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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:
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.
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?
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?
I know how libs feel about Christians. I'm surprised you feign ignorance.
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:
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.
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
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.
Quote from: BILLY Defiant on May 01, 2013, 08:09:02 PM
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
I agree.
Or merely had a late term abortion.
It's still murder, considering we all make mistakes, but to live a perversion and expect society to accept it on equal levels is ridiculous.
Quote from: Phillip on May 02, 2013, 02:20:14 AM
Marriage is not "natural." It's a man-made institution.
Using that logic, so is rape, incest and bestiality.
Damn morals, damn man, he just makes rules to complicate your life, doesn't he? :laugh:
Quote from: Solar on May 02, 2013, 04:29:58 AM
Using that logic, so is rape, incest and bestiality.
Damn morals, damn man, he just makes rules to complicate your life, doesn't he? :laugh:
Uh what? Rape/incest happen in nature all the time. They aren't man-made creations. Read what I said next time.
Quote from: Phillip on May 02, 2013, 05:19:27 AM
Uh what? Rape/incest happen in nature all the time. They aren't man-made creations. Read what I said next time.
Think for a moment will ya, it's all a man made creation where morals are concerned.
Are we to simply throw out all morality to suit your need to make a perversion acceptable?
Quote from: Solar on May 02, 2013, 05:40:48 AM
Think for a moment will ya, it's all a man made creation where morals are concerned.
Are we to simply throw out all morality to suit your need to make a perversion acceptable?
Uh no. "Man made" implies it's a creation of human beings. Even a dictionary definition can give you that one. As it is, marriage is an establishment that only humanity has. On the other hand, incest/rape happens in both humanity and throughout the animal kingdom. They are acts that exist outside of the confines of human nature. Thus why you are wrong. I can't help if your "morals" are just an excuse for intolerance and insecurity.
Here's a question. What normal man wants another guy's "manhood" in his butt? And... what normal man wants to put his manhood into another man's feces filled butt-hole. Crude way of phrasing it? Yes!...But truthful.
Call me whatever names you like but the whole idea repulses me. Do what you want behind closed doors but don't call it normal and don't force what approx 3% of the population wants on the other 97%.
Spare me too what the "polls" say. Most people reply in a politcally correct manner so as not to be targeted or end up in an argument.
I for one am sick about hearing about gay rights.
Quote from: Turks on May 02, 2013, 06:09:19 AM
Here's a question. What normal man wants another guy's "manhood" in his butt? And... what normal man wants to put his manhood into another man's feces filled butt-hole. Crude way of phrasing it? Yes!...But truthful.
Call me whatever names you like but the whole idea repulses me. Do what you want behind closed doors but don't call it normal and don't force what approx 3% of the population wants on the other 97%.
Spare me too what the "polls" say. Most people reply in a politcally correct manner so as not to be targeted or end up in an argument.
I for one am sick about hearing about gay rights.
Here's a question: Why do you care what two consenting adults do in the bedroom, why do you care if two people who you don't even know decide to get married, and why do you have a vivid imagination of the description of gay male homosexual acts?
Vivid imagination? Really? What the hell do you think they do? I don't care. What I do care about is the flaunting and they way everyone is supposed to cow-tow and accomodate what gays want.
Sorry I don't believe in changing laws for a miniscule part of the population. Marriage is/was always between a man and a woman and in my book that's the way it stays.
Way too mauch time, effort and rhetoric wasted on this bullshit. Give them the same rights and tell them to STFU! John and John will never be John and Mary...period!
Quote from: Turks on May 02, 2013, 06:20:56 AM
Vivid imagination? Really? What the hell do you think they do? I don't care. What I do care about is the flaunting and they way everyone is supposed to cow-tow and accomodate what gays want.
Sorry I don't believe in changing laws for a miniscule part of the population. Marriage is/was always between a man and a woman and in my book that's the way it stays.
Way too mauch time, effort and rhetoric wasted on this bullshit. Give them the same rights and tell them to STFU! John and John will never be John and Mary...period!
What do I think they do? Well, funny enough, I don't spend much, if any time thinking about it. I'd be pretty suspicious of anyone who did though. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Well, unfortunately, your idea of marriage is changing and generational shifts will bring about the inevitable fact that gay marriage will be available in the majority of states soon. Perhaps even within a decade.
Listen punk, don't try and get cute and make it sound like I dwell on it. If you're so dishonest that you can't admit what they likely do that's your problem.
Are you proud that gay marrriage will be law? Guess what, they still will be an isolated group. All they will get are "paper rights". They will never be looked upon as normal.
It seems all that indoctrination in school has paid off. The generation of accepting just about anything has come of age.
So what are you going to do when Sharia law takes over? You libturds and gays will be denying all your principles. :lol:
Quote from: Turks on May 02, 2013, 06:29:08 AM
Listen punk, don't try and get cute and make it sound like I dwell on it. If you're so dishonest that you can't admit what they likely do that's your problem.
Are you proud that gay marrriage will be law? Guess what, they still will be an isolated group. All they will get are "paper rights". They will never be looked upon as normal.
It seems all that indoctrination in school has paid off. The generation of accepting just about anything has come of age.
So what are you going to do when Sharia law takes over? You libturds and gays will be denying all your principles. :lol:
I care little what you "think" about it. The law is my only concern and the trends are on the side of the people in favor of allowing gay marriage. Paper rights are all that really matter at the end of the day. More and more states will be adopting similar resolutions to allow them over the next few years.
I don't even know what this babbling about Sharia Law is coming from. Hell, anyone who believes in Sharia Law is probably also against gay marriage. Talk about tilting at windmills.
Well maybe if you paid attention more you would know that the idea of Sharia law coming to America has been a topic of discussion for sometime. It may not make news on Jon Stewart or Colbert.
Just out of curiosity how would you reconcile the two? I'd love to drop a group of gay rights advocates into an Islamic country to see how long before they sell out their principles.
Quote from: Turks on May 02, 2013, 06:40:47 AM
Well maybe if you paid attention more you would know that the idea of Sharia law coming to America has been a topic of discussion for sometime. It may not make news on Jon Stewart or Colbert.
Just out of curiosity how would you reconcile the two? I'd love to drop a group of gay rights advocates into an Islamic country to see how long before they sell out their principles.
The "idea" of Sharia law coming to this country is just a bunch of nonsense, probably originated from desperate right-wing websites looking for a scoop and inventing it. How about focusing on issues that actually matter and are based on reality?
Quote from: Phillip on May 02, 2013, 06:43:43 AM
The "idea" of Sharia law coming to this country is just a bunch of nonsense, probably originated from desperate right-wing websites looking for a scoop and inventing it. How about focusing on issues that actually matter and are based on reality?
Like gay marriage? That doesn't matter to be me and I'd dare say, doesn't matter to most. Only because the lamestream media pushes it as an issue... is the only reason it's even discussed.
Wow, gone for a few minutes, and in typical fashion, libs fighting for perversions of nature to be inflicted on society as a norm.
What is it with libs and their need to destroy a culture that has developed over milenia?
You so badly want to make it the norm, yet never consider the consequences of your emotional overreaction.
What if a father wants to wed his son, will you draw the line then?
Quote from: Solar on May 02, 2013, 07:19:35 AM
Wow, gone for a few minutes, and in typical fashion, libs fighting for perversions of nature to be inflicted on society as a norm.
What is it with libs and their need to destroy a culture that has developed over milenia?
You so badly want to make it the norm, yet never consider the consequences of your emotional overreaction.
What if a father wants to wed his son, will you draw the line then?
Two consenting adults are the parameters.
So a father can marry his son and it's okay with you. Got It! :scared:
Quote from: Turks on May 02, 2013, 08:51:19 AM
So a father can marry his son and it's okay with you. Got It! :scared:
What people do with their lives is their business. Are they consenting [legal] adults? What business is it for you or the government to interfere unless they are violating the rights or livelihood of another individual? That goes for marriage, drugs, prostitution, gambling, selling alcohol on a Sunday, etc. But hey, if you prefer going the Statist route, that's your choice.
You're one sick, trolling bastard who, luckily for you, if it were up to me, would be thrown off this board. You're one sick pup. I suppose in your world...incest is best.
Quote from: Turks on May 02, 2013, 09:01:33 AM
You're one sick, trolling bastard who, luckily for you, if it were up to me, would be thrown off this board. You're one sick pup. I suppose in your world...incest is best.
You seem to confuse not caring what others do with endorsing it. I don't care for incest but, at the same time, it's also not my or the government's business to interfere in the lives of others. Maybe that's your problem, you think the government should ban anything you don't care for, like a good little statist.
Listen asshole, I didn't mention government...you did. It's called morals something which you seem to lack. And I don't need the government to tell me what mine are. Only a sick, twisted jerkoff would even post a comment like you did. Consenting adults? Shall we go back to the details on sex between the two?
Game over. It's obvious you're here merely to post controversial remarks aimed at instigating. You troll through the threads intentionally making remarks intended to inflame.
So if your father married your brother, you would have no issue since they are consenting adults, right? Just another day.
If you actually do believe what you say then you really need help.
Quote from: Turks on May 02, 2013, 09:12:54 AM
Listen asshole, I didn't mention government...you did. It's called morals something which you seem to lack. And I don't need the government to tell me what mine are. Only a sick, twisted jerkoff would even post a comment like you did. Consenting adults? Shall we go back to the details on sex between the two?
Game over. It's obvious you're here merely to post controversial remarks aimed at instigating. You troll through the threads intentionally making remarks intended to inflame.
So if your father married your brother, you would have no issue since they are consenting adults, right? Just another day.
If you actually do believe what you say then you really need help.
I mentioned government because you want the government to enforce your morals. As a result, that makes you a statist because you want the government to outlaw things you don't like that doesn't interfere with the rights and livelihood of others. Now THAT is being a sick, twisted, jerkoff.
Quote from: Phillip on May 02, 2013, 09:18:30 AM
I mentioned government because you want the government to enforce your morals. As a result, that makes you a statist because you want the government to outlaw things you don't like that doesn't interfere with the rights and livelihood of others. Now THAT is being a sick, twisted, jerkoff.
Goodbye Phil. :thumbdown:
Quote from: Phillip on May 02, 2013, 09:18:30 AM
I mentioned government because you want the government to enforce your morals. As a result, that makes you a statist because you want the government to outlaw things you don't like that doesn't interfere with the rights and livelihood of others. Now THAT is being a sick, twisted, jerkoff.
Wow, you really care nothing for society at all, do you?
In your world inbreeding is fine, as long as they are consenting adults, so the next step is bestiality, another lifestyle choice, right?.
You do know the purpose behind the so called gay marriage BS movement has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with destroying the institution itself, and this is what you advocate, destroying America.
I'm inclined to agree with Turks, there is no room for people espousing their belief that destroying American society is somehow even up for discussion.
Personally, I see no reason to allow you a voice.
I'll talk to my team and decide whether or not you stay.
In the interim....
Do some reading, then do some soul searching and decide if this is really what you want to back.
http://savingourfuture.com/2013/04/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/#ixzz2RCplfXue (http://savingourfuture.com/2013/04/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/#ixzz2RCplfXue)
Quote from: Solar on May 02, 2013, 09:33:02 AM
Wow, you really care nothing for society at all, do you?
In your world inbreeding is fine, as long as they are consenting adults, so the next step is bestiality, another lifestyle choice, right?.
You do know the purpose behind the so called gay marriage BS movement has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with destroying the institution itself, and this is what you advocate, destroying America.
I'm inclined to agree with Turks, there is no room for people espousing their belief that destroying American society is somehow even up for discussion.
Personally, I see no reason to allow you a voice.
I'll talk to my team and decide whether or not you stay.
In the interim....
Do some reading, then do some soul searching and decide if this is really what you want to back.
http://savingourfuture.com/2013/04/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/#ixzz2RCplfXue (http://savingourfuture.com/2013/04/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/#ixzz2RCplfXue)
Animals can't legally consent so no. Once again, you are missing the point of the legal term "consent."
BTW, you are quoting one person out of the tens of millions in the country that support gay marriage. That's a fallacy in itself. Maybe you should at least quote a poll if you want your claim to be taken with any grain of salt.
Also, if you want to ban me, then go ahead and do so. All it would really be proving is that censorship of anyone that doesn't follow the echo defines the forum. It does seem to be a trend around here that if you disagree with a regular, they automatically scream for you to be banned. Which, more or less, is an attribute of a totalitarian dictatorship that reacts against any dissent.
Quote from: Solar on May 02, 2013, 09:33:02 AM
Wow, you really care nothing for society at all, do you?
In your world inbreeding is fine, as long as they are consenting adults, so the next step is bestiality, another lifestyle choice, right?.
You do know the purpose behind the so called gay marriage BS movement has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with destroying the institution itself, and this is what you advocate, destroying America.
I'm inclined to agree with Turks, there is no room for people espousing their belief that destroying American society is somehow even up for discussion.
Personally, I see no reason to allow you a voice.
I'll talk to my team and decide whether or not you stay.
In the interim....
Do some reading, then do some soul searching and decide if this is really what you want to back.
http://savingourfuture.com/2013/04/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/#ixzz2RCplfXue (http://savingourfuture.com/2013/04/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/#ixzz2RCplfXue)
His reply to everything, no matter how repulsive and destructive is to categorize it under the heading..."consenting adults". :sad:
Quote from: Phillip on May 02, 2013, 09:37:52 AM
Animals can't legally consent so no. Once again, you are missing the point of the legal term "consent."
BTW, you are quoting one person out of the tens of millions in the country that support gay marriage. That's a fallacy in itself. Maybe you should at least quote a poll if you want your claim to be taken with any grain of salt.
Also, if you want to ban me, then go ahead and do so. All it would really be proving is that censorship of anyone that doesn't follow the echo defines the forum. It does seem to be a trend around here that if you disagree with a regular, they automatically scream for you to be banned. Which, more or less, is an attribute of a totalitarian dictatorship that reacts against any dissent.
Wrong son, you are advocating the destruction of American society. There are consequences to your way of thinking, something you quickly dismiss because you only heard one person tell you what the real plan is.
And no, I refuse you or anyone else a soap box and the ability to further such dissent.
You can call it a badge of honor if you prefer, but I make the final decision as to whether or not you are heard by other soft shelled idiots of your ilk.
What happened to the kid?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 02, 2013, 09:47:39 AM
What happened to the kid?
No one is allowed to espouse the destruction of our country/society, I will not allow him a voice so others of the same low intellect can find chorus.
He can go fuck himself!
Quote from: Solar on May 02, 2013, 09:50:34 AM
No one is allowed to espouse the destruction of our country/society, I will not allow him a voice so others of the same low intellect can find chorus.
He can go fuck himself!
He was desperate. He had his sharp stick out in the LNF but wasn't getting the reactions he desired so he came over here. He's nothing but an infantile punk...
Quote from: Phillip on May 02, 2013, 09:37:52 AM
Animals can't legally consent so no. Once again, you are missing the point of the legal term "consent."
BTW, you are quoting one person out of the tens of millions in the country that support gay marriage. That's a fallacy in itself. Maybe you should at least quote a poll if you want your claim to be taken with any grain of salt.
Also, if you want to ban me, then go ahead and do so. All it would really be proving is that censorship of anyone that doesn't follow the echo defines the forum. It does seem to be a trend around here that if you disagree with a regular, they automatically scream for you to be banned. Which, more or less, is an attribute of a totalitarian dictatorship that reacts against any dissent.
Welcome back Vrede.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 02, 2013, 09:56:48 AM
He was desperate. He had his sharp stick out in the LNF but wasn't getting the reactions he desired so he came over here. He's nothing but an infantile punk...
Yep, and in my book, children are to be seen and not heard.
Quote from: Phillip on May 02, 2013, 08:53:27 AM
What people do with their lives is their business. Are they consenting [legal] adults? What business is it for you or the government to interfere unless they are violating the rights or livelihood of another individual? That goes for marriage, drugs, prostitution, gambling, selling alcohol on a Sunday, etc. But hey, if you prefer going the Statist route, that's your choice.
Statist is guys like Bloomberg outlawing food and drink, and Obama demanding huge growth in spending each and every year without the slightest concern that he's only got 60% of the money that he's spending each year.
Having a society that has certain parameters about decency, such as no widespread sodomy and AIDS, no marrying your children even if they're 18, no marrying your dog or toaster.....not statism, just common decency that liberals can't fathom.
I can't stop you from inventing your own definitions, but I can highlight the juvenile nature of it all, and laugh at it.
Quote from: supsalemgr on May 02, 2013, 10:32:09 AM
Welcome back Vrede.
Was that really her ? That's funny. What drives someone to want to continually pinch and poke a bunch of people who hate your guts, instead of just STFU and do anything else with your life ?
Can somebody describe this thing and it's situation ? I'm curious as to the sad life or circumstance that would create such a troll / gargoyle. Call me nosey, lol. I'm just fascinated by the sick mind and depressing tales.
Somebody tell me a story.
Quote from: Solar on May 02, 2013, 10:51:59 AM
Nope, not the same person.
The vrede lass is more masculine than Phyllis...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 02, 2013, 11:11:54 AM
The vrede lass is more masculine than Phyllis...
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Ouch!!
Quote from: Solar on May 02, 2013, 11:22:12 AM
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Ouch!!
He spends more time worrying about whether or not people are gay than Perez Hilton.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 02, 2013, 11:25:48 AM
He spends more time worrying about whether or not people are gay than Perez Hilton.
He is gay! :lol:
Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 02, 2013, 09:47:39 AM
What happened to the kid?
I must say Phillip did last a lot longer than I thought he would.
Quote from: walkstall on May 02, 2013, 07:40:13 PM
I must say Phillip did last a lot longer than I thought he would.
That's because he rarely posted. Once he was told he couldn't troll he realized he had very little to say...
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.
Oh, too bad I missed this....
Quote from: taxed on May 03, 2013, 12:05:41 PM
Oh, too bad I missed this....
He gave it the old girly try. :popcorn:
Quote from: AndyJackson on May 02, 2013, 10:39:56 AM
Statist is guys like Bloomberg outlawing food and drink, and Obama demanding huge growth in spending each and every year without the slightest concern that he's only got 60% of the money that he's spending each year.
Having a society that has certain parameters about decency, such as no widespread sodomy and AIDS, no marrying your children even if they're 18, no marrying your dog or toaster.....not statism, just common decency that liberals can't fathom.
I can't stop you from inventing your own definitions, but I can highlight the juvenile nature of it all, and laugh at it.
Oh shucks. I just became engaged to my toaster. Gave me a lovely ring, too. Do I have to give it back?
Quote from: Charliemyboy on May 03, 2013, 03:35:00 PM
Oh shucks. I just became engaged to my toaster. Gave me a lovely ring, too. Do I have to give it back?
Nah, but i guarantee you a hot time on your wedding night! :rolleyes:
Quote from: Solar on May 02, 2013, 05:40:48 AM
Think for a moment will ya, it's all a man made creation where morals are concerned.
Are we to simply throw out all morality to suit your need to make a perversion acceptable?
You really haven't thought this through, have you?
Going back to your ridiculous analogy, rape is considered immoral not because it is a "perversion", but because it violates the rights of and mentally/physically injures others.
Similarly, pedophilia can cause long term psychological problems in a child.
Notice how nowhere here do I take any issue with rape/pedophilia on the grounds of being "socially abnormal" or "unnatural"? It is "natural" for 13 year old girls to be married off to 40 year old men; hell, that's how things had gone over in human civilization under very recent (in the grand scheme of things) progressive advancements in the conception of human rights. I suppose we should abandon our perverse upsetting of the natural order and go back to the good old days, eh?
If I sing to Bob Marley every morning in the shower while flapping my arms like a chicken, should the government send armed soldiers in with guns to lock me in a mental institution? After all, by any definition of the word my actions are "perverse", and we all know that Appeal to Popularity is a substantive argument, right? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 04, 2013, 08:29:47 AM
You really haven't thought this through, have you?
Going back to your ridiculous analogy, rape is considered immoral not because it is a "perversion", but because it violates the rights of and mentally/physically injures others.
Similarly, pedophilia can cause long term psychological problems in a child.
Notice how nowhere here do I take any issue with rape/pedophilia on the grounds of being "socially abnormal" or "unnatural"? It is "natural" for 13 year old girls to be married off to 40 year old men; hell, that's how things had gone over in human civilization under very recent (in the grand scheme of things) progressive advancements in the conception of human rights. I suppose we should abandon our perverse upsetting of the natural order and go back to the good old days, eh?
If I sing to Bob Marley every morning in the shower while flapping my arms like a chicken, should the government send armed soldiers in with guns to lock me in a mental institution? After all, by any definition of the word my actions are "perverse", and we all know that Appeal to Popularity is a substantive argument, right? :rolleyes:
Wow, talk about not thinking things through, you have no clue what you're talking about.
I submitted proof that the homo leftists are goal oriented towards destroying the institution of marriage, and all you can come up with is an ANALogy of a 6 year old?
If you think it's only one person, think again, look back to the 60s when gays stated, all they wanted was to be left alone, and look where we are today.
Hell, look where society is today, of course you're just a kid and have no reference to go on, but believe me, our society was far calmer 30 or 40 years ago.
The left has been Hell bent on destroying our continuity, "divide and conquer" and it's working. Why do you think they keep blacks on the plantation, do you think blacks actually like whats been done to their community?
And don't even try and deny it!
No offense intended but I just couldn't see anything revelent worth discussing inthis whole things. Maybe it is just me
wow, liberals who think nothing can be called moral or immoral, if it doesn't blow up somebody else. Color me shocked.
I guess the 75% of kids born without daddies thing, is a ringing endorsement of the society created by liberal handouts, wanton sex WIC & abortion, and destruction of religion, which of course can't be called wrong.
Quote from: Solar on May 04, 2013, 11:20:09 AM
I submitted proof that the homo leftists are goal oriented towards destroying the institution of marriage, and all you can come up with is an ANALogy of a 6 year old?
So let me understand your ethical code here:
Because you personally believe marriage to be exclusively between a man and a woman,
other people cannot decide to spend their lives together and call it a "marriage"?
Since when do your religious/whatever rights extend to trampling on those of others?
Nobody stops anybody from spending their lives together.
Liberals-progressives-leftists have redefined "rights" as "you WILL change all of society, education, religion, laws, community....to support, no PRAISE whatever we want to do".
Figures, liberals claiming that their rights consist of making everybody else change all aspects of THEIR life, to make liberals happy.
"You are trampling my rights, if you don't let me run amok and wreak havoc on everything about you, and everything I demand".
Gay is a psychological obsession with peepees, poopers, and boobies "that look just like mine, heeheehee". My youthful terminology is appropriate, because it's a fixation that starts with an unstable, damaged child, and lasts a lifetime.
Nobody wants to hear your gay = black. It's either true or a lie, and without any adult, rational proof....guess which one ?
Quote from: AndyJackson on May 05, 2013, 08:37:58 AM
Liberals-progressives-leftists have redefined "rights" as "you WILL change all of society, education, religion, laws, community....to support, no PRAISE whatever we want to do".
You don't have to support gay marriage. You can refuse to talk to your newly married gay neighbors. You can sit outside your house cursing Obama and the evil "homo leftists" until your throat runs drys (so long as you don't cause a disturbance). You can refuse to attend any gay couple's wedding and call them "two people in a civil union" whenever you are forced to interact with them.
What you cannot do is to force
them to call their marriage a "civil union" and to prevent them, on the basis of your own rights, from calling their relationship whatever they want to call it.
Does this make sense to you?
Sorry, NO, it makes zero sense.
You are demanding a rewrite of millenia-old traditions, definitions, standards, with nothing but a mental illness in one hand and childish demands in the other.
Don't worry, the polygamists, the incestuous, animal lovers, and NAMBLA folks are all lined up behind you. Good company, and they're cheering your screams, yelps, and bug-eyed spittle-flying tantrums, all the way.
You've got NOTHING more than the guy who wants to marry his mommy. Keep looking for that elusive gene, and try to wax a little adult in the meantime.
I apologize if I'm being too insulting.
But sometimes, some way, leftist liberals need to actually grasp that the lying, the lies, the nasty little childish stances......piss normal people off.
And no, we can't always suck it up and kiss you on the forehead like mommy and daddy did, no matter how bad your behavior.
It's the leftists who claim that "gay rights" is the same as African American, or "civil" rights.
Not us adults.
It's incidental that the democrats have created a democrat-voting plantation of welfare, WIC, unemployment, disability, and lawless violence and no families......that eerily resembles the plantations of the 1800's that they tried to maintain right up through 1964, when they magically became the "only hope" of minorities, after being their arch enemy and literal "owner" for 150 years.
I think I'm understanding you, just not sure, lol.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 05, 2013, 08:17:15 AM
So let me understand your ethical code here:
Because you personally believe marriage to be exclusively between a man and a woman, other people cannot decide to spend their lives together and call it a "marriage"?
Since when do your religious/whatever rights extend to trampling on those of others?
This has nothing to do with Religion in my opinion, it has passed the point of saving marriage on the grounds of Religion, it is now a matter of cultural survival.
Changing the constitution to suit perversion affects us all, there will be no grounds for stopping all perversions society deems damaging.
There will be no reason to stop a man from marrying his son, bestiality, etc.
Is that what you want for the future of the country? Be honest, is that the direction you want to go?
The best way to settle these kinds of disputes regarding fundamental values, in a free society, is to not force anyone to recognize contracts, relationships, etc that they do not wish to recognize.
Ultimately, every human has self ownership and an individually unique set of values or preferences. No doubt there is a distribution that clusters around the mean, but we are speaking of the outliers here.
They have self ownership just as the rest.
So they should be able to chase their lights and be free to pursue their happiness, providing that no victims are created in the process. And by victims I am referring to other individuals who have their rights violated, either in terms of person or property.
Providing that the actions of these "outliers" are completely peaceful and voluntary, I say another man cannot prevent them, nor can a group of them, without doing violence to the rights of the minority group.
But that does not mean they have to accept these acts and associate with those who participate in them, if they do not wish to. For that too would be a rights violation.
So people who think gay marriage is morally degenerate have every right to that position, and they have the right to associate with others of a like mind, and exclude those without. They are in their just or natural right to castigate any church who marries two men or two women, as a false church. And they are free to exclude members of that organization from their homes, businesses and communities.
With that said, this leaves room for people of a different mind set to form a church, marry whom they want, and associate with whom they want.
Anything less is simply at odds with fundamental notions of human dignity, for some group, either the majority or the minority, is forced into accepting something that is fundamentally at odds with their values and preferences.
TowardLiberty
That all will be nice and fuzzy if every self-righteous individual who has his/her desires and pursuit of happiness above everybody else would be able to be assigned to a separate inhabitant island, so his/her actions will really not infringe on anybody's else rights and pursuit of happiness. and even then, with one islander moving to the other and then leaving for any possible reason, will the situation arise where somebody will eventually infringe somebody's else pursuit of happiness.
And we will come to the square one.
Which means the regulations inside the community of people to maintain the society and balance between the members of their purssuit of happiness.
What you are prorposing is CHAOS ( since there is no way to regulate anyone with anybody/anything at any given time and in any way he/she feels like it - and I am not talking about sexual activity) which will eventually lead to the war between everyone and everybody.
And this will eventually bring us to square one.
Again.
If we survive.
Quote from: silvia on May 05, 2013, 10:02:40 AM
TowardLiberty
That all will be nice and fuzzy if every self-righteous individual who has his/her desires and pursuit of happiness above everybody else would be able to be assigned to a separate inhabitant island, so his/her actions will really not infringe on anybody's else rights and pursuit of happiness. and even then, with one islander moving to the other and then leaving for any possible reason, will the situation arise where somebody will eventually infringe somebody's else pursuit of happiness.
And we will come to the square one.
Which means the regulations inside the community of people to maintain the society and balance between the members of their purssuit of happiness.
What you are prorposing is CHAOS ( since there is no way to regulate anyone with anybody/anything at any given time and in any way he/she feels like it - and I am not talking about sexual activity) which will eventually lead to the war between everyone and everybody.
And this will eventually bring us to square one.
Again.
If we survive.
I think you might have read too much into my proposal..
I am not suggesting that the rule of law should be done away with. Any society has to have laws about what kinds of actions are just and what kinds are unjust.
Nothing in my words implies giving that up.
I am simply suggesting that no one should be forced to associate with people they find immoral or degenerate, and at the same time, they should not be able to interfere with the actions of adults if they are voluntary and do not involve any unjust boundary crossings on any would be third parties.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on May 05, 2013, 10:08:09 AM
I think you might have read too much into my proposal..
I am not suggesting that the rule of law should be done away with. Any society has to have laws about what kinds of actions are just and what kinds are unjust.
Nothing in my words implies giving that up.
I am simply suggesting that no one should be forced to associate with people they find immoral or degenerate, and at the same time, they should not be able to interfere with the actions of adults if they are voluntary and do not involve any unjust boundary crossings on any would be third parties.
No, I was just trying to show that there is not going to be any rule of law - because there is no way you can regulate, let's say a "family" where father is married to a niece and his daughter to her half-brother( from the other marriage )and he also has a goat as a spouse. If this "family" breaks down who is going to support the kids and who will have custody and how? It is already very complicated with one wife and one husband being divorced, imagine you have polygamo-gay-pedophile-incest "family"
I am not even bringing to attention the property laws in this matter.
Society is built the way it is - all over the world - for a reason.
Using the Occam's razor principle - because it is the least problematic way of existence
Quote from: silvia on May 05, 2013, 11:10:58 AM
No, I was just trying to show that there is not going to be any rule of law - because there is no way you can regulate, let's say a "family" where father is married to a niece and his daughter to her half-brother( from the other marriage )and he also has a goat as a spouse. If this "family" breaks down who is going to support the kids and who will have custody and how? It is already very complicated with one wife and one husband being divorced, imagine you have polygamo-gay-pedophile-incest "family"
I am not even bringing to attention the property laws in this matter.
Society is built the way it is - all over the world - for a reason.
Using the Occam's razor principle - because it is the least problematic way of existence
What makes you think anyone would recognize and associate with people who engaged in such behaviors?
Quote from: TowardLiberty on May 05, 2013, 12:18:19 PM
What makes you think anyone would recognize and associate with people who engaged in such behaviors?
this:
Quote
The best way to settle these kinds of disputes regarding fundamental values, in a free society, is to not force anyone to recognize contracts, relationships, etc that they do not wish to recognize.
Ultimately, every human has self ownership and an individually unique set of values or preferences. No doubt there is a distribution that clusters around the mean, but we are speaking of the outliers here.
They have self ownership just as the rest.
So they should be able to chase their lights and be free to pursue their happiness, providing that no victims are created in the process. And by victims I am referring to other individuals who have their rights violated, either in terms of person or property.
and if we go full way to anybody anywhere with anybody anytime ( which is the extreme, of course, but that is a logical result derived from your initial statement) the society will deteriorate.
It might not be your opinion solely, but also this
http://savingourfuture.com/2013/04/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/#ixzz2RCplfXue (http://savingourfuture.com/2013/04/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/#ixzz2RCplfXue)
which made me make those conclusions.
I did not mean that you, personally will embrace them, though. But total freedom will result in described behaviours as well.
Quote from: Solar on May 05, 2013, 09:52:28 AM
There will be no reason to stop a man from marrying his son, bestiality, etc.
Good thing you asked this. I have a question for you, then:
In which of the countries or states where gay marriage has been legalized do we see incest, bestiality, etc.?Some countries have had gay marriage legalized for, what; 12 years by now?
If 12 years is too short, then how long will it take for incest, bestiality, etc to inevitably be pushed through in those liberal nations? 20 years? 30 years? Give me a number, and I'll call you back at that time. Are you seriously confident that any of your predictions will pan out?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 05, 2013, 12:57:44 PM
Good thing you asked this. I have a question for you, then:
In which of the countries or states where gay marriage has been legalized do we see incest, bestiality, etc.?
Some countries have had gay marriage legalized for, what; 12 years by now?
If 12 years is too short, then how long will it take for incest, bestiality, etc to inevitably be pushed through in those liberal nations? 20 years? 30 years? Give me a number, and I'll call you back at that time. Are you seriously confident that any of your predictions will pan out?
Answer the question first.
Quote from: Solar on May 05, 2013, 01:20:48 PM
Answer the question first.
Solar, do you understand what a "loaded question" is? You asked me if incest and bestiality are the direction I want for this country. I will say no. But unless if you can demonstrate that people are raping cows and giving dolphins blowjobs in Canada, your question is irrelevant.
Now, I've answered your question. Please answer mine, and give me a rough timeframe as to when we can expect incest and bestiality to be legalized in states and nations that have gay marriage.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 05, 2013, 01:24:12 PM
Solar, do you understand what a "loaded question" is? You asked me if incest and bestiality are the direction I want for this country. I will say no. But unless if you can demonstrate that people are raping cows and giving dolphins blowjobs in Canada, your question is irrelevant.
Now, I've answered your question. Please answer mine, and give me a rough timeframe as to when we can expect incest and bestiality to be legalized in states and nations that have gay marriage.
I know this is beyond your comprehension due to youth, but 40 years ago, homos only wanted to be left alone, now the Marxists have used it as a tool of their agenda, to destroy our culture.
That was 40 years ago, now there is demands to marry, assuming we do not wind up a commie country, yes, there will be no legal reason to stop an incestuous marriage, bestiality etc.
What will stop it? You claim it's a right, so will they, and you won't be able to stop it, for they will use the same stupid argument you claim today.
Get it now?
Solar, I have a question for you:
What was your attitude towards homosexuals 40 years ago when they "just wanted to be left alone"?
Quote from: Solar on May 05, 2013, 01:43:25 PM
That was 40 years ago, now there is demands to marry, assuming we do not wind up a commie country, yes, there will be no legal reason to stop an incestuous marriage, bestiality etc.
Get it now?
You're dodging the question yet again. If gay marriage leads to incest and bestiality:
WHY THE HELL HASN'T IT DEVELOPED IN COUNTRIES AND STATES WITH GAY MARRIAGE?
Can't speak for Solar, but my attitude toward gay people is the same today as it was 40 years ago.
Didn't / don't mind them, wish them the best, hope they get what they want out of life.
But whether gays, or global warming zombies, or race / discord pimps, they can all STFU and FOAD when they start announcing that I will believe whatever they say, sans proof, and I will change everything in my life to suit (no, praise) them and their pecadilloes.
The family unit with a mother, father, husband-wife, and kids, has proven to be the bulwark of creating a stable society. Role models, feeling safe and secure, avoiding confusion about roles and responsibilities, etc......are why.
The line was drawn thousands of years ago, not yesterday when we started arguing about gay marriage. Between what society recognizes as the standard, for these reasons, and what it doesn't. Going back to the cavemen, they decided that gay people, polygamy, bestiality, incest, and so on, don't help to grow and solidify a community or society.
Today, the people who desire that American society be reduced to rubble, are quite thrilled with useful idiots like screeching, seething gay demanders, welfare demanders, reparations demanders, Reconquista demanders, NAMBLA demanders, PETA, ACT UP, CODE PINK, etc.
It all tears at the fabric of America, and is pure gold for those who have that as their goal.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 05, 2013, 12:57:44 PM
Good thing you asked this. I have a question for you, then:
In which of the countries or states where gay marriage has been legalized do we see incest, bestiality, etc.?
Some countries have had gay marriage legalized for, what; 12 years by now?
If 12 years is too short, then how long will it take for incest, bestiality, etc to inevitably be pushed through in those liberal nations? 20 years? 30 years? Give me a number, and I'll call you back at that time. Are you seriously confident that any of your predictions will pan out?
Well, SHE describes what she and her comrades want (exactly what is YET nowhere legalized. YET):http://savingourfuture.com/2013/04/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/#ixzz2RCplfXue (http://savingourfuture.com/2013/04/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/#ixzz2RCplfXue)
Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage
Posted on April 22, 2013
"For all the lukewarm "Christians" who have embraced this lie that allowing homosexuals to marry will not affect you, then read this article and you will understand how it will and how there is always a bigger agenda behind a massive push to change our culture." – Rick
Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn't lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen. On a radio show
she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda. She says that they don't want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it.Here is what she recently said on a radio interview:
"It's a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it's a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. ...(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don't think it should exist. And I don't like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That's sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.
I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don't see why they shouldn't have five parents legally... I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby's biological father is my brother, and my daughter's biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three... And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don't think that's compatible with the institution of marriage."
Read the rest at RickGreen.com
This entry was posted in Family, Featured. Bookmark the permalink
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 05, 2013, 02:04:59 PM
Solar, I have a question for you:
What was your attitude towards homosexuals 40 years ago when they "just wanted to be left alone"?
You're dodging the question yet again. If gay marriage leads to incest and bestiality:
WHY THE HELL HASN'T IT DEVELOPED IN COUNTRIES AND STATES WITH GAY MARRIAGE?
I answered your question, don't be so damn thick.
Read it again, the answer is there, it's not my fault you're too naive and too young to see it.
Quote from: AndyJackson on May 05, 2013, 02:24:50 PM
I will change everything in my life to suit (no, praise) them and their pecadilloes.
Stop here.
Legalization of gay marriage won't force you to change anything in your life. You can refuse to associate with any married gay couple and/or call them "homosexuals in a civil union" if you like. You can curse the bill and condemn the politicians who voted for it. Nobody's stopping you from doing anything legal in opposition to the measure.
Literally, it does nothing other than allow
other people to do something with their lives.
Quote
The family unit with a mother, father, husband-wife, and kids, has proven to be the bulwark of creating a stable society.
Based on tradition, not scientific analysis.
QuoteRole models, feeling safe and secure, avoiding confusion about roles and responsibilities, etc......are why.
None of these claims are supportable by anything other than conjecture.
Quote
The line was drawn thousands of years ago,
Back when they used to marry off 40 year old men to 13 year old girls? Why should modern civilization care?
QuoteGoing back to the cavemen, they decided that gay people, polygamy, bestiality, incest, and so on, don't help to grow and solidify a community or society.
How does evolutionary adaptation to survive in the wilderness and hunt mammoths have any relevance to modern society?
By your logic, we should legalize marrying 13 year old girls off to 40 year old men.
Quote
Today, the people who desire that American society be reduced to rubble,
Funny thing; gay marriage is now legal in Maryland, and our society hasn't crumpled to rubble. We still have one of the best public education systems in the United States.
haha, our little buddy will just ramble on, either pretending that you've said nothing, or that it can't be true.
I guess he/she couldn't possibly notice all the stories of the polygamists massing at the gates, waiting for the SC decision on gays. Nope, it doesn't exist if it doesn't fit the anti-America narrative.
Quote from: AndyJackson on May 05, 2013, 02:34:36 PM
haha, our little buddy will just ramble on, either pretending that you've said nothing, or that it can't be true.
I guess he/she couldn't possibly notice all the stories of the polygamists massing at the gates, waiting for the SC decision on gays. Nope, it doesn't exist if it doesn't fit the anti-America narrative.
I just not only posted a link but the whole rant of one of the gay activists who admits exactly what the real agenda is.'
As if we did not know that all along.
One of the European activists recently admitted same - can't find the link immediately
Quote from: AndyJackson on May 05, 2013, 02:34:36 PM
I guess he/she couldn't possibly notice all the stories of the polygamists massing at the gates, waiting for the SC decision on gays. Nope, it doesn't exist if it doesn't fit the anti-America narrative.
Gay marriage is legal in Canada. Why aren't they having sex with dolphins?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 05, 2013, 02:37:50 PM
Gay marriage is legal in Canada. Why aren't they having sex with dolphins?
wait until Masha Gessens gets her agenda all through
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 05, 2013, 02:37:50 PM
Gay marriage is legal in Canada. Why aren't they having sex with dolphins?
lol, yes, that very specific thing is surely what rules out the whole spectrum of possible tagalongs.
Jesus, grow up or at least be intellectually honest at a kid's level.
Quote from: AndyJackson on May 05, 2013, 02:42:29 PM
lol, yes, that very specific thing is surely what rules out the whole spectrum of possible tagalongs.
Do I have to embellish my every post with reminders of obvious hyperboles? [although I will point out that bestiality has been cited with no hint of sarcasm as a potential side effect to gay marriage]
Please, feel free to stop dodging the point, and actually give me an example of a negative side effect along "the whole spectrum of possible tagalongs" that have actually happened as a result of the legalization of gay marriage.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 05, 2013, 02:37:50 PM
Gay marriage is legal in Canada. Why aren't they having sex with dolphins?
Straw man! Their political/legal system is not like ours, ours is unique in history, so you can cut the ignorant argument, that shit won't fly here.
Canadian politicians and bureaucrats are simpering, wimpering mo's, the lot of them. That's why the country is so far along into socialism, Godless filth, and failed policies.
Too bad, because the vast majority of Canadians are tough old boys like lumberjacks, hockey players, mountain men, etc.
Just the lisping, lilting punks in Montreal, Quebec, and Ottawa are what's killing their country. The guys out west in Calgary, Alberta, Edmonton....look just like real men from the American midwest and south.
Why do we have to have threads on this stuff when there are such more important issues.
Billy
Quote from: BILLY Defiant on May 05, 2013, 09:36:53 PM
Why do we have to have threads on this stuff when there are such more important issues.
Billy
It's called distraction, libs can't defend Husein on any given issue, so they try and distract and prevaricate.
We'll keep him alive for a short time, like a cat with a mouse, and when he no longer entertains us, anyone is welcome to kill him off anyway they like.
Quote from: silvia on May 05, 2013, 12:31:42 PM
this:
So there is no reason to expect society to tolerate incestuous relationships.
Good.
I didn't think so, either.
Quote
and if we go full way to anybody anywhere with anybody anytime ( which is the extreme, of course, but that is a logical result derived from your initial statement) the society will deteriorate.
You assume people would accept such behavior and that it would be a threat to society.
I suggest that the behavior, if it exists at all, would be relegated to some backwoods nuts living in social isolation.
A bigger threat to society is the politicalization of the market, of exchange and of the law.
Quote
It might not be your opinion solely, but also this
http://savingourfuture.com/2013/04/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/#ixzz2RCplfXue (http://savingourfuture.com/2013/04/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/#ixzz2RCplfXue)
which made me make those conclusions.
I did not mean that you, personally will embrace them, though. But total freedom will result in described behaviours as well.
The assumption is that total freedom is bad for social order.
But if that is true then we have no explanation for the original evolution of society. For society was not ordered from above. It came about in an evolutionary or spontaneous process of reciprocal acts between people.
I would like to see more argumentation explaining why freedom and society are incompatible.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on May 06, 2013, 07:40:28 AM
So there is no reason to expect society to tolerate incestuous relationships.
Good.
I didn't think so, either.
You assume people would accept such behavior and that it would be a threat to society.
I suggest that the behavior, if it exists at all, would be relegated to some backwoods nuts living in social isolation.
A bigger threat to society is the politicalization of the market, of exchange and of the law.
The assumption is that total freedom is bad for social order.
But if that is true then we have no explanation for the original evolution of society. For society was not ordered from above. It came about in an evolutionary or spontaneous process of reciprocal acts between people.
I would like to see more argumentation explaining why freedom and society are incompatible.
because it is CHAOS. and won't be possible to regulate from a law standpoint. If you want to go back to the initial everybody against everybody type of society ( though I suspect it never existed, but let's just theorize) than it will be the bloodiest survival of the fittest, which is good to some degree, but not as an absolute.
The Ten Commandments which are the basis of the society in the West have very similar types of rules in the other societies as well. An there is no human society on Earth which has not been regulated by some set of the rules - no total freedom - anywhere.
lol, how damned hard is it to understand that all societies must draw lines between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, based on the common good ? Really, the survival of the society.
It was decided a few thousand years ago that all of the aberrations and perversions that run counter to the standard mother-father-kids family.....were not good for society / community, and would not be approved and celebrated as equal.
The need to avoid anarchy, chaos, mayhem, filth, degradation (um, Sodom & Ghomorrah anyone ?) is the same today as it ever was since mankind began. So we draw a line, and it is where it is.
Of course the brain damage that is liberalism, will never get it.
"Why can't I do what I waaaaaaaaaaant ?".....the refrain of the childish liberal mind. Even at 50-60 years of age.
Quote from: AndyJackson on May 06, 2013, 10:36:39 AM
lol, how damned hard is it to understand that all societies must draw lines between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, based on the common good ? Really, the survival of the society.
It was decided a few thousand years ago that all of the aberrations and perversions that run counter to the standard mother-father-kids family.....were not good for society / community, and would not be approved and celebrated as equal.
The need to avoid anarchy, chaos, mayhem, filth, degradation (um, Sodom & Ghomorrah anyone ?) is the same today as it ever was since mankind began. So we draw a line, and it is where it is.
Of course the brain damage that is liberalism, will never get it.
"Why can't I do what I waaaaaaaaaaant ?".....the refrain of the childish liberal mind. Even at 50-60 years of age.
I do not think he is a liberal. at least not in a left meaning. this is actually an interesting possibility of a discussion topic - how much liberty is too much?
Quote from: silvia on May 06, 2013, 11:27:22 AM
I do not think he is a liberal. at least not in a left meaning. this is actually an interesting possibility of a discussion topic - how much liberty is too much?
You're right, he's not a lib, he's actually a Marxist, seriously, he's trolled for sometime now.
Quote from: Solar on May 06, 2013, 11:54:42 AM
You're right, he's not a lib, he's actually a Marxist, seriously, he's trolled for sometime now.
oh, my bad. couldn't have known though by those two posts.
QuoteYou're right, he's not a lib, he's actually a Marxist, seriously, he's trolled for sometime now.
WHAT ? Unless I'm seriously missing something. He is obviously a libertarian or classical liberal. Hardly a marxist.
Quote from: redlom xof on May 06, 2013, 12:05:13 PM
WHAT ? Unless I'm seriously missing something. He is obviously a libertarian or classical liberal. Hardly a marxist.
I thought she was talking about Sci Fi Man, if she was referring to Towardsliberty, you would be correct, he is far from liberal.
I haven't read back through the thread, but this is what happens when people don't use the quote function, it screws me up since I have to read every post.
OK, went back and checked some posts of TL and he is definitely NOT a marxist.
he is more like anarchist with libertarian economics base.
Quote from: Solar on May 06, 2013, 12:13:52 PM
I thought she was talking about Sci Fi Man, if she was referring to Towardsliberty, you would be correct, he is far from liberal.
I haven't read back through the thread, but this is what happens when people don't use the quote function, it screws me up since I have to read every post.
c'mon, that one IS a marxist. :laugh:
I was disputing with TL - total antiigovernmentalist
ahhhhhhh yes. I thought there must be some explanation. Identifying political ideologies is a hard at the best of times, so my brain nearly exploded when you called a Ron Paul like libertarian a Marxist. Balance is restored :wink: :thumbsup:
Quote from: silvia on May 06, 2013, 12:16:42 PM
OK, went back and checked some posts of TL and he is definitely NOT a marxist.
he is more like anarchist with libertarian economics base.
:laugh:
Not bad, and after only two posts, you nailed it!
Yes, he and I have gone round and round over his hatred of all Govt.
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?
Reductio ad Absurdum: The attempt to dismiss a claim by framing it as absurd. This is usually done by exaggerating or blowing a statement out of all proportion.
Quote from: Solar on May 06, 2013, 12:21:07 PM
:laugh:
Not bad, and after only two posts, you nailed it!
Yes, he and I have gone round and round over his hatred of all Govt.
thanks. I've been born in , raised in and put to rest ( with active digging) a marxist society, so I can sniff one even on the other planet - just let them puff a few words
Quote from: silvia on May 06, 2013, 12:23:08 PM
thanks. I've been born in , raised in and put to rest ( with active digging) a marxist society, so I can sniff one even on the other planet - just let them puff a few words
and my curiosity is piqued. Did you post a welcome thread so we know a bit about you that I missed, or do we just have to post more to find out where you are from, etc? The internet has a nasty way of making posts look snarky, my post is pure curiosity, not snark or intentional snooping. Yay for all the noobs in the last few days. :wub:
Quote from: silvia on May 06, 2013, 10:25:51 AM
because it is CHAOS.
What is chaos?
A system of free association?
So society is chaos??
Quote
and won't be possible to regulate from a law standpoint.
Why not?
Is not the possibility of excluding those who engage in these acts a legal regulation? Just because we are dealing with voluntary and private regulations, it does not follow that they are not effective or legal.
Quote
If you want to go back to the initial everybody against everybody type of society ( though I suspect it never existed, but let's just theorize) than it will be the bloodiest survival of the fittest, which is good to some degree, but not as an absolute.
That seems to be what we have now, with democracy.
Quote
The Ten Commandments which are the basis of the society in the West have very similar types of rules in the other societies as well. An there is no human society on Earth which has not been regulated by some set of the rules - no total freedom - anywhere.
No doubt.
Society necessitates law and order.
The error is to assume this law and order must be centrally planned, produced and organized, in the form of a state.
People are more than capable of entering into their own agreements and living by the stipulations there of.
This is how law and society came about in the first place.
Quote from: JustKari on May 06, 2013, 03:16:05 PM
and my curiosity is piqued. Did you post a welcome thread so we know a bit about you that I missed, or do we just have to post more to find out where you are from, etc? The internet has a nasty way of making posts look snarky, my post is pure curiosity, not snark or intentional snooping. Yay for all the noobs in the last few days. :wub:
No, I did not go to the welcome thread :)
Well I am a naturalized American originally born in one of the countries which were occupied by soviet Russia. At the time when it all was Soviet Union. And I actively supported all the movements which helped ruin it
Let get this over with, it is old news and really doesn't make a lot of sense. Just my opinion of course.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on May 06, 2013, 03:45:31 PM
What is chaos?
A system of free association?
So society is chaos??
Why not?
chaos the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a complex natural system
society will be chaos if everybody and everywhere at anytime would do anything they want to
QuoteIs not the possibility of excluding those who engage in these acts a legal regulation? Just because we are dealing with voluntary and private regulations, it does not follow that they are not effective or legal.
If you have legal regulation, then it is not total freedom or total liberty
QuoteThat seems to be what we have now, with democracy.
what we now are approaching in our democracy is the last stage of democracy and we are very close to tyranny
this is well known cycle
http://www.olearyweb.com/classes/philosophyS2/readings/plato/Stages06.pdf (http://www.olearyweb.com/classes/philosophyS2/readings/plato/Stages06.pdf)
Quote
No doubt.
Society necessitates law and order.
The error is to assume this law and order must be centrally planned, produced and organized, in the form of a state.
People are more than capable of entering into their own agreements and living by the stipulations there of.
This is how law and society came about in the first place.
WHERE om earth did I even mention anything about central planning :scared:
http://facultyfiles.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/PlatoRep.htm (http://facultyfiles.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/PlatoRep.htm)
his is an extremely interesting article about Plato's stages of the government. The most interesting is actually the part which analyzes the relationship between democracy and the left (Plato and Lenin).
Quote from: silvia on May 06, 2013, 05:18:09 PM
chaos the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a complex natural system
All complex systems will have some chaos in them. But the idea that if law is not centralized by a state, that it cannot evolve privately, is something I cannot agree with.
You see chaos in free association and I see the locus of society and cooperation.
Quote
society will be chaos if everybody and everywhere at anytime would do anything they want to
No doubt.
And no one has advocated for anything close to that.
Quote
If you have legal regulation, then it is not total freedom or total liberty
Not true.
As long as the regulation is voluntarily agreed upon by all parties, then we are dealing with total liberty.
Liberty and freedom, as paradoxical as it seems, refer more to boundaries between people, establishing limits regarding what is just and what is not.
Quote
what we now are approaching in our democracy is the last stage of democracy and we are very close to tyranny
this is well known cycle
http://www.olearyweb.com/classes/philosophyS2/readings/plato/Stages06.pdf (http://www.olearyweb.com/classes/philosophyS2/readings/plato/Stages06.pdf)
WHERE om earth did I even mention anything about central planning :scared:
I thought the discussion we were having is one over the merits of a centrally planned legal system ,which is thought to be orderly, and a private or voluntary one, which is thought to be chaotic.