Hottie driving G35coupe?

[bubba]

StangerBanger96;310664 wrote:
A thread about a random girl in a G35 coupe has/will turned into a debate about the similarities between incest and being gay! Awesome!

This,

Still waiting on some fucking pics...

rule #1 - Don't start a thread about a "hot chick" and not post nude or at least scantly clad photos

dont got a ride;310675 wrote:
wait, Cobra Rob what, i swear he is here somewhere. he must know Thrash's password...

wikipedia is not a reliable source, i can go on there and make up whatever bullshit i want and say its true. learned that at west fargo. :icon_cheers:

oh no not another "im gunna post a link to some bullshit no one cares about and say you has a small brain" post

really, go home and fuck off

Umm... he had a well worded and good post... ur prob just pissed cause you didn't wanna read it all or couldn't comprehend what he was saying...

[PSiedTSi]

thrash;310708 wrote:
If you don't want to seem like such a dumbass, stop celebrating your ignorance so publicly.

I searched for "Texas sodomy law" and the 1st hit was a wikipedia article on sodomy laws around the world. 2 clicks got me to the link i posted.

I happened to remember that the supreme court struck down a law in texas related to homosexuality, so that's why i searched for what I did.

It has nothing to do with wikipedia being accurate or not, it's called having even a passing knowledge of supreme court cases that affect the subject at hand. Ignore the wikipedia link. Search on the words in the link title, which will give you the supreme court decision you can read for yourself.

That requires knowing the word "sodomy" though...

[24valvenotak]

capitlj;310696 wrote:
I was thinking that as I was typing my last post. What if someone tells her someone started s thread about her and she joins into this shit storm? lollerskates!!!
I've gotta side with Thrash on this one, my old school values being what they are regardless of what the bible says. It is a contradiction to allow gays their individual right to marry and then turn around an deny my individual rights and force me to accept it. That said I'm still a little fuzzy on how incest is equivalent.

nobody said accept it. tolerate it. isnt that what america is for? free of persecution? no offense, but the reason there is a homosexuality debate is because people are intolerant of it...

[capitlj]

I can tolerate your sexual preference but like thrash said they are behaving as if we owe them certain individual rights, but not as individuals as a group. Put it this way, if a gay man comes into your church to worship and just keeps to himself about the fact he likes big hard cocks in or around his mouth, will anyone there care? I certainly wouldn't. Now that same gay man meets another like minded man and want to get married. Why should that same church be forced to perform a marriage that goes against it beliefs and the beliefs of its followers? That's not tolerance.

[dont got a ride]

bubba;310710 wrote:
Umm... he had a well worded and good post... ur prob just pissed cause you didn't wanna read it all or couldn't comprehend what he was saying...

not pissed at all actually

this

[24valvenotak]

capitlj;310729 wrote:
I can tolerate your sexual preference but like thrash said they are behaving as if we owe them certain individual rights, but not as individuals as a group. Put it this way, if a gay man comes into your church to worship and just keeps to himself about the fact he likes big hard cocks in or around his mouth, will anyone there care? I certainly wouldn't. Now that same gay man meets another like minded man and want to get married. Why should that same church be forced to perform a marriage that goes against it beliefs and the beliefs of its followers? That's not tolerance.

i didnt say the church should be forced to perform the ceremony. you dont have to be married in a church by a reverend, either. on the other hand, why even care? you probably arnt invited to the gay wedding anyway. i would think the church would jump at the chance to make another dollar, even if it was a gay dollar.

[PSiedTSi]

24valvenotak;310735 wrote:
i didnt say the church should be forced to perform the ceremony. you dont have to be married in a church by a reverend, either. on the other hand, why even care? you probably arnt invited to the gay wedding anyway. i would think the church would jump at the chance to make another dollar, even if it was a gay dollar.

Especially considering churches are always screaming for more and more money.

Besides, homosexuals aren't capable of polluting the gene pool like incestuous couples...

[capitlj]

You might not have said it but thats exactly the kind of thing Thrash was talking about. If you didn't catch that we're not having the same conversation. I'm not saying something so extreme as no Gays signs outside my stores, deep south 60's style, but there are individual rights that cannot be given to a group without taking them away from other individuals. You can substitute other groups and the results will be the same, its just that the Gay rights one is relevant now.

[PSiedTSi]

Right, and the ones that feel they are "entitled" are NOT the majority of them, but so goes it with almost everything.

[Kossick]

thrash;310706 wrote:
Correct.

I'll make it realy easy.

Explain why gay marraige should be legal.

Now explain why a marraige between brother and sister should be illegal.

I got to here and decided to stop reading cause thats more than I wanna read. But to answer, 2 guys or 2 girls having sex doesnt ruin anyones lives, where as incest CAN lead to genetic defects which IS ruining someones life. Plain and simple, just because you are against being gay doesnt mean they shouldnt have rights like any other human being. Think about it, you sound just like every other stupid ass redneck from the south in the 1800's, instead of black people you are replacing it with gay people. They are a little different than you so you dont think its right, grow the fuck up, its 2010. Should gay people use different bathrooms or drinking fountains than straight people too??:icon_scratch:

[Kossick]

And PS Mitch, so far, your posts are dead on. Couldn't agree with you more

[bubba]

ok, what about gay incest? do they like cancel each other out?

[PSiedTSi]

bubba;310790 wrote:
ok, what about gay incest? do they like cancel each other out?

Wrench.

[DaveH]

Just like the majority of churches aren't always screaming for more and more money?

touche

PSiedTSi;310764 wrote:
Right, and the ones that feel they are "entitled" are NOT the majority of them, but so goes it with almost everything.

[thrash]

Kossick;310767 wrote:
But to answer, 2 guys or 2 girls having sex doesnt ruin anyones lives

That's debatable

where as incest CAN lead to genetic defects which IS ruining someones life.

But it's not illegal for people who are carriers for known genetic defects to get married.

And there are plenty of people who want to get married and don't want to have kids.

You have failed to explain why gay people have "the right" to get married and why relatives do not.

You also don't address why polygamy or polyamory is illegal.

Rights are not conditional things; they are intrinsic.

There is no intrinsic right to be married; legally, a marraige license is just that -- a license granted by the state. The state will not grant blind people a drivers license, and the state will not grant me a medical license.

Plain and simple, just because you are against being gay

I said that a biblical standard of morality asserts that practicing homosexuality is sinful.

doesnt mean they shouldnt have rights like any other human being.

I couldn't agree more.

Of course, there is no such thing as "a right to be married", after all, the state decides who can and cannot get married, and as near as I can tell, this decision is based on nothing more than "what most people want". It isn't based on any notion of an individual right, and it isn't extended to all people.

The notion of who can get married has no real rhyme or reason behind it, legally. It's not even clear why it is a legal issue.

Think about it, you sound just like every other stupid ass redneck from the south in the 1800's, instead of black people you are replacing it with gay people.

Neither you nor I was alive in the 1800s, but I'll go out on a limb and wager that I'm considerably better read than you are on subjets of US history.

Historically in America, Black people weren't considered humans -- not in the way that whites were. Neither were the native Americans.

And not just by "stupid redneck racists", but by the founders of this country, and by presidents up to and including Lincoln. Lincoln supported freeing the slaves but didn't support giving them voting rights or similar priviledges, since, in his words, they didn't "have the intellectual capacity of whites".

Lincoln, the great emancipator, who you probably were taught started the civil war to end slavery. Nothing could be further from the truth. You can think of Lincoln's position on slavery as something akin to stopping Animal Cruelty. They weren't equal humans, but they did deserve to be treated better.

Did you know that blacks got counted as "3/5ths" of a human for census and voting-district reasons?

I mean, our constitution plainly says that all humans have certain natural rights, and the problem of slavery was alive and kicking during ratification. The "compromise" is that american indians and blacks were considered sub-human savages, and thus outside the normal protections of our law.

Again - all of this abhorrent thinking is by all of the most educated people who ended up founding the USA. Not toothless rednecks in the 1800s.

They are a little different than you so you dont think its right,

You don't know that I'm not gay.

Should gay people use different bathrooms or drinking fountains than straight people too??:icon_scratch:

Well, if it's my store, home, or church, and I am a bigot, then yes.

If it's a government owned place, and there is no credible evidence to suggest that "gay people" are contagious with something, then of course not.

My positions on this are considerably more complex and nuanced than you care to understand; I apologize i cannot explain it succintly enough for you to get my meaning without getting bored of reading.

You, however, do not seem interested in understanding, and you have some sort of gay persecution complex I guess.

Gay people don't need to be defended from me. On the contrary, it is my right to tell my kids what the bible says about homosexuality that is under attack; it is my right to run a business according to my wishes that is under attack [well, that ship sailed in 1964 with CRA, but it's about to get bigger].

I actually don't care what licenses the states want to grant to which people. I care about which of my freedoms the states will take away in order to do so.

But this post really isnt' about gay rights; it's about the lack of rights for people who want to be incestuous, polygamous, or polyamorous.

But it isn't really even about that. I bring up the gay issue because I want to point out the blatant hypocrisy people have in their ideology. Some people want gay marraige to be legal just because they want it. Then they dress it up in fancy langauge like "equal rights", but they don't beleive in equal rights at all. Not even a shred.

So eager to deny the right to marry someone you love to two people who are related, or 3 people who all love each other, but so eager to grant it to two people of the same gender?

Who's to say which relationship is more unnatural? Or more damaging? And why is lifestyle popularity any basis for law?

[thrash]

bubba;310790 wrote:
ok, what about gay incest? do they like cancel each other out?

TOUCHDOWN!

This is the kind of dilemma you have when your ideology isn't based on the rights of an individual to be a free person, but based on stack-ranking different groups based on political popularity.

Gay people are politically popular, so people are fighing for them to get priviledges that aren't extended to polygamists or dudes that want to nail sheep.

Polygamy is illegal everywhere, and so is man-beast intercourse. You dont' see shirtless dudes wearing overalls having parades with their dicks stuck in poulty or lambs, so they don't have a bunch of states fighting over their rights, I guess.

[PSiedTSi]

thrash;310805 wrote:
TOUCHDOWN!

This is the kind of dilemma you have when your ideology isn't based on the rights of an individual to be a free person, but based on stack-ranking different groups based on political popularity.

Gay people are politically popular, so people are fighing for them to get priviledges that aren't extended to polygamists or dudes that want to nail sheep.

Polygamy is illegal everywhere, and so is man-beast intercourse. You dont' see shirtless dudes wearing overalls having parades with their dicks stuck in poulty or lambs, so they don't have a bunch of states fighting over their rights, I guess.

Don't worry bro, you will get iced, bro.

[Kossick]

thrash;310804 wrote:
That's debatable

But it's not illegal for people who are carriers for known genetic defects to get married.

And there are plenty of people who want to get married and don't want to have kids.

You have failed to explain why gay people have "the right" to get married and why relatives do not.

You also don't address why polygamy or polyamory is illegal.

Rights are not conditional things; they are intrinsic.

There is no intrinsic right to be married; legally, a marraige license is just that -- a license granted by the state. The state will not grant blind people a drivers license, and the state will not grant me a medical license.

I said that a biblical standard of morality asserts that practicing homosexuality is sinful.

I couldn't agree more.

Of course, there is no such thing as "a right to be married", after all, the state decides who can and cannot get married, and as near as I can tell, this decision is based on nothing more than "what most people want". It isn't based on any notion of an individual right, and it isn't extended to all people.

The notion of who can get married has no real rhyme or reason behind it, legally. It's not even clear why it is a legal issue.

Neither you nor I was alive in the 1800s, but I'll go out on a limb and wager that I'm considerably better read than you are on subjets of US history.

Historically in America, Black people weren't considered humans -- not in the way that whites were. Neither were the native Americans.

And not just by "stupid redneck racists", but by the founders of this country, and by presidents up to and including Lincoln. Lincoln supported freeing the slaves but didn't support giving them voting rights or similar priviledges, since, in his words, they didn't "have the intellectual capacity of whites".

Lincoln, the great emancipator, who you probably were taught started the civil war to end slavery. Nothing could be further from the truth. You can think of Lincoln's position on slavery as something akin to stopping Animal Cruelty. They weren't equal humans, but they did deserve to be treated better.

Did you know that blacks got counted as "3/5ths" of a human for census and voting-district reasons?

I mean, our constitution plainly says that all humans have certain natural rights, and the problem of slavery was alive and kicking during ratification. The "compromise" is that american indians and blacks were considered sub-human savages, and thus outside the normal protections of our law.

Again - all of this abhorrent thinking is by all of the most educated people who ended up founding the USA. Not toothless rednecks in the 1800s.

You don't know that I'm not gay.

Well, if it's my store, home, or church, and I am a bigot, then yes.

If it's a government owned place, and there is no credible evidence to suggest that "gay people" are contagious with something, then of course not.

My positions on this are considerably more complex and nuanced than you care to understand; I apologize i cannot explain it succintly enough for you to get my meaning without getting bored of reading.

You, however, do not seem interested in understanding, and you have some sort of gay persecution complex I guess.

Gay people don't need to be defended from me. On the contrary, it is my right to tell my kids what the bible says about homosexuality that is under attack; it is my right to run a business according to my wishes that is under attack [well, that ship sailed in 1964 with CRA, but it's about to get bigger].

I actually don't care what licenses the states want to grant to which people. I care about which of my freedoms the states will take away in order to do so.

But this post really isnt' about gay rights; it's about the lack of rights for people who want to be incestuous, polygamous, or polyamorous.

But it isn't really even about that. I bring up the gay issue because I want to point out the blatant hypocrisy people have in their ideology. Some people want gay marraige to be legal just because they want it. Then they dress it up in fancy langauge like "equal rights", but they don't beleive in equal rights at all. Not even a shred.

So eager to deny the right to marry someone you love to two people who are related, or 3 people who all love each other, but so eager to grant it to two people of the same gender?

Who's to say which relationship is more unnatural? Or more damaging? And why is lifestyle popularity any basis for law?

Do you think just because you type more for your answers it makes you right?
So basically, you're saying that because we fight for gay rights when some people think being gay is immoral, we should fight for rights of people who are incestous or into beastiality??
And stop citing the bible as any kind of source, for all we know the bible was written by some guy who just came up with a story line before movies became popular. NO scientific proof anywhere in that book.

[24valvenotak]

thrash;310804 wrote:
Who's to say which relationship is more unnatural? Or more damaging? And why is lifestyle popularity any basis for law?

i have the be all end all answer for that question...

Y_O_U_R_G_O_D capitol period

[Kossick]

thrash;310804 wrote:
That's debatable

But it's not illegal for people who are carriers for known genetic defects to get married.

And there are plenty of people who want to get married and don't want to have kids.

You have failed to explain why gay people have "the right" to get married and why relatives do not.

You also don't address why polygamy or polyamory is illegal.

Rights are not conditional things; they are intrinsic.

There is no intrinsic right to be married; legally, a marraige license is just that -- a license granted by the state. The state will not grant blind people a drivers license, and the state will not grant me a medical license.

I said that a biblical standard of morality asserts that practicing homosexuality is sinful.

I couldn't agree more.

Of course, there is no such thing as "a right to be married", after all, the state decides who can and cannot get married, and as near as I can tell, this decision is based on nothing more than "what most people want". It isn't based on any notion of an individual right, and it isn't extended to all people.

The notion of who can get married has no real rhyme or reason behind it, legally. It's not even clear why it is a legal issue.

Neither you nor I was alive in the 1800s, but I'll go out on a limb and wager that I'm considerably better read than you are on subjets of US history.

Historically in America, Black people weren't considered humans -- not in the way that whites were. Neither were the native Americans.

And not just by "stupid redneck racists", but by the founders of this country, and by presidents up to and including Lincoln. Lincoln supported freeing the slaves but didn't support giving them voting rights or similar priviledges, since, in his words, they didn't "have the intellectual capacity of whites".

Lincoln, the great emancipator, who you probably were taught started the civil war to end slavery. Nothing could be further from the truth. You can think of Lincoln's position on slavery as something akin to stopping Animal Cruelty. They weren't equal humans, but they did deserve to be treated better.

Did you know that blacks got counted as "3/5ths" of a human for census and voting-district reasons?

I mean, our constitution plainly says that all humans have certain natural rights, and the problem of slavery was alive and kicking during ratification. The "compromise" is that american indians and blacks were considered sub-human savages, and thus outside the normal protections of our law.

Again - all of this abhorrent thinking is by all of the most educated people who ended up founding the USA. Not toothless rednecks in the 1800s.

You don't know that I'm not gay.

Well, if it's my store, home, or church, and I am a bigot, then yes.

If it's a government owned place, and there is no credible evidence to suggest that "gay people" are contagious with something, then of course not.

My positions on this are considerably more complex and nuanced than you care to understand; I apologize i cannot explain it succintly enough for you to get my meaning without getting bored of reading.

You, however, do not seem interested in understanding, and you have some sort of gay persecution complex I guess.

Gay people don't need to be defended from me. On the contrary, it is my right to tell my kids what the bible says about homosexuality that is under attack; it is my right to run a business according to my wishes that is under attack [well, that ship sailed in 1964 with CRA, but it's about to get bigger].

I actually don't care what licenses the states want to grant to which people. I care about which of my freedoms the states will take away in order to do so.

But this post really isnt' about gay rights; it's about the lack of rights for people who want to be incestuous, polygamous, or polyamorous.

But it isn't really even about that. I bring up the gay issue because I want to point out the blatant hypocrisy people have in their ideology. Some people want gay marraige to be legal just because they want it. Then they dress it up in fancy langauge like "equal rights", but they don't beleive in equal rights at all. Not even a shred.

So eager to deny the right to marry someone you love to two people who are related, or 3 people who all love each other, but so eager to grant it to two people of the same gender?

Who's to say which relationship is more unnatural? Or more damaging? And why is lifestyle popularity any basis for law?
By the way, I never said I was against Polygamy, you keep just throwing new things out there. The reason I'm against incest relations is what if the child thats born is special needs?? Now thats not the kids fault and they might possibley be getting money from the state to help take care of that kid THEY created. As for beastiality, we have no way of knowing if the animal is consenting or not, so its more like animal rape
24valvenotak;310814 wrote:
i have the be all end all answer for that question...

Y_O_U_R_G_O_D capitol period

:icon_cheers: