Maggie Gallagher giving up on optimism

[actuarial]

Really? I would think it was a reason to not stick your private parts up people's butts.

It's easy to find solutions based on faulty assumptions (in your case, that everyone will act exactly according to what you feel is the most logical solution), it's much harder to come up with something that's real.

If 20% of people were HIV positive, would you never have sex again? Because that's the way it is in South Africa.

 

[Retro Rob]

Youre welcome. I dont mind taking about my equality for all. Makes me feel good im going through life not being an ass trying to keep certain people from doing what they want to.

Id much rather be on my death bed knowing i wasnt a bigot or a person who discrimates because i find certain actions gross or wrong.

But enjoy your life of telling others how to live and what they can and cannot do with their life. And if you notice me wanting SSM does nothing to you. Im not telling you how to live. Freedom means nothing to you people.

I'd rather be on my death bed knowing I didn't just start accepting things because people said I should.

 

[zsdersw]

So you find riding horse to be morally reprehensible?

No.

People have the right to marry a person of the opposite gender

Incorrect. They have the right to marry other people.

You want to add a new right marry a person of the same gender.

It is not a new right. It has existed in this country for hundreds of years.

 

[soulcougher73]

I'd rather be on my death bed knowing I didn't just start accepting things because people said I should.

Im not accepting it because someone told me to. Im accepting it because i believe in equality for everyone and i see in-equality here. I used critical thinking skills and determined that our current law regarding marriage is unequal and doesnt allow happiness for everyone.

See what im doing is allowing more freedom instead of continuing to restrict freedom from a certain group of people.

 

[Retro Rob]

So you lack forward (critical) thinking skills. Got it.

I prefer to look at it as what 2 consenting adults do sexually as not "normal" or "abnormal". Whatever floats their boat, as long as they are adults and consenting i care less.

It shouldnt be that hard to imagine. Just imagine you cannot get married to who you love and are treated as a 2nd class citizen.

Personally, I'd probably move to a place that allows it. You're treating your analogy as if everything would be exactly the way it is now with just the roles reversed. But it does depend on the social/legal climatr there.

That's why it fails, but I clearly get the point you're trying to make.

EDIT: as long as my marriage doesn't violate scripture, since I am a religious man, I'd for it on legal grounds.

 

[soulcougher73]

Personally, I'd probably move to a place that allows it. You're treating your analogy as if everything would be exactly the way it is now with just the roles reversed. But it does depend on the social/legal climatr there.

That's why it fails, but I clearly get the point you're trying to make.

EDIT: as long as my marriage doesn't violate scripture, since I am a religious man, I'd for it on legal grounds.

:thumbsup: Religion is a personal thing so as long as you are following your own beliefs its all good. As it should be.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This is just my opinion, Charles, when you want to put something into law, you're pushing it onto others who may not want it. Putting things into law doesn't mean it's a bad or unwise thing to do.

I'm not trying to put a legal ban on SSM, nor do I want to, so I ain't pushing a thing on you or anyone.

But the objectiions you made yesterday weren't about putting things into law. You claimed that it was "liberal mind control" for people to take issues with your views.

As a reminder:

What's become(ing) aboundantly clear is that it's socially unacceptable to not accept same-sex marriage. It's really unacceptable to force someone to adopt the current "flavor of the month"... which is all this is.

..or better still, you can view it as wrong as long as you have legitimate, non-religious/Biblical grounds (in a feeble attempt to elimate any "legit" grounds). Liberal mind control 101. They dicate to YOU what's "legitmate" grounds for accepting/rejecting this?!?

The Social Crusaders are here!! You'd better get on the train or be on the "wrong side of history"!!!

So, when you say "don't say because I post my opinions on these forums either because this isn't dictating" -- I hope you now realize the same applies in the other direction.

I'd rather be on my death bed knowing I didn't just start accepting things because people said I should.

Great. So when are you going to leave Christianity, 100% of which is based on accepting things other people told you to accept?

 

[nehalem256]

You realize you are defeating your own argument right? You just admitted consent only applies to humans, and marriage requires consent.

(1) Marriage does not require consent. See for instance the thread on marriage in Saudi Arabia. Although in my opinion it is reasonable to require the consent of all people in a marriage.

(2) There is no reason for marriage to an animal to require consent of the animal, has people are allowed to do things to/with animals without the animals consent all the time. In fact if a person marries an animal it still has the consent of all people in the marriage.

 

[nehalem256]

If 20% of people were HIV positive, would you never have sex again? Because that's the way it is in South Africa.

I certainly wouldn't be having anal sex with them which has a much higher risk of transmission.

Incorrect. They have the right to marry other people.

That is an unsubstantiated opinion contradicted by established court precedence.

It is not a new right. It has existed in this country for hundreds of years.

This is completely false.

You have redefined marriage and then act as if that is the absolute definition of marriage.

Guess what that logic applies equally to marrying an animal.

 

[zsdersw]

(1) Marriage does not require consent. See for instance the thread on marriage in Saudi Arabia. Although in my opinion it is reasonable to require the consent of all people in a marriage.

This isn't Saudi Arabia, nor are we talking about allowing same-sex marriage there.

(2) There is no reason for marriage to an animal to require consent of the animal, has people are allowed to do things to/with animals without the animals consent all the time. In fact if a person marries an animal it still has the consent of all people in the marriage.

Marriage, in the eyes of government, has certain rights and responsibilities does it not? How would those rights and responsibilities be applied to and expected from a non-human participant?

As far as having the consent of all people in the marriage, the number of people in a marriage must be greater than 1, as you have to marry someone other than yourself.

 

[actuarial]

I certainly wouldn't be having anal sex with them which has a much higher risk of transmission.

Would you have vaginal sex, which still carries a significant risk of transmission?

 

[zsdersw]

I'm curious what nehalem is going to once same-sex marriage is allowed in most states and recognized by the federal government.

Any bets on what he'll do?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'm curious what nehalem is going to once same-sex marriage is allowed in most states and recognized by the federal government.

Any bets on what he'll do?

My bet -- he'll keep repeating the same bogus arguments as he always does, continually ignoring all counter-arguments, as he always does. And you'll keep replying to him seriously, feeding his trolling behavior.

He and his enablers will thus ensure that no sane or rational discussion of any topic related to women or homosexuals is ever possible on this forum.

Which, of course, means he accomplishes his real objective.

 

[Retro Rob]

But the objectiions you made yesterday weren't about putting things into law. You claimed that it was "liberal mind control" for people to take issues with your views.

As a reminder:



So, when you say "don't say because I post my opinions on these forums either because this isn't dictating" -- I hope you now realize the same applies in the other direction.

You are right and fair point.

Great. So when are you going to leave Christianity, 100% of which is based on accepting things other people told you to accept?

You are honestly partly correct. I was raised reading the Bible. However, I made my own decision as an adult to continue practicing it (after spending several years not having anything to do with the Bible).

Contrary to popular opinion, I wasn't forced to follow anything, nor did my parents shun me for going on my own path. As a young teenager, I clearly had the option. I chose to leave, came back later on in life.

So I made an adult decision. Not the case with all religious persons raised in our beleif, but some of us have been and are in control of our own lives.

 

[nehalem256]

This isn't Saudi Arabia, nor are we talking about allowing same-sex marriage there.

It establishes that consent is not a fundamental part of the definition of marriage. I suspect you could find many other examples other than Saudi Arabia.

Marriage, in the eyes of government, has certain rights and responsibilities does it not? How would those rights and responsibilities be applied to and expected from a non-human participant?

Well take hospital visitation. If you married your dog you would have a right have your dog visit you in the hospital.

If a company offered spousal health insurance it would be required to cover your dog-wife.

What right and/or responsibility specifically do you think would be difficult to apply to the non-human participant?

As far as having the consent of all people in the marriage, the number of people in a marriage must be greater than 1, as you have to marry someone other than yourself.

The number of participants must be > 1. Only in your bigoted animalphobic definition of marriage is the number of people required to be > 1.

Would you have vaginal sex, which still carries a significant risk of transmission?

Not without having the person tested. Or a confirmed virgin

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You are right and fair point.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

So I made an adult decision. Not the case with all religious persons raised in our beleif, but some of us have been and are in control of our own lives.

My comment never suggested that you weren't in control.

You are accusing those who support gay rights of "accepting things because people said (they) should." But they aren't doing that any more than you are.

 

[zsdersw]

It establishes that consent is not a fundamental part of the definition of marriage. I suspect you could find many other examples other than Saudi Arabia.

The definitions other countries use for marriage do not apply to the US or set a standard that the US must meet.

Well take hospital visitation. If you married your dog you would have a right have your dog visit you in the hospital.

If a company offered spousal health insurance it would be required to cover your dog-wife.

What right and/or responsibility specifically do you think would be difficult to apply to the non-human participant?

Taxes. The non-human participant won't have a SSN (and won't be able to fill out any of the required forms to get a Taxpayer Identification Number). The non-human participant also won't be able to decide anything on your behalf if you become incapacitated or assume any responsibilities if you die.

The number of participants must be > 1. Only in your bigoted animalphobic definition of marriage is the number of people required to be > 1.

Laws and legalities apply to people, as only people can be held accountable to them because only people can agree to abide by them and give their consent to the government (which is required for government to have any power).

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I'm curious what nehalem is going to once same-sex marriage is allowed in most states and recognized by the federal government.

Any bets on what he'll do?

What any real man would do; marry his toaster.

 

[sandorski]

What any real man would do; marry his toaster.

Practice Safe Sex, unplug the Toaster from the wall before plugging yourself into the Slot!

 

[soulcougher73]

I'm curious what nehalem is going to once same-sex marriage is allowed in most states and recognized by the federal government.

Any bets on what he'll do?

Probably stick a turkey baster that he married up his butt and fuck a Llama in the butt that he also married.

 

[actuarial]

Not without having the person tested. Or a confirmed virgin

Exactly. But you don't apply that same standard to others.

 

[Retro Rob]

Thank you, I appreciate that.



My comment never suggested that you weren't in control.

You are accusing those who support gay rights of "accepting things because people said (they) should." But they aren't doing that any more than you are.

Let me ask you: is one a bigot for not accepting SSM, but wouldn't fight for nor against the legalization of it?

I ask because there are some floating opinions that once it is legalized, Biblical views of hetero marriage are bigoted by definition even if a religious person minds his/her own business.

 

[zsdersw]

Let me ask you: is one a bigot for not accepting SSM, but wouldn't fight for nor against the legalization of it?

I ask because there are some floating opinions that once it is legalized, Biblical views of hetero marriage are bigoted by definition even if a religious person minds his/her own business.

Well, substitute race for SSM in your question and then ask it.

 

[thraashman]

It establishes that consent is not a fundamental part of the definition of marriage. I suspect you could find many other examples other than Saudi Arabia.

And here you just admitted that there is no fundamental universal definition of marriage and that it differs culturally. And therefore the more culturally equal societies should have a more equal definition of marriage. Although from your own postings I'm sure you wish women were allowed to be property in this nation.

 

[Retro Rob]

Well, substitute race for SSM in your question and then ask it.

Well we're not taking about race. Why not answer the question.