<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/njkhV9LbRUk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Oh, btw--- also, gay animals. nsf any setting where deer sex can potentially worry people Spoiler but i'm sure it's nasty old deer society causing them to go all wrong. Ohh, I have scientific studies too Texxx, but from memory, that ain't the ticket with you. (Need to point out this is completely irrelevant to the point at hand which deals with issues of federalism, and due process of law, but hey, Park and Rec clips are always good to share).
so Northside you can offer nothing but absurdity and comedy clips and pictures. sorry but that's not convincing.
Why would I need to convince you? Your point is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand---the same discussion that will see discriminatory laws repealed. You are offering nothing at all of substance. So why bother with too much of substance? I would very much like you to respond to my point though, it'll be more substance than you have offered in this thread up to now--- Come up with it. Even if homosexuals are "made" what is so "wrong" with them that they should be denied marriage. Give me one rational reason. One. Meanwhile--- your ideas are the puppy. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BZ3-3imme2A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Where do you draw the line regarding sexual preference? Your manpanion? Your dog? Your cat? Your pet rock? Your younger brother? Your mom?
Informed, reasoned consent. Insofar as a rock, a cat, and a dog are incapable of that (and I'm pretty sure a rock would make your dick sore), but a...manpanion is, no problemo. And hey, if you get the family in, good for you. That's how the Habsburgs and the Targaryens do it! though it's kinda worked poorly for both, admittedly. (So informed consent will probably need to take those medical factors into consideration.) This is addressed to your (expected) lack of a rational reason--- <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sHAim7nGR00" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I wouldn't mind polygamy, but I wouldn't be able to afford it, and I'm too insecure and macho to sword fight my way to #1 concubine status. Seriously though, there are more than enough people who are born and wired homosexuals. At least 10%...which is similar statistically as being left handed. b****ing and whining about the outliers who swing both ways is pretty dickish if you ask me. Giving consent and being of age to be informed enough to give consent eliminates most of the outlandish criterion you can think of.
People who are opposed to gay marriage will look back on their beliefs with shame (as will we all). If you are opposed to gay marriage, in my opinion, you lack a basic sense of empathy. History will frown upon you and demonize you, and rightly so. http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/60-moments-that-gave-me-the-chills-during-seattle Read this and look at the pictures. Tell me you want to deny that happiness to millions elsewhere. This will be a national embarrassment in 20 years.
I am very curious about this statement. How do you see allowing for things like gay marriage, consensual sex not for reproduction and etc.. as leading to the downfall of the nation? Also what basis then should things be allowed or banned in a democratic and pluralistic society? Should it just be left to the will majority to determine what is and is not allowed if there is no harm caused by a particular activity?
I think he wasn't talking directly about gay marriage and sex, just about the "as long as it doesnt hurt anyone" mantra in general by itself I'd tend to agree with Kojirou. (I'm for gay marriage when I used to be against it. And not cuz of bigotry) I think "Live and let live" SOUNDS like its about peace on earth harminious existence, but to me its a basis of immmaturity. It says to people "Leave me alone - ALWAYS" Its like the adult version of saying "YOLO", and we see how annoying that is.
How about "Leave me alone about my sex life - ALWAYS." Or "Leave me alone about who I love - ALWAYS." Or is that too "immmature?"
I think it sounds like brilliant common sense. I had to google "YOLO," but I fail to see what the problem is. In fact, my idea of an ideal life is to be left the hell alone. I'll pay taxes and give to charity and yes, I realize that the second I do something that involves others (like driving my otherwise private vehicle on a public road) means my right to be left alone essentially ends in that moment, but ultimately: my life = my rules. Not too difficult of a concept, really.
There are definitely other examples that could be had out of this, have any that aren't about gay marriage?
What is he talking about then? The question I have to him though is if certain private behaviors create no harm to others how does that lead to the downfall of the nation? Also then what issues does he think that people's lives should be interfered with if there is no harm being created and also how is that standard going to be decided? For example if a majority of Americans didn't like piercings should we then outlaw piercings?
If people want to stop gays from getting married, they should also stop people from getting married atop a float at the Rose Bowl Parade, especially when the officiant says, "On behalf of Farmer's Insurance and the state of California....".
