Conquer Club

Player won this thread 50 pages or so back.

InkL0sed wrote:Player won this thread 50 pages or so back.

Nope, she just repeated what you guys all wanted to hear.

silvanricky wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:Player won this thread 50 pages or so back.

Nope, she just repeated what you guys all wanted to hear.

And you guys just refused to listen and continued babbling the same crap you usually do.

suggs wrote:Marriage as we know it is based on a load of Catholic mumbo-jumbo (which, to simplify, they came up with in the Couter Reformation, to try and jazz the Church up a bit, in response to thye Protestant threat).

You know, I am really thinking of something witty to say. I'll just say WTF?
Marriage, more or less as we know it, can be found in a number of ancient cultures but the most important of all is in the Law of the Old Testament. Christianity strengthened the institute by using Genesis as a basis for no divorce, citing the very words of Jesus himself. (Orthodox Christianity eventually developed the three strikes rule ... which also applies even if the spouse dies of natural causes.) Originally the ministers of the sacrament were the couples themselves (and technically they still are) but the requirements made it so that a priest had to witness the event. This change happened way before the Reformation. Henry VIII got into trouble on the Church's teachings on divorce and his desire to have a male heir at any cost.

In fact marriage "as we know it" is certanly not according to the Catholic model. Under the eyes of the law, you can divorce and remarry as much as you want. Under the eyes of the Catholic Church if you are validly married you are validly married, period end. If you attempt to marry someone else that marriage is null and void and you are living in an extreeme state of occasion of sin.

Neoteny wrote:

silvanricky wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:Player won this thread 50 pages or so back.

Nope, she just repeated what you guys all wanted to hear.

And you guys just refused to listen and continued babbling the same crap you usually do.

Whatever, you stuck-up idiot. Your opinions are no better or "more noble", as you put it, than anyone else's. Until you get that through your pompous skull you'll never convince anyone of your position, but maybe that was never your intent. Simply saying the other side's arguments are crap doesn't make it true. It just means you're just as guilty of presuming you're right as the other side.

If you look real close at when I came in on this thread I said I could care less if 2 people wanted to have sex with each other in their own homes. What I found offensive was when they tried to compare themselves to Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement and also when they threaten to donate to the local blood supply unless they get what they want.

You're a fucking arrogant asshole, Neotony and you're beliefs do not make you better than anyone else.

silvanricky wrote:Whatever, you stuck-up idiot. Your opinions are no better or "more noble", as you put it, than anyone else's. Until you get that through your pompous skull you'll never convince anyone of your position, but maybe that was never your intent. Simply saying the other side's arguments are crap doesn't make it true. It just means you're just as guilty of presuming you're right as the other side.

If you look real close at when I came in on this thread I said I could care less if 2 people wanted to have sex with each other in their own homes. What I found offensive was when they tried to compare themselves to Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement and also when they threaten to donate to the local blood supply unless they get what they want.

You're a fucking arrogant asshole, Neotony and you're beliefs do not make you better than anyone else.

That was pure flame, and no argument.

InkL0sed wrote:

silvanricky wrote:Whatever, you stuck-up idiot. Your opinions are no better or "more noble", as you put it, than anyone else's. Until you get that through your pompous skull you'll never convince anyone of your position, but maybe that was never your intent. Simply saying the other side's arguments are crap doesn't make it true. It just means you're just as guilty of presuming you're right as the other side.

If you look real close at when I came in on this thread I said I could care less if 2 people wanted to have sex with each other in their own homes. What I found offensive was when they tried to compare themselves to Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement and also when they threaten to donate to the local blood supply unless they get what they want.

You're a fucking arrogant asshole, Neotony and you're beliefs do not make you better than anyone else.

That was pure flame, and no argument.

Whatever, as if he has done anything more than say other peoples arguments are crap. Look at the 2nd paragraph and then look at my original post, Ink. It was about comparing the civil rights movement to gay marriage. There certainly was a point made with no flaming but I received the initial attack from him.

That's why I moved on to posting pics. If all you're looking for is someone to argue with then perhaps that's why you're losing this poll. You guys got lapped some time ago from the last time I posted here. It will continue until you realize the arrogance of your attitudes on this subject. I'm not arguing against gay marriage, read my original post again.

silvanricky wrote:Whatever, you stuck-up idiot. Your opinions are no better or "more noble", as you put it, than anyone else's.

Except, ofcourse, for the fact that they are not discriminatory nor based on misguided views on what homosexuality actually is. The problem with you people is that you spout about that all opinions are equal (ignoring ofcourse the times your opinion is better) when any 3-year old child knows they just aren't. I can savely say that my opinion about race are better, and certainly more noble, than those of the average white supremacist or nazi.

Simply saying the other side's arguments are crap doesn't make it true. It just means you're just as guilty of presuming you're right as the other side.

Problem is that we've showed why the other side's arguments are crap. Sancticity of marriage or bullshit about gays being unable to raise kids are just really, really crap arguments. They fly in the face of the actual facts. Claiming that two people who love eachother dearly marrying (who just happen to be of the same sex) is somehow worse than the countless divorces, spousal abuse and cheating is frankly ridiculous. There is no sancticity of marriage, there are merely people who can make it like that.

If you look real close at when I came in on this thread I said I could care less if 2 people wanted to have sex with each other in their own homes.

Good for you.

What I found offensive was when they tried to compare themselves to Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement and also when they threaten to donate to the local blood supply unless they get what they want.

Problem is that only a few people actually do this. There are many homosexuals who really don't do that.

silvanricky wrote:Simply saying the other side's arguments are crap doesn't make it true.

That's what we've been telling you all along...

Seriously, go read the thread and you'll see that it's not the pro-gay-marriage side who is in the habit of labelling arguments as 'crap' without giving logical reasons for rebutting them.

Simmer down and actually read whats being written. Just flaming and making sweeping pejorative statements isn't going to help anyone.

silvanricky wrote:What I found offensive was when they tried to compare themselves to Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement

Then explain why and we'll have a sane discussion about it. Calling people 'assholes' and casting other aspersions just undermines the credibility of your opinions and makes you appear like somebody who is unable to debate on a level higher than schoolyard taunting.

Come on, if you've got something useful to contribute, then let's debate it like adults. But let's not let this thread descend into trolling and flaming again.

And yet, you're still being nailed in the poll. Oh dear, snorri. Oh dear.

it would take a multi or 50 to turn the poll around.

Napoleon Ier wrote:And yet, you're still being nailed in the poll. Oh dear, snorri. Oh dear.

This would be bad if I really gave a f*ck about the poll. I don't really care whether there is a majority supporting this, as a majority vote doesn't make something right.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:And yet, you're still being nailed in the poll. Oh dear, snorri. Oh dear.

This would be bad if I really gave a f*ck about the poll. I don't really care whether there is a majority supporting this, as a majority vote doesn't make something right.

One would think Nappy would be quite aware of this -- seeing as how he usually seems to have a minority/extreme opinion.

InkL0sed wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:And yet, you're still being nailed in the poll. Oh dear, snorri. Oh dear.

This would be bad if I really gave a f*ck about the poll. I don't really care whether there is a majority supporting this, as a majority vote doesn't make something right.

One would think Nappy would be quite aware of this -- seeing as how he usually seems to have a minority/extreme opinion.

I'm just winding thingami1234 up.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:And yet, you're still being nailed in the poll. Oh dear, snorri. Oh dear.

This would be bad if I really gave a f*ck about the poll. I don't really care whether there is a majority supporting this, as a majority vote doesn't make something right.

And this is why you people are so dangerous. You don't care what the majority says. Thankfully, we have laws which are in place and that require majority votes, not just blind rage opinions against traditions.

silvanricky wrote:Whatever, as if he has done anything more than say other peoples arguments are crap. Look at the 2nd paragraph and then look at my original post, Ink. It was about comparing the civil rights movement to gay marriage. There certainly was a point made with no flaming but I received the initial attack from him.

That's why I moved on to posting pics. If all you're looking for is someone to argue with then perhaps that's why you're losing this poll. You guys got lapped some time ago from the last time I posted here. It will continue until you realize the arrogance of your attitudes on this subject. I'm not arguing against gay marriage, read my original post again.

It seems a couple people have beat me to this. I'd just like to note that the "attack" that got your panties all twisted up was in fact in response to your pictures. Here is proof, so that you don't begin ranting and calling me names:

Neoteny wrote:

silvanricky wrote:Personally, I don't care if two flamers want to go at each other in their own house. Just don't try knowingly donating blood to the local Red Cross and contaminate it because that would be criminal. I've actually read stuff from homosexuals who say they'll do that unless they get what they want.

But what is really offensive to me is when people try to say that this -



is the same thing as this -



I think that's Dapper Tom on the right now that I look at it again!

My first thought was to photoshop the heads from the former picture onto the latter, but I'm not sure I have it in me. The intent wouldn't be disrespectful, but the interpretation would be (so would that make it art?).

Anyhow, I hope you aren't being sarcastic because...

I don't give a shit what you find offensive. Come down off your high horse and observe that both movements concern the rights of a portion of our population. You can be offended all you want, but all that implies is a closed-minded perspective of the world. Think about things a bit more and maybe they won't bother you as much.

Here it is. You are wrong. QED (this one's for you, nappy ).

bradleybadly wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:And yet, you're still being nailed in the poll. Oh dear, snorri. Oh dear.

This would be bad if I really gave a f*ck about the poll. I don't really care whether there is a majority supporting this, as a majority vote doesn't make something right.

And this is why you people are so dangerous. You don't care what the majority says. Thankfully, we have laws which are in place and that require majority votes, not just blind rage opinions against traditions.

How many times will it take?

To me this seems the crux of the argument. Drawing on J.S. Mills "harm Principle", WHAT FUCKING HARM ARE GAY PEOPLE DOING BY GETTING MARRIED.
Just let people be, for Gods sake. If they wanna marry, let em.

suggs wrote:To me this seems the crux of the argument. Drawing on J.S. Mills "harm Principle", WHAT FUCKING HARM ARE GAY PEOPLE DOING BY GETTING MARRIED.
Just let people be, for Gods sake. If they wanna marry, let em.

Absolutely, let them enjoy a ceremony with some liberal pastor where they can get all dressed up as brides and eat cake etc. But from there to bringing forward societal recognition to the matter? No.

bradleybadly wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:And yet, you're still being nailed in the poll. Oh dear, snorri. Oh dear.

This would be bad if I really gave a f*ck about the poll. I don't really care whether there is a majority supporting this, as a majority vote doesn't make something right.

And this is why you people are so dangerous. You don't care what the majority says. Thankfully, we have laws which are in place and that require majority votes, not just blind rage opinions against traditions.

As an aside -- the founding fathers despised the idea of a democracy because it called to mind the mob rule. They preferred the word "republic."

They were also rather fond of slaves

bradleybadly wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:And yet, you're still being nailed in the poll. Oh dear, snorri. Oh dear.

This would be bad if I really gave a f*ck about the poll. I don't really care whether there is a majority supporting this, as a majority vote doesn't make something right.

And this is why you people are so dangerous. You don't care what the majority says. Thankfully, we have laws which are in place and that require majority votes, not just blind rage opinions against traditions.

But don't you agree that the fact complete and utter idiots have the same power as well educated intelligent people is bad in a way? To claim that the majority is always right is just silly. If a majority supported executing all black people would that be good?


Also, I wasn't actually saying that I think you should overturn the system and allow gay marriage, I'm saying that this poll doesn't matter to me. I think people should convince others untill there is actually a majority support for gay marriage. (Or at least a decently sized portion of the general populace, majorities aren't always that important.)


Or am I misinterpreting you and are you actually saying that I should make my opinion to what the majority thinks? Are you saying that I shouldn't say gays should be allowed to marry because a majority thinks they shouldn't? Or not mess with tradition because it's tradition and therefore right?
Because I'd give you more credit than that.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

suggs wrote:To me this seems the crux of the argument. Drawing on J.S. Mills "harm Principle", WHAT FUCKING HARM ARE GAY PEOPLE DOING BY GETTING MARRIED.
Just let people be, for Gods sake. If they wanna marry, let em.

Absolutely, let them enjoy a ceremony with some liberal pastor where they can get all dressed up as brides and eat cake etc. But from there to bringing forward societal recognition to the matter? No.

Didn't actually answer the question there though did you?
What harm is there by letting them get married (yes, that includes recognising it as a legal marriage...)?

Napoleon Ier wrote:

suggs wrote:To me this seems the crux of the argument. Drawing on J.S. Mills "harm Principle", WHAT FUCKING HARM ARE GAY PEOPLE DOING BY GETTING MARRIED.
Just let people be, for Gods sake. If they wanna marry, let em.

Absolutely, let them enjoy a ceremony with some liberal pastor where they can get all dressed up as brides and eat cake etc. But from there to bringing forward societal recognition to the matter? No.

Why not that societal recognition? I'm aware that France is different than the Netherlands, but I honestly don't understand why societal recognition is bad. (I'm talking about your version of gay "civil union" ofcourse without adoption being an option, though calling it marriage would be better but whatever.)


Also, I read a story in the paper today that some french guy got married over here and lost his french nationality due to that. What's up with that?