TX Judge Breaks Up Lesbian Home

[KMFJD]

this was ok when they were 17-15 but when she turned 18 it became a crime? or did i read that wrong?

 

[zinfamous]

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.

life must be swell in that bunker filled with smoked meat, shotguns, and a wife spending money on god-knows-what.

but it's all good.

 

[Retro Rob]

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.

Multiple partners, incest, beast marriage..where is the line drawn -- if there ever is one? What's wrong with saying "no" to someone? I am not saying you should say no to SSM, but good grief, having barriers mean we're "stagnant".. or are you the type that wants change simply for the sake of it...the "this ain't the 50's anymore" syndrome?

Society is stupid -- those for and against SSM. One side wants to stop things, the other side wants a free-for-all. For the record, I don't have a stand period. Whatever is decided is fine by me, to be honest.

Change isn't always good. It depends on what's being proposed. But hey, all people care about these days are gays and gun rights.


Have at it...

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Society is stupid -- those for and against SSM. One side wants to stop things, the other side wants a free-for-all. For the record, I don't have a stand period. Whatever is decided is fine by me, to be honest.

Proponents of gay marriage want a free-for-all in exactly the same way that opponents of gay marriage want only white Christian marriages. Which is to say, they don't, it's an absurd hyperbole to claim that they do, and it's an appallingly stupid point to hinge your argument on.

 

[Retro Rob]

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.

Save it, Darwin. There wouldn't be anything to make a big deal out of if people shut up about who their bed partners are.

Sure, you can come out if you want... but don't be shocked if it isn't well received. We are under no obligation to respect or accept who people decide to lay with, gay or straight.

 

[Retro Rob]

Proponents of gay marriage want a free-for-all in exactly the same way that opponents of gay marriage want only white Christian marriages. Which is to say, they don't, it's an absurd hyperbole to claim that they do, and it's an appallingly stupid point to hinge your argument on.

Did you read possum's, post?

He has no problem with how many people one wants to marry. My point stands.

And AP, his post history confirms he's ok with polygamy... even if his previous post doesn't necessarily suggest it.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Multiple partners, incest, beast marriage..where is the line drawn -- if there ever is one? What's wrong with saying "no" to someone? I am not saying you should say no to SSM, but good grief, having barriers mean we're "stagnant".. or are you the type that wants change simply for the sake of it...the "this ain't the 50's anymore" syndrome?

Society is stupid -- those for and against SSM. One side wants to stop things, the other side wants a free-for-all. For the record, I don't have a stand period. Whatever is decided is fine by me, to be honest.

Change isn't always good. It depends on what's being proposed. But hey, all people care about these days are gays and gun rights.


Have at it...

No, one side wants to discriminate and let's face it, it's ONLY because of religion.

The other side wants equality.

When it comes to lawmaking it's fucking simple, the state must have a good reason to make something illegal and everything else is illegal.

When it comes to marriage it's simple enough, no discrimination under current law.

Don't have to change a fucking thing anywhere, still two consenting adults, still all the fucking same.

I hate religion because of things like this and religious people are doing themselves a GREAT disservice by fighting it because they will lose and get downgraded because of it.

We've seen religion as the hinder to human rights all through the life of humanity, i see it has not changed.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Did you read possum's, post?

He has no problem with how many people one wants to marry. My point stands.

No it doesn't, werepossum may not be the end all finish all of those who agree that gays should have the right to get married.

In fact i claim he's NOT even close, especially since he has probably not considered that if sue marries rob and rob marries harry and harry marries sally (yeah, i know) and ben and sue but not rob but rob marries sally then we're going to have to have 9k lawyers to even interpret all of the sheit that is going on in each marriage that eventually could involve every citizen in the US.

There are good grounds for not allowing polygamy, both legally and because you guys would get no pussy when i have all the women.

 

[lagokc]

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.

Wow... I am really glad that paragraph didn't lead where I thought it was headed...

 

[nehalem256]

Proponents of gay marriage want a free-for-all in exactly the same way that opponents of gay marriage want only white Christian marriages. Which is to say, they don't, it's an absurd hyperbole to claim that they do, and it's an appallingly stupid point to hinge your argument on.

Which is to say that gay marriage proponents are hypocrites. See their stance on human-dog marriage. Despite the fact that all of their SSM arguments work equally well for it.

Discriminating against sexual minorities is horrible until it comes to discriminating against sexual minorities liberals don't care about or the eww them out.

 

[Retro Rob]

No, one side wants to discriminate and let's face it, it's ONLY because of religion.

The other side wants equality.

When it comes to lawmaking it's fucking simple, the state must have a good reason to make something illegal and everything else is illegal.

When it comes to marriage it's simple enough, no discrimination under current law.

Don't have to change a fucking thing anywhere, still two consenting adults, still all the fucking same.

I hate religion because of things like this and religious people are doing themselves a GREAT disservice by fighting it because they will lose and get downgraded because of it.

We've seen religion as the hinder to human rights all through the life of humanity, i see it has not changed.

No discrimination? I am not necessarily a slippery slope guy, but just saying...this can possibly open up other societal abnorms. Sure, I agree with possum in that they don't HAVE to embrace it because of SSM, but "two consenting adults" is as broad as a term as their is.

You NEED barriers and clear definitions in this world to keep people from exploiting others and circumventing rules. Marriage, as well as tons of other things, need to be defined. "Two consenting adults" isn't defining anything.

It can mean "at least two", or "it didn't say we can't marry our brothers or sisters or first cousins".. as some will say.

 

[Retro Rob]

No it doesn't, werepossum may not be the end all finish all of those who agree that gays should have the right to get married.

In fact i claim he's NOT even close, especially since he has probably not considered that if sue marries rob and rob marries harry and harry marries sally (yeah, i know) and ben and sue but not rob but rob marries sally then we're going to have to have 9k lawyers to even interpret all of the sheit that is going on in each marriage that eventually could involve every citizen in the US.

There are good grounds for not allowing polygamy, both legally and because you guys would get no pussy when i have all the women.

Read his post history on the matter or ask him -- he has no issue with polygamy.

 

[MrPickins]

Which is to say that gay marriage proponents are hypocrites. See their stance on human-dog marriage. Despite the fact that all of their SSM arguments work equally well for it.

Discriminating against sexual minorities is horrible until it comes to discriminating against sexual minorities liberals don't care about or the eww them out.

You keep trotting out this tired example as though it has not already been shown to be absurd in this thread.

You'd do better to stick to the polygamy/incest arguments Rob M. has posted.

Have you not heard the saying that the best way to lose an argument is to overstate your case?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Read his post history on the matter or ask him -- he has no issue with polygamy.

What?

I just said that i think he's wrong to NOT have a problem with polygamy, i think there IS a problem and i don't think there is a slippery slope since the expansion to include ANY ONE TWO is NOT a path towards polygamy.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

No discrimination? I am not necessarily a slippery slope guy, but just saying...this can possibly open up other societal abnorms. Sure, I agree with possum in that they don't HAVE to embrace it because of SSM, but "two consenting adults" is as broad as a term as their is.

You NEED barriers and clear definitions in this world to keep people from exploiting others and circumventing rules. Marriage, as well as tons of other things, need to be defined. "Two consenting adults" isn't defining anything.

It can mean "at least two", or "it didn't say we can't marry our brothers or sisters or first cousins".. as some will say.

Either you are drunk or you can't read without some glasses you're not wearing, either way, your post makes no sense as a response to mine.

NONE what so ever.

 

[Retro Rob]

What?

I just said that i think he's wrong to NOT have a problem with polygamy, i think there IS a problem and i don't think there is a slippery slope since the expansion to include ANY ONE TWO is NOT a path towards polygamy.

My bad.

See what I mean? Some want more, others don't. You're making my point for me.

Possum's a good example of those who will fight for polygamy, or incest marriage... on the same EXACT "two consenting adults" grounds you fight for SSM.

Will this happen? We have to wait and see. But people will exploit this huge "two consenting adults" loophole you want to open.

Nothing is defined.

 

[Retro Rob]

Either you are drunk or you can't read without some glasses you're not wearing, either way, your post makes no sense as a response to mine.

NONE what so ever.

Again, my bad. I scanned through it because of all the 6th grade profanity -- I don't want to read that crap.

My apologies, though.

 

[lagokc]

My bad.

See what I mean? Some want more, others don't. You're making my point for me.

Possum's a good example of those who will fight for polygamy, or incest marriage... on the same EXACT "two consenting adults" grounds you fight for SSM.

Will this happen? We have to wait and see. But people will exploit this huge "two consenting adults" loophole you want to open.

Nothing is defined.

Ok I'll bite, what's so wrong with polygamy?

 

[nehalem256]

You keep trotting out this tired example as though it has not already been shown to be absurd in this thread.

You'd do better to stick to the polygamy/incest arguments Rob M. has posted.

Of course the idea of marrying a dog is absurd. But that is not my problem. Its yours.

Since the arguments you make on behalf of SSM apply equally to marrying a dog.

Have you not heard the saying that the best way to lose an argument is to overstate your case?

Well clearly SSM supporters have never had to worry about that problem.

 

[Retro Rob]

Ok I'll bite, what's so wrong with polygamy?

What's good about it?

 

[nehalem256]

Ok I'll bite, what's so wrong with polygamy?

If a small number of men monopolize the women what do you think the rest of the men will do?

The same basic issues is brought up for China where they have a skewed gender balance.

 

[bhagan]

But why wouldn't women be able to have multiple partners in that situation?

 

[drebo]

There is no "lifestyle" involved. It is something they are born with. Dumb fuck.

Should it be treated any differently if it is a choice?

I don't think so.

Either way, while I support the right of a State to come up with its own laws to govern its citizens, I will never support the government at any level legislating morality.

It isn't the government's place to legislate morality.

 

[lagokc]

this was ok when they were 17-15 but when she turned 18 it became a crime? or did i read that wrong?

No, that's correct. That's what happens when you base your laws on integers.

 

[MrPickins]

Of course the idea of marrying a dog is absurd. But that is not my problem. Its yours.

Since the arguments you make on behalf of SSM apply equally to marrying a dog.



Well clearly SSM supporters have never had to worry about that problem.

Yeah, no. We've already established the difference. If nothing else, dogs can't enter into contracts, so it makes no sense.

Again, overstating your case.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I can't hear you" doesn't present you in the best light. Form cogent arguments and accept valid criticism of them when presented to you. Otherwise you're not having a discussion, you're having a pissing contest.