- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- 31-0
31-0Follow
Nadenu wrote:
Um... not really. Ewww.
Well, there's just no pleasing you, I reckon.
Probably on account of the huge, cavernous genitals.
*snicker*
Ok, I laughed. I still hate you, though.
It's not my genitals that have a size issue, BT... 
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
It's not my genitals that have a size issue, BT...
Edited, Nov 5th 2009 1:33pm by AshOnMyTomatoes
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
It's not my genitals that have a size issue, BT...
Edited, Nov 5th 2009 1:33pm by AshOnMyTomatoes
I suppose... I was thinking more of the external stuff, though.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
It's not my genitals that have a size issue, BT...
Man, it's just not safe to cover entire states in blanket insults any more, is it?
Also, this image is saved on my computer as "Belkira.jpg":
I really want to look at that picture, but I'm afraid. And in a public place.
Edited, Nov 5th 2009 1:43pm by AshOnMyTomatoes
Edited, Nov 5th 2009 1:43pm by AshOnMyTomatoes
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
I really want to look at that picture, but I'm afraid. And in a public place.
Edited, Nov 5th 2009 1:43pm by AshOnMyTomatoes
Edited, Nov 5th 2009 1:43pm by AshOnMyTomatoes
It's worth it.
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
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?
To be fair, in biblical times - while AIDS didnt exist - you could easily die from STDs that are irrelevant/easily treatable today.
Although its not a fair argument to make if someone claims being gay was outlawed in those days due to the spread of disease. Thats just silly.
Edited, Nov 8th 2009 7:27am by ManifestOfKujata
MDenham wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
Nexa,
Every society has moral restrictions they expect the populace to follow. We don't publicly recognize incest or polygamists yet I don't see you championing their "right" to act on how they feel. Simply saying somethings a right doesn't make it so.
Quote:
It shouldn't be up to "the people" to speak on the rights of a minority.
Every society has moral restrictions they expect the populace to follow. We don't publicly recognize incest or polygamists yet I don't see you championing their "right" to act on how they feel. Simply saying somethings a right doesn't make it so.
You're constantly bringing up incest and polygamy. So, which one do you come from?
I dub this process polycest.
zepoodle wrote:
MDenham wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
Nexa,
Every society has moral restrictions they expect the populace to follow. We don't publicly recognize incest or polygamists yet I don't see you championing their "right" to act on how they feel. Simply saying somethings a right doesn't make it so.
Quote:
It shouldn't be up to "the people" to speak on the rights of a minority.
Every society has moral restrictions they expect the populace to follow. We don't publicly recognize incest or polygamists yet I don't see you championing their "right" to act on how they feel. Simply saying somethings a right doesn't make it so.
You're constantly bringing up incest and polygamy. So, which one do you come from?
I dub this process polycest.
I like how ****'s arguments always boil down to a slipper slope. Why not compare us to rapists too? I mean, they ARE sexual deviants and all.
at least try to argue the topic at hand instead of trying to compare it to something that has no relevance.
As a side, I don't think varrus should be able to vote, because then they would have to let children (who have the same IQ) vote and children shouldn't be allowed to vote.
at least try to argue the topic at hand instead of trying to compare it to something that has no relevance.
As a side, I don't think varrus should be able to vote, because then they would have to let children (who have the same IQ) vote and children shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Meh, I dont think the state should be able to marry anyone, gay or straight. Marriage is a religious thing that should have nothing to do with the state.
The only thing the state should be doing is recognizing couples as a legal single entity (well, under the provisions straight people have) - which can be separate from marriage while guaranteeing hospital visitation rights, tax filing rights, inheritance rights, etc to gays and straights alike. While the religious conservatives will still *****, it wont be as loudly.
The only thing the state should be doing is recognizing couples as a legal single entity (well, under the provisions straight people have) - which can be separate from marriage while guaranteeing hospital visitation rights, tax filing rights, inheritance rights, etc to gays and straights alike. While the religious conservatives will still *****, it wont be as loudly.
ManifestOfKujata wrote:
Meh, I dont think the state should be able to marry anyone, gay or straight. Marriage is a religious thing that should have nothing to do with the state.
The only thing the state should be doing is recognizing couples as a legal single entity (well, under the provisions straight people have) - which can be separate from marriage while guaranteeing hospital visitation rights, tax filing rights, inheritance rights, etc to gays and straights alike. While the religious conservatives will still *****, it wont be as loudly.
The only thing the state should be doing is recognizing couples as a legal single entity (well, under the provisions straight people have) - which can be separate from marriage while guaranteeing hospital visitation rights, tax filing rights, inheritance rights, etc to gays and straights alike. While the religious conservatives will still *****, it wont be as loudly.
"Marriage" means precisely, to those who want it expanded, your entire second paragraph.
"Marriage" is a legal entity at present. If you think it would be easier to completely remove the use of it as a word from the legal and governmental lexicons, replacing it with an entirely reconstructed but identical concept, and codifying the distinction between religion and secular "marriage," creating entirely new restrictions both on church and state, purely to appease who are lost in the foggy mire of the practice of confusing themselves with words, rather than to simply expand an already practical definition to other groups, then that would be silly.
Edited, Nov 8th 2009 1:48pm by Pensive
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
"Marriage" means precisely, to those who want it expanded, your entire second paragraph.
"Marriage" is a legal entity at present. If you think it would be easier to completely remove the use of it as a word from the legal and governmental lexicons, replacing it with an entirely reconstructed but identical concept, and codifying the distinction between religion and secular "marriage," creating entirely new restrictions both on church and state, purely to appease who are lost in the foggy mire of the practice of confusing themselves with words, rather than to simply expand an already practical definition to other groups, then that would be silly.
"Marriage" is a legal entity at present. If you think it would be easier to completely remove the use of it as a word from the legal and governmental lexicons, replacing it with an entirely reconstructed but identical concept, and codifying the distinction between religion and secular "marriage," creating entirely new restrictions both on church and state, purely to appease who are lost in the foggy mire of the practice of confusing themselves with words, rather than to simply expand an already practical definition to other groups, then that would be silly.
I think getting rid of religion would be much more productive than getting rid of "marriage".
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Bardalicious wrote:
I like how ****'s arguments always boil down to a slipper slope.
I love the way they embrace composition fallacies personally.
Recent Visitors: 216
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (216)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- 31-0
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC