General Smuts Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 As with many things, the promotional videos are somewhat misleading. I once saw 2 female LCFC ladies fingerbang each other at a party years ago. Neither above a 6. Still makes an appearance in the spank bank from time to time.
Daggers Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 As with many things, the promotional videos are somewhat misleading.
Saxondale Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 Catholics urged to oppose gay divorce from the Daily Mash BRITAIN'S Catholics have been urged to defend the institution of marriage by campaigning against gay divorce. Scientists have confirmed that divorce is the one thing that really does undermine marriage, paving the way for Catholics and other traditional Christians to oppose it in all its gay forms. Monsignor Bill McKay said: "The idea of gay divorce is utterly grotesque. Those men whom God has joined together let no other man put asunder. "The commitment at the heart of marriage is one of the essential building blocks of a healthy society. A minority of extremists must not be allowed to destroy that in the divorce courts." The move comes after researchers used state-of-the-art techniques to measure the undermine-ability of traditional marriage. Professor Henry Brubaker, of the Institute for Studies, said: "We attached electric pads to a man and wife, organised weddings for a wide range of different things and then switched on the undermine-ometer. "We married a pig and a parrot, a cabbage and a shoe and a bag of frozen prawns and a crocodile made from Lego. "None of these weddings had any affect whatsoever on the length and depth of the man and woman's matrimonial waves. "Then again the cabbage and the shoe are not currently having anal intercourse. "Maybe we should balance the shoe on top of the cabbage, take a series of photos and then animate it so it looks like they are having rough, crazy sex, and then show this pornographic cartoon to the man and wife - in 3D - and see if that undermines their marriage. "That's my afternoon sorted."
Daggers Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 These peppers are engaging in buttsex and I think we can all see how ridiculous it would be for the red and the green pepper to get married...therefore the Catholics and all the rest of the bigots must have been correct all along. Damn.
FuriousFox46 Posted 5 March 2012 Author Posted 5 March 2012 I am yet to see any concrete argument against same-sex marriage though...
Gold Coast Fox Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 I am yet to see any concrete argument against same-sex marriage though... Because there isn't one.
Captain... Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 I am yet to see any concrete argument against same-sex marriage though... Can I ask what difference it makes, homosexuals are permitted to get married in the eyes of the law with a civil partnership, the main difference as far as I can see is that civil partnerships cannot be recognised by a religion, whereas a marriage can, but doesn't have to be, there is also a few technical differences like whether it is verified by the exchanging of rings and or signing a piece of paper. I understand the equality argument, although both are considered equal in the eyes of the law, but then straight couples can't have a civil partnership, so it is not a case of inequality just different.
FuriousFox46 Posted 5 March 2012 Author Posted 5 March 2012 Can I ask what difference it makes, homosexuals are permitted to get married in the eyes of the law with a civil partnership, the main difference as far as I can see is that civil partnerships cannot be recognised by a religion, whereas a marriage can, but doesn't have to be, there is also a few technical differences like whether it is verified by the exchanging of rings and or signing a piece of paper. I understand the equality argument, although both are considered legal in the eyes of the law, but then straight couples can't have a civil partnership, so it is not a case of equaltiy just a bit different. No, that's not equality then. The suggestion is that same-sex couples would tarnish the word 'marriage' which is a pretty revolting thing to believe. Isn't it a lot like saying "You can get on the bus, but you have to sit at the back."
I am Rod Hull Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 I am yet to see any concrete argument against same-sex marriage though... I`v yet to see any reason for it other than photos and a party...
FuriousFox46 Posted 5 March 2012 Author Posted 5 March 2012 I`v yet to see any reason for it other than photos and a party... If that's how you view it then you have no reason to object
Captain... Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 No, that's not equality then. The suggestion is that same-sex couples would tarnish the word 'marriage' which is a pretty revolting thing to believe. Isn't it a lot like saying "You can get on the bus, but you have to sit at the back." It isn't, it is like saying you have your own bus that is just as good as the other bus and exactly the same in spec, but with less religious people. To be honest I have not read that it would tarnish the word marriage, just that by definition marriage is between a man and a woman. In the same way civil unions are between lovers of the same sex, and can receive religious blessings in Scotland and I'm sure that will come in to being in England soon enough. It is only when this came up I realised there was a difference between the 2, and for all intents and purposes they are the same thing by a different name.
Gold Coast Fox Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 It isn't, it is like saying you have your own bus that is just as good as the other bus and exactly the same in spec, but with less religious people. To be honest I have not read that it would tarnish the word marriage, just that by definition marriage is between a man and a woman. In the same way civil unions are between lovers of the same sex, and can receive religious blessings in Scotland and I'm sure that will come in to being in England soon enough. It is only when this came up I realised there was a difference between the 2, and for all intents and purposes they are the same thing by a different name. I'v found you to be very persuasive and correct in everything you say throughout this forum. You're talent is actually wasted here, i really think you should be in politics
FuriousFox46 Posted 5 March 2012 Author Posted 5 March 2012 It isn't, it is like saying you have your own bus that is just as good as the other bus and exactly the same in spec, but with less religious people. To be honest I have not read that it would tarnish the word marriage, just that by definition marriage is between a man and a woman. In the same way civil unions are between lovers of the same sex, and can receive religious blessings in Scotland and I'm sure that will come in to being in England soon enough. It is only when this came up I realised there was a difference between the 2, and for all intents and purposes they are the same thing by a different name. But the fact someone deems a different name necessary is offensive. Watch this;
Daggers Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 But the fact someone deems a different name necessary is offensive. Watch this; That is fvcking brilliant! You have to wonder if Christians have ever read the bible.
Captain... Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 But the fact someone deems a different name necessary is offensive. Watch this; That is marriage and you want to be associated with it? You want to follow in those footsteps? Raping, condiment fvcking, incestuous unions? You have just blown your own argument out the water, stick to your civil partnerships so much more respectable. Like I said in my eyes all people are equal, there are a few minor inequalities between the 2 which I think should be addressed and are rooted in tradition and archaic beliefs rather than actual sexual discrimination, but in reality they mean the same thing.
Daggers Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 Anonymous attacked US churches last weekend, declaring war upon 'stupid'. Greetings fellow piratesLet's be clear from the beginning, any kind of religion is a disease of this world. A disease that creates hatred and intolerance, a disease that leads people to make war with his fellows, a disease that has come into this world long ago, when humanity was not educated, a disease that led to a false hope and repression of those who believed and often has spread terror and repression against those who dared to believe. Religions are authoritarian hierarchies designed to dominate your free will.Religions are control structures. They want to convince him to surrender his power to benefit those who like to dominate the population. When you subscribe to a religion, is part of a training program mindless servants. Religions are not marketed as such, but this is essentially how they operate. If you ever have wondered why religious teachings are always mysterious, confusing and inconsistent ... This is no accident - it is intentional. We see religion in much the same way as we see many governments. Alarmist and doing a lot of money, so that a small group of people will be incredibly rich, while the masses of believers can eat dirt ... So all you people of the world, do not let religion control your life. Do not fight against each other. Our life can be a wonderful adventure where you have the unique opportunity to help humanity and their fellow citizens. Where can we work together to make this world a better place for ourselves, for our children and for all those generations who come after us ... They replaced church website homepages with the brilliant Dawkins video below. I only post this because the only argument being offered in this thread other than simple bigotry is a religious one - and one should always make an effort to point out the hatred and intolerance of religion. If you have never seen this is it well worth taking the time as it is one of his finest speeches.
FuriousFox46 Posted 5 March 2012 Author Posted 5 March 2012 That is marriage and you want to be associated with it? You want to follow in those footsteps? Raping, condiment fvcking, incestuous unions? You have just blown your own argument out the water, stick to your civil partnerships so much more respectable. Like I said in my eyes all people are equal, there are a few minor inequalities between the 2 which I think should be addressed and are rooted in tradition and archaic beliefs rather than actual sexual discrimination, but in reality they mean the same thing. No, I don't want to get married. But I deserve the equal right to marriage, seeing as I'm no better nor any worse than anyone us. A Civil partnership is a mockery. If we compromise on that, gay rights would be pushed further back. It's grossly offensive. If they're going to give gays equal unions, why not just call it marriage. That is equality.
Captain... Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 No, I don't want to get married. But I deserve the equal right to marriage, seeing as I'm no better nor any worse than anyone us. A Civil partnership is a mockery. If we compromise on that, gay rights would be pushed further back. It's grossly offensive. If they're going to give gays equal unions, why not just call it marriage. That is equality. I am playing devil's advocate here, but what difference does a name make, does a rose by any other name not smell just as sweet. Anyway I fully support same sex marriage, but only if I can have a civil union, I don't want to be associated with all that condiment ****ing.
Houdini Logic Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 it is like saying you have your own bus that is just as good as the other bus and exactly the same in spec, but with less religious people. Yes, but unfortunately I'm sat on the 'big wheely thing' because I'm not allowed to call my vehicle a bus
Guest Bilo Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 Richard Dawkins is a genius. Smug as hell, but genuinely funny and beyond smart.
Captain... Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 I'v found you to be very persuasive and correct in everything you say throughout this forum. You're talent is actually wasted here, i really think you should be in politics Thanks, I'm not corrupt enough for politics, anyway it's much easier sitting behind a keyboard and checking what you are about to say on google before you post it, and then be able to go back and edit it when you say something stupid. I don't think I would be quite as persuasive in real life.
Zingari Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 I want to be called Loretta and I demand the right to have babies !!
Gold Coast Fox Posted 5 March 2012 Posted 5 March 2012 Thanks, I'm not corrupt enough for politics, anyway it's much easier sitting behind a keyboard and checking what you are about to say on google before you post it, and then be able to go back and edit it when you say something stupid. I don't think I would be quite as persuasive in real life. Ah, a true keyboard warrior
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.