[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Historically your arguments on this subject have always pointed to the Slippery Slope argument. You rely upon materials that you find to validate the argument, and that's great! really it is, it shows that you can read those statements that directly agree with your own logic but are unwilling to consider arguments that oppose it.

you're making the assertion that we're at step 0, and that marriage has always been like it is today. History vigorously disagrees. Highlights of the past century include, but are not limited to the redefinition of:

• divorce laws
• adultery laws
• sodomy laws

as i've pointed out before - and am more than willing to juxtapose to this enumeration - the ACLU is lobbying for polygamists. A slippery slope would be many steps along, a-la marrying your coin collection. Sanctioned polygamy is being argued today.

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Very true, but you do support and argue for legislation that would hinder the rights of another group of people for no other reason than that it morally is against your own personal definition of what is sacrosanct. Thus, by weight of support alone, you are fully capable of hindering them from that which makes them happy. And by supporting said agreements that only coincide with your own personal logic you are judging another person's behavior.

so, i should support and argue for something that is counter to my moral basis? Would you have a problem if i supported & argued for legislation preventing 3 consenting adults from marrying? As you've said, they're consenting, what right do i have to prevent them from doing what makes them happy?

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
...the liklihood that the Social Security that is yanked from your paycheck is actually any form of security for you is slim to none...unless you get injured now and can no longer work.

you can stick your head in the sand if you want, but something's going to take place after it's sapped. What - i don't know.

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Besides, since Everyone has to contribute to SS, shouldn't everyone, in theory have a right to collect on it? Gay or not?

political 3rd rail thread.

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Ah yes, but you see the indecencies which you reference are only perpetrated by the priests, not by the young boys, not by other practicing catholics. So, by your argument, you're saying there are FAR more priests that molest young boys than there are gays? Somehow I think that's rather absurd. And the "unusual" situation I was referring to is the obligation of a priest to not engage in an sexual act with a "woman" thus many individuals of a not okay personality have viewed the church as an "okay" place to be where their indiscretions could at least be kept reasonably quiet. Definitely not okay, but not a representative of other homosexuals. These are pedophiles for the most part and not healthy people.

agreed.
you used the term "community" & that's what i focused on.
suffice it to say, the catholic church should allow for all men to be men of god in the church, not just those who take an oath to not marry.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
What countries allow gay Marriage JrB?

netherlands or finland or somewheres up there.
10 years almost, & divorce rate is nothing compared to kids born out of wedlock.

pretty sad.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by $tinkle
netherlands or finland or somewheres up there.
10 years almost, & divorce rate is nothing compared to kids born out of wedlock.

pretty sad.

so, 1 country out of the entire world?

great, yeah, the US is real behind the times

does it also happen to be the same country that allowes marijuana, prostitution and gives heroin addicts free heroin so they dont rob stuff?

sounds like where id want to raise my kids...

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
What countries allow gay Marriage JrB?

Lol...that wasn't my point...I was mostly just wondering why the US always seems so damned uptight about all this. Most of the countries I've visited don't get all wrapped up in the moral debates...but I could be totally off my rocker on that one. It was just a question

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Lol...that wasn't my point...I was mostly just wondering why the US always seems so damned uptight about all this. Most of the countries I've visited don't get all wrapped up in the moral debates...but I could be totally off my rocker on that one. It was just a question

Middle East prisoners in the news said they don't even get naked in front of their family, but US soldiers made them strip in front of lady GI's....seems like USA isn't in last place. Eh, Jr_B?

We could become like Japan and have video games where you simlulate sticking your finger up a females anus....then we will be liberated.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by $tinkle
you're making the assertion that we're at step 0, and that marriage has always been like it is today. History vigorously disagrees. Highlights of the past century include, but are not limited to the redefinition of:

• divorce laws
• adultery laws
• sodomy laws

True, marriage has been in flux over the ages. It became more rigid and then more relaxed and then more rigidly defined again. There are always those who want marriage to be something that is religious, there are those who want it not to necessarily be a church thing but still a commitment and personal thing, then there are those for whom it is nothing more than a contract. I personally don't really care so long as it's not harming another person how people choose to express their devotion to one another.

as i've pointed out before - and am more than willing to juxtapose to this enumeration - the ACLU is lobbying for polygamists. A slippery slope would be many steps along, a-la marrying your coin collection. Sanctioned polygamy is being argued today.

I gots no problem with it. That doesn't mean I want to be a part of a polygamists harem, nor do I want more than one man, but I have no issues with people doing as they please so long as they harm no one else and don't try to push their damned views on me.

so, i should support and argue for something that is counter to my moral basis? Would you have a problem if i supported & argued for legislation preventing 3 consenting adults from marrying? As you've said, they're consenting, what right do i have to prevent them from doing what makes them happy?

No, don't argue against your moral basis, so long as you are willing to actually consider and read through the arguments posed by the other side. I'm all about the middle ground. When there are two extreme opposites that start arguing to the point where reason and logic fall by the wayside, generally there is a middle ground that will not make everyone happy but will satiate the majority on both sides of the argument. I tend to think Rhino's suggested solution is probably the closest.

you can stick your head in the sand if you want, but something's going to take place after it's sapped. What - i don't know.

lol, now who's sticking their head in the sand? I will never rely upon a social system to take care of me. We live in a capitalist country, so long as that's that, I do not rely upon my government to give me what I have paid into over the years. Retirement is up to the individual to provide for themselves. I believe that social security is a fraudulent cover for more money the government needs to do day to day business. This is another thread tho .

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Middle East prisoners in the news said they don't even get naked in front of their family, but US soldiers made them strip in front of lady GI's....seems like USA isn't in last place. Eh, Jr_B?

We could become like Japan and have video games where you simlulate sticking your finger up a females anus....then we will be liberated.

God bless Japan. You can also buy dirty womens panties from vending machines there too.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Middle East prisoners in the news said they don't even get naked in front of their family, but US soldiers made them strip in front of lady GI's....seems like USA isn't in last place. Eh, Jr_B?

We could become like Japan and have video games where you simlulate sticking your finger up a females anus....then we will be liberated.

No one ever said last place....why are you putting words in my mouth that make it sound I'm on some extreme left wing perch here? yeesh

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
God bless Japan. You can also buy dirty womens panties from vending machines there too.

Japan is weird. Everything goes, except showing genitals on film. Imagine the most horrendous hardcore pornography, except the genitals of the actors are pixellated out. It's weird stuff.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
so, 1 country out of the entire world?

great, yeah, the US is real behind the times

does it also happen to be the same country that allowes marijuana, prostitution and gives heroin addicts free heroin so they dont rob stuff?

sounds like where id want to raise my kids...

beeber
out of wedlock births linked to gay unions (sfgate, no less!)

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by $tinkle
beeber
out of wedlock births linked to gay unions (sfgate, no less!)

Reminds me of this;

A recent Cincinnati Enquirer headline read, "SMELL OF BAKED BREAD MAY BE HEALTH HAZARD." The article went on to describe the dangers of the smell of baking bread. The main danger, apparently, is that the organic components of this aroma may break down ozone. When are we going to do something about bread-induced global warming? Sure, we attack tobacco companies, but when is the government going to go after Big Bread? Well, I've done a little research, and what I've discovered should make anyone think twice ....


More than 98 percent of convicted criminals are bread eaters.
Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardised tests.
In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever and influenza ravaged whole nations.
More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average Brit eats more bread than that in one month!
Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat, actually begged for bread after only two days.
Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to harder items such as butter, jam, peanut butter and even bacon.
Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product. You could quite literally be eaten by bread.
Newborn babies can choke on bread.
Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.
Most bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.
In light of these frightening statistics, we propose the following bread restrictions:

No sale of bread to minors.
No advertising of bread within 1000 feet of a school.
A 300 percent federal tax on all bread to pay for all the societal ills associated with bread.
No animal or human images, nor any primary colours (which may appeal to children) may be used to promote bread usage.
Heavy penalties to be incurred by bread manufacturers who do not comply with these sensible measures.
Join me and let's put a stop to this madness.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Snort...hahaha!!! Well done...bread...

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
No one ever said last place....why are you putting words in my mouth that make it sound I'm on some extreme left wing perch here? yeesh

Oops sorry Jr_B I miss read your post. You said we are inbetween the two extremes....more or less. I appologize. But your wording makes it sound like we are somehow backwards and not right in our level of sexuality in our culture. I didn't say you said we are in last place really I was asking you if we were as up tight as you mentioned.

I guess I was looking for some reason post about the prisoner comment and sneek the Japanese video game example in .....it is always so hard to get into a conversation.

"So, uh Jr_B, you seen dem New Jap video gamers where dey stic ur thumb up a virtual gilries hiney?" : no way Jose....well Jr_B is one of the cool girls I could probably say that to....Jr_B rocks. *kiss, kiss*smooches* Didn't mean to attack you Jr_B.....

From Jr_B:
Why is the US really one of the few states (countries?) where this is an issue?

We're kind of in the middle between religion-based governments, and liberal governments that let their people be sexually free.

I think we're just too damned uptight. Who cares...or why should we care? If my kids learn about homosexuality in a text book in school, I should hope I've raised them well enough that they'll talk to me about it.

How many parents raise their kids at all these days.....the awsome level you can raise your kids at contradicts with much of society today. So allowing it because you have raised your kids right....doesn't mean everyone has and that scares the parents who haven't done a good job.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Oops sorry Jr_B I miss read your post. You said we are inbetween the two extremes....more or less. I appologize. But your wording makes it sound like we are somehow backwards and not right in our level of sexuality in our culture. I didn't say you said we are in last place really I was asking you if we were as up tight as you mentioned.

I guess I was looking for some reason post about the prisoner comment and sneek the Japanese video game example in .....it is always so hard to get into a conversation.

"So, uh Jr_B, you seen dem New Jap video gamers where dey stic ur thumb up a virtual gilries hiney?" : no way Jose....well Jr_B is one of the cool girls I could probably say that to....Jr_B rocks. *kiss, kiss*smooches* Didn't mean to attack you Jr_B.....


How many parents raise their kids at all these days.....the awsome level you can raise your kids at contradicts with much of society today. So allowing it because you have raised your kids right....doesn't mean everyone has and that scares the parents who haven't done a good job.

No worries darlin I knows you weren't attacking me for that one, but often it does seem like I bump into people who are so uncomfortable with themselves sexually that they can't talk about it, or are so into proving something about themselves sexually that their life is about sex. So...it's sex ...we all do it, our bodies are meant to enjoy it, no matter what form it comes in...so what's up with either being totally retardedly uptight or totally retardedly crazy?
And as for the Japs...because this was a question I asked myself daily while I lived there and endured Anime during the dinner hour that depicted things like rape and making it okay...so I studied their history A Lot.
Historically, they viewed sexual acts as something to be cherished, to be fun, to be almost an art form.
It didn't get...well weird...until after us westerners with our very weird views on sex shoved our hairy faces in their country's business. Changing what was a celebrated tradition, like Geisha's, into really little more than prostitutes.

I guess to me it's like...well ...it's sex...and relationships..right? It's my business, not yours, and I don't want laws that limit what I can do or choose to do so long as it doesn't harm anyone and provides me with the pleasures I was born with.

Make sense...or still weird? Sometimes I'm not good at making objective arguments, much easier if I make it more personal though hypothetical.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
so what's up with either being totally retardedly uptight or totally retardedly crazy?

Are they mutually exclusive I am retarded all teh timebut I can be uptight and crazy at teh same time......lol

And as for the Japs...because this was a question I asked myself daily while I lived there and endured Anime during the dinner hour that depicted things like rape and making it okay...so I studied their history A Lot. Historically, they viewed sexual acts as something to be cherished, to be fun, to be almost an art form. It didn't get...well weird...until after us westerners with our very weird views on sex shoved our hairy faces in their country's business. Changing what was a celebrated tradition, like Geisha's, into really little more than prostitutes.

I wouldn't blame it all on us westerners for that Jr_B. It happened well after we poked our heads in. You have studied it more than I have I am sure but they are thier own people, they made their own choices.

I guess to me it's like...well ...it's sex...and relationships..right? It's my business, not yours, and I don't want laws that limit what I can do or choose to do so long as it doesn't harm anyone and provides me with the pleasures I was born with. Make sense...or still weird? Sometimes I'm not good at making objective arguments, much easier if I make it more personal though hypothetical.

But you are talking about making laws to say what is OK and that isn't much different than laws making it not OK.
Laws don't change perceptions or attitudes. Society needs to change it's views in items like this....proposed laws accelerating that change cause rifts (like gay marriage is these days) Until societies view changes we will have these arguments.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA

But you are talking about making laws to say what is OK and that isn't much different than laws making it not OK.
Laws don't change perceptions or attitudes. Society needs to change it's views in items like this....proposed laws accelerating that change cause rifts (like gay marriage is these days) Until societies view changes we will have these arguments. [/B]

I dunno about making laws that say it's okay, or making laws to say it isn't. With the repealing of all the sodomy laws last year by the supreme court, they are free to exist as they please.

Do our current laws specifically prohibit the marriage of homosexuals in the language? I mean I know it's unusual, but are they actually mentioned in our marriage laws? And if so...aren't we talking about repealing the restrictions in our current laws, rather than making new or special ones?

I'm not saying let's do something special just for them, but at least make it equal and fair.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
I dunno about making laws that say it's okay, or making laws to say it isn't. With the repealing of all the sodomy laws last year by the supreme court, they are free to exist as they please.

Do our current laws specifically prohibit the marriage of homosexuals in the language? I mean I know it's unusual, but are they actually mentioned in our marriage laws? And if so...aren't we talking about repealing the restrictions in our current laws, rather than making new or special ones?

I'm not saying let's do something special just for them, but at least make it equal and fair.

You said marriage laws.... What is equal and fair? There are already civil unions of some sort. I know this is going to be rehashing old issues......

but homosexuals want the title of "marriage" and that is the problem as I see it. This color is red issue again. homosexual couples are not the same as hetero couples. They are not equal(same) by the very root of marriage. That means they needs soemthing else that gives them the legal contractual obligation to each other...just not "Marriage"

Falls under Family Law Link to Cornell
small peice:
In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which, for federal purposes, defined marriage as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife"

 

[sshappy]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Listen,

THE PEOPLE dont want it.
I just dont see the point of all the trouble to please a few.

Ahh, modern democracy. Fvck the minorities, eh?

 

[sshappy]

Originally posted by $tinkle
SS, Medicaid, Medicare, the cost of these benefits would be levied upon you, me, them. This is just one aspect where - yes, indeedydo - it affects me

That's a crap reason to deny someone a formalised partnership.

After all, if they had your preferred sexual orientation they'd cost you money...

 

[sshappy]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
No one ever said last place....why are you putting words in my mouth that make it sound I'm on some extreme left wing perch here? yeesh

It's because you said something that they could actually attack (bringing the rest of the world comparision into the argument). Up to that point all they had was personal preferences and religious dogma.

You had 'em on the run up until then, running rings about them.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by sshappy
It's because you said something that they could actually attack (bringing the rest of the world comparision into the argument). Up to that point all they had was personal preferences and religious dogma.

You had 'em on the run up until then, running rings about them.

I don't think she exactly had everyone on the ropes.....

I questioned it to bring up Japans Video game and the prisoners comment on how "uptight" they were with human sexuality in contrast to even the US. I tried to do it in fun....you know lighten the discussion, and I failed in creating that tone in my post.

Infact all either side was presenting was personal preference and their own relious/non-religious dogmas on the subject. That is why this subject gets the attention it does.

But thanks for playing.

 

[Changleen]

Land of the Free....