Good news!
Poll
 | 15 votes (20%) | ||
| | 22 votes (29.33%) | ||
| | 17 votes (22.66%) | ||
| | 41 votes (54.66%) |
75 members have voted
Quote: rxwineDear MonkeyMonkey
I don't play by rules as you define them. That is the courage of my convictions.
I am not interested in how you want me to answer. If you don't find answers to your liking, then find someone else to ask.
I find it amusing that you can't bring yourself to answer and you're resorting to a "you're not the boss of me" retort. Very telling. I wouldn't worry about it though, many people that are quite liberal find their own line where they go "ick" and can't reasonably reconcile it with their beliefs... or at least the ones they like to tell people they have.
All I can add is that, as far as I'm concerned, it feels great to not be a bigot. :)
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyI find it amusing that you can't bring yourself to answer and you're resorting to a "you're not the boss of me" retort. Very telling. I wouldn't worry about it though, many people that are quite liberal find their own line where they go "ick" and can't reasonably reconcile it with their beliefs... or at least the ones they like to tell people they have.
You can read minds now?
Quote: Beethoven9thMonkeyMonkey, rxwine doesn't answer questions and would rather go off on tangents. That's his M.O. Once I asked him a specific question about Catholic priests, and he started babbling about Ronald Reagan & the Fairness Doctrine.
But then later on, he claimed that he answered my question and that I just didn't like his answer! LOL!
It's exactly that sort of reason that I have a hard time taking the liberals on this board and many others very seriously. It's all, "Aha! You're a bigot!" until you locate that point that they go "Ew... gross" and then they change the subject, refuse to answer, or go full tilt snarky. All I can say in the face of such flimsy convictions is: what a joke.
When your life outlook is so prevalently based on emotion, the house must come crumbing down hard when your own emotional reaction makes you the thing you accuse others of. This is why I specifically picked this aspect of the issue. I knew a lot of people would be icked out over it. But that's the challenge isn't it? Are you truly against discrimination, or only as long as you can use it to villainize the opposition? I think rxwine just gave a fine demonstration of what I was hoping to illustrate.
With any luck some of the other well known (read: loud) liberals will step forward and voice their opinion on whether or not they feel EVERY person deserves protection under the law in regards to who they love.
I can't wait to see the responses, I haven't been disappointed yet. :)
Quote: rxwineYou can read minds now?
Nope, but I can read your posts. You've done a bang up job too. Keep it up.
Quote:It's exactly that sort of reason that I have a hard time taking the liberals on this board and many others very seriously
An argument stands or falls on its own merits.
Quote: rxwineAn argument stands or falls on its own merits.
Profound. A platitude apropos of nothing.
If you stop acting like s2dbaker I'll start taking you seriously again. Until then, flail away.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyProfound. A platitude apropos of nothing.
If you stop acting like s2dbaker I'll start taking you seriously again. Until then, flail away.
Your goading is all about your ego. Not mine.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyIt's all, "Aha! You're a bigot!" until you locate that point that they go "Ew... gross" and then they change the subject, refuse to answer, or go full tilt snarky.
+1
(Everything I've been thinking beautifully put into one sentence)
Yes, I did say earlier that if incest was legal, while disgusting, I would support their rights to get married. While i admittedly dont know very much on incestual law, it seems that incest is only allowed in rhode island and it's more or less an exception to religious communities. Just as I said that while being gay and that gay sex itself is disgusting to me, if it is legal ill support it and those that want to do it. So if incest becomes legal I will support their right to get married as well.
That said, there are plenty of incestuous and polygamous relationships everywhere. There are mothers having their son's/nephew's daughters, daughters having their father's/uncle's and so on and so forth. You can have a liberal mindset and say "that's fucked up, but it doesn't affect me, do what you want" because it's such an infrequent occurrence or it's concentrated in hicksville, UT. And your liberal mindset can also say, "polygamy or incest shouldn't be legalized because it would condone an activity that is frequently harmful to spouses or children", despite the fact the some or even most members of that members of that group might love each other like any other couple would.
Western governments, AFAIK, have no laws on the books that stop mothers from having children naturally, but I doubt you would find a laboratory anywhere in the western world that would assist a mother have her brother's sperm combined with her ovum to make a baby.
We do have a choice of what society we want to live in. If we don't like where we live, we can move to a better place. If 2,000 polygamists (or a well-armed militia) swarmed my neighbourhood and displaced everyone except me, I would be scared shitless and move out of there. A gay bar offers nothing for me except an uncomfortable experience so I would never go in to one [except perhaps if they had really exceptional food] but I would tolerate and support the right for one to exist.
In otherwords, my own personal preference means nothing in a societal context. For example, I can be absolutely freaked out by cats but I absolutely could see and support others' rights to own one. I don't have to like gay people (or guns) but I support a society that allows it. Some governments see the recognition of gay couples in marriage as progressive. If gay couples had a severe weakness that harmed society (besides being gay in itself) like having children that were harmful to society or poor relationship qualities that resulted in higher abuse rates, then I could see governments not supporting that couple.
Some of the more important issues:
--Obamacare's impact on our healthcare and economy
--Immigration Reform being done in the least harmful way possible
--Education
--Children born out of wedlock and the underlying social disadvantages of this poor choice for most mothers/fathers
--Taxes
--Size/Scope of government
--Government snooping in our lives unnecessarily and unconstitutionally
Go ahead, gay friends, get married and see if you can make it work better for you than it has worked for heterosexuals!! I'll still quietly believe it shouldn't be allowed. I just think I will pay attention to other issues.
I think conservatives would be wise to do the same.
1) The fight over marriage equality is nearly over in America and the conservatives lost it. Now they're reduced to impotent rage and vitriol, and resemble nothing so much as a fly repeatedly banging against a window. People, really, how about employing your energies and resources into things that actually matter? You know, the things you say you stand for, like limited government, entitlement reform, free markets, etc? That would be a lot more productive than trying to reimpose discrimination against a harmless minority.
2) If you're so concerned about the rights of polygamous couples, then you should fight for those rights rather than expect anyone else to fight your battles for you. Go ahead and star by making your case. Because if all you've got is that it's not fair same sex couples should be allowed to marry while polygamy (and presumably polyandry) remains illegal, than you should logically also demand straight marriage be forbidden in states that don't allow same sex marriage.
Edited to add:
3) Thanks to this sites block users feature, I don't even have to keep watching the sorry spectacle here. And you've no idea how happy that makes me.
Quote: NareedA few observations:
1) The fight over marriage equality is nearly over in America and the conservatives lost it. Now they're reduced to impotent rage and vitriol, and resemble nothing so much as a fly repeatedly banging against a window. People, really, how about employing your energies and resources into things that actually matter? You know, the things you say you stand for, like limited government, entitlement reform, free markets, etc? That would be a lot more productive than trying to reimpose discrimination against a harmless minority.
I disagree--it is not over at all. States may end forced to accept gay marriages from out of their jurisdiction (a gay couple moves to Texas, for example) but I am not sure the Supremes will ever force each state to ALLOW gay marriage.
Quote: NareedPeople, really, how about employing your energies and resources into things that actually matter? You know, the things you say you stand for, like limited government, entitlement reform, free markets, etc? That would be a lot more productive than trying to reimpose discrimination against a harmless minority.
I agree with you and think we should fight the other things, but each person has to decide on that for themselves.
Quote: Nareed2) If you're so concerned about the rights of polygamous couples, then you should fight for those rights rather than expect anyone else to fight your battles for you. Go ahead and star by making your case. Because if all you've got is that it's not fair same sex couples should be allowed to marry while polygamy (and presumably polyandry) remains illegal, than you should logically also demand straight marriage be forbidden in states that don't allow same sex marriage.
It isn't "all they've got"--it is a question. There have actually been some good answers to that question. There should always be a little concern for the unintended consequences of court rulings and laws. Look at Obamacare--it sounds great, but it is turning into a disaster for the country. The folks who work for the Congress can't even afford it...
Quote: Nareed3) Thanks to this sites block users feature, I don't even have to keep watching the sorry spectacle here. And you've no idea how happy that makes me.
That's so nice. You start a poll labeling everyone who opposes your position as bigots even if they have deep-seated beliefs that marriage is, and has been, traditionally deemed as something between a man and a woman. Not two men, two women, or any group that decides it should be married. Yes, there have been exceptions over the course of history, but pretty much marriage has always been about a man and a woman. Believing something different does not make a person a bigot and creating a poll that puts it in that way is rude and uncivil behavior. The behavior of someone trying to bully people into accepting their position, not convince them of it.
Quote: RonC
That's so nice. You start a poll labeling everyone who opposes your position as bigots even if they have deep-seated beliefs that marriage is, and has been, traditionally deemed as something between a man and a woman. Not two men, two women, or any group that decides it should be married. Yes, there have been exceptions over the course of history, but pretty much marriage has always been about a man and a woman. Believing something different does not make a person a bigot and creating a poll that puts it in that way is rude and uncivil behavior. The behavior of someone trying to bully people into accepting their position, not convince them of it.
Your last two sentences say it all!
My guess is that he is upset that his poll has his "bigot" question in the lead.
Quote: AZDuffmanYour last two sentences say it all!
My guess is that he is upset that his poll has his "bigot" question in the lead.
Bigot may lead but real poll score is 38 for, 21 against. Its a landslide as I would expect. I'm actually surprised at the 21 votes. This is a Vegas board that promotes gambling and yet so many hard right Christians here. Isn't gambling considered a sin? What's next, a poll on gambling and 21 against? Just kidding, you can be for gambling and against gay marraige.
Quote: terapinedBigot may lead but real poll score is 38 for, 21 against. Its a landslide as I would expect.
The poll roughly follows some of the opinion polling I have read with 55%-58% in support of gay marriage. It comes out to about 64% here but I am sure at least one person not favoring gay marriage did not vote in the poll because of the idiotic bigot choice. Also, it is not a true poll of members, since you can vote for more than one choice. (edited; thanks AZ for pointing that out; I had forgotten)
I find it interesting that then President Clinton signed DOMA and many folks in the Congress supported but now they support the Supreme Court's decision to overturn a key component of the law. Also, the polls supporting gay marriage weren't always at the levels they are now; they were much lower a few years ago.
Were all those people "bigots" at that point and now they are all better? Or are a bunch of them quietly wishing they were not in this position but realizing that it is politically expedient to support gay marriage in spite of their real beliefs? Sure, some of them have become "enlightened" but we all know that the former President was a master at following not the courage of his convictions; rather, the outcome of the polls. Would we expect anything different from a man who is trying not to jeopardize his wife's potential Presidential candidacy? Or of people trying to keep their place at the trough in Congress?
The answer could be that SOME (fewer when it comes to politicians, I suspect) people have changed their position based on thinking through the issue and deciding they should be on the other side of it. It also could be that many of them are playing follow-the-leader on the issue and don't really think about how they really feel about the issue.
iveQuote: terapinedBigot may lead but real poll score is 38 for, 21 against. Its a landslide as I would expect. I'm actually surprised at the 21 votes. This is a Vegas board that promotes gambling and yet so many hard right Christians here. Isn't gambling considered a sin? What's next, a poll on gambling and 21 against? Just kidding, you can be for gambling and against gay marraige.
You can vote more than once, so cumulative voting should not be counted.
BTW: It isn't just "Hard Right Christians" who are against it. Also plenty of Christians enjoy gambling. Howard Hughes was surrounded by Christians that ran his casinos.
Under the laws of The United States of America, if you want an advantage as a couple, you give that advantage to all couples. Religion got nothing to do with it. It's all about the economics and social equality. Next.
As far as any religious objections? Who cares.
Quote: boymimboThere are very good reasons why incest and polygamy are not legal, specifically, that children of such legally recognized unions would be majorly screwed up in more than a significant minority of cases.
I still don't get it. You either support equal rights for polygamists, or you don't. (Those are the options that are foisted upon gay marriage opponents, so I'm just using gay marriage supporters' own logic. And they don't seem to like it for some strange reason.)
Also, saying that all children of polygamists are "majorly screwed up" can be interpreted as being very, very anti-Islamic since many good, peaceful Muslims in the world practice polygamy. Surely you don't want to offend these good, peaceful Muslims who are in love, right?
Quote: terapinedBigot may lead but real poll score is 38 for, 21 against. Its a landslide as I would expect.
Wrong! You've conveniently forgotten that the pro-gay marriage side can vote more than once, and there are 3 pro-gay marriage options.
The 'bigot' option currently has 46.66% of the vote. (24 in favor, 21 against) No landslide at all.
Quote: MoscaActually, there was another choice: to eliminate advantages under the law for heterosexual couples. The point is to treat couples equally. Either choice would have done that.
Under the laws of The United States of America, if you want an advantage as a couple, you give that advantage to all couples. Religion got nothing to do with it. It's all about the economics and social equality. Next.
As far as any religious objections? Who cares.
+1. This should be seen as a strictly economic decision, rectifying unequal treatment under the law. The religious arguments were misplaced from the start.
I just want to thank John Boehner for making this decision possible. If he hadn't insisted that DOMA be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court then Edie Windsor would have gotten her money back and the decision would have been in effect only for the second district which only include New York, Vermont and Connecticut. If John Boehner hadn't appealed then people in the other districts would have had to go through their own litigation and only if another district returned an opinion that is different from the second circuit would the Supreme Court take the case.Quote: beachbumbabs+1. This should be seen as a strictly economic decision, rectifying unequal treatment under the law. The religious arguments were misplaced from the start.
Thank you John Boehner for making marriage equal throughout the country today rather than some future decade from now.
Quote: s2dbakerThank you John Boehner for making marriage equal throughout the country today rather than some future decade from now.
Indeed. If the GOP is so beholden to the religious right that it's willing to shoot itself int he head at every available opportunity, we would be remiss not to take advantage of it.
I can't wait to see how they mess up the very limited immigration bill next. In any case, here's a free catch-phrase for the opposition to use: "Because nothing says 'America' like a militarized border."
Quote: s2dbakerI just want to thank John Boehner for making this decision possible. If he hadn't insisted that DOMA be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court then Edie Windsor would have gotten her money back and the decision would have been in effect only for the second district which only include New York, Vermont and Connecticut. If John Boehner hadn't appealed then people in the other districts would have had to go through their own litigation and only if another district returned an opinion that is different from the second circuit would the Supreme Court take the case.
Thank you John Boehner for making marriage equal throughout the country today rather than some future decade from now.
I don't get your logic. Obama as head of the Executive Branch is in charge of defending the nation's laws in court. Boehner has no say. And the executive branch is required to defend existing law all the way to the SC. Though Obama didn't try to defend the law as he was supposed to because he didn't like it, but that just means when a POTUS who is against abortion now can not defend abortion laws in court because he doesn't like them!
I didn't say "ALL". I said "children of such legally recognized unions would be majorly screwed up in more than a significant minority of cases. That means that SOME children are screwed up, and MORE than what should be in monogamous couples.
So, yeah my statement is any polygamist, if anything.
Quote: boymimbo
I didn't say "ALL". I said "children of such legally recognized unions would be majorly screwed up in more than a significant minority of cases. That means that SOME children are screwed up, and MORE than what should be in monogamous couples.
REALLY???? You mean a person should be able to assume you meant not every last one because you did not add the qualifier "some?" That is a bit hard to believe given somebody who within the last 24 hours said:
Quote: boymimbo
So be more accurate in your statements: "Some gay activists have been trying to make Bert and Ernie gay for years", "This is part of some gay activists to homophile the entire culture", and so on and so forth, ALL OF WHICH I agree with. Otherwise, you're just being lazy. And since you know better, you're just being inflammatory on purpose.
So are you lazy or are you being inflammatory on purpose? I mean, polygamists just want to marry the people they love and have the same rights any gay couple has. If you don't want to give them those rights aren't you just being a bigot?
I assume people read entire sentences. I will dumb it down for you next time.
Quote: BeardgoatMonekys comment - So... are you saying that you're in favor or allowing polygamist groups and participants in adult incest to have marriage-like rights because to do otherwise would be discrimination, or... what?
That seems like a fair summary.
Quote: Beardgoat
Yes, I did say earlier that if incest was legal, while disgusting, I would support their rights to get married. While i admittedly dont know very much on incestual law, it seems that incest is only allowed in rhode island and it's more or less an exception to religious communities. Just as I said that while being gay and that gay sex itself is disgusting to me,if it is legal ill support it and those that want to do it. So if incest becomes legal I will support their right to get married as well.
The bold part:
This is only a side point for me, but it irks me nonetheless. You, under current liberal doctrine (as I understand it), are not allowed to find it disgusting, or at the very least express such. It must be allowed and accepted, better yet, embraced.
This, to me, indicates a preference for lockstep thinking which I find abhorrent.
The italicized part:
We covered this briefly before, but a thing being legal doesn't make it right, it means you're allowed to do it without prosecution. Legality does nothing in my mind to convey morality or ethics.
The executive branch is under no obligation to appeal any decision. If they appealed every decision that went against them then the Supreme Court would be really really busy.Quote: AZDuffmanI don't get your logic. Obama as head of the Executive Branch is in charge of defending the nation's laws in court. Boehner has no say. And the executive branch is required to defend existing law all the way to the SC. Though Obama didn't try to defend the law as he was supposed to because he didn't like it, but that just means when a POTUS who is against abortion now can not defend abortion laws in court because he doesn't like them!
Quote: boymimboYou don't get it? I don't support equal legal rights for polygamists. Neither do most Muslim countries, including Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Malaysia, Morocco, and Pakistan, who have restricted the practice.
I'm hardly an expert on the practices in "Muslim" countries regarding polygamy or anything else, but I do know a bit about Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia a man is allowed to have up to 4 wives, if he can afford to keep them. This means each in her own household. So anyone that was having them, can just put their harem fantasies away, it ain't happening. But they also allow girls far below what we in the west would consider being of the age of majority to enter into these marriages. Actually, the girls have little choice, the marriages are arranged.
Quote: boymimbo
I didn't say "ALL". I said "children of such legally recognized unions would be majorly screwed up in more than a significant minority of cases. That means that SOME children are screwed up, and MORE than what should be in monogamous couples.
You keep saying this, do you have a cite on this subject? Additionally, I would be interested in your ideas about how said screwing up would occur.
Also, you're line of logic that there are good reasons that certain practices are illegal is weak at best. Legality does not confer moral rightness. Only very recently have some states lifted their laws on sodomy. Did that mean it was right when it was legal? Of course not. Basing an argument on whether or not something is legal is inherently weak.
Here are a few fun ones. If you're in favor of any of these please step forward and announce yourself. Feel free to indulge in regaling us with your opinions...
- You may not have more than two dildos in a house. (ARIZONA)
- Alcohol may not be served in nightclubs if dancing is occurring on the premises at the same time. (DELAWARE)
- When having sex, only the missionary position is legal. (FLORIDA)
- All sex toys are banned. (GEORGIA)
- Doctors who treat a person with gonorrhea must report this to the local board of health and include the disease’s “probable origin”. (IOWA)
- A woman can not be on top in sexual activities. (MASSACHUSETTS)
- It is illegal for married women to go fishing alone on Sundays, and illegal for unmarried women to fish alone at all. (MONTANA)
- Men may not be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown. (FLORIDA)
- It is illegal for a man to be sexually aroused in public. (INDIANA)
- The state definition of rape stated that it was a man having sex with a woman he knows not to be his wife. (WISCONSIN)
- It’s illegal to possess realistic dildos. (Dallas, Texas)
- It is legal for a male to have sex with an animal as long as it does not exceed 40 lbs. (WEST VIRGINIA)
- Oral sex is illegal. (FLORIDA, MARYLAND, ETC.)
- No person shall solicit sex from another of the same gender if it offends the second person. (OHIO)
http://www.howaboutwe.com/date-report/dumb-us-laws-sex-love/#
Quote: Nareed
1) The fight over marriage equality is nearly over in America
But it shouldn't be until all people have the same freedoms.
Quote: Nareed
2) If you're so concerned about the rights of polygamous couples, ... Go ahead and star by making your case.
Already have, at length. Your non-response says volumes about your particular view on freedom.
Quote: Nareed
3) Thanks to this sites block users feature, I don't even have to keep watching the sorry spectacle here. And you've no idea how happy that makes me.
Don't like it? THEN STOP CREATING DIVISIVE THREADS.
Your last statement is right up there with "I'm leaving this forum and never coming back!" Why do people bother to tell anyone else that they're leaving, or not listening. No one cares, do it, or don't, but blathering on about it is lame.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyHere are a few fun ones. If you're in favor of any of these please step forward and announce yourself. Feel free to indulge in regaling us with your opinions...
- You may not have more than two dildos in a house. (ARIZONA)
- Men may not be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown. (FLORIDA)
- If a man and a woman who aren’t married go to a hotel/motel and register themselves as married then,according to state law, they are legally married. (NORTH CAROLINA)
- Women may go topless in public, providing it is not being used as a business. (NEW YORK)
- Couples are banned from making love in an automobile unless the act takes place while the vehicleis parked on the couple’s own property. (MICHIGAN)
- No person shall solicit sex from another of the same gender if it offends the second person. (OHIO)
- No one may have sex in the back of an ambulance if it is responding to an emergency call. (UTAH)
::steps forward::
Quote: P90::steps forward::
Awesome.
But I implore you to reveal the reasoning behind your repressive madness deeply felt opinions. What's wrong with more than 2 dildos? What if they look stunning in a strapless gown? Is this just for your own wife, or wives in general? How much do you think the animal should have to weigh? Couldn't you get around this by asking them first if it would be offensive?
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyAwesome.
But I implore you to reveal the reasoning behind your repressive madness deeply felt opinions. What's wrong with more than 2 dildos?
There's no reason ever for anyone to have more than 2 dildos, since you can't use them at once. It's yet another excess of conspicuous consumption, all while there are millions of people on this planet who don't even have one.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyIs this just for your own wife, or wives in general?
I forgot to add one you didn't list -
- If a man and a woman who aren’t married go to a hotel/motel and register themselves as married then,according to state law, they are legally married. (NORTH CAROLINA)
They make good sense together.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyCouldn't you get around this by asking them first if it would be offensive?
Exactly! Politeness in solicitation can never be underemphasized.
Also, do you really think it should be legal to have sex in the back of an ambulance that is responding to an emergency call?
Yes, we know it happened. This is how such highly specific laws get passed.
Quote: s2dbakerThe executive branch is under no obligation to appeal any decision. If they appealed every decision that went against them then the Supreme Court would be really really busy.
The Executive Branch is under obligation to defend any and every law of the USA to any court challenge. And if a law is struck down in one court circuit and not another the Executive Branch is under obligation to do whatever is needed to remedy that situation. It is called "governing."
In this case, had DOMA been thrown out in one circuit then the feds would have been under obligation to recognize some so-called gay marriages but not others, this would have caused other Constitutional issues. One would be equal protection, another would be the idea that all states are supposed to be treated equally.
And back to may main point. The Executive Branch cannot pick and choose what laws it will defend. If Obama was so against DOMA and for what is called gay marriage from the beginning he should have both campaigned on it and pushed for it in Congress when he had super-majorities in 2008. But he didn't think the polling was for it then so he didn't believe in it then!
Quote: P90
There's no reason ever for anyone to have more than 2 dildos, since you can't use them at once. It's yet another excess of conspicuous consumption, all while there are millions of people on this planet who don't even have one.
But... what if you're having a party and want all your friends to be able to... um... participate?
As for the dildo-less among us I'm sure a government program could be organized to fill this... need.
Quote: P90
I forgot to add one you didn't list -
- If a man and a woman who aren’t married go to a hotel/motel and register themselves as married then,according to state law, they are legally married. (NORTH CAROLINA)
They make good sense together.
I'll admit I did cherry pick a little.
Quote: P90
Exactly! Politeness in solicitation can never be underemphasized.
Agreed. Callous, "Hey baby..." lines have gone on for far too long.
Quote: P90
Also, do you really think it should be legal to have sex in the back of an ambulance that is responding to an emergency call?
As long as the driver isn't involved (thinking of public safety here) it seems reasonable to me. What have you got against EMT's getting their freak on? They have rights too.
I think a little levity is just what this thread needs, thanks P90.
You're wrong.Quote: AZDuffmanThe Executive Branch is under obligation to defend any and every law of the USA to any court challenge. And if a law is struck down in one court circuit and not another the Executive Branch is under obligation to do whatever is needed to remedy that situation. It is called "governing."
Actually, the case was about a tax refund. I agree that the executive branch should have appealed but they should have assigned Clem the Intern to handle the appeal. Instead, the executive branch did something better. They let John Boehner handle the appeal. Brilliant!! Instead of Clem the Intern, we got Paul Clement the incompetent.Quote: AZDuffmanIn this case, had DOMA been thrown out in one circuit then the feds would have been under obligation to recognize some so-called gay marriages but not others, this would have caused other Constitutional issues. One would be equal protection, another would be the idea that all states are supposed to be treated equally.
That's true but the executive branch is under no obligation to appeal a decision once it has been adjudicated.Quote: AZDuffmanAnd back to may main point. The Executive Branch cannot pick and choose what laws it will defend.
That's true too. I don't think anyone thinks that Obama is anything but a weasel but he's our weasel and the best that America can get at this time.Quote: AZDuffmanIf Obama was so against DOMA and for what is called gay marriage from the beginning he should have both campaigned on it and pushed for it in Congress when he had super-majorities in 2008. But he didn't think the polling was for it then so he didn't believe in it then!
Quote: s2dbakerI don't think anyone thinks that Obama is anything but a weasel
Has there been a president in the past 150 years who wasn't??
Quote: NareedHas there been a president in the past 150 years who wasn't??
Bush, Bush, Reagan, Coolidge, Truman, Lincoln.
Quote: MonkeyMonkey
- It is legal for a male to have sex with an animal as long as it does not exceed 40 lbs. (WEST VIRGINIA)
Is anyone REALLY surprised by this one?? lol
Quote: kewljIs anyone REALLY surprised by this one?? lol
Well, why a weight specification? "C'mon dude, that sheep is over the weight limit??!!!"
Quote: rxwineWell, why a weight specification? "C'mon dude, that sheep is over the weight limit??!!!"
Google "Mr. Hands" -album.
Yes. Now, every time you fly, you'll be doomed to remember it. But don't worry, you're in good Hands. Fly safely.
Quote: boymimboI don't support equal legal rights for polygamists.
If I used the logic of many of the gay marriage supporters I've met over the years, I could call you a 'bigot' (for the above statement).
Quote: s2dbakerIf they appealed every decision that went against them then the Supreme Court would be really really busy.
No, it wouldn't. (The Supreme Court only hears cases that it wants to hear)
Quote: rxwineWell, why a weight specification? "C'mon dude, that sheep is over the weight limit??!!!"
I am kicking myself really hard for posting this but need a few minutes break from typing title reports. Making a guess only in the interest of thinking logically (no jokes on that, please.)
But if I had to guess I would say that the weight limit is there so the person does not get hurt should the animal shall we say, not be as willing a partner as hoped.
Like most specified things in a law, there had to be a reason for this. I can't think of a better one. I can't think of another one. I can't believe I would even think out this one.
Quote: AZDuffmanLike most specified things in a law, there had to be a reason for this. I can't think of a better one. I can't think of another one. I can't believe I would even think out this one.
/sigh. As soon as rxwine posted, the answer came in an instant. Of course it's injury prevention.
So while I'm not as perverted as one AZDuffman who sits and ponders such queries, I am able to immediately recognize the difficulties present in beastiality and I wonder if I am not more damned than he
;)
Quote: AZDuffmanBut if I had to guess I would say that the weight limit is there so the person does not get hurt should the animal shall we say, not be as willing a partner as hoped.
Oh, Super Sam was all but unwilling to perforate one of Boeing's finest.
Didn't help. Sam's super was just a bit too super for Mr.Hands. Had Kirk Johnson been in his place... alas, we'll never know.
Quote: Face/sigh. As soon as rxwine posted, the answer came in an instant. Of course it's injury prevention.
So while I'm not as perverted as one AZDuffman who sits and ponders such queries, I am able to immediately recognize the difficulties present in beastiality and I wonder if I am not more damned than he
;)
Well, I was thinking about it (at least for a minute) and it didn't occur to me. : )
But I hope I never get jury duty on bestiality case.
Testimony:
lawyer: And the sheep made a noise? What did you hear?
Witness: Baaaaaa
Lawyer: Then what happened?
.....
Quote: rxwineWell, why a weight specification? "C'mon dude, that sheep is over the weight limit??!!!"
As is any donkey or handsome and well-endowed stallion. What an unfair restriction! Does anyone know anyone up to challenge it in a test case?
