As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Mormons are fucking prompt

1434446484962

Posts

  • Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009
    Faricazy wrote: »
    to be fair, Billy fucked a whole lot of Steves

    Those Steves were asking for it, what with their tight jeans and muscley arms....

    Mmmmmm, Steve.

    Hands off I saw him first

    Me Too! on
  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Old Jews move to Florida because it's the time of the gathering. Then they cut off each others heads with alligators and bingo accessories until there is only one. That one gets all the money and lives alone in the bunker under the ocean making decisions for the rest of us.

    Hunter on
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Butters wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    I used to work under a gay man and had two gay co-workers. We hung out ALL the time. They were good dudes. I have nothing against them as people.

    I have black friends. That doesn't mean that I can run around saying the n-word.

    Then why have them?
    I love you very much

    Really? I mean what good are my black friends if I can't pretend to whip them and threaten to take a way their cotton gin should they not do what I tell them.

    Butters on
    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] regular
    edited February 2009
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • KrunkMcGrunkKrunkMcGrunk Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Man, this thread exploded.

    What the hell happened here. Did it turn into a religious argument, as projected?

    KrunkMcGrunk on
    mrsatansig.png
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    the influence of the Jewish Lobby is undeniable

    Show me some actual proof of this influence.

    Because I could sure use a nice job and lots of money and power, but so far having a circumsized dick hasn't magically done it for me yet.

    If you're running for Presidential office and you want to carry florida you better run up that Pro-Israel flag otherwise boyo you are fucked.

    It's just like the Cuban vote in South Florida.

    So, you've just gone from "Jews control the world" to "Politicians sometimes have to pander to voting blocks"



    There are a lot of Old Jews in Florida. That does not constitute a conspiracy.

    Obviously Old Jews move to Florida to turn it into a new Israel.

    My cousin was insisting that we should all go down to Miami beach for Passover with her.

    She kept refering to it as "New Israel"



    I am not kidding.

    Evander on
  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Belruel wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.

    If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?

    Because I believe that I have a Heavenly Father and Mother. That principle has extended to Earth through his children in which we are allowed to get married to continue that eternal progression. That union is a sacred eternal principle that is paramount to the happiness of God's children. As such, the institution of marriage should be defended on this Earth.

    That's why it needs to be called something different. It may seem trivial to you, but its not to me.

    I believe you're full of shit.

    Let's agree to disagree and keep our personal beliefs out of the legal decisions of others. In this case, the gay and lesbian community, bisexuals, the pillow biters, ass pirates, dykes, queermos, lipstick lezzies, and/or f4gg0rtZ.

    You can believe what you want. I'm being perfectly open, honest, and fairly level-headed throughout this whole thread. There's no reason to think I'm lying or trying to decieve you.

    Fair enough. Agreeing to disagree is where most debates between people already polarized usually end up. The good thing, though, was the discussion. Glad I could find a place where people generally don't reduce themselves down to shouting match over a heated topic.

    we usually just talk about cocks and dicks, Debate and Discourse does this sort of thing, but more tidily and with more pretension

    Oh, well then. Also this

    ObiFett on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Faricazy wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.

    If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?

    Because I believe that I have a Heavenly Father and Mother. That principle has extended to Earth through his children in which we are allowed to get married to continue that eternal progression. That union is a sacred eternal principle that is paramount to the happiness of God's children. As such, the institution of marriage should be defended on this Earth.

    That's why it needs to be called something different. It may seem trivial to you, but its not to me.
    You realize you're not the only religion around, right? Other religions have marriages too? Which is no different than gays getting married?

    In short, you're incredibly stupid.

    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.

    This belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles of the Republic.

    I mean, you can't have ever taken, like, an intro to American Government and still believe this.

    edit: Ok, I guess you could have taken it at, like, Bringham Young.

    MrMonroe on
  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Butters wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    I used to work under a gay man and had two gay co-workers. We hung out ALL the time. They were good dudes. I have nothing against them as people.

    I have black friends. That doesn't mean that I can run around saying the n-word.

    Then why have them?
    I love you very much

    Really? I mean what good are my black friends if I can't pretend to whip them and threaten to take a way their cotton gin should they not do what I tell them.

    They call me a cracker eating white devil and I call them Toby. It's fun.

    Then our Mexican friend cuts our lawn, sells us oranges, and then we call immigration services on him.

    Hunter on
  • FaricazyFaricazy Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Faricazy wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.

    If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?

    Because I believe that I have a Heavenly Father and Mother. That principle has extended to Earth through his children in which we are allowed to get married to continue that eternal progression. That union is a sacred eternal principle that is paramount to the happiness of God's children. As such, the institution of marriage should be defended on this Earth.

    That's why it needs to be called something different. It may seem trivial to you, but its not to me.
    You realize you're not the only religion around, right? Other religions have marriages too? Which is no different than gays getting married?

    In short, you're incredibly stupid.

    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.
    fuckkkkkk

    Faricazy on
  • BelruelBelruel NARUTO FUCKS Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Faricazy wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.

    If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?

    Because I believe that I have a Heavenly Father and Mother. That principle has extended to Earth through his children in which we are allowed to get married to continue that eternal progression. That union is a sacred eternal principle that is paramount to the happiness of God's children. As such, the institution of marriage should be defended on this Earth.

    That's why it needs to be called something different. It may seem trivial to you, but its not to me.
    You realize you're not the only religion around, right? Other religions have marriages too? Which is no different than gays getting married?

    In short, you're incredibly stupid.

    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.

    well of course you shouldn't throw a fit, no one is taking anything away from you.

    but you support me not being able to marry a woman if i find one that i love and want to be with forever, of course i'm upset

    Belruel on
    vmn6rftb232b.png
  • SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    is queermo like the 4th marx brother

    no because I think chico should just be the new buzzword for gay people

    SithDrummer on
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Faricazy wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.

    If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?

    Because I believe that I have a Heavenly Father and Mother. That principle has extended to Earth through his children in which we are allowed to get married to continue that eternal progression. That union is a sacred eternal principle that is paramount to the happiness of God's children. As such, the institution of marriage should be defended on this Earth.

    That's why it needs to be called something different. It may seem trivial to you, but its not to me.
    You realize you're not the only religion around, right? Other religions have marriages too? Which is no different than gays getting married?

    In short, you're incredibly stupid.

    Well, then what merit does the government have in getting anybody married? Why should it be regulated by the government?

    Because tax laws need to address a union, as well as property laws, next of kin, inheritance, and many other legal decisions. It's just the nature of the beast.

    Before the government had this system set in place, with many perks for getting married, it was handled by the church. Now, tax laws for instance, the government recognizes the benefit of married couples getting together to create families. The value by married couples and families is great, and the government wants to encourage that so it adds perks and incentives to getting married.

    It's not just being nice, its a recognition of an ideal state for its citizens. Gay unions on the other hand, are not as valuable to the state, these citizens do not create a family. Their value to the government is diminished because of that.

    So some things like tax laws do not need to be changed, but other things probably do for the continuation of wealth and powers of attorney etc etc. People don't just deserve intrinsically all the perks of getting married. The perks are set in place because a male/female union is much more valuable then a homosexual union.

    Jigrah on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] regular
    edited February 2009
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • PhonehandPhonehand Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Dubh wrote: »
    Phonehand wrote: »
    Belruel wrote: »
    Belruel wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Belruel wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Have we regressed to dickwaving join dates here? Did we merge with the GameFAQs forum?

    that is what i had been wondering

    Early 2005, bitch, get that weak stuff outta here!

    i mean, that phoney guy was so upset that i didn't know who he was, poor lil duder

    I don't understand why you just had to mention the fact that you had no idea who he was

    because how often does a dude you've never spoken to before try and chew your nuts off beyond all logical reason. the dude thought i made one mistake, and sat on it and cried for hours, it was so silly

    Haha, boy you are dumb.

    WHY DO YOU FEEL THE NEED TO KEEP ON ABOUT THIS
    2 legit 2 quit

    Phonehand on
    pmdunk.jpg
  • BelruelBelruel NARUTO FUCKS Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Belruel wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.

    If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?

    Because I believe that I have a Heavenly Father and Mother. That principle has extended to Earth through his children in which we are allowed to get married to continue that eternal progression. That union is a sacred eternal principle that is paramount to the happiness of God's children. As such, the institution of marriage should be defended on this Earth.

    That's why it needs to be called something different. It may seem trivial to you, but its not to me.

    I believe you're full of shit.

    Let's agree to disagree and keep our personal beliefs out of the legal decisions of others. In this case, the gay and lesbian community, bisexuals, the pillow biters, ass pirates, dykes, queermos, lipstick lezzies, and/or f4gg0rtZ.

    You can believe what you want. I'm being perfectly open, honest, and fairly level-headed throughout this whole thread. There's no reason to think I'm lying or trying to decieve you.

    Fair enough. Agreeing to disagree is where most debates between people already polarized usually end up. The good thing, though, was the discussion. Glad I could find a place where people generally don't reduce themselves down to shouting match over a heated topic.

    we usually just talk about cocks and dicks, Debate and Discourse does this sort of thing, but more tidily and with more pretension

    Oh, well then. Also this
    aaahahaha

    Belruel on
    vmn6rftb232b.png
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] regular
    edited February 2009
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

    [Deleted User] on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government.

    America isn't a Democracy. It is a REPRESENTATIVE Democracy.

    That means that we understand that it is a bad idea to make decisions based on the whims of the unwashed, so we allow them to elect representatives for themselves, who will then push the agendas of their constituency, while also being aware that sometimes their constituency is simply worng about something, and they need to go the other way on it.

    Evander on
  • Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009
    Yeah I uh I ain't letting a church handle who gets my shit when I croak seeing as I don't go to church and am a very very lapsed Catholic/agnostic

    Me Too! on
  • DoobhDoobh She/Her, Ace Pan/Bisexual 8-) What's up, bootlickers?Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Faricazy wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.

    If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?

    Because I believe that I have a Heavenly Father and Mother. That principle has extended to Earth through his children in which we are allowed to get married to continue that eternal progression. That union is a sacred eternal principle that is paramount to the happiness of God's children. As such, the institution of marriage should be defended on this Earth.

    That's why it needs to be called something different. It may seem trivial to you, but its not to me.
    You realize you're not the only religion around, right? Other religions have marriages too? Which is no different than gays getting married?

    In short, you're incredibly stupid.

    Well, then what merit does the government have in getting anybody married? Why should it be regulated by the government?

    Because tax laws need to address a union, as well as property laws, next of kin, inheritance, and many other legal decisions. It's just the nature of the beast.

    Before the government had this system set in place, with many perks for getting married, it was handled by the church. Now, tax laws for instance, the government recognizes the benefit of married couples getting together to create families. The value by married couples and families is great, and the government wants to encourage that so it adds perks and incentives to getting married.

    It's not just being nice, its a recognition of an ideal state for its citizens. Gay unions on the other hand, are not as valuable to the state, these citizens do not create a family. Their value to the government is diminished because of that.


    So some things like tax laws do not need to be changed, but other things probably do for the continuation of wealth and powers of attorney etc etc. People don't just deserve intrinsically all the perks of getting married. The perks are set in place because a male/female union is much more valuable then a homosexual union.

    Adoption is possible. And from what I understand, there a lot of kids waiting to be adopted. Oh, and what about infertile couples? Should they be banned from marriage?

    Doobh on
    Miss me? Find me on:

    Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
    Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    ObiFett wrote: »

    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.

    So, like I asked you before, you think it's ok for a majority to deny rights to a minority?

    I know you think it's great and that the whole defense of "they voted for it, I'd just accept it if things were different" is noble and everything. But you are looking at is as part of the majority and basically what you're saying is that if these people want to have equal rights their should just be more of them. Which is just silly.

    Marathon on
  • Clint EastwoodClint Eastwood My baby's in there someplace She crawled right inRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    MERICUH IS GOIN SOCIALIST!!!

    OBAMA SECREET MUSLIN...

    Clint Eastwood on
  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Faricazy wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.

    If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?

    Because I believe that I have a Heavenly Father and Mother. That principle has extended to Earth through his children in which we are allowed to get married to continue that eternal progression. That union is a sacred eternal principle that is paramount to the happiness of God's children. As such, the institution of marriage should be defended on this Earth.

    That's why it needs to be called something different. It may seem trivial to you, but its not to me.
    You realize you're not the only religion around, right? Other religions have marriages too? Which is no different than gays getting married?

    In short, you're incredibly stupid.

    Well, then what merit does the government have in getting anybody married? Why should it be regulated by the government?

    Because tax laws need to address a union, as well as property laws, next of kin, inheritance, and many other legal decisions. It's just the nature of the beast.

    Before the government had this system set in place, with many perks for getting married, it was handled by the church. Now, tax laws for instance, the government recognizes the benefit of married couples getting together to create families. The value by married couples and families is great, and the government wants to encourage that so it adds perks and incentives to getting married.

    It's not just being nice, its a recognition of an ideal state for its citizens. Gay unions on the other hand, are not as valuable to the state, these citizens do not create a family. Their value to the government is diminished because of that.


    So some things like tax laws do not need to be changed, but other things probably do for the continuation of wealth and powers of attorney etc etc. People don't just deserve intrinsically all the perks of getting married. The perks are set in place because a male/female union is much more valuable then a homosexual union.

    Welcome to the year 2009. There are things you may think, but then you should shut your mouth and not speak.

    How is a gay union less valuable? Is money earned by gays taxed at a lesser rate? Do we not accept gay dollars? Do heterosexual couples without children offer less to the state, and should they be banned? Seriously, just fucking think for a second before opening your pie hole.

    Hunter on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    is queermo like the 4th marx brother

    no because I think chico should just be the new buzzword for gay people

    Groucho
    Chicho
    Harpo
    Zeppo
    Gummo



    Am I missing any of them?

    Evander on
  • SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Butters wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    I used to work under a gay man and had two gay co-workers. We hung out ALL the time. They were good dudes. I have nothing against them as people.

    I have black friends. That doesn't mean that I can run around saying the n-word.

    Then why have them?
    I love you very much

    Really? I mean what good are my black friends if I can't pretend to whip them and threaten to take a way their cotton gin should they not do what I tell them.
    Please, everyone knows that southern plantation owners circa 1850 had the most black friends of anyone

    SithDrummer on
  • The Otaku SuppositoryThe Otaku Suppository Bawstan New EnglandRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    the influence of the Jewish Lobby is undeniable

    Show me some actual proof of this influence.

    Because I could sure use a nice job and lots of money and power, but so far having a circumsized dick hasn't magically done it for me yet.

    If you're running for Presidential office and you want to carry florida you better run up that Pro-Israel flag otherwise boyo you are fucked.

    It's just like the Cuban vote in South Florida.

    So, you've just gone from "Jews control the world" to "Politicians sometimes have to pander to voting blocks"



    There are a lot of Old Jews in Florida. That does not constitute a conspiracy.

    I don't recall saying anything about conspiracy or Jews control the world so you can check the charges of 'omg protocols of zion' bullshit that you started at the fucking door. I'm said that groups like AIPAC have a great deal of influence on our government's policy concerning Israel. And that's not pandering. Pandering is going to Iowa and saying you like corn. That's being trapped into a corner. You can say you like corn and do a pittance towards it and you'll prolly be okay come next election. Take the wrong stance against Israel during your term after "pandering" as you call it and you'll and probably the party you're associated with will be paying for it four years later.

    The Otaku Suppository on
  • Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009
    Cloudman wrote: »
    MERICUH IS GOIN SOCIALIST!!!

    OBAMA SECREET MUSLIN...

    No joke I have to hear this pretty much every goddamn time I talk to my father

    Every goddamn time

    Also a reference to my working for an n-word and sometimes the fact that I am the first in my family to do so

    Me Too! on
  • Clint EastwoodClint Eastwood My baby's in there someplace She crawled right inRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    God, I fucking knew Jigrah would come in here and say something retarded

    Like, has he ever made a post that wasn't fundamentally dumb as shit

    Clint Eastwood on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Hunter wrote: »
    Jigrah wrote: »
    Faricazy wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    I want them to have the same rights. But I also want marriage to remain sacred as defined within my religion. So, my answer is a compromise giving them all the same rights but not having it defined as marriage. If, in your eyes, that makes me a bigot, then so be it I guess.

    If it has the exact same rights why call it something different when it's the same thing?

    Because I believe that I have a Heavenly Father and Mother. That principle has extended to Earth through his children in which we are allowed to get married to continue that eternal progression. That union is a sacred eternal principle that is paramount to the happiness of God's children. As such, the institution of marriage should be defended on this Earth.

    That's why it needs to be called something different. It may seem trivial to you, but its not to me.
    You realize you're not the only religion around, right? Other religions have marriages too? Which is no different than gays getting married?

    In short, you're incredibly stupid.

    Well, then what merit does the government have in getting anybody married? Why should it be regulated by the government?

    Because tax laws need to address a union, as well as property laws, next of kin, inheritance, and many other legal decisions. It's just the nature of the beast.

    Before the government had this system set in place, with many perks for getting married, it was handled by the church. Now, tax laws for instance, the government recognizes the benefit of married couples getting together to create families. The value by married couples and families is great, and the government wants to encourage that so it adds perks and incentives to getting married.

    It's not just being nice, its a recognition of an ideal state for its citizens. Gay unions on the other hand, are not as valuable to the state, these citizens do not create a family. Their value to the government is diminished because of that.

    So some things like tax laws do not need to be changed, but other things probably do for the continuation of wealth and powers of attorney etc etc. People don't just deserve intrinsically all the perks of getting married. The perks are set in place because a male/female union is much more valuable then a homosexual union.

    stop

    stop it

    stop

    The only thing worse than religious totalitarians is their fucking secular apologists.

    MrMonroe on
  • ObiFettObiFett Use the Force As You WishRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.

    So, like I asked you before, you think it's ok for a majority to deny rights to a minority?

    I know you think it's great and that the whole defense of "they voted for it, I'd just accept it if things were different" is noble and everything. But you are looking at is as part of the majority and basically what you're saying is that if these people want to have equal rights their should just be more of them. Which is just silly.

    I don't think its ok for the majority to deny rights. Thats why I have said multiple times lets give them all the same rights, make it a federal law, and unturnable while we are at it. Just don't call it marriage, it effs with my religion and what I believe to be an eternal principle.

    ObiFett on
  • DoobhDoobh She/Her, Ace Pan/Bisexual 8-) What's up, bootlickers?Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    the influence of the Jewish Lobby is undeniable

    Show me some actual proof of this influence.

    Because I could sure use a nice job and lots of money and power, but so far having a circumsized dick hasn't magically done it for me yet.

    If you're running for Presidential office and you want to carry florida you better run up that Pro-Israel flag otherwise boyo you are fucked.

    It's just like the Cuban vote in South Florida.

    So, you've just gone from "Jews control the world" to "Politicians sometimes have to pander to voting blocks"



    There are a lot of Old Jews in Florida. That does not constitute a conspiracy.

    I don't recall saying anything about conspiracy or Jews control the world so you can check the charges of 'omg protocols of zion' bullshit that you started at the fucking door. I'm said that groups like AIPAC have a great deal of influence on our government's policy concerning Israel. And that's not pandering. Pandering is going to Iowa and saying you like corn. That's being trapped into a corner. You can say you like corn and do a pittance towards it and you'll prolly be okay come next election. Take the wrong stance against Israel during your term after "pandering" as you call it and you'll and probably the party you're associated with will be paying for it four years later.

    You can blame the "Jewish conspiracy" on Christian groups, actually.

    Doobh on
    Miss me? Find me on:

    Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
    Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
  • FaricazyFaricazy Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    i like corn

    Faricazy on
  • Clint EastwoodClint Eastwood My baby's in there someplace She crawled right inRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    FUCK CORN AND FUCK YOU

    Clint Eastwood on
  • FaricazyFaricazy Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.

    So, like I asked you before, you think it's ok for a majority to deny rights to a minority?

    I know you think it's great and that the whole defense of "they voted for it, I'd just accept it if things were different" is noble and everything. But you are looking at is as part of the majority and basically what you're saying is that if these people want to have equal rights their should just be more of them. Which is just silly.

    I don't think its ok for the majority to deny rights. Thats why I have said multiple times lets give them all the same rights, make it a federal law, and unturnable while we are at it. Just don't call it marriage, it effs with my religion and what I believe to be an eternal principle.
    once again, your religion does not have the monopoly on the concept of marriage

    Faricazy on
  • VisionOfClarityVisionOfClarity Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.

    So, like I asked you before, you think it's ok for a majority to deny rights to a minority?

    I know you think it's great and that the whole defense of "they voted for it, I'd just accept it if things were different" is noble and everything. But you are looking at is as part of the majority and basically what you're saying is that if these people want to have equal rights their should just be more of them. Which is just silly.

    I don't think its ok for the majority to deny rights. Thats why I have said multiple times lets give them all the same rights, make it a federal law, and unturnable while we are at it. Just don't call it marriage, it effs with my religion and what I believe to be an eternal principle.

    So we should let your religious beliefs govern our lawmaking.

    VisionOfClarity on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.

    So, like I asked you before, you think it's ok for a majority to deny rights to a minority?

    I know you think it's great and that the whole defense of "they voted for it, I'd just accept it if things were different" is noble and everything. But you are looking at is as part of the majority and basically what you're saying is that if these people want to have equal rights their should just be more of them. Which is just silly.

    Before anyone calls Godwin (which doesn't apply to me, anyway) the following IS relevant.



    Adolph Hitler was democratically elected. The Nazi regime was popularly supported.

    Democracy is the BEST system out there (or as Churchill put it, it's the worst one, except for all the others) but it is NOT without flaws, and the idea that just because the majority supports something it is the "right" thing DOES NOT ring true.

    Evander on
  • FaricazyFaricazy Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Cloudman wrote: »
    FUCK CORN AND FUCK YOU
    WHEATFUCKER!

    Faricazy on
  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    man i love corn

    DouglasDanger on
  • SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    is queermo like the 4th marx brother

    no because I think chico should just be the new buzzword for gay people

    Groucho
    Chicho
    Harpo
    Zeppo
    Gummo



    Am I missing any of them?
    Karl

    SithDrummer on
  • Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009
    Faricazy wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    ObiFett wrote: »

    Here's the amazingness of democracy, though: I can vote and express my ideals through our wonderful government. Other religions are free to do the same, as are people without any organized religion. If it passes that marriage also means between man and man AND woman and woman, then so be it. The population of our country voted for it and it was because of their ideals that they voted that way. I won't throw a hissy fit and I will still be a citizen of this country.

    So, like I asked you before, you think it's ok for a majority to deny rights to a minority?

    I know you think it's great and that the whole defense of "they voted for it, I'd just accept it if things were different" is noble and everything. But you are looking at is as part of the majority and basically what you're saying is that if these people want to have equal rights their should just be more of them. Which is just silly.

    I don't think its ok for the majority to deny rights. Thats why I have said multiple times lets give them all the same rights, make it a federal law, and unturnable while we are at it. Just don't call it marriage, it effs with my religion and what I believe to be an eternal principle.
    once again, your religion does not have the monopoly on the concept of marriage

    Monopoly would be better if you owned rights instead of property

    AHAHAHAH you want guns fuck you give me some money and we'll see

    Me Too! on
This discussion has been closed.