Should Chris Culliver apologize?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. 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 prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

    Oh dear, you really are serious it seems about being Mr. Marriage Police . . .  not only do you want to prevent gays from getting married, you want to stop the childless from being married. 

    I bet you're against contraception too . . . 

    Yep, just what Americans want.  

     

     

     


    I never said I was against the childless being married more than I am against anybody else being married.

     



    So it's not that you're anti gay marriage, it's that you're anti marriage in general.  Ah well, that at least is interesting . . . 

     

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to ricky12684's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:


    actually it does. but i don't expect you to admit it. non of those gentlemen would admit it either.

     

     




    Actually, it doesn't. Anecdotal things never prove tendencies.

     

     



    there's nothing anecdotal about it babe. those are true stories of real people.

     

    WHY are political and religious figures who campaign against gay rights so often implicated in sexual encounters with same-sex partners?

    One theory is that homosexual urges, when repressed out of shame or fear, can be expressed as homophobia. Freud famously called this process a "ÂÂÂœreaction formation"” the angry battle against the outward symbol of feelings that are inwardly being stifled. Even Mr. Haggard seemed to endorse this idea when, apologizing after his scandal for his anti-gay rhetoric, he said, "I think I was partially so vehement because of my own war."

    It's a compelling theory and now there is scientific reason to believe it. In this month's issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, we and our fellow researchersprovide empirical evidence that homophobia can result, at least in part, from the suppression of same-sex desire.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/homophobic-maybe-youre-gay.html?_r=0

     



    Absolutely. It's why priests run to the Church.  Hitler was likely gay, too.  Oh, the irony.

     

     

     




    Hitler wasn't gay. He was a person who liked to be sexually humiliated by a woman.

     

     




    He may have been gay and Eva Braun was a beard.  Not that it matters. Or, maybe it does as a social and psychological study?

     

    It's just funny that one of the world's most violent and socially conservative dictators of all time, lashed out against almost every minority group on the planet, likely as a way to hide his own anger at himself.

    Happens all the time through history.  




    Read - "The mind of Adolph Hitler". It was a book written by an army head shrinker based on a exhaustive study he was assigned to do before the war. This book claimed Adolph was a scat man.

    Hitler likely murdered his niece who he was very likely having an intimate relationship with. No records whatsoever of him with men. Though a number of highly places Nazis did. Hitler was probably inbred as that was very prominent in the area of Austria where he was born and he had several siblings die in infancy. Ironically he was also likely half Jewish.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     



    I haven't heard anything rational from you all day!

     

     

     



    And what have you provided other than unprincipled pandering?

     




    "unprincipled pandering" = fancy words as a way to try gain leverage after being bludgeoned

     

    How does it feel to be walking hand in hand with Tony Dungy?

    Ouch.




    Junior, I bludgeon you each and every day.

    I respect Tony Dungy's beliefs. But most Christians are wrong on several scores regarding what Scripture says.

     
  5. 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 prolate0spheroid's comment:

     



    I haven't heard anything rational from you all day!

     

     

     



    And what have you provided other than unprincipled pandering?



    Let's review:

     

    I've said:

    (a) people should be free to do what they please as long as it causes no harm to anyone else

    (b) i see no evidence that two people of the same sex being married causes any harm to anyone

    (c) i also see that there are benefits to having a legal arrangement such as marriage exist between two people who live together and want to maintain a lasting partnership, since such an arrangement will clarify their legal responsibilities toward each other and toward any dependent children and also help clarify how their joint property will be treated

    (d) i further said that there are a large number of people living in the US in such same-sex partnerships

    (e) and i said that for all the reasons above, same-sex marriage seems to cause no harm and quite the contrary provides significant benefits to a significant part of the population and therefore should be legal

     

    Meanwhile, what is it exactly that you've said?  Now it's morphed into you being against all marriage?  Yep, rational argument on my side, crazy talk on yours. 

     

     

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

    Oh dear, you really are serious it seems about being Mr. Marriage Police . . .  not only do you want to prevent gays from getting married, you want to stop the childless from being married. 

    I bet you're against contraception too . . . 

    Yep, just what Americans want.  

     

     

     


    I never said I was against the childless being married more than I am against anybody else being married.

     

     



    So it's not that you're anti gay marriage, it's that you're anti marriage in general.  Ah well, that at least is interesting . . . 

     

     

     




    I would be fine with marriage as it has been historically if not for the bruhaha about gay marriage we are embroiled in these days.

    The moral and legal entanglement that is marriage as we know it has become unviable.

    My solution would be to have "civil unions" conveying the same benefits as marriage to ANY two consenting adults that wished to enter into that LEGAL entanglement.

    "Marriage" would be relegated to a ceremonial endeavor and have no legal bearing whatsoever.

     

    But I fear that wouldn't satisfy gays whose agenda has little to do with rights and much to do with forcing the rest to say their behavior is moral.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     



    I haven't heard anything rational from you all day!

     

     

     



    And what have you provided other than unprincipled pandering?

     



    Let's review:

     

     

    I've said:

    (a) people should be free to do what they please as long as it causes no harm to anyone else

    (b) i see no evidence that two people of the same sex being married causes any harm to anyone

    (c) i also see that there are benefits to having a legal arrangement such as marriage exist between two people who live together and want to maintain a lasting partnership, since such an arrangement will clarify their legal responsibilities toward each other and toward any dependent children and also help clarify how their joint property will be treated

    (d) i further said that there are a large number of people living in the US in such same-sex partnerships

    (e) and i said that for all the reasons above, same-sex marriage seems to cause no harm and quite the contrary provides significant benefits to a significant part of the population and therefore should be legal

     

    Meanwhile, what is it exactly that you've said?  Now it's morphed into you being against all marriage?  Yep, rational argument on my side, crazy talk on yours. 

     

     

     




    And you ran for the hills with your tail between your legs when I presented you with two possibilities that met the same moral criteria you champion for gay marriage.

    You think you're a free thinker, but you're really just a pawn of the herd you have joined.

     

    On the other hand, I have consistently maintained that gays are being afforded exactly the same rights as heterosexuals regarding marriage. Which is true.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. 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 prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

    Oh dear, you really are serious it seems about being Mr. Marriage Police . . .  not only do you want to prevent gays from getting married, you want to stop the childless from being married. 

    I bet you're against contraception too . . . 

    Yep, just what Americans want.  

     

     

     


    I never said I was against the childless being married more than I am against anybody else being married.

     

     



    So it's not that you're anti gay marriage, it's that you're anti marriage in general.  Ah well, that at least is interesting . . . 

     

     

     

     




    I would be fine with marriage as it has been historically if not for the bruhaha about gay marriage we are embroiled in these days.

     

    The moral and legal entanglement that is marriage as we know it has become unviable.

    My solution would be to have "civil unions" conveying the same benefits as marriage to ANY two consenting adults that wished to enter into that LEGAL entanglement.

    "Marriage" would be relegated to a ceremonial endeavor and have no legal bearing whatsoever.

     

    But I fear that wouldn't satisfy gays whose agenda has little to do with rights and much to do with forcing the rest to say their behavior is moral.

     



     

    Marriage hasn't become unviable.  You just hate the idea that gays might be recognized as married so much that you would rather abolish marriage (as a legal construct) altogether than let gays get married.  Your reaction is exactly why gays insist on using the term "marriage" rather than "civil union."  They understand that many people don't see civil unions as identical to or as legitimate as marriage and therefore they are wary about accepting anything that might, now or in the future, convey lesser rights than full blown marriage.  To avoid that risk, very sensibly, they insist on marriage and not something similar, but still different, such as a civil union.

     

     

     

     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to ccsjl's comment:

     

    Iowa was great - gay marriage was mandated by the state supreme court, and when all the judges came up for re-election the voters threw them all out....

     




    Have you been to Iowa? Nice people, but it's not far off from that town meeting scene in Field of Dreams.

     

    Absolute truth.

    Again, if you are that in love with social conservatism, you're not far off from what Adolf Hitler wanted.

    More truth.

    Censorship, laws against minorities, etc. 




    Now junior tells us the good folks in Iowa are Nazis. How many Iowans do you think died fighting Hitler bozo? Do you have respect for anything other than let's say Meriweather's awesome safety skills?

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to RockScully's comment:



    You're trying to backpedal out of this.  You're a liar.  You're an obvious homophobe.  You clearly have the stance you do to defend the "sanctity of marriage" under the religious based rhetoric out of the Bible.

     

     



    BS junior. I NEVER have to backpedal from you. I own you every time because you're an imbecile and have the moral compass of a turnip.

    I have held the belief that universal civil unions are the solution for years and have stated it previously right here on this board.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    And I can tell you right now, it's clear you don't know a gay person which speaks volumes with your ignorance on this topic and others, and that a gay person coulg give two squirts if you think they are "moral or not".

     



    I have a gay sister dumbo. LMAO@U

    C'mon junior, gays reek of "accept me morally". Their every move stinks of it. Otherwise they wouldn't rankle at civil unions instead of marriage as they do. Otherwise they wouldn't call anybody a bigot who disagrees with gay marriage on moral grounds. Why label somebody a bigot if you don't care whether they see your actions as moral or not?

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    You're the type that promotes a wife beating crack head who has a bad heterosexual marriage and 8 kids, but frowns upon law abiding, intelligent gays who simply want the same basic rights as that heterosexual, abusive crackhead. Isn't that swell.

    Again, it's not for you or me to tell a gay person that they don't feel what they feel for another human.

    Period.

     



    More insanity brought to you by junior. Now I promote wife beating crackheads. Get help nutjob.

    I don't care if gays want to go be gay. They can knock themselves out with that. Just don't ask me to say it's okay.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    C'mon junior, gays reek of "accept me morally". Their every move stinks of it. Otherwise they wouldn't rankle at civil unions instead of marriage as they do. Otherwise they wouldn't call anybody a bigot who disagrees with gay marriage on moral grounds. Why label somebody a bigot if you don't care whether they see your actions as moral or not?



    Yeah black people should have been happy with "separate but equal".  The reason that doesn't work is because it rarely actually happens.  Eventually the separate  becomes unequal which is why gays are correctly arguing that they should be a part of the same institution as heterosexuals such that their rights cannot be degraded under the guise of "separate but equal".

     
  20. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    And, like I said, rights of kin issues are DENIED by the law to gays. Think about that. A person's should be wife or husband can't make legal health decisions because the law doesn't allow that, so it defers to the person's parents or siblings OVER the partner/spouse. 

    How would you like that?  I am not married (yet), but that would be offensive to me as a heterosexual based on principle alone. I don't want the gov't telling me what to do in those kinds or areas as an American. So, if you have a will in place in terms of a health issue like a car accident and you being a vegetable, your will says your spouse or partner has first choice on decisions to pull the plug or keep you alive as a vegetable hoping for you to come out of a coma, it's not your decision because the law in that state supersedes what's in your will.




    When you enter into a relationship that has no legal standing you have no legal rights. But then, they know that when they embark on the endeavor.

    I'm all for creating laws where one can designate persons to be able to make decisions such as this.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    Further, do you realize that women and gays actually are dublty discriminated against RIGHT NOW more so than blacks?  It's easier to sue for discrimination and win as a black person with regards to diversity laws than it is for women or gays.

    Right now, a woman makes a significant chunk LESS than a man and they do the same job.

    As a country, we can't seem to get it right across the board. We let small groups with the money decide how we apply our principles and that's wrong.

     




    Yes junior. Evil people run the world. Twas always thus.

    I'm not in favor of a mandate that pegs all people who do a similar job at the same compensation. Beefier law regarding recourse for employees who are being shafted could be viable. Problem is whenever you try and do good things people abuse the rights gained and scam it.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    Your exact same argument could be applied to interracial couples who wanted to get married before it was legal.  Every white person had the right to marry a white person and vice versa.  Unfortunately for you that is not the way the legal system in this country works.

     

    The reason I brought religion/morality into the debate in my original post is that is the only explanation that I have ever seen anyone give for why they actually care about gays getting married.  Otherwise why would they actually care.  Of course those are not legal arguments and are therefore irrelevant to the issue at hand.

    Again you are conflating the institution of marriage (the religious tradition etc.) with the legal institution.  The state can define marriage however it wants in legal terms.  It cannot obligate a church to marry gay people.  This isn't that hard.



    It's interesting that you (and others) seem desperate to make this into an argument about religion.

     

    I have made no appeal to divine law nor Biblical truth.

    I am simply pointing out what is patently obvious to sane people - that marriage for all of human recorded history has been between men and women, because that is normal.

    The mental gymnastics crowd - the ones who feel they must redefine words are indeed insane people. 

    I don't care what their position is on religion - their position on cultural history is moronic.

     

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    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:

     

     

    Oh dear, you really are serious it seems about being Mr. Marriage Police . . .  not only do you want to prevent gays from getting married, you want to stop the childless from being married. 

    I bet you're against contraception too . . . 

    Yep, just what Americans want.  

     

     

     


    I never said I was against the childless being married more than I am against anybody else being married.

     

     



    So it's not that you're anti gay marriage, it's that you're anti marriage in general.  Ah well, that at least is interesting . . . 

     

     

     

     




    I would be fine with marriage as it has been historically if not for the bruhaha about gay marriage we are embroiled in these days.

     

    The moral and legal entanglement that is marriage as we know it has become unviable.

    My solution would be to have "civil unions" conveying the same benefits as marriage to ANY two consenting adults that wished to enter into that LEGAL entanglement.

    "Marriage" would be relegated to a ceremonial endeavor and have no legal bearing whatsoever.

     

    But I fear that wouldn't satisfy gays whose agenda has little to do with rights and much to do with forcing the rest to say their behavior is moral.

     



     

    Marriage hasn't become unviable.  You just hate the idea that gays might be recognized as married so much that you would rather abolish marriage (as a legal construct) altogether than let gays get married.  Your reaction is exactly why gays insist on using the term "marriage" rather than "civil union."  They understand that many people don't see civil unions as identical to or as legitimate as marriage and therefore they are wary about accepting anything that might, now or in the future, convey lesser rights than full blown marriage.  To avoid that risk, very sensibly, they insist on marriage and not something similar, but still different, such as a civil union.

     

     

     




    Nonsense. I really could care less if gays are married or not. As long as I have no hand in making that a reality I'm good to go.

    But you again stumble trying to define my moral ground with assumptions. You see, I don't care about gays as a specific group any more or less than any other. My interest in universal civil unions goes far beyond your paltry little political agenda. The fact it also would help with the division on gays is all the more reason it would be a good thing.

    I would like to see an elderly sister and brother able to unite in a legal circumstance where they could share health insurance benefits for instance for example. An elderly mother and her daughter. Any two adults that want to partner and share benefits are what I envision.

    So, you don't know what the hell you're talking about as usual on these issues. (though you do pretty well with football talk.)

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share