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 gay. 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 sex, 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 **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#355 Sep 02 2012 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 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.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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
*****
16,098 posts
Homosexuality and Boy-loving is usually a Republican issue. Seriously, I applause when I read about a sex-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
**
643 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 sex.
#359 Sep 03 2012 at 2:15 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,225 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.

clicky
#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 **** 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
******
43,403 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
Avatar
****
8,939 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.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#365 Sep 04 2012 at 4:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 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
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
*****
11,589 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
******
21,717 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
******
31,462 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
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
******
30,635 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
Avatar
****
8,939 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!"
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#377 Sep 05 2012 at 7:28 AM Rating: Good
******
43,403 posts
gbaji wrote:
But we don't strip them of their right [...] of free speech,
Yes we do.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#378 Sep 05 2012 at 11:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
So, you do understand my point. That's great.

I haven't read one of your posts in days. I was talking to Gbaji.

Quote:
They are deprived in the same way with the caveat of it being justified discrimination.

All legalized discrimination is under the blanket concept of being "justified". People felt [prior discrimination] was justified as well, both legally and socially.

Quote:
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.

I.e., "weren't good enough". Correct.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#379Almalieque, Posted: Sep 05 2012 at 12:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Less to do with them not being "good enough" and more with "We're not getting any".
#380 Sep 05 2012 at 12:20 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,403 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I haven't read one of your posts in days.
Could you at least not quote him so the rest of us don't have to, either?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#381 Sep 05 2012 at 12:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Wrong, please refer to my conversation with Allegory on pages one and two.

No thanks. If you have a point, make it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#382 Sep 05 2012 at 12:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I haven't read one of your posts in days.
Could you at least not quote him so the rest of us don't have to, either?

You knew what the thread was when you opened it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#383 Sep 05 2012 at 12:35 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I haven't read one of your posts in days.
Could you at least not quote him so the rest of us don't have to, either?

You knew what the thread was when you opened it.


He was asking for it, really.

Edited, Sep 5th 2012 2:38pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#384 Sep 05 2012 at 12:38 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,887 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.

Chazz Bono and Michael Jackson would beg to differ Smiley: laugh
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#385 Sep 05 2012 at 1:45 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,562 posts
Almalieque wrote:
please refer to my conversation with Allegory on pages one and two.

I pop in to see if this thread went any place weird since I left, and apparently it's gone exactly nowhere.
#386 Sep 05 2012 at 2:26 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,205 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I haven't read one of your posts in days.
Could you at least not quote him so the rest of us don't have to, either?

You knew what the thread was when you opened it.


He was asking for it, really.

Edited, Sep 5th 2012 2:38pm by Eske
Legitimate threadrape does not result in an Almalieque.
____________________________
Banh
#387 Sep 05 2012 at 5:45 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Wrong, please refer to my conversation with Allegory on pages one and two.

No thanks. If you have a point, make it.


I did.. It was the following sentences. I just gave you a reference for further details.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#388 Sep 05 2012 at 5:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Oh. It wasn't much of an argument and was unsupported by anything so it didn't register that you were trying to advance it as a point.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#389 Sep 05 2012 at 6:04 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Hence the reference to the argument. If you don't want to read it, then fine, but that doesn't take away from the argument.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#390 Sep 05 2012 at 8:19 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Belkira wrote:
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!!!!"


Isn't that exactly the argument being made in favor of same **** marriage? What do you think you're saying when you say "It was wrong to deny marriage to interracial couples, so it's wrong to deny it to same **** couples"? If there's a difference between that and "they got it, so we should get it too" it's not much of one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#391 Sep 05 2012 at 8:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Jophiel wrote:
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.


Because you're simplifying the argument down to one easy to refute phrase. Since not all rights are infringed based on the age of the person, then age alone does not determine why we're doing it. Get it? If it was just about age, we would strip all rights from everyone until they reach the age 18. But we don't, do we? We infringe a set of rights. Not all of them.

Quote:
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.


Yup. So why did we decide that this was a wrong assessment for women and minorities, but not for minors?


The point I'm slowly and painfully trying to get you to grasp isn't about voting rights Joph. It's that it's possible for the same rationale for something to be correct when applied in one case, but incorrect when applied to another. In the same way that we can say it's wrong to deny women the right to vote, but ok to deny minors that right, we can say that it's wrong to deny marriage status to interracial couples, but ok to deny it to same **** couples. Obviously that doesn't prove that position. It merely disproves the argument that since it was wrong to deny that status to one group, it must be wrong to deny it to another.

I've presented arguments for my position, explaining how same **** couples are not the same with regard to marriage as interracial couples. But the counter position just repeats the same argument that since it was wrong for X, it must be wrong for Y as well.


Which is why I went this way. I'm showing that the logic being used for same **** marriage is flawed and hoping that someone might actually one day present something else. Hasn't happened yet though, so I'm not going to hold my breath.


Quote:
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.


For radically different reasons though. And I wouldn't use the phrase "good enough to marry". More "there's no state interest in them marrying". Let's not forget that one of the key arguments made in Loving (on both sides) was that of children. The state argued that mixed race children would be at a disadvantage in society, so preventing interracial marriage was justified. The plaintiff argued that not allowing mixed race couples to marry would doom their children to illegitimacy (among other arguments). The point being that the issue of procreation has always been at the heart of decisions regarding the "right to marry".


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. They are under no great burden if not granted that state recognition of their relationship as an interracial couple is. And the state is under no great burden or cost if they don't either. Which is ultimately the point here, isn't it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#392 Sep 05 2012 at 8:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That was a lot of typing about voting and minors just to come back to the same failed argument you always make. I hope it was good for you, anyway because it was a real let down on this end.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#393Almalieque, Posted: Sep 05 2012 at 9:16 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's exactly what I've been going through. I demonstrated how denying someone the right to vote, equal education, house ownership, the usage of public transportation, the usage of public facilities, etc. do not validate an argument for SSM. Even still, comparisons to the Civil Rights are always made with this fallacious belief that interracial marriage was "key" in Civil Rights.
#394 Sep 05 2012 at 9:44 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
gbaji wrote:
Belkira wrote:
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!!!!"


Isn't that exactly the argument being made in favor of same **** marriage? What do you think you're saying when you say "It was wrong to deny marriage to interracial couples, so it's wrong to deny it to same **** couples"? If there's a difference between that and "they got it, so we should get it too" it's not much of one.


Sure, that's AN argument being made for same **** marriage. But it's not the ONLY argument being made.
#395Almalieque, Posted: Sep 06 2012 at 10:03 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So, why do people get upset when others make the same comparison with SSM and other unrelated groups?
#396 Sep 06 2012 at 10:10 AM Rating: Good
******
43,403 posts
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.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#397 Sep 06 2012 at 10:22 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
LolGAX wrote:
We should set a age limit to marriage, and necessitate the need for complete medical screening.


I'm actually surprised that this isn't or wasn't ever in practice.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#398 Sep 06 2012 at 10:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,589 posts
Almalieque wrote:
LolGAX wrote:
We should set a age limit to marriage, and necessitate the need for complete medical screening.


I'm actually surprised that this isn't or wasn't ever in practice.


Nobody wants to be responsible for someone with a pre-existing condition. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#399 Sep 06 2012 at 10:44 AM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
@Alma Same **** 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 **** marriage. Therefore, no one has ever gotten upset by the scenario you presented.
#400 Sep 06 2012 at 11:46 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
LolGAX wrote:
We should set a age limit to marriage, and necessitate the need for complete medical screening.


I'm actually surprised that this isn't or wasn't ever in practice.


Nobody wants to be responsible for someone with a pre-existing condition. Smiley: disappointed
Seriously. If some old guy needed to take pills to get it up - I'd have to pass.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#401 Sep 06 2012 at 1:36 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Belkira wrote:
@Alma Same **** 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 **** 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?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 40 All times are in CDT
Bijou, feelz, Anonymous Guests (38)