I knew it was going to happen, but...Follow

He's attractive though. All that hair on his chest.

What I found fascinating about the first several of those polls is how quickly opinion is moving on the issue in a few short years. Most of the comparisons were about 8 years long. Certainly within a decade. And all moving smoothly towards greater acceptance of homosexuals.

I agree. Genesis were good.

I had a funny in retrospect but awkward at the time moment the other day that was somewhat Phil Collins related, actually.

So, I'm in the library silent area and "In the air tonight" comes on, MP3 player. I'm just minding my own business, listening to the song. Suddenly, le wild drop appears. Out of habbit I bang on my table to the "Duh duh, duh duh, duh duh, duh duh, duhduhduh duh!" bit.

Afterwards I realised where I was, looked around and like five people were staring at me in that very English way. You know where they're like "You've annoyed me to the point where I may have to tut at you at any moment". Yeah, that wasn't fun. At the time.

Well, neocons have absolutely no qualms about interfering with women's reproductive rights, so why not extend that assumed jurisdiction and demand a note from an OB/GYN that said woman is fertile before issuing a marriage license? That's as "small government" as anything else I've heard from the wing nuts.

Oh, and I'm sure there'll need to be an approved list of doctors, of course.

Pfff, a government small enough to peek under the crack of your bedroom door

Not really. You see they don't accept your premise, and are trying to show you where your premise leads if you actually take it seriously. It certainly doesn't lead to the current state of affairs, which might seem to indicate to a reasonable person that maybe in fact, it's not correct.

It's also far from the best response, but I do understand that it is the only one that appears to you to actually accept your premise at face value, so you would think that it is the best one.

Edited, Mar 19th 2012 8:08pm by Xsarus

It is a violation of a sibling couple's rights to deny them marriage. But it's considered legitimate to take away someone's rights in the face of overwhelming social need. So far, the courts have agreed that restricting siblings from marrying counts.

This is nothing new; it's the second half the the Perez argument that gets brought up in every one of these threads. Likewise, as I've said umpteen times in various threads, the government violates our rights as a matter of social course on a regular basis (i.e. the less than absolute nature of the freedom of speech/religion/press, etc). It doesn't bother me at all to say we're violating a sibling couple's fundamental rights to deny them marriage or that of a mother and son or an adult and a child, etc. Why should it?

In those cases though, the perception is that there is a definite social ill when you allow those marriages. This is the same mindset that has prevented same sex marriage. Not some retarded "Oh, but benefits are for children!" crap but that same sex marriages are icky and bad and harm the social fabric. At least people with the balls to argue from that perspective are understanding the point of the Perez argument instead of dopes who say "No one says it's violating siblings' rights not to marry".

I'll also pre-emptively state that I'm not looking to debate this point yet again either. This has come up in previous threads and each time Gbaji acts surprised to learn this or something. #363, #373 & #379

You can't really take someone seriously when they're hell-bent on proving they have all the memory of a goldfish.

Edited, Mar 19th 2012 9:53pm by Jophiel

You should really ask yourself this.

I like goldfish memory'd people that think you are taking them serious.