Gay Politicians and Gay Laws

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 1:45 am

[quote="thedreamisgone";p="399766"]did you know that like, sixty percent of penguins are gay?

no, i don't know if it's that high. but it's a startling percentage. most of nature has its homosexual part too.

as for a disgrace to the republican party, I have a better candidate:

Bush.[/quote]

Woah, wow, hang on now, thedreamisgone, that's one hell of an amazingly unique, timely, relevant, insightful, well thought out, well said, and generally awesome observation, there. I don't know where we'd be without minds like yours contributing your almost unfathomable knowledge and especially your life-changingly enlightening in-depth political analysis.

randomperson2 · Post by **randomperson2** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 2:20 am

Excellent Deacon, I bow before your analytical skills. I must say, that is the finest use of sarcasm of this or any other generation

Azurain · Post by **Azurain** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 7:40 am

I'm honestly reasonably sure you're being sarcastic randomperson2... but maybe I'm overestimating you.

60% of penguins are not gay. However, a significant number of species (hundreds) have been documented repeatedly and conclusively to display varying degrees of homosexual behavior, including having lifetime monogamous relationships as in the case of at least one species of penguin. I fail, really, to see how that's especially relevant to this thread, but thought clarification was in order.

Rembrandt Q. Einstein · Post by **Rembrandt Q. Einstein** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 1:49 pm

IIRC the animal with the greatest amount of natural homosexual acts is the french poodle.

Not kidding.

thedreamisgone · Post by **thedreamisgone** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 7:35 pm

yeah it's not 60% i know. but it's a startling number.

it's relevant because i saw a developing "It's not natural" trend in the thread.

as for my political debate, i put forth just as much information as the person who called the NJ governor a disgrace.

oh yeah, he put forth more because that guy's gay.

bush has only lost us a net 1.8 million jobs. oh and hundreds of other things, such as attempting to put his religion into the US constitution.

but i'm not starting that argument. i'm just saying.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 7:52 pm

It's natural in some species to kill and/or eat the young of other members of the species either as a source of food and/or to spur on the females to be receptive to mating again. Why does society complain if I want to do that?

tankkisankari · Post by **tankkisankari** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:22 pm

Maybe you are in a wrong society?

Azurain · Post by **Azurain** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:33 pm

[quote="Deacon";p="400143"]It's natural in some species to kill and/or eat the young of other members of the species either as a source of food and/or to spur on the females to be receptive to mating again. Why does society complain if I want to do that?[/quote]
You're missing the corellation. If homosexuality occurs naturally in animals, then it very likely occurs naturally in humans (there's no good reason to believe otherwise). As such, while you can maybe still find a reason to disagree with it and find it wrong, you'd be hard pressed to argue that it's not natural. :P

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:56 pm

Well, people like that guy up there bring up "natural" as though "natural" is the basis on which right and wrong are defined. It's a silly argument. I just wanted to point that out. In fact, secular laws are in place specifically to stop people from doing things that come naturally.

Azurain · Post by **Azurain** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:33 pm

Oh, I agree. Natural is brought up too often by both sides of the argument. If it's unnatural, that doesn't make it in any way bad; if it's natural, that doesn't make it in any way good. Mind you, if it's natural, it at least can't be argued that homosexual impulses (not behavior) are a conscious choice, as some fools like to claim.

Slawson · Post by **Slawson** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:51 am

What makes you think that he's not very conservative and perhaps he just doesn't want to get married.

The GMB would serve his purpose if that is the case. As a straight single guy, I would like to see all marriage banned.

Nekra · Post by **Nekra** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:33 pm

If two people of the same want to get married let them, does it hurt anyone, No, will it bring about the end of socierty, again No, will it possibly mean a few government databases/system will need updataing, probably. When it comes down to it ignoring the religious part of marriage its simply a legal agreement to share resources and be responsible for the other in times when they cant be for themselves (read medical resposibillity here, and other similar requirements). If two men or two women wish to have this and the protection it affords them within socierty, For fuck sake let them. The only people this really effects is themselves, and if anyone else thinks it effects them, then they seriously need to learn about invasion of privacy.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 1:42 pm

Heeeeey...awesome. Pointless necros are great!

kane37 · Post by **kane37** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:30 pm

The bottom line here is that being conservative or liberal is based primarily on ones stance on various issues. I have very right wing beliefs and I actually feel that homosexuals should be protected in the same way as any other american of various races and genders.

On the matter that this is not a pressing issue right now and should not be on the top of the discussion list, that is totally absurd! Yes there is an election coming up, but this is one issue that both canidates have very opposite positions on this issue and it should be discussed now more than ever in order to educate people on the issue.

Real Life Forums

Gay Politicians and Gay Laws

Re: Gay Politicians and Gay Laws

Who is online