Moderator: Community Team
Nope, she just repeated what you guys all wanted to hear.InkL0sed wrote:Player won this thread 50 pages or so back.
And you guys just refused to listen and continued babbling the same crap you usually do.silvanricky wrote:Nope, she just repeated what you guys all wanted to hear.InkL0sed wrote:Player won this thread 50 pages or so back.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
You know, I am really thinking of something witty to say. I'll just say WTF?suggs wrote:Marriage as we know it is based on a load of Catholic mumbo-jumbo (which, to simplify, they came up with in the Couter Reformation, to try and jazz the Church up a bit, in response to thye Protestant threat).

saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
Whatever, you stuck-up idiot. Your opinions are no better or "more noble", as you put it, than anyone else's. Until you get that through your pompous skull you'll never convince anyone of your position, but maybe that was never your intent. Simply saying the other side's arguments are crap doesn't make it true. It just means you're just as guilty of presuming you're right as the other side.Neoteny wrote:And you guys just refused to listen and continued babbling the same crap you usually do.silvanricky wrote:Nope, she just repeated what you guys all wanted to hear.InkL0sed wrote:Player won this thread 50 pages or so back.
That was pure flame, and no argument.silvanricky wrote: Whatever, you stuck-up idiot. Your opinions are no better or "more noble", as you put it, than anyone else's. Until you get that through your pompous skull you'll never convince anyone of your position, but maybe that was never your intent. Simply saying the other side's arguments are crap doesn't make it true. It just means you're just as guilty of presuming you're right as the other side.
If you look real close at when I came in on this thread I said I could care less if 2 people wanted to have sex with each other in their own homes. What I found offensive was when they tried to compare themselves to Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement and also when they threaten to donate to the local blood supply unless they get what they want.
You're a fucking arrogant asshole, Neotony and you're beliefs do not make you better than anyone else.
Whatever, as if he has done anything more than say other peoples arguments are crap. Look at the 2nd paragraph and then look at my original post, Ink. It was about comparing the civil rights movement to gay marriage. There certainly was a point made with no flaming but I received the initial attack from him.InkL0sed wrote:That was pure flame, and no argument.silvanricky wrote: Whatever, you stuck-up idiot. Your opinions are no better or "more noble", as you put it, than anyone else's. Until you get that through your pompous skull you'll never convince anyone of your position, but maybe that was never your intent. Simply saying the other side's arguments are crap doesn't make it true. It just means you're just as guilty of presuming you're right as the other side.
If you look real close at when I came in on this thread I said I could care less if 2 people wanted to have sex with each other in their own homes. What I found offensive was when they tried to compare themselves to Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement and also when they threaten to donate to the local blood supply unless they get what they want.
You're a fucking arrogant asshole, Neotony and you're beliefs do not make you better than anyone else.
Except, ofcourse, for the fact that they are not discriminatory nor based on misguided views on what homosexuality actually is. The problem with you people is that you spout about that all opinions are equal (ignoring ofcourse the times your opinion is better) when any 3-year old child knows they just aren't. I can savely say that my opinion about race are better, and certainly more noble, than those of the average white supremacist or nazi.silvanricky wrote: Whatever, you stuck-up idiot. Your opinions are no better or "more noble", as you put it, than anyone else's.
Problem is that we've showed why the other side's arguments are crap. Sancticity of marriage or bullshit about gays being unable to raise kids are just really, really crap arguments. They fly in the face of the actual facts. Claiming that two people who love eachother dearly marrying (who just happen to be of the same sex) is somehow worse than the countless divorces, spousal abuse and cheating is frankly ridiculous. There is no sancticity of marriage, there are merely people who can make it like that.Simply saying the other side's arguments are crap doesn't make it true. It just means you're just as guilty of presuming you're right as the other side.
Good for you.If you look real close at when I came in on this thread I said I could care less if 2 people wanted to have sex with each other in their own homes.
Problem is that only a few people actually do this. There are many homosexuals who really don't do that.What I found offensive was when they tried to compare themselves to Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement and also when they threaten to donate to the local blood supply unless they get what they want.
That's what we've been telling you all along...silvanricky wrote:Simply saying the other side's arguments are crap doesn't make it true.
Then explain why and we'll have a sane discussion about it. Calling people 'assholes' and casting other aspersions just undermines the credibility of your opinions and makes you appear like somebody who is unable to debate on a level higher than schoolyard taunting.silvanricky wrote:What I found offensive was when they tried to compare themselves to Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
This would be bad if I really gave a f*ck about the poll. I don't really care whether there is a majority supporting this, as a majority vote doesn't make something right.Napoleon Ier wrote:And yet, you're still being nailed in the poll. Oh dear, snorri. Oh dear.
One would think Nappy would be quite aware of this -- seeing as how he usually seems to have a minority/extreme opinion.Snorri1234 wrote:This would be bad if I really gave a f*ck about the poll. I don't really care whether there is a majority supporting this, as a majority vote doesn't make something right.Napoleon Ier wrote:And yet, you're still being nailed in the poll. Oh dear, snorri. Oh dear.
I'm just winding thingami1234 up.InkL0sed wrote:One would think Nappy would be quite aware of this -- seeing as how he usually seems to have a minority/extreme opinion.Snorri1234 wrote:This would be bad if I really gave a f*ck about the poll. I don't really care whether there is a majority supporting this, as a majority vote doesn't make something right.Napoleon Ier wrote:And yet, you're still being nailed in the poll. Oh dear, snorri. Oh dear.
And this is why you people are so dangerous. You don't care what the majority says. Thankfully, we have laws which are in place and that require majority votes, not just blind rage opinions against traditions.Snorri1234 wrote:This would be bad if I really gave a f*ck about the poll. I don't really care whether there is a majority supporting this, as a majority vote doesn't make something right.Napoleon Ier wrote:And yet, you're still being nailed in the poll. Oh dear, snorri. Oh dear.
It seems a couple people have beat me to this. I'd just like to note that the "attack" that got your panties all twisted up was in fact in response to your pictures. Here is proof, so that you don't begin ranting and calling me names:silvanricky wrote:Whatever, as if he has done anything more than say other peoples arguments are crap. Look at the 2nd paragraph and then look at my original post, Ink. It was about comparing the civil rights movement to gay marriage. There certainly was a point made with no flaming but I received the initial attack from him.
That's why I moved on to posting pics. If all you're looking for is someone to argue with then perhaps that's why you're losing this poll. You guys got lapped some time ago from the last time I posted here. It will continue until you realize the arrogance of your attitudes on this subject. I'm not arguing against gay marriage, read my original post again.
Here it is. You are wrong. QED (this one's for you, nappyNeoteny wrote:My first thought was to photoshop the heads from the former picture onto the latter, but I'm not sure I have it in me. The intent wouldn't be disrespectful, but the interpretation would be (so would that make it art?).silvanricky wrote:Personally, I don't care if two flamers want to go at each other in their own house. Just don't try knowingly donating blood to the local Red Cross and contaminate it because that would be criminal. I've actually read stuff from homosexuals who say they'll do that unless they get what they want.
But what is really offensive to me is when people try to say that this -
is the same thing as this -
I think that's Dapper Tom on the right now that I look at it again!
Anyhow, I hope you aren't being sarcastic because...
I don't give a shit what you find offensive. Come down off your high horse and observe that both movements concern the rights of a portion of our population. You can be offended all you want, but all that implies is a closed-minded perspective of the world. Think about things a bit more and maybe they won't bother you as much.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
How many times will it take?bradleybadly wrote:And this is why you people are so dangerous. You don't care what the majority says. Thankfully, we have laws which are in place and that require majority votes, not just blind rage opinions against traditions.Snorri1234 wrote:This would be bad if I really gave a f*ck about the poll. I don't really care whether there is a majority supporting this, as a majority vote doesn't make something right.Napoleon Ier wrote:And yet, you're still being nailed in the poll. Oh dear, snorri. Oh dear.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Absolutely, let them enjoy a ceremony with some liberal pastor where they can get all dressed up as brides and eat cake etc. But from there to bringing forward societal recognition to the matter? No.suggs wrote:To me this seems the crux of the argument. Drawing on J.S. Mills "harm Principle", WHAT FUCKING HARM ARE GAY PEOPLE DOING BY GETTING MARRIED.
Just let people be, for Gods sake. If they wanna marry, let em.
As an aside -- the founding fathers despised the idea of a democracy because it called to mind the mob rule. They preferred the word "republic."bradleybadly wrote:And this is why you people are so dangerous. You don't care what the majority says. Thankfully, we have laws which are in place and that require majority votes, not just blind rage opinions against traditions.Snorri1234 wrote:This would be bad if I really gave a f*ck about the poll. I don't really care whether there is a majority supporting this, as a majority vote doesn't make something right.Napoleon Ier wrote:And yet, you're still being nailed in the poll. Oh dear, snorri. Oh dear.
Norse wrote: But, alas, you are all cock munching rent boys, with an IQ that would make my local spaco clinic blush.
But don't you agree that the fact complete and utter idiots have the same power as well educated intelligent people is bad in a way? To claim that the majority is always right is just silly. If a majority supported executing all black people would that be good?bradleybadly wrote:And this is why you people are so dangerous. You don't care what the majority says. Thankfully, we have laws which are in place and that require majority votes, not just blind rage opinions against traditions.Snorri1234 wrote:This would be bad if I really gave a f*ck about the poll. I don't really care whether there is a majority supporting this, as a majority vote doesn't make something right.Napoleon Ier wrote:And yet, you're still being nailed in the poll. Oh dear, snorri. Oh dear.
Didn't actually answer the question there though did you?Napoleon Ier wrote:Absolutely, let them enjoy a ceremony with some liberal pastor where they can get all dressed up as brides and eat cake etc. But from there to bringing forward societal recognition to the matter? No.suggs wrote:To me this seems the crux of the argument. Drawing on J.S. Mills "harm Principle", WHAT FUCKING HARM ARE GAY PEOPLE DOING BY GETTING MARRIED.
Just let people be, for Gods sake. If they wanna marry, let em.
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
Why not that societal recognition? I'm aware that France is different than the Netherlands, but I honestly don't understand why societal recognition is bad. (I'm talking about your version of gay "civil union" ofcourse without adoption being an option, though calling it marriage would be better but whatever.)Napoleon Ier wrote:Absolutely, let them enjoy a ceremony with some liberal pastor where they can get all dressed up as brides and eat cake etc. But from there to bringing forward societal recognition to the matter? No.suggs wrote:To me this seems the crux of the argument. Drawing on J.S. Mills "harm Principle", WHAT FUCKING HARM ARE GAY PEOPLE DOING BY GETTING MARRIED.
Just let people be, for Gods sake. If they wanna marry, let em.