Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

*spoiling the mood* "Damn shit's going down between Jerk and Godless"

Pants, on 19 January 2011 - 06:53 AM, said:

What exactly is the difference between Agnostic and Atheist, sorry I just don't really know.

This post has been edited by Mikanada: 19 January 2011 - 06:56 AM

Not really. He's just easily trolled and, evidently, won't respond unless that's what I'm doing to him. Now I'm just bored with him.

Mikanada, on 19 January 2011 - 07:01 AM, said:

Agnostics believe the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven. Atheists reject the existence of God on a fundamental level.

Jerk answered far better than I did.

I'm an Atheist myself.

This post has been edited by SushiJaguar: 19 January 2011 - 07:12 AM

I really have a problem with this whole artificial age extension deal. Society has certainly changed since it used to be, or at least western society has. Most people don't realize that a lot of cultures don't really have a concept for 'adolescent'. I think the main reason 'teenagers' in the US are viewed as being idiots (and a lot of the time are) is because they are constantly told they are children.

Jerk, on 19 January 2011 - 07:02 AM, said:

Thanks , than I still consider my self an Atheist.

Ah, the 'Gay Marriage' debate. Much like any religious debate, in that in the end it's fruitless because we all know it has a foregone conclusion and a dizzying array of people ready to jot something down before thinking it through.

Jerk, on 19 January 2011 - 06:48 AM, said:

If you think I don't understand sarcasm you are in now place to call me retarded. When I grew up sarcasm was pretty much my only form of communication Every one in my family uses it every day. I, in short come from a long line of smartasses

also agnostic means your just not sure about the existance of god

Godless, on 19 January 2011 - 07:11 AM, said:

That begs the question: what went wrong with you? The moment you took whf at his word on "kill all gays," you pegged yourself as an easy target. It was fun but now you're just...boring.

Jerk, on 19 January 2011 - 07:19 AM, said:

now I'm confused. I don't remember whf saying that also when you said that you agree with my conclusions but not my way of getting there I don't remember saynig my way of frying any where

This post has been edited by Godless: 19 January 2011 - 07:25 AM

Hi Jerk. Fighting with the serious 'Tards again I see.

Jeff, stop dawdling and throw another wombat on the barbie!

SushiJaguar, on 19 January 2011 - 07:30 AM, said:

I could really use an explanation right now

SushiJaguar, on 19 January 2011 - 07:30 AM, said:

No, Sushi, just no.

Down with Prop. 8!

Godless, on 19 January 2011 - 07:36 AM, said:

*Points at his handle*

Really, GL? You really need an explanation?

Wombat?

This post has been edited by Godless: 19 January 2011 - 07:41 AM

Godless, on 19 January 2011 - 07:22 AM, said:

Let me refresh your memory.

Godless, on 19 January 2011 - 04:37 AM, said:

How could you not tell he was being sarcastic? You kind of went off an a tangent there too. If there was a point, you really didn't make it clear.

And "frying?" If English isn't your first language, I can understand these errors. Honestly, a lot of people here speak English as a second language and have no problem articulating themselves. If it is though...Christ. Maybe you only have one hand? Or none, and press keys with your toes? Maybe you type with braille or something? I don't know.

Jeff_in_Aus, on 19 January 2011 - 07:24 AM, said:

IT NEVER EVER ENDS, JEFF

NEVER

War...war never changes.

Such a debatable topic this is.

SushiJaguar, on 19 January 2011 - 07:42 AM, said:

The Hell it doesn't. I'd like to see the Trojan War fought with machine guns and land mines.

Anyway, it is almost 2am. I'll come back and read whatever nonsense everyone posted in here tomorrow morning.

Goodnight Jeff, it was great seeing you again.

ON TOPIC: We've settled this - if gay is your way, okay. Go gay marriage, go! It'd be interesting to see if the divorce statistics change in any way, or how specific homosexual demographics handle it.

Jerk, on 19 January 2011 - 07:40 AM, said:

Finding I ment finding

SushiJaguar, on 19 January 2011 - 07:42 AM, said:

*Facepalms*

Dammit, Sushi. No points for quoting Fallout.

but...Fallout...

*Death-Glares nameless*

fallout...

Hmmm, anyway odds are the gay marriage thing is going to find it's way to the Supreme Court in a few years...

This post has been edited by (nameless): 19 January 2011 - 07:51 AM

(nameless), on 19 January 2011 - 07:51 AM, said:

oh joy back on topic

And we have a conservative Chief Justice. Oh joy!

Jerk, on 19 January 2011 - 08:06 AM, said:

http://news.yahoo.co..._20110118170305 Luckily there are eight other justices

arguments aren't any fun if you don't have someone to argue against. Unfortunatly whf seems to have left and he didn't really provide any reasons any ways

Godless, on 19 January 2011 - 08:19 AM, said:

That's what I've been trying to tell you: he wasn't arguing with you, he was being ironic for shits and giggles.

@ NAMELESS: It's comforting as long as the liberals will stick to being liberal as opposed to negotiating over issues where no negotiation should take place, i.e. gay marriage.

This topic... it made me cry tears of hilarity.

Here's my stance:

I don't give a damn if two gay guys want to "marry", I find it a little odd that they decided to call it a "marriage" though, over here in the UK we called it a "civil partnership" for a reason, so that it didn't offend anyone else. Don't see what's so wrong about that, it's just a name, it's still the joining of two people blah blah blah. Unless Christianity decides to reform and say it's cool to be Gay (though I'm sure the US would then rift off from Euro Christianity and well... shit would go down but ANYWAY), in which case sure why not call it a marriage?

I do think it seems rather... unfair to a kid though, to be brought up by a Gay couple. Firstly, that couple couldn't naturally have kids. Now I'm not saying here that it's -wrong- for them to want kids, but I do think it's wrong to lump a kid in, or even bring one into existence via a surrogate mother or whatever you like, to be parented by a gay couple, because being perfectly frank, that kid is going to turn out gay.

I'm not saying being gay is wrong, just that if a kid was going to otherwise have turned out straight and been able to you know... perpetuate their genes and such, naturally, it doesn't seem right for the human race that they end up gay just because some selfish couple wanted a kid. It's a rather difficult problem for me to think about, I don't want to say "lol gays are wrong", but it seems wrong for the human race as a whole because if it became... commonplace, it seems like the kind of thing that would cause issues in the -very- long term to do with actually keeping the human race in existence. I suppose though, if it never reached a population inversion of more than 50% pop being gay, it's not really an issue, and I doubt that's ever going to happen, instincts and all.

Cloud, on 19 January 2011 - 10:48 AM, said:

Parents do have some influence on their children, but I think we generally accept that the child grows up to possess free will and make his own choices, which includes whether or not to pursue homosexual relationships.

Also, not to nitpick, but it seems like we would have to accept that being gay is wrong in order to argue that it would be bad if a child were influenced to become gay as adults.

Taeshi, on 19 January 2011 - 05:54 AM, said:

Ergh, Sorry for the long quote.
Hey, give me some credit. What I said is not the same as defending what you said I did >_<
It's quite hurtful, and I think (actually, I'm sure) you're jumping to conclusions...
Now... the context of what I said was discussing the age in which people reach maturity, in which they are 'fully' aware of themselves and of sexual relationships.
I'm not going around telling people that it's OK for kids to get involved in sexual relationships. That's preposterous and offensive.
I don't mind to be scolded/bashed/counter argumented, as long as we're talking the same level

Also, for everyone:

Lycan, on 19 January 2011 - 05:09 AM, said:

Guh, self quoting is stupid but...
I can't believe no one commented on this?

This post has been edited by Lycan: 19 January 2011 - 12:14 PM

How am I jumping into conclusions? I'm making a statement I've heard many people say in the past, this argument isn't new. And I didn't edit your post, or omit anything. That is all you said, unedited or anything. So don't accuse me for jumping into conclusions. If that's the case then amend your argument.

Just because you've met some well-adjusted thirteen year olds in the past doesn't mean they don't know what the hell they're doing in the long-run. This is a general protection.

Quote

okay WHAT

how on earth is this kind of belief still existing?

do you have ANY evidence for that? Seriously? Oh my god, these are the kind of arguments fourteen year old kids made at my social studies class and they were rebutted by someone that actually knew what the hell they were talking about.

Because straight couples TOTALLY can't fuck up their kids. Nosuree.

Fun Fact: Statistics show that a child is more likely to turn out homosexual if raised by straight parents.

Kaxbe, is that true?

I would believe that more sexually-confused kids come of gay parents, because I think a lot of people are insecure and unsure about sexuality for a time and might have phases of being bi or gay or whatever, and to live in a house with novel sexuality problems might encourage this kind of thinking. But fundamentally, because being gay is something you're born with, once it's all shaken out the proportion should be the same, as nurture isn't gonna change how you are wired from birth.

King, on 19 January 2011 - 02:12 AM, said:

Thinking like a futurist, I think there's a chance. Incest in particular is closer to homosexuality in my opinion, in the sense that it's just a weird sexual act that doesn't help much with reproduction (presuming it's incest-with-contraception, or homosexual incest). Right now it's taboo, but I feel it's more likely that the stigma will ease over time. Birth control is very new.

Bestiality and underage sex have consent issues, but maybe this will be worked out with time? What if you could hold a meter up to a 16 year old and have it say "mature enough" or to a 20 year old and say "too immature"? Not implausible that we can work that kind of thing out, or even figure out whether intelligent animals were of similarly acceptable intellectual maturity and desire\consent. Obviously there are reasons for blanket restrictions today, but you can poke holes in that over time.

I think we are overdoing this dont you think people?

Lets just conclude with leave'em be.Am I right?

...Cloud, I... that is so monumentally stupid.

Homosexuality is a genetic trait. You do not become homosexual. You are born homosexual.

I mean, out of all the stupid and ill-educated shit I often hear, this takes the cake. Just... just... I'm at a loss for words at how dumb that statement was. I think you damaged my brain.

SuitCase, on 19 January 2011 - 02:59 PM, said:

It was more of a joke, really Suit, based on the fact that there are more hetero married couples than homosexual married couples that raise children and based on the rising number of American teens who identify themselves as lesbian/gay/bi/trans. Studies on children of gay couples tend to be very flawed.

However, even though I support gay marriage and their right to adopt, I do not believe that a homosexual couple is the best environment to raise a child. This is also despite all the flaws and problems with the kind of research done on children of gay parents. I mean, substance abuse is higher among homosexual couples than in hetero ones. Not to mention domestic abuse in all its forms. Also, based on everything I've read and based on all the things I've learned from talking to children of gay parents, it seems that they are at a disadvantage in school. I believe there was this dude in Australia who did research on this. He found that children of gay parents were behind in language, math, and sports. They were also more likely to be antisocial and have a few problems with gender roles.

Kaxbe, if my child is going to be antisocial, it's going to be because I hate the human race (for shit like this) and not because of my gender identity.

Substance abuse is irrelevant. Domestic violence is irrelevant. People are dumb and regardless of sexual orientation or gender, there are little to no respectable people in today's society that could be a fit parent. On the offchance that my child does become anti-social I think it would be derived from society's inability to accept people like us, and what would I tell him/her? Not to hate the stupid people that have overtaken this planet? I can't lie to my child.

The argument that a homosexual or transgender/straight couple is a worse environment to raise a child in is absolute and utter bullshit, the worst I have ever seen in my entire life. If society was okay with people like us instead of doing what they do now, we wouldn't have this problem. Homosexuality is common in most animals, but God forbid it happen in humans! Let's tease this kid because of who his parents are. I'd go so far as to speculate that the reason children are so adversely affected by it is not due to the inability of their homosexual parents, it's because of the people they encounter in real life that are not accepting and mess with their minds.

On the subject of "issues with gender roles", I don't see any problem with this. No job should only be socially acceptable for a single sex. If anything, I'd want my child to disagree with this. It's bullshit. Language is easy as hell and I hope to God my child inherits my comprehension of the English language, because for some Goddamn reason it's almost impossible for my classmates to decipher the difference between a verb and a noun, or locate the subjective complement in a sentence. I can always help my child with math, and God forbid he doesn't like sports!

Quote

Selfish? Poor choice of words. The premise to this conclusion is bullshit and this conclusion is also bullshit. Your opinion is not only misguided and uneducated but it is also wrong and you should feel bad. The single phrase "turned out straight" makes me want to tear my hair out at the seams because for the umpteenth time, homosexuality is not learnt, it is a genetic variation that occurs in several animals.

Quote

Ha. Ha ha. Ha. There were homosexual animals long before humans existed on this planet and they're still here, using monkeys as an example. Are monkeys extinct? Did homosexual tendencies kill them all? Regardless, like your earlier opinion this is built on the foundation of ishkabibble and like I stated before, homosexuality is a healthy genetic variation found in some animals. It will not be the undoing of the human race and would less affect children if idiots could learn to accept people, but that is impossible because humans are dumb and so the cycle repeats.

The end.

Cloud, on 19 January 2011 - 10:48 AM, said:

I disagree. There are many crappy parents, straight, gay or otherwise. If a gay couple wants to adopt a child, then they will be assessed on an individual basis, exactly the same way that straight, lesbian, bi or whatever couples are.

Either they will make good parents, or they will not. This should be determined independently of whether or not they're homosexual. Besides, even if 60% (say) of homosexual parents were rejected from adopting, why stop the other 40% from giving a kid a loving home?

I don't see this as being any different than how Kevin and Janet adopted Abbey and Molly. Who cares whether you're a cat or dog, black or white, gay or straight. Compassion and humanity have nothing to do with these things.

I would like to point out that the statistics show homosexuality spreads in much the same way zombie viruses spread. If you are bitten by, share a toilet seat with or breath the same air as someone who happens to be gay, you have roughly twenty-four hours before you find Bravo programming entertaining. That is why he recommends that children not be raised by gays. They will immediately be infected with gay and become a carrier for it to their next social interaction, i.e. preschool. And then your God-fearing, gun-owning, non-Communist child will catch gay right under your nose.

Jerk, kindly punch yourself in the face so I don't have to.

I'm not laughing.

Susan, on 19 January 2011 - 03:53 PM, said:

Susan, is this for you like animal cruelty is for me? If it is, I know how upsetting it can be to have people joke about it.

But Jerk was being sarcastic... <hypocrite>try not to take it seriously and don't let it upset you.</hypocrite>

It is my subtle way of demonstrating that Cloud's fears beliefs are valid and not at all ignorant or retarded.

Jerk, on 19 January 2011 - 03:51 PM, said:

i went to the link but all I saw was a page telling me wifi was bad for my credit card

As usual, people love to ignore me.

Riff2580, on 19 January 2011 - 04:14 PM, said:

Aww is oo feewing woonwee (say that last word out loud)

Next person to post something inane gets special ed status.