Homosexual marriage - do you agree?

[Meiks]

In reality just let them be as they are i would say if you dont like it 1) Kill yourself or 2) stfu and go on with life ill be honest i didn't like homosexuals before.But i actually ended up growing up out of that and just said whatever to it.I wish i could buy a farm and get a bunch of homosexuals and let them run free.All in all if you are religious then you have a reason maybe to hate to dislike homosexuals.In my view if i see someone having gay sex what the hell am i supposed to do its not like thats me doing it im not gonna run out and yell "Faggots" or any other word that relates to it.Bottom line just let people be who they want them to be.

 

[Franice]

Here's my two cents on this. I believe it's wrong, but I don't see homosexuality as a state of being, but as an action. After all, sex in and of itself is an action, not a state of being.

Anyway, the biggest point I want to make here is that because I don't see it as a state of being, I don't hate homosexuals. They may have engaged in homosexual activity, which I don't approve of, but that doesn't mean I can't be friends with them, that doesn't mean they can't be a good person or anything.

Heck, my cousin is gay. He kind of makes me uncomfortable sometimes, but I think that's just him being himself, he's not a bad person.

I hope I haven't offended anyone by saying I don't approve of the action, but that's just the way I am.

So, by that logic, homosexuals are only homosexual when they're engaging in the act of homosexual fornication? And that whenever they're not having gay sex, they're totally void of homosexual thoughts and exist in a purely sterile state of being?

Then the butt sex just creeps up on 'em, and boom! They're homosexuals again.

 

[charms]

In reality just let them be as they are i would say if you dont like it 1) Kill yourself or 2) stfu and go on with life ill be honest i didn't like homosexuals before.But i actually ended up growing up out of that and just said whatever to it.I wish i could buy a farm and get a bunch of homosexuals and let them run free.All in all if you are religious then you have a reason maybe to hate to dislike homosexuals.In my view if i see someone having gay sex what the hell am i supposed to do its not like thats me doing it im not gonna run out and yell "Faggots" or any other word that relates to it.Bottom line just let people be who they want them to be.

Hear hear!
Nicely put. I hate ignorant people who feel it is their place to judge other people's lifestyle choices. Just let people get on with their own lives and live yours is what I say!

 

[jammi568]

But then, lets be honest here, anything that is percieved to be different from the norm is automatically going to be judged. It not exactly new to be doing that.

 

[charms]

But then, lets be honest here, anything that is percieved to be different from the norm is automatically going to be judged. It not exactly new to be doing that.

Yeah OK fair enough everyone makes judgements (subconsciously within the first few seconds of meeting someone actually- that is the Psychology student inside me!) but it's the people who act on these judgements and try to prevent someone's way of living that annoy me. As long as the behaviour is not harming anyone else, they have no right to stick their oar in.

 

[jammi568]

Now, those people I do hate. It's none of their business (unless a wife notices her husband kiss with another man, but that's a totally different situation ala Brokeback Mountain).

I also want to say that I agree with people who say that gays flaunting their sexuality is annoying. I mean, it's been appening for hundred of thousands of years. In fact, soldiers of Sparta used to ring male sex slaves to war with them, so that they could get some of the action.

 

[charms]

Wow I didn't know that about the soldiers of Sparta! I know that the Greeks and Romans used to have slave boys for their *ahem* personal use.

Yeah I think the flauting may be taking it a bit too far, almost like they want a reaction from people. I don't understand why some of them act like that, it doesn't exactly help them get accepted! Luckily most gay people I know aren't like that. Brokeback mountain is an awesome film- if I was the wife and I just saw what she did, I would've gone outside and punched them both >:-(

 

[Vladislak]

So, by that logic, homosexuals are only homosexual when they're engaging in the act of homosexual fornication? And that whenever they're not having gay sex, they're totally void of homosexual thoughts and exist in a purely sterile state of being?

Then the butt sex just creeps up on 'em, and boom! They're homosexuals again.

Thought's don't define a person either. I can think about piloting a jet, but that doesn't make me a jet pilot. It doesn't even mean I've ever piloted a jet, or ever will.

But you've missed my point; there are no homosexual people, only people who have engage in homosexual activities. Likewise there are no heterosexual people, only people who engage in heterosexual activities.

I may punch a man, but that punch does not define who I am. We don't classify people as "punchers" and "non-punchers" because it's an action and not a state of being.

So they don't just go "boom" and become homosexuals when they go through homosexual activities, because that would mean that "homosexual" defines them in that moment. It defines their action, not the person themselves.

 

[Franice]

I didn't miss your point because you didn't have one...or at least one that makes any sense.

Your analogy is redundant, because piloting =/= biological mechanism. If you didn't know what a plane was, you wouldn't have thoughts about flying one. Sexual thoughts, though, are going to happen regardless because they're just a part of the human experience.

Homosexuality is having a sexual attraction primarily to one's own gender. Homosexuals "engage in homosexual activities" because they are homosexual. It is their sexual orientation that drives their actions.

Most people believe that what "defines" us are our thoughts feelings and those actions which result from said thoughts and feelings. That punch would certainly define you as an aggressive human being. Your aggression is what drives you to hit somebody. You are in an aggressive state of being.

What do you think defines us? Are we all just totally blank slates engaging in random actions just out of the blue?

 

[Vladislak]

I didn't miss your point because you didn't have one...or at least one that makes any sense.

Your analogy is redundant, because piloting =/= biological mechanism. If you didn't know what a plane was, you wouldn't have thoughts about flying one. Sexual thoughts, though, are going to happen regardless because they're just a part of the human experience.

No, you still missed my point. Everyone has urges, temptations, etc. I may feel the strong need to commit murder sometime.

Which, by the way, is biological. Scientists have found that many murderers shared specific childhood traits (by traits I mean certain things about their brains, not necessarily behavioral traits).
Obviously people who engage in homosexual activities are by no means murderers. As I stated in my original post, they can be great people, because homosexuality doesn't define them.

And the jet analogy still stands. It's entirely possible for a man to be isolated from all others and thus never feel attracted to another human being. Obviously this would be rather rare, but not impossible.
So just as one might not know what a plane was, so to could someone not know what other humans are, and never have sexual thoughts about them.

In addition, if I said that someone daydreams about piloting a jet, common sense would lead you to draw the conclusion that they know what one is. You're changing my example from what it originally was.

In the end it's all circumstantial.

Most people believe that what "defines" us are our thoughts feelings and those actions which result from said thoughts and feelings. That punch would certainly define you as an aggressive human being. Your aggression is what drives you to hit somebody. You are in an aggressive state of being,

Actually, I disagree with that. Why? Because people aren't necessarily consistent in their actions and behaviors. A truly violent person can be reformed, would you say that violence still defines that character?

Same goes for homosexual activities. It's not impossible for someone to stop having gay sex. Actions don't define a person, they simply say something about the person in the moment in which the person is making the actions.

What defines a person is their personal beliefs. Sex is not a belief, it's an action.


What's more, all I'm doing here is stating my beliefs. I've already said that I have nothing against people who engage in homosexual activities, I simply disapprove of homosexual activities.

I don't see why anyone see's this as a big deal if I treat those people just like everyone else. In fact, that's the whole point of my argument: Because they aren't defined by their actions, they're no different from anyone else.
If anything my argument supports equality.

It's just something I believe, I'm not forcing it on anyone. I'm sorry if you have something against it.

 

[Franice]

No, you still missed my point. Everyone has urges, temptations, etc. I may feel the strong need to commit murder sometime.

Which, by the way, is biological. Scientists have found that many murderers shared specific childhood traits (by traits I mean certain things about their brains, not necessarily behavioral traits).
Obviously people who engage in homosexual activities are by no means murderers. As I stated in my original post, they can be great people, because homosexuality doesn't define them.

And the jet analogy still stands. It's entirely possible for a man to be isolated from all others and thus never feel attracted to another human being. Obviously this would be rather rare, but not impossible.
So just as one might not know what a plane was, so to could someone not know what other humans are, and never have sexual thoughts about them.

In addition, if I said that someone daydreams about piloting a jet, common sense would lead you to draw the conclusion that they know what one is. You're changing my example from what it originally was.

In the end it's all circumstantial.

Once again, I didn't miss your point. You still haven't got one that makes any sense. Sorry.

The urge to commit murder is not the same thing as the urge to have sex, and the urge to pilot a jet is totally unrelated to either. The first is an abnormal psychological condition. The second is the biological mechanism for reproduction(and homosexuality is a variation on this). The third is just a completely unbiological, random fantasy about doing something in the real world. You do not have uncontrollable thoughts about flying jets.

And, yes, even if you had somehow managed to live your entire life alone, you'd still have something resembling sexual thoughts. You'd get a boner, even if you didn't know why, because that is the purpose of human beings. There's nothing circumstantial about it.

Actually, I disagree with that. Why? Because people aren't necessarily consistent in their actions and behaviors. A truly violent person can be reformed, would you say that violence still defines that character?

Same goes for homosexual activities. It's not impossible for someone to stop having gay sex. Actions don't define a person, they simply say something about the person in the moment in which the person is making the actions.

What defines a person is their personal beliefs. Sex is not a belief, it's an action.

A psychopath can be "reformed" by learning to control their violent impulses, but they will always be a psychopath. It's a psychological condition. Just 'cause a serial killer stops killing, doesn't mean he's suddenly cured of the urge. It's never going to happen.

Even if they're celibate, it doesn't mean they're still not homosexual. They will still have an uncontrollable sexual attraction to people of the same gender, and whether or not they admit it or act on it does not change they fact that they are homosexual.

I don't think you even grasp the basic concept homosexuality yet. It doesn't define you, but it defines your sexual preference. It doesn't make you limp wristed and effeminate, or give you some predilection for spandex, it just means you're primarily attracted to those of the same gender.

What's more, all I'm doing here is stating my beliefs. I've already said that I have nothing against people who engage in homosexual activities, I simply disapprove of homosexual activities.

I don't see why anyone see's this as a big deal if I treat those people just like everyone else. In fact, that's the whole point of my argument: Because they aren't defined by their actions, they're no different from anyone else.
If anything my argument supports equality.

It's just something I believe, I'm not forcing it on anyone. I'm sorry if you have something against it.

And I believe we should all get together and string up all the niggers over a pit of burning jew bodies every Sunday and sing Christmas Carols. Just because it's a belief doesn't mean it's immune to criticism, especially when it's wrong.

You're just talking out of your ass with that equality bit. Supporting equality would mean acknowledging the nature of homosexuality and acting accordingly. Not making up some senseless bullshit and trying to justify it with further mindless drivel.

I have something against it because I'm a reasonable person, who has no qualms about acknowledging her true sexual nature, and finds it a tad bit irritating when people continue to act like morons about something so trivial. If you didn't want to argue, you shouldn't have posted in a fucking debate forum.

Cheers.

 

[Donald Trump]

Here's my two cents on this. I believe it's wrong, but I don't see homosexuality as a state of being, but as an action. After all, sex in and of itself is an action, not a state of being.

Anyway, the biggest point I want to make here is that because I don't see it as a state of being, I don't hate homosexuals. They may have engaged in homosexual activity, which I don't approve of, but that doesn't mean I can't be friends with them, that doesn't mean they can't be a good person or anything.

Heck, my cousin is gay. He kind of makes me uncomfortable sometimes, but I think that's just him being himself, he's not a bad person.

I hope I haven't offended anyone by saying I don't approve of the action, but that's just the way I am.

But you don't have the right to judge him. The fact that he makes you feel uncomfortable is your own fault for being prejudiced. It's not as if he is eyeing you and constantly dropping things so you have to bend over and pick them up is it.

All in all if you are religious then you have a reason maybe to hate to dislike homosexuals.

They don't.
It's in Leveticius where it says that it's wrong for another man to lie with another man, or words very similar.
However, that same passage of Leveticus also goes on about not being able to eat shellfish and other assorted stuff that no one obeys. People who dislike homosexuals use that to justify it, whilst ignoring the rest. So they're just looking for parts that justify their own prejudices, not the other way around.

But you've missed my point; there are no homosexual people, only people who have engage in homosexual activities. Likewise there are no heterosexual people, only people who engage in heterosexual activities.

xlolx you are trying to say that homosexuals don't exist because they're not always engaging in homosexual sex?
That's ridiculous, I am a smoker, however I'm not smoking at the moment. I also just held my breath, therefore I am not a person who breathes oxygen, but someone who, from time to time inhales air into my lungs.

I simply disapprove of homosexual activities.

Why?
You must have some reason as to why you dislike gay people.

eah I think the flauting may be taking it a bit too far, almost like they want a reaction from people. I don't understand why some of them act like that, it doesn't exactly help them get accepted!

But it's not just gay people that flaunt their sexuality. It's a particular type of person who flaunts their sexuality regardless of what it happens to be.

 

[noctits]

ahaha, oh wow. Myself I'm an avid defender of teh gay but seriously, what's all this harping on about how much of a christian. It's ridiculous, some of you are so quick to jump down people's thoarts the second anyone mentions "I dislike". No one seems to see the overall point of his otherwise interesting, and objective beliefs. Drink coke, and cut him some fucking slack.

Thought's don't define a person either. I can think about piloting a jet, but that doesn't make me a jet pilot. It doesn't even mean I've ever piloted a jet, or ever will.

But you've missed my point; there are no homosexual people, only people who have engage in homosexual activities. Likewise there are no heterosexual people, only people who engage in heterosexual activities.

I may punch a man, but that punch does not define who I am. We don't classify people as "punchers" and "non-punchers" because it's an action and not a state of being.

So they don't just go "boom" and become homosexuals when they go through homosexual activities, because that would mean that "homosexual" defines them in that moment. It defines their action, not the person themselves.

I see what you mean, but the major problem here is you lumping terminologies which, by english standards, just don't mix. I think this is the core problem with your debate, which otherwise has a lot of interesting points.

In English a homosexual is defined as someone who is attracted to their same sex, much like its heteroseuxal counterpart. Because this isn't just some circumstantial thought which occurs, it's categorized as part of one's personal state of being. However, this does not mean they necessarily engage in homosexual activity - that's sexually acting upon the attraction. They are two seperate distinctive things. You yourself may not believe that human attraction is a state of being, but by definition that is what it is.

Why?
You must have some reason as to why you dislike gay people.

He said he disapproves of homosexual activity, it's not the same thing as hating gays. People should stop lumping the two together.


@the people who talk about gays flaunting their sexuality:
Yeah, much like how our society "flaunts" our default heteroseuxality everywhere, especially in this age where pictures are endlessly shoved in our faces. Must be awesome for them!

 

[Franice]

ahaha, oh wow. Myself I'm an avid defender of teh gay but seriously, what's all this harping on about how much of a christian bigot Vlkadislak is who needs to be skull raped with a stainless steeled nail bat? It's ridiculous, some of you are so quick to jump down people's thoarts the second anyone mentions "I dislike". No one seems to see the overall point of his otherwise interesting, and objective beliefs. Drink coke, and cut him some fucking slack.

And supposing I started a thread about how much I hate black people, just for the very act of being black on the same planet I'm white on. I can't necessarily justify that, at least in any way that makes sense(in terminologies that are mixin with teh english language), but you'd cut me slack, right? I'm entitled to my vicious bigotry, regardless of the truth, right?

It isn't like he's talking about fucking baked beans, he's talking about a group of people who's only "problem" is a sexual predilection for those of the same gender. I'm "jumping down his throat" (in a section of the forum where "debating is encouraged") because it seriously pisses me off. Also, nowhere did I say anything about him being Christian or needing to be skull raped or any of that shit, and as far as I've seen, nobody else has either. Curious.

Another curious thing is how you're calling his beliefs objective when he's using them to attempt to justify his opinion that buttsex is teh bad. Doesn't seem like objectivity to me.

He said he disapproves of homosexual activity, it's not the same thing as hating gays. People should stop lumping the two together.

It's times like this that I really wish I had a desk so I could slam my head into it.

For someone who is an "avid defender of teh gay," can you justify disapproving of homosexual activity? Because, I mean, that's what gay people do. That is the byproduct of being gay.

Homosexuals aren't allowed to act on their attractions in the same way that heterosexuals do? They can be gay, they're allowed to have that attraction, but god forbid they ever act on it. That sounds like an objective, interesting, well-founded belief to you?

 

[Dark n Disturbed]

I think I sense some sarcasm here. That must mean that you support homosexuals. And everyone knows that that means you're a homosexual. It really is true. They just look like any other person...you'd never know...

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Just because you support them does NOT mean you're gay in any way, shape, or form. To me it sounds like you need to go back to Kindergarten and get freshened up.

I don't know what to think of Gay marriages. I do think it is a bit gross, but that is just my opinion. I personally don't like to watch two people of the same sex going around holding hands and making out in public. However, I don't feel like it is my place to judge. I think that the marriages probably should be allowed. Reason being, what does it change? All it does is give them the same rights a married couple would get. It wouldn't change a damn thing, except for the fact that they would be legally married and papers would be signed. Even if we don't legalize their marriages, they will do the same things they would do if they were married.

 

[Vladislak]

*sigh*
This is why I was hesitant to post here at all.
Why do you think I went out of my way to say "I hope I haven't offended anyone by saying I don't approve of the action, but that's just the way I am."?
I said myself that I don't hold anything against people who do these things, so I don't discriminate against them or anything. If that's the case, why on earth am I being attacked? Just because I look at it from a different perspective?

Look, everyone has different beliefs, not everyone is going to agree with each other. If you can't deal with someone else having a different point of view then you're going to have a hard life.

The fact of the matter is, I came to this thread simply to state my opinion and move on, not to get involved in a war of opinions. I still stand on my original answer, maybe I sound like a ass to you, and that's okay because that's your opinion. I won't try to fight you over it.


I'm not going to restate my opinion or provide evidence that supports it, I could, I have plenty of arguments to spare. But quite frankly I stopped posting in this thread because people started jumping down my throat when I was just trying to state my opinion in a peaceful manner.

If someone got offended by my attempt to say "I don't see homosexuals as bad people" then I'm sorry. Because that was the whole point of my original post: To say that while still holding true to my beliefs.


So please, as a personal request, if you have any decency just leave me out of this argument. I never wanted anything more than to put in my two cents and move on.
If you can't bring yourself to do that, then I'm sorry you feel that way.


----------------------------
EDIT: I would like to point out to Pablo though that he misinterpreted the part where I talked about my gay cousin. You said:

"But you don't have the right to judge him. The fact that he makes you feel uncomfortable is your own fault for being prejudiced. It's not as if he is eyeing you and constantly dropping things so you have to bend over and pick them up is it."

He doesn't make me "uncomfortable sometimes" because he's gay, I never said that. He was an odd person even before he was gay and I was uncomfortable with him then. That's why I added the line "but I think that's just him being himself". Really, he doesn't have homosexuality to blame for his oddities, he just had rather tough childhood. D:

I wouldn't have said anything (because I don't want to be involved with this thread anymore), but I felt it was necessary to clarify what I meant.

 

[Donald Trump]

ahaha, oh wow. Myself I'm an avid defender of teh gay but seriously, what's all this harping on about how much of a christian It's ridiculous, some of you are so quick to jump down people's thoarts the second anyone mentions "I dislike". No one seems to see the overall point of his otherwise interesting, and objective beliefs. Drink coke, and cut him some fucking slack.

This is a final warning, if anyone else flames another member they will be infracted.
You may not like someone's views, however that is no reason for insulting them.

He said he disapproves of homosexual activity, it's not the same thing as hating gays. People should stop lumping the two together.

Actually it in his case. As he says he doesn't believe in homosexuals, only people who have gay sex. The point is he doesn't believe that someone's sexual oreintation defines them as a person, so he refuses to believe that gay people exist as such, so therefore any dislike of people who have gay sex, is the same as disliking gay people.

I don't know what to think of Gay marriages. I do think it is a bit gross, but that is just my opinion. I personally don't like to watch two people of the same sex going around holding hands and making out in public. However, I don't feel like it is my place to judge. I think that the marriages probably should be allowed. Reason being, what does it change? All it does is give them the same rights a married couple would get. It wouldn't change a damn thing, except for the fact that they would be legally married and papers would be signed. Even if we don't legalize their marriages, they will do the same things they would do if they were married.

Also marriage has a legal status that a civil union, or whatever they're called in America has.
The idea that gay people would ruin marriage is ridiculous. It's opposed by conservatives who dislike any form of change and are opposing it on any grounds they can.

 

[noctits]

And supposing I started a thread about how much I hate black people, just for the very act of being black on the same planet I'm white on. I can't necessarily justify that, at least in any way that makes sense(in terminologies that are mixin with teh english language), but you'd cut me slack, right? I'm entitled to my vicious bigotry, regardless of the truth, right?

It isn't like he's talking about fucking baked beans, he's talking about a group of people who's only "problem" is a sexual predilection for those of the same gender. I'm "jumping down his throat" (in a section of the forum where "debating is encouraged") because it seriously pisses me off. Also, nowhere did I say anything about him being Christian or needing to be skull raped or any of that shit, and as far as I've seen, nobody else has either. Curious.

Yeah exactly, which begs the question why exactly you're just not seeing past the "I disapprove!" point. You're literally going to east bumblefuck lengths to attempt to debate this guy by reductio ad absurdum fail. Seriously.

And the irony in all this is how you're the one who comes off as a bigot by tripping so much damn balls over an issue which just is not there. You've misinterpretated his post, and apparently refuse to acknowledge so.

And stop using "but it's the debate forum!" as an excuse to justify your bonafide wrong accusations and assumptions. Debates are never friendly, duuurrrrhuurrrr, but that doesn't mean you have the right to twist and turn his point, no matter how morally wrong it is.

ahahaha, oh wow. EXPRESSIONS, ANYONE?

I've noticed that sarcasm and exagerrated language doesn't seem to be this forums' forte. Indeed.

Another curious thing is how you're calling his beliefs objective when he's using them to attempt to justify his opinion that buttsex is teh bad. Doesn't seem like objectivity to me.

He isn't. This is still all you assuming shit. He never even said anything about it being wrong or bad in itself, he personally just does not approve of gay sex - that's a problem of his which he has yet to justify. Again he is NOT reprimanding people from having gay sex - it squicks him, but that doesn't mean he believes that they're not allowed to act upon their sexual desires nor does it make them bad people. Now why he doesn't approve of it is a question no one has bothered to ask him yet - if just Pablo, despite him getting the meaning wrong.

His belief is that by not labelling anyone as either heterosexual or homosexual, we're removing these prejudgemental barriers which segregate us and instead, lump us all together, in a state of one and as thus equality. Because we're all sitting in one group, no judgement can be done to either of us. His saying is that there is only such a thing as homosexual and heterosexual activity, which simply means having gay/straight sex. Because having sex is an action, and while his terminology was kinda wrong his point was still there. (it was this idea which I found rather interesting. It's flawed to an extent but the approach is what makes it something to consider)

In addition to that, he stated that he doesn't approve of the act of having gay sex - which, again, does not mean he hates the people in question who engage in homosexual sexual activity. It's no business of his whatsoever, he simply thinks it's (morally?) wrong to engage in such activity but he's not saying they can't/shouldn't act upon it.

I can't justify his own disapproval but just to show how incorrect it is of you to lump these accusations, I'll give an example of how I personally don't approve of smoking, but that doesn't mean I hate smokers or think smoking should be abolished from everyone else. In theory it's essentially the same thing, and while it may look like semantics, grammatically you don't lump these things together.

It's times like this that I really wish I had a desk so I could slam my head into it.

I SELL BASEBALL BATS FOR 5 GREENS, YOU IN?

For someone who is an "avid defender of teh gay," can you justify disapproving of homosexual activity? Because, I mean, that's what gay people do. That is the byproduct of being gay.

Homosexuals aren't allowed to act on their attractions in the same way that heterosexuals do? They can be gay, they're allowed to have that attraction, but god forbid they ever act on it. That sounds like an objective, interesting, well-founded belief to you?

How can I when I don't disapprove of it? Not only do I not know (well aside from christian beliefs) but I don't care either. Me playing devil's advocate doesn't mean I necessarily agree with his disapproval.

Of course it isn't, but then again that wasn't what he was trying to say. In fact, reprimanding homosexual activity was NEVER his point - it was you who went to the lengths of making it such, and this is what I find sad about the entire debate.

This is a final warning, if anyone else flames another member they will be infracted.
You may not like someone's views, however that is no reason for insulting them.

Are you kidding?

Nevermind the fact that I never insulted anyone but instead used that phrase as an exagerrated example of the biggotry here, but how about Francie, who insulted Vlakdis for being a moron and irresponsable person when she didn't even get his post? I don't believe this.

Actually it in his case. As he says he doesn't believe in homosexuals, only people who have gay sex. The point is he doesn't believe that someone's sexual oreintation defines them as a person, so he refuses to believe that gay people exist as such, so therefore any dislike of people who have gay sex, is the same as disliking gay people.

You're right about him not believing in that sexual orientation defines a person, however the last bit is still lumping assumptions.

It's not that he dislikes it or even reprimands it, he simply doesn't approve of the action in itself, not the people doing it. In his beliefs, he has stated countless times already that it's not the action which defines the person, which is what you're essentially saying here.

 

[Serah]

Noctits, I think you seriously need to chill, hun. He wasn't targeting YOU, he was quoting you to make everybody realize that the heatedness, flaming, etc...was getting out of hand and your post didn't do anything but contribute to the potential flaming. Relax, you're not being singled out here. It's a warning for everybody that's posting in this thread and the warning will be followed through if the nonsense doesn't stop.

 

[Franice]

Yeah exactly, which begs the question why exactly you're just not seeing past the "I disapprove!" point. You're literally going to east bumblefuck lengths to attempt to debate this guy by reductio ad absurdum fail. Seriously.

And the irony in all this is how you're the one who comes off as a bigot by tripping so much damn balls over an issue which just is not there. You've misinterpretated his post, and apparently refuse to acknowledge so.

And stop using "but it's the debate forum!" as an excuse to justify your bonafide wrong accusations and assumptions. Debates are never friendly, duuurrrrhuurrrr, but that doesn't mean you have the right to twist and turn his point, no matter how morally wrong it is.

ahahaha, oh wow. EXPRESSIONS, ANYONE?

I've noticed that sarcasm and exagerrated language doesn't seem to be this forums' forte. Indeed.

Oh golly gee wow! Your sarcasm and "exaggerrated" language stuff sure is complicated! You blew my fuckin' mind! It's like Jesus Christ blew up a cow in a crater of mars that looks exactly like the state of Texas rotated 38 degrees to the left and then pooped in the the third from the right toilet of at the Huston Holiday Inn, and didn't wipe his ass and then gave Lazarus his underwear to waft in Vlasdislak(or whatever the fuck his name is)'s face for being an obnoxious Adeptus Exemptus in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn(San Francisco chapter)!


Oh wait. That was lame...and wasn't very sarcastic. Maybe it's because sarcasm generally has something to do with the the actions/subject at hand, and absolute none of my posts were overtly violent or anti-Christian. Darn. This internet is hard.


But oh! I'll insert an annoying graphic, and maybe then I'll sound smart!

Yeah, yeah. Maybe I just "misinterpretated" his post. I'm sorry I didn't ask about why he disapproves, but it's mostly because the total fuckwad idiocy of his argument confused me to the point where I didn't think to. I'm so sorry.

Disapproal implies the belief that it is wrong and bad. Now, watch out, because I'm going to continue being a colossal bigot and make an HOMGXOXOXLKSDLFJSDFJJSIDOFSJDIFUJSDIUFSFSFD assumption: You dissaprove of smoking because you believe there is something inherently wrong in it. Whether it be health issues, religious issues, social issues, whatever the fuck, you still believe there is something wrong in the very act of smoking. Your reasons for disapproving mean jack shit.

He never even said anything about it being wrong or bad in itself

Here's my two cents on this. I believe it's wrong, but I don't see homosexuality as a state of being, but as an action. After all, sex in and of itself is an action, not a state of being.

Nowhere did he mention "labelling" or anything about avoiding "prejudgemental barriers." Terminology is how one gets their point across, and if you have flawed terminology, then your point is fucked.

Maybe I'm a moron, fine. Whatever. I still think his arguments are stupid, and stand by my juvenile reductio ad absurdum arguments. I'm beyond giving a fuck about this, and if you decide not to reply, I'll leave you your retarded fucking graphic so you can feel accomplished and smug: