Media Reacts To Conan's Same-Sex Wedding News

Reply to post by blupblup

If you want to comment on my comment that's cool, dog, but show my whole post please, not just a snippet. You must work for MSM or at least be an inspiring Retorter, and btw it is working just fine for me. Peace and chicken grease.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by oaf21

I never mentioned anything about inter-species relationships... although, I kind of see your point. It's kinda like the 'gateway drug' argument, right?

One minute your screwing dudes, the next your fornicating with a giraffe. Where does it end?

Originally posted by LiveEquation
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

I think you and I are done discussing

, my last response to you on this topic

So, you give up? Okay then.

Originally posted by DoNotForgetMe
The gaylesbianqueer fad is not for me......to decide whether it is right or wrong, that is for the Creator(s) to decide. My purpose is to give spread love to all walks of Life. I have read the Bible thrice and the one thing that sticks to my Mind is "he who is without sin, cast the first stone". I have never met ANYONE who has the right to do so.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

OK, I have to say that since its been around since humans walked the earth, its NOT a "fad"...its only in the last 300 years or so that the "gaylesbianqueer" thing has become taboo...

now i dont swing that way, but that doesnt make an acceptable argument to stop someone else from enjoying slavery...

Originally posted by LiveEquation
reply to post by CoherentlyConfused

 

I take it the phrase "sex is not a right" is coherently confusing. just as much as commitment and love are different, sex and love are not the same thing too. love doesn't give anyone a right to sex. What is love? how many different kinds of love are there? you love your children yes? does that give you a right to have sex with them if they consent?

What do you mean by love? Love is many things but it does not give a right to have sex.

You're looking at 'love' too broadly... in a universal sense.

Gay couples are just that.., a couple. A consensual couple that both agree on their current partnership. It's just a small branch off the enormity of what love really is. It's not the unconditional parent-to-child love. It's the kind that gives you that giddy feeling when you think about your partner... that brings a smile on your face at the mere thought of this other person.

Judging by what you're saying you've obviously never felt that. Had you felt it, you would NEVER feel inclined to limit anyone else from feeling it, regardless of gender.

reply to post by Annee


I seriously hope your right! It does finally seem to be more and more accepted.

I'm personally tired of it. It's people repressing love in a time where SO much more love is needed! It really doesn't make any logical sense...

reply to post by LiveEquation


*sigh* Damn strawmen. I'll reword my question.

So two people in love don't have the right to have sex if they are both CONSENTING ADULTS? Or is there some other irrelevant argument you're going to throw in there, like one of them is a fish or something?

I'm curious as to what gave you the power to determine what someone else's right was? Where exactly does it spell out your right to determine that two men or two women in love is wrong?

*wishing I didn't enter this thread*

reply to post by CoherentlyConfused


I know that feeling, I myself is withholding replying to others who are blatantly, trying to create arguments in this thread. By posting their one sides views.

Have fun derailing another important thread, who ever is doing it.

reply to post by CoherentlyConfused


reply to post by Laurauk


It's really just one more example of people not wanting to accept change. That's it... They're too afraid of leaving their comfort zone.

what 2 people do in their home is their business.

i just wish the media, and a lot (in my experience at least) of the gay people wouldnt shove it down everyones throat (no pun intended) about how cool and hip it is to be gay.

forcing it on everyone is what makes people uncomfortable with it. and just like gay people should be allowed to be as gay as they want, i can be as irritated by their flaming over the top ridiculousness as i want. i dont have to accept anything i dont want to, just like they dont have to.

i just dont see why a lot of gays have to make their entire existence about being gay. love who you want to love, i dont care. just stop making everything about your sexuality. or maybe thats just what i see from the gays i know because the industry i work in or something?

i know they exist, but ive never known a "regular gay person" who was openly gay, and didnt float around acting sassy with a lisp, or being a semi militant feminist with a shaved head who has to let you know during every conversation that they are in fact, very gay.

let them get married if they want. just dont force churches to perform the marriages if they dont believe it fits in with their views. being gay doesnt give you special privileges.

reply to post by pngxp


I agree with you, and you make a very valid point! I mean, the flaming homos do bother me too because they are a little over the top! However, just like I'm not forcing them to be straight, they can't force others to be gay. It would be very hypocritical on their part to 'impose' their way.

Everyone's allowed to do whatever they want... just don't infringe on the rights of someone else.

reply to post by oaf21


I'm only commenting about that line of logic that says its ok if that's what you're into. I don't care personally if two people want to be together, but to say that the object of someone's sexual desire or their right to act on it is not to be judged is to open doors to things that most people aren't prepared to accept. This is in answer to the poster above you as well.

Originally posted by superman2012
It is just marriage, lose the "gay".

If only - - and some day it will be

Originally posted by wtbengineer
reply to post by oaf21

 

I'm only commenting about that line of logic that says its ok if that's what you're into. I don't care personally if two people want to be together, but to say that the object of someone's sexual desire or their right to act on it is not to be judged is to open doors to things that most people aren't prepared to accept. This is in answer to the poster above you as well.

edit on 11/4/2011 by wtbengineer because: (no reason given)

I know what you mean, and it can definitely open the floodgates to all sorts of perversions. However, the key here, at least I think, is the word 'consenting'. The minute both parties mutually agree on their choice of partner, well... no one can really say anything about it but accept it.

However, if someone wants to bang goats, well, that goat can't exactly consent to being sodomized can he? Therefore, it's unacceptable. Same thing with pedophiles. The age of "consent" is 18 for a reason... therefore that remains unacceptable as well.

It's a fallacy to say that homosexuality limits overpopulation and is therefore useful for evolutionary purposes because you're leaving a gaping hole in the train of evidence. Saying it does not make it true. You must first prove that it does indeed limit population, then you must show that this benefits evolution and is favored for this reason. I have heard other theories. One of them is where homosexuals are favored by evolution to support the household and act as workers for the society to fill in holes, as opposed to producing children for the workforce. But anyway, I do not think any of it is backed by compelling evidence.

There is no overpopulation. Many developed nations are increasingly burdened by a large old population. There're not enough youth to pay taxes and support them. Japan is one example. It's crippled under the weight of this deficiency. This is a very serious concern for them. Traditionally, educated and wealthy couples do not reproduce enough to keep pace with the demands of life and country. Since developed countries tend towards the educated and wealthy classes, it's not surprising that they're not reproducing enough.

Environmental degradation is often used as a piece of evidence to assert the presence of overpopulation. The problem is that it's a dubious connection. Was WWII evidence for overpopulation? What about AIDS or cancer? Tornadoes are increasing in frequency; Is overpopulation causing that? People have grown taller over the centuries too; Did overpopulation cause that? The planet is warming up; Does that automatically mean overpopulation caused it?

It might be true that our environment is hurt by our habitation of this planet, but it's impossible to avoid. We excrete waste matter on a regular basis and it's expensive to dispose of it. We consume vast tracks of land to build up our infrastructure and maintain it. We must mine minerals deep into the earth. No matter how effective we become in our methods, there will always be negative. But does this negative imply that that our population is too high and that our earth will be destroyed as a result?

It's a leap to say that all of this means doom for our planet. The only way to know for certain is to travel into the future. Thus, there is no way to falsify the worries of people who spend their time studying this. Fear and anxiety will ultimately rule the discussion, sadly. It's my view that every person has a right to have children and to have as many as they desire, within limits of their ability. You should not have children, if you cannot afford them. I do not think we can predict the future reliably enough to say whether the negatives outweight the positives. I think it's a perfect example of logical fallacy because it requires a leap of faith; being unable to be falsified.

All of this is trite. Homosexuality just is. Quit making justifications. You're as you're. The demands of this world will, one way or another, force everyone into lockstep - prohibiting gross errors.

reply to post by oaf21


And I understand that point too, but I can't help but think of this scenario... bear with me. Suppose a person and his significant other make an agreement that whoever outlives the other may have sex with his/her corpse? There is consent, and there is also criminal activity if it is carried out. I know this is an extreme scenario, but just to make a point.

And then what if a pet animal likes to have sex with its owner? I had a friend when I was a kid who used to indulge in something I won't get into in any detail with his dog, but the dog instigated it. I was horrified to tell the truth when he told me about it, but clearly there was consent. So I think that maybe consent is not the last word. This was an adult animal, so I guess age of consent is not relevant. I don't know, just making a point, not really happy about where I'm going with this... Eww

Originally posted by wtbengineer
reply to post by oaf21

 

And I understand that point too, but I can't help but think of this scenario... bear with me. Suppose a person and his significant other make an agreement that whoever outlives the other may have sex with his/her corpse? There is consent, and there is also criminal activity if it is carried out. I know this is an extreme scenario, but just to make a point.

Well as bizarre as I think that scenario is... I'm still inclined to say "by all means, go right ahead". Simply because they aren't hurting anyone else. That's the key to all this. They aren't bothering anyone, so other's should be able to turn a blind eye to it. Should word get out that they're doing this, they'll probably live lonely lives because no one else will really want to associate themselves with them, but... consent is consent. I'm not one to tell others what they're allowed to do if it in no way infringes on my rights or anyone elses.

If they enjoy a dead lay and wish to fulfill each other's sick desires, then it's their prerogative!

Edit to add: As for your friend... that's just... weird... in my opinion anyway! However I suppose the way I've been saying everything in this thread I should say he has every right to make his dog happy that way, as much as I disagree with the act. However, if the dog's not hurt, or getting abused like we so often see... and is perfectly happy... then... in some sick twisted way, I guess it's... ok...... kinda.... as long as he's not violating anyone elses pets?

*shudder*

Man, that's just gross... and I just finished eating lunch!

Well I'm going to change the subject to what I thought was the imporatnt aspect of the OP's video, 30 news stations around the nation using the exact wording (truly verbatim except for the L.A. station, which jazzed it up with an extra word) to talk about this Conan episode.

I didn't quite catch each station's network, but do you think they are all owned by one company? (we need to check this)

Do you think all kinds of news stories are verbatim with these channels and no one has just ever pointed it out?

And if so, who are the writers and creators of these scripts? Is every channel across the nation run from some center in Langley?

I think there is more to this then meets the eye.

Does make you wonder, how programmed we truly are.

ugh...

As long as there are 2 consensual adults what is the issue? You can't catch gay.

Animals and corpses can't say yes to consensual intercourse.

Just saying.

2 issues here..gay marrige and, the more important one, a scripted news cast.

i'm all for gay marriage..'to each his own'
.......what i find more of an issue is the scripted news cast read by many different stations. how often does this type of stuff happen? this is just one report, caught by somebody on a latenight tv show.

things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmm