Issues concerning gays -- part XXXVVV

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


You're avoiding the issue. Gays can have sex all they want. It's fine and legal.

The government does not have to endorse them with additonal legal benefits because the practice it feels is not productive. And it isn't. It's 100% pleasure-based.

If I feel I want to commit myself to a person of the same sex and live with that person for the rest of my life, that should be endorsed by the government. And wrong again.. it is not 100% pleasure based (again get it in your sick head, I'm not all about pleasure). I'm taking this argument to a personal viewpoint because I am homosexual, and it is becoming personal.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
You're avoiding the issue.

You are the one that keeps bringing up how sex with an animal is similar to the love between gay people.

I guess the only way you would know that is by the soft meows your cat wispers in your ear as you have sex with it... so I guess that's why you probably think it's consentual....

SO just stop it with your "gay sex is like somebody forcing sex on an animal" crap... just more bigotry and stupidity on your part.

[Wiglaf]

If I feel I want to commit myself to a person of the same sex and live with that person for the rest of my life, that should be endorsed by the government

Marriage has been between a man and a woman for generations now. Because a liberal culture craze sweeps America does not elevate sexually worthless and culturally radical friendships to the institution of marriage.

You are the one that keeps bringing up how sex with an animal is similar to the love between gay people

It's a chilling effect argument.
It's a chilling effect argument.
It's a chilling effect argument.
It's a chilling effect argument.
It's a chilling effect argument.
It's a chilling effect argument.

It's not a literal metaphor, for Christ's sakes stop laughing about it, cat-sex was funny in grade one.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Marriage has been between a man and a woman for generations now. Because a liberal culture craze sweeps America does not elevate friendships to the institution of marriage.

Gay love has been around since the beginning of man, before America even existed. Homosexuals have been long oppressed and deserve freedom. America is not directed by religious fanatics as yourself.

[Wiglaf]

You bleeding heart liberal, gay love has never provided for stability and never will. And it's a matter of stability more than religion.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
You bleeding heart liberal, gay love has never provided for stability and never will. And it's a matter of stability more than religion.

Hahahah.. again calling me a liberal is like calling Sava a republican. I'm not a liberal. Not even close. Gay love is stable and will be. If it is about stability then marriage would be granted to us.

[Ming]

"It's a chilling effect argument"

Call it what you want... but it still shows your stupidity for making the comparison.

Let's all vote... which is more moral?

Wiglaf forcing himself on a kitten,

or two consenting adults who love each other making love...

You make the call!



just another "chilling effect"

[Wiglaf]

Gay love is stable and will be. If it is about stability then marriage would be granted to us.

Marriage is about the family and its cultural fortitude as one standing bastion of American moral value. Look at it historically, practically. It is not a gigantic sex-hedonistic party and can not be stable as such.

Ming, I ban you as mod in absentia, you are misquoting, insulting, and spreading sexual malice, come back in a week.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Marriage is about the family and its cultural fortitude as one standing bastion of American moral value. Look at it historically, practically. It is not a gigantic sex-hedonistic party and can not be stable as such.

Ming, I ban you as mod in absentia, you are misquoting, insulting, and spreading sexual malice, come back in a week.

Wrong again. Homosexuality is no more hedonistic then heterosexuality. Nice try really. American moral value? I'm a part of this country too and so is every other gay person. You can't force out because of YOUR moral values, which are wrong to begin with.

Wiglaf, you're a idiotic bigot. You don't control this forum.

[Wiglaf]

Homosexuality has nothing to do with procreation. Maybe it's not always hedonistic in that it can show love. Fine. But I can show love to a cat too....if you allow it for one, you must allow it for all. Ridiculous.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Homosexuality has nothing to do with procreation. Maybe it's not always hedonistic in that it can show love. Fine. But I can show love to a cat too....if you allow it for one, you must allow it for all. Ridiculous.

Wrong again! A cat cannot consent. Some of the same sex can consent! You are the one who is acting ridiculous.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Marriage is about the family and its cultural fortitude as one standing bastion of American moral value. Look at it historically, practically. It is not a gigantic sex-hedonistic party and can not be stable as such.

Hmmm... there are a lot of gay couples who have very stable relationships that most would consider the same as a marriage if it wasn't for bigots like you You argument that they can't be stable relationships is just plain silly... You have no proof that gay marriages would be any less stable than the 50% of straight marriages that end in divorce. Your arguments are not based in any kind of logic... just silly unsupported opinions.

Ming, I ban you as mod in absentia, you are misquoting, insulting, and spreading sexual malice, come back in a week.

Nahhh... I can deal with people who post bigotry, because that is against the rules here... and you are just posting your hateful bigotry... so your stuck with me!

[Wiglaf]

Wrong again! A cat cannot consent. Some of the same sex can consent! You are the one who is acting ridiculous.

Fine. One guy married to 6000000000000000000000.

Draw the line somewhere for God's sake.

And Ming, a nation must have a definition of marriage. If you let gays marry, the definition as it has stood successfully for generations collapses, America is swept away by culture wave, and marriage as a venerable institution is gone, replaced by a chilling effected waste of time.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Fine. One guy married to 6000000000000000000000.

Draw the line somewhere for God's sake.

And Ming, a nation must have a definition of marriage. If you let gays marry, the definition as it has stood successfully for generations collapses, America is swept away by culture wave, and marriage as a venerable institution is gone, replaced by a chilling effected waste of time.

Draw the line? OH NO.. not this argument again. Again in a gay relationship there are two non-related people. Not one of many people. Again your argument is illogical and you are acting like an idiot.

And that paragraph directed at Ming is ridiculous.

[Wiglaf]

Again in a gay relationship there are two non-related people. Not one of many people

Can an argument be made that marriages ought to be allowed among 50 people or not?