Uh Oh

[jimnyc]

I really don't follow prostitution laws but I'd say yes. You might have different penalties for Johns versus hookers but the application is likely equal. We may agree on much of the discrimination laws and effects but I don't see gay marriage as being equal. For that I guess you'd have to explain how you are being denied something or how gay marriage would be harmful to society.

I'm speaking of the ladies not being able to enter "the worlds oldest profession", when no one is harmed and it's between consenting adults. And age of discrimination laws in which those under 40 are "discriminated" against themselves without "equal protection" of that law. Age of consent laws - one can get killed in a foreign country at 18 but must be 21 to drink. Discriminatory to one set of persons until they meet certain criteria. Several drug laws, which hurt absolutely no one. Laws against things like paraphernalia, which hurt no one. Laws that allow certain things for minorities, or maybe even promote in fact, but not available to white people. The Feds and States discriminate against certain people and certain groups of people all the time, it's just legal discrimination. The only burden due at this time is on gay people, to show they are being illegally discriminated against, or unconstitutionally, which has not happened yet.

[Nell's Room]

I believe it's also a learned behavior of sorts, one that encompasses likely over 90-95%+ of the nation. And the rights were created over a long, long, long time, based on those lifestyles. Then someone skips along many years later, chooses a lifestyle outside of the requirements to be granted such benefits, but then wants the rules changed to meet their choice.

Also like I said earlier, government has created lots of things where there is a 'qualifier' before one qualifies for benefits and/or protection, and IMO, this one is no different - unless the SC states otherwise, then I will respect such a decision, but I won't accept the lifestyle.

Fair enough, but I shall comment on the last point you make. You say you won't 'accept the lifestyle'. That's fine - but just because you don't accept something, doesn't mean that something should be banned. I don't accept prostitution, for example, but because it doesn't affect me, I don't oppose it.

[Abbey Marie]

Fair enough, but I shall comment on the last point you make. You say you won't 'accept the lifestyle'. That's fine - but just because you don't accept something, doesn't mean that something should be banned. I don't accept prostitution, for example, but because it doesn't affect me, I don't oppose it.

Seems kind of self-centered. What if something causes a lot of suffering to others? No sweat; doesn't affect you?

[Missileman]

Seems kind of self-centered. What if something causes a lot of suffering to others? No sweat; doesn't affect you?

That door swings the other way also. What if something can end the suffering(and yes, suffering may be too strong a word for some cases, but maybe not) of others, doesn't affect you in the slightest, yet you would stand in the way because of your personal feelings on the matter?

[Abbey Marie]

That door swings the other way also. What if something can end the suffering(and yes, suffering may be too strong a word for some cases, but maybe not) of others, doesn't affect you in the slightest, yet you would stand in the way because of your personal feelings on the matter?

I find a big exception to that when it comes to children. While a particular behavior may not affect me, because I am old enough to resist its influence, I cannot say the same for kids. And I still think the bigger issue is why should we not care about something just because it doesn't affect us directly?

[Shadow]

Seems kind of self-centered. What if something causes a lot of suffering to others? No sweat; doesn't affect you?

I agree with you Abbey. Unfortunately I have seen this attitude in others way more that I would have expected in recent years.

[gabosaurus]

Let's go to another point, shall we...

How would your life be negatively affected if gays and lesbians were given the right to marry? Would it cost you money? Would it jeopardize your marriage or relationship with your family? Would it cost you your job?

[ConHog]

Let's go to another point, shall we...

How would your life be negatively affected if gays and lesbians were given the right to marry? Would it cost you money? Would it jeopardize your marriage or relationship with your family? Would it cost you your job?

Irrelevant



IT'S FUCKING ICKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gabosaurus]

Nonsense! I know you have secret feelings for Jim.

[ConHog]

Nonsense! I know you have secret feelings for Jim.

If you know then they aren't much of a secret are they?

[Nell's Room]

Seems kind of self-centered. What if something causes a lot of suffering to others? No sweat; doesn't affect you?

How does homosexual marriage cause a lot of suffering to someone else?

[jimnyc]

Let's go to another point, shall we...

How would your life be negatively affected if gays and lesbians were given the right to marry? Would it cost you money? Would it jeopardize your marriage or relationship with your family? Would it cost you your job?

Are all of our laws based on how they personally affect others? Or how it would jeopardize others? Or how it might affect ones job? Nope, they aren't, and there are tons of laws on the books meant to protect society that harm neither the individual or anyone in their lives or any other person for that fact.

Irrelevant



IT'S FUCKING ICKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Speaking of the broken record. You're so one minded that you look at 27 pages of discussion and that's all you see. But it doesn't matter, EVEN IF society wanted to do so with that being the primary reason, it would still be society protecting itself and it would still be constitutional - AND - it would not be setting precedent, as there are tons of laws already on the books that have done so, that you like to ignore.

Oh, and thanks for making the huge letters and in color, so as to scream out "look at me, I have little class, like to use the word pu*** in front of the ladies and worse, and will make my cussing as huge as possible to show others I bathe in my crassness"

[ConHog]

Are all of our laws based on how they personally affect others? Or how it would jeopardize others? Or how it might affect ones job? Nope, they aren't, and there are tons of laws on the books meant to protect society that harm neither the individual or anyone in their lives or any other person for that fact.



Speaking of the broken record. You're so one minded that you look at 27 pages of discussion and that's all you see. But it doesn't matter, EVEN IF society wanted to do so with that being the primary reason, it would still be society protecting itself and it would still be constitutional - AND - it would not be setting precedent, as there are tons of laws already on the books that have done so, that you like to ignore.

Oh, and thanks for making the huge letters and in color, so as to scream out "look at me, I have little class, like to use the word pu*** in front of the ladies and worse, and will make my cussing as huge as possible to show others I bathe in my crassness"

Oh, you're going to lecture me on being crass? That's rich.

By the way, welcome back from NJ.

[jimnyc]

Oh, you're going to lecture me on being crass? That's rich.

By the way, welcome back from NJ.

Yep, I can be quite nasty when pushed. But the overwhelming majority of times I do so, I realize it and make amends. I don't post like that daily, and even in funny threads. It's not a way of talking for me as a general rule. Additionally, I do not use certain vulgar words out of respect for the women here. Lastly, you like to start those little polls in the Steel Cage, why not start another and ask the ladies here who gives them more respect? I'm betting that even those who I have had knock 'em down brawls and fights with would say that it's me.

YOU make your own stance that "it's fucking icky", and then turn around and try to make it sound as if this is someone's actual argument, when it's not. Oh, and then the fact that you have to make it in huge red letters, to highlight your own incorrect assumptions of others and 'try' and ridicule their positions. In turn, I ridicule you, but the difference is that what I am saying, is true.

[ConHog]

Yep, I can be quite nasty when pushed. But the overwhelming majority of times I do so, I realize it and make amends. I don't post like that daily, and even in funny threads. It's not a way of talking for me as a general rule. Additionally, I do not use certain vulgar words out of respect for the women here. Lastly, you like to start those little polls in the Steel Cage, why not start another and ask the ladies here who gives them more respect? I'm betting that even those who I have had knock 'em down brawls and fights with would say that it's me.

YOU make your own stance that "it's fucking icky", and then turn around and try to make it sound as if this is someone's actual argument, when it's not. Oh, and then the fact that you have to make it in huge red letters, to highlight your own incorrect assumptions of others and 'try' and ridicule their positions. In turn, I ridicule you, but the difference is that what I am saying, is true.

Jim, the topic of this thread aside. I don't appreciate you implying that I disrespect women on here. I do not; and it just Gunnyish of you to use that tactic in a debate. I have the utmost respect for all females on this board , or elsewhere.

I resent the hell out of your accusations. I have a foul mouth, I admit that, but it's just the way I talk it's not disrespecting ANYONE.