Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I thought this was fairly entertaining.

Very well done. Although the tease of surprise ending had me expecting either that or him kissing a dude...

What a twist!

Every time same-sex marriage bans come up I think about the fact that I am married to a wonderful woman who just happens to be black, and that 50 years ago this would have been my fight against the same arguments.

Well done.

Applause, excellent work preacher man.

hell yea

I for one thought maybe he was still in the closet, for a minute


I proudly support all humans, I learned early that we are all brothers and sisters. I had my mind blown early by my sister being gay and then getting the whole sex change. One who doesn't understand another doesn't hate another, ignorant hateful people hate others.

Most of my family are God fearing Republicans, I'm the exact opposite. I don't understand them at all, but I don't look down on them for their beliefs. We all live our own lives, and have to deal with it all by ourselves. The lucky ones have others around to help them through the tough times and change, I only can hope that we are all the lucky ones, we just don't know it yet, or maybe you do.

That speech was fiery?

I wasn't surprised at all..I knew what he was doing... because he choose very specific buzzwords.

His whole speech, as is the argument in general, is a false analogy, in that the gay marriage issue is a civil rights issue.

It's a behavior choice issue. Black people didn't choose to be black. Gay people made a choice.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:
That speech was fiery?

I wasn't surprised at all..I knew what he was doing... because he choose very specific buzzwords.

His whole speech, as is the argument in general, is a false analogy, in that the gay marriage issue is a civil rights issue.

It's a behavior choice issue. Black people didn't choose to be black. Gay people made a choice.

GG

And I made the choice to marry a woman who is a different race than me.

A choice that 50 years ago would have been illegal for the same reason that same-sex marriage is illegal today.

 generalgrog wrote:
That speech was fiery?

I wasn't surprised at all..I knew what he was doing... because he choose very specific buzzwords.

His whole speech, as is the argument in general, is a false analogy, in that the gay marriage issue is a civil rights issue.

It's a behavior choice issue. Black people didn't choose to be black. Gay people made a choice.

GG

So you had to actively choose to like girls?

 generalgrog wrote:
That speech was fiery?

I wasn't surprised at all..I knew what he was doing... because he choose very specific buzzwords.

His whole speech, as is the argument in general, is a false analogy, in that the gay marriage issue is a civil rights issue.

It's a behavior choice issue. Black people didn't choose to be black. Gay people made a choice.

GG

You mean an anti-segregationist chose specific buzzwords 50 years ago.

Being gay isn't a behavior choice anymore than being black is a choice. The difference is that one can hide being gay, but you can't hide being black. Not that that has stopped those in power from trying i.e. White Man's Burden, taking the Indian out of the Indian, ect ect.

Was about to quote GGs anti gay bigotry, then O saw the dogpile.

 generalgrog wrote:
Black people didn't choose to be black. Gay people made a choice.

I disagree. Black people choose to behave as black people, pretending that the color of their skin matters is horribly racist.

Black people could choose to behave as white people do, or be surgically altered to appear as white people do. But aside from several specific appearance cases, and many behavior cases, they do not. Additionally many gay people will deliberately behave as though they are not homosexual (because of people like you), or emphasize their masculinity/femininity (because of people like you).

 generalgrog wrote:
That speech was fiery?

I wasn't surprised at all..I knew what he was doing... because he choose very specific buzzwords.

His whole speech, as is the argument in general, is a false analogy, in that the gay marriage issue is a civil rights issue.

It's a behavior choice issue. Black people didn't choose to be black. Gay people made a choice.

GG

The reason I have so much distaste for people like GG is very simple... They are basically trying to claim that all straight men would be just as happy sucking blokes off as we are sleeping with a woman.

Now, I've obviously not got any issue with gay people at all, but I would strongly deny being homosexual if anyone asked me as I happily cohabit with my missus. But I don't "prefer" to kiss women than men. I don't "pick" womens vaginas over big hairy arses... its not a close run thing that I have to think about.

Clearly you have no choice in the matter at all, I don't choose to like staring at womens tits, something in my brain demands it of me... no doubt something to do with our lowly origins.

Thus, I can only presume that GG and all those like him are repressed homosexuals, and I feel genuinely sorry for them that they think they have to hide their feelings for other men. America is a tolerant society, and as such he should be free to wear assless chaps and ride around on the back a motorcycle driven by a burly moustachioed man in a string vest.

That was about as firey as a damp sponge, but he has a good point.

And as stated by several others, being gay is not a choice, GG. You seem to lack a basic understanding of why people as straight or gay.

 Castiel wrote:
That was about as firey as a damp sponge, but he has a good point.

And as stated by several others, being gay is not a choice, GG. You seem to lack a basic understanding of why people as straight or gay.

No I'm just not brainwashed.

GG

Matty you know they have a name for chaps wit an ass: pants.
Wink.

GG you're so brainwashed it's not even funny.

Sorry about this folks, but I'm waiting for code to compile and this really is the most entertaining thing my brain has come up with so far today:

caveat: haven't watched the video as youtube is blocked, so this has purely been spawned by what I have inferred from the thread so far

Missouri Pastor’s Fiery Speech Against Equal Rights for Homosexuals Has Stunning Twist Ending
Fiery speech about gay marriage, you could say it was... flaming

 generalgrog wrote:
No I'm just not brainwashed.

GG

You made a funny!

 generalgrog wrote:
No I'm just not brainwashed.

I'm a straight, married man; my wife and I have a surprisingly high number of homosexual (and indeed bisexual) friends. The majority of them that my wife or I have discussed it with said they didn't "choose" to like people of the same sex (or both sexes), they just knew. Kind of like I have always just known that I like people of the opposite sex. I didn't make any kind of choice in this.

To be honest I think you are the only one who is brainwashed on this. People may choose to conform to what society, friends and family expect of them in terms of sexuality and suppress their natural inclination to be with members of the same sex because they fear the backlash should it be discovered they are "different".

 mattyrm wrote:

The reason I have so much distaste for people like GG is very simple... They are basically trying to claim that all straight men would be just as happy sucking blokes off as we are sleeping with a woman.

Now, I've obviously not got any issue with gay people at all, but I would strongly deny being homosexual if anyone asked me as I happily cohabit with my missus. But I don't "prefer" to kiss women than men. I don't "pick" womens vaginas over big hairy arses... its not a close run thing that I have to think about.

Clearly you have no choice in the matter at all, I don't choose to like staring at womens tits, something in my brain demands it of me... no doubt something to do with our lowly origins.

Thus, I can only presume that GG and all those like him are repressed homosexuals, and I feel genuinely sorry for them that they think they have to hide their feelings for other men. America is a tolerant society, and as such he should be free to wear assless chaps and ride around on the back a motorcycle driven by a burly moustachioed man in a string vest.

The thing is though, the "scientific research" that has gone into this subject is iffy at best. So I do think that by and large, it is a choice that is made. BUT, I don't think that it is a conscious choice like wearing a blue tie to work instead of red. The "no choice" thing, to me, implies that being gay is genetic, and that particular gene would be contrary to the survival of the species (in any animal) and so would have been bred out fairly early in history.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The thing is though, the "scientific research" that has gone into this subject is iffy at best. So I do think that by and large, it is a choice that is made. BUT, I don't think that it is a conscious choice like wearing a blue tie to work instead of red. The "no choice" thing, to me, implies that being gay is genetic, and that particular gene would be contrary to the survival of the species (in any animal) and so would have been bred out fairly early in history.

The genes for several genetic diseases are recessive, meaning that many people can carry on the potential for the disease for every person who is unlucky enough to receive a full set of the recessive genes and therefore express the full blown version of the genes (and often do not pass on the genes as they do not or cannot have children).

Of course, being gay is not a disease, but it illustrates how you do not have to have a direct line to someone with a particular genetic combination to then express the same combination. This is quite aside for common replicating errors continually throwing up certain genetic damage in lineages which have no history of the disease.

It may also be to do with the development of the brain, rather that genes. Things may just link up in a different manner during growth and development, due to early experiences or other influences. Nurture, as opposed to nature.

I am not against gay rights. I was one of the few soldiers in my unit at the time, who felt that repealing DADT was stupid, because it didn't matter. Rather, that making a big deal of it was stupid, as we have better things to do with our time. Lo and behold, I was right, repealing it has had very little real affect in the way that the uber-conservatives thought it would, we just keep on truckin'. The only difference is now, the guy that we knew was gay has now told us he's gay, big fething deal.

And Castiel, that's what I was getting at with the choice not being conscious as in the red tie/blue tie in my example. There are many psychological principles that could easily explain how someone "becomes" gay, without using genetics as a perceived excuse.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
And Castiel, that's what I was getting at with the choice not being conscious as in the red tie/blue tie in my example. There are many psychological principles that could easily explain how someone "becomes" gay, without using genetics as a perceived excuse.

Ah, I see.

That's a much easier pill to swallow than being told you made a concious choice and should be condemned for it.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
No I'm just not brainwashed.

I'm a straight, married man; my wife and I have a surprisingly high number of homosexual (and indeed bisexual) friends. The majority of them that my wife or I have discussed it with said they didn't "choose" to like people of the same sex (or both sexes), they just knew. Kind of like I have always just known that I like people of the opposite sex. I didn't make any kind of choice in this.

To be honest I think you are the only one who is brainwashed on this. People may choose to conform to what society, friends and family expect of them in terms of sexuality and suppress their natural inclination to be with members of the same sex because they fear the backlash should it be discovered they are "different".

Thats the thing as well, why the feth would you "choose" a gakker life?

Gay people have to put up with way more gak than straight people. When I was at school "gay" was a routinely used insult, if you could just pick, then clearly everyone would pick straight, because you will have to deal with alot less crap off people!

Thats like saying that if you had to choose between brushing your teeth with toothpaste or dog gak you would pick the gak because you wanted to be different from the norm.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

And Castiel, that's what I was getting at with the choice not being conscious as in the red tie/blue tie in my example. There are many psychological principles that could easily explain how someone "becomes" gay, without using genetics as a perceived excuse.

Yeah, I agree with this. I doubt very much that homosexuality is anything other than epigenetic.

 generalgrog wrote:
Any opposition to gay marriage on these forums will be strongly intolerated.

No, what you meant to say is: "Awful arguments regarding the nature of homosexuality will be criticized on these forums."

Strange how expressing your beliefs in public leads to criticism. Its almost like forums were about discourse.

 generalgrog wrote:
[Be careful..the Bigot police are watching. Any opposition to gay marriage on these forums will be strongly intolerated.

GG

That would be self-defeating, since being able to air your views allows for the best possible argument they are wrong.

 dogma wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

And Castiel, that's what I was getting at with the choice not being conscious as in the red tie/blue tie in my example. There are many psychological principles that could easily explain how someone "becomes" gay, without using genetics as a perceived excuse.

Yeah, I agree with this. I doubt very much that homosexuality is anything other than epigenetic.

 generalgrog wrote:
Any opposition to gay marriage on these forums will be strongly intolerated.

No, what you meant to say is: "Awful arguments regarding the nature of homosexuality will be criticized on these forums."

Strange how expressing your beliefs in public leads to criticism. Its almost like forums were about discourse.

Dogma there quite a big difference between "discourse" and what often times happens on here. If you consider mattyrms response as discourse you and I have different ideas of discourse. He consistently insults me with seeming impunity. See his post above for an example.
I don't and never had an issue with real discourse.

 generalgrog wrote:

Dogma there quite a big difference between "discourse" and what often times happens on here. If you consider mattyrms response as discourse you and I have different ideas of discourse.

Apparently we do. Discourse does not involve allowing people you consider odious to maintain their views without insult. If you consider a person's views odious, then you should make that statement; refraining from doing so is cowardly.

Edit for Mod warning.