Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

LBGT TerrorismFollow

#402 Sep 06 2012 at 1:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
@Alma Same sex marriage is not legal (recognized by the government if you will) so no one has ever made the argument "they have it so we should to" when talking about same sex marriage. Therefore, no one has ever gotten upset by the scenario you presented.


Are you saying that there are no places in the United States where SSM is recognized by the government?


Pretty sure she was referring to the federal government; not the state or local level.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#403 Sep 06 2012 at 1:50 PM Rating: Good
someproteinguy wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
@Alma Same sex marriage is not legal (recognized by the government if you will) so no one has ever made the argument "they have it so we should to" when talking about same sex marriage. Therefore, no one has ever gotten upset by the scenario you presented.


Are you saying that there are no places in the United States where SSM is recognized by the government?


Pretty sure she was referring to the federal government; not the state or local level.

#404 Sep 06 2012 at 1:55 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Belkira wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
@Alma Same sex marriage is not legal (recognized by the government if you will) so no one has ever made the argument "they have it so we should to" when talking about same sex marriage. Therefore, no one has ever gotten upset by the scenario you presented.


Are you saying that there are no places in the United States where SSM is recognized by the government?


Pretty sure she was referring to the federal government; not the state or local level.



Pretty sure that's what the other groups were saying also.
#405 Sep 06 2012 at 1:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
By the federal government? No, there's not. DOMA and all that.

Edited, Sep 6th 2012 2:59pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#406 Sep 06 2012 at 2:30 PM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
@Alma Same sex marriage is not legal (recognized by the government if you will) so no one has ever made the argument "they have it so we should to" when talking about same sex marriage. Therefore, no one has ever gotten upset by the scenario you presented.


Are you saying that there are no places in the United States where SSM is recognized by the government?


Pretty sure she was referring to the federal government; not the state or local level.



Pretty sure that's what the other groups were saying also.


Sure. But same sex marriage is not legal. So no groups are holding them up as examples.

So your question is moot. Because the scenario you presented has never happened.

With me?
#407Almalieque, Posted: Sep 06 2012 at 4:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's not moot, you're just in denial. I never specified Federal legalization. I said that the other groups are wanting the same privileges as SSM. There exist places in the US where SSM is recognized and supporters for child love, bestiality, polygamy, toaster-love, etc. want the same privileges.
#408 Sep 06 2012 at 6:16 PM Rating: Good
Smiley: laugh

Well, if their other arguments hold up, perhaps they'll get the rights they are seeking.

Edited, Sep 6th 2012 9:26pm by Belkira
#409 Sep 07 2012 at 7:33 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Belkira wrote:
With me?
You know the answer to that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#410 Sep 07 2012 at 7:51 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Quote:
Sure. But same sex marriage is not legal. So no groups are holding them up as examples.

So your question is moot. Because the scenario you presented has never happened.

With me?


It's not moot, you're just in denial. I never specified Federal legalization. I said that the other groups are wanting the same privileges as SSM. There exist places in the US where SSM is recognized and supporters for child love, bestiality, polygamy, toaster-love, etc. want the same privileges.

So?

If the toaster-lovers want to push to allow for toaster-marriage they can do that. In fact, if they think it will help their cause they can point to a married couple, one of which has metal pins holding a a knee together and use them as an example of why it's ok to marry something made of metal.

It has no relevance in the issue of same-sex marriage. It is the proverbial red herring. I suppose you could even say it's moot. But you already said it wasn't. So let it be moot but meaningless.

(Personally if I were to marry an appliance it would be my coffee pot)
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#411Almalieque, Posted: Sep 07 2012 at 1:05 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) None of what you said has any relevance to my question. SSM supporters admit to the "they got it, so we should get it too" argument with other groups completely irrelevant to them in a total different type of discrimination. At the same time, SSM supporters get upset when the SAME EXACT argument/comparison is done with toaster lovers, etc., attempting to point out all of the differences and flaws. Why is it ok for one group but not the other?
#412 Sep 07 2012 at 3:20 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I think it's relevant when discussing a set of couples who can't procreate (as a couple) to observe that perhaps the same arguments no longer apply.
We should set a age limit to marriage, and necessitate the need for complete medical screening. Probably best if we strap a device on them that requires they procreate in a certain amount of time to keep them from getting married and deciding not to procreate. While we're at it, let's make it a crime for couples to get married and divorcing before they can pop out a spawn.


Or we could just include every couple which might possibly be able to procreate and avoid all the tests and expense. Of course, that leaves us with "one adult male and one adult female". Hmmm... It's almost like that's precisely *why* that criteria was adopted.

I'll also point out (for the zillionth time) that while your argument makes a case for restricting marriage further among heterosexual couples, it's not even remotely making the case for expanding it to same sex couples.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#413 Sep 07 2012 at 3:23 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Or we could just include every couple which might possibly be able to procreate and avoid all the tests and expense.
Good, then we can let the gays marry because there are medical procedures to allow them to procreate as well! Glad you agree.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#414 Sep 07 2012 at 3:30 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Why are you arguing so much to get toaster lovers equal rights?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#415 Sep 07 2012 at 3:30 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Stock in butter. That shit is gonna skyrocket.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#416 Sep 07 2012 at 4:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Or we could just include every couple which might possibly be able to procreate and avoid all the tests and expense.
Good, then we can let the gays marry because there are medical procedures to allow them to procreate as well! Glad you agree.

Those kids don't count in the eyes of Gbaji.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#417 Sep 07 2012 at 5:31 PM Rating: Good
@Alma - I've not seen anyone get upset about that. Again, I have NEVER seen any group make the argument that you are insisting on. All I've ever seen is people suggesting that either same sex marriage shouldn't be legal because othe groups will use the precedent to argue for their rights, or that same sex supporters need to argue for legalization of all of these other scenarios. Not one time have I heard someone say, "Same sex marriage is legal in New York. Polygamy should be as well."

I have heard people make the argument that homosexuality and ped[b][/b]ophilia are the same thing. And I think it's easy to see why that might upset some people.
#418 Sep 07 2012 at 5:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Alma is countering the arguments he wished everyone made rather than the ones being made.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#419 Sep 07 2012 at 5:56 PM Rating: Excellent
I'm just going to leave this here.

“They Won’t Magically Turn You Into A Lustful Cockmonster”: Chris Kluwe Explains Gay Marriage To The Politician Who Is Offended By An NFL Player Supporting It

Deadspin wrote:
Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo has spoken out in favor of a Maryland ballot initiative that would legalize gay marriage. Yahoo has published a letter that Maryland state delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. wrote last week to Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti, urging him to "inhibit such expressions from your employee." This is Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe's response to Burns.

Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,

I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland's state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):

1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should "inhibit such expressions from your employees," more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-boggingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person's right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. Mindfucking obscenely hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.

2. "Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement." Holy fucking shitballs. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who's "deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland"? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you're going to say that political views have "no place in a sport"? I can't even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for "beautiful oppressionism").

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you'll start thinking about *****? "Oh shItalic Textit. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!" Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely, since gay people enjoy watching football too.)

I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won't come into your house and steal your children. They won't magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won't even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth clusterfuck you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I'm fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely,
Chris Kluwe

P.S. I've also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your "I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing" and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. Asshole.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#420 Sep 08 2012 at 10:02 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
I am totally going to use the expression "shitalic textit" from now on.

Edited, Sep 8th 2012 12:04pm by Eske
#421 Sep 08 2012 at 11:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
I am totally going to use the expression "shitalic textit" from now on.

Edited, Sep 8th 2012 12:04pm by Eske



For what? A badly done boob tattoo?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#422 Sep 08 2012 at 1:05 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Samira wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
I am totally going to use the expression "shitalic textit" from now on.

Edited, Sep 8th 2012 12:04pm by Eske



For what? A badly done boob tattoo?


Smiley: lol
#423 Sep 08 2012 at 1:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Maybe its a scientific name for a bird that likes to **** alot in texas??

Edited, Sep 8th 2012 12:32pm by Kaolian
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#424Almalieque, Posted: Sep 09 2012 at 3:34 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's not the toaster lovers making the arguments. It's opponents of SSM who either rightfully or wrongfully interject toaster lovers, child lovers, bestiality, etc. in the argument. It happens in EVERY SINGLE THREAD HERE, to include this one. Proponents either say "It's a slippery slope" or something along the lines of those groups having to fight their own battles.
#425 Sep 09 2012 at 8:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Proponents either say "It's a slippery slope" or something along the lines of those groups having to fight their own battles.

It is and they do. Did blacks gain their rights quickly, painlessly or effortlessly on the backs of women's rights or vice versa? Did ending the era of "No Irish Need Apply" suddenly mean equal job opportunities for African-Americans? Wasn't there a fifty year gap between allowing black men the right to vote and allowing women the right to vote? Can you name a couple groups where one just slid right in sharing equal rights without any work or struggle just by saying "Well, they did it"?

If you can't, it's time to admit that each group will need to make their own independent case, struggle against status quo, fight to establish a majority in favor of giving them their rights and then go on to fight a government system pretty much designed around keeping things stable. All the previous evidence is against the "slippery slope!" argument.

Now, if you want to make the mature, fact based and less hysterical argument that [boogeyman group] may one day make the same arduous journey towards acceptance with all the struggle, strife and effort that goes with it, with unsure results and countless legal challenges (not only to stop them but issues with fitting their desired arrangement into the existing legal code), then go ahead. And you'll be making the same argument that you're currently throwing a fit about.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#426Almalieque, Posted: Sep 09 2012 at 8:54 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Not at all. This goes back to what I said before, it's the EFFECT of the LAW, not the intent of the law. If you make immigration laws with the intent of making it easier or harder for Mexican immigrants to live in and/or exit the U.S., then that applies TO ALL IMMIGRANTS unless you specifically annotate Mexican immigrants.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 362 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (362)