Well... you could TRY...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiyaki
Advertisement
by NERVUN » Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:45 am
by Buffett and Colbert » Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:47 am
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.
by Lelouche » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:06 am
Ryadn wrote:Lelouche's incredibly long red herring of an argument reminds me of the debate between Harvey Milk and John Briggs over Prop 6. One of arguments made by proponents of Prop 6 was that homosexual schoolteachers could molest their students. When Milk pointed out that statistically child-molesters were overwhelming straight men who molested girls, and that banning homosexuals from teaching would not end this particular problem, Briggs offered the feeble excuse that banning homosexuals was at least a good place to start. Lelouche seems to believe that banning homosexuals from marrying is a good place to start in his campaign to stop 'government-recognized marriage', despite the fact that such a ban has a very minor overall influence.
I believe his argument and his motivations behind it just as much as I believe that John Briggs was really motivated by fear for the children.
by Knowlandia » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:15 am
Karsol wrote:Zephie wrote:DaWoad wrote:Jusela wrote:Lovely, if im against gay marriage, im obviously homophobic. But seriously, being against gay marriage, not to mention gay adoption, doesn't make me homophobic. It just means im against the legalisation of gay marriage, which is frankly something so wrong on so many levels. Homosexuals are homosexuals because they turned up that way, and because they decided to. And i dont dislike em for that, it's alright, everyone chooses his or her own lifestyle. But gay marriage and gay adoption, ew ew ew. A child is not supposed to have two fathers or two mothers.
Ahhh the unnatural argument so. . .refreshing.
There is more homosexuality in nature than there is many things that we use on a regular basis,
Once you go back to living in a tree, eating all your meals raw, fighting off predators with your bare hands or basic tools and drinking water straight from the stream THEN you can start calling homosexuality and homosexual adoption "unnatural" until then you're just another whinging hypocrite.
Fair enough. Homosexuality is abnormal.
So is practicing Religion.
by Tekania » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:15 am
by Ashmoria » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:21 am
Lelouche wrote:Ryadn wrote:Lelouche's incredibly long red herring of an argument reminds me of the debate between Harvey Milk and John Briggs over Prop 6. One of arguments made by proponents of Prop 6 was that homosexual schoolteachers could molest their students. When Milk pointed out that statistically child-molesters were overwhelming straight men who molested girls, and that banning homosexuals from teaching would not end this particular problem, Briggs offered the feeble excuse that banning homosexuals was at least a good place to start. Lelouche seems to believe that banning homosexuals from marrying is a good place to start in his campaign to stop 'government-recognized marriage', despite the fact that such a ban has a very minor overall influence.
I believe his argument and his motivations behind it just as much as I believe that John Briggs was really motivated by fear for the children.
put on your dunce cap, and enjoy it
I am not for banning marriage for homosexuals, or even straight people
by all means, get married
I'm for removing it as an institution to be controlled and regulated by the state
by Londim » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:29 am
Judge Walker: "What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?"
Cooper, lawyer for Prop 8: "My answer is, I don't know.... I don't actually know"
by Lelouche » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:30 am
by The Comments Section » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:31 am
Londim wrote:Judge Walker: "What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?"
Cooper, lawyer for Prop 8: "My answer is, I don't know.... I don't actually know"
I lol'ed. Prop 8 being ruled unconstitutional is good news.
by Chumblywumbly » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:32 am
by Ashmoria » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:33 am
Lelouche wrote:
that is the usual reaction I get, No time is a good to discuss the legitimacy of existing law apparently
problem is I don't actually care enough to form a coherent argument and then put it in thread form
TCT has the monopoly on that.
by Ashmoria » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:34 am
Londim wrote:Judge Walker: "What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?"
Cooper, lawyer for Prop 8: "My answer is, I don't know.... I don't actually know"
I lol'ed. Prop 8 being ruled unconstitutional is good news.
by The Comments Section » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:37 am
Ashmoria wrote:Londim wrote:Judge Walker: "What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?"
Cooper, lawyer for Prop 8: "My answer is, I don't know.... I don't actually know"
I lol'ed. Prop 8 being ruled unconstitutional is good news.
their total argument seemed to come down to "it was a legal referendum" and "gay is so icky that letting them get married is going to discourage anyone else from getting married"
by Muravyets » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:38 am
Londim wrote:Judge Walker: "What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?"
Cooper, lawyer for Prop 8: "My answer is, I don't know.... I don't actually know"
I lol'ed. Prop 8 being ruled unconstitutional is good news.
by Tekania » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:39 am
Lelouche wrote:
that is the usual reaction I get, No time is a good to discuss the legitimacy of existing law apparently
problem is I don't actually care enough to form a coherent argument and then put it in thread form
TCT has the monopoly on that.
by The Comments Section » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:40 am
by Ashmoria » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:46 am
The Comments Section wrote:Would the founders and other americans found the idea of homosexuality odd?
Yes, but that goes along with the times.
Are we intended to go exactly by our founder's quotes?
No, as the Constitution they established was meant to be flexible to the times, and to include ideas that they were sure would be unthinkable to them.
Our nation was not founded on the morality of our founders, but the ability to change government as times change.
by Ifreann » Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:23 am
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Trial Day 5 Transcript.Judge Walker wrote:You can never stop a lawyer from elaborating[...].
*looks at TCT's posts*
I agree.
by Buffett and Colbert » Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:24 am
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.
by Ifreann » Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:29 am
by Buffett and Colbert » Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:38 am
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.
by Ifreann » Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:39 am
by Saucy Tarts » Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:40 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: 0rganization, Aadhiris, Ancientania, Bienenhalde, Bovad, Dresderstan, Eahland, Farma, Google [Bot], Hidrandia, Maximum Imperium Rex, Nazel Geldiic, Ors Might, Pasong Tirad, Port Carverton, Quasi-Stellar Star Civilizations, Repreteop, Rusozak, San Lumen, Shrillland, The Notorious Mad Jack, Trollgaard, Trump Almighty, Tungstan, Verkhoyanska
Advertisement