Should Chris Culliver apologize?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    The only hope is a sports analogy.

    Fan #1:  Ray Guy was a great football player - I mean one of the best corner backs in NFL history. 

    Fan#2:  Ray Guy was a punter.

    Fan #1:  Only if you are narrow minded.  If you would be more open minded you would see that Ray Guy was a GREAT cornerback.

    Fan #2:  But Ray Guy never played defense; never covered a wide receiver; never had an interception.  All he did was kick.  He punted.

    Fan #1:  Who says that punting isn't part of being a cornerback?

    Fan #2:  Every player, coach, and Fan in NFL history.

    Fan #1:  So you are clinging to you NFL encyclopedia?  That is what you are going to do to deny Ray Guy recognition as a cornerback?  That's really sick - you are like Hitler.

    Fan #2:  But the accepted definition of cornerback and punter are clear.  they couldn't be anymore clear!  If Ray Guy wanted to be a cornerback he shouldn't have chosen to be a punter.

    Fan#1:  Wow, you are so discriminatory?  Do you own slaves too?

    Fan #2:  What?!  I am talking common sense!

    Fan #1:  Common sense - yeah right.  Why don't you just admit you hate black people too.

    Fan #2:  Ray guy was a WHITE punter.

    Fan #1:  How convenient. 

    Fan #2:  What exactly do you want?

    Fan #1:  I think we should redefine the definition of cornerback so Ray Guy can get credit for all his wonderful punts.

    Fan #2:  Your are a little insane.

    Fan #1:  I AM FOR GUY RIGHTS!  

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to ricky12684's comment:

    schump you've already proven you're not very good with analogies.. i'd leave those alone if i were you.




    Buddy, you are one of the dumbest people in America.  A pro-gay rights Hamas supporter.  Good luck with that.

     

     
  8. 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:

     

    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.)




    Ah, Babe.  I see you really are a man who wants social justice for everyone.  Sure, we can have legal arrangements between all sorts of people to allow them to share property, benefits, etc.  But why abolish marriage?  You don't have to do that to do what you say you want to do. 

     

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to ricky12684's comment:

     

    haha what a funny thread. i wish i could put a face to all of these characters. 

    BTW No single individual wrote the constitution. Twelve of the thirteen states sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention to revise the Articles of Confederation and the entire convention worked on it. After the political questions were hashed out a 'committee of style' was formed to put the ideas into formal words. It is generally accepted that Gouverneur Morris created most of the actual wording included in the final draft from the Committee of Style.

    That's correct.  I was simply referencing what one of the founding fathers used for words to explain to a bunch of scary Baptists, what the first amendment meant.



    Oh my goodness - now you are lying?  You said Jefferson wrote the constitution. 

    Jefferson didn't write any of it, moron.

     
  10. 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 pcmIV's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    Just STOP with the spin BS. If gays didn't care if people accepted them morally they wouldn't be lobbying for any derogatory mention of them as being a hate crime, LMAO.

    It's OBVIOUS they want to be accepted as "normal" and moral equals.

    I don't care. Go be gay. Dance in the streets. I don't hate them. I don't dislike them. I wish them the best. But don't tell me they don't have an agenda to try and force others to say they are morally viable.

     



    I am not spinning anything.  Of course gays want to be accepted as "normal" and moral equals.  Who the        f uck wouldn't?  What you continue to fail to understand is that they are making a legal argument to be treated equally under the LAW.  Would they like if that meant over the long term it resulted in more people treating them as moral equals?  Of course, but that isn't grounds for denying the legitimate legal argument.  If you equate the legal institution of marriage as morally viable then that is your f'ing problem.  Do you think people who were morally opposed to interracial marriage changed their minds when it was legalized?  Of course not.  By your logic we shouldn't have abolished slavery since black people clearly wanted to be treated as moral equals even though the argument was about equality under the law.  You are the king of spin and non-sequiturs.

     

     



    He's also dumb. He just took my de-segregation example in Eisenhower's era asking me if "gays are being denied entry to college..."

     

    LMAO

    I mean, WOW.

    I bet Babe was the kid in class that struggled with the Sesame Street game where you had to find what didn't belong. What didn't belong was Babe in a remedial class, apparently. lmao

     

     




    That's because your denseness doesn't allow you to grasp that gays aren't being discriminated againt goofball.

     

     




    Umm, excuse me?  This is a 12 page+ thread and now you're saying gays aren't being discriminated against? Hilarious.

     

    What about a bigoted boss who is blocking someone's career because they don't like gays? How is that any different than any other vrsion of discrimination?  What protections are in place to defend agains this sort of thing?

    If society isn't accepting, of course it's being discriminated against.

     




    We are speaking in regard to marriage dumbkoff.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to ricky12684's comment:

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

     i'm certainly pro gay rights and proud to be, but i don't recall saying anything about Hamas... 

    but back to your analogies.. they are horrible. how can you not see your flawed logic?




     

    hey numbskull - who do you think runs Gaza?  This is what I can't stand about reflexivley liberal zombies.  You ahve all your slogans and as always no context.

    You are supporting HAMAS; take a logic class

     
  14. 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 BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully'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:

     

     

    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.)

     




    That doesn't make any sense.  Would you vote for or against gay marriage on principle?

     

     

     




    I would never vote for gay marriage. I would vote for civil unions if any two adults were allowed to enter one. If those two adults happened to be gay... oh well.

     

     




    So, you would vote for it, if it was called a "union" then?  You're doing a heck of a job tapdancing around a very simple question, Mr. Self Righteous.

     

    Who cares what it's called?! It's the principle.

     

     




    For a big college grad with a 150 IQ you have a hard time reading junior.

     

    I said I would vote for unions of any two adults. That and gay marriage are two very distinctly different things.

     



    How is it different?

     

    Any two adults could mean same sex, obviously. The only reason your little argument, which you've now altered a bit to try to spin out, includes semantics over "marriage" and "union" is because the religious zealots don't want the word "marriage" tarnished in their own little warped psycho brains.

    Who cares what the word is?

     




    Junior, do you really think that "marriage" is an appropriate term to describe say a younger son and his elderly father who choose to form a union to share benefits? Even you aren't that dumb. Are you?

    That's the perfect solution. The gays say they just want rights so who cares what it's called. The religious shouldn't object because it's not targeted to just gays, rather it's simply a legal union between any two adults.

    But you don't want a perfect solution do you junior? You want to MAKE people think like you. The term God Forbid was NEVER more appropriate. A world of people who think like you would literally be hell.

     

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    I was simply referencing what one of the founding fathers used for words to explain to a bunch of scary Baptists, what the first amendment meant.




    "The wall of separation" that you attribute to Jefferson was not his original idea but rather that of Roger Williams - Puritan and founder of the Baptist faith.  (so much for the Wall of Separation being an attack on Baptists)

    You ignorance is on display for all to see.

    We get it - you are desperate and angry.  Perhaps you are angry because you have to defend lesbianism and you are tired of it.  Who knows?

    But please - stop trying to act like you know what you are talking about.  You are in way over your head.

     

     
  16. 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 BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    Just STOP with the spin BS. If gays didn't care if people accepted them morally they wouldn't be lobbying for any derogatory mention of them as being a hate crime, LMAO.

    It's OBVIOUS they want to be accepted as "normal" and moral equals.

    I don't care. Go be gay. Dance in the streets. I don't hate them. I don't dislike them. I wish them the best. But don't tell me they don't have an agenda to try and force others to say they are morally viable.

     



    I am not spinning anything.  Of course gays want to be accepted as "normal" and moral equals.  Who the        f uck wouldn't?  What you continue to fail to understand is that they are making a legal argument to be treated equally under the LAW.  Would they like if that meant over the long term it resulted in more people treating them as moral equals?  Of course, but that isn't grounds for denying the legitimate legal argument.  If you equate the legal institution of marriage as morally viable then that is your f'ing problem.  Do you think people who were morally opposed to interracial marriage changed their minds when it was legalized?  Of course not.  By your logic we shouldn't have abolished slavery since black people clearly wanted to be treated as moral equals even though the argument was about equality under the law.  You are the king of spin and non-sequiturs.

     

     



    He's also dumb. He just took my de-segregation example in Eisenhower's era asking me if "gays are being denied entry to college..."

     

    LMAO

    I mean, WOW.

    I bet Babe was the kid in class that struggled with the Sesame Street game where you had to find what didn't belong. What didn't belong was Babe in a remedial class, apparently. lmao

     

     




    That's because your denseness doesn't allow you to grasp that gays aren't being discriminated againt goofball.

     

     




    Umm, excuse me?  This is a 12 page+ thread and now you're saying gays aren't being discriminated against? Hilarious.

     

    What about a bigoted boss who is blocking someone's career because they don't like gays? How is that any different than any other vrsion of discrimination?  What protections are in place to defend agains this sort of thing?

    If society isn't accepting, of course it's being discriminated against.

     

     




    We are speaking in regard to marriage dumbkoff.

     

     




    No. You said they aren't being discriminated against above. I gave you an example of how they might be under law.

     

    Keep spinning. The entire board is seeing you as the moron you are.

     




    I was speaking of gay marriage numbnut. I haven't said discrimination against gays didn't exist otherwise. Keep trying to distract from your daily whipping all you like. It will not avail you.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. 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 pcmIV's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

    Just STOP with the spin BS. If gays didn't care if people accepted them morally they wouldn't be lobbying for any derogatory mention of them as being a hate crime, LMAO.

    It's OBVIOUS they want to be accepted as "normal" and moral equals.

    I don't care. Go be gay. Dance in the streets. I don't hate them. I don't dislike them. I wish them the best. But don't tell me they don't have an agenda to try and force others to say they are morally viable.

     

     



    I am not spinning anything.  Of course gays want to be accepted as "normal" and moral equals.  Who the        f uck wouldn't?  What you continue to fail to understand is that they are making a legal argument to be treated equally under the LAW.  Would they like if that meant over the long term it resulted in more people treating them as moral equals?  Of course, but that isn't grounds for denying the legitimate legal argument.  If you equate the legal institution of marriage as morally viable then that is your f'ing problem.

     

     




    But they ARE treated equally under the law. A gay man has exactly the same rights as a heterosexual man. The fact they want to shack up with another man instead of a woman is unfortunate for them, but does not constitute them being treated any differently under the law.

     

     




    You're a moron.  That's like saying a black man has access to the same rights under the law as the white man in 1898, and that separate bathrooms or not being waited on in restaurants or beind denied jobs with excuses, is just a mere incovenience.

     

    LMAO

     




    You are so incredibly dense that you can't even discern the difference between a gay man having the EXACT same marriage rights as a heterosexual man and a black man being excluded from certain public places. They have NOTHING in common based in law. LMAO@U

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    I was simply referencing what one of the founding fathers used for words to explain to a bunch of scary Baptists, what the first amendment meant.




    "The wall of separation" that you attribute to Jefferson was not his original idea but rather that of Roger Williams - Puritan and founder of the Baptist faith.  (so much for the Wall of Separation being an attack on Baptists)

     

    You ignorance is on display for all to see.

    We get it - you are desperate and angry.  Perhaps you are angry because you have to defend lesbianism and you are tired of it.  Who knows?

    But please - stop trying to act like you know what you are talking about.  You are in way over your head.

     



    He always is.

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to ricky12684's comment:

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

     

    In response to ricky12684's comment:

     

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

     i'm certainly pro gay rights and proud to be, but i don't recall saying anything about Hamas... 

    but back to your analogies.. they are horrible. how can you not see your flawed logic?

     




     

     

    hey numbskull - who do you think runs Gaza?  This is what I can't stand about reflexivley liberal zombies.  You ahve all your slogans and as always no context.

    You are supporting HAMAS; take a logic class

     



    wrong buddy. i don't support hamas, i support the people of palestine and their right to their land and sovereignty. hamas happens to be their elected offical and even they are powerless because in reality the IDF runs Gaza and the West Bank and the illegally occupied territories. the civilians is who i support, both palestinian and israeli. the israeli government, IDF, and violent settlers who have immunity are who i am against. you don't take time to understand my context you just want to bury your head in the sand and stick to your talking points.

     




    "Their land"? You mean the land they stole from the Jews?

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to ricky12684's comment:

    wrong buddy. i don't support hamas, i support the people of palestine and their right to their land and sovereignty. hamas happens to be their elected offical and even they are powerless because in reality the IDF runs Gaza and the West Bank and the illegally occupied territories. the civilians are who i support, both palestinian and israeli. the israeli government, IDF, and violent settlers who have immunity are who i am against. you don't take time to understand my context you just want to bury your head in the sand and stick to your talking points.

     




    You don't support Hamas - you support the people who overwhelmingly elected Hamas.  You don't support Hamas but you want Hamas unchecked by Israel, because Israel is evil.  You don't support Hamas, you just have an avatar that is a Hamas propaganda piece.

    Awesome. 

    You are like a clown of fire - funny and sad at the sametime.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to ricky12684's comment:


     



    i don't support either of the governments haha why is that so hard for you to understand? do you support obama? are you responsible for the foreign policy decisions he makes? 

     




     

    No I don't support Obama - which is why I don't have a "Forward" avatar.  If I did - and then denied I supported him, I would be as insane as you are.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

    But they ARE treated equally under the law. A gay man has exactly the same rights as a heterosexual man. The fact they want to shack up with another man instead of a woman is unfortunate for them, but does not constitute them being treated any differently under the law.

     

     



    Prior to 1967 using this line of argument one could argue that everyone had the same right to marry someone of their race and the fact that some people wanted to marry someone from another race is unfortunate for them, but does not constitute being treated any differently under the law.  Too bad this argument got shot down by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia and interracial marriage was legalized.  You lose.

     




    You lose. Apples and oranges.

    The court held that "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes"...

    Obviously a black/white heterosexual relationship is still capable of the procreation a gay or lezbian relationship is not which is ostensibly the basis for marriage in the first place.

    Your example is about race, not gender.

    A few liberal state courts have legislated from the bench to create gay marriage in certain states. That's a far cry from the Supreme Court of the US doing so.

    Meanwhile the VAST majority of countires on Earth don't allow gay marriage.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share