Thread: I'm against gay marraige This is why

Originally Posted by ~BigTymer~

this was a dumb reply. I will say the same. When another woman shoots a load into another and gets prego then fine.

Yes, it was a dumb reply. It was to make fun of your dumb comment

Originally Posted by Alundil

How is a man ogling a person said man attracted to and better or worse or more acceptable based on the sexuality of the person said man is ogling?

Let me help you....
Thinking that the target of the ogling appreciates it more or less based on that person's sexuality is utter nonsense and you ought to know it.

As for the rest...
Not going to let your statement off the hook so easily.
Second Class....implies a loss of right/privilege/degradation of treatment......
So how, in this new world where gay marriage is allowed do you (or other heterosexual people) now fall into a second class status?

And to your last statement....which I can't wrap my head around the obtuseness of.....but I digress.... How is the "issue supposed to be resolved?"
Ignoring it isn't resolution.

A person sex does come into play but not in a huge way. Females are more sensitive and accepting to that shit then males are. Good old testosterone at work. As for the second class part it was more to show the the levels then anything else. You know like the same way homosexuals talk about the way it is right now. So you dont need to let me off the hook. Im just using their own statements against them.

Now did i say anything in this thread about gay marriage? Nope. This whole thing was about bathrooms/locker rooms.

My last statement was made because "suck it up" has been used in this thread on this topic as an answer. I agree that isn't an answer to it. I did however point out earlier the real answer has already been done by the military by putting in curtains. Problem solved that easy.

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

By Big tymer's Logic, why don't we make it mandatory, that to have kids you must be married, and to be married you must have kids. I'd sign that law.

Marriage would be for Life, No escape, no divorce. Children would be first and foremost priority. and would be Heavily Discounted with tax breaks and such.

Children out of wedlock would be taken by the state and given to parents (married couples, m&m w&m or w&w) and you'd be fined for having them. Repeat offenders would be castrated.

Do you know how hard it is to get a date with a woman in her 20's and 30's that DOESN'T have kid/s?

I bet with that law in place we can bring the average life span down a notch or two.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

A person sex does come into play but not in a huge way. Females are more sensitive and accepting to that shit then males are. Good old testosterone at work. As for the second class part it was more to show the the levels then anything else. You know like the same way homosexuals talk about the way it is right now. So you dont need to let me off the hook. Im just using their own statements against them.

Now did i say anything in this thread about gay marriage? Nope. This whole thing was about bathrooms/locker rooms.

My last statement was made because "suck it up" has been used in this thread on this topic as an answer. I agree that isn't an answer to it. I did however point out earlier the real answer has already been done by the military by putting in curtains. Problem solved that easy.

A person's gender has less to do with their level of sensitivity (give a fuck) than you credit. Everyone is different. <-- It's a boilerplate statement, I realize. But it holds true. Generalizations about attitude and demeanor based on gender is the very essence of stereotyping and will be incorrect more and more often as time goes on since people realize that not all boys play shootem-up and G.I. Joe and not all girls are My Little Pony and Barbie.... look no further than "bronies" for confirmation of this on going change.

As to the "second class" comment - you agree that you basically "got nothing" there since you're not, as a heterosexual, losing anything at all by this change. Period. Glad we can agree that people, the world over, will have to allow people to be different than themselves without going for the pitchforks.

The OP is about Gay Marriage, not bathrooms/locker rooms.

Solving the bathroom/locker room/shower issue might be solved by the iron nylon curtain. However, that's not the complete problem that needs solving and barely scratches the surface.

Originally Posted by Alundil

A person's gender has less to do with their level of sensitivity (give a fuck) than you credit. Everyone is different. <-- It's a boilerplate statement, I realize. But it holds true. Generalizations about attitude and demeanor based on gender is the very essence of stereotyping and will be incorrect more and more often as time goes on since people realize that not all boys play shootem-up and G.I. Joe and not all girls are My Little Pony and Barbie.... look no further than "bronies" for confirmation of this on going change.

As to the "second class" comment - you agree that you basically "got nothing" there since you're not, as a heterosexual, losing anything at all by this change. Period. Glad we can agree that people, the world over, will have to allow people to be different than themselves without going for the pitchforks.

The OP is about Gay Marriage, not bathrooms/locker rooms.

Solving the bathroom/locker room/shower issue might be solved by the iron nylon curtain. However, that's not the complete problem that needs solving and barely scratches the surface.

LOL i didnt even look at the title i was going off what was said but ok fair enough. In my statements i was not discussing marriage. Its not "got nothing" its got something but it isnt what sets the pace.

Its solves the problem with bathrooms/locker rooms. There is no answer for the problem itself. All you can do is attack what spurs from it.