Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

Should Chris Culliver apologize?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. 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:

     

    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 precedent for allowing marriages with sheep or whatever other wild fancies you want to dream up.  

     

     

     




    Your's are the childish arguments. Either your principles apply or they aren't really principles are they.

     

    Look, you're a liberal. You spew the liberal spew. You care not one whit about what is right or wrong per se. You care about your gang. Whatever they say goes and you just bleat along with the herd you have chosen. You have well proven this today.



    Well that's a complete abdication.  I take it as an admission of loss.  When your arguments fail, resort to name-calling.  

     

     

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ccsjl's comment:

     

    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,,,,,

     




    Yes, In Mass it was a 4-3 vote among liberal democrat appointees.

     



    Actually 2-1 by the Mass Supreme Judcial Court, whom the Governor just put a radical lesbian on to make sure it wont get reversed. The issue has been successfully blocked from going on a public vote.....

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. 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 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. 

     

     

     




    Well when you figure out a way to screen those who refuse to bear children or simply cannot, get back to us and we will see if it can be implemented.

     

    Yep, prolate0spheroid, the Canadian who knows what Americans want.



    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.  

     

     

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    Look this debate is never going to end.  I think the real issue here that Babe and others refuse to acknowledge is that the legal argument against gay marriage is laughable.  Consider the defense of the gay marriage ban put forward by opponents of gay marriage before the Supreme Court:

    "Marriage should be limited to unions of a man and a woman because they alone can "produce unplanned and unintended offspring," opponents of gay marriage have told the Supreme Court. By contrast, when same-sex couples decide to have children, substantial advance planning is required," said Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for House Republicans." 

    Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gay-marry-court-20130127,0,6421506.story


    So just to be clear the best legal argument that the best legal minds of anti-gay marriage proponents could come up with that they put in front of the highest court in the land is that gay marriage should be illegal because gays cannot have unplanned pregnancies.

    So ironically after years of using alleged gay social irresponsibility as a rationale for discrimination against gays, heterosexual irresponsibility is now a rationale for discrimination against gays.  You cannot make this up.




    Since Babe likes to pride himself on logic I'd like to once again point out that the best legal argument opponents of gay marriage could come up with (meaning they can't just argue they think gay marriage is bad or immoral or a sin) is completely illogical and pathetic at best.  If the Constitution and logic are so obviously in your favor why couldn't the best legal minds come up with something better?

     
  11. 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:

     

    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 precedent for allowing marriages with sheep or whatever other wild fancies you want to dream up.  

     

     

     




    Your's are the childish arguments. Either your principles apply or they aren't really principles are they.

     

    Look, you're a liberal. You spew the liberal spew. You care not one whit about what is right or wrong per se. You care about your gang. Whatever they say goes and you just bleat along with the herd you have chosen. You have well proven this today.

     



    Well that's a complete abdication.  I take it as an admission of loss.  When your arguments fail, resort to name-calling.  

     

     

     

     




    Oh just stop with your BS pro. You just called my arguments childish. If you dish it out learn to take it without being a crybaby about it.

     

    You have been vanquished by reason. Live with it.



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

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    Very very few nations in the world allow gay marriage.




    Or states,,,,hasnt it been defeated in all but 2 states when it was allowed to go to a public vote on the issue?

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  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. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    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....

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts