Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
http://rzmhprwww.conquerclub.com/forum2/
http://rzmhprwww.conquerclub.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=147980
natty_dread wrote:Phatscotty wrote:oh shit....
There goes the planet
What, now the planet is ruined?
Phatscotty wrote:Homosexuals are about 1% of the population.
There are more people with 6 fingers. Perhaps we should pull an all night slobber knocker over those people trying to make everything that fits in 5 finger hands 6 finger compatible.
CoffeeCream wrote:natty_dread wrote:Brad, were you abused by a drunken uncle when you were little?
Scotty, comments like this^ are why the poll results are what they are
Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Homosexuals are about 1% of the population.
There are more people with 6 fingers. Perhaps we should pull an all night slobber knocker over those people trying to make everything that fits in 5 finger hands 6 finger compatible.
Or more accurately, suppose we tried to enact legislation banning 6 fingered people from wearing gloves as it poses a threat to traditional glove making.
They have mittens, after all.
Phatscotty wrote:Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Homosexuals are about 1% of the population.
There are more people with 6 fingers. Perhaps we should pull an all night slobber knocker over those people trying to make everything that fits in 5 finger hands 6 finger compatible.
Or more accurately, suppose we tried to enact legislation banning 6 fingered people from wearing gloves as it poses a threat to traditional glove making.
They have mittens, after all.
just tape the secondary pinky to the nornal pinky and call it a day!
Seriously tho, 6 finger people can do everything 5 finger people can. It's just that 6 fingers are trying to reform society around them and make the other 99% of people support it.
I'm still with states rights on this one, but my overall opinion I am not persuaded that gays are discriminated against as far as marriage goes. Be together, live your life together, be happy. I will fight for gays if I think they are being discriminated against. I just don't think they are here.
Now, if they just want to use states rights as a platform for a constitutional amendment for gay marriage or force other states to change how those states live, well, I will be against that.
Marriage is a heterosexual institution, IMO. Other people can have other opinions, and I can have mine.
Nobunaga wrote:... The problem, in my opinion, is the legal status of marriage in this country.
... There was a time when marriage had nothing to do with government (local or otherwise). Now there are alimony obligations and tax breaks for filing as a married couple. I am sure there must be other legal advantages though none come to mind at the moment.
... If you could separate marriage from government, that might solve some problems (and certainly create a few as well). Just sayin'.
...
Symmetry wrote:Nobunaga wrote:... The problem, in my opinion, is the legal status of marriage in this country.
... There was a time when marriage had nothing to do with government (local or otherwise). Now there are alimony obligations and tax breaks for filing as a married couple. I am sure there must be other legal advantages though none come to mind at the moment.
... If you could separate marriage from government, that might solve some problems (and certainly create a few as well). Just sayin'.
...
When was that time?
Nobunaga wrote:Symmetry wrote:Nobunaga wrote:... The problem, in my opinion, is the legal status of marriage in this country.
... There was a time when marriage had nothing to do with government (local or otherwise). Now there are alimony obligations and tax breaks for filing as a married couple. I am sure there must be other legal advantages though none come to mind at the moment.
... If you could separate marriage from government, that might solve some problems (and certainly create a few as well). Just sayin'.
...
When was that time?
... It developed slowly, beginning with the requirement to make public statements about upcoming marriage in the mid 1200's. Licenses and legal attachments followed about 2 centuries later.
...
Symmetry wrote:Nobunaga wrote:Symmetry wrote:Nobunaga wrote:... The problem, in my opinion, is the legal status of marriage in this country.
... There was a time when marriage had nothing to do with government (local or otherwise). Now there are alimony obligations and tax breaks for filing as a married couple. I am sure there must be other legal advantages though none come to mind at the moment.
... If you could separate marriage from government, that might solve some problems (and certainly create a few as well). Just sayin'.
...
When was that time?
... It developed slowly, beginning with the requirement to make public statements about upcoming marriage in the mid 1200's. Licenses and legal attachments followed about 2 centuries later.
...
So you're arguing for a return to those golden days between circa 1250 AD and 1450 AD when marriage had nothing to do with government?
Nobunaga wrote:Symmetry wrote:Nobunaga wrote:Symmetry wrote:Nobunaga wrote:... The problem, in my opinion, is the legal status of marriage in this country.
... There was a time when marriage had nothing to do with government (local or otherwise). Now there are alimony obligations and tax breaks for filing as a married couple. I am sure there must be other legal advantages though none come to mind at the moment.
... If you could separate marriage from government, that might solve some problems (and certainly create a few as well). Just sayin'.
...
When was that time?
... It developed slowly, beginning with the requirement to make public statements about upcoming marriage in the mid 1200's. Licenses and legal attachments followed about 2 centuries later.
...
So you're arguing for a return to those golden days between circa 1250 AD and 1450 AD when marriage had nothing to do with government?
... No, I am not arguing that. I am saying that if nobody had any legal or monetary benefit from being married, those opposed to gays getting hitched have nothing to stand on but obvious "moral" grounds.
...
Phatscotty wrote:Homosexuals are about 1% of the population.
There are more people with 6 fingers. Perhaps we should pull an all night slobber knocker over those people trying to make everything that fits in 5 finger hands 6 finger compatible.
rdsrds2120 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Homosexuals are about 1% of the population.
There are more people with 6 fingers. Perhaps we should pull an all night slobber knocker over those people trying to make everything that fits in 5 finger hands 6 finger compatible.
Actually, that's not very factual. There will almost never be a way to tell how man precisely it is. This article has many sources with many different numbers comparing them:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-pe ... n-gay.aspx
Take it as it is.
-rd
Symmetry wrote:Ah- you're arguing that homosexuals shouldn't have certain rights because it would bolster arguments from people who don't think they should have those rights?
Phatscotty wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Homosexuals are about 1% of the population.
There are more people with 6 fingers. Perhaps we should pull an all night slobber knocker over those people trying to make everything that fits in 5 finger hands 6 finger compatible.
Actually, that's not very factual. There will almost never be a way to tell how man precisely it is. This article has many sources with many different numbers comparing them:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-pe ... n-gay.aspx
Take it as it is.
-rd
Kinsey. Awesome!
10%-25%? Holy shit, that means I have a lot of gay friends!
Whether increased acceptance of homosexuality has led to an upsurge in the number of positive media portrayals of gay characters or vice versa, one result seems to be that Americans now tend to overestimate the gay population in America. While most expert estimates place America's homosexual population at 10% or less, Americans tend to guess that the number is higher, around 20%.
The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, a sexual orientation law and public policy think tank, estimates that 9 million (about 3.8%) of Americans identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (2011). The institute also found that bisexuals make up 1.8% of the population, while 1.7% are gay or lesbian. Transgender adults make up 0.3% of the population.
Phatscotty wrote:The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, a sexual orientation law and public policy think tank, estimates that 9 million (about 3.8%) of Americans identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (2011). The institute also found that bisexuals make up 1.8% of the population, while 1.7% are gay or lesbian. Transgender adults make up 0.3% of the population.
http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm
zebraman wrote:Forget the assholish Woodruff for one second and concentrate on what Symmetry is saying, guys.
Nobunaga wrote:Symmetry wrote:Nobunaga wrote:Symmetry wrote:Nobunaga wrote:... The problem, in my opinion, is the legal status of marriage in this country.
... There was a time when marriage had nothing to do with government (local or otherwise). Now there are alimony obligations and tax breaks for filing as a married couple. I am sure there must be other legal advantages though none come to mind at the moment.
... If you could separate marriage from government, that might solve some problems (and certainly create a few as well). Just sayin'.
...
When was that time?
... It developed slowly, beginning with the requirement to make public statements about upcoming marriage in the mid 1200's. Licenses and legal attachments followed about 2 centuries later.
...
So you're arguing for a return to those golden days between circa 1250 AD and 1450 AD when marriage had nothing to do with government?
... No, I am not arguing that. I am saying that if nobody had any legal or monetary benefit from being married, those opposed to gays getting hitched have nothing to stand on but obvious "moral" grounds.
...
Woodruff wrote:Not only that, but individuals such as myself wouldn't really give much of a crap about the issue either, since there would be no government-sponsored rights and benefits associated with marriage.
rdsrds2120 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Homosexuals are about 1% of the population.
There are more people with 6 fingers. Perhaps we should pull an all night slobber knocker over those people trying to make everything that fits in 5 finger hands 6 finger compatible.
Actually, that's not very factual. There will almost never be a way to tell how man precisely it is. This article has many sources with many different numbers comparing them:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-pe ... n-gay.aspx
Take it as it is.
-rd
Kinsey. Awesome!
10%-25%? Holy shit, that means I have a lot of gay friends!
I didn't see that anywhere. If you read the whole article, you can get down to the summary near the end:Whether increased acceptance of homosexuality has led to an upsurge in the number of positive media portrayals of gay characters or vice versa, one result seems to be that Americans now tend to overestimate the gay population in America. While most expert estimates place America's homosexual population at 10% or less, Americans tend to guess that the number is higher, around 20%.
-rd
Nobunaga wrote:Woodruff wrote:Not only that, but individuals such as myself wouldn't really give much of a crap about the issue either, since there would be no government-sponsored rights and benefits associated with marriage.
... Thank you, Woody, for summing up my point in so few words. This is what I was trying to express (and obviously failed).
Woodruff wrote:Nobunaga wrote:Woodruff wrote:Not only that, but individuals such as myself wouldn't really give much of a crap about the issue either, since there would be no government-sponsored rights and benefits associated with marriage.
... Thank you, Woody, for summing up my point in so few words. This is what I was trying to express (and obviously failed).
And now I'll get a bit more wordy (grin):
Either get rid of the legal benefits/rights of marriage entirely (so that it's purely a religious ceremony) or allow homosexuals and polygamists to be married. But really, one of those choices must be made.
Yes, I added polygamists...and before all you religious idiots whine about the "slippery slope", there is no logical, rational reason why polygamy is considered anathema. The ONLY grounds anyone has for it are "I don't like it", which tends to be (though not exclusively) a religious perspective. Homosexuality and polygamy do not in any way equate to incest or beastiality, due to the ability/inability to consent in the relevant relationships. If you want to argue the polygamy point, please do so as a separate entity to the homosexuality issue.
bradleybadly wrote:Symmetry wrote:To be fair, BB, casually using the Advanced Search option suggests that you throw around the words "homophobe" and "bigot" quite a bit. If I may defer to the legendary Mr Mustard:bradleybadly wrote:Dancing Mustard wrote:bradleybadly wrote:Yes Jenos, you'll soon find you can't debate against the insane
Said the man who spends his entire life crying that people are calling him a bigot.
Nice double-standards you have there, may we share them?
Nurse Ratched!! He's off his meds again! Get the restraints!!!
You do seem to make a habit out of portraying yourself as a lonely, persecuted voice of reason against a largely non-existent horde of people accusing you of bigotry and homophobia. It seems to be one of the first cards you play, in fact, before you inevitably say something along the lines of calling homosexuality "lustful ass piracy", which, of course, is not homophobic or bigotted at all, lest I be seen to be adding to your persecution complex.
Well hell, I'm flattered that you find me so interesting as to delve into the past. Personally, I'm not interested but natty might probably finds it attractive so I wish the two of you good luck. I'm sure you'll both be perfectly happy in New York. The Mustard post was in quite a good thread. It wasn't much longer after that post that Mustard did go off the deep end and got himself banned from this site. Looks like I was vindicated after all. As usual, when the poll results go south for the oppressives they try to deflect it to something other than what they originally were asking. What's next, Symmetry - more advanced searches showing that I don't like other liberal positions? Wow, ya really got me there chief!
