That's sure to work

you're not born straight either, so your comment is pretty unrelated to his joke.

That's exactly what I was saying, but people just thumbed me right the fuck down. -sigh-

...based on genetically programmed hormones, WITH WHICH YOU ARE BORN. Read a book, asshole.

I really don't understand why the fuck I got thumbed down when I was agreeing with heartlessrobot. Funnyjunk, you are full of idiots. No offense.

Because what you said has no ground in real science because scientists aren't really sure where exactly the tendency to be gay comes from, just like you can't explain why I don't like broccoli but everyone else in my family does.

No, they have some pretty solid correlations as to where sexuality comes from. Can you give me a source that says that science has no idea? Because that's absolutely wrong.

I don't know why you were thumbed down here. I think this might be my first unintentional shitstorm where I don't get thumbed down.

Every thumb down is for a reason. People may be more likely to thumb down a comment that is already in negative thumbs but that won't be all it takes to make them follow suit, contrary to the popular belief of people who say stupid shit and return flabbergasted that their comment is on -10.

It's because you all are arguing over a fucking joke.

My point was about the hypocrisy of FJ. It's pretty mindless.

You do understand that you're talking about FJ,but yet, you are asking why are you getting red thumbs for no reason...

heaven forbid an anon provide a legal argument, right FJ?

You have definitely missed the joke here.

You've missed my joke.

I most probably have.

The joke is people think that if gays are allowed to adopt, the kids will become gay because they were raised by homosexuals, yet they ignore the fact that if there are homosexuals they were at one point raised by heterosexuals, meaning heterosexuals raise homosexual children by their logic.

But the post has nothing to do with adoption, which is where my confusion arose.

they want to isolate gay people because they think at some point they'll die off because they think they reproduce at all through their intercourse with their lover, what they don't understand is
1. homosexuals came from heterosexuals, so there'll always be more
2. they obviously lack even basic sexual education
3. thinking that they could isolate every homosexual in the united states would be just like what we did right after pearl harbor, putting japanese people in camps, it's unconstitutional and abhorrent.
4. they also lack any semblance of intelligence

>what America did after Pearl Harbor

...or, you know, what that other guy with the funny mustache did to Jews, invalids, and, oh yes, gay people. What was his name again?

damn, never thought i'd see the day i defend the westboro baptist church, and let alone from hitler, he's a goddamn teddybear (in his philosophy) compared to those psychopaths

the wbpc members were proposing isolation, not necessarily enslavement and genocide

Exactly, I took the main joke of the post to be that this woman was stupid enough to think that the homosexual couples would reproduce to make biological offspring, whereas the joke in the comment seemed to revolve round society's opinion and assumption about the effect of a homosexual couple raising a child, which seemed to me to be completely unrelated to the content.

indeed, in fact, i can think of a few gay couples that would make MUCH better parents than A LOOOT of parents that i've seen

Light the beacons, someone is talking sense on the internet!
Really though, if only we could get this idea through to the narrow-minded, gullible pricks that make up one group of religious people. I don't mind if a person has religion, if it makes them happy then good for them! But what really annoys me is when people use their religion as an excuse for nothing short of prejudice and bigotry, and then try and push THEIR views on people other than THEMSELVES.
I mean, the former set of religious folks tend to be quite nice people on the whole. The latter group though, the really militant ones with no sense of tolerance or reasoning (I'm looking at you, WBC) can die in a fire, for all I care.

i love how every religious person where i live had/has a sign from obama's last campaign saying "preserve religious freedom"....the irony was obviously lost on them.
(and to state the irony here's me)
soooo, what you're saying is we should vote to protect what has been the reasoning for murder, rape, suicide, genocide, and "the terrorist attacks" as you think, so you can use it to not only overlook and possibly support these things, but also so you can use it to oppress a kind of person who didn't choose to believe something like you did, but were born a certain way that cannot be influenced by decision, it is merely biological programming, but, then again, why would i use this term for you, you probably don't even remember what biology is....anyway, go fuck yourself, with something spiky and sandpaper-y
(also, this is directed towards those people, not any fjers, cause even the most ignorant fjer knows basic stuff)

oh, and i forgot to mention, these folk think that their rights are being infringed upon by him, they make themselves out to be the oppressed ones....that was key (how did i forget that?)

I'm not sure where I'm going with this.

Me neither.

do you know the reason why this works both as "fantastic" and kind of as "buttsex"?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

now you do, go ahead, feel smart, you've earned it

thanks to you i learned something at 2 am...

I'm sorry they thumbed you down. In fact, when you had one thumb down, I thumbed you back up.
<To people thumbing you down

Like this

holy fuck, I didn't even realize how much I typed.

tl/dr: People are retards. Doesn't matter what we believe, we're all still fucking idiots for some reason.

Well, to be fair, religion has been used time and time again to oppress people. Right now with the gays by taking away their right to be married.

Frankly, this would all go away if marriage was simply a religious institution instead of a legal one. The government should just not recognize marriage, stick to civil unions and let the church do whatever the fuck ceremonies with no legal standing.

and pure force has also been used to oppress people. The truth of it all, the so called rules of society (including religious rule) don't exist. they're not tangible nor can hurt you. Only people acting on the belief of their existence can. We put the meaning behind them, making them important. same could be said about many things in the daily life. disbelief has also been used to oppress people through history, like during the french rebellion or soviet russia. during both, if you were found worshiping some idols or didn't agree with the higher political power or mob mentality, you were killed, no trial.

tl:dr religion don't do shit, people who read it wrong do. religion is good thing, idiots just fuck it up.

i hate it when people ask me a certain question when i tell them i have the same religion as the vikings. 8/10 times they ask "so its okay with you to set things of fire, rape, murder, molest, steal, kidnap and enslave?"
this always makes me angry because those things were set by the PEOPLE, not their beliefs! the King of Asgard, Odinn, is the god of wisdom and poetry! POETRY FFS! especially stupid people assume the worst of someone judging by their religion. to an idiot:
odinists = rapist vikings, muslims = suicide bombers, wicca = devil worshipper
the people that believe this makes me WANT to go on a murderous rampage, setting houses on fire and killing people. this level of stupid shouldn't reproduce

So just because other groups oppress people it's suddenly alright for religion too? Or is it that their way is less bad, so suddenly it's acceptable.

Any group is going to oppress smaller groups, it's the way of the world. Religion just makes it easier to get more people into that group because generally they give people hope.

The ideas of the community religion gives and that aforementioned hope make religion great, but in practice people corrupt that idea.

If I started rambling, I'll admit that I kind of zoned out somewhere in that.

i'm saying to not blame religion for mob mentality. race, gender, belief are all things people form these mobs on, note solely religion.

And I'm saying not to let it slide because other mobs do it too. I don't solely blame religion. They're just the mob that argues the loudest.

That would be fine if civil unions carried all the same rights that full marriages do, but they don't so right now civil unions just don't cut it.

Which is why I'm saying Marriage as a legal matter should be abolished. Make it Civil Unions that matter. Get rid of the church's involvement in a matter they shouldn't have a hand in at all.

I agree.

That's a pretty bad argument
"religion has been used time and time again to oppress people. Right now with the gays by taking away their right to be married."

First of all, and this is going to sound bad, Homosexual people NEVER got right to get married, it's just a new occurrence, you can't take away a right that said people never had. Now, have you ever wondered why the church is against gay marriage? According to our beliefs, marriage is a RELIGIOUS union between a man and a woman. At least in my country, you have to do both, a LEGAL marriage, and a religious marriage, it's separate, and if a third world country has that system, most probably USA does too.

Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against gay people, in fact, I support the right of gay people to receive a legal union, but they can't ask the government for a law that makes gay people available to get married in a religious manner, since the very definition of marriage is against it. That is oppression, the same one you claim religion does. The same one I get when I say out loud that I don't support gay marriage.

Okay, so it's cool to oppress them, since we've been oppressing them forever. Got it.

And nope, while there is the ceremony that makes marriage a religious affair, right now in the US gays can not legally be married. They can have Civil Unions, but as our friend kellenved stated later, civil unions don't have the same privileges that come with marriage.

This is why I'm also arguing that marriage shouldn't be a legal practice at all. Scrap marriage, let the religious groups make their ceremonies as important as whatever ceremonies the gays have, and rewrite the rules for Civil Unions.

*kellanved, Sorry man

I never said I approved what the church is doing, I even said I supported gay marriage didn't I? I know about the Civil Unions, but people bash religion for not allowing gay marriage when it's against their beliefs, bash the government for allowing religion to get in the way of common sense.

I forgot to say that religion influences laws because of people who are dicatting laws are also of said religion

That was for your comment about them never having the right. Since everyone else has the right, it's taking it away the second they want to do it.

The government works for the people, the people are the ones fighting so hard. The government has repeatedly tried to legalize gay marriage. The religious groups were strong enough to vote it down.

It's their mob mentality.

Prop 8 years back in California. I was surprised because I used to go to a church (grew up there, didn't believe at the time, but people were like family) and they were all pretty against giving these people their rights.

Oh I wouldn't know in other countries, here in my country, it's still kinda taboo to talk about this things. so gay marriage is not even talked about here, it would ruin the career of said politician. that's why I said that in the comment you replied to, I was thinking in my country, not the USA, kinda stupid of me.

Yeah, democratic republic, so instead of a small group of people oppressing everyone, it's actually the majorities oppressing the minorities.

Mind if I ask what country you're from?

Paraguay, ranked top 5 in corruption if I recall some statistics.

Wow, that's some damn fine corruption you've got there

Ah this argument again. Let me address the most obvious fallacy first. You're suggesting two different kinds of 'marriage,' one for straights, one for gays. The same exact discrimination strategies used by white supremacists when they made bathrooms and drinking fountains for whites and another set for 'coloreds.' It is still discrimination and it doesn't matter how much you say you have no problem with gay people, if this is your stance then you are a bigot.

Secondly, most gays don't want your religious marriage, they want a legal marriage with all the legal rights that go with it, and then the bible thumpers come along and say "No you can't get married cause it's against my religion! You're oppressing us!" You say you are against them having equal rights, and then whine about being oppressed. That is the height of hypocrisy. I could go on about the hypocrisy about the separation of church and state, how the bible thumpers use their beliefs to influence politics and spread their bigotry into laws and then scream "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!" whenever the government takes any kind of action regarding religion they don't like, like taxing churches or what not. You can't pick and choose when laws apply or what parts of it apply. Marriage is a LEGAL contract between two consenting adults and comes with many LEGAL rights and privileges, that's what they want. They don't give a shit about your religion or a religious marriage. They just want some equal rights.

"At least in my country, you have to do both, a LEGAL marriage, and a religious marriage, it's separate, and if a third world country has that system, most probably USA does too. "

"Secondly, most gays don't want your religious marriage, they want a legal marriage with all the legal rights that go with it"

I searched my statement, I never found when I said anything about two kinds of marriages, you bashed me for being against gay marriage for a reason I never even expressed, then went on to say the exact same thing I'm supporting them for. Please read what people say.

Oh and that first quote didn't even come from my comment so....what's that about reading what people say thoroughly?

I read it pretty thoroughly and you say the same things all bible thumping bigots say. At least the ones that are too cowardly to just come out and say they hate gays. I have more respect for the WBC than I do for you, they at least aren't afraid to just come out and say they hate gays.

Geez, don't People realize that it's just common courtesy to leave a comment that continues one thought with the comment it was paired with? Some users...right?

Oh, and since we were talking about it earlier, I wanted to mention the fact that somewhere out there, there is a single marriage certificate that has my signature as the officiant.

people ARE stupid, i am stupid, i won't deny that. i know that religion doesn't cause the existence of, well... everything, but i still cling to my belief in Odinism, can you suggest why that is? why a person who is generally scientific believes in the Big Bang as well as the belief that a giant space cow gave milk to the earth to make people?
(something like Schrodinger's Cat and metaphors could be handy here)

It's funny because this post has nothing to do with god, but for some reason OP posted it in the atheism channel.
You can easily be christian and pro gay marriage and gay couples.

This content aside, I'm failing to see how you come to the conclusion that a different race that evolved like humans would discover/create the same god that Christians believe in. You say that it's because the universe must have an original cause, but that's an argument that's capable of being used by itself without the need for invoking another race, so I fail to understand how that part about another race is necessary or even related. Also, what does "if they developed through the procees first however" supposed to mean?

Overall, I just don't see how you're substantiating all of this.

because of another race developed along the same evolutionary way as humanity, they'd create religious ideals of multiple gods, then evolve it into singular.

Are you saying that because you think that some part of the human brain (or the brain of a creature very similar to a human) is wired to want an explanation? If so, why should the explanation "evolve" into a singular god?

Since the beginning of humanity every single civilization had some kind of gods to explain things around them. There have been many religions through eras. Many other ,,powerfull" gods. Where are gods like Zeus, Osiris, Jupiter? Where are their mighty religions? What is the difference between them and Christian God? Just because some carpenter 2000 years ago said he is son of him that made him real? Yes you are right if our civilization would be destroyed there would be created new gods. But not the one that you are thinking.

No in Age of Mythologi those gods were Zeus, Thor and Horus...

this is how i see christianity: the bible has bad stuff in, but is written by people, not god
there are good christians and bad christians

chances are in favor of you being a good christian (love thy neighbor, thou shalt not kill, etc). a perfect example of a bad christian is the westboro baptist church.
(note: i always want to type borough instead of boro, must be my englishness)

Not even the dumbest of christians(not to mean christans are dumb because) like wesboro. Noone does, not even the most evil god in any religion ever.

But most (if not all) Christian churches are against gays.
I used to go to a pretty laid back church (wasn't religious, just felt like family because I grew up in that church) and frankly I was a little shocked at how much they were against gay marriage.

only from a spiritual standpoint though. kinda like how pre-marital sex is immoral, but not illegal

Can you explain what you mean by "from a spirital standpoint"?

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, or how it changes their attitude towards gays :P

But a lot are very against gay marriage. Which, as long as it's a legal matter instead of just a religious one, means they're actively working to make being in a gay couple less valid.

They're trying to push their ideas on the law.
Which is why I've been arguing that marriage shouldn't be a legal matter. Civil Unions should be the only unions recognized by the state. Let the religious have their ceremonies all they want, but leave it at that.

I do understand where you're coming from though. A lot of individual people oppose gay marriage rights and actively work against them, but that's typically because they just don't know how the law works, and are a little overzealous in spreading their beliefs. institutions, on the other hand, are run by a collection of highly educated people who do understand the separation between law and theology. so like I said, the religious institutions teach that homosexuality is immoral, but they teach this to their followers instead of to congress. it's the individuals who are to blame, not the actual institutions themselves.

So, you're saying that the group's leaders teach this, but in no way support their members from actually song something about it?

you have to remember that by "institution" I don't mean individual churches. the institution means the higher branch, i.e. denomination leading groups such as the "Assemblies of God" council etc. and no, they (typically) do not

Most of the high groups you're talking about do have a negative stance on it. Plenty of times the churches themselves are either farther right or left wing than their heads, but most do follow what their bible says and have a stance against gay marriage.

holy matrimony =/= marriage

they are separate things.

But, the church is arguing that it's the same. That's the whole problem. "Marriage is between a man and a woman" and all that.

Mormons aren't anti gay. Those are the only ones I can think of.

You need to login to view this link totally says homosexuality is wrong. Their commandments page, the sexuality one. Sorry, I don't have the link. But if you Google "Mormon stance on homosexuality" it should be the first page.

Hmm. Well the Mormons out here don't have problems with the gay guys over here.
guess its just a personal thing. Though they are more accepting than other churches that I've seen.

My family traces back to the roots of the religion. I've heard enough bad about the religion to personally not want anything to do with it.

Of course, I have the same feelings towards all organized religion. The idea behind it (community and family and all that) are amazing, but in practice people corrupt the purest ideas.

ᴵ'ᵐ ʷᶦᶜᶜᵃᶰ ˢᵒ ᴵ ᵈᵒᶰ'ᵗ ʰᵃᵛᵉ ᵗʰᵉˢᵉ ᵖʳᵒᵇᶫᵉᵐˢ⋅⋅⋅

Interesting. Do you have any facts to back your statement?

Wicca is not an organized religion. Plus one of the main things is Do harm on no-one. (even though i'm swat...) This includes discriminating.
Its really hard to provide "Facts" Because people worship in different ways.
ʸᵒᵘ'ᶫᶫ ʲᵘˢᵗ ʰᵃᵛᵉ ᵗᵒ ᵗᵃᵏᵉ ᵐʸ ʷᵒʳᵈ ᶠᵒʳ ᶦᵗ⋅⋅⋅

Oh, well see, here's the problem. For some reason my phone isn't loading your text. All I could see was the picture followed by " ' ' ..."

Sorry I was using small text. anyway Wiccan master race FTW.

I honestly don't know much about wicca, anything you'd care to share about it?

Tomorrow, I need to hit the sack I have my beat in a few hours.

Goodnight then, internet stranger!

(continued again.)
the collection of native american religions will henceforth be recognized as Nat-Ame. nat-ame, aborigine, druidry, astaru, odinism, shinto and many others are in fact fully compatible, they simply use different names and respect different aspects of the ecosystem that they exist within

(continued.)
an interesting myth of odinism is that odinn did the bad thing with a GIANTESS OF THE EARTH, and gaia (foremost goddess in wicca, motherly titan of earth to the ancient greek and far too big of a coincidence to ignore) in ancient greek and wiccan is referred to as THE EARTH MOTHER or the ALLMOTHER, while odin is often referred to as the ALLFATHER. you could even see wicca and odinism as two sides of the same coin as they are completely compatible with room to spare.
other religions can fit nicely into this amalgamation such as druidry, which is often seen as masculine wicca (wicce) and focuses more on animals within nature than nature itself. druidry was incorporated into wicca as much as 3000 years ago or even longer! druidry is extremely similar and very much compatible with native american and native australian beliefs

i'll help!
wicca is grouped together with various small-ish religions including odinism and are collectively called paganism (which is hilarious because earlier christians believe 'pagan' was an insult, but it actually means country-dweller).
generally pagan religions are gentle and kindly. it also involves a lot of other religions that are considered to be quite large like buddhism (especially shinto-buddhism). technically speaking a pagan belief is any religion that does not keep muhammed as a propet. on the absolute basic level, wicca is loving the earth like a goddess. hundreds of variations exist mainly involving a duality (the mother of earth and the father of the hunt), however many believe in associate gods that are similar. for example there are similarities between odinism and the dodekatheism pantheon of the ancient greek. another interesting fact is that the ancient greek believed that gods from other countries existed as well

food for thought: straight people get STD's too, you know what would help weed out std's? not banging skanky whores

and also i wouldn't call being gay "a choice"...if its a choice, then be gay right now. Want another man, just for a minute.

calling it being a choice would also say i choose not to be. i choose not to be gay.
Although, even if is not their choice, their preference is their business. people like the woman in the post tend believe just because they have a difference in opinion, the other must change their opinion to match hers

true true, but i was not insinuating that we should quarantine only homosexuals, but all people with incurable STDs (so their disease would not spread any further). That is why i completely disagreed with her argument in the second paragraph.

thumb for your comment

Do you know how cruel and inhumane that sounds? And what about the people who don't wish to be quarantined, would they be killed or forced to live a life of misery away from their friends and family? And what of people outside who don't agree with this new law, they would surly turn against the government and that would just lead to chaos. So no it wouldn't wipe out STDs for good.

although, it may sound ridiculous, it may succeed in wiping out a disease. although, it may also condemn thousands in the process...

Dude, being gay is not a choice. I've had to deal with so many crazy chicks on my life (I just seem to attract crazy) that frankly, I wish I was gay at times. But the thought is just so...icky. (Not the thought of gays, but the thought of me actually trying to go through with it [if that makes sense])

Great. THIS again. Listen, homosexuals have different physiologies than heterosexuals. Assuming from your drivel that you don't know what physiology is, it is the processes, mechanics, and structures of the human body. The most important difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is a distinct difference in the hypothalamus. This, current science theorizes, is controlled by a gene that is unexpressed and inactive until puberty, a time when the hypothalamus is QUITE active.

I believe Religion was the first science;
"how did we get here?"
"big man in the sky?"
"works for me."

But then people didn't move past it when sciene actually started to unravel the mystery. For something to succeed, it must evolve and adapt to the modern society, which most religions have done, and a vast amount of christians have done.

Hopper is badass.

Not meaning to degrade your argument, but that pic brings waves of nostalgia.

Religion and science do not exist without a sapient species to conceptualize them. Also, what are you basing the assumption that religion and science would evolve all over again? Granted, science being broad, I see no guarantee that religion or science (in the research-oriented form at the very least) are inevitable outcomes.

Why can't you get your panties out of your ass and laugh at the stupid woman?

This comment was purely for the benefit of those having massive religious debates further down the page. She's an idiot certainly, but not representative of anyone except herself.

Oh yes, this is a huge problem; gay people only raise gay kids, as obviously straight people only raise straight kids.

nah thats not what im saying, but im just saying that her viewpoint makes sense

No it doesn't, because gays don't breed gays.

*ur opinion

I'm gay, my parents are straight.
I know a straight who was raised by two dads.
You're wrong.

ok fag, *opinons

there are many cases when gay men have had children with women- you stupid fuck

why? how does a dude liking cock or a woman liking pussy have anything to do with you?

That was taken out of context. Just saying.

That's not Hitlerian, I'm not suggesting we confine them or liquidate them. I propose we let them live out their stupidity, but prevent them from spreading it as much as possible.

or we could just remove warning labels on shit or not admit people to hospitals who got hurt doing stupid shit.

There's a difference between doing something stupid, and being stupid.

And most of the time they get hurt doing something stupid because they were stupid to begin with.

I do get what you mean, but why should that make a difference?

Because everyone, even the smartest person alive, does stupid things. It's the ones who do them consistently with no thought as to the potential consequences or harm it could cause others, those are the stupid people. Those are the people whose existence I tolerate as long as they don't threaten the happiness and existence of others, but I will never tolerate them spreading their disgustingly ignorant and selfish way of life to any children. Whether through bad parenting or through genetics. But I am a moral person and I would never punish a living child for the acts of their parents, nor would I prevent a child from being born as I am a man and have no right to decide that except for my own child. So, preventing the conception of that child seems the best way to limit the spread of idiocy and the influence of the disgustingly selfish.

Hitler was on to something.