UNTstormchaser

I was making the point that the opinions that those laws are based on are incredibly outdated, that is all. I almost went with Middle Ages instead of 19th century, but I felt an exaggeration of that magnitude would hurt the argument. I thought that 19th century was appropriate since there were laws in place then that took away the rights of a certain racial group.

I'm literally not gay though. If you were to read all my posts (which I do admit, they are long, but I can't cut down on the content in an argument, it's a pet peeve I have...so I get your avoidance of the novel length ones), you would have read that I back gay marriage and other civil rights issues so passionately because I have been in plenty of situations where I've been put down, where I've felt unaccepted and different, etc. It just so happens that the most obnoxious example of that in America today is with gay marriage. A secondary reason might be that my uncle is gay. But, I'm very straight my friend. I have no interest in getting it on with some dude.

I agree minus that one bolded bit. If it was just about what he said, that's one thing, but it's where his money goes and that the university profits off of them that could be the problem. As I've said, I could care less either way. In fact, I ate there today on campus. I'm just simply stating why it is slightly messy and not as cut and dry as a government official blocking them from their city.

It's a funny story, but you can't take an isolated incident of some random sick bastard in a random African nation fornicating with a goat as a reason for AIDS. I am pretty sure that didn't mean for it to come off this way, but your post comes off as incredibly racist and insensitive, considering you're inferring that this is a common occurrence in that part of the world and that current Africans are all savages who rape animals. Coupled with your many comments about how WHITE, monogamous heterosexuals do not get AIDS, I'm beginning to pick up on some very racist undertones in your posts. Back on topic, you are neglecting 4 major flaws in your argument for why gay marriage should not be legal. 1. You keep giving the reason that anal sex is unsanitary (which it is) as why gay marriage should not be legalized, when the two topics are related in content but not related in occurrence. Whether gay marriage is legal or not, the same number of people are going to have anal sex, and not all gay couples have anal sex, so it is not a valid reason. 2. If you want to use it as a reason, despite it's invalidity, you'd have to want to outlaw anal sex. Yes, it's on the books in some states still. No, it isn't enforced and the US Supreme Court has ruled it as unconstitutional. Even if the US wanted to outlaw anal sex, it's literally 100% impossible to legally uniformly enforce the law, as nothing short of major invasions of everyone's privacy would catch even 1% of the "evil doers". 3. You keep using AIDS as evidence for why anal sex is unsafe and therefore gay marriage should be illegal, despite the fact that AIDS is not exclusive to the homosexual population, and in fact, has absolutely nothing to do with sex other than the fact that it can be transmitted through it. AIDS isn't even a normal STD, almost every other STD's symptoms occur in the genital region, and can only be transmitted through some kind of contact, whether direct or indirect, with the infected person's genitals. AIDS is a disease spread through bodily fluid contact that shuts down the immune system, it's just pure coincidence that vaginal and penile excretions are some of the bodily fluids that house the virus in an infected person. 4. You keep saying homosexual actions are unnatural, when that is 100% not the case. The definition of natural can essentially be described as something that occurs in nature without the aid of human influence. Since over 1500 other animals have been recorded performing homosexual behaviors in their natural habitat, and that these events are scientifically accepted as happening without man's influence, homosexuality happens 100% naturally. Unless, of course, you believe that the dolphins picked up the idea from observing 2 men dressed in pink sleeveless shirts, wearing blue eye shadow, holding hands walking down the streets of NYC, and decided to give the gay thing a whirl.

I wouldn't say that anyone had made a fair argument by our 21st century standards, but if one were to consider a 19th century argument for how it's okay to outlaw anal sex fair, then maybe so. Isn't it great that at least our Supreme Court has the brains to realize that outlawing what 2 consenting adults want to do in their private time is ludicrous, even if some of the states' legislatures haven't caught wind that you can't catch the gay?

Very well played sir, very well played.

I don't think you understand what AIDS is. Homosexuality has nothing to do with AIDS, and neither does race, nor gender. It's a disease. Anyone can get it for any reason. If I have heterosexual consenting sex with a white female adult, and she has AIDS, I am going to end up HIV positive and end up with AIDS down the line. That is how the disease works. In other countries, especially in poorer nations in Africa, AIDS is an epidemic that even children are dying from. It is a disease spread through bodily fluid contact, other than spit. You can get it in a blood transfusion, you can get it from heterosexual sex, you can get it by eating the vomit of an HIV positive person, etc. AIDS is not caused by homosexuality. The argument about gay sex is completely valid and I agree with you. But it has nothing to do with gay marriage. What if two consenting gay men want to partake in only oral sex, or other forms of sexual intercourse, other than anal sex? Or, what if they're completely content just kissing each other and having someone to spend their lives with? Gay sex =/= gay marriage. And, you cannot legislate what happens in two consenting adults bedrooms. While it is disgusting to me and the majority of people, there are even some heterosexual couples that partake in it, and it's going to happen regardless of the legality of marriage, so it is a completely independent issue. It also does not even remotely touch base with the female homosexual marriage issue, so you cannot use that argument. You aren't lying about how dirty anal sex is, and how it's unsafe for both parties, but so are many other things. Playing football is unsafe and costs a lot of money in injuries each year. Going outside without bug spray on around these parts may cause you to get West Nile, thus costing more money to medical places. There are so many other things you'd have to legitimately outlaw in order to make a fair argument for outlawing anal sex. Like I keep trying to tell you, the legality of gay marriage does not make a difference in the amount of people having anal sex, and therefore cannot be made as an argument against the legality of gay marriage.

Trust me Kram, I understand what you're saying and I absolutely know that it is true. Over time, my views will change about a lot of things, and obviously at 19 I have a lot more to experience in life. But, I don't see any experience changing my opinion when it comes to everyone deserving equal rights and opportunities. I surely hope that doesn't happen, as I would no longer be able to respect myself.

That would be epic. Anyways, to go back on topic, who is looking forward to us beating the hell out of this team? After we get slaughtered at LSU I'll be very happy to pretend we're facing someone legitimate like Louisiana Tech while we destroy TSU.

I'll be there with a few friends for sure, if things go as planned we'll be front row at the fifty with U N T painted across three of us.

Well, though I am only 19, I might night be as naive as you might think. The average person my age knows little to nothing about life and it's ups and downs. While I may not exactly have had a rough and terrible upbringing, I've had enough experiences, both positive and negative, and been intelligent enough to understand what each experience meant and what it actually was, to be a lot more intellectually competent than your average 19 year old college student. I do have a slight vested interest in the subject, I'll readily admit that. I'm not gay, but my uncle is. He isn't in a committed relationship at the moment, but if he ever does find someone whom he wants to spend his life with, he should get the same privileges that a heterosexual couple gets. My biggest reason for passion about the subject is that I understand what gays go through. I've been in plenty of situations where I'm the different one, where I'm the one who is put down, where I am the one who gets shafted of his fair chance, and I have absolutely no tolerance towards anyone who tries to do that to anyone else. And in this present day, gays are the most publicly persecuted and ridiculed in the US, so that's where I focus a lot of my attention and passion to. In the future, if the focus turns off of them and changes to men over 6'5", and a large group of people use some random personal view like religion or a small sample size of experience to discriminate against men over 6'5", I'll stand up and fight with that group. It's about equal rights and the ability to live a life the way one pleases, so long as it doesn't harm others. No, I may not know anything, but there literally isn't any negative impact that allowing homosexual marriage to occur causes to a random heterosexual person. There is no negative financial impact, there is no impediment on their ability to follow a religion, nor is there any impediment in one's ability to follow the American dream of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", so where is there a negative impact? If there is a legitimate one you can show me, I'll gladly eat my words and retract my statement, and even apologize. While about some subjects I'd completely agree with you about that, if I ever change my views about how everyone should be treated equally so long as they aren't hurting others, I want someone to kill me right then, for I will have lost the most important view an intelligent person can have.

There is zero negative impact on any heterosexual if gays are allowed to marry. Zero. Unless you count them getting their panties in a bunch being a negative impact.

Because asking tolerance from those who do not give it is intolerance now, right? I don't know how many times I have to tell you that I am as tolerant as they come. One of my best friends is a very Christian libertarian who is morally opposed to gay marriage. But, he lets others live their lives the way they want, and we have had some amazing intellectual discussions and debates with each other, despite our polar opposite views when it comes to religion, politics, and some social issues. To see someone who is intolerant, all you have to do is look in the mirror. The argument on this thread started when people got angry with me for showing an alternative view and a logical reason to why there COULD (not WILL) be a problem, and after I fully explained how I could give a damn what happens. I didn't start the battle, all I did was make a logical post of why there could be an issue, and I've gotten attacked by multiple people for it. I'm not the one who thinks it's okay for a company to donate to organizations who want to legalize discrimination of homosexuals, take away civil unions, etc., that would be you. While I don't agree with your view, you are free to have it and express it. I tolerate you. You do not tolerate me or anyone who thinks something different than what you do. Remember: intolerating intolerance =/= being intolerant of someone's views. Intolerating intolerance = doing the right thing. Also, I'd like to point out that there is a real world outside of your office, sir. When I'm being funded by a university to research meteorological matters and am being paid to do so, as well as teaching younger people than me about the joys of my passion, I'll be living my real life. You can stick to your prudish views and your office building while I enjoy my life and let others do as they please.

That Ice Cube one just got me good. Thank you.

I was pretty confused at this ordeal as well, but I did some reading and found out some cool info. The $315 retail priced LeBron X will sell in stores at approximately $290, which is still incredibly high. But Nike is making a much lower priced version of the shoe as well, priced at $175 retail, meaning it will probably sell at about $150, which is standard for these "higher quality" Nike signature shoes. The $315 version comes built in with high tech Nike+ technology. Typical Nike+ items are designed for running, and they usually count steps, calories burned, speed, etc., you know, things important to the average runner. Nike+ chips that are inserted in shoes usually retail for about $50+ on their own. The LeBron X Nike+ shoes have all the normal Nike+ features, but also measures a few other things, such as vertical jump for example. The LeBron X Nike+ model is being designed for the high school or college athlete who wishes to wear a high quality basketball shoe, and can also learn important information about his athleticism and game by using the shoes. Nike is making about 600% more of the standard $175 version than of the $315 version of the shoe to start out with and will gauge it from there. Unfortunately, I worked at a Nike store for about 2 years and know far too much about shoes, a lot more than I'd like to. So when I read the article that explained what these shoes were all about, I understood it a lot more than the normal person would, which scares me. But, I guess it's a unique advantage I can use in life?....maybe?...no. I hate it. I still have nightmares about my freakish Asian lesbian man woman boss named Carol who had yellow teeth from smoking and looked like a guy on good days and like a really ugly woman on bad days. God she was a bitch too...

That would indeed be nice.

Fair enough. Obviously I'm over exaggerating when I say 100%. No one is 100% anything. But, I'll play ball sir. How would the legality of gay marriage impact on anyone who opposes it? Other than someone's bisexual lover leaving them to homosexually marry someone else, I don't see how it could. Sure, it will piss them off and just give them more fuel to be mad at, but so does everything else. And we've hit the point in the conversation where 40+ year old VP of Assistant Banking Operations to the Assistant President of the Vice CEO GreenMachine resorts to name calling because he's run out of intelligent arguments to make and subconsciously realizes that his insecure and naive views of the world, and how it revolves around his uneducated opinions, are perhaps incorrect because someone else injected logic and reasoning into his life.

Finally, a voice of reason. Thank you.

I will accept this quote, as I definitely DID say it, though you completely fail at reading comprehension still. I was referring to the organizations that CFA donates to that are discriminating, not CFA. No one works for or volunteers for a charitable organization if they aren't passionate about what the organization stands for, so my point is valid, and you don't know how to read in context. I don't even know what you're trying to say here. Sorry my views don't fall in line with yours. Because that's even remotely what I am saying, right??? Seriously, what part about live and let live do you not get? Let the gays get married, because it doesn't effect you at all. I let you believe what you want, you let me believe what I want. Why is that so impossible for you to comprehend???? I am honestly baffled. How the F can you not comprehend that?????????? Anyone doing something that disagrees with your views does not equate to them stepping on your rights, nor impeding your ability to believe what you want. Get that through your head.

Haha, it would be an appropriate change. I understand how an intense argument broke out on the last CFA thread, but I don't understand it this time. All I did was tell everyone that I could care less what happens, but showed why it could be a problem for UNT. That's it, and then when people asked for detail, I gave it. My position is still indifferent, I could really care less if CFA is on campus. If it is, I'll eat there. If it isn't I'll eat the Taco Bell next to it (and pay for it later...), at one of the dining halls, or somewhere else entirely. It doesn't really effect my life at all. It just amazes me that when I injected fact and logic into the conversation rather than just throwing around a random opinion without backing, I got flamed for it. Oh well, I still respect all of you and enjoy talking UNT with you guys on here. No love gained nor lost here.

As I've said, the issue here isn't freedom of speech or expression. It's UNT profiting off of a company that donates to discriminatory organizations.

I'm really hoping both guys can make the team. That would be epic.

That is as true a statement as one man can make.

Absolutely not. I never even remotely said anything close to that. Where are you people getting these insinuations? This post is absolutely laughable. I have ZERO issue with anyone not agreeing with being gay. But that person must still tolerate that group anyways. That's the way tolerance works. You may not agree with others ideas, feelings, thoughts, and actions, but unless they're harming you or others, you deal with it. This is why I don't tolerate those who are anti-gay. Tolerating intolerance is no different than being intolerant in the first place. Of course they DEMAND their sexuality be accepted! Why the F wouldn't they??? They're like that, there's nothing they can do about it, and they want acceptance, just like everyone else does. Why is that difficult to comprehend? Comparing this to the civil rights battles of the 20th century is not comparing apples to submarines, if anything, it's red apple to green apple. A group of people who cannot change the way they are want acceptance???? OH NO!!!! Please. And, for the fourth time now, I DO NOT CFA PUNISHED. I do not care whether or not it is on campus. I have simply just stated the reasons of WHY IT MAY BE A PROBLEM. How the hell did you guys graduate college with the reading comprehension of a 12 year old? Dammit guys, it's pretty pathetic that as soon as someone posts an alternative view about anything, you all go into "kill the gay atheist commie who hates America" mode. Oh, and by the way, that is completely false that most Americans don't want gay marriage. Look at any recent poll. It's about 50/50, and rising. Whether you like it or not, gay marriage is happening. And we won't be the first country to do it, nor will we be the last. It does NOT effect your life at all, nor your faith, nor does it impede on your rights. So, why the hell do you care so much? PS: I failed to acknowledge your comment about my lack of outrage at LGBT groups. Since I've never stated anything about that, I don't know where you think you can get that insinuation. But, I'm 100% fair with my judgments, I assure you. Any LGBT group that tries to pass legislation that IMPEDES THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS, I am against. But, I haven't exactly heard of any group doing that, though I admit I haven't exactly looked for one either. No, an LGBT group trying to legalize same sex marriage does not count as impeding your rights, sorry. When they make your church marry gays, or make you marry a dude, I'll be on your side and call BS on them. My fairness extends beyond this issue to. Although I'm an atheist, I'm outraged at the atheist group that is trying to take down the Ground Zero cross. I think that's ridiculous and offensive of them. So, don't try to call me one sided. I side with what I feel is right, and I side with those who actually are fair in their views. I'm sorry, but you're just neither of those to me.

That rule was actually in play last year as well. I don't really mind it when the normal officials are there, because the review booth quickly tells them via their headsets that it's clear. And when they do need to review it, it's usually very quick. This year with the replacement refs, they're more apt to overrule the replay officials and review something anyways, just to be sure that the call is correct, and they take 3 times as long as the normal officials do. They're auditioning as well this preseason, just like any young player is, so unfortunately their lack of officiating skill and speed is impeding the time of the replays and lengthening the game unnecessarily.