easily. That there are few
men who arc able to cut well in beheadings is further proof that men's courage has waned. And
when one comes to speak of kaishaku, it has become an age of men who are prudent and clever at
making excuses. Forty or fifty years ago, when such things as matanuki were considered manly, a
man wouldn't show an unscarred thigh to his fellows, so he would pierce it himself.
All of man's work is a bloody business. That fact, today, is considered foolish, affairs are finished
cleverly with words alone, and jobs that require effort are avoided. I would like young men to have
some understanding of this.

Okay, so what is it? Which is your point? Eastern Mythology? Christian Theology? Plain Vanilla Prejudice? Which one is it that holds the 'true' morality?

And why, oh why, are they NEVER facts?

 

[falconwind]

Isaiah 1
18 "Come now, let us reason together,"
says the LORD .

Proverbs 6:6
Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise!

Jeremiah 5:1
"Go up and down the streets of Jerusalem, look around and consider, search through her squares. If you can find but one person who deals honestly and seeks the truth, I will forgive this city.

Mark 4:24
"Consider carefully what you hear," he continued. "With the measure you use, it will be measured to you–and even more.

Luke 12:24
Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds!

Acts 20:24
However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me–the task of testifying to the gospel of God's grace.





So let me get this staright, If I tried to reason with a you about the existence of atoms it would be unreasonable of you to look in a science book?



And how many times has science been left stunded when somthing happened, that just shouldn't have happened. Like people with cancer who all of the sudden dont have it anymore, or the person who suffers a heart attack and is cliniclay dead for several minutes only to come back to life without a hint of braindamage.

So how does science stand to reason when its questions can not be answered.



have I said Because or, it just is? No.

I CANNOT believe you replied with this... it's hilarious. Just because the people in the Bible say the words "consider" and "reason", doesn't mean that the person reading it is doing either of them.

The existence of atoms is NOT and philosophical debate. The existence of gay marriages IS. You could argue that it's a biblical debate, but marriages are not the sole domain of The Bible or Christianity. The only people who treat the question of gay marriage as a religious issue are the religious. It's a secular debate for a (theoretically) secular government.

As for things not answerable by modern science, simple. We haven't figured it out yet. Science is not an all encompassing way of explaining everything, though it strives to be, one day. It neither is, nor claims to be, the definitive source for everything in the universe.

How does science reason with the unexplainable? Theorize. And when that doesn't work, we admit that we don't know.

I never said you said "Because." or "I just is." as an answer. I said that it is like saying that, since it doesn't give any actual support.

But since we're all nit-picking...

I answered the question about putting gay me to death. something about Jesus fullfilling the law so all could be saved. And that when I judge others I will be measured in the same way. God says homosexuality is wrong and is worthy of death, yet because of Jesus, Gods grace was poured out for all so all can be saved. Same thing goes for other sins aswell.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

how quickly ye forgeteth!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

how quickly ye forgeteth!

I've seen that site before, and it's hilarious. I can't tell if it's brilliant parody or the real thing.

"Thou shalt not lieth with a man, but thou shalt maketh thine creepy lego-figure gay porn."

No there's a lesson we can all agree on!*


*Lesson must never be agreed on by anyone.

 

[Yakuza]

I'm sorry, but if you had learned anything from this thread, you might have noticed that raziel's points were all either already addressed earlier in the thread, or based solely on biggotry. So I extracted some fun from an otherwise depressingly idiotic post.

I like how you use "queer" as a negative verb there too. Pure class.

And all my points were clearly either speculation or allegation. I never professed to know, 100%, that Raziel-Jcd is a tremendous douchebag.



Okay, so what is it? Which is your point? Eastern Mythology? Christian Theology? Plain Vanilla Prejudice? Which one is it that holds the 'true' morality?

And why, oh why, are they NEVER facts?

If you profess to NOT know 100% then how can reasonably say that there are no facts.


The point is, you seem to have a knack for purging some ones opinoin with personel remarks.

This what I ment by queer.
queer

\Queer\, v. t. [From Queer, a.] 1. To puzzle. [Prov. Eng. or Slang]

3. To spoil the effect or success of, as by ridicule; to throw a wet blanket on; to spoil. [Slang]

As your personel attacks, spoiled the effect of what might have been an interesting post.

 

[Yakuza]

I've seen that site before, and it's hilarious. I can't tell if it's brilliant parody or the real thing.

"Thou shalt not lieth with a man, but thou shalt maketh thine creepy lego-figure gay porn."

No there's a lesson we can all agree on!*


*Lesson must never be agreed on by anyone.

So ley me get this straight. We are bigots because we do not agree with homosexuals and yet its okay to mock our beliefs?

 

[Neutrino]

If you profess to NOT know 100% then how can reasonably say that there are no facts.

His statement about not professing to know 100% and his later statement asking for facts were completely unrelated, and not concerning the same subject.

So ley me get this straight. We are bigots because we do not agree with homosexuals and yet its okay to mock our beliefs?

The problem lies not with you disagreeing with homosexuals. The problem lies in trying to use that religious disagreement to form laws against them. This is a rather large distinction.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

So ley me get this straight. We are bigots because we do not agree with homosexuals and yet its okay to mock our beliefs?

I have just as much right to find your scripture hilarious as you have to to find it extremely serious. Especially when it's presented in the form of plastic block-men.

And bigots are people who preach enforced discrimination and inequality to the detriment of both human rights and the American legal standard that protects them.

I'm not calling you a bigot, since you at agree with the 99% equal Civil Union thing and are fairly reasonable. Raziel, on the other hand, is definitely a bigot.

If you profess to NOT know 100% then how can reasonably say that there are no facts.

I don't have any clue how my perception of Raziel's douchebaggery has anything to do with the entire concept of facts in general.

The point is, you seem to have a knack for purging some ones opinoin with personel remarks.

I am not aware of any case in which I insulted anyone other that Raziel (the douchebag).

This what I ment by queer. [...]

I guess I should have assumed it wasn't clever wordplay.

As your personel attacks, spoiled the effect of what might have been an interesting post.

Raziels points were already extensively disproven. The rest were blatantly racist. "Gays are a disease"? How can anyone support that? I am glad that I did not waste logic on his hate-drenched soul.