TX Judge Breaks Up Lesbian Home

[zsdersw]

The only argument the left has against human-dog marriage is "THATS not marriage D:"

Love is love man. Why are you trying to prohibit relationships that don't hurt anyone?

You're wrong for assuming what we'd be laughing about. That's what I meant by "assumptions are the mothers of all fuck-ups".

 

[thraashman]

That's not an answer, that's a deflection.

This time I mean it; I'm done with you. You're not worth my time.

He does this in every thread in which gay marriage can even remotely be brought up. He makes a poorl formed argument made up mostly of stupid hyperbole. Then someone (usually multiple someones) rips that argument to shreds. He repeats his argument as if no one said anything. This is why I've given up on arguing with him. You can't debate someone incapable of learning something new.

On the plus side, even if the arguments are piss poor, they're not as bad as trying to interact with someone like Incorruptible who doesn't even make arguments.

 

[MrPickins]

Its not a deflection. If you argument works just as well for supporting human-dog marriage as it does for SSM then it is a stupid argument.

Deflect deflect deflect. Just answer the damn question.

You apparently missed the quote from the NYTs which directly addresses you question on the damage of SSM.

I ignored it because it's opinion and a stupid one at that. Maybe you should read the rest of the article:

Sullivan countered that the “process” Frum feared was simply an established fact. Heterosexuals had already severed marriage from procreation and permanence, and so there was no more reason to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses than to deny them to the infertile and elderly. Indeed, far from being radical, gay marriage was more likely to be stabilizing, “sending a message about matrimonial responsibility and mutual caring” to gays and straights alike.

Half a generation later, Sullivan’s view has carried the day almost completely. The conservative argument still has serious exponents, but it’s now chuckled at in courtrooms, dismissed by intellectuals, mocked in the media and (in a sudden, recent rush) abandoned by politicians. Indeed, it has been abandoned by Frum himself, who is now energetically urging Republicans to embrace the redefinition of marriage he once warned against.

The biggest threat to the institution of marriage is the ~50% divorce rate, entirely the fault of heterosexuals.

 

[MrPickins]

He does this in every thread in which gay marriage can even remotely be brought up. He makes a poorl formed argument made up mostly of stupid hyperbole. Then someone (usually multiple someones) rips that argument to shreds. He repeats his argument as if no one said anything. This is why I've given up on arguing with him. You can't debate someone incapable of learning something new.

On the plus side, even if the arguments are piss poor, they're not as bad as trying to interact with someone like Incorruptible who doesn't even make arguments.

I suppose this is wise. It is amusing watching him reiterate the same invalid arguments, though. :whiste:

 

[nehalem256]

I ignored it because it's opinion and a stupid one at that. Maybe you should read the rest of the article:

I did read the article. All that shows is that the idea of marriage has been destroyed.

Which really means there is no reason to deny human-dog marriages. If marriage has no really meaning why not? Love is love. Why are you trying to deny people happiness.

The biggest threat to the institution of marriage is the ~50% divorce rate, entirely the fault of heterosexuals.

Entirely the fault of the same set of values that support SSM.

SSM is more a symptom than a causative agent. Which is exactly what the quote I had said. In order for SSM to make sense you first have to destroy the idea of marriage and replace it with narcissism.

 

[nehalem256]

He does this in every thread in which gay marriage can even remotely be brought up. He makes a poorl formed argument made up mostly of stupid hyperbole. Then someone (usually multiple someones) rips that argument to shreds. He repeats his argument as if no one said anything. This is why I've given up on arguing with him. You can't debate someone incapable of learning something new.

On the plus side, even if the arguments are piss poor, they're not as bad as trying to interact with someone like Incorruptible who doesn't even make arguments.

If I take an argument for SSM do an obvious word replacement, or in some cases none and apply it to human-dog marriage...

And you think its a piss poor argument... what does that say about the arguments for SSM?

 

[nehalem256]

I suppose this is wise. It is amusing watching him reiterate the same invalid arguments, though. :whiste:

By invalid you mean you don't agree with them.

Unfortunately you appear not to agree with your own arguments either since you reject them with regard to types of marriage you don't agree with.

 

[zsdersw]

If I take an argument for SSM do an obvious word replacement, or in some cases none and apply it to human-dog marriage...

And you think its a piss poor argument... what does that say about the arguments for SSM?

Not what you think it does.

 

[nehalem256]

Not what you think it does.

Why not?

"It won't hurt anyone" works equally well for SSM and HDM.

If it is a "piss poor" argument for HDM why is it a good argument for SSM?

 

[MrPickins]

By invalid you mean you don't agree with them.

Unfortunately you appear not to agree with your own arguments either since you reject them with regard to types of marriage you don't agree with.

No, I don't agree to marriage when one party is not able to enter into a contract. If you can't see the difference here then you're dumber than I thought.

It's not that I don't agree with it, it is simply not possible from a legal standpoint.

I did read the article. All that shows is that the idea of marriage has been destroyed.

Yeah, mostly by the heterosexuals who treat it as a short term relationship, and view divorce as being as trivial as a breakup after a few dates.

 

[thraashman]

If I take an argument for SSM do an obvious word replacement, or in some cases none and apply it to human-dog marriage...

And you think its a piss poor argument... what does that say about the arguments for SSM?

Nothing. It says that you don't understand the issue at hand nor do you understand that humans and animals don't have the same rights and legal statuses in this nation.

Honestly using your same stupid ass argument a person should get life in prison if they kill their dog because according to you they're the same as people.

 

[zsdersw]

Why not?

Because it doesn't. I don't expect you to understand; toddlers can't understand calculus. You're no wunderkind.

 

[nehalem256]

Because it doesn't. I don't expect you to understand; toddlers can't understand calculus. You're no wunderkind.

Which pretty much sums up the argument for SSM. Because we should allow it.

Nothing. It says that you don't understand the issue at hand nor do you understand that humans and animals don't have the same rights and legal statuses in this nation.

Honestly using your same stupid ass argument a person should get life in prison if they kill their dog because according to you they're the same as people.

I don't recall saying 2 dogs should be able to marry. Now THAT would be silly. If a person wants to get married the state has no right to stop him. Why do you hate happiness?

No, I don't agree to marriage when one party is not able to enter into a contract. If you can't see the difference here then you're dumber than I thought.

It's not that I don't agree with it, it is simply not possible from a legal standpoint.

Yeah, mostly by the heterosexuals who treat it as a short term relationship, and view divorce as being as trivial as a breakup after a few dates.

Laws are made by people. In most states it is not possible from a legal standpoint for 2 people of the same gender to get married. Laws can be changed. And the argument presented for SSM is that they MUST be changed so long as no one is hurt.

So again who is hurt by human-dog marriage? Why do you hate happiness?

 

[zsdersw]

Which pretty much sums up the argument for SSM. Because we should allow it.

It doesn't mean what you think it does.

 

[zsdersw]

So again who is hurt by human-dog marriage?

Probably the dog. What if the dog doesn't want that kind of relationship? Can the human sue the dog for damages if the dog bites the human when the human's advances are not wanted?

 

[MrPickins]

Laws are made by people. In most states it is not possible from a legal standpoint for 2 people of the same gender to get married. Laws can be changed. And the argument presented for SSM is that they MUST be changed so long as no one is hurt.

So again who is hurt by human-dog marriage? Why do you hate happiness?

You keep dancing around the issue that it is not possible for something non-sentient to consent or enter in to a contract. It's not just the law, it's common sense (which you appear to be severely lacking).

You really should pursue a different argument, because this one relies on absurd equivalencies and assumptions.

 

[werepossum]

Except this thread IS NOT about it being recognized. It's about a judge saying the two CANNOT be home together past 9. If you support that, then you ARE saying what people can do in their own fucking home.

As for man - dog, it is not the same, unless you've seen a dog that can consent to a relationship and is sentient. You have no god damned idea what that dog wants. A dog is a living thing that cannot talk, cannot say a damned thing. Two women or two men saying "I love you, let's get married" is ABSOLUTELY about consent. More than that, it's about judges NOT being allowed to separate two women (or two men) simply because they're in a relationship with kids around. It's about the tax benefits given to heterosexual couples that are denied to SSDPs and such.

Stop trying to misdirect. Go live your life however you want to, and let people live their lives how they want to within reason.

And for the record: I'm NOT gay, I find the idea of being with another man truly disgusting, and frankly have historically been against gay marriage. I just finally came to the realization that I'm a full on libertarian; I want people to leave me do my things (shoot guns at the range or in the woods, maybe smoke weed...legal in my state now, drive whatever car I want and so on. It's only fair to say the same to other people: don't take my guns, let me have my fun with them since my "fun" isn't shooting other people...and you can have your fun with your relationship. This is absolutely about maturity, and you ass backwards republicans need to get this idea that YOU can decide who other people can have relationships out of your fucking heads.

Congratulations on your evolution. I had the same when I was young, although for me it required that I actually meet a gay person I liked, who was not messed up, and whom I could befriend.

 

[Remobz]

I could care less about anything concerning the gay agenda.

So sue me!!

 

[zsdersw]

I could care less about anything concerning the gay agenda.

So sue me!!

And yet you posted in the thread. Brilliant! 🙄

 

[nehalem256]

Probably the dog. What if the dog doesn't want that kind of relationship?

The dog is not a person. We were discussing what PERSON is hurting by legalizing human-dog marriage.

Can the human sue the dog for damages if the dog bites the human when the human's advances are not wanted?

Depending on the exact situation the human would either be engaging in spousal-rape, or the dog would be engaging in domestic violence.

Perhaps there should be special shelters for people fleeing violence committed against them by their dog-spouse 😀

 

[nehalem256]

You keep dancing around the issue that it is not possible for something non-sentient to consent or enter in to a contract.

So you never heard of a corporation? Non only is it non-sentient, but it is non-corporeal. And yet it enters into contracts.

Even straight marriage requires the consent of a non-sentient entity(the government) before it can occur 😀

It's not just the law, it's common sense (which you appear to be severely lacking).

You really should pursue a different argument, because this one relies on absurd equivalencies and assumptions.

The argument is that no one is hurt by a person marrying a dog. Why do you hate the happiness of people who are attracted to things you are not?

 

[Ldir]

The argument is that no one is hurt by a person marrying a dog. Why do you hate the happiness of people who are attracted to things you are not?

Fine. If you find a dog that will have you, you can marry it. Don't be angry when people remark that it is the brains of your family.

 

[zsdersw]

The dog is not a person. We were discussing what PERSON is hurting by legalizing human-dog marriage.

Actually, we weren't discussing gay marriage or human-dog marriage in this thread until you decided to bring it up. Since you brought up human-dog marriage, I'll ask again: what if the dog doesn't want that kind of relationship?

Depending on the exact situation the human would either be engaging in spousal-rape, or the dog would be engaging in domestic violence.

No, the human would be committing animal abuse or the dog would be euthanized.

Perhaps there should be special shelters for people fleeing violence committed against them by their dog-spouse 😀

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

 

[MrPickins]

So you never heard of a corporation? Non only is it non-sentient, but it is non-corporeal. And yet it enters into contracts.

Even straight marriage requires the consent of a non-sentient entity(the government) before it can occur 😀



The argument is that no one is hurt by a person marrying a dog. Why do you hate the happiness of people who are attracted to things you are not?

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.

 

[zsdersw]

So you never heard of a corporation? Non only is it non-sentient, but it is non-corporeal. And yet it enters into contracts.

Corporations are legal constructs that have a similar status in the eyes of the law as a person does. Dogs do not have a legal status that in any way resembles the legal status of a person.