Heterosexuals, we need to talk

I used to think you were just a bunch of fun-loving, penis-in-vagina folks. Sure, you voted against us back in '04, beat a few of us to death and left us on fences, but, hey, everyone needs a little time to get used to things. I know we were turning your world of holy matrimony upside down, so I was fine giving you a few chances to get your values sorted out. And you were doing pretty good for a while, what with trying to make sure we had jobs and houses.

I guess I expected a little too much from you, though. You see, I thought I might be a person to you, not just the sidekick who picks out your clothes, and the fashion accessory who pops up on your favorite TV show so you can applaud how "tolerant" you are. But I guess in all your infinite Mormon wisdom, you decided you didn't like me. Wanted to make sure I'd alone. Didn't want me visiting me my partner in the hospital. Hoped a few more teenagers would commit suicide.

Maybe you thought of that as just a side issue.

Well, I think of it as my life.

So let me make it clear: we are not going to be friends. You don't give a shit about me. You are my enemy. We've given you plenty of chances to prove yourself, and you've dropped the ball every time. After today, I sure don't want any more heterosexuals asking to be my friend. Sorry, pal. You blew your chance. Denied. Application rejected. Ship has sailed.

Because you won't be seeing me at any more of your weddings. I'm not part of your club, you see. And don't ask me for any gifts or cards, or to cheer your boy-meets-girl stories, or to show up at your two-gender romantic comedies. I'm not doing that any more. Not after today.

And before you ask me to wave tiny American flags with you and sing kumbaya to salute the new Commander-in-Chief, let me tell you: Your president is not my president. Your president lacked the courage to take a stand for my rights. Your president's running mate used national television to tell America that, God no, he would never caught be dead giving rights to people like us. Your president is a coward and a bigot.

I'm not discouraged. Make no mistake: Our rights are coming to us, one way or another. You see, it's you who ought to be worried. Because one day, we are going to throw down these walls and claim our rights as first-class citizens and human beings. And the question then will be whether you have put yourself on the wrong side of history, whether you are standing before the world exposed as the bigots and the fools you are, or whether you got your shit together after all.

Heterosexuals, maybe someday you'll give me cause to re-evaluate my opinion of you. Until then, don't expect any sympathy or friendship from me. I'm going to be busy fighting tooth and nail for the rights that you keep trying to deny us.

Whether you like it or not.

Fail. GTFO

>>2
No, Win. GTFI

>>3

No, Fail. GTFO

I don't mind a lot of black people because they didn't choose to be black and don't act like niggers.

Gays, on the other hand, all chose to be gays so I hate them unconditionally. Faggot is an insult for a reason, and rightly so. They're a slap in the face to the men who fought for and shaped our country. They'd be rolling in their graves if this passed and we encouraged sissy men who gossip over fashion as a part of America's culture. They didn't sacrifice their lives for those fags - ship them all to Europe where they belong with their tea-sipping brothers.

>>5
Fail, this country is suppose to be free from discrimination. You sir are an idiot, the founding fathers will be rolling over in their graves over retards dumbasses as you.
>>1
As a heterosexual male, I voted no on Prop 8 because any kind of discrimination is wrong. Now getting back to Anonymous #5.
>>5
You stupid cunt, you do not choose to be gay. Even though I am debating on the power of brainwashing. We have scientific evidence to prove that we are born gay. How about you get the fuck out of this god damn country, because you intolerant pricks are fucking up the entire thing. Don't know what the proof is? Do your own fucking research and I do not mean the god damn bible.

It's god damn cunts like you which makes me wish I was gay, just so I could find a guy who is large and in charge. Then go over to your god damn house and make out right in front of your god damn face. This will seriously piss you the fuck off and because of his size, he will then come into your home and fucking hurt you, you stupid redneck God-sucking cuntbag. Then again, after this entire ordeal, you probably will enjoy it. Because even the most homophobic pricks are usually the homosexual ones.

How about you just go die and never come back from the fiery prick of hell.

When scientists finally find a cure for faggorty none of this will even matter.

>>1
I fucking agreed with everything you said there good sir. Heterosexual here by the way, even though I have thought about rather I'd be gay. Also to >>7, I have been debating rather I was gay, however I don't feel gay, if I choose to be gay, it doesn't make me gay because I would still fantasize about women. I am sick and tired of you god damn reckneck pricks that think you know a shit about how the world works, mostly because your prick of a God tells you too. When all you know is an outdated piece of shit book and a fictional being of your god damn imagination.

Some day everyone would be equal and have all of the rights as everyone else without you faggots to disrupt this shit. Notice how I called you a faggot, because if it's the ultimate insult. Then your homophobia must mean that you are the biggest faggot of them all, because you must be a closeted homosexual. Seriously, just come out of the fucking closet you god damn piece of shit cunt.

I seriously hope that you come out of the closet soon and admit that you met a good guy who is willing to put up with your fucking shit, because then you two would decide you want to marry. However you can't, how would that feel you cunt. Not be willing to love the person you love. Now go fuck off and die in a fire cuntslut.

>>7
Go die in a fire and eat a cold dick you homophobic afraid-to-come-out religious faggot.

this trehd is too long to read, sorry guys

Gay marriage is illegal for a reason. You're defiling human pride for wanting it, and you should be thrown into a wood-chipper with the rest of the gays.

>>11
lol Irans

>>6
I like that theory, that people are born gay.

Does that mean that there is a selection against gays? Surely if you're born gay, it means that you have some defective gene that evolutionary selection has made it so that you don't propagate.

Can we say that if you're gay, you're genetically inferior?

>>11
You should be deported from this nation, because it's you faggots why the rest of the god damn world hates us. I fucking wish that Europe or some god damn nation will just fucking nuke us already and kill all of you god damn retarded sons of bitches.
>>10
Learn to read, otherwise you are just a retarded emo kid that is too god damn lazy and will never be anything. Does that make you happy? Well if it does, I am glad. Just stay in the house and fuck off. Because somebody will someday come and put a god damn bullet though your fucking head.

There's no such thing as being born gay - there is no 'gay gene'. Gay scientists just made up this crap with zero, I repeat, ZERO evidence outside of interpretations from case studies, which really don't mean crap.

Being gay is a preference that you develop from being raised in a particularly gay environment and I view it as a disorder. It goes against both evolutionary nature AND God, so good luck trying to defend it.

Feel free to be gay, just don't expect us to accept you or give you any legal benefits. Marriage is for us straight folks by definition, you can't just hijack it from us so you feel better about yourselves. Married people get legal benefits because the government wants to encourage people to have offspring, gay couples offer nothing in return so you don't get anything in return. It's quite simple.

I don't see why you care about getting married when being gay goes against the foundations of marriage in the first place. There's no point in getting married to have your relationship recognized by God since he hates you to begin with.

>>15
I seriously wish that gay was a preference. I for one tried to be gay for a change. Even made out with a few guys. However I realized it was gross and not for me. This made me realize I was heterosexual and preferred women than men. You just sound like a god damn retard talking about how it goes against God. Gay doesn't rub off on you dumbshit. You know nothing of evolution. Stop trying to sound smart you KKK piece of shit.

Also funny how you say God hates fags. I'm a Christian jackhole and even I realize that God loves everyone. You know nothing of God's work. God only sends people to hell for sinning. The bible is just stories to live by, not really God's word. I love people like you idiots. Thinking you know what God wants or what God hates. You know nothing but shit. Also you just proved to be a discriminating fuck hole who would judge a group of people of not being normal or being human by your standards.

Seriously get off of this fucking planet and kill yourself. You'll be in for quite a surprise. Know fuck off and don't even try debating this again. You are not smart and know nothing. You just another sack of shit.

ITT: Trolls trolling trolls whom troll trolls by trolling trolls.
Good times, good times.

>> There's no such thing as being born gay - there is no 'gay gene'.
Tell that to all the other mammals that engage in same-gender sexual activity. It's very common among primates. See, sex isn't just about procreation. It's also about creating emotional bonds. Gay sex is just as effective at creating emotional bonds as straight sex. This is why higher primates often display open sexual preference.

I'm not a troll for the record.

What you homosexuals fail to realize is that your existence is meaningless, the very small purpose that everything is given to procreate and evolve the species has been stripped away from you.

There are 2 reason things evolve that are equally important, #1 Survival #2 Mating, you don't have one so it doesn't matter if you're a freaking god, because you can't pass on those genes.

I am an atheist, it has nothing to do with that, scientifically you are inferior.

You can bullshit me all day about how "sex is for enjoyment too.", "Your probably a closet case!" and "My only purpose isn't to have children!", But that would be a waste of everyone's time, because you have probably been aware of what I said for a long time, anything you say would just be the denial stage's ramblings Sexual intercourse is simply to reproduce; not that you can really call buttsex sex.

To put it simply:
I win and I'm sorry you were born inferior.

Wow, Anon #19, Darwinfag much?

Atheist here.

Gays are a basic fact.  You can't wish them away.  There do need to be some positive pro-gay changes.  However why the fuck should the basic concept of marriage change?

- Let them get married and get the same rights, yet they don't have kids.

Sounds like a winner to me.  And by Winner I mean retarded idea.

>>19
You sound completely unintelligent. Gays could still reproduce, they just need to find a woman. There have been cases where their female friends were willing to have a child for them. Also life is about you and what you want to do. You comes first, followed by survival, follow by mating. All that really matters is how you live life and not know you are supposed to live via Evolution. You worse than those creationists dumbfuck.

Gays still have semen, they just need to find someone who is willing to carry their seed. Just as anyone else. Just it might not be sexual. You can have kids without sex you know. Asexual couples most likely do this. In other words, you fail, I rule, you are inferior.

>>21
They could always adopt. It has been proven in a study that gay couples raise a better family than heterosexual families. I smell fucking irony here motherfucker. As they could still reproduce, as I said above.

>>22
Because you make no sense and science saves you, you are superior?

Fail.

>>24
You never heard of the possibility of asexual pregnancy? Civil Rights never take a stand. Now fuck off and go back to the 1900's to "fuckmesomeniggers."

>>19
Do you have any idea how many ways one can create an infant without actual sex? You also forget that if lesbians were desperate for a kid, it wouldn't be all that difficult to find a man to impregnate one. It's relatively easy and has been getting cheaper and cheaper. Also, humanity measures succession in other ways besides genetics. You know, such as with property transferral, family traditions, etc. all of which are just as important to modern human society as genetic lineage.

Homosexuality does confer a rather large penalty to reproductive fitness, but it is hardly insurmountable. It's like people who choose to wait until they're older to have kids and choose to have a smaller number, the typically more successful people, are inferior to the trailer and ghetto trash that have a bunch of kids when they're young? Careful how you reason because that's exactly what you're implying.

>>21
We need to change the basic concept of marriage because any substititute will be exploited to no end. It's naive to think that civil unions will be honored as equal when they haven't been.
Why aren't marriages with post-medpausal, barren, women or impotetent men banned, then? Marriage isn't exlusively for those who intend to aggregate progeny. Your logic is poor. Especially since gays can adopt.

>>19
Are you kidding me? This is the best thing about fags. They don't create children and it's less competition. There's too many humans on this planet, in my opinion. We need less people having children. Some people want to have sex with each other, leaving more singles in the world and less whiny brats? Fan-fucking-tastic. Great. And hey, if you can make my life a little easier like a gay doctor or something? All the better. Gays are great, they want a tax cut? Give them a tax cut.

>>21
Its' a good thing infertile straight couples can't get married, isn't it?

Its' a good thing every single marriage produces children, isn't it?

I guess barren women and infertile men shouldn't be allowed to get married, either.

If Obama sticks to his guns by denying homo's "special rights", then it will probably be the only good thing about his presidency.

Gay people have no soul.

>>29

Yeah, I watched on the VP Debate with Biden and Palin and upon being asked about the gays they both agreed that they don't like em.

>>30
Nobody has a soul, that is because God isn't real you fairies.

NeoGAF Off Topic Discussion Delicious Copy Pasta

>>33

LOLWUT

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13508171&postcount=1

GAF is fag spelt backwards

lol

One of their mods (Amir0x)is the biggest FAG on the internet, so yeah.

Well I was going to sign up to troll that forum but you need to be approved first before you account gets activated. What kind of gay shit is that?

■ ▲ ▼
[1:6] Chief Poundcake signs cornholer treaty

Man this is a fun troll thread.

Well here is one anon who recognizes that gay people got it way too hard, its just silly really and prop 8 is an embarassment to the whole country (as are many of the other anti-gay marriage laws).

I'm not gay, heck I'm a christian, I'm black, none of these things that are happening should be ignored.

So just see me as a little shining beacon amidst all the trolls and idiots.

(also, incest laws are ridiculous and should also be repealed, just like the sodomy laws before them. There is no reason for a law on something that happens in private.)

Let me tell you something. It's in Swedish, but google is your friend. Especially Google Translate.

Må hundra rödspängda ananas frukter slipa ner ditt anus till damm, och tre till åtta små kycklingar äta på dina bröstvårtor när du dör.

And yes, i'm only writing in swedish to be annoying. WIN 4 ME!

FAT32 4 EVA

The bible is not against gay marriage. fucking read it you illiterates.

A) The Ceremonial Law of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy no longer applies. Because of what is written in the book of Galatians and Paul's writings in the second chapter of Colossians, we have clear declarations that the ceremonial law is now in the field of Christian liberty. Paul uses a variety of examples to declare this and lists several portions of the law, following with the declaration that all of it was nailed to the Cross and has been removed. This belief is backed up further by the book of Romans and the speeches at the council of Jerusalem in Acts (Chapter 15), along with selected sayings by Christ concerning ceremonial practice. If we decide to pick and choose portions of the ceremonial law to continue in observance as God's will without clear relation of those parts to the commandments of God referenced in Romans, James and Revelations, then we place ourselves in danger of the ban of Galatians 1:8.

If this is the case, and most of you will find that your pastors will agree with this, unless you are members of the Seventh-day Adventist or similar denominations, then we have a big problem in the debate of homosexual sex as a sin. The problem is simple: The two clearest declarations of homosexual sex as a sin in the Bible are found in chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus. If the ceremonial law no longer applies, then neither do these.

B) Sodom and Gomorrah do not pertain to homosexual sex, and the same can be said of the related story in Judges. The sins of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are clearly huge. Have you ever seen a city in your lives where the whole male population tried to batter down doors so that they could gang rape guests to the city? I apologize for being so blunt and almost crude, but the point is not a pleasant one, and neither is the story. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were sinful beyond our understanding. These were foul places where such extreme forms of rape were accepted and where the closest thing to a righteous man offers up his daughters to their lusts. Further, the issue also comes up that this is a story more about the complete lack of hospitality and the brutality of the citizens. It is reading too far into the text to say that this passage says anything about homosexual sex. It is speaking of extreme cases that do not apply to homosexual sex.

(Note: Ezekiel 16 is the passage which refers to the sins of Sodom/Gomorrah)

C) The argument of creation (God created them Adam and Eve, so they are meant to be complimentary) suffers from a massive weakness. In chapter three of Genesis, we are told why a man leaves his father and mother to become one flesh with the woman that he loves. We are told similar things in chapter five of Paul's letter to the Ephesians. However, neither passage declares that this must be the only thing. Paul also speaks elsewhere of the joys of celibacy. This indicates that marriage is not required. Without proof that homosexual sex is considered a sin, there is no reason to automatically assume that "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is actually said in Scripture. The passages only say why heterosexual marriages occur, not that they must be the only ones.

In fact, an important point must be made. Scripture speaks clearly about the need to save sex for marriage. If the Bible has not declared homosexual sex or marriage as sinful, then we have done a vast disservice in refusing homosexual couples the right to marriage. We are, in effect, trying to force them into sinful relationships out-of-wedlock.

D) There are three passages that may speak on homosexual sex in the New Testament. Two are lists of sins, found in chapter six of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians and chapter one of his first letter to Timothy. The third, and most important, passage is found in the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans.

1) The two lists are poorly translated in the cases of homosexuality. Three words are found in these passages that are used to relate to homosexual sex: Pornia, Arsenokoitas and Malakoi. Pornia means pervert. That's all it really means. It refers to sexual perversion, but makes no statement as to what that perversion is. It is far too general to relate to homosexual sex. Malakoi refers to softness or effeminacy, with implications of perversion. The term is used to refer to a man who is too passionate and emotional, and who acts upon these. It relates to the Grecian concepts of gender identity. The man was not to be emotional in this fashion. If one stretches the meaning of the word, examples are found where Malakoi may refer to the 'bottom' partner of pederasty. This is a relationship wherein a teenage boy traded sexual favors with an older man in return for guidance and training. It was common within Greek society and accepted in Roman society. Arsenokoitas is a compound word derived from the Greek words for man and bed. While this sounds like a clear reference to homosexuality to our modern ears, there is a problem. The word does not appear at any point prior to Paul's letters. To our knowledge, he created the term himself. Its usage in all other cases I am aware of either represents something akin to an aggressive sexual predator or, more commonly, the "top" partner in pederasty. At most these verses could possibly have listed pederasty as a crime, but not homosexual sex alone. You cannot read into the text the fact that, because something condemned includes another thing, that other thing is automatically condemned as well. For example, a person who breaks the commandment about not bearing false testimony against one's neighbor must communicate to do so. Communication is not condemned, is it? The condemnation of pederasty cannot be clearly related, even in consideration of Jewish morals that Paul is familiar with, to a condemnation of homosexual sex. Look at http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html for further details on the specifics of Arsenokoites and Malakoi.

2) Romans 1:18-32 is the key to the argument. However, there are a series of problems with the classic interpretation of the passage.

One, we rarely take verses 26-27 in context with the rest of the passage. The lusts spoken of are the result of godlessness and the refusal of the gospel of God. The godless ones are described as being given over to their passions. This loss of control is key and important to the Greeks and Romans Paul is writing to, and was considered a very bad thing. It is important to realize that the passage is not centered on homosexual relations, no matter how you interpret it.

Two, the relationships are referred to as being unnatural. The term pushin is the Greek word for natural and refers, in general, to that which is according either to socially accepted morals or to one's innate nature. The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexual relationships to be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural to the Romans would specifically have been something where a citizen was 'on bottom.' Such a position degrades the citizen's status and was considered to be a horrible thing.

Three, the shameful lusts that are spoken of are not specifically described. Unlike Leviticus, where they are listed, the passage assumes that its audience knows what is being spoken of. While Paul is a born and trained Jew, familiar with the ceremonial law, he is preaching to newly converted Christians in Rome and Greece. These people, though somewhat familiar with Jewish beliefs, could not have been considered familiar enough to assume that "shameful lusts" meant what is said in Leviticus. Paul is not a man to leave explanations unclear. When necessary, he goes into great detail and repetition to make his point absolutely clear and understood. Therefore, by context it seems he is speaking to the Roman's understanding of shameful, the subjugation of a citizen for example. Further, pathos (lusts) does not necessitate a sexual connotation.

Four, the fact that we have women doing things with women instead of men and that we have men doing things with men instead of women is clear from what Paul says in verses 26-27. However, Paul does not at any point say what is being done. He lacks the clarity of Leviticus. Any number of things could be occurring, and without a clear indication that the text is specifically speaking of homosexual sex acts on any level we are familiar with today we cannot claim that Romans 1 clearly declares that the ceremonial law still applies in this case.

My arguments are quite basic. This is only an overview of them. I have far more detailed descriptions of the issues involved and will happily offer them. This argument is also not new. You can find websites offering similar interpretations themselves. I came to these conclusions, however, through prayer and consideration with friends, not a website. These positions, also, are hardly universally accepted. There is strong evidence in both directions with regards Romans 1. Some churches still make the claim that parts of the ceremonial law remain intact. There are strong arguments both for and against this.

My single greatest point is this: Can you honestly declare something a sin when you cannot clearly show without serious contention that the Bible declares it to be a sin? When we look at the Ten Commandments, we know basically what they say and don't argue over them. Christ further explains them during his life, giving us more information about what they mean. We know these things to be sins, and there is little debate. Homosexual sex is found in the ceremonial laws and what few verses speak of it outside of that set of laws are hotly contested. How can we clearly state, based upon these facts, that homosexuality is indeed a sin?

No. I don't think it's wrong, and I'll be happy to stand on Scripture to that effect.
also note, I'm a heterosexual Catholic.

>>42

No, NTFS 4 EVA

What it means: Let one hundred rödspängda pineapple fruit grind down your anus to the pond, and three to eight small chickens eat at your nipples when you die.

What it REALLY means: TITS OR GTFO

BTW, NTFS 4 EVA

Only male and male couples.

Male and female couples.

And female and female couples.

Should be allowed to wed.