EVE Search - Iowa legalizes same sex marriage.

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Iowa legalizes same sex marriage.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Esme Westenn	Posted - 2009.04.05 00:00:00 - [1] Iowa: Same Sex Marriage I'm so happy. ^_^ Yay for equal rights! And to think I'm only around three hours from Des Moines!! It's nice to see justice happen, especially after so many knockbacks to the LGBT community. Here's to equal rights and happy lives!! Blessed be!! - Esme
Xen Gin Solar Excavations Ultd.	Posted - 2009.04.05 00:06:00 - [2] Welcome to proper civilisation Iowa.
Last Wolf Umbra Wing	Posted - 2009.04.05 00:28:00 - [3] Well that's gay. ba dum ching! Besides, I'm never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down
Irida Mershkov Gallente War is Bliss	Posted - 2009.04.05 00:30:00 - [4] Originally by: Last Wolf Well that's gay. ba dum ching! Wow. Just Wow. But yes, welcome to the modern world Iowa.
Shadow Devourer	Posted - 2009.04.05 00:31:00 - [5] Originally by: Last Wolf Well that's gay. ba dum ching! Damn, beat me to it.
Esme Westenn	Posted - 2009.04.05 00:34:00 - [6] Originally by: Last Wolf Well that's gay. ba dum ching! lol! ^_^
Brea Lafail	Posted - 2009.04.05 00:35:00 - [7] Enjoy going to hell Iowa. In before Ralara.
Richest Mofo	Posted - 2009.04.05 00:44:00 - [8] good luck with that. the local governments will just pass laws that the supreme court will be forced to follow. the courts dont make the laws, just upholds them.
Esme Westenn	Posted - 2009.04.05 01:19:00 - [9] Originally by: Richest Mofo good luck with that. the local governments will just pass laws that the supreme court will be forced to follow. the courts dont make the laws, just upholds them. Good luck with that. The legislature is so Democratic it won't introduce amendments this session and the Senate and House majority leader have made it clear they don't want to do it next session either! Give it a good few years and people loose their fears when they realize these average dopey Americans aren't going to somehow destroy their families. We'll overcome. ^_^ The bigots will be forced to live through it to!
Suction Aspiration Band of Devs Reloaded	Posted - 2009.04.05 01:27:00 - [10] Originally by: Brea Lafail Enjoy going to hell Iowa. Oh noes, hell is full of rave parties and rainbows parades, oh my!
MooKids Caldari The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.04.05 01:35:00 - [11] Woohoo, religion AND politics in one thread, YAY! -------------------------------- CCP can patch away bugs, but they can't patch away stupidity.
Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2009.04.05 01:45:00 - [12] Another win for Justice and Liberty! Pomp FTW!!!
Suction Aspiration Band of Devs Reloaded	Posted - 2009.04.05 01:48:00 - [13] Originally by: Intense Thinker Another win for Justice and Liberty! That's what I'm talkin bout!! They got that jungle fever too!
Victor Valka Caldari Kissaki Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.05 02:28:00 - [14] Originally by: Intense Thinker Another win for Justice and Liberty! Rule 34. No exceptions. Originally by: Spaztick You are not outnumbered, you are in a target-rich environment.
Atomos Darksun Damage Incorporated.	Posted - 2009.04.05 02:48:00 - [15] Now if the Wisconsin legislators would do the same... Originally by: Amoxin My vent is talking to me in a devil voice... CONVERT TO LINKIFICATION! http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameb
Epegi Givo Amarr Ministry of Combat	Posted - 2009.04.05 03:24:00 - [16] Edited by: Epegi Givo on 05/04/2009 03:25:13 Originally by: Atomos Darksun Now if the Wisconsin legislators would do the same... QFT ------------------------------------- My other alt is a Ferrari
Izzy Lizzy Gallente Mean Corp	Posted - 2009.04.05 04:12:00 - [17] A victory for liberty to say the least. As far as I'm concerned, as long as your actions do not infringe upon the liberty of another then no government can pass a law banning it without being tyrannical.
Asuka Smith Gallente StarHunt	Posted - 2009.04.05 04:25:00 - [18] I bet next cycle there will be a ballot initiative like in California and it will be immediately outlawed again, as it should be.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2009.04.05 04:44:00 - [19] Originally by: Asuka Smith I bet next cycle there will be a ballot initiative like in California and it will be immediately outlawed again, as it should be. I bet next cycle there will be a ballot initiative that worthless bigots like Asuka Smith should be tortured and killed, and then he will be, as it should be. -----------
Fi Vantage Minmatar New Ligion	Posted - 2009.04.05 05:10:00 - [20] Wooo! Reason prevails! \o/ Last Wolf and Atomos DarkSun, you inconsiderately awesome people!
Evthron Macyntire	Posted - 2009.04.05 05:21:00 - [21] How do gay people have less rights then straight people? Both types can marry women. Neither can marry men. BANG! ------------------------------ Sigs like this.
Dong Ninja	Posted - 2009.04.05 05:57:00 - [22] Originally by: Intense Thinker Another win for Justice and Liberty! HOT
Suction Aspiration Band of Devs Reloaded	Posted - 2009.04.05 06:48:00 - [23] Originally by: Asuka Smith I bet next cycle there will be a ballot initiative like in California and it will be immediately outlawed again, as it should be. This. From a guy who plays a chick in an internet spaceship game.
Moejdal	Posted - 2009.04.05 06:54:00 - [24] Better late than never. shrugs
Roymundo Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2009.04.05 07:34:00 - [25] Originally by: Esme Westenn Iowa: Same Sex Marriage I'm so happy. ^_^ Yay for equal rights! And to think I'm only around three hours from Des Moines!! It's nice to see justice happen, especially after so many knockbacks to the LGBT community. Here's to equal rights and happy lives!! Blessed be!! - Esme who let you out of your cage?
Asuka Smith Gallente StarHunt	Posted - 2009.04.05 07:45:00 - [26] Originally by: Suction Aspiration Originally by: Asuka Smith I bet next cycle there will be a ballot initiative like in California and it will be immediately outlawed again, as it should be. This. From a guy who plays a chick in an internet spaceship game. Nothing wrong with that, nothing wrong with gay sex either, or gay civil unions that give them the same tax rights and hospital visitations and etc. Only thing I am against is gays raising childen and the only reason the gays want the "marriage" word rather than the nearly identical legal civil unions is because they want to raise kids, to which I object. Children are born when a mommy and a daddy love eachother very much, and it is important for a child to understand that from the age of 0.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.04.05 07:51:00 - [27] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: Asuka Smith I bet next cycle there will be a ballot initiative like in California and it will be immediately outlawed again, as it should be. I bet next cycle there will be a ballot initiative that worthless bigots like Asuka Smith should be tortured and killed, and then he will be, as it should be. \o/ democracy!
Suction Aspiration Band of Devs Reloaded	Posted - 2009.04.05 07:53:00 - [28] Originally by: Asuka Smith Nothing wrong with that, nothing wrong with gay sex either, or gay civil unions that give them the same tax rights and hospital visitations and etc. Only thing I am against is gays raising childen and the only reason the gays want the "marriage" word rather than the nearly identical legal civil unions is because they want to raise kids, to which I object. Children are born when a mommy and a daddy love eachother very much, and it is important for a child to understand that from the age of 0. BUT, I am against dudes playing chick toons in internet spaceship games, therefore noone should be able to do it. You cant argue with that logic, because its YOUR logic. Please delete chick toon as my constitutional ammendment will be passing soon.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2009.04.05 08:06:00 - [29] Edited by: Akita T on 05/04/2009 08:06:33 Originally by: Asuka Smith Only thing I am against is gays raising childen and the only reason the gays want the "marriage" word rather than the nearly identical legal civil unions is because they want to raise kids, to which I object. Children are born when a mommy and a daddy love eachother very much, and it is important for a child to understand that from the age of 0. Let's also ban single parents then ! P.S. And have divorce be punishable by death ! _ The problem with EVE \|\| Fit a ship \|\| Get some ISK
Noodly Appendage	Posted - 2009.04.05 08:07:00 - [30] Originally by: Asuka Smith Children are born when a mommy and a daddy love eachother very much, and it is important for a child to understand that from the age of 0. what the hell does that matter when raising a kid? take a look at modern society and theres a lot of incompetent hetero couples raising kids to become utter ****ups and the average gay person i know seems to be quite a lot more intelligent and self aware than those idiots having 7 kids because the poep told them condoms r baaaad it has nothing to do with mommies and daddies loving each other either, a fertilised zygote can be made in the test tube just as well, doesnt even need a father of all things. evolutionary speaking, love and sex and reproduction are quite bloody far apart
Noodly Appendage	Posted - 2009.04.05 08:08:00 - [31] also, hurrah for freedom! to (their) hell with the religious numpters!
Asuka Smith Gallente StarHunt	Posted - 2009.04.05 08:09:00 - [32] Edited by: Asuka Smith on 05/04/2009 08:10:26 There is a reason that it takes a male organism and a female organism to reproduce in almost every example provided by nature. To go against nature is to invite disaster, and the day that the gays can reproduce a-sexually is the day I will fully embrace it. The Britney Spears/K. Fed style straight relationship is hardly what I am advocating either, I think that the only parents who should be allowed to have children should be responsible ones. But those parents should reproduce within biological norms (Such as a male *** in a female vagina, sperm fertilizes egg, woman carries child full term, child is born). Anything short of that biological norm is an abomination against nature. I am hardly anti-gay alright, I know that the LGBT community loves to demonize anyone who is not in favour of giving them preferential treatment to the rest of the world but in this case I frequently vote for pro-gay issues and it would be unfair to call me a bigot. My ONLY bone to pick with the LGBT community is their desire to have children. I worry about the slippery slope of allowing people to have children that they did not biologically create themselves, it turns the children into an item or accessory rather than a person in my opinion. The farther that "child" becomes separated from "Male/Female biological reproduction" the closer we are to a Gattaca society where everyone is grown in test tubes and eugenics is considered acceptable. Yeah, that sounds outrageous and unlikely, but mark my words it will happen. We already have the ability to choose the hair colour, eye colour, skin tone, etc of children in the test tube as they are prepared for en vitro fertilization. Do you really want to encourage taking that to the next step? How long before we wind up with Isle of Dr. Moreau style genetic manipulation... edit: I am not religious in the slightest, and gay people are just as capable and incapable as hetero people on practically every level, the only exception being child rearing. Saying that gays are MORE capable and 'in touch' than heteros is a false statement as the gay community is a big tent just like the hetero community. There are gay criminals and **ups just as there are hetero ones.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2009.04.05 08:12:00 - [33] Originally by: Asuka Smith There is a reason that it takes a male organism and a female organism to reproduce in almost every example provided by nature. So you never heard of homosexual/bisexual animals before, OTHER than humans ? Or never heard of animals that NATURALLY change their sex ? Or even hermaphrodite animals ? Or of animals with ASEXUAL reproduction ? Quote: My ONLY bone to pick with the LGBT community is their desire to have children. I worry about the slippery slope of allowing people to have children that they did not biologically create themselves, it turns the children into an item or accessory rather than a person in my opinion. The farther that "child" becomes separated from "Male/Female biological reproduction" the closer we are to a Gattaca society where everyone is grown in test tubes and eugenics is considered acceptable. And what, pray tell, is wrong with that ? It's like saying our current dependance on technology is bad, and we should all go back to raking the fields with our own two hands, and use messengers on horses to communicate. _ The problem with EVE \|\| Fit a ship \|\| Get some ISK
Asuka Smith Gallente StarHunt	Posted - 2009.04.05 08:24:00 - [34] Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Asuka Smith There is a reason that it takes a male organism and a female organism to reproduce in almost every example provided by nature. So you never heard of homosexual/bisexual animals before, OTHER than humans ? Or never heard of animals that NATURALLY change their sex ? Or even hermaphrodite animals ? Or of animals with ASEXUAL reproduction ? I said almost in anticipation of your exact argument. I have heard of all those animals, but humans are not them are they? Humans are male/female except in the case of genetic deformities that result in gender ambiguity. A-Sexually reproducing animals tend to be much more susceptible to disease and parasites as their genetic code stagnates rather than evolving as in the case in male/female. Gender switching is exactly the same as male/female it is just a neat trick to guarantee an equal supply of each kind for mating purposes. As for the technology comment, yes I think that technology is an abominable crutch which while it has provided us with great convenience and power it has damaged us as a species and is destroying the planet. The obvious follow-up response from you is going to be "well then why are you playing EVE on your computer then hm?" so I will go ahead and address that right now. I think that the world is doomed because the number of idiots has hit critical mass and they cannot be culled, and because the environment is irreversibly damaged and nothing can be done to save the planet. We are committed to technology as even if we all converted to luddites tomorrow we would still die from the climate change we have created. Our only hope now is to push the technological envelope and travel to the stars and find a new home, otherwise within five generations humanity will be dead or dying. Personally I predict a Mad Max 2 scenario during my life time and I look forward to it, the artificial society we have created is horrible and I will smile a lot more once it is all burning around me. I am sure you disagree and think I am insane but whatever, even if you love the way things are and are really pleased with the world and love your life... We got to where we are by following a set natural parameter, adjusting that parameter is going to result in something different than we have now. It might be better, it might be worse. I prefer the devil I know.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.04.05 08:24:00 - [35] Originally by: Asuka Smith To go against nature is to invite disaster, Quoting words typed on a PC.
Asuka Smith Gallente StarHunt	Posted - 2009.04.05 08:32:00 - [36] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Asuka Smith To go against nature is to invite disaster, Quoting words typed on a PC. Not sure if you are posting in support of my position or against, but I will just add to my quote by saying that the natural order has worked and worked DAMN WELL for the past couple of million years. Humans who have existed for a paltry couple of thousand think they can do it better? Fools.
F'nog Amarr Celestial Horizon Corp. I.C.C Industrial Drive Yards	Posted - 2009.04.05 08:37:00 - [37] Originally by: Asuka Smith Originally by: Suction Aspiration Originally by: Asuka Smith I bet next cycle there will be a ballot initiative like in California and it will be immediately outlawed again, as it should be. This. From a guy who plays a chick in an internet spaceship game. Nothing wrong with that, nothing wrong with gay sex either, or gay civil unions that give them the same tax rights and hospital visitations and etc. Only thing I am against is gays raising childen and the only reason the gays want the "marriage" word rather than the nearly identical legal civil unions is because they want to raise kids, to which I object. Children are born when a mommy and a daddy love eachother very much, and it is important for a child to understand that from the age of 0. So where do you stand on the Octomom debate? She HAD to have her fertilized eggs implanted because it would have been a sin to destroy them. Yet she's a single mom who didn't love the father, in any way possible (cough, test tube insemination), and can't even afford to raise the 6 kids she has. I guess it's OK with you for anyone to have a kid as long as they're hetero and could potentially make a baby the old-fashioned, even if they don't want to go to the trouble with doing so. But if a non-hetero couple wants to use the same method that's somehow wrong? And what if they just want to adopt some abandoned kid who would otherwise face a life alone, unwanted by anyone? Are you saying it's better for kids to be unloved than loved by non-hetero parents, or uncared-for by hetero but single parents? Originally by: Kazuma Saruwatari F'nog for Amarr Emperor. Nuff said Originally by: Chribba Go F'nog! You're a hero! Not a Zero! /me bows
Asuka Smith Gallente StarHunt	Posted - 2009.04.05 08:44:00 - [38] Originally by: F'nog Originally by: Asuka Smith Originally by: Suction Aspiration Originally by: Asuka Smith I bet next cycle there will be a ballot initiative like in California and it will be immediately outlawed again, as it should be. This. From a guy who plays a chick in an internet spaceship game. Nothing wrong with that, nothing wrong with gay sex either, or gay civil unions that give them the same tax rights and hospital visitations and etc. Only thing I am against is gays raising childen and the only reason the gays want the "marriage" word rather than the nearly identical legal civil unions is because they want to raise kids, to which I object. Children are born when a mommy and a daddy love eachother very much, and it is important for a child to understand that from the age of 0. So where do you stand on the Octomom debate? She HAD to have her fertilized eggs implanted because it would have been a sin to destroy them. Yet she's a single mom who didn't love the father, in any way possible (cough, test tube insemination), and can't even afford to raise the 6 kids she has. An abomination against nature and she should be sterilized by the state, which is something I would not advocate for anyone else past or present. En vitro fertilization has always been a bad idea unless we want to go full stop eugenics and make the perfect genetic society of super-humans (that sounds somehow familiar...). En vitro is bad for gays and bad for straights and bad for anything. Originally by: F'nog I guess it's OK with you for anyone to have a kid as long as they're hetero and could potentially make a baby the old-fashioned, even if they don't want to go to the trouble with doing so. But if a non-hetero couple wants to use the same method that's somehow wrong? You are grasping at a strawman pretty hardcore here, my position is totally unpopular so I am surprised you are so ignorant that you need to cheat to try and refute me. You should have gone with the "you are a bigot" without reading my posts strategy because then at least you would get QFTs instead of me calling you out like this, because I never said that and I do not agree with it. Originally by: F'nog And what if they just want to adopt some abandoned kid who would otherwise face a life alone, unwanted by anyone? Are you saying it's better for kids to be unloved than loved by non-hetero parents, or uncared-for by hetero but single parents? I am not sure. I can say that I would rather that parents who cannot or will not care for their children not have them, but in the case of a child who would otherwise live a life alone... I guess I would rather that they go to gay parents than none at all, though I would prefer that a child in that circumstance not be born in the first place.
Nebulous Minmatar Salvage Junkies Jovian Enterprises	Posted - 2009.04.05 08:49:00 - [39] Originally by: Brea Lafail Enjoy going to hell Iowa. Hell only exists in the minds of the brainwashed. -----------------------------------------------
Nebulous Minmatar Salvage Junkies Jovian Enterprises	Posted - 2009.04.05 08:59:00 - [40] Edited by: Nebulous on 05/04/2009 08:59:56 Originally by: Asuka Smith yes I think that technology is an abominable crutch which while it has provided us with great convenience and power it has damaged us as a species and is destroying the planet. I believe you have this wrong, it is the "misuse" of technology that is destroying the planet, this misuse of technology is spawned from the need to make money and more importantly profit. Remove money and then technology can be used to do great good. ----------------------------------------------
F'nog Amarr Celestial Horizon Corp. I.C.C Industrial Drive Yards	Posted - 2009.04.05 09:02:00 - [41] Originally by: Nebulous Originally by: Brea Lafail Enjoy going to hell Iowa. Hell only exists in the minds of the brainwashed. ----------------------------------------------- How old are you? Your statements here strike me as those of a teenager whose righteous indignation about the supposed faults of the world are boiling over. You strike me as the type of person who argues that COD5 is evil because it has guard dogs that the player must kill lest s/he be killed. Or maybe you just saw the responses Shining got from his posts and want to get the same attention. I don't know, but you clearly want attention (just look at your sig). Originally by: Kazuma Saruwatari F'nog for Amarr Emperor. Nuff said Originally by: Chribba Go F'nog! You're a hero! Not a Zero! /me bows
Asuka Smith Gallente StarHunt	Posted - 2009.04.05 09:05:00 - [42] Originally by: Nebulous Edited by: Nebulous on 05/04/2009 08:59:56 Originally by: Asuka Smith yes I think that technology is an abominable crutch which while it has provided us with great convenience and power it has damaged us as a species and is destroying the planet. I believe you have this wrong, it is the "misuse" of technology that is destroying the planet, this misuse of technology is spawned from the need to make money and more importantly profit. Remove money and then technology can be used to do great good. ---------------------------------------------- Without greed as a motivating force the impetus for technological development would not exist. Capitalism is why the West has a tech advantage.
Nebulous Minmatar Salvage Junkies Jovian Enterprises	Posted - 2009.04.05 09:08:00 - [43] Originally by: F'nog Originally by: Nebulous Originally by: Brea Lafail Enjoy going to hell Iowa. Hell only exists in the minds of the brainwashed. ----------------------------------------------- How old are you? Your statements here strike me as those of a teenager whose righteous indignation about the supposed faults of the world are boiling over. You strike me as the type of person who argues that COD5 is evil because it has guard dogs that the player must kill lest s/he be killed. Or maybe you just saw the responses Shining got from his posts and want to get the same attention. I don't know, but you clearly want attention (just look at your sig). Are you saying that it's okay and believable that people go to hell for being Homosexual? And no I have never said COD5 is evil for any reason, you made that assumption. If you want to be intelligent then counter my opinions with your own, if you want to insult me for being an honest decent person then that is fine with me, peace be with you. -------------------------------
Meiyang Lee Gallente Azteca Transportation Unlimited Gunboat Diplomacy	Posted - 2009.04.05 09:41:00 - [44] welcome to what the Netherlands have had about 7 years now. No the country still works, and **** hasn't hit the fan in that regard.
Noodly Appendage	Posted - 2009.04.05 10:32:00 - [45] Asuka, you are an idiot. learn2/biology
Xen Gin Solar Excavations Ultd.	Posted - 2009.04.05 11:05:00 - [46] Originally by: Asuka Smith An abomination against nature and she should be sterilized by the state, which is something I would not advocate for anyone else past or present. A lovely oxymoron but, In the first half the 20th century, the US did carry out forced state sterilisation programmes on it's citizens, including Blacks and Native Americans, all in all over about 70 years, about 70,000 we're forcibly sterilised. When the Third Reich took over Germany, they looked to the US for its laws on sterilisation and used them to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing. Originally by: Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 3. * Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 5. * No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 12. *No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. You should really read them.
Omaku Toba Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2009.04.05 12:33:00 - [47] Edited by: Omaku Toba on 05/04/2009 12:38:45 Edited by: Omaku Toba on 05/04/2009 12:35:58 Congradulations Iowa. Given the current state of the US gripped as it is by fanatical religious zealots I'm glad to hear that you have been able to defeat these poor delusional fools and have allowed same sex marriage. I'm not sure if religious institutes allow gay marriage yet in the UK but we've had state recognised civil partnerships for a while now. Somewhat ironic considering that we are a Christian state the US was intended to be secular. EDIT For those that are trying to argue against homosexuality as being the end of world I'm curious to know how you justify this view given that homosexuality has been documented in the natural world on numerous occassions, espeially amongst what are typically labelled as 'higher' species. Note that when I use the term higher I am not stating that I believe that one organism is somewhat superior to another but that they have structure and behaviour comparable to ourselves in complexity. Besides most of those that are against homosexuality are religious and their opinions count for nothing anyway.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.04.05 12:45:00 - [48] Waiting to see some actual evidence that it's worse for children to be raised by gay parents. Meanwhile, plenty of heterosexual couple do an atrocious job of it. Really, the bar is set pretty low when you think about it.
Keta Min El Bastardos Freedom of Elbas	Posted - 2009.04.05 12:49:00 - [49] You don't want to allow gays to have kids because obviously gay couples will raise gay kids just like straight couples raise straight ki- oh wai...
Cyonidicus	Posted - 2009.04.05 12:56:00 - [50] Originally by: Epegi Givo Edited by: Epegi Givo on 05/04/2009 03:25:13 Originally by: Atomos Darksun Now if the Wisconsin legislators would do the same... QFT You just got photoshopped! Never gonna give you up, Never gonna let you down...
Horza Otho Falcon Punch.	Posted - 2009.04.05 13:16:00 - [51] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: Asuka Smith I bet next cycle there will be a ballot initiative like in California and it will be immediately outlawed again, as it should be. I bet next cycle there will be a ballot initiative that worthless bigots like Asuka Smith should be tortured and killed, and then he will be, as it should be. So you want this person to die for having an opinion? Man, you are the worst kind of homo. -----------
Omaku Toba Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2009.04.05 14:00:00 - [52] Edited by: Omaku Toba on 05/04/2009 14:01:50 Originally by: Horza Otho Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: Asuka Smith I bet next cycle there will be a ballot initiative like in California and it will be immediately outlawed again, as it should be. I bet next cycle there will be a ballot initiative that worthless bigots like Asuka Smith should be tortured and killed, and then he will be, as it should be. So you want this person to die for having an opinion? Man, you are the worst kind of homo. I suspect it was little more than words spoken in anger and frustration in response to the often degrading and arrogant statements so brazenly made by some individuals. I suspect that there are been far more murders of homosexuals as a result of their sexuality than heterosexuals.
Esme Westenn	Posted - 2009.04.05 14:12:00 - [53] Originally by: Horza Otho Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: Asuka Smith I bet next cycle there will be a ballot initiative like in California and it will be immediately outlawed again, as it should be. I bet next cycle there will be a ballot initiative that worthless bigots like Asuka Smith should be tortured and killed, and then he will be, as it should be. So you want this person to die for having an opinion? Man, you are the worst kind of homo. That was called sarcasm, and you know it. I find it ironic that anyone calling for the death of a bigot is somehow awful. Those people's thought process have killed more men and woman than anyone here would ever count. Again, yay for justice. To the bigots; this is a celebratory thread. If you want to cry sweet tears and squak about psuedo-science then make your own one.
Atomos Darksun Damage Incorporated.	Posted - 2009.04.05 16:49:00 - [54] Originally by: Malcanis Waiting to see some actual evidence that it's worse for children to be raised by gay parents. Your opinion doesn't count as evidence, whoever it was that was foaming at the mouth about not wanting homosexuals to raise children. So yes, bring on the studies! Originally by: Amoxin My vent is talking to me in a devil voice... CONVERT TO LINKIFICATION! http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameb
Benco97 Gallente	Posted - 2009.04.05 17:32:00 - [55] Well done Iowa. Originally by: P'uck You're a DUMBASS - bold italic underline at the VERY LEAST.

CCP Mitnal C C P	Posted - 2009.04.05 19:12:00 - [56] Cleaned. Troll, flame and image posts removed. Please post images as links. Mitnal Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us

Asuka Smith Gallente StarHunt	Posted - 2009.04.05 23:30:00 - [57] Edited by: Asuka Smith on 05/04/2009 23:32:42 Originally by: Malcanis Waiting to see some actual evidence that it's worse for children to be raised by gay parents. Meanwhile, plenty of heterosexual couple do an atrocious job of it. Really, the bar is set pretty low when you think about it. See, I think a lot of people are reading my posts but not understanding. I am not saying that gay parents will be worse parents, I am saying that they will be DIFFERENT parents. Right now we have a society built on certain normalcies, and adjusting the formula is going to change the way society functions. I am not sure that I am comfortable revolutionizing the human psyche without any regard for the possible consequences. I think that studies should be done and we should carefully weigh the potential risks and benefits, and in my mind the most serious risk is that we wind up with a genetic manipulation based society because children are more often artificially created than not. As for animals that are homosexual in nature, this to me is proof that homosexuality is a genetic deformity. Girls crave boys, and boys crave girls, it is how nature has designed our instincts so that we will procreate as opposed to NOT procreating. If homosexuality was normal or even prevalent in any species then that species would soon become extinct. This alone should be proof that it is not what nature intended and in fact some form of genetic mutation that does mistakenly assigns the boy loving genes to another boy, on mistake. There have been TWO penguins, that is the only gay nature couple that I know of. I am sure you will provide more links but they are anomalies not norms, and the gay-rights crowd needs to understand that. I know that this is going to raise some hackles but I hope that you can read through this and see my concern as more humanity-based rather than bigotry against some particular group for no reason. I advocate equal rights in ALL areas besides procreation. EDIT: And any man of science will support me in my call for research on the subject, however nearly every gay that I know is deathly afraid of any research into homosexuality being genetic and thus proving it is a deformity rather than a "personal choice". I think it can be either as the human mind is much stronger than our instincts in some cases, particularly in the case of love, but I think that genetics are likely the driving force. And as a result of this fear from the gay community, and the ignorance of the religious right-wing, no research has been done and none likely will be done. It will remain purely political which is pretty stupid if you ask me.
Biolaja Tista Gallente Garoun Investment Bank	Posted - 2009.04.06 01:49:00 - [58] You know why living creatures have sex? Because it feels good, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Reproduction is just icing on the cake. I believe homosexuality and bisexuality are perfectly okay (although I think bisexuality is infinitely cooler and more fun). But there is a major problem with the attitudes of the gay male subculture. I believe, scratch that, I KNOW anal sex is horribly wrong, because it is dirty (due to fecal matter and blood and semen all mixing together), dangerous (due to disease, high chance of death due to blood loss, a ripped open sphincter, a punctured colon, etc), painful (an anus is not a vagina and is extremely fragile, it is an exit-only orifice, and the prostate has zero sexual sensation), and degrading (the act of forcing through the sphincter is akin to rape, and anal-rape was traditionally forced on male POWs in order to degrade and humiliate them). And also because top and bottom revolve around sadomaso-domination. I believe in non-penetrative sex, which promotes equality between partners. And that's my thoughts on that. _________________
Asuka Smith Gallente StarHunt	Posted - 2009.04.06 01:53:00 - [59] Originally by: Biolaja Tista You know why living creatures have sex? Because it feels good, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Reproduction is just icing on the cake. Bolded the funny/ridiculously insane part.
Omaku Toba Minmatar Tribal Core	Posted - 2009.04.06 02:26:00 - [60] Edited by: Omaku Toba on 06/04/2009 02:32:09 Originally by: Asuka Smith Originally by: Biolaja Tista You know why living creatures have sex? Because it feels good, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Reproduction is just icing on the cake. Bolded the funny/ridiculously insane part. Homosexuality serves a method of reinforcing social ties in numerous species. Its only due to religious rubbish that there are any issues surrounding in human society. Indeed mankind would be far better off being predominantly homosexual as a means of reducing our population size to a more managable and sustainable level. ... Seems most people are wide-eyed stupid
Zezman Sekura-Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.06 02:43:00 - [61] Another opinion
Asuka Smith Gallente StarHunt	Posted - 2009.04.06 02:45:00 - [62] I agree with everything you just said Omaku, but wouldn't us all being gay to cut down on the number of children sort of go hand in hand with my argument that gays should be allowed to have children? I think we secretly are in agreement, we should consumate it in the socially acceptable form of non-penetrative gay sex.
Omaku Toba Minmatar Tribal Core	Posted - 2009.04.06 02:45:00 - [63] Originally by: Zezman Another opinion Not sure what a value the opinions of a load of delusional people has. ... Seems most people are wide-eyed stupid
Scathia Mindbender Antimatter Inc	Posted - 2009.04.06 02:49:00 - [64] Edited by: Scathia Mindbender on 06/04/2009 02:50:52 Originally by: Asuka Smith Edited by: Asuka Smith on 05/04/2009 23:32:42 Originally by: Malcanis Waiting to see some actual evidence that it's worse for children to be raised by gay parents. Meanwhile, plenty of heterosexual couple do an atrocious job of it. Really, the bar is set pretty low when you think about it. See, I think a lot of people are reading my posts but not understanding. I am not saying that gay parents will be worse parents, I am saying that they will be DIFFERENT parents. Right now we have a society built on certain normalcies, and adjusting the formula is going to change the way society functions. I am not sure that I am comfortable revolutionizing the human psyche without any regard for the possible consequences. I think that studies should be done and we should carefully weigh the potential risks and benefits, and in my mind the most serious risk is that we wind up with a genetic manipulation based society because children are more often artificially created than not. As for animals that are homosexual in nature, this to me is proof that homosexuality is a genetic deformity. Girls crave boys, and boys crave girls, it is how nature has designed our instincts so that we will procreate as opposed to NOT procreating. If homosexuality was normal or even prevalent in any species then that species would soon become extinct. This alone should be proof that it is not what nature intended and in fact some form of genetic mutation that does mistakenly assigns the boy loving genes to another boy, on mistake. There have been TWO penguins, that is the only gay nature couple that I know of. I am sure you will provide more links but they are anomalies not norms, and the gay-rights crowd needs to understand that. I know that this is going to raise some hackles but I hope that you can read through this and see my concern as more humanity-based rather than bigotry against some particular group for no reason. I advocate equal rights in ALL areas besides procreation. EDIT: And any man of science will support me in my call for research on the subject, however nearly every gay that I know is deathly afraid of any research into homosexuality being genetic and thus proving it is a deformity rather than a "personal choice". I think it can be either as the human mind is much stronger than our instincts in some cases, particularly in the case of love, but I think that genetics are likely the driving force. And as a result of this fear from the gay community, and the ignorance of the religious right-wing, no research has been done and none likely will be done. It will remain purely political which is pretty stupid if you ask me. I must disagree with your last paragraph, the majority of homosexual people ADMIT there is no choice involved in a persons sexual preference. EDIT: I also disagree with your position, im just pointing out that specific part.
Noodly Appendage	Posted - 2009.04.06 04:53:00 - [65] Originally by: Asuka Smith Originally by: Biolaja Tista You know why living creatures have sex? Because it feels good, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Reproduction is just icing on the cake. Bolded the funny/ridiculously insane part. Fact: Sex doesn't serve reproduction. Learn2/Biology.
Noodly Appendage	Posted - 2009.04.06 04:55:00 - [66] Originally by: Zezman Another opinion I'm always wondering...why are people who have read some old junk book allowed more speech time on these subjects than people who have studied, you know, psychology, anthropology, sexualogy and what else?
VicturusTeSaluto Metafarmers	Posted - 2009.04.06 07:15:00 - [67] Originally by: Asuka Smith Children are born when a mommy and a daddy love eachother very much, and it is important for a child to understand that from the age of 0. Love has nothing to do with reproduction. You should try taking a biology class or two.
Omaku Toba Minmatar Tribal Core	Posted - 2009.04.06 11:25:00 - [68] Originally by: Noodly Appendage Originally by: Zezman Another opinion I'm always wondering...why are people who have read some old junk book allowed more speech time on these subjects than people who have studied, you know, psychology, anthropology, sexualogy and what else? Social conditioning. If that fails they usually resort to public stoning, suicide bombing and shooting people. All because god told them to of course. ... Seems most people are wide-eyed stupid
Tallaran Kouros Caldari Arcane Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.06 11:52:00 - [69] Originally by: Biolaja Tista I believe, scratch that, I KNOW anal sex is horribly wrong, because it is dirty (due to fecal matter and blood and semen all mixing together), dangerous (due to disease, high chance of death due to blood loss, a ripped open sphincter, a punctured colon, etc), painful I have known plenty of women that would argue otherwise. Maybe you need to get out more? I mean seriously, high chance of death? GTFO
The AEther Caldari Agony Unleashed	Posted - 2009.04.06 11:57:00 - [70] Originally by: Asuka Smith Only thing I am against is gays raising childen and the only reason the gays want the "marriage" word rather than the nearly identical legal civil unions is because they want to raise kids, to which I object. Children are born when a mommy and a daddy love eachother very much, and it is important for a child to understand that from the age of 0. You forget that they adopt children who have been abandoned by their mommy and daddy. Yes their mommy and daddy did not love them at all. This is what those kids have seen from age of 0. Surely it is better for them to have some family, even if the family is not what is accepted by common standards based on various types of prejudices that people have against gays.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.04.06 12:07:00 - [71] Nature. Natural, unnatural, intented by nature, designed by nature, nature's path, etc. It's a big, fat straw man; nature does not exist. Nature is a virtual entity, created specifically for the purpose of giving a subjective opinion authority by creating the semblance of objective reality to the matter. Reality has no intent, no plan, no design, no sentience or consciousness. There is no going against or along with reality. Reality just functions. All arguments of what should or shouldn't be reality are entirely subjective and have no basis in reality outside the opinion-holder's head. It's only true when you belief in it. Please leave your subjective and unverifiable beliefs out of a reasonable debate. Disclaimer: If there is such an entity it'd be definitely past human grasp and as such unknowable to man and therefore irrelevant to human existence. -------- Ideas for: Mining
Xen Gin Solar Excavations Ultd.	Posted - 2009.04.06 12:37:00 - [72] Originally by: Tallaran Kouros Originally by: Biolaja Tista I believe, scratch that, I KNOW anal sex is horribly wrong, because it is dirty (due to fecal matter and blood and semen all mixing together), dangerous (due to disease, high chance of death due to blood loss, a ripped open sphincter, a punctured colon, etc), painful I have known plenty of women that would argue otherwise. Maybe you need to get out more? I mean seriously, high chance of death? GTFO Biolaja shouldn't be doing it with horses.
Kamihami	Posted - 2009.04.06 13:34:00 - [73] Quote: EDIT: And any man of science will support me in my call for research on the subject, however nearly every gay that I know is deathly afraid of any research into homosexuality being genetic and thus proving it is a deformity rather than a "personal choice". I think it can be either as the human mind is much stronger than our instincts in some cases, particularly in the case of love, but I think that genetics are likely the driving force. And as a result of this fear from the gay community, and the ignorance of the religious right-wing, no research has been done and none likely will be done. It will remain purely political which is pretty stupid if you ask me. You might be interested in this documentary. Watch all the parts
Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2009.04.06 15:12:00 - [74] And soon the California Supreme Court will overturn prop 8 and the interwebs will be flooded with angry religious nut jobs and it will be funny Pomp FTW!!!
Zezman Sekura-Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.06 15:24:00 - [75] Originally by: Omaku Toba Originally by: Noodly Appendage Originally by: Zezman Another opinion I'm always wondering...why are people who have read some old junk book allowed more speech time on these subjects than people who have studied, you know, psychology, anthropology, sexualogy and what else? Social conditioning. If that fails they usually resort to public stoning, suicide bombing and shooting people. All because god told them to of course. The Danger of Secret Societies
Hav0cide Caldari Bureau of Somnium Operations	Posted - 2009.04.06 18:48:00 - [76] Originally by: Asuka Smith My ONLY bone to pick with the LGBT community is their desire to have children. I worry about the slippery slope of allowing people to have children that they did not biologically create themselves, it turns the children into an item or accessory rather than a person in my opinion. The farther that "child" becomes separated from "Male/Female biological reproduction" the closer we are to a Gattaca society where everyone is grown in test tubes and eugenics is considered acceptable. Dont assume every LGBT person wants kids. Im gay I dont want kids, and doubt I ever will. Dont generalise. Originally by: Asuka Smith Not sure if you are posting in support of my position or against, but I will just add to my quote by saying that the natural order has worked and worked DAMN WELL for the past couple of million years. Humans who have existed for a paltry couple of thousand think they can do it better? Fools. Oh so homosexuality is just a new thing for the 21st century? Get a grip its been around just aslong as humans have. Originally by: Biolaja Tista I believe homosexuality and bisexuality are perfectly okay (although I think bisexuality is infinitely cooler and more fun). But there is a major problem with the attitudes of the gay male subculture. I believe, scratch that, I KNOW anal sex is horribly wrong, because it is dirty (due to fecal matter and blood and semen all mixing together), dangerous (due to disease, high chance of death due to blood loss, a ripped open sphincter, a punctured colon, etc), painful (an anus is not a vagina and is extremely fragile, it is an exit-only orifice, and the prostate has zero sexual sensation), and degrading (the act of forcing through the sphincter is akin to rape, and anal-rape was traditionally forced on male POWs in order to degrade and humiliate them). And also because top and bottom revolve around sadomaso-domination. I believe in non-penetrative sex, which promotes equality between partners. And that's my thoughts on that. Homesexuality is not about sex, its about the feelings shown towards two same sex people. Sex is simply an extra. So those thoughts are your own personal views on it and dont constitute the reality of same sex relationships. I know many gay couples that dont incage in anal sex. An I assure you the prostate gives sensation. =P
Hav0cide Caldari Bureau of Somnium Operations	Posted - 2009.04.06 18:57:00 - [77] Originally by: Asuka Smith If homosexuality was normal or even prevalent in any species then that species would soon become extinct. This alone should be proof that it is not what nature intended and in fact some form of genetic mutation that does mistakenly assigns the boy loving genes to another boy, on mistake. Id highly watch what you type. Homosexuality isnt normal? What about "If hetrosexuality was normal?" Any arguement or statement you give has exactly the same reversal arguement. An by the way, homosexulaity is normal to me. Its my life. So basicly your saying im not normal. What the hell is normal? (DO NOT REPLY SAYING THERES A NORMAL, this will only cause more issues) EDIT: And any man of science will support me in my call for research on the subject, however nearly every gay that I know is deathly afraid of any research into homosexuality being genetic and thus proving it is a deformity rather than a "personal choice". I think it can be either as the human mind is much stronger than our instincts in some cases, particularly in the case of love, but I think that genetics are likely the driving force. And as a result of this fear from the gay community, and the ignorance of the religious right-wing, no research has been done and none likely will be done. It will remain purely political which is pretty stupid if you ask me. Let me tell you something here. If I could be I would be straight, unfortunately my body does not get attracted to girls, I cant build love relationships with them and doubt I will ever. If it was my personal choice, Id be straight. Your opinion on this matter is just that. YOURS. Its not fact. Simply the 'gays' you know. By all means people have your own opinions, and trust me I have my own to. Just dont expect people to sit by and watch you throw your opinions out there and not expect a reaction. Alot of people in this world talk utter bull** when it comes to homosexuality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ1I_-MY_NY Watch that video. Its very cleverly done but puts together have the ** gay people go through and puts it back at you very nicely.
K1K1R1K1 Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.04.06 19:00:00 - [78] Edited by: K1K1R1K1 on 06/04/2009 19:03:40 Originally by: Asuka Smith snip You make an interesting argument. I disagree, and the reason I believe is the philosophy behind it. Personally I like to keep 3 things in mind: 1.) Look at it from more than 1 perspective (ie: the ones directly involved and maybe a few more). 2.) NOTHING in this world is black and white. NOTHING. 3.) Moderation. Most things can be overdone and become harmful in one way or another. First, you seem to give off this idea that nature knows best, and that technology is crippling humanity. Kinda, maybe, not really. I agree that humanity can be perfectly happy w/out technology. However, it's an unrealistic ideal. Without getting too far into it, humanity will always strive for better technology. And I think this is a good thing. Because nature doesn't know best. For starters, why do we age? We fight so hard to stay alive (it's our instinct, it's the reason you step back from a ledge when you're high up), and then mother nature just kills us off anyways (and not instantly either, we have to suffer through alzheimers and arthritis first). Why do we get cancer? Why do we have diseases? Technology is slowly fixing those flaws in nature. The way an ant pays attention to a microbe, a god pays attention to us. At the end of the day, all living things simply strive to keep their species going. And if there is one thing that will do that for us, it's technology. Because the day a giant meteor hits earth, or we hit another ice age, mother nature sure as hell isn't going to do anything for us. Technology on the other hand... it'll do exactly what we want it to do. Going with what nature intended has its' benefits (ie: eating 100 Twinkies a day is definitely not what nature intended, and definitely not good for you !!). But like with all things in life; in moderation (granted figuring out the right amount is the tricky part... otherwise you could black out... wait waht?). That was a bit of a rant, but back to gay marriage. Gotta look at it from the gays' perspective. They have just as strong feelings for raising a child as a straight couple has. Who are we to deny them that which nature intended. Wether they were born gay, or chose to be gay doesn't matter. The point is they're just as capable of raising a child as any straight couple, and denying them that right is a step backwards for humanity. And yea, they are just as capable. It isn't them that's incapable of raising a child, it's those who are too ignorant that make it troublesome in anyway shape or form. Until little steps are taken to allow them to do so, it will never change. Besides, you're missing a major benefit here. 100% of gay couples will have kids intentionally. Right off the bat that'll translate into a major reduction in screwed up kids. Whereas straight couples can have a child on accident, and then potentially raise them in a poor environment. It essentially plays out like this. 1.) Straight couple accidentally have a child. 2.) They put the child up for adoption. 3.) Child gets adopted by caring gay couple. (note the caring adjective, b/c an uncaring couple wouldn't be too likely to go out of their way to get a child) 4.) ??? 5.) Profit! Sorry, couldn't help myself. But at the end all parties are happy. The straight couple can carry on with their life. The gay couple can nurture and raise a child like they wanted to. And the child is now in the hands of 2 loving parents. The other options are to sit there until a straight couple comes along, sit there until 18 (or whatever the age is), or get aborted (which is also not as nature intended, but sometimes the better option). To sum it up. Denying gay couples the right to raise a child is akin to denying them to be in love. It's a fundamental right, and just because nature hadn't intended it that way, doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Nature doesn't know best, and gay couples are just as capable of raising a child as straight couple. _______________________________________ Don't worry aboutit.
Hav0cide Caldari Bureau of Somnium Operations	Posted - 2009.04.06 19:16:00 - [79] Originally by: K1K1R1K1 Edited by: K1K1R1K1 on 06/04/2009 19:03:40 Long extract Well bloody put!
Doctor Penguin Amarr Shadow Command Tenth Legion	Posted - 2009.04.06 19:50:00 - [80] Holy crap, Liberalism in America?! ________________________________________________ http://eve.drome.nl/CaodCleaner/ Help make CAOD readable.
Micheal Dietrich Caldari	Posted - 2009.04.06 19:57:00 - [81] Originally by: Asuka Smith step? How long before we wind up with Isle of Dr. Moreau style genetic manipulation... or a vault full of Gary's GAAAARY!!!!!!!!!!
Dirk Magnum Royal Hiigaran Navy SCUM.	Posted - 2009.04.06 20:01:00 - [82] Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 06/04/2009 20:01:34 Just to go off on a small tangent here to address something I've been seeing in this thread, and basically everywhere else apart from the scientific community: A common position that well-meaning people take about biology is that "nature" or evolution as a process intend anything. There is no end-state to be reached. It's a mindless series of reactions that favor the most adaptable and reproductively successful species... it doesn't matter how those species obtain those titles (relevant to this discussion: it doesn't matter from a biological perspective who raises children... just that children continue to be produced by someone.) In the great chain of ongoing chemical reactions that have led to this point in the development of the biosphere there's one thing that goes right for countless things that go wrong. Homo sapiens itself, apparently the most intelligent thing to have ever walked the Earth, could prove an evolutionary dead end due to the fact that our "advanced" intelligence has given us the capacity to devastate the Earth's ecology in a way that only massive natural disasters have been able to do in the past. But to get back to the issue of homosexuality and child-rearing: There is no scientific evidence identifying any one type of child-rearing practice as being truly superior when you look at things from a broad level. Remember that in the world today and throughout history the American (of course it occurs elsewhere too) method of raising children today is rather rare. Historically, a two person unit (mother and father, typically) have not raised their own child whilst living their adult lives separated from their relatives. Extended families are the most common form of child-rearing unit historically, as far as we know. And then of course there are the more unconventional sorts of child-rearing, such as that practiced by the homoioi class of classical Spartan society (to name but one example.) Examining things on an individual level it would be absurd to say that a child being raised by two men or two women is in worse hands than a child raised in an abusive or negligent household run by one man and one woman. And that's even if there actually was evidence saying that gay people aren't as good of parents as straight people, which there isn't. As far as anyone has been able to determine, AFAIK, the only thing that makes a stable, caring same-sex household inferior to a stable, caring mother-father household has nothing to do with the individuals running the family, but rather with the social context in which it exists. A gay couple who are already ostracized pariahs in their community because the community frowns on their orientation may want to consider that if the state they live in allows gay adoption.
Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.04.06 22:10:00 - [83] Sorry Asuka Smith, but you're an idiot. You might want to read about this little fallacy, since everything you have to say here is a textbook example of it. And you're even more of an idiot if you think that inability to get married is the same as inability to have kids. People are still going to have kids if they want to, the only difference is they won't have the additional stability offered by formal recognition of marriage. ========== Merin is currently enjoying a 14 day vacation from the forums. Until she returns, you've got me to entertain you!
Asuka Smith Gallente StarHunt	Posted - 2009.04.06 22:50:00 - [84] Sorry Sera, you did not read any of my posts but saw keywords and assumed arguments. My argument of "against nature" is that nature has created a specific society. Humanity has come to be as it is by behaving as it has. If we start behaving differently that humanity/society will change. We do not know how it will change. It might be bad. It might be good. Right now it is how it is because that is the only way it can be, if it could be different it would be. We now have the ability through technology and perserverance to do things never before possible, like let people who are incapable of having children wind up with them. Do you not see the danger of doing something that should be impossible? I am not saying that nature has a plan or intends anything, I am saying that humans have achieved godlike technological power and as a result we can break any natural order that we please on a whim. We can fly like a bird, we can swim like a whale, etc. We are gods unto this earth, and using that power frivolously is going to lead to us destroying ourselves in a poetic demonstration of hubris.
Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.04.06 22:58:00 - [85] Hint to the clueless: "OMG IT'S CHANGE" is an incredibly stupid argument. Consider the following equally bad argument: "Black people should not be allowed to marry white people. We don't know what changes this might produce, so we must not allow it!" The only difference is that almost everyone now agrees that racism is bad, but discrimination based on sexuality still has support. PS: you don't need technology to have kids. How do two men have a child? Make a deal with a woman. It's even easier for two women, what man would turn down the option to have sex with two women if the only cost is producing a child that he will never see? If sex is truly about reproduction, and not love/pleasure/etc, the solutions are obvious, and have been available as long as marriage itself has existed. ========== Merin is currently enjoying a 14 day vacation from the forums. Until she returns, you've got me to entertain you!
Asuka Smith Gallente StarHunt	Posted - 2009.04.06 23:34:00 - [86] Well why not wait ten years and do a study, let's give 1,000 gay parents some kids and see how the kids turn out, this would have to be done secretly somehow to avoid the press contaminating the results. As for blacks marrying whites, yeah that was ignorant. But the only way we realized that was by blindly removing the segregation laws and hoping for the best. What if all the black fear-mongering propaganda had been true? It all seemed pretty ridiculous but no one knew for sure and I would have advocated a "wait, let's do some tests first" approach then too.
Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.04.06 23:45:00 - [87] Originally by: Asuka Smith Well why not wait ten years and do a study, let's give 1,000 gay parents some kids and see how the kids turn out, this would have to be done secretly somehow to avoid the press contaminating the results. Hint to the clueless: if you bothered to read the previous post, you would know that marriage is not required to have kids. I would love to hear what possible downside of granting formal legal recognition to the existing families you have in mind that would justify continuing to deny the right to marriage for another 10 years. So far all you've posted is vague bull** and appeals to ignorance. And I would also love to hear your proposal to judge "how the kids turn out" by objective standards, not just your subjective "I DON'T LIKE IT!!!!!" nonsense. Quote: As for blacks marrying whites, yeah that was ignorant. But the only way we realized that was by blindly removing the segregation laws and hoping for the best. What if all the black fear-mongering propaganda had been true? It all seemed pretty ridiculous but no one knew for sure and I would have advocated a "wait, let's do some tests first" approach then too. You really are pathetic. I'm sure the people involved would have been so happy to hear that you are willing to deny their basic civil rights for another ten years just because of a bunch of racist idiocy. By your absurd standards, social change will never happen. Even the most (to any sane person) obvious cases of injustice will still leave room for some** doubt if you look hard enough. Meanwhile people are suffering very real harm, just so you can add a couple more percentage points to your confidence that there won't be any society-killing consequences. ========== Merin is currently enjoying a 14 day vacation from the forums. Until she returns, you've got me to entertain you!
Asuka Smith Gallente StarHunt	Posted - 2009.04.06 23:53:00 - [88] Oh, I see which route you are taking Sera. Well marriage is a religious institution and the only reason that gays are not happy with the completely equal in the eyes of the law title of "civil union" is because they have a grudge with churches. They want to go into a church that they know hates them and spit in the preachers face and make him perform the ceremony. You disgust me Sera, I was using marriage as another word for "family unit", but you are using it in the subversive sense. You want to attack religion, and even as a non-religious person I find that abominable. Go found the church of homosexuality and make up your own word, call it "Garriage" for all I care. Marriage is a Catholic tradition and institution, civil unions have the same tax law and every other kind of law.
Kaerik	Posted - 2009.04.07 00:08:00 - [89] Originally by: Asuka Smith Marriage is a Catholic tradition and institution, civil unions have the same tax law and every other kind of law. Why do non-Catholics get married then? You know, in a church with all the ritual and everything. Please don't tell me that every married person is a Catholic.
Asuka Smith Gallente StarHunt	Posted - 2009.04.07 00:13:00 - [90] Originally by: Kaerik Originally by: Asuka Smith Marriage is a Catholic tradition and institution, civil unions have the same tax law and every other kind of law. Why do non-Catholics get married then? You know, in a church with all the ritual and everything. Please don't tell me that every married person is a Catholic. Which religion? If you say one that is not a God of Abraham religion then you have a point, otherwise you just caught me using catholic as an analogue for "God of Abraham-based faith organization"
Kaerik	Posted - 2009.04.07 00:17:00 - [91] Originally by: Asuka Smith Originally by: Kaerik Originally by: Asuka Smith Marriage is a Catholic tradition and institution, civil unions have the same tax law and every other kind of law. Why do non-Catholics get married then? You know, in a church with all the ritual and everything. Please don't tell me that every married person is a Catholic. Which religion? If you say one that is not a God of Abraham religion then you have a point, otherwise you just caught me using catholic as an analogue for "God of Abraham-based faith organization" My point was not that the people getting married are of some other faith, it's that many are of no faith at all. I would happily bet that the majority of married couples aren't religious in the slightest (In the UK) So why are these people who have no faith in any religion getting married?
Biolaja Tista Gallente Garoun Investment Bank	Posted - 2009.04.07 00:17:00 - [92] Edited by: Biolaja Tista on 07/04/2009 00:23:17 _________________
Biolaja Tista Gallente Garoun Investment Bank	Posted - 2009.04.07 00:19:00 - [93] Edited by: Biolaja Tista on 07/04/2009 00:22:47 double post _________________
Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.04.07 00:33:00 - [94] Edited by: Sera Ryskin on 07/04/2009 00:35:35 Originally by: Asuka Smith Well marriage is a religious institution and the only reason that gays are not happy with the completely equal in the eyes of the law title of "civil union" is because they have a grudge with churches. "Separate but equal" wasn't ok in the case of racial discrimination, and it isn't ok here either. Quote: They want to go into a church that they know hates them and spit in the preachers face and make him perform the ceremony. You disgust me Sera, I was using marriage as another word for "family unit", but you are using it in the subversive sense. You want to attack religion, and even as a non-religious person I find that abominable. Go found the church of homosexuality and make up your own word, call it "Garriage" for all I care. Sorry, but you're an idiot. Last time I checked, you can get the exact same marriage contract as any religious ceremony provides (including the title "marriage") with a simple 15 minute stop at your local courthouse. Well, as long as you're one man and one woman, that is. So please refrain from posting absurd strawmen of my position. YOU are the only one talking about forcing preachers to perform the ceremony. Quote: Marriage is a Catholic tradition and institution, civil unions have the same tax law and every other kind of law. Bull**. Marriage has been around much longer than the Catholic church, as well as in societies that never heard of some random zombie death cult. Quote: EDIT: As for glacial social change, in some cases change can be quick. But in the case of child rearing it takes at least 10-25 years to get any meaninful results from the tests. In White/Black marriage you could easily tell after 1-2 years whether or not it was corrupting society or whatever they were afraid of back then. Sorry, but no. If it takes 10-25 years to determine if having two men for parents will screw up a child, it takes just as long to determine if having parents of two different races will screw up a child. Stop dodging the issue here. Quote: I suppose that you think medical science "takes too long" and you will take whatever snake oil someone gives you because you have cancer and who gives a if it gives you another type of cancer or cures you, you want a pill to take goddamnit and a pill it will be! Hint to the clueless: medical science involves factual** questions of whether something works or not. Social changes do not. Please learn the difference. ========== Merin is currently enjoying a 14 day vacation from the forums. Until she returns, you've got me to entertain you!
Cpt Gobla	Posted - 2009.04.07 00:50:00 - [95] Originally by: Asuka Smith Edited by: Asuka Smith on 05/04/2009 23:32:42 Originally by: Malcanis Waiting to see some actual evidence that it's worse for children to be raised by gay parents. Meanwhile, plenty of heterosexual couple do an atrocious job of it. Really, the bar is set pretty low when you think about it. See, I think a lot of people are reading my posts but not understanding. I am not saying that gay parents will be worse parents, I am saying that they will be DIFFERENT parents. Right now we have a society built on certain normalcies, and adjusting the formula is going to change the way society functions. I am not sure that I am comfortable revolutionizing the human psyche without any regard for the possible consequences. I think that studies should be done and we should carefully weigh the potential risks and benefits, and in my mind the most serious risk is that we wind up with a genetic manipulation based society because children are more often artificially created than not. As for animals that are homosexual in nature, this to me is proof that homosexuality is a genetic deformity. Girls crave boys, and boys crave girls, it is how nature has designed our instincts so that we will procreate as opposed to NOT procreating. If homosexuality was normal or even prevalent in any species then that species would soon become extinct. This alone should be proof that it is not what nature intended and in fact some form of genetic mutation that does mistakenly assigns the boy loving genes to another boy, on mistake. There have been TWO penguins, that is the only gay nature couple that I know of. I am sure you will provide more links but they are anomalies not norms, and the gay-rights crowd needs to understand that. I know that this is going to raise some hackles but I hope that you can read through this and see my concern as more humanity-based rather than bigotry against some particular group for no reason. I advocate equal rights in ALL areas besides procreation. EDIT: And any man of science will support me in my call for research on the subject, however nearly every gay that I know is deathly afraid of any research into homosexuality being genetic and thus proving it is a deformity rather than a "personal choice". I think it can be either as the human mind is much stronger than our instincts in some cases, particularly in the case of love, but I think that genetics are likely the driving force. And as a result of this fear from the gay community, and the ignorance of the religious right-wing, no research has been done and none likely will be done. It will remain purely political which is pretty stupid if you ask me. Please explain exactly how you know what nature 'intended'. You say homosexuality is a genetic deformity. Another cool word for genetic deformity is evolution. You see, humans are actually nothing more then genetically deformed apes. Who again are nothing more then genetically deformed monkeys. Who are nothing more then genetically deformed rodents etc. And I'm pretty sure that evolution is exactly what nature 'intended'. Now whether or not homosexuality is a successful form of evolution remains to be seen ( going by your assumption that homosexuality is a genetic deformity. ) But it most certainly is what nature 'intended'. If it wasn't then most surely it wouldn't happen to kids gained the old fashion way and it would only happen to children conceived in test tubes who've had their DNA altered. So your argument that homosexuality is not what nature intended is completely void. If it wasn't what nature intended then it wouldn't happen in nature, not even on a small scale. ps. You might want to look into bonobos. They're a chimpanzee like species that's entirely made up of bisexual apes. And if it wasn't for human poachers the species would be doing quite well indeed. They've got no trouble procreating at all even though their males regularly have sex with other males.
Dirk Magnum Royal Hiigaran Navy SCUM.	Posted - 2009.04.07 02:43:00 - [96] Originally by: Asuka Smith Well marriage is a religious institution and the only reason that gays are not happy with the completely equal in the eyes of the law title of "civil union" is because they have a grudge with churches. Marriage almost certainly evolved from a social institution aimed at keeping the transfer of property organized and based on the concept of lineal inheritance. Numerous historical examples from Classic European civilizations like pagan Rome to certain modern cultures do not identify an inherent religious component in marriage. In the United States an official from a recognized religion can perform a marriage ceremony, but the marriage certificate is issued by the state. But what I really want to comment on is this: Quote: Marriage is a Catholic tradition and institution, civil unions have the same tax law and every other kind of law. Nowhere in the United States do civil unions have the same status as marriage, whether you're talking tax law or other benefits. They are not recognized federally and despite the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, civil unions (unlike marriages) do not have to be recognized by individual states other than the one that certified that union. The bit about federal recognition is particularly important, because it means that those in civil unions miss out on the 1000+ potentially available federal benefits that apply to actual marriages. So at best, a civil union in one particular state might be a virtual mirror image of marriage from a legal standpoint, but only regarding state-related benefits. The federal benefits don't apply, and the couple is confined to that state if they want to keep the official recognition of being in a civil union (unless they move to one of the other handful of states that also allow it.) The other legally recognized half-measures like domestic parternships and reciprocal beneficiary relationships have fewer benefits still than civil unions.
Megan Maynard Minmatar Out of Order Tenth Legion	Posted - 2009.04.07 05:14:00 - [97] Yeah it's pretty fun times in iowa atm. Listened to a lady on the radio say that she cried for a day because of all the darkness in everyone's hearts. (Being gay.) The christians are going ape **** lol. Stop, hammer time.
Amitious Turkey Gallente Ammo Tech Inc	Posted - 2009.04.07 05:20:00 - [98] There are reasons why gay marriage is a bad thing (note, not hating the sinner, just the sin, we're all human, bad at heart and often easily deceived) Ever think of why there is man and woman? That in and of itself...really...Gays are attempting to go against what is naturally meant to be. There is a standard outside of man's making that determines right and wrong... I'm not homophobic to any degree. I just don't like it when people do things that aren't good for them. (\_/) (O.o) (> <) The writer of the article did not quote himself- Cortes
Amitious Turkey Gallente Ammo Tech Inc	Posted - 2009.04.07 05:31:00 - [99] Originally by: Hav0cide Edited by: Hav0cide on 06/04/2009 19:09:19 Originally by: Asuka Smith If homosexuality was normal or even prevalent in any species then that species would soon become extinct. This alone should be proof that it is not what nature intended and in fact some form of genetic mutation that does mistakenly assigns the boy loving genes to another boy, on mistake. Id highly watch what you type. Homosexuality isnt normal? What about "If hetrosexuality was normal?" Any arguement or statement you give has exactly the same reversal arguement. An by the way, homosexulaity is normal to me. Its my life. So basicly your saying im not normal. What the hell is normal? (DO NOT REPLY SAYING THERES A NORMAL, this will only cause more issues) EDIT: And any man of science will support me in my call for research on the subject, however nearly every gay that I know is deathly afraid of any research into homosexuality being genetic and thus proving it is a deformity rather than a "personal choice". I think it can be either as the human mind is much stronger than our instincts in some cases, particularly in the case of love, but I think that genetics are likely the driving force. And as a result of this fear from the gay community, and the ignorance of the religious right-wing, no research has been done and none likely will be done. It will remain purely political which is pretty stupid if you ask me. Let me tell you something here. If I could be I would be straight, unfortunately my body does not get attracted to girls, I cant build love relationships with them and doubt I will ever. If it was my personal choice, Id be straight. Your opinion on this matter is just that. YOURS. Its not fact. Simply the 'gays' you know. By all means people have your own opinions, and trust me I have my own to. Just dont expect people to sit by and watch you throw your opinions out there and not expect a reaction. Alot of people in this world talk utter bull** when it comes to homosexuality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ1I_-MY_NY Watch that video. Its very cleverly done but puts together the ** gay people go through and reverses it. Edit: for spelling Are "love" relationships even necessary? That mechanic for the attraction between men and women is meant to produce children. It serves no purpose if you are attracted to the same sex. You could always just be friends It fulfills the need for companionship just fine. You don't HAE to have that kind of a relationship, with a woman or otherwise. And genetics show tendencies (if you want to go on the genetics point) . You always have a choice. Take alcoholics, for example. There IS a genetic tendency toward alcoholism. I have it. My mom has it (she's VERY partial to hard liquor). My grandfather had it. My grandfather was alcoholic for a time. Guess what, he stopped. My mom never was an alcoholic. She keeps the hard liquor out of the house except for special occasions. So, there is always a choice. Choose what you want, but don't say there's no choice. There aren't only two choices (homo or hetero). There's a third; not going that road at all and sticking to friendship. (\_/) (O.o) (> <) The writer of the article did not quote himself- Cortes
Amitious Turkey Gallente Ammo Tech Inc	Posted - 2009.04.07 05:40:00 - [100] Originally by: K1K1R1K1 Edited by: K1K1R1K1 on 06/04/2009 19:03:40 Originally by: Asuka Smith snip You make an interesting argument. I disagree, and the reason I believe is the philosophy behind it. Personally I like to keep 3 things in mind: 1.) Look at it from more than 1 perspective (ie: the ones directly involved and maybe a few more). 2.) NOTHING in this world is black and white. NOTHING. 3.) Moderation. Most things can be overdone and become harmful in one way or another. I respectfully disagree with your second point. No person is entirely black or white, but decisions can be. Most of us appeal to an outside standard of living at one point or another- this outside standard determines what is good or bad. The rest was an interesting post. Personally, I don't like gay couples adopting kids (personal opinion)...but neither do I want the government determining whether gay couples adopt a kid. I'de rather let them have the kid. And, well, if they are caring, that is still better than a hetero couple who doesn't care- from a communiy well-being standpoint. (\_/) (O.o) (> <) The writer of the article did not quote himself- Cortes
Megan Maynard Minmatar Out of Order Tenth Legion	Posted - 2009.04.07 05:53:00 - [101] Edited by: Megan Maynard on 07/04/2009 05:55:46 Originally by: Amitious Turkey There are reasons why gay marriage is a bad thingShocked (note, not hating the sinner, just the sin, we're all human, bad at heart and often easily deceived) Ever think of why there is man and woman? That in and of itself...really...Gays are attempting to go against what is naturally meant to be. There is a standard outside of man's making that determines right and wrong... I'm not homophobic to any degree. I just don't like it when people do things that aren't good for them. EDIT: read post on the whole "natural" argument. But the question still stands, haven't seen a refutation I can understand yet. Expound, please? No offense, no wait, offense intended here. Your world view is WRONG. You are WRONG. Your religion is homophobic. And I can tell you right now you know a perfectly nice gay person and you don't even know it because your world view makes them scared to tell you. Notice that word? Scared? It's what happens when someone is discriminated against. They don't have EVIL in their hearts, they aren't evil, and YOU AREN'T RIGHT. I can't wait for the day I can raise my kids in a society that basis their view of someone based on WHO THEY ARE, not what they are. So yeah, stick your worldview and religion where it doesn't shine because tolerance is a 10 ton train you cannot stop buddy. WOOO WOOO. ~Proud Iowan 1st state to ban slavery 1st state to ban segregation 4th state to ban homophobic legislation. (Yeah i know california recalled their gay marriage.) Stop, hammer time.
Megan Maynard Minmatar Out of Order Tenth Legion	Posted - 2009.04.07 06:01:00 - [102] Edited by: Megan Maynard on 07/04/2009 06:05:33 Edited by: Megan Maynard on 07/04/2009 06:02:19 Originally by: Asuka Smith Sorry Sera, you did not read any of my posts but saw keywords and assumed arguments. My argument of "against nature" is that nature has created a specific society. Humanity has come to be as it is by behaving as it has. If we start behaving differently that humanity/society will change. We do not know how it will change. It might be bad. It might be good. Right now it is how it is because that is the only way it can be, if it could be different it would be. We now have the ability through technology and perserverance to do things never before possible, like let people who are incapable of having children wind up with them. Do you not see the danger of doing something that should be impossible? I am not saying that nature has a plan or intends anything, I am saying that humans have achieved godlike technological power and as a result we can break any natural order that we please on a whim. We can fly like a bird, we can swim like a whale, etc. We are gods unto this earth, and using that power frivolously is going to lead to us destroying ourselves in a poetic demonstration of hubris. I think Dylan put it best: "Come mothers and fathers Throughout the land And don't criticize What you can't understand Your sons and your daughters Are beyond your command Your old road is Rapidly agin'. Please get out of the new one If you can't lend your hand For the times they are a-changin'." You are homophobic. I hope your kids are more accepting then you are. Dylan 4tw... Stop, hammer time.
Bullageddon Caldari	Posted - 2009.04.07 06:14:00 - [103] Originally by: Richest Mofo good luck with that. the local governments will just pass laws that the supreme court will be forced to follow. the courts dont make the laws, just upholds them. Someone who doesn't understand how the law works. Federal > State > Local You're welcome. === This Space For Lease or Sale.
Hav0cide Caldari Bureau of Somnium Operations	Posted - 2009.04.07 07:25:00 - [104] Originally by: Amitious Turkey And genetics show tendencies (if you want to go on the genetics point) . You always have a choice. Take alcoholics, for example. There IS a genetic tendency toward alcoholism. I have it. My mom has it (she's VERY partial to hard liquor). My grandfather had it. My grandfather was alcoholic for a time. Guess what, he stopped. My mom never was an alcoholic. She keeps the hard liquor out of the house except for special occasions. So, there is always a choice. Choose what you want, but don't say there's no choice. There aren't only two choices (homo or hetero). There's a third; not going that road at all and sticking to friendship. Indeed everyone has a choice, but trust me Ive tried liking girls, ive had girlfriends in the past..they never worked. I always was attracted to guys from an early age from as young as i remember. I didnt choose this. I assure you that you wont understand this. Youve not gone through it. When you have then comment on my choices. Quite frankly i wont force myself to be straight just to be 'normal'. I wont ever be made to live a life that im not happy in, and i know im happy loving guys.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.04.07 07:29:00 - [105] Originally by: Amitious Turkey I'm not homophobic to any degree. I just don't like it when people do things that aren't good for them. Ah, so it's the government's job to see that we don't do things that you think "aren't good for us"? Here's an alternative viewpoint. You - and the governmment - should mind your own business.
Thoma Katch Gallente University of Caille	Posted - 2009.04.07 08:38:00 - [106] Well done Iowa. Hopefully one day people will learn to accept that sexual preferance is simply another variant within the human race along with eye colour and should not be used as a banner or scapegoat by those seeking political gain.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.04.07 08:45:00 - [107] Originally by: Amitious Turkey Originally by: Hav0cide Edited by: Hav0cide on 06/04/2009 19:09:19 Originally by: Asuka Smith If homosexuality was normal or even prevalent in any species then that species would soon become extinct. This alone should be proof that it is not what nature intended and in fact some form of genetic mutation that does mistakenly assigns the boy loving genes to another boy, on mistake. Id highly watch what you type. Homosexuality isnt normal? What about "If hetrosexuality was normal?" Any arguement or statement you give has exactly the same reversal arguement. An by the way, homosexulaity is normal to me. Its my life. So basicly your saying im not normal. What the hell is normal? (DO NOT REPLY SAYING THERES A NORMAL, this will only cause more issues) EDIT: And any man of science will support me in my call for research on the subject, however nearly every gay that I know is deathly afraid of any research into homosexuality being genetic and thus proving it is a deformity rather than a "personal choice". I think it can be either as the human mind is much stronger than our instincts in some cases, particularly in the case of love, but I think that genetics are likely the driving force. And as a result of this fear from the gay community, and the ignorance of the religious right-wing, no research has been done and none likely will be done. It will remain purely political which is pretty stupid if you ask me. Let me tell you something here. If I could be I would be straight, unfortunately my body does not get attracted to girls, I cant build love relationships with them and doubt I will ever. If it was my personal choice, Id be straight. Your opinion on this matter is just that. YOURS. Its not fact. Simply the 'gays' you know. By all means people have your own opinions, and trust me I have my own to. Just dont expect people to sit by and watch you throw your opinions out there and not expect a reaction. Alot of people in this world talk utter bull** when it comes to homosexuality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ1I_-MY_NY Watch that video. Its very cleverly done but puts together the ** gay people go through and reverses it. Edit: for spelling Are "love" relationships even necessary? That mechanic for the attraction between men and women is meant to produce children. It serves no purpose if you are attracted to the same sex. You could always just be friends It fulfills the need for companionship just fine. You don't HAE to have that kind of a relationship, with a woman or otherwise. And genetics show tendencies (if you want to go on the genetics point) . You always have a choice. Take alcoholics, for example. There IS a genetic tendency toward alcoholism. I have it. My mom has it (she's VERY partial to hard liquor). My grandfather had it. My grandfather was alcoholic for a time. Guess what, he stopped. My mom never was an alcoholic. She keeps the hard liquor out of the house except for special occasions. So, there is always a choice. Choose what you want, but don't say there's no choice. There aren't only two choices (homo or hetero). There's a third; not going that road at all and sticking to friendship. So you're saying that you could make yourself be sexually attracted to a man? OK well give it a try and get back to us with the results.
Tallaran Kouros Caldari Arcane Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.07 09:13:00 - [108] Originally by: Malcanis And genetics show tendencies (if you want to go on the genetics point) . You always have a choice. I'm afraid that's not quite true. There are such things are genetic tendencies, but there are also genetic absolutes. Take a look at Huntington's Disease, for example. There is protein that is coded by a particular genetic sequence made up of CAG repeats. If CAG repeats less than 35 times then you will be healthy and safe, but if CAG repeats 36 times or more then the gene is faulty and the protein will not code correctly and you have a genetic destiny to develop Huntington's in later life and there is not a damn thing you can do about it.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.04.07 10:50:00 - [109] Originally by: Tallaran Kouros Originally by: Malcanis And genetics show tendencies (if you want to go on the genetics point) . You always have a choice. I'm afraid that's not quite true. There are such things are genetic tendencies, but there are also genetic absolutes. Take a look at Huntington's Disease, for example. There is protein that is coded by a particular genetic sequence made up of CAG repeats. If CAG repeats less than 35 times then you will be healthy and safe, but if CAG repeats 36 times or more then the gene is faulty and the protein will not code correctly and you have a genetic destiny to develop Huntington's in later life and there is not a damn thing you can do about it. I belive he was talking about human behavioural tendencies. However there are also environmental issues that are implicated in homosexuality eg: having an older brother, high population density, etc.
Corwain	Posted - 2009.04.07 12:11:00 - [110] Awesome! So when do my drugs get legalized? I'm not hurting anyone with them. -- Distortion\| Distortion 2 Preview
Thoma Katch Gallente University of Caille	Posted - 2009.04.07 12:13:00 - [111] Edited by: Thoma Katch on 07/04/2009 12:14:48 Originally by: Corwain Awesome! So when do my drugs get legalized? I'm not hurting anyone with them. Ah well I made a response to this then decided that it was pointless trying to reply constructively to a troll. Last reply I'm going to make to posters such as you.
Alice'Dee	Posted - 2009.04.07 12:36:00 - [112] 17 year old in Vermont speaks out on marriage equality
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.04.07 12:36:00 - [113] Originally by: Corwain Awesome! So when do my drugs get legalized? I'm not hurting anyone with them. Good point, Hopefully they'll be next on the list of things that adults can make their own decision about, instead of being treated like children.
Thoma Katch Gallente University of Caille	Posted - 2009.04.07 12:46:00 - [114] Originally by: Alice'Dee 17 year old in Vermont speaks out on marriage equality Nothing beats ignorance like an articulate speaker with a clear and well formed message.
Megan Maynard Minmatar Out of Order Tenth Legion	Posted - 2009.04.07 14:05:00 - [115] Originally by: Thoma Katch Originally by: Alice'Dee 17 year old in Vermont speaks out on marriage equality Nothing beats ignorance like an articulate speaker with a clear and well formed message. Best line, "I want people to not think that gay is a BAD thing." Stop, hammer time.
Thoma Katch Gallente University of Caille	Posted - 2009.04.07 14:33:00 - [116] Originally by: Megan Maynard Originally by: Thoma Katch Originally by: Alice'Dee 17 year old in Vermont speaks out on marriage equality Nothing beats ignorance like an articulate speaker with a clear and well formed message. Best line, "I want people to not think that gay is a BAD thing." Homophobia like any phobia is self-perpetuating. By avioding what you fear you negate the possiblity of ever realising that your fears were irrational in the first place. No doubt its the fear of homosexuality that triggers the fight-or-flight response in homophobes. This causes them to either try and avoid any form of contact or resort to verbal abuse and/or physical violence. Ideally we would be seeking to address the sources which teach this fear to people and I suspects its primarily from religious groups. Its somewhat ironic that these groups rely on protection from discrimination and their freedom of speech to actively encourage discrimination against homosexuals. Whats odd is that no other group has such freedom and that the religious seem to be operating under a different set of rules to everyone else.
TimMc Gallente Brutal Deliverance	Posted - 2009.04.07 14:44:00 - [117] Originally by: Intense Thinker And soon the California Supreme Court will overturn prop 8 and the interwebs will be flooded with angry religious nut jobs and it will be funny Meh I am religious and I don't give a crap. Not like it affects me anyway. Atheist and religious nutjobs both annoy me to no end, just shut up everyone.
Micheal Dietrich Caldari	Posted - 2009.04.07 14:58:00 - [118] Oh this thread just keeps getting better and better. I can almost picture some of these posters wearing their white hood and robe while sitting at their desk typing the next post.
Thorliaron Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.04.07 17:59:00 - [119] Land of the 'Free'. amiright?!
Thorliaron Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.04.07 18:05:00 - [120] Edited by: Thorliaron on 07/04/2009 18:08:19 Originally by: Amitious Turkey Edited by: Amitious Turkey on 07/04/2009 05:41:50 There are reasons why gay marriage is a bad thing (note, not hating the sinner, just the sin, we're all human, bad at heart and often easily deceived) Ever think of why there is man and woman? That in and of itself...really...Gays are attempting to go against what is naturally meant to be. There is a standard outside of man's making that determines right and wrong... I'm not homophobic to any degree. I just don't like it when people do things that aren't good for them. EDIT: read post on the whole "natural" argument. But the question still stands, haven't seen a refutation I can understand yet. Expound, please? Can liking the same sex not also be a natural way for mother nature to curb human numbers?. People act like homsexuality is something new?, the greeks where at it, the romans where at it.
Intense Thinker Minmatar	Posted - 2009.04.07 18:13:00 - [121] Homosexuality doesn't happen in nature? Well, that can be your little secret Pomp FTW!!!
Elora Danzik Caldari Idiots In Spaceships Psychotic Tendencies.	Posted - 2009.04.07 18:24:00 - [122] A little late to this post. But here goes. The Iowa Supreme court ruled correctly in this matter as it applies to consitutional law. They even went so far as to say the indiviual churches have every right to decide who gets married under their roof. Fair enough. Genetics v Choice. It is a choice. It is a choice which child psychologists have eveidence of occuring before the age of 3. That then by some mechanism that I don't understand and I don't think they do either becomes "hardwired". Alfred Kinsey in the 1950's actually pointed out that it is more a sliding scale. Hetero ------------------------ homo and that the extremes are actaully rare. Most people lie somewhere in the middle. Think about it. Say you are a guy. You see another man at work or walking down the street or whatever and something "attrachs you to him. Upon refelction you realized you liked his suit or perhaps just the way he carried himself. I find it interesting that women seem to have been given carte blanche to admire other women , yet it is still taboo for a man to admire how another man looks. Ultimatly, Does it really matter? no, it doesn't. Be gay or straight. just do it because you love the person not because you feel you have to be that way.
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2009.04.07 18:24:00 - [123] Edited by: Terianna Eri on 07/04/2009 18:26:45 Originally by: TimMc Originally by: Intense Thinker And soon the California Supreme Court will overturn prop 8 and the interwebs will be flooded with angry religious nut jobs and it will be funny Meh I am religious and I don't give a crap. Not like it affects me anyway. Atheist and religious nutjobs both annoy me to no end, just shut up everyone. I would like to jump in here that not all atheists are the kind of people who will leap down anyone's throat for believing in a higher power and try to dissuade them from their beliefs in the same way an evangelist would try to convert me to his own faith, and that the tendency to do so is often independent of one's beliefs. Fakeedit: did you mean "(atheist and religious) nutjobs annoy..." or "atheist and (religious nutjobs) annoy..."? Realedit: g4u Iowa \o/ As for genetic v. choice: I know I didn't make any choice to be attracted to women (or to any of my preferences thereof) and I don't know anybody who has made such a choice. __________________________________ Originally by: CCP Whisper Boo hoo. Cry some more.
ebonyivory	Posted - 2009.04.07 22:36:00 - [124] well its good to see that they can marry still dont think they should be allowed to aopt kids though....theres a reason that the father/mother balance is best suited to raising children
Hav0cide Caldari Bureau of Somnium Operations	Posted - 2009.04.07 23:03:00 - [125] Originally by: ebonyivory well its good to see that they can marry still dont think they should be allowed to aopt kids though....theres a reason that the father/mother balance is best suited to raising children A chimp could raise a kid better than some parents.
Thoma Katch Gallente University of Caille	Posted - 2009.04.07 23:05:00 - [126] Edited by: Thoma Katch on 07/04/2009 23:06:13 Originally by: ebonyivory well its good to see that they can marry still dont think they should be allowed to aopt kids though....theres a reason that the father/mother balance is best suited to raising children There is? Unless there reliable data that has been published in a well respected and peer reviewed journal that says that having two parents of the same sex is detrimental to a childs upbringing I don't see how that can be true. I suspect that loving parents who are able to satsify the emotional, physical and monmetary needs of a child is more important than their sexual orientation. Indeed what could be better than raising a child in an environment where they do not find the concept of same sex relationships an oddity. If their parents were gay then they are also less likely to hold strong religious and will be more open minded which again is a good lesson to be passed onto a child.
Chris Liath Gallente Nex Exercitus Skunk-Works	Posted - 2009.04.07 23:49:00 - [127] Edited by: Chris Liath on 07/04/2009 23:49:24 It's inspiring to see the LGBT community in Iowa finally get equal rights. We already can marry in Norway, though "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
Chris Liath Gallente Nex Exercitus Skunk-Works	Posted - 2009.04.07 23:54:00 - [128] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Amitious Turkey Originally by: Hav0cide Edited by: Hav0cide on 06/04/2009 19:09:19 Originally by: Asuka Smith If homosexuality was normal or even prevalent in any species then that species would soon become extinct. This alone should be proof that it is not what nature intended and in fact some form of genetic mutation that does mistakenly assigns the boy loving genes to another boy, on mistake. Id highly watch what you type. Homosexuality isnt normal? What about "If hetrosexuality was normal?" Any arguement or statement you give has exactly the same reversal arguement. An by the way, homosexulaity is normal to me. Its my life. So basicly your saying im not normal. What the hell is normal? (DO NOT REPLY SAYING THERES A NORMAL, this will only cause more issues) EDIT: And any man of science will support me in my call for research on the subject, however nearly every gay that I know is deathly afraid of any research into homosexuality being genetic and thus proving it is a deformity rather than a "personal choice". I think it can be either as the human mind is much stronger than our instincts in some cases, particularly in the case of love, but I think that genetics are likely the driving force. And as a result of this fear from the gay community, and the ignorance of the religious right-wing, no research has been done and none likely will be done. It will remain purely political which is pretty stupid if you ask me. Let me tell you something here. If I could be I would be straight, unfortunately my body does not get attracted to girls, I cant build love relationships with them and doubt I will ever. If it was my personal choice, Id be straight. Your opinion on this matter is just that. YOURS. Its not fact. Simply the 'gays' you know. By all means people have your own opinions, and trust me I have my own to. Just dont expect people to sit by and watch you throw your opinions out there and not expect a reaction. Alot of people in this world talk utter bull** when it comes to homosexuality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ1I_-MY_NY Watch that video. Its very cleverly done but puts together the ** gay people go through and reverses it. Edit: for spelling Are "love" relationships even necessary? That mechanic for the attraction between men and women is meant to produce children. It serves no purpose if you are attracted to the same sex. You could always just be friends It fulfills the need for companionship just fine. You don't HAE to have that kind of a relationship, with a woman or otherwise. And genetics show tendencies (if you want to go on the genetics point) . You always have a choice. Take alcoholics, for example. There IS a genetic tendency toward alcoholism. I have it. My mom has it (she's VERY partial to hard liquor). My grandfather had it. My grandfather was alcoholic for a time. Guess what, he stopped. My mom never was an alcoholic. She keeps the hard liquor out of the house except for special occasions. So, there is always a choice. Choose what you want, but don't say there's no choice. There aren't only two choices (homo or hetero). There's a third; not going that road at all and sticking to friendship. So you're saying that you could make yourself be sexually attracted to a man? OK well give it a try and get back to us with the results. Just slipping a little piece of info. Homosexuality has been *proven* in over 1500 species. The number is most likely even higher. They include turtles, dolphins, whales, monkeys, gorillas, foxes, birds and all the others I can't remember. This subject is the only one all scientists have felt the need to specify their own (straight) sexual orientaiton at the introduction of the study. They've always known it, and it's always been hushed down. For example whales having sex with eachother has been aptly named "***** fencing", and filed under territorial behaviour. "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
Amitious Turkey Gallente Ammo Tech Inc	Posted - 2009.04.08 04:02:00 - [129] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Amitious Turkey I'm not homophobic to any degree. I just don't like it when people do things that aren't good for them. Ah, so it's the government's job to see that we don't do things that you think "aren't good for us"? Here's an alternative viewpoint. You - and the governmment - should mind your own business. I didn't say I wanted the government involved. I DON'T want the government involved, that would have far more evil ramifications than a choice on the behalf of an individual. I'de rather have people choose on whether it's right or not. Some people- in my opinion- are confused about this. I simply know where I stand- I believe it's wrong. I'm not about to shove it down anyone's throat; that doesn't produce change. I learned that a long time ago. But neither am I going to comopromise my beliefs. And in the end, governments don't change people- people change people. And my beliefs aim at changing people by loving them, and trying to show them the true path to righteousness- not at condemnation. Because that's not my place. I am just as evil as the worst murderer. And here is the beauty of it- while I was a sinner, God saved me. He is the One who completes me. I don't have to turn to the world to find fulfillment any more, because there is Someone more filling, more awesome, than anything this miserable world can offer. You can choose to believe or not believe- you can write me off as a nutcase. A lot of people will. I'm simply trying to live out the Truth that I know about. It is precisely because I love people that I seek to change their ways to what is good. I'm not trying to change people to gain points for myself- it's for others' benefit. Why would I be posting here, if I knew I would be attacked for what I believe? I certainly don't gain anything from it. my two cents. (\_/) (O.o) (> <) The writer of the article did not quote himself- Cortes
Atomos Darksun Damage Incorporated.	Posted - 2009.04.08 04:09:00 - [130] Originally by: Micheal Dietrich Oh this thread just keeps getting better and better. I can almost picture some of these posters wearing their white hood and robe while sitting at their desk typing the next post. http://www.thenoobcomic.com/index.php?pos=318 Originally by: Amoxin My vent is talking to me in a devil voice... CONVERT TO LINKIFICATION! http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameb
Amitious Turkey Gallente Ammo Tech Inc	Posted - 2009.04.08 04:16:00 - [131] Originally by: Hav0cide Originally by: Amitious Turkey And genetics show tendencies (if you want to go on the genetics point) . You always have a choice. Take alcoholics, for example. There IS a genetic tendency toward alcoholism. I have it. My mom has it (she's VERY partial to hard liquor). My grandfather had it. My grandfather was alcoholic for a time. Guess what, he stopped. My mom never was an alcoholic. She keeps the hard liquor out of the house except for special occasions. So, there is always a choice. Choose what you want, but don't say there's no choice. There aren't only two choices (homo or hetero). There's a third; not going that road at all and sticking to friendship. Indeed everyone has a choice, but trust me Ive tried liking girls, ive had girlfriends in the past..they never worked. I always was attracted to guys from an early age from as young as i remember. I didnt choose this. I assure you that you wont understand this. Youve not gone through it. When you have then comment on my choices. Quite frankly i wont force myself to be straight just to be 'normal'. I wont ever be made to live a life that im not happy in, and i know im happy loving guys. No, I probably don't understand it fully. But, I don't believe it's about being "normal"- it's about doing what is good in God's eyes. Okay, you're happy loving guys. You don't have to love girls. You're attracted to guys- that's the tendency I talked about. You don't have to give in to that, either. What is truly important in your life? Is it always fulfilling? Will anything you choose, whether it be guy or girl, be ultimately fulfilling in the end? The answer, in my experience, is no. What, then, fills that unfillable void in the human heart? The only thing that can would be an omnipotent God- one who can fill the unfillable. Why do you need to be involved in that kind of a relationship to be happy? Is friendship not enough? (I'm really not trying to browbeat- I'de just like to understand. And, as I said in my above post, I want to help you find truth. If you don't want me to ask you this kind of stuff, I'll back off. Thanks for trying to explain.) (\_/) (O.o) (> <) The writer of the article did not quote himself- Cortes
Amitious Turkey Gallente Ammo Tech Inc	Posted - 2009.04.08 04:20:00 - [132] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Tallaran Kouros Originally by: Malcanis And genetics show tendencies (if you want to go on the genetics point) . You always have a choice. I'm afraid that's not quite true. There are such things are genetic tendencies, but there are also genetic absolutes. Take a look at Huntington's Disease, for example. There is protein that is coded by a particular genetic sequence made up of CAG repeats. If CAG repeats less than 35 times then you will be healthy and safe, but if CAG repeats 36 times or more then the gene is faulty and the protein will not code correctly and you have a genetic destiny to develop Huntington's in later life and there is not a damn thing you can do about it. I belive he was talking about human behavioural tendencies. However there are also environmental issues that are implicated in homosexuality eg: having an older brother, high population density, etc. Precisely. But even then, a human always has a choice. How many people have lived in poverty but have risen out of that to become great leaders? (etc...people don't always live according to the factors) So, yes, there are other factors. But no natural factor can negate human free will. (\_/) (O.o) (> <) The writer of the article did not quote himself- Cortes
Amitious Turkey Gallente Ammo Tech Inc	Posted - 2009.04.08 04:27:00 - [133] Originally by: Malcanis So you're saying that you could make yourself be sexually attracted to a man? OK well give it a try and get back to us with the results. Almost have. If I had let myself, I would have gone down that road. Everyone has evil in their hearts. Everyone. It's a part of human nature, and a part that we can't get rid of on our own. Even if we choose to do the right thing, it does not excuse who we are. That's why everyone needs salvation, whether they are the worst mass murderer or the most upright saint. (\_/) (O.o) (> <) The writer of the article did not quote himself- Cortes
Amitious Turkey Gallente Ammo Tech Inc	Posted - 2009.04.08 04:32:00 - [134] Originally by: Thorliaron Edited by: Thorliaron on 07/04/2009 18:08:19 Originally by: Amitious Turkey Edited by: Amitious Turkey on 07/04/2009 05:41:50 There are reasons why gay marriage is a bad thing (note, not hating the sinner, just the sin, we're all human, bad at heart and often easily deceived) Ever think of why there is man and woman? That in and of itself...really...Gays are attempting to go against what is naturally meant to be. There is a standard outside of man's making that determines right and wrong... I'm not homophobic to any degree. I just don't like it when people do things that aren't good for them. EDIT: read post on the whole "natural" argument. But the question still stands, haven't seen a refutation I can understand yet. Expound, please? Can liking the same sex not also be a natural way for mother nature to curb human numbers?. People act like homsexuality is something new?, the greeks where at it, the romans where at it. I also believe the world can sustain far more than the current human population, so I don't believe it's necessary to curb human numbers. God said "Be fruitful and multiply." And yep, homosexuality has been around for a long time. So have a lot of other things. Like, say, adultery. Or murder. I don't think it being around for a long time excuses bad behavior. (\_/) (O.o) (> <) The writer of the article did not quote himself- Cortes
Atomos Darksun Damage Incorporated.	Posted - 2009.04.08 05:40:00 - [135] Well, since this thread has broken every rule to be broken on these here forums... How do you know what God wants? Originally by: Amoxin My vent is talking to me in a devil voice... CONVERT TO LINKIFICATION! http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameb
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.04.08 06:11:00 - [136] Originally by: Amitious Turkey Originally by: Malcanis So you're saying that you could make yourself be sexually attracted to a man? OK well give it a try and get back to us with the results. Almost have. If I had let myself, I would have gone down that road. Everyone has evil in their hearts. Everyone. It's a part of human nature, and a part that we can't get rid of on our own. Even if we choose to do the right thing, it does not excuse who we are. That's why everyone needs salvation, whether they are the worst mass murderer or the most upright saint. I hate to use the old cliche but... nah, I won't, it won't do any good. I'll just stick to the "mind your own business" thing.
Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.04.08 06:27:00 - [137] Edited by: Sera Ryskin on 08/04/2009 06:28:45 Originally by: Amitious Turkey There aren't only two choices (homo or hetero). There's a third; not going that road at all and sticking to friendship. This is a joke, right? Have you ever *had* a serious relationship in your entire life? How can you possibly not understand that "just stick to friendship" is such a horrible and depressing thing to say? Quote: No, I probably don't understand it fully. But, I don't believe it's about being "normal"- it's about doing what is good in God's eyes. Correction: doing what is good in YOUR god's eyes. Even ignoring the slight problem of whether a god even exists in the first place, not all religions agree with you on sex. Quote: What is truly important in your life? Is it always fulfilling? Will anything you choose, whether it be guy or girl, be ultimately fulfilling in the end? The answer, in my experience, is no. What, then, fills that unfillable void in the human heart? The only thing that can would be an omnipotent God- one who can fill the unfillable. Hint for the clueless: not everyone believes in your zombie cannibal death cult and its imaginary pervert in the sky who watches everything you do in your bedroom. Some of us are quite happy and fulfilled without any of those things. Quote: Why do you need to be involved in that kind of a relationship to be happy? Is friendship not enough? See above. You must have a sad and pathetic life if you don't understand how love (and sex) creates a deep and fulfilling thing that is more than just "friends with benefits". I feel sorry for you, honestly, that you have a life so lacking in real happiness. I hope that someday you find someone you can truly love, and then look back on this thread and wonder how you could possibly have been so wrong. ========== Merin is currently enjoying a 14 day vacation from the forums. Until she returns, you've got me to entertain you!
Hav0cide Caldari Bureau of Somnium Operations	Posted - 2009.04.08 07:04:00 - [138] Originally by: Amitious Turkey Originally by: Hav0cide Originally by: Amitious Turkey And genetics show tendencies (if you want to go on the genetics point) . You always have a choice. Take alcoholics, for example. There IS a genetic tendency toward alcoholism. I have it. My mom has it (she's VERY partial to hard liquor). My grandfather had it. My grandfather was alcoholic for a time. Guess what, he stopped. My mom never was an alcoholic. She keeps the hard liquor out of the house except for special occasions. So, there is always a choice. Choose what you want, but don't say there's no choice. There aren't only two choices (homo or hetero). There's a third; not going that road at all and sticking to friendship. Indeed everyone has a choice, but trust me Ive tried liking girls, ive had girlfriends in the past..they never worked. I always was attracted to guys from an early age from as young as i remember. I didnt choose this. I assure you that you wont understand this. Youve not gone through it. When you have then comment on my choices. Quite frankly i wont force myself to be straight just to be 'normal'. I wont ever be made to live a life that im not happy in, and i know im happy loving guys. No, I probably don't understand it fully. But, I don't believe it's about being "normal"- it's about doing what is good in God's eyes. Okay, you're happy loving guys. You don't have to love girls. You're attracted to guys- that's the tendency I talked about. You don't have to give in to that, either. What is truly important in your life? Is it always fulfilling? Will anything you choose, whether it be guy or girl, be ultimately fulfilling in the end? The answer, in my experience, is no. What, then, fills that unfillable void in the human heart? The only thing that can would be an omnipotent God- one who can fill the unfillable. Why do you need to be involved in that kind of a relationship to be happy? Is friendship not enough? (I'm really not trying to browbeat- I'de just like to understand. And, as I said in my above post, I want to help you find truth. If you don't want me to ask you this kind of stuff, I'll back off. Thanks for trying to explain.) My sexuality has nothing to do with my goals and ambitions in life. My health is important as is my job, and learning stuff Ive not had time to learn like web design. Is it fulfulling? Well im only 21 and im happy so yes, but im too young to see the long term fullness. An no offence to you mate, but god has never been there to help me, hes left me hurt and pretty ****ed off in the past. He doesnt fill the unfillable. So your faith cannot help in this. As for relationships. Im single. Have been since I was like 15 in highschool. Yeah im 21 now...so you think I need relationships? No I dont, Ive been very happy with my friends. Though everyone knows they need company at somepoint which is why we all try and find someone to love and be even more happy with. What truth are you trying to help me find exactly? I know who I am. Im happy in who I am. I dont need you or anyone to help me discover 'truth'. The ultimate truth for me is. Im gay, and im happy! Homosexual people are no different than hetrosexual people. If you cant understand this then I suggest you try being gay.
Vaelia Kael	Posted - 2009.04.08 08:25:00 - [139] Good job, Iowa. Unfortunately, we here in California have to suffer the tyranny of organized religion. Honestly, I would rather have children raised by loving, caring gay parents than crappy heterosexual ones. I find it ridiculous that in my state, it's perfectly legal for a couple whom I know to give birth to a child who was conceived after a night of binge drinking and drug use, but god forbid (literally, apparently) two responsible men or women raise a child at all. Definitely a step in the right direction, and those of you who can't see that really need to re-evaluate your priorities. Marriage isn't "sacred"; it's only a word on a piece of paper giving a couple certain benefits. It's been scientifically proven that homosexuality is largely, if not solely genetic, so stop trying to force your ridiculous beliefs on everyone else.
Dirk Magnum Royal Hiigaran Navy SCUM.	Posted - 2009.04.08 08:31:00 - [140] Originally by: Vaelia Kael Good job, Iowa. Unfortunately, we here in California have to suffer the tyranny of organized religion. Honestly, I would rather have children raised by loving, caring gay parents than crappy heterosexual ones. I find it ridiculous that in my state, it's perfectly legal for a couple whom I know to give birth to a child who was conceived after a night of binge drinking and drug use, but god forbid (literally, apparently) two responsible men or women raise a child at all. Definitely a step in the right direction, and those of you who can't see that really need to re-evaluate your priorities. Marriage isn't "sacred"; it's only a word on a piece of paper giving a couple certain benefits. It's been scientifically proven that homosexuality is largely, if not solely genetic, so stop trying to force your ridiculous beliefs on everyone else. To be fair to California I recall the polls going against Prop 8 until the Mormon leadership in Utah motivated their flock to start pouring cash into the Prop 8 support campaign. The opposition eventually raised a nearly equal amount of cash but I guess it was too late to counter the Prop 8 supporters' advertising. Correct me if I'm wrong I'm sure you heard a lot more about it. I live as far from California as you can get and still be in the continental US.
Thoma Katch Gallente University of Caille	Posted - 2009.04.08 09:03:00 - [141] Edited by: Thoma Katch on 08/04/2009 09:06:41 Snips rant against religion because they don't listen anyway
Dirk Magnum Royal Hiigaran Navy SCUM.	Posted - 2009.04.08 09:35:00 - [142] Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 08/04/2009 09:38:18 edit: the following post was made before Thoma included the rest of their text. The quoted part is all that was in the post I was responding to here. Just gonna leave my post as is though because it's way too early in the morning. Originally by: Thoma Katch Snips rant against religion because they don't listen anyway Well truth be told you don't need religion to oppress homosexuality. Just to cite some really obvious examples, ****** and Stalin didn't use religion as a basis for persecuting gay people (mainly gay men.) I believe that all religions are just manifestations of an innate capacity of every human mind to do several different things: 1. submit to authority 2. hope without reason 3. suppress self-interest None of these things are inherently bad. We wouldn't have civilization without authority, we wouldn't aspire to anything without hope, and the third point supports the first two. People experience these things in different degrees depending on the person and the situation, and the right combination of that lends itself towards a person adopting religion. Some gravitate to organized religion naturally, while others require a descent into a figurative "darkest hour" before submitting to the idea of some god or other divine power to bring them "salvation". Other people may never find themselves in a situation where they become, you might say, "religiously minded"... but that doesn't mean they couldn't, hypothetically speaking. If I'm right, and the capacity for religious expression (from functionally nil to extreme) is not merely a product of culture but an innate quality programmed into every person's brain by the evolutionary process then you're right, it would be hard to reason with those who experience these feelings the strongest and sign on to a religion that likes to deal in absolutes. But you'd be wrong to automatically link religion with bigotry, because if religion is coded into the brain then so is the capacity to hold prejudice, and the whole human species must be taken to task for that. I'm not sure if that's where you were actually going because I didn't see your original post, but I'm guessing that idea was probably woven into it somehow at some point.
Thoma Katch Gallente University of Caille	Posted - 2009.04.08 09:44:00 - [143] Edited by: Thoma Katch on 08/04/2009 09:47:33 Yes religion is an unintended by-product of innate social behaviours and learning that was intended to increase our ability to survive. The development of superstitious behaviour has even been shown in other animals such as pigeons which after being taught that tapping a button would result in them being being rewarded with food. When the food reward distribution became random they ended up associating the reward with looking over their shoulder because on two consecutive occassions food war rewarded after the bird had looked over its shoulder which was enough to reinforce and fix the behaviour. The former was benefitial the the latter was detrimental but the underlying programming isn't complex enough to distinguish between and its only natural selection that would determine the sucecss of the individual in its environment. Innevitably not all of these supersitious behaviours proved to be detrimental to an individuals survival and so it persisted, was taught to young and possible adopted by other adult individuals through observation. And so begins organised religion. Superstitious beliefs like religion are not in themselves particually harmful but when they foster intolerant and backwards beliefs which they refuse change they become a problem. Even worse with such large scale governing its now possible to impose and enforce those beliefs on huge numbers of people regardless if they themselves are superstitious.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.