Judicial Activism Loves The Gays

[MannyIsGod]

How would you determine whether it is a KKK type of organization?

Are biweekly meetings OK?

I out chumped you.

One could say that puts me among those who have won.

[ChumpDumper]

Nope, that would be organized, now wouldn't itBut if they are just friends on a porch meeting at an appointed time, it's OK.

[MannyIsGod]

Sad little human

you are way too arrogant for your own good. I've seen your posting many times, and while you do have an education, you never say anything original or thought provoking. Much of it is regurtitated information I heard somewhere else.


You can't stand up to the challenge, don't get in the way of those participating

Thanks

Oh by all means, don't let my posts get in your way. The last thing I would want to do is stop a humble yet strong poster like yourself from entertaining the masses here.

[Marcus Bryant]

Hey. Fuck you all.

There.

[MannyIsGod]

What if neither of the friends has a porch?

[MiamiHeat]

So, you're worried about them spreading their message, correct? Certainly then, to be logically consistent you would have to ban any racist messageboards. Right? And any other sort of forum where one could possibly share their racist views with the general public?

The internet certainly makes my wishes hard to follow

but hey, I find it interesting so many people are so curious :lmao

While I don't have all the details right now, I promise I will iron out the details if you elect me President,

thanks! hope and change!

[ChumpDumper]

I out chumped you.

One could say that puts me among those who have won.We can never meet.

Not even on a porch.

[MannyIsGod]

Hey. Fuck you all.

There.

Will you be meeting with anyone on a weekly basis to proclaim that or will you just be doing it from a porch with a friend?

[MiamiHeat]

Oh by all means, don't let my posts get in your way. The last thing I would want to do is stop a humble yet strong poster like yourself from entertaining the masses here.

Yup, just like a scared little pussy :)

Talk shit about someone but then can't back it up

laughs and claims victory :lmao:lmao

sad sad sad

[ChumpDumper]

I do like punch and cake though.

[MannyIsGod]

We can never meet.

Not even on a porch.

No it would be fine on a porch we just coudln't do it weekly or biweekly.

[MiamiHeat]

We can never meet.

Not even on a porch.

Well, I guess you're done with your trolling

Was that all? this whole session was very very weak chumpdumper. got to pick up your game

[LnGrrrR]

The internet certainly makes my wishes hard to follow

but hey, I find it interesting so many people are so curious :lmao

While I don't have all the details right now, I promise I will iron out the details if you elect me President,

thanks! hope and change!

You know, even before the internet, people found a way to share these things anyways. Instead of rallies though, they just distributed leaflets/pamphlets anonymously.

Let ideas battle it out openly, and let the people pick what sounds most truthful to them.

[clambake]

is it legal to bake a hate cake?

[ChumpDumper]

No it would be fine on a porch we just coudln't do it weekly or biweekly.And we really couldn't meet. I would have to sign an affidavit swearing that we somehow materialized on the porch at the same time with no intent or foreknowledge.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, I guess you're done with your trolling

Was that all? this whole session was very very weak chumpdumper. got to pick up your gameWhy are you so upset that we're talking about how to implement your speech manifesto?

U mad?

Or are you declaring victory?

[MiamiHeat]

You know, even before the internet, people found a way to share these things anyways. Instead of rallies though, they just distributed leaflets/pamphlets anonymously.

Yup. I was just saying we can't allow large, organized hate rallys. Those things spread.



Let ideas battle it out openly, and let the people pick what sounds most truthful to them.

Nazi Germany.

You can't allow poison to spread. Sometimes it holds and infects everyone. People are impressionable and can be swayed....

[Blake]

What is it about the law that gives credence to homosexual marriage, for sides pro or con? The law stipulates that we have freedom of expression. Does that mean we agree with everything said by another? That something is legal, does not mean that it is necessarily accepted by a majority, let alone all. If you believe gay marriage is a right and just thing, then the illegality of that does not change that. If you believe it is wrong, then legality will not change that.

Sure, one could try this with murder or any other activity, but the difference is that this is an act which involves consenting adults. And, I will say, compared to the million other abuses of the state, this isn't high on that list.

I don't know, at the end of the day, I don't wake up every morning worried about this one way or the other. The institution of marriage isn't what it once was. Homosexuals are generally free to live as they wish in the US moreso than in many parts of the world (which, if you think about it, isn't a bad thing, as it ensures the rest of us are less likely to run into trouble with the law in our lives). I regret that marriage is no longer what it was, simply because I believe that in the absence of a society with stable families that the state is looked to fill the gap, and expands unnecessarily.

A lot of sins are legal, if that's your gripe. And we're all sinners anyways.

Science is not a reason to prohibit gay marriage/civil unions. Tradition is not a reason to prohibit it. Religion is not a reason to say no.

Personally, I think the definition of marriage as we know it should disappear altogether from any government entities. It should simply be known as "civil union" for all consenting adults willing to join into "civil unions" with other consenting adults and the government should not be able to tell them no as such, imo.

[clambake]

You can't allow poison to spread. Sometimes it holds and infects everyone. People are impressionable and can be swayed....

who's gonna protect the porch people?

[ChumpDumper]

Yup. I was just saying we can't allow large, organized hate rallys. Those things spread.How large?


Nazi Germany.

You can't allow poison to spread. Sometimes it holds and infects everyone. People are impressionable and can be swayed....So why aren't you a member of the KKK? They have been holding large rallies in the US for over a century.

[MiamiHeat]

Why are you so upset that we're talking about how to implement your speech manifesto?

U mad?

Or are you declaring victory?

Well, you're wasting your time trying to mock me (in bad taste really because your posts have been very weak so far)

Do you have anything meaningful left to say or what?

[Blake]

You can't allow poison to spread.

Except that you canot provide any proof that gay marriage is poison.

Intellectually weak.

[MannyIsGod]

Yup, just like a scared little pussy :)

Talk shit about someone but then can't back it up

laughs and claims victory :lmao:lmao

sad sad sad

To be fair, I didn't claim victory. I said among those who won.

And who wouldn't be scared when confronted by such a strong person such as yourself?

[Marcus Bryant]

Here's a soundbite: marriage ain't the guvmint's bidness.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, you're wasting your time trying to mock me (in bad taste really because your posts have been very weak so far)Those who won -- of whom I am among -- disagree.

[MiamiHeat]

To be fair, I didn't claim victory. I said among those who won.

And who wouldn't be scared when confronted by such a strong person such as yourself?

Can you back up anything you say about me? No

There is absolutely nothing you can do to back up the garbage you say about me. Nothing.

I know who I am, and you are acting like a child by talking shit but running from the opportunity to prove it.

Makes you nothing more than a childish troll.

[Winehole23]

is it legal to bake a hate cake?Yes, but the state might (http://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-cannot-regain-custody-children-nazi-inspired/story?id=11334970) take your children away.

[ChumpDumper]

Here's a soundbite: marriage ain't the guvmint's bidness.Well, it likely shouldn't be.

[Marcus Bryant]

Naturally true Americans don't seek the freedom to do something, they want everyone else to genuflect and praise what it is they want to be praised. Perhaps this is a defect of democracy. That you are free to do as you please is not enough.

[MannyIsGod]

I am quite enjoying the mocking of the one who is among those who are strong. I feel it is becoming too organized, however. We need to take it back down to porch level.

[MiamiHeat]

Those who won -- of whom I am among -- disagree.

That's the point. You haven't done anything.

Apparently you also have nothing left to contribute.

thanks for playing.

[ChumpDumper]

That's the point. You haven't done anything.

Apparently you also have nothing left to contribute.

thanks for playing.Are you saying you won?

[clambake]

Yes, but the state might (http://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-cannot-regain-custody-children-nazi-inspired/story?id=11334970) take your children away.

i'll withhold judgement until MH comments on little adolf.

[ChumpDumper]

I am quite enjoying the mocking of the one who is among those who are strong. I feel it is becoming too organized, however. We need to take it back down to porch level.Remember, it can only be irregular incidental porch contact.

[MiamiHeat]

Yes, but the state might (http://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-cannot-regain-custody-children-nazi-inspired/story?id=11334970) take your children away.

:toast

I support that.

[clambake]

:toast

I support that.

you support little adolf?

[MiamiHeat]

Are you saying you won?

Do you have anything left to contribute to the discussion?

[MiamiHeat]

you support little adolf?

:downspin:

[ChumpDumper]

Do you have anything left to contribute to the discussion?You are not the arbiter of thread contribution any more than you are the arbiter of irregular incidental porch hate cake.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao porch hate cake.

Where the fuck is the punch?

[MiamiHeat]

You are not the arbiter of thread contribution any more than you are the arbiter of irregular incidental porch hate cake.

so the answer is no? our "discussion" is over?

yes or no

[Winehole23]

I support that.No surprise there.

[ChumpDumper]

so the answer is no? our "discussion" is over?

yes or noAccording to whom?

I'm still here.

You're still posting to me.

I'm posting back.

I can stand on my porch if that helps you.

[MiamiHeat]

No surprise there.

Once upon a time, I thought like you did (assuming you don't support it)

but eventually you reach some realizations about the world. About how civilizations work, how the human mind works, how people in general work as a whole.

You then realize people need leadership.

If you think it's OK for parents to raise a family that worships Adolf Hitler, not because you love Adolf Hitler, but because damnit, you support the freedom to do it if you wanted to...... well, in my opinion, you got a little further to go.

Yeah, I realize, "who gets to decide what is OK and what is not OK" argument.... but ....

[MannyIsGod]

Would you allow us to appoint you King?

[spursncowboys]

Yes, but the state might (http://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-cannot-regain-custody-children-nazi-inspired/story?id=11334970) take your children away.
thats kind of scary....even if they are making lil adolf's adolescents a little harder than normal kids. will mao, jesus, stalin, saddam be put in this?

[spursncowboys]

MIG, Chump, and Blake: Trolling the discussion out of a post. If that is winning then you guys are all all-stars.

[MiamiHeat]

thats kind of scary....even if they are making lil adolf's adolescents a little harder than normal kids. will mao, jesus, stalin, saddam be put in this?

Parents who name their children after Nazi's are giving the kids a lot more problems than just "a little harder adolescence" .... I can just imagine what type of parents they are, and what type of things those children will be taught.

You can bank on that.

[MiamiHeat]

MIG, Chump, and Blake: Trolling the discussion out of a post. If that is winning then you guys are all all-stars.

http://blog.cowboysindians.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/JohnWayneFlag.jpg

:toast


I can't believe Manny actually thinks the atomic bomb drop in WW2 was a terrorist act :lmao I bet he thinks he is a "out of the box thinker" because of shit like that :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, but the state might (http://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-cannot-regain-custody-children-nazi-inspired/story?id=11334970) take your children away.I think the alleged domestic violence could be the deciding factor here.

[MiamiHeat]

I think the alleged domestic violence could be the deciding factor here.

You mean Nazi lovers have other huge defects?

Noooooo..............what a shock.

[ChumpDumper]

MIG, Chump, and Blake: Trolling the discussion out of a post. If that is winning then you guys are all all-stars.Spoken like a true one who is among the losers.

It's great that you consistently take the time to tell us all just how much your butt hurts.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't have a problem with him telling us how butt hurt he is. I would just have a problem if he were to do so in an organized manner with hate cake in a venue that was not a porch.

[ChumpDumper]

You mean Nazi lovers have other huge defects?

Noooooo..............what a shock.It's clearly possible.

[MiamiHeat]

Spoken like a true one who is among the losers.

It's great that you consistently take the time to tell us all just how much your butt hurts.

He's right. When you troll, at least do it effectively so there is at least a worthwhile discussion. Your attempts have been really, really weak in this thread.

[jack sommerset]

translation

you're right...:lmao

You are delusional. Translation: You are fucking weird and stupid.

[MiamiHeat]

It's clearly possible.


but hey, it's OK to be a member of a Nazi loving organization. Nothing bad can come of that. Nope!

[LnGrrrR]

Nazi Germany.

You can't allow poison to spread. Sometimes it holds and infects everyone. People are impressionable and can be swayed....

Here's the thing though... the Nazis actually censored a TON.


Censorship in Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany) was implemented by the Minister of Propaganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_propaganda), Joseph Goebbels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels). All media -- literature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature), music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music), newspapers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper), and public events -- were censored. Attempts were also made to censor private communications, such as mail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail) and even private conversation, with mixed results.

Not sure you want to use them as an example.

[ChumpDumper]

He's right. When you troll, at least do it effectively so there is at least a worthwhile discussion. Your attempts have been really, really weak in this thread.Are you declaring victory?

Yes or no.

[ChumpDumper]

but hey, it's OK to be a member of a Nazi loving organization. Nothing bad can come of that. Nope!You don't believe in freedom of speech or thought or assembly.

We get it.

[MiamiHeat]

Here's the thing though... the Nazis actually censored a TON.



Not sure you want to use them as an example.

That doesn't counter what I said, though. It's irrelevant what they did.

I was speaking about the rise of Nazi's. Their ideology spread and got them in power.

"Good old fashioned Jew hating"

[ChumpDumper]

That doesn't counter what I said, though. It's irrelevant what they did.

I was speaking about the rise of Nazi's. Their ideology of hatred spread and got them in power.So why are you not a member of the KKK?

They have been holding rallies in the US for over a century.

[ChumpDumper]

That doesn't counter what I said, though. It's irrelevant what they did.

I was speaking about the rise of Nazi's. Their ideology spread and got them in power.

"Good old fashioned Jew hating"You approve Jew hating rallies.

[MiamiHeat]

So why are you not a member of the KKK?

They have been holding rallies in the US for over a century.

How does this make any sense????

Your point is "Well, MH, you are not a member. So apparently people can decide for themselves, problem solved!"

but just because I didn't join, doesn't mean my neighbor didn't. I didn't join, guy over there did. Eventually it grows large enough.

Really, really weak attempts, Chump. I'm being honest here, are you even trying??

[MannyIsGod]

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa136/Msalgado80/Obama%2008/porchhatecake.jpg

Porch Hate Cake

Tasty and unorganized.

Not MiamiHeat Approved

[LnGrrrR]

Once upon a time, I thought like you did (assuming you don't support it)

but eventually you reach some realizations about the world. About how civilizations work, how the human mind works, how people in general work as a whole.

You then realize people need leadership.

MiamiHeat promises to be a kindler, gentler dictator, the sort of tyrant you'd bring home to mother... because let's face it, the stupid people of the world need someone to show them how to act.


If you think it's OK for parents to raise a family that worships Adolf Hitler, not because you love Adolf Hitler, but because damnit, you support the freedom to do it if you wanted to...... well, in my opinion, you got a little further to go.

Yeah, I realize, "who gets to decide what is OK and what is not OK" argument.... but ....

But... you're just going to ignore that part?

[MiamiHeat]

You approve Jew hating rallies.

but you understand that I don't support that type of hating, right?

It's one thing to criticize, it's another to persecute and incite violence.

[ChumpDumper]

How does this make any sense????

Your point is "Well, MH, you are not a member. So apparently people can decide for themselves, problem solved!"

but just because I didn't join, doesn't mean my neighbor didn't. I didn't join, guy over there did. Eventually it grows large enough.So since it has been holding rallies for over a hundred years, it has to be bigger than it ever was right?


Really, really weak attempts, Chump. I'm being honest here, are you even trying??Are you declaring victory?

You can't recognize the flaws in your logic. I'm being honest here. Are you even trying? Are you simply not intelligent at all?

[MiamiHeat]

MiamiHeat promises to be a kindler, gentler dictator, the sort of tyrant you'd bring home to mother... because let's face it, the stupid people of the world need someone to show them how to act.

Who said anything about dictators? Leadership comes in many different ways.




But... you're just going to ignore that part?
I ignore it because it's extremist, alarmist thoughts. It wouldn't happen in america in 2010, imo.

[LnGrrrR]

That doesn't counter what I said, though. It's irrelevant what they did.

I was speaking about the rise of Nazi's. Their ideology spread and got them in power.

"Good old fashioned Jew hating"

And before they rose to power, they made sure to censor speech, including speech that would be hateful of the government.


The aim of censorship under the Nazi regime was simple: to reinforce Nazi power and to suppress opposing viewpoints and information. Punishments ranged from banning of presentation and publishing of works to deportation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation), imprisonment, or even execution in a concentration camp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment#Concentration_camps).

So, in order to brainwash the citizens, they prevented opposing viewpoints from being heard. Kinda like you want to do.

You know, most Nazis thought they were in the right as well? It's not like all the nazis were saying, "Yeah, we're evil and we love it!" Many thought they were doing the right thing.

[spursncowboys]

Spoken like a true one who is among the losers.

It's great that you consistently take the time to tell us all just how much your butt hurts.
spoken like a true allstar legend in his own right.

[ChumpDumper]

but you understand that I don't support that type of hating, right?

It's one thing to criticize, it's another to persecute and incite violence.So you really don't have any problem with the current laws regarding speech and assembly.

Great.

Your argument was really, really weak in the first place. It's like you weren't even trying. It's good that you have completely abandoned it. I'm being serious here.

[MiamiHeat]

So since it has been holding rallies for over a hundred years, it has to be bigger than it ever was right?

It went through a rise and fall. It had an ugly, high point where they would lynch people, scare people, hurt people.

I'd rather squash it from the start before it dies on it's own and does it's damage.

[LnGrrrR]

Who said anything about dictators? Leadership comes in many different ways.

When those leaders want to outlaw the ability to express thoughts, then those leaders are dictators.


I ignore it because it's extremist, alarmist thoughts. It wouldn't happen in america in 2010, imo.

And yet, you post this right after using Nazi Germany as validation for wanting to outlaw hateful speech. Pretty amazing there.

[ChumpDumper]

My butt still hurts. It's all I can talk about. I won't talk about the thread topic anymore. As far as I am concerned, my butt and its hurting is the only topic.

[MannyIsGod]

All of his posts in this thread are amazing. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

It went through a rise and fall. It had an ugly, high point where they would lynch people, scare people, hurt people.

I'd rather squash it from the start before it dies on it's own and does it's damage.At what point does it start?

[MiamiHeat]

And before they rose to power, they made sure to censor speech, including speech that would be hateful of the government.

How could the Nazi's censor speech before they were even in government?




You know, most Nazis thought they were in the right as well? It's not like all the nazis were saying, "Yeah, we're evil and we love it!" Many thought they were doing the right thing.

Yes, duh, come on, everyone knows that

[MiamiHeat]

At what point does it start?

Not sure. Would need people to decide when a group is hurting the country. How many people, not sure. Guess that would have to be ironed out if I ever become President.

[LnGrrrR]

How could the Nazi's censor speech before they were even in government?



Correction: Not before they came to power, but before they started the actual war.

[ChumpDumper]

Not sure. Would need a group of people to decide when a group is hurting the country.How would this group be chosen?

[MiamiHeat]

And yet, you post this right after using Nazi Germany as validation for wanting to outlaw hateful speech. Pretty amazing there.

Now you are going down the wrong path.

I clearly said I don't want people inciting violence among the population. That could happen in 2010.

Crazy, 1984 type government censorships? Not happen in 2010.

Sigh

[LnGrrrR]

Let ideas battle it out openly, and let the people pick what sounds most truthful to them.


Nazi Germany.

You can't allow poison to spread. Sometimes it holds and infects everyone. People are impressionable and can be swayed....


Now you are going down the wrong path.

I clearly said I don't want people inciting violence among the population. That could happen in 2010.

Crazy, 1984 type government censorships? Not happen in 2010.

Sigh

So, you're using the argument that we shouldn't allow public rallies because we might turn out like Germany, except you don't think we could censor everything anymore, which was a key component to the Nazis maintaining power.

[MiamiHeat]

How would this group be chosen?

Maybe elected officials can form a panel.

We already censor television broadcasts. Don't act surprised.

[MiamiHeat]

Yes, and I clearly meant the poison can spread and incite hatred and violence among the population

not that a government will take over the people or create crazy censorship

ugh, LnGrrrR...

[MiamiHeat]

I find it funny now that several of you are completely taking my posts out of context or trying to nitpick them with ridiculous comparisons....

try to understand what I am saying before posting :)

[Supergirl]

This one will eventually wind up in the SC, and will basically fall into Anthony Kennedy's lap. The good news about that for people who care about things like civil rights and our Constitution is that Anthony Kennedy is basically a libertarian - he votes with the conservatives on economic issues and with the liberals on social issues. He's ruled in favor of civil rights for glbt people a number of times already.

Paraphrasing Judge Walker, "the fact that the people of California voted for Prop 8 is IRRELEVANT." Paraphrasing Rachel Maddow, "that's why they're called RIGHTS. Because they're not something you can vote on. They're what is protected by our Constitution."

He also wrote a damn good, air tight, 138 page defense of his decision, which will be hard as hell for them to even find any grounds to appeal on. I am sure the antis will get some activist judge to push an appeal through, but Judge Walker has made their job hard with his excellent work here.

BTW, even if Judge Walker WERE gay (there's no evidence he is) how would that make him impartial? That logic would imply that no straight people could serve as judge in cases where the plaintiff is a gay person, no white person could serve as judge in a case where the plaintiff is a person of color. The job of a judge is to be impartial. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE JUDGES.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes, and I clearly meant the poison can spread and incite hatred and violence among the population

not that a government will take over the people or create crazy censorship

ugh, LnGrrrR...

You probably should've used a better example than Nazi Germany then if you wanted to talk about rioting. I'm pretty sure that there were riots that didn't involve large groups of people coming to powers that you could've used as an analogy instead.

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe elected officials can form a panel.What if they decide you are starting a dangerous movement with your hate of those you consider mentally ill and jail you to stop it before it grows?

[LnGrrrR]

Maybe elected officials can form a panel.

We already censor television broadcasts. Don't act surprised.

Why a panel? After all, a panel of people can still make a wrong decision. Look at how many people think the SCOTUS gets wrong decisions.

No, far safer to just put everything we should and should not censor in the hands of one sole arbiter, wouldn't you agree?

[ChumpDumper]

I find it funny now that several of you are completely taking my posts out of context or trying to nitpick them with ridiculous comparisons....

try to understand what I am saying before posting :)try to understand what you are saying before posting :)

[MiamiHeat]

You probably should've used a better example than Nazi Germany then if you wanted to talk about rioting. I'm pretty sure that there were riots that didn't involve large groups of people coming to powers that you could've used as an analogy instead.

I didn't think you would take it so far as to try to insult me and point out what you thought were contradictions before you even understood what I was saying.

In good faith, people should try to understand what the other is saying.

Clearly, I was saying that the Nazi's ideology spread like a poison. Merely referencing how people can be swayed by these things and hurt their fellow citizens, as I clearly said before several times.

[MiamiHeat]

Why a panel? After all, a panel of people can still make a wrong decision. Look at how many people think the SCOTUS gets wrong decisions.

No, far safer to just put everything we should and should not censor in the hands of one sole arbiter, wouldn't you agree?

Not everyone is going to be happy. We just have to do what we think is best and right for us. The SCOTUS does the best job they can and I think they are very effective. A decision has to be made SOMEHOW, otherwise we can argue for eternity.

In my opinion, it's better to stamp out poison than to let it fester for the sake of perceived total freedom, which does not and will never exist.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't think you would take it so far as to try to insult me and point out what you thought were contradictions before you even understood what I was saying.

In good faith, people should try to understand what the other is saying.

Clearly, I was saying that the Nazi's ideology spread like a poison. Merely referencing how people can be swayed by these things and hurt their fellow citizens, as I clearly said before several times.Yet, the KKK has not taken over the US even after all this time.

Why is that?

[MiamiHeat]

Yet, the KKK has not taken over the US even after all this time.

Why is that?

Because they already went through their rise and fall. Usually, the truth wins out, but not before the damage is done. I just would like to see it prevented before it ever spreads.

How big was the KKK at it's height of membership and power?

[LnGrrrR]

I didn't think you would take it so far as to try to insult me and point out what you thought were contradictions before you even understood what I was saying.

In good faith, people should try to understand what the other is saying.

Clearly, I was saying that the Nazi's ideology spread like a poison. Merely referencing how people can be swayed by these things and hurt their fellow citizens, as I clearly said before several times.

Here's the thing though... the ideology spread like poison BECAUSE THEY CENSORED THEIR POPULATION FROM SAYING OTHERWISE IN A PUBLIC VENUE.

That's my point. If there was no censorship, then people would have argued and there's a good chance that the "virus" wouldn't have spread the way it did. However, it spread because there was no one able to stand up and speak differently.

[ChumpDumper]

Because they already went through their rise and fall. Usually, the truth wins out, but not before the damage is done. I just would like to see it prevented before it ever spreads.

How big was the KKK at it's height of membership and power?Quite large. Maybe five or six percent of the population.

It seems the United States survived and didn't need to become the thought police state you envision.

[LnGrrrR]

Not everyone is going to be happy. We just have to do what we think is best and right for us. The SCOTUS does the best job they can and I think they are very effective. A decision has to be made SOMEHOW, otherwise we can argue for eternity.

In my opinion, it's better to stamp out poison than to let it fester for the sake of perceived total freedom, which does not and will never exist.

And I disagree. As you've noted, America has survived the KKK, and all the while maintaining a good deal of liberty while doing so.

Do you think that people won't cause violence if other people don't talk about it?

[baseline bum]

What would be that wrong with living in a country so absurdly free that a man could legally marry another man? You're still free to disagree that it is right, as maintaining one's own conscience has not been outlawed. Yet.

Because lots of Americans believe they have the right to never be offended.

[MiamiHeat]

Here's the thing though... the ideology spread like poison BECAUSE THEY CENSORED THEIR POPULATION FROM SAYING OTHERWISE IN A PUBLIC VENUE.

How could the Nazi's censor anything when they weren't in government yet?

Before they got into power, before the elections, they went across Germany speaking to the public, and the public responded. They readily accepted his ideals. Blame this person, blame the jews, we lost World War 1 because of x people, etc and etc.

People are impressionable.



That's my point. If there was no censorship, then people would have argued and there's a good chance that the "virus" wouldn't have spread the way it did. However, it spread because there was no one able to stand up and speak differently.

I don't think anyone here ever said to censor debate....

The only type of "censorship" I said I would like to see was to disallow large organized groups aimed at creating THIS SPECIFIC type of trouble, inciting violence, or hating others due to things they cannot possibly change.

[LnGrrrR]

Because lots of Americans believe they have the right to never be offended.

Lots of Americans can't find the state of Massachusetts on a map. Lots of Americans are dumb.

[Marcus Bryant]

Well, I'm glad we care about rights and liberty and what not when it's about fucking and not when the state gets in your business in every other way. But we're about that then because we expect to freeload.

[MiamiHeat]

And I disagree. As you've noted, America has survived the KKK, and all the while maintaining a good deal of liberty while doing so.

But people suffered, people were killed, and it was an ugly time.

I believe it is better to prevent that from happening in the first place.



Do you think that people won't cause violence if other people don't talk about it?

For THIS type of violence :

Take away the power to recruit others, and it becomes much more isolated. Lesser impact, less frequent incidents. Less prejudice, less strife among communities.

[clambake]

The only type of "censorship" I said I would like to see was to disallow large organized groups aimed at creating trouble, inciting violence, or hating others due to things they cannot possibly change.

like the french underground.

[LnGrrrR]

How could the Nazi's censor anything when they weren't in government yet?

Before they got into power, before the elections, they went across Germany speaking to the public, and the public responded. They readily accepted his ideals. Blame this person, blame the jews, we lost World War 1 because of x people, etc and etc.

People are impressionable.

I'm not too surprised. Look at all the people in the Mosque thread who conflate being Muslim with being a terrorist. Look at all the people who say we could've won X war if it weren't for those wimpy Democrats. Etc etc. Many people who are poor and feel low on the social ladder will listen to anyone willing to give them a leg up.


The only type of "censorship" I said I would like to see was to disallow large organized groups aimed at creating trouble, inciting violence, or hating others due to things they cannot possibly change.

The problem is, when something like that goes into law, then it gradually expands until it's affecting a whole bunch more people. Or you have someone in power who says that "anti-war" protestors are possibly violent (which has happened). Or some other abuse of power.

I would rather, instead of putting that into law, that concerned citizens gather people and mount counter-protests to shame idiots in groups like the KKK.

[clambake]

little guy is feeling threatened by free speech.

he could be the beginning of "the new american".

[LnGrrrR]

Take away the power to recruit others, and it becomes much more isolated. Lesser impact, less frequent incidents. Less prejudice, less strife among communities.

And less liberty. I can see where you're coming from, but I disagree. Any law stopping a certain kind of speech will inevitably stop even more later down the road; a law designed to stop hate speech is an inexorably slippery slope.

[MiamiHeat]

little guy is feeling threatened by free speech.

he could be the beginning of "the new american".

To improve the world, good people must do something.

The strong must protect the weak.

There should be no safe place for the evil or ignorant to hide.

[clambake]

he desires to be regulated......for his own good.

[MiamiHeat]

And less liberty. I can see where you're coming from, but I disagree. Any law stopping a certain kind of speech will inevitably stop even more later down the road; a law designed to stop hate speech is an inexorably slippery slope.

I completely understand.

This is the "who gets to decide what is OK and what is not OK" argument...

I just believe we can do a good job at deciding what is OK and what is not OK.

1984 scared a lot of people, apparently.

[clambake]

epic thread

[MiamiHeat]

he desires to be regulated......for his own good.

Not for me, I don't need it.

but others do.

[clambake]

Not for me, I don't need it.

but others do.

thats a passage from mein kampf.

[ChumpDumper]

Not for me, I don't need it.

but others do.How do you know your thoughts don't need regulation?

You aren't on the board that decides.

[MiamiHeat]

How do you know your thoughts don't need regulation?

You aren't on the board that decides.

Because the only censorship I would like to see is the organization of groups who's cause is to hate and incite violence for reasons they can't change.

I'm good on that front, thanks. I'm not a member of those groups, but thanks for being interested.

[ChumpDumper]

Because the only censorship I would like to see is the organization of groups who's cause is to hate and incite violence for reasons they can't change.

I'm good on that front, thanks. I'm not a member of those groups, but thanks for being interested.It's not your decision to make. You gave away your rights.

[MiamiHeat]

It's not your decision to make. You gave away your rights.

:nope

[ChumpDumper]

:nopeYou made your police state, now you have to live in it.

[MiamiHeat]

You made your police state, now you have to live in it.

:wakeup

[ChumpDumper]

:wakeup:king

[MiamiHeat]

:king

:lobt:

[ChumpDumper]

Not my fault you want to give away your rights. If you had an emoticon of a thought police board, you could post that.

[Blake]

I'm still waiting to see if anyone who thinks gender preference is a choice will take my "Be gay for a week" challenge. Remember, you don't have to ACT on these desires, you just have to start finding men sexually attractive for a week, then you can switch right back. Any takers?

"when you watch porn, do you want to watch a dude with a small, flacid penis or a dude with a huge throbbing cock?"

[spursncowboys]

"when you watch porn, do you want to watch a dude with a small, flacid penis or a dude with a huge throbbing cock?"

:lol

[Blake]

Go ahead and stop dodging the subject.

I challenged you, can you stand up to the task or just watch, act scared, throw some jokes around and be a pussy?

You challenged me to prove that you are intellectually weak.

I won that one in incredibly easy fashion lol.

What part of this subject would you like to discuss with me that you haven't yet been buried alive on by ChumpDumper et al?

[Blake]

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa136/Msalgado80/Obama%2008/porchhatecake.jpg

porch hate cake

tasty and unorganized.

lmfao.

[ChuckD]

Well, we've decided that they do not deserve a special categorization of a "class of people". Sexual orientation is a choice based on physical desire and lust. It's purely hedonistic. It is NOT about "emotional connections" because emotions could mean faggots could fall in love with a woman too.

1) It is a choice, and nobody on this earth has been able to prove that it isn't.

That is not grounds to give them special privileges.

When do we stop? If the simple fact that fags want special laws created for them because of their perversion of sex, then why not polygamy and incest?

2) I don't want fags being "normalized" by muddying up an ANCIENT HUMAN TRADITION.

The family is THE SACRED TRINITY (no, i'm not religious). The Father, the Mother, and the Child/Son/Daughter.

I do not want to live in a world where children think it's normal to be a confused, self-loathing human being who cannot accept their gender, and who cannot accept their responsibilities as that gender.



Yes, it absolutely affects me. It is the world I live in.

I do not want to live in a world where it's OK for MEN behave like women. Where it's normal for MEN to enjoy taking it up the ass and getting spanked, or wearing feminine clothing and behaving like a woman. A MAN does not do that. A MAN is a strong, dominant, NEVER TO BE CONQUERED gender.

One who ACCEPTS his truth instead of trying to change the world like a little fucking bitch. Like a fairy.
"Oh boohoo, I was born a man but I don't really like it =( Can I be a woman now? YAY!!"

These people have mental illnesses. Period.

1. Easy solution: kill yourself. Seriously, now that it's gotten into the Federal court system, the train has left the station, the barn door is open, whatever metaphor you prefer. Once this is upheld in the SCOTUS, things will happen fast in 35 states and slow in the Old Confederacy, so you should probably stay there if you don't kill yourself.

One who ACCEPTS his truth instead of trying to change the world like a little fucking bitch.
1a. Better start accepting
2. You are a MAJOR fucking closet case.

[LnGrrrR]

To improve the world, good people must do something.

The strong must protect the weak.

There should be no safe place for the evil or ignorant to hide.

And those good people can stand up to the idiots by laughing at them, or protesting the protesters, or debunking ignorance, etc etc :) We can do without the laws you argue for, and have done so in the past, I feel.

[LnGrrrR]

"when you watch porn, do you want to watch a dude with a small, flacid penis or a dude with a huge throbbing cock?"

:lol That's a great joke.

[MannyIsGod]

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa136/Msalgado80/Obama%2008/porchhatecake.jpg

Porch Hate Cake

Tasty and unorganized.

Not MiamiHeat Approved

[Jacob1983]

Can't we agree that some states are never going to budge on gay marriage being legal or aren't going to budge for a while? The best bets for gay couples if they want to get married is to live on the West Coast, Northeast, and maybe the Midwest. I can see the argument against incest and bestiality because they're very gross and an animal can't give consent nor can a child. However, the argument against polygamy fails. If all adults are consenting and are of lega age, then what's the problem? Why can't a man have more than 1 wife or a woman have more than 1 husband? This could just be me but I think a negative thing about gays that is visible sometimes is their sense of entitlement and attention. And no, I'm not talking about gay marriage. I'm talking about how some gay people act like they deserve a medal or an award for being gay and/or deserve special privliges because of their gayness. It's like they think they are some kind of hero and inspirational figure to other gay people. It's weird and kind of annoying.

[ChumpDumper]

Why do you feel so many people act like they are better than you?

[MiamiHeat]

Can't we agree that some states are never going to budge on gay marriage being legal or aren't going to budge for a while? The best bets for gay couples if they want to get married is to live on the West Coast, Northeast, and maybe the Midwest. I can see the argument against incest and bestiality because they're very gross and an animal can't give consent nor can a child. However, the argument against polygamy fails. If all adults are consenting and are of lega age, then what's the problem? Why can't a man have more than 1 wife or a woman have more than 1 husband? This could just be me but I think a negative thing about gays that is visible sometimes is their sense of entitlement and attention. And no, I'm not talking about gay marriage. I'm talking about how some gay people act like they deserve a medal or an award for being gay and/or deserve special privliges because of their gayness. It's like they think they are some kind of hero and inspirational figure to other gay people. It's weird and kind of annoying.

Not just polygamy

What about incest? Two consenting adults.

[ChuckD]

Not just polygamy

What about incest? Two consenting adults.

How can any of that matter as long as the men are REAL men? Isn't that what you're all about? Big...strong...butch...men?

[MiamiHeat]

How can any of that matter as long as the men are REAL men? Isn't that what you're all about? Big...strong...butch...men?

Looks like we got a faggot in the house.

Say hello to ChuckD.

look, I'm straight, so keep your fantasies to yourself.

[ChuckD]

Looks like we got a faggot in the house.

Say hello to ChuckD.

look, I'm straight, so keep your fantasies to yourself.

I'm just skimming your posts about what a REAL man is.

A MAN is a strong, dominant, NEVER TO BE CONQUERED gender.


You're the one that seems to have the penchant for doms.

Back to polygamy and incest. Do they even matter as long as it's straight sex? As long as they're REAL men?

[MiamiHeat]

ChuckD, everyone

Supporting incest and polygamy.

round of applause for such a fine upstanding citizen.

[ChuckD]

ChuckD, everyone

Supporting incest and polygamy.

round of applause for such a fine upstanding citizen.

Actually, it was a question that you failed to answer, or maybe even see.

Do incest and polygamy matter if it's straight sex with one of your Utopian "real men" involved? Yes or no?

[jack sommerset]

Queers are happy.

[jack sommerset]

Queers want to be accepted.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Queers are happy.
Queers want to be accepted.


would you look at that, martha? the queers want to be accepted. where will it end? midgets marrying donkeys?

[Jacob1983]

This has probably been said before but what happens when gay marriage is legal everywhere in America. What happens to the gay movement? Does having gay marriage legal everywhere in America hurt or help the gay movement? If it's legal, then that would mean they would have 1 less thing to bitch about and have less fuel for their fire. And if gays are allowed to marry, what are the taxes going to be like for them? Will they be the same, more, or less? I think that if gays can get married, that they should have to deal with the good and bad when it comes to marriage. Besides, isn't that what they want anyways? I think it's funny and a fuckin' joke how the gay movement/community is comparing this whole gay marriage thing to how black people were treated in America in the 1960s and 1950s. Ridiculous. Just let gays get married so they will shut the fuck up about it and stop being crybaby bitches about it too.

[Blake]

This has probably been said before but what happens when gay marriage is legal everywhere in America. What happens to the gay movement? Does having gay marriage legal everywhere in America hurt or help the gay movement? If it's legal, then that would mean they would have 1 less thing to bitch about and have less fuel for their fire.

so you are wondering if the gays that are complaining about not being able to get married might actually be better off if they are never allowed to get married.


Ridiculous. Just let gays get married so they will shut the fuck up about it and stop being crybaby bitches about it too.

so you also feel that groups that come along and make a lot of noise should just be given what they want so that they will shut the fuck up.

[DMX7]

Queers want to be accepted.

They're coming for you...

[TheProfessor]

Lot of irrational resentment in here for what should be a completely legal issue under due process and equal protection. Though it's funny to see MiamiHeat parroting Scalia.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Lot of irrational resentment in here for what should be a completely legal issue under due process and equal protection. Though it's funny to see MiamiHeat parroting Scalia.

Aren't you worried that homosexuals will be accepted?

[jack sommerset]

They're coming for you...

You are freaking me out with this shit!

[jack sommerset]

Aren't you worried that homosexuals will be accepted?

You sure are!

[Jacob1983]

Just let them get married and be done with it. The only thing that people need to remember is that most human beings picture a man and a woman at the altar at a wedding. Just sayin'.

[rjv]

Well, we've decided that they do not deserve a special categorization of a "class of people". Sexual orientation is a choice based on physical desire and lust. It's purely hedonistic. It is NOT about "emotional connections" because emotions could mean faggots could fall in love with a woman too.

what does this even mean? the clear implication here is that all decisions based on lust or physical desire are disconnected from emotional input. so this very logic already contradicts the first premise, which is that orientation is a choice. if it is not about emotional connections then how can it be a choice? but poorly constructed syllogisms aside...


1) It is a choice, and nobody on this earth has been able to prove that it isn't.

i can only assume that this is now just pure opinion, considering that you failed to even address the diametrically opposed and obvious criteria here. You're begging the question: is homosexuality a choice? your only answer is that no one has been able to say it is not which begs the question, "have they proven it is ?". but since you have quite conveniently ignored brain mapping studies on the symmetry of the brain, on varying impulses in the hypothalamus, on neural plasticity and other physiological based aspects of human behavior i can only take this opinion with a grain of salt.



That is not grounds to give them special privileges.

When do we stop? If the simple fact that fags want special laws created for them because of their perversion of sex, then why not polygamy and incest?

perversion of sex or perversion of society ? because these are entirely different sets of parameters here


2) I don't want fags being "normalized" by muddying up an ANCIENT HUMAN TRADITION.

The family is THE SACRED TRINITY (no, i'm not religious). The Father, the Mother, and the Child/Son/Daughter.

I do not want to live in a world where children think it's normal to be a confused, self-loathing human being who cannot accept their gender, and who cannot accept their responsibilities as that gender.

sounds like you'd rather have children grow up in a static society that is indoctrinated to believe that human behavior is to be understood under religious based assumptions (and atavistic ones at that) as opposed to the actual anthropological and biological complexities of human behavior and evolution.




Yes, it absolutely affects me. It is the world I live in.

I do not want to live in a world where it's OK for MEN behave like women. Where it's normal for MEN to enjoy taking it up the ass and getting spanked, or wearing feminine clothing and behaving like a woman. A MAN does not do that. A MAN is a strong, dominant, NEVER TO BE CONQUERED gender.

One who ACCEPTS his truth instead of trying to change the world like a little fucking bitch. Like a fairy.
"Oh boohoo, I was born a man but I don't really like it =( Can I be a woman now? YAY!!"

These people have mental illnesses. Period.

if you're basing morality on your narcissism then why be so opposed to hedonism? are they not both subsets of some nihilistic domain?

[Drachen]

MH,
So I just caught up on this thread and let me say a few things. First, Chumper's schtick is usually annoying with his questions, but not answering. Even though I usually agree with the stance he has taken, I don't prefer his way of defending his stance. Just my preference. However I have to say that outside of the obvious trolling (how many people? what kind of porch?), it seems that he abandoned his regular schtick and actually got into the conversation with some good points. I am sorry that you can't see that.
I will also concede that MiG does sometimes come off as arrogant (no manny, this has nothing to do with the poker thread - lol), as well as educated. Here is the thing though, at least he has the education to back up his arrogance. I know it is possible to not be arrogant, yet still educated, but at least it is better than some moron spouting off his arrogance.
The biggest reason for this post, though is that it seems like you made an arguement early in the thread which you perhaps didn't think all of the way through. When its glaring weaknesses were so ravenously pounced upon by the loyal opposition revealing the hole you had dug yourself into, it seems that you started swinging blindly, making arguements that even you didn't believe all in order to avoid the embarassment of having to fess up that your original arguement was way off base. I couldn't believe what I was reading when you suggested that we essentially shred the bill of rights (or parts of it) in order to neuter movements which may or may not incite violence (most of them incite nothing more than ridicule). If you really think about it, organizing as such ALWAYS incites violence to varying degrees. The peaceful marches which were organized during the civil rights movements led to dogs, fire hoses, and beatings. Violence was incited, but like I said, I don't believe (or don't want to believe) that you actually agree with your own arguement here. You also can't explain this disparity in your arguement away with something as weak as "well the civil rights protesters were ok because they were doing something that was good" because although I agree with you on that, the KKK thought/thinks that they are doing something good. It is impossible to this is moral/this is not without turning into the example that you yourself gave (Die Nazi Staaten Amerikas). The only way to do this is to allow choices to be made. If you see two ideas presented and one is abhorrent you make your choice. Will there be missteps? Absolutely, but in general human knowledge and experience has evolved through the missteps. Could we learn more from our missteps? Sure. The important thing, however is to continue to move forward.
I have actually begun to ramble now, and thought there was one more point I wanted to make, I will go ahead and stop the post now, because I can't for the life of me remember what it was. DOH!

:birthday::devil
BTW, hate cake was classic, here is my best attempt with the emoticons given.

[jack sommerset]

I could careless if queers get married but like it or not most people think it is wrong and they voted it down time and time again. We heard all the arguements, people are well informed on the subject and continue to keep saying "no".

Call me a bigot all you want but remember I am for the queers getting married no matter how sick in the head they are. The adoption, teaching queer in school, not having queers in the military is what I am against but I say hell yes letting the queers marrying each other.

[Blake]

I could careless if queers get married but like it or not most people think it is wrong and they voted it down time and time again. We heard all the arguements, people are well informed on the subject and continue to keep saying "no".

I think more and more people are getting better informed as time goes on and comig up with fewer and fewer reasons to keep saying "no".

Off the top of my head, some of the reasons I've seen are: "there's no proof of a gay gene", "It's a sin", "it's icky" and "they are sick in the head".......all pretty lame reasons that most cannot reasonably argue when they try.


Call me a bigot all you want but remember I am for the queers getting married no matter how sick in the head they are. The adoption, teaching queer in school, not having queers in the military is what I am against but I say hell yes letting the queers marrying each other.

So you are all for letting them live together in matrimony, but still want to keep them from having all the marriage rights that heterosexual couples currently enjoy.

How bigot of you.

[Spurminator]

I could careless if queers get married but like it or not most people think it is wrong and they voted it down time and time again. We heard all the arguements, people are well informed on the subject and continue to keep saying "no".

Call me a bigot all you want but remember I am for the queers getting married no matter how sick in the head they are. The adoption, teaching queer in school, not having queers in the military is what I am against but I say hell yes letting the queers marrying each other.

Watch out for your corn hole, sweet cheeks, they're coming for you next.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I could careless if queers get married but like it or not most people think it is wrong and they voted it down time and time again. We heard all the arguements, people are well informed on the subject and continue to keep saying "no".

Call me a bigot all you want but remember I am for the queers getting married no matter how sick in the head they are. The adoption, teaching queer in school, not having queers in the military is what I am against but I say hell yes letting the queers marrying each other.

Let us know why people voted it down so mnay times queer bait?

[MiamiHeat]

what does this even mean?
If you don't understand it, then don't go off on shitty "your post was poorly constructed" allegations.

I'll break my comments down for you - step by step :

1) Sexual orientation is a choice.

2) The choice is based on physical desire and lust.

3) Why do I say it's based on physical attributes? Because it is not about emotional connections. Love, aka emotional connections, are independent of physical attributes. You can be "emotionally connected" to a woman.......THEREFORE homosexuals don't have to be in love with a man. They could easily find that "emotional connection with a woman. So why the gender preference? Easy. Homosexuality, the lifestyle to only enjoy your own gender, is not based on love. It's based on physical attributes --> physical desire and lust.





perversion of sex or perversion of society ? because these are entirely different sets of parameters here

Your preconceived notions and viewpoints are muddying your understanding here.

It is a perversion of sex. A man is supposed to lie with a woman. The main cause is to reproduce, but as a side-effect, evolution has equipped us with pleasure rewards in order to keep having sex (reproducing). Now, we don't NEED to reproduce to enjoy sex. It can be done for pure enjoyment and nothing else.

Homosexuality goes one step further, and does the "pure enjoyment" into a disgusting perversion of sex, a "union" that cannot reproduce and was never meant to exist. Same thing as having sex with an octopus, fucking a tree, having sex with frogs (lolmonkey), or other distorted ways of pleasuring yourself. Look up beastiality. We exploit the pleasure center of our brain in any way our creative and imaginative brains can think of.

Aside from homosexuality, the other practices are easily dismissed and laughed off in our society because they aren't with "humans"

However, in the case of homosexuality, it is. And somehow, some people think it's OK because it's a human.

It is a practice that distorts male and female roles.

[jack sommerset]

Let us know why people voted it down so mnay times queer bait?

They think a man and women only should be married. Duh! You must really hate yourself, stupid.

[MiamiHeat]

MH,
So I just caught up on this thread and let me say a few things. First, Chumper's schtick is usually annoying with his questions, but not answering. Even though I usually agree with the stance he has taken, I don't prefer his way of defending his stance. Just my preference. However I have to say that outside of the obvious trolling (how many people? what kind of porch?), it seems that he abandoned his regular schtick and actually got into the conversation with some good points. I am sorry that you can't see that.
I will also concede that MiG does sometimes come off as arrogant (no manny, this has nothing to do with the poker thread - lol), as well as educated. Here is the thing though, at least he has the education to back up his arrogance. I know it is possible to not be arrogant, yet still educated, but at least it is better than some moron spouting off his arrogance.
The biggest reason for this post, though is that it seems like you made an arguement early in the thread which you perhaps didn't think all of the way through. When its glaring weaknesses were so ravenously pounced upon by the loyal opposition revealing the hole you had dug yourself into, it seems that you started swinging blindly, making arguements that even you didn't believe all in order to avoid the embarassment of having to fess up that your original arguement was way off base. I couldn't believe what I was reading when you suggested that we essentially shred the bill of rights (or parts of it) in order to neuter movements which may or may not incite violence (most of them incite nothing more than ridicule). If you really think about it, organizing as such ALWAYS incites violence to varying degrees. It is impossible to this is moral/this is not without turning into the example that you yourself gave (Die Nazi Staaten Amerikas). The only way to do this is to allow choices to be made. If you see two ideas presented and one is abhorrent you make your choice. Will there be missteps? Absolutely, but in general human knowledge and experience has evolved through the missteps. Could we learn more from our missteps? Sure. The important thing, however is to continue to move forward.
I have actually begun to ramble now, and thought there was one more point I wanted to make, I will go ahead and stop the post now, because I can't for the life of me remember what it was. DOH!

:birthday::devil
BTW, hate cake was classic, here is my best attempt with the emoticons given.

Are you MannyIsGod's friend?

While you answer, I'll respond to something in that post :


The peaceful marches which were organized during the civil rights movements led to dogs, fire hoses, and beatings. Violence was incited, but like I said, I don't believe (or don't want to believe) that you actually agree with your own arguement here. You also can't explain this disparity in your arguement away with something as weak as "well the civil rights protesters were ok because they were doing something that was good" because although I agree with you on that, the KKK thought/thinks that they are doing something good.

It's always comforting to just dismiss another persons opinion as "made up" or crazy or false when it shakes your belief system.

To respond :

You said it would be weak to reply with "but the civil rights movement was good"

I don't believe that.

here's why - you are confusing the observer. The judges. Who are they? They are bystanders, they are not involved in the movement. Their opinion is the one who counts here when you talk about the civil rights movement, but then in the VERY NEXT idea, you change the perspective of the observer and use the "Nazi's thought they were doing good"

That's flawed. Be consistent.

Bystanders/Judges : Civil rights movement is good.

Bystanders/Judges : Nazi's movement is bad.


Civil rights movement people : Our movement is good
Nazi movement people : Our movement is good

See the difference?

My idea for stopping the hateful shitty ideas is run by the bystanders/judges. Not by the participants.

[LnGrrrR]

1) Sexual orientation is a choice.

2) The choice is based on physical desire and lust.

3) Why do I say it's based on physical attributes?

If it's a choice, then why not take up my "Be gay for a week" challenge? :D


Because it is not about emotional connections. Love, aka emotional connections, are independent of physical attributes. You can be "emotionally connected" to a woman.......THEREFORE homosexuals don't have to be in love with a man. They could easily find that "emotional connection with a woman. So why the gender preference? Easy. Homosexuality, the lifestyle to only enjoy your own gender, is not based on love. It's based on physical attributes --> physical desire and lust.

So everyone who's gay and say they're in love are just lying? Forgive me if I think that gay people might better understand their own emotions than you understand them.

And if emotional attachments were so easy to make amongst the opposite sex, surely they should be as easy to make for the same sex? Have you ever felt emotionally connected to a man the same way you do for a woman?

[Blake]

1) Sexual orientation is a choice.

link?


The main cause is to reproduce, but as a side-effect, evolution has equipped us with pleasure rewards in order to keep having sex (reproducing). Now, we don't NEED to reproduce to enjoy sex. It can be done for pure enjoyment and nothing else.

Why do you think nature intended for natural childbirth to be intensely painful for women?


Homosexuality goes one step further, and does the "pure enjoyment" into a disgusting perversion of sex, a "union" that cannot reproduce and was never meant to exist. Same thing as having sex with an octopus, fucking a tree, having sex with frogs (lolmonkey), or other distorted ways of pleasuring yourself. Look up beastiality. We exploit the pleasure center of our brain in any way our creative and imaginative brains can think of.

Ironic how you, being a blow hard atheist, are making a determination as to what was and what wasn't meant to exist.


Aside from homosexuality, the other practices are easily dismissed and laughed off in our society because they aren't with "humans"

right, because animals can't say "I do" at the altar.


However, in the case of homosexuality, it is. And somehow, some people think it's OK because it's a human.

It is a practice that distorts male and female roles.

it is ok because it's a human.

If two humans consent to the way they pleasure each other, who are you to determine in what ways they should or shouldn't and what roles they should portray in their private and/or public lives?

What are you afraid of specifically?

[MiamiHeat]

So everyone who's gay and say they're in love are just lying? Forgive me if I think that gay people might better understand their own emotions than you understand them.

lol you're trolling, good one.



And if emotional attachments were so easy to make amongst the opposite sex, surely they should be as easy to make for the same sex? Have you ever felt emotionally connected to a man the same way you do for a woman?

Exactly the point. I chose to spend my time and pursue women. Homosexuals are choosing to pursue their same gender.

I want tittes and pussy, so I go after that.

A fag wants cock, so he goes after that and then "falls in love" later.

but the decision is based on gender, and the differences between gender are primarily physical.

[rjv]

If you don't understand it, then don't go off on shitty "your post was poorly constructed" allegations.

I'll break my comments down for you - step by step :

1) Sexual orientation is a choice.

2) The choice is based on physical desire and lust.

again, you contradict yourself. if the second premise is correct then it contradicts the first premise and this is even elucidated more so by this third premise:


3) Why do I say it's based on physical attributes? Because it is not about emotional connections. Love, aka emotional connections, are independent of physical attributes. You can be "emotionally connected" to a woman.......THEREFORE homosexuals don't have to be in love with a man. They could easily find that "emotional connection with a woman. So why the gender preference? Easy. Homosexuality, the lifestyle to only enjoy your own gender, is not based on love. It's based on physical attributes --> physical desire and lust.

since you have made a clear distinction here that love is an emotion and lust is not you have stated that homosexuals are essentially instinctual and base humans acting on primitive instincts, which certainly falls under the definitions of deterministic behavior and not at all under the more conscious decision making that you have relegated to people in love.

even more so, you have added to this set all people who have sex outside the boundaries of love.




Your preconceived notions and viewpoints are muddying your understanding here.

It is a perversion of sex. A man is supposed to lie with a woman. The main cause is to reproduce, but as a side-effect, evolution has equipped us with pleasure rewards in order to keep having sex (reproducing). Now, we don't NEED to reproduce to enjoy sex. It can be done for pure enjoyment and nothing else.

Homosexuality goes one step further, and does the "pure enjoyment" into a disgusting perversion of sex, a "union" that cannot reproduce and was never meant to exist. A practice that distorts male and female roles.

i have not defined anything at all in my previous post. all i worked with was your definitions.

now, if you have argued that evolution can operate under a manner that suggests it is purely mechanistic and would even create 'side effects' then you open up your definition to a myriad of other possibilities. so you have traveled from the static old testament version of sex in your previous post to a dynamic definition of sexual behavior that includes an evolutionary impetus. working with these new parameters, one could even argue that homosexuality, like disease, is a necessary part of the species in order to prevent the overpopulation of the planet.

[LnGrrrR]

I want tittes and pussy, so I go after that.

A fag wants cock, so he goes after that and then "falls in love" later.

but the decision is based on gender, and the differences between gender are primarily physical.

But if it's a choice, surely you could be gay for a week? I'm not saying you have to have sex, just that you desire cock for a week, then switch back to heterosexuality. If the choice is as easy as you say, it shouldn't be a problem. :)

[MiamiHeat]

If two humans consent to the way they pleasure each other, who are you to determine in what ways they should or shouldn't and what roles they should portray in their private and/or public lives?


lol incest

[Blake]

lol incest

should be allowed to marry

lmao bestiality

[MiamiHeat]

since you have made a clear distinction here that love is an emotion and lust is not you have stated that homosexuals are essentially instinctual and base humans acting on primitive instincts, which certainly falls under the definitions of deterministic behavior and not at all under the more conscious decision making that you have relegated to people in love.

LOL what a hilarious way to misinterpret my post.

and the twisting in it. oh boy. Now lust is not an emotion, according to rjv.





now, if you have argued that evolution can operate under a manner that suggests it is purely mechanistic and would even create 'side effects' then you open up your definition to a myriad of other possibilities. so you have traveled from the static old testament version of sex in your previous post to a dynamic definition of sexual behavior that includes an evolutionary impetus. working with these new parameters, one could even argue that homosexuality, like disease, is a necessary part of the species in order to prevent the overpopulation of the planet.

No, not new parameters. I've had the same ones, you just can't seem to comprehend it before you type your posts.

[Drachen]

Are you MannyIsGod's friend?

While you answer, I'll respond to something in that post :



It's always comforting to just dismiss another persons opinion as "made up" or crazy or false when it shakes your belief system.

To respond :

You said it would be weak to reply with "but the civil rights movement was good"

I don't believe that.

here's why - you are confusing the observer. The judges. Who are they? They are bystanders, they are not involved in the movement. Their opinion is the one who counts here when you talk about the civil rights movement, but then in the VERY NEXT idea, you change the perspective of the observer and use the "Nazi's thought they were doing good"

That's flawed. Be consistent.

Bystanders/Judges : Civil rights movement is good.

Bystanders/Judges : Nazi's movement is bad.


Civil rights movement people : Our movement is good
Nazi movement people : Our movement is good

See the difference?

My idea for stopping the hateful shitty ideas is run by the bystanders/judges. Not by the participants.

Firstly, I met MiG at a GTG about 5 or 6 years ago at Bennigans on 1604 and 281. That would be the extent of my contact outside of here on the site. I hope that clarifies whatever you were looking for (I am not quite sure what you are looking for so sorry if I couldn't provide more poignant information).

As to your point, the Nazis didn't come into power and on that same day win the hearts and minds of every German. They slowly integrated themselves into the existing power structure before having enough support and power to dissolve that power structure and implement one that was more politically stable (for them).
I only bring this up to say that once you make a decision on a subject your impartiality is gone, and you are either actively or passively supporting a cause, or the dissenting cause. So your Nazis=approval from within and Civil Rights=approval from the outside doesn't really hold much water because once those "outsiders" approved of the Civil Rights movement they were a part of that cause whether passively or actively. The same can be said for the Germans in Nazi Germany. They were impartial until they made a decision for the Nazi cause (or against it) at which point they were part of their chosen cause.

However, back to my initial post, I really was believing that your responses were just "blind swinging" to justify an embarrasingly shallow first stance. If this is not the case, and you truely believe that we need to rip up the bill of rights (or parts of it) and start over, then I may need a little time to regroup, because I would be debating under the impression that we both believed in the ground rules, but had differing opinions on the implementation thereof.

I currently don't have the time available to sit down and debate the merits of starting over, what a new country of your making should look like, and the good merits and bad merits of each part of your new constitution with regards to the American (would they still be called American?) people.

I do apologize, but I am not your Huckleberry.

[MiamiHeat]

Not allowing racist, etc organizations to spread poison within a community is shredding up the constitution.

OH wait, don't we already do that?

Do we allow Al-Qaeda to come to American soil and recruit more terrorists? No, we don't.

But I guess it's OK to stop "big bad scary official terrorist" organizations because they make bombs and crash planes into buildings in a big dramatic made for TV news report,

but community driven rallies like the KKK, that lynched blacks, burned churches and homes, killed children and women, are OK because, damn it, we need to be able to speak our mind. Those were smaller cases, not so big and scary incidents

[Drachen]

Not allowing racist, etc organizations to spread poison within a community is shredding up the constitution.

OH wait, don't we already do that?

Do we allow Al-Qaeda to come to American soil and recruit more terrorists? No, we don't.

But I guess it's OK to stop "big bad scary official terrorist" organizations because they make bombs and crash planes into buildings in a big dramatic made for TV news report,

but community driven rallies like the KKK, that lynched blacks, burned churches and homes, killed children and women, are OK because, damn it, we need to be able to speak our mind. Those were smaller cases, not so big and scary incidents


Not allowing free speech is shredding the bill of rights (or part of it). Re: Al-Qaeda coming to American soil; The bill of rights guarantees certain rights to American citizens, we are unable to currently guarantee any rights to all citizens of the planet earth. This is a very basic point in the formation of a nation state.

I have to go to class, however, so I, unfortunately will be unavailable. Its doubtful that I will check this again until tomorrow because I had a very active weekend and could use the sleep after school.

[Stringer_Bell]

Mannnnnn, fuck! Let the gays marry. Who cares if religious beliefs make it hard for "Christians" to tolerate? Fuck you fake "Christian" cunts. The Muslim leaders use religion to discriminate and legalize hatred against women, the fake "Christians" are no different. In fact, most of them do worse things than anal sex...gay marriage is not in a Church, it's a civil status - people need to recognize the difference.

Anyone that disagrees is a homophobic child molestesting atheist.

[MiamiHeat]

Mannnnnn, fuck! Let the gays marry. Who cares if religious beliefs make it hard for "Christians" to tolerate? Fuck you fake "Christian" cunts. The Muslim leaders use religion to discriminate and legalize hatred against women, the fake "Christians" are no different. In fact, most of them do worse things than anal sex...gay marriage is not in a Church, it's a civil status - people need to recognize the difference.

Anyone that disagrees is a homophobic child molestesting atheist.

First you say fuck the Christians who are opposed to it, then claim the people who are opposed are atheists?

[MiamiHeat]

should be allowed to marry

lmao bestiality

Why does it have to be two consenting human adults?

You question MY parameters of marriage (man and woman), but forget yours are up for questioning

[Stringer_Bell]

First you say fuck the Christians who are opposed to it, then claim the people who are opposed are atheists?

Why yes, yes I did. Let that marinate a bit more. :king

[rjv]

LOL what a hilarious way to misinterpret my post.

and the twisting in it. oh boy. Now lust is not an emotion, according to
rjv.


no, according to the poster who wrote the following:


Why do I say it's based on physical attributes? Because it is not about emotional connections

and


It's based on physical attributes

and then juxtapose these two statements;


"The family is THE SACRED TRINITY (no, i'm not religious)...The Father, the Mother, and the Child/Son/Daughter." and " The main cause is to reproduce, but as a side-effect, evolution has equipped us with pleasure rewards in order to keep having sex (reproducing). Now, we don't NEED to reproduce to enjoy sex. It can be done for pure enjoyment and nothing else"



the first statement is metaphyics and the second is a conjencture about the nature of sex and evolution. those are some pretty diverse and even paradoxical statements.

[MiamiHeat]

Why yes, yes I did. Let that marinate a bit more. :king

You do realize that they aren't fake?

Their Bible specifically denounces faggots.

"You shall not lie with man as you do with woman, it is an abomination" or whatever

[LnGrrrR]

You do realize that they aren't fake?

Their Bible specifically denounces faggots.

"You shall not lie with man as you do with woman, it is an abomination" or whatever

Yeah but the Bible punishes people for eating shrimp. :lol

Still wondering if you're up for the Gay Challenge!

[CosmicCowboy]

Why does it have to be two consenting human adults?

You question MY parameters of marriage (man and woman), but forget yours are up for questioning

They simply can't logically get around the beastiality analogy.

They will try to argue that it can't be a real relationship because the animal can't choose to be in the relationship.

Thats hypocrisy at it's finest.

The double beef patties in their burger today didn't choose to be their lunch but they ate the fuckers anyway, choice or no choice.

[Stringer_Bell]

You do realize that they aren't fake?

Their Bible specifically denounces faggots.

"You shall not lie with man as you do with woman, it is an abomination" or whatever

The New Testament basically reverses all of the Old Testament. If you can show me where Jesus Christ said his Father's House was for everyone except _______ (for example, homosexuals), please do so. Christianity, the focus of the New Testament, is about acceptance (not just tolerance) and passivity (not violence to acheive your goal).

Jesus would shit on today's "Conservatives." A big huge nutty shit, all over them.

[spursncowboys]

The New Testament basically reverses all of the Old Testament. If you can show me where Jesus Christ said his Father's House was for everyone except _______ (for example, homosexuals), please do so. Christianity, the focus of the New Testament, is about acceptance (not just tolerance) and passivity (not violence to acheive your goal).

Jesus would shit on today's "Conservatives." A big huge nutty shit, all over them.
no it doesnt

[LnGrrrR]

They simply can't logically get around the beastiality analogy.

They will try to argue that it can't be a real relationship because the animal can't choose to be in the relationship.

Thats hypocrisy at it's finest.

The double beef patties in their burger today didn't choose to be their lunch but they ate the fuckers anyway, choice or no choice.

I don't think that logically follows CC. Unless you plan on eating your wife after you say your vows or something.

I mean, if you want to sleep with a dog or whatever, I really don't care if the dog doesn't. :lol Is it weird? Disgusting? Abhorrent? Sure. But I don't care enough to send police officers to your door.

[CosmicCowboy]

The New Testament basically reverses all of the Old Testament. If you can show me where Jesus Christ said his Father's House was for everyone except _______ (for example, homosexuals), please do so. Christianity, the focus of the New Testament, is about acceptance (not just tolerance) and passivity (not violence to acheive your goal).

Jesus would shit on today's "Conservatives." A big huge nutty shit, all over them.

So did something happen to God between the Old Testament and the New Testament? Is Jesus's Dad still the "eye for an eye" kind of God that kicked some serious infidel/non-believer ass in the Old Testament?

[MiamiHeat]

you

What I said :

1) Lust is not an emotional connection like love.

That does not = "MiamiHeat said lust is not an emotion"







the first statement is metaphyics and the second is a conjencture about the nature of sex and evolution. those are some pretty diverse and even paradoxical statements.

In your world, it might be.

The sacred trinity (Father, Mother, Child) is an ideal shared by billions of people, even if it takes on different forms among cultures and religions. It is the nucleus of the family, the foundation of love, human civilization, everything we know. And no, I don't mean "Father, Mother, Child" in some religious way, does not pertain to any god. It's the human sacred trinity, the family.


and my comments about human sexuality are not really conjecture. Our brains actually do release certain chemicals to reward sexual experiences. Evolution's way to encourage reproduction.

[MiamiHeat]

The New Testament basically reverses all of the Old Testament. If you can show me where Jesus Christ said his Father's House was for everyone except _______ (for example, homosexuals), please do so. Christianity, the focus of the New Testament, is about acceptance (not just tolerance) and passivity (not violence to acheive your goal).

Jesus would shit on today's "Conservatives." A big huge nutty shit, all over them.

I think you may have missed the whole point of the New Testament.

This is how it works :

1) Jesus accepts anyone who comes to him and asks for forgiveness. His arms are open to all, even homosexuals

HOWEVER, DO NOT STOP THERE.

2) You are supposed to STOP your sinful ways and be reborn.


This does not mean Jesus was saying, "Yeah, I accept all of you how you are"

Jesus was saying "I forgive and accept all of you, but you must accept my Father's commandments and be reborn to live a new life of purity"


So, no. Fags, thieves, murderers, whatever, aren't accepted to stay that way. They are supposed to repent and change.

[Stringer_Bell]

So did something happen to God between the Old Testament and the New Testament? Is Jesus's Dad still the "eye for an eye" kind of God that kicked some serious infidel/non-believer ass in the Old Testament?

Jesus said if someone slaps your cheek, give them the other cheek and let them slap that one too. So, definately not an eye for an eye. The only time Jesus got pissed (or so the Gospels tell us) is when people try to pass things off as being divine/of God as a way to profit/achieve power/deceive...case in point, the "Conservatives" that will be on the recieving end of the Messiah's nutty shit during the Rapture who have used fear to push people around and gain power for themselves.

Also, the people in the Old Testament are assholes, it's like Sin City or Kill Bill - I just can't understand why anyone would want to waste time in that negativity and use it as a base for anything when Jesus knows what the fuck is up.

[MiamiHeat]

I don't think that logically follows CC. Unless you plan on eating your wife after you say your vows or something.

I mean, if you want to sleep with a dog or whatever, I really don't care if the dog doesn't. :lol Is it weird? Disgusting? Abhorrent? Sure. But I don't care enough to send police officers to your door.

CC makes perfect logic.

I'll break it down for you :

Your steak or hamburger. Did you give the animal a choice before they snapped it's neck, chopped it up, and served it for you?

So why the fuck should there be a "animal needs to give consent" to get married with it?

The way I look at it, a dog getting fucked in the ass but living a good life with all the food she wants is a lot better than being chopped up and served.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't think that logically follows CC. Unless you plan on eating your wife after you say your vows or something.

I mean, if you want to sleep with a dog or whatever, I really don't care if the dog doesn't. :lol Is it weird? Disgusting? Abhorrent? Sure. But I don't care enough to send police officers to your door.

I realize it's a little weird but try to follow me here.

TLong loves his sheep and wants to marry her. The law says he can't. Based on the logic of the new ruling he should be able to marry her, even if it's not conventional, otherwise the law would not be giving him equal protection.

Want to argue that the sheep must be able to give consent to the relationship with TLong? OK. So in what other specific areas does the sheep have the right of choice/consent? TLong can legally kill and eat his sheep without her consent. Thats OK. But TLong can't legally have sex with his sheep and marry her? Because Why again? The Sheep can't consent?

Do you not see the inconsistency of the argument?

[MiamiHeat]

I realize it's a little weird but try to follow me here.

TLong loves his sheep and wants to marry her. The law says he can't. Based on the logic of the new ruling he should be able to marry her, even if it's not conventional, otherwise the law would not be giving him equal protection.

Want to argue that the sheep must be able to give consent to the relationship with TLong? OK. So in what other specific areas does the sheep have the right of choice/consent? TLong can legally kill and eat his sheep without her consent. Thats OK. But TLong can't legally have sex with his sheep and marry her? Because Why again? The Sheep can't consent?

Do you not see the inconsistency of the argument?

Nope, it's not weird CC. I understood you from the get go.


If someone then wants to say, "but it's weird/wrong, humans-cows are not the same species" or any other reason,

then they will realize what the fuck we are on about when we say Marriage = man and woman......... and that man/man is weird/wrong/same gender


It's easy to follow the flow "Yeah, we should do whatever we want, rights to live however we like!@!!!"

and never stop to think about the damage it does

It's just flawed thinking. The sacred family (Father/Mother/Child) should be kept intact and untainted.

[Spurminator]

If the bestiality analogy can apply to homosexual sex, then it can be applied to all forms of recreational heterosexual sex as well. That's why it's a stupid analogy that only stupid people use.

[CosmicCowboy]

Nope, it's not weird CC. I understood you from the get go.


If someone then wants to say, "but it's weird/wrong, humans-cows are not the same species" or any other reason,

then they will realize what the fuck we are on about when we say Marriage = man and woman......... and that man/man is weird/wrong/same gender


It's easy to follow the flow "Yeah, we should do whatever we want, rights to live however we like, no matter what damage it does!!"

It's just flawed thinking. The sacred family (Father/Mother/Child) should be kept intact and untainted.

I honestly have no issues with gays doing their thing or Tlong banging his sheep. I just draw the line at calling it a "marriage".

But logic or no logic we are still gonna get called bigots.

[CosmicCowboy]

If the bestiality analogy can apply to homosexual sex, then it can be applied to all forms of recreational heterosexual sex as well. That's why it's a stupid analogy that only stupid people use.

pardon me?

Did you hear me trying to control anyones sex life? If David Carradine wants to hang himself by his junk then it's OK with me.

I believe the discussion was "marriage".

[Spurminator]

"Bestiality" is sex with animals, not marriage with animals. And MH is clearly comparing sex with animals to sex between two men or women. If you're not, fine, but the analogy is still irrelevant. If you're against Tlong marrying his sheep then fight that battle when it actually becomes a realistic possibility.

[CosmicCowboy]

"Bestiality" is sex with animals, not marriage with animals. And MH is clearly comparing sex with animals to sex between two men or women. If you're not, fine, but the analogy is still irrelevant. If you're against Tlong marrying his sheep then fight that battle when it actually becomes a realistic possibility.

You still aren't understanding me.

I could care less what their sexual habits are.

I'm saying that the same legal logic currently being applied to same sex marriage also applies to beast marriage.

It all becomes the same when everyones beliefs are equally protected and coddled.

Party on, Garth!

[MannyIsGod]

You still aren't understanding me.

I could care less what their sexual habits are.

I'm saying that the same legal logic currently being applied to same sex marriage also applies to beastiality marriage.

Yeah, no.

Consent. Consent. Consent. Animals can't give it. Consent is a requirement for marriage.

Game over.

Consent.

[Spurminator]

You still aren't understanding me.

I could care less what their sexual habits are.

I'm saying that the same legal logic currently being applied to same sex marriage also applies to beast marriage.

No, you're saying the flaw in that logic can be excused by the fact that we eat animals. That doesn't make the analogy logical. Nor does it make the legalization of Beast Marriage a realistic possibility.

[CosmicCowboy]

So consent in animals ONLY applies to marriage/sex? Says who? The same people that said marriage is only between a man and a woman?

Be consistent guys.

[MannyIsGod]

When you see a court case that states pieces of property can enter into contracts let me know. When you see a court case that states contracts can be entered into without consent let me know.

[MiamiHeat]

When you see a court case that states pieces of property can enter into contracts let me know. When you see a court case that states contracts can be entered into without consent let me know.

So you mean you want to stick with current accepted stances on this issue, and not change anything?

Phew, then this whole gay marriage ordeal is over.

Thanks

[MannyIsGod]

So you mean you want to stick with current accepted stances on this issue, and not change anything?

Phew, then this whole gay marriage ordeal is over.

Thanks

It has nothing to do with "currently accepted stances" but whether or not animals are given the same rights in the constitution as homosexuals.

Its amazing how far you guys reach.

[CosmicCowboy]

When you see a court case that states pieces of property can enter into contracts let me know. When you see a court case that states contracts can be entered into without consent let me know.

You could equally state that neither party dissents to the arrangement either.

Therefore, TLong is not receiving equal treatment under the law.

[Spurminator]

So you mean you want to stick with current accepted stances on this issue, and not change anything?

Phew, then this whole gay marriage ordeal is over.

Thanks

The gay marriage stance was not accepted. It was fought, and your side lost. We'll fight the bestiality issue when we get there. Which we won't.

[Supergirl]

You still aren't understanding me.

I could care less what their sexual habits are.

I'm saying that the same legal logic currently being applied to same sex marriage also applies to beast marriage.

It all becomes the same when everyones beliefs are equally protected and coddled.

Party on, Garth!

Marriage is a legal contract. And sometimes, a religious one. It has nothing to do with sex. Marriage is a LEGAL RIGHT granted by our Constitution, which says very clearly you can't vote on rights, because that's what makes them RIGHTS, and you can't discriminate and say some citizens are entitled to rights and some are not.

The only constitutional choices here are to make marriage a right all citizens can access, or to take away the right from all citizens. This, by the way, has nothing to do with religious marriage. Religious groups are free to marry who they want to marry, and discriminate against whoever they want to discriminate against they want to. Which they already do. Many religious leaders (Christian, Jewish, Muslim) will not marry two people of different faiths, not just two people of the same gender.

[Spurminator]

You could equally state that neither party dissents to the arrangement either.

Therefore, TLong is not receiving equal treatment under the law.

You can't consent to a contract by not dissenting.

[MannyIsGod]

You could equally state that neither party dissents to the arrangement either.

Therefore, TLong is not receiving equal treatment under the law.

Its amazing that with brilliant legal arguments like this your side lost. No really.

Your son went to law school, right? You should have this debate with him, imo.

[MiamiHeat]

It has nothing to do with "currently accepted stances" but whether or not animals are given the same rights in the constitution as homosexuals.

Its amazing how far you guys reach.

Show me where the constitution guarantees the right to marry

[clambake]

fucking stupid people.

[CosmicCowboy]

You can't consent to a contract by not dissenting.


Sure you can. The concept of "marriage" is fluid and can be whatever you want to define it as. We've just proven that.

[MannyIsGod]

Show me where the constitution guarantees the right to marry

The judge that just ruled did. You're welcome to read Judge Walker's opinion on the matter. I linked it earlier in this thread or you can easily Google it. 14th amendment is a bitch for you.

[MiamiHeat]

Sure you can. The concept of "marriage" is fluid and can be whatever you want to define it as. We've just proven that.

Game. Set. Match.

[MannyIsGod]

sure you can. The concept of "marriage" is fluid and can be whatever you want to define it as. We've just proven that.

k

[CosmicCowboy]

Its amazing that with brilliant legal arguments like this your side lost. No really.

Your son went to law school, right? You should have this debate with him, imo.

So Manny, give me your definition of marriage.

[MannyIsGod]

Game. Set. Match.

I agree. You can't win a debate with people who don't want to acknowledge the actual legal rulings and what was decided. You guys choose to make things up to fit what you want.

It pretty much makes you unbeatable.

Except in court.

Congrats on winning the internet.

[MannyIsGod]

So Manny, give me your definition of marriage.

A contract between 2 people with different ramifications in various states. You want to bring animals into this? Then prove they can enter into contracts.

[MiamiHeat]

The judge that just ruled did. You're welcome to read Judge Walker's opinion on the matter. I linked it earlier in this thread or you can easily Google it. 14th amendment is a bitch for you.

Great, so the 14th Amendment, when interpreted this way, means I can use it to do whatever the fuck I want!

Sweet! If gays can use it, so can basically any other argument under the "equal protection" clause if we are going to interpret it that way

:lmao

[MiamiHeat]

I agree. You can't win a debate with people who don't want to acknowledge the actual legal rulings and what was decided. You guys choose to make things up to fit what you want.

It pretty much makes you unbeatable.

Except in court.

Congrats on winning the internet.

1 Judge decided. Big whoop. I heard he's gay himself.

His decision is controversial and will be overturned by someone else. 14th amendment being used for this issue is hilarious.

[MannyIsGod]

Great, so the 14th Amendment, when interpreted this way, means I can use it to do whatever the fuck I want!

Sweet! If gays can use it, so can basically any other argument under the "equal protection" clause if we are going to interpret it that way

:lmao

If you say so. Let me know when your proven right in court.

[CosmicCowboy]

A contract between 2 people with different ramifications in various states.

Then I'm in deep shit then because I've literally entered into hundreds of contracts between two people under the jurisdiction of the State of Texas.

I had no idea that under Manny's law I was a polygamist.

[MannyIsGod]

1 Judge decided. Big whoop. I heard he's gay himself.

His decision is controversial and will be overturned by someone else. 14th amendment being used for this issue is hilarious.

Ok. When it happens feel free to come back and say I told you so.

[MiamiHeat]

A contract between 2 people with different ramifications in various states. You want to bring animals into this? Then prove they can enter into contracts.

Animals don't need to give consent to get married. After all, you don't ask for their consent when killing them, either.

[MannyIsGod]

Then I'm in deep shit then because I've literally entered into hundreds of contracts between two people under the jurisdiction of the State of Texas.

I had no idea that under Manny's law I was a polygamist.

I know reading is hard for you, but did I say every contract was a marriage?

You're really, really, really bad at this.

[MannyIsGod]

Animals don't need to give consent to get married. After all, you don't ask for their consent when killing them, either.

Good argument. Let me know when that is argued successfully in court.

[CosmicCowboy]

I know reading is hard for you, but did I say every contract was a marriage?

You're really, really, really bad at this.

Actually, you did. If it was between two people. You're worse.

[clambake]

i can't believe manny is arguing with these knuckle draggers.

[MiamiHeat]

Ok. When it happens feel free to come back and say I told you so.

It's logically flawed.

It makes the assumption that homosexuals are different from other citizens.

In 2010, there is no conclusive evidence that homosexuals are any different from anyone else. Sexual preference is not enough to classify a people as "different" and therefore, requiring rights to afford their difference.

Otherwise, ANYONE with a "different preference" could claim the same exact argument, and demand the fed gov't to recognize each and every one.


It's a stretch and misinterpretation of the amendment.

Of course, I wouldn't expect anything different from a fag judge.

[MiamiHeat]

also,

Using the 14th amendment would only work if homosexuals were deprived of being able to marry, at all.

Not the case. They can enter into a heterosexual marriage if they choose to.


This is about certain citizens wanting their specific tastes recognized by the gov't and expanding the law to recognize their specific lifestyle.

With that argument, ANYTHING is fair game.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's logically flawed.

It makes the assumption that homosexuals are different from other citizens.

In 2010, there is no conclusive evidence that homosexuals are any different from anyone else. Sexual preference is not enough to classify a people as "different" and therefore, requiring rights to afford their difference.

Otherwise, ANYONE with a "different preference" could claim the same exact argument, and demand the fed gov't to recognize each and every one.


It's a stretch and misinterpretation of the amendment.

Of course, I wouldn't expect anything different from a fag judge.

Get used to it. It's a slam dunk the 9th confirms and IMHO 80% chance SCOTUS confirms. The judicial branch has been politicized for a long time.

[LnGrrrR]

CC makes perfect logic.

I'll break it down for you :

Your steak or hamburger. Did you give the animal a choice before they snapped it's neck, chopped it up, and served it for you?

So why the fuck should there be a "animal needs to give consent" to get married with it?

The way I look at it, a dog getting fucked in the ass but living a good life with all the food she wants is a lot better than being chopped up and served.

If that's his argument, then I fail to see how it applies to the "gay marriage" argument.

Comparing killing animals for eating vs having sex with them is one thing; comparing having sex with same sex vs having sex with animals is different. In fact, it pretty much throws the "bestiality" argument under the bus; there's obviously different rules for animals than there are people. For instance, you can't eat people.

That's a whole "justification of eating living animals" argument, which is distinct and separate.

[CosmicCowboy]

I know reading is hard for you, but did I say every contract was a marriage?

You're really, really, really bad at this.

Just to refresh your memory, here is Manny's definition of marriage...



A contract between 2 people with different ramifications in various states.

I can clearly see that YOU couldn't pass an LSAT. And yes, my son is an attorney, and yes, we have many free wheeling discussions on politics, the law, and current events and have since he was very young.

[LnGrrrR]

Using the 14th amendment would only work if blacks were deprived of being able to marry, at all.

Not the case. They can enter into a marriage with another black person if they choose to.

fify :toast

[Parker2112]

Just to refresh your memory, here is Manny's definition of marriage...




I can clearly see that YOU couldn't pass an LSAT. And yes, my son is an attorney, and yes, we have many free wheeling discussions on politics, the law, and current events and have since he was very young.

what's wrong with this definition?

[CosmicCowboy]

If that's his argument, then I fail to see how it applies to the "gay marriage" argument.

Comparing killing animals for eating vs having sex with them is one thing; comparing having sex with same sex vs having sex with animals is different. In fact, it pretty much throws the "bestiality" argument under the bus; there's obviously different rules for animals than there are people. For instance, you can't eat people.

That's a whole "justification of eating living animals" argument, which is distinct and separate.

But TLong loves his sheep. What you just proved is that EVERYONE has their own boundaries on what a marriage is and isn't. In TLongs eyes you are clearly a bigot and his rights are clearly being violated.

[MannyIsGod]

MH brings new insight to this issue that hasn't been seen before. You know, interracial marriage shouldn't be legal because people aren't really being denied anything under the Equal Protection clause if they can still marry within their race.

[Parker2112]

what's wrong with this "marriage is a contract" definition?

[LnGrrrR]

It makes the assumption that homosexuals are different from other citizens.

They are different. They like the same sex.


In 2010, there is no conclusive evidence that homosexuals are any different from anyone else. Sexual preference is not enough to classify a people as "different" and therefore, requiring rights to afford their difference.

I'd think the 9th Amendment would allow states the right to determine what marriage is, personally.


Otherwise, ANYONE with a "different preference" could claim the same exact argument, and demand the fed gov't to recognize each and every one.

Sure, they could. That's why we have courts. Of course, consent is usually considered as a given for marriage. Some time in the future, the public opinion might change on that issue. For now, it doesn't.



It's a stretch and misinterpretation of the amendment.

Of course, I wouldn't expect anything different from a fag judge.

What about the other judges that have upheld it? I guess you just know more about judicial proceeding and law than various court judges. :tu

[MannyIsGod]

Just to refresh your memory, here is Manny's definition of marriage...




I can clearly see that YOU couldn't pass an LSAT. And yes, my son is an attorney, and yes, we have many free wheeling discussions on politics, the law, and current events and have since he was very young.

K CC. You win. Bravo. Let me know when they overturn the ruling.

[MannyIsGod]

But TLong loves his sheep. What you just proved is that EVERYONE has their own boundaries on what a marriage is and isn't. In TLongs eyes you are clearly a bigot and his rights are clearly being violated.

Can sheep enter into contracts?

[LnGrrrR]

But TLong loves his sheep. What you just proved is that EVERYONE has their own boundaries on what a marriage is and isn't. In TLongs eyes you are clearly a bigot and his rights are clearly being violated.

Sheep can't give consent though, of course. If marriage is a contract (and it is, because the government's involved), then surely all people present must be willing.

[Parker2112]

K CC. You win. Bravo. Let me know when they overturn the ruling.

Hes FOS MIG.

[LnGrrrR]

Show me where the constitution guarantees the right to marry


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[CosmicCowboy]

Sheep can't give consent though, of course. If marriage is a contract (and it is, because the government's involved), then surely all people present must be willing.

Bingo

You get it.

All people present are willing.

TLong has power of attorney for the sheep.

[LnGrrrR]

Sure you can. The concept of "marriage" is fluid and can be whatever you want to define it as. We've just proven that.

The concept of marriage is fluid... relatively speaking. A very slow-moving and viscous fluid though.

I mean, look at the consent argument. A few hundred years ago, people would have thought you were daft if you wanted to argue that a woman should have any say in who she marries. But that's relatively important nowadays, so I've heard.

[LnGrrrR]

Bingo

You get it.

All people present are willing.

TLong has power of attorney for the sheep.

Personally, I don't care if Tlong has power of attorney over his sheep and wants to have sex with it. (Although legally speaking, I don't think a person can have power of attorney for sexual acts. :lol)

[jack sommerset]

People go into prison straight and some come out gay and keep being gay. They are not born gay. They learned to be gay. Just saying.

[Stringer_Bell]

People go into prison straight and some come out gay and keep being gay. They are not born gay. They learned to be gay. Just saying.

Some dude's go into prison straight, put their dicks in other dude's booty holes, then come out straight cuz it's just to get by while in prison. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I get your point. But it goes both ways.

[CuckingFunt]

I can't believe some of the dumb shit I'm reading in this thread.

[Stringer_Bell]

I can't believe some of the dumb shit I'm reading in this thread.

And what exactly do women know about politics? HMMMMMM? :rolleyes

[jack sommerset]

And what exactly do women know about politics? HMMMMMM? :rolleyes

She hates men but wants to be one, she's a dyke. That doesn't count in her head as being a woman.

[MiamiHeat]

fify :toast

Allowing a white man or a black man to marry a white woman or black woman does not change the definition of marriage.

It's still man-woman.

Thanks for playing.

[CuckingFunt]

She hates men but wants to be one, she's a dyke. That doesn't count in her head as being a woman.

I can't remember the last time I saw so few words contain such a high amount of wrong.

[Spurminator]

Sure you can. The concept of "marriage" is fluid and can be whatever you want to define it as. We've just proven that.

The concept of a contract hasn't changed.

[MiamiHeat]

The concept of a contract hasn't changed.

But Marriage can be changed.

So it doesn't need YOUR kind of contract. It will require a new kind of contract.

The definition of marriage is fluid and can mean whatever we want it to, apparently.

Thanks for playing.