Poop gate has been overpooped
- Thread starter Zxanphorian
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Lizard Of Oz
Demented Avenger
So?So, that would make it... natural?
Tuna rolls are also natural; I don't see much discussion about tuna rolls here.
Reformation is needed.
I am confused by what Sir Brizz is saying in this thread. So it's ok that your wife marries somebody else so she can take it in every hole. Go ass to mouth and then get a mouth full of cum and spit it on his cock because that's how they do it in that family. Then come home and kiss you with her cum glazed mouth. Mormons have some strange values. I guess gang bangs are only frowned upon if everyone is not married to everyone else of the opposite sex in the gang bang. Where do you guys draw the line. Can your wife **** all of her other husbands at once? Get DPed or you and another husband could double pen her vag or asshole?
That's fine and all, but the whole argument around the 14th is regarding rights. The "protections" you're advocating would be handled as laws (as long as they don't violate rights).
Then shouldn't the people decide what it contains?
You're making two separate arguments here. One, that some action is not illegal because is not exclusively forbidden; two, that some other action is not legal because it is not exclusively allowed.
Your argument about incest works just as well if applied generally to homosexuals: they do not promote the general welfare of the population because they can't have children at all... right? Sorry, but the same "not that many people practice it" and "not all of them would have children" and other silly arguments could be applied in both cases. So avoiding the topic entirely like you have is simply illogical.
As for the "cat example", I was simply leading off what you said. Sillier things have happened than a crazy person admitting their animal as a "person" in some governmental inquiry.
Who is making that case? I don't think even Larkin has said that in this thread. My point is simply if the 14th amendment has no contextual relevance, then it shouldn't have ANY contextual relevance and separate laws need to be put in place that specifically exclude certain types of marriage.
Also, how is it a strawman if I specifically lead off of your own words? You said "two consenting adults" were the only requirements according to the 14th amendment.
So your point is that because of one issue with polygamy that could easily be resolved in a number of ways, we just make it illegal. Ok.
You're right. Two consenting adults. What constitutes an adult? There is no distinction so there is no false slippery slope.
Again, something that can easily be resolved is grounds for excusing the entire act. Ok.
I think the answers to your questions are obvious. The government can regulate certain privileges because restricting a person of a privilege can also restrict them from a right. To do the former is meaningless unless you also do the latter.
I guess what I don't get is how this would be any different from a man marrying one woman who has a child and so he leaves, and then marries another woman who has a child and he leaves. There is no tangible difference between the two scenarios: if a guy is a loser and a leaver, he will continue to be a loser and a leaver. I'm not saying bad things wouldn't happen to polygamist families, I'm saying that it would do nothing to the status quo. In fact, there could be a net benefit since the two women would presumably have some kind of relationship with one another.
I'd say it wouldn't increase or decrease and there is no evidence to even srt of back up the claim that it would.Again, two things can't happen concurrently. You think that men who are married would never in their life dream of sleeping with someone else? Yeah, that happens already, in and out of marriage. But make it legal. And you think there's absolutely no chance of this kind of behavior increasing? I'd say you'd be quite wrong.
That's like saying that since you can get divorced we need to get rid of marriage altogether because of the possibility that people are left unhappy in bad circumstances. Polygamy wouldn't even change that.
Sure, but you already hear about those people... so how would it be worse, exactly? Because more people would be involved? Wouldn't that actually be a good thing? (Family and support systems and such...)There I tried to explain it now. The only problem I have with polygamy is that it can easily be abused by men to control multiple wives. Sure there are some good hearted men out there, but they never make the news. All we hear about are wife beaters and such. Multiple wives? Wives beater? I don't like it that much. Yes, that does make me uncomfortable, among the other things I said.
But hey, if you're a nice man and are a millionaire and want many wives and children, go for it. But you better be up to the task otherwise you'll have some internet flak from me to deal with.
All the evidence you need is in Africa and middle-eastern countries where polygamy is legal.
I'm not saying polygamy in a first world country would automatically make it turn to hell for all women, but considering the observed tendencies in those countries where polygamy is legal, there are a lot of abused women there and children suffering the consequences. I am inclined to think it could cause similar situations to arise. That is why I am against it basically.
I'm not saying polygamy in a first world country would automatically make it turn to hell for all women, but considering the observed tendencies in those countries where polygamy is legal, there are a lot of abused women there and children suffering the consequences. I am inclined to think it could cause similar situations to arise. That is why I am against it basically.
Lizard Of Oz
Demented Avenger
First, please define "easily be resolved in a number of ways".
Second, imagine one spouse is in a critical medical situation and other spouses are left to make medical decisions regarding the care. What happens if they disagree on the best course of action? Do they "blue code" in a couple of lawyers and a judge to fight it out on the emergency room floor?
Human, 18 years of age. Just as it has been established in most states for a very long time.
Define "easily be resolved". Mandatory sterilization?
What kind'a crazy circle logic dope are you smoking?
Let me simplify the argument....
1. "Equal Protection" means that you can't pass a law that restricts the rights of one group of people. All laws must apply equally to all people.
2. Larkin argued that marriage is not a right, but a privilege, therefore it's okie dokie to restrict some people from getting married.
3. I argue that driving, shopping at Kroger, attending college, etc... are also not rights, but privileges. But most normal people would be outraged if we attempted ban some people from driving, shopping at Kroger, attending college, etc...
.
Last edited:
Again, easily resolved. One person would have the ultimate authority in those cases. A person agreed to at the time marriages were performed. This is, as usual, a case of there simply being weak power of attorney laws. I should be able to give power of attorney for myself to my dying grandmother if I want, yet I can't or it is a ridiculously difficult process.
I'm not sure that is defined in the constitution
If it's in state constitutions, I guess it can be considered unconstitutional since it's not in the US constitution.Sure, that could be a requirement. All I'm saying is there are ways to fix the practical problems in these situations, which only leaves the "moral" or "makes you uncomfortable" arguments, which are the same arguments people use to combat gay marriage.
So? How is that contrary to what I just said?
It honestly depends on why they are banned from doing so. If Kroger has a rule to throw out anyone that wears a purple hat in their store, would you be outraged or care at all? If people who can't see are banned from driving, are you outraged? It's a matter of perspective. Obviously if you are black you have the RIGHT to not be discriminated against for being black, but if you are wearing a purple hat in a Kroger store and their policy is to kick out people wearing purple hats, you have no RIGHT to wear a purple hat even if you're black. The protections of the law cover skin color but not hats.
1. I agree.
2. Marriage IS a privilege. It is also a legally binding agreement, therefore, it can be regulated by the government, in that the government can determine qualifications for marriage, since it does require a license to be legally binding.
3. You are correct in that driving is also a privilege. Your argument fails, however. To put it in the proper context, consider that you must meet certain requirements in order to qualify for a driver's license. While each state has similar generalized requirements, each individual state has varied determinations of age of eligibility to apply for a license. Is this not a similar context to each state regulating marriage with their own determinations and requirements?
I guess we are in the clear there.
So what if I did.
Why is it so bad to set qualification on who can shop at a store? Because it unfair? Why is it unfair? Because you can't shop in that one store? This argument seems to be have born from brainwashing that everyone can go where ever they wish and no one can say otherwise. Oh well, I probably shouldn't of gone down the road to begin with.
Lizard Of Oz
Demented Avenger
Now we're talking about hiring lawyers, drawing up complex legal documents just so people can get married. Even if it were practical, this will certainly be challenge in court regardless of how "iron clad" they may seem. And the problem won’t end with medical power of attorney. There will be inheritance, child custody, survivor benefits, etc…issues as well. Talk about your slippery slope!
So you’re okay with 3 year olds voting then?I'm not sure that is defined in the constitution
Do you honestly believe that mandatory sterilization is a good or remotely legal idea?
I have no idea what you said. All I read was a confused circle logic cluster-f**k.
We're not talking about hats or disabilities that affect public safety; we're talking about the fundamental defining characteristics of a human being.
Last edited:
You are collapsing things to make them seem the same when they are not. Incest ACTIVELY harms the race by causing more genetic abnormalities. Homosexuality does not. Allowing siblings to marry fosters genetic problems, allowing homosexuals to marry has no negative consequences.
Come on, Brizz, you KNOW that was a stupid, stupid argument.
Look, if you are incapable of discriminating between a crazy person has said it and the basis for actual law, you need to stay out of arguments. Such inane points have no business in grown up conversations.
You are right, certain laws DO need to be put into place regulating marriage. It is the purpose of the constitution, however, to invalidate particular laws which violate people's rights. Federal and state laws determine that a person under the age of 18 is a minor, various state laws set up provisions for minors to marry, etc. while the 14th amendment says that you don't get to make up ridiculous laws that say things to the effect of only certain genders/ethnicity/sexual orientations get those rights.
Which segues well into:
YES! Marriage is regulated by the government and the government DOES get to determine qualifications for marriage. To put it in proper context, consider that you must meet certain requirements in order to qualify for a driver's license. While each state has similar generalized requirements, each individual state has varied determinations of age of eligibility to apply for a license. IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO DENY SOMEONE THEIR DRIVER'S LICENSE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION. The state has the power to say only non-minors can get married and to enforce licensing procedures such as a 3 day waiting period, but to dictate race/ethnicity/sexual orientation of those adults is beyond the scope of the constitution.
Just as it is against the 14th amendment to say: no driver's license, you have to be white, so it is prohibiting people from homosexual marriages. Just because it is a privilege does not mean that the state is allowed to withhold it from people equal rights and protections.
~Jason
Last edited:
Lizard Of Oz
Demented Avenger
So, if a state, say Texas for instance, decided that black people won't be allowed to drive, that'd be okay, right?
Lizard Of Oz
Demented Avenger
![[GU]elmur_fud](/data/avatars/s/47/47919.jpg?1425583194){kind=avatar}
[GU]elmur_fud
I have balls of Depleted Uranium
Wow go to bed for 6 hours and the thread explodes.
It means that intelligent (supposedly) people put thought into these things to classify and ID them. It also provides a grouping that makes a point I hadn't seen made elsewhere. Homosexuality is not not natural in that it goes against our biological design of procreating the species. It is an unnatural attraction. There is a stripper at the local club that is perfectly happy with her booby implants. That doesn't make them natural.
Wasn't arguing that it was or wasn't, just that the tag was in error. Saying it says something it in fact does not.
Not always. In this case it simply means that heterosexual sex is our species means for procreation which is the instinctual reason for seeking a mate.
I am not arguing that homosexuality is unnatural, there is no argument there. IT"S A FACT. Simple. Or perhaps the synonym abnormal would be more to your liking. Arguing facts by brow beating semantics is a fools game.
Do you need an example? Life's design is to perpetuate itself or it will cease to exist ...the function of sex is procreation (primarily) ...homosexual sex does not result in offspring ...homosexuality does not perpetuate the species ...homosexuality is in contrast to life's design.
I am not arguing against equal rights for any1. By all means they have the right to marry anybody of the opposite gender they chose same as everybody else. They should even have the right to enter into contractual partnerships or unions as those preclude any sexual interaction.
I don't think it's societal impact would be huge by any stretch. I don't see it as psychologically productive to these individuals to validate there disorder thus.
The comparison wasn't to addiction it was to encouraging unhealthy behavior.
To be clear what I am saying is:
1. Either for or against, having this as a law is a waste of taxpayer money and a incorrect way of dealing with this.
2. Homosexuality is a mental Disorder. Trying to validate it as otherwise is tantamount to denial.
What I don't believe and am NOT saying is:
1. I think we can cure this mental disorder.
- I don't, at least not atm and till we can answer the question of should we even. Because this sort of disorder is so systemic it is a part of the fabric of who these people are.
2. That equal rights don't apply to homosexuals.
3. That homosexuality is an addiction.
4. That it shouldn't be allowed to live together as a couple.
And finally on the subject of "curing" homosexuality I preasent mr. Tim Minchin with: 5 poofs and 2 piano's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIm8WgwkTeI
the applicable joke is at 1:47
It means that intelligent (supposedly) people put thought into these things to classify and ID them. It also provides a grouping that makes a point I hadn't seen made elsewhere. Homosexuality is not not natural in that it goes against our biological design of procreating the species. It is an unnatural attraction. There is a stripper at the local club that is perfectly happy with her booby implants. That doesn't make them natural.
Wasn't arguing that it was or wasn't, just that the tag was in error. Saying it says something it in fact does not.
Not always. In this case it simply means that heterosexual sex is our species means for procreation which is the instinctual reason for seeking a mate.
I am not arguing that homosexuality is unnatural, there is no argument there. IT"S A FACT. Simple. Or perhaps the synonym abnormal would be more to your liking. Arguing facts by brow beating semantics is a fools game.
Do you need an example? Life's design is to perpetuate itself or it will cease to exist ...the function of sex is procreation (primarily) ...homosexual sex does not result in offspring ...homosexuality does not perpetuate the species ...homosexuality is in contrast to life's design.
I am not arguing against equal rights for any1. By all means they have the right to marry anybody of the opposite gender they chose same as everybody else. They should even have the right to enter into contractual partnerships or unions as those preclude any sexual interaction.
I don't think it's societal impact would be huge by any stretch. I don't see it as psychologically productive to these individuals to validate there disorder thus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor Yes.
Lets go back to this for a second... firstly, if you wish to carry the compulsion of homosexual attraction and the compulsion of chemical addiction in the same umbrella -- then you must also include heterosexual attraction in that same compulsion as every definition of addiction (a compulsion, impact on family/financial/work/etc. segments of your life, etc.) that one follows, the other applies in the same way.
Secondly -- Would you give a person who compulsively drinks water... water? Of course, it's called dehydration.
So therefore what makes a compulsion accepted is the definition of normal.
The question then is where do you define normal?
My girlfriend and I determined that we will NOT have children ((we may adopt later, but that is irrelevant)). Are we normal? How can we be normal if we follow the usual compulsions BUT we have a "problem" with the normal compulsion of wanting children.
An easy definition of normal is defined based on consent and acceptance between the affected parties.
In that case... the micro-society between the couple is normal as both consent and accept the relationship... and the micro-society between homophobics and homosexuals is not normal. (Zoophiliacs and Necrophiliacs are also "not normal" in this definition of normal... as animals and the dead are unable to consent and accept behaviour -- polygamy however would be normal provided all parties are consenting and accepting of the total relationship... which is why it's banned because usually polygamous relationships are very abusive. The question is should polyamourous relationships be legal in the situations where all couples are consenting... or should we threaten legal action against every threesome?)
So what I'm saying is compulsive homophobics are hate addicts
--------------------------
And *does* people realize the difference between recognizing the marriage of two consenting adults of whatever gender combination... and forcing the marriage of two consenting adults of whatever gender combination? It seems like a lot of the anti-homosexual marriage comments I see is because people assume that it will force private institutions to accept it as well...
... that or Christians (I am Roman Catholic {Christian}, FYI) who don't seem to realize that the word "Marriage" isn't copywritten or trademarked for religious use only
The comparison wasn't to addiction it was to encouraging unhealthy behavior.
To be clear what I am saying is:
1. Either for or against, having this as a law is a waste of taxpayer money and a incorrect way of dealing with this.
2. Homosexuality is a mental Disorder. Trying to validate it as otherwise is tantamount to denial.
What I don't believe and am NOT saying is:
1. I think we can cure this mental disorder.
- I don't, at least not atm and till we can answer the question of should we even. Because this sort of disorder is so systemic it is a part of the fabric of who these people are.
2. That equal rights don't apply to homosexuals.
3. That homosexuality is an addiction.
4. That it shouldn't be allowed to live together as a couple.
And finally on the subject of "curing" homosexuality I preasent mr. Tim Minchin with: 5 poofs and 2 piano's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIm8WgwkTeI
the applicable joke is at 1:47