Michigan Gay Marriage Ban Overturned by Federal Judge.

What a crock of shit argument. A black man and a white woman can still produce fucking offspring dude. How about I marry my dog? My vacuum cleaner? A chic can marry her dildo now too, awesome stuff.

A man being with a man is beyond not being traditional, it is not natural. What is funny here is most of the pro-gay crowd is also anti-religion and pro-Darwinism. So tell me this Darwin.......in the natural world when a animal is straight up homo and refuses to mate with a member of the opposite gender to procreate what happens to that animal's genes? Are they passed on? Nope, they are not. This is because they are broken and Darwin is going to take care of that business right there. If animals were exclusively gay they would not pro-create, and all life on this Earth pro-creates. This is why this homosexual bullshit is about as natural as me having sex with my chair. If there was a way to detect it at birth or in the womb back in the 50's we would have a vaccine by now.....and it would be used to cure this condition. Yes I said condition. If you as a man love the sight of a penis but find vagina's disgusting you are NOT normal, period. You have a condition. In the medical world we have shots for that kind of shit. But somehow this has been made into some form of "normal" and it is ridiculous.

Bring on all the "homophobe!" bullshit now.

This topic is specifically about traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Logic tells me if you can come up with 10000000000 ways traditional marriage was not so traditional in the past but out of all 1000000000 of them you cannot show one example where it is not a man and a woman that is a fail.

Do you think that infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry? If not then your argument holds no ground.

Being gay is natural, it occurs in nature there for it's natural. Simple. You seem to be easily confused by simple concepts.

Do you think that infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry? If not then your argument holds no ground.

Being gay is natural, it occurs in nature there for it's natural. Simple. You seem to be easily confused by simple concepts.

I honestly wouldn't bother giving him a serious response. He's way too angry, whiny, callous, and ignorant, so you're wasting your time. At least reaper is actually somewhat level headed and willing to engage in serious conversation.

What a crock of shit argument. A black man and a white woman can still produce fucking offspring dude. How about I marry my dog? My vacuum cleaner? A chic can marry her dildo now too, awesome stuff.

A man being with a man is beyond not being traditional, it is not natural. What is funny here is most of the pro-gay crowd is also anti-religion and pro-Darwinism. So tell me this Darwin.......in the natural world when a animal is straight up homo and refuses to mate with a member of the opposite gender to procreate what happens to that animal's genes? Are they passed on? Nope, they are not. This is because they are broken and Darwin is going to take care of that business right there. If animals were exclusively gay they would not pro-create, and all life on this Earth pro-creates. This is why this homosexual bullshit is about as natural as me having sex with my chair. If there was a way to detect it at birth or in the womb back in the 50's we would have a vaccine by now.....and it would be used to cure this condition. Yes I said condition. If you as a man love the sight of a penis but find vaginas disgusting you are NOT normal, period. You have a condition. In the medical world we have shots for that kind of shit. But somehow this has been made into some form of "normal" and it is ridiculous.

Bring on all the "homophobe!" bullshit now.

QQmoar.

Okay I see you are meeting me halfway here in agreeing homosexuality is a medical condition just like infertility is. Thanks.

And exclusive gayness is not natural in the wild, they still procreate. A man and a man can never have offspring that is derived from both men.

And of course here we go with the liberal bullshit. You cannot just make your points, you have to attempt to discredit as well. When I don't agree with you it is because I am confused eh? You people are so full of shit.

What a crock of shit argument. A black man and a white woman can still produce fucking offspring dude. How about I marry my dog? My vacuum cleaner? A chic can marry her dildo now too, awesome stuff.

A man being with a man is beyond not being traditional, it is not natural. What is funny here is most of the pro-gay crowd is also anti-religion and pro-Darwinism. So tell me this Darwin.......in the natural world when a animal is straight up homo and refuses to mate with a member of the opposite gender to procreate what happens to that animal's genes? Are they passed on? Nope, they are not. This is because they are broken and Darwin is going to take care of that business right there. If animals were exclusively gay they would not pro-create, and all life on this Earth pro-creates. This is why this homosexual bullshit is about as natural as me having sex with my chair. If there was a way to detect it at birth or in the womb back in the 50's we would have a vaccine by now.....and it would be used to cure this condition. Yes I said condition. If you as a man love the sight of a penis but find vaginas disgusting you are NOT normal, period. You have a condition. In the medical world we have shots for that kind of shit. But somehow this has been made into some form of "normal" and it is ridiculous.

Bring on all the "homophobe!" bullshit now.

What a crock of shit argument. A black man and a white woman can still produce fucking offspring dude. How about I marry my dog? My vacuum cleaner? A chic can marry her dildo now too, awesome stuff.

This topic is specifically about traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Logic tells me if you can come up with 10000000000 ways traditional marriage was not so traditional in the past but out of all 1000000000 of them you cannot show one example where it is not a man and a woman that is a fail.

But of course points are only valid when you agree with them..... HURR DURR.

The open minded forward thinking progressives strike again. Open your mind and think exactly like me!

@GreySeal9: I'm about 99% sure vfibsux is just an exaggerated joke character. Sort of like a Republican version of Laihendi.

@vfibsux:

TOPIC: So why are there still bans in the country again? These issues seem to go back and forth with each state. Seems like a waste of money and public attention.

@Master_Live:

Just getting back to you I know every thing is not addressed in the constitution yet with gay marriage as with many other issues it is claimed it is a constitutional right when it is not. Homosexual and marriage are two words that incompatible with one another. Look up homosexual then look up marriage. Civil unions were acceptable with every one which gave the same benefits as marriage between a man and a woman. The word gay has been co-opted from its original meaning.

Wow, you're either very intellectually dishonest, your memory sucks or you don't understand English very well. People haven't been harping on you just because you've been insisting that letting homosexuals express themselves publicly will "affect" of children (duh, any kind of experience or observation can do that). It's far more reasonable to point to genes and hormones as the cause because we've actually found correlations between those factors and sexual orientation while your only "proof" of your claim is a Greek Philosopher from 2400 years ago who literally had nothing to do with this topic at all.

You have also argued in this very thread that because of this vague "effect" we can justify forcing homosexuals to hide themselves and that it's beneficial to do so because letting children see gay people is somehow harmful to their development. You don't have any actual substantiation for the idea that letting kids see homosexuals will actually affect them that much, let alone your claims later that suppressing homosexuals' freedom of expression is a 'net benefit' to society.

Nobody is trying to oppress or silence you. You have the right to express yourself just as we have the right to call you out for your awful arguments. And it's hard for us not to feel morally and intellectually superior to you when you've horrendously mangled the word "indoctrination", comparedhomosexual expression to alcohol consumption and built a spectacularly illogical and baseless argument to (ironically) justify forcing millions of people back into the closet and denying them the right to free self expression while calling it "liberty".

If "duh" then what is so absurd about my argument? You may not be convinced by it or you may not see enough expediency in my proposition to justify instating it in a society, but I don't see how you can perceive it to be so absurd and outlandish while asserting its basis at the same time. You're in constant self-contradiction; at one instance you assert the basis of my argument and at another you ask me for a substantiation for it. Furthermore, you're asking me to provide a proof for a rather self-evident and very rudimentary principle that may possibly be the fundamental basis for education and the human development. In this I perceive the mere want of discrediting my argument rather than actually discussing the matter at hands. You're use of profanity does not help either, considering how I don't recall ever seeing you post in this manner.

Since I never claimed that my argument is infallible and its nothing but a possibility to be considered, I will ask YOU to provide substantiation for your "scientific enlightenment" which involves the hypothesis that genes and hormones alone are responsible for homosexuality. I'd like you to provide a hard scientific evidence, not some correlation since correlation does not mean causation and since you seem to treat this premise as infallible and the absolute truth on homosexuality where every other argument in comparison to it proves itself to be worthy of nothing but contempt and pity.

Let's drop this "nobody is trying to deny you your freedom of speech" folly shall we? You don't have to persecute someone in order to deny him his freedom of expression. Considering my current situation and the limitations of the medium in which this discussion has taken place, I really couldn't give two fucks whether you allow or deny me my freedom of expression. The subject itself is at the bottom of my real priorities and you do not have the authority to decide such a thing to begin with. However, I now realize that if I ever find myself in Europe, say the Netherlands, I will have to be very cautious about my views and what is and what is not ok to say about homosexuality. Otherwise, I will run the risk of social alienation, being shunned from the realm of rationality and possibly being denied employment and other privileges. I'd most likely adopt a DADT kind of policy. If I managed to generate this intense disapprobation and outrage in an Internet forum, I can only imagine how I'd be dealt with if this quarrel took place in the real world and in the settings where its most relevant, U.S/Western Europe.

One last thing, you can claim intellectual and moral superiority as much as you want. Dogmatism has and will never be the expression of such notions. On the contrary, dogmatism is nothing but an expression of intellectual bankruptcy and moral decay. I shall persuade you no longer with any of my arguments in this topic for I have made them clear enough for those who would listen and it would be pointless and serving of no purpose to try and persuade those who wouldn't.

1) This thread and others where you whine about being ganged up on for your posts in said threads. Whine some MOAR. Its a public forum meant for dialogue, yours is garnering attention simply for being antiquated and intellecutally barren.

2) Homosexuality exists in nature. Its prevalent though out the animal kingdom. Maybe I shouldn't have assumed that you knew anything about zoology or animal behavior. Unless of course you're going to make a bold statement and say that Homo sapiens are the ONLY species on Earth where homosexuality is present.

Making a statement does not equate to whining. Have I ever asked any of you to stop? To cease and desist? Have I ever thrown a tantrum filled with profanities in any such topics? On the contrary I'm rather very calm. Besides, there's no reason for me to whine since I can always choose to abstain from participating in such topics or just choose not to reply to some of you. And you call this a dialogue? rofl I'd hate to witness a quarrel then.

"Its prevalent throughout the animal kingdom" Now you want nature to waste itself in buggery too? I've actually heard about this before and assuming its true I wouldn't say its "prevalent". Let me ask you this: how many times have you observed pets of the same sex humping each other in mating season? If its that much "prevalent" how come we never observe it? Or are "scientists" the sole authority on everything now? Do we have no use of our own faculties any more?

In any scenario, that's besides the point. The point that I'd like to make to you my dear zoologist is: since when do we regard the animal kingdom as our reference as human beings? I take it you're big on polygamy too? When did we ever devised our societies and social norms in reference to the animal kingdom?

I know you come from a culture where rationally thinking isn't as well accepted but can you at least try? You idea isn't self evident like you claim. Just because you believe it, doesn't mean it must be obvious to everyone else.

How would you feel about a law that makes it illegal for people of other races to go outside in public without first wearing make-up to hide their true race? This is no different to what you're suggesting to be done with gays (the only real difference is that the hassle of putting on make up every day makes the former a bit worse).

You don't give a shit about helping people, all you want is to harm others.

You know that's the belief that I originally held, the belief that irrationality is confined to this region and the rest of the developing world and that the developed world is the beacon of rationality. With time I realized I was wrong, you're just as irrational as they are, it just happens that you live comfortably and you're just on a different social and political isle. That's it, there's nothing more to it. Your analogy is one expression of that for if you think it accurately applies to my argument then I don't know what to say to you. I will not attempt to persuade you any different, especially given your last reply to me. Oh the irony when I remember your last post and juxtapose it to the first line of this one.

my dog pretty much exclusively humps the same sex. But the studies on sexuality tend to focus more on animals in the wild that do form relationships, rather than domestic animals that are selectively bred. It is undeniable that animals can be gay. Monogamy can be explained via evolution although nothing is 100% certain, so your comparison to polygamy is flawed.

Again rather than trying to educate yourself you just spew ignorant nonsense. It's the same crap you expect to hear from a redneck who dropped out of school (just minus the god part)

A big difference is that I have the majority of the medical and psychiatric fields on my side while your augment has no evidence at all.

Are you misinterpreting my posts on purpose? Seriously. My reference to polygamy was supposed to assert the notion that we do not consider the animal kingdom as our reference as human beings. So whether homosexuality exists or does not exist in the animal kingdom is a moot point. In any case, you have a gay dog? I have to say that's a first.

A rather bigger difference is that you seem to make baseless claims having instated yourself as a spokesman on behalf of that medical and psychiatric field.

If "duh" then what is so absurd about my argument? You may not be convinced by it or you may not see enough expediency in my proposition to justify instating it in a society, but I don't see how you can perceive it to be so absurd and outlandish while asserting its basis at the same time. You're in constant self-contradiction; at one instance you assert the basis of my argument and at another you ask me for a substantiation for it. Furthermore, you're asking me to provide a proof for a rather self-evident and very rudimentary principle that may possibly be the fundamental basis for education and the human development. In this I perceive the mere want of discrediting my argument rather than actually discussing the matter at hands. You're use of profanity does not help either, considering how I don't recall ever seeing you post in this manner.

Since I never claimed that my argument is infallible and its nothing but a possibility to be considered, I will ask YOU to provide substantiation for your "scientific enlightenment" which involves the hypothesis that genes and hormones alone are responsible for homosexuality. I'd like you to provide a hard scientific evidence, not some correlation since correlation does not mean causation and since you seem to treat this premise as infallible and the absolute truth on homosexuality where every other argument in comparison to it proves itself to be worthy of nothing but contempt and pity.

Let's drop this "nobody is trying to deny you your freedom of speech" folly shall we? You don't have to persecute someone in order to deny him his freedom of expression. Considering my current situation and the limitations of the medium in which this discussion has taken place, I really couldn't give two fucks whether you allow or deny me my freedom of expression. The subject itself is at the bottom of my real priorities and you do not have the authority to decide such a thing to begin with. However, I now realize that if I ever find myself in Europe, say the Netherlands, I will have to be very cautious about my views and what is and what is not ok to say about homosexuality. Otherwise, I will run the risk of social alienation, being shunned from the realm of rationality and possibly being denied employment and other privileges. I'd most likely adopt a DADT kind of policy. If I managed to generate this intense disapprobation and outrage in an Internet forum, I can only imagine how I'd be dealt with if this quarrel took place in the real world and in the settings where its most relevant, U.S/Western Europe.

One last thing, you can claim intellectual and moral superiority as much as you want. Dogmatism has and will never be the expression of such notions. On the contrary, dogmatism is nothing but an expression of intellectual bankruptcy and moral decay. I shall persuade you no longer with any of my arguments in this topic for I have made them clear enough for those who would listen and it would be pointless and serving of no purpose to try and persuade those who wouldn't.

eh I made a proposition based on some argument which I never regarded as infallible. If it doesn't fly with your societies or if you're not willing to listen then I can't attempt to persuade you any further. That could very well be the result of the inadequacy and fallaciousness of my argument, or it could be the result of intellectual and moral decay on your part. Although judging by the way you approach this topic and my argument, I'm somehow inclined to believe in the later. Nevertheless, I actually would like to see homosexuality taking full root and proliferating to its utmost extent in your societies as it would be an interesting real life experiment.

In any scenario, that's besides the point. The point that I'd like to make to you my dear zoologist is: since when do we regard the animal kingdom as our reference as human beings?

Since most of your posts are filled with complete tripe I'll simply respond this. Its because humans are FUCKING animals. Have you ever hear of comparative embryology or comparative physiology? Medical research done on animals is entirely analogous to humans. That's why we test on them in the first place.

If you can't be bothered to do a simple search to find that homosexuality has been documented through out the animal kingdom and realize how this might shoot holes through your entire argument that its counter to the natural orders of things, then it shows you're both lazy and uneducated on the subject.

'Since when do we regard the animal kingdom as our reference to human beings'. Christ, lets throw out all our medical research done on primates and rodents in the last century. I guess we can't use animal analogs for reference.

Hmm, I don't recall ever bringing up the "homosexuality is unnatural" argument. So let me ask you, why did you bring it up? What inclined you to defend the naturality or unnaturality of homosexuality? In any case, I [personally] am not going to take the animal kingdom as my reference for the practices and norms of society or for personal affairs. If you or any other number of people want to do so, then be my guest.

I will tell you what I told the other in order to end this "discussion", I would really like to witness the proliferation of homosexuality to its utmost extent in your societies as it would be an interesting and possibly unprecedented real life experience. I can't think of any historical epoch or empire in which homosexuality became an established norm. So I take my original argument back, expose your children to homosexuality all you want and educate them from an early age on all possible variations of human sexuality. March the streets with the biggest rainbow flags that you can possibly carry and wave. Open more LGBT studies departments in your most prestigious universities. Legislate and enact more affirmative action policies in favor of LGBT people. Open gay bars, include gender neuter bathrooms in all your public venues and continue to expand the social liberties of your people. Apparently its none of my business so it should not concern me. Whatever outcome, if there's any, that would result of this would affect no one but you. So I will admit that I should abstain from touching on this topic again.

"the way you approach my argument" you are yet to provide any evidence for your argument.

Oh my God how many times do I have to repeat this: I never said that my argument is true or that there exists an infallible evidence for it; all I ever said is that it may be a possibility and I wanted to have a somewhat decent discussion about it. Before I knew it, you were all screaming as if I killed your parents or something. Before someone accuses me of whining, I'm just disappointed that's all.

You really are closed minded aren't you. What part of exposing children to homosexuality won't make them gay don't you understand?

then give the evidence

then give the evidence or get out

Nevertheless, I actually would like to see homosexuality taking full root and proliferating to its utmost extent in your societies as it would be an interesting real life experiment.

What part of my last reply to hoolahopman didn't you understand? I'm telling you that my argument no longer concerns any of you. Have it your way with your children and your societies as well.

what is this?

what is this?

Arguing for the persecution of a group based on false information harms everyone. If people like you are what allow things like the holocaust to happen.

Only through the culmination of something and its proliferation to its absolute extreme that it reveals itself for what it truly is. So maybe my views are actually as outdated and irrational as some people claim in this topic and I humbly perceive that I can only know for sure whether this is the case or not through the existence of an extreme example that I can observe, reflect on and go back to as a reference. In this instance, such an "extreme" example would be for homosexuality to establish itself on the ground as a norm equal in every possible way to heterosexuality.

eh I made a proposition based on some argument which I never regarded as infallible. If it doesn't fly with your societies or if you're not willing to listen then I can't attempt to persuade you any further. That could very well be the result of the inadequacy and fallaciousness of my argument, or it could be the result of intellectual and moral decay on your part. Although judging by the way you approach this topic and my argument, I'm somehow inclined to believe in the later. Nevertheless, I actually would like to see homosexuality taking full root and proliferating to its utmost extent in your societies as it would be an interesting real life experiment.

That was a mistake on my part as I was referring to countries where homosexuals have for some time now been enjoying their full liberty and admittedly the U.S is not one of them. In countries like France, Canada, Sweden, Norway...etc, in what way is it possible for a homophobe to exist in concreto as opposed to in abstracto?

Okay I see you are meeting me halfway here in agreeing homosexuality is a medical condition just like infertility is. Thanks.

And exclusive gayness is not natural in the wild, they still procreate. A man and a man can never have offspring that is derived from both men.

And of course here we go with the liberal bullshit. You cannot just make your points, you have to attempt to discredit as well. When I don't agree with you it is because I am confused eh? You people are so full of shit.