Should Chris Culliver apologize?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  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:

     

     

    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?

     




    You do? BALONEY

     

    You would have introduced that a lot earlier.  Nice try, Mr. Backpedal.

    No one who reads this is buying that. You're a pathetic human, especially after totally losing a debate. lol

    I am not labeling you a bigot. I am labeling an ignorant moron who refuses to do his homework before mouthing off.

     




    Well, I guess technically she's Bi. I have mentioned that before on this board junior. Get a clue.

    I have handed your azz to you in this debate, just like I always do. LMAO@U

    But I give you credit. No matter how many times I whip you like a mangy dog, you come back for more!

     
  4. 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:

    No.  It means both.   It means the right to practice any relgion you wish without fear of persectuion, but also not to allow any one religion to supersede law.

     Hence, Jefferson's own words to keep them separate. It's reciprocal. That's why it's so general, v.s. it specifcially saying what you are implying.

    You're wrong.

    The whole concept of why this country was founded was because Puritans were being discriminated against by other Christian sects in England. Get it? This means they knew anyone could make an argument that any relgious group in power within goverment, could shape law to discriminate, JUST like in England. They didn't want to happen here.

     




    Hey brainwashed leftwinger...  point to the part of the constitution that talks about separation of church and state.

    You won't find it. 

    After that - look at the 10th ammendment and see if you can understand what "reserved to the states and the people" means.

    You won't understand that either.

    Like most leftists - you are a totalitarian - anxious for decrees from the your leftist leaders rather than respectful of the rule of law. 

    People like you - nutcases who are willing to use federal power to force cultural revolution (Hello Mao! How many million will you murder?) - you are the peoel the founders feared the most. 

     

     

     

     

     
  5. 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:

     

    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".

     




    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.

     
  6. 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:

    He doesn't get that heterosexuals, while feeling it's not natural to them, also can understand why those who aren't heterosexual feel natural being homosexual.

    It is what it is.

    There's a reason why it exists.

    Maybe their god up there in the sky did it to mess with them. lol

     




    Maybe science should seek a cure? 

     

     

     
  7. 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:

     

    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.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. 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:

     

     

    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.

     



    You're excuses remind me of that old man who makes excuse after excuse as to why something can't be done just because HE didn't think of it.

    Classic.

    You're the old guy at the conf room table everyone looks at a little funny because he's being outclassed and outhought because he thinks there is never any middleground solution to a topic.

     

     




    Junior, I just proposed a middle ground approach to the issue you mentioned. Don't you feel like the imbecile that you are now?

     

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  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:



    It's no different than when Eisenhower sent in the military into Arkansas or Alabama to enforce blacks being allowed to attend college.


    Are gays being denied college entry junior?

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. 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 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.

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    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.

     

     
  17. 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:

     

     

    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.

     



    You're excuses remind me of that old man who makes excuse after excuse as to why something can't be done just because HE didn't think of it.

    Classic.

    You're the old guy at the conf room table everyone looks at a little funny because he's being outclassed and outhought because he thinks there is never any middleground solution to a topic.

     

     

     




     

    Junior, I just proposed a middle ground approach to the issue you mentioned. Don't you feel like the imbecile that you are now?

     

     




    No, no, no. It's you backpedaling and not admitting defeat, trying to wiggle out of it.

     

    The reason why PCIV and Prolate (along with others) let me bludgeon you is because I am doing a good job of it right now.

    lol




    So, on this issue they are being whipped like dogs just as you are. Of course the doggies cower together while enduring their lashes of fact.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. 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:

    Dummy, it's not literally in the Consitution word for word, but Thomas Jefferson, you know, one of the dudes who WROTE the Constitution uses those words to EXPLAIN the 1st amendment and what it means.




    I think you are an inch deep on this subject and should probably tread lightly before it gets worse for you.

    For example - James Madison wrote the constitution.  You thought Jefferson did?  Wow.  Are you a high school student.

    Secondly - go back and see which of teh original 13 states had OFFICIAL RELIGIONS after the adoption of teh constitution.  It is going to be very troubling for you to find out that some state govenments had OFFICIAL RELIGIONS, the federal constitution notwithstanding.

    Yes - this will be shocking to you - but you are buried under leftist ignorance - and shock treatment is what you need.

    A coupe other tips for you - in internet debate - the first person to make a Hitler reference is admitting he has lost the argument.  That is you and you've done it multiple times - but it reveals only more ignorance on your part. 

    Also - the first peson to start correcting grammar is also admitting they have lost the argument - - again that is you.

    Look I know your angry.  You are bitter and angry.  You are determined to defend the honor of your lesbian sister.  Unfortunately, you are not defending her honor - you are making a fool of yourself.

    Calling other people dummy while proudly stating Jefferson wrote the constitution!

    I am laughing at you.  Really laughing loud and hard.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. 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:

     

     

    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.

     
  23. 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 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.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    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.

     

     

Share