Would You Rather.

Started by Sci Fi Fan, April 30, 2013, 11:25:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sci Fi Fan

a) Marry two law abiding, charitable, pleasant gays.

b) Marry a convicted serial rapist (male) with a convicted serial murderer (female).

Hint: one couple can legally marry in all states, the other can't.

Bonus question: which couple do you think would make better parents for adoption? 

Yawn

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on April 30, 2013, 11:25:24 PM
a) Marry two law abiding, charitable, pleasant gays.

b) Marry a convicted serial rapist (male) with a convicted serial murderer (female).

Hint: one couple can legally marry in all states, the other can't.

Bonus question: which couple do you think would make better parents for adoption?

Marriage has a definition. The "quality" of to individuals doesn't define marriage.

Hint:  Both can in ALL states.  What you want is state recognition. Most states don't recognize it as a legitimate "marriage", meaning, those states haven't FORCED a redefinition on the population. But that doesn't make it illegal.  Now stop lying.

Charliemyboy

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on April 30, 2013, 11:25:24 PM
a) Marry two law abiding, charitable, pleasant gays.

b) Marry a convicted serial rapist (male) with a convicted serial murderer (female).

Hint: one couple can legally marry in all states, the other can't.

Bonus question: which couple do you think would make better parents for adoption?

None of the above.

PaleoCon

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on April 30, 2013, 11:25:24 PM
a) Marry two law abiding, charitable, pleasant gays.

b) Marry a convicted serial rapist (male) with a convicted serial murderer (female).

Hint: one couple can legally marry in all states, the other can't.

Bonus question: which couple do you think would make better parents for adoption?

Only one of the two choices is an actual couple (Hint: it's not [a]). Neither a) nor b) would make good parents.
How about "none of the above" since the choices that you failed to list are the best answer and always has been.
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

Sci Fi Fan

Quote from: Yawn on May 01, 2013, 02:56:07 AM
Marriage has a definition. The "quality" of to individuals doesn't define marriage.

Why are you so obsessed with the "definition" of marriage?

Quote from: PaleoCon on May 01, 2013, 11:45:45 AMNeither a) nor b) would make good parents.

b) is actually an extreme case.  But if we establish the premise that "not making good parents" is grounds to deny a marriage license, how far can we go?  Should we bar alcoholics from marrying?  What about smokers?  How about people that are simply stupid?

You see, nobody on the Right has made a serious effort to deny even the most heinous convicted [straight] felons the right to marry, yet the conservative wing obsesses over denying even the most innocuous gay people from marrying because they will "make bad parents".  Have they ever thought of the possibility that there are plenty of far more reliable criteria to establish a person as being a bad parent?

Charliemyboy

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 01, 2013, 12:17:50 PM
Why are you so obsessed with the "definition" of marriage?

b) is actually an extreme case.  But if we establish the premise that "not making good parents" is grounds to deny a marriage license, how far can we go?  Should we bar alcoholics from marrying?  What about smokers?  How about people that are simply stupid?

You see, nobody on the Right has made a serious effort to deny even the most heinous convicted [straight] felons the right to marry, yet the conservative wing obsesses over denying even the most innocuous gay people from marrying because they will "make bad parents".  Have they ever thought of the possibility that there are plenty of far more reliable criteria to establish a person as being a bad parent?
You are the one who seems to be obsessed with this.  Is there a particular reason?  I also note that you seem to be against the "Natural" order of things.
It is becoming clear.

Sci Fi Fan

Quote from: Charliemyboy on May 01, 2013, 01:19:28 PM
You are the one who seems to be obsessed with this.  Is there a particular reason?  I also note that you seem to be against the "Natural" order of things.
It is becoming clear.

So rather than actually refuting any of my points with a logical argument, you post an ad hominem with a laughable [and irrelevant] insinuation?   :rolleyes:

Byteryder

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 01, 2013, 01:25:40 PM
So rather than actually refuting any of my points with a logical argument, you post an ad hominem with a laughable [and irrelevant] insinuation?   :rolleyes:

Basically you had no points to start with other than an argument from the extreme over apples and oranges.

Yawn

Sci Fi Fan:

Would you rather....

A gay child killer (Arthur Gary Bishop) & a gay cannibal (Jeffrey Dahmer) marry,
or a Christian man and woman?

Sci Fi Fan

Quote from: Byteryder on May 01, 2013, 04:24:36 PM
Basically you had no points to start with other than an argument from the extreme over apples and oranges.

It's funny that you call this an "argument from the extreme", given that gay couples try to marry all the time, and vicious convicted murderers can legally tie the knot.  Were you under the impression that neither a) nor b) were common occurrences?

Quote from: Yawn on May 01, 2013, 05:07:54 PM
Sci Fi Fan:

Would you rather....

A gay child killer (Arthur Gary Bishop) & a gay cannibal (Jeffrey Dahmer) marry,
or a Christian man and woman?

:lol: Logic as insultingly bad at this really hurts the recent conservative desire to cast their policies as "rational" and "objective".

Of course I'd rather marry the Christian man and woman because they aren't child killers.  That the child killer and the cannibal are gay is irrelevant to my decision making; make them a straight child killer and a straight cannibal, and nothing changes.

Do you see the problem with your point here?


Sci Fi Fan

Quote from: Yawn on May 01, 2013, 05:18:38 PM
I know how libs feel about Christians.  I'm surprised you feign ignorance.

I see.  You aren't the type to actually form a coherent, falsifiable argument, are you?   :rolleyes:

AndyJackson

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 01, 2013, 05:19:45 PM
I see.  You aren't the type to actually form a coherent, falsifiable argument, are you?   :rolleyes:
lol, sez the guy who started the thread with the most skewed, loaded, slanted question ever invented.

You do realize that all of the ridiculous replies so far have been lampooning you and your original lack of coherence.....no ?

Gay begins with an obsession for "peepees, poopers, and boobies that look just like mine heehee".  Then, some will pretend to have a "relationship".  Then, some will demand to be given pets known as human children, who will most likely be harmed by being indocrinated into the 1% aberration of society, people who can't fit into normal society or psychology.

BILLY Defiant

Given that most Serial Killers are gay and were abused by a male family member as part of their twisted make up I say that should be taken into consideration.

So if we are gonna get hypicthetical then I would have to surmise Couple number two would have the best shot at it.

So it would depend on the specifics of the crime how long ago it was how much time he served in prison, reform etc etc.

A female may have murdered an abusive husband.


A traditional marriage still has the best potential for producing a
normal child.

Billy
Evil operates best when it is disguised for what it truly is.

Phillip

Quote from: Charliemyboy on May 01, 2013, 01:19:28 PM
You are the one who seems to be obsessed with this.  Is there a particular reason?  I also note that you seem to be against the "Natural" order of things.
It is becoming clear.


Marriage is not "natural." It's a man-made institution.