trickstar34 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Miss California Sparks Furor With Gay Marriage Comments on Miss USA Telecast Miss California made a statement that she believes marriage is between a man and a woman after being asked by gay celebrity blogger Perez Hilton at the Miss USA pageant. People say it cost her the crown. I totally support gay marriage......when polygamy is legalized. Laws against polygamy discriminate against Muslims and Mormons. Anyway, I predict that someday heterosexual marriage will be banned and only homosexual marriage will be permitted. It maybe 50 years from now, but there will be Miss Massachusetts answering the question, "do you believe in re-legalizing heterosexual marriage" and she will say "yes" and it will cost her the pageant. Everything keeps shifting to the left and more and more political correctness is becoming the norm. I see no stopping PC until heterosexual marriage gets banned and only homosexual marriage is allowed. Liberals will come up with all sorts of justifications for banning heterosexual marriage such as "to make up for all the years of discrimination against gays, or for population control." Who knows what excuses will be used when it happens. That's where I see the future. I am not flaming anyone, this is just a personal opinion, so please understand that and don't report me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthYENIK Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 I think it's quite ignorant, and kind of moronic to think that heterosexual marriage will ever be banned, especially if they are doing it for the reason to make up for the past. That said, she didn't break any law, she didn't do anything but state her own opinion, and not lie to appeal to the PC crowd. Did she say she dislikes or even hates gay people? I don't believe she did. I don't mind that she lost, it's just a glorified pageant. It's up to the judges to decide if she won, personal bias included. What I do not like is the fact that they took away her miss California crown because of this, which isn't what they are saying but you know it's partially the reason why. In the end it all doesn't matter what a model thinks. My stance is any person should be able to marry any person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickstar34 Posted June 30, 2009 Author Share Posted June 30, 2009 Of course you know I was just using a metaphore right with hederosexual being banned, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Tequeli Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 That doesn't really make any sense, although it is potentially enlightening. Specifically I mean people who are afraid of gay marriage, do they really believe this will happen? What possible reason is there to ban heterosexual marriage? That is f*cking retarded. Although I don't really believe in marriage licenses at all. I suppose it should all be civil unions and if you want to get married to it in a church but it doesn't mean anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seachmall Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Didn't she lose her crown because she refused to attend any of the organised events bar one? I remember they interviewed her solicitor and the guy in charge of the pageant and everything he said made sense and the solicitor couldn't deny it, he just kept trying to change the topic. He kept bringing up that she was never late or blew off one of the events, the pageant guy agreed but said that's because she only agreed to one of the 50ish events they asked her to attend. Personally I think she just blew off her responsibilities and they were right to let her go, I think she's just trying to distract from what the real problem was. Of course this was just one interview I saw on Fox, I really don't have any other experience with the matter at had. As for the gay marriage topic, I've never heard a reasonable secular argument against it. It's one of those "if it doesn't affect you keep out of it" things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saggy Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 You know, to me marriage has always just meant two people that live together and raise a family. I've never really considered the religious and/or traditional symbolism behind it, but if people are suddenly exclaiming, "Marriage is between a man and a woman," then maybe we need to redefine marriage? As far as I'm concerned, if you're a Christian, and you think that "marriage" means some "holy union" between a "man and a woman" you need to get a new word for it. I mean, these are the same people that propose "civil unions" for gays, so obviously there's a pretty big dilemma on what the word means. The best solution I see to fix that is to change the title of any type of "marriage" that isn't just as simple as two people that want to live together; if you need to tie religion or anything else into it then the distinction should be upon you. I mean, what's wrong with calling a Christian marriage a "religious union"? I'm sure they wouldn't like that just as much as the gays don't like "civil unions" but it follows the same logic. "Marriage" is a stupid word in my opinion, and the conservatives can have it if they want in my opinion. I don't really think a "civil union" is really that bad of a thing to call it as long as they get all of the same rights. Sadly we all know that when it really comes down to it, it's just veiled homophobia and nothing will ever satisfy these people that have a problem with it in the first place. As far as heterosexual marriage ever being banned, that just won't happen. Even if it was a matter of population control, we'd probably implement a rule on the amount of children a couple can have. The only reason there's any opposition against gay marriage is because the stigma of homosexuality. That being said, the only way you'll ever find heterosexual marriage illegal is if all the sudden the majority of the country were gay and for some reason just as ignorant and prejudice as the masses oppressed them in the first place. QUOTE (K^2) ...not only is it legal for you to go around with a concealed penis, it requires absolutely no registration! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickstar34 Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 (edited) Traditional marriage shouldn't have to get a new word, that's what it has been for thousands of years, now these liberals are trying to change that, the gays should be the one's to have to get a new word, not us heterosexuals. Look, homosexuality isn't natural, do you see gay dogs, cats, or turtles? No, because it's not natural. Heterosexual should be the marriage. Gays can be together and do whatever they want and I don't care, but if they are going to challenge God then I get pissed. EDIT: Wow, GTAF has a gay pride flag, that's funny, I didn't even know there was one until now, now I know what to send my brother to school in. Edited July 1, 2009 by trickstar34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Tequeli Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Traditional marriage shouldn't have to get a new word, that's what it has been for thousands of years, now these liberals are trying to change that, the gays should be the one's to have to get a new word, not us heterosexuals. Look, homosexuality isn't natural, do you see gay dogs, cats, or turtles? No, because it's not natural. Heterosexual should be the marriage. Gays can be together and do whatever they want and I don't care, but if they are going to challenge God then I get pissed. Two important things I should point out for you. They have found gay animals, homosexuality is biological and not a choice. Secondly, the state does not recognize angering God as a valid reason for anything, or at least they aren't supposed to, so the "Gay marriage hurts Jesus" argument isn't going to hold much weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickstar34 Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 Gay marriage hurts Jesus WTF! I never heard that before, that sounds dumb, like I said, I don't care as long as they don't challenge what it says in the bible. They can do whatever they want, what they do at night is not my business, but if they are trying to challenge the meaning of marriage that was set in the bible. Anyway, what gay animals, I don't beleive you until I have proof, and probably what they found were near some nuclear plant where they are mutated if they even exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omnia sunt Communia Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Traditional marriage shouldn't have to get a new word, that's what it has been for thousands of years, now these liberals are trying to change that, the gays should be the one's to have to get a new word, not us heterosexuals. Why should either group be forced to "have a new word"? Equality is about destroying the differences between people of different races, genders, sexualities etc. Why not just call all "formal unions" marriage? Just because it has been defined by thousands of years history does not mean that we cannot change the meaning. Words take on different meanings every day. Look, homosexuality isn't natural, do you see gay dogs, cats, or turtles? No, because it's not natural. Yes, actually, you do. Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is a lot more common than you may think. Contray to popular belief, humans aren't the only species that partakes in homosexual relationships. I'm pretty sure I, myself, own a gay pygmy goat. The "homosexuality isn't natural" arguement is bollocks, to be honest. If it wasn't natural, it wouldn't happen naturally. Simple as. People aren't turned gay by drugs or chemicals, are they? Heterosexual should be the marriage. Gays can be together and do whatever they want and I don't care, but if they are going to challenge God then I get pissed. Why? If marriage is really about the love between two consenting adults, like it should be, then why should it matter whether those people are straight, gay, bisexual, pansexual or even asexual? If God really loves all his children like he says he does, then he'll love gays too. After all, he was the one who made them (according to Christians - who then turn around and say they're evil). This isn't about Christianity. This about secular nations recognizing the rights of gay couples. People are being refused the same rights as married couples just because they find the same sex attractive instead of the opposite sex. What's so bad about homosexuality that it needs to be singled out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickstar34 Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 I still don't buy it, look at it in a similar but different thing, do plants, fungi, or protists have homosexual practices, no, and there is no denying it, fungi the only thing you can say it "some fungus doesn't have male/female, they have positive/negative", plants, do the male organs try to get to male organs? No, they go for the seed, fungus? No, the spores are asexual most of the time, but they go for female if they are sexual reproduction, protists, they have both asexual and sexual reproduction, but still it doesn't have male male or female female bondings, everything is male female, if I were to buy the gay animal thing, then the animilia kindom is the most degenerated of all the kingdoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omnia sunt Communia Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Fungi isn't homosexual, what's your point? Does that make it unnatural then? Fungi doesn't have a brain, eyes, mouth, ears, skin, hair, organs, teeth, hands, arms, legs, speech, sight, hearing, feet, toes, fingers and noses either; does that make them unnatural? Because, by your logic, if the fungi doesn't do it - no one should. Fungi and plants are on a completely different level to animals (humans included in that). They do not have the complex society mechanism that the animal kingdoms have. They do not mate in the same way that animals do. They do not feel in the same way animals do. They do not love in the same way animals do. Comparing plants to animals is like comparing rocks to ice: They may both be inanimate objects, but they have nothing in common besides that. Plants and animals are both living creatures, yes, but they are so far apart that trying to make any form of comparison between them would be pointless. You didn't watch my video, did you? It clearly states that homosexual animals do exist and there is documented evidence to prove it. Do you think they paid those animals to act gay for the camera or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickstar34 Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 Umm, I didn't see any penises, anyway, are protists gay? No, and guess what, there are Plantlike, Animal Like, and Parasite Protists, and you know what? The animal like protists have eyes, organs, and simple brains, and what your saying is illogical, it's all forms of life, natural life, I don't know why but it seems like you don't like that fact that homosexual bonds really arent natural, and you know what, that homosexual practices from those videos, thats not gay, that's fighting, like when dogs jump on each other, I didn't see any two animals with both penises together anyway, so I still don't beleive it, and that person talking sounded like some smug laughing guy while he's sitting there trying to prove animals are gay, when they are not, I want more proof, I watch the science channel and they don't say animals are gay, infact they say the opposite. I don't know why you are arguing, I have degrees in Life and Earth Sciences and Physics so I don't know why you keep arguing with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omnia sunt Communia Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 If homosexuality isn't natural, then why does it happen naturally? Of course that video didn't feature any actual sexual intercourse. I'm not going to post beastality on this forum, am I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickstar34 Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 If homosexuality isn't natural, then why does it happen naturally? Of course that video didn't feature any actual sexual intercourse. I'm not going to post beastality on this forum, am I? It doesn't, it happens from man-made toxins that cause mutations in the sexuality glands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Tequeli Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 You don't have degrees in sh*t. Read this, check the sources. From a scientific standpoint, homosexuality is not a choice. It wouldn't matter if animals were capable of being gay (they are) because if it was not a choice and not caused by anything artificial (it isn't) then it would be natural. Now please argue why gays should not be able to marry and do it from a secular standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omnia sunt Communia Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 It doesn't, it happens from man-made toxins that cause mutations in the sexuality glands. How long have these man-made toxins been "poluting" our sexuality glands then? Because as far as history is concerned, homosexuality has been around much longer then most man-made inventions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickstar34 Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 It doesn't, it happens from man-made toxins that cause mutations in the sexuality glands. How long have these man-made toxins been "poluting" our sexuality glands then? Because as far as history is concerned, homosexuality has been around much longer then most man-made inventions. Back then there werent many were there? Whatever you just don't give up, I'll give the dog his bone and leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Tequeli Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 It doesn't, it happens from man-made toxins that cause mutations in the sexuality glands. How long have these man-made toxins been "poluting" our sexuality glands then? Because as far as history is concerned, homosexuality has been around much longer then most man-made inventions. Back then there werent many were there? Whatever you just don't give up, I'll give the dog his bone and leave it at that. The Greeks were gayer then a bag of rainbows, and that was well over 2500 years ago. Whatever you just don't give up, I'll give the dog his bone and leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omnia sunt Communia Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 It doesn't, it happens from man-made toxins that cause mutations in the sexuality glands. How long have these man-made toxins been "poluting" our sexuality glands then? Because as far as history is concerned, homosexuality has been around much longer then most man-made inventions. Back then there werent many were there? Actually, there was. Homosexuality was actually considered a higher form of love making in Ancient Greece and therefore homosexuality was rampant (as well as bisexuality). Our ancestors were a lot more open and accepting than us. It is only since we began to "refine" ourselves that things like homosexuality and sexuality in general has become a social stigma. Even if there was only a handful of homosexuals back then, that still proves your point wrong. Because for them to even exist there would have to be man-made toxins to "polute" their sexual glands - but such toxins hadn't been created yet. Therefore making your statement redudant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxidizer Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Heterosexual should be the marriage. Gays can be together and do whatever they want and I don't care, but if they are going to challenge God then I get pissed. God is a man-made, unoriginal myth. And it's gettin' old. But that's not the point, and neither is... fungi? How the F did you get from Miss California to that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickstar34 Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 I don't know, ask the people who keep arguing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Tequeli Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 I don't know, ask the people who keep arguing. We keep arguing because your point has been consistently retarded. Fungus sexuality should not be used to determine the rights of our minorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saggy Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 I have degrees in Life and Earth Sciences and Physics so I don't know why you keep arguing with me. Are you f*cking kidding me? I'd have to write a f*cking novel to completely address every misinformed piece of drivel you've spewed all over this f*cking post, but instead I'm pointing this out as quite possibly the single most debatable statement ever made on D&D. Even if I did give some kind of well-thought out argument as other people would do, you'd simply concede and "give a dog a bone". You know, with all your obvious homophobia, I wouldn't doubt that in some twisted Freudian sense of logic, you really would like to give a dog a bone. Although I have to say: You're the one that side-tracked the conversation onto whether or not homosexuality was natural or unnatural. Given that you never really seemed to have a strong point in the first place, good luck trying to drag it back on to whatever it was you were getting at in the first place. I believe it was something about Liberals being the demon of the country and that someday they're going to make heterosexual marriage illegal, which you insisted was only a metaphor. QUOTE (K^2) ...not only is it legal for you to go around with a concealed penis, it requires absolutely no registration! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharmingCharlie Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Locked by request of the TC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts