Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-29-2012, 09:53 PM   #211 (permalink)
Mwana Nzala
 
Franco Pepe Kalle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Shakopee, Minnesota
Posts: 603
Default

Unknown Soldier,

Are you kidding me. You honestly seem to think that Minnesota is the most homophobe place in the world. Go live in Africa, the hate of homosexuals are bigger. I mean in my native country, if you are homosexual, most people try their best not to help you and if you were beat up then many people would walk by and laugh. Uganda had attempted to legalize a law that legalize killing Homosxauls for being gay.
__________________
The problem with Franco Pepe Kalle is that he is a unpredictable character. There is surprising info about this man. You think he only likes Franco and Pepe Kalle but when you find out that he hears other artists, you are shock.

Girls are the sexy thing that God created.

Important to notice FPK.
Franco Pepe Kalle is offline  
Old 02-29-2012, 10:06 PM   #212 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,760
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle View Post
Uganda had attempted to legalize a law that legalize killing Homosxauls for being gay.


They EAT DA POO POO

like ice cream
Farfisa is offline  
Old 03-01-2012, 02:13 AM   #213 (permalink)
Horribly Creative
 
Unknown Soldier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, The Big Smoke
Posts: 8,220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farfisa View Post
It will, if gays marry. DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A COUNTRY LIKE THAT?
Whether gays marry or not, has no affect on the birth rates of a country. I've been led to believe, that gay men are not normally in the habit of fathering children so whether they are married or not is really irrelevent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle View Post
Unknown Soldier,

Are you kidding me. You honestly seem to think that Minnesota is the most homophobe place in the world. Go live in Africa, the hate of homosexuals are bigger. I mean in my native country, if you are homosexual, most people try their best not to help you and if you were beat up then many people would walk by and laugh. Uganda had attempted to legalize a law that legalize killing Homosxauls for being gay.
Yes I am kidding you, I stated that Minnesota had homophobes that lived in shacks, you and a few other people, that is all.

I really don't know why you're bringing the African example into this debate, the USA like Western Europe are democracies, where individual rights and freedom of choice are given facts of life. The hostilities and hatreds of the developing world, should have no place within these democracies.
Unknown Soldier is offline  
Old 03-01-2012, 05:22 AM   #214 (permalink)
Mate, Spawn & Die
 
Janszoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farfisa View Post


They EAT DA POO POO

like ice cream
No matter how many times I see that, it never gets old.

Have you ever seen the remix?

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by P A N View Post
i'm not gonna spend my life on music banter trying to convince people the earth is flat.
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
Janszoon is offline  
Old 03-01-2012, 11:00 AM   #215 (permalink)
Oh my golly!
 
Above's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: England
Posts: 335
Default

HHBH, just come out of the closet already. You'll be a lot happier for it.
__________________
Be pure,
Be vigilant,
Behave
Above is offline  
Old 03-01-2012, 01:00 PM   #216 (permalink)
Get in ma belly
 
Salami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 1,355
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop View Post
I, however, object to state recognized marriage same sex marriage because:
Quote:
In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
OK, you've quoted from this source here: Secular case against gay marriage, but in that I haven't seen any external support for any of the points he made there whatsoever, and I'm frankly very mistrustful of that source.
This comes from the chilling conclusion to his article that reads as follows:
Quote:
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
Here, it really just seems to collapse onto the wearisome argument that marriage between homosexuals is the first step in a deterioration of morals and the cheapening of marriage.
This, as I need not point out is a fallacy known as a "slippery slope" argument. Why? Because it relies on assuming that there will be a trend in the requests for civil rights here, and that soon people will start bending the definition of marriage further here.

Like it or not, the whole article makes an extremely controversial assumption: that love ISN'T the main reason for marriage, or at least should be ruled out of the question when MONEY is thought of.

Personally, when I get married it is because I love the other person, not because I already want children. As Unknown Soldier has very kindly pointed out, why is "propagating the population" so damn important? There's definitely no sign of decline, world overcrowding is becoming a very serious problem with food and natural resources being stretched over an increasingly large number.

I have tons more to say here, but I shall have to finish with one final observation before the strange man with the whip comes along to drag me away to that strange homoerotic wrestling match where they make us young teenagers fight naked, and that is the following:

Quote:
If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other?
For goodness sake, there's no suggestion made by anyone that this is going to happen. There are separate laws, such as laws against incest, which forbid them. It's showing that he's effectively putting gay marriage in the same boat as incest.
Salami is offline  
Old 03-01-2012, 03:28 PM   #217 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
hip hop bunny hop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salami View Post
OK, you've quoted from this source here: Secular case against gay marriage, but in that I haven't seen any external support for any of the points he made there whatsoever, and I'm frankly very mistrustful of that source.
External support for what, exactly?


[QUOTE=Salami;1160659 As Unknown Soldier has very kindly pointed out, why is "propagating the population" so damn important? There's definitely no sign of decline, world overcrowding is becoming a very serious problem with food and natural resources being stretched over an increasingly large number.[/QUOTE]

If that's what you believe, why would you argue for an extension of marriage benefits to more people in society? Why not just get rid of them entirelly?

The rest of your post doesn't deal with what I said, the quotes I pulled from the article, or the general point of my post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier View Post
Whether gays marry or not, has no affect on the birth rates of a country. I've been led to believe, that gay men are not normally in the habit of fathering children so whether they are married or not is really irrelevent.
Correct; so, why should the rest of society subsidize their marriages?
__________________
Have mercy on the poor.
hip hop bunny hop is offline  
Old 03-01-2012, 03:47 PM   #218 (permalink)
Horribly Creative
 
Unknown Soldier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, The Big Smoke
Posts: 8,220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop View Post
Correct; so, why should the rest of society subsidize their marriages?
Because, they themselves are helping to subsidize the marriages of the society that they belong to.
Unknown Soldier is offline  
Old 03-01-2012, 03:52 PM   #219 (permalink)
Get in ma belly
 
Salami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 1,355
Default

Huh. I won't deny it: I'm disappointed with you. I expected more than three two simple questions and a rude observation. I was hoping for some real fire and for my post to be sliced in pieces with the aid of many scholarly research papers. Even a bit of trolling would have been warmly appreciated, such telling me I ought to be at school or that I'm too young to understand. Well, here goes anyway...

Quote:
Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop View Post
External support for what, exactly?
I personally find a lot of the claims there to be be made out to be from US law, and that this article was stating it to be the case. For instance:
Quote:
In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Where in US law does it say that? Where in US law does it say that "propagating society" is the most important reason for marriage? I think that for issues so important, some kind of reference would be expected.
Quote:
If that's what you believe, why would you argue for an extension of marriage benefits to more people in society? Why not just get rid of them entirelly?
This here doesn't give credit to what I think is marriage as a whole. It's not about money, neither is it solely for increasing the population. It's a way of publically expressing your love for another person, and starting a family. The function of the family itself isn't money either, and I don't think that offspring should be necessary for a family to be recognised.
Quote:
The rest of your post doesn't deal with what I said, the quotes I pulled from the article, or the general point of my post.
This is more like it: completely ignoring what was my critique of the article you referenced.
Come on, I'm sure there was a lot in there that was directly relevant to what you quoted, just have a bash and tell me why I'm wrong about it.
Quote:
Correct; so, why should the rest of society subsidize their marriages?
You aren't purposely forgetting that financial commitments are being made by the gay people themselves? They pay like everyone else, society doesn't have a rule that marriages ought only to be permitted if children are planned.

OK, let me ask you a question: supposing that gay marriage were to be proposed WITHOUT any form of state subsidy whatsoever. Would you still object even if you as a taxpayer weren't in any way paying for it?
Salami is offline  
Old 03-01-2012, 03:56 PM   #220 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
hip hop bunny hop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier View Post
Because, they themselves are helping to subsidize the marriages of the society that they belong to.
Single people and non-married couples also help subsidize marriages of the society to which they belong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salami View Post
OK, let me ask you a question: supposing that gay marriage were to be proposed WITHOUT any form of state subsidy whatsoever. Would you still object even if you as a taxpayer weren't in any way paying for it?
They can already do this.
__________________
Have mercy on the poor.
hip hop bunny hop is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2021 Advameg, Inc.