ScottyFargo
Footballguy
Pretty weak effort here, MoO.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Why California’s Proposition 8 Would Make Jesus Weep (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Loves You
- Start date
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
I was really hoping the cash would be in escrow by the time I got back from dinner. Not sure why golddigger is equivocating all of a sudden. It's easy money.
FatMax
Member
Somebody send me a PM when this kicks off.
Did not know a group of left-wing freaks was referred to as a bag.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
Well, we were having a great conversation about Prop 8, gay marriage, and the SCOTUS.Then Pickles stepped in a great big pile of goldigger.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
It doesn't happen often - but when I agree with this guy, I REALLY agree.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
You have taken it to the next and your aliases multiple times. I have very much tried to ignore you. You have followed me around with one liners whose sole intent was to create a strong emotional response. Moreover, it is more than a game with you. There is some visceral hated that you do a poor job of masking. I have asked you to stop and that just eggs you on. You have sent he hate PM's through what is now obviously an alias. You have been doing this for over 2 years. What on earth did I do to you that deserves this?So that post you linked, which was over 2 years old, was reason for hounding the last 2 years. Seriously.What on earth was so obnoxious about golddigger that you can not let it go. The link you posted showed that they were having a conversation. There was no heated rhetoric from the 9 or so pages I read. What was conspicuously missing from that link was that you were not involved in the debate. Again what have I done to you for you to act this way?BTW we can have a conversation which would prove to me you are Chemical Engineer. If you are a Chemical Engineer it will be obvious and you can show the world I was wrong. The $ 10 K bet is just a rouse as you stated to embarrass me (in your own words.) It is painfully obvious that you are not a Chemical Engineer by you limited technical postings. You stated it as a way to lift your credentials falsely. So prove me wrongLETS TALK CHEMICAL ENGINEERING?If you don't want to prove your credentials then post respectfully and I will be respectful back. But please don't play the victim here. You can prove me wrong for free.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thats not gonna work. Pickles wants to be paid for his dorkdom....
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
But I really really really want to win a $10k bet. It would be the most epic of shticks.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
If it's painfully obvious, why are you unwilling to take his bet? Is money the issue? If it is, why don't you offer him $100 to prove he is what he says he is?
McJose
Footballguy
Stop talking in the 3rd person.
JZilla
Footballguy
Really the only thing left is to shut it down if this happens
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
I'm fine with your little delusional rants, but let's not go here. I've never sent you any "hate" PMs of any kind. In fact, the only PM I remember from you was as golddigger some years ago where you went off on this cute little paranoid screed. I think I replied that I had no idea what you were talking about. Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, you were convinced that I was someone else. The only other person that's played that game with me was Shick when he was convinced I was involved with a call to his school.I'm not okay with you making up stuff like that.
ScottyFargo
Footballguy
How much money would you be willing to bet, KonotayMoO? You are positive he's full of it, but if you don't have the 10k there's no shame in that. Just tell us how much you are willing to bet and quit trying to find out more info. Either you want the bet or you don't, right? So what's it gonna take?
JZilla
Footballguy
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
And several interweb cliques.
Thats only because the judge didnt like the way the votes went.....
FatMax
Member
Yeah, those damn leftist Supreme Court judges did the same thing in Brown vs. Board of Education. It's Un-American.
Doubt he will answer, he will probably ride Pickles shtick on keeping mum. By the way what the hell is a "konotay" is that named after that ROOTS character konotay kintay???
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
I think it is highly offensive that majority should be allowed to subvert the dignity of its fellow citizens.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
This is a very good point and one that hasn't really been discussed at all in this thread.We dont agree with it, cmon gang, lets suppress it
Its because people are stupid and we know whats best for them.....
Burton
Footballguy
There's a big difference. That case was a matter of civil rights. This case involves a redefinition of marriage. There are no civil rights involved.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
Very rarely does a post match the avatar so perfectly.
McJose
Footballguy
That's a rather "liberal" thing to say isn't it?
McJose
Footballguy
Big freaking deal.I still don't get why it matters if the "definition" of marriage is man/woman or man/man or woman/woman. Could you explain why it matters?
Burton
Footballguy
To those who have suffered real discrimination in this country: Blacks, Indians, the Japanese during World War II- to try to pretend that homosexuals deserve civil rights in the form of the right to marry is truly offensive. That's one reason so many African-Americans voted for Prop 8- they were outraged by the comparison.
McJose
Footballguy
I thought one of things conservatives hated was the government poking its nose into things...like gun control.
McJose
Footballguy
Why don't gays deserve civil rights?To those who have suffered real discrimination in this country: Blacks, Indians, the Japanese during World War II- to try to pretend that homosexuals deserve civil rights in the form of the right to marry is truly offensive. That's one reason so many African-Americans voted for Prop 8- they were outraged by the comparison.
Burton
Footballguy
Marriage is more than simply a legal arrangement based only on the desires of the adults involved. You want to have that, fine, but call it something else. Marriage is a unique institution that protects and promotes the interests of society and our children.
McJose
Footballguy
It does? How so? And how would allowing gays to marry harm 'the interests of society and our children'?
Burton
Footballguy
They're not a minority "group." There are gays that are white, Black, Mexican, etc. They're not discriminated against by not being allowed to marry each other. I'm not allowed to marry a guy either, so you can't call it discrimination.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
I'm not sure that the absolutely stupid post from the pro discrimination for no good reason side of this debate lead to the conclusion that the people making them are actually stupid. The world is more complicated than that. I also don't think you really know what is best for gays and lesbians.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
So society has no interest in the children in gay households?
Burton
Footballguy
I'm going to quote talk show host Michael Medved, who makes the case much better than I can:Advocates for same-sex marriage should feel embarrassed by current efforts to recycle the three most discredited ideas of the “Free Love” Revolution of the 1960’s. Most Americans look back at the radical notions of that rebellious and drug-soaked era with skepticism and discomfort, if not outright regret. The sweeping changes in intimate relationships may have provoked excitement some forty years ago, but those alterations produced so many painful costs in terms of shattered families, degraded culture and proliferation of sexually transmitted diseases that even the most enthusiastic revolutionaries have come to reconsider the advisability of encouraging copulation without consequences or standards. Nevertheless, arguments for redefining marriage (including the shockingly shallow logic behind last week’s Supreme Court decision in California) rely on shamelessly silly assumptions from the Age of Aquarius without acknowledging their dysfunctional history and unwholesome origins. The case for legal sanction for gay unions relies on the notions that it’s beneficial to separate sex from child-bearing, that every intimate urge deserves respect and fulfillment, and that males and females count, ultimately, as interchangeable. 1. Separating Sex, Marriage and Procreation. The British poet Philip Larkin announced the new order in human relationships in unforgettable terms in his poem “Annus Mirabilis”: Sexual intercourse beganIn nineteen sixty-three(which was rather late for me) -Between the end of the Chatterley banAnd the Beatles' first LP The principal facilitator for the new dispensation involved the development and dissemination of the birth control pill and other improved means of contraception. For the first time, young people could “go all the way” without fear of unintended, life-changing consequences. Legalized abortion (given Constitutional protection by Roe v. Wade in 1973) completed the explosion of the ancient association celebrated in another (anonymous) piece of poetry: First comes love, Then comes marriage, Then comes Sally with a baby carriage. The new ability to enjoy love without baby carriage also meant a new chance to indulge love without marriage… or a baby carriage without marriage, for that matter. The notion that Jr. ought to restrain himself or else he might get his best girl “in trouble” (and face a shotgun wedding) no longer carried weight. According to the core contention of the sexual revolution, intercourse represented a form of self-expression or even recreation, only occasionally (and unnecessarily) connected with procreation or long-term commitment. The result has been an explosion of out-of-wedlock birth (reaching 35% of all American new-borns in most recent numbers) with disastrous impact on poverty, crime and overall family stability. Gay marriage won’t add to the out-of-wedlock birth rate (at least not directly) but it continues and advances the devastating disconnect of sex, marriage and babies. While society suffers from babies without marriage, gay matrimony guarantees marriage without babies. And while some heterosexual couples may prove as infertile, ultimately, as gay couples, only for a tiny minority of male-female marriages will there be the same certainty that exists for all homosexual relationships: that intimate expressions of affection can never produce progeny. Yes, gay couples can raise kids who come to them through adoption or insemination, but in none of these relationships can there be an organic, physical, direct, causal connection between the love (and sex) exchanged between the partners and love for the progeny they produce – the very essence of a traditional marriage arrangement. With same sex union, the nature of marital sex receives a radical redefinition – disconnecting that intimacy from offspring even in a home where children may be present. 2. Following – and Honoring – Your Deepest Urges. Though I ought to be embarrassed to admit it, I actually hitch-hiked to San Francisco during the vaunted “Summer of Love” in 1967 and repeatedly encountered the slogan “If It Feels Good, Do It!” invoked with almost liturgical fervor. As an intrigued eye-witness to some of the public “Love Ins” and private social gatherings associated with that storied time and place, I can testify that this philosophy produced less fleeting fun, let alone long-term satisfaction, than widely assumed. Every moralist, gay or straight, concedes that our passions – even the most deep-seated and undeniable urges—remain notoriously unreliable guides to happiness, productive relationships, and even long-term health. By supplanting the old imperative to “do your duty” with the new commandment “follow your heart,” the Love Generation embraced emotion as the standard for judging all intimate arrangements and explorations. This new emphasis produced its most damaging impact not through the indulgence of new sexual alternatives, but with the exploding rate of divorce in the 1970’s. If marriage rested on feeling rather than obligation, it naturally proved more evanescent and disposable. Before the sexual revolution, many families might quietly hum the Righteous lyrics “We’ve Lost That Lovin’ Feeling,” but relatively few of them actually broke up their relationships. Commitment, tradition, honor and duty all helped to keep most couples together, even through difficult times. Gay marriage serves to move matrimony even further toward the primacy of feeling. The chief argument for treating gay attraction as equally deserving of respect and support as man-woman-love is the depth, sincerity and undeniable nature of the passion that same sex partners feel for one another. The language promoting such couplings always emphasizes emotion rather than duty or commitment or tradition; same sex partners can hardly take their position in a long, sacred line of succession back to the beginnings of time. Yes, every society has included gay people but no civilization ever sanctioned gay marriages. Redefining matrimony as “an expression of love” rather than a public and profoundly consequential social contract damages the understanding of the institution for all elements of society. 3. Treating Male and Female as Interchangeable . Before John Gray and other astronomers of the intimate discovered the vast distance between Venus and Mars, before “Gender Feminists” revealed the natural superiority of women, before even Hollywood reconnected with the joys of girly-girls and manly men, the “Equity Feminists” of the ‘60’s and ‘70’s preached the interchangeable/indistinguishable nature of males and females. According to some psychological theorists of the prior generation, “gender” amounts to a socio-cultural construct, an artificial distinction meant to subjugate women. Enlightened pre-schools encouraged girls to play with trucks and forced boys to nurture dolls, confident in the expectation that kids of all genders would grow up equally adept as nurses and police officers, nuclear physicists and homemakers. Equality between men and women, according to the thinking of the time, meant the minimization of their intrinsic differences, and the erasure of the time-honored concept that each individual required a partner of the opposite gender for ultimate completion. The popular Ms. Magazine slogan, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” expressed the prevailing derision for the belief that both genders brought something distinctive, precious and irreplaceable to a relationship. The promotion of gay marriage requires the same dismissal of gender differences: if a woman and a man bring utterly distinctive attributes to any marriage then same-sex unions lack the balance, the fusion-of-opposites energy, that constitute the very essence of male-female partnership. If men and women possess fundamental, unavoidable contrasts involving their physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual realities, then it’s ridiculous to claim that a male-male partnership is the same as a female-female partnership – let alone comparable to the combination of manly and feminine elements that characterize traditional marriage. In a sense, the position of gay rights advocates has become contradictory. If replacing a bride with a second groom on the wedding cake makes no difference in the nature of the marriage, then a female partner is interchangeable with a male partner. And if the core differences between men and women count for so little, then it’s hard for homosexuals to claim that they can only feel attraction to their own gender. If men and women are, essentially, the same, then why can’t gay people choose opposite sex partners and spare us all the trouble of redefining the nature of marriage and upending the social order? Despite politically correct protestations to the contrary, men and women remain, and will always remain, vastly and incurably different and for most homosexuals choosing a convenient opposite sex partner seems as unthinkable and unacceptable as my choosing another male. Science can’t fully explain the origins of homosexual impulses, but it’s a terrible mistake for defenders of traditional matrimony to describe it as a “lifestyle choice.” Most people – gay and straight alike – never choose their orientations, and every American deserves respect and liberty and privacy. Insisting on equal rights for individuals, however, hardly requires the equal treatment of all relationships. The demand to recognize same sex unions as virtually identical to male-female marriage isn’t just a matter of extending an ancient, honorable institution to new customers. It is, rather, an unprecedented effort to redefine and restructure that institution at its very core and, in the process to breathe new life into three dysfunctional old ideas definitively discredited many years ago.
McJose
Footballguy
Not the same thing. And for what it's worth I think you should be allowed to marry a guy.
Burton
Footballguy
We certainly do have an interest in those children. If we expressed our interests correctly in most cases, those children wouldn't be there.This is not to say I am against all gay adoption. But I think, for the interests of society and the children, our priorities should be:1. Husband and wife.2. Wife3. Husband4. Gay couples. If the first three are unable or unwilling to adopt, only then should the fourth couple be allowed to adopt.
Hipple Long Ware & Peete
Footballguy
I have a feeling SO LETS TALK CHEMICAL ENGINEERING! could be some good schtick...
Similar threads
- Poll
