April 08, 2020, 06:33:34 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - kicker

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 297
61
General Discussion / Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« on: May 24, 2012, 04:16:55 PM »
Well first of all even without contraception, and with two healthy fertile individuals there is only a narrow window of time during which a woman can get pregnant in each monthly cycle - I stress can because during this window, all things being equal, it is still not always a given that it will happen....so to say that sex without contraception will MOST LIKELY lead to pregnancy is just wrong.

And to deduce that procreation is the ORIGINAL purpose of sex on the basis that procreation is a natural result of sexual activity is completely illogical...that's just two independent statements..... If you say that procreation is more important than pleasure in sustaining the human race (and even that statement isn't as straightforward as it might seem on the surface), therefore procreation is a more important natural purpose of sexual activity than pleasure is, then ok -yuh could argue that and I eh go vex with yuh...but intimacy is a powerful powerful thing fella - goes way beyond the purely biological text book teachings...even taking procreation out of the picture, we can't begin to imagine life without it...to say that sex was intended orginally for procreation sounds like you're making up your own rules for everybody else.

62
General Discussion / Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« on: May 24, 2012, 03:38:16 PM »
However, setting the biblical imperative aside, homosexual unions do not fulfill the original purpose for which sex was originally intended, i.e. the creation of offspring.

The original purpose yuh say dey? How you come up with this? 

(especially if yuh "setting the biblical imperative aside").

Because, sex without contraceptives will most likely lead to pregnancy, barring any issues such as age or infertility.

hmmm not really....

63
Football / Re: CHELSEA FOREVER! - Home of the Champions!
« on: May 24, 2012, 09:29:45 AM »
Ryan you really thought Bosingwa was staying? lol.  Is long time now he needed to ride in my opinion oui.  I and a bredrin always use to argue about him with me defending him only because Paolo eh able but truth be told Bosingwa isn't of much use, especially when a central midfielder like Ivanovic is more productive in attack while playing LB and is a much better defender.  I hope we get a good wing back for the position that can cross as replacement.  Kalou was always goin so thatnks an good luck to he.

I hear Barca might overs Dani Alves... Allyuh should put in a bid. 

I seeing a massive bidding war between Chelsea and Man City this season. 

64
As far as David Luiz is concerned, that "coolness under pressure" and that "comfort" with the ball and that "arrogance" if you will, (to try to flick the ball over man and ting to play the ball out of trouble in defence, as he tried against Napoli) that men talkin'/complaining about....isn't he a Brazilian?  WTF else allyuh expect from him?All dat is part of that so-called "brazilian flair" and "jogo bonito" that men does complain Brazil doh play with anymore.  Now we get a man put in defence who like to try to play with that coolness, that calmness, that lost artistry that drew the world to be in awe of Brazilian football (artistry, once again, that people have been complaining Brazil hasn't played with since the 70's) and men complaining.  I eh know what allyuh want again.  the English league does get hammerd on this same forum for not being the prettiest football on the planet.  A bland game of excited long balls and cross balls and here we have a Brazilian....a fella who didn't really start off in his football youth as a central defender and he have a lil' bit ah skill.  And like to show it.  And men complaining.  For all the so-called shit he do (according to his critics) look at what Chelsea still come and accomplish.  Cyah please allyuh men ah-TALL boy.  I have said from day ONE, I like what de man bringin' to the defense.  I like to see a defender work the ball out of defense every now and againso I happy to take his good with his alleged bad.  John Terry's lack of speed (especially as he gets older and older) is a bigger problem for me that anything Luiz does. If you really see how much work Luiz and Cahill does do to cover for him and how much work Carvalho used to do y'all might appreciate how much of a liability JT could be sometimes.  :beermug:

The artistry not lost...only fight down men iz talk that.

David Luiz, Thiago Silva, Lucio, Marcelo, Adriano (Barca), Luis Gustavo, Maicon, Dani Alves... all defensive players, all have great technique and all built to attack...all cut from the same cloth.

65
Football / Re: CHELSEA FOREVER! - Home of the Champions!
« on: May 24, 2012, 07:20:28 AM »
Goodbye to Drogba... A true, true legend.

The big man for the occasion.

A big loss to the EPL and he will be sorely missed.

Italy and Juventus had the "divine ponytail", well Chelsea had the "divine perm".

They should retire his #11 number.

Long live the Drogs!!

:salute::salute::salute::salute::salute::salute:

Cosign...

66
Football / Re: UEFA Euro 2012 Thread.
« on: May 23, 2012, 10:00:48 AM »
would have liked to see Giuseppe Rossi on there.


Think Rossi has been hurt for most of the season - probably still hurt or not yet fit. 

67
Steups

Allyuh Chelsea fans getting very carried away with the 'people go out of their way to hate on Chelsea' mantra.

Allyuh not so special, dude, really - get over yourselves. The teams people love to hate is ManU (#1), Barca (recently if yuh doh love them yuh hate them) and maybe Madrid. Not Chelsea.  ::)

Man U and Madrid are the most disliked from my observation...Big bad wolves with no real stigma of romanticism...Barca getting a hate vibes lately...but that's only lately because they've gotten alotta favors from the refs in recent years, and they also have a huge bandwagon of late too... Chelsea hate is the same as Man City hate - i.e. big money buy a squad and emerge from obscurity hate....but I agree that hate eh too strong. 

68
When a team isn't playing well, but still finding a way to win, it's just their year.  It was Chelsea's year - can't hate...that's how sports go sometimes...

There's always next season

69
Football / Re: Manchester City Thread- Blue Moon has risen!
« on: May 16, 2012, 01:35:53 PM »
Aguero was unproven?  He was proven in La Liga.

You are right - I take that back - my bad,

.....and doh get me wrong Dzeko is real tears, and he killed it in the Bundes....but as far as headliner signings go, he was under the radar.

For me Man City was money well spent, and a fair amount of role players and shrewd buys were able put in a good shift...wasn't no Dwayne Wade, Lebron scene trying to buy a championship IMO. 

70
Football / Re: Manchester City Thread- Blue Moon has risen!
« on: May 16, 2012, 01:35:02 PM »
Nah I not downplaying them...I not saying that they don't have very good side - that's obvious come on -I just doh find their line up to be no kinda galacticos line up worthy of the kinda talk they does get  - the difference is that they went from zero to hero real fast, but it have plenty men who feature significantly in their season run who just good...but ain't no-where near superstars

Lescott
Zabaletta
Kolarov
Richards
Barry
Milner
Clichy
...and more

Even DeJong, Balotelli, Nasri for e.g. - dem real good but if Madrid, Barca, Man U, Bayern, Milan picked them up they wouldn't be considered star signings...

Kompany their player of the season was not a star signing....that is return on investment

Aguero, Silva and Toure are the closest thing to blockbuster signings and of them, only Toure was poached off of a big side that was winning ting....

71
Football / Re: Manchester City Thread- Blue Moon has risen!
« on: May 16, 2012, 07:55:07 AM »
People criticize Man City for buying a championship, but when yuh check their roster player for player, it eh no extraordinary roster - it's just a collection of above-average to very good players with some ordinary ones sprinkled in too...

Study their star players - Silva real talented but he still lives in the shadow of Spain's top midfielders, Valencia, Nasri unfulflied potential at Arsenal, Balotelli hot and cold - never really exploded, Aguero was a big fish in a relatively small pond - not fully proven, Dzeko - same thing...and the list goes on... Yaya Toure to me was the only fully proven big player they picked up IMO

72
General Discussion / Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« on: May 15, 2012, 09:56:52 AM »
Based on reading that piece, I think Cynthia Nixon is bisexual (in theory can be attracted to either sex) - her choice appears to be the lifestyle or sexual partner...not her sexual orientation...she has decided to be with women, but throughout her life has been attracted to men as well...that's bisexual - not gay....or maybe her sexual orientation has changed...that a possibility?  She's calling it choice, for lack of a better term, but maybe she's just not attracted to men anymore -not really a choice per se - but a change in orientation...or something changed in her...who knows?

There are bisexual people out there who chose to live straight lifestyles because of societal pressure or because the person they fall in love with is of the opposite sex - but they are open to either in theory...  I actually know girls who have dated guys then ended up with girls, and are referred to as lebians... but technically they are really bisexual. 

I think the point that NYTWB is making is probably a fair point... there are probably alot more bisexuals out there than we recognize...alot of them are lumped into straight or gay depending on their choice of partner....doesn't convince me that sexual orientation itself is a choice. 

73
General Discussion / Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« on: May 15, 2012, 09:36:38 AM »

Well let me say that this 'marriage' debate is not a matter of 'equal rights' to me as you can claim any and everything is your right and cry discrimination if you're not getting it.

Based on what I've read and heard, I think Obama supports gay-marriage from an equal rights perspective - or at least that is his stated reasoning.  I don't think he's trying to change people's view on the biblical "definition" of marriage.  And this thread is entitled Obama supports same-sex marriage...so I dunno how you can say that discussion of equal rights has no place in this debate - If you want to make your own rules about this debate, then start yuh own thread.

I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman and that is the way it has been since the beginning.

What gay rights groups are trying to do is re-define what a marriage is to include their 'unions'. But how can it be a 'rights violation' if that right had never been accorded such relationships in the first place? There is no rights violation.

Really? This hour of the day you coming with this reasoning? Come on - That rights-violation logic is just semantics to make a point... If you were to stand on any proper platform with this logic you'd would be deemed a fool...I'll leave that there.

If you are saying that people who maintain the view that marriage is solely between a man and a woman should change their perspective because one group has a loud mouth and they call you ignorant and bigoted if you don't agree with them, well...we're never going to see eye-to-eye as I have no intention of changing my view and have not been provided with any satisfactory reasons as to why I should.

Yeah that's exactly why you should change your view - because a loud mouth group calls you ignorant and bigoted for disagreeing with them... You finally starting to see the light.... Again- this hour of the day? lol

Because even when offered all the civil rights as accorded to married heter-sexual couples they still cry discrimination because of the term civil union as opposed to marriage which tells me that it is much deeper than just legal rights.

Well the truth is that civil unions generally don't grant all the same rights and protections granted under marriage, and the disparities vary from state to state - a couple's civil union is also only recognized in the state in which that couple resides...so it is in fact discriminatory...they aren't just "crying discrimination".

..So do you still think it's deeper than just equal rights? If so, what do you deem to be the real issue...other than them just being loud mouths of course. 


74
General Discussion / Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« on: May 15, 2012, 08:57:20 AM »
It is not about believing that same-sex couples are less than equal in any way, that is just an accusation used by proponents of same sex marriages to label opponents as discriminatory for holding on to what they know as true in their religion.

That's actually not true.

And if you think the only people using the bible to define marriage are those holding on to what is true in their religion, I think yuh being real naive...

I believe in the future, likely in my lifetime, that there will be no big distinction between the genders... Children will grow up with a choice, be it heterosexual or homosexual seeing as anything goes under the prevailing societal norms. Its only a matter of time.[/b]

You really think sexual orientation is a choice? I find that opinion hard to reason with.  I didn't choose my sexual orientation....I don't see why it's reasonable to assume that gays chose to be gay.

75
General Discussion / Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« on: May 15, 2012, 08:50:14 AM »
This is what you said:

Plantation owners and Pro-segregationists used to use the bible to support their beliefs too, when the morality of slavery and apartheid used to be called into question.


Were you not implying that people who oppose homosexual marriage based on the scriptures are akin to those who justified slavery and apartheid?

No. I was just saying that the practice of picking and choosing language from a large pool of data/information to support your point doesn't always yield a conclusive argument - the segregationist piece was an example of such.  First you accuse me of implying that slavery had it's roots in the religion - now you're saying I'm implying that one set of people are akin to another set of people...are you just throwing everything against the wall and hoping for something to stick?

Well in case you did not know, the Bible is VERY clear in its condemnation of homosexuality whereas nothing in the Bible could have been used to justify the trans-atlantic slave trade, slavery in the Americas or apartheid in South Africa.  ::)

Ok if you say so.  I was talking about Apartheid in America btw.

So take your time and don't try to act as though you weren't making that comparison. Hence my 'anyone who could read...' comment.

Easy lol.  Doh buff meh so nuh... I wasn't trying to act as though anything - I think I explained myself clearly - If you don't understand it, then we can just leave it there.

And that was not what Bakes was saying.

That is what he was saying - but I'll leave it to him to clarify

Anyways I was saying, the larger point for me is about equal rights...I think that the use of the bible to support a position against same-sex marriage is a distraction from that larger more important issue.  Despite me disagreeing with his overall position, I think Preacher put it in good perspective in his last post:

"I've simply stated what I believe. I ain't judging nobody or condemning anyone either.  The same Bible I quote states that all men are condemned but for God's grace.  Anyone could reach to heaven with a pure heart and find the answers they need."

Truetrini also made a good point about our understanding of sexuality evolving since the days the bible was written - I think that speaks volumes... On the other side of the coin, I concur with alot of what is being said by JDB and Bakes too...so across the spectrum there is a common ground if we willing to share it. 

76
Football / Re: La Liga Season 2011-2012
« on: May 15, 2012, 08:09:05 AM »
Losing Capdevilla and Cazorla, on top of injuries to Nilmar and Rossi, and the lack of a proper replacement for the aging Senna just killed that side -they don't have a deep roster, and they were playing in more than one competition this season too - was too much for them to handle.

It real sad, but I think they will be back.  They have a good philosophy at that club.  They were one major piece of silverware away from becoming a force to be reckoned with.  If they managed to win a major championship in their prime days and got that influx of cash from it, they woulda never looked back. 

77
General Discussion / Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« on: May 15, 2012, 07:37:23 AM »

Understandable, but it's not like a send yuh the question by PM, it is for anyone ot answer or comment on...

but I ask the question because the context of this debate is about laws governing same-sex relationships. I know we gone off on a "what the Bible say" tangent but even if we accept that the Bible say that homosexuality is sin...then what? The Bible can't be a foundation for law-making in a democracy where you claim to have separation of Church and State.

How different would it be from a state run under Sharia law if we use one religion or ten religions to justify a legal definition of marriage?

The component of marriage in the public debate is not the religious one, but the social and economic one. The debate is about same-sex couples that operate in society in the same way as traditional couples being granted equal economic and social rights under the law. Rights to healthcare coverage, next of kin status, child support, child visitation priveleges in the event of a break-up etc.

Those in opposition to same-sex marriage recognition under the law need to come out and say that they believe same-sex couples are less equal than heterosexual couples and why?

I don't vote, I don't participate in politics, I have no party allegiance. I simply observe politics with wry cynicism.

I state my opinions on matters (when I feel like it) whether they are of a religious basis or not.

To the rest of your post, you will be better served being answered by someone who actually does participates in politics, not by me.

I entered this discussion when the Bible was brought in and all the replies have revolved around that.

lol Toppa you can answer the question without being a voter - come on.  You don't need to "participate in politics" to have an opinion on equal rights - that makes no sense.  The point that JDB is making is the greater point - it's the point that I made earlier too - and as lefty pointed it out - EVERYONE in this thread opposed to same-sex marriage side steps it.  In fact this whole long discussion about whether the bible condemns or condones homosexual marriage is an intentional distraction from the equal rights issue at hand.

78
General Discussion / Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« on: May 15, 2012, 07:26:18 AM »

What were the sociological/economic reason for marriage expressed in the Bible?

Kicker was implying that slavery, apartheid and by proxy racisim had religious roots. That is not true as any student of history should know.

Where did I imply that? I said that the separatists used the bible to justify their actions when it was called into question -Any student of history should know that.  There's a big difference between saying that and saying that slavery and apartheid had religious roots - even though there are some that will argue that as well (it was not my argument - I don't know enough to support that).

And Bakes' point was not that the socio-economics of marriage are discussed in the bible - his point is that even despite the construct of marriage being highly "economic and sociological", the bible still does comment on it - so to denounce a discussion of slavery, apartheid and the bible on the basis of it being "economic and sociological" makes no sense. 

79
General Discussion / Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« on: May 14, 2012, 08:52:27 PM »
Yes, and it would be clear to anyone who is somewhat literate that the Bible does/did not preach either of those things. The reasons for slavery and the ensuing racism was sociological/economic - not religious so don't even go there.

Toppa now yuh just picking and choosing.  The reasons for marriage were also "sociological/economic"... but the bible "does/did not preach" slavery and apartheid but it preaches about marriage?  Get real, lol.

Thanks Bakes - Toppa you for real? lol


80
General Discussion / Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« on: May 14, 2012, 02:53:42 PM »
Doh study dem by die hard - it's like data mining.  If yuh mine a large enough amount of data, you will find stuff to support your argument.

Plantation owners and Pro-segregationists used to use the bible to support their beliefs too, when the morality of slavery and apartheid used to be called into question.

81
General Discussion / Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« on: May 14, 2012, 02:47:00 PM »
Kicker you just jumpin my thing an trying to twisting it.  You obviously didn't ready my response to Lefty.  No scene though I does do it to.  Anyways based on friend these are the same that claim that they were born this way.  It was her opinion that they all confessed sexual abuse in their past that triggered certain things.   That was my point to Lefty.  Let the states vote on it.  And let the voice of the people stand and don't criticize me for my vote.  You know how much schools across America imposing Homosexuality on little children and parents ain't even getting to vote?  Stop believing them sound bites.  Stay on God side and keep straight. 

I not jumping on anything.  I read your responses.  I'm also not criticizing your "vote" either, I just asked a question - and you quite frankly still haven't answered it.

Anyway as you say, let the states vote (whatever that means) - that's fine.

82
General Discussion / Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« on: May 14, 2012, 01:20:46 PM »
she have many friends that are gay. She has said that in her conversations almost all have had some kind of sexual abuse. 

And...

Is that fair grounds to deny equal rights?

What you talking bout?  Who denying rights?  Aren't the states voting?  How come that ain't good enough?

Opposition to same-sex marriage is ultimately opposition to certain rights based on sexual orientation...

So if you're in favor of denying gays the right to get married, you are ultimately in favor of denying them certain rights based on their sexual orientation...

So again I ask you - In your opinion, does your observation (or your friend's observation) of sexual abuse as a pattern among gay people serve as grounds for 1) opposing same-sex marriage, and 2) ultimately intending the to deny the rights of some, based on their sexual orientation?

And if not, then what is your point?

83
General Discussion / Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« on: May 14, 2012, 12:51:16 PM »
she have many friends that are gay. She has said that in her conversations almost all have had some kind of sexual abuse. 

And...

Is that fair grounds to deny equal rights?

84
General Discussion / Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« on: May 14, 2012, 08:48:43 AM »
"Ramesh" hold your ground buddy.. the whole catholic church crowding that cave you held up in. Cud care less about who marrying who, but when ah man can't voice his opinion or at least have an opinion, makes me wonder how much of a democracy we living in. But then.. being gay is the new black jew..right! Can't say shit without being branded.

Jumbie alot of people who are of the opinion that gays should be able to get married are generally called way worse...Don't act like that opinion doesn't come under fire and persecution (unless you been living under a rock) - democracy my arse brother - if yuh only cryin' democracy when yuh opinion is on the losing end, yuh not supporting any democracy.  Plus, it's one thing to have an opinion but if want to supporting referring to homos with slurs such as bullerman and categorize a step towards equal rights as "supporting de bullermen dem", then yuh arguing a different point. 

 "if yuh only cryin' democracy when yuh opinion is on the losing end, yuh not supporting any democracy". This should not be about winning or losing. Who is the winner here? The gays who continue living as they always did or the guy who feel he can't support that?

I've never been one to degrade others by name calling etc (i may fling a 'c**t' here and there), so that is not my agenda. I just feel we need to be more open about things (have people voice how they feel), so we have a clearer picture as to where we are and where we need to be. Ramesh have a fackup way of expressing himself, but his saying homo etc and the people who have the same feelings but keeping quiet, is no different.

You miss my point about losing end.  I meant the traditional perspective losing popularity - not who is winning or losing based on what Obama is advocating. 

I have no issue with someone how disagrees with the principle of gay marriage - Can't endorse a fight against equal rights though. 

85
General Discussion / Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« on: May 14, 2012, 08:32:40 AM »
Love how people conveniently talk on behalf of God lol... Allyuh eh playin' allyuh self righteous nuh. Next ting yuh gonna tell me is God who wrote the bible.  Why allyuh doh just leave the judging to God?

How many f*cking adulterers it have out there enjoying the full rights and benefits of heterosexual marriage? How come that doh bother allyuh moral conscience.

As ah say, let God judge. 


86
Football / Re: German Cup (spoiler inside)
« on: May 14, 2012, 08:18:48 AM »
Matt Hummels is a beast.. reminded me of Vidic..

Mats Hummels...

And he badder than Vidic. 

87
General Discussion / Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« on: May 12, 2012, 09:01:04 AM »
"Ramesh" hold your ground buddy.. the whole catholic church crowding that cave you held up in. Cud care less about who marrying who, but when ah man can't voice his opinion or at least have an opinion, makes me wonder how much of a democracy we living in. But then.. being gay is the new black jew..right! Can't say shit without being branded.

Jumbie alot of people who are of the opinion that gays should be able to get married are generally called way worse...Don't act like that opinion doesn't come under fire and persecution (unless you been living under a rock) - democracy my arse brother - if yuh only cryin' democracy when yuh opinion is on the losing end, yuh not supporting any democracy.  Plus, it's one thing to have an opinion but if want to supporting referring to homos with slurs such as bullerman and categorize a step towards equal rights as "supporting de bullermen dem", then yuh arguing a different point. 

88
Football / Re: The Stretford End- Home of the Champions
« on: May 11, 2012, 01:15:39 PM »
Nah man! I watching dat new kit and feeling hungry!

why? because it look like a tablecloth?

89
General Discussion / Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« on: May 11, 2012, 12:18:14 PM »
Mr Obama has just lost My vote I will not support anyone who support dem bullerman dem.. f**k obama and his politricks.. now all allyuh bullerman gwan chat..
war

Proof that cavemen still exist. 

why you feel the need to debase and belittle cavemen?  what have cave dwellers done for you to denigrate them in such a manner?

lol  :rotfl:

I eh denigrate nobody (on purpose)

90
General Discussion / Re: Barack Obama Supports Same-Sex Marriage
« on: May 11, 2012, 11:23:34 AM »
Mr Obama has just lost My vote I will not support anyone who support dem bullerman dem.. f**k obama and his politricks.. now all allyuh bullerman gwan chat..
war

Proof that cavemen still exist. 

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 297