Welcome! Sign in to access your account. New user?

User: Iblis Ginjo



Click through to message forum for reply and admin options.
Posted in What is your position on gay marriage? on 2006-10-06 03:03:03

Shadow watcher, "Homosexuality is acceptable and even beneficial and should be recognized for these reasons... The homosexual couple, while unable to reproduce children of their own, is entirely capable and qualified to raise children through adoption, serrogate parenting, foster parenting, and artificial insemination as long as they be of kind and caring nature, and adequate means to do so, and as long as they fit the age requirements to adopt.

Likewise, since homosexual couples are unable to have children physically with each other they do not pose a threat to overpopulated areas, and in fact may fill a void; a need for competant parents whereas heterosexual parents, especially at a young age may give their child up for any number of reasons and who as well have resorted to dumping their children in trashcans out of desdperation, fear, or sociopathic inclination. They also present a tempting alternative to abortion."

Don't all these things remain true without gay marraige? So why do we 'need' it again?

Posted in What is your position on gay marriage? on 2006-10-06 02:51:48

Should we make a special law that makes it necessary to allow quadriplegics to run a marathon even though the nature of their affliction makes it impossible for them to do so? How is it stupid to not want to extend marriage rights to people that have no business getting married in the first place i.e. two men? I’m sorry that you think it’s stupid for me to want ‘state’ recognized marriage for whom and what it is meant for, one of those things NOT being to make you feel happy or socially normal but I’m silly like that. I’m not willing to give up bedrocks of society to make 4% of the population feel better about themselves and their sexual desire. When I say bedrocks of society I in no way imply American or even Western, but society in general as we have understood it for the past millennia. So unless you’re willing to let in all types of marriage to be recognized by government (polygamy and inter family marriage), you can’t argue that we should only let in gay marriage. Are you willing to do that or are special rights for gay people the only ones you concern yourself with?

Posted in What is your position on gay marriage? on 2006-09-22 01:16:25

I feel like my subject heading now, 'special'. Glad to see I could get the debate blood flowing even though it was a debate on debating.

Posted in What is your position on gay marriage? on 2006-08-11 03:04:27

You're silly.

Posted in What is your position on gay marriage? on 2006-08-09 20:52:50

(You)"Wrong. It is simply granting gay people the right to marry, just like anyone else. You might say they DO have the right to marry--people of the opposite sex, just like anyone else. That "right" is as meaningless to them as your right to marry a man would be."

(Me)Wrong? What makes gay people gay? Is it not their sexual attraction to the same sex? So granting marriage for such, IS granting rights for abhorrent behavior. I don't care how meaningless it is for someone who happens to enjoy $%!@ over vaginal sex their inclinations are not my business or problem nor my government's.

(Me)"this is neither the government’s job nor mandate"

(You)"Ah, but it is the government’s job to tell people whom they can and can't marry? Some Libertarian you are. I think most members of your party would agree with me, it's none of the government’s damn business!"

(Me) I never said it was the government's job to tell people whom they can or cannot marry, but if the government is in the job of RECOGNIZING marriages (which in our current reality it is) than it is my right as a citizen to have a say in that recognition, sanction. As far as the last part of your statement I wholeheartedly agree but that means no special privileges for any type of marriage, I'm ok with that if you are.

(Me)"being straight is not a propensity or inclination"

(You)"It damn is."

(Me)My next statement proves this wrong. Note: "were you to want the..." it would have to be a fact.

But a fact were you to want the continuation of the human species.

Get it.

(You)I am not worried about the continuation of the human species. People are not going to suddenly turn gay en masse because gay marriage is legalized. The vast majority of the world's population will remain straight. Don't worry. You argument is based on hysterical ignorance, and not a whole lot of common sense. You don't seem to have a good grasp on reality or human nature, saying the things you do. No offense, I'm just saying.

(Me)I have a fine grasp. I just don't deem to call two bearded men kissing, married. I am not afraid of homo sex or homo love, I don't believe it will threaten humanity, but it has no positive effects on humanity either therefore it is not the government's job (in my opinion) to sanction nor prevent (privately) such. As soon as you can show me a positive societal effect of gay marriage than I could begin to consider official recognition. I never said I want to prevent gays from getting married I just don't believe it is the government's job to recognize such. And if your state votes to have gay marriage than go to it, my state already has it but we didn't get to vote.

(Me)"If you can't see that you truly are blind"

(You)”I see and know that heterosexual intercourse is vital to the continuation of the species. As I said above, this is not in danger, it will never, ever go away. Men and women will never, ever, ever, stop fvcking, as long as we are here on this planet. If someone told you legalizing gay marriage would make you go gay, Iblis, they were lying to you.”

(Me)I never said that legalized gay marriage would make me gay nor mentioned a fear of such.

"1. way somebody feels about something: a feeling that pushes somebody to make a particular choice or decision 2. tendency: a tendency to do, prefer, or desire something"

(You) “EXACTLY. How can you not see that being straight fits this definition to a T? You FEEL a certain way about people of the opposite sex (women), which PUSHES you to want to have sex with them, so you make the CHOICE to seek out sexual companionship with them; you TEND to PREFER or DESIRE women as sexual partners. (You do, right?)”

(Me)There is a good reason men desire women as we have both mentioned prior to this. So to you, are hunger and thirst tendencies as well, or facts of survival? Understanding the difference yet?
What I like in bed, is of no concern to you and I’m not asking you to accept it.

(You) “Heterosexuality is a sexual orientation, a preference. Yes, it is also a "fact," whatever the hell you mean by that, but so is gayness, biness, everything else.”

(Me)Gayness and biness are not facts of survival which is the only kind of fact I stated heterosexuality is. You must read thoroughly to understand what I am saying; I’m silly and use words as they were meant to be used. And you say I rehash?

(You)“In conclusion: you seem to believe in small govt. Then don't let the govt stick its nose where it doesn't belong. If you want to marry your boyfriend, why the hell should I care?”

(Me)I never said you should. If you don’t care about it though, why do you care, that I care? You should take your own advice if you believe in to each their own, then you shouldn’t be debating anything that doesn’t affect you. So unless you’re gay why are you even arguing this, according to your philosophy? On a last note if you honestly think that hetero and homo unions are equal in all ways but child bearing, than we cannot continue this conversation based on the lack of logic and understanding of humanity, coming from your side.