Conquer Club

jay_a2j wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:I don't remember anything about the constitution being against gay marriage and abortion.

Not the most attentive one here...

Neoteny wrote:
Ack! Must... not... hijack... thread...

I am currently resisting the same impulse.

Luns, I don't think highjacking this thread is a good idea at the moment. I would like to discuss the issue somewhere else though.

But I do think this needs a response.

luns101 wrote:Homosexual couples can already receive benefits through civil unions here. So why are they so adamant about obtaining that term "marriage"? I think it's because they want approval and endorsement from the government. The legal justification for overturning existing law is once again..."it's my choice to do what I want with my body".

Naturally they want approval. They want to be treated exactly the same as any other couple. They want to have the term "marriage" to show that they're not any less than heterosexual couples. The only reason to restrict them having the term is a religious one, not a constitutional one.

I always vote in the November elections,
but I'm neither of those choices.

Luns it depends on the age of the baby. I'm all for abortion up to a point - 20 weeks or so into the pregnancy. Certainly once it's a ball of cells it should be able to be taken down as it is essentially part of the mother still.

heavycola wrote:if guns kill people, do wrecking balls demolish houses? Are pencils made with the express purpose of misspelling words? If you shoot someone dead with a gun, can you rub it out with an eraser and start again? If i have mindless, ill thought-through platitudes in my sig, will i do myself any favours?

unriggable wrote:Not the most attentive one here...

I post a when someone posts something that is stupid, without merit or just plain too ignorant to respond to. (see above )

jay_a2j wrote:

heavycola wrote:if guns kill people, do wrecking balls demolish houses? Are pencils made with the express purpose of misspelling words? If you shoot someone dead with a gun, can you rub it out with an eraser and start again? If i have mindless, ill thought-through platitudes in my sig, will i do myself any favours?

unriggable wrote:Not the most attentive one here...

I post a when someone posts something that is stupid, without merit or just plain too ignorant to respond to. (see above )

Ok Jay. How about this one:

If guns were INVENTED to kill people, are pencils INVENTED to misspell words?

jay_a2j wrote:

heavycola wrote:if guns kill people, do wrecking balls demolish houses? Are pencils made with the express purpose of misspelling words? If you shoot someone dead with a gun, can you rub it out with an eraser and start again? If i have mindless, ill thought-through platitudes in my sig, will i do myself any favours?

unriggable wrote:Not the most attentive one here...

I post a when someone posts something that is stupid, without merit or just plain too ignorant to respond to. (see above )

Is this why so many litter your own posts?

unriggable wrote:Luns it depends on the age of the baby. I'm all for abortion up to a point - 20 weeks or so into the pregnancy. Certainly once it's a ball of cells it should be able to be taken down as it is essentially part of the mother still.

Yeah, most supporters of abortion are supportive of there being a time-limit for the abortion. I believe over here it's 14 weeks or 20 or something, but sometimes it's done later because the mother is in grave danger where she will almost certainly die without an abortion.

Guiscard wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

heavycola wrote:if guns kill people, do wrecking balls demolish houses? Are pencils made with the express purpose of misspelling words? If you shoot someone dead with a gun, can you rub it out with an eraser and start again? If i have mindless, ill thought-through platitudes in my sig, will i do myself any favours?

unriggable wrote:Not the most attentive one here...

I post a when someone posts something that is stupid, without merit or just plain too ignorant to respond to. (see above )

Ok Jay. How about this one:

If guns were INVENTED to kill people, are pencils INVENTED to misspell words?

Guns were invented to defend and protect an individual and or nation. They weren't invented so people could go out on shooting sprees. It's no more the guns fault what you do with it, as it is the pencils fault what you do with it.

Actually, they were invented to hunt animals because they worked better than a bow.

Anarkistsdream wrote:Actually, they were invented to hunt animals because they worked better than a bow.

And bows suck at shooting sprees, too. You might get two arrows off, three max, before some anti-libertarian shoots you in the head with his nation-protector.

heavycola wrote:

Anarkistsdream wrote:Actually, they were invented to hunt animals because they worked better than a bow.

And bows suck at shooting sprees, too. You might get two arrows off, three max, before some anti-libertarian shoots you in the head with his nation-protector.

True dat...

But that is why I have firearms...

Snorri1234 wrote:Naturally they want approval. They want to be treated exactly the same as any other couple. They want to have the term "marriage" to show that they're not any less than heterosexual couples. The only reason to restrict them having the term is a religious one, not a constitutional one.

It is both, since laws have their basis in religious principles.

Are you saying that homosexuality is normal?

luns101 wrote:Are you saying that homosexuality is normal?

It is to the homosexuals.

To me left-handed people are not normal, but to them it is perfectly normal. Should we make all lefties change hands so we can all be the same? Even though it is their preference and they didn't CHOOSE to be that way?

how did we get such a small-minded presidential candidate?

maybe luns is just emulating his hero.....

luns101 wrote:It is both, since laws have their basis in religious principles.

No they don't.

Are you saying that homosexuality is normal?

Very much yes.

Backglass wrote:

luns101 wrote:Are you saying that homosexuality is normal?

It is to the homosexuals.

To me left-handed people are not normal, but to them it is perfectly normal. Should we make all lefties change hands so we can all be the same? Even though it is their preference and they didn't CHOOSE to be that way?

If you're going to take that angle then it all becomes moral relativism. Two things that are directly contradictory to each other can not both be correct at the same time.

So in your analogy, you're saying that homosexuals were born that way? Care to show the evidence to support that if that is indeed your position. I can show you the quotes that would refute that claim.

Snorri1234 wrote:

luns101 wrote:It is both, since laws have their basis in religious principles.

No they don't.

Really, you're actually going to say that laws aren't based on religious principles. What are they based on then?

Snorri1234 wrote:

luns101 wrote:Are you saying that homosexuality is normal?

Very much yes.

Ok, how so?

luns101 wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:t;]

luns101 wrote:It is both, since laws have their basis in religious principles.

No they don't.

Really, you're actually going to say that laws aren't based on religious principles. What are they based on then?

While not always true (take for example some muslim countries), most societies have laws that are good for society and take into account human rights. For example, murder isn't condemned in society because it's against the bible, but because it's just bad for society (imagine a society where people can easily get away with murder) and violates another persons right to live. Stealing is against the law because you violate other people's property. While ofcourse religion sometimes has an influence on the law, laws are certainly not based on religion in that way.
You have to ask yourself whether a law would not make sense without religion. Why is adultery for example not illegal (at least not in Europe), but theft is? Because one is detrimental to society and the other isn't. Both of these acts are considered a sin in the bible, though.
I mean, what is the point of seperation of church and state if the laws are based on religion? Wtf?

Laws are neccesary for a society to thrive because they create a stable environment which is open to expansion.

Snorri1234 wrote:

luns101 wrote:Are you saying that homosexuality is normal?

Very much yes.

Ok, how so?

Because even animals engage in it. Not to mention that the only argument against it is a religious one. Homosexuality is not detrimental to society. It does not harm anyone.

That said, homosexuality is als not a choice. Did you choose to be a heterosexual?

homosexuality is an improper cancer on society. individuals with damaged psychology are homosexuals, the genetic-inheritance crap makes no sense, itis a construct of bolsho-mediatic press.
Homosexuality is an abhorration of nature, which forms weak half-men. The individual's correct formation must pass through intrisically heterosexual instinct, of finding a woman and starting a family, which psychologically is indispensable the healthy individual in the healthy society. Reproducing his genes, and breeding more children Deo et patriae, must be a cornerstone of his psyche. Without it, there is not enough meaning to his presence in a community. Due to the fact ours is so pathetic, the homosexual illness is tolerated, however, a real society based around the roles naturally intended for man would not.

luns101 wrote:So in your analogy, you're saying that homosexuals were born that way?

I am, yes.

luns101 wrote:Care to show the evidence to support that if that is indeed your position.

All of my gay friends claim it. The vast majority of gays in general claim it. They are living it...I am not.

I believe them.

luns101 wrote:I can show you the quotes that would refute that claim.

And Xtratabasco has tons of quotes refuting that a 757 hit the pentagon.

Napoleon Ier wrote:homosexuality is an improper cancer on society. individuals with damaged psychology are homosexuals, the genetic-inheritance crap makes no sense, itis a construct of bolsho-mediatic press.
Homosexuality is an abhorration of nature, which forms weak half-men. The individual's correct formation must pass through intrisically heterosexual instinct, of finding a woman and starting a family, which psychologically is indispensable the healthy individual in the healthy society. Reproducing his genes, and breeding more children Deo et patriae, must be a cornerstone of his psyche. Without it, there is not enough meaning to his presence in a community. Due to the fact ours is so pathetic, the homosexual illness is tolerated, however, a real society based around the roles naturally intended for man would not.

I can't tell whether you're joking or not.

Backglass wrote:

luns101 wrote:So in your analogy, you're saying that homosexuals were born that way?

I am, yes.

luns101 wrote:Care to show the evidence to support that if that is indeed your position.

All of my gay friends claim it. The vast majority of gays in general claim it. They are living it...I am not.

I believe them.

luns101 wrote:I can show you the quotes that would refute that claim.

And Xtratabasco has tons of quotes refuting that a 757 hit the pentagon.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:homosexuality is an improper cancer on society. individuals with damaged psychology are homosexuals, the genetic-inheritance crap makes no sense, itis a construct of bolsho-mediatic press.
Homosexuality is an abhorration of nature, which forms weak half-men. The individual's correct formation must pass through intrisically heterosexual instinct, of finding a woman and starting a family, which psychologically is indispensable the healthy individual in the healthy society. Reproducing his genes, and breeding more children Deo et patriae, must be a cornerstone of his psyche. Without it, there is not enough meaning to his presence in a community. Due to the fact ours is so pathetic, the homosexual illness is tolerated, however, a real society based around the roles naturally intended for man would not.

I can't tell whether you're joking or not.

because the concept of a psychological health for an individual's health and hence by extension for society beyond simplecure of diseases such as schizophrenia escapes you

Anarkistsdream wrote:
All of my gay friends claim it.

they would.
In reality, your base is flawed, your vision is blurred, you simply follow an accepted view because it fits inwith the pc trash ou are made to swallow
(no personal insult intended