Prince is a Moron

I cannot possibly follow a code of rules written from an interpretation of an interpretation which makes any implication that gay people, or people who commit acts of "sodomy" are "sinning" and don't deserve to be loved and treated the same as everyone else. I'm upset that the California pro gay marriage rule got overturned. You cannot control being gay. You are born that way. For anyone to look down on a gay person is no different than looking down on someone because of gender/race/religion. And the belief that sex is solely for procreation is a traditionalist, obsolete view that only the most fundamentalist of zealots seem to follow. Ideally, I believe sex should be an expression of love and excitement and worshipping everything about the person you are sharing it with. But I am obviously not a christian. If I was raised strictly religious, my views might vary.

I see the issue in gay couples adopting children mainly in that I don't like to think about the children being ridiculed at an early age for it. Kids in grade school and high school are MEAN and it concerns me that kids of same sex couples could be targeted and harassed immensely. However, a loving couple of the same sex I firmly believe is still better than a disfunctional couple of the opposite sex....particularly for the kids. Love and caring knows no gender, and through tolerance, acceptance, and throwing out old fashioned ultra conservative values, we as a society can move forward and hopefully one day come to terms with the fact that love is love, no matter if your genitalia is the same or not.

J

Uncle Liam wrote:

£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.

Agreed - definite definition of a ***** post...

BTW, STFU = Shut The Fcuk Up :)

50 Pound and many others keep insisting that it is a religious point of view, which is not where I draw my conclusions. Until someone can prove that copulation was not made for procreation, my stance will not change...

I do think it is funny that almost all the arguements against me are 'cocked and loaded' tidbits for things I have not mentioned...

Argue the science of it, not the morality of it....

EdelBrock wrote: 50 Pound and many others keep insisting that it is a religious point of view, which is not where I draw my conclusions. Until someone can prove that copulation was not made for procreation, my stance will not change...

I do think it is funny that almost all the arguements against me are 'cocked and loaded' tidbits for things I have not mentioned...

Argue the science of it, not the morality of it....

I've met 50 pound (briefly), and he's a top man, top poster; shame he doesn't post more. Certainly a lot more rounded than some of the gun-toting posters in here.

EdelBrock wrote:

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

No, the problem is not with my eyes. The problem is with your continuing inability to formulate a coherent argument in support of your biases. Really, you are floundering here, like a fish out of water, and the more I point out the problems in your argument, the more you continue to pretend that it’s my eyes, rather than your argument, that is flawed. Well it’s your argument that is flawed. Seriously flawed.

First, let's address the immediate issue about "possibility of birth." If marriage should be limited to couples who have a "possibility of birth," then by definition, elderly couples should not be allowed to be married. Nor should infertile couples. And probably, neither should couples who don’t want children. Predictably, your response to this glaring problem in your argument is to duck it. Well, ducking it doesn’t make it any less glaring. In fact, ducking it only highlights the fact that you have no response to this glaring problem in your argument.

Second, let’s take a look at your argument itself. You state mater-of-factly that “copulation is for procreation.” At some basic level of biology, it is a fact that copulation between fertile males and females of a species often results in reproduction. It is also a fact that many people engage in copulatory acts with NO INTENTION of reproducing. Elderly couples, for instance. Infertile couples. Couples practicing birth control. Couples practicing non-procreative sex—oral sex, or anal sex, for example. Gay couples. Clearly, although copulation can result in procreation, it serves some other function that transcends the biological drive to reproduce.

Nevertheless, in your confused orthodoxy, you draw a line between gay couples and all other non-procreative couples. On one side of that demarcation are couples who can marry, on the other side are couples who cannot marry. This is where your argument falls apart. You argue “marriage should be limited to couples who copulate for procreation” (bear with me, I had to make a coherent English translation of what you actually said, i.e., “marriage should be based under those ideas that there is a possibility of birth.”), yet you offer NO argument in support of that proposition. It appears that you believe it to be a self-evident truth. Well, it isn’t a self-evident truth. It’s just a restatement of your thesis—"Marriage should be limited to procreating couples because marriage should be limited to procreating couples.” It’s nothing more than a restatement of your bias, and no matter how man times you restate your bias, you still haven’t made an argument in support of it—a fact that is obvious no matter how old my eyes are.

EdelBrock wrote: Argue the science of it, not the morality of it....

There is no "science" in support of heterosexual marriage.

And by the way, brothers and sisters who copulate can and do conceive, so under your thesis, they should be allowed to marry.

Let's pretend we're married then

Is copulation for fun? Well animals (chimps, gorillas and dolphins to name a few), have been shown to fuck for fun, so, looks like it's for more than making babies. Other species also practice same sex fucking, in moderate numbers just as with humans, and in vastly increased numbers shortly before a population collapse, so again, it's rather natural to have a few pooves, and really REALLY scary if you have a majority of them.

Is marriage natural? Well humans in one form or another have been around for at least half a million years, and in a form you'd recognise as modern man for maybe 100,000. Marriage, depends on three things.....language (to create a marriage) written language(to record and contractualise the event), and natural monogomy (which has never been applicable to humans). So one condition that is non-existent, and therefor requires enough mental sophistication to create some myth to oppose reality, and two conditions that could only recently be met. I'd say marriage is a rather new thing therefore, a societal construct rather than part of human nature. I mean, lots of human cultures have no marriages, multiple marriages, or marriages that are so far removed from what we would recognise as marriage, so it's NOT a universal thing.....like for instance....breast feeding....all human females can do that, and it is done in all cultures globally, it could therefore reasonably be declared "natural" and typical behaviour for the species.

Marriage must present the possibility of procreation???? WTF? Are you THE POPE? So, no marriage for the infertile, the post menopausal, the genitally injured/deformed??

Frankly marriage is a ridiculous idea (to me at leas). If you love someone you do not need a piece of paper confirming it....in some ways I think this very fact is why so many fail....one or both parties have so little faith in the other, and their love, that they think "I want you to sign a bit of paper that says you love me", or worse "I want a bit of paper that says you are mine". It seems, with that as a starting point, that you're on a fast train to failsville. Now I've no basis for this at all, it's a personal view based on (undocumented) personal observation. Likewise, in my view, anyone who wants to get married, is therefor, probably a teeny bit bonkers/naive/needy/dunno, something anyway.....but fuck it, let them knock themselves out as long as they get a load of prezzies and I get the free bar at the reception. Me wee sis seems to do OK married, though her hubby (and ocassional NOOLER) is a saint, which helps :D

As for more marriages failing.....well let me see, people break up now because they are not happy together. Now, which of the following two descriptions of the way it was in "the good ole days" sounds more accurate?

1. People were far happier and content in their marraiges, and therefor felt no need to get out. Battered women, loved a good kicking now and then at the hands of a drunken fucktard, and just adored their hubby sticking his dick in anything with a minge that couldn't outrun him. Men were always particularly chuffed to find that their wife was paying the many tradesmen who called with "favours", and were always proud when their good lady had a bottle of gin before dinner every night and would often punch dinner guests.

2. People had more or less the same problems they have now, but shut up and kept their heads down for fear of attracting the scorn of a backward (doubtless religious) society. Many many men and women lived lives of abject misery right up to an early grave.

Edel, for someone who shoots people in the name of freedom, you seem to be a bit sketchy on who's allowed to be free.

The rest of you, do not for the love of the flying spagmonst, lump me in with any of this for what I said about gay adoption. I expressed concerns that gay adopters would face new problems, I never said for one second it wasn't worth trying.....at least until such times as it's proved that kids raised in such away grow up to be 9 foot tall 4 headed robot ninja's intent on eating churches......or not.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: And by the way, brothers and sisters who copulate can and do conceive, so under your thesis, they should be allowed to marry.

It could be said they already have and we're talking to the evidence.

Wot prince? Billy or Harry? I mean en principio what le kronprinz is on the carpet?

have you missed the key word there... possibility... ??? Elderly people can possibly have children, people who use contraceptives can possibly have children, all yer other examples can possibly have children...

as for brothers and sisters, the whole reason is based in science on why they shouldn't be married... so no it doesn't make things fall apart.

sex requires the use of reproductive organs... interesting they call it reproductive... that we have found use for it in other ways and that other animals have done so doesn't take away the primary use of reproductive organs is to... *gasp*... REPRODUCE (thus where the name came from in the first place).

and Cambo, 'marriage' isn't just a human designed thing... there are many other animals that have reproductive partners, raising the young and staying together... we do over-complicate issues though...

EdelBrock wrote: have you missed the key word there... possibility... ??? Elderly people can possibly have children, people who use contraceptives can possibly have children, all yer other examples can possibly have children...

Elderly people can possibly have children? This, coming from the guy who appealed to science? Do you understand that post-menopause, women cannot conceive? And infertile couples-- they can possibly have children? Do you understand what is meant by "infertile"?

EdelBrock wrote: as for brothers and sisters, the whole reason is based in science on why they shouldn't be married...

No, it's not based on "science." It's based on social taboos.

But let's go with your "argument"--WHY is it "based on science"?

sex requires the use of reproductive organs...

You mean reproductive organs like tongues? Or lips? Or breasts? Or hands? Fingers? Feet? Anuses? Dildoes? Vibrators? Strap-ons?

Do you really believe those are all reproductive organs?

EdelBrock wrote: interesting they call it reproductive...that we have found use for it in other ways and that other animals have done so doesn't take away the primary use of reproductive organs is to... *gasp*... REPRODUCE (thus where the name came from in the first place).

How does that observation in any way address my previous critique of your failed argument?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: have you missed the key word there... possibility... ??? Elderly people can possibly have children, people who use contraceptives can possibly have children, all yer other examples can possibly have children...

Elderly people can possibly have children? This, coming from the guy who appealed to science? Do you understand that post-menopause, women cannot conceive? And infertile couples-- they can possibly have children? Do you understand what is meant by "infertile"?

EdelBrock wrote: as for brothers and sisters, the whole reason is based in science on why they shouldn't be married...

No, it's not based on "science." It's based on social taboos.

But let's go with your "argument"--WHY is it "based on science"?

sex requires the use of reproductive organs...

You mean reproductive organs like tongues? Or lips? Or hands? Fingers? Feet? Anuses? Dildoes? Vibrators? Strap-ons?

Do you really believe those are all reproductive organs?

EdelBrock wrote: interesting they call it reproductive...that we have found use for it in other ways and that other animals have done so doesn't take away the primary use of reproductive organs is to... *gasp*... REPRODUCE (thus where the name came from in the first place).

How does that observation in any way address my previous critique of your failed argument?

everything you just stated only confirms things in your own head... women in thier late 60s have been having children... give it more time and medicine progressing and it can go further... infertile isn't alsways the case, some that are believed to be infertile can *gasp* sometimes can actually become pregnant later in life. Your examples are grasping at straws...

are you really trying to be so anti-what-ever-I-say that you can't admit that blue blood causes biological problems?

funny how all your "other" examples of "reproductive organs" are talking about hings you use on/in/against, lets see.... ummm our heads (no)... ummm, our pancreas' (no)... oh that's right, against the reproductive organ... so your not making any sense in your arguement there.

The only failed arguement is yer own. You can not explain scientifically your stance.... only try to pick apart mine, which yer failing at pretty bad. So instead of trying to only pick apart mine, how about you step up to the plate and explain your side scientifically...

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: have you missed the key word there... possibility... ??? Elderly people can possibly have children, people who use contraceptives can possibly have children, all yer other examples can possibly have children...

Elderly people can possibly have children? This, coming from the guy who appealed to science? Do you understand that post-menopause, women cannot conceive? And infertile couples-- they can possibly have children? Do you understand what is meant by "infertile"?

EdelBrock wrote: as for brothers and sisters, the whole reason is based in science on why they shouldn't be married...

No, it's not based on "science." It's based on social taboos.

But let's go with your "argument"--WHY is it "based on science"?

sex requires the use of reproductive organs...

You mean reproductive organs like tongues? Or lips? Or hands? Fingers? Feet? Anuses? Dildoes? Vibrators? Strap-ons?

Do you really believe those are all reproductive organs?

EdelBrock wrote: interesting they call it reproductive...that we have found use for it in other ways and that other animals have done so doesn't take away the primary use of reproductive organs is to... *gasp*... REPRODUCE (thus where the name came from in the first place).

How does that observation in any way address my previous critique of your failed argument?

everything you just stated only confirms things in your own head...

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

EdelBrock wrote: women in thier late 60s have been having children... give it more time and medicine progressing and it can go further...

What are you talking about? A 60 year-old woman had twins? Is that what you're hanging your hat on? Well, if that's where you want to go, OK, we'll go there. The woman in question gave birth after in-vitro fertilization. You know, the same method lesbian couples use. Sooooo...are you suggesting lesbian marriage meets your standards for marriage? Alternatively, are you seriously arguing that a woman who is incapable of conceiving is nevertheless engaging in "procreative sex" when she copulates, because she might be able to give birth (note-- "give birth," not "reproduce") after in-vitro fertilization? Are you seriously going to make that argument?

EdelBrock wrote: infertile isn't alsways the case, some that are believed to be infertile can *gasp* sometimes can actually become pregnant later in life. Your examples are grasping at straws...

I'm grasping at straws?

By your own definition, marriage should be limited to those couples who can potentially reproduce. Therefore, by your own definition, couples in which one or both partners are not producing gametes should not be allowed to marry.

EdelBrock wrote: are you really trying to be so anti-what-ever-I-say that you can't admit that blue blood causes biological problems?

Once again, I have no idea what it is you're trying to say.

EdelBrock wrote: funny how all your "other" examples of "reproductive organs" are talking about hings you use on/in/against, lets see.... ummm our heads (no)... ummm, our pancreas' (no)... oh that's right, against the reproductive organ... so your not making any sense in your arguement there.

Lips sucking nipples. Fingers up anuses. Toes in mouths. Strap-ons up arses. Etc.

You don't know what you're talking about.

EdelBrock wrote: The only failed arguement is yer own.

Sorry, but no buys. You have not addressed my critique. You have not addressed Big Fiddy's critique. You can't even defend your own argument, because it's a failed argument. Responding by calling my argument a "failed argument" doesn't make it so, nor is it a defense of your own argument.

EdelBrock wrote: You can not explain scientifically your stance....

"Science" doesn't tell us who should be allowed to marry.

But since you obviously think it does, why haven't you been able to offer a science-based defense of your "stance"?

EdelBrock wrote: only try to pick apart mine, which yer failing at pretty bad. So instead of trying to only pick apart mine, how about you step up to the plate and explain your side scientifically...

Dude, I've repeatedly demolished your argument. You've argued that marriage is limited to potentially procreative couples, I've pointed out that couples who cannot possibly procreate are allowed to marry. You've argued that sex always involves the reproductive organs, I've pointed to several examples that refute that claim. I've shot down every argument you've made. You, in turn, have yet to address my critique. Or Big Fiddy's.

Now, I have no idea what you mean when you say "explain your side scientifically," but if you want to clarify what you mean, I'll be glad to step up to the plate.

next week:

Edel tries to convince us Evolution is fiction.

Well, to make you all feel better. Matt and Trey are at it again!! The "South Park" guys are teaming up with one of the writers of "Avenue Q"

They are writing a musical lampooning the Mormons!!

Hey Mormons-Fuck Off!

LiamShed wrote: Well, to make you all feel better. Matt and Trey are at it again!! The "South Park" guys are teaming up with one of the writers of "Avenue Q"

They are writing a musical lampooning the Mormons!!

Hey Mormons-Fuck Off!

The creators of uncle fucker and the creators of the internet is for porn (a work of utter genius), together at last....LOL.

MAtt and Trey have SHREDDED the latter day numpties repeatedly already....DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB ROFLMAO.

My mate thought Prince was a Ponce and decided to call him PRONCE, i think it suits the short arsed twat !

Doctor? wrote:

LiamShed wrote: Well, to make you all feel better. Matt and Trey are at it again!! The "South Park" guys are teaming up with one of the writers of "Avenue Q"

They are writing a musical lampooning the Mormons!!

Hey Mormons-Fuck Off!

The creators of uncle fucker and the creators of the internet is for porn (a work of utter genius), together at last....LOL.

MAtt and Trey have SHREDDED the latter day numpties repeatedly already....DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB ROFLMAO.

Ah yes the very special episode of "South Park" where the Mormons moved in.

The movie "Orgazmo" about a Mormon porn star.

But yeah that is a dream team. The result should wonderfully wrong.

i went to a jehovah's witness service for a research paper i was doing as a teacher. nice people, but bat-shit crazy. as for prince, he's entitle to his own beliefs, but it's a fact that gay couples are in a higher economic bracket than heterosexuals in general, therefore they have more opportunity to attend good schools, become involved in extracurricular activities, etc. better to have loving parents anyway, than parents who are constantly fighting, neglectful or abusive.