Skip to content
The Browns Board
  1. Home
  2. Political Discussion
  3. ATTN: Cal

ATTN: Cal

Political Discussion
85 6 7.3k

  • Kinda of quickie here so forgive me. The wife spread eagle argument wasn't necessarily applying to arranged marriages, merely I am saying that if the partner is not willing then it is wrong no matter who says otherwise. The 'it takes two to tango' scenario, if one is not tangoing and is in fact pleading for the band to stop I do not believe the dance to be immoral (admit it that is kind of a funny analogy).

    On adultery/polygamy argument I must have missed the boat the first time so let me take another angle that concerns both. In a world of 6 billion people the concerns over this argument are definitely diminished, so image that there are only 428 people left on earth (I pulled that number from a memory of 2012 when they were talking about how much different DNA was needed to repopulate the human race. So we pair off those 428 for the purpose of re-population. Take either scenario, a man wooing/domineering/conning 10 women to become his wives and only have relations with him. Or the man who has his mate, decides it's not enough and finds 9 more willing to have fun on the side. In both cases imagine that all 10 women have his children. In the polygamy situation at least it is known and plans can be changed to accommodate. Now, in the adulteress case, the 9 other children were born without the knowledge of the rest. This could easily result in incest situation where the gene pool is dumbed down possibly ending any chance of re-population. Which by the way, has been a problem in the animal community where a 'stud' has nailed too many partners. I know for a fact the certain breed lineage in dogs has been all but ruined due to inbreeding.

  • Interesting point, but are you suggesting an absolute moral framework based solely on furthering mankind's progress toward... something? An enlightened era perhaps? But what is this end that you're aiming for? When you defined examples for absolute moral wrongs, you said that none of it was natural or beneficial to humankind. What defines something as beneficial to humankind?

  • Indeed I do believe that moral frameworks are essentially designed to maximize human life. Now I cannot pretend to know what the ends are to these means as I am not God/ nor am I enlightened enough to catch anything more than the occasional fleeting glimpse of how this end may look. This is why at the beginning I said that you and I were having more of a religious argument rather than a political one. And don't forget that I am not going on the religious definition/preconception of God. I have explained in detail before that I try to set my prism through the philosophical definition of God.

  • Okay, so let's take it down a level. Here, the term "absolute" no longer means absolute. We're talking absolute in... political terms I guess. Let me try to define what I mean. An absolute wrong, in this sense would be something such as rape. If someone running for office commits rape, it's career suicide. It's something that no one on any point of the political spectrum should be okay with. So maybe, something, that most everyone would agree unanimously on could be considered an absolute moral truth.

    Aside from rape, what else is there? Pedophilia, perhaps, but if both parties are willing and the younger person is at least pubescent, I'd argue that some would find it okay. You mentioned sexual acts of perversion that added nothing to the human agenda as being absolute moral wrongs. Well where does the line get drawn at what sex acts are absolutely morally wrong? Paying for sex is one. Adultery would be another (thanks Wild Bill). What about oral sex? Premarital sex? Anal sex? Gay sex?

    I think that we'll find, even now, that the term "absolute" is not static. I would bet if some politicians admitted they were gay, they'd lose their positions and support pretty quickly. I bet that will not be true in 20 years. But hey, if Barney Frank is openly gay, and a member of Congress, I guess that eliminates gay sex (that is, putting a penis in another man's ass) from the list of absolute moral wrongs.

  • Okay, let's see, if you want to claim that you aren't comparing me to Hitler and Stalin, don't use them as explicit examples of what will happen if people think the way I think. Get it? Vapor]

    ****************************************

    el wrongo, bongo.

    I never said "what WILL happen", I said what CAN happen, and historically HAS happened. It has nothing to do with

    saying you would so and so, or comparing you etc.

    Like I said, don't play the liberal victim game. It isn't about you personally, Vapor. I'm explaining how I see things, and how you

    sometimes, and liberals, a lot of the time, see them.

    And, your comment on the Bible? Your example is cherry picked from the OLD TESTAMENT. The NEW TESTAMENT

    supercedes the old.

    Or, we would still have to do works out the wazoo and be perfect to be saved, and we are unable to do that, since we

    are imperfect.

    That is the point of Jesus' death on the cross.

    The Bible is hardly the end all for my moral values. ie, the Bible, imho, never says anything anywhere about

    interracial marriage. But I know that interracial marriage is perfectly fine by me, and i see no reason to think otherwise.

    Others, conservatives and libs perhaps, think that the possible social ostricization is a reason for being against that,

    but so would be being a Browns fan in Pittsburg be a problem with that. GGG

    My life's experiences over eh... some...decades more than you.. ahem.... give me more reason to believe what I believe,

    that you, in that dept. Doesn't mean I'm right, just means my life's experiences are many, as a lot of older folks do, not that I'm

    that much of an older folk but ... eh

    you know what I mean.

    There are some libs screaming in the past on this board about the 2nd ammendment does not mean private citizens can bear arms.

    blah blah blah.

    then the Supreme Court ruled in exactly what we told them. They disappeared.

    I understand subjective judgement, and I understand core principles of our freedom's existence.

    Those principles are not subjective.

    The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ... is that really open to interpretation when you consider the life

    of the unborn? Or just born?

    We agree to disagree. But doesn't help to say I compared you, said what you will do etc. That is incorrect, for whatever reasons

    prompt you to staunchly emphasize what isn't even the legit statements I've made at the time.

    But thanks for the words about my shoulder. It'll be about 3-4 months before I can start using my own left arm again.

    crap.

  • Then why do you have such a problem with homosexuality? Jesus said NOTHING about queers being wrong. The NT says women should keep quiet and be pregnant. Do you believe that, too? Everyone cherry picks from the Bible. The difference is, you hold its contents to be absolute truths, I don't.

    There are many atheists that have lived as long as you or longer and kept their religious convictions.

  • Oh, I'm sure. But none of them would have my experiences in life. And, they are obviously linear thinkers,

    with a restricted development in their childhood development.... @@

    anyways... ggg

    God created Adam. Then, seeing that Adam was lonely and incomplete in his life....

    he created Eve.

    Man...Woman.

    Now, you show me where God created Adam, then created another Adam to be his eh....

    better half... and I'll admit I'm wrong.

    "Adam and Eve, sitting in a tree, making wrongie of you, and rightee of me." 😉

  • Adam and Eve is a fairy tale.

  • But however we were created, we became more than one or two, via two different

    sexes mating.

    It's the natural order of things. It's biology. It's in the Bible. There would be no mammals if not for

    MALE and FEMALE... well, except for a very few species like kangaroos, etc.

    But, with humans, it is MALE-FEMALE.

    To pervert the natural order of humanity's lives... is to say that the human

    species continues via same sex births. That is biologically impossible.

    so, if something is un-natural, un-scriptural, not historical in terms of our existence method,

    An UNbiological abberation hardly deserves "normal" status, no matter how you shape the cookie.

    It's still a cookie.

  • The difference between humans and most other animals is that we don't do things purely for the proliferation of our species. Humans and dolphins and there's one other species (I think) enjoy having sex for pleasure. Is the act of recreational sex unnatural? Why does it matter if it's with the same sex or not?

  • Crack jokes all you like, I don't find gay bashing particularly funny. I have friends whose families have more or less disowned them because of who they're attracted to. I'm an advocate of gay rights. If that makes me some kind of fag, in your eyes, so be it you f'cking prick.

  • And you're an ignoramus. How the f'ck does defending gay lifestyles make me disgusting? You're the one that's being a sickeningly barbaric prick. "Wahhhh, it's different and queer, they're all fags and going to rot in hell anyways." What would Jesus do, you motherf'cker? Answer? Hate fags, apparently.

    Nothing like dehumanizing people based on where they stick their penis, especially when they're two consenting adults. Hope you've never committed sodomy. Your Bible says something about that, last I checked. You do know that a bj counts, right?

  • 1 - What the hell is a benny boy?

    2 - Misery must love company. Must be lonely to have sucked at life as much as you did, and to only be good enough to kill people, you uneducated idiot, no wonder you can't find a job. Of course you don't want me to succeed because you're jealous I'm more intelligent than you.

    I hope I have to treat you someday. Keep hating, troll. Keep hating. You're a vile, homophobic, gay-bashing idiot who's already failed at life. Sorry, but I won't be joining you down there.

  • XD

    Yes, you are older and probably fatter than I am. You're definitely the biggest idiot on this forum, and that includes the Steelers trolls. So there you have it, superior in the big three.

    Also, you're superior at not being very good at finding a job. Haha.

    Of course I haven't actually accomplished anything. Do you have any idea what an undergraduate degree does? No. I'm still working on my bachelor's, buddy. Maybe in 2 years, you'll have a case about my accomplishments, but I doubt it.

    So, in addition to me wanting to be a doctor for most of my life, knowing that I've come pretty close to not cutting it my fresh and soph year, and having a chip on my shoulder because of that. Because if I fail, not only do I let myself down, completely, but I'd also be bankrupting my father and my grandmother because they co-signed my student loans. On top of all that, you've given me another reason to succeed. Just to spite your hateful, ignorant ass. You had better believe that when I get accepted into med school, I'll be making a topic here, just for you.

    Undaunted, I knew the game was mine to win. Just like in life, all my successes depend on me. I am the man that has the ball. I am the one that can throw it faster than xxxx. This is why I'm better than everyone else in the world. Kiss my ass and suck my dick. Everyone.

    You can suck it too, you f'cking closet case. Usually, the most vocally opposed are the ones that suppress it the worst.

  • Gosh, Vapor. I thought you liberals were SO wonderfully OPEN-MINDED ABOUT BEING DISAGREED WITH.

    yeah. Everybody else has to be "open minded", but liberals go ballistic when other folks won't believe

    how liberals want them to believe.

    *****NAILED******

    And, I gave good reasons why I believe what I believe,

    and Vapor says he has friends, emotional ... linear response.

    Liberals really can't help themselves.

    It's sad.

  • Cal, I'm not 'going ballistic' because he disagrees with me. I'm stooping to his level because of the manner he posted; he's calling me disgusting for supporting the gay lifestyle, and then went on to say that he hopes I fail at everything, and that I'll never amount to anything. That's what I'm responding to.

    I just really don't get gay bashing. Why is it that big of a deal if two consenting adults that happen to be the same sex are attracted to each other? Cal, I still don't have an issue with your argument. Well, I guess I do, but the way you're presenting it is fine. Everything in this thread was fine until diehard came in and trolled. Well, guess what, he wants to blatantly troll and call me a disgusting person for supporting gays, I'll make fun of him for being an unmarketable idiot, I don't have a problem stooping down to the lowest common denominator (which in this case, is diehard).

    I can't believe you're actually going to support him for coming into what was a pretty damn good debate (as far as this forum goes), and straight up bashing me. Then when I respond with a rational response, and he calls me "xxxxing disgusting." Then he tells me that he knows I'm going to fail at life, and that he's superior to me. And you don't criticize him at all? Sorry, I'm not going to sit there like a good little lib and take that. And you've got the nerve to say I'm the one out of line? Hell no, he can eat my dick. And if you think I'm any more out of line than he was, then you can step outside of your guys' circle jerk and eat my dick, too.

    And, I gave good reasons why I believe what I believe,

    You did. I'll give you that. I may disagree with them, but in no way was I trying to attack you in any of my responses to diehard.

    and Vapor says he has friends, emotional ... linear response.

    Yes, because there are no emotional issues that you refuse to budge on 🙄 Don't know why you think this affects my ability to have friends, either, I'm in college, lots of people that agree with me are in college. Your point of view on gays would lose you a bunch of respect on most college campuses, even the conservative ones like Dayton. Gay-bashing is equivalent to being a racist, as far as I and many others are concerned.

    Liberals really can't help themselves.

    It's sad.

    And with that jab, neither can you. Would you care to continue the discussion, or should we continue to flame each other?

  • Cal, what the hell, are you kidding me. Sir, don't pretend to be of rational conversation and then piggyback on that.

    ❤

  • /edit

  • piggyback? sorry, I'm only thinking with one arm since I got hurt... GGG

    I don't know what you mean.

    Diehard's rant? I don't get the hostility, but I don't respect the gay lifestyle. I just

    prefer to explain why on an even keel. I'm not bashing gays, I'm explaining

    why I don't believe it's normal, and why I believe it is wrong, and why gay marriage

    is an oxymoron at best, a biological, social and Biblical abomination and travesty at worst.

    I guess bashing Christians is fine. But gays? who gave them super duper special protection ?

    There is no such thing as gay marriage in the eyes of most normal Americans, and the Bible.

    And, the bigoted openly gay "judge" who just ruled against Prop. 8 in California?

    He should have recused himself immediately, and since he didn't, imho, he is dishonest and should

    be disbarred and impeached... I believe the Supreme Court will overrule that one, assuming

    the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could care less to overturn it.

  • Diehard's rant? I don't get the hostility, but I don't respect the gay lifestyle. I just

    prefer to explain why on an even keel. I'm not bashing gays, I'm explaining

    why I don't believe it's normal, and why I believe it is wrong, and why gay marriage

    is an oxymoron at best, a biological, social and Biblical abomination and travesty at worst.

    What do you think people said about interracial marriages. This is exactly the same. And I like how you cherry pick it being a "Biblical abomination." That comes from Leviticus which is the absolute worst book in the Bible, if you ask me. The same one that says throw your enemies' babies against rocks. All sorts of shit that dehumanizes women. Shellfish? They're an abomination, too. Hope you don't like shrimp, crayfish, crabs, lobsters or mussels. You know what else is an abomination? Wearing clothing of more than one material.

    What makes this line about homosexuality any different than any of the above?

    I guess bashing Christians is fine. But gays? who gave them super duper special protection ?

    Yes, bashing Christians is fine. They think that their god is the absolute moral authority, and his word trumps the rights of everyone, including those that don't even believe in him. Who is the victim when two gays have consensual sex or getting married? Give me a legitimate answer, and I'll back off of Christianity. You can't rationalize your bigotry. You disagree with it because it doesn't lead to procreation, destroys the institution of marriage, and because Leviticus says it's an abomination. How many times have you had sex for pleasure and not to procreate? How is gay people marrying any worse for the institution of marriage than people that marry/divorce 8 people throughout their lives? If this is an abomination, why isn't eating shellfish or wearing mixed clothing an abomination? Give me a legitimate answer, and I'll back off the Church and its belief that it has the moral right to tell people who they should and shouldn't love and marry.

    There is no such thing as gay marriage in the eyes of most normal Americans, and the Bible.

    Your definition of normal is much different than mine. To me, normal means not being a closed-minded bigot. The Bible is a 2000 year old piece of trash, anyone that takes anything in that book literally needs to wake up and realize it was written during the bronze age.

Log in to reply