Conquer Club

captain.crazy wrote:

sailorseal wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:

sailorseal wrote:this might make you cry, no joke:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-awVQkTeVE

sorry, no tears... I got a little turned on when some of the hot young lesbians kissed though. That was cool.

The thing that gets me is that what I described is exactly the same thing, only termed differently. Are you sure you won't compromise?

Firstly I am not gay.
Secondly there will be no compromise, the battle is over, gay marriage will be legalized just give it time
Civil Rights Era 2.0


and you disgust me for that "turned on" comment, you should be ashamed of yourself

Sorry you were offended... but I am just being honest. Are you telling me that women kissing women isn't appealing to you?

Anyway, my opposition is not against gay marriage. It is against the Federal Government. It has no business forcing issues like this... its tyranny.

Now that is true I want to see how many people cry at that video

PLAYER57832 wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:Anyway, my opposition is not against gay marriage. It is against the Federal Government. It has no business forcing issues like this... its tyranny.

How is allowing homosexuals to marry forcing anyone?

Each state has sovereignty. When the Federal government gets involved, and forces states to allow gay marriage, that is, in my opinion, our side the scope of the federal governments authority.

thegreekdog wrote:First off player, thank you for posting like an adult in response to my post.

Thank you for the same.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Your point about the constitution being framed by society is only partially correct. People certain are blinded by thier own views. However, what people knew then and what we know now is just plain different.

This is another issue - should the Constitution be interpreted by the views of society (in the form of the Supreme Court)? I won't get into that because it's not the issue of this thread, per se. But, I agree, the knowledge is different now than it was then. Does it still excuse the racism, homophobia, and religious intolerance of our forefathers? If, 100 years from know, our descendants have different knowledge, would they excuse our racism, homophobia, or religious intolerance?

Yes, it is getting into a tangent, so I won't answer fully. I will say that "Excuse" is not the right word. The thing is that we cannot judge people of the past by today's standards. People only know what they know. In the words of Maya D' Angelo "when we knew better, we did better".

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Polygamy, on the other hand, is still differant. Now, personally, if it involves consenting ADULTS, and I would even say that the age of consent might be older for non-traditional marriages, but if everyone agrees and they have the ability to provide well for every child, etc. then maybe. Its not that differant from the guy who sleeps with 15 women, except that he perhaps has more legal responsibility. The problem is that when Polygamy is really practiced, that only happened at first. Then it becomes "we don't have enough adult women, let's take girls" , etc.

I'm not trying to throw stones here, but you are making arguments against polygamy based upon evidence that could be applied to heterosexuals and homosexuals.

(1) Consenting adults problem - If all marriages need to be between consenting adults, the problem is solved. A 28 year old man cannot marry a 12 year old girl because it's not between consenting adults. Assuming polygamy were legal, a 28 year old man could not marry two 12 year old girls because it's not between consenting adults. Legalizing polygamy does not change the laws regarding consenting adults.

This is true, but underage marriage/sex is not associated with homosexuality in the same way that it is with polygamy. There are specific reasons it is associated with polygamy, specifically a limit to the number of adult women.
(note-- yes, there are homosexual child predators, but they represent a far smaller percentage of the population than heterosexual predators and are not associated with adult homosexuality any more than adult heterosexuality is)

thegreekdog wrote:(2) Providing well for every child - We have no law saying that people cannot have children or be married if they do or do not have a certain income. How is it different if two heterosexuals marry and have 3 children they cannot provide for? How is it different if two homosexuals mary and have 3 children they cannot provide for?

This is true, to a point. I mentioned it primarily as a reason that the state/people might have reason to see polygamy differantly. Also, "lots of kids" tends to be associated with modern polygamist sects.

captain.crazy wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:Anyway, my opposition is not against gay marriage. It is against the Federal Government. It has no business forcing issues like this... its tyranny.

How is allowing homosexuals to marry forcing anyone?

Each state has sovereignty. When the Federal government gets involved, and forces states to allow gay marriage, that is, in my opinion, our side the scope of the federal governments authority.

NO NO NO
It is completely inside the scope, a ban on gay marriage directly violates the constitution

captain.crazy wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:Anyway, my opposition is not against gay marriage. It is against the Federal Government. It has no business forcing issues like this... its tyranny.

How is allowing homosexuals to marry forcing anyone?

Each state has sovereignty. When the Federal government gets involved, and forces states to allow gay marriage, that is, in my opinion, our side the scope of the federal governments authority.

Exactly the argument some Mississippians still use regarding interracial marriage.

That's the problem. Too often "states rights" is code for "oppress those I don't like". And that is precisely why rights HAVE to be federal issues. Your rights don't change from one state to the next.

sailorseal wrote:The only solution is to allow them to marry and hang all of those in Congress who oppose on charges of corruption

So...your solution is to hang people that don't agree with what you perceive to be the right thing to do. Do you not see what is wrong with your statement? Your anger towards people that have a different opinion from you is disturbing...and dangerous

PLAYER57832 wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:Anyway, my opposition is not against gay marriage. It is against the Federal Government. It has no business forcing issues like this... its tyranny.

How is allowing homosexuals to marry forcing anyone?

Each state has sovereignty. When the Federal government gets involved, and forces states to allow gay marriage, that is, in my opinion, our side the scope of the federal governments authority.

Exactly the argument some Mississippians still use regarding interracial marriage.

That's the problem. Too often "states rights" is code for "oppress those I don't like". And that is precisely why rights HAVE to be federal issues. Your rights don't change from one state to the next.

Why not. Your rights change when you go to Mexico or Canada, or Iran. States are sovereign entities. If you don't like the rules in Mississippi, move to Montana or change the law in your state. Don't shove that shit across all states. Its not that difficult.

keiths31 wrote:

sailorseal wrote:The only solution is to allow them to marry and hang all of those in Congress who oppose on charges of corruption

So...your solution is to hang people that don't agree with what you perceive to be the right thing to do. Do you not see what is wrong with your statement? Your anger towards people that have a different opinion from you is disturbing...and dangerous

In his defence, the people who hold different opinions are oxygen-wasting morons.

captain.crazy wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:Anyway, my opposition is not against gay marriage. It is against the Federal Government. It has no business forcing issues like this... its tyranny.

How is allowing homosexuals to marry forcing anyone?

Each state has sovereignty. When the Federal government gets involved, and forces states to allow gay marriage, that is, in my opinion, our side the scope of the federal governments authority.

Exactly the argument some Mississippians still use regarding interracial marriage.

That's the problem. Too often "states rights" is code for "oppress those I don't like". And that is precisely why rights HAVE to be federal issues. Your rights don't change from one state to the next.

Why not. Your rights change when you go to Mexico or Canada, or Iran. States are sovereign entities. If you don't like the rules in Mississippi, move to Montana or change the law in your state. Don't shove that shit across all states. Its not that difficult.

You simply have no clue of what states' rights means. Your opposition to federal government is frankly unconstitutional.

captain.crazy wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:Anyway, my opposition is not against gay marriage. It is against the Federal Government. It has no business forcing issues like this... its tyranny.

How is allowing homosexuals to marry forcing anyone?

Each state has sovereignty. When the Federal government gets involved, and forces states to allow gay marriage, that is, in my opinion, our side the scope of the federal governments authority.

Exactly the argument some Mississippians still use regarding interracial marriage.

That's the problem. Too often "states rights" is code for "oppress those I don't like". And that is precisely why rights HAVE to be federal issues. Your rights don't change from one state to the next.

Why not. Your rights change when you go to Mexico or Canada, or Iran. States are sovereign entities. If you don't like the rules in Mississippi, move to Montana or change the law in your state. Don't shove that shit across all states. Its not that difficult.

They are not one nation, we are. All citizens of the US are equal, regardless of whether they live in Florida, Montana or Utah. States don't have the right to overstep the individual rights of the people. Those come first.

captain.crazy wrote:Why not. Your rights change when you go to Mexico or Canada, or Iran. States are sovereign entities. If you don't like the rules in Mississippi, move to Montana or change the law in your state. Don't shove that shit across all states. Its not that difficult.

So what exactly do you think the federal government should be doing? Why not make each state a different country?

john9blue wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:Why not. Your rights change when you go to Mexico or Canada, or Iran. States are sovereign entities. If you don't like the rules in Mississippi, move to Montana or change the law in your state. Don't shove that shit across all states. Its not that difficult.

So what exactly do you think the federal government should be doing? Why not make each state a different country?

Captain crazy is a troll. Still, I've heard the same sentiments from people who were completely serious.


They have a poster of the Constitution above their bed and completely fail to understand it.

Snorri1234 wrote:

john9blue wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:Why not. Your rights change when you go to Mexico or Canada, or Iran. States are sovereign entities. If you don't like the rules in Mississippi, move to Montana or change the law in your state. Don't shove that shit across all states. Its not that difficult.

So what exactly do you think the federal government should be doing? Why not make each state a different country?

Captain crazy is a troll. Still, I've heard the same sentiments from people who were completely serious.


They have a poster of the Constitution above their bed and completely fail to understand it.

I wonder... did they drop out of high school just after learning about the Articles of Confederation, and so got the idea that that document is the Constitution?

john9blue wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:Why not. Your rights change when you go to Mexico or Canada, or Iran. States are sovereign entities. If you don't like the rules in Mississippi, move to Montana or change the law in your state. Don't shove that shit across all states. Its not that difficult.

So what exactly do you think the federal government should be doing? Why not make each state a different country?

Go read your Constitution. That is all that the Federal Government is supposed to do. They aren't supposed to control the economy, or any of that shit. They are supposed to stay the hell out of our way.

captain.crazy wrote:

john9blue wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:Why not. Your rights change when you go to Mexico or Canada, or Iran. States are sovereign entities. If you don't like the rules in Mississippi, move to Montana or change the law in your state. Don't shove that shit across all states. Its not that difficult.

So what exactly do you think the federal government should be doing? Why not make each state a different country?

Go read your Constitution. That is all that the Federal Government is supposed to do. They aren't supposed to control the economy, or any of that shit. They are supposed to stay the hell out of our way.

Actually, you need to reread it. You may wish that were the case, but it isn't. Nor is your view at all practical.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:

john9blue wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:Why not. Your rights change when you go to Mexico or Canada, or Iran. States are sovereign entities. If you don't like the rules in Mississippi, move to Montana or change the law in your state. Don't shove that shit across all states. Its not that difficult.

So what exactly do you think the federal government should be doing? Why not make each state a different country?

Go read your Constitution. That is all that the Federal Government is supposed to do. They aren't supposed to control the economy, or any of that shit. They are supposed to stay the hell out of our way.

Actually, you need to reread it. You may wish that were the case, but it isn't. Nor is your view at all practical.

What ever you say player. If you think that the current American Government is practical, I will take constitutional impracticality behind door number 2. Get off your ass and quit sucking up to the government for a hand out. You'll feel better about yourself.

captain.crazy wrote:What ever you say player. If you think that the current American Government is practical, I will take constitutional impracticality behind door number 2. Get off your ass and quit sucking up to the government for a hand out. You'll feel better about yourself.

I believe in the constitution. You will have to quote the part about the states having the right to take away individual people's freedoms. Seems I missed that part.

You have a lot to learn about life if you think I am "sucking up to the government for a hand out". You sure don't know much about me.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:What ever you say player. If you think that the current American Government is practical, I will take constitutional impracticality behind door number 2. Get off your ass and quit sucking up to the government for a hand out. You'll feel better about yourself.

I believe in the constitution. You will have to quote the part about the states having the right to take away individual people's freedoms. Seems I missed that part.

You have a lot to learn about life if you think I am "sucking up to the government for a hand out". You sure don't know much about me.

wasn't that you that said you had a kid that was ADD or something, and you need government subsidy to get him the special care he deeded?

Other than that, I can't seem to find the part where it says that people are entitled to government handouts, or where it says anything about Marriage. So no need to take it to the federal level, its an issue that belongs at the states.

Snorri1234 wrote:Captain crazy is a troll. Still, I've heard the same sentiments from people who were completely serious.


They have a poster of the Constitution above their bed and completely fail to understand it.

Yeah, I've heard that he's BES or something.

captain.crazy wrote:Go read your Constitution. That is all that the Federal Government is supposed to do. They aren't supposed to control the economy, or any of that shit. They are supposed to stay the hell out of our way.

The Constitution protects individual liberties, and you're saying

captain.crazy wrote:States are sovereign entities. If you don't like the rules in Mississippi, move to Montana or change the law in your state. Don't shove that shit across all states. Its not that difficult.

so I think you are the one who needs to read the Constitution, since you're basically contradicting yourself. Sorry, but people like you who don't really understand their own message give the rest of us who like Ron Paul a bad name.

mandyb wrote:I think all women should strive to be lesbians - it would make life a great deal simpler.

As well as grumpier, depressed men.

john9blue wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Captain crazy is a troll. Still, I've heard the same sentiments from people who were completely serious.


They have a poster of the Constitution above their bed and completely fail to understand it.

Yeah, I've heard that he's BES or something.

captain.crazy wrote:Go read your Constitution. That is all that the Federal Government is supposed to do. They aren't supposed to control the economy, or any of that shit. They are supposed to stay the hell out of our way.

The Constitution protects individual liberties, and you're saying

captain.crazy wrote:States are sovereign entities. If you don't like the rules in Mississippi, move to Montana or change the law in your state. Don't shove that shit across all states. Its not that difficult.

so I think you are the one who needs to read the Constitution, since you're basically contradicting yourself. Sorry, but people like you who don't really understand their own message give the rest of us who like Ron Paul a bad name.

The constitution also protects states sovereignty, and since marriage is a states issue, the fed aught not meddle with that.

I don't know who BES is.

Also, I have heard Ron Paul say exactly the same thing.

sailorseal wrote: a ban on gay marriage directly violates the constitution

It does? Hmmm I guess a ban on inter-family marriage (incest) would be unconstitutional too. Maybe beastiality violates the Constitution as well.


Liberalism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere ... can help themselves.

jay_a2j wrote:

sailorseal wrote: a ban on gay marriage directly violates the constitution

It does? Hmmm I guess a ban on inter-family marriage (incest) would be unconstitutional too. Maybe beastiality violates the Constitution as well.


Liberalism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere ... can help themselves.

I think that incest is a stretch, but polygamy should be allowed if gay marriage is allowed. Possibly gay polygamy too. But then, what is the point of marriage then?

captain.crazy wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

sailorseal wrote: a ban on gay marriage directly violates the constitution

It does? Hmmm I guess a ban on inter-family marriage (incest) would be unconstitutional too. Maybe beastiality violates the Constitution as well.


Liberalism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere ... can help themselves.

I think that incest is a stretch, but polygamy should be allowed if gay marriage is allowed. Possibly gay polygamy too. But then, what is the point of marriage then?

Whatever it is, why shouldn't it apply to gays as well?

InkL0sed wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

sailorseal wrote: a ban on gay marriage directly violates the constitution

It does? Hmmm I guess a ban on inter-family marriage (incest) would be unconstitutional too. Maybe beastiality violates the Constitution as well.


Liberalism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere ... can help themselves.

I think that incest is a stretch, but polygamy should be allowed if gay marriage is allowed. Possibly gay polygamy too. But then, what is the point of marriage then?

Whatever it is, why shouldn't it apply to gays as well?

wut?