Texas A&M Student Senate Passes Discriminatory LGBT Bill

What irony.

 

I love the anti-gay people who come here and say that being gay isn't natural. What the hell is it, then? It's CLEARLY part of the natural world.

And the argument that gay men cannot procreate is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

 

I was making the analogy that there were always bull**** excuses to justify discrimination. For african americans it was some dumb **** like whites are superior or black people had no souls. For homosexuality its that its an "unnatural" choice and that you can fix them and force them to be straight. Bunch of morons.

 

When did I say that human's are going extinct?

 

I never defended myself. I said you were making slanderous statements, which you were. It sounds to me that you are the type of person that doesn't like to be have the things you say questioned very often. What line of work are you in, by the way?

 

Ironic statements (verbal irony) often convey a meaning exactly opposite from their literal meaning.

So you are saying that I meant that people are taking him seriously?

 

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

Way to stick to the playbook Sam. I know I can always count on you.

 

If by anti-gay do you mean I do not believe homosexual acts to be moral or natural?

I have always enjoyed spending time with my gay friends, going to art exhibits, are enjoying some nice cuisine. I love them as human beings, people that are created in the image of God and are loved by Him.

So in nature if two men have sexual intercourse; will they produce an offspring?

 

Can you tag in bigtexxx or basso because this **** your spewing is weak and too basic for me to to even acknowledge anymore. It's not fun arguing with someone unless they can generate a coherent thought or be funny.

 

Whatever do you mean?

When did I say that I can FIX them or force them to be straight. Never said such a thing. Does the fact that I disagree with view of homosexual acts stop them from performing them? Of course not, don't be silly.

From the language that you use and the arguments that you make, you come off as moronic unfortunately.

 

No, I don't think you were trying to be ironic.

 

Edited for 50 years ago...

 

Am I not allowed to make a comment that speaks to my personal beliefs on the matter, without it meaning I am trying to defend myself?

What I get from some individuals is if I disagree with their stance on any issue then somehow I am a hate monger, even if I chose to accept them for who they are as well.

 

Do you ever get tired of the old rhetoric of comparing homosexual activism and the civil rights movement and desegregation?

 

And I can always count on our good buddy PigMiller to quote the "rules" like a true believer. I guess it's a rule itself - how totally paradoxical!

This type of thing makes you and gwayneco (heh! you and gwayneco!) and the rest of the social/intellectual/whatever pariahs from the college republicans feel good, llike you have discovered a store of hidden knowledge that helps you to . . . . unskew . .. reality and stick it to your smug persecutors. You will show them!

And so it lasts, for a little while, until the cold hard slap of real reality comes up.

BUt time and a little-alter-ego internet fhag-baiting will salve your wounds, brah.

 

Nope. It's an absolutely apt analogy.

Certainly, you can argue the two are not comparable. But that's entirely the rationale for using the correct term: analogy.

 

By that standard, do you judge women past menopause or impotent men to be immoral? By and large, humans were not designed to live past child-bearing ages, as sickness and poor nutrition would keep the average lifespan in the 30s. Because of modern medicine, people are living twice as long as when a group of men first came together to write down the morals of the day in the Bible.

It does seem like most of your opposition is due to the sexual act of intercourse between two same-sex partners; you seem to be perfectly willing to extend your approval to same-sex relationships for all of the other benefits including companionship and support. It would certainly seem then that you would be in strong support of same-sex civil unions, and perhaps even marriage. Neither requires sexual intercourse; the loveless marriage is a trope as old as the Bible itself. Procreation should not be the end all of marriage; otherwise you would logically have to deny marriage to anyone incapable of bearing children.

As to the topic at hand, it seems clear that the A&M students were specifically targeting the center, as the article states that the bill's writers were only able to name the LGBT center as a potential "opt-out" fee. While it wouldn't be illegal unless the administration actually acts upon it, which they won't, it ironically underscores the absolute necessity of the center at this particular campus. When you have a majority of the elected student leaders willing to wage such an openly hostile campaign against LGBT groups, you can only picture the general atmosphere of the campus.

 

In the post you quoted I was using an analogy. It was an analogy about how one can use statistics that are accurate but don't accurately apply to some conclusions that a person could make.

I used the pronouns 'you' and 'I' hoping that by personalizing it, it might sink in. Apparently it didn't work as I hoped.

Hopefully this clarifies things for you.

 

why are you arguing with a couple of bigots?