- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Prop 8 Overturned
Prop 8 OverturnedFollow
#1502
Aug 23 2010 at 10:11 PM
ITT: Trolling for suckers and page 31.
#1503
Aug 23 2010 at 10:14 PM
So, what's the longest thread on the forums? Only a few hundred pages, right?
I believe in us, guys. I believe in the power we, as a forum, have: the power to make this thread legendary.
I believe in us, guys. I believe in the power we, as a forum, have: the power to make this thread legendary.
#1504
Aug 23 2010 at 10:22 PM
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
So, what's the longest thread on the forums? Only a few hundred pages, right?
#1506
Aug 23 2010 at 10:46 PM
gbaji wrote:
if your interpretation of the Courts position of marriage as a "fundamental right" was correct, anti-polygamy laws would violate the constitution. But that's not the case, is it?
Maybe. We'll know when someone sues on those grounds and someone defends why it's in the state's interest to deny those people their rights. The SCotUS declined to hear such a case back in 2007 (which was just as well for advocates since parts of the case were pretty weak) but maybe it'll come up some day. The court has decided that the right to marry should not be denied to people without compelling reason, i.e. a real harm to society. So it is definitely legal (and even constitutional then under judicial review) to deny someone their right, you just need to have a good reason for doing so. Again, the question is one for the government (or advocate party in this case) to defend what the real harm is in allowing homosexual marriage and how that harm is great enough to justify denying them their right to marry.
This is only about the one billionth time you've had this explained to you so I'm done with this. If you're this incapable of understanding a simple concept, I doubt another billion times will help. I'll catch ya next thread when I'm feeling feistier.
Quote:
But you'll choose the simplistic argument because it's easier to make and when you're in front of an agreeable crowd like this forum, it's all you need.
Yeah, that must be it.
Edited, Aug 23rd 2010 11:47pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1507
Aug 23 2010 at 10:48 PM
Quote:
There's one 645-page thread in someone's journal that got locked because it was slowing the servers down.
Damn it, Kirby.
#1508Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 23 2010 at 10:58 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You sure can, I never said anything to contrary. My personal feelings does not have a role in this at all.
#1509
Aug 23 2010 at 11:09 PM
Almalieque wrote:
Nothing to think about at all. I'm comfortable with my sexuality. I'm just a nice person. When most guys would probably treat them wrong, if I'm around them for some reason, I treat them with the same respect as I would the next guy.
I should be appreciative that you're not weird about it (or so you claim, I suppose), but then I actually read what you wrote.
"if I'm around them for some reason" - honestly! As though you make it a point to avoid "them" but if "they" happen to show up, well, at least God gave you the utmost grace and kindness to treat "them" better than thy peers.
Edited, Aug 24th 2010 1:09am by CBD
#1510Almalieque,
Posted: Aug 23 2010 at 11:16 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Of course, because definitions aren't important, especially the definition of the word that you're using to label someone.... >.>
#1511
Aug 23 2010 at 11:28 PM
CBD wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nothing to think about at all. I'm comfortable with my sexuality. I'm just a nice person. When most guys would probably treat them wrong, if I'm around them for some reason, I treat them with the same respect as I would the next guy.
I should be appreciative that you're not weird about it (or so you claim, I suppose), but then I actually read what you wrote.
"if I'm around them for some reason" - honestly! As though you make it a point to avoid "them" but if "they" happen to show up, well, at least God gave you the utmost grace and kindness to treat "them" better than thy peers.
Edited, Aug 24th 2010 1:09am by CBD
I put that there purposely to be interpreted as such to be honest. I'm not going to lie. I'm an over all loner and I don't like hanging around people. Most of my friends are females. Most of the guys that I know, drink for fun. I hate being around drunk guys because they act stupid. I also don't like hanging around feminine guys, straight or not. The less feminine you act, the more I can push the thought that you're a homosexual away. In any case, it isn't me focusing on them, because I don't like being people in general.
Edited, Aug 24th 2010 8:34am by Almalieque
#1512
Aug 23 2010 at 11:34 PM
Alma wrote:
You're not "so straight that you jack off to gay pron"... You obviously enjoyed it and it's ok, just don't pretend that it's because you're "so straight". And you call me on the down low... lol...
You're obviously not on the downlow, as you've been pretty blatant about ******* up this forum for 31 pages or so now.
Also, this:
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
#1513
Aug 23 2010 at 11:44 PM
Pretty soon, the post count for this thread will be OVER 9000!!1!1
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
#1514
Aug 24 2010 at 1:02 AM
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
There's one 645-page thread in someone's journal that got locked because it was slowing the servers down.
Damn it, Kirby.
#1515
Aug 24 2010 at 2:36 AM
Posting early for page 32.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
#1516
Aug 24 2010 at 2:39 AM
Posting for reply 1515.
Just as Planned.
#1517
Aug 24 2010 at 5:17 AM
This coffee is pretty good. You all needed to know that.
#1518
Aug 24 2010 at 6:20 AM
Alma&c wrote:
You are right and I'm wrong. Violence is indeed a reaction to fear. I was thinking more along the lines of the reaction where people scream and hide. In any case, I seriously doubt that any noticeable percentage of those cases are from fear, especially when you seek them out. It may have started out in fear, but it most definitely brewed into hatred, prejudice and ignorance.
Yup, that's why it's called a fight or flight response. I'm more of a flighter, myself.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
#1519
Aug 24 2010 at 7:33 AM
Almalieque wrote:
You're an idiot even for a troll. There are many things that I'm disgusted by that I'm not afraid of. I think someone getting their butt-licked or vice-versa is pretty disgusting. I don't care what sex combination it is. That doesn't mean I'm afraid of butt-lickers. That's stupid. That doesn't make me a butt-lickaphobe. That doesn't mean I don't want butt lickers to get married.
Okay, what do you feel when you think about butt-licking? Other than hunger, of course.
You feel fear, obviously. You're afraid of eating **** or something, fine. Personally, I ate some *** yesterday, and it was great. My wife reads this board, but she won't open this thread at this point, so I'm safe sharing that as long as you guys don't rat me out and tell her I told you guys. Okay? So don't.
Anyway, Alma, you are so stunted in your ability to empathize with others or even understand others that I honestly believe you're autistic. I usually don't lower myself to talk to jigs, and especially not retarded ones, so good day.
Also, I don't want to hear it from him because I won't read the ten paragraphs he craps out, but what is gbaji's point with the "state objective" thing? Does he think we need to define the "state objective" for marriage? Because I'm pretty sure that through the power of reading I have discerned that the people looking to make laws restricting gay rights have to show the "state's objective" for doing so. Seems just obvious to me.
Edited, Aug 24th 2010 6:37am by Barkingturtle
#1520
Aug 24 2010 at 7:46 AM
Barkingturtle wrote:
Also, I don't want to hear it from him because I won't read the ten paragraphs he craps out, but what is gbaji's point with the "state objective" thing? Does he think we need to define the "state objective" for marriage? Because I'm pretty sure that through the power of reading I have discerned that the people looking to make laws restricting gay rights have to show the "state's objective" for doing so.
Yeah, you got it in one. The ruling for the case in question stated that the state had to show a legitimate objective for any racial classification. I think everyone agrees that the state can deny people rights, but it needs a really good reason for doing so. Gbaji found a phrase he thought was a big zinger so he's ignoring the context and demanding that we all think it means that the state needs a single objective for being involved in marriage. Of course, the paragraph (in fact, the whole document) doesn't back this up but any port in a storm.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1521
Aug 24 2010 at 7:48 AM
I think I can pretty safely say I am a butt-licker-o-phobe. I have an (ir?)rational fear of eating poo.
I came across this article yesterday. It berates Obama for his stance, or non-stance on SSM. The article attempts to compare Woodrow Wilsons opinion on Women's right to vote with Obama's opinion on SSM. The common link created is they both brush it off as a localized, non-national and ultimately non-constitutional issue.
It goes on though, with a timeline of Obama's statements on concerning SSM over the last 14 years. It was sort of interesting.
I came across this article yesterday. It berates Obama for his stance, or non-stance on SSM. The article attempts to compare Woodrow Wilsons opinion on Women's right to vote with Obama's opinion on SSM. The common link created is they both brush it off as a localized, non-national and ultimately non-constitutional issue.
It goes on though, with a timeline of Obama's statements on concerning SSM over the last 14 years. It was sort of interesting.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#1522
Aug 24 2010 at 8:13 AM
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
i and pi walk into a bar.
"God, I wish everyone would stop staring at us," says pi.
"Oh, be rational," replies i.
pi stops in its tracks, appalled. "Th-that's RACIST!"
Edited, Aug 24th 2010 1:10am by Kavekk
"God, I wish everyone would stop staring at us," says pi.
"Oh, be rational," replies i.
pi stops in its tracks, appalled. "Th-that's RACIST!"
Edited, Aug 24th 2010 1:10am by Kavekk
#1523
Aug 24 2010 at 8:16 AM
Almalieque wrote:
Kaelesh wrote:
Of fucking course there would be. Are you dense or just trying to mess with someone?
Well, Jophiel says other wise and I'm taking his side since he seems light years more intelligent than you.
Joph and I disagreed over the length of time, otherwise, we said the same thing, you stupid cunt.
#1524
Aug 24 2010 at 8:19 AM
Almalieque wrote:
Kalesh wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
2. What is YOUR definition of a "homophobe" and do you think it's possible for someone to not support SSM and NOT be a homophobe?
No. Beyond that it doesn't matter what my definition is.
Of course, because definitions aren't important, especially the definition of the word that you're using to label someone.... >.>
The etymology of the word homophobe doesn't rest in my hands, so who gives a **** what my definition of the word is.
#1525
Aug 24 2010 at 8:38 AM
Almalieque wrote:
Kaelesh wrote:
Of fucking course there would be. Are you dense or just trying to mess with someone?
Well, Jophiel says other wise and I'm taking his side since he seems light years more intelligent than you.
Can you convert that into football fields of intelligence?
#1526
Aug 24 2010 at 8:44 AM
Almalieque wrote:
What? Are you serious? You're wanting to lift the ban on SSM and you don't want to hear anything about rights, fairness or equality? Seriously? You are obviously blinded by emotion and that type of reasoning will never allow you conquer anything.
Please answer the question by page 50.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 192
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (192)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Prop 8 Overturned
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC