this passage of Proposition 8 in California was the biggest piece of bullshit

Discussion in 'Audio Emcee Hook Ups' started by Nimrod, Nov 12, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. KevinGarnett.

    KevinGarnett. Anthony Anderson is GOD

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,810
    exactly lmao.

    deuce wilde, you really are a fuckin idiot.

    anybody who hasnt studied biology past high school, please dont talk about dna, genes or anything related to biology.
    test
  2. Macmili

    Macmili Thorough

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,366

    i agree with that

    they should come up with a new word which is the equivalent to a gay marriage and have the same rights as a married couple when they get ___________ed, fill in the gay ass blank
    test
  3. ProFane

    ProFane dB's Finest

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    6,086
    Well then thats simply just semantics. what you call this union is irrelevant, its about the equality, and Gays deserve it just as much as you and I.
    test
  4. *Deuce Wilde*

    *Deuce Wilde* aka stfu dave

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    22,912
    Homosexuals aren't unable to reproduce. Its a decision one makes, just like people make a decision to wear a condom or not. I wasn't the one who brought "biological regression" into the discussion, I was merely illustrating that neither are ACTUALLY biologically regressive.

    Sure, partaking exclusively in homosexual sex keeps an individual from reproducing, but so does abstinence.

    To say that other forms of inseminating and impregnating a woman are not a part of "natural selection" is dumb because the ACT OF SEX itself isn't what natural selection is about, its about the passing on of DNA and biological traits to the next generation.

    Heterosexuals who choose not to reproduce are just as "biologically regressive" as homosexuals who choose not too. Therefore, if that's an attempted argument against gay marriage it holds no weight.


    And macmilli and spitwell, so let me get this straight. You're FOR gay marriage if we give it a different name? So you're for gay marriage then... Cool, your argument against it ends there.

    Let's take out an 'r' and call it mariage
    test
  5. Macmili

    Macmili Thorough

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,366
    lol

    I'll go for that

    as long as the difference is acknowledged
    test
  6. KevinGarnett.

    KevinGarnett. Anthony Anderson is GOD

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,810
    Homosexuals are born with an EVOLUTIONARY disadvantage - they are not attracted to females, and thus less likely to reproduce with one.

    The same way a retard, hideous mufucka born with no arms or legs can potentially reproduce - its just more unlikely he will, and thus he is at an evolutionary disadvantage.

    Please stop talking on natural selection etc until you know what you're talking about.
    test
  7. Macmili

    Macmili Thorough

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,366
    damn i posted a millisecond before you^^^

    your post was under mine when mine came up
    test
  8. *Deuce Wilde*

    *Deuce Wilde* aka stfu dave

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    22,912
    Biologically regressive is not the same as an evolutionary disadvantage.

    D. Omen is at an evolutionary disadvantage... but he's not biologically regressive just because he's fat and ugly...
    test
  9. KevinGarnett.

    KevinGarnett. Anthony Anderson is GOD

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,810
    Please just stop.
    test
  10. *Deuce Wilde*

    *Deuce Wilde* aka stfu dave

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    22,912
    Explain to me how being at an evolutionary disadvantage is the SAME as being biologically regressive.

    Do it.
    test
  11. KevinGarnett.

    KevinGarnett. Anthony Anderson is GOD

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,810
    I've never even heard the term 'biologically regressive' till you faggots brought it up, and I've studied biology at a high level.

    You are talking utter nonsense.
    test
  12. *Deuce Wilde*

    *Deuce Wilde* aka stfu dave

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    22,912
    I didn't bring up the term biologically regressive. That was either skrybe or ssssslawk.

    There's a reason, as I've stated like 3 times in this thread, why I kept "biologically regressive" in quotes when referring to it...
    test
  13. DopeSmokerJoe

    DopeSmokerJoe New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    656
    I hope all this queer shit dies down by 2010 cuz if not then republicans will control both chambers of congress again. its obvious the american people dont want this, why u think obama is smart enough to be against gay marriage
    test
  14. *Deuce Wilde*

    *Deuce Wilde* aka stfu dave

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    22,912

    He's not.

    [youtube]_-h6xWyWvK0[/youtube]

    [youtube]GlY9HFRNUHs[/youtube]

    Being against calling it marriage but still providing the EXACT same benefits and features of marriage isn't being against gay marriage. It's being FOR gay marriage, yet just calling it something else.

    Civil unions currently would not qualify as that as they don't provide the same equal rights.
    test
  15. DopeSmokerJoe

    DopeSmokerJoe New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    656
    that must be the only clips u ever seen of him talkin bout gay marriage then cuz he specifically said in his book that americans dont want gay marriage but hes willing to grant civil unions nationwide. either way, if this queer shit doesnt die down then bye bye democrat majority
    test
  16. *Deuce Wilde*

    *Deuce Wilde* aka stfu dave

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    22,912
    Obviously not all Americans want gay marriage.

    Not all Americans wanted interracial marriages allowed. Not all Americans wanted blacks or women to have the right to vote...

    Joe Biden said neither he nor Obama support gay marriage simply so they wouldn't risk losing the vote of the ignorant bastards who would vote otherwise based on that issue alone.

    But supporting something granted the SAME rights and benefits, is basically being FOR gay marriage. The only difference would be the name.
    test
  17. DopeSmokerJoe

    DopeSmokerJoe New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    656
    good then give em whatever they want and tell them to shut the fuck up cuz if this is a major issue in 2010 then dems are done. if u dont realize that then u wasnt around in 04. i could give a fuck less bout some fudgepackers marrying, but if the dems lose again over this bullshit then the party should boycott gays
    test
  18. Nimrod

    Nimrod Nimi Hendrix

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 1999
    Messages:
    81,356
    test
  19. DopeSmokerJoe

    DopeSmokerJoe New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    656

    so what else are they lying bout so they dont risk losing votes?
    test
  20. Nimrod

    Nimrod Nimi Hendrix

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 1999
    Messages:
    81,356
    i agree wit joe on this issue


    the fight for homosexual rights isnt one that democrats can win

    society is so bigoted towards homosexuals, and thats the failure of democracy


    eventho im pro- homosexual rights, im willing to let the issue go under the rug so that democrats can win and focus on the more important issues like the war, health care, the economy, and energy independence
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)