Please shoot him...
- Started
- Last post
- 85 Responses
- hell0
natural expressions of human existence
- watching tvhell
- wearing pantshell
- heart transplantshell
- bookshell
- wanking at women fucking donkeys whilst smoking crack?kezza_2
- skateboardinghell
- +1 kezzahell
- yous ick fuckhell
- if it happens its natural right?kezza_2
- the human experiencehell
- transcending naturehell
- in the asskezza_2
- donkey / ass geddit?kezza_2
- mannershell
- classhell
- lukus_W0
@prev
I'd like you to know that I think your previous comment was
C O M P L E T E B U L L S H I T
- airey0
hey Prev, way to intellectualise homophobia.
clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap...
douchebag.
- sorry the words aren't big ones.airey
- Is how you speak to me the model of equality you want others to adopt for the gay community?Prev
- yes. ironic isn't it.airey
- you said it.Prev
- i call my gay friend's cunts also, although i doubt we'd be friends Prev.airey
- equality in so far as same rights. calling someone a douche isn't against anyone's rights.airey
- I think we can all learn more about what equality really really is. We may not be able to be completely cordial friends but I would hope to respect you just as much anyone else. That doesn't mean I have to agree with you.Prev
- ..would hope to respect you as much as anyone else even though I don't respect your views.Prev
- well said. truth is i struggle with people who are homphobic, racist or sexist.airey
- they're 3 things that nobody has the right to feel in my opinion and should be...airey
- ... worked through rather than embraced.airey
- Prev0
I have 2 comments:
1.) I would put money on my assumption that homosexual relationships are seen as unnatural by 95% of any culture or society anywhere in the world. It is scientifically provable that it is not a biologically natural expression of human existence. It does exist in 'nature' but it is without question, deviant in the truest sense of the word.
2.) I think equality is a sincere but hollow argument that many of you stand on. There cannot be true equality unless there is a single source which defines it. Most of us (regardless of what side we fall on) actually exemplify inequality while we try to prove the value of equality.
- oh for fucks sake - if it happens .. it's natural. get used to it.lukus_W
- and 'scientifically proven', fuckoff.airey
- ones & zeros don't mix with emotion at all.Prev
- < Source: UrbanDictionary.comutopian
- airey0
i'll only support the gay union if we ban women from voting. there, my hat is in the political ring.
- luckyorphan0
Gay marriage is simply a matter of justice. Consider the story of Major Alan Rogers.
• Major in the Army.
• Served in both The Persian Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
• Lauded by his superiors and fellow servicemen as an ideal soldier.
• Became the 4000th US soldier to die in Iraq.
• Gay man (who abided by the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy).The man gave his life defending his country...which treated him like a second-class citizen by denying him the right to wed whomever he wished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ala…
Get gov't out of the marriage business. Civil unions and equal rights for all.
- word. about time the middle ages are over.davebellechique
- Umm. Those are two completely unrelated things. I mean, I'm not against gay marriage.boobs
- But being a good soldier is not in any way related to marital issues.boobs
- Boobs, the man died fighting for a country that does not give him full rights.luckyorphan
- Please see 1968 Olympics Black Power Salute, Tuskegee Airmen, etc.luckyorphan
- Yes but he KNEW they denied him his rights and still chose to rick his life.Mimio
- risk*Mimio
- Mimio0
The Pope should take some lessons from Fr. Reginald Foster and Fr. Robert Barron on how to be a Catholic.
- kezza_20
I love how people who dont believe in god try to ram it down your throat. Wait isn't that how this thread started?
- I love how people who dont believe in bigfoot try to ram it down your throat. Wait isn't that how this thread started?DrBombay
- Bigfoot doesnt care if I get marriedJosev
- think again.iCanHasQBN
- chrisRG0
- The people who need to know this will never read this book.Mimio
- < exactlychrisRG
- and the people who will read this book prob dont need any more fuel for that fire.baseline_shift
- The people who believe in this book will probably never go to church...kezza_2
- the ppl who doesnt read this book will probably needs science when get sick, instead of just praying.chrisRG
- the people who read this book...... aw fuck it.iCanHasQBN
- God can be great if you're not religious.CyBrain
- kezza_20
In all seriousness, and as a practicing catharlic, although one that does a lot of confessions, its the only thing the pope can say.
Catholic theology (add to that hindu, islamic, judaic and buddist theology) all hold the central tenet of male/female union as core to it's existance. Adam didnt bang Abraham, al all creationist stories start with similar stories.
you just have to look at the Anglian church to see what happens if you go all liberal. That female lesbian bishop in California will be the cause of the break up of that church.
Also the catholic church has always worked on the principle of absolute right and absolute wrong, and lets face it a couple of 1000 years of history counts for something, clearly they have some relevance. I for one tend to applaud their stance on lots of things, but the language and delivery is often ridiculous, in an age of shitfing morality and constant change, the steadfastness is kind of comforting.
unfashionable but hey, not trying to convert anyone, just a personal opinion.
- "a practicing catharlic"? I hope this involves garlic. A religion based on garlic would be amazing.subcommandante
- Arent they paying out $1B to little boys they diddled? Like Jesus?DrBombay
- im sure they are...kezza_2
- Yes, yes..let's get back to the garlic themed religion, shall we...subcommandante
- juhls0
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
20+ years from now, most democratic people will be saying, "Wow, we really didn't give gay people the right to marry before?"
Just like "we" didn't give certain groups of people rights for bullshit reasons in the past.
The institution of marriage is not as sacred as people believe. It's been eroding due to social and economic changes for years now. The traditional dating and marriage scene is especially based on inequality between men and women.
- eroding is right. It use to be something important but now it's nothing. I agree with ismith in above post too.Prev
- ismith0
I REALLY shouldn't be on QBN any more today, but the way I see it:
Government can do whatever the fuck it wants. Marriage, the way we use it, is nothing more than a civil union. I think it would make much more sense to simply restructure: government grants civil unions between two HUMAN BEINGS (gay, straight, whatever) which provides all the same benefits that a legal "marriage" does now. Churches, organizations, etc. are accredited by the state to grant marriage licenses based on their own terms. The government can even have a generic one for any couples that don't associate with any of the groups. None of the benefits would better/worse, but it would make it a) easier for the gov and b) easier for opposing groups to get over each other and move on. Baseball analogy: once you just accept that people are playing for different teams, put them all in the same league. They can both be treated the same, but the people that don't get along don't have to feel forced to sit on the same bench if they don't want to.
- Each organization can give benefits of their own as well.ismith
- << Yep. That's the answer.luckyorphan
- While also following the age laws, etc.juhls
- elpaso0
Pope been catching up on movies..
- lukus_W0
Unless they're religious, I don't understand why anyone would want to get married.
Tax breaks / shared bank account is sensible - I reckon civil partnerships should be available for straights and gays.
- kezza_20
Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted has changed over time, as has the institution itself.
One of the oldest known and recorded marriage laws is discerned from Hammurabi's Code, enacted in ancient Mesopotamia (widely considered as the cradle of civilization). The legal institution of marriage and its rules and ramifications have changed over time depending on the culture or demographic of the time.[19]
Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[20] Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation. In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage.[21] But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition."[22] In English common law, a marriage was a voluntary contract by a man and a woman, in which by agreement they choose to become husband and wife.[23] Edvard Westermarck proposed that "the institution of marriage has probably developed out of a primeval habit".
- kezza_20
Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted has changed over time, as has the institution itself.
One of the oldest known and recorded marriage laws is discerned from Hammurabi's Code, enacted in ancient Mesopotamia (widely considered as the cradle of civilization). The legal institution of marriage and its rules and ramifications have changed over time depending on the culture or demographic of the time.[19]
Various cultures have had their own theories on the origin of marriage. One example may lie in a man's need for assurance as to paternity of his children. He might therefore be willing to pay a bride price or provide for a woman in exchange for exclusive sexual access.[20] Legitimacy is the consequence of this transaction rather than its motivation. In Comanche society, married women work harder, lose sexual freedom, and do not seem to obtain any benefit from marriage.[21] But nubile women are a source of jealousy and strife in the tribe, so they are given little choice other than to get married. "In almost all societies, access to women is institutionalized in some way so as to moderate the intensity of this competition."[22] In English common law, a marriage was a voluntary contract by a man and a woman, in which by agreement they choose to become husband and wife.[23] Edvard Westermarck proposed that "the institution of marriage has probably developed out of a primeval habit".
- Prev0
Who made up the idea of marriage?
