sissy-boy said:
If they'd have done the same for YOUR rabies we'd simply call it 'mercy killing'....hahhah!!
You know there is ONE way for you to be put out of your misery. MOVE to a total theocracy like Iraq or Afghanistan! I think you'd be very happy there with people who think like you. HELL you might even get a position in OFFICE!!
Donkey1499 said:Dude, what the hell is you problem? Don't you have anything better to do than insult ppl on here? Get a life!
sissy-boy said:
I only insult people who have insulted me.
YOU are one of a couple that HAVE insulted me when no insult was warranted.
AK_Conservative said:You take a disagreement as an insult.. You from what i seen, always initialize the first part of a bash fest.. You are ignorant and know nothing of civilty. You insult people for no reason.. wake up.. Douche! oh and go get your GED!
sissy-boy said:
You obviously haven't 'seen' too much. And about the gay marriage, no one has the ability to argue that rationally, because ANYONE who is against it is simply prejudiced. There's no other way around it -- it's already been proven time and time again with evidence.
sissy-boy said:
You obviously haven't 'seen' too much. And about the gay marriage, no one has the ability to argue that rationally, because ANYONE who is against it is simply prejudiced. There's no other way around it -- it's already been proven time and time again with evidence.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Oh ya well how bout this: The institution of marriage is sacred for one reason not religious but sociological, the primary reason for the institution of marriage is for procreation and child raising so when that system in accordance with the natural law of reproduction and family units that has been around for the entire span of human existence is destroyed then we're all in some real deep ****. It is a known fact that the best environment for a child is a one man one woman marriage. That being said I'm all for civil unions and gay adoption if they are proven to be better than the alternative. For example I would rather have two upstanding gay citizens raise a child than a child molesting father and an alchoholic mother.
So am I prejudice?
AK_Conservative said::roll:
No, it is not prejudice no matter what.. It is a belief in what is the definition of marraige.. simple as that!
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Oh ya well how bout this: The institution of marriage is sacred for one reason not religious but sociological, the primary reason for the institution of marriage is for procreation and child raising so when that system in accordance with the natural law of reproduction and family units that has been around for the entire span of human existence is destroyed then we're all in some real deep ****. It is a known fact that the best environment for a child is a one man one woman marriage. That being said I'm all for civil unions and gay adoption if they are proven to be better than the alternative. For example I would rather have two upstanding gay citizens raise a child than a child molesting father and an alchoholic mother.
So am I prejudice?
sissy-boy said:
Yes. You're prejudiced towards the planet itself. From space humanity looks much like a cancer covering the earth. But 6 BILLION humans CAN'T be wrong, now can they?!?!
JESUS -- the humanity has nearly destroyed the entire planet, yet humans march so self-importantly forward. 'Live long and CONSUME' being the mantra that forever curses every new birth to another life sentence of suffering on a planet broken at the seams unable to support the human cancer that covers it. Yet BABIES are always welcomed at life's banquet. They've become ENTITLEMENT for chrissakes! And WHO wants a baby more than a couple BLESSED with STERILITY, so income the egg-smashers and sterility drugs and we've got another FAMINE on our hands because the WORST problem in man's history: OVERPOPULATION. Not even Christianity can compare to the amount of suffering and misery and death to come directly due to man's continued abuse through PROCREATION.
Selfish? Have KIDS!
But don't let me remind you of it, let the THOUSANDS of extinct species tell you. It won't be hard finding them because one DIES out at a rate of every FIFTEEN MINUTES -- and THAT is only the ones that we KNOW about.
The very LAST thing that we need to worry about is 'not enough humans' -- but you know it's just SAD that Bu$H & Co. haven't found a way to turn CORPSES into FUEL yet, because THEN the killing will have just BEGUN!
But just so you know: Queer couples have PLENTY of children and are also doing so at an alarming rate. Believe me, I'm NOT a fan of marriage for the sake of CHILDREN. And thank GOD that is not the REAL issue - it's LOVE (or at least I HOPE it is). If we wanted to REALLY do something unselfish and truly noble and MORAL, we would be ADOPTING instead of squirting out a new litter of hungry babies.
sissy-boy said:
You're an idiot. If it WERE that simple, then everyone would have the same definition of what marriage IS, but they DON'T. Marriage means different things to different people. To you it may mean a man and a woman! To most other cultures it means property. It wasn't until the last century that marriage was between 2 persons who LOVED one another. You should do a little bit of history on the topic of MARRIAGE before you try to argue in defense of it. To me it means love between 2 consenting adults, though I would not stop a group from marrying if they made a could enough case for it. You see these things are not just black and white and the GOVERNMENT has no business making these kinds of definitions for us.
Wow, and for a moment I thought you Conservatives wanted LESS government, but in reality, you want EVERYTHING regulated! Conservatism today means BIGGER government. MUCH bigger government. And Bush has nearly DOUBLED it in the few years he's had any kind of say in office.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:So you're anti-people pro-extinction of the human race? WTF man? You're a freaking nut ball.
A statement of fact:sissy-boy said:
You obviously haven't 'seen' too much. And about the gay marriage, no one has the ability to argue that rationally, because ANYONE who is against it is simply prejudiced. There's no other way around it -- it's already been proven time and time again with evidence.
Fantasea said:A statement of fact:
In the thirteen states, both blue and red, in which the voters were asked to approve same-sex marriage, the result in all was the same -- overwhelming rejection.
An observation:
Since Democratic politicians are expert at "reading tea leaves", the issue has all but disappeared from tne political scene.
A comment:
These hypoctirical rogues sure know when to drop a "hot potato", don't they?
sissy-boy said:That's what Chairman Mao forced on the Chinese. I can understand your being enamored of such backward thinking.I'm saying the population explosions need to be CLOSELY monitored. We should be PENALIZING people with tax credits for having children. If a couple has a child, they should have a tax credit REMOVED, not GIVEN -- it's all backwards you see.I have thought again, and again, and again. The answer always comes out the same. Resources are intended to be used for the good of mankind -- and in this context, the US has done more for the betterment of mankind than any other country.And if you think that America is doing a good job at protecting the planet's resources, THINK AGAIN:
Nearly every improvement in every field of endeavor has had its roots right here. Whether in agri-business which provides wholesome nutritious food to nations the world over, medicine to cure or eradicate most of the diseases which have long plagued the world, transportation and communication systems which have shrunk the globe, the US is second to none in innovation, development, production, and distribution.
The only people who do not benefit from all this are those, both in the US and worldwide who are subjected to political systems which seek to deny them these benefits.Tell me, what would the tribeswoman in Kenya do with an automobile? Since there are no roads on which she could drive it, she has no use for petroleum products.The average American consumes roughly 100 times the resources of one tribeswoman in Kenya,and about ten times as much as the average world citizen.Averaging is the way to prove a point which is spurious. On the surface there appears to be substance; upon closer inspection, it is hollow. At ten times better than the tribeswoman in Kenya, the average world citizen commutes on a donkey or bicycle. The need for petroleum resources does not exist for these world citizens.Mr. Wilson's calculation, while possibly mathematically correct, have no bearing on reality. What he fails to note is that f the US did not use natural resources in the manner that it does, life in many parts of the world, not be as good as it is. If he would examine the status of those who live under tyrannical regimes which suppress their subjects, and report on that, he would make more sense.Harvard zoologist E.O. Wilson has calculated that if the rest of the Earth used resources at the rate the United States and Japan do, the planet could sustain a population of only 200 million.Trite, revisionist bull.The United States directly supports tyrants all over the world, so long as they allow us to exploit their resources. Like the Mafia, we make examples out of both Vietnam and Iraq because they refuse to play along.Rome wasn't built in a day. Given the changes wrought in Afghanistan and Iraq, the mellowing of Syria, North Korea, Iraq, and China; progress is being made. The Administration is doing a magnificent job, despite the interfering and destructive tactics of the Democratic anchor around its neck.The media concentrates our "patriotism" on these few tyrants who are foolish enough to oppose us, in order to raise public support for punishing or killing them. The "useful" tyrants are ignored if possible, or if necessary, their hideous crimes are reported as mysterious "civil wars". The Globe recently lamented that "the world paid little heed...as Indonesian troops killed thousands of separatists" in Timor without even mentioning that this slaughter was paid for almost entirely by United States taxpayers through direct military aid!"Chomsky has been a celebrity radical since the mid-1960s when he made his name as an anti-Vietnam War activist. Although he lost some of his appeal in the late-1970s and 1980s by his defense of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, he has used September 11 to restore his reputation, indeed to surpass his former influence and stature. At seventy-four years of age, he is today the doyen of the American and much of the world's intellectual left."-Noam Chomsky, Rm 20D-219, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139
Source: http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm
Fantasea said:A statement of fact:
In the thirteen states, both blue and red, in which the voters were asked to approve same-sex marriage, the result in all was the same -- overwhelming rejection.
An observation:
Since Democratic politicians are expert at "reading tea leaves", the issue has all but disappeared from tne political scene.
A comment:
These hypoctirical rogues sure know when to drop a "hot potato", don't they?
AK_Conservative said:What does a freaking history lesson have to do on what I and the rest of the vast majority in america believe? I could care less if u think they should be able to marry. If i may say, a Conservative did not write the act on what a marraige was. Clinton, in 1998, passed an act that on a national level, marraige is between a man and a woman! YOU TAKE A HISTORY LESSON AND KNOW THE FACTS BEFORE YOU PROFESS FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS!
Today conservatives want small government, but it is the democratic party that brings in all these self professed "moral" issues and in turn want a larger government which we must stop!
sissy-boy said:Amazing. I state a universally understood fact and you launch into a hysterical tirade, complete with abuse and insult.ALL states and the majority of ALL states were opposed to ending slavery before the Civil Rights movement. And ALL states were opposed to inter-racial marriage, ESPECIALLY the Christian community. In fact, it was in the late 50's it was North Carolina in which a white judge BANISHED an inter-racial couple from the state saying that it was a 'crime against nature' that 'God' would not allow it. Previously there was a group of men who moved to America because they wanted religious freedom. They wanted people to PURSUE happiness for chrissakes! Have you ever HEARD of something THAT INSANE?? That's what I thought. When you curse against gay marriage, you SPIT in the face of our forefathers. You urinate on their graves when you attack people for fighting for freedom.Originally Posted by Fantasea
A statement of fact:
In the thirteen states, both blue and red, in which the voters were asked to approve same-sex marriage, the result in all was the same -- overwhelming rejection.
An observation:
Since Democratic politicians are expert at "reading tea leaves", the issue has all but disappeared from tne political scene.
A comment:
These hypoctirical rogues sure know when to drop a "hot potato", don't they?
And you support SPECIAL religious rights for heterosexuals but no one else?
Are you a racist too? What are your true feelings on interracial marriage?
You're so anti-american. Why don't you go back to Afghanistan and live with your friends in the TALIBAN?
Is that any way to discuss an observation and a comment that are intended to highlight a major reason why the Democratic Party continues in its slide toward oblivion, election after election?
They supported the goal of one of their core constituencies until it became clear that it was costing them votes. As soon as the election results were in, they immediately turned their back and ran, showing their true color; yellow.
I’ll give you another fact. Right up to the present day, most inter-racial marriage results in rejection of the couple by relatives on both sides. Children of mixed races are routinely shunned by both races.
And, another observation. The romance fades, the reality sets in, and the sought after happiness never really materializes.
And a comment. It is likely that given a chance to turn back the clock, many would have made a different decision.
As far as the founders, and all legislators accepting same-sex marriage, had the thought ever entered their minds that marriage would be considered by two men or two women, a prohibition would have been included in every document that might bear on the subject.
Disagree, if you wish. However, find the words which will enable you to disagree without being disagreeable.
That's pure nonsense. If your claim was true, then seniors would not be allowed to marry because they are to old to have children. As that is not the case, your argument is false.Trajan Octavian Titus said:Oh ya well how bout this: The institution of marriage is sacred for one reason not religious but sociological, the primary reason for the institution of marriage is for procreation and child raising so when that system in accordance with the natural law of reproduction and family units that has been around for the entire span of human existence is destroyed then we're all in some real deep ****.
When you insist that this copuple with the child can't be married, then yes you are. certainly your feeble argumnent for marriage restrictions, that argument itself is now proven outright false. So you really don't have much left other than your prejudice.It is a known fact that the best environment for a child is a one man one woman marriage. That being said I'm all for civil unions and gay adoption if they are proven to be better than the alternative. For example I would rather have two upstanding gay citizens raise a child than a child molesting father and an alchoholic mother.
So am I prejudice?
That is so true. The lame lies about them wanting smaller Government is belied by the FACT of the enormous expansion of Government through intrusion into people's private lives that conservatives showe on us. Just like Fascism, the state's control over the citizens.sissy-boy said:Wow, and for a moment I thought you Conservatives wanted LESS government, but in reality, you want EVERYTHING regulated! Conservatism today means BIGGER government. MUCH bigger government. And Bush has nearly DOUBLED it in the few years he's had any kind of say in office.
What a friggin' liar you are. It is NOT the Democrats who push for Government control over womens bodies, over who can marry or whatnot. THAT is all pushed by conservative repugnicans who want to impose state-control over people's private lives. Does GESTAPO ring a bell with you?AK_Conservative said:Today conservatives want small government, but it is the democratic party that brings in all these self professed "moral" issues and in turn want a larger government which we must stop!
Navy Pride said:The pro abortion people are hypocrites...........They have compassion for murderers and rapists who have been sentenced to death in a court of law for their barbaric crimes but have no compassion for and innocent, defenseless baby in the womb who has committed no crime.............
That has to be the height of hypocrisy........
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?