Judge: "What harm in permitting same sex marriage?"

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

I'm 100 correct. Homosexuality is such an abuse of anatomy and so unhygienic that it is a primary disease vector ( AIDS, syphilis, hepatitis, MRSA - homosexuals have epidemics among them like nobody else - a reason FDA had to ban them from donating blood).

You're a freaking moron. AIDS, syphilis, hepatitis, MRSA are non-discriminatory biological diseases caused by bacteria and viruses. They are as easily transmitted to heterosexuals as to homosexuals who engage in sexual activity with infected partners.

Being black is natural and without choice. Homosexuality is a compulsion with many links to sexual abuse, family issues with parents etc. This is why you never hear about many studies about homosexuals

Prove it, or STFU... BIGOT! :thumbsdown: :|

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

animals can't consent

So?

what's the difference between sex and rape?

Please don't engage Atreus on this. He's tried this before, and it's just an attempt to sidetrack a valid discussion with an irrelevant point.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

animals can't consent

So?

what's the difference between sex and rape?

Suppose the human swears the animal consents.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

animals can't consent

So?

The best answer we can give you is: When there's a real push to legalize beastiality, we'll revisit this question. Same for polygamy. Same for marriage between humans and animals, humans and inanimate objects, humans and dead people, and humans and space aliens.

Until then, please don't sidetrack this thread.

It's not at all sidetracking. It's challenging the argumentative validity of "What's the harm?"

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
BarrySotero

Homosexuals already have equal rights. They can do normal marriage like anyone else. Instead they (or the political groups at least) want to bend the laws to give them legitimacy where nature and science do not. Homosexual groups don't care about getting married that much - they just hate the contrast with certain realities and would like to block them out. These people would turn the world upside down if they can. I agree with you about feelings. Homosexuals and others "feeling" denial of homosexual marriage is like being black doesn't make it so.

Do you even have a clue how ignorant that post makes you appear?

Claiming science and nature deny legitimacy to homosexuality is pure bullshit.

Claiming that they already have equal rights means you don't even understand the problem.

They don't care that much? Did you pull that out of your ass, or find it by the roadside?

Being black and being homosexual are both natural and without choice, so the comparison along the lines of equal rights is quite appropriate.

You are a fool.

I'm 100 correct. Homosexuality is such an abuse of anatomy and so unhygienic that it is a primary disease vector ( AIDS, syphilis, hepatitis, MRSA - homosexuals have epidemics among them like nobody else - a reason FDA had to ban them from donating blood).

Being black is natural and without choice. Homosexuality is a compulsion with many links to sexual abuse, family issues with parents etc. This is why you never hear about many studies about homosexuals

Nicholas Cummings (former APA president) has said that when APA conducts research they only do so "when they know what the outcome is going to be...only research with predictably favorable outcomes is permissible."

There are people who feel "naturally" compelled to be urinated and defecated on for sexual arousal and they aren't "just like blacks" either because they don't have special rights

X 10 to the tenth power

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

animals can't consent

Consent isn't the only prerequisite to allow two people to get married, e.g., a brother and sister can consent.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

Oh look, the bestiality and homosexuality are identical argument, always a favorite from the empty headed religious faction.

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

animals can't consent

Consent isn't the only prerequisite to allow two people to get married, e.g., a brother and sister can consent.

this is going to sound weird, but i don't really give a shit if someone marries their brother or sister either.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

Surely theres a PETA whack job in here to comment on this.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

Surely theres a PETA whack job in here to comment on this.

I would only allow this if Blackangst1 was on the receiving end of preferably an elephant

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

Oh look, the bestiality and homosexuality are identical argument, always a favorite from the empty headed religious faction.

Answer the question perhaps?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

Surely theres a PETA whack job in here to comment on this.

what's to comment on?

consent is paramount to our entire legal structure and animals are no more capable of consenting than children.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

Oh look, the bestiality and homosexuality are identical argument, always a favorite from the empty headed religious faction.

Answer the question perhaps?

How about you explain how the two are similar. Since you are the one making the claim that gay marriage is equal to bestiality are identical, lets see how you make the connection.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

Surely theres a PETA whack job in here to comment on this.

I would only allow this if Blackangst1 was on the receiving end of preferably an elephant

*sniff* dont be so mean to me notsoAusm. Youre acting like a Republican.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

Nothing IMO, as long as the animal belongs to you.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

Oh look, the bestiality and homosexuality are identical argument, always a favorite from the empty headed religious faction.

Answer the question perhaps?

How about you explain how the two are similar. Since you are the one making the claim that gay marriage is equal to bestiality are identical, lets see how you make the connection.

This isn't about same sex marriage. The similarity is coincidence.

It's about debunking the judge's ludicrous question: "What's the harm?"

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

Nothing IMO, as long as the animal belongs to you.

So you would support a constitutional right to its pursuit?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
BarrySotero

Homosexuals already have equal rights. They can do normal marriage like anyone else. Instead they (or the political groups at least) want to bend the laws to give them legitimacy where nature and science do not. Homosexual groups don't care about getting married that much - they just hate the contrast with certain realities and would like to block them out. These people would turn the world upside down if they can. I agree with you about feelings. Homosexuals and others "feeling" denial of homosexual marriage is like being black doesn't make it so.

Do you even have a clue how ignorant that post makes you appear?

Claiming science and nature deny legitimacy to homosexuality is pure bullshit.

Claiming that they already have equal rights means you don't even understand the problem.

They don't care that much? Did you pull that out of your ass, or find it by the roadside?

Being black and being homosexual are both natural and without choice, so the comparison along the lines of equal rights is quite appropriate.

You are a fool.

I'm 100 correct. Homosexuality is such an abuse of anatomy and so unhygienic that it is a primary disease vector ( AIDS, syphilis, hepatitis, MRSA - homosexuals have epidemics among them like nobody else - a reason FDA had to ban them from donating blood).

Being black is natural and without choice. Homosexuality is a compulsion with many links to sexual abuse, family issues with parents etc. This is why you never hear about many studies about homosexuals

Nicholas Cummings (former APA president) has said that when APA conducts research they only do so "when they know what the outcome is going to be...only research with predictably favorable outcomes is permissible."

There are people who feel "naturally" compelled to be urinated and defecated on for sexual arousal and they aren't "just like blacks" either because they don't have special rights

and religion isn't a choice? or at least, way more of a choice than sexuality? do a higher percentage of people alter their religious views or their sexuality? as to disease vectors, do not straight couples engage in anal sex? go back to 1903 where you came from.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

Nothing IMO, as long as the animal belongs to you.

So you would support a constitutional right to its pursuit?

No. I don't have to support anything. Just like I don't have to support being able to possess an article of clothing or buy a microprocessor. I can oppose the detention of and/or punishment of those who would participate in such an act. Rights are not given to anyone by a piece of paper or a law. Rights are inherent. The law can only recognize and protect one's rights, or not.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
BarrySotero

Homosexuals already have equal rights. They can do normal marriage like anyone else. Instead they (or the political groups at least) want to bend the laws to give them legitimacy where nature and science do not. Homosexual groups don't care about getting married that much - they just hate the contrast with certain realities and would like to block them out. These people would turn the world upside down if they can. I agree with you about feelings. Homosexuals and others "feeling" denial of homosexual marriage is like being black doesn't make it so.

Do you even have a clue how ignorant that post makes you appear?

Claiming science and nature deny legitimacy to homosexuality is pure bullshit.

Claiming that they already have equal rights means you don't even understand the problem.

They don't care that much? Did you pull that out of your ass, or find it by the roadside?

Being black and being homosexual are both natural and without choice, so the comparison along the lines of equal rights is quite appropriate.

You are a fool.

I'm 100 correct. Homosexuality is such an abuse of anatomy and so unhygienic that it is a primary disease vector ( AIDS, syphilis, hepatitis, MRSA - homosexuals have epidemics among them like nobody else - a reason FDA had to ban them from donating blood).

Being black is natural and without choice. Homosexuality is a compulsion with many links to sexual abuse, family issues with parents etc. This is why you never hear about many studies about homosexuals

Nicholas Cummings (former APA president) has said that when APA conducts research they only do so "when they know what the outcome is going to be...only research with predictably favorable outcomes is permissible."

There are people who feel "naturally" compelled to be urinated and defecated on for sexual arousal and they aren't "just like blacks" either because they don't have special rights

You are aware, are you not, that lesbians have the lowest rate of sexually transmitted diseases, and that they are not barred from donating blood? So, by your reasoning, they are even "more natural" than straights. So you approve of same-sex marriages involving lesbians, right.?

Let's also consider your point about skin color: There are lots of people who get tatoos. So are you saying that it would be totally okay to outlaw marriages involving people with tatoos?

Let's also consider your point about the APA: You appear to be claiming that homosexuality is a mental illness. So are you saying the it would be okay to ban marriages involving schizophrenics, manic depressives, phobics, or obsessive-compulsives? How about people that are really, really nervous.

Come to think of it, everybody makes choices, some of them very unhealthy. Is it okay for cigarette smokers to marry? Drug addicts? Drinkers? Parachutists? The obese?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
It's about debunking the judge's ludicrous question: "What's the harm?"

er, if it's so ludicrous why couldn't the very well versed and studied attorney for the case against it name one? enough with your slippery slope bullshit. it's been dealt with. and you still can't name the harm that comes from allowing two people in a committed relationship to marry, but there's dozens of evils that can be cited from preventing it.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: K1052
Butterbean 2.0

His argument was a bit more substantial than yours.

I've wasted too many hours replying to his BS under his previous user name.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What's the harm in permitting beastiality?

animals can't consent

So?

what's the difference between sex and rape?

Suppose the human swears the animal consents.

That's as ridiculous as saying theirs a magic man in the sky.Wait, that's your whole argument against same sex marriage, your superstitious beliefs.

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
BarrySotero

Homosexuals already have equal rights. They can do normal marriage like anyone else. Instead they (or the political groups at least) want to bend the laws to give them legitimacy where nature and science do not. Homosexual groups don't care about getting married that much - they just hate the contrast with certain realities and would like to block them out. These people would turn the world upside down if they can. I agree with you about feelings. Homosexuals and others "feeling" denial of homosexual marriage is like being black doesn't make it so.

Do you even have a clue how ignorant that post makes you appear?

Claiming science and nature deny legitimacy to homosexuality is pure bullshit.

Claiming that they already have equal rights means you don't even understand the problem.

They don't care that much? Did you pull that out of your ass, or find it by the roadside?

Being black and being homosexual are both natural and without choice, so the comparison along the lines of equal rights is quite appropriate.

You are a fool.

I'm 100 correct. Homosexuality is such an abuse of anatomy and so unhygienic that it is a primary disease vector ( AIDS, syphilis, hepatitis, MRSA - homosexuals have epidemics among them like nobody else - a reason FDA had to ban them from donating blood).

Being black is natural and without choice. Homosexuality is a compulsion with many links to sexual abuse, family issues with parents etc. This is why you never hear about many studies about homosexuals

Nicholas Cummings (former APA president) has said that when APA conducts research they only do so "when they know what the outcome is going to be...only research with predictably favorable outcomes is permissible."

There are people who feel "naturally" compelled to be urinated and defecated on for sexual arousal and they aren't "just like blacks" either because they don't have special rights

and religion isn't a choice? or at least, way more of a choice than sexuality? do a higher percentage of people alter their religious views or their sexuality? as to disease vectors, do not straight couples engage in anal sex? go back to 1903 where you came from.

This straight guy doesn't engage in anal sex.... because she doesn't get drunk enough.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: K1052
We're coming up on a year with nothing tangible in sight except an endless stream of empty platitudes.

When would be an appropriate time to nicely ask my government to extend me the rights that I should already enjoy?

A year of nearly unprecedented activity. An economy on the brink, wars, health care, etc. He isn't sitting around doing nothing. It'd be nice for you to be able to get married, but wouldn't you maybe rather have a job first? I'm sure you'd like him to move more quickly, but harshly criticizing the guy who is in all likelihood going to make some massive changes for you during his tenure seems premature. As he said:

"Now, I've said this before, I'll repeat it again -- it's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago. But I will say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I think it's important to remember that there is not a single issue that my administration deals with on a daily basis that does not touch on the lives of the LGBT community. We all have a stake in reviving this economy. We all have a stake in putting people back to work. We all have a stake in improving our schools and achieving quality, affordable health care. We all have a stake in meeting the difficult challenges we face in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Ok, that at least gives me a decent checklist for when I can expect it to happen.

1) The US military not engaged in a signifigant conflict
2) All Americans enjoy affordable healthcare
3) A booming economy
4) Public education repaired

Sounds reasonable to me.

You definitely have the right to be skeptical, but I don't recall any candidate making the explicit statements he's made. I recall vague platitudes from prior democrats about "fostering equal rights for gays' and such, but I don't recall anyone saying repeatedly and explicitly "I will end DADT. I will end DOMA." I just feel like he's been so out there on this that he has left himself no way out. If he leaves office without doing those things there will be no real way to spin it other than as a massive failure for equality. I've been disappointed by some of his decisions, but I haven't felt betrayed on anything to the point where I feel he outright lied about an important campaign promise. If he doesn't make serious headway on these issues I would consider that a betrayal to his constituency and of his explicit promises to act. Time will tell.