Conquer Club

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:52 pm**

natty_dread wrote:Brad, were you abused by a drunken uncle when you were little?

Scotty, comments like this^ are why the poll results are what they are

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:38 pm**

CoffeeCream wrote:
natty_dread wrote:Brad, were you abused by a drunken uncle when you were little?

Scotty, comments like this^ are why the poll results are what they are

It's a legitimate question.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:50 pm**

natty_dread wrote:
CoffeeCream wrote:
natty_dread wrote:Brad, were you abused by a drunken uncle when you were little?

Scotty, comments like this^ are why the poll results are what they are

It's a legitimate question.

yeah. how could we know whether to take brad's logic seriously if we didn't know about his traumatic experiences as a child? the question is completely relevant, and natty clearly has a strong desire to debate this in a reasonable fashion.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:55 pm**

john9blue wrote:
natty_dread wrote:
CoffeeCream wrote:
natty_dread wrote:Brad, were you abused by a drunken uncle when you were little?

Scotty, comments like this^ are why the poll results are what they are

It's a legitimate question.

yeah. how could we know whether to take brad's logic seriously if we didn't know about his traumatic experiences as a child? the question is completely relevant, and natty clearly has a strong desire to debate this in a reasonable fashion.

John, you sound kinda bitter. Were you abused by a drunken uncle when you were little?

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:00 pm**

natty_dread wrote:
john9blue wrote:
natty_dread wrote:
CoffeeCream wrote:
natty_dread wrote:Brad, were you abused by a drunken uncle when you were little?

Scotty, comments like this^ are why the poll results are what they are

It's a legitimate question.

yeah. how could we know whether to take brad's logic seriously if we didn't know about his traumatic experiences as a child? the question is completely relevant, and natty clearly has a strong desire to debate this in a reasonable fashion.

John, you sound kinda bitter. Were you abused by a drunken uncle when you were little?

start a poll! we need to ask everyone.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:34 pm**

john9blue wrote:
natty_dread wrote:John, you sound kinda bitter. Were you abused by a drunken uncle when you were little?

start a poll! we need to ask everyone.

Why are you avoiding the question, John?

If you don't want to talk about it... if the wounds are too fresh... just say so. I understand.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:46 pm**

natty_dread wrote:
john9blue wrote:
natty_dread wrote:John, you sound kinda bitter. Were you abused by a drunken uncle when you were little?

start a poll! we need to ask everyone.

Why are you avoiding the question, John?

If you don't want to talk about it... if the wounds are too fresh... just say so. I understand.

i don't think you can ever understand...

...unless YOU were abused by a drunken uncle when you were young? be honest. we're here for you.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 3:02 pm**

john9blue wrote:
natty_dread wrote:
john9blue wrote:
natty_dread wrote:John, you sound kinda bitter. Were you abused by a drunken uncle when you were little?

start a poll! we need to ask everyone.

Why are you avoiding the question, John?

If you don't want to talk about it... if the wounds are too fresh... just say so. I understand.

i don't think you can ever understand... ...unless YOU were abused by a drunken uncle when you were young? be honest. we're here for you.

Sadly, I don't think I will ever understand your pain. I only have one uncle and he doesn't drink. So, no, I wasn't abused by a drunken uncle when I was little.

Does your post mean that you were abused by a drunken uncle when you were little? If so, my heart goes out to you and I wish you all the best, and I hope you know you can always get help if the pain gets unbearable.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 3:55 pm**

bradleybadly wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:This poll is turning against 15-9, strong emphasis on hardened against

There have been polls related to this in the past. When you ask the question about homosexuality in general there is more of a turnout. However, this poll is asking about peoples' opinions after having read the arguments. As usual, the liberal oppressives come out on their moral high horse and act incredulous that anyone would have a differing opinion than themselves. As an instinctive reaction, they can only account for that by claiming that anyone opposed to their opinions are close-minded while they are the enlightened ones.

If you're referring to my post, then you should read it a bit closer. MY reference to closed-mindedness was in relation to the TOP TWO answers, in which the two largest answers were regarding "hardened toward my previous position". YOUR "instinctive reaction" against those you seem to believe are liberals and their alleged oppressiveness says a lot about you, however...and your closed-mindedness.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:00 pm**

bradleybadly wrote:As far as homosexual behavior itself and acting on it, I think the statistics from the CDC and other organizations pretty well show that male-to-male behavior is the most risky. Woman-to-woman is less risky, but also are risky in the sense that women tend to go outside of their lesbian relationships in order to have children. They unwittingly pass diseases on by having multiple sexual relationships to achieve that.

Don't you believe that these statistics are negatively influenced by the fact that homosexuals are not allowed to have the "formal bond" developed between two people that heterosexuals are? I well recognize that two homosexuals can still have a monogamous relationship without that formal bond, but psychologically, it has to play a factor in "the culture of not settling down with one" in the homosexual world.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:03 pm**

natty_dread wrote:
CoffeeCream wrote:
natty_dread wrote:Brad, were you abused by a drunken uncle when you were little?

Scotty, comments like this^ are why the poll results are what they are

It's a legitimate question.

It's disappointing when people think they're making a point with these kinds of questions. They're making a point all right, but not the one they think they are.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:12 pm**

Woodruff wrote:
natty_dread wrote:
CoffeeCream wrote:
natty_dread wrote:Brad, were you abused by a drunken uncle when you were little?

Scotty, comments like this^ are why the poll results are what they are

It's a legitimate question.

It's disappointing when people think they're making a point with these kinds of questions. They're making a point all right, but not the one they think they are.

Who's making a what now? I was genuinely interested. Sadly, I never received an answer.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:58 pm**

sounds to me like woody was abused by a drunken uncle too. eh woody? open up to us now.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:59 pm**

bradleybadly wrote:
Believe it or not, I do see the other side of the coin on this. But after having considered the other side, I believe that traditional marriage is what benefits society the best.

I've never really debated that homosexuality is wrong in a moral sense, but rather an unnatural act. As you already know, I'm an atheist and accept most of evolutionary theory. Because of that, I don't go around here telling people that engaging in sodomy is a sin, but rather an act which will increase the chance of contracting unnecessary illnesses. I also don't believe that just because heterosexuals have pissed all over the ideal of marriage, that that justifies eroding it even further to include all kinds of behaviors: homosexuality, polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, incest......you get the picture. Once you eliminate what is naturally the optimal state for marriage you can't logically defend opening it up to those other groups. If you restrict marriage to now allow only homosexuals then you are playing favorites and discriminating against others.

What I've always been lectured about and still pisses me off is that liberal oppressives start saying that these laws should be based on consent. That's hardly a society that I believe in and think is optimal. Hell, let's just change all laws to be based on consent. I consent to buying cocaine and someone consents to sell it to me - anyone who is against that is a drugaphobe.

The other thing that is usually thrown around here is that homosexuality is biologically caused. Despite the lack of evidence to support this it is still touted (indirectly by calling anyone opposed to homosexual marriage or whatnot a bigot). The bigot card is regularly thrown around here as if homosexuality is the same as ethnicity. B.K. Barunt constantly refuted this but people are so programmed now to repeat words like "homophobe" that it just flew right over their heads. As a black man, it pisses me off to no end for my skin pigmentation and the civil rights movements of the 50s & 60s to be equated with lustful ass piracy.

To be fair, BB, casually using the Advanced Search option suggests that you throw around the words "homophobe" and "bigot" quite a bit. If I may defer to the legendary Mr Mustard:

bradleybadly wrote:
Dancing Mustard wrote:
bradleybadly wrote:Yes Jenos, you'll soon find you can't debate against the insane

Said the man who spends his entire life crying that people are calling him a bigot.

Nice double-standards you have there, may we share them?

Nurse Ratched!! He's off his meds again! Get the restraints!!!

You do seem to make a habit out of portraying yourself as a lonely, persecuted voice of reason against a largely non-existent horde of people accusing you of bigotry and homophobia. It seems to be one of the first cards you play, in fact, before you inevitably say something along the lines of calling homosexuality "lustful ass piracy", which, of course, is not homophobic or bigotted at all, lest I be seen to be adding to your persecution complex.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:12 pm**

Symmetry wrote:To be fair, BB, casually using the Advanced Search option suggests that you throw around the words "homophobe" and "bigot" quite a bit. If I may defer to the legendary Mr Mustard:

bradleybadly wrote:
Dancing Mustard wrote:
bradleybadly wrote:Yes Jenos, you'll soon find you can't debate against the insane

Said the man who spends his entire life crying that people are calling him a bigot.

Nice double-standards you have there, may we share them?

Nurse Ratched!! He's off his meds again! Get the restraints!!!

You do seem to make a habit out of portraying yourself as a lonely, persecuted voice of reason against a largely non-existent horde of people accusing you of bigotry and homophobia. It seems to be one of the first cards you play, in fact, before you inevitably say something along the lines of calling homosexuality "lustful ass piracy", which, of course, is not homophobic or bigotted at all, lest I be seen to be adding to your persecution complex.

Well hell, I'm flattered that you find me so interesting as to delve into the past. Personally, I'm not interested but natty might probably finds it attractive so I wish the two of you good luck. I'm sure you'll both be perfectly happy in New York. The Mustard post was in quite a good thread. It wasn't much longer after that post that Mustard did go off the deep end and got himself banned from this site. Looks like I was vindicated after all. As usual, when the poll results go south for the oppressives they try to deflect it to something other than what they originally were asking. What's next, Symmetry - more advanced searches showing that I don't like other liberal positions? Wow, ya really got me there chief!

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:19 pm**

I'm still looking for where bradley portrayed himself as the "lone voice" in that quote.

Every time this subject goes to a poll the pro-homosexual side loses. C'mon Woody, let's hear another line about reading comprehension.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:22 pm**

bradleybadly wrote:
Symmetry wrote:To be fair, BB, casually using the Advanced Search option suggests that you throw around the words "homophobe" and "bigot" quite a bit. If I may defer to the legendary Mr Mustard:

bradleybadly wrote:
Dancing Mustard wrote:
bradleybadly wrote:Yes Jenos, you'll soon find you can't debate against the insane

Said the man who spends his entire life crying that people are calling him a bigot.

Nice double-standards you have there, may we share them?

Nurse Ratched!! He's off his meds again! Get the restraints!!!

You do seem to make a habit out of portraying yourself as a lonely, persecuted voice of reason against a largely non-existent horde of people accusing you of bigotry and homophobia. It seems to be one of the first cards you play, in fact, before you inevitably say something along the lines of calling homosexuality "lustful ass piracy", which, of course, is not homophobic or bigotted at all, lest I be seen to be adding to your persecution complex.

Well hell, I'm flattered that you find me so interesting as to delve into the past. Personally, I'm not interested but natty might probably finds it attractive so I wish the two of you good luck. I'm sure you'll both be perfectly happy in New York. The Mustard post was in quite a good thread. It wasn't much longer after that post that Mustard did go off the deep end and got himself banned from this site. Looks like I was vindicated after all. As usual, when the poll results go south for the oppressives they try to deflect it to something other than what they originally were asking. What's next, Symmetry - more advanced searches showing that I don't like other liberal positions? Wow, ya really got me there chief!

Did I make you feel persecuted? I can assure you that wasn't my intent. I get kind of interested when posters with persecution complexes say that they're being attacked, or that others throw around certain words and play certain cards. Almost inevitably it turns out that they use the word or play the card in question more often than anyone else.

Not always, to be fair, but often enough to elicit an angry flame in reaction when pointed out.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:27 pm**

DangerBoy wrote:Every time this subject goes to a poll the pro-homosexual side loses.

What exactly do you believe that shows?

DangerBoy wrote:C'mon Woody, let's hear another line about reading comprehension.

Is there a reason you're coming at me like this, or are you just feeling ineffective and want to lash out?

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:28 pm**

DangerBoy wrote:I'm still looking for where bradley portrayed himself as the "lone voice" in that quote.

Every time this subject goes to a poll the pro-homosexual side loses. C'mon Woody, let's hear another line about reading comprehension.

I suspect this says more about the audience on CC rather than the quality of either sides arguments. I personally suspect the nature of this site attracts a more conservative crowd but that's just me. This is the same site whose members rated Obama as a worse leader than Kim jong Ill after all.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:33 pm**

DangerBoy wrote:I'm still looking for where bradley portrayed himself as the "lone voice" in that quote.

Every time this subject goes to a poll the pro-homosexual side loses. C'mon Woody, let's hear another line about reading comprehension.

To be fair- BB had a fair point about what this poll is about earlier in the thread. It's not a pro or anti-homosexuality poll. It's about whether listening to the other sides arguments can change you mind. Currently the anti-gay marriage side is showing that they are more likely to harden their position when confronted with opposing arguments, although a significant proportion of those in support of homosexual marriage voted similarly.

But anyway- I suspect a bit of low level trolling involved in the poll anyway. I'd be fascinated, for example, to hear from the two people who voted that reading the arguments here persuaded them to be slightly against gay marriage from a previous position of being generally for it. Or indeed the nine people who completely reversed their position and are now against.

It kind of looks like the anti-gay marriage crowd are treating it as a way of expressing their dislike of homosexuality.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:42 pm**

bradleybadly wrote:
Believe it or not, I do see the other side of the coin on this. But after having considered the other side, I believe that traditional marriage is what benefits society the best.

I've never really debated that homosexuality is wrong in a moral sense, but rather an unnatural act. As you already know, I'm an atheist and accept most of evolutionary theory. Because of that, I don't go around here telling people that engaging in sodomy is a sin, but rather an act which will increase the chance of contracting unnecessary illnesses. I also don't believe that just because heterosexuals have pissed all over the ideal of marriage, that that justifies eroding it even further to include all kinds of behaviors: homosexuality, polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, incest......you get the picture. Once you eliminate what is naturally the optimal state for marriage you can't logically defend opening it up to those other groups. If you restrict marriage to now allow only homosexuals then you are playing favorites and discriminating against others.

What I've always been lectured about and still pisses me off is that liberal oppressives start saying that these laws should be based on consent. That's hardly a society that I believe in and think is optimal. Hell, let's just change all laws to be based on consent. I consent to buying cocaine and someone consents to sell it to me - anyone who is against that is a drugaphobe.

The other thing that is usually thrown around here is that homosexuality is biologically caused. Despite the lack of evidence to support this it is still touted (indirectly by calling anyone opposed to homosexual marriage or whatnot a bigot). The bigot card is regularly thrown around here as if homosexuality is the same as ethnicity. B.K. Barunt constantly refuted this but people are so programmed now to repeat words like "homophobe" that it just flew right over their heads. As a black man, it pisses me off to no end for my skin pigmentation and the civil rights movements of the 50s & 60s to be equated with lustful ass piracy.

Italicized: How doese allowing other groups to marry endanger the "optimal state" of marriage? What about same-sex marriage or indeed any other type of marriage stops people form having classical marriages (one man one woman) or somehow degrades those marriages?

underlined: biological, preferential, sensual, whatever why does it matter? religion is a mater of choice and yet you can still be called a bigot for hating a religious group. if you refer to homosexuals as "lustfull ass pirates" then you just might be a bigot. Sorry to say it.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:55 pm**

Baron Von PWN wrote:
DangerBoy wrote:I'm still looking for where bradley portrayed himself as the "lone voice" in that quote.

Every time this subject goes to a poll the pro-homosexual side loses. C'mon Woody, let's hear another line about reading comprehension.

I suspect this says more about the audience on CC rather than the quality of either sides arguments. I personally suspect the nature of this site attracts a more conservative crowd but that's just me. This is the same site whose members rated Obama as a worse leader than Kim jong Ill after all.

It wasn't always so. This site had people actually vote Bush as worse than Kim Jong Ill back in the day.

Or maybe this site just attracts a lot of Kim Jong Ill fans who want to protect his reputation by voting against US presidents.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:56 pm**

Baron Von PWN wrote:Italicized: How doese allowing other groups to marry endanger the "optimal state" of marriage? What about same-sex marriage or indeed any other type of marriage stops people form having classical marriages (one man one woman) or somehow degrades those marriages?

The other obvious response is that regardless of how you feel about the prevalence of homosexuality, it's going to occur at a rate basically independent of whether homosexuals can actually get married. If two dudes want to have sex, they're going to have sex. This just also gives them the tax benefits and legal recognition.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 6:03 pm**

Metsfanmax wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:Italicized: How doese allowing other groups to marry endanger the "optimal state" of marriage? What about same-sex marriage or indeed any other type of marriage stops people form having classical marriages (one man one woman) or somehow degrades those marriages?

The other obvious response is that regardless of how you feel about the prevalence of homosexuality, it's going to occur at a rate basically independent of whether homosexuals can actually get married. If two dudes want to have sex, they're going to have sex. This just also gives them the tax benefits and legal recognition.

And the right to be married. That sometimes gets lost when we only look at legal benefits. It's a big thing in itself.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2011 6:04 pm**

Homosexuals are about 1% of the population.

There are more people with 6 fingers. Perhaps we should pull an all night slobber knocker over those people trying to make everything that fits in 5 finger hands 6 finger compatible.

Conquer Club

Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY

Re: Equal marriage rights passed in NY