backtop

Print 157 comment(s) - last by nocturne_81.. on Sep 29 at 8:56 AM

Former U.S. Senator and Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum  (Source: inquisitr.com)
Santorum said Google would have removed the content by now if he was a Democrat instead of a Republican

Former U.S. Senator and Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum lashed out at Google on Tuesday when the search giant refused to get rid of search results that linked his name to a vulgar sexual reference.

The sexual reference, which is much too inappropriate to describe here, was first linked to Santorum back in 2003 when he compared homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia in an interview with The Associated Press.

"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality," said Santorum in the 2003 interview. "That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog or whatever the case may be."

Santorum's comments angered the gay rights community, and gay podcast and sex columnist Dan Savage did something about it.

Savage launched a campaign to redefine Santorum's name on his podcast, and when a definition was selected, he made a website for it. Over time, so many bloggers linked to it that the sexual definition "eclipsed" Santorum's campaign pages in search rankings.

Santorum, who was obviously not happy with this discovery, grew angry with Google according to CNN and lashed out at the company this past week over its refusal to remove the content from its search rankings. Santorum also accused Google of refusing to do so because of political reasons, saying that the content would be gone by now if he were a Democrat instead of a Republican.

"I suspect if something was up there like that about Joe Biden, they'd get rid of it," said Santorum. "If you're a responsible business, you don't let things like that happen in your business that have an impact on the country. To have a business allow that type of filth to be purveyed through their website or through their system is something that they say they can't handle, but I suspect that's not true."

Santorum had directly contacted Google about the problem, and a Google spokeswoman responded in an email to CNN. The following is an excerpt from said email:
Google's search results are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the Web. Users who want content removed from the Internet should contact the webmaster of the page directly. Once the webmaster takes the page down from the Web, it will be removed from Google's search results through our usual crawling process. We do not remove content from our search results, except in very limited cases such as illegal content and violations of our webmaster guidelines.
Google has been "hands off" in regards to these issues in the past, notes SearchEngineLand blogger Danny Sullivan. For instance, in 2004, an anti-Jewish website started ranking in Google's top results for the search term "Jew." While Google's co-founder Sergey Brin was Jewish himself and unhappy with this search result, it stood. 

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Hey douchebag...
By Motoman on 9/22/2011 12:39:28 PM , Rating: 4
...the reason that people are mocking you like this isn't because there's something "wrong" with the "system" and you need to "fix" it.

It's because the system works. People think you're a douchebag, so they treat you like a douchebag. Because you act like a douchebag. You think like a douchebag. You talk like a douchebag.

...so because you are who you are, the whole world knows you're a douchebag. Douchebag.




RE: Hey douchebag...
By straycat74 on 9/22/11, Rating: 0
RE: Hey douchebag...
By acer905 on 9/22/2011 12:54:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If one feels that sticking a penis into a [child or animals] anus is a bit odd, it makes them a douchebag?


Lets fix that for you.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Sazabi19 on 9/22/2011 1:24:32 PM , Rating: 2
Mmmmm... male baby animal anus :D


RE: Hey douchebag...
By adiposity on 9/22/2011 12:56:45 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
If one feels that sticking a penis into another mans anus is a bit odd, it makes them a douchebag?


No, especially if they keep it to themselves. I think a lot of sexual acts are odd, but I don't try to get elected to make them illegal. I don't compare them to incest and bestiality and blame Catholic child abuse scandals on the existence of these different sexual acts.

Santorum has done these things. As far as I'm concerned, he can drown in a pool of his own santorum after ricking it from himself.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By adiposity on 9/22/2011 1:03:44 PM , Rating: 1
I wonder if I was auto-modded down for "anus, "douchebag," or "santorum."


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Motoman on 9/24/2011 3:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
Does it matter, seeing how as they're all effectively synonyms?


RE: Hey douchebag...
By straycat74 on 9/22/2011 1:26:06 PM , Rating: 4
When in recent history have homosexuals kept it to themselves?

I don't care what people do to themselves enough to force them to do otherwise, but seriously, be gay. Wear whichever genders clothes you want. Just stop telling me I have to say "you're just like everyone else" when you choose to live differently.

If you choose to put your self in a box, label yourself, make the whole of your identity about how you seek pleasure, then expect people to have a reply to your suggestion that they should tell you it's good.

when I put on my unitard and go for a bike ride, I don't expect people to make me feel good about it.

And for the record I believe he used the examples to differentiate abnormal* sexual behaviors from the really abnormal* ones. However, with the escalation in the protests coming from the pedophiliacs the past fews years, I wonder what your comment will be when it becomes mainstream to start accepting them. And yes they are really trying to legitimize it.

*abnormal
quote:
One criterion for "abnormality" that may appear to apply in the case of abnormal behavior is statistical infrequency. This has an obvious flaw — the extremely intelligent, are just as abnormal as their opposites. Therefore, individual abnormal behaviors are considered to be statistically unusual as well as undesirable. The presence of some form of abnormal behavior is not unusual. About one quarter of people in the United States, for example, are believed to meet criteria for a mental disorder in any given year 1. Mental disorders, by definition, involve unusual or statistically abnormal behaviors.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Jert10 on 9/22/2011 2:46:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When in recent history have homosexuals kept it to themselves?

How about the guy I worked with for years and never knew he was homosexual until he brought his significant other to a work party? He kept it to himself. But let's flip that question, when in history have heterosexuals kept it to themselves? Never, so why then should homosexuals have to? cause you don't like it?

quote:
Just stop telling me I have to say "you're just like everyone else" when you choose to live differently.

There is quite a difference between random person on the internet saying they are alike, and a politician who says they can't have the same rights.

quote:
If you choose to put your self in a box, label yourself, make the whole of your identity about how you seek pleasure, then expect people to have a reply to your suggestion that they should tell you it's good.

If you put your self in a box, label yourself, make your whole identity about how you know whats best for people, then expect people to have a reply to your suggestion they are not afforded rights. It's quite absurd that this guy wants to garner votes from the anti gay-rights crowd, and none of the backlash from the gay-rights crowd.

quote:
And for the record I believe he used the examples to differentiate abnormal* sexual behaviors from the really abnormal* ones.

That he even brought up child and animal sex is absurd to the point of nauseating. But he still did, and in doing so, he is making subconscious links between them to those who hear, and read. It's like me saying "I don't think you are smart, but I'm not calling you heavily retarded to the point of needing someone to monitor your internet activities, or a danger to yourself and those around you."


RE: Hey douchebag...
By adiposity on 9/22/11, Rating: 0
RE: Hey douchebag...
By unimatrix725 on 9/23/2011 2:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
+1
Enough said....


RE: Hey douchebag...
By adiposity on 9/22/2011 3:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When in recent history have homosexuals kept it to themselves?


Actually, what I meant was, if you are against homosexuality, that's fine, but keep it to yourself, and you are not such a douchebag. I wasn't talking about homosexuals keeping it to themselves.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By straycat74 on 9/22/11, Rating: 0
RE: Hey douchebag...
By LordSojar on 9/22/11, Rating: -1
RE: Hey douchebag...
By straycat74 on 9/22/2011 4:15:51 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for the lesson in tolerance.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By straycat74 on 9/22/2011 5:18:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Everyone is bisexual


This is why I am against the homosexual agenda in high school. Life can have enough problems on its own without pushing kids to experiment in homosexuality. Search "fistgate" Kids dont need math or english, just tolerance and sex ed starting in Kindergarden.

quote:
straight" guys talk about the "chicks" they "banged" all the time.

Maybe it was the people you hung around with. While it happens on TV and movies a lot, regular people are not getting laid by random chicks all of the time. the talkers weren't necessarily do-ers. And honestly the people that did were annoying. Much like the gay agenda pride parade. OK, you men have sex with other men, can we move on to something more interesting?


RE: Hey douchebag...
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/22/2011 5:26:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Life can have enough problems on its own without pushing kids to experiment in homosexuality.

Citation needed. If you want to claim that schools are doing this then back it up.
Diversity education =/= pushing kids to try homosexuality.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By straycat74 on 9/22/2011 5:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
http://massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing...

Organization prviding the resources to schools and organizations: http://groundspark.org/our-films-and-campaigns/sti...

Fistgate: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/fistgate...

quote:
A student answered this question by informing the class that "fisting" is when you put your "whole hand into the @%$ or (@&$)" of another. When a few of the students winced, the Department of Public Health employee offered, "A little known fact about fisting: you don't make a fist like this. It's like this." He formed his hand into the shape of a tear drop rather than a balled fist. He informed the children that it was much easier.

The undisputed audio recordings are on site. http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/fistgate...

Handouts given to kids:
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/fistgate...


RE: Hey douchebag...
By NES on 9/23/2011 12:13:36 PM , Rating: 2
Agenda? What agenda?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/22/texas-school-...

I was living in Cambridge, MA back during "Fistgate." You forgot to mention the one that happened in Newton, MA where a first grade teacher decided to discuss with her/his class how he/she was once a man before having an operation to be transformed into a woman. Parents were angry that they weren't informed or given any right of consent notice, and the school administrators and the state basically ignored them and denied that parental rights exist within the school system. The children were confused to say the least.

The Boston PBS station (WGBN) frequently showed GLBT documentaries, including one in particular on "K-12 Gay Pride Day" workshops and indoctrination of the elementary school kids.

I don't believe it's any of my business what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, and I support the result of Lawrence v. Texas even though the reasoning behind it was flawed (the ruling should have been based on “right to privacy” rather than "what ought to be"). I have also come to believe that it would be better to take "marriage" out of government and let individuals and religious institutions decide on what they believe, letting the state classify levels of familial relationships where the need exists. However, pushing an agenda on me and my children and expecting us to deny our religious and moral beliefs is something I won't tolerate. If you think this is an exaggeration, go live in the Boston area for a while.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Quadrillity on 9/23/2011 1:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't believe it's any of my business what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes,

Yep!
quote:
I have also come to believe that it would be better to take "marriage" out of government and let individuals and religious institutions decide on what they believe, letting the state classify levels of familial relationships where the need exists. However, pushing an agenda on me and my children and expecting us to deny our religious and moral beliefs is something I won't tolerate.

Got that right!

It looks like it's coming down to two things:

1) The government should not recognize marital status for taxs, power of attorney, will and testaments, or any other legal ruling. Flat tax is the answer for all of this. The same tax for EVERYONE, no matter income.

2) If the homosexuals are just after the tax status, then it will be fixed by flat tax. If not, then it would seem that they are trying to become special class citizens.

In due time, we will figure out which is which.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By straycat74 on 9/22/2011 5:54:00 PM , Rating: 3
More specifically:
quote:
Man: And what we do is have students go up to the board and brainstorm different responses such as um "If I was to come to terms with my sexual identity … I might be willing to have um sex more often if I found someone who was actually gay, lesbian or bisexual because I [unclear] think that they'd be the only one." Sometimes students say, um you know, " I would want to have sex to just to prove if I were gay or not because I'd figure if I had sex then I would know. " And then they'd say, "I'd have sex with -- not gay sex, because I'd want to prove I'm heterosexual and not gay. I want to see, and I want to sample." I mean, there are a number of different responses.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Paj on 9/23/2011 7:37:51 AM , Rating: 2
Haha massresistance

Quality site that.

You honestly believe that homosexuals have an agenda to 'convert' people to homosexuality?

Kind of like how the church has a documented agenda to convert people to heterosexuality?

Sexuality is a continuum, not a dichotomy. Everyone lies somewhere on that continuum. Some people are in the middle, some at either end, some in random places.

That guy was right, you are a bigot.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By bh192012 on 9/22/2011 1:46:21 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe Santorum was talking about bringing back sodomy laws, maybe I'm wrong. Comparing it to beastiality though is fair game in my opinion, since morality is man made and obviously flexible. (BTW, I disagree with comparing it to beastiality w/o specifiying levels of consent... I mean if I'm laying there nakid, and a dog walks up and licks my balls, that's gotta be consent right?)

Personally I feel like the polygamy people are getting screwed in all of this. I'll accept "gay marriage" when they change marriage to allow any consenting entity to marry any other entity capable of consent and understanding the legal implications. Regardless of other current marriages etc. (What? I need to leave room for AI, aliens and genetically engieneered dolphins ok...)

It's not that I'm anti-gay, just that if your going to arbitrarily change what marriage is, then it should be moved fully neutral of religious norms. It basically becomes a legal financial contract, nothing more. At least as far as legally, ceremonies or religious activities have always been independant of the legal part.

While I think the Santorum thing is kinda funny, it's also pretty close to cyberstalking/bullying and harassment. Of course it's the web, and once on the web, it's basically permanent.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By adiposity on 9/22/2011 1:56:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not that I'm anti-gay, just that if your going to arbitrarily change what marriage is, then it should be moved fully neutral of religious norms. It basically becomes a legal financial contract, nothing more


Yes! That is the obvious solution. Unfortunately, the Santorums of the world are not okay with that. They want to mix the religious meaning in there just enough to prevent anything they find offensive. But legally, it's just a contract, so what place does morality have, at all?

As for polygamy, I feel it should be legal. However, the legal ramifications are a little difficult. The marriage contract assumes two parties, so how do third parties affect that contract? One obvious solution is to have one "primary" wife and give all spousal rights to her. The implication is that secondary "sister wives" would not really be considered to have a real husband.

quote:
While I think the Santorum thing is kinda funny, it's also pretty close to cyberstalking/bullying and harassment. Of course it's the web, and once on the web, it's basically permanent.


It's not that far from cyberbullying. However, it is a word/name and Santorum does not have exclusive rights to it. Considering that he is a public figure, he is pretty much fair game for mudslinging, so...


RE: Hey douchebag...
By MrBlastman on 9/22/2011 2:11:59 PM , Rating: 4
I actually prefer the solution involving complete separation of Church and State when it comes to Gay Marriage. It's simple when you think about it.

Legally, _all_ citizens should be required to obtain a Civil Union via both ceremony and licensure. Civil Unions will be the only thing that are legally recognized. Both straights and gays (and whatever else deemed appropriate) will be required to do this.

If citizens want to take it further and have their Civil Union recognized as a "Marriage," they must do so through the outlet of a Church or Religious institution. Only there can they have the title of "Marriage" bestowed upon them.

This would solve all the problems. This would make everyone happy. Everyone would be equal in the eyes of the state and the sanctity would be preserved by the Church.

Sadly though, this kind of logic does not prevail in our country.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Steve1981 on 9/22/2011 2:43:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This would solve all the problems. This would make everyone happy.


That's just being naive :P


RE: Hey douchebag...
By MrBlastman on 9/22/2011 3:07:45 PM , Rating: 3
Well okay, point taken.

It might make them happy for a single, cosmic second and then they'd resume finding something else to piss, moan and whine about. ;)


RE: Hey douchebag...
By adiposity on 9/22/2011 3:14:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, besides...the same people who complain about gay marriage would say this is just a technicality that ends up allowing gay marriage.

They don't want gay people to have the same rights as them, and this would effectively do that. They LIKE that the law is mixed up with "marriage." They WANT religion in the legal code. That's the problem, not the fact that religion and the law both have a definition of marriage.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2011 7:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
Government was never meant to be so involved and controlling that it could be affected by any religion. Our founders were mostly evangelical Christian, but they recognized that all theocracies were a terrible idea. BTW, there is no such thing as the wording "separation of church and state" when it comes to any laws in this nation. I'm so sick of hearing that being misquoted for the first amendment I could throw up.

In the beginning, the founders set it up so that anyone from any ideologue could have a say so in the law. If you or anyone else don't like that then perhaps you are in the wrong place. Otherwise its pretty much disingenuous to tell me that I don't have a say so in this nation because of my religion. Doesn't that break the first Amendment?


RE: Hey douchebag...
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/22/2011 8:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
BTW, there is no such thing as the wording "separation of church and state" when it comes to any laws in this nation. I'm so sick of hearing that being misquoted for the first amendment I could throw up.

'Separation of church and state' is a concept derived through judicial interpretation of the First Amendment. It may not be written explicitly in the Constitution or signed into law, but as legal precedent is essentially IS law.

quote:
If you or anyone else don't like that then perhaps you are in the wrong place. Otherwise its pretty much disingenuous to tell me that I don't have a say so in this nation because of my religion. Doesn't that break the first Amendment?

As usual you're missing the point. It's your right to have an opinion, religious or otherwise, and to voice it. It is not your right to deny civil rights from others on the premise that those rights are in conflict with your religion. You have rights up until the point that your exercising of said rights violates the rights of others. So in the context of this discussion, saying that gays can get married whether you (in the general sense, not you specifically) like it or not does not violate your First Amendment rights, because your entire claim is based upon the infringing of others' rights.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2011 9:09:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
As usual you're missing the point.

Funny. You are the one who missed my first point. I have said right from the start that it's not the concern of the government whether or not people can get "married". Taxes should be paid equally by everyone, regardless of martial status. Everyone should have equal rights. [except for the lawless, but that's another story all together.]

You can say it all you want, but "separation of church and state" is definitely not a legal precedent.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/22/2011 9:40:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
have said right from the start that it's not the concern of the government whether or not people can get "married".

Funny how I never once disagreed with this point. I disagreed with all your other points .

quote:
You can say it all you want, but "separation of church and state" is definitely not a legal precedent.

Wow, this is such a waste of time. I'm not even going to point you to the legal history, you can go find it yourself (more like not even look and just keep assuming you are right). The fact is you are WRONG, again, and there have actually been multiple Supreme Court rulings on the subject in the last century. If Supreme Court rulings aren't legal precedent, then I guess I must have been tripping balls during 8th grade civics class...


RE: Hey douchebag...
By dhluke on 9/22/2011 3:37:09 PM , Rating: 2
A bit off topic here, but the major reason the homesexual community is fighting for, it's legal rights. Yes, simple legal rights. For example, a man/woman marriage has hundred of legal rights that deal with health insurance, life insurance, money, etc. A homesexual couple has less, and last time I checked on this, it was roughly less than 50.

A crude example would be, same sex couple being living together for 30 years, and one of the dies, all assets most likely would go to the family rather than the "spouse".

So fighting for the "marriage" title is essentially fighting for all the rights that accompanies it.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2011 4:17:59 PM , Rating: 1
You are exactly right about why some of them are fighting for equality. I really don't care about what people can do legally; but my problem is that it shouldn't be called a marriage. Marriage is something that is bestowed by God upon a man and woman. The fight continues because some people refuse to see the other side of the story.

I think the ultimate solution would be to afford everyone the same rights and taxes regardless of martial status. Furthermore, you should be able to write your will or power of attorney to ANYONE you choose. The government needs to keep their nose out of almost everything else.

So,... in summation:

1. Those who value the traditional definition of marriage need to get marriage covenants from a church, instead of a "license" from the state (true Christians shouldn't be concerned with what the state thinks about their gift from God, because it doesn't concern them).

2. Since gays now have the same rights and taxes as everyone else (if we passed such legislation), then they need to end all future attempts to make themselves a special class of citizens.

That way, the titles don't mean anything in terms of legality and equality. If married man and woman are up in arms about what name they choose, then they problem have must larger concerns anyway. [And all this comes from someone who thinks homosexuality is completely unnatural and immoral]. Why can't we all come to this agreement? Greed. By the government. They HATE the idea of flat/fair tax acts.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/22/2011 5:34:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Marriage is something that is bestowed by God upon a man and woman.

Prove it. If we're arguing about what should be implemented as law in order to determine the rights of citizens (which we are) then your claims have to be proven before they have any merit.

quote:
Since gays now have the same rights and taxes as everyone else (if we passed such legislation), then they need to end all future attempts to make themselves a special class of citizens.

When have gays ever tried to become a special class of citizens? All they've ever wanted was to be equal. That's what this is about; equality.

quote:
And all this comes from someone who thinks homosexuality is completely unnatural and immoral

You can think whatever you want about it being immoral, you're wrong about it being unnatural.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_i...


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2011 7:30:03 PM , Rating: 2
Geez, did you read ANYTHING I typed? I made it very clear that everyone should have equality in the eyes of the government! Just because I don't recognize marriage outside of one man and one woman as being a "true" marriage doesn't mean I'm a bigot. It just means that I have an opinion. What you want is for me and everyone else to ACCEPT homosexuality; and that will never happen!

Laughable that you say it's natural. First off, you point me to w freaking wikipedia article (lol, really?), second they are A N I M A L S. Are you saying that homosexuals are acting like animals? Some species eat their young, should we also start adopting that practice as well? How about dogs, they lick their own butthole! You go right ahead with that one buddy.

What I posted made perfect sense. Everyone still gets equal rights, equal taxes. However, If I (me, personally, myself) want to consider it an absurd and null (false) marriage, then I have perfect right to do so! This country was founded on my right to have an opinion, and to take that away from me based on... well nothing... is bigoted! See how that works?


RE: Hey douchebag...
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/22/2011 9:04:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yet again you prove to be adept at misunderstanding.

quote:
Geez, did you read ANYTHING I typed?

Given that I replied to direct quotations of your post, I'm going to go with 'yes'...

quote:
I made it very clear that everyone should have equality in the eyes of the government!

Yet in the same post you also claimed that gays are trying to become a "special class" of citizens. If that isn't in contradiction with the idea that they are seeking equality, then I'm not sure what is.

quote:
Just because I don't recognize marriage outside of one man and one woman as being a "true" marriage doesn't mean I'm a bigot.

I never said you were a bigot.

quote:
What you want is for me and everyone else to ACCEPT homosexuality

I don't give a rat's ass about how you feel about homosexuality. All I care about is that all people receive equal rights and treatment under the law.

quote:
Laughable that you say it's natural. First off, you point me to w freaking wikipedia article (lol, really?)

What's laughable is that 1) you assume that Wikipedia is generally unreliable, and 2) you shrug off an article with extensive citations to scientific articles and research papers. Ignorance isn't doing you any good, try doing some reading.

quote:
Are you saying that homosexuals are acting like animals? Some species eat their young, should we also start adopting that practice as well? How about dogs, they lick their own butthole! You go right ahead with that one buddy.

Good job missing the point yet again. You really are quite skilled at that, I have to hand it to you. You said homosexuality is not natural, and I gave you factual evidence that it does happen in nature. Even modern apes which evolved from a common ancestor as humans also demonstrate homosexual behavior. Why is it so difficult to understand that some percentage of the population always has and always will be gay? Oh wait, you're the guy that doesn't believe evolution though, so I guess I shouldn't expect you to care about facts. There's not much point in trying to convince you that FFS HUMANS ARE ANIMALS. Never mind, forget I said anything man, go ahead and take your hourly leap of faith. Just keep leaping, and leaping, and leaping...

quote:
If I (me, personally, myself) want to consider it an absurd and null (false) marriage, then I have perfect right to do so!

I have never claimed otherwise.

quote:
This country was founded on my right to have an opinion, and to take that away from me based on... well nothing... is bigoted!

Show me where I did or suggested any such thing.

quote:
See how that works?

No, not at all, because as usual your post is a nonsensical scamble of logical errors and misunderstandings.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2011 9:39:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh wait, you're the guy that doesn't believe evolution though, so I guess I shouldn't expect you to care about facts. There's not much point in trying to convince you that FFS HUMANS ARE ANIMALS. Never mind, forget I said anything man, go ahead and take your hourly leap of faith. Just keep leaping, and leaping, and leaping...


Wow, you are such a nice guy! I bet you have tons of loving friends :)


RE: Hey douchebag...
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/22/2011 9:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
I'm blunt but honest. I tell it exactly how I see it. My friends are actually very similar.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Paj on 9/23/2011 7:49:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Laughable that you say it's natural. First off, you point me to w freaking wikipedia article (lol, really?), second they are A N I M A L S. Are you saying that homosexuals are acting like animals? Some species eat their young, should we also start adopting that practice as well? How about dogs, they lick their own butthole! You go right ahead with that one buddy.


Excellent slippery slope there. Look, I can do it too!

You dont want gay people to get married, huh? What about muslims, we should stop them getting married too! Muslims blow people up, are you saying thats what I should be doing? Maybe I will!


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Quadrillity on 9/23/2011 9:11:01 AM , Rating: 2
What does Muslim have to do with marriage or homosexuality in this current discussion? I don't really know what you are asking, but any and all jihadists are deranged scum.

If people want to start acting like animals, then don't be surprised when others start treating them accordingly.

quote:
Muslims blow people up, are you saying thats what I should be doing? Maybe I will!

Honestly man, that's really not something I would type into a popular website these days...


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Paj on 9/23/2011 10:36:48 AM , Rating: 2
Im demonstrating an example of a slippery slope, where you mock an opponents viewpoint by attacking a hypothetically inflated version of it.

You did this yourself earlier. All it does is make your argument look weak.

quote:
Some species eat their young, should we also start adopting that practice as well? How about dogs, they lick their own butthole! You go right ahead with that one buddy.


As for the muslim comment, any reasonable observer would see that it was clearly tongue in cheek. Although its not too far off what I see in some of the more right wing comments on Fox News these days - and it pales in comparison to some of the tripe I see in certain fundamentalist message boards.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Quadrillity on 9/23/2011 11:35:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You did this yourself earlier. All it does is make your argument look weak.

No, that response was relevant and on topic. Someone gave the excuse "well, animals do it, so why can't we accept it?". The "animals do it" is a really stupid argument; and I pointed that out with:
quote:
Some species eat their young, should we also start adopting that practice as well? How about dogs, they lick their own butthole! You go right ahead with that one buddy.


quote:
Although its not too far off what I see in some of the more right wing comments on Fox News these days - and it pales in comparison to some of the tripe I see in certain fundamentalist message boards.

I don't necessarily see what Fox news and "fundamentalist message boards" have to do with our discussion topic right here.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By croc on 9/22/2011 6:52:02 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe in a god. Therefore I can't be 'married' in your eyes? Bigotted much?


RE: Hey douchebag...
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/22/2011 7:06:34 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, you're screwed. Just like all the people who wanted to get married before God bestowed the idea onto man. Oh, wait...nvm.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2011 7:37:49 PM , Rating: 2
What should you care what I think? Honestly, I think marriage is from God; so without God I don't think your marriage would ever see its true potential.

quote:
Bigotted much?

It's very interesting how people call me a bigot left and right without any merit. How is it bigoted to express my opinion on this subject? If that's the case, then what's stopping you from having multiple wives? Or even have a group marriage with multiple men and women? Just curious if you can answer theses...

I have one (two part) question for you. Did you get married by a magistrate/judge/sea captain? Is a marriage license issued by the state?


RE: Hey douchebag...
By ipay on 9/22/2011 8:04:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If that's the case, then what's stopping you from having multiple wives?

You mean like in the Bible? I mean, if we are talking about what God gave us, that would be a lot closer to bigamy and harems than what we consider the modern institution of marriage.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By ClownPuncher on 9/22/2011 4:58:42 PM , Rating: 2
Marriage has existed for millenia before your church did. I don't understand why Christians seem to think it's specifically theirs.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By MrBlastman on 9/22/2011 5:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
your church did. I don't understand why Christians


Except I said:

quote:
they must do so through the outlet of a Church or Religious institution.


I didn't specify the Christian Church, I implicated all Churches. Keep the term "marriage" out of the hands of the States since it is such a volatile term. Replace it with Civil Union at the State level and you quell the dispute.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By ClownPuncher on 9/22/2011 6:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
Well, yes. But we can't be sure marriage was invented as a religious ceremony at all.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By straycat74 on 9/22/2011 4:55:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it's also pretty close to cyberstalking/bullying and harassment.


That is the hilarious part. Dan Savage is the founder of the anti-bullying(gay lesbian transgender) site "it gets better" Some of the stuff on his blog including the deal with Santorum shows the guys mental instability.

Here is a quote from him about the evil Rcick Warren(edited):
quote:
The saddleback position involves placing your lubed @^#% between the &$^% cheeks of your partner. This position can be performed on your sides or on top of a facedown partner (maybe with a pillow under his or her hips). My favorite way of finishing up the saddlebacking is to lift up and #(*% )* (& $*&%# sweaty back. The saddleback is a nice compromise position when your partner won't allow &$^% entry.


If you read the Santorum definition and think its funny, it says a lot about you.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/22/2011 5:21:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you read the Santorum definition and think its funny, it says a lot about you.

That you understand why he deserves it? Yep, pretty much.

The man stated in a public presidential debate that allowing abortion and gay marriage destroys the country and that he supports a constitutional marriage amendment. If you can't see that he wants to legislate his religion (and insecurities) onto everyone else, it says a lot about you.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By straycat74 on 9/22/2011 6:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The man stated in a public presidential debate that allowing abortion and gay marriage destroys the country


If you think murdering ( a murdered pregnant woman where the baby dies is considered 2 homocides) babies and promoting lifestyles that result in a species not being able to perpetuate itself (outside of medical intervention) high points in a cultures history, then we have to agree to disagree.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By ClownPuncher on 9/22/2011 6:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
I hope you are just a troll and not really a fundamentalist. Do you really think that telling people that being gay is OK will result in everyone going gay? Do you think the population of the world is dropping? Do you think allowing gay marriage will greatly increase the population of gays?

Gay and straight aren't just "lifestyles", they are also a state of being. I can't just wake up tomorrow and suddenly want to torpedo some guys dirt stack.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/22/2011 7:04:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can't just wake up tomorrow and suddenly want to torpedo some guys dirt stack.

I don't know about you, but I live in a constant state of fear that tomorrow I might wake up and suddenly be gay. Worse yet, what if I wake up and find that I've been living a lie; that I am gay and have been living with another man, but my mind created another personality to hide it from myself. What if my wife of 20 years is actually a dude, and my kids are actually adopted. Oh god, where are my pills?!


RE: Hey douchebag...
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/22/2011 6:58:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you think murdering babies

I don't agree with murdering babies and I don't agree with any variety of murder. Abortion, however, is not murder according to the legal definition of the word. Furthermore, it is not a baby which is being killed, it is a fetus (baby generally implies that birth has occurred). As a do not believe in the existence of a 'soul', the whole 'life begins at conception argument' is out. I don't believe that killing something which does not have consciousness or self-awareness is murder. If you or anyone else can prove at what stage in pregnancy a fetus achieves this state of consciousness, I will agree that abortion should never be allowed during or after that stage. Until the time that such evidence can be provided, I support abortion laws as they currently stand. Contrary to popular opinion, the abortion discussion is not an argument about choice; it is an argument about how we define murder.

quote:
a murdered pregnant woman where the baby dies is considered 2 homocides

And I disagree with this type of law for the exact reason above. That this is murder but abortion is not is blatant hypocrisy. Either a fetus can be discarded at will or it can't. If it's disposable, then killing a pregnant woman should be 1x murder + 1x destruction of property, IMO. Although, given that a murderer in this scenario is still a murderer, I don't have a lot of sympathy for them receiving a double charge.

quote:
promoting lifestyles that result in a species not being able to perpetuate itself

Nobody is promoting that people should become gay, and even if they were it would be a futile effort. People are either gay or they aren't. It's not a choice. What's being promoted is tolerance and acceptance.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2011 8:02:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Abortion, however, is not murder according to the legal definition of the word.

And that right there is proof enough that you refuse to admit that life is precious. If you can destroy life in the womb of a woman, than you truly are an evil, vile sub-human.
quote:
killing a pregnant woman should be 1x murder + 1x destruction of property

I sincerely hope that you have not, nor will ever procreate if you think children are property. You are sick.
quote:
People are either gay or they aren't. It's not a choice.

Homosexual acts are most certainly a choice. Just as having sex before marriage is a choice. Heterosexuality is the normal, natural behavior because it's the only one that will produce a child. Anything else is fruitless. Have you ever taken biology?


RE: Hey douchebag...
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/22/2011 9:35:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And that right there is proof enough that you refuse to admit that life is precious. If you can destroy life in the womb of a woman, than you truly are an evil, vile sub-human.

You're blatantly ignoring everything else I wrote on the subject. As I said above, this depends entirely on the definition of what is life. Since you can't prove the existence of a 'soul', and you can't prove that a fetus is aware of its existence, that means that for all intents and purposes the fetus is little more than a female body part. Unlike you I base my opinions on facts, not feelings or fairy tales. If and when evidence is available that says exactly when an unborn child gains sentience, I will change my opinion. Until that time, you can take your false moral superiority and shove it.

quote:
"killing a pregnant woman should be 1x murder + 1x destruction of property"
I sincerely hope that you have not, nor will ever procreate if you think children are property. You are sick.

Dude, stop failing, seriously. If you're going to reply to a quote, at least quote it correctly. Here's what I actually wrote:
"Either a fetus can be discarded at will or it can't. If it's disposable, then killing a pregnant woman should be 1x murder + 1x destruction of property, IMO."
I'm just arguing for consistency. I'm saying that if abortion is not murder, then neither is this second scenario. If a child can be discarded in one case, then why not in another.

quote:
Homosexual acts are most certainly a choice. Just as having sex before marriage is a choice. Heterosexuality is the normal, natural behavior because it's the only one that will produce a child. Anything else is fruitless. Have you ever taken biology?

How did you ever get through elementary-level English, let alone high school? Did you even take the SAT? You are consistently failing at very basic reading comprehension.
Homosexual acts are a choice, no question about it, but you've made an incorrect substitution of words here. Homosexual acts =/= homosexuality. Homosexuality is an attraction to members of the same sex. Since when is attraction a choice? When you see a sexy woman do you actively choose to be attracted to her? No, you just know it, and feel it. The acts are the chosen result of the attraction. Really, is this so complicated to understand? Also, I already debunked your point about nature above, so kindly drop it unless you have counter evidence.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2011 9:52:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unlike you I base my opinions on facts, not feelings or fairy tales.

Yeah, lets talk about a fact. I know for fact that anyone who regards human life, especially that of a child, as "property", is a piece of garbage.

quote:
Homosexuality is an attraction to members of the same sex.

LOL,not it is not dude! Brad pit is a good looking man, but I don't have the urge to be intimate with him haha! I can acknowledge that a member of the same sex is attractive without actually be attracted to them. Maybe you are different, but not me.

You have "debunked" my point about nature? Says who? I really feel sorry for those who think we are animals. Look at what that has gotten for us so far. We treat each other like animals sometimes, but we are NOT animals. That is a really skewed world view; one that leads you to believe that a human child is an inanimate object. Fetus is a bogus concept to allow murder... Life begins at conception.

Since you don't believe in a soul, its really starting to look like you believe that we are just an animate arrangement of chemicals with no real purpose or value. You probably wont agree, but that is exactly your world view.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Jereb on 9/22/2011 10:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
Does that mean if I stir up some of my knuckle children with a few fertile eggs and flush my labour down the toilet of committed mas murder? :D


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Helbore on 9/23/2011 5:56:42 AM , Rating: 2
Did you just say that homosexuality is not an attraction to members of the same sex, because you find Brad Pitt attractive, but you are not attracted to him?

If you are not attracted to someone of the same sex, then you don't have an attraction to members of the same sex.

You seem so desperate to prove your belief right, you are willing to throw out all logic, reason and possibly reading comprehension in order to do so.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Quadrillity on 9/23/2011 9:17:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you are not attracted to someone of the same sex, then you don't have an attraction to members of the same sex.

Are you just playing dumb? You can observe that someone/something is attractive without being physically or emotionally attracted to them/it. Have you honestly never observed aesthetic quality in a least one other person of the same sex? If not, then you are very shallow and must think you are the hottest think since toasted bread. Example? "Hey, that is one attractive woman, but I prefer blondes over red-heads!" Get it now?

quote:
You seem so desperate to prove your belief right, you are willing to throw out all logic, reason and possibly reading comprehension in order to do so.

You keep thinking that, but I'll go about my day knowing that it's not true. Thanks for playing, try again.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Helbore on 9/23/2011 10:36:32 AM , Rating: 2
Observing that someone is attractive IS NOT the same thing as being attracted to someone. You don't choose to be attracted to someone, you just are.

You're constructing a strawman, in that you are trying to prove something wrong that is not being said.

The point is that a homosexual doesn't choose to find a member of the same sex attractive. They choose whether they want to act on that impulse, but that impulse is not the same as you thinking "hey Brad Pitt's quite a good looking guy."

Have you never been attracted to a woman that - for whatever reason - you couldn't make a move on? You choosing not to make a move doesn't change the fact that you are sexually attracted to her. You're just not acting on the impulse. But you don't choose that impulse.

Using your own example; "Hey, that is one attractive woman, but I prefer blondes over red-heads!" Do you choose that you prefer blondes over red-heads? No. Why do you prefer blondes to red-heads?

Are you suggesting people sit down and decide "you know, I think I'm going to limit the sort of woman I prefer to blonde-haired ones." Of course they don't. They just naturally prefer blondes.

Similarly, a homosexual doesn't sit down and think "you know, I think I'm just going to go for people of the same sex as me." They just prefer people of the same sex as them.

That is not a choice.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Quadrillity on 9/23/2011 11:47:52 AM , Rating: 2
I never really said that homosexual attraction is a choice. I truly believe that some folks are just attracted to the same sex (for whatever reason, still a complete mystery to be because it defies all logic and nature). It's like how some kids grow up in normal cookie cutter families turn out to be serial killers; it's extremely rare, but oddities do happen.

Acting on those impulses is a totally different thing, however. What I am doing is calling in to question the "need" to satisfy an indulgence. Should we all have the mentality of "if it feels good, do it?" No. It doesn't provide a well tuned society to have a free for all. People are against homosexuality for many (and I believe valid) reasons. To say "I was born gay" means nothing more than saying "I was born to be a carpenter". You ultimately choose how you want to feel/act about certain things (not all things, mind you).

I know countless homosexuals who I have discussed this very topic with before that said something to the effect of: "I am attracted to the same sex, but I don't act upon those feelings." "I feel like it is wrong for me to be attracted to them, but I can't help but feel that way."


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Steve1981 on 9/23/2011 12:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People are against homosexuality for many (and I believe valid) reasons.


Enlighten me, what threat does the existence of a few homosexuals present to society at large, such that we need to be against it?


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Quadrillity on 9/23/2011 1:04:11 PM , Rating: 1
Homosexual acts are fruitless. Two men or two women cannot produce a child.

Most people see it as sexual promiscuity that is gross and unnatural. If something is gross or unusual, the citizens have all rights and privileges to shun the behavior. And that's why most people believe it's immoral, because it's just another sin of the flesh.

The government shouldn't have anything to do with these kinds of things. They should treat everyone the same. Homosexuality carries no weight in a court of law; you can stand up and say, "you honor, I'm sure he committed the murder because he is also a homosexual!". That would be stupid.

Now, lets turn this back around. What good does homosexuality do for society?


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Steve1981 on 9/23/2011 1:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Homosexual acts are fruitless. Two men or two women cannot produce a child...Most people see it as sexual promiscuity that is gross and unnatural.


So what. That doesn't make it a grave threat to society. It's something we don't understand and have no desire to partake in, but that's no reason to be "against" it, anymore than I'd be "against" my dog because he chooses to lick his privates among other savory things.

Personally, I'm rather indifferent to what other people choose to do with their own free time so long as they aren't out hurting others. From the stated arguments, I see no logical reason to be "against" homosexuality, in the sense that I don't feel some need to crusade against them.

quote:
And that's why most people believe it's immoral, because it's just another sin of the flesh.


In other words, you and most others are against homosexuality because the Bible/Torah/Koran told you to be?

quote:
What good does homosexuality do for society?


In and of itself, it doesn't do much of anything. Then again, what do blowjobs do for society? Should we be against them? Really, we could remove all sex from the equation and just move to artificial insemination.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Helbore on 9/23/2011 4:08:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Homosexual acts are fruitless. Two men or two women cannot produce a child.


Neither can having a good jolly shuffle.

quote:
Most people see it as sexual promiscuity that is gross and unnatural. If something is gross or unusual, the citizens have all rights and privileges to shun the behavior. And that's why most people believe it's immoral, because it's just another sin of the flesh.


You make two errors here. One in assuming this is a majority view without evidence and the other is that a popular view has to be right. The popular view once supported slavery, but that didn't make it right.

quote:
The government shouldn't have anything to do with these kinds of things. They should treat everyone the same. Homosexuality carries no weight in a court of law; you can stand up and say, "you honor, I'm sure he committed the murder because he is also a homosexual!". That would be stupid.


I agree with that, though. People shouldn't be empowered or restricted by the government based on silly details like their sexuality. It's no business of the government and quite frankly, they have better things to be wasting our taxes on!


RE: Hey douchebag...
By ClownPuncher on 9/23/2011 7:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
Collectivist Christian Conservatives...


RE: Hey douchebag...
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/26/2011 8:05:04 AM , Rating: 2
Well stated on all counts Hellbore, Steve1981, and Paj. I'm glad I'm not the only one here that takes exception to Quadrility's ridiculous arguments and pitifully broken logic.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Paj on 9/23/2011 7:57:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
LOL,not it is not dude! Brad pit is a good looking man, but I don't have the urge to be intimate with him haha!


Congratulations, youre not homosexual! That is what is being argued here.

quote:
You have "debunked" my point about nature? Says who? I really feel sorry for those who think we are animals.


I feel sorry for those who believe otherwise. If we're not animals, what are we? How do you explain vestigial organs, comparative embryology, the pentadactyl limb without recourse to the animal kingdom?


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Quadrillity on 9/23/2011 9:31:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If we're not animals, what are we?

We are human beings created in the image of God.
quote:
How do you explain vestigial organs

There is no such thing as human "vestigial" organs. Name one. Every single part in our body has a purpose; remember when the appendix used to be considered vestigial? Oh yeah, that's right! It's actually a part of our immune system...
quote:
comparative embryology

Common designer. Ever seen a flagellum motor? Do you think that just randomly formed over long periods of time? Homologous structure are no more evidence for evolution than car parts from a ford that would fit on a chevy.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Steve1981 on 9/23/2011 10:38:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We are human beings created in the image of God.


Does the hubris of humanity have no bounds? For as flawed and finite as we are, I'm unsure how anyone could actually say we were made in the image of something that no camera could hope to capture.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Paj on 9/23/2011 11:08:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We are human beings created in the image of God.


Fair enough - what about the extinct primate species that share much of our DNA? Wen did the crossover from animal to human occur?

quote:
There is no such thing as human "vestigial" organs. Name one. Every single part in our body has a purpose; remember when the appendix used to be considered vestigial? Oh yeah, that's right! It's actually a part of our immune system...


Where should I begin? Wisdom teeth. The coccyx. Structures in the eye which are remnant of a nictating membrane. Muscles in the ear that control directionality. The jury is still out on the appendix - we may not find out for sure, and the new evidence is compelling. An excellent example of the scientific method.

quote:
Common designer. Ever seen a flagellum motor? Do you think that just randomly formed over long periods of time? Homologous structure are no more evidence for evolution than car parts from a ford that would fit on a chevy.


There are thousands of kind of flagellum. They are not irreducably complex - some are very simple, some are not.

The E coli flagellum often used in this argument shares 23 proteins with other studied flagella. Of these two proteins, only two of them are unique to flagella - the rest are common through out the cell. Whats the point of creating thousands of different kinds of flagella? If it were designed as you say, would it not make more sense to just make one kind and leave it at that?

Have a read of this if you're interested in knowing more:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolut...

Personally, Im not an atheist. I have no problem with the idea of 'a greater power' and evolution co-existing. For me, God is energy, gravity, nuclear forces. Anything beyond this is largely the product of human invention.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Quadrillity on 9/23/2011 12:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
what about the extinct primate species that share much of our DNA? Wen did the crossover from animal to human occur?

You aren't framing a fair question. I would say, "IF" we evolved. You must be new here if you don't know my stance on that :)
quote:
Wisdom teeth

There are grave sites of giant humans (some as big as 14ft) all over the earth. Wisdom teeth fit in perfectly for those who have lived longer (hundreds of years). Plus, I know many people who have perfectly functioning wisdom teeth.
quote:
coccyx

Ask any doctor. Without this anchor point, you couldn't perform many vital functions (bladder, bowel, sexual). There is zero evidence that supports the coccyx ever being a "tail" in human beings.

The appendix is NOT vestigial. There is conclusive medical research that proves its function. Now, do we know everything about it yet? Not really. We haven't even scratched the surface of the brain yet, and we know that it certainly has a function. Lack of understanding =/= no purpose.
quote:
If it were designed as you say, would it not make more sense to just make one kind and leave it at that?

I'm not the designer, don't ask me. However, I would take a guess that each and every living thing was created with a purpose. Some animals are just different.

quote:
Muscles in the ear that control directionality.
I'm not versed in bio-muscular mechanics; so I'm not sure. I have a really hard time imagining moving our ears like an antelope though lol.

quote:
For me, God is energy, gravity, nuclear forces. Anything beyond this is largely the product of human invention.

Are you saying that God controls these things? I believe God is a living, breathing, being that transcends space, time, matter, and words.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Helbore on 9/23/2011 6:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you saying that God controls these things? I believe God is a living, breathing , being that transcends space, time, matter, and words.


Does that mean god can suffocate or drown?


RE: Hey douchebag...
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/26/2011 8:56:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, lets talk about a fact. I know for fact that anyone who regards human life, especially that of a child, as "property", is a piece of garbage.

So instead of reading and rebutting my arguments you're resorting to the classic kindergarten "la la la I can't hear you la la la" debating technique. Interesting strategy...

quote:
You have "debunked" my point about nature? Says who?

Says your lack of a rebuttal or counter-evidence.

quote:
I really feel sorry for those who think we are animals. Look at what that has gotten for us so far. We treat each other like animals sometimes, but we are NOT animals.

I feel sorry for people who refuse to learn, understand, and accept facts about the world around them.

quote:
Since you don't believe in a soul, its really starting to look like you believe that we are just an animate arrangement of chemicals with no real purpose or value. You probably wont agree, but that is exactly your world view.

I'm swapping the order a bit so my reply flows better.
We ARE an animate (and conscious) arrangement of chemicals with no preordained purpose or value. We create purpose, value, and meaning through our own actions and experiences. That is why killing something which has no consciousness, no experiences, no feelings is not murder.

quote:
That is a really skewed world view; one that leads you to believe that a human child is an inanimate object. Fetus is a bogus concept to allow murder... Life begins at conception.

You're doing the 'la la la' thing again. A fetus is a developmental stage for many species of animals, including humans. There's nothing bogus about it. Development begins at conception, life in the greater sense does not. Consider, for a moment, the earliest stages of development: the zygote has divided and is now a pair of cells. Do those two cells contain a soul? (what is a soul anwyay? nobody has ever proven the existence of such a thing, let alone defined what it is) Do those two cells know they exist, or have feelings? What about when they are 4 cells, or 16 cells? As an embryo? Nope, at least not as far as science is presently aware. It's only in the later fetal stage that we know the child can experience feelings. That is why I say that up to the fetal stage the child is really just a part of the mother. When evidence exists which puts a more exact time frame on the beginning of consciousness then I will change my views accordingly.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By darkfalz on 9/23/2011 1:33:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
it is a fetus (baby generally implies that birth has occurred)


Yeah, because mothers usually exclaim how the "fetus kicks" when they are pregnant. I guess the description "with child" should also be changed to "with fetus".


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Helbore on 9/23/2011 6:11:46 AM , Rating: 2
Colloquial speech and scientific accuracy are two completely separate things.

People say they have a bun in the oven, too. Doesn't make the phrase factually accurate, though.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By darkfalz on 9/23/2011 1:50:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Colloquial speech and scientific accuracy are two completely separate things.


Calling a baby a baby and a child a child isn't colloquial. I don't think anyone ever gave birth to a bun.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Helbore on 9/23/2011 5:59:38 PM , Rating: 2
Calling a foetus a baby, however, is colloquial.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By protosv on 9/22/2011 5:45:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not that I'm anti-gay, just that if your going to arbitrarily change what marriage is, then it should be moved fully neutral of religious norms. It basically becomes a legal financial contract, nothing more. At least as far as legally, ceremonies or religious activities have always been independant of the legal part.


Yes. This. Interestingly, this is the position Ron Paul seems to advocate...even if you don't agree with him on some issues, you gotta admit, the man's got principles.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By invidious on 9/22/2011 2:15:06 PM , Rating: 1
So intollerance will not be tollerated? Sounds like you all need to go to tollerance camp and make macaroni paintings.

If he is a douchebag for not tollerating gays lifestyle then what are you for not tollerating his lifestyle? He doesn't have to like gay people, you don't have to like him. But you judging him for him judging gays is hypocrital bullshit.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By adiposity on 9/22/2011 3:47:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So intollerance will not be tollerated? Sounds like you all need to go to tollerance camp and make macaroni paintings.


Rick has a right to be intolerant, we have a right to point it out. And there is a difference between being intolerant of someone for what they do in the privacy of their home, and trying to stop a politician who tries to code such intolerance into the legal system.

But no one is saying he isn't entitled to that opinion of intolerance. He is! But now he is trying to have google censor the negative "opinions" of him (if you can call it that).

But yeah, generally intolerance of intolerance is considered ok. Once you decide that intolerance is a bad thing, you kind of have to allow at least intolerance of intolerance....


RE: Hey douchebag...
By nengel on 9/22/2011 5:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
You are missing the point. The intolerance card is only a name calling tool, and upon analysis, you can't use it without committing suicide with regards to your view of intolerance. If you really want to establish a rule that all views are equal and must be tolerated, then this applies for all views, including those who do not support gay marriage for some reason. To say otherwise or try to criticize someone as intolerant violates the premise that all views are to be tolerated, and shows you are only using the tolerance objection to label someone who holds a different view than yours a bigot, and the system collapses. If I promote a view and I am intolerant for that view but you promote a view and you are just right, how does that work again? You have to move to other grounds, as this objection does nothing. But I shouldn't bother posting, the posts here that get rated up are of the ad hominid nature, and when you see that happening you know they are not really saying anything intelligent, just name calling like middle school students.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By adiposity on 9/22/2011 5:49:22 PM , Rating: 2
I understand the apparent contradiction in "intolerant of intolerance." And yes, tolerance is not absolute and it shouldn't be. We do not tolerate religions that tear the heart out of humans, for example.

What is not being tolerated here is a political movement to legislate intolerant view of homosexuals. "Intolerance" of attempts to restrict the rights of individuals is part of the political process and is pretty necessary.

In this sense, backlash against Rick is not really "intolerance" for any particular view. It is anger directed at his attempts to harm certain individuals.

If you want to call that "intolerance," fine, but no one is fooled that it means the same thing as Rick's intolerance. He is targeting a group of people that (originally) had no issue with him, and did him no harm. Now he is being targeted by others for his bigoted attitude and attempts to legislate that attitude.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By nengel on 9/22/2011 7:32:37 PM , Rating: 2
I appreciate your reply, and I don't fault you specifically for playing the tolerance card. You seem to reject on moral grounds certain things like religions that tear out human hearts, and I certainly agree. Here the argument appeals to a sense of morality, not intolerance.

I would call into question your assessment of the situation though, I think you go to far when you say that Rick Santorum is trying to legislate an intolerant view of homosexuals. I don't know the man, but as far as the issue is concerned there is a world of difference between objecting to redefining marriage and attempting to "harm" homosexuals. To treat Santorum as trying to "harm" homosexuals I think distorts the issue. I object to gay marriage because I see no reason for government intervention on non-reproducing couples, in the same way my friends and I don't need a certificate to have a meaningful friendship. Heterosexual marriage has a natural function and purpose, and the government supports this as an institution because of its role in begetting and raising the next generation. All else equal, the healthiest environment for kids is to have a mom and a dad, a stable family. Marriage is all about kids, not the rights of the adults to marry and how happy it will make them. If you believe(on other grounds) that sex is only morally permissible only in the context of monogamous heterosexual unions, that does not mean you can not have a good reason outside of that to reject gay marriage. And that doesn't make you a bigot, as you would hold the same moral objection to heterosexual fornication.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By wgbutler on 9/23/2011 9:33:53 AM , Rating: 2
What a fantastic argument for traditional marriage. I would also add to your argument that if we legalize gay marriage homosexual behavior will become a government protected behavior.

Thus people who disagree with that lifestyle for religious or other reasons will then be forced to affirm it or be ostracized and penalized. It will limit their free speech and their ability to live their lives as free citizens in the way that they see fit.

This is already happening in the UK where the government is now not allowing Christians to adopt children unless they affirm homosexuality and government registries are being maintained to keep track of children, in some cases as young as 3 years old, who might be "intolerant" and thus dangerous to society in some way, in much the same way that the government would keep tabs on a pedophile.

The pro-homosexual activists are extremely militant and will leave no stone unturned in their relentless drive to control the thoughts and behaviors and other people.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By nengel on 9/23/2011 1:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
I first hear this type of analysis of gay marriage on a podcasted radio show, called "stand to reason," FYI. I agree there are dangers here to free speech, and all in the guise of "hate speech." To be fair, some of the people who would agree with us are rather mean-spirited in their approach, and don't make proper distinctions between homosexual orientation and behavior. Some of those would probably also like to see a theocracy established. This area like many others seems to be best left unlegislated, just like fornication. I don't think trying to legislate every Christian doctrine(even though the founding principles of the country are resoundingly Judeo/Christian) would be wise, and personal freedom is important. But you are right, the steps taken currently in Europe seem to encroach on personal liberties as well, even in the areas of basic belief, and that is a real problem.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By adiposity on 9/23/2011 12:21:50 PM , Rating: 2
I certainly understand and accept some people feel gay marriage is immoral. It is your right to believe that and I don't wish to take any action against people who believe that. Some people feel the same about fornication. Some people feel the same way about interracial marriage. Yet, most of them accept that those things are not illegal, even though they are personally against it.

quote:
I object to gay marriage because I see no reason for government intervention on non-reproducing couples
...
Marriage is all about kids, not the rights of the adults to marry and how happy it will make them


Given that, would you consider it "harmful" to sterile individuals to be banned from marrying each other? Do you support requiring individuals to sign a "we will reproduce" document when they marry? How about a woman who has had a hysterectomy? Should we ban her from marrying a man she loves? If we did, could it be construed as "harming" her?

I would argue that attempting to ban all gay marriage (as Santorum wants to do), you are "harming" gay individuals. You take away their ability to achieve certain rights with the person of their choice. That, to me, is harm.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Quadrillity on 9/23/2011 12:52:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Given that, would you consider it "harmful" to sterile individuals to be banned from marrying each other?

That is apples and oranges. A sterile couple can still provide for a child as a traditional family with one male father and one female mother. No matter what any advocates say, nothing compares to the roles a father and mother play in raising a child.

So, it would be more accurate to say that people who are against homosexual marriage see homosexuals as a threat to traditional family values in this nation.

quote:
I certainly understand and accept some people feel gay marriage is immoral. It is your right to believe that and I don't wish to take any action against people who believe that.

I really appreciate seeing someone else who understands that this issue isn't one sided; and that not everyone is a bigot.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By nengel on 9/23/2011 1:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
I can agree with your distinction that my position with regards to gay marriage does not even go into the moral debate, it deals with what is legal. And as far as my argument goes, the legality of marriage is such that it promotes a certain end, otherwise there is no need for government action or affirmation.

I would not consider it necessarily harmful banning those who cannot have children, since it seems that they would be free to engage in the exact same relationship(even in a religious context), minus only a government document and a few tax breaks. That being said, I don't know if I think it is needed to try to ferret out all the outlying and strange situations that arise when a married heterosexual couple are either unable or unwilling to procreate. It seem to me the vast majority of married couples will have kids and it serves the culture to promote the unions that lead to the most stable families for the sake of children and their development.

I would be interested to hear what "ability to achieve certain rights" are being taken away from gay couples when they are not accorded the marriage status. If you say personal satisfaction then I reply that is not the intent of marriage as an institution. Otherwise I see nothing else gained aside from a government sanction of a personal relationship. And I really think this is what all the fuss is about, gays want cultural acceptance, and this is the avenue to get it. But this has nothing to do with adding to our current definition of marriage.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By adiposity on 9/23/2011 2:40:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would be interested to hear what "ability to achieve certain rights" are being taken away from gay couples when they are not accorded the marriage status.


Personally I don't see any difference between "union" and "marriage." They are two words with the same definition. If you are saying you are fine with "unions" which have the exact same rights as "marriages," then I personally don't see a problem with that.

This begs the questions, though. If "unions" have the exact same rights as "marriages" and the words "union" and "marriage" essentially mean the same thing, then why is there any reason to have two different legal concepts?

The obvious answer is that by distinguishing the two, there is the ability to have at least SOME difference in how they are treated (perhaps such couples would not be allowed to adopt, for example). Personally, I believe that is the main reason why gay marriage is pursued over civil unions. "Separate but equal" arguments spring to mind.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By nengel on 9/23/2011 6:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
The semantics of the terms are only relevant to the way in which we choose to use them, and so far I have only meant to discuss the legal mode of reference. I don't know much of the history of "civil unions," or how legally they differ from the marriage status, so I can't really weigh in on how they come into play here. But as far as my argument is concerned, I feel I am in the same spot as I stated before. Practically speaking, marriage(as a government sanctioned institution) is about the perpetuation of our species, in a way that yields the best results. And according to its natural function it approves the form of heterosexual marriage with legal status and tax incentives. Other relationships need not apply for any government involvement, there is no need. The reasons gays want marriage is not based according to need or natural function, it is societal acceptance. Marriage in a religious context as well as adoption in non-traditional settings can be put into another discussion, I view it as a separate thing entirely.

As a side note, if one does decide to allow marriage to be the means of personal fulfillment, what argument will you muster against any strange type of marriage(fulfilling union) that someone wants to state? Polygamy is right behind gay marriage, and why not? If I feel fulfilled marrying my pets, parents, potted plants, who is to say no? This is the logical slippery slope, which I think applies here if you adopt this line in favor of gay marriage.

Thanks for the discussion by the way, I appreciate your reasonable and gracious tone.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By adiposity on 9/23/2011 7:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As a side note, if one does decide to allow marriage to be the means of personal fulfillment, what argument will you muster against any strange type of marriage(fulfilling union) that someone wants to state? Polygamy is right behind gay marriage, and why not?


Marriage is already allowed as a means of "personal fulfillment" as there is no requirement to have children in order to get married. There is no requirement of fertility or willingness to procreate. Therefore, even if the assumption is that the person may have children, since it is not a requirement, it is not a valid argument that marriage is solely for procreation. I doubt most heterosexuals who get married would even agree with that characterization.

As for polygamy (as I stated elsewhere in the thread), I feel it should be legal but it is actually more complicated than gay marriage. Since it involves multiple partners the legal ramifications are unclear. As for animals, since they are unable to enter into contracts it is not really an issue.

Now, there may indeed be a slippery slope here, but I don't think allowing a contract between two legal adults is quite going down the slope. Nothing in gay marriage really is legally difficult and requires redefining anything about the code. Pet marriage and polygamy, however, do require a new legal code because they either involve more than two partners or partners who cannot legally consent. The same problem would apply to underage marriage.

Therefore, if you allow gay marriage you really aren't required to accept anything except that it is none of your business what gender someone is. This might not be such a bad idea, considering transgender, and dual-sex individuals cannot even answer that question satisfactorily.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By nengel on 9/23/2011 8:28:59 PM , Rating: 2
I strongly disagree. You are regressing in the discussion. I already spoke to this, and I don't believe you have addressed it. Marriage is not primarily(from the government's view) a means to personal fulfillment, and my argument remains valid. It may lead incidentally to personal fulfillment, but that does not matter as an issue of litigation. If that is all it is, then there is no longer a reason for the government to co-opt my relationships into an institution. Why would we interject government regulation into personal relationships for no reason?

I have already spoken to the issue of normative vs mandatory procreation, it is a non-normal situation that does not impact the discussion broadly. Even if your argument goes through you should be able to see that it would only limit marriage more, not broaden it.

Regarding polygamy, I have not researched it, but from the bits I have heard and what seems like common sense, this would not be considered a "better" environment for children. The simple cohesion that a heterosexual marriage has seems to be the most stable environment for raising kids. And that is priority one.

I don't really want to get into the slippery slope argument. You may have a point with the consent factor, but still, anything seems to follow from the fact that; if marriage is only a means to fulfillment, who will decide what the rules are? Why would you impose your marriage rules on me if I want to marry my dog? It violates my right to fulfillment.

I agree that it is none of my business in a legal sense what gender someone is, except maybe in the cases where a transgendered male want to use the women's room. This doesn't affect the discussion.

The main question I have for you is that if marriage is as you say only a means of personal fulfillment, why is the government involved whatsoever? And why would you want them involved? Do you want government sanctions and paperwork for your other meaningful relationships?


RE: Hey douchebag...
By adiposity on 9/24/2011 12:24:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The main question I have for you is that if marriage is as you say only a means of personal fulfillment, why is the government involved whatsoever? And why would you want them involved? Do you want government sanctions and paperwork for your other meaningful relationships?


I don't want them involved. They shouldn't be involved. However, they are involved, and people who are in these things called "marriage contracts" get special rights afforded them. The issue is, why can't gay people get those same rights?

quote:
Why would you impose your marriage rules on me if I want to marry my dog? It violates my right to fulfillment.


Frankly I don't care if you marry your dog. You can call that marriage if you like. What difference would it possibly make to me? My only point was that such marriages are somewhat pointless from a legal point of view since a dog could not really take advantage of marital rights, and you cannot really take advantage of marital rights (such as visitation) any more than you could if you simply owned the dog.

On the other hand, if two adults (you know, the only beings that governments recognize as being able to binding legal decisions) want to enter into a contract, their gender shouldn't matter. That's what I meant by the fact that their gender is none of your business. When they come to the county to get their license, their gender shouldn't come up.

quote:
I have already spoken to the issue of normative vs mandatory procreation, it is a non-normal situation that does not impact the discussion broadly. Even if your argument goes through you should be able to see that it would only limit marriage more, not broaden it.


Obviously. I don't advocate that. However, the slippery slope argument goes both ways. If you can ban gay marriage on the grounds that gay couples cannot conceive (without third party help), then why can't you ban the marriage of sterile people? Of course you wouldn't want to, but I suggest you think about WHY you wouldn't want to. And if you wouldn't want to, wouldn't those same reasons apply to gay people?


RE: Hey douchebag...
By darkfalz on 9/23/2011 1:52:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
and trying to stop a politician who tries to code such intolerance into the legal system.


This is a common distortion of the truth. Gay marriage is not legal (in most states), that is the status quo. We've done fine for thousands of years with the "traditional definition" or whatever you want to call it. It is gays and their supporters who want laws changed to accommodate them and sanction their lifestyle, and freely label anyone a bigot who support the existing laws.

This is not to say I like Rick Santorum. He strikes me as typical bible bashing, war drum beating neo-con moron. I just don't believe that the definition of marriage needs to be modified to include homosexuals. Two men together will never be, to me, a marriage. The problem is the noisy rabble who won't take no for an answer and just keep trying until they can get one activist judge to change the definition for them - it's unacceptable and ridiculous to have states within the same country having different legal definitions of marriage. That's the only reason we have people like Santorum calling for a "national ban" - to stop individual judges from being able to change fundamental social definitions which cannot be binding between states.

I also think the kind of attack and smear by people like Don Savage (a model of the "promiscuous homosexual" sterotype if ever there was one) is as bad, if not worse, than the anti-gay brigade. It's incredible that not actively supporting the gay agenda (you don't even need to oppose, just being impartial is often enough) can easily get you labelled a fascist or bigot or morons telling you you live in the dark ages. Granted - this only works if you fall for it, but it's easier for individuals to stick to their guns than public figures.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By adiposity on 9/23/2011 12:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is a common distortion of the truth. Gay marriage is not legal (in most states), that is the status quo.


Given that it is legal is some states, attempting to ban it at a federal level will effectively remove rights from gay people. It is also a violation of state's rights, most would say.

quote:
It is gays and their supporters who want laws changed to accommodate them and sanction their lifestyle, and freely label anyone a bigot who support the existing laws.


You are not entirely wrong that gay marriage is something that gay people want to change within the code. Protecting the status quo doesn't automatically make you right, though. There was a time in this country when interracial marriage was not legal, either.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Quadrillity on 9/23/2011 12:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Given that it is legal is some states, attempting to ban it at a federal level will effectively remove rights from gay people. It is also a violation of state's rights, most would say.

I fully agree with that. I don't condone homosexuality, but it's none of the governments business either way. All people (except for criminals) should have the same rights and freedoms afforded by the US constitutions. If California and NY want to have "homosexual marriage", then so be it. Obviously the people have chosen and decided in those states.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By darkfalz on 9/23/2011 1:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All people (except for criminals) should have the same rights and freedoms afforded by the US constitutions.


This is the thing though. Gay people HAVE the same rights as everyone else, that is, to enter into marriage with a consenting and legal age member of the opposite sex. What gays want is new rights to enter into something else all together and have it socially and legally called a "marriage". However, I support civil unions as long term exclusive gay couples should have similar legal rights to married and de facto straight couples. Just don't call it a marriage because it is not.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By Steve1981 on 9/23/2011 1:53:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Gay people HAVE the same rights as everyone else, that is, to enter into marriage with a consenting and legal age member of the opposite sex.


On the other side of the coin, they said the same thing back when inter-racial marriages were outlawed.


RE: Hey douchebag...
By adiposity on 9/23/2011 2:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is the thing though. Gay people HAVE the same rights as everyone else, that is, to enter into marriage with a consenting and legal age member of the opposite sex.


If we said people could only marry within the same religion, then everyone would have the same rights.

If we said people could only marry within the same race, everyone would have the same rights.

If we said people could only marry if they were less than one year apart in age, everyone would have the same rights.

What is missing here is that a lot of people wouldn't be able to marry they person they *want* to marry. Whether that matters to you I guess is personal opinion. In theory there's nothing wrong with preventing interracial marriages, because everyone is treated equally, right? Except, the people who happen to be in a relationship with a member of a different race, get treated differently. And the question is, does the govt. really have a legitimate interest in doing that?

The same question is being asked about gay people today. And a lot of us are saying, "no." These arguments about procreation or raising kids are red herrings because a) gay couples can have kids, and b) gay couples can raise kids.

quote:
Just don't call it a marriage because it is not.


A marriage is the joining of two things. So, in the loosest sense, you are wrong. It is not a heterosexual marriage. But it is a marriage of two gay people. Is it legally called "marriage"? Maybe not, but why not? You are just begging the question here. We can't call it marriage because we don't call it marriage?


RE: Hey douchebag...
By MartyLK on 9/22/2011 3:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for saying that. I read the title of this article and was about to comment. But you said all I could ever say.

Now...how about some more ROMs. :D


RE: Hey douchebag...
By zBernie on 9/22/2011 10:47:35 PM , Rating: 2
Evidently these left wing hypocrites that preach tolerance, but engage in vulgar, rabid, ad hominem attacks on those with differing opinions, have psychotic tendencies.


That's hilarious
By aegisofrime on 9/22/2011 12:21:56 PM , Rating: 2
Poor bastard has obviously never heard of the Streisand effect. Now people who don't know of it already are gonna Google for it and achieve the effect opposite of what he desired for.




RE: That's hilarious
By acer905 on 9/22/2011 12:29:48 PM , Rating: 1
Yup. This article just made my day. Here's hoping that a dozen more sites host the "better" definition of his name, and gain epic popularity because he pointed it out


RE: That's hilarious
By Sazabi19 on 9/22/2011 1:28:53 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. I'm not close to the gay community so I haven't heard of this, but now that he is making noise I think I will look. I am fairly conservative (fairly) but even I know there are certain things you shouldn't do. Mariage is a religious term (union between a MAN and a WOMAN under god), as long as they are just a "civil union" or something else I don't care what they do, it doesn't hurt me and they don't make more stupid people (usually clean and make places better too).


RE: That's hilarious
By Dradien on 9/22/2011 1:55:38 PM , Rating: 5
First off...

Marriage : A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.

God has nothing to do with it, and god should stay out of politics. Any two people in love should be able to be married, plain and simple.

Keep your personal feelings (and religion) out of politics. Religion is the reason gay marriage is illegal, and abortion as well (and I'd wager a bunch of other stuff). I don't like abortion, but a woman has every right to do with her body as she wishes. Who am I (or ANYONE) to impose their will (moral or otherwise) on other people?

Your stereotypical statement is just stupid..."" they don't make more stupid people (usually clean and make places better too)."


RE: That's hilarious
By straycat74 on 9/22/2011 3:18:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Religion is the reason gay marriage is illegal, and abortion as well


Maybe you don't give athiests enough credit. I would not say all of them are for terminating the lives of people, regardless of where they reside.


RE: That's hilarious
By Dradien on 9/22/2011 4:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
What? I didn't say Atheists are for terminating life? Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm saying religion is the reason it's illegal. They're not exclusively mutual.

My point was religion leaders impose their views and beliefs on all of us, and it has no place in politics.


RE: That's hilarious
By straycat74 on 9/22/2011 4:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
Abortion is illegal?


RE: That's hilarious
By nengel on 9/22/2011 5:47:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Keep your personal feelings (and religion) out of politics.

quote:
. Any two people in love should be able to be married, plain and simple.


Sure, as soon as you stop posting your personal views of what marriage should be. If it is like you say, anyone's opinion is fair game in a democratic process, why would you be so intolerant of someone else's honestly held view? Maybe they don't think there should be gay marriage for non-religious reasons. This is actually my position.

As I see it, if marriage really is just some social contract for my enjoyment, why would the government be involved at all? I don't need a certificate from the government to feel satisfaction from my other relationships, why should this be any different? The truth is that heterosexual marriage does perform a specific function that no other union does, procreation. The government adds financial support to this institution for its proper function of reproducing humans. It encourages couples to stay together for a stronger social structure, and the fact that having a mom and a dad together is the best environment(ceterus paribus) for children to be raised in. Marriage is not about personal fulfillment, otherwise the government would have no reason to do anything.

The question of whether of not there is an objective moral standard that can be applied here should be kept separate, not least because of the relativistic crowd here will flog you for supposing your morality has any hold over them, or anything in reality. But if what they assert is true, all you need to do is realize that their moral standards which they will attack you with are nothing more than the socialization of their age, chemicals firing mindlessly in the brain. And if we are all victims of this sort, who can possibly tell us anything at all, much less ourselves?


RE: That's hilarious
By Quadrillity on 9/22/2011 10:05:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't like abortion, but a woman has every right to do with her body as she wishes.

Every right? What an ultimate insult to motherhood. When a woman decides to get pregnant, she is sharing her body with her new child. To say that its "ok" to murder a child in the womb is downright inhumane and evil.


RE: That's hilarious
By Paj on 9/23/2011 7:59:40 AM , Rating: 2
What about when she doesn't decide to get pregnant?


RE: That's hilarious
By Quadrillity on 9/23/2011 9:39:57 AM , Rating: 2
You mean in cases of unprotected sex? If you are adult enough to have sex, then you obviously are old enough to assume responsibility. Ever wonder why society in general frowns upon sex before marriage? It leads to really big problems like teen pregnancy.

Or do you mean like cases of rape? In the rare instances that women get do become pregnant from the rape, then they should give that child to a couple who cannot conceive if they do not want to raise it themselves. Believe it or not, it's isn't difficult to love a child, no matter where they came from. A child is the most wonderful GIFT. It's simple really; I don't understand where people think that murder of a person outside of the womb is wrong, but inside it's ok?


RE: That's hilarious
By Steve1981 on 9/23/2011 10:13:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the rare instances that women get do become pregnant from the rape, then they should give that child to a couple who cannot conceive if they do not want to raise it themselves.


Funny how it's so very easy to say what someone should do when you yourself are highly unlikely to be faced with the same moral dilemma. If your wife/daughter/other loved one was brutally gang raped, and took the Plan B pill when offered, would you chastise her as a murderer?

quote:
I don't understand where people think that murder of a person outside of the womb is wrong, but inside it's ok?


In the case of rape, it's more akin to justifiable homicide. There's no denying that the situation is unfortunate, but there is also no question that the mental and physical well being of a woman would be gravely threatened should she be forced to carry the fetus resulting from a rape to term.


RE: That's hilarious
By Paj on 9/23/2011 11:15:16 AM , Rating: 2
Precisely. Fetus / Person argument notwithstanding.


RE: That's hilarious
By Quadrillity on 9/23/2011 12:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
there is also no question that the mental and physical well being of a woman would be gravely threatened should she be forced to carry the fetus resulting from a rape to term.

That is a total load of crap. I happen to know someone who was birthed as a result of rape. Their mother carried them, got over the rape, and loved him. The child grew up to be a pretty good guy too. That's like saying the man (recently in the news) who raped and murder his infant child was suffering from PTSD that he brought home from Iraq. PTSD does NOT make you do those things; and he is full of B.S. PTSD makes you anxious in crowded rooms, look over your shoulder, nightmares, that kind of thing.

You will never get me to say that a child isn't a precious living human being. From conception to death, life is precious.


RE: That's hilarious
By Steve1981 on 9/23/2011 12:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is a total load of crap.

Do you talk to your mom with that mouth?

quote:
I happen to know someone who was birthed as a result of rape.


Good for you. However, that disproves nothing in my statement. That you know of one person who against the odds pulled through the ordeal in tact doesn't mean all women would do quite so well. Of women who get raped, ~13% will attempt to commit suicide. That's bad enough. What happens if you add the extra "pleasure" of forcing them to carry a child they don't want and didn't consent to conceive?


RE: That's hilarious
By Quadrillity on 9/23/2011 12:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you talk to your mom with that mouth?

You would have thought that cursed at you... Overly sensitive much?
quote:
Of women who get raped, ~13% will attempt to commit suicide.

I really do feel sorry for those women, and I am not in any way downplaying the severity of rape. However, bad things happen to good people all the time. Two wrongs don't make a right; and you will never rationalize the murder of child from the womb. If they were rapes, and as a result carried a child; then they need to really consider that all things happen for a reason. That child can STILL BE LOVED.


RE: That's hilarious
By Steve1981 on 9/23/2011 1:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You would have thought that cursed at you... Overly sensitive much?


Perhaps, but you'll find your conversations are a lot more civil and enjoyable when you treat others with respect.

quote:
Two wrongs don't make a right


It isn't a question of two wrongs making a right. Terminating the pregnancy in cases of rape isn't done to spite or punish the rapist, who likely doesn't care in any case. It's a question of trying to choose the lesser of two evils, with deference paid to the woman who just went through living hell. If a woman absolutely doesn't wish to carry the baby of a rapist, which more than likely describes the vast majority of cases, you have two choices.

1. Force her to carry the baby against her will.
2. Terminate the pregnancy in as humane a method as possible (Plan B currently).


RE: That's hilarious
By Quadrillity on 9/23/2011 1:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
We are probably just going to have to agree to disagree. I can't see any possible reason to ever "terminate the pregnancy". That woman could just as easily birth that child and love them forever.

In fact, who's to say that the love a child wouldn't heal the wounds of the rape? Why can't that be a possibility? I truly believe that killing a child is the worst thing you could do. There is no such thing as potential life; there is life, or no life.


RE: That's hilarious
By Steve1981 on 9/23/2011 1:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We are probably just going to have to agree to disagree.


More than likely.

quote:
I can't see any possible reason to ever "terminate the pregnancy".


Like I said from the get go, it's easy to say that you would never want to terminate a pregnancy when you yourself are unlikely to ever face the dilemma first hand.

quote:
That woman could just as easily birth that child and love them forever.


Anything is possible; but at the same time, not all women are going to feel that way, and aside from strapping them down and giving them nutrition through an IV for nine months, there's probably nothing you or anyone else could do to force them to carry that fetus to term. You can denigrate such women all you like, but unless you actually go through the situation yourself, your words will carry little weight.


RE: That's hilarious
By Quadrillity on 9/23/2011 2:24:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
nothing you or anyone else could do to force them to carry that *child to term.

There. Fixed that for you :D
quote:
You can denigrate such women all you like, but unless you actually go through the situation yourself, your words will carry little weight.

Not so. I don't have to get run over by a Mac-truck in order to know it hurts! As I said earlier: As tragic and damaging as rape may be, it gives no woman the right to end the life of a child.

But since you have been respectful in your disagreement, I'll give you last word. Glad to have a civilized conversation on such a caustic subject for once...


RE: That's hilarious
By Steve1981 on 9/23/2011 2:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not so. I don't have to get run over by a Mac-truck in order to know it hurts!


Perhaps not; but when difficult situations arise, there tends to be a big difference between what people say they would do, and what they actually end up doing. That's just a reality of life. As a simple example: I hold myself to be a reasonably honest individual. If I found a wallet with a thousand dollars in the street, I'd like to say that I'd turn it over to it's rightful owner. On the other hand, I'm aware of the fact that it's a heck of a lot easier to say that I'd give it back then to actually give it back. The dilemma of rape cases & abortion is a far trickier animal. I have no doubt that you are firm and honestly believe in your convictions, just as I believe in my honesty. On the other hand, if for some horrible reason you were presented with the situation, only the good Lord knows what you would actually do in a moment of grief/anger/etc. I certainly wouldn't condemn you as a horrible person in either case.

quote:
As tragic and damaging as rape may be, it gives no woman the right to end the life of a child.


In the end, if the mother is absolutely opposed to carrying the child, someone's rights are going to be violated one way or another. From a practical standpoint, there is only one way that can really go.

quote:
But since you have been respectful in your disagreement, I'll give you last word. Glad to have a civilized conversation on such a caustic subject for once...


Thanks! Have a good rest of your afternoon.


RE: That's hilarious
By ClownPuncher on 9/22/2011 2:11:15 PM , Rating: 2
Marriage has been around far longer than Abraham.


RE: That's hilarious
By Jert10 on 9/22/2011 2:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
How does them calling it marriage then, if you are open to them having the same rights, hurt you in anyway? Just cause religious people used the word marriage, and have their own rules for it, does not mean it is religious.


Whiny Santorum
By ChoadNamath on 9/22/2011 12:12:21 PM , Rating: 5
Santorum is just a whiny little child. He can't fathom the idea that very few people are interested in his ideas, so he blames his lack of support on whatever else he can think of. One day it's Google's fault for accurately presenting what the internet thinks of him, the next day it's the fault of debate moderators who don't ask him enough questions.




RE: Whiny Santorum
By straycat74 on 9/22/11, Rating: -1
RE: Whiny Santorum
By wiz220 on 9/22/2011 12:58:39 PM , Rating: 5
Reminds me of how a troll tries to change the subject cause he's a partisan hack.


RE: Whiny Santorum
By straycat74 on 9/22/11, Rating: -1
RE: Whiny Santorum
By wiz220 on 9/22/2011 12:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
No kidding. Here we go again with the whiny, poor ol' downtrodden white male conservative Christian line of BS.


RE: Whiny Santorum
By straycat74 on 9/22/11, Rating: 0
RE: Whiny Santorum
By Stacey Melissa on 9/22/2011 1:43:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Santorum is just a whiny little child.

Not to be nitpicky, but if you think Santorum is just a whiny little child, you should google his name. :-p


By 91TTZ on 9/22/2011 1:47:31 PM , Rating: 2
I don't like Santorum, I don't share his view on politics, and I'm not religious.

However, I don't see how you can take what he said and claim that he was comparing homosexuality to bestiality.

quote:
"That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog or whatever the case may be."


He's saying that according to his religious beliefs marriage should be between a man and a woman. He goes on to say that while marriage cannot be between members of the same sex, he's not condemning it as a crime like you would with bestiality or pedophilia.




By adiposity on 9/22/2011 2:01:41 PM , Rating: 2
Full quote:

quote:
"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.


What he is talking about here, is marriage. He's saying, marriage is not homosexuality. It's not bestiality. It's not incest, or anything else. It's just one thing (heterosexuality). In that context, he is lumping all "deviant" sex into one category and saying "none of these are marriage."

Another quote, where he brings up incest in that context:

quote:
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."


Here he is not saying they are the same. He is just saying, if you have to allow one, you have to allow the other.


By Parhel on 9/22/2011 4:02:33 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, thanks for that clarification. It sounds in the quote like he's trying to make a distinction between those behaviors, when in fact it's the exact opposite.


High Opinion
By Steve1981 on 9/22/2011 12:29:15 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
If you're a responsible business, you don't let things like that happen in your business that have an impact on the country.


He's got an awfully high opinion of himself. Sorry Rick, but if doing a Google search on your name leads to the description of a disgusting act, that doesn't impact the country in any meaningful way, just your political aspirations.




I didn't know...
By AmbroseAthan on 9/22/2011 12:13:58 PM , Rating: 2
So I'll help those who also didn't know...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=santorum




RE: I didn't know...
By Etsp on 9/22/2011 12:41:09 PM , Rating: 2
Ironically when I clicked on the link, Google listed "miserable failure" at the top of the "Searches related" list.


Both are in the wrong
By KFZ on 9/22/2011 5:25:21 PM , Rating: 2
While he deserves every ounce of backlash, this is such a juvenile act on behalf of the blog community. I have no respect for either party, because they're both wrong. Way to fight poop-on-a-stick with fire, bloggers, you're just making the stink of this endless moral war even worse.

Santorum should have ignored it, but that sorta thing works both ways. Apply this to anyone else simply stating their controversial opinion on something and this is an insane retaliation.




RE: Both are in the wrong
By dgt224 on 9/23/2011 12:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
A juvenile act? Of course, but there comes a point where it is really difficult to remain adult and rational when the opponent is in a position of power and has demonstrated a complete inability to engage in a rational exchange of views.

Santorum certainly should have ignored it; presumably the phrase "Streisand effect" has never been brought to his attention. Note, however, that this is not truly comparable to attacking someone who has simply stated a controversial opinion. There are lots of folks out there who have expressed opinions about homosexuality every bit as obnoxious as Santorum's; it took his unwavering efforts at making his opinions into laws to attract this sort of response.


Hire me. I'll link build for you.
By tayb on 9/22/2011 7:25:45 PM , Rating: 4
I am laughing hysterically at this.

1. I had never heard of this guy before reading this article. Now I know about him and the only reason I know about him is because of that hilarious website.

2. If I heard about him elsewhere and googled his name I would SKIP that result without a thought in the world.

3. Anyone with half a brain on his staff should have known that Google would not do this.

4. If you want your page to rank better than hire someone (or some company) to raise your page rank. I seriously doubt that Rick Santorum is such a popular keyword that it would take more than a month or two to outrank that website.

I'm not going to make this political any more than to say that the best way to know this guy is a politician is by how absolutely STUPID he is.




Situation is unfortunate for Santorum
By ipay on 9/22/2011 7:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
But you just know he'd be the first person up complaining about how Google was censoring the web if Obama or another democrat got them to take down unflattering links connected to his name.




By ipay on 9/22/2011 7:50:10 PM , Rating: 2
connected to *their* names, obviously.


Wait, what?
By wiz220 on 9/22/2011 1:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you're a responsible business, you don't let things like that happen in your business that have an impact on the country.


Is Rick Santorum advocating censorship? I know he's calling on the business itself to do something about it so it's not true, first amendment, "government shut me up" type censorship, but still. Also, it seems a bit egotistical to claim that this is having an impact on the country, as opposed to an impact on only his delicate sensibilities.




By VooDooAddict on 9/22/2011 3:44:51 PM , Rating: 2
Must be Google's fault.... they are obviously biased.

So the search results must be different on Bing, Yahoo, or Baidu? <click click click>

Oops! Look at that ... they all agree on the most popular definition of santorum. Guess all the big internet search engines are simply biased towards working like a search engine should.

Maybe Rupert Murdoch should start his own fair and balanced search engine? Then Ricky can feel better?




By johnsmith9875 on 9/22/2011 3:50:38 PM , Rating: 2
We're laughing WITH you...(rolls eyes)




lmao
By AwesomeDuck on 9/23/2011 9:12:59 AM , Rating: 2
a lovely way to start the morning, googling the very explicit definition of santorum. i certainly wasnt expecting that.

ahh the power of the internet.




Deserves what he gets
By woody1 on 9/23/2011 5:37:15 PM , Rating: 2
Santorum along with that other major gay-hater, Ralph Reed, has always looked pretty gay to me. So many of the extreme anti-gay people are closeted or haven't faced up to their own identity issues.

Either way, Santorum deserves whatever he gets.




By rbuszka on 9/24/2011 5:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
It looks like the trolls took the bait and derailed this conversation from its real meaning. The question at the heart of this is not whether Rick Santorum's commentary on sexuality was appropriate or offensive. (I have a gay family member, so I generally stay well clear of this debate.)

The real point of this article is the question, "Should Google Censor Search Results?" (And/or remove search results that an individual or group finds offensive, regardless of their factual content). There is a group of people out there who would like to be able to blacklist certain web sites from search engines (which is how most Internet users find new web sites and perform research) because they contain content that is offensive to someone or is generally in poor taste. However, I see this potentially being misused in this country to skew political debate, marginalize a social or religious group, undermine the visibility of certain factual content that might be inconvenient to a government or corporate entity, or attack a single unpopular individual. In this case, Mr. Santorum (Mr. "Frothy Mix") needs to understand that this is just google-juice in action, and that he found himself on the unpopular side of a hot-button subject. I don't think I'd mind seeing a warning page pop up before Google delivers me to the 'Santorum'='Frothy Mix' web site, letting me know that Google has flagged the site as being in poor taste or potentially offensive, but to completely remove the web site from Google's search database creates a precedent that can be used by other entities to control information in ways that could be very detrimental to society (such as silencing criticism of a government or a scientific paradigm like global warming) because it would undermine the ability of mankind to have a debate.

I do not believe Google should remove the Santorum result or bump it to another page of results. However, if they decide to have an interim page between the search results page and the 'Frothy Mix' site itself saying that Google believes the content of the site may be offensive, I don't think I'd have a problem with that.




LMFAO
By nocturne_81 on 9/29/2011 8:56:51 AM , Rating: 2
Wow... I'm really surprised I haven't heard of the sexual term before.. lmao..

As for Santorum.. what does he expect to accomplish? If Google removes search results -- they'll get sued. Hell, even when they don't, such as the recent FCC fine for 'allowing' Canadian online pharms to merely exist or the Korean case in which minority competitors got squashed in the pageranks -- they get sued.




Santorum
By wgbutler on 9/23/2011 9:22:48 AM , Rating: 1
I agree with Santorum. Props to him for standing up for his beliefs (which are correct and valid) and for taking the heat and abuse from the pro-homosexual lobby.

The fact that the gay activists would try to slime his name in the way they are doing really tells you everything you need to know about them. The gay activists don't really have any good arguments, so they resort to insults and intimidation tactics in order to silence others who don't affirm their lifestyle.

I'm sure I'll get plenty of nasty comments for daring to speak my opinion and having the audacity to disagree with the politically correct viewpoint. I don't care. I'm also sure that I won't hear any good arguments for why the homosexual lifestyle (and forcing everyone to affirm it) is a good thing.




too funny but evil
By undummy on 9/22/11, Rating: -1
RE: too funny but evil
By adiposity on 9/22/2011 1:13:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I searched your name and something negative came up, how would you feel?


Any search about Santorum, before or after the definition, was turning up plenty of negative stuff, mostly about homosexuals.


RE: too funny but evil
By AerieC on 9/22/2011 1:19:54 PM , Rating: 2
See, but a search engine, by design, can really only be "sided" if more web pages and/or keywords about a certain topic exist than an opposing idea.

The search engine reflects the interests of the people using the internet, nothing more.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki