Couple sues after finding their engagement photo in an anti-gay marriage ad
106 replies, posted
[QUOTE=usaokay;37910954]Two guys fucking each other in the ass is not my business.[/QUOTE]
Comments like this bug me almost as much as openly homophobic comments.
[QUOTE=Foogooman;37912572]Comments like this bug me almost as much as openly homophobic comments.[/QUOTE]
I agree that viewing homosexuality as nothing but buttfucking is abhorrent, but it's true though; even if that was the case it's still none of anybodies business.
[QUOTE=Primigenes;37913356]:eng101:
Is their really that much of a problem?[/QUOTE]
the word sex can also mean gender, not just procreation
[QUOTE=glassy;37911025]Look at those two...men.. they are kissing! Somebody stop them I don't want to see it!
Jokes aside, it still baffles me reading about these people existing in considerable numbers over at the united states.[/QUOTE]
Its like a zombie apocalypse! Except its not really an apocalypse.. and they dont spread it.. and they arent really dangerous.. or dead.. yet.
Fuck ruined my point :downs:
[B]I do not have anything against homosexuals though, and i really think those people who stole that picture should be reprimanded.[/B]
Actually i have a lesbian friend, she's one nice person.
[editline]4th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Vintage Thatguy;37912453]if gays can marry than why can't cars????
checkmate atheists[/QUOTE]
Im an atheist but still against same-sex marriage, since its basically one of the things Christianity forbids. Its like making hotdogs mandatory at a Chanukkah part.
No offense to anybody intended. Rate boxes.
...and why exactly is that picture a bad interpretation of "family values?"
[QUOTE=timmah638;37913610]...and why exactly is that picture a bad interpretation of "family values?"[/QUOTE]
because heather cant have two daddies god made it so she should have a mommy and daddy
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37913715]because heather cant have two daddies god made it so she should have a mommy and daddy[/QUOTE]
adam and eve not adam and steve
"levituhkus"
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37913715]because heather cant have two daddies god made it so she should have a mommy and daddy[/QUOTE]
Im quite sure that getting raised only by daddies will have a very hard mental impact on a child.
Out in nature, animals are raised by their mothers, at least.
[QUOTE=Alcoholocaust;37913484]Im an atheist but still against same-sex marriage, since its basically one of the things Christianity forbids. Its like making hotdogs mandatory at a Chanukkah part.
No offense to anybody intended. Rate boxes.[/QUOTE]
Christianity doesn't forbid it, the bible does. Not all Christians are dumb enough to take everything that's written in the bible literally.
-snip, misread-
[QUOTE=plants;37913915]Christianity doesn't forbid it, the bible does. Not all Christians are dumb enough to take everything that's written in the bible literally.[/QUOTE]First of all, the Bible is the defining text of Christianity. Second, they are supposed to.
[QUOTE=usaokay;37910954]Two guys fucking each other in the ass is not my business.[/QUOTE]
Well, unless you're one of those two guys.
[QUOTE=Alcoholocaust;37913484]
Im an atheist but still against same-sex marriage, since its basically one of the things Christianity forbids. Its like making hotdogs mandatory at a Chanukkah part.
No offense to anybody intended. Rate boxes.[/QUOTE]
This is not only offensive to gay people, but anyone who's ever made a analogy. Like, how is it that at no point within the process of making that post did your brain go, "Hey wait a minute, hotdogs are legal, and nobody's forcing Jewish people to eat them! This analogy doesn't make sense!"
[QUOTE=Alcoholocaust;37913871]Im quite sure that getting raised only by daddies will have a very hard mental impact on a child.
Out in nature, animals are raised by their mothers, at least.[/QUOTE]
Except studies have shown children raised in such a manner grow up similarly, if not - better, than those raised in a hetero family. That point's moot.
[QUOTE=Alcoholocaust;37913871]Im quite sure that getting raised only by daddies will have a very hard mental impact on a child.
Out in nature, animals are raised by their mothers, at least.[/QUOTE]
Out in nature animals don't wear clothes, use computers, have jobs...
What are you going on about? Where did you get the idea that being raised by two daddies has a "hard mental impact" on a child? Did you read an article about it or something?
[QUOTE=usaokay;37910954]Two guys fucking each other in the ass is not my business.[/QUOTE]
Of course it doesn't, I bet you don't even have the damn common decency to give them a reach around.
[QUOTE=Alcoholocaust;37913871]Im quite sure that getting raised only by daddies will have a very hard mental impact on a child.
Out in nature, animals are raised by their mothers, at least.[/QUOTE]
Some animals aren't raised by their mothers, some animals aren't raised at all. Some animals are raised by large social groups.
You can't say "animals are raised by their mothers" because that's ignoring all the cases where that is not true.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37914712]Some animals aren't raised by their mothers, some animals aren't raised at all. Some animals are raised by large social groups.
You can't say "animals are raised by their mothers" because that's ignoring all the cases where that is not true.[/QUOTE]
Some animals have rigged the enemy base with explosives.
[QUOTE=Primigenes;37913356]:eng101:
Is their really that much of a problem?[/QUOTE]
Well in a sense no, but the problem with it is that homosexual relations is harder for society to accept as normal when the "sex" part of it has all the focus, because it makes it seem unnatural compared to heterosexual relations. "Marriage" makes non-LGBT-supporting people think of beautiful love between two persons, but "same-sex marriage" makes the same people think of weird forms of copulation. Of course it boils down to the sexuality of the subject person, but it'd help if the word "homosexuality" gave the same mental associations as "heterosexuality".
[QUOTE=Solo Wing;37911348]Does separation of church and state mean NOTHING?[/QUOTE]
Not particularly, considering the 'Separation of Church and State', if I recall correctly, was a brief [i]concept[/i] mentioned in a letter from Jefferson to some other guy (Perhaps vice versa).
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37914712]Some animals aren't raised by their mothers, some animals aren't raised at all. Some animals are raised by large social groups.
You can't say "animals are raised by their mothers" because that's ignoring all the cases where that is not true.[/QUOTE]Not to mention the fact that we can and have observed homosexuality in animals in nature so that's just another strike against his argument. But his argument rang of evo psych bullshit anyway so it was already out.
[QUOTE=ramirez!;37914879]Not particularly, considering the 'Separation of Church and State', if I recall correctly, was a brief [i]concept[/i] mentioned in a letter from Jefferson to some other guy (Perhaps vice versa).[/QUOTE]
No, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause]it's right here[/url], it's [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]part of our constitution[/url].
[QUOTE=Alcoholocaust;37913871]Im quite sure that getting raised only by daddies will have a very hard mental impact on a child.
[B]Out in nature, animals are raised by their mothers, at least.[/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, except the ones that aren't. I guess they don't count though because they can't be used as an example for bigotry against homosexual parents.
[QUOTE=Alcoholocaust;37913484]Im an atheist but still against same-sex marriage, since its basically one of the things Christianity forbids. Its like making hotdogs mandatory at a Chanukkah part.[/QUOTE]
Christianity didn't and does not define marriage, the state does, and the concept predates Christianity. If you want to go off what "intent" is you have to find some ancient indo-iranians, learn to speak Sanskrit, and ask them why the word derives from "man who has been [I]given[/I] a woman".
[QUOTE=Alcoholocaust;37913871]Im quite sure that getting raised only by daddies will have a very hard mental impact on a child.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v32n02_02"]This is demonstrably false.[/URL]
[QUOTE=Alcoholocaust;37913871]Out in nature, animals are raised by their mothers, at least.[/QUOTE]
Did you stay in school past grade 8?
[QUOTE=Alcoholocaust;37913484]No offense to anybody intended.[/QUOTE]
That isn't an excuse.
[QUOTE=Alcoholocaust;37913484]Rate boxes.[/QUOTE]
Nor does that somehow exempt you from being called an imbecile.
[QUOTE=Solo Wing;37911348]Does separation of church and state mean NOTHING?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Lalelalala;37912428]Not if the religion is Christianity.
"Separation of Church and State? Obviously the people who wrote that law didn't feel the need to specify that Christianity is exempt since it was so OBVIOUS! Heresy!"[/QUOTE]
I thought that the Separation of Church and State wasn't a law at all. In fact I think the First Amendment says [I]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[/I]. So legally the government can't do jack about it? I may be wrong, rate me all the boxs if I am.
Edit:
Late and maybe I have the dumbs. It all seems silly to me.
laws are based on interpretation in the United States. The Supreme Court decided that the seperation of church and state was outlined in the First Amendment.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;37915162]No, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause]it's right here[/url], it's [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]part of our constitution[/url].[/QUOTE]
That's not necessarily a Separation of Church and State. It relinquishes powers for the State over the exercise of and establishment of a religion, but does not mean the State cannot follow Biblical 'teachings'. Indeed much law [i]is[/i] based on the Bible, such as Estate Law which is more or less straight from the Bible. Further, most of the Charters establishing the several States are 'born' from the Bible. If I recall correctly, the USSR's Constitution is the only one such document that actually enforces a clear separation. In fact I think the most prominent example would be criminal law, for example in order for a prosecution to take place, the principal must prove intent elsewise it is considered an accident, which, again if I recall correctly (I'm so sorry, it's been a while since I've been through the Geneva), is Matthew 5... Maybe 5:38 and/or 5:39.
[editline]4th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;37915491]Christianity didn't and does not define marriage, the state does, and the concept predates Christianity.[/QUOTE]
Yes it did. Genesis 2:24 I think, maybe possibly I don't really remember well.
[QUOTE=Grazony;37915514]I thought that the Separation of Church and State wasn't a law at all. In fact I think the First Amendment says [I]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[/I]. So legally the government can't do jack about it? I may be wrong, rate me all the boxs if I am.
Edit:
Late and maybe I have the dumbs. It all seems silly to me.[/QUOTE]
It's not a law. They're just not allowed to mandate a religion or prevent the exercise of it. I think one of them was actually effected to prevent to the State from assuming authority to teach religion.
[editline]4th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=thisispain;37915557]laws are based on interpretation in the United States. The Supreme Court decided that the seperation of church and state was outlined in the First Amendment.[/QUOTE]
Source please. I'm genuinely curious.
[QUOTE=ramirez!;37915782]Yes it did. Genesis 2:24 I think, maybe possibly I don't really remember well.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/558032_508315432519081_939747834_n.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;37915915][Marriage Stuff][/QUOTE]
I'm not always right
[QUOTE=ramirez!;37915782]Indeed much law [i]is[/i] based on the Bible, such as Estate Law which is more or less straight from the Bible.[/QUOTE]
Nope.
Common law, 15th century England, has no relevant biblical precedent. Take a fucking history class.
[QUOTE=ramirez!;37915782]Further, most of the Charters establishing the several States are 'born' from the Bible.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=James Madison]It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment... The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE. [/QUOTE]
You're going to run into explicit denial of what you just said citing anyone who ever had a hand in the Federal or a state constitution.
Again, take a fucking history class.
[QUOTE=ramirez!;37915782]If I recall correctly, the USSR's Constitution is the only one such document that actually enforces a clear separation.[/QUOTE]
Your reasoning is patently absurd.
"Valve doesn't explicitly state they aren't officially Muslim, so they must be."
The law enforces a separation, Jefferson's comments on separation being cited. That it wasn't defined was because back then people knew how to fucking read.
[I]Take a fucking history class.[/I]
[QUOTE=ramirez!;37915782]In fact I think the most prominent example would be criminal law, for example in order for a prosecution to take place, the principal must prove intent elsewise it is considered an accident, which, again if I recall correctly (I'm so sorry, it's been a while since I've been through the Geneva), is Matthew 5... Maybe 5:38 and/or 5:39.[/QUOTE]
This is so mind-bogglingly wrong I can't even start with it.
Oh, wait.
[B]Go take a fucking history class![/B]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.