Romney to pick Paul Ryan for VP

comebackgirl

inlet13 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

You know I don't know. Aside from my friend and I joking about how we could benefit from being sister wives, it's not something I've really thought about. At this point a support one adult marrying another adult regardless of sex.

I think once we start having the government redefine words (because if we're honest, we kinda went through the fact that this plight is more than monetary/legal rights [i don't think it's about that at all personally], it's about pushing for a new definition of a word - marriage to include two men and two women), this method will broaden. And who's to stop it? If marriage legal definition is changed to man + man or woman + woman, why not man + woman + woman and so on. Why not man + robot? Should there be a line, and why should there be?

Why the government is becoming Webster's dictionary - I'm not sure.

I only think marriage should happen between consensuals (no children, no animals, no inanimate objects). The concept of marriage has already evolved, from an exchange of wealth and resources to one that now has more to do about a union of love. As it stands right now, I don't think that should be limited by biological sex or the ability to procreate.

DS1119

All this debate over less than 4% of the population. I wish the Demo's would actually discuss something that affects 100% of the population.

inlet13

comebackgirl wrote:

I only think marriage should happen between consensuals (no children, no animals, no inanimate objects). The concept of marriage has already evolved, from an exchange of wealth and resources to one that now has more to do about a union of love. As it stands right now, I don't think that should be limited by biological sex or the ability to procreate.

Why not polygamists? They are consensual. They could have a "union of love". Why even draw the line there? Why can't Jim marry his robot Betty? How's that hurt you? Let's say Jim has the robot programed to consent.

Cliffy6745

It'll be funny if/when whites aren't the majority. Think DS will say something like "all this for 42% of the population?"

ComeToTX

DS1119 wrote:

All this debate over less than 4% of the population. I wish the Demo's would actually discuss something that affects 100% of the population.

You think GOP is any better? They spend plenty of time on this subject, abortion, tax cuts for a small percentage of the population. What's the difference? Besides being a civil rights issue.

norm

Cliffy6745 wrote:

It'll be funny if/when whites aren't the majority. Think DS will say something like "all this for 42% of the population?"

a lot of people tend to gloss over that 'where all men are created equal' part of the declaration of independence

JonnyPistachio

comebackgirl wrote:

I only think marriage should happen between consensuals (no children, no animals, no inanimate objects).

I agree, cause that's a whole other thread about forcible rape on a carrot.

Cliffy6745

norm wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

It'll be funny if/when whites aren't the majority. Think DS will say something like "all this for 42% of the population?"

a lot of people tend to gloss over that 'where all men are created equal' part of the declaration of independence

A very unfortunate truth.

comebackgirl

inlet13 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

I only think marriage should happen between consensuals (no children, no animals, no inanimate objects). The concept of marriage has already evolved, from an exchange of wealth and resources to one that now has more to do about a union of love. As it stands right now, I don't think that should be limited by biological sex or the ability to procreate.

Why not polygamists? They are consensual. They could have a "union of love". Why even draw the line there? Why can't Jim marry his robot Betty? How's that hurt you? Let's say Jim has the robot programed to consent.

Hmmmm...if Jimmy programs her to consent, is that really consent? Like I said, I'm not saying no to polygamists, nor to hetero or same sex adults. I don't think marriage should be limited by biological sex or the ability to procreate between two adults.

comebackgirl

JonnyPistachio wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

I only think marriage should happen between consensuals (no children, no animals, no inanimate objects).

I agree, cause that's a whole other thread about forcible rape on a carrot.

somehow to forcible rape of inanimate objects always ends in a catastrophic urban legend for the rapist (carrots, vacuum cleaners) :shock:

ComeToTX

If Romney is making birther jokes then maybe Obama should make a joke about how blacks were banned from the Mormon church until 1978. Let that sink in. 1978!

Indifference

Byrnzie wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/23/gawker-mitt-romney-offshore-accounts

Gawker publishes audits of Mitt Romney's offshore financial accounts
."

Kind of funny that Gawker calls this out given they are based in the Caymen Islands.

inlet13

comebackgirl wrote:

Hmmmm...if Jimmy programs her to consent, is that really consent?

Not sure - the robot says it is. It also says - why does it effect you and who are you to judge? Jimmy just wants to marry his robot. His robot wants to do the same. Why not let these two be wed?

I understand it's a stretch, but not really. Once this thing goes down, just wait... you'll see more and more of this.

comebackgirl wrote:

Like I said, I'm not saying no to polygamists, nor to hetero or same sex adults. I don't think marriage should be limited by biological sex or the ability to procreate between two adults.

I know you're not saying "no"... But, you're not saying "yes" to polygamists either - no offense, but you're kinda just evading that question. And I know the robot thing is a bit far-fetched, but the polygamist one is not at all.


On another subject entirely, do you think a tranny would make a good parent?

comebackgirl

inlet13 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

Hmmmm...if Jimmy programs her to consent, is that really consent?

Not sure - the robot says it is. It also says - why does it effect you and who are you to judge? Jimmy just wants to marry his robot. His robot wants to do the same. Why not let these two be wed?

I understand it's a stretch, but not really. Once this thing goes down, just wait... you'll see more and more of this.

comebackgirl wrote:

Like I said, I'm not saying no to polygamists, nor to hetero or same sex adults. I don't think marriage should be limited by biological sex or the ability to procreate between two adults.

I know you're not saying "no"... But, you're not saying "yes" to polygamists either - no offense, but you're kinda just evading that question. And I know the robot thing is a bit far-fetched, but the polygamist one is not at all. Like I said, I haven't really thought about poly


On another subject entirely, do you think a tranny would make a good parent?

Well I don't think Rosie the robot has rights under the constitution, so I don't think that's relevant to same sex marriage between 2 adults who do have rights to equal protections. Like I said, I haven't really thought about polygamy, but assuming they're consensualim not opposing it. As for the tranny question - not sure if you mean transgender or transsexual, but sure they could and do. That really depends on the individual

inlet13

comebackgirl wrote:

Well I don't think Rosie the robot has rights under the constitution, so I don't think that's relevant to same sex marriage between 2 adults who do have rights to equal protections.

The guy in the storyline thas rights under the constitution. Moreover, where in the constitution does it the government receive the right to declare marriages by the way?

comebackgirl wrote:

Like I said, I haven't really thought about polygamy, but assuming they're consensualim not opposing it.

Did you actually answer this? I'm not sure I'm reading this wrong, or if you said you think it's ok. You seem to keep trying to hedge for some reason. Even this answer doesn't read as an answer.

As for thinking about it - why not start now? Then respond when you're finished. Answer: are you for or against legal polygamy? I mean I've asked it several times now, so I'm pretty certain you have thought about it now. Not trying to be unreasonable, just interested in your answer.

comebackgirl wrote:

As for the tranny question - not sure if you mean transgender or transsexual, but sure they could and do. That really depends on the individual

What exactly makes a good parent to you? Do you not think a tranny (either) parent would cause a bit of developmental problems for a youngster? Why or why not?

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

And who's to stop it? If marriage legal definition is changed to man + man or woman + woman, why not man + woman + woman and so on. Why not man + robot? Should there be a line, and why should there be?

Why the government is becoming Webster's dictionary - I'm not sure.

OH please.

Just another bullshit, phony indignation and made-up hysteria about "changing the definition of a word."

A word that - and sorry, but you know this is true - Christians don't own, don't give a shit about and have changed the definition of themselves MANY times over the ages. Marriage used to be about trading your daughter for goats. Or two further business arrangements. Or to just get rid of your daughter so you did't have to care for her anymore and selling her like a cow.

If you know the first thing about European history, you know that marriage used to mean "a life-long union" until the King of England got tired of beheading the women who didn't give him sons and created the protestant church so he could invent "divorce."

If you know about the early North American history, you know that many fat, chunky women were shipped to the colonies so they could be wives for the men who were working the land. The stouter, the better, the men needed women who could carry heavy things and handle livestock.

And if Christians really gave a shit about the "sanctity of marriage," they would be spending more time trying to make divorces harder to get, trying to shut down the drunken-marriage chapels in Vegas and they would be trying to make sure that low-income couples could afford marriage counseling. Trying to make wages higher so one parent can stay home to care for children and one can work. They do none of those. Certainly not with the zeal that they fight to keep my family legally below them. They sure don't pour the tens of millions of dollars that they do into limiting my family's rights and protections.

Finally.. all those absurd subject-changing arguments were used in the 60s when interracial marriage was still illegal. But more than that, it's meant as a vile slag at me and my family. Presented as a "thoughtful argument."

Saying "Do you support marriage of a man and a dog?" or "do you support a man and a robot?" is intentionally obnoxious and vicious...vile, and insulting at a very deep and personal level. It shows a desperate attempt to de-humanize my family. Reducing us to freaks who fuck their dogs or get themselves off with a blow-up doll. Anything to remove the love between two people that's strong enough that they want to build a home and a life together. For 20 years. Since I was 23.

The last gasp of the people who hate us so much that they will do or say ANYTHING to keep us beneath them. And for no other reason than "I don't like them and I don't want to be equal in the eyes of the law to them." Or "I want to feel special and better than SOMEONE."

ComeToTX

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

And who's to stop it? If marriage legal definition is changed to man + man or woman + woman, why not man + woman + woman and so on. Why not man + robot? Should there be a line, and why should there be?

Why the government is becoming Webster's dictionary - I'm not sure.

OH please.

Just another bullshit, phony indignation and made-up hysteria about "changing the definition of a word."

A word that - and sorry, but you know this is true - Christians don't own, don't give a shit about and have changed the definition themselves MANY times over the ages. Marriage used to be about trading your daughter for goats. Or two further business arrangements. Or to just get rid of your daughter so you did't have to care for her anymore and selling her like a cow.

If you know the first thing about European history, you know that marriage used to mean "a life-long union" until the King of England got tired of beheading the women who didn't give him sons and created the protestant church so he could invent "divorce."

If you know about the early North American history, you know that many fat, chunky women were shipped to the colonies so they could be wives for the men who were working the land. The stouter, the better, the men needed women who could carry heavy things and handle livestock.

And if Christians really gave a shit about the "sanctity of marriage," they would be spending more time trying to make divorces harder to get, trying to shut down the drunken-marriage chapels in Vegas and they would be trying to make sure that low-income couples could afford marriage counseling. They do none of those. Certainly not with the zeal that they fight keeping my family legally below them. They sure don't pour tens of millions of dollars that they do into limiting my family's rights and protections.

Finally, seeing all those absurd subject changing arguments were used in the 60s when interracial marriage was still illegal. But more than that, it's meant as a vile slag at me and my family. Presented as a "thoughtful argument."

Saying "Do you support marriage of a man and a dog?" or "do you support a man and a robot?" is intentionally obnoxious and vicious...vile, and insulting at a very deep and personal level. It shows a desperate attempt to de-humanize my family. Reducing us to freaks who fuck their dogs or fall in love with a blow-up doll. Anything to remove the love between two people that's strong enough that they want to build a home and a life together.

And a last gasp of the people who hate us so much that they want to keep us beneath them. And for no other reason than "I don't like them and I don't want to be equal in the eyes of the law to them."

Perfectly stated.

DS1119

Cliffy6745 wrote:

It'll be funny if/when whites aren't the majority. Think DS will say something like "all this for 42% of the population?"

So you think gay marriage is about whites and blacks? :? It's about less that 4% of the population. Let me know when it doubles and affects 8%.

Prince Of Dorkness

inlet13 wrote:

What exactly makes a good parent to you? Do you not think a tranny (either) parent would cause a bit of developmental problems for a youngster? Why or why not?

Since it's possible you don't know, calling someone "a tranny" is the equivalent of calling me a "faggot" or the first lady "a nigress." While I'm used to the gleeful disrespect that comes from people who clearly get a kick out of playing "keep away" with my family's protections, it might make me want to see your "point of view" if it didn't get served dripping with such rude distain.

As far as can transexual parents raise children well... yes. They can and do. And every single study that's even been done on GLBT parents have shown that any emotional harm caused to the children is caused by people outside the family being mean to the kids... not the GLBT parents.

(AND if you want to talk about cultures that raise fucked-up kids but are allowed to procreate with abandon, let's talk about my Catholic friends. Or... for that matter... The Mormons who are famous for turning out emotionally wrecked offspring.)

DS1119

norm wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

It'll be funny if/when whites aren't the majority. Think DS will say something like "all this for 42% of the population?"

a lot of people tend to gloss over that 'where all men are created equal' part of the declaration of independence

You're rigth. All men are created equal. We also have the right to equal representation. If the majority of the public doesn't want it...well there you go. If this were such an easy issue and so many people wanted it...wouldn't it just be done with. :? Situation is the majority of people don't want it.