·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Don't Say Gay Bill
Don't Say Gay BillFollow
Meh. I think the main reason for people ******** around is getting married right out of high-school. People don't have enough pre-marital sex, so go out looking for extra-marital sex.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Nilatai wrote:
Meh. I think the main reason for people ******** around is getting married right out of high-school. People don't have enough pre-marital sex, so go out looking for extra-marital sex.
While that's probably part of the issue, talking to people who have done so, a common response has been "tired of the same 'ol thing". They just want something different, which can go hand and hand with your statement of not having the ***** experience.
Debauchery for the win. Take that conservative values!
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
I wonder where I'd be today if I didn't receive the ***** experience.
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Meh. I think the main reason for people ******** around is getting married right out of high-school. People don't have enough pre-marital sex, so go out looking for extra-marital sex.
While that's probably part of the issue, talking to people who have done so, a common response has been "tired of the same 'ol thing". They just want something different, which can go hand and hand with your statement of not having the ***** experience.
If that is the common response that you are getting, then I would think that those particular people were not really in love with their spouse. I have seen reasoning that involves that the cheater isn't getting what he/she wants out of the relationship and that is what led they astray. This excuse is only slightly less f'd up. I do understand that people can feel that they aren't getting enough out of a relationship, but the proper way to handle that is to communicate and seek outside help if needed. Failing this, breaking up would be the next step. I don't think that cheating is ever an appropriate response.
#457gbaji,
Posted: May 03 2011 at 5:45 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) At the risk of resurrecting a conversation from last week:
gbaji wrote:
Because historically, same sex couples have been considered a "special circumstance" for which legally recognized marriage has been denied. The side which wants to change that kinda bears the burden of convincing everyone else that the rules we've followed all along should change, right?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
gbaji wrote:
At the risk of resurrecting a conversation from last week:
Because historically, same sex couples have been considered a "special circumstance" for which legally recognized marriage has been denied. The side which wants to change that kinda bears the burden of convincing everyone else that the rules we've followed all along should change, right?
Jophiel wrote:
SSM is unquestionably a civil rights matter. The courts have ruled and upheld that marriage is a fundamental right and can only be denied under special circumstances. It is upon opponents to SSM to explain why this fundamental right should be denied to this specific group. Unfortunately, due to politics and homophobia, it has fallen upon the proponents to convince people supposedly tasked with protecting our rights why they should be allowed to have them.
Because historically, same sex couples have been considered a "special circumstance" for which legally recognized marriage has been denied. The side which wants to change that kinda bears the burden of convincing everyone else that the rules we've followed all along should change, right?
Yes yes, and historically, we had slaves, and women couldn't vote. Times change, try to keep up moron.
#460gbaji,
Posted: May 03 2011 at 6:52 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) And that's exactly the kind of statement which could equally apply to any of the [boogeyman sexual thingies] Joph talked about. That was easy!
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Because historically, same sex couples have been considered a "special circumstance" for which legally recognized marriage has been denied. The side which wants to change that kinda bears the burden of convincing everyone else that the rules we've followed all along should change, right?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
There is no legal "slippery slope" argument from SSM to [boogeyman sexual thingie] because [boogeyman sexual thingie] has its own specific reasons for being denied this right.
When the arguments for moving same sex couples from the "denied" set to the "accepted" set apply equally well for those other [boogeyman sexual thingie] groups, then it is a slippery slope.
Really? So the same arguments apply whether we're talking about homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, etc? Your argument, presumably, would be that gay people are unable to give consent, right?
Majivo wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
There is no legal "slippery slope" argument from SSM to [boogeyman sexual thingie] because [boogeyman sexual thingie] has its own specific reasons for being denied this right.
When the arguments for moving same sex couples from the "denied" set to the "accepted" set apply equally well for those other [boogeyman sexual thingie] groups, then it is a slippery slope.
Really? So the same arguments apply whether we're talking about homosexuality, @#%^philia, bestiality, etc? Your argument, presumably, would be that gay people are unable to give consent, right?
Gay people, are in reality, toasters.
Nadenu wrote:
Gay people, are in reality, toasters.
I, for one, take no offense if two loving, consensual toasters choose to fuck each other. However, gbaji clearly feels that the economic impact on the bagel industry is too great to allow this to happen.
Not to get on the conservative side, as I completely understand and agree with the consent being a necessary part of marriage, but what is the defense against polygamy then?
LockeColeMA wrote:
what is the defense against polygamy then?
But seriously, I don't see it needing a defense. Seems human nature wasn't intended for the mating for life with a single person model. As long as they're in full agreement, shouldn't really be wrong. Again, the idea is that all parties in question are consential partners and adults. Pretty much feel the same way towards it as I do SSM. Not for me.
Edit: Added a word that should be common sense but you know it wouldn't be.
Edited, May 3rd 2011 11:58pm by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
what is the defense against polygamy then?
But seriously, I don't see it needing a defense. Seems human nature wasn't intended for the mating for life with a single person model. As long as they're in full agreement, shouldn't really be wrong. Again, the idea is that all parties in question are consential partners. Pretty much feel the same way towards it as I do SSM. Not for me.
Edited, May 3rd 2011 11:32pm by lolgaxe
This.
I also feel that way about (consensual adult) incest.
LockeColeMA wrote:
Not to get on the conservative side, as I completely understand and agree with the consent being a necessary part of marriage, but what is the defense against polygamy then?
As long as all parties are consenting, mentally competent adults, I don't care who gets married. Polygamy, ok, reletives, not my business.
LockeColeMA wrote:
Not to get on the conservative side, as I completely understand and agree with the consent being a necessary part of marriage, but what is the defense against polygamy then?
Plenty of other people have responded to it, but yeah, I don't see the necessity of a defense. I'm sure, however, that anyone who supported same-sex marriage but not polygamy could find one. I'm just not motivated enough to think it through, because it's not an issue for me.
Majivo wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Not to get on the conservative side, as I completely understand and agree with the consent being a necessary part of marriage, but what is the defense against polygamy then?
Plenty of other people have responded to it, but yeah, I don't see the necessity of a defense. I'm sure, however, that anyone who supported same-sex marriage but not polygamy could find one. I'm just not motivated enough to think it through, because it's not an issue for me.
Polygamy laws are really to protect people from getting married to someone that's already married and their new spouse is unaware. It's perfectly acceptable to have polygamous relationships, you just can't be legally married to more than one person, because that kind of throws a wrench in the whole system we have going here. Also, I'm sure for a lot of people it's the same "pollution of the sacred rite of marriage" that so many people are concerned about, when we have 50%+ divorce rates...
What everyone else said.
I have no problem with consenting polygamy, incest, ect. I personally wouldn't engage in either (especially the polygamy, wtf??) but if others want to, more power to them.
I have no problem with consenting polygamy, incest, ect. I personally wouldn't engage in either (especially the polygamy, wtf??) but if others want to, more power to them.
Majivo wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Gay people, are in reality, toasters.
I, for one, take no offense if two loving, consensual toasters choose to fuck each other. However, gbaji clearly feels that the economic impact on the bagel industry is too great to allow this to happen.
Okay, if I ever get to 10k, I want my title to be "consentual toaster"
Dead serious.
Toasters are too much like a woman four slots, shiny, makes toast. Need a better appliance analogy.
Ailitardif wrote:
Toasters are too much like a woman four slots, shiny, makes toast. Need a better appliance analogy.
Toasterphobe.
#475REDACTED,
Posted: May 04 2011 at 9:16 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) All your opinions only matter if you think the govn should be in the marrying business and that married couples should receive benefits singles do not.
Quote:
All your opinions only matter if you think the govn should be in the marrying business and that married couples should receive benefits singles do not.
Married couple should not receive benefits that singles do not. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the gay marriage issue as logic would dictate that if it were, then the argument should be against marriage in general.
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust
The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning
Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
Recent Visitors: 184
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (184)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Don't Say Gay Bill
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC