Hottie driving G35coupe?
-
thrash;310804 wrote:
That's debatableBut it's not illegal for people who are carriers for known genetic defects to get married.
And there are plenty of people who want to get married and don't want to have kids.
You have failed to explain why gay people have "the right" to get married and why relatives do not.
You also don't address why polygamy or polyamory is illegal.
Rights are not conditional things; they are intrinsic.
There is no intrinsic right to be married; legally, a marraige license is just that -- a license granted by the state. The state will not grant blind people a drivers license, and the state will not grant me a medical license.
I said that a biblical standard of morality asserts that practicing homosexuality is sinful.
I couldn't agree more.
Of course, there is no such thing as "a right to be married", after all, the state decides who can and cannot get married, and as near as I can tell, this decision is based on nothing more than "what most people want". It isn't based on any notion of an individual right, and it isn't extended to all people.
The notion of who can get married has no real rhyme or reason behind it, legally. It's not even clear why it is a legal issue.
Neither you nor I was alive in the 1800s, but I'll go out on a limb and wager that I'm considerably better read than you are on subjets of US history.
Historically in America, Black people weren't considered humans -- not in the way that whites were. Neither were the native Americans.
And not just by "stupid redneck racists", but by the founders of this country, and by presidents up to and including Lincoln. Lincoln supported freeing the slaves but didn't support giving them voting rights or similar priviledges, since, in his words, they didn't "have the intellectual capacity of whites".
Lincoln, the great emancipator, who you probably were taught started the civil war to end slavery. Nothing could be further from the truth. You can think of Lincoln's position on slavery as something akin to stopping Animal Cruelty. They weren't equal humans, but they did deserve to be treated better.
Did you know that blacks got counted as "3/5ths" of a human for census and voting-district reasons?
I mean, our constitution plainly says that all humans have certain natural rights, and the problem of slavery was alive and kicking during ratification. The "compromise" is that american indians and blacks were considered sub-human savages, and thus outside the normal protections of our law.
Again - all of this abhorrent thinking is by all of the most educated people who ended up founding the USA. Not toothless rednecks in the 1800s.
You don't know that I'm not gay.
Well, if it's my store, home, or church, and I am a bigot, then yes.
If it's a government owned place, and there is no credible evidence to suggest that "gay people" are contagious with something, then of course not.
My positions on this are considerably more complex and nuanced than you care to understand; I apologize i cannot explain it succintly enough for you to get my meaning without getting bored of reading.
You, however, do not seem interested in understanding, and you have some sort of gay persecution complex I guess.
Gay people don't need to be defended from me. On the contrary, it is my right to tell my kids what the bible says about homosexuality that is under attack; it is my right to run a business according to my wishes that is under attack [well, that ship sailed in 1964 with CRA, but it's about to get bigger].
I actually don't care what licenses the states want to grant to which people. I care about which of my freedoms the states will take away in order to do so.
But this post really isnt' about gay rights; it's about the lack of rights for people who want to be incestuous, polygamous, or polyamorous.
But it isn't really even about that. I bring up the gay issue because I want to point out the blatant hypocrisy people have in their ideology. Some people want gay marraige to be legal just because they want it. Then they dress it up in fancy langauge like "equal rights", but they don't beleive in equal rights at all. Not even a shred.
So eager to deny the right to marry someone you love to two people who are related, or 3 people who all love each other, but so eager to grant it to two people of the same gender?
Who's to say which relationship is more unnatural? Or more damaging? And why is lifestyle popularity any basis for law?
Do you think just because you type more for your answers it makes you right?
So basically, you're saying that because we fight for gay rights when some people think being gay is immoral, we should fight for rights of people who are incestous or into beastiality??
And stop citing the bible as any kind of source, for all we know the bible was written by some guy who just came up with a story line before movies became popular. NO scientific proof anywhere in that book. -
thrash;310804 wrote:
Who's to say which relationship is more unnatural? Or more damaging? And why is lifestyle popularity any basis for law?i have the be all end all answer for that question...
Y_O_U_R_G_O_D capitol period
-
thrash;310804 wrote:
That's debatableBut it's not illegal for people who are carriers for known genetic defects to get married.
And there are plenty of people who want to get married and don't want to have kids.
You have failed to explain why gay people have "the right" to get married and why relatives do not.
You also don't address why polygamy or polyamory is illegal.
Rights are not conditional things; they are intrinsic.
There is no intrinsic right to be married; legally, a marraige license is just that -- a license granted by the state. The state will not grant blind people a drivers license, and the state will not grant me a medical license.
I said that a biblical standard of morality asserts that practicing homosexuality is sinful.
I couldn't agree more.
Of course, there is no such thing as "a right to be married", after all, the state decides who can and cannot get married, and as near as I can tell, this decision is based on nothing more than "what most people want". It isn't based on any notion of an individual right, and it isn't extended to all people.
The notion of who can get married has no real rhyme or reason behind it, legally. It's not even clear why it is a legal issue.
Neither you nor I was alive in the 1800s, but I'll go out on a limb and wager that I'm considerably better read than you are on subjets of US history.
Historically in America, Black people weren't considered humans -- not in the way that whites were. Neither were the native Americans.
And not just by "stupid redneck racists", but by the founders of this country, and by presidents up to and including Lincoln. Lincoln supported freeing the slaves but didn't support giving them voting rights or similar priviledges, since, in his words, they didn't "have the intellectual capacity of whites".
Lincoln, the great emancipator, who you probably were taught started the civil war to end slavery. Nothing could be further from the truth. You can think of Lincoln's position on slavery as something akin to stopping Animal Cruelty. They weren't equal humans, but they did deserve to be treated better.
Did you know that blacks got counted as "3/5ths" of a human for census and voting-district reasons?
I mean, our constitution plainly says that all humans have certain natural rights, and the problem of slavery was alive and kicking during ratification. The "compromise" is that american indians and blacks were considered sub-human savages, and thus outside the normal protections of our law.
Again - all of this abhorrent thinking is by all of the most educated people who ended up founding the USA. Not toothless rednecks in the 1800s.
You don't know that I'm not gay.
Well, if it's my store, home, or church, and I am a bigot, then yes.
If it's a government owned place, and there is no credible evidence to suggest that "gay people" are contagious with something, then of course not.
My positions on this are considerably more complex and nuanced than you care to understand; I apologize i cannot explain it succintly enough for you to get my meaning without getting bored of reading.
You, however, do not seem interested in understanding, and you have some sort of gay persecution complex I guess.
Gay people don't need to be defended from me. On the contrary, it is my right to tell my kids what the bible says about homosexuality that is under attack; it is my right to run a business according to my wishes that is under attack [well, that ship sailed in 1964 with CRA, but it's about to get bigger].
I actually don't care what licenses the states want to grant to which people. I care about which of my freedoms the states will take away in order to do so.
But this post really isnt' about gay rights; it's about the lack of rights for people who want to be incestuous, polygamous, or polyamorous.
But it isn't really even about that. I bring up the gay issue because I want to point out the blatant hypocrisy people have in their ideology. Some people want gay marraige to be legal just because they want it. Then they dress it up in fancy langauge like "equal rights", but they don't beleive in equal rights at all. Not even a shred.
So eager to deny the right to marry someone you love to two people who are related, or 3 people who all love each other, but so eager to grant it to two people of the same gender?
Who's to say which relationship is more unnatural? Or more damaging? And why is lifestyle popularity any basis for law?
By the way, I never said I was against Polygamy, you keep just throwing new things out there. The reason I'm against incest relations is what if the child thats born is special needs?? Now thats not the kids fault and they might possibley be getting money from the state to help take care of that kid THEY created. As for beastiality, we have no way of knowing if the animal is consenting or not, so its more like animal rape
24valvenotak;310814 wrote:
i have the be all end all answer for that question...Y_O_U_R_G_O_D capitol period
:icon_cheers:
-
Kossick;310816 wrote:
By the way, I never said I was against Polygamy, you keep just throwing new things out there.I trying to get you to state what you do or don't support to show you the hypocrisy of your viewpoints.
The reason I'm against incest relations is what if the child thats born is special needs??
It's not illegal to have a special needs baby, nor is there anything in state law that tries to prevent it.
unrelated hetero couples who are known carriers for genetic defects aren't legally prevents from getting married.
And we've already established that "the point" of getting married isn't to have kids.
-
Kossick;310811 wrote:
Do you think just because you type more for your answers it makes you right?No, I think because I am not as clever as I wish I was, I cannot make a point or an argument without pages of text.
But at least I can make a point and an argument.
So basically, you're saying that because we fight for gay rights, we should fight for rights of people who are incestous or into beastiality??
Well, that would be nice, but you could at least refrain from contining to persecute people who are incestuous, polygamist, or beastialists. Apparently, their "rights" aren't as important as the "rights" of gay people to you. Why is that?
And stop citing the bible as any kind of source, for all we know the bible was written by some guy who just came up with a story line before movies became popular. NO scientific proof anywhere in that book.
This is a separate discussion, but yours [and the other criticisms of the bible in this thread] are pretty handily dismissed by anyone familiar with apologetics.
The bible is a source of morality -- in this country, a voluntary one. But it is the source that most Americans cite as where they get their system of morality from. That's why I keep mentioning it. Feel free to suggest a different standard of morality that we can agree upon.
Note that I am pretty clear to make a distinction between morality and law; both words were used in this discussion so i addressed both points.
-
thrash;310818 wrote:
It's not illegal to have a special needs baby, nor is there anything in state law that tries to prevent it.unrelated hetero couples who are known carriers for genetic defects aren't legally prevents from getting married.
And we've already established that "the point" of getting married isn't to have kids.
Where in the hell did anyone say it was illegal to have a special needs baby?? Just because someone is a carrier doesnt mean the child will be special needs, plus, that carrier didnt really have a choice in the matter as far as being the carrier did they? Whereas 2 closely related people having sex knowing they are raising the risk of a special needs child is wrong. And to be honest I could care less if some guy wants to fuck his cousin or whatever, as long as they arent trying to reproduce. Its their lifestyle and I'm not living it therefor it doesnt affect me. As for them getting married, like I said its their lifestyle, I'm not saying its right but I'm also not the one pointing how wrong it is. And PS when I said "relations" I used that word instead of sex, had nothing to do with marriage. I would think someone as "intelligent" as you would know what the word relations should mean.
-
thrash;310821 wrote:
Can you explain?whichever god you chose to call your own can be credited for your version of "right." it has nothing to do with equal rights, humanity, the greater good, or logical decision making.
thrash;310804 wrote:
Who's to say which relationship is more unnatural? Or more damaging? And why is lifestyle popularity any basis for law?lifestyle popularity any basis for law? how about religious popularity as basis for law? im not trying to bash religion or any god anyone on here may subscribe to, but this is 2010. keep your nose out of gay people's business. they know what YOU think will happen to them when they die and they seem to be just fine with it so why dont we all just take a famous lesson and turn the other cheek. i dont see a problem letting you marry six women, a dog, your sister, or your boat. just remove the tax exemptions and deductions and nobody will have a legitimate excuse to cry about it.
the fact is people are way to concerned with other people. who am i to say to you, "you cant love more then one woman." i mean seriously, who the fuck am i to say that? yet that is exactly what people say because christianity has a problem with it. i think that is bs. this isnt the republic of jesus, this is america. to me getting married is something you do to try and hold your significant other faithful to you and we all know how well that works. i could care less if you think that having a piece of paper in your hand will somehow fulfill you and make you a happier person. to each their own. i just dont see how any of us can decide who can and cannot enter into a contract based on their preference for a vag or butt... especially when some are just fine rootin around in both.
-
This is the crux of the whole problem, IMO. The government seems to think it has the right to decide who can and can't get married. Marriage worked just fine long before the government decided to issue a license for it. People would simply go to the church of their choice and get married. In fact, the reason the marriage license was invented in the US was due to racial issues. You had to get a special "marriage license" if you wanted to marry a white to a black. As usual, once the government got it's grubby fingers on things it keeps bastardizing things until it doesn't even resemble what it was originally. IMO, the government has no place in marriage. The "marriage license" is just a way for the government to take more of our money, and try to control more of our life. The decision on who can or can not get married belongs with the church.
thrash;310804 wrote:
Of course, there is no such thing as "a right to be married", after all, the state decides who can and cannot get married, and as near as I can tell, this decision is based on nothing more than "what most people want". It isn't based on any notion of an individual right, and it isn't extended to all people.DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;310834 wrote:
This is the crux of the whole problem, IMO. The government seems to think it has the right to decide who can and can't get married. Marriage worked just fine long before the government decided to issue a license for it. People would simply go to the church of their choice and get married. In fact, the reason the marriage license was invented in the US was due to racial issues. You had to get a special "marriage license" if you wanted to marry a white to a black. As usual, once the government got it's grubby fingers on things it keeps bastardizing things until it doesn't even resemble what it was originally. IMO, the government has no place in marriage. The "marriage license" is just a way for the government to take more of our money, and try to control more of our life. The decision on who can or can not get married belongs with the church.What about people who don't believe in the church but want to get married?
> Parker;299126 wrote:
> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah German cars are the best thing since sliced bread. -
thurmanmerman;310835 wrote:
What about people who don't believe in the church but want to get married?city hall / courthouse / vegas
-
24valvenotak;310865 wrote:
city hall / courthouse / vegasYeah, but dave's post was saying that there shouldn't be a legally issued license for it, aka the gov't shouldn't have their hand in it at all. If that's the case, then only people that believe in the church could get "married".
-
[QUOTE=bubba;310710]This,
Still waiting on some fucking pics...
rule #1 - Don't start a thread about a "hot chick" and not post nude or at least scantly clad photos
Ok ill get on them pics! if i see her again i will stop her and ask her to smile and send it right to here. sorry this is taking so long this girl is hard to find. the reason i didnt get a pic the first time was cuz she was driving away and didnt have time for one
-
PSiedTSi;310867 wrote:
Yeah, but dave's post was saying that there shouldn't be a legally issued license for it, aka the gov't shouldn't have their hand in it at all. If that's the case, then only people that believe in the church could get "married".i would play that game as long as the bible didnt somehow enforce alimony with ninja bishops or something?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login