The party of tolerance (political)

Pages

467 posts / 0 new
Last post
guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

http://www.tuesdayschild.com/emails/tPF/Customers/DieThread.jpg

 

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

its too bad abraham lincoln was just another man.  his opinion is not above reproach.  feel free to go ahead with your plans to overthrow the courts and congress if you don't like the way they rule on gay marriage.  i'll be sure to crack a beer and watch the shitshow!

NH:  for a 13 year old girl or boy to get married, they need both judicial approval and parental consent.  lets leave the parental consent issue out of it for now since you would have to be batchit nuts to give parental consent to your 13 year old.  anyways...for a lawsuit like the one you described to be successful, the gay man would have to show that the state regularly issues marriage licenses to 13 year old heterosexuals and that they declined the marriage license to a 13 year old simply cause of their sexual orientation/gender.  you would have to have a history of 13 year old heteros being issued licenses and 13 year old homos, not being issued licenses.  when deciding whether or not to issue a license to a 13 year old, the court is gonna get pretty wide latitude.  and a reviewing court is gonna give wide deference to the court who made that decision.  so, a person filing an appeal for being denied a marriage license to a 13 year old will have to show the denial was based purely on sexuality.  here is why i don't think such a lawsuit would be successful... 1.  i doubt NH has rarely (if ever) issued marriage licenses to 13 year olds.  2.  the court who issues them could give a number of reasons outside of sexuality for denying it.  3.  i also doubt NH has a history of denying them to 13 year olds simply cause they are gay.  so, in conclusion, my answer is "no. i don't think a gay man would be successful in appealing a denial of a marriage license to a gay 13 year old boy".  

i am not gonna respond to your hypocritical discrimination hypotheticals cause they are silly and reflect your inability or unwillingness to study up on constitutional review of state sponsored discrimination.  and i also know you will follow up with a bunch of other silly hypotheticals... don't bother... i won't answer or respond... which will certainly satisfy your insatiable hunger to always get the last word in and therefore consider yourself "right" in your own mind.  carry on.... 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

There are degrees of which we rate "another men" as you put it. And Abraham Lincoln was not just another man, like guywhofishes stoner waiter was another man.

This thread is #epicallygay

Neat

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
its too bad abraham lincoln was just another man.  his opinion is not above reproach.  feel free to go ahead with your plans to overthrow the courts and congress if you don't like the way they rule on gay marriage.  i'll be sure to crack a beer and watch the shitshow!

NH:  for a 13 year old girl or boy to get married, they need both judicial approval and parental consent.  lets leave the parental consent issue out of it for now since you would have to be batchit nuts to give parental consent to your 13 year old.  anyways...for a lawsuit like the one you described to be successful, the gay man would have to show that the state regularly issues marriage licenses to 13 year old heterosexuals and that they declined the marriage license to a 13 year old simply cause of their sexual orientation/gender.  you would have to have a history of 13 year old heteros being issued licenses and 13 year old homos, not being issued licenses.  when deciding whether or not to issue a license to a 13 year old, the court is gonna get pretty wide latitude.  and a reviewing court is gonna give wide deference to the court who made that decision.  so, a person filing an appeal for being denied a marriage license to a 13 year old will have to show the denial was based purely on sexuality.  here is why i don't think such a lawsuit would be successful... 1.  i doubt NH has rarely (if ever) issued marriage licenses to 13 year olds.  2.  the court who issues them could give a number of reasons outside of sexuality for denying it.  3.  i also doubt NH has a history of denying them to 13 year olds simply cause they are gay.  so, in conclusion, my answer is "no. i don't think a gay man would be successful in appealing a denial of a marriage license to a gay 13 year old boy".  

i am not gonna respond to your hypocritical discrimination hypotheticals cause they are silly and reflect your inability or unwillingness to study up on constitutional review of state sponsored discrimination.  and i also know you will follow up with a bunch of other silly hypotheticals... don't bother... i won't answer or respond... which will certainly satisfy your insatiable hunger to always get the last word in and therefore consider yourself "right" in your own mind.  carry on.... 

You seem to have trouble capturing the point behind things espringer's given the opening statement of your post. Wooosh, right over your head.

And all that is required to blow your "explanation" out of the water is the simple fact that the State of NH has a law that allows an adult to marry a child as young as the age of 13.

If the state has a law allowing that there is simply NO WAY you can predict what an activist judge would rule.

You may have an "opinion" but the validity of that "opinion" must be weighed in the following manner.

Your opinion comes from a set of values you have admittedly said believe an adult should NOT be able to marry a child of age 13. New Hampshire  on the other hand has already said they think the law should allow it. 
 
So the "moral values" that YOU use to determine YOUR legal opinion are clearly NOT the same "moral values" the people in the state of New Hampshire have in creating their laws nor that of a judge representing the people of the state of NH in interpreting their laws.

So as these "moral values change" you simply can not assume that your ideals will be followed by judges in New Hampshire now can you.

Ask people you know if they believe a state would ever mandate schools allow boys to "comingle" with girls in the girls bathroom or locker room and see what answers you get. Then tell them it is state law in California and see what they say.

http://news.yahoo.com/feds-force-school-district-allow-transgender-girl-boys-152007043.html
 
Note the Federal govt involvement by the US Dept of Education in the above ruling.

Oh and lets not forget Massachusetts
http://bighealthreport.com/6981/state-mandate-allow-transgender-boys-in-girls-locker-rooms/

Perhaps you think Mr Lincoln's "opinion" was that of just a man to you, but to me it is a reminder of the importance to control the ever growing monster that is our Federal govt. lest we lose the intent of what this nation was founded on coming from a man largely responsible for the very example people like to hold up as "discrimination" against blacks in arguing "discrimination" against gays when it comes to the "right" of marriage.
 
I guess now that you have refused to "answer" any more questions you are "right" in your own mind. No problem. 

Just step outside your glass house before you throw stones next time. 
 
Or at the very least, admit upfront YOU are more than willing to "discriminate" against children based on their confused "sexual orientation" because of YOUR ideals when you condemn others for their "discriminatory" discretions based on theirs. 

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

gst Said:
"We the people are the rightful master of both Congress and the Courts.

Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who would pervert the Constitution."
 
Abraham Lincoln

Yes, and the people that think the supreme court is all powerful have been brain washed by our public schools.   The founding fathers are crying in their graves.  The shock is some of these people think they are conservative.  How far we have fallen.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

U can participate in the process to try fix whatever perverted problems you see or just overthrow the government. Let me know which one you pick... I want to have my popcorn ready. Both would be rather entertaining... At least in my brainwashed world. Do conservatives now advocate for overthrowing the guberment? Cause in public school they taught me another word for those that want to do that.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Marbleyes's picture
Marbleyes
Offline
Joined: 2/28/08

Gst said, "But what I am wondering is how do you decide where to draw the line over who you choose to "discriminate" against while condemning others for the line they draw?

I mean we all do it. I draw a line regarding views someone else may have all the time.
We are all a bit hypocritical in this unless you are truly "tolerant" to anything."

Not trying to be a dick here gst. I am not sure why but I didn't think you understood this previous to writing it. I am truly shocked that you think this way because a lot of what you write on fbo comes across as the complete opposite to me. You come across more to me as the you can't have it both ways type. Do you really believe that or are you playing the "I'm trying to paint you in a corner" game? #mindblown

 

Pinecone, JR.'s picture
Pinecone, JR.
Offline
Joined: 10/8/10

schagma fuck this gay site if this post don't get rid of this faggotyish thread I'm gonna be pissed booby avatars are terrible unless your getting paid stupid ice an stupid laughs, winter is hear stupid winter haha fuckin ice pirates

I'll catch more eye's than you

Pinecone, JR.'s picture
Pinecone, JR.
Offline
Joined: 10/8/10

yes kurt r windsor

I'll catch more eye's than you

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

They can still have bowel movements without marriage or even sex.

 Nuke the Whales

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
U can participate in the process to try fix whatever perverted problems you see or just overthrow the government. Let me know which one you pick... I want to have my popcorn ready. Both would be rather entertaining... At least in my brainwashed world. Do conservatives now advocate for overthrowing the guberment? Cause in public school they taught me another word for those that want to do that.

espringers you really can't be that.........well whatever to not understand the quote in context.

gst Said:
"We the people are the rightful master of both Congress and the Courts.

Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who would pervert the Constitution."
 
Abraham Lincoln

It is a reminder that the Founding Fathers created a govt whereby the people were expected to be informed and involved in said govt.

The primary way we can do this is thru the vote. The vote is the means by which we can "overthrow the men" which compromise the govt who as men would pervert the Constitution.

Note the absence of the word government by Lincoln.

I mean that was basic 101 in govt class in high school wasn;t it?

And to point out the obvious answer to your last statement I have taken the "liberty" of emboldening, in the history classes I took in my public school these men were called patriots.

I would hope they would still be refered to as this even with todays "new history".

After all, they were the ones that started all this "rights" stuff.

Hey, I thought you were done!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Marbleyes Said:
Gst said, "But what I am wondering is how do you decide where to draw the line over who you choose to "discriminate" against while condemning others for the line they draw?

I mean we all do it. I draw a line regarding views someone else may have all the time.
We are all a bit hypocritical in this unless you are truly "tolerant" to anything."

Not trying to be a dick here gst. I am not sure why but I didn't think you understood this previous to writing it. I am truly shocked that you think this way because a lot of what you write on fbo comes across as the complete opposite to me. You come across more to me as the you can't have it both ways type. Do you really believe that or are you playing the "I'm trying to paint you in a corner" game? #mindblown

Everyone wants to promote their ideals so they are the ones followed. If you want to be honest, in doing so it is difficult in some cases not to have a degree of hypocrisy. And some times you simply can not have it both ways. If you are a  parent I am surprised that this would surprise you. I make it very clear to my kids that in a lot of situations, you "can't have your cake and eat it too/have it both ways" in life. 
 
I really do not want my kids doing some of the stupid things I did growing up so in that I am a bit hypocritical in some of the rules I put in place.

What my involvement in these threads on gay marriage is two fold.

First, get people to stop and look to other states that have incrementally had their "morals change" and look at the path they have traveled and HOW it happened and where they ended up and perhaps not be so foolishly arrogant to think it could not happen here in ND over time if we follow the same path.

And secondly, bring a bit of honesty to the discussion to those that wish to condemn those of us whose ideals believe marriage should be the traditional title between a man and a woman by showing that if the curtain is pulled back a bit they themselves have ideals that "discriminate" against others based on their own ideals not really any differently than those they are condemning.

So I would suggest perhaps looking at places like California, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and take a lesson because a fair percentage of the people I know that favor gay marriage also believe ND should be more "progressive" like other states such as these in their thinking.

It is a lot easier to slide down a slope than it is to crawl back up.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Pinecone, JR. Said:
schagma fuck this gay site if this post don't get rid of this faggotyish thread I'm gonna be pissed booby avatars are terrible unless your getting paid stupid ice an stupid laughs, winter is hear stupid winter haha fuckin ice pirates

Or perhaps just the person that posted this post.

Marbleyes's picture
Marbleyes
Offline
Joined: 2/28/08

Get, raising kids is a whole different story. Most parents lie and are hypocrites. Some of it out of necessity. I get that. I was talking more about social opinions etc. which you answered. Thanks.

 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:
btr, the simple fact that can not be denied is the "claim" by national gay rights groups was all about "rights" . Survivorship rights, healthcare rights ect.....

gay couples can be given these "rights" thru civil unions, domestic partnerships ect...
and yet now that is not enough. Domestic Partnership is not marriage

Lie to yourself if you wish to convince yourself this is NOT about incrementally dismantling Christian values, but when you start to lie to others what this is really about to achieve an agenda is when I take exception. I haven't lied about anything, and marriage does not belong to Christianity

For YOU personally it might not be about dismantling Christian values and traditions, but for the national gay movement it is indeed about that. I guess I'm directly involved with any movement. I just see no reason to deny same sex couples marriage. You might be on to something. The gays are out to get all the Christians. 

I am sure most people see the irony in YOU claiming YOUR reasons to disagree with others states laws that allow 13 year olds to marry 40 years olds are "valid", but the views they hold regarding gay marriage are not. If you want to ignore logic, than I can see you calling it irony. Some opinions are more valid than others. 

So btr please explain why when one state passes laws to allow 13 year olds and 40 year olds to marry, there exists "valid" concerns to oppose this, but when a state passes a law to prevent two men from marrying there are NO "valid" reasons to support this OUTSIDE YOUR PERSONAL VEIWS. What are the valid reasons not to allow to men from marrying each other?

Then explain why YOUR views are any more "valid" than anyone else's. When you groups arguments are out debated or one groups beliefs are more based on evidence or logic,  that indeed makes on side more valid.
 
Explain what age you believe is able to give "consent" legally. All kids are different. Some at the age of 12 are probably more capable of understanding laws and society than some 18 year olds. Maybe there should be a "consent' test for children.

I probably do not disagree with you on the subject of laws restricting the age of when people can marry, and why, but clearly in other states there are other views that have been "valid" enough to influence state law. Yeah, depends on the people. Doesn't mean what holds the people's support is always right. 

So the point you seem to be missing here, as these traditional views and values are dismantled, (marriage between a man and a woman, marriage younger than 18 or even 16) to the point we now legally have men marrying men and 13 year old girls marrying 40 year old men, are we really that far from a state passing a law that a 40 year old man can legally marry a 14 year old boy? These are different matters of which society is perfectly capable of looking and judging these topics base on their own individual merits. Tradition has is a constantly evolving. Always has, always will. 

How will we argue a law like this is wrong when we have allowed gay marriage, and 13 and 40 year old heterosexual marriage?Consenting Adult gays want to be able to marry. I don't see much in the same sex marriage movement about trying to allow kids to be able to marry adults. 

Should not gays have the same age laws regarding marriage as heterosexuals do??? why not?

If a gay group filed suit on this in New Hampshire, where gay marriage is legal and a 40 year old man can legally marry a 13 year old girl, how would a judge be forced to rule? Sounds kind of complicated, but I imagine that a 40 year adult would be able to marry a 13 year old boy. If you were a New Hampshire resident, would you vote against a 13 year old to marry an adult?

You mention that I may be on the losing "side" 10, 15, 20 years from now on gay marriage, the whole point is that if we continue to allow these incremental changes to traditions and law regarding marriage, we may BOTH be on the losing side in arguments regarding other restrictions on marriage down the road as well. Maybe

So btr, where do we stop and say that is not right? 

History has shown in the downfall of most every great society, the incremental degrading of moral values has played a large part.  Do you know what a slippery slope argument is?

So btr, where does your "tolerance" level start and stop? I'm not sure. Ed and Ted getting married doesn't bother me though.

What will YOU do when others wish to push their ideals past that point? I guess I will have to wait and see.

Why will that be any different than what those that support traditional marriage are doing right now? which traditional marriage? 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

btr, glad to see you making YOUR choices of what is tolerable and demanding others follow them while suggesting others choices simply are untolerable by dismissing them according to YOUR ideals.

Exact;y what credibility do you have in dismissing others concerns as not holding merit?

It seems here in ND your do not have as much as you would believe.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Okay btr, if you wish to readdress this thread, here are a few questions.

1. Why would the first openly gay school teacher in Calif. push to pass a law that FORCES public schools to allow "confused" boys to use the girls bathroom and locker rooms?

2. If an openly gay school teacher was trying to force your daughters school to allow boys to use the girls bathroom and locker room, how would YOU vote?

3. If you were a judge in the state of New Hampshire where gay marriage is legal and an adult can petition the courts to marry someone as young as 12, how would you rule if a gay man was petitioning the court to uphold his "right" to petition the court to marry a 12 year old boy under the same law that gives the "right" to marry someone that young that heterosexual people have been granted there?(not grant him the marriage, but just the "right" to do so) 

4, If you have a mfg business and you need to hire 10 people to fill a mfg contract should you be forced to hire 3 "minorities" even if there is not enough qualified minority applicants to meet the "quota" forced on you and there are extra qualified non minority  applicants?

5. Should we compromise with the organizations that wish to ban ALL guns and adopt their policies that don't achieve their agenda but move the ball significantly towards their end goal?

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

Maybe not such a bad idea.  Give the boy some rubbers and he'll likely get un-confused in the girls bathroom.  Another time machine project for old Dad.  A bit involved but doable; back to '83 to share the info and the time machine, build another time machine then sit here with cherished golden memories.  It's all wholesome.

 Nuke the Whales

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Why will that be any different than what those that support traditional marriage are doing right now? which traditional marriage? 

I read little of the past threads, but this caught my eye.  BTR asked which traditional marriage.  What makes anything traditional BRT?  I would say a traditional marriage is the type  that has existed a few thousand years.  There is nothing traditional about gay marriage, or the way you look at the world for that matter.  If we are to speak of hypocrisy then you are the most guilty if you really stop and give it honest serious thought.  I think the real goal of the gay marriage people is to destroy all marriage. I don't know about the rest of you, but thinking about what they do, and how screwed up gay marriage is nauseates me. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:
btr, glad to see you making YOUR choices of what is tolerable and demanding others follow them while suggesting others choices simply are untolerable by dismissing them according to YOUR ideals.
I am, and have explained my views a few times now. Certainly not demanding anything. 
Exact;y what credibility do you have in dismissing others concerns as not holding merit? Well, this thread an all the other ones similar to this, are what I'm talking about. The valid reasons to deny gays from marrying each just don't exist, or are at least outnumbered greatly. Every single question you've asked, I've answered. Same in the real world. The anti gay marriage crowd's questions have been answered and or debunked. That is what the citizens of this country are seeing, that is why the majority of the nation supports same sex marriage. 

It seems here in ND your do not have as much as you would believe. That vote banning same sex marriage was almost 14 years ago. Silly to believe the numbers in support of same sex marriage hasn't risen since then. 

gst Said:
Okay btr, if you wish to readdress this thread, here are a few questions. Imagine that, more questions  Not completely sure you've shown me the same respect answering all of mine, but I'd have to check for sure. 

1. Why would the first openly gay school teacher in Calif. push to pass a law that FORCES public schools to allow "confused" boys to use the girls bathroom and locker rooms? I'm not that gay school teacher so I can't really speak for him. I do know that I don't have a problem with some chick taking a dump in the stall next to me. Bathrooms for different genders might or might not be necessary, but maybe it's more simple to just keep them seperate?

2. If an openly gay school teacher was trying to force your daughters school to allow boys to use the girls bathroom and locker room, how would YOU vote? Bathrooms I probably wouldn't have a big deal with. Locker rooms, are a little different since people are often naked in them. 

3. If you were a judge in the state of New Hampshire where gay marriage is legal and an adult can petition the courts to marry someone as young as 12, how would you rule if a gay man was petitioning the court to uphold his "right" to petition the court to marry a 12 year old boy under the same law that gives the "right" to marry someone that young that heterosexual people have been granted there?(not grant him the marriage, but just the "right" to do so) If that is his right, and legal in that state, why would I not allow it?

4, If you have a mfg business and you need to hire 10 people to fill a mfg contract should you be forced to hire 3 "minorities" even if there is not enough qualified minority applicants to meet the "quota" forced on you and there are extra qualified non minority  applicants? You need 10 qualified workers. The 3 minorities aren't qualified. The non minority applicants are qualified. I would hire the qualified people, Unless I really just liked a couple of the minorities and some of the more qualified people were d bags. I would then have someone explain to me why I would have to hire someone not qualified for the job.

5. Should we compromise with the organizations that wish to ban ALL guns and adopt their policies that don't achieve their agenda but move the ball significantly towards their end goal? That depends i guess. Are you afraid the big bad gay man is out to get you?

Plainsman Said:

Why will that be any different than what those that support traditional marriage are doing right now? which traditional marriage? 

I read little of the past threads, but this caught my eye.  BTR asked which traditional marriage.  What makes anything traditional BRT?  I would say a traditional marriage is the type  that has existed a few thousand years.  There is nothing traditional about gay marriage, or the way you look at the world for that matter.  If we are to speak of hypocrisy then you are the most guilty if you really stop and give it honest serious thought.  I think the real goal of the gay marriage people is to destroy all marriage. I don't know about the rest of you, but thinking about what they do, and how screwed up gay marriage is nauseates me. 

Traditions changed constantly. Polygamy existed for hundreds of years as the norm. 2 person heterosexual marriage is kind of new in the history of the world. Gst said something along the lines of gays wanting to ruin all marriage. You guys do have something in common! As for the your last line, imagine that. 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Btr, like it or not, it is nothing more than your opinion that the reasons to allow gay marriage are more substantial than the ones to ban it.

No different than the majority of NDans opinions that have lead to laws defending traditional marriage here in this state. 

1. If you honestly have no problem is a "guy taking a dump" in the same bathroom at the same time your junior high daughter is in the bathroom, I am betting you are in the very small minority of NDans.

But what you seem to wish to overlook is the agenda that is forcing that onto others who may have a problem with their teenage daughter being subjected to using the same bathroom at the same time as teenage boys. (I am betting you do not have a teenage daughter)

You and others ask how does someone being gay affect someone else??? Right there is your answer if you wish to be honest.

2.Hell even YOU are willing to discriminate against someone that is gender confused by not allowing them to use the same locker room. Why should YOU get to choose that distinction but I can not choose whether the mixed bathroom is alright or not?
http://www.bing.com/search?q=transgender+students+using+same+locker+room&form=MSNH14&refig=99ff67775028401ebf81e4b5550e0929&pq=transgender+students+using+same+locker+room&sc=0-27&sp=-1&qs=n&sk=&ghc=1

3. btr says when asked about a man marrying a 12 year old boy:
"If that is his right, and legal in that state, why would I not allow it?

And right there is the example of incremental acceptance from gay marriage to what most would veiw as pedophilia.

4, If you have a mfg business and you need to hire 10 people to fill a mfg contract should you be forced to hire 3 "minorities" even if there is not enough qualified minority applicants to meet the "quota" forced on you and there are extra qualified non minority  applicants? You need 10 qualified workers. The 3 minorities aren't qualified. The non minority applicants are qualified. I would hire the qualified people, Unless I really just liked a couple of the minorities and some of the more qualified people were d bags. I would then have someone explain to me why I would have to hire someone not qualified for the job.

btr you once again either miss or dodge the point of the question should you HAVE to hire unqualified minorities?

why would you hire them? because the govt forces you. Who achieved this?

why should you accept boys going into the girls locker room? because the govt forces you. Who achieved this?

5. Should we compromise with the organizations that wish to ban ALL guns and adopt their policies that don't achieve their agenda but move the ball significantly towards their end goal? That depends i guess. Are you afraid the big bad gay man is out to get you?

When they are forcing combined bathrooms and locker rooms onto people. When they are accepting of 40 year old men "marrying" 12 year old boys if that is their "right".
Perhaps the "big bad gay man" is "out to get" people that do not hold those same moral standards.

As of today btr, no mater how much you hate it, the people of North Dakota support the role of traditional marriage by banning gay marriage despite your opinion there is no valid reason to.

I would be very surprised if someone from NY has as good an understanding of ND moral views as they might think.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

3. If you were a judge in the state of New Hampshire where gay marriage is legal and an adult can petition the courts to marry someone as young as 12, how would you rule if a gay man was petitioning the court to uphold his "right" to petition the court to marry a 12 year old boy under the same law that gives the "right" to marry someone that young that heterosexual people have been granted there?(not grant him the marriage, but just the "right" to do so) If that is his right, and legal in that state, why would I not allow it?

For those that think the incremental  pedophilia arguement regarding gay marriage is NOT a valid one, please read the above question and btr's answer in red.  

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

BRT I think you need to purchase a dictionary.

BRT says:

Traditions changed constantly.

The dictionary says these are the synonyms:
Synonyms: customary · conventional · usual · established · fixed · long-established

What you describe BRT is the opposite of tradition.  Tradition is long held values, actions, practices etc.  Tradition means not changing at the whim of a few.  The debate begins between traditional conservatives and liberals who have no set standards.  Most conservatives will stick to traditional sexual habits BRT, but we mind our own business and let liberals dip their wick where ever.  Just don't corrupt marriage. 

zogman's picture
zogman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/23/02

I am going to give this a bump.  I would like to see BTR answer the gst and plainsman questions.

"If God didn't want us to hunt, He wouldn't have given us plaid shirts; I only kill in self defense—what would you do if a rabbit pulled a knife on you?"

Floyd R. Turbo

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:
Btr, like it or not, it is nothing more than your opinion that the reasons to allow gay marriage are more substantial than the ones to ban it. I've explained this to you multiple times now on this thread alone. Opinions are not always equal. Opinions can be wrong. When one group has repeatedly disproved, debunked, or shown the other groups ideas to be illogical, then the arguments are not equal. Question. Lets assume two groups disagree on a subject. One of these groups has all the logic and facts supporting it and the other group has nothing and has been proven wrong. Are these two groups opinions equal? 

No different than the majority of NDans opinions that have lead to laws defending traditional marriage here in this state. Yes, 14 years ago.

1. If you honestly have no problem is a "guy taking a dump" in the same bathroom at the same time your junior high daughter is in the bathroom, I am betting you are in the very small minority of NDans. Most people probably haven't though about it. Are you afraid to take a dump in a stall next to a women? To me privacy is privacy whether it is a male or female. If I have to go to the bathroom have no problem taking a nasty dump with a women in the stall next to me. This by the way is a little off topic, but that's how you roll when you've been going around in circles many many times now. 

But what you seem to wish to overlook is the agenda that is forcing that onto others who may have a problem with their teenage daughter being subjected to using the same bathroom at the same time as teenage boys. (I am betting you do not have a teenage daughter) quite frankly, this has nothing to do with not allowing gays to marry.

You and others ask how does someone being gay affect someone else??? Right there is your answer if you wish to be honest. To be honest, people judge different topics on their own merits. 

2.Hell even YOU are willing to discriminate against someone that is gender confused by not allowing them to use the same locker room. Why should YOU get to choose that distinction but I can not choose whether the mixed bathroom is alright or not? Your question was boys and girls, not a gender confused kid. For a guy who has called me a liar a few times in this thread alone, please try to be honest. I never said you can't choose whether mixed bathrooms are alright or not. 
http://www.bing.com/search?q=transgender+students+using+same+locker+room&form=MSNH14&refig=99ff67775028401ebf81e4b5550e0929&pq=transgender+students+using+same+locker+room&sc=0-27&sp=-1&qs=n&sk=&ghc=1


BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

gst Said:

3. btr says when asked about a man marrying a 12 year old boy:
"If that is his right, and legal in that state, why would I not allow it?

And right there is the example of incremental acceptance from gay marriage to what most would veiw as pedophilia. As you have mentioned, it is legal in that state for an adult to marry a child. If that state chooses to allow pedophilia, that is their choice. An adult man marrying a 12 year old boy is as much pedophilia as an adult man marrying a 12 year old girl. I thought you supported states rights?

4, If you have a mfg business and you need to hire 10 people to fill a mfg contract should you be forced to hire 3 "minorities" even if there is not enough qualified minority applicants to meet the "quota" forced on you and there are extra qualified non minority  applicants? You need 10 qualified workers. The 3 minorities aren't qualified. The non minority applicants are qualified. I would hire the qualified people, Unless I really just liked a couple of the minorities and some of the more qualified people were d bags. I would then have someone explain to me why I would have to hire someone not qualified for the job.

btr you once again either miss or dodge the point of the question should you HAVE to hire unqualified minorities? "I would then have someone explain to me why I would have to hire someone" That was my answer. It isn't my fault that you didn't understand it. 

why would you hire them? because the govt forces you. Who achieved this? I would not hire and unqualified individual over a qualified individual. I don't care what race or sex they are. Unless the qualified individualis a d bag, just like I said before. 

why should you accept boys going into the girls locker room? because the govt forces you. Who achieved this? You don't have to accept it, just like you don't have to vote to allows gay to marry. No one has achieved it yet. You sure love logical fallacies. 

5. Should we compromise with the organizations that wish to ban ALL guns and adopt their policies that don't achieve their agenda but move the ball significantly towards their end goal? That depends i guess. Are you afraid the big bad gay man is out to get you?

When they are forcing combined bathrooms and locker rooms onto people. When they are accepting of 40 year old men "marrying" 12 year old boys if that is their "right".
Perhaps the "big bad gay man" is "out to get" people that do not hold those same moral standards. So you want to force your morals onto everyone? That's it. That's the reason you are against gay marriage?you just don't like it. I've asked you that a few times, it's ok to answer. 

As of today btr, no mater how much you hate it, the people of North Dakota support the role of traditional marriage by banning gay marriage despite your opinion there is no valid reason to. Yes, because it hasn't been voted on since 2014. And no, it doesn't bother me.

I would be very surprised if someone from NY has as good an understanding of ND moral views as they might think. Could be. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

Plainsman Said:
BRT I think you need to purchase a dictionary.

BRT says:

Traditions changed constantly.

The dictionary says these are the synonyms:
Synonyms: customary · conventional · usual · established · fixed · long-established

What you describe BRT is the opposite of tradition.  Tradition is long held values, actions, practices etc.  Tradition means not changing at the whim of a few.  The debate begins between traditional conservatives and liberals who have no set standards.  Most conservatives will stick to traditional sexual habits BRT, but we mind our own business and let liberals dip their wick where ever.  Just don't corrupt marriage. 

I really don't need a dictionary definition to understand that yes, traditions are traditions because they've been something for a certain amount of time, and yes traditions change, like marriage for example. Women have rights in the marriage now unlike 'traditional' marriage, they are just objects anymore. And Blacks and whites can now marry each other. Marriage does not belong to you. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 

zogman Said:
I am going to give this a bump.  I would like to see BTR answer the gst and plainsman questions.

That really isn't necessary because almost all of gst's questions have been answered at least a couple times now. Or at least it seems like it. He's been going off topic a little as of late though. 

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

BringingTheRain Said:
 

Plainsman Said:
BRT I think you need to purchase a dictionary.

BRT says:

Traditions changed constantly.

The dictionary says these are the synonyms:
Synonyms: customary · conventional · usual · established · fixed · long-established

What you describe BRT is the opposite of tradition.  Tradition is long held values, actions, practices etc.  Tradition means not changing at the whim of a few.  The debate begins between traditional conservatives and liberals who have no set standards.  Most conservatives will stick to traditional sexual habits BRT, but we mind our own business and let liberals dip their wick where ever.  Just don't corrupt marriage. 

I really don't need a dictionary definition to understand that yes, traditions are traditions because they've been something for a certain amount of time, and yes traditions change, like marriage for example. Women have rights in the marriage now unlike 'traditional' marriage, they are just objects anymore. And Blacks and whites can now marry each other. Marriage does not belong to you. 

Your right it doesn't belong to me.  It's a long established social norm.  A norm that is one man and one woman and held as such for thousands of years.  I see it as a group wanting to destroy it because they can not really achieve the normalcy of a heterosexual marriage.  It's that childish "if we can't have it neither can you" destructive behavior.  Not you specifically BRT, but speaking of those who wish to destroy marriage.  We better take it very seriously before we destroy the foundation that has advanced out civilization for thousands of years.  Gay marriage will make a mockery and bring down our society. 

Like the typical liberal taxing and redistributing wealth they will also destroy the traditional foundation of our society thinking it's the "fair" thing to do.  Destroying the reality of the vast majority for a small minority of pretenders is ludicrous. 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09



BringingTheRain Said:
 

gst Said:
Btr, like it or not, it is nothing more than your opinion that the reasons to allow gay marriage are more substantial than the ones to ban it. I've explained this to you multiple times now on this thread alone. Opinions are not always equal. Opinions can be wrong. When one group has repeatedly disproved, debunked, or shown the other groups ideas to be illogical, then the arguments are not equal. Question. Lets assume two groups disagree on a subject. One of these groups has all the logic and facts supporting it and the other group has nothing and has been proven wrong. Are these two groups opinions equal? 


You really have a hard time accepting your "opinion" is not as "special" as you believe don't you btr.


No different than the majority of NDans opinions that have lead to laws defending traditional marriage here in this state. Yes, 14 years ago.

How much would you like to bet the percentages would not be significantly different

1. If you honestly have no problem is a "guy taking a dump" in the same bathroom at the same time your junior high daughter is in the bathroom, I am betting you are in the very small minority of NDans. Most people probably haven't though about it. Are you afraid to take a dump in a stall next to a women? To me privacy is privacy whether it is a male or female. If I have to go to the bathroom have no problem taking a nasty dump with a women in the stall next to me. This by the way is a little off topic, but that's how you roll when you've been going around in circles many many times now. 

Come on btr you KNOW I am not talking about adult unisex bathrooms. I am talking about the forcing of STUDENTS in public schools to allow gay kids and transgender kids access. BIG difference.

But what you seem to wish to overlook is the agenda that is forcing that onto others who may have a problem with their teenage daughter being subjected to using the same bathroom at the same time as teenage boys. (I am betting you do not have a teenage daughter) quite frankly, this has nothing to do with not allowing gays to marry.

Your answer reinforces by belief you do not have a young daughter that would be affected by this govt ruling.

You and others ask how does someone being gay affect someone else??? Right there is your answer if you wish to be honest. To be honest, people judge different topics on their own merits. 

I know, I know, your "opinion" once again

2.Hell even YOU are willing to discriminate against someone that is gender confused by not allowing them to use the same locker room. Why should YOU get to choose that distinction but I can not choose whether the mixed bathroom is alright or not? Your question was boys and girls, not a gender confused kid. For a guy who has called me a liar a few times in this thread alone, please try to be honest. I never said you can't choose whether mixed bathrooms are alright or not. 
http://www.bing.com/search?q=transgender+students+using+same+locker+room&form=MSNH14&refig=99ff67775028401ebf81e4b5550e0929&pq=transgender+students+using+same+locker+room&sc=0-27&sp=-1&qs=n&sk=&ghc=1

btr I have referenced "gender confused kids"/transgender a number of times
in this thread and others. But do you think the schools will have separate bathrooms for non "gender confused kids" ?

Anyone that still claims gays are not attempting to "force" their views onto others and impacting their lives, please read btr's replies and make that claim with a straight face.

It is clear if you do not believe in gay marriage your opinion is worthless and simply wrong and does not deserve recognition or consideration.

Pages