Originally posted by Great King RatCongratulations, thread killer, you twat.
Oh, pfffff! Nonsense!
He often attacks "the left" for their solutions concerning the STD problem not to mention that he always brings up the fact that gays make up 5% of the population yet account for 50% of the AIDS cases not to mention that he has an opinion on [b]everything. He surely has the solution.
He just doesn't want to say what it ...[text shortened]... m/board/showthread.php?threadid=157009&page=16
Seeing as we were having a conversation there.[/b]
The post that was quoted here has been removedSpineless in that we all know that the Whodeys of this website have certain ideas about "the gay lifestyle" and STDs but refuse to say that out loud.
Naturally, it was not my intention of insulting or ridiculing the friendly octupus by comparing it to the metaphorically spineless of this world.
Originally posted by Great King RatI hardly think that you can claim that those who oppose gayness have not been vociferous in expressing their opposition to it despite the present moral climate and insults to their personal dignity.
Spineless in that we all know that the Whodeys of this website have certain ideas about "the gay lifestyle" and STDs but refuse to say that out loud.
Naturally, it was not my intention of insulting or ridiculing the friendly octupus by comparing it to the metaphorically spineless of this world.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI will admit that you are one of those that will readily admit being against "gayness" because of what that fairy tale book you so desperately cling to, tells you.
I hardly think that you can claim that those who oppose gayness have not been vociferous in expressing their opposition to it despite the present moral climate and insults to their personal dignity.
Don't worry, one day you'll realize just how brainwashed you've been all these years.
1 edit
Originally posted by Great King RatActually while I readily admit that my opposition is essentially religious in essence I also provided empirical physiological evidence as to why I oppose the practice and your comments therfore concerning fairy tales, spaghetti monsters and alleged brainwashing remain not only unfounded but a reflection of the type of insults to ones personal dignity that I made reference to. I really should thank you for illustrating the point at hand. I could hardly have hoped for better.
I will admit that you are one of those that will readily admit being against "gayness" because of what that fairy tale book you so desperately cling to, tells you.
Don't worry, one day you'll realize just how brainwashed you've been all these years.
Originally posted by Great King RatDo I really appear desperate? say it ain't so.
I will admit that you are one of those that will readily admit being against "gayness" because of what that fairy tale book you so desperately cling to, tells you.
Don't worry, one day you'll realize just how brainwashed you've been all these years.
2 edits
Originally posted by Great King RatMy morality is defined through the application of Biblical principles, any such acts stand condemned for while they may not be explicitly mentioned they constitute a type of fornication and thus stand condemned. This is my perspective. I do not feel the necessity to impose it upon you whereas I do feel the force of some kind of moral peer pressure coming from those who wish through ridicule and insult to impose a contrary stance. Is it not so?
What are your thoughts on same sex practices that do not involve anal penetration?
...those who wish through ridicule and insult to impose a contrary stance. Is it not so?
No, I don't need a reason to ridicule and insult.
I do not feel the necessity to impose it upon you
Bit of a vague statement, but does this mean you agree that gays shouldn't be discriminated on the basis of their sexual preference and thus deserve a legal marriage as much as straights?
2 edits
Originally posted by Great King RatThe fact is that a rather insidious form of peer pressure is quite prevalent among the supporters of so called 'gay rights' the intent of which is to impose their moral perspective on society.
[b]...those who wish through ridicule and insult to impose a contrary stance. Is it not so?
No, I don't need a reason to ridicule and insult.
I do not feel the necessity to impose it upon you
Bit of a vague statement, but does this mean you agree that gays shouldn't be discriminated on the basis of their sexual preference and thus deserve a legal marriage as much as straights?[/b]
As to the question, no, they do not qualify for marriage, if they like they can enter a civil partnership to protect their legal rights. I also don't accept that the law should be changed to allow someone to marry their goldfish either, then again, it might been discriminatory against those with a fetish for goldfish! look out at a goldfish parade near you!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe fact is that a rather insidious form of peer pressure is quite prevalent among the supporters of so called 'gay rights' the intent of which is to impose their moral perspective on society.
The fact is that a rather insidious form of peer pressure is quite prevalent among the supporters of so called 'gay rights' the intent of which is to impose their moral perspective on society.
As to the question, no, they do not qualify for marriage, if they like they can enter a civil partnership to protect their legal rights. I also don't acce ...[text shortened]... discriminatory against those with a fetish for goldfish! look out at a goldfish parade near you!
"We" don't wish to impose morals on anybody. "We" don't give to sh|its and a popsicle if you have to vomit at the sight of a gay person. "We" simply wish that people aren't discriminated against. Gay people don't want you to be limited in any way because of your sexual preference, you do want to limit gays because of their sexual preference. Obviously you are imposing your morals on others. It takes a significant amount of brainwashing for you to not see that.
As to that "insidious form of peer pressure": Anybody who feels they can impose their morals on others because of some ridiculous ancient fairy tale deserves to be mocked. Twice.
As to the question, no, they do not qualify for marriage...
They only do not qualify (in certain backwards places) because of the law. However, this "law" is not some kind of natural constant that cannot be altered. It is a completely manmade law and thus can be changed at will. I assume you agree with that?
I also don't accept that the law should be changed to allow someone to marry their goldfish either
I agree. Of course, this is because a goldfish cannot give consent because it has the intelligence of roughly a creationist and thus the comparison is... well, typically you.
However, it did give me a chuckle envisioning a goldfish in a wedding dress, so in that respect it was worth reading.
5 edits
Originally posted by Great King Ratsee I made you smile, my brothers goldfish are called Bob and Rita Marley, but, we shall soon wipe that from your face
[b]The fact is that a rather insidious form of peer pressure is quite prevalent among the supporters of so called 'gay rights' the intent of which is to impose their moral perspective on society.
"We" don't wish to impose morals on anybody. "We" don't give to sh|its and a popsicle if you have to vomit at the sight of a gay person. "We" simply w ...[text shortened]... me a chuckle envisioning a goldfish in a wedding dress, so in that respect it was worth reading.[/b]
anyhow whether you like it or not and I had hoped for at least a modicum of honesty in the matter, a morality is being imposed upon people, you cannot for example express your aversion to homosexuality or same sex marriages in the work place or you may very well loose your job, that is a form of very real pressure.
That there is a disproportionate representation of gays and gay issues in the media is also evidence of a subtle and insidious form of peer pressure which I don't think you can deny.
I am not imposing anything on anyone, if you do not qualify for marriage you do not qualify, visit boohoo.com and do some shopping therapy to get over it.
I could not care less what they do, but then again, you will not lose your job for criticising my moral stance, in fact, you may be heralded as a prophet of the new morality, the irony of which is you are not tolerant of anything which opposes your perspective, in fact, you are quite the opposite, a militant atheist determined to impose your perspective through the decree of law, safe in the knowledge that you will never lose your job as a consequence. How cosy for you.
I would not mind so much if you were as up front about it as I am in my opposition, but heaven forbid that you should be guilty of the very same traits you libel others with, namely intolerance and a religious bias (in your case anti religious) meaner than the meanest medieval monk.