• Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
  • Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex

Carrie Prejean Abruptly Leaves Larry King Interview

Muscle Gelz Transdermals
IronMag Labs Prohormones
You have no clue what you are talking about. You try to respond without actually contemplating what you are responding to.


I make no moral judgment about gay people. In fact, I really don't care about gay marriage - I'm indifferent on the issue.

What I do care about is a bunch of naive peacenik-wannabes trying to pretend as if they were participating in a civil rights revolution. The issue is supposedly about some minor tax technicalities and health benefits - give me a fucking break. I guarantee you if those issues were moot people would still be trying to play victim.

And the statist Democrats are capitalizing on your naivety. How many gays do you think voted for Obama based on this issue? Why don't you do a fucking google search on how many gays have been kicked out of the military under Obama's watch. Fucking statist hypocrits, and you are too foolish to see it.


What the fuck do you mean statist hypocrits? What the fuck is the matter with you?

The issue is about treating people the same! Same! Same! No different! Fucking same! Jesus fuck me in the ass Christ, you are so dense.

The issue is about treating people the same! Its not about tax deductions. The whole point is gays don't want to be treated like second hand citizens. They want to have the right to marry who they want to. That's it. End of story. It has no thing to do with fucking Obama. It has nothing to do with gays in the military. I don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You going off on some stupid rant about how democrats suck. No shit Sherlock. Of coarse they suck. They are apolitical party. We know they suck. What are you talking about everybody being fooled? Everybody knows they suck. What the fuck does it have to do with anything that Carrie Prejean said?

I'll tell you what. You go start a thread about how democrats suck. In this thread, we'll stick to the topic at hand which is Carrie Prejean. That way I don't have to burnout neurons trying to figure out what the fuck is wrong with you.
 
What the fuck do you mean statist hypocrits? What the fuck is the matter with you?

The issue is about treating people the same! Same! Same! No different! Fucking same! Jesus fuck me in the ass Christ, you are so dense.

The issue is about treating people the same! Its not about tax deductions. The whole point is gays don't want to be treated like second hand citizens. They want to have the right to marry who they want to. That's it. End of story. It has no thing to do with fucking Obama. It has nothing to do with gays in the military. I don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You going off on some stupid rant about how democrats suck. No shit Sherlock. Of coarse they suck. They are apolitical party. We know they suck. What are you talking about everybody being fooled? Everybody knows they suck. What the fuck does it have to do with anything that Carrie Prejean said?


It is amazing that you could post something so sophomoric and be so condescending at the same time. Clearly you have no idea how far in over your head you are.

Let me break it down for you into a series of very simple factual statements, because apparently you cannot bridge even the smallest intellectual gap on your own.

1. Carrie Prejean said the following: "I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be between a man and a woman."

2. Keju characterizes Carrie Prejean: "Looking down your nose at others behavior is the conservative way. She is just being a good conservative."

3. "Looking down your nose" is an expression meaning that a person is being snobbish, elitist, making a moral or character judgment about another person.

4. Clemson357 responds: saying that marriage is between a man and a woman is NOT a moral judgment.

5. The clear implication of Clemson's statement to anyone with an IQ over 90 is that Carrie Prejean was not "looking down her nose," and thus Keju's characterization is incorrect.

6. Kelju completely misses the implication, or dodges the issue, because he responds with a series of emotion-based nonsense about "empathy" and "hurtful."

7. Kelju has yet to make any intelligent attempt at explaining why it is a moral judgment to say that marriage is between a man and a woman.



The universe is built on discriminations. Our welfare system discriminates against the employed. Our Social Security system discriminates against the young and the able-bodied. Our tax system discriminates against the successful. Our criminal justice system discriminates against felons. Our marriage laws discriminate on the basis of age, gender, genealogy, and volition. Our driving laws discriminate on the basis of age and sobriety.

I am sure there are lots of people that would like to be treated THE SAME! THE SAME! THE SAME!!! I wouldn't mind collecting a Social Security check, being taxed at the ridiculously low rate that you are probably taxed, or being able to legal drive while intoxicated. But the fact of the matter is that all things aren't the same, and as such they aren't treated the same.


I'll tell you what. You go start a thread about how democrats suck. In this thread, we'll stick to the topic at hand which is Carrie Prejean. That way I don't have to burnout neurons trying to figure out what the fuck is wrong with you.

I'll tell you what, you go shine your conterfeit moderator badge, and I'll continue to post what I want where I want.
 
How about option #3?

Gays have the right to have equal "partner" status in the eyes of the law and government, but don't go trying to make a law about marriage in itself as a status. Marriage is a religious institution and as such government has no place regulating it. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the Church/Pope.
 
You guys really shouldn't keep bumping this thread unless you have a link to the vids.
 
I think we're all missing the point here.

Would she not get it?
carrie-prejean-playboy-photos-pics-1.jpg
 
It is amazing that you could post something so sophomoric and be so condescending at the same time. Clearly you have no idea how far in over your head you are.

Let me break it down for you into a series of very simple factual statements, because apparently you cannot bridge even the smallest intellectual gap on your own.

1. Carrie Prejean said the following: "I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be between a man and a woman."

2. Keju characterizes Carrie Prejean: "Looking down your nose at others behavior is the conservative way. She is just being a good conservative."

3. "Looking down your nose" is an expression meaning that a person is being snobbish, elitist, making a moral or character judgment about another person.

4. Clemson357 responds: saying that marriage is between a man and a woman is NOT a moral judgment.

5. The clear implication of Clemson's statement to anyone with an IQ over 90 is that Carrie Prejean was not "looking down her nose," and thus Keju's characterization is incorrect.

6. Kelju completely misses the implication, or dodges the issue, because he responds with a series of emotion-based nonsense about "empathy" and "hurtful."

7. Kelju has yet to make any intelligent attempt at explaining why it is a moral judgment to say that marriage is between a man and a woman.



The universe is built on discriminations. Our welfare system discriminates against the employed. Our Social Security system discriminates against the young and the able-bodied. Our tax system discriminates against the successful. Our criminal justice system discriminates against felons. Our marriage laws discriminate on the basis of age, gender, genealogy, and volition. Our driving laws discriminate on the basis of age and sobriety.

I am sure there are lots of people that would like to be treated THE SAME! THE SAME! THE SAME!!! I wouldn't mind collecting a Social Security check, being taxed at the ridiculously low rate that you are probably taxed, or being able to legal drive while intoxicated. But the fact of the matter is that all things aren't the same, and as such they aren't treated the same.




I'll tell you what, you go shine your conterfeit moderator badge, and I'll continue to post what I want where I want.



Lol, I'm not even going to read any of this this.
 
How about option #3?

Gays have the right to have equal "partner" status in the eyes of the law and government, but don't go trying to make a law about marriage in itself as a status. Marriage is a religious institution and as such government has no place regulating it. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the Church/Pope.
MARRIAGE IS A ANCIENT INSTITUTION MORE SPIRITUAL THAN ANYTHING, IT IS NOT WHOLLY OWNED BY CHRISTIANS. People were getting married well before Zoroastrianism gave birth to Judaism and way before Jesus..... Civilizations with totally different beliefs had/have forms of wedlock.

Besides in this Country it's only a legal binding contract, the religious ceremony has nothing to do with the states civil ceremony. You can take the religion out of the equation and just sign the papers in front of the state sanctioned agent or you can combine them as one....

I'll tell you what if it's only a religious institution, I have been to the marriage ceremony of 2 men, wed by a Christian Preacher recognized by a Church that has no qualms about same sex marriage, full exchange of vows and rings and kissing....therefore it must be recognized by the state right since it was by the Church.....
 
MARRIAGE IS A ANCIENT INSTITUTION MORE SPIRITUAL THAN ANYTHING, IT IS NOT WHOLLY OWNED BY CHRISTIANS. People were getting married well before Zoroastrianism gave birth to Judaism and way before Jesus..... Civilizations with totally different beliefs had/have forms of wedlock.

Besides in this Country it's only a legal binding contract, the religious ceremony has nothing to do with the states civil ceremony. You can take the religion out of the equation and just sign the papers in front of the state sanctioned agent or you can combine them as one....

I'll tell you what if it's only a religious institution, I have been to the marriage ceremony of 2 men, wed by a Christian Preacher recognized by a Church that has no qualms about same sex marriage, full exchange of vows and rings and kissing....therefore it must be recognized by the state right since it was by the Church.....

Well that wasn't a true representation of the church. That's like the church saying that killing is okay. That preacher's powers as a pastor/vicar are void if he would consider doing such a thing as okay in the eyes of the church lol.

It says in the Bible that homosexuality isn't okay. Infact it says it in many religious scripts, not just Christian.
But nowhere does it say that being a different race is immoral (going back to a previous point that it was thought that interracial marriage was unnatural)
 
Well that wasn't a true representation of the church. 1-That's like the church saying that killing is okay. That preacher's powers as a pastor/vicar are void if he would consider doing such a thing as okay in the eyes of the church lol.

It says in the 2-Bible that homosexuality isn't okay. Infact it says it in many religious scripts, not just Christian.
But nowhere does it say that being a different race is immoral (going back to a previous point that it was thought that interracial marriage was unnatural)
1-Read your history kid....some religions OK it, maybe not directly.
2-Citation needed.
 
Well that wasn't a true representation of the church. That's like the church saying that killing is okay. That preacher's powers as a pastor/vicar are void if he would consider doing such a thing as okay in the eyes of the church lol.

It is fully supported by the church. The whole denomination is based on the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. You wouldn't want Gay men telling you marriage with a woman and a man is not right....

It says in the Bible that homosexuality isn't okay. Infact it says it in many religious scripts, not just Christian.
But nowhere does it say that being a different race is immoral (going back to a previous point that it was thought that interracial marriage was unnatural)
The Bible says a lot of stuff, so does Mein Kampf.....
 
You guys really shouldn't keep bumping this thread unless you have a link to the vids.

Thats what I'm screaming...where is the GD video.

THe photos are a nice touch though :)
 
The Bible says a lot of stuff, so does Mein Kampf.....

What the fuck kind of reasoning is that lol. By that reasoning it should be okay to rape a girl because you would want them to rape you back? Its okay to kill someone if you're feeling suicidal and dont mind them killing you either?
Thats bs... you're taking it way out of context

But anyway back to topic:
carrie_prejean_01.jpg


Struggling to read a book with no words. Still looks sexy.
 
Muscle Gelz Transdermals
IronMag Labs Prohormones
1.) I said in most I didn't say all. Most of the major ones anyways. :hmmm:

Do I really need to quote you verses in the Bible honestly?
8 Buddhist Burma

buddhist.jpg

Human sacrifices were still occurring in Buddhist Burma in the 1850s. When the capital was moved to Mandalay, 56 ???spotless??? men were buried beneath the new city walls to sanctify and protect the city. When two of the burial spots were later found empty, royal astrologers decreed that 500 men, women, boys, and girls must be killed and buried at once, orthe capital must be abandoned. About 100 were actually buried before British governors stopped the ceremonies.

7 Thuggee Murders

thugstrangle.jpg

Members of lndia???s Thuggee sect strangled people as sacrifices to appease the bloodthirsty goddess Kali, a practice beginning in the 1500s. The number of victims has been estimated to be as high as 2 million. Thugs were claiming about 20,000 lives a year in the 1800s until British rulers stamped them out. At a trial in 1840, one Thug was accused of killing 931 people. Today, some Hindu priests still sacrifice goats to Kali.
6 Mountain Meadows Massacre

mountain-meadows-massacre-iii.jpg

The Mountain Meadows massacre was a mass killing of the Fancher-Baker wagon train at Mountain Meadows in Utah Territory on September 11, 1857, by a group of Mormons and Paiute Indians. The Arkansas emigrants were traveling to California shortly before Utah War started. Mormons throughout the Utah Territory had been mustered to fight the invading United States Army, which they believed was intended to destroy them as a people. Initially intending to orchestrate an Indian massacre, two men with leadership roles in local military, church and government organizations, Isaac C. Haight and John D. Lee, conspired for Lee to lead militiamen disguised as Native Americans along with a contingent of Paiute tribesmen in an attack.
The emigrants fought back and a siege ensued. Intending to leave no witnesses of Mormon complicity in the siege and avoid reprisals complicating the Utah War, militiamen induced the emigrants to surrender and give up their weapons. After escorting the emigrants out of their fortification, the militiamen and their tribesmen auxiliaries executed approximately 120 men, women and children.
5 The Inquisition

inquisition.jpg

The Medieval Inquisition is a series of Inquisitions (Roman Catholic Church bodies charged with suppressing heresy) from around 1184, including the Episcopal Inquisition (1184-1230s) and later the Papal Inquisition (1230s). It was in response to large popular movements throughout Europe considered apostate or heretical to Christianity, in particular Catharism and Waldensians in southern France and northern Italy. These were the first inquisition movements of many that would follow.
Torture was used after 1252. On May 15, Pope Innocent IV issued a papal bull entitled Ad exstirpanda, which authorized the use of torture by inquisitors. The Inquisitors were forbidden to use methods that resulted in bloodshed, mutilation or death. One of the more common forms of medieval inquisition torture was known as strappado. The hands were bound behind the back with a rope, and the accused was suspended this way, dislocating the joints painfully in both arms. Weights could be added to the legs dislocating those joints as well.
The organization is still active today under the name of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Prior to becoming Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Ratzinger was the head of the congregation.
 
4 The Witch Hunts

SalemWitchTrial-e.jpg

When Puritans settled in Massachusetts in the 1600s, they created a religious police state where doctrinal deviation could lead to flogging, pillorying, hanging, cutting off ears, or boring through the tongue with a hot iron. Preaching Quaker beliefs was a capital offense. Four stubborn Quakers defied this law and were hanged. In the 1690s fear of witches seized the colony. Twenty alleged witches were killed and 150 others imprisoned.
3 Roman Persecution of Christians

The_Christian_Martyrs_Last_Prayer_by_leon_gerome.jpg

Christians were first, and horribly, targeted for persecution as a group by the emperor Nero in 64 AD. A colossal fire broke out at Rome, and destroyed much of the city. Rumors abounded that Nero himself was responsible. To divert attention from the rumors, Nero ordered that Christians should be rounded up and killed. Some were torn apart by dogs, others burnt alive as human torches. Over the next hundred years or so, Christians were sporadically persecuted. Then in the mid-third century, emperors initiated even more intensive persecutions. This, ???The Great Persecution???, is considered the largest. Beginning with a series of four edicts banning Christian practices and ordering the imprisonment of Christian clergy, the persecution intensified until all Christians in the empire were commanded tosacrifice to the gods or face immediate execution. This persecution was to be the last, as Constantine I soon came into power and in 313 legalized Christianity.
2 Aztec Human Sacrifice

aztec_sacrifice4.jpg

The Aztecs began their elaborate theocracy in the 1300s and brought human sacrifice to a golden era. About 20,000 people were killed yearly to appease gods ??? especially the sun god, who needed daily ???nourishment??? of blood. Hearts of sacrifice victims were cut out, and some bodies were eaten ceremoniously. Other victims were drowned, beheaded, burned or dropped from heights. In a rite to the rain god, shrieking children were killed at several sites so that their tears might induce rain. In a rite to the maize goddess, a virgin danced for 24 hours, then was killed and skinned; her skin was worn by a priest in further dancing. One account says that at King Ahuitzotl???s coronation, 80,000 prisoners were butchered to please the gods.
1 Islamic Jihads

jihad1_380.jpg

Islamic jihads (holy wars), mandated by the Koran, killed millions over 12 centuries. In early years, Muslim armies spread the faith rapidly: east to India and west to Morocco. Then splintering sects branded other Muslims as infidels and declared jihads against them. The Kharijis battled Sunnirulers. The Azariqis decreed death to all ???sinners??? and their families. In 1804 a Sudanese holy man, Usman dan Fodio, waged a bloody jihad that broke the religious sway of the Sultan of Gobir. In the 1850s another Sudanese mystic, ???Umar al-Hajj, led a barbaric jihad to convert pagan African tribes.
 
Great min0. But that doesn't really say anything about homosexuality?
I didn't get a chance to do a search but I don't understand how the church can be against homosexuality when most of the people in charge are themselves gay.
 
What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality

by Rev.T_BagMan, co-founder of Soulforce
LIKE YOU, I TAKE THE BIBLE SERIOUSLY!

Many good people build their case against homosexuality almost entirely on the Bible. These folks value Scripture, and are serious about seeking its guidance in their lives. Unfortunately, many of them have never really studied what the Bible does and doesn't say about homosexuality.
We gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Christians take the Bible seriously, too. Personally, I've spent more than 50 years reading, studying, memorizing, preaching, and teaching from the sacred texts. I earned my master's and doctoral degrees at a conservative biblical seminary to better equip myself to "rightly divide the word of truth." I learned Hebrew and Greek to gain a better understanding of the original words of the biblical texts. I studied the lives and times of the biblical authors to help me know what they were saying in their day so I could better apply it to my own.
I'm convinced the Bible has a powerful message for gay and lesbian Christians -- as well as straight Christians. But it's not the message of condemnation we so often hear.
I'm not expecting you to take my word for it, though. I ask only that you'd consider what my research has taught me about the passages used by some people to condemn God's gay and lesbian children. Then decide for yourself...
MY FIRST PREMISE:

Most people have not carefully and prayerfully researched the biblical texts often used to condemn God's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children.
As you may know, biblical ignorance is an epidemic in the United States. A recent study quoted by Dr. Peter Gomes in The Good Book found that 38 percent of Americans polled were certain the Old Testament was written a few years after Jesus' death. Ten percent believed Joan of Arc was Noah's wife. Many even thought the epistles were the wives of the apostles.
This same kind of biblical ignorance is all too present around the topic of homosexuality. Often people who love and trust God's Word have never given careful and prayerful attention to what the Bible does or doesn't say about homosexuality.
For example, many Christians don't know that:
  • Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior.
  • The Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality.
  • Only six or seven of the Bible's one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way -- and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it's understood today.
Most people who are certain they know what the Bible says about homosexuality don't know where the verses that reference same-sex behavior can be found. They haven't read them, let alone studied them carefully. They don't know the original meaning of the words in Hebrew or Greek. And they haven't tried to understand the historical context in which those words were written. Yet the assumption that the Bible condemns homosexuality is passed down from generation to generation with very little personal study or research. The consequences of this misinformation are disastrous, not only for God's gay and lesbian children, but for the entire church.
 
I didn't get a chance to do a search but I don't understand how the church can be against homosexuality when most of the people in charge are themselves gay.


Bahahahahaha!
Gay and pederasses!

George Carlin said:
But, in the meantime what they ought to be doing is telling these priests who took a vow of chastity to keep their hands off the altar boys! Keep your hands to yourself, Father! You know? When Jesus said "Suffer the little children come unto me", that's not what he was talking about!
 
MARRIAGE IS A ANCIENT INSTITUTION MORE SPIRITUAL THAN ANYTHING, IT IS NOT WHOLLY OWNED BY CHRISTIANS. People were getting married well before Zoroastrianism gave birth to Judaism and way before Jesus..... Civilizations with totally different beliefs had/have forms of wedlock.

Besides in this Country it's only a legal binding contract, the religious ceremony has nothing to do with the states civil ceremony. You can take the religion out of the equation and just sign the papers in front of the state sanctioned agent or you can combine them as one....

I'll tell you what if it's only a religious institution, I have been to the marriage ceremony of 2 men, wed by a Christian Preacher recognized by a Church that has no qualms about same sex marriage, full exchange of vows and rings and kissing....therefore it must be recognized by the state right since it was by the Church.....

That's missing the point. I'm well aware that marriage is not purely a Christian tradition. The point is that marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution. Government has no business regulating that. Take it up with the Pope, Buddha, Uber Rabbi, whoever the hell is the leader of your particular religion. If you want gays to have equal rights to be partners in the eyes of the law, I'm all for that.
 
That's missing the point. I'm well aware that marriage is not purely a Christian tradition. The point is that marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution. Government has no business regulating that. Take it up with the Pope, Buddha, Uber Rabbi, whoever the hell is the leader of your particular religion. If you want gays to have equal rights to be partners in the eyes of the law, I'm all for that.
So you are saying people without religion can't get married? It's not only a religious matter, it can be cultural, spiritual or purely political, like marriage of a Princess to an allies Prince to join Kingdoms. I say that religions need to regulate their own people and keep their noses out of the personal affairs of consenting adults, at times it takes the government to step in as moderator and see that happens. People go to a Justice of the Peace and are married all the time with no religion involved, and like I stated before some go and have a ceremony of a religious nature and call themselves married even though it's not legally recognized by the government......
 
So you are saying people without religion can't get married? It's not only a religious matter, it can be cultural, spiritual or purely political, like marriage of a Princess to an allies Prince to join Kingdoms. I say that religions need to regulate their own people and keep their noses out of the personal affairs of consenting adults, at times it takes the government to step in as moderator and see that happens. People go to a Justice of the Peace and are married all the time with no religion involved, and like I stated before some go and have a ceremony of a religious nature and call themselves married even though it's not legally recognized by the government......

I think we're coming at this from two different angles. I am saying that the government should have no right to force any religious figure to either marry or recognize the marriage of a gay couple.

If they want to go sign some papers in front of a judge to attain equals rights, then as I've said before I'm all for that.
 
Back
Top