TX Judge Breaks Up Lesbian Home

[Texashiker]

I'm just going to throw this out here.

This isn't a gay issue, for two reasons.

You are ruining a perfectly good thread.

 

[shortylickens]

Came in to see if John was being an ass.

Am not disappointed!

:awe:

 

[MrPickins]

Now that's an interesting response.

I take it to mean that Texashiker is actually bisexual, but has made the choice to only "like" women.

Explains the need to fervently defend the view that homosexuality as a choice. :whiste:

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Came in to see if John was being an ass.

Am not disappointed!

:awe:

It's hard not being an arse when people are arguing that unconsensual sex and consensual sex is the same thing.

It's like trying to discuss this with a bunch of Indians.

 

[MrPickins]

Lets move forward 15, maybe 20 years. Gay marriage is accepted by society, gay couples have equal rights just like everyone else.

Along comes polygamy, and it is not far behind gay rights. How do you feel about your partner taking another wife or husband? If you do not accept it then you are a bigot.

Worse yet, and there has been talk of this on various news sites, and that is sex with children. Maybe we need to lower the age of consent to 12 or 13? After all the FDA wants the morning after pill available to girls of all ages. If the government says it is ok for a 14 year old girl to get the morning after pill, then there has to be a reason why she needs it.

Whats wrong with a 30 year old man dating a 13 year old girl? If you do not approve then you are a bigot.



Agreed.


You are right.

I am sure some 50 year old Chester the Molester would love having a 15 year old girl friend. Lets just go ahead and get those laws passed, what do you say?

Earlier you were asking people to refrain from using absolutes. how about you refrain from slippery slope arguments?

You ask people to debate you then resort to logical fallacies...

 

[Darwin333]

If your sexual preference is contrary to state law, then no, it is not a "personal matter."

Wait, you honestly believe that State governments should be able to legislate what you do in your own bedroom behind closed doors with your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/consenting adult?????

Depending on which county you live in it is very possible that giving or recieving oral sex to/from your wife is a crime. So, since it isn't a "personal matter" did it suck (pun intended) to not be able to get a bj or did you sometimes go crazy and break the law a bit? How do you suppose the state could do a better job making sure that people don't get illegal blow jobs? State installed cameras in everyones bedroom maybe?

Or do you just want them to be able to legislate that stuff that YOU don't like?

 

[CitizenKain]

Like I have said before, in this thread and in others, it is called mutual respect.

Gays do not respect my opinion, so I see no reason to respect theirs.

Lets see, you think that they are subhuman, they think they should be allowed to marry, yet in your little mind they are the unreasonable ones.

Was education not a thing where you were from?

 

[nehalem256]

First, I doubt that. Second, we aren't in Canada.

First, you seem to think I visit Canada frequently

Second, yes it is true
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2309111&highlight=

No, that's just the definition of the word 'consent'.

I am saying that your definition of the word consent makes sense when discussing relationships amongst people. It really doesn't make sense when discussing objects.

If you no longer wish to converse in English, let me know what alternate language you'd like to use. This is exciting! I like learning new languages.

I thought we were talking in liberal where words could be given fun new means to avoid being "bigoted". See for example marriage :awe:

 

[Darwin333]

Lets move forward 15, maybe 20 years. Gay marriage is accepted by society, gay couples have equal rights just like everyone else.

Along comes polygamy, and it is not far behind gay rights. How do you feel about your partner taking another wife or husband? If you do not accept it then you are a bigot.

Worse yet, and there has been talk of this on various news sites, and that is sex with children. Maybe we need to lower the age of consent to 12 or 13? After all the FDA wants the morning after pill available to girls of all ages. If the government says it is ok for a 14 year old girl to get the morning after pill, then there has to be a reason why she needs it.

Whats wrong with a 30 year old man dating a 13 year old girl? If you do not approve then you are a bigot.

You forgot to include bestiality..... I will never understand the fools that use the above bullshit to say that two consenting adults should not be able to, by force of law, enjoy the exact same rights and privileges that the rest of us do. None of those things are the equivalent of gay marriage and therefore have no business in the debate. There is as much of a "slippery slope" as allowing interracial marriage which is to say none at all. For fucks sake you go from allowing gay marriage to legalizing child molestation.....

I am sure some 50 year old Chester the Molester would love having a 15 year old girl friend. Lets just go ahead and get those laws passed, what do you say?

Ok, you see we are currently talking about consenting adults. Since a 15 year old child is not a consenting adult it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand and has absolutely nothing to do with it. There aren't close or getting close or will eventually become or any other bullshit like that, they are as opposite as you getting married and having kids COULD lead to you molesting said kids.

 

[TerryMathews]

I would think it shouldn't be viewed as a gay issue because it involves a divorce between a man and a woman.

If I wanted to argue that being gay wasn't a choice I sure as hell wouldn't post articles like this.

Well, a number of posters have tried to spin this as discrimination based on the orientation of the mother.

I mean, read the title.

 

[nehalem256]

Earlier you were asking people to refrain from using absolutes. how about you refrain from slippery slope arguments?

You ask people to debate you then resort to logical fallacies...

Because if we are to believe that the liberal argument is honest we have to accept any kind of marriage that anyone can dream up.

Otherwise the liberal argument for same-sex marriage essentially degenerates to "because we said so".

 

[Phanuel]

Equal rights for gays does not directly affect me in one way or another.

Like I have said before, in this thread and in others, it is called mutual respect.

Gays do not respect my opinion, so I see no reason to respect theirs.

Welp, so you're intolerant of equal rights. No point in me continuing to argue anything here.

Fair housing act, its called discrimination.

How day a renter discriminate on my love for chickens.

How dare you actually make a rational argument!

"The primary purpose of the Fair Housing Law of 1968 is to protect the buyer/renter of a dwelling from seller/landlord discrimination. Its primary prohibition makes it unlawful to refuse to sell, rent to, or negotiate with any person because of that person's inclusion in a protected class."

Oh whoops, you didn't.

 

[nehalem256]

You forgot to include bestiality..... I will never understand the fools that use the above bullshit to say that two consenting adults should not be able to, by force of law, enjoy the exact same rights and privileges that the rest of us do. None of those things are the equivalent of gay marriage and therefore have no business in the debate.

Pretty sure I put it in.

Two consenting adults is just an arbitrary excuse liberals put in to avoid comparisons to marrying dogs or toasters.

Every argument made for SSM works equally well for marrying a dog.

Love is love.
Are you afraid if human-dog marriage was legal you are going to suddenly start screwing your dog.
Why are you a bigot?
etc etc

In short liberals do not want equality for all. They just want gays to be allowed to get married.

There is as much of a "slippery slope" as allowing interracial marriage which is to say none at all.

Did you miss all of the liberal comparisons of interracial marriage to same-sex marriage. Sounds to me like liberals want us to see a "slippery slope".

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Two consenting adults is just an arbitrary excuse liberals put in to avoid comparisons to marrying dogs or toasters.

Exactly, it's so daft to claim that consent has anything to do with it.

Like when a burglar enters your home he is just taking stuff without your consent, that is completely the same as if you had given him your stuff.

Or if i go up to you and start punching you in the face until you are unconscious, that is just me having a boxing match with you without your consent, definitely the same thing as if we were in a ring consenting to fight.

Any claim otherwise is just an arbitrary excuse that only a liberal would use.

 

[fskimospy]

First, you seem to think I visit Canada frequently

Second, yes it is true
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2309111&highlight=


I am saying that your definition of the word consent makes sense when discussing relationships amongst people. It really doesn't make sense when discussing objects.



I thought we were talking in liberal where words could be given fun new means to avoid being "bigoted". See for example marriage :awe:

Definitions of words change all the time, but that is when speakers if a language collectively alter their use age of the term.

Also, dogs can't consent either.

 

[MrPickins]

Because if we are to believe that the liberal argument is honest we have to accept any kind of marriage that anyone can dream up.

Otherwise the liberal argument for same-sex marriage essentially degenerates to "because we said so".

Heterosexuals are allowed to marry one partner. To allow homosexuals the same right is simple equality.

Expanding the definition to include all the things you mentioned is a much greater change to the concept of marriage. It's only a slippery slope in your mind.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Heterosexuals are allowed to marry one partner. To allow homosexuals the same right is simple equality.

Expanding the definition to include all the things you mentioned is a much greater change to the concept of marriage. It's only a slippery slope in your mind.

Not only that, it would make marriage an EXTREMELY strange institution that only one partner had to consent to.

I could marry all the women in the US and since i don't need their consent (just an arbitrary liberal excuse) that would be that.

I'd marry Paris Hilton and divorce her just for the money.

 

[Meghan54]

My mindset may be outdated, and I admit that.

But do not expect the things that are tolerated in california, colorado and new york to be tolerated in conservative states like Texas.

You know what would be nice, is if all opinions were treated with equal respect. But if someone has a differing opinion then somehow their opinion holds less value than someone in the majority? When that happens, it is nothing more than mob rules, kinda like a democracy.

I honestly do not mind gays having equal rights and equal protection under the law, but do not force me to like it.

You know, the same sentiment, bolded above, was said about the desegregation laws that were "forced" upon the conservative South, incl. Texas. And morals were one reason used to prop up the "separate but equal" ignorant shit laws the conservative Republicans and Democrats passed in almost every southern state, Bibles in hand as their ultimate justification.

Having lived through that, I'm not surprised by the anti-gay sentiment in the South, which has existed for damned near forever. It almost seems that the conservatives just want time frozen at 1948, with visions of Ozzie and Harriet dancing in their heads.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

You know, the same sentiment, bolded above, was said about the desegregation laws that were "forced" upon the conservative South, incl. Texas. And morals were one reason used to prop up the "separate but equal" ignorant shit laws the conservative Republicans and Democrats passed in almost every southern state, Bibles in hand as their ultimate justification.

Having lived through that, I'm not surprised by the anti-gay sentiment in the South, which has existed for damned near forever. It almost seems that the conservatives just want time frozen at 1948, with visions of Ozzie and Harriet dancing in their heads.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santyana

 

[Darwin333]

Because if we are to believe that the liberal argument is honest we have to accept any kind of marriage that anyone can dream up.

Otherwise the liberal argument for same-sex marriage essentially degenerates to "because we said so".

The argument that consenting adults should be allowed to marry is essentially the same thing as pedophilia? Care to elaborate on that for me?

 

[Darwin333]

Did you miss all of the liberal comparisons of interracial marriage to same-sex marriage. Sounds to me like liberals want us to see a "slippery slope".

Consenting adults of different races are rather comparable to consenting adults of different sexes. There is no comparison to non-adults who can't consent or animals or inanimate objects that can not consent either.

As soon as you can prove that a dog consents to entering into a civil contract with you then you might just have a point. Until then its a retarded argument.

 

[BudAshes]

I think the south is just holding out on gay marriage until we let them marry their sisters.

 

[Theb]

I take it to mean that Texashiker is actually bisexual, but has made the choice to only "like" women.

Explains the need to fervently defend the view that homosexuality as a choice. :whiste:

That's how I read it too. All of his previous posts in the thread make perfect sense if he's a (self-hating) bisexual. He's not able to understand that for most of us the gender we're attracted to has nothing to do with choice.

It seemed odd for him to admit something like that though.

 

[Texashiker]

You know, the same sentiment, bolded above, was said about the desegregation laws that were "forced" upon the conservative South, incl. Texas.

Race is not a choice.

Ok, you see we are currently talking about consenting adults. Since a 15 year old child is not a consenting adult it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand and has absolutely nothing to do with it.

EDIT

Consenting adult?

Didnt we cover that earlier in the thread when some gays had been abused as a child?

If someone is not in their right state of mind they are not competent to make decisions, regardless of age.

 

[nehalem256]

The argument that consenting adults should be allowed to marry is essentially the same thing as pedophilia? Care to elaborate on that for me?

It is essentially the same thing as bestiality. In that all humans in the relationship have given consent. The idea of consent doesn't even makes sense for non-humans.

A 15 year old can get the morning after pill, and in some states get an abortion without parental consent.

If a young teenager can not consent, why do they need such services?

You are a bigot for denying a 15 year old equal rights in marriage. If a 15 year old wants to marry a 50 year old, who are you to object to that? Shouldn't marriage equality be extended to everyone?

:thumbsup: Although it might be better to point out that allowing the 15 year old to get the morning after pill otc is in fact covering up evidence of the rape a child according to some people :hmm:

Consenting adults of different races are rather comparable to consenting adults of different sexes. There is no comparison to non-adults who can't consent or animals or inanimate objects that can not consent either.

As soon as you can prove that a dog consents to entering into a civil contract with you then you might just have a point. Until then its a retarded argument.

You keep bringing up consent as though it is a inherent and necessary part of marriage. Obviously in the marriage of a person to a toaster or dog the consent of any non-human in the marriage would be unnecessary for obvious reasons. No one rights would be violated by not requiring consent.

How then were marriages possible when women were considered property?

Or as a more modern example how is Canada able to marry people without the consent of either person in the relationship.