So first it was a slippery slope into child marriages, and now it's a slippery slope into parent-arranged child marriages.

Seriously, are you fucking stupid?

As for polygamy, as long as everything is consensual between adults and nobody is being abused, mistreated, or neglected, I don't really have any inherent moral problems with that either, and neither does your Gaud, for that matter. Might want to check your bible again, Animal.

(July 16, 2015 at 4:27 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: So first it was a slippery slope into child marriages, and now it's a slippery slope into parent-arranged child marriages.

Seriously, are you fucking stupid?

As for polygamy, as long as everything is consensual between adults and nobody is being abused, mistreated, or neglected, I don't really have any inherent moral problems with that either, and neither does your Gaud, for that matter. Might want to check your bible again, Animal.

Ha ha. As stupid as anyone who may see the obvious can be.

I do not see how you cannot see the very things I have said coming about. People do them now! The only difference is right now the act is considered illegal under a rational basis prohibition, but it is not a major legal step to get there from here. Thanks to the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling marriage restrictions must now pass strict scrutiny and the marriage has be redefined as security and dignity centric. What is the states compelling interest in denying people additional security and dignity?

In fact there is more legal precedence for the recognition of child marriages with and without parental consent than there is for same sex marriage. Lest we forget the idea of marrying for love at 18 years of age or older is historically speaking very new. The concept is not even 100 years old. So as Chief Justice John Roberts Stated, "It is impossible to believe this court will not make the smaller jump having made the larger of same sex marriage."

So you might want to stop with the ad hominem and start considering the unintended consequences of the argument (or lackthereof) you are putting forth and stop worrying about what my Gaud is or is not doing.

(July 15, 2015 at 10:39 pm)Esquilax Wrote: No, see, I made the mistake of thinking that I was talking to a real human being and not, y'know, a cartoon evil robot. I figured it would be fairly trivial to point out the hypocrisy of your position, but it turns out your position is consistent, and as a consequence infinitely more vile than I could reasonably have imagined at the time. Subsequently, I see no point in even offering an argument to someone so grotesquely warped as you; the chances of you having anywhere near the same values as me are so low that I might as well take up the conversation with an emotionless insect. Maybe that species of wasp who lays its eggs in a tarantula. Seems less vicious than you.

Since I am not as vicious in life as I play on the internet. I would like to here your argument if you are willing to share it. Who knows perhaps you may warp this grotesque beast in to a staunch advocate.

It is worth a shot. After all you need to convince the critic not the choir who is already singing your tune.

[/quote]
As for polygamy, as long as everything is consensual between adults and nobody is being abused, mistreated, or neglected, I don't really have any inherent moral problems with that either, and neither does your Gaud, for that matter. Might want to check your bible again, Animal.
[/quote]

HAHAHA now that is some funny shit  . . , homosexuality is not in the Bible, (or is against the act) and therefor no one gives a fuck what that damn thing has to say. But polygamy is in the bible, so yea, lets use the Bible it has very important things to says.

Now that is some hypocrisy:   . . . fuck the bible (yes finally some logic ) . . . to . .   (with a god like voice)  Look to thou bible (echo, echo)  . . . (ummm, what the shit!!!!!!)

(July 15, 2015 at 10:39 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I might as well take up the conversation with an emotionless insect. Maybe that species of wasp who lays its eggs in a tarantula. Seems less vicious than you.

  HEY OVER HERE, EMOTIONLESS INSECT SPEAKING. . . .  .ANSWER  HIS/HER FUCKING QUESTION!!!!!!!

(July 16, 2015 at 4:04 pm)Anima Wrote:

(July 16, 2015 at 12:51 pm)Ace Wrote: I have a question on the treatment of people. If we treat each other the "same right now", and "always have" then why are there laws that define  protected classes? Or better yet why is the gay community wanting to receive protected class states? Given that the majority is in support of gay marriage, (60% to 70% was the last I read) who do you need protection from?
People who are in the 30% to 40%? which the number its self is not showing any powered dynamic on there part. All is in favor of the gay community.

Because public polls are not the same as election results.  Who would have thought people would ever say one thing in public and effectuate another thing in private.

But if a society is treating its people good and people know what is right and what is wrong, elections or voting for that matter should not the issue.

So, what you are saying is that people say we are equal but their actions are not so. But most of the Americans that are saying this are decent Americans, supporters of the gay community and its members that are saying that they treat all equally and are for equality. What is the likelihood that they will vote against if their clam? True there numbers do not equal polls but I would hope one stands by their own convictions. O are you saying that this pro majority is lying to itself and the people?

Because if a lager majority of people are in support of them, it really make no sense why the gay community is seeking a protected class statues. It is only a small group of people are or wish to not treat them equally.

So I am not seeing the need to fight for that statues when the "power" is in your favor? Its like getting car insurances when it is not required because the government will cover every thing. The step seems unnecessary so to know why they want it, is being asked

Anima I just read the response you gave me to one of my previous posts.

We need to go through my argument again.

It worked like this.

Because you used one ludicrous example to show that it was possible for homosexuality to lead to extinction, and because of that, you deemed homosexuality as wrong(or at the very least felt you had brought forth a coherent argument).
My response was:
If I can create an example where heterosexuality leads to extinction, then heterosexuality is also wrong according to the criteria you set to deem homosexuality immoral.

The entire argument is irrelevant to IVF costs, I know I have been mentioning them quite often, but you seem to be misunderstanding why I am mentioning them. You moved from making an argument that homosexuality is wrong based on principle to making an argument that homosexuality is wrong from a utilitarian perspective where we need to weigh all the costs and effects.

I am inclined to think this is your MO, however. Rather than addressing directly the points being presented, it is more convenient to dodge the question and move in between different arguments.

In response to your points about underpopulation being an issue. It is akin to saying because it was colder this winter on the Eastern Shore of the US, that the earth was on average colder this Winter. It is disingenuous.

Sorry for the late response, my computer screen cracked. I was out of commission for awhile.

(July 16, 2015 at 4:45 pm)Anima Wrote:

(July 16, 2015 at 4:27 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: So first it was a slippery slope into child marriages, and now it's a slippery slope into parent-arranged child marriages.

Seriously, are you fucking stupid?

As for polygamy, as long as everything is consensual between adults and nobody is being abused, mistreated, or neglected, I don't really have any inherent moral problems with that either, and neither does your Gaud, for that matter. Might want to check your bible again, Animal.

Ha ha. As stupid as anyone who may see the obvious can be.

I do not see how you cannot see the very things I have said coming about. People do them now! The only difference is right now the act is considered illegal under a rational basis prohibition, but it is not a major legal step to get there from here. Thanks to the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling marriage restrictions must now pass strict scrutiny and the marriage has be redefined as security and dignity centric. What is the states compelling interest in denying people additional security and dignity?

In fact there is more legal precedence for the recognition of child marriages with and without parental consent than there is for same sex marriage. Lest we forget the idea of marrying for love at 18 years of age or older is historically speaking very new. The concept is not even 100 years old. So as Chief Justice John Roberts Stated, "It is impossible to believe this court will not make the smaller jump having made the larger of same sex marriage."

So you might want to stop with the ad hominem and start considering the unintended consequences of the argument (or lackthereof) you are putting forth and stop worrying about what my Gaud is or is not doing.

The Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy, and claiming it's true in the legal world is Special Pleading, which is also a logical fallacy. Until you have an argument based on facts and not textbook examples of bullshit, fuck off.

Where are the child marriages that will inevitably follow then?

Go try and marry a child, see how that works out for you.

This reminds me of when the BBFC tried to ban Manhunt 2 because it would "cause harm". They took it as far as the high court, just as with gay marriage, in a desperate attempt to make slippery slope vague bullshit arguments. It finally got released and... nothing happened. Big surprise.

(July 16, 2015 at 4:45 pm)Anima Wrote: Thanks to the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling marriage restrictions must now pass strict scrutiny and the marriage has be redefined as security and dignity centric.

Please tell me you aren't confusing the respondents' concentrating on a procreative centric definition of marriage and the actual definition of marriage. The respondents concentrated on this aspect of marriage because they knew there was no way in hell any of the other commonly accepted and well known attributes of marriage could be used in argument and have a chance in of surviving a 14th amendment challenge. The definition of marriage hasn't changed, the procreative centric concentration was simply the only viable defense available.