So the fact that you announced and went ON RECORD that you were a bitch and were hauling ass outta' BH makes it more dignified? Hmm...I'll have to remember that the next time I run a non-sensical, no-talent hack and his pet sea-donkey...my apologies..*ahem*..and his wife off of BH.

I'll politely explain that if they just ADMIT and EXPOUND upon the fact that they're leaving like a 12 year old who's tired of her late-night sneaky uncle, that'll it'll look WAY more manly.

Or, in your case, you could have just had Brunhilda post it. That alone would've been more manly than anything I've ever seen you conjure.

And I realize this is a gay marriage thread.

And I would hereby like to state that I do not agree with the concept of a gay marriage. The reason being is that often times the "bitch" in the relationship feels less important, and takes..her(?)..agressions out on others on internet message boards. And on a side note, tell Bruny to ease up off ya', 'fore I show up with whip and chair again.

See?

I'm there for ya', buddy.

________________
Bennett 34:10
16 times as stoned
around 4 times as cold

Bravo to a really funny post there, Stoppa. Especially the part where you got all relevant, that was the best.

"So the fact that you announced and went ON RECORD that you were a bitch and were hauling ass outta' BH makes it more dignified? "

I'm sorry, I just don't recall that 'bitch' part. But as far as the rest of it? Uh.. Yeah. Way more dignified. I said in the begining I was there for a speciffic amount of time and when it was done I left. And here you are. Trolled, and I wasn't even fishing. Sadder still, I hardly paid attention to you at Butthole. You only got attention when Evil and Doomsy pie were off abusing themsleves.

What's the matter, little girl, is Ballcrawl so boring and sterile without me you had no choice but to pay a visit? I think it's nice you brought the same jokes with you. It probably makes you feel at home, like bringing your own pillow to the new cardboard box under the overpass.

I'll tell you what, though. Since my regular punching back is having a manic depressive time out, I'll consider making fun of you.

But this isn't Brawlhall. You need to say something here, make a point, take a stand. I won't argue your inane 'you ran away' screed anymore, it's covered and played out. Similarly trotting out the idea that my bride ugly was made so many times at Brawlhall it registers as white noise. Work a little. If you want to post in this forum, mock people through politics, religion or philosiphy. If you just want to fight, we have a forum for that as well. If you ahve no idea what you're doing and just slap the keys like a malnourished rat bar pressing for food long after the behaviorist has died, General Blabber is for you. But for God's sake, make an effort.

"Oy yeah?! Well yawr wife is ugly! GOTCHA!"
-Stoppa Makinfunofme, Brawlhall Ball Boy.

Stoppa is certainly a pale imitation of VinceZeb, but I guess right now he's the only punching bag Max has got. So, if Max continues to make me spit soda all over my monitor, as he most assuredly will, I'll take it.

1) You never did tell me what part of the brain you were refering to. It doesn't seem like a fact so much as something you just pulled out of your ass.

2) There are also animals that eat their young. Would you condone that?

There is a difference between: condoning same-sex relationships
and: saying that same-sex relationships are not an abomination of nature.

Here's how the argument went:
point: homosexuality is unnatural
counterpoint: there are many instances of homosexuality which occur in the animal kingdom, therefore it is natural.
counterpoint: animals eat their babies is that okay, too?

Blanco, I saw it on Discovery channel once where they were talking about it. I can't remember what part of the brain it was, and I don't think they said it either, but I do remember that they said that it worked like that.

Also, in the case of animals eating their babies, that's because some instincts overpower other instincts. It doesn't have anything to do with which parts of its brain are more active.

In saying that homosexuality is an abomination of "Nature", are you incorporating God and/or christian values into this "Nature"? If so, then I would have to argue that if a perfect being MADE these homosexual creature, then He, being a perfect being must have intended there to be homosexual beings. Let's leave the "free will" argument out of this as, although human beings are certainly equipped with this, the addition of animals to the mix makes that point moot.

To assume that all homosexuality is caused by nature is asinine. Perhaps some, but some of it is definitely learned.

Why do you think that in Athens, which put such a huge emphasis on the beauty of the male figure, homosexuality thrived?

Isn't it just as probable that the reason the love of the male human body thrived was because of a natural homosexual tendency?

The whole nature thing is a stupid argument no matter what way you look at it. Shit, my car is pretty un-goddamned natural but I'm not about to stop driving it.

Who really cares if it is "natural" or not... even if it is learned, it is still doubtful that the person made a conscious choice about the way he/she feels.

It's really no different than people saying that interracial dating is unnatural or beastiality or something.

It really doesn't harm me or affect me whatsoever, so why should I give a fuck or more importantly deny someone else's happiness?

No, considering that natural homosexuality is most likely a recessive gene and that homosexuality's occurence in Athens is not nearly as high today.

Huh. Barring the fact that the genetic nature of Homosexuality is unproven, and even if for the sake of argument I give yoiu that, it's surely more complicated than a simple Lamarkian eye color chart, and that any studies ever done on the incidence of Homosexuality in Athens would be shere supposition, I guess you're right.

Does it really matter if homosexuality is genetic or a choice? If it were genetic and natural that wouldn't make it right, and if it were a choice that wouldn't make it wrong. The only thing at issue is if there is anything actually wrong with homosexuality, which there really isn't, certainly according to the Harm Principal. If there is nothing wrong with homosexuality then, there is no reason for the government to fail to recognize it as being equal to heterosexual realationships.
I guess the child producing aspect of heterosexual unions is a fairly significant distinguishing characteristic. :/

EDIT: I guess I should have read Bennets post, since he pretty much summed this up :/