Okay, apparently this has to be baby-step explained for everyone here.

Reason 1: People are not against using objects to improve themselves, turning oil into a synthetic fibre for clothing, or taking medication to prevent pregnancy. All of these things are unnatural, yet accepted by society. Air conditioning could be considered one of them. How many of you want to give up air conditioning/central heating, or for that matter, the internet?

Reason 2: The will of God is not viewed as a valid reason to ban homosexuality. I believe if it exists, God willed it to exist, and since there are homosexuals, God willed them to exist. Anyone who quotes Leviticus at me is an idiot. Also, other religions believe in other gods who may pardon or support homosexuals. Banning what their religion deems appropriate in favor of another religion is indeed theocratic.

Reason 3: The consumation of a marriage and resulting pregnancy is no longer viewed as a requirement of matrimony. There are 2.5 million infertile couples in the United States, and are incapible of producing children. Millions more have menopausal females and are unable to produce children. The people who fit in those two categories clearly outweigh the number of gays.

Reason 4: This may occur, but it is merely an optical illusion of statistics. More people seem to be getting cancer because people are more willing to talk about themselves and others who have the often terminal disease. If gay marriage and homosexual relations were allowed in society, more gays would identify themselves as homosexual because they don't fear public torture and death. In fact, straight people will not turn gay because it is legal.

The only scientific evidince connected to homosexuality is that it is genetic. Genetic "diseases" or "abnormalities" are not contagious by external contact, or internal contact for that matter.

Reason 5: This is a paradox. Children are born to a man and a woman. This is a fact. However, gays are born to straight men and women, meaning that it is impossible for straight parents to only raise straight children, because gays have been born and are being born as we speak. Tough break.

Reason 6: The reference to interracial marriages refers to periods of time in the 50s, 60s, and earlier, when interracial couples were deemed distasteful or wrong. Parents feared their children coming home with a 'colored' significant other, or thier lovely darling baby choosing a white for a spouse. Those lines have finally begun to blur, and interracial marriages have mostly been left alone, because a new scapegoat has appeared: gay marriages.

Reason 7: I assume many of you support single working parents. They're appallingly common in the United States, with divorce rates so high. The children of such parents don't have two role models. I grew up with mostly just my mother; my father spent a lot of time away on business. I don't consider myself 'deprived' or 'poorly raised' because I didn't know what men were 'supposed to act like', which is what a role model teaches.

"What is popular is right" Let's all jump off bridges. It'll be totally cool. What? We'll all die? No biggie, at least we'll all die together. And why don't we ban gay marriage while we're at it, and drill in Tennessee, because clearly there is oil in Tennessee. Right under Graceland.

If you didn't get anything before that, you won't get the end.

Final points:
- Just because it was said before doesn't mean we can't say it again. Hearing it out loud gave it a larger impact for me.
- America has a reputation for tolerance and freedom. Our direct policy is "The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". A consensual marriage is an inalienable right under those terms.
- This is the ultimate sarcastic slam. When listening to these 'reasons' to disallow gay marriage, you sit there, stop the video, and think; "something's not quite right about that logic..." and you know why. Because there is no logic.

Call me a fag, call me a prick, call me whatever string of meaningless letters pops into your head. But lay off of alien_concept. Because she's in support of gay rights, and she's absolutely right.

My pleasure.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Thanks!

In reply to this comment by Zifnab:
*promote

Thanks!

In reply to this comment by Zifnab:
*promote

Pontiac GP. I love the car. It gets ok gas mileage (but with a 3.8 V6 you cant expect to much) with some good power... great handling, plenty of trunk space, and a decent amount of room in the back seat. The rear doors open to almost 90 degrees which is awesome for getting larger shit in the backseat. The bucket seats are extremely comfortable, the steering wheel actually has a little feel to it, and so far after driving that thing hard as hell, with almost 100k on it, so far all I've replaced are the shitty stock break pads, spark plugs, and transmission fluid. (besides tires , oil, and filters that is.) I replaced the spark plugs which bosch platinum 4 tip for better performance, but the originals were still going great. I put on roughly 20K a year, if not more, and only change the oil about 2 times a year (full synthetic, of course) This thing is running great and I couldn't be happier with it.

Just wait until this thing matures with a pair of synthetically soft breasts and a credit card slot $$$.

Organics not synthetics. That's the way to do things.

In the 1920's the Du Pont company developed and patented fuel additives such as tetraethyl lead, as well as the sulfate and sulfite processes for manufacture of pulp paper and numerous new synthetic products such as nylon, cellophane, and other plastics. At the same time other companies were developing synthetic products from renewable biomass resources--especially hemp. The hemp decorticator promised to eliminate much of the need for wood-pulp paper, thus threatening to drastically reduce the value of the vast timberlands still owned by Hearst. Ford and other companies were already promising to make every product from cannabis carbohydrates that was currently currently being made from petroleum hydrocarbons. In response, from 1935 to 1937, Du Pont lobbied the chief counsel of the Treasury Department, Herman Oliphant, for the prohibition of cannabis, assuring him that Du Pont's synthetic petrochemicals (such as urethane) could replace hemp seed oil in the marketplace.

William Randolf Hearst hated minorities, and he used his chain of newspapers to aggravate racial tensions at every opportunity. Hearst especially hated Mexicans. Hearst papers portrayed Mexicans as lazy, degenerate, and violent, and as marijuana smokers and job stealers. The real motive behind this prejudice may well have been that Hearst had lost 800,000 acres of prime timberland to the rebel Pancho Villa, suggesting that Hearst's racism was fueled by Mexican threat to his empire.


Just another FYI:
Peter Bensinger is a former head of the DEA. He and his partner Robert DuPont (former Director of NIDA) created Bensinger, DuPont & Associates, which profits from selling drug war related consulting and testing services.

whoa, that jamison photo's a lot different from the way she looked before she became, pound for pound, more synthetic than human.

all these arguments for and against have been tryed out allready in Holland and Switzerland (where registered junkies can get smack for free - and i mean heroin, not some synthetic shit like methadon) and they mostly proved the fact that prohibition sucks and can only make things worse

upvote for the synthetic '80's xylophone and bass
downvote for the cheesy bravado and MadTV-Dane Cook-style stare
but upvote for the neat ending.
=======
upvote

I did mention one specific problem, namely species extinction. At least one species (golden toad) is considered a casualty of a warming planet. Would it have happened anyway? Perhaps. Whether CO₂ released by man is the main cause is certainly in question, but it is known that CO₂ does cause a warming effect, so what is wrong with talking about ways of reducing our output of this gas? This would be in addition to not instead of debate on how to reduce our dependence on a limited resource or eliminating toxins released into the environment. It's too bad about your video. There are a lot of very different opinions here and most people are not shy about debating their position. I hope you won't be either.


In reply to this comment by rugar:
Twiddles, I simply ask that you list specific problems so that we may deal with them. Let me say in advance that "Man-made / released CO2 is making the planet hotter" is not a specific problem to which there is conclusive evidence. That is too much in debate at this point in time. I could not support any program meant to eliminate what is at this time a non-problem. If however, you were to say "Development of alternative energy sources will reduce our dependance on a limited resource" I can absolutely support that. Or I could enthusiastically support this statement: "Release of un-treated sewage is causing the introduction of synthetic estrogens into our water and food supply."

In a nutshell, simply saying "If you don't accept the truth of global climate change and that man is causing it you are part of the problem" presumes facts not in evidence. On the other hand, identifying a specific problem (ie: the hormone example above) to which there is conclusive evidence and a measurable impact that can be alleviated through a change in mankinds actions changes the argument. Instead of arguing "Is this true?", we can then argue "How do we fix this?"

Twiddles, I simply ask that you list specific problems so that we may deal with them. Let me say in advance that "Man-made / released CO2 is making the planet hotter" is not a specific problem to which there is conclusive evidence. That is too much in debate at this point in time. I could not support any program meant to eliminate what is at this time a non-problem. If however, you were to say "Development of alternative energy sources will reduce our dependance on a limited resource" I can absolutely support that. Or I could enthusiastically support this statement: "Release of un-treated sewage is causing the introduction of synthetic estrogens into our water and food supply."

In a nutshell, simply saying "If you don't accept the truth of global climate change and that man is causing it you are part of the problem" presumes facts not in evidence. On the other hand, identifying a specific problem (ie: the hormone example above) to which there is conclusive evidence and a measurable impact that can be alleviated through a change in mankinds actions changes the argument. Instead of arguing "Is this true?", we can then argue "How do we fix this?"

Gorgon, your comment makes my point. The idea that man has caused global warming is still not "scientifically" proven. Will it ever be? I won't speculate. Perhaps we should focus on issues which we know man causes (ie: synthetic hormones released into our water supplies) and which have direct impacts on our food supply.

wanna see them program some Venom song in them things, and set them alight. As they twitch, synthetic fur melting away to reveal a flaming plastic mask, down to the armature as they continue to become less and less recognizable while they rock out..... burn-

For fear of being captain obvious in these "Sicko" times, the medical industry is really fucked up, they also have rules that says you cant patent, -and therefore practically cannot introduce and sell- medicine that is found to exist in nature (plants etc) it has to be some synthetically made drug. For the same reason this drug isnt coming out anytime soon, there is no effort put into finding natures own medicine. This btw, is not just a US problem, but it goes for all the world.