0 registered members (),
123
guests, and 12
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums21
Topics42,841
Posts1,070,518
Members10,349
|
Most Online1,100 Jun 10th, 2024
|
|
|
Re: DOMA
[Re: SC]
#707991
04/03/13 01:14 AM
04/03/13 01:14 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,657
jace
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,657
|
It figures that the people who support homosexual marriage and adoption are degenerates who can't post with any constructive arguments, but only with degenerate comments. Specifically, Afsaneh. OK. The April Fool joke is done and over and the Sheriff is back in town. Calling afsaneh a degenerate is despicable and I won't stand for it. She remains one of the most humane, intelligent and compassionate persons I know. Don't like her politics? Fine. Argue yours with hers. Call her a degenerate? Uh, Uh, Uh!! Won't be allowed here. Don't like that ruling? Tough titties! The Sheriff is back! Beware!!! jace, you can start by apologizing to afsaneh. She got off topic, and made it personal by bringing my family into it. By the way, second time someone on here has insulted my family out of nowhere.
Last edited by jace; 04/03/13 01:15 AM.
|
|
|
Re: DOMA
[Re: afsaneh77]
#707992
04/03/13 01:17 AM
04/03/13 01:17 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,657
jace
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,657
|
I didn't report anything, and I certainly don't get offended being called anything by this jace fella. I was trying to make a point, and I went personal, so it hit a nerve. But these debates are personal. You can't offend people by calling their sex lives, which is BTW between consenting adults sick, and not get a personal remark right back at you. Edit: Now I see SC's post. Thanks, but really, I don't really need her to apologize. We're debating. It's quite all right. Again, I am not a "Fella." As for what consenting adults do in private, that is private. When they announce to world what they do in private, and demand people change their views to accept it, it is no longer private.
|
|
|
Re: DOMA
[Re: jace]
#707994
04/03/13 01:43 AM
04/03/13 01:43 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 31,300 New Jersey, USA
J Geoff
The Don
|
The Don
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 31,300
New Jersey, USA
|
She got off topic, and made it personal by bringing my family into it. By the way, second time someone on here has insulted my family out of nowhere. First off, it was a hypothetical question. Look it up if you don't understand the word. Sweet Afs would (and has) never been disrespectful to anyone. So stop being so hypersensitive and thin-skinned during a debate and let it go already. Get out of the kitchen if you can't take the heat. Sheesh!
I studied Italian for 2 semesters. Not once was a "C" pronounced as a "G", and never was a trailing "I" ignored! And I'm from Jersey! lol Whaddaya want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? --Peter Griffin My DVDs | Facebook | Godfather Filming Locations
|
|
|
Re: DOMA
[Re: jace]
#707998
04/03/13 01:48 AM
04/03/13 01:48 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,602 Yunkai
afsaneh77
Mother of Dragons
|
Mother of Dragons
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,602
Yunkai
|
She got off topic, and made it personal by bringing my family into it. By the way, second time someone on here has insulted my family out of nowhere. You are not the one to talk here. Someone who suggests media should address molester priests as gay pedophiles, as if pedophilia is about sexual orientation, and tries to label gays as pedophiles; someone who has no problem calling personal relationship between adults as sick, has no grounds to say she was insulted and it came from nowhere, even if it was an insult. And BTW, I asked a question. If you dare insult gays by implying they have sex in front of their children and that might confuse them, then how come it's an insult when the same question is asked about yourself?
"Fire cannot kill a dragon." -Daenerys Targaryen, Game of Thrones
|
|
|
Re: DOMA
[Re: jace]
#708000
04/03/13 01:58 AM
04/03/13 01:58 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,602 Yunkai
afsaneh77
Mother of Dragons
|
Mother of Dragons
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,602
Yunkai
|
I didn't report anything, and I certainly don't get offended being called anything by this jace fella. I was trying to make a point, and I went personal, so it hit a nerve. But these debates are personal. You can't offend people by calling their sex lives, which is BTW between consenting adults sick, and not get a personal remark right back at you. Edit: Now I see SC's post. Thanks, but really, I don't really need her to apologize. We're debating. It's quite all right. Again, I am not a "Fella." As for what consenting adults do in private, that is private. When they announce to world what they do in private, and demand people change their views to accept it, it is no longer private. I'm not sure why you think when a straight couple gets married, their sex to the rest of us is less yucky than anyone else's, or that I would have to accept their sex style, be it missionary, all the way to including bondage and discipline. Who cares? You don't have to accept it. Government does. Not sure why you think you are entitled to marriage benefits while gays should not have the same entitlements. Aren't they the citizens of the same country? Don't they pay the same taxes that you pay? Just because you are not accepting of their life style, they should not be getting spousal benefits?
"Fire cannot kill a dragon." -Daenerys Targaryen, Game of Thrones
|
|
|
Re: DOMA
[Re: afsaneh77]
#708182
04/03/13 09:51 PM
04/03/13 09:51 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,534
IvyLeague
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,534
|
I'm not sure why you think when a straight couple gets married, their sex to the rest of us is less yucky than anyone else's, or that I would have to accept their sex style, be it missionary, all the way to including bondage and discipline. Who cares? You don't have to accept it. Government does. Not sure why you think you are entitled to marriage benefits while gays should not have the same entitlements. Aren't they the citizens of the same country? Don't they pay the same taxes that you pay? Just because you are not accepting of their life style, they should not be getting spousal benefits? As I've brought a number of times now, and which you and others conveniently sidestep, the U.S. decided on what it considered "marriage" over a century ago when they outlawed polygamy. Even though the polygamists actually were denied their Constitutional right of freedom of religion under the First Amendment. And you and every other secular liberal from then till now didn't say jack about it. But now, when it involves gay marriage, you want to change the rules. This is a classic example of how, despite all the talk, you people couldn't care less about "rights" unless they fit your personal social agenda. And the government doesn't necessarily "have" to accept anything. The issue should be left up to the states. But we all know why you and other libs don't want that, don't we?
Last edited by IvyLeague; 04/03/13 09:53 PM.
Mods should mind their own business and leave poster's profile signatures alone.
|
|
|
Re: DOMA
[Re: IvyLeague]
#708190
04/03/13 10:06 PM
04/03/13 10:06 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,745
BAM_233
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,745
|
I'm not sure why you think when a straight couple gets married, their sex to the rest of us is less yucky than anyone else's, or that I would have to accept their sex style, be it missionary, all the way to including bondage and discipline. Who cares? You don't have to accept it. Government does. Not sure why you think you are entitled to marriage benefits while gays should not have the same entitlements. Aren't they the citizens of the same country? Don't they pay the same taxes that you pay? Just because you are not accepting of their life style, they should not be getting spousal benefits? As I've brought a number of times now, and which you and others conveniently sidestep, the U.S. decided on what it considered "marriage" over a century ago when they outlawed polygamy. Even though the polygamists actually were denied their Constitutional right of freedom of religion under the First Amendment. And you and every other secular liberal from then till now didn't say jack about it. But now, when it involves gay marriage, you want to change the rules. This is a classic example of how, despite all the talk, you people couldn't care less about "rights" unless they fit your personal social agenda. And the government doesn't necessarily "have" to accept anything. The issue should be left up to the states. But we all know why you and other libs don't want that, don't we? I thought polygamy was attacked by other religious groups (more like how they attacked alcohol) and it lead to it being banned. I might be wrong though.
|
|
|
Re: DOMA
[Re: olivant]
#708202
04/03/13 11:02 PM
04/03/13 11:02 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,534
IvyLeague
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,534
|
While the attempt to draw a connection to past civil rights causes is obvious, the difference is her and her fellow gays want their relationships, and not just themselves, to be recognized differently by the government. They want gay "marriages" to be seen as equal to straight marriages and they're not. Sorry if that's not politically correct but it's the truth. There is no US Code that makes polygamy illegal; the last code was repealed during the 1970s. While the definition of religious marriage is a function of individual religions, the definition of civil marriage is a function of state codes. Codes in all 50 states make civil polygamy illegal. I'm not sure what you're trying to say but those codes are the result of people in this country deciding long ago what they do and don't consider marriage. It was decided long ago that marriage is one man and one woman. The only reason we're seeing the gay marriage issue raised now, despite nothing said all these years about polygamy, is that the libs sympathize with the gays and not with polygamists. Even though it's the polygamists who actually have a real case when it comes to their rights being denied.
Mods should mind their own business and leave poster's profile signatures alone.
|
|
|
Re: DOMA
[Re: EastHarlemItal]
#708232
04/04/13 05:34 AM
04/04/13 05:34 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,602 Yunkai
afsaneh77
Mother of Dragons
|
Mother of Dragons
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,602
Yunkai
|
It was considered long ago as such? Well, now it is being considered again. We didn't say jack about it in 70s when polygamy was banned? Hey, I was born in 70s. I doubt I could say jack about anything. I'm not against any form of marriage, even I don't care if Woody Allen married his step daughter. As I said before, if they are of age and consenting, why do I care? Good for them. And tough luck for anyone who wants to put their nose in others' business, or put his or her marriage in a scale and say, oooooh, no, our marriage is so much more marriagy than their marriage.
"Fire cannot kill a dragon." -Daenerys Targaryen, Game of Thrones
|
|
|
Re: DOMA
[Re: afsaneh77]
#708248
04/04/13 08:56 AM
04/04/13 08:56 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,554 On the toilet
EastHarlemItal
OP
BANNED
|
OP
BANNED
Underboss
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,554
On the toilet
|
So what is the general consensus on how the Supreme Court will rule?
Last edited by EastHarlemItal; 04/04/13 08:57 AM.
"Because I'm the Boss"
Tony Salerno
|
|
|
Re: DOMA
[Re: jace]
#708314
04/04/13 02:00 PM
04/04/13 02:00 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 11,468 With Geary in Fredo's Brothel
dontomasso
Consigliere to the Stars
|
Consigliere to the Stars
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 11,468
With Geary in Fredo's Brothel
|
If any two consenting adults marrying or being in relationship is always ok, then incest would be legalized. Mothers marrying sons, fathers marrying daughters, a brother marrying his sister. The argument "If they are adults, it's ok" is crazy. In fact, most every argument for homosexual marriage can be used to justify incest. What? Where does it say that the two people being married can be brothers or sisters? Last time I checked there were laws on the books forbidding incest. There is a huge difference between incest and gay marriage. Incestuous relationships are not only subject to religious taboo, they are demonstrably prone to offspring with birth defects, thus there is a harm to society. I hardly think allowing gay marriage is going to create a huge demand for guys to marry their daughters and sisters (except in the red states which oppose gay marriage and where incest is the rule not the exception already).
"Io sono stanco, sono imbigliato, and I wan't everyone here to know, there ain't gonna be no trouble from me..Don Corleone..Cicc' a port!"
"I stood in the courtroom like a fool."
"I am Constanza: Lord of the idiots."
|
|
|
Re: DOMA
[Re: EastHarlemItal]
#708315
04/04/13 02:04 PM
04/04/13 02:04 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 11,468 With Geary in Fredo's Brothel
dontomasso
Consigliere to the Stars
|
Consigliere to the Stars
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 11,468
With Geary in Fredo's Brothel
|
So what is the general consensus on how the Supreme Court will rule? I have always maintained the Prop 8 issue will be dismissed on the issue of standing, and I stick by that. Too many of the "liberal" justices were concerned about this issue during questioning. I also will go out on a limb here and say DOMA will be struck down on a 6-3 vote with Roberts voting with the majority and Scalia, Alito and Thomas strongly dissenting. The inside baseball politics here is the Court kicks the can down the road on gay marriage, at least for now, but gets rid of DOMA, leaving things up to the states. I think Roberts will be on the winning side of both issues, thus furthering his personal agenda to make this HIS court, not Scalia's. This is in line with what he did on Obamacare.
"Io sono stanco, sono imbigliato, and I wan't everyone here to know, there ain't gonna be no trouble from me..Don Corleone..Cicc' a port!"
"I stood in the courtroom like a fool."
"I am Constanza: Lord of the idiots."
|
|
|
Re: DOMA
[Re: dontomasso]
#708319
04/04/13 02:10 PM
04/04/13 02:10 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,657
jace
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,657
|
If any two consenting adults marrying or being in relationship is always ok, then incest would be legalized. Mothers marrying sons, fathers marrying daughters, a brother marrying his sister. The argument "If they are adults, it's ok" is crazy. In fact, most every argument for homosexual marriage can be used to justify incest. What? Where does it say that the two people being married can be brothers or sisters? Last time I checked there were laws on the books forbidding incest. There is a huge difference between incest and gay marriage. Incestuous relationships are not only subject to religious taboo, they are demonstrably prone to offspring with birth defects, thus there is a harm to society. I hardly think allowing gay marriage is going to create a huge demand for guys to marry their daughters and sisters (except in the red states which oppose gay marriage and where incest is the rule not the exception already). The argument for gay marriage is often "Anything consenting adults want to do is their business, and they should be allowed to marry if they want" Same can be used for incest. There were laws forbidding gay marriage (rightly so) The same arguments being used to overturn them can be used to justify and legalize incest. 'Whats wrong with 2 adults in love.." ???
|
|
|
Re: DOMA
[Re: dontomasso]
#708325
04/04/13 02:18 PM
04/04/13 02:18 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,595
fathersson
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,595
|
This Thread just goes to show everyone what is in some people minds out there. How they think and what they trust to be true. Wow and at times what I read worrys me! If you say A- someone will say B and if you say B some will say that it is bullshit! this last example really took the cake. If this, then we should allow this and allow that...yeah yeah yeah... DT I really like that last one: Incestuous relationships are not only subject to religious taboo, they are demonstrably prone to offspring with birth defects, thus there is a harm to society. and the old, Don't play with yourself or you will go blind! comes to mind also religious taboo- gay marraige isn't? and the church say one thing and some clergy love little boys! birth defects- you would see more do to smoking, drugs, booze and the list goes on and on and on... before incestuous realationships. hey if you don't want your sister, then why would we?
ONLY gun owners have the POWER to PROTECT and PRESERVE our FREEDOM. "...it is their (the people's) right and duty to be at all times armed" - Thomas Jefferson, June 5, 1824
Everyone should read. "HOW TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD"
CAUTION: This Post has not been approved by Don Cardi.
You really don't expect people to believe your shit do you?
Read: "The Daily Apple"- Telling America and the Gangster BB like it really is!
|
|
|
Re: DOMA
[Re: dontomasso]
#708409
04/04/13 08:08 PM
04/04/13 08:08 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,718 Berlin, Germany
Danito
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,718
Berlin, Germany
|
Jace you miss the point. Incest reslts in demonstrable risk of birth defects...it is a health issue. Gay marriage is not. You are mixing apples and oranges. And BTW before you ask I have no problem with polygamy. So far I found Jace's points ridiculous. BUT: The health issue doesn't apply. You could make incestuous sex illegal and still have incestuos marriage legal. Anyway, why would somebody want to marry someone closely related? Well, this is a dead end way of discussion.
Last edited by Danito; 04/04/13 08:09 PM.
|
|
|
Re: DOMA
[Re: Danito]
#708423
04/04/13 09:27 PM
04/04/13 09:27 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,745
BAM_233
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,745
|
Jace you miss the point. Incest reslts in demonstrable risk of birth defects...it is a health issue. Gay marriage is not. You are mixing apples and oranges. And BTW before you ask I have no problem with polygamy. So far I found Jace's points ridiculous. BUT: The health issue doesn't apply. You could make incestuous sex illegal and still have incestuos marriage legal. Anyway, why would somebody want to marry someone closely related? Well, this is a dead end way of discussion. Incestous marriage only happened in royal families to keep there blood line 'pure'. Of course most of the descendants had Hemophilia (when the blood doesn't clot) if I remember correctly. Why some still do it now...only those involved know.
|
|
|
Re: DOMA
[Re: olivant]
#708430
04/04/13 09:57 PM
04/04/13 09:57 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,534
IvyLeague
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,534
|
By the way, someone posted that marriage should be left up to the states. It is. Tell that to Californians, who have voted twice now to uphold Prop 8, only to have the courts overturn their will. This is always the argument, isn't it? If gay marriage is OK, then the next step is incest, bestiality, pedophilia... It's absurd. There is no comparison. The argument is, if gay marriage is allowed, it's not hard to believe this other stuff will come about. Not the next day or the next year. But you can't say it won't. Years ago, gays "marrying" would have been unthinkable. People here say, "Well, as long as it involves consenting adults." So, even though these people go further at allowing certain things than EastHarlem, jace, or myself, they do draw a line somewhere. But maybe others draw the line even further then you do. And sooner or later, they're going to be clamoring for their "rights" too.
Mods should mind their own business and leave poster's profile signatures alone.
|
|
|
|