Proposition 8

[QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"]

see that's what I mean, humans created all this division, and labels for things

it's still a normal thing if it's there

our education is a joke, break the mold and re-learn everything

LJS9502_basic

And just because something exists does not make it normal. A baby born with it's heart outside it's chest exists...but it's not normal and surgery had to be done to correct it.

That episode of Ripley's Believe It or Not still haunts me in my sleep... *shudders*

[QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]

Here is the first and second definition of Normal provided by http://www.dictionary.com/:

1.conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

2.serving to establish a standard.

If you know anything about quantum mechanics, you would know that nothing about it is "conforming to the standard of the common type."

-Jiggles-

definitions can change over time

nothing is set in stone

like I said, open your mind

standards are felxible as well, in refernece to the second definition, it's all based upon what is accepted, as soon as less occuring things are accepted as being normal but just happening less often, they will also be accepted as normal, and will probably make their way into your precious little dictionary

So... you're denying a valid source of information because of your own personal opinion?

My definition is up-to-date and so is my arguement on quantum physics, so you're not getting anywhere with your arguement. Again I say, quantum mechanics do not conform to regular scientific standards, and telling me to "open my mind" will do nothing to disprove my arguement otherwise.

As for nothing being "set in stone", the same could be said for your own arguement about everything existing being normal. The evidence used to back up a certain claim is what differs between something being accepted and something being rejected, and, quite frankly, you haven't provided any evidence to prove that everything that exists is normal.

this post made me really LOL

you just don't get it

you act like your argument is better because it came from what you call a "valid source" which is something controlled by other people

the difference between you and me is that I decided for myself what to believe, you just accept what was already there prepared for you, you don't think for yourself

which means, my argument actually hold more value, because it's open to change, it's flexible. whereas your position will only change when "they" say it has changed LOL you're just putty in their hands, and think it makes you smart

real smart people think for themsleves and don't just look to a book to back them up, if all your ideas come from books and not your own studying, then what good are you? seriously, it's like you're just an extension of the book itself. in that case, I don't need you, and anytime I want a book definiton, I'll get it straight from the book and cut out the middle man (you)

I really wanted this proposition to pass. I mean, I really don't like it when people put a law on a marriage. And I don't really think that them marrying will affect me at all, so why stop them from marriage?Elviathan

Ermm, I think youm mean you didnt want it to pass.

[QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"]

see that's what I mean, humans created all this division, and labels for things

it's still a normal thing if it's there

our education is a joke, break the mold and re-learn everything

LJS9502_basic

And just because something exists does not make it normal. A baby born with it's heart outside it's chest exists...but it's not normal and surgery had to be done to correct it.

LOL definitons change

I used to lurk this place for a while so I know who you refer to when you say DS, but I'm not him LOL you've accused like 5 people of being him WTF

a heart outside the chest is normla because it happened, the word you are looking for is UNUSUAL. It's an unusual occurence, but it was only possible to happen in the first place because it happened within the bounds of what is normal, or to cut to the point: DEFECTS ARE NORMAL, everyone has some

you act like it's some alternate dimension intruding on our normal world LOL

[QUOTE="DJ_Novakain"][QUOTE="Pirate700"][QUOTE="johnnyv2003"]

why can't people get over the wording of something? Marriage, civil unions...I just don't understand it. Why shouldn't homosexual couples be allowed the same rights and freedoms that heterosexual couples are? If them being married in the religious sense offends you, then let them be together through a civil union.

I just don't understand how common sense can't dictate that.

Pirate700

I don't care if they can get some sort of Union but they better not call it marriage and sure as hell better not get the same level of tax benefits.

Because it isn't natural. You have to draw the line somewhere. Why don't we legalize drugs because a few people want to do that and it probably wouldn't hurt anyone. It's just my beliefs (and no I'm not religious) and you have yours. I'm clearly FAR from alone in my thinking.

Agreed. Men are meant to be with women. And women should be with men. I don't know whos idea it was for dudes to start riding dudes.

I can't believe it passed, honestly. If you're not gay then it doesn't really affect you. Proposition 8 is just another way for ignorant and narrow-minded people to control the lives of others. What say should they have in who one can marry? What difference should it make to them?

And California, of all places... that'd be the LAST place I'd expect something like this to go through.

Edit: Effect? Affect? Who knows? Not I!

LOL definitons change

I used to lurk this place for a while so I know who you refer to when you say DS, but I'm not him LOL you've accused like 5 people of being him WTF

a heart outside the chest is normla because it happened, the word you are looking for is UNUSUAL. It's an unusual occurence, but it was only possible to happen in the first place because it happened within the bounds of what is normal, or to cut to the point: DEFECTS ARE NORMAL, everyone has some

you act like it's some alternate dimension intruding on our normal world LOL

I_Am_Sexy

No it's not normal for a heart to be on the outside of the body. Perhaps a cIass in statistical analysis....

[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"][QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]

Here is the first and second definition of Normal provided by http://www.dictionary.com/:

1.conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

2.serving to establish a standard.

If you know anything about quantum mechanics, you would know that nothing about it is "conforming to the standard of the common type."

I_Am_Sexy

definitions can change over time

nothing is set in stone

like I said, open your mind

standards are felxible as well, in refernece to the second definition, it's all based upon what is accepted, as soon as less occuring things are accepted as being normal but just happening less often, they will also be accepted as normal, and will probably make their way into your precious little dictionary

So... you're denying a valid source of information because of your own personal opinion?

My definition is up-to-date and so is my arguement on quantum physics, so you're not getting anywhere with your arguement. Again I say, quantum mechanics do not conform to regular scientific standards, and telling me to "open my mind" will do nothing to disprove my arguement otherwise.

As for nothing being "set in stone", the same could be said for your own arguement about everything existing being normal. The evidence used to back up a certain claim is what differs between something being accepted and something being rejected, and, quite frankly, you haven't provided any evidence to prove that everything that exists is normal.

this post made me really LOL

you just don't get it

you act like your argument is better because it came from what you call a "valid source" which is something controlled by other people

the difference between you and me is that I decided for myself what to believe, you just accept what was already there prepared for you, you don't think for yourself

which means, my argument actually hold more value, because it's open to change, it's flexible. whereas your position will only change when "they" say it has changed LOL you're just putty in their hands, and think it makes you smart

real smart people think for themsleves and don't just look to a book to back them up, if all your ideas come from books and not your own studying, then what good are you? seriously, it's like you're just an extension of the book itself. in that case, I don't need you, and anytime I want a book definiton, I'll get it straight from the book and cut out the middle man (you)

This entire post is just one big circular arguement. :| Seriously, how did you even come to this conclusion? All that you're doing now is covering your ears and screaming "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

Denying logical discussion and sourced information and relying on own personal opinion as an arguement? You're new to debate threads, aren't you?

Agreed. Men are meant to be with women. And women should be with men. I don't know whos idea it was for dudes to start riding dudes.

-Austin-

LOL it wasn't anyone's idea, people are born gay

you guys crack me up

[QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Agreed. Men are meant to be with women. And women should be with men. I don't know whos idea it was for dudes to start riding dudes.

I_Am_Sexy

LOL it wasn't anyone's idea, people are born gay

you guys crack me up

Something must of went wrong then. If you think about the way nature is designed, men are clearly meant to be attracted to women, not other men.

[QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Agreed. Men are meant to be with women. And women should be with men. I don't know whos idea it was for dudes to start riding dudes.

-Austin-

LOL it wasn't anyone's idea, people are born gay

you guys crack me up

Something must of went wrong then. If you think about the way nature is designed, men are clearly meant to be attracted to women, not other men.

[QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"]

LOL definitons change

I used to lurk this place for a while so I know who you refer to when you say DS, but I'm not him LOL you've accused like 5 people of being him WTF

a heart outside the chest is normla because it happened, the word you are looking for is UNUSUAL. It's an unusual occurence, but it was only possible to happen in the first place because it happened within the bounds of what is normal, or to cut to the point: DEFECTS ARE NORMAL, everyone has some

you act like it's some alternate dimension intruding on our normal world LOL

LJS9502_basic

No it's not normal for a heart to be on the outside of the body. Perhaps a cIass in statistical analysis....

LOL you always did act like the guy who was never wrong, but I don't want to get into a stupid argument about identities, if you want to think I'm DS go right ahead I don't care LOL :lol:

again, unusual does not mean unnatural

why would a heart be on the outside of the chest anyway? whatever causes defects to happen in the first place are normal,

I don't know why you peole can't accept it, but defects are normal, they happen all the time. some people have one lazy eye, some people have four fingers and so on, it's normal for human beings to not turn out like the perfect model of a human being

[QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Agreed. Men are meant to be with women. And women should be with men. I don't know whos idea it was for dudes to start riding dudes.

I_Am_Sexy

LOL it wasn't anyone's idea, people are born gay

you guys crack me up

They crack me up too. Some people are just don't get it. And once again, they try to use the "natural" arguement. *sigh* Its really annoying having to disprove that over and over again.

[QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Agreed. Men are meant to be with women. And women should be with men. I don't know whos idea it was for dudes to start riding dudes.

-Austin-

LOL it wasn't anyone's idea, people are born gay

you guys crack me up

Something must of went wrong then. If you think about the way nature is designed, men are clearly meant to be attracted to women, not other men.

yep something went "wrong" I guess you could call it that

but if it happens so much, is it really wrong? seems like it's a normal thing (there are lots of homosexuals in the world), but the idiot humans of the world haven't caught up to that level of enlightenment yet LOL just look at the people in this thread

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"]

see that's what I mean, humans created all this division, and labels for things

it's still a normal thing if it's there

our education is a joke, break the mold and re-learn everything

I_Am_Sexy

And just because something exists does not make it normal. A baby born with it's heart outside it's chest exists...but it's not normal and surgery had to be done to correct it.

LOL definitons change

I used to lurk this place for a while so I know who you refer to when you say DS, but I'm not him LOL you've accused like 5 people of being him WTF

a heart outside the chest is normla because it happened, the word you are looking for is UNUSUAL. It's an unusual occurence, but it was only possible to happen in the first place because it happened within the bounds of what is normal, or to cut to the point: DEFECTS ARE NORMAL, everyone has some

you act like it's some alternate dimension intruding on our normal world LOL

Um... I think the word you're looking for is 'natural'. All these occurances happen naturally within the confines of our biology, but they are not what is standard, i.e. 'normal'.

This entire post is just one big circular arguement. :| Seriously, how did you even come to this conclusion? All that you're doing now is covering your ears and screaming "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

Denying logical discussion and sourced information and relying on own personal opinion as an arguement? You're new to debate threads, aren't you?

-Jiggles-

Like I said, you don't get it

you're relying on information that you didn't uncover for yourself, it was given to you

peole like me are actually the ones who make the discoveries that we then share with the rest of you, who then take it as fact because it showed up in some book LOL

[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]This entire post is just one big circular arguement. :| Seriously, how did you even come to this conclusion? All that you're doing now is covering your ears and screaming "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

Denying logical discussion and sourced information and relying on own personal opinion as an arguement? You're new to debate threads, aren't you?

I_Am_Sexy

Like I said, you don't get it

you're relying on information that you didn't uncover for yourself, it was given to you

peole like me are actually the ones who make the discoveries that we then share with the rest of you, who then take it as fact because it showed up in some book LOL

Law isn't philosophy.....

[QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Agreed. Men are meant to be with women. And women should be with men. I don't know whos idea it was for dudes to start riding dudes.

Tauruslink

LOL it wasn't anyone's idea, people are born gay

you guys crack me up

They crack me up too. Some people are just don't get it. And once again, they try to use the "natural" arguement. *sigh* Its really annoying having to disprove that over and over again.

I know bro, well it's good to see I'm not the only one who gets it

I was starting to feel al alone in here :lol:

not liket hat's a bad thing, I like to fight masses of people by myself. it's awesome when I face a whole group of people with the same flawed mindstate, and beat them all at once, and all they can do is just stand there and make excuses because they don't want to give into the embarrasment of being owned by one guy LOL

Um... I think the word you're looking for is 'natural'. All these occurances happen naturally within the confines of our biology, but they are not what is standard, i.e. 'normal'.

Red-XIII

LOL you're not even paying attention to what you're saying

"it's normal but it's not" LOL WTF :lol:

[QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]This entire post is just one big circular arguement. :| Seriously, how did you even come to this conclusion? All that you're doing now is covering your ears and screaming "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

Denying logical discussion and sourced information and relying on own personal opinion as an arguement? You're new to debate threads, aren't you?

Mafiree

Like I said, you don't get it

you're relying on information that you didn't uncover for yourself, it was given to you

peole like me are actually the ones who make the discoveries that we then share with the rest of you, who then take it as fact because it showed up in some book LOL

Law isn't philosophy.....

actually all laws passed are based on opinions, opinions are formed by philosophies

you lose

next?

[QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Agreed. Men are meant to be with women. And women should be with men. I don't know whos idea it was for dudes to start riding dudes.

Tauruslink

LOL it wasn't anyone's idea, people are born gay

you guys crack me up

They crack me up too. Some people are just don't get it. And once again, they try to use the "natural" arguement. *sigh* Its really annoying having to disprove that over and over again.

One part of the male anatomy is clearly meant to be paired with a certain part of the female anatomy....

[QUOTE="Mafiree"][QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]This entire post is just one big circular arguement. :| Seriously, how did you even come to this conclusion? All that you're doing now is covering your ears and screaming "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

Denying logical discussion and sourced information and relying on own personal opinion as an arguement? You're new to debate threads, aren't you?

I_Am_Sexy

Like I said, you don't get it

you're relying on information that you didn't uncover for yourself, it was given to you

peole like me are actually the ones who make the discoveries that we then share with the rest of you, who then take it as fact because it showed up in some book LOL

Law isn't philosophy.....

actually all laws passed are based on opinions, opinions are formed by philosophies

you lose

next?

And the opinion in CA was prop 8 is law........

Something must of went wrong then. If you think about the way nature is designed, men are clearly meant to be attracted to women, not other men.

-Austin-

There are many animals, in nature, that engage in homosexual activities. And if men are clearly supposed to be with women, why is it that a man can reach an orgasm through anal sex?

[QUOTE="Tauruslink"][QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Agreed. Men are meant to be with women. And women should be with men. I don't know whos idea it was for dudes to start riding dudes.

-Austin-

LOL it wasn't anyone's idea, people are born gay

you guys crack me up

They crack me up too. Some people are just don't get it. And once again, they try to use the "natural" arguement. *sigh* Its really annoying having to disprove that over and over again.

One part of the male anatomy is clearly meant to be paired with a certain part of the female anatomy....

yes for sure, but defects are clearly normal too

homosexuals are born that way, it's not their fault that they grow up not being poonhounds like the rest of us LOL

try and have some understanding for those who are different than you

[QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="Mafiree"][QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]This entire post is just one big circular arguement. :| Seriously, how did you even come to this conclusion? All that you're doing now is covering your ears and screaming "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

Denying logical discussion and sourced information and relying on own personal opinion as an arguement? You're new to debate threads, aren't you?

Mafiree

Like I said, you don't get it

you're relying on information that you didn't uncover for yourself, it was given to you

peole like me are actually the ones who make the discoveries that we then share with the rest of you, who then take it as fact because it showed up in some book LOL

Law isn't philosophy.....

actually all laws passed are based on opinions, opinions are formed by philosophies

you lose

next?

And the opinion in CA was prop 8 is law........

sure is, what's the point? are you saying all opinions are correct? that's impossible LOL this guy is hilarious

EDIT: BTW, that's not the opinion of ALL people in CA. just so you know...it wasn't a 100% vote LOL :roll:

[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]This entire post is just one big circular arguement. :| Seriously, how did you even come to this conclusion? All that you're doing now is covering your ears and screaming "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

Denying logical discussion and sourced information and relying on own personal opinion as an arguement? You're new to debate threads, aren't you?

I_Am_Sexy

Like I said, you don't get it

you're relying on information that you didn't uncover for yourself, it was given to you

peole like me are actually the ones who make the discoveries that we then share with the rest of you, who then take it as fact because it showed up in some book LOL

In order for a discovery to hold any credibility in the fields of science, it must make logical, testable sense as to why it exists and/or how it occurs. What you are doing is simply guessing as to how the universe ticks, and, as such, we aren't learning anything.

It's kind of like Democritus (a Greek philosopher) and his idea of atoms; over 2000 years ago, he first proposed that matter could not be infinitely divided into smaller and smaller particles and that these "atomos" could not be further divided, created nor destroyed. Although he was on the right track, he had no evidence for his hypothesis and was attacked by many other Greek philosophers, including Aristotle.

Point is, you can be on the right track in thinking that "existance = normal," but that doesn't mean squat if you have no information or evidence whatsoever to back up your claims. As of now, you have done nothing but mock anyone against your opinion and, once again, deny any evidence presented against you for little to no reason at all.

If you want to be taken seriously in any sort of future debate, then you will learn by experience that making an ass out of yourself doesn't help with your credibility, nor with your own arguement at hand.

[QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Something must of went wrong then. If you think about the way nature is designed, men are clearly meant to be attracted to women, not other men.

Dark_Knight6

There are many animals, in nature, that engage in homosexual activities. And if men are clearly supposed to be with women, why is it that a man can reach an orgasm through anal sex?

Why can't they reproduce?

[QUOTE="Dark_Knight6"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Something must of went wrong then. If you think about the way nature is designed, men are clearly meant to be attracted to women, not other men.

-Austin-

There are many animals, in nature, that engage in homosexual activities. And if men are clearly supposed to be with women, why is it that a man can reach an orgasm through anal sex?

Why can't they reproduce?

Why didn't you answer my question?

[QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]This entire post is just one big circular arguement. :| Seriously, how did you even come to this conclusion? All that you're doing now is covering your ears and screaming "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

Denying logical discussion and sourced information and relying on own personal opinion as an arguement? You're new to debate threads, aren't you?

-Jiggles-

Like I said, you don't get it

you're relying on information that you didn't uncover for yourself, it was given to you

peole like me are actually the ones who make the discoveries that we then share with the rest of you, who then take it as fact because it showed up in some book LOL

In order for a discovery to hold any credibility in the fields of science, it must make logical, testable sense as to why it exists and/or how it occurs. What you are doing is simply guessing as to how the universe ticks, and, as such, we aren't learning anything.

It's kind of like Democritus (a Greek philosopher) and his idea of atoms; over 2000 years ago, he first proposed that matter could not be infinitely divided into smaller and smaller particles and that these "atomos" could not be further divided, created nor destroyed. Although he was on the right track, he had no evidence for his hypothesis and was attacked by many other Greek philosophers, including Aristotle.

Point is, you can be on the right track in thinking that "existance = normal," but that doesn't mean squat if you have no information or evidence whatsoever to back up your claims. As of now, you have done nothing but mock anyone against your opinion and, once again, deny any evidence presented against you for little to no reason at all.

If you want to be taken seriously in any sort of future debate, then you will learn by experience that making an ass out of yourself doesn't help with your credibility, nor with your own arguement at hand.

LOL there you go again, I don't even know why you post you're just wasting your time

people like me come up with the theories that then become tested, helping make progress

peopple like you you sit back and eat it all up, thinking you've become smart because you rode the coattails of someone else's hard work

[QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Something must of went wrong then. If you think about the way nature is designed, men are clearly meant to be attracted to women, not other men.

Dark_Knight6

There are many animals, in nature, that engage in homosexual activities. And if men are clearly supposed to be with women, why is it that a man can reach an orgasm through anal sex?

Or why is the cl!toris an external erogenous zone that another female can easily reach? The penis doesn't even make any contact with it during heterosexual intercourse. Reproduction wise, the cl!toris is completely useless yet when stimulated it can create powerful orgasms.

[QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Dark_Knight6"][QUOTE="-Austin-"]

Something must of went wrong then. If you think about the way nature is designed, men are clearly meant to be attracted to women, not other men.

Dark_Knight6

There are many animals, in nature, that engage in homosexual activities. And if men are clearly supposed to be with women, why is it that a man can reach an orgasm through anal sex?

Why can't they reproduce?

Why didn't you answer my question?

common behavior for those who are wrong, and know it, but don't want to admit it

they're just like, forget that part I'm changing the subject now LOL

LOL there you go again, I don't even know why you post you're just wasting your time

people like me come up with the theories that then become tested, helping make progress

peopple like you you sit back and eat it all up, thinking you've become smart because you rode the coattails of someone else's hard work

I_Am_Sexy

[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"][QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]This entire post is just one big circular arguement. :| Seriously, how did you even come to this conclusion? All that you're doing now is covering your ears and screaming "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

Denying logical discussion and sourced information and relying on own personal opinion as an arguement? You're new to debate threads, aren't you?

I_Am_Sexy

Like I said, you don't get it

you're relying on information that you didn't uncover for yourself, it was given to you

peole like me are actually the ones who make the discoveries that we then share with the rest of you, who then take it as fact because it showed up in some book LOL

In order for a discovery to hold any credibility in the fields of science, it must make logical, testable sense as to why it exists and/or how it occurs. What you are doing is simply guessing as to how the universe ticks, and, as such, we aren't learning anything.

It's kind of like Democritus (a Greek philosopher) and his idea of atoms; over 2000 years ago, he first proposed that matter could not be infinitely divided into smaller and smaller particles and that these "atomos" could not be further divided, created nor destroyed. Although he was on the right track, he had no evidence for his hypothesis and was attacked by many other Greek philosophers, including Aristotle.

Point is, you can be on the right track in thinking that "existance = normal," but that doesn't mean squat if you have no information or evidence whatsoever to back up your claims. As of now, you have done nothing but mock anyone against your opinion and, once again, deny any evidence presented against you for little to no reason at all.

If you want to be taken seriously in any sort of future debate, then you will learn by experience that making an ass out of yourself doesn't help with your credibility, nor with your own arguement at hand.

LOL there you go again, I don't even know why you post you're just wasting your time

people like me come up with the theories that then become tested, helping make progress

peopple like you you sit back and eat it all up, thinking you've become smart because you rode the coattails of someone else's hard work

What theory have you come up with that has been "tested"?

There's more to relationships and love than just sex and having parts that fit well, y'know. Stop letting that be the only thing used to define "normal" sexual orientation.

I don't see why people don't get that if two people love each other, they should be able to marry, regardless of gender.

What theory have you come up with that has been "tested"?

Mafiree

still putting them together, it's a work in progress, but I'm sure it'll make headlines soon enough, I'm working on some things with some of my friends, you'll see

maybe even some inventions are in place, I'm excited

[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"][QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]This entire post is just one big circular arguement. :| Seriously, how did you even come to this conclusion? All that you're doing now is covering your ears and screaming "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

Denying logical discussion and sourced information and relying on own personal opinion as an arguement? You're new to debate threads, aren't you?

I_Am_Sexy

Like I said, you don't get it

you're relying on information that you didn't uncover for yourself, it was given to you

peole like me are actually the ones who make the discoveries that we then share with the rest of you, who then take it as fact because it showed up in some book LOL

In order for a discovery to hold any credibility in the fields of science, it must make logical, testable sense as to why it exists and/or how it occurs. What you are doing is simply guessing as to how the universe ticks, and, as such, we aren't learning anything.

It's kind of like Democritus (a Greek philosopher) and his idea of atoms; over 2000 years ago, he first proposed that matter could not be infinitely divided into smaller and smaller particles and that these "atomos" could not be further divided, created nor destroyed. Although he was on the right track, he had no evidence for his hypothesis and was attacked by many other Greek philosophers, including Aristotle.

Point is, you can be on the right track in thinking that "existance = normal," but that doesn't mean squat if you have no information or evidence whatsoever to back up your claims. As of now, you have done nothing but mock anyone against your opinion and, once again, deny any evidence presented against you for little to no reason at all.

If you want to be taken seriously in any sort of future debate, then you will learn by experience that making an ass out of yourself doesn't help with your credibility, nor with your own arguement at hand.

LOL there you go again, I don't even know why you post you're just wasting your time

people like me come up with the theories that then become tested, helping make progress

peopple like you you sit back and eat it all up, thinking you've become smart because you rode the coattails of someone else's hard work

Uh-huh. How can you be sure that your theories are correct if you don't even know the basics about science? You might as well score a homerun at a professional baseball game when you never even heard of the sport--it simply isn't happening.

Tell me, how many groundbreaking theories have you come up with in your lifetime?

[QUOTE="Mafiree"]

What theory have you come up with that has been "tested"?

I_Am_Sexy

still putting them together, it's a work in progress, but I'm sure it'll make headlines soon enough, I'm working on some things with some of my friends, you'll see

maybe even some inventions are in place, I'm excited

[QUOTE="Mafiree"]

What theory have you come up with that has been "tested"?

I_Am_Sexy

None

TLDR version

There's more to relationships and love than just sex and having parts that fit well, y'know. Stop letting that be the only thing used to define "normal" sexual orientation.

I don't see why people don't get that if two people love each other, they should be able to marry, regardless of gender.

RadBooley

The whole point of marriage is to start a family.

[QUOTE="RadBooley"]

There's more to relationships and love than just sex and having parts that fit well, y'know. Stop letting that be the only thing used to define "normal" sexual orientation.

I don't see why people don't get that if two people love each other, they should be able to marry, regardless of gender.

-Austin-

The whole point of marriage is to start a family.

Says who?

[QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="Mafiree"]

What theory have you come up with that has been "tested"?

Mafiree

None

TLDR version

LOL I guess this is the part where I'm supposed to be offended

keep trying guys, right now it's too pathetic to give a crap about :lol:

See sig.noswear

Too late, it's already gonna pass.

[QUOTE="Mafiree"][QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="Mafiree"]

What theory have you come up with that has been "tested"?

I_Am_Sexy

None

TLDR version

LOL I guess this is the part where I'm supposed to be offended

keep trying guys, right now it's too pathetic to give a crap about :lol:

[QUOTE="noswear"]See sig.-Austin-

Too late, it's already gonna pass.

I know, just can't be screwed changing sig. I'm not gay BTW. Just anti-descrimination.

[QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="Mafiree"][QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="Mafiree"]

What theory have you come up with that has been "tested"?

zakkro

None

TLDR version

LOL I guess this is the part where I'm supposed to be offended

keep trying guys, right now it's too pathetic to give a crap about :lol:

LOL did you see what I said already? still working on things

how about you? have you? no? oh well then.....

it's funny how people come to this website just to argue, but no one does it better than me LOL you guys must hate me.

I love it :lol:

[QUOTE="Mafiree"][QUOTE="I_Am_Sexy"][QUOTE="Mafiree"]

What theory have you come up with that has been "tested"?

I_Am_Sexy

None

TLDR version

LOL I guess this is the part where I'm supposed to be offended

keep trying guys, right now it's too pathetic to give a crap about :lol:

Statutory law gives society the right for the lawmakers to impose judgements of morality into law. Laws limiting and abolishing gambling and prostitution are examples of these. This is what you would call "precedent" to asert the validity of prop 8.