boris
Banned
- Joined
- May 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,671
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2007
Good post anonymous little bitchA thread concerning faggots should not be discussed.
Fags are fags, thats it, they should die.
Good post anonymous little bitchA thread concerning faggots should not be discussed.
Fags are fags, thats it, they should die.
Some species of fly are exclusively bisexual.Clownfish change genders.
Dolphins partake in casual sex.
Monkeys have shown homosexual acts and have causal sex.
You showed a video of interspecies oral sex
I'm bi and I'm not changing "down the track" I just have sex with both genders now.1st: ur dumb, that makes complete sense
2nd: ur dumb again. Unorthodox: "Contrary to what is usual"
3rd: Yes, that is true. If you change somewhere down your life you were born bisexual. Not every person born straight is 'susceptible,' as ur basically putting it, to have a random gay vibe... Attraction is chemically stimulated... And you are either born with it or you are not
please dont be so stupid next time
How is it a major issue?Surpirsed this thread has gone on for so long. Gay marriage isn't a big deal - whether they can have children is the major issue, and one that should be strictly prevented. You make the choice to be gay, well knowingly that you cannot naturally reproduce therefore you shouldn't be, tough luck busters
Why? What is your actual reason? Sexual orientation is one facet of a person's life and shouldn't influence anything else.i agree that they should not be allowed to have children as it isnt a natural part of their sexual orientation
but i dont believe they "choose" to be gay
but other than that i agree
Clear juxtaposition to what you said before.they are gay due to various influences
I got banned in NCAP for saying shit that wasn't that bad... Leave this here.this thread really needs to be in ncap
and that shithole really needs to be moderated properly (not banning for swearing, just deleting unsubstantiated shit posts etc)
Ancient Greece anyone?How very ancient of you.
Show some respect.Who are all these bibletards who voted no?
Name one legitimate non-biblical reason against same-sex marriage.Show some respect.
I was talking about his 'bibletards' comment. I am Catholic although I personally think that is two people of the same gender truly love each other, then they should be allowed to get married.Name one legitimate non-biblical reason against same-sex marriage.
While maybe not stated that eloquently, it still is true that the one of the only, and certainly the most popular, reason against it is because of religion/the bible.I was talking about his 'bibletards' comment. I am Catholic although I personally think that is two people of the same gender truly love each other, then they should be allowed to get married.
1. This stems from the fact that marriage is, even today, a religious practice. It is associated with religion and therefore the belief of the religion is an important thing to consider that is why marriage, in a full sense of the word, should be between a man and a woman."should be between a man and a woman" why?
"Shouldn't change for minority" What about civil rights in America?
"Religious practice, etc." Marriage was around before religions institutionalised it. (read earlier posts in this thread)
Which is what I said. The only reason people provide against samesex marriage is based off of religious reasons.1. This stems from the fact that marriage is, even today, a religious practice. It is associated with religion and therefore the belief of the religion is an important thing to consider that is why marriage, in a full sense of the word, should be between a man and a woman.
^you people are *still* debating this?
1. Retarded statement is retarded. Temple puja is a religious practice and I can do it whenever I like.1. This stems from the fact that marriage is, even today, a religious practice. It is associated with religion and therefore the belief of the religion is an important thing to consider that is why marriage, in a full sense of the word, should be between a man and a woman.
2. Of course homosexuals have a right to be together but why should the definition of marriage be changed? Modern society is one that has a clear separation between church and state. Although I do not agree with it, it must be acknowledged the religion is a barrier for many believers that refrains them from doing certain things despite them having the civil rights to do them (such as sex before marriage, going to parties etc). To me those beliefs are rather antediluvian but for many they are the foundation on which people build their morals and values and that should be respected.
3. Of course it was, but what matters is now. We are having this debate in the present and just because marriage had nothing to do with religion once upon a time doesn't mean we are at liberty to make it so again. And we wouldn't be able to even if we tried.
Clearly, we are not on the same page here,but it's ok. I didn't post here to try and change people's opinions I have my views and I am sticking with them .1. Retarded statement is retarded. Temple puja is a religious practice and I can do it whenever I like.
Baptism is a religious practice and priests were clad to baptise me and I was an unwilling baby and now I am an atheist.
I got my first communion and confirmation when I clearly had no interest in the catholic faith.
I don't see your point.
2. The definitions of words change all the time and new words are formed. Still don't see your point.
3. Celebrants that aren't religious. You're not making any sense at all.