[QUOTE=cbcobo;34003456]this is because a gay's brain forms differently from a normal person's brain - it makes them do strange things, act strange - and most importantly, damages evolution because they don't procreate.[/QUOTE]
Objectively false.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33996644]except that would only work if one group shrank significantly more. If they both shrink about the same amount, there will be no change. That's like saying people were more fertile during the black death simply because so many people died.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://ldolphin.org/popdips2.gif[/IMG]
That's exactly what I'm saying, and it's true. Look at the graph, do you see how fast population recovered? And it stayed exponential growth until the industrial revolution, where the population exploded. Now people are less fertile, which is why Japan is beginning to have negative population growth. It makes sense, just look at the data. (of course the data for that graph, which took for fucking ever to find by the way, only goes until the 1700s, but this graph shows that world population growth is, in fact, declining, due to the abundance of people.)[URL="http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_grow&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=current+world+population+growth"]http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_grow&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=current+world+population+growth[/URL]
[QUOTE=The one that is;34003019]I don't have a problem with two guys wanting to be a couple and all that. I find it perfectly fine. WHAT I CAN'T FUCKING STAND! Is the fuckers who sit there, force it down my gullet and have their damned ass gay parade and all this public bullshit. If you want to do things behind closed doors, fucking go for it, don't put it into the public you pieces of shit. I don't go outside with ladies and have incredibly passionate loud sex in the middle of the park or in the mall do I? No, so fucking stop forcing your bullshit on me.
They should be able to have the legal marriage bonuses however marriage is a religious service and action thus isn't up to law dictation anyway.[/QUOTE]
this doesn't happen you fucking weirdo. the fact that you actually believe this is the reason pride parades happen
[QUOTE=Jasun;33932399]This stuff is worse
[t]http://slinq.com/gallery/albums/Brighton%20Gay%20Pride%202011/normal_Gay_Pride_2011-08-13_(1)_353.JPG[/t]
I don't see how gay pride is an excuse to wear bondage gear, even if the people wearing it do like bondage. You wouldn't expect to be able to wear this in any other kind of parade, or even in a public place.[/QUOTE]
awesome, i saw those dudes at brighton pride, it was pretty cool.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/6KnkS.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33992689]sorry, what is the difference?[/QUOTE]
a transvestite is somebody who dresses up in the other gender's clothing purely for pleasure (sexual or otherwise). a transperson is somebody whose physical sex is different from their mental gender.
i should really make a thread about this since literally nobody on facepunch understands anything about it (because they are small-minded children)
sorry about the missunderstanding, I thought they were just two different words for the same thing.
[editline]1st January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=The one that is;34003019]I don't have a problem with two guys wanting to be a couple and all that. I find it perfectly fine. WHAT I CAN'T FUCKING STAND! Is the fuckers who sit there, force it down my gullet and have their damned ass gay parade and all this public bullshit. If you want to do things behind closed doors, fucking go for it, don't put it into the public you pieces of shit. I don't go outside with ladies and have incredibly passionate loud sex in the middle of the park or in the mall do I? No, so fucking stop forcing your bullshit on me.
They should be able to have the legal marriage bonuses however marriage is a religious service and action thus isn't up to law dictation anyway.[/QUOTE]
speaking of which, I don't have a problem with people being black. I find it perfectly fine. WHAT I CAN'T FUCKING STAND! Is the fuckers who sit there, force it down my gullet and have their damned ass black parade and all this public bullshit. If you want to do things behind closed doors, fucking go for it, don't put it into the public you pieces of shit. I don't go outside with ladies and be incredibly passionately white in the middle of the park or in the mall do I? No, so fucking stop forcing your bullshit on me. They should be able to have the legal marriage bonuses however because marriage was invented by whites.
You see, being gay is just part of who they are, just like you are straight. Just like I am white, and Obama is black. And last time I checked, They don't actually have sex during the Gay Pride Parades.
Being gay/bi is just like being straight. Except for liking different genitalia. However those people mentioned above wearing bondage gear in public is kind of weird.
There is nothing inherently wrong with being gay/bi.
also marriage can be done in a courthouse by the state.
[QUOTE=OneFourth;34005898]Being gay/bi is just like being straight. Except for liking different genitalia. However those people mentioned above wearing bondage gear in public is kind of weird.
There is nothing inherently wrong with being gay/bi.
also marriage can be done in a courthouse by the state.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't mean anything if the state won't recognize it, so any benefits of being married go out the window.
Except the obvious benefit of knowing that your partner has committed themselves to you and you alone, and that you've done the same. Surely there's a sense of security there.
[QUOTE=MrWhite;34009123]Except the obvious benefit of knowing that your partner has committed themselves to you and you alone, and that you've done the same. Surely there's a sense of security there.[/QUOTE]
that is very unrelated to the topic of legal marriage rights
you don't need legal marriage to feel secure in a relationship, that's just silly
[QUOTE=Bletotum;34010552]that is very unrelated to the topic of legal marriage rights
you don't need legal marriage to feel secure in a relationship, that's just silly[/QUOTE]
Argh, I was tired and I hadn't read the posts before me quite correctly.
[QUOTE=Bletotum;34010552]that is very unrelated to the topic of legal marriage rights
you don't need legal marriage to feel secure in a relationship, that's just silly[/QUOTE]
honestly, I think the best solution is to remove all of the legal\tax implications of marriage, making it free for anyone to do, if they want to.
[QUOTE=limulus54;34013497]honestly, I think the best solution is to remove all of the legal\tax implications of marriage, making it free for anyone to do, if they want to.[/QUOTE]
i agree, but instead of agreeing, i disagree and think the opposite of what you think, instead
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;34014385]i agree, but instead of agreeing, i disagree and think the opposite of what you think, instead[/QUOTE]
why's that exactly
[QUOTE=Turnips5;34014439]why's that exactly[/QUOTE]
because the legal and tax benefits of marriage make it way easier to run a family and share finances for people who otherwise wouldn't be really know how to go about creating the series of legal contracts that would apply the same benefits.
that's what marriage is, it's just a binding legal contract specifically tailored to help a couple run a single household and raise a family.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;34014666]because the legal and tax benefits of marriage make it way easier to run a family and share finances for people who otherwise wouldn't be really know how to go about creating the series of legal contracts that would apply the same benefits.
that's what marriage is, it's just a binding legal contract specifically tailored to help a couple run a single household and raise a family.[/QUOTE]
couldn't you do the same thing with civil partnerships though, I mean he's talking about marriage in what I imagined to be purely the religious sense
just give everyone who wants to raise kids civil partnerships which give the same benefits as state-recognised marriage currently does
I have a bad feeling I'm just arguing semantics now, we clearly want the same thing
[QUOTE=Turnips5;34014743]couldn't you do the same thing with civil partnerships though, I mean he's talking about marriage in what I imagined to be purely the religious sense
just give everyone who wants to raise kids civil partnerships which give the same benefits as state-recognised marriage currently does
I have a bad feeling I'm just arguing semantics now, we clearly want the same thing[/QUOTE]
but that's literally exactly what we have right now. people get civil partnerships and the civil partnerships are called marriage. the only point someone could possibly be making here is that it should be legally called a civil partnership instead of a marriage which is dumb because people are just going to call it a marriage anyway.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;34015434]but that's literally exactly what we have right now. people get civil partnerships and the civil partnerships are called marriage. the only point someone could possibly be making here is that it should be legally called a civil partnership instead of a marriage which is dumb because people are just going to call it a marriage anyway.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_partnership_in_the_United_Kingdom[/url]
huh okay, it seems like I was misinformed, I thought that "civil partnership" didn't give quite the same rights as "marriage" in this country but apparently it does
if that's the case I'm not sure I have anything else to say here
Also why is it LGBT instead of LGB? Transexualism isn't a sexuality, not that I have anything against them.
[QUOTE=Jasun;34016146]Also why is it LGBT instead of LGB? Transexualism isn't a sexuality, not that I have anything against them.[/QUOTE]
the two groups tend to be arguing for roughly the same thing, and historically one has always been more understanding of the other compared to the rest of the world.
But I agree. There's little reason to group the two anymore, especially the way LGBT is used nowadays. I don't think sexuality needs to be further confused with gender/roles/identity/whatever.
[QUOTE=Jasun;34016146]why is it LGBT instead of LGB?[/QUOTE] I think it's because a lot of the prejudice is born out of the same kinds of insecurities or ignorance, they also want the same kind of rights.
Why does facepunch love gays so much? I'm all for people being able to do whatever the fuck they want but you guys are gay for gay people
[QUOTE=limulus54;34016732]the two groups tend to be arguing for roughly the same thing, and historically one has always been more understanding of the other compared to the rest of the world.
But I agree. There's little reason to group the two anymore[/QUOTE]
why
its not like everyone is cool with gays and trangender people all of a sudden
both groups are fighting for related rights(gender/sexuality, things people are both born with, and most people don't understand that, therefore the groups work together well)
[editline]2nd January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Shazmind;34017677]Why does facepunch love gays so much? I'm all for people being able to do whatever the fuck they want but you guys are gay for gay people[/QUOTE]
thank you for your well thought out and informative post, I look forward to more intelligent spillings from you in the future
[QUOTE=Shazmind;34017677]Why does facepunch love gays so much? I'm all for people being able to do whatever the fuck they want but you guys are gay for gay people[/QUOTE]
...did it ever occur to you that some facepunchers [I]are actually gay?[/I]
Is no one allowed to support a group?
[QUOTE=Bletotum;34017681]why
its not like everyone is cool with gays and trangender people all of a sudden
both groups are fighting for related rights(gender/sexuality, things people are both born with, and most people don't understand that, therefore the groups work together well)[/QUOTE]
Because it's being used to describe a group of people rather than a form of activism. There's now "LGBT people", and there shouldn't be.
[editline]2nd January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;34018456]...did it ever occur to you that some facepunchers [I]are actually gay?[/I]
Is no one allowed to support a group?[/QUOTE]
I think even you would have to admit that facepunch is a bit forceful and somewhat blind in their support of quite a few groups or sides of an argument.
[QUOTE=limulus54;34018795]
I think even you would have to admit that facepunch is a bit forceful and somewhat blind in their support of quite a few groups or sides of an argument.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that support of any sort of rights-based issue can ever be considered blind
[QUOTE=limulus54;34018795]Because it's being used to describe a group of people rather than a form of activism. There's now "LGBT people", and there shouldn't be.
[editline]2nd January 2012[/editline]
I think even you would have to admit that facepunch is a bit forceful and somewhat blind in their support of quite a few groups or sides of an argument.[/QUOTE]
everything you say, you do not support
[editline]2nd January 2012[/editline]
explain why there should not be a collective term of LGBT people, and how facepunch is blind, or really, [b]quit posting[/b]
[QUOTE=limulus54;34018795]Because it's being used to describe a group of people rather than a form of activism. There's now "LGBT people", and there shouldn't be.
[editline]2nd January 2012[/editline]
I think even you would have to admit that facepunch is a bit forceful and somewhat blind in their support of quite a few groups or sides of an argument.[/QUOTE]
What's wrong with LGBT people? they do exist. Lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders are every where. And Why should we be divided over basic human rights?
[QUOTE=Bletotum;34019900]everything you say, you do not support
[editline]2nd January 2012[/editline]
explain why there should not be a collective term of LGBT people, and how facepunch is blind, or really, [b]quit posting[/b][/QUOTE]
Because they do not share traits. In the context of activism there's a good enough reason for the term LGBT to exist, and that is because their goals are often the same. However, in the rest of the world, transsexualism and homosexuality are two entirely separate issues and groups, and they should not be classified that way. It promotes the idea that sexual orientation relates to gender and gender roles, imo, and that needs to be stopped. This is, in fact, a slightly more drawn out form of what I have already said, but it is so convenient to claim a lack of support isn't it?
As for facepunch, for this particular issue I see two problems. One, that they are entirely willing to classify anyone who is against them as insecure, ignorant, religious, or otherwise lump them into one easily dismissable group, as though no one who dissagreed with them could possibly be similar to themselves in any way. The second problem is harder to explain. I'm sure I'll lose whatever credibility I still have by saying this, but a lot of the people here don't seem motivated by the issue itself, they seem to get some kind of satisfaction by making an argument for that particular side, but they aren't actually invested in it.
[editline]2nd January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;34020314]What's wrong with LGBT people? they do exist. Lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders are every where. And Why should we be divided over basic human rights?[/QUOTE]
Of course they exist. Separately.
[QUOTE=Jebus;32517332]I'm not against gays, I have gay friends and I don't think of them or treat them any differently.
However, I do believe that homosexuality is a mental condition, whether the result of being exposed to certain things during adolescence or simply the way that the brain can develop. Essentially it's the same respect as paedophilia or people who can 'fall in love' or feel sexually attracted to inanimate objects; it's not necessarily a problem, but it isn't 'right'.[/QUOTE]
Interesting but that's a little too scientific how about we just say that it's like the same thing that determines weather one is right or left handed or ambidextrous (bisexual ,which i am) it could be simpler than were making it.
[QUOTE=limulus54;34020356]Because they do not share traits. In the context of activism there's a good enough reason for the term LGBT to exist, and that is because their goals are often the same. However, in the rest of the world, transsexualism and homosexuality are two entirely separate issues and groups, and they should not be classified that way. It promotes the idea that sexual orientation relates to gender and gender roles, imo, and that needs to be stopped. This is, in fact, a slightly more drawn out form of what I have already said, but it is so convenient to claim a lack of support isn't it?
As for facepunch, for this particular issue I see two problems. One, that they are entirely willing to classify anyone who is against them as insecure, ignorant, religious, or otherwise lump them into one easily dismissable group, as though no one who dissagreed with them could possibly be similar to themselves in any way. The second problem is harder to explain. I'm sure I'll lose whatever credibility I still have by saying this, but a lot of the people here don't seem motivated by the issue itself, they seem to get some kind of satisfaction by making an argument for that particular side, but they aren't actually invested in it.
[editline]2nd January 2012[/editline]
Of course they exist. Separately.[/QUOTE]
But what good reason is there for being anti-LGBT rights? And both LGB and T activism are about the same thing: Gender roles. Transexuals challenge them by dressing or acting like someone of a different gender. Homosexuals challenge them by dating people of the same gender, instead of a different gender.
[QUOTE=limulus54;34020356]Because they do not share traits. In the context of activism there's a good enough reason for the term LGBT to exist, and that is because their goals are often the same. However, in the rest of the world, transsexualism and homosexuality are two entirely separate issues and groups, and they should not be classified that way. It promotes the idea that sexual orientation relates to gender and gender roles, imo, and that needs to be stopped. This is, in fact, a slightly more drawn out form of what I have already said, but it is so convenient to claim a lack of support isn't it?
As for facepunch, for this particular issue I see two problems. One, that they are entirely willing to classify anyone who is against them as insecure, ignorant, religious, or otherwise lump them into one easily dismissable group, as though no one who dissagreed with them could possibly be similar to themselves in any way. The second problem is harder to explain. I'm sure I'll lose whatever credibility I still have by saying this, but a lot of the people here don't seem motivated by the issue itself, they seem to get some kind of satisfaction by making an argument for that particular side, but they aren't actually invested in it.
[/QUOTE]
at least they're standing for something, you just appear to overly contrarian constantly
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
