http://news.yahoo.com/yes-side-joyous-count-starts-irish-gay-marriage-090519559.html

Have fun everyone.

Good day for the 50% of the furry population roughly speaking 50% who are bi/gay.

I thought it was 90%.
dat voter percentage... interesting

That's nice.

Think of all the babies that will be born as a result of celebrations of this event!

and we all had a gay ol' time

This is irrelevant. What are the zoophilia laws?

Lance_Armstrong said:
This is irrelevant. What are the zoophilia laws?

Finland's got ya covered

Yay, human rights had prevailed!

post #332600

Lance_Armstrong said:
This is irrelevant. What are the zoophilia laws?

I'm working on it, give me some time!

Though I'm not really. Working on research, hopefully get to speak at a conference about the topic, but laws? Not so much. Speaking of research, maybe I'll put out a call for interviews here if no one minds. I bet there's a decent number of zoophiles here.

I guess you can say that....
*puts on sunglasses*
...they were really gay when they won the vote

TheHuskyK9 said:
I guess you can say that....
*puts on sunglasses*
...they were really gay when they won the vote

Get it? Because it also means "happy"...?

HEH HEH

Someone remembers the orginal meaning. :3

Clawdragons said:
I'm working on it, give me some time!

Though I'm not really. Working on research, hopefully get to speak at a conference about the topic, but laws? Not so much. Speaking of research, maybe I'll put out a call for interviews here if no one minds. I bet there's a decent number of zoophiles here.

It's not my place to judge but just be aware that linking to and talking about act of bestiality/zoophilia are very much against the rules here.

I thought that the rule is that talking about real-life bestiality (the act) is forbidden (for legal reasons, I think?) but talking about zoophilia (the orientation) in general is not. In other words, my understanding is that asking for volunteers for interviewees on the subject of zoophilia would not be against the rules. Am I incorrect in this understanding?

I wonder if they throw potatoes or instant mashed potatoes instead of rice at the weddings in ireland

The "no" side was a much better loser than the "yes" side would have been.

Munkelzahn said:
The "no" side was a much better loser than the "yes" side would have been.

The no side just has to deal with the idea that the icky icky gay people can get married. If the yes side had lost, they'd continue to be denied equal treatment under the law.

I think the yes side would have every right to be sore losers.

Honestly I hope I'm misunderstanding your comment because it seems really dumb to me.

Munkelzahn said:
The "no" side was a much better loser than the "yes" side would have been.

edgy

Clawdragons said:
Honestly I hope I'm misunderstanding your comment because it seems really dumb to me.

See? That's exactly what I mean.

More than 80% of Christians in the US, yet every time a "gay" law gets passed they whine about how horribly oppressed they are by the "gay agenda."

Yeah, the Religious side of these debates aren't a bunch of sore losers at all. Keep in mind the percentage of Irish Catholics in Ireland is even higher.

I've heard anti-gay idiots claim that gays wear razor-rings to cut people's hands when they give handshakes and thus infect them with AIDS.

I've never heard a claim as stupid as that coming from anyone supporting gay rights.

Seems relevant to the "who's a bigger sore loser" point, though tangentially.

Every side of any argument is full of assholes. Look at what happened to Brendan Eich.

Munkelzahn said:
The "no" side was a much better loser than the "yes" side would have been.

Well it was more or less a vote between.

"I don't like your favorite color so you shouldn't be able to wear it on your shirt"

And "I don't like your favorite color but I can't stop you from wearing it on your shirt"

Personal opinion of "I don't like your favorite color" is just as irrelevant as the argument "I don't like it when boys marry boys"

Your personal opinion hardly matters on something that doesn't hurt anyone. So not allowing me to wear a purple shirt just makes you an asshole who has no sense of fairness....

You guys need to chill

TheHuskyK9 said:
You guys need to chill

Take a chill pill.

Ozelot said:
Take a chill pill.

Take two chill pills for instant relief that last up to 24 hours

Clawdragons said:
I thought that the rule is that talking about real-life bestiality (the act) is forbidden (for legal reasons, I think?) but talking about zoophilia (the orientation) in general is not. In other words, my understanding is that asking for volunteers for interviewees on the subject of zoophilia would not be against the rules. Am I incorrect in this understanding?

That is why I said "talking about the act of zoophilia/bestiality".
So yes, asking for volunteers to an interview on the matter would be okay, the interview itself on our site probably not.

Munkelzahn said:
The "no" side was a much better loser than the "yes" side would have been.

you're absolutely right

If they would come up with a vote for homosexual marriage here in Germany I would vote "yes",too. I'm 98% straight, but everybody should have the right to marry the one he/she loves.

Religion is way too overrated.

NotMeNotYou said:
That is why I said "talking about the act of zoophilia/bestiality".
So yes, asking for volunteers to an interview on the matter would be okay, the interview itself on our site probably not.

But what if the act isnt focused in the interview? Just things like "how does the enviroment reacts?" or "Favourite animal liking (sounds a bit more akward then it should)" [section= P.S.] Also um Missverständnisse vorzubeugen: Ein interview das die Zoophilie (Umgang, Reaktionen der Umgebung etc.) beleuchtet und nicht auf das ausüben Dieser eingeht wäre demnach in Ordnung? Reine Neugier, ist ja nicht ganz unverfänglich

D4rk said:
Religion is way too overrated.

I'd argue that using religion as an excuse to reaffirm prejudices is overrated.

Munkelzahn said:
The "no" side was a much better loser than the "yes" side would have been.

Funnily enough, I agree with you

Munkelzahn said:
The "no" side was a much better loser than the "yes" side would have been.

Well, if "yes" side loses it has several real life consequences to them. If "no" side lose then their imaginary friend is a bit angry. It's natural that "yes" side would be more sore after losing.

Granberia said:
If "no" side lose then their imaginary friend is a bit angry.

That post was so edgy I cut myself on it.

"Yes" side won. Indirect discussion over.

Rampancy said:
I'd argue that using religion as an excuse to reaffirm prejudices is overrated.

The biggest enemy of gay marriage is the church where I live. I can clearly say that their reasons haven't any sense and are overrated.

Just my opinion about that.

D4rk said:
I can clearly say that their reasons haven't any sense and are overrated.

I'm not disagreeing with that.

Rampancy said:
I'm not disagreeing with that.

Oh, then I missunderstood that.
Excuse me, sir.