Page 10 of 21
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 11:32 am
by Vince
I don't see how including yet two more reality television shows would make much of a difference. Though I will concede that the attitude towards marriage has degraded overall. I would suspect that the notion of choosing a spouse via a television contest in the '50's wouldn't have been as widely accepted as it is today.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 11:43 am
by Malcolm
Vince wrote:I don't see how including yet two more reality television shows would make much of a difference. Though I will concede that the attitude towards marriage has degraded overall. I would suspect that the notion of choosing a spouse via a television contest in the '50's wouldn't have been as widely accepted as it is today.
Something non-TV related. Or her.
Edited By Malcolm on 1412696661
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 8:47 pm
by TPRJones
thibodeaux wrote:...there has never ever been "gay marriage" in any human society.
This is incorrect. There have been many cultures throughout human history that recognized gay marriage. Somewhere back in the thread I inserted many links to list them. I'm too lazy to do it again.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 8:52 pm
by TPRJones
Vince wrote:I think what the left is aiming for is for marriage not to mean anything. Of course, they can't say that so they started with the rights for gays to marry. Next will be polygamy. Then marriage to your xbox.
Let's see, we have:
1) Two consenting adults in a (very likely) loving and (somewhat likely) committed relationship that want to have the rights conferred by society on such a union,
2) Three or more consenting adults in a (very likely) loving and (somewhat likely) committed relationship that want to have the rights conferred by society on such a union,
3) Some guy that wants to marry an appliance.
Can you not really see the big difference here? Are gay people and people who are in love with multiple people just appliances to you instead of actual human beings?
I don't doubt that some of the more extreme people in the left are actually anti-marriage, as you say. But it's likely a number similar to other extremist crackpot viewpoints. The vast majority just want to stop having all the evil shit that comes with not being able to be married to your de facto spouse stop happening to people.
Edited By TPRJones on 1412729617
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 9:45 pm
by Vince
TPRJones wrote:I don't doubt that some of the more extreme people in the left are actually anti-marriage, as you say. But it's likely a number similar to other extremist crackpot viewpoints. The vast majority just want to stop having all the evil shit that comes with not being able to be married to your de facto spouse stop happening to people.
The gay couples are going to have their feelings hurt when they same people that brought them to gay marriage shit all over their institute.
Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 10:01 pm
by TPRJones
If you are referring to polyamorous marriage, then I think those gays that consider it a threat to their own marriage are just as silly as the heterosexuals that think gay marriage threatens theirs. And I'll say so when the time comes.
And for the record I have no problem with someone that wants to marry their Xbox. I think its absurd and pretty much meaningless under the law since there are no rights to convey to an Xbox nor can an Xbox form contracts. But I wouldn't begrudge someone their happiness as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else because I'm a libertarian and that's what we do. I was just making the point that the comparison was flawed and not a logical extension of the current trend as established.
Edited By TPRJones on 1412733740
Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:19 pm
by TheCatt
Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:04 pm
by GORDON
Dumping your wife now to follow your heart?
Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 11:04 pm
by TheCatt
Stop reading my PMs to Thib.
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:54 am
by Vince
This doesn't seem like a good idea.
The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court.
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:55 am
by Leisher
I don't understand how anyone who has spent 5 minutes in law school could give this plan a thumbs up.
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2014 9:47 am
by TheCatt
The subpoenas are just the latest twist in an ongoing saga over the Houston’s new non-discrimination ordinance. The law, among other things, would allow men to use the ladies room and vice versa. The city council approved the law in June.
TPR can go to women's locker rooms now.
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2014 10:01 am
by Vince
I love how conservatives are called anti-science, but calling someone with a penis a male is discrimination.
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2014 10:21 am
by Malcolm
“This is the place where we stop the LGBT assault on the freedom to practice our faith.”
The gays aren't doing anything, fuckwit. The city's attorneys are the ones asking for your sermons. And they aren't doing it for anything remotely close to gay rights. They want reelection. They want money.
Mayor Parker will not explain why she wants to inspect the sermons. I contacted City Hall for a comment and received a terse reply from the mayor’s director of communications.
“We don’t comment on litigation,” said Janice Evans.
Of course not.
This is the moment I wrote about in my book, “God Less America.” I predicted that the government would one day try to silence American pastors. I warned that under the guise of “tolerance and diversity” elected officials would attempt to deconstruct religious liberty.
Said with the same wide-eyed psychosis that Chuckie Manson had the first time he listened to the white album.
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2014 10:49 am
by GORDON
TheCatt wrote:The subpoenas are just the latest twist in an ongoing saga over the Houston’s new non-discrimination ordinance. The law, among other things, would allow men to use the ladies room and vice versa. The city council approved the law in June.
TPR can go to women's locker rooms now.
South Park just did an episode about this. Cartman got sick of having to wait to use the shitters in the boy's bathroom so he put a bow in his hair, named himself trans gendered, and by law was allowed to shit in the girls' restroom.
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2014 12:35 pm
by Vince
If I have a dog that thinks it's a cat in one of these stupid cities, can I file suit against the city's leash laws for being insensitive to my pet's rights? I mean, what business is it of the government what species my pet sees him or herself as?
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2014 12:47 pm
by Malcolm
No. If this dude can't cross species, neither can your dog.
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2014 12:54 pm
by Vince
Malcolm wrote:No. If
this dude can't cross species, neither can your dog.
Damn. Are you absolutely positive that dude DIDN'T cross species lines?
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2014 12:55 pm
by GORDON
Go with the DNA for the final answer, I always say. Also applies to "gender."
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2014 2:00 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:Go with the DNA for the final answer, I always say. Also applies to "gender."
For species, you'll still have some grey areas. Not nearly as many as people.