Are they Jewish or Islamic? If so, then that's true. If they're Christian and follow the New Testament, then that picture is null and void.

In all reality, it doesn't fucking matter. This is like debating whether you believe in unicorns or leprechauns.

Yes, that poster may be null and void....some Christians rock the old testament, some don't.

What I find ridiculous is that this is still a bone of contention and debate in the USA.

Soon if you're not open to the idea of jacking off with your buddy, you'll be called homophobic

No, it's entirely null and void. Even in that video, it's just some wacko telling people not to eat pork. You hear the groans? That means everyone eats pork. It's not something Christians avoid.

I think it's absolutely silly business practice and just generally stupid life practice to be against same-sex marriage and that's a completely valid criticism of Chick-Fil-A but to call them out on serving pork when Christians have never had any prohibitions against pork is just as ignorant as any statements made by the people that can't seem to separate business and religion.

It is generally stupid to be against anything, because that time and energy you put into disliking something could be spent in becoming better at something

Why not? It's still a debate in virtually the rest of the world as well. Gay marriage may be legal in Canada, but you can be sure that there are still tons of Canadians that feel it's wrong.

when someone can give me a logical reason (ie. not a biblical/religious reason) as to why some may find it wrong, then maybe, there would be an intelligent debate.

that being said...i don't really want to turn this thread into a pro/anti-gay marriage debate.

Pro:

1. Population control, huge debate about over-population of the planet
A. Gay relationships can be seen as "green" or reducing population growth and beneficial to humanity

2. Happiness, true freedom to do anything allows for new culture and human growth

3. Less war, easier access to sex keeps men from wanting to fight
A. Even in places where men out number women, this can still work

4. Less fear of religious power/influence

Con:

1. Cultural erosion
A. Cultures based on tradition will become obsolete by the fundamental shift of what constitutes a "family"
B. Loss of direction or sense of what constitutes a people

2. Loss of value of life if reproductive sex is seen as selfish

3. Loss of reverence for something greater than us
A. Perhaps once humans see ourselves simply as walking apes on a floating rock flying through space, we'll fuck, drink, and laugh ourselves into oblivion with no sense of higher purpose




...




Wrote this in 5 minutes, not to be taken too seriously, scratched my balls like 4 times during

Your cons all seem like pros to non indoctrinated people.

Inversely, those without the ability to see from other perspectives will only see pros or cons

Any 'perspective' which attempts to dictate how one lives their life, when it is of no detriment to anyone else, is always a 'con'. Never a 'pro' except for that particular perspective.

While I personally agree with you, we're back to the idea of perspectives again. Not everyone will agree on what is a detriment to others and what isn't

It's pretty easy to determine actually

-people of the same sex loving each other - not detrimental to anyone

-circumcising a baby - detrimental to that baby

^i read that many people get circumsized nowdays and its not a religious thing but rather it prevents certain infections or diseases or something. or do you mean when u do it too young its harmful? is it a jewish thing to do it right when born? just curious, never knew this

People of the same sex loving each other works great in an anonymous, big city, but smaller, more traditional communities may face turbulence trying to fit that into their societies. I wonder what it's like for gay people in, say, Amish communities? How do the rest of the Amish people cope with the issue of being gay? Their culture is walled off from globalist individual mentality, I'm curious to know.


...but I'm glad I'm circumcised? I disagree that it's detrimental to the baby. I don't remember it happening and I'm glad my dick doesn't look like an anteater nose.

"Two studies focused on young urban men (ages 18 to 24) in Kenya and South Africa, whereas a third concentrated on a larger cross-section of rural men (ages 15 to 49) in Uganda. Over 11,000 men volunteered for the trials with one group receiving circumcision on enrollment and a control group delaying surgery until the end of the study.

By tracking newly acquired infections in both groups, investigators discovered that circumcision cut HIV transmission rates by 55 to 65 percent. In fact, all three trials were stopped early due to the overwhelming evidence of circumcision's protective effect."



Also, ask any girl who has had an uncut boyfriend, many men have no clue how to keep their dicks clean. Several years ago I met a girl off POF who had specifically mentioned in her profile that if you're uncut, having good hygiene was a must.

I ended up going out with her and she told me she had been dating two guys in a row that were un-cut, and the first time she had sex with either of them, their dicks smelled like rotten cheese.

Doing it at all is harmful in many ways, but the original excuse was "tradition". Any other reason is sheer ignorance.

You can safely ignore the 'study' that is cited above, as it is bunk. Nothing is going to fully protect you from AIDS except condoms and abstinence. I guess if you plan to move to Africa and fuck random people without protection, you might want to thank your parents for chopping off part of your genitals.

As for cleanliness, I would rather have to worry about cleaning my dick than have it stop working when I'm in my 40's. If some guy's dink smells like rotten cheese, that's their problem. And if some skank told me she fucks dudes with rotten cheese dicks, I don't think I would want to touch her, but I guess that's just me. Nasty... :heckno:

And don't forget, a lot of religions have people circumcising their daughters as well.

In any case, mutilating a baby is never a good thing, my original point.

"The researchers found that reduction in symptomatic genital ulcer disease accounted for only about 10% of the protective effect associated with circumcision, and did not find any consistent role for HSV-2 in counteracting protection. These results indicate that most of the reduction in HIV acquisition provided by male circumcision may be explained by the removal of vulnerable foreskin tissue containing HIV target cells. They also suggest that circumcision reduces genital ulcer disease primarily by reducing the rate of ulceration due to causes other than herpes, including sores caused by mild trauma during intercourse.

The trials were funded by the US National Institutes of Health (#U1AI51171), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (#22006.02), and the Fogarty International Center (#5D43TW001508 and #D43TW00015). This study was also supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH."


Skinny, you might want to fact check before you look totally ignorant.

I didn't mean the trial was bunk, the conclusion that it is 'safer' is bunk. What do you think the end effect is of telling people that they are safer from HIV if they are circumcised? More unprotected sex.

What makes me feel ignorant is that it seems like I fell into the trap of feeding a known troll. Oops.

Who's trolling? I've had faster cars than you and I'll have another one again.

If anyone's trolling, it's the geek beta mod who trips over his own words and has to go back again to clarify his position on issues.

Mortality Reduction with Air Bag and Seat Belt Use in Head-on Passenger Car Collisions


"There were 9,859 head-on collisions involving 19,718 passenger cars and drivers. Air bag deployment reduced mortality 63% (crude odds ratio (OR) = 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.32, 0.42), while lap-shoulder belt use reduced mortality 72% (OR = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.31). In a conditional logistic model that adjusted for vehicle (rollover, weight, age) and driver (age, sex) factors, air bags (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.58, 0.87) and any combination of seat belts (OR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.22, 0.29) were both associated with reduced mortality. Combined air bag and seat belt use reduced mortality by more than 80% (OR = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.25). Thus, this study confirms the independent effect of air bags and seat belts in reducing mortality."




True. You are a beacon of wisdom.

@Jason00S2000: though your stats are from legitimate sources and not 'bunk', i believe the governing medical body in Canada does not recognize that the practice is ultimately 'better' or worse but a personal decision.

it is not (or no longer?) covered under medical and is a private procedure that you pay yourself because they see it as not having enough benefit to warrant it as a necessity.

Using this argument as an example (not personally attacking or arguing directly with you) as I have heard similar cons used before...my thoughts are bolded above.

Dude, why do you have to bring it there?

I thought we could have some form of an intelligent debate in this thread...