Burst leaderboard ad
  • 10 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Gay marrige Your thoughts and explanations

Poll: Gay marrige (121 member(s) have cast votes)

Is gay marrige right?

  1. Yes and it's irrational to think otherwise (80 votes [66.12%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 66.12%

  2. Meh I don't give a shit (36 votes [29.75%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 29.75%

  3. No! They will burn in hell! (5 votes [4.13%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 4.13%

Vote Guests cannot vote

View PostMoosack, on 19 January 2011 - 03:27 AM, said:

View PostLycan, on 19 January 2011 - 03:22 AM, said:

Is its exceptions. We're not discussing obvious children like that. We're discussing the "What if the underage person has a body built for sex, can have children, is mature enough?"

And, of course, the "What if the adult is not mature"

Exceptions, exceptions!

EDIT:
At least, that's what I hope we're discussing here D:

It's super nuanced and full of exceptions... And those who do find themselves in the wrong end of the law in this instance are doomed to be judged not based on moral reasoning.



Even if you completely disagree with the age laws, keep it in your pants and wait. It's not like the world will end without sex.
  • #51
  • 19 January 2011 - 03:31 AM

View PostSushiJaguar, on 19 January 2011 - 03:27 AM, said:

Moosack; I'm going by British age laws here.

Oh, sorry, I didn't know. :/ I don't even think the age limits I just provided are the same ones used throughout America... it's messed up here because the laws differ in each state.

View PostPants, on 19 January 2011 - 03:31 AM, said:

Even if you completely disagree with the age laws, keep it in your pants and wait. It's not like the world will end without sex.

Your name is highly appropriate for your comment.
  • #52
  • 19 January 2011 - 03:33 AM
  • SushiJaguar
  • Internet Tough Guy<br>P.S. I roleplay as a medieval furry
    Member
"What if the underage person has a body built for sex, can have children, is mature enough?"

Not really full of exceptions. This is a hypothetical argument and would likely never come up in the real world. It's biologically impossible for someone underage for sex to be developed enough.
This is considering I judge underage as not having hit puberty, so somewhere around fourteen.
  • #53
  • 19 January 2011 - 03:33 AM

View PostMoosack, on 19 January 2011 - 03:24 AM, said:

Right-on... but I too find it very tedious. It was like reading Moby Dick for the first time: if It wasn't highly recommended by my teachers and professors, I don't think I would crack it open for the life of me.
I'm only going to read it based on it's importance to literature (I feel placed at a disadvantage in my English courses without it).


Well, the Pentateuch is a good start except when it starts listing numerical figures, you can skip that, but Leviticus is the Biblical equivalent of murder porn. The Absalom story is good. I don't know. There aren't really any versions of the Bible edited to keep the cool stuff (Babel, Deluge, Samson, Exodus, etc.) in and the retarded stuff out. Not any that examine it from a purely literary perspective, anyway, as opposed to a religious one.

I know you can't keep out the preachy crap but you really just have to bite down.

You know those little coin keepers where you put the coin in Lincoln's hand and he takes it, puts it in his mouth, and it falls into a jar or something? One of the civilizations that steam-rolled over the Jews had a machine/god/idol that did that except with babies instead of coins and had a fire in its stomach. It was called Moloch.
  • #54
  • 19 January 2011 - 03:34 AM

View PostLycan, on 19 January 2011 - 03:27 AM, said:

Mr. ILB likes it.

Mr. Jerk has read it against his own free will, too XD

(Moby Dick, I mean)

It was like beating my head against the wall... repeatedly.
  • #55
  • 19 January 2011 - 03:34 AM
I have no problem with anyone being religious, a different race/color, different gender, sexual interest, nationality, or any other thing I can't think of at the moment, I believe people need to respect each other and show peace and love. I am an atheist, a furry, and a white, straight male teen that can care less how people want to live their lives. As long as no one is harmed in the prossess, U have my support.

This post has been edited by Riff2580: 19 January 2011 - 04:24 AM

  • #56
  • 19 January 2011 - 03:35 AM
  • Lycan
  • call me lyucs
    Member

View PostPants, on 19 January 2011 - 03:26 AM, said:

We have set laws because maturity differs vastly from person to person.
Potentionally there could be a child of 14 that could understand and be able to process the ramifications of sexual activity. However, in most cases we have found that the median age for sexual understanding is around 18 years of age. This is both due to allowing the brain and body to fully develop, as well as providing a fast amount of time for humans beings to process and understand the process of how sexual interactions can have major implications on their lives. Of course, different countries have varying rules of what is and is not acceptable.


Yes, in order for us to live together in society, that is necessary. BUT! *tchanans*
You said "median age". If we look deep in its meaning, isn't it kinda unethical to let 'children' that, even though are past that median age, 'hurt' themselves by allowing sexual activity?
Shouldn't the base age be the highest age recorded?

Of course, this is only for discussion. If the highest age was set to be the base, it would be DAMN unfair to those that matured before.
Theoretically, (I think) the 'best' way to deal with this would be taking a person to person approach.
I don't know if it is far from happening, but I do believe it's achievable, due to psychology tests and proper education.

On second note, that does seem a little bit utopical...
  • #57
  • 19 January 2011 - 03:39 AM
  • SushiJaguar
  • Internet Tough Guy<br>P.S. I roleplay as a medieval furry
    Member
That's a decidedly neutral post. I feel sorry for you, 'cause it's inevitable that eventually, you'll have to abandon neutrality.
  • #58
  • 19 January 2011 - 03:40 AM

View PostLycan, on 19 January 2011 - 03:39 AM, said:

Theoretically, (I think) the 'best' way to deal with this would be taking a person to person approach.
I don't know if it is far from happening, but I do believe it's achievable, due to psychology tests and proper education.

I'm not too sure governments are too keen on providing that "person to person" approach. Also, my "proper education" for sex ed. was that sex is bad and you shouldn't do it (m'kay). I think the whole "abstinence" program hurt kids more than it helps (they are not allowed to talk about contraceptives in the school I went to).
  • #59
  • 19 January 2011 - 03:44 AM
  • Lycan
  • call me lyucs
    Member

View PostSushiJaguar, on 19 January 2011 - 03:33 AM, said:

"What if the underage person has a body built for sex, can have children, is mature enough?"
Not really full of exceptions. This is a hypothetical argument and would likely never come up in the real world. It's biologically impossible for someone underage for sex to be developed enough.This is considering I judge underage as not having hit puberty, so somewhere around fourteen.


Well, your definition of underage is not the same as what we're discussing ^_^
Anyways, yeah, it would be hard, but it could happen, though.

Actually, I think this conversation is the definition of underage, so, my bad =P

View PostSushiJaguar, on 19 January 2011 - 03:40 AM, said:

That's a decidedly neutral post. I feel sorry for you, 'cause it's inevitable that eventually, you'll have to abandon neutrality.

Who are you talking to, Mr. Sushi?

@Mr. Moosack
That's why it's theoretical ^_^
Though I can visualize that happening, like, finding the right questions suitable for everyone and putting them to a automatic test or something... :smirk:

EDIT:
Oh, look!
My post's been appended!?
What sorcery is this? I posted using the Full Editor while I had the last post, and it automatically appended my answers ^_^
I didn't know that happened :love:
Way to go, Mr. SuitCase!

This post has been edited by Lycan: 19 January 2011 - 03:52 AM

  • #60
  • 19 January 2011 - 03:50 AM

View PostTaeshi, on 19 January 2011 - 03:11 AM, said:

No, there IS a difference between gay marriage and the other examples. Jesus christ, you people.

Pedophilia is wrong because children are not of the maturity level to make decisions like that. Their bodies are not built for sexuality just yet, that is why they can't freaken have children. They are too young to be tied to a relationship that is supposed to be for the rest of their lives, they are not of the maturity to make decisions like that.

Incest is wrong because incest has been proven to fuck up your genes. You get all these inbred kids that have things wrong with them, and if incest is all-around encouraged as a normal thing they'll go on to have MORE inbred kids. MORE fuck ups in the gene pool! It is something that actually harms humanity, and should not be encouraged.

And christ, bestiality? I know animals are your friend, but they aren't of the mind-capability to be your fuck-toy as well! Jesus christ! Zoophiles can say all that bullshit about animals "being close to you" and "they allow", but that's a lot of freaken bullshit. You CAN'T know what they truly want because they CAN'T talk! They are a DIFFERENT SPECIES. They have their own mating rituals and stuff, their own interest in their own species. Why can't this be platonic?

It's all a case of not being able to consent (children, animals), and a case of they actually freaken ruin genes (incest)

It's so offensive that people compare gays to this. There is NOTHING WRONG with being gay, but you can point out so many things wrong with the three before. I'm astounded we're even having this argument.
Oh my god, thank you for saving me one big explosion of angry words.
  • #61
  • 19 January 2011 - 03:51 AM
  • Lycan
  • call me lyucs
    Member
Guh, please read post #43, Mr. Sani. :unsure:
  • #62
  • 19 January 2011 - 03:56 AM
  • Taeshi
  • one hot bitch
    Administrator
I cannot stand the defence of "oh it's okay for kids to get involved in sexual relationships because some might be more mature than others!"

who the fuck cares. This is to protect kids in general. Besides, since when have people trusted kids who claimed they were mature and knew what they were doing. They DON'T know what they're doing. That is why laws are set up to PROTECT THEM.

I know it starts to get blurry between 14-18 (MAYBE 12-13 but that's seriously seriously pushing it) but anything before is completely wrong and you should not be even arguing this. goodness gracious.
  • #63
  • 19 January 2011 - 03:58 AM
This seems fairly easy for me, from an ethical standpoint:

1) Gay marriage - what two consenting adults do in their own house is none of my business. Nobody is harmed, therefore,
gay marriage is fine.

2) Incest - Just like Taeshi says, this screws up your genes and causes a great deal of harm. It's bad.

3) Bestiality - This harms animals, and many would regard it as cruelty.

4) Pedophilia - This harms children, and is particularly repulsive because of the vulnerability of the victims.

Of these 4, Gay marriage is on a completely separate and distinct moral plane. The (2) to (4) have nothing whatsoever to do with (1).

I'm aware that most of these opinions have been said in prior posts. I thought I'd post a summary with my reasons to condense it down.
  • #64
  • 19 January 2011 - 04:01 AM

View PostTaeshi, on 19 January 2011 - 03:58 AM, said:

I cannot stand the defence of "oh it's okay for kids to get involved in sexual relationships because some might be more mature than others!"

who the fuck cares. This is to protect kids in general. Besides, since when have people trusted kids who claimed they were mature and knew what they were doing. They DON'T know what they're doing. That is why laws are set up to PROTECT THEM.

I know it starts to get blurry between 14-18 but anything before is completely wrong and you should not be even arguing this. goodness gracious.

I think the whole discussion was about that 14-18 area... but I could be mistaken.
  • #65
  • 19 January 2011 - 04:01 AM
  • SushiJaguar
  • Internet Tough Guy<br>P.S. I roleplay as a medieval furry
    Member
Lycan; I was talking to Riff. And don't call me "Mr." It might be my legal title, but it's annoying as hell. Makes me feel old.
  • #66
  • 19 January 2011 - 04:08 AM
I think this topic is very informative to me XD
  • #67
  • 19 January 2011 - 04:10 AM

View PostLycan, on 19 January 2011 - 03:56 AM, said:

Guh, please read post #43, Mr. Sani. :unsure:

Nope, we gotta look at one post, get mad about it, post our dissenting opinion, and leave the thread. ;) I'm just kidding.
  • #68
  • 19 January 2011 - 04:12 AM
Surprised that a flame war hasn't escalated to just plain insulting each other. This is a good forum :D
Anyway... do I really have to say ANYTHING. Every point has been said thousands of times. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT... and WHF, I know you're trying to get people pissed so you can laugh your ass off, but seriously, be ORIGINAL if you're going to do that.
  • #69
  • 19 January 2011 - 04:23 AM
Owned 8-D
  • #70
  • 19 January 2011 - 04:25 AM
There definitely needs to be a balance for adequately guiding children/teenagers through those awkwards times in their life. It starts with the parents. The focus should be for them to teach their children that it is perfectly natural and normal to explore their own sexuality and that of their peers, but need to know the boundaries and consequences of over-stepping them. Children need to see that their parents are not ashamed of their own sexuality. Parents who deliberately conceal their own bodies and sexual encounters through misguided feelings of guilt and shame aren't aware of how much damage they are doing to their children. Society today is littered with premarital sex, unwanted teenage pregnancies, paedophilia, AIDS, etc; but it is the parent's failure to accept that their children are sexual beings. By denying them the right to explore, express and enjoy their sexuality as nature intended, we risk the chance that many of them will grow up to be the paedophiles, perverts, zoophiles and rapists of the future. It's just like when a Catholic school girl is blindly forced to abide to such strict rules and morals throughout her adolescence, that when she is finally free to do as she pleases in college she says "Fuck it. I'm going to do everything I was never able to do before." The parents don't share the sole responsibility of impressing the right values into their kids, but they shouldn't avoid it and hope to god that they are exposed to the right influences elsewhere.

This post has been edited by Purin: 19 January 2011 - 04:32 AM

  • #71
  • 19 January 2011 - 04:31 AM
  • Lycan
  • call me lyucs
    Member

View PostSushiJaguar, on 19 January 2011 - 04:08 AM, said:

Lycan; I was talking to Riff. And don't call me "Mr." It might be my legal title, but it's annoying as hell. Makes me feel old.

:unsure:
Sorry. I hope you know I mean no annoyance. It just sorta comes out >_<

...
Sushi-san? 8-D
(Seriously, I'll really TRY HARD to remember. But I tend to forget things >_<")

@Mr. Moosack
LOL, true XD

@Taeshi-san
"I cannot stand the defence of "oh it's okay for kids to get involved in sexual relationships because some might be more mature than others!""
:/
Who's saying that?
  • #72
  • 19 January 2011 - 04:37 AM
This topic got off track fast.

My opinion so far:
Gay marriage: I support.
Incest: If u love each other, then I guess I'll support u.
Beastality: what ever. Just plz keep to yourself m'kay?
Pedophilia: I STRONGLY go against it! I have 2 sisters and 4 brothers and if I ever heard of someone touching them inappropriately, you and I will have a nice chat in the cellar with my friends the bat and combat knife AKA The Bone-Breaker and The Slicer. Just sayin.
  • #73
  • 19 January 2011 - 04:37 AM

View Postwhf, on 19 January 2011 - 03:13 AM, said:

gays are sinful they rape children


well that's a sterotype I personaly know not to be true for that matter not even actual pedophiles always rape children such as Lewis carol a famos pedophile who, despite being sexually atracted to a child never acted on it. So unless you have any real arguments shut up and avoid socail interactions]

This post has been edited by Godless: 19 January 2011 - 04:59 AM

  • #74
  • 19 January 2011 - 04:37 AM
Just ignore him. Just snooths bein snooths.
  • #75
  • 19 January 2011 - 04:41 AM
  • SushiJaguar
  • Internet Tough Guy<br>P.S. I roleplay as a medieval furry
    Member
Lycan; Chill, I know you weren't being annoying.

Riff; I can't abide by that. "if you love each other". I don't think love comes into most cases of incest. And even if it does, love's just a emotional reaction to the flood of endorphins released around females you are attracted to.
  • #76
  • 19 January 2011 - 04:45 AM
You never know Sushi.
  • #77
  • 19 January 2011 - 04:52 AM
  • Lycan
  • call me lyucs
    Member
Oh, that's a good point to rise:

The whole problem with incest until now has been the "screw genes up", right?
But that screw only the genes of the possible child-to-be-born.
What if blood related couples could only be allowed if they were 'set' not to have children?

In my opinion, that still will not fall on the same boat as gay couples,
but I'm not being able to raise up reasons against incest in that context.
Please forgive me, it's 3AM here and I have Operating Systems test at 8AM. Don't think I'll be sleeping anytime soon =P
BTW, oh, 3AM, comic update!

I'm just raising questions that serve to contribute to our argumentative intellects,
please don't come shouting in anger, disgusted at me, because you'll just be wrong.
If you have an counter argument, don't present it like it's final, and like everyone is stupid if they don't agree >:(
Do it like a gentleman 8-)
  • #78
  • 19 January 2011 - 05:09 AM

View PostGodless, on 19 January 2011 - 04:37 AM, said:

well that's a sterotype I personaly know not to be true


So you're a GAYtheist? :.D
  • #79
  • 19 January 2011 - 05:14 AM
I don't particularly like gay marriage, but gay sex is fine :unsure:

This post has been edited by Mikanada: 19 January 2011 - 05:17 AM

  • #80
  • 19 January 2011 - 05:16 AM

View PostMikanada, on 19 January 2011 - 05:16 AM, said:

I don't particularly like gay marriage


RIGHT ON. PALIN 2012 WOOOO
  • #81
  • 19 January 2011 - 05:19 AM
  • King
  • of incest
    Member
....I apologize for mentioning bestiality, pedophilia, and incest! Sweet Christmas, I didn't think it would be this much of an attention maker (The demon fetuses didn't conjure this much controversy).

I, of course, think pedophilia and all that is wrong....Though I will say if two cousins are in love with each other (LOVE LOVE)and are of lega age to have intercourse, than I feel the area gets more gray. If I'm correct, there's less chance of the baby coming out wrong if its cousins. I'm not saying its right, but I will say that it gets harder to say what's right and wrong.
  • #82
  • 19 January 2011 - 05:20 AM
  • Lycan
  • call me lyucs
    Member
LOL, all Mr. King's fault!

I think it was good, though. Many fruitful debates ensued.
Some raging posts too. :unsure:
  • #83
  • 19 January 2011 - 05:24 AM
  • SushiJaguar
  • Internet Tough Guy<br>P.S. I roleplay as a medieval furry
    Member
King; In those cases, it's hard to say what is right and is wrong. In the end, it's up to the people themselves. If they think it's right then...there's really nothing you can do or say about it. Short of giving them both a shot of sodium pentathol and planting suggestions in their minds.
  • #84
  • 19 January 2011 - 05:28 AM
  • King
  • of incest
    Member

View PostSushiJaguar, on 19 January 2011 - 05:28 AM, said:

King; In those cases, it's hard to say what is right and is wrong. In the end, it's up to the people themselves. If they think it's right then...there's really nothing you can do or say about it. Short of giving them both a shot of sodium pentathol and planting suggestions in their minds.

What are we? Nazi Germany?

...I apologize for that. The joke was a little pass the line. D:

But yeah. I agree with you. That does get a lot harder to find the right answer.

This post has been edited by King: 19 January 2011 - 05:34 AM

  • #85
  • 19 January 2011 - 05:33 AM
  • SushiJaguar
  • Internet Tough Guy<br>P.S. I roleplay as a medieval furry
    Member
Eh, I've heard worse jokes.
  • #86
  • 19 January 2011 - 05:36 AM

View PostJerk, on 19 January 2011 - 05:14 AM, said:

View PostGodless, on 19 January 2011 - 04:37 AM, said:

well that's a sterotype I personaly know not to be true


So you're a GAYtheist? :.D

I...

No I'm not gay jackass I just know gay people

View PostMikanada, on 19 January 2011 - 05:16 AM, said:

I don't particularly like gay marriage, but gay sex is fine :unsure:


would you care to elaborate?
  • #87
  • 19 January 2011 - 05:49 AM
  • Lycan
  • call me lyucs
    Member
Mr. Jerk can't be a jackass.
Only a jerkass.


Sorry. Won't do it again. :unsure:
  • #88
  • 19 January 2011 - 05:51 AM
  • Taeshi
  • one hot bitch
    Administrator

Quote

@Taeshi-san
"I cannot stand the defence of "oh it's okay for kids to get involved in sexual relationships because some might be more mature than others!""

Who's saying that?


You did:

Quote

Is its exceptions. We're not discussing obvious children like that. We're discussing the "What if the underage person has a body built for sex, can have children, is mature enough?"

And, of course, the "What if the adult is not mature"

Exceptions, exceptions!


>:(
  • #89
  • 19 January 2011 - 05:54 AM

View PostJerk, on 19 January 2011 - 05:19 AM, said:

View PostMikanada, on 19 January 2011 - 05:16 AM, said:

I don't particularly like gay marriage


RIGHT ON. PALIN 2012 WOOOO


the fact that you went with palin and not maccain is, at best disturbing, can't you see how fucking stupid she is!?
  • #90
  • 19 January 2011 - 06:00 AM
  • King
  • of incest
    Member

View PostGodless, on 19 January 2011 - 06:00 AM, said:

View PostJerk, on 19 January 2011 - 05:19 AM, said:

View PostMikanada, on 19 January 2011 - 05:16 AM, said:

I don't particularly like gay marriage


RIGHT ON. PALIN 2012 WOOOO


the fact that you went with palin and not maccain is, at best disturbing, can't you see how fucking stupid she is!?

Now, now. Can we not go there with this discussion? Or at least try to keep it civil. I understand having different opinions, but we should try to accept other opinions, whether they are wrong or not.
  • #91
  • 19 January 2011 - 06:05 AM

View PostGodless, on 19 January 2011 - 05:49 AM, said:

I...

No I'm not gay jackass I just know gay people


Intimately? :)

View PostGodless, on 19 January 2011 - 06:00 AM, said:

the fact that you went with palin and not maccain is, at best disturbing, can't you see how fucking stupid she is!?


McCain's still alive? :O
  • #92
  • 19 January 2011 - 06:06 AM

View PostMikanada, on 19 January 2011 - 05:16 AM, said:

I don't particularly like gay marriage, but gay sex is fine :unsure:



I'm curious as well. What aspect of gay marriage is unappealing to you? The religious aspects? or another factor?
  • #93
  • 19 January 2011 - 06:10 AM
  • King
  • of incest
    Member

View PostMikanada, on 19 January 2011 - 05:16 AM, said:

I don't particularly like gay marriage, but gay sex is fine :unsure:

Granted, lesbian sex is hot....
  • #94
  • 19 January 2011 - 06:12 AM
@jerk

Oh grow up. I've had more then my fair share of this shit already

This post has been edited by Godless: 19 January 2011 - 06:32 AM

  • #95
  • 19 January 2011 - 06:31 AM

View PostPants, on 19 January 2011 - 06:10 AM, said:

View PostMikanada, on 19 January 2011 - 05:16 AM, said:

I don't particularly like gay marriage, but gay sex is fine :unsure:



I'm curious as well. What aspect of gay marriage is unappealing to you? The religious aspects? or another factor?


It is not religion(I'm Atheist), I'm just a pretty neutral person and I just have no feelings one way or the other about it. My "neutrality" is also why I hate people who get easily offended. >:O
  • #96
  • 19 January 2011 - 06:46 AM
Bawww. Poor you. I only seize upon the fact that you can't understand sarcasm when it's sitting on your face. Because, I'll be blunt: it's pretty funny watching you miss the point or jump to conclusions. That's probably why you keep getting "more than your fair share of shit."

Hell, I hardly disagree with the things you believe but I think you take the most retarded routes possible to arrive at those conclusions and to express them.
  • #97
  • 19 January 2011 - 06:48 AM
I believe that people should have the right to be able to marry someone of the same sex if they so desire.
  • #98
  • 19 January 2011 - 06:51 AM

View PostTaeshi, on 19 January 2011 - 03:11 AM, said:

It's all a case of not being able to consent (children, animals), and a case of they actually freaken ruin genes (incest)

It's so offensive that people compare gays to this. There is NOTHING WRONG with being gay, but you can point out so many things wrong with the three before. I'm astounded we're even having this argument.


I'm glad that someone posted this. Yes, people, this is pretty much the bare basics of morality.

The other reason for outlawing incest is that it's thought to violate free will when a family member can effectively run someone's entire life and then marry them and keep running it. A girl coming of age and marrying her father, uncle, older brother, older cousin - people she's lived with and depended on with no outside support all her life - started to look like life-long slavery.

But yeah, as far as my limited understanding goes, a lot of genetic diseases do nothing as long as we got a good gene from one parent to override the bad gene from the other. So, if you're good-good-bad-bad-good and I'm good-good-bad-good-bad, only one genetic disease for the child. If we're both good-good-bad-bad-good, then two. One is probably enough.

It's probably not so bad for western boys to lust after asian women, then!

Anyway, I might compare homosexuality more to being a nun. Both have chosen a deviant lifestyle that is not in keeping with the guidelines we're taught throughout life: heterosexual marriage, pop out a few kids naturally, try not to divorce and have custody battles.
  • #99
  • 19 January 2011 - 06:51 AM

View PostMikanada, on 19 January 2011 - 06:46 AM, said:

View PostPants, on 19 January 2011 - 06:10 AM, said:

View PostMikanada, on 19 January 2011 - 05:16 AM, said:

I don't particularly like gay marriage, but gay sex is fine :unsure:



I'm curious as well. What aspect of gay marriage is unappealing to you? The religious aspects? or another factor?


It is not religion(I'm Atheist), I'm just a pretty neutral person and I just have no feelings one way or the other about it. My "neutrality" is also why I hate people who get easily offended. >:O


Fair enough. Lots of white knighting regarding the gay movement these days (me included :x). But if it's no opinion one way or the other, I can dig it.

As a small aside, wouldn't agnostic be more aligned to giving you a neutral viewpoint on religious beliefs then Atheist?
  • #100
  • 19 January 2011 - 06:53 AM
  • 10 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users