SF throws down the gauntlet to Cali - Page 10

molly bloom · February 21, 2004, 22:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Giancarlo

That pic thread was not telling anything about me, rather was comical.

I refute this- you are an infamous agelast, and entirely anhedonic.

And you still look like a sunburnt Shelley Duvall.

Agathon · February 21, 2004, 22:59

A pity you aren't at 500 posts Molly, you could use my "enhanced" Giancarlo portrait as an avatar.

I would, but I don't want to dump DH.

civman2000 · February 21, 2004, 22:59

Quote:

Very few gay men would remain with one partner over the period of their relationships, thus increasing their exposure to stds of various kinds. Even AIDS.

Secondly, their mode of intercourse, also puts them at a greater risk to contract stds.

You should also look at that article I cited way back up in the thread before accusing me of not answering your question.

You've demonstrated that being gay at all could harm people. but have said nothing that in any way specifically implies that getting married would worsen the situation.

Imran Siddiqui · February 21, 2004, 23:01

Quote:

I would, but I don't want to dump DH.

Yeah, you make such a nice couple

.

Agathon · February 21, 2004, 23:05

And surely you could have found a better Heraclitus fragment than that tired old one.

What about, "Those who seek gold dig up a great deal of earth and find little"

or my personal favourite - "the sun is the breadth of a human foot".

Giancarlo · February 21, 2004, 23:08

Quote:

Originally posted by molly bloom

I refute this- you are an infamous agelast, and entirely anhedonic.

And you still look like a sunburnt Shelley Duvall.

You are an idiot.

Imran Siddiqui · February 21, 2004, 23:09

Is he a moron as well?

Agathon · February 21, 2004, 23:09

**** up Molly! I'm winning the moron game!!

molly bloom · February 21, 2004, 23:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

I would, but I don't want to dump DH.

Agathon's wife grows more suspicious- her husband's attachment to heterosexuality may now be filipendulous...

I like that Heraclitus quote- let's not enter into a logomachy- there are fart better fezzes to fry.

Agathon · February 21, 2004, 23:10

Quote:

Originally posted by molly bloom

Agathon's wife grows more suspicious- her husband's attachment to heterosexuality may now be filipendulous...

Nope, but the attachment to lamer 80s TV is still there.

Quote:

I like that Heraclitus quote- let's not enter into a logomachy- there are fart better fezzes to fry.

molly bloom · February 21, 2004, 23:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Giancarlo

You are an idiot.

Your surrejoin is, unsurprisingly, ventose.

You are pachyotous, pamprodactylous, a producer of profligate pandiculation in other persons, pantopragmatic, possibly pediculous, given over to perissology, lacking a phrontistery, and endowed with a pinguedinous pate, Pedro Poopy Pants.

Pax · February 21, 2004, 23:18

Actually if gays were to get married it would make it harder to switch partners. If kids enter the picture it usually becomes even harder so I imagine if a gay couple adopted it would be even harder to breakup.

Additionally, Ben or any other anti-gay or anti-homosexual act person, this state of monogamy would greatly reduce the spreading of disease from multiple sex partners. That means that gay marriage would be good for the U.S. and the world as a whole.

Ben,
I asked earlier and you never answered. What proof do you have that homosexuality causes aids?

Kuciwalker · February 21, 2004, 23:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
We've been down this road, Skywalker...

Yes, and you keep being fvcking stupid EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Quote:

One of the benefits.

Not the only one.

Try again.

So what benefit does society derive from married heterosexuals who don't have kids that it doesn't derive from married homosexuals?

Kuciwalker · February 21, 2004, 23:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Funny word, union.

Consider that for a minute.

Can the union be properly consummated? If you argue that the union is the only point, then you must alter the union to fit this change.

The union is not the same, and one of the indicators, that the union is different is that no children come from it.

AND THEY DON'T ALWAYS COME FROM HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE EITHER! STFU ABOUT THE CHILDREN BY NOW!

(sorry, BK is REALLY annoying when he's stupid)

Kuciwalker · February 21, 2004, 23:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Let's take this from another direction.

You have two ways of defining sexual orientation. One is by the acts that the person commits, another is by the desires.

I am splitting the definition. If I were to sleep with a man, that would no more make me gay, than it would be if you slept with a woman.

However, one of the consequences of this split is that one's proclivities do not control one's actions, in that one can restrain them, or even go to the opposite of one's desires.

In this sense, you are not whom you sleep with, you can control your sexual desires.

So? How does Fez sleeping with a guy hurt you? Just because he can keep from doing something, doesn't mean he should. I could refrain from, say, eating chocolate. Does that mean it's OK to make eating chocolate illegal?

Kuciwalker · February 21, 2004, 23:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Giancarlo
You don't know what existentialism is. The only one ignorant here is you.

sig material

Giancarlo · February 21, 2004, 23:44

Quote:

Originally posted by molly bloom

Your surrejoin is, unsurprisingly, ventose.

You are pachyotous, pamprodactylous, a producer of profligate pandiculation in other persons, pantopragmatic, possibly pediculous, given over to perissology, lacking a phrontistery, and endowed with a pinguedinous pate, Pedro Poopy Pants.

You're pathetic.

Oncle Boris · February 21, 2004, 23:47

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

sig material

Where did he say that??? I can't find it.

molly bloom · February 21, 2004, 23:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Giancarlo

You're pathetic.

Your exsputory ejecta, exists, eduntulous, an eructation of an exophthalmic exsuccate, sansculottic, a solanoid, spumous and steatopygic, surfeited with stultiloquence.

Pseudological puckery prosopalgic propounder of ptochogony, Pedro Poopy Pants.

Giancarlo · February 21, 2004, 23:59

So what's with the thesaurus? What edition is it you are using?

DinoDoc · February 22, 2004, 00:06

Quote:

Originally posted by molly bloom
Your exsputory ejecta, exists, eduntulous, an eructation of an exophthalmic exsuccate, sansculottic, a solanoid, spumous and steatopygic, surfeited with stultiloquence.

Pseudointellectual gobbledygook doesn't make you better than Fez.

Oncle Boris · February 22, 2004, 00:08

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Pseudointellectual gobbledygook doesn't make you better than Fez.

True, much less is already enough.

MrFun · February 22, 2004, 00:12

Quote:

Originally posted by molly bloom

Your exsputory ejecta, exists, eduntulous, an eructation of an exophthalmic exsuccate, sansculottic, a solanoid, spumous and steatopygic, surfeited with stultiloquence.

Pseudological puckery prosopalgic propounder of ptochogony, Pedro Poopy Pants.

notyoueither · February 22, 2004, 00:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

Quote:

State recognition of marriages is greatly beneficial for those who get married. It effects taxation, property rights, medical care, estates, and the interests of individuals upon seperation. Not to mention that married couples are preferred in many cases for adoption.

For this argument, nothing changes in a marriage between heteros or homos. Orientation ought to be irrelevant in obtaining the benefits that the state confers to married people.

So, in essence, you deny that the State can favor families over alternative lifestyles?

I deny that the state is being just in its definition of who can form a family.

mrmitchell · February 22, 2004, 00:49

Quote:

Your exsputory ejecta, exists, eduntulous, an eructation of an exophthalmic exsuccate, sansculottic, a solanoid, spumous and steatopygic, surfeited with stultiloquence.

I think I've seen that in fine print on a bill or something before.

EDIT: Does Webster's pay you per word?

molly bloom · February 22, 2004, 01:15

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Pseudointellectual gobbledygook doesn't make you better than Fez.

Oh, gee, DinoDoc, you mean this isn't 'The Better Than Fez' contest?

They's all right proper words, yess'um deedy do, no zoody intellerk chewall gallimaufry, no'm.

Thanks for sharing anyway. You've really humbled me, and now I'll have to consult Dr. Phil about what to do with the rest of my life.

And Pedro Poopy Pants, I'm not utilising a thesaurus, you iracundious ludibrious lingamist, you make us irrisors with your jaculated invective.

Giancarlo · February 22, 2004, 01:17

A dictionary? Or did you hire a english professor? How much did he/she charge you?

DinoDoc · February 22, 2004, 01:29

Quote:

Originally posted by molly bloom
Oh, gee, DinoDoc, you mean this isn't 'The Better Than Fez' contest?

I assumed that was the reason for the pompous tone of the post.

MrFun · February 22, 2004, 03:08

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I assumed that was the reason for the pompous tone of the post.

DinoDoc, you also assume that people like it when you take sides with the wrong person.

Ned · February 22, 2004, 03:56

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Not to get into an argument over the Communist Manifesto but you are, unsurprisingly, wrong. What Marx decries in the pamplet is the patriarchal family, wife and children being the property of the husband/father, to do with as he pleases, to beat them, starve them, sell them, etc., all of which were quite prevelent in the 19th Century. On top of that, that men were allowed and even encouraged to seek mistresses, while women who did so would lose eveything. He's pretty clear about it.

French marriage hasn't changed, has it?