Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

LBGT TerrorismFollow

#352 Sep 02 2012 at 4:20 PM Rating: Excellent
I just asked a *** person, and he said that their end goal was to make every child grow up totally ***. True story.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#353Almalieque, Posted: Sep 02 2012 at 5:54 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Homosexuals are people too you know! No need to be calling them names.
#354 Sep 02 2012 at 7:24 PM Rating: Good
Alma wrote:
I don't know how else to say it. Your level of maturity at 17 years, 11 months, 30 days, 23 hours, 59 mins and 59 seconds is the same level of maturity at 18 years old. If a person is mature enough to make adult decisions at 18, then it more than likely happened during a transition period much earlier than or much later than their 18th birthday, but NOT on their 18th birthday


Cool story, bro. That doesn't change the fact that by the age of 18, most people are mature enough both physically & emotionally to make adult decisions & consent to ***, though.

Alma wrote:

You just said that you would test them. Now you're saying that it isn't "easy"? Of course it's easy. Churches do it. Not only that, the government tests the validity of international marriages. Sit the couple down and ask them a few questions about their plans, themselves and each other.


How do churches test for maturity, exactly?

Alma wrote:

You keep saying "protect" the children, but you have yet answered how the age of a partner affects an already sexually active scarred or not scarred teenager.


The age of the partner is irrelevant if the 15 year old or her parents are able to consent, wherever this hypothetical example may be.

Alma wrote:
If that's your answer, then you don't care about the ages of the party and do not support laws that punish certain age combinations more than others
.

I sure do, champ! Alma logic only applies to Alma arguments.

Alma wrote:
Those laws protect the mental ill, not children


Retarded folks aren't mentally ill, insane people are mentally ill. If you legally are 18 & "have the mind of a child" you would be unable to consent to *** without parental consent.

Alma wrote:
I'm sorry if you think mental ill people and children are the same.


Your retardedness is adorable sometimes,

Alma wrote:
Then again, you also make homosexual comparisons to the Civil Rights movement, so it's obvious that you're confused.


Not even in the slightest.

Alma wrote:
Of course we know it's illegal. Just like SSM isn't recognized in most states.


I'm ok with a law the protects a segment of society from harm even if it infringes on some people's rights to **** children. I do not know how preventing gays from marrying prevents anyone from harm. Please explain.

Alma wrote:
How is this harm any different than the immature 15 year old having *** with another 15 year old WITH OUT THEIR PARENTAL consent or approval.


A 15 year old too immature to consent to *** would be harmed in either scenario. However, only one scenario has that 15 year old being harmed by an adult who's legally able to make adult decisions. That still remains the difference.

Alma wrote:
So why do you have a problem with someone thinking homosexuality is "weird" aka "wrong".


I don't unless their reasoning for finding it "weird" or "wrong" is bigoted.
The 14th Amendment wrote:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Sure seems to be that gays are covered by this, as well as blacks.
____________________________
"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


#355 Sep 02 2012 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
Quote:
17 years, 11 months, 30 days, 23 hours, 59 mins and 59 seconds
Dumbest argument ever and both you and gbaji have presented some dumb comments over the years.
____________________________
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

#356Almalieque, Posted: Sep 02 2012 at 9:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) What if the parents just DGAF? Do you trust the judgement of a 15 year old? If so, then why is this even a discussion?
#357 Sep 02 2012 at 11:18 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,127 posts
Homosexuality and Boy-loving is usually a Republican issue. Seriously, I applause when I read about a ***-scandal involving a Republican and a woman.



OH HAI THAR LARRY CRAIG!


-NW
____________________________
The Pessimist: A person who looks both ways before crossing a one-way street.
#358 Sep 03 2012 at 1:03 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
670 posts
I think there is a simple solution to the maturity question. Show the concerned parties the movie Project X (not the good one with the monkey). If they think it is the best movie ever and speaks to their generation, they are too immature to have ***.
#359 Sep 03 2012 at 2:15 AM Rating: Good
****
9,526 posts
This whole argument is facepalm
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#360Almalieque, Posted: Sep 03 2012 at 3:46 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're right, but no matter how many other threads I get involved in, only this topic with religion and abortion does the discussion last. Good thing "Page 14" is easy to type Smiley: nod
#361 Sep 04 2012 at 4:33 AM Rating: Good
I took a dump this morning. It was a bit of a battle, required a but of rocking back & forth, & a copious amount of wiping that caused my asshole some tenderness.

As it slid away, smearing the bowl as it spun down the drain, I thought of Alma.

____________________________
"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


#362Almalieque, Posted: Sep 04 2012 at 5:16 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Wow... Thanks.. I feel bad now.. I didn't think of you at all.
#363 Sep 04 2012 at 7:43 AM Rating: Good
******
49,745 posts
Olorinus wrote:
This whole argument is facepalm
Calling it an argument is facepalm worthy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#364 Sep 04 2012 at 1:52 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Olorinus wrote:
This whole argument is facepalm
Calling it an argument is facepalm worthy.


This...

Don't worry. I'm sure it's almost over. Instead of replying his response, Omega flushed it.
#365 Sep 04 2012 at 4:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Wow. Um... Moving right along.

I'm just curious if all those people who insist that since it was a violation of rights to deny inter-racial marriage it must be an equivalent violation to deny homosexual marriage can explain why it was a violation of rights to deny the vote to women (and blacks), but is not a violation to deny it to people under the age of 18? Just hoping that some spark of realization that not all groups of people align with a given issue in the same exact way. It's a slim hope, but it's there.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#366 Sep 04 2012 at 4:16 PM Rating: Good
***
1,000 posts
ZOMG, the next thing you know, DOGS wqill be voting!!!11!!
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#367 Sep 04 2012 at 4:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
I feel a sudden sympathy for that 16 year old black woman who wants to marry her older white girlfriend. Uphill battle and such. Smiley: frown
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#368 Sep 04 2012 at 4:37 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,720 posts
gbaji wrote:
Wow. Um... Moving right along.

I'm just curious if all those people who insist that since it was a violation of rights to deny inter-racial marriage it must be an equivalent violation to deny homosexual marriage can explain why it was a violation of rights to deny the vote to women (and blacks), but is not a violation to deny it to people under the age of 18? Just hoping that some spark of realization that not all groups of people align with a given issue in the same exact way. It's a slim hope, but it's there.


It's not that hard to understand. Children don't have the right to free speech or privacy in educational institutions, nor can they consume alcohol or tobacco legally. The basis for this denial of privelege (or rights, in the case of voting, marraige, etc.) is common belief that up to a certain point, a child is incapable of making a mature educated decision on such matters. The age of 18 may seem completely arbitrary, but until there is a standard unbiased test (i.e. probably never) that can be administered globally to determine the cognitive maturity of an individual, age will have to suffice as a generic cut off.

Then again, there's absolutely zero expectation that you or Alma might ever possibly understand this, so I'd suggest you keep hanging on to that sliver of hope. It's the only thing keeping you afloat.

Edited, Sep 4th 2012 5:38pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#369 Sep 04 2012 at 4:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
why it was a violation of rights to deny the vote to women (and blacks), but is not a violation to deny it to people under the age of 18?

(A) It's not a great comparison since those under 18 will eventually turn 18 barring any calamitous circumstances. Women and blacks will presumably remain female and/or African-American.
(B) It is a violation of their natural rights of self-determination but it's one society holds to be proper for a well functioning democracy. It was decided once prior that the voting age was too high and it was lowered via Constitutional amendment. The catalyst for that was primarily the military draft and the impact it has on men aged 18-20 who could not yet vote. Should someone present a similarly significant issue for people under 18, perhaps we'll change it yet again but, as stands, it's decided that the good outweighs the ills.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#370Almalieque, Posted: Sep 04 2012 at 5:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're preaching to the choir. I understand and accept our age discrimination. I'm just trying to get people like Omega to quit acting like it's something different. He know that it is, but accepting that reality hinders his weak argument. So, instead of strengthening his argument, he argues that it isn't age discrimination based on legitimate reason.
#371 Sep 04 2012 at 7:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
why it was a violation of rights to deny the vote to women (and blacks), but is not a violation to deny it to people under the age of 18?

(A) It's not a great comparison since those under 18 will eventually turn 18 barring any calamitous circumstances. Women and blacks will presumably remain female and/or African-American.


It's comparable in the sense that we may restrict some right or privilege based on its applicability to a given group. Also, I'd argue that the issue about the age isn't because those people will someday be over 18, so it's ok. If that was true, we'd restrict all other rights and privileges as well. But we only infringe *some* of those. We restrict those things which are applicable to the case at hand.


Quote:
(B) It is a violation of their natural rights of self-determination but it's one society holds to be proper for a well functioning democracy. It was decided once prior that the voting age was too high and it was lowered via Constitutional amendment. The catalyst for that was primarily the military draft and the impact it has on men aged 18-20 who could not yet vote. Should someone present a similarly significant issue for people under 18, perhaps we'll change it yet again but, as stands, it's decided that the good outweighs the ills.


Yes. We restrict the right to vote (and a few other things) for minors because of a belief that they cannot fully participate in those things (for reasons of maturity in this case). We also don't allow them to enter into binding contracts. But we don't strip them of their right to live, or right of free speech, or most other rights for that matter. So clearly it's about more than just age alone. And clearly it's not acceptable because one is in a temporary state.

I'm just trying to get some of you to acknowledge that it's not as easy as pointing to one group and saying that since it was wrong to deny them X, that it must also be wrong to deny some other group X. It's only wrong if X applies equally to both groups and the arguments for/against are the same. The reasons why *** marriage and interracial marriage are not comparable are pretty significant. Yet, that doesn't stop many people from making that comparison anyway.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#372 Sep 04 2012 at 7:29 PM Rating: Good
***
1,000 posts
Because marriage between consenting adults and not letting minors vote is like totally the same! It's obvious!

____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#373Almalieque, Posted: Sep 04 2012 at 8:08 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I think that's the point. People are saying that two consenting adults of the same *** should be able to marry because we made it illegal to prevent Black people the ability to vote, use public transportation, public facilities, equal education, etc.
#374 Sep 04 2012 at 8:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
It's almost as if certain people think that the only argument that has ever been made in favor of same *** marriage is "But THEY get to!!!!"

Smiley: looney
#375 Sep 04 2012 at 9:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Yes. We restrict the right to vote (and a few other things) for minors because of a belief that they cannot fully participate in those things (for reasons of maturity in this case). We also don't allow them to enter into binding contracts. But we don't strip them of their right to live, or right of free speech, or most other rights for that matter. So clearly it's about more than just age alone. And clearly it's not acceptable because one is in a temporary state.

No, it's 100% about age. I don't know why you'd try to argue otherwise. I mean, I know the destination you're trying to arrive at, you're just taking a nonsensical path to get there.

The reason we deprive minors of their right to vote is ultimately the same reason we previously deprived women and minorities the right to vote: We don't think they're good enough and don't want their inconvenient votes to impact our election process. We lowered the voting age because we decided that if you're good enough to be drafted to die for the nation, you were good enough to impact the election process. In the same manner, you don't think homosexuals are good enough to get to marry ("No natural kids!") just as prior generations felt blacks weren't good enough to marry whites.

Edited, Sep 4th 2012 10:29pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#376 Sep 05 2012 at 6:23 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I know the destination you're trying to arrive at, you're just taking a nonsensical path to get there.

So, you do understand my point. That's great.

jophiel wrote:
The reason we deprive minors of their right to vote is ultimately the same reason we previously deprived women and minorities the right to vote: We don't think they're good enough and don't want their inconvenient votes to impact our election process. We lowered the voting age because we decided that if you're good enough to be drafted to die for the nation, you were good enough to impact the election process.


They are deprived in the same way with the caveat of it being justified discrimination. Whereas the other forms of discrimination aren't all justified. There's no bigotry behind the difference of the mental capacity of a child vs an adult.

However, there's no feasible and/or practical way to differentiate people other than their age. Once we do that, we then treat them just like the other "oppressed" groups, by prejudging their maturity and capabilities.

Jophiel wrote:
just as prior generations felt blacks weren't good enough to marry whites.


The problem was that white men were upset that their white women were loving "inferior" men. Natives don't like it when "foreigners" come and "take" their women. That's worse than "takin our jawwwwbs!"
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 93 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (93)