T1B

Bace wrote:some people interpret the same scripture a different way than you. are all weddings, whether they be dull or fabulous, performed in their churches to be considered marriages or are they some lesser civil unions?

There are actually not many churches which are performing homosexual marriages.

I've told you what I consider marriage to be.
Such a marriage could occur in most any church, I suppose.

I don't consider two homosexuals to be married, although a pastor may have performed a ceremony with them.
It's my perspective and we can all think whatever we want.

Truman wrote:

bradhusker wrote:ARE YOU HURT by science? Does science bother you? You seem to be really defensive here?

Interesting take, brad, being that SCIENCE signs Mikey's paycheck.

Pretty much true. Maybe that's why SCIENCE scares me.

poptart wrote:

Jsc wrote:But merely because your religion prohibits same sex marriages does not mean that you get to impose that policy on the rest of us.

poptart wrote: I don't care if two people find someone to "marry" them.
It's not my business.
I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all.

Funny how when ballot measures come up to give gay/lesbian couples the right to civil unions the conservatives go apeshit.

If conservatives were really so concerned about the sanctity of marriage being violated by gay marriages they'd be proposing & supporting civil unions. Yet every time it comes up for a vote they stonewall such proposals.

Save your "I don't care as long as they don't call it marriage" bullshit for those imbeciles who are gullible enough to buy it. I'm not one of them.

Simmer down, pedo. They aren't going to let you marry ten year old boys any time soon.

Diego wrote:Funny how when ballot measures come up to give gay/lesbian couples the right to civil unions the conservatives go apeshit.

If conservatives were really so concerned about the sanctity of marriage being violated by gay marriages they'd be proposing & supporting civil unions. Yet every time it comes up for a vote they stonewall such proposals.

Save your "I don't care as long as they don't call it marriage" bullshit for those imbeciles who are gullible enough to buy it. I'm not one of them.

1) I didn't know that a person exercising their right to vote = going apeshit. Interesting.

2) I think I was very clear that I consider marriage to be an individual's business and not the gov's, or mine. Why are you angrily lecturing me?

3) As noted a couple of times, sodomy was a felony in every American location until 1962. There are simply a lot of people who recognize that man-man butt-sex is... extremely vile. And there are a lot of folks who are not dull enough to fall for the endless propaganda which tries to pass it off as nice, glamorous, cool, normal, sexy, or acceptable. It's none of those things.

pop, the legal definition of 'sodomy' also included male-female sex, including fellatio in some instances.

Are you seriously going to do anything but laugh at a law that says a man can't fuck his wife in the ass if that's what they're into? Or that she can't blow him during a Raiders-Chargers game?

It was always a patently ridiculous law that was basically never enforced, and for obvious good reason. Don't even try to use the fact that there were worthless laws against sodomy as a means of proving any anti-gay point. That's only slightly less silly than quoting Old Testament scriptures in an effort to do the same.

Originally in American law, sodomy included just anal sex and bestiality (sorry, Mace).
Serious negative health consequences and a Biblical understanding of it's immorality were the reason for the laws.

Fellatio was later added - health consequences cited.

Before universal repeal in 2003 (nice over-reach, Supreme Court) the laws did not apply to married couples in some states.
In these states, married couples could do what they want, legally.

I think a state ought to maintain the right to have sodomy laws (drawn up to their own standard) if they want, but I halfway agree with you that laws on the books which are basically impossible to enforce are, at the end of the day, futile.
But behind such a law, even if it is basically unenforceable, is the establishment of an undercurrent of decency and morality, which can be an important thing for a society.

Look at where the country has gone over the last 40 years.
Culturally, it's very coarse and decadent.

The "progressives" in America have pushed very hard for male butt-sex to be legitimized.
"Make it a marriage, even."
"Oh, don't they look SO cute?"
Do people really stop to think about the act, or are they mesmerized and moved by the full-court-press propaganda assault which media, entertainment, and culture jams at them?
Zombies.

Progressives.
Progress? lol

I laffed hard.

Whatever it is they think they are progressing toward, I can say for sure that I am 100% not IN.

Yet you'd still let a woman blow you, and if she was hot enough or at least persuasive enough you'd also do her in the ass, Bible/health issues/silly laws notwithstanding.

Any arguments to the contrary are utterly futile. People have always done these things in basically any worthwhile society you care to name, and it's never had any bearing on whether that society foundered or prospered.

Van wrote:People have always done these things in basically any worthwhile society you care to name, and it's never had any bearing on whether that society foundered or prospered.

Sodom and Gomorrah



viewtopic.php?f=35&t=40573

The generation who took God's Word as a joke.

:wink:

Jsc810 wrote:

intolerance goes BOTH ways you cum-stain.

Trying to force the Boy scouts organization to have openly gay scout leaders.
Trying to force Chick Filet to be open on Sundays and hire openly gay crew members.
Trying to force the MASTERS to do anything they dont want to do.
Trying to force the manager of MACYS to take down a christmas tree and quit playing christmas music

intolerant leftist creeps.

Mikey wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:
But do you WANT your kid to be gay?

Does anybody in here WANT your kid to be gay?

I don't think anybody WANTs their kid to be gay.

It would be pretty cool if smackaholic's was, though.

they'd prolly do a better job keeping their room picked up. there is that.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

smackaholic wrote:They shouldn't be denied any of those, but, there are certain positions where I just don't fukking want them. Boy scout leader is one. If you can't figure out why, you are a seriously stupid motherfukker.

Word. Sick and tired of reading about all these out-of-closet liberal fags banging kiddies. It's never the married unassuming conservative guy with glasses and a bad comb over.

Personally, I think children should ONLY be mentored by members of the clergy. Specifically, members of the Catholic priesthood. I'll go a step further and say all of these mentoring moments should take place inside padlocked sheds with no windows deep in the hinterlands. What could possibly go wrong?

I love how Mgo brings up catholic priests. MEANWHILE, in towns all over the country we read about a student getting diddled by a teacher or coach from our wonderful government school system. And this has been going on for decades and decades.
Seriously, the left constantly bashes the catholic church, and rightfully so, HOWEVER, they are strangely silent on the thousands of students over the years being molested and seduced by their teachers or coaches. And im being kind, those are only the incidents being reported. The catholic church has nothing on the schools when it comes to inappropriate sexual encounters between adults and minors.

FACT. look it up.

Van wrote:pop, the legal definition of 'sodomy' also included male-female sex, including fellatio in some instances.

Are you seriously going to do anything but laugh at a law that says a man can't fuck his wife in the ass if that's what they're into? Or that she can't blow him during a Raiders-Chargers game?

It was always a patently ridiculous law that was basically never enforced, and for obvious good reason. Don't even try to use the fact that there were worthless laws against sodomy as a means of proving any anti-gay point. That's only slightly less silly than quoting Old Testament scriptures in an effort to do the same.

AGAIN, this is science which explains why an anus wasnt meant for a giant cock to violate it. Just look at what this does? And, keep in mind, this is the MAIN act of two gay men.
WHAT? are you dellusional to think that gay men just hold one another?
NO WAY. Between commercial breaks on star trek, Spock was thrusting his big vulcan cock right up Sulu's sphincter, with Shatner's blessing no doubt.

Point being is this, its SCIENCE which shows that an anus was meant to be "exit only". Its the way the body was designed. Doesnt matter if you are religious or NOT. You cant argue with scientific fact.

I love winning. And mikey knows I am correct here. Though he wont admit it.

bradhusker wrote:Between commercial breaks on star trek, Spock was thrusting his big vulcan cock right up Sulu's sphincter, with Shatner's blessing no doubt.

Certified Cockologist.

Is there a PHD in cockology?

Jsc wrote:I'll continue to oppose you

Do you want to meet me and have a fist fight? :)


As I said, I think marriage is an individual issue.
What someone else wants to do is not my business - and I don't think it ought to be the government's business.

What we have now, however is a situation (which I doubt will change) where the gov has made what should be an individual business, THEIR business, and thereby, everybody's business.

Because of gov involvement, a marriage standard must be in place.
I think the clear rightful standard is man/woman.

Jsc810 wrote:Pop, fuck your Bible. It is a book of fiction, I really don't care what it says, or what you think it means.

Very intolerant and full of bullying. Congratulations.

Jsc810 wrote:I respect pop's faith

"Pop, fuck your Bible."

Yeah, sure you do.

Then he can speak directly to Pop about that. I was pointing out his obvious hatred for religion, despite what he says. Let me guess, next he'll remind everyone that he's an ordained minister so he must be very spiritual.

Python wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Pop, fuck your Bible. It is a book of fiction, I really don't care what it says, or what you think it means.

Very intolerant and full of bullying. Congratulations.

Try sharing a religious view other than the christian faith with a thumper....then you'll really see intolerance. And as far as bullying...christianity has cornered that market...for centuries.

poptart wrote:

Van wrote:People have always done these things in basically any worthwhile society you care to name, and it's never had any bearing on whether that society foundered or prospered.

Sodom and Gomorrah



viewtopic.php?f=35&t=40573

The generation who took God's Word as a joke.

:wink:

Like I said. I wasn't referring to episodes from silly fairy tales.

Jsc810 wrote:Py, I do respect his faith, if that's what he wants to believe then good for him. But when his faith interferes with the constitutional rights of other people, that's when his faith can go fuck itself.

So you respect his faith, as long as it's something you agree with. Otherwise, fuck his faith. I got it. Just wanted to make sure what you originally posted was what you meant. Obviously it was.

This thread is creepy.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:
Not sure how "radically religious" became confused with "conservative," since the "religious right" is an EXTREMELY liberal sect.

still laughing. Goldwater is dead. Has been since Reagan hopped in bed with the religious freaks. The "conservatives" have embraced those religious freaks and absorbed their principles. Those principles do not include doing whatever you want in your own home.


Maybe you need to rethink your "affiliation" because you don't share their ideas.

Forget it, Bace. His affiliation is based on his perception of "Conservative, good. Liberal, bad."

Yeah, you could say the same thing of about 90% of this board, but it's somewhat ironic since Dins considers himself a cut above, intellectually speaking. It's also ironic that he agrees with that take in that it's very Reagan-esque, given his rather unReagan-esque definition of "conservative."

Van wrote:

poptart wrote:

Van wrote:People have always done these things in basically any worthwhile society you care to name, and it's never had any bearing on whether that society foundered or prospered.

Sodom and Gomorrah



viewtopic.php?f=35&t=40573

The generation who took God's Word as a joke.

:wink:

Like I said. I wasn't referring to episodes from silly fairy tales.

Actually Van, dont laugh at Sodom and Gomorrah. I believe that a couple of decades ago, during a dig, scientists came upon a lost city. This find was very very telling, LET ME JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT.
The graphic fossilized remains were X rated to say the least. Apparently, one of the lead scientists was an atheist, a real left wing hater. So, he ordered the dig to be completely covered up with explosives. The entire site was completely filled in, and, from what I understand, it would have proved the exsistence of Sodom and Gomorrah without any doubt.

Jsc810 wrote:

Python wrote:So you respect his faith, as long as it's something you agree with. Otherwise, fuck his faith. I got it. Just wanted to make sure what you originally posted was what you meant. Obviously it was.

I respect his faith, and I don't agree with it. I respect the faith of those who believe in Shiva, Apollo, Zeus, Thor, Allah, and Buddha, and I don't agree with them.

But when those faiths attempt to prevent other citizens from enjoying their fundamental constitutional rights, then fuck them.

Glad I could clear this up.

Could you please post this "constitutional right" that two fairies have to get married. Cause I must have missed it during my years at Columbia.

bradhusker wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:

Python wrote:So you respect his faith, as long as it's something you agree with. Otherwise, fuck his faith. I got it. Just wanted to make sure what you originally posted was what you meant. Obviously it was.

I respect his faith, and I don't agree with it. I respect the faith of those who believe in Shiva, Apollo, Zeus, Thor, Allah, and Buddha, and I don't agree with them.

But when those faiths attempt to prevent other citizens from enjoying their fundamental constitutional rights, then fuck them.

Glad I could clear this up.

Could you please post this "constitutional right" that two fairies have to get married. Cause I must have missed it during my years at Columbia.

It's rignt next to the right to carry an assault rifle.

bradhusker wrote: Actually Van, dont laugh at Sodom and Gomorrah. I believe that a couple of decades ago, during a dig, scientists came upon a lost city. This find was very very telling, LET ME JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT.
The graphic fossilized remains were X rated to say the least. Apparently, one of the lead scientists was an atheist, a real left wing hater. So, he ordered the dig to be completely covered up with explosives. The entire site was completely filled in, and, from what I understand, it would have proved the exsistence of Sodom and Gomorrah without any doubt.

I hear you brad. They actually did save Lot's wife from that excavation.

As shown below, she's a little larger than she originally was.

bradhusker wrote:Actually Van, dont laugh at Sodom and Gomorrah. I believe that a couple of decades ago, during a dig, scientists came upon a lost city. This find was very very telling, LET ME JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT.
The graphic fossilized remains were X rated to say the least. Apparently, one of the lead scientists was an atheist, a real left wing hater. So, he ordered the dig to be completely covered up with explosives. The entire site was completely filled in, and, from what I understand, it would have proved the exsistence of Sodom and Gomorrah without any doubt.

This is flat out spam. Total bullshit that dribbles out of your feeble brain. Why don’t you go ahead and link up a source for this little fairy tale, you steaming pile of shit. You suck out loud.

Besides, whether the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah ever actually existed in ancient times isn't the issue. The point is that their reason for destruction/method of destruction—according to pop's beliefs—is pure fairy tale silliness.

Careful Van. With an attitude like that you could get turned into newt. Or even worse, a Newt.

If that should happen, can I keep his money while trading his wife in on a younger model again?

I'll take that deal.

Van wrote:If that should happen, can I keep his money while trading his wife in on a younger model again?

Yep...conservatives believe that marriage is between a man & a woman...and a woman....and a woman....

If that isn't a sacrosanct institution, what is?!

KC Scott wrote:Py

JSC saying that is no more hypocritical than tart saying this

As I said, I think marriage is an individual issue.
What someone else wants to do is not my business

Absolutely not hypocritical.

I don't think another person's affairs should be my business.
However the government has made it my business, and all of our business, by being involved in it.

When the government is involved in something, we ALL are involved in something.
Because the gov supposedly belongs to the people, we are given the right to vote and to have (supposed) representatives to see that the gov operates in accordance with our will.

If the gov wants to be in marriage, then the people sure have the right to speak up about what sort of standard it maintains.

I happen to think that the gov ought not put it's stamp of approval on deviance.
They ought not sanction that.

poptart wrote: If the gov wants to be in marriage, then the people sure have the right to speak up about what sort of standard it maintains.

so we can vote to make all muslim marriages null and void? we can vote to make all interracial marriages null and void? we can vote to keep infertile people from marrying because they are only doing it for property breaks?

Bace, that last one sounds pretty reasonable.

as a person in an interracial marriage,i hope they vote to make them null and void

No, no, the one about marrying just to get property breaks. That one sounds kinda shady and probably ought to be met with a resounding "No!" via Laotian firing squad.

Bace wrote:so we can vote to make all muslim marriages null and void?

I don't think so.
Sounds like a blatant case of discrimination based on one's religion.

we can vote to make all interracial marriages null and void?

It was shot down due to being discriminatory, based on a person's race.

we can vote to keep infertile people from marrying because they are only doing it for property breaks?

I don't think so.
A person's reason(s) for marrying is his own business.