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 03-05-2004, 09:56 AM   #176
Vireil
Disturbing the force
 
Vireil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 2,711
Let us pronounce our solemn vows in this manner in the house of the Lord

Originally Posted by Little White Chaple Website
Tribute to Elvis* #1 $275
Have your marriage performed in a Tribute to Elvis Pink Cadillac while driving down the Las Vegas Boulevard. Price includes: Elvis to serenade for you
Minister
Music
Duration: Approximatively 1 hour .
__________________
Vireil
Coercer
<Recovering>
Vireil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2004, 09:56 AM   #177
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
Well, it's a lot easier to distinguish a gay marriage from one that will end in divorce, or one where the participants aren't being honest.

I'm not convinced that homosexuality is genetic. I've never seen conclusive proof of this. If someone can show me some, please do. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'd really like to know.
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2004, 10:09 AM   #178
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
As compared to the over 50% divorce rate of heterosexual couples, or heterosexual people like Titney Spears that get married as a joke and have it annulled 55 hours later, or heterosexual people that use marriage to gain citizenship?
The first gay marriage that ends in divorce invalidates this comment completely. Oh wait..Paul Harvey mentioned this morning that 4 couples "married" in California have already filed for gay "divorce"....

Point..
shot...
down..
Trith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2004, 10:18 AM   #179
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Originally Posted by Lurikeen
What you are advocating is a "mob rules" mentality. If the mob says it's wrong, then it is. That is not liberty. That is not justice. A "higher standard" of morality ought to be determined by rights according to the rule of law and equity, not what a large vocal group of people say is equitable.
And exactly where do rights come from, Lurik? Your right to vote isnt inherent. This isnt about rights, its about wants being accepted as rights (or special rights). For society to make special concessions for a few individuals who have a particular want and wish it to be written as a right. Its not mob rules, its principle rules.

Originally Posted by Lurikeen
Rheaton, haven't we been around the block on this issue already? What part of "age of consent", or "consensual sex" do you not understand?

Rape is wrong, whether it is an animal or a human, precisely because consent to the sex wasn't given, or can't be given. Period. Allow that fact to register in your head so you don't continue to bring up such stupid arguments again.
Then to slaughter and eat a cow is murder and canibalism? The sodomy argument doesnt stand up.. We do not need an animal's consent to kill it, why do we need it for anything less then death? You are also using the word "rape" here as it pretains to something forced upon and unwanted. .. but what if the animal engages the human first and shows no desire to stop the actions? Well then we are back to consent... cant screw it, but I can kill it and eat it.

Originally Posted by Ghie
Pedophilia is not pherhormonal. There are no sexual pherhormones that children produce that adults do not. The pedophile can meet his pherhormonal needs with adults.
You mean to say "the pedophile can NOT meet his pherhormonal needs..." ? I am sorry, and I am playing devil's advocate here, but a underage minor can produce pherhormones.. And if your saying it is 'normal' for a male's receptors to receive another male's pherhormones and thus produce sexual attraction, then you must be willing to stay that the same is possible to be normal for a child to receive an adults or vise versa.

EDIT: Btw, there was a time not too long ago when homosexuality was considered a mental illness.
__________________
"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 03-05-2004, 10:32 AM   #180
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Originally Posted by Viral
Rheaton next time you harbor lust in your heart for another man's wife please go here. The next time you spring wood for a child please turn yourself in to these folks. Move along and have a nice day.
Does anyone else find it.. typical that when Viral has to eat a Family Size can of STFU, this is all he can resort to? Gives a clear prespective of the mentality of the individual we're dealing with....and thus a clearer prespective of the reasoning for his stance on particular topics... Theres your 'mob /pack mentality' right there.
__________________
"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 03-05-2004, 10:43 AM   #181
Ghie
G-Sharp
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bounce around the country but have a tether in Nebraska
Posts: 285
You mean to say "the pedophile can NOT meet his pherhormonal needs.." .? I am sorry, and I am playing devil's advocate here, but a underage minor can produce pherhormones.. And if your saying it is 'normal' for a male's receptors to receive another male's pherhormones and thus produce sexual attraction, then you must be willing to stay that the same is possible to be normal for a child to receive an adults or vise versa.
We already established that people do not need to give into their pherhormones. Just because a whiff causes me to look over at someone doesnt mean I'm going to jump on and go to town. Human beings are capable of overriding instinct.

"the pedophile can NOT meet his pherhormonal needs.."
didn't say that, nor did I mean to say that.

EDIT: Btw, there was a time not too long ago when homosexuality was considered a mental illness.
There was a time when women were property.
...Black people were just a step above monkeys.
...The Earth was flat.
...Baazlebub was the great giver of fertility to the land.
...'zero' was a concept people couldn't grasp and denounced as freakish
...People were unfit to lead unless they were of royal blood.
...Alcohol was illegal.
...People were commited to insane asylums for supporting socialism
...it was ok to grab a stranger off the street and hang them as long as there were two other people with you and the stranger was not white.
...premarital sex could get you burned at the stake...but only if you were female.

And just for the record, even if homosexuality had no basis in genetics, and there are people, even a few scientists who think there is no genetic basis for it, I would still believe it to be a socially acceptable lifestyle choice.

The way things were will always be history.
__________________
Ghie
MF Muse
Ghie's Lame Gear
Ghie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2004, 10:54 AM   #182
Veo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,926
The first gay marriage that ends in divorce invalidates this comment completely. Oh wait..Paul Harvey mentioned this morning that 4 couples "married" in California have already filed for gay "divorce"....

Point..
shot...
down..
My point was that you seem to think that only gay marriages will ruin the sanctity of marriage, yet you fail to acknowledge that the sanctity of marriage was already being ruined by your precious heterosexual couples.

You're blaming the decay and abuse on marriage on those who aren't being allowed to join it, when it's the original members that are fucking it up in the first place.

Suck...
my...
dick...
Veo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2004, 11:03 AM   #183
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
But, if you'd paid attention, you'd know that it is impossible to tell what marriages will end in divorce or exploited in some way. So how can you prevent those from happening?
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2004, 11:04 AM   #184
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Originally Posted by Ghie
We already established that people do not need to give into their pherhormones. Just because a whiff causes me to look over at someone doesnt mean I'm going to jump on and go to town. Human beings are capable of overriding instinct.
So you are saying it is possible that pherhormons can produce sexual attractions that should no be acted upon. Why? Isnt it 'normal'? Shouldnt we accept what is 'normal' as acceptable?

This whole issue can be put to rest if we all agree on the following:

1. Homosexuality is not 'normal' to science regardless of consent.

2. Homosexuality, and the 'marriage' of those individuals, is about acceptance and nothing more. Its only justification is our acceptance. Period.

3. We as a society can openly reject OR accept an individuals particular wants and desires.


Originally Posted by Ghie
There was a time when women were property.
...Black people were just a step above monkeys.
...The Earth was flat.
...Baazlebub was the great giver of fertility to the land.
...'zero' was a concept people couldn't grasp and denounced as freakish
...People were unfit to lead unless they were of royal blood.
...Alcohol was illegal.
...People were commited to insane asylums for supporting socialism
...it was ok to grab a stranger off the street and hang them as long as there were two other people with you and the stranger was not white.
...premarital sex could get you burned at the stake...but only if you were female.

And just for the record, even if homosexuality had no basis in genetics, and there are people, even a few scientists who think there is no genetic basis for it, I would still believe it to be a socially acceptable lifestyle choice.

The way things were will always be history.
Thank you. Really.. (I am not being a smart ass).. Thank you because you have demonstrated the mind of a reasonable indivdual. You recognize that society has come to openly accept more and more as it has progressed. What I stated earlier is that there seems to be no stopping point. There is nothing that clearly establishes a definitive stopping point. It is ALL about acceptence, and nothing more... And that unless there is we may very well provide a means, granted by 'logical debate and rights', for those indivduals who wish to futher the gain of acceptence of those things that we now find sociablly unacceptable. Some call this the 'slippery slope', others 'moral decline'. At some point we must put a foot down and say 'it stops here!'.... But we dont. We continue to pander to the wants and desires of every small group that comes along. We continue to tear down with great haste the boundries and walls that keep us a stable society.




Its a slow day today at work so im Johney on the spot with that reply button
__________________
"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 03-05-2004, 11:07 AM   #185
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
We continue to pander to the wants and desires of every small group that comes along. We continue to tear down with great haste the boundries and walls that keep us a stable society.
Remind you of any past empires?
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2004, 11:08 AM   #186
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
sanctity of marriage was already being ruined by your precious heterosexual couples.
No one said sanctity of marriage involved divorce moron. Divorce is something reserved for legally married couples to chose if things don't work out. Why should gays even worry..just come here to my state and Wham!!! they don't even need a "divorce" because they aren't legally married anyway. Your concept that divorce is somehow a part of marriage is froma small mind at best..divorce is a by-product of a failed marriage...not a result of marriage. The sancitity of marriage is a concept that deals only with who is allowed to enter into marriage..not how it ends. You don't marry siblings, you don't marry the dead, you don't marry animals, and you don't marry the same sex.

Suck...
My...
Dick...
Didn't I see you in line in front of the San-fran courthouse on Springer a few days ago?
Trith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2004, 11:22 AM   #187
Ghie
G-Sharp
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bounce around the country but have a tether in Nebraska
Posts: 285
..:: Quoting Ghie ::..
There was a time when women were property.
...Black people were just a step above monkeys.
...The Earth was flat.
...Baazlebub was the great giver of fertility to the land.
...'zero' was a concept people couldn't grasp and denounced as freakish
...People were unfit to lead unless they were of royal blood.
...Alcohol was illegal.
...People were commited to insane asylums for supporting socialism
...it was ok to grab a stranger off the street and hang them as long as there were two other people with you and the stranger was not white.
...premarital sex could get you burned at the stake...but only if you were female.

And just for the record, even if homosexuality had no basis in genetics, and there are people, even a few scientists who think there is no genetic basis for it, I would still believe it to be a socially acceptable lifestyle choice.

The way things were will always be history.
..:: End Quote ::..

Thank you. Really.. (I am not being a smart ass).. Thank you because you have demonstrated the mind of a reasonable indivdual. You recognize that society has come to openly accept more and more as it has progressed. What I stated earlier is that there seems to be no stopping point. There is nothing that clearly establishes a definitive stopping point. It is ALL about acceptence, and nothing more... And that unless there is we may very well provide a means, granted by 'logical debate and rights', for those indivduals who wish to futher the gain of acceptence of those things that we now find sociablly unacceptable. Some call this the 'slippery slope', others 'moral decline'. At some point we must put a foot down and say 'it stops here!'.... But we dont. We continue to pander to the wants and desires of every small group that comes along. We continue to tear down with great haste the boundries and walls that keep us a stable society.
Where in the above list of things should we have stopped?
__________________
Ghie
MF Muse
Ghie's Lame Gear
Ghie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2004, 11:22 AM   #188
Cerulean
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 216
Send a message via ICQ to Cerulean
At some point we must put a foot down and say 'it stops here!'.... But we dont.
While I personally agree, to a point, that's not necessarily true.

The distant future will likely be a place completely beyond what you (or I)would consider an acceptable stopping place. Many portend the end of marriage as an institution (long before the recent gay marriage thing, the institution itself is simply going to become antiquated), sexual preference will not matter, 'reality' or the 'natural world' for what its worth will no longer matter or be discernable. As Baudrillard and many others surmise we'll continue down the path of simulation & stimulation.

Society is a perpetual system of Pandora's boxes - we fear (rightfully so) the opening of certain boxes but in the end we do open them and once opened there is no going back. This 'progression' is a gradual yet no less radical shift away from what came before.
Cerulean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2004, 11:27 AM   #189
Vireil
Disturbing the force
 
Vireil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 2,711
Originally Posted by Humbert Humbert
Does anyone else find it.. typical that when Viral has to eat a Family Size can of STFU, this is all he can resort to? Gives a clear prespective of the mentality of the individual we're dealing with....and thus a clearer prespective of the reasoning for his stance on particular topics... Theres your 'mob /pack mentality' right there.

Is someone a wee bit upset because his true nature as an adulterer and a pedophile undercuts his ability to make any claims of 'moral righteousness'?
__________________
Vireil
Coercer
<Recovering>
Vireil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2004, 11:28 AM   #190
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by Wildane
You still miss the point. Here, I'll see if I can communicate as if I'm addressing a kindergarten class...
This should be fun... one of the severly brain injured on the board trying to communicate on any level is about as entertaining as watching Christopher Reeves try to wipe his own ass.

I was not referring to what sexual orientation has to do with rights,
Funny, you asked a question, "So then, if it is thought to be morally improper for two folks of the same gender to have sex, regardless of marital status, is it still a right?" which clearly associates sexual orientation with rights. Don't you understand what it is that you are writing?

but instead using your logic of marriage being deemed a right to help eliminate what was considered "morally improper" behavior.
I see the confusion here. Marriage is not deemed a right because of what may be considered morally improper behavior. Rather, there are those who believe it is morally improper to have sex outside of marriage. My point was that marriage is a right, not a priviledge rewarded to us by the government. I brought up the so-called "marriage out of wedlock" only as an example of why some moral issues are outside the realm of government (or should be).

I would say a good number of folks deem homosexuality as "morally improper", marriage does not change this. Therefore, should they have the same right to get married?
Your question doesn't follow from what a "number of folks" deem moral. A "number of folks" believe eating pork is "unclean", marriage doesn't change that and just because they refuse to eat pork doesn't mean we limit their rights.


That's your weakest argument yet, and the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Is that all you have to offer, simpleton?
Good, I am glad we agree that your original argument was equally stupid. Your inability to see a reductio ad absurdum is hillarious. Thanks for clinching your own argument for me.

Sex between a man and a woman can result in offspring, which perpetuates our race. Simply put, man was built to have sex with woman. Even you must see that.
What you can't seem to understand is that nature doesn't know morals. A lion who chases down a young calf, kills it, and eats it has done nothing immoral. A female salmon that lays eggs to be fertilized by a male has done nothing morally good. If another female Salmon mimicks a male fertilizing eggs, nature doesn't see a "lesbian Salmon", in other words, there is nothing immoral or moral going on.

Your tired old argument over procreation is not convincing, at all. There is nothing morally good, or immoral in perpetuating our species (btw, it is perpetuate the species you clod, and not race).
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." óMonty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2004, 11:29 AM   #191
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Originally Posted by Wildane
Remind you of any past empires?
Absolutely. Let history be our guide if there is any doubt. Almost every 'great' empire arose out of suffering by way of strong moral boundries.. and when those boundries eroded, so did the empire.

People should resist the desire to be gay just as they should resist the desire to be with an animal or child. Just as they should resist the desire to murder someone or steal. Dont let 'acceptance' be your justification... let your heart guide you and not your lusts and desires.

IF we continue to defend actions deemed unacceptable by stating that acceptance doesnt / shouldnt dictate, then we have lost control. Then all I need to do is to convience you that my special want should be acceptable..and that you may not judge me, define morals around me, use religion in any way, anything. If it is a law, we will change it. If it isnt right, we will make it right. IF they think its wrong, we will continue to present it in a way that makes it seem right, while hiding the ugliness of it. If they tell us "no", we will say its our right by nature..... and if they tell us yes, we will move on to the next thing we want and repeat the process.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Rheaton; 03-05-2004 at 11:42 AM.
Rheaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2004, 11:36 AM   #192
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 you can't seem to understand is that nature doesn't know morals
Nature doesn't have to..it doesn't have a problem with members of it's species having homosexual sex for pleasure..if it did..then it's an extinct species.
Trith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2004, 11:44 AM   #193
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
And exactly where do rights come from, Lurik?
I answered your question. Here is the answer, again... "A "higher standard" of morality ought to be determined by rights according to the rule of law and equity, not what a large vocal group of people say is equitable."

Your right to vote isnt inherent.
I'll let the basis for my rights make the point. You do remember the following?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Civil liberties are based upon the idea that ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL. That OUR rights are unalienable. That means we can't surrender equality for any reasons including race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation.


Its not mob rules, its principle rules.
It is mob rules. The mob is violating the very core principles of our liberty and justice our ancestors fought so hard to secure.

Then to slaughter and eat a cow is murder and canibalism? The sodomy argument doesnt stand up.. We do not need an animal's consent to kill it, why do we need it for anything less then death?
Animal torture is wrong. That would include slowly killing them. Raping them is considered torture, too.

As far as getting an animal's "consent" for sex... contact PETA on how to communicate with your dog, or cat, at home.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." óMonty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2004, 11:59 AM   #194
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Originally Posted by Rheaton
This isnt about rights, its about wants being accepted as rights (or special rights).
Originally Posted by Lurikeen
Animal torture is wrong. That would include slowly killing them. Raping them is considered torture, too.

As far as getting an animal's "consent" for sex... contact PETA on how to communicate with your dog, or cat, at home.
This message is lost on you.. but I will say what I told someone else in another thread "I doubt your willy could 'abuse' or harm a horse".. if I can, I wanna see that mofo, Blind Melon Chitlin!!

"Going into town gonna see my horse.. gonna sing her a song, gonna show her my ding dong"
__________________
"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 03-05-2004, 12:13 PM   #195
Vireil
Disturbing the force
 
Vireil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 2,711
Originally Posted by Humbert Humbert
This message is lost on you.. but I will say what I told someone else in another thread "I doubt your willy could 'abuse' or harm a horse"
I seem to recall similar statments from you about children Brother Humbert.
__________________
Vireil
Coercer
<Recovering>
Vireil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2004, 12:14 PM   #196
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by Rheaton
This message is lost on you.. but I will say what I told someone else in another thread "I doubt your willy could 'abuse' or harm a horse".. if I can, I wanna see that mofo, Blind Melon Chitlin!!
Rheaton, if there is anything "lost" it is the Frontal Lobe of that dried pea rolling around in your skull you would like to think is a brain.

Abuse is not just at a physical level of pain, nitwit. Following your illogic, if your minature version of a normal size penis could fit into an orifice of a human being, who hasn't a fully developed brain, then it would be acceptable to just haul off and sexually assault them, since you can't possibly harm them physically and mentally. Right?
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." óMonty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2004, 12:24 PM   #197
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Originally Posted by Lurikeen
Abuse is not just at a physical level of pain, nitwit. Following your illogic, if your minature version of a normal size penis could fit into an orifice of a human being, who hasn't a fully developed brain, then it would be acceptable to just haul off and sexually assault them, since you can't possibly harm them physically and mentally. Right?
I see.. so now we have a actual stopping point of Lurikeens. He is anti...'beastsexual'. His reasons are that its a form of abuse. Not a physical abuse in all cases, but a mental abuse. Although I think we have found a common ground, that such acts are sick and perverted (right, you agree that they are?), I would still like to hear you explain the case of mental abuse of an animal by way of sexual contact by a human.. You seem to be an expert in regards, and ya know.. it is 'such common knowledge, dipwad"... so please, humor us.
__________________
"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 03-05-2004, 12:33 PM   #198
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
I enjoy talking about fucking chickens as much as the next guy, but don't you think you two have wandered a bit off topic here?
Trith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2004, 12:34 PM   #199
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Rheaton, you should pray to your God for the miracle of intelligence. One day, when you actually do post something intelligible, I may concede a real miracle has occurred.

I like how you completely ignored the following point I made which shows the absurdity of your position and why the points you raise over beastiality is not at all relevant to the discussion at hand...

"Following your illogic, if your minature version of a normal size penis could fit into an orifice of a human being, who hasn't a fully developed brain, then it would be acceptable to just haul off and sexually assault them, since you can't possibly harm them physically and mentally."

Whether or not two consenting adults should have the right to get married has nothing at all to do with whether or not it is morally acceptable to have sex with animals or the incapacitated.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." óMonty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2004, 12:37 PM   #200
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Your right, Trith.. we have..

I just enjoy seeing Lurik flex his brain and give us guildence That, or perhaps come up with some new raging insults that we are in need of... the old ones have lost their pizazz
__________________
"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
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.