TX Judge Breaks Up Lesbian Home

[zsdersw]

Historically with regard to women, and currently with regard to Canada this is not ture.

In the US it is true.

What does this have to do with ownership of an animal?

The owner of the animal can make whatever decisions he/she wants, but if the animal leaves clearly the animal doesn't either acknowledge its owner's wishes or agree to them. It most likely doesn't care what the owner wants and does what it wants.

I have given historical and modern examples where consent is not required for a marriage to be recognized by society/government.

None from the US, though.

 

[nehalem256]

Nice try, but you lost that one. The data I showed from the CDC proved that the huge disparity in obesity between black people and white people was in women only. Women, total, are only 51% of the state's population, and 37% of MS is black. Add the numbers up, combined with an 85% black voter turnout rate that didn't even come reasonably close to giving the Democrats a win and it's plain to see that black people are not what makes MS the reddest and the fattest state.

No one disputed MS is a red state.

But if you are saying that the 50% higher rate of obesity in blacks is not a significant contributor to MS being the most obese state you are an idiot.

Whether the black people who are obese are men or women is irrelevant to the question of how much more obese blacks are than whites. All it means is that black women would be 100% more likely to be obese the white women.

 

[nehalem256]

In the US it is true.

And. We are discussing whether marriage inherently involves consent. It does not. Requiring consent is a choice(and a rational one assuming we are talking about humans in the marriage).

The owner of the animal can make whatever decisions he/she wants, but if the animal leaves clearly the animal doesn't either acknowledge its owner's wishes or agree to them. It most likely doesn't care what the owner wants and does what it wants.

Which is what I said. The owner consents to the marriage.

None from the US, though.

You mean apart from US corporate law showing that non-humans can be sign legal contracts?

And. We are discussing changing US law to make it not bigoted against sexual minorities. No one is disputing that the law is currently bigoted toward bestial-sexual. And my evidence shows that there is nothing inherent in the idea of marriage that requires consent.

 

[fskimospy]

Except of course that in the US consent IS an inherent part of marriage, as marriage in its current form is a contract and contracts inherently require consent. No one is stopped from marrying animals in the old religious sense, merely in the contractual sense.

Aren't you embarrassed at all at how bad your arguments are? Is your Canadian girlfriend supportive of this?

 

[zsdersw]

No one disputed MS is a red state.

It's the reddest (possibly second-reddest compared to Wyoming) state and the fattest state.

But if you are saying that the 50% higher rate of obesity in blacks is not a significant contributor to MS being the most obese state you are an idiot.

No, you're the idiot.

51% of Mississippi is women
37% of Mississippi is black
Black women have a 50% higher obesity rate than white women. Men's obesity rates are identical between black and white men.

These facts do not make race a "significant contributor" to MS being the most obese state.

 

[zsdersw]

And. We are discussing whether marriage inherently involves consent. It does not. Requiring consent is a choice(and a rational one assuming we are talking about humans in the marriage).

It does inherently involve consent in the US.

Which is what I said. The owner consents to the marriage.

But the animal doesn't, especially if it leaves. So the owner can consent to the marriage, but when the animal isn't present what is the owner left with? Nothing.

You mean apart from US corporate law showing that non-humans can be sign legal contracts?

Corporations are legal constructs. Animals are not.

And. We are discussing changing US law to make it not bigoted against sexual minorities. No one is disputing that the law is currently bigoted toward bestial-sexual. And my evidence shows that there is nothing inherent in the idea of marriage that requires consent.

Your "evidence" ignores the basic US legal requirement of consent, because it would destroy your argument.

 

[werepossum]

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...

I agree that change isn't always good. My points were basically two; that gay marriage and polygamous marriage (or other proposed alterations to the institution of marriage) should each be judged solely on their own merits, and that the majority should not be able to infringe on the minority's rights simply because they decide it is bad for society. There should be a higher bar; it should have to be very damaging to society before we restrict individual liberty, not merely a little bad or, heaven forbid, just not good for society. (Because maximizing individual liberty is good for society in and of itself.)

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.

Nope, sorry. I actually am the end all finish all of those who agree that gays should have the right to get married. It's all me. When it comes to any social issue, always follow the wisdom of the lycanthropic marsupial hillbilly demographic.

I do not have strong feelings on polygamous marriage, although I do agree it would be the Young Lawyer Employment Act. I simply think that people have the innate right to marry whomever they want unless and until there is a serious, important societal good that can only be satisfied by restricting that freedom. I suspect the issues with children, government services, and historic cult abuse would rise to that level, but the possibility of that not being the case should not be used to restrict someone else's monogamous marriage rights any more than striking down miscegenation laws should have been opposed because that might lead to legalizing gay marriage (which was of course true.) When crafting laws or interpreting the Constitution, each issue should be evaluated on its own merits.

 

[nehalem256]

It's the reddest (possibly second-reddest compared to Wyoming) state and the fattest state.



No, you're the idiot.

51% of Mississippi is women
37% of Mississippi is black
Black women have a 50% higher obesity rate than white women. Men's obesity rates are identical between black and white men.

These facts do not make race a "significant contributor" to MS being the most obese state.

No, black people in general have a 50% higher rate of obesity than white people.

So if black men and white men have the same obesity rate...

Black women would have to have an ~100% higher obesity rate than white women to get a 50% higher rate in general.

 

[nehalem256]

It does inherently involve consent in the US.

No it doesn't. That is a choice that your bigoted views impose.

Canadais not exactly Iran. And is in fact a country, that without me posting the article, you would probably have held up as a model on marriage that the US should emulate.

But the animal doesn't, especially if it leaves. So the owner can consent to the marriage, but when the animal isn't present what is the owner left with? Nothing.

This is why you keep your dog on a leash

Corporations are legal constructs. Animals are not.

Exactly my point. A corporation doesn't even exist in reality and yet it can consent to legal contracts.

Your "evidence" ignores the basic US legal requirement of consent, because it would destroy your argument.

15 years ago I could just as easily have to your arguments on SSM that it ignores the basic US legal requirement of parties to a marriage being of the opposite gender.

All you are saying is that you refuse to change the definition of marriage when it conflicts with what YOUR idea of marriage is. Even if it discriminates against a sexual minority.

In short you are saying you are a massive hypocrite. And that all your arguments on SSM are BS. Which is exactly my point.

 

[zsdersw]

No, black people in general have a 50% higher rate of obesity than white people.

So if black men and white men have the same obesity rate...

Black women would have to have an ~100% higher obesity rate than white women to get a 50% higher rate in general.

No, you're wrong again.

See graphs on pages 4 & 5 here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/obesity_adult_09_10/obesity_adult_09_10.pdf

 

[zsdersw]

No it doesn't. That is a choice that your bigoted views impose.

Yes it does. Consent is inherent in US legal matters, including marriage.

Canadais not exactly Iran. And is in fact a country, that without me posting the article, you would probably have held up as a model on marriage that the US should emulate.

Oh, now you're switching to strawmen. Give it up, dumbass.. you lost. I don't care if Canada allows SSM and Iran so totally doesn't. This is the United States, and our laws are not subject to any other country's approval or congruence.

This is why you keep your dog on a leash

If a leash or other restraint is required to keep the dog or other animal that says the animal does not consent to what the owner wants.

Exactly my point. A corporation doesn't even exist in reality and yet it can consent to legal contracts.

Because it has human owners without whom it cannot act at all. Animals can act on their own independent of their owner's wishes, corporations cannot. Animals also exist perfectly fine without an owner or owners, whereas corporations do not exist without human owners. This explains why corporations can consent to laws and legal contracts via their owners and animals cannot.

15 years ago I could just as easily have to your arguments on SSM that it ignores the basic US legal requirement of parties to a marriage being of the opposite gender.

All you are saying is that you refuse to change the definition of marriage when it conflicts with what YOUR idea of marriage is. Even if it discriminates against a sexual minority.

Marriage's legal definition is not changing; it has always involved people and it will continue to involve people because people are the only ones who give laws/government authority to make definitions. Animals and inanimate objects do not.

In short you are saying you are a massive hypocrite. And that all your arguments on SSM are BS. Which is exactly my point.

You're saying you're a massive dumbass, and that all your arguments against SSM are BS, which is exactly my point and the point of everyone else here.

 

[nehalem256]

No, you're wrong again.

See graphs on pages 4 & 5 here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/obesity_adult_09_10/obesity_adult_09_10.pdf

From 22.9% to 32.2% among non-Hispanic white women.
• From 38.4% to 58.5% among non-Hispanic black women.

58.5/32.2 = 181.7%

So even based on the numbers you quote as contradicting me you are wrong.

Now guess what group is the most likely to vote Democrat?

EDIT: My point was that making Red state Blue state comparisons is retarded. As evidenced by counting obese black women as Republicans.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes it does. Consent is inherent in US legal matters, including marriage.

No it is a choice. There is no reason it could not change. Especially when we are discussing animals.

Because it has human owners without whom it cannot act at all. Animals can act on their own independent of their owner's wishes, corporations cannot. This explains why corporations can consent to laws and legal contracts via their owners and animals cannot.

A poor rationalization at best. There is clear precedence for the consent of non-humans.

Marriage's legal definition is not changing; it has always involved people and it will continue to involve people because people are the only ones who give laws/government authority to make definitions. Animals and inanimate objects do not.

Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. You are a deluded one.

You're saying you're a massive dumbass, and that all your arguments against SSM are BS, which is exactly my point and the point of everyone else here.

We aren't even really discussing my arguments against SSM. We have been discussing applying the arguments for SSM to HDM. And how they all work!

And how when the exact same arguments for SSM are applied to a form of marriage you disagree with they suddenly become "piss poor" :hmm:

 

[fskimospy]

Man you're right your arguments all work so long as you keep ignoring all the incredibly obvious reasons people have told you they don't.

 

[nehalem256]

Man you're right your arguments all work so long as you keep ignoring all the incredibly obvious reasons people have told you they don't.

The only reason they don't make sense to you is you are bigoted against bestial-sexuals.

Redefining marriage is apparently only something that must be done to conform to the way liberals think marriage should be. Anything else is absurd :hmm:

 

[zsdersw]

From 22.9% to 32.2% among non-Hispanic white women.
• From 38.4% to 58.5% among non-Hispanic black women.

58.5/32.2 = 181.7%

So even based on the numbers you quote as contradicting me you are wrong.

You can't seem to get the decimal point in the right place, and the math you're doing doesn't apply to the comparison.

The huge jump in obesity in black people is among women, not men.

Now guess what group is the most likely to vote Democrat?

And still, Mississippi remains the reddest state in the country.

EDIT: My point was that making Red state Blue state comparisons is retarded. As evidenced by counting obese black women as Republicans.

Mississippi is the reddest state and the fattest. Obese black women are a minority of half the state's population. 85% of black people in MS voted in 2012, almost all of them for Democrats, and yet the state is the reddest one. The people voting to make MS such a red state are obviously white... and since white people are 60% of the state's population, obesity rates among white people are going to make white obese Republicans the primary cause of the state's "reddest and fattest" characteristics.

 

[zsdersw]

No it is a choice. There is no reason it could not change. Especially when we are discussing animals.

Yes, there are many reasons, fundamental to how government and law works and derives its power.

A poor rationalization at best. There is clear precedence for the consent of non-humans.

No, it's a very good explanation. There is no clear precedent for what you're describing.

Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. You are a deluded one.

.. but enough about you.

We aren't even really discussing my arguments against SSM. We have been discussing applying the arguments for SSM to HDM. And how they all work!

They don't work.

And how when the exact same arguments for SSM are applied to a form of marriage you disagree with they suddenly become "piss poor" :hmm:

Yes, because good things become piss-poor when they're not applied correctly. Gold leaf, for example, is piss-poor when it's not used with care and precision.

 

[zsdersw]

Redefining marriage is apparently only something that must be done to conform to the way liberals think marriage should be. Anything else is absurd :hmm:

You're certainly absurd.

 

[nehalem256]

You can't seem to get the decimal point in the right place, and the math you're doing doesn't apply to the comparison.

The huge jump in obesity in black people is among women, not men.



And still, Mississippi remains the reddest state in the country.



Mississippi is the reddest state and the fattest. Obese black women are a minority of half the state's population. 85% of black people in MS voted in 2012, almost all of them for Democrats, and yet the state is the reddest one. The people voting to make MS such a red state are obviously white... and since white people are 60% of the state's population, obesity rates among white people are going to make white obese Republicans the primary cause of the state's "reddest and fattest" characteristics.

No its not.

give 82% of the population an obesity of 30% = 24.6
give 18% an obesity of 54% = 9.72
-----------------------------------
34.32% overall

Clearly illustrative numbers. Eliminate black women (essentially all democratic voters) and the rate drops 4%. Sorry bro, but it is pretty clear Democratic voters are significantly driving up the obesity rate.

 

[RampantAndroid]

No it doesn't. That is a choice that your bigoted views impose.

Wait, you're calling zsdersw the bigot here? Oh, that's good.

 

[nehalem256]

Wait, you're calling zsdersw the bigot here? Oh, that's good.

The pro-SSM view is that if you oppose marriage for a sexual minority you are a bigot.

Since he opposes marriage for bestial-sexuals he is a bigot.

 

[zsdersw]

No its not.

Yes it is.

give 82% of the population an obesity of 30% = 24.6
give 18% an obesity of 54% = 9.72
-----------------------------------
34.32% overall

37% of Mississippi's 2.9M population is black, or 1.07M people, leaving the remaining 1.83M white.

Women, of all races, comprise 51% of the state's population, or 1.48M people. What percentage of women in MS are black I don't know, but if it mirrors the overall state population, it would be 37% of that 1.48M people (548k people). This leaves 932k white women in MS. White women's obesity prevalence is 32.2%... or 300k white obese women.
53% of women in MS voted Republican in 2012.

Men, of all races, comprise 49% of the state's population, or 1.42M people. What percentage of men in MS are black I don't know, but if it mirrors the overall state population it would be 37% of that 1.42M people (525k people). This leaves 895k white men in MS. White men's obesity prevalence is 20.3%... or 185k white obese men. 58% of men in MS voted Republican in 2012.

As for obese black women and obese black men, they would.. according to the math above and figures from CDC I posted, be 320k and 110k respectively.

Total obese white: 485k people
Total obese black: 440k people

59% of voters in MS in 2012 were white, 36% were black.

As you can see, MS being the reddest state and fattest is because white obese outnumbers black obese by 10%... which is almost exactly the percentage by which Republicans won the state. Black women are why the total obesity numbers between black/white are off by only 10%, but at only 37% of the state's population they are not why the state is reddest and fattest.

 

[MrPickins]

And. We are discussing whether marriage inherently involves consent. It does not.

Good news, then! You and I are getting married!

Don't like it? Too bad. I don't need your consent.

 

[zsdersw]

The pro-SSM view is that if you oppose marriage for a sexual minority you are a bigot.

.. if that opposition is rooted in homophobia, ignorance/naivety, or a desire to impose an antiquated rendition of morality, yes.. they're a bigot in my opinion.

Since he opposes marriage for bestial-sexuals he is a bigot.

I don't oppose legal marriage for them, I am simply saying it is not possible for laws and government, which is given its authority by the consent of the governed, to apply to animals.. who cannot give or deny consent.

 

[RampantAndroid]

The pro-SSM view is that if you oppose marriage for a sexual minority you are a bigot.

Since he opposes marriage for bestial-sexuals he is a bigot.

No, he's sane, and you're pedantic. Your entire claim is based on lack of consent. Welcome to the USA, you thick skulled &*(^$. The animal cannot consent, and sexual intercourse is going to cause the animal harm.

You've MISSTATED the view. The view is that human beings should be allowed to do what they want within reason. Now go put on your tin foil hat and watch the religious sermon on TV telling you to lock all gays up in a cage...