TX Judge Breaks Up Lesbian Home

[nehalem256]

Perhaps you shouldn't bring up nonsense things like human-dog marriage.

Its no more nonsensical than SSM.

Corporations and governments are composed of sentient entities and thus have the ability to enter into contracts and hold legal obligations. But, don't let that stop you from continuing the false equivalency.

A dog has sentient owner that can consent on its behalf just like a corporation.

 

[fskimospy]

Well we are getting an interesting lesson in just how far nehalem will go to avoid admitting he is wrong. Now we are up to how dogs and corporations are the same for contractual purposes.

 

[zsdersw]

Its no more nonsensical than SSM.

Yes it is, as in it is nonsense, and SSM is not.

 

[MrPickins]

A dog has sentient owner that can consent on its behalf just like a corporation.

And the dog can honor a legal obligation how, exactly? Please be specific.

 

[nehalem256]

Well we are getting an interesting lesson in just how far nehalem will go to avoid admitting he is wrong. Now we are up to how dogs and corporations are the same for contractual purposes.

Corporations are people my friend ()

 

[nehalem256]

And the dog can honor a legal obligation how, exactly? Please be specific.

Well I would think at least as well as lesbians. In fact people such as zsdersw don't think the should have to honor them, yet they still think lesbians should be allowed to marry.

Clearly honoring legal obligations has nothing to do with marriage.

 

[zsdersw]

Well I would think at least as well as lesbians. In fact people such as zsdersw don't think the should have to honor them, yet they still think lesbians should be allowed to marry.

Clearly honoring legal obligations has nothing to do with marriage.

How would it be determined if the dog understands its legal obligations and agrees to them?

Lesbians can understand and agree to legal obligations. Dogs cannot.

 

[MrPickins]

Well I would think at least as well as lesbians. In fact people such as zsdersw don't think the should have to honor them, yet they still think lesbians should be allowed to marry.

Clearly honoring legal obligations has nothing to do with marriage.

What the hell are you rambling about? Gays can't honor legal obligations?

And yes, honoring legal obligations is at the core of the definition marriage as it is a binding contract involving said legal obligations.

Got any more straws to grasp at?

 

[nehalem256]

How would it be determined if the dog understands its legal obligations and agrees to them?

Lesbians can understand and agree to legal obligations. Dogs cannot.

Haha. Try rereading your OP.

What the hell are you rambling about? Gays can't honor legal obligations?

See the OP. This thread was started to suggest lesbians should not have to honor legal obligations.

Its not even the only thread on the first page about it

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2321314

Again many people seem to think that lesbians should not need to honor the law.

 

[nehalem256]

And yes, honoring legal obligations is at the core of the definition marriage as it is a binding contract involving said legal obligations.

Marriage at its core is a relationship between a man and a woman. But if part of the definition of marriage "discriminates" against a sexual minority it must be thrown out.

So long as doing so increases people's happiness and does not hurt any other people

 

[thraashman]

What the hell are you rambling about? Gays can't honor legal obligations?

And yes, honoring legal obligations is at the core of the definition marriage as it is a binding contract involving said legal obligations.

Got any more straws to grasp at?

You were supposed to be done with him, remember? I know it's hard when he makes such ridiculous and insane arguments. You point out how it's stupid and he intentionally misrepresents your arguments and then argues against it. Arguing with him is something like
Pickins: That's light is bright!
Nehalem: Lamps kill people.
Pickins: I said nothing about lamps, how do they kill people, what're you talking about?
Nehalem: The sun is hot and it's temperature would melt you!
Pickins: Stop changing what's being argued with nonsensical statements.
Nehalem: People used to think the sun was a god. Dog is god backwards. My dog is god!

See what I mean? He never actually argues your point, he just says something mildly close to being related that makes no sense and acts like that's what you were saying. It's impossible to argue with or convince him because he's not having the same argument you are, he's arguing against the voices in his head.

 

[nehalem256]

See what I mean? He never actually argues your point, he just says something mildly close to being related that makes no sense and acts like that's what you were saying. It's impossible to argue with or convince him because he's not having the same argument you are, he's arguing against the voices in his head.

In a sense you are almost right.

The problem is that as I have pointed out in the past is that when liberals use the word marriage they are referring to something completely different than traditional marriage.

 

[MrPickins]

You were supposed to be done with him, remember?

Yeah, but it's been a tough day at work and exploring the depths of absurdity he is willing to sink to in the justification of his viewpoint is amusing. ^_^

 

[zsdersw]

Haha. Try rereading your OP.

Why? It doesn't change anything. Lesbians, since they're people, can understand and agree to legal obligations. Whether these two particular lesbians did or not is entirely irrelevant.

See the OP. This thread was started to suggest lesbians should not have to honor legal obligations.

You're not the OP, so you don't get to claim what the thread was started for.

 

[zsdersw]

The problem is that as I have pointed out in the past is that when liberals use the word marriage they are referring to something completely different than traditional marriage.

You can point it out every second of every minute of day for the rest of your life, it still won't be true or factual.

 

[nehalem256]

You're not the OP, so you don't get to claim what the thread was started for.

I can read though. To quote the OP:

I hope they appeal and this judge's dumbass ruling gets overturned.

Sounds to me like you think expecting lesbians to live up to their legal obligations is a "dumbass ruling"...

You can point it out every second of every minute of day for the rest of your life, it still won't be true or factual.

Whining about it doesn't change reality

 

[Retro Rob]

I don't agree with Nehalem, but I think a point he was making to the "what gays do doesn't affect you" crowd is this:

Why does it bother you if a person marries a dog or a toaster to the point of not allwoing it? You have to come with a better argument than that or the slippery-slope applies, IMO.

I also think those who say that what homosexuals do at home is nobody's business is making a illogical argument because the amount of people coming out publicly is making it our business.

I mean, if you make known who you're sleeping with don't be shocked when people rip you for it.

Happens to celebrities all the time!

 

[BudAshes]

I don't agree with Nehalem, but I think a point he was making to the "what gays do doesn't affect you" crowd is this:

Why does it bother you if a person marries a dog or a toaster to the point of not allwoing it? You have to come with a better argument than that or the slippery-slope applies, IMO.

I also think those who say that what homosexuals do at home is nobody's business is making a illogical argument because the amount of people coming out publicly is making it our business.

I mean, if you make known who you're sleeping with don't be shocked when people rip you for it.

Happens to celebrities all the time!

People want the courts out of their lives if they aren't doing anything to hurt anyone. We should all be on board with this.

 

[surfsatwerk]

People want the courts out of their lives if they aren't doing anything to hurt anyone. We should all be on board with this.

Won't someone please think of the toasters!

 

[Darwin333]

A dog has sentient owner that can consent on its behalf just like a corporation.

Ok, well you get a bunch of people together and yall can stage marches with your dog "partners" and try to get it legalized to marry your dog.

In the meantime it has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage so I don't know why you are mentioning it in this thread.

 

[Darwin333]

Corporations are people my friend ()

Dogs are not.....

 

[werepossum]

I don't agree with Nehalem, but I think a point he was making to the "what gays do doesn't affect you" crowd is this:

Why does it bother you if a person marries a dog or a toaster to the point of not allwoing it? You have to come with a better argument than that or the slippery-slope applies, IMO.

I also think those who say that what homosexuals do at home is nobody's business is making a illogical argument because the amount of people coming out publicly is making it our business.

I mean, if you make known who you're sleeping with don't be shocked when people rip you for it.

Happens to celebrities all the time!

Speaking as part of the "what gays do doesn't affect you" crowd, I think the slippery slope argument is perfectly valid, but the thing to do is to recognize that slopes are inherently slippery and then move cautiously to where we need to be. Even allowing the extremely unlike possibility that allowing gay marriage might one day lead to people marrying dogs or toasters, that's no reason to deny gay people the right to marry; it's a reason to oppose people marrying dogs or toasters if and when it ever comes up. There's a much better chance in my opinion that allowing gay marriage will motivate us to allow multiple partner marriage, but again, whether we do or do not should be judged on its own merits. If we as a society decide that multiple partner marriage should not be legal, we are under no obligation to embrace it merely because we embraced gay marriage. If we refuse to evolve because of what might happen, we'll simply stagnate.

As far as gay celebrities coming out and getting in our faces, that's a function of its trendiness and of its relative lack of significant penalties as well as the remaining penalties for being gay. Once the remaining stigma and penalties have vanished there will no particular sympathy to be had and no reason for celebrities to do so, so it will not be so big a deal. We saw the same things with blacks; once they had achieved equal rights, most simply returned to living their lives just like everyone else. We'll see the same thing with gay people; once they have achieved truly equal rights, most will simply return to living their lives just like the rest of us. Oppression breeds noise - as it should.

Already things are changing. When Ellen Degeneres came out, she made a huge deal about it, using her excellent sitcom to bemoan her oppression (and killing a good show in the process.) Fast forward to Jim Parsons, similarly of sufficient fame and marketability to come out without significant penalties. He does not make a big deal at all, just says this is who I am when someone brings it up. As the need to make a big deal about it fades away, people stop making a big deal about it. The best way to stop people from whining about discrimination is to stop discriminating.

People want the courts out of their lives if they aren't doing anything to hurt anyone. We should all be on board with this.

Agreed, and well said.

Won't someone please think of the toasters!

Umm, the sexy, sexy toasters . . .

 

[Darwin333]

I don't agree with Nehalem, but I think a point he was making to the "what gays do doesn't affect you" crowd is this:

Why does it bother you if a person marries a dog or a toaster to the point of not allwoing it? You have to come with a better argument than that or the slippery-slope applies, IMO.

I also think those who say that what homosexuals do at home is nobody's business is making a illogical argument because the amount of people coming out publicly is making it our business.

I mean, if you make known who you're sleeping with don't be shocked when people rip you for it.

Happens to celebrities all the time!

First of all, its generally not their fault if the media makes a big deal about their coming out. Secondly, they wouldn't need to do it so publicly if they already had the same rights as you and I.

 

[werepossum]

Dogs are not.....

I wonder - if you incorporate your dog, is it then a person and therefore you can marry it?

EDIT: For the love of G-d, let no one give a serious answer to that.

 

[BudAshes]

I don't agree with Nehalem, but I think a point he was making to the "what gays do doesn't affect you" crowd is this:

Why does it bother you if a person marries a dog or a toaster to the point of not allwoing it? You have to come with a better argument than that or the slippery-slope applies, IMO.

I also think those who say that what homosexuals do at home is nobody's business is making a illogical argument because the amount of people coming out publicly is making it our business.

I mean, if you make known who you're sleeping with don't be shocked when people rip you for it.

Happens to celebrities all the time!

marrying a dog or toaster has no point for anyone involved. You can marry all the dogs and toasters you want but legally it means nothing. Better point would be marrying your mom or sister. It's sad when you have to make points for the opposing side.