Chick-fil-A fights likely on local college campuses

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Can we get a separate thread going where we ask TFLF questions about sex?

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

I think we partially have our AIDS in Africa answer for Stormchaser:

http://www.ukzambians.co.uk/home/2012/08/16/mbala-man-jailed-for-having-sex-with-a-goat/

Silavwe in mitigation said he was a first offender: “I do not know what came into my mind to act the way I did. I am not married anyway, but I plead for leniency and I promise not to repeat what I did. It is true I had carnal knowledge of the goat and no one forced me to have sex with the goat.”

[Censored by Laurie]

I wanna marry a goat.

Anyone pro goat marriage on here?

Probably won't hear much from dahbeed until hoops season gets going.

[UNTstormchaser]

Somebody must have made a pretty fair argument for quite some time, since it was against the law in many states until 2003. Last I heard the law is still on the books in Texas, even though the Supreme Court's 2003 ruling supersedes it. In Virginia they could even kill you for it many moons ago. I know, I know, they could kill witches too, but that was a little farther back

What about the cause for drugs? It's a lifestyle choice just as it is for many gays, since not all gays were born with gay tendencies IMO. I have no doubt that many people with predominantly heterosexual tendencies are recruited to the club by older and/or stronger people of that persuasion, and that is one of the things (or reasons) that probably scares many non-gays about gay marriage.

The thought is that If you put it on par with traditional marriage, the "gay taboo" starts to go away, and it could eventually influence a larger percentage of "traditionally normal" people to think that it's OK to just go out and bang anyone of any sex just because it feels good. Gays don't live in a vacuum (no pun intended).

True or not, I guess that's where a lot of the morality argument against legalizing it kicks in.

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?

[UNTflyer]

If you were a fiscal conservative, you wouldn't introduce the last 20 years as purely republicans running up the debt without mentioning ONE WORD about the last 4 years

Or the previous 55 years.

[UNTstormchaser]

I think we partially have our AIDS in Africa answer for Stormchaser:

http://www.ukzambian...ex-with-a-goat/

Silavwe in mitigation said he was a first offender: “I do not know what came into my mind to act the way I did. I am not married anyway, but I plead for leniency and I promise not to repeat what I did. It is true I had carnal knowledge of the goat and no one forced me to have sex with the goat.”

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.

[foutsrouts]

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?

Did you forget about the 20th century, or is that too far back for you to remember?

[UNTflyer]

Hmm. Tab A was intended to go into Slot B, not Crevice C. Therefore gays are immoral and wrong, and so is the idea of them getting married.

This is just wrong, both logically and morally. Isn't this an Is-Ought fallacy?

I don't care about gay marriage, I've said that before. I think the concept of changing the definition of marriage in order to force society to accept the gay lifestyle is a misguided effort. Marriage is what it is, a social, religious, and legal contract the purpose of which is to legitimize procreation and establish the basic societal unit, the family. Two men or two women living in the same house and having sex is not a marriage, no matter how much you want it to be. To quote Wesley Snipes, "You can put a cat in the oven - that don't make it a biscuit!" Those who defend the rights of gays against discrimination would be better suited to focus on civil unions and partnership rights. But marriage is what it is and should not be redefined simply because we have a relatively minor shift in societal norms.

The bigger argument here is the idea that a company executive expressing his point of view, which is his right under the First Amendment, should be subject to city governments denying the company the right to do business, or for college students to demand that said business be shut down on their campus, is simply insane. It is a level of intolerance just as evil as those who seek to deny consenting adults the liberty (not right, mind you) to do what they do.

Edited August 23, 2012 by UNTflyer

[foutsrouts]

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.

Of course I don't know you, but please don't try and say that you're not gay. I'm not going to look back and read all your voluminous posts on the subject to see if you have acknowledged that previously, but this overwhelming obsession for the defense of gay rights in this thread has gone WAY beyond just a concern for others. Not that I'm bashing your lifestyle of course, but you might as well come clean, because this is much more than too much. Hope it works out well for you and yours.

[UNTstormchaser]

Hmm. Tab A was intended to go into Slot B, not Crevice C. Therefore gays are immoral and wrong, and so is the idea of them getting married.

This is just wrong, both logically and morally. Isn't this an Is-Ought fallacy?

I don't care about gay marriage, I've said that before. I think the concept of changing the definition of marriage in order to force society to accept the gay lifestyle is a misguided effort. Marriage is what it is, a social, religious, and legal contract the purpose of which is to legitimize procreation and establish the basic societal unit, the family. Two men or two women living in the same house and having sex is not a marriage, no matter how much you want it to be. To quote Wesley Snipes, "You can put a cat in the oven - that don't make it a biscuit!" Those who defend the rights of gays against discrimination would be better suited to focus on civil unions and partnership rights. But marriage is what it is and should not be redefined simply because we have a relatively minor shift in societal norms.

The bigger argument here is the idea that a company executive expressing his point of view, which is his right under the First Amendment, should be subject to city governments denying the company the right to do business, or for college students to demand that said business be shut down on their campus, is simply insane. It is a level of intolerance just as evil as those who seek to deny consenting adults the liberty (not right, mind you) to do what they do.

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.

[UNTstormchaser]

Of course I don't know you, but please don't try and say that you're not gay. I'm not going to look back and read all your voluminous posts on the subject to see if you have acknowledged that previously, but this overwhelming obsession for the defense of gay rights in this thread has gone WAY beyond just a concern for others. Not that I'm bashing your lifestyle of course, but you might as well come clean, because this is much more than too much. Hope it works out well for you and yours.

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.

[UNTstormchaser]

Did you forget about the 20th century, or is that too far back for you to remember?

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.

Edited August 23, 2012 by UNTstormchaser

[foutsrouts]

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.

You're wrong again. There were laws still prevalent in the 20th century (not 19th) that took away rights of racial groups. Gays are not a racial group by the way, and there were laws against what they practice just a very few short years ago. Enough! I let your obsession drag me in once again. My mistake.

[UNTstormchaser]

You're wrong again. There were laws still prevalent in the 20th century (not 19th) that took away rights of racial groups. Gays are not a racial group by the way, and there were laws against what they practice just a very few short years ago. Enough! I let your obsession drag me in once again. My mistake.

I never said there weren't?.....

I believe what I stated was that in the 19th century, there were racist laws. That's it, and that is true. Your obsession with proving me wrong is disturbing.

I also never said that there weren't laws against anal sex just a few years ago. In fact, I mentioned that they were there, which led to my point about 19th century thinking. How did you pass 5th grade reading comprehension, or are you just intentionally being stupid to try to prove a point that isn't there?

[Green P1]

Of course I don't know you, but please don't try and say that you're not gay. I'm not going to look back and read all your voluminous posts on the subject to see if you have acknowledged that previously, but this overwhelming obsession for the defense of gay rights in this thread has gone WAY beyond just a concern for others. Not that I'm bashing your lifestyle of course, but you might as well come clean, because this is much more than too much. Hope it works out well for you and yours.

Nah. Your logic is backwards. It's usually the ones who argue the loudest against homosexuality that are the homos.

[foutsrouts]

Nah. Your logic is backwards. It's usually the ones who argue the loudest against homosexuality that are the homos.

That's probably true. But the ones who try to keep a thread of their interest going to the top of the list day and night clearly have a cloaked agenda. They're not generally at it for the good of mankind. Well, wrong choice of word there.

[foutsrouts]

I never said there weren't?.....

I believe what I stated was that in the 19th century, there were racist laws. That's it, and that is true. Your obsession with proving me wrong is disturbing.

I also never said that there weren't laws against anal sex just a few years ago. In fact, I mentioned that they were there, which led to my point about 19th century thinking. How did you pass 5th grade reading comprehension, or are you just intentionally being stupid to try to prove a point that isn't there?

I couldn't care less about your sexuality, but you're clearly an idiot who's obsessed with bringing up your theories on anal sex. I guess your lack of historical education is upsetting to you, and I have no idea how you possibly were admitted to North Texas. You do not have to be intentionally stupid, because it clearly comes natural to you. Truly pathetic.

[UNTstormchaser]

I couldn't care less about your sexuality, but you're clearly an idiot who's obsessed with bringing up your theories on anal sex. I guess your lack of historical education is upsetting to you, and I have no idea how you possibly were admitted to North Texas. You do not have to be intentionally stupid, because it clearly comes natural to you. Truly pathetic.

I'm not even going to bother continuing arguing with you, since you're not even being coherent. I'll leave you with some facts. I haven't proposed a single theory on anal sex. I am straight, thank you. I care about others getting equal rights and being treated respectfully. I excelled in high school history and have already passed both UNT's US history courses with ease.

Your incomprehensible assumptions about me, my sexuality, my intelligence, my knowledge of basic historical events, etc., are ludicrous, unwarranted, unjustifiable, and just plain false. Truly pathetic that you take Statement A and turn it into Fallacy 7X. None of your claims about what I've said even make sense, let alone make you seem like the more intelligent man. Enjoy living life under a blindfold.

[UNTstormchaser]

I couldn't care less about your sexuality, but you're clearly an idiot who's obsessed with bringing up your theories on anal sex. I guess your lack of historical education is upsetting to you, and I have no idea how you possibly were admitted to North Texas. You do not have to be intentionally stupid, because it clearly comes natural to you. Truly pathetic.

I'm going to demonstrate your logic in one simple place for all to see.

"If someone passionately defends gay rights, they must be gay, too."

"If someone mentions that in the 19th Century, there were racist laws and practices, that person must be ignorant to the fact that the 20th Century had racist laws as well, but to a much lesser extent, and that person must be an ignoramus."

"If someone mentions that in the 19th Century there were laws that we see as backwards thinking today, in an argument for gay marriage, that person must believe gays are a racial group, and is again an ignoramus."

That's essentially the logic you've demonstrated. Congratulations, you've passed Twisting Statements To Turn An Argument In Your Favor 101 at the NeoNazi UnChrist-like Christian Academy of Bigoted Americans.

Edited August 23, 2012 by UNTstormchaser

[GreenMachine]

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.

Unfortunately, every group that is discriminated against feels like they are discriminated against the most. There is a lot of discrimination going around, I don't think you are able to determine which group is discrimated against the most. My sis-in-law is Jewish and she could tell you some pretty sad stories that would make your anti-gay marriage stories pretty tame.

[foutsrouts]

I'm not even going to bother continuing arguing with you, since you're not even being coherent. I'll leave you with some facts. I haven't proposed a single theory on anal sex. I am straight, thank you. I care about others getting equal rights and being treated respectfully. I excelled in high school history and have already passed both UNT's US history courses with ease.

Your incomprehensible assumptions about me, my sexuality, my intelligence, my knowledge of basic historical events, etc., are ludicrous, unwarranted, unjustifiable, and just plain false. Truly pathetic that you take Statement A and turn it into Fallacy 7X. None of your claims about what I've said even make sense, let alone make you seem like the more intelligent man. Enjoy living life under a blindfold.

"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."

HA! You're just not very good at this agenda you've attached yourself to now are you! HAHA!

[UNTstormchaser]

Unfortunately, every group that is discriminated against feels like they are discriminated against the most. There is a lot of discrimination going around, I don't think you are able to determine which group is discrimated against the most. My sis-in-law is Jewish and she could tell you some pretty sad stories that would make your anti-gay marriage stories pretty tame.

I'm aware it isn't the only case. It's just the hot topic of the present day and the one where both sides have the most passion for whatever reason. There are plenty of instances, even in today's US, where every group is discriminated against, and there is no questioning that. I'm sure your sister in-law has been through hell and back during some times of her life, especially in this country where her religion is a minority. Isn't it sad how it's always the minorities that are discriminated against? Trust me, I'd love nothing more than everyone getting along. That's why I push so hard when it comes to this, and that's why I get equally upset at the Sikh shooting and at the man who tried killing people in the FRC headquarters.

[UNTstormchaser]

"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."

HA! You're just not very good at this agenda you've attached yourself to now are you! HAHA!

That's no theory my friend. That's all fact. Good try though! Want a cookie or a medal?

[foutsrouts]

I'm going to demonstrate your logic in one simple place for all to see.

"If someone passionately defends gay rights, they must be gay, too."

"If someone mentions that in the 19th Century, there were racist laws and practices, that person must be ignorant to the fact that the 20th Century had racist laws as well, but to a much lesser extent, and that person must be an ignoramus."

"If someone mentions that in the 19th Century there were laws that we see as backwards thinking today, in an argument for gay marriage, that person must believe gays are a racial group, and is again an ignoramus."

That's essentially the logic you've demonstrated. Congratulations, you've passed Twisting Statements To Turn An Argument In Your Favor 101 at the NeoNazi UnChrist-like Christian Academy of Bigoted Americans.

You forgot to mention that I called you out for saying: But, I'm 100% fair with my judgments, I assure you! I didn't want you to miss anything in my "NeoNazi agenda. HAHA!! Basically, you're trying to defend yourself for your misstatements, but that's OK because I understand your shortcomings.

By the way, aren't you the new kid on the block who came in a few weeks ago, and proclaimed with his first post that: WE ALL NEED TO START GETTING ALONG HERE! NO MORE FIGHTING, NO MORE ARGUING, AND THIS BOARD SHOULD ALL BE ABOUT PEACE AND LOVE AND ALL THINGS GOOD AND WONDERFUL! Well, why have you turned into the most argumentative poster this board has ever seen? You've got problems bud. I'm pretty much done with you, but of course I have the right to slap back if you don't go away.

[UNTstormchaser]

You forgot to mention that I called you out for saying: But, I'm 100% fair with my judgments, I assure you! I didn't want you to miss anything in my "NeoNazi agenda. HAHA!! Basically, you're trying to defend yourself for your misstatements, but that's OK because I understand your shortcomings.

By the way, aren't you the new kid on the block who came in a few weeks ago, and proclaimed with his first post that: WE ALL NEED TO START GETTING ALONG HERE! NO MORE FIGHTING, NO MORE ARGUING, AND THIS BOARD SHOULD ALL BE ABOUT PEACE AND LOVE AND ALL THINGS GOOD AND WONDERFUL! Well, why have you turned into the most argumentative poster this board has ever seen? You've got problems bud. I'm pretty much done with you, but of course I have the right to slap back if you don't go away.

I'm at a loss for words. You've ruined me and my man loving agenda...

Anyways, back to reality, I stand by my statement. I haven't said anything to compromise that. I'm very fair when I judge you for having the mental capacity of a drunk 11 year old, because, that's exactly the intelligence level you've shown so far. Perhaps, the NeoNazi part slipped right over your head. Maybe, just maybe, I was trying to make the point that anyone can make a ludicrous statement based on little evidence about the other person. Your opinion that I said that in complete seriousness to try to belittle you MUST be the correct opinion though, since I'm just a naive little boy who will grow to hate logic one day too.

You've still yet to point out a legitimate misstatement, and you've yet to produce a single piece of evidence as to why I am wrong about anything I've said. All you've done so far is unsuccessfully tell me that I was incorrect in saying that there were racist laws in the 19th century, incorrectly assume that I'm gay, and then continue to argue as if you've proven evolution wrong or something.

I don't think that those were even remotely close to my exact words, but yeah, that was me. I believe I said something closer to "We should stop petty arguments over stupid meaningless crap and turn that passion into more support for our school", and since social issues such as this are neither stupid, nor meaningless, it doesn't apply. I'm sure you'll just see this logical explanation as another useless excuse from the gay Antichrist liberal commie boy from Yankee land who inexplicably was accepted to UNT despite his obvious mental retardation.

I respect UNT90 and his views. I respect TFLF and his views. Despite the ridiculous bickering that happened between us, I respect GreenMachine and his views, though I may not agree with his tendency to namecall every time he's proven wrong. I have to say, you're the first person I've lost respect for, though I doubt you care even one little bit (nor should you care), since you've done nothing but try to patronize me and prove me wrong as if I'm some sort of mindless little rebel who just needs to fall back in line since I'm obviously impossible of thinking in the correct manner. Or, I think the more likely scenario is that you think I'm gay, despite the fact that I'm not, and you're going to try to prove me wrong at every turn so you can go to sleep knowing you've done "The Lord's Work". People like you sicken me.