TX Judge Breaks Up Lesbian Home

[etrigan420]

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

Called it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

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?

I am OK with some of the restrictions, but not others. In any case, the restrictions you are referencing are in place due to criminal acts by the restricted parties, not due to anything analogous to sexual preference.

I am ambivalent about the Westboro Baptist Church, in that I would like to see families able to bury their dead in peace, but am also concerned about preservation of First Amendment rights. Again, however, I see no nexus to gay marriage, in that any restriction on the WBC would be due to their actions, not their faith or opinions themselves.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

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.

I never said that anyone who disagreed with gay marriage was a bigot. I think Texashiker most definitely is, however. I have a very negative opinion of you as a poster generally but have not followed your posts in this thread closely enough to form an opinion regarding whether or not you are a bigot.

 

[Texashiker]

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?

People who through their actions had certain rights stripped away.

But yet gays complain when they act a certain way and they lose certain rights?

 

[Brainonska511]

People who through their actions had certain rights stripped away.

But yet gays complain when they act a certain way and they lose certain rights?

You're comparing criminal actions with people being gay? That's definitely a reasonable argument to make

 

[TerryMathews]

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.

This. And it feels like bizarro world for you and I to agree.

 

[Mandres]

People who through their actions had certain rights stripped away.

But yet gays complain when they act a certain way and they lose certain rights?

There will never be a meeting of minds here because, to you, homosexuality is negative and deviant in exactly the same way criminal behavior and child molestation is. I understand, I love in Southeast Texas too right in the heart of klan kountry and the Southern Baptist brainwashing starts early 'round here.

But you're wrong, logically and scientifically your point of view doesn't stand up. And that's fine with me, believe whatever you want to believe as long as it doesn't trample on anyone else's rights. But people who disdain logic and science in favor of their gut reaction shouldn't get to make the laws that affect us all.

 

[MrPickins]

People who through their actions had certain rights stripped away.

But yet gays complain when they act a certain way and they lose certain rights?

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

wat

 

[Darwin333]

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.

Huh?

Some straight people were abused as a child as well. I don't know wtf your point is though.

 

[Darwin333]

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.

The fuck it doesn't. Tell you how to test out if animals can give consent, go down to your local animal shelter and find the biggest dog they have. Give said dog a big ass steak, let him eat half of it and see if he consents to you forcibly taking the other half away.

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.

Sigh, its a civil contract, you can not enter into a civil contract with an inanimate object. Do you have any idea how retarded you sound? Of course all parties must consent to a civil contract and if there is only one human than there is no fucking need for a civil contract. For fucks sake if what you say is true then it must also be true that its a damn good reason to ban ALL marriage because just look at what its leading to right now!

How then were marriages possible when women were considered property?

Legally they were property and their owner could give consent for them. Next question.

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

Not sure what you are talking about, commonwealth maybe? If so I would agree that those laws in general are bad but there are very specific things both parties must consensually do in order to become commonwealth married. Again I don't agree with the law but to say that absolutely no consent was given is disingenuous at best.

But please, keep elaborating on how two adult women in a loving relationship marrying each other are exactly like a man marrying a dog, a 40 year old marrying a toddler or a woman marrying a toaster.

 

[Darwin333]

I'm split about this. On one hand if gays want to "marry" then I don't oppose it, let them do what they want. But I'm not sure if I feel comfortable about gays raising kids and influencing their development. So in that case I'd feel compelled to agree with what the judge did.

Why? Did your dad give you the gay or something? I didn't realize it was contagious.

 

[Darwin333]

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.

On the other hand we are very well aware of all sorts of situations that do cause children psychological problems. Are you saying the government should remove all of those kids from their parents? Be careful how you answer....

 

[nehalem256]

The fuck it doesn't. Tell you how to test out if animals can give consent, go down to your local animal shelter and find the biggest dog they have. Give said dog a big ass steak, let him eat half of it and see if he consents to you forcibly taking the other half away.

So 2 barks for yes, 1 bark for no

Sigh, its a civil contract, you can not enter into a civil contract with an inanimate object. Do you have any idea how retarded you sound? Of course all parties must consent to a civil contract and if there is only one human than there is no fucking need for a civil contract. For fucks sake if what you say is true then it must also be true that its a damn good reason to ban ALL marriage because just look at what its leading to right now!

Go back 100 years and propose the idea of same-sex marriage and see how stupid people think you sound. Or more than likely they will think you had a little to much to drink because there is no way you could possibly be serious.

Its a good reason to stick with tried and true definitions of marriage that have worked out for 1000s of years instead of changing them because gays start whining.

Legally they were property and their owner could give consent for them. Next question.

Excellent. It seems we agree. Legally a toaster is my property and I can give consent for it to marry, just as a woman's owner gave consent for her to marry :thumbsup:

Not sure what you are talking about, commonwealth maybe? If so I would agree that those laws in general are bad but there are very specific things both parties must consensually do in order to become commonwealth married. Again I don't agree with the law but to say that absolutely no consent was given is disingenuous at best.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2309111&highlight=

One person's new car becomes "family property" under the act, which grants the same rights to common-law couples who've been living together for two years as already existed for married couples, the Globe and Mail reports.

Living with someone does not constitute consent. Similar laws exist in some US states but require representing yourself as a married couple to the community. Honestly even the US version doesn't make sense in modern society with accurate record keeping and easy transportation, but its pretty hard to argue that if you tell everyone for years you are married that you didn't consent to being married.

But please, keep elaborating on how two adult women in a loving relationship marrying each other are exactly like a man marrying a dog, a 40 year old marrying a toddler or a woman marrying a toaster.

How are they different? Love is love. Who are you to say which relationships are legitimate marriages and which are not? Are you honestly going to tell me that the love between a man and a dog is any less than the love between Britany Spears or Kim Kardashian and their short-term husbands?

 

[Phanuel]

Go back 100 years and propose the idea of same-sex marriage and see how stupid people think you sound. Or more than likely they will think you had a little to much to drink because there is no way you could possibly be serious.

Its a good reason to stick with tried and true definitions of marriage that have worked out for 1000s of years instead of changing them because gays start whining.

Go back 50 years and propose a mixed race marriage. See how that goes over.

The definition of marriage has not remained consisted for 1000s of years, grow up.

 

[MrPickins]

Go back 50 years and propose a mixed race marriage. See how that goes over.

The definition of marriage has not remained consisted for 1000s of years, grow up.

Exactly.

And in another 50 years people will laugh at the views he's espoused (()) here, calling them backwards.

 

[MrPickins]

So 2 barks for yes, 1 bark for no



Go back 100 years and propose the idea of same-sex marriage and see how stupid people think you sound. Or more than likely they will think you had a little to much to drink because there is no way you could possibly be serious.

Its a good reason to stick with tried and true definitions of marriage that have worked out for 1000s of years instead of changing them because gays start whining.



Excellent. It seems we agree. Legally a toaster is my property and I can give consent for it to marry, just as a woman's owner gave consent for her to marry :thumbsup:



http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2309111&highlight=


Living with someone does not constitute consent. Similar laws exist in some US states but require representing yourself as a married couple to the community. Honestly even the US version doesn't make sense in modern society with accurate record keeping and easy transportation, but its pretty hard to argue that if you tell everyone for years you are married that you didn't consent to being married.



How are they different? Love is love. Who are you to say which relationships are legitimate marriages and which are not? Are you honestly going to tell me that the love between a man and a dog is any less than the love between Britany Spears or Kim Kardashian and their short-term husbands?

You need to educate yourself on what constitutes a contract (and marriage is most definitely a contract).

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

In either case, how does the right for gays to marry each other in any way harm you or anyone else? And if there is no harm done (and such great benefit to be gained), why would you prohibit it?

 

[nehalem256]

Go back 50 years and propose a mixed race marriage. See how that goes over.

The definition of marriage has not remained consisted for 1000s of years, grow up.

Show me one scrap of evidence that people thought mixed-race marriage was against the definition of marriage 50 years ago...

Saying a particular type of marriage is wrong does not mean it is not marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_miscegenation.svg And inter-racial marriage was NEVER illegal in my state :hmm:

 

[nehalem256]

You need to educate yourself on what constitutes a contract (and marriage is most definitely a contract).

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

"A contract is an agreement having a lawful object entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between them."

How is a dog excluded from being a party exactly? And note even if you exclude the dog; a man and the government are still 2 parties.

In either case, how does the right for gays to marry each other in any way harm you or anyone else? And if there is no harm done (and such great benefit to be gained), why would you prohibit it?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2321067

This guy was clearly harmed.

Also let me repose your question to you. How does the right for a man to marry his dog harm you or anyone else? And if there is no harm done (and such great benefit to be gained), why would you prohibit it?

See what I mean about arguments for same-sex marriage working for human-dog marriage too?

 

[MrPickins]

"A contract is an agreement having a lawful object entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between them."

How is a dog excluded from being a party exactly? And note even if you exclude the dog; a man and the government are still 2 parties.

How can a dog or a toaster have a legal obligation to another party? They cant? Then they can't enter into a contract.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2321067

This guy was clearly harmed.

Seriously? That guy harmed himself. And for no good reason.

By that logic, you've harmed Islamic suicide bombers by being American.

Also let me repose your question to you. How does the right for a man to marry his dog harm you or anyone else? And if there is no harm done (and such great benefit to be gained), why would you prohibit it?

See what I mean about arguments for same-sex marriage working for human-dog marriage too?

Responding to a question with a question? Way to weasel out of answering.

Where is the great benefit in allowing marriages to inanimate objects or animals? Please explain.

 

[werepossum]

When a man kills himself because other people have the right to marry, that is not being harmed. That is natural selection.

Chlorine in the gene pool, brought to you by messieurs Smith and Wesson.

 

[RampantAndroid]

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.

What bearing does that have on this couple? Since when did you gain the right to decide how others live their lives?

 

[sandorski]

What bearing does that have on this couple? Since when did you gain the right to decide how others live their lives?

Jesus said: Judge others, lest you be judged - The New Revised Christian Bible

 

[Sinsear]

Boo hoo

 

[nehalem256]

How can a dog or a toaster have a legal obligation to another party? They cant? Then they can't enter into a contract.

"each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between them."

So creating a legal obligation from a man to dog would fulfill it.

"And note even if you exclude the dog; a man and the government are still 2 parties"

You appear to have ignored this.

Also note that non-human entities sign contracts all the time. Ever hear of a corporation? In which the owner(or their designated agent) enters into a contract. If an entity that doesn't even have corporeal form can fulfill legal obligations how much easier for a dog?

Responding to a question with a question? Way to weasel out of answering.

Going by the fact that below you move the bar to "showing the great benefit of human-animal marriage" it would appear that answering with a question caused you to drop that line of reasoning...

which is sensible. because as I pointed out if your standard for disallowing a marriage is "It doesn't cause harm to other people" then there is no more reason to disallow human-animal marriage than SSM.

Where is the great benefit in allowing marriages to inanimate objects or animals? Please explain.

Again. Where is the great benefit in allowing same-sex marriage to society? Note that society has got along just fine for 2000 years without it.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Again. Where is the great benefit in allowing same-sex marriage to society? Note that society has got along just fine for 2000 years without it.

It makes people happy. You failed to answer the question: why do you get to say whether people can do whatever the want in the privacy of their own home? If two men or two women want to marry, LET THEM. Why the hell is this country so backwards?

Are you for the sodomy laws in Texas? Hint: they pre-date same sex couples.