Conquer Club

bradleybadly wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Incorrect...polygamists, yes. Incest with a guarantee of no offspring and both are consenting adults, yes.

And your side tries to pretend like there is no slippery slope.

You probably roll your eyes a lot, given that there doesn't seem to be much else in your head to keep them straight. What slippery slope would I be referring to in expressing my own PERSONAL OPINION?

bradleybadly wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Those who want to marry children? It's ridiculous that you believe this belongs in the same discussion, but it does show the depth of desperation you're feeling in trying to persuade the argument in your preferred direction. Unfortunately for you, it has the opposite effect, as rational folks recognize it for what it is.

Who are you to say that this expression of love between adults and children isn't genuine? They have just as much of a right to express their legitimate affections towards each other as homosexuals. Let them marry and stop being a bigot.

No, that is not a legitimate right, nor should it be. I know where you're TRYING to go with this, but the analogy simply doesn't work when you're dealing with children.

bradleybadly wrote:

Woodruff wrote:So THAT'S why you don't use rational arguments - you just want a meltdown. I was wondering why you were doing that.

I've used the same "rational" arguments that the left does.

If you did that, then you'd agree with the left. I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

bradleybadly wrote:If it's based on consent then why don't other groups of people get the same rights that homosexuals want to consent to their types of relationships?

I agree with you - so long as no other person is harmed, there is no reason not to give two people who are able to give their consent the same status. Your mistake is in believing that children should not be protected in regards to "consent" which is quite honestly not an intelligent stance to take at all.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Now, I know few men who don't cook.

Woodruff wrote:I once burned hot dogs. While boiling them. I'm not kidding...and yeah, my wife keeps me well away from the kitchen. <grin>

Wow, and I actually thought you were intelligent....

That's pretty bad, I've never heard someone do this. I've gotta to say you're probably the worst cook out there...


OH BUT RIGHT, back to this debate, is it dead, yet? I hope so... save me some time please!

pimpdave wrote:

mmm.... Pie....

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Now, I know few men who don't cook.

Woodruff wrote:I once burned hot dogs. While boiling them. I'm not kidding...and yeah, my wife keeps me well away from the kitchen. <grin>

Wow, and I actually thought you were intelligent....

Pretty sad, eh? My EXCUSE was that I fell asleep, but I was actually playing computer games. <sigh>

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Now, I know few men who don't cook.

Woodruff wrote:I once burned hot dogs. While boiling them. I'm not kidding...and yeah, my wife keeps me well away from the kitchen. <grin>

Wow, and I actually thought you were intelligent....

Pretty sad, eh? My EXCUSE was that I fell asleep, but I was actually playing computer games. <sigh>

Pretty much the same story here; cooking and computer games. <double sigh>

Just gotta wait for Player's response......... GOD DAMN, I'm gonna keep checking this site over and over again.

bradleybadly wrote:Who are you to say that this expression of love between adults and children isn't genuine? They have just as much of a right to express their legitimate affections towards each other as homosexuals. Let them marry and stop being a bigot.

Goddammit brad you're truly a fucking retard.

I've used the same "rational" arguments that the left does.

Actually, you've used bigotry and fear. But whatever.

If it's based on consent then why don't other groups of people get the same rights that homosexuals want to consent to their types of relationships?

Seriously, retard.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Sure, it's a biological FACT that men and women are different, but as soon as we mention hermaphrodites or full-fledged women with XY chromosomes, then MY GOD WHAT'S GOIGN ON HERE!@$$@! People need to stop perceiving homosexuals and heterosexuals as an "either this or a that" idea--human beings are much more complex than the mere labels placed upon them. There's many people who are in-between, or bisexual. When one simply labels something as one thing, then one completely covers the many complexities within it with just a single idea. Let's not forget about the gender component. Men, women, and those few in between are intended to be with whomever they please. Differences from one another are not solely based on biological sex; the differences are based on one's gender as well as experiences,personality, behavior, etc. When people starting talking about homosexuality, they tend to forget also about the similarities between these types of relationships and heterosexual ones. Aside from the biological difference, there's hardly any difference at all (except of course the external negativity from the nasty buggers out there, and the impossibility of a guy giving birth to a child, and other obvious differences).

I started to get into all that, but my post got a bit long and I did not think it all that relevant to the issue.

I do think homosexual marriages should be legally recognized (nothing to do with church recognition... religious recognition is seperate). My point was just in response to greekdog's assertion that if homosexuality is protected, polygamy should be too. I was just saying that they are not entirely the same and that while many of the concerns that kept the state from recognizing homosexuality no longer exist, the issues with polygamy still exist. That is all.

As for hermaphrodites and the like ...no one should be considered "wrong" or "condemned" for being who they are. Who they are is up to them to decide, including aspects of gender.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Its basic math. There is a limit to the number of kids any one woman can have. There is almost no limit to the number of children a man can have. I have heard estimates that Brigham Young, for example had around 200 children.

A much higher percentage of those kids will grow up believing polygamy is OK. So... it will spread unless there are other constraints.

OR, those kids will think, "God damn, it's such headache having so many wives, and I for sure am not going to do what my father did." But if they do the same as their father, then so be it. Besides, I'd really find it hard to believe that if the gates were lifted, then we'd see a large percentage of the population and also later generations engaging it. I don't think we'd see a high rate of increase, or even a rate that would have a large significance. Either way, it's fine. As long as both the man and woman agree, then it's fine. And if another wife has an issue with his marrying another woman, then she will have the legal option available. They'll be laws dealing with whatever problem may internally arise from polygamy. In my opinion, the government really shouldn't be dictating how we live our lives in this regard. It's a religious and a two-sided moral issue that shouldn't be up to the decision of the government, nor should some other group be allowed to impose their version of morality/religion upon another group in this situation.

This is something that should be allowed to run its course and later corrected if it causes any serious problems like a WAARR!!--which I highly doubt. Besides, I don't see many women agreeing to being and also remaining in a polygamist relationship, so I seriously doubt there will be an shortage of available women in a country where polygamy is acceptable.

I believe more kids from existing polygamist unions go on to be polygamists themselves, but I might be wrong. At any rate, I know the above is the rough fear. Whether it is reality or not is another issue. My point, again is just that there is a distinction between polygamy and homosexuality when it comes to governmental interests.

But, time will decide.

Snorri is the only man here with the balls to say what we are all thinking.
Snorri for prez.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Now, I know few men who don't cook.

Woodruff wrote:I once burned hot dogs. While boiling them. I'm not kidding...and yeah, my wife keeps me well away from the kitchen. <grin>

Wow, and I actually thought you were intelligent....

Pretty sad, eh? My EXCUSE was that I fell asleep, but I was actually playing computer games. <sigh>

Pretty much the same story here; cooking and computer games. <double sigh>

Just gotta wait for Player's response......... GOD DAMN, I'm gonna keep checking this site over and over again.

I confess to having "burned" water (let it boil down). Actually, I had the water in a tea kettle. I did not realize the whistle was broken until I smelled the "scorched" smell. Ah well -- the tea kettle was a loss, but nothing worse.

bradleybadly wrote:

Woodruff wrote:That's a guarantee that I feel very comfortable in thinking it holds no water at all. I am certainly no liberal Democrat, though I did vote for Barack Obama (John McCain's voting record against military veterans is reprehensible). I'm certainly no European, though I did enjoy my time stationed in Germany.

What part of most people on this website don't you understand? Besides, you admit that you voted for Barack Obama.

Woodruff wrote:Incorrect...polygamists, yes. Incest with a guarantee of no offspring and both are consenting adults, yes.

And your side tries to pretend like there is no slippery slope.

Woodruff wrote:Those who want to marry children? It's ridiculous that you believe this belongs in the same discussion, but it does show the depth of desperation you're feeling in trying to persuade the argument in your preferred direction. Unfortunately for you, it has the opposite effect, as rational folks recognize it for what it is.

Who are you to say that this expression of love between adults and children isn't genuine? They have just as much of a right to express their legitimate affections towards each other as homosexuals. Let them marry and stop being a bigot.

Woodruff wrote:So THAT'S why you don't use rational arguments - you just want a meltdown. I was wondering why you were doing that.

I've used the same "rational" arguments that the left does. If it's based on consent then why don't other groups of people get the same rights that homosexuals want to consent to their types of relationships? If it's based on ending discrimination then why aren't other groups of people continually stigmatized while homosexuals get a free pass? Liberals pick and choose which groups they support and get upset when their supposed rationale is scrutinized.

But the meltdowns are pretty cool to watch.

Brad your a sick bastard, get some help

Here's how most people argue:

Listen to their arguments -> Evaluate reasoning behind arguments -> Respond to points with counterpoints.

Here's how snorri (and a few others in the forum) argues:

Listen to their arguments -> Decide whether they agree with him -> If disagree: commence baseless ad-hominem insults, if agree: vigorously support them/ride their dick.

You shouldn't be posting while drunk, don't you think, snorri?

john9blue wrote:Here's how most people argue:

Listen to their arguments -> Evaluate reasoning behind arguments -> Respond to points with counterpoints.

Here's how snorri (and a few others in the forum) argues:

Listen to their arguments -> Decide whether they agree with him -> If disagree: commence baseless ad-hominem insults, if agree: vigorously support them/ride their dick.

You shouldn't be posting while drunk, don't you think, snorri?

So, you don't think that someone that is condoning marriage between adults and children should be called on it?

You need help too blue

Whats worse is this guy lives in my community.

notyou2 wrote:

john9blue wrote:Here's how most people argue:

Listen to their arguments -> Evaluate reasoning behind arguments -> Respond to points with counterpoints.

Here's how snorri (and a few others in the forum) argues:

Listen to their arguments -> Decide whether they agree with him -> If disagree: commence baseless ad-hominem insults, if agree: vigorously support them/ride their dick.

You shouldn't be posting while drunk, don't you think, snorri?

So, you don't think that someone that is condoning marriage between adults and children should be called on it?

Seriously. Comparing a sexual relationship to child molestation is like comparing a politician to Hitler. 99% of the time the person who made the comparison has made such an enormous ass of himself that no refutation is required, and everyone can move straight to the mocking.

Frigidus wrote:

notyou2 wrote:

john9blue wrote:Here's how most people argue:

Listen to their arguments -> Evaluate reasoning behind arguments -> Respond to points with counterpoints.

Here's how snorri (and a few others in the forum) argues:

Listen to their arguments -> Decide whether they agree with him -> If disagree: commence baseless ad-hominem insults, if agree: vigorously support them/ride their dick.

You shouldn't be posting while drunk, don't you think, snorri?

So, you don't think that someone that is condoning marriage between adults and children should be called on it?

Seriously. Comparing a sexual relationship to child molestation is like comparing a politician to Hitler. 99% of the time the person who made the comparison has made such an enormous ass of himself that no refutation is required, and everyone can move straight to the mocking.

Exactly. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

bradleybadly wrote:I've used the same "rational" arguments that the left does. If it's based on consent then why don't other groups of people get the same rights that homosexuals want to consent to their types of relationships? If it's based on ending discrimination then why aren't other groups of people continually stigmatized while homosexuals get a free pass? Liberals pick and choose which groups they support and get upset when their supposed rationale is scrutinized.

Because children are inherently in a separate category. And attempting to claim those are "legitimate" arguments just makes you look silly. ... at best.

Woodruff wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Incorrect...polygamists, yes. Incest with a guarantee of no offspring and both are consenting adults, yes.

And your side tries to pretend like there is no slippery slope.

You probably roll your eyes a lot, given that there doesn't seem to be much else in your head to keep them straight. What slippery slope would I be referring to in expressing my own PERSONAL OPINION?

Your personal opinion happens to match the personal opinions of those who are trying to change the law. If you change it for homosexuals you have to change it for everyone. No more favoritism.

Woodruff wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:Who are you to say that this expression of love between adults and children isn't genuine? They have just as much of a right to express their legitimate affections towards each other as homosexuals. Let them marry and stop being a bigot.

No, that is not a legitimate right, nor should it be. I know where you're TRYING to go with this, but the analogy simply doesn't work when you're dealing with children.

Why not? They have just as much right as anyone else to express their affection for each other. Let me guess, the analogy doesn't work because it simply doesn't. Just like the labeling of people who think marriage should be between a man and woman. It's just wrong because it is, right! Calling people homophobes is accurate just because it is, right!

Woodruff wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:I've used the same "rational" arguments that the left does.

If you did that, then you'd agree with the left. I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

I'm using the same terms that the left does: consent and discrimination

Let's just open up marriage to any group based on desire and consent. Hell, let's just open up motherhood to men and fatherhood to women on the birth certificates. There are no real differences between anybody anymore. We're all equal.

Woodruff wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:If it's based on consent then why don't other groups of people get the same rights that homosexuals want to consent to their types of relationships?

I agree with you - so long as no other person is harmed, there is no reason not to give two people who are able to give their consent the same status.

This would be that slippery slope you were asking about. If you start saying 2 people of the same sex can get married then you've got to open it up to anyone. Then it stops being actual marriage. It just becomes trivial.

Woodruff wrote:Your mistake is in believing that children should not be protected in regards to "consent" which is quite honestly not an intelligent stance to take at all.

How can anyone tell someone else that the attractions they're feeling for another individual aren't real and genuine? Sounds judgmental and bigoted.

Snorri1234 wrote:Goddammit brad you're truly a fucking retard.

Snorri1234 wrote:Actually, you've used bigotry and fear. But whatever.

Snorri1234 wrote:Seriously, retard.

Hell, I'm convinced. What a well reasoned response. Somebody make this guy the surgeon general of the Netherlands at once.

notyou2 wrote:Brad your a sick bastard, get some help

And somebody make this guy his press secretary. I'm sure the 2 of them will be very happy together.

PLAYER57832 wrote:children are inherently in a separate category. And attempting to claim those are "legitimate" arguments just makes you look silly. ... at best.

Why do children get put in an inherently separate category? How do you know their affections are not truly honest? NAMBLA bases their argument on mutual consent. I'm waiting for the Woodruff response: 'they just are'

By the way, nobody has ever shown me any evidence of that gay gene I asked for months ago. Perhaps Dr. Snorri can track it down for us.

bradleybadly wrote:Why do children get put in an inherently separate category? How do you know their affections are not truly honest? NAMBLA bases their argument on mutual consent. I'm waiting for the Woodruff response: 'they just are'

For the same reason it isn't OK for children to have a job or own a home, silly. They're children. Surely you're being obtuse?

bradleybadly wrote:By the way, nobody has ever shown me any evidence of that gay gene I asked for months ago. Perhaps Dr. Snorri can track it down for us.

Although I find it likely that being gay is genetic, it is irrelevant to the discussion. Unless you work from the baseless assumption that being gay is somehow wrong, of course.

Bradleybadly you are depraved.

You better keep your computer away from the authorities. As a grandfather, it scares me what they may find on it.

bradleybadly wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Incorrect...polygamists, yes. Incest with a guarantee of no offspring and both are consenting adults, yes.

And your side tries to pretend like there is no slippery slope.

You probably roll your eyes a lot, given that there doesn't seem to be much else in your head to keep them straight. What slippery slope would I be referring to in expressing my own PERSONAL OPINION?

Your personal opinion happens to match the personal opinions of those who are trying to change the law. If you change it for homosexuals you have to change it for everyone. No more favoritism.

That you consider the protection of our children to fall under "favoritism" only means that you are either a troll or mentally handicapped. Are you a troll or are you mentally handicapped?

(All apologies to trolls and the mentally handicapped by using the unfortunate method of comparing them to this joker.)

Woodruff wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:I've used the same "rational" arguments that the left does.

If you did that, then you'd agree with the left. I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

I'm using the same terms that the left does: consent and discrimination[/quote]

And yet, you're not using them with any sense of judgement nor logic. Which leads me back to my initial question in this post...

Woodruff wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:If it's based on consent then why don't other groups of people get the same rights that homosexuals want to consent to their types of relationships?

I agree with you - so long as no other person is harmed, there is no reason not to give two people who are able to give their consent the same status.

This would be that slippery slope you were asking about.[/quote]

I'm sorry you're unable to discern opinion from reality. Once again, this leads me back to my initial question in this post...

bradleybadly wrote:If you start saying 2 people of the same sex can get married then you've got to open it up to anyone. Then it stops being actual marriage. It just becomes trivial.

It doesn't do anything of the sort, and I'm sorry that you're unable or unwilling to comprehend that. Again, back to my initial question, which would finally help us to understand your particular disorder.

bradleybadly wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Your mistake is in believing that children should not be protected in regards to "consent" which is quite honestly not an intelligent stance to take at all.

How can anyone tell someone else that the attractions they're feeling for another individual aren't real and genuine? Sounds judgmental and bigoted.

It might sound that way to someone who has a complete inability to discern logic and reasoning. And back to the top we go...so please, let us know as I'm sure we're all just on the edge of our seats wondering if you're actually mentally handicapped or if you're only another boring old troll.

Yawn, what a surprise from all the anti-gay marriage lobby. Same shit spewed over and over and over again.

Allowing gay marriage would obviously allow people to be married to their siblings, and would obviously allow people to marry their pets. It's the only way!

This argument always gives me the shits. Just GFY and let homosexuals marry, it's NONE of your business like you getting married is none of MY business. So just GFY and let homosexuals live their lives the way they want to. If they want to get married, they should LEGALLY be allowed to.

He is a troll, he hasn't played a game since September 7, 2008

I have a very simple view on issues like this.

First, I don't understand gay relationships. But why would I have to? I wouldn't be in one, but to each their own.

Secondly who are we to say they shouldn't be married? Does God say this? Yes? Doesn't God also say you shouldn't judge others?
God says a whole lot of things, in a whole lot of books, that are written by Man, they were not written by God himself. If you take all of the bibles, kurans etc they all differ in what their particular god says. So which one is right? They cant all be right can they?

Look I get everyone's points & opinions but the only laws our government should be making are those that "protect" our people, not hinder them. Example: I am a smoker & I support the no smoking in public laws because this "Protects" our people.
However I do not support the unfair Tax that is placed on cigarettes because this hinders my wallet.

If your religions belief is that gay people shouldn't marry than that's fine, don't be gay. But who says yours is the only religion or the religion that is the right religion? I am not saying your religion is wrong, but don't tell me its right or the only way either.
And certainly do not make or pass laws based on religion because I may not have the same religion you do.

We are supposed to be living in a FREE country, meaning whether your black, white, hispanic, male, female, gay, straight or whatever, we should have ALL of the same rights as any other citizen. It baffles me in this day & age where this country is going. We have a black president & yet Gay people are being treated almost the same as black people 50 years ago. Some of the laws we have today are so ridiculous and so Faith based its pathetic. It does not take Faith to know common sense. It takes common sense to know common sense.

To the point, You don't have to believe or have faith to be a good human being. No matter what your faith, treat others equally, live your life, not perfect, but as a decent human being & you will be the better person for it. Quit worrying about what others private lives entail.

Nobody is perfect, nor will anyone ever be. If your religion is right, than God will sort it out, not us.

Peace

Should I be allowed to marry my gatorade bottle?

We've been dating for a few months now