Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/11/06 09:26 AM, olskoolnintendo wrote: Gays are guys that are to ugly or to nasty to get a woman so they can only do the next best thing for se.x... get another guy like them. Same for da woman.

But if there was a man "So ugly he couldn't get a woman" and a woman "So ugly she couldn't get a man" why couldn't they just marry each other? This is why your argument falls down

Asides from its banality, obviously

I respect that people are gay but when they get there head blown off because they tried to make someone support what they like its not my fault....

At 6/11/06 09:26 AM, olskoolnintendo wrote: Gays are guys that are to ugly or to nasty to get a woman so they can only do the next best thing for se.x... get another guy like them. Same for da woman.

lol, this is almost as retarded as the "trannies are men who can't get women, so they become one instead" argument.

At 6/11/06 09:26 AM, olskoolnintendo wrote: Gays are guys that are to ugly or to nasty to get a woman so they can only do the next best thing for se.x... get another guy like them. Same for da woman.

Yeah, but Alberta Canada is just a bunch of rednecks so no one cares what you think.

At 6/10/06 05:10 AM, Occluded wrote: Sorry for the late reply. I actually got out of the house.

I completely understand. I've been occupied with the Mrs.

At 6/6/06 09:53 PM, bub_nydb wrote:

Citizenship. We are talking about US law. And I see that citizenship may have been the wrong word. I feel that bringing animals into this discusion is completely off point. In the eyes of the law you would in effect be married to nothing. Animals don't fill out tax returns. Animals don't apply for medicare. I do see your point. But giving animals equal treatment under the law would cause massive universal change to the law. Marriage being the least of which. So, I feel there is little point in folding the topic into this one. I'm a bit of a libertarian. Redefining marriage. Marriage is traditional. If we want to keep it as a legal entity (and I believe we should) then it needs to change.

Fair enough to exclude non-humans, though polygamy and legal age still remain to demonstrate that the current definition of marriage is a bit arbitrary.

It is not as objective as first appears. The Golden Rule says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Correct? Well, suppose I would like to have my neighbor's wife do something naughty unto me and so I do something naughty unto her. Even if she wants that, is it moral? What about her husband and family? My wife and family? How do competing needs get balanced? Subjectively. Pardon the silly example.

It is that simple. Just apply it unilaterally. You do something naughty to the wife you are also doing something to her husband and family. Indirect results are ones you are still responsible for. Pardon my recycling of the silly example.

Yeah, so then indirect results of changing the definition of marriage must be considered as well as direct results. And with multiple parties involved, there are conflicting needs.

And I may be wrong here, but adultary isn't an offense against the people is it? I know it's grounds for divorce, but the state can't actually press charges can it? It's a contract violation. No more illegal than any other contract violation. Government doesn't invlove itself in this on the behalf of society.

Adultery has in certain times and places been considered a crime against society and been deemed worthy of severe punishment up to and including death, but under current U.S. law it is only a contract violation and sometimes a tort (civil wrong). There have been cases where the affair partner who was outside the marriage has been sued successfully for damages for interference with the execution of a legal contract. Government does involve itself to make adultery legal grounds for dissolution of the marital contract. Similarly in most places government currently involves itself to make man+man or woman+woman not meet the legal requirements for entering into a marital contract. The big difference is that government leaves the decision for marital contract status mostly in the hands of the two spouses in the case of adultery whereas government allows the homosexual couple no such decision to enter into a marital contract. Come to think of it, homosexual couples right now could probably enter into legal contracts with each other that approximate marriage. However, their contracts would not be granted special recognition by government and they would not reap government granted marital benefits.

I'm arguing that some distinctions are legal, right, and necessary. Others are not. Which are right and which wrong is often a matter of opinion. Tradition has no bearing.

The law makes distinctions by the rules of human rights. Those that are violated and those that do the violating. Race, sex, religion, and class have to be irrelivant. Should it not be this way? What distinctions are right? What are wrong? And why?

There's no universal agreement on human rights. Certainly I do not want discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, national origin, or caste. And yet we have formalized racial and gender discrimination known as affirmative action which seeks to reverse the effects of past discrimination. Discrimination on the basis of behavior is another matter.

Not all humans have recourse to become citizens and yet they still may marry, but non-humans never have recourse. My wife was also nationalized through marriage -- and is distinctly lacking in fur.

Wow, I just realized how civil this discourse has been. Thank you.

It is a refreshing difference from the flame fest that such discussions often become on the internet. I should be thanking you for that and the opportunity to exchange ideas and think about the issue from different angles.

It isn't about people in general. The population at large would be entirely unaffected by gay marriage. Yet everyone feels they aught to have a say in it's legality. It is about the universal application of human rights. Sometimes the rights of the few outweigh the whim of the many. We have to let go of our desire to force our standards to a universal so that no one forces their standards onto us. The only universal laws should be the ones that are inheritly.

In my view these are for the most part fair statements, though the population at large would be affected slightly. I'll have to address this in another post.

Do you feel that gay marriage may unfavorably discriminate against the larger population? If so, why?

Put that way, I don't see how it would unless gay marriage gave greater benefits than straight marriage -- and noone has proposed that. And to be fair, heterosexuals could marry a same gendered person and get the benefits of a gay marriage. Turnabout is fair play for the "homosexuals can already marry" argument, is it not?

I have to wonder then, what benefits for heterosexuals people see in "gay marriage".

Our freedom. By protecting the freedom of homosexuals I am, in effect, protecting my own.

Actually the Bill of Rights states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." There's no requirement that those in government put aside their religion.

Yes, but when those in government try to 'legislate' their religion then it becomes unconstitutional. I know I dragged this out of another conversation. Couldn't help it.

Yep, fair enough. I don't want sharia or the Christian equivalent of it.

Now I'm going to try something unusual. I'm going to try to provide arguments for gay marriage addressing the point of view of the right -- first the social aspects and then the economic ones. I would appreciate hearing any well-reasoned arguments from the right that would counter what I present or input from the left that would supplement what I have here. I've intentionally left out fairness arguments, since I severely doubt that a fairness argument from one side will ever be found compelling by the opposing side on this issue.

Unnatural/sinful choice?
First off, granting social equality to homosexual relationships is not something the right is every going to be in favor of since they view homosexual acts as unnatural &/or against God's will and a matter of choice. Scientific evidence demonstrating that while individual acts involve choice, sexual orientation (attraction to same gender) is linked to genetics would help to soften the stance of some. Even if someone is opposed on the basis of morality, one can still view it as not the government's job to legislate morality but society's job to encourage morality through social pressure.

Corruption of youth?
Evidence suggests that sexual orientation is linked to genetics, so gay marriage is not going to make heterosexuals suddenly become attracted to people of their own gender. With or without gay marriage the social pressure to be "normal" will still suppress some homosexual activity. If someone's family, friends, and church are against homosexual relationships, then there will still be strong pressure for someone to live a heterosexual lifestyle. It should also be pointed out that the debate will not go away until gay marriage is legally accepted. Until that time gay rights activists will make sure that everyone knows of homosexuality and provide regular "shock therapy" to try to gain acceptance. The bigger the deal that is made of it, the more likely youth will experiment with homosexuality in order to rebel against authority -- especially since unlike drugs or alcohol that has no significant legal consequences. Also, homosexuals locked into gay marriages should be less likely to "lead youth astray" with chance encounters.

Promotes promiscuity?
Part of the right's opposition to gay marriage stems from their view (doesn't matter whether it is accurate or not) that homosexuality promotes a promiscuous lifestyle (viewed as wrong on its own and leading to transmission of disease). It should be pointed out that gay marriage would provide a legal structure that encourages close partnership in homosexual couples and reduces promiscuity. With less promiscuity there will also be reduced transmission of disease and less burden on the nation's health care system.

Link to pedophilia?
No study I have seen has shown a link between sexual orientation and likelihood to become a pedophile. However, let us consider if someone has suppressed strong sexual desires and eventually comes to the conclusion that only someone who is trusting and can be easily manipulated is a possible outlet for relief without getting caught. It would seem to me that having an acceptable outlet with a consenting adult would be preferable to imposing that sort of dilemma -- and the more stable the relationship, the less likely for pedophilic temptation to arise. Take the Catholic Church’s requirement that priests be celibate and their problem with pedophilic priests as an example.

Preservation of marriage and the family?
Gay marriage would expand, not reduce marriages. The only reason there'd be more divorces is because there would be more marriages. Allowing gay marriage would not change the vows that straight people make to each other. Children of a gay parent would be no worse off having their parent married to a same gendered person than just living with that person. The children may benefit from having a more stable environment due to the legal commitment of marriage, even if it is a "gay" one.

Increased burden on government services?
The right estimates 1-2% of people are homosexual. Gay rights organizations estimate that 5-10% are. Religioustolerance.org, which doesn't seem to have a particular agenda other than promoting understanding of opposing viewpoints, gives an estimate of 2-5%. If the right is correct, then at most we should see a 1-2% increase in marriage related government services. However, since gay couples rarely have children the net effect should be far lower as such services are more often than not tied to children. Most legal benefits of marriage are contractual conveniences that deal with things like inheritance and medical decisions and don't really have a cost to tax payers.

Shifting of tax burden?
Since most homosexual couples do not have children, they are more likely to both work. When both spouses work and have income that is not too far apart, currently they pay more taxes and not less. If the number of homosexuals is as the right says (1% to 2%), then the effect will be negligible. If the number is as gay activists say (up to 10%) then that probably means a modest tax windfall and shifting of tax burden from heterosexuals to homosexuals.

I believe the arguments above complete my slight shift from marginally against gay marriage to marginally for it. I still feel that redefining marriage on a national level is unrealistic at this time and a waste of effort in government. I also feel that it is not something that should be done without a lot of careful consideration. For the foreseeable future the definition of marriage is likely to remain a state issue, as it has been since the founding of the United States.

I don't know what's so wrong about it.
People ban their marriages because of religion.
Religion got people thinking it's wrong.

Being gay myself, I find nothing wrong with homosexuality. And I could really care less about homophobes if they would actually leave me alone. I'm fine with the few homophobes who don't try to force their beliefs on other people or harass me. But most homphobes are extremely disrespectful, and because plenty of people know that I'm gay, I get made fun of almost everywhere I go. I am so filled with rage that I think I may snap soon and do something extremely violent.

At 6/6/06 03:44 PM, AtomicTerrorist wrote: i say we exacute them all!

and the world would be a better place.

You sure are far in the closet, aren't you?

At 6/11/06 09:26 AM, olskoolnintendo wrote: Gays are guys that are to ugly or to nasty to get a woman so they can only do the next best thing for se.x... get another guy like them. Same for da woman.

ehemm "are"? thats politically incorrect by all measures. j/s
I myself have many 'homosexual' acquaintances,
many of them are very desent, fairly attractive individuals.
I highly doubt they would be lonely if they were straight for their looks and character. They choose to Be the way they are.

It's not 'unnatural' ... It's a product of nature. -_-;

At 6/11/06 11:46 PM, bub_nydb wrote:

At 6/10/06 05:10 AM, Occluded wrote:

-claps- :D

At 5/29/06 12:21 AM, Kasualty wrote: Is the right justified to say that homosexuality is wrong? I don't understand why, isn't almost everything humans do, besides primal urges, unnatural? I mean the computer your sitting in front of was created by manipulating nature. It wouldn't be here by nature alone, so is it unnatural? And the chair your sitting on, or the room your in, and so on. And if gay sex is unnatural, because it is not for procreation then what about autosexuality and anal/oral in heterosexual relationships?

There is nothing wrong with gays. Some people are just naturally attracted to people of the same sex. They can't change it, and neither should we. We also should not hate them just for being gay. I don't believe in gay marriage, though, because by definition, marriage is the bondage between a man and woman, not 2 of the same. That is the way that I feel.

There is nothing different about the different type of sex. It's not natural, but it works and is pleasureful. There is nothing wrong with it if your gay or heterosexual.

At 6/12/06 08:08 AM, IHaveNoProfile wrote:

At 6/6/06 03:44 PM, AtomicTerrorist wrote: i say we exacute them all!

and the world would be a better place.

You sure are far in the closet, aren't you?

Amen to that. Atomicterrorist, what are you on??? Or are you some neo-nazi or something. People are different, they shouldn't get persecuted for that. It's people like you that I am afraid of becoming world leaders.

At 6/12/06 04:48 PM, aznpanda wrote:

At 6/11/06 09:26 AM, olskoolnintendo wrote: Gays are guys that are to ugly or to nasty to get a woman so they can only do the next best thing for se.x... get another guy like them. Same for da woman.

ehemm "are"? thats politically incorrect by all measures. j/s
I myself have many 'homosexual' acquaintances,
many of them are very desent, fairly attractive individuals.
I highly doubt they would be lonely if they were straight for their looks and character. They choose to Be the way they are.

i agree, at my highschool about half of the students are homsexual. and yet, they are incredibly attractive. just because some guy wants to be happy with another guy, it doesnt mean he is gonna get fat, and lazy. and a quick comment to those who call homosexuals fags.... a FAG is a bundle of burning sticks used to poke gay people.... um, so i highly doubt anyone on newgrounds is a FAG. Ciao.

At 6/11/06 09:26 AM, olskoolnintendo wrote: Gays are guys that are to ugly or to nasty to get a woman so they can only do the next best thing for se.x... get another guy like them. Same for da woman.

Actually, I know plenty lesbians that I wouldn't mind fucking.

I know plenty of gay guys that any girl would jump on if they weren't wearing designer clothing...

(Pardon the stereotype)

And lastly, I also know a gay guy who is exactly as you say, but he's not really gay. He just uses his feigned sexuality as a front in order to touch girls so they don't think it's a big deal. Douche.

At 6/14/06 04:44 PM, mofomojo wrote: Your sexuality, your business.

Therefore, not only should others not tell you what to do, they shouldn't care, which is just as important.

I think it's all right to hate gay things and predominantly gay habits, but don't hate gay people.

I agree with you

I find nothing wrong with homosexuality. I support gay people. =(

OK im not gay or anything but in the bible it says nowhere that a man cant be with another man or woman woith woman... oerists just say that to you... ya... and growing up wit 2 dads or moms would kinda suk........

FUCK YOU alberta is not rednecks ok? i used to kive there the only redneck place in alberta is those ashole calgary ppl!!!

At 6/11/06 09:26 AM, olskoolnintendo wrote: Gays are guys that are to ugly or to nasty to get a woman so they can only do the next best thing for se.x... get another guy like them. Same for da woman.

Gay people are not gay just because they are ugly and cant get a partner of the opposite sex. That is not a reason at all ...:) SOme reasons gay people are gay is maybe because they were raped or abused by a person of the opposite sex.
From my experience this is the main reason why they become gay. So in effect, heterosexuals make gay people gay(and no im not gay.My parents{mom and stepmom) were)

At 6/15/06 01:02 AM, Jarinisdabomb wrote: Gay people are not gay just because they are ugly and cant get a partner of the opposite sex. That is not a reason at all ...:) SOme reasons gay people are gay is maybe because they were raped or abused by a person of the opposite sex.
From my experience this is the main reason why they become gay. So in effect, heterosexuals make gay people gay(and no im not gay.My parents{mom and stepmom) were)

Except for the fact that no psychologist worth his or her salt would support either theory.

LISTEN HERE ALL U AGAINST! I AM NOT A HOMO SEXUAL BUT LOOK DO WE WANT TO GIVE U[ FREEDOM TO BE "MORALLY RIGHT" NO! AND WHATS WRONG WITH IT? IF 2 PEOPLE FEEL IN LOVE THEN THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED. OK?

SO SHUT UP!

Yours the Hydra of Britain

At 5/29/06 12:26 AM, Peternormous wrote:

At 5/29/06 12:23 AM, peedee wrote: Homosexuals are fags.

Thats right.

Although I feel that homosexuality is wong, I feel no need to impose my beliefs on others, so I guess I support gay marriage.

I'm against gay marriage, not because of religous reasons or morality. It's just because most countries and cultures don't see gay marriage valid. All I'm going to say is, a gay marriage is only valid in states or countries who acknowledge it. So for the united states, what about about two or 3 say its valid? So that means 47 or 48 out of 50 states don't see gay marriage as valid. Overall, if your gay married, and your out of that state, dont get hurt or killed. Your significant partner won't be able to make the decisions about you because you won't be considered married. Also stay in the country.

There is a reason why all the gay people are dying from AIDS.

The human anus was not meant for penetration by a penis.

Gay sex has no purpose in the goal of a human life, reproduction.

The penis was meant to be ejaculated into the vagina, not the anus.

Therefor gay sex makes no sense, unless you are drunk or something and want to 'experiment', but that is just gross and don't tell me about the details, I thought you were my straight friend, get away from me you homo.

I think it's absolutely hilarious when the people are so afraid of being labeled as gay that they ALWAYS make room in their posts to oh-so-eloquently point out and exert their heterosexuality, regardless of which side of the argument they're on.

I'm also amazed that this thread is still alive; I honestly think homosexuality is the most popular topic on these boards. And why? Why, why, why? I don't understand why this is such a desperately important issue to everyone. Why are the personal lives of individual citizens so much more important than the bulldozing of homes in the Gaza Strip, the genocide in Darfur, the AIDS pandemic, the worldwide scourge of terrorism? I'm flattered that people are thinking of us so often, but aren't there more pressing and important matters than restricting your own peoples' rights or arguing fruitlessly trying to find some simplistic, clear-cut answer cause for homosexuality (which, by the by, you will never find because it is a far cry from simple)?

Or perhaps it's all a defence mechanism? A last-ditch attempt at trying to flush away something that you all fear so much? I'll tell you what it is: bullshit.

At 6/11/06 11:46 PM, bub_nydb wrote:

Fair enough to exclude non-humans, though polygamy and legal age still remain to demonstrate that the current definition of marriage is a bit arbitrary.

I've been thinking a lot about this, lately thanks to you. My suggestion for resolving the redefinition of marriage is very pragmatic. Treat a marriage like you do a company. The mariage is a new single entity owned by the married. However unlike companies the other partner will not only be an owner, but also an asset in a way. The only reason for this last part is for Terri Schiavo type things. This is the idea in the rough. Pretty crude. Any thoughts? This does allow for polygamy. And is more adaptable in the case of future societal changes.

Yeah, so then indirect results of changing the definition of marriage must be considered as well as direct results. And with multiple parties involved, there are conflicting needs.

I agree with the general statement, but specifically. In this case the right of homosexuals to marry someone they are in love with is being balanced with the infintesimally small shared tax burden (one being enjoyed by those in a traditional marriage), and the impediment of redefining marriage. The freedoms of those wishing to enter into marriage are being the more impeded. I know there are other reasons. The religious one shouldn't be considered unless we want a theocracy. The sanctity of the union is kinda crap in my book if we are going to continue to allow divorce. What else?

And I may be wrong here, but adultary isn't an offense against the people is it? I know it's grounds for divorce, but the state can't actually press charges can it? It's a contract violation. No more illegal than any other contract violation. Government doesn't invlove itself in this on the behalf of society.

Adultery has in certain times and places been considered a crime against society and been deemed worthy of severe punishment up to and including death, but under current U.S. law it is only a contract violation and sometimes a tort (civil wrong). There have been cases where the affair partner who was outside the marriage has been sued successfully for damages for interference with the execution of a legal contract. Government does involve itself to make adultery legal grounds for dissolution of the marital contract. Similarly in most places government currently involves itself to make man+man or woman+woman not meet the legal requirements for entering into a marital contract. The big difference is that government leaves the decision for marital contract status mostly in the hands of the two spouses in the case of adultery whereas government allows the homosexual couple no such decision to enter into a marital contract. Come to think of it, homosexual couples right now could probably enter into legal contracts with each other that approximate marriage. However, their contracts would not be granted special recognition by government and they would not reap government granted marital benefits.

I guess at it's core I don't get the ethical standard that makes the distinction between a man and a woman. The contract of marriage isn't about a man being married to a woman. That is an image we have of the traditional definition of love. The contract is about two people in love commiting themselves to one another. That is it's purpose. To join two people.

There's no universal agreement on human rights. Certainly I do not want discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, national origin, or caste. And yet we have formalized racial and gender discrimination known as affirmative action which seeks to reverse the effects of past discrimination. Discrimination on the basis of behavior is another matter.

I believe there is though. Even the people who break the rules understand that they are breaking them. You can tell because when someone does something to wrong someone else they don't argue the ethics of what they did, but the circumstance. They try to excuse themselves. They don't argue that what they did was right. They merely try to justify the wrong doing. "I ate your leftover pizza, becuase you keep taking my sodas out of the fridge" The universal rule of human rights is in my opinion. "Treat others as you wish to be treated". This a little simple the expanded version in my mind comes to something more like... Behave in a way which does as little to hinder another persons ability to behave how they wish, and he will show you the same courtesy. It has to be a mutal contract. I agree that this contract can be broken. But those who do still wants others to follow the contract. Theives don't like being stole from. That is a simpler one. Rapists don't like having thier penises cut off. This seems like a mismatch, but it is an equal abuse of the same freedom. It's seems to me this rule and the ones that logically derive from it are universal.

This is merely ethical behavior. Not good behavior. Good behavior I believe comes from a more extreme tenent.

Your thoughts? I take the absolute tone, but it this is for expediency. Not becuase I believe I'm that right.

It is a refreshing difference from the flame fest that such discussions often become on the internet. I should be thanking you for that and the opportunity to exchange ideas and think about the issue from different angles.

Likewise. I wish it could always be so. But here I am a hypocrite. My past has shown I'm just as likely to degrade the conversation as the next guy.

Put that way, I don't see how it would unless gay marriage gave greater benefits than straight marriage -- and noone has proposed that. And to be fair, heterosexuals could marry a same gendered person and get the benefits of a gay marriage. Turnabout is fair play for the "homosexuals can already marry" argument, is it not?

Yes, however irrelivant it may be at this time. It would be hilarious if the future allowed for straight people pretending to be gay for public acceptance.

"Dad's I have something to tell you both... I'm straight"

At 6/12/06 02:13 AM, bub_nydb wrote:

Ignore the statement in my last post that ended "... What else". I should read ahead.

Now I'm going to try something unusual. I'm going to try to provide arguments for gay marriage addressing the point of view of the right -- first the social aspects and then the economic ones. I would appreciate hearing any well-reasoned arguments from the right that would counter what I present or input from the left that would supplement what I have here. I've intentionally left out fairness arguments, since I severely doubt that a fairness argument from one side will ever be found compelling by the opposing side on this issue.

Pardon my comments, as I believe it will mostly be adding to the arguement. I will try to take the devil's advocate, but it will likely be decidedly less often.

Unnatural/sinful choice?
First off, granting social equality to homosexual relationships is not something the right is every going to be in favor of since they view homosexual acts as unnatural &/or against God's will and a matter of choice. Scientific evidence demonstrating that while individual acts involve choice, sexual orientation (attraction to same gender) is linked to genetics would help to soften the stance of some. Even if someone is opposed on the basis of morality, one can still view it as not the government's job to legislate morality but society's job to encourage morality through social pressure.

The right will argue 'fuzzy math' that scientific evidence linking homosexuality to genetics is not conclusive. Also that predisposition is not an excuse for breaking with morality. All men still have a choice. My arguement to that has always been 'your morality isn't a universal. It is theocratic, and other than the offense it supposedly commits against God, it is harmless' Which necessitates your folling arguement from the right.

Corruption of youth?

Good arguement. I might (hypothetically on the right) argue with the notion that parental influence may play a large role in sexual behavior. I watched a discovery channel special on vultures and the were raising vultures in captivity without the parents present. They had to feed the vultures with a puppet that resembled a vulture or the vultures would not mate when they grew to adults. So there may be something to be said about the nurture side of the homosexual debate. But, homosexuals mostly grew up in heterosexual environments. So, it is not the ultimate determinant. Regardless, weather nuture or nature it is in either case irreversible.

Promotes promiscuity?

Complete agreement. I don't see a real arguement to the contrary.

Link to pedophilia?

Also in complete agreement. With nothing to really add to the arguement, but on a rhetorical note. Sexual deviance of any kind tends to be lumped in together in the eyes of the 'kinkless'. My friend in seminary once told me that the word for homosexual in Aramaic was the word for any kind of sexual deviance.

Preservation of marriage and the family?

And the kid would be more healthy if it was more socially acceptable. Government validation would do that.

I believe the arguments above complete my slight shift from marginally against gay marriage to marginally for it. I still feel that redefining marriage on a national level is unrealistic at this time and a waste of effort in government. I also feel that it is not something that should be done without a lot of careful consideration. For the foreseeable future the definition of marriage is likely to remain a state issue, as it has been since the founding of the United States.

I gotta say man, that's fuckin' cool. Most people are way too resistant (myself included) to and ideological change. Props to you.

Does this mean we can't argue anymore? Shit.

At 6/16/06 04:27 AM, Doitzel wrote: I think it's absolutely hilarious when the people are so afraid of being labeled as gay that they ALWAYS make room in their posts to oh-so-eloquently point out and exert their heterosexuality, regardless of which side of the argument they're on.

Well...

At 6/10/06 02:43 PM, JadedSoB wrote: Occluded, I'm not trying to insult you, but would you happen to be gay? Because everytime I check one of these threads you or Penal are always in them.

It didn't bother me when I saw this. I got called 'fag' a lot in highschool and got over it. But I could see how this sort of thing puts people on the defensive.

Alright, fair enough. But even then, he was asking based on an observation he made. Generally, the people that call gay people gay or fags are also going to call straight people gay or fags -- regardless of what their sexuality actually is -- so long as they argue in favour of gays' rights or acceptance.

Did that make sense?

At any rate, I forgot what I was going to say here and have lost the zeal of my previous post, so... *gone*