Conquer Club

Nature invented marriage

about your post I am just seeing, ever heard of a civil union?

Phatscotty wrote:Nature invented marriage

about your post I am just seeing, ever heard of a civil union?

Really? Where did we find marriage in nature? I think you're confusing the Bible with reality. Nature is teeming with examples where monogamy is absurd. We as a society constructed an institution where a person would only have one sexual partner for their entire life.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Nature invented marriage

about your post I am just seeing, ever heard of a civil union?

Really? Where did we find marriage in nature? I think you're confusing the Bible with reality.

There is only one person here who keeps bringing up the Bible, and it isn't me, so check your premise or else accept that you are spinning out of control with your thoughtless responses


The nature is found in that the penis carries sperm, and the vagina carries eggs. The vagina is meant for the penis, and the penis is meant for the vagina. It's natural for the male and the female to connect, and it is what nature has intended. Sure, some bonobo monkeys practice homosexuality, and an otter might get a chubby from rubbing on a wet log, and maybe 2 male panda bears live together forever, oh and there was this one US revolutionary general who liked guys; but nature has created the sexes for a purpose, and if it did not, we would not be here.

Phatscotty wrote: The nature is found in that the penis carries sperm, and the vagina carries eggs. The vagina is meant for the penis, and the penis is meant for the vagina. It's natural for the male and the female to connect, and it is what nature has intended. Sure, some bonobo monkeys practice homosexuality, and an otter might get a chubby from rubbing on a wet log, and maybe 2 male panda bears live together forever, oh and there was thing on US revolutionary general who liked guys, but nature has created purpose, and if it did not, we would not be here.

That has absolutely nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is about having sex with only one person for the rest of your life. That is most unnatural: only around 5% of animal species are monogamous.

Phatscotty wrote:The nature is found in that the penis carries sperm, and the vagina carries eggs.

Dude, that's not how it works.

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:The nature is found in that the penis carries sperm, and the vagina carries eggs.

Dude, that's not how it works.

Come now, you can't expect them to have passed high school biology. Pick your battles, bro.

wow........just wow

Phatscotty wrote:wow........just wow

If that is a surprise to you and you would like a resource for learning basic human biology, I can provide you with a source on Amazon.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Nature invented marriage

about your post I am just seeing, ever heard of a civil union?

Really? Where did we find marriage in nature? I think you're confusing the Bible with reality. Nature is teeming with examples where monogamy is absurd. We as a society constructed an institution where a person would only have one sexual partner for their entire life.

Just to point this out, some species of animals do have lifetime mates (as in one). Bald eagles come to mind.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:wow........just wow

If that is a surprise to you and you would like a resource for learning basic human biology, I can provide you with a source on Amazon.

it's seems that you are unaware that a penis belongs to a male, and a vagina belongs to a female ( not surprised). That should be enough for you to get an extremely basic point without me having to give a dissertation on the scrotum and ovaries.

I think you sounded less stupid when you were attacking me as a Bible-thumper

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:wow........just wow

If that is a surprise to you and you would like a resource for learning basic human biology, I can provide you with a source on Amazon.

it's seems that you are unaware that a penis belongs to a male, and a vagina belongs to a female ( not surprised). That should be enough for you to get an extremely basic point without me having to give a dissertation on the scrotum and ovaries.

I think you sounded less stupid when you were attacking me as a Bible-thumper

Here you go:



http://www.amazon.com/Its-So-Amazing-Fa ... 546&sr=8-1

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:wow........just wow

If that is a surprise to you and you would like a resource for learning basic human biology, I can provide you with a source on Amazon.

it's seems that you are unaware that a penis belongs to a male, and a vagina belongs to a female ( not surprised). That should be enough for you to get an extremely basic point without me having to give a dissertation on the scrotum and ovaries.

I think you sounded less stupid when you were attacking me as a Bible-thumper

I think he's interested on your weird screeds about sex ed. They get more fascinating as the dearth of your knowledge becomes more apparent.

Did you think people would tell you the basics after marriage?

Mets, on a "hunch" can I ask you something along the lines of another First Amendment section, the Freedom of Speech.

Just curious, to try to understand your views more clearly, do you think that speech which is offensive or oppressive should be illegal?

Phatscotty wrote:Mets, on a "hunch" can I ask you something along the lines of another First Amendment section, the Freedom of Speech.

Just curious, to try to understand your views more clearly, do you think that speech which is offensive or oppressive should be illegal?

I am fairly content with the Brandenburg standard for what speech should be illegal.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:wow........just wow

If that is a surprise to you and you would like a resource for learning basic human biology, I can provide you with a source on Amazon.

it's seems that you are unaware that a penis belongs to a male, and a vagina belongs to a female ( not surprised). That should be enough for you to get an extremely basic point without me having to give a dissertation on the scrotum and ovaries.

I think you sounded less stupid when you were attacking me as a Bible-thumper

Here you go:



http://www.amazon.com/Its-So-Amazing-Fa ... 546&sr=8-1

traditional marriage propaganda!

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:wow........just wow

If that is a surprise to you and you would like a resource for learning basic human biology, I can provide you with a source on Amazon.

it's seems that you are unaware that a penis belongs to a male, and a vagina belongs to a female ( not surprised). That should be enough for you to get an extremely basic point without me having to give a dissertation on the scrotum and ovaries.

I think you sounded less stupid when you were attacking me as a Bible-thumper

Here you go:



http://www.amazon.com/Its-So-Amazing-Fa ... 546&sr=8-1

traditional marriage propaganda!

Wrong. There are both black people and white people in that photo. Not traditional marriage.

filling the void left by Woodruff I see....

Phatscotty wrote:filling the void left by Woodruff I see....

What was wrong with what he said?

Phatscotty wrote:filling the void left by Woodruff I see....

PS, your position is filled with hypocrisy, and I think it's because you care not for states' rights or liberty but a singular vision of how marriage ought to be. In doing so you would toss aside the Constitution and the concept of equality and justice. You do not get to make this choice. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it says in plain language that what you are trying to do is against the law. I don't care what your personal views on liberty are. This decision is not up to you; it has been made already. Therefore what you are trying to do is harmful to this nation. I know that's not what you're trying to do. But it is what is the end consequence of your narrow mindedness on this issue.

You should never be willing to sacrifice the principles upon which the country rests because they grate against your personal beliefs on how things should work. That is the antithesis of being a patriot.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:filling the void left by Woodruff I see....

PS, your position is filled with hypocrisy, and I think it's because you care not for states' rights or liberty but a singular vision of how marriage ought to be. In doing so you would toss aside the Constitution and the concept of equality and justice. You do not get to make this choice. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it says in plain language that what you are trying to do is against the law. I don't care what your personal views on liberty are. This decision is not up to you; it has been made already. Therefore what you are trying to do is harmful to this nation. I know that's not what you're trying to do. But it is what is the end consequence of your narrow mindedness on this issue.

You should never be willing to sacrifice the principles upon which the country rests because they grate against your personal beliefs on how things should work. That is the antithesis of being a patriot.

Excellent post. Well done.

So your point is that marriage happens whenever a male and a female do the bump and grind?

Or is your point that they can have civil union but marriage is OUR WORD!!!! Waaaa!

Pathetic grounds for discrimination either way

Metsfanmax wrote:... The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it says in plain language that what you are trying to do is against the law. I don't care what your personal views on liberty are. This decision is not up to you; it has been made already....

... HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

... The Constitution became irrelevant to what happens in the U.S. quite some time ago, Metsfan".

... Where you been?

...

Nobunaga wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:... The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it says in plain language that what you are trying to do is against the law. I don't care what your personal views on liberty are. This decision is not up to you; it has been made already....

... HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

... The Constitution became irrelevant to what happens in the U.S. quite some time ago, Metsfan".

... Where you been?

...

You may well be correct, to a degree, but how does that explain a certain Phat poster appealing to the Constitution when it suits his purpose , yet ignoring it when it doesn't. Would you agree that such behaviour is the mark of a hypocrite ?

Metsfanmax wrote: You should never be willing to sacrifice the principles upon which the country rests because they grate against your personal beliefs on how things should work. That is the antithesis of being a patriot.

Immortalize that one-liner!

BMO

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:filling the void left by Woodruff I see....

PS, your position is filled with hypocrisy, and I think it's because you care not for states' rights or liberty but a singular vision of how marriage ought to be. In doing so you would toss aside the Constitution and the concept of equality and justice. You do not get to make this choice. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it says in plain language that what you are trying to do is against the law. I don't care what your personal views on liberty are. This decision is not up to you; it has been made already. Therefore what you are trying to do is harmful to this nation. I know that's not what you're trying to do. But it is what is the end consequence of your narrow mindedness on this issue.

You should never be willing to sacrifice the principles upon which the country rests because they grate against your personal beliefs on how things should work. That is the antithesis of being a patriot.

I don't give a crap what gay people do or if they get married or not, so you are flat out wrong. I just happen to think giving the government the power to sue religious institutions for not handling their work the way government says they have to is the worst way to deal with this issue.

Either we believe in the first amendment, freedom of religion, and separation of Church and State, or we don't. I'm not about to sacrifice these CONSTITUTIONAL principles at their core because someone thinks they are being discriminated against by way of not receiving their fair share of monetary benefits.

Don't worry about Greekdog, he will never get it, but it seems he will always be repeating that he doesn't get it.