Homosexual Penguins

[A Black Falcon]

I did not see "Gangs", however, I do know it is based on the New York Draft riots, and what that has to do with Confederate soldiers, I don't know.

As I said, poor Southern whites felt like that, except probably stronger so...

Not necessarily. Communism is fair, for instance. It's also quite wrong.

Communism as implemented isn't communism, it's more like dictatorship or facism. Communism as Marx says is (as I have said many times) the perfect government if people were perfect. We are very imperfect so it is a failure in actual practice, and always will be. It'd only work if people would all work hard no matter if they got rewarded for working harder or not...

Are you gay?

Right, because all liberals are gay...

And all the white people helping in the Civil Rights movement were actually black people in disguise too.

I'm not telling gays to stop being gay. I'm just saying they shouldn't bitch about not having the same rights since they choose to live the lifestyle they live.

You might have a point if there were not significant legal and monetary benefits for having their union recognized.

Polygamous marriage is consensual, therefore numerical inequality is meaningless, and, because of that, by your logic those who are willing to go through with that ought to have that right. After all, it makes them happy, and according to you, that's reason enough to let gays marry.

It's amazing how you don't see where that goes. Gays get the right to marry, suddenly every other deviant sex groupie wants the same rights, and would have the same legal basis to try and obtain it. Thus, before we know it, people are marrying their cousins, "because it makes them happy and hurts no one."

Meaningless? As I said, you don't care about fairness so my arguement will go right over your head...

The only way it could be fair is if they were all bisexual. :)

I doubt it. If gay marriage were legalized, there would undoubtedly be a large number of them at once, many of them likely unplanned, and doomed to failure.

If gay marriage happened fifty years ago, I would agree with you. But everyone divorces now. It's the 'in' thing.

I just think you're wrong... why would homosexuals seperate any more than heterosexuals? That doesn't make sense...

So you're telling me that it wasn't posted to further the cause of gay rights, but just to show that penguins can be gay?

If I'd known that, I would have just said "So what?" and saved us both a lot of time.

That it's not unnatural or uncommon. And that penguins don't choose to be gay so people don't either.

But it's whether the course is best that is always in debate. And there is no debating that American society, save for a few details, was undoubtedly better and stronger several decades ago than today.

Individual rights and freedoms are more important than keeping everyone the same... within bounds of course, plenty of things should obviously be illegal (and some legal things should be illegal), but forced compliance to things that are not good for the individuals and don't hurt society are things we should (and have been, steadily, throughout our history -- see how we slowly expanded voter rolls...) change.

No, except for one major thing: They supposedly don't hurt anyone. So tell me how public masturbation hurts anyone. Your argument is that homosexual marriages don't hurt anyone and on that basis should be legal. Therefore, if we do that, we have to let anyone do anything they want, so long as they don't harm someone in the process. Otherwise, you are being discriminatory. This has nothing to do with the act of public exposure, it's about the inevitable consequences of what you people are trying to do, and just like the destructive fools trying to force their immorality on America, you are ignoring these consequences because you either lack the intelligence or the foresight to see the damage it can cause to society. Then again, you yourself said you welcome and applaud damaging society and tradition, so perhaps you do know and see the damage you're causing, and that is even more frightening.

First, in some parts of the world nudity is taken a whole lot seriously than we take it... see Europe... so yes, that is a societal thing. If that Janet Jackson thing had been in Europe it probably would have been unnoticed. They seem amused (or surprised) that we take it so seriously... but that is beyond public nudity... it is not something you do in public, anywhere. Decency/decorum means something...

As I said, it's not like I want to get rid of all of these limitations you like so much, just the ones that don't make sense...