Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-04-2004, 10:29 AM   #51
Hormadrune
Sociopathic bully?
 
Hormadrune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 11,895
Rheaton- would you stop with the wholly illogical slippery-slope bullshit already? "First you allow black people to marry white people, next thing you know you have people marrying their doberman and fornicating in the town square!" Do you even listen to how flawed your thinking is?

"Oh my god, all this rampant pushing for equal protection under the law and an unrepressed pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness- when will it all end!!"
__________________
WoW-Ghostlands-US: Prae | Ăs÷p | Prolonix | Horm | Ulfhednar | Ă÷l´
EQ: Hormadrune <Retired> <OFS> <CoI> <Affy> <CE>
Hormadrune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 10:33 AM   #52
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
What page was it in the liberal handbook that when losing an argument play the race card?
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 10:35 AM   #53
Veo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,926
probably the same as the corresponding page as the conservative handbook that says when losing an argument, play the "first homosexuality, next beastiality" card
Veo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 10:39 AM   #54
Cerulean
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 216
Send a message via ICQ to Cerulean
I'm pretty ambivalent about this whole thing. If they want gay marriage, so be it. I just think it's an oxymoron. Calling a cube a sphere, does not change the shape of the cube it only renders the label into uselessness - afterall if a label can be used to describe anything then it really describes nothing.

The fact we have to put 'gay' in front of marriage to clearly state the case is proof in and of itself that marriage is conventionally defined as man & woman.

Davek~
As chuk pointed out the word replacement game is lame. Society decides what is moral/immoral. Replace straight with gay, catholic, atheist, pedophile, geriatric, etc and you'll get a variety of acceptable or unacceptable situations - depending on the morals of the society.

Lurikeen~
Don't be dense. To deny that marriage has been a cornerstone of society is an inherently clueless argument. The family-bond is perhaps the strongest and most common throughout any society. Did you pay attention in your history classes? I would ask you to prove how it isn't a fundamental part of society. If marriage isn't so important then what's the point of this thread? Why are gays fighting for something that is clearly so irrelevant? I think the vehemence of the cause and its rabid opposition clearly show the value we place on the institution we call marriage.

And just for clarification - I don't care who you love or how you love. I'm just tired of people trying to redefine or re-label everything in order to avoid unpleasantness. Society needs to grow a thicker skin. Marriage does historically represent one specific union of individuals. To redefine it or apply that label to another union renders that label useless.
Cerulean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 10:46 AM   #55
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Originally Posted by Hormadrune
Rheaton- would you stop with the wholly illogical slippery-slope bullshit already? "First you allow black people to marry white people, next thing you know you have people marrying their doberman and fornicating in the town square!" Do you even listen to how flawed your thinking is?
You already know my position on assigning sexual preference a minority status. Just as you, I hope, discriminate against men having sexual preference to pigs, I can 'openly and freely' discriminate against what I personally think it 'wrong' and it be totally justified.... But one cannot say "being black is wrong", understand?

Originally Posted by Veo
probably the same as the corresponding page as the conservative handbook that says when losing an argument, play the "first homosexuality, next beastiality" card
Give me an example of how to stop beastiality from becoming legal, please. I will humor you by playing Devil's advocate.
__________________
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1st Corinthians 2:14)
:9
Rheaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 10:48 AM   #56
Trith
The lesser of two weevils
 
Trith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Shreveport, Louisiana
Posts: 3,490
Send a message via MSN to Trith
What page was it in the liberal handbook that when losing an argument play the race card?
Page 28. It's rights across from the paragraph about how to keep the black vote in your pocket by keeping them poor and uneducated.
Trith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 10:49 AM   #57
Cerulean
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 216
Send a message via ICQ to Cerulean
probably the same as the corresponding page as the conservative handbook that says when losing an argument, play the "first homosexuality, next beastiality" card
Though I think playing the "next bestiality" card is extreme and erroneous - I think people use that to demean homosexuality via analogy.

I do, however, see polygamy being next and not that absurd.

After all, polygamy has more historical acceptance than 'gay' marriage. The weight of precedence would show that polygamy and bigamy have been recognized before - why not now?

Hey, who are we to refuse multiple men & multiple women who mutually love one another to call their union marriage?


Again - to deter any personal attacks - I don't care who you love or how you love. You want multiple guys & girls around you, fine. 'Plural marriage' is simply an oxymoron imo.
Cerulean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 10:50 AM   #58
Trith
The lesser of two weevils
 
Trith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Shreveport, Louisiana
Posts: 3,490
Send a message via MSN to Trith
Trith still won't give that inch.
Trith and about 140 million other Americans won't give that inch.
Trith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 10:55 AM   #59
Trith
The lesser of two weevils
 
Trith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Shreveport, Louisiana
Posts: 3,490
Send a message via MSN to Trith
Lurikeen~
Don't be dense. To deny that marriage has been a cornerstone of society is an inherently clueless argument. The family-bond is perhaps the strongest and most common throughout any society. Did you pay attention in your history classes? I would ask you to prove how it isn't a fundamental part of society. If marriage isn't so important then what's the point of this thread? Why are gays fighting for something that is clearly so irrelevant? I think the vehemence of the cause and its rabid opposition clearly show the value we place on the institution we call marriage.

Thanks for that. I was feeling a bit to lazy to engage in Lurikeen's brand of mental masturbation today. I'm not trying to say Cerulean is agreeing with me here on other issues, or I with him, but he did sum up pretty evenhandedly one of those truth's that so easily seem to escape people like Lurikeen.
Trith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 10:56 AM   #60
Davek
Squawk Box
 
Davek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ini is the wind beneath my wings.
Posts: 7,986
You're right that is a fun game, lets keep playing.


People who perform pedophile acts dont need to be married, you dont need to marry some young boys tookus to be accepted in society.

whats next? pedophile boy scouts? pedophile churches? pedophile education in school? pedophile history month?
Which makes this even more funny since the majority of paedophiles are "straight".
__________________
Davek Bonemender ~ Guild Leader of Sunrunners ~
~ Retired with 8 years of service ~
~ Semi-unretired 2012 ~

Man that just rolls off the tongue nicely.

Originally Posted by Karthanon View Post
I know, you're in Ottawa, Davek. Still, I can't help but /poke you.
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
And you wonder why I don't play nice with you? You leave my man buttons alone.. Those are Davek's.
Davek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 10:58 AM   #61
Veo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,926
Give me an example of how to stop beastiality from becoming legal, please. I will humor you by playing Devil's advocate.
Easily. Ask a pig if it likes being fucked by some guy. It can't answer, so it can't be considered consensual. The goverment has said what goes on in the bedroom between two consenting adults is none of it's business, so it is declaring homosexuality legal.

After all, polygamy have more historical acceptance than 'gay' marriage. The weight of precedence would show that polygamy and bigamy have been recognized before - why not now?

Hey, who are we to refuse multiple men & multiple women who mutually love one another to call their union marriage?
As long as all of them are consenting adults and agree to the situation, let them all get married to each other.
Veo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 11:01 AM   #62
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
Rheaton, get it through your head. Stop equating love and sex.
They are not the same thing. You don't accuse Heterosexuals of leading us on the path of beastiality. Why would homosexuality be more prone to lead us on that path? Explain to me why homosexuality opens the door anymore to beastiality or even society's acceptance of it. Sex is sex, kinky sex is kinky sex. Neither straight sex or gay sex is immune to kinkiness. There are just as many kinky straight people as there are kinky gay people. It makes no difference who someone likes. The only reason you condemn gay sex is because you are straight. Guess what. Its none of your business what gay people do. Why should it matter at all to you? I will tell you why it matters to you. Because no matter what you do, you will always sit there in judgement of others. Poor lost soul. And you call yourself a Christian. Well, start acting like it then.

The preference of an individual has nothing to do with having sex. I know gay virgins, explain to me how that can be if homosexuality is about the performing sexual acts.

Now as far as the problems with gay sex and straight sex... Straight sex has led to such monsters as the Green River Killer, Ted Bundy and other mass murderers. It has led to many a case of broken families. It has led to much abuse and many rapes. Now tell me why you condone it anymore than gay sex? It is no more holy than gay sex. It comes down to only one difference, and that is preference.

As far as marriage. If there weren't a problem with divorce in this country would you be worried about the path we are going on? The sanctity of marriage right now is weak. That is a problem. That magnifies this also, but this is only a symptom and not the problem. I have seen a consistent problem with you conservs focusing on symptoms rather than the actual problems. You are doing it again. You don't solve a problem by fixing the symptoms, that only prolongs it. You solve it by fixing the problem.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 11:04 AM   #63
Veo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,926
Trith and about 140 million other Americans won't give that inch.
Actually, a large percentage of people who don't agree with same-sex marriage agree that homosexuals should have an equivalent to marriage.

There are 3 groups playing this game
1) Those who want to give same-sex couples the right to marry.

2) Those who want to keep marriage for hetero's, but give gays a situation completely equal to marriage, just not called marriage.

3) Those who don't want gays to have any sort of marriage-type right.

I would say groups 1 & 2 are willing larger combined than group 3, and probably more willing to compromise.
Veo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 11:06 AM   #64
Trith
The lesser of two weevils
 
Trith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Shreveport, Louisiana
Posts: 3,490
Send a message via MSN to Trith
That's the funny thing. I don't mind some type of "union" cerimony either. But it should not involve the words "Husband, Wife, Married, Marriage". It should also not entitle the participants to rights and priveledges of marriage.
Trith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 11:10 AM   #65
Trith
The lesser of two weevils
 
Trith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Shreveport, Louisiana
Posts: 3,490
Send a message via MSN to Trith
Which makes this even more funny since the majority of paedophiles are "straight".
That's not even remotely close. The huge majority of pedophiles in prison are male, and their victims are almost exclusively male. That's not to say there are not male to female offenders, but they are not nearly as large a number as male to male.

Last definition I checked male to male sex was called "homosexual"...
Trith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 11:12 AM   #66
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Originally Posted by Bumbleroot The Dorf
Rheaton, get it through your head. Stop equating love and sex.
They are not the same thing. You don't accuse Heterosexuals of leading us on the path of beastiality. Why would homosexuality be more prone to lead us on that path? Explain to me why homosexuality opens the door anymore to beastiality or even society's acceptance of it.
If we cannot establish, with laws or otherwise, what we accept or do not accept, anything is fair game. Would you agree with that? Thoughts and love, emotions and feelings cannot be governed...but actions can be. You are free to love anything, but it doesnt mean you can act upon it, right?

Dont pull the heart-strings .. you wont get any music. The majority in any society wishes to retain the ability to establish their wishes in way of what is legal and what isnt.

Originally Posted by Veo
Easily. Ask a pig if it likes being fucked by some guy. It can't answer, so it can't be considered consensual.
Pervert: "But the pig cannot speak english.. however, you can tell by its actions it is more then willing"

Liberal: "You must have consent"

Pervert: "Why? It is humping my leg and it didnt get my consent. Besides, does this animal have human rights? I can eat it but I cannot screw it? I dont have to get its consent to eat it"
__________________
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1st Corinthians 2:14)
:9
Rheaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 11:23 AM   #67
Flub Man
Here's to you liberals!!!
 
Flub Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Geaux Tigers
Posts: 3,327
Originally Posted by Vir
1) The debate is still open on the legality of how the marriages were obtained.
2) Do you honestly want states to stop recognizing the laws of other states? In Oregon and Alaska there's no state sales tax. Legal residents of those states aren't required to pay state sales tax in any other state regardless of the taxes in that state. Should something like this change too? If so, what's next? There's a very slippery slope lined with banana peels waiting to get stepped on here.
1) The Attorney General of New York has determined them to be illegal. The people of California voted to define marriage as a man and a woman. Seems pretty clear to those of us who's mind's are clouded from bong water.

2) Oh no, not the slippery slop arguement? I thought they it was wrong. Get him Lur.

Didn't the DoM Act already cover that? It says that state may legalize gay marriage within it's own borders. But states would not be obligated to recognize such marriages performed in another state.

So in fact, Congress does allow a state to allow same sex marriage, and also allows states to not recognize that marriage.

ps. thanx for making me the lead really, real axis of evil state. I'm honored.
__________________
Dirty Ol' Flub <retired>
My Sports Blog

"Starkville is the Indian word for Trailer Park."
~ Skip Bertman

'I was just wrong. Flub you are correct.'
~bumble
Flub Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 11:30 AM   #68
Vireil
Disturbing the force
 
Vireil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 2,711
The Attorney General doesn't make the laws for New York.

What vote in California?

DoM hasn't been subjected to challenge yet, and once it is it will be held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, you'll see.
__________________
Vireil
Coercer
<Recovering>
Vireil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 11:35 AM   #69
Trith
The lesser of two weevils
 
Trith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Shreveport, Louisiana
Posts: 3,490
Send a message via MSN to Trith
DoM hasn't been subjected to challenge yet, and once it is it will be held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, you'll see
So will gay marriage as a "right".
Trith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 11:37 AM   #70
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
ps. thanx for making me the lead really, real axis of evil state. I'm honored.
I am honored and thankful that I made the list. Being last means I need to work harder to move up
__________________
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1st Corinthians 2:14)
:9
Rheaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 11:38 AM   #71
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by Cerulean
Lurikeen~
Don't be dense. To deny that marriage has been a cornerstone of society is an inherently clueless argument. The family-bond is perhaps the strongest and most common throughout any society. Did you pay attention in your history classes? I would ask you to prove how it isn't a fundamental part of society. If marriage isn't so important then what's the point of this thread?
I think you and Trith are being dense. First off, I didn't deny that marriage "has been" a "cornerstone of society". Way to misquote. What I was questioning is Trith's usage of "basic fundamentals of society".

A "basic fundamental" to society is what? A set of moral imperatives? Throwing around a term one is clueless as to what it means only proves that person's ignorance and nothing more. /wave Trith

Further, you are equivocating "so important" with "cornerstone of society". Just because an issue is important doesn't mean that it is a foundation upon which society is built. While we are here, the marriage traditions of today aren't a moral foundation for society. If you think so, then the rate of divorce pretty much crushes your belief. Society seems to keep chugging along without "marriage" and that is a point the bigots against homosexual marriages should understand.

The family bond is a genetic one and not contrived one, such as one pieced together through the bonds of matrimony. If you had been paying attention to both history and the modern day, you would understand that while over 50% of marriages end in divorce, each child is still bound to a mother and father if they are lucky enough to know them.

Finally, the importance of this thread is marginal. The importance of the issue raised in this thread is monumental. It is an issue of rights. One sector of society is being denied rights on the basis of sexual orientation. That is the issue, and those trying to deny rights on the basis of sexual orientation are wrong.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." ŚMonty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 11:45 AM   #72
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Originally Posted by Lurikeen
One sector of society is being denied rights on the basis of sexual orientation. That is the issue, and those trying to deny rights on the basis of sexual orientation are wrong.
Is it a person with a particular sexual orientation or is it the orientation itself? If its the orientation itself we can in fact discriminate against it and deny it. If it is the person with a particular orientation, then we must allow all orientations.
__________________
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1st Corinthians 2:14)
:9
Rheaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 11:49 AM   #73
Vireil
Disturbing the force
 
Vireil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 2,711
Here's the REAL DEAL on NY State Law

Marriage, so far as its validity in
law is concerned, continues to be a civil contract, to which the consent
of parties capable in law of making a contract is essential.
There's no stipulation as to gender requirements in the statute for people to enter into the contract.
__________________
Vireil
Coercer
<Recovering>
Vireil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 11:51 AM   #74
Trith
The lesser of two weevils
 
Trith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Shreveport, Louisiana
Posts: 3,490
Send a message via MSN to Trith
/sigh..why do I feel like I'm back in grade school after every one of Lurikeen's posts.

Ok here we go..

Here Lurikeen..here are 4 simple questions I want you to answer for me. I don't need any bullshit debate..just answer these yes or no please.

1. Should it be allowable to take the life of another innocent human being for your own personal pleasure or gain?

___ Yes

___ No

2. Should you be allowed to take another person's property without his/her permission and use it and abuse it as your own?

____Yes

____No

3. Should a mature adult be allowed to have sexual relations with a small child, incapable of knowing the consequences, ramifications, or meaning of such contact?

____Yes

____No

4. Were your biological parents male and female?

____Yes



When you are finished with this Lurikeen, congradulate yourself, give yourself a pat on the back, hell bend over and blow yourself if ya can, because you just joined the beloved masses who "Have a fucking clue" (tm).
Trith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2004, 11:51 AM   #75
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Rheaton, the last time I checked people have specific orientations, or inclinations. You can't legislate against orientations without affecting real people.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." ŚMonty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:15 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.