Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

No, Its actually a habit.in the real world and on the internet so Im use to it. Plus it feels good to rub it into peoples faces when I was right about something and they didnt listen so just the same, Im not woonwee.


Edit: FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUU

This post has been edited by Riff2580: 19 January 2011 - 04:22 PM

Well as far a incest goes I'm fine with them marrying but having kids is just wrong not because ( said in highpiched squeal) "ewww that's nasty" but because the kid has a really bad life

This post has been edited by Godless: 19 January 2011 - 04:28 PM

Because I feel like going off on a tangent:

King said:

Marriage between first cousins is permitted in Canada, and in some states of the United States.

The average risk of birth defects and mortality in a child born of first cousins is roughly the same as that of a child born to a woman over 40 years of age. Still, it's not an especially good idea for cousin marriages to become too common, as the risk of defects then goes up due to an increased amount of shared DNA amongst a wider family group.

I used to have a crush on a cousin, but I never brought it up because it would just have been awkward.

*FACEPALM*

Take maybe one out of four things I say seriously. The link was to Fox News. Christ, of course I was being sarcastic. You think I'd deny a child without parents the opportunity for a loving-if-unconventional family? Or if they wanted a fresh one, that gay couples would screw them up? Of course not. That was the most ignorant assertion in this entire thread.

Who you are in the bedroom is not who you are online, at work, around the house, at school, etc. Fucked up people cannot tell the difference between contextual behavioral clues. What do I care where you put you dick as long as you're not hurting anyone? Frankly, I don't want to know what straight people I know do in the bedroom either.

What really pisses me off is that this shouldn't even BE a fucking issue anymore. This should've been resolved with the Civil Rights Movement or something. Arguing against gay marriage is an idiocy plague. There is no ground for it whatsoever not founded in ignorance. Again: if they want to marry, let them. It's not like straight people haven't done enough damage to the "sanctity of marriage" they so love to quote.

And you know what else? If I had found out my girlfriend had a dick, I'd have still wanted to spend the rest of my life with her whether the church/state gave me a piece of paper saying our union was as good and sacred as any other or not. Does that make me gay or straight or bi?

/SOAPBOX

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

lmao

xkcd: Internet Argument

I'm sure that's whf's reason for not wanting to attend BCBcon.

look im not arguing here i made a dumb post because anyone whos willing to read something as childish and feminine as this comic isnt going to be against gay marriage
theres no reason for this discussion to exist or furthermore get 4 pages

Childish..? ;__;

yeah theyre 14 and having teenage drama and theres ots of colors and rainbows and shit everywhere its childish and pretty innocent overall

Oh god, this argument..... this argument.....


On a different note: Suit wants to bang his sister!

Einstein wanted to bang his sister, you know

So did Nietzche.

And they all ended up in jail.

good point snooths O_O.....

I have not read through the entire thread, so I will not respond to the various arguments. But, here are my 2 cents for what it's worth anyway.

Gay Marriage:
A-OK. Two grown consenting adults who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together wish for a ceremony to commemorate that decision, and for some tax breaks that make living together easier. I see no issues here.

They want a kid? There's MORE than enough children sitting in orphanages who desperately need homes and really aren't going to care one way or another whether their parents are the same sex or not. Will they catch "The Gay"? No. It's not something you can change about yourself. It's not "A choice". If you're a cross carrying Christian who thinks that being homosexual IS a choice because "Why would god force that upon someone", then you spend ONE day trying to like the same sex. Just find them attractive. Because I bet you can't do it. Because what you find attractive and unattractive is not something you consciously decide.

Incest:
Bad idea for psychological and genetic reasons. Should it be ILLEGAL? Well I suppose not. Reproducing should be yes, because you'll be harming the child. But if a two sibling adults really love each other in that way THAT much, then I guess it's kind of oppressive and terrible to tell them that they can't be together because "Ewww, gross!". It shouldn't be glorified. It shouldn't be encouraged. And as said, they shouldn't be aloud to have kids. But in my opinion? Let them be if it's really what makes them happy I suppose.

Pedophilia:
Dangerous and troublesome. It SHOULD be illegal. And no pedophilic coupling should ever be allowed, because in all of these cases, the child does not understand the situation well enough to know what they're consenting to. This is why I've been specifying "Consenting Adults" above. Because it takes a person years and years to learn from experience, and to become mature enough to make hard and complicated decisions.

Having said that, I feel bad for a lot of pedophiles. Because, just like with my Gay argument, I believe that it is not something that these people can control. They do not chose to find children attractive. They just DO. It's a sad state of affairs, because it's something that they can never act on because it would hurt the very ones that they love. There's actually many pedophiles out there who find children attractive, but never act on their urges for that very reason. It's depressing to think that these people have to spend their whole lives never being able to be with someone they find truly sexy and attractive (though, in some cases, they do find adults who appear really young, which I think is nice for those lucky few).

Bestiality:
I will say only this. It is illegal to fuck your dog. It is NOT illegal to use your dog as a dick rest.

Maverik, on 19 January 2011 - 05:15 PM, said:

That being said: there is a line between urges and acting on them, and anyone who acts on these should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and anyone who feels them should alert a psychological authority.

Taeshi, on 19 January 2011 - 01:46 PM, said:

The difference is that I made the argument for discussion sake, so that we could come up with better argument "against" people who would go around getting logical reasons why children should 'be allowed/engage' in sexual activities.
You didn't edit, or omit, really, but anyways read more than what I wrote. I mean, my position is setting the underage limit age up or down in accordance to each individual person through psychological tests, in a possible future. Since today that is impossible, I agree with setting the underage limit due to medians or simply by definition.

Actually, I think it's easier to find overage adults that are not "prepared" than people with less than 18 years (legal age in Brazil) that are.
And I think it's awfully stupid here that if you're 18yo and have sex with a 17yo, you are against the law >_<"

Anyways, if I'm against, the only way you could have inferred that I support underage sex (13 yo? Madness! I'd be willing to give you some credit on your statement against me if you were talking to 16yo >_<) is if you read more than what I wrote. How's that not jumping?

Though, for argument's sake, if there was a completely secure, fail proof way to determine if that 13 yo is totally mature, both in mind AND body, and had all the psychological patterns of a fully, capable, adult person, all arguments people did would crumble FOR THAT 13YO. NO generalization.
But both the fail proof method AND the mature 13yo are almost impossible to find. So, I'm OK for underage definition.

Susan, on 19 January 2011 - 03:16 PM, said:

I do believe that you can be born homosexual.
But I do have inclinations in the "you can become" homosexual as well. Every little experience in our life (environmental factors) affect our choices, why shouldn't it affect people's sexuality?
Please keep in mind that I'm not saying that children raised by gay couples are more likely to become gay,
though if being gay was to be fully accepted in our society, that wouldn't be an issue.

Because sexuality is not a choice, it is hardwired into your brain.

difference between
gay, bestiality and pedophilia

you can find love with being gay

pedophilia and bestiality are practically rape O_O
seeing as children don't understand and animals can't consent

Susan, on 19 January 2011 - 05:32 PM, said:

I agree with this, only that some sexual urges should be alerted to the authorities beforehand as they are a danger to others the same way suicides are a danger to themselves and have methods of alerting others before they actually do so. I don't know. Maybe if they taught that along with sex ed we'd have less child molesters so they'd have a recourse of removing themselves as a problem beforehand.

I see my ability to cause massive drama is still in the bag, good good, I read the first post an tl;dr'd the rest.
I would just like to point out this: Obvious troll was rather obvious

Though I would be interested to see if gay parents statistically raised more gay children than straight parents, and whether we genuinely know being gay is -entirely- genetic (well aware that it certainly is genetic, brain structure is slightly different, stems back to genes, yadda yadda, but do we know if environment influences it -at all- ? Probably does in some small way, environment affects almost everything to some degree. NOTE THE FUCKING ALMOST PEOPLE.)

Also some people on this forum got some seriously weird ideas about banging kids and animals and whatever the hell else, society rejects such things for a reaaaason, and not a bullshit one like "lol being gay is bad"

I'm not convinced sexuality is completely hardwired either, prove it please. - Scratch that, seems it pretty much is, at least when you only apply it to human relations.

Now then, how many people here knew that the Spartans promoted bisexuality in their soldiers? You'll fight harder if you love someone you're fighting with apparently, makes sense, not sure if this extended to banging each other though.
Gotta say their soldiers must've had even worse mental trauma than current ones get from wars though.

Actually stuff this, I've probably managed to insult the entire forum or something with just this post going "lol i trol u", I seem to be incapable of fully thinking through anything I say here, I'm out, have fun BCB community, nobody will give a shit anyway hence why I do it here, no drama :>

This post has been edited by Cloud: 19 January 2011 - 06:52 PM

god i have never seen so many dumb and dull arguments on a single forum in my life before

poor taeshi she has to deal with this why does she deserve this WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Seppucrow, on 19 January 2011 - 07:04 PM, said:

1) She doesn't. Nobody is forcing anyone to read them or respond to them.

2) I've actually seen quite a few good arguments here. As for their being dull, that has nothing to do with their validity.

Unless your post was tongue-in-cheek, which always seems to be a distinct possibility around here.

This post has been edited by Starwatcher: 19 January 2011 - 07:09 PM

Starwatcher my post was semi tongue-in-cheek, but I've been through most arguments presented here to the point my mind blank out whenever I try to read them. Seriously, part of the Beliefs thread is "Evolution doesn't have enough proof and I don't believe in God so I'll present these new theories that have ZERO FUCKING PROOF AND EVIDENCE"

This post has been edited by Seppucrow: 19 January 2011 - 07:24 PM

By definition doesn't a "theory" have to be provable?

No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

True that, ~

Actually, yes, Watcher. It says that a theory must have been proven by observation and/or other evidence, so by definition it must be provable. Of course, with the concept of falsifiability it must also be disprovable.

There's two different kinds of theories.

One is the most commonly believed definition, that a theory is an educated and/or scientific guess. (Dumb way to explain it but that was what I was told repeatedly in High Schools physics class)

The other, scientific theory, is a set of principles that explains observable phenomena in natural terms. This is what evolution falls under. Take that with a grain of salt will ya?

This post has been edited by Seppucrow: 19 January 2011 - 07:30 PM

ILB said:

Not sure which source you're using, but I feel as if that's bad wording. Theories, at least in science, are supported (not proven) by the weight of evidence.

To quote from Wikipedia:

Quote

Also before anyone starts a stupid pointless argument about the definition of theory read this:

Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

Ah, yes, I worded myself badly there. My mistake; we mean the exact same thing. ^_^

ILB, on 19 January 2011 - 07:27 PM, said:

I hate it when people use the word "proof" outside mathematics and logic. That's where proofs are, where they belong, and what the set of objects they are attributes for live.

"evidence" "verification" and other such words are to be used instead, when we aren't talking about math or formal logic.

I've never had a problem with gay people, and feel they should have the equal opportunity to get married. When it comes to churches and things like that, though, that's where it gets complicated. Church based marriages are of course based on religion, and many people will find ways to give reasons why homosexuality in any way isn't justifiable. But getting married in general? Go ahead. It's funny how Christians are still allowed to get married AND get divorced, because going on the bible alone, divorce shouldn't even be allowed, either.

For me personally I really just hate how people STILL feel that homosexuality "isn't natural", as if it dehumanizes them. Obviously they don't know much about the animal kingdom. Homosexuality is prevalent in SO MANY SPECIES. Certain fish freaking switch between genders in their lifetime. Same sex partners can't naturally breed, so what? They're not allowed to exist? There are also species of animals that are born sterile. Does that make their existence an abomination?

To say that a child being raised by homosexual parents become homosexual is ridiculous and ignorant. So upbringing determines sexuality? That's some BS. By that logic, why are there homosexuals with parents who are heterosexual? They should have stayed heterosexual themselves. With that, sexuality isn't a choice, and I never once believed so.

I'm just going to say that regardless if you're bi, gay, or heterosexual, everyone deserves the right to be with whom they want. I'm not going to get into pedophilia, bestiality, etc, since this original argument was about gays anyway.

On the statistics about children of homosexual couples doing poorly: is that compared to the population at large, or other adopted children? Because if it's to the population at large, then it means nothing; everyone knows adopted children have a hard time in life.

Hey now, I'm adopted and I'm doing just fine.

Quaddy, on 19 January 2011 - 11:59 PM, said:

This was done in Australia land. Can't remember too much about the study. Also, ANY study on the children of gay parents will be flawed because of small sample size, selection bias, and the lack of anonymity for the families involved in these studies.

Hmm. Gay marriage?

Personally, I don't think the government should legally recognize homosexual marriages.

Or heterosexual ones.

Marriages really aren't any of the government's business. It shouldn't ban any sort of marriage. Nor should it be able to force any church to marry couples they don't want to (if a church will marry you, good for you. If it won't: go to another church). Besides, marriage is primarily a religious institution. Legally recognizing it is the equivalent of legally recognizing Bar Mitzvah ceremonies, baptism, or conversion, and is just as silly.

(Le gasp! My libertarian streak is showing! )

Aika, on 19 January 2011 - 08:41 PM, said:

....Catholics can't get divorced..

See, the odd thing is, the government gives out benefits based on this so-called religious institution of marriage.

And I think it should stop that.

Granted, I may not understand the reasons behind it very well, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

In response to the videos:

Oh, please. First of all, being married does not mean that you MUST HAVE CHILDREN. Some people get married and don't have children. Other people have children without getting married. Obviously these videos aren't even about gay marriage. They're just about being gay.

Second, it's true that there are males and females for a reason. But there are certainly not enough gays for it to seriously affect the human population. Making gay marriage against the law isn't going to stop people from being gay. You might as well just let them marry the person they love, because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with you.

Also, since they brought up the issue of gays being unable to have children, allow me to point something out. There are hundreds of children that need to be adopted. Earth has a surplus of children in need of parents. Why is it a problem that gays can't have children together? They can adopt, can't they? Isn't that just as good? For all we know, that child might have died if he or she hadn't been adopted.


All in all, the only real argument they had was that being gay was sinful, which is really just stupid. The bible also says slavery is okay, but people don't still follow that rule, do they?

Edited to fix stupid spelling mistakes. Derp.

This post has been edited by Dulin: 20 January 2011 - 02:16 AM

......you realize the guys in those videos are "cannibal trolls", right?


Knowyourmeme even used them as examples in their episode about trolls.

Well then.


I actually hadn't heard of/seen those videos before, so the thought didn't occur to me.

Nonetheless, I stand by what I said. I've heard other people use those arguments before, too.

Starwatcher, on 19 January 2011 - 08:27 PM, said:

Ah, the perils of language.

It's not just the word that bugs me - to prove something means that it is, that it necessarily follows, that it's denial is a logical contradiction like 1=0. You're never going to reach this level of certainty in anything except math and logic. Math has more powerful, clean cut objects.

We don't get that in our plane of existence. We've got to work inductively from the evidence and arguments around us. This is why the word "prove" belongs in math and logic only.

Just one of my personal pet peeves.

Susan, on 19 January 2011 - 05:32 PM, said:

Just to play a little devils advocate (Not just directly at you susan), but if we use this logic, isn't beastiality/pedophilia hardwired?

I'm querying for an answer, not that this is my personal belief. So please don't attack me, attack the question.

Pants, on 20 January 2011 - 04:23 AM, said:

Hope you don't mind if I put my 0.02 in on this...

I don't know if they're hardwired. Suppose they are, for the sake of the argument. They're two things that can and do cause harm, so the persons who are programmed with them have a moral obligation to get help and try to change. As long as they're human and sane, they should be able to perceive if what they're doing is causing harm and take appropriate action. This separates them from homosexuality because homosexuality doesn't necessarily cause harm, while pedophilia and bestiality do.

What do you think?

Iapetus, on 20 January 2011 - 01:26 AM, said:

Technically, no..only under "certain circumstances". I don't know the specifications between different branches of Christianity, but from what I know personally, married couples are discouraged from divorcing UNLESS someone has been cheating or something like that. Something having to do with God made you one, blah blah blah, wrong to separate, blah blah. Typically church stuff, all using different parts of the bible.

For Catholicism specifically, they basically recognize a couple's marriage until one of the spouse dies. THEN they're allowed to remarry. I think the church can do something like annul a marriage if they find that the marriage wasn't..official..whatever that means.

I personally feel people should be allowed to divorce and marry as often as they'd like, it's their life, and provided they leave me out of it, I really could care less. It reminded me though of something I saw relating to gay marriage: "If we're not allowed to marry, you're not allowed to divorce."

This post has been edited by Aika: 20 January 2011 - 05:27 AM

never a dull moment I see.

And by extension intelligence is determined by your genetics.