- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The emotional side of Prop 8
The emotional side of Prop 8Follow
You're always right if you make up your own definitions!
Again, from the other thread, if only people felt the same compassion for unborn children as they do for gay couples-- and based on the same nebulous science behind gay rights, the same scientific benefit of the doubt should give human rights to these children.
Totem
Totem
Quote:
if only people felt the same compassion for unborn children as they do for gay couples
Some of those unborn kiddies would inevitably grow up to be gay. Wheres your compassion now? Eh? Eh? Eh?
Or something.......
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
I rated down gbaji twice and each time he went from sub-default to default. I want my money back. 
(And yes, I'm absolutely sure I didn't accidentally rate him up)
(And yes, I'm absolutely sure I didn't accidentally rate him up)His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Totem wrote:
Again, from the other thread, if only people felt the same compassion for unborn children as they do for gay couples-- and based on the same nebulous science behind gay rights, the same scientific benefit of the doubt should give human rights to these children.
Totem
Totem
I prefer giving rights to living human beings, not potential living human beings.
It's not pretty, it's not easy, but lines have to be drawn. Without further comment.....
Some ***** wrote :
The American constitution would hopefully never say :
Some ***** wrote :
Quote:
Make no mistake about this: even if one believes that the state has no business in marriage to begin with (which is my view), the fact is that in this country, and in this world at this time, the state is involved in marriage in countless ways. And it is nothing less than the most revolting form of discrimination for the state to provide benefits to one group (heterosexuals) while denying those same benefits to another group (homosexuals). And to do this solely because one particularly powerful pressure group, the Religious Right, has a visceral dislike for gays and lesbians is beneath contempt. And to enshrine such irrationality and discrimination in the Constitution itself earns the proponents of such a loathsome idea an eternal date with the devil.
The American constitution would hopefully never say :
Quote:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a Caucasian man and a Caucasian woman. Neither this constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon couples made up of one Caucasian member and a member of any other race, or any groups of mixed races.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Totem wrote:
Again, from the other thread, if only people felt the same compassion for unborn children as they do for gay couples-- and based on the same nebulous science behind gay rights, the same scientific benefit of the doubt should give human rights to these children.
Are you not implicitly damning conservatives with this statement--to a far harsher degree? They will give rights to a single cell organism, but not to people suffering in front of them?
Nope. I'd be willing to give marital rights to gays if everyone who was so eager to give/get them were equally eager to give them to unborn children. Quid pro quo.
Totem
Totem
you want to marry a fetus? You sick freak
gbaji wrote:
No. It's not. A liberty is something you have regardless of the presence of a state. It's not given to you, but might be taken away. A right is a liberty that the state promises not to take away.
...
Property possession is a liberty. You can have things regardless of the presence of or existence of a state. It may be taken away by a state though. Taxes are therefore always an imposition on one's liberty (we have a right not to have our property taken without due-process, but that's as far as the promise we have). Thus, taking my property away in the form of taxes in order to provide benefits to someone else is *absolutely* my decision.
...
That's what's wrong with most of you people. You're core definitions of some very basic concepts are just plain wrong, so your assumptions about most political issues end out being wrong as well. The misconceptions about such basic concepts is staggering to me sometimes.
And this is what is wrong with you: you have convinced yourself that this bullshit, which is just second-hand 19th-century political theory as grossly misunderstood by selfish, narcissistic ideologues with delusions of grandeur and parroted by legions of pathetic plebeians who imagine themselves to be übermenschen despite their failure to advance beyond their lowly-to-middling station in society, has anything whatsoever to do with reality.
You are so wildly enamored of your chosen philosophy that you treat it as if it were a law of nature; your partisanship and, I suspect, lack of scholarship have blinded you to the fact that it is merely the veneration of oppression, brutality, and egotism dressed up in the language of anarchism.
Edited, Nov 12th 2008 1:26am by BastokFL
Quote:
And this is what is wrong with you: you have convinced yourself that this ********* which is just second-hand 19th-century political theory as grossly misunderstood by selfish, narcissistic ideologues with delusions of grandeur and parroted by legions of pathetic plebeians who imagine themselves to be übermenschen despite their failure to advance beyond their lowly-to-middling station in society, has anything whatsoever to do with reality.
You are so wildly enamored of your chosen philosophy that you treat it as if it were a law of nature; your partisanship and, I suspect, lack of scholarship have blinded you to the fact that it is merely the veneration of oppression, brutality, and egotism dressed up in the language of anarchism.
You are so wildly enamored of your chosen philosophy that you treat it as if it were a law of nature; your partisanship and, I suspect, lack of scholarship have blinded you to the fact that it is merely the veneration of oppression, brutality, and egotism dressed up in the language of anarchism.
Beautifully put sir!
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Damnit Seisen beat me to it by eight hours.
Edited, Nov 12th 2008 11:43am by Allegory
Edited, Nov 12th 2008 11:43am by Allegory
And this is what is wrong with you: you have convinced yourself that this ********* which is just second-hand 19th-century political theory as grossly misunderstood by selfish, narcissistic ideologues with delusions of grandeur and parroted by legions of pathetic plebeians who imagine themselves to be übermenschen despite their failure to advance beyond their lowly-to-middling station in society, has anything whatsoever to do with reality.
You are so wildly enamored of your chosen philosophy that you treat it as if it were a law of nature; your partisanship and, I suspect, lack of scholarship have blinded you to the fact that it is merely the veneration of oppression, brutality, and egotism dressed up in the language of anarchism.
True.
Edited, Nov 12th 2008 5:29pm by DaimenKain
#65REDACTED,
Posted: Nov 13 2008 at 6:55 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) to which you are referring. If so, you got the century very wrong. I for one see nothing wrong with Gbaji's interpretation of it. The problem I see is in how he applies it to this particular question.
I believe you're wrong about the context and the century.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Totem wrote:
Nope. I'd be willing to give marital rights to gays if everyone who was so eager to give/get them were equally eager to give them to unborn children. Quid pro quo.
Totem
Totem
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Quote:
Nope. I'd be willing to give marital rights to gays if everyone who was so eager to give/get them were equally eager to give them to unborn children. Quid pro quo.
Totem
Totem
I only wish your mother had the foresight to abort your stupid *** so we wouldn't be inundated with your pathetic viewpoints on subjects. Abortion can be a great tool. Unfortunately, it wasn't utilized in your case.
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machin ery of night.
Grady wrote:
Quote:
Nope. I'd be willing to give marital rights to gays if everyone who was so eager to give/get them were equally eager to give them to unborn children. Quid pro quo.
Totem
Totem
I only wish your mother had the foresight to abort your stupid *** so we wouldn't be inundated with your pathetic viewpoints on subjects. Abortion can be a great tool. Unfortunately, it wasn't utilized in your case.
Good to see ya, Grady
Grady wrote:
I only wish your mother had the foresight...
Pre-selective abortions - there must be market demand.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Totem wrote:
Nope. I'd be willing to give marital rights to gays if everyone who was so eager to give/get them were equally eager to give them to unborn children. Quid pro quo.
Totem
Totem
Unborn children already have protection. Collections of cells do not. What you are saying is: if you don't like where the line is drawn right now between the two of them, you get to deny rights to gays?
Um, I think you want to come up with a better argument then that.
Try re-reading the constitution. Start at the beginning.
Totem wrote:
Nope. I'd be willing to give marital rights to gays if everyone who was so eager to give/get them were equally eager to give them to unborn children. Quid pro quo.
Totem
Totem
Then we're all golden, because I fully support the rights of unborn children to marry the consenting adult of their choice, once they themselves have become consenting adults, of course.
I appreciate that Totem has abandoned sense for the Helen Lovejoy solution.
"Will someone please think of the children?"
"Will someone please think of the children?"
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
this is no differant than any other type of discrimination.
people constantly trying to invloke their personal beliefs on others. people constantly trying to strip freedoms away from others if they do not look, act, believe as they do.
dont worry. it is just one more silly prejudice that will not stand the test of time. one more embarassing mark in the history books like slavery that will eventually be stripped from our laws out of shame some day.
people constantly trying to invloke their personal beliefs on others. people constantly trying to strip freedoms away from others if they do not look, act, believe as they do.
dont worry. it is just one more silly prejudice that will not stand the test of time. one more embarassing mark in the history books like slavery that will eventually be stripped from our laws out of shame some day.
Samira wrote:
I believe you're wrong about the context and the century.
And we have a winner!
And the correct answer is "17th century". And just on the issue of rights, liberties and property:
Quote:
IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I'm new to this forum and couldn't help but notice this thread.
So here's my two cents, which is probably worth just that.
Most seem to believe homosexuality is, and should be, readily accepted by the US. If the people of this country truly believed there to be no moral qualms about homosexuality then how could the most liberal state in the union accept this proposition?
Could it be that homosexuality is not as an acceptable practice as we've been led to believe?
Commence the christian bashing.
Edited, Nov 13th 2008 8:01pm by dupeeconqr
So here's my two cents, which is probably worth just that.
Most seem to believe homosexuality is, and should be, readily accepted by the US. If the people of this country truly believed there to be no moral qualms about homosexuality then how could the most liberal state in the union accept this proposition?
Could it be that homosexuality is not as an acceptable practice as we've been led to believe?
Commence the christian bashing.
Edited, Nov 13th 2008 8:01pm by dupeeconqr
Recent Visitors: 218
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (218)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The emotional side of Prop 8
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC