Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Why do people support same-sex marriage?
  • Subject: Why do people support same-sex marriage?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4
Subject: Why do people support same-sex marriage?
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I like Cheese

Actually, whenever a Baby is in the womb, that is the place where the baby's -blam!-ity is defined, so stop!
You're ignorant, and marriage is rather a legal thing rather then religious, as it has legal benefits such as Tax breaks and such.
I hope you get banned just because of your pure ignorance.

  • 01.01.2013 8:02 AM PDT

BE HUMAN

Fight for Earth. Fight for Humanity.

SIX SIX SIX READ THIS

1. Do you CARE about homo-blam!- people?

2. What is your opinion on them?

3. Why do you think you should say why two people who love each other cannot be together?

  • 01.01.2013 8:03 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Funny how the post was reported when it isn't rule breaking

Funny how people are flaming the OP just because he has a different opinion than you all.

Stay classy Flood.

  • 01.01.2013 8:03 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: crazyfoomandude

Posted by: SIX SIX SIX

Posted by: Biack Rose66
Because marriage carries over into the legal field which has strictly defined standards for citizens and generally, America has learned that the whole separate but equal game is entirely unnecessary.

Also, your statement is false. You are not entirely biologically wired for being attracted to the opposite sex. Studies show that if a male human baby is exposed to more estrogen in the womb, they have a greater chance of being -blam!--blam!-. Nice try with the science though.

Also, you fail to mention the legal benefits of marriage that civil unions do not have. This a bigger field than the one you are talking about.

You're still biologically wired to be attracted to the opposite sex. What you said is not biological it is altering the fetus in development but the genes have not changed. So you're wrong.

Also most states don't recognize same-sex unions so most likely there is no legal benefits either. So you're wrong again.


-blam!--blam!-ity is when gentic wiring takes a left turn in development and you feel attracted to the opposite sex. There is no way around it, they would probably never be attracted to the opposite sex again.


Finally OP, and I want your answer in this, do you CARE about people who are -blam!-? What is your opinion on this?

Hurry with the answer, the BlackList is on your trail.

PS YOU'RE wrong, not Black Rose.

Citation needed. As far as I know homo-blam!-ity is a comparatively common mutation.

Also the first part I said if you have a bi mindset but only like your own sex then you are contradicting yourself but if you are truly biologically homosex you still shouldn't marry.

  • 01.01.2013 8:04 AM PDT

Life?
I have the internet and Doctor Who; i don't need a life.

that OP reads like a 12 year-old's RE homework.

  • 01.01.2013 8:05 AM PDT

BE HUMAN

Fight for Earth. Fight for Humanity.

Answer my damn questions.

  • 01.01.2013 8:05 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: SIX SIX SIX
I find it stupid even though I'm not religious.

First of all one of the main arguments for supporting it is that people should be able to be with someone they are attracted to personality-wise instead of physically. But I find that stupid because according to that bi is a better alternative than being same-sex exclusive.
How is this relevant?

In addition if you are with someone of the same sex just for their personality it will never work out since you are biologically wired for being attracted to the opposite sex. It will make for an awkward relationship and likely you will break up. The only remaining possibility is that if you are actually biologically wired to be attracted to the same sex.
All. My. Whut. If you're biologically wired to be attracted to the opposite sex then you aren't ghey.

If you are biologically programmed to like your own sex it still makes no sense. It makes no sense because these people can't have children anyway. Having biological children is kinda signing a contract saying that this will last. It also bonds the partners. So yeah it will still make for an awkward relationship anyway. The couple will also not be contributing to the gene pool.
Ever heard of adoption?

  • 01.01.2013 8:05 AM PDT

BE HUMAN

Fight for Earth. Fight for Humanity.


Posted by: crazyfoomandude
SIX SIX SIX READ THIS

1. Do you CARE about -blam!--blam!- people?

2. What is your opinion on them?

3. Why do you think you should say why two people who love each other cannot be together?


ANSWER TO THIS OP

  • 01.01.2013 8:06 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Forever MS
Funny how the post was reported when it isn't rule breaking

Funny how people are flaming the OP just because he has a different opinion than you all.

Stay classy Flood.
We aren't flaming him for having a different opinion, we're flaming him for being a -blam!- idiot.

  • 01.01.2013 8:06 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Deva Path


Posted by: DecepticonCobra

We are all going to get banned aren't we?


Posted by: Forever MS
Funny how the post was reported when it isn't rule breaking

Funny how people are flaming the OP just because he has a different opinion than you all.

Stay classy Flood.


Being black I see this issue as the same as racial inequality "back in the good ole days"


He is getting flamed for "having a different opinion" just like they are being oppressed just because they like another sex.


Funny how the spartans and were G@y but everybody loves the movie's and lore about them. Queen was G@y but everybody bites the dust.

  • 01.01.2013 8:07 AM PDT
  • This post has been reported for violating the code of conduct. Click arrow to view at your own risk.


Posted by: Forever MS
Funny how the post was reported when it isn't rule breaking

Funny how people are flaming the OP just because he has a different opinion than you all.

Stay classy Flood.


You're right and wrong here. He has an opinion which he has semi-clearly expressed (I have no idea what his definition of biologically wired is, as that is in itself a heated topic, especially in the context of beginning of life) but he is also asking a question and reaching out to the community to have it answered. He is being flamed because he put himself out there to ask a question with an opinion that is very ambiguous. If he kept his opinion as that, then he would be fine.

  • 01.01.2013 8:08 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: crazyfoomandude

Posted by: crazyfoomandude
SIX SIX SIX READ THIS

1. Do you CARE about -blam!--blam!- people?

2. What is your opinion on them?

3. Why do you think you should say why two people who love each other cannot be together?


ANSWER TO THIS OP

1. Homosex people are people too, nothing more, nothing less. But marriage (long term partnership) is something between two of the opposite sex, as it has been since millions of years, since sex­ual reproduction developed in evolutionary history.
2. They're people. Nothing more, nothing less.
3. Because they are the same sex. Why can't a human and a dog who love each other be together?

[Edited on 01.01.2013 8:13 AM PST]

  • 01.01.2013 8:12 AM PDT

Also, to refute the OP even more, his main argument is that people are not biologically wired to be attracted to the same sex. Recent studies published from the University of Chicago which found that -blam!--blam!-ity stems through pre-natal effects of hormones.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167

Abstract: Male and female -blam!--blam!-ity have substantial prevalence in humans. Pedigree and twin studies indicate that -blam!--blam!-ity has substantial heritability in both sexes, yet concordance between identical twins is low and molecular studies have failed to find associated DNA markers. This paradoxical pattern calls for an explanation. We use published data on fetal androgen signaling and gene regulation via nongenetic changes in DNA packaging (epigenetics) to develop a new model for -blam!--blam!-ity. It is well established that fetal androgen signaling strongly influences -blam!- development. We show that an unappreciated feature of this process is reduced androgen sensitivity in XX fetuses and enhanced sensitivity in XY fetuses, and that this difference is most feasibly caused by numerous sex-specific epigenetic modifications ("epi-marks") originating in embryonic stem cells. These epi-marks buffer XX fetuses from masculinization due to excess fetal androgen exposure and similarly buffer XY fetuses from androgen underexposure. Extant data indicates that individual epi-marks influence some but not other -blam!-ly dimorphic traits, vary in strength across individuals, and are produced during ontogeny and erased between generations. Those that escape erasure will steer development of the -blam!- phenotypes they influence in a gonad-discordant direction in opposite sex offspring, mosaically feminizing XY offspring and masculinizing XX offspring. Such sex-specific epi-marks are -blam!-ly antagonistic (SA-epi-marks) because they canalize -blam!- development in the parent that produced them, but contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex offspring when unerased. In this model, -blam!--blam!-ity occurs when stronger-than-average SA-epi-marks (influencing -blam!- preference) from an opposite-sex parent escape erasure and are then paired with a weaker-than-average de novo sex-specific epi-marks produced in opposite-sex offspring. Our model predicts that -blam!--blam!-ity is part of a wider phenomenon in which recently evolved androgen-influenced traits commonly display gonad-trait discordances at substantial frequency, and that the molecular feature underlying most -blam!--blam!-ity is not DNA polymorphism(s), but epi-marks that evolved to canalize -blam!- dimorphic development that sometimes carryover across generations and contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex descendants.

Educate yourself, Flood.

[Edited on 01.01.2013 8:14 AM PST]

  • 01.01.2013 8:13 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: RustedEdge

Posted by: Forever MS
Funny how the post was reported when it isn't rule breaking

Funny how people are flaming the OP just because he has a different opinion than you all.

Stay classy Flood.


Kill yourself.


Reported. Stay mature Flood.

  • 01.01.2013 8:13 AM PDT

Why are people reporting this? It's not like he's breaking the rules...

Most people don't support same-sex marriage because religion is close-minded and changing that would very much ruin the sanctity of marriage and religion. Also it was founded in a time of discrimination so changing it's discriminatory teachings just to suit the Man seems stupid. I don't think that they should give in to this whole "homophobia" thing. If they don't want to support same-sex marriage then they shouldn't have to. They already have a blessing, so who're they to say what religion can and can't do with itself? It'll do whatever the Pope says it will so go -blam!- yourself I would say...

By the way, I am neither homophobic nor -blam!- and I am an atheist fully pledged and against religion and for -blam!- rights and even I don't think that same-sex marriage is necessary though I don't think that it is necessarily bad either; just pointless; religions should be able to choose what they want to do, not the government...

[Edited on 01.01.2013 8:14 AM PST]

  • 01.01.2013 8:13 AM PDT

BE HUMAN

Fight for Earth. Fight for Humanity.

Yes, and questions 2 and 3...?

Nevermind, OP can't answer in one post like a normal person.

[Edited on 01.01.2013 8:14 AM PST]

  • 01.01.2013 8:13 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Biack Rose66
Also, to refute the OP even more, his main argument is that people are not biologically wired to be attracted to the same sex. Recent studies published from the University of Chicago which found that -blam!--blam!-ity stems through pre-natal effects of hormones.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167

Abstract: Male and female -blam!--blam!-ity have substantial prevalence in humans. Pedigree and twin studies indicate that -blam!--blam!-ity has substantial heritability in both sexes, yet concordance between identical twins is low and molecular studies have failed to find associated DNA markers. This paradoxical pattern calls for an explanation. We use published data on fetal androgen signaling and gene regulation via nongenetic changes in DNA packaging (epigenetics) to develop a new model for -blam!--blam!-ity. It is well established that fetal androgen signaling strongly influences -blam!- development. We show that an unappreciated feature of this process is reduced androgen sensitivity in XX fetuses and enhanced sensitivity in XY fetuses, and that this difference is most feasibly caused by numerous sex-specific epigenetic modifications ("epi-marks") originating in embryonic stem cells. These epi-marks buffer XX fetuses from masculinization due to excess fetal androgen exposure and similarly buffer XY fetuses from androgen underexposure. Extant data indicates that individual epi-marks influence some but not other -blam!-ly dimorphic traits, vary in strength across individuals, and are produced during ontogeny and erased between generations. Those that escape erasure will steer development of the -blam!- phenotypes they influence in a gonad-discordant direction in opposite sex offspring, mosaically feminizing XY offspring and masculinizing XX offspring. Such sex-specific epi-marks are -blam!-ly antagonistic (SA-epi-marks) because they canalize -blam!- development in the parent that produced them, but contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex offspring when unerased. In this model, -blam!--blam!-ity occurs when stronger-than-average SA-epi-marks (influencing -blam!- preference) from an opposite-sex parent escape erasure and are then paired with a weaker-than-average de novo sex-specific epi-marks produced in opposite-sex offspring. Our model predicts that -blam!--blam!-ity is part of a wider phenomenon in which recently evolved androgen-influenced traits commonly display gonad-trait discordances at substantial frequency, and that the molecular feature underlying most -blam!--blam!-ity is not DNA polymorphism(s), but epi-marks that evolved to canalize -blam!- dimorphic development that sometimes carryover across generations and contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex descendants.

Educate yourself, Flood.

First intelligent counterargument, good. I'll reply in a bit.

  • 01.01.2013 8:15 AM PDT

BE HUMAN

Fight for Earth. Fight for Humanity.

Wow, you're getting more and more out of line. Comparing ghey people to dogs...

Different species =/= Different s*xuality.

Point invalid, and remarkably stupid.

  • 01.01.2013 8:15 AM PDT

Why NOT support it? Does it effect your life in any way? Only if you're closed minded.

  • 01.01.2013 8:15 AM PDT

BE HUMAN

Fight for Earth. Fight for Humanity.

Haha not the FIRST good counterargument. But the only one you're willing to acknowledge. Good one.

  • 01.01.2013 8:16 AM PDT


Posted by: crazyfoomandude
OP you should kill yourself. Preferably by crucifixion. And bring popcorn for our amusement.

Because -blam!--blam!- and bi-blam!- people deserve the same rights as us? Because there's nothing different with them? If they love another person, they should be allowed to be with that other person.

Seriously, drink bleach and get locked in a stable with a horny horse.



I might decide to report you over OP...

  • 01.01.2013 8:16 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: crazyfoomandude
Haha not the FIRST good counterargument. But the only one you're willing to acknowledge. Good one.

1. He has a source
2. He uses facts pointed out in the source to argue
3. He explains the science instead of just throwing out random "facts" that have no source

  • 01.01.2013 8:20 AM PDT


Posted by: crazyfoomandude
Haha not the FIRST good counterargument. But the only one you're willing to acknowledge. Good one.


You know you're only attacking him rather than his argument, right?

  • 01.01.2013 8:20 AM PDT

BE HUMAN

Fight for Earth. Fight for Humanity.

The point I'd like to make is that not supporting you and disagreeing with your... 'views'... does not require sources and links.

This is a social implication, so your source is the amount of people on this thread who disagree with you.

It's also 21st century thinking, and more countries are taking it on. For example, UK is planning this for 2013 at some point, and they just laughed in the face of the Arch-Bishop.

Get with the times, and stop attacking the ghey community. They don't deserve it.

  • 01.01.2013 8:22 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4