Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

31-0Follow

#27 Nov 05 2009 at 11:17 AM Rating: Good
NephthysWanderer wrote:
*GASP* Evidently it was a direct result of Glorious Leaders inaction! For shame Obama, why must you hate the gheys?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/05/gay-leaders-blame-tv-ads-obama-loss-maine/?test=latestnews


Quote:
and President Barack Obama's lack of engagement


Any time someone blames someone for NOT doing something, it's usually desperation doing the talking.
#28 Nov 05 2009 at 11:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
NephthysWanderer wrote:
*GASP* Evidently it was a direct result of Glorious Leaders inaction! For shame Obama, why must you hate the gheys?

He also hates retards.

You can imagine how he feels about NixNot.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29REDACTED, Posted: Nov 05 2009 at 11:32 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#30 Nov 05 2009 at 11:33 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's not PC. The new phrase is "That's totally Downs".

Edited, Nov 5th 2009 11:40am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#31 Nov 05 2009 at 11:36 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
From what I understand, yes. It has more to do with the difficulting in legislating polygamy and the instances of birth defects in incest.


If the former were the reason we wouldn't have such a colorful tax code, and if the later were the reason we would have other medical testing procedures required before propagation of a child.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#32 Nov 05 2009 at 11:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That's not PC. The new phrase is "That's totally Downs".

Trig That!
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#33 Nov 05 2009 at 11:39 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Elinda wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That's not PC. The new phrase is "That's totally Downs".

Trig That!
It's a shame they named the kid after a subject it'll never be able to take.
#34 Nov 05 2009 at 11:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
From what I understand, yes. It has more to do with the difficulting in legislating polygamy and the instances of birth defects in incest.


If the former were the reason we wouldn't have such a colorful tax code, and if the later were the reason we would have other medical testing procedures required before propagation of a child.


Honestly, I don't immediately see the great detriment of polygamy and incest, so long as the participants are consenting adults. I think as far as blatantly homophobic anti-gay marriage strategies go, this one employed by Varus is particularly weak, and much weaker than the ped0 argument that usually pops up. I mean, even polygamists are going to identify as hetero or ****, incestuous folk likewise, and if both parties are capable of consent, I just don't see the problem.
#35 Nov 05 2009 at 11:43 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Barkingturtle wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
From what I understand, yes. It has more to do with the difficulting in legislating polygamy and the instances of birth defects in incest.


If the former were the reason we wouldn't have such a colorful tax code, and if the later were the reason we would have other medical testing procedures required before propagation of a child.


Honestly, I don't immediately see the great detriment of polygamy and incest, so long as the participants are consenting adults. I think as far as blatantly homophobic anti-gay marriage strategies go, this one employed by Varus is particularly weak, and much weaker than the ped0 argument that usually pops up. I mean, even polygamists are going to identify as hetero or ****, incestuous folk likewise, and if both parties are capable of consent, I just don't see the problem.
There IS a problem with incest, if they have children. Although there are solutions for that of course.
#36REDACTED, Posted: Nov 05 2009 at 11:44 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) turtle,
#37 Nov 05 2009 at 11:44 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
turtle,

Quote:
I mean, even polygamists are going to identify as hetero or ****, incestuous folk likewise, and if both parties are capable of consent, I just don't see the problem.


But most people do see the problem.
Outside of an archaic set of rules, what IS the problem?
#38REDACTED, Posted: Nov 05 2009 at 11:46 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ash,
#39 Nov 05 2009 at 11:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Ash,

Quote:
Outside of an archaic set of rules, what IS the problem?


You mean besides the moral disintegration of US society?
Did you not see the qualifier in my question?

Also, why does God care about how many wives you have? Have you read the Old Testament?
#40 Nov 05 2009 at 11:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
Honestly, I don't immediately see the great detriment of polygamy and incest, so long as the participants are consenting adults. I think as far as blatantly homophobic anti-gay marriage strategies go, this one employed by Varus is particularly weak, and much weaker than the ped0 argument that usually pops up. I mean, even polygamists are going to identify as hetero or ****, incestuous folk likewise, and if both parties are capable of consent, I just don't see the problem.


Right. It's an asinine argument based on not reason but irrational xenophobia.

Ergo moral majority.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#41 Nov 05 2009 at 11:47 AM Rating: Excellent
For something to constitute moral degradation, you have to show why it is immoral in the first place. Your argument is circular.
#42REDACTED, Posted: Nov 05 2009 at 12:00 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Kavek,
#43 Nov 05 2009 at 12:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Kavek,

Quote:
For something to constitute moral degradation, you have to show why it is immoral in the first place. Your argument is circular.


Then we come back to the increased health risks for those who engage in homosexual sex.
We were talking about polygamy.
#44 Nov 05 2009 at 12:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Kavek,

Quote:
For something to constitute moral degradation, you have to show why it is immoral in the first place. Your argument is circular.


Then we come back to the increased health risks for those who engage in homosexual sex.
Here's a stumper for you: in biblical times, there was no such thing as AIDS. What was the moral reasoning for banning it then?
#45 Nov 05 2009 at 12:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Also, in other areas of life, we reward people for entering into a high risk activity. Or do you think construction workers and soldiers shouldn't be well-payed? Why do you hate our troops?

Spinning is fun.
#46 Nov 05 2009 at 12:09 PM Rating: Good
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
Kavek,

Quote:
For something to constitute moral degradation, you have to show why it is immoral in the first place. Your argument is circular.


Then we come back to the increased health risks for those who engage in homosexual sex.
Here's a stumper for you: in biblical times, there was no such thing as AIDS. What was the moral reasoning for banning it then?


Ash 1 Varus 0
#47 Nov 05 2009 at 12:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
I guess if there were an effective AIDS vaccine, varrus would have no problem with gay sex.

Is that the case, varrus? If AIDS were cured, or preventable, you would have no problem with homosex, right?

Edited, Nov 5th 2009 12:20pm by AshOnMyTomatoes
#48 Nov 05 2009 at 12:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Hmmm, we can also assume that, if transmission of AIDS is the only problem he has with homosexuality, then two consenting gay individuals that have both been screened as HIV- should also be able to have sex with each other, and he wouldn't have a problem with that. That seems reasonable of you varrus. Way to go.
#49 Nov 05 2009 at 12:49 PM Rating: Excellent
publiusvarus wrote:
Kavek,

Quote:
For something to constitute moral degradation, you have to show why it is immoral in the first place. Your argument is circular.


Then we come back to the increased health risks for those who engage in homosexual sex.


That's really the weakest argument against gay marriage yet, you fUcking moron.

I mean, you understand that marriage is a contract of fidelity, right? And that by opposing their fidelity you're encouraging promiscuity and thus the spread of disease, right?

I get it, you pathetic fUcking coward. Gay intercourse makes you feel icky. Frankly the idea of people in Tennessee having sex makes me queasy, too, but I wouldn't deny you white-trash motherfUckers the opportunity to embarrass yourselves by showing off your tiny genitals.
#50 Nov 05 2009 at 1:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Barkingturtle wrote:
Frankly the idea of people in Tennessee having sex makes me queasy, too, but I wouldn't deny you white-trash motherfUckers the opportunity to embarrass yourselves by showing off your tiny genitals.


I used to like you.
#51 Nov 05 2009 at 1:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Nadenu wrote:
Barkingturtle wrote:
Frankly the idea of people in Tennessee having sex makes me queasy, too, but I wouldn't deny you white-trash motherfUckers the opportunity to embarrass yourselves by showing off your tiny genitals.


I used to like you.


Smiley: frown

Would it help if I said your genitals are huge?
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 266 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (266)