Conquer Club

HapSmo19 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:WAKE UP! What we really need to fear is hatred. Hatred is what will hurt us all.

Oh look, the rallying cry of the retarded.

no, u.

beezer wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:But, that is no more reason to deny people the right to live how they wish than it is to deny people to worship how they wish, to eat at the restaurants they wish (providing they pay, of course), etc.

Get out of the dark ages... the time when we burn heretics is long past. Imagine .. Protestants have even lived side-by-side with Roman Catholics for a few years. Jews and Muslims seem to do fine as well. So, homosexuals are next. So, you don't like their lifestyle. Either go bury YOURSELF in a mountain hideaway or decide that you have the right to teach your kids, to talk in your church, but not to tell the rest of the world how to live their lives.

If you cannot change them, then you have no right to condemn them. God made them. It is for God to decide, not you.

And.. for your other garbage. Christ is the uniter, the messenger of love and forgiveness. The divider, the proponent of hatred is not Christ.

I can see why atheists are for same sex marriage, but for you to try to use the Bible and Christianity to promote it is indefensible. You completely ignore specific verses which define it as sin, which is disobedience against God.

What you're also ignoring is that determining sin is the province of God, not the province of man. God will make his judgement on the sin of homosexuals if/when that time comes. Man should not be.

beezer wrote:I'm sure you'll get a lot of atheists in here to defend your position and you'll enjoy the temporary praise. Enjoy it for the short time it lasts in these forums. There is absolutely no way you are a true Christian. A theist - yes, but definitely not a follower of the Bible.

Player speaks in a far more Christ-like (i.e. Christian) manner than you are, that is certainly true.

jay_a2j wrote:

lgoasklucyl wrote:Damn... Shame you weren't around when medical care was a "special right" for African Americans- they really could have used someone quite as insensitive as you to lobby on their side.

Oh... And perhaps if you take your head out of your religion/culture's and looked into cultures where they are ( ) accepting of marriages (yep- it happens outside of your religion/culture!) between same sex individuals. So, your 'thousands of years' comment is 100% moot due to your blatant cultural insensitivity. Though, I would expect nothing less from you.

For starters being African-America does not violate God's laws. Try again.

Are you God? If not, why are you judging? Isn't that God's job?

jay_a2j wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
1) Actually, being homosexual doesn't violate God's laws. It's the sexual acts of homosexuality that are forbidden. (Thank my 5 years of Catholic propaganda school for that one). Or so says the Catholic Church, rubber stamped by the word of God himself, the Pope.

1.) What defines a homosexual? Hmmm could it be one who engages in homosexual acts?

Nope, that is not what defines a homosexual. In fact, heterosexuals are perfectly capable of engaging in homosexual acts and it doesn't change their sexuality at all. Educate yourself please...it's embarrassing for you.

jay_a2j wrote:But my prediction is.... all US States will eventually allow it. This is what happens when we distance ourselves from God and His ways. But there will be a price to pay.

I'd just like to make clear how grateful I am to not live in a country that follows the "ways" of any god or gods.

thegreekdog wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:As an aside jay, do you believe that 30 year old men should be able to marry 12-year old girls? And do you think one man can have multiple women?

If gay marriage is protected by the Constitution, so are these.

I believe "consent" would come into play with the 12-year old girl, so that wouldn't be protected. Polygamy though...yes.

Frigidus wrote: The bottom line is that the arguments against gay marriage are paper thin (with the arguments against polygamy, in my opinion, only slightly less so). It comes down to two general points: religion and disgust. Neither of these are acceptable reasons for limiting the extent of their rights.

Exactly. People need to fucking think about this, because it's important that you are DENY PEOPLE RIGHTS THAT DO NO HARM in what's supposed to be a "free country."

The only arguments against gay marriage is religion (and disgust, but that's petty enough that it's not worth further mention). Obvious, homosexuals don't agree with the religious doctrine that speaks against homosexuality, so really you are FORCING your RELIGION upon another group of people through LAW.

Unless you can give me any other reason (besides the slippery slope argument... why would two dudes banging make people more likely to f*ck their dog or sister FFS?) that homosexual marriage shouldn't be legal, what I have said is irrefutably true. You people are only just better than those religious extremists who persecute women in the middle east on the basis of their religion. The only difference is you use words to discriminate instead of throwing rocks (even though I'm sure there are people here who throw rocks too).

Where the f*ck is the separation of church and state?

PLAYER57832 wrote: The key is, of course consent. A twelve year old cannot offer consent.

How do you know, Player? That sounds awfully judgmental. They are simply expressing their love.

jay_a2j wrote:For starters being African-America does not violate God's laws. Try again.


You don't say?! There are actually cultures who blatantly violate God's laws? Oh the humanity! I would have never thought!


It's not moot my friend. Name 1 "culture" who officially recognized same sex marriage before, lets say 1970? (had to extend it a bit, ya never know, those crazy Europeans are unpredictable) Meanwhile, I'll grab a Snickers.

Your logic is so obviously flawed it's not even fair for me to try and debate with you...

Here, we'll simplify things for you.

I am a declared atheist. Not only that, but I blatantly oppose and speak out against religion (due, mostly, based on people like you...). I'm pretty sure that all throughout the bible God speaks out against people who practice other religions, worship others gods, and speak out against him. Why should I, someone who violates WAY more object of your religion, be allowed to marry- yet a religious, god fearing homosexual not be able to?

Oh? Because it's easier to pick on homosexuals than atheists? Yeah, you're a big man.

Don't pick and choose. If you're going to go by the bible- GO BY THE BIBLE. It's bullshit that you feel you can pick one passage out of the bible, preach your BS up and down in our social policy, and blatantly ignore SO MUCH else written in the SAME book.

F1fth wrote:

Frigidus wrote: The bottom line is that the arguments against gay marriage are paper thin (with the arguments against polygamy, in my opinion, only slightly less so). It comes down to two general points: religion and disgust. Neither of these are acceptable reasons for limiting the extent of their rights.

Exactly. People need to fucking think about this, because it's important that you are DENY PEOPLE RIGHTS THAT DO NO HARM in what's supposed to be a "free country."

The only arguments against gay marriage is religion (and disgust, but that's petty enough that it's not worth further mention). Obvious, homosexuals don't agree with the religious doctrine that speaks against homosexuality, so really you are FORCING your RELIGION upon another group of people through LAW.

Unless you can give me any other reason (besides the slippery slope argument... why would two dudes banging make people more likely to f*ck their dog or sister FFS?) that homosexual marriage shouldn't be legal, what I have said is irrefutably true. You people are only just better than those religious extremists who persecute women in the middle east on the basis of their religion. The only difference is you use words to discriminate instead of throwing rocks (even though I'm sure there are people here who throw rocks too).

Where the f*ck is the separation of church and state?

Let me ask you this... why is it illegal for a dude have sex with his dog? Religion or disgust?

thegreekdog wrote:

F1fth wrote:

Frigidus wrote: The bottom line is that the arguments against gay marriage are paper thin (with the arguments against polygamy, in my opinion, only slightly less so). It comes down to two general points: religion and disgust. Neither of these are acceptable reasons for limiting the extent of their rights.

Exactly. People need to fucking think about this, because it's important that you are DENY PEOPLE RIGHTS THAT DO NO HARM in what's supposed to be a "free country."

The only arguments against gay marriage is religion (and disgust, but that's petty enough that it's not worth further mention). Obvious, homosexuals don't agree with the religious doctrine that speaks against homosexuality, so really you are FORCING your RELIGION upon another group of people through LAW.

Unless you can give me any other reason (besides the slippery slope argument... why would two dudes banging make people more likely to f*ck their dog or sister FFS?) that homosexual marriage shouldn't be legal, what I have said is irrefutably true. You people are only just better than those religious extremists who persecute women in the middle east on the basis of their religion. The only difference is you use words to discriminate instead of throwing rocks (even though I'm sure there are people here who throw rocks too).

Where the f*ck is the separation of church and state?

Let me ask you this... why is it illegal for a dude have sex with his dog? Religion or disgust?

Animal cruelty/consent issues

Frigidus wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

F1fth wrote:

Frigidus wrote: The bottom line is that the arguments against gay marriage are paper thin (with the arguments against polygamy, in my opinion, only slightly less so). It comes down to two general points: religion and disgust. Neither of these are acceptable reasons for limiting the extent of their rights.

Exactly. People need to fucking think about this, because it's important that you are DENY PEOPLE RIGHTS THAT DO NO HARM in what's supposed to be a "free country."

The only arguments against gay marriage is religion (and disgust, but that's petty enough that it's not worth further mention). Obvious, homosexuals don't agree with the religious doctrine that speaks against homosexuality, so really you are FORCING your RELIGION upon another group of people through LAW.

Unless you can give me any other reason (besides the slippery slope argument... why would two dudes banging make people more likely to f*ck their dog or sister FFS?) that homosexual marriage shouldn't be legal, what I have said is irrefutably true. You people are only just better than those religious extremists who persecute women in the middle east on the basis of their religion. The only difference is you use words to discriminate instead of throwing rocks (even though I'm sure there are people here who throw rocks too).

Where the f*ck is the separation of church and state?

Let me ask you this... why is it illegal for a dude have sex with his dog? Religion or disgust?

Animal cruelty/consent issues

(1) I'm not asking you, I'm asking F1fth.
(2) I can surmise that an animal probably likes to get f8cked. Not to mention, animals aren't humans. Not to mention, animal cruelty is a moral issue.

The point is that people don't get to bang dogs not because of any logical reason or constitutional reason, but because one person is imposing his or her morals on another person.

thegreekdog wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Let me ask you this... why is it illegal for a dude have sex with his dog? Religion or disgust?

Animal cruelty/consent issues

(1) I'm not asking you, I'm asking F1fth.
(2) I can surmise that an animal probably likes to get f8cked. Not to mention, animals aren't humans. Not to mention, animal cruelty is a moral issue.

The point is that people don't get to bang dogs not because of any logical reason or constitutional reason, but because one person is imposing his or her morals on another person.

Or consent/cruelty like was just mentioned and you casually ignored.

Bones2484 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Let me ask you this... why is it illegal for a dude have sex with his dog? Religion or disgust?

Animal cruelty/consent issues

(1) I'm not asking you, I'm asking F1fth.
(2) I can surmise that an animal probably likes to get f8cked. Not to mention, animals aren't humans. Not to mention, animal cruelty is a moral issue.

The point is that people don't get to bang dogs not because of any logical reason or constitutional reason, but because one person is imposing his or her morals on another person.

Or consent/cruelty like was just mentioned and you casually ignored.

See above in bold. Thanks.

thegreekdog wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Let me ask you this... why is it illegal for a dude have sex with his dog? Religion or disgust?

Animal cruelty/consent issues

(1) I'm not asking you, I'm asking F1fth.
(2) I can surmise that an animal probably likes to get f8cked. Not to mention, animals aren't humans. Not to mention, animal cruelty is a moral issue.

The point is that people don't get to bang dogs not because of any logical reason or constitutional reason, but because one person is imposing his or her morals on another person.

Or consent/cruelty like was just mentioned and you casually ignored.

See above in bold. Thanks.

So your argument is your opinion that animals "like to get f8cked"? Even to all the evidence that shows 99% of animal species do not have sex for pleasure?

Bones2484 wrote:So your argument is your opinion that animals "like to get f8cked"? Even to all the evidence that shows 99% of animal species do not have sex for pleasure?

Not really, no. I have multiple arguments. My argument vis-a-vis F1fth's post is that some people need to understand that other people have different morals and instead of completely dismissing those people (like F1fth has done), try to work with those people to understand the other point of view. My argument regarding gay marriage is that, while I support gay marriage and would vote for gay marriage in a referendum, I do not think marriage (or gay marriage) is a Constitutinoal right (nor are homosexuals a protected class for federal purposes). And if it is decided by the Supreme Court that marriage and gay marriage is a Constitutional right or that homosexuals are a protected class, I believe that, jurisprudentially, the Supreme Court would necessarily have to determine that something like polygamy should be a right (or that polygamists are a protected class) as well.

In any event, I urge you to read the rest of the thread.

thegreekdog wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Let me ask you this... why is it illegal for a dude have sex with his dog? Religion or disgust?

Animal cruelty/consent issues

(2) I can surmise that an animal probably likes to get f8cked.

For a dog, it will typically need to be in heat or it DOESN'T "like to get f*cked". And even if in heat, how do you know there is consent on the part of the dog?

thegreekdog wrote:Not to mention, animals aren't humans.

Not relevant, other than to the extent which the animal cannot give consent.

thegreekdog wrote:Not to mention, animal cruelty is a moral issue.

It is a moral issue yes, but it's a moral issue where another being is harmed - a far different case from homosexual marriage. For you to tie homosexual marriage into animal cruelty is way beneath you, thegreekdog. I'm disappointed.

thegreekdog wrote:The point is that people don't get to bang dogs not because of any logical reason or constitutional reason, but because one person is imposing his or her morals on another person.

No, not imposing their morals - imposing HARM.

Woodruff wrote:It is a moral issue yes, but it's a moral issue where another being is harmed - a far different case from homosexual marriage. For you to tie homosexual marriage into animal cruelty is way beneath you, thegreekdog. I'm disappointed.

Someone who argues that homosexual marriage is impermissible would argue that someone is harmed.

I'm not tying homosexual marriage to animal cruelty, don't be ridiculous. You are all pulling straw men out of your asses. It's driving me f8cking nuts. It's one or two fairly simple concepts. Accept what I'm telling you because it's true.

IF YOU ARGUE THAT HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE, SO ARE OTHER THINGS.

IF YOU ARGUE THAT BESTIALITY OR POLYGAMY IS MORALLY WRONG, WHY IS THAT OKAY BUT IT IS NOT OKAY FOR SOMEONE TO ARGUE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS MORALLY WRONG.

I apparently can't say this enough, I'm an ardent supporter of gay marriage. I'm trying to bring some reasonableness to this argument. Some people do not believe in gay marriage. Just because you think they are wrong, does not mean that their beliefs are not without merit and that they are open to ridicule. You want people to respect gay marriage, then you better goddamn well respect those people in return.

thegreekdog wrote:IF YOU ARGUE THAT BESTIALITY OR POLYGAMY IS MORALLY WRONG, WHY IS THAT OKAY BUT IT IS NOT OKAY FOR SOMEONE TO ARGUE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS MORALLY WRONG.

I use two rules (with only one exception to them) to determine what is and is not allowable:

1. If all involved parties are capable of giving consent, then sex is allowable.
2. If sex is allowable then marriage is allowable.

The one exception is incest, which is not allowable for reasons that do not deal with morality. Using those two rules, polygamy is fine while beastiality is not (if children are incapable of giving consent, animals sure as hell aren't capable either).

That is why homosexuality is OK but bestiality isn't.

Frigidus wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:IF YOU ARGUE THAT BESTIALITY OR POLYGAMY IS MORALLY WRONG, WHY IS THAT OKAY BUT IT IS NOT OKAY FOR SOMEONE TO ARGUE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS MORALLY WRONG.

I use two rules (with only one exception to them) to determine what is and is not allowable:

1. If all involved parties are capable of giving consent, then sex is allowable.
2. If sex is allowable then marriage is allowable.

The one exception is incest, which is not allowable for reasons that do not deal with morality. Using those two rules, polygamy is fine while beastiality is not (if children are incapable of giving consent, animals sure as hell aren't capable either).

That is why homosexuality is OK but bestiality isn't.

See, I hate using the bestiality argument. I think I should probably stop and just focus on polygamy. (yes I typed "focus on polygamy").

Man, this sure is getting steamy.

Edit: I will agree with you though, greekdog, a lot of people need to work on having logically consistent positions. If you can't argue something without being hypocritical, you need to reanalyze your position.

thegreekdog wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Let me ask you this... why is it illegal for a dude have sex with his dog? Religion or disgust?

Animal cruelty/consent issues

(1) I'm not asking you, I'm asking F1fth.
(2) I can surmise that an animal probably likes to get f8cked. Not to mention, animals aren't humans. Not to mention, animal cruelty is a moral issue.

The point is that people don't get to bang dogs not because of any logical reason or constitutional reason, but because one person is imposing his or her morals on another person.

Or consent/cruelty like was just mentioned and you casually ignored.

See above in bold. Thanks.

Most animals only copulate for procreation. Only a few species actually fornicate for enjoyment.

thegreekdog wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:IF YOU ARGUE THAT BESTIALITY OR POLYGAMY IS MORALLY WRONG, WHY IS THAT OKAY BUT IT IS NOT OKAY FOR SOMEONE TO ARGUE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS MORALLY WRONG.

I use two rules (with only one exception to them) to determine what is and is not allowable:

1. If all involved parties are capable of giving consent, then sex is allowable.
2. If sex is allowable then marriage is allowable.

The one exception is incest, which is not allowable for reasons that do not deal with morality. Using those two rules, polygamy is fine while beastiality is not (if children are incapable of giving consent, animals sure as hell aren't capable either).

That is why homosexuality is OK but bestiality isn't.

See, I hate using the bestiality argument. I think I should probably stop and just focus on polygamy. (yes I typed "focus on polygamy").

He touched on polygamy too...

Bones2484 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:IF YOU ARGUE THAT BESTIALITY OR POLYGAMY IS MORALLY WRONG, WHY IS THAT OKAY BUT IT IS NOT OKAY FOR SOMEONE TO ARGUE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS MORALLY WRONG.

I use two rules (with only one exception to them) to determine what is and is not allowable:

1. If all involved parties are capable of giving consent, then sex is allowable.
2. If sex is allowable then marriage is allowable.

The one exception is incest, which is not allowable for reasons that do not deal with morality. Using those two rules, polygamy is fine while beastiality is not (if children are incapable of giving consent, animals sure as hell aren't capable either).

That is why homosexuality is OK but bestiality isn't.

See, I hate using the bestiality argument. I think I should probably stop and just focus on polygamy. (yes I typed "focus on polygamy").

He touched on polygamy too...

I know. I'm saying I shouldn't compare bestiality as a right to privacy (because of consent problems). So, I'm just going to use polygamy to elucidate my arguments in the future.

As far as I know, Frigidus is okay with consenting polygamy.

thegreekdog wrote:I know. I'm saying I shouldn't compare bestiality as a right to privacy (because of consent problems). So, I'm just going to use polygamy to elucidate my arguments in the future.

As far as I know, Frigidus is okay with consenting polygamy.

If I'm setting the same "guidelines" as Frigidus, then I guess I would be too.

But when you throw in "choice", then it gets a bit hazier. People can choose to have multiple spouses, people cannot choose to be gay or lesbian. Stopping gay marriage prevents people from being who they are. Stopping polygamist marriage stops people from being who they want to be.

I still can't understand how some people believe being gay is a choice... but that's another argument for another day.

Bones2484 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I know. I'm saying I shouldn't compare bestiality as a right to privacy (because of consent problems). So, I'm just going to use polygamy to elucidate my arguments in the future.

As far as I know, Frigidus is okay with consenting polygamy.

If I'm setting the same "guidelines" as Frigidus, then I guess I would be too.

But when you throw in "choice", then it gets a bit hazier. People can choose to have multiple spouses, people cannot choose to be gay or lesbian. Stopping gay marriage prevents people from being who they are. Stopping polygamist marriage stops people from being who they want to be.

I still can't understand how some people believe being gay is a choice... but that's another argument for another day.

Some would argue (Catholics for example) that practicing homosexuality is a choice (similar to practicing heterosexuality). The Catholic Church believes to be homosexual is okay, but to engage in homosexual sex is wrong.

And if they want to argue that, then so be it. I disagree, but there's obviously nothing I can do but accept that as their belief.

I'm more referring to the type of people who believe homosexuality is something you can go to a doctor or class to "cure".