StarGateWars Forums

Julietta Putina wrote:

Legendary Apophis wrote:This word "bigot" I see rising up every time this subject is brought in, looks to me to be one of those words overused at every situation, mostly wrongly, just like "racism", "communism" and "fascism".
Semper didn't sound "bigot" at all, at least to me. However, sorry to say that, but Avenger sounds to be a bigot regarding homosexuality subject. A hardcore one might I add.

You seem not to understand the concept of bigotry.

Stating your intent to kill all homosexuals is absolutely the opposite of bigotry. Bigotry would be saying "oh, we are all equal" and then snort derisively while you poke fun at homosexuals for their being funny.


Indeed.

Hmmm...I just consider this concept differently than you do I suppose. I agree with one of the definitions of wikipedia:

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

Which fits perfectly not only the ultraconservatives but also in another way the political correctness/neo conformist warriors one can see in the medias and internet medias.

Julietta Putina wrote:Allowing homosexuals to adopt children will improve the welfare of those children. Of course, fat white kids should not be adopted by anyone, but rather sent to the uranium mines in the Kongo. Rather allow eighteen of mister Deepak Halalali's twenty children to die of hard labour, one to flourish in their native habitat, and one to flourish in the undeniably better environment of Steve and Adam. Uh-yeah.

Well there are also many heterosexuals who want to adopt children for various reasons, some of them very logical and obvious. So it's not like welfare of children-in-need cannot already be improved with all the heterosexual couples who want/need to adopt, and I do think they are also an "undeniably better environment" for said children, also having one other advantage of having a balanced couple roles-wise (mother and father). Mother and father have different roles, I have been a child myself too and I noticed pretty much the difficulty of having the separation and seeing my father less. But I still have a father even if I see him less as he lives far. But, how can it be considered to be stability when there's no father at all or no mother at all? That's not even like single parent raised children, as there you have two mothers/no father or two fathers/no mother, talk about confusion. It's not even about how other kids would make jokes, because they always do anyway. It's something more serious than that.

She is trolling~

Julietta Putina wrote:

Semper wrote:I believe that in the general sense of the word marriage is a religious ceremony and as a point blank statement homosexuals should not be allowed to be married in the general sense of the word.

I believe that it's an insult to religious people and it shouldn't be a case of tit for tat. Homosexual marriage in the eyes of the law is a different thing.. and they should be allowed the same civil rights (all but one) as a couple but the actual name, ceremony and the rest are religious things and the rights of peoples religions to practise as they want within reason (and I think restricted ceremonies is within reason) should be respected equally as the homosexuals that desire equality.

It is more about semantics than anything but in this world semantics go very far and in a situation where both parties can be satisfied by a more than reasonable middle ground I don't see the need for further debate really. Homo's get Civvy P's and Hetero's get Marrie's!

Despite it's shadowy history the term and ceremony have been long adapted by religion and religious marriage has become it's own institution with that word being cardinal representation in varying classes of language.

[spoiler]I am however strongly against homosexuals adopting children as I can see that being an avenue for psychological issues from likely, but not inevitable bullying at school, potential sexual confusion (which in itself can be psychologically and socially damaging) and unbalanced developmental role models.[/spoiler]

You, sir, are a bigot. Additionally, your argument is trivial and circular.

Allowing homosexuals to adopt children will improve the welfare of those children. Of course, fat white kids should not be adopted by anyone, but rather sent to the uranium mines in the Kongo. Rather allow eighteen of mister Deepak Halalali's twenty children to die of hard labour, one to flourish in their native habitat, and one to flourish in the undeniably better environment of Steve and Adam. Uh-yeah.

There are literally hundreds of different churches in Western Christianity already. I call the Mormons to the stand, testifying in favour of polygamy. Since polygamy is similarly a 'hot topic', it stands to reason that regarding homosexuality, there is no such thing as 'christian doctrine' on the subject. The argument that the religious aspect of marriage is exclusive, is comical at best.



So yeah. Bigot. Buh-bye.

hahahaha... I have to say even for me a bigot is a new one, it's usually evil or monstrous. Much appreciated.

None the less it's trivial in what regards? Homosexuals deserve the right to marriage because they're the same as a heterosexual couple with the sam... oh wait. No they're not! I'm quite happy for them to have very similar rights as a normal married couple but I say if they want respect then respect should be given elsewhere too.

Your logic is also flawed. You're presenting me with a tautology that all homosexual couples will be better parents and provide better lives. How do you justify this? What pop-subject knowledge lets you make such a claim. I know with great confidence children get bullied for numerous reasons, nature of parents being one. I know children pick up a lot of things from their parents by observational learning amongst other methods. I know children with different sexual preferences get bullied.. they don't all but I don't think society has matured to allow that to occur safely yet.

I also made no comment as to what type of heterosexual couple should be allowed to adopt, in fact I made no comment to imply that everyone of them should be able to. I merely stated reasons why I thought homosexual couples should not without a heterosexual contrast in any way. You've made an illogical jump from one extreme to another and to put it simply put words in my mouth. I can see you're saying that I type cast every homosexual couple as negative thereby because of a few bad apples the heterosexual camp should be equally as bad, yet in the case of homosexual's I am rooting out problems that can evolve from a nature present in every homosexual couple. In the other hand you're taking deviant or dysfunctional examples (some fairly extreme ones at that), clearly not actively present in even a majority of heterosexual couples and applying it across the board. You could say they all have brains so the root of that deviant nature is there.. but that's taking the argument ad absurdium.

There are hundreds of western churches but one can, as is a common factor within society overlook the minorities for the greater good of the many and as the many can generally be put nicely into one of four/five major religions (Buddhism, Christianity/Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism), three of which are not too favouring the homosexual side of things and the main one with 2bill members using marriage as the term for it's religious ceremony we can safely ignore the varieties of that otherwise we might as well start campaigning for equal rights of those practising bestiality and paedophilia up there with your homosexuals. No? Thought not....

Semper wrote:I believe that in the general sense of the word marriage is a religious ceremony and as a point blank statement homosexuals should not be allowed to be married in the general sense of the word.

I believe that it's an insult to religious people and it shouldn't be a case of tit for tat. Homosexual marriage in the eyes of the law is a different thing.. and they should be allowed the same civil rights (all but one) as a couple but the actual name, ceremony and the rest are religious things and the rights of peoples religions to practise as they want within reason (and I think restricted ceremonies is within reason) should be respected equally as the homosexuals that desire equality.

It is more about semantics than anything but in this world semantics go very far and in a situation where both parties can be satisfied by a more than reasonable middle ground I don't see the need for further debate really. Homo's get Civvy P's and Hetero's get Marrie's!

Despite it's shadowy history the term and ceremony have been long adapted by religion and religious marriage has become it's own institution with that word being cardinal representation in varying classes of language.

[spoiler]I am however strongly against homosexuals adopting children as I can see that being an avenue for psychological issues from likely, but not inevitable bullying at school, potential sexual confusion (which in itself can be psychologically and socially damaging) and unbalanced developmental role models.[/spoiler]

I subscribe to this! Well made points and solid arguments.

I think as Semper has said, it's semantics. Sure, marriage is a term coined by christianty. So the legal institution shouldnt really be called marriage for both hetero and homosexual partnerships. The majority of governments in this world allow freedom of thought and belief. So for a legal process to be associated with a specific religion is out of place in itself. If you have freedom of opinion and belief, then why is it a legal law to discriminate against exactly that.

The bottom line is this, Queers (i prefer the term sickos or degenerates), can have the same equality (or whatever the hell they are asking for) in the eyes of the law, but as a "married" man i am OFFENDED they want to give their same sex union the same name as my union to a female partner. That OFFENDS ME GREATLY!

What also offends me greatly is that they want kids. if they want kids so badly they can find a partner and have one together...otherwise...tough **Filtered**!

Of all the thousands and thousands of words i cannot believe they cannot find...better yet, create their own word. why is it...oh NVM!


I'm no bigot, i just don't tolerate this kind of crap...and if i may be so bold, unless any of you are queer...neither should any of you!

@G (not about this last post in particular but towards your earlier posts in this thread and elsewhere)
I used to be like this (great hostility towards homosexuals) when I was a teen because I found it disgusting. But then I realized that why should I have hate towards people who practice that sexuality when it is between two adults and not a sexual assault? After all, they aren't assaulting children, animals, dead people, so it's fine by law. Sure it's a bit strange, but it's their choice, if they want to have relationship with the same gender, it's not hurting any institution (as long as they don't ask for marriage for reasons listed before -_-). As I said I am not a bigot/narrow minded as I used to be.
Why do I care if guys have fornication between each others as long as they don't do it in public (well neither should heterosexuals might I add lol, not talking about pornography but in public places/in the streets)?
I don't understand your animosity towards them, considering homosexuality even exists among animals in small % as well, it's not that "unnatural" as some think.

So you would dump a friend or family member if you found out they were homosexual/bisexual while they on the other hand not have tried to bother you with flirting (in the case of a male homosexual)? That seems quite harsh to me. I used to think so when I was a teen but I realized it would be such a great mistake backed with nothing solid to go in this way. End friendship because you find out the person is homo/bi (note I am not listing the real diseases like zoophils, pedophils, necrophils and other yuckworthy sexual foolishness) makes one wonder if you really were friend with that person.

Same sex couples adopt children you know George. Children that would otherwise be without a stable, loving and safe environment for their physical and emotional well being and development.

Being such a believer in the whole family union thing, would you deny a child the right to these things just because you are disgusted by homosexuality? If so, it makes you something of a hypocrite to be very blunt with you.

I would say being "offended" isn't a sufficient reason to oppose something and convince others that it should be wrong. Have arguments due to explain your offendedness is more productive than just saying you are offended. But of course some arguments sound more accurate than others depending on many factors...

@Jim,I hate them for reasons i am not willing to go into. i understand the difference between consenting adults, downright evil (such as paedos) and "yuckworthy" behaviour (such as bestiality). the only thing i hate more than homos are paedos, for obvious reasons.

As i said and without going into details...they disgust me, look at some of them, they don't look right!

I was going to post a few images to show you what i mean (don't worry, nothing nasty), but i can't even bring myself to look at the images without throwing up!

As for the friendship thing, i can count on less than 1 hand my friends the rest are acquaintances, or people i know. people that know me know that i don't give my friendship easily and i do not count friendship as something that is easily thrown away. having said that, people around me also know not to lie, hide or otherwise betray my friendship. in short, they know where i stand and that if needs be, i will go to the end of the earth and back for my friends. they also know that i am a VERY easy going guy. friendship to me is more than just a word, it is for lack of a better word, family

General Riviera wrote:Same sex couples adopt children you know George. Children that would otherwise be without a stable, loving and safe environment for their physical and emotional well being and development.

It's not the same thing mate. lets say you have a child-who if raised in a hetro home, either by his/her biological parents or foster parents or even left to grow up on the streets without being influenced 1 way or the other-would otherwise grow up to be hetro and you then go and ask that child as an adult "would it have bothered you if you had been raised by gays"...i SERIOUSLY doubt they would be 100% comfortable that as a child and unable to make any kind of informed decision had an arbitrary decision made for them to stick them in such an environment...would you have been happy with such a decision? i sure as hell wouldn't be anywhere near happy with such a decision made for me by a complete stranger working for the state trying to fill quotas regardless of my personal feelings...see where i am coming from?

General Riviera wrote:Being such a believer in the whole family union thing, would you deny a child the right to these things just because you are disgusted by homosexuality? If so, it makes you something of a hypocrite to be very blunt with you.

How can anyone in their right mind class same sex couples as "family". dunno about you guys and depending on the context and use of the word, that's not the image i get in my head when someone uses the word "family".





Anyways, i'm off to read a new book i have. Bloodlines of the Illuminati by Fritz Springmeier

Say what you want, you're quite consistent.
Gotta respect that.

KMA, it is ok that one out of your 3 sons is gay. There is nothing wrong with it.......... Or that your dad is gay.....someone in your family is....considering how you say its a private matter.

Now as for the child stuff, thats bs.

My Aunt is gay and her daughter who is like less than a year older than me(im 22) and she is smart, grew up right. Has no problems in life that pertain to reasons that she has 2 moms. Shes married and lives in a nice house. We are close since we were young and she is just fine.

Being gay is not a disease or anything like that.

Also I can show you pics of male and female couples that arnt right. Hell some are just down right frakking sick. Dont go all acting like gays are the only ones like that.


Its people like who, who should all be killed and/or cured of this thinking of everyone who offends me or doesnt do what I think is right should be killed or something. Though things with pedeo's, I do agree that they should should be killed or have the penis cut off with no pain killers while it happens.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:@Jim,I hate them for reasons i am not willing to go into. i understand the difference between consenting adults, downright evil (such as paedos) and "yuckworthy" behaviour (such as bestiality). the only thing i hate more than homos are paedos, for obvious reasons.

As i said and without going into details...they disgust me, look at some of them, they don't look right!

I was going to post a few images to show you what i mean (don't worry, nothing nasty), but i can't even bring myself to look at the images without throwing up!

That right there is such homophobic bs I can't believe I'm actually reading it from you KMA. One of my best mates is gay, as are two colleagues at university, and all three are stand-up blokes. I personally find it sick they have to put up with such crap as "they don't look right!" What utter drivel....

You want to make an argument against gay marriage on religious reasons, fine. But to deny their right to exist because "they don't look right" and "they disgust me" is some of the most prejudiced nonsense I've read on these boards...

It still amazes me in the wrong way that when debating about yes/no to homosexual marriage, the right to existence of homosexuals/bisexuals is still questioned among arguments against homosexual marriage...which makes it easy for the "favourable" side to demonize the whole "against" side regardless of the why's they are against it.
I would expect such extreme arguments if I was to debate with a neo-nazi or a radical islamist (I wouldn't want to debate with either of these so much they are narrow-minded and at the antipodes of my views), them being homophobic to a level it's hard to reach, coupled with orientation insecurity and closet feelings...but there it's rather strange because you aren't either of these kind of guys...

So someone's got a different opinion from what you guys consider natural. So what? You go at him with sharpened pitchforks and razorblades tied to burning lemons at the crack of dawn? Barbarians.
Judging [KMA]Avenger for his ideas is the very thing you're accusing him of doing.

Take a look in the mirror and scare yourself shoeless.