Should Chris Culliver apologize?

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:


    You aren't very bright,

     

    Any man in America - every single one of them has the right to marry a woman.

    Any woman in America, every single one of them has the right to marry a man.

    If people choose to pursue the happy gay funloving lifestyle of homosexuality - they can't be married because those two things are mutually exclusive.  this is called in life "making choices."

    Grown ups do this.  Children and narcissists do not make choices.  they demand the world accomodate their insatiable desire to be spoiled.

    Homosexuals are the most acute form of this extreme version of narcissism.  mainly, because homosexuality by definition is narcissism.

    narcissism - look it up.  Narcissus fell in love with his opwn image - which is homosexuality in a nutshell.

     



    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.

     
  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 BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

     

    Please provide evidence that being gay is a choice (there is none).

     

     



    Please provide evidence that a proclivity to homosexuality cannot be effected by choice.

     

     




    You're a moron.  Are you serious?  We already knew you were completely dumb here, but this one might take the cake.

     

    Thump that bible on Sundays, too, Babe?

     




    Thump my Bible every day goofball. You have no proof junior. If there were proof it would be screamed from the rooftops 24/7. It isn't. Just like in everything else, facts are anathema to you.

     

     

     



    We all knew you had a screw loose, but the fact you are a bible thumper makes a whole lot of sense to everyone here.

     

    A lot of sense.

    We all know now why you think 2+2 = 5.

    MORON

     

     

     

    I told you before, the "voices" don't count as "we" bonehead.


    According to junior anyone who puts faith in the Bible is a MORON. That's 73% of us Americans, goofball.

    Every single day I can always count on you to make a complete fool of yourself. Thanks for the entertainment numbnuts. LMAO@U

     

     




    Sure. 73% of Americans put faith in a made up book about characters and heresay.  lmao

     

    I bet 73% of people who shop at that Walmart you hit, also feel the same way you do. 

    I weep for the future.

     




    If you actually knew something about the Bible your observations about it might be other than mocked. But since you're simply an imbecile that thinks he knows everything when he actually knows so precious little, way more than 73% here just laugh at your embarrassing antics.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. 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 Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    We all knew you had a screw loose, but the fact you are a bible thumper makes a whole lot of sense to everyone here.

    A lot of sense.

    We all know now why you think 2+2 = 5.

    MORON

     




    I can see you are like a lot of Massachusetts robots who when faced with other opinions go for the ad hominem attacks.  I guess its your only play to attack "Bible thumpers" while embracing asspounders.

     

    But your Math history is abysmal.  For example, Blaise Pascal was a Bible thumper.

    Orwell wrote "Freedom is the right to say 2 + 2 = 4" in 1984 - and he was commenting on how the state can use force to change truth.  And then OUTLAW anyone who clings to the old truth.

    this is exactly what changing the definition of words is all about.  Marriage?  let's change the definition. 

    You and your fellow drones in Massachusetts - GIVE that power to the state.  You allow the State to redefine truth.  Seems cool right now because you hate Bible thumpers. 

     

    You are a very good prole; doubleplusgood!

     

     

     

     

     




    Your right to vote should be rescinded.

     

     

     




     

    How very "tolerant" of you junior. Is your shirt brown?

     




    No, but your panties are.

     

     




    Quite a spiffy zinger there junior. Be proud.

     

    Any other profound offerings from you today other than how outrageous it is that gays are being denied their rights while simultaneously you rant about stripping people of their right to vote because you don't approve of their thought process?

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. 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 RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

     

    Please provide evidence that being gay is a choice (there is none).

     

     



    Please provide evidence that a proclivity to homosexuality cannot be effected by choice.

     

     




    You're a moron.  Are you serious?  We already knew you were completely dumb here, but this one might take the cake.

     

    Thump that bible on Sundays, too, Babe?

     




    Thump my Bible every day goofball. You have no proof junior. If there were proof it would be screamed from the rooftops 24/7. It isn't. Just like in everything else, facts are anathema to you.

     

     

     



    We all knew you had a screw loose, but the fact you are a bible thumper makes a whole lot of sense to everyone here.

     

    A lot of sense.

    We all know now why you think 2+2 = 5.

    MORON

     

     

     

    I told you before, the "voices" don't count as "we" bonehead.


    According to junior anyone who puts faith in the Bible is a MORON. That's 73% of us Americans, goofball.

    Every single day I can always count on you to make a complete fool of yourself. Thanks for the entertainment numbnuts. LMAO@U

     

     




    Sure. 73% of Americans put faith in a made up book about characters and heresay.  lmao

     

    I bet 73% of people who shop at that Walmart you hit, also feel the same way you do. 

    I weep for the future.

     

     




    If you actually knew something about the Bible your observations about it might be other than mocked. But since you're simply an imbecile that thinks he knows everything when he actually knows so precious little, way more than 73% here just laugh at your embarrassing antics.

     

     



    That's your comeback?  I know plenty about the bible and I know that most of it are made up stories.

     

    Anything "recorded" before the invention of paper (papyrus) isn't considered legitimate history.

    Period. Too bad.

    You don't even know why religions were created, apparently.    The Holocaust didn't happne, too, right Babe?

    LMAO




    You know little about the Bible other than some tripe you have read on some atheist site or saw on youtube junior.

    You tell us why religions were created and your authoritative sources for such knowledge numbnuts. I'm quite sure my knowledge of nearly any religion you want to name is far far greater than yours.

    Look, we all know you are mad as a hatter, but explain why I would think the Holocaust didn't happen. Occasionally I find your wackjob pronouncements interesting even if the curiosity is morbid.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  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 BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    We all knew you had a screw loose, but the fact you are a bible thumper makes a whole lot of sense to everyone here.

    A lot of sense.

    We all know now why you think 2+2 = 5.

    MORON

     




    I can see you are like a lot of Massachusetts robots who when faced with other opinions go for the ad hominem attacks.  I guess its your only play to attack "Bible thumpers" while embracing asspounders.

     

    But your Math history is abysmal.  For example, Blaise Pascal was a Bible thumper.

    Orwell wrote "Freedom is the right to say 2 + 2 = 4" in 1984 - and he was commenting on how the state can use force to change truth.  And then OUTLAW anyone who clings to the old truth.

    this is exactly what changing the definition of words is all about.  Marriage?  let's change the definition. 

    You and your fellow drones in Massachusetts - GIVE that power to the state.  You allow the State to redefine truth.  Seems cool right now because you hate Bible thumpers. 

     

    You are a very good prole; doubleplusgood!

     

     

     

     

     




    Your right to vote should be rescinded.

     

     

     




     

    How very "tolerant" of you junior. Is your shirt brown?

     




    No, but your panties are.

     

     

     




    Quite a spiffy zinger there junior. Be proud.

     

     

    Any other profound offerings from you today other than how outrageous it is that gays are being denied their rights while simultaneously you rant about stripping people of their right to vote because you don't approve of their thought process?

     



    It's a joke.   Somewhat.

     

    But, yeah, I think it's scary people like you put religion over the principles of what this country was found upon over 200 years ago, yeah.

    You seem to not realize, religion, for example, has been used as a way to discriminate and trump the founding father's principles.

    Hijacked. It's why the moron who shops with you at Walmart, thinks the Redneck comedy tools are funny, etc, all think the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution because it doesn't chow up in the Bill of Rights. LMAO

    Apparently, their attention span isn't as good as more intelligent people. Or, maybe the 10 Bill of RIghts are similar to the 10 Commandments and that's all they're going to read anyway. Just those 10 simple lines. lol

    Anyone who can't separate church from state are VERY scary people to me. One step away from Hitler. Absolute truth.  You may not be looking to murder undesirables, but you're whole way of life is about isolating people who aren't JUST like you.

    Hitler.

     




    The ravings of a lunatic continue. It is easy to see how your convoluted view of the world permeates all of your thought process. Basically junior, you can't think very well. And that is especially dangerous in strident opinionated persons such as yourself. It shows up loud and clear in your football talk and your political ravings.

    The separation of church and state has nothing to do with how individuals form their views on public policy junior. Learn to think.

    So, let's get your take on this correct. You're saying anybody who is not for gay marriage is one step away from Hitler, right junior?

     

    (But you probably think severe restrictions on the right to bear arms are fine and dandy.)

     

     

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    actually most advanced democracies adopt the standard of innocent until proven guilty. and that standard goes back centuries, to well before america even existed. 

     



    So it's kind of like marriage - defined as man and woman - a standard that goes back centuries, to well before America existed?

     

     

     

     

    Some old things are good. Some are bad.  You need to use your judgment.  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.  

    I don't know why freedom scares you so much.  Maybe you should join Hamas? 

     

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. 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 RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

     

    Please provide evidence that being gay is a choice (there is none).

     

     



    Please provide evidence that a proclivity to homosexuality cannot be effected by choice.

     

     




    You're a moron.  Are you serious?  We already knew you were completely dumb here, but this one might take the cake.

     

    Thump that bible on Sundays, too, Babe?

     




    Thump my Bible every day goofball. You have no proof junior. If there were proof it would be screamed from the rooftops 24/7. It isn't. Just like in everything else, facts are anathema to you.

     

     

     



    We all knew you had a screw loose, but the fact you are a bible thumper makes a whole lot of sense to everyone here.

     

    A lot of sense.

    We all know now why you think 2+2 = 5.

    MORON

     

     

     

    I told you before, the "voices" don't count as "we" bonehead.


    According to junior anyone who puts faith in the Bible is a MORON. That's 73% of us Americans, goofball.

    Every single day I can always count on you to make a complete fool of yourself. Thanks for the entertainment numbnuts. LMAO@U

     

     




    Sure. 73% of Americans put faith in a made up book about characters and heresay.  lmao

     

    I bet 73% of people who shop at that Walmart you hit, also feel the same way you do. 

    I weep for the future.

     

     




    If you actually knew something about the Bible your observations about it might be other than mocked. But since you're simply an imbecile that thinks he knows everything when he actually knows so precious little, way more than 73% here just laugh at your embarrassing antics.

     

     



    That's your comeback?  I know plenty about the bible and I know that most of it are made up stories.

     

    Anything "recorded" before the invention of paper (papyrus) isn't considered legitimate history.

    Period. Too bad.

    You don't even know why religions were created, apparently.    The Holocaust didn't happne, too, right Babe?

    LMAO

     




    You know little about the Bible other than some tripe you have read on some atheist site or saw on youtube junior.

     

    You tell us why religions were created and your authoritative sources for such knowledge numbnuts. I'm quite sure my knowledge of nearly any religion you want to name is far far greater than yours.

    Look, we all know you are mad as a hatter, but explain why I would think the Holocaust didn't happen. Occasionally I find your wackjob pronouncements interesting even if the curiosity is morbid.

     



    lol

     

    Look at you:  Totally outclassed in this debate. Someone brainwashed you early and often as a kid, and now you're embarrassed.

    Did you go to college? Serious question.

     

     

    Totally outclassed? You are losing this badly junior. Just like you always do.

    Frankly bonehead, I was raised a Christian but was quite agnostic by my 20s. I did an extensive amount of research on many religions in an effort to disprove God's existence and ended up being a Bible thumper from that exercise. Long story that would be completely wasted on a numbskull like yourself.

    Yes junior, I have a college degree and held a 3.62 GPA in a technical discipline. I'm not someone who bows to the glory of education or money though. I'm more impressed with a person's decency rather than their worldly accomplishments.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    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.

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to jri37's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

     

    In response to ricky12684's comment:

     

     dude you are so random. when did i say anything about wanting palestinian homosexuals executed? 

     



    It seems random because you are a typical confused resident of Massachusetts. 

     

    Think.  Think for yourself and stop repeating liberal slogans.

    You are simultaneously posting under an Avatar demanding that the world should "Free Gaza" from the yoke of Israel AND you are posting in favor of homosexual marriage.

    I am simply pointing out how those positions are ridiculous side by side - since a "free"  Palestine (you need to work on your understanig of freedom, but I digress) - a "Free" Palestine not only bans gay marriage, but executes and jails homosexuals.

    This is the confused state your mind is in.  This is why you think mutually exlusive aspects of human life (homosexuality and marriage for example) are to be reconclied by changing the meaning of words.

    This is the state of reason in Massachusetts:  If the liberal masters in politics and education declared "Asparagus is meat" - about two thirds of the citizens would start arguing that asparagus was a better cut than London Broil.

     

     

     

     



    Can you document the execution of homosexuals in Gaza or the West Bank by the Palestinian authorities? Methinks you're just talking out your backside. 

     

     

     




     

    Don't mean to speak for anyone but...

    not sure about executions but certainly there is an issue.

    Palestinian gays flee to Israel - BBC - Homepage



    There are issues with homosexuality in any society still heavily under the influence of traditional beliefs.  Remember it was illegal (and homosexuals persecuted) in most of the Western world, too, until quite recently.  It's just that some of us think it's time to move forward and some like Schumpter seem to want to stay a bit closer to the traditional religious attitude (which is pretty much the same in Islam and Christianity).  Funny how Schumpter is all up in arms about Hamas while maintaining a position himself that is, in some ways, as atavistic as theirs. 

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

     

    Totally outclassed? You are losing this badly junior. Just like you always do.

    Frankly bonehead, I was raised a Christian but was quite agnostic by my 20s. I did an extensive amount of research on many religions in an effort to disprove God's existence and ended up being a Bible thumper from that exercise. Long story that would be completely wasted on a numbskull like yourself.

    Yes junior, I have a college degree and held a 3.62 GPA in a technical discipline. I'm not someone who bows to the glory of education or money though. I'm more impressed with a person's decency rather than their worldly accomplishments.

     




    LOL!!^^^^

     

     

    Cannot be made up!  Case closed.



    You really live in a da da land junior.

    Here's a tip. Ignore the "voices". They are evil.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. 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:

     

    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 . . . 

     

     
  21. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    Oh, and the freedom to bear arms clearly can result in harm, regardless of what you and Wayne LaPierre say. 

    Again, as a hunter and gun owner myself, I don't want gun ownership banned.  I just want sensible laws that make weapons designed primarily for killing people difficult to acquire. Limits on freedom where freedom causes harm make sense.  Limits on freedom where freedom causes no harm (as in gay marriage) is just catering to some people's prejudice. 

     

     

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

    Re: Should Chris Culliver apologize?

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    Did you just say that "the separation of church and state has nothing to do with how people form their views on public policy"...?


    Did you?

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Then why on earth did the foudning fathers feel a need to PUT THAT SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONSTITUTION?

     



    Look. I know you're a dope junior, but you're not usually this bad. Maybe you have had a few cocktails while out whining and dining a prospective client at an early lunch.

     

    Let's try and make this simple so even you can understand.

     

    Separation of church and state means...

    An institution of government will not cross boundaries with an institution of religion.

     

    Separation of church and state does not mean...

    Individuals must not allow their religious beliefs to color their opinion on public policy as can be affected by their right to vote.

     

    Please tell me you have been drinking and you are not truly this dense.

     
  24. 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:

     

    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.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share