StarGateWars Forums

Universe wrote:

Thriller wrote:

Universe wrote:

Thriller wrote:SO its kinda like fight club.
"You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else."

Whatever comparison shuts you up will suffice, thank you for this creative and constructive addition to the thread.

Thanks, but i wasn't seeking your approval

You were trying to insult me though, and quite successfully, I might add. Congratulations, next one earns your honourable person a warning, buddy.

Know i wasn't and any such action is an abuse of your power, and will tick me right off.

If your going to make such accusations you have to point out exactly what rule i broke.

I do not accept threats.

have a good day.

Thriller wrote:

Universe wrote:

Thriller wrote:

Universe wrote:

Thriller wrote:SO its kinda like fight club.
"You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else."

Whatever comparison shuts you up will suffice, thank you for this creative and constructive addition to the thread.

Thanks, but i wasn't seeking your approval

You were trying to insult me though, and quite successfully, I might add. Congratulations, next one earns your honourable person a warning, buddy.

Know i wasn't and any such action is an abuse of your power, and will tick me right off.

What? Keeping you to the rules is abuse of my power? Buddy, it is my job.
And you can say you weren't trying to insult me, but saying that my intellect is like some crazy movie, and that I am just another decaying thing, sorry.. but that does offend me. You might not be able to think of a better way to phrase it, but this one (and I am quite sure) can only be read as insulting to my person.

Thriller wrote:If your going to make such accusations you have to point out exactly what rule i broke.

There's a cute rule about personal insults not being allowed, but you may have forgotten about that? Look it up if you aren't aware of it. Besides, if I were to warn you, you would receive a nice little message with the exact phrases you used to insult me. Why? Because that is protocol, and the way we do things around here.

Thriller wrote:I do not accept threats.

Oh, trust me, insult me again and you will receive a warning. I do not see a threat there, merely an announcement. Feel threatened if you wish.

I voted no...not out of hate , nor bias...but out of tradition and common sense.

For all of recorded history ''marriage'' has been a term used to define the TRADITION of a man and a woman entering into a lifetime commitment . Yea, I know marriages fail , and people fail , but the meaning of that tradition remains.

Words mean things folks. I do not care how sincere people are , when two people of the same sex decide to commit to each other...that is not the same as the union a man and a woman have. To say otherwise diminishes the meaning of the term and the commitment therein.

It is a slippery slope to redefine traditional definition of historically recognized relationships. Can two girls be brothers ? Can a 30 year old and a 12 year old be twins ? WHY NOT ? because WORDS are societies attempt to define norms.

If two guys can be married...why not a guy and a horse? I know that is an absurd example...but the point should be noted by anyone of reasonable intellect.

I am not gay, and the idea of two people entering into a lifetime bond does not repulse me . But to call it marriage to me is just ...well, goofy.

Call it a union , a life bond or a pickle, hell I do not care. But I do know it is NOT the same as the relationship society and history and tradition has called marriage for 4000 years.

To me it disrespects our traditions and morays to suddenly ''re-define'' the term .

Universe wrote:

Thriller wrote:

Universe wrote:

Thriller wrote:

Universe wrote:

Thriller wrote:SO its kinda like fight club.
"You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else."

Whatever comparison shuts you up will suffice, thank you for this creative and constructive addition to the thread.

Thanks, but i wasn't seeking your approval

You were trying to insult me though, and quite successfully, I might add. Congratulations, next one earns your honourable person a warning, buddy.

Know i wasn't and any such action is an abuse of your power, and will tick me right off.

What? Keeping you to the rules is abuse of my power? Buddy, it is my job.
And you can say you weren't trying to insult me, but saying that my intellect is like some crazy movie, and that I am just another decaying thing, sorry.. but that does offend me. You might not be able to think of a better way to phrase it, but this one (and I am quite sure) can only be read as insulting to my person.

Thriller wrote:If your going to make such accusations you have to point out exactly what rule i broke.

There's a cute rule about personal insults not being allowed, but you may have forgotten about that? Look it up if you aren't aware of it. Besides, if I were to warn you, you would receive a nice little message with the exact phrases you used to insult me. Why? Because that is protocol, and the way we do things around here.

Thriller wrote:I do not accept threats.

Oh, trust me, insult me again and you will receive a warning. I do not see a threat there, merely an announcement. Feel threatened if you wish.

You inferred way to much, It was merely a joke(admittedly at your expense) about the response you gave when i asked about the IQ test. Followed up with a quote i knew from the movie in response to your last comment about being special. Not a personal insult. I don't even know you, how can it be personal? I really like that "crazy" movie and you do come across as an intelligent person, but you also seem to have a little temper. You should get that under control and maybe loosen up once and awhile.

GunZ wrote:I voted no...not out of hate , nor bias...but out of tradition and common sense.

For all of recorded history ''marriage'' has been a term used to define the TRADITION of a man and a woman entering into a lifetime commitment . Yea, I know marriages fail , and people fail , but the meaning of that tradition remains.

Words mean things folks. I do not care how sincere people are , when two people of the same sex decide to commit to each other...that is not the same as the union a man and a woman have. To say otherwise diminishes the meaning of the term and the commitment therein.

It is a slippery slope to redefine traditional definition of historically recognized relationships. Can two girls be brothers ? Can a 30 year old and a 12 year old be twins ? WHY NOT ? because WORDS are societies attempt to define norms.

If two guys can be married...why not a guy and a horse? I know that is an absurd example...but the point should be noted by anyone of reasonable intellect.

I am not gay, and the idea of two people entering into a lifetime bond does not repulse me . But to call it marriage to me is just ...well, goofy.

Call it a union , a life bond or a pickle, hell I do not care. But I do know it is NOT the same as the relationship society and history and tradition has called marriage for 4000 years.

To me it disrespects our traditions and morays to suddenly ''re-define'' the term .

I get what your saying but even the words you used have been redefined to be used in different contexts. "State of the union", "Bondage", "stuck in a pickle" I still don't see a reasonable answer to why marriage can't be expanded to incorporate the union of homosexual couples. Outside of the fact you don't want it to for traditions sake, which is fine, just seems counter progressive.

thrillers post, which is apparently an insult, doesnt seem so to me.

im actually very disappointed that it was deemed necessary to threaten him with a warning. i would class such action of an abuse of power if carried out. warning someone you are having a debate with because they say something you dont like? thats not cool and i wouldnt expect it of you.

i do not think it is his fault. i believe it is the interpretation that is at fault. maybe it was a bad choice of phrase in an area where what is written is so heavily analyzed and dissected. thats the worst i can see in that post.

GunZ wrote:If two guys can be married...why not a guy and a horse? I know that is an absurd example

yes it is lol but tis also funny and fitting.

[quote="Thriller"][/quote]Hmm, indeed.
I suppose I was kinda harsh. Apologies for that, sir.
(I did ask for a moderator check on my own post, so that it can be checked to see if it wasn't *too* harsh.)

Thriller wrote:

Semper wrote:considring she is a judge...

I would not consider any of our words divine mandate, but maybe take note of them?

I wouldn't waste the paper.

That is why you will never win a debate.

For the sake of debate and an attempt at empathy.

wouldn't it make sense to have a representative of the gay and or lesbian community to answer these arguments on gay marriage.

Charles Johnson: "For gays who may have been viciously rejected by family and friends because of their sexual orientation, having legally and socially legitimate kin would have psychological benefits which cannot be ignored. Also, allowing gays to marry would help encourage stable, married life while discouraging the flamboyant and often promiscuous fringe lifestyle of some of the most vocal homosexual activists. Thus, gay marriage would not only bring the social benefits of stabler relationships to gays; it would also help end much of the ignorance, confrontationalism, and social stigmata--and thus the ostracism, brutal violence, and self-loathing--associated with homosexuality today." 9

Hmm, I don't want to be an antipath here.. but wouldn't that be like asking a drunk to say why being drunk is the way to go, and then quoting him as an authority on the subject?

It's merely enabling the subculture surrounding a psychopathological affliction using a false authority. Or am I that wrong?!

We are not talking about drunks Lois we are talking about good people , adults who are intelligent , religious , peaceful, loving good citizens who happen to love each other.

and btw its legal for drunks to marry lol go figure oh ya and raise children LOL

It's the same. It's also the same that asking a total addict to sgw who spends all his wage into buying naq and uu, why it's a good thing to do so, and that the person is in better place to know than others. Or a comics addict who spends all his wage into buying them why he's right to do so. I could go on. Point being, it's total subjective point of view on the matter.
Drunk was not taken as it was negative, but for the principle, more obvious than my examples.

Your still comparing a sexual preference to an addict lol 2 totally different things

i think that allowing gay marriages and for gay couples to adopt children only perpetuates the problem of gays in the community (and yes, gays are a problem for straight people whether people recognize that fact or not), in short if the normal community changes its attitude and becomes more tolerant of gay marriage and gay adoption, we will have even more gays in the world...surely that must repulse all straight people???

as far as i am concerned (and speaking as a father), 2 same sex parents CANNOT fill the roll of a heterosexual couple, no matter what anyone says, children of both sexes need the comfort, security and strength of a man and the loving, care, understanding and nurturing of a woman.
both a man and a woman act as balance for a young developing mind, it is not possible for same sex parents to provide such balance....

ask yourselves this...why does a young boy become a "mummy's boy" and a young girl become a "daddy's girl"?

we men have strength so we look for partner to balance that strength and for someone to protect, woman have love and understanding, these traits by themselves are nothing, for these traits to have meaning they each require the opposite, hence the term "opposites attract", same sex is a fundamental no no in that light.

call me old fashioned, but children need loving, understanding and temperament in todays society more so now than at anytime in history, there is no way in hell same sex parents can give that, no matter how much morality they instill in a child.

i recognize the fact that some gay people have mixed up genes and its not a mental decision to become gay as it was in the ancient greek world, but as far as i am concerned, that does not give them any new or equal rights to marriage and adoption...

just in case anyone's wondering, yes i would kill 1 of my sons if he was to tell me he was gay, and jail be damned.
in such a case i would consider myself a monumental failure as a parent, and would be like the walking dead, so what fear would jail have over such a person?!

right or wrong doesn't even come into it for me.

MajorLeeHurts wrote:Your still comparing a sexual preference to an addict lol 2 totally different things

Because there's not much different sexual preferences accepted by law around lol (the only other one is heterosexuality..)...addictions however it's different, plenty of them.