Janszoon

Like I said: irrelevant. Thanks for highlighting how irrelevant your comment was though.

Freebase, go for it man.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Freebase Dali

He'll be back in a week.
He has been trolling the mods and community ever since he was denied when he first came here trying to promote/advertise. So if he still feels the need to do so when he returns in a week, my personal action will be a permanent ban.

And if he tries to circumvent the current ban, an IP ban will be immediately requested.

So let's move on, shall we?

Buzzov*en

i don't see a problem with homosexuality at all. it's sad that people are that ****ing ignorant they gotta hate on a group of people.

__________________

hip hop bunny hop

No, the data stated - clearly - that there is a difference. What the researcher then went on to do is cherry pick homosexuals above an undefined income & education level and then stated that same sex parents were a "minor determinant".

Define homophobe.

Do I think homosexuality is disgusting? Absolutely. Do I think homosexuals make inferior parents to heterosexual parents? Yep. Do I want to pay for their unproductive lifestyle? Nope. I don't want to kill them, and I don't think they should be imprisoned or tortured or what have you - although the gay pride B.S. is certainly annoying.

I don't see how this isn't congruent with atheism. Why should an atheist operate under Christian slave morality? Could someone even be called an atheist if they continued to operate under this slave morality?

No, not the state - but if we use anthropology as a tool, you'll find that marriage (for the VAST majority of human history, and I'd argue for most humans continuing to live today) is not out of love. It is, and was, a practicial institution used to produce heirs and navigate patrilineal, matrilineal, or bilineal societys to ones advantage.

The notion of marriage for love is really quite novel, and considering how divorce rates have skyrocketed, I'd say it hasn't been succesful.

Why do you harp on equality and discrimination? Not all things are equal, nor should they be treated as such. Anyways, again - gays can get married in any and all states. The only thing that some states prevent is from having legally recognized marriages occur in their state. Why is this not sufficient? Why should they be entitled to tax benefits designed to benefit the single social arrangement which is most likely to produce children?
Anyways, married people pay less in taxes. This is a fact. So it'd be impossible for a homosexual couple in the USA to pay more in taxes as a married couple than they otherwise would.

So myself and the rest of my society should subsidize a social relationship which doesn't benefit society?

__________________
Have mercy on the poor.

Buzzov*en

Homophobia - basically negative feelings directed torwards homosexuals, bisexuals, and transexuals. You fit that perfectly. You're a homophobe.

__________________

lucifer_sam

I'd argue that commonly, marriage is still very much a socioeconomic contract, divorce itself (especially the concept of alimony) being the almighty collateral. Producing heirs is the evolutionary flip of the coin, but marriage really hasn't evolved much over time. And when you think about it, same-sex marriage puts that contract at an even keel, since the gender roles are the same.

There's not much sacred about marriage. It just sort of grew around the "I'll provide food for you and your progenitors if you have sex with me" contract that's existed since the beginning. Yup, can't have any homos invalidating the practicality of that institution.

If you're going to offer critiques of marriage as an institution, why pick a side? I say homosexuals have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us.

__________________
first.am

RVCA

You're just a bigot then. Do you acknowledge that homosexuality is not a choice? That homosexuals are "born that way", so to speak?

Not to mention that the whole "marriage as a benefit to society" argument falls apart when given the fact that over half of all marriages in the U.S. end in divorce.

hip hop bunny hop

link <---there is no shortage of feminists who would argue the very opposite. John Waters makes fun of them in "This Filthy World", in fact. But, to your point, I'd say for most it isn't a conscious decision.

__________________
Have mercy on the poor.

RVCA

There is a clear difference between calling yourself a lesbian just to identify with a social movement, and being physically stimulated by the same sex. You seem to agree, then, that the latter is not something an individual chooses.

So then it would seem you're willingly discriminating against homosexuals for something you acknowledge was not their choice. Doesn't that make you just as bad as all the other racist and misogynist mother****ers out there? Are you okay with identifying yourself as a homophobe and a bigot?

Mykonos

I never got the 'dem puffs choose to be puffs hurrdurrdurrdurr' argument, and I never will. Let's look at the downsides of choosing to be homosexual. For one thing, you'd be denied any sexual interaction with the opposite gender that you'd naturally find attractive, and in return you'd likely be having frequent sex with the same sex that you'd not be attracted to. You would be ruthlessly discriminated against by many people for ridiculous reasons, you'd be stereotyped by many more people, you run the risk of losing friends and family that don't like your 'choice', you will be banned from some sectors in some countries such as the US army, and you run the risk of being targeted for hate crime. Picking the short end of the stick just to identify with a movement isn't something most people would choose to do, and the argument that it is sickens me.

__________________
'Not that Becktionary, the Rhyming Becktionary!'- Bender Bending Rodriguez