2014: the year Ellen Page made scores of neckbeards cry out in psychic anguish

[sheatheman]

It's a fallacy to group homosexuals with women and blacks. You need to stop pressing that. The first is, as I said, a complex combination of nature, environment, and volition, whereas being female or black is 100% biology.

[sheatheman]

13 people watching right now!!!

[Rpeg]

It's a fallacy to group homosexuals with women and blacks. You need to stop pressing that. The first is, as I said, a complex combination of nature, environment, and volition, whereas being female or black is 100% biology.

 

Would you agree that sexuality is coupled with identity? I think then that it compares to race and gender issues, which are also considered part of a person's identity.

[sheatheman]

I'm not sure that it must be.

[Adieu]

It's a fallacy to group homosexuals with women and blacks. You need to stop pressing that. The first is, as I said, a complex combination of nature, environment, and volition, whereas being female or black is 100% biology.

 

So, if being a female or black was a purely a decision then it would be ok to be prejudice against them? Because being a white heterosexual male is the base line for perfection correct?

 

It's laughable that there must be hard scientific proof to make a behavior legitimate when the entire oppositions argument is directly tied to a mythical book that makes extraordinary claims and is regarded as legitimate even though it has zero scientific proof to backs it claims.

 

Biology, behavior, and environment are all related. None is more legitimate than the other. They are intertwined. We are of nature. We are nature. Our nature is natural. What is there to discuss?

 

The burden of proving that homosexuality is less legitimate than heterosexuality lies directly in the laps of the opposition to equality. So far, they have provided nothing to support their position.

 

I've asked you time and time again to provide substantial reasoning for opposing equality for homosexuality. You have not provided anything. You dodge questions and make unsubstantiated claims. Please contribute to the discussion if you are going to oppose my viewpoint.

[brian trageskin]

Who decided that blacks should have civil rights and women should be able to vote? Damn special interest groups. Force us all to go along with their agenda.

 

except your argument is invalid: in france, it's not like gays are being hung on trees, or get put in jail or anything.

they already have civil rights, they can vote, they can kiss publicly, they can have civil union, they can even adopt kids.

now the gay lobby + government proposed to replace the traditional institution of marriage by a new one, and some people don't like it.

 

but let's not forget the context in which this amendment takes place: at the same time, the teaching of gender theory at school. without even consulting parents. because that's how democracy works: the government will do whatever it wants to do, without consulting you, because it's for your own good you know, it's for a good cause. i call this a fraud.

[Rpeg]

I'm not sure that it must be.

 

Your stance does make sense, then. I think in order to consider equality for homosexuals, you need to first accept that our sexuality plays a defining role in who we are as people. It defines who I am able to love, who I choose to love. I can't readily escape it, or else I am suppressing a fundamental part of my identity. It is me.

 

But you'll find that everyone who disagrees with you, understands that sexuality is part of identity.

 

I'm curious if you expanded on your opinion, you would believe that gay people ought to suppress this part of themselves?

[sheatheman]

I've asked you time and time again to provide substantial reasoning for opposing equality for homosexuality. You have not provided anything. You dodge questions and make unsubstantiated claims. Please contribute to the discussion if you are going to oppose my viewpoint.

 

 

I'm not making unsubstantiated claims. And I don't have to address anything you ask, nor do I care to.

 

Re: the white thing, I feel like I am a black man born in a white man's body. Currently in legal proceedings to have my ethnic origin changed to Gabonese.

[sheatheman]

 

I'm not sure that it must be.

 

Your stance does make sense, then. I think in order to consider equality for homosexuals, you need to first accept that our sexuality plays a defining role in who we are as people. It defines who I am able to love, who I choose to love. I can't readily escape it, or else I am suppressing a fundamental part of my identity. It is me.

 

But you'll find that everyone who disagrees with you, understands that sexuality is part of identity.

 

I'm curious if you expanded on your opinion, you would believe that gay people ought to suppress this part of themselves?

 

 

You're saying biology is destiny. Saying someone who is born gay is defined by that is the exact same thing, apparently, as saying someone born Chinese must embrace their heritage and eat rice every day. It's orientationist.

[Adieu]

 

Who decided that blacks should have civil rights and women should be able to vote? Damn special interest groups. Force us all to go along with their agenda.

 

except your argument is invalid: in france, it's not like gays are being hung on trees, or get put in jail or anything.

they already have civil rights, they can vote, they can kiss publicly, they can have civil union, they can even adopt kids.

now the gay lobby + government proposed to replace the traditional institution of marriage by a new one, and some people don't like it.

 

but let's not forget the context in which this amendment takes place: at the same time, the teaching of gender theory at school. without even consulting parents. because that's how democracy works: the government will do whatever it wants to do, without consulting you, because it's for your own good you know, it's for a good cause. i call this a fraud.

 

 

You keep making this same argument and you dodge all the other legitimate questions and criticisms because answering them would discredit your position.

 

You should stop replying to thread if you aren't going to make a real argument.

 

For the institution to be replaced by allowing homosexuals to marry would mean that it has an effect on the institution of heterosexuals. It doesn't though.

 

Any homosexual marriage will still be separate from a heterosexual marriage. This renders your position invalid.

 

If anything the institution for homosexuals is merely being added while the institution for heterosexuals remains unchanged.

 

To claim it is a replacement would be to claim that homosexual marriage is being forced onto heterosexuals. It isn't.

 

Let's not forget that the institution of marriage is between two people. Anything outside of that institution is not relevant to their vows, and their personal commitment.

 

What's scary is that you veil your bigoted position some false notion of protecting a tradition and an institution, but that position can easily be shown to be a falsehood. So it really begs the question what is your real argument? What are you really against here? You holding back elaborating on your position purposefully.

[Rpeg]

 

 

I'm not sure that it must be.

 

Your stance does make sense, then. I think in order to consider equality for homosexuals, you need to first accept that our sexuality plays a defining role in who we are as people. It defines who I am able to love, who I choose to love. I can't readily escape it, or else I am suppressing a fundamental part of my identity. It is me.

 

But you'll find that everyone who disagrees with you, understands that sexuality is part of identity.

 

I'm curious if you expanded on your opinion, you would believe that gay people ought to suppress this part of themselves?

 

 

You're saying biology is destiny. Saying someone who is born gay is defined by that is the exact same thing, apparently, as saying someone born Chinese must embrace their heritage and eat rice every day. It's orientationist.

 

 

 

Well, no, I'm not saying those two things are equivalent at all. Are you saying that the cultural heritage specific to your lineage is intrinsic to being human? Because we both know it's pretty simple to denounce your first-gen immigrant parents and move into the city at age 18, and never look back.

 

How easy would you think it is to betray your current sexual orientation, in favor of the other? Do you think you would coerce yourself into falling in love with someone of the same/opposite gender, and build a life together? The idea is absurd to me, personally, but I think this is what you are suggesting.

[Adieu]

 

I've asked you time and time again to provide substantial reasoning for opposing equality for homosexuality. You have not provided anything. You dodge questions and make unsubstantiated claims. Please contribute to the discussion if you are going to oppose my viewpoint.

 

 

I'm not making unsubstantiated claims. And I don't have to address anything you ask, nor do I care to.

 

Re: the white thing, I feel like I am a black man born in a white man's body. Currently in legal proceedings to have my ethnic origin changed to Gabonese.

 

 

Yes, you said that you believe that homosexuality accelerates societal collapse. As well as making a parallel that suggests allowing homosexuals to marry is a eradication of marriage for heterosexuals.

 

Sarcasm intended to move the focus away from your weak position that you refuse to elaborate on.

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure that it must be.

 

Your stance does make sense, then. I think in order to consider equality for homosexuals, you need to first accept that our sexuality plays a defining role in who we are as people. It defines who I am able to love, who I choose to love. I can't readily escape it, or else I am suppressing a fundamental part of my identity. It is me.

 

But you'll find that everyone who disagrees with you, understands that sexuality is part of identity.

 

I'm curious if you expanded on your opinion, you would believe that gay people ought to suppress this part of themselves?

 

 

You're saying biology is destiny. Saying someone who is born gay is defined by that is the exact same thing, apparently, as saying someone born Chinese must embrace their heritage and eat rice every day. It's orientationist.

 

 

You're saying that biology is the only determining factor in someones identity by implying that what he is saying is related strictly to biology. You are in fact denying that there are other forces at work that define identity as well denying the existence of a soul.

 

He didn't say people were born gay. Only that their sexual orientation is part of their identity.

[xox]

AdieuErsatzEnnui, how are your parents? Are they live and well?

[Adieu]

 

 

 

I'm not sure that it must be.

 

Your stance does make sense, then. I think in order to consider equality for homosexuals, you need to first accept that our sexuality plays a defining role in who we are as people. It defines who I am able to love, who I choose to love. I can't readily escape it, or else I am suppressing a fundamental part of my identity. It is me.

 

But you'll find that everyone who disagrees with you, understands that sexuality is part of identity.

 

I'm curious if you expanded on your opinion, you would believe that gay people ought to suppress this part of themselves?

 

 

You're saying biology is destiny. Saying someone who is born gay is defined by that is the exact same thing, apparently, as saying someone born Chinese must embrace their heritage and eat rice every day. It's orientationist.

 

 

 

Well, no, I'm not saying those two things are equivalent at all. Are you saying that the cultural heritage specific to your lineage is intrinsic to being human? Because we both know it's pretty simple to denounce your first-gen immigrant parents and move into the city at age 18, and never look back.

 

How easy would you think it is to betray your current sexual orientation, in favor of the other? Do you think you would coerce yourself into falling in love with someone of the same/opposite gender, and build a life together? The idea is absurd to me, personally, but I think this is what you are suggesting.

 

 

I think a more interesting point is the apparent prevalence of sexual fluidity among females as compared to males. We aren't that different genetically, but our sexuality differs greatly. This very distinctly points to cultural influence in my opinion. We as a species have a preoccupation with homosexuality in males, and are more forgiving towards females. Very telling if you ask me.

AdieuErsatzEnnui, how are your parents? Are they live and well?

 

They are fine as far as I know. Yes, they are still living.

[brian trageskin]

What's scary is that you veil your bigoted position some false notion of protecting a tradition and an institution, but that position can easily be shown to be a falsehood.

 

you proved me nothing so far. your reasoning is based on so many fallacies that it's very hard to distinguish the relevant stuff from the irrelevant.

 

If anything the institution for homosexuals is merely being added while the institution for heterosexuals remains unchanged.

 

except i'm not talking about civil rights, i'm talking about a very specific tradition, which is marriage = man+woman only and exclusively.

maybe one day you'll get it lol.

[sheatheman]

You're saying that biology is the only determining factor in someones identity by implying that what he is saying is related strictly to biology. You are in fact denying that there are other forces at work that define identity as well denying the existence of a soul.

 

He didn't say people were born gay. Only that their sexual orientation is part of their identity.

No, I'm not saying that. I said biology is NOT destiny. I said the opposite, and that's what I believe.

 

I notice you keep mentioning souls. Why is that? You believe people are souls with bodies?

[sheatheman]

Well, no, I'm not saying those two things are equivalent at all. Are you saying that the cultural heritage specific to your lineage is intrinsic to being human? Because we both know it's pretty simple to denounce your first-gen immigrant parents and move into the city at age 18, and never look back.

 

How easy would you think it is to betray your current sexual orientation, in favor of the other? Do you think you would coerce yourself into falling in love with someone of the same/opposite gender, and build a life together? The idea is absurd to me, personally, but I think this is what you are suggesting.

Cultural heritage can have as much or a little to do with identity as chance/choice can cause. My sister-in-law is adopted from China, so I speak from experience.

[Guest Jimmy McMessageboard]

 

honestly tho super made me kind of uncomfortable. It makes itself out to be this quirky indie comedy, but then you've got

 

protagonist beats two people to death with a wrench for being rude to him scene

 

ellen page rapes a man scene

 

ellen page gets her face blown off with a shotgun scene

 

 

 

 

and at the end i was like "well that was that"

Should I watch it?

 

sounds rough

 

 

I liked super. probably the only film i liked her in.

 

Burial's probably sampling this as we speak.

FUCKINGLOL

[Adieu]

 

You're saying that biology is the only determining factor in someones identity by implying that what he is saying is related strictly to biology. You are in fact denying that there are other forces at work that define identity as well denying the existence of a soul.

 

He didn't say people were born gay. Only that their sexual orientation is part of their identity.

No, I'm not saying that. I said biology is NOT destiny. I said the opposite, and that's what I believe.

 

I notice you keep mentioning souls. Why is that? You believe people are souls with bodies?

 

 

If you believe that biology is not destiny then why would it even be relevant for someone to prove biologically that being homosexual is determined by genes?

 

Your interpretation of his points on identity by associating identity with biology, more specifically sexual identity, you imply you believe the two are directly related. If you believe this and you are also a Christian, then you are all at once denying your own religious beliefs, because you are negating the influence of the soul, while trying to prove another point of your religion that homosexuality is wrong.

 

I believe that people are more than our current understanding of biology and environment.

[LimpyLoo]

 

If anything the institution for homosexuals is merely being added while the institution for heterosexuals remains unchanged.

 

except i'm not talking about civil rights, i'm talking about a very specific tradition, which is marriage = man+woman only and exclusively.

maybe one day you'll get it lol.

 

 

You haven't given a single reason why that tradition should be respected and kept as it is.

[Audioblysk]

This thread is the frog

[xox]

Well xox, it sounds like all you're going to do is prove you're an asshole! That wouldn't really help your case.

 

well it was a long day and i just responded to his 'asshole' calling that i certainly didnt deserved, as others confirmed

he's not someone one can talk about objectively and others can see that too

 

also, i push nothing, no case here, just stating some facts and i even defended gays and their rights.

 

so, a marriage is NOT a BASIC human right according to highest legal experts of EU, who i'm i to talk against them? aslo, marriage law is inherently discriminative, anyone can read it and see that. it's discriminative to protect specific relations which are based on specific laws of natural and which are like they are and we cant change them. another q of yours was why gay parents are not good/ideal. to what id say that all we know from our several thousands of yrs old history and from all psychology or child development that father + mother is ideal for children's development (and children have rights to this and we're obligated to deliver the best what we can). im not gonna go deeper in this cause tons of books is written about this as we know. a gay couple could be better then some real but bad parents i know but that's just an exception of the rule. real parents are good per se (do i really have to prove something like this?), something derived from nature so we should protect that basic nucleus of our culture's past, present and future. if anything is marriage, nothing is marriage, as those legal experts say...and that's just the beginning of legal problems, cause all the other more complex marriage combinations are gonna unnecessary enter the reality. unnecessary, cause they could be regulated on different level (like is gay partnership regulated in croatia). their words!

 

am i really subjective in anything here or ignorant? i'm really trying not to be.

 

im not some random homophobe (what a funny little word) cause i have whys i and whats behind my points of view (which one could dislike them, i approve), which are changeable, of course (i hope)

 

really nothing else necessary to add about the subject

[sheatheman]

If you believe that biology is not destiny then why would it even be relevant for someone to prove biologically that being homosexual is determined by genes?

 

Your interpretation of his points on identity by associating identity with biology, more specifically sexual identity, you imply you believe the two are directly related. If you believe this and you are also a Christian, then you are all at once denying your own religious beliefs, because you are negating the influence of the soul, while trying to prove another point of your religion that homosexuality is wrong.

 

I believe that people are more than our current understanding of biology and environment.

I'm not trying to prove or disprove gay genes. What? I'm having trouble understanding you.

 

Why do you believe people are more than cells and impulses? What do you base that on? If you allow yourself to have unfounded beliefs, how can you attack others for doing the same?

[xox]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AdieuErsatzEnnui, how are your parents? Are they live and well?

 

They are fine as far as I know. Yes, they are still living.

 

 

as far as you know? so you had to move away? they didnt show understanding?

[Adieu]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AdieuErsatzEnnui, how are your parents? Are they live and well?

 

They are fine as far as I know. Yes, they are still living.

 

 

as far as you know? so you had to move away? they didnt show understanding?

 

 

I've not spoken to my father recently, and my mother I haven't spoken to in a week or so. So, as far as I know. I'm not sure what you are getting at. Understanding of what?