Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

This had better not pass

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678 10>
Author
Dazed View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Romped around naked in thorn bushes

Joined: 13 February 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3876
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dazed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 1:23pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

People bring up "People were for slavery at one time" arguement.. but think about it like this.

Slavery was wrong because it forced people to hard labor for nothing but a minimum amount of food and harsh physical punishment for petty things.

Not allowing **edited** marriage, what does it do? Nothing. No one gets physical pain. No one loses money. No one is kept down (though your definition will vary from mine on that).

Only "bad" thing is you cant wear a ring and say your married.   Oh noez!

Live together! Many hetereo couples decide never to get married, yet they love eachother and stay with eachother for life and have children. Why can't **edited**s do that?


Unmarried **edited** couples do lose money. They can't file together on their taxes. At least, not in the same way, or with the same benifits as heterosexual couples.

By this same token, Linus, what harm does allowing homosexual marriage do? No ones rights are breached by allowing churches that are willing to marry two men together to do so. No one gets physical pain, no one loses money.

Given the two sides of the coin, wouldn't you, as a patriotic american, rather our governement defended civil liberties rather than deny them?
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6546
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 1:34pm
Question, Where does the line of civilization and cultural norms and personal civil liberties cross. What do we as a civilization determine is the social norm, and how long do we consider that norm.

What is the civilization and cultural norm for the priviledge of marriage, and what is the moral justifacation for the change of the 4000 year plus norm?
Just for financial gain, political need, what does this wanted new norm do to benifit the society as a whole, instead of the few. The pure human act of reproduction is the base need for an established pairing system. To prevent what was seen in ages past as physical abnormalties when siblings, cousins, etc joined led to the establishemtn of some sort of pairing "law", which several cultures turned into a religious act of marriage. Only in America could the financial need overwhelm the base need and norm of marriage, other cultures too have seen the fault outweigh the benifit, we will also eventually.

So when do we start on the incest "right", the pedophile "right" the beastality "right", once we cross the edge of this slope how do we stop the fall.

Edited by oldsoldier - 07 June 2006 at 1:36pm
Back to Top
Dazed View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Romped around naked in thorn bushes

Joined: 13 February 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3876
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dazed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 1:37pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

So, by the example of **edited** marriage activism, all the pedophile activists have to do is get an activist Judge to lower the age of consent to 6, and then thier right to thier wants will be legal. Slippery slope as mentioned, incest can to be seen as discrimination, so do we change those laws also to fit the few who demand thier rights. Children today have decesion rights way prior to age of consent. Ask planned parenthood, a 12 year old can be given birth control or even an abortion without parental consent and or even knowledge in some cases.


Exactly where have I promoted **edited** activism? Since when can a judge lower the age of consent? What judge in his or her right mind thinks a six year old even knows what daddy is doing, much less agrees to it.

And personally, I don't believe that giving children the right to take any proscribed medication, or have any surgical proceedure done, without their parents consent is right. That should be changed, but it still has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I understand the "moral majority" argument, but my argument is "Why does our government care?" This sort of thing should be handled by the pastors of the local churches and their congregations. If you believe its against your religion to marry two men together, fine, don't. But don't pass a freaking federal law to the effect that no two men can ever be married. Why would the federal government care? There can't be that many **edited** men that it would make a significant difference to the IRS.

I don't understand why its a government issue at all. As long as they aren't hindering or harming anyone, why deny them something so simple on a nation-wide scale?
Back to Top
newport View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Guested. inapproproate links take 3

Joined: 14 May 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1874
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote newport Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 1:39pm
(*to OS, obviously) You're right dude; we should remain as stagnant as possible as a culture. Hell, next time I see a woman at the beach who doesn't exemplify this look

I'll be sure to tell her what a huge slut she is.


Edited by newport - 07 June 2006 at 1:40pm

Back to Top
Dazed View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Romped around naked in thorn bushes

Joined: 13 February 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3876
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dazed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 1:44pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

So when do we start on the incest "right", the pedophile "right" the beastality "right", once we cross the edge of this slope how do we stop the fall.


The flip side of the same coin:
If its illegal for man to marry a man, how long is it until its illegal for man to live with a man? Date a man? Do all roommates have to be under surviellence by the NSA so that we can be sure that they aren't just "roommates". When do we start marking people for being **edited**? locking them up? killing them in "homo camps"?

Once we cross the edge of this slope, how do we stop the fall?
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6546
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 2:42pm
Dazed, understand your own concept, 25 years ago a person such as yourself would say, what federal or state judge in thier right mind would give two men, or two women the "right" to marry.

That itself is the point here, what is todays norm, can in the space of a generation become the abnorm and vice versa depending on the view of the courts and elected officials.

Social change is fast and sometimes destructive, example, ads for bikinis and "provocative" dress for example has outpaced the basic human instincts, so for example if a woman dresses in a bikini, and acts in a provocative manner, instigates an encounter, ramps up the encounter, and then decideds to say "no", hormones have not read the law, and the little head takes over the basic thinking process and it is solely now the "fault" of the man? Simplistic but reality.
Dress and stlyes can and will change, but so does the responsibility of those who follow that path.

We went thru the "free love" era when I was growing up, and believe it or not now that we are older and understand the process, we can look back and say to ourselves, "maybe it was not that good of an idea", as we pay child support, see families broken, morally and financially, and children paying the price of our "rights" and "freedoms" as seen in the 60's, but it was "fun" at the time.

Believe it or not there are varients of anti-homosexual laws on the books in many states. Some states, sexual encounters other than man/woman, man on top get it over with quick is still illegal, just not inforced.

25 years from now, you will be where I am, as will many of the youth here, and maybe will look back as we do, we survived Vietnam, Civil Rights, Sexual Revolution, etc, and many of the most vocal advocates of the above now look back and question thier views on the issues, pro and con, and wished they knew better then.

Have fun, I got about 15-20 years left on this rock, to me "it don't mean nothin", you are the ones who must justify your actions to your children tommorow.

Edited by oldsoldier - 07 June 2006 at 2:46pm
Back to Top
newport View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Guested. inapproproate links take 3

Joined: 14 May 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1874
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote newport Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 3:04pm
I'd be the happiest man in the world if my children of tomorrow lived in a world where they could openly love who they wanted without being socially, financially or culturally discriminated against.

I want to put you in a position where you are madly in love with your wife (I think I remember you having one) and any attempt that you two make to become legally wed was shot down because society didn't deem your love legitimate or acceptable


btw-- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5056474.stm

Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6546
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 3:26pm
Here is a tangent for ya that you did not expect, my "culture" being a Catholic, in my youth did not allow me to marry my original choice in my church, a Jewish girl, miss her to this day, and in respect for my parents and faith I did make the required sacrifice for the greater good of family, mine and hers, and guess what her parents demanded that she not marry outside of her culture either, and it still exsists in many "cultures". So BTDT. And I survived..........
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 3:27pm
Originally posted by Gatyr Gatyr wrote:



And it is still discrimination, regardless of what you think they should do. I'm hoping you can agree on that.


Oh, I agree it is, but you too are discriminating against my opinion. You think I'm wrong.. is that not discrimination as well?


Originally posted by Dazed (and confused) Dazed (and confused) wrote:


By this same token, Linus, what harm does allowing homosexual marriage do? No ones rights are breached by allowing churches that are willing to marry two men together to do so.
Flip of the coin for you, buddy.

What harm is there NOT letting them get married? What rights are being breached?

None. No right, no harm, no marriage.


Lets show some of the benefits that married couples get that **edited**s cant:
Originally posted by About.com About.com wrote:


Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Tax Breaks
Veteranís Discounts



So yes, there should be some alterations so same sex COUPLES can get those.. but if one of the majors reasons to get married is for those listed above.. you have some SERIOUS problems...



If they want to marry eachother becuase they love them.. why cant they just buy rings and say they are life partners?

But nope.. they wont those benefits just as much as saying they are married.

Edited by Linus - 07 June 2006 at 3:31pm

Back to Top
Bango View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Rugged Individualist

Joined: 30 January 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2572
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bango Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 3:47pm
You've yet to answer the question. What harm does **edited** marriage do to you?

Just answer the question. It's very simple.
Back to Top
oreomann33 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Can you say ... ZAZZy?

Joined: 11 March 2004
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 8102
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oreomann33 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 3:49pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

slavery at one time" arguement.. but think about it like this.

Slavery was wrong because it forced people to hard labor for nothing but a minimum amount of food and harsh physical punishment for petty things.

Not allowing **edited** marriage, what does it do? Nothing. No one gets physical pain. No one loses money. No one is kept down (though your definition will vary from mine on that).

Only "bad" thing is you cant wear a ring and say your married.   Oh noez!

Live together! Many hetereo couples decide never to get married, yet they love eachother and stay with eachother for life and have children. Why can't **edited**s do that?


I'm sure **edited** couples would like to legally share the same last name. Marriage isn't just about living together and all that good stuff, but legally being in the same family.


Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 3:51pm
Originally posted by Bango Bango wrote:

You've yet to answer the question. What harm does **edited** marriage do to you?Just answer the question. It's very simple.


Me, none.


And what harm does it do to you for them NOT to get married?


See how pointless your arguement was?

Back to Top
Skillet42565 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Actuarry itís Skirret

Joined: 25 December 2004
Location: Liechtenstein
Status: Offline
Points: 9556
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Skillet42565 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 3:57pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Originally posted by Bango Bango wrote:

You've yet to answer the question. What harm does **edited** marriage do to you?Just answer the question. It's very simple.


Me, none.


And what harm does it do to you for them NOT to get married?


See how pointless your arguement was?


Your answer was also quite pointless, just so you know.
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 3:59pm
He asked me for one, and since he's being pretty civil, I obliged and gave him one.

You on the other hand...

Back to Top
Enos Shenk View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
~-o@

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: A comfy chair
Status: Offline
Points: 14109
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Enos Shenk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 4:01pm
Originally posted by phillll227 phillll227 wrote:

Mairrage was originally a function of the church. Why not return it to the church? Let the church decide who marries and who


Oh yeah, great idea. Lets just let the religious psychos decide everything else too while were at it.

Open your eyes. Churches are just as corrupt as any other public institution. They just have more room to maneuver since they deal with flawed people to begin with.
Back to Top
Dazed View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Romped around naked in thorn bushes

Joined: 13 February 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3876
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dazed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 4:37pm

Wait, wait, wait, wait.

You say this:

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Not allowing **edited** marriage, what does it do? Nothing. No one gets physical pain. No one loses money. No one is kept down (though your definition will vary from mine on that).

Only "bad" thing is you cant wear a ring and say your married.   Oh noez!

Live together! Many hetereo couples decide never to get married, yet they love eachother and stay with eachother for life and have children. Why can't **edited**s do that?


I respond with this:

Originally posted by dazed dazed wrote:

By this same token, Linus, what harm does allowing homosexual marriage do? No ones rights are breached by allowing churches that are willing to marry two men together to do so. No one gets physical pain, no one loses money.

Given the two sides of the coin, wouldn't you, as a patriotic american, rather our governement defended civil liberties rather than deny them?


And you reply to that with this:

Originally posted by linus linus wrote:

Flip of the coin for you, buddy.

What harm is there NOT letting them get married? What rights are being breached?

None. No right, no harm, no marriage.


Do you honestly think that making a point and asking a question, and then repeating it nearly word for word is a competant arguement?

You missed it, completely, so allow me to reitterate:

Given that it does no bodily harm or other major damage to either side if they lose, wouldn't you rather a civil liberty be defended? Isn't that the true measure of America "FREEDOM AND JUSTICE FOR ALL."

OS:

I'm sorry for your loss, and you did a good thing by respecting your parents wishes, but I ask, was it just for you to be in that situation in the first place.
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 4:39pm
Dazed... didnt answer my question.

What harm does it do to you if they can't be married?

Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 4:39pm
Originally posted by The Constitution of the United States Of America The Constitution of the United States Of America wrote:


Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

OS: There's your legal grounds for separation of church and state. No law may either promoted or denigrate a religion in and of itself. It is directly unconstitutional for laws to specifically advocate adherence to religious norms or values. The fact that some religious and some secular values coincide is merely coincidence.

Linus: How dare you, of all people on this forum, call me a 'bigoted asshole'? I have never once argued for anything but utter equality of rights and freedoms here, while you are the one attempting to deny a fundamental human right to an entire significant portion of the population for no rational reason you've yet articulated. You have attempted and thoroughly failed to shoot down our arguments as to why it should be allowed, yet you have no better reason than you think itshould be so.

To attempt to cry bigotry becasue I have the gall to shoot down such an arrogant and ignorant opinion as the one you hold is pathetic.

"Social norms" is merely a catchall phrase used to describe thigns the way theya re, without making any effort to quantify the benefit of those norms. You keep trying to dismiss the relevance of it, but the inferiority of women, blacks, natives, and other groups were once 'social norms' as well. This is EXACTLY analogous.

You claim that because homosexuality has biological causes, that it must be a mental deficiency- again you're showing your startling ignorance, this time of the field of biology. By your logic people with red hair or hemophilia should not be allowed to marry either.

No government has any place denying any right or freedom to its citizens whatsoever unless it can eb demonstrably necessary to restrict those rights for the protection of the rights of others. Withholding rights of marriage to homosexuals simply becuase of who they are is twisted and backwards, and even tyrranical. You have not and CANNOT gien any reason whatsoever - never mind one that can hold up to moral scrutiny - about why homosexuals should be denied any right any other person has. If two men wish to marry each other, noone has the moral authority to deny them that freedom, least of all the government or any peddler of theology.

You may choose to argue with me, but I will NOT tolerate attacks on my character- for isntance, the labelling of 'bigot'. I, at leas,t am able to be morally and ethically consistent, and am willing to admit when I'm simply wrong. You have repeatedly advocated oppression, unjustified suspension of civil adn human rights, and outright abuse across this and a variety of other debated topics. I think the majority of the forum will agree on this.

You may be within a year or so of my age, but sadly you're still mired emotionally as a kid- utterly unable to think for yourself, and accepting spoon fed ideology without analyzing the moral consequences thereof. Get over your twisted notions of right and wrong, and apply some consequentialist analysis to the idiotic convictions yous eem to hold in such high regard.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
Dazed View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Romped around naked in thorn bushes

Joined: 13 February 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3876
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dazed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 4:40pm
Originally posted by Enos Shenk Enos Shenk wrote:


Originally posted by phillll227 phillll227 wrote:

Mairrage was originally a function of the church. Why not return it to the church? Let the church decide who marries and who
Oh yeah, great idea. Lets just let the religious psychos decide everything else too while were at it.Open your eyes. Churches are just as corrupt as any other public institution. They just have more room to maneuver since they deal with flawed people to begin with.


Actually enos, its a valid thought, so long as the government clearly states that it doesn't consider marriages to be lawful. If they just used the term "civil union" and catagorized every licenced pairing as such, they could return the term "Marriage" to the churches to defend as their individual convictions dictate.

Works for me.
Back to Top
Skillet42565 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Actuarry itís Skirret

Joined: 25 December 2004
Location: Liechtenstein
Status: Offline
Points: 9556
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Skillet42565 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 June 2006 at 4:53pm
Originally posted by Dazed Dazed wrote:

Originally posted by Enos Shenk Enos Shenk wrote:


Originally posted by phillll227 phillll227 wrote:

Mairrage was originally a function of the church. Why not return it to the church? Let the church decide who marries and who
Oh yeah, great idea. Lets just let the religious psychos decide everything else too while were at it.Open your eyes. Churches are just as corrupt as any other public institution. They just have more room to maneuver since they deal with flawed people to begin with.


Actually enos, its a valid thought, so long as the government clearly states that it doesn't consider marriages to be lawful. If they just used the term "civil union" and catagorized every licenced pairing as such, they could return the term "Marriage" to the churches to defend as their individual convictions dictate.

Works for me.


I actually think thats a good idea.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678 10>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.