Thread For Mattskramer, Polygamy, Warren Jeffs

[OCA]

In other words, you have no response.



No. The law steps in when those bad decisions infringe on the rights of others. And I sure wouldn't trust you to make decisions for my tortoise, much less for me.



You're all over the place ain't ya? I've always wondered about homophobes like you. I figure they're generally threatened because they're unsure of their own masculinity. Kinda silly really since I'm fairly sure none of the gay guys I know would be interested in you anyway given your hostility. Now...the topic at hand was polygamy...and, again, the point was that it isn't really anyone else's business what grown-ups do on their own time.



It isn't a choice, but even if it were...they have the same right to a relationship with the person they love as anyone else.



Oh...sure ya do....



Oh...don't be. Things have a way of evening out. Slavery was endorsed by Dred Scott, segregation by Plessy v Ferguson. They were reversed, too.

Thanks for the chat. Now I have to go work for a living.

Laterz.

Response to what? So it was an encyclopedia and I said dictionary, is that the best you can do? Lol but anyway you really shouldn't talk seeing as you are the queen of no logical responses.

How does it feel that we are making laws that regulate lifestyle choices? Just look at Georgia today and all the other 18 states that have banned HLCP marriage. No rights are being denied anyway....well except the special right queers want to break the law.

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The homophobe thing! You guys really need to work on originality because that psychobabble shit you guys break out everytime you don't have a counter argument is laughable. I am not hostile towards queers just their leadership who seem determined to make us accept their twisted lifestyle choice through public education, marriage etc. etc., if two guys want to bang each other in the ass or two chicks want to munch carpet in their own home that is fine by me but understand there are consequences in society for such bad choices. Should I make special laws for heroin addicts also?

 

[jillian]

Ya know sweet cakes, you were going along quite well until you had to quote your liberal response handbook.

Thanks. I think I'll take that as a compliment. :bj2:

[QUOTE}You see, homosexuality is vile and perverse. It fills *NORMAL* people with disgust. There is no *FEAR* involved, which is what a "homophobe" is. "Afraid" of homosexuality. So your misuse of the word to demonize your debate opponent is cheap and out of context. I would think you'd realize that, but apparently not. You're willing to suffer the embarrassment just to throw around a liberal buzz word as a distraction.[/QUOTE]

So don't be gay. Seriously. People are what they are. And if it's not homophobia, then who cares if a gay couple who's together for 20 years has the same rights as a hetero couple who's married for 20 seconds? It's certainly no skin off of my nose. So, I stand by my choice of words.

You're defending a perversion.

No. I'm defending people's right to live their lives without special rights... just the same rights as the rest of us have.

You're also a minority.

Nope. And even if I were, it doesn't matter because the whole point is that minority rights are to be protected. I'd defend yours, too, so long as you weren't hurting anyone else.

Why you defend perversions in the face of all that is decent, and nature's design is beyond what the reasonable mind can comprehend. Why do you people do it? Are you afraid to stand up for what's right? Have you no back bone, or do you just think you're smarter than nature's design?

It's not about "nature's design", homosexuality exists in nature. And if it were about "nature's design" and not an effort to infringe on individual liberties, then you'd be for banning anal and oral sex for hetero couples. But that isn't what's got you guys in a tizzy.

Oh...btw, that NY case OCA mentioned, the Chief Judge ended her dissenting opinion with these words:

"I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep." I suspect she's right, and as I pointed out, slavery and segregation got the judicial stamp of approval for a while, too. Things change. And luckily, most people under the age of 40 could care less about someone else's sexuality.

 

[OCA]

Oh also Jilly babe you mentioned that polygamy is in the bible, well yeah but so is child sacrifice, you willing to support that too based on biblical precedent?

Anyway saw where you said that people under 40 could care less about queers, you are either delusional or don't converse with others very often. I know multitudes under and over 40 and the majority say exactly what I do, do what you want behind closed doors only don't try to legitimize it in general public.

 

[mattskramer]

And mattsie, I always thought you were just a liberal, no back bone, fence sitter that was afraid to stand for anything. But this new revelation that you support polygamy and incest.... well.... you're one sick fuck man. My opinion of you was already in the toilet, but I'm going to have to flush the toilet now.

(1.) According to dictionary.com, a fencesitter is a neutral or uncommitted person (especially in politics). I don’t think that this term fits me. I have specific positions to different issues. What is your definition of the word “fencesitter”? Do you think that people should be allowed to buy cigarettes at 25? Do you think that children should be allowed to buy cigarettes at 10? Does the difference make you a fencesitter? Let’s have a clear definition of the word and then see if you are a fencesitter.

(2.) Yes. I support polygamy and incest. In general, I think that under mutual informed consent, adult human beings should be free to do as they please as long as they don’t interfere with the freedoms of others. Yes, I believe that there should be limits to individual freedom but as long as the participants are adults, I don’t think that polygamy and incest should be totally outlawed.

(3.) You think that a person who supports polygamy and incest is a sick fuck man, whatever that means. Are you a psychiatrist or are you a psychologist. If not, then I don’t hold your opinion of my mental state in high regard. As far as I’m concerned, we simply have a different opinion on the issue of polygamy and incest. There is no need for ad hock personal attacks.

So, what you are really saying is, you'd like to fuck your sister.

Uh. No. I really said no such thing. Sheesh. I repeat myself and people still allege that I said things that I did not say. I do not have a sister. Even if I had a sister, I doubt that I would want to fuck her. I am happily married and committed to my wife, an adult female and not a close relative. Just because I think that people should be allowed to do certain things does not mean that I, personally, want to engage in that activity.

Do you think that people should be allowed to drink alcohol? If so, then you must be one alcoholic.

 

[Bullypulpit]

As usual Bully in his drug induced haze has nothing intelligent to say if it doesn't involve bashing Bush, and even that has never been intelligent. Bully you are like an old lp that keeps skipping over and over and over, calling me a troll is like saying that Streisands voice is worse than Pee Wee Hermans.......absolutely assinine.

You insults are becoming as weak as your grasp on reality. If you're not trolling...just what are you doing?

 

[MissileMan]

If you're not trolling...just what are you doing?

Don't you recognize moderation when you see it?

 

[007]

So don't be gay. Seriously. People are what they are. And if it's not homophobia, then who cares if a gay couple who's together for 20 years has the same rights as a hetero couple who's married for 20 seconds? It's certainly no skin off of my nose. So, I stand by my choice of words.

Well, then you're standing by the admission that you use words out of context, knowing full well what they truely mean, just as a form of deversion, in an attempt to derail a debate. Fine, be a moron. No skin off my nose.

No. I'm defending people's right to live their lives without special rights... just the same rights as the rest of us have.

"The RIGHT to live their lives without special RIGHTS".... Wha....

Nope. And even if I were, it doesn't matter because the whole point is that minority rights are to be protected. I'd defend yours, too, so long as you weren't hurting anyone else.

It doesn't matter how you want to spin it pie face, or how you try and turn it into something else, YOU are DEFENDING a PERVERSION, a SICKNESS, a DISEASE, and a most DISGUSTING one at that.

It's not about "nature's design", homosexuality exists in nature. And if it were about "nature's design" and not an effort to infringe on individual liberties, then you'd be for banning anal and oral sex for hetero couples. But that isn't what's got you guys in a tizzy.

Lead exists in nature, and it'll kill ya. Tornados exists in nature, and they'll kill ya. Carbon dioxide exists in nature, but you can't breath only that, it'll kill ya. Just because homosexuality exists in nature is no reason for it to be condoned, and certainly doesn't make it right. Man was given the ability to decifer right from wrong, good from bad, and what's moral and immoral. You liberal's arguements, everytime, are so damn pathetic when it comes to defending this sickness. You do your level best at trying to make something legitimate out of it, when it's utterly impossible. There is absolutey ZERO natural, cute, cuddly, happy or GAY, or acceptable about two men fucking each other up the ass. It's a mentally unstable impulse that those men have succumbed to, instead of getting help, just like a pedophile succumbs to their impulses. Why don't you defend pedophiles too?

YOU push the boundries simply by defending this putred sickness. YOU are an enabler. You don't HELP these people, you contribute to their sickness. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[007]

(1.) According to dictionary.com, a fencesitter is a neutral or uncommitted person (especially in politics). I don’t think that this term fits me. I have specific positions to different issues. What is your definition of the word “fencesitter”? Do you think that people should be allowed to buy cigarettes at 25? Do you think that children should be allowed to buy cigarettes at 10? Does the difference make you a fencesitter? Let’s have a clear definition of the word and then see if you are a fencesitter.

(2.) Yes. I support polygamy and incest. In general, I think that under mutual informed consent, adult human beings should be free to do as they please as long as they don’t interfere with the freedoms of others. Yes, I believe that there should be limits to individual freedom but as long as the participants are adults, I don’t think that polygamy and incest should be totally outlawed.

(3.) You think that a person who supports polygamy and incest is a sick fuck man, whatever that means. Are you a psychiatrist or are you a psychologist. If not, then I don’t hold your opinion of my mental state in high regard. As far as I’m concerned, we simply have a different opinion on the issue of polygamy and incest. There is no need for ad hock personal attacks.




Uh. No. I really said no such thing. Sheesh. I repeat myself and people still allege that I said things that I did not say. I do not have a sister. Even if I had a sister, I doubt that I would want to fuck her. I am happily married and committed to my wife, an adult female and not a close relative. Just because I think that people should be allowed to do certain things does not mean that I, personally, want to engage in that activity.

Do you think that people should be allowed to drink alcohol? If so, then you must be one alcoholic.

Unbelievable..... I guess I'll leave you alone. You're beat yourself up enough here proudly proclaiming that you think it's fine and dandy for brothers, sisters, mothers, daughters, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, hell the whole family can have a sex picnic right at home in your opinion, and that's just fine.

You're sick man, real sick. A true PERVERT in my opinion.

 

[Gunny]

Oh...nothing at all to do with his viewpoints....just the way he expresses them.

*Edit* And in answer to your other question...better than letting extremists like you make decisions about how everyone else is supposed to live. So there ya go.

Then why bring it up? Except that you are attempting to hamstring him with that "moderators should be held to a higher standard" crap to gain an advantage in your-one-sided, dishonest argument. IMO, as long as he's debating and not moderating, it's irrelevant.

Extremist: anyone who disagrees with Jillian's one-sided, left-wing- handbook-based opinion; which, she calls "moderate." :rotflmao:

You're a joke.

 

[Dr Grump]

Then why bring it up? Except that you are attempting to hamstring him with that "moderators should be held to a higher standard" crap to gain an advantage in your-one-sided, dishonest argument.

How can a poster be hamstrung? It's all in the delivery. His is offensive most of the time. Why? He's a neocon. Neocons are known for their "do as I say, don't do as I do" hypocrisy.

As for him being held to a higher standard, of course he is. He's a moderator. If you read the rules you'll see that even Jimmy holds them to a higher standard. Go cry in your milk to somebody else.

 

[007]

..... I don’t think that polygamy and incest should be totally outlawed.

 

[mattskramer]

Uh. No. I really said no such thing. Sheesh. I repeat myself and people still allege that I said things that I did not say. I do not have a sister. Even if I had a sister, I doubt that I would want to fuck her. I am happily married and committed to my wife, an adult female and not a close relative. Just because I think that people should be allowed to do certain things does not mean that I, personally, want to engage in that activity.

 

[mattskramer]

LOL. Oh well. Power corrupts as they say. When it comes to debate, all OCA and Pale Rider seems able to do is launch personal attacks, fuck with my post, mess with my pic, and suggest that I said things that I simply did not say. Simple cheap unfair shots.

 

[007]

LOL. Oh well. Power corrupts as they say. When it comes to debate, all OCA and Pale Rider seems able to do is launch personal attacks, fuck with my post, mess with my pic, and suggest that I said things that I simply did not say. Simple cheap unfair shots.

YOU think INCEST is OK. I didn't SAY that, YOU did. Don't try and back peddle your way out of that. With that statement of support for incest, one can logically deduce that if you HAD a sister, you'd be all fine and dandy with having sex with her.

You're a sick sons a bitch. That's not a personal attack, that's a fact!

 

[mattskramer]

Take a basic logic course. Let me explain the difference between debate and personal attack. I will rebut your statements without calling you names or criticizing you as a person.

YOU think INCEST is OK. I didn't SAY that, YOU did.

Yes, with the disclaimer that the participants be adults with an understanding of the risks and consequences, I did say that.

Don't try and back peddle your way out of that.

I am not backpedaling my way out of that. I am not even trying to backpedal my way out of it. I’ll state my point again. I support polygamy, incest relationships, and the like provided that the individuals directly involved are adults with an understanding of the risks and consequences.

With that statement of support for incest, one can logically deduce that if you HAD a sister, you'd be all fine and dandy with having sex with her.

No. Based on that statement alone, one can’t logically conclude that if I, personally had a sister, I’d be all fine and dandy with having sex with her. I would not want it for myself, but I think that if other consenting adults want to engage in that activity, then they should be allowed to do so.

By the way, I also think that adults should be allowed to consume alcohol, smoke excessively, and eat fattening cheeseburgers while they sit on the couch for long periods of time while they watch television. Yet, I would choose to not engage in that behavior.

While incest might not be a very good activity I don’t think that it is bad enough to remain outlawed.

You're a sick sons a bitch. That's not a personal attack, that's a fact!

No. It is not a fact. It is your personal opinion of me. It is also an ad hock personal attack on me. It has noting to do with the issue of whether or not incest should be legalized. You are not debating the issue of incest. You are attacking a person – me.

Again, please try to restrain your emotion and give intelligent replies to the topic of incest.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

What consenting adults do so long as society deems it to be normal is not anybody's business, polygamy and queer marriage being two glaring examples are EVERYBODY'S business.

A well oiled society must have limits and the majority sets those limits.

No, what consenting adults do with their own property is their own business, so long as it does not violate others property rights. That's they key--property rights. The opinion of the majority does not override the property rights of the minority, that's why the founding fathers had such utter disdain for democracy.

 

[Gunny]

How can a poster be hamstrung? It's all in the delivery. His is offensive most of the time. Why? He's a neocon. Neocons are known for their "do as I say, don't do as I do" hypocrisy.

As for him being held to a higher standard, of course he is. He's a moderator. If you read the rules you'll see that even Jimmy holds them to a higher standard. Go cry in your milk to somebody else.

Obviously, you are just another one of those nimrods that can differentiate between moderating and posting only when it suits you.

I find you offensive most of the time .... so WHAT now, Einstein? Claymores on the field of honor at dawn?

And you got some nerve calling "neocon's" anything when you can't even be honest about a simple thing as acting as a moderator and acting as a poster.

Next time I need your 2 cents in an A-B conversation, I'll be sure to jerk your chain.

 

[Gunny]

No, what consenting adults do with their own property is their own business, so long as it does not violate others property rights. That's they key--property rights. The opinion of the majority does not override the property rights of the minority, that's why the founding fathers had such utter disdain for democracy.

You would be incorrect. Don't think so? Go sit naked in a lawn chair in your front yard and see what happens. Your property, right?

What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is not anyone's business. Put it out in public, and it very much IS society's business.

 

[007]

You are not debating the issue of incest.

There is nothing to debate about it. It's sick. It's perverted. It's vile, and you support it. That makes you a filthy pervert. You should be ashamed to show your face in public.

 

[Dr Grump]

Obviously, you are just another one of those nimrods that can differentiate between moderating and posting only when it suits you.

no, I expect a certain behaviour of mods. Simple. So does Jim is seems. And what do you mean by "when it suits". There are no middle of the road, left leaning mods, so when have I differentiated between a mod and the way they post?

I find you offensive most of the time .... so WHAT now, Einstein? Claymores on the field of honor at dawn?

No, you are not a mod, neither am I. The fact you find me offensive is of no surprise. People who try to debate in a civil, courteous manner usually get the back up of those not so inclined....go figure...

And you got some nerve calling "neocon's" anything when you can't even be honest about a simple thing as acting as a moderator and acting as a poster..

What does that have to do with the price of fish in China? Forget he is a mod for a second. You think it's OK to get into personal attacks and post in an offensive manner? Fine...I just call it as I see it, and if I think the tone of his posts suck, I'm gonna tell him. And too bad if he doesn't give a fuck, I'm still gonna tell him...