jakee 1,489 #101 October 24, 2009 QuoteContext laddie, context. I've read all that you've posted. I have all your context. my points are all valid. Deal with them. QuoteStop taking points addressed to others and using it for your own counter arguments. No. I'll take issue with anything that you post which I think is wrong. QuoteBut of course, why are you wrong!! Exactly. Why am I wrong? Nothing you've so far said has done anything to show that I am. QuoteWho said you're wrong?? You did. "In the sense you're putting it into you're not wrong. But your sense is wrong..." QuoteYou're always going off on tangents No, I'm not. I'm directly addressing everything you say. Any tangents are of your own making. QuoteYou're critical of my Afghan example - as I am - but missed the context entirely. No, I got it. It's still an incredibly poor argument. QuoteYou're arguing against un-natural acts' saying: so what? Exactly. Because it cuts to the core of your entire argument. So what if something's 'unnatural'? Why should we care? Why would that make something wrong?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #102 October 24, 2009 Quote Some people may decide to debate animals have no concept of morals. In that case, I would rephrase, as: Quote Mother nature has a lot of things happen out there in the wild, that humans would consider immoral. But of course, people debate what of that is 'immoral' A specific person or group (religion) might consider immoral to include same sex activity which obviously happen out in mother nature. Another person or group (religion) may consider one animal unnecessarily killing another in a fight, to be immoral. Or both is. Or neither is. That's why I say there's debate of what 'immoral' means, in this context... This topic doesn't have much to do with what's immoral to be fair. If the black swans, as discussed earlier, don't mate to produce offspring, there's no more black swans. Such a key fundemental part of a species can't go unrecognised. Say for example scientists observed black swans were no longer mating as male and female - what would they say, to describe this, in simple language? They'd say: Somethings fucking wrong with the black swans . . . 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #103 October 25, 2009 QuoteWell Jakee, are you going to provide citations Are you? You have asserted that marriage originated in the Garden of Eden. If you want to support that assertion you're going to have to get busy disproving the entire accumulated bodies of human knowledge from several fields of academic endeavour including history, geology and astro-physics, just for starters. I'd be concentrating on that if I were you.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #104 October 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteI'm not saying it's not natural; it's just wrong. Do you argue for peadophiles? Some people are naturally attracted to children - should we allow adults to marry children? The difference between pedophiles and gay people is that gay adults are in a consensual relationship. Pedophiles harm children. You cannot compare the two. As the man said in his speech, that there should not be any reason that two consenting adults shouldn't have the right to marry. And further more, homosexual experiences are the common, not uncommon. And, many adolescents have experienced a homosexual encounter. Even my own mother, who is straight as an arrow, kissed another girl when she was 12. She recalls "practicing" for when she would have her first kiss with a boy. This is an excellent article of what I am talking about. http://www.pixelconsumpton.com/infant-and-child-sexuality/some-homosexual-encounters.html Your mother practiced kissing with girls and she's as straight as an arrow? Fuck my old boots, what are you using for arrows? Bananas? You cannot describe some differences between my examples, and tell me I can't compare the two, without addressing the points I did make. Otherwise it becomes a bit of a gangfuck of a debate. Further to that - please go back and read what I've written. Did I ever say homosexual acts were unnatural? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #105 October 25, 2009 Quote Stop taking points addressed to others and using it for your own counter arguments. deal with the points addressed to yourself, . If you want a private debate, don't have it on an open forum. If you post here expect anyone to pick up on it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #106 October 25, 2009 QuoteDeal with the points addressed to you or shut ya lip Yes, please do! So to re-iterate just one that you've dodged; if no-one had children the species wouldn't last very long either. So why don't you want to force every single person to have children?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #107 October 25, 2009 Get fucked. I'd like someone to have the common courtesy to address the points I've made to them if I'm to then make the effort to counter their points. Who ever mentioned anything about privacy ffs? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #108 October 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteWell Jakee, are you going to provide citations Are you? You have asserted that marriage originated in the Garden of Eden. If you want to support that assertion you're going to have to get busy disproving the entire accumulated bodies of human knowledge from several fields of academic endeavour including history, geology and astro-physics, just for starters. I'd be concentrating on that if I were you. Don't be daft, I provided a source if literature which is at least 5000 years old and the people who were given these documents are still around. Of course you have offered no proof to the contrary in order to support your false assertion. So whenever you get around to it find a reference older than the one I provided and we can they argue which one was more accurate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #109 October 25, 2009 >What the old guy failed to understand was that he did not fight so that >the churches would HAVE to allow gay marriages. No, he understands it a lot more completely than you do. He fought so that churches could have the freedom to marry gays or not marry gays as they saw fit, instead of having a law telling them what they couldn't do. It took a long time, but that day is finally coming. >I don't dislike gay people at all, I just think that imposing their will on >a society is not what the constitution was all about. And there were a lot of people who claimed to support blacks, they just didn't support interracial marriages. After all, God put the different races on different continents for a purpose, and that was to keep them from marrying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #110 October 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteDeal with the points addressed to you or shut ya lip Yes, please do! So to re-iterate just one that you've dodged; if no-one had children the species wouldn't last very long either. So why don't you want to force every single person to have children? You've no need to reiterate anything I've dodged. I don't have to force anything. People will have children; it's what comes natural to them. People will have gay relationships; it 's what comes natural to them too. I won't advocate gay marriages though, because that is unnatural. You're not gay, are you? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #111 October 25, 2009 Quote>What the old guy failed to understand was that he did not fight so that >the churches would HAVE to allow gay marriages. No, he understands it a lot more completely than you do. He fought so that churches could have the freedom to marry gays or not marry gays as they saw fit, instead of having a law telling them what they couldn't do. It took a long time, but that day is finally coming. >I don't dislike gay people at all, I just think that imposing their will on >a society is not what the constitution was all about. And there were a lot of people who claimed to support blacks, they just didn't support interracial marriages. After all, God put the different races on different continents for a purpose, and that was to keep them from marrying. You are taking things out of their context for your own argument. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #112 October 25, 2009 Quote Get fucked. You lose.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #113 October 25, 2009 Perhaps an aspect of this discussion worth bringing to the fore is peoples perception of marriage. To me, it's the permanent binding of a male and female to be forever faithful to their partner. Now if they're gay, how can a species survive? So should we tolerate a minority of gay marriages within our society? To what purpose? to appease them? To demonstrate our modern tolerance to gay social members? After all that's been accepted, what's next? There will certainly be a next - and I'd be forthright enough to say you'd be foolish to think differently. It can be argued religion has nothing to do with this. But why tolerate an abnormality and make it normal? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mindfree2yall 0 #114 October 25, 2009 I RESPECT WHAT THIS MAN SAID ' HOW EVER WE LIVE INN DIFFERENT TIMES [NOW ] THE MILLION DOLLAR MYSTERY THAT RISES TO THE TOP]]]] HOW CAN YOU HAVE STRONG COUNTRY ''' WITH OUT THE FAMILY TREE STRUCTURE BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN ' IS MY FIRST QUESTION AND 2ND IF INN DEED GAY MARRIAGE IS THE ANSWER TO MAKE THINGS RIGHT & THE SECRET TO A STRONGER COUNTRY [[WHATS THE PLAN ]]] WHERE IS GAY MARRIAGE STANDS OR FITT 'S INN THAT EQUATION PLEASE EXPLAIN ''' I MEAN HOW DOES GAY MARRIAGE WORK THE SAME AS THE FAMILY TREE BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN PLEASE EXPLAIN ''''AND LOOK 4 THE RECORD [[[[IM NOT AGAINST THEM LET THEM DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO ]] LET THEM '''''''''''' THEY DON'T BOTHER ME I JUST REALLY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ''FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE THE ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS IF GAY MARRIAGE IS GONNA MAKE A STRONG COUNTRY STRONGER PLEASE EXPLAIN '''''HOW HOW DOES IT WORK AND HOW DOE'S IT COMPETE NEXT TO THE FAMILY TREE ''BETWEEN A MAN & WOMAN WHERE DO YOU SEE THE COUNTRY INN 20 YEARS IF WE MAKE GAY MARRIAGE EQUAL HOW DO YOU TELL A BOY INN SCHOOL DURING INN SEX CLASS WHEN THEY ARE 10 YEARS OLD ITS OK. TO TAKE ANAL SEX '''AND BE MARRIED TO ANOTHER GUY OR TELL A LIL GIRL THE SAME THING ITS OK TO HAVE SAME SEX MARRIAGE ''' HOW DOES THAT EVEN WORK ??????? ON MAKING A STRONG COUNTRY AS PARENT IM GLAD CALIFORNIA DIDN'T PASS THAT LAW IM SORRY '''' WE ARE WORLD S A PART ON THAT ONE CUSSE [[[I DON'T AGREE ]]] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #115 October 25, 2009 Quote Quote Get fucked. You lose. Perhaps I do? But let's look at your context; you're the one who suggested I was inclined for a private debate through your misinterpretation of my posts. I've no intention of private debate. If it's a win/loss situation in your eyes, then I guess you're the loser. Hence the profanity. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #116 October 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteWell Jakee, are you going to provide citations Are you? You have asserted that marriage originated in the Garden of Eden. If you want to support that assertion you're going to have to get busy disproving the entire accumulated bodies of human knowledge from several fields of academic endeavour including history, geology and astro-physics, just for starters. I'd be concentrating on that if I were you. Don't be daft, I provided a source if literature which is at least 5000 years old and the people who were given these documents are still around. . The Pentateuch is NOT 5,000 years old. It is predated by Babylonian and Egyptian writings that indicate that marriage existed pre-Genesis.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #117 October 25, 2009 >You are taking things out of their context for your own argument. And you're telling an 86 year old veteran that you know better than he does what he fought for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #118 October 25, 2009 Your one warning. Cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #119 October 25, 2009 I am still waiting on Jakee to reply, of course others seem to feel the need to bail his ass out of something that he cannot do for himself. My how that smacks of being inept. Of course many here think I have no intellect at all, but if I can call jakee out and not have him rise to the challenge HIMSELF what does that say about him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #120 October 25, 2009 Just that I have a different opinion than he does and yes he can be mistaken or even wrong, we all can. I know people who did more than that man ever did. Does that make them any more right or wrong? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #121 October 25, 2009 QuoteDon't be daft, I provided a source if literature which is at least 5000 years old Is it? Do you have any sources on that? And, unless you actually believe in the Garden of Eden, the story contained in that document is entirely fictional. So what use is it? And what evidence do you have to support your assertion that the Jewish tradition is indeed the first? QuoteSo whenever you get around to it find a reference older than the one I provided and we can they argue which one was more accurate. How old is the one you provided? Commonly accepted date of 500 BC for the finished product? I can quite easily find one older than that which describes marriage, it's called the Iliad.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #122 October 25, 2009 Still waiting on the citation. You know how that is done right? Just checking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #123 October 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteDeal with the points addressed to you or shut ya lip Yes, please do! So to re-iterate just one that you've dodged; if no-one had children the species wouldn't last very long either. So why don't you want to force every single person to have children? You've no need to reiterate anything I've dodged. I don't have to force anything. People will have children; it's what comes natural to them. And what about people who choose not to? Is that wrong? QuoteI won't advocate gay marriages though, because that is unnatural. You're not gay, are you? No-one's asking you to. Just trying to get you to explain, in any kind of coherent manner, why you would like to stand in the way of them. And no.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #124 October 25, 2009 According to dating of the text by Orthodox rabbis the revelation of the Torah to Moses occurred in 1380 BCE at Mount Sinai. So the finished product you speak of is just a chosen date by you in order to support your argument. but still not a citation to be seen furnished by you, not one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #125 October 25, 2009 QuoteI am still waiting on Jakee to reply, of course others seem to feel the need to bail his ass out of something that he cannot do for himself. My how that smacks of being inept. Of course many here think I have no intellect at all, but if I can call jakee out and not have him rise to the challenge HIMSELF what does that say about him? It's hilarious that you think you're somehow winning this, or that you've set up any kind of situation you think I need to bail myself out of. You've made an assertion. You have not supported it in anyway. What makes you thik you have the high ground here?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
