ForbiddenFruit Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Yesterday was one of the best Saturdays I've had in a while, between driving well, having uninterrupted time to get into a game and a book, and a damn good concert, but something this morning ground my gears so roughly that it's like Saturday never happened. 1 Link to comment
BoTox Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 You have the right to love whomever you may that is of legal age. That is a right. 1 Link to comment
Guest Sasha Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 You have the right to love whomever you may that is of legal age. That is a right. 4 Link to comment
Jabez Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 You have the right to love whomever you may that is of legal age. That is a right. Link to comment
Bettypooh Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 BoTox, in the US marriage has a legal status that is not connected to any particular church(es) so your statement does not hold water any longer FF, I'm sorry that your day was ruined by these fools. FWIW all you can really do is ensure that your integrity remains above theirs. Those who learn advance and can thrive, those who do not learn will suffer and become extinct, and that is the way things are supposed to be I just wish it happened sooner and faster! Link to comment
BoTox Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 If marriage is now a contract, then simply meet the terms of the contract. 1 Link to comment
Guest Baby Rina Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 BoTox as a sterile male (because hey according to my equipment load out that's what I am) I am still in accordance with the law able to marry any woman who would so take me with 0 issue in the eyes of the courts or the church even though there is a 0% chance that will produce any off spring. 1 Link to comment
Bettypooh Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 If marriage is a contract, then why isn't every adult able to enter said contract? If it is for procreation then it is useless for we can procreate without a contract. If it restricted to those who can procreate then annul every marriage that does not produce children If it is to be between a "man and a woman" only then define the intersexed individuals who fit neither category and explain that while they have a life as a man or woman, they do not deserve the rights that go along with that And I haven't even reached the point of discussing the Transgendered The bottom line is that to be fair to everyone there must legally be either marriage for all or no marriage at all, and being fair to everyone equally without bias is as proper a concept as has ever existed. Are you suggesting that you are entitled to rights that others should not have when they have committed no crime? If so please explain why, and if not please explain why you are taking those extra rights the current system gives you and do not see the hypocrisy in doing that While you may not actively hate, your prejudice is exposed in your own words and I dare you to prove the validity of your position without reverting to improvable or disproven concepts If something not be fair to one, then it is not fair to anyone Bettypooh 2 Link to comment
Floaty_Boy Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 If marriage is now a contract, then simply meet the terms of the contract. Link to comment
ForbiddenFruit Posted April 1, 2013 Author Share Posted April 1, 2013 If marriage is now a contract, then simply meet the terms of the contract. 1 Link to comment
Diapered Jason Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Alright, time to put my lawyer hat on. Link to comment
ForbiddenFruit Posted April 1, 2013 Author Share Posted April 1, 2013 Bububububububut Jason, antimiscegenation laws were so so so so fair, because it put the same restrictions on whites as it did non-whites, it wasn't about keeping the coloured people down, we, we, uh, we wanted to preserve the purity of both races, yes, that's it, honest! Like...remember those nigge-uh, I mean people of colour that were campaigning against race mixing back in the day too? I...okay, I can't think of any, but I'm sure they existed! Link to comment
Baby Esmeralda Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Offended I'm not even aa and that wasn't right Link to comment
ForbiddenFruit Posted April 2, 2013 Author Share Posted April 2, 2013 They were a tiny, tiny, tiny minority - not to mention they weren't lawmakers. My point was more about the intent of the restrictions, rather than numbers of protestors. Even if some coloured people opposed race-mixing, the cliffnotes is that the laws were made to put them down, not to 'protect' each race. Think of white v coloured bathrooms. Link to comment
Waddles Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 They were a tiny, tiny, tiny minority - not to mention they weren't lawmakers. My point was more about the intent of the restrictions, rather than numbers of protestors. Even if some coloured people opposed race-mixing, the cliffnotes is that the laws were made to put them down, not to 'protect' each race. Think of white v coloured bathrooms. Though official membership within the Black Panther's may have been a relative minority, their sentiments were not necessarily strictly of the minority within the Link to comment
ForbiddenFruit Posted April 2, 2013 Author Share Posted April 2, 2013 Welp, very well, I let my hyperbole go over the facts. Mea culpa and thank you Link to comment
babykeiff Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 In really annoys me when some people, in order to make a point or win a point in a discussion, miss-use and.or misquote something..... Link to comment
BoTox Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 I did not quote any bible verse nor did I say it was the will of a god of any kind. I'm not particularly religious in any case although religion does play largely into the history of marriage since before recorded history. Link to comment
Guest Baby Rina Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Scary thought... let teh gays marry... then let teh gays adopt (OH NOES!!) and .. that'll get some of those children in poverty ... ya know out of poverty. I have a nice place, can't have kids of my own, and would be happy to adopt one or two... but wait single parent? Nope! K well there's 2 of us... are you married? well no because we can't get married.. .NOPE! 1 Link to comment
Diapered Jason Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Marriage is subsidized by the US government for the purpose of securing the well-being of potential offspring. It is the natural order of things. Only a man and a woman can combine to bring a child into the world and they are best prepared to nurture and raise the child. Same sex marriage cannot produce a child without outside intervention and is therefore not the natural order. 1 Link to comment
ForbiddenFruit Posted April 3, 2013 Author Share Posted April 3, 2013 Every time two men marry, a couple throws their child out of the house. You heard it here first, folks! Link to comment
Floaty_Boy Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 How delightfully ironic. In making a quip about someone's bigotry you have revealed your own bigotry... Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now