Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

SCOTUS, Hilary and Same **** MarriageFollow

#202 Apr 04 2013 at 11:00 PM Rating: Good
******
43,406 posts
gbaji wrote:
So you deliberately wrote something nonsensical then?
If you're illiterate and purposefully being dense.
gbaji wrote:
Do you not understand how this works?
I understand that saying the same thing repeatedly doesn't make it more true or valid, and that your insistence of continuing to do so indicates you learned how to argue from an episode of Monty Python.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#203 Apr 04 2013 at 11:43 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
485 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
If gbaji believed in any of the points he copies and pastes he'd be more about stopping marriages like Britney Spears' and less about George Takei.


This statement kinda indicates you either didn't bother to read my points, or you failed to understand my points. Is Takei going to accidentally get his partner pregnant (or accidentally be impregnated)? No? Then that's how you're wrong.
Well there's no chance i'll ever get accidentally impregnated, or accidentally impregnate someone else, so surely it stands to reason that i should not be granted any marriage benefits, regardless of what **** a person i might marry is, right? ...right?

Current law says that i can marry a woman, and get full marriage benefits, despite no risk of accidental pregnancy. I mean, okay, i get the government might not know that, also, even if i couldn't get accidentally pregnant, i could, if i really wanted to, intentionally get someone pregnant. So maybe it makes sense to give marriage benefits for that. In a few years however, even if the laws do not change, i will be able to marry a man, and still get full marriage benefits, still with no chance of accidental pregnancy. Surely at that point, they would know that i couldn't get pregnant, accidentally or otherwise, right? So why would they still give me any of the regular benefits they normally only give to those with a risk of accidental pregnancy? Is it maybe because that's not really the criteria? Or is this some big mistake that needs to be fixed? Surely i should not be able to get any benefits from a marriage that obviously could not possibly result in accidental pregnancy, right?

Edited, Apr 5th 2013 3:15am by Rachel9
____________________________
#204 Apr 05 2013 at 6:49 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
I feel like I should be able to get pregnant and carry a child to term. But honestly, I'm not sure if i could (morally I can't as the hubby went under the knife for us).

Not knowing kind of stinks.

Still gbaji only falls back on the 'child' argument when he's pushed into a corner on SSM - it has no standing in the USA today.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#205 Apr 05 2013 at 10:35 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
On what marriage license application is one of the questions "Can you and your partner accidentally get pregnant?"
#206 Apr 05 2013 at 10:35 AM Rating: Good
******
43,406 posts
The conservative ones.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#207 Apr 05 2013 at 10:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,589 posts
What do you mean denied? I only checked 'no' because I'm already pregnant.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#208 Apr 05 2013 at 12:15 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,562 posts
Torrence wrote:
On what marriage license application is one of the questions "Can you and your partner accidentally get pregnant?"

Are we only allowing lesbians to wed now?
#209 Apr 05 2013 at 12:42 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Allegory wrote:
Torrence wrote:
On what marriage license application is one of the questions "Can you and your partner accidentally get pregnant?"

Are we only allowing lesbians to wed now?

It's just a technicality as anyone can claim they are an **** - I mean, who doesn't like girls?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 27 All times are in CDT
Aethien, ElneClare, Samira, Anonymous Guests (24)