- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 3/2/17 at 1:06 pm to ballscaster
okay
Posted on 3/2/17 at 1:06 pm to King of the North
I remember the good 'ole days of the uncensored version of Dire Straits' "Money for Nothing" ... that was a great song in its original, uncensored form.
Posted on 3/2/17 at 1:13 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Wrong. It's an observation.
They are not mutually exclusive.
quote:
I don't need your agreement to be correct, either.
No. You need proof. Which you don't have.
Posted on 3/2/17 at 1:15 pm to SabiDojo
quote:
They are not mutually exclusive.
Yes they are.
quote:
No. You need proof.
You continue to prove it.
Posted on 3/2/17 at 1:16 pm to ballscaster
quote:
Already explained. I don't need you to not be an idiot.
I'm not the one saying something is a NON DENIABLE HUMAN RIGHT and then rationalizing denying that right to human beings.
Its restricted, and so not a human right to marry who you wish to marry because you think it's a human right. I cant marry my dog, my sister, or a child, and can't marry multiple people either. Those are RESTRICTIONS. The only thing recognized at present are between a single man and a single woman who are not related, and a single man and single man, or single woman and single woman who are not related.
The disenfranchised of this human right in this country are many. You've yet to bring any light to how we rationalize calling marriage an unalienable or undeniable human right, and yet deny it to so many. You cant deny human rights, so guess what? YEP, Marriage is by it's own many restrictions NOT a human right.
What was done at the SCOTUS was a a re-definition of what marriage is to include same sex marriage into the equation. They then have you calling it a human right, for what other reason would the SCOTUS have for ruling on anything save it was a constitutional issue, and Shazam, we have a new right. No amendment needed from Congress, just an inferring of some magical right from a group of unelected ruling class. That's the America we live in today, and I'm certainly not an idiot because I recognize it for exactly what it has become. The idiot is the one who sees it and pretends it doesnt exist, the virtual 800 lb gorilla in the room.
If you want to call marriage a human right, then get Congress to AMEND the damn constitution to include it as one, and be crystal clear to exactly whom gets to enjoy that human right and who does not.
This post was edited on 3/2/17 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 3/2/17 at 1:17 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Obviously, this is going nowhere. Take care, Displaced.
Posted on 3/2/17 at 1:18 pm to SabiDojo
quote:
Obviously, this is going nowhere. Take care, Displaced.
Smart man.
Posted on 3/2/17 at 1:21 pm to SabiDojo
quote:
Obviously, this is going nowhere. Take care, Displaced.
It never was. See you around.
Posted on 3/2/17 at 1:22 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
marry who you wish
quote:
marry my dog
You're losing it, man.
Posted on 3/2/17 at 1:24 pm to Mike da Tigah
TLDR. It's your problem, not everybody else's. It's been explained to you. Just get it.
.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130123205253)
Posted on 3/2/17 at 1:26 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
I cant marry my dog
The movie in question is literally about a girl falling in love with a beast.
Why aren't you up in arms about the entire premise of the movie?
Why the big kerfluffle about there being an implication that a supporting character might be gay?
Posted on 3/2/17 at 1:26 pm to ballscaster
quote:I haven't been keeping up with this particular discussion but you need to at least acknowledge an argument in order to refute it, otherwise you cede the point(s) to the other person.
TLDR.
Posted on 3/2/17 at 1:29 pm to FooManChoo
quote:Nah. It's been explained to him, and he's trolling because he's a weak man who is bothered by gays.
I haven't been keeping up with this particular discussion but you need to at least acknowledge an argument in order to refute it, otherwise you cede the point(s) to the other person.
Posted on 3/2/17 at 1:33 pm to ballscaster
quote:
Disney’s First ‘Gay Moment’
I mean ... really ... Disney has come close before.
I never watched Disney movies growing up ... mainly because they were frickin' gay.
Only into my late twenties when I was dating my now wife ... was the revelation sprung on me that "Bambi" is, in fact, a buck.
I was skeptical of this ... a buck named "Bambi"?... shite, not unless it is a doe with duct tape & goat horns (shout-out to the Lords of Fark).
But ... I watched it with her, and sure enough ... Bambi was a dude ... and not gay, since he busted that little doe's arse.
So, that was an "almost gay" or "semi-gay moment" for Disney ... i.e. going with a name like "Bambi" in lieu of "Bam-Bam" or "Bob" or "Larry", etc.
Posted on 3/2/17 at 1:34 pm to BamaChick
with the way he's talking about marrying family members and banging dogs, dudes head is so far up his own arse, he is probably starting to smell his dad jizz
Posted on 3/2/17 at 1:38 pm to King of the North
quote:
with the way he's talking about marrying family members and banging dogs, dudes head is so far up his own arse, he is probably starting to smell his dad jizz
Now here's a real thinker.
Page 19 of 20
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News