TomAiello 25 #76 October 24, 2009 QuoteThe government is busy doing all sorts of things that should not involve them. Yup. And, as in this case, creating all kinds of unnecessary complications as a result.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #77 October 24, 2009 QuoteEveryone who disagrees with same sex marriage must be homophobic, right? Fuck off! No, not because you disagree with same sex marriage, but because you say homosexuality is wrong. QuoteIf it's so right, why haven't we a homosexual species from the animal kingdom that pair for life, such as swans for example? 'Right' in what way? Animals aren't usually known for their grasp of morality. QuoteTo advocate the permanency is against nature. Even if that were so, so what? Quoteeven these fuckers were able to see the difference between having a simple sexual encounter to a permanent relationship. You're using the behaviour of murdering Islamic zealots in Afghanistan as support for your argument? You won't get much traction with that one.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #78 October 24, 2009 QuoteA great example of the last great generation. Well, of the WWII vets and people of their age I've spoken to, this gentleman is in the minority. Not saying he's wrong by any means. Just saying I wouldn't lump the entire generation in with one man's opinion. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #79 October 24, 2009 Quote...I'm sure the Courts would see it exactly as you do . . . I'm sure they wouldn't actually. But then, the courts (and the laws) condone all sorts of things I thing are totally immoral (income taxes, for example), and at the same time condemn all sorts of things I think are totally fine (recreational drug use, for example).-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #80 October 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf it's so right, why haven't we a homosexual species from the animal kingdom that pair for life, such as swans for example? To advocate the permanency is against nature. That's what makes it wrong. What's so difficult about that? We have seen that very thing, so I guess you'll acknowledge that you've been wrong and homosexual marriage isn't wrong or unnatural after all. didn't you read the part where the male and female have an offspring together, before the male chases the female away ffs!!? Yes I did, and that in no way makes the male-male relationship any less permanent. By the standard of proof that you set forth, you've been proven wrong. Are you going to be mature enough to admit it? If the relationship is permanent, how on earth would the male swan mate with the female to produce offspring? It's rather evident who's wrong. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #81 October 24, 2009 QuoteOk. So you'd advocate a ruling that nobodies allowed children anymore - because it's not wrong. No, I would not. Only a certified retard too stupid to use a keyboard would genuinely think that is what I meant. If you're going to keep intentionally misinterpreting people I'm not sure what you're hoping to get out of this exchange apart from your own humiliation. QuoteGreat argument mate. Yes, I do have a great argument. Which is obviously why you're avoiding it.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #82 October 24, 2009 QuoteIf the relationship is permanent, how on earth would the male swan mate with the female to produce offspring? Since it is the males that nurture the egg and raise the offspring, it's the male-mwle relationship that's permanent. QuoteIt's rather evident who's wrong. Yes it is. But can you admit it?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #83 October 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteEveryone who disagrees with same sex marriage must be homophobic, right? Fuck off! No, not because you disagree with same sex marriage, but because you say homosexuality is wrong. QuoteIf it's so right, why haven't we a homosexual species from the animal kingdom that pair for life, such as swans for example? 'Right' in what way? Animals aren't usually known for their grasp of morality. QuoteTo advocate the permanency is against nature. Even if that were so, so what? Quoteeven these fuckers were able to see the difference between having a simple sexual encounter to a permanent relationship. You're using the behaviour of murdering Islamic zealots in Afghanistan as support for your argument? You won't get much traction with that one. Context laddie, context. Stop taking points addressed to others and using it for your own counter arguments. deal with the points addressed to yourself, and then, if it's suitable, pick up on other points. That's simple manners. But of course, why are you wrong!! Who said you're wrong?? blablabla You're always going off on tangents - have you banged your head recently? You're arguing against un-natural acts' saying: so what? (!) You're critical of my Afghan example - as I am - but missed the context entirely. Go to bed - it must be late for you. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mdrejhon 8 #84 October 24, 2009 Quote Quote The government is busy doing all sorts of things that should not involve them And, as in this case, creating all kinds of unnecessary complications as a result. That also includes the 1040 form and the date of April 15th. Another subject of debate altogether for Speaker's Corner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #85 October 24, 2009 QuoteQuote...I'm sure the Courts would see it exactly as you do . . . I'm sure they wouldn't actually. But then, the courts (and the laws) condone all sorts of things I thing are totally immoral (income taxes, for example), and at the same time condemn all sorts of things I think are totally fine (recreational drug use, for example). So what's your point? We disregard the law? Man-made laws sure, but mother natures? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #86 October 24, 2009 Quote Quote Quote ...I'm sure the Courts would see it exactly as you do . . . I'm sure they wouldn't actually. But then, the courts (and the laws) condone all sorts of things I thing are totally immoral (income taxes, for example), and at the same time condemn all sorts of things I think are totally fine (recreational drug use, for example). So what's your point? We disregard the law? Man-made laws sure, but mother natures? What was it that Gandhi said about unjust laws? I don't believe that mother nature has laws we can break. Physical laws aside, what we perceive as "natural" law is pretty much just our perception. I'm pretty sure that nature will not be outraged if I go out and have sex with a horse or a monkey tonight. Nature certainly isn't going to be very concerned if I have sex with a man. Now my wife, she may have something to say about those things. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #87 October 24, 2009 Quote Quote Ok. So you'd advocate a ruling that nobodies allowed children anymore - because it's not wrong. No, I would not. Only a certified retard too stupid to use a keyboard would genuinely think that is what I meant. If you're going to keep intentionally misinterpreting people I'm not sure what you're hoping to get out of this exchange apart from your own humiliation. FUCKING classic from Jakee! Utterly PMSL. Such a strongly opinioned retort from a method of insinuation you previously used on me. Although I didn't get upset as you, did I? Quote Great argument mate. Yes, I do have a great argument. Which is obviously why you're avoiding it. Of course, of course. Deal with the points addressed to you or shut ya lip dingdong! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mdrejhon 8 #88 October 24, 2009 QuoteSo what's your point? We disregard the law? Man-made laws sure, but mother natures?Mother nature has a lot of immoral things happen out there in the wild. But of course, people debate what of that is 'immoral'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #89 October 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteSo what's your point? We disregard the law? Man-made laws sure, but mother natures?Mother nature has a lot of immoral things happen out there in the wild. But of course, people debate what of that is 'immoral'. The only thing I can see as truly immoral is forcing another adult to do something against their will. If they're doing it voluntarily, how can that be immoral?-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #90 October 24, 2009 QuoteI'm confused as to why we need the government's permission to marry in the first place. Wouldn't this be easier if the government just got out of the marriage business altogether? Good point. Tax and inheritance ramifications, maybe?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #91 October 24, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote ...I'm sure the Courts would see it exactly as you do . . . I'm sure they wouldn't actually. But then, the courts (and the laws) condone all sorts of things I thing are totally immoral (income taxes, for example), and at the same time condemn all sorts of things I think are totally fine (recreational drug use, for example). So what's your point? We disregard the law? Man-made laws sure, but mother natures? What was it that Gandhi said about unjust laws? I don't believe that mother nature has laws we can break. Physical laws aside, what we perceive as "natural" law is pretty much just our perception. I'm pretty sure that nature will not be outraged if I go out and have sex with a horse or a monkey tonight. Nature certainly isn't going to be very concerned if I have sex with a man. Now my wife, she may have something to say about those things. Nature might give you a nasty dose of disease...... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #92 October 24, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote ...I'm sure the Courts would see it exactly as you do . . . I'm sure they wouldn't actually. But then, the courts (and the laws) condone all sorts of things I thing are totally immoral (income taxes, for example), and at the same time condemn all sorts of things I think are totally fine (recreational drug use, for example). So what's your point? We disregard the law? Man-made laws sure, but mother natures? What was it that Gandhi said about unjust laws? I don't believe that mother nature has laws we can break. Physical laws aside, what we perceive as "natural" law is pretty much just our perception. I'm pretty sure that nature will not be outraged if I go out and have sex with a horse or a monkey tonight. Nature certainly isn't going to be very concerned if I have sex with a man. Now my wife, she may have something to say about those things. Er, I'd like to think so! Natural and un-natural laws aren't just what we perceive though. I can get certain tree sap, put it into a pool, and by intoxicating the salmon, lift them out and take them off down to the fishmonger. Now, how did I know about that? How did my fore-fathers find out? Is it un-natural? They discovered this through it happening in nature. Is homosexual acts in themselves un-natural? Of course not. But perversions of what makes our species survive is un-natural; such as same sex marriages. Poaching every salmon pool in the nature described would also be un-natural. I'm all for tolerance; sometimes a line has to be drawn though. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #93 October 24, 2009 Quote Quote I'm confused as to why we need the government's permission to marry in the first place. Wouldn't this be easier if the government just got out of the marriage business altogether? Good point. Tax and inheritance ramifications, maybe? There are also health insurance issues, under the (screwed up) employment-based system we currently use. In terms of inheritance, I think it's easy enough to just write a will, regardless of marital status. In terms of taxation, it would be easy enough to just eliminate joint returns (or, alternately, allow them for any two--or more, if you like--people who choose to file together). Of course, simply eliminating the income tax would be my preferred solution. -- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mdrejhon 8 #94 October 24, 2009 Some people may decide to debate animals have no concept of morals. In that case, I would rephrase, as: QuoteMother nature has a lot of things happen out there in the wild, that humans would consider immoral. But of course, people debate what of that is 'immoral' A specific person or group (religion) might consider immoral to include same sex activity which obviously happen out in mother nature. Another person or group (religion) may consider one animal unnecessarily killing another in a fight, to be immoral. Or both is. Or neither is. That's why I say there's debate of what 'immoral' means, in this context... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #95 October 24, 2009 QuoteI'm all for tolerance; sometimes a line has to be drawn though. Why?-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #96 October 24, 2009 Go figure. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #97 October 24, 2009 Well Jakee, are you going to provide citations or just admit you are without a clue? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DFWAJG 4 #98 October 24, 2009 QuoteI'm not saying it's not natural; it's just wrong. Do you argue for peadophiles? Some people are naturally attracted to children - should we allow adults to marry children? The difference between pedophiles and gay people is that gay adults are in a consensual relationship. Pedophiles harm children. You cannot compare the two. As the man said in his speech, that there should not be any reason that two consenting adults shouldn't have the right to marry. And further more, homosexual experiences are the common, not uncommon. And, many adolescents have experienced a homosexual encounter. Even my own mother, who is straight as an arrow, kissed another girl when she was 12. She recalls "practicing" for when she would have her first kiss with a boy. This is an excellent article of what I am talking about. http://www.pixelconsumpton.com/infant-and-child-sexuality/some-homosexual-encounters.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #99 October 24, 2009 QuoteWell Jakee, are you going to provide citations or just admit you are without a clue? Unless you know of any practising Sumerians, or Egyptians from the 3rd Intermediate Period, you are wrong. Marriage predates Judaism and Christianity.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #100 October 24, 2009 Yep, my friend Vicki practiced going down on all her friends both male and female, so in the future she was sure to be popular. And it worked! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
