did you not understand."I mean, I don't mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point,"....
Hm. That sentence makes it sound as if he is retarded. If that's the case, I regret laughing at him.Baldy wrote:"I mean, I don't mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point,"....
Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:Why would he want to tie himself down to one horse when there are so many other horses out there for him to blow? I'll have to assume that's what he's thinking about anyway.
...but you were wanting to.mainejeff wrote:I didn't even post on this thread, azzhole.travelinman67 wrote:...to save time.
Grazzle, hd, mj, douchebag...
...go find somewhere else to play. I don't have time to listen to your ideologic vomit today and it contributes nothing to debate.
I think SE may be starting a new board.
Sorry, but Kanzi needed my attention.dbackjon wrote:How are you right? Absolutely NO connection.
Face it, you tried to be a smart-ass, and got your ass handed to you.
How do you know our culture won't someday decide that certain non human animals can consent? Seriously. How do you know? If you'd have asked people 60 years ago if we'd ever even seriously consider homosexual marriage they'd have laughed you off the street. We have an element in this society that looks at certain animals as sentient beings. Certain animals are deemed to have self awareness.Comparing bestiality to homosexuality is retarded.
Animals can't consent. Adult humans can.
I am asserting that same sex marriage will become the law of the land, and will closely be followed by a constitutional challenge legalizing polygamy, human/animal and human/inanimate-object marriage.
http://www.marryyourpet.com/dbackjon wrote:First off, show me ONE instance where a human LEGALLY married an animal.
Go ahead, and do it.
Second, the leap from going between two consenting adults of opposite sex to two consenting adults of the same sex is VERY SMALL. Anything thing else is a HUGE, HUGE leap.
you are smarter than this, T-man.
I'll take my chances on that. You spend way to much time worring about the slippery slope.JohnStOnge wrote:How do you know our culture won't someday decide that certain non human animals can consent? Seriously. How do you know? If you'd have asked people 60 years ago if we'd ever even seriously consider homosexual marriage they'd have laughed you off the street. We have an element in this society that looks at certain animals as sentient beings. Certain animals are deemed to have self awareness.Comparing bestiality to homosexuality is retarded.
Animals can't consent. Adult humans can.
Besides, just because homosexuality and beastiality are different in one respect doesn't mean they can't be compared. They are still similar with respect to the fact that both a person who has a sex drive primarily directed toward members of his or her own species of the same sex and a person who has a sex drive primarily directed towards members of some other species have sex drives that don't really fit with the underlying function of the drive. It's like having a hunger drive primarily directed towards eating sand.
Just another way to justify bigotry.BlueHen86 wrote:I'll take my chances on that. You spend way to much time worring about the slippery slope.JohnStOnge wrote:
How do you know our culture won't someday decide that certain non human animals can consent? Seriously. How do you know? If you'd have asked people 60 years ago if we'd ever even seriously consider homosexual marriage they'd have laughed you off the street. We have an element in this society that looks at certain animals as sentient beings. Certain animals are deemed to have self awareness.
Besides, just because homosexuality and beastiality are different in one respect doesn't mean they can't be compared. They are still similar with respect to the fact that both a person who has a sex drive primarily directed toward members of his or her own species of the same sex and a person who has a sex drive primarily directed towards members of some other species have sex drives that don't really fit with the underlying function of the drive. It's like having a hunger drive primarily directed towards eating sand.
No.......not really.travelinman67 wrote:...but you were wanting to.mainejeff wrote:
I didn't even post on this thread, azzhole.
Ummm...TMan?...I noticed you hadn't responded to Dane's post regarding the legality of the Mass law? And if Mass can specify two persons in their law, why couldn't AZ, NC, La, etc, etc? just wondering....travelinman67 wrote:...still no response...dbackjon wrote:Reach of the year nomination #1: T-man
...because you KNOW I'm right...
...just as I was last time we had this debate.
Because the horses voted neigh.ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:If your going to give special rights to gays then why not horses?
Cheesy, but still a good one.BlueHen86 wrote:Because the horses voted neigh.ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:If your going to give special rights to gays then why not horses?
Blowhard, Dane nailed you a few threads ago. You're done. Next.travelinman67 wrote:See if you can defend your position with facts rather than digressing to a D1B playground posture.dbackjon wrote:
You've officially lost it.
If you reallly think this, then there is really no help for you.
It's simple.
Are current marital contracts a function of gender?
Won't it become necessary to remove that function to facilitate same-sex marriage?
Is the argument for removal based upon equal rights of individuals to love whom they choose and contractually bind that relationship?
If the freedom to choose is paramout, then how can non-human bonds be denied?
Brilliant!BlueHen86 wrote:Because the horses voted neigh.ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:If your going to give special rights to gays then why not horses?
Exactly. Jon knows he's fishing too.Appaholic wrote:Ummm...TMan?...I noticed you hadn't responded to Dane's post regarding the legality of the Mass law? And if Mass can specify two persons in their law, why couldn't AZ, NC, La, etc, etc? just wondering....travelinman67 wrote:
...still no response...
...because you KNOW I'm right...
...just as I was last time we had this debate.
At face value, the premise for overturning the hetero limitation (founded principally on the precept that heteros form contractual relationships with the intent of procreating), to shifting to a precept of marriage as a contract between two people (humans), incapable of procreating, then opens the door to allow marital contracts between any two consenting parties. Since inanimate objects cannot express consent (incapable), then their "consent" is moot. But nothing prevents more than two people from consenting, so any "law" excluding contracts beyond the "two person" codification, become legally untenable (indefensable).Appaholic wrote:Ummm...TMan?...I noticed you hadn't responded to Dane's post regarding the legality of the Mass law? And if Mass can specify two persons in their law, why couldn't AZ, NC, La, etc, etc? just wondering....travelinman67 wrote:
...still no response...
...because you KNOW I'm right...
...just as I was last time we had this debate.
What the fuck do you know, sous chef.D1B wrote:Exactly. Jon knows he's fishing too.Appaholic wrote:
Ummm...TMan?...I noticed you hadn't responded to Dane's post regarding the legality of the Mass law? And if Mass can specify two persons in their law, why couldn't AZ, NC, La, etc, etc? just wondering....
...until JSO moves to Scottsdale.AZGrizFan wrote:Awesome. This clinches the seat for McCain.
Nice backpeddal, Ass Jack.travelinman67 wrote:At face value, the premise for overturning the hetero limitation (founded principally on the precept that heteros form contractual relationships with the intent of procreating), to shifting to a precept of marriage as a contract between two people (humans), incapable of procreating, then opens the door to allow marital contracts between any two consenting parties. Since inanimate objects cannot express consent (incapable), then their "consent" is moot. But nothing prevents more than two people from consenting, so any "law" excluding contracts beyond the "two person" codification, become legally untenable (indefensable).Appaholic wrote:
Ummm...TMan?...I noticed you hadn't responded to Dane's post regarding the legality of the Mass law? And if Mass can specify two persons in their law, why couldn't AZ, NC, La, etc, etc? just wondering....
Bet me.
Corporations are people too.travelinman67 wrote:At face value, the premise for overturning the hetero limitation (founded principally on the precept that heteros form contractual relationships with the intent of procreating), to shifting to a precept of marriage as a contract between two people (humans), incapable of procreating, then opens the door to allow marital contracts between any two consenting parties. Since inanimate objects cannot express consent (incapable), then their "consent" is moot. But nothing prevents more than two people from consenting, so any "law" excluding contracts beyond the "two person" codification, become legally untenable (indefensable).Appaholic wrote:
Ummm...TMan?...I noticed you hadn't responded to Dane's post regarding the legality of the Mass law? And if Mass can specify two persons in their law, why couldn't AZ, NC, La, etc, etc? just wondering....
Bet me.
