Killing gay people- now legal...er!

[PrimaGaga 1025]

Why? I don't know much about those people, so please elaborate.

[Jareddude 62]

Wow, seriously?

I should get a right to go around and kill straight people and see how they feel while doing nothing wrong.

[pheonix561 2080]

How you would feel while doing nothing wrong, or how the straight people would feel while doing nothing wrong?

[Jo-Bengt 0]

I should get a right to go around and kill straight people and see how they feel while doing nothing wrong.

You do. This applies to straight people, as well.

So really all it seems to have done is actually put gays and straights on an equal level, instead of handicapping gays. That's what it looks like to me, anyway.

This just takes sexual orientation out of the equation. Whether you're heterosexual or homosexual no longer matters. It's not legal to just walk around and kill anyone, straight or gay. We're all equals in law.

This might seem a little harsh, but the world is a harsh place. Idk, a lot of my opinions seem to be kinda ruthless sometimes.

[PrimaGaga 1025]

But you have to think of the intentions of such a law. Is a government really gonna kill someone just for being straight? I mean, there are many laws in many countries that prohibit homosexual intercourse. Yet every country supports the act of heterosexual love. So I mean, yea. It may legally put gays and straights on the same level, but in reality, it separates them drastically.

[PrimaGaga 1025]

Yeah, I do.

[Grandmaster Phoenix 26]

Nothing actually changed, you do realize this, right?

Yeah, I do.

Then why does this thread exist?

[/thread]

[Arachne 25]

Then why does this thread exist?

[/thread]

Nope.

[PrimaGaga 1025]

This thread, like all others, exists for discussion. Or did you not understand then purpose of a forum? Hm?

PS- I totally love how GMP ignored my earlier comment towards him.

[Obtineo 0]

GMP, I have an exchange from one of my favourite tv shows that I want you to answer.

President Josiah Bartlet: Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.

Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.

President Josiah Bartlet: Yes, it does. Leviticus.

Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.

President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important 'cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.

It's one of the main problems I have with the excuse that "the bible says"

The bible says a lot of stuff. You have to be pretty damn selective to go on about this. And the funniest part is that no one seems to be able to give me a damn good reason.

[j0000000000k3r 0]

It's slavery all over again. If this countries' leaders don't like something that's growing and they dislike it; it's bashed. Alas, I couldn't give two shits about gays, well, I could, but I'd be hucking my shit at gays and that's probably a hate crime or some bullshit.

[Sahaqiel 1232]

Then find a religion that accepts homosexuals, and get a civil union?

>Implying your religion's marriage is the only legitimate marriage when the Egyptians and Romans totally had marriage before you, gay and/or straight and eastern Asia has never had any restriction on homosexual marriage

You do. This applies to straight people, as well.

This just takes sexual orientation out of the equation. Whether you're heterosexual or homosexual no longer matters. It's not legal to just walk around and kill anyone, straight or gay. We're all equals in law.

No, you don't understand.

You just implied that taking sexual orientation out of the question completely leveled the entire playing field in regards to the law. No. Under that logic, then they would have to take race, gender, etc. off the list of reasons you can randomly kill. It is pretty blatantly biased against homosexuality. Like if they took gender off the list for reasons you can't kill for no reason, it's obviously because someone wants to kill a certain gender.

Now, when we talk about random death sentences for people with a religion against homosexuality, amongst them Persia, which has a leader that has claimed there are no homosexuals in Persia, what do you think this vote means?

PS- I totally love how GMP ignored my earlier comment towards him.

He does that when he has nothing to say. I actually kind of like it. It means a side has clearly won and you can go about your business.

Like how I trapped GMP into implying he was like Isreal and, indirectly, North Korea, a country he wants to enact genocide on. He just didn't have anything to say to that. Unfortunately, you have to go back and make the same points to him, because he blatantly ignores them and pretends he never saw them until you pressure him with them more.

I think pride is an issue, here.

Also lol Obtineo.

Sahaqiel

[Chase 390]

Love

[Sahaqiel 1232]

oh figurehead~

[Grandmaster Phoenix 26]

>Implying your religion's marriage is the only legitimate marriage when the Egyptians and Romans totally had marriage before you, gay and/or straight and eastern Asia has never had any restriction on homosexual marriage

No, you don't understand.

You just implied that taking sexual orientation out of the question completely leveled the entire playing field in regards to the law. No. Under that logic, then they would have to take race, gender, etc. off the list of reasons you can randomly kill. It is pretty blatantly biased against homosexuality. Like if they took gender off the list for reasons you can't kill for no reason, it's obviously because someone wants to kill a certain gender.

Now, when we talk about random death sentences for people with a religion against homosexuality, amongst them Persia, which has a leader that has claimed there are no homosexuals in Persia, what do you think this vote means?

He does that when he has nothing to say. I actually kind of like it. It means a side has clearly won and you can go about your business.

Like how I trapped GMP into implying he was like Isreal and, indirectly, North Korea, a country he wants to enact genocide on. He just didn't have anything to say to that. Unfortunately, you have to go back and make the same points to him, because he blatantly ignores them and pretends he never saw them until you pressure him with them more.

I think pride is an issue, here.

Also lol Obtineo.

Sahaqiel

How is the civil union answer not acceptable to you? Also, I would like you to consider the fact that most gays = Atheists/Non-Christains. Lark is the exception, not the rule, an you can't make everyone happy. Also, saha, Are you Straight or Gay?

Murder is murder in most countries anyways. I couln't go and shoot gays just for being gay, I would be arrested. It also means the Persian leader is (apeshit/batshit) insane, and more than once this has been proven. The UN needs to go anyways though.

Also, Saha, you an the other liberal members of this site did this same thing to me on the healthcare threa earlier this year, so don't even start with this. http://hyrule.net/forum/index.php?/topic/5003-universal-healthcare/page__st__20

Your one response:

"What does this have to do with anything?

I'm just saying, bro, some people might need gov't healthcare. And they might not be you. " (Blantly ignoring all but one small point)