>> ^rottenseed:

Don't you know? There only exists 1 joke and everything is a remix of it. That joke, in its most basic state, is about incest/rape/pedophilia.>> ^sillma:
Is this the ANCIENT joke of star wars? Turned into narrated video with staggered text? Ah well, it's an awesome joke all the same



I thought it was bodily function jokes, primarily farts.

Don't you know? There only exists 1 joke and everything is a remix of it. That joke, in its most basic state, is about incest/rape/pedophilia.>> ^sillma:

Is this the ANCIENT joke of star wars? Turned into narrated video with staggered text? Ah well, it's an awesome joke all the same

One more thing to check off the list of things I thought I'd never, ever, do.
Upvote for necro-pedophilia. CHECK!

<pedophilia joke>>> ^brycewi19:

If you're so in love with the universe Henry, why don't you just marry it!
(Sorry, that was the eight year old in me talking!)

Well shut my mouth! Look what I just found in the Pqueue.

http://videosift.com/video/What-Homosexuality-Is-Not

Right there, bright and bold. Homosexuality is not pedophilia.

Oops. Conflating homosexuality and pedophilia. NOT THE SAME THING.

It seems you were the one that fell for the illogical Bareboards... Just because I stated an opinion against a person you assume that I take a stance counter to what the person is saying?

Let me make myself clear then. You are incorrect. I believe that marriage should be gifted to people that love and value each other. A man loving a man is no less beautiful than a man loving a woman. Who am I to judge, just because I am straight?

Likewise, I think a man or woman should be able to marry as he pleases. E.g., a man should be able to have three wives if he and they so choose. The law should not interfere such arrangements but support it.

You know what is ironic BB? Some gays and lesbians bash my point of view, that polygamy is acceptable, because they are bigoted against polygamy or because it inconvenient to their argument. For example, those against gay marriage bring up bestiality and polygamy as the "next logical step." They ask where these rights will end? Should a man be able to marry five wives or his dog, they say. And do most gays say, "WAIT THE FUCK UP. HOW CAN YOU COMPARE THE LOVE OF A MAN FOR MORE THAN ONE WOMEN TO THE LOVE OF AN ANIMAL?!!!!" No, no they do not. In fact, they ridicule my beliefs by stating something like, "No, nobody is talking about making bestiality or polygamy legal. Those are absurd lifestyles and will never be accepted."

I am actually shocked that they would allow the comparison, then go so far as to be derisive of other people's rights that they themselves fight tooth and nail for, and basically call those people's beliefs equal to that of pig fuckers.

You know why they do this right? For their own agenda. It's like the kid at school who is about to be picked on. That kid then turns on a weaker, more ridiculed kid and beats him up so that everyone will stop picking on him. I have only heard a few with courage enough to take the political heat and speak up for both sides...and it saddens me.

No, you won't find an argument from me against gay marriage. I am only in support of marriage equality. By pointing out to messenger that this is a rehashed argument, I merely, politely at first, was pointing out that his reason for promoting this video was a little silly. It, to me at least, was like he just woke up one day to find out that Obama won the presidency. This argument has been around for quite some time and it amused me--not at Messenger's expense.

Now, let me focus on my real discontent with the video content. Marriage for life is batshit insane. To accuse someone of having the belief that marriage is a lifelong commitment to me is a very serious accusation because marriage for life, as I have said, is batshit insane. I am equally offended when the religious nuts demean gays by accusing most of being into pedophilia. Both things I mention are batshit insane. You better have proof, at least to me, or your a bigoted asshole.

My message is clear. Don't lump people together. I would think that the persecuted, such as gays and lesbians, would understand this the most. But, in fact, it seems to be the opposite. It is okay to lump our enemies together because they do it to us...

>> ^bareboards2:

I'm guessing that you think marriage should be between "a man and a woman", @Lawdeedaw?
Because the rest of us hear this "rehash of other people's arguments" and hear someone who had done RESEARCH and APPLIED LOGIC to the topic.
Your emotional response -- and picking out one error (that I don't know is an error, I am taking your word for it) and declaiming loudly that the whole of the rest must be wrong -- smacks very strongly of an emotional, non-logical response to a series of rational statements.
Perhaps you might apply that emotional logic to your position? Maybe see that perhaps one itsy bitsy thing might be factually wrong with your position? Then you would be compelled, by your own logic, to throw out absolutely everything you believe.
Here's a proposition: Following are two statements of fact from this presentation:
1. Traditional marriage defined as "between one man and one woman" is a modern invention.
2. Denying marriage to committed gay couples is denying them the same rights and protections under the law as heterosexual couples.
Let's tack on another one -- there are plenty of Christians out there who believe that their religion is just fine with gay marriage. So why should your version of the Christian religion carry more weight in the law than their version of the Christian religion?
There is space here. Go to it. Refute those three statements with logic and facts. I'd be interested in hearing how you respond.

>> ^quantumushroom:

If you support gay marriage, you support polygamy by default.

Bullshit. Polygamy is defined by wikipedia as a marriage which includes more than two partners. Or would you prefer websters, which defines it as marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time. The fact that a marriage contains two wives or two husbands does not make it polygamous.

>> ^quantumushroom:

At least you, @ChaosEngine have the stones to actually support both. I'd even go so far as to agree with you, with the exception that I'll freely admit there are/will be many unforeseen problems with both gay marriage and polygamy.


We've had gay marriage (actually civil unions but marriage in all but name) in NZ for years now. Society has failed to collapse. Are there potential issues with polygamy? Undoubtedly. Hell, I'll admit that there are potential issues with gay marriage. Thing is, there are issues with marriage, period. Even in a committed monogamous heterosexual marriage, there's all kinds of problems, because people are flawed. Being gay or polygamous doesn't make them any more or less flawed. I'd prefer we dropped the polygamous angle now, since it's derailing the conversation. I don't mind debating it, but I feel it's orthogonal to this issue.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I don't equate pedophilia with homosexuality. What I dispute is your confidence that within 20 years, whatever authority you believe the State will have to prevent pedophile "unions" will still exist.

Well, the state grants the marriage licence. I see no proposal to change that, so the authority will remain intact. As for allowing pedophile "unions", how does gay marriage affect that? Age of consent is a well defined concept that applies to everyone, heterosexual or homosexual.

I really am getting tired of repeating this, but context, nuance, judgement. Think is not a four letter word. The world is not black and white, and it is an oversimplification to view it as such. War is sometimes justified, lying is sometimes the right thing to do and I am comfortable making the distinction between a union of two consenting adults and an adult and a child. Why? Because I can weigh up the merits of each individual case and make a judgement.

>> ^quantumushroom:

If no one here has a problem with california or any state revoking election results, aka the will of the people, welcome to fascism.

Fascism? Are you actually serious? Leaving aside how much fascists really don't like homosexuality, you have completely failed to understand democracy.

There are already well defined limits on the will of the people. To use your own analogy, how would you feel if california had passed an amedment legalising pedophilia?

If you support gay marriage, you support polygamy by default. At least you, @ChaosEngine have the stones to actually support both. I'd even go so far as to agree with you, with the exception that I'll freely admit there are/will be many unforeseen problems with both gay marriage and polygamy.


I don't equate pedophilia with homosexuality. What I dispute is your confidence that within 20 years, whatever authority you believe the State will have to prevent pedophile "unions" will still exist.

If no one here has a problem with california or any state revoking election results, aka the will of the people, welcome to fascism.


>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^quantumushroom:
If these votes are based only on how people are wired or some all-purpose equality then the State has no right to bar plural aka polygamous marriages.
Leaving aside the utterly retarded slippery slope that gay marriage leads to polygamy (which undoubtedly leads to marrying a donkey in your insane world), who gives a fuck?
Provided all parties are consenting adults, I have no problem with any number of people marrying each other. You want to live in a bisexual transgender four way with two guys, a chick and a shemale? Hey, if you're happy, more power to you.
I suppose next you're going to try to equate homosexuality to pedophilia. again.

>> ^quantumushroom:
If these votes are based only on how people are wired or some all-purpose equality then the State has no right to bar plural aka polygamous marriages.

Leaving aside the utterly retarded slippery slope that gay marriage leads to polygamy (which undoubtedly leads to marrying a donkey in your insane world), who gives a fuck?

Provided all parties are consenting adults, I have no problem with any number of people marrying each other. You want to live in a bisexual transgender four way with two guys, a chick and a shemale? Hey, if you're happy, more power to you.

I suppose next you're going to try to equate homosexuality to pedophilia. again.

That is the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Free speech and free markets are not even close to comparable. You might as well have said:

"Doesn't it sound dumb to argue against free speech?

Yet people have such double standards and argue the same things against free sex with whoever you want, whenever you want."

Can't you see that free speech and free markets are about as similar as free speech and rape/pedophilia?

And, last of all, prior to this posting. I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT FREE SPEECH!

So, that brings me to a conclusion. You are either too dumb to be worth talking to, or you are a troll. In either case I am done here.

Gay people are not asking to push their way of thinking on the American culture. They just want equal rights and freedom from oppression, just like everyone else does. Besides, they are a part of American culture (and part of all other cultures, too).

They most certainly are pushing their way of thinking on America, and that in every aspect of life. In California young children must now learn about gay history:

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/22/138504488/california-brings-gay-history-into-the-classroom

The normalization of homosexuality is also leading to the normalization of transgenders. There is now a law in California which states that transgenders have a protected right of gender expression which means they have to be allowed to cross dress at work:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/10/california-transgender-laws_n_1004109.html

Which leads to this:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=348033

Before you say it has nothing to do with gay rights, these were the sponsors:

The bill was authored by Assemblymember Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and sponsored by Equality California, Transgender Law Center and Gay-Straight Alliance Network.

Here is the bill California vetoed but it shows the agenda:

Brown vetoed the Survey Data Inclusion Act, which required the state to include questions about LGBT identities, including sexual orientation and domestic partnership status among others, on state surveys.

The truth is, gays are pushing their lifestyle on this culture, and trying to gain a protected minority status. They won't stop until they are fully integrated into every aspect of our culture, including indoctrinating our children.

Your slippery-slope argument about homosexuality leading to "other kinds of deviant sexuality" is entirely unfounded and logically fallacious. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean things like fetishes and BDSM, then that's patently false, as plenty of kinky sex goes on in heterosexual relationships too, and if it were true, it would mean that all or most gays and lesbians would be into whips and chains, which they aren't. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean "child abuse", then you are conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, and you need to stop doing that now, because you know there is no causal relationship there.

I just demonstrated the causal relationship by my example. There are also many studies which state there is a connection:

From the Archives of Sexual Behavior:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archives_of_Sexual_Behavior

A study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 'eighty-six percent of [sexual] offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.'

The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2.4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles

"Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality ... Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%."

A study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that '... the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men ... the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality

You claim you care about homosexuals. Well, I don't see it. Condemnation masquerading as love isn't caring, it's just the usual passive-aggressive Christian bullshit. Someone who cares about homosexuals would want to allow them to marry, to adopt children, and to live their lives without being bullied and persecuted.

To advocate for that would be to encourage homosexuals to continue breaking Gods law and end up in hell. I don't want homosexuals to go to hell, therefore I will continue to tell them it is immoral and that they need to repent.

Christians do not have a monopoly on morality; in fact, the Christian adherence to the bronze-age concept of sin and their preoccupation with what other people do in bed is positively immoral.

God decides what is moral, and it is the preoccuption of Christians to obey God and warn those who are perishing.

Who cares if something is against the "law" of some god or other? I don't believe in your god, and it probably doesn't even exist, so why should I care what people say it likes and dislikes? And why should religious people get special dispensation for their acts of hatred and bullying because you claim it is mandated by a magic invisible man who lives in the sky?

Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, you are still accountable to Him. And even if I wasn't Christian, I still have a right to say homosexuality is immoral. That is my right and is guaranteed by the constitution, just as it is your right to say what you like about my religion. You would like to have it one way and stifle my right to free speech, which is ironic considering the position you're taking about equal rights.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Gay people are not asking to push their way of thinking on the American culture. They just want equal rights and freedom from oppression, just like everyone else does. Besides, they are a part of American culture (and part of all other cultures, too).
Your slippery-slope argument about homosexuality leading to "other kinds of deviant sexuality" is entirely unfounded and logically fallacious. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean things like fetishes and BDSM, then that's patently false, as plenty of kinky sex goes on in heterosexual relationships too, and if it were true, it would mean that all or most gays and lesbians would be into whips and chains, which they aren't. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean "child abuse", then you are conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, and you need to stop doing that now, because you know there is no causal relationship there.
You claim you care about homosexuals. Well, I don't see it. Condemnation masquerading as love isn't caring, it's just the usual passive-aggressive Christian bullshit. Someone who cares about homosexuals would want to allow them to marry, to adopt children, and to live their lives without being bullied and persecuted. Christians do not have a monopoly on morality; in fact, the Christian adherence to the bronze-age concept of sin and their preoccupation with what other people do in bed is positively immoral. Who cares if something is against the "law" of some god or other? I don't believe in your god, and it probably doesn't even exist, so why should I care what people say it likes and dislikes? And why should religious people get special dispensation for their acts of hatred and bullying because you claim it is mandated by a magic invisible man who lives in the sky?
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm not saying that homosexuals are the same as paedophiles. I am saying that the normalization of homosexuality into a culture is a logical pathway to the normalization of pederasty in a culture, which we have a historical example of in the greeks. I am also saying that it is deviant sexual behavior which opens the door to other kinds of deviant sexual behavior, and that in itself is eroding the moral fabric of this country.
It is exactly because I care about homosexuals that I will openly say it is immoral, and against Gods law. It would in fact be a sin if I didn't say it. Any law which restricts my, or anyone elses ability to say it is unconstitutional. The absurdity is inherent in the ultra politically correct environments this kind of thing always leads to, as marbles posted about.
There is nothing hateful in stating the truth. If homosexuals have the right to trumpet their way of thinking and push it on the American culture, I have the equal right to say it is wrong and something that should be avoided at all costs. It's always interesting that a moral relativist always allows for every kind of moral position except for the kind that takes an absolute position.
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
How hypocritical of @shinyblurry to accuse someone else of having a "heart filled with poison". The ridiculous, hateful and archaic dogma of sin and judgement that you subscribe to is an immoral poison to the modern world, giving rise to absurd and damaging situations like the religious exception to this law.
Equating homosexuals with paedophiles is a cowardly trick of misdirection and a false analogy. They are not the same, and you know it - a consenting homosexual couple harms no-one at all, whereas a paedophile who molests a child causing emotional damage that ripples out into the child's later life and relationships. Your argument is empty.

Awesome...stop using the word "christian" altogether. Put every candidates specific religious affiliation next to their name, and let them go at each other. Maybe their handlers are too smart to let that happen, but if you repeat it enough, the voters will be thinking about it.

We already see the occasional public division, like one church decides a woman priest is okay. Wasn't it the catholic church specifically with the pedophilia problem? Divide and conquer.

>> ^hpqp:

This is so unfair... the comment made me lol, but do I obey its injunction? Oh, the dilemma!!
>> ^rottenseed:
...well if he didn't want his daughter's pictures taken by some creep, he shouldn't have dressed her like that.





submit all disapproval in downvote form below this comment. Thank you.



He didn't click the sarcasm box!! GRAAAARGH!

Edit: fuck it, I'm upvoting Rottenseed's comment.