Should Chris Culliver apologize?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccsjl. Show ccsjl's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    Little lesson for ya....30.000 years ago we have 3 cave couples...Cave 1 a man and woman, Cave 2 man and man, Cave 3 woman and woman.......seems to me a few years later only cave 1 has kids to carry on the species.....Homosexuality is not a natural behavior!!!!!

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to ccsjl's comment:

    Homosexuality is not a natural behavior!!!!!



    Yeah not like it's been observed in thousands of different animal species or anything like that.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    Nobody is saying a theocracy is ok. But to say SOCAS means an individual cannot vote based on their religious beliefs is asinine.

     



    What it means is that you can't pass a law whose legal merit is based entirely on religious beliefs.  The point is to prevent the religious beliefs of one group from impinging on the rights of others.  There is a reason why the legal arguments put forward against gay marriage at the Supreme Court are so weak.  Because most people's opposition is driven by their religion/personal morality which is precisely what the founding fathers did not want people to be able to impose on everyone else.

     

     

     



    You can pass any law you want for whatever reason you want that doesn't violate the constitution.


    It matters not one whit why a person or a lawmaker chooses to vote as they do. It only matters if what the law does is in violation.

    It makes absolutely no difference if someone votes based on a religious belief, had an alien come down and control their mind or simply put the options on a dartboard and with a blindfold on voted whatever way they hit. The reason doesn't matter and is in no way addressed in law or the constitution nor in the papers of the founding fathers.

    No wonder this country is in the state it is in. People struggle with the simplest concepts.

     



    Yes.  You seem to struggle with the concept of the 14th amendment.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccsjl. Show ccsjl's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    Maybe some of us dont like this gay lifestyle shoved down our throats...I worked for a company that hired a gay guy to run a department, so naturally he hires his "friends"....A few would come in occasionally in drag, another one would be dropped off at work every morning by his boyfriend who he would kiss goodbye in the parking lot right in front of my office DISGUSTING!!!!!!

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to ccsjl's comment:

    Maybe some of us dont like this gay lifestyle shoved down our throats...I worked for a company that hired a gay guy to run a department, so naturally he hires his "friends"....A few would come in occasionally in drag, another one would be dropped off at work every morning by his boyfriend who he would kiss goodbye in the parking lot right in front of my office DISGUSTING!!!!!!




    Yeah gay people getting married means soon they will take over the world.  Pretty sure gay people getting married has literally 0 impact on how often you need to interact with them.  They'll still be gay.  Seriously this is a moronic argument.  I guess we should have kept Jim Crow in place because white people didn't want black culture shoved down their throats.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccsjl. Show ccsjl's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to ccsjl's comment:

     

    Maybe some of us dont like this gay lifestyle shoved down our throats...I worked for a company that hired a gay guy to run a department, so naturally he hires his "friends"....A few would come in occasionally in drag, another one would be dropped off at work every morning by his boyfriend who he would kiss goodbye in the parking lot right in front of my office DISGUSTING!!!!!!

     




    Yeah gay people getting married means soon they will take over the world.  Pretty sure gay people getting married has literally 0 impact on how often you need to interact with them.  They'll still be gay.  Seriously this is a moronic argument.  I guess we should have kept Jim Crow in place because white people didn't want black culture shoved down their throats.

     




    Gay marriage - I dont recall it ever being voted on to become a law....Oh wait it was a judicial mandate to impose it,,,,,

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

     

    The fact you don't respect that there are in fact gay people walking around who feel the same way you or I do about a woman, means you don't respect that gays exist, have feelings, etc.

     

     

     


    Marriage isn't about who you prefer to bang dum bass. And it's not about wanting a "partner". In fact it's not about adults at all. It's about kids. It's about trying to provide a stable institution for them to grow up in. You are hopelessly stupid.



    So all the millions of childless marriages throughout history don't count? Babe Parilli . . . arbiter of whose marriage is valid and whose isn't.  Yep, that's what Americans want. 

     

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    As far as I can tell, people marrying people of the same sex does no harm to anyone.  I believe in freedom.  If something you want to do causes no harm to anyone, it should be legal.  Hence, people should be free to marry any consenting adult they choose.  

     

     



    So you are for polygamy and incestuous marriage I see. Lots of worm can opening from your oh so objective mind today.

     

    You are all hopped up about freedom it seems, unless of course it's about the freedom to bear arms.

     



    Those may cause harm . . . incest for sure.  Polygamy . . . not quite so sure.  And of course, in terms of legal rights, a relationship of two is easier to manage than a relationship of three or more.  So there's a practical reason to limit marriage to two persons rather than multiple. Just think of the complex estate issues one could have with two or three disputing surviving spouses.  One spouse is far more practical . . . 

     

     

     




    What is the harm in incest you claim?

     

    So, you would deny multiple spouses based on the complexity of inheritance law?

    This is your answer to the "rights" of the aforementioned being trampled upon as you see those of gays being undermined?

    I'm not seeing a consistent application of principle here. I'm seeing political pandering.

     



    Take a genetics course, I guess, if you want to learn why inbreeding is bad.  

     

    I said I'm not sure about polygamy.  With more study, I might decide it is okay.  I do, however, think there are possible issues with it that require more research before making up my mind one way or the other. 

     

     




    I'm familiar with genetics. I'm also familiar with the modern advantages of vasectomy, hysterectomy and tubal ligation. Any other excuses why these poor people can't have the freedom you so ferociously demand for gays?

     

    Get back to us when you have sorted out your lofty principles regarding polygamy pro. In the meantime we'll just consider you to have selective sensitivity to injustice that sort of falls in with pandering to your heroes rather than displaying any real sense of conviction on the matter.

     



    Once again, you make childish arguments.  Homosexuality is quite common in our society whether you approve or not and homosexual couples are common.  Incestuous couples are (fortunately, I think) a rare abberation.  Polygamy is also still rare, except among a few odd cults. Permitting a large group of people to marry when they desire to do so and when doing so is not harmful (and actually even beneficial, since marriage has many useful property protections) seems consistent with American values and does not create some precedence for allowing marriages with sheep or whatever other wild fancies you want to dream up.  

     

     

     




    It's also an economic risk to a community because the fact is, there are many gay professionals who do a lot of GREAT things in a community. They run great businesses, contribute to society in a positive way, etc.

     

    To exclude that is just stupid. 

     



    And marriage provides a great deal of financial and legal security that should be extended to these couples so they have the same protections as other couples. 

     

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts