|
|
Post by Personnel Representative on Aug 25, 2011 21:36:05 GMT -5
Vancouver said a lot fo stuff in the c-box and its getting burried, so I will give him a chance to re-post his hate here. A few quick rebuttals though, that stood out from his comments:
1. Canucks: "what that "meaning less" quote was saying is Male bodies are not made so that a man can be with a Man."
- NOT true at all. The location of the prostate (and a man's ability to orgasm from prostate stimulation) makes man-on-man anal sex VERY appealing and feasible. If "God" didn;t want men to have gay anal sex, he would have pput ANYTHING between the prostate and the anus to filter the stimulation one feels from anal sex. If anything, you should argue women are not designed for gay sex. But you would lose that argument too, as the clit is pretty external and accessible for female-female sex. Also, you have ancient, unsociologically accepted definitions of "sex".
2. Canucks: "point i was trying to make is if we are going to allow gay marriage what are we going to allow next."
How is this a "slippery slope"? Marriage between two consenting adults does NOT lead to marriage between non-consenting non-adults (or non-humans). All of these terms are CLEARLY defined legally, so its not like suddenly men will marry goats (sorry Wings), and children will be married off at 3 and shit like that. It's a VERY simplistic view of life and the world around you. "If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married."
|
|
|
|
Post by Personnel Representative on Aug 25, 2011 21:38:22 GMT -5
If anyone wants to participate here, keep it a bit civil. I didn;t read all the c-box, but I gather people started calling Canucks a lot of unnecessary names. It's not Canucks you are disagreeing with, its his opinions. Keep that level of distance, in mind, as no one here really knows Canucks, all we know is his opinion on this subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carolina Hurricanes on Aug 25, 2011 21:42:56 GMT -5
I thought this one was good, "what's next criminals are to get ice cream cones for commiting crime in the summer time because they also have rights ?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Personnel Representative on Aug 25, 2011 22:00:27 GMT -5
I thought this one was good, "what's next criminals are to get ice cream cones for commiting crime in the summer time because they also have rights ?" That was one of the better points in the debate. I don;t have a good rebuttal for that one... I guess I can offer the following. a) Marriage is not a reward for any sort of behaviour. It's a right. The right to NOT be discriminated against. and b) Criminals get limited rights because they are criminals. Gay people have committed no crime simply by wanting to marry. Sorry gay-fans; that's the best I can do with this one.  |
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Maple Leafs on Aug 25, 2011 22:59:47 GMT -5
I had a ton of points in the cbox, but fell in love with Flames along the way and forgot what I was arguing about.
I know this is not the right channel to come out and say it, but I feel our shot-to-shot history is a clear example of true hockey-sim-man-love.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Aug 25, 2011 23:06:20 GMT -5
there is no need to continue, this issuie is resolved. PR right now it seems leafs has a higher maturity level than you. I guess you "missed it" thats why you are still bringing this up. Canes I like how your hiding behind PR in this. This is the only time where you can throw insults at me without me rebounding
i'm not gonna respond to anything after this last post. Go find something else to do.
Canucks: of things I could have said in return but I'll act mature and not dig deeper holes
25 Aug 11, 20:20
Canucks: I didn't take yours in a bad way because I understand where you are comming from and because I have respect for you. Bruins your lucky my parents taught me well as a child lol there is a bunch
Leafs: comes down to, is a series of opinions) and if you end up changing your mind on things in the future, cool, if not, that's fine as well, I respect your right to belief.
25 Aug 11, 19:50
Leafs: I apologize if it came across as attacking dude. I firmly believed in religion until I was about 20, since then pretty much year to year I've studied more, read more opinions (as that is what religion
25 Aug 11, 19:17
Canucks: That is the reason I din't want to get into a debate , I am 17 and not ready for it even though I think I am I might be ready in a year. I don't know if i'll still in the sim community then.
25 Aug 11, 19:01
Canucks: don't even know me,and you call me ignorant. If I wasn't polite I would have sent a couple f bombs your way.
25 Aug 11, 19:00
Canucks: Bruins why are you acting like I'm a hardcore gay hater I'll make it clear.I don't mind the persons but I don't find what they do right. People like me? honestly you have the balls to say that when you
|
|
|
|
Post by Personnel Representative on Aug 25, 2011 23:28:20 GMT -5
Cool, when conceding defeat you don't need to "post anything else". That's fine. But I run a forum of discussion, debate, and openness. When someone holds an opinion greatly different from my own, i like hearing them flesh that opinion out. Since Canucks seems to fear fleshing his opinions out beyond a few one-liners from 3rd grade Bible camp, I also don;t see a point in trying to carry on a civilized, mature discussion here.
The point of this thread was to allow you to flesh out some ideas, as I assumed you had thought about your thoughts more than what you said in the c-box, as they were pretty shallow and ill-conceived. As an open-minded individual of thought and healthy debate, I opened a public forum here to discuss everything. To be honest though, Canucks, I am disappointed. When you said "Remember our VIP edition debate? I was 15 and stupid i'll be ready this time" I actually took you seriously. I have seen no sign of you a) being ready, or b) evolving your opinions or rounding them out with more mature, developed arguments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carolina Hurricanes on Aug 26, 2011 11:53:34 GMT -5
I don't understand how you can say something so bad towards gay people then you say right after that I'm not ready for it making your self seem even stupider.
I don't see how you don't see what you said is some of the shallowest stuff towards gay people.
|
|
|
|
Post by XX - Former Wings - XX on Aug 26, 2011 18:15:46 GMT -5
Gay marriage is GAY!!!!!!!!!!!!
/thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by New York Islanders on Aug 26, 2011 19:29:05 GMT -5
Gay marriage is GAY!!!!!!!!!!!! /thread. Ban. |
|
|
|
Post by Personnel Representative on Aug 26, 2011 22:40:49 GMT -5
Technically the people IN the marriage are gay. You can say gay marriage is for homosexuals if you want. That's also correct. Most people (not you Wings) can probably get away with saying "gay marriage is for queers" too, as queer as been adopted by the gay community as well. Though I think the theory there is similar to blacks adopting "nigga". Either way, careful Wings. You have too many strikes to be walking lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dallas Stars on Aug 28, 2011 3:14:14 GMT -5
Fake and gay
|
|
|
|
Post by Personnel Representative on Aug 28, 2011 3:37:30 GMT -5
what are we talking about here? Cause now YOU'RE bordering on a third strike.... |
|
|
|
Post by Anaheim Ducks on Aug 28, 2011 9:06:01 GMT -5
what are we talking about here? Cause now YOU'RE bordering on a third strike.... DO IT. |
|
