Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Gay rights

512 replies to this topic
shady72
  • shady72

    Full time maniac

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2011

#1

Posted 03 September 2013 - 04:42 PM

What do you think about this whole "gay rights" crusade? Is it the new Civil Rights Movement? Is Satan involved in any way, shape or form? Debate *respectfully*.

gtaxpert
  • gtaxpert

    that's how I dooz it

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Netherlands

#2

Posted 03 September 2013 - 04:50 PM

QUOTE (shady72 @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 16:42)
Is Satan involved in any way, shape or form?

Yes, Satan loves dressing up in leather and practicing SM with Hitler, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in hell. So he wants his gay rights respected.

Voodoo
  • Voodoo

    Cyclop have 9 years

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2004
  • Unknown
  • Contribution Award [GTAF]

#3

Posted 03 September 2013 - 04:51 PM

Do you guys think Satan is a bottom or a top?


gtaxpert
  • gtaxpert

    that's how I dooz it

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Netherlands

#4

Posted 03 September 2013 - 04:53 PM

QUOTE (Voodoo @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 16:51)
Do you guys think Satan is a bottom or a top?

He likes both giving and receiving.

shady72
  • shady72

    Full time maniac

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2011

#5

Posted 03 September 2013 - 04:56 PM

QUOTE (Voodoo @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 16:51)
Do you guys think Satan is a bottom or a top?

Definite bottom, but he didn't choose the lifestyle, the lifestyle chose him.

stu
  • stu

    Ya filthy animal.

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Funniest Member 2013
    Funniest Member 2012

#6

Posted 03 September 2013 - 05:11 PM

What about santa?

Definite power top in my opinion. Mrs. Claus likes it rough and relentless. Over the years all that pounding away like a jackhammer at her chimney has taken it's toll however, and she is prone to the odd prolapse. Luckily santa has a prolapse fetish.

GunWrath
  • GunWrath

    Alcoholic Blues

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2012
  • United-States
  • Most Helpful [Expression] 2013

#7

Posted 03 September 2013 - 05:12 PM

We all know Satan and Saddam are a thing, that's old news.

Question is.. John Travolta, is he really homosexual or is that just another media fiasco?

stu
  • stu

    Ya filthy animal.

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Funniest Member 2013
    Funniest Member 2012

#8

Posted 03 September 2013 - 05:14 PM

QUOTE (GunWrath @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 17:12)
We all know Satan and Saddam are a thing, that's old news.

Question is.. John Travolta, is he really homosexual or is that just another media fiasco?

Did you not see Saturday Night Fever?

I'm sorry but no straight guy dances like that.

shady72
  • shady72

    Full time maniac

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2011

#9

Posted 03 September 2013 - 05:16 PM

QUOTE (GunWrath @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 17:12)
We all know Satan and Saddam are a thing, that's old news.

Question is.. John Travolta, is he really homosexual or is that just another media fiasco?

I think Travolta would simply rock a purple wig.

GunWrath
  • GunWrath

    Alcoholic Blues

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2012
  • United-States
  • Most Helpful [Expression] 2013

#10

Posted 03 September 2013 - 05:18 PM

QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 12:14)
QUOTE (GunWrath @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 17:12)
We all know Satan and Saddam are a thing, that's old news.

Question is.. John Travolta, is he really homosexual or is that just another media fiasco?

Did you not see Saturday Night Fever?

I'm sorry but no straight guy dances like that.

Point taken.. I've wondered about that throughout the years.. not to mention the Micheal movie.. he seemed veryyyy unmasculine as the archangel Micheal.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "Not Santa's balls!"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#11

Posted 03 September 2013 - 05:19 PM

QUOTE (shady72 @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 11:16)
I think Travolta would simply rock a purple wig.

John Travolta is gayer than a 2 dollar bill.


TECHN9CiAN
  • TECHN9CiAN

    With the fumes of a tomb, I consume all the light in the day.

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#12

Posted 03 September 2013 - 05:37 PM

Nice work OP, you killed your own topic before it could get its first breath.

I think being gay is just the result of a genetic mutation/disorder. That being said, for reproductive purposes, homosexuality has no place in the world, and therefore gay people shouldnt be allowed to marry and benefit from the perks of being a married heterosexual building the foundation for a family.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "Not Santa's balls!"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#13

Posted 03 September 2013 - 05:38 PM

QUOTE (the7ftmidget @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 11:37)
for reproductive purposes, homosexuality has no place in the world, and therefore gay people shouldnt be allowed to marry and benefit from the perks of being a married heterosexual building the foundation for a family.

you're an idiot.

gay people aren't going anywhere. they will always be around. they're really no different than you or I.
they deserve to get married. they deserve all protections under the law that you and I enjoy. they deserve the right to happiness.

Brown Sugar
  • Brown Sugar

    turnt up

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2010
  • Ethiopia

#14

Posted 03 September 2013 - 05:41 PM

ah sh*t, nearly got to page 2 without an argument starting. Better luck next time I guess.

shady72
  • shady72

    Full time maniac

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2011

#15

Posted 03 September 2013 - 05:43 PM

QUOTE (the7ftmidget @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 17:37)
Nice work OP, you killed your own topic before it could get its first breath.

I think being gay is just the result of a genetic mutation/disorder.  That being said, for reproductive purposes, homosexuality has no place in the world, and therefore gay people shouldnt be allowed to marry and benefit from the perks of being a married heterosexual building the foundation for a family.

This planet is overpopulated already, though, our resources are rapidly shrinking, and on top of that, gay people just help society as a whole by adopting kids that nobody else wants.

I've honestly never heard a valid argument against gay marriage that wasn't related to religion in any way, and even then, religion is a lifestyle choice, homosexuality is just how some people *are*. You can't change that. Why would "god" or nature or whatever make them that way, if he/she/they/it didn't intend for them to actually *be* that way. It makes no sense.

Not that the Bible itself makes any sense whatsoever.

Mr.Mister
  • Mr.Mister

    Capt. Downtown

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 24 May 2005

#16

Posted 03 September 2013 - 05:46 PM Edited by Mr.Mister, 03 September 2013 - 05:48 PM.

Gays already do their thing here in the west, so I find this movement abit annoying. Unless you live in Zimbabwe, theres no real point of complaining. Gay marriage, honestly, I dont even f*cking care, same thing with marriage itself.

If a church is against gay marrige, then thats that! Government should allow gay couples, but if they want to do it in a church then it should be up to the church. Leave religion and government as seperate entities.

TECHN9CiAN
  • TECHN9CiAN

    With the fumes of a tomb, I consume all the light in the day.

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#17

Posted 03 September 2013 - 05:50 PM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 09:38)
QUOTE (the7ftmidget @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 11:37)
for reproductive purposes, homosexuality has no place in the world, and therefore gay people shouldnt be allowed to marry and benefit from the perks of being a married heterosexual building the foundation for a family.

you're an idiot.

gay people aren't going anywhere. they will always be around. they're really no different than you or I.
they deserve to get married. they deserve all protections under the law that you and I enjoy. they deserve the right to happiness.

Calm down, immature liberal child. They deserve the right to hapiness, ill give you that, but why should a gay couple recive the benefits of marriage that are designed to help newly wed couples facilitate the process of creating financial stability to benefit the children they plan to have? Homosexuals cant have kids naturally, and allowing them to adopt only further contributes to society's already fubar moral decay. They can search for their happiness in another gay-friendly way, not by trying to ruin the sanctity of marriage and family.

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#18

Posted 03 September 2013 - 05:51 PM

Sadly, even out here in Vancouver, thy sparkly Emerald City of Canadian Gayness, we still have problems with violence, bigotry, and hatred towards homosexuality. The battle, so to speak, is far from over.

shady72
  • shady72

    Full time maniac

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2011

#19

Posted 03 September 2013 - 05:52 PM

QUOTE (the7ftmidget @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 17:50)
QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 09:38)
QUOTE (the7ftmidget @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 11:37)
for reproductive purposes, homosexuality has no place in the world, and therefore gay people shouldnt be allowed to marry and benefit from the perks of being a married heterosexual building the foundation for a family.

you're an idiot.

gay people aren't going anywhere. they will always be around. they're really no different than you or I.
they deserve to get married. they deserve all protections under the law that you and I enjoy. they deserve the right to happiness.

Calm down, immature liberal child. They deserve the right to hapiness, ill give you that, but why should a gay couple recive the benefits of marriage that are designed to help newly wed couples facilitate the process of creating financial stability to benefit the children they plan to have? Homosexuals cant have kids naturally, and allowing them to adopt only further contributes to society's already fubar moral decay. They can search for their happiness in another gay-friendly way, not by trying to ruin the sanctity of marriage and family.

What about those who can't "reproduce" for medical reasons, they can't get married either, right? Also, "immature liberal child"? I get the feeling you've been listening too much to Rush Limbaugh lately.

Brobinski
  • Brobinski

    PYPU

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2012

#20

Posted 03 September 2013 - 05:53 PM

QUOTE (the7ftmidget @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 17:50)
QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 09:38)
QUOTE (the7ftmidget @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 11:37)
for reproductive purposes, homosexuality has no place in the world, and therefore gay people shouldnt be allowed to marry and benefit from the perks of being a married heterosexual building the foundation for a family.

you're an idiot.

gay people aren't going anywhere. they will always be around. they're really no different than you or I.
they deserve to get married. they deserve all protections under the law that you and I enjoy. they deserve the right to happiness.

Calm down, immature liberal child. They deserve the right to hapiness, ill give you that, but why should a gay couple recive the benefits of marriage that are designed to help newly wed couples facilitate the process of creating financial stability to benefit the children they plan to have? Homosexuals cant have kids naturally, and allowing them to adopt only further contributes to society's already fubar moral decay. They can search for their happiness in another gay-friendly way, not by trying to ruin the sanctity of marriage and family.

So, are you in favour of not allowing infertile heterosexual couples to marry either? Because if that's the logic you're using, one would assume you are.

TECHN9CiAN
  • TECHN9CiAN

    With the fumes of a tomb, I consume all the light in the day.

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#21

Posted 03 September 2013 - 06:00 PM

QUOTE (shady72 @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 09:52)
QUOTE (the7ftmidget @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 17:50)
QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 09:38)
QUOTE (the7ftmidget @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 11:37)
for reproductive purposes, homosexuality has no place in the world, and therefore gay people shouldnt be allowed to marry and benefit from the perks of being a married heterosexual building the foundation for a family.

you're an idiot.

gay people aren't going anywhere. they will always be around. they're really no different than you or I.
they deserve to get married. they deserve all protections under the law that you and I enjoy. they deserve the right to happiness.

Calm down, immature liberal child. They deserve the right to hapiness, ill give you that, but why should a gay couple recive the benefits of marriage that are designed to help newly wed couples facilitate the process of creating financial stability to benefit the children they plan to have? Homosexuals cant have kids naturally, and allowing them to adopt only further contributes to society's already fubar moral decay. They can search for their happiness in another gay-friendly way, not by trying to ruin the sanctity of marriage and family.

What about those who can't "reproduce" for medical reasons, they can't get married either, right? Also, "immature liberal child"? I get the feeling you've been listening too much to Rush Limbaugh lately.

Im not even a republican, im a democrat and will continue to be unless i get wealthy. But i disagree with the democratic point of view on homosexuality.

And in my opinion, as you would know if you backtracked my posts history on eugenics, people who cant reproduce for medical reasons can do what they want but should not try to reproduce artifically due to the threat they posses to the human genepool. So if they know they cant reproduce prior to marriage, then no marriage for them. But as it is in most cases, if they find out they are sterile after marriage, then f*ck it.


But homosexuals have a 100% chance of technical sterility, and should not be allowed to marry. Plus they will end up in divorces just as much, if not more than straight couples. Its no secret that the majority of homos are promiscuous with no moral compass on the matter of relationships.

Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    Supralux (ΛΟ)

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#22

Posted 03 September 2013 - 06:01 PM

QUOTE (the7ftmidget @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 20:50)
and allowing them to adopt only further contributes to society's already fubar moral decay.

They can search for their happiness in another gay-friendly way, not by trying to ruin the sanctity of marriage and family.

Explain.

What's the sacred part about marriage?

gtaxpert
  • gtaxpert

    that's how I dooz it

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Netherlands

#23

Posted 03 September 2013 - 06:02 PM Edited by gtaxpert, 03 September 2013 - 06:04 PM.

QUOTE (the7ftmidget @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 17:50)
QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 09:38)
QUOTE (the7ftmidget @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 11:37)
for reproductive purposes, homosexuality has no place in the world, and therefore gay people shouldnt be allowed to marry and benefit from the perks of being a married heterosexual building the foundation for a family.

you're an idiot.

gay people aren't going anywhere. they will always be around. they're really no different than you or I.
they deserve to get married. they deserve all protections under the law that you and I enjoy. they deserve the right to happiness.

Calm down, immature liberal child. They deserve the right to hapiness, ill give you that, but why should a gay couple recive the benefits of marriage that are designed to help newly wed couples facilitate the process of creating financial stability to benefit the children they plan to have? Homosexuals cant have kids naturally, and allowing them to adopt only further contributes to society's already fubar moral decay. They can search for their happiness in another gay-friendly way, not by trying to ruin the sanctity of marriage and family.

"sanctity of marriage". Stop using Christian slogans. I'm an agnost. I don't believe in 'sanctity'. Furthermore, where I live the government gives families money for every child they get. It's called 'kinderbijstand'. So homosexuals can marry and they won't receive that, unless they adopt.

"allowing them to adopt only further contributes to society's already fubar moral decay" So either you think homosexuality is immoral, or you think they can't raise children. Both beliefs are ridiculous. I'm not even going to argue why homosexuality isn't immoral. The burden of proof is on you that it is, and so is the burden of proof that they can't raise children, which is total bullsh*t.

QUOTE
promiscuous with no moral compass on the matter of relationships.

Stop force feeding us your closed minded morals.

shady72
  • shady72

    Full time maniac

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2011

#24

Posted 03 September 2013 - 06:04 PM

QUOTE (the7ftmidget @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 18:00)
QUOTE (shady72 @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 09:52)
QUOTE (the7ftmidget @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 17:50)
QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 09:38)
QUOTE (the7ftmidget @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 11:37)
for reproductive purposes, homosexuality has no place in the world, and therefore gay people shouldnt be allowed to marry and benefit from the perks of being a married heterosexual building the foundation for a family.

you're an idiot.

gay people aren't going anywhere. they will always be around. they're really no different than you or I.
they deserve to get married. they deserve all protections under the law that you and I enjoy. they deserve the right to happiness.

Calm down, immature liberal child. They deserve the right to hapiness, ill give you that, but why should a gay couple recive the benefits of marriage that are designed to help newly wed couples facilitate the process of creating financial stability to benefit the children they plan to have? Homosexuals cant have kids naturally, and allowing them to adopt only further contributes to society's already fubar moral decay. They can search for their happiness in another gay-friendly way, not by trying to ruin the sanctity of marriage and family.

What about those who can't "reproduce" for medical reasons, they can't get married either, right? Also, "immature liberal child"? I get the feeling you've been listening too much to Rush Limbaugh lately.

Im not even a republican, im a democrat and will continue to be unless i get wealthy. But i disagree with the democratic point of view on homosexuality.

And in my opinion, as you would know if you backtracked my posts history on eugenics, people who cant reproduce for medical reasons can do what they want but should not try to reproduce artifically due to the threat they posses to the human genepool. So if they know they cant reproduce prior to marriage, then no marriage for them. But as it is in most cases, if they find out they are sterile after marriage, then f*ck it.


But homosexuals have a 100% chance of technical sterility, and should not be allowed to marry. Plus they will end up in divorces just as much, if not more than straight couples. Its no secret that the majority of homos are promiscuous with no moral compass on the matter of relationships.

Yeah, well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I'm also a Democrat, but I support gay marriage 100% because I think it harms absolutely no one. Fortunately, I live in SoCal and over here it's legal, but I dream of a day when it will be legal nationwide and nobody will even think to criticize it. And, before you ask, no, I'm not gay myself.

TECHN9CiAN
  • TECHN9CiAN

    With the fumes of a tomb, I consume all the light in the day.

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#25

Posted 03 September 2013 - 06:04 PM

QUOTE (_____ @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 10:01)
QUOTE (the7ftmidget @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 20:50)
and allowing them to adopt only further contributes to society's already fubar moral decay.

They can search for their happiness in another gay-friendly way, not by trying to ruin the sanctity of marriage and family.

Explain.

What's the sacred part about marriage?

The union of two souls, being the soil and seed, creating and nurturing life that will (or should) reflect as the product of love between its mother and father.

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#26

Posted 03 September 2013 - 06:08 PM

When people claim that Western nations are so open and tolerant, I wish they'd spend one day among the underclass in England. It's more or less the ninth circle of Hell.

gtaxpert
  • gtaxpert

    that's how I dooz it

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Netherlands

#27

Posted 03 September 2013 - 06:08 PM

QUOTE (the7ftmidget @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 18:04)
The union of two souls, being the soil and seed, creating and nurturing life that will (or should) reflect as the product of love between its mother and father.

That's just your closed minded definition of marriage. We don't have to abide to it.

Has there ever been a law that only fertile people can marry? Nobody even wants that. That's a ridiculous position.

shady72
  • shady72

    Full time maniac

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2011

#28

Posted 03 September 2013 - 06:09 PM

QUOTE (the7ftmidget @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 18:04)
QUOTE (_____ @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 10:01)
QUOTE (the7ftmidget @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 20:50)
and allowing them to adopt only further contributes to society's already fubar moral decay.

They can search for their happiness in another gay-friendly way, not by trying to ruin the sanctity of marriage and family.

Explain.

What's the sacred part about marriage?

The union of two souls, being the soil and seed, creating and nurturing life that will (or should) reflect as the product of love between its mother and father.

We're not talking about holy matrimony here, we're talking about regular marriage, though there are more than enough Christian denominations that perform gay marriages in their churches. This whole sanctity of marriage thing is pure bullsh*t, pardon my French. Not everybody has to believe in your god, and I think there's also a thing called "separation of church and state" somewhere in the Constitution. You might not be a Republican, but you sure as hell sound like one.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "Not Santa's balls!"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#29

Posted 03 September 2013 - 06:12 PM

QUOTE (the7ftmidget @ Tuesday, Sep 3 2013, 11:50)
Calm down, immature liberal child.

first of all, I'm older than you are.
secondly, I am perfectly calm.

you're just an idiot.

you said that marriage is about procreation and that was your reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.
you're an idiot because that's an idiotic reason.

marriage is not about procreation.
straight people have sex and children out of wedlock all the time. plenty of married people never have children. marriage has nothing to do with procreation and everything to do with 2 people who are in love and want to share their life together.

gay people deserve to get married.
they will soon be legal all over the world. you cannot stop progress with your ignorant stupidity.

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#30

Posted 03 September 2013 - 06:16 PM

Hasn't this topic been discussed to death in here?

It'll just turn into the same old members calling eachother names like always..

Might as well lock it alongside all the 9/11 threads as well




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users