TX Judge Breaks Up Lesbian Home

[zsdersw]

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.

How can anyone respect an opinion that is expressed disrespectfully?

You've trotted out every tired and long-since-debunked cliché and stereotype about gay people and gay sex in expressing your anti-gay opinions... and you now want to whine about respect?

Fuck you. Literally... I'd gladly tear you a new one, not out of sexual desire, but out of malice. Oops, considering the progress of gay rights and gay marriage, I already am! Too bad for you.

 

[nehalem256]

People like nehalem and Texashiker bring up dogs, toasters, and minors because those are the last gasps of a dying pathology. Make no mistake, it is dying. Good riddance.

Reduction to the absurd is the ultimate concession that they've lost the battle.

No we bring those things up because all the arguments for SSM work equally well for those things.

Other than "Marriage is obviously a relationship between 2 consenting adults and cannot be anything else" (despite the fact that it wasn't that throughout essentially all history.

There is no reason that marriage could not just as easily be defined as a "relationship between 1 or more adult humans and one or more objects/animals in which all humans consent to the relationship". Obviously consent of an object/animal is not required because it doesn't make sense, consent is only a concept that makes sense why applied to people. I mean if someone stuck their dick in a toaster you wouldn't call them a rapist.

 

[zsdersw]

No we bring those things up because all the arguments for SSM work equally well for those things.

No they don't. But feel free to keep trying to stay afloat, even though we both know you're going to sink.

 

[fskimospy]

"You need to have two parties consent to form a contract".

"Well one party can't consent, so I guess that means it's just a contract anyway".

lol. I need to go down to the persistent vegitative state ward at my local hospital and start drawing up some new wills. They are incapable of consent, therefore that means our contract doesn't require it! I'm rich!

 

[nehalem256]

"You need to have two parties consent to form a contract".

"Well one party can't consent, so I guess that means it's just a contract anyway".

lol. I need to go down to the persistent vegitative state ward at my local hospital and start drawing up some new wills. They are incapable of consent, therefore that means our contract doesn't require it! I'm rich!

Obviously consent of an object/animal is not required because it doesn't make sense, consent is only a concept that makes sense why applied to people.

So are you saying that someone in "persistent vegitative state" is not a person?

 

[fskimospy]

So are you saying that someone in "persistent vegitative state" is not a person?

No, I'm saying that trying to get consent from someone with no brain activity doesn't make sense. According to your new contract law if something doesn't make sense you automatically assume the answer is whatever you want it to be.

I have no doubt the courts will bend to your bulletproof legal theorizing, so I'm busy picking out a nice condo facing Central Park. Want to help me look?

 

[nehalem256]

No, I'm saying that trying to get consent from someone with no brain activity doesn't make sense. According to your new contract law if something doesn't make sense you automatically assume the answer is whatever you want it to be.

I have no doubt the courts will bend to your bulletproof legal theorizing, so I'm busy picking out a nice condo facing Central Park. Want to help me look?

No because consent is something that only applies from humans. You need consent of humans to do things to them. You do not need consent of animal/objects to.

According to your idea of consent sticking your penis in a toaster would be rape since the toaster cannot consent.

What I am saying is demanding consent for marriage only makes sense for humans in the marriage. Excepting of course Canada that does not require consent for marriage.

 

[nehalem256]

I have no doubt the courts will bend to your bulletproof legal theorizing, so I'm busy picking out a nice condo facing Central Park. Want to help me look?

Awesome! We can celebrate my legal victories there! :awe:

 

[fskimospy]

No because consent is something that only applies from humans. You need consent of humans to do things to them. You do not need consent of animal/objects to.

According to your idea of consent sticking your penis in a toaster would be rape since the toaster cannot consent.

What I am saying is demanding consent for marriage only makes sense for humans in the marriage. Excepting of course Canada that does not require consent for marriage.

Marriage is a contract.

A contract requires consent by both parties.

If you do not have two parties consenting you do not have a contract. Period.

You wish to still have a contract with only one party consenting.

If one party consent is all that matters, I will be looting the vegetable ward this afternoon.

 

[nehalem256]

Marriage is a contract.

A contract requires consent by both parties.

If you do not have two parties consenting you do not have a contract. Period.

You wish to still have a contract with only one party consenting.

And your thinking on marriage is wrong as many states allow people under 18 marry. 18 year olds cannot give legal consent.

I am sure you will bring up something about "parental consent for those under 18". And I would agree. The legal owner of an object/animal should have to consent to the marriage. So no worries. No one will be marrying you toaster without your consent. Your love can stay strong!

And marriage is 3 way contract(2 people and the government). In fact that is really the issue. Government can deny marriage to certain people because its consent is required.

If one party consent is all that matters, I will be looting the vegetable ward this afternoon.

You appear to have missed that part about it being relevant to people.

 

[fskimospy]

And your thinking on marriage is wrong as many states allow people under 18 marry. 18 year olds cannot give legal consent.

I am sure you will bring up something about "parental consent for those under 18". And I would agree. The legal owner of an object/animal should have to consent to the marriage. So no worries. No one will be marrying you toaster without your consent. Your love can stay strong!

And marriage is 3 way contract(2 people and the government). In fact that is really the issue. Government can deny marriage to certain people because its consent is required.



You appear to have missed that part about it being relevant to people.

Consent is required from both the child and the parents. You have actually just added an additional burden, not found a way around it.

Thanks for further supporting my point. I feel like you do such a good job of demolishing your own arguments that my role here is almost superfluous.

 

[werepossum]

While some kids probably grow up without any issues, I haven't read any studies that concretely state that children who are raised in a gay household develop without any psychological problems. LGBT community tends to point out anecdotal incidences as proof but there hasn't been any long term studies (AFAIK) to show what damage it could cause to a child. Thus I choose to veer on the side of caution.

Would it really matter? People are individuals, not homogeneous components of a group. Even if you could prove that 90% of children from gay households have psychological problems, that would not justify causing psychological problems by ripping away children from the remaining 10%.

"You need to have two parties consent to form a contract".

"Well one party can't consent, so I guess that means it's just a contract anyway".

lol. I need to go down to the persistent vegitative state ward at my local hospital and start drawing up some new wills. They are incapable of consent, therefore that means our contract doesn't require it! I'm rich!

LOL +1

I'm not sure how we're expected to have an opinion on this story when the most fundamental and important component is unknown. Are these hot lesbians, or are we talking twin Ed Asners here?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

While some kids probably grow up without any issues, I haven't read any studies that concretely state that children who are raised in a gay household develop without any psychological problems. LGBT community tends to point out anecdotal incidences as proof but there hasn't been any long term studies (AFAIK) to show what damage it could cause to a child. Thus I choose to veer on the side of caution.

Well, they're not really hard to find. Wikipedia has a section on LGBT parenting with links to dozens of scientific studies and meta-analyses, and the peer-reviewed consensus over the past few decades has been that there is no substantive difference between gay and straight parents. But if you haven't read it, it must mean that the opposite is true...

Or, hey, let's get anecdotal. Did you know that nearly 100% of every terrorist, serial killer and mass murderer in the history of human civilization was raised by heterosexual or single parents? Some of the worst atrocities in human history were orchestrated by dictators born to heterosexual parents; Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, not one gay or lesbian parent in the bunch. Maybe the world needs more gay and lesbian parents to prevent these horrible atrocities from happening again...

Obviously that's a ludicrous argument. Just as ludicrous as your "I don't have any information, so I'm against it" when all the science disagrees with you. Choosing to remain ignorant is your right, and no one can take that away from you. Wearing that self-proclaimed ignorance as a badge of honor while claiming to be on the side of reason by "veering on the side of caution" in defiance of actual facts? That's asinine. You're welcome to your opinion, but don't try to rationalize your bigotry through a lack of awareness of what's been studied.

 

[Oldgamer]

Choose to live immoral lifestyle, then complain when others dont like it?

Just because someone wishes to live a gay lifestyle doe not mean the rest of us have to agree or even like it.

For someone who shouts about oppression you sure seem to enjoy inflicting it upon others.

No shit..

 

[classy]

It appears that the enforcement is because of the relationship the woman has established and she agreed to certain terms when it comes to that relationship. I am not going to sit here and say being gay didn't influence the judge, but all he did was, was enforce the agreement which she agreed to under the letter of the law.

 

[nehalem256]

Consent is required from both the child and the parents. You have actually just added an additional burden, not found a way around it.

Thanks for further supporting my point. I feel like you do such a good job of demolishing your own arguments that my role here is almost superfluous.

Actually on further thinking. Consent is not required to have a contract. The government could easily just declare 2 people married without their consent (and in fact this does happen in Canada). Or force people into other contracts, and if they didnt live up to contract sanction them.

Now they obviously SHOULDNT do that. It is obviously wrong to force a contract on a PERSON without their consent. But there is nothing wrong with forcing a contract on an object/animal without its consent. But you appear to be confusing the idea of can and should.

 

[Texashiker]

How can anyone respect an opinion that is expressed disrespectfully?

Disrespectfully? I am not the one doing the name calling.

Since I have been called a bigot, and accused of being disrespectful, and have been accused of trying to oppress the rights of certain groups, I am going to throw this out there for the sake of discussion.

Are you ok with convicted felons being denied the right to vote?

Are you ok with convicted sex offenders having to register their residence with law enforcement for the rest of their lives?

Are you ok with sex offenders having to put a sign in their front yard?

Are you ok with non-violent felons not being able to own a gun?

When people make a decision to act in a certain manner, they can and will have certain rights stripped from them.

How do you justify oppressing the rights of certain groups, then yell that you are being oppressed?

 

[etrigan420]

Disrespectfully? I am not the one doing the name calling.

Since I have been called a bigot, and accused of being disrespectful, and have been accused of trying to oppress the rights of certain groups, I am going to throw this out there for the sake of discussion.

Are you ok with convicted felons being denied the right to vote?

Are you ok with convicted sex offenders having to register their residence with law enforcement for the rest of their lives?

Are you ok with sex offenders having to put a sign in their front yard?

Are you ok with non-violent felons not being able to own a gun?

When people make a decision to act in a certain manner, they can and will have certain rights stripped from them.

How do you justify oppressing the rights of certain groups, then yell that you are being oppressed?

Likening homosexuals to criminals?

*There's* a whole new low.

Lemme guess, this is the part where you and what's-his-nuts start crying about liberals not being tolerant with regards to your intolerance?

 

[nehalem256]

Lemme guess, this is the part where you and what's-his-nuts start crying about liberals not being tolerant with regards to your intolerance?

The problem is not with liberals being intolerant. The problem is with liberals claiming that tolerance is a virtue, while then turning around and being intolerant of anyone that disagrees with them.

If you are only tolerant of your view, then you are not tolerant.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Disrespectfully? I am not the one doing the name calling.

Since I have been called a bigot, and accused of being disrespectful, and have been accused of trying to oppress the rights of certain groups, I am going to throw this out there for the sake of discussion.

Are you ok with convicted felons being denied the right to vote?

Are you ok with convicted sex offenders having to register their residence with law enforcement for the rest of their lives?

Are you ok with sex offenders having to put a sign in their front yard?

Are you ok with non-violent felons not being able to own a gun?

When people make a decision to act in a certain manner, they can and will have certain rights stripped from them.

How do you justify oppressing the rights of certain groups, then yell that you are being oppressed?

This is absurd "logic." All you're doing is equating gay people, who have done nothing wrong, to convicted criminals. You could just as easily use this non-logic to justify limiting the rights of people of color, women, or anyone else.

 

[Texashiker]

Likening homosexuals to criminals?

*There's* a whole new low.

Lemme guess, this is the part where you and what's-his-nuts start crying about liberals not being tolerant with regards to your intolerance?

Negative, I am not comparing gays to criminals, you are trying to steer the conversion in that direction.

Do you approve of certain groups that act in a certain manner having certain rights taken away?

How many of us would celebrate if Westboro Baptist Church had their right to protest funerals taken away?

All you're doing is equating gay people, who have done nothing wrong, to convicted criminals.

Negative, I am not comparing gays to criminals.

When a minority group acts in a certain manner that the majority opposes, then that group may lose some rights.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The problem is not with liberals being intolerant. The problem is with liberals claiming that tolerance is a virtue, while then turning around and being intolerant of anyone that disagrees with them.

If you are only tolerant of your view, then you are not tolerant.

This is an incredibly myopic Mobius strip of an argument even for an invented parody poster like you.

"Tolerance" doesn't necessarily require tolerating bigotry. I have not heard anyone calling for legal action to silence anti-gay rights voices, just pointing out that they are bigots (because they are).

 

[Texashiker]

"Tolerance" doesn't necessarily require tolerating bigotry.

Are you ok with any of the examples I posted above?

What about the Westboro Baptist Church and their funeral protest? Would you like to see families be able to bury their dead in peace?

To better society do you not approve of certain groups having certain rights stripped from them?

 

[nehalem256]

This is an incredibly myopic Mobius strip of an argument even for an invented parody poster like you.

"Tolerance" doesn't necessarily require tolerating bigotry. I have not heard anyone calling for legal action to silence anti-gay rights voices, just pointing out that they are bigots (because they are).

Anyone who disagrees with my REdefinition of marriage is a bigot. Yep, that is exactly how I would expect a tolerant person to act

It sounds to me like liberals have redefined the tolerance as well as marriage.

 

[etrigan420]

Negative, I am not comparing gays to criminals, you are trying to steer the conversion in that direction.

1st "example" - Convicted felons
2nd "example" - Convicted sex offenders
3rd "example" - Sex offenders
4th "example" - Non-violent felons

You drove the thread straight into a fucking wall and want to accuse *me* of grabbing the wheel?