Prince is a Moron
Archived51 replies · 1,599 views
Why is it that being religious so readily goes hand in hand with being a cock?
Must confess though, that I have my suspicions about gay adoption, I was brought up solely by my mother, and I'm sure I've picked up a few abnormalities from that, I can't imagine having two mums or two dads would work out much different. Then again, there are many unloved kids in the world, and being loved and cared for, is still being loved and cared for. Gotta pity the kids at school though.
Doctor? wrote: Must confess though, that I have my suspicions about gay adoption, I was brought up solely by my mother, and I'm sure I've picked up a few abnormalities from that, I can't imagine having two mums or two dads would work out much different. Then again, there are many unloved kids in the world, and being loved and cared for, is still being loved and cared for. Gotta pity the kids at school though.
there's good parenting and there's bad parenting and most of us are somewhere in between - makes no odds if you're gay, straight or peafowl. and while i think you're better off bringing up kids on your own than in an unhappy relationship, i suspect it's far more beneficial all round if there are two mutually supportive parents of whatever sex.
Doctor? wrote: Why is it that being religious so readily goes hand in hand with being a cock?
i demand to see a scientific study - or at the very least a spurious graph - showing the correlation.
bloodynora wrote:
Doctor? wrote: Why is it that being religious so readily goes hand in hand with being a cock?
i demand to see a scientific study - or at the very least a spurious graph - showing the correlation.
Dubya Mansour Tom Cruise Iain Paisley
OK, 4 is a fairly poor sample, but y'know.
Oh and there's always Lourdes, a veritable bastion of the retarded....I LOVED Richard D's question to some uber priest there...."so has anyone, for instance, grown back a severed limb or anything else that couldn't possibly have got better on it's own?" ROFLMAO.
And there's always Mansour's lot who spend their life savings to travel round the world to trample each other to death. The irony of that is, that they are doing the evil Darwin's work by removing theit stupidity from the gene pool.
As for the business of pooves adopting kids, I did say I was suspicous that it would work well, not that I was against it. I think any child rotting in a kid's home, if offered the choice of "stay here and rot, or go live with a couple of dykes/pooves" wouln't let you finish the sentence before they'd be standing their with a grin and a packed bag. Like I said though, the poor fucker will get tortured at school.....and I can't help imagining two over-the-top-camp-as-a-row-of-pink-tents blokes slapping each other, saying "oooooh", and scratching each other's eyes out.....I rather suspect however, that these would not be the sort of chaps to end up in a stable long term relationship anyway. And if I had kids and died, I'd rather they were looked after by chutney ferrets than fucking cunt christians, that's for sure.
Doctor? wrote:
Dubya Mansour Tom Cruise Iain Paisley
OK, 4 is a fairly poor sample, but y'know.
but there are so many cocks who aren't religious! doc, you know i'm an ardent atheist and there's no doubt there is some silly shit said and done in the name of religion, but i'm not sure there is any direct link between believing in god and being a cock.
also, my favourite sister is a nun.
Doctor? wrote: I think any child rotting in a kid's home, if offered the choice of "stay here and rot, or go live with a couple of dykes/pooves" wouln't let you finish the sentence before they'd be standing their with a grin and a packed bag. Like I said though, the poor fucker will get tortured at school.....and I can't help imagining two over-the-top-camp-as-a-row-of-pink-tents blokes slapping each other, saying "oooooh", and scratching each other's eyes out.....I rather suspect however, that these would not be the sort of chaps to end up in a stable long term relationship anyway. And if I had kids and died, I'd rather they were looked after by chutney ferrets than fucking cunt christians, that's for sure.
are you saying being the child of gay parents is ONLY preferable to state care?!
in my opinion children are not innately prejudiced - that comes from the parents. 'the poor fucker' will get tortured at school as long as grown-ups continue to perpetuate horrid stereotypical nonsense.
my firstborn is going to be a godfather in two weeks, when my two best friends - who are lesbians - have their secondborn baptised in a catholic ceremony. deep breaths, doc. deep breaths.
Amen to that
(do you see what I did there
I've no idea what i'm agreeing with, but sure thats what religion is all about!)
If you're up for adoption, which is what we were talking about, it's either that OR state care, that's all I was saying.
And sadly, parents ARE dicks, and DO teach their kids to hate (remember where I live, it's a national obsession here).
And I would argue that allowing your life to be ruled by something for which no evidence exists borders on mental illness. Of course, you do not HAVE to be a god botherer to be a dick, but it helps.
Sorry to hear about your sister, have you considered one of those cult deprogramming organisations? Or do they have a cutoff point, a number of subscribers beyond which weird cults become legitimised and untouchable?
PS: spent 5 months in a kids home, and for me, being rasied by badgers in the forrest would have been preferable.
Contrary to what a recent interview with the New Yorker is reporting, a source close to the rocker tells us that Prince was grossly misquoted and misinterpreted as not down with gay rights.
Apparently, the interviewer did not even use a recorder when she spoke with His Holy Purpleness, and that when she called his people to fact check, it turned out she had several factual inaccuracies, including a little bit about Prince recovering from hip surgery, which he never even had. Like Prince is really made of bones or something and not nebulous gold glitter - come on!
What His Purpleness actually did was gesture to the Bible and said he follows what it teaches, referring mainly to the parts about loving everyone and refraining from judgment.
That sounds better, considering he's a man who caused his own Controversy!
"We're very angry he was misquoted," says our Prince insider.
EdelBrock wrote: Next up we should allow ... guys and goats
That should improve troop morale.
It's ironic how Tipper Gore (Al Gore's conservative wife) went crazy when she heard some Prince songs, thought they were sexual and therefore 'harmful to children', and helped create the Parental Advisory on American CDs, yet some decades later, Prince claims that 'God' (although I don't believe that deities exist) disapproves of homosexuality...
leather_girl wrote: ...Prince claims that 'God' (although I don't believe that deities exist) disapproves of homosexuality...
Well, it is in the Book of Leviticus.
The same book that prohibits wearing a garment woven with two different kinds of thread.
I haven't seen any hatred directed at people wearing those kinds of garments.
*Takes a long, deep breath in realizing he is about to start arguing with people on the internet, which is retarded*
Doctor, and EdelBrock, you're both talking out your asses. If you don't know gay people, you don't know what you're talking about. So shut your f*cking mouths.
Overly-camp couples are not adopting - they are far too self-centered. They don't want kids.
The whole "people will want to marry animals" argument is so f*cking tired. Animals cannot consent to and sign a legal contract. It's never going to happen.
I know countless gay couples who have adopted, and they are MODEL parents. They have children because they WANT them. Not to molest. Not to turn gay. TO LOVE. I was raised by straight parents and all my siblings are straight - so how did I turn out gay? It's not a choice, it's how I was born. Believe me, I TRIED to change. I did time in an ex-gay ministry.
This whole sanctity of marriage argument is so f*cking stupid. When straight people can poop out unwanted children as fast as they want just because they're too dumb to use birth control or are wanting to game the welfare system, can get drunk, married, and annulled in a 24-hour period, or contribute to a 50% divorce rate there IS no sanctity of marriage. If you want to protect marriage, BAN DIVORCE.
No one is going to force you to get gay-married. No one is going to force churches to perform gay marriages. I'M married. I want the government to afford me and my husband the same legal rights that straight couples take FOR GRANTED.
Who anyone chooses to love or marry is no one else's business. If your god tells you it's bad, then fine, but keep your beliefs out of MY life. I don't believe in your fairytale god, and you have no right to tell me who I can enter into a legal contract - a civil marriage - with, as a consenting adult.
Seriously, just STFU.
Anyway, the point of the entire post was about Prince, and everyone knows he's been a nutjob for years.
It's ironic that Prince is so anti-gay when he is clearly so flaming gay. He's androgynous, and the lucky SOB probably slept with hundreds of girls in his day. And isn't he huge in the gay community?
J
Does any pop star age with sanity?
Have you ever read any of the Jehovah's Witness "literature"? They are usually written at a sub 5th grade level of education, and really patronizing. And how they pretend they are not a church? Cult like, and definitely a "church" that collects money, even if they use different terms to describe themselves.
The secret of their philosophy? keep it simple and easy... simplify and embrace stupidity, because God has all the answers. Don't think so hard, just join the group. Embrace your inner moron, God knows better.
i NEVER said I was against gay marriage, I expressed concerns that gay adoption may have issues, but nowhere did I say it should not happen, not anywhere. And I ALSO said that "comedy camp" types would not be the type to adopt, so there was no need to reiterate it.
I have no problems at all with pooves and poovery. It's a wholely natural thing (go on, somebody argue that, I dare you).
However, my own tradesman's is decidedly exit-only.
I don't think there should be any legal rights (taxes, hospitalization, etc) that should not be afforded to couples... its the title due to a more scientific sense. Copulation is designed for procreation, not recreation (though I am as guilty as anyone else in enjoying the fringe benefits) and marriage should be within those boundaries...
As for adoption, I am on the fence for it... the best parenting is a father and a mother... but that our society is too selfish (on the whole, not a stab at anyone here) to keep their marriages together, it does leave little course for good parenting...
Sorry if anyone feels afronted by this, as it is not meant as a personal attack on anyone.
EdelBrock wrote: Copulation is designed for procreation, not recreation (though I am as guilty as anyone else in enjoying the fringe benefits) and marriage should be within those boundaries...
Hmmm. Two problems here. First, the sex problem-- if marriage is for copulation, which is for procreation, what should we as a society do about extra-marital sex? What should we do about married couples who cannot conceive? What should we do about couples (married or otherwise) who practice birth control? Oral sex?
Second problem, you argue matter-of-factly that marriage should be reserved for procreating couples, without offering a shred of support for that argument. So, I'll ask what you've failed to ask yourself-- WHY should marriage "be within those boundaries"?
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: Copulation is designed for procreation, not recreation (though I am as guilty as anyone else in enjoying the fringe benefits) and marriage should be within those boundaries...
Hmmm. Two problems here. First, the sex problem-- if marriage is for copulation, which is for procreation, what should we as a society do about extra-marital sex? What should we do about married couples who cannot conceive? What should we do about couples (married or otherwise) who practice birth control? Oral sex?
Second problem, you argue matter-of-factly that marriage should be reserved for procreating couples, without offering a shred of support for that argument. So, I'll ask what you've failed to ask yourself-- WHY should marriage "be within those boundaries"?
The evidence is there, you just conveniently over-look it as it doesn't fit your definition. Societies, far and seperated from each other by time and distance, have all come to similar conclusions over marriage. Only in recent times has marriage been a possibility beyond procreation...
Marriage is the foundation of the traditional family-unit. Changing the idea of marriage then tears away the fundamentals of the family-unit.
The other questions you ask are trying to muddle the waters and are moral issues, which I am not venturing into here. I am sticking with the basic scientific understanding that copulation is designed for procreation, and marriage should be based under those ideas that there is a possibility of birth (thus why brothers and sisters aren't allowed to be married... even if they make themselves infertile).
EdelBrock wrote: Next up we should allow for brothers and sisters to marry... maybe even guys and goats
You're just a cunt arent you?
£50 Note wrote: *Takes a long, deep breath in realizing he is about to start arguing with people on the internet, which is retarded*
Doctor, and EdelBrock, you're both talking out your asses. If you don't know gay people, you don't know what you're talking about. So shut your f*cking mouths.
Overly-camp couples are not adopting - they are far too self-centered. They don't want kids.
The whole "people will want to marry animals" argument is so f*cking tired. Animals cannot consent to and sign a legal contract. It's never going to happen.
I know countless gay couples who have adopted, and they are MODEL parents. They have children because they WANT them. Not to molest. Not to turn gay. TO LOVE. I was raised by straight parents and all my siblings are straight - so how did I turn out gay? It's not a choice, it's how I was born. Believe me, I TRIED to change. I did time in an ex-gay ministry.
This whole sanctity of marriage argument is so f*cking stupid. When straight people can poop out unwanted children as fast as they want just because they're too dumb to use birth control or are wanting to game the welfare system, can get drunk, married, and annulled in a 24-hour period, or contribute to a 50% divorce rate there IS no sanctity of marriage. If you want to protect marriage, BAN DIVORCE.
No one is going to force you to get gay-married. No one is going to force churches to perform gay marriages. I'M married. I want the government to afford me and my husband the same legal rights that straight couples take FOR GRANTED.
Who anyone chooses to love or marry is no one else's business. If your god tells you it's bad, then fine, but keep your beliefs out of MY life. I don't believe in your fairytale god, and you have no right to tell me who I can enter into a legal contract - a civil marriage - with, as a consenting adult.
Seriously, just STFU.
Does STFU actually mean anything, or is it just the name of that lame STF rip off John Cena uses?
Regardless, this is the post of the year. This is quite literally the definition of a ***** post. 
Uncle Liam wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: Next up we should allow for brothers and sisters to marry... maybe even guys and goats
You're just a cunt arent you?
Explain the difference then....
EdelBrock wrote:
Uncle Liam wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: Next up we should allow for brothers and sisters to marry... maybe even guys and goats
You're just a cunt arent you?
Explain the difference then....
50 pound (can we just call him "big fiddy"?) already did, with facts and logic you can't refute.
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: Copulation is designed for procreation, not recreation (though I am as guilty as anyone else in enjoying the fringe benefits) and marriage should be within those boundaries...
Hmmm. Two problems here. First, the sex problem-- if marriage is for copulation, which is for procreation, what should we as a society do about extra-marital sex? What should we do about married couples who cannot conceive? What should we do about couples (married or otherwise) who practice birth control? Oral sex?
Second problem, you argue matter-of-factly that marriage should be reserved for procreating couples, without offering a shred of support for that argument. So, I'll ask what you've failed to ask yourself-- WHY should marriage "be within those boundaries"?
The evidence is there, you just conveniently over-look it as it doesn't fit your definition. Societies, far and seperated from each other by time and distance, have all come to similar conclusions over marriage. Only in recent times has marriage been a possibility beyond procreation...
Marriage is the foundation of the traditional family-unit. Changing the idea of marriage then tears away the fundamentals of the family-unit.
What is it exactly that you are attempting to say? That only couples who are both capable of procreation, and who want to and actively attempt to procreate, should be able to marry?
EdelBrock wrote: The other questions you ask are trying to muddle the waters and are moral issues, which I am not venturing into here. I am sticking with the basic scientific understanding that copulation is designed for procreation, and marriage should be based under those ideas that there is a possibility of birth (thus why brothers and sisters aren't allowed to be married... even if they make themselves infertile).
So elderly couples shouldn't be allowed to marry then? Or infertile couples? Or couples who don't want children? Or couples who practice birth control? Or couples who enjoy non-procreative sex?
Are you seriously arguing that these couples should be excluded from marriage?
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: Copulation is designed for procreation, not recreation (though I am as guilty as anyone else in enjoying the fringe benefits) and marriage should be within those boundaries...
Hmmm. Two problems here. First, the sex problem-- if marriage is for copulation, which is for procreation, what should we as a society do about extra-marital sex? What should we do about married couples who cannot conceive? What should we do about couples (married or otherwise) who practice birth control? Oral sex?
Second problem, you argue matter-of-factly that marriage should be reserved for procreating couples, without offering a shred of support for that argument. So, I'll ask what you've failed to ask yourself-- WHY should marriage "be within those boundaries"?
The evidence is there, you just conveniently over-look it as it doesn't fit your definition. Societies, far and seperated from each other by time and distance, have all come to similar conclusions over marriage. Only in recent times has marriage been a possibility beyond procreation...
Marriage is the foundation of the traditional family-unit. Changing the idea of marriage then tears away the fundamentals of the family-unit.What is it exactly that you are attempting to say? That only couples who are both capable of procreation, and who want to and actively attempt to procreate, should be able to marry?
EdelBrock wrote: The other questions you ask are trying to muddle the waters and are moral issues, which I am not venturing into here. I am sticking with the basic scientific understanding that copulation is designed for procreation, and marriage should be based under those ideas that there is a possibility of birth (thus why brothers and sisters aren't allowed to be married... even if they make themselves infertile).
So elderly couples shouldn't be allowed to marry then? Or infertile couples? Or couples who don't want children? Or couples who practice birth control? Or couples who enjoy non-procreative sex?
Are you seriously arguing that these couples should be excluded from marriage?
yer old eyes must be having difficulting reading
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
Uncle Liam wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: Next up we should allow for brothers and sisters to marry... maybe even guys and goats
You're just a cunt arent you?
Explain the difference then....
50 pound (can we just call him "big fiddy"?) already did, with facts and logic you can't refute.
When you can't explain... throw insults
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
Uncle Liam wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: Next up we should allow for brothers and sisters to marry... maybe even guys and goats
You're just a cunt arent you?
Explain the difference then....
50 pound (can we just call him "big fiddy"?) already did, with facts and logic you can't refute.
When you can't explain... throw insults
Fact: Fifty pound explained with facts and logic.
Fact: You haven't (and can't) refute what 50 pound had to say.
Fact: I pointed the above out.
Fact: You duck that obvious set of facts by complaining about being "insulted."
