Dumb Anti-Gay Arguments...

[YAX]

So in essence, you're putting words in my mouth.

If you support gays, you should be okay with your family becoming gays. But as we all know, this isn't the case. Just like how most people are all in support of interracial dating and marriage but then if their Hmong daughter comes home with a black guy, it would be World War 3.

It's easy to sit behind your PC monitor and claim that you would be 200% okay with your teenage son being gay and your daughter bringing home a black boyfriend. But when it happens, I bet you won't be acting like your talking on this forum.

And this is my point: when shit hit the fans in your house, you'll turn into the person you hate the most. Because I know that deep inside, 99% of your gay and gay marriage supporters are praying to the heavens your children do not become gay. But if you're sooooooooooooo ooooo in support of gays and gay marriage, what's the problem?  Hence, HYPOCRITES, all of you.

I know one day, 10, 20, 30 years from now, you'll think back at this and remember "Hung Tu Lo" and think "Damn, that fool was right. I DON'T want my children to be gay."

you know for a fact? 99%?  Really?  You think you know everyone more than they know themselves and, of course, in your world, if you think something is right, it must be right, no matter how delusional it is.

Here's a fact that's going to be hard for you to swallow: Your assumptions are really gay.  Yet you won't support gay rights.  Wouldn't that make you...wrong? Lol.

[HUNG TU LO]

Here's a fact that's going to be hard for you to swallow: Your assumptions are really gay.

 

I have to ignore people who use the phrase "That's gay."

You are saying that only people who knows gay people can defend their rights?

I'm saying that if you support something, like honestly and with all of your heart, you should have zero problems with it when it comes to your family. In fact, you should welcome and wish for it to come into your family. But if you just support it but you would never want it in your family, well, you're a fukking hypocrite.

If you're in support of interracial dating and marriage, you should encourage your children to date anyone or any race. If you're in support of homosexuality and gay marriage, you should encourage this on your children. Because if you don't, you're doing it for the wrong reasons. You're doing it to be politically correct, to look presentable to others, to be hip, cool, and new-age.

I know it and you know it that at night before you tuck yourself into bed and you look in the mirror and truly think about how you want your children to be, you know that deep in your heart you are going to do your best to give them subtle clues to be heterosexual as best you can. No one ever fukking goes "HOLY SHIT I can't wait until my children are gay! Because we support gays and gay marriage in this family!" That's absurd because deep inside when you're all alone and there's no social pressure to be political correct or be hip and new-age, you know that there's something not fitting about homosexuality.

You know it and I know it that my last sentence bolded caught you slipping. That as you read it, you know that the id, the part of your mind untainted by politics, social commentary, and emotions, awoke and said "YOU DAMN FUKKEN RIGHT, HUNG TU LO!"

[dogmai]

I have to ignore people who use the phrase "That's gay."


I'm saying that if you support something, like honestly and with all of your heart, you should have zero problems with it when it comes to your family. In fact, you should welcome and wish for it to come into your family. But if you just support it but you would never want it in your family, well, you're a fukking hypocrite.

If you're in support of interracial dating and marriage, you should encourage your children to date anyone or any race. If you're in support of homosexuality and gay marriage, you should encourage this on your children. Because if you don't, you're doing it for the wrong reasons. You're doing it to be politically correct, to look presentable to others, to be hip, cool, and new-age.

I know it and you know it that at night before you tuck yourself into bed and you look in the mirror and truly think about how you want your children to be, you know that deep in your heart you are going to do your best to give them subtle clues to be heterosexual as best you can. No one ever fukking goes "HOLY SHIT I can't wait until my children are gay! Because we support gays and gay marriage in this family!" That's absurd because deep inside when you're all alone and there's no social pressure to be political correct or be hip and new-age, you know that there's something not fitting about homosexuality.

You know it and I know it that my last sentence bolded caught you slipping. That as you read it, you know that the id, the part of your mind untainted by politics, social commentary, and emotions, awoke and said "YOU DAMN FUKKEN RIGHT, HUNG TU LO!"

So a white person in the past doesn't have the right to fight for equal rights for blacks right? The person will never be black. 
Like I said, DUMB AND DUMBER.

[bulbasaur]

Um...allowing gays to get married and receive civil rights does not mean that you or your children have to be gay.   

[bulbasaur]

My sexual orientation doesn't change the argument. 

I also support equal pay for women. 
3. Bulbasaur is a woman.

I am against pedophilia. 
4.  Bulbasaur is a 12 years old. 

I support helping underprivilege d children. 
5.  Bulbasaur is an underprivilege d child. 

I support the welfare program(even though it's flawed).
6. Bulbasaur is on welfare.

I support racial equality.
7.  Bulbasaur is a mix of races.   

Believe or not, many white people supported racial equality simply because of principle.  Empathy.

As for "Separate but Equal," supporters should refer to Brown vs. Board of Education. 

Don't have time to go through all the ramblings, but from the first couple of pages, I'm getting :

1. Bulbasaur is gay.
2. BNMe and Miles are advocating "separate but equal".

Bout sums it up?

[Believe_N_Me]

That is only the "effect" of marriage, not the "reason". Marriage like many other rules is about control and maintaining order. Humans are like any other animal and we like to f*ck as much as possible, so in order to ensure we don't all kill each other over mates, marriage was develop to maintain order which in "EFFECT" ensures that property (if that is how you define women) are not infringed upon by other males...not because of procreation ore lineage. You can procreate without marriage. And people were smart enough to know that marriage does not "guarantee" your heirs are yours if your wife likes to sleep around because you were busy f*cking the maid.

Look at the hmongs as an example, why do you think we do not marry within the same clans? its to maintain order and move family members around so clans don't end up killing one another over disputes. Its the same thing as how marriage was developed.

You are over thinking something that is relatively simple to understand and has a rational explanation.

Marriage was instated solely for the purpose of heterosexual arrangements. It was for the good of BOTH men and women because heterosexual relationships yield dire consequences. Now does it guarantee that BOTH will get what they want out of the marriage? No. Nobody said that. You always have the exceptions where one person is abusing their role and rights in their own marriage. This discussion is not about the quality of a heterosexual marriage.

Now if you had asked me whether or not I think homosexuals should have a right to partner up? That is a different type of question. "Yes," EVERYBODY should have a right to have someone in their life. They have a "right" to legitimize that relationship. However, is it a "marriage?" That is something else. Of course, that's because I actually understand what marriage is whereas you don't.

What some of you won't admit to are the legal consequences of gay marriages and how it imposes on many others. You think it's all easy-peasy, two people in love, why not? Sure - if it stays within the secular arena. But what happens if and when a religious institution won't marry a gay couple? Or say a business (like a bakery) refuses to service a gay wedding? Will you cry discrimination then?

I don't over complicate, I look at the REALITY of things whereas you're definitely naive. 

[Believe_N_Me]

Umm.. These days the "gay agenda" is pushing their point of view down our Throats. Nothing wrong with equal rights, but don't show me some Gay Pride parade with butt nekkid dudes riding on a Big Dildo and call it Normal.

This is when I stopped supporting their cause because it became very clear they don't just want equal rights. They want to become the dominant lifestyle. Otherwise, why else do they want to educate children as young as kindergartners about homosexuality? Sex education is about reproductive organs, NOT sexual orientation. For every couple on television there isn't an Asian couple represented. Should I cry out discrimination then?

This is also why I stopped supporting the Women's Movement and many Civil Rights Activists.

Trust me, IT AIN'T ABOUT WANTING EQUAL RIGHTS ANYMORE. IT'S ABOUT PEOPLE WITH VERY LOW SELF-ESTEEM WHO WANT TO PLACE BLAME ON SOMEONE AND VENGEANCE.

[Evil_K_Man]

I don't over complicate, I look at the REALITY of things whereas you're definitely naive.

Clearly you don't understand the definition of complexity, given your long winded statement on marriage.

Let me breakdown our arguments

Me: Marriage = a form of control
You: Marriage = only for heterosexuals for the purpose of ensuring heirs and reproduction, blah blah blah...think about all the repercussions of redefining marriage blah blah blah...

Listen yourself...you can't even articulate your position well, without going into all the fine details about what YOUR definition of marriage is.  I may be naïve, but at least I can see when I’m contradicting my own position.

[Believe_N_Me]

Clearly you don't understand the definition of complexity, given your long winded statement on marriage.

Let me breakdown our arguments

Me: Marriage = a form of control
You: Marriage = only for heterosexuals for the purpose of ensuring heirs and reproduction, blah blah blah...think about all the repercussions of redefining marriage blah blah blah...

Listen yourself...you can't even articulate your position well, without going into all the fine details about what YOUR definition of marriage is.  I may be naïve, but at least I can see when I’m contradicting my own position.

A form of control over what? Certainly homosexual unions aren't yielding consequences that may gravely affect society or even themselves that they need to enter into a marriage agreement?

The lamest argument for gay marriage is "so they can fit in". 

I give "fine" details of marriage because you oversimplify it. Obviously, you DON'T KNOW WHAT MARRIAGE IS.

[Evil_K_Man]

A form of control over what? Certainly homosexual unions aren't yielding consequences that may gravely affect society or even themselves that they need to enter into a marriage agreement?

The lamest argument for gay marriage is "so they can fit in". 

I give "fine" details of marriage because you oversimplify it. Obviously, you DON'T KNOW WHAT MARRIAGE IS.

Lol...social control...that s basically what marriage is, across all countries and all cultures, it exist for one singular purpose...and that is control.

Gays don't care if you call their union a marriage or not, they just want the rights afforded to them as what a "marriage" would recieve...most of them aren't religious people so they don't care about the word "marriage"...it only becomes a problem when the government uses the word "marriage" to create laws.

Like I say, keep it simple.  This would all be solved if the government stayed away from religious institutions.

[Believe_N_Me]

Lol...social control...that s basically what marriage is, across all countries and all cultures, it exist for one singular purpose...and that is control.

Gays don't care if you call their union a marriage or not, they just want the rights afforded to them as what a "marriage" would recieve...most of them aren't religious people so they don't care about the word "marriage"...it only becomes a problem when the government uses the word "marriage" to create laws.

Like I say, keep it simple.  This would all be solved if the government stayed away from religious institutions.

If only that were true then there would be none of this.  But you are WRONG. Gays are trying to redefine "marriage" to include their unions so they can receive the same benefits. However, they shouldn't have to mimic heterosexual marriages to get them is what I've been saying all along but it's actually YOU and GAY SUPPORTERS that DON'T GET IT. You WANT TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. 

And I have always stated that the government has no business in a traditionally, religious institution BUT I also gave examples of how and why the government was compelled to get involved. The ABSURDITY of it all is that YOU and THOSE THINKING LIKE YOU are under the impression that marriage was created to INTENTIONALLY exclude homosexuals.    That's why you're trying to turn it into an Equal Rights issue when it isn't. If it is an EQUAL RIGHTS issue then it's actually DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NON-MARRIED PEOPLE. 

[Evil_K_Man]

If only that were true then there would be none of this.  But you are WRONG. Gays are trying to redefine "marriage" to include their unions so they can receive the same benefits. However, they shouldn't have to mimic heterosexual marriages to get them is what I've been saying all along but it's actually YOU and GAY SUPPORTERS that DON'T GET IT. You WANT TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. 

And I have always stated that the government has no business in a traditionally, religious institution BUT I also gave examples of how and why the government was compelled to get involved. The ABSURDITY of it all is that YOU and THOSE THINKING LIKE YOU are under the impression that marriage was created to INTENTIONALLY exclude homosexuals.    That's why you're trying to turn it into an Equal Rights issue when it isn't. If it is an EQUAL RIGHTS issue then it's actually DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NON-MARRIED PEOPLE. 

Ughh...I get a headache repeating myself to people like. Gays SIMPLY want the same rights as their neighbors. If the government defines these rights (which they do) under the umbrella of marriage (a religious institution), then of course the government needs to redefine it to encompass ALL, especially since many rights under law are constructed around marriage. (read up on why "Judicial Review" exist)

A simple solution would be to remove anything that references marriage and replace it with "civil unions" basically an agreement amongst consenting adults to form a union in which they transfer certain powers to others (be it tax, legal, property etc...).

But NOOO...it has to be called "marriage" and because christian religion (I'm not hating on christianity, just that our government chose one singular definition of marriage) defines it as between ONE man and ONE woman (FYI, if you've forgotton your hmong roots, its defined as ONE man and ONE OR MORE wives), rights are only extended to people who fit this equation.

It perplexes me how many people like you have the power to vote, yet they understand almost nothing about the founding princple of our laws.

Its quite sad...and scary.

[AOZ]

what it comes down to is...

1.  Should a marriage have a husband and a wife or a husband and a husband/ wife and wife.  Can you still call that marriage?
2.  If you going to call it husband and wife, then is it a requirement that the wife be female and husband be male or are you going to redefine those terms to be unisex?

[Believe_N_Me]

Ughh...I get a headache repeating myself to people like. Gays SIMPLY want the same rights as their neighbors. If the government defines these rights (which they do) under the umbrella of marriage (a religious institution), then of course the government needs to redefine it to encompass ALL, especially since many rights under law are constructed around marriage. (read up on why "Judicial Review" exist)

A simple solution would be to remove anything that references marriage and replace it with "civil unions" basically an agreement amongst consenting adults to form a union in which they transfer certain powers to others (be it tax, legal, property etc...).

But NOOO...it has to be called "marriage" and because christian religion (I'm not hating on christianity, just that our government chose one singular definition of marriage) defines it as between ONE man and ONE woman (FYI, if you've forgotton your hmong roots, its defined as ONE man and ONE OR MORE wives), rights are only extended to people who fit this equation.

It perplexes me how many people like you have the power to vote, yet they understand almost nothing about the founding princple of our laws.

Its quite sad...and scary.

I've already explained why the government was compelled to get involved in making laws for "marriage". I've actually said that it would've been better for the government to stay out of it. However, obviously, there was a great need since the government saw "marriage" as a pillar in our communities.

Marriage does NOT need to be redefined. Civil unions should be revised to include more benefits for relationship arrangements that fall outside of marriage. But homosexuals DON'T want that because they're vindictive and want to encroach upon a territory which they've felt excluded from. It's like women who want to join the Men's Elk Lodge Club when all they really have to do is start their own Women's Elk Lodge Club. 

[Evil_K_Man]

I've already explained why the government was compelled to get involved in making laws for "marriage". I've actually said that it would've been better for the government to stay out of it. However, obviously, there was a great need since the government saw "marriage" as a pillar in our communities.

Marriage does NOT need to be redefined. Civil unions should be revised to include more benefits for relationship arrangements that fall outside of marriage. But homosexuals DON'T want that because they're vindictive and want to encroach upon a territory which they've felt excluded from. It's like women who want to join the Men's Elk Lodge Club when all they really have to do is start their own Women's Elk Lodge Club. 

I highly doubt marriage is the "pillar" of our community given the ability exit gracefully (or not) via a divorce.

You can define marriage which ever way you want, if your religion or culture defines it as one man, one woman, than so be it. NO ONE is out to redefine the "christian" definition of marriage, but when the government creates laws that are bias off the views of one group, that is where we have a problem. Look around you, 17 states  (includuing DC) now recognize same sex marriage with other states recognizing them so long as they are performed in those states, DOMA is unconstitution al...see what happens when you build your laws around the disposition of one group and expect everybody to follow it?

I swear of all the PHers in here, was I the only one who took highschool government classes? I mean I took the AP version, but the regular classes couldn't have been that bad?