If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Dr. Ben Carson will no longer be speaking at Johns Hopkins after comparing gays to NAMBLA and people who want to have sex with turtles   (tv.msnbc.com) divider line 614
    More: Dumbass, NAMBLA, Dr. Ben Carson, Johns Hopkins, National Prayer Breakfasts, andrea mitchell, gay marriage ban, Presidential Medal of Freedom, gays  
•       •       •

13216 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Mar 2013 at 9:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



614 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-30 12:54:48 PM

Biological Ali: Well, apart from all the instances where these religious texts say you should (and, indeed, must) kill people. I've been hearing this argument a lot lately; that religions just an unfortunate scapegoat and that everything bad (or almost everything bad) would keep happening even if it didn't exist. The truth, though, is that there are plenty of terrible things - such as the lynching of gay people in Africa - that exist for literally no reason other than the religious beliefs that command or condone them.


Okay, so how were gay people treated under, say, the soviet union?
(Article 121)

Again. Religion is not a magic, mystical fairy force. It is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not saying it's *just* scapegoat: There are vile versions of religions. But to claim it is somehow the fault of 'religion' itself, some sort of platonic ideal of religion is the true evil, seems.... misguided, at the very least. To pretend like people wouldn't do horrible, evil things to folks that are different if religion were to vanish seems *INCREDIBLY* naive.

Furthermore, if there were no reason for these people to do these things if religion didn't tell them to... ... why does the religion tell them to? It's not as though the beliefs themselves sprung fully formed from the very ground, or washed up ashore naked in a seashell. Someone went "dudes that sleep with other dudes need to be killed".

I mean, fark, the people that will manipulate a system to prove why it's OK to treat others as inferior have even infested SCIENTIFIC communities in the past (fark you, eugenics), and we've even got a self defense mechanism built in to try and get RID of assholes like that, and it still really took the horrors of the 3rd Reich to completely kill the eugenics movement in the scientific community.

"Ah!" but you might say, "But there were several scientists saying 'WTF? This isn't proper science! You're perverting the discipline in order to justify forced sterilization of folks you deem inferior!'", and you would be correct, since that is *entirely my point*.
 
2013-03-30 12:57:24 PM

SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: Biological Ali: SkinnyHead: MSNBC fails to mention that before Dr. Carson made that comment, Hannity was discussing Justice Sotomayor's concern that finding a constitutional right to a gay marriage could establish a principle that could also apply to incestuous marriages and polygamy.  Carson was simply restating Sotomayor's concern, using different examples.  That's the context of it.

I thank everybody one in this thread in advance for not responding to this troll.

I can see how you wouldn't want this discussion derailed by the truth.

You mean something that was thoroughly debunked on Wednesday?

You need new material dude.

I watched the entire show so I know it's true.  Hannity played the audio of Sotomayor's question about incest and polygamy.  Go ahead and say "troll" and "debunked" all you want, I'm just giving you the truth.


You gave us hearsay.  The judge disallows your testimony.  You are hereby stricken from the record.
 
2013-03-30 01:03:14 PM

Mrtraveler01: dickfreckle: Mrtraveler01: The thing that I will be anxious to see is who will fill his shoes when 2016 comes along.

I've given this a lot of thought, and I'd love to see Hilldawg step into the shoes. This is a woman who knows how to get sh*t done, and after her stint as Secretary, I think people might realize she has a pair of balls lurking down there that probably put ours to shame.

We'll see. Lots of conjecture this far removed from primaries. But I'd like to see it. She keeps saying no, but the realities of America are saying yes.

That's what I would like to see as well. But I'm wondering as to what Plan B would be. I thought Cuomo might've had a shot but his stance on gun control pretty much torpedoed any chance he would have at connecting with Midwestern, Rocky Mountain, and Mid-Atlantic states.


F*ck it man, I'm gonna run. I don't have any real money, but I'm not a felon and am formally educated. Some skeletons - mostly from strippers who are still alive grabbing cash from the local news. But this is New Orleans, man. I can get elected in the same area that forgave Vitter for being whipped while wearing a diaper.

 Give me a few years. I'm doing it. I have the plus of a deep voice and crew-cut appearance.
 
2013-03-30 01:18:23 PM

RyogaM: As for incest, all family units are overseen by the government ensure that children are protected from active abuse and neglect. Abuse includes and is not limited to physical, emotional, sexual and physiological abuse. The government has the obligation to prevent sexual abuse from occurring in a family, whether between parents, siblings or close relatives. Sexual abuse, especially between parents and older/younger siblings, does not just start out of nowhere. A parent who wishes to sexually abuse their children, or an older sibling that sexually abuses their younger siblings, do so after patient grooming of the child to mold the child to desire that sexual relationship. The family unit, because it is isolated is perfect for this type of sexual grooming. This type of grooming cannot be allowed to occur because it is abusive in and of itself. The government prohibition on incest helps ensure that the family units they are supervising is free from this abuse. Even if the parents and child and/or sibling couple meet after the age of majority, you can never be certain that the child has not been groomed to desire the relationship from their past family history. In order to protect children from sexual abuse, one part of that protection is the outlawing of incest relationships.


So you would deny a gay father the right to marry his adult gay son based on the assumption that gay fathers sexually abuse their sons by "grooming" them to have sexual desires toward their gay fathers?

RyogaM: As for poly marriage, at this time it would not work because the poly relationship is, by the nature of being poly, forces the government to treat the people in the relationship in an unequal manner than those in a to-party marriage. Marriage forces the government to recognize that the other partner in the marriage has certain rights and obligations. For example, a marriage partner has full say in regard to the medical treatment of their partner, if their partner is incapacitated. In a poly marriage, the government cannot give any of the partners to the marriage full say, because there is more than one partner involved. If the two partners disagree, then the government will not be able to choose between the two positions, because the government, as a matter of logic, cannot give both parties equal consideration. Until ploys come up with some standard ploy marriage form that creates and explains how the government can split the rights and obligations of the marriage between all parties and still remain equal before the law (they can't, btw), they poly marriage will not be recognized.


It is not unworkable to have two people with joint decision-making power.  A mother and father have joint decision making power over a child's medical care.  In fact, in a two-person marriage, with each partner having the power to make decisions affecting the marriage, there is much more of a potential for unresolvable disputes.  In a three-way marriage, majority rules.
 
2013-03-30 01:21:16 PM

SkinnyHead: Who says marriage can only be between two people? You are relying on the traditional definition of marriage. Gay marriage activists say that the traditional definition of marriage must be discarded. If so, why shouldn't the part where marriage is limited to 2 people be discarded as well. Why should a bi-sexual person be forced to marry only a man or woman? Why not a three-way marriage?


Completely hypothetical. Nobody is arguing for that. There's logic in the argument, and some day somebody might make that argument (no doubt why you chose to attempt to equate them). But it's invalid here. The argument is for two people of the same sex to be married. Try to stick to it, otherwise you're not even taking part in the debate at hand.
 
2013-03-30 01:26:52 PM

dickfreckle: Speaker2Animals: If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange. And I say, that's a banana. And that's not an apple either. Or a peach, that's not an apple, either. It doesn't mean that I'm equating the banana and the orange and the peach. In the same way I'm not equating those things."

And this is what passes for intelligence in the GOP.

Thing is, the dude is a pediatric neurosurgeon - not a job they just hand out to retards. My father was also a highly educated, menacingly intelligent man who for some reason let the derp break free when the conversation steered to politics or social norms. I'm sure plenty of you work with some highly pedigreed guy in the office down the hall who thinks Todd Akin makes sense and just got a raw deal from the liberal media. Then he goes back to designing a farking skyscraper or jet engine.

I've never understood how otherwise smart people can fall for politics that thrive on the lowest common denominator. I have a worthless BA from an equally worthless state drinking university that I don't recall attending, but even I know bullsh*t when I see it. Others can be educated in strict logic for 8 post-secondary years plus a residency and still can't count past potato. And I don't mean to say this because I disagree; I'm talking about actual stupidity, like the aforementioned Akin.

Meh, such is life.


Well said, my man. Well said.
 
2013-03-30 01:34:32 PM
Hm, just checking the inventory, I have one (1) turtle. and at least twelve (12) gay friends who of course have other gay friends.  Should I become a madame and maybe open my own "house"?  I'm sure that with the proper marketing tools my little home business just might take off.  Maybe I should hire a consultant, get some focus groups going or something.  After that, all I'd need to do is print business cards, put up flyers and open the doors to the all new amphibian Moulin Rouge.  I may even be able to book the singing frog from the old Merrie Melodies cartoons to do a cabaret act.

/I kid. anyone who touches my turtle inappropriately would be dealt with very harshly up to and including having their arse kicked and thrown out of my house
 
2013-03-30 01:34:55 PM
In a Christian Biblical context, what exactly is an "abomination"? Is it the same as a "sin"? Is it a thing thou Shall Not Do? Or is is just something yucky the Lord would rather not think about?

These distinctions make a difference. What is the original-language meaning of the word we now call "abomination"?
 
2013-03-30 01:47:02 PM
"What I was basically saying and if anyone was offended, I apologize to you. What I was basically saying is there is no group. I wasn't equating those things, I don't think they're equal. If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange. And I say, that's a banana. And that's not an apple either. Or a peach, that's not an apple, either. It doesn't mean that I'm equating the banana and the orange and the peach. In the same way I'm not equating those things." --Dr. Ben Carson

His speech writer:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-30 01:49:11 PM

Huck And Molly Ziegler: In a Christian Biblical context, what exactly is an "abomination"? Is it the same as a "sin"? Is it a thing thou Shall Not Do? Or is is just something yucky the Lord would rather not think about?

These distinctions make a difference. What is the original-language meaning of the word we now call "abomination"?


I think an abomination are supposedly sins that aren't original sin.  Sins that you don't come back from.  Oh dear god!

nation.foxnews.com


We live in an obamanation!

/oldie
 
2013-03-30 01:50:02 PM

mpirooz: SkinnyHead: Who says marriage can only be between two people? You are relying on the traditional definition of marriage. Gay marriage activists say that the traditional definition of marriage must be discarded. If so, why shouldn't the part where marriage is limited to 2 people be discarded as well. Why should a bi-sexual person be forced to marry only a man or woman? Why not a three-way marriage?

Completely hypothetical. Nobody is arguing for that. There's logic in the argument, and some day somebody might make that argument (no doubt why you chose to attempt to equate them). But it's invalid here. The argument is for two people of the same sex to be married. Try to stick to it, otherwise you're not even taking part in the debate at hand.


The question is not whether two people of the same sex should be allowed to marry.  It is whether there is a constitutional right to a gay marriage.  If the Supreme Court adopts the argument that there is a fundamental constitutional right to marriage equality, and that traditional concepts of marriage must be discarded to achieve marriage equality, and that become precedent, then other groups (bisexuals, polygamists, NAMBLA, people who want incestuous marriage or marriage with animals) can claim the same right.
 
2013-03-30 01:51:13 PM
Can you count how many ridiculous notions are in that picture?  i think the passenger jet about to hit the U.N. is an interesting touch.
 
2013-03-30 01:55:38 PM
Here's the interactive image of derp
 
2013-03-30 01:56:28 PM

thamike: Can you count how many ridiculous notions are in that picture?  i think the passenger jet about to hit the U.N. is an interesting touch.


I don't understand the rooster on the lectern, there.
 
2013-03-30 01:56:28 PM

thamike: Can you count how many ridiculous notions are in that picture?  i think the passenger jet about to hit the U.N. is an interesting touch.


Is that a Muslim Christmas tree?  Wat?
 
2013-03-30 01:57:27 PM

SkinnyHead: and that become precedent, then other groups (bisexuals, polygamists, NAMBLA, people who want incestuous marriage or marriage with animals) can claim the same right.


Only if the government recognizes group marriage. Which it does not. The unequal treatment is in regards to two consenting adults. Currently, the equal-rights issue is that two consenting adults cannot marry each other.
 
2013-03-30 02:01:08 PM

cameroncrazy1984: thamike: Can you count how many ridiculous notions are in that picture?  i think the passenger jet about to hit the U.N. is an interesting touch.

I don't understand the rooster on the lectern, there.


Matthew 26:34 I think.

"Truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."
 
2013-03-30 02:01:59 PM

SkinnyHead: The question is not whether two people of the same sex opposite races should be allowed to marry. It is whether there is a constitutional right to a gay marriage between people of different races. If the Supreme Court adopts the argument that there is a fundamental constitutional right to marriage between people of different races equality, and that traditional concepts of marriage must be discarded to achieve marriage between people of different races equality, and that become precedent, then other groups (gays, bisexuals, polygamists, NAMBLA, people who want incestuous marriage or marriage with animals) can claim the same right even though polygamy requires the government to treat people within the poly marriage unequally before the law, child and animal marriage is impossible because of inability to consent, and

incest marriages are not even being proposed by anyone.

Man, it's awesome who ridiculous the anti-gay people make themselves look on a daily basis.
 
2013-03-30 02:03:02 PM

SkinnyHead: mpirooz: SkinnyHead: Who says marriage can only be between two people? You are relying on the traditional definition of marriage. Gay marriage activists say that the traditional definition of marriage must be discarded. If so, why shouldn't the part where marriage is limited to 2 people be discarded as well. Why should a bi-sexual person be forced to marry only a man or woman? Why not a three-way marriage?

Completely hypothetical. Nobody is arguing for that. There's logic in the argument, and some day somebody might make that argument (no doubt why you chose to attempt to equate them). But it's invalid here. The argument is for two people of the same sex to be married. Try to stick to it, otherwise you're not even taking part in the debate at hand.

The question is not whether two people of the same sex should be allowed to marry.  It is whether there is a constitutional right to a gay marriage.  If the Supreme Court adopts the argument that there is a fundamental constitutional right to marriage equality, and that traditional concepts of marriage must be discarded to achieve marriage equality, and that become precedent, then other groups (bisexuals, polygamists, NAMBLA, people who want incestuous marriage or marriage with animals) can claim the same right.


You're not paying attention at all. Anybody can claim that right, that's not the argument here. The argument here is for same sex marriages being protected under the law equally as opposite sex marriages.

When somebody challenges the courts on marrying multiple people you can have your argument. Your other arguments are pure hate-inspiring rhetoric that have no validity at all - plants, animals, inanimate objects cannot sign binding contracts (and defy common sense) and any NAMBLA reference should only be brought up when we're talking about the priests, who have earned their reputation.

Do you not feel the least bit remorseful for attempting to equate absolutely normal people, people you surely know, friends, relatives and those you don't, with those that societies deem taboo, perverse or even criminal?
 
2013-03-30 02:09:21 PM
For the record, I would love, as a lawyer to see poly-marriage made legal.  If you've spent a minute in a family court, you know how contentious, and money-making for the lawyers, it is when you have two attorneys zealously representing their client's position.  Now, imagine when you have a poly marriage of 10, each with their own attorney, each with a right to be heard from, and all their witnesses to be heard from, in court.  Oh god, the billable hours!
 
2013-03-30 02:10:21 PM

RyogaM: SkinnyHead: The question is not whether two people of the same sex opposite races should be allowed to marry. It is whether there is a constitutional right to a gay marriage between people of different races. If the Supreme Court adopts the argument that there is a fundamental constitutional right to marriage between people of different races equality, and that traditional concepts of marriage must be discarded to achieve marriage between people of different races equality, and that become precedent, then other groups (gays, bisexuals, polygamists, NAMBLA, people who want incestuous marriage or marriage with animals) can claim the same right even though polygamy requires the government to treat people within the poly marriage unequally before the law, child and animal marriage is impossible because of inability to consent, and incest marriages are not even being proposed by anyone.

Man, it's awesome who ridiculous the anti-gay people make themselves look on a daily basis.


You think that's funny, check this out:

i48.photobucket.com
img194.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-30 02:11:50 PM

The_Sponge: I like turtles.


Careful, don't want to make the goat jealous
 
2013-03-30 02:12:00 PM
 
2013-03-30 02:12:32 PM
I've had several interactions with Carson. My daughter has a myriad of medical issues, including neurological, and we live a few hours from Hopkins (though in Virginia). Back when we were looking for good neurosurgeons to bounce "second opinions" off of, Carson was a natural choice. Being that we were out of state and my daughter is on Medicaid, we paid out of pocket for his time. We were very unimpressed.

I had no idea about his politics at the time, but his reputation several years ago was that he was some sort of neurological genius. It quickly became apparent to us that such wasn't the case. We were kind of dumbfounded at just how simple-minded he seemed.

So it comes as no surprise that he's become something of a laughingstock after thrusting himself into the limelight.
 
2013-03-30 02:12:42 PM
Skinnyhead: I am pro-incest, dammit! Where is my turtle?

Cork it, ya toejam-breath'd foo.
 
2013-03-30 02:12:48 PM

thamike: RyogaM: SkinnyHead: The question is not whether two people of the same sex opposite races should be allowed to marry. It is whether there is a constitutional right to a gay marriage between people of different races. If the Supreme Court adopts the argument that there is a fundamental constitutional right to marriage between people of different races equality, and that traditional concepts of marriage must be discarded to achieve marriage between people of different races equality, and that become precedent, then other groups (gays, bisexuals, polygamists, NAMBLA, people who want incestuous marriage or marriage with animals) can claim the same right even though polygamy requires the government to treat people within the poly marriage unequally before the law, child and animal marriage is impossible because of inability to consent, and incest marriages are not even being proposed by anyone.

Man, it's awesome who ridiculous the anti-gay people make themselves look on a daily basis.

You think that's funny, check this out:

[i48.photobucket.com image 668x496]
[img194.imageshack.us image 594x372]


Got damn, that's funny/
 
2013-03-30 02:16:57 PM

Relatively Obscure: Carson's comparison of gay relationships to pedophilia (NAMBLA stands for the North American Man/Boy Love Association) and bestiality has caused the pediatric neurosurgeon to fall from his perch as a Republican rising a star in recent days.

As many people as have occupied that position recently, it's like they coated that perch with axle grease.


It's like being the Al Queda # 2
 
2013-03-30 02:17:38 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: and that become precedent, then other groups (bisexuals, polygamists, NAMBLA, people who want incestuous marriage or marriage with animals) can claim the same right.

Only if the government recognizes group marriage. Which it does not. The unequal treatment is in regards to two consenting adults. Currently, the equal-rights issue is that two consenting adults cannot marry each other.


If the traditional definition of marriage is thrown out to achieve marriage equality for all, then governments will be forced to recognize group marriage. You cannot say that the traditional definition of marriage must give way to permit marriage equality for same sex marriages, and then cite the traditional definition of marriage as a reason to deny marriage equality for group marriages or other non-traditional forms of marriage.
 
2013-03-30 02:20:31 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue; it is a question of whether or not there exists a compelling enough interest for the government to subsidize and encourage gay marriage. As same-sex couples cannot procreate and, in fact, have the potential to harm any children they might raise, it is certainly in the interest of the federal government to maintain the stance it presented in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).


1) Not restricting rights is not encouraging, by that logic the government encourages abortions, divorce, bankruptcy... you get the point.

2) The procreation argument is beyond debunked. Hetero couples can choose to not have children, or may not be able to biologically produce children. What of birth control then? Both pharmaceutical and surgical...

3) Because hetero couples are proven to never do harm to their children or raise them poorly? Because there is scientific evidence that gay people chronically abuse or do harm to children they raise?

These arguments are weak, invalid and offensive.
 
2013-03-30 02:22:43 PM

thamike: Huck And Molly Ziegler: In a Christian Biblical context, what exactly is an "abomination"? Is it the same as a "sin"? Is it a thing thou Shall Not Do? Or is is just something yucky the Lord would rather not think about?

These distinctions make a difference. What is the original-language meaning of the word we now call "abomination"?

I think an abomination are supposedly sins that aren't original sin.  Sins that you don't come back from.  Oh dear god!

[nation.foxnews.com image 850x333]


We live in an obamanation!

/oldie


That's demanding a "Pic Unrelated" caption.
 
2013-03-30 02:23:07 PM

SkinnyHead: If the traditional definition of marriage is thrown out to achieve marriage among people of different races, then governments will be forced to recognize marriage between tables and chairs.


Stop it, el Chip.
 
2013-03-30 02:24:57 PM

RyogaM: For the record, I would love, as a lawyer to see poly-marriage made legal.  If you've spent a minute in a family court, you know how contentious, and money-making for the lawyers, it is when you have two attorneys zealously representing their client's position.  Now, imagine when you have a poly marriage of 10, each with their own attorney, each with a right to be heard from, and all their witnesses to be heard from, in court.  Oh god, the billable hours!


And that is precisely why poly-marriages aren't ever going to be legal.  The state has a vested interest in marriages insofar as it has to settle things like inheritance, tax, and paternal issues, which is why it is involved in the wedding game at all.   Legal poly-marriage would make that pretty much impossible.
 
2013-03-30 02:26:26 PM

mpirooz: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue; it is a question of whether or not there exists a compelling enough interest for the government to subsidize and encourage gay marriage. As same-sex couples cannot procreate and, in fact, have the potential to harm any children they might raise, it is certainly in the interest of the federal government to maintain the stance it presented in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

1) Not restricting rights is not encouraging, by that logic the government encourages abortions, divorce, bankruptcy... you get the point.

2) The procreation argument is beyond debunked. Hetero couples can choose to not have children, or may not be able to biologically produce children. What of birth control then? Both pharmaceutical and surgical...

3) Because hetero couples are proven to never do harm to their children or raise them poorly? Because there is scientific evidence that gay people chronically abuse or do harm to children they raise?

These arguments are weak, invalid and offensive.


Do you know what probability means?
 
2013-03-30 02:27:20 PM

Benjimin_Dover: Mrtraveler01: Relatively Obscure: Carson's comparison of gay relationships to pedophilia (NAMBLA stands for the North American Man/Boy Love Association) and bestiality has caused the pediatric neurosurgeon to fall from his perch as a Republican rising a star in recent days.

As many people as have occupied that position recently, it's like they coated that perch with axle grease.

Wait, he was a rising star for the GOP? I haven't even heard of him until earlier this week.

No, he isn't a rising star except in the minds of the libs who apparently dropped a collective load in their pants when he dared open his mouth and utter anything other than what they think he should have said at the prayer breakfast.  A person of color that thinks for him or herself is the scariest thing to a Dem and they must always be targetted for destruction usually with Uncle Tom type terminology.


Actually, there was some bipartisan condemnation of that speech:

Dr. Ben Carson should apologize to President ObamaBy Cal Thomas


Our politics have become so polarized and corrupted that a president of the United States cannot even attend an event devoted to drawing people closer to God and bridge partisan and cultural divides without being lectured about his policies.


Last Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., Dr. Ben Carson, director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and a 2008 recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, broke with a 61-year-old tradition and publicly disagreed with some of the president's policies, such as "ObamaCare," taxation and the national debt.


Carson should publicly apologize and stop going on TV doing "victory laps" and proclaiming that reaction to his speech was overwhelmingly positive. That's not the point. While many might agree with his positions (and many others don't as shown by the November election results), voicing them at the National Prayer Breakfast in front of the president was the wrong venue.


Organizers for this event tell speakers ahead of time to steer clear of politics, but Carson apparently "went rogue" on them. I'm told organizers were astonished and disapproving of the critical parts of Carson's keynote address. The breakfast is supposed to bring together people from different political viewpoints and cultures. It is supposed to bridge divides, not widen them.

Read more:  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/12/dr-ben-carson-should-apolog i ze-to-president-obama/#ixzz2P3471sHW

/Cal Thomas is a panelist on Fox News Watch, a Fox Newsprogram criticizing the media, and until September 2005 hosted After Hours with Cal Thomas on the same network; he wasvice president of the Moral Majority from 1980 to 1985.
 
2013-03-30 02:27:39 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: mpirooz: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue; it is a question of whether or not there exists a compelling enough interest for the government to subsidize and encourage gay marriage. As same-sex couples cannot procreate and, in fact, have the potential to harm any children they might raise, it is certainly in the interest of the federal government to maintain the stance it presented in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

1) Not restricting rights is not encouraging, by that logic the government encourages abortions, divorce, bankruptcy... you get the point.

2) The procreation argument is beyond debunked. Hetero couples can choose to not have children, or may not be able to biologically produce children. What of birth control then? Both pharmaceutical and surgical...

3) Because hetero couples are proven to never do harm to their children or raise them poorly? Because there is scientific evidence that gay people chronically abuse or do harm to children they raise?

These arguments are weak, invalid and offensive.

Do you know what probability means?


Probably.
 
2013-03-30 02:29:05 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: mpirooz: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue; it is a question of whether or not there exists a compelling enough interest for the government to subsidize and encourage gay marriage. As same-sex couples cannot procreate and, in fact, have the potential to harm any children they might raise, it is certainly in the interest of the federal government to maintain the stance it presented in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

1) Not restricting rights is not encouraging, by that logic the government encourages abortions, divorce, bankruptcy... you get the point.

2) The procreation argument is beyond debunked. Hetero couples can choose to not have children, or may not be able to biologically produce children. What of birth control then? Both pharmaceutical and surgical...

3) Because hetero couples are proven to never do harm to their children or raise them poorly? Because there is scientific evidence that gay people chronically abuse or do harm to children they raise?

These arguments are weak, invalid and offensive.

Do you know what probability means?


Is it your contention that gay parents have a higher probability of harming their children than straight parents?  Do you have a citation for that there assertion?
 
2013-03-30 02:32:19 PM

mpirooz: Because there is scientific evidence that gay people chronically abuse or do harm to children they raise?


Nope.
 
2013-03-30 02:35:17 PM

SkinnyHead: If the traditional definition of marriage is thrown out


The "traditional definition" of marriage is the exchange of women for property. Again, where is the equal protection issue when the government recognizes marriage between 2 consenting adults? As I said, you cannot make 3 people fit into 2.
 
2013-03-30 02:40:36 PM
Here's the point: If the government recognizes marriage between any 2 consenting unrelated adults, that provides equal protection for everyone. Someone who wants to marry more than one person, or a related person is asking for a special right and thus does not fall under equal protection.
 
2013-03-30 02:41:56 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Do you know what probability means?


I detect a probability of Maximum Trolling.
 
2013-03-30 02:48:35 PM
"If you ask me for an apple and I give you an orange you would say, that's not an orange."

No, I would say, "That's not an apple."  Why would I say that it's not an orange?  Why would I even mention oranges after asking for an apple?

"And I say, that's a banana. And that's not an apple either. Or a peach, that's not an apple, either."

And I would say, "Why are you mentioning other fruits, when I asked you for an apple?"

/All I wanted was an apple!
//And he wouldn't give it to me!
 
2013-03-30 02:53:46 PM

Mrtraveler01: Relatively Obscure: Carson's comparison of gay relationships to pedophilia (NAMBLA stands for the North American Man/Boy Love Association) and bestiality has caused the pediatric neurosurgeon to fall from his perch as a Republican rising a star in recent days.

As many people as have occupied that position recently, it's like they coated that perch with axle grease.

Wait, he was a rising star for the GOP? I haven't even heard of him until earlier this week.


He's been a very well known neurosurgeon for like 25 years. But yes, he's also been a "rising star" since he talked at the National Prayer Breakfast a month and a half ago, and gave a politically charged speech right in front of Obama. Following that, he quickly started the conservative talk show circuit and became labelled as the "rising star" of the GOP,  culminating with his speech at CPAC. There he also  announced he was retiring from surgery in a couple months (fueling speculation he was entering politics), and performed pretty well in the CPAC straw poll.

I think the GOP just saw a black guy who didn't appear crazy like Herman Cain or Michael Steele, and thought "this is our chance to get the minority vote!" not realizing yet he was equally crazy. I really can't wait for the day the GOP finally realizes they can't appeal to a certain group of people simply by running a black person (or a hispanic/Rubio, or a woman/Palin). They need to actually change what they say, too.
 
2013-03-30 02:57:23 PM

dickfreckle: thamike: You know, what?  I think maybe the Dr. should avoid any abstract comparative rhetoric altogether.  Stick to brain surgery, dude, metaphor and analogy are far too complex for you to handle.

This goes to a comment I made further upthread, and the responses therein - you can teach raw data and professional thinking, but you can't teach basic sense. Hence, we have otherwise brilliant minds spewing the worst sort of bullsh*t once out of their trained comfort zone.

I'm nowhere near as academically and professionally accomplished as this man, yet when he approaches politics and social policy I still seem like the comparative genius. And that's just turrible.

/turrible


Physical skills and mental skills are two very different things that don't often correlate all that well. For some reason, though, too many people think those with M.D. after their names know everything there is to know about everything and accept every word as the immutable Word of Truth(tm).
 
2013-03-30 03:01:09 PM
Came to catch up on the latest.

Found SkinHead.

Leaving to scrape scum from skin several times.

Then I'm going to do the Stanford-Binet (r) to see how many IQ points I lost through exposure.
 
2013-03-30 03:02:37 PM

Diagonal: dickfreckle: thamike: You know, what?  I think maybe the Dr. should avoid any abstract comparative rhetoric altogether.  Stick to brain surgery, dude, metaphor and analogy are far too complex for you to handle.

This goes to a comment I made further upthread, and the responses therein - you can teach raw data and professional thinking, but you can't teach basic sense. Hence, we have otherwise brilliant minds spewing the worst sort of bullsh*t once out of their trained comfort zone.

I'm nowhere near as academically and professionally accomplished as this man, yet when he approaches politics and social policy I still seem like the comparative genius. And that's just turrible.

/turrible

Physical skills and mental skills are two very different things that don't often correlate all that well. For some reason, though, too many people think those with M.D. after their names know everything there is to know about everything and accept every word as the immutable Word of Truth(tm).


Sort of like how Newt Gingrich sometimes writes books about history so he's always considered to be "the smartest guy in the room"

Who was it that once said of him that he was "what dumb people think smart guys sound like"?
 
2013-03-30 03:21:05 PM
If only Fark existed in the 60's. It'd be fun to have screencaps of the Fark Independents laying out their principled Biblical opposition to interracial marriage.
 
2013-03-30 03:26:40 PM

CorporatePerson: If only Fark existed in the 60's. It'd be fun to have screencaps of the Fark Independents laying out their principled Biblical opposition to interracial marriage.


Would you settle for numerous "Free Republic" threads from 2000, where they defended Bob Jones University's interracial dating ban?

/Lurked there during those days.
//The stupid, it burned.
 
2013-03-30 03:31:12 PM

Felgraf: Okay, so how were gay people treated under, say, the soviet union?


Well, I can tell you that the number of people who were executed (or lynched with the tacit or explicit approval of the government) during the entire history of the USSR is maybe comparable to number of gay people lynched in Africa every year right now.

Felgraf: platonic ideal of religion


I'm not arguing about, nor do I particularly care about, the "platonic ideal of religion". All I'm doing is making the very obvious observation that if a situation were to arise wherein humanity collectively and instantly abandoned its belief in all religions, there are entire classes of violence (and various smaller evils) that would vanish outright because they are currently propped up by literally nothing other than various religious beliefs.

.
 
2013-03-30 03:37:06 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: If the traditional definition of marriage is thrown out

The "traditional definition" of marriage is the exchange of women for property. Again, where is the equal protection issue when the government recognizes marriage between 2 consenting adults? As I said, you cannot make 3 people fit into 2.


That's sophistry.  The traditional definition of marriage in America is the union of one man and one woman.

In Lawrence v. Texas, dissenters warned that if the court invents a constitutional right to sodomy, it will set a precedent that will lead to the claim that there is a constitutional right to a gay marriage.  Justice O'Connor scoffed at that:  "Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations -- the asserted state interest in this case -- other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group."

Gay marriage advocates are now making the argument that O'Connor said couldn't be made.  They are saying that a government's interest in preserving the traditional institution of marriage does not justify denying gay marriage.  If it does not justify denying a gay marriage, it does not justify denying a group marriage

cameroncrazy1984: Here's the point: If the government recognizes marriage between any 2 consenting unrelated adults, that provides equal protection for everyone. Someone who wants to marry more than one person, or a related person is asking for a special right and thus does not fall under equal protection.


One can just as easily say that if the government recognizes marriage between any 2 consenting unrelated adults of the opposite sex, that provides equal protection for everyone, and that someone who wants to marry a person of the same sex is asking for a special right and thus does not fall under equal protection. I'm told that reasoning is wrongheaded when it comes to equal protection for gay marriage.  If it is wrongheaded to use that reasoning to deny equal protection for gay marriage, why wouldn't it be considered wrongheaded to use that same reasoning to deny equal protection for group marriage.
 
2013-03-30 03:42:33 PM

Rent Party: Is it your contention that gay parents have a higher probability of harming their children than straight parents?  Do you have a citation for that there assertion?


Why don't you try reading the article I linked?

Not only that, but hetero couples are infinitely more likely to have children without medical intervention on the average.   As for the typical rebuttal that not all hetero couples are capable of having children, it makes as much sense as a farmer arguing not to plant crops because the germination rate isn't perfect.
 
Displayed 50 of 614 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report